The Sedin's 6th Sense Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 *Cough Cough, Hachoo, Cough* the largest gathering of people in the world, with extremely high visibility in all countries' media. what would make you think they WOULDN'T want to strike the olympics? they are fear-mongering attention whores, what better place to spread fear and grab attention than the olympics? it's why every olympics has such a huge security budget. it's not just in case a riot happens. it's elementary logic, my dear tinfoil hat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthNinja Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 the largest gathering of people in the world, with extremely high visibility in all countries' media. what would make you think they WOULDN'T want to strike the olympics? they are fear-mongering attention whores, what better place to spread fear and grab attention than the olympics? it's why every olympics has such a huge security budget. it's not just in case a riot happens. it's elementary logic, my dear tinfoil hat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avelanch Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 I don't even know why i bothered. go enjoy your conspiracy theories, live in fear, join a protest, cling to your belief that there is a small sect of superpowerful individuals that want you dead and and leaving a trail for you to follow/point out to others, or whatever you want.you won't hear another word from me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthNinja Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 I don't even know why i bothered. go enjoy your conspiracy theories, live in fear, join a protest, cling to your belief that there is a small sect of superpowerful individuals that want you dead and and leaving a trail for you to follow/point out to others, or whatever you want.you won't hear another word from me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimberWolf Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 wow. between all the venom getting spewed in this topic, i think i read 8 good posts. isn't there a rule about flaming/trolling that should be enforced here? Thank you, OP, for the vids Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 because all the control in a single place has worked so well for individual nations, we should scale it up so they control everything. Imagine George Bush in control of the entire world, not just america. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sedin's 6th Sense Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 the largest gathering of people in the world, with extremely high visibility in all countries' media. what would make you think they WOULDN'T want to strike the olympics? they are fear-mongering attention whores, what better place to spread fear and grab attention than the olympics? it's why every olympics has such a huge security budget. it's not just in case a riot happens. it's elementary logic, my dear tinfoil hat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satan's Evil Twin Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 While I realize that you are simply providing your perspective, I don't see how 'I used to believe in that stuff but then smartened up' type arguments are in any way deemed to be convincing (I say this because another member said something similar within this thread). And many people have it the other way around through critical thinking and paying attention and refusing to be fed. They've already gotten through it. I will state, however; that based on some posts and topics I've seen from you, you are more awake than most people on certain issues. Predictive programming is not one and the same as garbage by the truck load and the concept of Predictive programming goes back to Plato. You could say that predictive programming and garbage information/propaganda/deception/lies etc. likely often have a symbiotic relationship and are interdependent, especially in today's realm. In fact, you could say that garbage information reinforces the predictive programming to create a cultural conditioning of the masses from the top-down. A perfect example of this: whenever the mere insinuation of a conspiracy is mentioned, what is the common and uniform reaction from the masses to a near tee? And why is that? If religious leaders, according to what you believe and claim, can brainwash the masses, then what about governments and entities above the governments who have limitless resources and armies of psychologists etc. at their disposal and beckoning to put on productions via television or theater screens that reside in every home and city which the masses willingly stare at for hours on end as opposed to one Sunday per week? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avelanch Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 But isn't that the kind of paranoia that resides in these tin-foilers minds? Having a centralized gov't to govern the affairs of society has gone back to the days of our African plains ancestors, up until today, where our local cities employ a democratically elected gov't based on the socially agreed understanding that standardized services across our town or city or province is necessary and beneficial. Obviously there are pit-falls as with anything man-made. Absolute power corrupting and whatnot, but for the large part, it seems that we're ok with the system of democracy, the system of social services, and the system of a socially representative governing body. If all these work from the micro, municipal unit, all the way to the macro, the federal or national unit(for most countries), then what is the real issue, other than corruption which can be addressed by the architects of the larger governmental unit, to oppose a one-world gov't? There are pros and cons, of course....and i'm not suggesting that we do away with country names and borders and all the things that keep our regional and cultural identities intact, i'm speaking more about the ability to take global action on any number of issues around, poverty & suffering, climate change & environment, freedeoms & law, civil unrest/wars, economics, drought, starvation, disease and destruction, and all the things that don't know or respect borders and boundaries now anyways. I'm sort of thinking about a U.N type organization that actually works, and isn't bogged down by vetos, and diplomatic red-tape and all the things that make it a useless waste of an organization when a part of the world requires a quick and nimble response. I realize i can't make a full explanation in one post, nor can I address or recognize all the challenges, problems and pit-falls, of this idea....but i'm just touching on the bare basics of the idea. Take it for what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 But isn't that the kind of paranoia that resides in these tin-foilers minds? Having a centralized gov't to govern the affairs of society has gone back to the days of our African plains ancestors, up until today, where our local cities employ a democratically elected gov't based on the socially agreed understanding that standardized services across our town or city or province is necessary and beneficial. Obviously there are pit-falls as with anything man-made. Absolute power corrupting and whatnot, but for the large part, it seems that we're ok with the system of democracy, the system of social services, and the system of a socially representative governing body. If all these work from the micro, municipal unit, all the way to the macro, the federal or national unit(for most countries), then what is the real issue, other than corruption which can be addressed by the architects of the larger governmental unit, to oppose a one-world gov't? There are pros and cons, of course....and i'm not suggesting that we do away with country names and borders and all the things that keep our regional and cultural identities intact, i'm speaking more about the ability to take global action on any number of issues around, poverty & suffering, climate change & environment, freedeoms & law, civil unrest/wars, economics, drought, starvation, disease and destruction, and all the things that don't know or respect borders and boundaries now anyways. I'm sort of thinking about a U.N type organization that actually works, and isn't bogged down by vetos, and diplomatic red-tape and all the things that make it a useless waste of an organization when a part of the world requires a quick and nimble response. I realize i can't make a full explanation in one post, nor can I address or recognize all the challenges, problems and pit-falls, of this idea....but i'm just touching on the bare basics of the idea. Take it for what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 but the larger and more powerful a government becomes the less effective it becomes it's the small local governments that truly take care of their people and does what's right for them, for the most part. I'd rather decentralize than centralize. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avelanch Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 I think they've become what we've allowed them to become. I agree that in some ways they've less effective, but that's because many of us have become disconnected to politics, or social policy making. We're the ones, the average citizen, who allow the corruption and the fear-mongering and the powerful and the rich to corrupt the system. And while I agree that smaller gov'ts can take care of smaller areas, the same is true about larger governing bodies overseeing issues that arise over larger areas that can't be solved by marshaling the resources or people-power of a small area. We've live in tribes before, and that was all great and dandy, but tribalism is also something that occurs, and isn't so great after awhile, which is why we evolved out of it. I do agree that we need better decentralized policies and representation though. Even in a one world situation, we'd still need to have 'proper' representation of regions as well as tailored solutions for each area and unique challenge faced. However, that doesn't mean that a one-world gov't couldn't establish fundamental rights and freedoms from the get go to establish, standardize and enforce equality and human rights legislation and policies and enforcement. It could also standardize many other benefits such as health and education. Decentralization of power is a good idea, but again, small areas don't have the means to look after themselves without being dependent on other areas, given our current state of living, population, and other factors. There is a place for being self-reliant and self-sufficient, but it should be an either or proposition when talking about that, and reliance on others. We're a species that thrives when we don't isolate ourselves from ourselves, but learn to rely on each other, and work cooperatively to tackle large problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 fair enough, i just don't see people getting along enough to sustain that ubergovernment. someone will always feel unrepresented and disenfranchised, and will rebel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aladeen Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Doesn't Illuminati mean enlightened ones? Weren't they the group of individuals which went underground to avoid persecution from the Catholic church? If I am not mistaken weren't they or aren't they comprised of some of the most intellegent and bright individuals to have ever lived? If that is all true it would seem to me that it would be a positive thing having learned people running the planet. In a sense this is much better than the thought of an average good ol' boy like Dubyah running the show. I can't see how the elite with all that they have (Also the most to lose) would desire the world to end. I can't see how some of the smartest people in the world would think that the destruction of human civilization could be the answer to any problem. I get that fear is the easiest way to control the masses, but if there was a group of individuals running the world from a secert oligarchy who were determined to see the end of the world, wouldn't they have done it already? Couldn't they have done it already since the invention of the Nuclear Bomb? It makes no sense for the haves to want everything to come to an end. For without the have nots these people would cease to be elite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avelanch Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 The needs and benefits of the many should and could outweigh the paranoia and distrust of the few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bertuzzi Babe Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Doesn't Illuminati mean enlightened ones? Weren't they the group of individuals which went underground to avoid persecution from the Catholic church? If I am not mistaken weren't they or aren't they comprised of some of the most intellegent and bright individuals to have ever lived? If that is all true it would seem to me that it would be a positive thing having learned people running the planet. In a sense this is much better than the thought of an average good ol' boy like Dubyah running the show. I can't see how the elite with all that they have (Also the most to lose) would desire the world to end. I can't see how some of the smartest people in the world would think that the destruction of human civilization could be the answer to any problem. I get that fear is the easiest way to control the masses, but if there was a group of individuals running the world from a secert oligarchy who were determined to see the end of the world, wouldn't they have done it already? Couldn't they have done it already since the invention of the Nuclear Bomb? It makes no sense for the haves to want everything to come to an end. For without the have nots these people would cease to be elite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
butters Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Just saying, wouldn't it be suspicious and 'coincidental' if for some reason these Olympics get attacked when all/most the past ones weren't? Not to mention, these London Olympics have the highest security budget ever at $1.5 bill with more to be added and it's the highest technological out there....don't think terrorists could get by that tbh, and it'd have to be it was 'Illuminati/gov' based if an attack does happen because of these conspiracy videos that state it was a possibility all along and the signs they've given in commercials. If nothing happens, I was wrong - doesn't hurt me to say I wasn't right - but if it does, don't try covering up and saying it was by terrorists because no terrorists can get by the immense and advanced security these has these Olympics has and the terrorist you can blame it on is the Illuminati as again, they have forshadowed this a lot in the past 2 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jägermeister Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Just saying, wouldn't it be suspicious and 'coincidental' if for some reason these Olympics get attacked when all/most the past ones weren't? Not to mention, these London Olympics have the highest security budget ever at $1.5 bill with more to be added and it's the highest technological out there....don't think terrorists could get by that tbh, and it'd have to be it was 'Illuminati/gov' based if an attack does happen because of these conspiracy videos that state it was a possibility all along and the signs they've given in commercials. If nothing happens, I was wrong - doesn't hurt me to say I wasn't right - but if it does, don't try covering up and saying it was by terrorists because no terrorists can get by the immense and advanced security these has these Olympics has and the terrorist you can blame it on is the Illuminati as again, they have forshadowed this a lot in the past 2 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aladeen Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Not that I'm saying im looking towards an attack, that'd be just awful, but there is the potential of one happening so yea, an if it does happen, people will just say it was a terrorist attack when it wasn't really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 should, being the key word. looking at the state of the world right now, i'd say we're a long ways off from that ideal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.