Dear Preston,
Please post this on my behalf to the CIA-Drugs list.
> > Overall, the Alex
> > Burns post in defense of Michael Aquino reminds me of the industry
> front groups that argue toxic sludge is good for you, the "skeptic"
> organizations
> > that seek to discredit legitimate critics of government, or
> Pentagonia's dismissal of GWS as symptoms of "stress."
My past affiliation with the Temple of Set is a matter of
public record. I have cited references for my arguments, and
endeavoured to provide material on "critical thinking". Instead
I have received _ad hominem_ attacks (attacks that focus
on the person, and that "mind-read" a person's knowledge and
motivations).
Far from "smearing" Rightmyer, I have asked him to be
publicly accountable for his past statements, and to back
up his evidence. He has refused to do so.
> Alex Burns is a member of the Temple of Set. At the outset, this
> undermines his credibility considerably, since, to a satanist, lying
> is holy.
I was a member of the Temple of Set from June 1996 until April
1998. Prior to my affiliation, I had spent several years studying
the Temple of Set's reading list and virtually every book
written about it. I am not currently a member.
The allegation that "to a satanist, lying is holy" is
incorrect, and shows your poor research into contemporary
Satanic beliefs. "The Crystal Tablet of Set", the collection
of documents given to new Setians, features an extensive
outline of meta-political and ethical theories, as well as
listing many books on human psychology, media and similar
issues. This is also a matter of public record.
I have studied over 30 years of material; Rightmyer
apparently has not. His credibility is therefore undermined,
not mine.
Rightmyer writes:
"Disinformation.Com itself is admittedly engaged in conspiracy
theories, an accusation Burns levels against others."
Mr. Rightmyer contributed to our book "You Are Being Lied To",
which I appreciate. I also feel that we should have an
"Alex Constantine" dossier, but as there is a conflict of
interest here, I would defer to publisher Gary Baddeley to
edit it. I hope he will be involved in any future book-related
projects.
As public statements by Richard Metzger shows, Disinformation
has published conspiracy-related material, but was conceived
with the broader aim of covering subcultures, key thinkers
and "shadowing" the media. In academic circles, this is known
as a meta-critique. We *have* critiqued cases of sloppy
thinking within the conspiracy subculture, nor do we personally
agree with everything that we publish. Metzger's press are
here:
http://www.disinfo.com/pages/press.php
"When I was asked to contribute to the recently-published You Are
Being Lied To, a D.C publication, Burns voiced no objection to
the inclusion of my name in the book."
Nor would I. A professional editor does not allow personal
disagreements to enter into business relations. Richard Metzger
and publisher Gary Baddeley have been aware of my past
affiliation. As far as I'm aware, it's never been a problem,
although it has been discussed.
"I was even asked to write a second chapter. No author in
the book wrote a second chapter."
Several writers had multiple chapters, including Howard
Bloom and Russ Kick. What mattered was the material that
each author wrote, not the number of times they were
featured.
"(I write about fascism, which is inherently conspiratorial
‹ there is a vast difference, but Burns, a theorist himself,
is not capable of comprehending it.)"
I studied German and Russian politics under Robert Manne,
one of Australia's most noted conservative scholars. I also
read many of the books on the Temple of Set's reading list
about fascism before I affiliated in 1996. Just this weekend
I read Erich Fromm's "Escape from Freedom", a well known
war-time critique of fascism and consumer-driven conformity.
Last week I interviewed Australian DJ David Thrussell for
Artbyte magazine; Thrussell's music references conspiracy
culture imagery, including writings by Rightmyer, Kenn
Thomas, Jim Keith, and Cathy O'brien.
As can be seen from my published record, I've written
extensively on the prospects of an "American fascism", and
how the media may help create it. I use "fascism" in the
very specific sense that political scientists do, as a
political system and character structure, not as a
perjorative term.
"Alex Burns and his mentor Michael Aquino"
Michael A. Aquino's writings and dialogue have certainly
been mentor-like, and have directed me to specific areas
of media studies and political science research. I also
have had many other colleagues and mentors.
Yes, I have studied some psychological operations-related
material. This has prompted me to become *more* accountable,
not less.
"Burns himself has never explained how he arrived at the
conclusion that Michelle Remembers set off mass hysteria.
He has never examined his own premises for this transparent
bromide."
Since we've never met, how could Rightmyer make such a
judgment about me? Also: Would Dan Rightmyer and others
mention Aquino if not for his religious beliefs and
military intelligence career?
The 1980s Ritual Abuse cycle was due to many complex
factors, not simply "Michelle Remembers", which did feature
a crude depiction of Satanism as an anti Judeo-Christian
religion involving demonic posession and child sacrifice.
I have said that these ideas became prevalent in
many SRA tomes, and that they bear no relation to the
Church of Satan or Temple of Set. I have referenced
scientific papers on memetics (how ideas spread through
society) by Richard Dawkins, Aaron Lynch and Manuel de
Landa, amongst others. I have also mentioned Elaine
Showalter's book "Hystories: Hysterical Epidemics and
Modern Media" (Columbia University Press, 1996), which
shows how literary tropes can become prominent as
explanations. Douglas Rushkoff's work also provides a
basis: this is not "theory", the patterns are observable
by empirical scientific and content imagery techniques.
Similar imagery and allegations were made when Scotland
Yard confiscated Genesis P-Orridge's belongings, forcing
him into exile. Of course, the allegations were proven
to be false. Norman Cohn observed in his book "Europe's
Inner Demons: An Inquiry Inspired by the Great
Witch-hunt" (Sussex University Press, 1975) that this
"baby-killing" imagery was used by some Christians to
attack Jews and Muslims. It was also used by the
British in World War I to gain public support against
the Germans. And, of course, for the 1991 Persian
Gulf War.
Nor have I tried to "explain away" child abuse cases
*where medical and forensic evidence exists that actual
abuse has taken place*. When I asked Rightmyer if he
had any medical and forensic evidence to prove Presidio
(and I did so forcefully), he attacked me. He has not
produced the required evidence. The majority of
child abuse cases occur within families or by
extra-familial members.
I have had two friends who have been victims of
child abuse. This is amongst the most harrowing of
experiences, hence I don't take "allegations" lightly.
I've also interviewed psychohistorian Lloyd
deMause and read much of the International
Psychohistory Association's material. deMause has
published some pro-SRA material, which I found
interesting.
"Burns may be too self-deceived to ever comprehend
the phrase "journalistic ethics." "
I've taken several university-level classes in journalism
and ethics. I have also stated that if anyone can produce
the required evidence that abuse took place, I will
reconsider my position. No such evidence, in over four
years, has ever been produced.
But let's apply the same to Rightmyer: since Aquino was
never charged, a competent journalist would presume
innocence and put the "burden of proof" on his critics.
They would also respect First Amendment protection of
religious beliefs (*any* religious beliefs). And they
would follow basic guidelines re: legal evidence and
"standards of proof" rather than post hundreds of
messages to public newsgroup forums.
In constructing a case, they would consider alternate
hypotheses, consider alternate sources, and request
primary documentation. This is journalistic "objectivity":
not simply arriving at a perspective, then gathering up
as much evidence for that as you can. Rightmyer is quite
happy to promote himself as an investigative journalist,
and to his credit, he has unearthed much interesting
material, that people should read and decide for
themselves. He is quite happy to promote himself and
Diana Napolis as fearless investigators in the mould
of Woodward and Bernstein. Except when the same standards
are applied to his research.
Nor would my critique of Rightmyer simply be of Aquino.
I could point to several other errors of information.
In "The Covert War Against Rock", for example, Rightmyer
contends that Bob Rosen concocted "Operation Walrus"
to assassinate John Lennon. Rightmyer never contacted
Rosen to verify this rumor, which is debunked in Kenn
Thomas' "Popular Alienation: A Steamshovel Press
Reader".
I've made broader critiques of the conspiriology
community: the best researchers are close to investigative
journalists, the worst are airing personal vendettas and
uncritically spreading propaganda. I find individual
pieces and writers to be inspirational, but do not have
"blind allegiance" to the conspiriology community itself.
Regards,
Alex Burns
d|i|s|i|n|f|o|r|m|a|t|i|o|n
Latest Dispatch: "I, Croupier"
http://www.disinfo.com/pages/review/id1078/pg1/
| Yahoo! Groups Sponsor |
| |
 |
Please let us stay on topic and be civil.
To unsubscribe please go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cia-drugs
-Home Page- www.cia-drugs.org
OM
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
