Zeitgeist Movement = most hardcore NWO propaganda ever.

page: 12
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 31 2009 @ 03:32 PM
reply to post by TrueTruth

Yep, you were right about that board! I posted a version of thsi thread over at their forums hoping they could explain it to me, and you can guess how it went. I didnt even get all out of line or over the top rude. Just stuck on point and responded to everything with even more damning questions.


That was last night. I just checked to see any responses and sure enough:

Your IP address has been blocked

I can't even look at any responses. What losers.

Especially considering my opening remarks:

Hello. I’m here to challenge. When I look over the talking points of this movement I see the same old things I’ve been observing with the ‘NWO’ agenda. I figure since these critiques exist outside of here it’d be best to have you guys explain this (confusion?). Thing is this board seems to have a bad reputation for deleting critical posts and banning critical posters. I hope thats not the case, as it would seem to confirm the allegations I’m about to post.

Oh, ZM supporters, please do review the thread and quote me on ANYTHING that would even begin to suggest I should have been banned.

It's a good thing they stopped me. Not even PJ himself could have stepped in and won that debate.

EDIT: Using a proxy, I can see that some smacktard made a couple posts in my thread complaining about being banned, so a mod locked the thread and banned me (without explaination) instead of just banning him. Losers. At least they didnt delete the thread I suppose.

Oh, and my closing remarks in my OP:

That should be all. I hope we get to discuss all of this, as it would have to be pretty embarassing for you if this gets deleted. I mean, if you cant openly address criticisms then it already proves this system is no different than Stalinism.

[edit on 31-12-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 08:02 AM
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Stalinist indeed, friend.

At least they are already waning in popularity. That much makes me happy.

They are frauds, pure and simple. They welcome debate like ice welcomes heat.

posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 08:03 AM
reply to post by dalan.

Any time, dalan.

Good people are more important than good ideas - which really, none of us can really know are good or bad but in far future hindsight...

Thanks for being you.

posted on Mar, 25 2010 @ 06:02 PM
Well if this years ZDay didnt get kudos from the Huffington Post:

No surprise there...

posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 10:47 AM
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I would like to add a few things here after studying the history of Law and Constitutional Law in the United States.

I know that I did passionately defend the Zeitgeist Movement, and there are still elements of it that I do agree with, but I do believe that now I am on your side.

I think that the one thing the Zeitgeist Movement fails to recognize is the Law of property. Since all rights derive from property, where will the rights of the people in these communities they want to build come from? Will I own my body?

I think that if something like the Zeitgeist Movement were going to be succesful, they should still use Constitutional Law.

Or even the Articles of Confederation.

With technology they way it is today we could very much so use a currency of value like energy, or energy credits.

I am just a little hesitant to support certain aspects of the movement.

posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 11:22 AM
Ahhh! Very good! In case I didnt link it in already, here goes the Constitution Class:

Google Video Link

Thats part 1 of 8.

Property rights are so crucial to liberty, and economics. i.e. If I own my own house, I cannot be removed from it, or, if I spend vast hours and resources building an impressive garden lazy people shouldnt be able to hop my fense and take my exotic vegetables. I started a thread a few nights ago cynically putting "free" food in the same context as people attempt to claim that healthcare (there work and resources of others) is a "basic human right".

So I'm glad you've dug further and seen the light.
You're genuinely motivated and the world needs more people like you.

I appreciate the idealism of ZM, or even the sense of community that communist try to weild, but it doesnt work out in reality. Especially when you're attempting to force people to do it globally.

Any way you slice it we will need a new society to escape tyranny, and especially if anyone wants to remain human and not suffer at the new society that transhumanism demands. But trying to force global communism isn't the answer. They do have some good ideals but it cannot expect people to conform to it.

I dont have all the answers either but I do think that if enough people get together and build their own new communities based on sustainability combined with freedom it could provide a light for others to follow. But to me the goal of sustainability is motivated by the desire to not be subject or addicted to 'the man'. We dont need a dramitic shift, other than how dramatic the current system is from the one we're supposed to have inherited.

The new society is a very important issue to me, in my line of futurist realism research. I even plan to pay a little visit to Venus Florida (a few hours away) this year to have a little chat with JF, and not just to trash him. Unlike too many (especially tv pundits), I'm able to derive good ideas from sets that contain bad ones. Economic meltdown, or NWO, or not, looming technology demands a lot of ideas for the future, especially for those of us who want freedom and dont want to be forced into becoming cyborgs in order to even hold a job worthwhile.

posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 01:19 PM
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


I am a bit involved with the dutch chapter of TZM.

At first reading your OP I thought their is a lot of anger and fear inside that post that is not neccessary. Anyways even though i associate with zeitgeist I do not believe that their propossed society will be succesfull.

My experience with the movement is that it is based on good intentions, but they are greatly and i mean greatly overlooking the complexity of society and humanity itself. This makes the movement look foolish at times. Their are those that if you talk with them they will come to the same conclusions as you do, but they would say ZG is still being formed or that is of a future concern. When i try to solve the problems in my mind that ZG is not addressing I come up with a far different society then zeitgeist although it retains some elements.

I have never been active on the international forums, but the censorship I have seen just shows how unbalanced the movement as a whole is. Nonetheless i keep working with them in the netherlands because they are good people with beautifull hopes and dreams.

I am thinking of writting a dutch approach kind of derivative of zeitgeist. That adresses the verry important points you have addressed in this thread. I hope you will look more favorable upon a more expanded idea on society then zeitgeist offers. When it is done I will start a Thread. I will keep posting progress. Just thought of the idea reading through this thread. Hope you guys will be supportive and willing to give feedback.

At first it will look alot like the TVP but as I transform it to cope with all thinkable factors it wil change dramatically driven by peer feedback ofcourse and maybe some good discussion.

One thing I have seen in this thread that doesnt feel right to me is the idea that something is bad. Everything discussed here in this thread is directly or indirectly a product of humans and their trials to create a good society for themselves. Everything ever thought up is as good or bad as those humans that live by them.

Thanks OP for the mind tickler.

posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 06:53 PM
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Yes, I have to express my apologies to you for the misunderstandings that I have had. It is ironic that you would post Mr. Badnarik's videos on the Constitution...I actually stumbled across them by mistake while researching Law, and I am very glad that I did. His videos have helped to put things into a perspective that I didn't understand before, especially the part about Rights vs. Privileges.

I am very angry recently with the things that I have been learning, I bought a pocket copy of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, The Federalist Papers, and The AntiFederalist Papers...

I know I shouldn't be surprised, but I was surprised, that none of these extremely basic things are taught in any school within these United States

I cannot apologize enough to you, and I am sorry that I was so stubborn, but I did not understand what I was talking about. So along with my computer major I have decided to minor in Constitutional Law, and I am loving the subject.

You should look more into the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Supreme Court Rulings, that laid the groundwork for the second-class citizenship within the United States.

It is very interesting.

But please, continue showing people Mr.Badnarik's videos

posted on Mar, 26 2010 @ 08:45 PM
reply to post by GamleGamle

Right on. One way or another there will need to be a new society (or many) to shine light to the masses of the potential we've had stolen from us our entire lives. I'm always looking for ideas in this regard and will definitely look at yours. Please do post a link to your WIP thread, in this thread when you get it going.

reply to post by dalan.

No apologies please. You wer stubborn in removing ZM from your sig perhaps, but you were the most reasonable than most other ZM supporters I've delt with.

Ya I've been championing Badnarik for a few years now. I dont know how many times I've played the class. It's one of those great bits of media that you dont need visual to take it all in, so I've played it countless times at work, like in place of a radio, and for many coworkers. You always want to play the best stuff many times for your brain to long term memory it all. I've talked to Mr. Badnarik on the phone a couple times and he's a nice guy. During his 2004 Libertarian Party campaign he stated that if he won he'd hold a special week long congressional summit that all of congress would be required to attend, where he'd present a special week long version of his Constitution Class.
One of my backburner film projects is a condensed version of the 8 hour class, so more people might play it (dont know when I'll ever be able to finish it, anyone feel free to do it first!).


Moving on, I envision a libertarian version of VP... minus the robot drones, AI Skynet running everything, brain implants, forced communism, global mandates, implausible lack of 'currency'... er rather a new society. Taking out the above it isn't even a version of ZM, other than the idea of a new society that rejects tyranny. Maybe I might start a new thread somewhere where everyone can kick around ideas of how to get there and what it should be...

[edit on 26-3-2010 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 12:15 AM
Alright I started a new thread to get the ball rolling on solid ideas for building the new society:
How would YOU build the new society?

I hope we can get some good input not only for what it should be but also how to actually do it...

posted on Mar, 27 2010 @ 08:17 AM
Im all for getting rid of the goverment, but the venus project just seems to good to be true.

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 03:27 AM
Always fascinating to see the opposition to Zeitgeist. Claims that it's Communism or Socialism. Sometimes I think to myself, if you claim it's Communism, then where do you come from? Economic Fascism?
And please, the NWO is already here and it's not Zeitgeist. It's the corporatocracy.
Plainly visible for those that can see.

posted on Apr, 3 2010 @ 05:05 PM
I agree with some of the material on the Zeitgeist film, specifically the part about money and how it has no value anymore, but the rest seems rather nonsensical. It seems to me that in instituting the system they are trying for, we would get something similar to that in Brave New World

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 12:45 AM
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

The thing is, you came over to the Zeitgeist forum with a definite agenda and right from the start you were making proclamations and demands. An intelligent person has you figured out from the start. Refusal of your questions would have automatically led to condemnation, but I think that was your end goal all along. I read the thread and one person answered all your questions immaculately. Funny that you didn't post it here. Want me to do it?

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 01:21 AM
Very good points IgnoranceIsntBlisss.

I started questioning about the guy behind the Venus project when I saw an interview with him on RT where he actually says than in the future they will instruct parents on how to raise their kids..
talk about a brave new world..

you can watch the interview here RT interview

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 01:44 AM

Originally posted by TerraX
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss

The thing is, you came over to the Zeitgeist forum with a definite agenda and right from the start you were making proclamations and demands. An intelligent person has you figured out from the start. Refusal of your questions would have automatically led to condemnation, but I think that was your end goal all along. I read the thread and one person answered all your questions immaculately. Funny that you didn't post it here. Want me to do it?

Please do present the very best "quotes" from that entire thread.

Why would answering my questions be refused? I sure know that if someone started a rucus like that were I trying to take over the world I'd be fast in response. What was there to figure out? I said: "I'm here to challenge".

My agendas were to have a list of questions answered for me, and if they couldn't be answered realistically, then obviously the movement is a sham (or worse) that ZM people might get a grip.

Of course the problem was that most of the questions were inherently impossible because VP is. I can see where this would be frusterating for a movement whose agenda is to literally take over the world. You cant take over the world without forcing your will upon all and stimying dissent or even questioning of the institutions of such.

Please do show some quotes, as I would have had they not banned my IP and blocked me from viewing the site (and now that I can see in again they also locked the thread).

Scanning back thru it, theres about one (lengthy) post I would have loved to have been able to read thru again and respond more directly, rather than just quote his own admissions as I did that confirm substantial portions of my allegations. The remainder of the thread went on after I was either sleeping, or was banned. I only participated for a chunk of the night when I started it, and when I came back the next day I was blocked.

Now for extra credit you could even go as far as to show responses to me from your forum that havent already been beaten to death in this ATS thread. It's a shame they banned me. Was really disappointed. I love a good debate, and I'd still be posting in that very thread. But at least we can continue here...

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 02:04 AM
reply to post by Ionut

Good find

I guess he also intends to police the way we use language as well. I guess he could be talking about the way Congress writes legislation in 'legalese' so we cant understand it, except he seemed more concerned with how the Bible was written and how we all bid farewell to each other.

His statements sure sound like hes talking about mandating a 'scientific' language for us all to speak. He better get to work writing long books that focus on what thsi language might be if he thinks hes going to selll that in advance.

Language is how we express ourselves. "Freedom of Speech" and "Freedom of Expression" come to mind.

Noam Chompsky would have a field day with all of this.

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 02:54 AM

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
My agendas were to have a list of questions answered for me, and if they couldn't be answered realistically, then obviously the movement is a sham (or worse) that ZM people might get a grip.

Well, there ya go. Thanks for explaining your motivation, not that it was hard to see. Let me be also frank. I'm not a member of that particular ZM forum but I am a member in another country. Personally I also see the ZM and TVP as a work in progress, and a lot of issues still have to be properly addressed. However I do think the basic premise is a good one and offers a much better and improved society then we have now.
In my experience, a lot of people who criticize Zeitgeist actually don't have a full grasp of what the movement proposes and the motivation for that is selfish reasoning. What about my property? What about my gun? What about my money? It's the behavior of scared little children. Relax. A transition of any sort will take a very long time. But I digress.

Here are answers to your questions on that forum. Note that some sincere people took the time and energy to answer your questions. How sincere you were is doubtful imo.

Even if you might dismiss the context of my outline above, please answer these questions:

I don't dismiss your context. I do think you are not being objective and you are projecting what you think this movement is about erroneously. Nevertheless, hit me with your questions...

A: How could the ZM be implemented without a totalitarian regime to enforce it? Don't forget the idea of the ZM is that its to be global in scale.

Through agreement. This is how anything works. The very monetary system we value is just that: an agreement. Same with our laws. They only are upheld because the majority of people agree to them. There is no totalitarian regime which would enforce anything this movement promotes. You're trying to find "NWO" where none exists.

B: How is it any different than Communism?

Well, believe it or not, this question gets responded to continuously on here. You might want to start off with some basic facts about communism though, to compare it:
Communism is run by a ruling class of politicians. A Resource Based Economy isn't. It is a systems approach using science. Communism is nationalistic. A Resource Based Economy is humanistic. Communism doesn't even begin to address the problem of scarcity by offering solutions, instead it offers rationing. A Resource Based Economy doesn't promote rationing, it promotes access.
You might want to read a recent response I had to another user who had a similar mis perception:

C: What about private property rights? What are PJ and JF's views on this? What is yours?

I'm all for it, if you want it. There is nothing wrong with private property. The only reason anyone declares something to be their private property is because it ensures nobody else will claim it. In other words, out of fear of a scarcity driven fear of losing whatever piece of property. Do you see anyone declare the air around their house as their "private air"? You don't see that because it is so abundant. There is no scarcity of it, so the very idea sounds absurd. In a Resource Based Economy private property will no doubt be protected, however it will be irrelevant, because nobody would want to steal things from others when everything is readily accessible. Even people like Winona Ryder, who have all the money in the world and yet decide to shoplift...they only do so because of the thrill. Everyone who asks these questions is still thinking about these things in terms of how the world works right now. Yes, right now, the idea of "no private property" sounds very dangerous. But don't confuse this with the fact that when we talk about no private property in the future, it doesn't mean that some law will go into effect...rather it is an understanding based on rationally considering the implications of an access based resource system. If you have access to something, whenever you need it, what does it matter if it is "private" property or not? If you need something, and it's there, always, who cares if we call it mine, yours, ours, etc. Think of a family. A mom, a dad, two boys and girl. They decide to get a water filtration device. They all pitch in the same amount, and all have ACCESS to clean water whenever they need it. When someone says "whose water filter is that?" how do you think they should answer? Does it even matter? What happens when you begin to look at the entire WORLD'S population as a family like that? Do you see the idea?

D: Who will pay for it initially?

Pay for what? This is the wrong question. Money doesn't make the world go round. This is another common misconception. It is AGREEMENT and RESOURCES and TECHNOLOGY that makes the world go round. If we all reached the agreement that money was useless, then it would be so. If you have 0 dollars or if you have 10,000,000,000 dollars, it doesn't change the laws of chemistry. It doesn't make gravity any more powerful. Money doesn't do ANYTHING. It doesn't make more oil appear in the ground and it doesn't help reduce pollution.
Who will pay for it? Wrong question. The question is: where will the resources, technology and agreements come from. The answer: when enough people share the same value system, then these processes will get put into effect.

E: What about the jobs robots cant replace? And who decides who gets the crappy jobs or the good jobs?

Give an example. So called "crappy" jobs will be automated as best they can be, and with other jobs that the technology for automation doesn't exist yet, it could easily be done with remote control drones. For instance, instead of making a human do a nasty job, you have the human do a simulation of that job, so any unpleasant smell, or any danger (such as working on rooftops, at great heights, underwater, etc) can be done by a very fine-tuned remote controlled machine that the user can interface with, which has extremely delicate tactile controls. It would be like playing a video game. I know many people that would not even consider this a job, they would be fascinated by the very idea in fact.
For certain other jobs, there could be a volunteer based system. We have many of these today. Many people in the armed forces do so out of the desire to do their duty for their country, for their citizens, for honor, etc. This same reasoning would still exist, only that instead of doing your duty by grabbing a gun, you do so by driving around an EMT vehicle to save lives. Or you do so by working a certain job that machines are not yet able to automate. If only a small percentage of people did these jobs just once every few weeks, it would be more than enough. Certainly though, eventually automation would become so capable of even things like treating emergency victims, that it would be used for virtually everything, allowing humans to not have to do "work" but rather to make music, art, research, have fun, write books, without needing to do it for profit. Without needing to worry about funding, etc.

F: Are there ANY comparable examples of this system in history that worked?

Are there any comparable examples of the technology we have today, that we had in our history? Have we ever had the internet in the past? There were examples of slavery throughout our history. In fact slavery worked for thousands of years throughout our history. Does that mean we should use it because it is a time-tested method? Lets not look to the past to tell us what is possible in the future. We SHOULD look to the past to LEARN from it. But lets not look to the past to impose limitations on us.

(Continued in next post.)

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 03:00 AM
G: What evidence exists to support the idea of the Resource Economy, that is the "abundance" part that is crucial to the feasability of the utopia.

It's actually the "access" that is most important. If you understand, fully, what a resource based economy is, you quickly realize it's not about resources, but rather the ACCESS to those resources. We have an OVER abundance of many resources today, such as grain, and yet...people in third world countries do not get any of it. Why? Because we restrict their access to it. You understand?
Now, when you produce abundance, this reduces the probability that anyone will not have access to something, but it's not enough to just have abundance, you must also create infrastructure to create availability, or, ACCESS to those goods. This is exactly what a Resource Based Economy suggests. Also, that word utopia is a misnomer. Nobody in this movement is under any sort of delusion that such a thing is even possible. So please, I hope you don't continue to use that word thinking that anyone here believes it is even a real possibility.\

H: Do you truly believe that there is any one size fits all approach to the entire globe and all of its social systems?

No, but that doesn't mean we can't promote science-based methods of providing everyone with access to goods and services that allow for everyone's human rights to be met, and an elevated quality of life at the same time. Diversity is great. If anything, our current money driven amalgamation-prone business models are what fail to recognize the diversity of human social systems and make everything monotonous and dull. Point that finger somewhere else. Not here.

I: How can you have an all powerful, global scale system of the greatest power ever considered, totally centralized, and expect that this thing representing an elite cabal would ever give up said power, no matter what or who has this power? And please spare me, we're talking about the global management of the entire earth and its resources. The ZM is no less subject to how things work out in practice historically, than is the USA, or am I mistaken??

You're actually very mistaken on this one. There is no control. There is using science to address technical problems, and using education and non-violence or aggression to deal with social concerns. We do not do this today. Today we have politicians try and make decisions that scientists should be making, and we have force and aggression used where education and non-violent communication should be used. We are completely backwards right now and most people know it deep in their minds...they know the way the world works is totally #ed. Nobody sits down and really REALLY thinks about it though. What are the real problems. You think getting back on the gold standard is going to do anything? What is gold? What can a pound of gold do for you? It's just as fiat as green money is today. The only thing giving it value is what? Our agreement that it has value. Can you eat gold if you're starving? Can gold prevent a heart attack? Can a pound of gold be used as energy to give power to your house for the week?
The reason we all agree to the value of gold, is because it is SCARCE. This is exactly the kind of ridiculous value system that the ZM doesn't agree with. There is no inherent value in gold. Anyone that is trying to tell you that, isn't thinking critically. Is a gold standard better than an interest-ridden, fractional reserve, money-from-thin-air system which we have today? YES! It is a good permanent solution? No. Not even close.

J: What about transition??

Explain to me the transition! My argument is that it would take tyranny just to maintain it. Yet how do you transition it in without dictatorial tyranny? How many decades would it take. What suffering is this goal worth to get there? Has anyone actually thought this experiment all the way thru?

There are many avenues here. If enough people want this thing to happen...they pool their resources together. Perhaps a small country would be interested in implementing such a model. This is a grass roots movement, it doesn't have every single answer. But I can tell you what we do know: the way things are going is really horrible. The way we see it COULD be going is much better. How to get it there exactly...there are many options. To say I know exactly how it will happen, I don't. That doesn't mean the facts don't stand.

K: Explain the transition to this idea that nobody will have to work anymore, please.

Transition from a 9-5 workday to a 10-4 work day with the same pay. Then to an 11 - 3 workday. Then to a 20 hour work week being "fulltime" while the pay remains the same as that which was 40 hours before. Then you go to a 10 hour work week, as more and more automation gets implemented, all the while, the actual paycheck, or more importantly, the person's ability to obtain food, goods, services, etc remains the same or goes up. That's called a transition.

L: How can you promise that this system wouldnt calculate its numbers, in order for the utpopia to work, and decide that major population numbers wouldnt need to be exterminated?

We are human beings. Also I asked you to not use that word utopia, as it is a strawman, and in fact a false label. I hope in the future you refrain from that word as NOBODY here is supporting anything of the sort. As far as "exterminating people" this is absolutely absurd. Murder is not what this movement is about. Whatsoever. The fact is this: Population tends to remain stable as education, standard of living, and access to basic services are met. Most developing countries have stagnant or FALLING population figures. The earth can sustain many more people than right now. However, indeed it is true that an ever-increasing population will eventually have to reach an equilibrium. I think a good approach is through education, understanding, and lots of hours spent talking about this issue. Will there ever be an "extermination" agenda? Absolutely not. This is almost offensive that you would think we would ever advocate something like that. Of course not.

M: After handing all power over to the AI god global computer network, how can you promise that it wont decide that all humans wont need to be turned into compost?

You've been watching too much TV, lol. No power will be given to the AI. This is quite funny you think of it this way. Look around you. Everything you own is technology. Does it have any "power" that you handed it? Is your car in control when you drive it? What about when you put it on cruise control? How about your thermostat in your living room? You set it to adjust the heat or coolness in the room such that it remains within a narrow defined temperature that you tell it to keep it at. Is it in control, or you?
Do you think anyone would ever want to give machines AI such that they can actually have feelings, etc? This is # from science fiction movies that try and make the plot really scary and marketable. But it's not the real world. AI is not "self aware." Again, you simply have the wrong idea.
Machines don't make decisions. Machines execute the decisions we make. Machines are tools. We can choose to use tools in a negative way or a positive way. It's not the machines, but people who make them that are the determiners of what those machines will be used for.

(Continued in next post.)

posted on Apr, 4 2010 @ 03:00 AM
N: How does PJ make the jump from the tyranny of the Federal Reserve system as being the problem, to money period as the problem to be eliminated?

Why don't you watch the lectures. Read the material. Go in the ventrilo and chat with some of us. Listen to his many many many blogtalk radio show addresses. If you end the fed it doesn't end the interest based banking system. It doesn't end the fact that "economic growth" will still be based off continuous unsustainable expansion and that businesses will still have ABSOLUTELY no incentive to stop destroying our environment and making cheap goods, and paying #ty wages, and perpetuating the stratified social system as it exists today. That's a short answer...but there's plenty more reasons. Go educate yourself. You'll find out very fast why this "back to the gold standard" talk is just plain BS. Read some of Stephen Zarlenga's books. Read Web of Debt.
Learn. Absorb. Understand.

O: Explain how we 'get rid of' 'money'. Will there not be a 'credits' sort of system? If there is, how is this different than 'money'? No 'monetary units' whatsoever? If not, please explain the model.

Replace "money" with "access to goods and resources." Try it.

That should be all. I hope we get to discuss all of this, as it would have to be pretty embarassing for you if this gets deleted. I mean, if you cant openly address criticisms then it already proves this system is no different than Stalinism.

I don't know of any thread that has been deleted because someone simply had questions contrary to the movement's tenets. Criticism is welcome here. It is trolling, blatant spamming, dehumanizing and offensive language, and lack of respect that doesn't get tolerated here too well. It's the same no matter where you go. If you want an example of real censorship, go run by the Alex Jones forums. THAT'S censorship. I know because I had multiple posts completely erased. Not just locked or moved. ERASED, and all because I presented information that differed from Alex's ideas. I wasn't offensive or rude in the least.

Anyways. I'll make you a bet. If you remain respectful, you don't result to ad hominem arguments, and you don't start calling people names, you will not get banned, this topic will not get locked, nor will it be deleted. Prove me wrong.

new topics
top topics
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in