The Illuminati isn't real anymore

Originally posted by gabby2011
My intuition tells me she is telling the truth, even if she does have some of her facts wrong...which I'm not sure she does.

She doesn't have her facts wrong...she doesn't have them at all. Her story is entirely personal testimony, with zero supporting evidence.

I'll ask again: other than restating what conspiracy theorists would like to believe, what has Svali said that would make her believable?

Originally posted by OnTheLevel213

Originally posted by gabby2011
My intuition tells me she is telling the truth, even if she does have some of her facts wrong...which I'm not sure she does.

She doesn't have her facts wrong...she doesn't have them at all. Her story is entirely personal testimony, with zero supporting evidence.

I'll ask again: other than restating what conspiracy theorists would like to believe, what has Svali said that would make her believable?

edit on 6-6-2011 by OnTheLevel213 because: rephrased

She has said many things ..that are similar to other things I have read, especially concerning the mind control programs , why and how they go about doing it. Also she said they were planning a great financial down fall , and this was well before 2008.

look..I find her credible...if you don't ..that's fine..I won't try to change your mind...
But I have the right to my opinion, and to find her credible ..so BACK OFF

If all you can do is go around jumping all over people who don't believe she's legit..get a life.

Originally posted by gabby2011
She has said many things ..that are similar to other things I have read, especially concerning the mind control programs , why and how they go about doing it.

If they do it. If there's even a they to do it. Anyone can parrot what someone else said on a topic. The problem is that she, like her sources, doesn't provide an evidential link to it.

Also she said they were planning a great financial down fall , and this was well before 2008.

So did the documentary Maxed Out, and actually provided all the reasons why it would happen pretty accurately, as Svali failed to do. It was released in 2006. Svali's prediction was given with the claimed credibility of an insider, and yet she was thrashed by a guy who went out of his way not to claim specia insight on the future.

Topic Timeout: Everyone go watch Maxed Out, available on Netflix Instant Play or wherever fine financial documentaries are sold. The secret society that bankrupted us doesn't have rituals or a cloak-and-dagger mystique; its secrets are about you. Its tone is a little inconsistent, and it doesn't hit all the targets it aims at, but it watches like a history of things that happened two years later.

look..I find her credible...if you don't ..that's fine..I won't try to change your mind...

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, but silence is consent. This is a person who is saying things about several people I know personally, calling them awful things. If you were in my position, you would say something when she did that. At least, I hope you would.

But I have the right to my opinion, and to find her credible ..so BACK OFF

You have the right to your opinion. You have neither the right in a public space nor permission in this private arena to broadcast your opinion without challenge.

If all you can do is go around jumping all over people who don't believe she's legit..get a life.

I would say the same to you if you can't handle a mature discussion about something you introduced.

reply to post by onequestion


"We" didn't create physics. God created it. Humans discovered it.

reply to post by gabby2011


It goes well beyond Babylon. It goes back to Ancient Egypt. Legend can actually trace it back to Atlantis.

reply to post by OnTheLevel213


There are things that are in fact true, that have sufficient lack of evidence to some , and the reasons for that being, may very well be legitimate.
Yet you expect us to believe evidence that could very well be lies , in many other so called "truths" ?

What it boils down to , is a mix of evidence, depending on if the source is trusted , reading between the lies of untrusted sources, and using your intuition on what may be right, depending on what other trusted sources it correlates with.

Obviously what you trust ,and what I trust are different. I respect the right for you to believe your lies ,and truths, as I ask for the right to my opinions of what is the truth ,and what are lies.

I also reserve the right to change my opinion , if I should come across information , that I feel is trustworthy, and shows me that I need to consider other truths.

For now, I choose to believe that svali's testimony has truth to it, even if the origins of it might be suspect, the bulk of the material has validity to me.

Originally posted by RisingPhoenix33
reply to post by gabby2011

 

It goes well beyond Babylon. It goes back to Ancient Egypt. Legend can actually trace it back to Atlantis.

Ok..thanks for the information. (I sort of remembered reading that after you mentioned it)

Originally posted by gabby2011
reply to post by OnTheLevel213

 

There are things that are in fact true, that have sufficient lack of evidence to some , and the reasons for that being, may very well be legitimate.
Yet you expect us to believe evidence that could very well be lies , in many other so called "truths" ?

I expect everyone to evaluate the available evidence. In my example, the makers of Maxed Out provided reams of documentation (logos) and extrapolated into specific predictions that have come true (ethos). Svali asked you to believe her as she parroted decades-old conspiracy theory. To equate their arguments because you never know is an exercise in futility.

What it boils down to , is a mix of evidence, depending on if the source is trusted, reading between the lies of untrusted sources, and using your intuition on what may be right, depending on what other trusted sources it correlates with.

The intellectually honest thing to do is to evaluate the evidence to determine the trustworthiness of the source. Your method appears to be the opposite.

Obviously what you trust ,and what I trust are different. I respect the right for you to believe your lies ,and truths, as I ask for the right to my opinions of what is the truth ,and what are lies.

I don't begrudge you your right to believe anything, but this is a discussion forum. Your right to broadcast your opinion without encountering an opposing one ends at your vocal cords, especially when that opinion is defamatory. Svali has said that I and very many people I know are a) unwitting Satan worshippers and b) too gullible, if not outright stupid, to discover this for ourselves. That's not something you would take lightly.

For now, I choose to believe that svali's testimony has truth to it, even if the origins of it might be suspect, the bulk of the material has validity to me.

So you're willing to believe her, and the cynical and misanthropic worldview the truth of her testimony would demand, without any corroborating evidence and a host to the contrary?

read it all please and comment

i had a vision yesterday and i believe it was God talking to me. its not the first time this has happened. on my birthday i was sitting on my couch watching TV with a friend when something told me to get up. i listened and it lead me to my room. i closed the door and all of a sudden i fell to my knees and was crying for forgiveness with absolutely no control of my body. i felt as if i was watching myself go threw this but there was nothing i could do. when i finally realized what happen i was sitting on the floor with a feeling i cannot describe. i felt loved and embraced by something but i didn't even bother asking to myself what it was i just sat there smiling. as of that day i found myself researching on the Internet. but i was not researching religion i was searching Illuminati, new world order, and all types of government frauds and killings covered up from the everyday person.

yesterday i came home and was explaining everything to a friend of mine, showing him a video of the Illuminati when it hit me. i had a vision that was explaining the pyramids and how everything relates to the same evil. i don't even know where to start and how to translate my vision into words but ill try.

the pyramids is a sign given by other creatures that landed on our planet. it was a sign given to the most powerful at the time. it is meant to represent that they too can become a god. its all about control. (DIVIDE AND CONQUER why is Pangaea no more? shifting plates? yeah, right! the planet is easier to control if it is divided! this thing is bigger than what you know as reality) if you are the top point of the pyramid everything else is under you and under your control. nobody can tell you no or disagree with your ways because you have the power to eliminate anybody. you are ultimately seeing yourself as a god. that's what happen in ancient times with the Egyptians and the Aztecs, and that's whats happening to us now with the Illuminati.

i believe these people who are in power have seen and believe that their false gods have given them the power to be gods of this planet. threw technology and false religion they see this coming true for them. they see these false gods as giving them power of technology to finalize there power as gods. they see false religion as a way to control peoples feelings. they are working on chips that they will implant in you and you will beg them to. they will tell you it can unlock the other parts of the brain we never could on our own. when the world is one government as the plan on making it it will be ruled by one man with the power to turn any ones chip off if you do not live or agree to what he says your life must be. TOTAL CONTROL!!!

our governments are also just pawns in this master plan. just ask yourself what this man with all this power realized. all these countries come to me for loans and they are in debt to me. what does this mean? i basically own these countries and i can make these countries do whatever i want because if they don't i have the power to stop that country by not funding it.

turn your TVs and radios off for a minute and turn your minds on. do you need an Escalade on 24's? Do you need to have sex with every woman you can get your hands on? do you need more money to buy all the things TV tells you you want? does money, drugs, weapons, and violence make us happier? does working hard and waking up early to go earn a paycheck the way you really picture a beautiful life?

i believe we are spirits being tested! i believe whats happening is the devil is preparing for war with God and threw these lies the devil calls life he is building his army by making Gods children non-believers! he tells you in order to believe in god you need facts, but that is far from the truth! All you need is to believe that there is a God. you don't need someone or something proving it to you, you believe because you know life is more than just a job, house, and a car! will you be the devils soldier of war or will you believe in God and and let only God show you the way to life?

the only answer is GOD! i cant tell you who or what God is, i can only tell you that God is everything and everything is God. the only way to true Paradise is threw God. I'm not telling you to go to church or anything like that all i ask is that you believe in God and talk to God. God has not forgotten about you so don't forget about God!

am i crazy or just found God?

reply to post by OnTheLevel213

The intellectually honest thing to do is to evaluate the evidence to determine the trustworthiness of the source. Your method appears to be the opposite.

Really?? How so? Perhaps it's not so easily done, to evaluate the evidence from a trustworthy source?
Especially when the public has been blinded to accept "knowledge" , and" facts" from sources that seem reputable , but are manipulated, and deceived for whatever reasons ,for purposes that suited those in the know. (even if it is just for profit)

Really?? How so? Perhaps it's not so easily done, to evaluate the evidence from a trustworthy source?
Especially when the public has been blinded to accept "knowledge" , and" facts" from sources that seem reputable , but are manipulated, and deceived for whatever reasons ,for purposes that suited those in the know. (even if it is just for profit)

Most of the main stream sources on the internet are highly fabricated and hold a pro view of the establishment, you can imagine they edit anything, you have to search for information a great deal of time to make a point and show that it is in fact highly fabricated BS.

reply to post by bubusmells


I think an angel spoke to you. The pyramids are a man made structure to help with the earth's energy lines. (The ley lines) They replicate natural mountains and are placed where balance is needed between the matrix.

Originally posted by gabby2011
Really?? How so?

Svali hasn't presented one iota of reasonable evidence that she is credible; actually, the one thing you've posted as proof of her credibility (the financial crisis) has not at all worked out the way she predicted. Despite all this, you cite her as a source...because you find her credible. On the other hand, you say that you can't believe another source, with genuine predictive power and reams of supporting documentation, because it might not be true, wielding the theoretical possibility like a shield against bothering to evaluate it. Your standard for proof seems to be very different for what you would and would not like to believe.

Especially when the public has been blinded to accept "knowledge" , and" facts" from sources that seem reputable , but are manipulated, and deceived for whatever reasons ,for purposes that suited those in the know. (even if it is just for profit)

Yes, but there are sources of knowledge that achieve credibility without kowtowing to some agenda. They do this by pointing you toward the evidence so you can see for yourself, instead of a constant barrage of "trust me".

reply to post by OnTheLevel213



I'm NOT asking you to trust me..merely defending my right to trust who I want to trust.

If you don't trust the source as credible..its no skin off of my back..but quit trying to convince me that you have all the "reliable" sources..cause I don't buy it,and I don't have to..just as you don't have to buy into mine.

Are you done yet? Because I am.

Originally posted by gabby2011
I'm NOT asking you to trust me..merely defending my right to trust who I want to trust.

That right is best "defended" by keeping it within the walls of your cranium. Once you introduce it to another, you have no authority over reactions to it.

If you don't trust the source as credible..its no skin off of my back..but quit trying to convince me that you have all the "reliable" sources..

I never did. I simply showed you how what you called the bedrock of her testimony (predictive power) had been better exemplified by someone who never claimed any inside information. Nowhere did I say I was an authority on the matter; you said that someone was. I don't think that claim is ridiculous because I'm in competition with it.

Are you done yet? Because I am.

Why are you on a discussion forum if you have no desire to defend your views?

reply to post by OnTheLevel213

Why are you on a discussion forum if you have no desire to defend your views?

I don't mind defending my views , and my view is I have the right (just like the person exposed to the info I am sending) to make up my own mind on what is reliable and what isn't. It is understood that much of the MSM ,and credible sources are out to pull the wool over our eyes, so the who the heck is to say whats credible anymore, in such a devious environment. I do defend the right for someone to be exposed to what I call truth, and not listen to the naysayers,and make up their own mind about what is truth, and what is part truth, and what is blatant lying .

All boils down to a matter of trust in the sources...no matter where the sources are allegedly from . Some can be proved more easily than others, and many that may seem reliable and concrete , can be the most fraudulent ones in the end.

Originally posted by gabby2011


I don't mind defending my views , and my view is I have the right (just like the person exposed to the info I am sending) to make up my own mind on what is reliable and what isn't.

Why can't they do it with a fullness of information, then? What gives you a monopoly on the marketplace of ideas? If I find your information to be entirely baseless, why don't I have the right to say so? Especially when, as previously pointed out, your source repeatedly insults my intelligence and character?

It is understood that much of the MSM ,and credible sources are out to pull the wool over our eyes, so the who the heck is to say whats credible anymore, in such a devious environment.

I don't understand why the standards of credibility soften when the subject is more volatile and controversial; if anything, they should become more rigid. The concept of believing something because the alternative might not be true is foreign to me.

I do defend the right for someone to be exposed to what I call truth, and not listen to the naysayers,and make up their own mind about what is truth, and what is part truth, and what is blatant lying .

Sure, but your anger seems to be pointed toward the fact that said "naysaying" exists, and that anyone would question what you're saying.

All boils down to a matter of trust in the sources...no matter where the sources are allegedly from .

So your decisions on credibility are based on a knee-jerk reaction, then? How can you say you trust something without concern for where it came from, especially with Svali, whose entire claim rests on where she came from?

Some can be proved more easily than others, and many that may seem reliable and concrete , can be the most fraudulent ones in the end.

That's a red herring. Yes, there have been a number of legitimate-looking frauds, but the answer to that is not to completely disregard standards for credibility. The answer to apply those standards even more rigorously. A fraud isn't exposed or the truth determined by a sea change in public intuition, but by diligence in research and a willingness to look beyond the face value of a voice.

Moreover, this argument illustrates a point I've made. When a fraud attempts to pass itself off as legitimate, it's exposed by people doing their homework, looking into stated facts for misrepresentations or outright lies; similarly, people who desire to earn authority in an honest way do so by showing their work and inviting you to look at it critically. They take the chance at being discredited because the inability to do so establishes their credibility. At no point in Svali's testimony is there anything based on verifiable fact; removing oneself from investigation is removing oneself from credibility.

reply to post by OnTheLevel213


I think you are my new hero....


Thank you for so articulately and succinctly reiterating the VERY SAME point about Svali that I have argued on ATS for the past 3 years! We don't see someone using rational judgment very often so you are like a breath of fresh air!

It aggravates me to no end that people can viciously slander a group of people as "murderers, child molesters, and satanists" without ever really KNOWING those individuals or the truth. Instead, they eat up someone else's $hit sandwich while acting like its the finest Godiva chocolate they've ever had. It's offensive. How I wish that karma would turn her beautiful face in their direction and serve them up a taste of their own venom.

Originally posted by CIAGypsy
reply to post by OnTheLevel213

 

I think you are my new hero....

Thank you for so articulately and succinctly reiterating the VERY SAME point about Svali that I have argued on ATS for the past 3 years! We don't see someone using rational judgment very often so you are like a breath of fresh air!

It aggravates me to no end that people can viciously slander a group of people as "murderers, child molesters, and satanists" without ever really KNOWING those individuals or the truth. Instead, they eat up someone else's $hit sandwich while acting like its the finest Godiva chocolate they've ever had. It's offensive. How I wish that karma would turn her beautiful face in their direction and serve them up a taste of their own venom.

edit on 13-6-2011 by CIAGypsy because: (no reason given)

Pffft...and you are supposed to be a source of wisdom for where truth is found ??...I would rather eat her sh%$# sandwich ,with the intuition that is is true..then eat your poop on a stick, and have every fiber in my body tell me its from a disinfo source.

This author of this thread smells of a troll post for a few particular reasons. One the subject states they do not exist ANYMORE so he is inferring that at some point they existed but then he states they never did but are fun to think about? Secondly he states no proof or sources to back these claims up,suggesting he made this post for the replies or stars?