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

I don't think Muir's intended audience is the active forum membership. I think he is attempting to reach a wider audience and expose them to his ideas.

They're for anyone who is interested

I think introverted intuitives are prone to believe in patterns that they can not deliniate in a transparent and logical fashion and are susceptible to the idea that the political system they are members of is being completely controlled by nefarious forces.

I think this is what happen to the younger brother accused in the marathon bombing. (though he seems to be an extrovert).

So you have a dig at introverts using an extrovert as an example.....hmm ok nice one stu

So I feel obliged to point out, every now and then, that the more radical elements of his (muir's) arguments are largely unfounded. This is not to say that there are not economic elites who knowingly and actively try to subvert the political and economic systems to their ends. Its just that they are not destroying swaths of Manhattan and blaming it on innocent religious fundamentalists.

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!

Matts not complaining about the insensitivity of that though is he? You know why stu? because you are miles off the scent

and it is Muir who attempts to shut down discussions, not always, by re posting garbage from paranoid sites.

If people don't post anything to support what they are saying then it can be dismissed as mere opinion...especially if it is contradicting the mainstream news
 
Last edited:
lol
So who are the inactive forum membership? That would be me maybe? And others like me who came to this forum to learn and discover and GROW! But found out that human behavior is like it always is. As any forum grows this is the problem just like a small town. When the majority can take over the emotional tide changes. Why ride the wave? Be above it.

I liken this to a man telling everyone that there is danger ahead. And that we need to stop to prevent it. So some stop and some do not. And then the problem occurs. The ones who stopped love him. And the others, hate him again for being right. And cannot wait to pile on him if he is ever wrong. No one is infallible.

If I had you all running around inside my head I would go insane! Just reading the responses reminds me of how judgmental the world is. And how judgement is really the only problem. Remove your judgement of others and your mind is open. Judge them and it is closed. And for some reason no matter what it is there are those who will just not get along. As a young bear I would quarrel with them. As a greying bear I retreat to the spaces where the quarrelers do not tread. Where thoughts and judgements do not clog my thoughts. Because I know the quarrel will go on. It has too. It's the world we are born into.

War makes peace possible. Peace makes war possible. Everything makes everything else possible. Someone is disagreeing with me right now. Ya you FUCK YOU! There ya go you happy now? I've acknowledged your existence. Piss off then. Take your misunderstandings elsewhere. And that's how it goes.

Is it so crazy to think that maybe someone wants to rule the world? I mean like it's never happened in human history right? No one ever went around the middle east killing everyone that was total bullshit right? George Bush admitted that Iraq had nothing to do with 911 and we as Americans just sat there and did nothing. That says more about our country and humanity than anything else. We just don't give a Fuck. And we never will. And the ones who did give a fuck were either crucified like Jesus, "And I bet their were many more like him in his time." or poisoned like Socrates. Or fed to the lions. The list is long.

It's the typical behavior of the deny er. The hey don't bother me with your facts and reason and logic. I am just plain tired of you telling us what you think and where we are wrong. Seems to me that children never want to be told what to do no matter how old they are. What if Jesus was God. What if God has come down here several times as several different things and we all have just killed him time and time again?

Would God,? Any God want to be treated like we treat one another? I hope not.

I still cannot deny the fact that everything in this universe needs an adversary. And so in the end my dreams of peace are nothing more than my desires to be dead. To not have to feel the pulls of humanity. TO be angry and so nice. To be peaceful and evil all at once.

If man is here by mistake, Then by mistakes, he shall perish.....

 
Last edited:
i don't know that there is not a santa claus
 
Ahhh Hope. Sweet Hope. When she is gone cold reality is all that is left my friend. Sometimes good for you bad for them. Sometimes bad for you good for them. It really matters when and where your born. With so many options in life you would just think that maybe it's just best to not try to sleep with the crocodiles......​
 
[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION]

The issue here is not what you're trying to discuss, but how you go about doing so.

You take every argument as a series of factual statements in which to disprove and do not allow or acknowledge the validity of anyone else's opinion or the value in doing so.

That is the issue.
 
i don't know that there is not a santa claus

I think the roots probably lie in the mushroom using shamanic tradition of Europe.

There was probably some sort of entity that people were engaging with when they took mushrooms. The Jungians on the forum will probably then say its from the collective unconscious...i'm not going to assert anything either way

When prince albert came from germany to britain to marry our queen he brought over the whole christmas tree tradition from germany where it went back to its ancient pagan roots of hanging offerings on trees as part of a nature worship ritual

Then there is the whole st peter thing....but i think a lot of these 'saints' eg st george who slayed the dragon have much older pre-christian roots (eg zues slaying typhon)

Of course there is the well known ad campaign by coca cola which made santa wear red creating the modern image of santa. Coca cola obviously originally being made from the coca plant which cocaine comes from...so another drug connection there!

halloween of course comes at the end of the magic mushroom season where the barriers between our world and the 'spirit world' wear thin


hmmm.....oh crap...we've had a derailment....quick quick.....don't panic....everyone its ok....we can bring this thread back on course....stu its all your fault for bringing up santa

I denounce you as a 'derailer'. may you live in shame and infamy
 
Last edited:
@muir

The issue here is not what you're trying to discuss, but how you go about doing so.

You take every argument as a series of factual statements in which to disprove and do not allow or acknowledge the validity of anyone else's opinion or the value in doing so.

That is the issue.

Do you see me arguing with everyone? Do you see me answering every post?

No you don't....you know why? Because i don't disagree with all of them

I just disagree with a few people and debate with them a lot

I pay them the respect of not insulting them and of listening to their views and then taking a moment to think if i agree with them or not. if i disagree with them and sometimes i disagree with some peoples posts i then state my case

But you Matt....you go for the person NOT the issues.

A day later after you told me to go eff myself you are now here pursuing me to my own thread to attack me further without discussing any of the topics raised here

But that's ok....i haven't reported you for derailment, i haven't given you a thumbs down or a negative rep....i answered your questions civily because i respect your right to speak

I have never used the report button or given anyone a negative rep or even a thumbs down....you know why? because i believe that everyone has a right to say their piece and that a better approach is to talk to them about things and to thrash the issue out....sometimes an understanding is arrived at and sometimes it isn't...that's life
 
Last edited:
Ahhh Hope. Sweet Hope. When she is gone cold reality is all that is left my friend. Sometimes good for you bad for them. Sometimes bad for you good for them. It really matters when and where your born. With so many options in life you would just think that maybe it's just best to not try to sleep with the crocodiles......​

Yeah

its the crocodile tears you have to watch out for though!
 
You should watch the 4 clips i posted at the start of this thread because you have done every ploy that gets pointed out

You have tried to missrepresent what i'm saying, you have played the ''do you think your smarters than everyone else'' card and you have fired so many points at me in a short time that it becomes difficult to then pick them apart

This is actually really ironic, because 95% of your posts involve firing so many points at people in a short time that it becomes difficult to pick them apart.

The reason that not every story deals with big important issues is because if they did, people would get so depressed and so anxious that life wouldn't be worth living. If there was someone like Alex Jones around during the cold war, people probably would have been hibernating in bunkers 365 days a year, not going to work or even going outside because the missiles would always be on their way, and we would all be constantly surrounded by communist spies. If people couldn't give their brains a rest from all the doom and despair every now and then, they would be offing themselves in record numbers... and most of it is only preoccupied with doom and despair because that's what captures people's attentions. Positive uplifting stories are rare because they don't sell... what sells the most is indignation, and that's what the alternative news sources specialize in... the difference being their outrage is more extravagant and less grounded in reality.

It's a good thing to be informed but a lot of the alternative media isn't interested in objectivity in the slightest and is more interested in putting people on edge and stoking their emotions. And there's a difference between someone who likes some BS lowbrow TLC program saying I think I'm smarter than them because I like award-winning documentaries... and someone who repeats wild conspiracy theories and sensationalist propaganda saying that anyone who doesn't agree with them, despite their taking an interest in world events through more 'mainstream' sources, is a 'sheep'. And this is what happens to people who visit these sites-- they come out with a 'redpilled' sort of attitude and refuse to admit that anything but their version of the events could be true... they're not actually 'smarter', but most of them think that they're more informed or that they know better than anyone else and are unwilling to accept that the objectivity of these facts might be questionable.

The video isn't defending the value of what you personally think, they're defending the value of informative fact that enriches perspectives versus mindless entertainment that provokes a chortle then evaporates from your brain 20 minutes later... I agree that there are some pretty lame shows out there and that we should improve our standards, but what's a solution that doesn't involve censorship? It has never crossed your mind that the people who enjoy these kinds of things might not be 'controlled' into liking them? You have your opinion about the alternative news sources and I have mine... why do you think that I'm not entitled to my own opinion?
 
Last edited:
But you Matt....you go for the person NOT the issues.

A day later after you told me to go eff myself you are now here pursuing me to my own thread to attack me further without discussing any of the topics raised here

You see, that's what happens when a normal person gets angry. They express it. Have you ever been angry, muir? Can you describe for me what happened or how you felt?

What about music? Do you like music, muir? What genres of music do you like/listen to?
 
This is actually really ironic, because 95% of your posts involve firing so many points at people in a short time that it becomes difficult to pick them apart.

I post evidence...that is different from throwing a whole load of ad hominum accusations or other comments designed to discredit the poster rather than deal with what they are saying

The reason that not every story deals with big important issues is because if they did, people would get so depressed and so anxious that life wouldn't be worth living.

No the reason the big issues aren't dealt with is to maintain an 'information assymetry' between the workers and the ruling class. the ruling class largely control the corporate media and as a result they don't want to inform the workers of what is really going on because if they did the workers wouldn't get depressed they would get angry and would be more proactive in trying to improve the system

If there was someone like Alex Jones around during the cold war, people probably would have been hibernating in bunkers 365 days a year, not going to work or even going outside because the missiles would always be on their way, and we would all be constantly surrounded by communist spies.

It was the military industrial complex that manufactured the 'red scare' please see hollywood films of the era and also the 5 minute warning exercise where my parents generation had to duck under their school tables as a practise for the big event.

The military industrial complex used the work of the mathmatician John nash. He came up with an incredibly paranoid thing called game theory which theoretically portrayed human nature in a very cynical light. However when he tried game theory out on the secretarys in his building to find if they would turn against each other they DIDN'T. this is because game theory does not mirror human nature. It was the brain child of someone who was very imbalanced at the time he created it. He has since publically admitted it is a flawed theory

The military jumped on it however because as marine general smedley butler said 'war is a racket' and they stood to make lots of money by making weapons

This is because the US structured itself into a war economy during world war two. They turned the incredible resources of north america not towards making the most incredible society in the world that would be a beacon of liberty, health and happiness for all but rather into a war machine.....an insatiable war machine that needs to be fed the lives of humans to stay alive. The paranoia stirred up in the cold war provided the perfect opportunity to keep manufacturing weaponry and for the corporations to make lots of profits

BBC journalist Adam Curtis made a good documentary called 'the trap' about game theory and how it not only shaped cold war strategy but also how it seeped into politics and affected the thinking of people like thatcher and reagan

If you're interested you can watch it here: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-trap/

So if Alex Jones was alive at that time he would probably be telling people that the government was deliberately stirring up trouble with the russians and that people should be buidling bridges between the us and russia....but that is speculation!

I think there is an urgency to what he is saying at the moment because he is right in the eye of the storm....it must all be looking pretty intense from where he's standing...its looking crazy enough from where i'm standing! But he gets fed info from a network of people and also from random individuals and whistleblowers so he has probably seen some pretty mind blowing stuff

There are a lot of whistleblowers being interviewed in the alternative media. There are ex NSA, ex military, ex CIA, ex government etc all speaking out.......there is widespread dissent against the direction the central controllers are taking us


It's a good thing to be informed but a lot of the alternative media isn't interested in objectivity in the slightest and is more interested in putting people on edge and stoking their emotions.

Sure let the buyer beware as the saying goes...

But if you look at the mainstream news it is all sensationalism and emotion stoking. The main emotions it is trying to stir up is fear and revulsion. But the good news is that the world is not as messed up as it is because humanity is that messed up....it is that messed up because a small group of people are creating that mess; that is something solveable


And there's a difference between someone who likes some BS lowbrow TLC program saying I think I'm smarter than them because I like award-winning documentaries... and someone who repeats wild conspiracy theories and sensationalist propaganda saying that anyone who doesn't agree with them, despite their taking an interest in world events through more 'mainstream' sources, is a 'sheep'. And this is what happens to people who visit these sites-- they come out with a 'redpilled' sort of attitude and refuse to admit that anything but their version of the events could be true... they're not actually 'smarter', but most of them think that they're more informed or that they know better than anyone else and are unwilling to accept that the objectivity of these facts might be questionable.

Ok but you have to also give them credit for going an extra yard and actually finding out some extra perspective. All you need to do is find the evidence that proves them wrong and present it to them

If you engage me in debate you will probably find pretty quickly that i have not just pulled something out of my schving schving but have in fact a large store of information gleaned from a variety of sources that have all gone towards building the perception that i hold...i am also very happy to share these


The video isn't defending the value of what you personally think, they're defending the value of informative fact that enriches perspectives versus mindless entertainment that provokes a chortle then evaporates from your brain 20 minutes later... I agree that there are some pretty lame shows out there and that we should improve our standards, but what's a solution that doesn't involve censorship? It has never crossed your mind that the people who enjoy these kinds of things might not be 'controlled' into liking them? You have your opinion about the alternative news sources and I have mine... why do you think that I'm not entitled to my own opinion?

I think people are conditioned into things. i think they are spoon fed stuff by the media and that over time for example over a generation or two you can change society drastically if you can shape the way people think and feel about things

If we look at the Platos cave example. I heard it wasn't actually platos idea but i can't remember who's it actually was....

I like to give credit where i can but anyway most people know it as platos cave theory.

You know the one....where people are chained in a cave and all they can see is the shadow images cast on the wall in front of them by a fire behind them and the objects which pass in front of it

One of the people finally escapes and finds a whole world outside the cave....

If we are the people chained in the cave....the cave being our tunnel vision view of the world gained by only taking in information from a narrow band of sources for example school, college, newspapers, news channels, radio etc and all we listen to is the corporate news then we will only ever know what the corporate news tells us. Our view of the world...how we felt and thought about things would all be shaped by the corporate news

So what if the corprate news is completely centrally controlled by a small number of people? And those people decide what information was passed to the public? Then those small number of people could decide how they wanted the public to think and feel about things....they could decide how the public saw the world.

And of course how we think and feel about things then determines how we behave and how we behave then determines how we shape the world we live in

So if a small number of people can control the flow of information to peoples heads they can shape the world through them however they want

So lets see if a small number of people do control all the corporate news

If you look at the history of any area of media be it movies, TV , radio, newspapers or whatever the companies have over the decades all joined together into larger and larger corporations until now only a handful of corporations control each aspect. please check out the following webpage to see the names of them:

http://www.freepress.net/ownership/chart

So this is really about how we perceive reality....because how we perceive reality determines how we all behave and how we behave shapes our world

If we just listen to the corporate media it could be telling us ANYTHING and we would be none the wiser. It could be telling us that the moon is made of cheese and we would have no way of verifying whether or not this was the case

So now we have proven that the corporate media is controlled by just a handful of corporations there is another aspect to consider.

What if these corporations had an agenda? For example what if these corporations wanted a government that will give big tax breaks to the big corporations? They could then fund a political party and candidates for office in return for a promise form those people that they would make changes to the law to give tax breaks to big corporations when they get in office.

Then they would just need to convince the public to vote for that party and/or candidates. This would be easy because the public trusts their corporate media and has no other source of information to cross check anything they are told with so if the corporate media told them to vote for a particular candidate they would do it

But in effect what the public have then done is voted into office a party that will then tax them more so that they can tax the corporations less

Another example would be if the corporations wanted to go to war so that they could make lots of money manufacturing and supplying all the equipment for war whether it was bombs, bullets, boots, biros or brass buttons. They could then tell the public through their media that there are some dangerous people who mean to do them some harm and they must let their government go and bomb those nasty evil people and the public would agree because they wouldn't get another perspective.

The public wouldn't ever get to know that the supposedly evil people had no sophisticated weaponry at all and were in fact no threat to them at all

This is why reliance on a single source of information is a very bad idea
 
Last edited:
You see, that's what happens when a normal person gets angry. They express it. Have you ever been angry, muir? Can you describe for me what happened or how you felt?

What about music? Do you like music, muir? What genres of music do you like/listen to?

Matt listen i am not angry at you...i am not angry at the other people i have debated with....i am angry at the people who are manipulating us all

This group of people i am talking about are as alien to the average honest christian as they are to the average honest jew as they are to the average honest muslim or atheist or whatever

They are exploiting all those groups....they are using them all and often they are hiding behind those groups....they need to be exposed

I like all sorts of music...any song i like i listen to. I'm genre indifferant. I'm race indifferant. i'm religion indifferent. i'm sexual prefference indifferent.....i believe people should be free to do whatever they want to do as long as they are not hurting anyone else

How about you?
 
Matt listen i am not angry at you...i am not angry at the other people i have debated with....i am angry at the people who are manipulating us all

This group of people i am talking about are as alien to the average honest christian as they are to the average honest jew as they are to the average honest muslim or atheist or whatever

They are exploiting all those groups....they are using them all and often they are hiding behind those groups....they need to be exposed

I like all sorts of music...any song i like i listen to. I'm genre indifferant. I'm race indifferant. i'm religion indifferent. i'm sexual prefference indifferent.....i believe people should be free to do whatever they want to do as long as they are not hurting anyone else

Could you please give an example?
 
Matt listen i am not angry at you...i am not angry at the other people i have debated with....i am angry at the people who are manipulating us all

That's not what he asked, though. Why not answer his actual question? Couldn't hurt, could it?
 
That's not what he asked, though. Why not answer his actual question? Couldn't hurt, could it?

You know, if I was muir, I wouldn't answer it either. This whole line of discussion is patronizing and a transparent attempt to shift power after a public loss of emotional control earlier. We all get angry sometimes. Anger is a normal, human emotion. However, there are more appropriate ways to express it than verbally accosting someone and then attempting to manipulate the discussion to dehumanize another individual because a) they didn't react the way you wanted them to and b) they refuse to give you the personal information you want to build false rapport.

It's one thing to disagree with the material that someone is posting and another thing to carry on a attack on the other person in a sneaky, underhanded way and pretend you're just being friendly.
 
I post evidence...that is different from throwing a whole load of ad hominum accusations or other comments designed to discredit the poster rather than deal with what they are saying

I'm not going to address the rest of your points because there are too many, but this one I will. You're probably going to accuse me of being selective or of ignoring what you're saying, but sufficed to say I do know what you're trying to do here and I would like to point out to you how your posts and how conspiracy sites in general tend to use the whole 'throw as much as you can out there to overwhelm your audience' point.

It doesn't matter if you think they're 'facts'... the strategy in question here isn't about spreading lies or attacks, it's about spreading so many pieces of information (most likely half-truths) at once that it's impossible to process it all and the end result is that anyone who reads/is exposed is too defocused to resist it all. The point that you yourself have tried to make in response to MY original post is that firing off too many points is NOT conducive to discussion-- NOT that it's okay to do this if the information is 'true'. And now you're misrepresenting your own original argument by saying that you don't participate in ad hominem attacks, which isn't at all relevant... and is a misrepresentation of your own point.

You've also responded to my points by drawing in such disparate figures as Plato, John Nash and Smedley Butler... a lot of acronyms and organizations and events that really have no bearing on what is being discussed and only serve to further defocus the discussion. You've thrown so many pieces of info and narratives and weird detours that I would need to spend hours dissecting and verifying and researching it all if I were ever to attempt to respond to it... and if I did that, we would end up wayyyy off topic and the point would get even more lost. Some people in this situation would be so desperate to not appear less than well read that they would agree with you, but not me.

I just find it amusing that you refuse to see that what you do with these posts is actually, by your own admission, a strategy that is used to throw people off and shut down discussion.

If you engage me in debate you will probably find pretty quickly that i have not just pulled something out of my schving schving but have in fact a large store of information gleaned from a variety of sources that have all gone towards building the perception that i hold...i am also very happy to share these

Yes, I've noticed... the problem being that you don't have a balanced perspective and dedicate your attentions exclusively to those sources that reinforce, as oppose to challenge your perspective... and you use manipulative tactics to 'prove' your 'point', which is, once again, not actually proving anything but instead just shutting down discussion entirely.
 
Last edited:
Could you please give an example?

Of what? I'm not trying to be funny...i genuinely don't know what specifically you are asking for
 
That's not what he asked, though. Why not answer his actual question? Couldn't hurt, could it?

It depends on whether or not he is a government agent trying to profile me lol
 
I'm not going to address the rest of your points because there are too many, but this one I will. You're probably going to accuse me of being selective or of ignoring what you're saying, but sufficed to say I do know what you're trying to do here and I would like to point out to you how your posts and how conspiracy sites in general tend to use the whole 'throw as much as you can out there to overwhelm your audience' point.

It doesn't matter if you think they're 'facts'... the strategy in question here isn't about spreading lies or attacks, it's about spreading so many pieces of information (most likely half-truths) at once that it's impossible to process it all and the end result is that anyone who reads/is exposed is too defocused to resist it all. The point that you yourself have tried to make in response to MY original post is that firing off too many points is NOT conducive to discussion-- NOT that it's okay to do this if the information is 'true'. And now you're misrepresenting your own original argument by saying that you don't participate in ad hominem attacks, which isn't at all relevant... and is a misrepresentation of your own point.

You've also responded to my points by drawing in such disparate figures as Plato, John Nash and Smedley Butler... a lot of acronyms and organizations and events that really have no bearing on what is being discussed and only serve to further defocus the discussion. You've thrown so many pieces of info and narratives and weird detours that I would need to spend hours dissecting and verifying and researching it all if I were ever to attempt to respond to it... and if I did that, we would end up wayyyy off topic and the point would get even more lost. Some people in this situation would be so desperate to not appear less than well read that they would agree with you, but not me.

I just find it amusing that you refuse to see that what you do with these posts is actually, by your own admission, a strategy that is used to throw people off and shut down discussion.



Yes, I've noticed... the problem being that you don't have a balanced perspective and dedicate your attentions exclusively to those sources that reinforce, as oppose to challenge your perspective... and you use manipulative tactics to 'prove' your 'point', which is, once again, not actually proving anything but instead just shutting down discussion entirely.

If you give the time to my post i think it will yeild fruit

If you don't but instead dismiss it you'll get nothing from it

What i often do in my posts is mention certain names, or events or books, or references or whatever that i believe can be a doorway to the reader

So for example if i mentioned ''operation mockingbird'' in a post to you in which we are discussing the role of the mainstream news then that is a doorway to a whole new avenue of exploration. But you have to walk through that door. I can't make you look behind it

This is maybe where things are breaking down. Because some people have decided they don't like me they are not looking at what i am presenting and if they don't do that then it is just going to look like a wall of text

I'm giving you good info here....but its upto you what you do with it
 
You know, if I was muir, I wouldn't answer it either. This whole line of discussion is patronizing and a transparent attempt to shift power after a public loss of emotional control earlier. We all get angry sometimes. Anger is a normal, human emotion. However, there are more appropriate ways to express it than verbally accosting someone and then attempting to manipulate the discussion to dehumanize another individual because a) they didn't react the way you wanted them to and b) they refuse to give you the personal information you want to build false rapport.

It's one thing to disagree with the material that someone is posting and another thing to carry on a attack on the other person in a sneaky, underhanded way and pretend you're just being friendly.

I don't have a problem admitting to when I get angry. I have normal emotional reactions. I got angry and I expressed it. I am asking whether or not muir has normal emotional reactions.

Has he ever been sad or cried about an experience? What about love, has he ever been in love with another human being? These are simple, straightforward questions that I, and I believe everyone, at this forum is entitled to ask and given the context of the discussion be insightful as to the nature of the problem we're having.

I think this issue can be resolved satisfactorily for everyone. I just want to come to a mutual understanding so what happened before doesn't happen again.
 
Back
Top