Monday, 5 January 2009

John de Nugent writes to Mark Glenn - Proof the NoMoreWarsForIsrael conference was a product of the far-right

Dear Mark,

This email is in response to your email (below) blasting me, and another by Wendy Campbell blasting white nationists as "unsavory characters" -- after we made this conference happen.

The "No More Wars for Israel" conference, with our white nationist help, survived being pitched out of our hotel. Both days on the program were held, and with my help it went out on Internet radio VNN and soon four key speeches from the conference will go out on YouTube. Some will say that the speeches I, Margaret Huffsticker and Stan Hess gave were very important events. One can judge this when the YouTube videos go up tomorrow.

First, whatever your ironic remarks, my legal name is John de Nugent. I legally changed it from John Nugent in 2004. De Nugent was the original family name for centuries. (Google “Gilbert de Nugent.”)

Secondly, this conference was never yours with which to do exactly as you pleased. The conference was Joe Fields’ from the beginning a year ago, and only after he was defamed and slandered by some who apparently hoped to prevent it from taking place, did you “come on board ship” as a second person organizing the conference. It has always been a duumvirate, a rule of two men. But I think you forgot that. If you object to us white nationists, for fear of the Jews and what they would say, you should have withdrawn from the conference as you threatened to do in an email. Instead, you stayed and then complained throughout.

Thirdly, Willis Carto, who runs your newspaper columns,and Joe Fields are white nationists just as I am. And without us white nationists, there would have been no conference. Without our money, our mailing lists, our activists and our speakers the conference would have collapsed.

And without me, there would have been no Sunday session location at all, and no chairs or food either for the crowd at the nine-hour-long (and wonderful) Sunday session, after Jew pressure drove us into that industrial park and its ballroom, with no restaurants nearby. I organized the massive “17-pizza expedition,” hustling around personally, taking pizza orders and collecting funds -- and please assure Hesham Tillawi there was no Pepperoni Pizza Plot to bring back pork-containing pepperoni!

Fourthly, without us white nationists, you would have gotten no publicity at all. The major media ignored the conference -- as I knew they would, based on 30 years of my own anti-Zionist experience, which you do not have.

Now I note that your friend Wendy Campbell, who spoke at the conference and attended along with her very Jewish-named, Jewish-acting and Jewish-looking friend Mark Green, has now put out her own "for fear of the Jews" reference to us white nationists at the conference as "unsavory characters."

In fact, she did so several times, and when drunk at the hospitality suite she also reiterated to one and all how much she despises us white nationists.

My question is this: Are white nationists unsavory for you, too? I note that you received a check for $3,000 from Willis Carto for the conference. I assume his money was not unsavory.

I further note that you, with Lebanese ancestry, support the Lebanese and other Arabic peoples. Do we have your permission to likewise support our European and European-American peoples? Or is only OUR nationism as whites "unsavory," but yours is okay?

Fifthly, I proposed to you on October 8th in response to your complaints (see my email below!) that we white nationists -- who were the bulk of the attendees and supporters -- hold a separate conference on Sunday -- and that the "No More Wars for Israel" conference distinctly end on Saturday night.

You rejected my common-sense proposal. Why? In response to your attack, my proposal is to be found below.

Even though you did not even answer my email, I still tailored my speech, and Stan Hess his, to your need for ethnic inclusivity. Once again, we whites have bent over backward to accommodate others.

Here is the footage (still raw and unedited) of the first third of my and Margaret Huffstickler's speeches. (The full versions should be up tomorrow of all four final speeches -- mine, Margaret's, Stan Hess' and Joe Fields' -- on YouTube.)

John de Nugent's speech video – raw footage of first third:
NOT “white supremacist” in tone but inclusive, just as I pledged to you, Mark.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XkAPV-uXlsQ

Margaret Huffstickler's speech video – raw footage of first third;
NOT “white supremacist” in tone but inclusive, as I promised you, Mark Glenn.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=xb8e4gKPVaI

The conference succeeded despite Jewish machinations -- to a huge extent because of the hard work of white nationists.

Joe Fields, who originated the conference, and who did an enormous amount of work for it, would not let you remove white nationists from the speakers list. Margaret Huffstickler, I and Stan Hess were among the first ones to commit to Joe's conference, long before you were in the picture, and that was back when he was still being actively defamed and character-assassinated. We stand by our friends, Mark.

I, Margaret Huffstickler and Stan Hess kept our word that I gave to you, and gave speeches at the conference -- which you had already walked out of -- that were multiracial in their appeal and were extremely well-received. I praised Muslim and Arabic peoples in the very beginning of my remarks, and saluted attendees of African-American heritage. I bent over backward to accommodate your demands.

But here is the greater context:

First, Israel -- the miscreant targeted by this conference -- is all Jews in the world. The “State of Israel” is just one part of Israel, one political entity and segment, because Israel is the Jewish people everywhere. The most sacred Jewish prayer on the High Holy Days is “Hear, O Israel: the Lord thy god is one God.” All Jews are thus Israel, all Jews are self-proclaimed Israelites, and my speech addressed that entire Israel.

Secondly, we white nationists have all marched for the Palestinians, written articles for the oppressed Arabs and I myself have even been a member of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and sent them money. As a white man, I have supported your people.

But is there any reciprocity? Any Arab support for us whites? We whites are truly the Palestinians of North America and Europe. We are crushed in our own homelands, forbidden to speak, ethnically cleansed from the streets of our cities, suburbs, towns and villages everywhere, dying out through a Jew-promoted depression of our birth rate, through abortion, homosexuality, white guilt and the general fear whites have that their kids will have no future as whites -- or can be happy, or be raised to be well-behaved in a Jewish cultural cesspool. Your Arabic peoples are at least not dying out; only we whites are.

All this is the work of the same Jew who oppresses and commits genocide on your people. Yet for fear of the Jews you condemn me, your staunch ally who helped save this conference to which your name was attached.

The Dalai Lama just was honored at the White House and said: "If things do not change, we Tibetans will become an insignificant minority in our own country." That is what we whites face in every single white country -- that the Jews are slowly killing us off psychologically -- and soon, as in South Africa and as the Bolsheviks did in Russia to the tune of 40 million, they will begin killing us off physically as individuals and then en masse, by the millions. We are facing genocide. We are the Palestinians of our own homelands. Do you, Mark, care about US -- as we care about YOU?

Or do we whites exist only as paying fodder and attendee fodder for your apparent dream of an Arab-agenda conference – which the Jewsmedia, predictably, did not cover in any case?

As a very fine young white nationist, Evan Thomas, who attended the AFP/TBR conference last year, said to me: “I would like to see some reciprocity from the Arabic side for our support of the Arabs.”

Now, as you know, the most famous white nationist in the world is currently David Duke, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran both invited him to Teheran for the Holocaust revisionist conference, and then publicly shook hands with him, and met also privately with him for several hours.

Duke's remarks have been carried by the Iranian news media, and also by Syrian radio and TV. Are you a wiser figure than President Ahmadinejad of Iran or President Assad of Syria?

For fear of the Jews, you tell me that we white nationists may not speak -- just support "my" conference to the hilt. And there you are forgetting again: without Joe and Willis and others such as I and Stan Hess, there would have been no conference, and without me there would have been no second day at all.

Don’t you see that you are unconsciously echoing the Jews themselves? You say that white nationists shall have no voice -- just pay up, shut up, and support other races in their liberation struggle. As usual.

That mentality ended at this conference. And the best speeches, by general consent, were by us white nationists and the black nationists, especially by “Sister Mickie” (Joadiah Hunter). Of course, you walked out and missed them all.

The whole Sunday session -- half the conference -- was saved, frankly, by me getting that ballroom with the help of another white nationist from VNN, Mark Knop. (By the way, VNN is not a group but “Vanguard News Network.” They had every legitimate right to cover the conference -- as a news and discussion organization.)

I spent about $40 on cell phone calls to various hotels and meeting places to save the conference, and $100 myself on chairs and then on their removal afterward. I and Margaret have lost about $1,500, sacrificed for the good of this conference -- because Joe Fields and Mike Piper both asked, just days before the conference, that we do come out and speak.

The Jews were going to try to shut down and to blast the conference no matter who the speakers were, because:--one, you wrote a book No Beauty in the Beast, ripping the Jews to shreds (and a great book it is!);

--two, you write for Willis Carto publications such as American Free Press AND The Barnes Review, and attended Willis' AFP/Barnes Review conference last year (where you also bravely spoke up against Neturei Karta hypocrisy about the Talmud);

--and three, Joe Fields was involved from the get-go.

This conference had "white nationist" and "anti-Jewish" written all over it from the beginning.

Don't blame us for what the Jews do TO us. And I am surprised that you, a Christian, Mark, would call me (below) an ”SOB.” We white people built this country, and without us whites in America and Russia rising again your Arab cause will never succeed. The Arabs outnumber the Israelis over 40 to 1 and still Israel exists. You will also see how the coming Chinese superpower allies itself more and more openly with the Jews.

The only powerful group that can and will stop the Jews is the people of European heritage, with their one billion population, their immense wealth, their creative genius and their matchless courage, all proved over the course of thousands of years of great achievements, and shown most of all by Germany.

Mark, we whites do not exist any more as objects for others to use, whether to be used by allies or by enemies; that is over.

We have our own proud identity and we will prevail. Again, you should have accepted my polite, respectful and well thought-out proposal to end the "merely anti-Zionist" conference on Saturday evening -- and make a separate conference on Sunday with a different name, different signs at the podium, a different moderator and different speakers. You did not even respond to my email. And now you complain.

Next time you can have your own conference, which will be the umpteenth conference without any impact of the peaceniks and the Arab-Americans, and which the Jewsmedia will ignore, downplay or defame. You saw yourself a few months ago how pitifully small the Arab-American protest on the Mall in Washington was. Your Arab-Americans need us whites to join you. But not as Generic Americans, as “white, non-Hispanics”; we are European-Americans, we are proud, and with the help of my leadership we are now organizing.

I marched just a few weeks ago here in Washington in another anti-war rally, and the media did not even mention it. We marched by our thousands through empty streets, past empty government buildings, with only Mexican construction workers looking on in blasé incomprehension. Not a word in the Washington com-Post.

And that is all the publicity – zip, nada, nothing – your vision of a "No More Wars for Israel” conference would have gotten without us white nationists. Your dream of CNN coming to cover you was unrealistic from the start. It is clear that, after only a few years in the anti-Zionist cause, you lack experience of how things really operate in the Jew-wars. The Jews always defame -- or they ignore, unless they decide to sabotage, railroad and assassinate. And now I am plunging – politically, directly -- into that hell for all of us, with you taking potshots from the side, for fear of the Jews.

The real problem was that you -- who are half-white through your father but favor only your Arabic side -- and Joe Fields, who is all-white and is a white nationist, have two very different agendas. I solved that problem of the two agendas with my proposal for two different conferences, and I saved the Sunday session by getting the ballroom, food and chairs. And, through YouTube, and my camera people, NMWFI conference speeches will go out on the Internet to thousands and perhaps some day, to millions.

Without my help, and help from other white nationists such as my friend Pete Papaheraklis, who talked with his fellow Greeks to get the church for Saturday's session, the Jews would be chortling today online about how they “shut us down.” Well, they didn't, Mark. We beat them.
Hesham Tellawi wanted to cancel the whole conference. Joe Fields said no. He took a firm stand. We showed backbone. We white nationists were right; the conference went on; and the Jews failed.

Rather than rip into allies, such as me and Joe, you should rip into the Jews who made us all miserable, and always will until we prevail through united struggle. I called them in my speech fearlessly what they are, the Eternal Jew. And the Jew’s main goal is self-censorship, that we censor ourselves out of fear.

Mark, you are, unconsciously, taking the Jewish position, which is that white nationists should have no right to speak -- "for fear of the Jews."

But as I said in my speech -- and it, Margaret's speech, Stan Hess's and Joe Fields’ are all going up tomorrow on YouTube -- without the white giant arising from his slumber, your Arabic world is also doomed. We white nationists are the key to saving both our and your people. And we white nationists will arouse our sleeping white brothers -- one billion white people -- against our common foe, the monster of Zionism. Once you simmer down, you will probably reflect on the continuing need for a white-Arabic/Muslim strategic alliance of reason. But the alliance cannot be one-way.

We were friends, and I intensely admired your courage and your excellent writings, and we have exchanged many friendly emails. I hope we can again be friends, or at least stay allies. But if you attack white nationists, you are biting the hand that feeds you -- and forgetting what I said in my speech: The white nationist movement is the only hope for the world’s liberation from the enemy of all peoples and races, Talmudic Zionism.

Love and kisses

John de Nugent

P.S. I am going to post my version of events on Stormfront, VNN, Liberty Forum and on my own website as soon as it goes up. I hope that I will not need to fire back any further. After all, Mark Glenn, you did hundreds of hours of great work for this conference, and I thank you for all your work and all your many important sacrifices of time, money, anguish and sleep. Join the crowd..... You have now gotten your "Purple Heart" as I did 30 years ago when I was nearly murdered in the Marines, nearly thrown over a warship at night, for my stance.

I was planning, Mark, to only say that “some Arab-Americans walked out in protest against VNN radio carrying the conference live.” I was not planning to write in anger against you for attacking me and calling me an “SOB” in the email below.

As for Hesham Tillawi, whom I have always appreciated, he needs to be careful what speculation he spreads. When I collected money for the rent on the ballroom, I had to put $42 of my own money in the kitty to get the $500 together to pay for the ballroom where you and he sat and enjoyed the speeches -- on the chairs and at the venue I made possible. It was also my own appeal by phone Saturday to my own supporter in Canada that got us the first $500 toward the total $1,000 ballroom bill. Remember, had I and my fellow white nationists not pitched in, the ADL and Morris Dees would be crowing today: "The conference by the Jew-hating Lebanese-American Mark Glenn was shut down when every hotel refused to take them in." That is the gloating remark I helped prevent, which also made you look good. They will always defame you, Mark, but they can never say your conference failed to come off.

In any case, by walking out on the conference Sunday night, you showed successfully to one and all that you do not support the cause of white survival and that you distance yourself from our Cause -- to reduce heat on you from the Jews. You had your successful two-day conference AND you had your walkout to boot to show you do not support us, though we support you. Let's keep on, however, as allies, despite this inevitable friction between your view and ours -- and your refusal to permit two separate conferences to go ahead, which would have met all your own demands.

I just now saw that you have issued a statement, dated October 19, acceding to my pre-conference proposal from October 8, recognizing the existence of two separate conferences. As far as I am concerned, your statement saying there were two separate conferences should therefore end our hostilities -- for the sake of the common anti-Zionist cause. And I congratulate you for this wise move. We are two different armies, marching separately, but let us both strike incessantly the hate-filled foe of all mankind, whom the New Testament calls “the synagogue of Satan.”
--------------

Thanks to BEAJ for this transcript.

7 comments:

socrates said...

If the neo-nazi Hal Turner was/is an FBI informant, then perhaps a bunch of these other jackasses have covert intel connections also.

Cointelpro on the internet? These people are the Palestinians' worst enemy. They put out their rubbish, and then people might be less likely to care about the fascists in control of Israel. The Israeli progressives become even further isolated from the political process.

I once wrote a letter to Rivero years ago asking him why his focus was so heavy on Mossad as compared to the CIA. He went blah, blah, blah.

Clearly there has been this right woos left bullshit going on. As I recently posted at my blog/forum, I can fully understand how you have become somewhat in favour of the official explanation for 9/11. I don't agree with you. But it is logical to me that you ended up there considering that a good chunk of the 9/11 conspiracy disinfo have been put together by fascists such as Rivero and the Willis Carto network.

the_last_name_left said...

On the point of people being "agents" - I think it's essentially irrelevant if one looks at what people say and do. If people say and do "the right things", how can they be working for some malevolent cause?

And on the thing of 911 - whether to believe the conspiracy theories or "the official line"? For one thing, I don't like the implication of the most obvious explanation being considered as "the official line".

7 years on we have to accept there is a huge amount of evidence for 19 hijackers, and a failure of american defence, that planes hit the towers and fires brought them down.

There's never going to be perfectly satisfying "proof" for all parts of those events.

But compared to the absolute lack of any positive evidence for any other explanation, the most obvious explanation simply HAS to be accepted. Quite simply, there are NO viable competing alternatives. That doesn't mean I'm committed to "the official story" - just that there is no other story out there.

I reconsidered my position quite consciously at times. Based on the principle that I refuse to believe in things for which there is no evidence, I have to accept the most obvious explanation for 911 - hijackers, planes, fires - and I reject the accumulated "could haves" that comprise the conspiracy theories.

If something ever shows up that genuinely demands a different view, then fine - I'll change my mind. Until then, I think the only thing to do is to recognise there is absolutely zero positive evidence to sustain any of the various conspiracy theories. Entertaining doubts and having endless questions are one thing - positive evidence for a different explanation is something totally different: we have doubts and questions - but no evidence.

I very strongly believe all is not as it seems about 911 - but so what? Until there is some reason to believe in a conspiracy - there's no reason to believe in a conspiracy. Maybe there was a conspiracy - but without a reason to believe there was a conspiracy ie some evidence - then why believe there was a conspiracy?

I don't have an issue with people questioning what happened. My issue is with people whom claim they KNOW what happened eg It's Israel! - or "The NeoCons!" - or "Cheney!".......

the beauty of the conspiracy thing is that everyone can make an argument that their own bete noir is responsible. None can be disproved - especially if any contrary evidence is simply dismissed as compromised for x y z reasons......

Always I see claims that "the real evidence" has been secreted away somewhere. It's super-tip-top-secret, but still we know it's there? And somehow we know it says something that doesn't confirm "the official line".

That's just silly?

socrates said...

*** I think it's important to know if a troll is a useful idiot or getting paid.

*** Can you give me the link to one forum that doesn't see beset by such trolls?

*** We figure people out, whether they are for real, over the course of time, and if we have the ability to question them on things that don't add up.

*** I believe that it is your opinion that the official line is the most obvious explanation. Now, I am at a disadvantage here in that I never got sucked into the 9/11 threads.

*** I remember where I was when it happened, and this may sound like a cliche, but it did change my life. When repression is accelerated, you know it is the lefty peaceniks who bear the brunt of the new zeitgeist.

I wasn't on the internet too much until middle to late 2005. Maybe a bit in 2002, a bit here and there, but it was fairly brand new to me, the zeitgeist, the overall psychology of the internet in that 2005 time period. I first heard about the 9/11 conspiracy theory from a teacher. I sensed the way the buildings fell was very fishy. Professional debunkers, etc. can copy and paste a river with NIST reports and whatnot, but to me, those buildings looked like they were victims of controlled demolition.

I'm at a disadvantage to you in studying this, so if we debate, this will be lopsided. But I am thinking of the put options. What about the Pentagon? Didn't that thing have to fly in very low at 500 mph, and no wing hit the ground, etc.?I'm not taking bullshit like pods or holograms or anything else crazy. And I think Rivero actually downplayed the Pentagon, not sure. And I know for sure that Jeff Wells completely downplayed the controlled demolition. And I have to warn you, no matter what you say or link to, I will think that was some form of controlled demolition. It was just a bit too clean.

But I contest the thing about 19 hijackers. I think many of the people on the list turned up elsewhere. I do not believe fundamental radicaL muslims would be at strip clubs. How does that add up?

But yeah, the Joos did it, that was Rivero and a bunch of others.

If you want to ignore the true history of cointelpro, and think it would never have an internet incarnation, I think you would be naive.

How do you explain that Bin Laden has probably been dead for many years?

You are also correct about the bogeyman thing of Cheney/Bush has been ridiculous. Obviously there are many things we agree on.

I think it's more normal to think it was a conspiracy than not. And maybe the word conspiracy should not be used.

You know all about that Special Forces Underground. You know about these black op fascists. Or do you think they don't exist?

Just because there is this outrageous 9/11 disinfo script doesn't mean that the most obvious explanation is the official one. There's some kind of leap being made there, imho.

It is an enigma.

But I don't think the official explanation passes more muster than the black op theory. Bin Laden didn't admit to it, did he? Terrorists always take credit for their heinous acts, no? Weren't there some faked Bin Laden tapes? And I'm not talking tinfoil.

You say you have studied this thing. What do you think are the greatest reasons to consider the conspiracy theory?

But yes, with crazy believers and closed-minded debunkers running around in circles, it is meaningless. I'll agree with you there.

My background is Sociology. I'm sensing some kind of script being forced down our throats. We can even put the debate part to the side, and we'll still be scratching our heads at the preponderance of trolling going on. And you've got to be kidding me if you think all those people are pranksters and not getting paid.

Mike Rivero fits the profile for agent provocateur. Now I think that Trausti guy is too. Why else did he hide your threads? Maybe you are afraid they will be deleted? I think you should copy as many of your posts as possible. You can always copy and paste them back to life in other venues, other ones that aren't apparently in the back pocket of a divide and conquer, fascist spook.

the_last_name_left said...

Thanks for the post(s) btw.

I'm happy to go through the 911 thing if you want. It could make an interesting dialogue perhaps.

Your forum is probably the better venue?

I'll leave the 911 stuff till then - but on the cointel pro, and agent stuff I'll just say that I don't disregard it at all. However, IMO, such is the murky world of "secret" and "black" operations it's almost impossible to work out who is who, and what is what. I don't think it's very productive - that's all. I think having, and even publicising suspicions is ok - they possess whatever strength they do based on whatever the evidence might be.

But for me - it's just too murky, dark and confusing - plus it all feeds on, and encourages suspicion - even paranoia. Not dissimilar to my view on conspiracism in general I guess, and I'm not surprised to find the two commonly found together.

I've been meaning to post something on those topics - the mindset and (il)logic of conspiracism. I think it's interesting.
----

I'm also interested that your background is sociology: I tried to make it my background too, but it never happened for a few reasons. My sister is studying it in Canada now, and I've been interested to see how the focus is different to that of British/European sociology. So perhaps you can help me do that too?

Really, I just wondered about how North American sociology would manage to leave out Marxism. ;)

My sociology lecturer (A level) was a former Communist organiser in S Wales, which suited me perfectly as my interest in sociology was really almost exclusively from marxist perspective - the rest were just there to illustrate how astute and comprehensive marxist perspective was. hehe. I got fed-up though, the classes would devolve into really very basic debates about whether homosexuality was "ok", or whether peoples' reasons for being racist were legitimate. Dreary stuff. I was a mature student, interested in the subject, the rest mostly people doing a qualification simply to gain entry to some higher education, and what they felt would be a meal ticket.

That's been my experience of further and higher education - no-one is actually interested. It's very depressing to witness.

So, what was the sociology like in NA? What's the focus, the topics, the perspectives? Do you think they avoid Marxism? Was there a sense that it was heretical?

And do students seem to attend because of the meal-ticket idea, or because they're interested in learning, and committed to their subject? I find it hard to believe - such is the perverting pressure of capitalism.

Bertrand Russell's views on American education are/were interesting: he taught in NA when was it? post-war?) and found that whilst american education was very good, it was only partial, and left his pupils without knowledge of names of common trees, flowers, birds and insects.

He setup a school himself - until it was closed for being "too liberal". Or something. :) Wish I had gone to that school.......

Anyway......wanna setup something for our own 911 investigation?

socrates said...

Hi TLNL,

You're welcome for my posts. It looks like Curtis Maynard may be in the house, but I haven't checked that thread again yet, down a bit below this one. Someone acting like him is saying he isn't racist because he has a Mexican wife and they have a half-breed child. Wow. That's like when Idi Amin said he some of his best friends are Jewish.

We are tied together with what happened at the WRH "unofficial" forum. The other day I put up in one separate thread the one you started about Rivero said it's not Israel/Zion/whatnot. That was somewhat a replay of the S. Boyle thing. And it all started after you came to the forum back in '07 on the WRH thread and started supplying the Bank Index and other type details. I blew it by banning you. I thought you were a fake.Oh well, water under the bridge. But you can see how I would think that.

It was just bizarre for me how I was singled out for some psy-op simply for debunking chemtrail forums and doing my own research into Michael Rivero.

On that saved thread of yours, one can see the fake lawyer angle, etc.. Funny how a couple nobodies like us garnered so much attention., enough so for "them" to come up with some elaborate script. Since it was so elaborate, I can't help but think that was pure spookery. I mean, the unofficial closed down in June/July 2006. The angle was based on may41970 starting that thread. Then it came back and the Ender inciting violence thread was deleted.

Then the thing accelerated with that thread you had. They spammed the snot out of that All Aircraft Have Wings thread we put together. {Inside joke}

But anyway, to move on, yeah, feel free to post wherever and whatever you want on 9/11. You should know by now that I am a forum nut without access to the forums. Did you know that I was banned from Rigorous Intuition before making even one post? The et in Arcadia Ego guy used to be a moderator at Chemtrail Central. It's a long convoluted story.

But uhm, I see your point about how difficult it is to prove the spookery. I guess if we were journalists, we'd phrase it as apparent attempts to pervert democratic processes on the internet.

But I am proud of certain connections figured out. It was huge to tie Tinoire and Progressive Independent to WRH. Did you know that Tinoire is tight with Jeff Wells? They are part of the tinfoil zeitgeist that grew out of the Democratic Underground. There is that asshat Wayne Madsen. I won't go on, but I'd like to say that I have tried to base my amateur internet sleuthing on screenshots, the copy and pastes, links from places and without bias. Dude, we are modern day S. Boyles. But are we mysterious? {inside joke #2}

My forum is really more of a blog. I am in a big stink with the poster named Lophofo. There is this guy Isard from Spain who is into 9/11. It could be interesting to see you guys have some dialogue. His English is pretty good for a Spaniard. And for someone who is interested in things like Bilderbergs and NWO, he can be quite level-headed and fair when confronted, or better put, when his ideas are confronted. I guess it being a chemtrail forum has reduced the odds of the thing ever getting off the ground or getting members who are not into tinfoiltainment. But I like that idea of a 9/11 thread. I could, for example, find good links as regards to the put options, etc.. Things like whether Atta and those dudes really went to strip clubs, those need to be figured out. If they went to strip clubs, then there is no way it happened the way it is presented. Those guys would never have been like the Amish sowing oats before becoming adult Amish. If they were truly fanatics trying to get to heaven like presented, they would never have gone to strip clubs, etc.. But maybe that is a strawman and never happened. Like I said before, I never really got into the 9/11 thing too much. I got more into the social-psychology of the internet.

But uhm, yeah, to speculate about spooks is pointless without hard facts. But things like with Tinoire supporting Ron Paul and Mike Rivero, that is huge. Those kinds of things will never add up. I appreciate your work on Rivero.

I think there are a lot of people like us, but that there is no major forum where sincere people can hammer things out without interruption or convolution getting throw in. The old muddying the waters thing.

I was web surfing yesterday on the Mormons. I can't believe how fried that religion is. It's just as bad as Scientology.

One of my theories is that gatekeeper domains are following the same kind of cult-like activities. That way, sincere people can either be drowned out, compelled to comply to the forced zeitgeist, or simply leave. Then the illusion remains that there is freedom of speech. The illusion remains that such venues have a random assortment of people joining. Like with the WRH Unofficial, WRH, PI, et al, there becomes the illusion that this is the way most people think, sorry to use your zeitgeist word a lot. I saw you use that word months ago. It is a good one.

I think your interest in figuring out conspiracism fanatics is a good one. I am thinking a lot of it is similar to groupthink and how cults form.

I did my Sociology in Ireland. If I had stayed in America I'd be a rich, pretentious professor crunching variables. I went to Ireland to get the historic lefty sociology called critical theory.

Now I am unemployed for a while living off a trust. Each time I decide to scale back being on the net, I feel myself drawn back in. Recently there was this hoax that some Michael Connell was threatened by Karl Rove and then he died when his small plane crashed. Long story short, I dont good and exposed these people making up stuff. But when I got it out on the DemocraticUnderground, it ended up getting deleted. Around 200 posts.

It's like with what happened to us with the unofficial wrh. When it became obvious that a few of us exposed them as being insidious fascists, we were scapegoated as Mossad and other crazy stuff.

So I try to get off the net and then something new shows up I feel if I don't cover it, no one will.

Your sister sounds hot. Sorry for the bad joke. I can see you trying to smack me through the monitor.

Sorry for rambling.

You read any Erich Fromm? I got into the roots of fascism. I liked that guy Herbert Marcuse. I like Howard Zinn and The People's History of the US.

In short, I believe that we need leaders who will be able to dismantle the military industrial complex. People are nuts if they think societies can thrive without at least some socialism. there is a reason the internet is deluged with rightwingers posing as lefties. You have to check out this guy Markos Zuniga of the DailyKos. This guy has a blog called the truth about Kos. He has been a one-man wrecking crew exposing the netroots as fake. This guy Zuniga still praises the CIA, Ronald Reagan, etc., and runs by far the most successful website.

very, very sorry for rambling. I am like this in real life too. :)

socrates said...

I'm getting used to your format here.

"I'm also interested that your background is sociology: I tried to make it my background too, but it never happened for a few reasons. My sister is studying it in Canada now, and I've been interested to see how the focus is different to that of British/European sociology. So perhaps you can help me do that too?"

The American Sociology plays up this dude Talcott Parsons with his Grand Theory. Try to think of the Enlightenment versus the counter-enlightenment. Parsons was trying to turn Soociology into a natural science.

The greatest American Sociologist was C. Wright Mills who, on the other hand, spoke of a sociological imagination. He said Social sciences are different than natural sciences, that we need to get a feel for the people, times we study. He also spoke of an Iron Triangle, of a power grid between the executive, the corporate, and the military. He was so on the ball that he was forced to the fringes of Columbia University, while posers like Parsons got the glory.

Herbert Marcuse, who wrote One-Dimensional Man, was all over the military-industrial complex. During the Vietnam War period, he helped organise the student protest movement, allowing students to even use his office and phone etc..

So that is probably the biggest difference between the American and European. In America, status quo'ers like Parsons ended up with the power, not the peacenik intellectuals.

Another big difference is that in Europe they give the students a much more historical, philosophical, inter-disciplinary approach. They'll give the big reading list. In America, the students usually are given about 12 sources. The European grading system is much more difficult too, imho. I believe the European has much more freedom of thought. I definitely appreciated having a choice of 300 sources over 12. I also didn't mind the higher grading, because when I came up with one high honours grade, it felt incredible.



"Really, I just wondered about how North American sociology would manage to leave out Marxism. ;)

My sociology lecturer (A level) was a former Communist organiser in S Wales, which suited me perfectly as my interest in sociology was really almost exclusively from marxist perspective - the rest were just there to illustrate how astute and comprehensive marxist perspective was. hehe. I got fed-up though, the classes would devolve into really very basic debates about whether homosexuality was "ok", or whether peoples' reasons for being racist were legitimate. Dreary stuff. I was a mature student, interested in the subject, the rest mostly people doing a qualification simply to gain entry to some higher education, and what they felt would be a meal ticket."


They cover Marx in America, but I don't think it gets anywhere near the amount of attention he merits.

The big three are Marx, Durkheim, and Max Weber. Marx was too much into the economic. Durkheim too much into culture. Weber is the best of all time. Then it was the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory which took over the mantle of being the authority on Sociology.

One thing I liked about college was that I respected there was somewhat a pyramid to the knowledge. For the most part, especially in Ireland, I respected and trusted them. In a way, good professors are like gurus.

My profs in Ireland were very active in domestic and foreign activism. Some are sell-outs. Some are legitemate good people trying to save the planet. You can kind of tell who is who from what they say and write.



"That's been my experience of further and higher education - no-one is actually interested. It's very depressing to witness."

I agree that there is a lot of posing going on, a lot of ego development. I wish I had been born ten to twenty years earlier when being a rebel could actually get things accomplished. In America, students are more likely to protest for the right to drink alcohol than for anything to do with social change. Though, I am out of the loop now, and I am also sure there are good people in America fighting the good fight. But we will never hear about it in the mainstream.


"So, what was the sociology like in NA? What's the focus, the topics, the perspectives? Do you think they avoid Marxism? Was there a sense that it was heretical?

And do students seem to attend because of the meal-ticket idea, or because they're interested in learning, and committed to their subject? I find it hard to believe - such is the perverting pressure of capitalism."


Uhm, it's been a long time now for me since studying any Sociology. I think it has been sanitized. I think most people are brainwashed to live in fear and not take chances. Remember that tune, Birth, School, Work, Death? That's kind of like how I feel about America. Though again, I will stick up for us as good people. When we realise things are fried, we do tend to do the right thing. And just because I don't see the activism, I am sure it is going on. It just doesn't get the air time. We get mostly blathering posers, especially on the internet. And a lot of college is about speaking to rich privileged kids spending 25 grand a year to end up in that birth, school, work, death cycle.



"Bertrand Russell's views on American education are/were interesting: he taught in NA when was it? post-war?) and found that whilst american education was very good, it was only partial, and left his pupils without knowledge of names of common trees, flowers, birds and insects."

The problems now parallel the growing fascism. The emphasis is now on standardized tests and rubber stamping. The problem with American education reflects the problems with capitalism. It is based on property taxes, so there are good school systems and bad ones. And the good ones might be producing technically clever people, but that doesn't mean those people are developing morals or anything other than the desire for selfish ideals of what success is.



"He setup a school himself - until it was closed for being "too liberal". Or something. :) Wish I had gone to that school......."

Never say never. I remember one lady in Ireland. She was well up there in age. But she got her Masters, did some teaching.

One good thing about me, I am an eternal optimist. One danger of being an old-school sociologist or thinker type is that it can lead to depression. Be wary of that. Although, ignorance is bliss is a lot of bollux, imho. Can I say bollux?

Lately I have been confusing myself with z's and s's. I can't decide which one to use in the words.

But oh well, I'm glad I got this second ramble in. It would have been selfish not to truly answer your post. It also felt good to remember a bit about my background.

Thanks.

the_last_name_left said...

Just thought I'd add I did read this Socrates.......not long after you wrote it. It deserves a longer response......but later. :)