Paranoia, or truth?

infoterror

Member
Apr 17, 2005
1,191
2
38
So... I know I don't trust what I see in media because it often seems to be paid advertisements. But how far does the paranoia go? Is our society really out of touch with reality? This article thinks so:

Things they won't tell you

Our society operates on the principle that what people want to hear - and will pay for - is right. Through this mechanism, we've unhooked ourselves from reality as a consistency between external events and internal thoughts, and therefore, are often "surprised" or "shocked" by aspects of reality that were known to our ancestors and many others worldwide. Some still hold on to these truths, realizing that when we as a species fully detach from an awareness of our world as a continuous operating principle, disaster awaits.

When we say a "continuous" operating principle, what is meant is a system where both external and internal happenings can be described by the same logic. In our modern worldview, this is not the case, as we believe in a strict division between internal desires and external outcomes, such that our desires do not correspond to natural functions (power, reproduction, sustenance) and their outcome is determined by our "intent" or "feelings," not by the mechanics of nature. This article takes on several examples of this dischord and explicates them according to the principles of our ancestors.

See the rest:
http://www.nationalistpartyusa.com/VP/ThingsNotTold.htm
 
They seem to active topics of contention, however, which suggests previously debates were inconclusive.

Best of luck with your derailing agenda.
 
Contention has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of results or conclusions. People contend that the Earth is round.

Basic social phenomena, essentially all of your topics, are obviously important, and worthy of further discussion. What bothers me is that you post to inform, in a very authoritarian manner, not to encourage discussion.

Most topics have been covered in depth and to their logical conclusions. The problem is that people do not read these works, and so do not realize that they are engaging in redundancy.
 
Your objections seem to me meaningless. These topics are alive. People can discuss them. I suppose if I wanted to appease people like you, I'd post a "Discuss." at the bottom of each, but I've never been one to pander. Also, contention has quite a bit to do with the validity of discussion (not "results of conclusions" as you filled in - that was never part of my message). It just depends on who's talking. And who is talking here?
 
Your objections seem to me meaningless. These topics are alive. People can discuss them. I suppose if I wanted to appease people like you, I'd post a "Discuss." at the bottom of each, but I've never been one to pander. Also, contention has quite a bit to do with the validity of discussion (not "results of conclusions" as you filled in - that was never part of my message). It just depends on who's talking. And who is talking here?