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.

 

Shards of the Illuminati

page: 33
77
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2008 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 


Excellent post!

It seems that throughout history governments and the Church have been able to maintain their grasp over the populace by trying to hide or destroy any knowledge that would render them powerless.

I was having a conversation yesterday with someone and we were talking about how the world is 'falling apart'. She is a very devout fundamentalist Christian but I was trying to be supportive and have a dialogue.

I should interject here that I am a Christian although my beliefs are far from fundamentalist --

Anyway, knowing that she would outrightly reject any reference or quote that I might have I simply stated in the broadest terms possible that some people attribute Jesus as saying, "This world is like a bridge. You may cross over it, but do not attempt to build a dwelling upon it."

This quote was from the Urantia book, which I find fascinating, but I didn't tell her that because it would immediately end the conversation.

Her response was that Jesus never said that, but He *did* say "Be in this world, but not of this world" or something. (Pretty much a quote from a Bible version).

I suppose the point of my story is that it's tragic that religion attempts to teach compassion and mercy while forcing it's followers to believe literally what they read in a text that has been created, destroyed, rewritten, edited, rejected, approved and slapped together over centuries.

Despite her pronouncements of absolute faith and righteousness she refused to believe that Jesus would say 'anything' that wasn't printed in the Bible. In English. Translated from Greek. Written decades after his death.

I think my beliefs could best be summed up in the words of the great 21st Century American scholar Ricky Bobby, as he ran from his crashed racing car in his undies and racing helmet:

"Help me Jesus! Help me Jewish God! Help me Allah! AAAAAHHH! Help me Tom Cruise! Tom Cruise, use your witchcraft on me to get the fire off me! "




posted on Dec, 31 2008 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by emsed1
I think my beliefs could best be summed up in the words of the great 21st Century American scholar Ricky Bobby, as he ran from his crashed racing car in his undies and racing helmet:

"Help me Jesus! Help me Jewish God! Help me Allah! AAAAAHHH! Help me Tom Cruise! Tom Cruise, use your witchcraft on me to get the fire off me! "


Haha...I like it. However, as a poor downtrodden working class Yorkshire woman my beliefs can be summed up thus, ain't nobody going to help me unless I help myself. Just roll in the mud boy, that'll put the fire out just fine!

Still plenty of magic there though, you only have to look to see it.



posted on Dec, 31 2008 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Cadbury
 


Intriguing find, I shall keep an eye on this fellow, and return to this question once I have enough information to analyze his character.

- Maban



posted on Dec, 31 2008 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by infinite
 


Originally posted by infinite
Something I've always wanted to know, how are members selected for the Illuminati? Are you "approached" or is there a recruitment process (I'm not trying to be factitious)


We do operate several overt businesses and organizations. Individuals in certain positions are monitored and occasionally subtly tested to see their methodology, mentality, and character in action. In time one of the company/organizational individuals will make direct contact with this person and see if they are indeed a candidate. If it appears that they are a sound choice, research into their background and history will be conducted before they are formally introduced to their regional Shard.

Bloodlines is a mentality that we have never upheld, nor every truly utilized. Some Illuminati had a certain fascination/fixation with this methodology/ideology such as what are now the Remnants. They thought that by inbreeding, it would somehow make them stronger; better. Conversely, we though that by expanding our numbers and teaching as many perceptive individuals as possible, proved a sure way to securing humanity's future; strength in numbers. Essentially, we have encouraged diversification, wheres the Remnants not only utilize, but explicitly employ inbreeding. Which as those of you out there with scientific backgrounds know, causes significant lack of genetic diversity, and as a result severe malformations, congenital organ weaknesses/failures, and serous health defects.

Because of centuries of inbreeding, it has caused many of their bloodlines to end, because of their inability to procreate. As a result they have invested much time and money into genetic research, and gene therapy technologies. As per their plan they hope to correct some of these genetic "malfunctions," as well as create genetically superior "super soldiers" which can take up their mantle to fight entities like us, and nonconforming regimes/organizations around the world. As Tenzin so eloquently stated, such programs are being covertly pursued by many governments, at numerous locations where they can quietly amass troops and build up resources. We believe their sudden and more recent aggressions, are indeed acts of desperation in the face of certain defeat. The waning bluffs of a cliff tumbling into the ocean below, while them atop it. A cliff which we have been slowly eroding for generations, a cliff about to give way if we keep steadfast in our duties.


A very interesting thread; it's obvious the OP is not hoax - too many coincidences.


Coincidences do exist though, do not underestimate the pattern recognition capabilities of the mind. But, thank you for your kind words.

- Maban

[edit on 31-12-2008 by Maban]



posted on Dec, 31 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maban
Intriguing find, I shall keep an eye on this fellow, and return to this question once I have enough information to analyze his character.


According to his profile he only appeared for approximately 6 days in October of this (nearly last) year. So you shouldn't have too much to read through.

At a quick glance, I'd say either hoax or 'remnant.'



posted on Dec, 31 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Cadbury
 


I must say he is "interesting," a discordian of sorts unequivocally. I have my doubts and reservations that he is a Remnant/ However, his reference to the Supreme World Council or (SWC as we call it) is remarkably disturbing. This is an entity that was created upon the merging of a Remnant with the Bilderberger group. Some of the information is indeed also "accurate" to some degree. Either he gleaned pieces of truths, or he is a member of the SWC, it is technically not regarded as a Remnant even though it possess Remnant origins. Interesting find!

- Maban



posted on Dec, 31 2008 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Cadbury
 


I call Shenanigans on the hidden_hand dude.

It is a weak attempt at a hoax, parroting all manner of metaphysical hoohah from the shelves of his local mega-bookstore.

Those who truly have knowledge to share don't tell you things like "I won't answer your question if it's offensive." etc.

Those type of statements suggest greed and egoism. One of the first steps on the path to knowledge and Light is the shedding of ego.

If someone offers to share knowledge and secrets with me I start to ignore them at the first hint of selfishness or condescension.

Those who possess mystical knowledge aren't necessarily 'hiding' it. Their job is to make sure the seeker is ready and able to understand the knowledge and use it properly.

Someone can print out a medical degree on parchment paper and call himself a doctor, but it's quite another thing to be able to heal someone.

So, much like I would be wary of someone offering a medical degree for $600 as long as you don't question where they got it, I would be wary of self-aggrandizing oracles.

[edit on 12/31/08 by emsed1]

[edit on 12/31/08 by emsed1]



posted on Dec, 31 2008 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by emsed1
 


Very true, and very valid points.
I woudl agree that there is a high probability that he is indeed a hoaxer; however, he does possess certain information which is unnerving that he had access to in the first place.

- Maban



posted on Jan, 1 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Maban
 


Let me start by saying that it's good to finally speak to the man himself. As of late I have half heartedly opened up to the possibilty that you may well be on the up and up. So I do retain scepticism in some ways but you can take what I say in earnest and it's not out of slight or contempt when I question or show difference in opinion. I like the idea of being able to disagree about things sometimes without being disagreeable. So here I go.

When I stated that there was "malevolent enlightened ones" I think that you may have gotten the wrong idea. Does not Illuminati mean enlightened ones?

Illuminati-persons possessing, or claiming to possess, superior enlightenment.

Whether or not they are Shards or Remnants they still flow from the the same river (if you will). They have merely branched into much different directions, Illuminati none the less. After all didn't Weishaupt say something along the lines of (paraphrase: it matters not what name we go by). Sort of like a rose by any other name is still a rose. What I meant was it wasn't the idea behind Illumination when I said that it was the name itself. After all that's all we have to identify these Remnants and Shards by, Illuminati.

As to the idea of "either" Remnants or Shards (which is what I was getting at) treating us as "witless chidren," I can understand the morals behind the idea. The point being made was that when ever one "governing force" (you may call it what you like) says that it must do something in our best interest than it does treat humanity as if we were children that aren't bright enough to discern what the right course of action is. That is what "adults" do for children when they do not know any better. We may not see eye to eye here but I hope I cleared up that point. (not an "assumption" more like my perception of the way it is)

For example, if you personaly knew that there was a winter storm comming and I somehow didn't, it may well be a noble thing for you to sneak into my home and lay out very warm clothes for me to wear the next day. It would also be my choice to wear them even if you didn't force me to. Yet, I and most would still find this very concerning if not criminal in a sense. Now I understand this is an off the wall example, yet it mirrors our disscusion in ways.

As to the monetary means that you and others may or may not have, who's assuming now? I never said that you lived a lavish life style...??? As for the Remnant types that you describe, I'd be likely to believe that about them as they seem to fit the personality of greedy and selfish. I also would apply coercion and control to the "Remnants" as the shoe fits. The only area that I lump the two together (Shards/Remnants) is the notion of a secretive entity that lurks in the shadows tinkering in the affairs of man and has neither been choosen or at the least condoned by a consensus of world opinion. This is where self-determination comes into play. I know you must remain cloaked in order to continue your work. (I'm not being facetious, I'm just standing on my principles)

I will say that you make a very valid point point in your likening the Remnants to, "wild animal" and all that follows in that statement. I can see what you are saying very clearly. I can't help but wonder if it may well have the DEAR IN THE HEADLIGHTS EFFECT though? In any event you may be correct in your view that it would be unpredictable and dangerous.

As far as my opinion that all parties should be revealed I have given that some thought and see now that it just couldn't be due to the fact that there would have to be many that are unknown to even the inner workings. As far as the Clark Kent analogy, touché.

In the area of self-determination we will just have to agree to disagree. I see the points that you make and the are valid to an extent; however mankind must eventually be allowed to sink or swim of it's own accord or all your work is a fools errand. For if you truely beleive us unfit to carry out the task now then we never will be ready. In turn the only true remedy is despotism by which ever name you fancy.

You said that you understood, "If you want peace, prepare for war" very well but I think we indeed got the message crossed due to the nature of your response.

What I meant (as well as the quote) was if you are so prepared for war (to the extent of optimal battle readyness) your enemy will be discouraged by the mere thought of battle. By this most times you never have to take the feild or incur casualties. You can make demands upon your enemy and negotiate from a position of strength. And in the event that you must make war or defend yourselves you will have the finest troops, tactics, equipment, and be ready for such a thing. Thereby reducing the probability of prolonged conflict and a better outcome for you.

Your knee jerk reaction makes me think that you see that as a "war mongers"statement. Being supremely prepaired for war is the reason why Spartans and like minded armies rarely fought. When they took to the feild most enemies didn't want to fight. To my mind a state of "combat readiness" is really for peace not war. So nobody wants to "screw their way to virginity." He who is prepared will survive, he who is not will be caught unawares and falter.



posted on Jan, 1 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maban
reply to post by lazy1981
 


Originally posted by lazy1981
REPLY TO: emsed1

I believe that no soul is beyond salvation. Is not the creator of all things merciful and just? I guess it would have to be as you say, "a choice" to turn from the "LIGHT" (as you say); however I can not follow the notion that the soul is destroyed. As you may well know, we are all made of energy. And one of the most basic principles in the universes is that energy can not be destroyed. It merely changes form. So sadly I must logically follow the notion that either the soul reconciles itself to the ALMIGHTY or it spends eternity in darkness (as energy cannot be destroyed and the light and dark are not compatible).


Some souls are indeed beyond salvation, this is what is wildly referred to as "the heart evil." Repenting, or asking of forgiveness is folly. Once carries their deeds for all eternity, both good and ill. The question which remains if their good deeds outweighed their bad. Thus,some souls are indifferent gray. Some sous are illuminated or light, and some are dark, or devoid/extinguished.

- Maban


Your views seem alot like the Egyptians (with the heavy heart)?

You travel to the Hall of Maat where Anubis weighs your heart. Then good old Thoth makes record of this. If your heart is heavier than that of a feather Ammut appears and feasts upon your immortal soul.

My veiws aren't near close to yours, I feel that if you turn from evil or what ever you choose to call a life of immorality and worse, you can be saved. It's only those that REFUSE SALVATION and choose not to see the light that are beyond redemption.

But this is probably another area where we will not see eye to eye and I'm not going to get too deep into my religious beliefs as it is always a hot topic and will only serve to derail a perfectly good thread.

[edit on 1-1-2009 by lazy1981]



posted on Jan, 1 2009 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Maban
 


Neo Prometheus' interview at www.nolanchart.com...
(posted originally by emsed1) - is fascinating.

Maban addressed large parts of that interview.

What caught my attention were these lines:

"EG - Whoa. One thing at a time. Why are dishonest illuminati called neocheaters?

NP - Because they cheat others via mysticism to garner unearned values. And that is the definition of neocheating. It's a newly identified form of cheating, discovered only a few decades ago, by an honest illuminati. A neocheater appears to be a benefactor or a friend, but drains or harms or kills others.

EG - What is mysticism?

NP - Any promotion or acceptance of the unreal as the real. It's any attempt to fake reality. For example, a neocheater who tells someone that a god exists, and collects a fee, is the promoter of mysticism. The person who pays a fee for that story that a god exists is the acceptor of mysticism. Notice that the promoter and the acceptor are both faking reality."

I believe NP refers to the security derivaties invention,
their fee structure, their ability to 'cheat' to garner unearned values -
to accept unreal as real.

Are we having Hedge Fund Wars, Maban?
If so, I suspect SEC is clearly under full 'Remnant' control.

Any feedback is welcomed.



posted on Jan, 1 2009 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by emsed1
 


You make very good points. There are some people that you can't even mention new ideas to (even when they are thousands of years old). It's like me trying to explain a passage from the Gosple of Thomas (Gnostic) to my Father in Law, "Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find ME there." I'd get the same answer "it's not in the Bible." GOD forbid I tell him it's a Gnostic Gosple.

Who would have thought of GOD being omnipresent???



It basicaly says the same thing in Matthew 18:20 "For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

There are probably a few other examples that I'm just not thinking of, what gets me the most is Protestants (I'm one) that are so against everything Catholic because they say Catholicism was corrupted. Yet they refuse to even look at another source of the Gosples. Why? A pope said long ago that the Bible was the only source. Makes alot of sense right!?


Even when things like the Gnostic manuscripts came out, it was the Vatican that wouldn't allow them and the Protestant Churches went along.

So I see what your talking about. Some people just wont hear it.



posted on Jan, 2 2009 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by lazy1981
My veiws aren't near close to yours, I feel that if you turn from evil or what ever you choose to call a life of immorality and worse, you can be saved. It's only those that REFUSE SALVATION and choose not to see the light that are beyond redemption.



I'm with you on this one Lazy1981, no one is beyond redemption, we can all redeem ourselves, if we so choose or if something sufficiently touches us to allow the light in. That is why I love Darth Vader and always will. Even the darkest of us can be brought back from the brink as long as there are lights to guide us and to show us that an alternative exists, a choice. As Maban mentions earlier, all any of us can truly do is decide whether we are good or bad, as far as I can tell, as long as we are on this plain we have that choice. Beyond that I see no limitations.



posted on Jan, 2 2009 @ 05:08 AM
link   
reply to post by lazy1981
 

Originally posted by lazy1981
Let me start by saying that it's good to finally speak to the man himself. As of late I have half heartedly opened up to the possibilty that you may well be on the up and up. So I do retain scepticism in some ways but you can take what I say in earnest and it's not out of slight or contempt when I question or show difference in opinion. I like the idea of being able to disagree about things sometimes without being disagreeable. So here I go.

I have found that skepticism and reserve are quite often the best and most wise course of action.

When I stated that there was "malevolent enlightened ones" I think that you may have gotten the wrong idea. Does not Illuminati mean enlightened ones?

No, Illuminati woudl best correlate to "Illuminated Ones." "Enlightenment," is found whence once travels beyond "Illumination," to that of "Enlightenment." Conversely, "Enlightened Ones," are quite literally those whom we learned from, and those whom gave us our purpose.

Illuminati-persons possessing, or claiming to possess, superior enlightenment.

We claim no such thing. We tread the path of Illuminism, toward Enlightenment.

Whether or not they are Shards or Remnants they still flow from the the same river (if you will). They have merely branched into much different directions, Illuminati none the less. After all didn't Weishaupt say something along the lines of (paraphrase: it matters not what name we go by). Sort of like a rose by any other name is still a rose. What I meant was it wasn't the idea behind Illumination when I said that it was the name itself. After all that's all we have to identify these Remnants and Shards by, Illuminati.
Unfortunately Adam Wisehaupt and the Bavarian Illuminati are as Hitler and the Nazi's were to Germany. The German people en whole were good, and were far different than Hitler and his Nazis. Nevertheless, when people look to Germany, they often first see Hitler long before they see the true face of Germany. The same likening can be made to the Illuminati, we are virtually opposite in every way, shape, and form from Wisehaupt's fanaticism. His bastardization of the name of the Illuminati, is equivalent to Adolph Hitler's bastardization of the Swastika.

As to the idea of "either" Remnants or Shards (which is what I was getting at) treating us as "witless chidren," I can understand the morals behind the idea. The point being made was that when ever one "governing force" (you may call it what you like) says that it must do something in our best interest than it does treat humanity as if we were children that aren't bright enough to discern what the right course of action is. That is what "adults" do for children when they do not know any better. We may not see eye to eye here but I hope I cleared up that point. (not an "assumption" more like my perception of the way it is)
For example, if you personally knew that there was a winter storm coming and I somehow didn't, it may well be a noble thing for you to sneak into my home and lay out very warm clothes for me to wear the next day. It would also be my choice to wear them even if you didn't force me to. Yet, I and most would still find this very concerning if not criminal in a sense. Now I understand this is an off the wall example, yet it mirrors our discussion in ways.

I see your distress. I too interpreted your quote as such, but responded to the more typical meaning. Given your precision in prose, I know precisely of what you speak. I am afraid we must agree to disagree, I understand your very valid points, as you do mine. However, because of humanity's adolescence, we feel it unwise to simply let loose the guardrails at this time. If anything conspiring forces in the world may try to "run" humanity off the road once the guardrails removed. I wish there was a better way, but unfortunately we are not gods, and cannot make this world humanity's overnight. It is a imperfection we must live with for the time being.

As to the monetary means that you and others may or may not have, who's assuming now? I never said that you lived a lavish life style...??? As for the Remnant types that you describe, I'd be likely to believe that about them as they seem to fit the personality of greedy and selfish. I also would apply coercion and control to the "Remnants" as the shoe fits. The only area that I lump the two together (Shards/Remnants) is the notion of a secretive entity that lurks in the shadows tinkering in the affairs of man and has neither been chosen or at the least condoned by a consensus of world opinion. This is where self-determination comes into play. I know you must remain cloaked in order to continue your work. (I'm not being facetious, I'm just standing on my principles)

My sincere apologies, I took your statement with equivocation. You did not imply nor insinuate, I simply responded as I have to many "similar" such accusations/allusions; not that you did as such. We have not been chose by humanity, of course at such time it is doubtful humanity could form such a cohesive decision. Nevertheless, I agree that the reigns do and will in fact be turned over to humanity, but we are waiting for something. Something specific which is a sign of humanity's fully developed maturity.

As far as my opinion that all parties should be revealed I have given that some thought and see now that it just couldn't be due to the fact that there would have to be many that are unknown to even the inner workings. As far as the Clark Kent analogy, touché.

Merci.

In the area of self-determination we will just have to agree to disagree. I see the points that you make and the are valid to an extent; however mankind must eventually be allowed to sink or swim of it's own accord or all your work is a fools errand. For if you truly believe us unfit to carry out the task now then we never will be ready. In turn the only true remedy is despotism by which ever name you fancy.

There is a reason most countries have age limits on driving, drinking, and voting. That is there is a precipice of self awareness. And until one stands upon it, they do not fully comprehend their surroundings. Humanity will be given control when it is ready. And; before you ask, no, that decision is not ours.



posted on Jan, 2 2009 @ 05:12 AM
link   
>>> Continued


You said that you understood, "If you want peace, prepare for war" very well but I think we indeed got the message crossed due to the nature of your response.

What I meant (as well as the quote) was if you are so prepared for war (to the extent of optimal battle readiness) your enemy will be discouraged by the mere thought of battle. By this most times you never have to take the feild or incur casualties. You can make demands upon your enemy and negotiate from a position of strength. And in the event that you must make war or defend yourselves you will have the finest troops, tactics, equipment, and be ready for such a thing. Thereby reducing the probability of prolonged conflict and a better outcome for you.

Your knee jerk reaction makes me think that you see that as a "war mongers"statement. Being supremely prepared for war is the reason why Spartans and like minded armies rarely fought. When they took to the field most enemies didn't want to fight. To my mind a state of "combat readiness" is really for peace not war. So nobody wants to "screw their way to virginity." He who is prepared will survive, he who is not will be caught unawares and falter.


No; I indeed understood you. We are indeed at full readiness, at all times. The assault on Iceland as only reinforced this thinking. Unfortunately our adversaries are supremely arrogant, and they are no more scared by us, and we them. We stand ever upon a stalemate until the time when that stalemate will be broken by non-Illuminon means. We hold the line, we do not fight to conquer, or to win. Only to buy time for humanity.

- Maban


[edit on 2-1-2009 by Maban]



posted on Jan, 2 2009 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by lazy1981

reply to post by KilgoreTrout

Originally posted by lazy1981


Your views seem alot like the Egyptians (with the heavy heart)?


Well; after all; Illuminism originated in Egypt, circa 9500 BCE.There should be no surprise that there exists such a correlation.


My veiws aren't near close to yours, I feel that if you turn from evil or what ever you choose to call a life of immorality and worse, you can be saved. It's only those that REFUSE SALVATION and choose not to see the light that are beyond redemption.


Read my reply to Kilgore Trout below.


But this is probably another area where we will not see eye to eye and I'm not going to get too deep into my religious beliefs as it is always a hot topic and will only serve to derail a perfectly good thread.


For your reference; my beliefs most closely fall in line with Buddhism.

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout


I'm with you on this one Lazy1981, no one is beyond redemption, we can all redeem ourselves, if we so choose or if something sufficiently touches us to allow the light in. That is why I love Darth Vader and always will. Even the darkest of us can be brought back from the brink as long as there are lights to guide us and to show us that an alternative exists, a choice. As Maban mentions earlier, all any of us can truly do is decide whether we are good or bad, as far as I can tell, as long as we are on this plain we have that choice. Beyond that I see no limitations.


As reply for both lazy1981 & KilgoreTrout:

Indeed Darth Vader was redeemed, he is after all what Illuminons would refer to as a "Dark One."

But I ask you, what of Emperor Palpatine? What of Hitler? Can you seriously say that they could have found redemption? I say not. Illuminons refer to such entities as "Devoid Ones," without a soul or flame of life within. Most of humanity simply refers to this state as; "Evil." And Evil in my mind; is, irredeemable.

- Maban

[edit on 2-1-2009 by Maban]



posted on Jan, 2 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maban

Indeed Darth Vader was redeemed, he is after all what Illuminons would refer to as a "Dark One."

But I ask you, what of Emperor Palpatine? What of Hitler? Can you seriously say that they could have found redemption? I say not. Illuminons refer to such entities as "Devoid Ones," without a soul or flame of life within. Most of humanity simply refers to this state as; "Evil." And Evil in my mind; is, irredeemable.


Oooooh....I am quite, quite a tingle with excitement...you have managed to lift three of my favourite topics into one small paragraph...excuse me while I slip into my anorak....

Why do you consider Emperor Palpatine beyond redemption and Darth Vader capable of it? Rhetorical of course, I’m going to tell you. You consider him that because you do not know his past, you're assuming that he was born evil. I myself don’t actually hold much stock in that, I don’t believe that anyone is born evil. Imagine if Lucas were to make another trilogy, one that predated episodes one to three, in which we were shown, Palpatine’s childhood, the factors that contributed to his moral and spiritual downfall, that led to him walking into the darkness and not the light, would you still consider him beyond redemption?

Darth Vader, or Anakin if you will, could only have ever been redeemed by his son, Luke. Faced with the prospect of killing the child (or one of the children, mustn’t forget Leia after all) that his and Padme’s love had produced forced him to confront the choice that he had made, this realisation, that the love he and Padme had shared lived on in their off-spring is what gave him the chink of light in which to redeem himself. Padme was lost but she lived on in Luke (and Leia), he had to be redeemed so as not to destroy her completely.

Therefore, how can we know what catalyst Palpatine would require if we do not know from whence he came?

You raise Hitler as a comparison, and I will try and be brief. Lucas of course used Hitler among others as a model when creating Palpatine. I certainly do not see Hitler as being beyond redemption (he’s dead now so of course he is, but had he lived), in fact I don’t actually see him as being that evil, though I accept that others do. To me, Hitler is more of a Darth Vader, utilised by others in the name of committing evil but never actually that corrupted himself. I could go into much, much more detail but can guarantee that I am the only one interested in that.

The way in which I would agree with you, that Palpatine is a step above Darth Vader in the ‘evil’ stakes is because he uses and corrupts others for his own purposes. This is, in my opinion the lowest of the low, those unwilling to dirty their own hands with dastardly doings get others to do it for them. This does not fit Hitler, if anything it is the other way around, Hitler served the purposes of others, which is why I see him as much more of an Anakin. Palpatine I would perhaps compare to a Rockefeller, a Ford, or a Reiber, possibly at a push even a Goering, I think that that is a little more apt. Not Hitler though, don’t believe the hype!



posted on Jan, 2 2009 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Originally posted by Tenzin
Dulce, disbanded. I heard they allegedly built a housing development over the old entrance.

It has since been redistributed to numerous facilities across the United States. The primary facility being that of Dugway Proving grounds.

Nightmare hall did exist, and still does. Its actually a system of containment corridors which inactive/past projects are moved into for permanent storage. Dulce was not to have thought to exist, or rather, was in speculation of existence, until some experimental information leaked out with some firsthand testimonials.

So who was experimented on, homeless people, soldiers? Didn't it bother your conscience at all to know the pain this stuff was causing?

Originally posted by TenzinAs for the work there it is not extraterrestrial in nature, but genetic. Thus the obvious confusion of a few military security guards. It was a genetics testing lab where some of the first "true" genetic retroviruses were created. The entire purpose of the facility, officially, was to develop advanced pharmaceuticals for battlefield triage and so called miracle drugs. Its actual purpose was to design plausible genetic modifications, initially for special forces, and eventually for wide-spread use in all branches of the armed forces. Essentially giving soldiers superhuman abilities.

Retrovirus, what like AIDS?

Originally posted by TenzinIn recent years they have shifted their mission from making genetic modifications, to genetic breeding of the perfect soldier. Theoretically, it would be spun as a way to save American lives and not endanger our troops. Thereby allowing us to make major unilateral military actions against countries on many fronts, while maintaining a vagrant and strong domestically based military force. Such a solution would be readily and unanimously agreed upon in the face, or midst of imminent disaster/destruction.

Domestic for what? I thought we were winning the War on Terror, is this about the 2011 news report for the 20,000 soldiers to be put into the US?

Originally posted by TenzinGiven that people will not tolerate the idea of genetic modification for warfare for long on American citizens; it would need to be used in something which is thought of by the general populous as something which is "less-than-human."

So who was experimented on? You think people will approve of any genetic tampering? Some will, but most will be appaled and see it as something like Mengele's work, you know this.

Originally posted by TenzinWith a force of genetically engineered super soldiers, this kind of strong and easily replaceable military force could conceivably enter into many military action indefinably and simultaneously. Genetically delete certain emotions and they seem like nothing more than mindless automatons, easily dehumanizing them and making the transition that much more easy, and subtle.

THis is what people fear. No human is replaceable, they fear a government that is isolated from human emotions at the point it deletes feelings in soldiers to become ruthless killing machines. We fear you more, how is that a utopia?

[edit on 2-1-2009 by Darky6K]



posted on Jan, 2 2009 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Originally posted by TanzinThe only cost of this program is the maintenance, refinement, and creation of more "clones." After all, where do you think George Lucas got some of his ideas? With advanced hormone therapy treatment, accelerating gestation and growth periods, a functional soldier could be bred with genetic knowledge of combat, and be in the field within six months of conception. It does cause irreparable cellular damage with the toxic levels of hormones necessary to make the transition. But, when something is less than human, its easy to simply order a replacement after it serves its use. After all, it's unlikely it would last very long in the field anyway. So long as its natural life expectancy is longer than it's in-theater survivability period, academically its a success.

Politically, its the perfect weapon to fight the never ending war on terror

YOu're saying George Lucas is an Illuminati?



posted on Jan, 2 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Maban
 

This is also for Kilgore,
I just don't know how to do all those "fancy quotes" and such like you guys do.


It is a hard thing to discern what "Evil" truely is when we relate it to man. I feel that man can neither "be" good or evil (since the cat is out of the bag, here we go).

True "Good" has but one origin as does "Evil." Therefore man can "be" neither. Due to the afore mentioned, man can merely strive to be upright and of good action (if you will) which is more of an attribute than a state of "being." Likewise he can't "be" evil, he can only surrender to his/her urges to do evil things. This in no way makes them "Evil," it only makes them a person of evil actions (weak enough to succumb to evil). I view Good and Evil to be two opposing entities that man must choose between, and they are both latent within us all from birth as man is dualistic by our very nature. Our entire lives are a battle between the "good and evil" within us all.

I'm not much on Star Wars lore (although I enjoyed the movies) so I'll take you at the reference to Hitler. Although I hate talking about him in chat rooms because people aren't face to face and can't see body language or tone of voice enough to see that I AM IN NO WAY A HITLER APOLOGIST! I hope that was clear enough.

I have to say that I don't see Hitler as "being" evil (keeping with what I just said) I feel that he let evil take over his thoughts and actions.

What many people don't realize is that for all of the vilification of his polotics, people do not realize that he was indeed a product of his time. From Henry Ford all the way down to heads of state in Europe and America, the ideas of the "Jewish Communist Conspiracy" and the Scientific ideas of Darwinism and the Scientific Theory of Eugenics spanned western society. There were Eugenics experiments in the US also, people were coerced into sterilization. Not to mention the idea of a marriage license in order to keep the white race pure. To this day you can't get married without one in the US. Margaret Sanger was the founder of Planned Parenthood and also a proponent of Eugenics, she was know to spout off with some of the most hateful things in referance to minorities, immigrants, and the disabled (like Hitler). France-Georges Vacher de Lapouge: England- Sir Francis Galton (to name a couple Eugenist).

Only this stands out in the time of all this madness. There was only one man that was able to get a free hand in these practices (Hitler). His madness stemed from these flawed ideas only he allowed it to consume him and it loosed his inhibition against evil action. He took the view of doing "what was necessary" in order to better mankind (yet again I am not defending him or his deranged ideas, merely delving into the mind if a maniac if you will).

If you have ever heard the teachings of Madame Blavatsky and her Theosophical Society? It tells of the master race of the Arian and mankind is destine to attain this "highest of states of being" once it rises to this level. This is why I say that he "believed" he was doing the work of mankind by using the Science of the day "Eugenics" (on steroids) in order to speed the Darwinian like "evolution" of mankind up to the "Arian" stage. In turn ushering in his new man and in turn utopian society. So to an extent he was a product of his time. But he allowed his desires to control him, allowing evil actions to be perpetrated upon man.

As to the idea of redemption it was well within his power to redeem himself by ceasing his evil actions and asking forgiveness.

To this I will concede a staple in your beliefs, it is my belief that by this time he WAS beyond redemption (and those like him) not because it could not be had. Only because they have set themselves entirely upon the path of evil actions and have no desire for true righteousness nor understand the difference between good action and evil actions any longer. They merely see an ends to a means, in his case (in a sick and mislead way) he thought he was doing justice for mankind (accourding to the ideas of the time) when indeed he was "about the buisness of" evil.





[edit on 2-1-2009 by lazy1981]



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join