Reading The News

When we read a story in the newspaper or even by a well intentioned and intelligent individual should we accept this as fact ?

I generally take individual news stories as a small peek and look for an underlying truth by reading many stories of similar incidents. The news is a product of the information age, it is filtered, third hand information. Plato talks about shadows on the wall and this analogy is very good for considering news stories. We are not seeing what actually happened, we are seeing a shadow on a wall depicting what someone else believes as important regarding the events. The written word by the author may actually have a different meaning to the reader when sentences or paragraphs are considered. A grander truth may be exposed that the author had never intended in the case of fiction and non fiction reporting - this is certainly true of Mary Shelleys Frankenstein which speaks of the technological era and was written before technology had a discernable affect on society. Factories didn't exist, plowing was done with the aid of animals rather than machines.

So what can we discern from the news ? Many stories fit patterns, from those patterns we may discern a grander truth. An example of this is stories related to child or sexual abuse. Any one story is likely to be very loosely related to facts based on the subjective interpretations of writers which are based on the subjective feelings of victims. But when we hear these stories over and over again, certain patterns emerge and we must ask ourselves of the grander truth: what is it that causes this to happen and how can the problem be mitigated? Has this stuff always happened ? Can society protect us from this ? Should society protect us from it ? Is it a manifestation of the structure of society or is it primarily human nature ?

I think stories of children being abused by priests and judges expose grander truths - the corruption that can (and therefore will) exist within any secret society or organization. I think this is an important aspect that is a common thread running through many of these stories and is a grand issue exposed. They expose a fault that exists in the structure of society that if fixed, would prevent things like this from happening.

The events surrounding 9/11 show us that someone is keeping secrets. If the events occurred the way we saw them on TV then the official version, scientifically speaking, must be lies. I think we can safely say that the buildings collapsed straight down through their own footprint - no one has said any different and the accident scene would be different if the buildings had actually toppled as would be required, scientifically speaking, if the official version of events was true.

Can we say that airplanes hit the buildings? As far as this goes there are very few witnesses and the witnesses we do have video taped what they saw, but there were few of these and videotapes can be doctored up.

Many people suggest that the buildings came down for another reason other than the plane crashes - if indeed planes did hit the buildings. So, did planes need to hit the buildings ? Maybe. Do we need to know if planes hit the buildings or not to make the conclusion that we are being lied to by the very officials that are supposed to be uncovering the truth about this ? No, its practically irrelevant - but if planes did not hit the buildings it would expose just another lie - that is it.

I think its a provable scientific fact that the buildings came down for another reason other than planes hitting them. To me its almost irrelevant as to whether planes were actually even there.

I don't know how the buildings came down, there are a lot of competing ideas on this. I do know that they collapsed straight down through the path of maximum resistance and for this 9/11 was a controlled event. It was a planned event. There had to have been explosives pre-planted within the buildings and officials are covering this up. Therefore it had to be an inside job and our officials are protecting whoever did this.

All other facts, innuendos, ideas, are just window dressing. From a very small set of facts the case can be proven with almost no doubt. This is VERY RARE. Normally we do not get to see and examine the evidence supporting news stories for ourselves. Normally the evidence is not so clear even when it can be examined.

Television Lately

On "V" the creatures want to vaccinate the humans. The V creatures use the same methods that the establishment are using on us, gaining our trust, providing "universal health care". On Law And Order a scientist that spoke against CAP and Trade gets murdered. Pro AGW scientists are cooking their data and they are a bunch of scum and liars (this is normal, the recent scam is nothing, global warming is still real and scientists lie about their data all the time ?)

I've been overloading on TV lately because I have a lot on my mind and I'm a little sick of thinking too much. I haven't watched TV is quite a few years, except for old shows like M*A*S*H* off the satellite.

Most mainstream shows are shows I haven't seen - I watched Desperate Housewives the other night for the first time (great show- if you are a guy especially).

Whats going on with TV telling what we think is the truth ? Maybe it isn't.

Open Carry in the USA

Here a man openly carrying a handgun and video taping a police officer during a traffic stop has some interaction with the police. This man was not being stopped but filmed a citizen being stopped.

Education / Ivan Illich (1926 - 2002)

I was surfing around looking for information on Jacques Ellul, and I found this talk show on education by a philosopher that was associated with Ellul in the sense that he spoke against totalitarianism.

So I found this page with audio posted at the bottom of a talk given by Illich.

http://www.davidtinapple.com/illich/

He some very well stated ideas on what is wrong with education today as well as how it can be changed. Illic is a very accomplished scientist, historian and theologian.

He was called to the Vatican in 1968 regarding his dangerous views and ideas.

He is quoted as saying: "I would would like to help people smile, smile the social system apart..." He has many other wise and very funny things to say.

Paul Craig Roberts Retires

Paul Craig Roberts has retired from journalism and has said that the truth is now irrelevant. His statement to this affect is posted on PrisonPlanet.com as well as his own blog.

Another friend of mine from Toronto 9/11 Truth has done the same thing.

I think we have missed something in our analysis of the new world order. We have made a lot of people angry and without an idea regarding what to do about the situation. The things regarding NAZI's, bankers, etc are are true but we have failed as a movement to search for deeper truths.

When I started school in grade nine, it was my machine shop teacher that spoke more true and relevant words for today than those of my English or history teachers. He explained that when you are operating a machine and you get your hand stuck in it, the machine will just keep going. It doesn't care if your hand is stuck in it or not. It will strangle you or tear your arm off without feeling and keep running as if nothing happened. He explained the necessity of being careful and using proper safety techniques when using machinery.

The fact is that technology itself is enveloping us, and the nature of the way we use technology (technique) is psychopathic- it is one great big machine. Technique now rules us. Mathematical economics determines the most efficient ways of organizing the world around us. As more and more technical methods are developed and used, more are demanded. If we demand efficient cars, then we must have an efficient state to plan and build the roads. We must have laws that dictate how these roads are used because they are straight and smooth and do not prevent anyone from speeding. The necessity of city planning means people sometimes lose their property, elements of our history get destroyed. Our history is a reference to who we are.

It is the planning that technology requires that makes our future foretold. A foretold future is by its own definition, a reduction of freedom.

Technical education itself is distinctively lacking in ethics and the humanities, the human cost of things is hard to quantify and it sometimes gets ignored when plans are made. Man shapes himself to fit into these plans out of economic necessity and his own humanity reduced.

These ideas come from The Technological Society by Jaques Ellul, a classic book written in the sixties in French and translated to English. It is a very thought provoking book and has changed the way I see the world. I'm only halfway through the book and will be writing additional posts on it.

I watched the movie "Repo Men" the other day. In this movie people borrow money to buy organs when their own organs fail. If they missed their payments, the organs are repossessed. Could this happen ? Of course it will happen. No technology ever gets developed without being used. It will be expensive to get new organs and payment plans will be necessary.

The truth movement has been developing techniques to hold the state in check in the form of the freedom movement, old techniques that use protest and demonstration have been used. There is no technique of preventing technology from chipping away at the human ethic. The two are incompatible and cannot co-exist.

Human beings are evolving from Homo-Sapien to Homo-Economus, as Ellul explains. In my view modern civilization is too large for our current ethic to be applied. We see the people we know in terms of being human, the ones we do not are a mere statistic and they see us the same way.

Defining a problem correctly is the primary step toward finding a solution. The truth movement has not defined the problem in adequate terms yet. Once a problem is defined, the solution is often trivial and given within the formulation of the problem. Defining the problem in more exact terms is what we should be doing IMO.

Coraline

Somewhere in the bible it explains that when our leaders and priests are lying to us we must turn to the pagan priests for truth. In our civilization this is Hollywood, or so I am told - both of these things by Jack Smith, one of the leaders of the redemption movement.

It takes a fairly decent knowledge of law and banking to see the message in Dorthy's dream in the movie The Wizard of Oz, but I was able to see it. The message is also in the book Alice In Wonderland. The courts are often called Wonderland and the minions of the courts Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum. The message did not ring clear with me with Alice In Wonderland.

In Peter Pan, Peter is careful not to lose his shadow which is an allegory for our shadow government. In Puff The Magic Dragon we are given a code about redemption, but it too is unclear. In Puff The Magic Dragon we learn that we cannot speak and must have a person (paper man) speak for us until we learn how to talk in the courts as well as the nature of admiralty law. It takes some knowledge to see this message.

The message in the movie Coraline is much more obvious. Here Coraline is offered a chance to live in a world very much like our own, she is given everything she wants and is finally a chance to stay if only she will allow buttons to be sewn in the place of her eyes. The movie is very well done and imaginative, a story hasn't been told before to my (limited) knowledge in this area.

Check the movie out sometime if you are looking for something different and more interesting than the typical repeated story lines that normally comes out of Hollywood. Its a great little movie and its all about exposing a truth.

Hollywood has a clear message in this one.

Debunking Debunking Global Warming Debunking

Even though the global warming alarmists have been not only proven wrong and proven to be liars I decided to take a walk on the other side and listen to this video done as a book promotion by Naomi Oreskes supporting the AGW hypothesis. Naomi is a trained geologist who espouses the view that science is something that the common man can make judgments on based on popularity of a theory within the scientific community. She insists that just because something is proven wrong doesn't mean anything because things in science are sophisticated. I'm not a sophist so I don't much go for sophisticated things.

She compares the anti AGW camp with those who spoke against the hypothesis that smoking causes cancer and names a few scientists who were both anti AGW and spoke against the smoking-causes-cancer hypothesis.

She says that the latest AGW scam of the IPCC emails being exposed means nothing because the people that exposed what are now known as lies may not be qualified AGW scientists.

She says that science has grown faster than exponentially. I was under the impression that science grew exponentially because the amount of new knowledge was always proportional to the amount of existing knowledge from which to work with.

She tells us that we should investigate who is funding the anti AGW factions, but does not suggest we should apply this as a general rule to anything we hear regarding "science".

She is careful to discuss very little evidence and the evidence she does present is not within what normally would be considered a geological time frame and sticks with evidence gathered from what she says is the "19th century" but is really the 20th century (purposefully ?). She is a scientific historian as well as a geologist.

She claims that the anti AGW side has put forth very little if any evidence supporting their claims. She says the anti AGW camp has been a giant propaganda machine executed deliberately to confuse the public. This has been executed by organized think tanks according to this woman. There are no limits are there?

She says that she was accused as being part of a liberal conspiracy to bring down world capitalism "as if liberals are organized", well Naomi, you are right, liberals by their nature aren't very organized, but neo-liberals sure are.

She is skating on thin ice through this, and I think she has fallen into the pond at the end of this. It was kind of fun to watch - especially seeing people walk out in the middle of the talk and the skeptical look on peoples faces toward the end.



If you want a nice compressed video of all the pro - AGW arguments, here it is. You may be have an overwhelming compulsion to clean your desk, wipe down your monitor or perhaps even dust out the inside of your computer after watching this, as I did.