The Controversy about Controversy

Let me give you a little tip. When a controversial issue is raised for discussion and someone attempts to quash that issue, your enemy has just revealed him or herself. Regardless of whether the topic is 9/11 or where your spouse was last night, if a person refuses to address an issue based on the notion that it is “too absurd to even discuss”, you have just identified someone with something to hide. Sometimes they have something to hide from you and sometimes they are hiding something from themselves; but either way you have identified someone who does not want certain information brought out.

Many of the Americans who are going to continue their criticism of me and my writing by trashing this commentary agree with me on this even though they don’t know it. You see this falls under the “I have nothing to hide” principle. You know, the same principle that has been adopted by the Americans who support secret wire tapping, loss of privacy and government snooping. You know…my critics. These people say that all this is OK because if you have nothing to hide you should not object if your government violates your privacy. Yet these same people want to stop all discussions related to 9/11, Israel, Zionism, government conspiracies, the Holocaust etc. Why? What are they afraid of? What do they have to hide and what do they have to lose by discussing things? Are they unwilling to teach others where they are wrong or are they afraid of learning something for themselves?

You see the more controversial the issue the more we should be discussing it. Dialog is only way to clear up controversy. When you discuss an issue one of three things are going to happen. 1. The person with the controversial view is going to learn something. 2. The person with the counter view is going to learn something. 3. The parties will agree to disagree but they will better understand the respective positions.

During the last scene in the movie The Godfather, Al Pacino’s character, Don Michael Corleone, is asked by his wife Kay, played by Diane Keaton, if he had his brother-in-law murdered. The Don refused to answer the question based on a simple principle of privacy. His principle: “Don’t ask me about my business!” That’s it. That was his reason for not answering. And all who were watching the movie knew exactly why the Don made it his business not to talk about his business. And you know what, there are a lot of people out there who refuse to talk about their business, be it 9/11, Israel, etc., based on a similar principle, so to speak. So when you hear someone say that they won’t talk about something because you are making an absurd insinuation, that person, even though they may not know it, may just be standing for the same principles that the Don did. So may I suggest to all, don’t “be like Mike” (Corleone)! Listen, speak and resolve. Leaving an issue to fester is what causes problems. Discussing issues should pose no threat to people who have “nothing to hide!” Think about it.



EU aims to criminalize Holocaust denial -  Laws that make denying or trivialising the Holocaust a criminal offence punishable by jail sentences will be introduced across the European Union, according to a proposal expecting to win backing from ministers Thursday.

2 Responses to “The Controversy about Controversy”

  1. truthbeknown says:

    You just hit the nail right on the head.
    But that’s what there all about…….. wag the dog.

  2. Truth Seeker on March 4, 1972 on January 7, 2003 on August 21, 2004, or no, sorry, actually says:

    I have to disagree with the “where your spouse was last night” example. Maybe it’s putting too fine a point on it, but if my wife asks me in any sort of normal fashion what I’ve been doing, I simply answer. But if there is an accusatory tone to it, I literally tell her to kiss my ass. (Hey, it works for me.) In terms of fidelity or loyalty, I never do anything the least bit untoward to my wife or my family, so I’m not hiding anything; I just don’t appreciate unfounded accusations.

    No need to scream at me. I understand that questions regarding 9/11 are not unfounded. That is exactly why a better example than “where your spouse was” may have been called for.

    Regarding the issue of illicit wiretapping, and other egregious examples of trampled freedoms: I can’t stand the idiots who claim it’s not an issue, so long as you have nothing to hide. I’ve encountered exactly that kind of idiot, and it still shocks me to witness such lunacy. Shall we repeal the Fifth Amendment, since you don’t need it if you have nothing to hide?

    This reminds me: Lately I’ve forgotten to include the obligatory “Hi there, NSA!” signature when I send email messages:

    murder tree flower bush plant assassinate bomb terrorism shoot visit embassy flight mockingbird kill

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Bad Behavior has blocked 225 access attempts in the last 7 days.