Reply to topic  [ 102 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 11  Next
Change we better believe in, or else 
Author Message
Online
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9701
Reply with quote
Post Change we better believe in, or else
Image
Morning Pledge


When I was a child, I was indoctrinated to start each school day with the rest of my collective, at rigid attention, with my right hand placed over my beating heart, all facing in the direction of the national banner, and in unison we would repeat the following like robots every day:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one Nation under God, indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all.

Amen.



Now, 50 years later, I am no longer a child. My indoctrination is beginning to crumble. I start each day in bewilderment of the insanity taking place all over the world. I place my right hand over my beating heart, and I realize all people on Earth have the same gift in their chests, and that only the most foul psychological deviants would even think of taking it from them. And they do exactly that, by the thousands, every day. And like a robot, I have been helping those psychopaths my entire life without even being aware of it, as have all of us. Though we still say the old pledge, we follow a new one:

I pledge my servitude to the Dollar
of the Hostage States of Amerika,
and to the Banksters to whom I grovel,
one Deception, underground, Unbelievable,
with lies and injustice for all.

I'm in.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Fri Nov 02, 2012 4:30 pm
Profile
Online
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9701
Reply with quote
Post Re: Change we better believe in, or else
Image

Election Day!

It's that hallowed day when we confirm our gullibility, our stupidity, and our brainwashing. It's the day we believe is the beginning of hope and change, when in fact there will be no positive change (things will only get worse), and the hope is a cruel delusion. Every four years we are treated to this obscene circus of smiling liars, and every four years we have the proof that we were deceived and manipulated, and yet we come back for more with even greater enthusiasm. The insanity is simply startling, yet few can see it. Those that do, like George Carlin, are treated with disbelief (we laugh), derision, and ridicule.

Meanwhile, the real ruling sociopaths, behind the scenes in the darkest of shadows, consolidate their power and tighten their nooses around our necks, holding us hostage to their control systems of money, energy, and information.

None are more enslaved than those that falsely believe they are free.


_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Tue Nov 06, 2012 5:49 pm
Profile
Online
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9701
Reply with quote
Post Re: Change we better believe in, or else
Image
Elections? That's a good one!


It's not real. It's a charade. The game is rigged at every level. The People don't really select the presidential candidates to begin with. If popular consensus controlled the candidate selection, Ron Paul would have obviously pushed aside Romney. Romney was an unknown compared to Paul. Votes are found to be manipulated in every election, but it's always hushed up. Whether it be programmed voting machines, faked results, false counts, stuffed ballots, or non-existent voters, the fix is in. The Electoral College is the fail-safe, to ensure the People don't have a voice. It's as bought and paid for as Congress, only it's hidden better. The election results are announced before the vote is even counted, much less publicly verified (and there is no meaningful verification). Are we so brainwashed that we can't see the obvious?

Yep.

How else can you explain a Manchurian candidate with a sealed past, a fabricated birth certificate, and fake Social Security numbers, who is a proven liar that broke every major campaign promise he made four years ago, the captain of a sinking Titanic that he himself helped scuttle -- how could such a crook be our President AGAIN?

The answer is as clear as the nose on your face. Can you see your nose? How do you know it exists? You have to feel it, or look in a mirror.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Wed Nov 07, 2012 5:56 pm
Profile
Online
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9701
Reply with quote
Post Re: Change we better believe in, or else
Stephen Lendman sees what I see. Money won and will continue to dictate humanity's demise until we refuse it.

The same party wins every time. Duopoly power rules. America is a one party state with two wings. Each replicates the other. On major issues mattering most, not a dime's worth of difference separates them.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Thu Nov 08, 2012 1:37 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: Change we better believe in, or else
Stephen Lendman sees what I see. Money won and will continue to dictate humanity's demise until we refuse it.


Lendman would get my vote of confidence if he didn't always state the obvious and try to pass it off as something original and insightful. He would get my vote if he focused on the ruling banksters instead of their minions or the not-so-subtle legerdemain. He would get my vote if he came clean on 9/11/2001 and not prevaricate about blowback or other LIHOPic nonsense.

Alas, Lendman is an establishment hack sent down by the establishment to throw rubber-tipped darts back at the establishment ... and win the confidence of the surface thinkers by doing so. FWIW, because the set of surface thinkers vastly outnumbers the set of deep thinkers, Lendman is regarded in high esteem. So be it. Common unoriginal thought is usually noteworthy for limbo stick thinkers.

Voltaire and Vidal, now there's a pair I could drink beer with and not have my eyes diverted to the barkeep's bosom.

Pax Stella Artois

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Thu Nov 08, 2012 2:20 pm
Profile
Online
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9701
Reply with quote
Post Re: Change we better believe in, or else
UncleZook wrote:
Alas, Lendman is an establishment hack sent down by the establishment to throw rubber-tipped darts back at the establishment ... and win the confidence of the surface thinkers by doing so.

My poor Zook. The wisdom of India is all around you, and yet you eschew it. There is a story from your native land that you need to dwell upon. I don't know which version would be most effective in breaking through your own mighty brainwashing. Will it be the poetic version, the encyclopedic version, or the video? But one of them should surely help you realize that each observer is not necessarily wrong nor a gatekeeper if his perspective does not align with yours.

Be mindful of your lessons, young Padawan.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Thu Nov 08, 2012 6:21 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: Change we better believe in, or else
UncleZook wrote:
Alas, Lendman is an establishment hack sent down by the establishment to throw rubber-tipped darts back at the establishment ... and win the confidence of the surface thinkers by doing so.

My poor Zook. The wisdom of India is all around you, and yet you eschew it. There is a story from your native land that you need to dwell upon. I don't know which version would be most effective in breaking through your own mighty brainwashing. Will it be the poetic version, the encyclopedic version, or the video? But one of them should surely help you realize that each observer is not necessarily wrong nor a gatekeeper if his perspective does not align with yours.

Be mindful of your lessons, young Padawan.


A muddled mind finds metaphor - for the seeing kind - in an elephant tusk, trunk, and hind, handled by a bumpkin band of brothers blind.

To wit, no seeing person, no thinking person, no objective person - after 10 years of available evidence gathering on the attacks of 9/11/2001 - can seriously maintain any theory short of Inside Job. Lendman's blowback prevarication sustains the ongoing fraud of 9/11/2001 ... and it seeks to legitimize the illegitimate (e.g. Al Qaeda, fanatic Muslims, etc.). A blind man, he is not. Nor are you, Chico. Nor I. Nor anyone who has actually looked at the available evidence of 9/11/2001. Certainly, with his stature in the alternative media (a media brimming with meek minds and cowering intellects), we have a right to expect some scholarship wrt the September 2001 attacks from Lendman. Given his above average aptitude, his failing to deliver the goods on the premiere false flag event of the last century, exposes Lendman as an establishment shill.

If it brays like a mule and sprays like a skunk ... assume that the latter is hitching a ride on the former.

Pax Integrity Of Proverbs

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Fri Nov 09, 2012 4:34 pm
Profile
Online
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9701
Reply with quote
Post Re: Change we better believe in, or else
I want to preface this post by stating that I realize a lesson is often wasted on you, Zook. Your dismissal of the last one I offered you is an example. Nevertheless, I attempt to provide a similar lesson here for other readers with more accommodating minds. Perhaps you will also benefit.

Let's deconstruct your 9/11 argument, which seems to be a major pillar of your vaunted discernment. You sum it up nicely in the following sentence:

UncleZook wrote:
To wit, no seeing person, no thinking person, no objective person - after 10 years of available evidence gathering on the attacks of 9/11/2001 - can seriously maintain any theory short of Inside Job.

Flawed premises of this statement include:

  • All people "see" the same thing.
  • All people "think" in similar ways.
  • All people are objective.
  • All people gather evidence on 9/11.
  • All people have gathered similar sets of evidence.
  • They have done so for over 10 years.
  • There is no penalty for considering or expressing a dissenting viewpoint.

Now, I believe you are intelligent enough to realize and even admit that none of those premises are true. Yet your statement is utterly dependent on them. Are you sure you wish to maintain such a flawed position of judgment?

Perhaps an example will help. My mother is the product of a close family with strong religious beliefs. As far as she is concerned, Fox News is the voice of truth, as news organizations have always been for her. She does not see the deception and manipulation I see coming from the mainstream media. She does not think people would allow such a thing to exist. She is not objective on the subject due to her lifetime of experiences and a mindset that will not accommodate flexibility and uncertainty. She gathers no evidence on 9/11. Why should she, as she believes Fox News has delivered the evidence to her. She has been strongly conditioned to avoid the painful consequences of holding certain dissenting opinions, a pain which she has personally experienced enough times to actively avoid it.

I have seen the resourcefulness of my mother many times during my childhood, and I know she is of above average intelligence, like all of my other relatives. Yet every one of them holds a different opinion on 9/11. I know for a fact that they are not establishment shills or gatekeepers, at least not in a voluntary and conscious manner.

You and I both understand that 9/11 was a criminal false-flag attack that originated in the minds of controlling sociopaths that infest the United States government (as well as most other governments). Yet you will condemn others that do not share this understanding as shills and gatekeepers, whereas I will examine why they see things as they do. I know my mother's viewpoint is seriously flawed, and I know why. There is an insidious con-game being played on all of us, and each person's comprehension of the deception varies based on everything that went into their life experiences.

Yes, 9/11 was clearly (for some of us) a murderous deception, and it is most helpful to truth-seeking to understand 9/11. But, and here's the kicker, it is not necessary to comprehend 9/11 to be a truth-seeker! In other words, you need not know all truths to be a truth-seeker. In fact, you can't know all truths and be a truth-seeker. And, to put it bluntly, we can't even know all truths.

Can you see the wisdom yet of tempering your harsh judgment calls based on 9/11 comprehension?

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Fri Nov 09, 2012 6:38 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: Change we better believe in, or else
I want to preface this post by stating that I realize a lesson is often wasted on you, Zook. Your dismissal of the last one I offered you is an example. Nevertheless, I attempt to provide a similar lesson here for other readers with more accommodating minds. Perhaps you will also benefit.


No lesson is wasted on me. Au contraire. I waste lessons that don't fit the standard of wisdom or knowledge ... that lack standing in merit.

Quote:
Let's deconstruct your 9/11 argument, which seems to be a major pillar of your vaunted discernment. You sum it up nicely in the following sentence:

UncleZook wrote:
To wit, no seeing person, no thinking person, no objective person - after 10 years of available evidence gathering on the attacks of 9/11/2001 - can seriously maintain any theory short of Inside Job.

Flawed premises of this statement include:

  • All people "see" the same thing.
  • All people "think" in similar ways.
  • All people are objective.
  • All people gather evidence on 9/11.
  • All people have gathered similar sets of evidence.
  • They have done so for over 10 years.
  • There is no penalty for considering or expressing a dissenting viewpoint.

Now, I believe you are intelligent enough to realize and even admit that none of those premises are true. Yet your statement is utterly dependent on them. Are you sure you wish to maintain such a flawed position of judgment?


I'm intelligent enough to see in the above exercise, the prevaricational snap of your elastic premises. Perhaps Spanish is your first language, for your English renderings of my statement leave something to be desired.

No seeing person ... implies that those who see would conclude Inside Job, not all people see the same thing. No thinking person ... implies that those who think would conclude Inside Job, not all people think in similar ways. No objective person .... implies that those who are objective would conclude Inside Job, not all people are objective. Three outta three is pretty pathetic, Chico. But it gets worse.

Most English-as-a-first-language readers would understand my offered context and read "10 years of available evidence gathering" in sequence as (1) "10-years-of- available-evidence gathering", not (2) "10 years of gathering available evidence". IOW, the evidence has been available for 10 years, and can be gathered in any intervening human-ordered minimum time interval (as opposed to computer-ordered). It takes willful distortion to parse my statement out of sequence as you do. Five out of five is great for restaurant ratings, but not for ill-designed premise construction. Shall we go for the hexfecta?

You're trying to attach my statement to your contrived ill-designed premises (which are indeed flawed, the last one is a non sequitur, FWIW). My statement doesn''t prohibit dissenting viewpoints, it makes a mockery of those that hold dissenting viewpoints against the available evidence. Which means there is a penalty to be paid for standing against the available evidence for whatever reason (ignorance, idiocy, mendacity, etc.). You imply the exact opposite by suggesting that my statement is dependent on a lack of penalty. How absurd is that?

Quote:
Perhaps an example will help. My mother is the product of a close family with strong religious beliefs. As far as she is concerned, Fox News is the voice of truth, as news organizations have always been for her. She does not see the deception and manipulation I see coming from the mainstream media. She does not think people would allow such a thing to exist. She is not objective on the subject due to her lifetime of experiences and a mindset that will not accommodate flexibility and uncertainty. She gathers no evidence on 9/11. Why should she, as she believes Fox News has delivered the evidence to her. She has been strongly conditioned to avoid the painful consequences of holding certain dissenting opinions, a pain which she has personally experienced enough times to actively avoid it.

I have seen the resourcefulness of my mother many times during my childhood, and I know she is of above average intelligence, like all of my other relatives. Yet every one of them holds a different opinion on 9/11. I know for a fact that they are not establishment shills or gatekeepers, at least not in a voluntary and conscious manner.


Your mother falls into the category of sheeple. Which is different from the category of gatekeeper. The latter is a shepherd. To compare your mother to Lendman ... is just more proof of the lengths you will go to buttress a losing argument. Still, prevarication for the sake of ego is less damning than for the sake of empire and establishment, so you have wiggle room, Chico, e.g. to squeeze your integrity to safer harbor ... but Lendman - who makes his bread and butter as a scholar and essayist - has a greater standard of proof to bear than he is currently bearing with respect to his blowback theory ... and he has bigger company to impress than an elderly woman who is content with a safe worldview and fenced-in pasture grass. Your equivocation has been noted and dispatched for what it is.

Quote:
You and I both understand that 9/11 was a criminal false-flag attack that originated in the minds of controlling sociopaths that infest the United States government (as well as most other governments). Yet you will condemn others that do not share this understanding as shills and gatekeepers, whereas I will examine why they see things as they do. I know my mother's viewpoint is seriously flawed, and I know why. There is an insidious con-game being played on all of us, and each person's comprehension of the deception varies based on everything that went into their life experiences.

Yes, 9/11 was clearly (for some of us) a murderous deception, and it is most helpful to truth-seeking to understand 9/11. But, and here's the kicker, it is not necessary to comprehend 9/11 to be a truth-seeker! In other words, you need not know all truths to be a truth-seeker. In fact, you can't know all truths and be a truth-seeker. And, to put it bluntly, we can't even know all truths.

Can you see the wisdom yet of tempering your harsh judgment calls based on 9/11 comprehension?


Different standards for Lendman and your elderly mother. To argue that Lendman's stature in the media (as it is)
can legitimately sponsor denial of the reality of 9/11/2001 ... a reality which does not require rocket science but a simple honest look at the facts (e.g. elementary high school physics, prohibitive hole in the Pentagon wall, Hani Hanjour's incredible aerodynamic manoevres of a massive jetliner, etc.) .... is having contempt for rational process.

'Nuff said.

Pax To Those Who Resist Egotists And Prevaricators

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Fri Nov 09, 2012 10:56 pm
Profile
Online
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 9701
Reply with quote
Post Re: Change we better believe in, or else
UncleZook wrote:
No lesson is wasted on me.

Unfortunately, your post proves otherwise.

Quote:
To argue that Lendman's stature in the media (as it is) can legitimately sponsor denial of the reality of 9/11/2001 ...

That's not my argument at all (read my prior post). In fact, it is your argument that Lendman's stature in the media (as it is) cannot legitimately sponsor denial of the reality of 9/11/2001. But it can, because the two are not co-dependent. Lendman's employment in the media has little to do with his convictions on 9/11. And I doubt you even know what Lendman's position is on 9/11. I sure don't. But your spurious reasons for labeling him (found here) are on record and are not flattering.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Sat Nov 10, 2012 1:00 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 102 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 11  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.