THE "CHATBOX"

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby PianoRacer on August 17th, 2018, 1:19 am

Darwin, Pasteur or Fleming did not pop up out the earth like potatoes, do you agree? They were the product of a profound transformation for the better.


Evolution? Pasteurization? Antibiotics? These are your examples of scientific progress that were "the product of a profound transformation for the better"? Wow, no wonder you dislike the open discussion of scientific fraud on this site - you are still thoroughly indoctrinated in the ridiculous mythos of the cult of modern "psience"!

These people were liars and frauds. Darwin's "theory" is absurd and nonsensical. Go watch Berlinski utterly destroy Darwin's "theory" with panache and wit:


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Qx0doX8eXE

[Darwinism is] a kind of amusing 19th-century collection of anecdotes that is utterly unlike anything we see in the serious sciences.


Some relevant quotes from the interview that I think applies to some other things you said:

We don't know anything about the progress of science. As far as we can tell it depends on unique unrepeatable events, the confluence of genius and inspiration, and in between those events there is a lot of patient work on the accumulation of data. It's not even clear that science is progressing, it may be moving in a circular pattern, an ever deeper entrenchment of a single set of ideas.

I don't think we should make any large claims about the progress of science, we understand science as little as we understand the cosmos.


Pasteur recanted his ideas on his deathbed and the "pasteurization" process has greatly contributed to the chronic malnutrition of the human race.

On his deathbed Pasteur, who once said that germs created illness and that the human body is sterile – basically a blank slate free of germs, then made his final statements admitting and condemning his “Germ Theory” and said, “Bernard was right. The microbe is nothing; the milieu is everything.”


I don't know much about Fleming but I do know how terribly destructive antibiotics can be. They are purported to have saved many lives, but the same has been said of vaccines and I know for a fact that that is a complete and utter lie. I would never willingly take antibiotics.

The scientific method is sound and a good tool for obtaining knowledge. Modern "science" has very, very little to do with it. Like most good things, the idea of science has been co opted by evil people and the end result is the exact opposite of what science is supposed to achieve - namely, the spread of destructive lies and the obliteration of truth.

It baffles me that people with the courage and perspicacity to see through the lies of 9/11, NASA, nuclear weapons, etc. can be so fooled by the ridiculous nonsense peddled by the likes of Darwin, Pasteur and their ilk.

Frankly, you'd be much better off having ignorance of the former and knowledge of the latter. There is literally nothing actionable that an individual can do about the "media hoax" topics that are the main subject of this forum. On the other hand, knowledge of the depravity and faith-based nature of the modern food and medical systems could save your life or the life of a loved one.

I'll take the cure for cancer (which I posted here to the sound of deafening silence) over the truth about 9/11 any day of the week. The media lies - events are faked - this has been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt at this point. Further analysis is beating a dead horse. Instead of constantly asking the question "was the most recent nonsensical [mass shooting/infrastructure collapse/NASA tale] faked yet again?", we should be asking "what other, more important things have we been lied to about?"

I guess for some it is safer to focus on lies (and truths) that are completely outside of our control or influence. As I wrote in my cancer post, people don't actually want to know the truth about cancer, and I completely understand why. As painful as it is to watch someone die slowly and painfully of cancer (or more accurately, the modern, barbaric "treatment" for cancer), it's actually worse to watch someone die slowly and painfully of cancer when you know you very likely could save their life if they could actually bring themselves to open their minds to logic and evidence instead of the faith-based authority of their medical priests.

EDIT: Also, just for the record, and not even remotely surprisingly, Fleming was a Freemason:

https://www.ugle.org.uk/about-freemason ... er-fleming


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXz4Nk6rlH4

Darwin's grandfather was as well, and I have little doubt that Charlie's apple didn't fall too far from the family tree:

http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/dar ... win_e.html
PianoRacer
Member
 
Posts: 50
Joined: November 10th, 2016, 2:13 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby nonhocapito on August 17th, 2018, 2:52 am

Just to clarify, I don't necessarily want to defend science, I just find myself doing so on here. It you guys' fault. :mellow:
Darwin was a fraud, a freemason voted to robbing humanity of their cherished harmonic relationship with God and Nature?
1) such relationship was not harmonious , it was a struggle and our traditions or spiritual ambitions didn't always help. People were kind of annoyed with their priests being incapable of logically explaining pretty much anything that could be observed.
2) freemaaonry is everywhere, mostly to give white men a career. But when Darwin sat observing nature was he being a freemason or an observer of nature? And Leonardo? And Galileo? All malicious frauds? Any chance they were people like you and me trying to shed some light on the mysteries?
3)as I said before, all scientific discoveries are flawed and waiting to be contradicted. This doesn't necessarily mean that they have been purposefully designed to dupe humanity.
4) humans malnourished? Antibiotics bad? Do you ever look around in the world or do you see everything through your computer? Sure I avoid antibiotics or vaccines if I can, but i am intellectually honest enough to recognize how incredibly powerful and trasformational these things have been.
Unless you think all these millions of people are around despite antibiotics or hygiene or the processing of food. Just by chance, I suppose, we have multiplied and live longer lives?
I remember reading of that doctor who found out how necessary it was to wash your hands when operating or treating patients. This led to the observation of the microbes and parasites that caused death in children touched by the hands of medical practitioners who had no idea of what hygiene was. That doctor was shunned for his ideas, not because of some conspiracy but because we are all prone to go with what we already know. Eventually truth and logic prevailed. This happened a couple of centuries ago.
You now wash your hands, don't you? Why?
And don't you also, see in nature how selective of fitness traits all creatures are? It's incredibly obvious too see, right? Do you think you would even see this, hadn't it been for Darwin?
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2541
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby patrix on August 17th, 2018, 10:02 am

Summer break at CF is over. I love it. Thank you for so many interesting thoughts, stemmed from my less interesting one. I like to put things out there to get a discussion going. But I still find my tidbit interesting – That Kubrick and Clarke (“father of the communication satellite”) had “How the solar system was won” as a working title of 2001. But let’s just leave it that.

I would like to write a very long answer, but don’t have the time now. That Youtube about Darwinism was interesting. I agree that Darwinism is problematic and don’t qualify as a scientific theory. But I disagree with the speaker that Kepler and Newton are examples of good science and the implication that a mathematical abstraction constitutes scientific proof. As Simon have laid out to us, Keplers planetary motion equations can be seen as a description of how an object moving in a circular orbit would appear to move when viewed from the side. The appearance of the object slowing down is because it is moving towards or away from us in its circular orbit. And let us also remember that Kepler falsified Brahes observations to make them fit the Copernican model. Why he did, we will most likely never find out, but it’s been shown that he did. http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//ful ... 7.000.html

As for Pianoracers view on what we should devote our limited time and attention to, I could not agree more. Health is the foundation for every human activity, and if we follow the official guidelines - Eat less, run more and take your prescriptions, we will have less of it. Modern medicine is a scam, and it has been that way for a very long time. If you are subject to a severe accident, your chances of survival and recovery are much greater today because of improved trauma care. But if you suffer from a so called western disease like diabetes, cancer or dementia, our health care will worsen your condition and the likely reason you got sick in the first place was because you followed general health advice. And this is something many people in the “conspiracy scene” will not accept, and if they do they often fall prey to what I regard as disinformation. There are quite a few medical “Ace Bakers” and “Jim Fetzers” out there, and understandably so. If we accept the notion that the Nutwork are psychopaths that want not only less for us, but also less of us, medicine is an important area right?

As for cancer, vaccines and antibiotics I can only but wholeheartedly agree Pianoracer. And we suffer seriously from the Cassandra complex when we are unable to save to ones we truly care for, even though we know that we can. It is a horrible situation to find oneself in. I have also investigated cancer and other metabolic diseases and the cure is fasting and a carbohydrate and protein free diet just as Thomas Seyfried stresses. Cancer is not a disease, but a part of our immune response that fights off acute infection by encapsulating and suffocating it. And if we leave it to do its job, and refrain from adding more fuel to the infection by ingesting carbohydrates and protein that will turn into sugar, the body will heal itself.

Vaccines are neither safe nor effective. We all know vaccines have side effects, and we probably suspect some serious side effects like Autism are covered up by the “greedy Big Pharma”. But what we can’t see because of the wall of tears in this area, is that vaccines are useless. Immunization does not work. Period. So why risk serious side effects when the benefit is zero?

Antibiotics. I must admit I am not fully up to speed in this area, but I find it very likely that antibiotics in general do more harm than good. Colloidal silver is a product I find remarkably effective for treating small wounds and skin spots. It is a potent antibiotic that not only fights bacteria but also fungal growth as opposed to regular antibiotics. I also see the propaganda and disinfo train having Collodial silver on board (Google it and find the blue smurf :-) which strengthens my notion that this is a safe and effective product.

All the best dear Cluesforumers and have a great autumn. Looking forward to more interesting discussions and research /Patrik

Edit, I just have to comment on this interesting piece by you nonhocapito:
Those traditional sciences however struggled for millennia to figure out the nature of almost everything they observed. And because their science was based on their traditions, they were absolutely incapable to rethink their premises or to share their discoveries or to put them to the test. Imagine having a conversation about the Tychos with a Mayan priest. You think you'd get out of that one alive? Think again. You'd be disharmonious alright. Not even with Dante or Aristotle you'd be successful, precisely because their idea of the world was shaped by their intellectual prejudice, to a much higher degree than the so-evil scientists you have to face today.

This is the exact problem we have with the science of today and they will never change stance on things like the Copernican model. And we would be fools to think otherwise. No matter how much evidence is laid before them, this will never happen. We have “rocket science”. The problem is not that it’s difficult to understand, but that it’s impossible because it defies fundamental laws of physics. But that doesn’t stop them from receiving grants. Admitting to it would however.

And I think our past rulers was just as politically aware as todays. If you cut out a mans tongue you will only show that you are afraid of what he has to say. If someone said something damning publicly in the Mayan culture it would be ignored or laughed at and then perhaps dealt with secretly.
Last edited by patrix on August 17th, 2018, 1:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 292
Joined: December 14th, 2016, 11:24 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby HonestlyNow on August 17th, 2018, 1:12 pm

patrix » August 17th, 2018, 5:02 am wrote:Cancer is not a disease, but a part of our immune response that fights off acute infection by encapsulating and suffocating it. And if we leave it to do its job, and refrain from adding more fuel to the infection by ingesting carbohydrates and protein that will turn into sugar, the body will heal itself.

What is called "cancer" is nothing more than a result from an overly acidic lymphatic system. This system surrounds every one of the cells in the body. Lymph collects the cellular wastes to be removed from the body. When the exit channels from the body are blocked (mainly the kidneys), then the lymph gets blocked up and stagnant. This stagnant lymph around the cells turns acidic from the accumulated cellular wastes. Try holding some Coca-cola in your mouth for a few minutes, and then you can begin to imagine what it would be like for your cells to be living in it's own waste matter. Witness a baby not being changed in a timely manner, as well. Anyway, these accumulated wastes are the cause of one's bodily discomforts that many people have been calling a disease, by one name or another. All of this is simply reversed by removing the cause, which is to remove oneself from taking in acid-ash forming substances in their daily life.

I have pointed to the teachings of Robert Morse ND on YouTube a few times on this board. ICfreely went into detail starting at this post in November 2016. Using one's own reasoning, after obtaining all of the facts that pertain, would lead one to give this serious consideration, at the very least. Remember to not avoid a fact because it seems inconvenient to one's own conditioning or preferred way of seeing things.

patrix wrote: I also see the propaganda and disinfo train having Collodial silver on board (Google it and find the blue smurf :-) which strengthens my notion that this is a safe and effective product.

I've seen several times at a weekly class someone who had an unmistakably blue tinge of his skin. I was told that he takes colloidal silver. (Yes, this is obviously anecdotal.) Dr. Morse has plenty to say about the use of anti-biotics, but I'll leave it to you to do the research.
HonestlyNow
Member
 
Posts: 390
Joined: September 13th, 2011, 12:15 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby hoi.polloi on August 17th, 2018, 4:10 pm

I do understand this is anecdotal.

Colloidal silver, when made at home, should be made with very specific conditions. Buying commercial colloidal silver is not the answer unless you are willing to test its contents for yourself. I shouldn't make any health recommendation on the forum but it is my understanding that it is a powerful anti-microbial with many uses — the solution will contain impurities or form overly large silver spheroids if done improperly. But for many of those that manufacture it safely it is used safely with no yet discovered down side when used for ailments where it is known to be effective; not that you should be chugging it but you can read about some of its uses and see if you get a proper recommendation from a health practitioner you trust for those specific treatment practices. Some claim that coupling this medicine with another form (some use of marijuana for other health issues) makes them a golden shining pillar of health. I am glad this is just the CHATBOX, though. I am not going to test this for myself or post test results of others, and I don't think this forum is for that.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5048
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby patrix on August 17th, 2018, 11:53 pm

Hoi,

Since I brought this up I feel compelled to add that I strongly advise against trying to make your own colloidal silver since it's then you have no way of knowing the strength and purity of the solution. Commercial colloidal silver with 10ppm (one gram silver per hundred liters) is well within the WHOs limits for silver intake even if you would consume a cup daily for 80 years. I do not advice daily intake however since it kills healthy gut bacteria.

It's not possible to get argyria (blueness) from 10ppm colloidal silver. What's been known to cause this is silver nitrate that was used in the early 20th century that contained more than 300000 ppm of silver. However for some reason media loves to mix these things up.

There are tens of millions of colloidal silver users worldwide and only a handful of known cases of argyria in history. And those cases do not have anything to do with colloidal silver intake.

I have a strong feeling that the rumors surrounding colloidal silver has to do with its effectiveness since it kills both bacteria and fungi without any toxicity.

Edit:
And there's a long history of use of silver for treating infection and food conservation that goes back to roman days. A silver coin in the milk bottle prevents it from going sour. The expression "Born with a silver spoon in the mouth" stems from the practice of upper class families giving their babies a silver spoon to suck on to prevent illness. Blue blood has also to do with this. Older silver products that didn't have as small particles as todays electrolyte produced colloidal silver, could give the blood a bluish tint, and upper class people treated themselves with silver products.
Last edited by patrix on August 18th, 2018, 10:27 am, edited 7 times in total.
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 292
Joined: December 14th, 2016, 11:24 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby MrSinclair on August 18th, 2018, 1:33 am

Funny but I was taking colloidal silver today to fight off a respiratory infection that I seem to get annually. I bounce back quickly since I started using it and that was not true when I either waited it out or took a course of antibiotics.

Nono's point of the value of antibiotics is well taken and when I was close to death some years ago I'm so glad they were available and the doctors were pumping me with loads of them. While I have not taken antibiotics in many years and would not think to do so ever again I am grateful they exist and know quite well that they could be the only way to stay alive under certain conditions.

Along the same lines one can point to DDT as having saved untold lives worldwide or on the other side subscribe to Rachel Carson's view in the famous book Silent Spring that it is a scourge and killer. I used to fall for that because it was taught in school as the only truth when I was young but when I finally was presented with an opposing point of view I saw the weakness of her beliefs and arguments.

There is such a pervasive mindset to label things as good or bad without examining the context in which they are used. People living in luxury in Malibu are going to decry the use of pesticides but in areas where they prevent malaria the feelings are going to be entirely different. When I was trekking in Thailand a year ago I was grateful to slather myself in these toxins because the potential alternative was dengue fever.


And thank you PianoRacer for getting me back to reading the Engineering Disease thread last night. There is a tremendous amount of useful information to be found there.
MrSinclair
Member
 
Posts: 396
Joined: December 23rd, 2011, 2:29 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby aa5 on August 18th, 2018, 4:54 am

Once science became our society's religion, it could never change.. at least on major theories. It is the State and the Church compact that all societies have. The religion gives a mandate to the state. So say the state officials want to restrict oil use. The scientists give the moral authority of why it needs to be done. Now to question the actions of the state would also be to question the high priests advice.

People today believe in science 100%, as the ancient Mayan's believed in their priests 100%. You see those ancient Mayan's they didn't see their religion the way we define the word today. They saw it the way we see science today, the truth as discovered through time by very wise scholars and passed down through time.

In all societies the religion has a monopoly on education. In our society the governments allegedly cannot fund religion, yet those same governments spend 10% of our GDP funding k-12 and universities. Of course those institutions teach our religion.

The more smart and educated the person today, the more they believe in science, the more unthinkable to them that science could being faked or that science could be wrong(on major points anyways). To admit that science could be wrong on major points or faking evidence, causes an emotional breakdown in their minds when you mention it to them. They react the same way religious believers of past centuries reacted to heretics.
aa5
Member
 
Posts: 210
Joined: April 15th, 2016, 4:03 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby Flabbergasted on August 18th, 2018, 2:01 pm

Some keen insights there, aa5.
aa5 » August 18th, 2018, 12:54 am wrote:The religion gives a mandate to the state.

Precisely. Temporal power ('Arthur') derives its legitimacy from spiritual authority ('Merlin'). Emperors are crowned by bishops.
(although the two functions have occasionally been exercised by the same individual)
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 741
Joined: November 12th, 2012, 1:19 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby nonhocapito on August 18th, 2018, 5:48 pm

Nobody has answered my question yet. Do you wash your hands? Why?
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2541
Joined: July 10th, 2010, 6:38 am
Location: Italy

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby hoi.polloi on August 18th, 2018, 6:38 pm

MrSinclair wrote:There is such a pervasive mindset to label things as good or bad without examining the context in which they are used.


This also applies to science.

This discussion has made good points on many sides. The way it applies to my thinking is this: questioning whether Newton or Kepler (or others whose science is in question) have been worshiped to the point of hurting science is an understandable pursuit, and so is asking if they gave anything of merit to the discussion of science, but labeling everything they've done as good or bad (via the "religious zealotry" or "heathen thoughts" pejorative labels that aa5 points out) is problematic, diplomatically speaking, when we've "finished" the discussion and we're supposed to resolve with some final "take away" from it.

Discussions on the basis of bias can be visceral triggers for people of the conflicting biases (which, given the diversity of belief systems, will greatly outnumber any given bias). Many things like that apply on our site. We are a confluence of very different ideas and we waver between trying to be diplomatic with each other and condemning any biases that we are stupid or brave enough to reveal to each other. It's actually amazing that given our "diversity" of thought (though to be honest it seems we are barely able to question our own culture) we've been able to bully each other in to any unifying notion at all — save for the notion that trying to agree on anything in general (except identifying a bias) is a pretty challenging exercise.

I generally think I have learned a great deal about diplomacy in trying to moderate this site, and yet it seems sometimes I haven't learned anything at all or that applying what I've learned is not possible because people keep proving to be so very different — and really even be attracted (subconciously or not) to the possibility of being more different from those they are in discussion with the minute they find out they can choose to be. It's probably some deep human instinct attached to the ego. We need to assert, confess or even belligerently yell our bias to one another given a chance.

And here I go with mine, too, to patrix: I would agree that it's bad to recommend on a web site that people make their own colloidal silver but knowing personally people who have made it as perfectly as can be done (and knowing when to throw out a batch with the slightest flaw) I have come to understand that it really depends on who is using it that helps determine which method (buying or manufacturing or a mixture of both) that will best help that user determine the true sensitivity of the matter. For many people (maybe even most) careful buying is "easier" (emotionally, or due to personal habits or cognition or other factors) than careful making. Nevertheless, whatever the method of acquiring and using it, the user needs to appreciate that it is something you don't want to mess up. I hope that's something we can agree on.

However, sometimes I must give up on the possibility of agreeing on things on this site. We are just filled with so many cantankerous egos (including my over-present one) that certain people must find the site truly intolerable. Given our low and decreasing numbers, it should be clear to us that very few people have the patience or tolerance for the methods of our discussion of these topics and we can't keep blaming it on the idea that we are smart/brave/sensitive/etc., while others are not. It's more like we are in a noisy classroom where the arrogant teacher has left and each student is now trying to call "bullshit" as fast as possible on so many things that in person we wouldn't (or even shouldn't) say to those who have ears unless we want to traumatize, trigger or upset one another.

Are we really demonstrating that anarchy is better than authoritarianism? Or have we demonstrated that they are the same thing?

I love what CluesForum has brought to the table in trying its damnedest to depersonalize pure information, but the most disgusting thing about our site is the pride with which this unsavory culture prizes its "truth" and characterizes itself as an enlightened discussion. There is good being done here, but until we are willing to discuss what can be done with the useful information, how to communicate it to others with humbleness, grace or a willingness to exchange cultural understanding and not merely take turns playing the lecturer, I am not sure how to really be anything except yet another example here of how to clumsily, egotistically and/or self-righteously decry conclusions from very different ways of attempting to know the world. I just pray that readers who find us and learn something from the site can themselves use their own skills in diplomacy and listening when trying to talk about it with people, because they are not going to gain much of it here.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5048
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby Flabbergasted on August 18th, 2018, 7:40 pm

nonhocapito » August 18th, 2018, 1:48 pm wrote:Do you wash your hands? Why?

As for me, yes, I wash my hands. I do it because they look or feel dirty or don´t smell right.

If water and soap reduce the bacterial load, then that's a plus. I am not among those who doubt the existence of microorganisms or that certain compounds have the ability to stop bacterial replication and spread. Actually, it is fairly simple to place a drop of antibiotic in the middle of a colony of micoorganisms in a Petri dish and watch an inhibition halo form around it.

Now, I do not pretend to know in what scenarios commercially available antibiotics are the 'right option'. There is hardly a single best solution for all people and situations.
Flabbergasted
Member
 
Posts: 741
Joined: November 12th, 2012, 1:19 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby patrix on August 19th, 2018, 1:47 am

hoi.polloi » August 18th, 2018, 6:38 pm wrote:Nevertheless, whatever the method of acquiring and using it, the user needs to appreciate that it is something you don't want to mess up. I hope that's something we can agree on.

Are we really demonstrating that anarchy is better than authoritarianism? Or have we demonstrated that they are the same thing?



I care the most about two things at the moment - Finding out what is true and false in the world and convey that to as many people as possible. To think too much about who dunnit, why and what to do about the lying/mistakes is premature. In order to solve a problem it must first be understood. And my process of doing that is to research and find people on the same page and discuss. Arguing is often seen as offensive which annoy the hell out of me because I see another Psyop in that - "We should be careful with words because they can hurt people". Sure if someone is bullied or insulted. But words per se can never hurt. Not uncovering malicious lies can on the other hand. And the thing about this is that it hinders a constructive debate on important subjects and for people to become aware of them. And that is the motive behind all the focus on hate speech and the need for more legislation. Self censorship is the best censorship.
If the Nutwork for example decides they want to move a group of people from one continent to another because it's on their agenda, they brand any criticism of immigration as hate speech. It then becomes impossible to have a rational discussion around the matter or to organize any political action. And if you still try you will be called a rabid right extremist.
It's always about associating emotions with the matter. To be a good person is to favour immigration or care about the environment by limiting your "carbon footprint". To be a bad person is to say immigration is not a good solution for both countries involved and the people concerned or that there is no evidence whatsoever that carbon emissions affect our climate.

And we all need to do our part in this. Everyone should think about what they say and how they say it and offer guidelines and friendly nudges for those who still don't get it. Because words can hurt you see. Well forgive for being more concerned about the cluster bombs and vaccines in the hands of psychos and not minding my manners.

As for colloidal silver making dear Hoi, dunno. It's not like we're making some kind of psychedelic drug where a mistake can make you brain dead. The only known negative side effect from silver intake is that it can turn you blue, and that's not really possible when it comes to real colloidal silver. I'm frankly a bit fed up with all the fud (fear, uncertainty, doubt) generated around nutrition and medicine and our willingness to buy it. We need our modern medicine man in a white coat to inject our babies with coolant (glycol is a common ingredient in vaccines) and we will follow his advice to eat mostly healthy greens and avoid the nasty fat and meat. And hey that's good for the planet and animals too!! Went on a rant here. Oops. Hope my words was not to offensive for this space ;-)
patrix
Member
 
Posts: 292
Joined: December 14th, 2016, 11:24 am

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby hoi.polloi on August 19th, 2018, 5:27 am

Sure if someone is bullied or insulted. But words per se can never hurt.


Everyone should think about what they say and how they say it and offer guidelines and friendly nudges for those who still don't get it. Because words can hurt you see.


So words can't hurt unless it is bullying or insulting.

Yet they can "get in the way" of your living your life in peace.

Forgive me if I point out what I feel is a slight contradiction. No insult intended.

The comedy about fish not seeing the water they swim in comes to mind.

Well forgive for being more concerned about the cluster bombs and vaccines in the hands of psychos and not minding my manners.


Most people are much more concerned about where bombs, starvation and poison are going to interrupt their day or their life or the days and lives of loved ones. But that doesn't mean rudeness, crudeness or offensive language is welcome just because there are far worse things in the world than those things. We may have a high tolerance for it because of our passion for the truth. Clearly, that is not how most people work.

It's a frustrating aspect of the world but also a true fact and not an "alternative fact" that on a spectrum from pleasant peaceful life to hellish bellicose behavior, degrading other people's opinions moves people towards the uncomfortable direction rather than the comfortable direction.

Does this mean CluesForum shouldn't exist? I don't think so. On the contrary.

There are so many indications and even legends (and Hollywood movies — ahem) in the world about the importance of making people uncomfortable for good reason — disrupting, insulting and judging with concern for the greater good. Luckily we are all here expressing oh so much concern and that should redeem us. But it doesn't, in the eyes of most people. And in truth, it really doesn't "redeem" much of anything. Everything is give and take. What culture have we nurtured on the forum? Nevermind what we do in real life and how we come across to friends and family for a minute.

Not GodLikeProductions. Not 4chan. Not David Icke forum. And yet ... related in some sense.

Please don't misunderstand. I don't think we are bad for truth, like the character of "Nico Haupt" who absolutely set the bar for disruption while trying to get attention on the concept of "No planes [having] crashed on 9/11". Many people say he is a shill who deliberately made questioning the official 9/11 conspiracy theory into a clownish and offensive discussion while yelling in the streets of New York, stripping for attention and so on.

And it seems his behavior did sour people on questioning things, even if it also brought some positive attention to the idea.

The "Wall of Tears" weapon being used to censor people, where the tragic disruption of peaceful life "cannot" be questioned (in the minds of the average folks) even where evidence of fake victims or falsified victimhood is part of the story, is also said to be something used to censor people on hugely public violent supposed events and especially the topic of victimhood of those supposed events.

And it works, too.

Politicians and celebrities and professors are all said to be brought down by scandal. And that certainly works.

What works against the power of "character assassination" being misused yet besides actually having a good reputation? Anything? Have we discovered and agreed on any other solid working ways of combating the ruthless anti-human weapon of an artificially imposed bad reputation?

No.

Alex Jones, Michael Moore and others said to be "insulting" America's establishment left and establishment right are said to be both promoted and yet also display the drama of victimhood — the "scandalous". But which between them, right now, is more enveloped in scandal? The worst thing about Michael Moore in the public's imagination, it seems, is from cheesy little-known movies that try to decry him. Otherwise he is considered a hero of the left who, at worst, fakes information to make his points. Whereas Alex Jones is seen as some kind of pure villain by both researchers (whose work he appropriates) and the propagandized public.

People these days don't even need an excuse to "be soured" on an idea. But you can see that Moore's positing himself within a fake leftist sort of political culture is safer for his media exposure than Jones' positing himself in an ostensibly libertarian sort of political culture.

So, here we are. Claiming to be neither of the official "left" or official "right" power houses and yet each of us with opinions that have been sorted for the public as "belonging" to present "left" or "right" paradigms. On so many topics that aren't even sorted in the media.

Hell, we seem to get divided over whether we can call digital compositing or augmented reality "Computer Graphics", or what we categorize as a vicsim or fake victim or what-have-you.

Hence, despite our claiming to be united by realizations of media lies, we are actually personally divided on topics that are in reality extremely divisive.

We sometimes express lamentations that we should show any "political" alignment, and yet we have some minor political discussions all the time. We have biases. We have beliefs. We can certainly claim to be "united" by the realizations of fakery or the realizations of other things (health scares, science discussions, etc.) but we try to avoid going too far from the uniting concept of "media fakery" and that's as far as we've gotten. It feels like a big advancement to us, but not to many people in the world. Some on the forum snipe at each other with personal bias and then hide behind the (possibly false) unity of the revelations of media fakery. In truth, we here represent various sides of political battles and divisions that our opinions would have us divided on in person.

We can claim we understand that fakery is being used for a sort of hypnotic control of the population and it is used to divide us. But the truth is fake events apparently also unite us by erasing the centers of true political conflicts.

The only people on this forum I could consider remotely "inoculated" against the overall "message" produced by media fakers are those that recognize human conflicts should not be encouraged in general and who are actively working on ways in their communities of reducing conflict, deescalating, and making peace by being compassionate and peaceful in the face of upsetting information (or upsetting psychopaths). Otherwise, it seems, media fakery serves you pretty well, hmm?

Unless one takes a seriously dedicated stance of not allowing one's self to be drawn into any political conflict, unless we are actually "united" anyway, unless we can learn the skills of listening to our supposed "enemy" somehow (and probably not on this forum since we constantly rail against the criminal psychopaths responsible for the media hoaxes) then the point of "exposing media fakery" is almost moot and little more than a hobby (unless we really are a warmongering type that would love to get to the base truth so we can decide which people we should really arrest and execute all along).

Absolutely, let's unite against an anti-war stance. Sure. But I doubt even that is something most will agree with me on, because there will be people here who want to uncover the fakery and then say behind the fakery is "the objective truth" of a false politeness or false platitude and — hey presto — they are actually deeply politicized, they desire their opinion to rule above all others and only "humor" conflicting opinions without actually respecting or considering them, and they don't show this on the forum because presence here creates some illusory reputation of being "understanding" of humanity — which is my true reason for taking brianv's advice and helping Simon set up and moderate the forum in the first place. To try to be a better person, to grow in appreciation and understanding of people I am supposed to hate or fear or mistrust because I am told to.

We may say something like, "Well, you can't have a good reputation with everyone."

For me, that attitude is akin to hearing people I've met in person who say, "Let me be offensive to the people I don't mind offending and it's all okay." That is so different from those I've heard who say, "I am really sorry to offend and I don't mean to." (And they actually mean it!) There is a world of difference between these internally decided (even spiritual) personal attitudes.

The trouble is people on quite different political or even religious scales have different people they are actually willing to offend or actually desire to offend. Use CluesForum as a microcosm of all the people we are willing or desire to offend (though I doubt for many it includes "bravely" offending spouses, offspring, friends, family and loved ones — and if it does, I guess then I am sad for you) and we end up being permissive of offending anyone and everyone.

We can complain about how misunderstood we are but it stinks of the whiny artist who prides himself on it but does nothing to change that misunderstanding or even sinks his heels into it and revels in the fact that it is wonderful to be rejected by society, re-casting their audience as the enemy like coyote and the sour grapes. Or worse.

All of us must have a little of this attitude on some level to come this far in an argumentative line of research. In high doses maybe it's a little toxic, not just to others but to ourselves. I have taken breaks from the forum in the past for various reasons. Lately, it feels like when the forum is quiet the only thing left is the lingering stench of that product of our supposed "international collaboration" and that makes me want to go get quite a lot of fresh air.

I don't think this post will be received as the soul-searched message I mean it to be. In fact, I know very well it could be misinterpreted, dissected and analyzed for some "true" meaning (that actually isn't there but which justifies a deliberate misconstruction). I am actually very sorry to those that I cannot reach (and haven't reached) out to about this topic since even the days of the Reality Shack. If I am misconstrued, I am sure I deserve it. That level of suspicion and criticism is just what I've leveled at others in my posting history (and in this post) because of my bias toward desiring the tranquility and improvement of the membership as far as it gets us closer to world peace. I am beginning to think I really did not lead the forum by much of a good example. Simon, brianv and I didn't sit down together and make a proper "vision statement" (which is probably one of the reasons we all butt heads once in a while about what we're actually doing here and why we haven't visibly publicly succeeded much). That is also why I guess I should accept being disappointed in the low numbers of members that have actually participated in learning how to detect the media fakery and lies we find obvious.

Sorry this is not my usual display of pride of the forum's accomplishments. It might belong more to the "Should CluesForum exist?" thread I started a while ago. Responses from members who like (or previously liked) the forum but from whom we haven't heard recently would be especially welcome.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5048
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: THE "CHATBOX"

Postby aa5 on August 19th, 2018, 7:09 am

Flabbergasted » August 18th, 2018, 5:01 am wrote:Some keen insights there, aa5.
aa5 » August 18th, 2018, 12:54 am wrote:The religion gives a mandate to the state.

Precisely. Temporal power ('Arthur') derives its legitimacy from spiritual authority ('Merlin'). Emperors are crowned by bishops.
(although the two functions have occasionally been exercised by the same individual)


Thanks it took me awhile to see that science was our society's religion. Mainly as I was defining the word religion in modern terms.

The people see Merlin as all knowing, so when Merlin recommends Arthur as the next King, it carries a lot of weight with the people. Likewise when Merlin advises certain policies then Arthur goes about enacting those policies, then it makes Arthur's job of convincing people to go along a lot easier.

In our society with science legitimizing state power, science can no longer be changing on anything significant. As a group of people who are all knowing logically cannot be changing their theories from time to time. Especially when they have outright taught those old theories to tens of millions of people and taught it as the truth.
aa5
Member
 
Posts: 210
Joined: April 15th, 2016, 4:03 am

PreviousNext

Return to THE LIVING ROOM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests