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.

 

Do people who say Alex Jones fear mongers even watch his show?

page: 8
3
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by NatureBoy
of course the world is deadly, and to put it bluntly - that's exactly the reason we don't need to let wackjobs like AJ dictate our world view!!!


Okay so can you both get your stories straight, either it IS a deadly time in our lives, potentially, or it isn't. I am trying to keep track.



Then you'll know that most if not all of the time this happened was because a massive chunk of people stood up and said 'i totally believe this 100% lets blindly follow it's principles where ever they take us........"

You mean socialists who said we should distribute money at a governmental level? Thank God that could not happen in America.




THIS is what huxley warns against in the quote i provided. if we all close our eyes and pretend that a small few evil ones are ruining it for all us good guys then we'll never manage to change anything, as ghandi said 'be the change you want to see'

You are quoting Ghandi and then complaining about a people who choose to follow the megaphone? You are saying the megaphone is what leads people into the woods and gets them shot. You are then saying someone like Gandhi (megaphone-using misogynist tool that he was) has the truth?

I'm gonna have to think about this before I reply.




Originally posted by Jenna
Was it entirely the governments fault? Absolutely not.


You are wrong. Start a Waco thread and invite me for further details. They had already infiltrated the group with several agents and there was no need for what happened.



Now why would a peaceful religious group need a few hundred guns, some of which were converted, or had the parts available to be converted, into fully automatic weapons?

Nice try to blame the victims. Why did they arm themselves? Because Thomas F'ing Jefferson said they could. Is that enough reason for you or did they still deserve death?



It does not take FEMA camps or the NWO for those things to happen

There is no need for a secret organization running things behind the scenes

I am a big supporter of looking at the big picture when voting

I don't vote because I don't participate in rigged games. I do not play three card monty but I am proficient with a decent range of firearms. I call myself an American but being a non-voter, I am sure many who've chosen to play three-card-monty would say that I am less of an American.

So I am wondering; am I like the person in the first part, who enables Stalin/Mao/et all to march towns into the woods or onto trains for the gulags (which still exist today, in Russia) because they go ahead with the government? Or am I instead like the party of the other part, seen at Waco, who dies because they didn't participate in government at all?



they wouldn't just be knocking off everyone in the US they would be knocking off everyone everywhere including those international masses.

Wrong.

They would sacrifice whomever was most deserving. I assume you have read "The Lottery"? If one person (or one nation) has been chosen to be The Sacrificial Victim, then all other global parties will stand by and not interfere.

You saw what happened to Germany right? They were the Revolutionary Torch holders of that era (ownership changes hands down through time) and their country got whacked in half and trenched/barb-wired afterward --because the nations of the world felt there was no other choice.

I can see that America (who accepted half of the Nazis at the end of WW2) is now being set up again, as the Revolutionary Torch has been passed. Nobody ever likes global revolution, either under Hitler or the next gang. But in fact, all nations will allow one nation to be sacrificed. As with humans, so with human institutions.

Anyway, there's no way Alex is gonna become like Stalin. He's more like the thousands of family men who opposed Stalin and all that came before him. These Russian families who were killed or gulaged will probably never be known.

At least in America we are keeping track of the facts but I doubt it will make any difference when our the modern version of the Trotsky/Leninist Bolsheviks are armed and deputized in our own country.

[edit on 15-5-2009 by smallpeeps]




posted on May, 15 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps
You are wrong. Start a Waco thread and invite me for further details. They had already infiltrated the group with several agents and there was no need for what happened.


If you'd like I can do that, but it will have to wait until later as I'm a bit pressed for time at the moment.


Nice try to blame the victims. Why did they arm themselves? Because Thomas F'ing Jefferson said they could. Is that enough reason for you or did they still deserve death?


I wasn't blaming the victims. I asked what a little over a hundred people who were supposedly a peaceful religious group needed a bunch of fully automatic weapons for. We have the right to keep and bare arms, but there is nothing wrong with wondering why people need that many fully automatics when they are supposed to be peaceful. We have guns in my house, so I'm not in anyway against their possession or use. I just asked a question so ease up a bit there.


I don't vote because I don't participate in rigged games. I do not play three card monty but I am proficient with a decent range of firearms. I call myself an American but being a non-voter, I am sure many who've chosen to play three-card-monty would say that I am less of an American.

So I am wondering; am I like the person in the first part, who enables Stalin/Mao/et all to march towns into the woods or onto trains for the gulags (which still exist today, in Russia) because they go ahead with the government? Or am I instead like the party of the other part, seen at Waco, who dies because they didn't participate in government at all?


I don't consider you less of an American for not voting, but I also don't understand the logic behind not voting at all. What does that solve? What does that prove?

Are you really trying to imply that those who take part in voting are somehow enabling people like Stalin to march us all out to the woods or did I misunderstand you there?


You saw what happened to Germany right? They were the Revolutionary Torch holders of that era (ownership changes hands down through time) and their country got whacked in half and trenched/barb-wired afterward --because the nations of the world felt there was no other choice.


And what is your proof that this happens or has happened? What is the proof that there are Revolutionary Torch holders that become the sacrificial lamb? What happened in Germany was caused by a dictator who had a warped enough mind that he thought he could kill off everyone who wasn't his ideal of the perfect human.


Anyway, there's no way Alex is gonna become like Stalin.


Of course not, he is in not in a position to become like Stalin if he wanted to. But that was not what I was talking about. What I was talking about was exactly what I said. People put blind faith into people in government and the media, that is what allows people like Stalin and Hitler to take over and massacre people not some secret group hidden away plotting to take over the world. That blind faith is what causes them to deny and ignore any information that doesn't fit with their preconceived notions. Kinda like what happens when people contradict Jones'.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
Are you really trying to imply that those who take part in voting are somehow enabling people like Stalin to march us all out to the woods.

No, but voting is a panacea which really has no effect when corporate lobbies have votes which are x100 more powerful than yours or mine. Shall we vote with our dollars and will that change anything? Lobbyist run America and that means corporate boards (international) run America.

I am not against voting. I think it was a great idea. But once corporations removed paper ballots, I was done with the whole process. I was raised not to vote, then I did it once or twice. I did not vote for either of the puppets offered this time around. Yes, I think armed "helpful" UN forces are coming to America in the next few years

Am I a fearmonger?



And what is your proof that this happens or has happened? What is the proof that there are Revolutionary Torch holders that become the sacrificial lamb? What happened in Germany was caused by a dictator who had a warped enough mind that he thought he could kill off everyone who wasn't his ideal of the perfect human.

I offer you no proof that the Revolutionary Torch exists beyond what has been written by excellent authors.

You are right; History is meant to look like a Germanic/Pagan lunatic just got a bunch of people to follow him. I guess it just sorta happens. I am grateful for your efforts to clarify my thinking.



What I was talking about was exactly what I said. People put blind faith into people in government and the media, that is what allows people like Stalin and Hitler to take over and massacre people not some secret group hidden away plotting to take over the world. That blind faith is what causes them to deny and ignore any information that doesn't fit with their preconceived notions. Kinda like what happens when people contradict Jones'.

Uh, I guess that's the third time you've 'said what you mean'?

You say you own guns and are very informed about history. You want me to believe that history is something that just kinda 'happens' and is not organized in regard to the larger trends (Hitler was a lone nut with some powerful buddies).

I am eager to hear more soothing comments because you are definitely making me calmer.

The water does seem hotter, but I am being made calmer. Ahhh, soothing.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps
No, but voting is a panacea which really has no effect when corporate lobbies have votes which are x100 more powerful than yours or mine.


I agree that the lobbies with their cash end up being the ones who get listened to. Something needs to be done about that beyond all of us sitting here complaining about it.


Yes, I think armed "helpful" UN forces are coming to America in the next few years


The only way I see that happening is if we are in the middle of a civil war by then, which is possible but improbable.


Am I a fearmonger?


Unless you are ranting and raving and I'm not realizing it, no.


I offer you no proof that the Revolutionary Torch exists beyond what has been written by excellent authors.


Which authors? Or I suppose which books would be a better question. Just because I disagree with you does not mean I am not open to reading about this theory.



You are right; History is meant to look like a Germanic/Pagan lunatic just got a bunch of people to follow him.


He was Austrian, not German, but he was a lunatic, don't know about the Pagan part and even if he were it wouldn't necessarily be the cause of his actions. People followed him because they believed what he was telling them. (There's that pesky blind faith again.) And didn't realize where it was going to go until it was too late for some and almost too late for others.


Uh, I guess that's the third time you've 'said what you mean'?


Because your post made it sound as though you were confused on what I meant. So I clarified it.


You say you own guns and are very informed about history. You want me to believe that history is something that just kinda 'happens' and is not organized in regard to the larger trends (Hitler was a lone nut with some powerful buddies).


I do own guns, several in fact. I am by no means an expert on history, but I do and have studied the areas that interest me. And no I don't want you to believe history is "something that just kinda happens". What I am doing is trying to get the point across that it doesn't take a conspiracy of epic proportions to explain what has happened throughout history. Nor is one necessary for those things to have happened to begin with. Stalin and Hitler were not the first leaders to kill hundreds of thousands or even millions of people and they will not be the last. One man with enough charisma and the ability to win people over can do a lot of damage.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
Which authors?


I am a fan of William Guy Carr's work when considering the idea of planned world wars. I enjoy his books and own several though I do not agree with all he said. Probably back then he was just another Alex Jones.



What I am doing is trying to get the point across that it doesn't take a conspiracy of epic proportions to explain what has happened throughout history.

I disagree with you. To take normal humans away from their true goodness takes centuries of planning. Killing human in mass quantities is not human nature. It happens via much planning. Most humans will reconcile and choose non-lethal solutions. Game theory has proven this: People don't want to die if they can avoid it.



Stalin and Hitler were not the first leaders to kill hundreds of thousands or even millions of people and they will not be the last. One man with enough charisma and the ability to win people over can do a lot of damage.


The chart below confirms to me that these were occult happenings. That Stalin and Hitler and other Fascist idiots, killed many people in wars which were the result of many years of work and that these men were chosen due to their willingness to let the blood flow.

Both took control of their population, and killed many many millions than had ever been possible at one time. In Hitler's case it took corporations like IBM, to number the inmates. It took drugs like Zyklon and Methamphetamine and a secret global project to explosively release the sun's power in order to stop it all. It took years of religious conditioning over centuries and it took holy symbols raised with three-color palettes that were rich in occult meaning. In Stalin's case, he had backers in the US and they even built weapons plants for him, so the killing he did, were enabled by others.

I do not wish to be seen as a fear monger, so forgive me, but I added a little text to this graphic from a very fine web researcher named Matthew White. I am not sure he would agree with the red letters I added below, but you get the point.



30 Worst Atrocities of the 20th Century

I am not fear mongering to say that these two spikes here in global deaths, did not happen by accident.

[edit on 15-5-2009 by smallpeeps]



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps
I am a fan of William Guy Carr's work when considering the idea of planned world wars.


Thank you. I'll have to look into his theories.


Killing human in mass quantities is not human nature. It happens via much planning.


Genghis Khan, the Roman Empire, and the actions taken during each of the crusades would say otherwise. In each of those cases numerous people died, both innocents and soldiers, all at the direction of their leader. Planning is necessary in pretty much everything, it is not an indication of a secret group pulling strings.


The chart below confirms to me that these were occult happenings. That Stalin and Hitler and other Fascist idiots, killed many people in wars which were the result of many years of work and that these men were chosen due to their willingness to let the blood flow.


But it does not explain the same things happening throughout history that were not the result of the people responsible being chosen by a mysterious secret group behind the scenes. How would you explain that?


Both took control of their population, and killed many many millions than had ever been possible at one time.


More powerful weapons result in more numerous deaths. Had the Roman Empire had bombers or automatic weapons rather than swords and pikes the death toll would likely be higher than either Stalin or Hitler.


In Hitler's case it took corporations like IBM, to number the inmates. It took drugs like Zyklon and Methamphetamine and a secret global project to explosively release the sun's power in order to stop it all. It took years of religious conditioning over centuries and it took holy symbols raised with three-color palettes that were rich in occult meaning.


Ok, you lost me. What secret global project to explosively release the sun's power and what holy symbols raised with three-color palettes?


I am not sure he would agree with the red letters I added below, but you get the point.


Unlikely since the page you linked says:


It's very possible, therefore, that future historians will consider these events to be mere episodes of a single massive upheaval -- the "Hemoclysm"


The author believes that the entire chart will be seen as a single "hemoclysm", not three separate ones.


I am not fear mongering to say that these two spikes here in global deaths, did not happen by accident.


No, those deaths were quite intentional. It's not proof positive of a conspiracy though.



posted on May, 15 2009 @ 10:42 PM
link   
I snipped these bits from your reply. It describes your central theme:


Originally posted by Jenna

- it is not an indication of a secret group pulling strings.

- [it is] not the result of the people responsible being chosen by a mysterious secret group behind the scenes.

- It's not proof positive of a conspiracy though.

Conspiracy does happen. It's nature, is to happen in secret. if something is secret, then I cannot have proof positive of it. Yes, you are free to disbelieve everything I say.



Had the Roman Empire had bombers or automatic weapons rather than swords and pikes the death toll would likely be higher than either Stalin or Hitler.

Yes, technology made it possible for even bigger sacrifices in war. More blood means happier death gods. Those who worship death and war have profited themselves.

Hmm, how would you phrase it? "Still not proof of a bunch of secret people pulling the strings!" Okay, we'll go with that.



Ok, you lost me.

I was being cute.

What secret global project to explosively release the sun's power?

I was referring to the fact that suddenly all the technology of the world had to be unified to create the worst thing ever known, i.e. the devil's anus i.e. the atomic bomb. Powers very ancient to this world, knew that certain conditions had to be met, in order to create it. The bomb was the result of the whole effort. Get it? Secret project, sun's power... Sheesh, I think it was pretty clear what I was saying.

and what holy symbols raised with three-color palettes?

You think the Nazi's chose their colors based on fashion sense? You think their rituals and symbols were just some modern art? No, these were great conceptions and were well thought out. Again, I was making the point that conspiracy exists and particularly a conspiracy to foment giant blood sacrifices aka WARS.



The author believes that the entire chart will be seen as a single "hemoclysm", not three separate ones.


Yes I know that, and I alluded to the idea that his view of his own work is different from mine. His term is a good one one I decided to number them #1 and #2. To me, these are two separate ritual sacrifices and a third is looming.

The author may not be a conspiracy researcher but his data is obvious to any sane person who looks at it. It's okay with me if you don't believe in politicians getting together and shaking hands. Tell me more about how there is no conspiracy. I need to relax.

But as I said earlier, anybody who is trying to calm people when there actually is a true danger, will bear a far greater guilt if they are wrong. I believe that with all of my being.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps
Conspiracy does happen. It's nature, is to happen in secret. if something is secret, then I cannot have proof positive of it. Yes, you are free to disbelieve everything I say.


I don't deny that conspiracies happen or that they exist in general. I just can't see recent wars and mass killings being a conspiracy when both of those things have been going on since the beginning of time.


Sheesh, I think it was pretty clear what I was saying.


Not really or I wouldn't have had to ask.


You think their rituals and symbols were just some modern art?


No, I think they chose symbols that have been in existence for several millennia that only became associated with evil afterward. The swastika is present in hundreds of cultures and almost always stood for the sun or a sun god. Same with the SS bolts. Individually they are runes that stood for sun or victory depending on who you ask.


It's okay with me if you don't believe in politicians getting together and shaking hands.


Now see, you're starting to do the whole "let's ridicule anyone who doesn't believe everything I do" thing. Let's not do that. This has so far been a civil discussion and personally I would prefer we keep it that way.


But as I said earlier, anybody who is trying to calm people when there actually is a true danger, will bear a far greater guilt if they are wrong.


And those who are trying to scare people with all the doom and gloom that amounts to basically guessing bare far greater guilt if they are wrong. Calmness is necessary for rational thought. Those who are scared or whipped into a frenzy from all of this are less likely to think through their actions and are more likely to panic.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by smallpeeps
 


Hi, can't stop in a rush just wanted to point something fairly important out.....

The graph is a lie.

sorry but the number of deaths in the world only spiked like that as far as the 'western world' was concerned - span it out a little to say new testiment times, add in the actual rates at which people died and how this represented the percentage of the global population, it's gonna look a lot different.

In fact it's going to suggest a very interesting fact, that people have become less violent and the average chance of a human being killed, certainly murdered has decreased significantly. Let's not forget that in the previous few centurys my small home island alone killed near enough whole continents full of people in north and south america, australia, asia and afria and that's before you consider the near endless european conflicts of those times.

If we look at history it's clear why we had the first world war, we invaded basra to steal iraq's oil (that's right kids, nothing to do with ferdinand) this was part of a continuous policy of empire waged by the british. A truly terrible thing which i for one am greatly ashamed of, the governments at the time then got headstrong and thought they could use this to ruin their old rival once and for all, imposing terrible sanctions on germany the nation was repressed. The anger rose with the poverty and soon everyone was looking for someone to offer them a way out, Hitler and the national socialists managed to get into power, hitler set about making his dream Germania (which was to be the capital of the german lands, in those days world conquest was not on the cards) however not long after germany had broken free of it's terrible times and was starting to flourish again with the spectacular olympic games it started having to involve itself in global politics.

This is when things turn bad, the two (sixteen) ideologys grated with each other and the friction caused a fire. Before long the world was at war once again, thus the second spike.

It doesn't need shadow groups of devious puppet masters to happen, it's an almost unpreventable force of nature - an earthquake in society. To say any sensible person would look at the graph and be like 'oh yeah total nwo, only answer' is either dishonest or stupid take your pick.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frankidealist35


I listen to his show almost every day. He does lie. He lies all the time. He lies and threatens people. He fearmongers by telling people they need to stock up and arm up. He has been warning us all to be prepared for the end, martial law, whatever for over 10 years now. How is that NOT a lie and fearmongering?



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by NatureBoy
 




fox news and truth can be used in the same sentence?


Yes, it's called an Oxymoron. Kinda like "Military Intelligence", "Clean Coal", or "Creation Science" It's usually used as a parody or an insult. Either it's to make fun of a proposition, or to insult your intelligence.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by smallpeeps
 




Such things haven't happened yet in the US, but certainly all over the world through out history, it's been done and recorded. Mass graves, are a common thing for planet Earth.


You... might want to look back through US History. Many of our citizens have found themselves in concentration camps for little more than carrying the bloodline of a current enemy - such as the Native Americans or Japanese. We don't wholesale mass slaughter the way Hitler's Camps did... but that doesn't mean a lack of food, water, clothing, shelters, basic medical care.. etc... didn't cause massive deathtolls in our historic PoW camps. Especially during the Civil War - where it was more poignantly "American vs. American"... Brother vs. Brother.

A good starting point would be to look up some information on the horrors which transpired at Andersonville and Elmira (Conf. & Union respectively).

I'm really not trying to help you make your case, because I find it ardently contrary to reality. However, I do agree that America and Americans - under the right circumstances - absolutely could commit such atrocities. And it's important to know that history shows, we have in the past shown ourselves capable of this.

[edit on 16-5-2009 by Lasheic]



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna

But as I said earlier, anybody who is trying to calm people when there actually is a true danger, will bear a far greater guilt if they are wrong.


And those who are trying to scare people with all the doom and gloom that amounts to basically guessing bare far greater guilt if they are wrong.


Can you see the error of your post?

I am saying that if people try to calm others down, and there is a danger, then those "false calmers" are the true guilty parties.

You are saying that if people try to make people afraid, and there really isn't a danger, then those "false fearers" are the true guilty parties --AND EVEN MORESO.

Obviously this is absurd. I understand your explanation, that people can't make good decisions when they are scared (not always true) and yet again, you completely avoid the truth of the boiling frog scenario, as I have mentioned countless times, so I think our positions are becoming clearer. Mine is correct, and your is dishonest for the very reason I mentioned above.

Only an unread, uninformed fool would tell people to remain calm when there is a danger to their life, liberty and property. That I should even have to say that, is amazing.

[edit on 17-5-2009 by smallpeeps]



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps
You are saying that if people try to make people afraid, and there really isn't a danger, then those "false fearers" are the true guilty parties --AND EVEN MORESO.


No, I'm saying that someone who intentionally causes unnecessary fear and panic is the guilty party if there is not truly any danger.


I understand your explanation, that people can't make good decisions when they are scared (not always true) and yet again, you completely avoid the truth of the boiling frog scenario, as I have mentioned countless times, so I think our positions are becoming clearer. Mine is correct, and your is dishonest for the very reason I mentioned above.


Ah, so I'm dishonest for not panicking and you are correct because you think there's cause to panic. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. And you know full well that my point was that people cannot make good decisions when they panic, not that being scared is all it takes.

I do like how you disagree with me therefore you must be correct. Talk about being illogical.



Only an unread, uninformed fool would tell people to remain calm when there is a danger to their life, liberty and property. That I should even have to say that, is amazing.


So when the building goes up in flames it's better to panic than remain calm and find a way out? When bullets are fired it is better to panic and freeze than to remain calm and get down? When a natural disaster happens it's better to panic and riot in the streets than to remain calm and find a way to safety? I do find it rather amazing that you would say that.

If there truly is any truth behind the fearmongering, panic will get people nowhere.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lasheic
You... might want to look back through US History. Many of our citizens have found themselves in concentration camps for little more than carrying the bloodline of a current enemy - such as the Native Americans or Japanese.


I have read about history. Why not take a little time here to tell me how wrong I am since you've got the truth.

Yes, I understand your post: Americans can, and have, put people in camps and have treated them bady. Duh. Thanks for the insight.



I'm really not trying to help you make your case, because I find it ardently contrary to reality.


Thanks for smacking me and telling me I'm right at the same time.
Your comments here almost do approach that state called "helpful".



Originally posted by NatureBoy
reply to post by smallpeeps
 

The graph is a lie.

sorry but the number of deaths in the world only spiked like that as far as the 'western world' was concerned - span it out a little to say new testiment times, add in the actual rates at which people died and how this represented the percentage of the global population, it's gonna look a lot different.


Okay so before you call someone else's completely verifiable research "a lie" maybe you could go do something on the Internet which is even .01% as useful? Okay? So when you do that, let us know, and we'll go look at your numbers.

An Internet somebody looks at a graph and says "its a lie" while millions of Stalin's unarmed victims sit in the afterlife and roll their eyes.


Hey you know what? Please disbelieve me. No really. Relax, go back to sleep and make sure you pass it on to all your friends. There is nothing to be afraid of EXCEPT FEAR ITSELF. Fear, must cause you to be more afraid than anything.

To recap for all reading this thread: Deibold/G20/TriLatComm are all benevolent organizations, not connected in any way at all. They will help you. Trust them and follow their instructions.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna
So when the building goes up in flames it's better to panic than remain calm and find a way out? When bullets are fired it is better to panic and freeze than to remain calm and get down? When a natural disaster happens it's better to panic and riot in the streets than to remain calm and find a way to safety?


Simple question for you: Is there a fire in this theater and a simple followup question for you: How hot is it?

If there is a national "fire" in this theater called America, then it is you who will bear the guilt by keeping people in their seats. Conspiracy researchers will not have any guilt as you seem to be saying because they are informed and aware.



[EDIT: You have raised the analogy of a movie theater. I think it is a good one. Maybe we can reach a common ground by using it.

In a way, if the TV broadcast is a movie theater unto itself, then even if the theater had no roof, and had sunshine streaming down, people might stay inside the four walls. So the first thing to do is identify the hypnotized state of the audience, regardless of darkness or other irrelevant items. They are hypnotized in regards to the Big Screen (i.e. TV)

Alright so then there are Non-Conspiracy-Aware-People (or NCAPs as I like to call them) who cannot imagine that anyone would want to burn the whole dang theater down. They simply cannot understand what is to be gained, by occasionally burning down a theater. So the first thing to do is to identify what is to be gained by burning it down:

1: Insurance Fraud
2: Removal of Lice and Critters
3: Pres./Gov./Mayor Offers Cash for "Rebuilding"

Okay so there are three logical and profitable reasons to burn down a perfectly good movie theater. All three of these when combined, are cumulative in their effect.

If one is to apply the analogy, then the US would be like a movie theater which is locked, as we cannot get out of our country, and the nationalistic nature of Earth 2009 does not allow people to run to other countries unless they are rich. So frankly, me and anybody in this thread may end up in adjacent seats of this movie theater, trapped in our seats. I am saying that the one thing I probably have in common with a lot of other Americans and world citizens is the inability to afford world travel, i.e. escape the theater.

What would I do? I'd probably decide for myself as to the definitions of A: Smoke, and B: Fire. But this is where you and I, perhaps even if seated next to each other, might disagree as to if there is a scent of smoke or not.

In fact, we may not agree, even if there are obvious flames.

I expect to see people seated, non-volitionally offering themselves to Moloch simply because the movie was so entertaining, they could not tear themselves from it.

As for how I might escape a panic-stricken theater? You know, I have always seen myself as someone who would watch the ground for people who have fallen down. In fact I can remember several public gatherings and mosh pits where I was helping save someone from being trampled or stomped my the masses. I'm pretty good with chaos and I can snatch that person back onto their feet. It's hard to understand the push of a crowd until you've felt it. It's irresistible and it will suck you under, so we all should try to watch for who goes under. --YOU HEARING ME WAL-MART SHOPPERS?

But I think by rambling here, I may have helped to sketch this analogy and I would like to throw it open to everyone here. There seems to be a couple stages to this, and certainly there is a looong moment of personal reflection, research and decision (smoke) before the final stage of panic (fire).


[edit on 17-5-2009 by smallpeeps]



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   
To all:

Whatever side of the AJ fence you sit on, I think we can agree the worlds in trouble and needs sorting out.

If you're an AJ supporter, why are you not out there spreading the word about the broadcast instead of arguing with the unreachable and preaching to the converted?

If you're an AJ detractor, why are you not out there spreading the word about better sources of information, instead of arguing with die-hard Jones supporters who won't change their mind?


"dude, get out of my face, this is liek, a discussion forum, if you don't wanna..." etc etc...
"uh, yuh, I just don't like to see people led astray by..." etc etc


Don't give me that "I'm trying to save people from disinfo" nonsense, it's embarrassing.

Sure, it's your business what you do, but aren't there more effective ways to fight negativity? If you're one of the people who've written 5+pages on this thread, think of how you could have spent that time and bandwidth turning people on to something worthwhile. We need to spread the information outward rather than inward. If you wonder why the world's in trouble, it's because people can't put aside their differences and work towards something constructive. Example: I disagree completely with Nature Boy on Alex Jones, but might help on a SitX energy book.

Are you'all more interested in your egos or the sorting out the world?



[edit on 15f20090pmSun, 17 May 2009 19:08:56 -050056 by HiAliens]



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by smallpeeps
Simple question for you: Is there a fire in this theater and a simple followup question for you: How hot is it?


Yes, but not the kind of fire you are talking about. You see a grease fire, I only see a trashcan on fire.


If there is a national "fire" in this theater called America, then it is you who will bear the guilt by keeping people in their seats. Conspiracy researchers will not have any guilt as you seem to be saying because they are informed and aware.


You assume that I would keep people in their seats were the building burning around us. Quite the contrary, I would be throwing people out the windows if the whole building were on fire. It being only a trashcan, I think we can put it out without causing a panic.


If one is to apply the analogy, then the US would be like a movie theater which is locked, as we cannot get out of our country, and the nationalistic nature of Earth 2009 does not allow people to run to other countries unless they are rich.


Sure we can. No movie theater is ever locked to the point where you can't get in or out if you really want to, and neither is our country. People come and go quite frequently both legally and illegally. If we really want to leave, we can. All that is needed is a vehicle and enough gas money to make it across the border. Or if neither are to be had, a compass or at least a good sense of direction, possibly a map, some decent shoes, and something to hunt with would suffice. It wouldn't be as nice or comfortable of a trip, but it would certainly be doable if one really wanted to leave and couldn't get a car or gas.


What would I do? I'd probably decide for myself as to the definitions of A: Smoke, and B: Fire. But this is where you and I, perhaps even if seated next to each other, might disagree as to if there is a scent of smoke or not.


Were there a fire, we would both smell the smoke. What would differ would be where we think it's coming from and what exactly is burning.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by HiAliens
Are you'all more interested in your egos or the sorting out the world?


Lengthy discussions are possible without egos being involved.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by smallpeeps
 




If there is a national "fire" in this theater called America, then it is you who will bear the guilt by keeping people in their seats. Conspiracy researchers will not have any guilt as you seem to be saying because they are informed and aware.


You're assuming a false dichotomy by ignoring a third (at least) plausible situation. That you are mistake, and that by screaming "Fire!" in a crowded theater you could inspire a panic in a rush for the door in which people are needlessly trampled, seriously injured, or quite possibly die. Even if you really and truly believed that you were helping at the time, and were convinced there was a fire, who's hands do those deaths ultimately fall upon? Or are they just "acceptable collateral damage" to you? Maybe you did smell smoke, or feel a strong draft of oddly misplaced heat... but that doesn't mean there's a fire. It could be a factor you're not accounting for, or clear signs of a potential fire (like a wiring fault)... or maybe you felt both the heat and smelled the smoke, but they were unrelated phenomena. Does that really justify your screaming of "Fire!!", whereas further inquiry could confirm or deny your suspicion?

And what of those who are falsely yelling fire either by giving you insufficient, misinterpreted, or spurious cherry-picked information? I would refer you to the 1913 Massacre in which 74 people died, trampled over in the chaos of the mad dash for the exits... despite there never actually being a fire of any kind.

And just to make this clear - flames are flames. Everyone can see them, and you don't need to yell fire to get people to recognize them or acknowledge them. It's not analogous to your described situation. When you're talking about flames, you're talking about acknowledged issues with empirical evidence to support them. Linking smoke and heat is still speculation, even if strongly indicative of your hypothesis. It could be nothing, it could be (as said) a small trash fire, or it could be an inferno within the ceiling insulation and the smoke just hasn't collected enough to push downward for everyone to notice.

One of the first things they teach you in ANY crisis/emergency management course is to stay calm, and keep the people around you calm. Assess the situation and make rational informed decisions. You can still move like, well like there's a fire under your butt, but in a directed and purposeful manner.

It does save lives.

Alex Jones has proven himself to be a fear monger... just as Fox News has proven themselves to be fear mongers. Aside from the casual listen to hear the advertising pitches they call news or the pandering to a particular political slant (and that's what they're doing, vying for your attention to increase revenue) to hear a test sample of crap that fellow citizens are apparently believing to come from a trustworthy source, I have nothing to do with them. It's the same with MSNBC, NBC, CNN or other mainstream sources, and for the same reason.

And... by the way, studies show that people who get their news online are generally as equally uninformed/misinformed as those who watch the main-stream media... because the tend to seek out those blogs aligned with their political/ideological leanings who will tell them what they want to hear. Not many people have a recognition of their own bias, and seek out contradictory views or sources they know give them more complete coverage from different angles of perspective.

Hell, that's why I'm HERE in the first place. Because I'm seeking out contrary views. Not so I can accept them, but so I can gauge them and weigh their validity against other sources. Unfortunately, I'm finding that many in the conspiracy culture tend to gravitate towards sources like Alex Jones and David Icke because something, somewhere, shattered their previously held belief system built on personal bias (and that's regardless of whether or not the info was accurate). So instead of setting up any sort of personal methodology for removing or identifying their bias, they jump head-long into the task of cocooning themselves around another set of falsehoods and misconceptions built on information fed to them by their new "trusted source".

While I won't profess to having it all figured out, I will say that my bias does lean heavily towards the sciences. But, at least in that case I feel a bit vindicated, because science is all about a methodology for removing bias from observations and reasoned debate of contrary views. And... well, science is a self-correcting process with a proven track record of working. Speculation, accusation, out of context information, misinformation, fear-mongering, pandering... none of that stuff gets you anywhere. Or rather it does, but often in a contrary position with unintended consequences.


.... you haven't even fully explored the analogy of a theater fire and already you're jumping the conversation to motivation for intentional burning, with #1 on your list being insurance fraud. I... think that's a bit telling as to your own particular brand of bias.

[edit on 18-5-2009 by Lasheic]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join