Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Official 2012 Illuminati Games


dank.

Recommended Posts

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

Actually there is an almost zero chance of it being a plane. I was watching a special report on the air security that will be implemented during the olympics and any plane not authorized will be shot down long before it could be a potential threat. Long range missles may be another story though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you find yourself in a fight then somewhere along the way you weren't thinking correctly. If a bridge falls we don't attribute it to a collapse in the Laws of gravity, If a light switch fails to turn on the light bulb attached to it we don't conclude that the Laws of Electricity have failed and are no longer relevant. As such if someone fails to properly demonstrate universal laws by situations which come into their lives even if they were thinking positively, doesn't mean that the universal has stop utilizings laws it was built upon. 10-15 minutes of positive thinking will not change a lifetime of negative mental attitude.

So there will be no next time I am in a fight, I have never been in a physical altercation and see no reason to believe I ever will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no amount of thinking you can do that will guarantee to keep you out of danger for your life. Positive thinking has applications in achieving goals and social situations, but not much more. Its not a magic trouble shield.

I've never been in a fight in my life either, but that has more to do with the fact that I live in a safe city and don't seek trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no amount of thinking you can do that will guarantee to keep you out of danger for your life. Positive thinking has applications in achieving goals and social situations, but not much more. Its not a magic trouble shield.

I've never been in a fight in my life either, but that has more to do with the fact that I live in a safe city and don't seek trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that not thinking? Is it not thought that determines whether or not you seek trouble? Thinking is creative and in the human world is the only creator of all there is. So if there is a fight, thought brought about that reality. Consiously or Unconsciously, thought determines every single experience you have in life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see. So what did that little girl in the theatre in Aurora Colorado think to get herself shot then? How about Elisabeth Smart? What did she think in order to get herself kidnapped and raped for a year?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Yes, but wasn't your argument that positive thinking kept you out of trouble? That argument sounded dismissive of the actions and intentions of others. As if for example, the power of positive thought could stop a terrorist attack on London (which is what you suggested).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry but you missed what I was saying entirely. I never said by thinking one way or the other would stop anyone from doing anything they want to do, since all have free will. Thats it you drew your own conclusions beyond that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...