I joined DU about the same time you did, AC, and certainly if this OP choice of yours is an accurate representation of your own views, we see very much eye to eye on this one!
But even for those DUers who see things differently from how this article presents them
or who disagree on methods for "fighting back," I'm curious about why we are not getting more posts on this thread for the sake of discussion -- simply because it IS such a crucial issue that needs addressing in a big way!
Of course, this sort of thing happens here a lot, where threads with great potential sink fast even if "recced" to the Greatest Page. I understand that. Guess I'm just curious why this one in particular hasn't drawn more posters and in-depth probing.
In my case, I didn't contribute a post in the middle of the night when I recced the OP, either, like most of the 10 others, it seems; but that was because I was falling asleep and planned to respond today after I re-read the article and followed a couple of links in it to more information from and about the writer of the piece.
Yes, that's it! Everyone else is doing this too! :)
Well, anyway, I find I'm still very interested after reading further, and I wanted to make more of the article readily available to others here (for those who aren't moved yet to click the link).
I should probably mention that I do recognize the writer is not highly polished, and that might put some folks off a bit. However, he seems intelligent and he does present his ideas clearly enough, so I feel we can see past minor syntax or punctuation errors, right?
Immediately following the excerpts you have included in the OP, here is a paragraph which made a great deal of sense to me:
These are “wild conspiracy theories”… Yet many of us here know the controlled media part at least to be quite true nonetheless. When attempting to change another’s mind on these subjects, “conspiracy” is itself an important term to cover. After all many of us know that the media and government have spent considerable time and trouble to insure the phrase “conspiracy theory” is derogatory and “auto-discounting”… So that anything coming before or after it is automatically ignored or even derided. Point this out to the person you are attempting to enlighten. Also mention the national poll of the early 90’s that listed over 90% in the U.S. believes there was a conspiracy in the Kennedy Assassination, yet no one in mainstream media has ever voiced those opinions on-air. Another tool for removing the “conspiracy” bias is the official story of who was responsible for “911”: Point out that the Bush administration’s accusations against Osama Bin Laden are nothing more than conspiracy theories in themselves (he has never been officially charged with any crimes regarding “911” by the FBI).
Oops! It mentions 911, darn. But only as a brief example of the "MSM" utterly failing to cover properly a hugely important subject that certainly merits the
investigative journalism work and exposure it has NOT received.
What I'd like to know from others -- including you, AC -- regarding the point in this paragraph is if you agree with Corvus here. I have been for some time appalled and angered at
just how easily people have apparently been manipulated by the media to not only avoid any deep thinking that might possibly be labeled "tin foil" but also how quick many are to taunt and dismiss others on this point.
In other words, they've not only complied, but they have joined right in,
helping the media (and thus their controllers) in their dastardly efforts to humiliate everyone into avoiding publicly asking questions!
There is much more in this meaty article and regarding the background and the broader ideas of the writer which I would like to talk about, but let's see if we get any further discussion going at least on this narrower, key issue first. If not, I can take a hint. ;)
For now, at least.