comment vs no comment spy vs spy the brain wars

Fri Oct 22 13:12:37 UTC 2021

I stand with my opinion changed. Thanks, David...I like Charlie but missed
this and never read *Hubris *obviously.

Thanks.

On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 9:09 AM David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think Powell knew he was lying, probably trying to be the Good Soldier.
>
>
> https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a37991036/colin-powell-obituary-george-w-bush-iraq-war/
>
> David Morris
>
> On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 6:28 AM Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Also, as all who have written about lying, from Plato and Kant thru
>> Sissela
>> Bok in her v good book know, one must be aware of the Real, the reality
>> that exists when one intentionally denies it.
>> All of those really running the US when they lied us into the Iraq War
>> KNEW
>> they were lying. There is no evidence Powell knew--they kept the truth
>> from
>> him and used him because, as you say,
>> people trusted him.
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>> From: Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com>
>> Date: Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 4:21 AM
>> Subject: Re: comment vs no comment spy vs spy the brain wars
>> To: Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net>
>>
>>
>> Jst two things....the most major which you ignored except for the
>> criticism
>> of Norton. Just to have to enlighten you, I'm afraid, an ad hominem attack
>> is what you just did to me; I just criticized one of your sources for the
>> stupid lack of clarity. Take Care: "  This comes from RT, Russian Times,
>> no
>> lover of NATO, of course: "For example, a 33-page meditation <
>> https://www.innovationhub-act.org/sites/default/files/docs/WoNS.pdf> on
>> the
>> “weaponization of neurosciences,” authored by Herve Le Guyader, professor
>> of evolutionary biology at Bordeaux’s Institut de Cognitique <
>> https://ensc.bordeaux-inp.fr/fr>, avowedly “uses fiction and mixes actual
>> facts and events, fairly logical foresights and some fictitious
>> extrapolations,” and “a few dramatization tricks, at the cost of being a
>> bit provocative to try and keep the reader’s interest,” to weave an
>> extensive, sensational fable about the steps NATO could take to launch a
>> cognitive war."    Solid fact-based stuff, eh Joseph? Give up your moron
>> commentators."
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 21, 2021 at 11:37 PM Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Where the hell is the guilt by association?  He simply quotes from Nato
>> > materials. and the quotes  are full sentences, not “scare quotes” ( I am
>> > actually quoting you here not trying to scare anyone). Scare quotes, a
>> > frequently misleading term, generally refer to a short phrase or word in
>> > quotes, not to sentences or paragraphs quoted to reveal the ideas
>> > expressed.. If you think these many quotes are taken out of context,
>> show
>> > how restoring context changes their meaning.
>> >
>> > Show me an “unattributed quote”. You are grasping for straws there. He
>> is
>> > clear where the quotes are from and there are links.
>> >
>> > I understood without the aid of your lame comments that the writers of
>> > this material were talking about what they call adversaries.But it is
>> the
>> > Nato sponsored writers who fail to truly clarify what that means, not
>> > Norton. He doesn’t even comment very much on how weird this shit is.
>> > Unusual for him. But the materials he cites are so creepy that why
>> bother.
>> > Who after reading this material will be inviting NATO to put a brain
>> > control chip in all their devices?
>> >
>> > As to it being old news, sure. Old news freshly revived from the worst
>> > paranoia of the cold war and McCarthyism.
>> >
>> > What the fuck right  does NATO have to try to shape or limit what I
>> read,
>> > think about, who I talk to etc.  There is plenty of that already( Colin
>> > Powell lied us into war because he was one of the few in power that
>> people
>> > trusted, though many of us knew he was lying his ass off) but putting
>> the
>> > goal of sophisticated warfare to conrol people’s brains in the stark
>> > military terms being used is fucking weird, police state, sci-fi nuts.
>> And
>> > Nato writers' idea that some adversary is responsible for social
>> divisions
>> > is paranoid nonsense that is comical in its ignorance.
>> >
>> > As to moron commentators I would like to give up, you are near the top
>> of
>> > that list. But you keep at it after promising to stop. Keep your ad
>> hominem
>> > shit to yourself and I will do the same. If you don’t, I won’t. My
>> interest
>> > in this  and my posting of it has little to do with who said it but the
>> > source materials quoted.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > The other article I reject wholesale, however. All those guilt by
>> > association quotes you find so telling and I find in their scare quotes
>> way
>> > to be a failed high school paper level presentation--I still sting at a
>> > college-level course I took in high school where, basically, the teacher
>> > said "wtf?" about some unanchored, even unattributed quotes. ; that
>> > McCarthyism that starts with ignoring that this report begins in being
>> > about 'adversaries", which needs understood, deconstructed first to see
>> IF
>> > there are and what they are doing and what this response might therefore
>> > mean if it is true. "In a chilling disclosure, the report said
>> explicitly
>> > that “the objective of Cognitive Warfare is to harm societies and not
>> only
>> > the military."--and is this about--also about?-- what those
>> 'adversaries'
>> > are trying to do to NATO countries? ...And is this whole "hacking into
>> > one's brain" just another way of speaking about propaganda, controlling
>> > what enters our consciousness as we can? Old news, new dog tricks if
>> so. On
>> > both sides.
>> > >
>> > > Besides all the Right Wing conspiracy sites repeating this vapid
>> > shit--and there are Google pages full of them, of course, including one
>> > called Communist News, I found the left-leaning, but knowing how to read
>> > and think, London Review of Economics piece a decent place to start with
>> > something I had not heard about before. It is below but:
>> > >
>> > > This comes from RT, Russian Times, no lover of NATO, of course: "For
>> > example, a 33-page meditation <
>> > https://www.innovationhub-act.org/sites/default/files/docs/WoNS.pdf> on
>> > the “weaponization of neurosciences,” authored by Herve Le Guyader,
>> > professor of evolutionary biology at Bordeaux’s Institut de Cognitique <
>> > https://ensc.bordeaux-inp.fr/fr>, avowedly “uses fiction and mixes
>> actual
>> > facts and events, fairly logical foresights and some fictitious
>> > extrapolations,” and “a few dramatization tricks, at the cost of being a
>> > bit provocative to try and keep the reader’s interest,” to weave an
>> > extensive, sensational fable about the steps NATO could take to launch a
>> > cognitive war."    Solid fact-based stuff, eh Joseph? Give up your moron
>> > commentators.
>> > >
>> > > "like the plague", Joseph? Again, still so wrong, seeing "the
>> > mainstream" akin to the way those pre-emptive condemners of Rooney see
>> her.
>> > "I fully expect to see "the mainstream" miss this because I know the
>> > mainstream and it always does and has never changed" even though, of
>> > course, using your own words and judgments, you do not seem to be aware
>> > that 'fascism' and "authoritarianism" and what's causing the Havana
>> > Syndrome mind "attacks" and so much more is almost all "the mainstream"
>> IS
>> > consumed with these days. If this had reality enough to have legs, it
>> would
>> > be all over "the mainstream", I suggest.
>> > >
>> > > Pull quote: "At this stage, the discourse about future warfare within
>> > NATO is rather abstract".
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://www.lse.ac.uk/ideas/Assets/Documents/updates/LSE-IDEAS-NATO-and-the-Future-Character-of-Warfare.pdf
>> > <
>> >
>> https://www.lse.ac.uk/ideas/Assets/Documents/updates/LSE-IDEAS-NATO-and-the-Future-Character-of-Warfare.pdf
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 8:20 PM Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net
>> <mailto:
>> > brook7 at sover.net>> wrote:
>> > >
>> >
>> https://theintercept.com/2021/10/16/lies-told-sally-rooney-refuses-ignore-israeli-apartheid/
>> > <
>> >
>> https://theintercept.com/2021/10/16/lies-told-sally-rooney-refuses-ignore-israeli-apartheid/
>> >
>> > <
>> >
>> https://theintercept.com/2021/10/16/lies-told-sally-rooney-refuses-ignore-israeli-apartheid/
>> > <
>> >
>> https://theintercept.com/2021/10/16/lies-told-sally-rooney-refuses-ignore-israeli-apartheid/
>> > >>
>> > > Lies Are Being Told About Sally Rooney Because She Refuses to Ignore
>> > Israeli Apartheid
>> > > Robert Mackey makes some astute observations concerning the Sally
>> Rooney
>> > vortex.  The Irish have many historical reasons to recognize and oppose
>> > colonial theft, oppression, apartheid.
>> > >
>> > >  mad magazine would have loved this:
>> > https://thegrayzone.com/2021/10/08/nato-cognitive-warfare-brain/ <
>> > https://thegrayzone.com/2021/10/08/nato-cognitive-warfare-brain/> <
>> > https://thegrayzone.com/2021/10/08/nato-cognitive-warfare-brain/ <
>> > https://thegrayzone.com/2021/10/08/nato-cognitive-warfare-brain/>>
>> > > Western governments in the NATO military alliance are developing
>> tactics
>> > of “cognitive warfare,” using the supposed threats of China and Russia
>> to
>> > justify waging a “battle for your brain” in the “human domain,” to “make
>> > everyone a weapon.”
>> > >
>> > > Some would discount Ben Norton but he does his homework and just the
>> > quotes from the NATO  materials is so off-the-wall fascist it deserves a
>> > certain awareness since the mainstream avoids this kind of thing like
>> the
>> > plague.  This really is some weird shit.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l <
>> > https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l>
>> >
>> > --
>> > Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>> >
>> --
>> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>>
>