I’m sure most thoughtful and intelligent people can work that out.

Anyone who thinks this story is complete is a damn fool. Something is up. I dont know what, but something. They would have found him by now, undeniable.

If we are forced to admit that there isn’t some vast evil conspiracy guiding the destruction of our country/species/planet/whatever, then we also might have to examine the dubious existence of some omnipotent, benevolent leader guiding us to some sort of salvation. The ramifications of discovering that nobody is driving the runaway train are too much for most people, I would imagine.

In other words if you can convince yourself that a force of Evil exists, then it makes the belief in a force of Good that much easier. The existence of neither suggests a certain existential nihilism.

That’s my theory, and I’m stickin’ to it.

Actually, it’s probably already someone else’s theory, with an official name and taught in Philosophy 101 or something; I’m just too uneducated to know whose.

whether they think the world was perfect up until JFK had already escalated the Vietnam war and almost started World War 3, or whether they think the world was perfect until after the US had invaded-and-then-spent-ten-years-carpetbombing iraq the first time, or whether they think a secret masonic/jewish/illuminatus/satanic/bolshevic cabal has been running the show since before the invention of the loin cloth…

there never seems to be any substantive critique of the structure (and the function which flows therefrom) in conspiracist thinking. just the vague idea that there’s some occam’s-razor-proof secret hideout within that structure, where all the REAL bad things happen.

which carries with it the idea that the readily apparent bad things aren’t really worth addressing or exploring or stopping. at least not through the pedestrian means of, y’know, addressing and confronting and stopping them.

so point 1: conspiracism is dumb, because the people who do bad shit love to talk about the bad shit they do, out in public. as opposed to conspiracists, who love to talk loudly, and in public, about their own pet scenario where Bad People In Secret Want To Keep The Truth Silent.

and point 2: i don’t think “radical” ought to be conflated with “angry and dumb and loud.” maybe it’s just bein’ a kid who grew up with the Ninja Turtles and anarcho-punk.

by that logic, glenn beck, 9/11 truthers, the jersey shore cast, neo-nazis, kanye, the Spartacists, and that dude in front of you in line who can never figure out how to use the ATM all fall into the same political category. which makes me think the category might not be super useful.

(not that i think “liberal” or “progressive” are real helpful as political terms either. but then, no ninja-victory or pizza topping was ever declared to be “Liberal!” or “Progressive!” in my childhood. just car insurance and elected politicians family friends who drove volvos.)

Congratulations, you have see through their lies.

P.S. That whole not running with scissors thing, total BS.

“Who showed that he [Bin Laden] is indeed a CIA agent was WikiLeaks. It proved it with documents,” he said, but did not explain exactly how.

Castro is just askin’ questions? Maybe he watches too much FOX “News” with Glenn Beck?

I also agree with the final two paragraphs: “Humanity ought to take care of itself if it wants to live thousands more years,” he said.”

The dude’s got a point with that.

It’s not like he (Bush) was getting a blow job and thought he shouldn’t tell us. His administration started a war on false pretenses that is ongoing. And both of our constructed states are tottery and weak. Who knows when we’ll actually pull all of our troops out? And when we do, Iraq and Afghanistan will crumble. I could be wrong, but I’m probably not.

We’re trapped in these situations too. If we pull our troops out before powerful, secular democracies are in place, those areas will become the ‘terrorist haven’ that we claimed to be preventing. And more people will have a reason to want to kill Americans.

Western domestic and foreign policy, specifically American, has been abysmal and idiotic of late. Welp, I’m off to continue my trudge to 1984.

It’s not.

Except in the solipsistic gyre of the apologist mind.

Anyone who suggests that the invasion of Iraq was not, and is not a conspiracy is either misinformed or dishonest. I will give sapere_aude the benefit of the doubt and assume it is the latter.

This is a shameful, lazy, and dishonest characterization using random guilt-by-association (“UFOs!”) of individuals who question official narrative. Compare the entirely subjective, insubstantial rambling of your post to that of Tatsuma’s at #45, which is the polar opposite: succinct, germane, entirely objective, meticulously sourced, and crafted into an easy to follow timeline.

Why is he considered insane while you are not?