A Quickie: In Case You Had Any Doubt About ‘Reporters Without Borders’

And exactly who made it to their list? Well here are some names I’d be glad to be named alongside πŸ˜‰ :

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, Chinese President Hu Jintao, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Taliban overlord Mullah Omar.



5 Responses to “A Quickie: In Case You Had Any Doubt About ‘Reporters Without Borders’”

  1. 1 Observer May 4, 2010 at 6:16 pm

    Amusing read…..Unfortunately many will swallow this piece of shit-especially in the “highly developed democracies”. Anybody who goes against the western mafia will be met by such allegations. Recently a puppy called Karzai uttered something against the allied gang and was quickly termed as a person on drugs etc. As soon as he shut his mouth he was the same old poodle again. Anyways it was better than what Kayani can offer.

    Here is another one of the same “class”:

    CNN: Conspiracy Theorists Are Potential “Suicide Warriors” & Are Mentally Disturbed

    I would rather put you in this category πŸ˜‰
    …..and myself too.

    Swallow it or you will feel the heat πŸ˜‰

    • 2 nota May 4, 2010 at 8:35 pm

      Gladly, my friend. Gladly!!! πŸ™‚

      BTW: Psychologist Swami had already told me I was “mental”. And lately Obama has been taken on a threatening tone …(maybe Cass Sunstein has a lot to do with it): πŸ˜›

      In fact, one is apt to be labeled a conspiracy theorist for merely suggesting that there is a ruling class in this country that seeks to maintain hegemony, to say nothing of the idea that the ruling class might occasionally use conspiratorial methods. Rather than conspiracy theory, most media and intellectual gatekeepers prefer to view elite behavior through the lens of “somnambulist theory,” “coincidence theory”, “incompetence theory”, or “spontaneity theory”. No amount of intellectual gymnastics is spared to avoid arriving at the conclusion that the rich and powerful, like the rest of us, might possibly act in support of their own perceived best interests. This is, of course, in spite of a voluminous sociological literature on the power elite and “elite deviance” and a plethora of laws on the books against criminal conspiracy.

      Stonefruit (talking about a paper by Cass Sunstein, confidante of Obama, Harvard Law professor, current head of the federal Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, potential Supreme Court nominee – and the latest crusader against those dastardly conspiracy theories.

  2. 3 Project Humanbeingsfirst.org May 4, 2010 at 9:25 pm

    Interesting, about the ‘Reporters Without Borders’. Yes no longer any doubt!

    And thanks to the Observer for the video link.

    One should expect that after this buildup, just like the WMD buildup, there will actually be a “shock and awe” visitation upon “conspiracy theorists”.

    At the end of the day, one must take solace in the fact that to be handed the Hemlock, was Socrates own choice. And he declined the way out given him – something about being true to truth. Gallileo succumbed, recanted his conspiracy theories, but not Socrates. A “vocation of agony” as MLK put it, but one by choice, by the “mandates of conscience”, by the moral imperative to avoid Dante’s hell: β€œthe hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.”


    Here are some inspirational statements which hearken one to the days of gallant Socrates, willingly to the fate of Hemlock in its latter day version as “conspiracy theorist” in a modern concentration camp, retraining camp, or a single shot to the head (to save bullets) while lined up against the wall:

    β€œIn international conflicts the truth is hard to come by, because most nations are deceived about themselves. Rationalizations and the incessant search for scapegoats, are the psychological cataracts that blind us to our sins. But the day has passed for our superficial patriotism. He who lives with untruth lives in spiritual slavery. Freedom is still the bonus we receive for knowing the truth. ‘Yee shall know the truth’, says Jesus, ‘and the truth shall set you free.’ ”

    β€œThere comes a time when silence, is betrayal. The truth of these words is beyond doubt. But the mission to which they call us is a most difficult one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government’s policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty, against all the apathy of conformist thought within one’s own bosom, and then the surrounding world. … Some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night, have found that the calling to speak, is often a vocation of agony. But we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak.”

    “… This reveals that millions have chosen to move beyond the prophesy-ing of smooth patriotism, to the high grounds of firm dissent, based upon the mandates of conscience, and the reading of history. Now of course one of the difficulties in speaking out today grows out of the fact, there are those who are seeking to equate dissent, with dis-loyalty. It’s a dark day in our nation, when high level authorities, will seek to use every method, to silence dissent. Something is happening and people are not gonna be silent. The truth must be told. And I say that those who are seeking to make it appear that anyone who opposes the war in Vietnam, is a fool or traitor or enemy of our soldiers, is a person who has taken a stand against the best in our tradition. Yes we must stand and, we must speak. Over the past two years as I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures from the destruction of Vietnam, many persons have questioned me about the wisdom of my path. At the heart of their concerns, this query has loomed large and loud. ‘Why are you speaking about the War Dr. King. Why are you joining the voice of dissent, peace and civil rights don’t mix’, they say. So this morning I speak to you on this issue, because I am determined to take the Gospel seriously.”

    And just imagine, if we took our own Gospel seriously! There’d be, not just many more “conspiracy theorists”, but the streets of Pakistan would be jammed by the inevitable “mandates of conscience”.

    But, as prognosticated in the movie “V”, our Gospel might get banned as “terroristic”. We are surely building up towards that.

    Zahir Ebrahim
    Project Humanbeingsfirst.org

  3. 4 Project Humanbeingsfirst.org May 4, 2010 at 10:18 pm

    Hi – since you mentioned Cass Sunstein, and left a link to that website which looked at the broaded issue of “conspiracy theory”, I thought I’d just share with you my view of Sunstein, just fyi. Here is a comment I left there, and I think the agenda is to create legalisms which will surely only culminate in the Thought-crimes Bill. It seems so unnecessary – who in public gives a damn anyway, but “control”, that’s the key. Full control of humanity, it can’t tolearate even one errand sheep. It is unwise to misinterpret what is going on – they are not afraid of “conspiracy theorists”. They want to use that as pretext for their next set of laws. I am not sure that there is a way to preempt that – as legal bodies and law makers are already in that camp. Since public don’t matter, what can stop it? Wishes?

    “More important than a detailed analysis of a single essay would be a sustained theoretical critique of the role of “conspiracy theory” in delegitimizing information contrary to the interests and consensus reality of the elite. None of the coverage of Sunstein’s journal article offered this broader view.”

    Thank you for drawing attention to this lack of “broader view”. You are correct in general – but here is one assembled from many earlier works (see footnotes):

    Anatomy of Conspiracy Theory


    In any case, the topic is most essential to modern social engineering for manufacturing both consent and dissent, for introducing red herrings via COINTELPRO style infiltrations (what Sunstein using fancy jargon calls “beneficial cognitive diversity” through “cognitive infiltration”), and much too little has been written about it to inform the public.

    However, there is absolutely nothing new in Cass Sunstein’s paper, nor is there anything in it not already being done ever since political science and Machiavelli became the dominant tools of Western statecraft. All he has done is tried to give Harvardian academic respectability to deceit in much the same way as Zbigniew Brzezinski to “American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives” with “hegemony is as old as mankind” – so it would be foolish to give that up now.

    Same basic idea in Sunstein. I think the reason he has written that paper while saying absolutely nothing new in substance, but of course using fancy expressions which only learned lawyers can come up with, is to perhaps create the seeds for orchestrating legalisms.

    All the best,

    Zahir Ebrahim
    Project Humanbeingsfirst.org

  4. 5 nota May 4, 2010 at 10:26 pm

    One thing is really surprising: How come they left out names like Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, Castro???

    (Of course no surprise names like Mubarrak are not there)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: