Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: This Forum Is Infested With 9/11 Truthards. What happened To Rational Thinking?

Posted 1 month ago on Aug. 22, 2014, 12:56 a.m. EST by DiegoAlbanese (-45) from Miami, FL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The way to the future is rational thinking. We can't have a better world without clear thought.

So, it's a major problem when the vast majority of users here are 9/11 Truthards.

40 Comments

40 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by CKnall (11) 1 month ago

What happened to questioning authority and looking for the truth out of explanations that are used as excuses to force cheap labor, surveillance, the resurgence of COINTELPRO on a massive scale, PSYOPs a la MINERVA, oligarch coup d'etat of our democracy, etc.?

Copied from a previous reply. Even the 9/11 Commission Report hints at it and history points the way. In addition to what is below, read the FOIA document on NORTHWOODS first reported on by James Bamford who also noted the Gulf of Tonkin incident history that lead to war in Vietnam was being re-written. Note also Cheney reclassifying documents, some over a century old. This is a massive INFOOP.


Forget for a moment everything you've heard about conspiracy theories regarding 9/11. Like watching stage magic, it's sometimes the "how could it be done?" that serves as impediment to accepting that maybe it was.

First, one needs to understand the post WWII history of the United States. There's the stuff we are all familiar with, Eisenhower's military-industrial-(Congressional) complex for example. The "Red Scare" served as fear motivator for spending and for civil rights abuses like COINTELPRO.

In addition, some American industrialists still resented the New Deal and considered it Communist. Fred Koch, father of Charles and David, cofounded The John Birch Society which considered anyone and anything who didn't agree with its extreme oligarchy friendly views to likewise be Communist.

All of this served to create the foundation of what is now referred to as the Deep State. The Deep State is, at its core, an unholy alliance between the US intelligence community and Wall Street. There are numerous private contractors and estimates on how IC money is spent today suggests 70% of it is outsourced.

9/11, as NSA whistleblower Thomas Drake's superior told him in 2001, was a gift to the IC. Fear again motivated and drove industry. The problem, of course, there simply aren't enough terrorists and therefore work to keep the Top Secret America machine, which though it has had members such as Carlyle Group's Booz Allen Hamilton since 1917, grew exponentially after 9/11.

Meanwhile, hardliners among the Joint Chiefs and the CIA, seeing the economic improvements of the 90s, saw that Americans were losing their stomach for war. Limited, typically airstrike, conflicts were all that the US public would tolerate. In their view, climate change and peak oil around the corner, that had to change.

Osama Bin Laden was, at least in 1987, a US-backed "freedom fighter" working against the Soviets in Afghanistan. This is especially important because the CIA has in the FAQ of their website a statement claiming that they never maintained a working relationship with him. Forgetting for a moment how they may have had attorneys define the words that they used, it's a blatant falsehood. The events of the film, though altered for dramatic purposes, Charlie Wilson's War, depict what should be common knowledge: the US trained and armed the mujaheddin as proxies against the Soviets for much of the 1980s.

In the 1990s, the Taliban visited the US, made contact with energy corporations, and sought to become the recognized governmental authority of Afghanistan. Clinton considered, but refused, we are told, because Hillary mentioned the Taliban's abysmal human rights record especially where women are concerned. This refusal later resulted in a failed assassination attempt in Asia.

Now the history of the CIA. After WWII, when the OSS was transitioning to become the Agency, Nazis were brought over to aid the fight against Communism. They went to work in various places...rocket technology, propaganda at Voice of America:

http://m.thenation.com/blog/179057-seven-decades-nazi-collaboration-americas-dirty-little-ukraine-secret

...and at Fort Detrick on project MK/Ultra. In reality, MK/Ultra was several projects, that included things like "negro attitudes," child personality development, mental illness, all sorts of drugs and substances, delivery methods of same, voting decisions, and lots more.

http://mccoyote.wordpress.com/mkultra/

Some of the more disturbing things that came out of this and similar programs tools decades to see the light of day. There is still a great deal we don't know. In 1995, some victims testified before Congress as related to human radiation experiments. It become clear that the programs that the US Senate assured us had ended in the 1960s continued much later.

Note that one subject, who was a young girl at the time, was used by Dr. Luther Wilson Greene to blackmail decision makers when he and his team feared that funding might dry up. This is one small glimpse into the power, the corruption, and audacity of some of the people we assume are subject to Congressional oversight.

While the results, from what I can tell...I have become an amateur historian on behavioral modification, were not what we might expect from watching Hollywood films, the obvious is true: if you are able to inflict enough pain on a person, you can generally get them to take some course of action that they normally would not. In addition, merely isolating and traumatizing a person--that alone!--can cause mental illness and hallucinations. Apparently, human beings did not evolve to live alone.

This entire body of knowledge from human experimentation that we still to this day don't know the full story of.

What do we have so far? Motive: financial. And I haven't even mentioned how Afghan heroin exports went from less than 200 tons a year to nearly 6,000 from 2001 to 2012. The Russians largely enjoyed profiting from it before 9/11, so you can get an idea why they're a little sore at us, though according to one analyst at Boiling Frogs Post, NATO throws the Russians a piece of the action.

We also have psychological profile: they brought in and learned from actual Nazis and passed this "wisdom" down. Some of the things done are nearly unbelievable to most people, even as what happened at Auschwitz had been.

We have opportunity. The CIA, the Pentagon, and NATO itself, had access to people like Osama Bin Laden and other men who became leaders in All Qaeda.

That leaves weapon. Here's where it gets confusing. Rather than explain it, I'll just link you to a pair of articles regarding a technology that the FBI consulted with some Russian scientists on in 1993 when they sought solutions to the David Koresh/Branch Davidian/Waco standoff. Pay particular attention to how the CIA had been tracking Smirnov since the early 1980s. The US obviously had something similar. There's more, but I'm attempting to keep this brief.

http://mccoyote.wordpress.com/apc/

http://mccoyote.wordpress.com/acpsycor2/

In addition, as the OP noted, Al Qaeda struck back in part due to the US' own violent tendencies. This is, to the kinds of people orchestrate these false-flag operations, a feature, not a bug. The more trouble that they stir up, the more attention it gets, the more unquestioned tax dollars they steal. Part of behavioral modification is making existence so unbearable that desperation and emotion makes the target easier to manipulate.

As to who... The 9/11 Commission Report itself mentions the behavior of several senior officers. Among these, A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard. Again, I'll let you read it for yourself. Also note that Buzzy's brother was Inspector General at CIA and that he did not recuse himself.

http://historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=a.b._(_buzzy_)_krongard

In addition, both brothers were instrumental in getting Erik Prince's Blackwater a no-bid contract:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/17/us/17brothers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Note that Prince is the son of a founder of the Religious Right movement. {Many of the aforementioned attitudes have historical precedents and get passed down generationally.}

Some may also recall that Cofer Black was Mitt Romney's foreign policy expert during the 2012 campaign. Is it any wonder then he wanted to double the size of Gitmo?

Then there's Graham Fuller, a CIA officer who worked, guess where, Afghanistan during the 1980s. Most interesting there, Fuller was married into the Boston Marathon bombers/Tsarnaev family for a time:

http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2013/05/22/boston-and-the-cia-snafu-part-ii-cias-graham-fuller-a-deep-state-rogue/

Why might that be relevant?

http://reason.com/archives/2013/05/05/new-report-blows-the-lid-off-americas-re

In the news now, it becomes obvious that the CIA is falling on its sword for Bush and Cheney by taking full blame, or most of it, for torture. But see the difference just days before the Boston Marathon attack?

There is Deep State malfeasance happening around us all the time. It is disguised as accident or the oppositional actions of others by design. How to tell the difference is not easy.

Destructive? Yes. But what is destructive to the Deep State is good for America, the 99%, and Occupy.

My draft "Activist's Primer on Counter-Intelligence":

http://mccoyote.wordpress.com/activists-primer-on-counter-intelligence/

Chris Knall

[-] 2 points by Nevada1 (4684) 1 month ago

Thank you Chris Knall. Everyone should see this.

[-] 1 points by DouglasAdams (183) 1 month ago

The authorities wanted to change the subject without answering the question.

Questioning Mayor Bloomberg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URzlGkxMO90

Mayor Bloomberg on the Constitution

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHxLv6AG5lo

[-] 1 points by StillModestCapitalist (248) 1 month ago

Full of interesting tidbits of potential truth. However, the notion that our government planned 9/11 remains utterly absurd. I have no problem acknowledging the possibility, although unlikely, that WTC 7 was brought down intentionally for one reason or another but that's as far as I'll ever go on the remote possibility of an inside job.

If our government had planned 9/11, then it would have required the total cooperation, secrecy, loyalty, and absolute commitment of dozens at the very least over a period of time overlapping two separate administrations at partisan odds with each other and with no regard whatsoever for the possibility of evidence left behind, a single whistle blower, a successful investigation, or the electric chair.

Again, the notion is utterly absurd.

[-] -3 points by DiegoAlbanese (-45) from Miami, FL 1 month ago

What happened to questioning authority and looking for the truth out of explanations

Truthers don't do that at all. Actually, debunkers do.

[-] 3 points by Ihippy (46) 4 weeks ago

Nobody is trying to "disprove" bigfoot, UFOs, area 51, not any other mystery or conspiracy with the fervor that people are trying to discredit "truthers". That kind of effort must also be recognized and data about such actions should be documented as part of the conspiracy. IMO


The NSA, FBI, CIA and even the president all had foreknowledge about the plot. At the very least, it's criminal negligence. But... prosecuting for criminal negligence over 9/11 may lead to someone blowing the whistle (if I might add to the conspiracy "theory").

[-] 3 points by MattHolck0 (1352) 1 month ago

according the media

we are a war crazed country

and approve of our governments aggression of conquest

[-] 2 points by StillModestCapitalist (248) 1 month ago

The 'vast majority' of users here are well informed level headed activists opposed to economic injustice in all it's forms. Although I don't deny the possibility that some legitimate users here believe the '9/11 inside job' angle, it's clear the majority don't. At least not with regard to the twin towers and the Pentagon.

Diego, I find your approach here more and more suspicious by the day. You won't acknowledge greed as a form of evil, you won't acknowledge any form of corruption within the US healthcare industry, you've stereotyped OWS users as 'irrational', you've personally attacked a number of regular users here including me, and I have yet to read a single entry of yours calling for any policy or behavior to reduce the obscene concentration of wealth we now live under.

I strongly suspect that your purpose here is to weaken and/or discredit OWS.

[-] -1 points by DiegoAlbanese (-45) from Miami, FL 1 month ago

I think the problem is you haver reading comprehension problems.

You won't acknowledge greed as a form of evil

I never said greed wasn't evil. I said it is part of nature. I also said greed is encouraged by capitalism and that's why capitalism is the real problem. It would be better to have a system that discourages greed instead of one that encourages it. We fix human behavioural problems in society with laws and frameworks. We don't allow people to rape for example, so we shouldn't allow people to become filthy rich if you don't like greed. Saying you despise greed, but then not wanting to change the system which supports greed makes little sense.

you won't acknowledge any form of corruption within the US healthcare industry,

I haven't even really talked about that. Our earlier discussion was whether or not modern medical science was scientific. It is.

you've stereotyped OWS users as 'irrational'

No, not all OWS members. (I don't like the term users because people aren't here to use OWS). I said that most of the users on the forum now are irrational conspiracy theorist lovers. You could make a poll and you would see. We've basically been infested by conspiracy theorists.

I strongly suspect that your purpose here is to weaken and/or discredit OWS.

Weaken OWS. OWS is already dead my friend. It does not do any activities anymore. The only thing that is alive is this site and the donation button. Give some money to see what happens to id. I guarantee it will only fill the pockets of our dictator jart.


I strongly suspect that you have English reading comprehension problems.

[-] 1 points by StillModestCapitalist (248) 1 month ago

I'm onto another one of your tricks. You have been altering some of your entries DRASTICALLY after I've already replied to them trying to make it appear as if I wasn't paying attention. You've removed several as well.

I'll take your desperate tactics as a compliment. I must be doing something right.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (1352) 1 month ago

often those that declare evil are looking for an excuses to in act violence

[-] -3 points by DiegoAlbanese (-45) from Miami, FL 1 month ago

Although I don't deny the possibility that some legitimate users here believe the '9/11 inside job' angle, it's clear the majority don't. At least not with regard to the twin towers and the Pentagon.

You are wrong. The vast majority of people here are Truthers. I challenge you to make a poll. We have been infested by conspiracy theorists.

[-] 1 points by JohnNash (15) 1 month ago

What is rational thinking?

"Rationality" has different specialized meanings in economics, sociology, psychology, evolutionary biology and political science. A rational decision is one that is not just reasoned, but is also optimal for achieving a goal or solving a problem.

Determining optimality for rational behavior requires a quantifiable formulation of the problem, and making several key assumptions. When the goal or problem involves making a decision, rationality factors in how much information is available (e.g. complete or incomplete knowledge). Collectively, the formulation and background assumptions are the model within which rationality applies. Illustrating the relativity of rationality: if one accepts a model in which benefitting oneself is optimal, then rationality is equated with behavior that is self-interested to the point of being selfish; whereas if one accepts a model in which benefiting the group is optimal, then purely selfish behavior is deemed irrational. It is thus meaningless to assert rationality without also specifying the background model assumptions describing how the problem is framed and formulated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality#Psychology_of_reasoning

Does the U.S. Government act rationally?

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (1352) 1 month ago

too many abstract words

though the thoughts are good

this needs to be further extracted so I can hold all the pieces in a single picture

[-] 1 points by StillModestCapitalist (248) 1 month ago

"A rational decision is one that is not just reasoned, but is also optimal for achieving a goal or solving a problem."

"Illustrating the relativity of rationality: if one accepts a model in which benefitting oneself is optimal, then rationality is equated with behavior that is self-interested to the point of being selfish; whereas if one accepts a model in which benefiting the group is optimal, then purely selfish behavior is deemed irrational."

By your standards, do the rich act 'rationally' as they deliberately corrupt the US government and do everything else within their power to concentrate even more US wealth? Is it 'rational' for a single percentile to seek or desire even more US wealth when they already own over 40%? If so, then what is their 'goal'? What 'problem' are they trying to solve? At what point does the deliberate concentration of wealth become 'selfish' or 'irrational'?

[-] 2 points by JohnNash (15) 1 month ago

What is Obsessive Compulsive Disorder? "Obsessive Compulsive Disorder sufferers generally recognize their obsessions and compulsions as irrational and may become further distressed by this realization."

Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) is a potentially disabling condition that can persist throughout a person’s life. The individual who suffers from OCD becomes trapped in a pattern of repetitive thoughts and behaviors that are unproductive, distressing, and extremely difficult to overcome. OCD can severely disrupt a person’s capacity to function at work, at school, or even at home. People with OCD usually have considerable insight into their own problems. Most of the time, they know that their obsessive thoughts are senseless or exaggerated and that their compulsive behaviors are not really necessary.

Most people with OCD struggle to banish their unwanted, obsessive thoughts and do everything they can to prevent themselves from engaging in compulsive behaviors. Many are able to keep their obsessive-compulsive symptoms under control during the hours when they are at work or attending school. But over the months or years, resistance may weaken, and when this happens, OCD may become so severe that time-consuming rituals take over the sufferers’ lives, making it impossible for them to continue activities.

http://sierratucson.crchealth.com/what-is-obsessive-compulsive-disorder/

Obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD) is an anxiety disorder characterized by intrusive thoughts that produce uneasiness, apprehension, fear or worry (obsessions), repetitive behaviors aimed at reducing the associated anxiety (compulsions), or a combination of such obsessions and compulsions. Symptoms of the disorder include excessive washing or cleaning, repeated checking, extreme hoarding, preoccupation with sexual, violent or religious thoughts, relationship-related obsessions, aversion to particular numbers and nervous rituals such as opening and closing a door a certain number of times before entering or leaving a room. These symptoms can be alienating and time-consuming, and often cause severe emotional and financial distress. The acts of those who have OCD may appear paranoid and potentially psychotic. However, OCD sufferers generally recognize their obsessions and compulsions as irrational and may become further distressed by this realization.

Obsessive–compulsive disorder affects children and adolescents, as well as adults. Roughly one third to one half of adults with OCD report a childhood onset of the disorder, suggesting the continuum of anxiety disorders across the lifespan.

The phrase obsessive–compulsive has become part of the English lexicon, and is often used in an informal or caricatured manner to describe someone who is excessively meticulous, perfectionistic, absorbed, or otherwise fixated. Although these signs are present in OCD, a person who exhibits them does not necessarily have OCD, but may instead have obsessive–compulsive personality disorder (OCPD), an autism spectrum disorder, or disorders where perseveration (hyperfocus) is a feature in ADHD, PTSD, bodily disorders, or just a habit problem.

Despite the irrational behaviour, OCD is sometimes associated with above-average intelligence. Its sufferers commonly share personality traits such as high attention to detail, avoidance of risk, careful planning, exaggerated sense of responsibility and a tendency to take time in making decisions. Multiple psychological and biological factors may be involved in causing obsessive–compulsive syndromes. Standardized rating scales such as Yale–Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale can be used to assess the severity of OCD symptoms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsessive%E2%80%93compulsive_disorder

What we probably are witnessing is a special form of obsessive compulsive disorder centered around money and wealth. The heads of government have the same disease centered around authority and privilege.

Or it could be an addiction.

Addiction is the continued repetition of a behavior despite adverse consequences, or a neurological impairment leading to such behaviors.

According to many addiction specialists, potential addictions can include, but are not limited to, drug abuse, exercise addiction, food addiction, computer addiction and gambling. Currently, however, only substance addictions and gambling addiction are recognized by the DSM-5. delta-FosB, a gene transcription factor, is now known to be the critical component and common factor in the development of virtually all forms of behavioral and drug addictions. Classic hallmarks of addiction include impaired control over substances or behavior, preoccupation with substance or behavior, continued use despite consequences, and denial. Habits and patterns associated with addiction are typically characterized by immediate gratification (short-term reward), coupled with delayed deleterious effects (long-term costs).

People with an addiction do not have control over what they are doing, taking or using. Their addiction may reach a point at which it is harmful. Addictions do not only include physical things we consume, such as drugs or alcohol, but may include virtually anything, such abstract things as gambling to seemingly harmless products, such as chocolate - in other words, addiction may refer to a substance dependence (e.g. drug addiction) or behavioral addiction (e.g. gambling addiction).

Does a heroin addict act rationally? Does a crack addict act rationally?

When the obsession or addiction involves wealth and power who is going to provide psychotherapy? Put George W. Bush or Dick Cheney or Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg into straightjackets and send them to Pandora Peaks for rehabilitation?

Something must be done and another tax cut is not it. Higher taxes for the 1% at 99.9+% might work.

They don't need more money. Them getting more money is worse than hoarding.

[-] 2 points by StillModestCapitalist (248) 1 month ago

And when they parade around with bogus claims of 'philanthropy' or 'humanitarianism' as they deliberately concentrate more wealth, dumbing down their own fans in the process, usually when they have new products to promote, as in the case of Jolie, Pitt and virtually every Hollywood celebrity, not to mention a boat load of pro-sports figures like Woods, James, and Beckham, is that another special form of OCD, an 'addiction' to lying perhaps?

At what point does the behavior become less of a 'disorder' or 'addiction' and more of simple greed?

[-] 1 points by JohnNash (15) 1 month ago

When the point is reached where they have more money than they could rationally spend the GOA accountants should send them a letter freezing their access to more capital to promote the General Welfare.

Can anyone rationally spend $1 million a day?

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (1352) 1 month ago

as descried, it is the ordering and pacing of routine

[-] 1 points by MattHolck0 (1352) 1 month ago

. These symptoms can be alienating and time-consuming

These symptoms can be alienating and time-consuming

[-] -3 points by DiegoAlbanese (-45) from Miami, FL 1 month ago

By your standards, do the rich act 'rationally' as they deliberately corrupt the US government and do everything else within their power to concentrate even more US wealth?

This is the major flaw in your thinking. When you speak of "their power" you forget to realize we as a society have given them that power. We have decided that capitalism is the way we will do things, and capitalism means a person can become filthy rich. People who have started successful businesses and become millionaires or even billionaires are rational. They played by the rules and won. Capitalism ensures that some actors will get rich and some won't. It's designed like that. Why would they choose to lose?

The only irrational thing on this page is your idea that we shouldn't change capitalism, or laws in place, but that we should try to correct the problem of greed by some magically way of just saying - "Guys, it's true that capitalism makes it legal for you to become filthy rich, but please, don't do it."

[-] 1 points by StillModestCapitalist (248) 1 month ago

No you transparent fraud. Like I've said many times, like my user name states, I am not anti-capitalism. I will not become something that would only serve to discredit OWS. In case you haven't been out of your cave in the last few years, there is one hell of a campaign all over the web and talk radio to stereotype those of us fighting for something remotely resembling economic justice as 'socialists', 'communists', and 'Marxists'. I am none of the above. I am a modest capitalist.

We had modest capitalism for about 40 years following the Great Depression. We had a VERY progressive tax system designed to keep it that way. The distribution of income was very reasonable compared to that of today. By 1976, the share of US wealth held by the richest 1% had dropped from 44% in 1929 to less than 20%. As a direct result, the relative strength of the middle class was literally doubled.

Although I have no expectation whatsoever that our sold-out government will ever enact such a progressive tax system again, I would rather spread the word about the evil of wealth concentration in order to help effect whatever hint of reform may be possible than to excuse the black-hearted evil of greed and blame 'the system' only to become EXACTLY what our critics allege.

Newsflash: You are not allowed to own your home under 'socialism'. You are not allowed to own your business under 'communism'. There is little or no individual flexibility allowed under the non-existent system known as Marxism.

I will not become exactly what our critics allege we are and exactly what you want us to become. I will not support your sold-out lap dog efforts to excuse the rich for what they have done. Like I said, I'm onto your true motive. You are not here to help effect any hint of true reform. You are here to weaken and/or discredit OWS by trying to reduce criticism of the rich and trying to reduce support for whatever hints of reform may be possible under the system that we have and spreading this OUTRAGEOUS FANTASY you pretend to have of replacing capitalism with another system all together.

Like I said, I refuse to be converted by an obvious fraud.

My purpose has been and will always be to reduce support for and tolerance of the richest 1% to whatever extent possible. To inform others of the COW and it's horrible effects on society. To alter spending habits to whatever extent possible. To persecute those who fatten the COW and to expose the very concept of extreme personal wealth for what it truly is.

The most intoxicating and corrupt influence in the history of mankind.

Next.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by DiegoAlbanese (-45) from Miami, FL 1 month ago

You are not allowed to own your home under 'socialism'.

This is false. You are allowed to own things under socialism and communism. There is private property. This is a common misconception. What you don't have is private ownership of the means of production. You can have private ownership of the products produced.

You are not allowed to own your business under 'communism'.

True in a sense, but so what? The point is people could work together.

[-] 1 points by StillModestCapitalist (248) 1 month ago

Another entry drastically altered after I've already replied to it. Again, I'll take your desperate tactics as a compliment.

[-] -2 points by DiegoAlbanese (-45) from Miami, FL 1 month ago

You seem to think this is some kind of weird game. I didn't alter my comments, nor did I delete any of them. When they are marked 'removed' that's because the site censored them or there is also a forum bug which does that. If I had taken them down myself it would read delete.

[-] 1 points by StillModestCapitalist (248) 1 month ago

I didn't say 'things'. I said 'your home'. What I type is true. Under socialism, all property (land and the structures built on land) are community owned. Otherwise, it's not socialism.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by DiegoAlbanese (-45) from Miami, FL 1 month ago

I am not anti-capitalism.

Yes, that is the entire irony! You cry and cry about how greed is horrible, but then you support a system (capitalism) which highly encourages greed.

I will not become something that would only serve to discredit OWS.

I don't care what you become.

I'm only saying your position is highly contradictory. I makes no sense.

y purpose has been and will always be to reduce support for and tolerance of the richest 1%

Then you should stop supporting capitalism which will always create an inequality in wealth.


You can't have it both ways. You can't be against what capitalism encourages (greed) and also support capitalism at the same time. Your position is untenable by any rational means.

We had modest capitalism for about 40 years following the Great Depression.

You have to look at the sequence. Nothing is static. Capitalism leads towards more and more wealth disparity over time. This was understood 2,500 years ago by Plato. It's normal and predictable that monopolies form over time and take control of the government through pressure from big money. Plato predicted this. He stated how all capitalism democracies become oligarchies over time. We are seeing this now.

[-] 1 points by StillModestCapitalist (248) 1 month ago

I have looked at the sequence. The 'modest capitalism' we had in place for 40 years was no accident.

You are either a total fraud or a complete moron. Again, we have precisely ZERO chance to get capitalism replaced with another system unless a comet smashes into the Earth first. Let me know when the impact is imminent.

In the meantime, I'll be right here ripping on the rich for the greedy pigs they are and turning as many people as I can against them. If I am able to convince one American citizen to forgo the purchase of one over-priced piece of crap like a $400 cell phone or a Beyonce CD, that will be a hell of a lot more than you will achieve pretending to support a total replacement of capitalism that will NEVER come unless a comet smashes into the Earth first.

Https://TheseRidiculousEventsAreStaged.Blogspot.com

Https://occupywallst.org/forum/if-you-believe-in-miracles-and-youre-sick-of-the-r/

[-] -1 points by DiegoAlbanese (-45) from Miami, FL 1 month ago

that will be a hell of a lot more than you will achieve pretending to support a total replacement of capitalism that will NEVER come unless a comet smashes into the Earth first.

Actually, there is scientific evidence that capitalism will implode by itself in a few decades at most. It is simply not sustainable.

[-] 1 points by StillModestCapitalist (248) 1 month ago

That we can agree on, sort of. I fully expect another collapse by 2020. I fully expect another Great Depression. It is a mathematical certainty as long as the wealth is allowed to concentrate. Still, American capitalism will remain in place until the fall of modern society. Or until a comet smashes into the Earth.

Only from destruction and bloodshed on a scale never seen before will the survivors have any chance whatsoever to replace American capitalism with something else.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by DiegoAlbanese (-45) from Miami, FL 1 month ago

Well, have fun with your position of being against greed, but of also for a system which highly encourages it. In fact, the basic premise of capitalism is that some people can make more money than others, but, not only can, MUST make more money than others so that capitalism functions.

The 1% you so detest does not exist because of greed, but because of capitalism which not only encourages their existence, but, in fact, requires it.

[-] 1 points by StillModestCapitalist (248) 1 month ago

My problem is not with the existence of a 1%. It's not with the concept of trade, profit, accumulation, or social class. It's with the concept of extreme personal wealth. The sheer height of the scale. It currently looks like a trick style ramp. It should look like a door stop.

[-] -1 points by DiegoAlbanese (-45) from Miami, FL 1 month ago

Right, that extreme wealth disparity was predicted by Plato 2,500 years ago. It's normal. It happens after decades and decades of capitalism. Then it becomes an oligarchy because the rich companies have amazing great political influence. All predicted by Plato. The problem is inherent in the system.

Modest capitalism only exists at the beginnings of a capitalist society, but it doesn't stay that way very long. It's not static. It's part of a sequence. As companies grow, the ones at the top become richer and richer and have more and more political influence.

[-] 1 points by DouglasAdams (183) 1 month ago

Mercantilism preceded Capitalism.

Mercantilism is an economic theory practice, commonly used in Europe from the 16th to the 18th century that promoted governmental regulation of a nation’s economy for the purpose of augmenting state power at the expense of rival national powers.

Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industry, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit. Central characteristics of capitalism include capital accumulation, competitive markets and wage labour.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by StillModestCapitalist (248) 1 month ago

The period from 1936 to 1976 was not 'the beginning' of American capitalism. The rest of your latest entry, I agree with. Einstein said essentially the same thing. Still, my decision is made. I will not convert or alter my strategy. My intent is to persecute the rich until I take my last breath.

If you or anyone else hope to break my will, then you will have to break my neck first.

[-] -1 points by DiegoAlbanese (-45) from Miami, FL 1 month ago

Not the beginning, but the heyday I would say. In any case, what is predictable is that capitalism tends towards wealth inequality and towards oligarchies. I know not of a single example of a capitalist country where this is not happening now.

If you or anyone else hope to break my will, then you will have to break my neck first.

I'm not here to break your will, just to make sure that readers understand the deep flaws in your thinking so they don't follow you down a path of reasoning failure.

[-] 1 points by StillModestCapitalist (248) 1 month ago

"I'm not here to break your will, just to make sure that readers understand the deep flaws in your thinking so they don't follow you down a path of reasoning failure."

This coming from a guy who pretends, for the purpose of discrediting and/or weakening OWS, to campaign for a total replacement of American capitalism.

Like I said, let me know when the impact is imminent. Say that reminds me.

The first sub-prime loans were issued in 1994. It was a gimmick to sell more homes, artificially inflate the market, sell more homes at higher profits, foreclose on those who could not pay when the ARM rates readjusted, take their homes leaving them with nothing to show for their payments, resell the homes at a higher profit and so on. It was a cruel and calculated plan to sell more homes and artificially inflate the market. Those loans were incredibly profitable for well over a decade before the house of cards finally collapsed. In the meantime, bankers got richer along with the richest one percent who made off with higher dividends. It was a sham.

The biggest player in the game was Countrywide. Endorsed by Oprah Winfrey, Ellen Degeneres, and Dr Phil. If you have their shows from '04' to '06' on tape, watch them again. All three were paid millions specifically to endorse Countrywide by name. The biggest sub-prime player in the game. They issued more ARM loans than anyone else. Foreclosing on those who could not make their monthly payments when the rates suddenly went through the roof. It was a cruel and calculated plan to sell more homes, artificially inflate the market, foreclose, and resell for a higher profit. The sham worked like a charm for 12 years before the house of cards finally fell in.

At this approximate time, the worthless paper was sold to unsuspecting investors.

So where did the money go? Again, it went to the rich. That's where. It went to the rich for approximately 12 years uninterrupted until the market finally collapsed. The difference was simply lost in market value which again, was artificially increased to begin with.

By the way, there never would have been such a market for sub-prime if it weren't for the record high concentration of wealth and income. That underlying cause still hasn't been resolved and it never will be but the $780 billion dollar bank bailout in 2008 along with over a trillion in government stimulus since then has been keeping the economy on life support.

We do have the illusion of a recovery which is a lot better than nothing short term but it's not a true recovery. The lower majority have not gained any ground whatsoever. Not one inch in terms of net worth or actual buying power. There will be no true recovery without a significant redistribution of wealth. If we are to keep treading water, then government stimulus will be necessary for years to come.

I don't see that happening. I fully expect another crash followed by another Great Depression. It will take place in the near future. Almost certainly within 5 years. Sooner and more severe if we end up with more conservative economic policies.

Either way, the resulting hardship will be endured almost entirely by the lower majority. Not the rich. Just like it was during the first Great Depression.

You may be asking yourself how we ever recovered from the first Great Depression if what I say is true.

That's easy. Because of a massive infusion of new currency under FDR, government stimulus paid primarily to the low end, WWII, and higher taxes, primarily on the rich to help pay for it, we had a significant and absolutely necessary redistribution of wealth (double digits) from the early 40's to 1976. This final year was the best ever for the middle class. Most households had sufficient income on just one provider. They had home equity and money in the bank.

This was the recovery. A TRUE recovery. A partial redistribution of wealth.

Unfortunately, all of that progress has been reversed because of tax breaks for the rich and their golden corporate geese, the bloated PIG health care industry, the energy and finance industries, the entertainment industry, the electronics industry, the corrupt government, and the dumbest generation of celebrity worshiping, pill popping, 'gotta have it', consumer junkie morons ever. Now, once again, we have the highest concentration of wealth in US history.

Higher than ever and getting higher still.

It can't work this way. The equation is mathematically impossible to sustain. The depression will come by 2020. Sooner and more severe if we end up with more conservative economic policies.

But never mind all of that. A stuck-up over-paid multi-hundred millionaire fake cowboy with a stuck-up over-paid multi-hundred millionaire wife is on tour again. Go buy a ticket using your $400 cell phone.

and keep your eyes peeled for the next publicity stunt. They are always staged shortly after he goes on tour.

https://TheseRidiculousEventsAreStaged.Blogspot.com

[-] -2 points by DiegoAlbanese (-45) from Miami, FL 1 month ago

This coming from a guy who pretends, for the purpose of discrediting and/or weakening OWS, to campaign for a total replacement of American capitalism.

I never wanted to discredit or weaken OWS. That is your own perception.

OWS agrees with me on this issue. It is an anti-capitalist protest.

I didn't bother reading the rest of you rant.

[-] 1 points by StillModestCapitalist (248) 1 month ago

OWS is primarily an anti-UNBRIDLED-capitalist protest. There is a big difference.

[-] -1 points by DiegoAlbanese (-45) from Miami, FL 1 month ago

What is rational thinking?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality

A rational decision is one that is not just reasoned, but is also optimal for achieving a goal or solving a problem.

No, I'm talking here about very basic rationality here. Having an evidence based approached when exploring. Nothing confusing here. Very basic stuff.