Someone is playing God

reply to post by randyvs


Nice post randyvs,
What I find frustrating is the Hegelian dialectic and Pavlovian psychology of everything we are fed....information wise. "They" seem to keep you running in circles chasing after nuggets of truth and the more you dig and research the more you question everything to the point that many good truth seekers just give up.

BrianFlanders

BubbaJoe
I think our reality is what it has always been, the events like Aurora, Sandy Hook, and Columbine are dissected 1000 times over, and every "Expert" has his own opinion. The technology we have allows us to go back and re-examine every bit of audio and visual evidence. Someone is always going to have a different opinion, especially if they are wired to believe nothing of what the "Official" sources say is to be believed.

I don't think our reality has changed, I think the way it is reported and dissected has change. This is a result of a 24 hour news cycle, and a stage for anyone and everyone that thinks they can grab some attention by countering the official sources. I am not saying that the official sources are always truthful, but sometimes things happen in just the matter that they were reported. Not everything is a false flag or conspiracy.

Well, what's different right now is that there are people who have an agenda. There is a reason why incidents like Sandy Hook are being blown out of proportion (not that it isn't a big deal but in the grand scheme of things, it's not as big a deal as they're letting on). The agenda is more control. This is definitely a police state type of thing, disguised as a benign "public safety" policy.

I would not be surprised if most of these events are staged but even if they are real, they are being exploited to the hilt.

edit on 20-1-2014 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)

Over 100 years ago when the Maine exploded, someone had an agenda, and again with Pearl Harbor. The problem being now is that anyone and everyone has a stage to attract followers. Too many do not think for themselves and are easily led in whatever direction the leader wants to take them. Everyone having a stage is not necessarily a bad thing, but I believe it has led to the divisiveness we are currently seeing. It sometimes seems that critical thought and common sense have left the building, along with shades of gray on most issues.

BubbaJoe


Over 100 years ago when the Maine exploded, someone had an agenda, and again with Pearl Harbor.

Yeah. The problem is that I'm pretty sure they weren't trying to erase the Bill of Rights at the time. The agenda is not only different but they're much more determined on this particular agenda this time than they ever have been before.

BrianFlanders

BubbaJoe


Over 100 years ago when the Maine exploded, someone had an agenda, and again with Pearl Harbor.

Yeah. The problem is that I'm pretty sure they weren't trying to erase the Bill of Rights at the time. The agenda is not only different but they're much more determined on this particular agenda this time than they ever have been before.

The challenge to The Bill of Rights, and the subsequent amendments is that the are continually defined and redefined by our Supreme Court. While portions of the Bill of Rights are important to you, they may not be important to some one else. Civil Rights are for all, but there are many in this country willing to take them from various portions of our population. I am trying to word this so as not to bring superfluous arguments into the discussion. So i hope every can catch what I am trying to say.

reply to post by randyvs


I think that this originates from the CIA and the same core group that was practicing mind control with Monarch in the 50's and 60's, on ongoing.

Wikipedia: MK Ultra

MKUltra used numerous methodologies to manipulate people's mental states and alter brain functions, including the surreptitious administration of drugs (especially '___') and other chemicals, hypnosis, sensory deprivation, isolation, verbal and sexual abuse, as well as various forms of torture.[9]

The scope of Project MKUltra was broad, with research undertaken at 80 institutions, including 44 colleges and universities, as well as hospitals, prisons and pharmaceutical companies.[10] The CIA operated through these institutions using front organizations, although sometimes top officials at these institutions were aware of the CIA's involvement.[11]

So we have the origin - a group in the CIA interested in controlling reality through mind control. Trauma based programming, meanwhile, could have been taken onto a massive scale in American using the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers to set everyone into a state of P.T.S.D.

While in that state, people would be even more susceptible to subliminal messages fed to them through everything from advertisements, to music, to television, movies and especially news.

These days, even in America, people mostly get their information from biased sources - anything with a screen, like television or the internet, has a higher potential to be biased. The question is, who is putting in the bias?

There could be two reasons for bias - someone is biased naturally, or someone is not biased, but is purposely seeding bias in the media in order to use smoke and mirrors on reality. I think that evidence points to the second method, and if you read closely, that means that someone has to know what is really going on to make the accurate calculations needed.

Reality - making decisions based in reality would do two things.

1) Be based on cause-and-effect
2) IT would be in the best interest of the person making the decision to have as few incorrect world-views as possible, as they meddle with making healthy and informed decisions.

By infusing the populace with incorrect world-views and incorrect facts, this is how someone in charge can use media to confuse people into making decisions that are not in their best interest.

I'm not going to take sides on any particular conspiracy theory with this post, but think of it this way...

Take a mass-shooting for example, like as mentioned - Aurora, Sandy Hook, etc.

If any single one of you got up one day, and decided that you've had enough, or whatever the case may be, and decided to go shoot-up a public setting, or any random place... There would be people out there who would claim that YOUR actions were in-fact the Governments actions. They would say 'TPTB' are responsible for it and they're fulfilling another page in a never ending agenda. Now let's say by the end of your rampage your still alive, you admit to your actions, you know it was your decision, and so on... in a full blown conspiracy theorists mind (those that believe everything is a conspiracy), you're still just a pawn of the shadow Government.

In recent years especially, I can't even count how many times I've heard the term 'False-Flag'. Can you?

You see my point?

Again, I'm not talking about any one theory,
I'm speaking in generalities - But you know damn well it''s the truth.

UxoriousMagnus
reply to post by randyvs

 

Nice post randyvs,
What I find frustrating is the Hegelian dialectic and Pavlovian psychology of everything we are fed....information wise. "They" seem to keep you running in circles chasing after nuggets of truth and the more you dig and research the more you question everything to the point that many good truth seekers just give up.

You know - the internet just keeps on growing. I used to be able to navigate the netscape pretty well in order to find information that was relevant and put together the pieces -

But we are only experiencing the first generation of the internet, really - more generations will probably come on top of that and build on the information already present, making finding where information came from similar to an archaeological dig -

Two reasons I'm saying this - first of all, I think things are going to get super complicated to navigate, especially when it comes to sorting out what is real information or not, compared to peer-reviewed books.

Secondly - the origins of the information on the net. The origins for most of the information bias currently on the net probably occurred between 1900 and 2013 or so -

----------

I guess I have to ask some questions. How many of you on here talk to people in real life about issues in order to form opinions and think critically about them? That used to happen all the time. It was kind of a way to error-check, and also keep minds thinking critically.

IF you aren't talking in real life, are you going to the net for your critical thinking and discussions? And what are those discussions grounded with? Real-life experiences? Words from others? -> Grounded with what? Theories? Empirical evidence?

Really, either anecdotal or empirical evidence would work, but what of all the words that are grounded with neither?

BubbaJoe

BrianFlanders

BubbaJoe


Over 100 years ago when the Maine exploded, someone had an agenda, and again with Pearl Harbor.

Yeah. The problem is that I'm pretty sure they weren't trying to erase the Bill of Rights at the time. The agenda is not only different but they're much more determined on this particular agenda this time than they ever have been before.

The challenge to The Bill of Rights, and the subsequent amendments is that the are continually defined and redefined by our Supreme Court. While portions of the Bill of Rights are important to you, they may not be important to some one else. Civil Rights are for all, but there are many in this country willing to take them from various portions of our population. I am trying to word this so as not to bring superfluous arguments into the discussion. So i hope every can catch what I am trying to say.

What is important to me is to keep the spirit of freedom as alive and complete as humanly possible. We have way more than enough government and laws and regulations for any one country already. The whole idea with the Bill of Rights was just to put some sensible limits on the scope of government power. It was never intended to be an all-inclusive list of every right human beings have that should not be violated by government. But without it, they knew they had a government that would be essentially unlimited. Really, The Bill of Rights as it is today is more like an umbrella in a hurricane. There's not much protection there when you look at how bloated the government has gotten and compare that to the very modest limitations that are still in place. And most of them have been watered down. Not because they had to be but because of rot.

There has been very little actual refinement to the rights. The number and scope of our rights has not nearly kept pace with the size and scope of the government.

darkbake

UxoriousMagnus
reply to post by randyvs

 

Nice post randyvs,
What I find frustrating is the Hegelian dialectic and Pavlovian psychology of everything we are fed....information wise. "They" seem to keep you running in circles chasing after nuggets of truth and the more you dig and research the more you question everything to the point that many good truth seekers just give up.

You know - the internet just keeps on growing. I used to be able to navigate the netscape pretty well in order to find information that was relevant and put together the pieces -

But we are only experiencing the first generation of the internet, really - more generations will probably come on top of that and build on the information already present, making finding where information came from similar to an archaeological dig -

Two reasons I'm saying this - first of all, I think things are going to get super complicated to navigate, especially when it comes to sorting out what is real information or not, compared to peer-reviewed books.

Secondly - the origins of the information on the net. The origins for most of the information bias currently on the net probably occurred between 1900 and 2013 or so -

----------

I guess I have to ask some questions. How many of you on here talk to people in real life about issues in order to form opinions and think critically about them? That used to happen all the time. It was kind of a way to error-check, and also keep minds thinking critically.

IF you aren't talking in real life, are you going to the net for your critical thinking and discussions? And what are those discussions grounded with? Real-life experiences? Words from others? -> Grounded with what? Theories? Empirical evidence?

Really, either anecdotal or empirical evidence would work, but what of all the words that are grounded with neither?

edit on 20pmMon, 20 Jan 2014 19:44:10 -0600kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)

well said...I personally try to get info from all sorts of places....books mostly, then internet and speaking with people who have knowledge on whatever subject I may be researching. I just feel the pool of info out there is purposely mixed with polarizing view points of equally probable outcomes so as to confuse the masses....

reply to post by darkbake


Fantastic, you obviously would agree, the combined tools are available?
That someone of power could employ and impose their own desire or will
upon the world? An entertaining and ultimately advantages acheievment
once realised. Good post.

Really, either anecdotal or empirical evidence would work, but what of all the words that are grounded with neither?

I believe they would be classified as claims. A claim is a perceived
viable possibility available for consideration.

my reply...follow the $$$$ and who stands to gain the most

randyvs
reply to post by darkbake

 

Fantastic, you obviously would agree, the combined tools are available?
That someone of power could employ and impose their own desire or will
upon the world? An entertaining and ultimately advantages acheievment
once realised. Good post.

Really, either anecdotal or empirical evidence would work, but what of all the words that are grounded with neither?

I believe they would be classified as claims. A claim is a perceived
viable possibility available for consideration.

edit on 20-1-2014 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

Awesome Randy, perfect - yes, I do think the tools would be available, especially on the mainstream television and mainstream media - movies, advertisements, news, etc.

Alternative sources offer alternative perspectives from the mainstream - even the Internet itself - that's one reason why I think the mainstream corp. has been so against Net Neutrality.

and good call on the term "claim."

Interesting thread!

I do believe that there are those out there who play an active role in guiding and controlling society as a whole. I do not believe that any one organisation is involved in such activity though, but rather wealthy or prominent individuals who could actively have a role for a greater agenda. Think media CEO's and chiefs of intelligence agencies - people who have access to systems which could play a direct role in shaping society. People along those lines.

I think it is appropriate to mention the Bilderberg group as an example. We do not know what they (the wealthy and prominent) discuss, but we do know that they hold classified meetings away from the public eye. They could very well be discussing strategies for the future...we simply do not know.

I think a lot of the world's sectors are connected in one way or another. After all, you know there is a problem when 'journalists' begin to tow the government line in support of illegal practices against the very citizens they are meant to enlighten...

- Daas.

reply to post by iunlimited491

If any single one of you got up one day, and decided that you've had enough, or whatever the case may be, and decided to go shoot-up a public setting, or any random place.

Do you believe that this sort of random violence is as reasonably possible as
often as it seems to occur? Because I don't. Not without some kind
of massive influence/manipulation going on. I would go so far as to say our
gov't could mass produce white, early twenties, wild eyed, drug crazed,
combat ready shooters. That either suicide, don't remember or get murdered
or gunned down by police. And if it isn't any of those. Their shot in the neck
and gag ordered.I disagree with your post.

reply to post by iunlimited491


I totally see your point that you are speaking in huge generalities and at that point it is just an "what if" situation and nothing can be taken seriously. There is just as many people that will believe the first thing any authority says what happened, so you need people to ask the questions and cry wolf to get the attention. You might be wrong, o well better safe then sorry right? Cause the one time you are right you catch that big bad wolf.
That kid in the story gets a bad rap IMO

reply to post by randyvs


Just out of curiosity, how deep can you see?

List a single thing, which you are unsure of, that creates your stopping point. I only want to know the stopping point, not how you got there, or what the thing means, or any of the other specifics of the stopping point, or anything else. (Be as nonspecific as you can, basically.)

Right now as far as I am concerned there is only one bit of evidence I want the answer too and its the most incriminating of them all and least known about.

I want to know why frame 23 has been tampered with!

www.youtube.com...=1110

All the other questions can have an element of chance, maybe building 7 did just fall the way it did and become the first in history? I don't believe it but lets move on and look at "frame 23" at the 18.30 minute mark of the link above showing the plane hitting the pentagon. This is a clear indication of actual tampering of evidence to portray something that is not true. There is no excuse for this to be tampered with and an answer is needed. Al the others can be answered with lies and percentages of chance. BUT not this.

Also a quick questions. i have never seen anyone raise the idea that terrorists actually planted bombs in the towers set to go off that day. We all accuse the government (which is fine and I am inclined to lean that way) However if we suggest that it was terrorists that did it and can show evidence for it such as the crazy temperatures then an investigation on HOW they got in can be started which will eventually lead to admission and finding the people responsible. If we keep blaming the very people we want to incriminate who have the control then we will never entrap them.

SO in response to randyvs

I would agree with you, but the answer to stop the mud slinging is to STOP point fingers as we have no real idea of who is to blame for anything.

We must ask the questions that lead to more questions that eventually lead to the truth.

If I blame the government directly, then people say oh so you hate America or some crap like that.

The only sensible course of action is to not blame anyone and see where the trail ends.

For instance how did Frame 23 get changed? Who changed it, were they a spy, conspiring against the USA, at every point we must question who the people involved are and how they got there and the possibility that many people in key positions are imposters. The US and many other countries plant spies in key positions all over the world. There is no reason to think that the US is not riddled with spies and people willing to do bad things. Maybe they work in government positions, that does not mean that they are a result of a corrupt government.

Lets not place blame but simply ask the questions. This way we can all be on the same side and that is for a full and fair investigation into each issue that arises.

reply to post by randyvs


another conspiracy?

i'm in (just for some readings)

waiting for more updates /zzzzzzzz

peace.

reply to post by iunlimited491


I hear what you are saying. It is important to be able to analyze opposing views objectively.

However, when "Joe Schmo" (the regular guy who snaps) starts shooting people for no reason, it is usually very straight-forward and consistent, as far as motive, means, ect.

When the Joe Schmo just so happens to have a dad who is working on making free energy available, or is a feeble 120 lb kid who handles assault weapons like a pro, or when one of the victims is a judge set against certain interests, there are too many coincidences it starts to diverge from "lone crazy guy".

The inconsistencies just pile up. The reported 2nd shooter in Aurora. Lanza being a super soldier able to deftly handle and reload guns and i wont even speak on the parents of sandy hook. Friggin weird is all I can say.

Why is there never a shooting that is remotely believable (from what the news reports) or one without some strange connection to seemingly unrelated situations?

If it was truly random I would assume the perp/victims would be random too. Not at all how it plays out. The shooter/victims are always related to other things, such as the SIRUS disclosure movie (that was Aurora I believe).