Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Yeah, I am convinced that the written text, being static, has the danger of becoming sacred and disconnected from an evolving reality, context. It also requires a priesthood that dedicates their existence to keeping the original interpretation or meaning of the text, creating “experts”.
Oral tradition as a means to preserve knowledge, on the other hand, requires that each and every one of us is, to some extent a curator and also a story teller. This implies that each of us would have to truly understand the story and its context, making it easy for it to adapt to the evolution of the context. What was useful during a certain period of time and context, may not be so during another. This flexibility allows useful stories and information to be preserved with care, yes, but not as a mouldy, rotting dead relative we used to love and that we’re preserving with a lot of perfume and formaldehyde. The story would then be as alive as we (“we” as in the group which it belongs to) are, it would walk with us, grow with us.
True warriors are those who can understand their people’s stories so profoundly, that they’re willing to not only live by them, but also protect the set of values that accompanies them and therefore defines the society the stories belong to. The advent of the soldier, as opposed to the warrior as I define it, was the cruelest blow to this inner righteous protective instinct we all have.
Nice mix, by the way 🙂
I am not going to answer the points brought forward by the original poster. I have an opinion, of course, but I’d rather keep it to myself for the time being.
I am however, finding it interesting that the responses have not addressed the main points of justification for his (Black Dog’s) opinion (foods, hormones, cultural pressure, mass media, etc), but have been emotional reactions based on personal contact with close people (therefore probably lacking objectivity in observation).
We live in times of Political Correctness, in which anything even hinted to be accusatory towards the agenda being implemented on the populations or defensive of personal spaces, is immediately attacked emotionally. I also find it intriguing that idea that people who openly dislike these “alternative lifestyles” (Political Correctness at work again here, limiting speech, see?) are only hiding from their own homosexual tendencies. I suppose the same could be said, if that reason bore logic, for people who appeal to peace all the time: maybe they’re just hiding from their cruel tendencies?
Again: I am not putting forward my opinion for now, but I am keen to see if you guys, who so promptly attacked the idea and the person without addressing objectively the justifications for it, are able to bring to the table something better.
It sounded like «The news are true because I have a (friend/relative) journalist who assures me that he/she has always treated them as true». Would this be an acceptable argument for you? Not for me. Think a bit more before reacting emotionally and automatically, Pavlov style.
“Hey, that does not make sense. Yesterday Diane Sawyer said there were 2 gunman, but today she is saying there is only one. Where did the other gunman go? Why is no one talking about the second gunman today?”
“Why of course, this must be the beginning of a psyop. Diane Sawyer just presented conflicting information. But now that I know this, I don’t have to worry about resolving this conflict because it is meant to NEVER be resolved, in order that I may experience subconscious trauma. Too late Diane, I am on to you and thus refuse your subtle programming.”
This short dialogue will do more to make people aware than books and books on the subject. It is short and direct in that it presents the outcome and the cause of the psyops all in one. I’m not disregarding the rest, but highlighting this particular bit.
I take my hat off to you, khammad 😉
Well in today’s world culture. Most of the kids that find themselves in horrible child slavery conditions were not born in the best of odds. Like a child that grows up in a farming family who was always made to believe that was his future was to take over the farm after his father and unless the child ever questions that concept or is open too new information and ideas than he will most likely become a farmer like his Father. In America when your parents went too 12 years of school, maybe college,works a full time job and pay their bills and nothing growing up made you think you could do anything but be a another part of society and work for money and cherish the same values as your family did. America I see more of brainwashed/self induced slavery. Being apart of the idea that America promotes instead of actually searching for your own idea of truth and wisdom. Because in America we the people could wake up and wise up and decide with one another that we must go a different route. Rather in other countries their are children born into savagery, war, sex slavery etc..
Maybe I should have clarified that I was talking ideally. That is, I was suggesting that for a child to work a few chores alongside his family is a valuable learning and confidence building experience. If the focus from the parents is to force a handover of the family business on the child, then of course I do not agree. Children need play but play must have also a connection to the real world. Too much fantasy during childhood causes a rift when the child grows and realizes the world is totally different.
In these other countries like China, Africa, Haiti and most likley much more, where corporations are influencing, slaves pick cotton for clothes, chocolate, diamonds and that’s just what has reached internet surface. Because like you said the situation a lot of these families are in are a more physical and severe induced choice to make. in some cases families can sell their children too slavery because they are so poor. More directly affected by their oppressor i suppose. But here in America of course the major propaganda is giving the people here an idea of these corporations that they care for us and the world and they can do no wrong like our government. Its our consuming choices and taxes that pay and support a mass of evil in the world including the continuing enslavement of millions of children. And even if the whole thing is exaggerated fear mongering. It should defiantly be entering the mind as a possibility for this to not only be true but a serious matter witch should lead to questions being asked and consuming habits to be seriously monitored and more researched. But due to the enormous amount of detraction dumped on this society its hard to see the plain fact that our taxes, choices, and ignorance are used to support endless, blood slaughtering war. Let alone the enslavement of millions of young children. There is just no way we would live in a world like that. Its too far fetched..sarcasm..
Oh, for sure the “consumers” (how I hate that word :-x) have responsibility for being on the buying end of the deal. Still, even if people in countries like USA all of a sudden refused to buy products from these countries or corporations, the problem would still be there. One thing we should realize is that although we feel pressured by what we see beyond the veil, people in the conditions of absolute subsistence have no opportunity to even question their surroundings – it’s live or die.
So, boycotts to certain brands could be useful, but are only a half-measure – if there’s one thing true about multinational corporations is that they can adapt and withstand anything it has ever been thrown at them.And I understand how if you say ,for example, let a long enslaved society all of a sudden be completely free for then they will not know of the basic survival skills. But that is a concept for why i believe true revolution, evolution, move in a total new way of thinking has repercussions. I meen breaking down a system of total control in any way must cause chaos. But when you start critically thinking about what the possibility of the future is with leaving the people that are in power at bay while we live total oblivious to the facts of this world. I feel like if we are judged for anything its that. Part of the reason im glad places like fakeologist and others are rapidly growing. Hopefully to turn the tide of this plan.
Again, I do not have the answers for these questions, but I have a hunch that just by leaving these poor populations alone altogether would mostly solve the problems overtime. We have a saying in portuguese that goes “A necessidade faz o engenho”, which translates as “Necessity makes ingenuity”. When faced with the need for rebuilding their lives, the natural cooperative instincts would reemerge and things would eventually work themselves out.
Let’s assume it’s as bad as it’s depicted, or even worse, for the sake of the argument.
The question then should be “Why?”
Additionally, what motivates slavery of any kind, including children slavery? Also, what is the distinction between slavery and productive and even educational work for a child?
If a family has a farm, it is very productive for a family child to feel useful and help out with the chores there. It develops a sense of worth, confidence and a sense of responsibility.
However, the child labor/slavery that is depicted is something quite different. It is not only completely absorbing of the child’s world (as there is a separation between real life and work life, unlike the family farm example I stated earlier) but it is an imposition on that child.
Distinctions done, what causes the second? Well, I would say necessity. On the one hand we have a state of social affairs that puts pressure on a family to the point of having them do anything to survive and on the other hand we have a family that is so battered down by the helplessness of circumstances that there are no other considerations apart from survival. In this respect, the son of a slave will star young in being a slave himself – sent there by the parents to help the family survive!
So, where do you start looking for sollutions? At state level or at family level? State promotes slave jobs and pressures the family to accept them and even cherish them. The family accepts its fate and has no considerations due to the helplessness felt.
Where to begin?
It is often thought that it should be solved at state level. It appears to make sense, but then you would have vast numbers of families with slave minds suddenly being told that they can now be self productive. It doesn’t work. Personally, I think it has to be solved on both levels at the same time: releasing the load on social conditions and enabling (not providing) enriching education.
You are quite right at asking your very first question. To be a warrior is not to be a soldier. A warrior is a defender and a pillar of its community. He fights mostly with his mind, facing enemies of his community wielding integrity, honesty and above all this courage. A soldier, on the other hand, is a mercenary. A sold man, paid to kill without honor, standing for nothing but his own pay.
My personal answer is no, we, as humans collectively, are no longer warriors – but we all act as soldiers. We are paid to leave our scruples at the door, to act without integrity, to defend and shield parasites. This is observable in any occupation nowadays, but perhaps far more visible in our police forces.
Still, we mustn’t think that a warrior belongs to a specific class of people in a society. Insects are that way, but not mammals. Ideally, each and every individual is able to be a warrior at heart, as you put it, if he holds what he stands for as precious. We are all able to fight for our loved ones, if the need arises, but are we able to fight for our values? Well, no longer, because we sold them and we love them no more.
This is a key point to the sollution right here and to the challenge we will have to face within ourselves once all the veils of fakery are exposed: what will we love enough to stand and fight for? More importantly, perhaps, what values will we build that might be naturally cherished to the point of being worth defending?
I know, I’m answering a question with more questions, but I won’t be dishonest and give out answers I do not have.
Indeed. Whatever human society was like when the whole motion started (none of us can know for sure how it was like then either, but we are free to postulate), it must have started with a meeting between two or more influential people, conspiring to the help each other remain in power, expand their power and share it.
Banking is a recent phenomena (in the scale of human existence), so the bankers are also a recent executive group that came to replace other groups that became obsolete.
One has to imagine what is beyond what is known to speculate about the final layer, so it is shaky ground for sure and only speculation is truly possible.
Trauma-based mind control makes the minds of the victims to literally snap into an alter personality. The Bourne movies are about that. And if the members are trauma-based mind controlled already in early childhood they become like programmable robots!
Oh I have little doubt about that. Whoever they are, I would postulate too that they are both groomed and traumatized from early childhood, most of them anyway.
As to the last layer, however, I don’t think anything besides a stern education and the result of alienation (living in such a completely different world, apart from society – sort of like the Forbidden City where the Emperor of China used to live) is necessary to maintain their mentality.
Trauma-based mind control has been around ever since the first parent slapped a child for misbehaving, that’s true, but that does not prove Svali’s story. We cannot imply that every single act of torture or trauma infliction is perpetrated by members of the Illuminati, as being the last layer of power?
Your statement that “a street sweeper can be a member and a US President can be a member” seems to be in line with Asimov’s “Second Foundation” book, the third in the Foundation trilogy. This series of books is certainly predictive programming. However, it is impossible for either a street sweeper and a president to be actual members of the group behind all groups. At most, they are members of an executive group somewhere along the trail of power lines and may even be convinced that they are the ones calling the shots.
I can explain what I mean by “the last layer of power” with a metaphor. What is the most important piece in a chess game? If you answered the King, then it is right ONLY within the boundaries of the chess board. Actually, the most important chess piece is the player, who moves all the other pieces, including the King, while the pieces can only understand the reality defined by the interior of the chessboard and are limited by the type of moves they are allowed to make.
What we are talking about here is the chess player, not any of the pieces who would necessarily have to inhabit the chessboard. A King can be checkmated, a game lost, but the player lives on to play another day.
Anders, the word Illuminati has been so talked about and advertised in books and other media that it could never mean anything more than either a much lower level or obsolete group, if it still exists at all. Even Alex Jones rants about the Illuminati.
Moreover, assuming that the Illuminati do exist and are really the final level of the layer, is it credible that defection would be permitted? I mean we are talking about the final layer here. If they were really the group behind all groups, would they allow a defector to remain loose for long AND give a radio interview? It makes for a great show for Greg, I’m sure it boosted his audience ratings and made the sponsors happy, but it simply cannot be true.
Additionally, to consider defection at the last layer of power would be the same as considering a lion becoming vegetarian. Sorry, Anders, but I’ve been down this rabbit hole and this is what I see looking back.
Of course cooperation and sane growth are possible, but first the parasitical mind must be removed from the picture. The trouble is that it’s not restricted to a single group of people. In fact, I think that the removal of honest violence, as a counterbalance to growth, from human interactions, especially in childhood, reinforced the parasitical mindset – which you also seemed to imply earlier.
All Schopenhauer’s and Nietzsche’s quotes you posted seem to reinforce this idea.
We only seem to truly disagree in identifying the parasites and also regarding sollutions, apparently.
Well, that scenario sounds quite appealing, doesn’t it? The problem I have with it is that is sounds almost as appealing as the jewish story itself is for the jews: eradicating the opposing forces to our values is the only way for the world to become “good”, mainly because there will be nobody left strong enough to oppose us.
Don’t get me wrong, I am aware of the severity of the machinations of the jews. Still, I consider that they themselves bought a story of unity and supremacy in order to advance an agenda that isn’t going to lead to their desired goal in the end. By all means, this does not make them victims, as they love to portray themselves, but neither are the other peoples victims of their schemes, but more or less willing participants. There are no victims because each and every group has bought into a story that guides them towards the same end, which included the jewish story.
The fascism of Hitler and Mussolini that you mentioned was only possible due to the existence of an opposing force – in that case, communism and their likes. One could not live without the other. In the same way, our struggle against an evil enemy can only have merit if the enemy exists. The jews, in my opinion, were helped to be raised to become that visible enemy to one day be fought and conquered, providing motivation to participate in a decisive war that, after all, isn’t that decisive but is useful to prove worth and bravery, giving a sense of meaning to the acceptance of the divine world that follows (ragnarok myth).With this said then, my belief is that some day in the future there will come a time of violent reckoning for the jews, but that will not solve the deeper problem. It will however, allow for all the accumulated steam to be released and for the pressure to be eased, making everybody vulnerable again to accepting a new world (valhalla) that will then seem more achievable, with the perpetrators of “evil” destroyed and bereft of their power. Destroying the jews will then be seen as a removal of all the “sins” of the world.
The jews have been given power and set into united motion for that end, in my opinion.I’m more concerned with noticing how non-jewish seem to push their own responsability outward, for the apathy that allowed such power to reach the jews – as if the other peoples really ever cared before as long as their perceived needs were met or as if they never gained any advantages from dealing with this growing group over time – christians, for example, or muslims.
Yes, violence is a natural tool to be used when faced with a threat, but it cannot solve everything if the threat seen in the other lies within oneself too. It is most probable that violence will decompose the old world away and the jewish power alongside it, but what I’m most concerned about is the new world that will follow, implemented by the group or groups that placed the jews in front of themselves as an adequate gambit. Those peoples left standing would still be lacking in the win-win mentality that you mention, in my opinion, and will therefore fall into the next trap, this time a truly global one.
Why the Jesuits? I don’t think they count much this last century at least, having been replaced by more efficient groups for the modern days, like the jewish zionists, for example, among others. It would make much more sense to have the jews coordinate Bobby Fischer’s script.
So there is no doubt, Torah/Talmud jews have been a main operative and executive arm of this “empire”, whether they know it or not. They certainly deserve to take the heat for all they’ve taken part in, which isn’t little.
With this said, I don’t think that they’re the final layer of the onion, so to speak. If all of a sudden all jews disappeared from the world, the problems wouldn’t be solved because they are not the master group – some other group would be motivated to quickly take their place.
You must be logged in to post a comment.