It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dogma : Can Your Conspiracy Theory Stand Up Against the Official Story?

page: 1
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   
We know so many different aspects of "conspiracy theories" by our own admission.

However, I thought I would explore a divergence between our dogma, and the "official story".

A somewhat different look at how we look at things if you will.



This is being explored within the Political Ideology forum area because it does not just touch upon religion, it touches upon Government, our belief in it, or disbelief in it, our perspective of those running it, our perception of those pulling the so-called puppet strings, the guidance of military doctrine, and or our own beliefs in whether our troops belong overseas.

Or not.

Our rights verse perceived rights and the misdirection in Washington D.C. at our expense.



There is quite simply no right or wrong answer to this because this is based upon each of our own perceptions.

There is not one "conspiracy theory" or another defined within this particular thread.

Basically said I am opening this up to all of them through your own beliefs of political ideology.



For the unitiated I will put a few definitions along the way as well as to clarify this discussion.

We always need a jumping off point so to speak.

First and foremost let us look at what political ideology means :


Quote from : Wikipedia : List of Political Ideologies

This is a list of political ideologies.

Many political parties base their political action and election program on an ideology.

In social studies, a political ideology is a certain ethical set of ideals, principles, doctrines, myths or symbols of a social movement, institution, class, and or large group that explains how society should work, and offers some political and cultural blueprint for a certain social order.

A political ideology largely concerns itself with how to allocate power and to what ends it should be used.

Some parties follow a certain ideology very closely, while others may take broad inspiration from a group of related ideologies without specifically embracing any one of them.

The popularity of an ideology is in part due to the influence of moral entrepreneurs, who sometimes act in their own interests.

Political ideologies have two dimensions:

1.Goals: How society should function or be organized.

2.Methods: The most appropriate way to achieve this goal.


Next we must examine what "dogma" is exactly for those unitiated persons.


Quote from : Wikipedia : Dogma

Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, or by extension by some other group or organization.

It is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from, by the practitioner or believers.

The term derives from Greek δόγμα "that which seems to one, opinion or belief" and that from δοκέω (dokeo), "to think, to suppose, to imagine".

The plural is either dogmas or dogmata , from Greek δόγματα.


When we come to a conclusion and share it here we're supposed to Deny Ignorance.



Essentially said through the two definitions, so far, dogma can be defined as a belief in something, through indoctrination, into a mindset so powerful so as to dispute any other relevant details, facts, and or variations due to a belief in one's own perception.

This is not to say any "official story" or "alternate theory" are right or wrong.

So, by clarifying there, it is my thought only that dogma means that one has such a different perspective they will always remain skeptical of any official Government, corporate, and or toe-the-line version of any event which has happened.



This is why certain events hold so deep upon our mindset today and I will give a few examples.

1) The Spanish Inquisition

2) The Renaissance

3) The Revolutionary War

Due to a mindset which was fixed with dogma and or in spite of dogma these are events throughout history, take your pick of which particular event, which have either made certain citizens of each nation cringe in fear, clinging to the legs of leadership which may or may not have had something to do with the very events themselves, or certainly question these same people by another vein of society in a community which is as old as time itself which before it was stigmatized by calling those of us within it a name which seems to some today to equal a lone-nutcase, wherein we see them as sheeple.



This community is of course those defined by the moniker of "conspiracy theorist".

And again this is not defining any divergence as right or left or right or wrong.

It is against all odds a discussion on dogma, perception, and political ideology.



Which leads us to our own beliefs whether some, all, or no one agrees with us.
edit on 3/9/11 by SpartanKingLeonidas because: Adding Depth and Insight Into the Post.




posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 04:55 PM
link   
AWESOME IDEA FOR A THREAD!
S&F this should be interesting to watch!



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by TechVampyre
AWESOME IDEA FOR A THREAD!
S&F this should be interesting to watch!


Thank you.

Someone local asked me of the definition of dogma so I ran with it.

It should make for an interesting thread and discussion topic if people jump in.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpartanKingLeonidas

Originally posted by TechVampyre
AWESOME IDEA FOR A THREAD!
S&F this should be interesting to watch!


Thank you.

Someone local asked me of the definition of dogma so I ran with it.

It should make for an interesting thread and discussion topic if people jump in.


Agreed. Sorry everyone for the pointless post..but i'm bumping this a little bit. I want to see this thread take off.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by TechVampyre
 


Do you have a theory which stands up against an official story?

Or do you know of a conspiracy theory which holds no water?

One example is the questioning of the official version of the Warren Commission.

The story of J.F.K.'s assassination does not hold water with Lee Harvey Oswald as the "lone gunman".

One of many such incident which are still discussed, argued over, and fought about to this day.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Funny, Both J.F.K and R.F.K came to mind when I first came across your thread. I have always leaned towards the manchurian candidate story..But that's what is so great about this thread..As, everyone has a different view..And it would be fascinating to find what leads people to believe what they believe in..

I just can't figure out why there has been no posts in here so far..Guess everyone want's to follow the same old "something big is going on"..or "doom" threads.. in-staid of getting involved in deep intellectual conversation.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by TechVampyre
 


It could be there's more DOOM in the air.

It could just as well be I'm not pushing this thread as much as I usually do.

Feel free to tell people you believe might be interested.

My time is split between seeking employment, Boy Scouts, and ATS.

And ATS is losing out due it not helping the first two in any way, shape, or form.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 


How about the nine eleven commission? There are, to this day, a ton of unanswered questions about the event and the government will not release the evidence they have. Like the steel from the towers. Like the footage of the plane approaching the Pentagon. Like the unbelievable maneuvers that were made to get said plane on course for the Pentagon. There are a ton more but those are a few.

edit on 9-3-2011 by jackflap because: Grammar.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 06:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackflap
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 


How about the nine eleven commission? There are, to this day, a ton of unanswered questions about the event and the government will not release the evidence they have. Like the steel from the towers. Like the footage of the plane approaching the Pentagon. Like the unbelievable maneuvers that were made to get said plane on course for the Pentagon. There are a ton more but those are a few.

edit on 9-3-2011 by jackflap because: Grammar.


9/11 Excellent example! How could I have not thought of that!

edit on 9-3-2011 by TechVampyre because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by jackflap
 


Agreed.

My biggest problem is people focus on the how and not the why.

It's all about the money.

For the love of money-O' jays Full Version


Motive, means, and opportunity.

These are keys to any investigation.

Whether by the authorities selling the original story or those of as conspiracy theorists.

T.S.A. : Birth of A Monster, Coup Against American Rights, F.E.M.A. Started and D.A.R.P.A. Finished

Come on by and see where I dig into the why.

Explosives, cover-ups, and official lies it all has to be explored.

You cannot just look at the how.

Who, what, where, when, and why?

Each detail is as important as the last.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by TechVampyre
 


Most people have blinders on due to their perception.

They believe they are right no matter what.

But too few people know they have to thoroughly investigate a conspiracy.

Without leaning to the left verses right pandering paradigm.

Go to the middle where the truth lies in the rubble with the victims.

And then look both left and right like walking across a street.

Crossing the road with the real story is just as dangerous as Ron Brown trying to go to the International Court of Justice.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 


Hey, speaking of following the money, I'm sure we all can recall this one. Just check out who was the newly appointed comptroller for the Pentagon right before the attacks. It's funny how that pilot who could not even fly a Cessna was able to fly along the ground at five hundred miles an hour and hit the only section of the Pentagon that housed the records of the lost funds. Just an amazing feat. Truly they were terror masterminds.


On September 10, 2001, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld held a press conference to disclose that over $2,000,000,000,000 in Pentagon funds could not be accounted for. Rumsfeld stated: "According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions." According to a report by the Inspector General, the Pentagon cannot account for 25 percent of what it spends. Such a disclosure normally might have sparked a huge scandal. However, the commencement of the attack on New York City and Washington in the morning would assure that the story remained buried.



To the trillions already missing from the coffers, an obedient Congress terrorized by anthrax attacks would add billions more in appropriations to fight the "War on Terror." The Comptroller of the Pentagon at the time of the attack was Dov Zakheim, who was appointed in May of 2001. Before becoming the Pentagon's money-manager, he was an executive at System Planning Corporation, a defense contractor specializing in electronic warfare technologies including remote-controlled aircraft systems. Zakheim is a member of the Project for a New American Century and participated in the creation of its 2000 position paper Rebuilding America's Defenses which called for "a New Pearl Harbor."


911research.wtc7.net...



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by jackflap
 


Too true.

As far as I'm concerned the events of 9/11 are quite clear.

It was a Covert Intelligence Fundraiser and we footed the bill.



posted on Mar, 9 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   
I'd like to add on the 9/11 idea. (Great thread btw)

I see dogma on both side. People who believe the 9/11 story unconditionally and people who deny it the same. In between I see apathy.

While both sides have arguments that are not definitive, no one seems to try and connect the dots in any meaningful way. Which seems to benefit the official story more than anything.

There is a belief that it was an "inside job" but what is the definition of inside? Was it a group, a wide network or was it a small number of people that had no connection to one another, lead by one manipulator, while no one knew exactly to what end they were working towards?

From the "9/11 deniers, you get arguments that, 'it was the government'. That definition is so broad that it literally applies to millions of people. A belief that any action is easily achieved because there are powerful people in control. The truth is, is that 'power' is much more limited than one would think. I think this type of thinking comes from distrust of GOV through personal experience. It isn't the most rational train of thought.

And from the believers of the official story, you have a blind faith in the government, in country and misguided patriotism. It is either that, or they personal support the government in any way because they are protecting themselves. What is bad for the company is bad for the worker. Whether people related to government had a hand in events leading up to the actions on that day, because the government chose to agree with the facts, that makes them liable.

In the end we do not know. But just because members of a commission failed to investigate properly, and the official story is not ironclad, does not imply the government carried out the action. They simply could have covered up certain things because they were embarrassed and they were afraid to lose standing or credibility.

I know this is rather vague, but these are my thoughts on the situation.

To add: Yes, there has to be money earned in this process or there is no point to any of it. No revolutionary group operates without funding. And with funding, you have opportunity and profit driven actions. There will be no revolutionaries operating without money, without money, there is no action that can make any impact.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
I'd like to add on the 9/11 idea. (Great thread btw)


Feel free to do so and thank you.


Originally posted by boncho
I see dogma on both side. People who believe the 9/11 story unconditionally and people who deny it the same. In between I see apathy.


I agree 100% with those two sentences.

Without apathy these conspiracies cannot happen.

As well as without apathy within the conspiracy theory community.

I have said many times it is a mixture of both the official story and the alternate version.

Otherwise these type of events would never work.

Because, as a whole, society is lazy, whether those who swallow the official story or those who decry it.

People would rather complain, whine, and bitch.

And I am speaking across the aisle here.

Those who defend the "official story" complain, whine, and bitch about those who do not believe Government is just as much a victim as those 3,000 victims of the Twin Towers, and as well those who call those people sheeple who are called "truthers" like it is a dirty word, they complain, whine, and bitch about them as braindead morons.

Something I have to say in regards to the 9/11 Truth Movement is a highly respect them for one thing.

Becoming intelligently organized without becoming completely stupid about it.

In essence they organized an action movement of a sorts which is more than I can say for some conspiracy theorists.

The degree of organization they have gotten to is astounding through fundraising, information dissemination, speaking out about their convictions in person, you name it.


Originally posted by boncho
While both sides have arguments that are not definitive, no one seems to try and connect the dots in any meaningful way. Which seems to benefit the official story more than anything.


Well, I will disagree with that assessment, at least in regards to myself and a few others.

Look to my earlier post in reply to someone else about the T.S.A. thread.

There are many people trying to piece together information but very few who are successful.


Originally posted by boncho
There is a belief that it was an "inside job" but what is the definition of inside? Was it a group, a wide network or was it a small number of people that had no connection to one another, lead by one manipulator, while no one knew exactly to what end they were working towards?


It was a small group, the word small, being relative considering the population of America.


Quote from : Wikipedia : Project for the New American Century

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was an American think tank based in Washington, D.C. that lasted from early 1997 to 2006.

It was co-founded as a non-profit educational organization by neoconservatives William Kristol and Robert Kagan.

The PNAC's stated goal was "to promote American global leadership."

Fundamental to the PNAC were the view that "American leadership is both good for America and good for the world" and support for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity."

The PNAC exerted influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush and affected the Bush Administration's development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security and the Iraq War.


I've talked about the Project for the New American Century in many threads outlining their misdeeds.

Towards the unfolding conspiracy of 9/11.

Just look to those people within the persons associated with the P.N.A.C., the project directors and project staff, and signatories to the statements of principles.

Each and every one of them profited in some way, shape, form, or manner.

Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Scooter Libby, Dan Quayle, and Steve Forbes are listed.

Among other people of influence.


Originally posted by boncho
From the "9/11 deniers, you get arguments that, 'it was the government'. That definition is so broad that it literally applies to millions of people. A belief that any action is easily achieved because there are powerful people in control. The truth is, is that 'power' is much more limited than one would think. I think this type of thinking comes from distrust of GOV through personal experience. It isn't the most rational train of thought.


Of course.

Those people decry the who without exploring the why which is just as important.

Once you have isolated the why everything else falls into place.

The how is only secondary because you have to prove intent before causitive action.

The intent was to defraud the populace of trillions upon trillions upon trillions.

Insurance fraud for the Twin Towers, embezzlement through Intelligence and Law Enforcement funding through robbing the Treasury, and mass murder at the expense of innocent lives.

Not to mention tightening the screws upon our Constitutional Rights shredding them.


Originally posted by boncho
And from the believers of the official story, you have a blind faith in the government, in country and misguided patriotism. It is either that, or they personal support the government in any way because they are protecting themselves. What is bad for the company is bad for the worker. Whether people related to government had a hand in events leading up to the actions on that day, because the government chose to agree with the facts, that makes them liable.


That is their choice even if I disagree with it.


Originally posted by boncho
In the end we do not know. But just because members of a commission failed to investigate properly, and the official story is not ironclad, does not imply the government carried out the action. They simply could have covered up certain things because they were embarrassed and they were afraid to lose standing or credibility.


I disagree.

In the end those willing to dig deep enough will know.

It is whether you're willing to dig deep enough or you're one of those covering it up that counts.

Far too many F.B.I. Agents were silenced about their knowledge leading up to 9/11.

This is because the entire thing was a coup against their abilities to create Homeland Security.

Yet another element of the level of this conspiracy.

A created cabinet postion to jockey over all Law Enforcement and Intelligence.


Originally posted by boncho
I know this is rather vague, but these are my thoughts on the situation.


I thought you spelled out your thoughts quite nicely.


Originally posted by boncho
To add: Yes, there has to be money earned in this process or there is no point to any of it. No revolutionary group operates without funding. And with funding, you have opportunity and profit driven actions. There will be no revolutionaries operating without money, without money, there is no action that can make any impact.


The point of all monies earned thanks to 9/11 was Governmental fraud.

To get their leashes undone.

Just prior to 9/11 around 1997 timeframe the entire Government strapped down the leash on the Intelligence Community expense accounts and their mispending ways, and this was nothing more than a means to shake loose, and get unlimited funding.

And I need to do a thread just on the fraud aspect of 9/11 with the entire papertrail.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 11:34 AM
link   


Well, I will disagree with that assessment, at least in regards to myself and a few others. Look to my earlier post in reply to someone else about the T.S.A. thread. There are many people trying to piece together information but very few who are successful.


You are doing a bangup job as it is. My thinking is more towards people within the movement that have taken the argument mainstream. My thinking, is that with all the funds raised, with all the supporters gathered, it has been ten years since and the only accomplishment has been polarization on both sides. Were I part of the 'mafia' behind the action, I would employ people to usurp the movement. Has that happened? Is that why there are people claiming that the planes were holograms and the like? Is that why people that have a legitimate line of questioning treated as misguided, while being discredited?





The how is only secondary because you have to prove intent before causitive action.

The intent was to defraud the populace of trillions upon trillions upon trillions.

Insurance fraud for the Twin Towers, embezzlement through Intelligence and Law Enforcement funding through robbing the Treasury, and mass murder at the expense of innocent lives.


While you are absolutely correct about intent, the 'how' is what will separate fact from fiction. If there is one group that is involved, but another took advantage of the outcome, does that imply that both were part of the planning and execution?

While you have a much better understanding than most people on the subject, the very worst thing about world impacting events is that it leaves ample opportunities for opportunists. While I can't say that limits the 'conspiracy', it tends to murky the waters of uncovering prior knowledge or guilt in the planning and execution of the operation.




I disagree.

In the end those willing to dig deep enough will know.

It is whether you're willing to dig deep enough or you're one of those covering it up that counts.

Far too many F.B.I. Agents were silenced about their knowledge leading up to 9/11.

This is because the entire thing was a coup against their abilities to create Homeland Security.


I agree, however, to most this evidence is circumstantial. In reality people have been convicted in the court of law by much less. The problem is where do you prove complacency in every action of 9/11 leading up to the war in Afghanistan and Iraq? The very fact that there are opportunists in this world shows that people profit off the actions of others. While I myself don't tend to appreciate that line of thinking in this case, it would be irresponsible to ignore it completely.

While my personal thoughts on the matter are most definitely similar to yours, to say anyone knows exactly what happened is a statement unable to be made. I suggest looking at criminal groups throughout history, where the government proved their case, dismantled and punished those involved, yet the official story does not meld with what really happened. Whenever a 'kingpin' is busted, he could be a shill for someone else.

My point is that no matter the amount of investigation, it is nigh impossible to determine exactly who is behind something. One example is the so-called 'Italian Mafia' in the US, that is portrayed as a powerful organization. It's inception and the delegations between various members were influenced and directed by people like Anorld Rothstein and others. Even someone who has all arrows pointing to them is possibly just stupid enough to let that happen. Not necessarily proof that they were the brains behind the operation.



The point of all monies earned thanks to 9/11 was Governmental fraud.

To get their leashes undone.

Just prior to 9/11 around 1997 timeframe the entire Government strapped down the leash on the Intelligence Community expense accounts and their mispending ways, and this was nothing more than a means to shake loose, and get unlimited funding.



I agree! And one of the best documentaries on how they manipulated the intelligence community is called Unconvered -The War On Iraq. I would presume you are familiar with it because you have a very good insight on the situation (and if not you need to watch it). If you remember, in the extra features it shows how members of the senate (or congress) tried to enact bills that would stop Halliburton from outright fraud via overcharging for contracts. One member actually stood up and said 'I know Halliburton is a bad word here, that no one is supposed to mention their name, but they are robbing the American people' (paraphrasing).

This is the quid pro quo style of politics. Regardless if Cheney had anything to do with the planning, him and the people he deals with absolutely pilfered the American taxpayer. Regardless in the people in congress knew, they knew Cheney would make their lives miserable (or perhaps someone else?) if they didn't comply (they showed this by their irrational actions).

I hope that clears up my position. You are far more knowledgeable in the mater. I will say, that while you are running on an angle far more thought out than most people, be careful because if you get one, just one fact wrong, it hampers your entire work.



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   
I'd like to add, I believe your stance is correct, that the people seeking truth in this matter should be looking to uncover the fraud that was committed afterwards as opposed to things leading up to the event. As you said it is fairly transparent. If you take one card out of the house, the rest will fall.
edit on 10-3-2011 by boncho because: clarification



posted on Mar, 10 2011 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
You are doing a bangup job as it is. My thinking is more towards people within the movement that have taken the argument mainstream. My thinking, is that with all the funds raised, with all the supporters gathered, it has been ten years since and the only accomplishment has been polarization on both sides. Were I part of the 'mafia' behind the action, I would employ people to usurp the movement. Has that happened? Is that why there are people claiming that the planes were holograms and the like? Is that why people that have a legitimate line of questioning treated as misguided, while being discredited?


Thank you.

It is however not without help by people like yourself who ask questions, redirect, and or disagree.

I have no doubt I have some facts wrong, very few though, because I dig deep, cross-reference, and sort through piles, and piles, and piles of information on a daily basis about Government, Military, Law Enforcement, you name it, my hobby, or number 1 hobby, is reading.

Especially about those particular entities whether American, foreign, or soon to be formed branches.

Part of the reason for my understanding all of this so well as the complexities is I crunch books daily.

I started learning the Art of War at age 6 from a Vietnam era Marine, my stepfather, and was reading on Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece at age 10, not to mention being taught to know what my Government is doing in my name at all times, and in reading history to know it is as important to read what is said, just as it is important to read what is not said, meaning read between the lines.

In order to know fully what goes on.

A few books I am currently crunching right now which touch upon this thread topic.

The Craft of Intelligence: America's Legendary Spy Master on the Fundamentals of Intelligence Gathering for a Free World




Amazon Review :

If the experts could point to any single book as a starting point for understanding the subject of intelligence from the late twentieth century to today, that single book would be Allen W. Dulles's The Craft of Intelligence.

This classic of spycraft is based on Allen Dulles's incomparable experience as a diplomat, international lawyer, and America's premier intelligence officer.

Dulles was a high-ranking officer of the CIA's predecessor-the Office of Strategic Services-and was present at the inception of the CIA, where he served eight of his ten years there as director.

Here he sums up what he learned about intelligence from nearly a half-century of experience in foreign affairs.

In World War II his OSS agents penetrated the German Foreign Office, worked with the anti-Nazi underground resistance, and established contacts that brought about the Nazi military surrender in North Italy.

Under his direction the CIA developed both a dedicated corps of specialists and a whole range of new intelligence devices, from the U-2 high-altitude photographic plane to minute electronic listening and transmitting equipment.

Dulles reveals much about how intelligence is collected and processed, and how the resulting estimates contribute to the formation of national policy.

He discusses methods of surveillance, and the usefulness of defectors from hostile nations. His knowledge of Soviet espionage techniques is unrivaled, and he explains how the Soviet State Security Service recruited operatives and planted "illegals" in foreign countries.

He spells out not only the techniques of modern espionage but also the philosophy and role of intelligence in a free society threatened by global conspiracies.

Dulles also addresses the Bay of Pigs incident, denying that the 1961 invasion was based on a CIA estimate that a popular Cuban uprising would ensue.

This account is enlivened with a wealth of personal anecdotes. It is a book for readers who seek wider understanding of the contribution of intelligence to our national security.


Allen Dulles is a tad dull for my liking but there's nothing he discusses I did not know already.

I teach the Citizenship in the World Merit Badge for the Boy Scouts of America.

Part of the curriculum the youth get to crawl upon the Central Intelligence Agency World Factbook and the State Departmet websites.

The Shadow University: The Betrayal Of Liberty On America's Campuses




Amazon Review :

At first glance, this title is just another entry in the roster of books opposed to political correctness at American universities, yet it's surprisingly good--certainly the best of its type since Dinesh D'Souza's Illiberal Education appeared in 1991.

Kors and Silverglate are hard-core civil libertarians turned off by the "hidden, systematic assault upon liberty, individualism, dignity, due process, and equality before the law" that they describe as rampant on campuses.

Theirs is not so much a brief against academic multiculturalism, but an eye-opening narrative about how the modern university "hands students a moral agenda upon arrival, subjects them to mandatory political reeducation, sends them to sensitivity training, submerges their individuality in official group identity, intrudes upon private conscience, treats them with scandalous inequality, and, when it chooses, suspends or expels them."

Through well-told stories and anecdotes (including an excellent chapter-long sketch of the University of Pennsylvania's semi-famous "water buffalo" incident), Kors and Silverglate make their case and make it well. --John J. Miller --


Part and parcel digging into Skull and Bones is knowing about the information suppression going on.

Universities across the United States are grooming and recruiting grounds for the Secret Societies.

I will leave any stories about lurking in shadows with skulls while drinking blood to your imagination.

I have to say this is a misomer and often stupid speculation.

The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives




Kirkus Reviews : Amazon Review :

The former national security advisor is still a believer in geopolitics after all these years.

Like most foreign-policy aficionados weaned on the Cold War, Brzezinski (Out of Control, 1993) has been forced by the disintegration of the Soviet Union to broaden his perspective--but not very far.

He sees the US as the only global superpower, but inability to maintain its hegemony indefinitely means that ``geostrategic skill'' is essential.

To what end is not specified beyond the vague shaping of ``a truly cooperative global community'' that is in ``the fundamental interests of humankind,'' but in this genre, goals are commonly assumed rather than examined.

In any case, Brzezinski casts Eurasia as the playing field upon which the world's fate is determined and analyzes the possibilities in Europe, the former Soviet Union, the Balkans (interpreted broadly), and the Far East.

Like a grandmaster in chess, he plots his strategy several moves in advance, envisioning a three-stage development.

Geopolitical pluralism must first be promoted to defuse challenges to America, then compatible international partners must be developed to encourage cooperation under American leadership, and finally the actual sharing of international political responsibility can be considered.

The twin poles of this strategy are a united Europe in the West and China in the East; the central regions are more problematic and, for Brzezinski, not as critical in constructing a stable balance of power.

This updated version of East-West geopolitics is worth taking seriously but it is also an amazing example of how a perspective can be revised without actually being rethought.


Brzezinski is boring me to tears as I grew up knowing the Hegelian Dialectic.

It was taught to me via a self-defense exercise by my stepfather.

It was See this, SEE THIS, TAKE THAT, which later meshed with my book learning.


Originally posted by boncho
While you are absolutely correct about intent, the 'how' is what will separate fact from fiction. If there is one group that is involved, but another took advantage of the outcome, does that imply that both were part of the planning and execution?


Oh of course, the how is important, just not before the why with intent.

Criminal conspiracy.

The intent was to rob the Treasury, the American people, and let Halliburton make Cheney mega-rich.

The Secret Service did not call him by their code-name Angler without reason.


Originally posted by boncho
While you have a much better understanding than most people on the subject, the very worst thing about world impacting events is that it leaves ample opportunities for opportunists. While I can't say that limits the 'conspiracy', it tends to murky the waters of uncovering prior knowledge or guilt in the planning and execution of the operation.


There is just enough clouding of the waters with the "investigation", if you can call it that, of the events of 9/11 within the 9/11 Commission.

My dead great-grandmother could have conducted a more thorough investigation.

And she's been dead a long, long time.

Just like the Warren Commission, the 9/11 Commission, was made to buffer those closest to the events while maintaining a safe distance from actual investigation by those in charge of investigations, in order to gain deniability of culpability, malfeasance, and or outright conspiracy to commit murder on multiple levels.

All J.FK. witnesses died mysterious deaths and so will all 9/11 witnesses (those close by or in the know).


Originally posted by boncho
I agree, however, to most this evidence is circumstantial. In reality people have been convicted in the court of law by much less. The problem is where do you prove complacency in every action of 9/11 leading up to the war in Afghanistan and Iraq? The very fact that there are opportunists in this world shows that people profit off the actions of others. While I myself don't tend to appreciate that line of thinking in this case, it would be irresponsible to ignore it completely.


Only to those not able to actually investigate information across mutiple spectrums.

I have collected enough information to convict people at the World Court.

Now, however, I am not someone who they would recognize, not to mention being killed.

Like Ron Brown.vis-a-vis Bill Clinton and his fraud

I need money, power, and a conglomerate behind me of likeminded indviduals.

Something I am building upon daily.


Originally posted by boncho
While my personal thoughts on the matter are most definitely similar to yours, to say anyone knows exactly what happened is a statement unable to be made. I suggest looking at criminal groups throughout history, where the government proved their case, dismantled and punished those involved, yet the official story does not meld with what really happened. Whenever a 'kingpin' is busted, he could be a shill for someone else.


Of course.

No one is perfect.

People make mistakes and or false assumptions and or accidently gather disinformation.

This is where we as people must know our capabilities and know when and where to ask for help.


Originally posted by boncho
My point is that no matter the amount of investigation, it is nigh impossible to determine exactly who is behind something. One example is the so-called 'Italian Mafia' in the US, that is portrayed as a powerful organization. It's inception and the delegations between various members were influenced and directed by people like Anorld Rothstein and others. Even someone who has all arrows pointing to them is possibly just stupid enough to let that happen. Not necessarily proof that they were the brains behind the operation.


Of course.

To get everyone we would need to turn Congress, Senate, the C.I.A., and the F.B.I. upside down.

By digging in deep and investigating all of their actions in regards to 9/11.

Sure sounds fun as Hell to me.



Originally posted by boncho
I agree! And one of the best documentaries on how they manipulated the intelligence community is called Unconvered -The War On Iraq. I would presume you are familiar with it because you have a very good insight on the situation (and if not you need to watch it). If you remember, in the extra features it shows how members of the senate (or congress) tried to enact bills that would stop Halliburton from outright fraud via overcharging for contracts. One member actually stood up and said 'I know Halliburton is a bad word here, that no one is supposed to mention their name, but they are robbing the American people' (paraphrasing).


Actually, I have not seen or heard of it, my knowledge comes from crunching books, videos, and knowledge attained through my lifetime, not to mention I have an intelligence network running around the world, of a sorts.

Halliburton is about as scary as Dick Cheney.

He's a typical cirminal as far as I'm concerned.

Greedy as Hell.

Only people who have no fear and show no fear can defeat them.

Have you seen Mike Rupert's Collapse?

Collapse Movie Trailer


I highly suggest it.



Originally posted by boncho
This is the quid pro quo style of politics. Regardless if Cheney had anything to do with the planning, him and the people he deals with absolutely pilfered the American taxpayer. Regardless in the people in congress knew, they knew Cheney would make their lives miserable (or perhaps someone else?) if they didn't comply (they showed this by their irrational actions).

I hope that clears up my position. You are far more knowledgeable in the mater. I will say, that while you are running on an angle far more thought out than most people, be careful because if you get one, just one fact wrong, it hampers your entire work.


Of course.

But know I know if I make a mistake I'm willing to admit it.

Just as much as I'm willing to re-investigate my own collected intelligence.
edit on 3/10/11 by SpartanKingLeonidas because: Adding Depth and Insight Into the Post.



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 12:24 AM
link   
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 



Only to those not able to actually investigate information across mutiple spectrums. I have collected enough information to convict people at the World Court. Now, however, I am not someone who they would recognize, not to mention being killed.


Isn't that the truth? Not only that, the other thing to consider, is your 'read between the lines' statement. I truly believe that anyone with intelligence knows this already. A good number of people see it, know it or at least think about it. But at the end of the day loyalty is paramount. Is a government shake up worth it? To be honest, if I was in Government I would be the same. So I can't really knock them for it.

I think it depends on how free thinking you are and what your idea of a free land is. If that is essential or if that is even deserved. No matter what I commend you for your diligent effort. Me personally, I like to know the story but I have no aspirations to do anything with what I learn. I just like knowing.

I think I will check out the movie you suggested. I would like to offer a couple ideas for books:

This book my eyes on a lot of things and it is fairly well referenced and annotated throughout.




In a savage critique, R.T. Naylor investigates the American government's understanding of and response to 9/11, exposing the official story - and the resulting global War on Islamic Terror - as based on myth and misinformation. Satanic Purses examines how misguided notions about the structure and financing of terrorist groups have diverted attention from more useful measures, and perpetuated the "War on Terror."







This book is an absolutely dreadful but essential read. It will bore you to death in areas but is so well referenced that if I remember correctly the reference section is about a third of the content. Stephen Grey has combed piles of flight log data to pinpoint times people were undergoing rendition. As a reference to the last book I mentioned, you can analyse information from two viewpoints. (They cover separate subjects but I believe they intertwine).



For the first time, Stephen Grey tells the inside story of international prisons sanctioned by the U.S. Government and used by the CIA to hold and torture people suspected of terrorism.
Using contacts deep inside the U.S. Government, Grey reveals how deeply the Bush administration is involved in the program and questions the truth of statements made by Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. He also shines a spotlight on the heads of European nations who turned a blind eye to the program when it showed up in their back yards. Grey takes an unflinching look at a horrendous practice that scorns Geneva Convention rules and is powered by corruption at the highest levels of governments worldwide.


I wish the best to you in your search.



posted on Mar, 11 2011 @ 01:10 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


The first book looks interesting enough.

Although I could walk anyone through the entire fraud of the War on Terror as a conspiracy.

The second book I own, tout, and loan out on a regular basis as well as reference it throughout ATS.

I own thousands of books and retain every ounce of knowledge once I've read them.

I am constantly re-reading them to cross-reference material within them with other books.

Mike Ruppert was run out of America for his knowledge on what was going on.

This is because he was making a huge nuisance of himself and had to be silenced.

I did a thread on Mike Ruppert and the video.

Truth and Lies of 9/11 : Mike Ruppert, C.I.A. Drug Running, and Your Government

Come on by.


Originally posted by boncho
I think it depends on how free thinking you are and what your idea of a free land is.


I am not anti-Government by any means nor by any stretch of the imagination.

However, I am anti-corruption, within Government even if this means seeing it walk hand-in-hand at times.

The citizens of EVERY NATION should remain free of tyranny from their own Government.

No matter what country.

Even if it happens in one country it is happening in every country.

I will not sit idly by while my Government commits tyranny, fraud, and or conspiracy.

Not when I know about it.


Originally posted by boncho
If that is essential or if that is even deserved.


It is essential, it is deserved, and it is our God-damned, God-given right as free men and women.

Constitutionally protected, Constitutionally sanctioned, and Constitutionally defended.

Even if some or few criminals within Government get away with abusing the Constitution.


Originally posted by boncho
No matter what I commend you for your diligent effort.


Thank you as well as I commend you for your persepctive.


Originally posted by boncho
Me personally, I like to know the story but I have no aspirations to do anything with what I learn.


Well, here is where you and I diverge upon a major difference of perspective, I am tired of apathy.

It sticks in my gut like a lead balloon and makes me ill to see anymore.

While, yes, I love to know, I want actions to come with words otherwise those words mean nothing.

Rhetoric without action is but a hollow gesture of a foolish man or woman too cowardly to act.

Please take that last line not as an insult but as my lighting a fire under your ass.

Know about it, do something about it, shift the paradigm with forward momentum towards positive actions.

Make them legal, non-violent, and unstoppable actions or we will never win.


Originally posted by boncho
I just like knowing.


Just knowing is only making you half as intelligent as you could be.

Knowing means you're as culpable as those commiting crimes in our names by default through inaction.

If someone does not take a stand it will soon be guillotines lining every street corner for dissent.

By the time that happens it will be far, far too late to actually do a damn thing about it.

HIGH QUALITY Hoist The Colours - Full Song untouched Scene


Whether a guillotine or a noose it is far better to die on your feet then as a coward in a line.

Ask any survivor of Auschwitz.

If you can find one.



Because of this level of apathy I.B.M. assisted Hitler in tracking the Jews.

IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance Between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation




Amazon Review :

Was IBM, "The Solutions Company," partly responsible for the Final Solution?

That's the question raised by Edwin Black's IBM and the Holocaust, the most controversial book on the subject since Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Executioners.

Black, a son of Holocaust survivors, is less tendentiously simplistic than Goldhagen, but his thesis is no less provocative: he argues that IBM founder Thomas Watson deserved the Merit Cross (Germany's second-highest honor) awarded him by Hitler, his second-biggest customer on earth.

"IBM, primarily through its German subsidiary, made Hitler's program of Jewish destruction a technologic mission the company pursued with chilling success," writes Black.

"IBM had almost single-handedly brought modern warfare into the information age [and] virtually put the 'blitz' in the krieg."

The crucial technology was a precursor to the computer, the IBM Hollerith punch card machine, which Black glimpsed on exhibit at the U.S. Holocaust Museum, inspiring his five-year, top-secret book project.

The Hollerith was used to tabulate and alphabetize census data. Black says the Hollerith and its punch card data ("hole 3 signified homosexual ... hole 8 designated a Jew") was indispensable in rounding up prisoners, keeping the trains fully packed and on time, tallying the deaths, and organizing the entire war effort.

Hitler's regime was fantastically, suicidally chaotic; could IBM have been the cause of its sole competence: mass-murdering civilians?

Better scholars than I must sift through and appraise Black's mountainous evidence, but clearly the assessment is overdue.

The moral argument turns on one question: How much did IBM New York know about IBM Germany's work, and when?

Black documents a scary game of brinksmanship orchestrated by IBM chief Watson, who walked a fine line between enraging U.S. officials and infuriating Hitler.

He shamefully delayed returning the Nazi medal until forced to--and when he did return it, the Nazis almost kicked IBM and its crucial machines out of Germany.

(Hitler was prone to self-defeating decisions, as demonstrated in How Hitler Could Have Won World War II.)

Black has created a must-read work of history.

But it's also a fascinating business book examining the colliding influences of personality, morality, and cold strategic calculation.

--Tim Appelo


Which has today become the R.F.I.D. chip program.

IBM RFID Commercial - The Future Market


Notice the boy running through the supermarket even looks of German descent?

Yeah, not an ounce of Nazi influence lost, to this day.

And we're almost too damn late now.
edit on 3/11/11 by SpartanKingLeonidas because: Adding Depth and Insight Into the Post.




top topics



 
14
<<   2 >>

log in

join