Antero wrote:

clocker bob wrote:Gramsci ranting ad hominems cuz he knows he is in the vice grip of python Bob

This is a hilarious caption.

Excellent!!!

As I said Bob, getting drawn into your world of lazy egocentric-activism isn't going to happen. So Antero, salute for bringing that MC Bob-Wiggy quote to my attention. I now have a new signature quote!

Gramsci wrote:

Earwicker wrote:

Gramsci wrote:
I recommend you read this...

This book, as far as I remember, focuses exclusively on the American Mainstream Press.
Do you consider Chomsky to be switching to a Gringo centred world view 'America America America' like a broken record? Or is the accusation of cultural prejudice only reserved for people you deem conspiracy theorists?

Gramsci you as good as said that what Chomsky has written about re Central and Southern America was on TV at the time for all to see.

That just isn't true.
Sure the fact that there were wars /social conflicts/revolutions taking place in the South and Central Americas was in the mainstream press but the involvement of the American intelligence services was not revealed until later.

If the dealings of the Iran Contra affair were all conducted on tv there wouldn't have been the need for such a big expensive court case when it all got unearthed would there?

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

The fuck I said any such thing... try reading my posts instead of reading Bob's nonsense.

Surely the better course of action would be to read both - which is what I did - and Bob's right. He may be wasting his time arguing with you but he is right.

Gramsci wrote:Then he pipes up with Chomsky and now you're assuming I started some kind of debate about Chomsky's writing.

I'm not assuming any such thing.
You - to avoid an argument over your wording of a post - are just throwing insults about. People who know they can't argue their point often do this.
I mentioned Chomsky because some of the insults you have shot at Bob could be levelled at Chomsky (who I get the impression you like) and also because Chomsky was the focus of the post that started this argument off - as Bob has proved (it's still there for all to see) but you can't face.

And re your desperate attempts at dismissing Bob because he posts a lot and should get out and do stuff he has said elsewhere that he spends time looking after a disabled person (if I remember rightly). This is doing something good for the community isn't it?

You either weren't aware of that or chose to forget it either way it doesn't matter because you're not suggesting he helps his community cause you give a fuck but because you are desperately trying to avoid just admitting that you were wrong.

Often I think you're clever and funny. In this argument you come across as a pathetic bully

and you're wrong.

gio wrote:. . . the noblest of intentions . . .

I agree with everything in your post but this. There is nothing noble in their intentions. The 911Truth documentary types are self-aggrandizing twerps who can't help but feed their own persecution complexes. What they call "skepticism" is merely a reflexive dismissal of the "official" story, regardless of whether that official story is true.

Moreover, although thousands of people subscribe to conspiracy theories and devote huge amounts of energy to "researching" and disseminating said theories, you'll not find a single instance in which the conspiracy theorist community has predicted an event before it's actually happened. In fact, conspiracy theorists have been touting the same sky-is-falling predictions about the global economy and New World Order for decades and decades now, yet the imminent collapse has failed to materialize.

Wood Goblin wrote:

gio wrote:. . . the noblest of intentions . . .

I agree with everything in your post but this. There is nothing noble in their intentions. The 911Truth documentary types are self-aggrandizing twerps who can't help but feed their own persecution complexes.

Maybe I should have said, "in their own minds, the noblest of intentions."

I do think that they believe they are on to something really important. I don't doubt for a second that they believe they have the truth and everyone else is wrong. In a similar way, I don't doubt that many fundamentalist Christians believe that without the acceptance of christ via their doctrine, everyone in the world will go to hell in a handbasket. These intentions, to save humanity, reveal the truth, etc., are noble. Noble in spirit albeit horribly misguided, and potentially damaging, especially if taken to the point to which other viewpoints are pushed into the blindspot created by narrowness of their beliefs.

Wood Goblin wrote:In fact, conspiracy theorists have been touting the same sky-is-falling predictions about the global economy and New World Order for decades and decades now, yet the imminent collapse has failed to materialize.

Nope, both of those trends have never materialized. There is no empirical evidence whatsoever that political and economic power is more centralized today than it was 40 years ago, or that the gap between rich and poor increases every year, or that the percentage of world population living in poverty increases every year, or that the environment is suffering irreversible damage, or that economies reliant on arms sales have made the world increasingly more dangerous. Once you point out that there are actual human beings who might be sacrificing the long term future of this planet for short term profits, you get called a conspiracy theorist, even though the evidence is overwhelming that the trends we are witnessing are not random, but orchestrated.

Oh, well. Conformist escapist douchebags refused to see the first Great Depression, too, all the way up until the knock on the door waspractically breaking the door off its hinges.

You crack me up with that 'imminent collapse' line, too, Wood Goblin- "I, Wood Goblin, demand that warnings only appear when the event is days away, so that even I, Wood Goblin, can perceive the events as imminent! "

That's a good one. Wood Goblin only wants conspiracy theorists to open their mouths when the entire world is thinking like conspiracy theorists.

clocker bob wrote:Nope, both of those trends have never materialized. There is no empirical evidence whatsoever that political and economic power is more centralized today than it was 40 years ago, or that the gap between rich and poor increases every year, or that the percentage of world population living in poverty increases every year, or that the environment is suffering irreversible damage, or that economies reliant on arms sales have made the world increasingly more dangerous. Once you point out that there are actual human beings who might be sacrificing the long term future of this planet for short term profits, you get called a conspiracy theorist, even though the evidence is overwhelming that the trends we are witnessing are not random, but orchestrated.

None of what you describe is conspiratorial. It has all happened in the open.

In fairness, I'll note that I've never read you endorse conspiracies re: the new world order, Rothschild family, international banking cabals, global communism, etc.

Wood Goblin wrote: In fairness, I'll note that I've never read you endorse conspiracies re: the new world order, Rothschild family, international banking cabals, global communism, etc.

you haven't been reading enough

gio wrote: These intentions, to save humanity, reveal the truth, etc., are noble. Noble in spirit albeit horribly misguided, and potentially damaging.

I love that 'potentially damaging' line. It's a very popular criticism of conspiracy theorists among the socially acceptable dinosaurs of the fossilized left: that the existence of conspiracy theories 'damages' the progressive movement. It always strikes me as funny, because, for the rants of the cowardly structuralists to be true, they must rely on several opposing conditions to exist simultaneously. Let's have a look:

According to the spineless structuralist left, conspiracy theories are the product of the insane, the moronic, the gullible, the racist, the xenophobic, and the paranoid.

According to the spineless structuralist left, conspiracy theories distract from the movement that they claim to guide so lovingly.

Let's look at the term 'distraction'. For conspiracy theories to 'distract' the left, they must become heard *and * considered by members of the mainstream left. If they were only heard but not considered, what danger would they pose? So right away, the leaders of the Left, by calling conspiracy theories a threat, are condemning members of their own flock for being insane, moronic, gullible, racist, xenophobic, and paranoid. The spineless structuralist left is constantly faced with rising waters in their own basement that they are forced to pump out. The leaders of the spineless structuralist left have a hard time accepting that their movement is slipping away from them because their own leadership produces bad results, embarassing election defeats, general cynicism and apathy, and a general consensus that the left has been turned into wishy washy pandering servants of corporate power, useful whipping boys for the promotion of the false left/right paradigm.

They find themselves with two unenviable choices to explain the continuing and growing political currency of conspiracy theories, and they are scrambling like never before to put out the brightest spotlight ever turned on the complacency of the old school left: 9/11 truth.

Unenviable Choice One: Admit that conspiracy theories are more useful than they have previously acknowledged, in order to explain the traction of conspiracy theories.

Unenviable Choice Two: Admit that their members are no longer taking their marching orders from the rickety proponents of rickety solutions.

The spineless structuralist left can bring itself to do neither yet, so they are forced to maintain a strategy against conspiracy theories that begs questions they can't answer:

If conspiracy theories suck, why are people listening?

If people are listening, then how can conspiracy theories suck?

Spineless fossils of the left: either your membership is sick of you, or you need to abandon your membership, because if you continue to pretend to be the leaders of a movement that doesn't reflect your philosophy on conspiracy theories, you are the emperors without clothes. Either you leave the left, or the left leaves you. Conspiracy theories are the axe that will bring down your tree that bears no fruit.

Craig Mack '87 baby- brand new flavor in your ear.

clocker bob wrote:If conspiracy theories suck, why are people listening?

If people are listening, then how can conspiracy theories suck?

If Dave Matthews Band sucks, then why are people listening?

If people are listening, then how can Dave Matthews Band suck?

Wood Goblin wrote: None of what you describe is conspiratorial. It has all happened in the open.

Oh, now it's in the open?? I described the trends leading towards events that you claim are not going to happen ( global economic collapse, new world order ), and now you say that you see them? What are you seeing at the end of these trends, if you don't mind me asking? Your statement that none of these trends point to conspiratorial control just points out what a gargantuan bonehead you are: WG, if the trends are visible to the non-conspiracy theorist, that does not mean that the actual orchestration of these events isn't planned in secrecy!! What are you, drinking a mug of cough syrup?!

wood goblin wrote:In fairness, I'll note that I've never read you endorse conspiracies re: the new world order, Rothschild family, international banking cabals, global communism, etc.

In fairness, why is someone who has an opposite world recollection of my output on this forum trying to pretend that he's paying attention to anything? Do some research. It would help both of us immensely. Use the search function. Do something before you babble out something so off the mark again...god