It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dangerous Societies...

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by sntx
The material on that website is some of the scariest stuff I have ever read. Truth really is stranger than fiction, especially when one tries to make fiction into truth.

.


Indeed. As far as what pertains to the original question, here's a snip for those of you who may have passed over the link...


from www.xenu.net...

Life in the Sea Org was already fairly gruelling, but the Rehabilitation Project Force went several steps further. Gerry Armstrong, who spent over two years on the RPF, has given this description:


It was essentially a prison to which crew who were considered nonproducers, security risks, or just wanted to leave the Sea Org, were assigned. Hubbard's RPF policies established the conditions.
RPF members were segregated and not allowed to communicate to anyone else. They had their own spaces and were not allowed in normal crew areas of the ship. They ate after normal crew had eaten, and only whatever was left over from the crew meal. Their berthing was the worst on board, in a roach-infested, filthy and unventilated cargo hold. They wore black boilersuits, even in the hottest weather. They were required to run everywhere. Discipline was harsh and bizarre, with running laps of the ship assigned for the slightest infraction like failing to address a senior with "Sir." Work was hard and the schedule rigid with seven hours sleep time from lights out to lights on, short meal breaks, no liberties and no free time...
When one young woman ordered into the RPF took the assignment too lightly, Hubbard created the RPF's RPF and assigned her to it, an even more degrading experience, cut off even from the RPF, kept under guard, forced to clean the ship's bilges, and allowed even less sleep.



With friends like that, who needs enemies?

I don't know how much of that is really true, but I'll be damned if I'm joining to find out. Any Scientologists here? Care to comment? I'd LOVE to hear it.


[edit on 2/4/05 by The Axeman]




posted on Feb, 4 2005 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flange Gasket
I have known a few excommunicated JW's and they have been very screwed up by the experience, even their families will not have anything to do with them...


I am with you Intrepid. I am a dis'd JW.
I do look at my time at Kingdom Hall as being a valuable experience though. I wouldn't change anything about it, not the time I invested, not the things that I learned, not the part where I got kicked out either.
I have to say though, I never saw anything secret or dangerous about the group. We are talking about the largest organized group of concientious objectors in the US. I (obviously) don't agree with everything they do, but I must say that they have got to be one of the most non-violent groups of people I have ever known.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 01:31 AM
link   


I don't know how much of that is really true, but I'll be damned if I'm joining to find out

that sounds consistent with the stories the friend we extracated told and what
I saw in LA.



posted on Feb, 5 2005 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Vesuvius 13
If you can present to me logical reasons as to not believing in the existance of the Illuminati i may or may not believe you, if your evidence or w/e makes enough sense i would take your side.

Oh I have no evidence as to the non-existance of the Illuminati, however I also have no evidence as to their existance. That makes me conclude that they do not exist, or at least that I cannot say that they exist. This is outside of the Bavarian Illuminati (the original illuminati from which the current illuminati myth springs) or the old Spanish Illuminati, of which I know very little about. Actually I should technically add the new spanish Illuminati, run by a guy who claims to be a high ranking Irregular freemason and to have received an Illuminati Rite from powerful secret NY Illuminati.



posted on Feb, 7 2005 @ 01:40 PM
link   
i have visited a scientology church after taking a dianetics test (didnt really know exactly what it was for). My experience in this recruitment scheme basically confirmed to me scientology is a very scary cult. The peoples eyes were wide, glazed, like robots, and the "information" videos were pretty scary.

I left, thinking that was lame, and after that they kept calling me. And pestering me. I told the lady i was going to california for vacation, so i wouldnt be around, and she said, oh, im going to california too, where u gonna be whats your number, well come out and see you.

After that, I blocked their number and refused to return calls. I first thought scientology was simply some widely accepted scam to sell books, from my own impressions, but their behavior after my visit made me think, scary obsessive cult.



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 03:17 AM
link   
Nygdan, have you considered what you would name YOUR attempt to take over the world by swearing people to secrecy one at a time?

I mean, would you want something catchy? Memorable?

To me, the principles of Occam's Razor, and the Hidden Hand of Capitalism, suggest that true power MUST remain hidden.

So obviously, you would refrain from naming your group, but you would however use many fronts, and many disinformation agents.



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by stalkingwolf



Scientology.

one thing i can tell
you is they use fear and intimidation alot but dont handle it very well when it is directed back at them


What did you do go in there like a growling wolf?



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by akilles
the principles of Occam's Razor, and the Hidden Hand of Capitalism, suggest that true power MUST remain hidden.

The 'invisible hand' in smith's capitalism merely means that by not having a coordinating centrally planned economy/group that everything will work out for the best anyway. I don't see how occam's razor, wherein, if everything else is equal, a simpler system should be accepted over a more complex one, applies.


So obviously, you would refrain from naming your group, but you would however use many fronts, and many disinformation agents.

The Illuminati of conspiracy fame are given the same organization and agenda as the bavarian illuminati ofweishaupt, the replacement of 'current' society with one that has much less religious influence and a radical revolt to overthrown the government, basicaly an 'anarchist-atheist leading to an aboslutist totalitarian dictatorship' movement, according to the anti-bavarian illuminati groups anyway.

So if they aren't the illuminati, and they aren't going for those goals, and have nothing to do with the membership, then they can't be refered to as the Illuminati, its simple a vague 'dark conspiracy'. Infact, anyone calling it the 'Illuminati" is, in effect, a disinformation agent for the 'dark conspiracy'. And of course, there is asbolutely nothing known about that dark conspiracy anyway, since its not the illuminati or anythign like it.



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Alright, Nygdan, I will elaborate, not that its going to matter.

The Hidden Hand of Capitalism is to ensure that the economy benefits society, correct?

I'm guessing you are unaware of how Canadian Prohibiton helped set up supply routes for when the American Prohibition was to take place, a few short years later? I'm guessing for you, that isn't possibly a conspiracy, but for me, Occam's Razor dictates that the same people who put Canada in prohibition knew it was scheduled for the US as well, and they would be in a position to make a killing.

Now sure, you are saying, it is entirely unsubstantiated that any political figures benefitted at all from prohibition. Well, look at the father of JFK, Joe Kennedy.

The Hidden Hand does not only pretend the biggest industries are NOT Sex, Drugs, and Guns, it pretends that a good capitalist would not aim to make money through these means.

So really, I was using the theories as a way of showing how people's thinking is altered by what we ARE supposed to believe about the system we live in.

Look at any drug billionaire, and see his close CIA ties.



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Dangerous Societies: Think Harvard's Skull & Bones has some powerful Players eg Presidents George Bush Junior and Senior, John Kerry, Edward Kennedy, the Late Cdn PM Trudeau...
And Even the Late US President Ronald Reagon became a Skull & Bones 33rd degree for a one day Free Mason's meeting. When Kerrie and GW Bush were asked by media to comment on their affiliation with S&Bs they both replied "...I can't talk about that...".
So the more I read the more I wonder if S&B might be part of the New World Order?
Along with some out of this World milky grey skinned beings.
Dallas



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dallas
Dangerous Societies: Think Harvard's Skull & Bones has some powerful Players eg Presidents George Bush Junior and Senior, John Kerry, Edward Kennedy, the Late Cdn PM Trudeau...
And Even the Late US President Ronald Reagon became a Skull & Bones 33rd degree for a one day Free Mason's meeting. When Kerrie and GW Bush were asked by media to comment on their affiliation with S&Bs they both replied "...I can't talk about that...".



How on Earth does that make the society in and of itself dangerous?

I think your info on Reagan is just a tad flawed as well...

Let me guess, Freemasons are Satanists too, right?



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dallas
Dangerous Societies: Think Harvard's Skull & Bones has some powerful Players eg Presidents George Bush Junior and Senior, John Kerry, Edward Kennedy, the Late Cdn PM Trudeau...
And Even the Late US President Ronald Reagon became a Skull & Bones 33rd degree for a one day Free Mason's meeting. When Kerrie and GW Bush were asked by media to comment on their affiliation with S&Bs they both replied "...I can't talk about that...".
So the more I read the more I wonder if S&B might be part of the New World Order?
Along with some out of this World milky grey skinned beings.
Dallas



Buddy, just cause former members of a fraternity turned out to be powerful DOES NOT make the group itself powerful. That's distorted logic, and just doesn't work out. Additionally, Bush never said he couldn't talk about S&B. He said "it's so secret i dont even know if they still exist", thereby claiming that he no longer has anything to do with the group since they are a college frat and he is no longer in college. Think about it.



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by akilles
have you considered what you would name YOUR attempt to take over the world by swearing people to secrecy one at a time?

I mean, would you want something catchy? Memorable?



I think I would name mine "Herb".

Think about it...there are already tons of posters around colleges "Free Herb"... There are references in music....peaches and Herb.....movies....Herbie goes bananas...the list goes on

Fear Herb!!!!

But seriously...the most dangerous society....The A.C.L.U. I honestly believe that they would defend a mass murder's rights to kill people just because the killer wants to achieve mass murderer status...Yeah I know that's a stretch but seriously look at what they've done to our society...People are so afraid of infringing on someone's rights that they can't even break wind without fear of retribution....



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Hey,
about the illuminati earlier in this thread, by logic, i can mean that believing in the existance of some scary society, based on all the stories of their existance and such, does seem logical to me. Even if i can't prove it, it can still be logical, logic doesn't mean proof, it means logic.
I wouldn't be suprised at all, if one day, in 2012 maybe or when ever, if some society that has been hiding in the shadows for century's finally comes out claiming power over all the populations, or w/e. When has man not sought to control the others.
Best wishes,
Dani



posted on Feb, 8 2005 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vesuvius 13
Hey,
about the illuminati earlier in this thread, by logic, i can mean that believing in the existance of some scary society, based on all the stories of their existance and such, does seem logical to me. Even if i can't prove it, it can still be logical, logic doesn't mean proof, it means logic.
I wouldn't be suprised at all, if one day, in 2012 maybe or when ever, if some society that has been hiding in the shadows for century's finally comes out claiming power over all the populations, or w/e. When has man not sought to control the others.
Best wishes,
Dani


Actually logic DOES require proof. Logic defined: the principles that guide reasoning within a given field or situation; If your statement contains no proof, how can we come to reason that what you are stating is indeed true? You cannot come to reason that solely on the basis that other people believe it. In other words, you need a GOOD REASON for believing it. Yours, my friend, was not a good reason.


Cug

posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by TgSoe
Isn't Scientology sort of an offshoot of the OTO? It seems like I remember reading that Crowley and Ron Hubbard were in the same potato sack at one time in thier lives.


Not really. John Whiteside Parsons (One of the founders of the JPL/member of Crowley's O.T.O) and L. Ron Hubbard were friends and attempted to make a "moonchild" (See Crowley's book of the same name). Hubbard basically swindled Parsons in the end.

A few Crowley quotes about the subject.

"Apparently Parsons or Hubbard or somebody is producing a Moonchild. I get fairly frantic when I contemplate the idiocy of these louts."

"Suspect Ron playing confidence trick -- John Parsons weak fool -- obvious victim prowling swindlers"

"It seems to me on the information of our brethren in California that Parsons has got an illumination in which he lost all his personal independence. From our brother's account he has given away both his girl and his money. Apparently it is the ordinary confidence trick."



posted on Feb, 9 2005 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by sebatwerk
Actually logic DOES require proof. Logic defined: the principles that guide reasoning within a given field or situation; If your statement contains no proof, how can we come to reason that what you are stating is indeed true? You cannot come to reason that solely on the basis that other people believe it. In other words, you need a GOOD REASON for believing it. Yours, my friend, was not a good reason.

THAT is a state of opinion, you stated it your self w/ your defination, principles, to my belief has never meant "proof" nor "evidence". Logic can and is different in definition for numerous people. For many, logic means that something just "makes sense", therfore it is logical to them.

And i am terribly sorry if my statements have been offending to you in some way, to the point that you wished to criticize me about it, over such small reason.

You've been rejecting my input in numerous threads lately...

best wishes,
Dani



posted on Feb, 10 2005 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vesuvius 13
THAT is a state of opinion, you stated it your self w/ your defination, principles, to my belief has never meant "proof" nor "evidence". Logic can and is different in definition for numerous people. For many, logic means that something just "makes sense", therfore it is logical to them.

And i am terribly sorry if my statements have been offending to you in some way, to the point that you wished to criticize me about it, over such small reason.

You've been rejecting my input in numerous threads lately...

best wishes,
Dani


You have not offended me, I'm really sorry if my replies were a little harsh. It's just, I'm used to some other kinds of people that post threads where they state their accusations and lies as being fact, don't back up what they say and use VERY twisted logic in coming to the conclusions that they do. You're other post kinda had similarities... anyways, please forgive me.


And as to your statement about logic meaning different things to different people, I have to disagree. If someone comes to a conclusion without any sort of proof or anything to back it up, how can you say that they came to that conclusiuon logically? In that sense, I do believe that facts and proof play a HUGE roll in logic. Now if you're talking about computer logic, well that a whole different conversation...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join