Frankly that was the most bogus "quiz" ive ever taken. I am open to new ideas, but there are some things that are totally perposterous. Maybe this theory could have been slightly possible before the human genome project, but not anymore. We know the human genome and guess what as far as i know there hasnt been any alien DNA splices involved. Besides that so called "fascinations" are the result of learned behavior and deeply rooted psychological impressions NOT INHERITED. The clincher is the question about crop circles. I mean you have got to be kidding me, the original crop circle makers have come forward and testified that it was a hoax. Crop circles are absolutely not real. oh yah and i got a 46
The Conspiracy Thread
- Thread starter speed
- Start date
schivmeister
#1QVFan
yeah thats right.
but after spending more time reading the other materials regarding this 22 billion yrs thing, now personally i find that starkid theory amusing. just that, amusing
I got a 66..but thats because i love space and travelling thats all 
And i DONT like the idea of having reptilian relatives..I stumbled upon that star guy in google while viewing one of Icke's conspiracy talks. Overall, it looks and sounds like a child's fantasy in the end. Reminds me of this cartoon..damn i cant recall the name.
but after spending more time reading the other materials regarding this 22 billion yrs thing, now personally i find that starkid theory amusing. just that, amusing
I got a 66..but thats because i love space and travelling thats all And i DONT like the idea of having reptilian relatives..I stumbled upon that star guy in google while viewing one of Icke's conspiracy talks. Overall, it looks and sounds like a child's fantasy in the end. Reminds me of this cartoon..damn i cant recall the name.
Iron Chef Sakai
New Metal Member
david icke's theory doesnt seem at all far-fetched. u see, if u tell me theres a theory behind his theory, then bloody hell its neverending. the best one could do or not do is either put all these theories aside or think abt em if u really want to. Other Illuminati and American anti-american government theorists say Icke does fine, til he brings in the reptiles.
There is another research going on abt our lives and it states tht "we" have been ard for 22 billion yrs and travelled frm the plaiedas (spell?), to a few more galaxies/planets, blew up one and landed on Earth. Throughout the course our bodies have adapted to the environment. This in theory goes along with Icke's theory on the 12000-yrs-period-of-change. But what is absent in Icke's theories is whether the other aliens out there are good beings.
The Starseeds research claims some of us may have closer ties than others, especially if u feel a sense of belonging to Atlantis and ancient symbols. And that the other Aliens have good intentions and its good that we are reptiles. Mayb im not so clear because its getting too bizzare to digest?
The Starseed Quiz
I've read one of his books, "The Book that will change your world". From the early going in the first few chapters, you really get an idea where Mr. Icke is going with his material and I'll admit, I was a bit surprised somebody such as him would "come up" with these ideas about reptilians, new world orders and the illuminati. I cannot confirm whether or not his theories actually are true but chances are, they're a hoax altogether. Some of his information sources seem to be a grey zone to me, I actually checked some of his sources and none of them turned out really credible. Among some of the more cooked up material from him was from his own website, which it urgently states that he needs our help ($$$) to continue his mission. Please...
Personally, I found this statement rather false, the man makes quite a bit of money from his shtick and does many tours. I noticed he seems to have a following in Canada. On NTV, Newfoundland Television did a 2 hour segment with David Icke for two days and had national coverage.
He also did a 5 HOUR lecture at the University of Toronto and received standing ovation from all students and professors alike, Now that stunned me. I've read on a wikipedia article that part of the reason he is well received in canada in comparison to other nations was that "canadians were open-minded". I could believe that. He nearly got me the first time when I saw some of his more "believable" theories.
From what I've seen, he seems really assured of himself and his beliefs, I grant you. Even on YouTube.com, you can find a large amount of his speeches and tours caught on video. But for some people, believe it if you wish and others, well....
I don't believe in conspiracies. THere's no need, when basic psychology explains most dysfunction.
Silver Incubus
Dead Hands Justin
Try as I may to leave a reasonable comment, the best I could come up with was the following:
2fe ffffffffffffffffffffff 1`1234567890-Zxcvbnm,.sdfghjkl X:X:X:X
2fe ffffffffffffffffffffff 1`1234567890-Zxcvbnm,.sdfghjkl X:X:X:X
Norsemaiden
barbarian
The more outlandish an explanation can be made to sound, the more people will listen to what you are saying and consider it.
I wonder if David Icke employs that principle - to make valid points and raise valid concerns, but make it sound really far-out and incredible.
I prefer to try to stick to being accurate personally though.
It is like the "big lie", the bigger the lie,the more people believe it (as Hitler actually said referring to how Jews use lies in propaganda, but Hitler's enemies - proving the point - always say that it was Hitler's admitted policy!)
Once the lie is exposed however, the liar should be well and truly discredited, never to be taken seriously ever again.
Like that lie Bush and Blair told over Weapons of Mass Destruction....
Unfortunately the public have a very short memory for politics.
I wonder if David Icke employs that principle - to make valid points and raise valid concerns, but make it sound really far-out and incredible.
I prefer to try to stick to being accurate personally though.
It is like the "big lie", the bigger the lie,the more people believe it (as Hitler actually said referring to how Jews use lies in propaganda, but Hitler's enemies - proving the point - always say that it was Hitler's admitted policy!)
Once the lie is exposed however, the liar should be well and truly discredited, never to be taken seriously ever again.
Like that lie Bush and Blair told over Weapons of Mass Destruction....
Unfortunately the public have a very short memory for politics.
I don't think that it is so much short memory, as it is a crippling addiction to comfort. People in America basically know that the president is a liar and the whole government is full of back-scratching money-launderers. Why else would half the population refuse to vote?? But what would revolution entail? A grinding halt to consumerism? The over-filled nut-houses and jails to unleash hordes of killers onto the streets? A global halt to commerce and technology? I guarantee you Bush or Blair or any other friendly despot will not step down without insurrection, and the people are just too cozy and wrapped up in their own lives, with TVs, computers, paperback novels and what have you to stand up and fight.
Its a simple, Roman formula; bread and circus. Give people a moderate, dependable lifestyle and they will serve you with the utmost devotion. Especially the US, which is still primarily a nation of people who oft came here from the oppressed, underclasses of Europe and worked their way into a stable middle-class lifestyle after a few generations.
Is it a conspiracy involving reptilian space aliens?? Probably not. I find Icke entertaining, but it seems like he took one to many psychotropic compounds in his hippy days. The extent of his reptile theory would basically mean that all of humanity is participating in a giant scheme to trick ourselves into a convoluted conspiracy, against ourselves.
My theory is pretty simple, that humans will do anything for power. Look on a microcosmic level, a guy beating up another guy and stealing his bike. Is there a grand conspiracy? No, it is just a display of primal aggression which is motivated by selfishness. Same with the government, a primal display of aggression on a large scale, ensured by worldwide intergovernmental rings of bureaucracy, militarism and policing, all in the interest of preservation of commerce, which ensures a passive population.
Norsemaiden
barbarian
I almost entirely agree with you. However, a revolution is always possible. It doesn't have to involve armed men fighting however. General dissidence and non-cooperation on as low a level as you feel you can manage is enough if sufficient people do it.
Also, as someone put on their website, but I can't remember where, "the revolution will happen when white folks love their children more than money" - which means a revolution in attitude. Yes, a revolution in attitude is enough - to straighten out people's thinking is enough. Our enemies are in power because they are supported by gullible and/or greedy fools. Those in power rely upon the public being obsessed with shallow materialism. If that stops, their power stops. And this is one reason why they don't want to do anything serious to stop carbon emmissions. It requires a sustainable way of living that would entail a whole new mental outlook for the population. Every time you buy an unnecessary product, you support corruption. So each of us should try to cut down on that. Don't wait for everyone else to be part of this revolution.
Does anyone deny this conspiracy?
http://www.theecologist.org/news_detail.asp?content_id=729
Yeah I agree with you. But it is more than just carbon emissions fueling environmental problems, it is also deforestation. And this is tied into the unrestricted power of large corporations being able to exploit poor country's resources. But I don't really believe a social-democratic answer will solve anything, I think it is up to the people to sway the free market as much as possible. Of course I am a hardcore post-leftist. I don't think that any direct government action is going to solve the world's problems. But maybe you are right, maybe people are tired of comfort.
I think white people here care a lot about their children, maybe it is just an American thing, because I read an article not too long ago about how English white kids are becoming the underachievers in English society while Asians, Middle-Easterners and Africans are excelling. In fact I think White Americans love their children too much sometimes and let them become spoiled little brats. Plus its unfair to say the parents love money more than their kids because they often work so that they can send their kids to college, or pay for their kid's doctor bills. I know a single mom who works all week, she doesn't have dental or medical care, but her kids do. And I know plenty of single parents who work 60-70 hours a week and do it all for their children to have clothes and toys and whatnot. Plus the expense of a dependable car/van/truck to drive around the kids to school, sports practice, music lessons etc
I totally agree about conservation, that's everyone's job. I feel like I am somewhat doing my part because I have reduced my environmental footprint as much as possible through alternate transportation, lowering my meat intake to once-twice a week, taking a shower once-twice a week,recycling and buying less products. I would buy more organic and "natural" products but they are sometimes too expensive for me to afford, in the summer I do buy local vegetables though. Plus I own a gun which is the main duty of anyone who believes in a free society, to arm themselves and always be prepared to destroy enemies.
On the article- it doesn't surprise me one bit. I am on another political forum and most the conservatives and religious types don't even believe that global warming or evolution exists. And if you tirelessly prove it through citation they will just say that it is natural phenomenon.
Global warming is a myth. I am all for clean air and water but, global warming is unfounded.
18,000 years ago, ice covered almost all of the United States. I don't think that there were SUV's or Conservatives back then. How did the ice melt? Natural phenomenon?
18,000 years ago, ice covered almost all of the United States. I don't think that there were SUV's or Conservatives back then. How did the ice melt? Natural phenomenon?
Is Global wwaarrmming being censored? I cant use ***ming in a sentence anymore? Like I'm finally ***ming up to metal? Amazing. Its a common non-profane word.
Justin S.
Member
Its simply w-a-r that is being censored... which is odd to say the least.
Anyone know who's responsible for the filters on UM?
Anyone know who's responsible for the filters on UM?
Is the Bush Administration censoring internet forums now too?
So one has to say armed conflict, violent conflict, a series of battles, hostilities between two states, etc. etc, instead of saying w.a.r.
Honestly, since this is the conspiracy forum, I thin this ridiculous form of censorship shows just how fragile our world is due to technology. Its extremely easy to censor almost anything now, and we all know what ind of problems this brings.
At the risk of a foolish question, why on earth would anyone Left, Right, Center or whatever, wish to censor the "W" word? What would be controversial one way or the other? This just doesn't make any sense at all.
EDIT - finally read the explanation...conspiracy dashed!!
Norsemaiden
barbarian
Ice ages come and go, but the glaciers never melted to the extent that it seems they are going to now. When an ice age comes to an end there is global warming, and it is natural global warming. So if natural global warming (rather than man made) was what is happening now, it would still be " global warming".
However, this is manmade global warming, which is why the ice is melting to the extent it is. If it all melts, as it will if nothing is changed in our habits or unless the Earth can react in some way that we don't know of, then the sea level would rise by more than 60 meters. Also ocean temperatures are rising and some parts may begin to boil in the future, as the beginning of a runaway greenhouse effect that would see Earth become like Venus.
The Bush administration has been putting pressure on scientists, in an attempt to prevent data from being publicised
http://www.theecologist.org/news_detail.asp?content_id=729
Global warming is happening - that is a fact.
What still seems to be questioned is whether it is caused by human activity or not.
This scientist says that it is not:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
The Wall Street Journal denies the importance of human contribution to climate cnange, and the paper is rightly savaged for that here http://www.realclimate.org/
Norsemaiden
barbarian
The scientists who say that global warming is nothing to get alarmed about and is not influenced by man (and who admit that they are in the pay of oil companies) do not address the issues of ocean acidification, deforestation (which undoubtedly has led to much higher carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as even they do not deny) and the fact that the melt we face now is far more than you would expect at the end of a natural mini ice age, and (if nothing counters it) is more like how it was over 60 million years ago.
In regards to the Wall Street Journal, I read an article in Salon (possibly biased too) that did a little research on the Wall Street Journal's main expert for climate change--some British lord. Anyway, this British lord has some absolutely out-there ideas like his stating there's evidence the Chinese sailed to the North Pole in the 15 century when it was navigable due to the warm climate of the time.
Justin S.
Member
Its very important to realize the importance of ocean salinity, especially in terms of the North Atlantic Deep Water Current. This, essentially, allows for a temperate climate in Europe, Russia, and North America (and similar latitudes).
Polar melting disrupts ocean salinity, which at some point will cross a threshold and essentially invert this current, triggering glacial expansion, mostly likely across the northern latitudes mentioned (Ice Age).
The frightening thing about this is that its not gradual- its a threshold. If the salinity reaches a point, it more or less "snaps". Severe climate change could be very rapid after this point (measured in terms of months, not decades).
Polar melting disrupts ocean salinity, which at some point will cross a threshold and essentially invert this current, triggering glacial expansion, mostly likely across the northern latitudes mentioned (Ice Age).
The frightening thing about this is that its not gradual- its a threshold. If the salinity reaches a point, it more or less "snaps". Severe climate change could be very rapid after this point (measured in terms of months, not decades).
Similar threads
