• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Peter Dale Scott now moving into the MIHOP camp

Travis said:
Is anyone else quaking in their boots at the prospect of this Truther Mega-Army of poets, theologians, radio hosts and burnt out ex-wrestlers?
Click to expand...

Yeah, as soon as they are capable of busting their through that crowd of Eloi I might have to give them a hard stare to disperse them.
 
For everyone out there interested in Peter Dale Scott, I suggest you read his book 'Cocaine Politics'.

The book summarizes all the evidence and proves that the CIA (Cocaine Importing Agency) brought thousands of metric tons of cocaine into the USA.

Hence, the Drug Was is MIHOP also, they Made It Happen On Pupose.
 
Peter Dale Scott vs. mental giants

Wow, what an impressive bunch of "critical thinkers". Apparently, nobody (except for Gravy and Galileo) is even interested in the specifics of what a former college professor and 5-year member of the Canadian diplomatic service have to say.

His political works merely include

* The War Conspiracy (1972, out of print)
* The Assassinations: Dallas and Beyond (in collaboration, 1976, ISBN 0-394-40107-7)
* Crime and Cover-Up: The CIA, the Mafia, and the Dallas-Watergate Connection (1977, ISBN 0-87867-066-1)
* The Iran-Contra Connection (in
collaboration, 1987, ISBN 0-89608-291-1)
* Cocaine Politics: Drugs, Armies, and the CIA in Central America (in collaboration, 1991, 1998, ISBN 0-520-21449-8)
* Deep Politics and the Death of JFK (1993, 1996, ISBN 0-520-20519-7)
* Deep Politics Two: Essays on Oswald, Mexico, and Cuba (1995, 2007, ISBN 0-9790-0994-4)
* Drugs Oil and War (2003, ISBN 0-7425-2522-8)
* The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire and the Future of America (September 2007, ISBN 0-5202-3773-0)


Then again, what should we expect from such a 'curiously incurious' group of "critical thinkers"? At least a couple of the snarks were entertaining.
 
Metamars, just because someone has published some books, it doesn't mean automatically that they are worth reading. From a quick perusal of PDS' ouevre (did I get that right?), he is, regardless of poetic sensibilities or diplomatic experience, someone who sees wicked Yankee conspiracies everywhere. That sort of character is merely silly.

What you are saying is that others don't see what you think you see. Welcome to the real world; that is how it works.

ETA: you also seem impressed by the fact that his books have actual ISBN's. As someone in a wing of the book business, let me assure you that that doesn't mean anything in and of itself.
 
Travis said:
In my experience Literature Professors view their classes as a chance to indoctrinate their students into some sort of political belief. They thus start reading highly political works and, by virtue of their position of authority, don't have anyone to call them on it as they get more and more radical and detached from reality. Before you know it they're tenured ideologues of some extreme movement.
Click to expand...

Now HERE'S something worth discussing and squabbling about. Can we trace back the root failing to postmodernism, or imbibing too much Jameson the theorist as opposed to Jameson's whiskey? Possibly, but more likely is the fact that English professors deal in fiction, which they then take as representative of current or past reality, in varying strange fashions. Theologians and other humanities types are likewise hooked on exegesis. To them, texts are things that can be manipulated and twisted, in some cases more than 180 degrees around.

Throw in the usual student silence in the face of The Professor, as Travis observes, and the kooky tenured radical never gets to experience real criticism, since their extracurricular conspiracising will be conducted largely in an echo chamber of adulation (cf the theologian Griffin, now retired and thus cut off from the danger of being criticised anyhow).

There's probably a future PhD in this for someone: why humanities professors spout bollocks. You can start with the preceding generation of crusty extreme right types like Revilo P Oliver (classics), Austin App (English) and Robert Faurisson (French literature), and then move on to the philosophers (Fetzer) and theologians (Griffin).

And ultimately: why do these guys (almost always guys, nota bene) think they can get away with instant-expert status in fields that they have absolutely no experience in and no real knowledge of?
 
Then again, what should we expect from such a 'curiously incurious' group of "critical thinkers"?

Apparently, this:

"Metamars, just because someone has published some books, it doesn't mean automatically that they are worth reading. From a quick perusal of PDS' ouevre (did I get that right?), he is, regardless of poetic sensibilities or diplomatic experience, someone who sees wicked Yankee conspiracies everywhere. That sort of character is merely silly."

Actually SDC the sort of character that is merely silly is one that makes rash assumptions based on a quick perusal of another's oeuvre.

This type of mentality is pervasive around here and some of the other subforums at JREF. I think the single track mind of debunking sometimes gets in the way of forming an objective viewpoint. Which would obviously entail reading political works from as many perspectives as one can.

Unfortunately, PDS is in a rather small group of historians/researchers that adresses the concept/reality of 'deep politics'. We obviously know that deep politics exists, just not how much of an impact these types of political structures have on overt/open politics.

I have read, the road to 9/11 and Drugs, Oil and War. Both insightful books that only increase ones knowledge on the subject "9/11." I personally didn't interperet PDS's position to be that of a 'conspiracy kook' or 'wicked yankee conspiracist' but then again, I have actually read some of his work. I would think that actually reading someone's work would be a prerequisite to making a characterization about him/her.

To be fair, MikeW has made a concious effort to refute certain stances that PDS took in his book "road to 9/11." Mainly concerning the whole "Mineta contradictions." He has made good points that, IMO, remain a good critical analysis of a chapter or two from "Road to 9/11". I do, however, think that more information is needed to fully elucidate the "Mineta Contradiction".

I would be happy to discuss some of the specifics of his books (at least the ones that I have read).
 
I could quote Koheleth /Ecclesiastics again, but think I will skip it. The point being that there is a ton of stuff being published, and to quote the eminent Science Fiction writer Theodore Sturgeon, 95% of everything is crap.

Even Scott's mere list of titles, and the things you say about him, and the little I've read about him, set off my horse-puckey alarms. He clearly falls on the 95% side, at least for history and current events. (For all I know, he's the best Canadian poet since, oh, Rbt Service.)

First, there are too many interesting things to read. Second, 9/11 is exactly what it appears, not some fantasy. I don't need to read something in the 95% to understand that.

ETA: I am so, like, totally ashamed of myself, and I snivel and grovel in embarrassment. Sturgeon actually referred to 90%, not 95.
 
Last edited:
metamars said:
Apparently, nobody (except for Gravy and Galileo) is even interested in the specifics of what a former college professor and 5-year member of the Canadian diplomatic service have to say.
Click to expand...
It would seem his diplomatic service was rather undistinguished, since I've never heard of the guy, and I live in the country in question.

metamars said:
Then again, what should we expect from such a 'curiously incurious' group of "critical thinkers"? At least a couple of the snarks were entertaining.
Click to expand...
This from the fellow who, based on little more than reading Noam Chomsky, posits a vast, global, media-controlling conspiracy while offering no proof or actual evidence whatsoever.

How the CBC or The Toronto Star is being controlled by this conspiracy, for example, goes notably unanswered.
 
All Dale Scott did was apply the Deconstructionist "Deep Structure" school of Literature (which I personally think is among the biggest bunch of BS ever to gain academic acceptence) and apply it to politics, with predictable results.
 
metamars said:
Wow, what an impressive bunch of "critical thinkers". Apparently, nobody (except for Gravy and Galileo) is even interested in the specifics of what a former college professor and 5-year member of the Canadian diplomatic service have to say.

His political works merely include

* The War Conspiracy (1972, out of print)
* The Assassinations: Dallas and Beyond (in collaboration, 1976, ISBN 0-394-40107-7)
* Crime and Cover-Up: The CIA, the Mafia, and the Dallas-Watergate Connection (1977, ISBN 0-87867-066-1)
* The Iran-Contra Connection (in
collaboration, 1987, ISBN 0-89608-291-1)
* Cocaine Politics: Drugs, Armies, and the CIA in Central America (in collaboration, 1991, 1998, ISBN 0-520-21449-8)
* Deep Politics and the Death of JFK (1993, 1996, ISBN 0-520-20519-7)
* Deep Politics Two: Essays on Oswald, Mexico, and Cuba (1995, 2007, ISBN 0-9790-0994-4)
* Drugs Oil and War (2003, ISBN 0-7425-2522-8)
* The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire and the Future of America (September 2007, ISBN 0-5202-3773-0)


Then again, what should we expect from such a 'curiously incurious' group of "critical thinkers"? At least a couple of the snarks were entertaining.
Click to expand...

Good work. I'm glad I'm not the only one here who opposes mass murder and drug dealing by the CIA.
 
Last edited:
metamars said:
Wow, what an impressive bunch of "critical thinkers". Apparently, nobody (except for Gravy and Galileo) is even interested in the specifics of what a former college professor and 5-year member of the Canadian diplomatic service have to say.
Click to expand...
metamars, I asked you to tell us what you find new and compelling about his 9/11 claims. You've given no one any reason to pay him any mind. And if there is nothing new and compelling, don't expect anyone care that an old kook is out to lunch at MIHOP.

Well?
 
Gravy said:
metamars, I asked you to tell us what you find new and compelling about his 9/11 claims. You've given no one any reason to pay him any mind. And if there is nothing new and compelling, don't expect anyone care that an old kook is out to lunch at MIHOP.

Well?
Click to expand...

Peter Dale Scott proves that Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney are unaccounted for between 9:45 and 9:55.

9/11 Commission Deception, Cheney's Actions on 9/11, and Why He Should Testify Under Oath
by Peter Dale Scott
http://journalof911studies.com/volum...ustTestify.pdf

This was when the evil conspirators decided to pull the plug and shoot down FL93.
 
Galileo said:
Peter Dale Scott proves that Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney are unaccounted for between 9:45 and 9:55.

9/11 Commission Deception, Cheney's Actions on 9/11, and Why He Should Testify Under Oath
by Peter Dale Scott
http://journalof911studies.com/volum...ustTestify.pdf

This was when the evil conspirators decided to pull the plug and shoot down FL93.
Click to expand...

Well, if it is in the Journal of 9/11 Stundies, it must be true. Honestly I trust the 9/11 Commission more than some poet with a penchant for believing and writing about conspiracy theories.
 
Galileo said:
Peter Dale Scott proves that Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney are unaccounted for between 9:45 and 9:55.

[...]

This was when the evil conspirators decided to pull the plug and shoot down FL93.
Click to expand...


That all happened in a mere 10 minutes...?
 
Corsair 115 said:
It would seem his diplomatic service was rather undistinguished, since I've never heard of the guy, and I live in the country in question.
Click to expand...
I live in the US, and can't name a single US diplomat. Even though I spend time on political blogs. Gee, imagine that.

This from the fellow who, based on little more than reading Noam Chomsky, posits a vast, global, media-controlling conspiracy while offering no proof or actual evidence whatsoever.

How the CBC or The Toronto Star is being controlled by this conspiracy, for example, goes notably unanswered.
Click to expand...

Whatsamatta U? Reading comprehension problems?

media-controlling conspiracy <> media-filtering non-conspiracy, try as you will to twist things around.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom