For the titular article, see my below post, published under a jovial nom de plume:
"Michael Rozeff's Lethal Naïveté on Conspiracy," Sir Nigel Edmond III, February 24, 2009 http://anti-state.com/forum/index.php?board=2;action=display;threadid=21829
"Jesus Is an Anarchist", Dec. 4, 2011 http://ssrn.com/abstract=1337761
Theophysics http://theophysics.host56.com
tl:dr
Rozeff is wrong. But the Misesians and Rockwellians and even Paulians to some degree have to avoid the third rail of conspiracy in order to look legit. I'm fine with that, but Rozeff is a little off base by denouncing it. After all, how can he know about a conspiracy he doesn't know about? In other words, he's trying to prove a negative.
liberty student:tl:dr Rozeff is wrong. But the Misesians and Rockwellians and even Paulians to some degree have to avoid the third rail of conspiracy in order to look legit. I'm fine with that, but Rozeff is a little off base by denouncing it. After all, how can he know about a conspiracy he doesn't know about? In other words, he's trying to prove a negative.
Actually, it can be easy to prove a negative. If someone says that X *didn't* occur (i.e., a negative) at event Y, then look at event Y and see if it occured. For example, if someone says that during a particular Michael Jackson concert, Mr. Jackson *didn't* do the moonwalk on stage, then look at the uninterrupted video of the concert (such that there is no cuts, and no point when the camera wasn't on Jackson when he was on stage), and if one sees no moonwalk--and further, if no one in the audience reports seeing him moonwalk--then that's proof that Jackson, in fact, didn't moonwalk at said time.
The canard that "one can't prove a negative" appears to be a confused way of saying that one can't verify unverifiable assertions, as one certainly can prove negatives.
At any rate, the most prolific promulgators of conspiracy theories are governments, with the U.S. government leading the pack. Since obviously more than one person was involved in planning the 9/11 attacks, then by definition the U.S. government's mendacious, self-serving, anti-historical, anti-physical law, anti-factual and provably false official fairy tale is a conspiracy theory, as the U.S. government is putting forth a theory concerning the 9/11 attacks which involves a conspiracy.
Furthermore, conspiracies are ubiquitous (witness all the laws on the books against conspiracy, and how many people are routinely charged under said laws), and the most egregious perpetrators of murderously brutal conspiracies are governments upon their own innocent citizens. More than six times the amount of noncombatants have been systematically murdered for purely ideological reasons by their own governments within the past century than were killed in that same time-span from wars. From 1900 to 1923, various Turkish regimes murdered from 3.5 million to over 4.3 million of its own Armenians, Greeks, Nestorians, and other Christians. The Soviet government murdered over 61 million of its own noncombatant subjects. The communist Chinese government murdered over 76 million of it own subjects. The National Socialist German government murdered some 16 million of it own subjects. And that's only a sampling of governments mass-murdering their own noncombatant subjects within the past century. (The preceding figures are from Prof. Rudolph Joseph Rummel's University of Hawaii website.)
All totaled, neither the private-sector crime which government is largely responsible for promoting and causing or even the wars committed by governments upon the subjects of other governments come anywhere close to the crimes government is directly responsible for committing against its own citizens--certainly not in amount of numbers. Without a doubt, the most dangerous presence to ever exist throughout history has always been the people's very own government. (This is also historically true for the U.S. govermment, as no group has killed more U.S. citizens than the U.S. government. Viz., the Civil War; etc.)
Not only were all of these government mass-slaughters conspiracies--massive conspiracies, at that--but they were conspiracies of which the 9/11 attacks are quite piddling by comparison.
Moreover, terrorism is the health of the state (indeed, government is itself a logical subset of terrorism, since it uses initiatory violence and the threat thereof in order to maintain its existence and achieve its political agenda; and the word terrorism originally referred exclusively to government actions: i.e., the Reign of Terror in France against critics of the state, which was done according to the law--and later on the word terrorism was used to refer to other governments), which is why so many governments throughout history have manufactured duplicitous terrorism in which to serve as a pretext in order to usurp ever more power and control.
liberty student:tl:dr
James Redford: liberty student: tl:dr tl:dr
liberty student: tl:dr
Know your audience. The key to communicating is informing people in a manner they can understand, on a topic they find interesting (or you can help them find interest in).
Walls of text get read by almost no one. The ability to be concise and develop a conversation is much more valuable than posting massive amounts of research in single chunks.
When you stop talking TO and start talking WITH people, that's when knowledge transfers.
Food for thought.
liberty student: James Redford: liberty student: tl:dr tl:dr Know your audience. The key to communicating is informing people in a manner they can understand, on a topic they find interesting (or you can help them find interest in). Walls of text get read by almost no one. The ability to be concise and develop a conversation is much more valuable than posting massive amounts of research in single chunks. When you stop talking TO and start talking WITH people, that's when knowledge transfers. Food for thought.
James Redford: If one finds, as you stated in regards to yourself, seven paragraphs too long to read, then I can't help them.
If I read every 7 paragraphs everyone posted online, I would starve to death. The onus is on you to give people a compelling reason to read your seven paragraphs, not to expect someone to read them. In a market, merit is not determined by compulsion.
Being concise is important. Writing what your audience wants to read is important.
tl;dr is feedback. It means, shorten this up, and I might read it. Take the signals the market sends and refine your offering if success matters to you (I assume it does).
liberty student: James Redford: If one finds, as you stated in regards to yourself, seven paragraphs too long to read, then I can't help them. If I read every 7 paragraphs everyone posted online, I would starve to death. The onus is on you to give people a compelling reason to read your seven paragraphs, not to expect someone to read them. In a market, merit is not determined by compulsion. Being concise is important. Writing what your audience wants to read is important. tl;dr is feedback. It means, shorten this up, and I might read it. Take the signals the market sends and refine your offering if success matters to you (I assume it does).
The "signal" one recieves from the erudition by the writer ought to be motivation enough to read on. If I have to raise people up from babes in seven paragraphs, then I cannot do it.
But, further, your criteria is false, for the aforesaid reason.
James Redford:one recieves from the erudition by the writer ought to be motivation enough to read on
Ah yes. The labour theory of value. You are entitled for people to read you.
Cruel, cruel world!
liberty student: James Redford:one recieves from the erudition by the writer ought to be motivation enough to read on Ah yes. The labour theory of value. You are entitled for people to read you. Cruel, cruel world!
Not so. I was born a genius. My erudition shines through with little effort by me.
Of course, my point was that a writer's erudition (appart from what labor might have been expended) ought to send a signal as to whether one should read on. As I said, if I have to raise people up from babes in seven paragraphs, then I cannot do it.
As I further said, your stated criteria is false, for the aforesaid reason.
James Redford:Not so. I was born a genius. My erudition shines through with little effort by me.
Well, it is obvious that you are full of win.
James Redford:Of course, my point was that a writer's erudition (appart from what labor might have been expended) ought to send a signal as to whether one should read on.
Not if there is no market for the subject matter.
James Redford:As I said, if I have to raise people up from babes in seven paragraphs, then I cannot do it.
Looks like genius has it's limitations. Cruel, cruel world.
liberty student: James Redford:Not so. I was born a genius. My erudition shines through with little effort by me. Well, it is obvious that you are full of win. James Redford:Of course, my point was that a writer's erudition (appart from what labor might have been expended) ought to send a signal as to whether one should read on. Not if there is no market for the subject matter. James Redford:As I said, if I have to raise people up from babes in seven paragraphs, then I cannot do it. Looks like genius has it's limitations. Cruel, cruel world.
You are correct that I am "full of win," to use your anti-orthographical idiom.
But I also see that your comments are a waste of time. You're not interested in actually advancing the discussion, or learning something new. Your mind is stuck in some type of American Idol contest. Well, I hope that works out for you.
James Redford: For the titular article, see my below post, published under a jovial nom de plume: "Michael Rozeff's Lethal Naïveté on Conspiracy," Sir Nigel Edmond III, February 24, 2009 http://anti-state.com/forum/index.php?board=2;action=display;threadid=21829
I agree with Rozeff [somewhat unusual for me].
There is no need to analyze or expose all of the different conspiracies[ real or imagined] - government is one giant conspiracy.
If you have government you must have "conspiracies"- it is the completely natural result of having an organization in the first place which is both fundamentally corrupt, and fundamentally in denial of human nature [as accounted for by human action theory] and therefor in a state of continual and unavoidable collapse/failure across the board.
As it alway fails and its center continually collapses inward [ like one of those black holes in space?] it must always reinvent itself by expanding outward and seeking more control [e.g. new laws, new faces, new territories, new conspiracies etc. etc.], control which, of course, it never really gets.
The conspiracies you and others see are all just a natural result of having government in the first place- they go with the territory.
Stranger things have happened, but I find it curious that a professed anarchist [yourself] does not appear to see this.
The 9/11 "Conspiracy"
What I find it even more curious [ I mean funny/curious], is that Rozeff, Shaffer and Rockwell et al [including most here]all appear to be in complete denial of the truth about 9/11[ or more accurately have no intellectual curiosity about it] - i.e. of the overwhelming scientific evidence that no planes flew into either WTC 1 or 2, no plane crashed into the Pentagon, and that no plane flew into the ground in Shanksville PA, and that all 4 events were one gigantic media conspiracy/hoax for the short term benefit [of course] of the US government.
All three [and others] have continued to stick their heads in the sand about this issue rather than risk theirs and the Mises Institutes comfortable little intellectual niche on the fringes of academia - what a sick, sad joke!
Rothbard must be rolling in his grave.
For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].
I have to agree with Liberty Student. Oftentimes, you can shorten your essays considerably by cutting unnecessary examples or anecdotes and reducing them to their very core messages.I also used to post walls of text, but I'm trying to improve. Arguing on YouTube may not always be satisfying intellectually, but it's a good exercise for learning to make it short (if you limit yourself to one comment, that is).
I know I'm prone to ramble on sometimes... No joke. So Redford wants to write a long post. His choice it really doesn't matter. Somebody might come along and read it. So be it. If not, then Redford wrote a long post for himself. The slight quarrel I have is Redford seemed to turn the argument into a you have to read my post, which obviously - no, nobody needs to read a post. I'm sure not all my posts are read, and I've skipped others. And thus is life...
*sigh* a post about a post...lol
As a case in point, James Redford, I'll repost your essay in a much more abbreviated, but hopefully equally expressive way:Actually, it can be easy to prove a negative. If someone says that X *didn't* occur (i.e., a negative) at event Y, then look at event Y and see if it occured.At any rate, the most prolific promulgators of conspiracy theories are governments, with the U.S. government leading the pack. Since obviously more than one person was involved in planning the 9/11 attacks, then by definition the U.S. government's mendacious false official fairy tale is a conspiracy theory.Furthermore, conspiracies are ubiquitous (witness all the laws on the books against conspiracy, and how many people are routinely charged under said laws), and the most egregious perpetrators of murderously brutal conspiracies are governments upon their own innocent citizens.Without a doubt, the most dangerous presence to ever exist throughout history has always been the people's very own government. Moreover, terrorism is the health of the state, which is why so many governments throughout history have manufactured duplicitous terrorism in which to serve as a pretext in order to usurp ever more power and control.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:What I find it even more curious [ I mean funny/curious], is that Rozeff, Shaffer and Rockwell et al [including most here]all appear to be in complete denial of the truth about 9/11[ or more accurately have no intellectual curiosity about it]
There is a lot of interest in it. But LRC, Mises org etc are not the avenues to discuss it. Just as Lew doesn't post instructions on how to bake muffins or practice yoga, doesn't mean people on that site (or this one) don't have an interest in baking or exercise.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:All three [and others] have continued to stick their heads in the sand about this issue rather than risk theirs and the Mises Institutes comfortable little intellectual niche on the fringes of academia - what a sick, sad joke!
It's not an issue for them. It is an issue for you. Their issue (and I agree) is keeping an eye on the big prize. Take your own risks, you're in no position to criticize the risks others choose to, or not choose to take for your pet issues.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:Rothbard must be rolling in his grave.
Who cares.
wilderness: I'm sure not all my posts are read, and I've skipped others.
Obviously you were not born a genius!
James Redford: Actually, it can be easy to prove a negative. If someone says that X *didn't* occur (i.e., a negative) at event Y, then look at event Y and see if it occured. For example, if someone says that during a particular Michael Jackson concert, Mr. Jackson *didn't* do the moonwalk on stage, then look at the uninterrupted video of the concert (such that there is no cuts, and no point when the camera wasn't on Jackson when he was on stage), and if one sees no moonwalk--and further, if no one in the audience reports seeing him moonwalk--then that's proof that Jackson, in fact, didn't moonwalk at said time. The canard that "one can't prove a negative" appears to be a confused way of saying that one can't verify unverifiable assertions, as one certainly can prove negatives.
A conspiracy by definition is a secret. A secret is an unknown. Further, the contents of the secret would also be unknown. It is impossible to know the unknown unknowns. Therefore it is an attempt to provide negative proof by Rozeff.
As to your strawman, of course I am talking about the unverifiable as proof. Your Michael Jackson example is not an example of attempting to prove a negative because contradictory proof exists. It is a strawman.
I'm only responding because Sphairon took the time to clean up your text.
liberty student: wilderness: I'm sure not all my posts are read, and I've skipped others. Obviously you were not born a genius!
lol... oh yeah I forget he said that too... Redford, how do you know I'm not a genius? Maybe I'm really a dog typing on the internet - beat that!
Now that I figured out this new toy of having pictures I'm goin' hog wild with 'em!
All in good fun!
liberty student: onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:What I find it even more curious [ I mean funny/curious], is that Rozeff, Shaffer and Rockwell et al [including most here]all appear to be in complete denial of the truth about 9/11[ or more accurately have no intellectual curiosity about it] There is a lot of interest in it. But LRC, Mises org etc are not the avenues to discuss it. Just as Lew doesn't post instructions on how to bake muffins or practice yoga, doesn't mean people on that site (or this one) don't have an interest in baking or exercise. onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:All three [and others] have continued to stick their heads in the sand about this issue rather than risk theirs and the Mises Institutes comfortable little intellectual niche on the fringes of academia - what a sick, sad joke! It's not an issue for them. It is an issue for you. Their issue (and I agree) is keeping an eye on the big prize. Take your own risks, you're in no position to criticize the risks others choose to, or not choose to take for your pet issues. onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:Rothbard must be rolling in his grave. Who cares.
"There is a lot of interest in it. But LRC, Mises org etc are not the avenues to discuss it. "
Says who, you? Garbage.
Furthermore, they are not even aware of it, or if they are [despite the complete lack of evidence in any of their writings] they are all intellectual cowards, or at the very least lacking in any intellectual curiosity about truth. Its apparently far safer for them and others to sit around and pontificate/dream about changing the world via economic education. LRC and LVM are nothing more than a bunch of warmed over conservative think tanks these days, as far as I can see.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: "There is a lot of interest in it. But LRC, Mises org etc are not the avenues to discuss it. " Says who, you? Garbage.
No. Says the tagline at the top of the site. That's why the donors fund them. There are numerous "truth" organizations that receive funding for that purpose. You wouldn't expect me to go to a 911 site and demand they promote and discuss the subjective theory of value or anarchy would you?
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:Furthermore, they are not even aware of it, or if they are [despite the complete lack of evidence in any of their writings] they are all intellectual cowards, or at the very least lacking in any intellectual curiosity about truth. Its apparently far safer for them and others to sit around and pontificate/dream about changing the world via economic education. LRC and LVM are nothing more than a bunch of warmed over conservative think tanks these days, as far as I can see.
Perhaps, but I think the results speak for themselves. They get onto TV, they are somewhat respected in scholarly circles, and it's hard to argue with Ron Paul's political success the last couple years. Meanwhile, the 9/11 movement hasn't done anything in the last 2 years. I don't understand where the bitching about Austro-libertarians is going to make up for the fact that Truthers are ineffective. It's certainly not Lew Rockwell's fault that he won't spend his political capital and credibility on your causes.
This was bound to happen, because the Truthers are some of the kookiest folks around and have socialization issues. If people learned how to build credibility and communicate, to fund raise and organize, to publish and so forth, then maybe the truth movement would be further ahead.
But like on the Ron Paul forums during his campaign, the hardest truthers marginalized themselves because they confused a liberty movement that includes numerous groups and agendas, with a platform that should advance their view above all others. Sure the truthers supplied some energy, but they did not supply any organization or resources.
What LvMI and LRC provide to the liberty movement ARE resources and organization. Being a single fringe issue group would make that impossible. Not to mention as time goes on, I think the truth conspiracies are mostly garbage. The time for action has already been missed. 15 years later, no one will care for the truth about 9/11, any more than people care about the truth about the Gulf of Tonkin. The fight against tyranny however will continue on other issues and other fronts. I suspect LvMI and LRC will be knee deep in those battles.
Socialization issues. I like that. A bit Sovietic-sounding, though.
James Redford:Actually, it can be easy to prove a negative. If someone says that X *didn't* occur (i.e., a negative) at event Y, then look at event Y and see if it occured. For example, if someone says that during a particular Michael Jackson concert, Mr. Jackson *didn't* do the moonwalk on stage, then look at the uninterrupted video of the concert (such that there is no cuts, and no point when the camera wasn't on Jackson when he was on stage), and if one sees no moonwalk--and further, if no one in the audience reports seeing him moonwalk--then that's proof that Jackson, in fact, didn't moonwalk at said time.
Which assumes perfect knowledge.
Peace
Nick Ricci:Socialization issues. I like that. A bit Sovietic-sounding, though.
I won't link it, but here is an example. I have a friend, a somewhat successful business person. He posts on an online forum. There is some political and economic chat, the people on the forum are for the most part, successful business people, so they understand some economics, some politics etc.
So a discussion comes up about the TSA in airports. He gets in the thread, and by his second post, is pasting in graphics of Obama with devil eyes, and a burning Israeli flag over the White House.
Now these people are intelligent and open minded. But they can see an ideological fanatic a mile away and won't waste time on that.
He writes to me, "Why don't they care? I'm so sick of sheeple"
But the problem is, he never took any time to get to know his audience, to give them a point of reference, etc. Like the OP in this thread, he went straight to his message, and crammed it as forcefully and loudly as possible in their faces. So close, that they can't even see what they are being presented with (like a wall of text, or over the top graphics).
People who have some experience socializing with others, publicly speaking, performing leadership roles, know how to communicate, make friends, influence people. People who have trouble socializing, end up marginalized and frustrated.
The biggest thing we can do for liberty, is learn how to communicate it effectively. Not expose the government, expose conspiracies, refute mathematical models. It's communicate the moral case for liberty, the insight of austrian econ and truthfulness of praxeology.
Unfortunately the truth movement follows the model of Alex Jones, which I am now convinced is the model of Lyndon Larouche. Get loud, be loud, everyone is against you, everyone is against (your) truth, it's all a conspiracy, we're all going to die soon because the world is coming to an end. There is no hope, or positivity or upside, just fear and anxiety.
liberty student: tl:dr Rozeff is wrong. But the Misesians and Rockwellians and even Paulians to some degree have to avoid the third rail of conspiracy in order to look legit. I'm fine with that, but Rozeff is a little off base by denouncing it. After all, how can he know about a conspiracy he doesn't know about? In other words, he's trying to prove a negative.
This. Methodological individualism ftw.
liberty student: Meanwhile, the 9/11 movement hasn't done anything in the last 2 years. I don't understand where the bitching about Austro-libertarians is going to make up for the fact that Truthers are ineffective. It's certainly not Lew Rockwell's fault that he won't spend his political capital and credibility on your causes...... ......The time for action has already been missed. 15 years later, no one will care for the truth about 9/11, any more than people care about the truth about the Gulf of Tonkin. The fight against tyranny however will continue on other issues and other fronts. I suspect LvMI and LRC will be knee deep in those battles.
Meanwhile, the 9/11 movement hasn't done anything in the last 2 years. I don't understand where the bitching about Austro-libertarians is going to make up for the fact that Truthers are ineffective. It's certainly not Lew Rockwell's fault that he won't spend his political capital and credibility on your causes......
......The time for action has already been missed. 15 years later, no one will care for the truth about 9/11, any more than people care about the truth about the Gulf of Tonkin. The fight against tyranny however will continue on other issues and other fronts. I suspect LvMI and LRC will be knee deep in those battles.
"Meanwhile, the 9/11 movement hasn't done anything in the last 2 years. I don't understand where the bitching about Austro-libertarians is going to make up for the fact that Truthers are ineffective. It's certainly not Lew Rockwell's fault that he won't spend his political capital and credibility on your causes......"
99% of the 911 "Truther" movement is in complete denial of TV video fakery on 9/11 , precisely _because_ it is a political movement ["Loose Change" etc.] , and as such does not want to risk appearing too "kooky".
In other words , in order to achieve supposedly achievable political goals, the official "9/11 Truth movement" is prepared to sacrifice/submerge a search for truth and embrace a denial of truth instead.
It will fail in its objectives precisely because it is a political movement , which _always_necessitates the sacrifice of truth for imagined political gain. Regardless, all political movements [i.e organized and consisting of more than one person] must and will fail.[i.e. because of applied human action theory]
And in this [political] respect, both LRC and LVI are no different from the "truther" movement and will fail just as dismally, precisely because they also, just like those dreaded "truthers" they do not wish to associate with, seek political objectives and are evidently, on what you say, fully prepared to ignore a search for truth in order to win enough votes.
Frankly, you[ meaning LRC, LVI,Ron Paul and the "Loose Change" crowd] all deserve each other - you are all so similar .
Sad but predictable.
".....The time for action has already been missed. 15 years later, no one will care for the truth about 9/11," .
Yes, time. It's much later than you think- the government controls the media to the extent that it has the power to create /fabricate incidents with computer generated imagery of planes hitting buildings in order to start a war- meanwhile, Rozeff, Hoppe, Rockwell, Shaffer et al ["anarcho- capitalists" "panarchists" or whatever they call themselves these days], sit around and pontificate about educating the same dim bulbs who believe [like themselves?] that planes can actually fly through 500,000 ton steel and concrete buildings in one piece, without slowing down, and without parts falling off, [as the various videos purport to show] about the necessity of said dimbulbs understanding "Austrian economic principles" in order to make the world a better place [ or at least buying all the books!]
Amusing, if nothing else!
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:And in this [political] respect, both LRC and LVI are no different from the "truther" movement and will fail just as dismally, precisely because they also, just like those dreaded "truthers" they do not wish to associate with, seek political objectives and are evidently, on what you say, fully prepared to ignore a search for truth in order to win enough votes.
If you understood LvMI and LRC, you would not call them conservative. Nor political. These are apolitical organizations.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: Frankly, you[ meaning LRC, LVI,Ron Paul and the "Loose Change" crowd] all deserve each other - you are all so similar . Sad but predictable.
You're just being petulant because you can't communicate and have failed to build a consensus around your ideas. If you "had it going on" you wouldn't be here complaining about the lack of action from others. You would be working with people that are effective, have capital and like your ideas.
Ultimately, the no-planer, truther stuff has flopped because it doesn't pass the market test. Rather than change your tactics and approach, you've decided to burn what bridges might be left.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: Rozeff, Hoppe, Rockwell, Shaffer et al ["anarcho- capitalists" "panarchists" or whatever they call themselves these days], sit around and pontificate about educating the same dim bulbs who believe [like themselves?] that planes can actually fly through 500,000 ton steel and concrete buildings in one piece, without slowing down, and without parts falling off, [as the various videos purport to show]
But again, this only speaks to your inability to educate and communicate. You're upset that people think differently than you, but you can't win them over, and you are frustrated that they choose to ignore you and your topics.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom:[as the various videos purport to show] about the necessity of said dimbulbs understanding "Austrian economic principles" in order to make the world a better place [ or at least buying all the books!]
The books are free. Everything on this site is not only free, it is Creative Commons, which means you could reprint and resell it for your own profit. This is how much further ahead of everyone else LvMI is. They sell books by giving them away for free. You can't even find anyone to take your ideas for free, let alone to pay for them.
I suggest you re-brand your message. The first step is to stop blaming others, and start examining your own failures.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: James Redford: For the titular article, see my below post, published under a jovial nom de plume: "Michael Rozeff's Lethal Naïveté on Conspiracy," Sir Nigel Edmond III, February 24, 2009 http://anti-state.com/forum/index.php?board=2;action=display;threadid=21829 I agree with Rozeff [somewhat unusual for me]. There is no need to analyze or expose all of the different conspiracies[ real or imagined] - government is one giant conspiracy. If you have government you must have "conspiracies"- it is the completely natural result of having an organization in the first place which is both fundamentally corrupt, and fundamentally in denial of human nature [as accounted for by human action theory] and therefor in a state of continual and unavoidable collapse/failure across the board. As it alway fails and its center continually collapses inward [ like one of those black holes in space?] it must always reinvent itself by expanding outward and seeking more control [e.g. new laws, new faces, new territories, new conspiracies etc. etc.], control which, of course, it never really gets. The conspiracies you and others see are all just a natural result of having government in the first place- they go with the territory. Stranger things have happened, but I find it curious that a professed anarchist [yourself] does not appear to see this. The 9/11 "Conspiracy" What I find it even more curious [ I mean funny/curious], is that Rozeff, Shaffer and Rockwell et al [including most here]all appear to be in complete denial of the truth about 9/11[ or more accurately have no intellectual curiosity about it] - i.e. of the overwhelming scientific evidence that no planes flew into either WTC 1 or 2, no plane crashed into the Pentagon, and that no plane flew into the ground in Shanksville PA, and that all 4 events were one gigantic media conspiracy/hoax for the short term benefit [of course] of the US government. All three [and others] have continued to stick their heads in the sand about this issue rather than risk theirs and the Mises Institutes comfortable little intellectual niche on the fringes of academia - what a sick, sad joke! Rothbard must be rolling in his grave.
You're not agreeing with Michael Rozeff, you're agreeing with me. My point in my article which I linked to in the originating post in this thread is that government is the largest corporeal conspiracy that could possibly exist. Rozeff's article was arguing *against* any such analysis. Perhaps you got the statements of who said what confused.
At any rate, read the article I linked to, since I quite clearly make the point which you bring up.
Sphairon:I have to agree with Liberty Student. Oftentimes, you can shorten your essays considerably by cutting unnecessary examples or anecdotes and reducing them to their very core messages.I also used to post walls of text, but I'm trying to improve. Arguing on YouTube may not always be satisfying intellectually, but it's a good exercise for learning to make it short (if you limit yourself to one comment, that is).
wilderness:I know I'm prone to ramble on sometimes... No joke. So Redford wants to write a long post. His choice it really doesn't matter. Somebody might come along and read it. So be it. If not, then Redford wrote a long post for himself. The slight quarrel I have is Redford seemed to turn the argument into a you have to read my post, which obviously - no, nobody needs to read a post. I'm sure not all my posts are read, and I've skipped others. And thus is life... *sigh* a post about a post...lol
Sphairon:As a case in point, James Redford, I'll repost your essay in a much more abbreviated, but hopefully equally expressive way:Actually, it can be easy to prove a negative. If someone says that X *didn't* occur (i.e., a negative) at event Y, then look at event Y and see if it occured.At any rate, the most prolific promulgators of conspiracy theories are governments, with the U.S. government leading the pack. Since obviously more than one person was involved in planning the 9/11 attacks, then by definition the U.S. government's mendacious false official fairy tale is a conspiracy theory.Furthermore, conspiracies are ubiquitous (witness all the laws on the books against conspiracy, and how many people are routinely charged under said laws), and the most egregious perpetrators of murderously brutal conspiracies are governments upon their own innocent citizens.Without a doubt, the most dangerous presence to ever exist throughout history has always been the people's very own government. Moreover, terrorism is the health of the state, which is why so many governments throughout history have manufactured duplicitous terrorism in which to serve as a pretext in order to usurp ever more power and control.
Yes, LewRockwell.com is an "avenue" to discuss it. Michael Rozeff discussed it, although his statement were provably false. The U.S. government disinformation agent Prof. Morgan Reynolds (chief economist for the United States Department of Labor from 2001-2002, under President George Bush, Jr.) has been published a number of times by LewRockwell.com, even though he is almost universally regarded within the Truth movement as an obvious U.S. government agent provocateur due to his hateful attacks upon actual researchers into the U.S. government-staged 9/11 attacks (i.e., regarding the empirical fact that thermite was used to bring down the towers) and his clownish promotion of the anti-physical "space beam" claims (an obvious disinformation campaign by the U.S. government in order to attempt to discredit the Truth community, which despite the major media's government-directed wont to focus on such black propaganda, never held current within the Truth movement).
As well, such analysis is particularly right up the alley of Mises.org, since this website is especially focused on political and economic theory, which includes analysis on the theoretical basis on the praxis of government, i.e., how it overcomes attempts to constrain it; how it obtains its power; how it takes over society. See in particular the analysis of Prof. Murray N. Rothbard that I mention in the article I linked to in the originating post of this thread.
"The U.S. government disinformation agent Prof. Morgan Reynolds (chief economist for the United States Department of Labor from 2001-2002, under President George Bush, Jr.) has been published a number of times by LewRockwell.com, even though he is almost universally regarded within the Truth movement as an obvious U.S. government agent provocateur due to his hateful attacks upon actual researchers into the U.S. government-staged 9/11 attacks (i.e., regarding the empirical fact that thermite was used to bring down the towers) and his clownish promotion of the anti-physical "space beam" claims (an obvious disinformation campaign by the U.S. government in order to attempt to discredit the Truth community, which despite the major media's government-directed wont to focus on such black propaganda, never held current within the Truth movement)."
I am glad you brought up Morgan Reynolds.
The 911 "Truth" movement is BS for 3 reasons.
1] it is a political movement. This automatically leads to the denial of the facts[truth] below.
2] it is in denial of truth -no planes hit any towers, the Pentagon, or crashed into the ground in PA. [ just as Mr Reynolds himself says.]
3] it is in denial of truth - a thorough examination of the evidence [ collapse and post collapse] reveals that it was impossible for conventional explosives such as thermite to have caused the 10 second collapse of the twin towers in the manner depicted on film.
On this matter [demolition] Reynolds says he does not know for sure, but readily concedes that yes, thermite does NOT explain the types of damage found and he is therefor willing to consider that other, perhaps unknown methods/technologies were used.
By saying he does not know for sure what brought down the towers and that he is willing to consider "space beams" or whatever, he is at least being intellectually honest.
The 911 "Truth" movement is not, and can never be, because it is a political movement. [point [1]].
If you believe that planes hit the towers etc. and that thermite adequately explains the types of damage found at the WTC, you've got your head conveniently in the sand - just like the majority of the 911 "Truth" movement. The fact that you are somehow involved with a political organization [Loose Change?] to the point where you actually believe their dishonest political claptrap speaks volumes.
"You're upset that people think differently than you, but you can't win them over, and you are frustrated that they choose to ignore you and your topics."
Not true.
I don't care that most here remain in denial/ignorance of the fact that no planes hit the towers- I have no political agenda to make the world a better place through austrian economics or the exposure of the truth that no planes did any of the things they are supposed to have done on 911 etc. Let slaves be slaves-including you. After all, in the end only you can free yourself; not me, not Ron Paul, not anyone else- and you can still be free despite the perceived lack of freedom of everyone else, and you do not have to free anyone else, either!
I am only interested in a search for truth for its own sake - nothing more.
As such, I am merely pointing out that Rockwell, Hoppe, Rozeff and Shaffer [i.e. the most consistently radical LRC writers] are entirely mute on the issue- and it is funny [both funny"ha ha" and funny "peculiar"].
You imply that they know [no planes hit towers, Pentagon, or were buried in the ground at Shanksville] and choose not to talk about it for political reasons -as if you have some sort of inside knowledge about these 4 people and their knowledge. [As if you really know - pure fantasy on your part , I'm guessing- I just love those who delude themselves into believing that they really know what others are thinking and why they act , and furthermore that they all support your own political agenda as you see it.]
I say, if that is true [i.e that they know there were no planes], then that is deceitful, and that you are just as deceitful for endorsing such tactics in the name of money [donors] and politics. Deceitful , typical, and sadly inevitable as explained by human action theory.
Furthermore, that such maneuvering/shading/ covering of truth in the name of money and politics is no different from that of the "911 Truth movement [i.e "Loose Change", Alex Jones etc.] or from any mainstream political movement for that matter.
Never mind- I am fully confidant that such dishonesty for political gain will destroy LVM and LRC [and "Loose Change"] - or to put it another way, the more politically "successful" these organizations become, the less truth will be told by any of them.
I, on the other hand, am not sure that they even know this [no planes hit towers, Pentagon, or buried in the ground at Shanksville] , and have merely observed that they appear to lack any intellectual curiosity about the matter - more than a little strange for such "radical thinkers", if you ask me.
It is fascinating to watch people who claim to understand basic human action theory [ the premises of which ultimately lead to anarchy, and the useslessness of all political activity -as has been mentioned on other threads], consistently attempt to deny the truth of that theory and its inevitable conclusions and then "go political", and in that process actively work to suppress truth in order to achieve some imagined gain for the political group in question - i.e the sacrifice/suppression of truth [or at the very least , of an honest search for it], for the perceived " greater good" of the group itself, and by implication of course, in the end, for "society as a whole".
But then again Mises _was_ a socialist [in the sense that he aimed to demonstrate and promote what he thought was best for society as a whole- "free markets" for "the greater good" eh?],
James Redford: wilderness: I know I'm prone to ramble on sometimes... No joke. So Redford wants to write a long post. His choice it really doesn't matter. Somebody might come along and read it. So be it. If not, then Redford wrote a long post for himself. The slight quarrel I have is Redford seemed to turn the argument into a you have to read my post, which obviously - no, nobody needs to read a post. I'm sure not all my posts are read, and I've skipped others. And thus is life... *sigh* a post about a post...lol Seven paragraphs is not a long post. And if you think it is, there's something wrong with you.
wilderness: I know I'm prone to ramble on sometimes... No joke. So Redford wants to write a long post. His choice it really doesn't matter. Somebody might come along and read it. So be it. If not, then Redford wrote a long post for himself. The slight quarrel I have is Redford seemed to turn the argument into a you have to read my post, which obviously - no, nobody needs to read a post. I'm sure not all my posts are read, and I've skipped others. And thus is life... *sigh* a post about a post...lol
Wow, I just said it was your choice. I defended your free will, but then you turn around and say I'm wrong. See what I get for being nice. Silly me.
If you think the whole world must stop what it's doing just to read your post and you call everybody wrong because they didn't then you have your head up your.... opps blanked out.
onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom: Not true. I don't care that most here remain in denial/ignorance of the fact that no planes hit the towers
I don't care that most here remain in denial/ignorance of the fact that no planes hit the towers
Now that is disingenuous. You tag your posts, you have a linked signature, you started a blog, you are debating me, you complained about LvMI and LRC, Rockwell and others, your username is your blog address. You obviously care, or you wouldn't have written and repeated yourself again. You're just lousy at marketing and communication.
I will repeat now, no one wants to hear your message because (1) it sucks, (2) it's uninteresting.
There is no value in LvMI or LRC picking up that message if they wanted to gain political capital (as you claim they are wont to do by ignoring it). If there was political gain or capital in promoting your truth, then someone might advance it.
No, the problem is that people with half-baked ideas, fanaticism and poor socialization have tainted 9/11 as a movement, and instead of overcoming that, they show up here, trying to parasite capital and credibility before the flame is completely snuffed out.
The problem isn't that people with something to lose aren't carrying your water. It's that you can't provide a compelling reason why carrying your water is in their best interest.
9/11, truth and no-planers fail the market test, and until people in the movement change their way of doing business, they will continue to fail and be less and less relevant (like that is possible) each day.
The failures lie with people in the movement (you), not people outside of it (LRC bloggers). It's a copout to blame someone else for not doing your job for you.
And that's LS delivering a sermon.
(And yes please, I'll use the Krugman signature, if you don't mind)
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan