[Br Cornelius]

aquatus1, on 06 November 2009 - 05:51 PM, said:

Well, let's think about that for a bit. Let's look at some parallels. It's all well and good to claim that someone else is being personal, but that only works if you show how the response is not relevant to the topic. After all, the two responses above me make no attempt to present a point, and both are clearly being pointed at on individual. That is what a faulty personal approach is.

I can't help but notice that a lot of the arguments being presented here, and in the CT forum in general, tend to align quite neatly with the concept of "projection". To quote the ultimate authority on anything and everything on the internet, (No, not me...I can hear you smirking, Acidhead ) Wikipedia says:



Now, in the OP, ReincarnatedNobody ruefully acknowledges having fallen victim to this very thing. He created a sock puppet as a foil against his own arguments. He's not the first, and he won't be the last, and in this very thread and forum, we have multiple examples of people making an argument about something, but being guilty of doing that exact same thing themselves.

For instance, let's take the accusation of taking things personally. If we are to look at the numbers, my posts in the CT forum amount to less than 25% of my total contributions (and let's not forget that in years past, I was assigned to monitor this forum, and my posting due to Mod duties added a considerable amount to that). Additionally, the posts that I do make generally have less to do with the specific topic and more the general logical approach that people were displaying. Heck, both Acidhead and Midgetron (I think...I can't quite remember about Midge) have openly groused that I don't address the specific topics. And it's true. My interest tends to lie more with the logic of the debate, rather than with the specific topic.

So, saying that I am taking this personally is one thing, but how is that statement being backed up? If it were a supported statement, then one would have grounds for dismissing the argument, although even at that it is not an absolute. After all, just because a person has a personal stake in a topic does not inherently invalidate the argument; if it did, passion wouldn't count for much in a debate, and we know there are people who get passionate about their topics while still being able to present valid arguments.

So, if the accusation that this is personal cannot be supported, what about the opposite? What about my stance that this is actually a form of projection? Well, I was referring to a very vague "CT Crowd", referring to it en mass the same way that refer to groups such as cops, firefighters, basketball players, and computer geeks. Similarly, the point was being made that a very vague "elite few" (there's an oxymoron for you) are acting like a dictatorship. Both are generalized statements, referring to nothing specific. I did not consider "Elite Few" to be personal, not to me, not because I was a part of it, or that I wasn't. It's just too vague. Why then, should the opposite be true? Why would you consider "CT Crowd" to be personal?

I submit that it is because you are "projecting" yourself into the argument. It becomes personal not becuase it is personal, but because you see yourself as part of the argument.

But this is not just about you specifically. As I pointed out, it is very common in the CT forum. The OP admitted to it, and kudos to him for being able to face that somewhat unpleasant aspect of it. Similarly, I pointed out the similarities between accusing one field of this and this and this, all the while being guilty of doing this and this and this themselves. And, three in one thread alone, I pointed out how it is possible to support the notion that this being personal can be the cause of projection, but can't seem to be supported as actually being personal.

In another thread, a member was ranting (yeah, that would be the accurate word for this particular member), about how the government was denying people liberty and rights and how it would be better with him in charge. When asked what he would do differently, he promptly replied that he would run them out of town and set up the rules the way "they were meant to be". Anyone else see the irony here?

In the OP, Reincarnated Nobody asked what could be done about these possible conspiracies. Well, how about this as a course for action: First, determine if the conspiracy is actually out there, or if the enemy, to coin a phrase, is actually within.

I would entirely agree that projection is the greatest enemy of finding the truth of anything, but unfortunately we are all subject to it and we all obscure the truth by its unconscious influence. Ultimately to draw any conclusions at all is the most difficult challenge we face.

Br Cornelius

[acidhead]

aquatus1, on 06 November 2009 - 09:51 AM, said:

Well, let's think about that for a bit. Let's look at some parallels. It's all well and good to claim that someone else is being personal, but that only works if you show how the response is not relevant to the topic. After all, the two responses above me make no attempt to present a point, and both are clearly being pointed at on individual. That is what a faulty personal approach is.

I can't help but notice that a lot of the arguments being presented here, and in the CT forum in general, tend to align quite neatly with the concept of "projection". To quote the ultimate authority on anything and everything on the internet, (No, not me...I can hear you smirking, Acidhead ) Wikipedia says:



Now, in the OP, ReincarnatedNobody ruefully acknowledges having fallen victim to this very thing. He created a sock puppet as a foil against his own arguments. He's not the first, and he won't be the last, and in this very thread and forum, we have multiple examples of people making an argument about something, but being guilty of doing that exact same thing themselves.

For instance, let's take the accusation of taking things personally. If we are to look at the numbers, my posts in the CT forum amount to less than 25% of my total contributions (and let's not forget that in years past, I was assigned to monitor this forum, and my posting due to Mod duties added a considerable amount to that). Additionally, the posts that I do make generally have less to do with the specific topic and more the general logical approach that people were displaying. Heck, both Acidhead and Midgetron (I think...I can't quite remember about Midge) have openly groused that I don't address the specific topics. And it's true. My interest tends to lie more with the logic of the debate, rather than with the specific topic.

So, saying that I am taking this personally is one thing, but how is that statement being backed up? If it were a supported statement, then one would have grounds for dismissing the argument, although even at that it is not an absolute. After all, just because a person has a personal stake in a topic does not inherently invalidate the argument; if it did, passion wouldn't count for much in a debate, and we know there are people who get passionate about their topics while still being able to present valid arguments.

So, if the accusation that this is personal cannot be supported, what about the opposite? What about my stance that this is actually a form of projection? Well, I was referring to a very vague "CT Crowd", referring to it en mass the same way that refer to groups such as cops, firefighters, basketball players, and computer geeks. Similarly, the point was being made that a very vague "elite few" (there's an oxymoron for you) are acting like a dictatorship. Both are generalized statements, referring to nothing specific. I did not consider "Elite Few" to be personal, not to me, not because I was a part of it, or that I wasn't. It's just too vague. Why then, should the opposite be true? Why would you consider "CT Crowd" to be personal?

I submit that it is because you are "projecting" yourself into the argument. It becomes personal not becuase it is personal, but because you see yourself as part of the argument.

But this is not just about you specifically. As I pointed out, it is very common in the CT forum. The OP admitted to it, and kudos to him for being able to face that somewhat unpleasant aspect of it. Similarly, I pointed out the similarities between accusing one field of this and this and this, all the while being guilty of doing this and this and this themselves. And, three in one thread alone, I pointed out how it is possible to support the notion that this being personal can be the cause of projection, but can't seem to be supported as actually being personal.

In another thread, a member was ranting (yeah, that would be the accurate word for this particular member), about how the government was denying people liberty and rights and how it would be better with him in charge. When asked what he would do differently, he promptly replied that he would run them out of town and set up the rules the way "they were meant to be". Anyone else see the irony here?

In the OP, Reincarnated Nobody asked what could be done about these possible conspiracies. Well, how about this as a course for action: First, determine if the conspiracy is actually out there, or if the enemy, to coin a phrase, is actually within.

Our outer-conscience is under attack everyday, in many forms, and our inner-conscience relays the information back and forth with the outer-conscience.

This process creates each person's perceived reality of our immediate and global surroundings.

The Psychological projection you're using to explain why people project themselves in the same light to the one they are opposing would be the same as saying 'we become what we hate'.

Many here, including yourself Aquatus, just try to point out how we perceive community and global events and how or why they are being implemented.

Yes... some go too far by 'becoming what they hate' in their offered solutions.

[marabod]

Br Cornelius, on 07 November 2009 - 06:50 AM, said:

I would entirely agree that projection is the greatest enemy of finding the truth of anything, but unfortunately we are all subject to it and we all obscure the truth by its unconscious influence. Ultimately to draw any conclusions at all is the most difficult challenge we face.

Br Cornelius

Is not it a bit unnatural, that while representing a clear MINORITAR point of view, the discussion Party makes the support statement on behalf of a Majority? By saying we are all subject you are speaking, in particular on MY behalf, as well as on behalf of all your opponents, the same time ignoring the absence of any evidence of them having delegated to you the right to speak on their behalf.

The nearest simplified example from the common living situation would be A, saying on behalf of B,C, D...Z "we are unable to have sex anymore", despite all but A themselves, have never felt any urge or reason to make such statement. On a personal level, Br Corn, I do have a commonality with you, but this commonality is restricted to us both belonging to a specie, qualified as Homo Sapience, and this commonality would not be able to expand on all our other individual features. What you are saying is that if you personally are wrong, then all your opponents are all wrong too!

[DigitalSentinal]

Realistically, I suppose Humanity will go along with all the crap going on in the world until it gets fed up and starts fighting back - probably through violence and revolution. I also think that we by ourselves cannot do it all on our own. We'll need outside help at some point. Aliens? Sure. Why not?

Ultimately, I reckon the best way to kill a shadow government is to simply shine the light on it full force - which is what we're already doing worldwide through movies, books, forums, everyday conversations, and so forth. Sooner or later enough people will wake up and these slithery shadow elements will whither away, perhaps even by their own selves. Unlike other wars, we're fighting an inbred, highly insidious enemy. In fact, there seems to be no real enemy, since everyone around us - and even our selves - are our own enforcers.

This post has been edited by DigitalSentinal: 07 November 2009 - 04:03 AM

[acidhead]

DigitalSentinal, on 06 November 2009 - 08:02 PM, said:

Realistically, I suppose Humanity will go along with all the crap going on in the world until it gets fed up and starts fighting back - probably through violence and revolution. I also think that we by ourselves cannot do it all on our own. We'll need outside help at some point. Aliens? Sure. Why not?

Ultimately, I reckon the best way to kill a shadow government is to simply shine the light on it full force - which is what we're already doing worldwide through movies, books, forums, everyday conversations, and so forth. Sooner or later enough people will wake up and these slithery shadow elements will whither away, perhaps even by their own selves. Unlike other wars, we're fighting an inbred, highly insidious enemy. In fact, there seems to be no real enemy, since everyone around us - and even our selves - are our own enforcers.

-its way too late... i believe we're along for the ride no matter who freaks out or who exposes whatever.

It would take more than a youtube or audio expose to bring an immediate halt to the gobalists plan of world resource sharing.

This coming global U.N. government is huge... much bigger and more powerful than we can imagine.

American's and westerners who will attempt to resist will be met head on by the force of AGW alarmists who see the 'science as religion'.

It has successfully divided public opinion - Its too powerful to fight with violence.

The only way it could be compromised in the future is -'if or when' AGW turns out to be a hoax......

But by the time the gobalized populace is aware of no immediate threat to mankind the whole debacle will be lost in new dangers and threats to human survival.


just my opinion...

[Br Cornelius]

acidhead, on 07 November 2009 - 06:35 PM, said:

-its way too late... i believe we're along for the ride no matter who freaks out or who exposes whatever.

It would take more than a youtube or audio expose to bring an immediate halt to the gobalists plan of world resource sharing.

This coming global U.N. government is huge... much bigger and more powerful than we can imagine.

American's and westerners who will attempt to resist will be met head on by the force of AGW alarmists who see the 'science as religion'.

It has successfully divided public opinion - Its too powerful to fight with violence.

The only way it could be compromised in the future is -'if or when' AGW turns out to be a hoax......

But by the time the gobalized populace is aware of no immediate threat to mankind the whole debacle will be lost in new dangers and threats to human survival.


just my opinion...

The fly in the ointment is that the science of Global Warming is compelling. Maybe they just realised this was the big one to hitch their wagon to, but Global warming is real and will be coming to a town near you soon.

The climate where I live has been on the move for the last 5yrs or so, and it defies all of the well established patterns of cyclic change which the older generation can recall. If it wasn't for the globalised food production and our purchasing power we would have been at least two years into a famine which would have killed off most of the population - it literally hasn't effectively stopped raining for two years solid. Think what it is like for those numerous countries which do not have the purchasing power to buffer them from this storm.

Br Cornelius

This post has been edited by Br Cornelius: 07 November 2009 - 10:35 PM

[acidhead]

Br Cornelius, on 07 November 2009 - 02:30 PM, said:

The fly in the ointment is that the science of Global Warming is compelling. Maybe they just realised this was the big one to hitch their wagon to, but Global warming is real and will be coming to a town near you soon.

The climate where I live has been on the move for the last 5yrs or so, and it defies all of the well established patterns of cyclic change which the older generation can recall. If it wasn't for the globalised food production and our purchasing power we would have been at least two years into a famine which would have killed off most of the population - it literally hasn't effectively stopped raining for two years solid. Think what it is like for those numerous countries which do not have the purchasing power to buffer them from this storm.

Br Cornelius

The climate where you live "has been on the move for the last 5yrs or so"...? has it been warmer every summer or colder winters?

Most people cannot recall what they did last week never mind what the weather was like just 10 years ago.

The alarmists try to convince people that just a 2 or 3 degree rise over a period of 100 years from now would devastate the planet beyond repair...

The weather is fine near you - what isn't fine is the crap GMO products Wal-Marts call food.

This post has been edited by acidhead: 07 November 2009 - 11:16 PM

[aquatus1]

Br Cornelius, on 06 November 2009 - 06:50 PM, said:

I would entirely agree that projection is the greatest enemy of finding the truth of anything, but unfortunately we are all subject to it and we all obscure the truth by its unconscious influence. Ultimately to draw any conclusions at all is the most difficult challenge we face.

But that is no excuse for neither attempting to determine projection, and certainly not for avoiding drawing conclusions. And that is what I was alluding to back in what ConspiracyBeliever referred to as my original "rant". People of the CT inclination believe they are drawing conclusions, but what they are actually doing is sealing themselves into their projections. That's why it's so hard to see them as "projections"; because people intentionally hide them from themselves.

So we come back to the OP. How do we combat the World Order? Well, first we need to determine what the World Order actually is. If we simply assume that we know what it is, we lock ourselves into the useless loop that I believe is subconsciously desired; we create an enemy that cannot be overcome, and therefore we can congratulate ourselves for doing everything we can, and not take any responsibility for failing.

If, on the other hand, we actually, honestly try to determine who the enemy is, at that point we can actually take action. Whether it be a psychological phenomena or an actual cabal of shady characters, it is still a foundation for a plan. But then, if we do that, we have to ask some difficult questions of ourselves. Not the least of which is making a choice, to wit: "Can you put up, or will you shut up?

I submit that if you are at the point that you are intentionally arguing that the enemy can only be undefined, that there is no possible way to determine who the nebulous "THEY" are, then perhaps this is not so much an honest search for the enemy, but a projection of your desire to be part of a solution to an nonexistent problem.

[marabod]

aquatus1, on 08 November 2009 - 11:53 AM, said:

But that is no excuse for neither attempting to determine projection, and certainly not for avoiding drawing conclusions. And that is what I was alluding to back in what ConspiracyBeliever referred to as my original "rant". People of the CT inclination believe they are drawing conclusions, but what they are actually doing is sealing themselves into their projections. That's why it's so hard to see them as "projections"; because people intentionally hide them from themselves.

So we come back to the OP. How do we combat the World Order? Well, first we need to determine what the World Order actually is. If we simply assume that we know what it is, we lock ourselves into the useless loop that I believe is subconsciously desired; we create an enemy that cannot be overcome, and therefore we can congratulate ourselves for doing everything we can, and not take any responsibility for failing.

If, on the other hand, we actually, honestly try to determine who the enemy is, at that point we can actually take action. Whether it be a psychological phenomena or an actual cabal of shady characters, it is still a foundation for a plan. But then, if we do that, we have to ask some difficult questions of ourselves. Not the least of which is making a choice, to wit: "Can you put up, or will you shut up?

I submit that if you are at the point that you are intentionally arguing that the enemy can only be undefined, that there is no possible way to determine who the nebulous "THEY" are, then perhaps this is not so much an honest search for the enemy, but a projection of your desire to be part of a solution to an nonexistent problem.

Most certainly combating World Order must manifest in CT adepts worldwide, conspiring to install World Disorder instead. For this all national elites must be banished and replaced by appointing these adepts instead; we are all invited to do this ASAP, before they become angry and announce us conformists. The positive side is that upon doing this, the world would be run by teenagers, and we each would have free xbox issued.

[acidhead]

marabod, on 07 November 2009 - 06:22 PM, said:

Most certainly combating World Order must manifest in CT adepts worldwide, conspiring to install World Disorder instead. For this all national elites must be banished and replaced by appointing these adepts instead; we are all invited to do this ASAP, before they become angry and announce us conformists. The positive side is that upon doing this, the world would be run by teenagers, and we each would have free xbox issued.

...we may be on opposite sides of the globe but you know it and i know it...

[marabod]

acidhead, on 08 November 2009 - 05:14 PM, said:

...we may be on opposite sides of the globe but you know it and i know it...

I bet you, the bloody Bilderbergers and masons would get their x-boxes first! A smart one remains a smart one.

[Br Cornelius]

aquatus1, on 07 November 2009 - 11:53 PM, said:

But that is no excuse for neither attempting to determine projection, and certainly not for avoiding drawing conclusions. And that is what I was alluding to back in what ConspiracyBeliever referred to as my original "rant". People of the CT inclination believe they are drawing conclusions, but what they are actually doing is sealing themselves into their projections. That's why it's so hard to see them as "projections"; because people intentionally hide them from themselves.

So we come back to the OP. How do we combat the World Order? Well, first we need to determine what the World Order actually is. If we simply assume that we know what it is, we lock ourselves into the useless loop that I believe is subconsciously desired; we create an enemy that cannot be overcome, and therefore we can congratulate ourselves for doing everything we can, and not take any responsibility for failing.

If, on the other hand, we actually, honestly try to determine who the enemy is, at that point we can actually take action. Whether it be a psychological phenomena or an actual cabal of shady characters, it is still a foundation for a plan. But then, if we do that, we have to ask some difficult questions of ourselves. Not the least of which is making a choice, to wit: "Can you put up, or will you shut up?

I submit that if you are at the point that you are intentionally arguing that the enemy can only be undefined, that there is no possible way to determine who the nebulous "THEY" are, then perhaps this is not so much an honest search for the enemy, but a projection of your desire to be part of a solution to an nonexistent problem.

The one thing I have come to a definate conclusion on is that the international monetary system, and specifically the federal reserve systems, is the key problem. There is nothing intrinsically right about the federal reserve system and it can be replaced. So raising awareness of this specific issue is fundamental.
Beyond that a plan of action for resting control from those who prefer to transact their business in secret is a little more tricky as thast very secrecy places you at a disadvantage of relative ignorance. So critically examining the information which the CT crowd put out and stripping away the personal and often whacky layer of projection is the next stage. Only with raw unadulterated facts can progress be achieved.

Since most of the issues are at foundation problems of state encouraged ignorance, another key plank would be conciousness raising. Meditation, education, psychadelics are all useful tools in conciousness expansion and should be a key area of work. Only when people have the mental tools to understand the lies which are been told to them can the issues be examined and solved. Systematic attacks on dogma when it gets in the way of reason.

Br Cornelius

This post has been edited by Br Cornelius: 08 November 2009 - 08:21 AM

[marabod]

Br Cornelius, on 08 November 2009 - 08:14 PM, said:

The one thing I have come to a definate conclusion on is that the international monetary system, and specifically the federal reserve systems, is the key problem. There is nothing intrinsically right about the federal reserve system and it can be replaced. So raising awareness of this specific issue is fundamental.
Beyond that a plan of action for resting control from those who prefer to transact their business in secret is a little more tricky as thast very secrecy places you at a disadvantage of relative ignorance. So critically examining the information which the CT crowd put out and stripping away the personal and often whacky layer of projection is the next stage. Only with raw unadulterated facts can progress be achieved.

Since most of the issues are at foundation problems of state encouraged ignorance, another key plank would be conciousness raising. Meditation, education, psychadelics are all useful tools in conciousness expansion and should be a key area of work. Only when people have the mental tools to understand the lies which are been told to them can the issues be examined and solved. Systematic attacks on dogma when it gets in the way of reason.

Br Cornelius

I can see - the way of reason must be the one which you yourself see as such. To destroy conspiracies worldwide it is necessary to replace Federal Reserve... Right... I suggest in addition to close down all delicatessen shops, through which the conspirators poison the people with a wrongly-shaped rice. I also can assist and assume the duties of federal reserve for the time you are completing your monetary reforms. And meanwhile the population can enjoy raw unadulterated facts, the more the better, as they would all have plenty of free time before all secretive businesses would be investigated.

[aquatus1]

Br Cornelius, on 08 November 2009 - 08:14 AM, said:

The one thing I have come to a definate conclusion on is that the international monetary system, and specifically the federal reserve systems, is the key problem. There is nothing intrinsically right about the federal reserve system and it can be replaced. So raising awareness of this specific issue is fundamental.

So, basically, you are setting up an undefined and unbeatable enemy, and pretending that you are doing something about it while not actually doing anything.

Sound familiar?

Quote

Beyond that a plan of action for resting control from those who prefer to transact their business in secret is a little more tricky as thast very secrecy places you at a disadvantage of relative ignorance. So critically examining the information which the CT crowd put out and stripping away the personal and often whacky layer of projection is the next stage. Only with raw unadulterated facts can progress be achieved.

And yet, we always seem to see the conclusions prior to any facts being presented.

Quote

Since most of the issues are at foundation problems of state encouraged ignorance, another key plank would be conciousness raising.

Perfect projection. An subconscious knowledge of personal ignorance projected as an external, broad-spread, ignorance. As if one person's lack of knowledge means that all people share that same lack of knowledge.

Quote

Meditation, education, psychadelics are all useful tools in conciousness expansion and should be a key area of work. Only when people have the mental tools to understand the lies which are been told to them can the issues be examined and solved. Systematic attacks on dogma when it gets in the way of reason.

I agree. I believe that only systematic attacks on CT dogma will ever allow reason to shine through.

[Br Cornelius]

aquatus1, on 08 November 2009 - 04:39 PM, said:

So, basically, you are setting up an undefined and unbeatable enemy, and pretending that you are doing something about it while not actually doing anything.

Sound familiar?



And yet, we always seem to see the conclusions prior to any facts being presented.



Perfect projection. An subconscious knowledge of personal ignorance projected as an external, broad-spread, ignorance. As if one person's lack of knowledge means that all people share that same lack of knowledge.



I agree. I believe that only systematic attacks on CT dogma will ever allow reason to shine through.

And yet you are unable or unwilling to analyse you own personal bias and projections (which you have revealed in this thread) whilst been perfectly able to point out others. Of course your outlook is logical and beyond analysis.
I am quite willing to accept that my knowledge is imperfect and that this makes it difficult go draw the sort of dogmatic conclusions which everyone expects and feels comfortable with. My life is a personal manifestation of my current understanding and fundamentally that is all that I can reasonably do.

A reduction of personal consumption, an avoidance of the use of debt to sustain my existance, raising others awareness of the issues they face, a constant thirst for knowledge extension, an active agenda to shine light on systemic short sightedness and corruption. Not accepting that the status quo is the only quo. Ignorance is a lack of knowledge of currently accepted facts which precludes you from analysing those facts in relation to the whole, and ignorance of facts is the universal common denominator at the moment. I am less ignorant than most - but I am working on been even less ignorant.
The world can only be transformed one person at a time, and that starts with spotting the issues.

Br Cornelius