Up front addendum: What follows may be of limited interest to many of you, since it’s inspired by personal aggravation, which you might not share. All I can say is this is the way it’s likely to go with a daily blog.
I know: I offered a similar eclipse photo yesterday. This one’s better.
The… person whom I quoted yesterday has a problem, or rather problems, plural, with my post/response. One appears to be anonymity. Exception was taken to my direct quoting of the email, in spite of my not revealing anything about the author. Indeed, in the follow up email (a reaction to the post, which I just got), he/she says this: ‘In any event, if you want to clarify you’re position in private, I’m all ears.’ (I’m keeping my references genderless because of the anonymity issue; I figure this way I can avoid narrowing down his/her identity by 50%, i.e., from 7 billion-plus to 3.5 billion-plus.)
Having taken this precaution and given that the obvious and stated purpose of my blog is the public exposure of a bit of truth, as opposed to the constant deceit we’re… and so forth… given this, I find the writer’s attitude annoyingly selfish and presumptive (aside from ignorant but more on this in a bit): As if I’m expected to drop my life and my blog and devote my (waning with age) intellectual energies to him/her exclusively.
A quick (personal) question to him/her: If I have something of value to say, why would you want to keep it from the other subscribers? To rephrase: Why do you give a shit whether I answer your questions publicly or… privately. To rephrase on more time: Who the fuck do you think you are?
Relaxing on the north rim of the Grand Canyon. Rough roads to get there but no tourists in sight.
Yeah, I’m getting aggravated as I write. As I’ve mentioned, I don’t wake up from a night’s sleep well, and to be immediately greeted with still more bullshit is… not fun (the email was 2nd from the top of my Inbox).
Here’s what I’m talking about, and as usual, my thoughts are in bold:
My hesitancy to have my email quoted verbatim was due to question#3. The fact that you would publish this highly inflammatory question and your response with little time for consideration and reflection was not what I would expect from anyone, let alone someone who purports to evaluating narratives or theories using logic and basic science. [‘Basic science?]
As I wrote in my first paragraph yesterday: ‘I have a busy day coming up and will be on the road for the afternoon, so forgive my not answering emails today and for the brevity of this post.’ After re-reading my post, however, I rescind the apology for its brevity. Unless I am expected to write a fucking book in order to hold your hand through the logic and facts of my views, I think I did a pretty good job in exposing Atwill’s deceit on the issue of MLK and Miles Mathis. Although I suggest you go back and re-read my post in its entirety, here’s how I wind it up:
‘On the specifics of MLK’s funeral, I don’t know enough to judge but I have read two of Pepper’s books and consider him one of the few trustworthy ‘names’ in alt media.
White Sands, NM.
That MM claims that MLK was a federal agent who faked his own death – given the weight of the evidence – should be enough on its own to prove that he’s as dirty as they come. Ditto Joe Atwill, who knows very well what MM is.’ [End quote from yesterday’s post]
Do you not get it? Do you not understand what I mean by ‘the weight of the evidence’? Do you not understand that this is your cue to do some research on your own? Did you notice that Atwill in his bogus podcast (which had the deceitful ring of a ‘Miles Mathis’ essay) never mentions William Pepper, who has spent most of his life researching the MLK assassination and has written three impeccably cited/footnoted books on the matter? I would think that Atwill would have gone out of his way to debunk Pepper and expose him as a major player in the ‘MLK Op.’ But not a word on Pepper. And not a word about the trial in 1999 that exonerated James Earl Ray and proved to the jury’s satisfaction that MLK was assassinated by the U.S. government (plus the Dixie Mafia, the military, the Memphis Police, and others).
I would have expected responses along the lines of ‘that’s new information to me, I’ll need to look into it” or “that question is too hot to handle” What new information? You didn’t even provide a link to the podcast in question. ‘too hot to handle’? What universe are you living in? (Although since you have already taken a position on Wm Pepper and MLK you are obliged to respond to defend your opinion, if it is an opinion). I’m not obliged to do any such thing, asshole. If you’re so interested in Atwill’s (and Mathis’s) ugly and transparently false view of history re MLK, you are obliged to do what I did, i.e., read William Pepper’s books (which I clearly cite as evidence for my position). In the range of responses I considered that we might have had a dialogue on the matter. (Not debate/sophistry). Oh really? We might have a dialog? Let’s leave out the rest of the world (my meager subscribership anyway) and have a buddy-buddyship, one intellect communicating with another, right? Well, maybe we could do that – I have such relationships (as far as my time permits) with several subscribers – but you’re going to have to think a bit deeper before you hit the Send button.
A little heavy handed with the ‘Great Themes’ bit, but I like this one. (You gotta click it to understand.)
I would have expected question #4 to involve some specifics regarding Atwill caught in disseminating falsehoods or logical fallacies. The fact that you and Atwill interpret a novel writer’s intent differently is not very convincing of intentional disinformation. You’re asking for more hand-holding, aren’t you? I showed you how to reference my views on Atwill via word searching this site. Or did you miss that? I’ve already had plenty to say on Atwill, easily available through “Atwill” site:http://blog.banditobooks.com, or were you unable to figure that out? Same goes for Miles Mathis. My Open Letter to him has been referenced numerous times on this blog; and ‘MM’ ‘himself’ has several times attempted to blackwash me in his essays, such has been the effect of research, apparently. Were you unable to make the connection between Atwill’s deceit and ‘Mathis’s’?
Whaddarya, stupid?
This is how I get Gus in wherever I go, no questions asked.
On a basic level I followed your blog because I was persuaded that you developed opinions based on Sherlock Holmes like methods. I am not interested in people who represent opinions which are actually faith based beliefs. Opinions are always open to new facts or logical interpretation. People with beliefs, whether from hardening of previous opinions or taken from authorities, reject new facts or questioning of the belief. Your response regarding the potentially new information re: MLK sounds like belief to me. Again: New information? The totality of your ‘new information’ is that MLK had an open casket funeral and that since Joe Atwill says he should have had a closed casket, that equals MLK being a lifetime federal agent who faked his own death. Yeah, I got the ‘lifetime federal agent who faked his own death’ from actually listening to Atwill’s podcast — which you did not directly reference. (Actually, what is your excuse for not sending me to the podcast, given your criticisms of my ‘sophistry’?)
Since all of this is of such interest to you, I assume you have read my exposé on ‘Miles Mathis.’ You have, right? The same Miles Mathis Joe Atwill so highly recommends in the podcast (multiple times). And you yourself say: ‘All well and good, two disinfo agents tag teaming with one another.’ You’ve pretty much answered your own ‘question,’ haven’t you? As far as the open casket goes, given that MLK was shot in the face, the facial wound – the entrance hole — would be smaller than dime-sized (.30 caliber), and easily disguised by a competent undertaker. That Atwill claims otherwise (or fails to point this out) is still another example of his deceit. Ditto Tim Kelly, who should have caught Atwill on this – and a plethora of other deceits.
I’m adding lots of photos to make up for the aggravation my prose might provoke.
I sent you the new information I gleaned from Joe Atwill’s interview to have it looked at in a scientific and logical way. Scientific theories as well as my own require them to be open to falsification to be “scientific” (Popper) Your constant reference to ‘science’ and ‘scientific’ reminds me of Jan Irvin’s constant reference to ‘the Trivium,’ as if repetition equals knowledge. That you cite Karl Popper (I assume) tells me you’re one of those people with ‘a little information.’ You’ve read Karl Popper, have you?! And can even (incorrectly) interpret him? Good for you! I mean look at your fucking sentence, man… it’s hardly literate. And what does it mean in reference to my post? Nothing. How is my suggestion that you read William Pepper’s books a scientific theory?
By the way, your reference to mine and Atwill’s different ‘interpretations’ of Catcher in the Rye and Cuckoo’s Nest is still another indication that you haven’t done your homework. I provided a podcast debate between myself and Atwill that you apparently didn’t listen to: Atwill’s claim (for example) that Catcher is an homage to Freemasonry is flat indefensible. Period. And you can shove your ‘not scientific’ logical fallacy up your ass.
One last ‘by the way’: Your pretentious reference to Karl Popper is still more evidence that your head’s up your ass and you don’t pay attention to this blog. Popper loudly promotes Neo-Darwinism, and that evolution’s mechanism relies on random mutations. Wrong, as I show in this post.
A Wyoming petroglyph of unknown age. This place gave me the shivers…
Okay. Yeah, I know: Enough already! Even aside from the email-writer above, I suspect I’ll be seeing some ‘Unsubscribes’ come in as a result of this post. All I can say is I warned you guys that this daily blog would be based on my ‘morning wake up’… and so it will be…
Allan
Anyone interested in the M.O. of alt media disinformation should take in the podcast referred to above. I’m not going to pick it apart further but advised that Atwill (and Kelly, I’m sure) are well trained in NLP.