[preacherman76]

Well said Br. That about sums up my feelings on the subject. Though I still hold on to a small beem of hope that the people will awaken. To some degree, I think (or hope) just that is happening. It wouldnt stop them, but it would set them back a few steps. But the more time that goes by, the more I understand just how asleep people are. There are folks on this very MB that would defend the thieft of the American people, with the spoil going to bankster's.

[conspiracybeliever]

el midgetron, on 27 October 2009 - 06:43 AM, said:

<<< the Russian persons view of "freedom".

I gotta say marbob, thats a steamy pile of something.

It was known "centuries ago" that slavery was Low-productive? Eh, there seems to be some fundemental concepts of business you fail to understand.

But hey maybe you are on to something. Although, slavery only ended in the US 150 some years ago....not centuries ago as your logic would dictate. Is it alive and well in the world today? You betcha. Anyone ever seen the "Yes Men"? Crazy documentary (cutting to the chase) in one segment they do they argue that slavery was out dated and argue for the economics of neo-slavery.

Anyway, your argument about ones freedom only being of value to ones-self, ignors pretty much all of recorded history.That or you don't understand that ones freedom is opposite of ones enslavement enslavement.

Ok so it was known that slavery was "low-productive". So maybe now they convince us we aren't slaves, that we actually have rights and that we are actually making our own decisions when in reality we aren't. For instance the vote. They've convinced the masses that they are deciding who will run this country. I don't believe it. I think there are a few that are making that decision. I think they know way before the election who is going to win and it has nothing to do with two sides with two different ideas. I think it's one group of people deciding how they can make us follow with as few questions or protest as possible. Do I think there is a way to turn it all around at this point, no. Not until the majority of us are in chains. Then we may stand together and fight. We're all cowards. We're all afraid of losing what we have if we stood up to them. We don't want to be the minority. We don't want to be the new niggers. People will just hide in their little spaces and hope something will happen or someone else will do something.

[Mobhitmusicman]

Skull and Bones? Really?

Skull and Bones- And Elite over pompous group of Juvenile Delinquent like men with bizzaro initiation rights and the mindset of a fraternity? REALLY?

Sure the Skull and Bones have a lot of members in the Government, Banking, Wall Street, Hollywood etc...etc... but so does Harvard, Yale, Princeton, State Universities, even Community Colleges. There is only one difference, The Skull and Bones take exceptional men and train them for exceptional jobs within their field of study. There are a lot of well flying rumors of Riches and all members get X amount of dollars when they become members, B.S. that's all it is.

Looking for a good read, read "Inside the Tomb" (can't think of the darn author right now) What you read will be what the Skull and Bones really are!!

MMM

[Peter B]

Can I just clarify that some of you replying to this thread think your status is roughly equivalent to that of slaves in the slave states of the USA before the Civil War?

[Br Cornelius]

Peter B, on 27 October 2009 - 02:07 PM, said:

Can I just clarify that some of you replying to this thread think your status is roughly equivalent to that of slaves in the slave states of the USA before the Civil War?

The sophistication is to turn us into wage-slaves and let us make our own shackles in the form of debt. Its less difficult to manage a person if he believes he is free and in control of his destiny. Slavery is inefficient because people sabotage their own work in order to rebel. If you convince the poor slob that he's on the slippery pole to heaven/millions he just works that bit harder. Do you not wonder that the greatest story that hollywood always sells is the "American Dream", becoming the big man on the block. Its mind control and it works just a treat. Its the dream of Heaven over the next horizon, its the same dream that elites have been selling, in the form of religion, since we took up a hoe and started making the surpluses for the big man to build his pyramids. The secret is to let just enough people make it - to keep the dream believable.

Have a Morgage and your a slave - that the secret.

Br Cornelius

[SRCivic98]

Cradle of Fish, on 27 October 2009 - 01:48 AM, said:

Park a truck full of explosives outside a random government building. That's how the pros do it.

yeah but that truck isn't the real one and the real explosives are already inside the building then all you do is press the detenator. What's sad is that if we normal people can think of stuff like that I'm sure someone else is already ten steps ahead of us as far as planning that and getting ready to execute the plan. Here's the thing though. You have to think strategically about how to hit your targets. You reduce the enemy's moral and then you take out their supplies and their abilities to communicate with anyone else as you choke the life of them. There is lots of things that can be learn about history, war, society, government, etc. if you just read and pay attention to the events of which have already passed. Sooner or later though, people that are pro-gun and pro-life will be outlaws and will start being picked off one by one...but they won't shoot them...YET...no, they'll just take them to camp or re-education school and then you'll never see them again. Here's another thing to think about, what if fate called on you to fight, would be able to do it or would you run and not accept the challenge?

[Peter B]

Br Cornelius, on 28 October 2009 - 12:24 AM, said:

The sophistication is to turn us into wage-slaves and let us make our own shackles in the form of debt...Have a Morgage and your a slave - that the secret.

Br Cornelius

So those of us who've paid off our mortgages, what are we?

[Rock Slinger]

I ran into a guy on the streets in downtown Providence, RI who was giving out Don't Tread on Me stickers and copies of the Declaration of Independance and the Constitution. He was part of a group of military and police that have pledged to not obey orders that are directly against our constitution. He pointed out that only 3% of our founding fathers actually fought for our freedom against the tyranny of England and we can easily do that again if it comes to it. "A few good men will need to risk it all and stand tall." This group should be supported because IF they start some of the wild ideas some theorize they will be a legitamate force to be reconned with and can encourage membership of all military and police.. Let me try to find their name and I will post it later unless someone can help me. Not that I am convinced the FEMA camps are gonna get a lot of use in the near future but better to be prepared for the worst. Befriend a cop. Donate to this cause.

[Peter B]

SRCivic98, on 28 October 2009 - 12:37 AM, said:

Sooner or later though, people that are pro-gun and pro-life will be outlaws and will start being picked off one by one...but they won't shoot them...YET...no, they'll just take them to camp or re-education school and then you'll never see them again.

I have this suspicion that no matter what evidence is available, you will always interpret it in such a way as to support your world view: if They're arresting gun owners, then They're out to get you; if They're not arresting gun owners, then that means They're about to; and if They strengthen the rights of gun owners, then that means They're just trying to trick you. Would anything convince you that They aren't out to get you?

[Br Cornelius]

Peter B, on 27 October 2009 - 03:21 PM, said:

I have this suspicion that no matter what evidence is available, you will always interpret it in such a way as to support your world view: if They're arresting gun owners, then They're out to get you; if They're not arresting gun owners, then that means They're about to; and if They strengthen the rights of gun owners, then that means They're just trying to trick you. Would anything convince you that They aren't out to get you?

That logic cuts both ways and until you realise it you are in no position to learn anything from anyone. Just because I can see evidence which points to one conclusion and you can draw another conclusion - who is to arbitrate as to who is right. The problem is that if you see patterns where they are not there then you are delusional, but equally if you see patterns but cannot make the absolute connection between them -is that reasonable or equally delusional. Unfortunately in this universe most of the picture is always hidden from view and so we can only ever make up models from the shadows on the cave walls. This is the very essense of science. What is the point where you stop explaining everything as mere coincidence and accept that they are truelly linked in some planned way.
If a group of people meet up in a secret society, and then a certain subset of the same group meet up again in the Bilderberger group, is it not reasonable that they might be carrying over some of the agenda from the first group to the second. Would it be more unreasonable to conclude that they were not. People do not meet up in secret for no reason. If you are proud of your activities - why conceal them from the public scrutiny.

And if you have paid of your morgage what does that make you - an insignificant minority

Br Cornelius

[conspiracybeliever]

Peter B, on 27 October 2009 - 04:21 PM, said:

I have this suspicion that no matter what evidence is available, you will always interpret it in such a way as to support your world view: if They're arresting gun owners, then They're out to get you; if They're not arresting gun owners, then that means They're about to; and if They strengthen the rights of gun owners, then that means They're just trying to trick you. Would anything convince you that They aren't out to get you?

If that would stop stealing from me that would be a good start. Show me some honesty. Stop lying. Put a little effort into convincing me that you're not "out to get me".

[flyingswan]

Br Cornelius, on 27 October 2009 - 04:03 PM, said:

That logic cuts both ways and until you realise it you are in no position to learn anything from anyone.

I think you're missing Peter's point. You can never prove anything beyond doubt, but you can disprove something. For a hypothesis to have any value it must be capable of being disproven. In the jargon of the philosophy of science, a hypothesis that can't be disproven, such as Peter suggests for SRC, is unfalsifiable. Unfalsifiable doesn't mean true, it means worthless. Peter's example is unfortunately all too often typical of the sort of reasoning of conspiracy theorists, who don't appear to understand that making their theory unfalsifiable is not a point in its favour.

[Br Cornelius]

flyingswan, on 27 October 2009 - 04:30 PM, said:

I think you're missing Peter's point. You can never prove anything beyond doubt, but you can disprove something. For a hypothesis to have any value it must be capable of being disproven. In the jargon of the philosophy of science, a hypothesis that can't be disproven, such as Peter suggests for SRC, is unfalsifiable. Unfalsifiable doesn't mean true, it means worthless. Peter's example is unfortunately all too often typical of the sort of reasoning of conspiracy theorists, who don't appear to understand that making their theory unfalsifiable is not a point in its favour.

You can only draw conclusions from definate points of connection. It is seeing a point of connection and refusing to draw a conclusion which is the point I was making and is a valid criticism of skeptics.

Br Cornelius

This post has been edited by Br Cornelius: 27 October 2009 - 04:36 PM

[flyingswan]

Br Cornelius, on 27 October 2009 - 04:36 PM, said:

You can only draw conclusions from definate points of connection. It is seeing a point of connection and refusing to draw a conclusion which is the point I was making and is a valid criticism of skeptics.

Br Cornelius

No, you're still missing the point. You've got to be able to answer Peter's question: "Would anything convince you that They aren't out to get you?" If there isn't an answer, the theory has no merit. In terms of your example, there are two rival theories:
1) The people meeting up in secret are out to get you
2) The people meeting up in secret have reasons of their own for doing so that have nothing to do with being out to get you
The second is falsifiable if such meetings can be shown to cause you harm. What would falsify the first theory?

[el midgetron]

flyingswan, on 27 October 2009 - 12:47 PM, said:

1) The people meeting up in secret are out to get you
2) The people meeting up in secret have reasons of their own for doing so that have nothing to do with being out to get you
The second is falsifiable if such meetings can be shown to cause you harm. What would falsify the first theory?

...if the meetings can be shown to not cause you harm?

I agree with B Cornelius's original assesment that its a logic that cuts both ways.

What would convince us "they are not out to get us"? What you convince you they are out to get us?