The Illuminati and other Conspiracy Theories thread

[niky]

More political noise.

Basically, the Tea Party position against Agenda 21 is that any non-elected beaurecracy that dares to tell you how you can or can't use your land is a tyrannical puppet of the kleptocratic globalist overlords.

-

The Ohio bill is mostly just smoke. It frustrates pollution and ecological protection measures by forcing them to go through another layer of beaurecracy rather than having their own department.

But much of what they warn against is already in place. In truth, the government can co-opt your land already under eminent domain, for any purpose it desires. And it has been telling people what they can and can't do with their land for decades. It's called: "zoning laws"

I almost burst out laughing when I checked out an article on benswann about a couple being persecuted in their home town via Agenda 21 and found... predictably... the problem to be one of zoning minutiae... wherein the couple are keeping goats on their property, which is half-agricultural and half-residential. They were offered a compromise that allowed them to keep more goats on the agricultural part of the property, as long as the goats weren't close to their neighbors. They declined.

Granted, they have a need of goat's milk for medical reasons, but the whole fiasco started when the neighbors complained. Keeping livestock in conjunction with your neighbor's residential property is an issue that doesn't require the intervention of a foreign power to raise with city hall. Especially not if we're talking animal wastes, foot and mouth disease and other hygenic issues.

 

[Enemem]

More political noise.

Basically, the Tea Party position against Agenda 21 is that any non-elected beaurecracy that dares to tell you how you can or can't use your land is a tyrannical puppet of the kleptocratic globalist overlords.

Not a fan of the tea party then?

The Ohio bill is mostly just smoke. It frustrates pollution and ecological protection measures by forcing them to go through another layer of beaurecracy rather than having their own department.

But much of what they warn against is already in place. In truth, the government can co-opt your land already under eminent domain, for any purpose it desires. And it has been telling people what they can and can't do with their land for decades. It's called: "zoning laws"

And that's okay. Home of the free 👍

I almost burst out laughing when I checked out an article on benswann about a couple being persecuted in their home town via Agenda 21 and found... predictably... the problem to be one of zoning minutiae... wherein the couple are keeping goats on their property, which is half-agricultural and half-residential. They were offered a compromise that allowed them to keep more goats on the agricultural part of the property, as long as the goats weren't close to their neighbors. They declined.

Granted, they have a need of goat's milk for medical reasons, but the whole fiasco started when the neighbors complained. Keeping livestock in conjunction with your neighbor's residential property is an issue that doesn't require the intervention of a foreign power to raise with city hall. Especially not if we're talking animal wastes, foot and mouth disease and other hygenic issues.

Stuff and nonsense, who cares about a couple of farmers and some goats.Hygienic concerns would seem to me to be sensible. Then again, who cares about you. This maybe your future. http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...pervisors-approve-220-square-foot-apartments/ all for a quite reasonable $1500 a month. How's that for capitalism - you get to pay for your own jail cell!!!


But what I see as the best thing about this, is that it seems, that people are, at least, attempting to do something to stand up for themselves. A worthy endevour.

You are aware that "the menu is not the meal" right?

 

[Scaff]

Stuff and nonsense, who cares about a couple of farmers and some goats.Hygienic concerns would seem to me to be sensible. Then again, who cares about you.

What?

This maybe your future. http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...isors-approve-220-square-foot-apartments/.and all for a quite reasonable $1500 a month. How's that for capitalism - you get to pay for your own jail cell!!

That links to an article about the 2011 Mmmy awards....

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/09/18/and-the-2011-emmy-goes-to/


...so I have no idea at all what you are on about (again).

But what I see as the best thing about this, is that it seems, that people are, at least, attempting to do something to stand up for themselves. A worthy endevour.

So you value to rights of goat owners above those of non-goat owners, please do expand.

Quite frankly the above is an example of the issue I think most have with your posting; poorly thought out, incorrectly sourced and utterly unclear. If you wish to be taken seriously you are going to need to address all of these areas, not to mention I don't see a bit about the Illuminati or Conspiracy Theory in any of this!

 

[niky]

Not a fan of the tea party then?

The party that held the entire country hostage over a health care plan that had already been voted upon in Congress, causing billions of dollars in damage to the economy for no effect (and they knew that they wouldn't win, since the law had been passed already... they just wanted to throw a fit)... do tell.

And that's okay. Home of the free 👍

Who says it's okay? One our very own members here almost had his property taken by the Federal Government, despite full cooperation with the law in an operation which resulted in the arrest of drug dealers who had rented an apartment from him.

I'm simply pointing out that these people are using an Agenda they don't fully understand as a political rallying point against unfair practices that typically have nothing to do with the actual Agenda. If you bother to read the text of Agenda 21, as I have, you'll note that not only is it purely voluntary, it's participatory and open-ended. What the Agenda opposers are warning against (and I had to read a lot to finally find coherent arguments) is... no... que horror... suburban living will become more expensive and difficult under new development under the Agenda.

Which sounds dire until you stop to think about the billions spent by the government over the decades subsidizing suburbuan sprawl... the endless roads, power, water and sanitation facilities that go into servicing this sprawl.

If you want to live on a suburban or rural spread... that's perfectly fine. Don't be surprised if, in the future, you won't get the same subsidy for such life that you're used to at this time.

Stuff and nonsense, who cares about a couple of farmers and some goats.Hygienic concerns would seem to me to be sensible. Then again, who cares about you. This maybe your future. http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...isors-approve-220-square-foot-apartments/.and all for a quite reasonable $1500 a month. How's that for capitalism - you get to pay for your own jail cell!!!

Here's a fix for the borked link:
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/20...pervisors-approve-220-square-foot-apartments/

Are you being forced to live in said apartments? Do you actually realize how much standard sized apartments cost in a big city? It's right there in the article... studios cost around $3k. I have friends who've rented entire houses out in the 'burbs for less than the cost of a studio in San Francisco!

My first apartment was smaller than that. About 200 square feet. If you want to live in a crowded city for the opportunity to get work, you aren't going to be very picky. People in New York are already subletting closets, because codes won't allow smaller apartments. New York is, understandably, looking at allowing apartments to get smaller.

Out here in the third-world, we have nightly rentals that are little more than a bed in a box. The middle class isn't forced to live like this. But it's a god-send for poor rural folk who can't afford the long commute to the city for work. Opposing housing like this denies employment and living opportunities to the lower class and lower middle class.

But what I see as the best thing about this, is that it seems, that people are, at least, attempting to do something to stand up for themselves. A worthy endevour.

Fighting is only noble so long as you understand what you're fighting for and what you're really fighting against.

 

[Enemem]

The party that held the entire country hostage over a health care plan that had already been voted upon in Congress, causing billions of dollars in damage to the economy for no effect (and they knew that they wouldn't win, since the law had been passed already... they just wanted to throw a fit)... do tell.

Didn't really cost anything, when you consider the amount of money that's wasted by the government.

Who says it's okay? One our very own members here almost had his property taken by the Federal Government, despite full cooperation with the law in an operation which resulted in the arrest of drug dealers who had rented an apartment from him.

I can't believe you couldn't tell I was being sarcastic. Of course, it's not okay. Do I strike you as someone who is in favour of government meddling.

I'm simply pointing out that these people are using an Agenda they don't fully understand as a political rallying point against unfair practices that typically have nothing to do with the actual Agenda. If you bother to read the text of Agenda 21, as I have, you'll note that not only is it purely voluntary, it's participatory and open-ended. What the Agenda opposers are warning against (and I had to read a lot to finally find coherent arguments) is... no... que horror... suburban living will become more expensive and difficult under new development under the Agenda.

That's a fair point, it is voluntary. But what happens when your municipality decides to implement it. Can you do anything about it?

Which sounds dire until you stop to think about the billions spent by the government over the decades subsidizing suburbuan sprawl... the endless roads, power, water and sanitation facilities that go into servicing this sprawl.

If you want to live on a suburban or rural spread... that's perfectly fine. Don't be surprised if, in the future, you won't get the same subsidy for such life that you're used to at this time.

Remember my comment about battery people. The return of the high rise flat. Something which has not been looked upon favourably, as a pleasant way to live.

Are you being forced to live in said apartments? Do you actually realize how much standard sized apartments cost in a big city? It's right there in the article... studios cost around $3k. I have friends who've rented entire houses out in the 'burbs for less than the cost of a studio in San Francisco!

My first apartment was smaller than that. About 200 square feet. If you want to live in a crowded city for the opportunity to get work, you aren't going to be very picky. People in New York are already subletting closets, because codes won't allow smaller apartments. New York is, understandably, looking at allowing apartments to get smaller.

Out here in the third-world, we have nightly rentals that are little more than a bed in a box. The middle class isn't forced to live like this. But it's a god-send for poor rural folk who can't afford the long commute to the city for work. Opposing housing like this denies employment and living opportunities to the lower class and lower middle class.

I know what's it's like. Lived in University lodgings. Not great. The middle class are not being forced to , at the moment. No-ones forcing you to work in the city, or are they?

Fighting is only noble so long as you understand what you're fighting for and what you're really fighting against.

That's just wrong. Reality has nothing to do with it. Perception however does. If you perceive it as being noble, then it is.

 

[Azuremen]

I know what's it's like. Lived in University lodgings. Not great. The middle class are not being forced to , at the moment. No-ones forcing you to work in the city, or are they?

Wait, you studied at university?

That's just wrong. Reality has nothing to do with it. Perception however does. If you perceive it as being noble, then it is.

What are you trying to say here?

Are you aware that the majority of your posts are extremely vague and distilling your intent from them is beyond most of us here?

 

[niky]

Didn't really cost anything, when you consider the amount of money that's wasted by the government.

$24 Billion dollars is, indeed, tiny compared to the trillions in debt the government has, but government debt is rotating money. Most of the money lost was money lost by private citizens. If you had an important business loan being processed at the time, the shutdown had the potential to bankrupt you.

I can't believe you couldn't tell I was being sarcastic. Of course, it's not okay. Do I strike you as someone who is in favour of government meddling.

I can't believe you think I'm that stupid. It's obvious you were being sarcastic. I merely responded because it appears that you think that I think that it was a good thing.

That's a fair point, it is voluntary. But what happens when your municipality decides to implement it. Can you do anything about it?

Do what about what? Protest about affordable housing? Bike lanes? About being forced not to pollute aquifers? Or to lower groundwater levels by pumping out and storing groundwater? (and remember, you agreed that you had the right to use your own land as you see fit only so long as it doesn't affect other people's lands. It's a slippery slope).

Remember my comment about battery people. The return of the high rise flat. Something which has not been looked upon favourably, as a pleasant way to live.

If you didn't read my retort the first time, it's vain hope you'll read it a second. People aren't forced to live that way. If they decide to, that's their business.

I know what's it's like. Lived in University lodgings. Not great. The middle class are not being forced to , at the moment. No-ones forcing you to work in the city, or are they?

Of course no one is forcing you to work in a city with a high cost of living. Just like no one is forcing you to live in tiny apartments. But if you want to make money, that means going where the money is. And places where the money is have high property values and rent. Building small apartments there allows people to both make money and spend less living there.

I don't see your boggle with the concept: Are you're saying it's inherently wrong to give people more choices in terms of living arrangements? The article you cited refers to a law that allows developers to build low income units.

Or are you saying we should enact laws that prevent people from developing their own property so they can make money?

Does this philosophy extend to cars? Should car makers not build small cars for people who can't afford SUVs?

That's just wrong. Reality has nothing to do with it. Perception however does. If you perceive it as being noble, then it is.

That explains a whole lot.

The Nazis believed eugenics were a noble idea, too.

 

[Enemem]

If you didn't read my retort the first time, it's vain hope you'll read it a second. People aren't forced to live that way. If they decide to, that's their business.
Of course no one is forcing you to work in a city with a high cost of living. Just like no one is forcing you to live in tiny apartments. But if you want to make money, that means going where the money is. And places where the money is have high property values and rent. Building small apartments there allows people to both make money and spend less living there.

So you're forced to work in the city.("Round 'em all up in the same place Gomer, it'll make 'em easier to control").

I don't see your boggle with the concept: Are you're saying it's inherently wrong to give people more choices in terms of living arrangements? The article you cited refers to a law that allows developers to build low income units.

Or are you saying we should enact laws that prevent people from developing their own property so they can make money?

Does this philosophy extend to cars? Should car makers not build small cars for people who can't afford SUVs?

Just showing you the way it's going to be in the future.

That explains a whole lot.
The Nazis believed eugenics were a noble idea, too.

So the only way anything can be noble, is in retrospect, or according to niky.
Nothing is ever good or bad, it's perception.

 

[niky]

So you're forced to work in the city.("Round 'em all up in the same place Gomer, it'll make 'em easier to control").

Answer me this: Were you forced to study at the University instead of simply going straight to work at a supermarket checkout counter?

Just showing you the way it's going to be in the future.

I understand that you feel the need to be hip and flippant, but that makes no sense in the context of the passage you quoted.

What's the way it's going to be like in the future? People living in tiny apartments instead of luxurious studios? Sorry, that's already happening where I live, sorry.

People batteries? I'd discuss how energy-inefficient that is, but that's outside the scope of this thread.

So the only way anything can be noble, is in retrospect, or according to niky.
Nothing is ever good or bad, it's perception.

So actually thinking about the issues, actions and repercussions beforehand, and applying logic to the problem is out of the question for you? Why are you still in the Opinions forum then?

 

[Scaff]

@Enemem can you please take on board what I said earlier in this thread, as right now you signal to noise ratio is pretty much all noise and as such your contribution to any discussion borderline nil.

Its not helping anyone at all (particularly yourself). Stick to one point, outline it, explain you position and back it up with sources.

 

[Enemem]

Answer me this: Were you forced to study at the University instead of simply going straight to work at a supermarket checkout counter?

No, but I didn't have a choice. I order to have a choice you need to be in fully aware, and I wasn't. I still might not be 30 years later.

So actually thinking about the issues, actions and repercussions beforehand, and applying logic to the problem is out of the question for you? Why are you still in the Opinions forum then?

Nice swerve. But I'm not having it. That statement comes from nowhere. You are convinced that there is right and wrong. How can you be sure?

Sorry to Scaff.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Nice swerve. But I'm not having it. That statement comes from nowhere. You are convinced that there is right and wrong. How can you be sure?

When I think about kicking babies really hard it makes me feel bad inside. That 'bad' feels like it could be called 'wrong'. What my consciousness means is another matter but within its scope of action I feel sure that a sense of wrong exists. That doesn't mean kicking babies is against the fundamental laws of nature, there are times when it might be essential after all. To me, however, I feel that right and wrong exist in our actions.

Does your asking of the question imply that you think there isn't right or wrong?

 

[niky]

No, but I didn't have a choice. I order to have a choice you need to be in fully aware, and I wasn't. I still might not be 30 years later.

Nobody gets sent to University on threat of death.

Nice swerve. But I'm not having it. That statement comes from nowhere. You are convinced that there is right and wrong. How can you be sure?

Sorry to Scaff.

If you want to discuss that particular matter, I suggest you head down to the Human Rights thread and read and participate there. Because that is far beyond the scope of this thread.

 

[Enemem]

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/the-unofficial-opinions-forum-guide.50628/

Some savage twit is trying to explain to you the Earth is round. If he cites the old "ships disappear over the horizon" hoopla, just point out that the evil corporations who control world shipping have a vested interest in enforcing their view of what shape the world is on the masses. If he cites satellite imaging, just counter it by saying satellites are a scam and a hoax, as any good conspiracy theorist can prove. Soon, he'll get so tired of trying to prove his point, that he will simply resort to Rule 1, making you the winner by default! It's just that easy!

1081 No, my asking of the question indicates that you may never know, whether something is right or wrong, and implicit in that statement is that you have all the relevant information, to make that determination. All the relevant information must include time travel, such that you are able to tell with hindsight whether it was good or bad, and of course good and bad are relative to your viewpoint, and therefore subjective anyway, it's also comparative (good or bad compared to what?).

My landlord, long time ago, was a nice fella. He kept a good house and he also rented cars out to taxi drivers. He undoubtedly thought this was a good idea, and many of you would also consider that it was a good idea. One night his car was hit by another, unfortunately it was the car he'd rented out. He didn't make it.

Nobody gets sent to University on threat of death.

Tell me where did I say I got sent to Unversity on threat of death?
And even now I don't know if it was good or bad.
Get my point yet?


Agenda 21 in all honesty, is not an organisation, it is a blueprint, a plan. If this plan is implemented by federal government then your way of life will be infringed upon. If you think that's okay then great, you're a supporter. If you think that putting more power into the hands of those who currently wield it, is likely to lead to trouble, then you're against it.

 

[niky]

1081 No, my asking of the question indicates that you may never know, whether something is right or wrong, and implicit in that statement is that you have all the relevant information, to make that determination. All the relevant information must include time travel, such that you are able to tell with hindsight whether it was good or bad, and of course good and bad are relative to your viewpoint, and therefore subjective anyway, it's also comparative (good or bad compared to what?).

Hindsight will not always tell you everything.

History is woven out of the decisions and actions of a myriad of actors. Whether you've done something right or wrong, the outcome of what you've done is still affected by what others do. As here:

My landlord, long time ago, was a nice fella. He kept a good house and he also rented cars out to taxi drivers. He undoubtedly thought this was a good idea, and many of you would also consider that it was a good idea. One night his car was hit by another, unfortunately it was the car he'd rented out. He didn't make it.

See, your landlord was doing the right thing. Renting out cars to help others is a good idea. That he got hit by one does not make it any less of a good idea, in general. It just means that renting out to that particular driver was not a good idea.

Could he have prevented his own death? Probably. Screen the drivers you rent to. Encourage them to drive safely (orient the drivers before the rental), give them discounts for not having points on their licenses.

You don't need hindsight for that. And since time travel is currently impossible, and perfect knowledge is, by definition, impossible, all your decisions must be made on best evidence. If you think no decision can be made, why do you still eat, breathe, sleep and type out arguments on the internet?

Again, though... this is beyond the scope of this thread.

Tell me where did I say I got sent to Unversity on threat of death?
And even now I don't know if it was good or bad.
Get my point yet?

What point? You said you had no choice. You always have a choice. Unless you were threatened with death or physically forced to do so, you didn't have to attend University.

Agenda 21 in all honesty, is not an organisation, it is a blueprint, a plan. If this plan is implemented by federal government then your way of life will be infringed upon. If you think that's okay then great, you're a supporter. If you think that putting more power into the hands of those who currently wield it, is likely to lead to trouble, then you're against it.

Going back to the original point: You agree that one has the right to do anything they want on their own land, as long as this does not have negative effects on other people's land.

This implies that you support the Agenda and would infringe upon the way of life of people in order to further the Agenda.

You have decried fracking. You want it stopped because it destroys other people's lands. Thus, you want to infringe upon the way of life of frackers and you support the Agenda.

You complain about small apartments, suggesting that people shouldn't be forced to live in inhumane living conditions. The building codes that enable these small apartments are drawn up so people have safe small apartments to live in, rather than renting illegal apartments with poor fire safety or living in closets. Ergo, you're pro-Agenda.

-

The Agenda doesn't put any more power in the hands of those who do planning. It just points them in a direction. In the end, their powers are the same. It's their choices that might be a little different. That is all.

-

Again, study the issues, and it's pretty obvious the anti-Agenda 21 hysteria is nothing more than hysteria.

 

[Scaff]

Agenda 21 in all honesty, is not an organisation, it is a blueprint, a plan.

Now it quite clearly isn't an organisation, however please expand on what its a blueprint and plan for, by whom and for what reason.

Make sure you cite sources.

BTW - Apologising to me is a bit hollow if you are simply repeating the same method of posting over and over again.

If this plan is implemented by federal government then your way of life will be infringed upon.

Mine won't and it still depends on the 'plan' you have yet to prove.

If you think that's okay then great, you're a supporter. If you think that putting more power into the hands of those who currently wield it, is likely to lead to trouble, then you're against it.

Ditto.

You are now arguing from nothing, attempting to assign position to people based upon supposed agreement/disagreement with a plan that you have neither explained or even proven.

As such you argument is moot and your position unproven. If you wish to be taken seriously here you are going to have to improve you quality of argument to a huge degree.

 

[Enemem]

Going back to the original point: You agree that one has the right to do anything they want on their own land, as long as this does not have negative effects on other people's land.

Yes, I said that and I agree.👍

This implies that you support the Agenda and would infringe upon the way of life of people in order to further the Agenda.

Really, please elaborate.

You have decried fracking. You want it stopped because it destroys other people's lands. Thus, you want to infringe upon the way of life of frackers and you support the Agenda.

No, I don't want to infringe the rights of the frackers, unless they live there.

You complain about small apartments, suggesting that people shouldn't be forced to live in inhumane living conditions. The building codes that enable these small apartments are drawn up so people have safe small apartments to live in, rather than renting illegal apartments with poor fire safety or living in closets. Ergo, you're pro-Agenda.

Not complaining about conditions, though I think everyone would be happier with more room, more the means by which they will get there. By choice or force.

The Agenda doesn't put any more power in the hands of those who do planning. It just points them in a direction. In the end, their powers are the same. It's their choices that might be a little different. That is all.

Yes, I agree. As long as the powers that be, don't hand their powers over to another body, such as, let's say the UN.

Again, study the issues, and it's pretty obvious the anti-Agenda 21 hysteria is nothing more than hysteria.

Yes you're right. Just hysteria, at the moment.

And before someone chimes up with "Where's your evidence?".

I'll be back, with that, if I can find any.

Of course absense of evidence, is not evidence of absense.

 

[niky]

Yes, I said that and I agree.👍

Then simply answer the question: Do you agree with the guidelines on resource use laid out in Agenda 21? As in, you've read Agenda 21 and you agree with it? Or you've read it and you don't? Because unless you have, it's pointless to continue this conversation further.

Really, please elaborate.

I just did.

No, I don't want to infringe the rights of the frackers, unless they live there.

You already said you were against it. Where they live is immaterial.

more the means by which they will get there. By choice or force.

Already proven fallacious.

As long as the powers that be, don't hand their powers over to another body, such as, let's say the UN.

Already proven fallacious.

Yes you're right. Just hysteria, at the moment.

Idea that Agenda 21 is a blueprint for global domination? Already proven fallacious.

If you can't add anything new to the argument, then it's pretty much done.

 

[Enemem]

If I asked someone how to get to where I'm going with this thread, then the first thing they'd say would be "Well, I wouldn't start from here...".

But I'm here. Just to clarify, so that I'm not confused.


@niky - says that agenda 21 exists. But it isn'tbeing implemented, and that if it was that's okay? Yes.

@Scaff - Wants me to say what its an agenda for? by whom? and for what reason?

 

[niky]

It exists. It is being implemented.

But it isn't what you think it is.

The negative effects that you are attributing to Agenda 21 are either: a.) not caused or covered by Agenda 21 or b.) not actually negative effects in the sense that you're suggesting they are.

All of your knowledge comes thirdhand from people who are sensationalizing the issue for their own purposes and who are misrepresenting what Agenda 21 is.

 

[Scaff]

okay? Yes.

@Scaff - Wants me to say what its an agenda for? by whom? and for what reason?

Yep

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Basically, the Tea Party position against Agenda 21 is that any non-elected beaurecracy that dares to tell you how you can or can't use your land is a tyrannical puppet of the kleptocratic globalist overlords.

What about when an elected bureaucracy does it?

 

[Enemem]

It exists. It is being implemented.

But it isn't what you think it is.

The negative effects that you are attributing to Agenda 21 are either: a.) not caused or covered by Agenda 21 or b.) not actually negative effects in the sense that you're suggesting they are.

All of your knowledge comes thirdhand from people who are sensationalizing the issue for their own purposes and who are misrepresenting what Agenda 21 is.

You may well be right, I would rather you be right, than me.

I'm unlikely to get the information first hand. The best I can do is look for 'reputable' sources with 'hard' evidence. Though quite what is considered 'evidence' when the tunnel we operate in is the internet. You can't even believe newspapers,TV stations, politicans, policemen, scientists, think tanks.

Maybe I have been swayed away from hoping to prove that there is an organisation that controls the world. It's too difficult. (But if I find any I'll let you know). Too difficult a position to defend. Too easy to attack. (Someone tried to offer proof of the FBI. A website (no-one's ever put up a fake website, have they), and a picture of a building with FBI on it( and no-ones ever doctored any photos either), and no I don't honestly believe that there isn't the FBI- merely used it as an example)

There may be companies/groups/individuals, unassociated to each other, that are trying to control the worlds resources.

This also may prove difficult.

Is it possible that no-one is trying to control the worlds resources, and as such control the people?

 

[Andrew R]

You have some of the most vague responses to discussions I have ever read.

 

[Spurgy 777]

@Enemem So you're saying that evidence isn't evidence because it might be faked? You must have a very awkward life living by that logic.

 

[niky]

Is it possible that no-one is trying to control the worlds resources, and as such control the people?

Of course there are people trying to control the world or parts of it.

Vladimir Putin's Russia is doing its best to reassert control over the Ukraine to reinstall a puppet government. This is right now.

Over parts of the 60's, 70's and 80's, the CIA has entered into deals with tinpot dictators across the world to extend America's influence. The term "Banana Republic" came about due to this spirit of interventionism... caused not by a love of democracy, but to support the businesses of friends of the CIA. This is a matter of public record, also.

OPEC has, in past decades, exercised ironclad control over oil commodity prices. Except this last one, where hedge-fund speculation gone wild has largely dictated oil prices.

But the UN? The UN is a motley assemblage of different countries that can't enforce the Kyoto Protocols, doesn't even pretend it can enforce Agenda 21, and has diddly-squat in terms of power or influence to prevent one of the biggest members on its Security Council, Russia (the USA), from pursuing a military invasion of a sovereign power, the Ukraine (Iraq).

Want to look for the Illuminati? They're not there.

What about when an elected bureaucracy does it?

Then they're obviously part of the conspiracy.

Not that I'm not against forceful seizure of land. I live in a country which has forced land redistribution written into law, which I'm vehemently against, and where, if the government thinks a road should be wider or a new road needs to be built through where your house is standing, you're out of luck. But the current wording of the Agenda is purposely very open, to prevent such things, and acts as a guideline for future planned communities rather than as something supplanting current ones.

 

[Ryanswannell]

Anyone here played GTAV and noticed the many Illuminati references?
Characters can often be heard mentioning the Illuminati, and there are several "all-seeing" eyes such as in Lester's house (although his house is full of conspiracy posters), and there is one in Franklin's Aunt's house. Unless it relates to the so-called "jet-pack" easter egg, it seems a little strange for so many references to be in this game.

That said, GTA is Rockstars "spoof" of America, so maybe they are in the game as a joke?

 

[Dotini]

The Moon Landing Hoax story has a long pedigree, even involving OJ Simpson at one point. I've never been inclined to give it any credence. I've never wanted to.


Even so, I ran across some links which would be of interest to those inclined to believe that the truth may sometimes be much uglier than what we would prefer to believe.

Note: It will take you several hours to fully scour the multiple links with embedded videos provided below:

http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/03/12/moon-landings-the-problem-with-those-photos/

http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm

http://listverse.com/2012/12/28/10-reasons-the-moon-landings-could-be-a-hoax/

 

[Scaff]

The Moon Landing Hoax story has a long pedigree, even involving OJ Simpson at one point. I've never been inclined to give it any credence. I've never wanted to.


Even so, I ran across some links which would be of interest to those inclined to believe that the truth may sometimes be much uglier than what we would prefer to believe.

Note: It will take you several hours to fully scour the multiple links with embedded videos provided below:

http://21stcenturywire.com/2014/03/12/moon-landings-the-problem-with-those-photos/

http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm

This will do quite nicely in reply...

http://www.clavius.org/

 

[Dotini]

For high entertainment value, here's somes excellent conspiracy theories regarding current events. First a nuclear attack, possibly from exploding Israeli embassies, and a US/Japanese currency collapse. Enjoy, but be skeptical.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/03/28/356298/us-on-nuclear-false-flag-high-alert/

http://kingworldnews.com/kingworldn...t_Pento_Said_To_Get_Him_Erased_From_CNBC.html