Hi ya, as I posted in the Message from Iran post by Parviz. I'm wondering if any ex-moon bats were able to get the CD Bernhard offered of the MOA/billmon archives? if so, would anyone be willing to make me a copy? I'd be happy to pay for the cd & postage. Also, while looking over the memberlist, it filled me with both joy and sadness, I miss moon, but what was MOA, but for it's contributers, the moon bats!?

Anyway, I'd like to take the time to apologize to Parvis for going completely off topic on his Iran thread in addressing the above, after razzing him in agreement with my known friend lizard. That was rude and not very thoughtful.

So, could we get a check in of ex-MOA's? I find it especially needed at this time, because things have turned super covert and freaky wrt goings of the axis mundi. The powers that be are voting today* on Whether to take complete control of the Internet (as we know it) or to redouble their efforts to use your tax dollars for ‘cognitive infiltration'** or psyops of those it deems disruptor's*** to the official narrative. I find it especially ominous that so many so called progressives seem to be blind-sided by having their brand being up at bat, that they either choose to forget, or are ignorant of how the system works, in other words, the laws, provisions and powers passed by one administration (read: Bush in this instance) continue unabated by another (Obama) in that power never, ever, relinquishes authority once it is acquired.

*("The Federal Communications Commission is crafting new Net Neutrality rules right now. The public has until Thursday (today 1/14/10) at midnight to tell the FCC what we value about the Internet, and why we want the agency to create a strong Net Neutrality rule to protect it.") http://www.eff.org/press/archives/2010/01/14


**‘cognitive infiltration'
http://rawstory.com/2010/01/obama-staffer-infiltration-911-groups/

***disruptor's
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/11/212726/954

uncle - before you created this one, i sent you a private msg so as not to disrupt the topic of the other thread. let me know if you still need a copy.

{remaining content of the post has been redacted due to my misunderstanding of the news report}

U$-

Good to see your post again!

I don't have a whole lot of hope, this website I posted http://www.amnestyusa.org/lte/findpaper.php?ICID=T1001A01&z=03302-0534&s=NH has only received 1650 hits, and they're only trying to get 10,000 people to point and click that they're against torture.

Liberal/conservative are just the names of teams. You're either with 'um or against 'um! God forbid you challenge 'um and in case you ain't noticed, both teams seem to like looting the treasury

DaveS

Hi uncle $cam!

I'd love to send you a copy of my disc, but I won't let go of my autograph copy. But I first must figure out how to burn a disc, something that I've never done before.

And I must say that I miss Bernhard so much that it hurts. He occasionally leaves a comment on Colonel Lang's site. But I remain silent because I sense that he wants to keep to himself. Which is fine, I respect that in him.

I'm forced to introduce a sour note, which I realize won't help me in the popularity stakes on this Blog:

I've occasionally seen Bernhard in the NYT, posting in the 'comments' sections of Op-Eds under the initials MoA, but I'm sorry to say that in each case he strongly defended the Iranian regime, belittled the Green Movement and even suggested in writing that the thuggish Iranian regime use water-cannon as an effective way of ending the protests once and for all. If you like I'll dig up the quotes which made me sick to my stomach. So much for this particular 'revolutionary' .......

So it's not me hounding Bernhard but Bernhard continuing his vendetta against a genuine grassroots uprising facing a brutish pseudo-religious Kleptocracy.

Again, sorry to all of you who believe Bernhard can do no wrong.

give it up, parviz

1. b never claimed to be a revolutionary or a big-L leftist
2. not even a single individual here has ever claimed that b 'can do no wrong'

your reliance on crude & fallacious arguments are really lame, imo, especially from someone who has actually called himself a warrior of words yet has to whip up strawmen and put ridiculous attributions in the mouths of others in order to disrupt dialogue

pathetic, actually, and that's all i intend to say on the matter

Here's one quote in which Bernhard claims the deaths in Iran are the fault of the protesters, which I find strange considering the fact that almost 300 protesters have died compared with only a handful of knife-wielding Baseeji thugs. In fact, several videos have shown the protesters capturing, and then releasing, Revolutionary Guards to signal the peaceful nature of their protests:

http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2009/12/29/opinion/29tue1.html?sort=oldest

If I manage to locate Bernhard's other 'comments' on Iran, especially his call for a more effectively brutal means of crowd control by the Revolutionary Guards, I'll post them on the Iran thread, not here.

I think maybe one reason MoA died is because it lost its way ......

I don't know if this Justin Raimondo note originally posted at Antiwar.com really fits into the current thread, but I guess it can be thought of as a "hello to Uncle $cam" link. Paul Craig Roberts also chimes in on the same topic, with his usual "reasonable right" viewpoint. Phil Giraldi adds his two bits to the discussion, and further illustrates the paradox of economic rightists and ex-Cia folk who analyze American foreign policy in terms that are not all that far from those of our esteemed comrade RGiap.

Raimondo has another interesting take (with lots of links) on the assassination of Massoud-Ali-Mohammadi.

I'm mostly lurking here at le speakeasy, so as not to miss Lizard's pomes. Been spending a fair amount of time over at Feral Scholar, where lately, DeAnander has been posting some kick-ass threads like this: http://www.feralscholar.org/blog/index.php/2010/01/14/the-arts-of-the-possible/

hi uncle S. Have copy of disc, can send if ...

---------

After some comments about google, and looking up some things about Iran, see the ongoing discussion, I offer this comparison:

entering IRAN PROTESTS

into Altavista / Google gives very different results. Try it.

Altavista, 5 top:

1) Iran's electoral commission declared Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the winner on June 13, 2009 ... Iran Post Election Protests ((maholo com))

2) There have been mass protests by supporters of candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi in Iran after President Ahmadinejad was declared the winner of the June election ((the world org))

3) The protests were given several titles by their proponents including Green ... great victory" for Iran, dismissing the protests as little more than " ... ((wiki))

4) Iran's defeated presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi said on ... protest the declared results of the Iranian presidential election in Tehran, Iran, ... ((boston com))

5) ((yekiran.com/protests))

Google:

1) Head: Dueling protests erupt at Irans prof. funeral.

The added lines send off to about 1000 links, almost all to Anglo MSM

2) Video results, the two shown are BBC and Youtube which shows street protests

3) At least 5 killed in Iran protests (from Yahoo) (single ref)

4) Ahmadinejad blames US, Israel for Iran protests ((from smh com)) (single ref)

5) goes to ((wiki))

I was astonished at the difference. Of course Altavista is some clapped out old search engine on its last legs.

the strength of this forum rests on the quality of its dialogue.

like Debs, i credit the fierce polemics of iran's uprising as a major contributor to b's decision to shut down the whiskey bar, and i believe the cheap reductive attacks by our pontificating interloper will continue to erode this forum, if allowed to.

on a different note i just came across THE COMING INSURRECTION put out by Semiotext(e) (http://www.semiotexte.com/) and it's well worth checking out.

catlady: thank you for clueing me in to DeAnder's piece, and the support i try always to communicate honestly and urgently with my comrades here, but my patience with the pontificator is all used up.

the trick is linkage, people, but these virtual forums are not guarantees. we are lucky to be here. we are lucky to be speaking across unbelievable leaps of topography.

the strength of this forum rests on the quality of its dialogue.

abusers beware.

Bill Conroy has some additional material on the underpants bomber, and the recent Khost attack against the CIA. Al Qaeda gets a lot of mention, but so does the ISI, which, to me, is a more believable factor, as is British intelligence which also figures implicitly in the drama. (See this old post by the redoubtable Craig Murray.) Interestingly, there's no mention of RAW, although the Mumbai attacks do figure in Conroy's article. The comments at the end of the article are particularly worthy of attention. There seem to be so many intelligence agencies maneuvering "Al Qaeda" that one needs a scorecard to keep track, and, of course, that's the last thing we are likely to receive from the interested parties or their mediatic acolytes. To integrate a literary note here, an amusing (and fictional?) account of the doings of the ISI and their friends is given in A Case of Exploding Mangoes" by Mohammed Hanif.


The earthquake in Haiti seems to have had the side effect of pushing that story and its consequences out of the spotlight. I note, meanwhile, that the U.S. has taken control of the airport in Port-au-Prince. Only a paranoid would think this has anything to do with the accord with the Netherlands regarding the Dutch Antilles, and still less with Venezuela, but paranoia can be habit forming.

I think that the BBC is going to broadcast (or perhaps already has broadcast) a "service" regarding the Lockerbie bombing and "conspiracy theories". I assume that the revised standard official story will remain dogma, but would be interested in hearing "deconstructions" of what they offer.

dave, i would just like to quickly remind you how parviz started this recent campaign:

Ah, lizard,

I understand what you're saying, and I'm not saying I agree with parviz, but wouldn't it be easier to just ignore the name calling? By engaging in such a conversation you continue it. Surely you've learned how to direct a a discussion into areas you want to address? If you/we ignore the ugly and try to find a middle ground to discuss Iran, then maybe we'll move foreword. Otherwise we're doing the opposition's work for them.

I don't like how easy threads with parviz can degenerate into these kinds of messes, but on the other hand, there are more gawkers commenting than there has been in a while, and I don't find that a bad thing.

Sometimes it's easier when dealing with people who think you're an idiot, to just agree with them, let them say their piece and glean anything useful you can from that. You'll never change another person's opinion by attacking them or threatening them; just think how stubborn and redneck you feel when parviz attacks you... it's a two way street.


I like this quote,

Uncle $cam

Yes, things are worse than ever without a doubt. You and others may laugh at me, but I think Adrian Salbuchi's YouTube channel is worth looking into. He correctly says “we the people” are the insurgents. The world revolution will take decades, we need to work for things that we will not live to see. We must link and think long term.

If you still need a MOA CD, let me know.

I'm sorry to see people getting distracted by the creep in here. Uncle started a thread about something important if the legislation goes through as it probably it won't even need one asshole to crash through an online community with sock puppets and ignorant offsiders to wreck dialogue on the net, any of the governments where any of the contributors come from will be able to do it. If the asshole was genuine he would be more worried about that than who said what to whom at MoA.
Anyway I did want to point out that some of the contributions here remind me of the classic amerikan liberal such as is currently being caricatured on some routinely awful legal show.
The judge is so liberal in his decisions (liberal in the weird amerikan sense of the word that really doesn't translate anywhere else) his determination to protect a meaningless abstract called 'freedom of speech' means inevitably the baby gets thrown out with the bath water.
By bending over backwards to protect so-called 'liberal' values especially in the face of a vicious onslaught by unprincipled deniers of freedom, the liberal contributes to a loss of real freedoms rather than notional constructs such as freedom of speech.
Suddenly the ability for a society to protect itself from the lies used as a pretext for violence and mayhem is taken from it in the name of 'freedom of speech'.

Why? because the liberal doesn't trust him/herself to judge exactly when something is ok and when it isn't? saying in effect that it is 'too hard to tell' and like some mad xtian turning the other cheek to an onslaught of swings from an ax, allows him/herself to be decapitated. Or more likely tells someone else to keep 'turning the other cheek' until they are a bloodied pulp.
In the latter case an objective onlooker would be entitled to wonder how liberal the liberal really was. Maybe they were just aping liberalism to provide a path for yet another attack on ordinary humans' freedoms.
Now I know that isn't the case here but it most certainly has been a fair question to ask some so called liberals in positions of power who have pushed principle to seemingly suicidal positions.

I don't know, I've never been a liberal but I have seen how liberal politicians seem to turn ordinary human desires into a vehicle for self aggrandisement far too often. Unfortunately their line in specious bullshit sticks long after the stink of the corrupt politician who farted out the message.

Since apparently uncle 'did it first' to use the sort of school yard logic which becomes necessary when dealing with an unprincipled bully (no not uncle) by being off topic in an asshole thread, I won't say anything this time but if the asshole brings his trolling and disruptive off topic techniques into any more threads I for one will be agitating for the expulsion of the asshole.
Liberalism be damned.

p.s How are ya Uncle? Great to see ya! If any of these other promises don't materialise lemme know, I'm still at the same addy and I'll send you a copy of the disk which stares reproachfully at me from the top of my non-virtual in tray.

Speaking of agitating debs...

I can't believe how quick some folks are to discuss banning folks from sites. I was on a really interesting site, a couple of the posters held political opinions that ran contrary to some of the moderators and so they got banned. It was a technical forum and these we're two of the better "fixers" but the mods cut off their nose to spite their face. I stopped visiting there, as many other did too, I needed those guy's help, I didn't care what they thought. Their political beliefs didn't impair their technical skills at all.

Ban parviz, ban me, ban everyone, and then you never need worry about bumping into an opinion that doesn't agree with your own. Is this how we're going to go about fixing the world?

I'm a stupid idiot and I can't remember where you're posting from... I seem to recall NZ, is this right? I will make a broad generalization about folks from NZ, I am after all an ignorant amerikan and feel so entitled to these wide brush strokes of opinion.

Living on the bottom of the world on a tiny, cut-off from many problems of the western hemisphere small country, it is pretty easy to throw stones, hold stubborn to your opinions and otherwise judge the rest of us as either; ignorant, stupid, asleep, unconcerned or simply plain dumb. Looking around at many of my fellow humans I can't help but agree.

The difference is I realize everyone else effects me, so I better listen to what they say... no matter how different, because this is the kind of empathy that will change the world.

Banning everyone won't change anything.

DaveS

Why would I want to ban you DaveS? Believe it or not I'm not actually in favour of banning those who I disagree with .
If you had actually read what I wrote you would see that it isn't the asshole's opinions I take issue with; it is his methodology, but rather than engage in a meaningful debate about the the constant stream of invective, lies and threats that this creep uses as a 'debating technique' you would rather get tied up in a ridiculous exaggeration of what you say I said.
As per usual after this was pointed out, the asshole haunts the blog writing on everything and anything acting as though he isn't really a one issue troll. If you have a MoA disk search it and you will discern the pattern.
Eventually after a while his dribblings about the facist left and how only his mob know anything about anything will be meandering through every thread, every issue hi-jacked because they have been raised by someone he determines to be a lunatic leftie.
I normally wouldn't worry except his needling appears to provoke a response from those who ought to know better, and I have no hang-ups about using preventative measures where educative ones have failed if the problem warrants it.

I barely come here any more since I find the notion of reliving the dying days of MoA ad nauseum very unappealing. It shouldn't be like that but is because of this crazy 'liberal' attitude that permits anyone to shit on the carpet if they follow up with a "sorry but free speech and all that".

I didn't bother to read whatever it is you reckon humans from my part of the world should be although I can surmise it will be the usual 'seen and not heard' favoured by those who prefer their discussions to proceed along the narrow paths proscribed by white middle class northerners.
Quite frankly if I could be certain that a huge wall that would keep the materially and philosphically poisonous garbage that the north pumps out 24/7/365, at bay, could be built, I would happily pull my head in here whilst I agitated in the south for its construction.

But there is no chance of that.

In fact my country is in a very similar situation to that of Haiti. It is Haiti I have come in to discuss every time in the last 10 days I have been in here, But I have allowed myself to get diverted by the rantings of insensitive ninnies every time. I rush to point out that no, I am not comparing my country's current social situation to that of Haiti, most peeps here are still getting enough to eat and are reasonably healthy, but our independence is under attack from the same political and economic sources as those which have made existence in Haiti so dire. I will go to the Haiti thread I began last week now and post on this there.
I trust that others will also use this thread to discuss the issue that Uncle $cam raised.

Debbie's 2 posts should be framed for everyone to see a classic example of how someone posing as an intellectual is actually a Fascist in disguise, replete with ugly invectives intended to ignore the message and shoot the messenger.

"..... determination to protect a meaningless abstract called 'freedom of speech' means inevitably the baby gets thrown out with the bath water."

"By bending over backwards to protect so-called 'liberal' values especially in the face of a vicious onslaught by unprincipled deniers of freedom, the liberal contributes to a loss of real freedoms rather than notional constructs such as freedom of speech."

"Liberalism be damned"

"I have no hang-ups about using preventative measures where educative ones have failed if the problem warrants it."

SIEG HEIL, MEIN FUEHRER!!! LOCK UP ALL THE LIBERALS AND THOSE WHO DISAGREE WITH YOU!!!

etc.,.

Need I go on? Well, Debbie, you've shown your true colours. Shame on you for your sad, self-pitying diatribe, but thanks for laying bare your dark, Fascist soul in such graphic and well documented fashion. Debs truly is Dead. I don't think you were ever really alive to begin with.

Heya, $cam. I haven't been around much, but I peeked by today and saw your post here. Good to hear you're still walking and talking.

Last I checked (months ago), the same argument with the same people was raging here, so I decided not to fan anything that was already unproductive with any superfluous participation. I'll be dropping back out again.

good to see ya monolycus. i certainly wish more folks would chime in more often. maybe that's why i'm a sucker for engagement.

i don't know why i defend "dialogue" because not much of it happens round here. shows how difficult providing consistent content is--which always impressed me about our old barkeep.

as far as this goes: