Do you have any thoughts on conspiracy theories?
On Aug 31, 7:44 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote:
> I wonder what May Jo's family thought of the air time given to the
> great senator?
>
> I go with Orn on what at bottom is a lack of honesty in our systems.
> I go with Molly in that we have to believe in something to create
> anything, though I don't see the dynasties as having any solutions -
> they are very much part of the problem to me, preventing people being
> connected for the right reasons.
>
> We conflate issues in 'dirty hands'. Knowing one has tracked down a
> miserable kidnapping killer, it's hard to justify not using his foul
> engines on him or his female familiar to find out where the victims
> are to save them or bring closure for relatives, but it is rare
> outside literature to be in such a position. More likely, the cops
> and other agencies will screw up (as in Baby P or the recent US case
> currently in the news) and not act on the evidence and criminal
> records in plain view. In the Detroux case in Belgium, the cops
> actually sealed the last victims to their fate by sealing up the house
> they were captive in. When it comes to terrorism, the authorities are
> clearly demonising (as does literature) whilst the only people we are
> catching are either totally innocent or pathetic. We have seen one
> bungle after another - and this is surely the longer case in a history
> in which imperial plunder has continued. Here, even in military
> terms, Europe (then including Russia) blundered in 1861 because it was
> blind to the real threat (the USA) because we were more concerned to
> plunder Africa, the sub-continent, China and the middle east. This
> continued after WW2 with the US as the only major player, able to swat
> the old European players like flies. Think of the lies about Vietnam
> (in the UK this was a much more secret time of wars against Indonesia
> and so on). What one would like to see before engaging in dirty hands
> is real evidence of what the problems are. Given the record of our
> authorities in small-scale stuff like criminal cases, it appears we
> can't even see the obvious.
> I've met 'Jihadis' around the world and in my classrooms - some
> nutters, but generally decent people swayed by their own version of
> the propaganda oused around us - the decency taken advantage of. Many
> of these people were laughed at by their contemporaries. The Wahhabi
> extreme is very frightening, but even this is a creation of British
> atrocities in India (in large part) and the area generally.
> I'd say the idea of trying to negotiate peace looking down other
> people's gun-barrels is dumb. The is no point in conflating the ideal
> of peace with forcing an absolute ideal of non-violence on oneself -
> otherwise those women who choose to hate our soldiers could no doubt
> convert the men who would stick them in Burkhas if it were not for our
> soldiers. The notion of hordes of feminists in attack mode against
> tribal sexism is intriguing, but I have seen no volunteers. They are
> much more likely to beat up on those like me, who they must sense are
> no threat to their freedom to be what they want and have a just sense
> of what force can be used for.
> The dirty hands argument is 'Catch 22' - we can't have it in the open
> for 'reasons of national security' - yet without the true reasoning
> and evidence we can't do rational analysis. Here I think Orn has long
> pointed to a form of evidence in plain sight, yet behind the ouse or
> kitsch of edutainment and the lies of pride we are dragged up with.
> What literature I have seen (generally TV) on terrorism makes me
> believe our security services now dominate the popular genre, probably
> directly by using writers. James Bond, Sleeper Cell, Spooks and
> almost any action film are probably most people's 'reality' - NCIS is
> a personal favourite because it's so crude. I often hear the taught
> morality of dirty hands from these 'lectures' in my classes, almost
> exclusively from people who have never been anywhere other than a rock
> concert. The paranoid version of this was 'Three Days of the
> Condor' (title a bit wrong maybe) - even when you get the truth to the
> New York Times you are still screwed because 'they' control that too.
> There are counter-examples in book and film, but these don't have wide
> appeal (years back we had 'A Very British Coup').
>
> In all likelihood, the 'CIA' (several organisations really) has
> penetrated our secret service in Europe and I guess our main political
> parties in the UK. It is fatuous to believe the Soviets could do this
> with their scarce resources and that the 'CIA' has not with a vast
> budget and much greater familiarity. The idea that we don't spy on
> friends is known to be a lie. This may sound like the kind of
> paranoia they say you can find in the asylum (I have always found
> 'nutters' to be very conservative in their fantasies - don't bother
> with the research, I wasn't an in-patient!). The real point here is
> that our systems of democracy (should we agree to write this
> """democracy""") are prone to abuse by money, vested interest, dynasty
> and foreign powers because of the way our parties are structured and
> our representatives elected. There is no evidence these are our 'best
> people' for the job and also plenty of room to contest whether we just
> want the 'best people' (for surely they will inevitably be a
> 'class'). Constitution change rhetoric always blows hard about
> different ways to produce the same old 'business as usual' types.
>
> I have some ideas about means to ends that switch the focus from dirty
> dealing and the need for it. I ain't swooned by the same kind of
> sweet smiling drug and sex addicts that have got to Molly, but only
> because I don't like men. Shirley Williams, Lynne Featherstone (the
> MP active in forcing the Baby P enquiry), Barbara Castle - now they
> smiled sweetly. So did Harriet Harmon, but she is clearly a dolt
> these days. I have changed - the very kind of socialist smile in a
> woman that would once get me walking a million miles just hits at
> points of total revulsion in me. What's got me thinking is the notion
> we don't need MPs, senators and the rest to have politics and
> democracy and they may well be in the way of it.
>
> On 31 Aug, 14:07, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I have to go with Rigsy and Francis on this one. Casting our
> > conscientious votes is only one way for us to participate in our
> > larger communities - there are thousands available to us. We can sit
> > back and talk about the problems we see (thus bringing more of them
> > into our experience,) blame others, question motives etc,. but that
> > really doesn't do anything but isolate us further. Taking that first
> > step, say into public service, thinking and feeling in ways that
> > express our fraternity or connection will again, bring more of that
> > into individual and collective experience. We each must take
> > responsibility for ourselves and the whole, and visa versa. It begins
> > with each of us. No one is going to do it for us.
>
> > There has been a great deal of air time to the Kennedy family and
> > their devotion to public service, especially Ted, who had a hand in
> > every US program that aids and equalizes opportunities for people it
> > seems. The Kennedy's are human, they fall and are redeemed before our
> > eyes. But they are not afraid to step into the thick of it, as Jack
> > did, inheriting the cold war with the bully Kruchev and going public
> > with the Cuban crisis, trying to unwrangle and warm things up. Jack,
> > Robert and Ted, it seems to me, never lost sight of the fact that we
> > are all connected, that any US hunger is hunger for all of us, each
> > success is success for all of us. It has been inspiring to watch this
> > family over the years because each of these men and many others in the
> > family have been golden examples of what it means to actually love
> > humanity. Not saying so to be polite or posture, but actually love
> > humanity...to be willing to get into the trenches like Neil and
> > negotiate and work hard with what is available to help people, get
> > your hands dirty, ease suffering, and lead others into hope and
> > brotherhood. It is not surprising to me that these three Kennedy's
> > were able to move so many people together into hope for a better
> > tomorrow, they believed that vision of tomorrow is possible today, and
> > people followed. It doesn't mean they weren't human, we all are. It
> > doesn't mean they didn't make mistakes, we all do. It means they
> > lived as if we are all connected, and what they did, thought and felt
> > effected everyone in the country and the world - and they showed us
> > that this is so.
>
> > On Aug 31, 7:24 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > We get the system(s) we have allowed to exist so we are part of the
> > > problem.
>
> > > On Aug 30, 11:37 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > “…The US electorate decided in 2002, 2004 and 2006 not to give them
> > > > practical majorities…” – fran
>
> > > > Well, it might appear to be the case to many fran. And, knowing that
> > > > voting fraud is as old as voting is, I still will provide one list of
> > > > issues when it comes to the black box.
>
> > > >http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/1954.html
>
> > > > Here is another. I no longer wear rose colored glasses when it comes
> > > > to the veracity of vote tallies.
>
> > > >http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/8/8.html
>
> > > > For those who care about election results and wish to get any sleep at
> > > > night, do NOT read any of the above!
>
> > > > And, as to the current topic, yes, it does appear that there are those
> > > > who carry the belief that the ends justify the means.
>
> > > > On Aug 30, 10:43 am, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 30 Aug., 17:51, BB47 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Yes, you have good points except that Guantanamo went on for seven
> > > > > > years. There was plenty of
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
