some educational reading for to get y'all in the mood:
"Elfdalian, the Ancient Viking Forest Language of Sweden, Set to be Revived"
also something about perfectly segmented arse
Pledge to the Thunderclap! Play the demo! if you aren't TOTALLY sold. Back the Kickstarter, pledge, and/or share it around with your friends! Don't forget to bump~
Governments and their media changing their minds every few decades... why kill it in the first place?
Comment has been collapsed.
to dominate, assert their control; you are only to speak this when we give permission. because people are people. because [conspiracy nonsense]
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, conspiracy stuff is always fun, but "because people are people" is the main problem.
Comment has been collapsed.
is not so fun if you believe there may be some truth therein but yeah; just gotta believe "everybody gets what's coming to them [eventually]," and carry on
Comment has been collapsed.
Wanna start another endless chain of comments? :v
Yeah, but if people weren't people then all the conspiracies in the world wouldn't affect as much as they would if there are any
Comment has been collapsed.
do you know what you're asking for, considering the subject matter?
if people weren't people, conspiracies wouldn't be a thing because we'd already be living in the New Jerusalem
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh, you're trying to be the bot-like side of the endless comment-chain this time?
Nah, there would just be more complex conspiracies, because people are always people in some way but they need to keep evolving to meet the ever-evolving obstacles in life and a conspiracy is just one of those obstacles.
Comment has been collapsed.
? if you say so xD
if people weren't people but nevermind because they'er always people in some way. tilts head i guess so, else we'd've come up with a different term to refer to them already; more complex conspiracies to accommodate what characteristic of them though? in saying what i say, i assume the badness inherent in people being obliterated, as the figures that conspiracies concern only wish to do harm - they are The Foe. smh conspiracy is explanation for such obstacles - the idea of a conspiracy isn't the obstacle, but what the conspiracy pertains to is manifestation of obstacle, if you can dig it. i.e. the movie WALL-E? that's the future they want for those of us that they don't exterminate - there's also the theory that gray aliens are us from the future, where we let our bodies atrophy (as opposed to inflate) and focused solely on the mind.
Comment has been collapsed.
!
Yeah, because people won't be people except in a dreamland maybe. "if people weren't people, conspiracies wouldn't be a thing because we'd already be living in the New Jerusalem"
"the figures that conspiracies concern only wish to do harm"
that I disagree with, "the figures that conspiracies only care about their own benefit regardless of anything else" is more correct.
Usually a conspiracy is a carried out by a group of people who want to achieve a certain selfish goal indirectly and that group is most likely much smaller than the group of people affected by the results of that conspiracy, now, since the second group is being manipulated by others that means that their lives are only a reaction of the actions of the manipulators and not entirely formed by their own/goals/wishes/etc.. , therefore the conspiracy is an obstacle that is preventing them from achieving their own goals/wishes/living their lives in another way/etc.
I hope that sounded logical enough, you used a bunch of fancy words and everything was cramped up in one mass so it took me time to decipher and respond.
Comment has been collapsed.
I just took the two things you said and quoted them together
shrug semantics,
they benefit from harming the massesnevermind because sheeple are quite the valuable livestock (as of now, won't always be though).I say the group that makes up the conspiracy is the obstacle, just as you described, though the way you word it makes me think you're trying to ascribe "the fact of being an obstacle" to the very word and idea of "conspiracy." This, just my being defensive, i guess - you'll never take my tinfoil hat from me!
Comment has been collapsed.
Sheeple are worth nothing as soon as they stop doing what they are told/attack the shepherd.
You're saying that the group that makes the conspiracy is the obstacle and not the conspiracy itself?
Could be but I don't see beings in general as obstacles.
Comment has been collapsed.
depends on connotation - if particular sheerson (singular) is simply ignorant then (arguably) innocent; willfully ignorant and therefore (absolutely) an obstacle. aye, i have no love for such accessories to the loveless - not to imply they must be beaten or conquered (quite the opposite in fact - i am a bad one for lacking that love, i know), it is just to say that by virtue of their existence as a stubborn drone, they live an unlife and are opposed to genuine life.
EDIT: the difference between the two example sheeple being that the innocent doesn't know and the second disregards completely anything contrary to their vision of life (which is distorted), because they can't handle it and are just selfish. i recognize the irony in me speaking about "unlife" in others hehe; i understand your first paragraph was in agreement to what i struck through - you's a merciful bot indeed if you don't see beings in general as obstacles :3
Comment has been collapsed.
See, that's how conspiracies divide the masses by turning the ignorant ones against the others who somehow actually knew what was happening, and a lot of the "others" would have a bad reaction to that such as considering the "ignorant ones" obstacles which would result in a clash between the two causing the center of attention to be focused on the two of them fighting and not on the actual reason of the problem which is the actions of the small group of manipulators who started this whole thing in the first place, and of course, the winning side will most likely be the manipulators and their "ignorants" in this scenario.
So, yeah, I don't think it's about being merciful or not but more about avoiding unnecessary actions that could make things worse instead of making it better and will make the "others" lose the ability to orient to their actual goal.
Comment has been collapsed.
the conflict is unavoidable so long as the conspiracy complex persists because that is the whole point of it, to orchestrate such chaos. i call for no action against the ignorants other than to try and tell them, but most will not see, so all that can be done is to point out that they're ignorant., but i totally recognize the truth in what you say! even still, so many of the well-known figures on the "enlightened" side of the conspiracy (if you'll pardon the pun), aware to some extent of what may be (because, as it's a conspiracy, nothing is certain except that nothing is certain, and that what we're told is never the full story) only further the conspiracy's agenda when they try to incite violence amongst ourselves. i guess i can see how you could construe that i was doing the same, but i wasn't (intentionally, at least) - even saying "conspiracy's agenda," it's apparent that i'm getting sloppy with word choice. you win.
Comment has been collapsed.
I disagree with the "conflict is unavoidable" but I agree to disagree on that.
And I do agree with that nobody knows the whole truth, that's why I said that those others "somehow knew what was happening", still, I don't think you need to know the whole story to avoid getting manipulated by and indirectly forced to act in a certain way, not to mention that the manipulators and their "plans" aren't always that smart and you can spot a usual pattern after a while in their acts, so that taken in mind, you're the one who eventually decides what to do and yes, some people might be fooled to think that they're smart individuals capable of critical thinking and that they're fighting conspiracies when they're in fact being manipulated by a more complex plan to defend other conspiracies/plans and save the ideas/goals that those older plans/conspiracies should've accomplished, but if we're going to discuss that now then it would be a loop of comments instead of a supposedly progressing chain of comments because what if we both were manipulated to make this discussion by
SG's lizard people? a conspiracy spanning from the day we were born to this day and everybody we ever knew during that period is in it, provoking us throughout the years to register here and slowly getting us in the mind set to make this discussion claiming to know the bigger picture when we are in fact doing what other people wanted all along? tin foil hat wearing intensifies
Comment has been collapsed.
how is the conflict not imminent? th'only way for this to be possible would be if suddenly awareness struck every person under their dominion (which is (")basically(") every human, excepting maybe those so far off the grid that their existence is completely unknown (thus irrelevant, in the context of this scenario (not to imply hermits and the like don't or wouldn't matter as humans)) to others) and, somehow, the mysterious they were removed from power; no doubt that way would (have to) be through violence. since this is ((")just about(")) impossible, and because people are people, in my opinion, whenever they do decide to act explicitly towards their goal of "NWO" and related ideas (not that they're subtle in working as they do now, if one just opens their eyes heh), there is going to be the two sides: with and against them. yes, i take it for granted that such an event will occur and am unable to believe otherwise.
"sheeple" because "flock"; unwashed masses - the majority is not as perceptive or ponderous, just a simple fact (and i regret my brazen tone, i'm not eloquent)(nor do i intend to imply i'm above them; i just see things that others don't and it very well may be a flaw with me but i doubt it xD) - you've too much faith in people (or i've too little, but, people are people, and it is what it is, hence).
there is nothing for it, all one can do is speak out on and try to resist being a part of their plan, but if you live in any society, the latter isn't happening, and the former is severely discouraged, often to the point of making it pointless.
one can KNOW nothing beyond one's self, and even those things are often a result of the environment. everything is hinged on inherently flawed perception - exceptions to everything (even those things we take for granted like gravity); cannot even really know one's self - must go to doctors and whatnot. one just has to assume one way or th'other: free will or no? i acknowledge though: what if the entire idea of the conspiracy is just a conspiracy in itself? there would have to be a reason for it though, it is far too prevalent to just be "a goof" or something; the simple answer is "for to divide people and sell more shit." this would render the supposed conspiracy spouting conspiracies an actual conspiracy because there would be people to profit from that discord, so either way, there is no denying that there is some sort of shadowy force trying to fuck everyone over, thus, even if we're unwitting pawns, just the very act of discussing it (whether part of our programming or not) does work against them, in some convoluted (though wholly ineffective) way.
Comment has been collapsed.
ِAs I said, I agree to disagree on the conflict thingy because as I expected you're defending it in a personal way that would make the whole discussion crash into a wall and become as non-objective as it could be, so although I read what you wrote, I'll still say: to each their own way of dealing with "obstacles"
Discussing conspiracies might be working against somebody in some way but in the end it's just talking and would after a while become a big waste of time.
Comment has been collapsed.
um, it was only after your insistence that i carried on; is nothing personal in this, only, what i thought, discussion, which (in this case) comes from opinions (at least i thought, considering such subjective and murky matters); beg pardon that i didn't get the hint, though - was nothing else to say to what you said
Comment has been collapsed.
"is nothing personal"
"discussion... from opinions..."
...
i mean insofar as making it a sort of "battle," - i cite opinions because, as we both agree the whole story is impossible to know, those are necessary for to fill in gaps; by "not personal," i mean with no feelings attached, just, er, "basic facts as figured by one's self." which is just more bullshit, alongside my saying "you win," earlier, nullifying my saying "not a battle."
...
mhm
Comment has been collapsed.
Nah, I wasn't trying to dismiss the whole discussion but I just felt that you're trying to push instead of just sharing it your personal opinion regarding the appropriate way of dealing with obstacles even though it wasn't the main topic that we are talking about and that I said " I agree to disagree on that" yet you kept going talking about that specific topic, but that happened in the previous discussion though, we some how find away to drift far away from the original topic.
There's also probably a sense of competition in this for some odd reason which I don't like, because discussions don't need to always end with one side winning over the other as both of the sides can benefit from it making a discussion more of a constructive thing to do than a competitive and usually destructive activity.
Comment has been collapsed.
perceived tone has a lot to do with it i think.
which is funny as you too thought i meant something other'n what i did ("that you're trying to push instead of just sharing..."). as i say, i didn't know what else to say in response and tried best to address every bit of what you said, though, yeah, i rambled on the wrong thing i guess.
pls get us back on track (i've demonstrated i'm not one to trust with such things, despite the fact i've no ill-will xD)?
Comment has been collapsed.
Last thing was you saying that talking about conspiracies is good because it counts as working against the people making them and then I disagreed with that, mainly because nobody is probably reading this except for a couple of people who think we are crazy tin foil hat people having a discussion on a giveaway for fun.
You said "the majority is not as perceptive or ponderous" which is actually not necessarily a bad thing because spending too much time in your head is as bad, as it prevents you from enjoying life first hand like you're living in third person view instead of first person which is quite different when it comes to life.
You also said a bunch of things but I couldn't get a point out of them to respond to, like the going to doctors thingy and such, perhaps some explanation?
Comment has been collapsed.
i hold the weird belief in some sort of akashic records insofar as thinking that every thought and act is recorded somehow somewhere, therefore, though bullshitting in a secluded post, it is not insignificant.
indeed, to mull such unknowable things consistently will only be detrimental - the joke of the philosopher that died because he couldn't find a reason to do anything other'n ask "Why?" all i say is that to live so ignorantly, though indeed more fun and rewarding in a material sense, is something to be cautious of; balance must needs be found, as in all things.
in mentioning doctors, i was making the point that because our perception is inherently flawed and subjective, one cannot technically know anything beyond their own self, as their self is the only thing consistently with them - i say even that isn't entirely correct, since one must rely on doctors to examine them. to be able to live, one must assume quite a lot.
i say the widespread use of imagery such as the all-seeing eye atop the pyramid - though usually played off as ribaldry at the idea of conspiracies and/or admitted to be a publicity stunt just to garner more attention - whether those invoking such imagery are aware or not - is indicative of something much more significant and dire; practical application of Doublethink: expose a group to something so often and so contradictory (i.e. monsters in movies prior to the new millennium were always ugly and legitimately scary; vampires now are just about always romanticized - Satan is attractive) that it becomes mundane and any critical examination of it is greatly opposed by those ignorant masses because, hey man, we're just trying to live, stop harshing our mellow.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, it's nice if it's recorded but as far as I know nobody can "decode it" so that's pretty much useless.
But what if a doctor diagnosed himself? I'm still not sure I got what you mean you could also be talking about the infinite amount of info around that is impossible to learn/study/understand in one's life so instead you'd fill gaps of those info with assumptions?
I think that's just the media trying to look for new content, vampires were hardly ever in a love story before Twilight and even if a lot of people now say they hate the movie but there's no denying that it had a huge impact on the masses because it was something new and not usual to see in a movie, not to mention that it would be a better twist and deliver a nice shock to the average viewer if the killer/monster/vampire/etc was a beautiful person who takes cares of their self because ever since movies, motion picture and stories were around, bad people used to always be never seen before abominations that would send shivers down your spine and such.
So, yeah, this is kinda similar to how they made the masses kill the "Elfdalian, the Ancient Viking Forest Language of Sweden" and then later on when the Swedish language became popular they started reviving it.
It's a way of creating never ending loops using the same old material, it has different forms in different fields of life, humans trying to imitate natural loops and failing over and over again.
Comment has been collapsed.
there are those who at least claim to be able to read them, like Edgar Cayce. of course the entire concept may just be another facet of that sort of New Age conspiracy, but who (can) know(s)? heh and since we continue talking, whether useless or not, it's doing something for at least you (of course me too), so either way, is still not useless.
there are exceptions to everything; autodidacts are all-but self-sufficient.
"you could also be talking about the infinite amount of info around that is impossible to learn/study/understand in one's life so instead you'd fill gaps of those info with assumptions?" what? i guess so - i explained as best i could what i meant in saying one cannot know much of anything; you can make assertions that correlate to natural laws - "universal truths" - but there will always be exceptions. i argue that to be able to live one does have to assume
a lotpretty much everything, both in believing such "truths" and otherwise - otherwise, become that philosopher, crippled by inability to reckon anything, unable to do anything because "What if..."it is an argument based in semantics and technicalities, going so far as to say even those things that are agreed to be constant, that are "possible" to "know" by consistent proofs - still, due to inherently flawed and subjective perception, i say nay.
nah, actually the entirety of the vampire lore is and always has been sexually charged to some extent - there is nothing new under the sun. such contradictions as gorgeous monsters - though, of course, not unheard of before the year 2000 - have become much more prevalent today so as to indicate the fact that we've entered "The Fifth Age," the time in which the shit is meant to hit the fan.
whether popular or no, such responses to the public like going back on (")allowing(") that language to fluorish, in my opinion, are manufactured - indeed, is it not likely that they would have spurred such a resurgence on their own? this, further Doublethink.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm just going along with this discussion to see where it will end if it actually did at some point.
Yeah, so I did get what you were saying.
Nosferatu was a sexual symbol?
You have a lot of conclusions based on religious stuff and I really think you're over thinking things.
Rich people want to keep making money, and if they had to use/over use anything and twist stuff to make them a money making product, they'd not a hesitate a minute, not to mention the fact that humans get bored easily so you can't keep throwing at them the same concepts and ideas you used to throw at them 50 years ago or something. So, this whole "age" thingy because stuff are changing is kinda too much "tin foil hat-ish" for me.
A resurgence of sexual language/acts?
Comment has been collapsed.
i wonder if we'll break the page eventually, provided there's still some shit to say by then.
ok.
weren't the majority of his victims female? you can't tell me the act of biting a neck isn't at least somewhat titillating.
of course am over-thinking things but it lines up - it is pretty much unavoidable that religion enters into it, if one spends enough time thinking of such things; i mentioned "New Jerusalem" in my third comment in this conversation warning even: "do you know what you're asking for, considering the subject matter?"
people are people, [further religious and crazier stuff]
whatever you say.
Comment has been collapsed.
There's always plenty of shit to say.
Nah, in that movie he had two victims one dude and his wife, and maybe the act of biting a neck is somewhat sexual but the movie is supposed to be a horror movie not a romantic/sexual one, mainly because he brought the black death with a couple hundreds of rats with him to the town and there were a couple of supposedly scary scenes so no I didn't get a strong sexual vibe out of the movie.
When religion enters into discussions, it usually ends badly, not to mention that conspiracies/conspiracy people and religion are best buddies so yeah.
I was actually asking that not mocking what you said or something.
Comment has been collapsed.
just because it's a horror movie doesn't mean it can't have those sexual over(/under)tones - sex isn't always romantic, because people are people; perverse animals. indeed, the implication in "A resurgence of sexual language/acts?" was that there was a lull in sexual proclivity at one point. time is cyclical anyway, and i think it's fair to say we're close to The Fall of Rome again, in the midst of orgies and all manner of secular indulgences.
didn't the legend of vampire start with The Impaler? idk, that's probably some bullshit that a movie i saw claimed and i just took it as fact i'm sure the idea behind that was strictly one of horror and not sexuality; sex sells though, and the idea of vampires is lucrative on its own - quite right in saying those who want the money want all of the money and will stop at nothing to improve their ability to make it.
again, that is why i warned, because i know that such ideas as involving religion are controversial. mind, i claim that i'm a Christian because that's how i was raised and i do believe that Christ was God's Son, but i am a bad Christian in that i sin knowingly and don't keep His tenets - there is no charged sentiment when i discuss it (and anyways, being a bad one, whatever i have to say on the subject is worth nothing), i just speak bluntly and without tact. yep, despite the anachronism, such luddites as would believe in God in this day and age have to constantly have such foil permanently affixed to their heads, regardless of knowledge of conspiracy, no? (that's not a jab at you, is a joke in general)
Comment has been collapsed.
I wasn't claiming that sex = romance, I was saying that the movie wasn't sex-related nor romantic, maybe different interpretations of the movie would catch on a bit of sexual undertones.
Well, even if there was a "lull' in sexual proclivity in public, I'm sure in private there was a lot of that going on because religious people used to have the world's balls in a little jar and everything that is remotely sexual was forbidden so when the world became just a bit less religiously controlled, an explosion happened after all those years of deeply kept desire, which isn't healthy either and all the rich people are also taking advantage of this through offering endless sexual services to squeeze every buck out of that explosion/wave, hopefully this would end with the masses becoming more sexually aware and sexually free instead of being either extremely sexually repressed individuals or individuals who are raging with sexual desire in a destructive way for themselves and anybody who's around. The first type usually becomes the second one later on in life. as generations are yet to come but it's quite unlikely as there will probably be a severe religious anti-wave that will kick the world back into a dark pit for a couple of centuries of religious control, and then of course, repeat endlessly.
Don't how it all started but I was just giving an example of a non-sexual motion picture involving vampires that aren't good looking.
I don't have a problem with your religious beliefs, but I won't accept discussing/bringing religious stuff into the discussion because of the reason mentioned earlier.
You got me wrong on that one, probably because of how I phrased it but I meant the people who make conspiracies by "conspiracy people" so what I actually meant was that religion whether or not that was the purpose of it in the first place is a quite common way of controlling masses and achieving certain goals of a much smaller group.
And Actually religious people are quite the opposite of a tin foil hat person unless it was the Illuminati they are fighting, because that's the only thing that interests and scares religious people these days.
Comment has been collapsed.
my religious beliefs behind spoilers, beware
pardon but i think is relevant, i tried to make it so that you could skip the spoilers and still get the gist
fuck religion because, as with all things that Man touches, it is a corrupt system; only subjugates people and encourages atrocities wrought in its name, benefiting those in power - mind the difference between belief (the original revelation from which religion sprouts) and religion (the system implemented / maintained by Man governing it).
those religious officials what condemn certain acts often indulge themselves in those acts, if not worse ones; Satan walks the earth - it is his (for the time being). good will only prevail when Christ returns; say this to say, rest assured that it is highly unlikely there will be any resurgence of religion (excepting, probably, an attempt at an all-encompassing one, as part of the NWO)(i.e. E.T. seeded all life on earth, they are our creators, worship them)(if so, it will be nothing like the strictness with which the old ones ruled), the world's balls will not return to the jar. this is not to say that there is no good in Man because we are of divine origin; see "original sin," only that the bad far outweighs it.
unbridled sexuality is openly sold to children these days ("the world became just a bit less religiously controlled," - i disagree heh). i don't necessarily agree that there was just a sudden explosion of worldliness; how you seem to be suggesting what i quoted, it makes me think of medieval times, when religion truly did rule. progressive-ism is often mistaken for tolerance.
the difference being that tolerance is the ability to accept differences, whereas (")progression(") (i wrote it as i did the first time to correlate to the word that is often used) is just a different crusade in the name of a different benefactor.
it is not, as you seem to imply, just an all-out release of pent-up energy that we as a species have stored over the years - it is, as you said, just rich fucks growing less shameless in peddling (")wares(") that "we all want."
i don't disagree that tolerance is absolutely necessary and... i guess perhaps the purported backlash to the mass nullification of "the old ways" (i.e. religion) could maybe eventually even the scales in such a way as to let the two opposing sides grow to respect their differences, but, of course, there will always be those that are "holier than thou" (just as there will always be hypocrites) and there will always be those that are "smarter than thee" (just as there will always be the intolerant) - meaning i don't believe it but one can dream (and it's a good dream).
i wouldn't disbelieve if more deaths and horrors have been self-inflicted (as a species) in the name of deities than for anything else; "the death of
God[religion]" is often celebrated and claimed because in the event of, freedom and bliss would be had by all - naivete, arrogance, ignorance. utopia is impossible, strife is our lot in life (aye, it is all a test). logically, the world would be better off without it - to repeat part of what was spoiled: strife is our lot in life - it is human nature to fight, deity or no.at least i use "Illuminati" as a word to refer to "The Beast System" (the "shadow government") as a whole - the actual Illuminati from Bavaria are probably defunct at this point.
Comment has been collapsed.
I surely hope that religion will never be as a strong as it was back in time, it should lose its affect on people and people should know what they were following all these years and only then maybe a religious correctional wave will emerge fixing religions? don't know, I don't see it, but yeah why not.
I meant all the time period since religions were a huge thing till this day, because as you know, change takes A LOT of time and even now as you said, we're hardly in a less religiously controlled place but at least it's slightly better than before? maybe.
What if the rich people were stimulating such waves in religious control to maximize their economic benefit? like "you think religion is too tight? here, look at this religion-free world/tolerant-religion, world look at all this sinners around" meanwhile they'll be taking the opportunity to get all the money out of that wave and then when people are convinced that religion is the only thing that will keep us humans from acting like animals, they'll bring it back with popular demand and continue to control us through it while still making as much money as possible, also repeat endlessly.
It's a primitive way of surviving but we can live following a sustainable life style without having to commit mass genocides, murders and robberies just to "survive another month", of course not in any current political/economical system, but I believe that that could be achieved, only problem is that there are too much people who are only in it for themselves.
Nobody even knows what Illuminati stands for anymore, they just make super secret documentaries about it and claim that it will ruin the good and stable system that religions have sustained for years.
Comment has been collapsed.
indeed, those devout followers of religion are often just sheeple following a different shepherd that is hiding behind the superficial image of The Good One while actually driving the herd according to the whims of the people at the top (which is to say, evil). there will be no religious rectification because people are people; what comes to mind is the South Park episode in which Catholicism was shown to be driven by that giant Spider Queen thing.
heh no, i said: ""the world became just a bit less religiously controlled," - i disagree heh" which was to say, at least from what i see (keeping in mind my bias) that even admission of being (")religious(") nowadays is almost certain cause to be made a pariah. HOWEVER with selfies being so popular, i would argue that there is actually just as much of a religious prevalence in how the world is run as there was back then, just a different religion: basically, "the religion of Man, for Man, by Man," deifying our-selves (Andrew Ryan, perhaps?).
your paragraph that began: "What if the rich people were stimulating such waves in religious control to maximize their economic benefit?"
agreement.
i'm sorry for repeating but it perfectly conveys: people are people. they will never not be. the survival of the fittest is truth in Nature; we are natural (currently, though not for long considering the way in which the world seems to want to progress); even when aggression is uncalled for, there will always be those brutes that will dominate the innocent needlessly simply because they can. there is no hope for Man without divine intervention.
the bulk of conspiracy theories are always based in conjecture; i assume from your italics that it was sarcastic - again, i emphasize that the basis for religions (i.e. belief) are usually good (with obvious exceptions), but it's distorted by those who oversee it. thus, i agree that hypocrites lamenting the loss of their power and urging their congregation to act (violently, at least in an implied way) against the
competitionenemy is laughable, but words are pretty flexible, which is to say, though the "correctness" of using the word "Illuminati" is debatable, it often gets the point across (though sometimes that point is lost, depending on the individual's connotation). in passing, if you were to hear about NWO, it might sound appealing - how could there be a problem if the world was totally united? upon further reflection, trouble looms almost immediately.Comment has been collapsed.
I disagree that religious people are outcasts now, there might be a good percentage of non-religious people nowadays, much more than before, but I still think that the majority are religious, maybe even too religious.
No need for survival of the fittest as we have managed to come up with much more advanced ways of fortune/food distribution to supply huge settlements of humans, people would argue, then why are there crimes and so much poor people around? because nothing is being evenly distributed, all the systems that seem to be fair turn out to be infested with loopholes and secret ways to siphon money out by whoever was in charge.
So, no, survival of the fittest isn't "how it's supposed to be" it's what we've been taught to accept and carry on.
Keep in mind that I said "the system that the religions have sustained" and I've hardly ever heard somebody talking good about a system based on religion except for some fanatics of course.
There would loads of problems as the unity that is suggested, aims to brainwash and then unite instead of just uniting, other than the unity stuff, other stuff said about NWO are already happening, yet you see people scared that the NWO is yet to come..
Comment has been collapsed.
i apologize that i reference USA so much; as an ignorant resident of that country, it is all i know (not to imply all such people are inherently ignorant... but not to contest the stereotype either)(and in qualifying thusly, admit to my stupidity and bare my neck for you to do as you wish (i.e. cut it))
will have to agree to disagree then; of course i, as a believer, would lean more towards thinking that my beliefs are resented by the majority - you as a nonbeliever still feel/fear the grip of the old ways. however, there is no denying that in the quest for "progression," the old ways are slowly and most assuredly surely being wiped away.
that "under God" is still on money and in the pledge of allegiance in the USA baffles me - which would lend some credence to what you say, i guess, though the acts of the government actively defy that God (meaning that such phrases are meaningless in the context), and th'only reason such phrases haven't been removed is because they fear the people (for now); it could also be argued that those in power are actually referencing a different god, i.e. the opposite of the Christian One - their god (the Great Architect of the Masons being Devil, according to the conspiracy theory at least).
though the old way of thinking is still present and there is still some sort of backlash whenever something controversial hits the news (i.e. cloning)(as there should be and hopefully will always be)(if my saying so makes me a fanatic, ok), at least in an average social interaction, i've found that admittance to belief in a religion (i use the word because it's recognized what i mean, but i still maintain that difference between "belief" and "religion" per se (perhaps should clarify "religious establishment" when making that distinction though)) - if it's not a New Age one or one without a deity like Buddhism - it garners at least laughter, usually scorn (and i say that as a Texan).
that's what i said - there is no need for survival of the fittest amongst people but that doesn't matter - people as a whole will continue to abide by it because they are people, plain and simple; again, it seems you've too much faith in humanity; will have to agree to disagree, again.
exactly, utopia is not possible, because...? yeah, won't repeat it again.
survival of the fittest is how it's supposed to be because it's how "the (natural) world" works - there is no compassion between the lion and its prey; there is often no remorse in people, whether they make that comparison or not - which is to say i don't agree with it at all but i insist it's not possible that people will think otherwise without brainwashing the entire species into thinking that utopia is possible (i.e. that is what Communism promised and i take it from what you said that you acknowledge that it was bullshit).
when i said that they fear the people for now - in the media and popular culture, so much demonic and evil stuff is sold to us (i.e. sex to children) so as to slowly erode faith and whatnot, in the hope that eventually enough people will have enough disdain for the old ways, so that the majority will be receptive to NWO - therefore, i guess i was wrong in saying religious people are pariah as a whole, but maintain that in intimate instances, to admit to a belief isn't smart (if you wish to keep those friends).
"the system that the religions have sustained" - what? this makes me think that you're saying the point of, say, Christianity is to further bolster, say, the USA's government; though the USA can be argued to have been at least established initially by Christians, the point of it was to make a country in which the freedom of choice could be had by all.
yeah, those in positions of power in religion / government are prone to abuse their power, but if all religion is brainwashing to you, then i just feel sad for you.
NWO is slowly being implemented - it hasn't been fully realized / erected yet, and it won't be until they decide that it's time; when martial law is declared on all, that will be the sign that it's too late; there is nothing good in NWO, despite appearance.
"There would loads of problems as the unity that is suggested, aims to brainwash and then unite instead of just uniting" - it is not possible to unite in such a way; mind, unity by brainwashing isn't preferable over no unity, but the most common and most effective way to unite a people is against a(n often fabricated) foe; this, my acknowledging that it's possible that, in believing in the conspiracies, i myself might be a victim to a form of Doublethink, but it all fits together too well
i guess in saying what you said that religion is the brainwashing attempt at unity; i say the subliminal messages and prevalent conspiracy-related iconography throughout all of media is that sort of brainwashing attempt at unity; exactly, "Christians have run the world for far too long and always with nothing to show for it but chaos - they're the enemy of all life," (though actual Christians - i.e. literal followers of Christ and not those who are just members of the institution - want nothing but love)(though, of course, Christ didn't come to bring peace to the earth)
Comment has been collapsed.
I'll probably be replying slower than before
It's awful when you say there's no compassion between a lion and a prey when talking about humans, the only thing stopping us from achieving a similar society to the one that I have in mind is that such society would mean less money for people in charge and that's just out of the question in this world.
All political theories are shitty when applied by humans.
I'm talking about the whole legal system, political attitudes/actions and the social construct of a country to be based on the teachings of a single religion, which has proved to be inefficient.
I thought we already talked about my opinion about religion? with the brainwash thingy you probably mixed what I said about religion with what I said about NWO.
What's that last quote has to do with anything?
I haven't even said something close to that in meaning about any religion, let alone Christianity and I've already told you that I won't even attempt to discuss religions.
But it seems that the amount of religious stuff that you're pitching in your comments are increasing so I might just keep from commenting to prevent stuff from going wrong especially that we've already discussed a bunch of important points and now for some reason we're dealing with the minor less important and more problematic points that the internet wouldn't be the best place to discuss.
Comment has been collapsed.
yaya same
is there compassion between a lion and its prey? or are you saying that just for me to apply that to humans is awful? you're chastising me for saying what i say (hopefully just in how i say it) but then go on to say it yourself, pinpointing exactly why i say it - P.A.P. (say it so much, will just abbreviate now); those in power would never give up their positions even if it'd be for the betterment of the entire world because there would be no gain in it for them as individuals.
so, though utopia is of course the dream for everyone, it is simply impossible (without going to extremes and, say, building our own race of neo-humans that have none of the undesirable traits Man exhibits naturally, i.e. that predatory sense of "Every Man for Himself," which is prevalent enough ((")imo(")) that one either has to adopt that way of thinking or be prepared to be victimized throughout their life (though, of course, even if aggressive, life will surely smack them down, as is the way)(and, probably, that knowledge is the cause of others' explicit aggression in teh first place)) - i'm not understanding what you're taking issue with.
All political theories are shitty when applied to humans because humans can't help but fucking up whatever they are involved with - not even always due to malice, just one of those facts of life; again, not to say that there is no good in Man, there's just more bad - can't really say sorry for saying so, but i regret that it is true.
heh it's funny the way you said that it's due to the few elites that we can't have nice things as a species because the implication is "if those few
peoplemonsters were gone, we could live in such (i don't say so to make fun) a fairy-tale world."perhaps, but in ridding ourselves of those obstacles (heh), the ones who did the deed of removal (cough) would probably catch the same sickness what drove the original tyrants - even if not, it would surely only be a matter of time before baser instincts returned to the surface - and yeah; cycles.
i agree; there should be a clear distinction between church and state - regardless of my beliefs, and despite my criticisms of the system, to have a government and religion co-mingle is only ever bad. so long as the government doesn't try to impose something onto the individual that goes against their beliefs, and as long as the government doesn't look to the religion to address its own issues - should be good. these yokels in the southern US that try to martyr themselves in refusing to provide a service to a specific people just because they disagree with their lifestyle choices - those would-be martyrs are wrong to do so; to be sure, proud of them for standing for their beliefs i guess but it's not for them to judge and imo they're wrong; whatever justification they could conjure for their actions is almost guaranteed to be labeling themselves hypocrites. in such an example, it is not necessarily that the government mandates a believer to serve people with whom they disagree with - it is just necessitating that they don't exclude, if that hair can bear to be split...?
all that to say: absolutely, a government should be built on ideals based in logic, not faith (though then it gets tricky when there are lessons taught in a religion that also make practical sense - where to draw line in saying a system is based on religion? could one be inspired by?).
explain what i got mixed up please?
"last quote" being last i quoted from you or last thing in quotes? i promise (and i tried to make it clear in the disclaimer xD) that i'm not trying to push anything onto you - everything i said, i said because i felt it was genuinely spurred and it was all i knew to say in response - it is not that i'm actively choosing to shoe-horn religious matters into the conversation, just that, in trying to respond, that's simply where it went (/ "i took it," but i say i didn't, like, plan to take it that way, if that makes sense). consequently, heh yeah it might be time to stop; indeed, exhausted a good amount of gibberish and have gotten lost in tangents at this point... :/
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, stopping now is good, I'm glad that we got some points discussed that we had different opinions about but managed to have a discussion that is healthier than usual, and even if we didn't agree on a certain matter, it's still good that we've discussed at least 2 different perspectives regarding the matter.
One thing is nice, that we agree on a lot of the crucial basics, which is good, it was nice talking with you!
Comment has been collapsed.
thanks you a lot buddy :D
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks Tynon!
Comment has been collapsed.
very nice
Comment has been collapsed.
Thx very much!! ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
This comment was deleted 3 years ago.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks for all the Giveaways!
Comment has been collapsed.