The inevitable end result of our last 56 years

[Guest]

47 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Thanks W. Yes.

Chris, on issues of collapsing middle class, etc. that you cite--all true incidentally, and news flash, a lot of Americans who voted for Bernie Sanders, and quite a few of your reading audience here, are a bit more informed on this than you realize--have you read and what do you think of the work of economist Thomas Piketty who gives concrete proposals to remedy the economic things you name?

Roughly half of America's wealth today was not earned but inherited, and though I do not know specifics I imagine the situation may be somewhat similar in your UK. Piketty proposes "Inheritance for All" in which a stiff (but not totally confiscatory) inheritance tax on estates of over $100 million would go pass-through to a lump-sum grubstake to every citizen on their 21st birthday, with the amount adjusted annually based on how much is in the trust fund. A lot of economists have focused on wealth--assets--not income levels, as the most fundamental key to change of poverty mentality and bringing about a reality of economic security for all people going forward. There is no need to mystify with psychological self-help bromides as proposed solutions to poverty--simple policies that result in every person having their own grubstake, assets, will do that for real, say a lot of serious economists--the universalization of inherited wealth. What say you?

When you rail against "collectivism" as if universal health care coverage in Canada out of the tax base is on a continuum with the holocaust of N-azi Germany because both Canada and Hitler collected taxes = collectivism = slippery slope to totalitarianism = right-wing libertarian logic . . . and then cite shysters like Jordan Peterson instead of Naomi Klein or Ralph Nader or Bernie Sanders . . . you see, W. is right. I don't think you know what you are talking about. (For another view on Jordan Peterson see https://jacobinmag.com/2020/04/jordan-peterson-capitalism-postmodernism-ideology/.)

Here is a specific question. Earlier this year Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders introduced a proposal for a 2-3% wealth tax: 2% on wealth over $50 million and 3% on wealth over $1 billion. The money would go to childhood education, health care, and infrastructure (= jobs). It would directly and materially go to solutions to the economic issues affecting three hundred million Americans that you name. The specific question for you is: do you support or oppose this kind of proposal, and why? Please be specific.

"Mar. 1, 2021. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Bernie Sanders and other Democrats on Monday proposed a 2% annual tax on wealth over $50 million, rising to 3% for wealth over $1 billion. The Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act would aim to close the U.S. wealth gap, which has grown wider during the Covid pandemic. 

"A slew of Democrats on Capitol Hill--including progressives Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt.--on Monday propose a 3% total tax on wealth exceeding $1 billion. They also called for a lesser, 2% annual wealth tax on the net worth of households and trusts ranging from $50 million to $1 billion. 

"The Ultra-Millionaire Tax Act aims at reigning in a widening U.S. wealth gap, which has been exacerbated by the Covid pandemic.

"'The ultra-rich and powerful have rigged the rules in their favor so much that the top 0.1% pay a lower effective tax rate than the bottom 99%, and billionaire wealth is 40% higher than before the Covid crisis began,' Warren said Monday in a satement.

"About 100,000 Americans--or, fewer than 1 in 1,000 families--would be subject to a wealth tax in 2023, according to Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, economists at the University of Callfornia, Berkeley. The policy would raise at least $3 trillion over a decade, they found. Warren called for the tax revenues to be invested in child care and early education, K-12 education and infrastructure. (. . .)

"The bill likely faces significant obstacles in the Senate, where Democrats hold the slimmest of majorities."

(https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/01/elizabeth-warren-bernie-sanders-propose-3percent-wealth-tax-on-billionaires.html) 

Thanks for the reply, and taking time to think one through, Greg. 

You've come to me with an argument that has little or no relevance to the one that I am making, that is perhaps a misunderstanding. Your government and political system is rotten to the very core. You want to talk about economic hypothesis in view to making things better. Your essential problem is politicians serving the 0.01% and not the rest. You can put their taxes up, but, they'll still be running rackets which take your taxes and line the pockets of their friends or, acolytes. 

Just to give an example that is analogous to what I am describing above. Have you watched the Martin Scorcese film: "Goodfellas?" Do you remember the mob guys selling all of the restaurant owners stock out of the back door on the cheap, and sayings its all profit? They eventually torch the place, an insurance job. You are the restaurant owner, the difference is, you don't know it's going out of the back door. 

You're familiar with Smedley Butler's "War is a racket" I presume? You can see how using tax payers money, and putting it straight in the hands of big pharma follows exactly the same model, right? With this pandemic, you are royally throwing the baby out with the bathwater and accelerating the collapse of your nation. That's something that I am highlighting. 

It doesn't matter which system you have, if you have operators who are thinking about how to steal from the tax payer, you will be stolen from, that's a certainty. 

I presume "universalisation of inherited wealth" is self explanatory, without me googling?! I'll assume it is. If you make everyone put their wealth back into the system upon death, you know what will happen right? Every billionaire will give away their wealth before death, or you won't see most of it anyway and their offspring will mysteriously be very successful and acquire the same amount of wealth in their lives. Just as now, rules and laws are adhered to and applied to the poor and middle classes. They'll use loopholes and complex methods that you don't understand, to cheat you. Look at your presidents and my prime ministers, look at their net worth upon leaving office vs 20 years later. I live in an offshore centre, I see it every day, white collar crime. 

In summary, unless you clear the decks and reject these corrupt parties that are robbing you, you'll get more of the same unfortunately. 😞

PS
Almost forgot the collectivism part, would you like me to send some links over about how collectivism is used for malevolent purposes? Would you be willing to watch them with an open mind? I think you're looking at things on one level and I am making the point on another. I think you are misunderstanding me, or thinking that I am against healthcare for all, or something like that. 





 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

I nominate this post for the Education Forum's Projection-of-the-Year Award... 🤥

To clarify, Chris, you are misinterpreting my annoyance as "bitterness."

My general interest is in the truth-- facts, logic, and explanatory theories that are based on logical assessments of all of the facts.

People who eschew facts and logic usually annoy me, especially when they presume to lecture about subjects that they don't really understand.

Thank you, William. That's a much better reply, more controlled, it's just you missed all of the questions again. 🙂 
"Does not pay attention in class." 

A good lesson for you would be to understand the difference between opinion, and fact. That's a start. 

I do live in hope with you, because if a psychiatric patient can convince you of the JFKA conspiracy, then anything is possible. haha
 

[Jeff Carter]

The estimable National Security Archive has created a chronology to piece together the events of January 6, 2021 to highlight “Ongoing, Unresolved Discrepancies Between Official Testimony, Media Reporting, and Pentagon's Sparse Timeline.”

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/news/foia/2022-01-06/capitol-riot-chronology

[Matt Allison]

Yeah. Well, I personally can't wait for the televised hearings. I suggest everyone refresh their memories on how Watergate unraveled. Very instructive.

Oh, and I had almost forgotten how Trump falsely claimed on the 6th that Perdue's Georgia Senate race was stolen.

Trump is a sick man, a traitor, and belongs in a jumpsuit that matches his face make-up.

[Kirk Gallaway]

As you can see, Greg, to Chris  there is no point in addressing wealth inequality, his earlier comments involving this question were that if the rich were to face greater taxation, they'll just flee to another country, which is the typical corporate veiled threat. "If you don't treat,me right, I'll just leave". I'm sure that argument, has made more sense to the powerful in the U.K. They can always come here. But most of the wealthy people in the US want to stay here.

 

I think I might be able to ad some context here.

 

Things are pretty dire everywhere. There are people in all age groups  but I want address people their 30s and 40s who are having a very hard time getting by, In many cases they're saddled with great debt, student and otherwise and see no way out. If you're in your 20's you at least have the perennial optimism that things can and will get better. More recently retired baby boomers are scooping up second homes and driving up real estate prices for younger people who might have otherwise been  able to take a stake in the American dream. In some cases maybe some after many years of feeling they've been treading time and it appeared they might be starting to get ahead, they've been stopped in their tracks by the Covid Pandemic, and naturally being healthier and more resistant  object to the pandemic tying their hands behind their back in their desire to finally make progress.

 

In Washington, of course the U.S. major parties are controlled by very old people. There's been a younger push to succeed Nancy Pelosi for 4 years now. I think whatever advantages Pelosi could boast as to her experience at a critical juncture have now been shown as a blown opportunity. You'd hope some of these people would finally step aside, but unfortunately with the divided Republicans, that problem is much worse.

********

 

Chris: Thank's for you opinion, Greg. However, I think you've misunderstood me and that may be because you haven't read all that I have been saying, and you've taken something in isolation and chosen to allocate a meaning to it. My prerogative is to wake you guys up to what is right in front of your eyes, like a Dr telling you that you need to quit drinking booze, fatty foods or cigarettes. I thought perhaps you watching your lives disappearing down the plughole being a trigger for change. The implications of you guys not seeing truth, is that affects me. A

 

Chris criticizes Greg for not reading more of him. But in my experience through wading the voluminous amounts of Chris's opinion, with an amount of time, that I now consider generous, is that the overall content doesn't change. His writing, like Ben is so compulsively repetitive.

 

I think Chris's comments  are more telling about what's going on in Chris's life. I see Chris as a disillusioned corporate aspirant. Of that I make no judgment.

 

Chris: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." 

 

This was a line I was going to use concerning what I've gleaned from Chris's general philosophy but he did it for me. In fact he closed with it.

It's clear to Chris that any act of kindness or altruism, or thought for the greater good, including environmental concerns,  is a thought very desperately not wanted to be believed, but is rationalized as useless anyway. And Chris's buzzwords of "collectivism"are straight out of an Ayn Rand novel. Using a 40's phrase like that shows too much book learning and no practical experience.

 

Chris: I could probably write 300,000 words on this topic. Let me give you my message clearly, wake up, read the views of your opponents, understand their views, and then make a decisions as to whether they have merit.

"I could probably write 300,000 words on this topic. "

I'm sure Chris could, and with the same tone, which is why despite all his avowed marketing prowess and study of Bernay. His current ability to influence is zero. That is, at least here. I'm sure there's no shortage of conspiracy websites, where he may obtain more influence. I personally haven't found any clue that Chris understand the nature of the power struggle, because his initial aspirations and perhaps upbringing, were to be a big part of the power structure. 

 

And what is this?

 

Chris: I believe in a butterfly effect: the idea that a butterfly flaps its wings in the Amazon and creates a tremendous hurricane in Europe. The smallest action can have the most profound effect. Something you or I say can go around the world a thousand times over. I believe in Robert F. Kennedy's "Ripples of hope" that he describes in his famous speech in South Africa, that small ripples of hope from many directions can form a current that can sweep away even the mightiest walls of oppression. Give me a place to stand and a lever long enough, and I can move the world, said Archimedes. We too can move the world. We have to withdraw our consent.

 

And then immediately afterward

 

Chris: Beware a wolf in sheep's clothing."

 

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." 

 

To start in going from the metaphysical touchy feely that I assume was inspired by RFK Jr. and then to close with your usual right wing dogma show no unity in thought and purpose. It's as if you're trying to pander and be all things to not all people, but all the fringes.

 

Chris: I believe in a butterfly effect: the idea that a butterfly flaps its wings in the Amazon and creates a tremendous hurricane in Europe.

 

What kind of liberal pie in the sky hokum is that? This is exactly the type of fringe stuff  that the right wing rightfully accuses the left of. So  here we journey into metaphysics?  And practically, where does this lead? The last time we saw that kind of appeal to moderates by a right winger was GHWB's "1000 points of light". It would do absolutely nothing but bring on the conditions that Chris is anxious to foretell, as in statements such as this one to W.

 

Chris: "A civil war is coming to you, but you're not at all prepared. You will lose almost all the things you've worked for all your life!"

 

For Chris to tell us about the coming Civil War in America and know precisely how it will play out from nothing other than vigorous bias confirmation searches on the internet halfway around the world is so arrogant and presumptuous to us mere inhabitants of the US, and is very typical of both Chris and Ben and will always set  back any aspirations to be an "influencer".. What this tells me about Chris is that everything is going to crap and the only thing left to be salvaged  for Chris is  above all, to be proven right, and he glorifies himself as being on some divine mission, (just as con, Jordan Peterson)which can be showcased in the title of Chris's  newest thread. It's pretty transparent. In both cases of Chris and Ben, it's is the same message over and again, and I see as reflecting an even  greater  widespread futility abroad.

 

It's our responsibility to see it as a whole as Chris's personal struggle, but are we really to play into these appetites that so often appear in conspiracy threads, (Hey, I'm open to different label, if anyone would suggest it, but it's always seemed to me to be a silly sort of PC thing to think about among others who also subscribe to the JFKAC.)

 

As Greg has said, it's just a running drone of fear and hopelessness that plays right into the wishes of the power elites and the corporate state which I have found in some instances, Ben has aided as well.

 

As I've said before the only impingement, the only check  that the  multi national corporate state can experience is through the separate governments of the world. And that's through appropriate taxation and the attempted diminution or eradication at whatever level of money in politics.The only way that can happen is through a grass roots movement of populations who understand and recognize these present relationships (because as we've seen in recent years, a miss as good as a mile!), and act on them in their everyday actions and at the ballot box. Not "withdrawing your consent" to represent yourself.

 

 

Edited January 10, 2022 by Kirk Gallaway

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

Thank you, William. That's a much better reply, more controlled, it's just you missed all of the questions again. 🙂 
"Does not pay attention in class." 

A good lesson for you would be to understand the difference between opinion, and fact. That's a start. 

I do live in hope with you, because if a psychiatric patient can convince you of the JFKA conspiracy, then anything is possible. haha
 

Chris,

     If you are myopic enough to imagine that I don't know the difference between facts and opinions, I can't help you.

     You're a veritable poster child for the Dunning Kruger effect.

     And your idiotic forum posts denouncing "collectivism" read like cut-and-paste propaganda from one of our Koch-funded "misanthropic libertarian" stink tanks here in the U.S.  (And I'm sure there is no dearth of similar right wing, Tory institutions in the U.K.)

      Do you understand the fundamental philosophical conflicts between libertarian/deontological and utilitarian concepts of social ethics?

      Have you studied the works of philosophers like J.S. Mill, John Rawls, and Robert Nozick on these subjects?

      (BTW, I attended some of Nozick's lectures at Harvard back in the day.  He was a cousin of one of my old college roommates.)

      Have you studied the disastrous history of unregulated, laissez faire capitalism in Western Europe and the U.S. during the past 150 years?  The Gilded Age and the rise of the Progressive movement in the U.S.?  The Great Depression?   The "collectivist" economic theories of your own brilliant British economist John Maynard Keynes?

      Do you still believe, in 2022, that there is an "invisible hand" in unregulated, laissez faire capitalist economies to protect the public interest from predatory monopolies, in the absence of "collectivist" government regulations?

      If so, you get an "F" in philosophy, economics, and history-- as do many modern Republicans in the U.S.

P.S.  The "psychiatric patient" you disparagingly refer to (above) is a rather extraordinary gentleman-- a genius of sorts.  I can't say too much about the case, but his son was hired by a high level national security agency in the U.S. government after he successfully hacked computers in our military establishment in his teens.

[Denny Zartman]

@W. NiederhutI want to thank you for your contributions to this forum, and for your work in this thread in particular. You, @Matt Allison, @Kirk Gallaway and others have done outstanding jobs at "keeping them honest" and bringing rationality to the discussion.

It is greatly appreciated.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Chris,

     If you are myopic enough to imagine that I don't know the difference between facts and opinions, I can't help you.

     You're a veritable poster child for the Dunning Kruger effect.

     And your idiotic forum posts denouncing "collectivism" read like cut-and-paste propaganda from one of our Koch-funded "misanthropic libertarian" stink tanks here in the U.S.  (And I'm sure there is no dearth of similar right wing, Tory institutions in the U.K.)

      Do you understand the fundamental philosophical conflicts between libertarian/deontological and utilitarian concepts of social ethics?

      Have you studied the works of philosophers like J.S. Mill, John Rawls, and Robert Nozick on these subjects?

      (BTW, I attended some of Nozick's lectures at Harvard back in the day.  He was a cousin of one of my old college roommates.)

      Have you studied the disastrous history of unregulated, laissez faire capitalism in Western Europe and the U.S. during the past 150 years?  The Gilded Age and the rise of the Progressive movement in the U.S.?  The Great Depression?   The "collectivist" economic theories of your own brilliant British economist John Maynard Keynes?

      Do you still believe, in 2022, that there is an "invisible hand" in unregulated, laissez faire capitalist economies to protect the public interest from predatory monopolies, in the absence of "collectivist" government regulations?

      If so, you get an "F" in philosophy, economics, and history-- as do many modern Republicans in the U.S.

P.S.  The "psychiatric patient" you disparagingly refer to (above) is a rather extraordinary gentleman-- a genius of sorts.  I can't say too much about the case, but his son was hired by a high level national security agency in the U.S. government after he successfully hacked computers in our military establishment in his teens.

Myself and a few others have frequently wondered if you are "delusional" or "deceitful." I have even asked you the question directly, pretty much, and you declined to answer. It's pretty clear to me that you are in this "mass psychosis."

It's so funny how disconnected from reality you are, you ask me questions, yet you ignore my last 10 I asked you. I work on the "quid pro quo" system, and as you like latin phrases, because you think it distinguishes you from the average American, I am certain you understand that one. I am going to tell you a little home truth. There are much much smarter American's on this forum than you, who don't carry this level of pretence. 

You mention the Koch's, the same guys that did a pandemic simulation?  🙂 

Again, you default to "ad hominem" the thing you profess to hate. You're a walking contradiction, a hypocrite. Who are you really? You don't even know. You're the lyrebird, mimicking those around it, you have a crisis of identity in your own mind. 

Did you just use the arguments of the Michael Bolton clone in the Matt Damon film "Good Will Hunting?"
You're losing the plot and even after me pointing out that your emotions are out of control, here you are, back spewing them through words. Get a grip man, you're not a hormonal teenager, you're an adult. 

I am glad you value patient confidentiality, I almost spat my Bordeaux all over the keyboard reading your PS.
He must be extraordinary, because he convinced you that the JFKA was a conspiracy. I wonder what else he could convince you of? Who convinced you that 9/11 was a conspiracy? Another patient? Or, the paperboy?  

I thank you for the entertainment, it breaks up the monotony of more serious things. 




 

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

As you can see, Greg, to Chris  there is no point in addressing wealth inequality, his earlier comments involving this question were that if the rich were to face greater taxation , they'll just flee to another country, which is the typical corporate veiled threat. "If you don't treat,me right, I'll just leave". I'm sure that argument, has made more sense to the powerful in the U.K. They can always come here. But most of the wealthy people in the US want to stay here.

 

I think I might be able to ad some context here.

 

Things are pretty dire everywhere. There are people in all age groups  but I want address people their 30s and 40s who are having a very hard time getting by, In many cases they're saddled with great debt, student and otherwise and see no way out. If you're in your 20's you at least have the perennial optimism that things can and will get better. More recently retired baby boomers are scooping up second homes and driving up real estate prices for younger people who might have otherwise been  able to take a stake in the American dream. In some cases maybe some after many years of feeling they've been treading time and it appeared they might be starting to get ahead, they've been stopped in their tracks by the Covid Pandemic, and naturally being healthier and more resistant  object to the pandemic tying their hands behind their back in their desire to finally make progress.

 

In Washington, of course the U.S. major parties are controlled by very old people. There's been a younger push to succeed Nancy Pelosi for 4 years now. I think whatever advantages Pelosi could boast as to her experience at a critical juncture have now been shown as a blown opportunity. You'd hope some of these people would finally step aside, but unfortunately with the divided Republicans, that problem is much worse.

********

 

Chris: Thank's for you opinion, Greg. However, I think you've misunderstood me and that may be because you haven't read all that I have been saying, and you've taken something in isolation and chosen to allocate a meaning to it. My prerogative is to wake you guys up to what is right in front of your eyes, like a Dr telling you that you need to quit drinking booze, fatty foods or cigarettes. I thought perhaps you watching your lives disappearing down the plughole being a trigger for change. The implications of you guys not seeing truth, is that affects me. A

 

Chris criticizes Greg for not reading more of him. But in my experience through wading the voluminous amounts of Chris's opinion, with an amount of time, that I now consider generous, is that the overall content doesn't change. His writing, like Ben is so compulsively repetitive.

 

I think Chris's comments  are more telling about what's going on in Chris's life. I see Chris as a disillusioned corporate aspirant. Of that I make no judgment.

 

Chris: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." 

 

This was a line I was going to use concerning what I've gleaned from Chris's general philosophy but he did it for me. In fact he closed with it.

It's clear to Chris that any act of kindness or altruism, or thought for the greater good, including environmental concerns,  is a thought very desperately not wanted to be believed, but is useless anyway. And Chris's buzzwords of "collectivism"are straight out of an Ayn Rand novel. Using a 40's phrase like that shows too much book learning and no practical experience.

 

Chris: I could probably write 300,000 words on this topic. Let me give you my message clearly, wake up, read the views of your opponents, understand their views, and then make a decisions as to whether they have merit.

"I could probably write 300,000 words on this topic. "

I'm sure Chris could, and with the same tone, which is why despite all his avowed marketing prowess and study of Mornay. His current ability to influence is zero. That is, at least here. I'm sure there's no shortage of conspiracy websites, where he may obtain more influence. I personally haven't found any clue that Chris understand the nature of the power struggle, because his initial aspirations and perhaps upbringing, were to be a big part of the power structure. 

 

And what is this?

 

Chris: I believe in a butterfly effect: the idea that a butterfly flaps its wings in the Amazon and creates a tremendous hurricane in Europe. The smallest action can have the most profound effect. Something you or I say can go around the world a thousand times over. I believe in Robert F. Kennedy's "Ripples of hope" that he describes in his famous speech in South Africa, that small ripples of hope from many directions can form a current that can sweep away even the mightiest walls of oppression. Give me a place to stand and a lever long enough, and I can move the world, said Archimedes. We too can move the world. We have to withdraw our consent.

 

And then immediately afterward

 

Chris: Beware a wolf in sheep's clothing."

 

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." 

 

To start in going from the metaphysical touchy feely that I assume was inspired by RFK Jr. and then to close with your usual right wing dogma show no unity in thought and purpose. It's as if you're trying to pander and be all things to not all people, but all the fringes.

 

Chris: I believe in a butterfly effect: the idea that a butterfly flaps its wings in the Amazon and creates a tremendous hurricane in Europe.

 

What kind of liberal pie in the sky hokum is that? This is exactly the type of fringe stuff  that the right wing rightfully accuses the left of. So  here we journey into metaphysics?  And practically, where does this lead? The last time we saw that kind of appeal to moderates by a right winger was GHWB's "1000 points of light". It would do absolutely nothing but bring on the conditions that Chris is anxious to foretell, as in statements such as this one to W.

 

Chris: "A civil war is coming to you, but you're not at all prepared. You will lose almost all the things you've worked for all your life!"

 

For Chris to tell us about the coming Civil War in America and know precisely how it will play out from nothing other than vigorous bias confirmation searches on the internet halfway around the world is so arrogant and presumptuous to us mere inhabitants of the US, and is very typical of both Chris and Ben and will always set  back any aspirations to be an "influencer".. What this tells me about Chris is that everything is going to crap and the only thing left to be salvaged  for Chris is  above all, to be proven right, and he glorifies himself as being on some divine mission, (just as con, Jordan Peterson)which can be showcased in the title of Chris's  newest thread. It's pretty transparent. In both cases of Chris and Ben, it's is the same message over and again, and I see as reflecting an even  greater  widespread futility abroad.

 

It's our responsibility to see it as a whole as Chris's personal struggle, but are we really to play into these appetites that so often appear in conspiracy threads, (Hey, I'm open to different label, if anyone would suggest it, but it's always seemed to me to be a silly sort of PC thing to think about among others who also subscribe to the JFKAC.)

 

As Greg has said, it's just a running drone of fear and hopelessness that plays right into the wishes of the power elites and the corporate state which I have found in some instances, Ben has aided as well.

 

As I've said before the only impingement, the only check  that the  multi national corporate state can experience is through the separate governments of the world. And that's through appropriate taxation and the attempted diminution or eradication at whatever level of money in politics.The only way that can happen is through a grass roots movement of populations who understand and recognize these present relationships (because as we've seen in recent years, a miss as good as a mile!), and act on them in their everyday actions and at the ballot box. Not "withdrawing your consent" to represent yourself.

 

 

Kirk,

     This is an excellent, detailed post, and I hate to see it buried at the bottom of the page.  I think you posted this just moments before I submitted my post to Chris (above.)

Edited January 10, 2022 by W. Niederhut

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

As you can see, Greg, to Chris  there is no point in addressing wealth inequality, his earlier comments involving this question were that if the rich were to face greater taxation , they'll just flee to another country, which is the typical corporate veiled threat. "If you don't treat,me right, I'll just leave". I'm sure that argument, has made more sense to the powerful in the U.K. They can always come here. But most of the wealthy people in the US want to stay here.

 

I think I might be able to ad some context here.

 

Things are pretty dire everywhere. There are people in all age groups  but I want address people their 30s and 40s who are having a very hard time getting by, In many cases they're saddled with great debt, student and otherwise and see no way out. If you're in your 20's you at least have the perennial optimism that things can and will get better. More recently retired baby boomers are scooping up second homes and driving up real estate prices for younger people who might have otherwise been  able to take a stake in the American dream. In some cases maybe some after many years of feeling they've been treading time and it appeared they might be starting to get ahead, they've been stopped in their tracks by the Covid Pandemic, and naturally being healthier and more resistant  object to the pandemic tying their hands behind their back in their desire to finally make progress.

 

In Washington, of course the U.S. major parties are controlled by very old people. There's been a younger push to succeed Nancy Pelosi for 4 years now. I think whatever advantages Pelosi could boast as to her experience at a critical juncture have now been shown as a blown opportunity. You'd hope some of these people would finally step aside, but unfortunately with the divided Republicans, that problem is much worse.

********

 

Chris: Thank's for you opinion, Greg. However, I think you've misunderstood me and that may be because you haven't read all that I have been saying, and you've taken something in isolation and chosen to allocate a meaning to it. My prerogative is to wake you guys up to what is right in front of your eyes, like a Dr telling you that you need to quit drinking booze, fatty foods or cigarettes. I thought perhaps you watching your lives disappearing down the plughole being a trigger for change. The implications of you guys not seeing truth, is that affects me. A

 

Chris criticizes Greg for not reading more of him. But in my experience through wading the voluminous amounts of Chris's opinion, with an amount of time, that I now consider generous, is that the overall content doesn't change. His writing, like Ben is so compulsively repetitive.

 

I think Chris's comments  are more telling about what's going on in Chris's life. I see Chris as a disillusioned corporate aspirant. Of that I make no judgment.

 

Chris: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." 

 

This was a line I was going to use concerning what I've gleaned from Chris's general philosophy but he did it for me. In fact he closed with it.

It's clear to Chris that any act of kindness or altruism, or thought for the greater good, including environmental concerns,  is a thought very desperately not wanted to be believed, but is useless anyway. And Chris's buzzwords of "collectivism"are straight out of an Ayn Rand novel. Using a 40's phrase like that shows too much book learning and no practical experience.

 

Chris: I could probably write 300,000 words on this topic. Let me give you my message clearly, wake up, read the views of your opponents, understand their views, and then make a decisions as to whether they have merit.

"I could probably write 300,000 words on this topic. "

I'm sure Chris could, and with the same tone, which is why despite all his avowed marketing prowess and study of Mornay. His current ability to influence is zero. That is, at least here. I'm sure there's no shortage of conspiracy websites, where he may obtain more influence. I personally haven't found any clue that Chris understand the nature of the power struggle, because his initial aspirations and perhaps upbringing, were to be a big part of the power structure. 

 

And what is this?

 

Chris: I believe in a butterfly effect: the idea that a butterfly flaps its wings in the Amazon and creates a tremendous hurricane in Europe. The smallest action can have the most profound effect. Something you or I say can go around the world a thousand times over. I believe in Robert F. Kennedy's "Ripples of hope" that he describes in his famous speech in South Africa, that small ripples of hope from many directions can form a current that can sweep away even the mightiest walls of oppression. Give me a place to stand and a lever long enough, and I can move the world, said Archimedes. We too can move the world. We have to withdraw our consent.

 

And then immediately afterward

 

Chris: Beware a wolf in sheep's clothing."

 

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." 

 

To start in going from the metaphysical touchy feely that I assume was inspired by RFK Jr. and then to close with your usual right wing dogma show no unity in thought and purpose. It's as if you're trying to pander and be all things to not all people, but all the fringes.

 

Chris: I believe in a butterfly effect: the idea that a butterfly flaps its wings in the Amazon and creates a tremendous hurricane in Europe.

 

What kind of liberal pie in the sky hokum is that? This is exactly the type of fringe stuff  that the right wing rightfully accuses the left of. So  here we journey into metaphysics?  And practically, where does this lead? The last time we saw that kind of appeal to moderates by a right winger was GHWB's "1000 points of light". It would do absolutely nothing but bring on the conditions that Chris is anxious to foretell, as in statements such as this one to W.

 

Chris: "A civil war is coming to you, but you're not at all prepared. You will lose almost all the things you've worked for all your life!"

 

For Chris to tell us about the coming Civil War in America and know precisely how it will play out from nothing other than vigorous bias confirmation searches on the internet halfway around the world is so arrogant and presumptuous to us mere inhabitants of the US, and is very typical of both Chris and Ben and will always set  back any aspirations to be an "influencer".. What this tells me about Chris is that everything is going to crap and the only thing left to be salvaged  for Chris is  above all, to be proven right, and he glorifies himself as being on some divine mission, (just as con, Jordan Peterson)which can be showcased in the title of Chris's  newest thread. It's pretty transparent. In both cases of Chris and Ben, it's is the same message over and again, and I see as reflecting an even  greater  widespread futility abroad.

 

It's our responsibility to see it as a whole as Chris's personal struggle, but are we really to play into these appetites that so often appear in conspiracy threads, (Hey, I'm open to different label, if anyone would suggest it, but it's always seemed to me to be a silly sort of PC thing to think about among others who also subscribe to the JFKAC.)

 

As Greg has said, it's just a running drone of fear and hopelessness that plays right into the wishes of the power elites and the corporate state which I have found in some instances, Ben has aided as well.

 

As I've said before the only impingement, the only check  that the  multi national corporate state can experience is through the separate governments of the world. And that's through appropriate taxation and the attempted diminution or eradication at whatever level of money in politics.The only way that can happen is through a grass roots movement of populations who understand and recognize these present relationships (because as we've seen in recent years, a miss as good as a mile!), and act on them in their everyday actions and at the ballot box. Not "withdrawing your consent" to represent yourself.

 

 

Kirk, even though you and I are proven to not get on, and you have inevitable bias, I thank you for your analysis. On some level, it means you are endeavouring to engage your critical thinking skills, which are not evident in others here. You may not reach the right conclusion, but, activity is better than none. 

The problem is, if a civil war kicks off in the USA, as your buddies at CNN and Fox are so intent on stirring up. I won't be there to experience it. I'll watch on Sky News with tears running down my face, with equal sympathy for those on either side. You'll be equally victims of a system that doesn't care about people. 

Think about that. 


 

[Benjamin Cole]

9 hours ago, Paul Bacon said:

Do some reading Ben.  You can start with this:  https://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf.

The stuff can be sprayed or painted on.  If I had more time, I'd find a link to information about all the contracting work being done in the Towers in the many weeks prior to the incineration.

Paul B-

Thanks for your comment. 

I guess the "money shot" of the above study is this:

"Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material."

OK, I am a layman, so I have to look up "thermite":

"Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of metal powder and metal oxide. When ignited by heat or chemical reaction, thermite undergoes an exothermic reduction-oxidation reaction. Most varieties are not explosive, but can create brief bursts of heat and high temperature in a small area.--Wikipedia

I have to say, spraying enough thermite to down the WTC towers still strikes me as Mission Impossible. You mean thermite was sprayed around key locations of two separate 100+story towers, and one lesser tower, and no one noticed? 

In general, I prefer conspiracies with fewer, rather than larger, number of co-conspirators. For example, my take on the JFKA was that it was a very small operation, in terms of witting pre-event participants. 

However, I am keeping an open mind, and if others have different views than me on 9/11, that is fine. Regrettable though it may be, I am not omniscient. 

 

Edited January 10, 2022 by Benjamin Cole
typo

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Paul B-

Thanks for your comment. 

I guess the "money shot" of the above study is this:

"Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material."

OK, I am a layman, so I have to look up "thermite":

"Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of metal powder and metal oxide. When ignited by heat or chemical reaction, thermite undergoes an exothermic reduction-oxidation reaction. Most varieties are not explosive, but can create brief bursts of heat and high temperature in a small area.--Wikipedia

I have to say, spraying enough thermite to down the WTC towers still strikes me as Mission Impossible. You mean thermite was sprayed around key locations of two separate 100+story towers, and one lesser tower, and no one noticed? 

In general, I prefer conspiracies with fewer, rather than larger, number of co-conspirators. For example, my take on the JFKA was that it was a very small operation, in terms of witting pre-event participants. 

However, I am keeping an open mind, and if others have different views than me on 9/11, that is fine. Regrettable though it may be, I am not omniscient. 

 

I think despite us being grouped together in universal critique, we actually have many differences of opinion. However, we are capable of discussing these differences, without tearing each other to pieces. A wise man once remarked that the mark of intelligence was being able to entertain, and understand an opponents point of view without accepting it. 

[Ron Bulman]

2 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

As you can see, Greg, to Chris  there is no point in addressing wealth inequality, his earlier comments involving this question were that if the rich were to face greater taxation , they'll just flee to another country, which is the typical corporate veiled threat. "If you don't treat,me right, I'll just leave". I'm sure that argument, has made more sense to the powerful in the U.K. They can always come here. But most of the wealthy people in the US want to stay here.

 

I think I might be able to ad some context here.

 

Things are pretty dire everywhere. There are people in all age groups  but I want address people their 30s and 40s who are having a very hard time getting by, In many cases they're saddled with great debt, student and otherwise and see no way out. If you're in your 20's you at least have the perennial optimism that things can and will get better. More recently retired baby boomers are scooping up second homes and driving up real estate prices for younger people who might have otherwise been  able to take a stake in the American dream. In some cases maybe some after many years of feeling they've been treading time and it appeared they might be starting to get ahead, they've been stopped in their tracks by the Covid Pandemic, and naturally being healthier and more resistant  object to the pandemic tying their hands behind their back in their desire to finally make progress.

 

In Washington, of course the U.S. major parties are controlled by very old people. There's been a younger push to succeed Nancy Pelosi for 4 years now. I think whatever advantages Pelosi could boast as to her experience at a critical juncture have now been shown as a blown opportunity. You'd hope some of these people would finally step aside, but unfortunately with the divided Republicans, that problem is much worse.

********

 

Chris: Thank's for you opinion, Greg. However, I think you've misunderstood me and that may be because you haven't read all that I have been saying, and you've taken something in isolation and chosen to allocate a meaning to it. My prerogative is to wake you guys up to what is right in front of your eyes, like a Dr telling you that you need to quit drinking booze, fatty foods or cigarettes. I thought perhaps you watching your lives disappearing down the plughole being a trigger for change. The implications of you guys not seeing truth, is that affects me. A

 

Chris criticizes Greg for not reading more of him. But in my experience through wading the voluminous amounts of Chris's opinion, with an amount of time, that I now consider generous, is that the overall content doesn't change. His writing, like Ben is so compulsively repetitive.

 

I think Chris's comments  are more telling about what's going on in Chris's life. I see Chris as a disillusioned corporate aspirant. Of that I make no judgment.

 

Chris: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." 

 

This was a line I was going to use concerning what I've gleaned from Chris's general philosophy but he did it for me. In fact he closed with it.

It's clear to Chris that any act of kindness or altruism, or thought for the greater good, including environmental concerns,  is a thought very desperately not wanted to be believed, but is useless anyway. And Chris's buzzwords of "collectivism"are straight out of an Ayn Rand novel. Using a 40's phrase like that shows too much book learning and no practical experience.

 

Chris: I could probably write 300,000 words on this topic. Let me give you my message clearly, wake up, read the views of your opponents, understand their views, and then make a decisions as to whether they have merit.

"I could probably write 300,000 words on this topic. "

I'm sure Chris could, and with the same tone, which is why despite all his avowed marketing prowess and study of Mornay. His current ability to influence is zero. That is, at least here. I'm sure there's no shortage of conspiracy websites, where he may obtain more influence. I personally haven't found any clue that Chris understand the nature of the power struggle, because his initial aspirations and perhaps upbringing, were to be a big part of the power structure. 

 

And what is this?

 

Chris: I believe in a butterfly effect: the idea that a butterfly flaps its wings in the Amazon and creates a tremendous hurricane in Europe. The smallest action can have the most profound effect. Something you or I say can go around the world a thousand times over. I believe in Robert F. Kennedy's "Ripples of hope" that he describes in his famous speech in South Africa, that small ripples of hope from many directions can form a current that can sweep away even the mightiest walls of oppression. Give me a place to stand and a lever long enough, and I can move the world, said Archimedes. We too can move the world. We have to withdraw our consent.

 

And then immediately afterward

 

Chris: Beware a wolf in sheep's clothing."

 

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." 

 

To start in going from the metaphysical touchy feely that I assume was inspired by RFK Jr. and then to close with your usual right wing dogma show no unity in thought and purpose. It's as if you're trying to pander and be all things to not all people, but all the fringes.

 

Chris: I believe in a butterfly effect: the idea that a butterfly flaps its wings in the Amazon and creates a tremendous hurricane in Europe.

 

What kind of liberal pie in the sky hokum is that? This is exactly the type of fringe stuff  that the right wing rightfully accuses the left of. So  here we journey into metaphysics?  And practically, where does this lead? The last time we saw that kind of appeal to moderates by a right winger was GHWB's "1000 points of light". It would do absolutely nothing but bring on the conditions that Chris is anxious to foretell, as in statements such as this one to W.

 

Chris: "A civil war is coming to you, but you're not at all prepared. You will lose almost all the things you've worked for all your life!"

 

For Chris to tell us about the coming Civil War in America and know precisely how it will play out from nothing other than vigorous bias confirmation searches on the internet halfway around the world is so arrogant and presumptuous to us mere inhabitants of the US, and is very typical of both Chris and Ben and will always set  back any aspirations to be an "influencer".. What this tells me about Chris is that everything is going to crap and the only thing left to be salvaged  for Chris is  above all, to be proven right, and he glorifies himself as being on some divine mission, (just as con, Jordan Peterson)which can be showcased in the title of Chris's  newest thread. It's pretty transparent. In both cases of Chris and Ben, it's is the same message over and again, and I see as reflecting an even  greater  widespread futility abroad.

 

It's our responsibility to see it as a whole as Chris's personal struggle, but are we really to play into these appetites that so often appear in conspiracy threads, (Hey, I'm open to different label, if anyone would suggest it, but it's always seemed to me to be a silly sort of PC thing to think about among others who also subscribe to the JFKAC.)

 

As Greg has said, it's just a running drone of fear and hopelessness that plays right into the wishes of the power elites and the corporate state which I have found in some instances, Ben has aided as well.

 

As I've said before the only impingement, the only check  that the  multi national corporate state can experience is through the separate governments of the world. And that's through appropriate taxation and the attempted diminution or eradication at whatever level of money in politics.The only way that can happen is through a grass roots movement of populations who understand and recognize these present relationships (because as we've seen in recent years, a miss as good as a mile!), and act on them in their everyday actions and at the ballot box. Not "withdrawing your consent" to represent yourself.

 

 

I agree the butterfly concept may have its limits.  For some reason it makes me think of the "If" concept.  I think I first read of it in Walt Garrisons autobiography.  If a frog had wings it wouldn't bump its ass when it lands.  Which leads to Don Meredith's response to a reporter after a loss.  If, If, If.  If ifs and butts were candies and nut's we'd all have a Merry Christmas.  An in turn my own thoughts on this.  If I eat greasy enchiladas and beans, then later fart.  Might someone eventually smell it in the lands of my ancestors, say Scotland or Normandy?

[W. Niederhut]

2 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

Myself and a few others have frequently wondered if you are "delusional" or "deceitful." I have even asked you the question directly, pretty much, and you declined to answer. It's pretty clear to me that you are in this "mass psychosis."

It's so funny how disconnected from reality you are, you ask me questions, yet you ignore my last 10 I asked you. I work on the "quid pro quo" system, and as you like latin phrases, because you think it distinguishes you from the average American, I am certain you understand that one. I am going to tell you a little home truth. There are much much smarter American's on this forum than you, who don't carry this level of pretence. 

You mention the Koch's, the same guys that did a pandemic simulation?  🙂 

Again, you default to "ad hominem" the thing you profess to hate. You're a walking contradiction, a hypocrite. Who are you really? You don't even know. You're the lyrebird, mimicking those around it, you have a crisis of identity in your own mind. 

Did you just use the arguments of the Michael Bolton clone in the Matt Damon film "Good Will Hunting?"
You're losing the plot and even after me pointing out that your emotions are out of control, here you are, back spewing them through words. Get a grip man, you're not a hormonal teenager, you're an adult. 

I am glad you value patient confidentiality, I almost spat my Bordeaux all over the keyboard reading your PS.
He must be extraordinary, because he convinced you that the JFKA was a conspiracy. I wonder what else he could convince you of? Who convinced you that 9/11 was a conspiracy? Another patient? Or, the paperboy?  

I thank you for the entertainment, it breaks up the monotony of more serious things.
 

Chris,

     What a joke.   So you imagine that I'm "delusional" and "deceitful," eh?  Speaking of psychoses... 🤥

     We can add this to the list of your many erroneous beliefs and assumptions.

     Are you not aware that we use our real names and credentials here?

     You seem to be confusing membership in the Education Forum with anonymous troglodyte forums on the internet.

     

      And let me reality test with you about another one of your erroneous beliefs, mentioned above.

      I started a thread here a few years ago-- around the time that Fred Litwin published, I Was a Teenage Conspiracy Freak-- entitled, I Was a Teenage Warren Commission Report Dupe.

      If you go back and study my comments on that thread, you will realize that I saw a patient, several years ago, who was obsessed with a belief that JFK had been assassinated by people in the U.S. government and military industrial complex.  I had never really studied the subject in any depth, and I was trying to determine whether he was, in fact, delusional. So, I began to read some books on the subject, and I also watched a DVD of Oliver Stone's 1992 film, JFK.

     In the course of studying the subject, I began to realize that my patient was not delusional-- i.e., that his beliefs about JFK's murder were, evidently, based on the suppressed evidence in the case.

     In other words, my patient didn't convince me that JFK was assassinated by government conspirators.  I was convinced by my own investigation of the subject.

    The same thing applies to the 9/11 case.  I did a great deal of research on the subject, and I've posted some scholarly references on the subject here over the years, by Laurent Guyenot and others -- most of which were listed in Ron Unz's recent detailed American Pravda review article on the subject.  Do you know who Ron Unz is?

https://www.unz.com/runz/seeking-9-11-truth-after-twenty-years/

     No need to spit the Bordeaux on your keyboard on my account.  Save your spittle for the anonymous troglodyte forums.

Edited January 10, 2022 by W. Niederhut

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Chris,

     What a joke.   So you imagine that I'm "delusional" and "deceitful," eh?  Speaking of psychoses... 🤥

     We can add this to the list of your many erroneous beliefs and assumptions.

     Are you not aware that we use our real names and credentials here?

     You seem to be confusing membership in the Education Forum with anonymous xxxxx forums on the internet.

     

      And let me reality test with you about another one of your erroneous beliefs, mentioned above.

      I started a thread here a few years ago-- around the time that Fred Litwin published, I Was a Teenage Conspiracy Freak-- entitled, I Was a Teenage Warren Commission Report Dupe.

      If you go back and study my comments on that thread, you will realize that I saw a patient, several years ago, who was obsessed with a belief that JFK had been assassinated by people in the U.S. government and military industrial complex.  I had never really studied the subject in any depth, and I was trying to determine whether he was, in fact, delusional. So, I began to read some books on the subject, and I also watched a DVD of Oliver Stone's 1992 film, JFK.

     In the course of studying the subject, I began to realize that my patient was not delusional-- i.e., that his beliefs about JFK's murder were, evidently, based on the suppressed evidence in the case.

     In other words, my patient didn't convince me that JFK was assassinated by government conspirators.  I was convinced by my own investigation of the subject.

    The same thing applies to the 9/11 case.  I did a great deal of research on the subject, and I've posted some scholarly references on the subject here over the years, by Laurent Guyenot and others -- most of which were listed in Ron Unz's recent detailed American Pravda review article on the subject.  Do you know who Ron Unz is?

https://www.unz.com/runz/seeking-9-11-truth-after-twenty-years/

     No need to spit the Bordeaux on your keyboard on my account.  Save your spittle for the xxxxx forums.

You know what the best thing is about this whole scenario is right? You're trying to justify your position. You're scrambling in front of your audience.  It makes you the weak, and me the strong. I didn't tell my brother about the forum, but I was in conversation with him tonight, he found it all with a few strokes of google, he was creasing up. He was laughing at you. Him and I have had many exchanges, and unlike him, you have fallen for rather elementary tactics. You're on a hook. and you only get off that hook, if I let you off, remember that. 

Do we all use our real names and credentials here?  🙂
If you want to make that point, what is your vulnerability vs mine, I am the PR expert, remember that. You've been outsmarted to this point, but, how bad can it get? I would be remiss if I didn't plan every stage of a conflict. You're a dullard. 

If you want to put your faith in the "dunning Kruger" effect, knock yourself out. 

The truth is, you've been outflanked in every stage of this conflict. You're always gonna be the guy who got convinced that the JFKA was a conspiracy, by a psychiatric patient. The patient who came to you for help, and he helped you. That is special isn't it? 


You're a fraud.