@RichCabot: Very well said.
4 Likes
Thank you, Steve. I’ve been watching Chris’s videos for more than a year, so it feels like it’s time I contributed something back to the dialogue. Finding a community where truth is still valued isn’t easy these days!
6 Likes
If anything, Id say the one aspect most of the creeps have in common is a complete lack of spirituality or faith of any kind. I have a hard time believing that Mark Zuckerberg is even a human being at all, much less a spiritual one.
Look at the expressions and gestures of Zuckerberg in this video analysis. This guy is so creepy. The host compares the interview to ‘two aliens having a conversation while pretending to be human, but they dont know enough about the culture to pull it off’;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzZ7RyqhHw0
13 Likes
Thank you @Island girl for sharing these insights.
You are right, my experience within the international community is more than a decade old, and as I consciously assess whether or not my beliefs based on non-recent personal experience could be a source of bias, I realize that you are right it is possible.
Considering the point from your side: Possibly the level of coordination could have strengthened over the past 15 years, especially with the proliferation of new online digital tools and strengthening of online communities around certain sets of beliefs and ideologies.
Also, thank your for sharing your model of how ideologies and self-interests might be interacting. It makes intuitive sense to me to use a model like this.
“Our mind is a garden, beliefs are the seeds. You can grow flowers, or you can grow weeds!”
The moral: Everything starts with our beliefs, and communities of elites pursuing favored ideologies is no different!
Just for fun: here is an old artifact from economist Pierre Rinefret, published on one of the first blogs on the internet, where he posted about all “isms” being a cause for concern:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060510200755/http://www.parida.com/morality17.html
5 Likes
@richcabot - yes we are generally talking about the same thing.
I wouldn’t use the term “conspiracy” to describe the part at the top, though. The people at the top genuinely believe they are doing the right thing according to their various ideologies.
There must be a term in the English language for people who cooperate together on the basis of a shared beliefs & ideology? A term that is less sinister than a conspiracy? But, odd, I can’t think of such a term at the moment…
When I think of the term “conspiracy” I think of it as a “a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.”
Well… what Fauci’s agency and many of these governments are doing with covid is certainly “harmful” as it has caused a “societal psychosis” … and if there are multiple people from multiple agencies across multiple governments coordinating their actions to do something that is harmful across the West…
OK, I see how you are using the term “conspiracy”. 
Sorry, I’m just catching up with all of you here!
Flipping to the perspective of the liberal elites, they probably justify their “conspiracy” thru a “means” vs. “ends” argument. If they truly believe that by shutting down economies they can contribute to saving humanity from extinction due to climate change, they might consider their effort to be a “righteous cause”.
Are they zealots with an extreme ideology and they’ve gone way too far? Or are they rational, they’ve studied the earth-warming data, and they are doing us all a favor to help ensure our planet survives?
Hmm.
I don’t have any answers.
Just asking the questions.
5 Likes
…according to Yury Slezkine; https://www.amazon.com/Jewish-Century-Yuri-Slezkine/dp/0691127603. I also found Gilad Atzmon’s book “Being in Time” to be quite enlightening and confirmatory (although not necessarily supportive) of Slezkine’s thesis. Both authors are Jews.
I concur with most here: no censoring of speech/ideas (save threats, direct incitement to violence, etc). Crappy ideas tend to weed themselves out.
“Anti-semitism” should mean the same thing that “racism” or “misogyny” have traditionally meant regarding a prejudice against a class of people due to their color/sex/origin/religion etc. An anti-semite is one who hates Jews, all Jews, simply b/c they are Jews. I hope that most if not all here would agree that not only are such judgments not justified, they are profoundly ignorant and frankly stupid.
However, these terms have now been converted from shields of protection into swords to silence any speech that the “hate speech police” don’t like. So anti-semitism has come to mean, any idea or action, that certain Jews don’t like. What organization created the term hate speech?: the ADL.
Jewish organization, ideas, actions should be able to be subject to the same scrutiny and critique as any other groups (Catholics, NAACP, Muslims, NOW, etc), but they are not now thanks to organizations like the ADL and the fear of being labeled an anti-semite.
Criminalizing/demonizing speech is a very bad idea, and I will criticize any org that promotes it, but then may be called an “anti-semite” for criticizing an organization that happens to be run by some Jews, go figure. Am I criticizing Jews in general?, hardly. Same goes for criticism of Israel.
A few years ago, Gov Desantis of FL signed a law prohibiting “anti-semitic speech” in Florida’s school system. I remember many of the comments to the proposed legislation and from Jews in particular, that they thought it would increase "anti-semitism and would be counter-productive in the long run. Folks like the ADL etc, who claim that any discussion of the “jewish question” will lead to increase in anti-semitism and ultimately another holocaust have it backward imo. If you prohibit speech, you will ultimately get violence.
14 Likes
The same is factually true of the Bolsheviks that murdered the Russian Czar and his family and tens of millions of Russians and Ukrainians and many others in the USSR.
That there are “others” involved is also true but these are mostly lower levels of the conspiracy and are controlled by the higher.
Just as there is no doubt that the Mafia in the USA was Italian in ethnicity does not mean that all Italians or Catholics are all involved.
Facts are not racist, anymore than mathematics are, and false ad hominem attacks reflect more on the inability to reason than anything else.
8 Likes
The Askenazi were harmless goat-herders in the Steppes, and then they adopted the cult of Abraham.
See if you can join two dots.
2 Likes
Zukerberg, Sugarmountain BTW.
I had a blast of Dr. David Jackob’s work, “Walking Among Us” last night. In a nutshell, the whole book is consumed by the Aliens attempt to blend into our Humanity. Blending in is what they are desperate to do, and they Zuk at it.
There is one other explanation I can think of. That the entire work was an expression of the Jew Dr. David Jacobs anguish at not being able to blend into the Saxons. However, the huge body of evidence tells me that this conjecture is not viable.
That creepy feeling you have got? Trust it.
Aliens are not good or evil. They are not Saxons. Freedom is who we Are. And freedom is what the Aliens are Not. They have a very limited capacity for original initiative.
4 Likes
And is why the real Semites have all been dispossessed by the Ashkenazi "anti-semites!
History and the true facts are often stranger than fiction!
4 Likes
Hitler was a mouthy corporal with an iron cross for bravery.
He didn’t create the situation in Germany. To think this is just plain lazy, an easy out.
The Weimar created Hitler. And who created the Weimar? We created the Weimar. The peace of Versailles was all one-sided. No, the Germans didn’t surrender at Versailles. It was an Armistice. Armistice? Go look it up.
Kaiser Wilhelm had been brought up by his father on a diet of the horrors of war. He was the ultimate peacenik. He sacrificed vast real-estate to the Poles, in order to secure peace. (Later reclaimed by Hitler).
Billy Hughs, the short-arsed premier of Australia was more British Empire than London. He was determined to make Germany pay for the bloodshed that was instigated by London. (Ha! and you thought the war just happened, because Archduke Ferdinand was shot by a “rogue” Serb? I have a very fast bicycle to sell you).
All this was acknowledged at the end of the war, and hence the Marshal plan.
Does any of this argue against the Mas Psychosis phenomenon? Not at all. We, (The British Empire) set the conditions for it to happen.
Back to our regular program.
6 Likes
How?
We are being dispossessed, censored, slandered, discriminated against, and genocided all on our own Western lands and nations by the exact same “Cabal”.
“All Animals are equal, but, some are more equal than are others!”-George Orwell, in his “Animal Farm”.
9 Likes
The actual framers of the Versailles Treaty were the same “Cabal” members that insured a Second World War by creating all of the unfair and unjust peace terms.
It was quite deliberate and was done with malice all aforethought.
Who or whom really all benefited from that war?
Why the Balfour Declaration?
Why were the Bolsheviks allowed to hijack Russia?
To and for what ends?
6 Likes
I’m especially glad to see the thoughtful way that Quercus probed LBL, and the nuanced way others have chimed in in defense of free speech, as well as the fact that reprehensible cretins inhabit every possible organization, religion, region, & country.
Just how it is.
I’m especially keen to avoid placing any limits on criticizing any particular individual because of their association with some irrelevant external descriptor.
“You can’t criticize him, black men get a really bad deal in this country, and doing so will only inflame things more in the future. Therefore any criticism is racist.”
“He’s Bill Cosby.”
gkcjrrt:
"Anti-semitism" should mean the same thing that "racism" or "misogyny" have traditionally meant regarding a prejudice against a class of people due to their color/sex/origin/religion etc. An anti-semite is one who hates Jews, all Jews, simply b/c they are Jews. I hope that most if not all here would agree that not only are such judgments not justified, they are profoundly ignorant and frankly stupid. However, these terms have now been converted from shields of protection into swords to silence any speech that the "hate speech police" don't like. So anti-semitism has come to mean, any idea or action, that certain Jews don't like. What organization created the term hate speech?: the ADL.I like that framing. Let's be brave enough to root out the cretins wherever they lie and not afford them any freebies such as "swords of silence" to hide behind. Fauci should not be allowed to hide behind "science" and let's not fall for the frankly silly idea that we can extirpate ideas by shaming or shunning them into permanent submission. That plan simply fails at understanding human behavior 101. Might as well ask young men to be celibate as a condition of their vocation and expect that to work out. I will only become worried if or when I see someone espouse some version of "this entire group is awful" and that then gets some traction. What I see are people immediately rejecting that concept and then adding the necessary context and nuance to actually bring the subject into the light of day. You know, like actual grown-ups. In other words, we are modeling exactly how such a conversation should go. Kudos eveyone!
20 Likes
One does not preclude the other.
Consider a Cosmos teeming with conflicting and aligned interests and we get closer to the truth.
This is not 3D chess. This is not a problem that our brains are designed for. This is a strong argument for AI, assisted by human Intuition and all the enlightened arts, such as remote viewing.
Did you know that Saturn was our sun?
1 Like
For all calamities there is counsel and remedy to be found, but Wr-alda wills that we should search it out ourselves, in order that we may become strong and wise. If we will not do that, he leaves us to our own devices, in order that we may experience the results of wise or foolish conduct. Minerva, Nicknamed NyHellania "Ny" meaning "New" and "Hell" meaning "Clear" (Helder in Afrikaans, Clear) Sandbach, William R.. The Oera Linda Book, English Translation . Kindle Edition.And here we are, squeezing out our ulcers.
1 Like
the fact that reprehensible cretins inhabit every possible organization, religion, region, & country.Abrahamism has given Religion a very bad name. It is not the individual within Abrahamism, but the entire ethos. What other religion imposes itself upon innocent people under threat of death? "Convert, Or I will cut your throat." (Here's looking at you, Charlemagne, Butcher and Oathbreaker.)
1 Like
I believe that I was the one who brought Dr. Noack to the forums. And now I must reverse my position.
Clif_High said he has phoned the Police where Dr. Noacks lives and they say that no deaths were registered in their books.
Therefore I council caution. The whole exercise might be to discredit the jab critics and paint them as loony “Conspiracy Theorists”.
4 Likes
Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, people have a way of taking everything to its pathological extreme. This goes for ALL religions, cults, vax cults, other things like certain political systems etc. militant “any belief system” is a BAD thing all around.
1 Like
Primary Care_MD wrote: Grover and Rich: here's why this debate is so important to have right now: If CO2 is NOT a significant factor, then AGW is just another long con, and the appropriate response should be eye rolls ? and shrugs ?. They're all, "But it's an emergency!" To which I say, "good luck with that."Thanks good doctor, I agree that discussing the impact of atmospheric carbon dioxide is very important. There is so much misinformation in the Mainstream that it befuddles the mind. The more often and more boldly a gargantuan lie is uttered, the more people fall for it. Once you buy one lie, other lies are easier to accept as truth. That's why I feel this issue is so important. After I responded to 000's post, I started reading the recent posts at https://electroverse.net/. This one was of particular interest to me because it verified that carbon dioxide concentrations are not as detrimental as ScienceTM would have you believe. Here is the link to the paper and snippets of the write-up ...
https://electroverse.net/climate-models-overestimate-co2s-impact-on-global-temperatures-by-factor-of-5/ [Link to the paper: ] https://www.mdpi.com/2673-9321/1/2/14/htm Many will agree that human activities are impacting the planet, and that this may cause us problems in the future, but 1) these researchers are likely adhering to the ‘upside-down pyramid‘ that Dr. Nakamura talks of–where today’s AGW science is built on the work of just a few climate modeler pioneers, and 2) buzzwords like ‘crisis’ and ‘catastrophe’ aren’t used by scientists — such extremist terms are only bleated by alarmists and activist-journalists. However, the waters have been muddied by a reticence from those in the relevant academic fields, a silent complicity — because while scientists aren’t saying that we’re in the grips of an existential climatic threat, they aren’t widely dismissing it, either. This odd hush is due to the current political climate on the topic. It is career suicide to publicly denounce CAGW, and the wreckage of many a career lay strewn before us as proof. <snip> Russian physicists (Smirnov and Zhilyaev, 2021) have recently had their peer-reviewed paper published in the Advances in Fundamental Physics Special Issue for the journal Foundations. After a detailed assessing of the role of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere, they assert: “we have a contradiction with the results of climatological models in the analysis of the Earth’s greenhouse effect.” Key points from the paper, as collated by Kenneth Richard of notrickszone.com, include: 1. Climate model calculations of CO2’s impact on global temperatures are in error by a factor of 5 as a result of “ignoring, in climatological models, the fundamental Kirchhoff law” which says radiators are “simultaneously the absorbers.” 2. Change in the concentration of an optically active atmospheric component (like CO2) “would not lead to change in the outgoing radiative flux.”As I've said many times on this site, I think that burning fossil fuels as rapidly as possible is extremely short-sighted and ludicrous. By the same token, the fuels contain so much stable energy that it is only a question of who consumes the bounty. All fossil fuels that are economically viable to extract will be extracted and subsequently consumed. It really doesn't matter if you live a Spartan lifestyle and limit consumption. Someone else will consume all that you've foregone. Worse, because of conservation efforts, the supply appears larger than it really is. Seemingly abundant supply influences people to make choices that take advantage of that supply e.g. commute from the suburbs in a single-occupant giant vehicle. Before any of you pat yourself on the back for commuting on your bicycle or Prius, notice all the big rig semi-trucks on the roadway. These trucks bring the goodies that you buy at your local store and pack home in your reusable bag. You need to consider all the embedded fossil fuels that went into mining, manufacturing, marketing, transporting, and selling each item. Once you do this, you'll be amazed at how "ungreen" you actually are. Also, focus on the real problem which is fossil fuels are a finite resource. Eventually, there will be depleted supplies and an end to our modern life. Where do you want to be when the wheels stop turning? Also, don't believe our so-called leaders who have lied repeatedly for their own benefit. They want you to limit consumption so their true stakeholders (massive campaign contributors) get to use fossil fuel bounties for themselves. I admit that I don't have a solution to this predicament. I just know that the solution they're selling has to be questioned to see who really benefits. They're manipulating the science so that it only supports their preferred answers. Because of this, the truth is hidden. Grover3. CO2 molecules “are not the main radiator of the atmosphere.” Water vapor molecules are, and thus they “may be responsible for the observed heating of the Earth.”
<snip>
Proponents of anthropogenic global warming can blindly dismiss these findings all they want, but what they clearly show is that the science is far from settled.
12 Likes