Yet I did not make such a generalization. They’re are plenty of “non-radicals”, who do not type out diatribes, in today’s society, that are capable of similar violence.
The state not telling the truth and McVeigh not being guilty are two different things.
I am never consistently assuming that the state is telling the truth. I am just saying I never bothered to dig into the story with much depth, so I just assumed he was guitly as everyone says.
On the face of it I’d have to disagree with that- but maybe you have a point - its just hard to tell exactly what you mean right now -please explain.
Regards, onebornfree
I understand. I used to do the same thing in my younger, more innocent days.
Maybe there is a lesson here for you, maybe not.
If what you say is true, then sometimes in the past you have chosen to assume that the state is telling the truth, and at other times you have chosen to assume that it is not.
This was your choice and yours alone, just as it was/is to cherry pick when you are going to apply/change those 2 completely different standards for your review of evidence in any one particular instance.
In other words, to use a "Matrix " analogy, in the past when reviewing affairs of the state [including the OKC bombing affair] you have made a subconscious decision to take either the red pill, or the blue pill, depending.
In the case of OKC you chose to take the blue pill.
Maybe next time something like this happens, you might try choosing to assume, ahead of time, before you believe/accept any part of an official story, that the state is not telling the truth in any way shape or form , by taking the red pill?
If not, there is nothing wrong with just admitting that you have not looked closely enough and therefor cannot make a presumption of guilt or innocence , unless of course you are a hard-core principled libertarian- those types of persons always make the mental effort to always assume innocence- no matter how convincing the state’s story in the daily state propaganda outlets { i.e all mainstream media outlets} appears to be.
If you need help achieving a more permanent “red pill mindset” [it must get tiresome switching back and forth] please private message me and I’ll see if i can help.
Regards onebornfree.
You know, sometimes bad things happen that are not a conspiracy by the state.
The government lied I agree. But McVeigh wasn’t innocent. He was guilty. It isn’t that he should have walked. It is that alot more people should had been sentanced with him.
I think Gore Vidal wrote the book on McVeigh. It’s a long read, but I read his piece on McVeigh and I think McVeigh was caught up in things that we don’t know about and never will. The government’s CYA story, as usual, makes less sense than the motives of comic book villains. Even the most abstractly evil villain - Lucifer - is not pure evil, his motive for being angry with God was on account of being kicked out of paradise. But we are supposed to believe that an interminable cast of insane villains is lined up to make pot-shots at the omnipotents in the Federal government: Lee Harvey Oswald, James Earl Ray, Sirhan Sirhan, David Koresh, Timothy McVeigh, Mohammed Atta. These men are all motivated by a blind “hatred for our way of life” or “hatred of American ideals” or “hatred for democracy” or they are just “evildoers” or what-have-you. There is no reason why they act. They are abstract evil, like the Dark Side of the Force. They do evil because they are evil and that’s what evil people do… evil.
Even second-rate, unemployed comic book script-writers can do better than that.
Clayton -
I almost forgot that today was the 11th anniversary of the Columbine massacre and the birthday of Hitler. Man, we got to watch out for this date.
"False In One, False In All"
I understand why you would say that and perhaps why you do - however I find it logically [and legally] inconsistent.
If the you know the government lied, how can you trust any of the evidence it claimed against him.
If you know some part of the evidence presented was false- as far as I can see, you “should” discard all of the “evidence” against him.
There is a legal precedent involved here called “false in one, false in all”. Try googling that phrase.
Regards, onebornfree.
There you go. A perfect opportunity for you to start over - red pill as opposed to blue pill.
If you feel inclined, perhaps throw out everything you think you know about Columbine and start over with your own, in hindsight, in depth re-examination of what really might have happened, one that does not automatically assume the truth/veracity of any of the official reports.
Believe me, this can be a “stimulating” experience! [warning- it can also be extremely time consuming].
Regards, onebornfree.
Onebornfree, what are you even trying to convey? I don’t understand.
That just as with OKC and Mcveigh, there is a lot more to the Columbine story than was/is reported in the press, and that maybe you might re-review what you think you already know about it - after “taking a red pill”, of course. Regards, onebornfree.
I am inclined to take the red pill and agree, although I have not made the effort to research on my own. I get a gut feeling based on propaganda like this.
Is one of the domestic incidents that “stink” the pilot who flew into an IRS building in Austin, Texas?
"I am inclined to take the red pill and agree, although I have not made the effort to research on my own. I get a gut feeling based on propaganda like this*.**"*
Yes, red pills are extremely important for review clarity (!), although your gut feeling will often help.
“Is one of the domestic incidents that “stink” the pilot who flew into an IRS building in Austin, Texas?”
Yes,as usual, the “stink” was/is overwhelming.
The best research questioning the official story I have seen to date [ there may well be a lot more elsewhere] on that particular incident is by “Killtown” , here :
http://killtown.blogspot.com/2010/02/austin-suicide-plane-crash-next-to-cia.html
Enjoy. [link now working]
Regards, onebornfree.
Thank You
From this interview with a former next-cell-to-McVeigh prisoner still on Death Row, it appears that McVeigh was directly involved [i.e. not what I personally suspected] , but that he was an active government operative [i.e. still employed by the government ] , involved in a covert “black op” to discredit the growing Patriot movement.
According to this prisoner McVeigh was also very much aware that it was internally pre-planted C4 explosives attached to the Murrah buildings main support columns that brought down the building, not an external fertilizer bomb, which was, in any case, incapable of bringing it down and was merely “window dressing” to disguise the use of the necessary internal explosives.
The person interviewed [inmate David Hammer] seems very credible, and the interview [by Alex Jones] “interesting”, to say the least.
Here is a YouTube link to the first part of the interview.
Regards, onebornfree.
This may well have been a ‘botched’ false flag operation and the government might have originally intended that the van full of explosives be discovered and the building evacuated before it went off. Instead like all government actions it led to the unintended consequence of the the bomb going off and instead killing hundreds of people - mostly federal bureacrats.
Why would violent acts against the state be unlibertarian - so long as they they were selective in targeting the instruments of state tyranny only?
A more important question might be : do selective violent acts against the state achieve the desired effect?
For a libertarian or anarchist, I would think not, as in general such acts only increase the size of the state , whereas for a statist, who wants more government and more government control of other people lives, then such violent acts work in their favor, in general.
Regards, onebornfree
An action may be moral but not wise and yes I agree anyone today advocating fighting a one-man guerilla war against the state is a fool or an FBI agent. I am certainly not advocating anyone going out and committing illegal acts.
However, I don’t share your view that armed struggle always leads to victory for the state as there have been numerous countries that have secured their independence through exactly those means - America included.
Secondly I do not share the view that the state can be persuaded to go quietly into that good night rather it will require a highly organised and dedicated minority to overthrow it.