U R NSA TRLZ SEZ NO BDYS

[Michael K.]

http://www.takeourworldback.com/fetzersunstein.htm

In Sunstein's discussion of whether government should choose to ignore or rebut a "conspiracy theory", he points out that the disadvantage for the government in rebutting a particular theory is that it may "legitimate" the theory, and a theory may gain rather than lose adherents when it is perceived as sufficiently plausible that the government needs to counter it. Sunstein recommends a strategy of "rebutting many conspiracy theories" because this yields a "synergistic gain" for the government from reducing "the legitimating effect of rebutting any one of them".

Since Sunstein can hardly fail to be aware that Israel did 9/11, he knows that his best strategy is to introduce many new conspiracy theories, each of them with various degrees of craziness, but they all need to be crazier than the government's own 9/11 conspiracy theory of nineteen hijackers with box cutters. Thus, Sunstein recommends a policy of countering multiple theories and "cognitive infiltration" of truth seekers, and the disinformation agents promote preposterous theories such as no-one-died-on-9/11, no-planes-hit-the-WTC, WTC-was-nuked, and no-one-died-at-Sandy-Hook. Other agents can knock down these straw men, and will attempt to counter those who tell the facts about 9/11.

Theories such as no-planes and no-one-died-at-Sandy-Hook are promoted so strongly that they appear more popular than evidence-based theories about Israel's central role in 9/11. Government benefits from the "synergistic gain" obtained from not legitimating a particular theory, specifically, Israel's orchestrating of 9/11. Third-parties (the mass audience) form the impression that "conspiracy theorists" are all a bunch of fruitcakes who think the 9/11 planes were holograms, the WTC was nuked, no children died at Sandy Hook, and "crisis actors" pretended to be bereaved family members.

[apollonian]

...
http://www.takeourworldback.com/fetzersunstein.htm
...
Since Sunstein can hardly fail to be aware that Israel did 9/11, he knows that his best strategy is to introduce many new conspiracy theories, each of them with various degrees of craziness, but they all need to be crazier than the government's own 9/11 conspiracy theory of nineteen hijackers with box cutters. Thus, Sunstein recommends a policy of countering multiple theories and "cognitive infiltration" of truth seekers, and the disinformation agents promote preposterous theories such as no-one-died-on-9/11, no-planes-hit-the-WTC, WTC-was-nuked, and no-one-died-at-Sandy-Hook. Other agents can knock down these straw men, and will attempt to counter those who tell the facts about 9/11.

Theories such as no-planes and no-one-died-at-Sandy-Hook are promoted so strongly that they appear more popular than evidence-based theories about Israel's central role in 9/11. Government benefits from the "synergistic gain" obtained from not legitimating a particular theory, specifically, Israel's orchestrating of 9/11. Third-parties (the mass audience) form the impression that "conspiracy theorists" are all a bunch of fruitcakes who think the 9/11 planes were holograms, the WTC was nuked, no children died at Sandy Hook, and "crisis actors" pretended to be bereaved family members.

Sunstein's Crap Just Dis-Info & Wishful-Thinking--Now Seconded By More Of Same
(Apollonian, 24 Jun 15)

[/size]

First obvious problem w. this "article" is "preposterous theories" of 2nd paragraph quoted above--so how are the theories "preposterous"?--this is mere assertion.  And there's serious problem for proof of planes on 9/11; there's also at least some evidence for nukes.  And the further pt. is assertions must and should be substantiated which author of above "article" fails to do--he doesn't prove the alleged "preposterous" theories are really preposterous or that they're "straw-men," he just merely asserting.  Same goes for anyone dying at Sandy hoax--what and where is the proof?  And if there's no proof for Sandy hoax, conclusion no one died is perfectly legitimate.  Regarding "crisis-actors," there's abundance of proof and evidence--just type-in "crisis-actors at Sandy hook" on u-tube search engine, and one gets lots of good material and vids.

Further, note the article is simply out-of-touch w. reality already well-known: up to 90% in polls acknowledge the JFK assassination conspiracy.  MLK assassination is now KNOWN conspiracy, proven and acknowledged in court by a jury.  Other conspiracies are also acknowledged and well-known, such as the Lusitania sinking of WWI, the Gulf-of-Tonkin "incident," totally manufactured by ZOG, the US Federal Reserve Bank scam, etc.  Nowadays, people well understand the IRS conspiracy to targeting the T-party, the "Fast & furious" arming of foreign drug cartels, and Benghazi assassination of US Ambassador dis-info.

So the question is who is kidding who?  Sunstein's article was mainly and surely directed at his own sort of psychopaths in favor of ZOG, a kind of preaching to the choir.  This article, above-quoted is just more dis-info meant to support, augment, and legitimize Sunstein's dis-info, crap and lies piled upon more crap and lies.

[Michael K.]

Your argument is a fallacy, and just like Fetzer, you have a background in philosophy and epistimology, so you know very well that it is.

You say others are "merely asserting," all the while denying proof of said assertions.  Then you make totally unproven assertions, like there are no bodies in Charleston, without the slightest shame at your own hypocrisy.

You demand proof of a negative, like if somebody says a new theory is preposterous, you say that criticism is a mere assertion until it is disproven.  But you have it ass backwards.  The burden of proof is positive on behalf of a hypothesis.  You are acting like the burden of proof is on society at large to prove that your conspiracy idea is NOT true.  But actually you are the one making a "mere assertion" needing proof.

So you fallaciously attempt to portray the whole process by which presumptions are established as being the reverse of what it really is.  For example your well known assertion that all mass casualty shootings incidents are presumed hoaxes until it's proven that they are not.

So first you mistakenly presume a false axiom, then you reason that others have to prove a negative to disestablish your logic and reasoning.  This is all the reverse of logical debate, but you knew that.

And as that isn't bad enough, you say that all the proof anyone needs is obtainable by googling youtube vids.  That's just retarded and insults the intelligence.

And then as a last flourish of your magic wand, you try to make an equivalent between criticism of your unproven and irresponsible guessing with a tacit denial that any conspiracies have ever been proven.  Of course this is because you are trying to say that wild speculation is the same as years of research and solid evidence.

[apollonian]

Your argument is a fallacy, and just like Fetzer, you have a background in philosophy and epistimology, so you know very well that it is.

You say others are "merely asserting," all the while denying proof of said assertions.  Then you make totally unproven assertions, like there are no bodies in Charleston, without the slightest shame at your own hypocrisy.

You demand proof of a negative, like if somebody says a new theory is preposterous, you say that criticism is a mere assertion until it is disproven.  But you have it ass backwards.  The burden of proof is positive on behalf of a hypothesis.  You are acting like the burden of proof is on society at large to prove that your conspiracy idea is NOT true.  But actually you are the one making a "mere assertion" needing proof.

So you fallaciously attempt to portray the whole process by which presumptions are established as being the reverse of what it really is.  For example your well known assertion that all mass casualty shootings incidents are presumed hoaxes until it's proven that they are not.

So first you mistakenly presume a false axiom, then you reason that others have to prove a negative to disestablish your logic and reasoning.  This is all the reverse of logical debate, but you knew that.

And as that isn't bad enough, you say that all the proof anyone needs is obtainable by googling youtube vids.  That's just retarded and insults the intelligence.

----------------------------------

Apo commentary in below-copied text (fm above) capped, bracketed.

"Your argument is a fallacy, [SO WHAT'S THE FALLACY?]

"...and just like Fetzer, you have a background in philosophy and epistimology, so you know very well that it is. [THAT'S (TYPICALLY) STUPID ASSERTION--IT INDICATES I DELIBERATELY AND KNOWINGLY WRITE FALLACIOUSLY.]

"You say others are "merely asserting," all the while denying proof of said assertions.  [THIS IS A LIE (ANOTHER ONE).  THE ASSERTIONS ARE PATENTLY WITHOUT ANY PROOF, JUST AS I NOTE.]

"Then you make totally unproven assertions, like there are no bodies in Charleston, without the slightest shame at your own hypocrisy.  [MORE LIES AND IDIOTIC ASSERTIONS--I DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT BODIES AT CHARLESTON, THOUGH NOW THAT U MENTIONED IT, I DON'T KNOW OF ANY BODIES.]

"You demand proof of a negative, [LIKE HOW, WHERE?--THIS IS JUST MORE MORONIC LYING BY A PEA-BRAIN.  I PT'D OUT THE ASSERTION AND NOTED THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIATION.]

"...like if somebody says a new theory is preposterous, you say that criticism is a mere assertion until it is disproven.  [NO STUPID, IT'S ASSERTION UNTIL IT'S PROVEN, AS I NOTED.]

"But you have it ass backwards.  The burden of proof is positive on behalf of a hypothesis.  You are acting like the burden of proof is on society at large to prove that your conspiracy idea is NOT true.  But actually you are the one making a "mere assertion" needing proof.  [GULF OF TONKIN "INCIDENT" IS PROVEN FRAUD/HOAX/CONSPIRACY TO LIE USA INTO VIETNAM WAR.  MLK CONSPIRACY WAS PROVEN IN CT. OF LAW AND CONFIRMED BY JURY, ETC.  Q.E.D.]

"So you fallaciously attempt to portray the whole process by which presumptions are established as being the reverse of what it really is.  [THE USUAL, STUPID NONSENSE WRITTEN BY THIS MORON.]

"For example your well known assertion that all mass casualty shootings incidents are presumed hoaxes until it's proven that they are not.  [ZOG LIES, HAS LIED, ALWAYS LIES (A LOT LIKE U), AS THEY'RE PSYCHOPATHIC CRIMINALS AND CAN ONLY LIE.  SO WHATEVER THEY SAY MUST BE PROVEN, JUST AS I'VE NOTED.]

"So first you mistakenly presume a false axiom, [WHAT "FALSE AXIOM," MORON?]

"...then you reason that others have to prove a negative to disestablish your logic and reasoning.  This is all the reverse of logical debate, but you knew that.  [NO STUPID, IT'S LIKE I NOTED: ZOG LIES, ALWAYS LIES; HENCE, BY INDUCTIVE LOGIC, ANYTHING THEY SAY IS SURELY JUST ANOTHER LIE, AND HENCE MUST BE PROVEN CONCLUSIVELY.]

"And as that isn't bad enough, you say that all the proof anyone needs is obtainable by googling youtube vids.  That's just retarded and insults the intelligence."  [THAT PRESUMES U HAVE ANY INTELLIGENCE, WHICH U OBVIOUSLY DON'T, AND PROVE IT ALL THE TIME W. PRACTICALLY EVERYTHING U WRITE.  THE TEST IS SIMPLY TO DO AS I INSTRUCTED, TYPE-IN THE QUOTED PHRASE AND SEE WHAT U GET.  IF U HAD ANY BRAINS, U'D BE DANGEROUS.  ALL U EVER DO IS TO SPAMMING THIS WEB-SITE W. STUPIDITY, IDIOCY, AND IMBECILITY, ALWAYS PRETENDING TO UR TYPICAL PHARISAIST "MORALISM."  U STINK.]

[apollonian]

...
And then as a last flourish of your magic wand, you try to make an equivalent between criticism of your unproven and irresponsible guessing with a tacit denial that any conspiracies have ever been proven.  Of course this is because you are trying to say that wild speculation is the same as years of research and solid evidence.

Apo commentary in below-copied text (fm above) capped, bracketed.

"And then as a last flourish of your magic wand, you try to make an equivalent between criticism of your unproven and irresponsible guessing [WHAT "UNPROVEN AND IRRESPONSIBLE GUESSING" ARE U EVEN TALKING ABOUT?--U DON'T SAY, AND THIS IS TYPICAL OF UR REGULAR STUPIDITY TO BE FOUND IN UR NUMEROUS MORONIC COMMENTS AND COMMENTARY.]

"...with a tacit denial that any conspiracies have ever been proven.  [WHAT?--THIS IS JUST MORE NONSENSE, EH?--DO U EVEN BOTHER TO READ WHAT IT IS THAT U WRITE?--TO MAKE SURE IT MAKES SENSE?  PRETTY SOON IT WILL BE UNDERSTOOD AS WASTE OF TIME TO REPLY TO OR EVEN READ UR BABBLING.]

"Of course this is because you are trying to say that wild speculation is the same as years of research and solid evidence.  [JUST ANOTHER ONE OF UR IDIOT LIES AND UN-SUBSTANTIATED ASSERTIONS.]

[Michael K.]

Appears on Google search, but can't find it in the TiU archives.  NSA PRISM.

Hello: I'm Christian soldier crusading against satanism (extreme ...
http://theinfounderground.com/smf/index.php?topic=19344.15