"LHO himself said he was just a patsy." Oh, so just because he said he was a patsy that just automatically means he was telling the truth? You didn't know that it's common for real murderers to lie about their crimes?

"A government is a body of people: usually, notably, ungoverned." - Shepard Book, Firefly Season One, Episode 10 Sorry, I know it doesn't have much to do with your post, but it's pretty accurate.

No, the term was coined by a neo-con think tank called the Project for the new American century. Isn’t that funny?

RFK Jr. would disagree with you. And he is privy to much more material than you or I. I doubt he uses DC Dulles Airport.

The CIA coined the term… do what you will with that information.

That pigeon joke is hilarious.

Was he referencing “coup” as in coup d’etat? If so that’s a pretty clever joke

@@Shark_King325 He says in other videos out there that he's got the only Kennedy pigeon joke or something to that effect. And yes, that is exactly what the reference was.

@@Shark_King325 I think you know that he was.

Don’t get in a flap about it.

Personally, I believe Bill Hicks is overrated. I've been re-watching some of his material...and he wasn't really that good of a comedian. He just wasn't funny. Yes, he delivered some biting social commentary, but the goal of a comedian is to elicit laughter at some point, right? His comedy just didn't hold up well over time. Whereas guys like Dave Chappelle and Bill Burr....delve into the warped psyche of things that are common but taboo in society. I believe their material will hold up for many years to come. Plus, Dave Chappelle and Bill Burr actually make me laugh out loud. Bill Hicks was simply not a comedian who did that for me.

I’m sorry you feel he was overrated but Bill Hicks wasn’t just a comedian he was also very political. I think that’s why he was more popular in the U.K .

@@colinjudson2350 I definitely think he was great

The first thing I heard from Hicks was a few lines from the positive drug story bit, used in a song by Tool

Yeah, The CIA labeled everyone a conspiracy theorist who questioned the investigation of the assassination. They clearly use the terrn to stigmatize any one who questions their official narratives.

Carlin has a rant mentioning this as well, quite similarly to how she worded it in her video, he saw it as a widely accepted ad hominem non-argument used to discredit anti establishment ways of thinking. Its not so different from calling someone crazy, stupid, gullible, ect which will push most people further away. It wasnt part of a stand up special but something from an interview. I can link a clip below, he refers to it as a conspiracy buff. - kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mLVgYNhqlZazd2g.html - short carlin clip on conspiracy labels. I cannot locate a longer clip atm. Additionally frustrating about this tendency to discredit peoples ideas with insults rather than reason, is that its counterproductive for everyone, it doesnt work, period. As anyone who has attempted engaging opposing viewpoints might have noticed, getting on a persons bad side is a sure fire way that they will ignore you and your reason no matter how well reasoned you believe your argument to be at root. However "right" you may feel, they are more likely to resist out of spite when no middle ground can be found. I spent a lot of time in my younger years debating and arguing about.... well, a bit of everything. Personally the only success I found was when being able to speak and listen as i would to a friend or loved one. When being humble, giving the other person space to make their full case, trying to be a good listener, and more often posing questions instead of arguments. I believe you can listen to someone talk for years and still not have heard everything they think or feel and why, much less understand them on the whole. To change a persons mind even on one small topic often requires a lot of communication, patience, and a respectful approach to 'COMMUNICATION'. Attacking a persons character or insulting their ideas, even if done in a subtle or 'accidental' way, tends to activate ego and emotional brain, which isnt going to bode well for 'reason', and a one way chastisement or shaming tactic is not what id call 'communication'. Each time this goes badly can lead to further reinforcing each persons 'feeling' of being right and assurance the 'other' is wrong or bad or 'insert insults here'. I would argue that on the whole, the trend of 'only' trying to discredit and attack beliefs we disagree with, as well as anyone who holds them, is counterproductive for everyone on all sides. Imo Aside from the division it feeds among the species, and aside from it causing many to retreat deeper into thought bubbles and echo chambers, I believe its unhealthy on an individual level for both sides of any argument. Attacking ideas rather than being able engage with them (even while disagreeing) falsely props up 'ego' for both sides to feel more and more justified for disagreeing with eachother, and whether you think you are in the "right" or not. To be able to competently listen and communicate constructively with someone whom one totally disagrees is not easy. It requires practice, but builds on ones own understanding and character (imo). Even if no minds are changed in the process, each person will gain something in a healthy exchange, if only a fraction of a percent more understanding or knowledge about how to approach the next conversation, that can be a tiny bit of 'hope'. If i may generalize, those on the 'fringe' will not become more reasonable by dehumanizing them. At best, someone will feel humiliated, embarrassed, and ostracized at the expense of some other person scoring social points for dunking on them. At worst, it pushes fringe people into further emotional turmoil with the very same ideas the "right" person is supposedly in support of, and in some cases further radicalization. This may not have 'big' consequences most of the time, feeling 'negative social feedback' isnt the end of the world for most of us. Unfortunately, for the rare person who hold 'dangerous' ideas, such that could cause harm to themselves or harm others, the more they are made to feel 'other' and the more they feel isolated and attacked by the rest of what they might see as humanity, the more likely they are to eventually act out on those feelings/ideas. If posed the problem of "How could we divide people into irreconcilable tribes that will push people to be as selfish, callus, resentful, and unresponsive to social pressure from detractors, and leave the rest cynical", the current atmosphere on social media (and algorithms that promote thought bubbles) seems to have found a good starting formula. Theres no benefit to hating or condemning those you disagree with, virtue signals aside. One's ego may be bolstered for all of 5 minutes after dunking on some 'idiot', a fleeting effect. I for one would promote 'reason' and 'human connection' as the counter to divisiveness. Granted, platforms like twitter just are not conducive to long format discussion of any kind... youtube isnt either i suppose. Irl discussions, esp in school/college, are probably the ideal place to learn and practice such discussions. However, from what i hear it seems there is a lot of disagreement among the young and our institutions that is vitriolic, rather than setting a standard for having reasonable disagreement/debate. Not that reason is dead, but it 'seems' to me as though there is a noticeable increase in divisiveness and tribal tendencies in online culture that harbors with it a decrease in connection between human beings, as nearly any sort of belief, hobby, special interest group, ect has its own bubble and flag to carry. This may be a natural tendency from our tribal past, all the more reason to press the point and explain why its important to do our best to resist such tendencies. We can divide ourselves up in infinite ways with our differences, but we are one species. I believe its a crucial skill to learn how to interact with eachother regardless of said differences. In order for 'reason' to prevail over anger or hate, we must first learn to be 'reasonable' with eachother, perhaps most importantly with those whom we disagree with, ideally at a younger age. - imo - tldr - cba - bla bla!

@@chibisphere Agreed. We're expected to accept foreign propaganda as obvious lies, but at the same time, that our own country never does such things. I think you'd enjoy The Daniel Schmachtenberger interview called The War On Sensemaking (just the first one), it explains why our species partakes in disinformation. Also, on the subject of our ability to debate well, we could all learn a few things from The Public Philosopher (BBC Radio 4) - Professor Michael Sandel of Harvard University is exceptionally talented at hosting a discussion in a room full of people with differing opinions.

Whilst I agree with you in principle. Some "Conspiracy Theorists" such as flat earthers, ancient astronauts, and others are just pure nonsense and have no evidence to really support them. But they're more on the fringes of conspiracy theory circles

@@chibisphere Spirited post! 👍

I think the Prosecutor actually spoke to Oliver Stone when he was making the movie...Stone might be the pre-imminent expert on JFK who's still alive too. I mean, other than the government...of course.

This would have been late 1992 or early 1993, because Clinton had just been voted in. One year later, he was dead.

I would add Doug Stanhope.

@@Rosvosektori - agreed, and.... I'd also add Kinison to this list personally :)

@@jduncanandroid Hicks acknowledged Kinison had a significant influence on both his personal and professional lives. He was the one who encouraged Bill Hicks to push his own limits. Hicks essentially copied Kinison and was a watered-down version of his confrontational, shouty, theatrical heavy metal tone. Hicks also infused a lot of his left-leaning political views into his performance, which contributed to his rise to fame in Britain, where it was required to support the liberal political establishment. Bill Hicks certainly made a name for himself among the British, who couldn't get enough of his slander of anything and everything American.

I don't think Chappelle has any business being in this conversation. His tv show was great and Killin' Them Softly is an excellent special, but everything after that is mediocre at best. When it comes to stand up specials and quality, Chris Rock runs circles around Chapelle. Tambourine is fairly new and it's better than anything Chappelle has done in his career.

And Bill Maher and Ricky Gervais.

He'd be blowing shit up at this point

@@billkosses3808 He'd be more like throwing gasoline on an already dangerously blazing inferno.

He really is. Thanks for watching Terry!

Alright Darren! I think that one was send to me as well. I’ll definitely be checking it out

Last month I finished The Idiot & now I’m about 3/5ths of the way through with The Brothers Karamazov. Notes from the Underground was a comparably shorter novel of his, but just as impactful. Dostoevsky is quickly becoming an influential author in my life, I’m so pleased that you brought him up! I’m not familiar with Hamsun at all, I’ll look into his work. I agree that many issues in life are gray, although some things do exist in a binary. I appreciate this comment, a literary breakdown is always welcomed with me. Thanks Tom (:

@@NoProtocol Thank you for your response, NP. How cool that you just finished 'The Idiot'! You will, I am sure of it, not completely stop until you've read Dostoy's five major works, and his minor ones, as well. The Brothers is a huge undertaking, with great reward, each scene a spiraling up or down of some significance! I have decided to go through some of my old favorites (which I have done seldom before, with the exception of a couple by Dostoevsky, Hamsun, and H Miller). My list of favs is a little long, LOL! Not that I'm any 'smarter' for it! Well, and it is Knut Hamsun that will fall so perfectly under the binary you mentioned. He was a brilliant writer, won the Nobel Prize for it, then became a Nazi sympathizer later in life and held some racist ideas as well his whole life, many not publicly known for decades. When I discovered what I did about him, after I had already read him, I was left perplexed. How could such a brilliant mind be so ignorant? Was the mind so brilliant to begin with, or was I duped, or a bit of both? I decided it was the perfect time to practice the longstanding idea that the work of an author is always like a child of theirs, it might only resemble them in certain ways, but has a life completely its own, without being at all a carbon copy. Of course, if you decide to read his 'Hunger' (his most influential book), you can decide for yourself...

I've read almost everything from Dostoevsky, but only books of his that I read two times are The Idiot and Karamazovs. My gold is to read all of his masterpieces at least two times in my life. He realy had a positive impact on my way of thinking and my personality. Also, Tolstoy is on my list for a long time. I've only read Anna Karennina, so if you can recommend me some of his his best books to start with, I would be very grateful!

I think the fear of cancellation has become a threat to challenging narratives

Yep, sadly,as much as I like Bill Burr and the rest, but they never touch on subjects like these.

​@@NoProtocol It's another form of social control. As long as you control what people can say and cannot say, you also control what people think to some extend. I'm a big fan of Rowan Atkinson's piece about hate speech, which could be summarized in: "The best way to increase society's resistance to insulting or offensive speech, is to allow a lot more of it". I think it would be another good video you could react to. The video is titled "In full: Rowan Atkinson on free speech".

I love his podcast! It takes a chunk of my day & I never regret it. I’ll look into this episode

Fact. Document 1035-960. Look it up

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ec-RncWYvpzTlok.html

or tim heidecker

or zack galifinakis, mitch hedberg, david cross, jimmy carr or bill bailey

Cui bono.. I’ll start asking that now

Bill Hicks' comedy hasn't held up well over the years, and I personally never connected with his elitist [holier than thou], misogynist attitude toward women, or his conspiracy theories. If he was alive today, he'd be a 9/11 truther.

@BROCK of course he would be a 911 truther. Building 7 was imploded. Ask the 2000 structural engineers who say so. Now go put ur 2 mask on u gay unicorn. Make sure you take all of the endless Big Pharma clot shots you Pfizer Prostitute and DNC PEDOPHILE SUPPORTER

Do you think the one that went down in Pennsylvania was intended for building 7

@@hoosthere If I had to guess, yes, but who knows really.

Posner has been destroyed thoroughly. Sorry.

@@LatestFlameLFR "Posner has been destroyed thoroughly. Sorry." By "thoroughly" do you mean the majority of his claims have been proven to be incorrect? If so, can you go into detail about how and when such a thing was proven? Thanks.