This scourge needs to end. People need to stop being so spiritually lazy. It's time to outgrow religion. Most people don't seem to have even questioned the supposedly seamless connection between spirituality and religion. That is to say, religion claims a monopoly over spirituality and morality that is fraudulent.
Quite the opposite is true in reality. Religion is a perversion of, and an insult to true spirituality and righteousness. Aside from the well known examples of religion's criminality (kiddie-porking, cash-hoarding, woman-hating), there is the underlying scam of it all, that is far lesser known. For an excellent explanation of this I suggest the work of British writer and filmmaker Graham Hancock, who tells how the three great pyramids at Giza were intended to geographically correspond with the three stars of Orion's Belt, which would have been known to the early Christians as "the Three Kings". And this is the point. Essentially all major religion is a hopelessly convoluted form of sky worship.
It's also clear to anyone who's thinking that religion actually works to sabotage and thwart the very elements of human nature it pretends to uphold, like compassion and the desire for peace. Indeed these criminals will even go so far as to claim they are the source of these very precious human attributes, and without them we wouldn't even know what it meant to be a good person. Utter rubbish. Spirituality is not a team sport. Stop looking for a shortcut for understanding yourself. Listen to Terence Mckenna. Get with it, Gibronies.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Friday, March 27, 2009
My Response To A 9/11 Denialist
As the title suggests, this is my posted youtube response to a particularly silly individual who wanted to battle me on the facts of 9/11.
Your argument is cheap and devoid of any actual content. Basically, you accuse 9/11 conspiracy theories of being silly, reiterating this statement over and over in a redundant fashion, and then provide nothing whatsoever to back up your claim. Since you're obviously a naive little girl, allow me to inform you a bit as to how one presents a point of view and then defends it. First, you state your opinion. You seem to have that part down, since that's really all you said in your entire comment.. over and over again.. then, you provide FACTS that would support your opinion. This you completely fail to do.
And just so ya know, "the tv told me so" is not a valid argument, since the television and media is not a perfectly reliable source of information. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to understand that all information the mainstream media provides is filtered. This fact by itself makes clear that one must rely on multiple sources of media to get as close to the truth as possible.
You try very hard to make certain claims sound silly and incredible, and some of them may very well turn out to be just that. But understand this. If any aspect of 9/11 conspiracy theories were to be disproved, they would be disproved by using the voice of science and reason, not by second-rate generalizations, which really only reveal your own ignorance on the subject.
Of course, you can always just continue shopping and watching tv while maintaining the ridiculous belief that governments, by their very nature, arent always in the business of gaining more power and control over their citizenry. Your argument that no evidence would be left behind is niavete in its purest and most american form. There seem to be two very important facts you fail to understand. 1. When you own the entire mainstream media, you control what most uneducated, unthinking Americans know about anything, and therefore don't need to worry about the glaringly obvious evidence left behind, since most people will continue to think that the very act of discussing the discrepencies regarding 911 is anti-american. They believe this because fox news tells them to believe it, not because it's based on any form of logic or scientific evaluation.
I wonder if the reason your message was completely devoid of facts is because you haven't done any research on September the 11th. Maybe the reason so many "CTs" as you put it, seem to you to think they know everything about 911 is because you know nothing. You'd think that if conspiracy theories annoy you so much, you'd do your homework and provide the arguments and information to finally disprove them once and for all.
I don't claim to know what happened that day, but I will tell you this. At least I'm not afraid to talk about it, which seems to be the main problem with you 9/11 deniers. Instead of honest debate, you resort to insults and childish dismissal, which is a tell-tale sign of someone who doesn't know what the hell they're talking about.
Your argument is cheap and devoid of any actual content. Basically, you accuse 9/11 conspiracy theories of being silly, reiterating this statement over and over in a redundant fashion, and then provide nothing whatsoever to back up your claim. Since you're obviously a naive little girl, allow me to inform you a bit as to how one presents a point of view and then defends it. First, you state your opinion. You seem to have that part down, since that's really all you said in your entire comment.. over and over again.. then, you provide FACTS that would support your opinion. This you completely fail to do.
And just so ya know, "the tv told me so" is not a valid argument, since the television and media is not a perfectly reliable source of information. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to understand that all information the mainstream media provides is filtered. This fact by itself makes clear that one must rely on multiple sources of media to get as close to the truth as possible.
You try very hard to make certain claims sound silly and incredible, and some of them may very well turn out to be just that. But understand this. If any aspect of 9/11 conspiracy theories were to be disproved, they would be disproved by using the voice of science and reason, not by second-rate generalizations, which really only reveal your own ignorance on the subject.
Of course, you can always just continue shopping and watching tv while maintaining the ridiculous belief that governments, by their very nature, arent always in the business of gaining more power and control over their citizenry. Your argument that no evidence would be left behind is niavete in its purest and most american form. There seem to be two very important facts you fail to understand. 1. When you own the entire mainstream media, you control what most uneducated, unthinking Americans know about anything, and therefore don't need to worry about the glaringly obvious evidence left behind, since most people will continue to think that the very act of discussing the discrepencies regarding 911 is anti-american. They believe this because fox news tells them to believe it, not because it's based on any form of logic or scientific evaluation.
I wonder if the reason your message was completely devoid of facts is because you haven't done any research on September the 11th. Maybe the reason so many "CTs" as you put it, seem to you to think they know everything about 911 is because you know nothing. You'd think that if conspiracy theories annoy you so much, you'd do your homework and provide the arguments and information to finally disprove them once and for all.
I don't claim to know what happened that day, but I will tell you this. At least I'm not afraid to talk about it, which seems to be the main problem with you 9/11 deniers. Instead of honest debate, you resort to insults and childish dismissal, which is a tell-tale sign of someone who doesn't know what the hell they're talking about.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Why Do So Many Peaceniks Hate Alex Jones?
This is a question I've been tossing around lately. Particularly after having sat with a group of fairweather thinkers during a viewing of the Obama Deception. Just a few minutes in someone made note of Alex Jones' shall we say, extroverted personality. While they certainly weren't the first or last to bring attention to Mr. Jones' aggressive journalistic style, I expected the group to get their chuckles in about it and move on.
Instead constant criticism was offered regarding both his language and tone, along with the visuals contained in the film. Interestingly enough I heard no criticism of the actual ideas, or the actual information in the film. The closest they came to this was that tried and true mantra of the truth-fearing Sheeple: "How do I know he's not just making all of this up?" The short answer to this naive question is pretty simple: Through fact-checking and internet research, dummy. The quick and easy cross-referencing made available by the internet is truly an invaluable tool for those conducting research.
But back to the question of why hippies seem to hate Alex Jones so much. I believe it's primarily because of his unwillingness to sugarcoat the truth and his belief that we should prepare for violence. Hippies don't like the thought of being threatened by violence, and nor does anyone else for that matter. But they don't just dislike the reality of a looming threat to our freedom. They try their best to ignore it. Some even go so far as to deny it, but most are content to invest efforts simply downplaying the threat the N.W.O poses.
The reason these peaceniks are nowhere to be found on any of the important issues is because of their general belief that all is and will continue to be well, through no particular effort on their part. They turn a blind eye to the dark side of human nature, and the ongoing threat it poses to our survival. They fail to recognize that preparedness for threats is a form of intelligence and therefore favored by natural selection. Basically, these deluded scenesters have lost their fight vs. flight instinct, and instead are behaving quite similarly to deer in headlights. Silent and motionless.
This isn't an attack on pacifism. There are many people within the movement (which is a good general term to describe the awakening of people and the increase in public knowledge fueled by the internet) who reject all forms of violence. In fact, this movement is entirely peaceful and all progress that has been made has been made by simply communicating, nothing more, nothing less.
But yeah, to recap, hip kids and Alex Jones don't mix well. Unfortunately my own experience confirms what Michael Tsarion has said about the matter. Namely, that there are many people who fall inbetween 'free thinkers' and 'sheeple'. They're bright enough to realize that they're different from the herd, but either too dim or too scared to embrace that status fully, and the ostracization that inevitably follows. Thinking independently and individualism are very marketable ideas for the kids. Sadly, the work that these require is not. This is why Americans love their Daily Show and their Bill Maher. Because Truth Lite is much easier to swallow, plus it allows one to walk around pretending to be 'in the know' while still enjoying the perks of slavery.
The reason I'm making a big deal of this is because this movement needs all the help it can get if we're going to have any chance to survive, and it truly saddens me to see bright people with real potential fall victim to denial and group-think.
Instead constant criticism was offered regarding both his language and tone, along with the visuals contained in the film. Interestingly enough I heard no criticism of the actual ideas, or the actual information in the film. The closest they came to this was that tried and true mantra of the truth-fearing Sheeple: "How do I know he's not just making all of this up?" The short answer to this naive question is pretty simple: Through fact-checking and internet research, dummy. The quick and easy cross-referencing made available by the internet is truly an invaluable tool for those conducting research.
But back to the question of why hippies seem to hate Alex Jones so much. I believe it's primarily because of his unwillingness to sugarcoat the truth and his belief that we should prepare for violence. Hippies don't like the thought of being threatened by violence, and nor does anyone else for that matter. But they don't just dislike the reality of a looming threat to our freedom. They try their best to ignore it. Some even go so far as to deny it, but most are content to invest efforts simply downplaying the threat the N.W.O poses.
The reason these peaceniks are nowhere to be found on any of the important issues is because of their general belief that all is and will continue to be well, through no particular effort on their part. They turn a blind eye to the dark side of human nature, and the ongoing threat it poses to our survival. They fail to recognize that preparedness for threats is a form of intelligence and therefore favored by natural selection. Basically, these deluded scenesters have lost their fight vs. flight instinct, and instead are behaving quite similarly to deer in headlights. Silent and motionless.
This isn't an attack on pacifism. There are many people within the movement (which is a good general term to describe the awakening of people and the increase in public knowledge fueled by the internet) who reject all forms of violence. In fact, this movement is entirely peaceful and all progress that has been made has been made by simply communicating, nothing more, nothing less.
But yeah, to recap, hip kids and Alex Jones don't mix well. Unfortunately my own experience confirms what Michael Tsarion has said about the matter. Namely, that there are many people who fall inbetween 'free thinkers' and 'sheeple'. They're bright enough to realize that they're different from the herd, but either too dim or too scared to embrace that status fully, and the ostracization that inevitably follows. Thinking independently and individualism are very marketable ideas for the kids. Sadly, the work that these require is not. This is why Americans love their Daily Show and their Bill Maher. Because Truth Lite is much easier to swallow, plus it allows one to walk around pretending to be 'in the know' while still enjoying the perks of slavery.
The reason I'm making a big deal of this is because this movement needs all the help it can get if we're going to have any chance to survive, and it truly saddens me to see bright people with real potential fall victim to denial and group-think.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Common Sense - What really happened on September 11th? (part 1)
My approach toward difficult questions has been largely shaped by the late Carl Sagan, who believed, to paraphrase, that empirical data and the scientific method should be revered as an undeniable path to the truth, while at the same time one has no right to have a completely closed mind toward anything but the relatively few things that can be proven conclusively to be false. For example, one has a right not to believe that Bigfoot exists, because of scant evidence or questionable human testimony. However, it would be incorrect to counter this belief with your own belief in the non-existence of such a thing, no matter how far fetched. This is simply because science is much better at confirming truths than it is at denying them.
I raise these points not because I believe in the Yeti Monster, which I don't, but because these types of truths tend to frustrate the narrow-minded the most. This is because they deny one the privilege of dismissing points of view almost immediately before any serious examination of facts. Sadly this practice of prematurely dismissing ideas because they don't fit into convention has become all the more prevalent in America since those ungodly attacks.
For example, we were told that the terrorist attacks signified a need for our nation to revise its post-cold war mentality, to 'think outside the box,' in terms of foreign policy and our world-view. However, if someone were to think so far outside 'the box' as to suggest the possibility that 9/11 was some form of sabotage attack waged by the richest men in the world, against their own soil, then that someone is promptly and enthusiastically neutralized; by dismissal and mockery to begin with, then with intimidation, torture, and murder if the need should arise. Sometimes it's hard to find the patience to maintain a dialogue with a majority that vehemently rejects and condemns a point of view without offering any rebuttal of the most central and crucial tenants of that belief. This fact becomes even more intellectually insulting when one considers that the average supporter of the mainstream explanation of 9/11 demonstrates no understanding of the need of such supporting facts when posing a good counter-argument.
This apparent lack of understanding, on the part of the mainstream media and its adherents, of how a debate works, or how a criminal investigation should be properly conducted is not only disturbing and insulting, it is simply childish. For example, it is ridiculous that someone who moments before was not even aware that a third building had collapsed that day, would then accuse me of being completely out of line for pointing out the striking similarities between the collapse of building 7 and every other controlled demolition. One moment they're completely uninformed, the next moment they're casually dismissing an extensive body of evidence years in the making. This fact compels me to repeat the comparison between 9/11 mainstreamers and children. And that's a discredit to a lot of bright children.
But what about the 9/11 Commission report? After Dr. David Ray Griffin's utterly overwhelming critique, it's difficult to find much trustworthy information left within it. There are ample reasons why this report cannot be taken at face value. One of the most striking, however, is the fact that Philip Zelikow, the man essentially in charge of the commission, is a close friend of the Bush Administration, and had even co-authored a book with Condolezza Rice. No credible investigative body would allow such a conflict of interest, especially not from the director of the entire affair!
Not only is much of the 9/11 Commission report unreliable to the critical observer, but entire aspects of the attacks are ignored completely. Building 7's collapse is ignored entirely. Not one word is spent on the third steel structure to collapse that day, and the first in the world to ever collapse due simply to fire, at least according to the official story.
Q: If Al Qaeda didn't do it who did?
A: How should I know? It doesn't make sense that one should be expected to know who did commit a crime before determining who didn't. According to that logic, since I can confidently state that my uncle Eddie did not kill Jimmy Hoffa, then I should obviously know who did.
Q: How could it have been an inside job, when it would require such intense secrecy and elaborate planning for members of our own government to conspire on such a level?
A: It would have required elaborate planning and secrecy for anyone to have perpetrated the attacks. If given the choice between members of the U.S government, who had control over NORAD (and therefore the skies), and a group of terrorists who would have faced the challenges of training pilots, successfully hijacking four aircraft simultaneously, and then permeating our air defenses four consecutive times in one day, then I'd be inclined to choose the former.
I raise these points not because I believe in the Yeti Monster, which I don't, but because these types of truths tend to frustrate the narrow-minded the most. This is because they deny one the privilege of dismissing points of view almost immediately before any serious examination of facts. Sadly this practice of prematurely dismissing ideas because they don't fit into convention has become all the more prevalent in America since those ungodly attacks.
For example, we were told that the terrorist attacks signified a need for our nation to revise its post-cold war mentality, to 'think outside the box,' in terms of foreign policy and our world-view. However, if someone were to think so far outside 'the box' as to suggest the possibility that 9/11 was some form of sabotage attack waged by the richest men in the world, against their own soil, then that someone is promptly and enthusiastically neutralized; by dismissal and mockery to begin with, then with intimidation, torture, and murder if the need should arise. Sometimes it's hard to find the patience to maintain a dialogue with a majority that vehemently rejects and condemns a point of view without offering any rebuttal of the most central and crucial tenants of that belief. This fact becomes even more intellectually insulting when one considers that the average supporter of the mainstream explanation of 9/11 demonstrates no understanding of the need of such supporting facts when posing a good counter-argument.
This apparent lack of understanding, on the part of the mainstream media and its adherents, of how a debate works, or how a criminal investigation should be properly conducted is not only disturbing and insulting, it is simply childish. For example, it is ridiculous that someone who moments before was not even aware that a third building had collapsed that day, would then accuse me of being completely out of line for pointing out the striking similarities between the collapse of building 7 and every other controlled demolition. One moment they're completely uninformed, the next moment they're casually dismissing an extensive body of evidence years in the making. This fact compels me to repeat the comparison between 9/11 mainstreamers and children. And that's a discredit to a lot of bright children.
But what about the 9/11 Commission report? After Dr. David Ray Griffin's utterly overwhelming critique, it's difficult to find much trustworthy information left within it. There are ample reasons why this report cannot be taken at face value. One of the most striking, however, is the fact that Philip Zelikow, the man essentially in charge of the commission, is a close friend of the Bush Administration, and had even co-authored a book with Condolezza Rice. No credible investigative body would allow such a conflict of interest, especially not from the director of the entire affair!
Not only is much of the 9/11 Commission report unreliable to the critical observer, but entire aspects of the attacks are ignored completely. Building 7's collapse is ignored entirely. Not one word is spent on the third steel structure to collapse that day, and the first in the world to ever collapse due simply to fire, at least according to the official story.
Q: If Al Qaeda didn't do it who did?
A: How should I know? It doesn't make sense that one should be expected to know who did commit a crime before determining who didn't. According to that logic, since I can confidently state that my uncle Eddie did not kill Jimmy Hoffa, then I should obviously know who did.
Q: How could it have been an inside job, when it would require such intense secrecy and elaborate planning for members of our own government to conspire on such a level?
A: It would have required elaborate planning and secrecy for anyone to have perpetrated the attacks. If given the choice between members of the U.S government, who had control over NORAD (and therefore the skies), and a group of terrorists who would have faced the challenges of training pilots, successfully hijacking four aircraft simultaneously, and then permeating our air defenses four consecutive times in one day, then I'd be inclined to choose the former.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
