THE "CHATBOX"

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby simonshack on Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:55 pm

Flabbergasted » August 16th, 2018, 6:25 pm wrote:
nonhocapito wrote:...the scientific method itself is what is needed to prove the Tychos model.

Simon, what say you?

Dear Flabbergasted,

What say I? ^_^

Well, I'd say that what is known as the "scientific method" is, in principle, a wise and noble ideal that should be pursued in all branches of research and intellectual pursuits - at all times. The problem is that, since it involves a series of procedural steps, 'controlled' experiments, cross-verification and so-called "peer-reviewing" (none of them immune to human error), it is inherently fallible. This is not to say that the scientific method has no value - but only that it is by no means a foolproof process for attaining truth. Moreover, this world's scientific community has - alas - a long history of reverential submission to a handful of universally-acclaimed individuals who all claimed (afaik!) to have applied the scientific method. Yet, how many of their 'established findings' have held the test of time?

To be sure, the scientific method becomes entirely worthless if it is tainted by and/or performed by thinkers (no matter how qualified, intellectually gifted or academically 'vetted') subjected to any of the following 'impediments' :

- peer pressure (fomented by ingrained convictions, competing egos and assorted human defects)
- pressure exerted by money, research grants, patrons / sponsors with vested interests, etc.
- pressure exerted by the proliferation of massive, government-run scams (e.g. NASA, Aids, Ebola, etc.)
- blind reliance on "Scientific Laws" promulgated by iconic scientists of yore (e.g. Newton, Kepler, Einstein etc.)

Fortunately, as a totally solitary & unfunded thinker/researcher, I have not been subjected to any of the above-listed cognitive obstacles. If you should ask me if I abide by the "scientific method", I'd ask you to first define what it means to YOU - and to what extent it may condition your acceptance of what I have to say. This is why I prefer the word "logic". Nature cannot teach you the "scientific method", which is a human construct designed to discipline our inborn inventive impulses. Logic, on the other hand, needs no discipline: it is inherent in Nature - and no human fantasies can subvert it.

If I sit around a ring with ten friends in my garden, staring at an apple, I would say: "hey, that's an apple". If anyone says, "no, Simon - it's a mango", I will taste it. If it tastes like an apple, I will repeat: "it's an apple". If another friend says, "nah, it's a lemon", I will try and squeeze it. If it feels hard as an apple, I'll repeat: "nope, it's an apple". Someone might walk away in disgust, accusing me of being stubborn and narrow-minded. Yet, I will keep saying it's an apple. That's just the way I am, I live by nature's logic. If time will disprove me (and my personal, intuitively-attained concept of logic), so be it. No harm will be done - and I'll leave this lovely planet as happy as when my mom and dad brought me here. Oh wait, can I prove by the scientific method that my mom and dad truly created me? No. But my natural instincts and logic tell me that this is assuredly so. No Big Bang needed - just a helluva lot of pain for my mom (I weighed 5 kg at birth!)...
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6625
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby aa5 on Sat Aug 18, 2018 3:54 am

Once science became our society's religion, it could never change.. at least on major theories. It is the State and the Church compact that all societies have. The religion gives a mandate to the state. So say the state officials want to restrict oil use. The scientists give the moral authority of why it needs to be done. Now to question the actions of the state would also be to question the high priests advice.

People today believe in science 100%, as the ancient Mayan's believed in their priests 100%. You see those ancient Mayan's they didn't see their religion the way we define the word today. They saw it the way we see science today, the truth as discovered through time by very wise scholars and passed down through time.

In all societies the religion has a monopoly on education. In our society the governments allegedly cannot fund religion, yet those same governments spend 10% of our GDP funding k-12 and universities. Of course those institutions teach our religion.

The more smart and educated the person today, the more they believe in science, the more unthinkable to them that science could being faked or that science could be wrong(on major points anyways). To admit that science could be wrong on major points or faking evidence, causes an emotional breakdown in their minds when you mention it to them. They react the same way religious believers of past centuries reacted to heretics.
aa5
Member
 
Posts: 239
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2016 3:03 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby Flabbergasted on Sat Aug 18, 2018 1:01 pm

Some keen insights there, aa5.
aa5 » August 18th, 2018, 12:54 am wrote:The religion gives a mandate to the state.

Precisely. Temporal power ('Arthur') derives its legitimacy from spiritual authority ('Merlin'). Emperors are crowned by bishops.
(although the two functions have occasionally been exercised by the same individual)
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 760
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby Flabbergasted on Sat Aug 18, 2018 6:40 pm

nonhocapito » August 18th, 2018, 1:48 pm wrote:Do you wash your hands? Why?

As for me, yes, I wash my hands. I do it because they look or feel dirty or don´t smell right.

If water and soap reduce the bacterial load, then that's a plus. I am not among those who doubt the existence of microorganisms or that certain compounds have the ability to stop bacterial replication and spread. Actually, it is fairly simple to place a drop of antibiotic in the middle of a colony of micoorganisms in a Petri dish and watch an inhibition halo form around it.

Now, I do not pretend to know in what scenarios commercially available antibiotics are the 'right option'. There is hardly a single best solution for all people and situations.
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 760
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby patrix on Sun Aug 19, 2018 12:47 am

hoi.polloi » August 18th, 2018, 6:38 pm wrote:Nevertheless, whatever the method of acquiring and using it, the user needs to appreciate that it is something you don't want to mess up. I hope that's something we can agree on.

Are we really demonstrating that anarchy is better than authoritarianism? Or have we demonstrated that they are the same thing?



I care the most about two things at the moment - Finding out what is true and false in the world and convey that to as many people as possible. To think too much about who dunnit, why and what to do about the lying/mistakes is premature. In order to solve a problem it must first be understood. And my process of doing that is to research and find people on the same page and discuss. Arguing is often seen as offensive which annoy the hell out of me because I see another Psyop in that - "We should be careful with words because they can hurt people". Sure if someone is bullied or insulted. But words per se can never hurt. Not uncovering malicious lies can on the other hand. And the thing about this is that it hinders a constructive debate on important subjects and for people to become aware of them. And that is the motive behind all the focus on hate speech and the need for more legislation. Self censorship is the best censorship.
If the Nutwork for example decides they want to move a group of people from one continent to another because it's on their agenda, they brand any criticism of immigration as hate speech. It then becomes impossible to have a rational discussion around the matter or to organize any political action. And if you still try you will be called a rabid right extremist.
It's always about associating emotions with the matter. To be a good person is to favour immigration or care about the environment by limiting your "carbon footprint". To be a bad person is to say immigration is not a good solution for both countries involved and the people concerned or that there is no evidence whatsoever that carbon emissions affect our climate.

And we all need to do our part in this. Everyone should think about what they say and how they say it and offer guidelines and friendly nudges for those who still don't get it. Because words can hurt you see. Well forgive for being more concerned about the cluster bombs and vaccines in the hands of psychos and not minding my manners.

As for colloidal silver making dear Hoi, dunno. It's not like we're making some kind of psychedelic drug where a mistake can make you brain dead. The only known negative side effect from silver intake is that it can turn you blue, and that's not really possible when it comes to real colloidal silver. I'm frankly a bit fed up with all the fud (fear, uncertainty, doubt) generated around nutrition and medicine and our willingness to buy it. We need our modern medicine man in a white coat to inject our babies with coolant (glycol is a common ingredient in vaccines) and we will follow his advice to eat mostly healthy greens and avoid the nasty fat and meat. And hey that's good for the planet and animals too!! Went on a rant here. Oops. Hope my words was not to offensive for this space ;-)
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 389
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby hoi.polloi on Sun Aug 19, 2018 4:27 am

Sure if someone is bullied or insulted. But words per se can never hurt.


Everyone should think about what they say and how they say it and offer guidelines and friendly nudges for those who still don't get it. Because words can hurt you see.


So words can't hurt unless it is bullying or insulting.

Yet they can "get in the way" of your living your life in peace.

Forgive me if I point out what I feel is a slight contradiction. No insult intended.

The comedy about fish not seeing the water they swim in comes to mind.

Well forgive for being more concerned about the cluster bombs and vaccines in the hands of psychos and not minding my manners.


Most people are much more concerned about where bombs, starvation and poison are going to interrupt their day or their life or the days and lives of loved ones. But that doesn't mean rudeness, crudeness or offensive language is welcome just because there are far worse things in the world than those things. We may have a high tolerance for it because of our passion for the truth. Clearly, that is not how most people work.

It's a frustrating aspect of the world but also a true fact and not an "alternative fact" that on a spectrum from pleasant peaceful life to hellish bellicose behavior, degrading other people's opinions moves people towards the uncomfortable direction rather than the comfortable direction.

Does this mean CluesForum shouldn't exist? I don't think so. On the contrary.

There are so many indications and even legends (and Hollywood movies — ahem) in the world about the importance of making people uncomfortable for good reason — disrupting, insulting and judging with concern for the greater good. Luckily we are all here expressing oh so much concern and that should redeem us. But it doesn't, in the eyes of most people. And in truth, it really doesn't "redeem" much of anything. Everything is give and take. What culture have we nurtured on the forum? Nevermind what we do in real life and how we come across to friends and family for a minute.

Not GodLikeProductions. Not 4chan. Not David Icke forum. And yet ... related in some sense.

Please don't misunderstand. I don't think we are bad for truth, like the character of "Nico Haupt" who absolutely set the bar for disruption while trying to get attention on the concept of "No planes [having] crashed on 9/11". Many people say he is a shill who deliberately made questioning the official 9/11 conspiracy theory into a clownish and offensive discussion while yelling in the streets of New York, stripping for attention and so on.

And it seems his behavior did sour people on questioning things, even if it also brought some positive attention to the idea.

The "Wall of Tears" weapon being used to censor people, where the tragic disruption of peaceful life "cannot" be questioned (in the minds of the average folks) even where evidence of fake victims or falsified victimhood is part of the story, is also said to be something used to censor people on hugely public violent supposed events and especially the topic of victimhood of those supposed events.

And it works, too.

Politicians and celebrities and professors are all said to be brought down by scandal. And that certainly works.

What works against the power of "character assassination" being misused yet besides actually having a good reputation? Anything? Have we discovered and agreed on any other solid working ways of combating the ruthless anti-human weapon of an artificially imposed bad reputation?

No.

Alex Jones, Michael Moore and others said to be "insulting" America's establishment left and establishment right are said to be both promoted and yet also display the drama of victimhood — the "scandalous". But which between them, right now, is more enveloped in scandal? The worst thing about Michael Moore in the public's imagination, it seems, is from cheesy little-known movies that try to decry him. Otherwise he is considered a hero of the left who, at worst, fakes information to make his points. Whereas Alex Jones is seen as some kind of pure villain by both researchers (whose work he appropriates) and the propagandized public.

People these days don't even need an excuse to "be soured" on an idea. But you can see that Moore's positing himself within a fake leftist sort of political culture is safer for his media exposure than Jones' positing himself in an ostensibly libertarian sort of political culture.

So, here we are. Claiming to be neither of the official "left" or official "right" power houses and yet each of us with opinions that have been sorted for the public as "belonging" to present "left" or "right" paradigms. On so many topics that aren't even sorted in the media.

Hell, we seem to get divided over whether we can call digital compositing or augmented reality "Computer Graphics", or what we categorize as a vicsim or fake victim or what-have-you.

Hence, despite our claiming to be united by realizations of media lies, we are actually personally divided on topics that are in reality extremely divisive.

We sometimes express lamentations that we should show any "political" alignment, and yet we have some minor political discussions all the time. We have biases. We have beliefs. We can certainly claim to be "united" by the realizations of fakery or the realizations of other things (health scares, science discussions, etc.) but we try to avoid going too far from the uniting concept of "media fakery" and that's as far as we've gotten. It feels like a big advancement to us, but not to many people in the world. Some on the forum snipe at each other with personal bias and then hide behind the (possibly false) unity of the revelations of media fakery. In truth, we here represent various sides of political battles and divisions that our opinions would have us divided on in person.

We can claim we understand that fakery is being used for a sort of hypnotic control of the population and it is used to divide us. But the truth is fake events apparently also unite us by erasing the centers of true political conflicts.

The only people on this forum I could consider remotely "inoculated" against the overall "message" produced by media fakers are those that recognize human conflicts should not be encouraged in general and who are actively working on ways in their communities of reducing conflict, deescalating, and making peace by being compassionate and peaceful in the face of upsetting information (or upsetting psychopaths). Otherwise, it seems, media fakery serves you pretty well, hmm?

Unless one takes a seriously dedicated stance of not allowing one's self to be drawn into any political conflict, unless we are actually "united" anyway, unless we can learn the skills of listening to our supposed "enemy" somehow (and probably not on this forum since we constantly rail against the criminal psychopaths responsible for the media hoaxes) then the point of "exposing media fakery" is almost moot and little more than a hobby (unless we really are a warmongering type that would love to get to the base truth so we can decide which people we should really arrest and execute all along).

Absolutely, let's unite against an anti-war stance. Sure. But I doubt even that is something most will agree with me on, because there will be people here who want to uncover the fakery and then say behind the fakery is "the objective truth" of a false politeness or false platitude and — hey presto — they are actually deeply politicized, they desire their opinion to rule above all others and only "humor" conflicting opinions without actually respecting or considering them, and they don't show this on the forum because presence here creates some illusory reputation of being "understanding" of humanity — which is my true reason for taking brianv's advice and helping Simon set up and moderate the forum in the first place. To try to be a better person, to grow in appreciation and understanding of people I am supposed to hate or fear or mistrust because I am told to.

We may say something like, "Well, you can't have a good reputation with everyone."

For me, that attitude is akin to hearing people I've met in person who say, "Let me be offensive to the people I don't mind offending and it's all okay." That is so different from those I've heard who say, "I am really sorry to offend and I don't mean to." (And they actually mean it!) There is a world of difference between these internally decided (even spiritual) personal attitudes.

The trouble is people on quite different political or even religious scales have different people they are actually willing to offend or actually desire to offend. Use CluesForum as a microcosm of all the people we are willing or desire to offend (though I doubt for many it includes "bravely" offending spouses, offspring, friends, family and loved ones — and if it does, I guess then I am sad for you) and we end up being permissive of offending anyone and everyone.

We can complain about how misunderstood we are but it stinks of the whiny artist who prides himself on it but does nothing to change that misunderstanding or even sinks his heels into it and revels in the fact that it is wonderful to be rejected by society, re-casting their audience as the enemy like coyote and the sour grapes. Or worse.

All of us must have a little of this attitude on some level to come this far in an argumentative line of research. In high doses maybe it's a little toxic, not just to others but to ourselves. I have taken breaks from the forum in the past for various reasons. Lately, it feels like when the forum is quiet the only thing left is the lingering stench of that product of our supposed "international collaboration" and that makes me want to go get quite a lot of fresh air.

I don't think this post will be received as the soul-searched message I mean it to be. In fact, I know very well it could be misinterpreted, dissected and analyzed for some "true" meaning (that actually isn't there but which justifies a deliberate misconstruction). I am actually very sorry to those that I cannot reach (and haven't reached) out to about this topic since even the days of the Reality Shack. If I am misconstrued, I am sure I deserve it. That level of suspicion and criticism is just what I've leveled at others in my posting history (and in this post) because of my bias toward desiring the tranquility and improvement of the membership as far as it gets us closer to world peace. I am beginning to think I really did not lead the forum by much of a good example. Simon, brianv and I didn't sit down together and make a proper "vision statement" (which is probably one of the reasons we all butt heads once in a while about what we're actually doing here and why we haven't visibly publicly succeeded much). That is also why I guess I should accept being disappointed in the low numbers of members that have actually participated in learning how to detect the media fakery and lies we find obvious.

Sorry this is not my usual display of pride of the forum's accomplishments. It might belong more to the "Should CluesForum exist?" thread I started a while ago. Responses from members who like (or previously liked) the forum but from whom we haven't heard recently would be especially welcome.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby aa5 on Sun Aug 19, 2018 6:09 am

Flabbergasted » August 18th, 2018, 5:01 am wrote:Some keen insights there, aa5.
aa5 » August 18th, 2018, 12:54 am wrote:The religion gives a mandate to the state.

Precisely. Temporal power ('Arthur') derives its legitimacy from spiritual authority ('Merlin'). Emperors are crowned by bishops.
(although the two functions have occasionally been exercised by the same individual)


Thanks it took me awhile to see that science was our society's religion. Mainly as I was defining the word religion in modern terms.

The people see Merlin as all knowing, so when Merlin recommends Arthur as the next King, it carries a lot of weight with the people. Likewise when Merlin advises certain policies then Arthur goes about enacting those policies, then it makes Arthur's job of convincing people to go along a lot easier.

In our society with science legitimizing state power, science can no longer be changing on anything significant. As a group of people who are all knowing logically cannot be changing their theories from time to time. Especially when they have outright taught those old theories to tens of millions of people and taught it as the truth.
aa5
Member
 
Posts: 239
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2016 3:03 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby patrix on Sun Aug 19, 2018 8:47 am

Thank you Hoi for those interesting and sincere reflections. And let me be clear that there is no place that have learned me more valuable things than Cluesforum and I am very grateful for that. And me with my type of character would never been able to accomplish what you have.

I can be flamboyant and that can be a weakness and a hindrance. We tend not to listen to people with a pitched voice and round eyes. And that can of course be very frustrating to the person with the pitched voice if the reason for him being upset is because he thinks he has something important to say and wants to share it out of concern.

Good point about listening to people you disagree with the most. I have learned much by doing this.

I think Pianoracer had a very good point before
It baffles me that people with the courage and perspicacity to see through the lies of 9/11, NASA, nuclear weapons, etc. can be so fooled by the ridiculous nonsense peddled by the likes of Darwin, Pasteur and their ilk.

Frankly, you'd be much better off having ignorance of the former and knowledge of the latter. There is literally nothing actionable that an individual can do about the "media hoax" topics that are the main subject of this forum. On the other hand, knowledge of the depravity and faith-based nature of the modern food and medical systems could save your life or the life of a loved one.


Have an excellent day/week Hoi and all the rest of you great people here. Try to listen to the people you disagree with the most and find the strength to accept what you cannot change, the courage to change what you can and the wisdom to see the difference.
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 389
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby pov603 on Sun Aug 19, 2018 9:51 am

@hoi.polloi...
...That is also why I guess I should accept being disappointed in the low numbers of members that have actually participated in learning how to detect the media fakery and lies we find obvious.

Sorry this is not my usual display of pride of the forum's accomplishments. It might belong more to the "Should CluesForum exist?" thread I started a while ago. Responses from members who like (or previously liked) the forum but from whom we haven't heard recently would be especially welcome.


The forum has, of late, taken on a more philosophic tone rather than "exposing media fakery" as the tag line above says on the forum's introduction.
It then becomes more of a debate than an expose.
Therefore part of the low numbers of members that have actually participated may be down to the reluctance of members with the "investment" of time and spirit required in posting research at the risk of being "shot down in flames" by members of the forum [rightly or wrongly] in order to "distill the truth".
Distilling the truth is metaphorically no different to distilling the whiskey mash until such time as you produce the purest version you can but one that will only ever be truly appreciated, and/or bought, by very few.
Obvious "psyops" that we more or less now encounter each week are no longer dissected piece by piece on this forum with the same vigour of earlier times possibly because people/members are generally inured to them.
Even the most sceptical among us want some sort of "victory", or even a hint of one, but none seems to be forthcoming.
pov603
Member
 
Posts: 806
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2011 8:02 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby simonshack on Sun Aug 19, 2018 4:02 pm

patrix » August 19th, 2018, 8:47 am wrote:Try to listen to the people you disagree with the most and find the strength to accept what you cannot change, the courage to change what you can and the wisdom to see the difference.


Love it, Patrix. A lot said in a scant few words! :)
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6625
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby hoi.polloi on Sun Aug 19, 2018 6:57 pm

Thanks, patrix and pov603 for your thoughts.

Well said patrix. I really appreciate your individuality.

I appreciate that perspective pov603, and I think you are right. If it helps, I will try to stop letting my posts get overly verbose and meandering.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby Observer on Sun Aug 19, 2018 11:23 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:
...let's make peace by being compassionate and peaceful in the face of psychopaths...
...let's listen to our supposed "enemy" the criminal psychopaths responsible for the media hoaxes...
...let's not figure out which people to arrest and execute, only a warmongering type would want that...


I am reminded of an interesting summary (perhaps it was by Dave McGowan) which went something like this:

"I don't know if Jesus existed or not, but the account of his supposed 'be loving and compassionate and peaceful towards wicked rulers, no matter how many people they enslave and kill, be weak sheep, never kill the wolves who are killing your family' stance seems like a very clever psy-op created by the wicked rulers themselves, a psy-op not just created with editing later by the council in AD 325, but rather a psy-op originally done by the wicked rulers using a "Jesus" actor (probably one of their own family to be sure) who spouted a bunch of well-planned pre-written lovely-sounding (but in reality: good only for predators, and very bad for victims) advice such as: turn the other cheek, pay your taxes, endure injustice now, be meek your whole life, be poor your whole life, then after you die you will finally have a nice life in heaven, just hang in there until you die, and don't try to create Justice here and now on Earth."

"Then, after the Jesus actor delivered his lovey don't-punch-back sermons, the wicked rulers simply faked the actor's death and all enjoyed more relaxed lifetimes with a greatly decreased chance of receiving any Justice/retribution/imprisonment/execution for their crimes, and since over the years this psy-op was well received, the wicked rulers' descendants have been enjoying that same wonderful low-chance-of-retribution-for-their-crimes benefit for over 2000 years now, all thanks to their "Jesus" actor psy-op."

"Yes, of course, limited-hangout style, the role model they created for us did throw a few strong words at the evil Jew pharisees and Roman rulers, and even knocked over a few businessmen's tables (gasp), but the takeaway is: this character convinces folks (for millennia to come) that one should love the criminal psychopathic usury slave-master killers forever, and passively turn the other cheek for them to smack you more forever. Jesus definitely did NOT convince folks to create a world with a relatively higher degree of justice, in which whenever injustice occurs the victims immediately physically revolt against the criminal psychopathic masters by identifying, finding, arresting, presenting evidence, imprisoning, and yes even executing, those rich rulers who enslave and kill for profit, for example: those rich rulers who murder millions of humans in wars just to receive millions of dollars, ahem, as the 9/11 hoaxers did."

Here are my thoughts about that "Jesus was probably a Psy-Op" idea: Yes, probably whoever put that idea out there was probably correct. For the majority of my life I was fooled by the "no-Justice, unconditional-love" vibe, by the Jesus Psy-Op, by the Laurel Canyon Hippie Music Psy-Op, by the Ram Dass Neem Karoli Psy-Op, and compounded by the loving (and lethargic) vibe I enjoy from Cannabis too, but let's get real for a minute:

If in the next minute you saw your child being killed by some money-hungry insatiably-greedy murderous thief, you should NOT lovingly compassionately peacefully turn the other cheek by offering the killer to also kill or enslave your wife too.

First off, if you were standing in the room and saw the murderer in the process of lunging at your child's throat with a knife you should of course instantly kill the killer, to prevent him from killing your child.

Secondly, even if you were a moment too late and he already killed your child, you should still instantly kill the killer, to prevent this proven killer from escaping and killing others, and to instill proper fear into the hearts of would-be money-hungry insatiably-greedy murderous thieves.

The more instant personal Justice there is in the world, by people not willing to be meek cheek-turning victims, the more the cowardly money-hungry insatiably-greedy murderous thieves fear such Justice and reduce their attempts at enslaving and murdering for profit.

Yes, of course the reduction might be slight, but the fact remains it is the fear-of-Justice stick which reduces the psychopaths' murder attempts, much more effectively than the love-for-all carrot which the Jesus story convinced us to respond with.

So here in the present-day reality we are discussing "mere hoaxers, who didn't actually kill anyone on 9/11" but let's remember the vital fact that these money-hungry insatiably-greedy murderous thieves DID kill millions of innocent humans in the wars which they absolutely knowingly started using their 9/11 hoax.

So what should one do if a family member was indeed killed by the 9/11 subsequent wars, wars knowingly caused by 100 rich powerful killers, killers who own judges and are thus confidently above-the-law, killers who "keep their hands clean by using henchmen" but who regardless planned deaths of millions of innocent men women and children for money?

These killers didn't "just hoax the deaths of 3000 fake humans on 9/11", they in cold blood planned and executed their grand war initiation to profit from the actual deaths of over 3 million actual humans (continuing everyday, while reading this post more innocents were just now killed for money by these rich psychopaths), all just for a cut of the WTC basement gold, a cut of the insurance money, a cut of the charity money, a cut of the couple trillion dollars of 'unaccounted for' CIA-stolen tax-payer money, a cut of the wartime-looting profits, a cut of the Defense-industry kickbacks, a cut of the Oil-industry kickbacks, a cut of the Israel-continuing kickbacks, a cut of the Banking-industry kickbacks (#1 highest war profiteers, due to loaning money to all parties involved and then, the ultimate goal, setting up the Federal Reserve style private fiat-printing-for-governments paper-for-gold scam in all losing countries, with only North Korea and Iran remaining to do this to, it seems), etc.

When I asked point blank "What should we do?" I thought a revolutionary member here would have the courage to write inspiring words to encourage some intelligent caring readers to take action to reduce future murders by creating Justice: like pushing for evidence, arrests, interrogations, assassinations, coups, or at the very least some kind of creative idea like hacking the worlds' richest perps hidden accounts and distributing their murderously obtained money equitably to the worlds' poorest victims. But the most revolutionary answer was uh, maybe walk around with some signs asking for the rulers to please start less wars in the future?

Look, some folks are useful-meek-idiots who have simply been fooled by the "love your enemy, even if he's a killer, and never kill the killers, love them and rehabilitate them, they only killed because they wanted money, because they lacked happiness, because they needed more love" psy-op which was successfully enacted 2000 years ago. The predatory richest killers LOVE the fact that over 2000 years this "love only, no Justice" programming has seeped deep into the heart of the majority of Christian-influenced American+European culture (regardless of whether one is a Christian or whether one strongly rejects religion, the fact remains that in general white culture has embraced these ultra-altruistic "love-your-neighbor-as-your-brother, use love to solve problems, don't commit revenge, don't do eye-for-an-eye, don't kill even killers" ideas) which they "the elite, the chosen ones" ruthlessly exploit by doing the exact opposite: total selfish killing for their own body to have ample luxurious resources and slaves cooking and cleaning for them and for their children and future descendents to have the same. Turning the other cheek is a meme which they have been encouraging the masses to practice for over 2000 years. Meanwhile the elite psychopaths instead are practicing daily the opposite Selfish Gene me-and-my-family-and-my-tribe-against-the-world technique.

And yes, shocking as it may sound, even if you have known them for decades, some folks are paid-deceptive-actors whose job is to forever push the vibe of "let's just talk forever, never identify who the top killers are, never seek physical Justice for the top killers, never even seek arrest of the top killers" loving-compassionate-peaceful turn-the-other-cheek, ESPECIALLY at places where intelligent caring minds meet who potentially might plan and incite and successfully enact real physical revolutionary actions of Justice. Justice for past killings. Justice to reduce future killings. Such long-term (even lifetime) peace-moles are paid by (and even members of) the rich families who profit from the ever-continuing slavery through usury, slavery through fiat inflation, slavery through owning all the land, and murders through wars they continuously create. These rich families definitely do NOT want Justice for the millions of murders in the middle-east which they planned and executed and are still executing today.

Both the useful-meek-idiots and the paid-deceptive-actors will imply that those who seek the Justice of executing the executors are barbarous warmongers, but I disagree.

Of course, there are various levels of Justice, but let's go back to the "rich thief greedily killing your child" scenario, what is the appropriate Justice for a killer who murdered for gold?

Arresting, presenting evidence, imprisoning, and yes even executing, seems like the appropriate response in my opinion. And what to do if the killer is rich enough to bribe the court system?

When discussing Justice for those who planned and executed and are executing the millions of arabs in the middle-east, people far away, strangers of some other races, we well-programmed-wimps say "Killing the war initiators would be too much, let's just talk about the war initiators and hope they cut it out. Let's definitely not try to kill the killers. Let the courts take care of that. And even then, we're against the death penalty for rich killers. Maybe someday the magical world court fairies will arrest the war initiators and give them life imprisonment. Yeah, that's the solution. Let's just wait and hope and take no action. Let's not even hope for the killers to be imprisoned. Let's simply hope that the killers someday realize the folly of their ways. Hey, I know, let's all send the killers some unconditional love and peace vibes from our heart chakras."

But be real, if these war initiators killed your own family member, your own mother, your own child, you would kill the killer, instantly, hopefully, thus reducing future killings, right? Well, you would, if you weren't slowed down by years of bullshit programming which the slave-masters have instilled in all us unconditional-love-compassion-peace-meek wimps. Perhaps we have all become so weak that we would simply run away to a phone and call the cops and hope the rich killer is brought to Justice by the court system.

I know, I know, this post comes off very "vigilante encouraging" "violence inciting" "agent provocateur", but I feel it is needed for balance when I saw the "only a warmongering type would want to bring killers to Justice" post above.

I have no interest in a debate about the subject. Hoi has made his John Lennon "Peace PLEASE" stance clear (in the past and present), and I have made my Peter Tosh "JUSTICE First" stance clear (in the past and present). Probably Simon is somewhere in the middle of these two extremes.

Probably most folks are reluctant to boldly write, "Yeah, let's bring the war initiators to Justice!" because, just like writing, "The Holocaust 'gas-chambers millions-killed' story was a hoax", such ideas themselves are illegal.

Taboo thoughts such as "Kill the world's top killers" or "Retribution enacted by victims or victims families is Justice" or "Justice without corrupt courts is possible and preferable", can not be legally written, or legally spoken, or even legally thought.

Even having the mere dream of bringing Justice to the world's war initiators, that Justice desire (even not acted upon) is an illegal intention.

So don't worry folks, no pressure to agree with this bold post of mine. In fact, don't even take the chance. It's too dangerous. High risk. No return. I'll simply assume that SOME of you are thinking "No, love is the answer" and I'll simply assume that SOME of you are thinking, "Yes, Justice is the answer."

Finally, even though I know SOME of us wish the killers would be brought to Justice, I also know that none of us has the courage to ever take such action.

One reason none of us will take such action of Justice is because those millions of arabs in the middle-east aren't OUR family members. The other reason is that our culture (the non-chosen culture) has been receiving 2000 years of unconditional-love programming, which was then especially turned up even higher since the 60s and 70s, and then even higher in the 80s 90s and 2000s.

First the vast mass of humanity was bred weak through centuries of the ruthless rulers sending the most Justice seeking men off to die in wars, and we physically meek survivors have become further mentally meek by the ever-increasingly-prevalent "Only Courts Can Dish Out Justice (and Courts Don't Approve Execution Of War Initiators) So Regular People Can Never Bring The Top Killers To Justice" programming.

No need to reply folks, just had to get that off my chest. We've all been fooled by their unjust one-way-street "be peaceful, even when the rulers are not, endure injustice forever, take no action, leave it all up to the world courts" programming, and so when I saw it pop up here once again I had to call it out.
Observer
Banned
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 12:47 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby hoi.polloi on Mon Aug 20, 2018 2:15 am

When I asked point blank "What should we do?" I thought a revolutionary member here would have the courage to write inspiring words to encourage some intelligent caring readers to take action to reduce future murders by creating Justice: like pushing for evidence, arrests, interrogations, assassinations, coups, or at the very least some kind of creative idea like hacking the worlds' richest perps hidden accounts and distributing their murderously obtained money equitably to the worlds' poorest victims. But the most revolutionary answer was uh, maybe walk around with some signs asking for the rulers to please start less wars in the future?


Yes, it's awesome to think about creative ideas on how to overthrow violent regimes. But how are you going to do it with violence? That's their specialty.

Here again is a philosophical difference and proof that we are an in-fighting group.

We are even divided about how much violence is "acceptable" and as a pacifist you are not going to get me to say talking does less than violence when I believe the opposite is true.

The problem is when I have tried to discuss with CluesForum members what we can actually do one of a few things happen:

1. Discussions waffle on what is effective at disarming perpetrators

2. Things we agree may be steps to being effective cause our "brave" members to put their heads in the sand when it comes to organizing or even making some posters (because for violent people the only "real" solution that works is something emotionally or physically violent)

and/or

3. Those who believe (sorry, think they "realize") violent solutions are the only thing they will accept ... know that it won't be discussed in our space, we won't give a platform for calls for violence, and "convincing [some existing military]" is "the only way" they could be "effective" at such a goal anyway

So once more: our membership is too divided and squabbling to work on some better creative solutions (and that entire post by you is a long proof of that). But even if we had a good solution, few want to actually implement it. They'd rather become ogres.

If you'd like to call for violence somewhere, you had better realize you are going to probably get on worse "lists" than those we are on.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby patrix on Mon Aug 20, 2018 5:01 am

Observer » August 20th, 2018, 12:23 am wrote:
If in the next minute you saw your child being killed by some money-hungry insatiably-greedy murderous thief, you should NOT lovingly compassionately peacefully turn the other cheek by offering the killer to also kill or enslave your wife too.

First off, if you were standing in the room and saw the murderer in the process of lunging at your child's throat with a knife you should of course instantly kill the killer, to prevent him from killing your child.

Secondly, even if you were a moment too late and he already killed your child, you should still instantly kill the killer, to prevent this proven killer from escaping and killing others, and to instill proper fear into the hearts of would-be money-hungry insatiably-greedy murderous thieves.


Interesting. I on the contrary, find this an example of a mindset that keeps things in the situation we currently have. If we can be lead to kill each other thinking we did a good deed, then we are "ruleable". Not saying I wouldn't act the way you describe, but what if this child murderers family or his entire village was held hostage and he was forced to commit these acts? Hypothetical yes, but this is all hypothetical. Let me give you another scenario.

What if vaccines are completely ineffective and simply a means of "population control" and you were convinced of this being true. Would "justice have been made" if you travelled the world and assassinated the doctors administering vaccines? Of course I don't mean you should forgive this wrongdoing and don't do anything but bringing down the man that holds the sword or in this case syringe isn't always the right course of action.
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 389
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby Observer on Mon Aug 20, 2018 10:45 am

hoi.polloi wrote:
...let's make peace by being compassionate and peaceful in the face of psychopaths...
...let's listen to our supposed "enemy" the criminal psychopaths responsible for the media hoaxes...
...let's not figure out which people to arrest and execute, only a warmongering type would want that...


It's amazing to me that you stand by those 3 statements you made above. Dangerously wrong advice.
When I pointed them out, I thought you would back-pedal at least a little or add a little qualification.

So if your child was killed by the wars created by the 9/11 hoax and you found one of the war creators,
you really would recommend "just LISTENING to the criminal psychopath" who killed your child... [st]really?[/st]

Your think a million dead children's parents "SHOULD NOT figure out which people to arrest & execute"?
The real arab victims, and people like me who care, "are warmongers for wanting arrests & executions"?

Pacifism is supposed to be like this: I will not help invade some other country, nor kill innocent civilians.
You are pushing an absurd stance: "don't execute war creators, don't even arrest them, listen to them."

Although Patrix brought up some unrelated "maybe the killer was forced to kill my children" exception,
it seems he is admitting that "Yes, I would kill the killer who was about to, or just had, killed my child."

"What about killers forced to kill, or doctors accidentally unknowingly killing kids" red-herrings are moot.
Because the rich war initiators knowingly, willfully, needlessly, created wars to kill for more money. (!!!)

So back to Hoi, I don't know if you will still hold such "let's just listen to the killers" feelings in 10 years,
but I think it is wrong for you to try to convince folks "don't hope for arresting/executing war initiators."
The fact is we can't have them arrested, and we are too scared to do Justice ourselves. This is injustice.

You still avoided the real question: "If it was YOUR child (or loved one) what should be done to the killer?"

[st]Oh well, don't bother,[/st] I once held such "I'll hug the killer anyway" fantasies, but that is what killers want.
The world's wealthiest criminal psychopath killers who create wars: benefit from that "no justice" stance.
Your stance is naïve at best, and lying at worst. You would and should kill the killer who killed your child.
Last edited by Observer on Tue Aug 21, 2018 3:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Observer
Banned
 
Posts: 167
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 12:47 am

PreviousNext

Return to THE LIVING ROOM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests