Wake Up Call , Science Of Tyranny

[kilgoretrout]

Watch this , if you dare , read the warning at the beginning of the video. Before you nay say the content just give it 30 minutes to see if the evidence presented doesn't add up. Then perhaps watch further.

Honestly , many of you think I'm some conspiracy nut, I really wish that none of this actually did make sense to me , unfortunately it makes total sense. The fact that I can't ignore what is plainly evident , I wonder what that says about the state of sanity in the world, when so many can look right at the truth and not recognize it.

It is no measure of sanity to be well adjusted to an insane world- that might have been some quote paraphrase by Ghandi.

I know none of you owe me any favors , but please take some time , do yourself a favor and watch this. Lastly , tell me its' not true!!

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3149990642797444340

[kitty]

I watch it. All of it.

Seriously, don't you see how one-sided this film is? How they play with the "revealing voice" of the narrator? The music? Quotings?

This is propaganda, not science.

And the only thing I can say to it in its favour: good marketing, like always, fear (and good background music) sells.

[Terrordar]

Yeeeea. These people are seeing connections that aren't there.

I personally don't say that there aren't groups vying for power, behind the scenes. But the odds of it being ONE organization is FAR too small.

"Note the Star of David, made of 13 stars."

"The objective of these people is to kill religion."

Uh huh...


And the constant references to God, and how the Illuminati are Atheists and have some grand agenda is stunningly retarded.

I'm an Atheist, and I personally don't mind war, and think its a good thing. >.>


Rene Descartes: I think, therefore I am.

This statement could not ring more true as I say this. You can be sure of nothing. I can not be sure that this computer monitor is truly in front of me, all I know is that my senses are telling me the chances of it not being in front of me are rather slim. What that statement means is something rather interesting.

It means that all you can know, for certain entirely in your existence, is that you exist in some capacity. You can suspect things, you can horde these suspicions and collect them into knowledge, but you can't even truly establish if other people think, or that this world is nothing but a dream.



Your conspiracy theories are far more unfounded than the likelihood that there is forms of competition taking place, still on a global scale, though obviously it would become homogenized with time. It is the cries of fearful people, fearing the idea of a one world government that they see coming, whether it is or not.

I am a nationalist, but one day the world will be under one government rule, and it will be corrupt, as all things are corrupted by humans in power. That is just how it is.

Do I think I'll see a one world government in my lifetime? Unlikely, resources are likely to start to become too rare soon, such as oil and certain raw materials, and its likely to descend into massive resource wars.

I can't wait. God save the Canadian Empire!

[Alrik]

I can easily make up conspiracy theories out of almost anything.

I don't hope it will become kind of a hobby of mine ... otherwise I'd be drifting more & more towards paranoia ...

I have already made up too many conspiracy theories, I fear.

[kitty]

@ Alrik - as long as you are aware that you made these up, you are fine. By the time you stop realizing this, you won't writing on this board anymore anyway...

[Glance A'Lot]

...many of you think I'm some conspiracy nut

Well, for what concerns me, I wouldn't go that far, however...

...I come from the purchasing side, so the question "What is this guy trying to sell to me, and why?" became second nature.

I have learned that many can build logical chains, that appear reasonable at first glance, but when you listen to the other side, an equally logical chain evolves. So before making up one's mind, one should always hear the other side. Or at least critically look for a purpose, and evaluate whether you want to follow that purpose.

And to both sides (and there may be more than two in any issue) should go the questions "Did they consider ALL the facts? Were they selective in their basis? Are the deductions based on true or false assumptions (or on presumptions)? Are the interpretations reasonable (astoundingly often they are not at closer look)?"

It is a good training to play the devil's advocate.

The easier it is to argue the other side, the more probable it is that neither side has the full truth.
My fantasy is wide, so I can think about anything, and most of it I could argue - that in itself doesn't make me right in anything.

But most of such issues are too complex to really KNOW, especially considering that the general public is a layman in most matters relating to it.

As any chain, a logic chain is as strong as its weakest link - you break one part, the chain goes...

[Glance A'Lot]

I'm an Atheist, and I personally don't mind war, and think its a good thing.

I wonder whether you would uphold that statement after having physically lived through one.

I personnaly was lucky in that respect, but my parents and grandparents did, and what they told is living experience - and believe me, that is no small thing.
This is one reason for a slightly different attitude towards war in Europe, especially in Germany, as there is almost no family extant that has not such members.

I'm not saying that there may not be causes which would justify this ultimate means - but as a last resort, and certainly not as being a 'good' solutiuon.
Actually war almost never is a solution, just the germ cell of a new conflict.

[Elliot Kane]

War only solves anything when it results in either the extermination or integration of the losing side. You can only get integration if you have the same or very similar culture & language (Else they will think of themselves as different peoples and resent being forced together).

Extermination is a tad extreme, I'd say, though provenly effective in the formation of more nations than I can count.

In any other case, Glance is right. All war ever does is create fuel for the next war.

[kitty]

Aug 25, 2009 14:05:58 GMT Glance A'Lot said:

I'm an Atheist, and I personally don't mind war, and think its a good thing.

I wonder whether you would uphold that statement after having physically lived through one.

I personnaly was lucky in that respect, but my parents and grandparents did, and what they told is living experience - and believe me, that is no small thing.
This is one reason for a slightly different attitude towards war in Europe, especially in Germany, as there is almost no family extant that has not such members.

Yes. (I guess us being german makes the whole story also a bit trickier, feeling sorry for our relatives who struggled in war and at the same time the presure to resent their part in the same war)

@terre - I strongly dislike that you put the "I'm an atheist" in front of your pro-war comment.

Personally, I'm a pacifist and can't see a need for any kind of warfare, ever. (I'm also pro-stop supporting armies)

[Dark Phoenix Rising]

I think that sometimes war is a necessity to be embarked upon for your own safety or the safety of others. However it is the final item in the diplomatic tool box and must always stay that way.

[Elliot Kane]

"War is the continuation of foreign policy where all other means have failed" - Von Clausewitz, who was rather too honourable to consider it can also be the continuation of domestic policy, sometimes...

[Terrordar]

I'll say it again Kitty Kat, jsut to stress the point.

I am pro war. I am an atheist. In my own life I am generally a pacifist, however I believe war is a great way to solve disputes and nuclear weapons have acted as a pacifying force globally, to the point where disputes can no longer be properly solved. Instead now it leads to global cultural stagnation, terrorism, and insurgency.

I added "I'm an Atheist" to stress the point that not all Atheists are pro-extreme "The world is gonna get better" Secular Humanist bull[Censored]

And Clausewitz was a brilliant man, who would understand that there are a dozen wars globally right now that are either internal disputes inside nations, or issues between neighbors that should be resolved right now as all other options have failed, and only do not out of fear that China, Russia, America, or the EU will nuke them.

Which is tragic. Because maybe something would be resolved once in a [Censored]ing while.

Oh! And I'm pro supporting armies. And in fact anticipate that will start to become more common as fuel starts to run low

[Elliot Kane]

Clausewitz was indeed a brilliant man.

As for warfare, the way the situation is going with drinking water it is becoming sadly inevitable.

I'm definitely pro supporting armies too, BTW, as a standing army is the only way to defend yourself if attacked. And definitely pro-Navy, being British.

[Terrordar]

I however, am not pro navy. I personally think naval vessels are cowardly, and if an army needs to get somewhere, they should [Censored]ing man up and swim there.

[Elliot Kane]

ROFL! ;D

[kilgoretrout]

Aug 25, 2009 13:45:55 GMT Glance A'Lot said:

...many of you think I'm some conspiracy nut

Well, for what concerns me, I wouldn't go that far, however...

...I come from the purchasing side, so the question "What is this guy trying to sell to me, and why?" became second nature.

I have learned that many can build logical chains, that appear reasonable at first glance, but when you listen to the other side, an equally logical chain evolves. So before making up one's mind, one should always hear the other side. Or at least critically look for a purpose, and evaluate whether you want to follow that purpose.

And to both sides (and there may be more than two in any issue) should go the questions "Did they consider ALL the facts? Were they selective in their basis? Are the deductions based on true or false assumptions (or on presumptions)? Are the interpretations reasonable (astoundingly often they are not at closer look)?"

It is a good training to play the devil's advocate.

The easier it is to argue the other side, the more probable it is that neither side has the full truth.
My fantasy is wide, so I can think about anything, and most of it I could argue - that in itself doesn't make me right in anything.

But most of such issues are too complex to really KNOW, especially considering that the general public is a layman in most matters relating to it.

As any chain, a logic chain is as strong as its weakest link - you break one part, the chain goes...

Fair enough indeed. I should hope that most of this stuff is just paranoia , what I find is that this (video) information is definitely biased , though I think that most of the information we get from the mainstream histories and media outlets is biased and does represent the "other side. Though mainstream history and media is always biased , to me this sort of "conspiracy" theory represents the opposite , not so much untrue as repressed..

[Terrordar]

Alex Jones, btw, is a cock face.

[kitty]

(how come cock is not censored but [Censored] is? because its a rooster? well a [Censored] is a female dog.... just saying)

[Elliot Kane]

Yeah, but not a lot of stories involve female dogs crowing at dawn, Kit. Words don't tend to get censored out if their usual use is not insulting or one of the more prevalent uses isn't. Dick is not censored either, because there are too many people called Dick.

Almost no-one uses cock as an insult, either, whereas rhymes-with-witch is used all too commonly thus.

[kitty]

Hm, I say "you are a dickhead!" all the time

PS: people who call their kids Dick are mean.