Why are you sending me your unsolicited rants?
Cat got John's tongue?
"Sean" never answers questions.
Just spouts, snarls and sends in the clown dogs.
Peace,
K
On Oct 3, 2007, at 7:33 AM, LeaNder wrote:
Re: [cia-drugs] Re: More Lies?
If I may comment.
"Sean" has declared the death knell of the cia-drugs email list for
years, always declaring that I have killed it by being paranoid,
drug-addled, uneducated, an Israeli/Neocon op, etc. and then he
also plays all these games with the people that do post. Did ya
ever notice how "Sean" singles people out, putting their names into
the subject? One reason is to discourage "lurkers" to post, who
wants the grief? One reason is to dominate the conversations and
shout down all other viewpoints. And to waste endless hours in
"debate."
LeaNder: Lets see. Dead Knell. A grant to study something is not
quite the same as bringing down a list. This would be the typical
approach of whom? An agent with the order to destroy a list of
utter importance? A researcher with the order to bring down
especially cia-drugs? Is cia-drugs the only spot on the US net,
were research into power structures is done?
On what specific facts does this argument rest? I received messages
that the mental short cut or agreed on explanation of cia-drugs
members is that Chip Berlet received a grant to destroy the
internet as an exchange platform? Lets not talk about the myth
"Sean = Berlet" which rests on weak legs. Lets take a look at Chip,
Chip, Chippie, which has been your enemy a little longer than the
nasty Sean it seems. It would be great to see evidence. The only
trace I can find is that Chip Berlet was accused to not having
studied extreme right wing people, leaders AND their internet
forums well enough. Thus he was told that his study did avoid a
look into specific contemporary expressions.
Chip Berlet - Criticism
Reviewing Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort,
Robert H. Churchill of the University of Hartford criticized Berlet
and other authors writing about the right wing as lacking breadth
and depth in their analyses, failing to make contact with
significant figures in the movement and conduct significant
research on the Internet, and for providing analyses of far right
movements that proscribe as "racist" a broad range of conservative
political ideologies that are "driven more by the association of
the author with various civil rights organizations and leftist
political activists outlined in the acknowledgements than by the
primary evidence presented in the footnotes."[15]
Source
Is cia-drugs part of extreme Right-Wing circles? I wasn't aware of
that. I have to admit. it certainly distributes extreme right wing
fiction.
Now would you need to join a group and join the debate to research
extreme right or Christian fundamentalist expression? I would
consider this is a very bad idea. The scenario that would sound
plausible would be someone asking questions occasionally to make
sure, he got things right. But any novice would do pretty much the
same.
The thing I find not quite fitting is, but I no doubt may be
wrong. Would he not only join but lead the debate, if he were out
to study it?
Paranoia and importance: Paranoia is the main theme on cia-drugs.
Absolutely no doubt about that. There is always a tendency to look
at things from this angle. Could it be that Sean got interested in
alternative channels as a result of the Bush elections and the
peculiarities surrounding it. Maybe a little earlier when still a
couple of alternative researchers were present in the group?
Ruppert for instance, Russels ... But this would be not quite such
an adventurous explanation, would it?
Do you honestly think the Ford foundation gave somebody a grant of
100.000 $ to sinlge out and study cia-drugs? While we no doubt
single out and answer selectively to a high degree from morning to
night. Or was his order to bring it down and bring it down after
many important people had already left it? Or is there evidence he
was the reason they left? Is cia-drugs so important? I wouldn't
have noticed it without the Ruppert connection.
Was this job triggered by your enormously important "research" that
made Skull and Bones so nervous they sent an agent to destroy the
list?
Then I would be really pleased to see dates, facts numbers to
support this claim. This could ground us all in reality. Facts is
always something comfortable to look at. while I have problems with
fictions sold as reality
Mind you I am aware of your importance, I watched your interview on
Fox. Can't be too easy to get into these circles? As far as I
remember you never told us how you got that interview and were
granted a permission to this free advertisement on one of the main
right wing channels, with a rather huge audience it feels.
In what way does this interview support your claim that the powers
that be do not support your studies. To me it looks a bit the other
way round. They gave you this interview and sent Sean to bring your
list down? Heglian dialectics?
Please explain how Heglian dialectics can be studied in this example?
And I find "sean" always pushing a dialectic of us and them, two
sides; and that we at cia-drugs are all together.
Now this would be really interesting too, if you could elaborate a
bit.
Personally I think dialectics is an essential trait in every
argument, but as far as I remember dielectic was regarded a
standard in my education? Let us don't go into Hegel here.
But pray tell me, how do you differentiate between somebody arguing
his point and someone "pushing dialectics" as one of the two sides
in your dialectical split?
What's with that? I mean were are just an email group, mostly just
informational exchange with some discussion and expression of
opinions. Bob and I aren't loyal to each other. We have never met.
I respect Bob. I enjoy Bob's prose. Bob is his own man. We haven't
signed any pact. We are both just loyal to the same thing. The
truth of the matter.
Now we are back in reality. That always makes me feel a little
better. I think I have expressed my sympathy for the old ranter
already. But I am a bit worried at the moment that the Heglian
dialectics have seriously distorted his vision. It makes him see
enemies and antagonists everywhere.
But what makes one an enemy on your list? I think it is really
simple, one only has to point out certain discrepancies. One needs
only to point out that neither dialectics nor Heglians attempt to
see history moved by such processes of consciousness are Sutton's
or your invention, but that dialectics have in fact a long, long
human history as something essential in every argument.
"Sean," you claim I am paranoid, yet you have posted that you use a
false name on the Internet because you were afraid of the Mossad
and "crazy people."
Strictly, that drew my attention too. But then I do not know what
experiences he made. I think there were recurring hints in that
directions.
For me the Mossad were the good guys so far. In my case this led to
a mental short cut too. Everybody that is suspicious of ADL or
Mossad must be on the extreme right. Mossad were the good guys
since they traced the old Nazis everywhere.
From a realistic point of view it no doubt is not very helpful to
divide the world in good and evil or good guys and bad guys.
But strictly this would mean from the point of view of the real
Chip Berlet you are in the same camp. Are you suggesting he was
dissembling in this instance, presenting a standard extreme right
wing paranoia?
"Sean" says, "Yahoo knows for certain that I am not Berlet, as do
more than a dozen members of my Yahoo group"
How does Yahoo know who you are? There is no ID check in getting a
yahoo account. Anyone, most anywhere can create a yahoo account,
without any shred of evidence of who they are. "Sean" claims over a
dozen people know he isn't Berlet. Hmm, I've never heard from one.
Do you have meetings? Is there a secret handshake? Wow, this is the
biggest number "Sean" has ever claimed, know that he isn't Berlet.
Have you been out in bars lately recruiting? Bonding? How sweet?
I think there definitely must be. Would some of your friends know
if you opened a group with a pseudonym? A couple of friends of mine
know e.g. the pseudonym I use in the arts field occasionally.
Although obviously I am not as careful as Sean in these matters.
"Yahoo knows for certain". Well maybe he already complained, like I
did now, using his own real data for the contact. After I dived
into the paranoid cia-drugs experience. I wouldn't be too surprised
if he did. Isn't this an associative chain that should come really
easy?
Oh, and "Sean"/John you never answer my questions, but I will try
one more time, you seem to be such a reasonable guy and have so
much time on your hands. And a person of such knowledge and
eruditeness should be able to whip it off the top of their head.
Please show me where the Founding Fathers signed the Declaration of
Independence, pledging their honor and fortune with false names and
please show me a Shakespeare play about internecine warfare between
father and son. You have had several weeks to answer those two
questions, will you ever?
This is such a silly and sick trick, it does not deserve an answer.
Yes Sean is much more intelligent than you are, that is a simple
fact. I don't like it especially if he plays the well educated and
superior person, but I do not consider it necessary either.
But let us take the internecine warfare between father and son. How
would you think this could be explained by your Heglian dialectics?
Does Shakespeare show us, who operates this clash? Is it possible
as Sean tried to tell you, that Shakespeare knows a lot more about
conspiracies as you do, since his center is on humans, actors,
parts and the huge range of human desires and intrigues.
