A place for reasoned, civil talk about stuff we aren’t supposed to question

You need to log in or register to create posts and topics.


I'm very excited about Lee's decision to launch this new forum, which already seems to be attracting people from various parts of the spectrum who want to dispense with traditional party divisions, but have some critical interests in common.  Of course, some of them I already feel very familiar with from their voices on the radio show (I'm talking about Lydia) or who with less certainty _I think_ that I have heard on the show.

I myself have been a regular listener to the show and to Lee's Periscopes for about 6 months.  There are so many strands to this Russiagate Hoax that it is almost impossible to keep many of them straight, and Lee's work going over each of the various aspects in slightly different ways over time is most helpful in this regard.  Of course, one always hopes to do better - in terms of becoming oneself familiar with the documentation of this developing saga, rather than relying on second-hand commentary, as life inevitably forces one to do in so many areas.  So I hope that the forum - the people participating in it - will help to develop a body of information and ideas that will increase the power to change things.  If the scales are now tipping slightly, maybe we can help in our own small way to tip things further against the transatlantic War State and its propaganda outlets.

Personally, I might describe myself as serially monomaniacal in that I've always been absorbed in informal research into one subject area or other ever since I came across Hinkle and Turner's book The Fish is Red in my local library my first summer after high school (a book mentioned in the 1982 interview with the filmmaker of On Company Business that Lee put up on Periscope a few days ago).  Noam Chomsky's The Fateful Triangle made a big impression when I first read it three years later, in 1987, and I subsequently devoured a huge amount of his work.  I also avidly read the late Alex Cockburn, also of the radical left, but who hated nonsense coming from that quarter and to whom I originally trace my attractions to outlets and issues and sensibilities that cross the standard political divide  - e.g.; the Unz Review; men's rights issues (especially through Ferrel Christensen of the University of Alberta, and much later, Karen Straughan and Janice Fiamengo); peak oil; and populist causes like the insurgent campaign of Donald Trump.  Joanna Graham's 2016 essay "Missing Alexander Cockburn During the Craziest Election Season Ever" certainly jives with what I was wondering about what Cockburn would have bee writing in 2016 had he still been with us.

In the lead up to the Iraq war, I was immersed in the skeptical stuff on the Iraq WMD claims, including, notably, Glen Rangwala's analyses of what was actually in the reports of the UN inspectors, as a fundamental basis to evaluate the claims pressed in the Office of Special Plans and White House Iraq Group warmongering talking points that were being relayed uncritically by the media at the time - with hyperlinks to the original reports.  Rangwala also exposed one British "dirty dossier" (the lesser remembered of two such) as being plagiarized from two journal articles written a decade earlier.

From 2004 to 2008 I was mainly preoccupied with the subject of Peak Oil.  The gloomy prognistications haven't _yet_ come to pass, and I've mostly resigned myself to humanity either working itself out or not - and getting on with life.  Despite that grounded pessimism, I now find myself sympathetic to China's Belt and Road, thinking that if the Empire can finally be tamed and a new order of cooperation for development rather than confrontation can be attained, then there is at least a chance that humanity can figure out how to work things out for everybody (despite the need for more energy, which I am not convinced is possible).  Whereas continued rule by the Wall Street/City of London casino and the MIC seems like a short road to ruin.  I admit being conflicted on the matter of progress and development.  The essay I wrote at the end of this period "Largely about Access" ( used a critique of certain doctrines of Noam Chomsky to present a large number of facts that I felt were inadequately appreciated (it went online about a year after I actually wrote it, in 2009).  (More recently, I've come to feel, like Stephen Lendman, that Chomsky is definitely not at his best when it comes to Syria.)

After this time, I went through an apolitical phase that lasted until I chanced upon Steve Brulé's video of the Warren Farrell protests at the U. of T. - which led to the discovery of Karen Straughan - in 2015.  One thing I learned from Chomsky was the dichotomy between the "hard" and "soft" sciences - he thought of sciences like physics and chemistry as the gold standard that other sciences should strive to emulate.  From Ferrel Christensen, explorations of his work in his professional field led me to realize that there could also be serious questions regarding our "best" theories in the "hard" sciences like physics, as well.  Perhaps that insight stuck with me until much later, when via a Peak Oil intellectual Richard Heinberg, I became aware of Dewey B. Larson's remarkable but almost unknown body of work, elaborating a system of theory applicable from the microcosmos to the macrocosmos.  One of the people who knew Larson subsequently told me that Larson's physics required an Expanding Earth.  I thought to myself, "now you want to burden Larson, already in enough trouble vis-a-vis the physics Establishment, with THAT?!"  I was incredulous, but soon learned about Samuel Warren Carey who had been the world's leading advocate of EE at the University of Tasmania.  And on from there.  I became immersed with Larson and EE, thinking that these might keep me happily occupied for the rest of my days.

Then as 2015 became 2016, I became sucked into current events more and more.  Belatedly I learned about the Dirty War on Syria.  And the dangerous rise of tensions with the other atomic* superpower, Russia.  I read Diana Johnstone's Queen of Chaos.  These were factors in my vote for Donald Trump and in becoming a fan of Tulsi Gabbard at the same time.  I hoped that Trump might at least get that one (Syria) somewhat right, even if his stances toward Iran and Venezuela were worrisome.  Now I'm campaigning for Tulsi, but still hoping Trump may be freed of the Russiagate Hoax (as well as from John Bolton) and the real criminals in this affair be exposed and prosecuted.

Then I can go back to thinking about those controversial science topics.

*Following Larson, I am persuaded that the "nuclear" concept of atoms is fundamentally erroneous, and hence all related terminology.  The massive "something" at the center of the region that the atom occupies is _the atom itself_, not the "nucleus" of an atom.  The spacing in the solid is due to an equilibrium between attractive and repulsive forces between atoms, having nothing to do with the volumes of the electron "orbits", which do not exist.  Electrons and other observed subatomic particles are incomplete atoms, not atomic constituents.  See, for a short outline of the arguments, Larson, "Just How Much Do We Really _Know_? (1961)


welcome... thx for the introduction... like you, i voted Trump, but i walked away "early".. when he started to name people for his administration, when he honored the clintons at his inauguration luncheon,.. i just knew that i made a mistake, i knew that he was not what he portrayed himself to be during the elections.  when he bombed Syria for the second time, i was done with him... after the start of Venezuela i started to feel hate, for myself, because i voted for this man... and at this point i'm actually anti-Trump all the way... but i'm not like those hillary-or-die-fans who don't listen to reason at all..

and like you, i'm for Tulsi.. i've gotten great respect for her when i saw what she did for Bernie... she was "the chosen one" for the establishment... she just walked away because of the screwing happening against Bernie.  imo this means that her heart and brain are in the right place... the moment i got doubts about Trump, i took some time to see what she was about... and i liked it (except many domestic policies she has lol, but when ya listen to where she will get the money for that, i don't care anymore...).  When she announced her run, i started to listen to her, and to what the people on youtube & twitter i follow (the last american vagabond, niko house, tom luongo, garland, and others) were saying about her... i had some points where i had problems with what she said or what she voted for... but in the first weeks of her run, she almost explained all of those...

I voted for Trump for only one reason: because I judged that the ogre was better than the demon, Clinton, who would have most likely have set up a no-fly zone in Syria and gotten into a war with Russia, which had a good chance of turning nuclear. Trump gave us a bit of time to avoid annihilation.

There was also in the back of my mind what some French analyst I heard, I think of Crosstalk, who said Trump would destroy the US (and the empire) and that's why he supported him. I think at this point that's necessary to save the world, and that the US is too far gone to reform.  Gabbard is the best choice now (even though I don't really trust her or think she has what would have to be almost miraculous abilities to change things), but I also don't see her getting anywhere close to being elected. I see nothing short of revolution and destruction of the current system, hopefully peaceful, being sufficient to save the country, and maybe the world. I think the empire must die, soon, for humanity, maybe the biosphere, to survive.  Trump may save the world by collapsing the US and forcing a 'reboot and new operating system'. In the current system the feedback mechanisms are busted and the world, at least the West, is going into runaway meltdown.

Thanks for the responses.  Midnight Blue's reasons for voting Trump 2016 well accord with my own, except I never got exercised about Trump-the-ogre.  The way I might express it is that I thought Trump was (by a fairly wide margin) the lesser evil with some definite upside potential.  On the upside Syria was very much in mind as well as reversing the developing war footing with Russia.  But I was also conscious of the strong anti-Iran streak within the campaign, including in Gen. Flynn and of course Giuliani.  Same regarding Venezuela and Cuba (where I happen to have some second cousins).  I even thought that Trump might be a bit more dangerously belligerent than Hillary in these domains.

However, I thought that if relations with Russia could be put on a better footing, that would also mitigate the potential for hostilities with Iran.  And I thought any aggression conducted by Trump would at least reinvigorate the antiwar left (as under George W.)   These latter ideas turned out to be rather naive, as things turned out.

But I still see no reason to regret voting for Trump, despite disappointments and on some occasions even disgust at the way things have transpired.  Unlike Rob, I certainly feel no self-hatred over it.  Yes, the month and a half before last year's missile attack on Syria were personally horrifying.  I can go back and look up some emails I wrote at the time, about the decision for a major attack on Syria and game-of-chicken with Russia that was evidently already being contemplated before the fake chemical attack in Douma (publicly requested in advance by Haley and Macron and warned against in advance by the Russians and Syrians) even took place.  We've recently learned (I think) that in fact Mattis held back the crazies and their big plans at that time.  Seeing people in Damascus celebrating victory the next morning was a great relief.

I would suggest an additional point of view about the Trump presidency (and I look forward to trying this out on Trump supporters I meet when campaigning for Tulsi!)  Think of the resolution that Garland reported on this morning, in which some 400 members of Congress from both parties urged Trump to stay committed to staying in Syria.  And think of his comments in recent days regarding the MIC's push for war and resistance to, for example, withdrawing troops from Syria.  I do think these show that his better inclinations are still there.  I do not think saying this is tantamount to a Hillary-or-die type faith in Trump.  The point is that the main enemy is the Foreign Policy Establishment, notably including the forces behind what I believe is an attempted coup against Trump.  We should want to stop this coup for sake of freeing Trump to (potentially) act on his better inclinations, OR for the sake of electing Tulsi and smoothing the way for her to lead the changes that are so desperately needed.

As for Midnight Blue's final point, I fear that runaway meltdown is an outcome to be feared.  I'm not saying its unrealistic, but it's hardly to be wished for.

Quote from NorumbegaSAA on May 23, 2019, 12:32 am

...As for Midnight Blue's final point, I fear that runaway meltdown is an outcome to be feared.  I'm not saying its unrealistic, but it's hardly to be wished for....

BTW, I mentioned runaway meltdown, and I'm Blue Pilgrim, not Midnight Blue.

That said, hopefully clarifying, I'll say that definitely we got an establishment, deep state, military industrial congressional intelligence media complex or whatever to call it, and that's a manifestation of as well as a cause of the insanity, with positive feedback, often financial, driving it, and lack of feedback from the people, which would be largely negative and limiting or tempering now.  What was that movie -- let you life be resistance to the machine?  Meltdown would be like blowing all the fuses and a few wires out instead of burning the building down.  We could lose the nation/state but still have a country left to rebuild from.  Best of bad alternatives?



Sorry for the gaffe regarding the name you use, Blue Pilgrim.

I don't think so, and perhaps due to my previous immersion in some of the collapse scenarios, shudder at the thought.  Why do you think it might be limited to the circuitry but wouldn't collapse the building itself?   A better alternative would be to make a few key changes before the meltdown happens (though your alternative becomes more likely over time).  Start by reinstating the Glass-Steagall banking separation, which basically says the government will guarantee banking related to the productive, real economy and people's savings, but not the derivatives casino (now estimated at $1.5 quadrillion) most of which would have to be written off.  (And Tulsi is a cosponsor of the Return to Prudent Banking Act).  And do this before the meltdown happens, because it may be very difficult to come out of otherwise.  Several other changes my friends in the Larouche movement (who I've come to know since 2017-2018) advocate seem plausible as well, including a national infrastructure investments bank (which could be capitalized in part with Treasury debt which the Chinese and Japanese hold and would probably be most happy to use for this purpose), and directing large amounts of credit toward infrastructure toward leading sectors of the economy, including "science drivers" like atomic fusion and Moon-Mars missions, and formally joining China's Belt and Road.

I'm not convinced they are right about the potential for fusion and space exploration currently, but I believe they are correct that this is how economies have developed in the past.  China's and Russia's development policies seem mostly in line with what they are advocating, and it is clear that the Belt and Road initiative itself is an outgrowth of the work they have been doing for decades (e.g. the Silk Road conference Helga Zepp LaRouche helped organize in Beijing in 1996.)

I don't know if even something like this can work out, but with 140 countries already in, including recently, Italy, it is not inconceivable that there could be a policy shift here as well - before meltdown happens.

And I'll make that one (the link I gave at the bottom of my intro post) into a live link, too.  It's about physics rather than politics, but it certainly contains reasoning about stuff we're not supposed to question, and comprehensible as well as highly original, to boot.

We have a major problem with overabstraction (in politics, and science for that matter). Korzibsky is useful to peruse on this. This relates to Zen to, and overdependence on linguistics and words.

Collapse --- what is that would collapse? Primarily abstractions and words, such as 'state' , 'money', 'power', 'politics' -- things not very noticeable by either cats, or distant observers in a flying saucer. Yet, these abstractions can have a tremendous impact on the real world, such as wars, pollution, and biological destruction -- as seen happening now.  Abstract collapse can be handled by changing thinking, but real collapse can't, so I'm preferring to changing abstractions -- a new paradigm -- and preserving the real. But the problem is that the psychotics, such as Bolton, Pompeo, Trump, most politicians, the media and financiers, are trapped in their abstractions and can't tell them from the real. As a system blending the two it's all in trouble. BTW, I'm already on the edge and likely would not survive either sort of collapse.

I'll try to find time to explore the scientific material, but my basic hypothesis at this point is that primary existence is consciousness, which I define as fundamental relations of being, and that a division between physical and non-physical leads to errors, and there is one unified existence which manifests in various ways, though 'reality' sub-systems and invented identities.

It seems to me that the way most people and nations have become attached to abstractions and identities virtually precludes them from moving beyond current paradigms and assumptions -- such as the Western enmeshment in competition and win-lose and can't grasp cooperative and socialistic functioning with horizontal management.  It's difficult to make this clear because it has been mystified and made overly complex, and is also caught up in webs of lies and myths created for the expected benefit of those in power who create them (CF Alan Watts writings on Zen).