Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
March 28, 2019

Open Thread 2019-17

News & views ...

Posted by b on March 28, 2019 at 18:24 UTC | Permalink

« previous page

EU plan to fit cars with speed limiters could be UNSAFE: AA issues warning over plan to fit all new cars with technology that will force you to stick to EVERY speed limit from 2022

If this had been in place 5 years ago I would have been killed in a head on collision with a Police car that was overtaking and so on my side of the road, luckily I hit the accelerator and managed to get passed the trees lining my side of the road and onto a grass verge with a few seconds to spare.

Posted by: TJ | Mar 29 2019 21:33 utc | 101

Grieved @54

The banking video was excellent.
The Finance Curse.

Posted by: arby | Mar 29 2019 22:37 utc | 102

Here we go! More April Syria chemical nonsense, year 3. An annual franchise of worsening quality. Don't expect this to lead to nuclear war. Do expect bloviations by neocons, media, and CIA socialists who at once say that this necessitates the removal of Assad even as these same people say that there have been tens or hundreds of chemical attacks (so why would this one change the moral situation?). Yawn.

Posted by: Blooming Barricade | Mar 29 2019 22:52 utc | 103

@mourning_dove 35

Thanks for the links. I read GR regularly, and in fact have read the cited article by Rappoport several times; it is indispensible. I'm with you there.

@xLemming 36

Thanks for the welcome; well met, in return. And thanks also for the links to Jim Stone, whom I had not yet read. Now I have, and I think he nailed it on this one. Both the CCh mosques are repurposed buildings, and thus the direction of Mecca will not line up with the walls. Yet, the prayer carpet lines up exactly with the walls, and thus those praying would not be facing Mecca, and that doesn't happen. As Stone shows, a mosque that occupies a repurposed building will have the prayer carpet at some kind of oblique angle to the walls, ensuring that the faithful face Mecca when praying. Also, the lack of shoes at the door is glaring. Furthermore, he makes the point that Muslims pray only when the Imam leads them in prayer, and that can't happen when they can't see him, which is what would happen in all the side rooms pictured in the video, not to mention the hallway. So, without even needing to look further, the interior shown in the banned video is not an actual mosque, and hence the official story reeks.

@francesca 56, 57

I believe that you are, perhaps unwittingly, using a straw man fallacy here, not to mention at least one non sequitur, and this, sadly, seems to be in the majority in NZ now.

First, the fact that CCh may or may not be "tight knit" is irrelevant to the situation. It is also home to a well-researched and tightly knit skinhead community (if that's the right word for it), yet that fact seems to escape mention as well. That's because both facts, however true, are not relevant to the topic.

Next, the gun laws were extensively changed after Aramoana, and I'll leave it to you to look that up. A proof of this claim can be supplied, if needed.

Then, how was it possible to evaluate, in such a vanishingly small time, what was the cross-party consensus on gun laws, not to mention public opinion? I use past tense here for obvious reasons.

Then, the police drill did not involve only rural cops: that week saw the elite among NZ and Australian sharpshooters attending a convention of sorts, right there in CCh. Thus, the highest possible concentration of professional marksmen was present in the city on that day.

It is not true that only those parts of websites that shared the video were banned; entire sites were banned.

If you "logged into" zerohedge (whatever that means: one doesn't usually log into such a site but merely "visits") without problems, then the DNS used by your ISP is not being included by the blanket ban, which I find unusual but possible, since an ISP could be using something like DNScrypt, to maintain some kind of control for itself. Certainly, all the major ISPs in NZ have joined in the ban, and one can verify this independently.

Now, here's a real canard, a non sequitur that also functions as a classic straw man: "Here in NZ we don't view guns and the means for killing other people as a human right."

To respond to this last, we should note that nowhere on earth is the "means for killing people" viewed as a "human right". Nowhere. All such measures are justified in the name of defense, no matter how hypocritical. In fact, the nature of the false flag requires exactly this. So, for you to make such a statement reveals that you are attempting to rebuke any who disagree, because you see yourself responding to arguments that you think are justifying slaughter when nothing could be further from the truth. That's the straw man: exaggerate an argument to make it easier to attack. Of course, that completely invalidates your argument.

Also, as already mentioned by mourning_dove in 60, the fact that a conference of orthopaedic surgeons happened to be present just at the time of the CCh quakes, then suggesting that this "just couldn't be a coincidence", with the implication that therefore all who doubt coincidence are in error, is a specious statement. One would have thought it obvious that an earthquake, of all things, really is a coincidence, as opposed to manmade events.

The fact that Tarrant is still, we're told, alive means nothing; one of the CCh shooter's inspirations was the Norwegian Brevik, who, as far as we know, is still alive. Oswald too was left to live, until he threatened to squeal, which is when Jack Rubenstein was dispatched to scratch that itch. What about all Tarrant's travels abroad, similar to Oswald's?

Finally, there is the fact that the intel agencies are not incompetent. White supremacist groups have long been infiltrated, and this is true and well known throughout the Western world. It seems highly likely (same weight of evidence as cited in the Skripal hoax) that some kind of collusion has occurred, much as we might wish otherwise.

NZ was never innocent, and thus has no innocence to lose. Instead, it is highly likely(!) that many of its people are gullible.

Posted by: Theophrastus | Mar 29 2019 23:19 utc | 104

Here we f**ing go! Guess the Syria 3.0 comes at a great time for these types to attack Glenn Greenwald, Max Blumenthal, Mike Tracey, Aaron Mate as "red-brown" again. This is just old hat, very disappointed at the level of recycled smears and claims

Posted by: Blooming Barricade | Mar 29 2019 23:30 utc | 105

The name on the theatrical light falling from the sky near Jim Carrey is ‘Russiagate’.
Time to wake up folks - ‘mainstream media reality is a real life ‘Truman Show’.

Posted by: PJB | Mar 30 2019 0:17 utc | 106

@105 Theo... well said!

Posted by: xLemming | Mar 30 2019 0:46 utc | 107

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Mar 29, 2019 10:12:58 AM | 85

FYI, Chancellor of Exchequer and Lord Chancellor are two totally different roles. The first as you say is the Finance Minister, the second is very different, so I'll leave it to Wikipedia:

The Lord Chancellor, formally the Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain, is the highest ranking among those Great Officers of State which are appointed regularly in the United Kingdom, nominally outranking even the Prime Minister. The Lord Chancellor is outranked only by the Lord High Steward, another Great Officer of State, who is appointed only for the day of coronations. The Lord Chancellor is appointed by the Sovereign on the advice of the Prime Minister. Prior to the Union there were separate Lord Chancellors for England and Wales, for Scotland and for Ireland.

The Lord Chancellor is a member of the Cabinet and, by law, is responsible for the efficient functioning and independence of the courts. In 2007, there were a number of changes to the legal system and to the office of the Lord Chancellor. Formerly, the Lord Chancellor was also the presiding officer of the House of Lords, the head of the judiciary in England and Wales and the presiding judge of the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice, but the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 transferred these roles to the Lord Speaker, the Lord Chief Justice and the Chancellor of the High Court respectively.

He used to have a role in deciding if new plays could be performed in theatres.

During the 2010, much was made of the United Kingdom being bankrupt, which was how the media and some "white van men" described the size of the National Debt. The UK wasn't really bankrupt but nobody from the Labour Party was prepared to stick his head above the parapet and say this, not even the former Chancellor of Exchequer who had socialised the private banks losses. I suspect this was a major reason that Labour lost that election.

Posted by: Ghost Ship | Mar 30 2019 2:32 utc | 108

@108 xLemming


@56 francesca

One more comment. You say, "Please get over it, The CHCH mosque massacre was for real, and its going to take a long time to heal from it."

This is yet another straw man. No one is questioning that people were killed. No one has said anything about healing time. I actually agree with you there, whether you believe it or not.

You are, however, using this statement in an attempt to use the emotional impact of the event to negate my argument, which quite clearly makes the case that The Official Story has very large holes in it. This particular straw man, incidentally, was used against those who doubted that Oswald had anything to do with JFK's murder.

Needless to say (or, perhaps there is a need?), the emotional impact is being exploited, right now, by the current Justice Minister (Andrew Little) to curtail free speech.

This is the same Little who, as head of the EPMU (a labour union), was instrumental is the cover-up of the Pike River disaster.

Posted by: Theophrastus | Mar 30 2019 3:47 utc | 109

What to make of this:

Trump wrecked summit with Kim by suggesting N. Korea give all its nukes to US – report

US President Donald Trump reportedly proposed that North Korea transfer all its nuclear weapons to the US, a denuclearization template borrowed from Libya before the NATO intervention and brutal murder of its leader.

This stinks of that imbecile Bolton. Only such a profoundly arrogant and stupid person like Bolton could come up with such a pathetic approach. As to why Trump ran with it, maybe he's as arrogant and stupid as Bolton or perhaps it's theatre for the benefit of the Washington Borg.

Trump's biggest problem with signing a peace treaty with North Korea is not the North Koreans, South Koreans, Chinese, Russians, Japanese or North Macedonians but his domestic audience. There are those who lost loved ones in the Korean War who will not wish to see that they died in vain by the United States signing a peace treaty with the undefeated Communists in North Korea. Then there are the Washington Borg who will oppose anything that smells of peace and Exceptionalist liberals (predominantly Clintonists) who believe that the United States should somehow get more from an undefeated North Korea than just a peace treat. Perhaps to convince this constituency that a peace treaty and normalized relations with North Korea are all that are possible with the still undefeated North Korean, Trump has to start out with the maximalist approach and slowly walk it back to what is a pretty minimalist approach. Time will tell meanwhile, the collapse of the Russia-gate scandal has bought him more time and goodwill.

Posted by: Ghost Ship | Mar 30 2019 14:21 utc | 110

>>>>> Theophrastus | Mar 29, 2019 11:47:37 PM | 110

The Official Story has very large holes in it.

What holes are those?

That the local equivalent of a SWAT team was exercising nearby. Christchurch is by far the largest city on the South Island of New Zealand and probably the only one which can afford a specialized SWAT team. Christchurch is also located fairly close to the geographic and demographic centre of the South Island, so if there is only one specialized SWAT team on the South Island, it makes sense to locate it in Christchurch. With a specialist SWAT, a lot of their time is spent exercising so it's hardly surprising that they might be conducting an exercise at the time something like this shooting kicked of. Furthermore, Christchurch stretches about ten miles, north-to-south and about the same east-to-west, with the mosque being just over a mile from the CBD, so it's hardly surprising that the specialist SWAT team might be conducting an exercise a few miles away.

BTW, if it had been a IC conspiracy, don't you think they would have used the SWAT team to make the arrest and killed the shooter to cover up the conspiracy rather than the country police from out of town who actually made the arrest.

Finally, if you believe there was a conspiracy, you must have a good reason for why it was carried. Forget about the attack on Gaza that happened at the same time, the Israelis have no qualms about killing Palestinians and they don't give a shit about what the rest of the world thinks about them massacring Palestinians. The only outsiders the Israelis are bothered about is the Washington Borg and they're always "on board" when it comes to the Israelis massacring Palestinians. What struck me when this happened was that the front page of The Guardian website had articles about the massacre in Gaza and the massacre in Christchurch next to one another. However the article about Gaza quickly disappeared down the memory hole as such articles almost always do.

Posted by: Ghost Ship | Mar 30 2019 14:50 utc | 111

I read this article and I thought what if it came true because Ukrainian voters wrote his name on their ballot sheets.

BTW, yet another example of the Russian government interfering in western democracies. Second example I've seen in a week of RT.COM mocking western democratic institutions. Someone should tell Rachel Maddow, 'cos she's stupid enough to believe this.

Posted by: Ghost Ship | Mar 30 2019 14:59 utc | 112

@99 denk.. i blame canucks for that just as much... we have a lot in common with the people of the usa - for good and bad..

Posted by: james | Mar 30 2019 15:25 utc | 113

The only commenters to nyt articles are zionists and the goyim.

Posted by: dahoit | Mar 30 2019 15:37 utc | 114

Someone who misused link tags incorrectly using an endless name for a link or someone who didn't use link tags for a long link wrecked the thread formatting making it imossible for everyone else to follow or comment. Thanks! NOT.

Posted by: Circe | Mar 30 2019 16:08 utc | 115

Here is a companion piece to karlof1’s post 10 on ‘migrants.’ Heart-rending.

a comment:

I volunteered at Dilley for a month, when Obama was president. The conditions were exactly the same ..

I believe it. Ex, on imprisonment and deportation.

A thorough comparison is beyond the scope of a short post, mostly because there are some very fudged dubious + twisted ‘facts’ out there which would have to be debunked. A 40 page essay might do it… Also, conditions change - 2018 is not 2008.

US procedure / actions towards ‘illegal’ immigrants (refugees, asylum seekers, etc.) is absolutely horrifying, no matter who is Prez, and who is/was the most sadistic and murderous I leave open for diligent future historians.

The fury against Trump is not just the wailing of sore-looser Dem ladies in pink hats. Under Obama, it was possible, for those little aware of econo-politics, to continue to believe in the Beacon on the Hill, that the US, despite some perhaps temp ‘difficulties’ (recession, homelessness, no health care, evil dictators like Assad, etc.) was in a forward movement, “on track” is the expression, that technology would solve problems, racism was on its way out, etc.

Such beliefs were bolstered by the acceptance of Obama internationally, upholding the old order. As the media steer the narrative, criticism was held back, damped down / never given a grip. (The horrors of the prisons for immigrants was very well known, there are even documentaries about it. I just tried to link one, no soap, gone. Recall as well Obama promised to close Gitmo.. )

Under Trump, the US as ‘beacon’ or ‘fair, just, valiant’ became difficult to uphold internationally, as anti-Trumpers sought to lay many things horrifying in the USA as due to Trump, sincerely and naively by many, imho. To leap forward, the pretend shadow-play of Dem-Rep opposition (a totally corrupt fake duopoly run by oligarchs behind the scenes) is revealed in increments. Some version of the gloves coming off.

den lille abe 74, hope you are doing ok

Posted by: Noirette | Mar 30 2019 16:11 utc | 116

@ 44 bevin
Canadian intelligence agencies have identified persistent foreign state-backed cyber campaigns
Damn CIA. They were supposed to be more discrete.

Posted by: jrkrideau | Mar 30 2019 17:12 utc | 117

So I'll post this
Link and am formatting my
comment to make it easy
to read. The IDF are
planning an all out invasion
of Gaza for after the elections,
i.e. end of May, to stomp out Gaza's
Great March of Return. Continuing
Gaza Final Solution and Zionist logic,
as crushing resistance to Zionism was all
planned early on. Zionists figure why kill
only protesters when you can kill
them while they're still babies, in
their mother's womb, or kill mothers
before the conceive?
Oh, and in between
massacres, why not subject them to collective
deprivation so they stop conceiving?

Idf plans Gaza invasion in May

Posted by: Circe | Mar 30 2019 17:19 utc | 118


Zionists are highly disenchanted with Trudeau refusing to lock step with Trump on Jerusalem, Golan and other anti-Palestinian shet Trump pulled, so-oh, how do you know it's not Zionists i.e. Mossad?
There is an obvious campaign to tar and feather Trudeau like there is in Britain against Jeremy Corbyn. Trudeau's Conservative opponent is a Zionist purist; ready, waiting in the wings to be installed. Need I say more?

Same goes for Brazil. Bolsanaro is a Zionist purist. Venezuela might get one too. Guaido already proclaimed loyalty to Zionism.

It's happening everywhere.

Posted by: Circe | Mar 30 2019 17:34 utc | 119

Circe, who’s the Canadian Zionist ? I’m Canadian, so of course I’m curious, but out of touch with our politics. Also, do you know any decent candidates for our next elections ? Thank you.

Posted by: Featherless | Mar 30 2019 18:51 utc | 120

@112 ghost ship

Have you not read my previous posts @26 and @105? I have very clearly stated what are some of the rather large holes in the official story. The most glaring is the fact that photos from the banned video clearly reveal the interior of a building that is not a mosque. Read @105 first.

This suggests a reason why a lugubrious attempt was made to scrub the video.

Furthermore, the burden of proof is not on me to prove that the official story is false: it is up to the Authorities to prove that their claim is true. Those of us capable of empirical reasoning are free to doubt, and it is up to the stated claimants (i.e. the authorities in charge of the official story) to answer those doubts. That they are doing the exact opposite, namely suppressing any dissent (exactly what you are doing), is highly suspect.

For the record, your attempted rebuttal lists three points.

1. "That the local equivalent of a SWAT team was exercising nearby."

This is not what I said. I said, "that week saw the elite among NZ and Australian sharpshooters attending a convention of sorts, right there in CCh. Thus, the highest possible concentration of professional marksmen was present in the city on that day."

This is quite a big difference from a "local SWAT team." SWAT, by the way, is not an acronym used in NZ; it is called the Armed Offender Response Team, down here. Thus, you have employed a straw man: alter my statement to make it easier to attack. Result: your argument is invalid, and you lose.

2. "BTW, if it had been a IC conspiracy, don't you think they would have used the SWAT team to make the arrest and killed the shooter to cover up the conspiracy..."

I answered this in post @105. And, as I've stated above, it is up to the stated claim to prove itself against all doubt by inviting skeptical scrutiny, whereas the NZ authorities are doing the opposite. You are here attempting to reverse the burden of proof onto he who is questioning the claim. Result: invalid argument, and again you lose.

3. "Finally, if you believe there was a conspiracy, you must have a good reason for why it was carried out."

I explicitly avoided mention of conspiracy. I have exactly stated that the official story has holes in it, and these holes are not only not being investigated but any inquiry into them is actively suppressed. Again, one does not need to present an alternative scenario in order to doubt a presented story. In fact, it is a capital mistake to hypothesise before all evidence has been gathered and analysed; it biases the judgment. I am not claiming conspiracy; I am expressing doubts about the official story. You have employed a straw man here, in that you make the erroneous claim that I have a conspiracy theory, and then you proceed to attack that straw man, i.e., what you think that theory might be. Result: invalid argument, and you lose, yet again.

Please also note that the term "conspiracy theory" was invented by Allen Dulles to discredit skepticism over the conclusions of the Warren Commission. It is healthier to avoid the use of concepts made by such a source.

It would be best to learn about what constitutes a sound argument; two good sources are "Attacking Faulty Reasoning" by T E Damer, or "Understanding Arguments" by Fogelin and Sinnot-Armstrong.

If you wish to debate with me, I shall hold you to sound arguments; any fallacies, such as ad hominem, straw man, false dichotomy, bandwagon, or non sequitur, will be exposed.

Posted by: Theophrastus | Mar 30 2019 23:41 utc | 121

I can dig it ;1

Posted by: Featherless | Mar 31 2019 2:49 utc | 122

Halfway down this article, or maybe a bit farther on, there's a mention of a public split in Random Guaido's Voluntad Popular/Popular Will party. Has anyone seen another story mentioning this?

Posted by: John Anthony La Pietra | Mar 31 2019 3:33 utc | 123

And then there's *this* report....

Posted by: John Anthony La Pietra | Mar 31 2019 3:41 utc | 124

And for featherless @121, I know a decent fellow who's a candidate in Alberta....

Posted by: John Anthony La Pietra | Mar 31 2019 4:08 utc | 125

Thank you John Anthony. But I have no facebook account (by choice). Who’s the dude ? I’m in Quebec. I dont even remember when federal elections are.

Posted by: Featherless | Mar 31 2019 4:59 utc | 126

HEY : Ukrainian Elections tomorrow ! First vote to bring it down to 2 candidates. 3 main players : Zelensky the actor, frontrunner, Petro aka Porky the candy oligarch, and Julia “fancy braids gas princess” Timoshenko.

Posted by: Featherless | Mar 31 2019 5:08 utc | 127

Zelensky’s patron is the TV oligarch Kholmoisky. What are THIS GUY’s wants ???

If I’ve understood properly, Zelensky is Pro peace, between Ukraine and Russia, being a speaker of both, and possibly answering to the demographic demand to make peace not war. Dunno. Kholmoisky’s interests ? What are they ???

Posted by: Featherless | Mar 31 2019 5:14 utc | 128

According to a national poll, 51% of Ukrainians would rather eat 6 kg of dirt rather than continue to have Poroshenko as President, yet most feel there’ll be corruption in counting the ballots, and Petroshenko will fraudulently win.

Posted by: Featherless | Mar 31 2019 5:30 utc | 129

Sorry, Featherless @127; here's a Weblink for you. The candidate's name is Chris Alders and he's running in the Edmonton-City Centre riding in the Alberta provincial general election -- which, if Wikipedia is to be trusted, will be April 16.

Posted by: John Anthony La Pietra | Mar 31 2019 6:18 utc | 130

>>>> Theophrastus | Mar 30, 2019 7:41:11 PM | 122@112 ghost ship

Have you not read my previous posts @26 and @105?

No, and I don't intend to because they're not worth wasting more time on, but I will address some of the statements in your reply.

The most glaring is the fact that photos from the banned video......

The video is not banned except in New Zealand and can still be found on the Internet. When I went looking for it, it took me less than five minutes to find it using Google. I have viewed it over a VPN to a server in New Zealand which suggests to me the NZ authorities haven't been totally successful in blocking it.

.....clearly reveal the interior of a building that is not a mosque.

If you watch the video you'll quite clearly see that it is a mosque. The building is purpose built not a re-purposed building. If you look at it on Google Maps, you'll see that it's not square with the road in front but built at an angle to it, and if you know how to use Google Earth, you should see that it's aligned with Mecca.

As for your knowlege of mosques, it seems lacking.

The simplest mosque would be a prayer room with a wall marked with a “mihrab” – a niche indicating the direction of Mecca, which Muslims should face when praying.

Yes, the Al Noor Mosque on Deans Avenue in Christchurch has those.

A typical mosque also includes a minaret, a dome and a place to wash before prayers.

The mosque has a minaret and dome but the mosque's leaders admit it has no facilities for wudu. Shoes are left outside.

This suggests a reason why a lugubrious attempt was made to scrub the video.

What looked or sounded sad and dismal about the NZ authorities failed attempt to supress the video.

Furthermore, the burden of proof is not on me to prove that the official story is false

No, the burden on proof is on you to show that the claims you make about what happened are true, and what I've checked so far shows that the "facts" you rely on are false.

it is up to the Authorities to prove that their claim is true.

They only have to do that for reasonable people, not conspiracy theorists.

Those of us capable of empirical reasoning are free to doubt.....

From what I've looked at so far, I doubt you understand what "empirical reasoning" is.

....., and it is up to the stated claimants (i.e. the authorities in charge of the official story) to answer those doubts.

As I made clear above, they only have to meet the needs of a reasonable person which most conspiracy theorists are not.

That they are doing the exact opposite, namely suppressing any highly suspect.

Have you had a visit from Special Branch or whatever the local equivalent is called yet?

(exactly what you are doing),

No, what I have done is contradict the false facts you rely on to present your case. If you believe that is "suppressing any dissent" then tough.

Please also note that the term "conspiracy theory" was invented by Allen Dulles to discredit skepticism over the conclusions of the Warren Commission. It is healthier to avoid the use of concepts made by such a source.

There are conspiracy theorists and conspiracy theorists. Those who come up with theories about real conspiracies and those who come up with theories about non-existant conspiracies. I respect and listen to the former, the latter not so much. You seem to fall into the latter based on the "facts" you have presented.

It would be best to learn about what constitutes a sound argument; two good sources are "Attacking Faulty Reasoning" by T E Damer, or "Understanding Arguments" by Fogelin and Sinnot-Armstrong.

Sound arguments are built on sound facts, and the "facts" you have presented are anything but sound.

If you wish to debate with me, I shall hold you to sound arguments; any fallacies, such as ad hominem, straw man, false dichotomy, bandwagon, or non sequitur, will be exposed.

That was not a debate, it was just pointing out that what you presented as evidence was not true. Actually, I now have little wish to debate with given how much you rely on false information and how you seem not to have moved on from Debating 101. Personally, I think et tu quoque, is a perfectly valid tool in any discussion covering politics.

Posted by: Ghost Ship | Mar 31 2019 12:58 utc | 131

It's not a good idea to start a comment by saying a conversation they're part of is not worth wasting time on, at least not if that person wants their own comment to be read.

Posted by: Sunny Runny Burger | Mar 31 2019 15:34 utc | 132

Sunny@133 I completely agree

Ghost Ship@132 It is pretty ridiculous to attack someone's argument when you can't be bothered to actually read their comments.

Theophrastus- You may have read this already, but I thought of your initial comment when I came across it.

Posted by: mourning dove | Mar 31 2019 17:20 utc | 133

@132 GS

Kind of poor form there sir, but I won't pile on, as others have already pointed that out...

I assume (wrongly?) that the majority of folks at MoA are here because the "official" narratives, by various gov'ts and media, don't jibe with the facts, as we have come to know them. We are like mathematicians who see plot points that most others don't, won't or can't see, and we fit our "curves" to match those points. Others have less to work with & so base their conclusions on what little they "see"; and, as a result, those conclusions are false. We, on the other hand, who benefit from the works of b and others, and even colleagues here, can draw our conclusions based on more data.

And that's how it is with supposed "conspiracy theories". And especially in matters of gov't/media malfeasance, those "theories" are invariably proven as fact, either by admission, by the guilty parties or by rock-solid logic. And those who once mocked are now the ones espousing the true falsehoods, i.e. the real "conspiracy theories"

Surely you have been here long enough to see this play out several times over the years? 9/11. Sandy Hook, Las Vegas, USS Liberty, Syrian CWs, Ukraine Maidan, etc, etc. - the list is long & sordid...

Here's a link to a blog that lists 53 confirmed/admitted FFs (and that's only until Feb/2015 - the list has grown considerably since then)

Posted by: xLemming | Mar 31 2019 18:32 utc | 134

@133, 134, 135

Many thanks to each of you --Sunny, mourning_dove, xLemming-- for the support! Thank you mourning_dove for the link; I have read it. I wonder if Master Ghost has? Oh, wait: he has already revealed his reading habits.

Considering the screed of overemotional invective in @132, it is little wonder that its author admits this: "Personally, I think et tu quoque, is a perfectly valid tool in any discussion covering politics."

Definition: tu quoque is a fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).

There is not a single thing in my comments that is inconsistent. Furthermore, who cares how I act? For that matter, who cares that Master Ghost "personally" thinks that tu quoque "is perfectly valid tool"? It remains a fallacy of reasoning, and the point here is to uncover the truth, as much as possible.

I repeat that I have no theory to propose, since, as I've already said but Master Ghost has admitted to not bothering to read, it is a capital mistake to hypothesise before all evidence is gathered and eavluated, because it biases the judgment. Of course, if judgment is already biased, then such an honourable restraint does not hold and invective reigns. Similarly, once honour is lost, it can never be regained.

Very possibly, Master Ghost will not read this, and hence not realise how dishonourable he has been, not in questioning me (which is fine by me: I serve the truth, not my opinion), but in resorting to emotional invective in order to squelch inquiry.

It therefore remains ominous, no matter what Master Ghost might think personally, that scrutiny of the CCh shootings is right now being actively suppressed within NZ, that new security laws are being fast-tracked, and that the majority of people are not questioning this. These alone are disturbing, much less the context in which they are occurring.

In @135, xLemming has cogently mentioned a long and sordid list of false flags (cheers for that!). It might be that Master Ghost considers such a list to be coming from "unreasonable people" and hence worthy of being dismissed with a glib reversal of the burden of proof, and hence that known false flags matter not at all to him. It also might be that he is determined to act outside the norms of reasoned discourse, as evidenced by the numerous ad hominem fallacies in @132. I say "might" here, because, while I neither know nor care about the ideas of a dishonoured person, yet I also have no desire to use his own methods against him, however tempting that might be.

In any case, the terrible fact remains that many aspects of the NZ shootings are suspicious, that active measures are underway to suppress inquiry, and that these are largely succeeding. The model of "sentence first, verdict afterward" is being employed here, by the NZ authorities and also by Master Ghost, with the latter also admittedly dismissing testimony. What chance, then, to arrive at the truth, in the spirit of Socratic inquiry? The official story stinks; that doesn't mean that the event didn't happen.

Posted by: Theophrastus | Mar 31 2019 22:19 utc | 135

When I first heard about the massacre, I felt so heartbroken. Not only for the victims, their families, and the community, but also, being an American, knowing what it would mean for your country. All of those things you've mentioned have become standard practice here. Words are inadequate, but I am truly sorry that such a thing has come to pass.

Posted by: mourning dove | Apr 1 2019 0:08 utc | 136

I have a comment up at the off guardian,

China's rail way mileage is larger than the world combined,
Murkka's 'defense' spending is larger than the next
15 big spenders combined.

China's oversea military base = 1
murkka's = 200

murkka's has attacked /invaded 300 countries since ww2,
China 0

murkka's has brought down 100's of democratically elected givn since ww2,
China 0

murkka has committed hundreds of state terrorism since ww2,
China 0

murkka has violated hundreds of UN resolutions since ww2,
China 0

China has lifted 700m people outta povery ,
murkka is deteriotating into a third world shit hole.

When the Chinese congress convene a meeting, its always about the next five years plan to improve the
people's well being.

When the murkka's CON-gress convene a meeting,
you bet some countries some where are gonna get
screwed big time.

Off hand these are the stuffs that come to mind, but its
just the Tip of an iceberg.

overall, its China 0 vs murkka 300

So the professor is right, murkka wins hands down,
no contest,.

I say,
WTF with this China = murkka B.S. ,
Genius ?


May be the 'China is far worse than FUKUS' gang
here, led by that genius Pft, might know
something that we dont.
Their contribution would be welcomed.

Posted by: denk | Apr 1 2019 3:08 utc | 137

@ Featherless, 128-130

Kolomoisky prime interest is money, especially as some of his actives has been frozen in the West and taken over in Ukraine. He also needs a country which is neither controlled by laws like in the West nor by a figure like 'Putin'.

Zelensky appears to have a genuine heart-felt desire to stop the killing. However, if he wins he is no longer to be in a comedy sketch with all the other band-mates there just to play along with him. It remains to be seen whether he is capable to actually do what he says he will do. There may be not that much change, in practical terms, whoever in that pack eventually wins.

Posted by: Don Karlos | Apr 1 2019 6:50 utc | 138

>>>>> xLemming | Mar 31, 2019 2:32:23 PM | 135

Sandy Hook,....

Seems like Alex Jones isn't so sure that Sandy Hook was a hoax. As for 9/11 and Las Vegas, I've seen no convincing evidence they were anything other than what they're said to be. With 9/11, there are some important parts that are left out of the official Washington narrative but they aren't proof of a conspiracy just proof of ignorance, incompetence and stupidity on the part of various consituents of the USG.

Posted by: Ghost Ship | Apr 1 2019 15:55 utc | 139


Thank you, mourning_dove; you are a good person and it's a pleasure to meet you here.

On another note, it seems that someone continues to hoist himself with his own petard. In @140, we have this:

I've seen no convincing evidence they were anything other than what they're said to be.

But, this party has already been called out about his admitted less-than-thorough reading habits. One can't help but wonder.

Nevertheless, in the spirit of Socrates, I offer the following article, which is a truly monumental summary and analysis. I reckon it speaks much louder than a self-imposed narrowness of vision.

Ron Unz: 9/11 conspiracies

Posted by: Theophrastus | Apr 1 2019 20:51 utc | 140

@141 Thanks for that Theo...
@140 GS, et al...

Caitlin Johnstone has a timely piece, suggesting that PROPAGANDA is the #1 issue facing the world today
In other words, until people know the truth about key geopolitical events, there can be no change, resistance or revolution. And that's exactly why the PTB make such an effort controlling narratives, and crushing dissent/whistle-blowers, etc. And why not? It's SO much easier to pick off the outliers (the truth-seekers/tellers) than it is to try to control EVERYONE. With the majority of people successfully propagandized, the PTB can simply sit back and let the "crabs in the bucket" pull down their own brothers & sisters trying to escape.

In the immortal words of Robespiere: “The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant.”

So which "crab" are you?

Posted by: xLemming | Apr 3 2019 15:16 utc | 141

« previous page

The comments to this entry are closed.