Conspiracy Theorist

[Guest]

I'maletyoufinish but did you really take me seriously about the cracked article being my encyclopaedia? That's comedy gold

 

OK, time to read the rest of the post.

 

EDIT: Alrighty...

 

1. You were the one who brought up Capitalism and oligopolies. In the section I marked (F) you insinuated that a small number of companies, and therefore people (in terms of CEOs) control the media. This is an oligopoly. In (H) you said explicitly that for the last 200 years most things are not even conspiracies, they've explained simply by the nature of Capitalism (which I agree with).

 

I am not creating the language or making the definitions, I am using your words and your examples. You have referred to the scientific method and the need for theories to be testable and repeatable. All I have said is that the very things you put forward do not meet this criteria, and in the case of Admiral Morrison and Tolkien the original hypothesis is based on a fallacy and can't be produce a result even once.

 

2. Here is where I will bring up a rigid definition, as this is why we have language. Without meaning, language is... meaningless. A strawman (argument): Where you misrepresent a point of view or argument and then debate/beat the new POV/argument.

 

I can't really see where I've done that, I felt I clearly identified which topics you brought up that I was referring to and clearly discussed these topics within the context of your discussion and the 'conspiracy theory' context of this thread at large.

 

3. I know you're not trying to say 'THIS IS THE TRUTH' and you're encouraging further research, however what is the point of having people research things that are patently incorrect/false? It will simply discourage them from further attempts as well as make them more inclined to be close minded as a confirmation bias is built up from these initial false starts.

 

This is my personal opinion and not a scientific result of anything, but: the official story (take 9/11 for example) is ALWAYS full of shit. Not because of a Government/NWO/Illuminati/whatever the fuck conspiracy, but because individuals make mistakes due to laziness and incompetence and they want to cover their arses. Then when a higher understanding is reached, the cover-up becomes policy because you don't want the taxpayers (and/or voters) to know that the guys running their country are THAT disinterested in their welfare/fucking incompetent. Perhaps I am just simple and naive.

 

4. Back to the Tolkien thing, you can forgive me for going to a primary source written in 1953 (his own hand written letters: http://www.e-reading.ws/bookreader.php/139008/The_Letters_of_J.R.R.Tolkien.pdf) than a worse than tertiary source in the form of a public forum on the internet from 2012? To give you a direct quote from the publishing of the letters:

 

From a letter to Rayner Unwin 17 August 1953

[This letter, typed with a red ribbon, was sent immediately after Rayner Unwin had visited Tolkien.]

It was extremely kind of you to come and see me and clear things up. It was only after I had seen you on to the bus that I recollected that you had in the end never had any beer or other refreshment. I am sorry. Very much below hobbit standards, my behaviour, I am afraid. I now suggest as titles of the volumes, under the over-all title The Lord of the Rings: Vol. I The Fellowship of the Ring. Vol. II The Two Towers. Vol. III The War of the Ring (or, if you still prefer that: The Return of the King).

The Fellowship of the Ring will do, I think; and fits well with the fact that the last chapter of the Volume is The Breaking of the Fellowship. The Two Towers gets as near as possible to finding a title to cover the widely divergent Books 3 and 4; and can be left ambiguous – it might refer to Isengard and Barad-dûr, or to Minas Tirith and B; or Isengard and Cirith Ungol.1

I find that most 'conspiracy theories', or any non-original theory in general, can be debunked simply by sourcing PRIMARY evidence. I do not see what the need of knowledge of a 'specific belief system' has to do with anything? Seems like an inference based on a false premise.

 

5. Back to Morrison, I must have misread: "His dad was Admiral Morrison of the Gulf of Tomkin. (admitted false flag to get us into vietnam)".

 

Seems easy enough to do as it is written, apologies. I still don't see how (coincidence or not), Admiral Morrison's son being Jim Morrison, a guy who became famous shortly after is of any relevance? Given the way high society works wouldn't it make sense for the Admiral to have numerous connections in high places, such as record studios, etc, which would therefore result in Jim being more likely to be given a chance than other people with nobody fathers? Or is this what you're saying? I am confused as to the point of this throwaway reference.

 

6. You used the words symbolism and numerology in reference to visual displays such as the London Olympics closing ceremony and music videos: "Especially if you understand symbolism and numerology. BTW, If you dont understand those two things you are missing a lot of evidence". I used the words iconography, which means, "the visual images and symbols used in a work of art or the study or interpretation of these". Are you suggesting this is incorrect in the context of what you're saying?

 

The face of Jesus on a piece of toast was in the news too. What is the relevance of this? I am aware that perception is reality, but I am not sure how inserting symbols that the average person has NFI about into something like the closing ceremony of the Olympics or a music video is beneficial to anyone. What's the expected outcome of this? What advantage does it give to the people involved?

 

I thought it was common knowledge that folks like Packer and Murdoch owned the media and this is why we have controls (effective or not) and Media Authorities (effective or not), etc. There is most likely a conspiracy against the people here, as knowledge is power, but it is no 'conspiracy theory' in the context of what we've been discussing. It is common knowledge.

 

7. Regarding the Egyptians, given that the Egyptians' highest God was the Sun God and that one of their oldest and most valuable cities was called Heliopolis it is a FACT that the Egyptians revered and had a good knowledge of the solar system. Given that the Pharaohs were meant to be "Sons of Ra", and the mysticism that involves them as living Gods (and therefore living manifestations of the constellations) it makes perfect sense for important structures relevant to them to have stellar alignments but even these aren't perfect and most of the claims regarding stellar alignments and so forth are horseshit: if you're interested: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2012/08/20/planetary-alignment-pyramid-scheme/#.U-LD3fmSyUY, http://www.math.nus.edu.sg/aslaksen/gem-projects/hm/0102-1-pyramids/page02.htm next page talks Sphinx too.

 

How do pyramids link into the 'face on mars', especially if it doesn't exist and as you have said, "it exists because it exists in the media"? Did this same media and its controlling bodies exist 4500 years ago? Who built the Pyramids in Egypt? Egyptians did. Why are they there? The same reason the Statue of Liberty exists or St Peter's Basilica. Again, I am not really too sure what the point of this reference is?

 

8. I definitely referred to your Pearl Harbour claims. I dedicated all of © to it:

 

c) There's plenty of evidence showing that intelligence was reported suggesting a Japanese attack. Whether this was willfully ignored, poorly analysed, etc, is up for debate and I would expect those who know are dead and buries.

It looks to me by referring to the McCollum Memo you're referring to the same thing? Although you have phrased it as "Roosevelt's 8 point plan" the memo (which still exists) clearly shows that it was made and sent by an intelligence officer to the Director of his military agency. There is no evidence it ever made it to Roosevelt, although given the seniority of the Director and his relationship to Roosevelt you would assume it did.

 

9. I didn't "stuff[ed] the Big Lie into a defined framework", Hitler and Goebbels did. They coined the phrase and mastered the technique, they get to do it. It looks to me as if you're simply shifting the goalposts. The facts don't fit the theory? The theory is 'rigidly defined' to exclude the facts. This is ridiculous.

 

You say "someone did it and it sure wasnt 19 arabs". Why not? WHy do you think otherwise? What PRIMARY evidence exists to the contrary?

----------------------------------------------------------

 

Now, all of that aside, I am trying to piece together all of your different points and arguments to work out where you're coming from.

 

Would I be correct if I asserted that you believe that there is essentially a global conspiracy, involving all branches of Government (including those which control education, the media, military, etc) and the relevant private sectors (such as the media) to essentially dumb down the population so they know/resist less the ways big money increase profitability?

[gwad12345]

*edit My I see what you did comment is explained by your encycolpaedia. I should have clicked on that a while ago and I would have known why you framed your arguments that way. My bad....and yours for using that as your go to. If you use specific facts that can be debunked that is exactly what you will be able to do. There are a shit ton more facts out there that are usually ignored by debunkers. Dig deeper. Like you said, use critical thinking.

 

What you did was rigidly define some of the things I wrote so you can argue them within your conspiracy theory framework. Arguing terms like Oligarchy or capitalism is irrelevent to me. One form of control is controlling the language. Legalese for instance. Most conspiracy theory's can be shot down when stuffed into rigid frameworks becasue they dont fit there in the first place. There are a lot of terms for that and one is called building a straw man. This what disinformation agents do and I dont have time for that which is why I responded the way I did. Maybe you did it by accident or just to clarify stuff so it could be elaborated on since I didnt frame it that way (on purpose).

 

I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. We all have free will to believe what we want to believe. I threw some shit out there and you and everyone else can take it or leave it. I threw it out there so people could have a place to start with some things. The things I wrote about were diverse so I could get an idea of what people who responded knew so I could point them in the right direction if they wanted to learn more. I could have written about a ton of other things or gone far more in depth but what is the point? If people want to learn they will research some of the stuff I wrote or ask for places to look. If they "need convincing" then they merely have to go do more thorough research or continue to live their existing paradigm.

 

I have been there. I am extremely skeptical. 9-11 for instance: I thought the conspiracy theorists were full of shit until I started looking into it. The more I learned the more obvious it was that the official story was complete bullshit. This happened with tons of other things I looked into and oddly enough, the more things I looked into the more things tied together. If you want to learn then you will have to open your mind. You will have to read the stuff you think is nonsense so you get more than one side of the story. We have all been taught what those in control want us to know and until we get past our own hubris and need to be right we will be blocked from advancing our own knowledge. I never gave a shit about religion either but I realized I also didnt know anything about it. When I started to learn about it I found out how much it has to do with everything and it doesnt matter if you or I believe it or not.

 

In reading your response and answering your questions I think you may not have done what i was referring to on purpose so I will elaborate a little. You are wrong about Tolkein naming that book and you can start here http://www.lotro.com/forums/printthread.php?t=485439&pp=40&page=1 It's kind of an irrelevant topic unless you know a lot about a specific belief system though.

 

I didnt say Admiral Morrison admitted the Gulf of Tonkin was a false flag. I said it was an admitted false flag. You can research Morrisons involvement yourself. My point was to bring up the Gulf of Tonkin and show that he coincidentally had a world famous rock star son.

 

I never used the word iconography but either way there are a lot of things you are missing if you dont know about that. Why do "they" do that? Good questions and there are a few theories on that but not knowing the answer doesnt change much. BTW, the face on Mars is real. It may not really be on Mars but it is really in the media and it is really there for a reason. It ties in with the pyramids. Did you know about the pyramid's alignment and that there are pyramids with the same alignment in China as well as allegedly on mars near the face? Who built them and why are they there? Look into the Pyramid at Giza and you will be amazed at what information is encoded in its construction.

 

Why would there be a conspiracy in the music industry? It's not just the music industry, it's the whole media industry which is controlled by.........you go look that up. In answer to why, its for control of the masses. Like I said, read lippman or bernaise for starters.

 

Pearl Harbor: you completely ignored Roosevelts 8 point plan which was the only thing I directed you toward. In fact, it appear that you really didn't look into much of the stuff I wrote other than a cursory wiki search.

 

The big lie doesnt apply. Are you f'ing kidding me? You just stuffed the big lie into a defined framework instead of critically thinking about what it really means. It never applied more. Someone in this very thread has said there is no way they could have done that it would be too hard to cover up. Well, someone did it and it sure wasnt 19 arabs so I guess whoever "they" are can cover it up. Saying it applies to the Patriot Act is going the wrong direction. If anything it would apply to the whole war on terrorism or all the false terrorist acts but again, defining this is pointless. Its misdirection..

 

So instead of actually proving anything you are declaring to everyone that if we would just "open our minds," "dig deeper" etc. etc. we would all realize these theories are true. Can you understand why that is not very convincing to myself or anyone else with a view in opposition to you own?

[Guest]

Practically every one of the top 40 records being played on every radio station in the United States is a communication to the
children to take a trip, to cop out, to groove.

 

The psychedelic jackets on the record albums have their own hidden symbols and messages as well as the lyrics to all the top rock songs and they all
sing the same refrain: It's fun to take a trip, put acid in your veins.

 

- Art Linkletter

 

Huxley - The Doors of Perception: http://www.maps.org/books/HuxleyA1954TheDoorsOfPerception.pdf

 

It's great to be open to all possibilities, until they're identified as not being possible.

[MrClean]

You didnt read the website on Tolkein that I posted or you found what you wanted and ended there. Primary source is good but what happens when the primary source says more than one thing. I didnt have the time to track down the other things but they were referenced in that site by numerous people and you could have checked them if you wanted to.

 

The pyramid of Giza encodes a lot of information and arguing the tidbit I put in my post is senseless. Take the time to learn a bit about the pyramid of giza and get back to me on that or the numerous other megalithic structures across the globe. I am not going ancient alien on you. Check out "the code" by Carl Munc. Who built these things? Fuck if I know, but if the technology is more advanced than the culture it is allegedy built by then maybe they didnt build it.

 

 

Now, all of that aside, I am trying to piece together all of your different points and arguments to work out where you're coming from.

 

Would I be correct if I asserted that you believe that there is essentially a global conspiracy, involving all branches of Government (including those which control education, the media, military, etc) and the relevant private sectors (such as the media) to essentially dumb down the population so they know/resist less the ways big money increase profitability?

 

If you asserted that you would be giving me as much credit as I gave you assuming you were serious about the encyclopeadia reference.

 

This has been an interesting and thought provoking discussion for me about the topic of conspiracy. It comes back to the definition of conspiracy. What people assume the definition to mean and what it actually means. My world view is based on what I see happening around me and what I read from around the world throughout history. I have read enough to understand that there is a ton of information written specifically to mislead people. 9-11 again.......what do conspiracy theorists have to gain by writing all the nonsense we read about the incident? We know the official story is bullshit and we also know most of the conspiracy theory's are bullshit but somwhere in there is the truth. If it isnt in the official story then it has to be one of or parts of the conspiracy theory's.

 

For me the whole thing comes back to money (to a point) which isn't a conspiracy. Or is it? Maybe the monetary system is the conspiracy. Was the creation of the Federal Reserve Banking System a conspiracy? Read The Creature From Jekyl Island and decide for yourself. Is convincing people paper is worth something and then printing a bunch and buying physical assets with it a conspiracy? I dont know but it is a brilliant idea in my opinion. Wish I had though of it.

 

 

So instead of actually proving anything you are declaring to everyone that if we would just "open our minds," "dig deeper" etc. etc. we would all realize these theories are true. Can you understand why that is not very convincing to myself or anyone else with a view in opposition to you own?

 

NO. You wouldnt realize they are true. You would realize some of them could be true.

Of course I understand that. I am not trying to change anybody's mind just give them a chance to look into things if they want to. I don't need to be "right." What is right anyway? My intent is simply to begin a discourse which would allow me to further my own knowledge and understanding while helping others do the same. Take it or leave it. What is your intent? That is meant rhetorically.

[thegroovemonkey]

An actual conspiracy theory:

 

Here is reality in Al Queda(and an example of how sometimes the youtube videos just don't work right):

http://youtu.be/AFZhQ4u2Cbg

 

If you think violence in the middle east is the result of the USA, then all I can say is that you are an ignorant fuck who is drinkin' the hatorade.

[Guest]

A) You didnt read the website on Tolkein that I posted or you found what you wanted and ended there. Primary source is good but what happens when the primary source says more than one thing. I didnt have the time to track down the other things but they were referenced in that site by numerous people and you could have checked them if you wanted to.

 

B ) The pyramid of Giza encodes a lot of information and arguing the tidbit I put in my post is senseless. Take the time to learn a bit about the pyramid of giza and get back to me on that or the numerous other megalithic structures across the globe. I am not going ancient alien on you. Check out "the code" by Carl Munc. Who built these things? Fuck if I know, but if the technology is more advanced than the culture it is allegedy built by then maybe they didnt build it.

 

 

 

If you asserted that you would be giving me as much credit as I gave you assuming you were serious about the encyclopeadia reference.

 

C) This has been an interesting and thought provoking discussion for me about the topic of conspiracy. It comes back to the definition of conspiracy. What people assume the definition to mean and what it actually means. My world view is based on what I see happening around me and what I read from around the world throughout history. I have read enough to understand that there is a ton of information written specifically to mislead people. 9-11 again.......what do conspiracy theorists have to gain by writing all the nonsense we read about the incident? We know the official story is bullshit and we also know most of the conspiracy theory's are bullshit but somwhere in there is the truth. If it isnt in the official story then it has to be one of or parts of the conspiracy theory's.

 

For me the whole thing comes back to money (to a point) which isn't a conspiracy. Or is it? Maybe the monetary system is the conspiracy. Was the creation of the Federal Reserve Banking System a conspiracy? Read The Creature From Jekyl Island and decide for yourself. Is convincing people paper is worth something and then printing a bunch and buying physical assets with it a conspiracy? I dont know but it is a brilliant idea in my opinion. Wish I had though of it.

 

 

 

 

A) I went through the whole page. There is nothing that contradicts Tolkien's own personal words on the matter. At one point he says he is not satisfied that The Two Towers is the best possible name, that's it.

 

B ) "Take the time to learn a bit about the pyramid of Giza"... what about it? I am yet to see any evidence that the technology is beyond the civilisations involved. They have pulleys, winches, ropes, the wheel and most importantly... a fucking massive slave army. All the constructions techniques you require are listed here:

 

http://michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/2011/03/building-the-pyramids-its-not-a-mystery/

 

It doesn't mean this was the only possible way but it shows it was well and truly possible with tools and knowledge at hand. No mystery, just very clever. Here are examples of 'failed' pyramids which were prototypes and learning curves for the superior models:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meidum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bent_pyramid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_Djoser

 

C) I agree with you completely. I think Adam Smith basically nails it:

 

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."

 

I think globalisation of the market, telecommunications and information has essentially just increased the potential scope of this. Industries are intertwined and conglomerates are all-encompassing, both in terms of markets and geography. It is important to have 'conspiracy theorists' because it is important to question everything.

[man5616]

Practically every one of the top 40 records being played on every radio station in the United States is a communication to the

children to take a trip, to cop out, to groove.

 

The psychedelic jackets on the record albums have their own hidden symbols and messages as well as the lyrics to all the top rock songs and they all

sing the same refrain: It's fun to take a trip, put acid in your veins.

 

- Art Linkletter

 

Huxley - The Doors of Perception: http://www.maps.org/books/HuxleyA1954TheDoorsOfPerception.pdf

 

It's great to be open to all possibilities, until they're identified as not being possible.

cool read....makes me hungus for mushies

[MrClean]

 

it is important to question everything.

This

 

Did you really just throw Heiser at me? First off, that guy is a bibilical scholar and its interesting you would use someone like that. Second, his arguments against sitchin are weak as fuck. I am not saying sitchin is right just that if you disagree then come up with a logical reason as to why instead of he's wrong because he's wrong. I take that guy with a spoonful of salt. I'm not saying he is wrong because what the fuck do I know. However, you might as well have told me zawi hawass says the pyramids were built by ancient egyptians. He would know, right. To clarify, I am only talking about the great pyramid of giza and not all of them when I say look at what is encoded in it. I am aware I still haven't told you what that is because you should check it out for yourself if you are interesting in learning more about it.

 

Try looking for evidence as to why it couldnt have been built by the egyptians instead of a cursory internet search of why it was and you will come across some very interesting things. People tend to try to fit evidence to their existing opinion and throw the rest out. That is not how the scientific method is supposed to work. We should take all evidence and fit our theory to it. Outliers should not be disregarded but they often are. I dont know who did or didnt build it but I have seen a lot of evidence that makes me question if it was ancient egyptians.

 

Oddly enough, I may be more skeptical than you because I dont believe the official report or any of the others. I just keep an open mind to the possibilities while seeking out more information. As i gather more information i begin to see trends and those trends often do not fit what I was taught in school or saw on the news. I have learned a lot the things I thought I knew were true were not but that doesnt mean I know what is. I am always open to new information changing the direction of the trend now.

 

Oh and since you mentioned huxley, I believe he was related to darwin AND Keynes. Interesting that our economic theory and evolutionary theory came from the same family.

 

I guess I shouldnt even be posting in this forum since I havent really addressed any conspiracy theory. Maybe I'll think of one and do that.

[Guest]

This

 

Did you really just throw Heiser at me? First off, that guy is a bibilical scholar and its interesting you would use someone like that. Second, his arguments against sitchin are weak as fuck. I am not saying sitchin is right just that if you disagree then come up with a logical reason as to why instead of he's wrong because he's wrong. I take that guy with a spoonful of salt. I'm not saying he is wrong because what the fuck do I know. However, you might as well have told me zawi hawass says the pyramids were built by ancient egyptians. He would know, right. To clarify, I am only talking about the great pyramid of giza and not all of them when I say look at what is encoded in it. I am aware I still haven't told you what that is because you should check it out for yourself if you are interesting in learning more about it.

 

Try looking for evidence as to why it couldnt have been built by the egyptians instead of a cursory internet search of why it was and you will come across some very interesting things. People tend to try to fit evidence to their existing opinion and throw the rest out. That is not how the scientific method is supposed to work. We should take all evidence and fit our theory to it. Outliers should not be disregarded but they often are. I dont know who did or didnt build it but I have seen a lot of evidence that makes me question if it was ancient egyptians.

 

Oddly enough, I may be more skeptical than you because I dont believe the official report or any of the others. I just keep an open mind to the possibilities while seeking out more information. As i gather more information i begin to see trends and those trends often do not fit what I was taught in school or saw on the news. I have learned a lot the things I thought I knew were true were not but that doesnt mean I know what is. I am always open to new information changing the direction of the trend now.

 

Oh and since you mentioned huxley, I believe he was related to darwin AND Keynes. Interesting that our economic theory and evolutionary theory came from the same family.

 

I guess I shouldnt even be posting in this forum since I havent really addressed any conspiracy theory. Maybe I'll think of one and do that.

 

That link simply links to other peer reviewed, published journal articles about pyramid construction from archaeologists and Egyptologists. I don't know who Heiser or Sitchin are. I know who Von Daniken is and, whilst very interesting and cool to toy around with, his ideas which seem to make up most of the 'conspiracy theories' regarding monuments and the like are fairly easily debunked. Again, it doens't make them wrong, only more unlikely than other scenarios.

 

I prefer to be parsimonious. If I have a place, Egypt, and people, Egyptians, and factual knowledge that they have particular tools which can be used to build a pyramid, it would be unscientific/illogical to then come to the conclusion it was anything other than Egyptians with their tools. If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it may not be a duck but I will call it a duck until I have a better hypothesis.

 

A quick look tells me Aldous Huxley is not related to Darwin, however his half-brother's daughter did marry a great grand-son of Charles Darwin. you could call that coming from the same family but you'd really be reaching... and Charles Darwin's grand-daughter married John Maynard Keynes brother. So none of the key players were involved with any of the other families, and it is hardly a strange/surprising situation given the whole 'class' situation that exists in the academic elite/rich society and the fact that your average cobbler was never going to be able to afford the education that goes with that kind of scientific theory. Some would argue this is the situation that is being pushed by the elite/rich in the USA now with the education system.

[kenlow73]

I think this thread is a conspiracy, man....lol

[Guest]

http://flowtationdevices.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/kenobi_011.jpg

 

This is not the thread you're looking for.

[Caleb613]

http://flowtationdevices.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/kenobi_011.jpg

 

This is not the thread you're looking for.

This

[Guest]

The only thing more foolish than believing everything you are told is true is believing that everything you are told is false.

 

This is the problem with most basement dwelling conspiracy theorists. They really want to feel smarter than everyone else, so they assume everything coming from a mainstream source is a lie and will instead opt to believe in theories that are full of ten times more holes than the official story they rejected simply because it isn't the mainstream belief.

 

Not everything is as it appears on the surface, but 99% of things are.

[Guest]

Actually it might be a rabbit even if it looks like a duck oh my god I've wasted my life

[MrClean]

"There are two fundamental ways to view history. We call one the catastrophic or accidental view of history. We call the other view the conspiratorial view of history."

 

Seems like a good time for this link:

http://www.threeworldwars.com/intro.htm

[MrClean]

http://flowtationdevices.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/kenobi_011.jpg

 

This is not the thread you're looking for.

 

I am just curious if you recognize the symbolism in that picture?

 

 

Not everything is as it appears on the surface, but 99% of things are.

 

One day you may have your world turned upside down. "Nothing is as it appears." Just like "Salad" Tosen said.

 

“Know all things to be like this: A mirage, a cloud castle, a dream, an apparition, without essence, but with qualities that can be seen. Know all things to be like this: As the moon in a bright sky in some clear lake reflected, though to that lake the moon has never moved. Know all things to be like this: As an echo that derives from music, sounds, and weeping, yet in that echo has no melody. Know all things to be like this: As a magician makes illusions of horses, oxen, carts and other things, nothing is as it appears.”

~The Buddha, from the Samadhirajasutra

[Guest]

 

I am just curious if you recognize the symbolism in that picture?

 

 

a) he is trying to get me to look at the ring, so he can punch me. It doesn't work though because it is above the waist.

b ) he is a scuba diver, hopelessly out of his environment but he is still signalling that he is 'OK' in international hand signal.

c) he is a Hindi, cloaked as he is in the disputed Kashmiri region and not all of the locals aren't friendly to his kind, he is signalling perfection of the non-beef burger he ordered for lunch that is in front of him.

d) he is a Mason and he's talking to a prostitute, signalling for some punani.

e) he is a Satanist, robed for the sacrifice and giving unholy approval of the sacrifice (of the beef that went into other incarnations non-beef burger, sucker!) that is taking place.

f) he is on a road trip and about to play 'eye-spy' with the kid next to him in the speeder.

g) He is German and giving his opinion of Brazilian football to their fans.

 

Choose your illusion*

 

* Disclaimer: The illusion is that, in fact, there is one absolute in interpretation and perception. Here's Tom with the weather!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7D0BeLz5blM

[Guest]

Regarding the "Two views of history", he isn't actually trying to convince us that this is what the majority of recognised and respect historians and policy makers believe is he?

 

It seems to me he has missed the most obvious and compelling 'view of history', which is 'the causal view of history', the idea that shit happens and it is clearly documented and cause-and-effect can be followed.

 

It seems pretty illogical to base one of two possible ways to view history on the premise that: "Historical events occur by design for reasons that are not generally made known to the public, but are well known to those in power at the time". Essentially he is saying that every non-natural (in terms of the natural environment) occurrence is therefore a 'conspiracy' by 'those in power.

 

How would this hold in the case of say the civil rights movement? It isn't recorded as an accident or a conspiracy by those in power. It is recorded as an organic reaction by society against perceived injustices where multiple causes and actions led to multiple effects. The theory states, "If harmful events are planned, it follows that the people who were about to suffer through the scheduled event would act to prevent the event from occurring if they knew about it in advance. The people expect government to protect them from harmful events". What therefore is defined as a harmful event? Who was harmed through the equalisation of rights for all peoples in the USA? We aren't talking about slavery here where there are obvious winners and losers (most obvious being financial terms where slaves now get paid for their labour and slave owners now have increased labour costs/loss of 'assets'), we're talking about a situation that I would view as win-neutral at worst. Assuming no one suffered through the civil rights movement, apart from the activists and it obviously is not in their interest to prevent the action from occurring as they're the ones who took the choice to make it happen... how does this theory hold?

[Guest]

 

I am just curious if you recognize the symbolism in that picture?

 

 

 

One day you may have your world turned upside down. "Nothing is as it appears." Just like "Salad" Tosen said.

 

“Know all things to be like this: A mirage, a cloud castle, a dream, an apparition, without essence, but with qualities that can be seen. Know all things to be like this: As the moon in a bright sky in some clear lake reflected, though to that lake the moon has never moved. Know all things to be like this: As an echo that derives from music, sounds, and weeping, yet in that echo has no melody. Know all things to be like this: As a magician makes illusions of horses, oxen, carts and other things, nothing is as it appears.”

~The Buddha, from the Samadhirajasutra

No, almost everything is as it appears. As I look out my window and see water falling from the sky, I can safely assume that it is raining. I could come up with convoluted theories about other sources for the water, then find bullshit pseudoscience to back up my claims on the internet, or I can simply accept that it is probably raining.

 

I went through a phase as a first year philosophy major where I wanted to take the contrarian viewpoint on everything. However, I quickly grew out of it, realizing that it is nothing more than an attempt to make oneself feel like a strong, independent thinker who is superior to others.

[Guest]

I went through a phase as a first year philosophy major where I wanted to take the contrarian viewpoint on everything. However, I quickly grew out of it, realizing that it is nothing more than an attempt to make oneself feel like a strong, independent thinker who is superior to others.

 

I was never a philosophy major, but I used to smoke a lot of weed and have a lot of time. I read a lot of stuff and talked to a lot of people and generally also took a contrarian point on everything. I still do, to a certain degree, but I aim now for more of a "devil's advocate" than a "conspiracist". I think the difference between the two is that the former is about taking a contrarian point for the sake of it, to give it an opportunity to be shot down and to accept it when it is, whereas the latter is about what you have said (for many people) and an inability to change an opinion based on the facts as they stand. I found that, generally speaking, people are lazy and stupid and that most 'conspiracy theories' do not hold up to a simple cost:benefit/risk:reward analysis.

 

There was talk before about fitting things into 'rigid frameworks', obviously this is an issue if you're continuing re-defining the framework and essentially shifting the goalposts, but the same works in reverse if you do not define the concepts and agreed facts you're discussing then the goalposts will continue to move and you're also at risk of strawmen being pervasive. If a framework is too rigid, then simply define a new one and ensure it is clearly defined and communicated so that it can be viewed through that perspective and argued/debated in that context.

[Grasman]

No, almost everything is as it appears. As I look out my window and see water falling from the sky, I can safely assume that it is raining. I could come up with convoluted theories about other sources for the water, then find bullshit pseudoscience to back up my claims on the internet, or I can simply accept that it is probably raining.

 

I went through a phase as a first year philosophy major where I wanted to take the contrarian viewpoint on everything. However, I quickly grew out of it, realizing that it is nothing more than an attempt to make oneself feel like a strong, independent thinker who is superior to others.

Except those incidents/events whom aren't.

 

It appeared to the public, that the bombings of the '70's, including the murder of Aldo Moro, were made by separate European terrorist organizations.

According to the media at the time, those organizations were quick to claim the responsibility for these same bombings.

 

It later turns out with declassification of documents, that most of these bombings were made by local security services, assisted by the CIA, and carried the codename "Operation Gladio".

 

What appears to be random (chaotic), only appears random because the path (the order/rules/mechanism/etc..) isn't known.

You figure out the path/mechanism/ etc..., the chaos is understood and the randomness disappears.

 

Many instances of beneficial "coincidence" in a "wanted scenario", should always be noted.

Now, there could very well be a case of "natural occurrence of events", but if those events aren't scrutinized by independent researchers, the facts to the contrary might never be available to anyone.

 

Power corrupts people, as does greed.

The lengths many people are willing to go to get to and stay in power, is well known throughout history, recent and ancient.

 

Why would the majority of those in power today be any different to the majority of the people in power in the past?

What's changed and why do you think it has changed?

 

Imo, democracy only changes the corruption slightly, today one of the biggest democratic "in your face corruption" is corporate lobbying.

Basically amongst other things, bribing politicians/parties with funding to push your agenda.

[Grasman]

Fractional banking is one of the most fucked up scenarios around.

 

Fractional banking literally prints money out of thin air, basically for every 1 dollar you save in a bank, the bank can loan out 9 dollars at a higher interest.

8 out of those 9 dollars, didn't exist until loaned out by the bank, then generating interest, whom also doesn't exist until its calculated on top.

 

Now, I learned as a kid in school, that it was only the National Bank, that printed money, but they couldn't have been more wrong.

 

This has according to Michael Hudson in 2006, led to a global debt between 300 and 400 trillion dollars (in a world with a total material worth of about $100 trillion)

 

This latest economic crash is means for the large shareholders of the western banking sector, to convert large sums of that "hot air" debt, into real value. (taxpayers bailout)

 

It was custom throughout history, when there was a change of King, for him to wipe the debt to the old King, resetting the economy.

This new King became instantly popular and the economy started over, never gathering up great debt.

 

This changed with with democracy and fractional banking...

 

Michael Hudson and Noah Chomsky as well, are definitely worth an introduction.

 

The Banking sector is a parasite on the economy and just like the perfect parasite, it's managed to convince the host the parasite's well being, is essential to the hosts survival...........................

[gwad12345]

Fractional banking is one of the most fucked up scenarios around.

 

Fractional banking literally prints money out of thin air, basically for every 1 dollar you save in a bank, the bank can loan out 9 dollars at a higher interest.

8 out of those 9 dollars, didn't exist until loaned out by the bank, then generating interest, whom also doesn't exist until its calculated on top.

 

Now, I learned as a kid in school, that it was only the National Bank, that printed money, but they couldn't have been more wrong.

 

This has according to Michael Hudson in 2006, led to a global debt between 300 and 400 trillion dollars (in a world with a total material worth of about $100 trillion)

 

This latest economic crash is means for the large shareholders of the western banking sector, to convert large sums of that "hot air" debt, into real value. (taxpayers bailout)

 

It was custom throughout history, when there was a change of King, for him to wipe the debt to the old King, resetting the economy.

This new King became instantly popular and the economy started over, never gathering up great debt.

 

This changed with with democracy and fractional banking...

 

Michael Hudson and Noah Chomsky as well, are definitely worth an introduction.

 

The Banking sector is a parasite on the economy and just like the perfect parasite, it's managed to convince the host the parasite's well being, is essential to the hosts survival...........................

 

It really sounds like you never studied economics. There are pros on cons to fractional banking so I understand why there are many people against it but to call it "one of the most fucked up scenarios around" is absolutely ridiculous. Thats the kind of argument you get from people who don't understand the fundamental role of banks in the modern economy.

[Grasman]

 

It really sounds like you never studied economics. There are pros on cons to fractional banking so I understand why there are many people against it but to call it "one of the most fucked up scenarios around" is absolutely ridiculous. Thats the kind of argument you get from people who don't understand the fundamental role of banks in the modern economy.

That's an easy statement to throw out there, without backing it up in any way..

 

The Capitalistic Economic model, does not add up at all, even though i'm sure you think it does..

It crashes and needs a cash injection from the Taxpaye, every fucking +/- 10 years,

 

It is essential to have strong limitations to restrict the banks ability to destroy the economy and lobby/bribe political parties to

throw hundreds of Billion dollars from the public sector, to rescue these private owned companies.

Many of those limitation were removed in the 90's and the size of the first crash of this century, is a result of that.

[Guest]

I am not sure this forum has the capacity to deal with a proper critique of the capitalist and banking systems or of modern financial regulatory theory. If you have A LOT of time...

 

Book 1 of Marx's Capital: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/

 

It's very excellent both as a historical snapshot of the mid-to-late 1800s in industrial nations like the UK and Western/Northern Europe and a critique of the natural tendency of Capitalism. It is pretty obvious with what we know of Marx's political views that he was pretty strictly anti-Capitalist, but the book is more of a scientific research report (and like all it has criticisms, problems and omissions) into the Capitalist means of production and its natural tendencies, how value is created and how different market systems worked prior to Capitalism.

 

I think it's very interesting anyway.