Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: October 05 2013
Location: SFcaUsA
Status: Offline
Points: 15242
Posted: March 21 2024 at 06:49
Atavachron wrote:
Harry Potter? Okay, well I'll skip my own Sith reference and simply say You think darkness is your ally?-- you merely adopted the dark, I was born in it, molded by it. I didn't see light until I was already a man and by then it was nothing to me but blinding.
You don't comprehend allegories of larger spiritual systems. Every mystery school, every spiritual system, every martial art, every science recognizes the roles of both dark and light and researches all aspects as to navigate the universe under one's own volition. Harry Potter was all subterfuge for spiritual science concepts.
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21136
Posted: March 21 2024 at 07:10
Easy Money wrote:
So what specifically is "the system" stopping some of you from doing that you wish you could do?
That's a nice leading question that sounds like it was formulated by a "fan" of the system to prove that it's great (feel free correct me if I'm wrong).
Let's turn it around: What specifically could one do to change "the system"? Also a leading question, and the answer is obvious: Vote. Except that we are voting between douches and turd sandwiches, or in other words: We can vote within the system, but not whether to keep the system. That is out of the question.
So to answer your leading question: The one thing we wish we could do but cannot is to abolish the system.
Joined: August 09 2015
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 14691
Posted: March 21 2024 at 09:30
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
You're still not getting my main point: As long as these comments do not lead to any actions, "the system" does not care. That's why I jokingly said "dictatorship 10.0". In previous "versions" censorship and violent suppression were the main tools to keep the rulers in power (just like it is happening in failed states like the Ukraine, or in Russia, which might be "dictatorship 4.0"). The more modern versions are beyond that. Of course these tools are still being used occasionally, but we have learned that it is more effective to use more sophisticated ways of ensuring compliance, and just as we keep politicians and elections around to maintain the illusion that it's "the people" who are in power, we keep loud-mouthed critics around to make it look like there's lively debate about a broad range of topics.
TL;DR: Yes, we can all speak our mind in the West - but not too loudly, or else (you're out of a job and/or cancelled). And occasionally we get to choose between a douche and a turd sandwich. Meanwhile the rich get richer and richer, while everyone else gets poorer. Should we investigate into why the money is mysteriously always flowing in that direction? No, that would be crazy-talk. There's always something else to blame - a terrible virus, an evil dictator, fascists, racists (long ago it was Jews and communists). But it's NEVER those who keep getting richer.
I don't know about you but I have seen and heard a lot of talk about the riches getting richer and how this is a problem and how they have too much power in a democracy. And I have seen candidates and parties on ballot papers that stood for such thoughts. And then I have seen people protesting against "Covid dictatorship" and getting lots of press coverage, and I have seen people making a lot of noise about how the USA is worse than Putin and really the war is the Americans fault. And these people are on ballots, too (I'm not in the US obviously ). They don't normally win, but then in Hungary a friend of Putin wins elections and in Italy an elected minister says "the voting people (of Russia that voted for Putin) are always right". Of course Orban and the right wing friends of Putin on one side and those who want to redistribute wealth or radically change the transport, agricultural, industrial system for reasons of climate change and the like are very different people, all operating more or less openly in a system that you don't think deserves to be called "democracy".
I do get you are saying that all this is not a problem for "the system" as long as "the system" can keep going regardless. Elections are fine as long as people to vote to endanger the system, and this is actually in line with what people think who see themselves as democrats and defend the Western democractic system, namely that democracy has to defend itself and laws will stop parties and candidates that actively aim at overthrowing the system. To what extent can Western democracy accommodate and handle its opponents? This is actually a big issue because these opponents exist and they do make some noise, and if we asked how the best possible democracy should look like, chances are even this will have to take some measures to protect itself. I for one do not rely that the majority of the people will always support the system, whether it deserves to be called a democracy or not. You seem to rely on this, but then you would *not* call it democracy even if the majority of people supports it.
It is rather obviously *not* the case that all these things cannot be said. Your postings on this seem to be somewhat ambiguous to me as sometimes you state that dissenting opinions are not a problem but sometimes you seem to be saying they are, or that people don't have access to the relevant information although not only have I access to all kinds of information and my sources are open to pretty much everyone, also *some* Western media in fact make quite some noise about them.
I think I'd probably agree with some and maybe most of your ideals, but the implication of what you write seems very pessimistic whereas I'm interested in what could be done given the structures that we have. I take the degree of freedom of information and exchange that we have over an oppressive dictatorship any day. And I'll be up for compromising because if you want to change something in a democracy you've got to do that (even in something that you'd call democracy). As I wrote earlier, I know people who haven't started a successful revolution, but who have influenced laws and changed things within a parliamentary system, even if these things are maybe too small for your idealism.
Joined: September 30 2006
Location: Pearland
Status: Offline
Points: 65245
Posted: March 21 2024 at 11:37
siLLy puPPy wrote:
Atavachron wrote:
Harry Potter? Okay, well I'll skip my own Sith reference and simply say You think darkness is your ally?-- you merely adopted the dark, I was born in it, molded by it. I didn't see light until I was already a man and by then it was nothing to me but blinding.
You don't comprehend allegories of larger spiritual systems. Every mystery school, every spiritual system, every martial art, every science recognizes the roles of both dark and light and researches all aspects as to navigate the universe under one's own volition. Harry Potter was all subterfuge for spiritual science concepts.
Yeah I thought this discussion would eventually get around to mysticism, 'magic', and other terms for the intentional manipulation of people and events. Having known several 'witches', it's a destructive seduction and a bad road to go down. I would avoid it at all costs.
As far as "comprehending larger spiritual systems", I'm a lifelong martial arts instructor (Kenpo, a sino-Japanese style from Okinawa), so you're assuming too much.
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21136
Posted: March 21 2024 at 17:29
Lewian wrote:
I don't know about you but I have seen and heard a lot of talk about the riches getting richer and how this is a problem and how they have too much power in a democracy. And I have seen candidates and parties on ballot papers that stood for such thoughts. And then I have seen people protesting against "Covid dictatorship" and getting lots of press coverage, and I have seen people making a lot of noise about how the USA is worse than Putin and really the war is the Americans fault. And these people are on ballots, too (I'm not in the US obviously ). They don't normally win, but then in Hungary a friend of Putin wins elections and in Italy an elected minister says "the voting people (of Russia that voted for Putin) are always right". Of course Orban and the right wing friends of Putin on one side and those who want to redistribute wealth or radically change the transport, agricultural, industrial system for reasons of climate change and the like are very different people, all operating more or less openly in a system that you don't think deserves to be called "democracy".
I'm not going to explore any of the 20+ topics you touched on. But yes, I do not think that the system in the West deserves to be called "democracy". If you think it does, sure, you're welcome to your opinion. We've presented our arguments, everyone can make up their own mind.
Lewian wrote:
I do get you are saying that all this is not a problem for "the system" as long as "the system" can keep going regardless. Elections are fine as long as people to vote to endanger the system, and this is actually in line with what people think who see themselves as democrats and defend the Western democractic system, namely that democracy has to defend itself and laws will stop parties and candidates that actively aim at overthrowing the system. To what extent can Western democracy accommodate and handle its opponents? This is actually a big issue because these opponents exist and they do make some noise, and if we asked how the best possible democracy should look like, chances are even this will have to take some measures to protect itself. I for one do not rely that the majority of the people will always support the system, whether it deserves to be called a democracy or not. You seem to rely on this, but then you would *not* call it democracy even if the majority of people supports it.
Not sure what you mean, you are contradicting yourself between the sentences.
What I'm trying to say is that "the system" is designed, either deliberately or as an emergent property, to tolerate open criticism as you describe it. Think of it as a form of "controlled opposition".
How do you know whether the majority of people supports it? Imagine that we would, hypothetically, allow people to vote on whether to change it, globally. I'm not so sure that the majority would say "sure, let's keep things as they are. Let the rich rule use and cause bloody mayhem all over the planet, sell us snake oil cures for invented diseases or problems ...".
But of course at this point I'll say once again that I do not have any practical plan for how to fix "the system".
Lewian wrote:
It is rather obviously *not* the case that all these things cannot be said. Your postings on this seem to be somewhat ambiguous to me as sometimes you state that dissenting opinions are not a problem but sometimes you seem to be saying they are, or that people don't have access to the relevant information although not only have I access to all kinds of information and my sources are open to pretty much everyone, also *some* Western media in fact make quite some noise about them.
*Sigh* I'm saying that dissenting opinions are not a "problem" for "the system" as long as it is able to deal with them. In Germany (my country of birth) the current government is a total disaster, there is a lot of open criticism. Yet the ruling elite are in no danger whatsoever of being replaced. Remember the douche/turd trick. In a couple of years, when it's time to vote again, people will have the choice between them and some other persons who will be just as incompetent and/or criminal as they are.
That's a problem FOR ME, and for many others. But "the system" goes on, neither the leaders' incompetence or our criticism of them is any concern.
Lewian wrote:
I think I'd probably agree with some and maybe most of your ideals, but the implication of what you write seems very pessimistic whereas I'm interested in what could be done given the structures that we have. I take the degree of freedom of information and exchange that we have over an oppressive dictatorship any day. And I'll be up for compromising because if you want to change something in a democracy you've got to do that (even in something that you'd call democracy). As I wrote earlier, I know people who haven't started a successful revolution, but who have influenced laws and changed things within a parliamentary system, even if these things are maybe too small for your idealism.
Well, I currently have a nice life. So I could be perfectly content and ignore that all of this is based on incredible amounts of suffering. Each month thousands of people are dying all over the world to keep our rulers in power. That annoys me, but my stoic mindset helps me to keep focused on the things I can affect.
I don't know what's worse - an openly oppressive dictatorship or a make-believe democracy. Honesty or comfort? Tough call.
Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 17497
Posted: March 22 2024 at 07:44
Hi,
So sad to see why the topic is important ... no one can agree on anything ... and as a famous writer once said, "...the country that has most freedoms, uses them the least! "
Instead we bicker and disagree on everything. Oh well ... c'est la vie!
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com
Joined: October 05 2013
Location: SFcaUsA
Status: Offline
Points: 15242
Posted: March 22 2024 at 07:51
Atavachron wrote:
siLLy puPPy wrote:
Atavachron wrote:
Harry Potter? Okay, well I'll skip my own Sith reference and simply say You think darkness is your ally?-- you merely adopted the dark, I was born in it, molded by it. I didn't see light until I was already a man and by then it was nothing to me but blinding.
You don't comprehend allegories of larger spiritual systems. Every mystery school, every spiritual system, every martial art, every science recognizes the roles of both dark and light and researches all aspects as to navigate the universe under one's own volition. Harry Potter was all subterfuge for spiritual science concepts.
Yeah I thought this discussion would eventually get around to mysticism, 'magic', and other terms for the intentional manipulation of people and events. Having known several 'witches', it's a destructive seduction and a bad road to go down. I would avoid it at all costs.
As far as "comprehending larger spiritual systems", I'm a lifelong martial arts instructor (Kenpo, a sino-Japanese style from Okinawa), so you're assuming too much.
I can only assume how you present yourself. Martial arts is a physical art primarily albeit with a mental componant. The mystical arts encompasses the non-physical phenomena. Why is all this mysticism relevant in a so-called political discussion? Because manipulation of the spiritual realms is very much a part of the control system. The term witch and warlock and sorcerer only refer to those who have mastered the art of manipulating the subtle energetic fields that constitute the human condition. The elites are basically dark psychologists who have guarded secret knowledge and used it to their own advantage. What were the witchhunts all about of the past? Basically it was to extinguish any competition of power structures that were fighting to liberate humanity from the clutches of those who wish to control us in every way. None of this is new in the least. The hunting down of the Cathars and other groups who were a threat to the Vatican's global domination has been in play for millennia and continues to this day. The world government is in fact a black magic system and this is fairly obvious once you dig into the multiple disciplines it requires to comprehend the big picture. Democracy is merely a word that has been used as political terminology to connote humankind's desire for self-autonomy, free of interfering masters however many fail to recognize how a democracy can be hijacked simply because the greater laws of physics and spirit sciences have been withheld from the masses and supplanted by toxic religiosity. It's a sad state of affair, this planet Earth right now but the universe operates like a pendulum and the darkness inevitable becomes day. The fact that things like witchcraft have been deemed evil only proves that those who use these subtle forces of nature against us have succeeded in convincing us that what they practice against us is in fact evil for us to use. There's no such thing as magic, only technologies that have not been sanctioned by the new religion of "scientism" which eschews the true scientific method in order to promote a desired agenda through cherry picking one possible hypothesis out of many. If we truly desire to experience a true democracy then we must close the gap between the power differential between those who have amassed all the power through keeping us from understanding our true nature and the majority who has simply become ossified in a childlike state completely dependent on a father figure called daddy government. As someone who engaged in ecological sciences and environmentalism it became clear upon further deep dives that all the problems have already been solved and what stands in our way of virtually every problem is a handful of power hungry hegemonists who have access to the greater knowledge and those who don't. A true democracy can only function if every participant is on an equal playing field with no faction having a tactical advantage over the others. That has never been the case and remains woefully so to this very day.
Joined: July 19 2020
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 9050
Posted: March 22 2024 at 11:10
Oh, well. I thought I wouldn't react to your posts, but this kind of gibberish has to be contradicted.
From an earlier post:
For those who delve into these conspiracy facts, there is really no debate about the veracity of it all. Only those who have not yet familiarized themselves with it will display skepticism.
So, "conspiracy theories" have become "conspiracy facts". That's a very transparent way of "trumping" the audience... But this is especially a well known strategy of conspiracy theorists: stating that someone who didn't do the "adequate research" or hasn't "familiarized themselves" with all the "knowledge " available cannot understand "the" (i.e. "our") truth and will thus "display skepticism". Thus actually claiming "I'm always right, whatever you say".
The world government...
There is no world government.
The world government is in fact a black magic system and this is fairly obvious once you dig into the multiple disciplines it requires to comprehend the big picture.
This is hilariously ridiculous and can not be verified nor falsified, because it's based on nothing than quicksand. However, the classic conspiracy theorist strategy is then to make believe that one has to "understand multiple disciplines" in order to know that it should be true: a real pseudo-science tactic to exclude all dissension or to qualify dissension as "you have not gone into those multiple disciplines enough to understand". Duh.
Democracy is merely a word that has been used as political terminology to connote humankind's desire for self-autonomy, free of interfering masters however many fail to recognize how a democracy can be hijacked simply because the greater laws of physics and spirit sciences have been withheld from the masses and supplanted by toxic religiosity.
Another statement that is hilariously ridiculous: no knowledge from the natural or human sciences has ever been withheld from "the masses", because that knowledge generally preceeds its political implications. It can be that scientific experiments have been classified, but the scientific knowledge never was!
It's a sad state of affair, this planet Earth right now but the universe operates like a pendulum and the darkness inevitable becomes day. The fact that things like witchcraft have been deemed evil only proves that those who use these subtle forces of nature against us have succeeded in convincing us that what they practice against us is in fact evil for us to use. There's no such thing as magic, only technologies that have not been sanctioned by the new religion of "scientism" which eschews the true scientific method in order to promote a desired agenda through cherry picking one possible hypothesis out of many.
Other than the gibberish... So, just above you claim that "The world government is in fact a black magic system" and now you claim that "there is no such thing as magic...".
Apart from that, you claim that there is a "true scientific method". I've said it before, but scientists who claim to have or pursue "true" scientific methods should be disqualified from being called scientists: there is no such thing as "true science", other than religion or other kinds of believe systems (like conspiracy theories). At the same time you disqualify the "dominant" sciences as "scientism" and adopt your "true scientific method" as the only valid alternative... Really? You think that is a "true" scientific" attitude? I don't think so.
If we truly desire to experience a true democracy then we must close the gap between the power differential between those who have amassed all the power through keeping us from understanding our true nature and the majority who has simply become ossified in a childlike state completely dependent on a father figure called daddy government.
Well, I wouldn't describe it in this way, but here we have probably some understanding: I agree that those who have been in power have been mostly at the service of the other - economicly - powerful. That is, I think that policies in our (Western) democracies have mostly priviliged the elites (stakeholders, big companies, aristocracies, according to the contexts/countries) instead of priviling the citizens. Economy has been the guiding principle in our - capitalist - democracies, where democracy should, in my opinion, find a good balance between economic interests and the interests of the populations. That, I think, is what democracy should be about: a balance between private and public interests.
So, yes...
A true democracy can only function if every participant is on an equal playing field with no faction having a tactical advantage over the others. That has never been the case and remains woefully so to this very day.
...but we can have the ideals and hope to better this, no? Through democratic means, I mean, because personally I don't believe that autocratic, plutocratic, oligarchic, anarchic or other dictatorial systems would be preferable.
Democracy is maybe teetering, that doesn't mean that we have to give it up...
Joined: October 19 2011
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 6339
Posted: March 22 2024 at 12:04
^
Scientific knowledge has been suppressed. I'm a biologist/RN. I've seen scientific knowledge suppressed. I can explain the actual science that was/is suppressed. Science has been suppressed at least since Galileo.
Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20604
Posted: March 22 2024 at 12:21
suitkees wrote:
Oh, well. I thought I wouldn't react to your posts, but this kind of gibberish has to be contradicted.
From an earlier post:
For those who delve into these conspiracy facts, there is really no debate about the veracity of it all. Only those who have not yet familiarized themselves with it will display skepticism.
So, "conspiracy theories" have become "conspiracy facts". That's a very transparent way of "trumping" the audience... But this is especially a well known strategy of conspiracy theorists: stating that someone who didn't do the "adequate research" or hasn't "familiarized themselves" with all the "knowledge " available cannot understand "the" (i.e. "our") truth and will thus "display skepticism". Thus actually claiming "I'm always right, whatever you say".
The world government...
There is no world government.
The world government is in fact a black magic system and this is fairly obvious once you dig into the multiple disciplines it requires to comprehend the big picture.
This is hilariously ridiculous and can not be verified nor falsified, because it's based on nothing than quicksand. However, the classic conspiracy theorist strategy is then to make believe that one has to "understand multiple disciplines" in order to know that it should be true: a real pseudo-science tactic to exclude all dissension or to qualify dissension as "you have not gone into those multiple disciplines enough to understand". Duh.
Democracy is merely a word that has been used as political terminology to connote humankind's desire for self-autonomy, free of interfering masters however many fail to recognize how a democracy can be hijacked simply because the greater laws of physics and spirit sciences have been withheld from the masses and supplanted by toxic religiosity.
Another statement that is hilariously ridiculous: no knowledge from the natural or human sciences has ever been withheld from "the masses", because that knowledge generally preceeds its political implications. It can be that scientific experiments have been classified, but the scientific knowledge never was!
It's a sad state of affair, this planet Earth right now but the universe operates like a pendulum and the darkness inevitable becomes day. The fact that things like witchcraft have been deemed evil only proves that those who use these subtle forces of nature against us have succeeded in convincing us that what they practice against us is in fact evil for us to use. There's no such thing as magic, only technologies that have not been sanctioned by the new religion of "scientism" which eschews the true scientific method in order to promote a desired agenda through cherry picking one possible hypothesis out of many.
Other than the gibberish... So, just above you claim that "The world government is in fact a black magic system" and now you claim that "there is no such thing as magic...".
Apart from that, you claim that there is a "true scientific method". I've said it before, but scientists who claim to have or pursue "true" scientific methods should be disqualified from being called scientists: there is no such thing as "true science", other than religion or other kinds of believe systems (like conspiracy theories). At the same time you disqualify the "dominant" sciences as "scientism" and adopt your "true scientific method" as the only valid alternative... Really? You think that is a "true" scientific" attitude? I don't think so.
If we truly desire to experience a true democracy then we must close the gap between the power differential between those who have amassed all the power through keeping us from understanding our true nature and the majority who has simply become ossified in a childlike state completely dependent on a father figure called daddy government.
Well, I wouldn't describe it in this way, but here we have probably some understanding: I agree that those who have been in power have been mostly at the service of the other - economicly - powerful. That is, I think that policies in our (Western) democracies have mostly priviliged the elites (stakeholders, big companies, aristocracies, according to the contexts/countries) instead of priviling the citizens. Economy has been the guiding principle in our - capitalist - democracies, where democracy should, in my opinion, find a good balance between economic interests and the interests of the populations. That, I think, is what democracy should be about: a balance between private and public interests.
So, yes...
A true democracy can only function if every participant is on an equal playing field with no faction having a tactical advantage over the others. That has never been the case and remains woefully so to this very day.
...but we can have the ideals and hope to better this, no? Through democratic means, I mean, because personally I don't believe that autocratic, plutocratic, oligarchic, anarchic or other dictatorial systems would be preferable.
Democracy is maybe teetering, that doesn't mean that we have to give it up...
I give you credit for even responding to this nonsense. I myself would rather not justify such nonsense by even offering a response to it, as spewing this nonsense eventually comes back to bite the tin foil mind that dwells in it.
Edited by SteveG - March 22 2024 at 12:23
This message was brought to you by a proud supporter of the Deep State.
Joined: August 09 2015
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 14691
Posted: March 22 2024 at 16:52
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
I don't know what's worse - an openly oppressive dictatorship or a make-believe democracy. Honesty or comfort? Tough call.
There is little comfort in democracy these days and you can see that all over the world. You mention Germany. I'm born there, too. Comfort? Are you joking? Democracy is a mess, and many can't handle it anymore. The idea that "the system" controls everything and everything else doesn't matter on the other hand is a rather simple one, comforting if you want, as you just can throw negativity at everyone who takes responsibility and puts themselves forward to not only do something but stand for being voted on it, while you don't need to take responsibility yourself for anything that happens. And what is your model of an "honest" dictatorship? Putin and his "elections"? Thank you very much. I prefer a system in which George Carlin can talk and have a career.
Joined: October 05 2013
Location: SFcaUsA
Status: Offline
Points: 15242
Posted: March 22 2024 at 18:30
suitkees wrote:
Oh, well. I thought I wouldn't react to your posts, but this kind of gibberish has to be contradicted.
From an earlier post:
For those who delve into these conspiracy facts, there is really no debate about the veracity of it all. Only those who have not yet familiarized themselves with it will display skepticism.
So, "conspiracy theories" have become "conspiracy facts". That's a very transparent way of "trumping" the audience... But this is especially a well known strategy of conspiracy theorists: stating that someone who didn't do the "adequate research" or hasn't "familiarized themselves" with all the "knowledge " available cannot understand "the" (i.e. "our") truth and will thus "display skepticism". Thus actually claiming "I'm always right, whatever you say".
If you deny patents and public documents that are admissible in every court of law in the friggin world as "theories" then YOU ARE A REALITY DENIER
The world government...
There is no world government.
EVERY nation state adheres to the same legal system governed by the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code). This supersedes any nation state's ability to implement many changes therefore it IS a government that governs all others. Guess what. Every nation signed onto the UCC therefore if they do not adhere to its regulatory system then THEY GET SUED! Duh
The world government is in fact a black magic system and this is fairly obvious once you dig into the multiple disciplines it requires to comprehend the big picture.
This is hilariously ridiculous and can not be verified nor falsified, because it's based on nothing than quicksand. However, the classic conspiracy theorist strategy is then to make believe that one has to "understand multiple disciplines" in order to know that it should be true: a real pseudo-science tactic to exclude all dissension or to qualify dissension as "you have not gone into those multiple disciplines enough to understand". Duh.
Do you know what black magic is? You watch too much Hollywood crap and probably think it's Anton LaVey. Black magic a system of DECEPTION. You can easily discern reality from fiction simply by going to Black's Law Dictionary and start reading definitions of words. They ACTUALLY mean one thing while we THINK they mean another. You wear your ignorance on your sleeve quite well and display your lack of ability to comprehend nuances. Duh
Democracy is merely a word that has been used as political terminology to connote humankind's desire for self-autonomy, free of interfering masters however many fail to recognize how a democracy can be hijacked simply because the greater laws of physics and spirit sciences have been withheld from the masses and supplanted by toxic religiosity.
Another statement that is hilariously ridiculous: no knowledge from the natural or human sciences has ever been withheld from "the masses", because that knowledge generally preceeds its political implications. It can be that scientific experiments have been classified, but the scientific knowledge never was!
Oh you are so blind! Actually there are MILLIONS of things hidden from humanity. Have your heard of classified info? The government has millions of documents that are classified and that means NOBODY without the highest clearances can access them. Classified info also includes patents that have been deemed "dangerous" to national security or the global financial system. There are dozens if not hundreds of examples of technologies and scientific breakthroughs that have literally been expunged from the public records. Try reading some encyclopedias before the 1860s and see how different they are from what they tell us now. You'll be quite surprised.
It's a sad state of affair, this planet Earth right now but the universe operates like a pendulum and the darkness inevitable becomes day. The fact that things like witchcraft have been deemed evil only proves that those who use these subtle forces of nature against us have succeeded in convincing us that what they practice against us is in fact evil for us to use. There's no such thing as magic, only technologies that have not been sanctioned by the new religion of "scientism" which eschews the true scientific method in order to promote a desired agenda through cherry picking one possible hypothesis out of many.
Other than the gibberish... So, just above you claim that "The world government is in fact a black magic system" and now you claim that "there is no such thing as magic...".
Apart from that, you claim that there is a "true scientific method". I've said it before, but scientists who claim to have or pursue "true" scientific methods should be disqualified from being called scientists: there is no such thing as "true science", other than religion or other kinds of believe systems (like conspiracy theories). At the same time you disqualify the "dominant" sciences as "scientism" and adopt your "true scientific method" as the only valid alternative... Really? You think that is a "true" scientific" attitude? I don't think so.
Once again you fail to distinguish nuances and connote one example as referring to everything. And given your statements here also have no tangible references to what would make this crystal clear so you are basically embarrassing yourself with your inability to decipher specific meanings of words that refer to certain subsets of society. If you can't comprehend the difference between "scientific method" and "cherry picking controlled studies and suppressing the rest" then you have clearly never delved beyond what the lamestream media tells you. Try reading some actual medical journals for once and see how it differs from what's broadcasted to the mainstream. Here in the US in 1980 we passed something called The Baye-Dole Act which set up a committee to determine what will receive public funding for scientific research. If it's not conducive to the economic system that keeps the status quo humming along then the it will not receive a single dime. Indie scientists often find swat teams confiscating their lab and research if they happen to stray too far from the status quo. There are many well documented incidents. Too many to count. You missed the entire point. Si vous ne comprenez pas correctement l'anglais, quelqu'un doit-il vous expliquer cela en français ?
If we truly desire to experience a true democracy then we must close the gap between the power differential between those who have amassed all the power through keeping us from understanding our true nature and the majority who has simply become ossified in a childlike state completely dependent on a father figure called daddy government.
Well, I wouldn't describe it in this way, but here we have probably some understanding: I agree that those who have been in power have been mostly at the service of the other - economicly - powerful. That is, I think that policies in our (Western) democracies have mostly priviliged the elites (stakeholders, big companies, aristocracies, according to the contexts/countries) instead of priviling the citizens. Economy has been the guiding principle in our - capitalist - democracies, where democracy should, in my opinion, find a good balance between economic interests and the interests of the populations. That, I think, is what democracy should be about: a balance between private and public interests.
So, yes... [quote]A true democracy can only function if every participant is on an equal playing field with no faction having a tactical advantage over the others. That has never been the case and remains woefully so to this very day.
...but we can have the ideals and hope to better this, no? Through democratic means, I mean, because personally I don't believe that autocratic, plutocratic, oligarchic, anarchic or other dictatorial systems would be preferable.
Democracy is maybe teetering, that doesn't mean that we have to give it up...
There will NEVER be a true democracy because there will NEVER be a level playing field. Some people are stronger, more intelligent and born with unthinkable wealth that can buy them every possible mechanism for suppressing others. Add to that a small percentage of the population are clinically diagnosed as psychopaths or sociopaths and feel no empathy for others. Given that many of the elites who control the world are richer, smarter, better connected and have the wealth to implement their will AND many of them are sociopaths so where exactly does this childish hope stem from? Now talk about the ultimate self-delusion of the greatest magnitude. DUH
Why even bother responding when everything apparently goes over your head?
“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
Joined: October 05 2013
Location: SFcaUsA
Status: Offline
Points: 15242
Posted: March 22 2024 at 18:44
SteveG wrote:
suitkees wrote:
I give you credit for even responding to this nonsense. I myself would rather not justify such nonsense by even offering a response to it, as spewing this nonsense eventually comes back to bite the tin foil mind that dwells in it.
And
you are another hopeless dreamer with your head in the clouds
dismissing anything you haven't investigated thoroughly. You are the
perfect example of someone who refuses to look at validated evidence
because it would change your world view and call it "nonsense" simply to
justify your inability to tackle complex topics. Despite the fact it's been verified by courts, military tribunals and verifiable via public documents and patents, it's still all nonsense. Sounds like you're just another REALITY DENIER.
“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
Joined: April 22 2005
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 21136
Posted: March 22 2024 at 23:35
Lewian wrote:
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
I don't know what's worse - an openly oppressive dictatorship or a make-believe democracy. Honesty or comfort? Tough call.
There is little comfort in democracy these days and you can see that all over the world. You mention Germany. I'm born there, too. Comfort? Are you joking? Democracy is a mess, and many can't handle it anymore. The idea that "the system" controls everything and everything else doesn't matter on the other hand is a rather simple one, comforting if you want, as you just can throw negativity at everyone who takes responsibility and puts themselves forward to not only do something but stand for being voted on it, while you don't need to take responsibility yourself for anything that happens. And what is your model of an "honest" dictatorship? Putin and his "elections"? Thank you very much. I prefer a system in which George Carlin can talk and have a career.
Twisting my words again, thanks a lot. Cheers. With your framing skills, you should become a politician!
EDIT: And thank you for providing an example for how "the system" protects itself.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.184 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.