Are we as a society being kept from discussing the big issues?

[this is only temporary]

^^^ all that is quite true, but still, we do have the ability to evaluate the credibility of sources based on their past actions, observable reality and what we perceive their motivations to be. This is what you must mean by using your noodle, I think?

And when evaluating the credibility of a particular source (Muir) he pretty much lost all credibility with me when he started accusing groups of premeditated mass murder based on not even knowing what country he was talking about (South Korea vs. North Korea). That sort of thing is very dishonest, and is essentially slander. Therefore, I have at least one reason to assume Muir is dishonest.

Also, it does not make any kind of sense that one person could have THE TRUE INSIDE SCOOP about every last thing that happens in the world today, from U.S. foreign policy, to airline disasters, to pretty much everything else that happens, sometimes even before any information is made public, such as Muir pretended to have immediately after the Boston bombing. Two reasons to assume he's not credible.

Source does mean shit, actually. When evaluating the credibility of a source, if they blame the same groups for everything you start to suspect maybe they have a bias. Bias. There, three reasons.

Also, most of the links he references are themselves less-than-credible. I am trying to say batshit crazy in a nice way. So, four reasons.

But as far as I'm concerned I don't care if he posts or not.

 

[sassafras]

^^^ all that is quite true, but still, we do have the ability to evaluate the credibility of sources based on their past actions, observable reality and what we perceive their motivations to be. This is what you must mean by using your noodle, I think?

But that's precisely my point! You've seen their past actions, you've witnessed how they behave among other people, you've perceived what their motivations are and you've made up your mind about how credible of a source they are. That's is FAR more valuable information then them telling you what they do for a living, what they've named their cats, what books and movies they like... What use is that kind of personal information to making up your mind about what he's saying?

And when evaluating the credibility of a particular source (Muir) he pretty much lost all credibility with me when he started accusing groups of premeditated mass murder based on not even knowing what country he was talking about (South Korea vs. North Korea). That sort of thing is very dishonest, and is essentially slander.

Again, you're still talking my point. This is information that he's posted that you had to personally evaluate to arrive at that conclusion. He didn't tell you he was being dishonest or slandering. That's an opinion your developed based on not knowing a single, personal thing about him based on your own knowledge and reasoning capacity.

Also, it does not make any kind of sense that one person could have THE TRUE INSIDE SCOOP about every last thing that happens in the world today, from U.S. foreign policy, to airline disasters, to pretty much everything else that happens, sometimes even before any information is made public, such as Muir pretended to have immediately after the Boston bombing.

I don't think anyone actually believes there is only one person who has the INSIDE SCOOP. Everyone was posting their opinions about the Boston Bombings online, just as everyone is posting their opinions about anything online, but they have every right to. Just because they think they're right, that they have all the information, doesn't at all mean you have to accept it, however. There are millions of people like muir out there. He's getting his information from somewhere. He's got his own process of figuring out what he believes is true and what isn't and he's just passing on his opinion.... much like you do too.

Source does mean shit, actually. When evaluating the credibility of a source, if they blame the same groups for everything you start to suspect maybe they have a bias.

I would caution you that repeated results aren't always a reliable litmus test for bias. That's not to say that bias isn't a possibility, but that doesn't entirely eliminate the potential that they could be right either. When you're conducting any kind of experiment, scientific or social, consistent results are usually an indication of a pattern. That pattern might be a repeated error in the process, or it might be proof of a hypothesis. It would be more beneficial to investigate how that pattern comes about and consider the methods by which the people arrive at their conclusions before you dismiss them. If that stands up to your rigor of critical thinking and you've done that, then there is no issue at all.

Also, most of the links he references are themselves less-than-credible.

I'm assuming you've also evaluated these and confirmed this to be true for yourself. That's good!

My point still stands that you don't need personal information directly from the person to discern whether what they're saying is true or not. At the end of the day, it's still the information that speaks.

 

[this is only temporary]

But that's precisely my point! You've seen their past actions, you've witnessed how they behave among other people, you've perceived what their motivations are and you've made up your mind about how credible of a source they are. That's is FAR more valuable information then them telling you what they do for a living, what they've named their cats, what books and movies they like... What use is that kind of personal information to making up your mind about what he's saying?

Well, it doesn't hurt. Tells you what kind of person you are dealing with anyway, which is always helpful when evaluating any source. I would like to know whether the person telling me, for instance, that Jews are responsible for 911, named their cat Adolf Hitler the Great and Powerful. Just like I would like to know that an article written about how laser hair removal is ineffective was written by someone who owns an electrolysis company. You need to know people's biases to evaluate how credible their message may be. I pretty much know Muir's biases already, however, so I really don't need to know what he named his cat or anything personal at all, it would be extraneous. I do wonder what he does for a living, however, but that's mainly raw curiousity.

I would caution you that repeated results aren't always a reliable litmus test for bias. That's not to say that bias isn't a possibility, but that doesn't entirely eliminate the potential that they could be right either. When you're conducting any kind of experiment, scientific or social, consistent results are usually an indication of a pattern. That pattern might be a repeated error in the process, or it might be proof of a hypothesis. It would be more beneficial to investigate how that pattern comes about and consider the methods by which the people arrive at their conclusions before you dismiss them. If that stands up to your rigor of critical thinking and you've done that, then there is no issue at all...

I'm assuming you've also evaluated these and confirmed this to be true for yourself. That's good!

My point still stands that you don't need personal information directly from the person to discern whether what they're saying is true or not. At the end of the day, it's still the information that speaks.

Goodness, no, I couldn't do all that even if I wanted to. Have you seen the number of links he posts? I'm sure by sheer volume, some could be proven partially accurate. But, what I have done, is I have seen/heard/talked to a few of the people who are members of very similar groups to the ones Muir posts links to (right wing gun enthusiasts, labor union blue collar gun enthusiasts, grouchy political and or religious extremists, etc.) in person and I have found them to be lacking in credibility and chock-full of bigotry and bias. There's a very definite pattern in those people, no doubt, and it has to do with fear, powerlessness, bigotry and a lack of critical thinking skills. So getting linked back to sites that sound like they've been regurgitated word for word from these people I've met and talked to in person does not inspire me to spend any more time reading them.

 

[muir]

That wasn't it.

The point I was trying to make was that whenever someone posts as much information at once as muir does, it becomes impossible to respond to it and a waste of time to try to disprove it.

Why is 'disproving' it the default here?

Many people agree with it. If you look at it you might find you might agree with it as well

For example we now know that the government lied about there being any wmd's in iraq in order to take us to war. They used a women to pretend to be a nurse to speak to congress....we now know that was all lies as well.

WE KNOW the government has lied to take us to war....so why is it so hard to contemplate the possiblity that they might lie to us again?

Does anyone here have enough time to watch multiple videos and verify all kinds of quotes and factoids and narratives... so many that even if you know they're all bullshit you would need to scour the internet and spend hours and hours 'proving' that they are? And even if you were to prove that every single piece of information he's presented has been misinterpreted and proven wrong and debunked, the response would always be MORE misinterpreted facts and half-truths, and you would have to start all over again. It's not a discussion... it's like brainwashing. He pummels you into submission with waves and waves of information... seeing as muir is so concerned with empowering the people, I thought it might be a good idea to point out that this is the case.

I'm not 'pummelling' anyone! Thats more exageration!

Seriously man you seem to be doing all the NLP manipulations here that are in the posts at the start of this thread

You don't need to go throught my posts if you don't want to. No one is making you do that. Thye are there for anyone who is interested.

If you are interested then GREAT. Have a look and see if there is anything that is of value to you. If you are not interested then scroll past them....its all very simple

I am not forcing you to do anything here. You are in this thread of your own free will....take some responsibility

I did 'derail' the thread because just explaining this concept wasn't working...

Yeah you are still derailing and not dealing witt the issues

I was just being hit with more ad hominem and accusations and names and narratives...

What are you talking about? You are in this thread trying to move the discussion off the topics using ridicule.

so I was trying to demonstrate how muir's own tactics suppress and defocus actual discussion... NOT because I have a problem with muir, but because I have a problem with this kind of debate style.

You don't need to like my style......look man this thread is all about making the point that people need to focus on SUBSTANCE NOT STYLE

Don't worry about how i present...that is my problem.

All you need to figure out is if you are interested in what i'm talking about and if so how much time you want to invest looking into it.

It was all futile, though... because since that time there have been so many names and events and narratives dropped into this thread that the only possible way out of it is to admit defeat.

It is not about winning or losing!

This is not a point scoring game

I am handing you information that has HELPED ME TO UNDERSTADN THE SITUATION so i am sharing it with you because you have posted here, which suggests you are interested....so i have handed information over to you

All you need to decide is what you want to do with it

You can ignore it or you can engage with it....its that simple

And if you choose to engage with it then it is entirely upto YOU how deep you look into it all

 

[sassafras]

Well, it doesn't hurt. Tells you what kind of person you are dealing with anyway, which is always helpful when evaluating any source. I would like to know whether the person telling me, for instance, that Jews are responsible for 911, named their cat Adolf Hitler the Great and Powerful. Just like I would like to know that an article written about how laser hair removal is ineffective was written by someone who owns an electrolysis company. You need to know people's biases to evaluate how credible their message may be. I pretty much know Muir's biases already, however, so I really don't need to know what he named his cat or anything personal at all, it would be extraneous. I do wonder what he does for a living, however, but that's mainly raw curiousity.

Yes, I would acquiesce that sort of knowledge wouldn't hurt, but generally people don't deliberately volunteer information about themselves that would hurt their stance. lol. If anything, they would probably say things that would lend credibility to their clause. You still have to find out what lines up with what they say and what doesn't.

Goodness, no, I couldn't do all that even if I wanted to. Have you seen the number of links he posts? I'm sure by sheer volume, some could be proven partially accurate. But, what I have done, is I have seen/heard/talked to a few of the people who are members of very similar groups to the ones Muir posts links to (right wing gun enthusiasts, labor union blue collar gun enthusiasts, grouchy political and or religious extremists, etc.) in person and I have found them to be lacking in credibility and chock-full of bigotry and bias. There's a very definite pattern in those people, no doubt, and it has to do with fear, powerlessness, bigotry and a lack of critical thinking skills. So getting linked back to sites that sound like they've been regurgitated word for word from these people I've met and talked to in person does not inspire me to spend any more time reading them.

Again, this is information that you have evaluated previously and you feel that it stands up to your own rigors of critical thinking. You still didn't need to know about muir's favourite musical genre or pry into his medical history to get there.

 

[Stu]

You DON'T KNOW THAT and frankly you don't seem very well informed about these issues. An example would be the snowden thing....i was telling you about that way before the story broke

You got me infracted for speaking about the boston bombing then immediately started your own thread about the conspiracy behind the boston bombing...i was amazed at the irony of that!

I am not sure what issues you are referring to, American foreign policy, American politics, the history of the 20th century, the Vietnam War, the Wars in Iraq, the abuse of power by american intelligence agencies.... I do not claim any more that a working knowledge of these things.

There are lots of unanswered questions about many of the pivotal events in our recent history. I am certainly curious about a lot of things that you consistently bring up. You just always have the same answer for all of them. It is disturbing. The Boston bombing was a case in point. You are more concerned with radicalizing people to your way of thinking than finding out what is really going on. Within 48 hours you were mimicking the paranoid websters claiming it was carried out by agents of secret quazi governmental agencies. People were dead, maimed...you have no idea who is reading these forums or how close to that event they were...you don't care.

On your crusade anyone who gets upset with the vitirolic garbage you spew is simply a mindless goon or an agent of the conspirators.

I think more to the point is that those dedicated, experienced investigators ,like Chomsky or Seymour Hersh, regard the core of the "theories" that you regurgitate as unsupported by the facts.

There are real abuses of power that you often talk about but where you go with them is La La land. It is as though the actual perpetrators of many of these abuses hide behind the insane cloud that conspiracy nuts toss out.

 

[this is only temporary]

OK, I don't actually want to know about anyone's medical history or cat's name or anything.

But I do find it interesting to note that Muir used to speak highly of Chomsky, until Chomsky spoke out against the 911-denyers, at which point Chomsky suddenly became one of the Leaders of the New World Order. Nice.

So disagreeing with Muir's ideas seems to make people (even very smart former favorites) part of the conspiracy. There's just no talking to someone like that, it's an endless loop.

And on that note... carry on and Godspeed and all that! I think I've said enough and am really rather busy now.

 

[muir]

^^^ all that is quite true, but still, we do have the ability to evaluate the credibility of sources based on their past actions, observable reality and what we perceive their motivations to be. This is what you must mean by using your noodle, I think?

I think that the internet is allowing the transfer of a lot of information

A lot of the information is going to be junk and some will be good stuff. The accuracy of information is going to vary

The only way to increase the accuracy of our understanding is to get as much good info as we can and to cross check it against other sources

This is why i am recommending people get a perspective outside the corporate news

And when evaluating the credibility of a particular source (Muir) he pretty much lost all credibility with me when he started accusing groups of premeditated mass murder based on not even knowing what country he was talking about (South Korea vs. North Korea). That sort of thing is very dishonest, and is essentially slander. Therefore, I have at least one reason to assume Muir is dishonest.

Don't try and smear me with that crap. The only genuine error i made regarding korea was mixing up the airline that congressman Mac Donald was flying on. Anyone can go and check that thread and see that for themselves

Everything i was saying about N.Korea though was true. they are terrified because they have been named as part of Bush's 'axis of evil' and they are terrified becuase the US keeps carrying out military exercises involving flying nuclear bombers over the US ally s.korea

The airline thing i'm glad i got in there anyway because i think the whole larry macdonald on the korean airways flight 007 is an interesting story and would recommned people to go on youtube and listen to what that politician had to say about the rockefellers before his commercial airline flight was shot down causing the death of all onboard

Also, it does not make any kind of sense that one person could have THE TRUE INSIDE SCOOP about every last thing that happens in the world today, from U.S. foreign policy, to airline disasters, to pretty much everything else that happens, sometimes even before any information is made public, such as Muir pretended to have immediately after the Boston bombing. Two reasons to assume he's not credible.

Ahhh so it hurts your pride that someone might know more than you....ok...now we are getting down to it

All you and anyone else who reads my posts needs to do is look at each piece of evidence and evaluate it on its own merits

I am perfectly entitled to talk to people about the NATO stay behind armies organised by the CIA which have carried out terrorist false flag attacks and to suggest that there is a strong possiblity that these terrorist attacks we are seeing which are fuelling the 'war on terror' are very possibly being carried out by the CIA

Anyone who is interested i that can read about Operation Gladio and the 'strategy of tension' on wikipedia....its eye opening stuff

Source does mean shit, actually. When evaluating the credibility of a source, if they blame the same groups for everything you start to suspect maybe they have a bias. Bias. There, three reasons.

The bias is this. The rothschilds are at the centre of all this.

On one side are the people who support the rothschilds and all the havoc they unleash through the central banks and the military and on the other side are those that don't believe that the rothschilds have a right to dominate everyone else

So where do you stand on that?

Also, most of the links he references are themselves less-than-credible. I am trying to say batshit crazy in a nice way. So, four reasons.

But as far as I'm concerned I don't care if he posts or not.

Right you don't care but you want instead to come on this thread and call me batshit crazy? lol maybe you should have a look at the NLP manipulation clips above

 

[muir]

OK, I don't actually want to know about anyone's medical history or cat's name or anything.

But I do find it interesting to note that Muir used to speak highly of Chomsky, until Chomsky spoke out against the 911-denyers, at which point Chomsky suddenly became one of the Leaders of the New World Order. Nice.

So disagreeing with Muir's ideas seems to make people (even very smart former favorites) part of the conspiracy. There's just no talking to someone like that, it's an endless loop.

And on that note... carry on and Godspeed and all that! I think I've said enough and am really rather busy now.

No you are missrepresenting me

I like a lot of what chomsky says i really do

He has stated his position on 911 which is to say he doesn't think it was done by the government

But i think there might be reasons why he couldn't publically admit it was an inside job

The problem here is the rothschilds. They are ashkenazi jews who built israel.

But i don't believe they are of the jewish faith...i believe that they are occultists who are exploiting and using the jews and other peoples as well

By creating israel they have won support for themselves from many jews.....but equally there are many jews who don't like centralised power so it is not a jewish issue, but there is a jewish connection...and that is simply the rothschilds...its not complicated

But this allows the rothschild to hide behind jews. anyone who tries to criticise the rothschilds and their designs for world government can then be accused of attacking jews in general....its all diabolically clever

Now either chomksy is worried that he might unleash some sort of nightmare if he opens the pandoras box of saying ''israel which was created by the rothcshilds and is effectively their personal fiefdom played a role (on whatver level) in 911''

Maybe he is worried what might happen if he did that

Or if you want to believe some conspiracy theorists maybe he is helping to undo the glue that binds the republic of the USA together by undermining both capitalism and the government.....because if people are going to walk into global governance they must first reject these other things.

The constitution would have to go, the US government would have to go, capitalism would have to go to be replaced by a centrally controlled, planned economy

I really hope it is not the second option. And i hope that Chomsky will speak out about the 911 issue at some point having looked at a lot of the evidence for example the traces of thermalite that have been found on the wreckage

 

[this is only temporary]

Muir, you didn't even read the book I referenced, nor did you know what country you were talking about, or what airline you were talking about, yet you claimed the US and Rothschilds (jews) were responsible for Korean Air's poor safety record. And now you're all mad I suggested you were wrong.

Yes, my pride is deeply wounded that you know so much without doing mundane things like reading the book in question or checking for factual accuracy.

 

[sassafras]

Okay, muir. Woah. I can see what the other posters are saying here. I am going to ask you to slow things down here and let us pick this apart piece by piece so that we get what you're saying. I would also suggest that you evaluate what we're saying, expand on it, and refrain from introducing any new information unless it is absolutely necessary. I'm going to start with this first bit here.

I think its when you start reading occult literature that you begin to realise how prevalent magick is in our society By 'magick' i mean working with the subconscious mind

So for example the ritual depicted above. In the tarot deck the sword is a male symbol and the cup is a female symbol. These two itema are often used in rituals for example in wiccan ceremonies. These symbols often crop up in dreams....they are stright from the unconscious mind. Jung talks about a common dream theme being people having to fight with ineffective weapons.

The sword is placed into the cup in the wiccan ceremony in an overtly sexual symbolism. The people doing the ritual will also be stark naked and may well have taken some drugs. So there is a tension being built amongst the group. They are building up energies that they will then work with. Clearly a big part of that is sexual energies

So the sword and cups are really just props to help anchor things in the subconscious mind

It is all about affecting the subconscious mind in order to affect our physical reality

The sigil magick i mentioned above involves following the steps it says followed by a sexual act whislt the magician is focussing intently on the sigil. This is because the moment of sexual climax is a window into the subconscious mind through which the conscious mind can post the spell. The magician must then forget all about the request and in time it will manifest in their physical reality

This is a not very widely known occult secret

This might sound crazy under some people conception of reality....but quantum physics seems to be supporting the magicians view that this reality is not really solid but instead a sea of energy and information that has an illusiory solidity created by the senses

So yeah when you delve into the occult it all gets very weird.

The thing to bare in mind is that even if you don't beleive in any of it, very powerful people throughout history have believed in it and have been working with it

This magick is all derived from qabalah. Orders like freemasonry are about qabalah in the higher degrees. So lets take my country: scotland.

You can find out the grandmasters of scottish freemasonry really easily. You can just look at wikipedia lol: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Grand_Masters_of_the_Grand_Lodge_of_Scotland

Ok so now all you need to do is just scan down that list. What you will probably notice is all the titles....'lord', 'sir', 'earl', 'duke' etc

So we are talking about the aristocratic class here. Then when you take note of the names of the families particularly the ones that reoccur and you sutdy history you find that many of them have historic links to the knights templar. Further to that if you visit their chapels and their graveyards you will often find knights templar graves.

Then if you look at the members of the knightly orders created by the crown you will find the same families cropping up again. An example would be if you visit the 'thistle chapel' i st giles cathedral i the capital of scotland. This is a very ornate room tucked away at the back of the cathedral where the queen holds an exclusive audience with the knights of the order of the thistle when she comes upto scotland

Its when you do stuff like this....when you look a bit deeper that a 'they' begins to materialise.

Okay, so let me just summarize what you're saying here

• The elite in society (dukes, lords, ladies, etc) frequently took interest in occult magic and this is why it is relevant.
• Occult magic is not only believed to exist, but it works.
• Occult magic is used today to manipulate the subconscious mind

That's three points that you believe to be true but I have some serious misgivings and I would like to have proof of each. (The rest, I don't even know I where I could start my questioning. lol. )

Can you prove that the elite having an interest in the occult would have some meaning beyond the culture and superstitions at the time?

Can you discuss how you know that the current elite that participate in these rituals actually believe what they're practising and they're not just paying lipservice to traditions (like a secular family celebrating Christmas)?

How do you know occult magic even works beyond anecdotal evidence?

How do you know it's being used in the way you say it is?

How is occult magic being used to manipulate the subconscious mind. How do you know it works?


For each of these, I would invite you not to post any videos or articles, but just explain in your own words and your own reasoning for this. Let's take this step by step. Don't presuppose any prior knowledge. Don't introduce anything else. Just focus on what I'm asking here. I'm just curious how you arrived at this thinking.

 

[muir]

I am not sure what issues you are referring to, American foreign policy, American politics, the history of the 20th century, the Vietnam War, the Wars in Iraq, the abuse of power by american intelligence agencies.... I do not claim any more that a working knowledge of these things.

There are lots of unanswered questions about many of the pivotal events in our recent history. I am certainly curious about a lot of things that you consistently bring up. You just always have the same answer for all of them. It is disturbing. The Boston bombing was a case in point. You are more concerned with radicalizing people to your way of thinking than finding out what is really going on. Within 48 hours you were mimicking the paranoid websters claiming it was carried out by agents of secret quazi governmental agencies. People were dead, maimed...you have no idea who is reading these forums or how close to that event they were...you don't care.

On your crusade anyone who gets upset with the vitirolic garbage you spew is simply a mindless goon or an agent of the conspirators.

I think more to the point is that those dedicated, experienced investigators ,like Chomsky or Seymour Hersh, regard the core of the "theories" that you regurgitate as unsupported by the facts.

There are real abuses of power that you often talk about but where you go with them is La La land. It is as though the actual perpetrators of many of these abuses hide behind the insane cloud that conspiracy nuts toss out.

Stu....you got all indignant in the boston bombing thread because i suggested that it was a false flag attack and then as soon as you had successfully got me temporarliy banned from the forum for discussing 'conspiracy theories' surrounding the boston bombings you immeadiately started a thread looking at the conspiracy theories surrounding the boston bombings. here's a link to it:

http://www.infjs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24971

How is it not insensitive to the victims of the bombings when you talk about them but it is insensitive when i talk about them? maybe i should have reported you for that one

I have had to repeat again and again in this thread that this is about looking at the issue not at attacking me but here you are still hammering away at me instead of discussing the issues

Why don't you answer the question i asked you: ''who is behind the central banks, who are the global investors and who owns the big 4 oil companies?''

if you want to keep the discussion on a level you are comfortable then lets discuss that

 

[muir]

@TheDaringHatTrick

I would really like to answer your post but you may have noticed that i have some poeple attacking me instead of dealing with the issues

This ALWAYS happens whenever i start talking about the REAL issues....suddenly the voices in opposition become really shrill and they start throwing around all sorts of nasty insults and ridicule and they just generaly try to bog the discussion down and stop any further points being said regarding the important stuff

I end up having to defend myself instead of talking about the topic in the thread

 

[Stu]

....as soon as you had successfully got me temporarliy banned form the forum....

that was a false flag operation, you got yourself temporarily banned then framed me for so that....um no I got you banned from the forum then opened a thread to discuss the...no wait....um

Monsieur Muir, I am not an idiot, I realize that less than one percent of the US Population controls the financial and energy corporations. But I am old school. The only way to take power from them is through the political process.

But you don't want to hear that. You want to tell me that the legal system, the political system, is completely corrupt. I am too optimistic to believe that.

 

[muir]

Muir, you didn't even read the book I referenced, nor did you know what country you were talking about, or what airline you were talking about, yet you claimed the US and Rothschilds (jews) were responsible for Korean Air's poor safety record. And now you're all mad I suggested you were wrong.

Yes, my pride is deeply wounded that you know so much without doing mundane things like reading the book in question or checking for factual accuracy.

I did know what country i was talking about

The mistake i made was suggesting that the safety record of north koreas airlines might have been compromised by the shoot down of flight 007. But 007 was actually a south korean airline

That was the only mistake...any one can check that out its all there in the thread in black and white

I'm not sure how relevant the book you were talking was to the topic at hand because we were talking about why the tensions were rising. You made a point that the book said that north korea had a bad flight record.i didn't disbelieve what you were telling me....all i said was that maybe their safety record was compromised by the shoot down of flight 007

As i say it was good to get that in there about 007 anyway

But in terms of the overall discussion it had really no bearing

Are you going to answer my question about how you feel about the rothschilds?

 

[muir]

that was a false flag operation, you got yourself temporarily banned then framed me for so that....um no I got you banned from the forum then opened a thread to discuss the...no wait....um

Monsieur Muir, I am not an idiot, I realize that less than one percent of the US Population controls the financial and energy corporations. But I am old school. The only way to take power from them is through the political process.

But you don't want to hear that. You want to tell me that the legal system, the political system, is completely corrupt. I am too optimistic to believe that.

I think you have changed your tune

Also i think you are trying to wriggle out of something that anyone can fact check very easily

Anyone can go to the boston bombing thread and take a look at what was siad by all parties and then they can check out the thread you started straight after which i posted a link to and whats more they can look at the dates of al these things and then they can make their own minds up

 

[muir]

[MENTION=1939]Stu[/MENTION]

So you didn't report me for my posts in the boston bombing thread? Or complain to the staff?

 

[Stu]

of course I did and have reported you on numerous occasions when you ticked me off. in fact i am doing again right now

 

[Stu]

and I called you an "asshole" and threatened, in a PM to punch you....but i still like you

 

[muir]

@TheDaringHatTrick

Whew i think i might have actually got a breather there!

I will if it continues try and answer your post....sorry for the delay!

first just out of interest i just want to show you something. There is a government advisor called Cass Sunstein. Sunstein wrote a paper adivising the government that they (or more likely the alphabet agencies) should send agents out onto the internet to try and disperse and disrupt anyone who tries to discuss what they call 'conpsiracy theories'

I mean its a conspiracy theory the government are saying is the official story for all these things eg 911

So anyway here is a bit from sunsteins wikipedia page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Sunstein

"Conspiracy Theories" and government infiltration

Sunstein co-authored a 2008 paper with Adrian Vermeule, titled "Conspiracy Theories," dealing with the risks and possible government responses to false conspiracy theories resulting from "cascades" of faulty information within groups that may ultimately lead to violence. In this article they wrote, "The existence of both domestic and foreign conspiracy theories, we suggest, is no trivial matter, posing real risks to the government’s antiterrorism policies, whatever the latter may be." They go on to propose that, "the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups",[SUP][29][/SUP] where they suggest, among other tactics, "Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action."[SUP][29][/SUP] They refer, several times, to groups that promote the view that the US Government was responsible or complicit in the September 11 attacks as "extremist groups."

The authors declare that there are five responses a government can take toward conspiracy theories: "We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help." However, the authors advocate that each "instrument has a distinctive set of potential effects, or costs and benefits, and each will have a place under imaginable conditions. However, our main policy idea is that government should engage in cognitive infiltration of the groups that produce conspiracy theories, which involves a mix of (3), (4) and (5)."

Sunstein and Vermeule also analyze the practice of recruiting "nongovernmental officials"; they suggest that "government can supply these independent experts with information and perhaps prod them into action from behind the scenes," further warning that "too close a connection will be self-defeating if it is exposed."[SUP][29][/SUP] Sunstein and Vermeule argue that the practice of enlisting non-government officials, "might ensure that credible independent experts offer the rebuttal, rather than government officials themselves. There is a tradeoff between credibility and control, however. The price of credibility is that government cannot be seen to control the independent experts." This position has been criticized by some commentators,[SUP][30][/SUP][SUP][31][/SUP] who argue that it would violate prohibitions on government propaganda aimed at domestic citizens.[SUP][32][/SUP] Sunstein and Vermeule's proposed infiltrations have also been met by sharply critical scholarly critiques.[SUP][33][/SUP][SUP][34][/SUP][SUP][35][/SUP]