Deep ideas about life

[Silver Incubus]

I never once felt that my persona was portrayed here in this thread. Nor the way I think, or the way in which i present information. I don't care if people don't want to spend the time and look at all possible information before making up there minds. I look at all sources and decide what I have determined based on the information I have recieved. I cannot make someone look at the information, and thus, cannot expect them to believe me when I challenge their world perception. All I do is test this information with and on what this information is saying. So in a scientific style of theory and testing then when the information clearly forcasts future events then it could be thought that the information source may be more usable as evidence of actual events.

I certainly understand why people don't like having their world view challenged. Most people don't like change. and when they feel challenged they lash out in their own way. Be it ridicule, anger, sarcasm, belittling, or rationalization, or any other defenses of the mind.

 

[Anvil]

I like boobies?

 

[SoundMaster]

I found UM and the philosopher by the best band in the world NEVERMORE (fucking awesome name, grim poet). The best thing is their philosophical lyrics, check out Final Product- "The media loves the latest tragic suicide
They exploit it, then package it and profit from the people who die"

.

My fav Nevermore lyric can be found in the tune "The Politics of Ecstasy". Here's an excerpt:

"... I hate you, the pigs who turn the screws. I hate everything you stand for....our fathers left us nothing but a dead world, beyond repair..."

 

[speed]

I actually like Nevermore's lyrics too. For any band, they're rather esoteric and deep. No joking.

 

[Demilich]

Justin, great job at acting out of character! Had me convinced you were on a massive bender and were totally wasted the entire time!

 

[Justin S.]

Ok, times up.

The answer is: The last line of the first post.

"The sad thing is, this post fits right in on our pretentiously named forum of transparent and ADD afflicted sentiments."

This thread mocks, in the most overdone way I can muster (the confusion over this displays the level of discourse here), the notion that the ideas presented on this forum concerning "conspiracy" and/or anti-government/corporation topics are in anyway controversial, novel, or intellectually rigorous. Quite the opposite, they are trite, widely referenced, and permeate all forms of popular media - Can you seriously claim profound cynicism is rare in our time?

I shouldnt have to list examples of the endless stream of films, internet sites, books, tv shows, records, and talk radio programs that explicitly concern themselves with said themes (where do you think you found these ideas yourself? Right, because they are so hidden). To boldly present these ideas as mystery, or how "bad" this or that corporation/government plot/"secret" group/etc. are is a total insult to any reasonably educated audience (I assume you would treat your peers as such on a dedicated Philosophy forum).

Finally, my posts over the past year+ have demonstrated strong stances on the nature of power structures/relationships, etc. If anyone has been openly critical of "the corporation", rationalizing technology, and the complete oblivion of honesty and the meaning of being, is it I, the so-called "Heideggerian"!

 

[Anvil]

I actually like Nevermore's lyrics too. For any band, they're rather esoteric and deep. No joking.

I agree, they're one of my favorite bands. Hence why I'm not only going to their DVD recording in Seattle in August, but am a steady user in their IRC channel, along with their forum here on UM.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Ok, times up.

The answer is: The last line of the first post.

"The sad thing is, this post fits right in on our pretentiously named forum of transparent and ADD afflicted sentiments."

This thread mocks, in the most overdone way I can muster (the confusion over this displays the level of discourse here), the notion that the ideas presented on this forum concerning "conspiracy" and/or anti-government/corporation topics are in anyway controversial, novel, or intellectually rigorous. Quite the opposite, they are trite, widely referenced, and permeate all forms of popular media - Can you seriously claim profound cynicism is rare in our time?

I shouldnt have to list examples of the endless stream of films, internet sites, books, tv shows, records, and talk radio programs that explicitly concern themselves with said themes (where do you think you found these ideas yourself? Right, because they are so hidden). To boldly present these ideas as mystery, or how "bad" this or that corporation/government plot/"secret" group/etc. are is a total insult to any reasonably educated audience (I assume you would treat your peers as such on a dedicated Philosophy forum).

Finally, my posts over the past year+ have demonstrated strong stances on the nature of power structures/relationships, etc. If anyone has been openly critical of "the corporation", rationalizing technology, and the complete oblivion of honesty and the meaning of being, is it I, the so-called "Heideggerian"!

Justin S, why is it that it is fine for YOU to be openly critical of "the corporation", etc, but if anyone else is then that is a "total insult to any reasonably educated audience"?

Yes indeed the anti: government/media/corporation topics do concern issues that are TOTALLY OBVIOUS, and not hidden. Just like the masonic symbols on the dollar bill. How more obvious could it be?! So why don't you accept it then?

The only things that are "hidden" ,in a real sense, are documents classified as "official secrets" - yet it is easy to see from the information available about the nature of the subject matter classified secret (and the easily found information on what sort of things have previously been classified secret), that what has been classified is mostly information that the public would greatly benefit from knowing about, but which would bring down the government. Have I not proven that beyond all doubt?

Definition of "controversial": causing disagreement or discussion. Do you want to disagree or discuss that?

If someone's worldview is different to yours they are entitled to it, especially when they are one of the tiny minority of people who are unafraid to fully justify why they think that way.

That would be a very philosophical attitude, unlike the closed-minded rejection of ideas one finds threatening, and inability to fully explain one's position. In any case you give the impression that the entire philosopher forum consists of unfounded and ignorant criticism of the motives of "the great and the good".

 

[Justin S.]

Justin S, why is it that it is fine for YOU to be openly critical of "the corporation", etc, but if anyone else is then that is a "total insult to any reasonably educated audience"?

Strawman. I did not claim the problem was "criticism". The problem here is entirely the messenger. Secondly, I put "the corporation" in quotations to emphasize the idea of a general phenomena- the relationship of "the corporation" to man. Do you not see the difference between critical thought about entire structures, and value judgments concerning particular cases? This is the difference between Philosophy and "current events".

Yes indeed the anti: government/media/corporation topics do concern issues that are TOTALLY OBVIOUS, and not hidden. Just like the masonic symbols on the dollar bill. How more obvious could it be?! So why don't you accept it then?

Accept what? To acknowledge a phenomena does not entail agreement on causes. This is beside the point however, as the issue is not the validity or truthfulness of a particular argument, but the issues surrounding the argument as such.

The only things that are "hidden" ,in a real sense, are documents classified as "official secrets" - yet it is easy to see from the information available about the nature of the subject matter classified secret (and the easily found information on what sort of things have previously been classified secret), that what has been classified is mostly information that the public would greatly benefit from knowing about, but which would bring down the government. Have I not proven that beyond all doubt?

You proved you do not understand my concerns.

If someone's worldview is different to yours they are entitled to it, especially when they are one of the tiny minority of people who are unafraid to fully justify why they think that way.

That would be a very philosophical attitude, unlike the closed-minded rejection of ideas one finds threatening, and inability to fully explain one's position. In any case you give the impression that the entire philosopher forum consists of unfounded and ignorant criticism of the motives of "the great and the good".

 

[Norsemaiden]

What do you mean by "the problem here is entirely the messenger"? That sounds as if you are saying "the problem here is that it is so-and-so posting" regardless of the subject matter!

Could you say where you have discussed "the relationship of the 'corporation' to man"? as I would like to read it.

I'm not sure why it should not be valid to give an example of a specific event if it helps to illustrate a point. Current affairs questions are frequent on this board - and are related to philosophy.

I wondered why it is that you don't seem to accept that there are (obvious) deliberate plots by governments and other organisations running the country, which are against the public welfare. (?)

Why is it unphilosophical to see malevolence, rather than benevolence in these structures? Should it be unacceptable to make such observations? How can one pontificate on aspects of society, for example, without having an understanding of the depths of corruption? And how can one convey to another how bad corruption can be, without recourse to example? All observations are relevant to understanding phenomena.

I am not trying to be argumentative Justin S, because I am genuinely interested in your response. I hope that you will deem the issues I have raised worthy of replying to instead of dismissing it all as rubbish. No hard feelings okay?

 

[Keltoi]

There are obviously powerful organizations and what not who have an agenda, but I tend to believe most agendas today revolve around greed and accumulation of wealth. People do alot of research and find large amounts of circumstantial evidence to back up certain claims, and I'm sure many of us would be surprised of how many conspiracy theories are actually true in one form or another.

 

[Demilich]

I don't know if anyone will answer or even read this as I have made similar inquiries in the past, but why are we still trying to think of such an ambiguous entity as "the corporation" or "the man" in terms of being singularly benevolent/malevolent/tied to any one motivating force? To me, such reductionistic thinking is a pitfall to which "Philosophers" such as ourselves owe our awareness and attention.

 

[Norsemaiden]

I don't know if anyone will answer or even read this as I have made similar inquiries in the past, but why are we still trying to think of such an ambiguous entity as "the corporation" or "the man" in terms of being singularly benevolent/malevolent/tied to any one motivating force? To me, such reductionistic thinking is a pitfall to which "Philosophers" such as ourselves owe our awareness and attention.

Reasonable point, Demilich, and correct - althought it is hard to say to what extent the motivating forces differ. Corporations, governments, political parties, ownners of media, organised groups as varied as freemasons, mafia and even certain civil rights groups, amongst others all have intersecting agendas. It would be wrong to say they have matching agendas, and there are also varying degrees of rivalry or disagreement between them. They do have the common feature of taking advantage of public ignorance of their plots and activities. This is why it would benefit the public to be taking more interest in how we are being manipulated and being used like pawns in devious ways.

Keltoi is correct also, in saying that "most agendas today revolve around greed and accumulation of wealth". For some of the groups involved, or individuals within them, there is another vital factor: ethnic nepotism (trying to help their own kind do well.) The most successful by far at this are the Jews. They have been promoting eachother into positions of influence for a long time. This is easily proved, and everyone pretty much knows it. It is an inevitable consequence of their being highly intelligent, motivated, organised and frightened of becoming victimised as they have been in the past. Understandably.

Ethnic nepotism is often combined with financial greed. Lastly: lust for power. For the very rich people, money itself is never going to be enough. They are attracted by the whole idea of power over other people. It is a primitive and destructive desire that is one of the sad aspects of human nature.

So, hopefully this explanation makes the "conspiracy" subject a bit less "reductionist" now!

 

[BloodSword]

Let me say, this is a lot for me to absorb. So, I will post on just one subject. The Bush Administration. First and Foremost, if you voted for George Bush--"SHUT THE FUCK UP" IMO, you have no right to bitch and moan now that he has 2 yrs left. Secondly, I ask all of you for this applies, Do you believe that the world is a safer place now? When Uday and Cusay(Saddams sons) were killed in July of 03, and Saddam was captured in 04, Bush made that statement "of the world being a safer place." This ingrate better get his head out of his ass because not long after these developments in the war, we (humankind) have sustained various embassy bombings, attacks in Madrid,Spain and last yr in London. And as I write this Al-Queda is creating new theorys and ideas of future attacks. To summarize( for I have not slept in 2 days) If someone lies to me(bush in March 03) Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, is in league with Bin Laden resulting in 9-11, which constitutes war, which absolutely NO evidence has been forthcoming, I will never believe anything that person would say again. Period. At the very least, George W. is a liar, the most POWERFUL man in the free world does have an agenda. From day 1, when he walked into the Oval office, he was determined to eliminate Hussein. In essence, to clean up the mess his Father left in the Gulf war. I served in the American military, and as a result I believe I have the right to be critical of my government. I have friends who have died for their country in 1992. I tell you this; the American government, through the media are intent on keeping the American people in fear. For what else is a better motivator than FEAR, when dealing with large masses of humanity. Will this ever change, I think not. And I feel sorry for the next President, for he will inherit George W's mistakes. Instead of bitching and moaning, I wish I could provide answers, I don't even know where to begin. One last thing, while going to school and studying about the various subjects of life is an excellent beginning and important for all, it can't compare to experience. I don't even know if I hit the topic of the post correctly, but as a man who has experienced many things I had to comment. Peace.

 

[Horus]

The most successful by far at this are the Jews. They have been promoting eachother into positions of influence for a long time. This is easily proved, and everyone pretty much knows it.

I'm not trying to argue, but what are some examples of this?

 

[Norsemaiden]

I'm not trying to argue, but what are some examples of this?

That's alright Ptah. I think it is important to realise that not all Jews think the same way and that many are nervous about the possibility that over-interference in the societies of other people is actually a dangerous thing to do. I really respect those Jews, so I am not anti-Jewish. At the same time I do sypathise with many reasons why Jews feel the need to excercise control - as far as it is for defensive reasons, not offensive.

A good site that summarises the power of the Jews in the USA is
http://www.rense.com/general27/jlobby.htm

"It makes no sense at all to try to deny the reality of Jewish power and prominence in popular culture." -- Michael Medved, well-known Jewish author and respected film critic.

This site says that the US is the only bastion of support for Israel, but this is not accurate in view of Britain's support of Israel and minimal criticism of Israeli military action from the EU countries. The US is most blatant about their support however.

http://www.csv.org.uk/About+Us/Whos+Who/The+Lord+Levy.htm

"The Lord Levy

Michael Abraham Levy was elevated to the Peerage in September 1997 - Baron Levy of Mill Hill - Lord Levy is involved in a wide variety of public and communal affairs, deeply rooted in charitable work with abiding interests in the voluntary sector, welfare and education.

He acts as personal envoy to Prime Minister Tony Blair, and as his adviser on the Middle East."

 

[Horus]

That first article was really really intriguing. It really did get me thinking about whether it could be possible or not that the Jews in government are all working together to act so biased in issues supporting Judaism. Normally, I'd get all smug about it and just call them stupid and ignorant, but the Holocaust argument was a really really good point.

 

[Cythraul]

Hi. Just stopping by to say that I really like this thread!

 

[CRASHERHEAD]

What ever they do,they just do what they do...
human race is a Great paradox.
But one thing is real:We are infact destroy our mother earth.

the carnage,the nuclear warfare....Fuck That!

 

[no country for old wainds]

nothing more really needs to be said