[Peace-discuss] Re: [sf-core] Fw: don't be afraid

[unionyes]

" We need to analyze those institutions in fact, not
come to conclusions about them a priori (e.g., "the Bush administration must
have been consciously involved in 9/11 because it served their interests"). 
"

Again I agree Carl,

But when we are dealing with their ( the ruling class ) propoganda and how 
they are so successful ( to this point ) influencing a large segment of the 
population to believe their lies, wouldn't the first step be to expose them 
for their lies and crimes ?
Specific examples that is, in particular one of their foundation 
cornerstones rationalizing their current crime wave .

David J.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
To: "unionyes" <unionyes at ameritech.net>
Cc: "Peace-discuss List" <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 8:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Re: [sf-core] Fw: don't be afraid


> "Conspiracy," etymologically, means "breathing together," a rather poetic 
> way to
> describe conscious planning.  Of course there are conspiracies, and all 
> institutions - which the sociologists think of as just patterned ways of 
> doing things - are conspiracies in a morally neutral sense of the word. 
> (In a less neutral sense, G. B. Shaw observed a century ago, "All 
> professions are conspiracies against the laity" - by which he meant 
> ordinary people.)
>
> When the old man in the British Museum wrote (as a young man), "The 
> history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class 
> struggles," he surely didn't imagine that those struggles went on as it 
> were instinctually, entirely without conscious planning.  But class 
> struggle is not perspicuous: it's not obvious what's going on.  We need to 
> analyze those institutions in fact, not come to conclusions about them a 
> priori (e.g., "the Bush administration must have been consciously involved 
> in 9/11 because it served their interests").
>
> Regards, CGE
>
> unionyes wrote:
>> "Worse, this listing of "conspiracies," even if they can be brought 
>> together
>> under that heading, implies nothing about the circumstances of either 
>> 9/11
>> or the lap bomber."
>>
>> That's true Carl,
>>
>> Some of it was dubious, but a lot of it was factual events. Which as you
>> state, some of these may not be considered to some as conspiracies. Which 
>> in
>> my opinion is a matter of semantics.
>>
>> What do you consider a conspiracy ?
>>
>> David J.
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "C. G. Estabrook" 
>> <galliher at illinois.edu> To: "unionyes" <unionyes at ameritech.net> Cc: 
>> <Undisclosed-Recipient:>;
>> <@smtp119.sbc.mail.re3.yahoo.com>; "Socialist Forum"
>> <sf-core at yahoogroups.com>; "Peace-discuss" <peace-discuss at anti-war.net> 
>> Sent:
>> Monday, January 04, 2010 7:14 PM Subject: Re: [sf-core] Fw: don't be 
>> afraid
>>
>>
>>> The piece from "New World Order Report" contains some interesting 
>>> material
>>> that a real democratic political discussion in this country would 
>>> consider
>>> - rather than momentous issues like whether Obama is smart and Bush 
>>> stupid.
>>>
>>>
>>> But as it stands the piece is at least a bit credulous - e.g., it's not 
>>> the
>>> case that "The Rothschild dynasty owns roughly half of the world’s 
>>> wealth,"
>>> and the "Secret Team" stuff has been been pretty well exploded; also, I 
>>> had
>>> the pleasure of listening as a callow youth to J. K. Galbraith's account 
>>> of
>>> his experience in the Kennedy administration, and I don't doubt his view
>>> that "The Report from Iron Mountain" is a hoax, in the sense of a
>>> cautionary tale.
>>>
>>> Worse, this listing of "conspiracies," even if they can be brought 
>>> together
>>> under that heading, implies nothing about the circumstances of either 
>>> 9/11
>>> or the lap bomber.
>>>
>>> But it may help us to examine institutions and their behavior, notably 
>>> the
>>> USG and the American corporate structure.  --CGE
>>>
>>>
>>> unionyes wrote:
>>>> *Since were on the topic of conspiracies, check out the link below that 
>>>> a
>>>> friend of mine just sent me ;* *" 33 Conspiracy Theories that turned 
>>>> out
>>>> to be true "* ** *I don't agree with all of them as being " conspiracy
>>>> theories " but still an interesting read.* ** *David J.* ** ** -----
>>>> Original Message ----- *Sent:* Monday, January 04, 2010 5:28 PM 
>>>> *Subject:* Re: don't be afraid
>>>>
>>>> http://www.newworldorderreport.com/Articles/tabid/266/ID/980/33-Conspiracy-Theories-That-Turned-Out-To-Be-True-What-Every-Person-Should-Know.aspx
>>>>