[farcevalue]

The analogies cited are dissimilar. The news media is separate and apart from those evaluating it for consistency, logic and conflicts. The same cannot be said for how people perceive themselves in terms of objectivity, as self reporting is the only option. If someone tells me they have always felt a particular way, I see no way to objectively counter that statement. It also aligns logically with my personal experience, as no amount of media or social conditioning or engineering will ever change the involuntary physical reactions that are induced by contact with the opposite sex. If someone tells me those reactions are induced by the same sex and always have been I see no reason not to take them at their word.

That said, I also see an unnatural push in the media to bring marginal groups into focus, especially in terms of the transgender segment. This is a phenomenon that may have been created by technology. I have done no research into this, nor have an interest in it, but I am curious what transgenders did before the availability of anesthesia, surgery, and hormone therapy or whether there was such a thing.

I have noticed an agenda that promotes the masculinization of women and the feminization of men, androgyny, and alternative family structures, but I remain convinced that nothing in the media can changes a person’s nature. I see no good coming of the gender fluidity agenda but don’t have much of a sense of the end game.

[farcevalue]

Good point by SMJ. I don’t know that I care to look to the animal kingdom for behavioral endorsement. I have a hard time believing that there are people who did not grow up with others who were homosexual from a very young age. I know several people who did everything they could up to and including marrying a member of the opposite sex and having kids, to mold themselves into heterosexuality and still failed ultimately. They claim to be happier living an authentic life. I cannot disagree, it’s their life.

At the same time, I do sense a push to normalize or maybe even glamorize gay members of our society in the media, to what end I don’t know. Just as gay people who have tried and failed to be hetero, the same would apply to heteros, no amount of persuasion through the media will change anyone’s nature. Perhaps it’s simply an effective lobbying effort to be accepted as a part of society, which should not trouble anyone. I am at times uncomfortable around what I would describe as aggressively overt displays of homosexuality, but it’s a personality thing. If someone is comfortable with who they are they make others around them comfortable, too. But I often have the impression that some of the more overt personalities are looking for others to buy in and support their choices (not the choice of being gay, but of being openly so).

Be who you are, but be comfortable enough about it to do it without endorsement. And be sensible enough to not walk into a redneck country bar in full drag regalia expecting the same reception as would be received at the Ramrod . I have seen a few posts and videos of black people lamenting about having to have “the talk” with their kids about the cops. Every parent should have “the talk” with their kids about the cops, there are plenty of kids of all colors with cops’ bullets and taser currents in their bodies for exhibiting a lack of reverence for the gods in blue.

Whatever, if you don’t like the “gay agenda” change the channel or turn the page. As far as the real world goes, we’ve all been here a long time and are likely to be around a lot longer still, we may as well get along. There may be a thing or two we could learn from our happy counterparts about having some fun and a bit of style along the way.

[farcevalue]

A disparaging term applied to the straight by gays is “breeder”. Won’t need a private dick to figure this one out.

[farcevalue]

Wrestle? I’ll flip you like a cheese omelette, buddy – and I can do it, too!

[farcevalue]

“While I don’t doubt there are corrupt people in the government, as in any organization, the overall theory of a collectivist group of individuals that we call a government (the more local, the more accountable) is still in of itself a sound one.”

That idea is a circle that cannot be squared logically, as government, by definition, is corrupt. Chris has expressed these ideas on his last few podcasts. The idea of government (it is merely an idea) is that people can be granted rights and powers by people who do not have those rights and powers in the first place.

If I do not have the right to kick your door in and kidnap you for having a plant, I cannot possibly give that right to someone else. If I do not have the right to extract money from you by threat of jail or death in order that my kids have a school, I cannot give the right to someone else.

Dubya was right when he said the constitution is just a “GD piece of paper.” It is in fact, exactly that: a piece of paper. The idea that it has some magical power to stop bad actors from acting badly is fantasy.

Government needs school and the media to support it, otherwise the contradictions are too obvious. Guys in robes on elevated platforms in giant stone buildings, relying on sacred documents enumerating commandments or rights to pass down their holy writs or laws. Sound familiar?

[farcevalue]

The story of that progression is very familiar to most of us here, I think. It’s quite a bit to take in one bite. I went from OCT, to Loose Change and In Plane Site, to Ace Baker to Judy Wood and finally to September Clues. Gerard Holmgren had some great articles early on. Once you realize that the intention was to bring down the towers for financial and political purposes, then the question is only about the most reliable way to get it done: With conventional explosives that have been tested hundreds of times and videos constructed to sell the planes story.

[farcevalue]

As I said earlier, all of the so-called live footage has been thoroughly discredited at Clues Forum. It’s worth it to spend a bit of time there. A post was added today by Simon, under the CGI Collapse Footage thread which includes a sampling of the different network feeds broadcast that day that are in total contradiction to one another. If they were live they would have to agree. There is some speculation on why the discrepancies are so obvious (once you see them, I believed the official story for years) and whether they were intentional, but they certainly rule out “live” broadcasts.

9/11 was a movie. There was likely some, or a lot of smoke enveloping the building, they could have set off some explosions as props, but the video was constructed well in advance. This event was a “made for TV” spectacle for the benefit of the TV viewing audience. It worked.

[farcevalue]

None of WTC media broadcast that day was live. No reason for it at all. All that was required was that what was happening in reality had some semblance (not much was necessary) of what was happening on TV. On the off chance that the few people that had the same vantage points as the “cameras”, were to actually witness something that was different than what was on TV, they would likely convince themselves what they saw was incorrect. Even they didn’t and were to try to expose the inconsistency, they would never be heard, or if they were, easily ridiculed.

The so-called “live” video has been thoroughly debunked at Clues Forum in hundreds of ways. Just in the examples above, how is it possible for cameras to follow these “jumpers” with absolute precision, from a relatively short distance with cameras that pick up remarkable detail (of the building at least) when the wide shots of the WTC are fuzzy and out of focus and totally inconsistent with the way camera operators do their jobs, which is following the action. (I have filmed hundreds of
events with broadcast cameras, a director would be having conniption fit if the camera ops were behaving this way. They would never work again).

Try this analogy: You are selling a car for $10,000. A buyer arrives with a stack of one hundred $100 bills. You use your trusty counterfeit detection pen to mark the first one. It shows as fake. The second one shows as fake. Third one real. Fourth, fifth and sixth fake. Seventh real. How long do you keep going before you decide to just wait for the next buyer? Otherwise known as falsus in uno falsus in omnibus.

[Author]

Posts