Monday, 15 August 2011

Banned again - this time from OpEd News

OpEd News banned me, for asking Paul Craig Roberts to explain how his weekly column was published for years in Willis Carto's fascist propaganda organ, The American free Press.

What's left of the thread is here. It no longer makes any narrative sense, and it's clear a certain "Joe Public" has gone missing from the conversation - he's referred to in other comments and quotes, but has been otherwise completely disappeared.

OpEd News claim they are a "liberal and progressive" website. But they host articles by Paul Craig Roberts, and censor criticism of Roberts' relationship with organised fascism.

Some liberals, huh?

I have the full posts, if anyone wants them.....presumably not. lol

ETA 17/8 ETA - as requested, here are some of the posts which were removed.

The following are all posts of mine, under the name Joe Public, all were removed, as it notes at the end of the quote.

PCR is Paul Craig Roberts
PCR says that "the government lies every time it opens its mouth".

PCR says those whom disagree with him are saying "we should *only* believe the government".

All self-evident tosh. All proof that conspiracism is intellectual poison.

Speaking of truth and's astonishing to see PCR accuse the US government of inveterate lying.....when he's a columnist for the fascist newspaper published by Willis Carto: AFP.

Fascists have a real good record on the honesty front, don't they? And how about their peerless reputation for being "liberal" and "progressive"?

Rather fascism has a record of using conspiracism to undermine faith in liberal democracy, so as to smash it, any which way it can.

And PCR is helping them try it again? For money, or as a gift? Yeuch.

Shocking. I'd have thought that was quite a story itself.

A quick google and sure enough we have Mr Roberts criticising "fascism"


Incipient Fascist State
By Paul Craig Roberts


And yet Mr Roberts is a columnist for the AFP newspaper published by N America's leading fascist and anti-semite, Willis Carto.

So, PCR condemns liberal-democracy for its supposed fascism......yet he's actually working for *the real thing*. Wow.
On Sunday, Aug 7, 2011 at 2:42:57 PM

Done by Rob Kall

Rob Kall is the owner of the website. This list of deleted comments was available under my profile, until I was blocked access.

Mr Roberts elsewhere has written that,

"As 2011 dawns, public discourse in America has the country primed for a fascist dictatorship.The situation will be worse by 2012. "

So serious is the threat of fascism in N America that Mr Roberts responds by......writing for N America's leading fascist newspaper.

Quite amazing tactics - to defeat fascism, you must work for them. How novel?

Mr Roberts is either a dupe or he must believe everyone else is.
On Sunday, Aug 7, 2011 at 3:55:40 PM

Another one:
PCR: Why criticise fascism when you write for a fascist?

You've ignored this question 3 times, even as you've continued attacking various other people and institutions for their supposed dishonesty and lack of integrity. Speaks for itself?

You have even criticised the US government of representing "incipient fascism" - the backstory to your belief that "government always lies" and that there's some grand conspiracy permanently afoot.

But the question remains - how can you write for a fascist propaganda rag - Carto's AFP - and yet at the same time criticise the government for supposed fascism?

How does it make sense?

If the government is genuinely fascist, why does Willis Carto and the AFP oppose it? Surely real Fascists would support the government - if it were really fascist? But they don't support the government - with good reason - they don't believe it is fascist. We might at least credit fascist leaders with the knowledge of what it is they themselves believe!

The people you write for at AFP certainly are fascists, Mr Roberts, however much you might decline to admit it.

And they hate the government. That's why they are happy to print (and pay?) for your articles - which attack the government (for fascism! ha! Neat trick? See what you did there?)

Maybe you should tell your friends at the fascist AFP that they are mistaken, and that it isn't them that are the fascists, it is actually Obama and the government of USA!

That might come as quite a surprise to your chums, Willis Carto et al.

If you don't dig the supposed fascism of the government, why are you writing for AFP - why are you mixed up with Willis Carto at all?

On Sunday, Aug 7, 2011 at 6:49:37 PM

PCR replied, claiming ignorance of everything - he didn't know AFP, didn't know Willis Carto, etc. I asked simply
Do you have a column in the American Free Press, or not?

Do you have a column in the American Free Press, or not?

On Sunday, Aug 7, 2011 at 7:50:50 PM

PCR responded that anyone could publish his stuff, and that he had no idea who published it. Fair point. However, he was being wholly disingenuous. I said:
No idea about Carto/AFP.

AFP publish online and offline, and sell your work for a fee.

The articles are credited to you, via Creators Syndicate.

You say you write for nobody, but your articles are part of Creators Syndicate - a syndicate intended to protect writers and artist ownership rights.

You say anybody can freely publish you, yet your syndicate says different:

From Creators Syndicate :

Q. I want to reprint a Creators Syndicate column or cartoon in a textbook, newsletter, or other publication. How do I request permission?

A. You will need to request permission via our Permission Request form here. We do our best to respond to all requests in a timely manner, usually 2-3 days.

Please keep in mind that these archives are for personal viewing only.
If you wish to use a cartoon or column for any other purpose, you must submit a permission request

So, this isn't happening? You're suggesting it must be fascists stealing your work and misrepresenting the relationship - when there is absolutely none?

Well, ok - if you really know nothing about it, and the fascists are deceiving people into thinking otherwise....then fine. At least we found out the AFP are being wholly dishonest by representing you as their columnist. If so then this diversion is a result of being mislead by the fascists at AFP - in such a light I happily apologise for being part of the distraction, though it is nevertheless useful imo. (Surely you're pleased at a chance to repudiate fascists pretending you are their columnist?)

If that is the case.....would you like to contribute to helping prevent the deception, and stop them from exploiting your image, name and work in the cause of fascism?
On Sunday, Aug 7, 2011 at 9:19:57 PM

I was happy to apologise, if what he had said was true. But it wasn't true. So, at this point I tried to seal him up with a pincer movement - if what he said was true, then he must be saying AFP were violating the law. Would he say it? It had to be one or the other - either he was a paid columnist for AFP, or AFP were breaking the law. So, would PCR say it - that AFP were breaking the law? He had better not say it, if they hadn't been acting illegally, right? So would he say it? Clearly he didn't want to say it! I had him. So, I posted that his syndicate said differently - his syndicate say you have to get permission, and pay, and publish a copyright notice. That copyright notice *had* appeared at AFP columns by PCR.....why would they do that unless they had been given permission? Me again:
Creators Syndicate say different


This appears on the permissions page, which includes a drop-down box to request reprint permission for articles by Paul Craig Roberts.

So, "anybody can print them" just isn't true? Or have I just been given permission to print PCR's articles in book form, with all the proceeds mine?

If there were no benefits of syndication, why sign-up? If "anybody can print them" what's the point of syndication, the copyright notices, the need for permission, the costs, etc?

Sorry if this a distraction, but I'd like to clear this up - whether AFP are violating copyright laws or not.
On Sunday, Aug 7, 2011 at 9:46:08 PM

PCR refused to say AFP must have been violating the law. PCR now conceded he had been a paid columnist, but had quit in March 2010.

I pushed the point:
prior to quitting?

What about prior to quitting in 2010?

Presumably you were paid by via Creators Syndicate for your column when it was syndicated? And so you were also paid by and for AFP when it appeared as a weekly column there?

Which would be entirely contrary to your earlier defence against being "a columnist" at AFP. You had claimed "anybody can print my articles for free".

But that's only been true since you quit. The columns appeared before you quit (obviously) and did in fact often carry the required copyright notice stipulated by Creators Syndicate.

All of which suggests that prior to quitting, you were getting paid for having a weekly column with AFP.

It would also mean AFP were not violating copyright law. It would mean AFP were in fact correctly applying for and receiving official permission. And perhaps AFP were even paying a fee.

Quite a way from "not being a columnist", really, isn't it?

On Sunday, Aug 7, 2011 at 10:45:44 PM

To make it clear, I repeated that:

PCR: My columns are free. Anyone can post them and they do.


That's only been true since 2010.

You quit as columnist in March 2010, but until then your columns were *not* free, they were copyrighted and needed permission to reproduce via the syndicate, Creators Syndicate.

Before 2010 you were (your words) " a paid syndicated columnist".

Therefore, seeing as AFP carried your column for years, along with the copyright notice demanded by your syndicate, presumably they had permission, and were paying for the privilege of carrying your column name and reputation?

In which case, contrary to your claims, you did have a [paying] column at AFP

In which case I have the answer to my original question which was "BTW - I would like to ask whether you get paid for writing for the fascist Willis Carto.

Or do you give your services to fascism for free?

The answer is, "Yes, I did get paid, but not any more."


Presumably AFP are getting them free now?

On Sunday, Aug 7, 2011 at 11:46:53 PM

PCR's response was to attack me for being a "zionist troll", accusing me of being some "agent" etc etc. I replied:
The real tale of the thread

The real tale of the thread is that PCR's conspiracism has dragged out the "trolls". As it should be expected to do. The bubble of people with very low post-counts are all in support of PCR and/or conspiracism.

Yet they all believe I am the troll. But look at the vacuous personal invective coming my way, for - daring to oppose the most obvious twaddle? And what has been added by anyone? Nothing - the vast majority of it is simply attacking me.

I have been pursuing a question about PaulCraigRoberts' popularity within fascism - and whether the affection is mutual, and financial. I personally think that's an important issue.

Just because I am asking about one particular thing, it needn't prevent anyone else posting anything. Clearly it doesn't.

If Mr Roberts had properly addressed my reasonable concerns and questions instead of being disingenuous and evasive, then I wouldn't have had cause to persist.

The fact is, Mr Paul Craig Roberts did have a column running in the fascist's newspaper AFP, published by Willis Carto. It seems certain he will have been paid for it and that AFP need have been given authorisation for its use.

Clearly AFP would not put it in the paper if they didn't approve and benefit from it.

I think that's a very troubling relationship, especially for someone making appeals at a supposedly "liberal" and "progressive" forum.

By contrast, Mr Roberts now says of me:

"Joe Public" is a troll/agent who tried to hijack the topic by nonsensical personal attacks on me."

I'd call it establishing a professional, pecuniary and political relationship with organised fascism.

On Monday, Aug 8, 2011 at 7:46:58 PM



End Quotes

So, it seems clear PCR was getting paid by fascist Willis Carto's AFP for a weekly column - and that they were given permission to do so.

OpEd news therefore has an author compromised by a relationship to fascism amongst its 'premier' writers - ones whom likely it hopes to bring in some subscribers etc.

But OpEd News claims to be LIBERAL and PROGRESSIVE.

And rather than criticise such relationships to fascism OpEd News bans the critic and suppresses the criticism. That's clearly highly problematic....for "liberals" and "progressives". Hmmm. Are they really those things then? What is PCR doing there anyway? An old Reaganite....blasting the government for wars, dishonesty, defence spending....?

And PCR was the second OpEd News writer that was found with connections to Willis Carto's AFP: I had found another writer there selling a book, with an endorsement by AFP. What's that doing at a "liberal" website? The author said they "didn't see anything wrong with AFP" or The Spotlight. Oh right! And this is

It's remarkable, and worrying, how easily the far-right can insinuate itself into supposed "liberal" and "progressive" discourse.

If Liberals and Progressives can't recognise fascism when it's right under their noses, then how can there be any defence against it?

And if Libs and Progressives can't spot fascism, and don't take instinctive offence at it.....and don't recognise any difference in its content and intent.....then aren't they actually fascist themselves? If there's no difference between things, then they are the same.

I was angry to get banned from that site, as I had just replied to several posts about "fascism", and I thought I'd had some success in making the distinction a little clearer.

Of course, the fascism they were identifying was NOT fascism. They were using the common (but wrong) definition of 'fascism is corporatism.' IT IS NOT THAT. Modern American ideas of 'corporatism' are not what fascists meant by corporatism. NOT AT ALL. Fascism is from "bundle of sticks" bound together, to be strong. Whereas american corporatism is crony capitalism, where (big)industry and government fuse to some degree - and which has obvious class conflict implied (which denies the exact thing the bundle of sticks stands for - unity, the people all-together, etc. ) [Fascism isn't socialism either because it has no intention of handing industry TO the workers, has no intent to abolish class instead affirming greater hierarchy - of race, intellect, ability - survival of the fittest - etc.] Fascism's corporatism was to bring the REAL TRUE VOLK all together, as one - but not to abolish class (socialism), and certainly not to exploit it a la crony capitalism ("corporatism").

A complaint was made (at OpEd News) about how the "fascist corporations" sought only to enrich themselves, nevermind the American people.....

But this is a complaint a fascist would make - as they are ultranationalist. Indeed, it was the historic complaint of fascism in Germany 1920/30s - that international capital cared nothing for the Volk. Germany for the Germans! This was cause and effect of anti-semitism too - the idea only REAL Natives can be loyal to the state (Germany).

Capitalist corporations are anti-national in so far as motive encourages them to put national interests below profit-interest.

Whereas, clearly, a fascist corporation - being ultranationalistic - would put national interests before the 'grubby' interests of profit (unlike 'the Jew', of course - as they would argue.)

So, we have a good example of how a little confusion can make it appear left and far-right are saying the same thing. A supposed left-critique is actually very close to the far-right one - because of its narrow nationalism. Seems to me that if the left doesn't notice and understand it is NOT saying the same thing, then likely it IS saying the same thing (as the fascist).

The American Left can be highly Nationalistic. It makes it vulnerable to this entryism of the far-right and leads to errors such as "fascism equals corporatism".

OpEd News seems ignorant of, if not positively disposed towards, crypto-fascism.


ETA Some screenshots

Banned from OpEd News:

Joe Public, the member profile, showing all comments as "hidden".

Example of deleted comment, responding directly to a PCR comment specifically mentioning (and attacking) Joe Public [me]. Comment is deleted from thread presently up at OpEdNews, with no notification that anything has been removed, nor any explanation why.

Example of comment I posted quote from earlier - with PCR directly responding. Again, comparison with present published thread at OpEdNews shows it has been deleted, with no notification that anything has been removed, nor any explanation why.


socrates said...

Man, that's pitiful. They totally obliterated your posts leaving that comment section a pile of trash.

I thought Roberts made a good point by saying he has nothing to do with Willis Carto; That his "articles" are posted for free. I'm not saying I believe that, but it was a decent rebuttal point.

Nonetheless, by deleting all your posts, like you said, there's no comprehensible narrative remaining.

It also looks like they don't mind appearing deranged. Even Roberts was calling you an agent. If they really thought that, they should have let your posts remain as proof of what a disinfo agent posts. However, they instead responded akin ro how a cult would to outside critics.

Real Truth Online said...

Why would you be against TLNL being censored when you support him banning ME? Oh, because I use profanity? Even though you two dipshits use it more often???


Real Truth Online said...

TLNL, your stupid links do not even show where youve been banned. They show nothing. I clicked them, where does one search to see your banishment?? Why don't you post screenshots of it, like I do when you censor ME??

Your recent story/link takes you to a YouTube video. Where does one see if youve been banned? You dont even post your screen name. What are we supposed to be looking for when we click your links???

the_last_name_left said...

Yes, Roberts' point about anyone being able to publish his stuff, was a good one.

Except it was a lie.

I went to his syndicate, and found that to publish his work required both a fee and written prior permission - as normal - and that without it such consent (and money) publication would be violating copyright law.

That's part of what was deleted.

So Roberts was being wholly disingenuous (he was lying) when he said "anyone can publish his stuff".

Roberts was indeed being paid for it. And his syndicate had to have given permission.


I'll post the banned comments.....only thing is there are quite a lot of them. I'll post the relevant ones from the thread.

Larry - the difference between your being banned from here and my being banned from OpEd is as follows:

OpEd casts itself as liberal and progressive, even as it publishes an author deeply connected to Reagan administration, is popular amongst the far-right, and has received financing from Willis Carto.

The problem is, Oped, lib and prog as they are - ha! - defend relationships with fascism rather than criticise it. And they do so by censorship, and banning people - without explanation, without public admission, without any right of reply, etc etc.

My posts were civil, pertinent and polite.

Whereas, Larry gets banned for spam, personal vitriol, incessant foul language, irrelvance......etc etc.

The proof of that is all over my blog.

For one thing, you're so badly censored you're hear writing about it. Oh, wow.

the_last_name_left said...

*here obvs

the_last_name_left said...

I added some of the deleted comments - the most relevant ones.

I was posting as Joe Public, btw - the entity that has (clearly) been disappeared from that OpEd News thread.

Larry - you will notice that none of the removed comments contain personal invective in your style......there's no spam.....there's no unsubstantiated claims....etc.

I had him - and he (and OpEd News) removed the evidence of it.

Why? Who knows?

the_last_name_left said...

PCR had repeatedly 'flagged' my posts for deletion, apparently.

[Part of the user profile allows you to see your deleted and 'flagged' comments]

PCR had written this whilst flagging my comment:

Flagged by Paul Craig Roberts

Slanderous: these are amazing inflamatory insults. from what I know a huge number of sites link to my columns; many post the columns without links to those who receive them. In actual fact, I am posted on far more left-wing sites than right-wing, and this hidden moron, Joe Public, says I take money to publish fascist propaganda, and OEN censures me when I call these low grade morons "idiots." Joe Public should be banned from the site permanently.

Reflag: : "

Funny how it is slander to suggest Paul Craig Roberts was taking money from fascists for publishing in a fascist newspaper...when it's apparently true.

It could only be untrue if AFP were violating copyright law.....and Mr Roberts declined to say that must have been the case.

I think it's important, because Roberts "...served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration earning fame as a co-founder of Reaganomics"

It's astonishing that someone like the Roberts of today could make such a position, along with all the others he has held.

I didn't like to say under his column but I suspect he is ill - his mental faculties cannot be what they were. I mean, it explains a lot about Reaganism if that was the case.....nutters like this guy calling the shots? I just can't believe that though - he must be ill.

What a disingenuous, malicious berk he is.

the_last_name_left said...

In addition to being published by AFP, Paul Craig Roberts is a editorial board member of VDARE - a place that publishes Jared Taylor of American Renaissance....white nationalism.....and "scientific racism" etc.

VDARE call American Renaissance "our friends".

Paul Craig Robertson made public appeals on behalf VDARE for public support, and is on the editorial board. etc.

the_last_name_left said...

Lord Wiki says of PCR:

"His writings frequently appear on OpEdNews,,,, CounterPunch, and the American Free Press. Roberts has been featured as a guest on the Political Cesspool radio show."


One has to wonder quite how that justifies his publication at a supposedly "liberal" and "progressive" OpEd News describes itself.

I asked them "What is Liberal or Progressive" about any of it?" No answer.

Whilst OpEd News criticises corporations and finacialism, the place looks like EBay with adverts by (finance corps) littering the entire screen. They also spam their members with all sorts of crap.

It looks more like a money-making ego vehicle to me, rather than a committed liberal/progressive political site.

They publish NaturalNews articles! Stuff by PCR! What is this crap doing at a liberal site?

They were on a money raising mission when I was banned - I can't see where their money goes. They have a crappy content management system....tons of ads....and what else? What a joke. Imagine if I was a paid member - will they just delete my criticism of PCR then, or what? Clowns - shysters - charlatans.

Real Truth Online said...

Let's break down what you say my posts are, shall we?

"Whereas, Larry gets banned for spam, personal vitriol, incessant foul language, irrelvance......etc etc."


"spam": This is when I post a question and you dont answer it, so I post it again. You dont answer it again, so I post it again. You dont answer it AGAIN, and I post it AGAIN. And so on. THEN, you call it "spam".

"personal vitriol": This is when I call you names, like fucktard, for doing exactly what you do in the above paragraph.

"incessant foul language": This is when I use profanity in my posts, as if my profanity removes the substance of my posts---it doesn't. In fact, there is so MUCH substance in my posts, that you PRETEND to be offended at the profanity so as not to focus on the substance of my post. It's an old, overused debating technique used by the likes of you who do not want to confront valid arguments and substance. After all, how can you claim you're against profanity when YOU even use it in your own posts? Some of your TITLES even contain it [Ex: "Tory Fucking Bastards"]

"irrelevance": You mainly use this term when I just got done either shooting down one of your points, asking an excellent question that you don't want to confront or providing links showing PROOF to what I just said [Ex: when you claimed the McCormick Center was a universal collapse, when actually it was NOT, it was just a major ROOF collapse, but all sides of it remained standing]. This you ignored over and over and over and over and over---and you deemed it "irrelevant". LOL

the_last_name_left said...

And just to be clear - I would rather people posted comments than not. I am happy to receive criticism - you can criticise all you like.

All you need do is play ball.....

Hell, I let Curt Maynard post, yet no-one would dispute my opposition to his views.

I was thinking about Maynard the other night, about how he was least honest and open about his prejudices. He wasn't a crypto - rather he gave full vent to his apparent beliefs.

That's far more respectable and straightforward than all these cryptos and false liberal/lefties whom lie to others or deceive themselves about their own anti-social views.

But Maynard made it easy to discredit himself. The exact reason cryptos don't do it - the exact reason why cryptos are....crypto.

It's the same reason why they don't like it being exposed.

The same reason they try to delete it and rubbish it wherever it's shown......

the_last_name_left said...

Larry - stick to the point.

Your concerns are noted - they are published right there.

Now stick to the point, else you are immediately being disruptive.

Real Truth Online said...

How does you just posting words PROVE they were deleted? Where's the screenshots? Where's the proof the comments were once there and then removed? You just posted WORDS and tell us they were deleted!

That's not PROOF. I could post on my blog that you said you fuck donkeys in the ass and just type the WORDS, but where would my PROOF be?

Real Truth Online said...

"Larry - stick to the point.

Your concerns are noted - they are published right there.

Now stick to the point, else you are immediately being disruptive."

I wasn't sticking to the point by DIRECTLY responding to your post??? I even INCLUDED a portion of YOUR post in my response! How is that NOT "sticking to the point"?

Real Truth Online said...

Another question: Why do you associate with Socrates, an admitted "conspiracy nut"? He believes the JFK assassination was a conspiracy and he believes in chemtrails. I posted this to him under your most recent post and naturally he won't answer my question.

How many conspiracy beliefs does it take to call someone a conspiracy nut? Obviously more than TWO, right?

the_last_name_left said...

Where's the proof the comments were once there and then removed?

Well, indeed - that's the entire point of censorship, isn't it?

The remnants reveal someone was disappeared - Joe Public has been disappeared.

Something can be inferred about JP from what remains.

However, I do have the full posts there's some very good evidence.

There were over 100 comments before it was culled down to about 70 I think. I have all of them, or near-enough, in original format. Blogger doesn't make it nice to display. I can easily make it available for d/l though, if anyone is at all interested.

A proper forum makes this sort of thing much easier.

Real Truth Online said...

How in the hell was that an answer to my question? It wasn't. It was just a bunch of mumbo-jumbo. Where's the screenshots of your comments THERE and the GONE? No PROOF?

the_last_name_left said...

As for Socrates' chemtrails stuff.....well, I don't agree with it, and he knows. I choose not to engage with it - just as I don't with JFK stuff. We can agree to disagree, you's not so tough, really?

the_last_name_left said...

Some screenies added

Real Truth Online said...

"As for Socrates' chemtrails stuff.....well, I don't agree with it, and he knows. I choose not to engage with it - just as I don't with JFK stuff. We can agree to disagree, you's not so tough, really?"

because u cant debunk it?

Besides, my point was: you call me the conspiracy nut, but not him?

Now why is that?

socrates said...

TLNL, I'm very tired and have a lot of food on my plate to deal with. But I do appreciate you adding the screenshots. I would like to revisit this topic at some point, time permitting.

I personally believe a bit of off-topic in any thread is doable and should even be encouraged. But the extent that Larry hijacks threads is ridiculous.

As for chemtrails, I have nothing in common with the nutties who speak of mind control, depopulation, and other crap.

My focus was on chemtrails as weather modification and uv-b ray protection.

My aircraft wings forum speaks for itself.

My take is this. Both myself and TLNL got into discovering internet convolution, after we had both thought certain fishy things were going on. TLNL thought there could be something to Sept. 11th conspiracy theory. Myself the other one. I just happen to still believe there is something fishy going on and he doesn't.

We have more in common than not, so we were able to get past a very rocky start. He knows what I went though. This sock puppet allegation nonsense is nothing new. He knows I was put through the wash cycle, and that's why I had some bad days and didn't treat him as good as I should have.

A true troll is someone like Larry who never gives it a rest.

the_last_name_left said...

Is chemtrail stuff a conspiracy theory? It certainly could be as I suppose anything could be treated as a conspiracy, and regarded from a 'conspiracist perspective'?

But if it is 'conspiracy theory', is it one that Larry doesn't believe?

Have we found one? ;)

the_last_name_left said...

Socrates, you noticed Anders Preivik howled about The Frankfurt School. Any thoughts?

socrates said...

I don't like the "conspiracy theory" mentality. It is different from acknowledging that conspiracies exist. It's tough to put into words, at least for me. It's like you know it when you see it.

If one looks at my slant on "chemtrails" they will see that I don't link to conspiracy websites. Well I do in the lower subforum, but not so much in the top bread and butter one.

I respect that you don't believe in them and are not even interested in covering it as a topic. What I did was look for facts. There are patents for such devices to be appended to aircraft. Climate change is claimed as an issue of national security. Climate change is real. Holes in the ozone layer do exist. Plans for geoengineering are fact. At a minimum, I have proven that chemtrails are not akin to saying the moon is made out of cheese or that we never landed on the moon.

Of course Larry believes in chemtrails. However, the sources he would use to argue them are of the kooky variety.

To the Larry's of the world, they do not care how they look to others. They do not consider how their so-called theories make it easier for fence-sitters and newbies to totally dismiss the subject as just another kooky "conspiracy theory" topic.

TLNL, I never heard of that person you mentioned. But I have seen a number of times at the kooky websites mention of The Frankfurt School as being an agent of communism.

Maybe that's because many of their original members were Jews. Some of the greatest thinkers in History were members of that school of thought. It is known as critical theory. They were equal opportunists when it came to studying West versus East. They were psyched to get away from Hitler, and they had no fondness for Stalin or communism. They were socialist humanists like yourself.

They were excited to get to America. However, they were shocked at what they found. Marcuse wrote about the military-industrial complex. Walter Benjamin spoke of the Culture Industry. They were cool cats. They were like the Godard of Sociology. The Frankfurt School was the most significant school of thought to emerge in Sociology since the classical Big Three of Marx, Durkheim, and Max Weber. They are still the measuring stick for anyone to research and write about social reality.

the_last_name_left said...

thanks for all that. Walter Benjamin I have heard about, from a 'Marxism' lecture -

A great site that, a lesson for all the yanks trying to flog all their analysis and "solutions" for hard cash. [If it's so important, why not give it away?]

Anyway, the Breivik guy is the Norwegian dude who shot all those people after bombing the government offices. (y - Breivik, not Preivik, sorry)

His manifesto is laced with rage against 'cultural marxism' - Frankfurt School. He thinks they "won" and have ruined everything. Kinda like the Birchers with communism, perhaps.

Benjamin was ...IIRC....hounded to his suicide. I liked what I heard from Benjamin - though it's over my head, tbh. That's why I like those conferences so much - they explain those very clever peoples' ideas at a level I can perhaps understand. ;)

As I understand it, whilst crude Marxism would say culture is a product of material relations of society, the Frankfurt School saw that as deficient, or impossible to achieve (?) or....something....and rather concentrated on culture with the emphasis on culture as material, I suppose, and its power of transformation. Which is kinda arse-backwards for Marxism, isn't it?

It's just that Breivik had it as perhaps his central target in his "maniifesto".

If Frankfurt crowd are as dominant in sociology as you suggest, perhaps we can simplify his target as "sociology types". hehe.

I suspect the dude has no real knowledge of "cultural marxism", I imagine he's got it all of the web, the usual sort of trashy, rightwing criticisms which proliferate.

I just wondered if you'd thought the same, but maybe you haven't seen his criticisms. It's distasteful to examine his stuff after he killed all those people....I don't know if I can even look into it.... because he's the cause.....

Huge document too. A prolific nut. Great.

the_last_name_left said...

oh, y, and on chemtrails, I should add that I see every plane flight as poison anyway (regular exhaust fumes are 'poison').

My sky is always full of their stupid trails too - reminding me of their poison and blighting my blue sky. And making a noise. I suffer all that just so they can fly right past? Great. Get down! Fuck off out the sky!!! WTF are you doing so urgently that demands you be up there at all? Crazy.

socrates said...

Aaah. For the most part, I am out of the loop for current events. I've developed a hardcore nihilism.

Though my mind is saying blog... While you are inspiring me to write... I'm having trouble getting back up to previous speed.

Like I said, I have noticed a bit of the kooky right attacking the Frankfurt School.

It threw me off, for I couldn't imagine why they would go there. I saw no blockquotes or even a hint of effort to justify the claim. It's similar to when they label Obama a socialist or Hitler too. While we know such statements couldn't be farther from the truth, there they are.

I didn't study much of Benjamin but was aware of him. I got into Erich Fromm the most in terms of Frankfurt School thinkers. Marcuse made a lot of sense too.

Here's the bare skeleton. I think I briefly spelled this out a long time ago, much more than I did above. Comte coined the word sociology. He isn't acknowledged as being too important. To repeat, the three classical sociologists were Durkheim, Durkhein, and Weber.

Durkheim covered the cultural angle. Marx dealt primarily in viewing the world through economics. Weber is considered the best of the bunch because he synthesized both approaches. Look at his Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. He wrote that cultural values such as hard work, frugality, and spirituality fueld capitalistic growth. He said that when the original intent was lost, we were left in an iron cage.

The Frankfurt School basically took that football from Weber and ran with it.

True thinkers do not reinvent wheels. They study past ideas, break them down into exegeses. They create what is termed social reconstructions through which their own contribution is tacked on.

Right wing elements of the kooky internet who attack such thinkers are not worthy of much attention. We have noted them, and let's face it, they are time wasters. I'm not saying don't keep doing what you do. I personally like your schtick. I wish I had more time to participate. Maybe in the future I will.

I wouldn't mind seeing what his criticisms are of the Frankfurt School. Then perhaps we could come up with a theory of what the heck inspired such numbnuts to write such things. I'm amazed they have even heard of the Frankfurt School.

Yes, they are basically attacking Sociology in and of itself. There are other schools of it, but Critical Theory is the kingpin. We'd have to delve into positive and the enlightenment and some philosophy to further that part of the discussion.

socrates said...

I hear you on how aircraft pollution beyond the chemtrail conspiracy theory is an important topic in and of itself. There needs to be a Manhattan Project for clean energy. I'm not sure it's even possible, but I'm no scientist. If it isn't, we have to figure out how to get people to see we need fundamental change in how society is structured. As in, how do we get masses of people to change their living habits? A key solution might be to outlaw private ownership of cars and create public transit run on clean energy. But this is pie in the sky thinking. It may be the right move to make, but it seems impossible to implement. It makes too much sense. It is utopic. We seem destined to destroy this planet. It's only a matter of centuries unless a miracle takes place. BecaUSE of things like this, I haven't much hope for the human race.

socrates said...

Oops, I should have proofread. I wrote Durkheim twice, when I meant Karl Marx.

socrates said...

Another typo sorry. I meant positivism instead of positive.

socrates said...

My best writing is freeform. My propensity to not proofread is backfiring. I have no clue why i wrote because as becaUSE.