I am certain in some of David Icke’s ‘early’ stuff, he mentioned the Mayan 2012 calendar thing that would mark a great change in the world, the ‘old’ one undergoing fundamental change, as if a very visible and perhaps cataclysmic change would occur.
Well, DI like these other ‘new age’ pseudo-religionists who pilfer traditional religion and cast it in their own image, must be feeling very embarrassed that their ‘prophecies’ are turning out to be load of rubbish, as it always was going to be*. Well, perhaps they won’t be embarrassed as they’ll erase from their minds their self-erase their past prophecies and belief in pseudo=prophecy and be quite surprised someone like me is giving them scorn.
Numerous times on this blog I have criticised ridiculous numerologists who were of course spectacularly wrong about the Olympics and nukes detonating in London and New York, but they don’t listen, they just begin to string together some other ‘magic’ numbers in order to be wrong again.
The actual ‘big conspiracy’ is Israyhell, hell-bent on bringing their Messiah, who will of course turn out to the anti-Messiah, the anti-Christ, which I will elaborate on in my next post, but talk of ‘religion’ is old-school, totally untrendy, something from the ‘past’ [people mention the past as a method of dismissal, trying to get away with the unspoken idea that the past was automatically worse than today because it was in the past]. Being a religion based analysis, few really care about it, so it gets ignored.
We’ve got people like – but not limited to – DI to thank for that.
–
*Bogus in the sense it was likely a simple human concoction, devoid of Divine knowledge. A Muslim intellectual was asked by a now adult person from a Hindu background, about a stone (or leaf) their persons parents found while they were a child. It contained written details of their childs future life, which the former child told the Muslim, was very accurate. The Muslim said (paraphrase) that Muslims we are not to engage in fortune telling etc, but that doesn’t mean fortune telling is always bogus. There are other creations apparently capable of gleaning this information. Prophecy involving these routes could possibly yield accuracy.
For some, that question is enough to stop them believing anything other than the official conspiracy theory or ‘official narrative’ as others may phrase it.
But lets be frank, it is a thoroughly stupid stance to take.
1) That someone involved in one of the most significant world shaking event would, having initially been a willing participant, simply MUST admit to the fact later. This ‘opening’ condition alone, is likely to result in the majority of participants having a very strong reason to keep it secret.
2) Given the likely real suspects behind 9/11 and the dirty things they get up to, it is more than reasonable to believe any potential squealer would face execution with a similar threat facing their families.
3) Imagine some false-flag (FF) has occurred and a squealer came forth 7 years alter. From the time the event happened up until the ‘confession’ the false flag was still a false-flag. It does not magically become a FF simply when someone admits to it.
4) Even if a confession does come forth, the following powerful filters need to be successfully penetrated; The ‘confession’ needs
a) mass exposure
b) mass communication (not necessarily the same as a)
c) mass acceptance.
These filters even when overcome still don’t guarantee people will abandon the adopted mental barrier heading this post.
5) Not all FF’s will have a whistle-blower. To believe that to date, the FF’s and black-ops that have been exposed are the only FF / black-ops that have ever occurred and that no deadly secret has ever been taken to the grave is simply the philosophical stance of cretin.
The weight of ALL evidence towards official forces being involved in 9-11 is simply overwhelming relative to the ‘official conspiracy story’, and in my opinion is is well beyond all reasonable doubt.
Why should justice and punitive action NOT be taken just because of the idiots who adopt such pathetic stances as “If 9/11 was a false flag operation, why hasn’t anyone squealed?” The only answer to that is surely this: Because in reality, possibly deep in their conscious, they prefer and benefit from the consequences that followed the FF rather than the consequences of having true justice be served and all ramifications from that.
What a world, huh!
Suggested reading: “Conspiracy Theorists & Cognitive Dissonance” by http://eleveneleventruth.wordpress.com/2010/08/05/conspiracy-theorists-cognitive-dissonance/
I believe in God. I never used to. Being raised in ‘a kind of’ Christian environment, there was usually a latent background of God, e.g. walking home I’d pass a few churches or the Christmas TV programs etc. Somhow, probably because of the story of Adam, who in my mind, was a declaration that a ‘modern man’ was the first man – very much like we are today, hence, if man came from ape-like ancestors, then that would disqualify the notion of God.
Looking back, all things considered, I’m ashamed that I came to such an ultimate conclusion so hastily, on something which has the most enormous implications for us as a species, and deserves deep study in many fields. Really, I was armed with only a minuscule level of knowledge, and sadly I was far too accepting of the information that was coming my way; I didn’t scrutinise it, I didn’t look for alternative explanations. Because of that I must have been a simple level “darwinian atheist” from the ages of about 14 to 21.
Perhaps my personal shame is a bit harsh given my youthful years, but I was “convinced” it was true and naturally I would promote such a stance when in discussion/debate about it.
Since then, I came across the Qur’an, which tells of how Isa (Jesus) a.s. was raised up from the eyes of man. The utter confidence of that statement {please read it for yourself in the Qur’an – or if you can’t read Arabic, even an English translation retains much of its power} rocked me and it just seemed that what I was reading was the truth,
so how could I deny it?
Atheists may say I was simply swapping my simple level “Darwinian atheist” mindset for a similarly simple level “God exists” mindset instead, and other atheists may also say my personally amazing experience and feelings on reading the Qur’an are laughable. I would appeal to those who may be rofl right now to try and recall something from their own lives that fundamentally changed their perspectives. I’m sure many could recall such a thing and hence I’m sure you will better appreciate my experience on
reading the Qur’an.
I have since invested much time in gaining a much greater understanding of the God question and
try to familiarise myself on the near endless debate about whether God exists or not. Yes, I have a bias
towards God, but atheists has a bias against God, so I guess that’s fair and square.
All this means I have come across the works of Richard Dawkins.
–
–
Main post
I’m referring to this: Lennox Vs. Dawkins Debate – Has Science Buried God
21:03 – 31:29
[P.S. Dawkins made an error in the debate saying no to ‘things going from simple to complex’, it’s obvious he wanted to to say no to things starting from complex (i.e. God)]
In my pursuit of the Gods existence debate, I was watching Lennox Vs. Dawkins Debate – Has Science Buried God.
I’m quite familiar with Dawkins’s arguments now. Dawkins puts scorn on religious people who, Dawkins says(!), say ‘we don’t know what that phenomenon is’ therefore God did it, i.e. God fills the gaps of our ignorance. Like much of what Dawkins says, it’s very sweeping and unfair in that it doesn’t acknowledge the great number of God believing scientists who do undertake the challenge at revealing aspects of what we don’t understand. Such as the Mathematician Lennox. I am what they would call a ‘scientist’ so I know this – I see it. But Lennox did a very interesting thing. He took Dawkins up on this issue (and Lennox knows perfectly well that Dawkins is very experienced in discussing) but he turned it around.
Dawkins was saying things have to go from simple to complex and that simplicity, in his eyes, negates the need for a complex God. Dawkins protests a complex God needs explanation, and an explanation as to where that God came from.
Typical Dawkins. He attaches onto God the very thing that would nullify God. A good definition of God is ‘that which has not been created’. It’s probably his greatest trick and is self-negating. The trouble is the closer you get to the ‘instant’ of the bog bang, which I think it’s fair to say almost everyone is (currently) at ease with about being how the physical Universe came into being, then it actually gets more and more complex.
Dawkins’ second trick is to simply call it simple. Well I’m sorry, I don’t buy that. I think Dawkins is actually saying the SIMPLIFIED COMPUTER MODELS used to try and simulate the EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE at some time when the universal physical constants stabilised may be regarded as simple, but even then, they surely cannot be simple in physical actuality due to anti matter and dark matter, the latter of which is said by many scientists that Dawkins would be happy to stand along side himself to account for most of the mass and therefore energy of the universe, and these are very poorly understood indeed, hence any simple model is surely wholly inaccurate, causing another major stumbling block to Dawkins on this issue.
Anyway, He says natural, blind unthinking natural selection caused the biological complexity we have today, so things went from simple (Dawkins’s ‘simple’ remember!) to complex, hence God doesn’t need explaining. But Lennox correctly drew reference to two utterly complex issues, the “pre-Dawkinist simple” beginning of the universe [my words not Lennox’s] and the origin of biological life.
It is at this point when Dawkins impales himself completely on his own sword. He says We don’t know these things yet, but we know there will be a Darwinian explanation to it. What Dawkins has done is to use a ‘Science of the gaps’ approach to it. He has blind faith that there will be a simple [it HAS to be simple – that’s a main theme for Dawkins] explanation. But any fair minded person will surely agree, from primordial soup to life today or from a ‘rugby ball’ sized ‘thing’ (from which the Universe too shape) is of course utterly complicated.
Sadly Lennox doesn’t quite navigate as well to expose this as I have tried to do above, but of course, a face to face debate is completely different from a prose based composition like this.
I also liked Lennox’s previous point about consciousness, which Dawkins took up to talk about avoiding a rock or not jumping off a cliff. Lennox is saying reductionism cannot explain consciousness (at least as far as best we know today). there is no rational way in which the reduced set of atoms and molecules can have consciousness. There has to be a way in which the structure of those atoms and molecules can store information and be able to interpret that information.
This is what separates the living (in a bio-physological sense) from the non-living*. That requires a consciousness which surely cannot be explained by step-wise selection or even by the instantaneous crossing of a hugely significant feature (which would in any case require quite a lot of genetic information to encode and endow inheritance).
Lennox called this a ‘language‘ which indicates the pre-existence of a ‘mind‘. Dawkins quickly went away from this point.
It is interesting that when Lennox rather traps himself and puts himself on the back-foot having to explain the mind of God. Dawkins rightly gets a stronger line of argument, but this is an unfair advantage to Dawkins because if there was a God, it’ is inescapably impossible to explain the word of God. Even on a human level success at explaining the means and motives of other humans often fails. How can we with a lifespan of about 80 years, a mind the size of a honeydew melon and primarily only input/output/process information one ‘channel’ at any one instance ultimately explain anything?
* non-living – actually Islam mentions rocks, which are considered non-living, as talking in some future event. This I would say, should encourage you to think there is a very different kind of ‘living’which the ‘non-living’ have access. If that’s a struggle for you, just remember djinn and Angels. Of course, the realm of God is beyond us. Dawkins protests he would/could not do science if this ‘magic’ as he pejoratively calls it interfered with science, as if God is likely to say intermittently hide then re-reveal a chromosome for example – He’s trying to cast God in a dark light. And if Dawkins was to ‘give up’ what happened to his accusations of ‘cop out’ and ‘mental lazyness’ etc
The mind consciousness/meaning part resurfaces at 49:57
At the end, I find it interesting, perhaps telling, that Lennox thanks Dawkins; “Thanks Richard” says Lennox, yet all Dawkins does is acknowledge it with a ‘mouth open and close to smile’ kind of thing. Interesting having just heard what the human moral behavioural aspect of the debate.
I believe I’m so familiar with Dawkins’s stuff that I see many many holes in it.
It’s interesting that I can’t find Dawkins debating an intelligent Muslim scholar experienced/familiar with the ‘Western’ style of this debate.
Next up (additions to this post outstanding) is this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yx0CXmagQu0 (which I notive Atkins also attributes a derogatory term of lazyness to the ‘design’ issue)
The BBC newz (newz, ‘cos it certainty ain’t news) and current department really turns my stomach. Medialens [1, 2, 3] amongst others has consistently uncovered the filth (my words, not their) that gets passed off as journalism, and not only that, but insanely the worlds best journalism – so they would have us believe]. Far from the pinnacle of journalism, it’s the pinnacle of propaganda and downright lies.
BBC Covers Up War Crimes – Misleads Over Syrian Security Operations. by Tony CartalucciUpdate: Indeed BBC did not see “MIGs” bombing Aleppo, though it appears they weren’t even anti-tank SU-25’s but rather training aircraft. Aero L-39 Albatros are also not even “Russian-made” as the BBC claimed. The article below has been amended to reflect this information. Read here for more.
July 25, 2012 – When big lies must be told, BBC is there. From Iraq to Afghanistan to Libya and now Syria, BBC has paved the way for Western disinformation meant to mange public perception around a war the public would otherwise never support or tolerate.
Now, as NATO’s Al Qaeda mercenaries operating under the banner of the so-called “Free Syrian Army” flow over the Turkish-Syrian border in an attempt to overrun the city of Aleppo, BBC is there, attempting to manipulate the public’s perception as the conflict unfolds.
BBC’s Ian Pannell admits he rode with a convoy of milatnt fighters into Aleppo at night. He claims many are desperate for the FSA to succeed, “clamoring for freedom denied by their president,” but concedes many others fear an “Islamic takeover” and sectarian “division and bloodshed.” The latter of course, is self-evident, while the former is the repeated, unfounded mantra of the Western media used to cover up the latter.
Pannell poses amongst staged settings, claiming a single burning tire equates to a barricade set up by the militants (see more on the use of burning tires as propaganda here and here). He concedes that militants are taking to the rooftops with sniper rifles in the districts they claim they control – begging one to wonder where else terrorist snipers have been, and how many “sniper” deaths have been mistakenly blamed on the government.
Covering Up FSA War Crimes
Pannell then attempts to cover up serious war crimes committed by the FSA militants he is traveling with, claiming that men the FSA arbitrarily rounded up while “seeking revenge” were “suspected Shabiha,” harking back to Libya’s NATO-backed terrorist death squads rounding up and killing Libya’s black communities in orgies of sectarian genocide – which outlets like the BBC defended as simply rebels targeting “suspected African mercenaries.” Pannell papers over what he just reported with the unqualified claim that there is “little justice” on either side. What became of the FSA’s victims is not revealed.
Image: From BBC’s Ian Pannell – young men “suspected” of being “Shabiha” are rounded up as the FSA “seeks revenge.” BBC fails categorically to explain how NATO-backed terrorists can “liberate” a city that is admittedly pro-government – but it appears it will be done through terrorism, brutality, mass murder, and intimidation.
….
BBC reporter Ian Pannell’s failure to report on the war crimes he admitted witnessing, smacks of endorsement and complicity – an attempt to preserve the romanticism the West has desperately tried to associate with their FSA death squads. Pannell’s report also confirms earlier descriptions of widespread atrocities committed by the so-called “Free Syrian Army.”
In Libya, when the government of Muammar Qaddafi collapsed, and as Libyan terrorists overran the last of the nation’s security forces, entire cities of Libya’s blacks were overrun, their populations either mass-murdered, imprisoned, or forced to flee to refugee camps. These are people who had lived in Libya for generations. A similar fate awaits Syrians should NATO prevail.
BBC Confirms Syrian Army Use of Heavy Weapons ARE Proportional to FSA Threats
Pannell’s propaganda in Aleppo continues, where he admits FSA militants possess tanks they allegedly “captured” from the Syrian military, but then, showing video of what is either an anti-tank SU-25 aircraft or an Aero L-39 Albatros training jet, rolling in with machine guns, claims it marks a “dramatic escalation” and a sign of “desperation.”
Image: From BBC’s Ian Pannell -FSA tanks are positioned in or around Aleppo, according to BBC. The myth that NATO-backed militants are “lightly armed” is unraveling as they attempt to take on large cities flush with cameras and media from both sides. Eager propagandists attempting to portray victories have more than once shown “captured tanks” in the hands of militants. Heavy militant weapons beget heavy government weapons.
….
In reality the Syrian army is using force directly proportional to the threats NATO-backed militants have presented. Tanks and heavy weapons mounted on trucks, also featured in the BBC report, are legitimate targets for government heavy weapons. The precision an SU-25 lends the battlefield versus heavy artillery bombardments when neutralizing FSA heavy weapons is the only conceivable way to minimize civilian casualties.
Images: (Top) From BBC’s Ian Pannell – BBC and other Western media outlets have claimed “MIGs” are bombing Aleppo’s civilian populations. This all based on a single “tweet” made by BBC’s Ian Pannell. Pannell now reports this video depicts what he saw – which in reality is either an anti-tank SU-25 or Aero L-39 deploying machine guns, not bombs, versus what Pannell already admits are FSA heavy weapons, not civilian populations. (Bottom) Several orthographic views of the SU-25 and Aero L-39 for comparison.
….
And as the Western media is so found of reminding its viewers, Aleppo is decidedly pro-government, and pro-President Bashar al-Assad. Therefore to indiscriminately use disproportionate force serves no purpose for the Syrian government, who has gone through extraordinary lengths and placed its soldiers at great risk to minimize damage to the city and its inhabitants – a city and population that serves both an important role economically and culturally for all Syrian people.
Remember Fallujah, Iraq
A government is put in a difficult position when armed gangs enter a city “seeking revenge” as BBC’s Ian Pannell puts it, when these gangs have trucks mounted with heavy weapons as well as tanks in their possession. For the West, to berate the Syrian government and portray its security operations as unmitigated “brutality” is disingenuous at best, especially considering the militants are there solely because of years of financial, military, and political support from the US, Israel, and the Gulf State despots.
Image: Western hypocrisy – Fallujah, Iraq in 2004 was bombarded by artillery and airstrikes for weeks leading up to the final invasion. When over 10,000 troops entered the city, they were accompanied by tanks, and supported by heavy artillery and airstrikes. When the West is subjugating others, heavy weapons seems acceptable – but not when another nation attempts to defend itself from admittedly Western-backed terrorists.
….
The West might want to also revisit the lessons it learned from flattening the Iraqi city of Fallujhah, twice. The US bombarded the city for weeks prior to its final invasion in 2004, where over 10,000 troops entered with heavy artillery and air support. Apparently it is acceptable for the West to subjugate others using such tactics, but nations are prohibited from using similar tactics to defend themselves. The Syrian uprising was a foreign-plot stretching back as far as 2007, foreign militants admittedly flowing over the border from across the Arab World, admittedly armed and funded by the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar.
The Battle of Fullujah is considered a notch in the belt of Western military prowess, while the West condemns Syria’s attempts to defend one of its most important cities from foreign-subversion and destruction. While NATO believes it can still win the geopolitical battle it is waging against the Syrian people, it has already long lost the battle for moral superiority.
I’m pasting a home made transcript of the below interview with George Galloway and Paul Stott. Will comment on it later and boy is there a lot to say about it
–
Transcript:
GG: We’re going to talk to a man who I think will emerge in time as the principle debunker of the conspiracy theorists on 9-11. I had the privilege of interviewing today for my television show which goes out on Sunday night, and I immediately thought that we should him to a wider audience and that wider audience is you. Let me say right up top that I have never argued, never, and don’t now, that there are many things about 9-11 that we do not know. And I’m certainly not saying that there are not things that raise very serious question marks. And I’m not saying, I’m definitely not saying, that George W Bush and Dick Chaney are not capable of very nefarious deeds indeed. But I am saying and have always said, will continue to say until someone proves otherwise to me, that to allege, as many do, that this act of mass murder on 9-11 ten years ago was some kind of conspiracy by the Americans themselves, that it might not even been what we thought it was, that it might be for example that these planes were not planes or that these planes were empty, that the passengers were duped or stooges or agents or any of the other plethora of other conspiracy theories that I hear – I just don’t buy them. That doesn’t make me a part of the conspiracy – although many of you out there think I am. Most people listening will find this hard to believe, but there is a class of person on the internet that thinks I am an agent… for George W Bush. I’m not making that up. They think I’m covering for George W Bush. They think that the radicalism you hear from me most of the time, is actually a cover, that I’m a gate-keeper. So, I’ve decided to call in some expert witness and Paul Stott the editor of the 9-11 Cult-watch blog, who’s a distinguished academic, he’s my man. Paul., welcome to the show.
PS: Good evening George, you’re all-right?
GG” Yes. Give me your top 5 will you? What’s your top 5 debunking facts?
PS: Well, I think the first thing to talk about really George it’s why people get these theories and why they believe in some of these theories and I’ve spent a lot of time going to 9-11 truth meetings, speaking to truthers, arguing with them on the internet, and I think very often they have a general… there looking for certainty, there looking for explanations from a world that’s lost a lot of its certainties and they don’t really seem to believe in anything anybody tells them anymore which is probably the fault of some of the politicians you mentioned earlier and they find their answers on the internet, they find their answers on you YouTube and once they start it just becomes a viscous circle really.
GG: Well when I hear people say “I’ve been doing a bit of research”, I know that they mean they’ve been on the Internet. And this assumption that exists that if because something is written on the internet, that it’s true, astounds me.
PS: Yeah I mean there was a time George that if you wanted to understand about American Foreign Policy you would read a book by Chomsky to read a criticism of it, or you read a book by one of the neo-Cons if you were a supporter of a that foreign policy. That period seems to have long gone now. It’s all about little snippets of information, little you know it’s a a sort of three minute culture almost and we’re actually all the poorer for that.
GG: Well it’s the old adage that a little knowledge is dangerous and when people have got that little knowledge from the internet, it’s particularly dangerous
PS: Yeah
GG: Now lets deal with some of the main arguments
PS: OK
GG: The argument that in fact these towers could not have fallen down with only two large passenger plane jets flying into them, that they therefore must have been dynamited down. Answer that.
PS: OK. Well, first thing to say there’s absolutely no evidence that anything other than planes hit. So that’s one of the, you know, you get these no plane theory guys. For people to have brought the towers down with explosives – I don’t know if you’ve ever attended a demolition of an old tower block in London or Glasgow,
GG: Yes, I have yes,
PS: Or wherever, there quite lengthy periods and an enormous amount of cabling has to be laid. Nobody has been seen laying any cabling in either of the twin towers, there was no evidence of any workers going in you know laying the thousands of yards of cabling that would have been needed and to be brutally honest, if your flying two planes into the towers at great speed, why do you actually need also lay explosives?
There is actually some rather interesting research being done that makes the point that for both of the twin towers the NY authorities revoked certain building regulations when the twin towers have been built so that they could be build cheaper so I’m afraid there’s probably some evidence that thy were Jerry build and weren’t as sturdy as they should have been. But we’ve all seen the planes hit. We haven’t’ seen anything of explosives in there.
GG: Now, seems to me that the official versions weakest point is building 7.
PS: Yes…. I think with building 7 the line you always get from thruthers is the focus on this line of ‘Lets pull it”, that one of the owner of WTC7, is alleged to have made. In a way exactly the same arguments apply to World Trade Centre 7 as to 1 and 2. Nobody has been seen placing any explosives in there. A considerable conspiracy of an extremely large number of people would have been needed. No whistle-blowers have come forward, Nobody has been cited up to anything they shouldn’t have been. So, there’s just no evidence as week as strong or as strong as the official story may be. That’s the best story we have until somebody comes up with something else. The line “Let’s pull it” – that’s pretty vague. It could mean let’s putt it down in the future.
GG: Yeah that’s not the main argument about building 7 though. The main argument is “How could it have fallen down?”
PS: Well you’ve just had two planes fly into tow neighboring buildings and those two building come down. You also have uncontrolled fires in that building. You’ve had the Jerry built nature arguably of some of the developments in the world trade centre complex. I think also there’s a background difficulty here George that what you get with 9-11 truthers is they set for everybody else the burdon of proof the prosecution., you know you’re expected to prove every single aspect of the story beyond all reasonable doubt whilst all they require themselves to do is to really play the role of a rather haphazard defence barrister, raising the odd doubt here and there and there’s enough. The world isn’t like that in practice.
GG: What about the Pentagon. They say that there’s no footage ever been released of an aeroplane striking the Pentagon. That the space that was destroyed in the façade of the building was not wide enough for it to have been the size of jet airliner it’s supposed to have been.
PS: Well the, first of all the Pentagon is a military building. By in large you don’t get a lot of footage being released of what’s going on inside all that military buildings. So I’m not hugely surprised we’ve not have every single camera shot of every single angle. The footage you had of the plane going in – you may have seen some news footage of it – the most likely explanation which you see a little bit of I think in the footage, the plane goes through and the wings have followed through, the debris of the wings has gone through behind the planes. It’s also worth noting that with the Pentagon that with the sort the truthers big theory on that emerges from a French guy, Theirry Maison. who wrote the book ‘The big lie’. Not unusually in 9-11 circles, that was actually a work of fiction that eventually got turned into a work of fact. Its’ the same with the film Loose Change. There’s a strong correlation in a way, a strong over-cross between fact and fiction in these circles.
GG: And lastly flight 93. What happened to it? Was it shot down or brought down but the passengers trying to lead a revolt?
PS: I think that’s a harder one. I think at the time of 9-11, America was battered, was humilated and was humbled.
GG: Needed some heroes.
PS: And so I thing that’s the only part of the sort of questions you’ve asked, I can see a little bit on both sides, George. I think we certainly know Bush had given instructions that any additional planes were to be shot down. You’ve got the whole sort of mythology of “Let’s Roll” and what have you. We’ll see on that, really. I’m open perhaps on discussion on that than anything else personally.
GG: Now, how do people follow your Cult Watch blog. What’s the website.
PS: Well, it’s my name, Paul Stott dot typepad dot com and then slash 9-11 Cultwatch or you can just Google my name, go onto the 9-11 Cultwatch blog. The reason really we talk about is from arguing and debating with some truth activists here in London. And you know the use of these terms ‘gatekeeper’, I mean I’m an academic Gatekeeper keeper, Chomsky’s a left gatekeeper, You’re no doubt a media gatekeeper now. And I’m afraid it’s was rather reminiscent from talking to people from Cults, there’s very little, very little you can do to get through to people.
GG: Yeah, there are serious people with serious questions but there’s undoubtedly also a cult around this developed. Undoubtedly.
PS: Yes, yes, and I’m afraid I don’t really see that changing in the short term because obviously the more serious analysts, if you like, or those who’ve perhaps got more interesting arguments to say, there eventually gonna tire of the more you know wacko elements I’m afraid.
GG: That’s Paul Stott, S-T-O-T-T. Paul Stott if you Google him, you’ll end up on the cult watch blog. And it’s worth doing I can tell ya.
If you did, then to me, you deserve to have lost your money. In my eyes it’s not much different from investing in Goldman Sachs, or getting financially involved with the IMF.
“MF Global invested in the Debt of Italy Spain Portugal and Ireland. leveraged by 40:1”
So here we have a leech company living off the debt difficulties of others.
And guess what, Gereld Celente, that ‘Knight of the little people”, had investments in this company. So Gerald, your lovely man of the people’s image – rather like your rather questionable investment – has crumbled.
haha.
I don’t give a monkey’s if you say Farmers invest in futures. That sounds like spin to me. Don’t try and put yourself in with Farmers. Somehow, just somehow, I doubt it’s the same kind of futures your investment with MF Global involved.
I read an abridged version of “Night” written by one Elie Wiesel. I wonder how Weasel would answer this question: “To what extent did Hollywood play in inspiring your book”. Am I being too cynical? Perhaps not. Or maybe there really was a clairvoyant woman on the train who did see “the fires” which Wiesel described later. Maybe James Bond 2-second-left-ticking-time-bombs really do happen like when Wiesel was in a que marching towards a fiery pit, and just before it was his turn to walk into it, for some reason the camp officials decided they’d had enough burning of people for that particular day. Lucky or what? Me? If I saw that I was being walked to my certain death I’d take my chances and run away or if my legs were chained, I’d lead-jellify my body to get a few more seconds of life while they had to drag me to the pit and hopefully take pity on me. But that is too ordinary – no Hollywood appeal there, nobody would be as bothered about that.
Wiesel’s own account makes little sense as he later describes a long period of slave labor in the camps to support the German war effort. But the fiery pit reveals an illogical event given that Wiesel reports no discrimination in its use to purge the weak and sick (i.e. unproductive slaves) from the strong and healthy (who would make the best manual-labour slaves). Wiesel’s account actually supports the notion the camps were not a ‘final solution’ but were primarily forced labour camps, which, if a despised Jew were to die there, it would not matter in the slightest to the horrendous people administering the place. But Wiesel, despite describing a labour camp where people perished in the atrocious conditions, avoids calling it so.
The camps are said to be the final solution – a plan that I’ve yet to see any evidence of whereby Hitler wanted to exterminate the Jews. But oops, what about Hitters Jewish Soldiers? Quote: “perhaps as many as 150000 men”[1] in his own forces, not forgetting Colonels and Generals? E.g. Colonel Walter H. Hollaender of the Wehrmacht, General Helmut Wilberg of the Luftwaffe. Hitler must have missed those ones and no body amongst the “Actung: Juden” hoardes told him. Anyway, were these Jewish soldiers expected to kill themselves after enslaving and persecuting many other Jews? – after all, there was a final solution to carry out! wasn’t there? And it’s hard to figure out just how Hitler thought he could kill all Jews when there were Jews in North and South America – a region of which he had no control over yet housed a number of Jews. That, like the absence of ‘final solution’ documents (which I suppose may be out there), has not been properly debated upon.
But who cares about logic and consistency?
Equally astounding was Wiesels reportage close to the end of the war, when they had to leave the camp. They were forced to run and run and run and run and run and run and run to another camp in the freezing cold. Quite how Wiesel and others managed this, something that would eclipse the finest of Olympians, given that in the camp there were fed rubbish to keep them going (hummm again not much of a final solution there) is a mystery of the modern world. I recall myself, a healthy athletic boy could hardly run 800m without needing to puke afterwards. Perhaps I should have ate that magic slop Wiesel ate. I can see the adverts now “New, isotonic slop – helps you run for miles”
The earlier yarn relating to a loner from his village, who for some reason went away, miraculously escaped a massacre in which he described little Jewish girls (loner dude asked them if they were Jewish you see, just before they were killed) being thrown into the air and machine gunned by Nazis. Mr loner somehow got out of it and recount his tale to the boy Wiesel.
Wiesel said he lost his faith, yet true to Zionist form calls upon elements of Hebrew faith when convenient to do so. Reciting prayers. Wiesel has accused God of looking on as Jews died. He has attacked indifference to peoples suffering, yet the little oink-oink supports the Shoah of the Palestinians, torture against them and the theft of their rightful land, property and resources. Yes Weasel is dirt-zero. He also was involved in the Maddof ponzi scheme.
Weisel said this:
“Auschwitz cannot be explained nor can it be visualized…. The Holocaust transcends history…. The dead are in possession of a secret that we, the living, are neither worthy of nor capable of recovering…. The Holocaust [is] the ultimate event, the ultimate mystery, never to be comprehended or transmitted.” [2]
Call me suspicious but isn’t incomprehension (and inconsistencies) come attached with lies?
But anger inducing all that is about Weasel, it’s not the reason why I decided to do this post. This comes close:
“In 1948 Wiesel worked as a journalist for the Irgun, a gang of Jewish terrorists who committed the massacre at Deir Yassin, arguably one of the most pivotal events in twentieth century Palestinian history. Yet this “world-renowned humanitarian” refuses to apologize or even acknowledge the murder, mayhem, and ethnic cleansing caused by his employer. He frequently goes to Yad Vashem, the most famous Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem and from the Children’s Museum he looks across the valley to Deir Yassin. But he never acknowledges what his employer did there…” [3]
It’s because of this:
“In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, Wiesel, in his priestly capacity, made a lightning visit to the White House on February 27, 2003. The Holocaust Fundamentalists were pushing for a needless, immoral and illegal war.” [4]
Excerpt: “Despite the unpopularity of the Iraq War, the sixth anniversary of the unilateral initiation of that conflict by President Bush came and went without any reference in the Zionist media to the role played by Elie Wiesel, our Holocaust High Priest, in helping to launch that conflict.”
About a week ago I came across this article on ICH.
Extract:
America’s “worst enemy”
The Latest Orchestrated Threat and The End of History
By Paul Craig Roberts
September 27, 2011 “Information Clearing House” — Have you ever before heard of the Haqqanis? I didn’t think so. Like Al Qaeda, about which no one had ever heard prior to 9/11, the “Haqqani Network” has popped up in time of need to justify America’s next war–Pakistan.
–
PCR seems to have been right. There’s Haqqani here, Haqqani ther, here a Haqqani, there a Haqqani, everywhere a Haqqani.
Perhaps their Al-CIAda organisation reached its sell-by date. The terror lost it’s fear factor.
The imminent attacks couldn’t muster the necessary terror quotient, despite the CIA/FBI busting their own group on occasion. But I’m wondering could there be a new reason for this new ‘terror’ group? 9-11 defines OBL, and the USUKs coalition of the killing has managed to pin the Taiban to 9-11 too, in certain quarters they pinned Irad and Saddam to 9-11 also. So what’s gonna end up defining Haqqani? Is it going to be “Look! we were soft on terror [we only bombed about 10 countries and killed almost 2 million – not that we care – we don’t do body counts] this is what happens when we are soft on terror”Is the breadcrum trail going to lead to Somalia/Iran/Yemen/Syria?
–
One begins to wonder what the next terror group will be called. Chances are it’ll sound foreign with the ‘throaty’ sounds that so terrify English speakers.
One wonders how many sleeper cells Haqqani has. What false flag it’ll be blamed for. What Muslim charity group will be closed down and have it’s accounts frozen. What happens to those frozen accounts anyway?
No doubt these Q’s will be answered in the fullness of time.
Living with the Conspiracy 24-7 
Recent Comments