Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Time to shut up shop and go home ?
05-12-2009, 10:47 AM, (This post was last modified: 05-12-2009, 11:00 AM by triplesix.)
#31
Time to shut up shop and go home ?
All I gotta say is when I first showed up here and mouthed off with generalizations about people I didn't know, Ctrl, Ognir et al put the boot to my ass and I'm a better man for it.

People like Aaronovitch are selling out their own human beings on such a scale it's sicker than nearly any street crime I can think of. What's worse is I have to drudge through hundreds of individuals daily with piss poor attitudes and nil understanding of the world they live in defending slime like Aaronovitch, and beyond that I get to be called ignorant and stupid by them, incessantly, any time I ever open my mouth to inform the pitiful shits.

I do my research, I check my sources, I find the angle, I determine the motivation, I try to ascertain the intention. I am a scholar and a damn educated person, as most people in the 9/11 movement and nearly all people in the intense conspiracy 'realm' are.

Still, I have to admit for a minute there last week I had a panic attack of sorts where I questioned whether I really had gone insane and whether or not I was just seeing things that weren't there.

I went back to the very beginning and watched old school videos of the twin towers collapsing. It just impressed upon me so deeply how foolish I was to question myself. The collapses are fucking insane. Archetypal Greek comedy and tragedy in that an organization of evil people murdered 3,000 people in broad daylight and fooled 5,000,000,000 people and perhaps eternal history into believing a completely ridiculous story about terrorists, starring one of their own, effectively transforming a prosperous coming together post-neomillenium humanity into a paranoid and religiously-tense population of fearful, unquestioning peasants toiling in the Dark Ages.

Let us consider the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the World Bank, the IMF, any Centralized Banking Reserve, the Bilderberg group, the Georgia Guidestones, the Sovereign Military Order of the Knights of Malta and the disgraceful but undeniably continuing influence of the Papacy and Roman Catholic power structure, the suspicious Freemasonic origins of the Founding Fathers, the mainstream political establishment and mainstream media establishment, the corporate juggernaut and the military-industrial complex, as predicted, the Centralization of Europe and elsewhere, as predicted, the secrecy regarding UFOs, Area 51, chemtrails, mysterious suicides, false flag terrorism and bioterrorism, like the targeting of liberal politicians with anthrax, vaccine contaminations, aspartame and it's connections to Searle and Monsanto and, truth being stranger than fiction, Donald Rumsfeld; how about Guantanamo Bay, the PATRIOT ACT, police paramilitarization and brutality through adopting non-lethal pain compliance, the continued violation of Habeus Corpus, the creation of government youth groups and the talk of conscription and a civilian police force as large and well-funded as the military, three plus kangaroo elections, the strange symbols, the coincidental friendships, the closed door meetings; Bohemian Grove and the undeniable fascination of (at least elements of) the elite with the occult and strange, RFID, the microchip, microwave pain rays, the on-going and completely dark militarization of space, H5N1, H1N1, AIDS, the Tuskegee experiment, depleted uranium, forced vaccination, the autism epidemic, the continued barbaric prohibition of drugs and the imprisonment and punishment of addicts, the taking away of education financial assistance, the right to drive, the right to parent, the right to work, the right to teach or interact through an official relationship with children, all for cannabis offenses; the seemingly irrational hatred towards all things indigenous and psychedelic, the agent provocateur tactic of destroying what remains of legitimate protest, and the irresponsible and indefensible behavior of the police towards protestors and innocent bystanders and the media, the internal investigation process and regular acquittals of criminal police conduct, the rolling over of court appointed defenders, the Census GPS program whether for gerrymandering at best or God only knows at worst, the Cult of Personality surrounding Barack Obama (PBUH), the destruction of the Geneva Convention, the engineered collapse of Frannie Mae, Freddie Mac, large banking institutions and the auto industry, "missile defense," the selective attention paid to various world-wide genocide, economic hitmen and extortion of the Third World, Blackwater/Xe and government-sponsored mercenarism, the militarization and corporatization of youth education... I'm starting to have to stretch but only a little, and in my defense I'm drunk.

I stopped ingesting fluoride and aspartame, and thankfully I can remember more than what happened today and yesterday, and this shit isn't getting past my filters any longer. You can debate any single one of these topics with me. Shit, you can even discuss Icke with me and I bet you I'll have you seeing his arguments from a whole new light. I try to know every last detail about all of these things and I'm still going over them, rewatching documentaries, even watching documentaries only vaguely about various topics to catch that one telling detail here and there, and generally trying to know everything about everything because that's me.

I'm not saying I know it all, but I always welcome the input. When I'm wrong, I'm happy because I'm learning. But you can take your insults and your provocations and shove 'em.

I might appear like I'm beating my chest or bragging but all I'm trying to say is I know my shit, and I don't doubt this stuff, at all, any more. There are too many dots to wonder if they connect. Instead of drawing lines between the dots, at this point I'm just taking steps further and further back waiting for that one day I finally see the Seurat-ian Satan behind it all.

Anyway, I intended to make this short but got carried away.

The only other thing I had to say was I came to this topic after just watching youtube videos of the twin towers collapse, as I mentioned before, and fully furious after reading ignorant comment after ignorant comment. I have to admit I was hot under the collar. I try not to give into anger. I have to admit, in that regard, I can improve.

Dr. Richard H Thorndyke, you deserve an apology and I'm sorry.

Peace
666
&We grow to recognize form. We grow to label that form. In doing so, do we become more intelligent? Do we become more awakened?& - Siji Tzu 四季子
Reply
05-12-2009, 12:09 PM,
#32
Time to shut up shop and go home ?
Quote:I'm not saying I know it all, but I always welcome the input. When I'm wrong, I'm happy because I'm learning. But you can take your insults and your provocations and shove 'em.

Just out of curiosity, who's that directed at?
Reply
05-12-2009, 01:17 PM, (This post was last modified: 05-12-2009, 01:35 PM by triplesix.)
#33
Time to shut up shop and go home ?
Quote:
Quote:I'm not saying I know it all, but I always welcome the input. When I'm wrong, I'm happy because I'm learning. But you can take your insults and your provocations and shove 'em.

Just out of curiosity, who's that directed at?
Anybody and everybody, nik, it's an everyday thing. I gotta keep it real. (Oops, my bad, I'm like Bun B I gotta keep it trill.)

Not really. When I said that I was drawing the line in the sand and saying my piece. It wasn't directed at any one particular person; I'm more saying that it's not worth insulting me because I see through it and recognize it for what it is. If you want to talk shit about me just shove it, you're not worth my time.

I try to stay centered, keep my perspective objective and true, allow my intuition to see inside people, and respect the predictabilities of the scared/ignorant ego-mind; to try not to blame the consciousness behind it too much; and to understand people come from varied backgrounds, have access to very different opportunities, and often have been corrupted completely beyond their awareness and often at no fault of their own.

However at the same time I know there are intelligent enough people out there, who out of selfish, arrogant, impudent, unrepentant and completely egotistical priorities participate knowingly in the game of destroying innocent lives for profit. And these are the people that make me lose my center, and piss me the fahk off. I consider Aaronovitch one of these people. Aaronovitch had my blood boiling and I allowed it to get taken out on someone else.

I won't say it wasn't partially directed at Dr Thorndyke. He cannot deny that his accusation of collective credulousness on the part of myself and quite a few other board members in regard to Aaronovitch's book was borne from an ego-based attempt to bolster his own sense of self-esteem and intelligence by questioning the authenticity of the authority from which myself and the others caught in the generalization condemned Aaronovitch. I know he acted, not truly out of defense for Aaronovitch's book, but out of a primarily self-centered desire to build himself up. This is simply the objective truth. It was an insult and a provocation.

That said I fell right into the trap myself, I'll admit, by responding in anger. I apologize again because I feel a deep sense of shame in being hypocritical. In the end, I wish I had kept a level head. I wish I had laid out the information and just let it be the sour pill that it is, all on it's own, but instead I made it personal, as well. I employed many of the same ad hominem digs, whether I felt mine came from a better position, intellectually, or not. This is the sort of divisiveness I feel throws road blocks up in the progress of those attempting to unite the proletariat against the real and insidious machinations of the elite. It tears me up a little to see just how shockingly little consensus there is on ConCen. In a way, it is nice to see such a variety of truly outstanding streams of consciousness out there, but it worries me to see how few people are truly on the Path to Peace, IMHO. I hope we can see a way past our differences and learn to like one another a little more, no matter if we dislike another person's opinion. We can disagree and keep it clean. If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.

Peace.
666
&We grow to recognize form. We grow to label that form. In doing so, do we become more intelligent? Do we become more awakened?& - Siji Tzu 四季子
Reply
05-12-2009, 09:07 PM,
#34
Time to shut up shop and go home ?
you wouldn't believe it.

there are two free london papers, the london lite and the london paper.

one decided to do a book review of this awful book we are discussing, see pic.

sorry for terrible focus i was on the train at the time.

http://pic.leech.it/pic.php?id=b09a7d6bphoto00201.jpg
Reply
05-12-2009, 09:10 PM,
#35
Time to shut up shop and go home ?
Quote:Let us consider ...

That was an amazing post. You hit a spot man.
Reply
05-12-2009, 09:22 PM,
#36
Time to shut up shop and go home ?
more dirt


The strange case of David Aaronovitch’s priorities

http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2009/03/0...chs-priorities/
Reply
05-12-2009, 09:49 PM, (This post was last modified: 05-12-2009, 09:54 PM by ---.)
#37
Time to shut up shop and go home ?
Quote:Monday, May 11, 2009
I have bought Aaro's book
So far I note ...

Citations, per my bet with PPhil in comments below: I would score it a win to me. The original bet was two out of three of Peter Dale Scott, Paul Thompson and Robin Ramsay. Of these, only Ramsay is mentioned, in a reasonably material discussion of his views. ("Little Atoms" said in the same comments that Peter Dale Scott appeared in the bibliography of the prepublication version he'd seen, but he isn't there - no reference in the bibliog, and the only reference in the index is to Paul Scott, author of the Raj Quartet, unrelated). I added Nafeez Ahmed as a "bonus ball", and his "London Bombings" book appears in the biblio but I don't understand why - the book isn't discussed and the only reference to Ahmed himself is that David Ray Griffin apparently got interested in conspiracy theory after reading a different book by Nafeez Ahmed. On the JFK and related assassinations literature, Aaro's main source is Gerald Posner, who cites Peter Dale Scott quite a lot and has debated him publicly on a number of occasions (they disagree on nearly everything), so I don't understand why Aaro didn't follow up the reference.

Other guesses from my review:

"Also inevitable is at least one reference to David Icke": or perhaps not. Not in the index or biblio - might be a throwaway line in the text, but if so I haven't found it yet. Surely an open goal missed here Aaro!

There's also surely at least a 50/50 chance that he'll libel Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer.: also, apparently not.

Diana theories get in there, of course, as do lunar landing conspiracists,: and how; 20 opages on Diana and 2 on "Apollo moon landings".

Iran Contra will be tossed off in a couple of pages, Watergate in few more and the Gulf of Tonkin Incident most likely not mentioned at all: if anything, I overestimated Aaro here.

Iran-Contra gets mentioned on one page, in the para:

"Not countering Watergate, which was a rather pitiful botched conspiracy to cover up an attempt at political espionage [and firebombing, and burglary - BB], the Iran-Contra affair of 1985-6 is the closest the US has come to a full-blown conspiracy. Here, senior members of the Reagan administration sought to thwart a congressional prohibition on financial support to anti-Communist Nicaraguan insurgents (the Contras) by procuring weapons and selling them to America's sworn enemy Iran. The entire business unravelled; there were two inquiries; and two National Security Council employees were found guilty of minor felonies, their convictions being overturned on appeal on the grounds that they had been promised immunity from prosecution through testifying to Congress"

Oliver North not mentioned by name at all. Watergate gets two mentions, one in the paragraph above and one in a sentence quoting someone as saying it wouldn't have happened if Robert Kennedy had lived.

The Gulf of Tonkin also gets two mentions. Weirdly, both are in contexts where it's more or less admitted that there was a real conspiracy here (although this is by no means proved and probably never will be given that the most important documents are still classified. On p8:

"An individual theory will seem less improbable if an entire history of similar cases can be cited. These can be as ancient as the Gunpowder Plot of 1605, and today may incldue references to Pearl Harbor, the Reichstag fire and the 1965 Gulf of Tonkin incident".

On p220 "Then she cites 1941 and Pearl Harbor [...] followed by the 1965 Gulf of Tonkin incident, in which President Lyndon Johnson used an alleged attack on a US destroyer as a pretext to begin the bombing of North Vietnam, thus providing much fodder for conspiracy theorists."

I said:

Oliver Stone's film is likely to get treated as if it were the definitive summary of assassinology : not entirely true, but close as.

(and I bet he gets the official line wrong, repeating the Warren Commission's "lone nut" conclusion and ommitting the House Committee on Assassinations): he does. Fair enough if one thinks the HSCA got it wrong, but not to even mention it (except once in a quoted passage on an unrelated topic)?

I suspect that on at least one occasion, our man will use as a punchline the ridiculousness of suspecting that the military and security infrastructure of a G7 country might have been co-opted by a single Masonic lodge (something which has definitely happened). The Freemasons! Controlling the secret police! Carrying out acts of domestic terrorism as a pretext for jailing their political enemies!

Weirdly, Freemasonry is mentioned on pages 20, 23, 25, 26, 34, 36, 37, 82, 199, 208, 209 and 215 (also on p280 which is not in the index), but Propaganda Due not at all. Brown, Dan is on pp 5, 187-8, 190, 205, 216-17, 302, but Allende and Pinochet none each, plus Patrice Lumumba, zero.

I'll get stuck in and read the thing asap. My hopes are not high. I peeked at the end, and it does all end up in having a go at "relativism" as the cause of it all; this is surely crazy - conspiracy theorists are, as I mentioned in comments before, the least relativist people in the world, as they are by definition specifically obsessed with the literal truth of one specific narrative account of history and the literal falsity of another.

Final note:

Then in March 2003 American and British forces[sic] invaded Iraq in what was to prove the most controversial and divisive foreign-policy decision for both countries of the post-Cold War era. There were huge protests, followed by a widespread belief that somehow the American and British people had been lied to. Many books have covered and will cover that territory, but one consequences was a flood of conspiracy theories covering almost every aspect of Western (here defined as American, British, Israeli, and, if you have less parochial tastes, Australian) foreign and counter-terrorist policy."

That's it. That's the sum fucking total of the discussion of Iraq, except in so far as it relates to the death of Dr David Kelly. The real conspiracy here is the conspiracy to separate me from £17.99 of my money for a book that doesn't discuss the single most relevant point that its author might have had to discuss. Fuck, I'm annoyed.

Quote:Sunday, April 26, 2009
A Pre-emptive review of "Voodoo Histories" by David Aaronovitch
So, Aaro's got a book coming out. Instead of waiting for the blessed thing to reach the bookshops, I thought I'd write my review ahead of time. Sort of get your retaliation in first; get it out there and let's get the debate moving - think how much time we wasted waiting for "What's Left", and it was just how we expected it to be. Some might object that this is something of an untraditional, nay avant-garde, nay even unethical book-reviewing practice, but I say pshaw. At the end of the day, this website has been going to five years now, and I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say that I have read literally every single word Dave has published in that period, including several pieces on the subject at hand, as it evolved from the original lecture on "Conspiracy Theories from JFK to Princess Diana". What I'm saying here is that I'm as well placed as it's possible to be to guess what Aaro is going to write, and significantly better placed when it comes to writing a critical essay on this book than most of the reviewers will be when it comes out, even spotting them the advantage of having read it. My disagreement with what I think is going to be in "Voodoo Histories" reflects a wider and fundamental political disagreement with Aaro's view of the world. So here goes.

In terms of the content of the book, I think that it will be pretty much run of the mill tomfoolery and bashing - I doubt that the "tin foil hats" joke will be spurned and fear that even the aphorism about "attributing to malice what can be explained by incompetence" might get a run out. Also inevitable is at least one reference to David Icke. Just as all of the "Mumbo Jumbo", "Counterknowledge" crowd who are blurbing Aaro tend to be much keener on bashing the crystals-n-incense crowed than on telling us how it was that the "Sound Science Coalition" happened to be formed under the aegis of Phillip Morris' PR department, I would expect some pretty shameless nutpicking and dirty-fucking-hippie bashing in Aaro's book too. There are quite a few paranoid schizophrenics attracted to parapolitical research, and it is true that people who suffer from that illness often have quite a powerful desire to feel like they understand the world around them. But this is about as interesting as a discussion of the symptoms of anorexia nervosa might be to an article about the Pritikin Nutrition Institute; I hope Aaro will avoid the sort of lazy and hurtful references to mental illness that the Guardian stylebook warns against, but it's a hope rather than a certainty. There's also surely at least a 50/50 chance that he'll libel Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer.

The history, I suspect, will be scrappy and the selection of "typical" conspiracies almost comically partial. Diana theories get in there, of course, as do lunar landing conspiracists, but Iran Contra will be tossed off in a couple of pages, Watergate in few more and the Gulf of Tonkin Incident most likely not mentioned at all. Oliver Stone's film is likely to get treated as if it were the definitive summary of assassinology (and I bet he gets the official line wrong, repeating the Warren Commission's "lone nut" conclusion and ommitting the House Committee on Assassinations). The whole subject of the 9/11 attacks will get represented by the wackiest end of holograms & thermite trooferism, and so on.

I suspect that on at least one occasion, our man will use as a punchline the ridiculousness of suspecting that the military and security infrastructure of a G7 country might have been co-opted by a single Masonic lodge (something which has definitely happened). The Freemasons! Controlling the secret police! Carrying out acts of domestic terrorism as a pretext for jailing their political enemies! Well it happened, and thirty years later, a member of that same lodge was elected Head of State Government (thanks, anonymous commenter!) on an anti-corruption ticket. Kind of puts in perspective all the friend-of-a-friend-of-someone-who-spoke-at-a-conference-which-invited-someone-who-once-wrote-a-pamphlet-for-an-organisation-that-grew-out-of-another-organisation-which-later-sponsored-HAMAS! stuff, doesn't it?

Of course the reason why it will be such a slapdash job is that the history isn't the point - the point is to construct a suitably pejorative psychological theory of anyone who might object to being given a record of important events which doesn't make sense. And, of course, to pussyfoot round the very obvious reason why Aaro got interested in the subject in the first place; the conspiracy to mislead the public, the Cabinet and the House of Commons over the ussue of nuclear, chemical and/or biological weapons in Iraq. Aaro's line on this, recall, is that the Butler Review and Hutton Inquiry have shown that "Blair didn't lie", that this is all there is to it, and that anyone who objects that the absence of a "smoking gun memo" is hardly dispositive or that both inquiries were severely flawed in their terms of reference, is doing so out of pathological Blair Derangement Syndrome, or out of a wish to feel superior and knowing, or unwillingness to abandon that rhyming slogan, and so on.

But, of course, this is the whole question that this book ought to deal with and I bet it doesn't. We know that inquiries into matters of interest involving that nexus of politics, intelligence and crime which Peter Dale Scott christened "deep events", are almost always atrociously carried out. They're stacked (the stacking of commissions of inquiry through manipulation of their personnel is such a commonplace that it's quite literally a subject for situation comedy), they're crippled by their terms of reference and they're censored. If, per Aaro's thesis, the world is not so exciting and few major events have "conspiracies" at the bottom, then why not set everyone's mind at rest and do the inquiry properly?

Of course there's two reasons (at least). The one that's most congenial to Aaro's point of view is that there are some people who are never satisifed with anything because they just fundamentally don't like or trust the machinery of justice. A subset of this group are the paranoid schizophrenics, who are also attracted to the making of lists and the other accidentalia of conspiracy theory. But there are also plenty of plain and simple stroppy buggers, plus a fair number whose criticism is not in good faith. People like this are always there to keep a conspiracy theory on the go, even in the absence of any evidence, or in the presence of substantial contrary evidence. You don't necessarily want to throw this crowd bones in the form of the ambiguities and loose ends that a full inquiry will always generate.

But that's clearly not the real reason; after all, it's not exactly difficult to marginalise and ridicule the awkward squad out of mainstream public debate, as Aaro proves exhaustively. The main reason why so many inquries are, to use the technical term, "for shit", is that they usually need to be constructed painstakingly to gerrymander round that protean category "Things Which Everyone Agrees It Would Be Wiser Not To Look At Too Closely".

Lee Harvey Oswald, for example, was a walking Thing Which Everyone Agrees &C. He had connections to US and Russian intelligence, to Cuba, to anti-Castro Cubans, and all manner of other interesting folks. Given that the Cuban Missile Crisis was only a short while ago, anyone wanting to find out that Oswald was anything other than a "lone nut" would have been advised to tread very carefully indeed. LBJ actually recruited people to the Warren Commission by telling them that "we've got to be taking this out of the arena where they're testifying that Khrushchev and Castro did this and did that, and kicking us into a war that can kill 40 million Americans in an hour". Jack Ruby also shared this most useful property of an assassin, of being someone who had a powerful coalition of interests militating against ever investigating him properly.

That's an exceptionally obvious case, of course (and of course, none of this is inconsistent with the "lone nut" theory being actually true; to deny this is to fall into a characteristic logical fallacy of the genre, which Aaro will of cours epick up on). But it does seem to be worthwhile to ask a question; why are there so bloody many Damned Things Which Must Not Be Investigated, and doesn't their ubiquity say something rather worrying about our society?

Another interesting question to ask is why there are so bloody many opportunists hanging round the shop, waiting to attach their policy agenda to a massive and shocking event, practically before the bodies have cooled. This is a behavioural characteristic of policy entrepreneurs which is as ubiquitous as it is unattractive, and which is absolutely bound to attract uncharitable questions about whether they had advance notice to get their Powerpoint slides prepared. There is a structural tendency toward what might be called "bong session cui bono" in the conspiracy literature (as opposed to the sensible kind, where it's supported by evidence; in both the Iranian hostages case and the Tonkin Gulf, the people responsible for the conspiracy did in fact do it, and did it because of a benefit they hoped to get). But really, we should be asking no so much "who benefits?" as "who the fucking hell are you anyway, and how did you get yourself into a position where you were able to benefit from this?".

Example: the cui bono links between various PNAC groups, the companies Halliburton and Blackwater and the Bush administration, as unearthed by the 9/11 truthers, are pretty laughable if they're meant to serve as evidence of an "inside job". But, the fact is that within days of the attacks the USA was preparing to invade Iraq, there had been a massive expansion of the powers of the executive branch, and ungodly amounts of noncompetitive military supply contracts were being prepared. And in a number of cases, key stages in the decision processes had been convered up. How the heck that comes to happen, seems like an interesting question to be investigating, doesn't it?

Well, maybe not, not if you're Aaro. David Aaronovitch's consistent vice as a columnist, voluminously documented on our blog, is that he has much too much of a tendency to give the benefit of the doubt to people in government. The underlying theory is sort of pop-Rousseauism - the "left lobe theory", under which we the people, if we were really thinking about things, rather than always being distracted by those horrible mediassess and rabble-rousers, would agree to all sorts of sensible-sounding technocratic policies which we don't actually want. And if that's your theory of government, then it would be perfectly natural for the poor beleaguered technocrats to use a crisis to clear out their bottom drawer of political desiderata, wouldn't it? For Dave, Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine" is pretty much an operations manual.

And this is the real dark psychological underbelly of "Voodoo Histories" - the portrait that this book keeps in its attic, to steal one of my co-author Chardonnay Chap's best lines. In acual fact, the "Voodoo Histories" view of the world is a pretty good description of how David Aaronovitch thinks things ought to operate. Recall that his thesis (which will be set out live! at the RSA on Thursday) is, per the Random House blurb, that conspiracy theories "elevated their believers to membership of an elite – a group of people able to see beyond lies to a higher reality". Hahaha those conspiracy loons.

But on the other hand, Aaro was a close colleague of John Birt and an alumnus of Weekend World and the "mission to explain". His entire philosophy of the media industry is that the public are, in fact, systematically ignorant of key policy debates, and that it is the job of a journalists to give them access to underlying reality - the famous "mission to explain". So Aaro does, in fact, believe that he is part of an elite, which is able to see beyond lies to a higher reality. It's just a matter of whose version of the truth you're going to pick. Aaro suggests that this choice ought to be made on the basis of " a thorough knowledge of history and a strong dose of common sense" (per the RSA blurb), but this bluff saloon-bar no-nonsense approach hasn't really done him very well in the single highest-profile piece of analysis in his columnistic career (listed under "That Bloody Prediction in our sidebar).

This is the trouble with nearly all of the modern "sceptic" movement - they are very selective indeed about who they're going to be sceptical about. Dan Hind wrote an entire (and very good) book about this strange failure to follow through on "Enlightenment Values" to their logical conclusion, and Aaronovitch's book is another fine example of the genre. In the final analysis, "Voodoo Histories" is the equivalent of a book on junk science which doesn't mention the tobacco/lung cancer or DDT/malaria scandals - it's a part of the problem disguised as part of the solution.



http://aaronovitch.blogspot.com/
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Call for Alerts/Real-Time Data Easy Skanking 6 555 10-07-2013, 09:40 AM
Last Post: Easy Skanking
  Eyes Wide Shut RaFTertheONE 4 942 08-07-2013, 03:19 PM
Last Post: shortwave
  CLIF HIGH On RENSE 8-9 PM Pacific Time Jan 24 2013 shortwave 1 858 01-25-2013, 12:11 PM
Last Post: shortwave
  wikileaks and U.S spying real time credit card, and in cyberspace mexika 1 620 12-05-2010, 11:19 PM
Last Post: westiesworld
  time for me to post a cool music video Weyland 0 539 09-14-2010, 09:11 AM
Last Post: Weyland
  Buying a home...What options are there? SiLVa 38 4,240 07-16-2010, 03:45 AM
Last Post: hilly7
  Super-Taser shotgun that can knock down criminals from 100ft assessed by Home Office TriWooOx 4 1,771 04-26-2010, 07:32 AM
Last Post: Deathaniel
  Cassetteboy vs Nick Griffin vs Question Time --- 4 705 10-26-2009, 02:54 AM
Last Post: ---
  Hour Of The Time Conspiracy Dave 26 2,919 07-30-2009, 10:31 PM
Last Post: BlindTheAllSeeingEye
  War of the Words, Edge Media TV, 23rd July at 6pm (UK time) wickywoowoo 6 1,057 07-23-2009, 07:34 PM
Last Post: wickywoowoo

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)