Shame on me for failing to uphold the highest standards of free speech! I finally have a New Year's resolution for 2014 -- must... allow... free... speech. OK, got it! Welcome back, Zook.


Look what happens when I completely ignore the messenger and concentrate solely on the message -- I resurrect a Zionist shill! More shame on me, it seems.

Yes, it's true, I had no idea who was speaking, or what his beliefs on 9/11 are, or his status on Zook's blacklist. I simply listened to the message, and it rang true. Perhaps, Uncle Zook, you can contribute to my education by pointing out any problems with his message, while leaving out any accusations about the messenger himself. I would really appreciate it.


So it's the "limited hangout" type operation, in your view. I disagree, as the contextual background doesn't support your usual certainty. We've had lots of time to scrutinize Assange and Snowden, and your "black & white" conclusions about them just haven't been supported by the preponderance of evidence. Not at all.

Could it be that you have not been questioning certain "facts" that you have accumulated in the past, which may have caused you to dismiss other information that could possibly have put you on a different path of certainty?

My point being that certainty is close to closed-mindedness.

Not to fret, Chico. Free speech was never meant to dance beyond the community standards that contain it. United People is no different. And the standards here at U. Peeps have always been contained by one, two, and sometimes all three of its most outstanding citizens.

FWIW, the illusion of absolute speech was always meant to expand the boundaries of speech, not rupture them.

Even A1 of the US Constitution cannot deliver more speech than what is stocked in the warehouses of natural human organization.



Ignoring the messenger is always rife with folly. One day you, too, will find the wisdom in bundling the message with the messenger (prior to tackling the message).



If a Rothschild gave you a gold brick, would you take it?

If a Rothschild truck dropped an identical gold brick on a sparsely traveled road ... and you found the brick lying on the road, hours later, with no identifiable ownership ... would you keep it?

To wit, the message always has an extra layer of meaning ... understanding this extra layer is then what separates the fool from the wise man. More often than not, the source of the message is more important than the message itself.



There is more than ample evidence to demonstrate that I had been right about Assange all along. Soros funding of Wiileaks; Waddesdon mansion and legal assistance from the rothschild group; support for Israel and Netanyahu; statement in contempt of 9/11/2001 veracity; significant lateral connections to other agents of the empire; etc. We don't need to rehash the old arguments here.

By contrast, there has been nothing (from then until now) to lower the red flags on Assange ... or remove the red shields that protect him. Assange has, instead, given up more agents of the empire. If that's a service to humanity, and it is, we can thank Assange for being a metaphorical skunk that marks those in proximity.



It could be. Then again, the likelihood of Assange being a victim of deception and not a co-conspirator in it (given all the evidence collected so far) ... is on par with me winning the lottery.



Certainty is, indeed, close to close-mindedness ... but the objective of truthseeking is to close the mind around the truth, not increase its radius around the truth so that any possibility can be rescued from the dead zone of improbability.

As I stated (or implied) many times before, when the evidence is beyond the threshold to convict, keeping an open mind about the innocence of the indicted, is tantamount to obstruction of justice.

Pax

I remember now where we've come across Jacob Applebaum before on UP -- here.

Zook, your outright dismissal of Assange, Snowden, and Applebaum in the face of a preponderance of evidence contradicting your accusations sure smacks of gatekeeping. I keep looking for new information that will prove you right, but as that new information comes along, it does just the opposite.

Let's assume you are an unwitting gatekeeper, that you have been duped into a position of certainty regarding Assange, Snowden, and Applebaum. After all, if they are legitimate, a great deal of effort will have been expended by the ruling elites on discrediting them in every way possible. You could very well have been caught up in that disinformation, despite your claims of infallible discernment. We are all vulnerable to that kind of manipulation, myself included. I have been very up-front about the frequency with which I have been fooled in the past, and I am pretty sure I am not free of that kind of deception to this day, which is why I do not claim certainty or infallible discernment. I still hold out the possibility that you are right about the three amigos, and I am wrong, having been fooled once again. But the great preponderance of evidence does not support that conclusion. It supports you being in the wrong. Your arguments are almost invariably those of connection. For example, you imply that anyone connected to Democracy Now, which accepted donations that may have originated from the CIA, must be a complete CIA stooge. Those arguments must be examined, of course, but on examination, they border on extreme and ridiculous. With five or less degrees of connection between every person on the planet, there is the strong possibility that CIA money has flowed through your hands and mine without either of us being aware of it. Can we then say we are both CIA stooges? I don't think so.

There is zero preponderance that contradicts my accusations. You're claiming the existence of a mythical preponderance because you fear the actual preponderance that does exist (and which supports my accusations).

My discernment is what it is. Your discernment is what it is. Case in point, I discerned that Greg Palast was an agent of the empire. I used the same standards of discernment that I used to expose Assange and the rest of the aforementioned minion archers of the empire. For the longest time, you claimed I was premature in arriving at my conclusions about Palast. Then, during my absence from this forum, you finally conceded that Palast was indeed guilty as charged. The U-Peeps archives contains the proof of Chico's last stand in defense of Palast. But even in concession, you're still holding out for value in Palast's phony reportage. That is your burden and folly to bear.

Me? I tend to draw the conclusions when warranted ... and refuse to waste time entertaining the improbable.



You don't understand the value of the king-archer template. If you had, you'd realize there is no limit to the amount of resources the king is willing to commit so that his men are in a position to challenge any threats to his rule.



Your history of having been fooled with regularity is an indictment of your discernment. I cannot then blame you for having a poor batting average in truthseeking baseball. I do blame you for believing that Ted Williams and Mario Mendoza have similar batting averages.

In case the metaphor sailed over your head, Mario provided the inspiration for the Mendoza Line:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendoza_Line

... a benchmark for incompetent batting.




Chico Mendoza? Has a nice ring to it.

C'mon Chico, are you telling me that Amy Goodman does not know that she has handled CIA money?

Pax

ps: Mewonders what lengths Chico's Principle of Uncertainty (CHsPoU) ... will go before it stops resisting the warrant of certainty?

Really? Assange has a valuable body of work with all the Wikileaks material. Snowden has a valuable body of work with extraordinary NSA revelations. Applebaum has a valuable body of work with computer hacking and Tor anonymity. The worth of all three has withstood the test of time, despite the suspicions you have tried to cast on them. And you claim I have nothing, and that your "loose association" arguments trump all of that? You are dreaming.


That is unproven speculation at this point. It is by no means a confirmed, verifiable fact. Even if it should eventually be proven, it is not a testament to your discernment. You have accused nearly every person of substance of being in league with the ruling sociopaths, including me. You are bound to get a few right just by accident.


Don't be absurd. Even kings have limited resources.


What a foolish analogy. You don't even know what my batting average is, or how it compares to others.

How many times did Babe Ruth strike out?

Assange's body of work has already been disassembled and found to be Israel-agenda oriented. We would expect a random sampling of Wikileaks documents to contain a lot about Israel (including memo exchanges between its political lobbies and the influences being courted), e.g. because Israel is a giant player in geopolitics. Of course, we don't see much about Israel's communiques in the Wikileaks archives, and we need not wonder why ... Wikileaks was founded by the intelligence agencies of Zionist Occupied Governments.

It takes a witting disregard of truths not to see the funding sources behind Assange and Wikileaks; or the self-convicting statements of Assange wrt 9.11.2001; or his admiration of a war criminal (by Geneva's standards) in Netanyahu; or the phony plays of political asylum accorded to Assange by nations not strong enough to challenge
Monaco let alone the wrath of the US; etc. To deny the preponderance of evidence against Assange, is the final act of defiance before one becomes irrelevant as a truthseeker.

But we shouldn't be too surprised, Chico ... after all, you still desire to play the witting dimwit wrt Greg Palast even after your own investigation exposed him as an agent of the empire ... so why should we expect better about your lack of commitment to exposing other agents of the empire? There's an abundance of such agents that you've given a free pass to ... and that makes those with even a modicum of discernment cringe at your level of discernment.

Chico's most recent understanding of Greg Palast can be found here:
http://hm.dinofly.com/UP/forum/viewtopic.php?p=14624#p14624

Yet he still maintains neutrality on Palast? That's called prevarication in my books.



As I stated earlier, you will go to ridiculous lengths to keep the principle of uncertainty alive. Btw, every person I had accused to date has been convicted on the evidence (beyond threshold) of their affiliations with the empire. As for the accusation against you, it's a preliminary one in search of greater preponderance. It has not reached threshold preponderance yet. To this, you'll get no exemption from me if you keep obstructing truthseekers with your principle of uncertainty and preference for it.



The king is a metaphor for the bankster empire. Are you seriously suggesting that Trillionaires Inc. has limited resources (monetary, human and otherwise)?



A perfect analogy to differentiate those with good discernment skills and those without.

Pax

We will always be at odds, Zook, until your discernment can advance to the next level. You are stuck with oversimplification, binary thinking, and certainty. I left that level long ago. You consider anyone supporting the 9/11 lie in any way to be a stooge of the banksters. Things are obviously not that simple. You think that if the cousin of Greg Palast's father had a hand in starting the Mossad, then Greg Palast is certainly a Zionist stooge. What rubbish. I don't even know the cousins of my father, and whatever they have done is no reflection on me. Are you the reflection of your father's cousins? Can't that vaunted brain of yours process these fundamental concepts? Until you comprehend and process how oversimplifying, certainty, and binary thinking are distorting your reasoning, you and I will be on different levels. It's a shame, because I expect better from you. It's not that I expect you to agree with me -- not at all. I expect you to challenge my erroneous ideas with valid arguments, not challenge my valid ideas with erroneous arguments.

I'm going to say it again. I expect you to challenge my erroneous ideas with valid arguments, not challenge my valid ideas with erroneous arguments.

For those that can't watch the video, here is a general summary of Applebaum's presentation. The details in his presentation are the real meat of the matter, however. They say the Devil is in the details, and that is certainly the case here. Some of his most profound comments are even hidden between the lines, as he knows much more than he can directly say.

I'll say the same thing about Applebaum and Snowden as I did about Assange in an earlier post -- if these are Zionist stooges, I want more of them!

And you know this to be the case, how? In any event, you are probably right but not in the way you think. For Appelbaum has been trained by the system to herd the sheeple to pasture. The shepherd always knows much more than he lets on to the sheeple.



There is absolutely nothing new in Appelbaum's presentation that had not already been known. It's just being reproduced to make it sound like a tune worthy of the pied piper. There is nothing new in Snowden's apparent whistleblowing. It's just being reproduced to make it sound like a tune worthy of the pied piper. There was nothing new in Assange's apparent expose of American war crimes in Iraq. It was just being reproduced to make it sound like a tune worthy of the pied piper.

All three pied pipers operate within a limited hangout scenario.

All three pied pipers are extensively discussed in mainstream media and portrayed as if each were the fifth horseman of the apocalypse.

All three have connectors to intelligence agencies and/or soup operations (e.g. Wikileaks) that are more intimate than anything you or I, indeed, any genuine truthseeker has. We know quite a bit about Assange's preponderance of guilt. Much less is known about Appelbaum and Snowden.

Heck, Chico couldn't even remember that Appelbaum was the same bankster stooge that was tea_N_truffling with other stooges in an earlier Cyberphunks video here on U Peeps grassmunchin' junction; the material in the 30c3 video merely sounded right as it spilled out the pied piccolo, so Chico seized the opportunity to sound informed himself by putting his stamp of approval on it sans critical analysis.

As for Snowden, he talks about the Stuxnet virus long after many had already talked about it. But he talks about it (in 2013) in relation to Israel taking out Iran's nuclear facilities (in the narrative of Iranian state terrorism and Israeli state prerogative of self-defense) ... when the same Stuxnet virus has been implicated (by Jim Stone) in the Fukushima False Flag of 2011. If he was a genuine whistleblower, he would either just mention that Israel (and US??) created the virus ... and if he had felt a need to explain purpose, he would have mentioned all its applications including Fukushima, not just the selective application of Israel's heroic mask and lone ranger gallop against the putative big bad outlaw state (Iran). Predictably, Snowden's expose of Stuxnet only extends to make Israel's perceived enemies look bad; not its own outlaw behavior.

http://rt.com/news/snowden-nsa-intervie ... lance-831/

People with discernment can quickly isolate the sundry stooges of the bankster empire. Those who can't are either blissful bumpkins ... and if they have any intelligence worth noting, are too cowed to call it like it is, or worse, are part of a fifth column supporting the empire. Your options as a truthseeker are limited Chico, when you choose to harbor the empire's pied pipers.



The world has more than enough. Still ... thanks for undertaking the plight of an endangered species, even as it populates like mosquitoes over a wet field.

Pax

Yes, I realize it can be looked at in both ways, either as a deception or as a reality. Or, and this is key, it could be a messy mixture of both. You want to see it as either one or the other. That's the binary thinking process that cripples you. I see it as a messy mixture, and I attempt to determine where on the sliding scale between deception and reality it actually falls. I can't be certain of the exact position, but I can get a feel for the general position, keeping in mind that my information is incomplete and that my judgment must thus be subject to adjustment as new information becomes available. So once again, we see our different philosophies concerning oversimplification, certainty, and binary thinking highlighted in our different perspectives.


Agreed, in general, there is nothing new under the sun. So why would we want that to be a criteria for judging the worth of their contributions? Answer: we wouldn't, so your criticism here is just a manipulative sleight-of-hand.

On the other hand, to individual humans, even the most mundane things can be incredibly "new", because humans are on a never-ending journey of discovery. I have learned eye-opening things from all three individuals. It's a shame you haven't, but that is only a symptom of your false belief in your all-knowing capabilities.


Yes, that's one of the advantages of ignoring the messenger and focusing on the message. You should try it some time. It's the perfect remedy to a closed mind.


You are assuming that only your analysis is correctly critical. I agree your analysis is critical, but it is not correct. You should familiarize yourself with the difference.


In that paragraph, you are almost conceding the "messy mixture" nature of the complexities involved, but you cherry-pick from it to bolster your binary perspective. And I'm sure you don't even realize you are doing it.


You continue to make the same mistakes over and over again.

First example -- "People with discernment can quickly..." -- No, even people of discernment can be fooled.

Second example -- "Those who can't are either..." A or B -- There is your ridiculous binary thinking again.

Third example -- "Your options as a truthseeker are limited" -- Options are always limited. This is just a truism in your manipulative framework of flawed arguments. It's also a common NLP technique. You aren't doing NLP deliberately, right? So perhaps you should examine the effect NLP has had on you to make you copy those very same techniques.


You have a better chance of being an unknown poet than a genuine truth-seeker, Zook. It takes more than wordsmithing to uncover the truth. If you can address the obvious defects that cripple your truth-seeking (oversimplification, binary thinking, and certainty), I will surely adjust my assessment of your future possibilities.