Reckoning with the God Squad

whit,

I would rather have 1% of a 16 inch pie than 20% of a dime-sized cupcake.

I’ll say it one more time. The history of economic systems in the 20th century clearly shows free-market systems far surpassing command systems.

whit,

I don’t suppose you could give me a Reader’s Digest version? I don’t think I can finish all that in just a couple days.

Basic scientific and mathematically principle: The more concise the theory, the more elegant the explanation, the more likely the truth.

I believe someone by the name of Occam devised a Razor like that....

lb,

“His argument here is to show that the US does not have a monopoly on morality.”

If that is Rabbit’s argument, then I agree. I would appreciate it if you could quote my words that say we do have a monopoly. I will happily eat them.

But not having a monopoly does not mean we have none.

There is nothing immoral about putting up your dukes when someone takes a shot at you. Rabbit has consistently stated that America has no right.

And that I strenuously disagree.

Jay, I don’t know what videos you watched, but the ones I watched show great explosion when the buildings collapsed.  With 100 micron-fine dust from pulverized concrete being spewed more than 500 away from the buildings.  Fire and passive collapsing would cause neither the explosion effect or the flour-fine dust.  The dust cloud from the North Tower grew to 5 times the volume of the building within 30 seconds of the start of the collapse.  The expansion of the dust cloud has been estimated to be 100 times greater than should have caused by each towers gravitational potential energy. Building 7, undamaged by Twin Towers debris, and with only two small areas of fire on the 7th and 12th floors minutes before it fell, collapsed into its own tidy footprint at a near free-fall speed, leaving the building adjacent to it totally unscathed.  Its center collapsed ahead of its perimeter and streamers of smoked emerged from its facade… both characteristic of controlled demolition.  It was the first structural steel building EVER to have the cause of its collapse attributed to fire alone.  Previously-molten steel was found 7 levels below the ground at the towers and #7.  Temperatures exceeding 2800 F would have been needed to produce such melting… temps not caused by the combustion of jet fuel.  ETC.

“Those same intercepts clearly show Japan was digging in for a final victory or death struggle”

Not at all.  They reported a patriotic and rhetorical call for the civilian population of Japan to dig in for a death struggle.  There was real credible intel that neither military command nor the civilian population, had the logistical capacity to do so.

To hang your argument on the possible meanings of the word probable is weak.  The conditionality is the careful diction of the reviewer and not the book.  It would be good if you actually read it before making specious and sophomoric rhetorical third-hand arguments.

Jay, if Rabbit hits me on the backside with a stick, am I then justified in smashing in your scull with a baseball bat?

“If that is Rabbit’s argument, then I agree. I would appreciate it if you could quote my words that say we do have a monopoly. I will happily eat them.”

You were arguing that “ ljwhit (not GhostRabbit) used the A-bomb reference to argue against the morality of American actions in the Middle East after 9/11”, this is the argument I am questioning, not that you made any claim of exclusive US moral righteousness.  Why are you so unwilling to keep to the point?  Why the diversion?  You’re obviously not stupid, but deviousness exudes from your words like stink from a fresh turd.

As I remember it from my readings, the “condition” that the Japanese (who were cleary ready to surrender) were negotiating was that the Emperor be kept as the figurehead leader of the country… since he was also recognized as the nation’s religious leader.

‘And the U.S. had no problem making this concession… AFTER they had dropped their Atomic bombs.

whit,

My first reaction to your data. Controlled demolitions wouldn’t cause great explosions; Concrete will create great explosions and pulverize to a fine dust when suddenly compacted under great pressure (30-60 stories of weight would do it); 500 feet out is not that far given that the towers were over 1000 feet tall (I could probably spit that far from that high - ok, maybe not, but how far out is deep left field from third base?); it was the first structural building to ever been hit by a fully loaded large commerical jet liner; explosions are more percussive than thermal and would be more likely to cause structurally damage and pulverize steel, not turn it into pools of molten steel.

But, I’ll research it… Be nice if you could provide authoritative sources for me to start with, that’d be great. Web sites that advocate weather machines were used to create tsunamis; books that are written to sensationalize and make lots of money, are not.

J, as far as the economics thing goes… you seem to be a one-trick pony.  Knowing that the elephant’s truck is like a big snake doesn’t tell you everything about elephants.

Anyway, I’m hardly suggesting that we do worst than we are doing… not at all.  I just think WE COULD DO BETTER for the common good, the greater good, the nation, you know… THE PEOPLE… functional democracy… all that dribble.

lb,

Thank you for the backhanded compliment. Please understand I am fighting a multi-front war here. It is not deviousness; it is just there are at least four different points flying about to keep track of.

But, “not that you made any claim of exclusive US moral righteousness”.

ummm, I think we need another dictionary check here. Or maybe I misunderstood you when you used the word “monopoly”.

www.dictionary.com says,

monopoly.  Exclusive possession or control.

Now, I am not trying to be argumentative here. But when the points keep shifting, it is hard to keep track of.

whit,

What’s wrong with a one-trick pony?

If F = ma yesterday, today, tomorrow and forever, does that mean it is not relevant?

Can we do better? Yes, oh God yes! But not with the same ol’ tired Animal Farm logic that has been proven wrong, over and over and over again.

Churchill once said (I can’t remember if I used this yet, but if I did, then you’ll understand that I really like this) democracy is the worst form of governance, except for all that we have tried thus far.

I feel the same way about free-market economies.

I am not a utopianist. I do not throw out the baby with the bath water, at least not until someone comes up with something better. Should we abandon democracy because, for example, all the fears of our Founding Fathers about factional politics have been realized, beyond their wildest nightmares? When you come up with something better, yes.

Until then, no.

One-trick pony time. Yes, your pony has a point. There is an unequal distribution of wealth, and it’d be great to level it out. But time for my pony ride. 20th century. free-market vs command economies.

Give me a viable solution that is better and has not already been demonstrated to not work, and I’ll play the band as we march down Main Street together.

lb,

“There was real credible intel that neither military command nor the civilian population, had the logistical capacity to do so.”

Please connect the dots for me. Just because someone tells someone else they can’t do it, how does that necessarily require that they will be listened to.

If all it took was logistic capacity to wage war, we’d have the military sciences down to, well, a science. The Jews at Masada didn’t have a chance in hell, only a prayer. How come they didn’t give up.

whit,

“Jay, if Rabbit hits me on the backside with a stick, am I then justified in smashing in your scull with a baseball bat?”

No, of course not. But you are assuming that I accept the notion that al Qaeda wasn’t the one wielding the Rabbit’s stick.

Sorry, but your gonna need a better sales pitch to convince me 9/11 was domestic terrorism perpetuated by Bush, Inc.

Jay

When Luminous Beauty writes : “ an unerring habit of avoidance “ she is correct.

Deliberately diversionary would be a phrase I would use since I like the alliteration.

Jay writes : “ My gut reaction to your observations is that the first two, without knowing more detail, could very easily be and, in the absence of any substantive evidence, very probably is coincidence “

Coincidence? Maybe and maybe not. I think not. Jay, you brought up Ockhams’s Razor. In other words, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is probably a duck.

For detailed substantive evidence try typing “ 9/11 insider trading “ and “ 9/11 war games “ into a search engine. Pick and choose your own sources for confirmation.

Ijwhit was kind enough to provide the outline of the controlled demolition theory. Again, type “ 9/11 WTC controlled demolition “ into a search engine. Lots of sources to choose from.

Jay, I don’t believe those particular stats were ever provided by you in this thread.  Perhaps they are more compatible to the stats you had mentioned.  I have yet to find a source that seems fully authoritative on the matter, and don’t have the skills to interpret raw stats on my own.  I have learned that part of the problem is that reliable stat info on the wealth/holding of the ‘stratospheric elite’ at the top end is quite scarce.  So it remains somewhat of a mystery.  ‘But then I wouldn’t think they would want to have the curtain pulled open to cast any more light their little game.

J, it was the country of Iraq we visited our “shock and awe” upon… you do understand that don’t you? 

9-11 >>>>>> Al Qaeda ^^^^^?

9-11 >>>>>> Iraq ???????????????????

Al Qaeda >>>>> has substantial and historical verified ties to the various U.S. agencies CIA etal, the Pakistani SSI (Pak branch of CIA), Saudi Arabia, and so on…

Ties to Iraq are stabs in the dark and have no comparable substance.  Why have we not followed the tracks that are clearest?

Odd isn’t it, J, that the head of the Pakistani SSI (can’t recall the name), who was the primary interfacer with Al Qaeda and terrorists in the region, just happened to come to the U.S. for secret consultations with intelligence/military/admin just two days before 9-11, leaving just a couple of days after.  There is some reasonable evidence that this same man wired $100,000 to Mo Atta two weeks before 9-11.  When this info began to leak, Mr. SSI quietly resigned and faded into his very comfortable woodwork.  This particular curious thread was never inquired into by the 9-11 Ommission.

Regarding the books I mentioned relating to 9-11, I should correct myself on one point.
The book “ON BULLSHIT” is really just on bullshit… but it would be a useful and, oddly, very intellectual read.

J, the other books are quite serious works that raise important issue and questions and give loads of well-referenced information related to the pivotal issue we are discussing here.  Only someone with lock-jaw of the mind and no sense of honesty could give these books a fair read and not find much there to ponder.  Jay, this is about exploring for reality… converging on the best available approximation of the truth.  At this point in time there is nothing available, that I know of, that is fully conclusive certainly not the sorry white-wash given us by the 9-11 Ommission).  There is no true gain for any of us in getting stuck on some righteous position and being inflexible onto death.  Deadness there.  ‘Let’s not just cherry-pick or distort our intelligence like the neocons did.

Speaking of distorting intelligence:  Did you know that one of Saddam’s ex-son-in-laws was an intel assest for the neocons?  Of course, you did.  He testified that Saddam had been developing this and developing that, etc… WMD… ‘And those transcripts were put out for public consumption, helping to whip things up.  The Rest of the Story: It was later discovered that, in the very same intel transcripts, later on this guy describes how he personally oversaw the destruction of all that he had described.  This part of what he had to say was kept secret.  How’s that for cherry-picking?

“The War on Freedom” by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed

“The New Pearl Harbor” by David Ray Griffin

“Inside Job” by Jim Marrs

“CROSSING THE RUBICON” by Michael Ruppert

J,

No need to pull out the dictionary.  I meant the same thing with both phrases.  Mere repetition bores me.  And your thick-headedness requires substantial repetition.  The problem is comprehension on your part.  Here is the sentence I wrote one more time.

You were arguing that “ ljwhit (not GhostRabbit) used the A-bomb reference to argue against the morality of American actions in the Middle East after 9/11”; this is the argument I am questioning, not that you made any claim of exclusive US moral righteousness. 

Read this sentence again, carefully.  Go back and read the original post.  It may help.  Let me know when you think you get it. 

Sorry you’re so confused, but it isn’t like everybody is in the same room, yelling at you.  One point at a time.  Focus.

You write;

“ Please connect the dots for me.” Blah, blah, blah. 

I’m not your research assistant.  Read the book.  Read several.  Speculating from ignorance does not count for much.  Especially if you want to cast doubt on a fact’s validity.  Specificity is all-important.

“ If all it took was logistic capacity to wage war, we’d have the military sciences down to, well, a science. The Jews at Masada didn’t have a chance in hell, only a prayer. How come they didn’t give up?”

The Jews at Masada did give up.  They all committed suicide.  Not only did they lose the siege, they lost their faith in God.  So they didn’t even have a prayer, did they?
I wouldn’t presume to think that logistics is all that is required to wage a war.  However, without it, no matter how you slice it, your duck is fucked.

Well dear ones, what did the Rabbit tell you about this one?

The Rabbit who is seldom rabid, tries to be polite and loves all life, said this one is not worthy.  In the world that this one would have for us, he would long since be gone.

Jay would bring us to a point where any of us could just take a gun and blow off his idiot head. What would be the harm in that? Short sharp and sweet. With the sort of tactical skills and vision for things, including reality, he would be a sitting duck in such a world.

That is the thing you Idiot NEO-CON stooges have not even thought about yet. The fact that free thinking decent and balanced people, independant thinking people will be the most successful and likely to triumph the tougher things get.

Get used to defeat Jay. You have a lifetime of it ahead of you. Rabbit has seen how little chance there is for even well intentioned and somewhat reasoned people like WTH to “get well”. The fact is by comparison you have no chance at all. Rabbit has to admit that it was this reason why he went straight on the attack with this lame brain. Why bother? let’s just give it it a good belting with the heaviest stick in the box and throw it on the garbage heap again..

You nice and clever ones have been painting the most excellent canvas of reason and Rabbit will stick to biting this one.
.
Sorry Liz, who is a very sweet girl and Rabbit is sad to show his angry self. Has Liz never seen a really angry Rabbit? When they bite and growl and even bark? If you haven’t you would never believe it possible, if you have it will have been a memorable experience I’m sure.
Rabbits are gentle and love even funny snails and ants. The Rabbit does not even hold a grudge against the fox who kills and it’s him as the cycle of life intended...............This does not mean Rabbit has to never defend himself, his loved ones or his IDEALS.............Nothing is more single minded in the pursuit of goals than a Rabbit..................You may have to look away from time to time dear Liz, the Rabbit will keep it clean, but this just means clean cuts with the Sword at this point..............................Christopher Robins Rabbit, with a Sword and shield...............and a very determined stare.................today.

J says: Churchill once said (I can’t remember if I used this yet, but if I did, then you’ll understand that I really like this) democracy is the worst form of governance, except for all that we have tried thus far.

Churchill… hmmmm.

U.S. Congressman Sol Bloom, Chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, said in 1926 that Mussolini “will be a great thing not only for Italy but for all of us if he succeeds.” WINSTON CHRUCHILL wrote (to M. we might guess) in 1927 that “If I had been an Italian I am sure I would have been entirely with you” and “would have donned the Fascist black shirt.” The American Ambassador to Italy, Richard Washburn Child, was so impressed with “corporatism” that he wrote in the preface to Mussolini’s 1928 autobiography that “it may be shrewdly forecast that no man will exhibit dimensions of permanent greatness equal to Mussolini. . . . The Duce is now the greatest figure of this sphere and time.” As late as 1940, CHURCHILL was still describing Mussolini as “a great man.”

See… you have a tradition to uphold, J.

The way I see it, J, you ARE an idealist.  You keep talking to me about some ideal model that you think is proven the best, and you assumed that I am necessarily talking about some totally opposite thing.  No… J, the actuality does not match up to your ideal.  What I am trying to address most of all are those factors that are corrupting and undermining and distorting the way the model, ideally, should function.  We do not have a real free market, or a truly functioning democracy. 

I’m still guessing that you are among those who have a big ego investment in the Social Darwinism point of view because you’ve probably “paid your dues” and done quite well for yourself.  You are therefore superior, a winner, etc. and wouldn’t want to see anyone “undeserving” get anything at all for less… or something like that.  ‘And of course you would want to justify and legitimize everything you did to get where you are. 

I’m not really making any judgements here.  I’m just taking some guesses at psychological dynamics.  True, tho… you don’t strike me as having a freely generous nature (freely meaning giving without expecting ‘something’ in return… as in, what’s-in-it-for-me).

Damn Rabbit lost half his post, bad electrons, bad....
........Oh well
.
There is a Janitor who was the last person to leave WTC 1, and who was nationally reecognised for saving hundreds of lives.  He came to work late that morning and was by chance in the basement on the morning arriving at work when he and others in the office felt an huge explosion and the walls and floor cracked. Then a technician who had been working in a lift shaft came running up from the next level screaming that there had been a massive explosion in the basement, and he was badly burnt and injured from the blast. The Janitor, helped this man to safety and as they were getting up to go, theynheard another explosion from the stories above...................that was the first airliner hitting them.................This story is backed up by twenty-seven witnesses including the man he rescued from the lift door.
.
Many firemen swear they heard explosions during the whole affair and there are recordings of some of their communications with their colleauges inside the WTCs. These communications show the fires were under control, also they indicate that explosions, consistent with cutter charges as described.
.
The Firemen have been sworn to non-disclosure agreements and the recordings of all the 2-ways have been confiscated by the FBI. So have all the video footage which would shine the most crucial light on some of the more radical theories around. The footage the government is WITHOLDING would proove or utterly destroy many of the “Alternative Theories” abounding.
..
Why would they do that JAY?
..
JAY if you wish to question anything Rabbit has presented as a FACT, you may do so, but then you will be expected to read the sources offerred.

..
Above all you mindless prick, try and get one thing into your thick skull.........It was long since pointed out that all the sources I was posting were via. PRISON PLANET.
.....You are the epitomy of an illiterate Internet user if you are unable to comprehend that a link is not defined by what is it’s URL, and even Rabbit who can’t html knows this much.
... As I said the first time it is for my convenience I am going after all these easy things via Prison Planet’s archives.
...

try looking them up you stupid troll they are anything from BBC to CNN and Reuters, AP. Lots of your favorites provide information which can be used, so long as one is discerning and we are.
....You will have to check the sources and they are linked to others as necessary.
...........
If Rabbit felt like it he could get any of his facts sourced just by googling but why do that when Rabbit already knows where the things are stored.
... 
Prove something if you can Jay, or question something if you can Jay.  If all you can do is spruik for your cause and make an idiot of yourself in front of multiple witnesses, then do that too. The record of your stupidity will stand for all to enjoy even after as your various delusions fail even you over the days and weeks and months ahead.
..
The whole tower of DREAMS and LIES is Rotten and Weak. It is crumbling under your feet Jay.
.
Nasty Rabbit sometimes gets a grim satisfaction knowing that no amount of your delusional antics or faith based rantings will save you from the truth in the end.
..
Where once you could have been glad for that truth as it freed you, you have irrevocably placed yourself in a position where the truth has become your enemy, and you the enemy of truth.
..
That to a humble Rabbit does not sound like an enviable place in which to abide.
..
Suck eggs sunshine, when the day comes and you are sitting among the ashes of your dreams.....with your eyes open and nobody to blame but yourself, think about Rabbit who will be sitting somewhere safe and cosy with his little family having long since seen and prepared for the storm..

The post that went missing included a description of what Rabbit as a Bang Bunny knows about building demolitions. Also what he deduces from watching the available video footage of all three buildings collapse.
...
To anyone with the right clues the cutter charges are very obvious and the classic demolition patterns of ALL THREE collapses are unmistakeable.
...
The most crucial thing Rabbit would offer to the discussion about what can be deduced from the actual video footage which is from many sources and readily available, all show what we are looking for, if we look for it.
..
The dust and debris, even other effects of shock waves are clearly visible as they precede the point of collapse all the way to the ground. They are to be seen about thirty stories below the point of collapse, not explainable that many stories below by any air displacement. Anyicipate that one from anyone who is thinking. Not thirty stories and not evenly as these seem. Bang.... Bang.... Bang
..
You can take the actual videos and watch them beside actual videos of Skyscraper demolitions, you will not be able to pick the difference.
...
No other skyscraper ever collapsed despite the fact that jetliners have flown into them and some have burned at three times the temperature and for days, without collapsing.
..
The WTCs were actually far better able to withstand such thigs than most, they had been designed to take up to at least three simulataneous jetliner strikes. Bet you did not know that JAY? It is all only seconds away if you want.
..
Now what Rabbit thinks is the clincher on the whole deal is a bit of science, called Gravity. Shall just post this, to make sure electrons will let Rabbit, before saying the next, because this was said in much more detail and yet was slurped once.
..
Fears maybe the WATCHERS in the swamp might have nicked it and are poring over the details now. Too many things said about bangs maybe.

More Grist for the Mill, J.  #1

The Real Threat of Fascism
by Paul Bigioni

Observing political and economic discourse in North America since the 1970’s leads to an inescapable conclusion: the vast bulk of legislative activity favors the interests of large commercial enterprises. Big business is very well off, and successive Canadian and U.S. governments, of whatever political stripe, have made this their primary objective for at least the last 25 years. Digging deeper into twentieth century history, one finds this steadfast focus on the well-being of big business in other times and places. The exaltation of big business at the expense of the citizen was a central characteristic of government policy in Germany and Italy in the years before those countries were chewed to bits and spat out by fascism. Fascist dictatorships were borne to power in each of these countries by big business, and they served the interests of big business with remarkable ferocity. These facts have been lost to the popular consciousness in North America. Fascism could therefore return to us, and we will not even recognize it. Indeed, Huey Long, one of America’s most brilliant and most corrupt politicians, was once asked if America would ever see fascism. His answer was, “Yes, but we will call it anti-fascism”.

By exploring the disturbing parallels between our own time and the era of overt fascism, I am confident that we can avoid the same hideous mistakes. At present, we live in a constitutional democracy. The tools necessary to protect ourselves from fascism remain in the hands of the citizen. All the same, I believe that North America is on a fascist trajectory. We must recognize this threat for what it is, and we must change course. I propose to identify the core economic elements of fascism. In doing so, I will show that present-day political fashions are leading us down the path already trodden by Italy and Germany.

Consider the words of Thurman Arnold, head of the Anti-trust Section of the U.S. Department of Justice in 1939:

“Germany, of course, has developed within 15 years from an industrial autocracy into a dictatorship. Most people are under the impression that the power of Hitler was the result of his demagogic blandishments and appeals to the mob… Actually, Hitler holds his power through the final and inevitable development of the uncontrolled tendency to combine in restraint of trade.”
Arnold made his point even more clearly in a 1939 address to the American Bar Association:

“Germany presents the logical end of the process of cartelization. From 1923 to 1935 cartelization grew in Germany until finally that nation was so organized that everyone had to belong either to a squad, a regiment or a brigade in order to survive. The names given to these squads, regiments or brigades were cartels, trade associations, unions and trusts. Such a distribution system could not adjust its prices. It needed a general with quasi-military authority who could order the workers to work and the mills to produce. Hitler named himself that general. Had it not been Hitler it would have been someone else.”
I suspect that to most readers, Thurman Arnold’s words are bewildering. Most people today are quite certain that they know what fascism is. When I ask people to define fascism, they typically tell me what it was, the assumption being that it no longer exists. I have asked this question on numerous occasions, and the usual answer contains references to dictatorship and racism which trail off into muttering when the respondent realizes that he or she knows almost nothing about fascism’s political and economic characteristics.

The Real Threat of Fascism #2

Before the rise of fascism, Germany and Italy were liberal democracies. Fascism did not swoop down on these nations as if from another planet. To the contrary, fascist dictatorship was the end result of political and economic processes which these nations underwent while they were still democratic. In both these countries, economic power became so utterly concentrated that the bulk of all economic activity fell under the control of a handful of men. Economic power, when sufficiently vast, becomes by its very nature political power. The political power of big business supported fascism in Italy and Germany.

Business tightened its grip on the state in both Italy and Germany by means of intricate webs of cartels and business associations. These associations exercised a very high degree of control over the businesses of their members. They frequently controlled pricing, supply and the licensing of patented technology. These associations were private, but were entirely legal. Neither Germany nor Italy had effective antitrust laws, and the proliferation of business associations was generally encouraged by government. This was an era eerily like our own, insofar as economists and businessmen constantly clamored for self-regulation in business. By the mid 1920’s, however, self-regulation had become self-imposed regimentation. By means of monopoly and cartel, the businessmen had wrought for themselves a “command and control” economy which effectively replaced the free market. The business associations of Italy and Germany at this time are perhaps history’s most perfect illustration of Adam Smith’s famous dictum: “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices”.

How could the German government not be influenced by Fritz Thyssen, the man who controlled most of Germany’s coal production? How could it ignore the demands of the great I.G. Farben industrial trust, controlling as it did most of that nation’s chemical production? Indeed, the German nation was bent to the will of these powerful industrial interests. Hitler attended to reduction of certain taxes applicable to large businesses, while simultaneously increasing the same taxes as they related to small business. Previous decrees establishing price ceilings were repealed such that the cost of living for the average family was increased. Hitler’s economic policies hastened the destruction of Germany’s middle class by decimating small business. Ironically, Hitler pandered to the middle class and they provided some of his most enthusiastically violent supporters. The fact that he did this while simultaneously destroying them was a terrible achievement of Nazi propaganda.

Hitler also destroyed organized labor by making strikes illegal. Notwithstanding the socialist terms in which he appealed to the masses, Hitler’s labor policy was the dream come true of the industrial cartels that supported him. Nazi law gave total control over wages and working conditions to the employer. Compulsory (slave) labor was the crowning achievement of Nazi labor relations. Along with millions of people, organized labor died in the concentration camps. The camps were not only the most depraved of all human achievements, they were a part and parcel of Nazi economic policy. Hitler’s untermenschen, largely Jews, Poles and Russians, supplied slave labor to German industry. Surely this was a capitalist bonanza. In another bitter irony, the gates over many of the camps bore a sign that read “Urbeit Macht Frei” – “work shall set you free”. I do not know if this was black humor or propaganda, but it is emblematic of the deception that lies at the heart of fascism.

The Real Threat of Fascism #3

The same economic reality existed in Italy between the two world wars. In that country, nearly all industrial activity was owned or controlled by a few corporate giants, F.I.A.T. and the Ansaldo shipping concern being the chief examples. Land ownership in Italy was also highly concentrated and jealously guarded. Vast tracts of farmland were owned by a few latifundisti. The actual farming was carried out by a landless peasantry who were locked into a role essentially the same as that of the share cropper of the U.S. deep south. As in Germany, the few owners of the nation’s capital assets had immense influence over government. As a young man, Mussolini had been a strident socialist, and he, like Hitler, used socialist language to lure the people to fascism. Mussolini spoke of a “corporate” society wherein the energy of the people would not be wasted on class struggle. The entire economy was to be divided into industry specific “corporazioni”, bodies composed of both labor and management representatives. The corporazioni would resolve all labor/management disputes, and if they failed to do so, the fascist state would intervene. Unfortunately, as in Germany, there laid at the heart of this plan a swindle. The corporazioni, to the extent that they were actually put in place, were controlled by the employers. Together with Mussolini’s ban on strikes, these measures reduced the Italian laborer to the status of peasant.

Mussolini the one-time socialist went on to abolish the inheritance tax, a measure which favored the wealthy. He decreed a series of massive subsidies to Italy’s largest industrial businesses and repeatedly ordered wage reductions. Italy’s poor were forced to subsidize the wealthy. In real terms, wages and living standards for the average Italian dropped precipitously under fascism.

Even this brief historical sketch shows how fascism did the bidding of big business. The fact that Hitler called his party the “National Socialist Party” did not change the reactionary nature of his policies. The connection between the fascist dictatorships and monopoly capital was obvious to the US Department of Justice in 1939. As of 2005, however, it is all but forgotten.

It is always dangerous to forget the lessons of history. It is particularly perilous to forget about the economic origins of fascism in our modern era of deregulation. Most Western liberal democracies are currently held in the thrall of what some call market fundamentalism. Few nowadays question the flawed assumption that state intervention in the marketplace is inherently bad. As in Italy and Germany in the 20’s and 30’s, business associations clamor for more deregulation and deeper tax cuts. The gradual erosion of antitrust legislation, especially in the United States, has encouraged consolidation in many sectors of the economy by way of mergers and acquisitions. The North American economy has become more monopolistic than at any time in the post-WWII period. Fewer, larger competitors dominate all economic activity, and their political will is expressed with the millions of dollars they spend lobbying politicians and funding policy formulation in the many right-wing institutes which now limit public discourse to the question of how best to serve the interests of business. The consolidation of the economy, and the resulting perversion of public policy are themselves fascistic. I am quite certain, however, that President Clinton was not worrying about fascism when he repealed federal antitrust laws that had been enacted in the 1930’s. The Canadian Council of Chief Executives is similarly unworried about fascism when it lobbies the Canadian government to water down our Federal Competition Act. (The Competition Act regulates monopolies, among other things, and itself represents a watering down of Canada’s previous antitrust laws. It was essentially written by industry and handed to the Mulroney Government to be enacted.)

The Real Threat of Fascism #4

At present, monopolies are regulated on purely economic grounds to ensure the efficient allocation of goods. If we are to protect ourselves from the growing political influence of big business, then our antitrust laws must be reconceived in a way which recognizes the political danger of monopolistic conditions. Antitrust laws do not just protect the marketplace, they protect democracy.

Our collective forgetfulness about the economic nature of fascism is also dangerous at a more philosophical level. As contradictory as it may seem, fascist dictatorship was made possible because of the flawed notion of freedom which held sway during the era of laissez-faire capitalism in the early twentieth century. It was the liberals of that era that clamored for unfettered personal and economic freedom, no matter what the cost to society. Such untrammeled freedom is not suitable to civilized humans. It is the freedom of the jungle. In other words, the strong have more of it than the weak. It is a notion of freedom which is inherently violent, because it is enjoyed at the expense of others. Such a notion of freedom legitimizes each and every increase in the wealth and power of those who are already powerful, regardless of the misery that will be suffered by others as a result. The use of the state to limit such “freedom” was denounced by the laissez-faire liberals of the early twentieth century. The use of the state to protect such “freedom” was fascism. Just as monopoly is the ruin of the free market, fascism is the ultimate degradation of liberal capitalism.

In the postwar period, this flawed notion of freedom has been perpetuated by the neo-liberal school of thought. The neo-liberals denounce any regulation of the marketplace. In so doing, they mimic the posture of big business in the pre-fascist period. Under the sway of neo-liberalism, Thatcher, Reagan, Mulroney and George W. Bush have decimated labor and exalted capital. (At present, only 7.8 per cent of workers in the U.S. private sector are unionized – about the same percentage as in the early 1900’s.) Neo-liberals call relentlessly for tax cuts which, in a previously progressive system, disproportionately favor the wealthy. Regarding the distribution of wealth, the neo-liberals have nothing to say. In the result, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. As in Weimar Germany, the function of the state is being reduced to that of a steward for the interests of the moneyed elite. All that would be required now for a more rapid descent into fascism are a few reasons for the average person to forget that he is being ripped off. The racist hatred of Arabs, fundamentalist Christianity or an illusory sense of perpetual war may well be taking the place of Hitler’s hatred for communists and Jews.

Neo-liberal intellectuals often recognize the need for violence to protect what they regard as freedom. Thomas Freidman of the New York Times has written enthusiastically that “the hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist”, and that “McDonald’s cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the U.S. Air Force F-15…”. As in pre-fascist Germany and Italy, the laissez-faire businessmen call for the state to do their bidding even as they insist that the state should stay out of the marketplace. Put plainly, neo-liberals advocate the use of the state’s military force for the sake of private gain. Their view of the state’s role in society is identical to that of the businessmen and intellectuals who supported Hitler and Mussolini. There is no fear of the big state here. There is only the desire to wield its power. Neo-liberalism is thus fertile soil for fascism to grow again into an outright threat to our democracy.

The Real Threat of Fascism #5

Having said that fascism is the result of a flawed notion of freedom, I respectfully suggest that we must reexamine what we mean when we throw around the word “freedom”. We must conceive of freedom in a more enlightened way. Indeed, it was the thinkers of the Enlightenment that imagined a balanced and civilized freedom which did not impinge upon the freedom of one’s neighbor. Put in the simplest terms, my right to life means that you must give up your freedom to kill me. This may seem terribly obvious to decent people. Unfortunately, in our neo-liberal era, this civilized sense of freedom has, like the dangers of fascism, been all but forgotten.

Paul Bigioni – paul@bigionilaw.com – is a lawyer practicing in Markham, Ontario, Canada. He is a commentator on trade and political issues. This article is drawn from his work on a book about the persistence of fascism.

“Gott Mit Uns” Aye, Jay?

Nein, whit. I’m no more a religious nutcase than I am a conspiracy wingnut.

Sorry to disappoint anyone’s preconceived stereotypes.

(I have not yet had a chance to read the articles on fascism. I have been busy with the following. But I will get to them now.)

(damn! only 4000 characters allowed. Give me a minute)

David,

(9/11 conspiracy)

The only two things I have been avoiding is jumping to conclusions and staying out of fur fights. I have been successful with the first, not so good at the second.

We must be looking at different ducks.

(from Wikipedia.org)

”Occam’s Razor states that one should make no more assumptions than needed. Put into everyday language, it says

For example, a charred tree could be caused by a lightning strike or by someone who used a machine to burn the upper branches of a tree and then replanted the grass leading up to the tree to hide the machine’s tracks. According to Occam’s Razor, the lightning strike is the preferred explanation as it requires the fewest assumptions.”

What is the probability of being hit by lightning? If you get hit by lightning, do you assume a conspiracy by the electric company using top secret lightning machines because you sent your last electric bill three days late last month?

Assuming a conspiracy when a low probability event occurs, such as a spike in put options, requires greater assumptions than acknowledging that even low probability events, such as rolling box cars, or getting struck by lightning when you didn’t pay your electric bill, will happen. Somewhere, sometime. This does not make the conspiracy theory automatically wrong. Conspiracies do exist. For example, RICO racketeering laws depend upon proving it. But you need corroborative evidence to refute the probability, like dice shavings under the feet of the dice shooter or the smoking lightning generator.

Ditto with the war games.

Ditto with WTC collapse (conditionally, of course. I have not yet had the time to research whit’s data to see if all claims are accurate).

whit,

(distribution of wealth debate)

I quoted those stats here:

Posted by Jay Cline on September 29, 2005 at 12:19 AM

(page two of the postings)

Actually, the top 1% of the population has 1/3 the wealth. And the top 20% has 80%.
http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so111/stratification/in ncome&wealth;.htm
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=2050

As far as Churchill and el Duce, you really need to reread your history. As you read Churchill’s references about el Duce, have a dictionary handy to explain these three words, sarcasm, irony, pragmatism. Oh, and British wit. Churchill was a consummate democrat, and a Brit with a tremendous sense of wit, who has been consistently described as the lone voice in the wilderness rallying against the tyrannies of fascism, long before anyone else did.

whit,

(justification of Iraq War debate)

Was Saddam directly involved with al Qaeda in 9/11? Probably not.

Did Saddam knowingly provide the kind of financial support toward 9/11 or a 9/11-type attack on par with quasi-official Saudi resources? Probably not.

Did Saddam knowingly provide direct logistic support for 9/11 preparations like Iran? Possible but not currently known with certainty.

Did Saddam provide rear echelon support after Afghanistan like Pakistani intelligence services and certain Pakistani tribes? (sorry, trick question - we never gave him the chance)

Did Saddam support terrorist groups? Absolutely. Not just during the time frame in question (late 90s to 9/11), but since at least the early 70s. Abu Nidal, the Osama of the last 30 years of the 20th century, was well acquainted with Saddam. Nidal served as Yasser Arafat’s Fatah representative to Baghdad in 1970. After three years of conducting terrorist campaigns including 1972 Black September massacre at the Munich Olympics, Arafat sent a couple deputies to reason with Nidal because even Arafat was troubled by the repercussions of Nidal’s terrorism. Saddam sent them packing, claiming responsibility and said Nidal was just carrying out Saddam’s orders.

Nidal continued to work closely with Saddam, and, in 1985, with Libyan leader Muammar Kaddafi. Saddam gave Nidal refuge in 1999 when Nidal became too hot to handle for the Libyans. Saddam (allegedly) had Nidal killed in 2002, in the wake of 9/11 passions, when Nidal was too hot for even Saddam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Nidal

The linkage between Bin Laden and Saddam in the 90s, as reported by Czech intelligence, has already been referenced by me earlier.

So, where am I going with this?

Attacking Iraq the second time was not strictly about al Qaeda. I never said it was. Bush never said it was. The neo-cons never said it was.

After 9/11, Bush declared War on Terrorism, not al Qaeda.

Bush made it abundantly clear that from the American perspective of the war, there would be no fence sitting. You either supported the war on terror or you were against it. I know that the Democrats and late-night talk show hosts (and George Lucas) had a field day ridiculing this, but so what? That was the explicit war objective clearly laid out by the Commander-in-Chief himself. Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Syria, all were explicitly put on notice. The Pakistani President and the Saudi Crown Prince were likewise given a choice, namely, choose sides and choose wisely. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia made one choice, three made the other choice. Syria is still trying to play both sides against the middle.

Attacking Iraq first was a sound military and political decision. From an international perspective, the deck of cards was already stacked against Saddam. He arrogantly invaded Kuwait and got his butt kicked. For twelve years, he ignored and sidestepped one UN resolution after another. His previous use of WMD against his own citizens and his obstinate behavior towards the UN inspectors charged with verifying his (non)compliance with the surrender agreement was just gravy. Choosing Iraq as the second target in the War on Terrorism was a no-brainer.

Ok, I realize that to many this sounds like “ducking the issue”. Yes, if the war was strictly cast as a war against al Qaeda, I have no doubt Saddam would still be in power. But the War on Terrorism is a war on terrorism (God, I sound like a bloody dictionary!)

lb,

(international law enforcement and national sovereignty)

“You’re argument implies that the US is the cop and Iran is the criminal. You are certainly not arguing the reverse, are you?  The truth is they are sovereign nations.  The analogy is not apt.  It is apples and oranges.”

No, I disagree. Sovereignty is not sacrosanct. Iran’s democracy has been hijacked by thugs. The only sovereignty they can claim is one of possession by threat of physical harm. How can America justify taking police-like action against a sovereignty with that kind of undemocratic foundation? Because their actions are morally wrong and because the actions of these thugs in the world of international terrorism threatens our interests.

The Jews at Masada did give up.  They all committed suicide.

Or, as the Japanese would say, they would become Kamikaze, the Divine Wind that would sweep the Americans from the Pacific Ocean. Yeah, that sounds like the surrender of a defeated people.

All,

Look. We are not going to see eye to eye on this. That’s fine. I’ve made my viewpoints clear. The war on terrorism is just, Iraq was a legitimate part of it. I have seen no authoritative evidence to believe that 9/11 was not committed by al Qaeda. Nor have I seen any good argument why Saddam and the Iranian mullahs should not be held culpable and accountable for aiding and abetting terrorists as they used them for their own proxies. I see nothing immoral about fighting the good fight. And I just can’t be convinced of conspiracy theories that are proved on secret evidence. I am not an idealist who believes I am always right and everyone should heed me.

All I can do is point out discrepancies and explain my point of view.

Sorry that you have not been able to convert me.

I am not quitting the debate. If someone says something that I feel needs a response, I will.

Apologies, folks, for the huge postings.  I didn’t trust that Jay would check out the article if just referred to it. 

I respect all of you that are participating in this, perhaps, foolishness.  I keep telling myself, “Go get a life”, but I have one.  Yet… I have gotten engaged, maybe hooked, here… for the while anyway. 

I must say that I really appreciate the thought and work that I’ve seen put into this deliberation.  ‘Some very impressive performances. 

I kinda flounder around… but I’m a newbie to this kind of engagement.  Sorry, if I’ve bummed anyone out… even you, Jay. 

The human condition: We all can only operate according to the level of our development and understanding.  Real evil derives, perhaps, from forsaking and denying what we do understand and realize for some baser motive or agenda… the selling out of one’s soul.

Did Saddam support terrorist groups? Absolutely… according to Jay. 

Did the U.S. support terrorist groups?  Undeniably, you bet your ass.  Reseach THAT question, Jay.

Here you go again, J, with the double standards… whatever we do is justified.  Remember at all the discussion of hypocrisy?

By your logic (taking away the double standard) the 9-11 attack WAS justified.

Honestly, Jay, how can the “was on terrorism” be anything but an absolute farce when the U.S. government is the biggest terrorist organization on the planet.  If Bush the Torturer put a bullet in his own head, then I’d say he was making some progress. 

Please consider reading the books I suggested, Jay, they are very pertinent to all of this.  You need to develop a respect for and discernment for the concepts of “validity” and “reliability” in regards to the legitimacy of information.  Everyone here has been trying to drive this point home to you: references… sources.  Issues, too, of logic and integrity.  Why pretend that this is an argument (in the positive sense of the word) and a debate, when you maintain an attitude of “Well, this is my story, and I’m sticking to it.”

whit,

Here you go again, J, with the double standards… whatever we do is justified.  Remember at all the discussion of hypocrisy?

No, whit, I never said that either. I am not the one generalizing. Just because I say our response to 9/11 was justified does not imply in anyway that I believe everything we do is justified.

You did see my response to your rather sarcastic Gott mit Uns?, didn’t you?

Therein lies the hypocrisy I was alluding to.

Anyone making such grand sweeping generalization sees the world in black and white. And despite allegations to the contrary, I don’t.

Whit, when you are ready to drop your sweeping generalizations you have made of me, stereotypes based strictly on my defense of free markets and our 9/11 response, maybe some of this testosterone you are expelling will die down and we can have an honest debate.

whit,

While I don’t agree the situation is as dire as Mr. Bigioni portrays, I certainly am not a fan of corporatism. Corporatism, or oligarchy or monopoly, is not the same as free-market theory. In fact, they are very much opposite. I fully support the anti-trust laws that brought down Rockerfeller, Gates, etc.

(you did understand my reference to, and comments about, Churchill’s quote about democracy, no?)

As Bigioni says, “Neither Germany nor Italy had effective antitrust laws, and the proliferation of business associations was generally encouraged by government.”, but his very next sentence is a little exaggerated, “This was an era eerily like our own. We do have anti-trust laws and they are still strong today. They slowed Gates down and proposed mergers are still being denied today.

(note: there are two recently proposed mergers in the telecom industry that I would strongly encourage everyone who fears corporatism to oppose and make your voice loud. See my comments at http://sufrensucatash.blogspot.com/2005/09/mergers-promote-competitionan.html - thanks, whit for the promo opportunity on that!)

However, this settles nothing regarding our honest difference on economic systems, does it? Unless one equates free-markets as inherently and inevitably creating the dangerous preconditions for a rise to fascism. But I didn’t get that from Bigioni’s writing. He does allude to my Churchillian comments on the imperfect nature of the system yet in place, though.

I don’t get this: At present, monopolies are regulated on purely economic grounds to ensure the efficient allocation of goods. If we are to protect ourselves from the growing political influence of big business, then our antitrust laws must be reconceived in a way which recognizes the political danger of monopolistic conditions. Antitrust laws do not just protect the marketplace, they protect democracy.

But, we do have anti-trust laws?? So, at present, monopolies are regulated on legal and economic grounds. Big contradiction there. And the point of the current anti-trust laws is they do recognize the danger of monopolies. That is their reason for existence!

Thatcher, Reagan, Mulroney and George W. Bush have decimated labor and exalted capital. (At present, only 7.8 per cent of workers in the U.S. private sector are unionized – about the same percentage as in the early 1900’s.)

Gimme a break! Unions have done it to themselves (watch out! another promo!)

http://sufrensucatash.blogspot.com/2005/09/disunionthe-changing-face-of-unions.h html

and anyone that quotes Thomas Friedman loses points in my book. ‘nother promo.

http://gadflychronicles.blogspot.com/2005/09/911-and-h-katrinabookending-bushs.h html

But I do generally agree with Bigioni. I would dispute that fascism was strictly a product of flawed freedoms, though the danger is certainly there. Fascism has been around since the first bully ever threatened his brother with bodily harm.

So, what does this have to do with the distribution of wealth argument and the superiority of free-markets over command economies? Fascist Germany and Italy and Japan, by the way, were command economies, regardless of how they got there.

To all,

A little not-so-preemptive strike.

If you are sincere in your belief that I am ducking questions, if you are sincere that you want me to respond to your assertions, please drop the personal insults and start formulating coherent paragraphs of at least a 7th grade level…

That is why I do not respond to (or even read) bunnies’ comments. lb is next on my boycott list.

I can get better poetry from Uyghur poets imprisoned in Chinese jails.

Actually, that isn’t fair. There is some extraordinary poetry coming from that part of the world.

You really gotta read this:

http://www.rfa.org/english/uyghur/2005/06/27/wild_pigeon/

Jay

Wealth: ‘like I said, not quite the same, but more compatible.  ‘And there is nothing really exact about these estimates.

Jay rants: “IRAN’s democracy was hijacked by thugs!” You are referring, I suppose, to the crushing of democratic government of the popular Prime Minister, Mossadegh, in 1953 by the CIA, so that U.S. and British oil companies could regain control over the oil resources of the Iranian people (do any possible similaries occur to anyone here?).

‘And what a fascist pimp we put into power to replace him.  The Shah’s father, the old shah, who had been displaced by democracy, was an avowed big fan of… (you guessed it perhaps) Adolf Hitler.  You’re hanging with the right crowd here, Jay.  Such a hypocritter.

‘And what do you think is happening to U.S. democracy, Jay?

Sovereignty is not sacrosanct… might makes right… we can fuck with anyone we want… how are they gonna stop us… we are the king of the world… blah, blah, blah,…

Help....Rabbit has problems. ....................second time he tried to post the info which is Rabbit’s own contribution to 911 bag theory, involves pretty compelling FACT, as yet overlooked by people thinks Rabbit. ...........................This time everything went into meltdown. ....................Rabbit’s admittedly ‘bit’ wonky computer crashed even quicker than the WTC’s, free fall which is what it is about.................................

.
To those who know what Rabbit means. note that this may be a co-incidence, but don’t think so.........this is not the only time Rabbit has seen a certain pattern.............
..................
..
Not sure how we will go now but Rabbit will try again to pen the words which someone does not want posted.
.
WHIT you are a very shiny mind and Rabbit is glad to make your aquaintance. It seems like JAY may be a Shill or at least a superior type of Troll, he will mostly avoid anything important Rabbit says and just call Rabbit, hurtful names like BUNNY FACE. .........OOh that is so mean, BUNNY FACE.....Poor rabbit.
.
This is why Rabbit shall address his thoughts of worth to those who can think and care to. .....It will become necessary to Wack the Moron on occassion and Rabbit shall do his duty in this regard, be sure. But the fact is he as a Troll or Shill will fear the Rabbit and will not be able to look Rabbit in the eye. To do so he would have to deal directly with the questions put to him, which he cannot, because Rabbit does not give him room to lie and maneuver.  He will throw rocks desperately at Rabbit who will dodge them with ease and a happy face. all the while Rabbit will Wack the Moron, sometimes for fun, sometimes out of obligation, inevitably such a stupid one will hit its own head many times upon the Rabbit’s Stick without Rabbit doing anything to help it.
...
So to Whit and Liz and david and any who can think, the next Rabbit post is mostly for you, since Jay is too scared to even acknowledge Rabbit.
..........Bewar the Shill, it bears the mark. see it’s massively long rants with no substance, smoke and mirrors, making it look like a debate exists where there is none, do you not see its antics people?
..
It has occurred to Rabbit how often we all get involved in dealing with these Morons like Jay and all his other clones. How often we all end up taking over the wacking or indulging in wacking the Troll or Shill as a group and in doing so often miss sharing some of the more important stuff we could give each other. Instead of repeating the same basic FACTS which we have all long since established, and have moved on from. We never get to move on when we must keep teaching the ONE TIMES TABLES to the Willfully Ignorant like JAY, SCORP and Wolf to name a few recent ones. BTW the Vampire and Ramjet SHILLS still infest the DU thread, they have set up permanent home there it would seem.

next to come will be Bunny Bang Theory,....If the Electrons allow it.

My god did we see that?
..
The Troll can post a source when it means nothing but an attempt at wit?
.
..What a pathetic little hypocrite you are JAY.

Whit you need not apologise to anyone, you are cherant, reasoned and articulate. You make valid points and back them up with sources especially if challenged on anything.
....
It is not Whit who needs to apologise. 

..
Just take note as much of the tactics of the Troll as anything he manages to say. Notice how much he ducks and dances and how much energy he will devote to saying absolutely nothing. Except repeating his opinions as if his mere utterance gives them the the force of universal law.
..
Rabbit is going to hit YOU with a BIGGER fact than you have ever imagined JAY and it is going to prove that at least one part of the OFFICIAL THEORY of WTC’s was false....
Not that proof means anything to a man such as your self who can turn the course of rivers on command.

No doubt, Jay, that civil and respectful is better… no doubt.  But honesty and fair-play should go along with that.  In all due respect, altho some little shift in attitute appears in the making, I have to say, not as a put down but just what’s so for me, that I haven’t really felt that you have operated with a very high level of honesty, integrity, and open-mindedness.  It has really frustrated me.  I have mixed feelings about it looking like everyone is ganging up on you, but you have managed to piss almost everyone off… ‘And I don’t think it is only about differences of perspective.  Certainly there has been good reason for you to be pissed off and offended, too.  Maybe we should all go back to the drawing board.  This thing has run very far afield.  If you interested in checking out some info not in your little box about 9-11, you might investigate the books I suggested… if you have the time for that kind of reading.  It’s not blog stuff… a little more serious and thorough and comprehensively organized. 

I’ve gotta get some sleep.

By the Way JAY Blogs are not generally considered sources!
.
What was the poetry you were “not getting” around here? Rabbit missed the poems. Nobody else mentioned poems thinks Rabbit. You seem to see a lot of things others don’t.

Still Rabbit tries to post the Bunny Bang Theory, but a third computer crash, seems to happen when these words are in the post.
.
................D*MOLITI*N................EX*LOS*VE...................WTC
..
Weirding Rabbit out and frustrating too.

The strange collapse of WTC 7 has never been reported ANYWHERE in the mainstream media. If these suggestions are true then the implications are massive.
Steel Not Seen As Factor in WTC Collapse: Early tests on steel beams from the World Trade Center show they generally met or were stronger than design requirements, ruling them out as a contributing cause of the collapse of the towers, federal investigators said Wednesday.
WTC 7: First large building ever to collapse from fire alone (no debris impact)
The Firefighters’ Tapes - Tapes reveal that fires were under control not raging infernos: A lot of the portions of the tapes have been classified. This portion lasts an hour and thirteen minutes, we have highlighted the interesting parts below with full transcripts.
Where’s the inferno? The reason given for the collapse of the twin towers is floor trusses at the aircraft impact level failed due to an inferno generated by aircraft fuel which turned the impacted floors into an 800ºC furnace capable of casting aluminum and glazing pottery.
Experts says explosives brought down the towers - then strangely changes his mind days later: Televised images of the attacks on the World Trade Center suggest that explosives devices caused the collapse of both towers, a New Mexico Tech explosion expert said Tuesday.
More Photographs Unearthed to Suggest Bombs in the Twin Towers
An Eye-Witness Account of the World Trade Center Attacks (bombs in the towers)
Unasked Questions about bombs in the World Trade Center on September 11 2001: One (or more) eyewitness reported hearing a series of at least about “five” explosions in at least one of the buildings just before it came down.
Eyewitness Reports Persist Of Bombs At WTC Collapse: Despite reports from numerous eyewitnesses and experts, including news reporters on the scene, who heard or saw explosions immediately before the collapse of the World Trade Center, there has been virtual silence in the mainstream media.
Eyewitnesses tell of horror - “I heard the bomb”
Full horror of WTC attack on FBI tape - “Then comes a longer and much louder explosion.”
New York Firefighters’ Final Words Fuel Burning Questions About 9-11: Evidence that could debunk the official explanation for the collapse of the World Trade Center is being kept secret by the Department of Justice on a flimsy pretext.
WTC 7 Professional Demolition Footage (be patient while this GIF image downloads)
ENGINEERS ARE BAFFLED OVER THE COLLAPSE OF 7 WTC: Almost lost in the chaos of the collapse of the World Trade Center is a mystery that under normal circumstances would probably have captured the attention of the city and the world. That mystery is the collapse of a nearby 47-story, two-million-square-foot building seven hours after flaming debris from the towers rained down on it, igniting what became an out-of-control fire.
Rescue Fireman Louie Cacchioli - “We think there was bombs set in the building”: I was taking firefighters up in the elevator to the 24th floor to get in position to evacuate workers. On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building.
Unexplained 9-11 Explosion at WTC Complex: Despite the fact that the horrible events of Sept. 11 occurred in broad daylight and were widely photographed, significant aspects of the attacks have been completely suppressed by a media blackout.
.
.Still will add Bunny Bang Theory, but above is a sample of headers which can be traced back to sources by going to the source here.
.

Remember any “New chum internet users” the fact that the source begins at PRISON PLANET which is but a News Source, bit right wing attitudes for this Hopper, but each to his or hers. The fact remains it is a site which mostly collates credible news and apart from clearly defined comment (Defined as only comment or opinion) is wholly credible as a source of news. The fact remains that whether or not you find them credible, for any NEW CHUMS, is beside the point, for Mr Jones will merely point the way and you will find the Facts reffered to as being there. Then come back and tell us you have seen the link. Tell us it is only the opinion of one expert in the field or you may go for the more sophisticated attack, true or otherwise on the witness’ credentials....It has all been done, you are not the first troll to come this way....You need only follow the script, we know it as well as you.................it tells you what to say and think...............just try and show a bit of imagination, pretend you have sources and link to porn sites or something in hopes nobody will check them since you never check their sources..but try and get your game up.
.
.  http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html#bombs

JAY
.
JAY, get a bit of sophistication into your arguments, don’t just keep doing the snarling dog in the corner, that was Wolf’s way. Then merely dropping the God references yet retaining the same faith based screeching and pretences at dignity while slutting your mind for thrills.
.
Go and do a few hours research before you come back and display your empty cupboards again.
.
.
The best place to begin is at the source above.
.
You have had a hint that Rabbit and maybe others may be using the one source for source links, maybe it would help your cause to check out our background info. You will be able to pick from any of the categories you feel we may be lagging in and CHECK our sources. You may find that at the end of it is a Porn site or something and you can ACTUALLY enjoy getting to kick someone’s ass for real, ACTUALLY PROVING they are full of shit about some point they may be trying to prove..
.
.Dude I may only be a Rabbit but I can tell you that it sure as hell is a lot easier than trying to just insult people and mouth off hoping to score some points that way.
.
Since you can’t actually hit anyone or shoot them, and since anything you say is recorded and can be used against one, it pays to be wise with the word.
.
.On right wing type sites, your sort of antics can score all sorts of points. But where logic and reason prevail, where open minded meets facts, you are but a little Baa Lamb with such crude tools..
Try our way, you might score a point here and there, but best of all people who are used to being nice to each other and like to, will be nice to you, even if we still think you are full of shit.
.
.Ask WTH (whom Rabbit hopes sees you here, ....look at it WTH, even though you agree with him do you want to be his friend?) Rabbit is quite pleasant to WTH him these days having once been less than nice, shall we say.., and this despite still usually thinking WTH is full of shit..
..  this is because he has engaged his brain and frankly he can make a lot better fist of the argument you wish you could.

whit,

No, I was referring to the mullahs who, after the 1979 revolution, use secret police to stifle oppostition and have final say on who can run from elected office.

What kind of democracy do you have when one political party has that authority? You have a one party democracy.

And if I had ever expressed admiration for the Shah, then I would absolutely be a hypocrit.

Might does not make right. That is why sovereignty that was grabbed by force of arms is not necessarily legit. Therefore not sacred.  The modern notion of sacred sovereignty was based on 19th century pragmatism. I won’t take you out if you don’t take me out.

whit,

I do apologize for some of the earlier heavy handed sarcasm. Going with the whit-less snark was probably the most egregious. I had great difficulty with the onslaught from Rabbit. David was a splash of cold water and I have attempted to be more civil.

I believe I have been honest and forthright characterizing my opinions as opinions.  But it is difficult when I get repeatedly blindsided by assignments to my beliefs that I never made (Gott mit Uns and “hanging” with the Shah are the most recent ones).

whit,

However, I will not do other people’s homework. If someone has a point to make, then make it. I believe it to be very disingenuous to make a conclusion and then substantiate it by sending all those who disagree to volumes of books or google references and other resources.

All that does is shut the debate down.

I appreciate the technical info you did provide on 9/11. I have not yet had a chance to investigate. But (no sarcasm intended here) an accurate bibliographical reference to that specific data would be appreciated.

whit,

I hope no offense was taken by the last couple posts. None was intended…

correction:

to stifle oppostition and have final say on who can run for elected office.

not,

to stifle oppostition and have final say on who can run from elected office.

What an honor to make Jay Cline’s boycott list. 
This is AOK with me.  I’m getting bored pointing out the logical errors and superficial interpretations of fact in his ‘arguments’.  Watching him spin and twist, distort and and deny has been amusing, but it is getting redundant.
-
For everyone’s edification, I will post here a remarkable essay by a hero of the right:
-

Why I Am Not a Conservative

By Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek

In The Constitution of Liberty (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1960)

“At all times sincere friends of freedom have been rare, and its triumphs have been due to minorities, that have prevailed by associating themselves with auxiliaries whose objects often differed from their own; and this association, which is always dangerous, has sometimes been disastrous, by giving to opponents just grounds of opposition.” - Lord Acton

1. At a time when most movements that are thought to be progressive advocate further encroachments on individual liberty,[1] those who cherish freedom are likely to expend their energies in opposition. In this they find themselves much of the time on the same side as those who habitually resist change. In matters of current politics today they generally have little choice but to support the conservative parties. But, though the position I have tried to define is also often described as “conservative,” it is very different from that to which this name has been traditionally attached. There is danger in the confused condition which brings the defenders of liberty and the true conservatives together in common opposition to developments which threaten their ideals equally. It is therefore important to distinguish clearly the position taken here from that which has long been known - perhaps more appropriately - as conservatism.

Conservatism proper is a legitimate, probably necessary, and certainly widespread attitude of opposition to drastic change. It has, since the French Revolution, for a century and a half played an important role in European politics. Until the rise of socialism its opposite was liberalism. There is nothing corresponding to this conflict in the history of the United States, because what in Europe was called “liberalism” was here the common tradition on which the American polity had been built: thus the defender of the American tradition was a liberal in the European sense.[2] This already existing confusion was made worse by the recent attempt to transplant to America the European type of conservatism, which, being alien to the American tradition, has acquired a somewhat odd character. And some time before this, American radicals and socialists began calling themselves “liberals.” I will nevertheless continue for the moment to describe as liberal the position which I hold and which I believe differs as much from true conservatism as from socialism. Let me say at once, however, that I do so with increasing misgivings, and I shall later have to consider what would be the appropriate name for the party of liberty. The reason for this is not only that the term “liberal” in the United States is the cause of constant misunderstandings today, but also that in Europe the predominant type of rationalistic liberalism has long been one of the pacemakers of socialism.

Let me now state what seems to me the decisive objection to any conservatism which deserves to be called such. It is that by its very nature it cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving. It may succeed by its resistance to current tendencies in slowing down undesirable developments, but, since it does not indicate another direction, it cannot prevent their continuance. It has, for this reason, invariably been the fate of conservatism to be dragged along a path not of its own choosing. The tug of war between conservatives and progressives can only affect the speed, not the direction, of contemporary developments. But, though there is a need for a “brake on the vehicle of progress,"[3] I personally cannot be content with simply helping to apply the brake. What the liberal must ask, first of all, is not how fast or how far we should move, but where we should move. In fact, he differs much more from the collectivist radical of today than does the conservative. While the last generally holds merely a mild and moderate version of the prejudices of his time, the liberal today must more positively oppose some of the basic conceptions which most conservatives share with the socialists.

2. The picture generally given of the relative position of the three parties does more to obscure than to elucidate their true relations. They are usually represented as different positions on a line, with the socialists on the left, the conservatives on the right, and the liberals somewhere in the middle. Nothing could be more misleading. If we want a diagram, it would be more appropriate to arrange them in a triangle with the conservatives occupying one corner, with the socialists pulling toward the second and the liberals toward the third. But, as the socialists have for a long time been able to pull harder, the conservatives have tended to follow the socialist rather than the liberal direction and have adopted at appropriate intervals of time those ideas made respectable by radical propaganda. It has been regularly the conservatives who have compromised with socialism and stolen its thunder. Advocates of the Middle Way[4] with no goal of their own, conservatives have been guided by the belief that the truth must lie somewhere between the extremes - with the result that they have shifted their position every time a more extreme movement appeared on either wing.

The position which can be rightly described as conservative at any time depends, therefore, on the direction of existing tendencies. Since the development during the last decades has been generally in a socialist direction, it may seem that both conservatives and liberals have been mainly intent on retarding that movement. But the main point about liberalism is that it wants to go elsewhere, not to stand still. Though today the contrary impression may sometimes be caused by the fact that there was a time when liberalism was more widely accepted and some of its objectives closer to being achieved, it has never been a backward-looking doctrine. There has never been a time when liberal ideals were fully realized and when liberalism did not look forward to further improvement of institutions. Liberalism is not averse to evolution and change; and where spontaneous change has been smothered by government control, it wants a great deal of change of policy. So far as much of current governmental action is concerned, there is in the present world very little reason for the liberal to wish to preserve things as they are. It would seem to the liberal, indeed, that what is most urgently needed in most parts of the world is a thorough sweeping away of the obstacles to free growth.

This difference between liberalism and conservatism must not be obscured by the fact that in the United States it is still possible to defend individual liberty by defending long-established institutions. To the liberal they are valuable not mainly because they are long established or because they are American but because they correspond to the ideals which he cherishes.

3. Before I consider the main points on which the liberal attitude is sharply opposed to the conservative one, I ought to stress that there is much that the liberal might with advantage have learned from the work of some conservative thinkers. To their loving and reverential study of the value of grown institutions we owe (at least outside the field of economics) some profound insights which are real contributions to our understanding of a free society. However reactionary in politics such figures as Coleridge, Bonald, De Maistre, Justus Möser, or Donoso Cortès may have been, they did show an understanding of the meaning of spontaneously grown institutions such as language, law, morals, and conventions that anticipated modern scientific approaches and from which the liberals might have profited. But the admiration of the conservatives for free growth generally applies only to the past. They typically lack the courage to welcome the same undesigned change from which new tools of human endeavors will emerge.

This brings me to the first point on which the conservative and the liberal dispositions differ radically. As has often been acknowledged by conservative writers, one of the fundamental traits of the conservative attitude is a fear of change, a timid distrust of the new as such,[5] while the liberal position is based on courage and confidence, on a preparedness to let change run its course even if we cannot predict where it will lead. There would not be much to object to if the conservatives merely disliked too rapid change in institutions and public policy; here the case for caution and slow process is indeed strong. But the conservatives are inclined to use the powers of government to prevent change or to limit its rate to whatever appeals to the more timid mind. In looking forward, they lack the faith in the spontaneous forces of adjustment which makes the liberal accept changes without apprehension, even though he does not know how the necessary adaptations will be brought about. It is, indeed, part of the liberal attitude to assume that, especially in the economic field, the self-regulating forces of the market will somehow bring about the required adjustments to new conditions, although no one can foretell how they will do this in a particular instance. There is perhaps no single factor contributing so much to people’s frequent reluctance to let the market work as their inability to conceive how some necessary balance, between demand and supply, between exports and imports, or the like, will be brought about without deliberate control. The conservative feels safe and content only if he is assured that some higher wisdom watches and supervises change, only if he knows that some authority is charged with keeping the change “orderly.”

This fear of trusting uncontrolled social forces is closely related to two other characteristics of conservatism: its fondness for authority and its lack of understanding of economic forces. Since it distrusts both abstract theories and general principles,[6] it neither understands those spontaneous forces on which a policy of freedom relies nor possesses a basis for formulating principles of policy. Order appears to the conservative as the result of the continuous attention of authority, which, for this purpose, must be allowed to do what is required by the particular circumstances and not be tied to rigid rule. A commitment to principles presupposes an understanding of the general forces by which the efforts of society are co-ordinated, but it is such a theory of society and especially of the economic mechanism that conservatism conspicuously lacks. So unproductive has conservatism been in producing a general conception of how a social order is maintained that its modern votaries, in trying to construct a theoretical foundation, invariably find themselves appealing almost exclusively to authors who regarded themselves as liberal. Macaulay, Tocqueville, Lord Acton, and Lecky certainly considered themselves liberals, and with justice; and even Edmund Burke remained an Old Whig to the end and would have shuddered at the thought of being regarded as a Tory.

Let me return, however, to the main point, which is the characteristic complacency of the conservative toward the action of established authority and his prime concern that this authority be not weakened rather than that its power be kept within bounds. This is difficult to reconcile with the preservation of liberty. In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.[7] Like the socialist, he is less concerned with the problem of how the powers of government should be limited than with that of who wields them; and, like the socialist, he regards himself as entitled to force the value he holds on other people.

When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike. There are many values of the conservative which appeal to me more than those of the socialists; yet for a liberal the importance he personally attaches to specific goals is no sufficient justification for forcing others to serve them. I have little doubt that some of my conservative friends will be shocked by what they will regard as “concessions” to modern views that I have made in Part III of this book. But, though I may dislike some of the measures concerned as much as they do and might vote against them, I know of no general principles to which I could appeal to persuade those of a different view that those measures are not permissible in the general kind of society which we both desire. To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one’s concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits. I sometimes feel that the most conspicuous attribute of liberalism that distinguishes it as much from conservatism as from socialism is the view that moral beliefs concerning matters of conduct which do not directly interfere with the protected sphere of other persons do not justify coercion. This may also explain why it seems to be so much easier for the repentant socialist to find a new spiritual home in the conservative fold than in the liberal.

In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - bet he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.

Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power.[8] The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite.

Admittedly, it was only when power came into the hands of the majority that further limitations of the power of government was thought unnecessary. In this sense democracy and unlimited government are connected. But it is not democracy but unlimited government that is objectionable, and I do not see why the people should not learn to limit the scope of majority rule as well as that of any other form of government. At any rate, the advantages of democracy as a method of peaceful change and of political education seem to be so great compared with those of any other system that I can have no sympathy with the antidemocratic strain of conservatism. It is not who governs but what government is entitled to do that seems to me the essential problem.

That the conservative opposition to too much government control is not a matter of principle but is concerned with the particular aims of government is clearly shown in the economic sphere. Conservatives usually oppose collectivist and directivist measures in the industrial field, and here the liberals will often find allies in them. But at the same time conservatives are usually protectionists and have frequently supported socialist measures in agriculture. Indeed, though the restrictions which exist today in industry and commerce are mainly the result of socialist views, the equally important restrictions in agriculture were usually introduced by conservatives at an even earl