Friday, November 12, 2010

"The Simpsons" Predicted 9/11



Though the Sheeple predictably wave it away as "just a coincidence"!

The clip from X-Files spin-off, The Lone Gunman, on the other hand really is amazingly similar to the conspiracy theorists' idea of what happened on 9/11.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Noted your comment on the CM blog about the deaths of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and Czar Alexander II. May I suggest that you have your facts wrong. Isn't it true that Franz Ferdinand was assassinated by foolish students who were set up and armed by the Serbian Secret Police; and that Alexander 11’s assassination was successful only because the Russian Secret Police of the day (The Okrana) thought him too liberal and secretly withdrew protection from him. What these examples suggest is that secret police services often conspire with reactionary elites to murder rulers they consider too liberal – though they may use foolish students as their tool. Indeed my own story is about too close a collusion between secret police services (MI5/6 & CSIS) and corrupt and stupid Elites. Roderick Russell

angrysoba said...

Hi Roderick,

Good to hear from you again. Thanks for your comment. You appear to be quite right about saying that those two assassinations were unlikely carried out by anarchists. I was writing from a (flawed) memory.

It seems we have a shared interest in areas of history. I remember you recommended I read Simon Sebag Montifriore's "Young Stalin" on an earlier thread, and while I haven't got round to reading that yet I am ploughing my way through his "Court of the Red Tsar" which is an excellent account of Stalin's years from 1932 onwards.

I came across a theory I hadn't heard before, that Stalin may have been an Okrana agent who infiltrated the Bolsheviks and whose Terror was initially focused on rubbing out anyone who knew his Tsarist past. I can't help but find the idea a little far-fetched if intriguing.

I also thought that the author gives a good account of the Kirov murder which is often thought of by many historians as ordered by Stalin to kick off the Terror. The author seems to lean towards letting Stalin off the hook for that one but I remember believing until last year that it was a certainty that Stalin had had Kirov assassinated.

Anyway, just out of interest, how long have you been interested in the history of Russian and Soviet spying?

(Also, just out of interest, have you ever read Edvard Radsinsky's Alexander II?)

Anonymous said...

Young Stalin is an absolutely outstanding book. It provides insight into the development of this evil man and is a must read for that reason alone. I have read several books about Alexander 11 – probably including the one you recommended, though I can’t remember precisely. I have always been interested in history. Having some understanding of how Russia (and communism) developed was important during the cold war, and is still important today since the country is so large. I need hardly add that I am not a socialist. I am actually a fiscal conservative on economic matters and liberal on social issues. My family have always had a thirst for knowledge and enjoy dealing with different cultural environments. As I think I had mentioned before, a great aunt of mine who worked as a governess had the misfortune to be in St. Petersburg during the Russian Revolution, moving on to a new appointment in Japan (Yokohama) just in time for the great earthquake.

In general the thrust of history suggests to me that big government ‘top/down‘ solutions don’t work well. This applies equally to NeoCons and Socialists, both of whom believe in big government. Take the NeoCon viewpoint that one can use force to install democracy in failed States. It’s a nice idea, except that it doesn’t work as we are going to find out in Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed if our political masters had ever read any history, they would have known to avoid too much involvement in Afghanistan.

I am not particularly interested in the history of intelligence matters. My main interest is actually economic history. It’s just that given the horrible issue that I have, it is prudent to acquire some knowledge. Though strangely enough both my father and an uncle were involved with military intelligence type matters during ww2 at fairly senior levels.

I think it incumbent on people to try and learn about evil people like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, etc. so that we can spot them in the future before they do too much damage. I also think it incumbent that people like myself stand up for civil liberties as I do, since if we accept the dictates of these bully boys and their secret police acolytes we will all lose our freedom. In matters of rule of law it is very simple – one either has it or one doesn’t – and without Rule of Law there cannot be democracy. Roderick Russell

Anonymous said...

Young Stalin is an absolutely outstanding book. It provides insight into the development of this evil man and is a must read for that reason alone. I have read several books about Alexander 11 – probably including the one you recommended, though I can’t remember precisely. I have always been interested in history. Having some understanding of how Russia (and communism) developed was important during the cold war, and is still important today since the country is so large. I need hardly add that I am not a socialist. I am actually a fiscal conservative on economic matters and liberal on social issues. My family have always had a thirst for knowledge and enjoy dealing with different cultural environments. As I think I had mentioned before, a great aunt of mine who worked as a governess had the misfortune to be in St. Petersburg during the Russian Revolution, moving on to a new appointment in Japan (Yokohama) just in time for the great earthquake.

In general the thrust of history suggests to me that big government ‘top/down‘ solutions don’t work well. This applies equally to NeoCons and Socialists, both of whom believe in big government. Take the NeoCon viewpoint that one can use force to install democracy in failed States. It’s a nice idea, except that it doesn’t work as we are going to find out in Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed if our political masters had ever read any history, they would have known to avoid too much involvement in Afghanistan.

I am not particularly interested in the history of intelligence matters. My main interest is actually economic history. It’s just that given the horrible issue that I have, it is prudent to acquire some knowledge. Though strangely enough both my father and an uncle were involved with military intelligence type matters during ww2 at fairly senior levels.

I think it incumbent on people to try and learn about evil people like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, etc. so that we can spot them in the future before they do too much damage. I also think it incumbent that people like myself stand up for civil liberties as I do, since if we accept the dictates of these bully boys and their secret police acolytes we will all lose our freedom. In matters of rule of law it is very simple – one either has it or one doesn’t – and without Rule of Law there cannot be democracy. Roderick Russell

Roderick Russell said...

Angrysoba, I just had to follow up on a comment you made on CM’s blog - “His (JFK) references to secret societies was merely pandering to vulgar prejudice against secret societies.” On the contrary secret societies can be a force for good or bad, but to assume that objection to them is always a prejudice is a mistake. After all, is it vulgar to object to the mafia?

Take freemasonry. My wife incidentally attended university, partially financed by a Masonic bursary. I am not one myself, but I have long admired the role that this society played several centuries ago when it was a major force in bringing about concepts of liberty and freedom. It is no coincidence that my Zerzetsen Report quotes freely from two very great freemasons - Thomas Jefferson and Edmund Burke. But one thing is certain is that when secret societies stop following their ideals and start selfishly serving the self interest of Elites, these same societies that once supported freedom can become a threat to it. This is what happened to the Mafia and the Triads which in their early days were decent societies and not the crime gangs they have become.

And take Cuba which you also commented on. If ever there was a country abused by secret societies it is Cuba. It is true that Fidel Castro and his Communists (a movement with elements of a secret society) took advantage of a nasty situation where Cuba was being run by a joint venture of a secret society, the Mafia, and Battista. I think it is very dangerous for our freedoms when secret societies and secret security services become too close as they did in Battista’s Cuba. Your constitution believes in checks and balances; well, one needs checks and balances for secret societies as well to ensure that they don’t morph into some sort of a crime gang, and we don’t have that. History I am afraid suggests that if they last long enough, secret societies have a tendency to become degraded. The litmus test is this - do they support rule of law at all times, or not. By the way, I recommend the book “Havana Nocturne” by American author T.J. English for background on what caused the Cuban revolution.

angrysoba said...

Hi Roderick,

Thanks again for your comment.

The particular part of JFK's speech that I was referring to was this:

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions.

The first part of this quote suggests JFK sees secret societies as unequivocally bad. It's true, of course, that criminal organizations tend to plan their actions in secret. But of course, it doesn't follow that meeting in secret implies criminality. In fact, in some places, such as Cuba meeting in large groups is forbidden as some kind of sedition is assumed.

The second part of that quote, that free societies shouldn't adopt the behaviour of totalitarian or autocratic societies which oppose them is surely correct and I would agree to it. Of course, later on in the speech he goes on to say that the free press should still see to it that they censor themselves particularly when it comes to sensitive (i.e secret) behaviour by governments.

It amazes me that any conspiracy theorist dissident quotes this speech as some kind of rallying cry for liberalism or freedom from "secret societies" (conspiracy theorists seem to assume Kennedy is here referring to "Skull and Bones", or "Bohemian Grove", or "The Zionists" when he is talking about Communism and Communist sympathizers).

If anything this is an illiberal speech in which Kennedy could be seen as cajoling a servile press corps into being careful what they publish and not snooping around too much. If Obama were to give a speech like this today there would be howls of outrage.

That is my interpretation, anyway. What do you think?

Thanks again for the book recommendation.

angrysoba said...

Just to emphasize that last point:

But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.



Of course, here Kennedy is referring to Oliver Wendell Holmes' ruling that the First Ammendment wouldn't apply to someone falsely crying "fire!" in a crowded theatre as his excuse for having anti-First World War protesters locked up.

In this case, the "nation's peril" was its struggle against Communism. Today, if Obama were to say that the country is at war with "Islamism" but don't expect a formal declaration and instead put your First Ammendment rights to one side, he'd be in big trouble.

Roderick Russell said...

I do believe that JFK’s “danger of secret societies speech” went far beyond just referring to communism. I think he was questioning the need for secret societies in a free and democratic country. It may have had something to do with the fact that JFK was the first President who wasn’t a freemason.

As we previously discussed on this thread, freemasonry played a major role in disseminating ideas of liberty and democracy in what were totalitarian States. The independence movement in America, the fight for increased parliamentary powers and extended franchise in the UK, even the failed Decembrist movement in Russia (read War and Peace), and so much else that owed much to freemasonry and its secrecy. Indeed in these totalitarian societies there was no choice - freedom required secrecy. To speak out in public meant arrest or worse. The rulers in many European totalitarian States invariably banned freemasonry since they knew that this secret society was dangerous for their political survival.

But in an open and democratic country, secrecy often has the opposite effect - when the need to democratize has gone, the only target a secret society, if it goes rogue, can be of danger to is democracy itself.

Now freemasonry is a major force in the legal and political communities where I live. My own experience is that it is certainly not encouraging fair play or responsible behaviour amongst its membership.

As I said earlier, secret societies if they last long enough have a tendency to become degraded and perhaps their members get too comfortable with the status quo. I think that this is what JFK was getting at. To me the litmus test is a simple one - do these secret societies support Rule of Law at all times, or not? Do they operate in a way that harms non-members, or not?

Anonymous said...

You know youre fucked up when ya gotta reply to yourself in a shoutbox. The only thing you know is what youve read. So i`m guessing youre right half the time.

angrysoba said...

Well, hello to you space-bar man or whatever the Hell you are.

I think your constant name changes from Apostate to Freeborn to Tungsten to Steelback are tedious.

I think you are tedious.