THE NEW MEDIA POST

Save The World Radio

2010-12-20T23:21:00.000-08:00

Save The World Radio 8

2010-10-11T13:25:00.000-07:00

Save The World Radio 7

2010-08-26T21:56:00.001-07:00

Save The World Radio promotional flyer

2010-08-16T17:20:00.000-07:00

Official Save The World Radio promotion flyer. Pass it on.

Save The World Radio 6

2010-08-02T08:30:00.000-07:00

In this installment we're joined by Bill Sovereignsky, from the Common Sense radio show, on WNJC 1360 AM, 6 - 7 pm.

The Gibroney Hunter VS Illegal Immigration

2010-07-24T10:44:00.000-07:00

Illegal immigration is a peculiar issue. Peculiar to the United
States in the size and scope to which the problem has intentionally
been allowed to grow. Immigration is an issue faced by every
developed nation, and often it's a source of tension and state
sponsored racism throughout a society. Illegal immigration on a
massive scale, however, is a problem faced only by the United States.

To be sure, the problem is faced by other nations. Germany, for
example, has a population of over one million illegal immigrants from
Africa. But with an estimated 20 million illegal immigrants, the U.S
clearly faces a unique problem.

Especially frustrating is the fact that we, like every other sovereign
nation of the world, do indeed have adequate laws in place to deal
with this issue before it would have reached the point of being
critical. They're just not enforced. Federal attempts to secure our
borders from trespassers amount to little more than theater, and law
enforcement actions that would truly be effective as a deterrent, like
the prosecution of the employers, is seldom seen.

This defies logic. The employers are the ones with something to
lose. The employers are the ones with assets to be seized, and
businesses to keep running. They're the ones for whom a court date
would be a real problem. For the people who just risked starvation or
worse, just to get here, the prospect of waiting around in jail while
being processed through the system is far from a worst case scenario.

Indeed, it would seem that with every aspect of this issue there can
be found a common and disturbing theme, that of intentionally
avoiding, delaying, and generally thwarting every attempt to
effectively and sanely address it. Victims of the "right" of the false
left-right paradigm find themselves behaving like absolute children,
building a jury rigged wall along a tiny portion of our unchecked
southern border. And victims of the left side of the same scam find
themselves in the intellectually embarrassing position of suggesting
that we dump tens of millions of slave laborers into an already dying
economy, a socioeconomic chess move that anyone who's taken high
school economics should be able to recognize as foolish.

So no one's bringing anything but shit to the table. One of the few
things about this issue that is crystal clear to me is the fact that
none of the manipulative people and organizations involved in putting
forward such ludicrous and brain dead responses to this problem are in
the least bit interested in seeing it resolved.

One of the common claims by the people who are anti-border is that
illegal immigrants only take jobs Americans don't want. This
statement is only half true. Americans don't want to perform these
tasks for the pay being offered, that is true. But it's simply
preposterous to refer to these "opportunities" as jobs. Call them
what they are. Slave labor. If it is the contention of zombies on
the left that Americans are unwilling to become slaves, then they are
correct. It is a chilling glimpse at the perverse mindset of many who
would put forward the belief that not wanting to live like a brutally
overworked peasant, and the desire to have a dignified and healthy
standard of living, somehow makes Americans arrogant or lazy. Quite
the opposite is true. It is precisely this stubborn and proud refusal
to be reduced to what we were before the revolution that makes this
country, still, even in this dark hour, the world's last best hope for
true freedom.

(..to be continued)

Terri Gross is part of the problem.

2010-07-12T11:59:00.000-07:00

Tell me, Terri Gross, what am I supposed to be afraid of today? Is it Iran? McTerrorists? Or maybe the militia, or those crazy conspiracy theorists who want to murder me? I'm sure you know.. after all, your voice.. it's your voice.. It's just so soothing to my deprived, subdued ego.. I need to believe, Terri..... I need to believe that you and those like you are holding things together..

Suck me in with the good natured discussions with actors.. talk about their philosophies toward the art of acting, and entertainment.. then tomorrow have the hatemonger author on who tells me why I should hate Iran, or other strangers that have never wronged me. That doesn't make you part of the problem, or anything. It's not as if in certain ways, you're exponentially worse than your louder friends over at Fox News. You are such a piece of crap, Terri. There's a reason God cursed you with such a hideous physical form, buck teeth and glasses and all.. because inside, that's what you look like. A gangly, fawning sycophant who couldn't possibly conceive of the concept of breaching the script, or stopping the Satanic mind-fuck that you perpetrate on people every day on NPR. Can't believe I fell for you for so many years. What a whore you are.

"Thieves could go free while victim faces jail time."

2010-07-08T06:54:00.000-07:00

The two illegal immigrants can be charged in American courts for theft, but that's just not profitable to the criminal federal government. Since most illegal immigrants can't and won't pay court fees, hire lawyers, etc.. But the old man can. He has property and assets to be seized, or at least used up by the phony court proceedings. This is how the federal government pries into your life and dissolves it from the inside out. They prey on the weak.. the old, the young and neglected..

2010-06-18T16:27:00.001-07:00

This gibroney's living in a fantasy world. Jon Stewart's criticism is incorrect? How about the renewal of the Patriot Act, fatso? Funny how you didn't mention that. That was the precise moment at which you were officially a retard for still supporting Obama.

Bill Gates Punks the Truth Movement, Whether He Meant To or Not

2010-06-13T23:54:00.000-07:00

I don't like Bill Gates. I don't trust him, or his glasses, or his sweaters. Even setting aside his Eugenicist ties, and transparently criminal "charity" organizations, there's still the fact that he's a nerdy asshole who somehow tricked the world into purchasing his inferior, and oftentimes criminally deficient computer products.

But no matter how strong the stench of cowardly sin emanating from Gates, it doesn't change the fact that he succeeded in punking (albeit probably in an inadvertent manner) some of the less bright members of the "truth" community with his recent comments regarding vaccines and population reduction.
Let's examine his comments word for word:
"If we do a really good job with new vaccines we could reduce [the population] by 10 to 15 percent."

Obviously what Gates is trying to say is that he believes vaccines save childrens lives, and administering them in the third world will reduce child mortality significantly enough so that people will not feel the same need to give birth to 6 to 8 children, a decision currently fueled by the likelihood that more than half of them will succumb to disease before the age of 10.

While I disagree with Gates that vaccines, rather than proper nutrition and sanitation, will have this effect, he is right about the effect in itself. When living standards increase to a healthy level, the phenomenon of giving birth to excessive amounts of children for security's sake does cease.

But the fearmongerers and alarmists within the truth movement are seemingly unable to grasp this simple point. To them, Gates' words are interpreted as a slip-up. A sudden and shocking admission of his hidden and dark ambitions.

First of all, he's not that stupid, and you're stupid if you think he's that stupid. Second of all, there's a pretty good chance that Gates, like the rest of the majority of people, is being taken for a ride, and is simply speaking naively, rather than cynically, regarding vaccines.

An incomplete list of people within the movement who are apparently either stupid enough, or in need enough of attention, to sloppily and irresponsily present Bill Gates' statements:

Alex Jones
Jack Blood
Mike Rivero
James Corbett

Beware of these buttholes. All of them are good people with good intentions, but beware of their capacity for grasping at straws for the sake of ratings or website hits.

There is more than enough real evidence of eugenicists and their nightmarish plans for the human race. There is simply no need to try to make something out of nothing by intentionally misinterpreting a quote, thereby providing ammunition for detractors who are already all too anxious to dismiss us as presumptuous paranoids.

Wise up, truth movement. You just punked yourselves.

Racists Go Home

2010-06-13T17:42:00.000-07:00

David Duke's another shill and weasel, just like Farakhan. Another racist half-truth huckster, not to be trusted. The Jewish people are just another group of human beings, used and manipulated by the New World Order, into carrying out much of their dirty work. Oliver North is not a Jew. Dick Cheney is not a Jew. Al Gore is not a Jew. The Spanish Conquistadors were not Jewish. The FreeMasons are remarkably non-Jewish, in membership and philosophy.

To hate Jewish people for the acts of Zionists within their government makes about as much sense as hating Americans for the actions of Neocons.

So Jewish people can erect minorahs on public or federal property, but Christians can't? Alright, I'll just go ahead and tell ya. I think that's bullshit. Do you know of any examples of this being the case? Are there any examples of Christians being told to go home while Jewish people were welcomed to display their religious symbols? The video you posted didn't provide any whatsoever. Which is strange, because if there were actual examples of this, and if it weren't just a hateful, cynical lie being told by David Duke.. you'd think he would have.. shit, I dunno.. mentioned them, maybe?

This entire production is geared toward hatred and conflict. The entire latter part of it is merely David Duke quoting other dumb racists on the other side of the fence.

Jews "run" Hollywood? Really? What about: Martin Scorcese, George Lucas, Walt Disney, Rupert Murdoch, Frances Ford Coppolla, Kevin Smith, M. Knight Shamalon, Clint Eastwood, Matt Groening ?

Zionism is only part of this. This is apparent to everyone who isn't racist.

Disinformation.com: 70% hacky bullshit, 30% tame flirting with taboo topics

2010-05-27T20:31:00.000-07:00

I think Disinformation likes to milk the term "conspiracy theory," while offering relatively little of the facts and information that back some of them up. Quit coddling the mainstream, Disinfo. It's no longer necessary.

http://www.disinfo.com/2010/05/pakistan-and-conspiracy-theory/

A Visit From Our Possible Future

2010-05-21T11:44:00.000-07:00

Mexican dictator Felipe Calderon lectures the U.S for not having stricter gun laws, meanwhile more people die from guns in his own country, which has enacted a "total gun ban."

He then criticizes the Arizona immigration bill, while his own country maintains a much more aggressive illegal immigrant policy toward Guatemala, and central/south America.

While senator Lieberman proposes legislation to strip Americans of their citizenship and detain them indefinitely in places like Guantanamo, McLiberals everywhere are up in arms because illegal immigrants in Arizona are being asked for their I.D

Dr. Wakefield

2010-05-19T20:43:00.000-07:00

http://darryl-cunningham.blogspot.com/2010/05/facts-in-case-of-dr-andrew-wakefield.html

The standards for conflicts of interest were different in '98. That's why Wakefield didn't disclose the fact that he was involved with litigation. Was it the right thing to do? Probably not. I advocate being as honest as possible in as many situations as possible. But the $68,000 question is did he violate the rules for conflict of interest within the scientific community at the time? And the answer's no. The real breach of ethics lies with the "scientists" who broke their own rules by applying the current standard for conflict of interest retroactively.

Also, the tests on the children were approved in '96, but because they didn't take place until '98, the people in charge of this witch hunt had enough ambiguity on their side to claim that this was another breach of ethics. It was not.

Another bit of nonsense here, is the assertion that these studies have been accurately reproduced. They have not. While studies involving the comparison of children with and without the MMR vaccine took place, and did indeed find no correlation between the shot and autism, the method of using only test subjects for whom said symptoms were reported, as was the case for the Wakefield report, has not been replicated.

There are, however, many examples of what I would call nature's own double blind studies, that support the claims of Dr Wakefield. Here's one: There are zero (0) reported cases of autism within Amish communities in the northeast. This is striking because, location wise, the Amish are in the heart of "autism country". Obviously Amish children receive no vaccinations, yet are among the healthiest in America.. and %100 autism free. They also don't suffer from any measles outbreaks, as your little cartoon vaguely and baselessly alluded to. The drawings are fitting, though. Certainly reflective of the level of maturity associated with blind faith in science, and denial of the blatant reality that it, too, can be corrupted.

The Gibroney Hunter VS The Hutch: Global Warming (2)

2010-05-17T23:50:00.000-07:00

The Hutch: NASA: hottest April (and hottest Jan-Apr) since we started tracking. Will Fox News bother reporting this? http://bit.ly/d6zzy6

The Gibroney Hunter: So record snowfalls in winter mean nothing, yet a statistically hot month is supposed to prove something? I love it. Classic Hutch tail-chasing. The reality is that neither of these facts really mean anything, in terms of proving or denying "climate change" (something that has always and will always occur on our planet).

And really, if you're going to let Anne "the cunt" Coulter be the authority on ANY issue, then you're probably beyond any sort of help.

Temperatures have been declining since 2002. This fact directly contradicts official global warming theory, since according to the (demonstrably fraudulent) models temperatures should only be steadily increasing, since after all, our rate of consumption for fossil fuels is consistently increasing. A nearly decade-long decline in temps becomes problematic, if we're to believe that human-caused greenhouse gasses (which amount to only 3% of all greenhouse gasses) were the driving force behind temperature increases during the nineties.

Surely, you must find it curious that of all the many steps that could be taken to address environmental degradation, the only thing being hyped by the sellout media is this vague banner-waving over pseudoscientific claims, meant only to push through legislation for political purposes, not environmental. The establishment would much rather you waste your time with nonsense like "climate change" (or the artist formerly known as "global warming") than focus on real environmental issues, like cleaning up our air water and food. (which ironically has been tainted by the very same corporate interests now selling you global warming, with billions in funding)

I'll leave you with one more inconvenient truth: recently scientists discovered the fossilized remains of trees within certain glaciers, dating back to the mideival warming period. The same medieval warming period that global warming advocates claim didn't exist. This would seem to indicate that not only were temperatures significantly warmer then than they are now, but they were so much warmer as to actually turn what are now glaciers into forest. Maybe it was all the methane from their horses.. or maybe those co2 emitting wheelbarrows.

The IPCC = The InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change. A political body, not a scientific one.

The Hutch: Statistically hot _year_. Read the friggin' article. We're talking about climate, here. Not weather. Weather is localized. Climate is global. It reflects a larger period of time, not isolated patterns. One of the hallmarks of greenhouse gas heat entrapment is that all sorts of things go out of wack as weather patterns change. So while the ... See Moreoverall amount of heat being trapped in our atmosphere increased overall, the pressure systems that control the flow of hot and cool air over the surface of the earth caused desertification in some parts of the world, and massive snowstorms in others. The end results? CLIMATE CHANGE. On a long enough time line? The globe warms. One might be so inclined as to call it "global warming."

Oh, and that glacier forest thing? Yeah, I read alla bout that. The scientists who discovered them point them as evidence of artificial global warming! But you've already made up your mind, Lou. Global Warming is just another way the government is out to get us all. The very idea the a government body is supposed to exist to help us is all the proof you need. And like Darren alluded to, any facts that dispute what you believe aren't to be trusted. So it goes.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081204133853.htm

The Gibroney Hunter: That's not the "discovery of tree remains" that I'm referring to.

http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/studies/l1_piancabella.php

Guess you haven't read all about it...

As I said, these recent findings are dated back to the MEDIEVAL warming period (roughly 1000-1300 a.d) not 7,000+ years ago, and strongly indicate that overall temperatures in the area were warmer than in the second half of the twentieth century.

Jan-April is a year?

"The very idea the a government body is supposed to exist to help us is all the proof you need."

Actually, this was the last point that was made, after listing multiple facts supporting my opinion. The fact that you're so closed-minded as to make such an obnoxiously false statement like, is further indication that you're more content to feel like you're right, than to actually do the homework necessary to have any sort of real confidence in your opinions. Also, it's not the fact that the IPCC is a governmental body that causes me the most concern. It's more from facts like, i dunno.. shucks.. like, for example, that they've been exposed as intentionally HIDING the declines in temps since 2002 in their statistical models. How you can rationalize this as anything other than criminally fraudulent behavior, I have no idea. Must require some real mental acrobatics.

And that really cuts the heart of it, doesn't it? No matter what evidence is presented to you, your response is to ignore it, and, like some sort of computer program with a gliche, simply repeat the mantra "you've presented no evidence."

You are aware that there's this other course of action you could take, called responding.. to counterarguments, correct?

"Climate is global. It reflects a larger period of time, not isolated patterns."

How long? How long do our records of climate go back? I'll give you a hint: nowhere near far enough to confidently state that this year is the hottest ever. You can say "hottest on record" and call it a day, as you McLiberals are fond of doing, but what you should really be saying is "hottest, based on our woefully brief and inadequate record"

Iraq-style S.W.A.T team raids in the U.S, over tiny amounts of marijuana.

2010-05-07T12:16:00.000-07:00

Most people would feel like a piece of shit lowlife after getting a bunch of their buddies together to break into a stranger's house, hold them down and force their child to watch their dog get shot to death. Not these cops though. They seem to enjoy it.

Over a plant. Over a plant. Over a plant! The only people behaving like crazy people and destabilizing society are the cops (most of whom do drugs themselves anyway)
When the people of this country finally wake up, gang members like these cops will be brought to trial for their crimes against our Republic.

The elite get off on making you laugh along with them at their satanic jokes.

2010-05-07T10:25:00.000-07:00

Hahah! See, it's funny cuz Obama's actually overseeing two illegal wars in which predator drones really ARE killing children on a regular basis! HAH! Soo hilarious!! Armchair Liberals are now chuckling along with the same tasteless jokes that would have had them oh so upset when the previous puppet president was in office! The only thing funnier than this joke is our inability to realize that Obama and Bush are identical! LMAO!

Save The World Radio - 1

2010-04-14T17:21:00.001-07:00

The Gibroney Hunter VS The Hutch: Wikileaks

2010-04-09T07:43:00.000-07:00

The Hutch: While I LOVE wikileaks and everything they stand for, this whole thing is absurd. I've been following it on reddit since they first started leaking leaks about the leak and leaking leaks about the leaks about the leak and then they go and call the thing "COLLATERAL MURDER" and if you actually watch the video, the soliders are, for the most part, in... See More the clear and acted accordingly.

I think the real story is that the military lied about what happened when they should have just released the initial report. The journalists weren't wearing anything to indicate that they were journalists and they were standing aorund with dudes holding AKs and RPGs which you can clearly see in the video. Whether or not is was the right military decision in hindsight is obvious. But if I were in that helicopter, I might have shot after I saw some dude point a goddam cylinder at me from around a corner.

So why did the military cover it up in the first place? And why does Wikileaks think this video is worse than anything we've already seen from this war?

The Gibroney Hunter: You may possibly be the most woefully misguided individual I've ever encountered. No, John, shooting a man to death while he's bleeding out and crawling and unarmed is not "acting accordingly," not even for the "most part." Neither is shooting the van of journalists and children who desperately try to save the guys life as he crawls through the streets. Your barbaric defense of the pointless murder of these innocent people is testament to just how desensitized you've become, along with many of your fellow lemmings.

The murderer in the helicopter even ADMITS they're not "acting accordingly" (which is a ridiculous statement [but not surprising, coming froma McLiberal] since the entire invasion is illegitimate, therefore NONE of our military's actions in Iraq can be considered "acting accordingly") when he says "c'mon, buddy, all you gotta do is pick up a weapon."

He says this because the rules of war are that you do not shoot a mortally wounded unarmed man when he is crawling away like a dog, desperately trying to escape. And you don't shoot anyone attempting to aid the wounded, unless they are also involved in hostile actions. ... See More

At what point in this video do you see people holding RPGs? I don't see any weapons, either, but that's a ridiculous statement because finding someone holding a weapon in a middle eastern country is like finding someone wearing a phillies hat in south jersey. Not very hard to do. But where's the RPG you're speaking of, John? Did you see it yourself, or are you just parroting that from the mainstream media, who've been lying about the video, while NOT showing it to their audience.

The mainstream media, who's withering teat you suckle from daily, can propagandize you daily about Iran and why we need to bomb them, or Iraq back in '03, and you gobble it down like a happy piglet. But when independent media use similar techniques to hype a story, you cry fowl. Do I enjoy the 'business side' of releasing another U.S military sponsored snuff film? No. But you're simply doing what so many other goons in the mainstream media have done, which is to ignore the illegal mass murder they just witnessed, and focus on the PRESENTATION of the video of the murders. Because in our sick culture, image is everything. Lowlives within the mainstream media are more upset at wikilieaks for showing us, than at the criminal actions of their military.

I have no doubt that you would fire the shot from that helicopter, John. Which, quite frankly, is why I'm perplexed at your incessant attempts to portray yourself as a liberal. You do remember that your hero Obama told us he was AGAINST this war, do you not? You are aware that you sound exactly like a Bush supporter 3 years ago in your defense of OBVIOUS murder, are you not?

And really, your own words serve as a much clearer portrayal of your flabbergasting hypocrisy than anything else. Is this where you saw yourself a year and a half ago, when pulling the lever for Obama? STILL insanely defending acts of aggression against civilians and children in a war that no one believes in, not even most of the 18 year olds being tricked into fighting it?

Supporting Obama = Supporting the Iraq war. Up = Down. Ignorance = strength. Killing children = Patriotism.

Show me the RPG. Find it in the video and give me the minute count, so i can check it. There is no RPG. There are no weapons. You're either lying or simply repeating what the MSM told you. This isn't acting accordingly. This is shooting a group of people to death because you're bored. And your defense of it is nothing short of despicable.

The Hutch:

http://i.imgur.com/twrSH.jpg

Watch the video again. You can see weapons.

The man on the ground bleeding out is also reportedly on top of an RPG. Can't see anything in the video, but it's _possible_ the gunners did see something.... See More

Look, we shouldn't have been there in the first place. If this video is an indictment of anything, it's how the whole thing is a giant clusterfuck and how war causes the death of innocent people trying to defend their land. I want out of there immediately. But let's stick to known facts. There are COUNTLESS to choose from happening every day. This video? This video is a macguffin. It's a distraction. Right or wrong, it's defendable because we DON'T know what's truly in that video and no matter how loud or ranty or insulting you get, Lou, you still don't know exactly what happened in that video.

And I gotta say, Lou, your outright refusal to even lend a second though to the possibility that you might be wrong, even when you know relatively fuck all about the things you speak about... it's kind of infuriating. Take it down a notch, man. You don't know as much as you think you know.

Furthermore, don't act like my stance on this horrible war is any more contemptible than your own. Neither of us are out on the streets demanding it's end, so neither of us has a right to throw stones.

The Gibroney Hunter: Actually, dude, when you defend the obvious murder of unarmed civilians (i did watch the video again. There is no RPG. Only camera equipment not being handled in any way that could be confused as setting up an RPG, and i see no other weapons, but even if they were holding rifles, that is not in itself a reason to attack with heavy artillery from a gunship) i feel the need to take it up a notch or two.

You continually mistake me pointing out how explicitly wrong you are about certain things as being unwilling to "lend a second thought." But when all you're bringing to the table is the diversionary technique of shooting the messenger (wikileaks) and some ridiculous recitation of the outright lie that the man bleeding to death and crawling is "also reportedly ontop of an RPG", it shouldn't be a surprise when I speak confidently, since in this case, every bit of the evidence is in my favor. The whole friggin world knows what this was: Murder. Only the most deluded here at home are brainwashed enough to argue otherwise. You can rationalize the murder. You can not blame the troops for the murder. Shit, dude, you can even be GLAD about the murders, as some hateful people have expressed through website comments. But one thing you cannot do, at least according to the laws of reality and sanity, is claim that what we witnessed was not murder. It was. There's simply no way around that one.

Statements like that make me feel the need to ask if you actually did watch this video, as the "man bleeding out" is Reuters journalist Namir Noor-Eldeen, and he is clearly not hiding an RPG while dying. This is made abundantly clear by the sheer distance he is seen crawling. In this disgusting video he is seen crawling down a good portion of the street. It is abundantly clear that there is nothing but the road beneath him, not like he would have had the strength to hide a ROCKET LAUNCHER in his condition anyway. Also, what is it that you're suggesting? That a Reuters journalist had a side gig as a rocket shooting al qaeda terrorist? Get real.... See More

And I'm sorry, but defending shooting at vans full of children attempting to rescue unarmed wounded men IS more contemptible than not defending shooting at vans full of children attempting to rescue unarmed wounded men.

What happened is clear. These kids were bored and the spotting of some machinery, any machinery (in this case camera equipment) being operated was enough of an excuse for them to kill some people for entertainment's sake.

But let's take seriously for a moment the ridiculous claim that these soldiers could have mistaken this camera for an RPG and felt so threatened by a man holding a rifle loosely in one hand, in no way intending to use it, and actually behaving exactly as one would while providing light security for a journalist. Why did they murder the unarmed journalist? Why did they shoot the minivan that was clearly there to try to rescue the man, and made no attempt to perform hostile actions against U.S forces? Why did they refuse to take the two severely wounded CHILDREN to a U.S military hospital? Remember all the propaganda during the beginning of this war, about how our good ole boys treat all wounded the same, and actually fight for the lives of their enemies just as hard? Right.

When the ground troops arrived (the ones who actually have to SEE what they've done, not just play the real-life-video game) they say "you shot kids" and want to evac them to a military hospital. The boys back in the gunship say no, and explain that "well, they shouldn't have brought their kids into a combat zone then"

The kids had actually been rescued from an earlier violent incident by the journalists. That's why they were in the van.

If me presenting arguments and backing them up with facts is so infuriating for you, I don't know what to tell you. Being unbiased does not mean ignoring obvious fact. During vietnam, our mainstream media, for the longest time, repeated the government-fed lie that various massacres never actually happened, even though all of the independent evidence available suggested otherwise. This is what passes for journalistic objectivity in our culture. Making sure the Establishment's perspective is highlighted and emphasized, no matter how much it clashes with the undeniable reality.

What would Bill Hicks think about bible thumping within the Truth Movement?

2010-03-29T06:48:00.000-07:00

Why should they "make it hard" for people to have abortions? Hate to burst your holy rolling bubble, but abortions have been performed for thousands of years and are a part of human behavior. Even the Catholics were tolerant of abortion for most of their history, until the modern hyper-politicized version of the issue. Eugenics is real, no doubt. But forcing people onto welfare because of children they cant provide for, is a far more valuable tool of control for these Globalists than abortion clinics. There are 500,000 orphans in this country and the numbers are growing. If abortion is an illuminati plot, they better pick up the pace.

You bible-thumpers would do well to take a lesson from Barry Goldwater, one of the last true conservatives in this country, who actually took seriously the conservative notion that government should interfere with you and your family as little as possible. While personally opposed to abortion, Goldwater understood that forming the Abortion Police, armed and ready to force women, literally if necessary, to give birth to children they can't provide for, was not the place of government. It seems entirely lost on most "conservatives" that the truly conservative perspective is pro-choice, as one of the pillars of true conservatism is minimization of the necessary evil of central government.

All 500,000 of those orphans are available for adoption, by the way. I'm talking to you, Alex Jones. Take some of your parents' money, which you used to bolster your career, and use it to save a couple of these poor children, whose suffering, through your ideology, you've helped to create.

Another delusion the bible thumping portion of the truth movement suffer from is the belief that women's reproductive freedom, and even woman's suffrage as a whole, are illuminati plots to destroy the family. This is where a firm understanding of the sociopathy of the elite comes in handy. Every single endeavor of the international banking elite is a double edged sword, in that there is the usual damage done to our health, dignity, wallets and sovereignty, but along with it comes the unintended consequences of, and reactions to, their actions. Even a chess move as directly murderous and surgical as 9/11 has had the effect of a mass awakening, which I assure you, is both unexpected and very troublesome for the ruling class.

The point is that there is no such thing as a one sided act of aggression from them. They can make chess moves, and perform shock tests, but there are rules to the game, even when you play on their level. So the likelihood of the hidden hand having its fingers dug into women's suffrage and women's liberation does not mean that they will not ultimately prove to be a step toward progress and a victory for free humanity. Just like the C.I.A's flooding of the "hippie" movement with drugs has no bearing on one's God given right to consume what they choose.

The real reason this issue (which belongs in the family and not in the courtroom)has been thrust upon us is because like gay marriage it has the capability to divide us before we can realize our common ground. Listen to me now, holy rollers: Our opinions on reproductive rights will not matter when we're sitting next to one another in a FEMA camp. Neither will our opinions on gay rights or separation of church and state. Let's address the looming threat of the New World Order before we play into their hands by failing to prioritize our concerns.

The concept of opposing abortion through legislation has been nothing but a trick played on the religious community. The truth is that if you want to end abortions, you must work to strengthen your community and spread your ideals, not through force as you've historically become addicted to doing, but through a strong and healthy community that will attract outsiders into your belief system, not draw them in through court ruling. Bear in mind, Christians, your book says to be fruitful and multiply, not be fruitless and multiply to the point of overflowing orphanages.

The Gibroney Hunter VS The Hutch & Crew: Facebook Battle

2010-03-29T05:44:00.000-07:00

The Hutch: I voted for Obama and all I got was this historic victory on health care :: http://tr.im/SX5A

Hutch's Boy: That's not all you got...You also got the lowest debt rating since the Civil War. Congratulations!!

The Gibroney Hunter: And don't forget a bigger better Patriot Act. You the man, Barry!

The Hutch: Bigger? I thought it was just resigned as the same bill?

In any case, I'll never get the exact president I want nor will you. Guys like **** would take up arms and revolt. Obama is, whether we like it or not, a centrist. Change is gradual. Bitching about it and writing off Obama as some sort of failed fascist solves nothing. All we can do is keep trying to elect more and more progressive politicians each year.

Hutch's Boy: WTF?? Did you just call Obama a centrist? You HAVE to be shitting me. Right now, the Federal government is controlling 48% of the US economy. We are more socialist than almost all of Europe.

Umm, so other than Stalin, who's a leftist to you?

The Gibroney Hunter: First he renewed it, and now recently expanded some of the (illegal and unconstitutional) wiretapping provisions. This isn't about finding your dream president, it's about the fact that Obama very obviously works for the same internationalist criminals that Bush worked for. Most people in this country are so preoccupied with their pathetic search... See More for a national daddy figure that they're not even aware that the constitution very clearly limits the authority of the president. Too bad Barry seems to be following Bush's lead, and executive ordering the fuck out of us until the republic's dead.
Other than the fact that the Huff. Post told you so, why do you find the comparisons between Obama and other totalitarian, fascist leaders so farfetched? Is it the incessant push toward consolidation of power in the hands of a centralized government? Or the maintaining of foreign wars for resources? Or maybe some people have been so effectively brain-neutered by the mainstream media to actually believe that historical precedent no longer applies to us, and that no political and economic predators will ever set their gaze upon us, the special people. I swear, McLiberalism is worse than Christianity sometimes.

Hutch's Boy: Louie, what exactly is your problem with Christianity? Is it the hospitals and charities that dot the world? Or perhaps it is the very notion of liberty which it promotes? Aren't you in favor of such liberties? Remember, without the Declaration, the Constitution is an empty document.

****, I couldn't resist.

The Hutch: By all means, Chris. The only thing I enjoy more than debating with you is watching other people debate with you.

Lout, I'm not sure why you seem to think that taking the most extreme point of view possible and lacking any and all empathy for other mindsets is the best possible path to progress. It's really not that black and white.

The Gibroney Hunter: The bloodsoaked fairytale that is Christianity has crushed human liberty and potential, along with every other state sponsored religion of the world. The amount of children and innocence destroyed by this perverted faith, whether it be the uneducated teenagers tricked into fighting the 'evildoers' in the desert, or the women who are guilt tripped into functioning as broodmares for the state, far outweighs any competition from us heathens. But here's the short answer to your question of what my problem with Christianity is: It isn't true. As in, it is false. The story of jesus predates Jesus by millenia. This means, quite obviously, that the story and character traits of jesus (born of a virgin, etc) were simply prescribed to him, if he even existed at all (which is unlikely since none of the prominent historians of the time mention him as an individual, only as a concept (I.e, "the Christ"). Oh yeah, then there's the whole "priests porking children almost constantly" thing.

Hutch's Boy: The only fairy tales referenced above Louie, are your own. It would be fairly easy to pick them apart piece by piece. Let's first deal with your assertion that Christianity is responsible for more bloodshed than the heathens. Really? Mao, 65million, atheist. Stalin, 45 million, atheist. Hitler: 26 million? (this is off the top of my head) pantheist... See More, which technically qualifies as a heathen. Are you sure you don't want to withdraw that ridiculous comment?

In fact, your comments all have about the same level of credibility. Which religions do you claim predate the tale of Christ? What textual criticisms are you applying to the source documents? Are you willing to apply the same standards to the 45,000 pieces of manuscript evidence related to the NT? I seriously doubt it, as you seem to have an aversion to legitimate scholarly works.

Take some time, do some homework, offer some legitimate facts, not this dribble. Then we can have an honest dialogue, not a rock throwing contest.

The Gibroney Hunter: I'm not taking the most extreme view possible, you've just been trained to believe that anyone who's not regurgitating mainstream media double-speak must be in some way extreme. In reality, your belief that this Obama character came out of nowhere to slay the neocon giants and get this country "back on track" is far more extreme than my sober, fact-based assertion that people and organizations in possession of vast power and resources will do what they must to preserve it, including staging false flag attacks and then propping up a fake liberal president as damage control to pacify an increasingly restless population. My views seem extreme only to the sheltered naifs dependent on the mainstream "go back to sleep" media.

The Gibroney Hunter: I can see that your emotion has you blinded on this issue, which is why I'll simply ignore your limp-wristed criticisms. Those numbers must be off the very tippy top of your head, as you seem to have conveniently omitted some of the biggest, like, for example, the American genocides, all committed in the name of your fictional religion (which if we were to tally up, probably would total close to a half billion people, immediately proving you wrong) or the crusades, or our wars for empire against communism, in which fighting the "godless" commies was a major theme. There are many more examples, but I'm afraid I'm not going to play personal encyclopedia to someone who resorts to the mindless chant "prove it!".. The last refuge if a man who knows he's wrong. My statements are so glaringly obvious as to not require footnotes of citation. If for some reason you're not educated enough to know of Mithra, who was born of a virgin, crucified and resurrected 3 says later, or the Egyptian god Isis, also born of a virgin named Myra and resurrected, or the numerous Hindu gods featuring the same played out story, then I'm afraid you require more assistance than I can provide in facebook comments.

Of course, as a fellow advocate of true science, I'm sure I don't need to remind you that the bible cannot stand independently as an historical text, because of the obvious likelihood of bias. It can reinforce other, well... Real historical texts from the time (of which there are many.. None of which mentioning Jesus) but I don't need to address one word of the NT, since, quite simply, it does not pass the scientific/historical litmus test.

The Hutch: Lou, the difference here, is that while I assert my views and try to defend them where I can or reassess them when I can't, you seem so completely and utterly convinced of what you believe that there's no room for other modes of thinking.

Such certainty in the face of so little actual knowledge (in the Socratic sense, not in the "you're stupid" sense) simply comes off as radical and you do your own positions little service.

Also, Chris, a lot of what Lou is referencing re: the Jesus mythos is in that book I mentioned, Joseph Campbell's Hero of a Thousand Faces. Definitely worth checking out.

The Gibroney Hunter: Actually, places where there are no room for other modes of thinking are, for example, the Huff. Post, who asked Jesse Ventura to write an article for them, then censored him when he discussed 9/11. Or pretty much anywhere else in the mainstream media. I am passionate in my views, but not rigid. I acknowledge that I have been wrong in the past and may be wrong again, like any really honest thinker would. But with that said, your criticism seems to be less about my beliefs per se, and more about the fact that I believe them so passionately.

The Hutch's Boy: Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight...JN 18:36

Louie, are you trying to bully me? LOL...it won't work. Besides, it's entirely ineffective (experience speaking here) and it undermines your credibility. In other words, you are among friends, so relax.

Speaking of your facts...your arguments seem to be schizophrenic and somewhat contradictory. Let's deal with one issue at a time, okay? Your comparison to "US genocide" to the killings of Mao, Stalin and Hitler causes me to chuckle and shudder at the same time. Do you really believe what you said? I did some follow up, and the actual numbers are:

Mao: 50-78 million people murdered
Stalin: 23 million people murdered (including the purges)
Hitler: 12 million people murdered

I'd like to see specific numbers from the "American genocides" and not baseless emotional rants.

But there is another component of your claim that I find curious. Your answer carries with it the assertion that the US is a Christian nation? Wow, you and Pat Robertson have more in common than I thought. Even I don't believe that. It's true that our foundational documents rely heavily on the Bible, but it's actually a compromise between Christians of many denominations, Deists and a few Jewish people.

With regards to the Crusades, or other wars you have pointed to, please note my first sentence. It's Jesus' answer to Pilate when asked if he were a king. Do you see Jesus' reply? How can one possibly claim to fight in the name of Christianity, when Christ disavowed himself of any such action? In fact, he chose NOT to defend himself, when Pilate was desperate for an excuse to let him go.

That's actually an important distinction, when analyzing the Crusades. When the Christians killed in the name of Christ, they did so in direct contradiction to Jesus' life and words. The Muslims, however, were following the exact example of Mohammed himself. Worth noting, I think.

Would you care to address your other points? They also have some glaring difficulties. You should know, Louie, that I haven't stumbled into my set of beliefs. I am also happy to carry this discussion to a deep level, as it is always a learning and enriching experience. Please respond. I'm looking forward to it.

PS...In case you two are interested, the arguments of that book are right out of the French and German Enlightenment movement of the late 18th/early 19th Centuries. Most of their claims held a lot of weight, until the British began archaeological study of Israel. They are actually far less palatable today, but I'd be happy to address them.

The Gibroney Hunter: No, I'm not attempting to bully you through facebook. That would be retarded. If you are being bullied though, it's by facts and reality, not by me.

Why you would chuckle over the mass murder of an estimated 113 million people is beyond me, as it is both unfunny and devastating to your argument, even without the mention of the countless other mass murders and wars committed in the name of god.

I'm not sure what your point is, in engaging in hair-splitting over whether or not our country is officially (whatever that means) Christian, as we all know that god and patriotism are always used as motivators to trick people into fighting in wars. So "officially" Christian or not, your god and bible are an indispensable part of the military industrial complex.

We all know that Jesus was a pacifist. And we all also know that nearly every single one of his followers through the ages have not been. So while your observations comparing muhammad and Jesus are correct, I'm afraid your point is moot, since the end result is the same: people tricked into killing other people because of a book. But while we're comparing the two religions, it's worth noting that the prophet Muhammad has the advantage over Jesus of actually having existed and being a legitimate historical figure. That is also worth noting.

You're not the first to try to dismiss the historical truth about the Jesus story as some fad of the enlightenment, as this period was when these hidden origins of Christianity began to be more widely known. But no amount of archaeological digging can change the widely recognized fact that Jesus is a hybrid of many dieties. I'm curious, what specific artifacts did the British produce that disprove the claim that the Jesus story predates Christianity by millenia?

Hutch's Boy: "And we all also know that nearly every single one of his followers through the ages have not been."

You know, I almost doubted this comment, until I saw the picture of Mother Theresa choking a small Nepali girl for using improper grammar when she begged for bread!

Again, Louie, no credibility. Seriously, you shouldn't throw bombs without knowledge. The church has been engaged in human rights causes since its inception. I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but the #1 casualty of the Roman Catholic Church are Christians. In the case of the RCC, it is primarily a secular humanist political movement, as much as it is about the Christian faith.

" the prophet Muhammad has the advantage over Jesus of actually having existed"

Not a serious scholarly argument, given the massive amount of manuscript evidence from the NT and archaeological evidence supporting the gospel accounts. I will defer to Sir William Ramsay's work on the book of Acts and Luke. There is SERIOUS scholarly work on the subject. Those who claim Jesus to be a mythical historical figure are also big on fake lunar walk claims, as I understand. Seriously, it's just an angry, ignorant position. It ignores all of the rules for textual criticism and the analysis of ancient history.

It's probably a waste of time, but here's a brief defense of the archeological claims. It's footnoted well, so you can find more in-depth work on the subject if you'd like.

http://www.grmi.org/Richard_Riss/evidences/3trust.html

What you cite are recycled arguments that have been TROUNCED years ago, but are being thrown out there again with the hopes that its followers would choose to embrace ignorance than actually check the facts. There is ample archaeological evidence to support the historic veracity of Luke's account. If you'd like, we can go more in depth on this subject.

As to your final point about the story of Jesus predating his birth by millenia? You and I will have little quarrel here, Louie. It's actually the PRIMARY reason I'm a Christian and not merely a convert to Judaism. Jesus' birth, life and resurrection were indeed specifically spelled out in advance of his life. In fact, I think a better argument against the Bible would be if no hybrids of the story could be found in other civilizations, given the Biblical claim of common origin.

The first time we see the prediction of the virgin birth, for example, is in the Garden of Eden. In Genesis Chapter 3:

GE 3:15 And I will put enmity

between you and the woman,

and between your offspring and hers;
he will crush your head,

and you will strike his heel."

The use of the phrase in Hebrew is "seed of the woman" is significant, if you understand it in its context. Only in modern times did Jewish people recognize genealogical lineage through the woman. It was always a patriarchal society (a radical departure is attributable to Christianity, incidentally) an in this context is a direct reference to Eve being a sole progenitor. Worth noting. There are countless other examples from the book of Genesis, whereby the entire gospel message can be derived. But I'm sure you aren't all that well versed on the subject. I'd be happy to enlighten you, if you desire.

The Gibroney Hunter: At this point I'm just amused that you would even attempt to refute the very obvious fact that the vast majority of christians have not practiced pacifism, as Jesus (supposedly) did. The very fact that your rebuttal consists only of a reference to one mother Theresa, is confirmation of how silly your stubborn disagreement on this point is. And let's just skip over any lame response like "yeah but real christians are pacifists." We don't get to cherrypick like that. "real" Christians, just like Sarah Palin's "real" Americans, must view themselves as a whole, and not selectively. Otherwise the very distinction of "Christian" becomes meaningless.

I'm also not sure why you're unaware of the fact that the bible simply does not qualify as a historical text independently. As much fun as it would be to debate this, I'm afraid it's a simple indisputable fact within the fields of of history and archaeology. While Sir William Ramsay's work may be a valid scholarly examination of the bible, it in no way supports your claim that the bible is a valid scholarly work. You're aware that science must be unbiased, correct? You're also aware that the bible, whether you believe the stories or not, is extremely biased, as per the definition of a book of faith? I'd hate to assume otherwise, but your statements leave me little choice.

"There is ample archaeological evidence to support the historic veracity of Luke's account."

Which "lukes account"? Which politicized translation of the account should we go by? Are we beginning to see the problem here? Also, the very act of being ones disciple disqualifies one from taking a truly unbiased scholarly approach to their god. Think about it. If I believed George bush was my god.. Literally.. Then wouldn't I be the very last person you'd turn to for an unbiased account of George bush?

"Those who claim Jesus to be a mythical historical figure are also big on fake lunar walk claims, as I understand."

This is what's called the "guilt by association" technique. When someone cannot counter with facts or superior reasoning, they resort to associations with unrelated, and socially stigmatized beliefs, like Elvis being alive, and what have you. This is the equivalent to being a hack in the field of comedy. Also, I can only laugh when being called crazy by someone who believes in an invisible man in the sky, holding a list of 10 things he doesn't want you to do.

I can only express sympathy at your delusional assertion that the reason that other deities throughout history have had the same story and characteristics of the Sun-God, is because it was all a big cosmic build-up to the real god, who really was born of a virgin, nevermind the numerous other gods to whom this was attributed first. And yes, the crucifixion story predates Christianity, but this time it's the real deal. With all due respect, give me a break. These types of arguments remind me of the small child, having just been told there's no Santa, trying desperately to theorize about how such a fat man really could fit through the chimney. It reflects a state of arrested development, both emotional and intellectual.

Also, you seem to be confused about what it means to "trounce" a belief. You can search til the cows come home for positive confirmation of jesus' existence (which of course you won't find). But that misses the point. You must disprove the existence of the belief on deities like Mithra, Zoroaster, Horus, and various Hindu deities, all predating Jesus and having the same characteristics (which makes sense, since the entire story is based on astronomy/astrology, not an individual)

The Hutch: This argument like the goddam world series and super bowl all wrapped into one awesome facebook thread.

Hutch's Boy: Louie, I'm not sure you know who Sir William Ramsay is. He's actually responsible for most of what we know about Asia Minor and the Roman Empire. He's no lightweight, and I would think his opinion on matters of ancient history would carry a LOT more weight than any document you have referenced. From Wiki:

http://bit.ly/9xPYLV

With regards to Ramsay, I ESPECIALLY love your comment: "You're aware that science must be unbiased, correct? You're also aware that the bible, whether you believe the stories or not, is extremely biased, as per the definition of a book of faith?"

Not only is Ramsay an internationally respected scientist (he was even knighted, dude!) but HE apparently set out with the exact same belief that you expressed above. When he initially went to Israel it was to DISPROVE Luke's writings (Acts and Luke). His conclusion? He believed Dr. Luke to be the greatest and most accurate historian in all of antiquity. Ramsay's conversion to Christianity occurred AFTER he set out to examine the evidence. Something I can say of myself, and frankly something which you have not endeavored to do.

But it sounds like your version of science requires me to disregard the evidence and go with the angry guy who "says it's so". LOL...I hope you appreciate my humor. It's not intended to be completely insulting (just a little insulting).

Seriously, though, you should take a closer look before you lash out. Your "facts" are not based on research. They are based on bogus assertions from angry people who pretend to have the facts.

For example, "Which politicized translation of the account should we go by?"

Are you referring to Textus Receptus, or Wescott and Horts? Do you even know how manuscript evidence is compiled and graded? Are you even mildly aware of the MOUNTAIN of manuscript evidence for the NT verses other works? There are literally TENS OF THOUSANDS of pieces of manuscript evidence (not versions, mind you, but manuscripts) used to compile modern NT texts. Where there are differences, they are actually just spelling or grammar. There have been NO significant conflicts reported by competent scholars. Read Josh McDowell's "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" for a thorough annotation. Incidentally, Josh's book is actually copies from his doctoral thesis. He was compiling evidence to DISPROVE the Bible through the types of "errors" you misreport. His work has impacted millions..

I think it's time you prove something. You make a lot of sweeping statements and say things like "everybody knows" but so far have offered zero evidence.

You say the crucifiction story predates Christ? Why don't you provide "evidence".

Or, you make the claim that "nearly every single one" of Jesus' disciples have not been pacifists? Oh my...why don't you present me with a study which demonstrates the warlike nature of Christians verses the rest of society. Holy crap that's funny.

Do you know why I picked Mother Theresa? Unlike MOST Christians, she's known for her life accomplishments. Most Christians I know give of themselves and do not seek fame or recognition in return. Maybe my church is the exception, but we rarely set out to murder our fellow man in ours. Hmm...Are you sure the people who fight wars aren't doing it for greed and lust for power?

Anyway, I'd like to see your "evidence" for the pre-Jesus crucifiction stories (along with manuscript references, please), and/or an academic study linking faith to violence.

Good luck.

The Hutch: It is worth noting, Chris, that Mother Theresa is a lot of trumped up nonsense. Christopher Hitchens wrote an expose book on her and there's a lot of stuff in her life that the church doesn't talk about.

In other words, Saint Theresa is no saint.

The Gibroney Hunter: This isn't a popularity contest. Science isn't conducted by reputations, it's conducted with certain unbreakable rules. No matter how big your hard-on for Ramsay is, it will never cange the fact that.. Everybody sing it with me now... The bible is not a valid historical document. I'll ask again, since you didn't answer the first time: exactly what artifact or document was discovered that conclusively proved that Jesus did exist and is god?

You seem to think that a passing reference to an author and his conversion is adequate scientific evidence to support your claim, which could help explain why you're a Christian in the first place, as your desire to be right far outweighs your ability to follow basic scientiic principles.

You appear to be defending Christianity against a charge that wasn't made, namely that Christians are especially warlike, compared to followers of other religions. You took issue with my statement that Christianity, like all other state sponsored religions, is used to manipulate people into fighting wars. Unfortunately this doesn't set Christianity apart from other faiths, only gives it the predictable stink of organized religion.

You need an academic study to understand the reality of the crusades, or the inquisition, or witch trials?

Greed? Lust for power? Uhm, I think you're thinking of the people who start wars, not the people who fight in them. The 18 year old kid from Kentucky who signed up for college money and because his church told him it's the right thing to do, is not going to be rich or powerful, I assure you. Is it just me or are your statements becoming yet more ridiculous?

"Most Christians I know.."

"Maybe my church is the exception.."

Told ya. Told ya you would use the "yeah but REAL Christians are different" routine. I'm very sorry. But you Christians don't get to support war, sexism, bigotry, and rape of children worldwide and then get to be pacifists simply because you like the title.

I've never seen someone who's offered no evidence of their own, other than the quasi-evidence of religious manuscripts, so incessantly demand that the other side produce it. Usually Christians know enough not to tread into scientific waters, since science has this tendency to swiftly and easily dismantle myths, like the Christian myth, or the myth of the official story of 9/11. Also a simple google search for the word "Mithra" or "Horus" should provide you with much of the evidence you need, but here you go. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,893345,00.html

Lashing out? I can't think of more typically Christian behavior than to begin a debate on your faith, and when confronted with the facts to accuse the other side of "lashing out". Telling you the truth about your woefully misguided faith isn't lashing out. It's actually an act of compassion, as my hope is that Christians will be freed from their intellectual and spiritual enslavement.

Hutch's Boy: Louie, other than your obvious bias, on what basis do you dismiss Sir William Ramsay's lifetime work, and Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict? Which claims does "science" dispute? You are totally ignorant of both works, yet you dismiss them? And I am the one who is led around by emotions.

Go ahead, Mr. Science (lol...hope you don't mind), give me the specific portions of their work that you reject.

You can't Louie, because you're ignorant. It's that simple. I have read the skeptical arguments and can lay claim to their shortcomings. You just spew hatred about things you are ignorant of. Read them and get back to me.

the Gibroney Hunter: I haven't dismissed anyone's work, only reminded you of the illegitimacy of the bible in terms of its acceptability as a historic document, by strict scientific standards. It's you who's transparently attempted to deflect points and steer the debate into the laps of your two favorite authors, rather than focus on uncomfortable facts. No matter how historically accurate or thorough a passage of the bible is, it still must be corroborated by other, non-religious texts, physical evidence, etc.

What exactly are Ramsay's and McDowell's claims, other than that they're believers? Is it that they have incontrovertible scientific evidence of Jesus' existence and godliness? If so, I think you would have mentioned it by now, as I've asked this question at least twice already.

In what way have I spewed hatred? You christians are always so dramatic.

Hutch's Boy: I don't find the facts uncomfortable at all. Actually, I am trying to base my arguments entirely on facts. That's how I became a Christian, Louie. Let me start over.

You assert, without evidence, that the Bible is an invalid historic document. I mention Ramsay and McDowell, for two reasons:

Ramsay spent his prestigious career as a world renowned archaeologist (probably the most important of the late 19th/early 20th century) coming to the conclusion, ENTIRELY THROUGH HIS SCIENTIFIC WORK (emphasis not yelling), that the Bible IS a historically valid argument. To the extent that he names Dr. Luke the greatest historian in the ancient world.

You don't like what the Bible says, so you claim it's not historic. Who do I believe, Louie, who has NEVER done any scientific analysis, or Ramsay, who dedicated his entire life's work?

Now let's go on to McDowell. His book is a detailed compilation of manuscript evidence. The book establishes the credibility of the current text by virtue of tens of thousands of pieces of manuscript evidence. (By comparison, the nearest second place document are Homers works, which we have a total of 600 or so pieces of manuscript. Most ancient texts are less than 100 pieces or so. Compared to 45,000 you can see why any honest person would drop their claims about authenticity).

None of this proves that Jesus wasn't a madman. It simply places the light of scientific discovery on the FACT that the Bible is a period authentic document.

Your claims are baseless and cannot be supported with evidence. I could give you evidence until the cows come home, but you don't seem to be interested in facts. You just want to say the Bible is not a historic document, but you have no basis to do so, other than your contempt.

Now, lecture me about science again, sir.

Incidentally, that article is noteworthy. It points specifically to the fact that the notion of a suffering messiah predates Christ. Whether or not you know it, you have actually supported the identity of Jesus as Messiah. It's an inside argument, but thank you for supporting my position. The scrolls at Qumran are HUGE in establishing the validity of the Book of Isaiah, as well as some other texts. Major discovery.

I wanted to give you a specific example of archeaologic discovery. There are literally thousands, but here's one:

Pontius Pilate. Skeptics in the 19th century claimed for years he didn't exist. This criticism was compelling and held up in peoples mind for a long time. In fact, the more we uncovered in archaeologic digs, the more compelling the argument became.... See More

There was simply NO EVIDENCE for Pilate's existence.

Then something happened. There was an ampitheater which was unearthed, which had stone benches for seating. One of the benches was overturned and on the underside was a decree from Ceaser (I think it was Tiberius). Pilate had so angered him (in the Gospel accounts, it indicates that Ceaser was already angry with Pilate, which is why he caved to political pressure) that Ceaser gave a decree to wipe out every memory of Pilate from the Roman Empire.

Pilate was erased. In fact, for years the only record of Pilate was the Gospels. It looked like a myth, but science prevailed.

COUNTLESS examples like it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontius_Pilate

The Hutch: "You don't like what the Bible says, so you claim it's not historic. Who do I believe, Louie, who has NEVER done any scientific analysis, or Ramsay, who dedicated his entire life's work?"

Don't believe either of them. Just do what I did and look at all the available evidence for the christian mythos vs. the natural world. The latter turns up mountains of evidence. The former has a book. One, single, solitary book with, as Lou has strenuously pointed out, is not corroborated by physical evidence or other non-religious or historical text.

Ramsay may have put together a pretty impressive document, I don't know. I haven't read it. But he is just one man. Science demands not the opinion of one man, but actual, quantifiable evidence. Lou keeps asking for some of the evidence that Ramsay found, but you haven't set anything compelling to that effect yet.

That said, I do think Lou more than occasionally demands far too much evidence. 9/11, for example, from my perspective has more than enough evidence to support the the bulk of the official story, as does the moon landing and a number of other conspiracy theories. The analogy of the butler murder works here: we have video of the butler getting a knife, the butler walking into the parlor room, and video of the butler walking out moments later wiping off a bloody knife and going about his business. Sure, we don't have video of the actual murder that took place in the parlor, and some people might scream their heads off that something else could have happened in that parlor, but from my perspective, there's more than enough evidence to indict the butler.

Anyhow, this debate, as fun as it is to read, is precisely why I call Obama a centrist. Fact of the matter is, America's a big place with a lot of ideas. You could be far more left than Obama is (and oh how I wish he was) and, according to various gallup polls on various issues, a good size portion of the populace _is_ more left. But the same could be said about being more right.

It leaves Obama dead center, leaning very slightly left on a few issues.

This is, of course, taking for granted the whole left/right political spectrum which we all know is bullshit but I use here just for the sake of making a general point.

Hutch's Boy: John, do you want a list of the people who have dedicated their lives to this research? There are libraries full of them. Your sources, if you look around, are circular. The historic argument has been played, replayed and replayed again. Each time the textual and archaeological evidence has come up in support of the Bible's historic claims.

The Bible is not a history book. But, it does cite specific events in history. Where it cites those events, the evidence has supported those claims. You, like most atheists, point to a thread of defeated arguments (by defeated, I mean the actual facts point in the other direction, but are simply ignored) and act like the case has been closed.

For years, Isaiah was written after Christ died. Then the Dead Sea Scrolls show up, VERIFYING Isaiah 53, which predates Jesus. The evidence is so compelling that skeptics immediately invent from whole cloth another set of "explanations" because the conclusion isn't palatable.

Why haven't you read any supporting documents, John? The world is full of them. It's simple. You don't like the idea, so you dismiss it without a careful examination of the truth.

That is the only thing that separates our conclusions. Think about it.

The Gibroney Hunter: Here's Gordon Stein's devastating critique of McDowell's work.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gordon_stein/jesus.shtml

"9/11, for example, from my perspective has more than enough evidence to support the the bulk of the official story..."

Like what? What evidence are you referring to?

Refer to the facebook message I sent you months ago (that was never responded to) for a reminder of some of the key discrepencied within the official story.

Be sure not to follow Chris's footsteps and pit your faith in the word of authority, like in the case of osama bin laden's "confession" video, which later unbiased translations (by the Germans) revealed that he merely mentioned the attacks, not confessed. Combined with the fact that the individual in the video is very clearly a body double (google it if you doubt). Combined with the fact of his verified statement on the day of 9/11, denying any responsibility and pointing the finger at criminals within our own government and private sector.

The Hutch: "The evidence is so compelling that skeptics immediately invent from whole cloth another set of "explanations" because the conclusion isn't palatable."

Chris, this is how science works. You have described it's fundamental philosophy. Form a hypothesis. Gather evidence. Does the evidence agree with the hypothesis? If so keep gathering evidence, looking for holes or cracks in the hypothesis. If not, form a new hypothesis. Repeat.

God is not a viable hypothesis because it cannot be tested with what we currently know about the universe. Science deals with the natural world. The observable and provable. Even if God were to come down to earth, perform some miracles, and walk around, Science would form hypotheses on how this is possible and fit what is happening in with our current data set on the natural world. Maybe we'd have to dismantle physics or something. Guaranteed, someone would want to get in there with an electron microscope.

Point is... the supernatural and science do not mix. They cannot mix. If you want to base your life on the bible and God, that's fine with me provided that you do not try to legislate your beliefs and you don't go trying to use science to prove your faith. Seeing as you do both, it makes my head a bit explodey.

Lou, I read the link you sent months ago, I just didn't respond because I didn't find it all that compelling and I knew I'd be unable to convince you of anything other than what you believe. I agree that it's more than possible or even likely that Osama was a bogeyman. But to insinuate that the US government was anything other than incompetent in the whole saga, I think, is too much.

Hutch's Boy: Louie, this isn't devastating at all. In fact, the author has a number of his facts incorrect in this article and is stating them as absolutes. One right off the bat is the idea that there was no death penalty in Jewish law for blasphemy. That's simply not true. Irregardless, he highlights an important issue.

Before you draw a conclusion, you should examine all of the evidence. John's post about science is compelling, except that he leaves off the imperative that all evidence be examined, not simply that which is convenient to your argument.

Louie, this article hits on Josephus as a historical reference for the existence of Jesus. Notice that I never mentioned Josephus? Nor did I mention Pliny the Younger. In both cases, I think there is too much open to question to utilize their references to Jesus (especially Josephus).

But the fact is, it's not necessary. McDowell does an excellent job highlighting the massive amount of manuscript evidence to verify that the modern version of the Bible is reliable to the original writings.

Ramsay's work demonstrates those writings are period authentic.

Can you really call your opinion honest, when you have only examined evidence that fits your conclusions?

The Gibroney Hunter: You became a Christian based on facts? I thought the whole thing is based on faith? I'm not sure I follow.

The evidence that the bible cannot simply be taken at face value, scientifically, lies in the very nature of the book; a book of faith. This does not mean that it should be ignored or excluded from historic or archaeological endeavors, only that it cannot be viewed as an independent historical text. The information within it simply must be corroborated. No further evidence is required to understand this point. A 6th grade level education in the scientific method, however, is.

"Who do I believe, Louie.. or Ramsay"

Neither. You steer your beliefs toward the facts and the scientific method. Nowhere else. This incessant urge to identify with an authority figure or leader is one of the most dangerous aspects of the Christian psychosis.

Thank you for the brief biography of your favorite authors, I'm afraid, however, that it still proved nothing. When I speak of scientific evidence, I'm referring to more than simply a tally of who's analyzed the most ancient manuscripts. There's also physical archaeological evidence, which is prized over any ancient writing alone.

"Notice that I never mentioned Josephus? Nor did I mention Pliny the Younger."

But McDowell does. And since the crux of your "argument" seems to be the fact that this guy wrote a book (a book about another faith-based book, which is kindof the point), the criticisms are relevent. Also you are aware that Gordan Stein's criticism was written in 1982, and also isn't assessed specifically to you, correct? So you may not have mentioned josephus or Pliny the younger because you're already aware if how shabby the evidence is, but the fact is that most of your peers would and do mention them, as fraudulent and ridiculous they are as historical references.

Hutch's Boy: Louie, the archeological evidence points to the Bible being period authentic. Luke mentions very specific details about regional governments, structures, etc...as do many of the OT texts. The article you linked to points to a problem in one area of McDowell's work. Hardly damning.

Trust me, Louie, I have more than a cursory knowledge of the scientific method. I don't have an advanced degree, but my undergrad studies carry me beyond most.

But again, it is not I who refuses to examine the evidence. Can you illuminate me as to the archeaological evidence that refutes the Biblical historic account? I have given you the existence of Pontius Pilate. Now give me the refutation.

The Gibroney Hunter: Well you kind of guarantee not being able to convince me otherwise by not responding. Also I was referring to a brief summary of some key points I sent you, not a link, but whatever.

You can be as uncompelled as you want, but you know as well as I that, scientifically, saying "I'm not impressed" is a good start, but otherwise pretty meaningless. As a believer of the official story, you're relying on litle else than the word of your government, and the dismissal of an ever growing body of contradictory evidence as merely coincidences. It seems that the standard coincidence theorist's response to such damning facts like the insider trading that went on on wall street in anticipation of the attacks, or the presence of nano thermite, a military grade explosive, at ground zero, is: "I don't know how to explain that, nor do I care to."

This lazy and unscientific approach to the matter was easy to pull off for quite a few years, but with the list of architects and engineers supporting a new investigation already past 1,000 (closer to 1,500 by now) it's becoming more and more difficult for people in denial to hide behind the "lack of professional credibility" defense.

Insinuate? There's no I insinuation here, friend. Criminal elements within our own government are responsible for 9/11. The evidence is conclusive. I do admire how closely you follow the mainstream media's strategy of character attack, though, intentionally choosing words like "insinuate" to give the impression that there's something sneaky or backhanded about my views.

The remarkable thing is that while parrotting the wholly unsupported "incompetence" theory, many adherents to the official story will casually dismiss the extensive body of evidence indicating the opposite (like osama being visited by C.I.A agents in a Dubai hospital just weeks before the attacks, for example), apparently without realizing that the evidence disproving the official "19 hijackers" conspiracy theory is superior both quantitatively and qualitatively.

For example, are you aware that the supposed lead hijacker, Mohammed attah, was a known drug runner and C.I.A asset who had a stripper girlfriend and loved pork chops? Now I'm no detective, but that sure don't sound like the profile of a Muslim extremist prepared for a martyrdom mission. Sounds a bit more like a patsy and peon who probably wasn't aware of the true nature of his circumstances. Study of the methodology of clandestine intelligence organizations such as the C.I.A (who wield more power than official governments) is necessary in order for these type of false flag terror attacks to be properly understood.

The Gibroney Hunter: The many faces of Osama Bin Boogeyman.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBcceMCIWd0

The Gibroney Hunter: The issue isn't the historical content of the bible. Indeed, much of it is valid. The problem, like **** said, is that you seem to be asserting that science has somehow proven the validity of your faith, which is not only false but in a sense quite absurd, because why would an adherent to a faith-based system be so desperately searching for secular confirmation anyway?

There's just no way around it. You can believe whatever you want, but to bring science into a defense of your fate is and always has been self defeating for Christians. But this fact shouldn't dissuade the truly faithful, since they have.. Yknow.. Faith.

"Can you illuminate me as to the archeaological evidence that refutes the Biblical historic account?"

Yes. Dinosaurs.

Chemtrails N.J (6)

2010-03-27T09:16:00.000-07:00

This is what I saw above my head when I left the house last week. They were really having a field day.

Chemtrails N.J (5)

2010-03-11T07:33:00.001-08:00

New Jersey. A great place to live and work. If you have a good HAZMAT suit.

Global Warming. The non-debate.

2010-03-02T16:31:00.000-08:00

Pathetic. I expected more from RT than to simply parrot the American MSM's assertion that Climate Change scientists can only make snafus, not commit fraud.

They're approaching the "Himalayas" story as if it occurred in a vacuum. As if leaked e-mails from the University of East Anglia haven't also revealed Climate Change scientists' deliberate attempts to hide temperature declines, as if there isn't a slew of other evidence indicated wrongdoing, that should be considered along with this latest issue.

VIDEO GAMES: Anathema of the Bible Thumpers

2010-03-01T07:26:00.000-08:00

I think if you follow the ratings your kids will generally be fine. No doubt that many games are merely military training/recruitment programs, but no one in their right mind would not let their kid play Super Mario, or Wii Tennis. The truth is video games are just another medium, like television, books, etc, that can be easily abused by those in power. This does not mean that all video games are inherently fascist brainwashing tools.

This type of brainwashing loses nearly all its power once the intended victim is aware of the trick. Rather than fighting a losing battle to censor children from this sick culture (they'll be exposed to it, whether you like it or not), I think energy would be better spent making sure kids are properly equipped with education and self confidence, in order to simply brush off such obscene and clumsy attempts at military indoctrination. Going "puritan" and attempting to plug your kid's ears and cover their eyes, will most likely have the opposite effect from the one intended.

Make sure your kids know that there are people out there who play dirty tricks like using toys to try to tell them what to think. Naivete is far more damaging than any video game could ever be.

Based on an examination of the gameplay, it's clear how the games are used, to some extent, as covert training/indoctrination tools for the youth. But when using the plot, or story inbetween the gameplay in an overwhelming majority of video games, the message is often subversive, and anti-new world order, at least in spirit. Video games have this in common with film, in that there are clearly two forces at work here: The Establishment's attempt to sink its claws into yet another public medium of communication, and the honest portion of the people (i.e the game programmers, developers who are not New World Order, and have no part in any hidden agenda) who offer, perhaps unwittingly, a counterpoint to much of the militaristic indoctrinations.

Gibroney of the Week: NPR (video)

2010-02-06T17:35:00.000-08:00

I Don't Care If You're A Shill

2010-02-05T11:59:00.000-08:00

"Why won't any of these guys touch September Clues?" - Youtube user WearechangeN

For strategic and career reasons, most likely. Sadly, many people, even many within the "911 truth movement" are closed minded to the possibility that the aircraft that hit weren't commercial flights, and even moreso to the possibility that nothing hit, and rather it was an internal explosion. Unfortunately, until a legitimate scientific investigation takes place the evidence will most likely remain inconclusive as to exactly what occurred. But as far as Alex, he probably avoids it for the sake of his career.

If you're asking me to do my research I assure you that I have, and also that even if I haven't, your immediate assumption that I should then be considered a "shill" is all to common with you hard-line no planers. The unsatisfying truth is that we just don't know everything we need to know about 9/11 yet. Which is why those more rational members of the 9/11 truth movement wisely stay focused on all the criminality and evidence that we can currently prove.

This doesn't mean that Alex isn't dodging the issue. He quite clearly is. But when attempting to investigate a crime, it's best to start from the bottom up when building a case. In other words, much of the "no plane" evidence appears valid but must be considered as of yet inconclusive (if we're going to be adult about this) This doesn't mean to stop investigating, quite the contrary. I encourage 'no planers' to diligently continue their work until they can present a more comprehensive case, perhaps including some form of physical evidence, like a whistleblower who would have worked on the visual manipulation, or some physical evidence, like some information left over from the computers they used to perform the trickery. But until then, you guys should really stop jerking off all over the whole 9/11 truth investigation, and accusing anyone who disagrees with your "skip to the last chapter" approach to 9/11 truth of being a shill. It just comes across clownish.

COMMON SENSE: What Really Happened on September 11th? (video)

2010-02-02T21:33:00.000-08:00

Emo Dweebs must go.

2010-01-30T10:46:00.000-08:00

Know what was old before it even started? The emo band trying to pull off the "quirky," bet-you-didn't-expect-us-to-cover-that song, like a lame, emo'd up version of an early '90's pop song, or something. Or some limp-wristed, "can't you tell how sensitive we are" emo group covering a Mariah Carrey song, or something along those tacky, transparent lines. Another example of these spiritless dweebs trying much too hard to appear credible or legitimate to their more artistically inclined elders. Face it, Emo generation. You've had 8+ years to produce something.. anything.. worth remembering. And you've failed. Your art will not be remembered. And that makes me happy.

The Gibroney Hunter squashes Bill Maher

2010-01-28T13:56:00.001-08:00

The Rosenhan Experiment

2010-01-24T05:42:00.000-08:00

Eight people, none of whom having a history of psychiatric problems, were sent to various mental institutions to lie and say they've been hearing a voice in their heads, repeatedly saying the word "thud." Other than this lie, they were to behave completely as they would normally. All eight participants were diagnosed as clinically insane by the institutions. Seven out of the eight were diagnosed as schizophrenic, the other as bi-polar. They were not allowed to leave and were forced to consume psychotropic drugs. They then realized that the only way they could leave would be to play along and pretend to be insane, and then pretend to be getting better.

Outraged by David Rosenhan's findings, the mainstream psychiatric community reacted aggressively. One major hospital even challenged Rosenhan to reproduce his results by sending more people, vowing not to let them slip through this time. He accepted. After a few months, the hospital proudly announced it had thwarted 41 attempts to sneak sane people into the "mental" hospital. It was at this point that Rosenhan revealed that he hadn't even sent anymore people to the mental institutions. PWNED!

Guest Post from Michael The Patriot Blogger: 12 Signs That 2010 Is Going To Be A Really, Really Bad Year For The Democrats And The Obama Admin.

2010-01-18T08:19:00.000-08:00

The following is a guest post from [self described] conservative blogger, Michael Snyder, who lives and works in Arlington, Virginia. More of his work can be found at his daily news blog (http://themostimportantnews.com/) and on his blog about conservative politics (http://thetruthwins.com/).

While I myself am adamant about a strict non partisan approach to editorials, lest we fall into the all-too-familiar traps of the false left-right paradigm, I'm always enthusiastic about the sharing of ideas, such a simple and easy thing to do, but so vital to our Republic's survival. That said, I feel that any singular focus on 'this' or 'that' administration is bound to be self-defeating, as the incremental tyranny being imposed by the globalist bankers continues on course, regardless of whether we're currently being sold a line from Dems or Repubs. Many of the points made, however, are quite valid. Enjoy.

-------

12 Signs That 2010 Is Going To Be A Really, Really Bad Year For The Democrats And The Obama Administration

The 2010 election is still almost 10 months away, but already every indication is that if the election was held today, the Democrats would suffer a crushing defeat. So will things get better for the Democrats by the time election day rolls around? Well, actually the truth is that things are only likely to get worse for the Democrats and the Obama administration in 2010. As the U.S. economy continues to fall apart, and as health care and national security continue to take center stage on the national scene, an increasing number of voters are likely to become disenfranchised with the Democratic Party. The following are 12 signs that 2010 is going to be a really, really bad year for the Democrats and the Obama administration....

#1) Health care "reform" has been a total nightmare for Obama and the Democrats. The majority of Americans have been horrified to learn that the plan put forward by the Democrats will make purchasing health insurance mandatory, will raise taxes, will give the government unprecedented control over health care decisions, will result in much fewer health care choices for the average American and will push U.S. government deficits through the roof. Approval ratings for the health care "reform" bill have been hovering in the 30s, and considering that this is the centerpiece of the Democratic agenda, this is a really, really bad sign for Obama and the Democrats.

#2) In fact, more Americans than ever are sick and tired of the financial mess that the U.S. government is getting us all into. The truth is that the U.S. government is drowning under an absolute mountain of debt and all of the spending that Barack Obama is doing is only making it worse. To finance this debt, the U.S. Treasury has been forced to issue so many new bonds that the rest of the world cannot possibly buy them all. So who is buying them all up? The Federal Reserve. In fact, the Fed is now purchasing approximately 80 of all new U.S. debt.

#3) But even with all of this reckless government spending the unemployment situation in the U.S. is still absolutely brutal. When even Wal-Mart is closing stores you know things are really bad. Wal-Mart just announced this past week that it will close 10 money-losing Sam's Club stores and will cut 1,500 jobs in order to reduce costs. So if even Wal-Mart has to shut down stores, what chance do other retailers have?

#4) In fact, some areas of the U.S. are a total economic nightmare at this point. The mayor of Detroit recently said that the real unemployment rate in his city is somewhere up around 50 percent. When things get that bad, the party out of power starts to look better and better.

#5) So just how bad are things when compared to past recessions? During the 2001 recession, the U.S. economy lost 2% of its jobs and it took four years to get them back. This time the U.S. economy has lost more than 5 percent of its jobs and there is no sign that the bleeding of jobs will stop any time soon. Those who do not have jobs are much likelier to consider voting for the party out of power.

#6) The reality is that more Americans are in financial trouble than at any point in recent times. Americans are going broke at a staggering pace. 1.41 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy in 2009 - a 32 percent increase over 2008. This is not a trend that is going to help the Democrats.

#7) We are also seeing a record number of mortgage defaults. According to a report that was just released, delinquent home loans at government-controlled mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac surged 20 percent from July to September. In fact, things are such a mess at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that the Obama administration recently removed the caps on the amount of financial assistance that the U.S. government will be giving these two entities. Whether or not Obama created this mess is not the issue. What is the issue is that an increasing number of Americans are blaming him for this mess.

#8) In fact, many analysts believe that the the housing crash is far from over. They say that a massive "second wave" of mortgage defaults is getting ready to hit the U.S. economy starting in 2010. In fact, this "second wave" is so frightening that even 60 minutes is reporting on it. When this second wave does hit, most Americans are going to place responsibility for it in the laps of the Obama administration.

#9) Now there is even concern that the recent global deep freeze could end up seriously affecting food prices in American supermarkets in 2010. As the past several decades have clearly shown, Americans tend to vote according to how their pocketbooks are doing, and if food prices shoot through the roof that will not help Obama and the Democrats at all.

#10) In addition, recent polls indicate that the majority of Americans are so concerned about terrorism that they would be willing to sacrifice certain freedoms in order to feel safer. Considering the fact that terrorism is considered to be an issue that greatly favors the Republicans, this has got to be very concerning to the Democrats.

#11) On the foreign policy front, Obama risks alienating the Jewish vote by continuing to insist that Israel give East Jerusalem to the Palestinians. The truth is that the Jewish vote is crucial for the Democrats and Obama in places like Florida, and by taking such a hardline anti-Israel position, Obama is not winning any new friends in the Jewish community.

#12) Also, Barack Obama is continuing to push for a treaty with Russia that would reduce the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal to approximately 10 percent of the size that it was at the height of the cold war. Such an irresponsible approach to national security is surely not going to win Obama and the Democrats many friends among moderate voters who are concerned about security issues.

Any way you cut it, 2010 is shaping up to be a very bad year for the Democrats. Barack Obama's approval rating has already been plummeting like a rock, and there does not seem to be much hope of that turning around any time soon. In fact, if the signs above are any indication, the 2010 election could end up being really, really good to the Republicans.
But with Obama still in the White House until at least 2012, will they be able to do much to clean up the mess?

"Medicinal" Marijuana in NJ: So Far, So Good, So What?

2010-01-12T10:33:00.000-08:00

Legal "medicinal" marijuana is cool n all, but at the same time, fuck "medicinal" marijuana. It's a misnomer. What's the difference between 'medicinal' marijuana and regular ole' marijuana that people have been consuming, to their benifit, for millenia? Nothing.

Nothing at all, except the system full of prescription drug munching square zombies who've been convinced that one's okay, and the other's purely criminal. Marijuana is not like oxycontin, a dangerous substance requiring proper credentials in order to posess. It's a beautiful and abundantly healthful plant that fights cancer, promotes healthy spirituality and general well-being and stability of mind.

Take a 5 minute break from your hyper-alert, problem solving state of mind and perhaps you'll agree that the reason mother nature made cannabis one of the most ubiquitous and versatile plants on the face of the planet was because MAYBE WE WERE MEANT TO GIVE IT A TRY EVERY NOW AND THEN.

Gibroney Of The Week: George Lucas

2010-01-09T11:06:00.000-08:00

Some would say that George Lucas' lack of activity as a director for 22 years, between 1977 and 1999, is a classic example of wasted talent. I say he didn't waste any talent, because that mousy fuck never had that much to begin with. He read Greek mythology, watched a couple Kirusawa films, then relied on his director buddies, like Spielberg, to hold his hand through Star Wars. Then he sat back and proceeded to collect money from the production of toys and t-shirts for the next 20 years. He's a joker.

And don't forget about the gratuitous releasing, and re-releasing, and re-re-releasing of the first 3 films. Certainly another reason why he borders on con-artist. His first 2 (and only two non-Star Wars) films he directed do admittedly display some talent on his part, but non-remarkable talent, if we're to be honest. In other words, there's not a chance in hell the dude would be revered or remembered, on the scale he is, for only those two works. The cause of his success can be narrowed down specifically to the first Star Wars film, which was created along with the help of Spielberg and Coppolla.

This isn't to say that Spielberg was the only reason Lucas had a successful career. There's also the luck he had with the excellent casting, and Jim Henson's puppeteering. In my opinion those are the three main factors that make Star Wars, episodes 4-6 so special: Spielberg's/Coppalla's help, Jim Henson's services, excellent cast. Maybe fourth, I'd place Lucas' directorial talents. Maybe. Probably not.

The New World Order Aims to Outlaw Arguments in France

2010-01-09T03:12:00.000-08:00

France is in the process of making "psychological violence" the same as physical violence in the eyes of the law, for married couples. Some of the examples of exactly what types of scenarios would qualify under this new invasive legislation, consist of things like a woman telling a man that she should have married someone with more money, or a man telling a woman that he was better off with his first wife. We're told not to worry about excessive use of this nifty new law, though:

"[Martine] Billard rejects critics who say the new law would allow couples to be hauled in for having an argument. She says it must be proved that the abuse is repeated and done with the intention of destroying the victim's dignity." - NPR

But what qualifies as "repeated?" What if the police arrive, and your nosy neighbor mentions that this isn't the first time she's heard that couple fight? Does that qualify, or is it necessary for separate, documented incidences to occur? And if so, how many? Two? Three? Also, who determines what is and is not "done with the intention of destroying the victim's dignity?" Many questions, and I'm willing to bet we wouldn't like the honest answers very much.

While it would be lovely to have the power, either legally or personally, to stop this sort of mean and unsavory behavior, the simple truth is that any attempt to legislate this aspect of human life is ridiculous on its face, and an obvious vehicle for government to extend its influence over our private lives even further. Anyone who's experienced anything even remotely close to romantic love would agree that ugly fights are often par for the course and in the end, whether we care to acknowledge it or not, can contribute to the process of emotional understanding and bonding that is love. In other words, love is a refining process, and argumentative clashes, for most people, play some role in that.

My heart, of course, goes out to any women in France who are truly being verbally/emotionally victimized. But this is precisely why I'm critical of this type of legislation, as it's in no way geared toward helping anyone, rather toward setting the precedent for Big Brother's immediate intervention in any conduct that violates the establishment's set norms. The globalists understand that naturally healthy relationships have both ups and downs, and hence it'd be unrealistic to enforce this sort of behavioral control on healthy human beings. Which is why they need us on their drugs, if not directly through prescription, then to a considerable extent, through our water and food supply. They've succeeded in training almost all people, the world over, to ignore politics and show disdain for all but the shallowest features of social life. Now they're taking the first steps toward applying this same code of docility and conformity within the home.

Obviously, in cases of genuine psychological abuse, intervention on the clinical, and not the law enforcement level of society is needed. Hopefully France, who once stood alongside us as a worldwide beacon for liberty, will muster the willpower to strike down this oppressive and easily abusable legislation.

Read the NPR article.

Chemtrails N.J (4)

2010-01-06T20:59:00.001-08:00

Chemtrails N.J (3)

2010-01-06T20:35:00.001-08:00

Top: Three images of the same very long chemtrial.

Bottom: A little skinny one seemingly emerging from the dark cloud in the center, then trailing off to the left.

Professional Pawns

2009-12-29T00:10:00.000-08:00

The only thing worse than a damned fool is a professional damned fool. There are many reasons why Americans remain functionally asleep to the reality of their Globalist imposed tyranny, but one of the main ones is certainly our state of profound ignorance. Upon occasion I marvel at just how hard I had tried to become well informed by relying on mainstream sources, such as NPR and MSNBC, and just how laughably impossible that turned out to be. Before independent internet based media arrived to revive the corpse of journalism in this country, I had essentially given up any hope of receiving accurate and contextually rich information.

Had I even been aware that the many blatant discrepencies of the official explanation of 9/11 were "on the table," so to speak, in terms of discussion-worthy topics, I would've displayed a passionate interest. But the MSM, between 2001 and 2006 performed their sociological hypnotism extraordinarily well, as to repel any serious look at the event. But sometime in 2006-7, this changed. Enough of a clamor had grown, enough voices had joined in, to make the chorus of 9/11 truth just barely audible within the nooks and crannies of the internet. Simultaneously, the MSM, through increasingly lackluster attempts to coherently address our deeply rooted problems, was and still is churning out hordes of intellectually hungry discontents like myself, who inevitably gravitate toward the truth movement.

This summarizes the response that I and many others have had to a first encounter with truly independent media. There is, however, another all too common response to this hidden class of information. Some people have simply decided, perhaps subconsciously, that the acknowledgment that they've been utterly and comprehensively lied to since birth is either too frightening or too threatening to the ego to allow to occur. This is a morally hazardous choice to make because as soon as one chooses to ignore looming threats, one is volunteering themselves up as dependent of those who do choose to address these problems. This simple point is lost on many of us, who have been so effectively trained to only seriously consider the question of what to consume and when to consume it. We are meant to feel as alienated from as much of the structure of governance as possible.

This is another big barrier between many people and the horrendous reality of crimes like 9/11 and the Federal Reserve Act. To examine these crimes is to examine the true cost of our monolithically shallow consumer culture, which has captivated us like shiny objects do a baby. To admit that this is our reality is to admit that we are all sick and in need of healing. Much easier to indulge in racism, sports, and beer.

Chemtrails N.J (2)

2009-12-17T19:48:00.000-08:00

Three fresh, skinny ones ontop of what appear to be dissipating clouds from earlier chemtrails.

Chemtrails N.J

2009-12-10T16:51:00.001-08:00

Many more to come...

Whether we like it or not.

Anti-Filesharing = Anti-Art

2009-12-08T09:45:00.000-08:00

Go back to school and get your marketing degree if you're so concerned with turning a profit. Salesmen and profiteers have been stealing the limelight away from real artists for far too long, anyway, so it'd probably work out for the best. You'd still get to dress in physical and spiritual costume while making a buck, and we get our sacred form of communication back.

It's truly a blessing to live in a society in which it's possible to make a living, and sometimes even become rich, by the simple act of making art. However it's become undeniable over the past few decades, that the average big musical act is a black void of talent or substance, hopelessly detached from any real artistic process.

Even many artists with better reputations than your typical anti-piracy crybabies still seem to have lost their perspective on this issue. For example, a friend of mine recently mentioned that Muse had spoken out against filesharing. Not more than a few hours later I was looking at the booklet for their album "haarp," and I see a picture of one of the members wearing what appear to be a silver-coated pair of custom Adidas, or some similar brand. They are tacky and ridiculous and look like something Bruno would wear. They were also probably extremely and needlessly expensive.

Is this why Muse wants filesharing to stop? So they can continue to feed their pointless retarded ugly shoe habit, along with any other stupid extravagant nonsense they've embraced since getting signed? So they can continue to follow the sickeningly pompous trend of anti-bands like U2? Is it a coincidence that nearly all performers who oppose filesharing, are also prone to spending $10,000 to look like a retard onstage? I have the sneaking suspicion that this type of wasteful nonsense is precisely what these fake artists are defending, when they complain about filesharing. It's not about receiving a fair return for performing art, since that was never these people's intention. It's about pushing product. Which is why they're so upset about the deflating racket formerly known as the "recording industry."

Ultimately, these problems are all primarily attributable to the sleazy recording industry, who for a long time now have been treating music and art as nothing more than a pop culture commodity. Since bad, dumb music is more accessible, this is what's predominantly pushed, not because record execs like bad dumb music, but because bad dumb music simply has more marketing power.

Instead of being a beacon, tempting people to reach higher, music and art have overwhelmingly become an enabler of negativity, beckoning people to sink lower. This is why we shouldn't feel bad for these weasels, or their shrinking industry at all. It's Brittany Spears and Metallica who are dying. Radiohead and Trent Reznor are doing just fine.

Gibronosity

2009-12-01T19:30:00.000-08:00

The Gibroney Hunter: So tired of people using the "youtube is your source?! how ridiculous!" This is one of the dumbest things you can say because clearly youtube is what you make of it, meaning that if you wanna watch hampsters play piano you can, and if you want to watch documentaries or news clips, you can do that too. Really, it totally depends on how YOU choose to use youtube. Youtube videos have sources just like anything shown on television. If it's from ABC it says so. If it's from the AP it says so.

Some Gibroney: The problem with that is...many people post what they want..and call it a fact or a truth..when it is not. Then someone...who doesn't know any better sees it and propagates it as fact. There is NO accountability or social responsibility on YT. That is the problem. Anyone..and I MEAN anyone can post. IN FACT corporations have posted videos that they intended to influence people on YT and say that they are by one person..but they have THEIR own Monetary agendas. JUST ask AL GORE and HIS PENGUINS.

The Gibroney Hunter: They just arrested a group of punk kids who were going around tackling people unexpectedly, and a bunch of other cheap pranks. They were identified and are now facing charges. So I disagree that there's no accountability. I don't believe that there's any social responsibility on television, or radio, or print, or anywhere else, really.. which is the whole point. Youtube is simply a medium on which to post all other media. It is what you make it, plain and simply. It's the viewer'sresponsibility to fact check while watching a youtube video just as it is when watching a national geographic documentary. People don't suddenly become more stupid and unable to discern between shit and shinola, just because they're on a site called youtube. It's a childish argument to try to hide behind the perceived illegitimacy of youtube, rather than addressing any of the points being made during the film. The claim of there being no evidence is also ridiculous. Google Dr. Steven Jones and his research regarding the presence of nano-thermite in the dust debris from 9/11. So far his findings have been corroborated by at least 9 other physicists. Also there's the massive amount of insider trading that took place directly before the terror attacks. These are just two examples from volumes of evidence. This evidence is not about determining who DID perpetrate the attacks. That's getting ahead of ourselves. First we have to deal with the obvious fact that the official story is simply false.

Some Gibroney: I work with the govt..and when I'm trying to get something accomplished..it's like pulling out my own teeth to get it done. I like to use the term "it moves at the speed of govt" It's another reason why I don't THINK the conspiracy theory works. Far too complicated. TOO many unnecessary steps in the dance. They could have streamlined the whole thing. Of course..that is my opinion..if there is/was a conspiracy. Just playing the devils advocate.

The Gibroney Hunter: How could they have streamlined the whole thing? 9/11 wasn't just about dragging America into another illegitimate war, the establishment can do that anytime they wish. The point of 9/11, from their perspective, was to shock and awe the American public into not only supporting war efforts, but to usher in a more oppressive environment here at home, which is exactly what was accomplished with the Patriot Act, now renewed by our "Liberal" president. They wanted another Vietnam, but without the pesky freedom of speech or right to assemble aspect of it, which eventually shut down the war machine. This time, that problem would be accounted for. Hence the nightmarish snuff film of 9/11 shown to the American people by the Banker-controlled Media puppets, for the purpose of shocking us into accepting a much more Orwellian state.

Some Gibroney: Ok...stream line it..by..Lets not have these guys training on aircraft they won't be using. Let's take them off continent to a base or friendly country and train on the acyual aircraft they are going to use. Then LETS really pack this things with explosives or whatever. We won't chance them living in a rented home in FLA and talking to people. Why chance them going through an airport and being compromised.. Just fly straight in on commercial routes. TOO many steps to the dance. That's true..but the objective was different. There was a common goal for the good of the nation. I can't believe that not of those people..did not have a conscience and wouldn't step forward and talk either before or after. 7 years is a long time to keep from being compromised. We also didn't have the internet...where we can remain nameless and face less and leak tons on Intel with out having to be named. It just doesn't add up to me.. Of course you still have to prove that IS what happened.

The Gibroney Hunter: Sybel Edmonds, former F.B.I translator recently broke her federal gag order by announcing to the media (who curiously enough didnt' cover it) that U.S intelligence had communication and was in collusion with Osama Bin Laden UP TO THE VERY DAY OF 9/11. So you no longer have to believe that not one of those people did not have a conscience and speak out. Of course, there are many other examples of individuals speaking out. I don't have to prove anything happened, only that we've been lied to by the federal government about 9/11 so extensively as to warrant a new and truly independent investigation, which is a point that has been overwhelmingly proven over and over again. You're correct that someone could post information anonymously on the internet, but without authentication of source, no one would believe it. Without a credible journalist to stand by the story, no one would take it seriously. And no journalist (not even the very few good ones) would put their neck on the line for an unverified online source that could be a teenager pranking them for all they know. Internet or not, sources still need to be just as verifiable now as they did 40 years ago, in order to be credible by journalistic standards. Your statements regarding the "hijackers" is supported by the assumption that the were more than merely patsies. Many have argued that their ridiculous behavior at the flight schools (their instructors have gone on record saying they don't see how Hanyur could have piloted that airbus into the pentagon), obnoxious behavior at strip clubs.. was meant to attract attention to them. It's not uncommon for intelligence services to employ individuals to take part in drills and other exercises. This is a possible explanation for some of the hijackers (at least 6 of whom have come out publicly, stating that they're still alive, by the way). Rather than being idle speculation, this is a very critical line of inquiry that SHOULD have been addressed by the fraudulent 9/11 Commission.

Some Gibroney: That's definitely where we are on the same page. I'm all for an independent investigation. I don't care what the outcome is. I'm indifferent. I just want facts and truth through due process and the diligence to be accurate and thorough. That means proving ever accusation and not just speculating on very limited info at best. Like I said..that has been my point all along. IF the FACTS take us there...then that's where we go. But don't try to LEAD the evidence there. That's JUST WRONG. Agreed but..here there are two crimes you are required by law to report. can you guess what they are?. CHILD abuse..and TREASON. So Osama..doesn't have any obligation..and besides we already know he doesn't like the infidels. So it stands to reason from his history..he knew of something...and if he had anything to do with the planning...then he is guilty. it's still conspiracy to commit a terrorist act. Once again I am speculating he knows something or had some part of it. I can't prove it. Airbus? To my knowledge it was a 757. I also think the pilot school instructors were speculating. I 've worked with complete idiots..but when they had to get something done...they DID. Which six were these? You make a point about being CREDIBLE..and that is also my point about YT. YOU can be anyone on here..BARKING up a storm...but a lot of it..is purely misinformation..that they pass on as FACT that they heard somewhere else. That doesn't make any of it fact or even true.. I dislike YT for that reason. ZERO accountability.

The Gibroney Hunter: I used the term airbus as a general term to describe a large aircraft, not as an actual description of the literal model of aircraft, and yes you're correct it was a 757. The flight instructors, having had direct experience attempting to instruct certain of the alleged hijackers, cannot be said to be speculating, but to be giving their opinion regarding Hanyur's skills. So now you're saying that people who are incompetent can suddenly become competent? Seems to run counter to your previous remarks about 9/11 being an inside job, being too "complex" to have been pulled off. Again, I simply disagree about the issue of accountability on youtube. I think the increase in voices being heard actually increases the total amount of credibility, as there are more independent criticisms available of just about any topic. I agree with you that most of what's on youtube is as you say, purely misinformation, but can you give me of an example of a medium for which that isn't true? Isn't most of what's on television also uncredible and full of misinformation (think Fox News, or NPR)? While someone's opinion expressed on youtube is completely uncensored or edited (except for obscenity), they still need to support their claims and opinions with facts if they want anyone to take them seriously. The mere fact that I am using youtube right now does not automatically make me more prone to believing uncorroborated, baseless things. "shooting the messenger" is a cop out intended by most. people as a way to divert the subject from the issue itself, which is that the crime of 9/11 clearly has not transpired in the way that we were told it did, by our government. Just do a google search for "9/11 hijackers still alive" and you will have access to all the names, dates, places relevant to the topic.

Pantera: Founders of Street Metal

2009-12-01T00:03:00.000-08:00

In the 1990's Pantera set the standard for every future metal band aspiring to become better/faster/stronger, and more visceral than Metallica. It was truly a golden age of the artform when Megadeth and Anthrax, and later Type O Negative and Alice In Chains would tour together with them. This was a time when metal resembled something more like a brotherhood, rather than the gathering of pretty boys, all vying to be the leader of technical and passionless proficiency, that it has primarily become these days. There are just as many good new metal bands as there were good old metal bands, though. The fact that most metal bands are garbage, only reflects the fact that there are just that many more people playing metal these days. The genre has grown healthily over the years, seemingly impervious to either mainstream praise or scorn.

There's something so purely American about Pantera. Their being from the state of Texas surely plays a part in that, but it's also something much deeper. They seem to represent, more purely than anyone before or since, the emotions and sentiments of so many frustrated and shell shocked youths in this country. Many bands have successfully reflected the themes of alienation, but when it comes to the unending boiling rage that results from it, and then the frustration that comes from the inability to find an outlet for it, Pantera is unsurpassed. Of course there are other remarkable aspects to Pantera's music, but this is the one that earns them their title of being the founders of Street Metal. No witches or goblins. No overblown antics. Just a pure reflection of both the ugliness and beauty that seethes from every street of this nation.

The Gibroney Hunter Vs. The Hutch: Global Warming

2009-11-27T20:17:00.000-08:00

The Hutch: I was arguing about this with my conservative christian friend. One group of scientists doing bad science does not damn the science itself. There are still mountains - MOUNTAINS! - of good science being done all over the world. Look at the stuff coming out of India, China, and Antarctica, for example.

Fact is, we know we are producing more CO2 than ever. This much is certain. And we know that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas. These two facts together, paired with a great deal of observed and measured evidence from all over the world leads to a very obvious and ultimate conclusion about Global Warming.

No doubt, you'd point to more than a few outliers that exist. The oft-debated "cooling "stats, for example. And these facts need further exploring. It is certainly possible that all we know about global warming could turn out to be wrong. But considering all that we DO know, we can say, at the moment, that that is highly improbable. It would be very irresponsible not to act accordingly considering the danger involved in Global Warming being a real phenomenon.

There are no 100% knowns in science. Everything is a best guess. Even gravitation is called into question by any physicist worth his salt. We can only gather the best possible evidence and act according to what seems most likely at the moment. The testing and modeling and data gathering continues, and science refines and revises.

I sincerely hope everyone's wrong about Global Warming, but a handful of corrupt scientists does not make that so.

The Gibroney Hunter: I have no doubt that much good science is done everyday around the world. My intention isn't to attack science as an institution. Quite to the contrary, it's my love and respect for true science that motivates me to try to expose the criminal monied interests that have infiltrated, and now threaten to completely and irrevocably pervert and destroy science.

You're adamant about describing this e-mail situation as a group of rogue scientists who somehow got it into their heads to try to hide evidence of global temperature declines.. as if they weren't instructed by the individuals and groups who oversee their research to do just that.

When a scientist is given funding for specific research, he/she is not permitted very much deviation from the specific task that has been chartered. Sadly, the days of research and inquiry truly being in the hands of the scientist have long since passed us. The point I'm trying to make is that I find it extremely difficult to believe that these individuals attempted to fudge the data of their own volition. That's kind of like believing that the troops at Abu Ghraib decided amongst themselves to begin torturing people, and weren't specifically instructed to do just that. The scientific mind, like just about everything else in our world, is treated by the elite like just another resource to be harnessed and misused for their purposes.

While it's true that we as a species are producing more Co2 than ever before, studies have also shown that the overall levels of Co2 in our atmosphere have actually been much higher during certain periods of geological and human history.
Another point of debate is the issue of causation, regarding Co2. Many credible scientists question which comes first.. temperature increase or Co2 increase. In other words, there's disagreement over whether our Co2 emissions are significantly increasing temperature, or vice versa.. natural climate change is triggering a planetary response of increased Co2.

It's important to mention that no one is truly certain about global warming. It's not like the sabotage attacks of 9/11, which is clear-cut, and presentable in a court of law. This is an issue to be sorted out by honest professionals.. which is why gibronies like you and I can only really get so far, trying to figure it out.

I know of no global warming skeptics who doubt that our planet is very troubled. Oceans, rivers, and streams are poisoned. So is the air. Species are dying, new cancers are cropping up all the time, less and less of the planet remains unmolested and mowed down by profiteers.. the only point that many honest scientists have a burning desire to debate is that of specifically whether or not our activity can be conclusively linked to temperature increases.

Regardless of where you stand, we should all be in agreement that something with such serious implications as "carbon credits" or climate change legislation, should not be primarily in the hands of a reptile like Al Gore. He's a treasonous parasite. He stands to make a killing if his "carbon credit" scheme pushes through.. but i digress.

I'm curious.. what do you think about the fact that much of the global warming raw data is not made available to skeptics who intend to scrutinize it? Commonly, global warming skeptics are refused this data, and told by Establishment scientists that they probably work for an oil company, and to get lost. First of all, no skeptics have ever been exposed as being on oil company payrolls, but even if they were, so what? How can it be truly scientific if the RAW DATA, the very source of studies and calculations, is not shared with professionals on BOTH sides? Also, much of the information presented by Al Gore is based on studies not properly peer-reviewed.

There may be confusion when it comes to the issue of global warming, but there's no confusion whatsoever over what IS and IS NOT good and legitimate scientific practices. These hacked emails are just more evidence that an honest scientific debate is NOT TAKING PLACE HERE.

Another reason why the "you may work for an oil company" argument is bullshit.. is the example of the tobacco industry. They employed scientists left and right, but eventually good science won, and now everyone knows that cigarettes are quite bad. So if the proponents of anthropogenic climate change are so confidently certain of their findings, they should not only offer every and anyone the opportunity to prove them wrong, but indeed CHERISH it, since it's through this exact type of criticism and refinement that scientific progress is made.

The Hutch: It sounds to me like you're attacking the process than the findings themselves. Which I can't and will not argue with. Any attempt by anyone, regardless of intention, to make good science better will be applauded by me.

However, most of the time, the statements you make are headlined by a disbelief in climate change which I don't think is a valid position based on the good science we do have.

As for people not turning over their data, well, I can't answer for everyone, but I have met more than a few climatologists (working for AAAR [http://aaar.org/ -- no, I didn't design their page, I Just publish updates on it] on occasion, in particular, grants me the opportunity) I know there's a lot of fear in the community. Fear of their data being stolen or misinterpreted. The measures they make us go through to make their presentation slides undownloadable... (which, mind you, is absurd and incredibly frustrating. When I show them how to take a screenshot, their heads explode).

But every year there are these presentations when the data does come out. I think it's more about completeness more than anything.

But I like the tabacco industry analogy. I may bring that up next time I have a chance to haves a conversation with a AAAR person.

Sorry if this is all over the place. Just trying to get a few tenuous points made before leaving for Thanksgiving stuff. Which I'm now going to do. Later!

The Gibroney Hunter:

Yeah I focus on the improprieties within the bureaucratic/political/funding side of the science, since my knowledge of climatology doesn't go much past the basics.

But don't underestimate the significance of this corruption, evidenced by the immoral and in my opinion criminal activity, exposed in these emails. (i sent you the source code, check it out.) These emails reveal an attempt to unfairly manage and manipulate the facts and the overall debate over global warming. This doesn't seem to fit well with the image of rock-solid science, pushed in our faces by the global warming marketing machine.

The success of the theory of evolution didn't require people sitting around trying to fudge the numbers like sleazy accountants.

I'm definitely highly skeptical of the theory of anthropogenic global warming, which is a standpoint not only supported by volumes of evidence, but by the already destroyed reputation of the Establishment, and the elite globalists who own and operate it. In other words, they've committed so many frauds and crimes against the populations they dominate, that I find it entirely rational to maintain the standpoint of deep skepticism and, dare I say, a sober amount of paranoia, toward their agenda.

Anyway, yeah.. have a good thanksgiving.

Common Sense - What Really Happened On September 11th? (part 2)

2009-11-23T06:07:00.000-08:00

1. Building 7 of the World Trade Center complex was not hit by an airplane, yet it collapsed at all but exactly free-fall speed. This seems to run counter to ALL PREVIOUS KNOWLEDGE of structure fires, and the behavior of steel structures while aflame. Never before or since this event has a steel framed building collapsed into itself at nearly free-fall speed, from fire and only fire. And that, of course, is the official story. Observe the footage of building 7's collapse. Hopefully you're already familiar, as anyone even remotely concerned with what happens in their country should be. Then compare that footage to stock footage of building demolitions. The images will be virtually indistinguishable. There is a tell-tale buckling of the roof (which begins collapse before the rest of the building) toward the center, which is exactly what one would expect during a demolition of a building.

Another very instructive comparison to make is between the footage of building 7 and other high rise buildings that have caught fire. One of the liberty towers in Philadelphia, for example, burned for over 12 hours, if I remember correctly.. officials on the scene described it as probably the worst high rise building fire in American history. The building is lit up like a torch, bright as the sun. The images of this event couldn't be any more different from building 7 on sept. 11. The fire in building 7 is emitting very dark smoke, which indicates an OXYGEN STARVED fire, rather than the thinner type smoke emitted from hotter, oxygen-fed fires. There are other skyscraper fires to compare this event to. There was one in Spain in 2005. Same story. Much bigger, brighter fire, and no collapse. And definitely no collapse at free fall speed, something all but impossible to accomplish unless a building's core support apparatus has been neutralized.

Either NYC has employed the most mediocre of engineers and architects.. or the official explanation of this event, as a fire-caused collapse is simply incorrect. There's much more to bring up regarding building 7, but I'll move on to another point for now.

2. THE TESTIMONY OF FORMER C.I.A AGENT SYBEL EDMONDS. Recently, this brave woman broke a federal gag order by announcing to the press that the agency she was a member of had direct contact with Al Qaeda and Bin Laden all the way up to the very day of September 11th. This is a startling revelation, as there is already a bucketful of evidence linking American intelligence to Al Qaeda, which in Arabic, means "The Base," and is in literal reference to a computer database the military kept in the '80's, of middle-eastern mercenaries willing to do the C.I.A's bidding. Combine this unsettling fact with the fact that Osama Bin Laden was visited by American intelligence officials in a Saudi Arabian hospital just months before the attacks, where he was receiving dialisis treatment, and also the fact that other whistle-blowers have revealed having Bin Laden in the crosshairs, and being ordered not to take the shot.. and the possibility that Al Qaeda is really a patsy organization, under the wing of the C.I.A, becomes more than mere idle speculation.

3. A common response to the obvious discrepancies between the official explanation, and the video footage of all 3 buildings collapsing in a manner consistent with demolition, and inconsistent with fire, is: "Well, there's really no point in going over this, since we'll never know exactly how they fell, until another two planes fly into another two towers.. so let's just forget about it."

It's important to patiently remind people that the one and only reason we are unable to ascertain the exact cause of all 3 collapses is because the federal government, only days after the attack, arranged for the steel debris to be shipped off to China to be melted down and used to make various slave labor products. Obviously excavation should have begun as soon as was possible, but shipping the debris, which would have contained AN ABUNDANCE of forensic and ballistic evidence, to a foreign country just days after the attacks, constitutes tampering with evidence in a federal crime scene, a very serious offense.

4. At least six of the alleged suicide hijackers have come out publicly, declaring that they are alive and not involved in any terrorism. Despite this amazing fact, these individuals remain on the F.B.I's list of the 19 hijackers, and no explanation or acknowledgment of this fact is offered.

5. In the 1950's, a B52 bomber flew HEAD FIRST, in foggy weather, into the empire state buildiing. There was some loss of life, obviously.. and it was quite a challenge for the firefighters at the time. But no big deal. No collapse. And that was a B52 bomber.

6. Samples of Nano-thermite, found at/near the crime scene, within the dust from the debris. Samples acquired and studied by Dr. Steven Jones, Physicist. Nano-thermite is significant, because it's an industrial explosive, commonly used in the demolition industry. It's presence within the debris is extremely difficult to explain, from the standpoint of the official story, since there is really no conceivable explanation for this particular substance to have been present naturally.

7. The Director of the 9/11 Commission, the federal government's excuse for an investigation, is an individual named Philip Zelikow. The problem with Philip Zelikow is that he co-authored a book with Condoleeza Rice, and has close ties and friendships with several members of the Bush administration. This is just one example of the multitude of conflicts of interest within the 9/11 Commission and it's final report.

8. NASA thermographic pictures from MONTHS after the attack show significant amounts of MOLTEN METAL still pooled beneath the rubble. The temperatures of this molten steel far exceed the maximum burning temperature of jet fuel. And that's jet fuel at its MAXIMUM. Forget about jet fuel after months of smoldering, there's no way these temperatures would be at the level necessary to maintain a pool of melted steel. Do you know what is consistent with lingering pools of molten steel, though? EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF THE MILITARY GRADE INDUSTRIAL EXPLOSIVE, NANO-THERMITE, AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED.

9, The Project For A New American Century (PNAC). This is a document published by a Neoconservative thinktank in 2000, within which the neocons complain about how their agenda for securing American dominance during the upcoming century isn't progressing quickly enough for them, and that a "NEW PEARL HARBOR" as they put it, is necessary, if the American people are going to be sufficiently galvanized into future wars for empire. About one year later, they got the "new pearl harbor" they were looking for.

Please rigorously fact-check any of this that sounds far fetched or made up.

I believe that exposing the crime of 9/11 is key to putting the brakes on this entire nightmare that has been thrust upon us since then, first by the Neocons, during Bush's eight years, and now, it's become obvious, also by Obama's fake liberal front, and his Wall Street handlers.

It's very difficult to stir the American public into becoming proactive. Very few things have been able to do that. But once it's done it's one of the most insurmountable forces the globe's ever seen. The overwhelming public outcry over Vietnam springs to mind as a powerful example of this. Another is the progress made with workers' rights in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

I believe this type of awakening and empowerment is in order once again. And a true realization of the motives and culprits behind 9/11 is precisely the remedy to the sociological disorder that has plagued our nation since that horrible day.

HIgh Fructose Corn Syrup: Toxic, or just pointless and extremely unhealthy?

2009-11-23T05:10:00.000-08:00

Some people will try to dismiss the creepiness of this ad by saying that us "crazies" would be making just as big a deal if the makers of HFCS didn't respond to their product's negative reputation. But that misses the point, as the suspicion arises from the type of response offered by the makers of HFCS, not merely the fact that they did respond. In other words, the fact that they chose to use advertising propaganda, rather than an information-rich print ad, or something of that nature, is somewhat disconcerting. I mean, really.. there's barely 10 words spoken in this commercial. It's difficult to see how it could be described as anything but straight propaganda.

And then there's the cheap mind game aspect of it.. how the individual with concerns regarding HFCS is portrayed as a bumbling boob who can't say word 1 when asked what the big deal is. Again, more indication that the makers of this ad are interested not in an open dialogue about their product taking place, but rather, in making people with concerns seem stupid and out of step, socially. This ad is a cheap piece o' bullshit and can only add to people's fears and suspicions of HFCS.

Calling Shenanigans on the Professional Class Propagandists, Once Again

2009-11-17T19:21:00.000-08:00

Get a load o' this Gibronasaurus

Yeah I stopped taking this guy seriously as soon as he tried to connect Maher's skepticism of the pharmaceutical industry and the CDC's standards and practices, with "9/11 conspiracy mongering", simply by declaring it so. He draws no comparisons. He gives no fact-based examples. He simply name-drops '9/11 conspiracy theories' and then name-drops vaccine skepticism and then lazily lets his hopefully braindead audience make the unfair connection, without any critical inquiry. Rather than playing politics by dragging up the name of a political movement that may have a certain stigma for the average moron, this dude could have presented a legitimate SCIENTIFIC, not POLITICAL, critique. You'd think that would've been in order, since.. y'know.. he's a scientist, n' all.

Equating the honest and legitimate concerns of parents across this nation to a politically stigmatized movement without providing any support for that claim is just intellectually dishonest.

Reminding us of the basic theory behind vaccinations is a laughable response to skepticism and concern over a fast-tracked vaccine that has undergone utterly inadequate testing. The issue isn't whether or not there is any basis to the concept of vaccinations (there most assuredly is) but rather whether this scientific breakthrough has been politically and economically hijacked by people who, shall we say, haven't taken the hypocratic oath.

"Your brilliant line about how we know that the Bush administration did not orchestrate 9/11 (“because it worked”)"

His description of this line from Bill Maher as "brilliant" says a whole lot about him. Interpreting the "inside job" theory of 9/11 as some ridiculously unrealistic assertion that bush the nitwit is singlehandedly responsible for the attacks, reveals a mind-blowing niavete towards how intelligence organizations such as the C.I.A, MI6, and Moussad operate throughout our world. If anything, the presidency of such a dolt as Bush Jr. clearly illustrates COMPETENCY AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL.. for surely only a society expertly manipulated and controlled, and pervasively propagandized, could tolerate an 8 year reign from such a stuttering "clown on the world stage," to use one of Maher's more memorable lines.

2012 And The Mainstream Media

2009-11-16T11:08:00.000-08:00

The mainstream eunuchs, NPR especially, have really been laying on the adolescent condescension and non sequiturs on the topic of 2012 this week. Here's a couple of points about how their approach to the question was both factually inaccurate and dismissive.

The first problem is the media's seemingly unstoppable urge to falsely compare the Y2K thing with 2012. Generally, the message the Mainstream Media is trying to forcefeed you is this: "Remember that Y2K thing? Well, that didn't amount to anything. So if you think 2012 may amount to anything, you must be foolish like those Y2K people." Y2K was a fad that had nothing to do with the "end of the world," or anything of the sort, so therefore the 2012 question, since it deals with some of the same themes, should be tossed into the wastebasket next to "Y2K" as just another silly fad gobbled up by us gullible westerners, in our neverending and fruitless search for fulfillment.

Sounds like a good argument over the airwaves, especially if you find the right kind of soothing effeminate NPR voice to convey it. The only problem here is that it's one of the more ludicrous arguments you could make, as Y2K was simply unheard of until about 10 months before the year 2000, and the significance of 2012 has been noted by extremely diverse civilizations throughout the last FIVE THOUSAND YEARS of human history, not to mention the fact that the cosmic cycles referred to by the Mayans and others are entirely real, and not disputed by any astronomers, in the west or otherwise.

The debate is not over whether 2012 is real or not, but over the significance of it, and whether or not it will directly influence our societies and collective unconscious. To compare this to a late '90's fad that was relatively easy to remedy, is either quite stupid, or simply dishonest.

My second point is kind of a reiteration of the first.. Another idea that these liars were adamant about was that people got really excited about the Y2K thing, and when that didn't work out, all the "crazies" were desperate to find the next armageddon fad, so they all seized upon 2012. As previously stated, the idea that 2012 is merely a product of fad-seekers is beyond retarded.

Alex Jones VS Snowcat VS The Gibroney Hunter

2009-11-03T22:30:00.000-08:00

Brought to you by The Gibroney Hunter. Music by Snowcat. Words by Alex Jones. Images from the Internet.

The Gibroney Hunter Vs. The Hutch, Battle 2

2009-10-30T04:30:00.000-07:00

The Gibroney Hunter: Virtually all vaccine safety research has been conducted by the vaccine producers themselves. The FDA does not conduct its own independent studies on this issue. Therefore, the manufacturers of the vaccines themselves are the sole source of information. Also, double-blind studies, which are essential to any good science, have never been conducted. Watch the documentary "vaccine nation." It should be on youtube. The mainstream scientific community is just another corrupt and toxic institution.

The Hutch: Another corrupt and toxic institution? really? I don't feel very corrupt or toxic. I don't think any of my scientist friends are corrupt or toxic. Mostly I think everyone I've met in either community are primarily concerned with discovering things and helping people.

Regardless of how invalid you think the research is giving vaccines the clear, there is absolutely NO good research that damns them. You're operating purely on speculation. There is, however, a great deal of research on the new outbreaks and deaths of old, curable diseases caused by communities of parents opting out of vaccines. Autism isn't a life sentence. Polio is.

Lastly, there have been double-blind studies on just about every vaccine out there. I don't know where you get your info, but it seems far less reliable than the so-called corrupt and toxic medical and scientific communities.

The Gibroney Hunter: I disagree that proper double blind studies were conducted. The studies conducted by vaccine makers were pervasively flawed and incomplete. And even if they weren't, it doesn't change the fact that the makers themselves were the ones testing. And you know as well as I do that good science cannot be biased in such a way.

Interesting you should mention Polio. If you observe the line graphs on Polio statistics in the months and years leading up to the vaccination, you may be as surprised as I was to learn that the death rate and diagnosis rates had been steadily DECLINING during this time. Quite contrary to most people's basic assumptions, there is actually a huge jump in the numbers immediately after vaccinations, then the natural steady decline continues until Polio ceases to be an epidemic. This is a very telling fact because it seems to support the assertion that the Polio vaccine was ineffective at best, and completely poisonous at worst, and also that the Polio virus, like so many other viruses throughout human history, was working itself out naturally.

A couple points regarding your claim of a lack of evidence supporting skepticism of vaccines. Look up Guillain-Barre syndrome, if you're not already familiar. It's actually a disease caused by tainted flu vaccines in the 1970's. For an entire year, the Establishment denied any connection between mounting deaths and the vaccinations, but they finally had to admit that yes, they had been poisoning people. There's much more to be said on this, but my second point is one I believe I've basically made before, in facebook comments. It's that the lack of well-funded research contradicting vaccine makers should come as a surprise to no one, since the makers of vaccines are part of a Eugenicist agenda that owns and operates mainstream science. They censor science just like they censor the news. There is a long list of honest professionals who were blacklisted and never funded again for research, after coming out publicly against things like fluoridation of our water supply, aspartame, vaccinations, and so on.

The Hutch: " It's that the lack of well-funded research contradicting vaccine makers should come as a surprise to no one, since the makers of vaccines are part of a Eugenicist agenda that owns and operates mainstream science."

DUDE. Come ON. Really?

Why is it that conspiracy theorists are so skeptical of damn near everything, but always so sure of the crackpot theories they come up with?

The Gibroney Hunter: "DUDE. Come ON. Really?"

What an articulate and well formulated response.

You are to scientific debate what Lil John is to hip hop.

The Hutch: It ceases to be a scientific debate when you bring up global conspiracies. It's like trying to discuss biology and someone chimes in "well what about the unicorn!?" I can't prove there are no unicorns. I'm just have to common sense to assume that they're fairly improbable.

Again, I don't understand why you can be so skeptical of so many things, yet so accepting of these crackpot theories you keep coming up with.

The Gibroney Hunter: But you can state a comprehensive case as to why it seems highly improbably that unicorns exist. In fact, this should be rather easy to do from a scientific perspective. And this is precisely what you haven't done. Sadly, much of what you're saying pretty much boils down to "you're crazy" Which may or may not be true.. but as an intellectually sound rebuttal? Just doesn't cut it.

"It ceases to be a scientific debate when you bring up global conspiracies."

Why? Is the subject of global conspiracies somehow beyond the scope of science? I'm assuming your answer would be 'no' so what exactly is it that leads you to reject this idea on it's face.

Fun Fact: BOTH predominant views of the events of 9/11 are in fact conspiracy theories. Some believe the richest people in the world conspired to ensure the next century would be one firmly in their control, and some believe that a rag-tag group of muslims CONSPIRED to simultaneously hijack four airliners, permeate NORAD, the most technologically advanced air-defense system in the solar system, crash those planes into 2 buildings and make 3 of them fall down.

Regarding my skepticism, and seeming lack of it in certain areas.. I disagree. I'm skeptical of every and any thing that crosses my path. The difference is that instead of suckling from the withering teat of NPR or Scientific American, I've actually begun using my own skepticism and applying it independently. And y'know what? Alot of the stuff that alot of people are convinced is immutable fact? Turns out to be shit, rather than shinola. I did not choose to become a 'conspiracy theorist.' My loyalty to the facts and the truth has led me to a place that (not very surprisingly) is viciously opposed by the massive hordes of lemmings known as the average American citizen.

My Silence Cannot Be Bought

2009-10-26T21:30:00.000-07:00

"I've chosen to go to court, rather than accept a payoff from the 9/11 victims compansation fund. Instead I want to know what went so wrong with our intelligence and security systems that a band of religious fanatics was able to turn four U.S passenger jets into an enemy force, attack our cities, and kill 3,000 civilians with terrifying ease. I want to know why two 110 story skyscrapers collapsed in less than two hours, and why escape and rescue options were so limited.

"I am suing because unlike other investigative avenues, including congressional hearings and the 9/11 commision, my lawsuit requires all testimony be given under oath, and fully uses powers to compel evidence. The victim's fund was not created in a spirit of compassion. Rather, it was a tacit acknowledgment by congress that it tampered with our civil justice system in an unprecedented way. Lawmakers capped the liability of the airlines at the behest of lobbyists who descended on Washington while the September 11th fires still smoldered. And this liability cap protects not just the airlines but also World Trade Center builders, safety engineers, and other defendants. The caps on liability have consequences for those who want to sue to shed light on the mistakes of 9/11. It means the playing field is tilted steeply in favor of those who need to be held accountable.

"With the financial consequences, other than insurance proceeds removed, there is no incentive for those whose negligence contributed to the death toll to acknowledge their failings, or implement reforms. They can afford to deny culpability and play a waiting game. By suing, I forfeited the 1.8 million dollar average award for a death claim I could have collected under the fund. Nor do I have any illusions about winning money in my suit. What I do know is I owe it to my husband, who's death, I believe, could have been avoided, to see that all of those responsible are held accountable. If we don't get answers to what went wrong, there will be a next time. And instead of 3,000 dead it will be 10,000. What will congress do then?

"So I say to congress, big business, and everyone who conspired to divert attention from government and private sector failures: My husband's life was priceless. And I will not let his death be meaningless. My silence cannot be bought." - Beverly Eckert, 9/11 widow and activist. She herself died in the crash of flight 3407, seven days after meeting with president Barack Obama.

A Gibroney Hunter Salute To: The Original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle movie

2009-10-17T04:30:00.000-07:00

One of the crowning achievements of Hollywood, hands down. This is by no means a complete review or summary of the film (for that, I'd recommend the Angry Video Game Nerd, who reviews the film in depth in his youtube films), just a few comments.

For a children's film it achieves the perfect balance of harsh reality and fantasy. New York is portrayed as the grimy crime-toilet that it is. Everyone's poor, and everyone's job and life sucks. Just like real life. Except crazy shit happens sometimes, like having to battle the Foot Clan. Just like real life. (crazy shit happening, not the Foot Clan) April O'Neil tries her best to expose this hidden crime syndicate, but her Establishment shill of a boss is afraid to touch it and eventually fires her for her insistence on exposing the truth.

This film captures the popular culture of the late eighties/early nineties perfectly. The Foot Clan's indoctrination of the youth is a reflection of the gang and urban violence problem which was exploding exponentially at the time. We are shown a world in which evil runs rampant and one of the world's only sources of light and goodness are forced to live underground, lest they be exposed and labeled as 'freaks'. One of the best movies ever.

The Gibroney Hunter Vs. The Hutch

2009-10-06T04:34:00.000-07:00

The Hutch: Art _is_ culture. His cure is the disease he's railing against.

McKenna has his head so far up his ass, so enamored with his struggle against society, that he barely understands how the rest of the world lives and thinks; like an angsty teenager railing against the 9-5 world when he's never worked a day in his life. He's a perfect example of how psychedelics can ruin person -- a hippie Dr. Jeckle permanently stuck as a wacked-out Mr. Hyde. And this is coming from someone who very much likes psychedelics.

How and why anyone would elevate the words of a man who equates science -- the pursuit knowledge through experimentation and research -- as some sort of "paternalistic metaphor ... extrapolated into toys for healthy children" is beyond me. He's quite clearly detached from any reality we exist in and he discredits whatever good ideas he happens to stumble upon simply by having them.

The Gibroney Hunter: Most of this statement is antagonistic and devoid of any actual content, but I'll try to respond to the little that is response-worthy. To start, it should be obvious that art is not culture. To conclude simply that "art is culture" is like saying that food is culture, just because the two are closely related. The particular spices and recipes, ... yes of course that's culture, but the food itself? Clearly not. The same can be said of art. Art is shaped, amplified, hindered, destroyed, exalted, by culture, but to say that art is merely equitable to and wholly subservient to culture reveals a very limited perspective on what art is and what art means to the human species.

The next few comments are generalized attacks on Terrence Mckenna, which can only reasonably warrant a defensive response, so forgive me. But Terence Mckenna has numerous books under his belt, along with a decades-long history of lecturing and public speaking, not to mention having lived long periods of time among tribal peoples in Central and South America. Not exactly behavior easily associated with a "Mr. Hyde hippie" unwilling to work the "9-5" (which, by the way, is a way of life that is obviously deeply flawed and unrewarding for the overwhelming majority of its participants, and only to be defended by true conformists.)

The Hutch: I would say food is culture, as would even the most conservative reading of the definition and spirit of the word. And to clarify, I wasn't saying that all culture is art, but that art is, again by definition, a defining feature of culture. But art isn't the problem, it's the solution. To culture. Which encompasses art? Right. He's not even challenged and he doesn't explain. He simply offers his nonsensical solution to his nonsensical problem and people cheer and ask how they can aid in his nonsensical crusade. And I'm the conformist?

I'm not usually one to go to the ad hominem attack, but I make exceptions when I think the person holding the idea is insane. And I do think McKenna is insane, regardless if it was because of the psychedelics, the massive brain tumor that killed him, or pure genetics. But your right, perhaps I should simply focus on the idea he's presenting and leave it at that.

I mean... extropy? Come on!

The Gibroney Hunter: Food: Food is any substance, usually composed of carbohydrates, fats, proteins and water, that can be eaten or drunk by an animal, including humans, for nutrition or pleasure. This is the most conservative reading of the definition and spirit of the word 'food' that i could find. There is no mention of culture. Simply because something is articulated through culture does not mean that it is culture. This is like saying that because culture plays a huge role in the way we express the emotion of love, then the emotion of love is culture. Obviously false. Love is an inevitable component of human nature and culture is merely the mechanism through which it either flourishes or is hindered. Take away culture and human love does not disappear, it simply is stifled, as it is not as able to be freely articulated.

It's important to keep in mind that there is a longer speech, and a larger context than is available in the youtube clip [the popular "culture is not your friend" youtube clip floating around], and Terrence Mckenna offers art not as the sole and central solution to a sick culture, but merely as one way to solve the problem. Perhaps if asked, he would also have other suggestions. Remember, he's speaking at an art school, which should help explain his focus on art as a solution to some of the world's problems.

Your choice of words throughout your comments is perplexing. Crusade? Saying that art can change the world for the better is a 'crusade'? Also you seem quick to jump to conclusions and put words into Mckenna's mouth. For example, you describe him as 'railing against' culture. Saying that culture is not your friend is quite different from railing or crusading against it. I think the obvious point he was making is that sometimes we forget that our true selves are entirely separate from culture, and culture is attached to us, like computer software. All of culture is alot like religion, in the sense that the whole thing really only exists as a metaphorical pair of training wheels for the human species, while we come to grips with our newfound emotional, intellectual, and spiritual capabilities, evolved over the past few hundred thousand years.

You may or may not be a conformist. I'm simply pointing out that in my experience, anyone willing to use the "lazy hippie" argument usually is. It usually reflects a jealousy at the individual, who is brave, clever, resourceful or maybe just plain lucky enough to brake free from the monotonous, potential-squandering grind of the "9-5" Which no one wants to take part in. They may be able to throw enough trinkets and baubles at you to make you say "this ain't so bad" But the sad reality is that culture is now overgrown, and being used by the ruling elite as a mechanism of control over the rest of us.

Calling someone crazy, and then citing that as reason enough not to engage in debate or discussion of their ideas, is one of the oldest and lamest tricks in the book. (see 9/11 truth movement, Prof. Steven Jones, Physicist)

Anarchists: STAY HOME

2009-09-27T07:17:00.000-07:00

Just another group of scenesters. Without your matching black uniforms and consistently earned reputation for vandalism and petty violence, the police would have a much harder time justifying their bloated crowd-control budgets to the public. You're all so caught up in the idea of yourselves that you've been far too slow to realize just how often and how deeply your 'organizations' have been infiltrated and commandeered by the very state that you march against. Simply put, if you get two anarchists in a room together, there's a pretty good chance one of them's a cop.

This is the point at which you abandon a movement. When it becomes overrun to the extent of accomplishing exactly the opposite of the goals for which it was chartered. When your meaningless little stageplay serves only the police state, as it is played out on their terms, you're provoked on their terms, and finally arrested on their terms. And in the end no one's mind is changed. No one's understanding is broadened. No real work has been done. I believe our founding fathers would be dismayed to see our freedom to assemble be reduced to street parades.

Yes, you should be able to assemble in Pittsburgh's streets and protest, and yes it's fucked that these monsters will actually employ sonic weaponry and gas grenades to prevent you from doing so. But here's the million dollar question. What's our best strategy of opposition to this tyrannical establishment? Street parades? Putting our cards on the table? Wearing our hearts on our sleeve? Or is it non-compliance, plain and simple? Non-compliance coupled with persistent efforts to disseminate the information that the mainstream media has hidden from the people. Now, non-compliance can take many forms, like eating fresh, local and organic foods, like they don't want you to.. never drinking their tap water, like they want you to.. never joining their military or police organizations, or mainstream political movements, never buying new vehicles, never buying new shoes or more clothing until truly necessary, canceling your cable, staying off prescription drugs, refusing vaccinations, voting 3rd party, etc..

Basically, there are only two things you can do. Improve your behavior, or try to encourage others to improve theirs. Cliche protests accomplish neither of these. Non-compliance and information dissemination accomplishes both. Turn on, tune in, drop out, Gibroneys. For real.

Smokin' Gibroneys Outa Their Holes

2009-09-20T21:34:00.000-07:00

I found this Gibroney's video to be snarky and adolescent in its tone, and not terribly helpful. What do you think?

I'd like to discuss so called "no planers" with you. I'd like to know what has convinced you that they are creators of disinformation. I've watched September Clues and several films like it, and find some of the evidence to be very compelling indeed. While I see no reason not to believe the towers were hit by aircraft, I think the many obvious discrepencies and violations of simple laws of physics contained in the film footage is very incriminating evidence, and certainly not outside of the establishment's capabilities.

I find it amusing that many within the 9/11 truth movement go on at great length about just how capable the government is of great conspiracy.. yet when the topic of video manipulation arises most 9/11 truthers declare it ridiculous without providing any clear reasons why. For example, the majority of the 9/11 truth movement agree with David Ray Griffin that the cell phone calls from high altitude were faked. He even goes on about the corporation that patented the technology in his books, yet for some reason we're to believe that no discussion of a comparable VIDEO manipulation of the terrorist attack is necessary, because the idea's just so obviously ridiculous.

I can understand why many of the 'leaders' of 9/11 truth would steer clear of this topic. Namely, because it would risk alienating the movement from the general public, who are far too stupid to grasp such things as video manipulation of news footage. Again, I'm on the fence as to whether or not the projectiles that hit the buildings were authentic American Airlines flights, but i find the generally belligerent tone of the 'mainstream' of 9/11 truth toward 'no planers' to be very counterproductive. I'm interested in hearing any specific criticisms of no plane theory that you may have. Thanks for reading.

Interesting Back and Forth

2009-09-20T08:26:00.000-07:00

Gibroney: You are absolutely correct when you say that the collapse of WTC7 was probably the result of controlled demolition. The CIA, Department of Defense, and Secret Service (plus the IRS) all shared office space on the 25th floor. Some sites around the world which contain sensitive information are internally wired for remote demolition from the outset in order to 'plug leaks', so to speak. If the building had not been demolished, individuals with no security clearance would gain access to it in the aftermath.

The claim of lack of evidence pointing to Al-Qaeda is simply false, as is the theory of 'multiple bin Ladens' on video. Al-Qaeda was directly implicated in the 1993 WTC attacks and were known to have been planning to try again. It should be noted that at the trial of Ramzi Yousef, the structural deficiencies of the twin towers were used as evidence by the prosecution (though the 9/11 Commission omits these facts, see my recommendation below), plus bin Laden has admitted it himself in the videos you claim are fake, even though many individuals in the intelligence communities of the world are trained to identify these specific types of fakery. Such dissimilation would be obvious to all of the world's other agencies and governments; are they in on the conspiracy too?

Also, you claim that:

"If all of this evidence...is to be explained as merely part of an elaborate disinformation campaign, then that would seem to clash with the "gross incompetence" theory, since that very incompetence should logically be expected to result in the uncovering of this supposed disinformation."

Unfortunately, your conclusion is a non-sequitur. It does not follow that because a government is incompetent in one instance, that it can be RELIABLY expected to be incompetent in others. Having said this (and after doing a bit more reading) I must retract the statement I made in my previous message about the administration's mishandling of Iraq etc. being indicative of incompetence on 9/11. The pattern is interesting, but admittedly ultimately inconclusive. In addition, I am not the only one propagating the meme that "the theory IS the conspiracy". Noam Chomsky, for one, has said that it is not unlikely.

By the way, I think that your theory that Chomsky is self-censoring to protect his family is a pretty far stretch.

I am not claiming that disinformation (which needn't be elaborate) is the ONLY source of the 9/11 truth movement. Much earnest grassroots activism has sprung up, because it's obvious that the government ACTUALLY HAS something to hide. However, a tried and true method of thought control is restricting the scope of a debate, and encouraging vigorous discussion within that framework. And as any good liar knows, the best lies are the ones that contain as much truth as possible.

I should add that I don't pretend to be able to PROVE that there is an organized campaign for disinformation; it's just an extremely well-supported theory, given that powerful individuals in many sectors of government, including the FBI and CIA, have means, motive, and opportunity, three things they crucially DON'T have in the case of deliberate conspiracy; see my previous message for remarks about the utter impracticality of such plans versus the broad practicality of disinformation.

For more evidence for incompetence, including Al-Qaeda infiltration of the US military, I suggest the work of journalist Peter Lance, particularly his book "Triple Cross". He describes the ineptitude across the four most recent previous administrations as "the biggest intelligence failure since the Trojan horse."

The Gibroney Hunter: Your theory to explain Bldg 7 is very interesting. It's my first time hearing of it. Are you aware of what specific buildings are wired for this, or is that perhaps not public information? I'll look into this more deeply when I have enough time.

I acknowledge that my view of the OBL video evidence is only my opinion, since I'm in no position to prove or disprove that. There are, however, some serious problems, not only with the video but with the way in which it has been presented by our media. The C.I.A translation of the audio has been contradicted by a German team of translators who contend that OBL (or someone resembling him) simply acknowledges approval or pleasure regarding the attacks, but doesn't acknowledge responsibility. Also, the individual in the video is seen wearing a gold wristwatch, which is a clear violation of muslim norms, at least among fundamentalist jihadists. I mention this fact not because it relates to the identity of the man in the video, but because it's indicative of the overall phoniness of it. Again, there is no reason to state conclusively that the man in the "Smoking Gun" video is a double, but it is faulty to reject this idea a priori, as there is a long historical precedent for this, especially among leaders who are at high risk of assassination. Saddam Hussein was notorious for his impressive cast of body doubles.

I disagree that my statement is a non-sequiter. Although it may appear so on it's face, a deeper examination shows that rather than simply presenting one instance and then another unrelated one, we are, in fact, proposing the same scenario. I'm proposing that the federal government lied about the cause of the collapse of the WTC complex, and then engaged in a massive disinformation campaign in order to control and manipulate public opinion. You're also proposing that the federal gov. lied about the collapse (blg 7 being wired for demolition) and then engaged in disinformation regarding those collapses. Therefore we are both proposing the same thing (albeit with very different proposed motives). The fundamental difference, however, is that my view has an extensive body of evidence to support it, and yours, to my knowledge, doesn't have a comparable amount of supportive evidence. You mention means, motive, and opportunity, which are indeed an important part of any investigation. However, these three characteristics amount to pretty much nothing, without any evidence to go with them, especially when there are alternative explanations which do, in fact, incorporate a large amount of verifiable facts (like witness accounts of explosions throughout the buildings and basement, nano-thermite, etc..). Essentially, the question is not "can you prove the 'theory is the conspiracy' idea", but "can you even present a compelling fact-based argument for it?" The issue of fire insulation (or lack thereof), while certainly relevant, does not adequately explain how jet fuel, which burns at 1000 C at maximum, could possibly have compromised the steel (1,300 minimum melting temp) so extensively in such a short period of time.

I certainly agree with you that Al Qaeda did play an important role in the '93 and '01 attacks, however I think a much more important and telling aspect of the attacks is the C.I.A fingerprints left all over, which Chomsky mentions in the video. To be clear, when I speak of a lack of evidence linking Al Qaeda to the attacks, I'm referring to the funding, and much of the planning and execution stages of the attack, for which there is indeed a lack of evidence (at least by law enforcement standards), and not to the obvious evidence linking Osama Bin Laden and his 19 patsies to American intelligence.

I'm not sure I follow your statements about intelligence agencies around the world presumably being eager to expose one another's dirty laundry. Surely there is much that is common knowledge within certain intelligence circles, and just as surely, any outing of these secrets would result in an "intelligence war" sort of scenario. In other words, you seem to be assuming that people in glass houses would be eager to throw stones, but precisely the opposite is true, especially in the intelligence field, which is essentially built on secrets.

The short answer to "are they in on the conspiracy too?" is yes. This becomes clear when one considers that the same group of international bankers and wealthy elite control groups like MI6, the C.I.A, and Mossad, organizations which on their surface appear to be functioning entirely independent of one another. Obviously this isn't to say that everyone within these groups would have to have been aware of such involvement. Intelligence organizations are highly compartmentalized, and this, in my opinion, is adequate to theoretically explain how a surprisingly small group of criminals are able to govern them. Unflinchingly obeying and never questioning orders from above is precisely the behavior that individuals are rewarded for. The assertion that "the government can't keep a secret that big" is a common argument posed by people who do not accept that 9/11 was an inside job. One good historical example that counters this thinking is the Manhattan Project. For roughly a decade, 48,000 Americans were involved in it's undertaking, and not until it was confirmed that we had the bomb and the Germans didn't, did anyone at all start talking. Also, it's important to note that every year, the list of 9/11 whistleblowers grows, so perhaps we're in agreement after all, that the federal government indeed cannot keep a secret this big.

This is getting a bit wordy, so I'll conclude by noting my disagreement that Chomsky being threatened is a stretch. I suggest the film "The Insider" to shed light on how easy it is for very powerful people to level threats at people of normal means. The film is a true account of a tobacco corporation making a whisleblower's life miserable. Tobacco corporations are relatively low on the totem pole, so to speak. One can imagine how miserable the globalist elite are capable of making one's life. Again, no evidence. But I disagree that the idea in itself is a stretch from reality. In reality, perhaps a threat wouldn't even be necessary, considering how well-informed and intelligent Chomsky is.

Thanks for reading, god bless.

Crushing Gibroneys Is My Business. And Business Is Good.

2009-09-19T16:28:00.000-07:00

Fat guy talks alot about the need to present evidence, but other than simply accepting and parroting the government's official story, he fails utterly to present any evidence of his own. He doesn't seem to grasp the fact that both he and the guest are positing conspiracy theories, just different conspiracy theories. Because of this fact, it is unfair of him to demand evidence from the guest without equally demanding it of himself.

One can disprove the government's official story without posing an alternative theory at all. This is called ruling possibilities out, and it is a common practice of criminal investigators and law enforcement. Basically, Fatty is saying that unless one has a fully developed alternative explanation for events, one has no right at all to approach the government's explanation with skepticism. This is counterintuitive since obviously one would have to realize the discrepancies in the official account before even acknowledging a NEED to pose an alternative.

More Gibroney Huntin' (cont)

2009-09-14T18:02:00.000-07:00

This dude not only accepts the "gross incompetence" fable, but takes it one step further, and asserts that 9/11 Truth is actually fomented and instigated by the establishment itself, in order to cover up incompetence and enforce a false notion of American omnipotence. And we're the "conspiracy theorists"?

Some Gibroney: Is there a cover-up involving 9/11? Most certainly, especially given all the evidence in the materials you've sent me. However, it is my opinion that most theories of this sort are cover stories deliberately propagated (if not created) by intelligence organs of the gov't to distract people from its periodic episodes of gross incompetence w/r/t security, exemplified by the JFK assassination and 9/11.

Some facts:

The CIA has brought radical Muslims into the US. The hijackers trained on US military bases. More military training exercises were scheduled for September 11, 2001 than usual. Hijackers were able to enter the airspace of, to say nothing of crashing a plane into, the headquarters of the most powerful military in human history and so on and so on...

We know that the US gov't has a long history of psychological operations against its own population; the UFO/alien myth for instance is propagated (probably with the collusion of Hollywood) to distract the public from the size and scope of the black military budget and the high-tech weaponry and vehicles it produces. The US gov't is also well known for its history of covert paramilitary action, but the vast majority of that is concentrated abroad, with a few exceptions (COINTELPRO being one).

As far as I can tell, there are two viable explanations that incorporate all of these facts:

1) A high-level conspiracy involving dozens, if not hundreds, of specially trained individuals and agents, none of whom are affected by the temptation to expose one of the greatest conspiracies in world history and thus become (inter)national heroes.

2) Gross incompetence (with probably some bad luck) on the part of the US intelligence/security apparatus, with a cover-up/conspiracy theory generated later to make sure the administration would not be viewed as bunglers, but as nigh-omnipotent masterminds.

The main reason we can reject explanation 1 is that any of the purported 'inside job' 9/11 schemes would have a very low chance of succeeding. Undertaking such a plan would be costly, elaborate, and difficult to keep under wraps because of the extremely high risk of detection and/or defection. If the aim of the 9/11 attacks was to drum up support for an aggressive foreign policy in general (and eventual war with Iraq in particular), a far easier plan would've been to engage in some of the things recommended by Operation Northwoods, particularly a bombing campaign. Stealing or fabricating seemingly Iraqi-made explosives is well within the powers of US intelligence, but even in that case, an eventual leak of their real source is very likely, given the amount of manpower and resources necessary for such an operation.

It is very useful to compare the events of 9/11 with those of the Kennedy assassination. They share many features: a devastating security breach, evidence for (probably unwitting) CIA involvement with the perpetrators (making the incidents a form of blowback), a deliberately avoidant and selectively informative gov't commission, and, I believe, manipulation of public paranoia in the form of deliberately and systematically withheld evidence (e.g. Kennedy's missing brain, the confiscated Pentagon security camera tapes). In both cases, the credibility of the US security apparatus is on the line. Fear is a crucial component of the power of these organizations; if they lose face they lose much of their ability to indimidate.

Machiavelli wrote that "it is better to be feared than loved", but being feared is also better than being thought a buffoon (and fessing up to criminal negligence). We need only look as far as the Bush administration's record in Afghanistan and Iraq to see how incompetent they really are when it comes to security, in both the short- and long-term. And as depicted in the video you sent me, before 9/11, high US gov't officials were either dismissive of critical intelligence (e.g. the memo infamously ignored by Condi Rice and others), or they never received it, which explains Bush & co.'s fetishistic obsession with more communication and integration among the US's various intelligence agencies. Though the CIA probably had contacts with bin Laden's organization, including several of the hijackers, it would be fallacious to then conclude that the CIA intended for those individuals to undertake terrorist acts against the United States; it seems evident to me that the authors of that video are taking Chomsky's words out of context.

The video does not address another crucial section of that particular Q&A of Chomsky's talk in Hungary, in which he discusses the nature of controlled experiments conducted in the best laboratories in the world under controlled conditions. A scientist routinely encounters strange patterns and coincidences, even apparent violations of the laws of nature under such conditions, but if (s)he approaches the experiment with scientific skepticism, (s)he will perform the experiment as many times as possible to make sure that all of the data is meaningful and there are no hidden variables. We don't have that luxury with the 9/11 attacks; they can only happen once. The precise reasons for (say) the structural collapse of the WTC complex can only be surmised, and only very sketchily modeled. There are so many variables in this case, it should come as no surprise that the conclusions of Steven Jones and others are only endorsed by a fraction of accredited architects and engineers.

In conclusion, it seems reasonable to me to surmise, based on the available evidence, that certain facts about the 9/11 attacks are indeed being downplayed, ignored, or denied by certain members of the American political establishment. But it's far more likely that they're all trying to cover their asses after carelessly letting a catastrophe unfold. It's important to maintain healthy skepticism w/r/t the actions of very powerful states, but just because they're hiding something, doesn't mean they're hiding what you (or me, or anyone else) THINKS they're hiding.

The Gibroney Hunter: Thanks for taking the time to respond, it's amazing how rare it is for people to be willing to seriously debate or discuss the matter, rather than resorting to arguing like children. I'll try to address some of your points.

The "gross incompetence" theory is commonly offered as a response to the abundance of incriminating evidence indicating federal involvement. I could find some merit in this if the case against the establishment was based solely on a few instances of counterintelligence. Unfortunately, however, much of the evidence is far too direct and damning to be accounted for by such a theory.

For example, the video evidence of building 7's collapse is in no way consistent with a collapse caused by fire. A photograph clearly showing smoke rising from the lower levels of the north tower, before either building was hit by aircraft. The fact that the federal government promised to have a large amount of evidence linking Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda to the attacks. 8 years on, they have yet to reveal any of this evidence whatsoever. Which would seem counterintuitive, since the single best way to disprove us "conspiracy theorists" would be to simply provide us with the evidence that we were, after all, promised by the government shortly after the attacks. (The "smoking gun" video evidence, which in my opinion features an obvious body double with darker skin and higher cheekbones, is the sole article offered to the public)

If all of this evidence (which is by no means the bulk of it all) is to be explained as merely part of an elaborate disinformation campaign, then that would seem to clash with the "gross incompetence" theory, since that very incompetence should logically be expected to result in the uncovering of this supposed disinformation. It's important to keep in mind that there are numerous independent journalists, investigators, and truth seekers working daily to uncover any and all information regarding 9/11. As far as I know, no one has provided hard evidence of such a disinformation campaign (as opposed to the disinformation that is the official story, for which there is overwhelming evidence of it's existence)

I find it very difficult to believe that if, for example, Steven Jones' evidence of nano-thermite was falsified, no one would uncover this fact or at the very least uncover reasons to be suspicious of that fact. To summarize, the reason I don't give much credence to the theory that the 9/11 Truth movement is the result of disinformation, intended to serve as a smokescreen for incompetence, is because there's simply no evidence to support this claim. If you're aware of any, I'd be very interested to see it.

The main reason the cause of the structural collapse of the buildings can only be surmised is because the steel debris, which should have been treated as evidence in a massive crime scene, was sold off to China to be recycled. It's highly likely that a forensic study of that steel would have resulted in a conclusive analysis of the towers' collapse.

I believe the reason Steven Jones' work has been ignored by mainstream science is blacklisting, plain and simple. Assuming the establishment's story is true, it should be in their best interest to have his work peer-reviewed, in order to finally quell this controversy. Instead he's fired from his job and ignored by all major scientific journals. The sad truth is that the financiers of scientific and medical research have far too big a say in the direction of that research, and this generally explains why ideas such as Jones' are whitewashed. Also, a Danish scientist, along with 8 others, recently reached the same conclusions as Jones, and his findings have been gaining attention and traction since he presented them. Anyone even vaguely familiar with the history of science is aware that new ideas are not always welcomed with open arms, and often it's a gradual process of awareness.

More Gibroney Huntin'

2009-09-13T09:09:00.000-07:00

Some Gibroney: OK, so answer the point if you would, why, if the elite powers of the world have conspired so deeply, with the stakes incredible power, and the ante 4,000 lives that has been planned since at least the first WTC attack, why aren't we winning the shit out of this war? What, we'll kill our own citizens but won't find Bin Laden because of Pakistan's sovereignty? My friend, it is you who needs to pull their head out of the sand, this conjecture doesn't add up. Not to mention winning the war itself.

The Gibroney Hunter: We won't find Bin Laden because he's a CIA asset. If this sounds far fetched to you, I would suggest doing a google search for "Sibel Edmonds". She's a former FBI translator who recently broke a federal gag order by revealing that the federal intelligence community was in constant contact with OBL right up to the day of 9/11. While it's true that the American people are not winning the war, the globalist elite surely are winning in Iraq, since their goal was never really to 'spread democracy' or even to 'stabilze' the region, but quite the opposite actually.

Their goals, many experts agree, are multifaceted. Control of the worlds energy resources, obviously (you don't need to be a 'conspiracy theorist' to grasp that one), to further balkanize the muslim world, as it is the world's largest source of opposition to globalization and power consolidation and also to usher in an environment of stricter control and monitoring of the populace here at home. Dead soldiers is not their concern.

Some Other Gibroney: What evidence would you cite for the North American Union?

The Gibroney Hunter: While plans for the North American Union are considered "theoretical" by the establishment, the very fact that they even have theoretical plans to economically tether Canada, the U.S, and Mexico, should be worrisome to every advocate of national sovereignty and supporter of the U.S constitution. I would suggest reading about the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) which was founded in 2005. Also, Lou Dobbs occasionally makes mention of the plans for a NAU on his CNN show.

Another Gibroney Handled Swiftly

2009-09-12T16:17:00.000-07:00

Here's a comment some gibroney left for this video, followed by my response.

Some Gibroney: while you are trying to figure out who did 9/11, or killed JFK, you're enduring another day of being nickled and dimmed by the Rich & Power and their stooges in government - and you aren't doing a thing about it, you're not even aware of it because you are distracted with nonsense.

The Gibroney Hunter: And while you're busy giving Chomsky 29.95 for each of his crappy books, nothing at all changes. You pathetic armchair liberals and intellectual masturbators have had fifty years of being a fixture of the establishment to make a difference. And what have you accomplished? Jack shit. Except to create the spineless liar that used to be Noam Chomsky that we see here.

It's amazing that people like you are so quick to point out their mistrust of the establishment, yet when you attempt to utilize that mistrust while considering the issue of 9/11, suddenly you're labeled a conspiracy theorist. Apparently the mainstream left has no problem distrusting the government regarding torture, WMDs, rationales for starting wars, prior knowledge of the attacks, and pretty much any area of the subject of 9/11 EXCEPT the possibility of it being an inside job. This is irrational behavior. When someone demonstrates their capacity to deceive you time and time again, the smart thing to do is take every thing they say with a grain of salt. INCLUDING THE OFFICIAL STORY OF 9/11.

Regardless of whether or not you believe it was an inside job, EVERYONE should be in agreement that a new and honest investigation is in order. After all, our nation spent more money trying to find out how many times Clinton got his dick sucked, than it did trying to determine who was responsible for the largest mass murder to take place on this continent in modern history.

My Response To Jason Burmas' attack on "No-Planers"

2009-09-08T11:06:00.000-07:00

My comments directed toward Jason Burmas and Alex Jones, originally posted on youtube:

It seems clear to me that the towers were hit by aircraft. However, Jason Burmas' belligerent tone and mockery isn't helping anyone. The 'nose-out' footage is very compelling indeed, and the long list of inconsistencies and suspicious anomalies within the footage does seem to indicate that the public video record of 9/11 has been manipulated and filtered by the establishment. This includes amateur films, as they have all been confiscated and possibly tampered with by the Central Intelligence Agency before being released publicly.

I'm not a 'no-planer' but I find the in-fighting to be very self-defeating. It should be clear to Burmas that the clowns in that picture are not real no-planers, but rather a couple of half assed operatives, probably meant to incite precisely this type of in-fighting. Jones and Burmas are playing into the establishment's hands by trash talking, and pretending that there's no credible evidence behind 'no-plane' theory.

Also, it's important to note that the vast majority of no planers do not argue the point that no aircraft hit the buildings, but rather present evidence that whatever did hit, it was not a hijacked American Airlines flight. Also very suspicious (regardless of which side of the plane issue you are on) is the peculiarly small amount of home video recordings of the events. 36, last time i checked. Planes or not, one would expect perhaps thousands of independent video recordings of the events of 9/11. Very strange.

Why The Hate For The No-Planers?

2009-08-31T22:21:00.000-07:00

Why can't we stop using cunty terms like no-planer, and truther? That's another good question, but today let's focus on why the "mainstream" of the 9/11 truth movement so vehemently resists any open discussion of the possibility that the images we were spoonfed from the military industrial media complex that day could have been digitally manipulated.

I follow the rule that one shouldn't speak with absolute certainty unless one is absolutely certain. So I'll say what I'm certain of. I'm certain that much of the evidence presented by these mysterious "no-planers" is very compelling indeed. I'm equally certain of how repellent I find the instinctively closed-minded response of most of the 9/11 truth "establishment" regarding this issue.

I sometimes need to pause and remind myself of how truly inappropriate and unwelcome our "conspiracy theorist" title is. I was simply pursuing reliable information and genuine knowledge, and Conspiracy Theorist is the condescending title I ended up with. (Apparently, the irony is completely lost on these twits, that if there were no conspiracy theorists, no crimes would ever be solved, since the entire essence of law enforcement consists of theorizing about how, when, where, and why a suspect conspired to commit a crime.) It's precisely this kind of narrow-minded labeling, and dismissal that helped turn me off to the mainstream media, and attract me to the truth movement to begin with. And it dismays me to see people within the movement act like kool aid drinkers themselves by declaring certain things taboo. Our time here is too short to worry about taboos. That's what a Gibroney would do.

Gibroney Of The Week: Green Day

2009-08-27T04:58:00.000-07:00

Never before in the history of modern music has there been a collection of hypocritical assholes quite so abrasively annoying, or utterly soul-raping as green day. When I hear Green Day's music, I'm truly flabbergasted by just how well their particular brand of Pussy-Punk is marketed to the nearly retarded. The most depressing part of it all is the fact that they're probably not even aware of what raging hypocrites they are.

They're even hypocritical in the sonic sense. Their musical style is mostly lifted from Bad Religion. Even if they could write music that was good, or even tolerable, there's still the issue of their whore-punk, do-anything-for-a-buck mentality. What makes Green Day so much more damaging than the typical sellout rock band, like U2 or Aerosmith, is the fact that they specifically attempt to sell this perverse form of well-confined rebellion while doing things like having their audience hold up their cell phone display screens, rather than lighters during a show.

Now maybe some of you bitch-made Gibroneys from this generation are okay with that, but I'm from the 90's and I'm here to tell you, that it's definitely not cool. I know that for quite some time now, it's been hip for bands to sellout but for Christ's sake, do you need to involve the audience in it? Do you need us to feel as degraded as you do? Seriously, fuck Green Day.

Was Flight 93 Meant For Building 7?

2009-08-06T08:34:00.000-07:00

It's striking how neatly tied together this crime would have been, were this to have occurred. Clearly, two of the very weakest aspects of the federal government's story are their explanation of building 7's collapse and that smoldering hole in Shanksville, into which an airliner supposedly disappeared. And these are precisely the loose ends that would have been tied together if flight 93 would have hit WTC 7, which I believe was probably the globalists' plan.

Not only would this have taken care of that embarrassing Pennsylvania thing, it would've also provided spectacular (and much more believable) footage of planes leveling buildings in New York. Perhaps this was meant to be the main focus of media attention, rather than the obviously demolished towers. Sure would've made the growth of the now unstoppable Truth Movement a lot harder, wouldn't it? Just some healthy speculation for ya. Anyway, here's Dr. Tarpley discussing the possibility that 9/11 was more than a typical false flag attack, but rather a comprehensive coup attempt.

Mouseland

2009-08-05T22:30:00.001-07:00

Gibroney Of The Week: The Anti-Defamation League

2009-07-30T22:08:00.000-07:00

This whore of a hate group is the first line of defense for Globalist scumbags. Far from being a protective organization for the Jewish people, this sellout organization has become a very effective bulldog for the Illuminati. Any discussion of Zionism and its role within the global power structure is likely to get you labeled an antisemite. The Anti-Defamation League assaults the good name of Jewish people everywhere, just as the 9/11 lie does the same for Muslims.

David Icke is consistently harassed by these propagandists. Despite the complete absence of any evidence whatsoever, the ADL accuses him of racism and openly attempts to censor him from the media. They offer no angry quotes from Icke. No questionable personal relationships with extremists. Just vague villification and the baseless assertion that when Icke talks about his 'reptilians' he's actually talking about Jews, wink wink. Shameful nonsense.

I don't have much to say regarding fourth dimensional reptilian beings, but I'll tell you this. If you have the ADL on your nuts, then you must be talking something close to truth. It's interesting to consider the similarities between the Anti-Defamation League and Al Qaeda. They're both essentially fake and only in existence to serve the agenda of their Globalist puppeteers.

Fuck you, John Yoo

2009-07-13T10:43:00.000-07:00

John Yoo is a professor at Berkely, and a former Department Of Justice official. He is also a dirtbag. His legal analysis, and his legal analysis alone, was the Bush Administration's justification for both torture and domestic wiretapping. One guy's opinion was used to allow tyrants to torture children in front of parents with impunity, all under the guise of catching "terrists" who don't really exist and never really attacked us in the first place.

No second opinion. No scrutiny from congress. Just a disingenuous legal analysis that would later be admonished by the Justice Department. Admonished because of the obvious impropriety of basing an entire nation's foreign policy on the puppet opinion of one spiritless, souldead lawyer. But not admonished by the public. No, certainly not. Not when there's all these sports n' beers to attend to. Sports n' beers. Beers n' sports. Beers n' sports. Sports n' beers. Get over it, debt cattle.

Really, the term "coincidence theorist" does a great job of describing the average American. There seems to be no limit to how many checks they will mark in the "coincidence" column, when it comes to everything that's happened to us since 9/11/01. The truth is, much has happened. And that story hasn't really even begun to be told.

If You're in the Military, You're a Hired Killer

2009-07-03T21:32:00.000-07:00

Simple as that. If you really wanted to go to college, so you decided it'd be okay to shoot some women and babies in the back, then you're a murderer. Sure, there are tons of ways for you to deny that truth, but it's still the truth. No matter how many obnoxious parades, or phony reasons for war they provide you with, you still know that what you did wasn't heroic. Or good. Or right. Or maybe you don't know, which is even scarier. Maybe once you've killed for the New World Order, there's no turning back. Maybe traumatizing people with their own actions is a very effective form of mind control.

David Icke explains that there's really no such thing as war, in a certain sense. He uses the example of WWII. There was intense conflict between Germany and the Soviet Union, one supposedly right wing and fascist. The other supposedly leftist and communist. But when one examines the two societies, it becomes apparent that they were more similar than distinctive. Both were dictatorial police states who held victims in concentration camps. So the real struggle, the truly epic battle being fought by our species isn't between any two armies, but between the people who have fallen for war and the people who have not. Here's a tip: If you find yourself in a funny looking outfit, aiming heavy weaponry in a foreign country that's much poorer than your own, then you've been had. You've allowed yourself to become a monster on their behalf.

Although every one of the current rationales for war are utterly false, I do understand how one could fall victim to them. After all, who doesn't want to defend their homeland, and stand ready to protect the Republic, which has provided us with so many precious freedoms? But what passes for war right now isn't really war. It's an outmoded survival mechanism that has been kept on life support by the ruling elite, because they've long since understood that it was the single best tool for the manipulation of the human animal. At least until television.

It goes like this. War probably evolved naturally among us (although many would disagree). War escalates as the victors become better at exploiting the ensuing power vacuum. During this process the amount of motivations and justifications for war that would arise naturally due to cultural conflicts, etc, decrease and the amount of fabricated and disingenuous justifications increase. As power consolidates almost to the point of being singular, we begin to see such affronts to our intelligence and conscience as 9/11.

Worse than "Worse than Watergate"

2009-06-29T09:04:00.000-07:00

I think John W. Dean may have succeeded in creating one of the cleverest and sleaziest pieces of half truth ever conjured into existence by the mainstream media. There is a startlingly schizophrenic quality to the way in which the author can paint such a baldly damning portrait of the Bush administration, but then leave it utterly out of context to the rest of the country's power structure. It's as if we're expected to believe that this all-star cast of criminals came about organically, all by itself, coincidentally right after a stolen election. These mainstreamers love to tease you with some truth while leaving it all hopelessly out of context so you focus on the trees instead of the forest. You end up having to become your own journalist if you want to find anything close to the truth about things.

Dean's ability to leave the dots unconnected is truly remarkable at times. Like on page 100, when he discusses the Project for a New American Century, and the now infamous phrase, "catastrophic and catalyzing event." We are meant to understand that the NeoCons had a strong desire to go to war in the Middle East, which predated 9/11, but we're stopped short before digging any deeper. Before asking what that might mean. Before asking ourselves if there's really any difference between a tyrannical government who wants to go to war, and a tyrannical government who's willing to stage a false flag attack to go to war.

Then, just in case any of his readers are feeling curious, he reminds us to stay in our place by comparing anyone willing to explore these matters deeper than he did, to crazies, by first mentioning an outlandish claim about extraterrestrials perpetrating 9/11, and then going to the tried-and-true method of focusing on the few nitwits within the movement who are anti-semites. This is particularly frustrating. This would be like if each time the Republicans were on your television set, they were bombarded with questions regarding the end of days, and the second coming, and also if they know who the next closet homosexual will be, to reveal himself from within their ranks. There are truth to these things, but your agenda becomes unmistakably clear when you focus only on the negative and sensational.

As a former counsil to Nixon, it's perhaps not surprising that Dean tries to compare and contrast the two regimes regularly, often reiterating the assertion that the Bush administration is a new and separate threat to the constitution and our independence, rather than a reemergence of those same threatening forces that were in play during the Nixon years. This distinction is very important because it helps these gatekeeper weasles reinforce their portayal of the Bush administration as being merely an anomaly. Get rid of Bush, get rid of the Republicans and we can get back on track. Horseshit. I recommend this book to anyone interested in experiencing the mainstream media's cognitive dissonance campaign in full swing.

Tay G

2009-06-19T18:26:00.001-07:00

"They didn't tell you this on NBC, so tell me who the fuck you ridin with, them or me."

Gibroney Of The Week: Dennis Leary

2009-06-18T12:26:00.000-07:00

You goony-looking cock smoker. Not much of a surprise to find you in the Gibroney file. You've always been a hack, not just in comedy but in other professions you've decided to make a mockery of, like acting, or writing. It's ironic that your public persona was almost entirely lifted from real comedians like Bill Hicks and George Carlin, yet your values seem to be more in line with those of dim-witted conformists, rather than those of a well informed, ranting comedian. The fact that you're a sheeple in wolve's clothing probably has alot to do with you landing the starring role in "Rescue Me," a show about 9/11 first responders.

Bet you didn't expect your co star, Daniel Sunjata, to come out and publicly support the 9/11 truth movement though, did ya? Now we all get to watch the question get thrown in your uninformed face. Of course, I don't always approve of accosting people on the street regarding 9/11. Depends on the person, I say. But if you're going to star in a show dealing specifically with the topic, you should probably expect to be dealing with it yourself for the near future. Especially a subject as controversial as 9/11.

I know in the '90's, you were able to trick everyone into thinking that you're some type of truth telling badass, but here, in post-internet bubble America, we talk alot more. And ask alot more questions. So it's much harder to do the whole "pretending to rock the boat when in reality I'm just a louder conformist" thing. Anyway, have a nice time milking whatever's left of your reputation doing commercials, and sucking Glen Beck's nuts. Gibroney.

New World Order On Trial

2009-06-07T20:28:00.000-07:00

God bless the crazie fuck who made this video:

A Suggestion For America's Hypocrites

2009-06-07T19:38:00.000-07:00

I've a suggestion for America's hypocrites, particularly the ones who oppose gay marriage on the grounds that it would threaten the "sanctity" of marriage. Here it goes. Since homophobes are loathe to admit that they're homophobes, the phony right hides behind the "sanctity of marriage" argument, just as sexists hide behind the "sanctity of life" argument.

If you're one of the seemingly endless multitudes of superstitious cavepeople in this country who believe that abortion is murder, then fine. Whatever. It's your right to be anti-woman. It is not, however, your right to send foot soldiers into people's homes to interfere with personal family matters. Just because you disagree with something does not give you the right to be a fascist. It's okay if you think abortion is wrong, but people in this country, and indeed, religionist slaves around the world, must begin to realize that something can be wrong and legal at the same time.

A good example of this is prostitution. (Which, by the way, isn't really wrong, but let's play along for the sake of argument.) Prostitution has been legal in Nevada for quite some time, but do you think mothers in that state teach their young daughters to aspire to become whores? The answer is obvious unless you're a dullard, and the point I'm making is a simple one: Illegal doesn't mean immoral and immoral shouldn't mean illegal.

Now back to the question of gay marriage. As I mentioned earlier, anti-gay groups' favorite hiding spot is the phony baloney "sanctity of marriage" argument, which can be easily dismantled by the following proposal. Ban divorce. Perhaps gay rights groups would be more tolerant of being treated like second class citizens if the phony right actually behaved as if there is sanctity of marriage, instead of just using that phrase as the disingenuous piece of rhetoric that it is. That's my big idea. We'll give you a ban on gay marriage if you give us a ban on divorce. This proposal should help shut down this phony argument.

Marriage is not sacred. Love is sacred. Marriage is merely a superficial construct created by people too spiritually weak to understand love. The fact that the state or church is in any way involved in controlling the concept of marriage is another one of those unspoken little forms of tyranny we seem to tolerate so well here in America. Peace out, 'bronies.

South Park Song

2009-05-10T19:39:00.000-07:00

Well if it weren't for the money
Maybe they'd realize how funny
Their utterly purposeless lives are

Well it's okay to be a goddamn slave
As long as you crack jokes along the way

Now I wouldn't dare match wits
With two men with bitch tits
Who really like to draw cartoons

But if you really wana debate me on 9/11
You two dumb jagoffs are bound to lose

I still remember when I heard Cartman say:
"All the evidence points one way"
But all that really means is you didn't do your research
And I think that's fuckin gay
But hey

Comin' across well informed, when ya really don't know shit
I guess that's what's cool these days

Forgive Him, Father, For He Has Zinned

2009-05-07T19:38:00.000-07:00

Another aging soldier of the phony left has decided to come forth and show his true colors. According to the traitorous Howard Zinn, pursuit of accountability for the nighmarishly sinister crime against humanity popularly known as September the 11th, is not only unimportant, but a "distraction" from the "real" crimes of the state currently being committed. Apparently, Howard is disappointed to see such intellectual energy being wasted on such a diversion. I'm disappointed as well.

I'm disappointed to see the author of A People's History Of The United States basically say "forget about 9/11." Another potentially powerful member of the movement has decided to sell his nation out coldly and chose the path of cowardice and self-preservation over the path of courage, communication, and love. I mean, really? We're supposed to believe that the same man who would spend hundreds of pages dissecting every detail of 19th century labor strikes, a man who has spent much of his career urging people to be cautious and skeptical when dealing with official historical interpretations of events, harbors absolutely no curiosity about 9/11, and in fact would advise against questioning the government's explanation? I'm sure most people who have read his work would agree that it is just not possible. It's simply ridiculous. It would be more plausible for Joe The Plumber to have taken control over Zinn's body while answering the question, than for this to be Zinn's true understanding of September 11th. There's really only one possible explanation for this. Howard Zinn is a traitor.

Who Is Jon Stewart? What is Jon Stewart?

2009-05-05T02:05:00.000-07:00

Surely, by now you must have realized you're the undisputed leader of TV punditry and perhaps even the mainstream media as a whole. Why someone would seek that shameful title is perfectly beyond me, but I'm not blind to the power it has allowed you to wield. The question is how do you want to use it, and are you going to use it at all?

You have a very limited window of opportunity to escape the inevitable one-way ticket to shillville that awaits all members of the mainstream media. For years you served as a much needed comedic voice of reason for the nation, persistently pointing out the silliness and mutual hypocrisy on both the phony left and phony right. But with the internet finally beginning to fulfill it's potential, it would seem that the role you play is becoming more and more passe. With much easier access to good information, it's becoming more clear to some people what you are and are not permitted to talk about.

For example, your corporate overlords felt it too risky to allow you to dig too deeply into the 9/11 commission report. So you've almost never mentioned it. Simply put, this type of sell-out behavior could have been overlooked back when we needed you. Now that we don't, it can't. And your whole "I'm just a comedian, folks, don't hold me to journalistic standards" argument has worn thin by this point. The reality is that a huge portion of American nitwits turn to you for their knowledge of current events. As repugnant a fact as that is, we must deal with it. You should seriously consider breaking free and leaving Viacom to die from the weight of its own irrelevance.

Think about it. You're rich. You will continue to be rich, and also have new opportunities for profit, if you were to start your own web-based program. Everyone would follow you in droves, and with that kind of support, you should be relatively safe from assassination. Or you could continue along your current path and have the name Jon Stewart forever placed in the Gibroney file. Your choice. I'm just trying to help out.

(Also, 5 bucks to anyone who can tell me what movie this blog's title is from.)

Federal Agents Are Bitter, Defeated Souls

2009-04-23T11:58:00.000-07:00

Some Gibroney: I agree with that, but what if they had reason to believe that something was going to happenand they told everyone, once they were all there, it would be chaos. They might not have had any intel, but either way, they can't tell you what they are doing because you might be the one they are there to stop. It's only common sense. Why don't you guys go screw with the security guards at schools or grocery stores and ask them what they ae doing and see if you get any different of an answer

Some Gibroney: (in response to some other gibroney) You're right, they probably would have if it were that serious. I don't have any clue what they were doing there, maybe just a visual deterant. Who knows? But either way, they are not going to tell you because what if you are there to do harm or do research to do harm at a later date?

The Gibroney Hunter: Actually, government shills like this are usually given a cover story, at least, to regurgitate to any press that may be present. Perhaps this dude caught them by surprise and they weren't expecting any journalists to be aware of the event. People generally would not tolerate this sort of behavior from police, and they shouldn't tolerate it from spineless federal trash like that. Security guards at schools aren't Federal agents, you goddam nitwit. The New World Order feeds off idiots like you not making this distinction. You seem to be envisioning some Hollywood bullshit scenario in which these brave feds are there to catch some terrorists red handed. As if dozens of them in uniform wouldn't tip the Muslims off to their presence. When there is a bomb scare the first thing they do is evacuate. That's common knowledge. Your 'not wanting to cause panic' argument is stupid

Some Gibroney: No we are not. We are told to NOT TALK TO THE PRESS FOR ANY REASON, we are instructed to get a name and number and pass that info to our PR department. Maybe you should do your homework before you talk your crap.

The Gibroney Huner: Pigs are required to identify themselves to civilians. If not necessarily by card, then by badge number. Do YOUR homework before spreading your childish propaganda. You talk like you're some kind of expert on mass hysteria, but you and I both know that a shill like you will defend your criminal government/employer to the very end. Why is it so difficult for you to simply admit that the behavior of those federal employees was quite peculiar and just move on from there. No one's saying there's some massive conspiracy here to uncover, just that federal workers are generally much more arrogant and abusive than local and state police. Again, on average.

Also, a great way to cause mass hysteria would be to station the TSA at a public location and offer no explanation to the media whatsoever, thereby leaving the door wide open for rumor spreading and gossip on perhaps less reliable media outlets. Wouldn't it have made more sense to simply lie to the guy, rather than zip your lips shut and let him assume the worst? It would've been as simple as this: "Sir, this is a routine safety precaution, I really don't have much more information than that but i can direct you... " See? Mission accomplished. In fact, this is the squirrely way in which the Federal government would usually handle this sort of situation, judging by news reports. Countless times I've heard an initial explanation, immediately contradicted by a more detailed later explanation of an event. So this would not be unprecedented. There ya go. "mass hysteria" argument destroyed.

Gibroney Of The Week: Geneane Garofalo

2009-04-17T18:52:00.000-07:00

"this is about racism" Fuck you, Geneane Garofalo. Your hateful stereotyping only serves to make you look like the absolute clown you are. You're a hatemongering, menstrual hollywood reject. This is about globalization and the hijacking of our economy by international bankers. You apparently have nothing to say regarding those issues, only all-too-easy-to-grasp social issues that are just irresistible to you grumpy liberal activist retards. I've not heard anyone seriously involved in these protests bring up the issue of race AT ALL. You're a fucking liar. You're an ugly old fucking liar. Eat shit. A nitwit like you would probably still be crying about her false interpretation of the right wing while you're being hustled off to a FEMA camp. If you're half as smart as you've pretended to be for the past twenty years, then hurry up and outgrow your pathetic attachment to the left-right paradigm. You're becoming irrelevant at light speed.

She talks alot about people being uneducated, which of course is always true when you're talking about Americans. But she's the one who seems utterly clueless about current events, and the Obama administration's blatant continuation of the efforts of the Bush administration. In his first week in office, this creep ensured the continuance of a policy of brutal torture, and added to the amount of troops being sent to Afghanistan. The anti-war candidate wasted no time in ramping up our imperial war in the desert. But Garofalo is more interested in quizing people on 18th century politics than addressing the abuses to our country that are taking place HERE and NOW. No one should listen to her.

A.J vs. P.J

2009-04-14T20:53:00.000-07:00

Here is my comment:
I get frustrated wit AJ alot too, but i try not to let it distract me from what's really important, which is opposing the N.W.O by any and all non-violent means at our disposal. It's important to remember that Alex Jones is just another human being, who has his hang-ups and his shortcomings just like the rest of us. Yes, he did come across abrasive and unprofessional during his debate with Peter Joseph, but truth be told, some of P.J's ideas sounded a bit half baked themselves. I'm referring of course to the obvious similarities between Marxist rhetoric and that of the Venus Project, and also to Joseph's peculiar rejection of the concept of evil. I think the most important thing people can learn from characters such as A.J and P.J is to get rid of your messiah complex and think for yourself. Alex Jones is a great patriot and I am forever indebted to him for the knowledge and understanding he's helped me gain. But I am not his follower. I'm not anyone's follower. No one should be anyone's follower.

Here is the new reply:
What do you say about millions of people who are "following" a man-made religion as to be the actual "word of god"! How do you reason with these people, tell them to be their own leader! It seems people are so weak and have no faith in themselves that they have to be told what is right, what to do, and who to follow... If the goal of taking down the NWO is world peace, You know there can never be world peace when there are different groups (cults) of people with different "god novels" claiming their's is the true "one". I have been accused of being an immature 12 year old for the name I use. I am accusing religious followers of being immature 10 year olds for still believing in Mother Goose fairytales!

You can see more information for the comment on this post here:
http://www.infowars.com/alex-jones-interviewed-by-rt-us-is-a-puppet-of-private-bankers/#comment-910948

I agree with you completely, man. I have nothing but contempt for any and all organized religion, and consider it to be an insult to God and true spirituality. I’m not an atheist, but I believe that spirituality is a completely personal affair, and it’s ruined the moment you put it inside a church. But unfortunately, the threat that the N.W.O poses to free humanity must take precedence over the fight to free people’s minds from religion. I dream about a world without either of these stigmas to contend with.

I’ve heard this claim several times, that Peter Joseph “no longer believes 9/11 is an inside job” but I have yet to see any article or quote from him to confirm this. For obvious reasons, this is very important to know, so if you know where he is quoted as saying this, please share. The only thing i’ve been able to find in reference to this is the new york times article, in which the n.y.t journalist makes clear that he/she does not believe 9/11 was an inside job, but only states that Peter Joseph has “moved away” from the 9/11 truth movement. I took this to mean that P.J was simply asserting his independence from the movement, not necessarily changing his mind about what happened on 9/11. I think he should clarify this so everyone knows where he stands. If he squirms around the issue, he’s a shill and A.J was right. If he stands by the understanding that 9/11 was an inside job, then Alex Jones overreacted and should apologize for premature shit-talking.

Police Should Stop Trolling Our Streets

2009-04-12T02:52:00.000-07:00

I want to suggest a new way for the police to conduct business in our country, because clearly, the current system isn't serving anyone's interest, not the people or the police. No one in their right mind would argue against the fact that police are a necessary part of society, but let's be clear. Police do not stop crime. They respond to it and sometimes prevent it, but certainly don't stop it, except in the rarest instances. Essentially it would require an officer on every corner to do this, and there isn't the funding or public desire for such an environment.

Unfortunately there seem to be two basic results of officers patrolling our streets constantly. First, they help to pirate funds for local governments and take food out of the mouths of hard working Americans every time they park their cruisers in the bushes, lying in wait with their radar guns, hoping for someone going 8 miles over the speed limit. Secondly, and more importantly, the police have been essentially turned into foot soldiers for the phony drug war, making wrongful arrests in its name every day.

People stuck inside the box might ask if I approve of giving armed criminals carte blanche to roam around unchecked, selling lethal substances to school children. The answer, of course, is no, but that type of question is retarded to begin with. It's based on the ignorant assumption that criminality and drug use are inevitably married to one another. But America's failed War on Alcohol in the 1920's clearly illustrates that this is false. As soon as it became illegal criminals moved in to fill that void, and as should have been expected, a thriving black market emerged. Then it became legal again, and all those criminals who seemed so inseperably involved with alcohol were gone, pursuing better opportunities elsewhere.

The lesson to be learned here is obvious, but unfortunately this same scenario has been playing out again on a much larger scale with the war on drugs. This black hole of funding and fascism is in reality just one more racket of the New World Order. The scam is pretty simple. The C.I.A supplies the nation with coke and crack, and then sits back and waits for poor people to fall victim to the system's drug laws and sent to privately owned prison camps.

Every nation that has ever existed has contained an element of both drug use and drug abuse. The embarrassing truth is that we are the only nation that has felt the need to wage a full scale war, complete with attack dogs and helicopters, against this unavoidable fact of life. I'm not suggesting that government has no role to play in managing the problem of drug abuse. It's the police and prisons, specifically, that should not be involved in the matter.

It's quite possible to envision a system in which officers are stationed at a headquarters, and however many satellite stations are deemed necessary for an area, and remain there until needed in response to an emergency. More than likely, this would actually increase efficiency and response time compared to blind patrolling, because it would streamline the lines of communication. But as long as there's a tyrannical drug war, this will remain just another American pipe dream.

Gibroney of the Week: NPR

2009-04-02T19:00:00.000-07:00

National Public Radio, or "No Penis Radio," as Stephen Colbert has titled it, is an important part of the Establishment's propaganda machine. It serves as a false beacon for many people in this country, masquerading as a valid alternative to mainstream media, when in reality offering very little in substance, sometimes even less than the other news sources they criticize. The effect NPR has is particularly dangerous because it can divert potentially informed people away from the truth. This is something they accomplish in two ways.

First, they drop just enough morsels of truth for the listener to remain enticed (at least by FM radio standards), then they spend the majority of the rest of their time flattering their audience's egos and reinforcing the image they have of themselves, which is that of a well informed and proactive citizen. Perhaps we should scrap NPR and start an entirely new national radio network. One in which the staff were voted in or out by the listeners. Maybe that would put some spark into those gibroneys to actually be an excellent source for news and information, instead of simply being the best on the dial, and then resting on their laurels.

They're doing an okay job with human interest stories, focusing on the hardships individuals are facing as a result of this economic hijacking. But then again, what good is that when NPR's blackout of the important issues is part of the reason we're suffering in the first place. Then there's the most repugnant aspect of it all. The pledge drive. This is when they ask us to pay them for their services to society. This is what really gets my goat. Not only do they try just as hard as the networks to keep us confused and feeling disempowered, but they expect us to pay them for it.

They seem to have no problem digging deep when a story involves a Hollywood actor or a musician, but they suddenly lose their nuts when the issue of politics or the erosion of the constitution arises. Except on rare occasions I find them to be among the most insidious of the gatekeepers.

Religion Is For Stupids

2009-03-31T22:30:00.000-07:00

This scourge needs to end. People need to stop being so spiritually lazy. It's time to outgrow religion. Most people don't seem to have even questioned the supposedly seamless connection between spirituality and religion. That is to say, religion claims a monopoly over spirituality and morality that is fraudulent.

Quite the opposite is true in reality. Religion is a perversion of, and an insult to true spirituality and righteousness. Aside from the well known examples of religion's criminality (kiddie-porking, cash-hoarding, woman-hating), there is the underlying scam of it all, that is far lesser known. For an excellent explanation of this I suggest the work of British writer and filmmaker Graham Hancock, who tells how the three great pyramids at Giza were intended to geographically correspond with the three stars of Orion's Belt, which would have been known to the early Christians as "the Three Kings". And this is the point. Essentially all major religion is a hopelessly convoluted form of sky worship.

It's also clear to anyone who's thinking that religion actually works to sabotage and thwart the very elements of human nature it pretends to uphold, like compassion and the desire for peace. Indeed these criminals will even go so far as to claim they are the source of these very precious human attributes, and without them we wouldn't even know what it meant to be a good person. Utter rubbish. Spirituality is not a team sport. Stop looking for a shortcut for understanding yourself. Listen to Terence Mckenna. Get with it, Gibronies.

My Response To A 9/11 Denialist

2009-03-27T23:01:00.000-07:00

As the title suggests, this is my posted youtube response to a particularly silly individual who wanted to battle me on the facts of 9/11.

Your argument is cheap and devoid of any actual content. Basically, you accuse 9/11 conspiracy theories of being silly, reiterating this statement over and over in a redundant fashion, and then provide nothing whatsoever to back up your claim. Since you're obviously a naive little girl, allow me to inform you a bit as to how one presents a point of view and then defends it. First, you state your opinion. You seem to have that part down, since that's really all you said in your entire comment.. over and over again.. then, you provide FACTS that would support your opinion. This you completely fail to do.

And just so ya know, "the tv told me so" is not a valid argument, since the television and media is not a perfectly reliable source of information. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to understand that all information the mainstream media provides is filtered. This fact by itself makes clear that one must rely on multiple sources of media to get as close to the truth as possible.

You try very hard to make certain claims sound silly and incredible, and some of them may very well turn out to be just that. But understand this. If any aspect of 9/11 conspiracy theories were to be disproved, they would be disproved by using the voice of science and reason, not by second-rate generalizations, which really only reveal your own ignorance on the subject.

Of course, you can always just continue shopping and watching tv while maintaining the ridiculous belief that governments, by their very nature, arent always in the business of gaining more power and control over their citizenry. Your argument that no evidence would be left behind is niavete in its purest and most american form. There seem to be two very important facts you fail to understand. 1. When you own the entire mainstream media, you control what most uneducated, unthinking Americans know about anything, and therefore don't need to worry about the glaringly obvious evidence left behind, since most people will continue to think that the very act of discussing the discrepencies regarding 911 is anti-american. They believe this because fox news tells them to believe it, not because it's based on any form of logic or scientific evaluation.

I wonder if the reason your message was completely devoid of facts is because you haven't done any research on September the 11th. Maybe the reason so many "CTs" as you put it, seem to you to think they know everything about 911 is because you know nothing. You'd think that if conspiracy theories annoy you so much, you'd do your homework and provide the arguments and information to finally disprove them once and for all.

I don't claim to know what happened that day, but I will tell you this. At least I'm not afraid to talk about it, which seems to be the main problem with you 9/11 deniers. Instead of honest debate, you resort to insults and childish dismissal, which is a tell-tale sign of someone who doesn't know what the hell they're talking about.

Why Do So Many Peaceniks Hate Alex Jones?

2009-03-26T19:36:00.000-07:00

This is a question I've been tossing around lately. Particularly after having sat with a group of fairweather thinkers during a viewing of the Obama Deception. Just a few minutes in someone made note of Alex Jones' shall we say, extroverted personality. While they certainly weren't the first or last to bring attention to Mr. Jones' aggressive journalistic style, I expected the group to get their chuckles in about it and move on.

Instead constant criticism was offered regarding both his language and tone, along with the visuals contained in the film. Interestingly enough I heard no criticism of the actual ideas, or the actual information in the film. The closest they came to this was that tried and true mantra of the truth-fearing Sheeple: "How do I know he's not just making all of this up?" The short answer to this naive question is pretty simple: Through fact-checking and internet research, dummy. The quick and easy cross-referencing made available by the internet is truly an invaluable tool for those conducting research.

But back to the question of why hippies seem to hate Alex Jones so much. I believe it's primarily because of his unwillingness to sugarcoat the truth and his belief that we should prepare for violence. Hippies don't like the thought of being threatened by violence, and nor does anyone else for that matter. But they don't just dislike the reality of a looming threat to our freedom. They try their best to ignore it. Some even go so far as to deny it, but most are content to invest efforts simply downplaying the threat the N.W.O poses.

The reason these peaceniks are nowhere to be found on any of the important issues is because of their general belief that all is and will continue to be well, through no particular effort on their part. They turn a blind eye to the dark side of human nature, and the ongoing threat it poses to our survival. They fail to recognize that preparedness for threats is a form of intelligence and therefore favored by natural selection. Basically, these deluded scenesters have lost their fight vs. flight instinct, and instead are behaving quite similarly to deer in headlights. Silent and motionless.

This isn't an attack on pacifism. There are many people within the movement (which is a good general term to describe the awakening of people and the increase in public knowledge fueled by the internet) who reject all forms of violence. In fact, this movement is entirely peaceful and all progress that has been made has been made by simply communicating, nothing more, nothing less.

But yeah, to recap, hip kids and Alex Jones don't mix well. Unfortunately my own experience confirms what Michael Tsarion has said about the matter. Namely, that there are many people who fall inbetween 'free thinkers' and 'sheeple'. They're bright enough to realize that they're different from the herd, but either too dim or too scared to embrace that status fully, and the ostracization that inevitably follows. Thinking independently and individualism are very marketable ideas for the kids. Sadly, the work that these require is not. This is why Americans love their Daily Show and their Bill Maher. Because Truth Lite is much easier to swallow, plus it allows one to walk around pretending to be 'in the know' while still enjoying the perks of slavery.

The reason I'm making a big deal of this is because this movement needs all the help it can get if we're going to have any chance to survive, and it truly saddens me to see bright people with real potential fall victim to denial and group-think.

Common Sense - What really happened on September 11th? (part 1)

2009-03-23T21:51:00.000-07:00

My approach toward difficult questions has been largely shaped by the late Carl Sagan, who believed, to paraphrase, that empirical data and the scientific method should be revered as an undeniable path to the truth, while at the same time one has no right to have a completely closed mind toward anything but the relatively few things that can be proven conclusively to be false. For example, one has a right not to believe that Bigfoot exists, because of scant evidence or questionable human testimony. However, it would be incorrect to counter this belief with your own belief in the non-existence of such a thing, no matter how far fetched. This is simply because science is much better at confirming truths than it is at denying them.

I raise these points not because I believe in the Yeti Monster, which I don't, but because these types of truths tend to frustrate the narrow-minded the most. This is because they deny one the privilege of dismissing points of view almost immediately before any serious examination of facts. Sadly this practice of prematurely dismissing ideas because they don't fit into convention has become all the more prevalent in America since those ungodly attacks.

For example, we were told that the terrorist attacks signified a need for our nation to revise its post-cold war mentality, to 'think outside the box,' in terms of foreign policy and our world-view. However, if someone were to think so far outside 'the box' as to suggest the possibility that 9/11 was some form of sabotage attack waged by the richest men in the world, against their own soil, then that someone is promptly and enthusiastically neutralized; by dismissal and mockery to begin with, then with intimidation, torture, and murder if the need should arise. Sometimes it's hard to find the patience to maintain a dialogue with a majority that vehemently rejects and condemns a point of view without offering any rebuttal of the most central and crucial tenants of that belief. This fact becomes even more intellectually insulting when one considers that the average supporter of the mainstream explanation of 9/11 demonstrates no understanding of the need of such supporting facts when posing a good counter-argument.

This apparent lack of understanding, on the part of the mainstream media and its adherents, of how a debate works, or how a criminal investigation should be properly conducted is not only disturbing and insulting, it is simply childish. For example, it is ridiculous that someone who moments before was not even aware that a third building had collapsed that day, would then accuse me of being completely out of line for pointing out the striking similarities between the collapse of building 7 and every other controlled demolition. One moment they're completely uninformed, the next moment they're casually dismissing an extensive body of evidence years in the making. This fact compels me to repeat the comparison between 9/11 mainstreamers and children. And that's a discredit to a lot of bright children.

But what about the 9/11 Commission report? After Dr. David Ray Griffin's utterly overwhelming critique, it's difficult to find much trustworthy information left within it. There are ample reasons why this report cannot be taken at face value. One of the most striking, however, is the fact that Philip Zelikow, the man essentially in charge of the commission, is a close friend of the Bush Administration, and had even co-authored a book with Condolezza Rice. No credible investigative body would allow such a conflict of interest, especially not from the director of the entire affair!

Not only is much of the 9/11 Commission report unreliable to the critical observer, but entire aspects of the attacks are ignored completely. Building 7's collapse is ignored entirely. Not one word is spent on the third steel structure to collapse that day, and the first in the world to ever collapse due simply to fire, at least according to the official story.

Q: If Al Qaeda didn't do it who did?
A: How should I know? It doesn't make sense that one should be expected to know who did commit a crime before determining who didn't. According to that logic, since I can confidently state that my uncle Eddie did not kill Jimmy Hoffa, then I should obviously know who did.

Q: How could it have been an inside job, when it would require such intense secrecy and elaborate planning for members of our own government to conspire on such a level?
A: It would have required elaborate planning and secrecy for anyone to have perpetrated the attacks. If given the choice between members of the U.S government, who had control over NORAD (and therefore the skies), and a group of terrorists who would have faced the challenges of training pilots, successfully hijacking four aircraft simultaneously, and then permeating our air defenses four consecutive times in one day, then I'd be inclined to choose the former.