Polling our visitors!! Who are the spooks here?

Who is dirty? (That is: controlled opposition, government agent, lifetime actor, etc.?)

  • Joseph Atwill

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Jerry Russell

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Jan Irvin

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Allan Weisbecker

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • All of them and more!!

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    4

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Inquiring minds want to know. Allan Weisbecker says your proprietors of this website are all shills. Jan Irvin says Allan is a "Troll", whatever that means. Could any of this be true?
 

ousia

Member
Who actually owns this site??

I thought a few members might have a place on that list when I opened the thread....
 

Vin

New Member
All I can detect in this discussion and especially from Allan’s corner is a lot of anxiety provoked by social conflict, and enhanced by our universal need to feel that we are right. Like all of us, Allan can’t stand contradictions so he is struggling to resolve this, in order to dissolve the created anxiety.

If you are right then he must be wrong. This may make him feel accused. Therefore all the accusations coming from him are an attempt to fulfil the essential need to be right in his own eyes.

We all also need to belong to a just and noble group, of course, these can be just perceived notions, but still important to our minds well being.

All of us to some extend, refuse to see reality, and certainly our own is often the least known. I have spend half of my life in the rock and roll life style illusion, so admitting that I was completely wrong in most of my opinions was not an easy thing. I have probably accumulated more new illusions along the way that will hopefully dissolve in the future.

The process used in order not to see reality, is simple, just justify and rationalize. More contradictions, the greater the need to justify and rationalize. Anything that creates good reasons for avoiding contradictions and disagreeable consequences will in turn show someone else as wrong.

I don’t have any sure way of knowing who is a spook or a troll. However, when there are a lot of words connected in a sentence, making understanding difficult, when people speak in code, I know that there might be a cult behind it all.
 

ousia

Member
Shall we move the third person claims into the first, Vin?

What "contradictions" are your comments seeking to rationalize and justify, Vin?
 

Vin

New Member
Hi Ousia, I am not entering a debate nor am I seeking to justify or rationalize contradictions. We justify behaviour and actions due to contradictions, and I feel this is a very big part of our make up. I tried to focus less on personal opinion as a narrow perspective can certainly work up an emotional response. There is nothing wrong with emotions most of the time. At other times, when we are emotional we don’t think, we react instinctively.

All I hope I am doing is pointing out why this discussion is moving the way that it is.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Ousia:

Who actually owns this site??
It's registered to my name, and there's no incorporated entity involved. So when it comes to identifying somebody to blame (like for example, libel lawsuits related to name-calling), it would be me. As to who gets the credit, we view it as a joint venture operated by Rick, Joe and myself.

I thought a few members might have a place on that list when I opened the thread....
We could open up the field for write-in candidates....

Vin:

However, when there are a lot of words connected in a sentence, making understanding difficult, when people speak in code, I know that there might be a cult behind it all.
Others have expressed that our essays here on the Wordpress site are difficult to read. We use long sentences with many two-dollar words or bigger. Our excuse is that we've all been to college, and we think the concepts are best expressed using those big words. But, we've been trying to make our materials more readable, and maybe we should try harder.

'Urban Dictionary' expressed the problem this way:

Ten-dollar words

Using large, difficult words that most people will not understand. Makes you look like an elitist prick that wants to flaunt your advanced intelligence or vocabulary.

"So I told the rather rubicund fellow that I would not forbear his facetious predilection, and that I would extirpate him if he persisted. However I refrained from the notion because I desiderated copulation with his girlfriend."

Said without ten-dollar words:

"So I told the red-faced bastard that I wasn't gonna put up with his sarcastic attitude, and I was gonna kill 'em if he didn't stop. But I decided not to 'cuz I wanted to bang his girlfriend.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Our excuse is that we've all been to college, and we think the concepts are best expressed using those big words. But, we've been trying to make our materials more readable, and maybe we should try harder.
Jerry, why are you lying about me?

I am an auto-didact, elitist prick, with only a tech school diploma in electronics. It did enable me to earn a governmental FCC First Class Radiotelephone License, which not long after I earned it (the hard way) it became obsolete as people started 'teaching the test' even before Dubya's time. Then the government just threw up their hands altogether and gave up. I mean, how do you stop people from selling the test questions? Nullification in action?

I took that series of tests (the first (Third Class) was merely about the George Carlin 'profane' cultural words that you can't (err .. couldn't) say on the air) immediately after graduating, and my first job was the only one that had anything to do with radio, albeit that it was receiving and not transmitting (which is what the license concerns itself with). I had to get a Secret Clearance for this job as it required me to sit a few miles away from the target zone of the Minuteman ICBMs that were fired at us from California about once a month. The missiles were fortunately unarmed BTW.

I quit that job in a huff for a couple of reasons. Perhaps the most important one was that I did not feel mortally secure after the manager of the island told me, while we were waiting alone at the heliport, about some individuals that did not make it back from their commuter ride on the daily chopper. This was soon after myself and several others complained about the logistics company (with the word 'Global' in their name) having violated their contract in order to pinch some dollars at our discomfort.

I did almost flunk English my junior year in high school if this counts for any street cred. So I suppose one might say that I am now overcompensating for my many shortcomings.

But let's please keep one thing straight, it is (o)usia', not (O)usia. Is this a spooky philosophical name or what, says the wolf with big ears?
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
I don’t have any sure way of knowing who is a spook or a troll. However, when there are a lot of words connected in a sentence, making understanding difficult, when people speak in code, I know that there might be a cult behind it all.
Others have expressed that our essays here on the Wordpress site are difficult to read. We use long sentences with many two-dollar words or bigger. Our excuse is that we've all been to college, and we think the concepts are best expressed using those big words. But, we've been trying to make our materials more readable, and maybe we should try harder.
I forgot to ask, was this initial comment in reference to anyone or matters in particular, as I don't specifically see what it's connected to? We have had this general discussion with (o)usia before, and as usual he makes his snide and laconic Randy comments while neglecting to discuss the material here. And refusing to deliver his 'non-prophecy', or whatever it is. Or to explain Aristotle and his God.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Jerry, why are you lying about me?
Sorry, there I go lying without even trying. But couldn't tech school possibly be construed as a type of college?

(o)usia', not (O)usia.
Can't even get away with lying in lower case without getting caught.

I forgot to ask, was this initial comment in reference to anyone or matters in particular, as I don't specifically see what it's connected to?
I wasn't sure what Vin was talking about either, but decided to own it. Maybe he was complaining about somebody else.
 

ousia

Member
Richard said:
"We have had this general discussion with (o)usia before, and as usual he makes his snide and laconic Randy comments while neglecting to discuss the material here. And refusing to deliver his 'non-prophecy', or whatever it is. Or to explain Aristotle and his God."

What discussion are you referring to? You surely didn't get a complaint from me about using big words. Are you confusing me with someone else again?

The person I was motivated to write the "prophecy" thread about has had health problems since the week I posted. I don't need to kick anyone when their down, particularly when they are not currently a cultural influence anymore as a result of health.

As to the Aristotle thing. I am no expert on Aristotle in a historical context. I only read his philosophy. This makes me unmotivated to even watch the video or whatever you requested.

As for the "content" you refer to. I consider it mostly conspiracy porn with wild speculation and always with a new left, deconstructionist bent. Nothing on par with Atwill's work. Since I came here Ive been wondering what the hell Joe has to do with this site. Even when listening to podcasts it seems like Joe and the very polite, Jerry, are often at cross purposes.

I find your comments previously and now about me being a "spook" or whatever, hilarious! I have been a personal trainer for over a decade with only trade school-machinist official education. I am a self taught intellectual who never takes "because I said so!" for an answer.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
In that case, what made you so sure that electrons aren't just Kantian irrational cultural constructs? Blissful ignorance, I suppose.
Your absolutely right here. When I flip on my light switch, I really have no idea why the light actually turns on. And so I have to take others' word for whether electrons exist or not.

However, to keep this thread on topic, I'll conclusively demonstrate that your elite engineering education is 'spooky'. Engineers are taught about 'hole' flow, while technicians are taught about 'electron' flow, for electrical current that is. At least we believe that allegedly material things cause the light to come on, and not vacuous 'spooky' holes.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Richard said:
"We have had this general discussion with (o)usia before, and as usual he makes his snide and laconic Randy comments while neglecting to discuss the material here. And refusing to deliver his 'non-prophecy', or whatever it is. Or to explain Aristotle and his God."

What discussion are you referring to? You surely didn't get a complaint from me about using big words. Are you confusing me with someone else again?
I should have stated "with others, including ousia (generally speaking) ...". Perhaps not on the specific issue of big words, but I do remember specifically you ragging on me for my writing style. I only singled you out as you were the only such person on this thread and making your usual remarks. One was rather coy, and I specifically remember you do not like me being coy. Not that it is such a big deal, but if you insist then I will waste my time and find it. Later as I need to go out soon.

The person I was motivated to write the "prophecy" thread about has had health problems since the week I posted. I don't need to kick anyone when their down, particularly when they are not currently a cultural influence anymore as a result of health.
Would this have been about a certain wolf?

As to the Aristotle thing. I am no expert on Aristotle in a historical context. I only read his philosophy. This makes me unmotivated to even watch the video or whatever you requested.
Wow, this is quite a reversal after having been so assertive about Plato vs. Aristotle? All your 'categories, and 'labels' and such.

As for the "content" you refer to. I consider it mostly conspiracy porn with wild speculation and always with a new left, deconstructionist bent. Nothing on par with Atwill's work. Since I came here Ive been wondering what the hell Joe has to do with this site. Even when listening to podcasts it seems like Joe and the very polite, Jerry, are often at cross purposes.
Well, hopefully you'll (not) enjoy Jerry's and my next post.

I note here you are using a specific Postmodernist term and trying to imply that we are thus Postmodernists. As someone who claims so much Aristotelian authority on Materialist Cause and Effect, as I do, your revulsion seems rather more an emotional cultural legacy from your attachment to Caesarian (traditionalist Christian) values, as does Joe (and Kenneth Atchity). The truth is you can't find any flaw in what I or Jerry and I have stated and thus you resort to your arsenal of labels.

I find your comments previously and now about me being a "spook" or whatever, hilarious! I have been a personal trainer for over a decade with only trade school-machinist official education. I am a self taught intellectual who never takes "because I said so!" for an answer.
That was meant to be taken as a joke. Sometimes I find using emoticons trite, but I understand that you understand that I don't care for you (not because I do indeed consider you wrong, but for how you approach matters), and thus you are proper in taking it as an otherwise serious comment.
 

ousia

Member
Not that it is such a big deal, but if you insist then I will waste my time and find it. Later as I need to go out soon.
I don't care enough to "insist" but you are wrong about everything you claimed here so you may want to do yourself a favor...

Richard said:

Would this have been about a certain wolf?
I don't understand what your asking.

Wow, this is quite a reversal after having been so assertive about Plato vs. Aristotle? All your 'categories,and 'labels' and such.
Uh, Plato, Aristotle and categories are all species of the genus philosophy subjects. What Aristotle did with Alexander historically, is not. Its a very simple differentiation.

I note here you are using a specific Postmodernist term and trying to imply that we are thusPostmodernists. As someone who claims so much Aristotelian authority on Materialist Cause and Effect, as I do, your revulsion seems rather more an emotional culturallegacy from your attachment to Caesarian (traditionalist Christian) values, as does Joe (and KennethAtchity). The truth is you can't find any flaw in what I or Jerry and Ihave stated and thus you resort toyour arsenal of labels.
As usual you are resulting to psychologisms instead of relevant responses to something I said. As usual it merits no rebuttal.

I will say that I provided hours worth of video that anyone can watch to see the similarity of your comments to my "labels" for themselves. What you think material causation has to do with this is not clear....

Edit:
One more thing:
your attachment to[...] traditional Christian values[...]
This couldn't be more ignorant a claim of my values.

My values are the very antithesis of the altruistic collectivism of christian mysticism. You seldom know what you are talking about.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
I will say that I provided hours worth of video that anyone can watch
Maybe this was at some other website? On a quick look through the archives, I can only find one instance of a video that you posted here, which was a fundamentalist Christian lecture about Shmitah.

Anyhow, we request that people posting videos should also provide some sort of summary or guidance as to what's to be found in the video. Hardly anybody ever does that, but I keep hoping.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
OK, I got it: a link to a playlist of 26 videos entitled "Postmodernism and Critical Theory", compiled by "Mnemohistory". The description of the playlist says that it provides "missing historical data... needed to connect the traditional Modernist arguments and method of pre 1960's Socialism with the current Socialist methods of the Postmodern movement." This is followed by a lengthy quote from Ayn Rand, which I would summarize as saying that it is necessary to study philosophy in order to fight evil.

I gather that after we've spent the 15 hours or so that will be necessary to watch all 26 videos, we'll come to understand that we are indeed using "backdoor-deconstructive, postmodernist methods" and purveying an "anti-capitalist, anti-western, neo- Frankfurtian" evil agenda, just as you originally labelled us? Sorry, if what you're trying to teach us by way of those videos is that we deserve your evil labels, I'm not feeling very motivated.
 

ousia

Member
Jerry said:

This is followed by a lengthy quote from Ayn Rand, which I would summarize as saying that it is necessary to study philosophy in order to fight evil.

That is not exactly what that quote is saying. Its about making yourself impervious to the pitfalls and tactics of bad philosophy.



Sorry, if what you're trying to teach us by way of those videos is that we deserve your evil labels, I'm not feeling very motivated.
That is what you inferred my labels to be. There are errors of knowledge and then there are moral errors. You could approach the ideas with the same premise as the quote. "Let me see if this is what I hold, and if so, is it justified? Is it good for my life? Am I unknowingly subject to ideas I haven't evaluated "
 
Top