The tipping point.
Chaos. Anarchy.
And then martial law, oppression.
It is not too extraordinary to think about, the end of a culture, the collapse of a society. Such things do happen. In fact, such things have happened more often than not.
The other day CODEPINK, the antiwar activism group, created and disseminated a phony press statement in the name of AIPAC. AIPAC, as you know, is a pro-Israeli lobbying group.
CODEPINK, which arguably holds pro-Palestinian convictions, released to news outlets a faux statement calling for the immediate halt of all Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem. Sadly, several major outlets fell for the spurious statement -- NPR, Fox News, ABC, C-SPAN and Al-Jazeera.
Chaos.
This is the age of the impostor, the poseur. The fake. The internet is rife with this sort of malicious play: liberals pose as conservatives to present frightening caricatures; conservatives, apparently, do the same. Anyone can steal an identity, an avatar; it would be easy to steal someone's blog code and post a clone somewhere else. And this is not merely a political habit: atheists create fake identities, and fake blogs, to present religion, particularly Christianity, in the most unfavorable and grotesque way. That theist who seems utterly whacked out that you've been arguing with? That's an atheist playing a sick game. Those ten atheists attacking you at a popular anti-Christian site? That's right. There's only one atheist there, shattered into ten personae.
In a few short days, we've heard about escalating threats and violence in the wake of the new Obama Health Care Projects. Accounts of bigotry are flying at us from all directions. But the problem is evident: the bigotry and threatening comments are probably coming from liberal sympathizers who need to foment rage, and to generate fear, about the "extreme right-wing." It is easy to pose, to pretend, for political gain. That is why it is so often done.
Remember the leftist who attacked the local Democratic Party headquarters to make it look like angry hatemongers had it out for Democrats? No? How soon we forget. And how soon we forget this sort of thing is a leftist trick created by a master of deception and cunning.
But when major news organizations swallow a fake AIPAC press release, the future of society is in jeopardy. And when we can't tell if the bigots screaming obscenities and death threats are real or fake -- or some weird hybrid -- we're doomed. It's a whole new type of asymmetrical warfare.
It is precisely this sort of climate -- this chaos and anarchy -- that emboldens a government to seize even more control. It is the twisted, deceptive abuse of speech that leads to the loss of free speech.
This, apparently, is what change really looks like.
Peace.
______________
PS. It must be remembered that Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak of Michigan reported that he was being constantly abused and threatened by pro-choice activists who believed he was going to vote against health care reforms. Were these really pro-lifers posing? Who, then, has been harassing him now -- AFTER he voted in favor of health care? See? Chaos.
Peace.
______________
PS. It must be remembered that Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak of Michigan reported that he was being constantly abused and threatened by pro-choice activists who believed he was going to vote against health care reforms. Were these really pro-lifers posing? Who, then, has been harassing him now -- AFTER he voted in favor of health care? See? Chaos.
©2010/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.
20 comments:
I feel bad for you, living in a world of deception and lies. Time to up the meds. Good thing they'll be cheaper now.
I've always been open to talking about religion and politics my whole life, even face-to-face, and plenty of people believe all the things you think are too extreme to be possible. Online, they're just able to say it. You have it all wrong: the online face of America is the only true face, because it is anonymous. People aren't out there creating massive hoaxes, you just wish they were. The isolated incidents of it one can mine from past events on all sides are few and far between.
Also, there's plenty of people for whom "anarchy" is a most appealing vision. Not me, but some misguided people.
Ginx, the deployment of "False Flag" ruses has a long and illustrious history, both in warfare and otherwise. (The East German Stasi were particularly adept at it.)
The suggestion to be wary, especially when it comes to issues which have a significant emotional resonance, is particularly apt, I should think, regardless of which side of an issue one finds oneself.
As for the Codepink people, they really need to bone up on their subversion. Publishing a press release using another entity's identity is actionable under a "False Light Invasion Of Privacy" Theory.
Bill, it's all about the narrative, in which people become very emotionally invested. When the evidence doesn't support the narrative, it must be created.
Yeah, maybe Sarah Palin is a Democratic plot and 9/11 was a plot by the 9 Jew bankers who run everything.
atheists create fake identities, and fake blogs, to present religion, particularly Christianity, in the most unfavorable and grotesque way.
Like the atheist who created Jean's blog, I guess.
Only the atheist has now apologized, which only proves, I'm sure Bill would agree, how clever a white male atheist "she" is.
And please don't anyone claim again that Jean is a real Christian, as Bill has already assured us that "she" isn't.
Dear SE,
You're a very credulous person.
That whole "Jean" thing really sticks in your craw, doesn't it?
Boost your skepticism, SE.
You're a very credulous person.
Then your fellow Christians are just as credulous, as witness the comments at "Jean's" post.
Oh, wait, I've proved your point again, haven't I? Those are fake Christians commenting, or perhaps Jean writes all those comments herself. It's possible.
SE (and Ginx),
Yes, you are a credulous person.
Also, I never said Christians are not credulous. Many are.
But why don't you just explore the profiles of "Jean's" friends for a moment (if they don't dead-end). Notice how they are SO English, so very British. Oh, and did you see "she" expunged the whole thing about the KJV being the only reliable Bible version from her profile? That's just too rich!
You've been had again, SE. It just kills you, no?
Of course, like your "friends" who think themselves so profoundly enlightened -- "I don't CARE if Jean is REAL or not." (That's beautiful. It really does come in handy. Thanks, "Hugo".)
Of course, you and Ginx are being willfully obtuse. My original post actually cites REAL deception, and the advocacy of deception (and confusion) as a political weapon. Ginx's silly jaunt into foolish conspiracy theories reveals not so much his confidence but his insecurity. He can't, apparently, tolerate a world where "truth" is so utterly elastic, fluid, and, well, false. So he deploys some hack reductio ad absurdum fallacy to reassure himself he's got clear vision.
That you have returned to the "Jean" thing also points to your own self-doubts, your own diffidence, SE. You, the skeptical one, can't be fooled, or so you believe. But you CAN BE fooled. Hence, your worldview is threatened, as is your self-image.
Just notice what you and Ginx are incapable of doing? It's incredible, really: Neither of you can admit a demonstrated, proven and obvious fact, i.e., the internet (and related media) is RIFE with deceit! No, no. You both can't accept that; and you both can't seemingly accept that I, Bill Gnade -- of all things a CHRISTIAN! -- is able not only to admit such deceptions exist, but that I can spot them (occasionally). Why can't either of you just honestly admit the facts? What is to be gained by either of you snickering at what is true? Don't you both see that the two of you are skeptical of the wrong things?
And, SE, why would you come here and essentially agree with Ginx? He has the temerity to tell me that "people aren't out there creating massive hoaxes, you just wish they were." My God -- and I mean that -- there could not be a more intellectually lazy statement Ginx could have made. No one here but Ginx mentioned "massive hoaxes." I didn't mention one. What I mentioned was something THAT REALLY HAPPENED! In other words, I mentioned "small hoaxes" that were -- in reality -- successful, at least to a point. CODEPINK did commit a fraud. A leftist woman did vandalize the DNC headquarters in Denver. Saul Alinsky did encourage protesters to attend a GHW Bush rally dressed in KKK garb. A prominent atheist did create a faux website and bogus personae (and I am not talking about "Jean"). Bart Stupak did report threats coming at him when it was believed he would vote against health care reform.
So the smugness and self-righteousness you and Ginx exhibit are not only ironic, but amusing, even bemusing. I've not made the claims you've attributed to me; and I've not manifested the sort of paranoia Ginx imputes to me, either. Such acts are intellectually dishonest, and you should know that by now.
Peace.
I agree with Bill, and I'm not playing suck-up because he's a old classmate. The Internet is defined as "Virtual" reality, ie: reality as being just as subjective and plastic as the unknown person at the other end of the modem wishes. That 16 year old girl could be a 45 year old guy, that mail-order website could be a credit card scam, the ad for a job could be trying to steal your identity. The Internet was tailor-made for dirty tricks such as Bill discribed-on both sides, liberal and conservative. One thing I learned for meself is that in real life, American society is chaos, deception, violence, ambuguity and lies below a certain income level, or what side of the cultural wars line your standing on-why shouldn't the virtual on-line version do the same?
Yes, Bill, there are fakers out there, I've never denied that.
On the question of Jean/"Jean", you may be right for all I know, but the evidence isn't good enough to show she is not genuine.
Hugo did give you his last name, as I recall, but now apparently "he" is "Hugo", or maybe I am? We can't "know" anything, after all.
Dear SE,
Can we just stop this?
One reason Hugo was written as "Hugo" was to add a simple ironic twist. Also, I placed "Hugo" in quotes to indicate, albeit poorly, that Hugo was not part of this thread; that I was referring to something "out there."
Lastly, I am all for arguing about epistemology. Let's go for it. If that's what you want to do, please, lead on.
But this sniping, this constant bickering about arcana is ridiculous. Do you enjoy this? I mean, I can keep going if you wish, but, well, it gets quite boring.
Peace.
Ginx,
You wrote this, which I find interesting:
You have it all wrong: the online face of America is the only true face, because it is anonymous.
I have written at this blog that the internet is the digitized collectivization of the entirety of human consciousness, or, at least, the internet is moving in that direction. The conscious self, the unconscious, the sub-conscious -- they're all here.
But I really do think that anonymity is just the opposite of what you posit. You're suggesting that a masquerade ball is the presentation of people as they truly are; that a mask is an authentic image of a person's self. Anonymity, clearly, allows people to tap into the worst of themselves, not the best. A masked gunman is anonymous, as is a rapist in the dark. Wiping evidence off a gun, or secretions off a corpse, is driven by the lust for anonymity. Really, the examples are countless in favor of my thesis.
Anonymity is often camouflage for predators.
But wait. Maybe you're right. Maybe America's true face is revealed in the hiddenness.
In that case, I believe you're making a compelling argument for original sin.
Peace.
And here I thought skepticism was healthy. What a putz I've been. Apparently, skepticism is only a good thing, if one is skeptical of those of us who use our real names when posting comments and opinions, but totally unwarranted when applied to those who post dead end profile and untraceable comments.
And, of course, no skepticism is warranted when the anonymous, untraceable speaker says anything bad about Christians, or while purporting to be a Christian, says something outlandish, because via the wonders of res ipsa loquitar, the whole "Christian" thing speaks for itself, whether the actual speaker exists or not.
Marvelous new world.
Cheers.
"Jean" wrote this to make Christians look bad:
I felt I needed to write this blog post and let readers of this blog know that I am so sorry for my actions and I take full responsibility for the errors that I posted on this blog. May you all please forgive me in Christ Jesus our Lord and Saviour and may the Lord bless you all.
Seems pretty Christian to me, but I'm not a good judge of such things. "She" is now "sorry" for saying those "outlandish" things, which must be even more outlandish, on R. Sherman's interpretation.
But to make matters clearer, R.S., I am not an epistemological skeptic. If I was, I would be in agreement with Bill, to the point of being so confused as to believe I can't prove my own existence even to myself (this is what Bill has stated before).
That sort of "skepticism" leads to philosophical chaos, which is the one chaos Bill loves, because it gives cover to so many unfounded claims. The problem, of course, is that someone like Bill then steals concepts in the process, while pretending he can't know a darn thing. That's intellectual dishonesty for you.
I will agree, Bill, that many people use anonymity to deceive or cover up wrong doing. Your examples are apt.
But some people seek anonymity as a refuge from intolerance which could manifest itself as discrimination or even physical assault (in extreme cases).
As a result, some people won't divulge how they truly think unless they can feel relatively safe from the possible backlash of such intolerance.
I've worked with people who were transparent with their religious views, political views, YouTube accounts or their blogs -- and ultimately lost employment as a result. Your views can become a catalyst towards your unemployment if your employer doesn't share them-- regardless of the views in question.
Also, some potential employers will "Google" you after an interview. If they find your blog or YouTube videos and don't like what you're about-- you've lost an opportunity.
And what a shame if that blog wasn't really yours! Which, ironically, points back to your argument.
As to the rest of the discussion-- it's too deep for me. I'll just act like an eavesdropping fly on the wall.
SE,
Yes, I have said essentially that I cannot prove my existence to myself. So?
I invite you to share how you are not like me, that you are not "so confused as to believe [you] can't prove [your] own existence." Seriously, the floor is yours. Tell me how you prove your own existence -- to yourself -- and tell me how you've gone about proving your existence to others. It will help me immensely. You know the quandary in which I find myself, the sort of spiritual solipsism I've created as my own prison. Help me find a way out.
And please, tell me about my habit of purloining concepts. I must know, mustn't I, what it is I have stolen? I am the first to admit -- I've admitted it many times -- that I've never had an original thought. My days are filled with plagiarism; I toss thoughts around without giving the slightest attribution to my many forbears. Please, help me see more clearly what is not mine, what is someone else's. Please, show me those thoughts, concepts and ideas that are utterly unique to you, or the ones you have earned and acquired legitimately. What does it feel like to hold concepts that you've created? What does it feel like to acquire knowledge on the basis of merit? Please, SE. Speak. Share. Reveal.
The floor is yours.
(As for the sample which is "Jean." The sample is spoiled. I spoiled it. Don't you see? "Jean's" apology comes in the wake of "her" being called what she is -- a fraud. But remember: It does not matter whether "Jean" is real or not.)
Peace.
Uruk (Erech),
Welcome. Thanks for the helpful comments.
Peace.
As I said, Bill, you may indeed be right about Jean. Perhaps you did "spoil" it. But then Jean the atheist's blog seems pointless. Make Christians appear crazy, and then backpedal into reasonableness? To what purpose? Why not kick it up a notch? Either Jean is not as clever as you suggest, or is even more devious than anyone would suppose. But as there are plenty of "real" Christians who share Jean's now more reasonable positions (on things like Bible translations), why does "she" bother continuing?
On stealing concepts, I think you misunderstand me, Bill. I nowhere have accused you of plagiarism, though I would agree there is nothing new under the Sun. What I'm talking about is something quite different, the use of concepts while essentially denying their validity at the same time. That's all I meant, and I'm sorry if I wasn't clear.
Tell me how you prove your own existence
Bill, I exist! Now please tell me who wrote those three words. If I ask "Do I exist?", don't I have to presuppose the existence of the question in order to ponder it?
And thanks, Bill, for the response. I just hope we can both stop mentioning Jean now, but if it turns out you spotted a fake where no one else did, congratulations. But how did you know that Jean's blog exists in the first place? I'm confused.
SE,
Re: Epistemology
I accept the petitio principii, the question begging, my philosophy necessitates. But we are, in more ways than one, going around in circles. My argument is really simple: ALL knowledge begins in faith. You've not shown this argument to be false. You've only shown it to be problematic, which, if you've stayed with me, you know is exactly my point. "First things" are axiomatic. They are not conclusions reached at the end of some long process of deduction/induction. The human mind starts somewhere, and that place is the womb of faith.
I knew exactly what you meant when you accused me of stealing concepts. I used the word plagiarize to jar us all: none of us is original and we "steal" all our concepts (at least most of them) without attribution. I even steal language: I did not make these words, did you? Even if I did invent a word, like kisdnasliaddn, I did not invent symbols, communication, alphabets, translation -- or the human mind. We all are submerged in borrowed or stolen intellectual property.
I appreciate very much that you have a pragmatic approach to knowledge, to proof. Your approach is really one of common sense: If you do not exist, then with whom am I conversing? You've posited essentially a variant of Descartes' "cogito", and you've formed it in the language of causality. I am sure, then, that you know the philosophical problems associated with such arguments and forms; that such forms are routinely rejected, particularly by atheists.
Peace.
BG
Outstanding comment on Envy and its relationship to Pride at my place. I've been pondering that for awhile now and responded with some preliminary thoughts. Thanks for the kick in the pants.
As for Herm, don't worry. He's a big guy and a good friend. We trade these barbs occasionally, much to my wife's chagrin. As I intimate, Herm's a surrogate for her. He says the things to me, that she doesn't want to, but she enjoys the exchange, with the fervent hope that I lose the argument.
[Smiley thing]
Cheers.
Post a Comment