Quotes from Lord Bertrand Russell

[matrixcutter]

The following quotes come from The Impact of Science on Society (1953) and The Scientific Outlook (1931), by Lord Bertrand Russell:
Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do.

I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology. Its importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these, the most influential is what is called 'education.' Religion plays a part, though a diminishing one; the press, the cinema, and the radio play an increasing part. It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything, if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the State with money and equipment. Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely, without the need of armies or policemen.


Edited to remove rule 4 breach. For links to removed material, see this post. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2953964&postcount=23)

[KingMerv00]

Do you have a opinion of those quotes?

A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.

Bertrand Russell

[matrixcutter]

Yes, I have an opinion about those quotes.

I wanted to find out about others' opinions though.
I see that they seem to be over your head, or were you merely following me around?

[Fnord]

So, Mr. Russel was an advocate for mind-control, absolute conformity of the masses to government will, the execution of opposition, and a rulers-versus-ruled mindset.

Was he a closet Moslem?

[matrixcutter]

So, Mr. Russel was an advocate for mind-control, absolute conformity of the masses to government will, the execution of opposition, and a rulers-versus-ruled mindset.

Was he a closet Moslem?
No, he was an elitist, aristocratic British Lord working on behalf of the British Crown.

Why did you single out Moslems? What have you got against Moslems that you haven't got against members of other religions?

[KingMerv00]

Yes, I have an opinion about those quotes.

It is just odd to start a thread simply to post a bunch of quotes. Most people state a premise.

I wanted to find out about others' opinions though.

OK. I don't like propaganda. Without more context it is hard to tell whether or not Russell supported mass psychology or merely predicted it.

I see that they seem to be over your head...

Nope...though you did ignore my quote.

or were you merely following me around?

Actually, that was a coincidence. Though now I am interested in your other threads.

[matrixcutter]

This could be the start of a beautiful friendship.

Incidentally, I think the following quote gives an indication of the kind of psychopath (did I say psychopath, I meant great man) Bertrand Russell was:

At present the population of the world is increasing ... War so far has had no great effect on this increase ... I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others ... If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full ... the state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of it? Really high-minded people are indifferent to suffering, especially that of others.

[Fnord]

No, he was an elitist, aristocratic British Lord working on behalf of the British Crown.

Then he was a secular elitist - one who believes that only a 'special class' of people should be allowed to rule, and that everyone else is destined to be trodden under foot. George Orwell described this best:

"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." -- George Orwell


Why did you single out Moslems?

Current Islamic teachings indicate a similar mind-set of the rulers over the ruled as did Mr. Russel; thought-control, absolute conformity of the masses to government will, the execution of opposition, and an elite-rulers-versus-subjugated-ruled mindset.


What have you got against Moslems that you haven't got against members of other religions?

They have not yet been quelled like so many others. There still exists an uncontrollable fraction of Islam that refuses to submit to secular authority. Except for a few radical fundie groups and and doomsday cults (Branch Davidians, People's Temple, Heaven's Gate et cetera), most Christian sects acknowledge the primacy of the government in secular matters. Islam does not.

[KingMerv00]

This could be the start of a beautiful friendship.

Doubt you'll be able to stomach the boards long enough.

I agree with some of Russell's views but not all of them. He was, for his time, a progessive figure in sufferage, race, and the free use of birth control. I completely support his views on the scientific method.

Incidentally, I think the following quote gives an indication of the kind of psychopath (did I say psychopath, I meant great man) Bertrand Russell was:

Do you have a primary source on that quote so I can see it in context? I sense sarcasm on the speaker's part but I might be wrong.

[marting]

Quotes out of context are pretty meaningless. Give the context link and perhaps one can have a fruitful discussion.

[LibraryLady]

This is interesting because I just decided last week that I need to read Russell, and am finishing up Science and Religion. I remember him being on talk shows when I was a kid.

[Foster Zygote]

The following quotes come from The Impact of Science on Society (1953) and The Scientific Outlook (1931), by Lord Bertrand Russell:

The quotes you have selected are from an examination of the abuses and potential abuses of modern totalitarian regimes. Nowhere does Russell state that he advocates these abuses or feels them to be justified.

These are some quotes that do state his moral position regarding oppression:

One who believes as I do, that free intellect is the chief engine of human progress, cannot but be fundamentally opposed to Bolshevism as much as to the Church of Rome. The hopes which inspire communism are, in the main, as admirable as those instilled by the Sermon on the Mount, but they are held as fanatically and are as likely to do as much harm.

– Bertrand Russell, The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism, 1920
Russell wrote that some men opposed suffrage because they "fear that their liberty to act in ways that are injurious to women will be curtailed."

[drkitten]

Incidentally, I think the following quote gives an indication of the kind of psychopath (did I say psychopath, I meant great man) Bertrand Russell was:

Um, did you actually look at the quotation you parrotted? I'm vaguely familiar with it; in context, it's an argument about making birth control more freely available, because the only alternative methods for reducing or controlling the Mathusian population explosion are ineffective, gruesome, or both.

It's hardly psychopathic for someone to point out that if the world population is too large, birth control is a better method of fixing the problem than starting world war three or waiting for a new pandemic.

Similarly, if you look at the quotations in the OP, it's fairly obvious that Russell is an opponent of the modern propaganda-state (Hint: "the very evils of the system help to give it stability" should have been a strong indicator). On the other hand, he was also smart enough to recognize the emerging trend, and was not afraid to name it and describe it in detail....

[Foster Zygote]

This could be the start of a beautiful friendship.

Incidentally, I think the following quote gives an indication of the kind of psychopath (did I say psychopath, I meant great man) Bertrand Russell was:

At present the population of the world is increasing ... War so far has had no great effect on this increase ... I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others ... If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full ... the state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of it? Really high-minded people are indifferent to suffering, especially that of others.



This statement of Russell's, Like Swift's Modest Proposal, is sarcastic. Russell's point was that birth control is the best way to control population increase because the alternatives involve death and suffering on a massive scale. Russell is being facetious, saying in essence "Well if you don't like birth control there are alternatives like deadly plagues".

[Foster Zygote]

The following quotes come from The Impact of Science on Society (1953) and The Scientific Outlook (1931), by Lord Bertrand Russell:

Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do.

Might I ask what you find to be objectionable about this first quote? Russell is pointing out the value of thinking. He is saying that a great many people die for lack of thinking.

[KingMerv00]

This statement of Russell's, Like Swift's Modest Proposal, is sarcastic. Russell's point was that birth control is the best way to control population increase because the alternatives involve death and suffering on a massive scale. Russell is being facetious, saying in essence "Well if you don't like birth control there are alternatives like deadly plagues".

Do you know the source?

[Fnord]

George Orwell described this best:

"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." -- George Orwell

... from the novel "1984 (http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/)." Here is the Plot Summary (http://www.bookrags.com/studyguide-nineteeneightyfour/sum.html).

[Foster Zygote]

Do you know the source?

I'll see if I can find it. I read it years ago. I couldn't have done more than paraphrase it but upon seeing it again I recognized it. It's from one of Russell's writings advocating birth control. That's why I immediately recognized it as being presented out of context. Matrixcutter seems unaware of the full body of Russell's work or he would know that he was a pacifist who was concerned with issues of human suffering, equality and freedom.

[maccy]

Granted, these are from Wikipedia, but here a couple of quotes that should provide some useful context:

In 1950, Russell was made a Nobel Laureate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize) in Literature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize_in_Literature), "in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian) ideals and freedom of thought (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought)".[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell#_note-nobel_prize)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell

Russell spent the 1950s and 1960s engaged in various political causes, primarily related to nuclear disarmament and opposing the U.S. invasion of Vietnam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_war). He wrote a great many letters to world leaders during this period. He also became a hero to many of the youthful members of the New Left (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Left). During the 1960s, in particular, Russell became increasingly vocal about his disapproval of what he felt to be the American government's near-genocidal policies. In 1963 he became the inaugural recipient of the Jerusalem Prize (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_Prize), an award for writers concerned with the freedom of the individual in society.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell#Political_causes

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell#Russell.27s_activism

[matrixcutter]

Then he was a secular elitist - one who believes that only a 'special class' of people should be allowed to rule, and that everyone else is destined to be trodden under foot. George Orwell described this best:

"If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever." -- George Orwell
Absolutely.

Incidentally, there is an interview on vyzygoth.com (http://www.vyzygoth.com/index.html) this week, in which he mentions the book within the book in 1984, and how he believes that Orwell was revealing some information about scientific/technological development.

It's this one, 58 minutes in:
Vyz on Gorightly’s show (http://vyzygoth.com/audio/gorightly9-10-07.mp3)
There was also a 9-part series he did on Ian Slater's Orwell: The Road to Airstrip One, which I think he refers to in the interview. (I can put them up on rapidshare/megaupload if anyone wants them.)

Current Islamic teachings indicate a similar mind-set of the rulers over the ruled as did Mr. Russel; thought-control, absolute conformity of the masses to government will, the execution of opposition, and an elite-rulers-versus-subjugated-ruled mindset.
Perhaps you can draw parallels. There are certainly Moslems who don't fall into this mindset.

They have not yet been quelled like so many others. There still exists an uncontrollable fraction of Islam that refuses to submit to secular authority. Except for a few radical fundie groups and and doomsday cults (Branch Davidians, People's Temple, Heaven's Gate et cetera), most Christian sects acknowledge the primacy of the government in secular matters. Islam does not.
So there are both Christian groups and Islamic groups who are not keen on rules being imposed on them from outside, and other groups.

Are there any groups interacting with these Moslem groups you have in mind? What effect, if any, do they have?



And incidentally, Bertrand Russell experimented with children, encouraging pre-pubertal sexual activity between them so as to look into the long-term effects this would have (fully backed by the Crown). He was not a good egg, though some people seem to want to give him the benefit of the doubt.

[matrixcutter]

At present the population of the world is increasing ... War so far has had no great effect on this increase ... I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others ... If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full ... the state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of it? Really high-minded people are indifferent to suffering, especially that of others.
Do you have a primary source on that quote so I can see it in context? I sense sarcasm on the speaker's part but I might be wrong.
I believe that's from The Impact of Science on Society too.

[KingMerv00]

I believe that's from The Impact of Science on Society too.

What website did you cut and paste it from?

[matrixcutter]

What website did you cut and paste it from?
This one (http://www.911kemet.co.uk/nwoquotes.html).

The rest came from here (http://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com/transcripts/Alan_Watt_Blurb_RussellianRegime_for_RegulatingThe Rabble_June282007.html), if you're interested, and even if you're not.

[Civilized Worm]

NWO quotes?


:dl:

[Foster Zygote]

This one (http://www.911kemet.co.uk/nwoquotes.html).

The rest came from here (http://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com/transcripts/Alan_Watt_Blurb_RussellianRegime_for_RegulatingThe Rabble_June282007.html), if you're interested, and even if you're not.

If you actually bother to read Russell instead of the quote mined selections on such websites you'll discover that he was actually very concerned with the well being of humanity and did not advocate any of the things you seem to think he did based on this thread.

[matrixcutter]

NWO quotes?


:dl:
Yes, quotes. Things that have actually been said.

Was it the NWO bit you found funny? Give it another 5 years or so, you won't be laughing then.

Incidentally, I see you live on this side of the Pond, have you seen this documentary (http://video.google.co.uk/url?docid=-4943675105275097719&esrc=sr1&ev=v&len=1673&q=ludicrous%2Bdiversions&srcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.co.uk%2Fvideoplay %3Fdocid%3D-4943675105275097719&vidurl=%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D-4943675105275097719%26q%3Dludicrous%2Bdiversions%2 6total%3D1%26start%3D0%26num%3D10%26so%3D0%26type% 3Dsearch%26plindex%3D0&usg=AL29H21ASoBB6WUSXDBiLoSa6F1pOwipmw) about the July 7th bombings?

Also, have you ever heard of Operation Gladio (http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=operation+gladio)?

I hope you don't find these funny, if you choose to watch them of course.

[Fnord]

Perhaps you can draw parallels. There are certainly Moslems who don't fall into this mindset.


My feeble mind can only draw parallels between modern-day Al Q'aida (Islam) and the Spanish Inquisition (Chrisitanity). Not every Moslem or Christian would saw the head off a non-beliver, but in the current day it's Al Q'aida/Islam that does. I'd say that, at the very least, Islam is about 5 to 7 hundred years behind Christianity in this respect.

So there are both Christian groups and Islamic groups who are not keen on rules being imposed on them from outside, and other groups.

Umm ... with all due respect, "Duh"? To a greater or lesser degree, every group, secular and religious, would react this way. Just look at the Bush administration...

Are there any groups interacting with these Moslem groups you have in mind? What effect, if any, do they have?

The U.S. military in Iraq ... and ... you tell me.

[matrixcutter]

you'll discover that he was actually very concerned with the well being of humanity and did not advocate any of the things you seem to think he did based on this thread.
I know who he worked for, and that they wanted the common people (who Russell himself referred to as "useless eaters" and "cattle") to believe good things about him. It was a necessary ingredient in carrying out his role.

[Foster Zygote]

Was it the NWO bit you found funny? Give it another 5 years or so, you won't be laughing then.

We don't have to worry about it as the rapture will happen before then.

[Foster Zygote]

I know who he worked for, and that they wanted the common people (who Russell himself referred to as "useless eaters" and "cattle") to believe good things about him. It was a necessary ingredient in carrying out his role.

Can you provide a cite for Russell's use of the terms "Useless eaters" and "cattle" to refer to people?

[maccy]

I've a feeling that maybe the best thing to do is to put matrixcutter on our ignore lists and wait for him to get banned. Maybe, he'll prove me wrong by engaging in a measured, methodical, rational discussion - I hope so.

matrixcutter, I'll ask again, since the last time was in your thread that got sent to AAH, are you Alan Watt? Is this:

http://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com/

your website?

Obviously, you don't have to answer - but it would be good to know where you're coming from. Apart from anything else, if I call Alan Watt a complete idiot and it turns out he's you, then I'm breaking forum rules on civility. If he isn't a member here, I have more latitude in pointing to his reptilian fantasies and laughing. I need to know how rude I can be, help a guy out here.

[JimBenArm]

Was it the NWO bit you found funny? Give it another 5 years or so, you won't be laughing then.

Why not? I'm in the NWO, so it'll be a hoot!
Or was it the NAU? Maybe the NFL? Or was it AFL/CIO? I always get these stupid acronyms confused.
Anyway, be sure to reserve your slot in the death camps! Choice spots are going fast!

[matrixcutter]

No, I'm not Alan Watt.

[JimBenArm]

No, I'm not Alan Watt.
Funny, I'm not either. At least I don't think so. Wait a minute, I'll check...

















Nope, I'm not, either!

[matrixcutter]

Funny, I'm not either. At least I don't think so. Wait a minute, I'll check...

















Nope, I'm not, either!
Are you the class clown?
Don't let anybody ever tell you that you're not a comedy genius.

[maccy]

No, I'm not Alan Watt.

OK, thanks. I suppose you got your username from his website though?

By the way, I was kidding before, I don't intend to be terribly rude about him. I think his site stands for itself without any need of comment from me.

In fact, I probably won't engage with you too much either, matrixcutter, as your ideas seem a bit too whacked-out for me. But I hope you get something from your time here, and that you stay on the right side of the forum rules.

All the best,

maccy

[JimBenArm]

Are you the class clown?
Don't let anybody ever tell you that you're not a comedy genius.
No, I just like to poke fun at pompous windbags. Wish there was one here. Oh, wait...

[Drudgewire]

Alan should call himself "Captain Watt," because then he could use this as bumper music and he'd be awesome.

_pqC563bX_w

:wave1

[matrixcutter]

In fact, I probably won't engage with you too much either, matrixcutter, as your ideas seem a bit too whacked-out for me.
I admire your honesty.

I wonder whether you know of any "whacked-out" things that happen to be real, and true.

[Peephole]

What is it with conspiracy loons and their quotes fetish?

[maccy]

I admire your honesty.

I wonder whether you know of any "whacked-out" things that happen to be real, and true.

A few links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

And that's it from me.

[matrixcutter]

Interesting non-answer.

[DarkMagician]

To quote Ralph Waldo Emerson, "I hate quotation. Tell me what you know."

[1337m4n]

Do you have a opinion of those quotes?

Bertrand Russell was a CT nut?



Boy, you learn something new every day.

[KingMerv00]

Boy, you learn something new every day.

Really?

*Does calculations*

By my count that makes Alan Watt is three seconds old.

[KingMerv00]

To quote Ralph Waldo Emerson, "I hate quotation. Tell me what you know."

I'm going to break tradition and QFT myself from post #2:

A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.

(Lest there be a misunderstanding DM, I'm not referring to you.)

[Brainster]

Here's another quote from Lord Russell that some may find interesting:

I had said in the first draft that I found him “surprisingly unlicked”. I found him not only impetuous but “aggressive and entirely undisciplined and I realised that these characteristics might well make him seem a ‘dangerous young man’”, as I had been warned that he was, “to anyone of whom he did not approve.” I early recognized his lively instinct for self-dramatization, his swash-buckling assumption of the importance of his own role in the centre of the stage. His conviction of his unshakable belief in the penetration and breadth of his understanding were obvious. I did not for some time, however, grasp the closely related characteristic of his utter incapability of imparting reliable information. His reports of people’s reactions and his observations were—and unfortunately, I fear, still are—very often excessively and misleadingly incorrect and his quotations must always be verified. I was impressed by his courage, both moral and physical, although it too often flouted necessary caution and resulted in unnecessary provocation. And I was impressed by his generosity in helping anyone of whom he thought well or thought to be suffering injustice, although it often led to useless waste of effort and money, both of which might have been far more advantageously spent.

[jhunter1163]

BTW, Brainster's quote is re: Ralph Schoenman, a frequent guest at twooferish events.

[westprog]

One who believes as I do, that free intellect is the chief engine of human progress, cannot but be fundamentally opposed to Bolshevism as much as to the Church of Rome. The hopes which inspire communism are, in the main, as admirable as those instilled by the Sermon on the Mount, but they are held as fanatically and are as likely to do as much harm.

– Bertrand Russell, The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism, 1920


The quotes you have selected are from an examination of the abuses and potential abuses of modern totalitarian regimes. Nowhere does Russell state that he advocates these abuses or feels them to be justified.


Russell's evaluation of communism is remarkable for someone of the left, in 1920. Many leftists were starry-eyes about the Soviet Union sixty years later. Russell saw what was going to happen, and why.

[mjd1982]

Russell, one of the finest minds of the 20th Century, was also a CTer.

Sorry to break that one on you guys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16_Questions_on_the_Assassination

[Stellafane]

Are you the class clown?
Don't let anybody ever tell you that you're not a comedy genius.

Hi matrixcutter. I apologize in advance for this, and what I'm about to say may say more about me that you, but...I find it absolutely impossible to take seriously anybody with a screen name of "matrixcutter."

Yes, I know -- attack the argument, not the person. But I'm not attacking the person, just the screen name. I mean, c'mon -- "matrixcutter"?? I can't even write that without literally laughing out loud. Matrixcutter!!

[Stellafane]

Russell, one of the finest minds of the 20th Century, was also a CTer.

Sorry to break that one on you guys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16_Questions_on_the_Assassination


Hi mjd. Don't worry about breaking any news to us, you're really in very little danger of ever doing that.

[Foster Zygote]

Interesting non-answer.

Do you have an answer to my question?

[Alareth]

Hi mjd. Don't worry about breaking any news to us, you're really in very little danger of ever doing that.

Ok, that's .sig worthy.

[Drudgewire]

Russell, one of the finest minds of the 20th Century, was also a CTer.

Sorry to break that one on you guys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16_Questions_on_the_Assassination

So he started believing conspiracy theories in his 90s... do we really have to speculate on why?

[1337m4n]

At the risk of sounding like a n00b, who is Alan Watt?

[Liszt]

Hi matrixcutter. I apologize in advance for this, and what I'm about to say may say more about me that you, but...I find it absolutely impossible to take seriously anybody with a screen name of "matrixcutter."

Yes, I know -- attack the argument, not the person. But I'm not attacking the person, just the screen name. I mean, c'mon -- "matrixcutter"?? I can't even write that without literally laughing out loud. Matrixcutter!!

lol!! He literally (meaning figuratively) "cuts the matrix" - that´s what it means.

anyway - glass houses? You sound like a cross between Stephanie and Cellophane ;)

[Drudgewire]

lol!! He literally (meaning figuratively) "cuts the matrix" - that´s what it means.

Hopefully that doesn't mean he edited the two sequels... because MAN they sucked. :p

[Alareth]

lol!! He literally (meaning figuratively) "cuts the matrix" - that´s what it means.

anyway - glass houses? You sound like a cross between Stephanie and Cellophane ;)

His nick has a basis in astronomy. Stellafane is a gathering of amateur telescope makers.

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

[Liszt]

His nick has a basis in astronomy. Stellafane is a gathering of amateur telescope makers.

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

spoilsport!

[flameowl]

I still don't see what Matrixcutter wants from this conversation. Maybe it's the lack of content in the op that has me confused... MC, what do you want us to draw from your quotes aside from the fact that a prominent member of the scientific community can, over the course of their life, provide a very large and involved body of work that cannot be understood in a 'sound bite'?

What did you want us to draw from these quotations? What did you wish to discuss about them? Did you need clarification from those who may have read the works on what the actual meaning was? Did you want to draw comparisons with the present day and thereby attempt to demonstrate that Lord Russel was prescient (and claim the million! yay!)? Did you just want us to verify that the quotes you provided were taken out of context as you had previously suspected?

I know that someone asked earlier what you wanted, but your answer wasn't very informative, and maybe with my questions you can see why.

[Foster Zygote]

So he started believing conspiracy theories in his 90s... do we really have to speculate on why?

But did he really? When I think of a "conspiracy theorist" I think of someone who asks questions like that with the certainty that he/she already has the answers. When shown evidence that the real answers to a question do not involve a conspiracy these people will virtually never accept it because it does not support their a priori beliefs in the matter. I've read enough of Russell to be reasonably certain that this would not have been the case with him.

[Stellafane]

...anyway - glass houses? You sound like a cross between Stephanie and Cellophane ;)

Tell me about it! I'm such an astronomy nerd, that it never occured to me how bizarre and feminine "Stellafane" sounds out of context. So many people thought I was female, I had to resort to sticking my fugly face into my avatar to prove otherwise. A lot less people hit on me now (none, actually).

But you gotta admit, "Stellafane" can't hold a candle to "matrixcutter," with its multilevel hilarity.

[The Atheist]

... from the novel "1984 (http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/)." Here is the Plot Summary (http://www.bookrags.com/studyguide-nineteeneightyfour/sum.html).

Ack! I totally own the forum that's attached to and yet I've never been into that page before - it has to be the worst book precis of all time. Glad you brought that in, I'll fix it immediately.

Absolutely.

Incidentally, there is an interview on vyzygoth.com (http://www.vyzygoth.com/index.html) this week, in which he mentions the book within the book in 1984, and how he believes that Orwell was revealing some information about scientific/technological development.

"Vyzygoth"? How quaint.

It sounds to me as though the bloke has eaten a bad burger and is trying to get rid of the mess he vomited out by getting other people to eat it. Obviously works. Anyone, even a child, who is stupid enough to believe that Orwell was interested in technological development or trying to reveal it is clearly dumber than the "vyzygoth" thing, which would make it of an IQ unable to find shoelaces, never mind tie them.

Learn a little about Orwell before you try to lie him into anything, because your idiot heroes demonstrably have no clue. Orwell himself was a hater of lies and he would have sliced people like Dylan Avery and Alex Jones into pieces so small their mothers wouldn't recognise them. (Not to mention that his sarcasm was so sharp, half-brains like those two might miss it altogether.)

I guess that's why the Loose Change club tries to co-opt dead legends only - since the best you can do with live [?] people is a couple of burnt-out hacks like Rosie O'Donnell.

Enjoy!

It's this one, 58 minutes in:
Vyz on Gorightly’s show (http://vyzygoth.com/audio/gorightly9-10-07.mp3)
There was also a 9-part series he did on Ian Slater's Orwell: The Road to Airstrip One, which I think he refers to in the interview. (I can put them up on rapidshare/megaupload if anyone wants them.)

I'll pass on that thanks, I'd like to wait until I'm reincarnated asa dog before I eat other people's vomitus.

And incidentally, Bertrand Russell experimented with children, encouraging pre-pubertal sexual activity between them so as to look into the long-term effects this would have (fully backed by the Crown). He was not a good egg, though some people seem to want to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Nothing like slandering a dead man, is there? Knowing he can't sue you and all that?

Are you so unbelievably opaque of mind that you swallow lies like this? Russell advocated sex education for children, not sex, but please feel free to keep slandering the names of some of great thinkers of the past century.

Fortunately, nobody less-deluded than yourself will listen to a word of it.

[dudalb]

Orwell is turning over in his grave on how his work is being misused and distorted by various wackjobs.
Even New Nazis,who Orwell would have despised without end,are quoting him for their purposes.
ANd I agree that Orwell would rip apart the Truth Movement like they have not been ripped apart yet.

[mjd1982]

So he started believing conspiracy theories in his 90s... do we really have to speculate on why?
LMAO!!!

You guys never fail to entertain me!

[Drudgewire]

LMAO!!!

You guys never fail to entertain me!
Back atcha bro. :)

[Stellafane]

So he started believing conspiracy theories in his 90s... do we really have to speculate on why?

Too bad he isn't still alive; he might raise the average age of the TM movement past 15 all by himself.

[beachnut]

The following quotes come from The Impact of Science on Society (1953) and The Scientific Outlook (1931), by Lord Bertrand Russell:

Edited to remove rule 4 breach. For links to removed material, see this post. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2953964&postcount=23)
Russell died because he was way too happy living.
What a bunch of junk at those web sites! Wasted time.
Chemtrails? LOL - I found it true, if you post web sites with reference to chemtrails, the people who operate the web sites are too far gone to qualify as nut case tin foil hat clowns. What does that leave?

[The Atheist]

Orwell is turning over in his grave on how his work is being misused and distorted by various wackjobs.
Even New Nazis,who Orwell would have despised without end,are quoting him for their purposes.
ANd I agree that Orwell would rip apart the Truth Movement like they have not been ripped apart yet.

That's the ironic thing, it highlights the depths of ignorance of the person saying it. You'd only have to read a tiny bit of Orwell to realise that he completely understood the teenage mind, its rebellious nature and the way it can be easily misled into believing utter tripe.

Far from spinning in his grave, it's times like this I wish there were an afterlife - Orwell would be having a few belly laughs, I'd say. He'd certainly see the funny side of the very people he mocked using his words in their own defence.

[matrixcutter]

Incidentally, there is an interview on vyzygoth.com this week, in which he mentions the book within the book in 1984, and how he believes that Orwell was revealing some information about scientific/technological development.
"Vyzygoth"? How quaint.

It sounds to me as though the bloke has eaten a bad burger and is trying to get rid of the mess he vomited out by getting other people to eat it. Obviously works. Anyone, even a child, who is stupid enough to believe that Orwell was interested in technological development or trying to reveal it is clearly dumber than the "vyzygoth" thing, which would make it of an IQ unable to find shoelaces, never mind tie them.
That was an interesting rant, thanks. You obviously chose not to listen to what you are dismissing, like all truly open-minded people would. All you managed was a worthless rationalisation of why you don't need to, which wasn't even intended to contain any truth.


Learn a little about Orwell before you try to lie him into anything, because your idiot heroes demonstrably have no clue.
Not only have I already learned a little about Orwell, but I haven't tried to "lie him into anything", unlike you.


Orwell himself was a hater of lies and he would have sliced people like Dylan Avery and Alex Jones into pieces so small their mothers wouldn't recognise them. (Not to mention that his sarcasm was so sharp, half-brains like those two might miss it altogether.)
Let me guess, you are allowed to spout stuff like this because you have studied his life properly, but you still missed some of the significances of 1984, and will never allow yourself to examine them because you are too clever.


I guess that's why the Loose Change club tries to co-opt dead legends only - since the best you can do with live [?] people is a couple of burnt-out hacks like Rosie O'Donnell.
Do you realise that the questioning of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory exists outside of the Loose Change thing?


It's this one, 58 minutes in:
Vyz on Gorightly’s show
There was also a 9-part series he did on Ian Slater's Orwell: The Road to Airstrip One, which I think he refers to in the interview. (I can put them up on rapidshare/megaupload if anyone wants them.)
I'll pass on that thanks, I'd like to wait until I'm reincarnated asa dog before I eat other people's vomitus.
Oh, you thought I'd like to hear from everybody who didn't want it. That's an unusual level of perceived self-importance you have there. And vomit seems to feature heavily in your venomous dialogue. Might want to work on that.



And incidentally, Bertrand Russell experimented with children, encouraging pre-pubertal sexual activity between them so as to look into the long-term effects this would have (fully backed by the Crown). He was not a good egg, though some people seem to want to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Nothing like slandering a dead man, is there? Knowing he can't sue you and all that?
It's not slander because it's true, and the fact that he is dead is irrelevant. And we both know he wouldn't have sued me if he was still alive.

Are you so unbelievably opaque of mind that you swallow lies like this? Russell advocated sex education for children, not sex, but please feel free to keep slandering the names of some of great thinkers of the past century.
Not only did he advocate sexual activity between pre-pubescent children, he played an active role in experimenting with it.
It simply doesn't matter whether your insurmountably non-opaque mind can handle that or not.

[The Atheist]

........

Quoted post edited by me: all lies and stupidity removed, evidence retained.

[Foster Zygote]

Let me guess, you are allowed to spout stuff like this because you have studied his life properly, but you still missed some of the significances of 1984, and will never allow yourself to examine them because you are too clever.
What is this significance to which you refer?

It's not slander because it's true, and the fact that he is dead is irrelevant. And we both know he wouldn't have sued me if he was still alive.
I notice that you have not yet cited a source. Are you ignoring my question because you cannot? You have already quoted Russell out of context, presenting sarcastic comments as literal, so I will assume that if Russell did say what you've claimed that you are once again quoting a sarcastic remark out of context.

Not only did he advocate sexual activity between pre-pubescent children, he played an active role in experimenting with it.
It simply doesn't matter whether your insurmountably non-opaque mind can handle that or not.
Can you provide some evidence to support this assertion?

[The Atheist]

That was an interesting rant, thanks.

Another one on the way! ;)

I just wanted to counterpoint the actual evidence you've presented so far before coming back and helping you bury yourself even deeper.

You obviously chose not to listen to what you are dismissing, like all truly open-minded people would. All you managed was a worthless rationalisation of why you don't need to, which wasn't even intended to contain any truth.

No, this is where you make a category error. "Vyzygoth" is some child who has gathered other children to make an "archive" of childish CTs. Given that I almost certainly completed my first dissertation on 1984 prior to the birth of "Vyzygoth" and his erstwhile pals, what on earth would make me think that some ill-educated, Illumanti Conspiracy child could possibly say anything to me about that book? We live in a world where anyone can propagate the most ridiculous theories of conspiracies thanks to the medium we're both using - the internet. You are forunate in finding a forum which has no issues with trolls, people who take statements out of context to assist with their perverse agendas and where slander of the dead is completely allowable.

You play very well.

The usual rules are:

Complete absence of factual evidence
Assertions by semi-literate poster
Use of historical figures for emphasis, without having any idea of what those people actually stood for.

Just to confirm my worst fears, I even went and looked at some of your friend Vyzygoth's babbling. Aside from the absolute hilarity at a poster using "Gordon Comstock" as a psuedonym promoting Illuminati CT, the site is expectedly bereft of humour, intelligence or evidence. Vyzygoth and his ilk are cowards, plain and simple. While slandering and disrespecting people whose feet they were unfit to lick in life, they try to buy some notoriety and fame. Picking on targets who cannot fight back, it's the gutless attempt of a few feeble individuals - like Avery & Jones - who never grew the testicular fortitude to do something. Maggots on a rotting carcase.

See, using Orwell and his characters to try to claim a moral high ground in CT debates is a level of silliness as yet unknown to me. I rate that type of silliness alongside someone who would start a picnic in the fast lane of motorway at noon, while carrying 25 kg of nitro-glycerine and juggling live hand grenades.


Not only have I already learned a little about Orwell, but I haven't tried to "lie him into anything", unlike you.

Two lies in one sentence. Seen my sig? You guys are usually pretty tight with Hitler - hating Jews and all that.

You have demonstrably learnt nothing about Orwell as a man. Had you even the most basic knowledge, you wouldn't attempt to make absurd claims about him and his writing.

Let me guess, you are allowed to spout stuff like this because you have studied his life properly, but you still missed some of the significances of 1984, and will never allow yourself to examine them because you are too clever.

Here, you're even partly right - I have made a major study of Orwell's life and writings.

The second part, however, again only emphasises the depths of your ignorance. 1984 is but one book of hundreds of pieces that Orwell had published during his life. There are literally dozens of examples of what Orwell thought, what he meant and how to interpret his writing. Unlike you and your pals, not only have I read those pieces, but I understand them. See, this is why Orwell is the worst possible choice to try to lie about. The man was an open book - his feelings, his life, his writing; all perfectly clear.

1984 is not some obscure document like the bible, or Nostradamus, where multiple translations and thousands of years fudge the history. You can bleat all you like about 1984 and Orwell, and again, as my sig notes, some people will listen. While they're listening, they also get to see what I say in answer to you.

I'm pretty happy with my posts.

Orwell does have one thing you have clearly taken to heart:

Ignorance is Strength. You're living it!

Do you realise that the questioning of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory exists outside of the Loose Change thing?

Yes, I understand it's also popular in mental institutions. I don't know whether you've ever read any of your great countryman, Mark Twain's, books, but well over a century ago, he pointed out that no matter how ridiculous something was, or no matter how guilty a criminal might be, there are people who will support it/him. How he would chuckle at your posts.

That people are friendless enough that they join into 9/11 CT to gain group entry is pretty sad. You do realise that the world is laughing at them, don't you?

Oh, you didn't? You thought everyone was behind Dylan, Alex & the Gang?

Sorry mate.

Oh, you thought I'd like to hear from everybody who didn't want it. That's an unusual level of perceived self-importance you have there. And vomit seems to feature heavily in your venomous dialogue. Might want to work on that.

Vomit features prominently as it's the only metaphor I can find which matches the level of absurdity. I've explained above why I wouldn't read crap from Vyzygoth, you think I'd listen to him?

You want to discuss Orwell's books, any of them, start a thread and I'll give you chapter, page, verse and punctuation on why you're wrong. Tell your buddy Vyzygoth the same thing - I'd be glad to point out his errors, but I'm not about to listen to him crucify himself.

It's not slander because it's true, and the fact that he is dead is irrelevant. And we both know he wouldn't have sued me if he was still alive.

Is this an attempt to make the most errors in the shortest sentence? Pretty damn good try!

It is slander
It is not true
That he is dead is relevant
At this stage, it appears that we share no common knowledge at all
I am certain Russell would sue you

While you continue to be unable to present evidence, I shall continue to point out your cowardly errors and lies. Pray continue.

But! No naughty out-of-context quotes, please. This is an example of what you may not do:

In a Steven King book, King writes, as the father, during a father-daughter dialogue; "Come here, I want to [rape] you".

That would not be considered evidence that King wants to rape his daughter.

Not only did he advocate sexual activity between pre-pubescent children, he played an active role in experimenting with it.

Slander without evidence against a dead genius. That's possibly the most cowardly thing I've ever seen - describing a dead bloke as a paedophile on no evidence whatsoever.

Oh wait. There is one other possibility....

Are you and your buddies so unbelievably obtuse that you see Russell's arguments for sex education to be in favour of paedophilia? I know there are people in the world dumb enough to believe that, I just didn't realise that any of them could use a keyboard.

It simply doesn't matter whether your insurmountably non-opaque mind can handle that or not.

Well, at least you admit your mind is opaque. Singularly so, in my opinion, but at least it's a start.

[matrixcutter]

You claim that quotes have been taken out of context, and were actually intended as sarcasm, as if Russell "sarcastically" believed in culling the population, for example, but your assertions are incorrect.

And the source is Russell's autobiography.

[The Atheist]

You claim that quotes have been taken out of context, and were actually intended as sarcasm, as if Russell "sarcastically" believed in culling the population, for example, but your assertions are incorrect.

And the source is Russell's autobiography.

I don't know how many times this needs to be said, but I'll say it again anyway:

PRESENT YOUR EVIDENCE.

[Civilized Worm]

Yes, quotes. Things that have actually been said.

Was it the NWO bit you found funny? Give it another 5 years or so, you won't be laughing then.

Incidentally, I see you live on this side of the Pond, have you seen this documentary (http://video.google.co.uk/url?docid=-4943675105275097719&esrc=sr1&ev=v&len=1673&q=ludicrous%2Bdiversions&srcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.co.uk%2Fvideoplay %3Fdocid%3D-4943675105275097719&vidurl=%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D-4943675105275097719%26q%3Dludicrous%2Bdiversions%2 6total%3D1%26start%3D0%26num%3D10%26so%3D0%26type% 3Dsearch%26plindex%3D0&usg=AL29H21ASoBB6WUSXDBiLoSa6F1pOwipmw) about the July 7th bombings?

Also, have you ever heard of Operation Gladio (http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=operation+gladio)?

I hope you don't find these funny, if you choose to watch them of course.


I watched the 7/7 one. The music was pretty funny but apart from that it was too mild to be truly entertaining woo. If you do a search I'm sure you'll find plenty of thread about 7/7 in the CT forum.

[matrixcutter]

That was an interesting rant, thanks.
Another one on the way! ;)
You're not wrong there.



You obviously chose not to listen to what you are dismissing, like all truly open-minded people would. All you managed was a worthless rationalisation of why you don't need to, which wasn't even intended to contain any truth.
No, this is where you make a category error. "Vyzygoth" is some child who has gathered other children to make an "archive" of childish CTs. Given that I almost certainly completed my first dissertation on 1984 prior to the birth of "Vyzygoth" and his erstwhile pals, what on earth would make me think that some ill-educated, Illumanti Conspiracy child could possibly say anything to me about that book?
He's 56 years old, and you are ignorant of things of which he is not ignorant.
I like how you know nothing about him but feel arrogant enough to call him ill-educated. It shows class.


Just to confirm my worst fears, I even went and looked at some of your friend Vyzygoth's babbling.
I've never met him, incidentally.


Aside from the absolute hilarity at a poster using "Gordon Comstock" as a psuedonym promoting Illuminati CT, the site is expectedly bereft of humour, intelligence or evidence.
So you listened to all of the mp3s in less time than the length of the mp3s? I find that impossibility rather difficult to believe.


Vyzygoth and his ilk are cowards, plain and simple. While slandering and disrespecting people whose feet they were unfit to lick in life, they try to buy some notoriety and fame.
Wonderfully wrong. I am amused by arrogance combined with ignorance, and you seem to be royalty.


Picking on targets who cannot fight back,
Are we still talking about the 56-year-old ill-educated child you know nothing about, or are we now in the vague realm of his "ilk", being comedically hypocritical?


it's the gutless attempt of a few feeble individuals - like Avery & Jones - who never grew the testicular fortitude to do something. Maggots on a rotting carcase.
Carry on criticising Avery and Jones if you feel the need, as if I value their opinions. It simply highlights the somewhat stereotypical position from which you speak. I wouldn't be surprised if you played the anti-semitic card ASAP.



Not only have I already learned a little about Orwell, but I haven't tried to "lie him into anything", unlike you.
Two lies in one sentence. Seen my sig? You guys are usually pretty tight with Hitler - hating Jews and all that.
Uncanny. Maybe next you could play the "CTers are mentally ill" card.

Incidentally, the second half of that quote and the 19-hijackers-overcame-America's-$40billion-defense-system-with-some-box-cutters conspiracy theory go together like arrogance and superiority complexes, dont'cha think?
There is another Russell quote that goes quite nicely here too:
There is no nonsense so arrant that it cannot be made the creed of the vast majority by adequate governmental action.

And, in this case, then comes the contradictory evidence.


You have demonstrably learnt nothing about Orwell as a man. Had you even the most basic knowledge, you wouldn't attempt to make absurd claims about him and his writing.
I know you get a bit excited easily and like to make these sweeping statements, but you simply don't know enough about me to make these statements. And what absurd claims have I made about Orwell?



Let me guess, you are allowed to spout stuff like this because you have studied his life properly, but you still missed some of the significances of 1984, and will never allow yourself to examine them because you are too clever.
Here, you're even partly right - I have made a major study of Orwell's life and writings.

The second part, however, again only emphasises the depths of your ignorance. 1984 is but one book of hundreds of pieces that Orwell had published during his life.
I know that. I never suggested that this was not the case, because I know that it is. Interesting that you would suggest otherwise though.


Orwell does have one thing you have clearly taken to heart:

Ignorance is Strength. You're living it!
Clever, I like it. What about war (on terror) is peace? Did that one not register with you?



Do you realise that the questioning of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory exists outside of the Loose Change thing?
Yes, I understand it's also popular in mental institutions.
What took you so long?


That people are friendless enough that they join into 9/11 CT to gain group entry is pretty sad.
That anybody would choose to suggest that speaking out about 9/11 is simply a symptom of having no friends is pretty desperate. And when you consider that many of those who lost their loved ones e.g. the people who made 9/11 Press For Truth (http://video.google.co.uk/url?docid=3979568779414136481&esrc=sr1&ev=v&len=5063&q=911%2Bpress%2Bfor%2Btruth&srcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.co.uk%2Fvideoplay %3Fdocid%3D3979568779414136481&vidurl=%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D3979568779414136481% 26q%3D911%2Bpress%2Bfor%2Btruth%26total%3D154%26st art%3D0%26num%3D10%26so%3D0%26type%3Dsearch%26plin dex%3D0&usg=AL29H20GS-WCU0MAZrkOW8kv2NyYkB-KwQ), have also spoken out, it's actually quite a disgusting thing to say. You might as well go and find them and spit on them.


You do realise that the world is laughing at them, don't you?
I realise that there are still some people who are, yes. Most people have worked out that they have been lied to by now.


Oh, you didn't? You thought everyone was behind Dylan, Alex & the Gang?

Sorry mate.
There's really no need to apologise. You are just wrong.



Oh, you thought I'd like to hear from everybody who didn't want it. That's an unusual level of perceived self-importance you have there. And vomit seems to feature heavily in your venomous dialogue. Might want to work on that.
Vomit features prominently as it's the only metaphor I can find which matches the level of absurdity.
That's an interesting admission.


I've explained above why I wouldn't read crap from Vyzygoth, you think I'd listen to him?
Not at all. I'd expect you to go on a self-indulgent rant, displaying an amusing level of arrogance, dismissing everything you don't already know and explaining why you don't need to listen to him, making several erroneous assumptions along the way. Looks like I hit the bullseye.


You want to discuss Orwell's books, any of them, start a thread and I'll give you chapter, page, verse and punctuation on why you're wrong. Tell your buddy Vyzygoth the same thing - I'd be glad to point out his errors, but I'm not about to listen to him crucify himself.
I'm not sure what you think he has said about Orwell, or why it is wrong, but I would like to know what you think the function of the book was.



Not only did he advocate sexual activity between pre-pubescent children, he played an active role in experimenting with it.
Slander without evidence against a dead genius. That's possibly the most cowardly thing I've ever seen - describing a dead bloke as a paedophile on no evidence whatsoever.
That's an interesting lie. I didn't describe Russell as a paedophile, and I still didn't slander him, even if you insist that I did. If it is slander, he slandered himself first.

Bertrand Russell was an elitist psychopath, working on behalf of The Establishment a.k.a. Huxley's "dominant minority".

[matrixcutter]

I watched the 7/7 one. The music was pretty funny but apart from that it was too mild to be truly entertaining woo. If you do a search I'm sure you'll find plenty of thread about 7/7 in the CT forum.
I'd like you to watch the 3-part BBC documentary on Operation Gladio (http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=operation+gladio), and then call it "woo". I'm sure you have it in you.

[matrixcutter]

I don't know how many times this needs to be said, but I'll say it again anyway:

PRESENT YOUR EVIDENCE.
I've told you it's in Russell's autobiography. I'm not interested in whether or not you or anyone else believes it. If anybody wants to check into it, they can. Or you can pretend that it doesn't exist, or that his autobiography was taken out of context, or that the Jews did it, etc..

[Foster Zygote]

You claim that quotes have been taken out of context, and were actually intended as sarcasm, as if Russell "sarcastically" believed in culling the population, for example, but your assertions are incorrect.

And the source is Russell's autobiography.

I suspect that an examination of the text in context will reveal that you (or rather your sources) are misrepresenting him.

Allow me to quote from the prologue to Russell's autobiography.

Three passions, simple but overwhelmingly strong, have governed my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge, and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind. These passions, like great winds, have blown me hither and thither, in a wayward course, over a great ocean of anguish, reaching to the very verge of despair.
I have sought love, first, because it brings ecstasy - ecstasy so great that I would often have sacrificed all the rest of life for a few hours of this joy. I have sought it, next, because it relieves loneliness--that terrible loneliness in which one shivering consciousness looks over the rim of the world into the cold unfathomable lifeless abyss. I have sought it finally, because in the union of love I have seen, in a mystic miniature, the prefiguring vision of the heaven that saints and poets have imagined. This is what I sought, and though it might seem too good for human life, this is what--at last--I have found.

With equal passion I have sought knowledge. I have wished to understand the hearts of men. I have wished to know why the stars shine. And I have tried to apprehend the Pythagorean power by which number holds sway above the flux. A little of this, but not much, I have achieved.

Love and knowledge, so far as they were possible, led upward toward the heavens. But always pity brought me back to earth. Echoes of cries of pain reverberate in my heart. Children in famine, victims tortured by oppressors, helpless old people a burden to their sons, and the whole world of loneliness, poverty, and pain make a mockery of what human life should be. I long to alleviate this evil, but I cannot, and I too suffer.

This has been my life. I have found it worth living, and would gladly live it again if the chance were offered me.

Russell never advocated the extermination of large portions of the human species. He advocated birth control as the only sound means of preventing overpopulation.

[The Atheist]

He's 56 years old, and you are ignorant of things of which he is not ignorant. I like how you know nothing about him but feel arrogant enough to call him ill-educated. It shows class.

When my class is compared to an ignorant fool who manages to suck a few children into his childish theories, I'm happy to be judged, anytime. And he's 56? That would make an even bigger fool than I thought. I can forgive callow youth a level of ignorance. At 56, he's clearly beyond help. And what else might I need to know about him? That he's a deluded cowardly liar is demonstrable. That's plenty for me.

So you listened to all of the mp3s in less time than the length of the mp3s? I find that impossibility rather difficult to believe.

No, now even your reading comprehension is letting you down. I said I have no interest in listening to his lies.

Wonderfully wrong. I am amused by arrogance combined with ignorance, and you seem to be royalty.

Wrong in what way? They are cowards. That fact is quite obvious. Arrogant? Sure I am. The arrogance of being right when faced with a puerile load of lies spread by people of limited intellectual means.

Are we still talking about the 56-year-old ill-educated child you know nothing about, or are we now in the vague realm of his "ilk", being comedically hypocritical?

There are, alas, people even older than 56 who are still cowardly, slanderous, deluded pieces of garbage. The age guess, as I noted above, is because ignorance is often youthful and I was trying to be kind. Now that I know how old he is, I can refer to him in terms which both of you may understand. Vyzygoth may have a certain animal cunning to find equally-deluded people to foist his vomit onto and he seems to find a few who lap it up, but I stick by my comments that he is a coward who is seeking attention. Nothing more.

Carry on criticising Avery and Jones if you feel the need, as if I value their opinions. It simply highlights the somewhat stereotypical position from which you speak. I wouldn't be surprised if you played the anti-semitic card ASAP.

Hmm, it's just funny how all of the sites link to 9/11 CT. If you're not into 9/11 CT, then there may be hope for you. As to anti-Semitism, you're confusing me with the Troofers and Illuminatists.

Uncanny. Maybe next you could play the "CTers are mentally ill" card.

I wouldn't go that far, although anecdotal evidence of CT posters here certainly suggests a link. I prefer to stick to what is actually demonstrated by posters and their links. "Cowardly lies" covers pretty much everything I've seen of yours so far.

Incidentally, the second half of that quote and the 19-hijackers-overcame-America's-$40billion-defense-system-with-some-box-cutters conspiracy theory go together like arrogance and superiority complexes, dont'cha think?

Odd, it now appears that you are a 0/11 CTist as well...

There is another Russell quote that goes quite nicely here too:
There is no nonsense so arrant that it cannot be made the creed of the vast majority by adequate governmental action.

Utterly irrelevant. Noy surprising, though, given your lack of ability to post any kind of evidence outside of quotes mined for suitability.

I know you get a bit excited easily and like to make these sweeping statements, but you simply don't know enough about me to make these statements. And what absurd claims have I made about Orwell?

That you or any of your heroes have any idea what Orwell meant.

Clever, I like it. What about war (on terror) is peace? Did that one not register with you?

More proof of the total lack of understanding of Orwell and 1984. Just sufficient literacy to be able to assume fallacies.

That anybody would choose to suggest that speaking out about 9/11 is simply a symptom of having no friends is pretty desperate. And when you consider that many of those who lost their loved ones e.g. the people who made 9/11 Press For Truth (http://video.google.co.uk/url?docid=3979568779414136481&esrc=sr1&ev=v&len=5063&q=911%2Bpress%2Bfor%2Btruth&srcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.google.co.uk%2Fvideoplay %3Fdocid%3D3979568779414136481&vidurl=%2Fvideoplay%3Fdocid%3D3979568779414136481% 26q%3D911%2Bpress%2Bfor%2Btruth%26total%3D154%26st art%3D0%26num%3D10%26so%3D0%26type%3Dsearch%26plin dex%3D0&usg=AL29H20GS-WCU0MAZrkOW8kv2NyYkB-KwQ), have also spoken out, it's actually quite a disgusting thing to say. You might as well go and find them and spit on them.

Have no fear, I would certainly go and spit on them.

I realise that there are still some people who are, yes. Most people have worked out that they have been lied to by now.

You mean like Avery lied about missiles being launched, people lying about no plane hitting the Pentagon, WTC being brought down by CD? Those type of lies? Yes, I think the vast majority of the world's sentient population recognises those as complete lies now.

Where did LC:FC premier again? New York? LA? Toronto?

There's really no need to apologise. You are just wrong.

Well trained in the school of, "I'm right because you're wrong." ;)

Unluckily, the facts don't back you up in the slightest. Even Michael Moore won't touch you with a barge-pole.

I'm not sure what you think he has said about Orwell, or why it is wrong, but I would like to know what you think the function of the book was.

I've already suggested starting a thread about your revision of 1984. Go ahead - I'll be glad to come and skin you alive again in another thread.

That's an interesting lie. I didn't describe Russell as a paedophile,

Oh dear, I just love the way that cowards and liars always forget that their words are there to be repeated should they choose to back down from their previous position. You said:

Not only did he advocate sexual activity between pre-pubescent children, he played an active role in experimenting with it. (bolding mine)

That would be a perfect description of a paedophile.

... and I still didn't slander him, even if you insist that I did. If it is slander, he slandered himself first.

Bertrand Russell was an elitist psychopath, working on behalf of The Establishment a.k.a. Huxley's "dominant minority".

Oh my word.

Just tell me one thing, please. Is there any lunacy you don't believe? Homeopathy? Christianity? Loch Ness Monster?

I've told you it's in Russell's autobiography. I'm not interested in whether or not you or anyone else believes it. If anybody wants to check into it, they can. Or you can pretend that it doesn't exist, or that his autobiography was taken out of context, or that the Jews did it, etc..

Or, to translate:

"I have no evidence at all to back up my slanderous attack on a dead man."

Thanks for that!

[matrixcutter]

You have no qualms about being dishonest. There are several examples in your previous post e.g. dishonesty by omission (of your assertion that Vyzgoth.com is bereft of evidence - a statement which requires you to have looked at everything in it), suggesting that people who do not value Jones and Avery's opinions must believe the government's provably false account of 9/11, arguing that playing an active role in experimenting with pre-pubertal sexual activity between children is the same thing as having sex with them, and there are other examples.

As for your question "is there any lunacy you don't believe?"
Yes, the provably false official 9/11 conspiracy theory, the provably false official 7/7 conspiracy theory, David Icke's reptilian nonsense, and many other things.

Is there any official explanation for any significant geo-political event, ever, that you do not accept unquestioningly?


As for your Orwell thread, there is nothing to stop you explaining your position here, or starting your own thread. I don't see the point in me starting another thread. It will probably either be moved or closed.

[Civilized Worm]

I'd like you to watch the 3-part BBC documentary on Operation Gladio (http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=operation+gladio), and then call it "woo". I'm sure you have it in you.


Pff, the BBC are in on it maaaaan!

[Foster Zygote]

You claim that quotes have been taken out of context, and were actually intended as sarcasm, as if Russell "sarcastically" believed in culling the population, for example, but your assertions are incorrect.

And the source is Russell's autobiography.

Yes, I believe Russell's intent was sarcasm. I believe this because after making a long argument in favor of the benefits of birth control to limit overpopulation, thus reducing famine, poverty and human suffering Russell, who was famous for his sardonic wit, suggests that another alternative is a massive plague. His point is that birth controle is the only sensible option.

And I've been searching for any evidence that Russell conducted experiments pertaining to, or even advocated, sex with pre-pubescent children. He did advocate sexual experimentation between adults prior to marriage (and to Victorian England this was quite radical enough) but I cannot find any evidence that he engaged in sexual experimentation with children.

[The Atheist]

Is there any official explanation for any significant geo-political event, ever, that you do not accept unquestioningly?

Yes, all of them. I like to accept when evidence when it's ratified, not when it's made up by someone with a desire to gain notoriety by cowardly accusations against dead people.

As for your Orwell thread, there is nothing to stop you explaining your position here, or starting your own thread. I don't see the point in me starting another thread. It will probably either be moved or closed.

Why would it be closed? If we start discussing it here, then it will be split off, but you're welcome to start a new thread, either in Current Events or Books. Even better, come to LitNet (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=166) and discuss it - I have a couple of mates there who'd like a good laugh at "the secret" within 1984.

[Matt the Poet]

Since this is a lit thread, I would highly recommend (without much hope of the OP listening) Ray Monk’s excellent biography of Russell.

While he has a great deal of respect for Russell’s early work in mathematical philosophy, Monk is pretty clear (and persuasive) in arguing that much of his later thought on sociology and, partcularly, child-rearing, is dangerous gibberish – a deeply personal and ill-thought-out expression of the neuroses drilled into him by his weird, oppressive childhood and resulting lifelong obsession with mental illness. Indeed, he goes so far as to suggest that Russell’s attempt to apply these ideas practically was, ironically, a contributing factor to his son’s schizophrenia.

[dogjones]

OPer has clearly been convinced by the b0llox of Lyndon LaRouche?

[Civilized Worm]

Worse than that, Jordan Maxwell and Alan Watt.

[Megalodon]

I'm utterly convinced!!! And I thought nothing could shock me more that to find out that Ghandi was a genocidal canibal...

I want... to kill... humankind... and eat... everyone... especially... little children