posted on Jan, 25 2005 @ 03:40 PM
For a reason I will reveal later, I am compelled to add my $0.02 to this thread.
First, my credentials:
I was a scholar of Military Philosophy and Abnormal Psychology for several years during my programming at the University of Michigan, prior to
my switch to Pre-Medicine studies. I've observed and analyzed countless forms of "propaganda" from the very beginning of its existence. My former
career was an independent contractor for the United States Government. My job was classified, though I needed no clearance.
An important aspect of my response is that I am completely indifferent to the theories of the Illuminati. This benefit gives me an objective viewpoint
as I read the source of this thread.
Because any person who claims themself as an expert is merely a person obsessed with a single topic. A single thought. A single assumption. A single
theory. I consider myself to be an expert of nothing. Might I suggest that others should consider this statement?
It is time to quote.
Here is my personal favourite:
Some prestigious researchers have decided the subconscious doesn’t exist because they can’t find it--its mysterious
Could this statement be any more redundant? SOME researchers? Who? What? Where? When? If this person is trying to write an exposé, why is his
scientific data cited by Some Prestigious Researcher? Yes, the subconscious mind is Mysterious. Wowwwww...that's a deep thought.
Mysterious, meaning the anonymous researchers (and author, mind you) are already admitting they are experts in studying what they already are
admitting as an enigma. If it is an enigma, then the scientific data "supporting" the theory is (again) redundant. If the scientific data is
redundant, so is the study.
Other anomolies about this piece are the obscure generalizations. Yes, there are quite a few names mentioned, but there are also quite a few
generalizations. He is using the names of large groups in order to avoid researching the actual individuals, or to avoid research as a whole. The
Nazis. The British. The Americans. (the cowboys, the indians). This is used in order to get the common reader's attention. A true researcher does not
generalize by naming an entire country as the instigator of such a crime.
This technique is not being used to protect identities, as this is a supposed exposé? This technique is being used to protect the writer's lack of
enough evidence. Yes, there is evidence cited, but he magnifies the citations in order to magnify his theory.
They have not been able to completely cover-up the millions of wasted lives that their programming has ruined. For many years, they were able to
shut-up and quietly discard their programmed multiples by labelling them Paranoid Schizophrenics. But therapists are now correctly identifying these
people as programmed multiples and are not only diagnosing them better but giving them better treatment.
More cue words from his analysis: Shut-up? That is not an objective tangent. More random people .... "They" "multiples" "them" "therapists"
and "these people."
This piece is bogus, in my opinion. Yes, I have the strength to admit when I am opinionated. The author of this citation does not possess this
ability. My response displays only several questionable terms of the writer, and I could go on (I just might choose to do so), but I wish to conclude
now in order to expose something about the author of this response.
More of my credentials?
I am, and have been since birth, Schizo-Affective. My mind has been altered by environmental factors, but my doctors and case workers do nothing to
alter my life. They are there merely to study me. I am not a helpless victim. In fact, my intelligence level is higher than theirs, by their own
I am also truly blessed with the horror of constant paranoia.
(edited due to paranoia)