Post Your Favourite Sep.11th Theory

bambooneedle · Post by **bambooneedle** » Tue May 30, 2006 7:48 am

mood swung wrote:to recap:

Bigotry bad. Tolerance good.

Judaism is a race AND/OR a religion. Christianity not so much.

Name-calling bad, gibberish worse.

Shit on Harvard.

Did I miss anything?

Yep - it takes a rugged individual with strength and charisma to tough it out.

Mr. Average · Post by **Mr. Average** » Tue May 30, 2006 11:42 pm

bambooneedle wrote:People cling to their cultures because they're not tough enough not to.

What the hell does that mean??? I mean, I love the expression of the concept, but it suggest we consign to our cultural alignment and identity out of weakness...which is a rather stunning statement, don't you think?

Maybe we are not not tough enough not to not think about not clinging because it knots us up inside.

NOT!

alexv · Post by **alexv** » Wed May 31, 2006 1:02 am

It's amazing to me how many of these discussions, no matter what their origin, end up being about Jews.

On the point about Jews and religion, let me second what has been said by MG and MBA. Plenty of Jews all over the world identify themselves as Jewish, despite the fact that they not have a religious bone in their bodies. Being Jewish is often a cultural fact not a religious one.

On Jews, Rope says:

"As to whether the Jews control the government and media, I think that is a paranoid fantasy. A lot of folks in media and entertainment are jewish, however, and this is why Jews are often painted softly while Christians and Muslims are often painted with contempt. It's bound to happen, but I don't think that they do it totally intentionally. In real life, however, Jews are not at this time an oppressed people. In fact, the Jews who control Israel are themselves oppressors. They won't speak much of it on television, but Christian evangelists invariably cause trouble and fervent Muslims are constantly portrayed as crazy killers. You know it's so because you watch American television."

I know Rope starts out disagreeing with the "paranoid fantasy" but I'll be darn if by the end of the paragraph he seems to be downright supportive. He says that since a "lot of folks" in media and entertainment are Jewish, Jews get loved and Christians and Muslims get hated, noting that it's "bound" to happen, although they don't do it "totally" intentionally. That's a lot of qualifiers and some pretty big assumptions. "A lot of folks", it's "bound to happen", although not "totally" intentionally. Who says that a lot of folks in media and entertainment are Jewish? Media and entertainment are pretty big deals in this country. Are there Jewish quotas? Jewish cabals? But let's assume there are, for arguments sake. Why are these Jews "bound" to love all things Jewish and treat Christians and Muslims with contempt? That's a huge generalization, the kind on which conspiracy theories are built. The big, bad [fill in the group here] are all acting in concert, and secretly of course to destroy the [fill in the group here]. It's nonsense. Why are the Jews working in the media "bound" to act in concert against non-Jewish religious sects? Think about the movies. Through the entire period of studio dominance many of these studios were run by Jews. Was there a Jewish agenda they pushed through? Of course not. In fact, whenever they chose to support Jewish issues they did so tentatively and were extremely cautious not to appear to be too partisan. And where is the evidence that they are acting in concert today? It's all assumptions made by people who "expect" Jews to behave that way, because they, the ones making the assumption, need them to act that way in order for their notions of what Jews are and how they behave to be validated.

Then we get the idea that "at this time" Jews are not oppressed. I agree with that. But the next sentence brings in the kicker: it's the Jews who "at this time" are the oppressors. This is an old argument. It equates the oppression that the Jews have suffered for centuries at the hands of various bands of anti-semites, with the political "oppression" of the Palestinians. Complete nonsense. Reasonable folks, including Jews, can argue night and day about the Jewish/Palestinian question, but no reasonable person would equate what has been done, and is being done, to Palestinians in Israel with the "oppression" that Jews have suffered, yes not at this time, but as recently as 60 years ago.

[/b]

Mechanical Grace · Post by **Mechanical Grace** » Wed May 31, 2006 8:57 am

Mr. Average wrote:
bambooneedle wrote:People cling to their cultures because they're not tough enough not to.
What the hell does that mean???

See, you have to remember that 'Boo is the only one strong enough to exist as his own animal, independent of history, culture or anything else not of his explicit making and liking. I'm joking, but he IS an Ayn Rand fan, and thinks he can decide for himself what the swastika 'means'.

As for the Jewish thing, I agree with AlexV in large part. The idea that the Jews "have to take punches like everybody else" is pretty ignorant of history, and represents, to me, a very dangerous kind of relativism. Treating genocide like more 'common' (read: obscenely ubiquitous) oppression is what allows genocide to happen. I don't think the Holocaust was the first or last genocide, but that's hardly reason to compare it to the Israeli-Palestinian situation. Personally, I think Israel should get the hell out of Gaza, and politically, I think Israel has swung as distastefully and destructively to the right as the US has.

BUT it doesn't make me dislike Israel or Israelis (just as I don't dislike America or Americans). And it certainly bears no relevance to what I think or don't think of Jews-- why on earth would it?

Extreme Honey · Post by **Extreme Honey** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 1:36 pm

Honestly I didn't see this as more than a page discussion. And I'm so far behind I'm not even going to try to catch up. So here's another conspiracy link:

http://www.911truth.org

tons of different things, some believable some not. Good for digging around while on work, so long as the boss won't see! Happy surfing.

bambooneedle · Post by **bambooneedle** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:49 pm

Mr. Average wrote:
bambooneedle wrote:People cling to their cultures because they're not tough enough not to.
What the hell does that mean??? I mean, I love the expression of the concept, but it suggest we consign to our cultural alignment and identity out of weakness...which is a rather stunning statement, don't you think?

Not everyone is a clinger. Some people don't need to identify themselves by their cultural or religious background and deliberately emphasize it all the time. So my statement applies only to them (who cling), if you can read and comprehend simple english that is (or did you, for some reason, just assume everyone concerned is a clinger?)...

I'll all for cultural diversity and stuff but clinging is different and yeah it's out of weakness. At one end of the clinger spectrum, the identification is just unconscious conformity - folks are stuck in the 'group thinking' and manipulations of their tribe, so to speak. So they're too scared or weak to really conceive of realizing a sense of identity without it. Fearful thoughtlessness. At the other end, it's a very conscious choice, a political choice - they know there are advantages and also limitations from the making an issue out of their cultural or religious identification, but they accept that in hoping to manipulate what they can out of it. A selfish willfulness. The rest of the clingers are in various states of distraction somewhere in between, but it's mainly those two reasons. What has "god" got to do with the clinging? Not much.

Mechanical Grace wrote:See, you have to remember that 'Boo is the only one strong enough to exist as his own animal, independent of history, culture or anything else not of his explicit making and liking. I'm joking, but he IS an Ayn Rand fan, and thinks he can decide for himself what the swastika 'means'.

It's funny when someone tends to try to emphasize their Australianness or Italianess or Catholicness or whatever... it's a crutch, a step away from individuality (and thriving in wider culture in the present) and one towards the pitfalls of becoming a conformist group thinker. It's so superficial and adhering to largely irrelevant tradition mostly for its own sake.

I tend to agree with a lot of (what I know of) Ayn Rand's views MG but I never said I was a 'fan' of hers. And what i would have said about the swastika is that, like any symbol, it only has as much power as someone gives it. That doesn't mean I'm insensitive to its abuse.

bambooneedle · Post by **bambooneedle** » Fri Jun 02, 2006 11:52 am

Just the sort of thing.... I've never heard of this person but the first thing she emphasizes is that big cross...

King Hoarse · Post by **King Hoarse** » Fri Jun 02, 2006 12:16 pm

Maybe she feels she's been crucified?

bambooneedle · Post by **bambooneedle** » Fri Jun 02, 2006 12:26 pm

Unlikely. She's obviously trying to win favor by the association though.

Mechanical Grace · Post by **Mechanical Grace** » Fri Jun 02, 2006 1:04 pm

See, you make absolutely no sense. First you say the swastika, "like any symbol, only has as much power as someone gives it" and yet you assign a specific meaning/intention to someone's choice of jewelry on a record cover. So lemme get this straight: you can assign a 'non-abusive' meaning to the swastika, but she can't wear a cross without wanting to 'win favor by association'?

Dude, you need to stop drinkin' that bong water.

bambooneedle · Post by **bambooneedle** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 11:26 am

Of course I assign a specific meaning/intention to the use of the cross on a record cover. Because it's obvious! You know about photographic composition and so do I, that that behemoth (jewelry? ha!) of a thing is not there just incidentally -- it's a definite approval seeking gesture aimed at whoever might identify with it, it being the cover of her self-titled debut album and all.

Not sure what inconsistency you're trying to point out since what I said about symbols applied to all symbols! Essentially, that, though they may be abused, no more power should be attributed to their use than has to be.

Mechanical Grace wrote:So lemme get this straight: you can assign a 'non-abusive' meaning to the swastika

Yeah, let you get it straight - I never said anything like that! Don't trivialize this. What I said was just about how much power you give it (not ignoring everything you know about it of course) however it's used.

Mechanical Grace · Post by **Mechanical Grace** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:08 pm

You're the one trivializing-- you said you were sensitive to the "abuse" of the swastika. That implies there is a non-abusive use. I'd be hard-pressed to think of any, frankly, unless they're simply depicting past events.

Nope, I had it right: To say you think people invest too much meaning in the swastika but also that you know what meaning is intended by someone wearing a cross --a FAR more flexible symbol that has been used by people of extremely varied beliefs for thousands of years, as opposed to one used to denote a specific if short-lived fascist, genocidal regime-- is to talk out of both sides of your mouth.

Who Shot Sam? · Post by **Who Shot Sam?** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:11 pm

I thought that the swastika was originally a Hindu symbol, so there is some ambiguity to it if I'm not mistaken, though you'd certainly be hard-pressed to find someone today who associates it with anything other than Nazism/fascism.

Post by **BlueChair** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:26 pm

There's a Hindu temple in Toronto's east end with swastikas on the doors. It's clear upon second glance that it is not a shrine to Nazism, but I know several people who have kind of been weak-stomached when they first see the place.

Mechanical Grace · Post by **Mechanical Grace** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:30 pm

I think it appears/appeared in a number of so-called indigenous cultures, including ancient Greece, which is what Hitler thought he was referencing, I think.

But yeah, my point is that on the sliding scale of the power and specificity of symbols, its use by Hitler has rendered the swastika among the most specific and inflexible you could come up with, in western culture and, given the pervasiveness of western culture, pretty much anywhere. There's really no questioning what it means when used outside a specific religious (e.g. Hindu, Buddhist) context. Certainly less than a cross (of which it's a form, anyway)!

Wikipedia has a really interesting and long article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika

bambooneedle · Post by **bambooneedle** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:44 pm

Of course there are non-abusive uses for it - history books, films, etc... so don't tell me there isn't. I never said anything about assigning a different meaning to the symbol itself.

The use of that cross was also taken in its context. I already made a point of making that point. Several times.

my point is that on the sliding scale of the power and specificity of symbols, its use by Hitler has rendered the swastika among the most specific and inflexible you could come up with.

I agree. No-one is suggesting otherwise. Refer to often repeated above points, and read properly.

Mechanical Grace · Post by **Mechanical Grace** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 1:06 pm

Oh please with your 'read properly'. You may have tried to make a point several times, but it doesn't mean you succeeded. All I can figure is that you have no grasp of basic logic or that you're so busy back-peddling half the time you don't know what you're saying.

Anyway it's as much bullshit to say someone wearing a cross is pandering and trying to 'win favor by association', as it was when you claimed that Caravaggio was less than brilliant because he couldn't break out of the art 'establishment,' when no such thing existed at the time.

I don't mean to be such an asshole, believe it or not. I just hate ahistorical thinking and the arrogance that often goes with it. Frankly I think it'll be our undoing.

bambooneedle · Post by **bambooneedle** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 1:46 pm

Mechanical Grace wrote:Oh please with your 'read properly'. You may have tried to make a point several times, but it doesn't mean you succeeded. All I can figure is that you have no grasp of basic logic or that you're so busy back-peddling half the time you don't know what you're saying.

What a bunch of bullshit. Not sure whose intelligence you are underestimating most, mine, yours, or this forum's generally, but that is EXACTLY what YOU've been doing. Using attack as a form of defence, just talking out your arse. My posts regarding this matter make perfect sense, it's not my problem that you make a fool of yourself ignoring the fact.

No grasp of basic logic? Well what do you call this:

Mechanical Grace wrote:First you say the swastika, "like any symbol, only has as much power as someone gives it" and yet you assign a specific meaning/intention to someone's choice of jewelry on a record cover.

WTF did one thing have to do with the other?? Your assumptions are rife.

Mechanical Grace wrote:Anyway it's as much bullshit to say someone wearing a cross is pandering and trying to 'win favor by association', as it was when you claimed that Caravaggio was less than brilliant because he couldn't break out of the art 'establishment,' when no such thing existed at the time.

Oh, so it's just "someone wearing a cross" and ignore the specific context it was used in that I refered to? See, you do this shit all the time. I didn't say that about Caravaggio either, another case of selective memory.

Of course there was an art establishment at the time in Rome. Which is why most paintings were religious - "that's what art WAS at the time", I recall you said.

Caravaggio was alright, not bad... don't mind his early stuff.

Mechanical Grace wrote:I don't mean to be such an asshole, believe it or not. I just hate ahistorical thinking and the arrogance that often goes with it. Frankly I think it'll be our undoing.

That is precisely what you're guilty of regarding reading posts!

Mechanical Grace · Post by **Mechanical Grace** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 2:24 pm

bambooneedle wrote:My posts regarding this matter make perfect sense, it's not my problem that you make a fool of yourself ignoring the fact.

You almost never make perfect sense, sorry, and I'm hardly the first to have said as much. However that cannot be settled between us, so I'll leave it. I have every confidence in what I've written. Some of my statements may be faulty but I think they're generally cogent.

No grasp of basic logic? Well what do you call this:
First you say the swastika, "like any symbol, only has as much power as someone gives it" and yet you assign a specific meaning/intention to someone's choice of jewelry on a record cover.
WTF did one thing have to do with the other?? Your assumptions are rife.

They're both symbols. They're both things YOU chose to comment on: the swastika when the whole Prince William thing happened, and the cross here in this thread. You said entirely contradictory things about them. I decided to call you on it. Pretty simple.

Oh, so it's just "someone wearing a cross" and ignore the specific context it was used in that I refered to?

What context, that it's on a record cover? What other context is there? I am saying that within that context, you cannot know why she included it.

Of course there was an art establishment at the time in Rome. Which is why most paintings were religious - "that's what art WAS at the time", I recall you said.

Yes, I did. And if the concept of art only existed within a religious context, he wasn't pandering to an establishment, he was simply making art as it was currently defined. There was no 'anti-establishment;' that is a modern concept in the arts, and you're trying to apply it retroactively, which is meaningless. For an artist to be 'anti-establishment' at that time would be as implausible as Bach suddenly smashing his harpsichord like Pete Townshend with a guitar. That's the sort of ahistorical thinking I'm talking about.

Frankly I think it'll be our undoing.
Oooh, I'm real scared... Yours might be your hypocrisy.

Well, I for one *am* scared. Not giving up hope, but scared. If you haven't noticed, things aren't going so well in this world. And I think arrogant and lazy thinking are a big problem, and yes, I do tend to jump on significant instances of those when I see them, if I think it would educative for me or for others.

There's no question I'm guilty of some hypocrisy at times; ditto bad thinking and arrogance. That's why I keep engaging in these conversations, to try to clarify my thinking and learn about things.

Who Shot Sam? · Post by **Who Shot Sam?** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 2:26 pm

Can we have an EC Fan Forum awards program this year? I want to nominate this for Cyber-Spat of the Year!

Mechanical Grace · Post by **Mechanical Grace** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 2:44 pm

I'd say UNCLE if he'd just admit he based his snap judgment of one of the greatest painters of all time on a few images he got via Google.

Otis Westinghouse · Post by **Otis Westinghouse** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:31 pm

Uncle? UNCLE? Boo's your uncle? Man from uncle?

Who Shot Sam? · Post by **Who Shot Sam?** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:37 pm

For you Otis, courtesy of http://www.word-detective.com

Dear Word Detective: I was recently watching an old Little Rascals short in which Alfalfa was bested in a wrestling match by Porky. Since Porky is much smaller and younger than Alfalfa this was rather humorous. As Porky sat on Alfalfa's chest he told Alfalfa to say "Uncle" before he would let him up. How did the word "Uncle" come to mean "I surrender?" -- B. Kent, via the internet.

Revisiting the Golden Age of American Culture, are we? Count me in. As a matter of fact, I am seriously considering writing a book entitled "Everything I Need to Know I Learned from the Three Stooges." Nyuk nyuk. Anyway, your question struck a chord with me because I recall spending the better part of my childhood "saying uncle" to a seemingly endless series of larger, stronger opponents. And that was just in my immediate family.

The exact origin of "say uncle" or "cry uncle," an American invention first appearing in written English around 1918, is unclear, but there are, as usual, some interesting theories. One theory posits that "uncle" is actually a mangled form of the Irish word "anacol," meaning "protection" or "safety," making a demand from an aggressor to "cry uncle" equivalent to the thug demanding that his victim "cry for help" as a signal of surrender. There's no real evidence to support this theory, but there certainly was no lack of recent Irish immigrants in the U.S. around the turn of the century, so it's not entirely implausible.

The other popular theory about "cry uncle" suggests that the phrase may actually be thousands of years old, and that its origins go all the way back to the Roman Empire. According to this theory, Roman children, when beset by a bully, would be forced to say "Patrue, mi Patruissimo," or "Uncle, my best Uncle," in order to surrender and be freed. As to precisely why Ancient Roman bullies forced their victims to "cry uncle," opinions vary. It may be that the ritual was simply a way of making the victim call out for help from a grownup, thus proving his or her helplessness. Alternatively, it may have started as a way of forcing the victim to grant the bully a title of respect -- in Roman times, your father's brother was accorded nearly the same power and status as your father. The form of "uncle" used in the Latin phrase ("patrue") tends to support this theory, inasmuch as it specifically denoted your paternal uncle, as opposed to the brother of your mother ("avunculus"), who occupied a somewhat lower rung in patrilineal Roman society.

Otis Westinghouse · Post by **Otis Westinghouse** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:54 pm

Kill uncle!

Copenhagen Fan · Post by **Copenhagen Fan** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 3:01 am

You guys are way too heavy.