PDA

View Full Version : Debunking



Beth
27th December 2010, 05:14
If everyone spent half the time they did 'debunking' whistleblowers as they did personal development and doing their own research, the truth movement would be so much further than it is now.

Secondly, it's not their responsibility to show you the truth, that's on you. That's your path, why you're here.

It really gets old, the back and forth, on who is right and who is wrong. In the end, it really doesn't matter. Be a good person and try to do right by yourself and those around you.

/rant

Seikou-Kishi
27th December 2010, 05:17
If everybody did that, there'd be no need for a truth movement at all

Anchor
27th December 2010, 06:08
I think there is a line to consider between a smear campaign (which many debunking efforts appear to descend into) and the pointing out of a series of logical flaws in an argument or position.

giovonni
27th December 2010, 06:45
this thread has lots of potential...:dizzy:

3optic
27th December 2010, 06:46
Was thinking about this while delving into the man-made global warming issue. Aren't most of the researchers we talk about debunkers in some way? Maxwell, Marrs, Icke all debunk popularly held perceptions. We debunk the official stories of 9-11, Oklahoma city bombing etc. This back and forth is really part of the game of polarity. Should be encouraged maybe..?

shadowstalker
27th December 2010, 06:52
If everyone spent half the time they did 'debunking' whistleblowers as they did personal development and doing their own research, the truth movement would be so much further than it is now.

Secondly, it's not their responsibility to show you the truth, that's on you. That's your path, why you're here.

It really gets old, the back and forth, on who is right and who is wrong. In the end, it really doesn't matter. Be a good person and try to do right by yourself and those around you.

/rant

I second that

pilotsimone
27th December 2010, 07:47
deleted post

Wood
27th December 2010, 11:05
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
Edmund Burke

Bill Ryan
27th December 2010, 12:35
How much harm can someone like Wilcock, Ashayanne Deane (I know I butchered that name, sorry), Sheldon Nidle, or Mike Quinsey really do?

Quite a lot - if what they're claiming is not valid. It's like a virus which spreads and infects well-meaning people, who sincerely want to learn and understand more, with bad information.

It distracts, misinforms, wastes people's time and energy, and draws attention away from the real problems and the real solutions.

If something is impeding something beneficial from happening, then it's harmful.

Re 'debunking', I don't like the word - it has a violent and aggressive energy to it, and implies a kind of fight or contest.

There are several hoaxes which I know of, for instance. I don't 'debunk' them. That seems to imply that I wish harm or hurt. But I do want to correct the misinformation and misconceptions if I can.

mrmalco
27th December 2010, 12:38
If everyone spent half the time they did 'debunking' whistleblowers as they did personal development and doing their own research, the truth movement would be so much further than it is now.

Secondly, it's not their responsibility to show you the truth, that's on you. That's your path, why you're here.

It really gets old, the back and forth, on who is right and who is wrong. In the end, it really doesn't matter. Be a good person and try to do right by yourself and those around you.

/rant

The Pythagorean dedication: to the Good, the Beautiful and the True. Thankyou

damian
27th December 2010, 12:54
Not-knowing is true knowledge.
Presuming to know is a disease.
First realize that you are sick;
then you can move toward health.

The Master is her own physician.
She has healed herself of all knowing.
Thus she is truly whole.

From the Tao Te Ching.

kouby
27th December 2010, 13:26
Misinformation can be one of the most dangerous things around there. How do you think wars start? Gulf of Tunkin? WMDs? Remember the Maine? (lol)...

It's all nice and sweet saying that it's not important to check up the facts on whistleblowers, and in an ideal world it wouldn't be, but on earth, when you say sh*t, you either discredit the movement you were attached to, or you plant fear in other people, or both.

And I think people like Wilcock are extremely dangerous, mixing up important information with total baloney, it takes even longer sorting it all out in the long run, and all that just to make a few bucks.
Information is to important to let people cloud it with nonsense.

str8thinker
27th December 2010, 13:27
No one likes to be debunked, yet those who get this treatment often bring it on themselves because they were not rigorous enough with their facts, either unwittingly or deliberately. The more often one publishes, the easier it becomes to spot inconsistencies between what was said today and yesterday, unmasking a confabulator. The truer the story, the less it changes over time; this applies as much to subjective observations as to confidential hearsay.

The career informant is the one most likely to suffer at the hands of the career debunker.

pilotsimone
27th December 2010, 18:52
deleted post

Zook
27th December 2010, 19:08
Hi Beth,


If everyone spent half the time they did 'debunking' whistleblowers as they did personal development and doing their own research, the truth movement would be so much further than it is now.
Secondly, it's not their responsibility to show you the truth, that's on you. That's your path, why you're here.
It really gets old, the back and forth, on who is right and who is wrong. In the end, it really doesn't matter. Be a good person and try to do right by yourself and those around you.
/rant

I see that the Three French Hens hadn't arrived yet! :jester:

My own view is that debunking is an unavoidable consequence in the quest for truth. Something has to be debunked along the way. Someone has to be debunked. Somewhere there's a debunking in the idle state, waiting to be delivered. And yes, I agree with you ... the process can get tiresome. And the pursuit isn't always fair. The bunkers get to ride Lamborghinis on the information highways ... the debunkers get to chase them on dirt roads and byways in Ladas and roller trays.

My best advice is this ... chase the bunkers as hard, as fast, as far as you can ... and then when you get tired, pull over and enjoy the pine trees, the squirrel running across teh brown of the road, and the sound of the brook you know is hidden somewhere near. Let others take the chase until you're ready to go after the buggers and burglars and bunkers again.

That's what I do. Nova Scotia has many spots where you can reconnect with Nature and your inner self. I'm sure Ann Arbor has its magical places, too.

:smow::smow::smow::typing::smow:

ps: Anyone else not receive their Three French Hens yet? Hmmm ... maybe they got detained at the Foxboro sorting station ...

Beth
27th December 2010, 21:30
I see no issue with correcting misinformation. I think what Beth refers to is the character assassinations that happen every time one of these well-known researchers gets a thread started about them.

That's exactly what I'm talking about, dubunking the whistleblower. And yes, we should fact check on our own to verify information.

I don't care who is sleeping with who, or if they file with the IRS, or if their name was John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt 20 years ago. There's quite a few things we've all done in the past that people could frown upon. I shake my head sometimes thinking about some of the things I've done.

Humble Janitor
27th December 2010, 22:26
People who are obsessed with debunking often border on ego-centric.

It's the need to be "right" and to have ones' convictions confirmed. It often descends easily into madness with name-calling and finger-pointing.

Tea
27th December 2010, 23:43
Another thing to consider is that many of these people in the spotlight are just like us as in they are learning as they go and are constantly changing as well.

It seems people have largly been lead to beleive that anyone who changes thier view on a subject or retracts a previously held belief should automatically be viewed as untrustworthy or even unsafe.

If anything I believe this can be quite a positive characteristic. Most of us here seem to be aware of the dangers of becoming extremely attached to a belief system.

As someone once mentioned, if 100% acurracy was a requirement for trust than no one could be trusted, not even yourself.

However, I still believe constructive criticism should be given when necessary.

To me the main message in the original post is that rather than focusing on the negative we should be putting our energy into spreading the positive.

Avoiding things like angrily attacking someones character or being overly defensive, and instead doing things such as shedding light on the truth through contructive criticism or cultivating ones inner being to improve the lives of all.

Carmody
28th December 2010, 00:59
I've been debunked in my professional life. On multiple occasions. It has to do with some new understandings of physics that I introduced..as a new product into a marketplace. people would buy the product and if they understood even the smallest part of the science and physics.....their mind would then go 'oh!'..and explode.

After taking crap from my one biggest debunker/detractor for about a 2 year period...and going back to nearly 7 years now..from the same guy.... I recently found out that his 'ex' employer was Lockheed Martin and that his expertise was apparently in the same area of physics. I found that out entirely accidentally - someone else let it slip. Essentially, in 7 years of interaction the guy never admitted in the slightest that our works were crossing each other.

Zook: sadly, Ann arbor don't have much in the way of big woods about. Kinda like wishing for silence in the middle of Manhattan. At least it isn't 8 Mile Rd.!

giovonni
28th December 2010, 01:29
i see :dizzy: this thread is moving right along :bowl:

Debunking the Debunkers
http://politicalderby.com/wp-admin/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/miracle_occurs.jpg

Erin
28th December 2010, 04:58
In my opinion, people who "debunk" can be put into one of two categories:
1. a person (or group, etc) who knows the "truth" of a matter, but attempts to dissuade or discredit those who seek it by slandering, because it is in their best interest to do so.
2. a person (or group, etc) who does not know the "truth" of a matter, but attempts to dissuade or discredit those who seek it by slandering anyway, because he/she/they can't move beyond their established paradigm. In other words, they think they know the truth, but in reality they're simply blinded by illusion, or whatever.

I hesitate putting the disproving of false theories and hoaxes, etc into the "debunking" definition, since that does more good to our cause than harm. At least in the long run.

Humble Janitor
28th December 2010, 06:17
There's no denying that debunking something does have benefits.

I realize now that the point of this thread is more about character assassination then actual debunking.

I will disagree with the person who stated that most information on this site is meant to confuse and distract others. I think this can be true of mundane topics, such as social issues and politics. However, without such a site, many of these viewpoints would be presented elsewhere and they would probably not be presented in the neutral manner that encompasses PA. On ATS, you're more likely to face character assassination, mainly from GLP trolls and paid government shills.

steve_a
28th December 2010, 08:20
Hi Everyone,

As I see it, nobody should stop at "debunking" information, it's the person that needs to be exposed. I don't mean this in the way of spreading false rumours about a person, or even past details about them, but based on what they are currently saying. If what they are saying is true and proveable.

If someone wishes to take center stage and claim to know something as a fact, then it should be able to be proven, as in a court of law, and not just hearsay (or at least if it is hearsay it should be declared as such). To me if an informant is found to be misleading or false, they as a source are flawed and cannot be trusted as a secure informant. In these forums I read from time to time that someone got some things right and others no. Why? Because they were not telling the truth, or didn't know in the first place and were merely opiniating about something, passing off the opinion as if it were concrete information. That to me is misleading and off putting. I tend to steer clear of those type.

Best regards,

Steve

Beth
14th January 2011, 16:23
I'm gonna bump this again. If you have information about something that is clearly false, please lay it out with supportive research. Calling people names and unsubstantiated claims does nothing for the people of this site, and isn't the focus on Avalon.

Also, maybe a more constructive use of time is to research some personal theories and thoughts and present them to others.

9eagle9
14th January 2011, 17:50
I think there is a line to consider between a smear campaign (which many debunking efforts appear to descend into) and the pointing out of a series of logical flaws in an argument or position.

This may be because there's an obvious gap between healthy skepticism and debunking.

Healthy skepticism doesn't seem to have much of an agenda attached to it other than finding out the truth regardless if one likes the truth or not. One waits as the evidence is presented, and see how things unfold . There's a higher purpose involved. Evidence and the heart of the matter are allowed to unfold until a reasonable pattern, answer, or truth arises. Skepticism is based on a healthy interest to find what's hidden. True skeptics approach with a 'I want to know attitude. ' not necessarily a ' I need to believe' attitude. A skeptic remains observant and interested of the subject matter without getting emotionally involved in the subject matter. Basically searching for a yes or a no. Show me what I want to know not necessarily what I want to hear.

Debunking seems to have removed itself quite a lot from healthy investigative skepticism. Debunking these days seems to be based on prejudice: "My mind is made up before the evidence is presented." A debunker seems pretty fear based, assuming an attitude of twisting anything that doesn't fit in to their comfort zone or world view. "It makes me uncomfortable so I must prove it doesn't exist." Mocking and ridicule are part of the 'scientific' rebuttals offered. Taking things personally. They will tear apart every shred of evidence and drag redundant information into the mix. "He was divorced so he can't be trusted." Always accompanied by Bar Raising. Much of their rebuttal is assumptive and reactive, or pulling at straws. They aren't using critical thinking skills, can't seem to emotionally detach themselves from the subject matter, or the person presenting it. They use a lot of assumptive thinking. They ignore the body of evidence and examine the clothes the corpse is wearing looking for details to pick over. "He said he was there at 11 pm but he actually arrived at 11:05 and that's enough evidence to prove the whole theory is bull****." . And their counter' evidence' often times seems more bizarre than the original subject matter itself.

Peace of Mind
14th January 2011, 18:37
Hi guys,

This is a touchy one. First off, I want to make clear that I appreciate people who are looking out for others. What I don’t appreciate, or understand is blowing whistles without providing any of the convincing proof. To me, these people either come off as someone looking for attention, or are minions to the very people/entities we call TPTB.

All I ever seen a whistleblower do successfully was spread fear, and create excuses to why they can’t expose further details. Telling someone to research for themselves sounds more like a diversion because there is no real place to research and prove these claims…just more places where people are blowing hot air instead of providing facts. Why do you think people come here in the first place?

We all know there is treachery going on, but no one (who claims to have the proof) has enough courage to expose it, why? Are they afraid of death, why? Dying is promised to everyone…you can’t cheat it. When it’s your time it’s your time, face it and be proud of what you’ve done, I know I’ll be. What does honor mean now days? I for one can’t put faith into cowards. If you are going to disclose, be an exposer, a hero, or whatever you call it…you must be prepared to go all the way. Half ass, or half hearted doesn’t cut it. You can’t make power moves off of inconsistent data. If you were truly concern…you would have found an appropriate angle to come from, by the end of your disclosure…the people will have the clear understanding and will be able to make their moves accordingly.

If you are a whistle blower and you know what you speak is REAL, why is it so hard to disclose? It’s not like these so called powerful secrets can’t come out without having the presenter identified…just put the facts out there…not your face /name / or ego.

IMO, most of these so called whistle blowers need to develop stronger lungs or remain hush until they can find the inner strength to do what they feel they need to do correctly. They are confusing the masses and leaving them stagnated by having them playing the guessing game and chasing their tales around all day, every day. This is very serious stuff. People are changing their lives due to incomplete and/or inaccurate testimonies. These people are becoming lost, delirious and frightened just because of some internet strangers, book sellers, or other persons who is profiting off of these false facts (yes false, until proven).

This could very well be part of TPTB plans. Keep the masses dummyfied, wondering every moment instead of being pro-active and taking care of the problems they already know exist.

This is where I think most of the trickery comes in to play. The controllers know we make our own reality, so they cleverly design ways to put out information that will mode the masses mind to create the world they see fit. What came out of the 911 controversy? Nothing, but division of the masses. What came out of all this Illuminati, and alien talk? Nothing, but division. No real proof, No where to be found. But there is a world filled with speculation and this causes people to do what? NOTHING….Clever….
We need to be working on what we know, develop courage, and come up with well organized plans to make the world a better place for all…as intriguing as some of these whistle blower stories may sound…they are certainly detrimental to you, me, and the Human race…because there is no substance, just air…being blown thru a whistle.

Prosperity comes with ambition...you’ll get nowhere if you rather rely on sketchy info from strangers instead of believing in your self. Disempowering has been an art form practiced and mastered by the ruling few. They will always have you scared and looking out side of your self for answers.

I’m starting to doubt all of this alien talk, 2012 talk, NWO and illuminati talk because it’s doing more harm than good, I wonder why? Some may think people are waking up, but who’s to say that it isn’t into another dream…Inception.


Peace

Zook
14th January 2011, 19:11
Good Afternoon Good Avalon Good PoM!


Hi guys,
This is a touchy one. First off, I want to make clear that I appreciate people who are looking out for others. What I don’t appreciate, or understand is blowing whistles without providing any of the convincing proof. To me, these people either come off as someone looking for attention, or are minions to the very people/entities we call TPTB.
[...]
Peace

Every once in a while an article comes along and captures the essence of the free thinker at the highest point. Thank you for telling it like it is.

"IMO, most of these so called whistle blowers need to develop stronger lungs or remain hush until they can find the inner strength to do what they feel they need to do correctly." - PeaceofMind

As profound a statement as ever been uttered on Avalon, IMHO.

:smow::smow::typing:

Bill Ryan
14th January 2011, 19:12
What I don’t appreciate, or understand is blowing whistles without providing any of the convincing proof.

This is an important point which is often raised, and even more often misunderstood.

I met with Hal Puthoff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_E._Puthoff) for a couple of days back in 2006 (I feel very privileged to count him as a friend). At that point I was still learning all this stuff: how the mechanisms and protocols really work.

Hal helped me to understand that the controllers will never provide proof - while often sanctioning releases as part of their 'reactor'.

Here's the reactor analogy.

To some degree, all alternative media outlets (Camelot, Avalon, Coast to Coast, Jeff Rense, Alex Jones, Bill Deagle, and many more) are useful to the controllers.

They not only enable networks and contacts to be tracked and mapped, but they also allow a 'safety valve' effect in which 'disclosure' type information is released, slowly, to the public: never with proof, but just gradually introducing new concepts that the public has to be told sometime. That helps them.

This is like a nuclear reaction. They want the reaction to continue... but not turn into an explosion. So they use damping rods, just as in a real reactor.

With the alternative media, when they want to speed things up, they allow a little information to be released without consequence (and may even encourage it).

When the reaction's going too fast, they disinform - or set loose paid assets to attack and criticize on blogs and forums. (In the worst case, they will take action again the perpetrators. But that is increasingly rare as the climate of the world changes).

It's all about carefully managed releases of information, in a steady drip-feed... and to that degree, the alternative media is a very useful conduit to the controllers. The material released by Charles (in my view) probably belongs in this category.

But Hal Puthoff helped me to understand that possessing proof always changes the game entirely. That meant that people out there would be forced to pay attention. (Like producing a live ET on stage, or on camera.) People who hitherto had been dismissing these ideas would have nowhere to turn - and their worlds and beliefs would shatter. This is what the controllers do not want.

They do want this information to slowly leak out. Kerry and I at Camelot have known from the start that we - and many others - have been doing the government's Disclosure job for them. We've been allowed to. But if we had any proof, we would quickly be stopped - or have our proof quickly stolen from us.

This is the problem with Free Energy. It's okay to talk about the concept - but the moment you have a working machine (a different kind of proof), they'll come for you. See Wade Frazier's thread (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?10672-WADE-FRAZIER-A-Healed-Planet) to ask him about that. He'll tell you what they do.

So lack of proof is the fuse in the circuit that stops the whole thing from blowing. Or (the reactor analogy) providing proof takes out all the control rods, and you get Chernobyl. It has to be gradual.

Having said that: few whistleblowers have proof of anything. You can't walk out of a classified research establishment with blueprints, top secret documents, or antigravity devices shoved down your underwear. It doesn't work like that. You'd never even make it out of your own office.

Some whistleblowers go slowly with reason. Our Mr X told us all he knew. We disguised his voice, and never showed his face. We could not even prove he really existed.

Then in November 2008, he released a short pre-recorded announcement, in his real voice, that Kerry and I played at the Crash Retrieval Conference. In that, he stated that he would like to come forward and speak at conferences in person pretty soon.

A month later, he was dead.

That might have been because we had just proved he was a real person - and not a figment of our creative imagination. That's how dangerous proof can be.

Similarly, Henry Deacon had had little trouble... until he suddenly went on stage first in Zurich in July 2009, and then in Barcelona a couple of weeks later.

He was then abruptly sidelined, and is no longer a Camelot whistleblower. We have no more contact with him and do not know his whereabouts. The 'reaction' was suddenly getting out of control - and the control rods had to be inserted fast. Henry is still alive as a person - but he is 'dead' now as a whistleblower.

Do you see? If I had proof of anything I speak about, I might not even be alive to write this answer.

So - the way it is (kind of) - everyone wins.




Those with open minds are better informed (and, just maybe, a filter applies as part of the controllers' genetic filter, because those who are lsitening are better able to survive whatever is coming).
The lack of proof provides plausible deniability (as it's known in intel).
The public sector is very slowly being informed (like a dripping tap filling a large bath).
And those in denial are not throwing themselves out of windows or rioting in the street.

This is an important post.

Zook
14th January 2011, 19:29
Well written post, Bill. Peace of Mind gives a well-written opposing view. So the fork in the road is arrived. Which one to take?

Rearranged, what is the nuclear reactor's purpose?

If its purpose is to keep denying the many for the benefit of the few, then what exactly is lost by the many when the reactor blows? Gained? And what do the few gain by its ongoing operation ... and lose by its blowing up?

:smow::typing:

ps: These are important questions that must be addressed. Humble opinions all around.

000
14th January 2011, 19:48
Well written post, Bill. Peace of Mind gives a well-written opposing view. So the fork in the road is arrived. Which one to take?

Rearranged, what is the nuclear reactor's purpose?

If its purpose is to keep denying the many for the benefit of the few, then what exactly is lost by the many when the reactor blows? Gained? And what do the few gain by its ongoing operation ... and lose by its blowing up?

:smow::typing:

ps: These are important questions that must be addressed. Humble opinions all around.

I might add to this, while we're on the nuclear reaction analogy: Reacted (spent) rods have an extremely long half-life. So if we see the alternative community as fuel rods, then we have a very long half-life. I suppose each group of information (the many topics in the alternative community) are individual rods in the reactor. With each new rod placed into the reactor, this increases the reaction and its half-life is now not only long but amplified in energetic intensity. So with ever increasing reactions, the collective half-life goes on for a long time but with much more influence to its environment. Even in nuclear explosions, though the reaction is extremely quick, the fallout is residual radiation which also has an extremely long half-life.

Somewhat related: I was discussing with my parents last night about what creates the desire to 'know' something. My hypothesis was that if you create an answer (a hidden truth) then you also create the thirst to know that answer (the desire to search and question). Something which exists and is not yet known manifests its desire to be inevitably known with certainty. So the more hidden answers there are, the more desire there is collectively for those answers to be found (manifesting much more questioning).

/EDIT

Inserting Pandora's Box into this (one cannot just open Pandora's box a little and then close it again). Even with plausible deniability, Pandora's box has been cracked open. Perhaps we could see it as Pandora's Dam, where there are exponentially increasing leaks (the water has a physical desire to be released and reach equilibrium) and exponentially those leaks turn into cracks, and those cracks destroy the dam because it isn't possible to keep patching up those cracks at the exponentially increasing rate at which those cracks form.

Eventually, we'll have proof for everything (whether sooner or later) because the proof (all thruths) creates the desire for itself to be found.

Paul
15th January 2011, 01:50
Somewhat related: I was discussing with my parents last night about what creates the desire to 'know' something.
The flow and store of corporate wealth is like the flow and pressure of blood in the body.

The flow and store of corporate knowledge is like the transmission and accumulation of nervous impulses, skills and memories in the body.

Blood can leak out a wound, mistakes of ignorance or confusion can happen ... within limits. The fact that you can cut my skin and I will bleed does not mean you should expect that I would have already bled to death. Bodies corporeal and corporate have essential ways of controlling bleeding, so that it occurs to the degree useful, but not to life threatening excess. Similarly, our nervous system has ways of controlling its impulses, so that they are modulated to some useful degree, not too hyper-active, not too comatose.

Those of us who have worked in the corporate environment (as I have briefly at some lower levels) should not be surprised at this manner (as described by Bill above) of controlling and limiting the flow of information. It is essential to the very life force of sentient beings, and to the continuing existence of their corporations and other groups, to the extent that those groups take on a life of their own.

Some would protest that "we're all humans" or "we're all sentient spiritual beings". They would ask why cannot we all just recognize our common being and work together on solving our common problems and improving our shared lives. This leaves out something that seems rather obvious to me. We are not just individual spirits, acting independently. We also form groups, tribes, corporations, churches, governments, and bloodlines. These groups take on a life of their own. Some last for centuries or millenia. The life blood of such long lasting groups is wealth and their nervous impulse is knowledge.

The most powerful group is commonly not even named, not known by a common name, to the great majority. They are so powerful that we ordinary folks are not even allowed to know their name, for in that way we are not empowered to even address them as if equals.

What we are seeing here now is the essential flip side of disclosure. The scope of ordinary human awareness is shifting, from being earth bound to being galactic bound. That group that has been so powerful as to be unnamed here on earth must (must, to preserve its very existence) now step forth from the shadows and assume an identify, for in the coming dynamic, these elite shall (or intend to anyway) manage the interaction of earthlings with aliens (who will be thought "so alien" that we cannot imagine addressing them as equals nor even hope to know by what name they call themselves.)

Unfortunately, it has been the long tradition of dominant human groups, when encountering new groups, to dominant and destroy. There are some quite capable beings out there who will not be amused by our efforts. That we are trashing our own planet so efficiently and rapidly will provide the urgency for our going off-planet. The biggest concern with a coming famine is not so much the death of billions (likely including my own carcass), but that such famine will be the accelerant to propel human conquering out of earth orbit. Individual humans may usually be good spirits, but human organizations have a strong tendency to metastasize, like a spreading cancer. We are about to go galactic with our cancer.

Many times in the past, when a nation suffered a poor growing season and its people were suffering from famine, their leaders would instigate a war with some neighbor. Not all human tribes did this; but those who did it most aggressively have tended to dominate and destroy the others.

Well ... it looks like we are about to do that again ... earthlings versus aliens this time. And if the aliens don't show up shooting, we'll just have to fake that part. We're good at that part, faking the opening hostile attacks of a would be enemy.

The essential antidote, as with all such war mongering efforts, is to build a bond of understanding and trust between the peoples, in this case between the earthlings and the aliens, faster than the false flag attacks can incite us to war.

A Truth and Reconciliation Council that just focused on one or another of the groups of the most powerful would be quite insufficient. Human groups and corporations require a spiritual awakening.

Steven
15th January 2011, 02:00
...Human groups and corporations require a spiritual awakening.

And I believe what I see, I see it happening even at their level. Panic is just a symptom.

I appreciated every single word of your post. A great post, I share your opinion.

Namaste, Steven

Zook
15th January 2011, 07:52
Good EarlyMorn Good TPC Good Avalon ... The Earth says hello!



[...]
The essential antidote, as with all such war mongering efforts, is to build a bond of understanding and trust between the peoples, in this case between the earthlings and the aliens, faster than the false flag attacks can incite us to war.
[...]


Here's an URL that speaks to division and conquest through war manipulation and negative energy (as a bonus, you get to see Spock's ears again!):


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFDViG2RvQY&feature=related

:smow::typing:

ps: Good article, TPC!

Fractalius
15th January 2011, 08:13
Cpt Kirk says "We must find a way to defeat the alien force of hate. ...Stop the war now or spend eternity in futile, bloody violence"

RedeZra
15th January 2011, 08:25
Well ... it looks like we are about to do that again ... earthlings versus aliens this time. And if the aliens don't show up shooting, we'll just have to fake that part. We're good at that part, faking the opening hostile attacks of a would be enemy.


And the would be enemy of the State has always been State sponsored

So the assumption is that aliens just like the terrorists are State programs

John Parslow
15th January 2011, 16:07
Excellent find Zook

Note: Spock says; 'I suggest good spirits may make an effective weapon'. How true, now all we have to do is believe ...

Best regards. JP :cool: