Zionist feminisation of society

[Kelly Jones]

Ladies, please! Richard had a point that feminism is trying to suppress.

Richard's quote is highly feminine, so he's the one doing the suppressing....

"As all geldings in nature, their thoughts are not involved with the concerns of the future and their posterity, but only with the present toil and the next meal."

Masculinity is not characterised by the presence of a penis, so its absence cannot be called "being a gelding" or "castration".

As has been said many times before on this board, masculinity and manliness has all to do with the quality of one's reason.

Let's get back on topic please.

Not if it's an unreasonable one.


-

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Tim,

I'm a dude. You, on the other hand, are a cowardly backwards bastard who's angry over the fact that women, Jews, and small rocks scare you to the point of pissing yourself every night. Oh, and get over this persecution complex bullshit. Nobodies trying to suppress your views, they're just too goddamn stupid for the vast majority of the population to consider.

[Faust]

Tim,

I'm a dude. You, on the other hand, are a cowardly backwards bastard who's angry over the fact that women, Jews, and small rocks scare you to the point of pissing yourself every night. Oh, and get over this persecution complex bullshit. Nobodies trying to suppress your views, they're just too goddamn stupid for the vast majority of the population to consider.

it is important not to mention the phrase "vast majority of the population" when doing authentic philosophy.

[plotinus]

Dear geniuses,

May I offer this for your perusal?

Arthur Schopenhauer wrote, in his Die Kunst, Recht zu behalten [The Art of Controversy]:

Auch sind allgemeine Vorurteile als Autoritäten zu gebrauchen. Denn die meisten denken mit Aristoteles a men polloiV dokei tauta ge einai jamen: ja, es gibt keine noch so absurde Meinung, die die Menschen nicht leicht zu der ihrigen machten, sobald man es dahin gebracht hat, sie zu überreden, daß solche allgemein angenommen sei. Das Beispiel wirkt auf ihr Denken, wie auf ihr Tun. Sie sind Schafe, die dem Leithammel nachgehn, wohin er auch führt: es ist ihnen leichter zu sterben als zu denken. Es ist sehr seltsam, daß die Allgemeinheit einer Meinung so viel Gewicht bei ihnen hat, da sie doch an sich selbst sehn können, wie ganz ohne Urteil und bloß kraft des Beispiels man Meinungen annimmt. Aber das sehn sie nicht, weil alle Selbstkenntnis ihnen abgeht. – Nur die Auserlesenen sagen mit Plato τοῖς πολλοῖς, πολλὰ δοκεῖ d. h. das Vulgus hat viele Flausen im Kopfe, und wollte man sich daran kehren, hätte man viel zu tun.

A universal prejudice may also be used as an authority; for most people think with Aristotle that that may be said to exist which many believe. There is no opinion, however absurd, which men will not readily embrace as soon as they can be brought to the conviction that it is generally adopted. Example affects their thought, just as it affects their action. They are like sheep following the bell-wether just as he leads them. They would sooner die than think. It is very curious that the universality of an opinion should have so much weight with people, as their own experience might tell them that its acceptance is an entirely thoughtless and merely imitative process. But it tells them nothing of the kind, because they possess no self-knowledge whatever. It is only the elect who say with Plato "tois pollois polla dokei"; which means that the public has a good many bees in its bonnet, and that it would be a long business to get at them.

************************************************

The literal meaning of Plato's τοῖς πολλοῖς, πολλὰ δοκεῖ is: "To the Many, many things seem". In the Platonic idiom, "seeming" refers to mere Opinion, unsubstantiated beliefs and conclusions, as opposed to true and certain Knowledge. I do not intend to deal with all the bees which are buzzing around in the bonnets of those who have commented in this thread. The truth about 911 is one of the most important matters which confronts the world today. Anyone who is worthy to be called a citizen has a duty to determine the facts about 911 and to think carefully about them. That so few people in the USA have done so is yet more evidence for my contention that the majority of Americans are brain-dead zombies in thrall to the American Cult of Irreality.

I append the following links. You have a duty [Duty! Stern daughter of the Voice of God!] as thinking beings to separate the gold from the dross. Good luck!

http://www.wanttoknow.info/050908insidejob911

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=antql-Nz4bY

http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/signs ... eShown.php

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... net+9%2F11+.

http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.c ... e-not.html

http://911review.org/Wiki/

http://blogs.salon.com/0002255/2007/02/16.html#a1590

http://www.wanttoknow.info/911information

http://www.journalof911studies.com/arti ... %20J24.pdf

http://www.serendipity.li/wtc11.htm

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid= ... ca+sidarth

http://www.democraticunderground.com/di ... id=3672646

塞 翁 失 馬

[zarathustra]

please consider:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnncPbP9JrE

[Unidian]

"Jews did it" is not "the answer" to 9/11. While it is possible that certain Israeli agencies may have had foreknowledge, it goes a hell of a lot deeper than biased and simplistic anti-Zionist accusations. The truth is probably that terrorists did it, the PNAC did it, rogue elements within the US government did it, finance moguls did it, and so on. Given the bizarre panoply of evidence available, it is likely that something like this isn't done by one lone group acting alone. It was more likely a confluence of events and agendas, where everyone participating was useful to everyone else. Rather than a singular well-defined "conspiracy," it is more likely that a number of diverse players ranging from Al-Qaeda to the PNAC took advantage of an opportunity at hand.

[sschaula]

Thoughtful post there, Nat. Honestly.

[Katy]

Thoughtful post there, Nat. Honestly.

He does make a good point though. There don't have to be explosives in the building to make a conspiracy. It's possible that 19 guys did blow up the buildings with an airplane - but that doesn't mean we didn't know it was coming and allow it to happen. For example, what's the real likelyhood that the FAA would be engaged in hijacking exercises scheduled that day and so thought they were looking at a simulation?

[Unidian]

Agreed. There didn't have to be explosives in the building to indicate US complicity. However, that also doesn't mean there weren't.

My current position is that I simply don't know what happened. That said, the theory I find most plausible by a narrow margin is that the attacks were allowed to happen on purpose, with some "helping hand" assistance from at least some elements of the US government in terms of making sure the buildings came down and it was the kind of huge spectacle they needed to push their policy agenda through. I've looked at a lot of evidence in the last year or two, and until some better data comes along, that is what makes the most sense to me.

In other words, in my view, the terrorists were real, and so was US complicity. The terrorists were allowed to do it and the government made sure it came off right. I don't think those two scenarios are mutually exclusive. In fact, they make a lot more sense to me as package deal.

[Katy]

Ha - we came to the same point in our thinking on this. I thought you supported the more dramatic theories.

[Unidian]

I don't recall ever arguing for the more "dramatic" theories, except maybe at BA to bug Reid and Victor. :p

[Dan Rowden]

For example, what's the real likelyhood that the FAA would be engaged in hijacking exercises scheduled that day and so thought they were looking at a simulation?

Further, what is the likelihood that on the day of the London bombings authorities were performing anti-terrorism drills involving bombs on public transport?

I know coincidences exist, but sometimes they are just ridiculous. Either security forces in both nations are as leaky as a rusted out collander or something worse is at play.

[sschaula]

I'm going to retract my statement now. :)

[Unidian]

Which statement? That I'd made a thoughtful post?

If so, doesn't a post stand on its own? How could my post be rendered less thoughtful by subsequent posts?

Was it the thing the government participating to push their agenda? :p

[sschaula]

Yep. I'll highlight the parts I find disagreeable.

My current position is that I simply don't know what happened.

That's a great position to have, even if it does give us little peace of mind.

That said, the theory I find most plausible by a narrow margin is that the attacks were allowed to happen on purpose, with some "helping hand" assistance from at least some elements of the US government in terms of making sure the buildings came down and it was the kind of huge spectacle they needed to push their policy agenda through.

I put in bold the turns of phrase I find disagreeable.

I liked how originally you said "rogue elements" rather than "some elements". Rogue implies a separation from the entity. I want to make it clear that if there were in fact people who allowed it to happen in any way, that they would be a great minority. There are simply too many patriots in office to actually consider that a sizeable portion of the government would let it happen. If I would guess at the possible number of people involved, if any, it would be less than 10. I would hardly call that an element of the US government.

You are also alluding to explosive devices detonating in the buildings by saying that there was a helping hand involved that made sure the buildings came down. I'm still highly skeptical about that, and I don't think there's enough evidence to say that there were. Without the evidence, that takes away from the "helping hand" theory. So all that we're really left with is the "allowed it to happen" theory...of which we also have little to no evidence of.

After watching the video of it again today, after reading people's comments here, I'm quite sure that there were no explosive devices detonated in the building. It honestly looked like planes hit, which weakened the structure and it came down upon itself. I honestly can't see any good reason to think any part of the US, government or corporation, would do it to itself.

I've looked at a lot of evidence in the last year or two, and until some better data comes along, that is what makes the most sense to me.

I preferred the not knowing the truth about 9-11 theory. It was more honest and required less guess work.

In other words, in my view, the terrorists were real, and so was US complicity. The terrorists were allowed to do it and the government made sure it came off right. I don't think those two scenarios are mutually exclusive. In fact, they make a lot more sense to me as package deal.

You're sounding a bit too certain of this THEORY here.

[Unidian]

Scott,

I liked how originally you said "rogue elements" rather than "some elements". Rogue implies a separation from the entity. I want to make it clear that if there were in fact people who allowed it to happen in any way, that they would be a great minority. There are simply too many patriots in office to actually consider that a sizeable portion of the government would let it happen. If I would guess at the possible number of people involved, if any, it would be less than 10. I would hardly call that an element of the US government.

I have no objection to this. I agree that "rogue elements" is a better term.

However, I do consider the neo-Trotskyite inner circle of PNAC leadership a rogue element for all intenets and purposes, so they are on my list of suspects.

In Rebuilding America's Defenses, an official PNAC document, the following is stated:

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor."

Revolutionary change - it's not just for hippies anymore.

You are also alluding to explosive devices detonating in the buildings by saying that there was a helping hand involved that made sure the buildings came down. I'm still highly skeptical about that, and I don't think there's enough evidence to say that there were. Without the evidence, that takes away from the "helping hand" theory. So all that we're really left with is the "allowed it to happen" theory...of which we also have little to no evidence of.

I disagree with your conclusion. I think there is tons of evidence for LIHOP (let it happen on purpose). In fact, I think MIHOP (made it happen on purpose) is the only thing that should be in serious dispute. The whole air defense system can't just catastrophically fail like it did that morning. The military spends many billions on air defense, and yet it fails in every way possible? I'm not buying that. There's also the evidence that warnings were ignored, people were fired for inisisting there was danger, etc.

After watching the video of it again today, after reading people's comments here, I'm quite sure that there were no explosive devices detonated in the building. It honestly looked like planes hit, which weakened the structure and it came down upon itself. I honestly can't see any good reason to think any part of the US, government or corporation, would do it to itself.

Okay, if that's the way you see the evidence of the twin towers, fair enough. I won't try to insist on anything, because I'm undecided about that evidence myself. But what about building 7?

You're sounding a bit too certain of this THEORY here.

Only because it's a pain to preface every statement with "in my current tentative opinion."

[sschaula]

I have no objection to this. I agree that "rogue elements" is a better term.

However, I do consider the neo-Trotskyite inner circle of PNAC leadership a rogue element for all intenets and purposes, so they are on my list of suspects.

In Rebuilding America's Defenses, an official PNAC document, the following is stated:

Quote:

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor."


Revolutionary change - it's not just for hippies anymore.

That's no evidence. If I said "The Mexican/American border won't be secure for a long time, unless terrorists start pouring through", I shouldn't be seen as a cause in the terrorists that come through, simply because I had a vested interest in strengthening the borders.

That was kind of worded poorly but I'm sure you get what I was trying to say.

I disagree with your conclusion. I think there is tons of evidence for LIHOP (let it happen on purpose). In fact, I think MIHOP (made it happen on purpose) is the only thing that should be in serious dispute.

I disagree that there's a lot of evidence for LIHOP, and I think MIHOP shouldn't even be in question.

The whole air defense system can't just catastrophically fail like it did that morning. The military spends many billions on air defense, and yet it fails in every way possible? I'm not buying that.

It's not like in the movies. Think about being on a air force base, then getting an alert, getting geared up, getting into the jet...oh wait, you need to find out what's going on first...

And by then the towers were struck.

Besides, what could air defense have done? Tell them to change their course? There were passengers in those planes.

Do you really think the Air Force would, or even COULD, knowingly drag their feet?

I know it sounds right when you first think about it, but things really aren't so simple in real life.

There's also the evidence that warnings were ignored, people were fired for inisisting there was danger, etc.

Yes, I heard something of that too. Not that anyone was fired for it, but that there were warnings that the government knew about prior to the event...

I have a much easier time believing those who heard of such things just didn't take it seriously enough. I have a very hard time believing that people in charge would make sure no one knew that the event would occur and that it would go off as planned.

Okay, if that's the way you see the evidence of the twin towers, fair enough. I won't try to insist on anything, because I'm undecided about that evidence myself. But what about building 7?

To be honest, I have to say I don't know shit about shit. From what I've heard here and on that website, it does seem likely that they demolished it to hide something. But really, I don't know shit.

Only because it's a pain to preface every statement with "in my current tentative opinion."

Understandable...as long as we're clear that it isn't what you actually believe happened, but is just an idea of what could have happened.

[Katy]

Besides, what could air defense have done? Tell them to change their course? There were passengers in those planes.

So, the first plane should have hit. Maybe even the second plane. The other two? They already knew all the passengers were going to die.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Firstly, prior to 9/11 NORAD had all eyes at things coming in from outside the country. The idea that passenger jets might be hijacked and used as missiles by terrorists occurred to very few people, and I doubt even they would have put money on such a thing actually happening. Secondly, there was a training exercise happening that day, and that caused considerable confusion, as many apparently thought the situation was part of the exercise. There was just general incompetence all around.

Nevertheless, I realize that the American military, intelligence agencies, and executive branch are composed of cold and calculating genius' who think twelve moves ahead of everyone. They obviously knew about the terrorist plot, and planned a training exercise on that day so as to have an excuse for not being able to simply wave their hands to make the badness go away. With patented American super technology it is as easy as all snap to find a particular passenger plane in busy air traffic lanes (something that military pilots get extensive training for).

Or perhaps not. Maybe nobody knew about the plot because the CIA and FBI don't know how to play nice together. Maybe air defenses failed because the entire situation was so bizarre that nobody had really planned for it in the slightest. Maybe terrorist attacks happen all the time across the world, and on the rare occasions that they happen to America (the all powerful) they don't need to have Americans involved to succeed at all. I know. I'm talking crazy talk. Only an American is clever enough to harm America (unless other Americans let it happen). Damn. I'm suddenly feeling all patriotic and stuff.

[Unidian]

Firstly, prior to 9/11 NORAD had all eyes at things coming in from outside the country. The idea that passenger jets might be hijacked and used as missiles by terrorists occurred to very few people, and I doubt even they would have put money on such a thing actually happening.

Oh? How about this Presidential Daily Briefing from August 6, 2001 which mentions the possibility of Bin Laden using hijacked aircraft to attack US targets?

Secondly, there was a training exercise happening that day, and that caused considerable confusion, as many apparently thought the situation was part of the exercise. There was just general incompetence all around.

So the fact that a military simulation involving a plane crashing into a large building was being held on the same morning 2 planes actually did so is just an unfortunate coincidence, right?

Maybe. Maybe not.

The rest of your argument, a familiar re-hashing of the "Americans think Arabs can't do anything by themselves" routine, fails on levels too numerous to address.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Oh? How about this Presidential Daily Briefing from August 6, 2001 which mentions the possibility of Bin Laden using hijacked aircraft to attack US targets?

The document you posted didn't say anything about planes. What an amazing "smoking gun". If such a thing was considered a serious threat why would it get a mere mention in a daily briefing? I imagine that if we looked at all the stuff reported in those briefings, we'd see quite clearly that they mention a lot of possible bad stuff that didn't happen. You know what they say about hindsight.

So the fact that a military simulation involving a plane crashing into a large building was being held on the same morning 2 planes actually did so is just an unfortunate coincidence, right?

The simulation you're talking about was being conducted by the National Reconnaissance Office, and it aimed to simulate a small commercial jet experiencing mechanical difficulties, and then crashing into a government building. It sounds like a basic building evacuation drill to me.

The rest of your argument, a familiar re-hashing of the "Americans think Arabs can't do anything by themselves" routine, fails on levels too numerous to address.

Failed at what? I wouldn't even call such a thing an argument. It was more of a playful joke. Or perhaps a snide comment. It all depends on how you want to look at things I guess.

[sschaula]

Nat,

Don't you realized how you just answered your own question about why there were simulations going on, by posting that supposedly authentic note to the president?

[vicdan]

I don't recall ever arguing for the more "dramatic" theories, except maybe at BA to bug Reid and Victor. :p

Aha, and so the truth comes out!

On a different note, I find it prima facie insane that people are still trying to blame some random shitty acts on a zionist conspiracy. I mean, dude, this is so early 20th century...