Serious Analysis of Cultural Trends and Geo-politics
September 23, 2012 2 Comments
In my return to “Radical Analysis,” we discuss the basic overview of the events of 9 11 which demonstrate a clear and consistent narrative of a planned event by rogue forces within the system.
To download the MP3/WMA file,
right click and “save as”
May 18, 2011 2 Comments
Who is Number 1? "You are Number Six"
By: Jay
The study of conspiracy leads directly to the study of covert operations and intelligence agencies. As one reads about the plots and intrigues of secret societies, one is quickly led to the topic of intelligence due to the fact that both have one central aspect in common—knowledge of secrets. Combined with this is the ability to hide that knowledge and rule men accordingly, and if you don’t think the modern world is run by the military industrial intelligence complex, you know nothing of the world. The result of this knowledge and secrecy is a modicum of power.
The use of this type of power is thus utilized by governments in the form of psychological warfare. In older manuals around the time of World War II, the assumption is that psychological warfare is the use and application of “propaganda against an enemy, together with such other operational measures of military, economic, or political nature as may be required to supplement propaganda.”1 In our day, these principles, borrowed from psychology, are combined with scientific precision and notions from Edward Bernays’ theories of mass advertising, as well as mass media studies and social engineering, and has resulted in a world wherein we are daily adrift in a sea of psychological warfare. The privatization of intelligence is thus connected with the private, corporate control of entities like the mainstream media and film, as well as a heavy dose of privatized influence and control of government from behind the scenes. By this I mean that Lockheed-Martin, for example, can have a much greater influence over governmental policy and regulations than a senator. This is the reality of the present situation, regardless of anyone’s feelings on the matter. Read more of this post
July 29, 2010 3 Comments
The movement upward in this consideration as presented is fractal-esque
By: Jay
I propose a modified form of the transcendental argument for God’s existence. Not that it’s different, but it’s an aspect to the argument I’ve never seen previous proponents take. It occurred to me while reading Alisdair MacIntyre and while considering some of what Husserl and Karl Otto Appel have said. But of course, debates get old. They get old as I get old, maybe. Anyway, the subject matter itself is still worthy of reflection, even if one chooses not to engage in debate. Didn’t debate used to be a respected art? yes. But in our INGSOC modernity, questioning is itself suspect. But to the point.
MacIntyre points out that there is a kind of narrative structure for any meaningful conversation to take place. He makes a convincing case in his piece mentioned above. It occurred to me that for the localized instance of conversation to make sense, though, there has to be a larger narrative structure within which the localized conversation takes place. MacIntyre’s The Virtues, The Unity of a Human Life and the Concept of a Tradition gives an example along the lines of approaching someone gardening. To say a nonsense statement like “flight of the condor eats cheese wings perpetually,” has no meaning. In fact, to say even a meaningful phrase assumes some sort of context, such as, “how is the gardening coming?” or something of that nature. So why is it that we do one and not the other? Deconstructionists, relativists, nihilists, and so on, can say that it’s just utilitarian and social convention that has caused to use certain sounds in a certain way to stand for certain things, and that we evolved this way, blah blah blah.
But this kind of simple, mundane interaction doesn’t just show a kind of appropriateness to the content of what can be said, it also evidences a narrative structure. For example, generally, such a conversation would have a greeting, middle, and climax. Granted not always per se, but even a passing hello, has a kind of narrative structure to it, with an intended meaning that one party has, that the other party receives and many or may not acknowledge. Again, the intentions obviously vary as well as the received meanings and responses, but none of this changes the loosely narrative structure of such interactions. Read more of this post
