The illuminati

[grrclark]

Just now, henry d said:

Yes, nothing is as B&W as it seems

For me that captures the whole essence perfectly.  There are very few things that are black and white, but we typically try to break them down to black and white as it is easier to understand.

[Rewulf]

3 minutes ago, henry d said:

But when you use a known conspiracy theorist (Napolitano), to support your argument you lose credibility, judge or not, and he has gone off the page regarding the US civil war which fits with his CT.

Yes, nothing is as B&W as it seems

And you have just proved my point, so nothing Napolitano says is true ?
And I lose credibility  so you dismiss the whole argument, thats pretty much what I expected you to say really.

4 minutes ago, grrclark said:

For me that captures the whole essence perfectly.  There are very few things that are black and white, but we typically try to break them down to black and white as it is easier to understand.

You can only understand with the information we are given, and we get that from where ?

[henry d]

No you are putting words in my mouth, I did not say that, please re-read it, and no I said you lose credibility, not that I dismiss the whole argument, can you not understand a simple sentence?

[Rewulf]

20 minutes ago, henry d said:

No you are putting words in my mouth, I did not say that, please re-read it, and no I said you lose credibility, not that I dismiss the whole argument, can you not understand a simple sentence?

I read and understand perfectly.

I was discussing how conspiracy theorists all get lumped into one bag.
I gave an explanation, and examples of things that happened without any  actual conspiracy/fake news ect  in them.

You saw fit to not  comment on them, bar the fact that, one of the pics had a quote  (from someone I had never even heard of before) from Napolitano, and my explanation lost credibility !

'But when you use a known conspiracy theorist (Napolitano), to support your argument you lose credibility'
So what did you really mean Henry ? 

[Munzy]

1 hour ago, Rewulf said:

Who are the individuals labelled ISIS?

[Rewulf]

22 minutes ago, Munzy said:

Who are the individuals labelled ISIS?

No idea, bet McCain didn't know their names either.

But he did go to Syria, and he did green light them getting weapons.

Then changed his mind when they started cutting people's heads off.

Why was the American government trying to topple a mid eastern regime without congressional approval? 

Why were they using a terrorist organisation to do it,  did they have control,then lost it?

Did they invest and train IS.

Why did IS never attack Israel (except for the time they did accidentally, and immediately apologise) 

Who knows eh ?

[grrclark]

2 hours ago, Rewulf said:

You can only understand with the information we are given, and we get that from where ?

No, I fundamentally disagree with that.

We gather information from a number of sources and arrive at our own conclusions via a number of processes, some intuitive, some deductive, some evaluative, some influenced, some presumptive, some assumptive, some learned, some expwriential and so on.

The more well rounded then typically the more balanced and reasoned the analysis.

[Munzy]

All great questions @Rewulf. As crazy as it is I don’t even consider the relationship between foreign policy and financial gain to the military “equippers” to be a conspiracy. I just see it as the way the world works and any spin to help “sell” combat to the public is just part of life.

i would thoroughly recommend the movie War Dogs about a couple of young arms dealers. I believe it is the opening scene which describes the financial cost / gain from putting a soldier into conflict.

War is big business that’s for sure. Whether it truly drives foreign policy and military action I can’t say for sure but I think it’s likely. 

I recall a motive for the JFK assassination having a basis in JFK’s pacifism, namely the possibility he was going to pull troops out of Vietnam and also his backing off from confrontation with Castro.

It is also possible that it’s not money motivating people and driving policy that sends us to war, it could just be the people in the equation. Power hungry politicians and military big-wigs carving out important roles, campaigns and legacies for themselves.

[Rewulf]

2 minutes ago, Munzy said:

All great questions @Rewulf. As crazy as it is I don’t even consider the relationship between foreign policy and financial gain to the military “equippers” to be a conspiracy. I just see it as the way the world works and any spin to help “sell” combat to the public is just part of life.

i would thoroughly recommend the movie War Dogs about a couple of young arms dealers. I believe it is the opening scene which describes the financial cost / gain from putting a soldier into conflict.

War is big business that’s for sure. Whether it truly drives foreign policy and military action I can’t say for sure but I think it’s likely. 

I recall a motive for the JFK assassination having a basis in JFK’s pacifism, namely the possibility he was going to pull troops out of Vietnam and also his backing off from confrontation with Castro.

It is also possible that it’s not money motivating people and driving policy that sends us to war, it could just be the people in the equation. Power hungry politicians and military big-wigs carving out important roles, campaigns and legacies for themselves.

You have an excellent grasp of the situation 

[Rewulf]

15 minutes ago, grrclark said:

 

15 minutes ago, grrclark said:

No, I fundamentally disagree with that.

We gather information from a number of sources and arrive at our own conclusions via a number of processes, some intuitive, some deductive, some evaluative, some influenced, some presumptive, some assumptive, some learned, some expwriential and so on.

The more well rounded then typically the more balanced and reasoned the analysis.

I can't argue with that. 

But our main source of information is our own media, it's what you make of that information, or lack of it, that forms the basis of further deduction and evaluation. 

That was what I meant. 

Edited April 18, 2018 by Rewulf

[Hamster]

Does war run US foreign policy ? It doesn't just run it, it's founded on war : https://www.globalresearch.ca/america-has-been-at-war-93-of-the-time-222-out-of-239-years-since-1776/5565946

 

[Munzy]

35 minutes ago, Hamster said:

Does war run US foreign policy ? It doesn't just run it, it's founded on war : https://www.globalresearch.ca/america-has-been-at-war-93-of-the-time-222-out-of-239-years-since-1776/5565946

 

Well that’s fine, the US likes war BUT that’s not a conspiracy itself.

Why do you think the US engages in conflict so much though? Money? Megalomaniacal politicians & military leaders? Cultural makeup? Lizard overlords? Something else?

[henry d]

12 hours ago, Rewulf said:

No idea, bet McCain didn't know their names either.

But he did go to Syria, and he did green light them getting weapons.

Then changed his mind when they started cutting people's heads off.

Why was the American government trying to topple a mid eastern regime without congressional approval? 

Why were they using a terrorist organisation to do it,  did they have control,then lost it?

Did they invest and train IS.

Why did IS never attack Israel (except for the time they did accidentally, and immediately apologise) 

Who knows eh ?

OK, so you were asked who the isis people were in the meme and you have no idea, where is the evidence that they were? When you look for the quote using the date all you get is a WT column that doesn`t have the quote, it is a paraphrase and not even a good one.

You really need to reassess how you think about things my friend, no-one understands perfectly, not you, nor I, nor the recently deceased Stephen Hawking, but some people may think they do and that isn`t right. Unfortunately you scattergun your questions so I look at one or two, rather than dive into the labyrinths, so I`ll take another generalisation here; while some people may take CT`s as a general group I don`t, I had to research and write on it, so please believe me I don`t do that, there seems to be a few groups that are loosely formed and are subsets of others, such a FE`s who may come from a religious background for their belief or from a realist/scientific view.

The common thread for these is our ancient past when a thing that could not be explained rationally was given a name so it could be refered to and controlled to some extent; someone went into a dark wooded area late at night and strange noises were heard and the person did not come back, therefore there must be a murderous beasty/evil spirit/whatever lurking thereabouts. The seas held terrible mosters that crushed ships and lured mariners to their deaths. Only a hundred or so years ago we could point to someone from another country or point on a map and say; "They are the bad people!" it was fairly simple we knew our place in society and the world turned. In post modern times we can no longer see who is doing what for the speed at which things change and still we have in our psyche a need to control things that affect our worldview and so conspiracies are formed to make sense of a world that has changed immensely in the 40-50 years or so that we have lived. There may be small kernels of truth or a simple but slightly erroneous reason for the belief, but to those who have a strong need to control their worldview they need something more than a straw to hang onto, so the search for more truth to support them goes on.

case 1 - (M; late fifties) He does not fit in very well and is not a social person, struggles to keep a job, has a loose affiliation to a church and attends irregularly, is single until his early 40`s and eventually from an internet dating site finds a wife. He spends far too long on the internet and during his trawls around finds a few odd "christian" sites where he is welcomed. Charmed by the welcome he accepts strange and unsound doctrine as gospel truths and goes to church more regularly and engages in conversations and eventually is questioned over his beliefs and biblical interpretation. He feels foolish and gets soothing words and more erroneous doctrine from his web mates. This continues along with hours on youtube to enhance his self belief and eventually we have someone who denies christ, but believes the bible (but only where it fits his views), FE, chemtrails, aliens, 9/11, lizards the whole 9 yards.

Case 2 - (m: early 50`s) Socialble but not well educated, single job for life and wife with a hugely successful business, not religious but is RC/ celtic supporter. Trade unionist all his career and supporter of SNP and hater of the tory establishment. No conspiracy theories before he retired a few years ago, but since the yes vote he knew in his soul turned out to be a no vote he has tried to find answers for why this happened and how he can change it so his capsized world will right itself. Even he is bringing 9/11 into his arguments and unless he is careful he is going to accept things he sees on facebook or youtube at face value if they suit his needs to return a yes vote. I have no idea where all these different conspiracies have come from as when he talks it is like an exhalation of ideas that when questioned lead down another corridor and another question down another and so on infinitum.

[Rewulf]

23 minutes ago, henry d said:

OK, so you were asked who the isis people were in the meme and you have no idea, where is the evidence that they were? When you look for the quote using the date all you get is a WT column that doesn`t have the quote, it is a paraphrase and not even a good one.

I was looking for a picture of Mccain with some of the 'free Syrian rebels' I had seen before, but it appears to be absent from google these days (I know another conspiracy )  So I didnt ,and you shouldnt, put too much stock in the meme, if its inaccuracy offends you ,my apologies.
But you never once asked about any of the other information within that post, so I can only assume you could find no issues with it ?

You really need to reassess how you think about things my friend, Really ?   All things ? Or just conspiracy things ? no-one understands perfectly, not you, nor I, nor the recently deceased Stephen Hawking, but some people may think they do and that isn`t right. Unfortunately you scattergun your questions so I look at one or two, rather than dive into the labyrinths, so I`ll take another generalisation here; while some people may take CT`s as a general group I don`t, I had to research and write on it, so please believe me I don`t do that, there seems to be a few groups that are loosely formed and are subsets of others, such a FE`s who may come from a religious background for their belief or from a realist/scientific view. 
First of all ,I have never professed to 'know' all the answers, we simply are not given enough, or the right information to 'know' , we have an opinion.
However YOU, as an educated man should know this, yet your projected superiority on certain matters, clouds your judgment, and your ridicule of peoples opinion is highly unprofessional .
So I would suggest that you reassess your thinking, and attitude, my friend.

The common thread for these is our ancient past when a thing that could not be explained rationally was given a name so it could be refered to and controlled to some extent; someone went into a dark wooded area late at night and strange noises were heard and the person did not come back, therefore there must be a murderous beasty/evil spirit/whatever lurking thereabouts. The seas held terrible mosters that crushed ships and lured mariners to their deaths. Only a hundred or so years ago we could point to someone from another country or point on a map and say; "They are the bad people!" it was fairly simple we knew our place in society and the world turned. In post modern times we can no longer see who is doing what for the speed at which things change and still we have in our psyche a need to control things that affect our worldview and so conspiracies are formed to make sense of a world that has changed immensely in the 40-50 years or so that we have lived. There may be small kernels of truth or a simple but slightly erroneous reason for the belief, but to those who have a strong need to control their worldview they need something more than a straw to hang onto, so the search for more truth to support them goes on.

This is not news to me, it matches my opinion.

case 1 - (M; late fifties) He does not fit in very well and is not a social person, struggles to keep a job, has a loose affiliation to a church and attends irregularly, is single until his early 40`s and eventually from an internet dating site finds a wife. He spends far too long on the internet and during his trawls around finds a few odd "christian" sites where he is welcomed. Charmed by the welcome he accepts strange and unsound doctrine as gospel truths and goes to church more regularly and engages in conversations and eventually is questioned over his beliefs and biblical interpretation. He feels foolish and gets soothing words and more erroneous doctrine from his web mates. This continues along with hours on youtube to enhance his self belief and eventually we have someone who denies christ, but believes the bible (but only where it fits his views), FE, chemtrails, aliens, 9/11, lizards the whole 9 yards.

Case 2 - (m: early 50`s) Socialble but not well educated, single job for life and wife with a hugely successful business, not religious but is RC/ celtic supporter. Trade unionist all his career and supporter of SNP and hater of the tory establishment. No conspiracy theories before he retired a few years ago, but since the yes vote he knew in his soul turned out to be a no vote he has tried to find answers for why this happened and how he can change it so his capsized world will right itself. Even he is bringing 9/11 into his arguments and unless he is careful he is going to accept things he sees on facebook or youtube at face value if they suit his needs to return a yes vote. I have no idea where all these different conspiracies have come from as when he talks it is like an exhalation of ideas that when questioned lead down another corridor and another question down another and so on infinitum.

Are these the 2 friends you spoke of ?

Im sorry but Case 1 has underlying mental health issues, behavioral problems probably rooted in childhood, and  poor self image.
He wants to belong, craves affection, and would probably believe the moon is made of cheese if it meant making more friends.
He needs  'acceptance' and the CT community is full of people just like him, a welcoming place.

Case 2 , a fairly average 'bloke' you say 'not well educated' do you mean he didnt go to uni or he is thick ?
He bagged a good marriage and has held a job all his life so cant be that daft.
So hes a nationalist? So are lots of Scots, and he has a passing interest in 9/11 .
Sounds reasonably 'normal' whatever that is these days.

The link between the 2 is tenuous , many ,many people these days skirt around and embrace conspiracy.
Ask a random group of people if they believe in aliens,  or ghosts/ the afterlife ? are these conspiracies? is religion a superstition?
Do they all need counselling, or are they just 'normal' people going about their everyday lives ?

Its all pretty harmless, and I would nt read too much into it ,especially on PW, Ive not heard of anyone wrapped in baco foil attacking the illuminati HQ ..yet.

 

[Scully]

3 hours ago, Hamster said:

Does war run US foreign policy ? It doesn't just run it, it's founded on war : https://www.globalresearch.ca/america-has-been-at-war-93-of-the-time-222-out-of-239-years-since-1776/5565946

 

Again, more likely people aren’t so much hiding from the truth, but are too busy getting on with their own lives to care.

[Mungler]

The answer is always in a MEME.

MEMES prove and make points on the internet and win arguments dontcha know...

[henry d]

[Hamster]

Love a good meme me. 

I can understand why some hate them though because they force you to read uncomfortable truths which you'd rather ignore. I even like the ones that the "opposition" posts. 

[yod dropper]

It's not the memes so much as the documentaries that win me over.  I saw one recently where somebody built a bunker because he feared alien attack and people thought he was crazy but then they actually attacked.  There's loads of clips of this sort of thing on the internet.  And on Film4.

[Rewulf]

A meme can sometimes get a point, an opinion or a theory of an event or situation across, that would take many pages to explain.
If you dont like or agree with it, dont look at it, if Coronation st gets right up your nose, dont watch it.

Art is a meme if you think about it, it conveys something to the observer, sometimes many different things to different people.

1 hour ago, Hamster said:

Love a good meme me. 

I can understand why some hate them though because they force you to read uncomfortable truths which you'd rather ignore. I even like the ones that the "opposition" posts. 

 

You know what they say?
'Youre only one meme away from being a woke AF conspiracy theorist' -R.Wulf 2018 

Good meme btw Hamster ,I like that 

[Gordon R]

Quote

It's not the memes so much as the documentaries that win me over.  I saw one recently where somebody built a bunker because he feared alien attack and people thought he was crazy but then they actually attacked.

The documentary obviously featured one of the alien attacks that I failed to spot.

[Rewulf]

15 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

The documentary obviously featured one of the alien attacks that I failed to spot.

Methinks Mr Dropper was being sarcastic, he is referring to the Cloverfield Lane film, with John Goodman.

Well I hope he is !! 

[yod dropper]

9 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Methinks Mr Dropper was being sarcastic, he is referring to the Cloverfield Lane film, with John Goodman.

Well I hope he is !! 

Exactly, I rather enjoyed the film.  I get your scepticism of the state Rewulf.  I think it's quite healthy to have this stance within a healthy democracy but I must confess I find Hamster's apparent expectation and excitement of a conspiracy at many a turn rather different but accept that's how some people think.  It all makes the world somewhat richer.

[Gordon R]

[Rewulf]

34 minutes ago, yod dropper said:

Exactly, I rather enjoyed the film.  I get your scepticism of the state Rewulf.  I think it's quite healthy to have this stance within a healthy democracy but I must confess I find Hamster's apparent expectation and excitement of a conspiracy at many a turn rather different but accept that's how some people think.  It all makes the world somewhat richer.

Yes i thought it was good 

Hamster means well, he just gets a bit carried away sometimes, no offence Hamster.
Sometime people just dont want to hear it, their core values and beliefs are based on X with a smattering of Y .
Then someone tries to blast through with an alien theory of Z with a smattering of X , most will reject it with every fibre, how could all their beliefs , their LIFE be a lie ?

A few accept the new order, and history has demonstrated on many occasions ,there is no one  more enthusiastic than a new convert.

8 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Gordon ,really !