An excerpt from "War of the Worlds": Behind the 1938 Radio Show Panic
by Stefan Lovgen
National Geographic News
June 17, 2005
It was the day before Halloween, October 30, 1938. Henry Brylawski was on his way to pick up his girlfriend at her Adams Morgan apartment in Washington, D.C.
As he turned on his car radio, the 25-year-old law student heard some startling news. A huge meteorite had smashed into a New Jersey farm. New York was under attack by Martians.
"I knew it was a hoax," said Brylawski, now 92.
Others were not so sure. When he reached the apartment, Brylawski found his girlfriend's sister, who was living there, "quaking in her boots," as he puts it. "She thought the news was real," he said.
It was not. What radio listeners heard that night was an adaptation, by Orson Welles's Mercury Theater group, of a science fiction novel written 40 years earlier: The War of the Worlds, by H.G. Wells.
However, the radio play, narrated by Orson Welles, had been written and performed to sound like a real news broadcast about an invasion from Mars.
Thousands of people, believing they were under attack by Martians, flooded newspaper offices and radio and police stations with calls, asking how to flee their city or how they should protect themselves from "gas raids." Scores of adults reportedly required medical treatment for shock and hysteria....
I think it's fair to say that most of this blog has been devoted towards articulating the existence of a manufactured, internet zeitgeist characterised by right woos left infiltration. Arguably the two biggest blogs of the past decade have been Daily Kos and Democratic Underground. We now know that DKos has been run by a person whose original allegiance was to the right wing oligarchy from El Salvador. Markos Moulitsas actually applied for a position in the CIA, and in 2006 described it as a liberal institution with its heart in the right place. DU was formed as a branch of the triangulating Democratic Leadership Council. In short, true progressives have not been welcomed at either of those dives.
In other areas of the internet, we have witnessed even more lefty posers with their right wing suitors. Sub-tier blogs such as BradBlog, Rigorous Intuition, InfoWars, and What Really Happened can be said to be part and parcel of paranoic, conspiracy theory freakdom. This is the historical record. Once was a time when there was great hope for the internet being a communicative device for positive, social change. Stories published on the internet were scooping the mainstream media. However, as Altamont signified the end of 60's idealism, hoaxes perpetrated by lying lefties such as Jason Leopold and Brad Friedman symbolised the end of the internet having any credibility. We knew deep down that Alex Jones, Michael Rivero, Willis Carto, and other forms of right woos left were full of it. Those influences didn't actually destroy the internet. It was the Lefty Liars Club which did that. It was as if we were all rounded up into fake lefty blogs only to be ridiculed and then banned for questioning the idiocy being spewed. Now all that remains are pockets of awareness.
In this blog entry, I will examine belief systems and try to formulate why hack bloggers were able to infiltrate and destroy the blogosphere. In short, this was done because we the people form the bedrock of fakery. Wilhelm Reich was quite correct that Nazism took hold in Germany due to the social-psychology of the masses. The same applies to the United States and its current forms of fascism-lite. Of course some of us knew from the get-go that the Iraq War was criminal. However, we were only the few. Why did it take so long for the rest of society to catch up to the truth?
In regards to the net, fakery ruled the day due to there being a dearth of thoughtful discussion. Simply put, things regressed into the realm of conspiracy schlock. Bush and Cheney were demonised. More people were hearing about them being the problem rather than the system itself. The idea was pushed that Bush and Cheney were behind 9/11. Bush and Cheney truly suck, but that's preposterous. It then got even stu piddier. Bush and Cheney were plugged as being central cogs of a government sponsored, satanic, mind control, pedophile ring. That crap was making its way to the top of the Democratic Underground's most popular links. Andy Stephenson was at the forefront of peddling that specific form of insanity. Some of his best friends were Brett Kimberlin, Brad Friedman, and Larisa Alexandrovna. Alexandrovna used to co-write articles with Jason Leopold and vouched for the Speedway Bomber, going so far as to spread the disinformation that he was an exonerated, ex-political prisoner. Larry Johnson was also a part of that crowd. They controlled the moderating and zeitgeist at the top boards.
Around the time Kos got outed as being a CIA loving piece of shit, he decided to ban conspiracy talk. Fine. Whatever. But the damage was done, and the big question that needs to be asked is why do so many people feel that Daily Kos speaks for the left? Sure, it's a skeleton of what it once was. A new blog jumped in front by an incredible margin. That would be the Huffington Post. But that was no great advancement. The structure of Huffington lends itself to churning out threads with a daily turnover rate. Nothing ever remains on the front page for too long. The pages take too damn long to load. Too much entertainment rubbish is pushed. Too many of the bloggers are non-intellectual entertainers and hack writers. Censorship also exists at HuffPost. And even if one is fortunate to have any good stuff posted, whoop-de-doo. It won't ever approach becoming a pocket of awareness, since it will inevitably be circumscribed by a mountain of posts full of inane banter.
We have seen the enemy, and it is us. One of the greatest works put out by Orson Welles was a little-known documentary titled F is for Fake. Like the article above concerning War of the Worlds, this movie covered the concept of how fakery can easily become established as zeitgeist.
Here is what Welles found out. He covered the story of Elmyr de Hory, a man notorious for faking out musuems with his forgeries of art masterpieces. Now here is where the irony set in. Clifford Irving had been the one conducting interviews of the confidence man. It later turned out that Irving himself had concocted a fake autobiography of Howard Hughes. Like with the mass hysteria produced by War of the Worlds, Welles showed how significant numbers of society can be easily duped into believing fakeries. I think such an analysis can also be applied to the blogosphere. The same process has taken place there. Eventually such fraud does get exposed but only much later, after the damage has been done, like with Bush's War on Terror.
The same process occurred with the satanic panic, and innocent people went to jail. Opportunistic creeps such as Geraldo and Oprah lended credibility to that which deserved none. There is another example I'd like to share. It concerns the search for the Zodiac killer.
Robert Graysmith wrote a book called Zodiac. Somehow he pulled a Clifford Irving, just substitute the Zodiac killer for Howard Hughes. Graysmith ended up as a so-called expert. Such confidence men are all over the internet. Alexandrovna, Leopold, and Friedman are fake journalists. Rivero, Jones, and Carto are fake patriots. Kos and Huffington are fake liberals.
Graysmith UNMASKED 1 - The Cartoonist & His Suspect
part 2
part 3
part 4
part 5
part 6
part 7
74 comments:
Posting a picture of Orson with one hand raised under the heading "F is for Fake"...
Are you implying sir, that Mr. Welles is a fake lefty?
I am so disillusioned.
Sock, ignore MattyJack here and he'll slink back to his own un-read blog.
As for fake, if you think about it a certain way, every major social movement, religion, the Amerikkkan Dream, Art, Literature, Movies and Photography are all fake.
People are fake. None of us are even close to 100% truthful in the expression of our emotions, and thats not even counting the expression of these to "other people."
The world is founded entirely on false assumptions.
This is nothing less than the teaching of the Buddha.
Watched the Celticsd game the other night, missed the lakers game last nite. As of this moment, I dont even know who won.
The Celtics looked horrible. I know you'll blame it on Perkins getting tossed, and Howard's wayward elbows, and you have a point.
But the Celtics are the league leading whiners from what I have seen.
Probably Rasheed's influence. That dude is alltime whiner of the universe, next to Mark Cuban.
If you dont think all that "faking" doesnt negatively influence the officials, then you arent watching the same game I am.
Those are all valid points, Donkeytale. There's something to be said about not feeding the trolls. This one post here, I can't even think of a response, he was obviously having nothing to say about the topic. Those guys invested so much faith in fake lefty bloggers, they are set in their ways. Easier to mug the messenger, in this case myself, than to check into the easily verifiable content.
As for what really matters, at least for one more month, let's get to basketball. I told you so about Dwight Howard. Look, I know all about McHale on Ramis. I think Bird once tried to choke Dr. J. Things are going to happen in the heat of battle. I could let Howard off the hook, if this wasn't a recurring pattern.
Plus, think about it this way. Kids in grammar school gym class pretty much are given one major rule in dodge ball. No fricken head shots. Now one may say Howard doesn't try to go for one's head, that it's just the way it ends up because of his height. But you saw what he did to Pierce with the first one I whined about. He pushed him to the ground with his hand to Paul's face. The last game, he nearly ripped Paul's shoulder off. That was clearly deliberate. The one on Big Baby, I think that was deliberate also. It's as if Howard has flagrant fouls down to a science. He knows what he's doing, and he has this trick where he looks the other way while he's doing it. But if you slow down the clips and watch them over and over, it's clear he's a dirty player.
That's quite different from playing physical, playoff basketball or making a rare violent mistake. Even if one argues those weren't deliberate, I think there might be an NBA rule anyway which would have forced him to be suspended. I'd have to check on that. At a minimum, he's not even getting a foul called.
We'll know more after tonight what's up with the Celtics. There's no way to predict who will win. I do think the Celtics will win the game, and I think the refs will be keeping a cerful eye on Dwight Howard. He might end up in some early foul trouble. If he continues to get away with playing dirty, expect a fight.
Ok, a quick response on the thread topic. Yes, we all have to face our inner demons. However, there's a big difference between what the fakes described in the above are up to from what the common folks do. I think blokes like us with our quirks don't have much in common with that kind of bold fakery. I'd say MattyJack does. He was just so incompetent of spinning us as the same person or that he was anti-UGOG along with his other various scripted nonsense, that he jumped the shark far sooner than people smarter at knowing how to lie. We may be all fakers in our own ways, but these others are deliberate liars and thus can be said to be the dregs of society. (I'm not proofreading my posts. I'm too tired. I hope they aren't too bad.)
I noticed I called you "Sock" again, George.
I plead Alzheimer, not sadism....
Well, I think you make too much about Howard's elbows. It looked unintentional to me. The officiating sucked, no doubt, but when you put those huge dudes in a confined space all fighting for the ball, stuff happens... and some of it is well disguised.
The Celtics have long been one of the most physical, some would say dirty teams in the NBA. This goes back to Auerbach. ML Carr was vicious. Bird was very physical. Dennis Johnson. Heinsohn. Cowens. Chaney.
They werent whiners though like they are today. Rasheed infected the team probably. That guy is a whiner and a loooser. Did he finally get a ring with Detroit?
But make no mistake: The Magic were on fire offensively and Boston played very badly on both ends of the floor. When teams like PHX and ORL are hitting threes, they have skillful inside players like Howard and Studamire basically open underneath, well its pretty hard to defend them.
I just dont recall a totally outside shooting team winning a belt, other than maybe Detroit with Dumars, Laimbeer and Isiah. Those guys were clutch from outside. In playoff pressure you have to move the balll inside and take it to the hoop.
ORL was doing some of that too the other night.
I noticed the Sock thingie, but what can I do? Sadists wish to portray me as having fake conversations with myself. It's not true. It's out of my control. I used to go looking for it, to see what kind of new crap was being written about me. I documented it. It was some kind of serious shit for how irrelevant it ultimately was.
I nailed chemtrails. I nailed Rivero. I nailed fake lefties. The content transcends who I am. It can be found at my forum. Some of it can be found here. Some at those soapblox dives I am trying to forget. Someone had to do it. No more complaints from me on this stuff. I'd like to not be called Sock, but perhaps you're gonna slip once in a while. I don't think you're a sadist. Others I am sure of.
We'd have to dissect various Howard elbows to get to the bottom of a sincere debate. Who has the time for that? I know what you mean about the physical play of the past, but I still don't think it comes near what Howard is doing.
If you recall, I didn't give Orlando much of a chance last year. It was precisely because of their reliance on the outside shots. No one here fears Vince Carter. What we are worried about are injuries, nagging and serious, whether to Baby, Rondo, Sheed, or others. We're worried about KG and Ray disappearing. We worry about Paul playing too much hero ball. It probably will come down to Rondo. There's no one to fill in for him. It's all back up by committee. Marquis might have ended up being the dude, but now he's out. Tony has a sprained ankle. Nate's kind of hot and cold, and he's not really a point guard, more of an undersized shooting guard. Only a half hour to go.
We Boston fans are probably the most emotional on the planet. We tend to know a lot, even when it may appear we are pure homers. The Celtics have a good road record, but they probably want to get it done tonight, if they're going to the finals. Best case scenario, Celtics win, Phoenix wins, and the Celtics get some extra days to rest. I think the finals start June 3rd. I forget that poem to know how many days there are in a month. Five days off would be perfect. If it had been a sweep, there might have been a rust factor. I'm gonna go out on a limb and predict a ten point win with a big lead at some point in the game. I feel it in me bones. Big Baby has been cleared to play, so we have that Kirk Gibson-Willis Reed thing going.
I think Howard will be treated like a rookie with the calls.
I agree Sheed is the #1 whiner in the league. He did win a title with Detroit. He's actually finally found a home in Beantown. Funny how a guy can go from goat to hero in one week. Same thing happened to JD Drew in 2007 for the Red Sox. We hated him. Then he hit a grand slam tater in the World Series and all was forgiven. Same thing is going on with Sheed.
In a way, I can't wait until the season's over. It's too much. Football is better. The games are better on the whole, at least the regular season. Each one matters. The season isn't all year. I mean think about this. By the time the Finals end, it'll only be about four months until it all starts up again. That's too much basketball. Enjoy the game. And thanks for holding my hand through this trying period. Not in a gay way. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But as Antonio from Wings once said, "You are a very handsome man, but not to me."
Just a quick note, because I'm spent. Big win for the Celtics. On to the Finals! I guess I am psychic. I called a ten point win with a big lead during the game. I was only off 2 points. I wasn't the only psychic. Doc Rivers predicted Nate Robinson would be a factor in a game. Check. Magic Hohnson said Nate Robinson would have a good game tonight. Check. Tommy Heinsohn said Pierce would show greatness. Well, that's donkeytale's descriptor. But great Paul Pierce was. That's why his nickname is The Truth.
My ulteriour motive with my gay masterpieces has nothing to do with you. My motive, as I'm just now coming to realize, has more to do with truthfulness in reportage, a journey thru the past darkly (stolen Stones album title alert).
The false emphasis on positive psychology in recent decades troubles me. People who dispute the truth of Freud's mapping of the psyche are delusional. OK. His treatment and ability to cure was off, but that hardly invalidates his analysis of the human interiour or his critique of civilisation.
See, I think we are all gay, as well as straight. In the 60s, all motives were ascribed to environment. Today, all motives are ascribed to genetics.
Both of these ideas are fundamentally political in nature, stemming from ulteriour motives.
Both ideas are false, or should I say half-baked and oversimplified.
Man is a reactionary creature. He tends to follow. This is the lesson of the herd. This is how false notions gain mass legitimacy with frightening speed, ever faster in the era of the infoboobtubez.
I really dont care whether it moves or not. In a way, just remarking upon it in the negative probably means you are in denial and that it really does move. Maybe the Sharapova pic is a reaction of denial.
Or maybe you are truly the Wilt the Stilt of the whiteysphere.
I dont really care either way. Yur sexual orientation is uninteresting to me.
But you can keep those Maria pics coming.
There is a guy who publishes a web site in Brownsville called El Rocinante. I think its now on Wordpress. I got into it originally because of its local political commentary during a time when I was involved in business dealings with local govt down there.
It mixes in some raw sexuality too. Today the dude mixes in porn pix.
RIOTOUS!
I don't agree. You'd have to be every person to know what everyone is going through. There's no scientific evidence that all people are bi-sexual. You're entitled to your opinion. I was just trying to be funny anyway. It was just banter, nothing of importance, like how's the weather or talking basketball.
I read some of Freud. He was quite influential, no doubt. Many great thinkers were influenced by him, Fromm, Marcuse, Alice Miller to name a few.
Or maybe we are all wrong, and Tom Cruise is trying to save our souls through dianetics. Now that was some funny shit, him jumping on the couch, that video he made for Scientology. What was the question?
And in other news, Sharapova and Henin traded sets in Paris before darkness descended and the match will resume today.
What a farce. Here you have a battle, the best of the tournament so far, and a gritty second set comeback by the most beautiful athlete in the history of athleticism (sorry, Muhammad) and instead of it building into a frenzied third set outcome, we must wait until today, with all of the drama of sport defused.
No lights is a good thing in a way, but when it was messes with my appreciation for Maria I just want to tell those French moroons to foook off and grow up.
OK, I wish to say here that you had a nice subject matter for a blogpost but once again you truncated it and also tossed in the standard issue Alexandrovna, Kimberlin, BradBlog schtick. This had the makings of a decent philosophical piece but you got lazy.
Dude, leave the lazy brevity to the masters of the shortform, such as moi. Socrates is a long form blogger. You need to take your time, dont rush the piece. Save it and work on it later. You are a good editor but perhaps the good editor also needs an editor? You sounded a bit academic in stating how you were going to lay out your thesis, and then you didnt lay it out at all! Think backk to yur skkkool daze. This one would have gotten F for Flunk of at least I for incomplete. Resist the urge to fall back on Youtubes, dude.
Youtubes, with very rare exception, belong in the threads, not the dairy.
Perhaps a part two is in order?
I disagree with your disagreement. And I dont claim to be "Bisexual" as you stated. Thats slander.
I'm as straight as the day is long.
Or wtf.
Freud did claim that people were naturally bisexual. So did Kinsey. I think what Freud meant is that people are a blank slate and that the society pushes and pulls them in one direction or another.
That genetics do not cause orientation. After an exhaustive study of the liteature on the subject (ie five seconds of googling) we see that sexual orientation is typically studied by having people watch porn....wow, how scientific. Now personally, porn arouses me, but I see multiple problems with this form of study. Men watching heterosexual pron may be aroused because it is both men and women having sex, no? This would be the strict definition of bisexuality. Plus, a significant portion of people arent aroused at all by pron. I know, its hard to believe, but the studies themselves bear it out. Maybe there can be a correlation between sexual orientation and state of arousal watching pron but it is tenuous at best.
There are limits to how scientists can interpret the inner workings of the human sickness unto death.
I believe 95% of science, especially social science, is F for Fake. Worse than meaningless.
Job programs for geeks.
And what of the Greeks? Here is a society that glorified homosexual activity and considered it normal. This is the only way you could study and determine whether bi is natural. The society would have to consider it normal.
Societal bias ruins any possible scientific study of sexual orientation.
Good article in todaze NYT about Sparky Lyle, who was a great pitcher and bon vivant, back in the day when beisbol players were bon vivants instead of roid robots.
Mantle, Martin, Lyle, Mickey Rivers, Piniella, Munson, Reggie.
Though they were hated as a team, you had to like some of them individually.
Socrates - loved this piece, thank you. After 2001 or so, I was so distracted fighting niche issue wars in obscure corners of the 'net that I lost touch with mainstream Leftist internet culture. Subsequently, I missed DU and Daily Kos almost entirely. It's very helpful for me when people talk about the history of those sites.
About sexuality -
I'm a gay man who feels very blessed to have been adopted as a father-figure by the children of a lady friend. We are, together, a family unit and I have had the privilege of being Dad to two wonderful people for 27 years.
The scientific evidence for genetic and/or biological predisposition to "homosexuality", that I am aware of, seems overwhelmingly concerned with manifestations of "transgender" in humans and other species - in other words, it purports to explain beings of one biological gender behaving in ways that are more typical of beings of the other biological gender. Cows that attempt to mount other cows as though they were bulls, type of stuff.
The science for this seems pretty solid, to me, but it doesn't explain male humans who strongly self-identify as males and behave fairly consistently in accordance with popular conceptions of masculinity, who have an obsessive attraction to fellatio with other males but would stay limp as overcooked asparagus if some Garbo-esque sex-goddess attempted to get them off in that manner.
There are still many mysteries in the puzzle of human sexual attraction. One thing which seems certain to me, is that the specifics of what constitutes primary turn-ons for any given person, (large women with short-brown hair wearing uniforms, macho guys with foreign accents and anorexic waistlines who are willing to spank, or whatever else), cannot be genetically determined
My issue with the science isnt science per se, its the politics which cant be separated from the science. Its science as a substitute for religion.
There are many truths which the scientific method cannot explain.
The limitations of the scientific method. And yet so many people, mostly liberals it seems, will profess that a thing cannot be "true" unless it is confirmed by science, which itself can never really determine truth but only a synthetic estimate of probability.
I'm not against science at all. I'm for it, but I'm for putting its limits and its achievements into a proper perspective.
Welcome back Bob. Looking forward to more from you and less ofboth me and Socrates....
I spent some time in the gay club scene circa 1980s, both male and female.
For me, it turned out to be an excellent way to prove my superiour emotional and intellectual openness to the straight women who often accompanied me on these nights out, which sometimes enhanced my prospects for getting into their pants later on....
What this experience did for me mainly was explode for all the stereotype I held of gay people as being one or a few certain types or appearances.
And I knew very well several people who self identified and lived as "straight" hetero yet who had a sexual attachment to one member of their own gender.
I believe this is true of many, maybe most people who are not self identified as "gay" or "bi."
Although, because of societal dictates, we will never know for sure. Which is why I distrust all psychological or scientific research into these topics.
The truth is hopelessly befouled by social mores.
Bob, Good point about the mystery of physical attractiveness.
For me, and I wont generalize my experience because Socrates will object, the petite brunette has always gotten me off, altho to be fair, so has the tall blonde or WTF, but in general, they type of woman I find myself most attracted too over the long haul has been the petite brunette with big brown eyes...................like me mum.
In fact it wa sme mum who first pointed this out to me, not without a sense of pride.
In fact, Freud again.
In fact, I recall an early Odeipal moment of being fixated on me mum's ankle socks. I couldnt have been more than three, it was presexual....but it was a fixation.
Freud, again.
cardsci - There was a meme going around the 'net in the late 90's, postulating that all human sexual attraction consists entirely of "sexual arousal cue imprints", fixations or fetishes of varying intensities "recorded" through unfathomable subconscious processes sometime before physical maturity.
I believe the idea was that the "imprinting" process was indistinguishable from utter randomness, so that any person could end up with an attraction to anything (or anyone). In this hypothesis, no one can consciously choose what/who will be arousing to them, nor could dominant imprints be "deleted" by force of will or act of faith, (although they could be repressed).
How does that compare to your understanding of Freud's perspective? (I don't think I fully understand Freud's perspective on anything, personally - haha!)
Well, I'm no expert and my understanding is rather dim, but I would say that this meme fits my own understanding fairly well....its my belief stated elsewhere, that humans are apes...we ape what we learn.
It is our immortal vanity alone that makes us believe we are who we say we are.
Socrates - returning to the Fakes theme for a moment. I appreciated your mention of Robert Graysmith, near the end there. He's such a great - albeit horrifying - example of how a fountain of misinformation can weasel their way into becoming THE popularly acknowledged expert on a subject and subsequently shape the majority perspective on that subject.
You know far more about the personalities and histories of recent Fake Left confabulators than I ever will, so I want to ask you if you see ego-driven desperation to "break the big expose story" as playing any role in this mess?
There are some historic exposes that the media likes to hype as having been genuinely paradigm-shattering "for millions of Americans". I'm not sure that's anything except hype, but exposes like The Pentagon Papers, Watetgate, Cointelpro, the Church Committee exposes of CIA & FBI wrongdoings, the original "Blowback" book's expose on America's recruitment of Nazis - these were BIG stories. I wonder if some on the Left, perhaps longing for something of that magnitude to leak out of the Bush administration and destroy Bush-Cheney et al, yet finding that the very real scandals of that administration dont't seem to have the same shock value, might have resorted to grasping at any "BIG BANG straw" that was offered to them - even improbable or impossible ones.
I'm just trying to figure out how some alleged Progressives who clearly possess enough intelligence to know better - like Sander Hicks - ended up being led around like poodles on a leash by a long list of fraudulent, self-described "whistleblowers".
I guess freud would differ by saying that sexual attraction is not random, it results from infantile pleasure seeking and the oedipus complex, which fixates on mommy (in males).
The agreement would be on the lack of conscious decision making, on the unconscious, and the repression which is our curse and the necessari ingredient for an orderly civilisation/
We have a couple good topics going which have nothing to do with one another. I like reading your takes on it. In a way, it's like we are using orientation as a vehicle to debate nature versus nurture.
Then there is the F is for Fake. I admitted above or maybe on the last thread that this wasn't my best effort. F is for Flunk sounds close. Probably more like an incomplete.
And maybe when we are getting off-topic with sports, it's akin to that show House. If you've seen it, the lead doctor will often start rambling about insignificant tangents having nothing to do with trying to figure out a diagnosis. Maybe we are attempting to do the same thing. Perhaps if we put to the side our quest for the perfect post, such a discovery will arrive while we're thinking of something else.
I figured out who the troll is, or at least I now have a good guess at who it is. This person is not supersoling, MattyJack, fairleft, or anyone from soapblox. I posted my educated guess in the previous thread, so I'll leave it at that.
I feel bad for what society has done to gays and lesbians. It's true that the Greeks were gay. Nature versus nurture. Hmmm. Psychology versus genetics. I think it's probably too complex to pin down. I do think we can come close.
It's like Bob was saying about various stereotype looks for gays and lesbians, but how then there are homosexuals who don't look gay at all.
I agree with Bob, how some guys will be attracted to others on the same team and have no arousal for Garbo lookers. I think the same applies to heterosexuals. I'm not sure donkeytale agrees. (By the way, Bob, if you haven't noticed, donkeytale is signing in with the spam caption word. I'd like it if he'd post as donkeytale, but I've kind of gotten used to his new method.)
I remember a few analogies from Ireland. One of my best friends, female, she swore to me that she had zero attraction for other women. Maybe we were drunk and somehow we were discussing the new trend of thinking the world is really one big island of lesbos. That men are really lesbians trapped in the male body. That every woman is attracted sexually to other women. She told me it isn't true. She's a very smart, sincere person. She was telling me this from her gut.
Another friend, he was a homosexual scholar who was scared shitless about coming out of the closet. Ireland is Church country, and the folks there have it a lot more difficult than here. People can't even get an abortion in Ireland. Maybe things have gotten better on the old sod. This was a few decades ago. So this friend had two problems. He was scared that coming out could hurt his career. The second problem was that he was incredibly lonely. Life can be tough. As friends, we just tried to be there for him, tell him there was nothing wrong with him. We didn't downplay the homophobia in the society. Life can be oh so tough. I hope things worked out for him.
(continued)
I think most gay people are such because of genetics. I'm no scientist, so take my words as a grain of salt. And how can anyone discriminate or hate on someone for what they were born as?
Bob, on the fake business, I think you are onto something, about maybe some of these fakers have been about reaching the top regardless of whether their big scoops hold water.
Larisa Alexandrovna and Brad Friedman could be two perfect examples of having suffered from Graysmith Syndrome. Maybe real life disinfo agents profile such up and comers and then manipulate them to do their dirty work. Alexandrovna was an English major or something. She saw the internet growing. All it would have taken were those CIA contacts and others to dish her whatever garbage they wanted to. They could psychologically play her, make her feel she was important. It's darn near close to impossible to figure out who is a deliberate fake from someone who might just be too immature to avoid shortcuts. Think of Theresa Duncan. She went Shortcut City. She started plagiarising. When things hit rock bottom, instead of moving onto being a regular guy, she upped the ante into Bizarro World territory.
Brett Kimberlin is the perfect example of how someone can be a deliberate confidence player with the facts. His goal has been simple. To make money. So he finds a faceman in Brad Friedman, some failed actor who doesn't have the stigma of being a convicted perjuror, bomber, drug smuggler, and murder suspect. He provides Brad with all these various scoops. It's quite possible that Brad Friedman is a form of Graysmith. Instead of admitting they were wrong, they decide to stick to the formula, because it has provided them with fame and money.
The problem lies more with the Huffingtons and Democratic Undergrounds which have enabled such dispensers of crocks full of shit.
(continued)
Arianna Huffington is yet another example. There was something called Clooneygate. Huffington basically took all these various Clooney interview pieces and whatnot and mish-mashed it, then presented it as being an original blog entry. Clooney called foul. Yet, instead of Arianna simply admitting she had been behind a hack job, she kept posting that she had done nothing wrong. That's what eventually led me to quit HuffingtonPost. That was my first real blog.
Perhaps it comes down to such people thinking any publicity is good publicity. Yet, this only explains things to a degree. Such a strategy only works when censorship is enabled to minimise oppositional viewpoints.
I got into perusing archives, because I didn't want such fakers to get away without owning up to their past transgressions. It's not on me to prove whether Larisa and Brad are paid fakes or selfish, self-serving hacks peddling misinfo. I have no regrets having gone after them. Their downfalls have occurred precisely because they never cleaned up their acts. The Michael Connell threatened by Karl Rove hoax is still fresh in the zeitgeist memory. They own that. It was just more of the same from them. That being said, I am very grateful to Bob for explaining Jeff Wells' evangelical background. In a way I'm glad to have found out he has been manipulated rather than having been something far more insidious. He has zero credibility. Friedman and Alexandrovna are right behind him in that regard. Arianna eventually owned up to her mistake, and that's why she is still on top. The others never did. That's why they are the laughingstock of the internet for anyone who does even a smidgen of research into their blogging activities.
Graysmith might still be on top. I'm not sure. The truth came out about Geraldo. Slowly Oprah's true legacy is starting to become common knowledge. The Rick Ross people have done a good job outing some of Oprah's affiliations. History will not be kind to any of these folks. Perhaps instead of F is for Fake, we are talking F is for Fools. They may have made it to the top of the zeitgeist mountain, but they are standing over a cliff and have lost their balance. It may seem like there is no true justice in this world, but there seems to be cosmic justice. These guys are now receiving the bill for their fakery. I'm proud to have done my small part in exposing such creeps. It's often said that damage can be worse for the cover up rather than the deed. Swaggart actually did himself a favour by admitting he had sinned. The more these fakes run around as if they've done nothing wrong, the higher will be the bill.
invernax said...
"I guess freud would differ by saying that sexual attraction is not random, it results from infantile pleasure seeking and the oedipus complex, which fixates on mommy (in males)".
Infantile pleasure seeking (= the psychosexual stages of development?) and the oedipus complex. There is truth in those models, certainly. Many parent's & child-care workers observations, and people's life experiences, appear to support the existence of such mechanisms.
Still, there remains the problem that we cannot directly observe subconscious mechanisms at work, in ourselves or in others, so we cannot be certain that the relationships we infer between such mechanisms and adult preferences/behaviours are objective rather than subjective realities - in my opinion.
I'm intrigued by discrepancies between "Freudian" theories about homosexuality and my own experiences.
"These hypotheses are (1) relatively little father-son contact during early childhood increases the probability of homosexuality; (2) under a condition of relatively high father contact, increased sexual attachment to the mother decreases the probability of homosexuality; (3) relatively little father-son contact during early child hood impedes the development of the son's super-ego". (There's a fourth one that seems less relevant to this discussion).
continued...
Hey Bob, you might want to check out this schlock written by Sander Hicks and published by Huffington. He plugs the Franklin hoax as if it were factual.
What I find even more disturbing than that Huffington published this mess, not one comment debunking the hoax is in the comments section. I think the bloggers have moderating power for their own entries, and Sander Hicks censored anything that resembled the truth. Another oddity was someone named eSocrates showed up. Another commentator is edude. What are the odds? Debbie Nathan and the idea of satanic panic are belittled. The whole thing smells very fishy.
So Sander Hicks is fully in bed with disinfo. That is my conclusion.
This has Graysmith Syndrome written all over it. Bullshit is posted. No dissenting views are allowed. What has been clearly proven as being a well-crafted hoax is seen be newbies and fence-sitters as having credibility.
I expect this type of thing to dominate Rigorous Intuition not Huffington. HuffPost cannot be trusted, imho.
part two...
My father passed away when I was quite young, so my mother & grandmother were my principle care-givers for the latter part of my childhood.
My uncles probably feel that their Freud-inspired warning to my mother, when I was 11 or 12, that I was "a classic candidate for developing homosexual tendencies" was subsequently fully validated.
There's a big hole in their hypothesis, however. I've always been the person that I am now.
Aged 4-6 years, (my father was still alive and definitely the dominant personality in my life and in the household), I experienced "romantic" crushes on my two best buddies and age-appropriate physical intimacy with them.
Aged 7-9 years, (father still with us), my affections and intimate explorations were focused on my buddy Mike. I had experiences with friends who were girls, but my interest in that waned after satisfying my curiosity and discovering they lacked equipment of greatest interest to me.
These patterns of romantic & sexual attraction have been constants throughout my life. My closest male friends have always been the focus of those attractions.
On the other hand...I was not a "sissy-boy" child, I've always been comfortable & content with my maleness, I don't have any noteworthy effemanacies, no cross-dressing or transvesticism tendencies, no discernable "inverted" -ness. I have no memory of experiencing either of my parents or any adult care-givers as "sexual attachments" or attractions. I love my mother dearly, but we have profoundly different personalities, attitudes and personal habits.
The lifelong consistency of my attractions perhaps suggests that I "was born this way", or perhaps I "imprinted" aspects of my relationships with my first little buddies and those imprints remained dominant. Who knows? I don't. I don't believe my uncles know, either.
Socrates - thanks for the Huffington Hicks info and your insights on it.
I've been aware of that particular "article" since it went up, and can personally attest that your perception: "...the bloggers have moderating power for their own entries, and Sander Hicks censored anything that resembled the truth", is a fact.
It's really just an advertisement for Nick Bryant and his book. Hicks as much as admits that in the comments, where he says that the original draft was just about Bryant and he added the Catholic Clergy angle as an afterthought.
Try googling "devil in the vatican" (the title of Hicks piece) and see what comes up. NEW WORLD ORDER!
But Hicks was completely ignorant of that association when he chose the title, we are supposed to believe?
Wow, you got censored by Huffington, or are you going by a hunch? I have proof that they do censor. It's on one of these pages. This is pure Graysmith territory. People in the media who should know better are publishing and hosting these people without even checking out if they're credible. I find it unrealistic that there's not even one post on that Hicks thread which disputes anything about the Franklin hoax. That entry was a total advertisement for Nick Bryant. Yes, you're spot on with your reasoning that people like Hicks and Wells are hooking up with right wing patriot crap while holding up the illusion that they're not. They are showing how one can support Larouche and Gunderson and other crazy shit without admitting to it. These are coups for scumbags like Willis Carto and Larouche. Satanic panic rubbish yet again finds its way onto a 'liberal' blog. Disgusting.
I was censored. I have three variant drafts of my attempted submission to those comments, one was openly critical (but not abusive) of Hicks, two were neutral toward the author - all made it onto the "saved" comment hopper, none appear in the comments thread.
Speaking of censorship...
There was a thread on the RI forum recently, in which someone obliquely referenced our discussions in "Canadian Bob in the spotlight" but didn't name this blog or post a link, and attempted to initiate a discussion about SRA claims possibly being a sublimated response to Catholic clergy abuse revelations.
Willow immediately berated the thread initiator, saying she shouldn't have to have skeptical "denial" shoved in her face at RI, etc., and then the Ayatollah locked out the thread. (I got a mental picture of him declaring: "this forum is for fantasies, delusions, conspiracy theory and role-playing only")
They are not even permitted to discuss our discussions or concepts derived from our discussions, apparently. It smacks of Iranian, Chinese or Pakistani efforts to prevent their citizens finding out that certain ideas and opinions even exist in the global human community.
Then there was a thread initiated by Willow, discussing HP Albarelli's seemingly definitive condemnation of "project monarch" as a fictitious "project" name. Naturally, Willow is concerned to impress on everyone that although the term "project monarch" is a fiction, questioning the existence of a "torturing toddlers to manufacture MPD/DID Manchurian Candidate operatives" program will remain an unforgivable heresy. Another poster attempted to raise the idea that there might be legitimate psychiatric research applications for some of the "technologies" allegedly employed in the alleged torturing toddlers program, but Willow will have none of that. Her "personal experience" of being a "mind-control victim" apparently gives her expertise on the subject that transends reason, logic or science, and expressing opinions on the subject that she has not endorsed constitutes an outrage - a re-victimization of all "survivors".
They ought to rename the place:
"Queen Willow's fantasyland forum".
To the Rigorous Intuition cult, I'm either an ogre with a role in the cover up or some troll with a growing rotation of twisted usernames.
There's some nutjob named Donovan Stringer. He gave Marilyn Manso a tattoo. He was one of the lead stars in cybersmearing me. He goes by the name of et in Arcadia Ego. He was Jeff Wells' moderator and still serves as his administrator.
He's the one who got me banned years ago before even making one post. That was probably some time in 2007. I had known Stringer from another forum.
I honestly don't read much at RI. Like probably yourself, I'll go there and give it a peek every once in a while. It's really no good when no dissenting views are allowed. Like China or Pakistan as you put it. By the way, I found the Hicks link at RI. I also noticed that Project Monarch thread, though I had a difficult time reading through it. It didn't make much sense. I found it boring and low on facts.
Donovan Stringer is a mad man. What I don't get is why someone extra sleazy like him into devil art and who actually has 666 in one of his usernames was selected to be a moderator by Jeff Wells. If Jeff is sincere about having a safe haven for so-called survivors, then why have a heavy metal, heavy drug user, some dude into reading about Satan as your bouncer?
I've mentioned that guy's real name to local police. Months back I noticed him writing some more bizarre shit about me. The guy's photo is next to whackjob in the dictionary. Why's he keep saying I am a former RI username called Proldic? Where is his proof? Healso continues to claim I am the_last_name_left. But where is his proof? Why does he think posting blatant lies works in his favour?
My point is, I, some nobody from Massachusetts, have been cybersmeared beyond any legitimate rationale. Why does Jeff Wells believe in Donovan Stringer? Because he put a tattoo on Marilyn Manson? Because his girlfriend used to work for George Petros? Did Jeff think he was saving this former hard core, drug user sadist from ending up in the gutter?
Maybe et in Arcadia Ego is the male version of Theresa Duncan, just a bigger loser than Duncan ever was and much uglier.
So Bob, what I'm saying is, I'm a convenient excuse to have your writing banned from discussion at RI. That's not what's really going down either. Is there anything on that website that resembles oppositional viewpoints? I doubt it. Here we allowed Neil Brick to put up his links. If anything, Neil Brick has been ignoring us not the other way around. Project Willow is insane. She was brought into the fold by Lowell Routley. There's a whole diary written about her here at DFQ2. She and Neil have had so-called recovered memories of times spent in mk-ultra pedophile rings or whatever they are on about. Yet they provide no names, no events, nothing to help anyone figure out the specifics of what they allege to have gone through. The whole thing is made up. It's part of Willow's identity now. One can hope she has a breakthough at some point with a real therapist. Yet I sincerely think because of people like Jeff and Donovan, it's too late for any of them. Rigorous Intuition is literally an asylum run by extremely, mentally ill people.
Bob, the point is no one knows but those who offer up their opinions are likely doing so because
a) they have a political agenda to advance
b) they are following the accepted wisdom and/or bias of the moment.
For instance, Socrates seems to accept the genetic theory without really knowing why, accept that its current liberal dogma for political reasons. If homosexuality were environmental it could be construed as a choice, which is conservative christian dogma, and thus you could be re-programmed to choose heterosexuality.
Not to pick on Socrates at all here.
I believe there is a category that too often gets lost in the ideological divide, and that is happenstance, or luck.
Perhaps you don't remember your oedipal moment because it occurred before the age where your memory kicks in, or there is always the possibility the memory is repressed.
But I have been always been a late bloomer and so maybe your experience was more typical. Maybe your father was more inviting or comforting to you during this stage of your development. Maybe mom was ashamed of her own sexual feelings towards her son and rebuffed them in a way that your father did not, in a way that imprinted on your infantile mind in a certain way.
Now, I'm not suggesting any of this happened, only the possibility and that it happened before you were consciously aware. Thus, what you believe to be genetic (wholly without proof) is indeed fitting within a Freudian framework and a learned response to external stimuli.
I'm not saying "I know this to be fact" but I'm very wary of the science of genetic predisposition. It is fraught with biases and dangers.
After all, you could jump to the conclusion that the rich and powerful got that way through genetics.
You arent too far from social darwinism at this point, from eugenics at this point, if you accept genetic predisposition fr certain behaviour traits.
I agree that Freudians tended to jump the shark. However, I still tend to believe that Freud's mapping of the mind, particularly its developmental stages is quite apt, although perhaps not "scientific."
Spengler too was not scientific.
Doesnt mean either were necessarily wrong, it means science is a limited means for ascertaining truth in terms of explaining humans to oursleves.
Oh and for the record, the anonymouse at 32 (Magic Johnson) was donkeytale....as is proterk at 33 (Larry Bird)
[:o)
My parents once told me that I was a precocious swimmer, able to go go go on my own at age 1-2. Now today of course we know that infants have a swimming instinct, but thats a different point.
Yet, I was a late bloomer not learning to swim until I was 8-9.
I never understood this until me mumk told me that one time in a public pool when I was two an adult swimmer didnt see me in the pool and elbowed me in the head, from whence I took in water and nearly drowned, precipitating a huge fight between my dad and the other guy who was profusely apologetic.
I have no memory of this even yet I'm quite sure it left an imprint on me.
I have always been physically cautious in my memory, and was somewhat anxious and afraid of physical confrontation throughout my childhood....
Again, this very well could've influenced me during my infantile development stage, a result of happenstance or luck.
Donkeytale, if most people aren't gay for genetic reasons, then how do you explain the stereotypes? Such as guys with feminine characteristics or butch looking women? Granted as Bob points out there are gay people that don't appear as genetically inclined to homosexuality as others. Check out this guy Ross Matthews. He is Rosie O'Donnell's friend and a tv personality. Is it a coincidence that he looks and acts like he's gay and is?
Is not being heterosexual a part of biology? Perhaps nature and nurture can coexist? Perhaps we must look at this on a case by case basis?
You appear to have much in common with the right wing evangelicals who believe homosexuality is a choice. I'm not attacking you either. Just saying.
As for the troll, here is an analogy. There's a sportswriter for The Boston Globe, Dan Shaugnessy. Every single column he writes is bombarded with people attacking him. They call him foolish and whatnot, yet cannot see that they are spending an inordinate amount of time on something they consider ridiculous. That is this troll in a nutshell.
He throws out a lot of sock puppet accusations with no evidence. One can now see by calling me a useful idiot, he believes in the satanic mkultra bullshit. Fine. But funny how he can't even say who he has posted as elsewhere. This is because it knows there is a lot of rubbish being put out from its keyboard.
It's protesting too much. Calling Bob NAMBLA and accusing him of being these other posters. Maybe Bob has been posting as those people. I don't know. But to say he is without proof shows what this troll is all about. This is the dude who insinuated Meredith Hunter didn't have a gun. And he's saying I have a reading comprehension problem. Riotenfraude! He's talking trash about Doug, who isn't even a member of The Process. Is he a fan of Neil Brick's goofy conferences?
Those who have drunk the koolaid like this have a propensity to label any dissent against crackpot conspiracy theories as deriving from only a few people. That Proldic person was vocal against the Joos Did It theme. So has been The Last Name Left. Me three. Mentally ill trolls then come up with this we are all the same person meme. It's quite transparent and devoid of any proof, just like there was none against the McMartins.
This person is a coward. It doesn't have the backbone to say who he's been and where. He makes accusations that are unproven. This is pure Graysmith territory. This is how people get railroaded into prison terms for actions they had nothing to do with. The authoritarian herd selects their victim and sells it. That's what happened to Amanda Knox and the West Memphis 3. It's now happening on a smaller scale to Bob, Doug, and myself.
I think I might get rid of the anonymous feature. That would force people to at least come up with a username.
You can of course, prove your accusations against
et in Arcadia Ego? No, I didn't think so, but that's typical of the hypocrisy to be found in every post you make.
When you make accusations against someone stated as "fact", while actually using their real name, it's called "actionable libel".
Ask someone who can read to check it out for you.
Anyone like smoked cheese? Fires blazing in Quebec combined with a windy weather system are forcing Massachusetts to issue an air quality warning. I could place food outside and then ship it to ye priority mail. Smoke from Quebec forest fires moves into the region
Hey, maybe I am Doberman Pinche of PFF and Pffugee fame. She's always throwing in timely links like this. Maybe Doberman Pinche is Shadowthief? p:>
Here's your proof, troll. Why don't you tell us who you've been on other boards. Or are you content being an anonymous coward?
I'd like to see that creep or others try to sue me. It's not libel if it's the truth. There's also something called the counter lawsuit. Ego-face would have a lot of explaining to do. Screenshots have been taken. Police have been notified.
The troll has been banned and will be deleted on sight. I decided on that anyway after reflecting on him saying Bob is from Nambla. I just deleted two of his posts. He again revealed my first name. He also tried to steal donkeytale's identity by signing in with spam caption words. If Donovan wants to apologise for being an asshole towards me and posting lies about me being The_Last_Name_Left, Proldic, among other unproven accusations, I will delete his real name. He has made those accusations elsewhere. I'm not sure if this troll is him. It could be some jackass trying to sound like him like he just tried to do with donkeytale. To repeat, he has consistently broken the few rules that this blog has, and he is finished here. Sorry donkeytale, but it looks like I am forced to remove the anonymous posting ability.
And of course in neither of those new posts did the coward share who he has posted as elsewhere.
Socrates--leave it to you to prove my point about politicism versus truth. No to mention proving your now banned trolls point about your reading comprehension.
read my comment again, dude. What I'm saying is there is no proof of genetics causing homosexuality, that its likely a reaction to conservatives calling it a choice. Which your ignorant statement confirms with 100% accuracy.
Genetics as an answer also has political problems. Eugenics anyone? Social darwinism anyone? Helllooooo!
I'm stating there is another potentialiaty in a freudian context, which is what we were discussing, that the infantile sexual reaction to stimulus could be the determiner of sexual orientation.
As I said, none of this is scientifcally proveable, except that you arent paying attention and/or you are just another nonthinking ideologue. You have proven that much....
et in ANONYMOUS ego said:
"...Canadian Bob/Vindalf/edmontonguy or whatever sock puppet he's currently using".
Your score is 50% - you are awarded half a kewpie-doll for this effort.
Yes, of course I'm also Vindalf. No genius needed to figure that out, it's not like I've made any effort to hide that from anyone. I've never posted anything, anywhere, under the name "edmontonguy" however.
Bob and Vindalf are simple pseudonyms. You seem to have your terminology confused. A sock puppet is: "a false identity through which a member of an Internet community speaks with or about himself or herself, pretending to be a different person". If you can reference any posting, anywhere, where Bob talks to Vindalf - I'll send you 10,000 dong.
As for the NAMBLA slander...that pathetic tactic is the verbal equivalent of flipping over a chess board when your opponent is kicking your ass. It demonstrates that the slanderer is incapable of winning a contest of facts and most resort to intimidation. It's a tactic of losers, liars and frauds.
Here are some verifiable facts:
- some members of RI have publicly praised people convicted of sex offenses against children, such as Paul Bonacci, Delmart Vreeland and Rusty Nelson, as heroic wistleblowers.
- many members of RI have repeatedly condemned the FBI and other law enforcement agencies as supposedly being infested with and controlled by pedophiles who use these agencies to enable, protect and cover-up massive child abuse.
- the millions of words spewed at RI over the years have directly lead to the arrest of ZERO child abusers. Specifically, none of the macho jabber on RI has ever contributed to the arrest of any NAMBLA perverts.
- former FBI agent Bob Hamer infiltrated NAMBLA and his work resulted in the arrest and conviction of 8 NAMBLA members who were conspiring to commit sex-tourism offenses.
Some RI members publicly praise convicted child abusers while publicly condemning the people who really do put pedophiles behind bars. So - who's side are they really on?
Donkeytale,
Chill out, guy! :)
You said:
"I believe there is a category that too often gets lost in the ideological divide, and that is happenstance, or luck".
I couldn't agree more.
You said:
(several interesting things about Freudian models, and then...)
"Now, I'm not suggesting any of this happened, only the possibility and that it happened before you were consciously aware"
Yup. That's certainly possible.
you said:
"Thus, what you believe to be genetic (wholly without proof)..."
I'm no "true believer" in genetic predetermination of sexual attraction. The science in this area really only addresses manifestations of "trans-gender" behaviour and does not begin to explain the complete range of attractions/behaviours classified under the umbrella term of homosexual.
you said:
"I still tend to believe that Freud's mapping of the mind, particularly its developmental stages is quite apt."
Yes. I agree.
you said:
"Doesnt mean either were necessarily wrong, it means science is a limited means for ascertaining truth in terms of explaining humans to oursleves".
I agree with that, also.
Very well said!
Socrates,
It is unfortunate that you are in conflict with some people. No matter how justified they may believe they are, pile-ons & bullying are sick behaviours. Even when I don't know all the facts, I have empathy for the target.
I'm not concerned about these conflicts impacting readership of my postings. I'm not very concerned about whether anyone reads my ramblings or not. I'm here, because you spoke truth in some very informative postings on this blog. That's all that matters to me.
I've been friendly with Dreamsend, after he was banished from RI and people said nasty things about him. I don't really care what anyone's opinion of him might be. The man sometimes posts profound truth in an entertaining way, that's what really matters to me.
Donkeytale, maybe my reading comprehension is not always up to snuff, and I apologise for that.
Sometimes it feels like you are trying to hammer points home, and if anyone disagrees, you have difficulty meeting those people half way in dialogue.
If homosexuality can't be proven as genetic in any cases, the converse is also true. It can't be proven that there isn't some kind of physical explanation.
I see the Freudian theory as plausible. This is why I think such a debate could only be answered through looking at case by case. How do you explain that Ross Matthews' dude? Is it a coincidence he has the stereotypical traits of a homosexual and is in fact one?
Now personally, I think there is some choice going on. I think there has been an increase in lesbianism based on social-psychological influences. Lesbianism has gotten plugged more than it's ever been, and it seems there has been an increase in experimentation. That would have nothing to do with genetics.
I am not trying to put words in your mouth. I took it as you're saying everyone is attracted to both sexes. I disagree. I'm not attracted to men one bit. It doesn't register. I'm being sincere. As a progressive, I think people have the right to live their lives the way they want to as long as they don't hurt others. This is why I believe gay people should be able to have lovers, get married, all that.
As for sexual orientation, it is male and female. The world continues because the opposite sexes fool around. It is natural for men to be with women and vice versa in regards to biology. The pieces fit.
That's why I think all things considered, the rates of gay people is probably going to remain constant. But you throw in the social variables, and the fact that we are all unique, the real rate is going to fluctuate.
I'm of the opinion that all life is sacred. So if someone is born gay, or somehow due to social-psychology, they become gay, I say live and let live.
Bob, thanks for the compliments about my blogging at DFQ2. A lot of it I'm very proud of.
I'm not out to slam dreamsend. I do believe he gave my first name to those people. I don't even want to get into it. I agree he can be an entertaining read. If one can forgive the outrageous things he has posted, then they can appreciate the good stuff he wrote if they so desire. I guess that might be somewhat of a projection.
I gave that troll many opportunities to chill out. The dude is a sadist, pure and simple. He has been posting my first name on a consistent basis. He is trying to make me feel like shit.
He's an anonymous coward. For some reason he wouldn't link to us some of his writings. I don't know if that's Ego or not, and I really don't care. Calling you NAMBLA was the last straw.
I also don't worry anymore about anyone reading my blogging. I've gotten enough nice feedback to know I hit some good spots. I read that Vindalf stuff a while back at Amazon books. That was very good writing by yourself.
Vindalf vs Millegan
...not since Gunderson vs Hartwell ! (LOL)
For the record, I never posted at Dreamsend or that backwash blog I won't mention. I was none of those people Anonymous Ego says I am. Bob, a bunch of people are desperate to portray us badly, because they don't want people to check out the content for themselves. I call this raising the noise to signal ratio. They can't win in fair debate, so their goal is to create chaos and drag the whole thing down to their anti-social level.
The troll can't establish itself as a blogger and is showing its frustration. It can't get along with either the satanic panic cult or the skeptics. It's playing off of the fact that donkeytale doesn't think anything should be deleted. But it's really adding nothing to the discussion other than sadism, the piling on you spoke of. I think this place could survive without donkeytale, but I'd rather he stay. I'm not trying to piss him off. But what would he do if someone went into his house and everything coming out was verbal abuse? He'd kick them out of his house. Trolls figure out the rules and then bend them. This is my dilemma. The guy said you're in NAMBLA. If that's not reason enough to ban someone, I don't know what is. When is enough enough, donkeytale?
If I were Vindalf, I too would want to distance myself from your "edmontomguy" username, even though it's obvious to DE and anybody that read the DE2 blog before he pulled the plug, and compared it to your posting as "Vindalf" on DE3.
Your profile and story are the same as is your pronounced tendancy to quote MTV faves the "Offspring", although I'm sure you would like to downplay your impassioned defense of NAMBLA
maven Walter Breen lest somebody say mean and unfair things about him, in DE's famous Sarfatti meltdown thread.
I mean, just because someone is a twice-convicted pedophile shouldn't mean that he can't be in charge of young children for a "special education" project in Mexico at the behest of the Sandia corporation.
Then you peddle the same crap (minus Breen) in virtually the same wording at Amazon with your bogus "debate" with professional right-wing troll and Ron Paul huckster Robert P Morrow.
Morrow as Millegan's main champion is laughable
beyond belief. We're supposed to believe that Morrow believes the crap he spews, but he can barely keep a straight face, as Vindalf "discredits" his purposefully feeble arguments.
On the same level of credibility as David Icke denouncing Bush as "evil" because he turns into a space lizard or some bullshit, so Bush will seem reasonable compared to the disinfo caricature of his "opponents".
Or Gunderson vs Hartwell
Or Alex Jones vs Rense
NOT convincing.
When I saw the Harlem Globetrotters play the Washington Generals, I knew the Generals were going to lose.
But at least they put up a convincing contest.
Well, you could be right. It's possible that I used "edmontonguy" for a few postings on DE2.
OMG! I'm exposed! I'm so embarrassed - not.
What I recall saying there, was that people are not as one-dimensional as their offending behaviour may make them appear. There's no reason why a child molestor like Breen couldn't also have a genuine interest in or affinity for teaching. There's no reason why a pedophilic priest couldn't also be sincerely devoted to his religion. Is there?
So which of the professional assholes DE inexplicably hangs around with, are you? Kid Kenoma?
I "could be right"?
So, the story changes but the song remains the same.
More Ralph Underwager NAMBLA apologetics.
Conflict between religion and pedophilia? Jeezis!
What was I thinking? Of course not. Please forgive me for my totally unjust characterization of these
pedophiles as "one dimensional". Just me being sadistic I guess.
Ralph Underwager, a founding member of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation, is widely quoted as saying that pedophilia is God's will,
so of course it was wrong of me to be so mistrustful.
Glad to see you and Sock on the same page with this. Sorry for my sadistic disruption. I hope he doesn't bam me for impugning your good character!
Breen was not just a member, but one of the leaders of NAMBLA.
And I gotta admit that Breen sure had an affinity for teachintg those youngsters with that personal hands-on approach for the Sandia corporation, which I am sure has all of our best interests at heart. It sure is mean of me to make a big fuss over that! Sorry! :-)
As for professional assholes, Interesting choice of anatomy for you to focus on, although be assured, I'm well over 15 years of age--way too old for you.
Besides, unlike yourself, my asshole is an amatuer.
Nice role-playing at Amazon, by the way.
Very professional.
Bob, this is why Dreamsend is bad news. There's just so much "Kate Coe is a disinfo writer at RI" bullshit one can take. Then there is the "did Theresa Duncan and Jeremy Blake fake their deaths" crap. He allowed sadistic trolls to play him. Instead of just coming out and saying wow I'm an idiot, he theorises that these people perhaps knew Theresa before she killed herself. That perhaps they are from Scientology or some other full of it group. He never gives the goofy, conspiracy theory schtick a rest. You spoke eloquently of how some fakes appear to be so enamoured in breaking a big story, that they end up pushing hoaxes. That's Dreamsend in a nutshell. Worst of all are these assholes he pals around with.
They make up these usernames or there's someone who sounds a bit like me on some issues, I don't know, I no longer care, and then the shitheads call him by my first name.
Bob, this loser will never reveal any of its postings, because there are none it's proud of. It attacks me as being all these other posters yet has no proof. It doesn't even get into the content of those other posters. I checked out Proldic, and I don't see what the problem was. If you're going to set up a fight club atmosphere, then let it ride fair and square. That guy held up his end of the bargain very well, as far as I can see, showing how Wells is probably the worst for reading comprehension on a blog.
These are the last people you'd want on a jury.
This could be that et in Arcadia Ego Eve. It could be Ego himself playing all these various roles. That guy is a serious nutjob. He writes strange out of nowhere comments directed to others but about me at forums I have nothing to do with. I've seen him make fun of my Mom dying. I've seen him think he's clever talking about a Planter's Peanuts ad.
Ego has either lost his mind or is fully aware that he's a sadist. And this anonymous is no different. And dreamsend has himself to blame for being associated with such filth.
Dreamsend contacted me, not the other way around. He started buying into me posting at that backwash website, just because that was how it was scripted. Dreamsend is dangerous. He may not be violent per se, and he often can be reasoned with. But sometimes he cannot be. Sometimes he writes some of the most ridiculous shit imaginable.
Now one of his buddies is trolling this board. He's calling you NAMBLA for some post you made he doesn't link to or have a screenshot of. This is how such creeps operate. It is how dreamsend operates yet without the sadistic mean streak.
I've outright banned this person. I said I would delete its posts on sight. I am getting close to enforcing that. I used to post a bit at a crazy board called Debate Both Sides. But I'm done hanging out with mentally ill scumbags. There is the philosophical problem of free speech. However, this scumbag can't even abide to a few simple rules.
There's this semi-famous blogger named Blues who used to post at Daily Kos and My Left Wing. This it is making Blues seem pretty darn normal. And Blues is a totally, delusional creep albeit entertaining. Only a true loser like IT would hang out at a board for months after months acting the sadistic troll part. Why won't IT just go away? Do you want to discuss anything more with it, Bob? Otherwise, I think IT deserves to have its posts deleted on sight.
(continued)
I told Dreamsend I wan't posting at that backwash blog, but he didn't believe me. Then I looked into dreamsend and found the Kate Coe and past bullshit he's been into. I'm not into piling on him, and I definitely don't think the piling on him at RI was fair considering the sources and how he was unable to defend himself. However, this is what you end up with, if you hang out with dreamsend. Pure convolution. The guy hasn't had a working bullshit radar in years. It doesn't mean he's a bad guy, but that it is what it is.
You can have all the reading comprehension and dialogue skills in the world, but it won't help you in an insane asylum. I refuse to let this biatchka get published here, not after breaking the few rules. Donkeytale can go away if he doesn't like it. Maybe in silence, I can blog some better things in the future. I'd like to read Bob's and Donkeytale's stuff in peace. Any good people out there who wish to blog here, the opportunity is available.
This asshole broke the rules, donkeytale; No breaking of laws (libel), no outing of regular guys. Why are we even wasting our time on this asshat (et in Anonymous Ego)? I believe in democracy. Once Bob accepts the invite to blog here, that makes three people. Donkeytale appears to think this person should be allowed to post here. I don't. Bob would make a third vote. A tiebreaker so to speak. My argument is he's breaking those basic rules. It's one thing to be a troll and disrupt and avoid fair debate. It's quite another to use someone's name and libel another as a supporter of pedophilia.
But the troll in its own mind is never wrong. It never feels the need to supply proof. It never feels it needs to abide to the few rules. It has nothing on its plate other than the desire to hurt others. In a way, it is the only pure satanist on the board, if the definition of satanist is one who promotes evil. This is the kind of person Wells made his moderator and who still administrates his joke of a website. There's the irony. Like the Church pedophiles who speak of ten commandments yet break them, Jeff Wells gave supreme power to a sadist on a board which is supposed to be a haven for "cultic ritual abuse" survivors.
And I don't buy into demonising Wiccans or even people who are into the good form of Satanism, the ones who aren't into evil but who are against the bullshit facets of organised religion. This IT is a strange one. Like I said before, it doesn't get along with either believers or disbelievers of there being an organised mkultra-satanic ring funded by the highest in authority.
Bob, I can see your point of how even a cretin like this deserves a bit of empathy. However, I don't think IT can be saved. IT needs some serious medical attention. None of us are equipped to help him heal. We might as well go to Diana Napolis' website and talk reason with her. Jeff Wells has also long gone left the stable of sanity. I may have some personality quirks, but I am nothing near messed up like these people, and I refuse to allow them to fuck with me in my own house. Especially this specific et in Anonymous Ego. That was a good one, Bob. I'm not trying to steal it from you.
Et in Candido Ego, abide to the few rules, and you may last for a while. But I don't think you have what it takes to do that. I also reserve the right to toss you for past transgressions.
It's convenient for yourself that there's no actual link to Bob's posts concerning this Breen dude.
I think you're taking whatever Bob wrote out of context. He explained above what he was saying, that Breen while evil, was not some monster from another planet. The same can be said about Adolph Hitler. He was pure scum, but to pin all of Nazi Germany on him would be the same as blaming Bill Buckner for the 1986 World Series. It takes a village to commit evil. Reich was correct that it's the social-psychology of the masses that forms the bedrock of totalitarianism.
It's clear what you are all about. You are so determined that there is a govt. sponsored mkultra, sra ring, that anyone who debunks it is a supporter of pedophilia and liars. You, my scumbag, are on the wrong side of history. Talk about reading comprehension problems. A fifth grader could see that the satanic panic has no legs and has been a version of War of the Worlds. And you like other non-academics have drinken the koolaid and ventured into hysteria.
You're not so different from the Neil Bricks and Diana Napolis of the world. There's a reason why no one takes you, your backwash blog, or Jeff Wells seriously. All your shenanigans are built on houses made of cards or sand.
The thing about Donkeytail is, that when he posts an opinion or presentation of facts, I may or may not agree with him, but at least I'm reading a real opinion for once, instead of some dogmatic politicist knee-jerk party line crap. He is completely unfazed by any disruptive hijinx--even a jokey appropriation of his username style, because he knows who he is, and as such is untrollable--he actually has a sense of humor, and can take himself seriously enough to make a point and defend it without being a pompous ass.
Whereas Soc, if the lights get turned out for five seconds, or your foodbowl gets moved a few inches from your usual spot, you fall all to pieces and start flapping around blithering about how everyone that disagrees with you is mentally ill.
Once again your reading comprehension skills are well below par. (another contrast to Donkeytail)
Bob, to his credit, has acknowledged his posts at DE2. I most likely would disagree with his point of view in this regard, but can respect the fact that he has one, and is honest enough to admit it.
Unlike you.
"Reich was right that it's the social psychology of the masses that forms the bedrock of totalitarianism"
Wilhelm Reich?
Hey, isn't that the dude who hung out in the desert firing Deadly Orgone Energy beams at hostile flying saucers?
Sort of like that youtube post of Soc with his light-saber...
May the Farce be with you!
I can't acknowledge what I didn't post.
Wilhelm Reich was a bit bonkers with his orgone schtick, but it doesn't take away fom his social-psychological findings. That's a pitiful response to my argument supporting Bob. You are incapable of having a civilised dialogue. Instead of coming up with a decent rebuttal, you go off on some ad hominem tactic having nothing to do with the core debate. You freaks have a tendency to do this. Concrete proof showing there is no govt. sponsored, satanic, mkultra ring is countered with disgusting claims that Bob is a pedophile. Attack the messenger not the message is your schtick. Nick Bryant supporters did the same thing to Bob on the Amazon Books thread.
His username is spelled donkeytale not donkeytail. I doubt that was a mistake. You're all about playing head games. Myself and donkeytale have had many a nice and deep exchange. It would take a bigger brouhaha than this for us to not be cyber friends. Sure he rolls with the punches with the lame-o sock puppet accusations. He hasn't had the amount of that crap thrown in his face like I have starting at Rivero's What Really Happened forum. You losers never give it a rest. You even bring it to my own blog.
What's your plan? To become a regular? You had your say. Why don't you just leave?
You're the one who doesn't even have the gonads to admit who you've posted as on other boards. You're the one who's made all sorts of accusations about me having sock puppets with zero proof. So you don't like me. I get it. Your opinion and actual existence means squat to me. You're sick. That is clear. Go get yourself some counseling.
I am deeply contrite about the misspelling of Mr. Tale's name. I know how fussy he is about proper spelling and all. (LOL)
If you want to preside over a NAMBLA apologist haven, that's fine with me. There's many many subjects that you could harp on that I wouldn't
even notice or have any opinion of.
You also keep saying how you're over the Theresa Duncan/Jeremy Blake thing and don't care about them, and that it's a waste of time, and how you don't want to talk about her or even hear about her, but you just can't help but keep bringing her name up and smear your foul poo in desecration of her memory, which she is no longer here to defend.
Well I AM here, and while you have the right to blather about whatever you want, every time you dredge her name up for more disrespect, I will exercise my right to be in your face.
Since you have nothing intelligent or constructive to say about them, I doubt that it would be a big deal for you to just shut up and leave their memories in peace.
If you did, I would be gone--permanently.
That's all it would take.
If you can agree to that, then this will be my last post here.
It's up to you.
That sounds fair, trollbreath.
When is enuff, enuff?
Well, you probably dont want me arbitrating your board in any event, but I don't see any lines being crossed here.
I come from a totally free speech background, as well as being a 60s libertine of the worst sort. For instance, except for the fact that he is about 15 years older than me and famous, my herstory fairly well matches Dennis Hopper's in most of the sordid dtales.
I am always going to err on the side of tolerance. Besides, a blog requires a certain frisson, any number of heated disagreemenst, verbal abuses, over the topness of all sorts, to be very interesting to me in the long run.
I don't believe that one can commit libel or slander against an anonymous user. Unless I'm missing something Bob hasn't been outed here or anywhere. In any event, accusing a real identity of being NAMBLA on an obscure blog in and of itslef doesnt qualify as a criminal or civil offense.
One must show real damages. If this guy knew the real Bob and set about spreading the (false) story that Bob was NAMBLA in real life in such a way that Bob was injured and could prove the damages in a court of law, then you would have something. But thats for Bob to say and charge.
Now, I'm not saying the guy making this accusation isn't a total dickweed. You guys have some longterm enmity that I have no interest in tracing back to its root causes.
Bob should be the final judge of this episode. I hope he doesnt leave over this assault. However, to an outsider it doesnt really faze me one way or other. I like Bob so far, the other guy, if he's the same one been around on the Exile thread too, has made some valid contributions to the discussion, even as he seems bent on some sort of revenge or mission to offend.
If the accusation doesnt faze Bob, and it doesnt seem to, then I wouldnt worry about it.
If this is all about defending the honour of Theresa Duncan, then I'd say the guy is fairly pathetic. To me, what little I know of Duncan is that she was fairly pathetic, too, and if she had been an ugly 230 pounder with a mustache no one would have cared about her before during or after.
But at this point, I dont see any bannable offenses.
As for the gay/not gay discussion, I dont really follow your point about some men being overtly feminine or effeminate.....and how that has meaning genetically, although if you are talking about true gender bending, then you re talking about freaks of nature, aberrations. I didnt look at your link so am not sure.
But if we are simply talking about the masculine chick or the effeminate guy, for each one who is gay I can find you another one who is straight....and I can also find you any number of Rock Hudsons and any number of ravishing, classic female beauties who are gay, too.
Football, the ultimate macho sport of manly men has long been said to have the largest percentage of gay participants of any of the major sports.
Well, except maybe for figuyre skating....
[:o)
That was my whole point of many years within the gay scene. The stereotypes that you offer as prooof simply dont hold up in reality.
As I stated, there are a great number of problems with the genetic theory, from a progressive and humanist standpoint. One, if homosexuality is genetic we will surely come to the day when babies are discovered to have "the gene" and will be destroyed in utero.....or perhaps the heteros who are lacking the gay gene will be destroyed as a means to control population.
Two, if gayness is genetic then that makes it an inherited trait, therefore gays must necessarily come from a long line of other gays, but I see no evidence of that being the case. In fact, that seems an entirely absurd possibility, that entire family lines are susceptible to being homosexual more than others.
I would love to be shown the studies that show this to be the case.
Maybe my googler isnt working that well....
OK, here is a geneticists answer that makes sense:
"Sexual orientation in human beings is a complex trait, which means, it is affected by both genes and environment. Hence, a person can be only genetically predisposed to homosexuality. Rest depends on the environment in which the person was brought up.
Your inference that homosexuality cannot be genetic because straight parents can have gay children and vice versa is incorrect. Let me explain it this way. Parents having respective blood groups A and B can still have children with O blood group. This is because parents do contain the gene for 'O' group but it is not expressed since A and B are dominant over O. This is a case of simple genetics (Mendelian genetics) where environmental factors do not play a role. However, when the expression of a gene is dependent upon the environment, then it is even easier for parents to have children with seemingly different characteristics because even though the children are having the same genes as their parents, those genes were never expressed in the parents because of differences in environmental conditions."
In another study, it appears that in identical twins where one is gay the other is gay only 52% of the time.
Inconclusive.
What appears to be consistent is that gays desire to have a genetic basis defined as the cause of homosexuality in order to help normalize their orientation within society.....so we begin and end with the use of science for political ends.
It certainly looks like it boils down to someone out to protect Theresa Duncan's honour. He said he'd go away, if I never mentioned her again.
I see your point on libel, how one would need to show some damages. I'll go with your point of view that it's on Bob to say how he feels about such a person posting here, especially now since he's able to be a featured blogger of DFQ2. Though I'm also tired of having to delete posts, because this person won't stop revealing my first name. While I should have never shared it with anyone in the first place, I did not out myself. That was Brad Friedman, who gave my info to a cyberstalker. I know you're not interested in that kind of thing, and I don't blame you, but I could easily forward you cyberstalking emails and other postings. I sent them to a local policeman.
I have no past with this specific individual. There was someone else who this troll has been mirroring who has given me historic shit. That dude was a moderator and administrator for Jeff Wells.
These aren't Blues or MattyJack trolls who dump on you to your face and don't go at it forever. I've never interacted with this person before. It might actually be some dame out of Florida who gets her kicks out of being in the middle of convolution, in the middle of making others feel lousy. Think of MattyJack but not long term. Even supersoling eventually peters out. If all it takes is no comments from me on Theresa Duncan for him to leave me alone, I'm there.
We got a lot of rain the last couple days after tropical heat. But for some reason it's getting even hotter after the rains stop. So I'm not sure when I'll be able to crank out a new blog entry. No a.c. means no bloggie.
I take a lot of what you say to heart. Some of it I feel like Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver telling the Wizard, "That's gotta be the stupidest thing I've ever heard."
You say my best stuff is when I go short novel style or you know what I mean. Maybe someday I'll crank out something interesting with some mileage. I swear I'll leave out Kimberlin, Alexandrovna, and company. That nail's been hammered in. Apologies for going there yet again.
Sometimes I get lucky and find something good, like with the Annette Appollo schtick, or when I put together that thingie on Susan Polk. I know I did well on the Appollo one, because a few of her close friends liked it. The dude running her website changed it to redirect to my entry on her. Man, that picture of her drinking wine in the Rockies is wicked awesome. I miss her, which is strange, because I'd never even heard of her until she died. I also miss Garbo.
I watched Little Women with Katie Hepburn. I think she sucked. Ham City. O'LiverCheese pulled it off without learning the method. Hepburn didn't.
I love those old movies. They saved me. Give me some of those old-time values, and I'm feeling better about the world. Yeah, a lot of the old stuff was crap. African-Americans, Native-Americans, and other minorities got a totally raw deal. But some of the older movies, a few, centered around racism. I just saw one called Pinky. Pure brilliance. Another one I recommend is In This Our Life. Bette Davis played a Matthew Stuart type, that whitey who blamed his murdering someone on a black man. Man, no one was saucier than her when she was young. She was definitely hot.
I saw a documentary on Bogart. You mentioned The Petrified Forest, and I had completely forgotten I'd seen that a long time ago. That is a great picture. I shouldn't remember any of it, but I do. How the goon had the good people held hostage in the boondock cafe.
About 48 hours to go before game 1. Maybe after the Finals are over, I'll write up an entry. Otherwise, here's hoping yourself and Bob don't get shy. I like both your types of entries, donkeytale. You have those literary ones, fun to read. Then once in a while you crank out some current events and politics. Good show, laddie.
I shifted the permissions back for anonymous. We'll see how that goes.
I see your point about how there can be effeminate men and handsome women who aren't gay. Maybe Bob can chime in more on that. I am always willing to concede a point, especially one I can't prove. I could try to google for some info, but it's 80 degrees in my flat, and I'm sweating like when Martin Short does that character with the cigarettes that never go out.
A long time ago I read a Sports Illustrated article on homosexuality in football. The only point I remember is that might have to do with nurture over nature. It might have to do with vanity issues, as if the he-men are in some way making love to themselves. There is certainly no biological reason for football players to have a higher gay rate than civilian couch potatoes. Or maybe steroids are altering their sexuality? I don't have a fricken clue. I might need to buy a vowel or two.
I see what you mean how eugenics could get involved, if a so-called gay gene was discovered. I don't think that would happen in America, but some of these other countries I could see them fiddling around with ethics. Is China still throwing girls over cliffs?
Donkeytale, I know you're able to provide links in posts, because I saw you did it at your own blogspot. I'm not sttacking you, just saying. I found the link for that post. That sweetie made some other comments folks might want to check out. So it looks like Mr. "No Reading Comprehension" is correct. There are both genetic and environmental factors, and that each person needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis. Or maybe there's a simple solution to this. Tolerance. That chick GeneNat studies genetics and is fond of psychology. Nice find, donkster.
No, I'm not going anywhere anytime soon. There's work to do...MUAHAHA!
I don't remember using "edmontonguy" as a pseudonym on DE2, but I don't remember anything about my username there so - if DE says that was it, I won't dispute him. It's completely irrelevant anyway. I'm always the same person regardless of my username on any blog and very obviously so, as Candidotroll pointed out.
Of course C-troll is misrepresenting the discussion it references. Here's what I remember about that, I think you'll find it intriguing:
DE had gotten scientist Jack Sarfatti to participate in the comments to some threads about Jack's "telephone calls from the future" experience as a boy, and about Walter Breen's "school" for gifted kids which Sarfatti attended. Besides Breen being a child molestor there were other nefarious sounding aspects to this school/program thing, such as an emphasis on cultivating patriotic fervor and recruiting selected boys straight into military-intelligence science programs. All together, a program of this nature run by a pedophile on behalf of military-intelligence is very suggestive of alleged MK-ultra shenanigans.
DE seemed to be probing Sarfatti for any memories or other info he might possess which could constitute evidence for covert operations involving kids back in those days. Sarfatti was being very open and genial, but was adamant that he had not been abused by Breen, had no knowledge of Breen abusing anyone else in the program, that his personal experience of Breen had been as a friend & mentor and not a predator.
Then, someone posted a comment openly skeptical of Sarfatti's claim that a computerized voice from the future had telephoned him as a child, and Jack went ballistic! "Are you calling me a liar? I was never abused by Breen but I've just been abused by this sack of shit!", is almost an exact quote if I recall.
At that point I entered the conversation, expressed delight that Sarfatti was there and gently suggested to him that some people just wouldn't be able to comprehend his telephone experience as an epiphany of his destiny - even if it really was - just as some people wouldn't be able to comprehend that his relationship with Breen had been a positive mentoring - even if it really was, for him.
That seemed to calm him down - for awhile. Then I warned him flat out, that there were fanatical believers in satanic-intelligence child-abusing mind-control plots, who would love to exploit him & his life history to further their own agendas - and at that point I realized that I had very likely just crapped all over some people's effort to seduce Sarfatti into believing that his "call from the future" was some kind of MIND-CONTROL PLOT, and that he must therefore be a mind-control victim. - just like them!
Now, about Candidotroll's postings. I think you should delete the ones which contain accusations that I am a member or supporter of NAMBLA, but only because they are blatant fag-bashing hate speech and intended to be exactly that. I don't think you should tolerate pointless bigotry here, whoever the target might be.
Bob, if it doesn't bother you personally, as your real name isn't attached to it, I'd rather it stay. I do see how it's gay bashing.
I'm not gay, not that there's anything wrong with it. My point is you have people like this exposing themselves as hateful bigots. Pedophilia is not a gay issue. AIDS used to get spinned this way too.
He called me gay on another thread. He called this place Dairy Queen. He's definitely not a progressive, and we can thank him for revealing his true nature filled with hate.
I think maybe there should be a balance between donkeytale's anything goes approach and your call for strict censorship in certain situations.
I do get your point. I kind of lean towards your thinking. But on the flip side, we can thank this guy for showing how nutty the sra-mkultra believers can get.
There's something deeper going on here too, as in could this be that infamous et in Arcadia Ego Eve troll? DE said he figured out that was some broad from Florida. One might think this is that person.
This is why I think the posts should stay. I don't want to see this become a regular part of the forum as in troll spam, but it's like that National Wingnut Day diary I wrote. This guy Dave Dees showed up. His buddy Larry and him were promoting Holocaust denial. I like that their words are there for all to see. Another guy named Al Giordano of Narco News showed up. He wasn't anywhere near as bad as Candido, but he got p*wned just like this other one did. And all I have to do is not talk about Theresa Duncan, and he or she will go away. It's perfect. It shows how the lunatic fringe tries to spin anyone being in the know about the satanic panic are pedophiles or pedophilia supporters.
Even Jackie McGauley thinks these people are nuts!
I'm glad we have exposed this sector of the internet. It seems like we have covered all the bases. The word is getting out. If a common slob like me could figure it out, anyone can. The truth is clearly out there. This ain't no preaching to the choir.
Regular people are going to tap into it too. This will be common knowledge someday, of how the internet has been manipulated.
And like you pointed out in your posts, and I did too, this is all tied into right wing patriot movement crap. And all these bugger trolls have left is to say we are all the same person or a few who have tons of sock puppets, that we are useful idiots.
I am hopeful that regular people on the net who might have seen some of this and went wow that's nuts, I'm outta here, that they can now go aha, that makes a lot more sense now. Innocent people went to prison. People are still in prison for doing nothing but being caught up in a hysteria, for being unlucky to be tried in backward systems. Just look at Amanda Knox. If Obama had any balls, he'd tell Italy to let her free immediately. But then he'd also have to pardon the West Memphis 3. This crap is absolutely ridiculous, and it makes me wonder how certain people with authority in the criminal justice system can sleep at night. It's late. I'm rambling and probably incoherent. I feel like Boy in the Machine felt when he first posted here. I'm happy there are others who can see what I see, even if it's often difficult to articulate. Oh well, we can't do everyone's homework for them. Confucius said he could show a student three sides of a square but that's all. At some point the student has to figure things out for him or herself. That lead a horse to water analogy is a good one too.
interesting stuff.
Personally I am of the opinion that humans are generally so sexualised that they are essentially bisexual. Some - at the extremes - might be purely hetero, or more accurately perhaps, at least imagine themselves to be. But....just my opinion. I mean, it's only flesh and blood. The most amazing thing is that just a pile of fleshy orbs can change my life. That always amazes me, though much less (thank god), now I'm older. Isn't it amazing that flesh bundled into two wondrous orbs obtains such a reaction? Talk about programming! Monkey see, monkey do. Ooo er.
On the science thing - science can prove things wrong - not right. Which is almost as good, only not quite. But it is proof - just negatively so. There is no positive proof possible for anything? Only the negation is provable (and even that has to accept denials by absolute scepticism)
A lot of this is existential. I'll share a bit about myself. I was not too sexually aware as a teenager. I was attracted to girls.
What I do remember is the societal pressure building up during high school. It seemed the pressure was on to lose one's virginity by age 18. That wasn't cool. Young people shouldn't have to experience that specific angst.
I agree with the premise that once one learns carnal knowledge, there's no going back. This is why children and teenagers need to be protected. And that doesn't mean turn them into anal retentive prudes either. Just let them read books and feel safe and have time to play and feel good about themselves and others and develop naturally and with sound mental and physical health. And continue to teach them to avoid writing run on sentences. I don't think starting sentences with the word and is a problem, but that's me.
I'll let The 5th Dimension explain how I really feel. p:>
y there was a sense of a general rush towards losing one's virginity in my youth too. One I found uncomfortable, tbh, though I also was more than happy to try.
I turned a few girls down as I felt threatened and uncomfortable. I kinda regret it now! I was 19/20 and had been seeing one girl for 12 months before I lost my virginity. It culminated in the only mutual orgasm I have ever experienced - so the wait was worth it. Fantastic.
I agree with your loss of innocence thing - but it's very hard to convey that to people. It takes an understanding that perhaps only comes after having lost innocence in some form.
One thing I notice is that younger people are much more at ease with the whole sex thing. I think my generation (and presumably yours) were afflicted by the scarifying over AIDS. Sex was still pretty taboo when I was in school - but my sister has said her school gave them instruction on how to put a condom onto a banana!
In retrospect I wish I had got some girls pregnant. I'm fearful I'll never have children, and my life will always be incomplete without them. I want the family I never had myself......and to be a good father, and all that. Gee -I've changed! :D Seemingly too late tho. Damn.
Younger people may be more at ease, but I don't think in a way they are experiencing true love as expressed sexually. I'm thinking of your idea of how sexually charged society has become. These buggers may be less inhibited, but at what cost?
Don't feel too bad about not having a family. You still have time. Good luck in falling in love. That's all you can take care of now. Perhaps with new medical knowledge, it is less dangerous for women to have a child after 40, but I don't know. There's also adoption.
If it's any consolation, this is as sick a world as we could have ever expected to be born into. Not having a child, you needn't feel any guilt of what you brought into it. I'm not trying to belittle any regrets you have. I just don't think it's as bad as you make it sound. You still have some time. Just don't worry about it either way. If it happens, it happens. If not, don't let it eat away at you. It's not worth it.
sound advice, I think.
I always try to be honest with myself how I feel about things - even if it's really bad. I know people can take the impression i'm overly concerned with things, but I get real messy if I don't keep my head and heart clear. I can get over things - but I have to be clear to myself what it is, and how much it effects me first. Then I can be clear I am going to ignore things/not worry about them.
I suspect I'll always lament childlessness....if it persists. Normal enough? ;)
life begins at 40? I better get a move on then.......
Your feelings make sense, and you're just being honest. You seem to have a clear enough head to not let it lead to depression. Be careful if you get married and your wife is over 40. That can be dangerous, though I'm not a doctor.
You can always adopt. If it's a matter of you want someone with the same blood, I don't know how to respond. Everyone goes through a mid life crisis. You'll adjust.
Post a Comment