oleg-karow wrote:"I didn't see it. What was its central message?"
That the people and the governments are realy as thick as two short planks . It`s worth watching . Its not very well made but if one thinks about it after watching it it makes a lot of sense.
That's an incredibly easy argument to make. The problem is that everyone
thinks he's part of the small and smart minority, but by definition, only a few people really are. Politics is the art of convincing the majority of people that they're smarter than average, that you alone understand them, and that everyone not like them is stupid.
We dont live in a democracy . Democracy is a theoretical system where the people decide what they want and the politicians do it . We live in a party political democracy which is where we vote for partys that tell us what to do . Party politial democracy is virtualy the same system as the one o.cromwell fought to get rid of.
We live in a republic, ie- a representative democracy. A pure democracy would be incredibly foolish. As it is, I think there's actually too much democracy, particularly in the US system which is seemingly locked into a perpetual election campaign.
The dumbness of society is a direct consequence of our "education" system wich in end effect is there to either train people to be content slaves / subserviant and / or to filter out the ones that the establishment can use to their own ends.
I sincerely hope English is not your first language. If it is, then your shaky grasp of it makes your derogatory comments about education incredibly ironic.
I find it supriseing how many people when given the chance to talk and think and being given the feeling that they are allowed to do it can do it . Children being very good examples . We are doing it now and thats what i am about ...... provokeing people to think and act for themselves.
It's good to encourage independent thinking, but not at the expense of structured formal learning. Only a genius-level intellect could figure out calculus in his own mind, for example. Most of us will require structured formal learning to grasp such concepts, or at least well-written textbooks and tutorials (yes, I know, Newton and Leibniz figured it out on their own, but they were
geniuses), in which you do all the exercises and check them against answers provided by experts (which is still a form of third-party judging, albeit by proxy).
Some people might argue that that encourages egoism but they are wrong in the long term . It is to all our advantages to do it because we all have the same needs and egoism in the sence of greed or dishonesty dont pay = if we kill the goose that lays the golden eggs ( The planet , nature and us ) we all die.
But if you make a mistake in your independent self-learning, you can come up with seriously invalid conclusions, thus leading to non-productive or (worse yet) counter-productive plans for solving your (or the Earth's) problems.
You are thinking like Aristotle, who believed that the unburdened independent mind was superior to collaboration, because the independent mind would not be vulnerable to other peoples' mistakes. His
mistake lay in forgetting that team members can catch each other's
mistakes. So it is with formal learning versus independent learning. In a university, if you completely screwed up your understanding of thermodynamics (for example), you will flunk a midterm. You will receive a message, in no uncertain terms, that you made a mistake. As a pure independent learner, your only judge and examiner is yourself, and guess what: when people are their own examiners, they tend to give themselves straight A's.
The establishment knows that if it burdens the donkey to much = us it either dies or rebels . Society is like a pan full of boiling water , The water has to be heated as much as posible to keep the steam up = keep things going but not enough that the lid gets forced off and the water boils over = we rebel .
Cute analogy. Doesn't prove a thing.
Did you know that winnie was a nazi ? He hated jews . And he died of syphalis wich makes / can make people into morons . He was a figurehead another malboro or levis who happened to be around at the time we had a war . He didnt win the war or do anything other than the job that very many other people could have done if in the same position . He didnt run the country on his own or win the war with his own personal strategy .
Attacking Winston Churchill's character does not disprove the validity of the quote. That's a classic "attack the messenger, not the message" ad-hominem fallacy.
I tried to get over the point that i`m not a nutty conspiracy fanatic . If we had real inquierys , includeing one about the holocaust , i think that very many conspiracy theorys would be shown to be untrue .
The fact that you think there has never been a proper inquiry into the Holocaust tells me that despite your denials, you are
a nutty conspiracy fanatic. There is zero
serious historical doubt that the Holocaust happened. This event has been studied in far greater detail by far more people than most historical events.
By not haveing them we encourage stupid theorys from ignorant and / or evil and / or greedy people .Lockerby and 9/11 have never had the sort of inquiery that i am talking about . The only inquierys that have been done were to say the least castrated .
Again, despite your denials, this does
sound like the ravings of a nutty conspiracy theorist. Inquiries were done; precisely what evidence do you have that they were "castrated"?
For instance in the war against islam ( terrorism ) how many times have we heard "We are doing it in your interests but cant tell you because of national security incase the terrorist find out" .or other excuses like that ?
Red-herring. That has nothing to do with the 9/11 commission. I am not defending Bush-era abuses of power, but you can't claim that everything done between 2000 and 2008 is fraudulent just because Bush had a penchant for abusing national security justifications or exaggerating the power of the executive branch of government.
Back to lockerby .
Why focus on Lockerbie? Don't you have conspiracy websites you can copy and paste from for 9/11, the Kennedy assassination, the Holocaust, the Moon landing, captured aliens in New Mexico, and Elvis' current place of residence?
Personaly i think that its obvious that we are not being told the truth by our governments wich was also speculated about by the press from the start of the reporting to the end of it . Reasons being the oil that libya has and the talk of deals being done in the background .
"I think it's obvious" is not evidence. Whispered mutterings about motives are not evidence either. If someone is accused of a murder, you need to present evidence that he committed it. Motive alone
is inadequate evidence.
If your uncle dies of a heart attack and has life insurance, you don't suddenly look at your aunt and say "Hmmm, who had the most to gain", look up ways to simulate a heart attack, and then conclude that the police must be helping cover it all up. You need some kind of real evidence that she murdered him.
I watch swiss , austrian , german , german / french , english , russian and american news programs on tv . The news tends to come in slightly diferent on all those chanels , mostly because of the way reporters for those chanels have been taught to look at things , but after a short time they all start to sound like a choir . In the few days after lockerby several small pieces of information were reported and afterwards never talked about again . It was reported that the CIA had done a deal with an anti syrian government "terrorist" group . They had been alowed to smugle 2 - 5 kilos of heroin in the pilots bag into the US to raise mioney to buy arms to over throw the syrian government . Then it was reported that that group had been infiltrated and taken over by the syrian secret service and that they had put a bomb in the bag . Then it was reported that the british and german secret services knew about the heroin deal and had watched the bag being carryed into the plane . This wasnt only in one news paper or on one channel . Bits surfaced in several . Then the libyans were offered a deal . If you take the blame we will drop the sanctions against you and buy oil and invest in your coumntry again.
"It was reported" doesn't prove much without credible sources. I can say "it was reported that your mother wears army boots" too; so what?
If you think about it that fits MUCH better than the official story .
It fits what, exactly? Your preferences? Your refusal to accept incompetence as an explanation when you could invent a conspiracy instead?
Dont you remember of the two guys that were charged one walked and the other got out after a relatively short time . We were told it was because of compasionate reasons but strangely enough it was just before his appeal . The reasons for that apeal had been checked by many international law experts and the apeal was only allowed because they were good reasons to doubt the evidence and the previous trials .
Yes, I recall hearing about the guy who got a "compassionate release". How does this prove that there was a multi-national conspiracy to cover up the truth?
Anyway . I aint saying that that is the true story or the whole one but it and what we have been told so far are enough for me to want a full enquiery . The same goes for the other events i have mentioned . The only chance we have of stopping all the loony theorys or at least containing them is to do that .
Precisely what would constitute a "full inquiry" in your eyes? Who would conduct it? How would they prove to you that they were not being influenced?
Someone said in the mary and john ( mari-juana ) thread something about the subject being a mine field . If we wake up one day to find ourselves in a mine field burying our heads in the sand will only result in more trouble and the best cource of action is to try to find the best way out .
That's nice rhetoric, but it doesn't actually say much of anything.
Look, I'm not trying to say you're an evil person or anything, but I think you're succumbing to a popular mindset which tends to generate faulty conclusions. This mindset is heavily popularized in movies, and it goes like this: when presented with a straightforward explanation of something, a character in a movie says "It can't be. That's too simple." And of course, he's always
right. There's always someone with motive who made something happen. But this is real-life, not the movies.