How do you prove that a conspiracy is true or untrue?
Czech logician Kurt Godel (1906-78) showed that it is impossible to prove anything 100%.
This is because any attempted 'proof' is based on 'propositions' or assumptions.
And these 'propositions' or assumptions may not necessarily be true.
(
Kurt Gödel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
If you ask certain Evangelical Christians why they think that Israel should be expanded in size, they will reply 'because that is what the Bible says.'
But, are their assumptions about the Bible correct?
And, is it possible that the Palestinians have closer biological links to the tiny Kingdom of David than many Israelis?
Godel
Take the 9 11 story.
Many Americans believe that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda carried out the 9 11 attacks.
Their 'proof' involves what the media tells them.
There is an assumption that the media does not lie about such an important issue.
Sometimes the media tells the truth; but then the newspaper gets taken over.
But, what if the 'proposition' or assumtion that the media would not lie turns out to be impossible to prove.
What if, as a result of Operation Mockingbird, much of the media is controlled by the CIA?
And, what if many of the 'alternative' blogs are now heavily influenced by the CIA?
Newsweek reported that five of the 9 11 'hijackers', or people with the same names as the 'hijackers', had been trained at US military bases.
Daniel Hopsicker reported that Atta and several other 'hijackers' learnt to fly at an airfield in Venice Florida, long used for CIA operations.
The BBC reported on the close business and personal relations between the bin Ladens and the Bush family.
But how do you 'prove' that Newsweek and Hopsicker and the BBC got it right?
Is this Rabi Burns?
Take the 1605 Gunpowder Conspiracy in the UK.
The government story is based on the confession of Guy Fawkes. But this confession was obtained under torture and is probably untrue.
A careful look at all the evidence suggests that the so called Gunpowder plot was an inside-job, although this cannot be proved 100%.
Take the media story that Obama is one of the good guys.
If you look at
the list of Obama appointments, and see that most of the key appointments are either Zionists or Bilderbergers or both, this might suggest that Obama is a bad guy. But it is difficult to prove 100%.
Godel suggests that that there are some things that one just KNOWS are true, even if these things cannot be 'proved'.
One reason why the USA is in such deep trouble is because so many of the assumptions made by Americans are probably untrue.
Here is a list of assumptions that are most likely to be untrue:
1. The Pentagon would not carry out acts of terrorism involving the killing of Americans.
2. The CIA is not the brains behind terrorism in Europe, including the Bologna Bombing.
3. The CIA does not control the mainstream media.
4. Elections are not rigged.
5. Jewish terrorists did not steal the land of the Palestinians.
And Jewish oligarchs have not tried to loot the USA.
6. The Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda are not used by the CIA to do their dirty work, such as carrying out the Arab Spring.
7. The CIA did not put Saddam and the Ayatollahs into power.
8. The CIA did not bring down PanAm 103 over Lockerbie.
9. The CIA and its friends were not the people who carried out the London Tube bombings, the Bali Bombings, the Madrid Bombings and the Mumbai Attacks.
10. There is no alliance of Jewish fascists, Christian Fascists, Moslem fascists and other fascists who are attempting to keep some sort of feudal system in place worldwide.
Let us look at some of the 'WRONG' assumptions made by people who comment on this blog.
Godel suggests that that there are some things that one just KNOWS.
1. Unknown writes:
"I worked for Reagan's re-election in 1984...
"Let's consider some traits of those on the Left - 'Eager to follow authority'..."
Unknown is wrong.
Surely it is the Right that is most eager to follow authority.
Hitler was supported by the military and by the rich oligarchs.
2. KJ psychologist writes:
"hitler cleaned up the country and put all the homosexuals in the work camps if you research figures there were almost no child sex attacks during this period"
Wrong!
Many children were abused by the Nazis, in mind-control experiments for example.
Children abused by Hitler's Nazis.
3. Carol A. Valentine writes:
"People who are sexually attracted to children often make the best teachers and girl-guide leaders and often look after the waifs and strays that families have abandoned." [Carol says: that is just wrong]"
Carol is wrong.
My most inspiring teachers were all gay.
All the most popular the youth leaders in my city were pretty gay, and they did a splendid job.
(Remember that the vast majority of Gay people are married to people of the opposite sex and appear to be heterosexual)
I came across a lovable old English vicar who was living in India.
At a time of terrible famine there were many orphaned children who were starving to death.
Nobody was helping them.
The vicar set up a large orphanage and provided the children with good food and a good education.
I am still in contact with one of the children involved; he is now happily married and has a very well paid job.
He tells me that the orphans were very grateful for being brought into the well run children's home.
Unfortunately some Evangelical Christians decided they did not like the vicar because he was gay.
These Evangelical Christians conspired to have the orphanage closed down.
The girls of Falkland Road. Just some of the millions of young girls abused by heterosexual males.
Elsewhere in Asia, I came across an institution looking after handicapped children.
The lady in charge was a married, heterosexual, church-going Christian.
She made sure that the children were tied up, naked, in uncomfortable positions.
When I came across these kids, they were covered in cigarette burns.
They were also covered in excrement.
I contacted a certain Prime Minister, and the lady was moved to another post.
The best run and happiest orphanage I came across in that part of Asia was run by a kindly old gay man.
I could tell you scores of similar stories.
Carol writes:
"The following Disinfo/Troll....."
Carol is wrong.
The person concerned is not a disinfo/troll, but simply a well-educated, non-brainwashed individual who thinks for himself.
So many of the commentaters on this blog have no original thoughts - they simply parrot Henry Macow or similar people.
(
'Conspiracy Researcher' Henry Makow.)
Phil Marlow writes:
"Yes, we need more gays, like Henry Kissinger....."
Wrong!
He could have written:
Yes, we need more heterosexuals, like Idi Amin, Attila the Hun, Heinrich Himmler, Charles Manson...
Here is a wise comment, one that I can agree with:
It's been the story of my life that in choosing the middle way, ie. picking at fallacies in both sides of an argument, that I am seen as an extremist opposition to whosever argument it is that I am unpicking at the time.
Truth is, I am not in opposition.
Rather I am opposed to the concept of opposition, ie. that held by the person I'm talking to.
Can you dig it?
Thus, if I said that gay people were every bit as capable of opting for a counter-productive, reactionary, us-and-them mindset as everybody else would I be wrong?
Are gay people, unlike everybody else, beyond criticism? Is someone who discusses gay people as something other than heroes or victims a villain? What about someone who discusses the mindset?
In no way do these questions qualify as support for the persecution of gay people. To think so is to fall into the trap of us-and-them. I am not that.
Gays are my brothers and sisters. Their differences are nothing.
My point is - anyone who fixates on those differences, whether straight or gay, might want to wonder at themselves.
Paul writes:
dilambert@live.com
Fine, but save it for those who abused you. Don't stretch it out to make everybody else guilty for the offenses of some. I refuse to bear your anger over something that had nothing whatsoever to do with me.
Anonymous left this comment on your post "WE NEED GAY
PEOPLE":
The title of this article represents part of the problem as
does some of the conflating content: However it is very good starting debate
point.
There will be a percentage of people in a population who are
homosexual, and its biological function is likely to be connected with
population control.
(The Bonobo chimps do their bisexual sex for fun and pleasure - Aangirfan)
It could be regarded as similar to checks in other species
which see bias towards one sex over the over depending on population densities
and environmental conditions: Certain aquatic species are well
studied.
In human society, homophobia is a product of a tribalist
instinct, the same instinct which leads to racism and other irrational
discrimination.
The modern labels for the effects cloud this in most peoples
minds: The key is the irrationality of the fear which drives the reaction in the
people.
Homosexuality has been exploited as a division tool by
propagandists, as has racial, class and other divisions for various ends.
Even
Prime Minister Cameron fell fowl of a rather nasty propaganda item which is
stuck in most peoples minds on live television - that being the 'link' between
homosexuality and predatory paedophilia. This type of propaganda once started is
very difficult to correct. This primarily originated in western
Europe.
One thing which is overlooked is how some of the major religions
such as Hinduism and Buddhism reflect on the issue of sexuality.
The Hindu Gods
and teachings reflect a very androgenous picture, Buddhism divorces the spirit
from the corporeal form making sexuality a non issue.
Pre-Christian
European religions and societies were similar.
This is not an attack on
Christianity, but that appears to be a key point where the promoted notion of
homosexuality being less than desirable started, and likely for strong
sociological reasons at the time.
In the UK, the laws passed banning
homosexuality during the reign of Victoria show an interesting mix of prejudices
which highlite clearly the irrational aspect.
For men this was made illegal, but
women not - mainly on the incorrect assumption at the time that females did not
engage in homosexual activity.
The current attempt to stamp homophobia
out of society is a wrong approach as it serves only to promote the division
which reinforces the root cause driver.
The notion of 'needing more gays' is
similarly flawed as gender orientation is not something which can be switched on
and off, and the desire to nurture or create life in ones image is hardwired
into all.
The desire for gay couples to adopt and have surrogate
children is evidence of this.
As a means of population control,
homosexuality is not a real solution with today's technology available.
For a more natural and equal society though, irrational discrimination
of homosexuals is not desirable.
Zoompad left this comment on the post "
ABUSED
GIRLS; TROLLS; BRAINWASHING; UNEMPLOYED":
This is the last post I am
going to make on your blog, and I am reposting it onto my own blog just in case
you dont publish it. I feel disguasted and betrayed by this
comment:
"People who are sexually attracted to children often make the
best teachers and girl-guide leaders and often look after the waifs and strays
that families have
abandoned."
http://aangirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/we-need-gay-people.html
That
is a lie.
I don't want to be associated with your blog any more because
of this, Aangirfan.
Zoompad:
Gays are my brothers and sisters.
CanSpeccy writes:
A person's tendency to irrational hate is, I suspect, more or less inversely related to their power.
Those without money, social position, authority, good looks, or achievements of any significance, are, on this view, the most likely to engage in bullying, lynching, and cheering on brutal fascist leaders.
Hence the lynch mobs of the US Deep South, where the white "trash" were inclined to take it out on niggers, the only people more powerless than themselves.
Hence, today, the demonization and casual slaughter of dusky Muslim "terrorists", which serves to keep the masses in line with the forces of imperialism.
Anonymous writes:
"The reactions we see shows that hatred
for the 'other' is so strongly entrenched that not only are all gays hated but
any hereosexual who dares have the nerve to stand up for them.
"The parellel
being the old cruel term "nigger lover" here in the south.
"I suppose
accepting that there are gays who are by their very nature good and loving is
too terrifying for the closed brain to accept.
"The global network of violent
abusers must be some alien, bizzare species of human that is in no way related
to the straight world.
"Maybe that rigid false belief comforts some.
"The
scapegoats are always needed in society and its always to that society's great
loss that they ruin such assets in the process.
"Aang is still here.
"He just
understands the abuse issue and doesn't want it sidetracked into petty
homophobia issues I bet."
