THE "CHATBOX"

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest
ShaneG
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 12:53 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by ShaneG » Mon Oct 10, 2016 10:37 pm

Had an interesting spot today at work that I didn't know how to respond to.

I started a job a couple months ago and it's gone well so far as I've got along with all my other colleagues at work; today my manager, who lives in a shared accommodation with a few others, mentions that his housemate started talking to him about conspiracy theories and that he (my manager) had to draw the line when his housemate started talking about how 9/11 was an 'inside job'. He then asks me "so what do you think about all that?"

I responded saying that I prefer not to talk about these things and that I don't watch tv because all the talk of terrorism etc is depressing and that most people have their mind made up anyway.

Not sure exactly what was the best way to respond, because naturally I wanted to respond and tell him all about the fakery but at the same time I didn't because the thought of being judged in the workplace made me reluctant to express my true perspective on the matter.

I do believe that these days I'm better off not talking about what's said on this forum in my day to day life because It's difficult to express myself in conversation, whereas online I can post evidence to get my point across - yet still nobody aside from this forum seem to understand what I'm saying.

I'm interested to know what others on here think regarding this type of situation.

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Mon Oct 10, 2016 11:19 pm

Your answer was awesome! Well done.
I do believe that these days I'm better off not talking about what's said on this forum in my day to day life because It's difficult to express myself in conversation, whereas online I can post evidence to get my point across - yet still nobody aside from this forum seem to understand what I'm saying.

I'm interested to know what others on here think regarding this type of situation.
I think most mentally healthy adult human beings eventually learn to intuitively understand that talking about politics, religion, sex, and so forth, in the workplace (and some other situations), is asking for trouble. I had a boss once that loved to prod people about all these subjects, because, they estimated, it was all just a "buddy buddy" kind of work place. When they started bullying people because of their answers, it became clear this was not entirely true.

Your boss was wrong to put you in the position where you even had to answer, and it is your prerogative to give a non-answer in such a case. And if any kind of pushing is detected, it would be fine to politely, subtly remind him of that right. I've been able to insert some pretty strong statements that most everyone can agree with, when — in rare cases — something comes up.

"The news is entertainment," or something like you said, is pretty strong.

If your boss shows humor and humanity, you can reward him with more info. Of course, I'd love to help everyone communicate about complex deep subjects to the level I've studied them and I've taken dumb social risks to stand by that position, but there's no reason anyone should take away your rights of freedom of thought if you feel that is happening. And someone abusing a top-down managerial position to do that doesn't make it any more right.

Some people change though, if you find that you are exceedingly polite (but not obsequious) about the topic. People enjoy finding out more about things they were previously frightened of, and you can watch them test you with key words and then jump to hasty aggressive judgments when those words come up. They are testing for themselves the comfort level (or even fun) they feel and sometimes repeating traumatic arguments and bullying they've experienced. Arguments are like tools, and a manic person will sometimes use every tool they are handed like a baby testing boundaries. It's your job then, I think, to show strength and ability to dodge attacks. And softly disarm them with words when it's right to do so.

Continue to be comfortable and confident in your skin. You belong there and it's yours. People will come to you when they are ready to learn more.

ShaneG
Member
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2013 12:53 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by ShaneG » Tue Oct 11, 2016 11:01 pm

Yes Hoi, saying "the news is entertainment" makes perfect sense, albeit a form of entertainment which is the opposite of uplifting and keeps the masses unknowingly trapped in this fictional state of being.

I'm always cordial with my manager, so the times when he's mentioned terror stories such as the Paris attacks, and the more recent bomb plots in America, I've just stayed quiet because I figure a no comment is more optimal than divulging the reasons why I don't believe these terror stories to have ever taken place.

When I said that I don't watch tv he also said that he doesn't normally bother with it, but sometimes he catches up on the news to keep up to date with what's going on out there in the 'real world'. The irony was almost unbearable for me.

Ultimately, there's not enough satisfaction in telling the truth when you talk about these issues and inevitably engage in debate/argument. If I sense that someone is open to discussing the deeper aspects of these topics then maybe it can be worthwhile to expend energy into said discussion.

brianv
Member
Posts: 3959
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 10:19 pm
Contact:

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by brianv » Wed Oct 12, 2016 1:40 pm

ShaneG » October 12th, 2016, 12:01 am wrote:Yes Hoi, saying "the news is entertainment" makes perfect sense, albeit a form of entertainment which is the opposite of uplifting and keeps the masses unknowingly trapped in this fictional state of being.

I'm always cordial with my manager, so the times when he's mentioned terror stories such as the Paris attacks, and the more recent bomb plots in America, I've just stayed quiet because I figure a no comment is more optimal than divulging the reasons why I don't believe these terror stories to have ever taken place.

When I said that I don't watch tv he also said that he doesn't normally bother with it, but sometimes he catches up on the news to keep up to date with what's going on out there in the 'real world'. The irony was almost unbearable for me.

Ultimately, there's not enough satisfaction in telling the truth when you talk about these issues and inevitably engage in debate/argument. If I sense that someone is open to discussing the deeper aspects of these topics then maybe it can be worthwhile to expend energy into said discussion.
You could ask him if he heard the conspiracy theory about the supposed man in the sky and that bloke jesus and all that!

ObamaSimLaden
Member
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2016 2:43 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by ObamaSimLaden » Wed Oct 12, 2016 8:16 pm

ShaneG » October 10th, 2016, 5:37 pm wrote:Had an interesting spot today at work that I didn't know how to respond to.

I started a job a couple months ago and it's gone well so far as I've got along with all my other colleagues at work; today my manager, who lives in a shared accommodation with a few others, mentions that his housemate started talking to him about conspiracy theories and that he (my manager) had to draw the line when his housemate started talking about how 9/11 was an 'inside job'. He then asks me "so what do you think about all that?"

I responded saying that I prefer not to talk about these things and that I don't watch tv because all the talk of terrorism etc is depressing and that most people have their mind made up anyway.

Not sure exactly what was the best way to respond, because naturally I wanted to respond and tell him all about the fakery but at the same time I didn't because the thought of being judged in the workplace made me reluctant to express my true perspective on the matter.

I do believe that these days I'm better off not talking about what's said on this forum in my day to day life because It's difficult to express myself in conversation, whereas online I can post evidence to get my point across - yet still nobody aside from this forum seem to understand what I'm saying.

I'm interested to know what others on here think regarding this type of situation.
Whenever I see people shout down those who question events/news veracity it always reminds me of "My Dinner with Andre" quote "the inmates are guarding the asylum" and all in reference to NYC coincidentally being the self-made prison. Very prescient. If you've never seen this clip, watch it. It's only 2:43 long. The rest of the movie is good too.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68JLWyPxt7g

bongostaple
Member
Posts: 91
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2016 11:53 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by bongostaple » Wed Oct 12, 2016 8:34 pm

I stay well clear of these conversations with work colleagues, I work for a large American corporation here in the UK, and there's even a guy who claims to have been on one of the bombed tube carriages on 7/7. I like being able to support my family a lot more than taking on that sort of tussle. Outside of work though, I know a lot of open-minded people and whilst I haven't 'converted' anyone, most of them are happy to acknowledge that they can't truly know unless they were there, and that the history-book version of 7/7 and 9/11 smell rather badly. It's a start.

pov603
Member
Posts: 853
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:02 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by pov603 » Thu Oct 13, 2016 11:04 am

@OSL
Love the clip from 'My Dinner with Andre'!

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Tue Oct 18, 2016 3:53 pm

Interview snippets for Boston Globe article from 2014 entitled ‘Vote All You Want, The Secret Government Won’t Change.’ ...

What evidence exists for saying America has a double government?

GLENNON: I was curious why a president such as Barack Obama would embrace the very same national security and counterterrorism policies that he campaigned eloquently against. Why would that president continue those same policies in case after case after case?

Why would policy makers hand over the national-security keys to unelected officials?

GLENNON: It hasn’t been a conscious decision. Members of Congress are generalists and need to defer to experts within the national security realm, as elsewhere. They are particularly concerned about being caught out on a limb having made a wrong judgment about national security and tend, therefore, to defer to experts, who tend to exaggerate threats. The courts similarly tend to defer to the expertise of the network that defines national security policy.

Isn’t this just another way of saying that big bureaucracies are difficult to change?

GLENNON: It’s much more serious than that. These particular bureaucracies don’t set truck widths or determine railroad freight rates. They make nerve-center security decisions that in a democracy can be irreversible, that can close down the marketplace of ideas, and can result in some very dire consequences.

Couldn’t Obama’s national-security decisions just result from the difference in vantage point between being a campaigner and being the commander-in-chief, responsible for 320 million lives?

GLENNON: There is an element of what you described. There is not only one explanation or one cause for the amazing continuity of American national security policy. But obviously there is something else going on when policy after policy after policy all continue virtually the same way that they were in the George W. Bush administration.

This isn’t how we’re taught to think of the American political system.

GLENNON: I think the American people are deluded to believe that the institutions that provide the public face actually set American national security policy. They believe that when they vote for a president or member of Congress or succeed in bringing a case before the courts, that policy is going to change. Now, there are many counter-examples in which these branches do affect policy. But the larger picture is still true—policy by and large in the national security realm is made by the concealed institutions.

Do we have any hope of fixing the problem?

GLENNON: The ultimate problem is the pervasive political ignorance on the part of the American people. And indifference to the threat that is emerging from these concealed institutions. That is where the energy for reform has to come from: the American people. Not from government. Government is very much the problem here. The people have to take the bull by the horns. And that’s a very difficult thing to do, because the ignorance is in many ways rational. There is very little profit to be had in learning about, and being active about, problems that you can’t affect, policies that you can’t change.
- http://21stcenturywire.com/2016/03/09/v ... nt-change/

I've highlighted the text referring to "exaggerated threats" because I think that wording is less careful than Glennon's other statements. It's a bit sloppy. Like saying the Club of Rome "sets aside considerations of free will" or that Mafia violence "downplays sovereignty". These organizations cannot be considered to be merely exaggerating threats, though at least coming to the understanding that they do is a start.

I also think it's safe to ignore the site's proclamations that they have any idea what is going on, or that typical 9/11 actor Donald Trump is a "threat" to the establishment. (Can you make a mocking emoticon large enough?)

But once in a while, I guess it is interesting to see what various closed minded outlets will let through, as if they are on the verge of awakening to the phenomenon of political gangs.

sharpstuff
Member
Posts: 236
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:31 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by sharpstuff » Sat Oct 29, 2016 4:24 am

I ran across this article this morning, for which I wanted to add a comment to the effect that 'atom' bombs did not exist and that I thought it might be an exit strategy. I doubt the comment will get posted!

The link:
http://www.countercurrents.org/2016/10/ ... mment-2141

To back up my contention that 'atom' bombs did not exist, I wanted to link to Heiwa's Page: heiwaco.tripod.com or heiwaco.tripod.com but the link no longer works. In fact none of his links work as far as I can tell on all his pages in Ixquick (which searches Google).

Does anyone have any idea why this might be?

His was a wonderful resource.

Cheers.

HonestlyNow
Member
Posts: 455
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:15 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by HonestlyNow » Sat Oct 29, 2016 12:54 pm

sharpstuff » October 29th, 2016, 12:24 am wrote:I wanted to link to Heiwa's Page: heiwaco.tripod.com or heiwaco.tripod.com but the link no longer works. In fact none of his links work as far as I can tell on all his pages in Ixquick (which searches Google).

Does anyone have any idea why this might be?
Perhaps it is temporary. The Google cached page link shows the pages (or at least the three that I looked up — main page, and 2 atom bomb pages 1, 2 ). Time is now to capture the pages that we can?

hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Sat Oct 29, 2016 8:09 pm

HonestlyNow » October 29th, 2016, 12:54 pm wrote:
sharpstuff » October 29th, 2016, 12:24 am wrote:I wanted to link to Heiwa's Page: heiwaco.tripod.com or heiwaco.tripod.com but the link no longer works. In fact none of his links work as far as I can tell on all his pages in Ixquick (which searches Google).

Does anyone have any idea why this might be?
Perhaps it is temporary. The Google cached page link shows the pages (or at least the three that I looked up — main page, and 2 atom bomb pages 1, 2 ). Time is now to capture the pages that we can?
Yes. Capture all research pages you find relevant on any subject. Web pages frequently do not take up too much space.

sharpstuff
Member
Posts: 236
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:31 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by sharpstuff » Sun Oct 30, 2016 3:43 am

Heiwaco Update

I managed to find Heiwa's site on the Internet archive.

Here is the link:

https://archive.org/details/warc-heiwaco_tripod_com

It is a 5gig download (and I will leave my computer on to download it tonight as it will take a loooong time).

The file has a .warc extension.

An open-source web archive player can be found here:

https://foss4lib.org/package/web-archive-player

Flabbergasted
Moderator
Posts: 958
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Flabbergasted » Sun Oct 30, 2016 4:23 am

In the near future, those who do not wish to give their explicit endorsement to the homosexual lifestyle may be banned from the world of business and services. That´s how powerful the promoters of this insane tyranny are.

Airbnb is setting an example of how this may be achieved. The service has just informed their hosts and users about their ongoing "comprehensive effort to fight bias and discrimination in the Airbnb community". All must agree to a commitment to...
[...] treat everyone -- regardless of race, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or age -- with respect, and without judgement or bias.
Airbnb is not content to communicate their values to the public. They compel customers to adopt them:
What happens if you decline the commitment? You won’t be able to host or book using Airbnb, and you have the option to cancel your account. Once your account is cancelled, future booked trips will be cancelled.

sharpstuff
Member
Posts: 236
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 1:31 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by sharpstuff » Sun Oct 30, 2016 11:52 am

Please, please, forgive me for replying to Flabbergasted's post.

Why on earth would anyone wish to post this drivel?
Flabbergasted wrote:


'In the near future, those who do not wish to give their explicit endorsement to the homosexual lifestyle may be banned from the world of business and services. That´s how powerful the promoters of this insane tyranny are.

Airbnb is setting an example of how this may be achieved. The service has just informed their hosts and users about their ongoing "comprehensive effort to fight bias and discrimination in the Airbnb community". All must agree to a commitment to...

[...] treat everyone -- regardless of race, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or age -- with respect, and without judgement or bias.

Airbnb is not content to communicate their values to the public. They compel customers to adopt them:

What happens if you decline the commitment? You won’t be able to host or book using Airbnb, and you have the option to cancel your account. Once your account is cancelled, future booked trips will be cancelled.'
*********************************************************

I did take the time to look up the entity 'Airbnb'. Who might have heard (litotes) of it ?

Why would anyone care about their pronouncements? What sort of 'traffic' do they aspire to?

Whatever anyone's proclivities (sexual or otherwise), they are. or should be, their preference. My personal opinion is that they are private and compatible only to those who aspire to them and that they consent to them. They should not be foisted upon those who have other matters in hand...namely survival or those who have, by virtue of their inherent immaturity are incapable of refusing (e.g. circumcision, vaccination, all of which are surgical procedures and life-threatening...my contention!).

Believe what you want to believe, whatever it is. That should have nothing to do with what others believe. Mind your own business.

The US (not alone by any means) has been subjected to psychopaths (humanoids) who indulge in wanton destruction of humans (who alone have to survive their machinations) by their purely deviant desires; (could be embryo-dysfunction but who knows?)

At present, the US has a shirt-lifting poofter called Barry who apparently has (allegedly) the attentions of Michael Robbins who likes to pretend he is a female.

To (try) to be brief:

I may have over-stepped my views in some of my posts, however, they were presented as best I could given my background and experiences.

Clues forum is not a social media site. Its remit was/is (my understanding) to expose fakeries that affect as wide an audience as possible. It is a resource par exellence and one I am am proud of to have contributed in my own small way.

Perverse activities are not fake, they happen to the innocent.

Moderators, please remove this post if not acceptable in reply to the one I am targetting.

Peace be with you.

Flabbergasted
Moderator
Posts: 958
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Unread post by Flabbergasted » Sun Oct 30, 2016 3:17 pm

sharpstuff wrote:Why on earth would anyone wish to post this drivel?
Hmm, I believe I struck a nerve...

Or is this an attempt to get back at me for saying your first post/thread back in December 2015 was not up to CF standards? If so, you are shooting yourself in the foot.
sharpstuff wrote:Clues forum is not a social media site. Its remit was/is (my understanding) to expose fakeries that affect as wide an audience as possible.
In case you haven´t noticed, I am posting in the Chatbox which is where members may post information they do not intend to develop into threads or share personal musings which may or may not be directly related to media fakery.

Airbnb, despite its deceptive humble origins, is in fact a sophisticated system and very likely a tentacle of the larger Google/Facebook/Youtube/Instagram octopus. Their long-term agenda is every bit as relevant to the (intelligent) CF membership as discussions on the global credit system, Paypal, social engineering, multiculturalism, and others.
sharpstuff wrote:It is a resource [...] I am am proud of to have contributed in my own small way
If you say so.

Post Reply