FlatPlanet.net

WikiPedia:

Bugchasing (or bug chasing) is a slang term for a subculture of gay men who desire, and actively pursue HIV infection. Bugchasers “chase the bug” by seeking sexual partners who are HIV positive for the purpose of having unprotected sex and sero-converting; giftgivers are HIV+ men who attempt to infect bugchasers with HIV.

Bugchasing is viewed with disdain by many in the gay community who consider it a dangerous and self-destructive activity, and some may be concerned that the behaviors of bugchasers may contribute to a public perception that the practice is common or encouraged by all gay people.

Rolling Stone, Jan 23, 2003:

Carlos nonchalantly asks whether his drink was made with whole or skim milk. He takes a moment to slurp on his grande Caffe Mocha in a crowded Starbucks, and then he gets back to explaining how much he wants HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. His eyes light up as he says that the actual moment of transmission, the instant he gets HIV, will be “the most erotic thing I can imagine.” He seems like a typical thirty-two-year-old man, but, in fact, he has a secret life. Carlos is chasing the bug.

“I know what the risks are, and I know that putting myself in this situation is like putting a gun to my head,” he says. Some of that mountain music that’s so popular is playing, making the moment even more surreal as a Southern voice sings, “Keep on the sunny side of life” behind Carlos. “But I think it turns the other guy on to know that I’m negative and that they’re bringing me into the brotherhood. That gets me off, too.”

…

When asked whether he is prepared to live with HIV after that “erotic” moment, Carlos dismisses living with HIV as a minor annoyance. Like most bug chasers, he has the impression that the virus just isn’t such a big deal anymore: “It’s like living with diabetes. You take a few pills and get on with your life.”

HIVplusMag

We just don’t know. There is evidence to point to the role of fatalism, depression, and hopelessness—all characteristics described in the Rolling Stone article—within HIV prevention efforts. Whether bug chasing is a big phenomenon or a tiny fetish, we have a responsibility to know the magnitude of the behavior and to try to develop interventions to address the problem.

…

The Rolling Stone article is a little sensationalistic. Some of the people quoted in the article say they were misquoted or their quotes were used out of context, and Freeman did get one of the most important stats in his story wrong. He reports that an estimated 25% of all newly infected gay men are infected through “bug chasing.”

…

What Freeman misses is that those 40,000 new cases are not all gay men. Only 42% of new infections annually are among men who have sex with men; 33% are through heterosexual sex, and 25% from injection-drug use.

…

It is legitimate for AIDS activists to be concerned about how the general public will react to the news that there are some gay men—no matter how few—who are intentionally getting infected and knowingly infecting others. But our first and primary obligation is to stop the spread of HIV. That requires us to look at the ugly and hard questions before us. AIDS is being spread in small towns all over America, and there are people who are bug chasers. That much is clear. We all need to be less concerned about image and funding and more concerned about creating a world without AIDS.

Wah? There are people who want to catch HIV? Assuming that Carlos actually exists, he must be fatalistic indeed. Despite recent advances in treatment, I doubt anyone would find diabetes and HIV to be comparable, and yet, there it is, quoted in black and white. Completely outrageous and actually saddening.

Dusting off my degree in fictional Arm Chair Psychology, what are the surrounding factors that contribute to this phenomena?

First let’s talk about the group of gay men who already have HIV. It makes complete sense that this group would socialise together for a variety of reasons, not least of which is general rejection and lack of understanding from the rest of society. The community of HIV+ men pre-exists the supposed phenomena of bugchasing. Is this this close-knit and interdependent community a strong reason for otherwise uninfected men to want to join the “Brotherhood” The need to feel like one belongs can be very powerful. Is it self-loathing and a general dissatisfaction with protected sex? Carlos has found it OK to pursue an HIV infected man, AKA “The Gift Giver.”

It must be difficult to be Carlos. A promiscuous gay man constantly under the fear of catching the virus. Maybe his view is once you have HIV you no longer have to worry about getting it. Once you have it, and your partner(s) have it too, you can have as much unprotected sex as you’d like - OK, not really, there are other STDs - without worry that you will be transmitted the disease, because you already have it.
Furthermore, if you decide that you want HIV then, when you eventually you do contract it, you had consented to it’s influence in your life, expected to be just a nuisance like diabetes.

When I realized people could make fun of my name I started making fun of it myself. I took the power away from others by afflicting myself with abuse. I think that Bug Chasing is an attempt to take the power away from the virus by consenting to it. It has not invaded his life, it has been welcomed in.

I realize condoms aren’t as fun, but is bareback sex really worth becoming a carrier of an epidemic virus? Is contracting a virus that will kill you in about 11 years worth a hypothedical “erotic” moment?

Carlos cannot donate blood in an emergency, or if he is injured and bleeding in an accident, he could, while there is only a small chance of this, infect others if his blood gets mixed up with theirs. Moreover, when the cocktails stop working, and HIV gives way to AIDS, I think Carlos will regret his decision.

Maybe not. I suppose he has simply come out of the closet as a suicidal nihilist.

About HIV… Has killed 25 million since 1981. Check yourself before you wreck yourself.

Fascism terrifies me. The totalitarian rule that comes with Communism also terrifies me. Here are two ideologies that lie on opposite ends of the spectrum that rule in the exact same way. They’re less polarized than they look. Case in point, the capitalist inclinations of “communist” China.

Communism is not dead. Communism will not die. The basic principles of it are too appealing, too seductive to stay beaten for long. Hugo Chavez’ increasing forays into autocratic rule in Venezuela are a testament to the temptation of power used for a “greater good”. (This post is not about Chavez, and I would like to qualify the last sentence by saying that I don’t think Chavez is nearly as dangerous or despotic as he is made out to be in the mainstream press.) Vladimir Putin’s tightening grasp of power in Russia is equally telling, and much more frightening. “Benign Dictatorship” does not, and cannot exist – there will always be somebody on the wrong side of the boot heel. Whether or not they deserve it is something else, but this post isn’t about that, either.

Fascism is not dead. Fascism will not die. I am obliged to direct the reader to Naomi Wolf’s “The End Of America”. I haven’t read it, but I’ve read enough synopses to get the gist. If it isn’t already obvious, fascist interests are on the rise in The States. Through the ranks in Canada I see similar shades of fascism. They are not as black (or brown, should I say?) as those in the south, but the inklings are there. (If this is how Stephen Harper acts in a minority government, what would he do with a majority? The prospect is horrific.) This post isn’t about fascism on the rise, though. Enough people have written about that.

Totalitarian rule of any kind is anathema to me. Fascism terrifies me. Communism terrifies me. What does this leave? The market? The market is impure, unreliable, amoral, and slow (look at the electric car, or public transportation). The market is subject to manipulation by forces visible and hidden (look at advertising, or lobby groups). The market drove the world to where it is today. And we expect it to drive us out, as well? Someone once said that the first sign of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result each time. But no, this post isn’t about the market.

This post is about the paradox I am trapped in.

The world is in terrible shape. If you don’t believe that, you’re wearing blinders. It is largely agreed that we gained the ability to obliterate life as we know it when that first atomic bomb went off in New Mexico. But we aren’t going to destroy ourselves with atomics. We don’t need to. Not while we have greenhouse gases, rainforest and watershed destruction, desertification, overfishing, soil degradation, toxic materials, petroleum reliance, and much more pushing us along. The end-game of our free-wheeling lifestyle is becoming increasingly clear.

The market drove us here. Not democracy, exactly – democracy has never really been in play. Not really. Nobody really wants the rainforest destroyed (though people do want farmland, people do want beef). Nobody really wants the oceans to be emptied of fish (though people do want sushi). Nobody wants smog to blanket their cities (though people do want to get to work from their quiet suburban home). People want it both ways, and the short-term always wins.

So where does this leave us? How do we solve this problem?

I believe that we are in very big trouble. I am having a hell of a time planning for the future, because I don’t really believe there will be one. Even if people do smarten up (and they are starting to), the institutions around us are too old and creaking to do us much good. Those in power have too many interests to follow (none of which are in the interest of the planet). The market is still moving slower than the Himalayan glaciers are melting.

Herein lies my paradox.

The systems in place throughout the world are not equipped to handle the disasters we are bringing upon ourselves. I can’t help but feel that only a totalitarian rule – a global rule – can really truly save us. A total global “reset,” with a set of leaders to rebuild the institutions from the ground up. Rule that will remake factories the world over. Law that will replace our moribund infrastructure and end our slavish lifestyles. Order that will stop genocides.

Totalitarianism terrifies me.

And here I am considering it as our best option.

Someone please save me from this line of thought.

This post is in response to the series of comments I have received to the post, “CIA-Mossad connection to 9/11 “well known” in intelligence circles, says Italian Ex-President.”

A few new viewers stopped in to drop their two cents into the commentary piggy bank, and I thank them for their contribution.

Gab wrote, “Witnessing all what came after 911 it’s not so difficult to see who have benefited from that event. Obviously not the muslims but more probably zionists. I’ve seen some other very interesting articles about this issue.” He provided a link to a nice long translation to Cossiga’s statment.

Flowerpower wrote, “Exposing the criminals has nothing to do with semitism or anti-semitism. It is called JUSTICE for the 3000 victims.”

Flowerpower then contributed about a dozen links about 9/11, all from a site quixotically titled WhatReallyHappened.com. The links are off topic, delving into WTC demolition including the fact that BCC reported that Building 7 have collapsed due to fire before it actually did. However also included is the dubious story of the Israeli phone company Odigo warning workers not to show up to work at the Twin Towers, and an irrelevant story about 9/11 and an Anthrax suspect the FBI “won’t go near.”

sega wrote, “Very interesting that an ex-President would mention Mossad/CIA as being the masterminds of the 9/11 attack. This is something that I have been aware of for almost 2 years now and I have been trying hard to explain this to many people but unfortunately you usually get called a racist/anti-Semite which is so far from the truth…” Sega then provided some relevant links to HugeQuestions.com, the work of Eric Hufschmid. “Hufs” for short.

I once found value in Hufs’ slideshow presentation titled Painful Questions, most notably: Why were agents in suits collecting airplane debris from the Pentagon lawn instead of leaving that work to the hazardous materials team? If the the Towers were burning at steel-melting temperatures then how were people able to stand at the impact hole? While Painful Questions was worth exposing myself to, overall I found that he tended to go too far, too often, by venturing into speculation in the form of a question. I saw the video Painful Quesitons three years ago and it spurred me to investigate and think for myself about what happened. Investigation took the form of watching every viewable video (in the now-unimaginable days before YouTube and Google video), and reading many articles and having many debates. At the time I considered Hufs to be an weird and super nerdy guy who cared about 9/11.

Yet three years later Hufschmid’s is on the fringe of the fringes, possibly because of the poor production value, but it seems that in the years since Hufschmid released Painful Questions he has become much more pointed, now mincing no words on the top of his website, asking “Do you know what Zionism is?” next to a picture of a Rabbi burning an Isreali flag. Take a look. It’ll make you gag, especially if you’re web designer, but also quite flustering if you’re seeking truth.

As for the Painful Questions themselves, I have decided to reject all speculation about the Pentagon because I am not a historian so it does not matter to me what exactly happened to every last detail. I also am not interested in personally determining “who dun it.” I find that pointing the finger doesn’t help solve the crime. But again the point is I am in no position to solve this crime. I can only consider if the original guilty verdict was valid. Everything else seems to be blustering possibilities in a mysterious world.

I have before read all of the websites they linked. I have been traversing the 9/11 truth “info sphere” for nearly four years. I find that the more things I’m asked to consider in a short period of time the less clear the whole picture is. Almost a case of the more you know the less you know. Certainly there is a threshold for the number of ideas a person can take at a given time. The sheer number of links flowerpower provided did nothing to lend credibility. It was merely many possible entry points, sure, but I found that what flowerpower and sega posted reeked of “meh.” If you are truthers, you must do better.

Flowerpower, those stories on WhatReallyHappened are interesting, but you’d be better off picking only the ones that are strongest. Drop Odigo, that story goes no where except into eye-rolling territory. And the 9/11-Anthrax thing is interesting, but again, it’s just too far off topic to help convince anyone of anything.

If either of you had made one good point, and provided one good link, you might have gained some ground in convincing my friend Chris, an open minded fellow with anti-establishment leanings, about the “truth about 9/11.” Instead your all-out link assault makes it difficult to make any coherant point.

The best links of that bunch, in my opinion, were the WTC7-BBC story and this one, ‘The Dog That did Not Bark‘ which is a Sherlock Holmes allusion, suggesting that the secret service’s inaction on the morning of 9/11 indicates that they knew Bush was not a target.

I must tip my hat to Gab, who made a point with one sentence and provided one link, actually contributing to the topic by providing a link to a fuller translation. Thank you good sir! I hope you come again.

As for you, sega, by promoting Eric Hufschmid you seemed to do nothing but help to hurt the chances of other people finding acceptance of 9/11 truth. Hufs is at the fringe of the fringes, much kookier and far less credible than even Alex Jones. If you want to change people’s minds, the only thing Hufschmid is good for these days is making people turn away from continuing their 9/11 investigation online because they might end up on his website again. Then again, for many the same could be said about Jones.

Here’s an interesting exerpt. Hufschmid writes in an separate article on his own website title, “Why don’t I work with Smith any longer? ”

…. Smith didn’t want me putting links to information about the Apollo moon landing hoax, and he didn’t want me talking about the issue when he interviewed me for his radio shows. Smith trusted people such as Mike Rivero, who defend the Apollo moon landing. Even after I tried to explain that Apollo was a scam, he told me that it would do more harm than good to bring up the issue. I’ve heard this argument from many people in the 9/11 movement. It’s just another Zionist trick to convince people to ignore one of their big crimes.

Another gem, which I find amusing since i’m a listener of Alex Jones, who is on on the conspiracy-friendly GCN radio network.

…The GCN radio network turned out to be a Zionist operation. In February 2006 they decided to stop allowing Smith to produce radio shows.

Hahaha…Wow…I’m not going to spend any more time on that website, obviously. But that’s the point, isn’t it? I’m “travelling down a rabbit hole to see how far it goes,” and you, sega, try to send me and all my readers down a garbage chute.

Recently a gunman opened fire in an American shopping center, killing eight people and himself. Obviously this is a tragedy, and the result of someone who not understanding the true meaning of Christmas, which, as revealed in the 1999 cartoon Christmas classic, Christmas Evil, is you don’t shoot the place up. At the end of the film Dimitry discovers “the true meaning of Christmas” - by not shooting people. It’s a quaint and wholesome moral message which holds poignance in our ever more violent era, eight years since its release.

It pains me that the film was not able to make it to mass popularity in time to save these people’s lives. I only wish that the gunman had seen the film if only to discover that he wasn’t alone in his pain. Indeed, the lead antagonist of Christmas Evil had a rough childhood, and a “papa” who was “more interested in getting drunk” than being the young russian’s father. There was no stocking, nor christmas tree, and it was this that precipitated his North Pole ramage. We may find that may hold true for the self-dispatched shopping center gunman, except instead of accepting the true meaning of Christmas he turned gun on himself. Not a happy ending to an otherwise entertaining day at the mall.

I implore you, dear reader, to help us avert another tragedy. Please! Save lives by spreading this essential Christmas message: The true meaning of Christmas is you do not shoot the place up! This is the moral of the story of Christmas Evil, which, with your help, can be seen by millions of potential gunmen - before they go on their rampage. Thank you.

The historical mother load of false flag terrorism is Operation Gladio, which consisted of clandestine paramilitary groups that “stayed behind” after World War Two. The good guys, NATO, stuck around and blew up innocent civilians to maintain a “Strategy of Tension.” I’m not making this up. Eventually someone spilled the beans for whatever reason, and it was a big Scandal which caused the president, Francesco Cossiga, to step down. WikiPedia:

Only former [President] Francesco Cossiga confirmed Andreotti’s revelations, explaining that he was even “proud and happy” for his part in setting up Gladio as junior Defence Minister of the Christian Democratic Party. This lit up a political storm, requests were made for Cossiga’s (Italian President since 1985) resignation or impeachment for high treason. He refused to testify to the investigating Senate committee. Cossiga narrowly escaped his impeachment by stepping down on April 1992, three months before his term expired.

Paul Joseph Watson at PrisonPlanet.com writes a story headlined, “Ex-Italian President: Intel Agencies Know 9/11 An Inside Job,”

Cossiga’s tendency to be outspoken upset the Italian political establishment and he was forced to resign after revealing the existence of, and his part in setting up, Operation Gladio - a rogue intelligence network under NATO auspices that carried out bombings across Europe in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s

And what does Watson say that Cossiga has been quoted as saying?

Cossiga’s new revelations appeared last week in Italy’s oldest and most widely read newspaper, Corriere della Sera. Below appears a rough translation.

“[Bin Laden supposedly confessed] to the Qaeda September [attack] to the two towers in New York [claiming to be] the author of the attack of the 11, while all the [intelligence services] of America and Europe … now know well that the disastrous attack has been planned and realized from the CIA American and the Mossad with the aid of the Zionist world in order to put under accusation the Arabic Countries and in order to induce the western powers to take part … in Iraq [and] Afghanistan…”

Cossiga first expressed his doubts about 9/11 in 2001, and is quoted in Webster Tarpley’s book as stating that “The mastermind of the attack must have been a “sophisticated mind, provided with ample means not only to recruit fanatic kamikazes, but also highly specialized personnel. I add one thing: it could not be accomplished without infiltrations in the radar and flight security personnel.”

Wow! That’s a real humdinger. Great scoop from Watson, but since he does not attribute the translation to anyone it wasn’t convincing. I had to see if Cossiga was who Watson says, and he is, according to WikiPedia. But! Did Cossiga really say that it is “well known” that that CIA and Mossad “planed and realized” the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001? I checked Babel Fish, which gave an awkward computerized translation, which I had to modify the grammar of first half just to make readable.

The video is not testified from the fact that Osama Bin Laden in it ‘confessa’ that al Qaeda was the author of the attack of the two towers in New York on September 11, while all the atmospheres democratics of America and Europe, with in front line those of the ‘centrosinistra’ Italian, by now know well that the disastrous attack has been planned and realized from the American CIA and the Mossad with the aid of the ’sionista ‘ world in order to put under accusation the Arabic Countries and in order to induce the western powers to take part are in Iraq are in Afghanistan. [emphasis portion unmodified from Babel Fish translation.]

My, my. That’s a very straight forward sentance that even Babel Fish couldn’t mix up or get confused. A little research and ‘Sionista’ is indeed “Zionist.” Evidently there was a recent Osama audio tape which mentioned the current Italian president. Cossiga doubted its veracity and referred to the entire thing a CIA-Mossad-Zionist plot. Watson uses Cossiga’s quote to support his view that “9/11 is an inside job.” Watson writes, “[Cossiga] can’t be sidelined as a crackpot conspiracy theorist.”

So, why would Cossiga say such a thing about 9/11? Is Cossiga the ‘Pen and Teller’ of the European Intelligence apartatus? A practiced magician who reveals how the tricks are done?

Why, in reply to an Osama audio tape, would he wade so deep into his opinion that he would go all-out and mention Zionists? His claim, not a new idea but coming from an interesting source, is the ultimate claim of our day. For me it is the big question because it is rife with taboo. When Cossiga attributes the attacks to Mossad interests with help from the “Zionist world” is this insipid “the Jews did it” theorizing, some sort of post 9/11 antisemitism? Does the truth about 9/11 actually include the phrase “Zionist,” and if so, I how do I proceed talking about it?

There is a blogger who calls himself George Washtington and he wrote a post called Are Those Who Questioion 911 Anti Semites?. He makes the point that Jewish individuals, who aren’t self hating, participate in “9/11 truth,” listing examples.

Blogspot George Washington also suggests that an honest investigation follows the facts and ignores the taboos:

As former Secretary of State Colin Powell once stated, “It is not anti-Semitic to criticize the policies of the state of Israel.” Presumably, criticizing illegal acts by Mossad or other Israeli services would also be acceptable.”
Therefore, there is nothing wrong with having a debate based upon whether or not there are credible facts justifying the hypothesis that portions of the 9/11 attacks were subcontracted out by rogue elements within the U.S. government to people associated with Mossad or other Israeli intelligence services, just as it is reasonable to discuss whether or not there are facts implicating British or other allied intelligence services in aiding and abetting the attacks.

Notably, five Israelis were arrested in New Jersey in on Sept. 11, 2001 for filming the attacks on the twin towers and “dancing,” and “giving each other high fives.” Supposedly they went investigation, the results of which not shared with the media. A TV news report, I don’t know the source, said that government officials said the investigation of the “dancing Israelis” could not be shared because it was “classified.” They were detained and deported on immigration violations. I’d provide a link if I could find a decent one.

The point is there was “from day one” evidence of Israeli (and Saudi Arabian and Pakistani, for that matter) involvement in the attacks, most of which was irrelevant for the official narrative which cast Osama bin Laden as the superhuman terror mastermind. And just because a certain group suffered genocide 60 years ago doesn’t mean they are incapable of being involved in this cultural war against Arabs.

Additionally, “Semitic” is defined as,”of, relating to, or constituting a subgroup of the Afro-Asiatic language group that includes Arabic, Hebrew, Amharic, and Aramaic.” Many definitions do say that it has come to refer to the Jewish people in particular. Yet, given that Arabs are Semites too maybe Israel-America, ironically, is the most antisemitic.

Islamic Research Foundation (IRF), in Mumbai, India, held a conference titled, “Is TERRORISM A Muslim Monopoly? By Dr. Zakir Naik.”It was covered by Islamic Indian satellite TV station “PeaceTV.” The man speaking is Dr. Naik.

YouTube: (transcript mine.)

Just a few days back, there was an article, that 75 professors of US, they say, they believe, that 9/11 was an inside job. In that article, it was mentioned, [inaudible] on 7th september, they say, 75 professors and scientists belonging to different universities from different parts of US, they believe that 9/11 was inside job. They say that there was politicians and White House who have engineered the destruction of the twin towers. And they say the main reason was so they could attack, and they could have control of the oil rich countries.
[applause].

One of the professors by the name of Steve Jones, he says, that “we do not believe that 19 hijackers and a few men in the cave in Afghanistan could have done such a professional job alone. They could not have done it. We don’t believe. And by God we’re going to come to the truth and we’re going to expose. We don’t believe in the theory of the government.”

They don’t believe the theory of the government!

And he further goes on to say, “we as being professors and scientists, we know, that the steel beam of the twin towers, they couldn’t have melted at the temp at which the jet ful was there. And there was systematic bomb explosions which caused it to come down otherwise it cannot come down. there are many tapes there are many books written against it. I happen to watch many of them, I happen to watch the video recording of this professor Steve Jones. … In the news three days later, Steve Jones, sent on paid leave. [audience laughter] Imagine. Paid leave.

There are many tapes if you happen to watch one of the tapes by the name of Loose Change 9/11. It was done by a young American of 21 years old. He makes a one hour documentary. There are many, many out there.

This 9/11 documentary, it has collected clips from the various, off CNN, off Fox Channel, all the news clipping, interviews, etc. and made a one-hour documentary. And then he says that people who saw the airplane, they say, it cannot be a passenger carrier, it looked like a military plane, it didn’t not have any windows. And when it shows the shooting - when it comes close to the tower - there another firing gun from the wing - which hits the twin tower before the plane. Then further he goes on to prove, he says, that he has statements of the management, the construction company, which are constructed the twin towers, they say it’s impossible, the twin towers are made to withstand storm, to withstand tornado. This plane cannot knock it down. And it cannot come down because because the fuel burned at 1000 degrees temperature. This for even 2000 degrees temperature for hour nothing happened to it. Then years later he changed his statement and say, oh it’s possible. Jet fuel can cause damage to the beams. The other professor [Steve Jones] didn’t withdraw his statement, so he was sacked. [audience chuckle].

Continues (9 minutes).

I do recommend you view the video because you need to see for yourself how large the audience is at this conference. I find it disturbing that the Islamic Research Foundation did nothing but reference films in stead of sharing the facts themselves. In the YouTube video called “911 The View from India”, it features a Muslim man who makes not one reference to India. Instead he speaks of claims made by “75 scientists,” particularly Steven E. Jones, and the dubious Internet blockbuster, Loose Change, first edition, referencing the the most dubious points therein (military plane which fires a missile prior to impact). All or most of the claims he recites are dead wrong. He goes on but I turned him off because he was babbling about conspiracy films and using it as proof of an inside job. If he had a case for Inside Job shouldn’t he have presented the evidence itself?

Interestingly, as the speaker describes what Loose Change is, a crane camera pans across the audience, and lifts, to reveal a large auditorium Muslim listeners. It was a visual representation of the number of Muslims being exposed to 9/11 lies. They have no reason not to trust the speaker, or the Americans who make these videos. They swallow misinformation as fast or faster than any truther.

Sounds Like Bill O’Reily has a new Talking Points Memo to write. If not, allow me to fictionalize:

“Tonights Talking Points Memo. How long is this government going to allow 9/11 nutbags to give aid and comfort to the enemy? The Islamofascists want nothing better than to destroy America and bring us to our knees, and they’ve got friends here in America, the 9/11 moonbats, who spread their Internet propaganda films. This has an affect on the morale of our troops and our people, which is a problem, but not the only one. The real concern is how this is picked up in the Muslim world. Take a look at the Islamic Research Foundation (IRF) which hosted a symposium called “Is Terrorism a Muslim monopoly?” Leading to ludicrous and completely debunked claim that 9/11 was an inside job. His proof? Internet 9/11 film Loose Change, and out of work professor Steven Jones, who was abandoned by his own colleagues, now being used by moderate Muslims to wash the blood clean from Islam’s hands. But the facts are the facts and no matter what the Loose Change bozos or the Islamic moderates say, 9/11 was an attack on freedom by Islamic extremists. Case closed. But here’s the problem. If 9/11 lunatics are being heard in the moderate Muslim world then the extremists are having a field day with propaganda films like Loose Change 9/11. I know people out there will get on their blogs and e-mail me saying I’m against free speech, but what I’m talking about is aiding the enemy, and Loose Change and nuts like Steve Jones, do just that. Lets just hope it won’t take another 9/11 to prove that the Islamic threat is the real one. That’s the memo. “

Of course, I don’t agree with Bill O’Reily’s world view but the reason I wrote the fictional talking points memo was to demonstrate how easily it will be for them to tie together Islamic extremism with “9/11 truth” when moderates such as I’ve written about tonight do nothing but rehash the faulty information of a laptop film maker and his bargain basement research team.

If the IRF conference featured the probing thoughtful question that have made 9/11 truth such a relevant topic I would have no problem with Muslims speaking about 9/11 truth. What concerns me, deeply so, is the readiness of this speaker to share his findings without doing any research of his own. It seems he swallowed the premise of the film, digested all of its bad information, and went on to share bad information with his religious brethren, with little regard as to the validity of the claims. The mere fact that an American was saying something against America made it credible, and the fact that Muslims want to be vindicated from 9/11 means they are willing to accept any information, true or not, if it will give them that peace of mind. They went home after that conference thinking they learned something. Their opinions were validated but the facts were wrong, and that presents a huge problem. The inside job premise itself might still be correct but the evidence given to get to that conclusion was entirely faulty, so how can that premise be accepted? It seems that the “9/11 truth” religion is growing but the truth itself is ever elusive.

Help control the human population. Have your Spouse Spayed or Neutered. This woman believes that she aborted her pregnancy for the good of environment!

UK Daily Mail:

Had Toni Vernelli gone ahead with her pregnancy ten years ago, she would know at first hand what it is like to cradle her own baby, to have a pair of innocent eyes gazing up at her with unconditional love, to feel a little hand slipping into hers - and a voice calling her Mummy.

But the very thought makes her shudder with horror.

Because when Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet.

Incredibly, so determined was she that the terrible “mistake” of pregnancy should never happen again, that she begged the doctor who performed the abortion to sterilise her at the same time.

He refused, but Toni - who works for an environmental charity - “relentlessly hunted down a doctor who would perform the irreversible surgery.

Finally, eight years ago, Toni got her way.

At the age of 27 this young woman at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to “protect the planet”.

Incredibly, instead of mourning the loss of a family that never was, her boyfriend (now husband) presented her with a congratulations card.

While some might think it strange to celebrate the reversal of nature and denial of motherhood, Toni relishes her decision with an almost religious zeal.

“Having children is selfish. It’s all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet,” says Toni, 35. (emphasis mine)

“Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population.”

Continues

That she is not having children for “the environment” implies that if it wasn’t an issue then she would have no problem with bearing her unborn child. Taking her argument at face value one could assume that she wanted her baby but she just couldn’t bear it - for the sake of our planet.

Thanks Toni. If only her lack of reproduction meant her stupidity would die with her. But it won’t because she’s simply responding to a common idea: we’re dooming ourselves.

My feeling is that Toni simply doesn’t want children (as is her choice and I have no problem the decision itself). Perhaps she doesn’t want children truly because of the environment, or maybe she needed a way to justify to her parents why she has decided to abort the pregnancy - a reason that didn’t include all the expectations and pain of childbearing. For her to think that somehow she is doing the planet a favour is shifting the attention away from her guilt of the abortion. Just an excuse to make her seem altruistic while she is anything but. Plain fact is that she didn’t wanna be a momma. She actually reveals her own selfish motivations later in the article…

“I’ve never doubted that I made the right decision. Ed and I married in September 2002, and have a much nicer lifestyle as a result of not having children.

“We love walking and hiking, and we often go away for weekends.

“Every year, we also take a nice holiday - we’ve just come back from South Africa.

“We feel we can have one long-haul flight a year, as we are vegan and childless, thereby greatly reducing our carbon footprint and combating over-population.

So there it is. They love life without the responsibility of a little rascal. Many couples have made the same decision to not have children for lifestyle reasons, but they simply say they don’t want children. Toni saying she is saving the environment by not having kids is like people who say they turning off the lights when they leave the room to saves the environment, when the real reason they turn off the lights is simply to save on the electricity bill.

The reason she has given is rubbish and pure fantasy. Her “sacrifice” has little practical benefit or consequence for the planet.

Although I do give the babies=pollution premise some credence. Certainly human kind is causing a stress on the environment, and I don’t dispute the environmental issues. Reproduction of our species does result in of more use of land, fuels, trees, and more creation of pollution and greenhouse gases. And in her words, “adds to the problem of over-population.”

If she was taught her baby would ruin the world, then so too can we be taught that there needs to be global reformation or there will be global death. Not only is our own species’ future at stake but so too is all life on Earth. If the Earth’s biosphere is in jeopardy and our rootin’ tootin’ pollutin’ will actually result in the death of our planet, and everything on it, what is the only moral thing to do?

If she indeed aborted her child and was sterilized for the environment then what we are seeing in Toni is a volunteer who has sacrificed her genetic contribution at the altar of sustainability, and has been fooled into sterilizing herself. This story could be an footnote the nexus of environmentalism and population reduction. Is this what happens when you accept the premise that humans are bringing about planet-wide destruction? That the only way to solve the problem is to remove humans from the equasion? That is stark.

If science feels it can prove that humans are the plague of Earth, and if they feel they can prove that we are bringing certain death to ourselves and everything else, then the only moral thing to do is quickly and mercifully reduce our entire population. If we are killing our planet, to the point where there will be no life on Earth, then is it not paramount and moral to dispose of the unwashed masses? Are you willing to accept that human kind needs to die to save the planet?

This is the final solution when you believe humans will inevitably cause environmental catastrophe. This concept described by Finnish environmentalist Pentti Linkola in a metaphor in which limited seating on a life boat would cause drastic but necessary action.

“Those who hate life will try to load it with more people and sink the lot.” while “those who love and respect life will take the ship’s ax and sever the extra hands that cling to the sides of the boat,” Linkola said.

That’s hardcore.

Are we truly clamoring for a seat on a sinking boat? I’m not willing to accept that. I don’t believe the doom sayers. I smell what could be an agenda. After all, in the overfilled boat who weilds the ax?

The environment is being trashed and we need to fix the way our lifestyles impact the environment, but for us to think that the world would be better off if there were simply fewer of us doesn’t address the solutions we have available. There are methods of efficient, clean uses of resources and technology.

We can not continue to blame individuals for consumerism. It is the structure of society on a whole, a consumerist society, and we are their byproducts. We have learned to hate our society, and ourselves for even existing, while those who have put us in this position are let off the hook.

There is a billboard that has Canadian ecologist David Suzuki. He is holding a new energy efficient lightbulb with the phrase, “You have the power.” To do what?

Do you have the power to turn off the factories and shut down the systems of poison? Can you reverse affects of millions of cars? Can you stop China or India from developing? Do you have the power to replace factories with cleaner ones? Do you have the power to convince everyone to abandon plastic waste?

Our authorities are the ones who are fostering these problems, waiting for our reactions, and providing us with their solutions. If you buy the premise that, if left unchecked, the human species is inevitably going to kill Earth, do you realize that is enough justification for mass genocide to become a viable option once all other attempts have failed?

In November 1991, Jacques-Yves Cousteau in an interview with UNESCO Courier.

Interviewer: “Some snakes, mosquitoes, and other animal species pose threats or dangers for humankind. Can they be eliminated like viruses that cause certain diseases?”

Cousteau: “Getting rid of viruses is an admirable idea, but it raises enormous problems. In the first 1,400 years of the Christian era, population numbers were virtually stationary. Through epidemics, nature compensated for excess births by excess deaths. I talked about this problem with the director of the Egyptian Academy of Sciences. He told me that scientists were appalled to think that by the year 2080 the population of Egypt might reach 250 million. What should we do to eliminate suffering and disease? It’s a wonderful idea but perhaps not altogether a beneficial one in the long run. If we try to implement it we may jeopardize the future of our species. It’s terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. This is so horrible to contemplate that we shouldn’t even say it. But the general situation in which we are involved is lamentable.” Bahgat Elnadi and Adel Rifaat, “Interview With Jacques-Yves Cousteau,” The UNESCO Courier, November 1991, p. 13, source

View the reply Chris has made by clicking ‘comments’

44 years ago today U.S. President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas. I don’t know the circumstances and I obviously have no unique insights. But I can say that it is well regarded as an conspiracy. Anyways enough of my words. Let’s hear some of his words from a speech about secret societies and freedom of the press…

Watch on YouTube. Longer version on Google Video.

With transcript below courtesy of PhotoGabble (a blog).

The very word secrecy is repugnant in a free and open society and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies to secret oaths and to secret proceedings.

We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far out weigh the dangers which are sited to justify them. Even today there is little value in opposing the threat of an enclosed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions.

Even today there is little value in ensuring the survival of our nation, if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be ceased upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment.

That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control and no official of my administration, weather his rank is high or low, civilian or military should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle decent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press or the public the facts that they deserve to know.

For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that rely’s primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence. On infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on gorillas by night instead of army’s by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed not published, its mistakes are buried not headlined, its dissenters are silenced not praised, no expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.

No president should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding and from that understanding comes support or opposition and both are necessary. I’m not asking your newspapers to support an administration but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people for I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed. I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers I welcome it. This administration intends to be candid about its errors, for as a wise man once said “an error doesn’t become a mistake until you refuse to correct it”.

We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors and we expect you to point them out when we miss them. Without debate, without criticism no administration and no country can succeed and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian law maker Solan decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy and that is why our press was protected by the first amendment. The only business in America specifically protected by the constitution not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and sentimental, not to simply give the public what it wants but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises’ and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion. This means greater coverage and analysis of international news for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission and it means finally that government at all levels must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security.

So it is to the printing press, to the recorder of mans deeds, to the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news that we look for strength and assistance confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.

JFK thought there was a conspiracy ? Ironic, or predictable, that he should die in one?

Let’s examine the most revealing paragraph. (pp5)

“For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that rely’s primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence. “

Actually, unless it’s that trademark JFK accent obscuring the word, PhotoGabble misprinted this. If you listen carefully, it’s not ‘covert means’ it’s ‘covet means.’ He’s saying the “monolitic conspiracy” seduces people using money and power. Monolithic means the “conspiracy” is singular, organized and cohesive. They are ruthless, but how do they operate? Kennedy continues, “On infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on gorillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed not published, its mistakes are buried not headlined, its dissenters are silenced not praised, no expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.”

If this had even a shade of truth in 1961, how to describe the situation today? How much further has this subversive conspiracy spread its tentacles after 40 more years? How much more “tightly knit” is it now?

Does it really have a scientific establishment? If so, what are these agenda driven scientists saying?

The good news is while “preparations” are still concealed by the mainstream of media, and dissenters are still not praised, these days, rumours are printed, and secrets are revealed. The Internet has changed the equasion. At least a little.

Now a bonus Presidential quote, this time from Dwight D. Eisenhower as he made his farewell address.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

The Matrix could be seen as a suitable film metaphor for how 9/11 truth views the world and itself.

The Military Industrial Complex and the corporations are the endless hoards of self-replicating machines. The Matrix is the illusory prison of irrelevant ideas, unaware of the system that holds us, placed into diversionary jobs, routines, and fed a spectrum of lies in the various media, storylines and illusions which give us meaning and purpose. The agents are the talking heads of media and religion which ensure consistency in the synthetic reality.The masses, aka “sheeple,” are the acquiescent masses, hapless victims being drained of their inherent power, victimized only because they don’t realize they’re prisoners.

The leaders of the truth movement are the crew of the Nebuchadnezzar and everyone else who has “woken up” are the last city of humans, Zion. Oh yeah, and our reluctant but apt hero, Neo, is none other than wouldbe presidential candidate Dr. Ron Paul (aka “The Last Best Hope for America”).

I think I just realized that I might be Cypher, or like him, who turns on the truth in favour of being inserted back into the matrix (only to be killed in the attempt, mind you..)

Edit (from comments): I guess the point is that they view the world as a movie and themselves as the heroes.

Greater thinkers than I have contemplated the ideas I am afflicted with. Most, if not all, have moved past these ideas. I am caught in a no-mans land between history and philosophy in a realm commonly called conspiracy. I want out of the trite conspiracy perspective, but the education I have given myself has created a monster: I believe 9/11 was an inside job.

This gives me great pause. If this is what I believe, then I believe a mere slogan - a slogan I have repeated for my friends, my employers, and strangers, like a devotee to a religion. For you to know the truth accept it into your heart. From there you will be informed by your new opinion since there is no shortage of biases custom-built for leftists, anti-establishment youth, and anarchists. As soon as you buy the premise of 9/11 being an inside job, you’re in, joining the “big umbrella” of an anti-establishment protest community which resembles a grassroots global religion.

Other than their obvious web video presence, “truthers” hit the streets in much the same way a church would reach out to “the lost.” Some of them hold signs. Some of them have pamphlets. Some appeal to your mind. Some appeal to your heart. Handing out DVDs, they want the people of the world to “wake up!” They have many talking points, or statements, which they call questions. They are blind to the way their behaviour looks to the outside world, with antics that are intent on spreading “the truth.” They want to swell their numbers, dethrone the King, and reinstate the republic. They are a youthful and radical political group who talks tough about really serious issues. No wonder I have joined them. But have I been suckered into subscribing to ideas which are better off discarded?

There’s a big industry in the United States, on the left as well. I mean, you should see the e-mails I get. This huge Internet industry, from the left, trying to demonstrate that this was all faked and it was planned by the Bush Administration and so on. If you look at the evidence, anybody who knows anything about the sciences would instantly discount that evidence.”
-Noam Chomsky

Sensible words from someone who has been regarded as one of the 20th century’s greatest thinkers. But certainly this alone is not enough to dissuade me. Instead I find it more appropriate to pick apart his statement than to internalise it as the truth. His arguments, that “this huge industry” attempts to demonstrate “this was all faked and it was planned by the Bush administration,” are easily spotted “straw man arguments.” A straw man is a dubious idea which is set up to be knocked down, bringing the associated argument down with it.

“All faked” is an allusion to the no-plane/digital-plane theory which has been wholly rejected by all earnest researchers as lunacy, or worse, intentional misinformation. “Planned by Bush” is quite far fetched given his apparent idiocy, and (as elaborated at the tail end of a previous post) it could have been planned outside of the oval office while nevertheless suiting the agenda of those in power. Of course that is speculative but let’s keep moving. Neither of Chomsky’s straw men have much traction because they are indeed instantly discounted. Notably he chose to debunk only the claims which are not actually promoted by conspiracists.

I should point out that this still proves nothing about the original “inside job” claim and, infact, my nitpicking is indicitive of truther thinking despite my outward attempt at fence sitting.

I have yet to decide how to make my case or even if I should make a case at all. It would be hard to argue for anything except inside job since that is what I believe. For that, if this were a court case and I was on a jury, I would be asked to leave. I want to be judicial not advocative. How can I objectively take a fresh look when what I already know is what will inform my opinion?

The problem isn’t the information, but the implicit conclusions which came as bias baggage to the information. Someone else’s conclusions have been implanted into my head. I’m not suggesting they are incorrect. I’m suggesting that they were not my own conclusions. They were suggested to me based on information from sources of varying authenticity. I should seriously re-examine the biases at work and the basis of each claim.

The “inside job” thesis may indeed be the factually incorrect propaganda of a new anti-establishment grass roots religion. A multimedia orgy of speculation and exaggerated statistics… a political movement with seemingly shoddy research and a bloviating cheerleader.The Internet is, in and of itself, synthetic, anarchistic, and distracting, and so too are its blockbusters. Internet films, forums and websites that fulfill the prophecy that “the medium is the message.”

9/11 truth is just one brand of the anarchist message of the Internet. Sharing 9/11 truth’s alternative history are extremists from both the right (my land, my gun) and the left (let’s share everything), as well as UFO watchers, New Age spiritualists, and some who claim shape-shifting reptilian aliens are our overlords.

A few steps further down the rabbit hole and you will come across neo-Nazis and their pledges to fight the New World Order. I don’t mean to exaggerate. Unfortunate for 9/11 truth, a great deal of their underlying views (the structure of the secret world) are shared - perhaps were pioneered - by white power anti-semites, in a century old book written as if by the conspiritors themselves called The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Mentioned in the trailer of documentary of the same title (linked below) the book is rife with lies about Jewish customs of global domination. Suggestive that this ideology was formative for Adolf Hitler as he found “evidence” in Protocols that provided justification for doing away with the Jewish people all together. YouTube

I find it disturbing that that the underlying philosophy of 9/11 truth - that secret societies run the world - could be a secularized repackaging of the same antisemitism which was capable of convincing millions in the early 1900s of a verminous scapegoat. For now it is not “the Jews” but the “New World Order,” or, for more mystique, “The Illuminati.”

In the case of the shape shifting reptiles, the Anti-Defamation League accused reptilian-theory conspiracist David Icke of speaking in code. By reptile overlords, they say, he means Jews. I saw a documentary which took a look at this. “DAVID ICKE: The Lizards and the Jews” Google Video

To be clear, even if Icke is a closet anti-semite, and believes 9/11 was an inside job, that doesn’t mean the 9/11 inside job thesis is anti-semetic, nor reptilian. And even if a wide array of fringe groups, neo-nazis included, subscribe to the 9/11 inside job thesis, that doesn’t invalidate the thesis itself (although certainly does cast it in a new light, as if the reptile thing wasn’t enough.) The authenticity of the 9/11 truth thesis will take some examination for me to come to terms with. Ultimately facts will speak for themself and one day soon I will try to write a thoughtful presentation of the case for or against the inside job thesis.

Before I can build a case I want to examine all the biases I have swallowed in accepting it as my belief. I don’t think it is as cut and dry as it has been made out to be. I just don’t want to find myself accidentally reciting The Protocols of the Elders of Zion when I explain what the woes of the world are.

I need a thought from someone with more credibility. How about Aristotle.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
- Aristotle

The whole point of writing for FlatPlanet is to explore ideas and hopefully to discard the dubious ones. I don’t wish to be seen as promoting 9/11 truth. I am writing because it has affected me in a deep and important way and in the end my hope is that it will be either vindicated or evaporated.