LAX Shooting Conspiracy Theories - Los Angeles Airport - False Flag Theories

Status
Not open for further replies.
The seed of the views may already be established but the roots may not be as deep as once AJ gets through watering them. Much like some people may say, " gee there are a lot of those plane trails in the sky nowadays", it takes someone like Tanner or Bliss or Wiggington to really water that thought and grow it into a state where someone like AJ can influence someone (who may even have a screenshot posted on the "violence" thread here) to actually shoot someone.

Perhaps.

But the mentality of many is interesting, given that they can't put two words together about a mass shooting in Afghanistan or war crimes in Iraq in order to begin blaming their political leaders for their violent rhetoric about a "war on terror." Because if they keep using that rhetoric or saying "Gee, we need to have a war on terror nowadays..." then someone might get killed, right?

Perhaps people aren't really necessarily against violence caused by violent rhetoric, they just have their favorite types and their own interests. So many will shrug when millions die due to their favorite type of "War on terror..." rhetoric, yet then they're supposedly crying themselves to sleep each night over the possibility of Jonestown's violent rhetoric being taken seriously by a crazy person. It's probably more a matter of violence winding up in their own backyard and not "war on terror" or "1776 will commence again" rhetoric of violence as such. Let's not play pretend that progressives full of hopium and change care about mass shootings or violent rhetoric that might get someone killed as such. If they can't put two words together about a mass shooting in Afghanistan caused by the "violent rhetoric" and actions of their political leaders then the way they supposedly care about mass shootings is generally just a tool to use against Jonestown and others seeking to keep power/guns decentralized.
 
Topic drift warning.....

Oxy, you can't tell people not to speculate about Ciancia, and then go off and speculate about the US government.

And "cavity searches" is just the kind of inflammatory rhetoric that's the problem here. We don't get cavity searches when we fly.

I'm blaming you Oxy. A tiny little bit.

Just as I would blame you for the "war on terror" in a "post 911 world" and the mass shooting in Afghanistan it caused and so on and forth. A tiny little bit.

But there's a big difference between millions dead or hundreds of thousands starved to death (partly due to the belief of most progressives in hopium and change) and a TSA agent dead due to the rising tide of almost violent rhetoric against an utterly corrupt central government/bankers of the ponzi, by the ponzi and for the ponzi. So your tiny little bit is much bigger than the tiny little bit of blame that people criticizing "the government" or its agents in a post 911 world might share.

It would be off topic to get into details about why "underwear bomber" cavity searches and so forth exist in the first place. Let's just say that you can give up all your civil liberties and the "underwear bomber" will still make it onto the plane, mainly because he's being escorted onto the plane without a passport by the "well dressed" agents of the multinational corporations providing "homeland security" these days. But quick, check your grandmother's underpants for WMDs if that makes you feel safe. After all, you never know what might be in there.
 
Perhaps.

But the mentality of many is interesting, given that they can't put two words together about a mass shooting in Afghanistan or war crimes in Iraq in order to begin blaming their political leaders for their violent rhetoric about a "war on terror." Because if they keep using that rhetoric or saying "Gee, we need to have a war on terror nowadays..." then someone might get killed, right?

Perhaps people aren't really necessarily against violence caused by violent rhetoric, they just have their favorite types and their own interests. So many will shrug when millions die due to their favorite type of "War on terror..." rhetoric, yet then they're supposedly crying themselves to sleep each night over the possibility of Jonestown's violent rhetoric being taken seriously by a crazy person. It's probably more a matter of violence winding up in their own backyard and not "war on terror" or "1776 will commence again" rhetoric of violence as such. Let's not play pretend that progressives full of hopium and change care about mass shootings or violent rhetoric that might get someone killed as such. If they can't put two words together about a mass shooting in Afghanistan caused by the "violent rhetoric" and actions of their political leaders then the way they supposedly care about mass shootings is generally just a tool to use against Jonestown and others seeking to keep power/guns decentralized.

Ugh... I try to stay on topic generally, but when I want to add my 2 cents worth to an already off topic discussion... what the heck.


mynym's use of the phrase 'Jonestown' seemed ironic when the first thing that came to mind was Jim Jones and the People's Temple cult. There are repercussions to inflammatory words and scare-mongering .....


External Quote:

Deaths in Jonestown
Later that same day, 909 inhabitants of Jonestown,[88] 303 of them children, died of apparent cyanide poisoning, mostly in and around a pavilion.[89] This resulted in the greatest single loss of American civilian life in a deliberate act until the September 11, 2001 attacks.[90] No video was taken during the mass suicide, though the FBI did recover a 45 minute audio recording of the suicide in progress.[91]

On that tape, Jones tells Temple members that the Soviet Union, with whom the Temple had been negotiating a potential exodus for months, would not take them after the Temple had murdered Ryan and four others at a nearby airstrip.[91] The reason given by Jones to commit suicide was consistent with his previously stated conspiracy theories of intelligence organizations allegedly conspiring against the Temple, that men would "parachute in here on us," "shoot some of our innocent babies" and "they'll torture our children, they'll torture some of our people here, they'll torture our seniors."[91] Parroting Jones' prior statements that hostile forces would convert captured children tofascism, one temple member states "the ones that they take captured, they're gonna just let them grow up and be dummies.
 
Maybe technically not, but it certainly seems at odds with the idea they are trying to take away your guns.

I assure you they will never, EVER get MY guns . . . because I don't have any, have never had any, and never will have any. I'm just not a gun person in any way shape or form.

That said, I do understand where the "gun nuts" are coming from, and I say that as someone who had always been as much of an anti-NRA guy as anyone, thinking they were a few bubbles off beam. But as with so much else, it was a case of me being ignorant of the issues. Once I actually started looking into what they were about as opposed to my assumptions re what they were about, I found myself agreeing with them more than not. Still don't want a gun, but I am squarely behind the 2nd amendment given the insane ramp up of the DHS and all the rest.
 
Last edited:
But quick, check your grandmother's underpants for WMDs if that makes you feel safe. After all, you never know what might be in there.

Ah, now there's an image I didn't need.

As to your notion re giving up all the civil liberties not stopping the escorted undiebomber, maybe doing so would do just that. After all, what would be the need for the breed if the prize was already within hand?
 
Let's look at this from a slightly different perspective. There is a rapist loose in a city. Women take precations to protect theirselves, they buy new door locks, get an alarm system, get a large dog, some may buy a gun, the smart ones that do that will go to the range and learn to use it. These are prudent actions.

When the web is full of folks calling for an armed revolt, it would seem to me that some preperations are reasonable. I believe that some of the purchases on a local level are done with federal grants to 'improve safety'. Dallas used one to buy a fancy helicopter and after having it for 2 or more years and seeing the costs of upkeep and training and the very small chance of really needing it, they sold it and used the money for additions to the swift water rescue locally.

The real problem is FEAR, both from citizens, afraid of others, be it terrorists, gangbangers, mentally ill, the government, immigrants and such and the FEAR that the government has of terrorists, foreign or homegrown, of gangs, of crime rings and of mentally ill folks. It is feeding each other now.

I see a big difference in AJ and a video game. A game announces that it is a GAME, that it is entertainment, just like a movie is. There are some that get sort of confused, like the folks that ask Air Force folks where the 'Stargate' is at Cheyenne Mountain.

On the other hand, AJ claims to be reporting on reality and what is being planned NOW. He does not claim or imply it is fake or entertainment.
 
External Quote:
On April 17in Chicago, Ill.,two black teenagers beat a white 19-year-old to the ground, threatened him with a tree branch and robbed him because, one attacker explained,they were angry about the Trayvon Martin case.
So who do we blame for the violence and death black on white crime since the trayvon martin killing ? CNN MSNBC ? OBAMA ? AL Sharpton ? I could give many more examples if youd like ?
 
External Quote:
On April 17in Chicago, Ill.,two black teenagers beat a white 19-year-old to the ground, threatened him with a tree branch and robbed him because, one attacker explained,they were angry about the Trayvon Martin case.
So who do we blame for the violence and death black on white crime since the trayvon martin killing ? CNN MSNBC ? OBAMA ? AL Sharpton ? I could give many more examples if youd like ?

George Zimmerman.
 
Ok. That does it for me. So long as everyone understands what I was saying.



I have already made myself clear on what I think about this. I think Jones is a reflection of his audience, rather than the other way around. I also think it wrong to blame people like AJ, or who think like AJ, for the actions of someone else. Particularly if the main cause of these beliefs and actions are likely to be found elsewhere... i.e. the fascist actions, (irrespective of exactly how fascist on relative scale they are) of the American Govt or even directly related to the guys personal interactions with the TSA/police.

So are you saying that Alex Jones doesn't influence the views and opinions of his audience?

That would be like saying that the Germans hated jews the whole time and were just waiting for a guy like Hitler to come along and tell them exactly what they were thinking.

Do you think that Ciancia believed in a New World Order and developed enough of a Hate towards the TSA before he ever encountered any conspiracist propaganda or Alex Jones himself?

Political movements, and ideologies don't just come from out of nowhere. People start them, that is historical fact.
 
George Zimmerman.
George Zimmerman was found not guilty and most peole would have never know about a local crime in Sanford Florida if not for Al Sharpton and then Obama . Again by reading most of the post most here are blaming the likes of Alex Jones and the Right Wing . The man was suicidal and chose the suicide by cop method . his political party doesnt matter or what he listens to as well . He was crazy as was many before him and many more to come unfortunatly . The question is who will use the crisis to push their agenda ?
 
External Quote:
On April 17in Chicago, Ill.,two black teenagers beat a white 19-year-old to the ground, threatened him with a tree branch and robbed him because, one attacker explained,they were angry about the Trayvon Martin case.
So who do we blame for the violence and death black on white crime since the trayvon martin killing ? CNN MSNBC ? OBAMA ? AL Sharpton ? I could give many more examples if youd like ?
I would say that is a false equivalency. Alex Jones has gone on countless rants about the TSA vilifying, demonizing spreading paranoia about them in every imaginable way. I'm not a fan of Sharpton myself and I have my own criticisms of their reaction to the Zimmerman Trial verdict, but their actions are in no way even close to what Alex Jones does to TSA agents.

But hey FWIW, I remember Alex Jones accusing Sharpton, Jackson, MSNBC, etc. of inciting violence from the black community by trying to start race riots.
But I don't recall when any of those people explicitly said "kill whitey" or riot in the streets. I also don't remember the time when they went on rants demonizing white people calling them all fascist nazis.... Probably because it didn't happen.


But I'm glad you brought that up. It's nice to know that Alex can accuse others of inciting violence among their respective followers, but nobody can even claim that neither he nor his contemporaries bear any responsibility for what their extreme rhetoric might inspire someone to do.
 
Last edited:
I would say that is a false equivalency. Alex Jones has gone on countless rants about the TSA vilifying, demonizing spreading paranoia about them in every imaginable way. I'm not a fan of Sharpton myself and I have my own criticisms of their reaction to the Zimmerman Trial verdict, but their actions are in no way even close to what Alex Jones does to TSA agents.

But hey FWIW, I remember Alex Jones accusing Sharpton, Jackson, MSNBC, etc. of inciting violence from the black community by trying to start race riots.
But I don't recall when any of those people explicitly said "kill whitey" or riot in the streets. I also don't remember the time when they went on rants demonizing white people calling them all fascist nazis.... Probably because it didn't happen.


But I'm glad you brought that up. It's nice to know that Alex can accuse others of inciting violence among their respective followers, but nobody can even claim that neither he nor his contemporaries bear any responsibility for what their extreme rhetoric might inspire someone to do.
Im not really a fan of Alex Jones at all its the free speech thing I like . We cant demonize others for the actions of crazies . You dont recall because the main stream media didnt report the hundreds of incidents that happened . personally I think it was just an excuse for criminal behavior .
 
George Zimmerman was found not guilty and most peole would have never know about a local crime in Sanford Florida if not for Al Sharpton and then Obama . Again by reading most of the post most here are blaming the likes of Alex Jones and the Right Wing . The man was suicidal and chose the suicide by cop method . his political party doesnt matter or what he listens to as well . He was crazy as was many before him and many more to come unfortunatly . The question is who will use the crisis to push their agenda ?

To be clear, I would like to point out that I do think that Alex Jones bears 'some' responsibility for what happened, but I'm not blaming the right wing nor, the tea party, nor the patriot movement. Alex Jones would have you believe that he started the Tea Party and he's the ring leader of the patriot movemet, but that's hardly the truth. Alex Jones might have some influence and tends to have more influence with the militia side of the patriots, but he is still just a cog in the wheel. I think alot of people who are unfamiliar with the right wing patriot movements try to lump them all together without understanding that there is alot more diversity within those groups than what meets the eye.

Im not really a fan of Alex Jones at all its the free speech thing I like . We cant demonize others for the actions of crazies .
As it was stated before; We are responsible for our own actions. And we have to be careful before we accuse someone as being partly responsible for a violent act due to their rhetoric. But I think it is fair to speculate and even attribute some blame based upon finding significant evidence that he was motivated by a certain person.
 
The SPLC has made a great compilation list of all the right wing terror attacks since 1995. I was surprise by how much has really occurred over just a few years. There is no doubt in my mind that AJ's ranting's against the Feds or NWO have made a contribution in many of these domestic terrorist acts that have cost the lives of many innocent people.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/terror-from-the-right

This does seem to go round and round in a circle, doesn't it? The whole dynamic is set up to divide and create friction and there doesn't seem to be any way out.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/sou...ter-our-hate-map-doesn-t-cause-anybody-attack

 
Last edited:
Im not really a fan of Alex Jones at all its the free speech thing I like . We cant demonize others for the actions of crazies . You dont recall because the main stream media didnt report the hundreds of incidents that happened . personally I think it was just an excuse for criminal behavior .

Well then Joe, I'm sure you're aware that you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre. That's precisely what Jones is doing.
 
This does seem to go round and round in a circle, doesn't it? The whole dynamic is set up to divide and create friction and there doesn't seem to be any way out.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/sou...ter-our-hate-map-doesn-t-cause-anybody-attack

The issues is not if accurate lists provide targets for people. It's if hyperbolic rhetoric provides targets.

I'd have no problem at all with Alex Jones exposing the fascist takeover of the US, if he were actually accurate. The problem is he's spouting nonsense.
 
you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre.

Unless the theater is actually on fire.

External Quote:
The paraphrasing does not generally include the word "falsely", i.e., "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater", which was the original wording used in Holmes's opinion and highlights that speech which is dangerous and false, as opposed to speech which is truthful but also dangerous.

Christopher Hitchens parodied the Holmes judgement by opening "FIRE! Fire, fire... fire. Now you've heard it," before condemning the famous analogy as "the fatuous verdict of the greatly over-praised Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes." Hitchens argued that the imprisoned socialists "were the ones shouting fire when there really was a fire in a very crowded theatre indeed... [W]ho’s going to decide?"
 
The issues is not if accurate lists provide targets for people. It's if hyperbolic rhetoric provides targets.

It seems like the people or organizations deciding what's hyperbolic or accurate would have a lot of power. Has anyone provided any actual examples of Jones calling for violence against TSA agents or whatever people are writing about here?

I found this:

But a crazy person might be just as likely to kill Walmart Inc. employees or go out to try to hunt "demonic chipmunks" from that. So in what way do you think that his speech needs to be policed? Provide examples.
 
Last edited:
It seems like the people or organizations deciding what's hyperbolic or accurate would have a lot of power. Has anyone provided any actual examples of Jones calling for violence against TSA agents or whatever people are writing about here?

I don't believe anyone has stated in this thread that AJ has explicitly called for violence against the TSA, if you read back you'll be able to correct me if I'm wrong. I think the point being made here is that the kind of rhetoric used by Jones against the TSA is of a type that might push someone towards that kind of action. There are numerous examples of his anti-TSA rants in the thread above, especially comparing TSA employees to Nazis, to the Gestapo, comparing their work to the Holocaust, etc. Just scan back a little and you'll see the examples cited for that kind of thing.

And that's all the thread is about. Nobody claimed he was directly responsible because he had asked people to shoot TSA employees. But then I expect you already know that.
 
The issues is not if accurate lists provide targets for people. It's if hyperbolic rhetoric provides targets.

That's because you say it is the issue and it is your site but actually it wasn't the issue at the beginning of the thread. You don't want to look at other issues like 'accurate lists...' or 'how many people have the TSA radicalised by their thuggish, fascist behaviour'.

Where is the science and objectivity or the rational debate... no, it is all about defend the govt, demonise AJ & Co.

I'd have no problem at all with Alex Jones exposing the fascist takeover of the US, if he were actually accurate. The problem is he's spouting nonsense.
And yet all you do is cherry pick some things which are not entirely accurate and ignore the elephant in the room... which is the massive amount of things he is spot on with.

Just look at the comments on his video



External Quote:
"I was walking around the office grieving for my country". Alex is awesome.

@Aurinkohirvi You're missing the point. He's showing that some people will do such a disgusting job for minimum wage just to have the uniform. It's a lot more insulting to be groped by a stranger in the name of 'keeping us safe' than being politically correct. If the TSA had any integrity & respect for their fellow humans they wouldn't do it in the first place for ANY money, & this is the point he is making.

The pornoscanners were ordered by the government BEFORE the underwear bomber so their saying this was in response to the underwear bomber is a LIE. Underwear bomber arrested in Nov. 2009. Rapiscan Systems Receives $25m Order from U.S. Transportation Security Administration for Advanced Imaging Technology Torrance, CA on 10/2/2009. MORE LIES FROM THE TSA - IT NEVER ENDS.
Do they sound brainwashed to you or are they stand up people who do not want to be treated like cattle?

And that seems to be the issue. A small group of half a dozen Meta Members who will submit to any invasion or indignity the govt wishes, (and some even request more)....nit picking if Jones may not say something, 'quite how they like it' or is he 'sensitive enough toward the TSA' and how 'the govt love us all but doesn't trust us so needs to spends trillions of 'our money' on protecting itself from us... because it's scared'.... but refuse point blank to criticise the govt or TSA. I wonder why most people may think these people could be shills? :rolleyes:
 
If it does infact turn out that the shooter was harbouring anti government sentiments and was a believer in the New World Order it is worth mentioning that Alex Jones is by far the most prominent purveyor of the NWO conspiracy, and has gone on numerous rants demonizing the T.S.A. Alex Jones does vilify alot of people and groups, but most of them are generally inaccessible to the general public due to their status as national figures, or holding a high office in government. It's just not that easy for the everyday person to get into a federal building, a military base, or the U.S. capitol and unload an AK-47. Other groups that Alex Jones vilifies such as liberals and gun control advocates are easily accessible, but not easily identifiable.
However there are two groups of people who Jones frequently demonizes and are easily accessible and identifiable by the general public: Low level law enforcement, and the T.S.A.. Low level law enforcement has been a frequent target of attacks from the "Sovereign Citizens Movement" of whom Jones sympathizes and associates with as he frequently advocates 'common law' over the established law. A member of another patriot group known as "Oath Keepers" was convicted of plotting an armed takeover of a Tennessee courthouse. To be fair, Alex Jones does let up on his ranting about police officers and claims that they are mostly 'awake' now, but it's usually not long before he goes on another rant about cops. But Alex Jones is especially hard on the TSA in his rhetoric, and rants about them very frequently. The T.S.A. are easily accessible, identifiable, and unarmed which makes them especially easy targets for attacks.
Alex Jones seems to be very careful to not explicitly allude to violent rebellion and doesn't seem to go on tirades about specific races of people which seems to separate him from an older brand of conspiracy theorist. But is his speech any less hateful just because his targets aren't associated with any specific race or religion? Is it just easier to overlook because he generally attacks people in high places or people with ideological differences? Is it still hate speech when you attack people for their occupation?

Oxy, I believe that the above post is the first one to speak about Alex Jones rhetoric and whether it might be hate speech, or be a related cause in the violence. You said "but actually it wasn't the issue at the beginning of the thread," which is correct - the beginning of the thread was simply about how long it would take for this event to be named as a 'false flag' event. Not long, was the answer. And of course it was the great Alex Jones who was one of the first to label it so.

You say he deserves respect because he's right on a lot of things. I say 'bollocks to that. He's wrong in the vast majority of his predictions. He's wrong on the vast majority of his analyses. When he reports on actual stories he generally goes overboard. As someone is genuinely concerned about the slow steps towards a police state in the US, who is genuinely pissed off with US foreign policy, with the corruption within the global financial sector, and numerous other things, I personally don't want him to be muddying the waters. There are plenty of excellent sources for information out there, but his is the one which has become a cult of personality, and where no rumour is too absurd to be passed along, regardless of how it might affect the victims or families of victims.

As to whether he bears any responsibility for the actions of people who listen to his special brand of rage, I would say so. Not full responsibility, but some. Just as the wingnuts who thought it was a good idea to post photos of people opposed to their way of thinking in the centre of a target bore some responsibility for what happened to Giffords.
 
Details regarding the shooters motive still seem to be very limited at this point. To be fair to oxy, the evidence is still circumstantial in nature. Granted it is significant circumstantial that leads to valid speculation. But we still need more information to make determination.
May I suggest that we take a break from this until more information surfaces in regards to the shooters motive?
 
The issues is not if accurate lists provide targets for people. It's if hyperbolic rhetoric provides targets.

I'd have no problem at all with Alex Jones exposing the fascist takeover of the US, if he were actually accurate. The problem is he's spouting nonsense.

I haven't listened to him in a long time, so I am not sure what you regard as nonsense or not. I do know that much of the stuff posted on his pplanet site is sourced from other places, so it is not like he is pulling stuff out of his ass when it comes to the factual bits akin to the stuff I've been pointing to re the rampant militarization and the civil liberties abuse. It's the hard stuff that can be corroborated that I am interested in, not the color commentary added on top. And the verified stuff is not at all nonsense.

But I do agree with you that rhetoric has its place in shaping the events. In fact, much to my chagrin, I'd say it far outweighs the hard data in its ability to shape the narrative and that it cuts both ways.
 
I'd have no problem at all with Alex Jones exposing the fascist takeover of the US, if he were actually accurate. The problem is he's spouting nonsense.

It's likely that it's impossible for him to ever be correct about "fascism" due to your worldview, almost no matter what the facts are or become in the future.

When supposed forms of actual/factual "accuracy" become wrapped around unfalsifiable worldviews or perceptions, it's often simpler to start backward. So what would look like evidence of emerging forms of "fascism" to you?

Note that Jones seems to be talking about corporatism and the New World Order Inc. composed of multinational corporations merging with state power and that's only an aspect of older versions of fascism that were more racist than "globalist." And he clearly thinks that he's exposing globalism and not racist forms of fascism. (I.e. he's only exposing fascism to the extent that it is Globalism Inc. and the merger of state and corporate power.)

There's little to no factual framework for what you just wrote, so you seem to be "spouting nonsense" about fascism and Jones. I'm reluctant to defend Jonestown because he mixes a big dose of crazy and hysterics into his theatrical productions but you're not even dealing with what he's saying about the merger of state power with corporatism and Globalism Inc., let alone "debunking" the factual framework he is basing his views on. The style and hysterics aside, his perspective and rhetoric is surrounded by a factual framework... in contrast, what's the factual framework for your denial that the US is becoming "fascist"?

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini
 
So what would look like evidence of emerging forms of "fascism" to you?

I'm reluctant to defend Jonestown because he mixes a big dose of crazy and hysterics into his theatrical productions but you're not even dealing with what he's saying about the merger of state power with corporatism and Globalism Inc., let alone "debunking" the factual framework he is basing his views on. The style and hysterics aside, his perspective and rhetoric is surrounded by a factual framework... in contrast, what's the factual framework for your denial that the US is becoming "fascist"?

This is what I am seeking to get at. With all the talk about what isn't taking place or how what is taking place isn't a problem re the ramp up of the state control apparatus, along with the paranoia charge, it's hard to know what folks who deny the veracity of these concerns are seeing that allows them to draw their conclusions.

If this fascist creep isn't playing out, what is playing out instead that supports the lack of concern or denial of the present state of affairs?
 
But I do agree with you that rhetoric has its place in shaping the events. In fact, much to my chagrin, I'd say it far outweighs the hard data in its ability to shape the narrative and that it cuts both ways.

Indeed.

I thought the whole point of Metabunk was to try to place things in a factual framework for the sake of falsification/verification/"debunking" and not to simply be against anything a "conspiracy theorist" like Jones has to say.

It seems to me that the primary factual claim in this thread is that the US is not becoming "fascist," otherwise the hysterics and rhetoric of Jones might be justified. (After all, it might be that he's saying that the theater is on fire because he honestly thinks he sees smoke and not just because he wants to sell everyone some tangy tangerine to douse the fire.)

Personally, I think aspects of Jonestown's worldview and overall perspective are as unfalsifiable as Mick's "nothing to see here, absolutely nothing... ever... now move along" mentality often is. What would look like "fascism" or more importantly globalism* and the New World Order Inc. being created by global bankers creating money out of nothing in order to bring multinational corporations into existence and so forth? You can't blame someone for shouting about fire in a theater, if there actual is smoke rising in the background.

*(Given that "globalism" is what Jones is actually talking about in general, etc.)
 
I stand by what I said - AJ's international and false rhetoric can prompt someone to pick a particular target.

That you think some of what he says is right is neither here nor there. That's a bunch of separate issues. I think everyone agrees he is excessively hyperbolic, and prone to falsehoods and exaggerations.

"Who's going to decide?" People will come to their own decisions. I don't decide when bunk is bunk. I look into it. I investigate. I point things out. People decide.

Jones is trying to portray himself as a martyr, and y'all seem to be falling for it.
 
Fourteen Defining Characteristics of Fascism
External Quote:
Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread
domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
 
This is what I am seeking to get at. With all the talk about what isn't taking place or how what is taking place isn't a problem re the ramp up of the state control apparatus, along with the paranoia charge, it's hard to know what folks who deny the veracity of these concerns are seeing that allows them to draw their conclusions.

If this fascist creep isn't playing out, what is playing out instead that supports the lack of concern or denial of the present state of affairs?
Indeed and even Jones apparently 'whackier' allegations of FEMA camps seem to be gaining more traction.

http://mcfriction.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/south-carolina-fema-camp-opens-for.html

External Quote:
Columbia, South Carolina has unanimously passed a measure that basically criminalizes homelessness in order to address their massive homeless problem. The homeless will be given a choice to relocate or be arrested.
If they agree to relocate they will be taken to a shelter, but a shelter allows people to come and go at will, not so for this shelter..
This “shelter” will be a remote 240-person bed emergency shelter but it is being reported that those relocated to this location will not be allowed to leave the premises without permission and there will be an armed police officer guarding the road leading to the building.
The shelter will also be used as a drop-off for people recently released from prison.
While homelessness does need to be addressed, this sounds suspiciously more like the FEMA camps we have seen talked about of late and less like a place meant to help people get back on their feet.
The city claims this is to be a temporary measure.
This follows the recent ban on feeding the homeless in Myrtle Beach.
The majority of homeless people do not choose to be homeless and treating them like criminals is tantamount to kicking someone while they are down.
(Note- Due to a small technical glitch that will be fixed shortly- the embeds aren’t appearing, so you can find the videos at the links below)
1. South Carolina City Bans Homeless People
2. Homelessness Illegal In Columbia, South Carolina
 
If this fascist creep isn't playing out, what is playing out instead that supports the lack of concern or denial of the present state of affairs?

The War on Drugs and 9/11, the inertia of a "tough on crime" political culture, graft, changes in technology.

There's a quite detailed article here examining the history of the militarization of the police. It seems quite reasonable.
http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/...olice_become_a_military_force_on_the_streets/

The suspicious might simply say that's the way "they" planned it. I say it's just how it worked out.
 
The War on Drugs and 9/11, the inertia of a "tough on crime" political culture, graft, changes in technology.

There's a quite detailed article here examining the history of the militarization of the police. It seems quite reasonable.
http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/...olice_become_a_military_force_on_the_streets/

The suspicious might simply say that's the way "they" planned it. I say it's just how it worked out.
But that is simply justifying 'what is'... not rebutting it.

As i said before, there is always a justification for anything.
 
But that is simply justifying 'what is'... not rebutting it.

As i said before, there is always a justification for anything.

It's explaining the present situation. And there's a vast difference between police depts having imbalanced funding priorities, and people being shuffled off to death camps.

It's an explanation that does not require LEOs to be "traitors".
 
It's explaining the present situation. And there's a vast difference between police depts having imbalanced funding priorities, and people being shuffled off to death camps.

It's an explanation that does not require LEOs to be "traitors".
I didn't mention 'death camps'. I was referring to the para military police state and loss of rights and warrantless invasive stop and searches being carried out and being ordered around like cattle, being spied on and being shot or tazered or pepper sprayed because you 'didn't comply quick enough or subserviently enough'.
 
This is what I am seeking to get at. With all the talk about what isn't taking place or how what is taking place isn't a problem re the ramp up of the state control apparatus, along with the paranoia charge, it's hard to know what folks who deny the veracity of these concerns are seeing that allows them to draw their conclusions.

It all seems normal to them. So even if there actually were labor camps, that would seem normal too.

In order to really understand their perspective one would probably have to look up what was written about interning Japanese Americans after the "old Pearl Harbor" and so forth. Because at the time, that seemed normal. Obviously. Otherwise people wouldn't have let their neighbors be rounded up and sent away to camps based on a perfectly normal "safety first" mentality.

If this fascist creep isn't playing out, what is playing out instead that supports the lack of concern or denial of the present state of affairs?

Whatever it is, from many perspectives it's all perfectly normal. After all, it couldn't be otherwise. I'd rather have more "sheeple" thinking that while being herded through cattle gates than someone as dumb as Ciancia beginning to think about issues beyond the capacity of his limited intellect to understand. Apparently he killed another peasant to make his point and has a problem with "fiat currency." Real. Dumb.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top