From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com> Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 16:45:04 -0600 Fwd Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 08:30:25 -0500 Subject: Re: William Cooper Killed In SWAT Raid - Lehmberg >Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 02:29:14 +0100 >From: Josh Goldstein <email@example.com> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <firstname.lastname@example.org> >Subject: Re: William Cooper Killed In SWAT Raid >>From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com> >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <email@example.com> >>Subject: Re: William Cooper Killed In SWAT Raid >>Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 15:47:01 -0600 >>>From: Jerome Clark <firstname.lastname@example.org> >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <email@example.com> >>>Subject: Re: William Cooper Killed In SWAT Raid >>>Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2001 12:55:27 -0600 ><snip> <snip> >Hi Alf, I'm not partial to "Alf", Mr. Goldstein. Alfred or Mr. Lehmberg, please. >To answer your question of "what made Cooper?": >Paranoid Schizophrenia. His imbalanced neurotransmitters made >his brain go /////////;l;l;=E6'?'=3D;][l,'=C5,, : Very colorful... but that wasn't altogether my question, Mr. Goldstein, forgetting for a moment that while it may be that you could get select headshrinkers to agree with your broad brushed contention, you're not really competent to make that call yourself, are you? Additionally, there is stuff going on around us that made his alleged psychosis seem attractive to more than a few people across this nation. Denial of that "aggregate craziness" which provides fertile ground for someone like Mr. Cooper demonstrates a naivet=E9 on your part that I think you later thinly accuse _me_ of. >I don't remember if you saw him perform live or met him >personally. If you did, then I fail to see how even you would >try to defend him. I think you would _have_ me defend him to satisfy a personal issue you make a little plainer, later, but I don't _defend_ him, Mr. Goldstein... I point out that there was considerable grist for Cooper's too strident mill... I question his very genesis -- what's in the grassroots to sustain him, why he continues (or continued) to get the validation that he continued to get... Not defense, Mr. Goldstein, interested speculation. >I just posted that if you would just look at >his newsletter and learn what he has done to other people you >would not ask that question. What question, sir? "Why"? And what "one man did to many people" is not the issue, and a digression. The issue is what has to occur for someone like Cooper to achieve viability. Hitler, already used in comparison, had a bad faith deal for Germany with France and GB wading in to steal everything they could "fair and square..." after the first war. It's argued that Hitler was not so much the cause of WWII, but the rest of the European leadership... fertile ground. You'll remember that that identical mistake was NOT made at the conclusion of the _second_ war... >I sure hope you don't harbor any >illusions that he died as some sort of counter cultural hero in >that police shootout. Please -- but I think you would be happy (and oddly relieved somehow) if I were... and what's up with that? >He was as crazed as a rabid dog and just >baiting the police to get into a gunfight. The crazed Cooper was >too cowardly to surrender and instead shot a good family man, >his wife, and kids. All I want to do is forget about Cooper and >I hope everyone else does. Ok... then what about that guy that replaces him? Forgetting Cooper does not provide for the end of all Coopers... Forgetting him seems to court the unremembered history coming back to repeat itself. Forgetting him is not the best answer in that light. Would you agree? >Alf, sheepishly speaking, sometimes you just get my goat. That's >in plain English with a direct and profound meaning. Ah yes. Well, sometimes when I get _really_ irritated with someone it's because I know how right they are. That's not quite as direct, but the English is just as plain, and a little more profound I think. >You crack me up. Your positions on what is happening on this >planet, in the cosmos, and its relationship to other humans is >that most people have been manipulated by the controlled mass >media propaganda machinery serving those who hijacked our >society. Boy. I hope you'll let me write that down -- a very succinct impact statement on my position. >They do not see things as do you and a handful of >visionaries. It's the poetry isn't it? Me and a handful of visionaries... that's rather insulting. Did you mean that the way it sounded? I reject that out of hand, regardless, as an invention all your own. It's like me painting you and a handful of your like-minders as ethnocentric troglodytes, a condition you would find equally objectionable and rejectable... I regret you perceive me that way, forgetting that I won't be changing a thing... >You have created your own duality that all mass >media are controlled together and you have kicked them all over >to the dark side of the fence. On the white side of the fence >are you and the alternative media to set the people and the >planet free. You're making the call... > >Alf, this is the information age, That's correct, Mr. Goldstein, and I suggest you sift yours a little less personally and a little more personably. >A great many prople are on the >internet can access just about any point of view on just about >every subject, except government secrets. Thousands of book >titles of all kinds are in print. A lot of people also look at >both mass media and alternative media then do something >miraculous, think for themselves and care for all else. That _was_ lovely. I'm relieved to discover we have so many people out there thinking for themselves. Really, it's a load off my mind. > >Just who are these hijackers of our society, in your opinon? Or... we could just leave that alone, a moment, to examine your implied contention that our society is not being hijacked, is on an upward path, healthy, and not needing our worried concern. _Have_ you been paying attention to current events? But, who are *they*? I answered that in another thread, but *they* are... " ...the privileged arbitrary, the unelected, and far too many of the elected. "They," are those that have, and having had, would keep on having despite an aggregate detriment to the common good of "have nots." "They," are in possession of information that would credit or be to the advantage of anyone who knew, specifically outlining why most know not. "They" are the secret keepers. "They" are the jealous manipulators of the mainstream, the covetous who encourage bland employees while they discourage critical thinkers. "They" are the ones with hidden agendas, duplicitous plans, and secret programs. "They" are the few willing to profit at the expense of the many. "They" are above the law, outside reasonable ethics, and hold the many beneath their privileged contempt... Everyone knows what is meant by "they"; it requires no citation. "They" are the ones having none of the concern for you that "they" would _demand_ of you for them. That's the hijacker, in a nutshell. >I never met John Ford. I just read a lot of things those years >and saw some video, etc. My question to you is: Why do the >courts and a lot of people in the UFO field think he has a >mental problem? He very likely does... now! So would you! The point is that he was likely not crazy... then! Ford was torpedoed, Mr. Goldstein, for busily investigating a powerful man (subsequently a convicted criminal) who could bear NO investigation because of that criminal activity, and who I'd wager did not spend _one_ freaking day in jail for _his_ crimes... Your obvious appreciation of "courts" and the veracity of the members of political machines is abundantly descriptive of the naivet=E9 I spoke about earlier... >Does that add strong fuel to your fire against >those "self serving entities" who have manipulated the people >through the mass media? If I understand the question? In a word, yes. > >Alf, maybe some people are gullible simply because they have not >learned to think the things through on a deeper level before >they are hooked. I'd say likely. But then most people aren't getting solid information up front to preclude that gullibility. And did you know that the word "gullible" was not in the dictionary? >People who prey on gullible people have a well >developed appeal to emotions and fears that can be overpowering >to people who don't have a strong sense of self. The fear, Mr. Goldstein, has to be there first. Seeds don't sprout in infertile soil. >They are >looking for something and the emotional pull blots out reason, >so now they feel they belong, empowered members of something >that helps with their fears. Where does the fear come from, Mr. Goldstein? The Mr. Coopers of the world aren't making it up... they only make use of it, when it is there... why is it there? >They are too gullible to see it is >a foolish path, one that usually ends up with its members having >personally suffered from its demands. Nonsense, it works for them or they wouldn't be involved. I don't think you're seeing the wide view on this, I think that you're occluded with personal issues, and I don't think that you are being sufficiently fair with me. Maybe I'm up your nose so far you can feel little knees on your top lip, but I don't think it requires your insult, and I don't think it justifies your sneer. Still cracked up? Lehmberg@snowhill.com ~~=D6~~ EXPLORE "Alfred Lehmberg's Alien View" at his HostPros URL. http://www.alienview.net JOHN FORD RESTORATION FUND -- John will be released eventually. He'll need a tax free cash stake to get on his feet. Let's put one together for him; the bigger it is -- the more attention he gets. It could have been you. E-mail for detail. $350.00 pledged -- $200.00 collected! "I cleave the heavens, and soar to the infinite. What others see from afar, I leave far behind me." - Giordano Bruno, scourged by scurrilous skepti-bunkies.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp