On 2008-05-18 21:34 +0100, Vngelis allegedly wrote:
> On May 18, 12:48 pm, Daniele Futtorovic <da.futt.n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>> On 2008-05-17 20:27 +0100, Vngelis allegedly wrote:
>>
>>> There is an economic war with China over the value of the Renmimbi and
>>> Burma has been under sanctions.
>>> These are the politics which lead to conflict.
>>> Walters and the state caps all argue there is no conflict as
>>> capitalism is triumphant everywhere hence they dismiss weather war
>>> weaponry as ...conspiratorial
>> I don't think they've got the technical means to create such a cyclone
>> artificially, either. I'd very much agree, however, that IF they had
>> them, they'd certainly use them.
>> But how im****tant would such weapons be? Not all that, in my view.
Mind,
>> they've killed millions of Iraqis with the very much conventional
>> weapons called "diplomacy" and "economic sanctions".
>>
>
> I think you may have misunderstood what I said.
> They may be able to artificially excarcabate a situation.
> It is noted already that the Chinese are able to create rain clouds.
> If a cyclone is developing and with the use of weaponry they can
> excarcabate it artificially they aren't necessarily 'creating' weather
> but making it worse.
>
> Do you belive Katrina as it evolved was a man made disaster or as
> Spike Lee has commented the city was flooded by blowing up the defence
> walls surrounding it?
>
> For I have noticed the Americans try and test their weapon
> manipulation equipment on themselves first then they globalise it.
> Katrina inaugurated weather wars, climate change in our faces and
> climate change refugees. We are now going into new realms.
> Environmental intervention as an evolution of humanitarian
> intervention. Imperiliasm rebranding itself...
Yes, it looks like I misunderstood what you said, then. At the same
time, that bit about the Russians and the moon wasn't the cleverest
thing you ever said, and it kind of set the background...
Look, I'm not really going to argue about specific points or theories. I
don't know, and I do think that even those with much better scientific
understanding than me can't really know, because they won't have access
to all data.
My take on "conspiracy theories" (I really do hate that term, but what
better alternative is there?) is rather of a general nature. I am firmly
persuaded that the WTC towers were blown up (I even don't think that's
disputable), and according to what I hear that's a "conspiracy theory".
So, logically, from my point of view, all of them can't be wrong. I
suspect that many more of them are probably right than it would seem at
first glance. Some are most definitely bull****.
But my axis of judgement is not based on the truth/falsehood matter. My
central point is that we cannot know (and I mean *KNOW*) whether ANY of
those theories are right or wrong, as long as those who might have an
interest in keeping them secret are in power (there might be exceptions
to that, but they'd only prove the rule). My base of judgement is social
revolution, and "conspiracy theories" are subordinate to that goal. If
some of them are prone to serve the revolution, promote them; if not,
keep them back until after it.
So for instance, I am very sup****tive to exposing the "9/11" lies and
discrepancies and falsehoods. For two reasons: firstly, because exposing
them comes at relatively low cost, as the amount of data available is
simply staggering, and easily understood. Secondly, because it is
directly useful in undermining the public's loyalty towards their rulers.
On the other hand, I wouldn't spend time or effort in trying to push
this HAARP/weather modification stuff you're currently on to. For I
consider it a waste of time, based on the same lines as the reasons
given above for "9/11": it is very tedious to make a point about it; the
data is vague, inconclusive, highly technical and very easily refuted by
any quack "expert" on the telly; it's a separate navy/air force project;
etc.. You get the idea. My criterion is agitational value.
I must add that even in the case of "9/11", where I would encourage
effort, it is still a very tricky path to tread. The propaganda must be
very carefully aimed and packed. It must be aimed specifically towards
undermining to loyalty of the people towards the system *itself*, and
not towards individuals or some of the more obscure secret agencies. You
need the cut the ruler's paths of retreat. For else, what would be
easier than a simple change of party, revealing some parts of it, and
claiming it was the work of some rogue parts of the system, and on you
go with the same **** and the whole op****tunity is defused?
Likewise, I would very much recommend caution and defensiveness when
going on about "conspiracy theories" (something you do not display). In
my opinion the biggest threat or the biggest detriment to the cause is
when the label "loonie" becomes reasonably justified. Mind, I said
"reasonably". I think it would be wiser to hush some of the more...
eccentric theories, lest promoting them were bound to call in that
epithet.
For you see, the bulk of the people are loyal to their rulers, whether
it be their parents, their bosses or their government. Irrationally so,
but loyal nevertheless. If you target that loyalty, you have to expect
resistance. It's called "justification of effort": they've spent their
lives being loyal, they've devoted much effort to it (intellectual or
emotional), and if you tell them to break up that loyalty, then you're
basically telling them to admit to themselves that they've lived a LIE
for whatever time span they've lived. You need to give them pretty good
incentive to do that. Especially, you need to be aware that they will
use whatever psychological path of retreat they can find. And doing away
with those who provoke their thinking as "loonies" is one of the easiest
lines of defence there is, and obviously one that's had much success.
Of course "truthers" these days will always be called loonies, and my
argument isn't meant to prohibit any propaganda because of that fact.
It's more like tailoring it to the average mindset, giving the average,
hopefully reasonably sensible mindset the biggest incentive possible to
question their loyalty. You can't win them all; the aim should be to win
the greatest lot possible.
So my point: push the big issues in a careful, serious and convincing
way, and keep the more obscure issues in the closet until we have the
means to give those sons of dogs the treatment they deserve.
--
DF.
to reply privately, change the top-level domain
in the FROM address from "invalid" to "net"
|
