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

To be clear, I told you in the rep to the first point: You are not welcome to post in my blog but that you could leave your "defence" statement if you so choose.
You then, posted a second message in which I stated I had already told you that you were not welcome to post in my blog and I was reporting it.

I will consider it an error in communication. My intent was to let you know that you were not welcome to post in my blog and that I was willing to allow only your first post to stand if you wished and would not ask you to remove it.

Your second post is not welcome and I have reported it and asked for it to be removed.

I had not read your message before i sent my second post

I would not go against someones wishes in their blog

if you want me to remove one or both posts i will

While you are talking about scapegoating it also has a very interesting historical context.

Sure it is now used along with a lot of other pscyhiatric terms, but it has a historical basis

psychiatry is being used as an instrument of control

the DSM categorisation is being created by the cabal as a way of being able to categorise any human behaviour as a disorder

For example i wouldn't be suprised if they create a particular 'disorder' for conspiracy theorists soon!

It is all a way to silence anyone who is not going along with the system

if you don't go along with them they can categorise you under any kind of behaviour (because its all there in the DSM...even grief after the loss of a loved one is now categorised) and they can lock you up and/or drug you

Thats if they don't brand you a 'terrorist' of course and lock you up under 'terror' laws!

Interestingly as part of the gun control issue they want to only give guns to people who psychiatrists deem 'sane' enough. thats all very well if the doctor is honest but what if the doctors are told not to give guns to certain people for example trade union members or political activists or human rights activists?

Its all part of the control system
 
Last edited:
What will happen here TDHT if i am silenced in this thread or if i am infracted because those that are trying to shut me up have reported me to the staff is that they will enter this thread when i am absent and they will fill it with a load of pro government pro cabal arguments

That is what i have been pushing back against here....can you see that?

Again, I'm not asking you to stop posting. I'm asking you to slow down your posting rate. That's it. I was only addressing you because this is a trend that you've set in your own thread, but this goes for anyone who is just posting long post after long post after long post flooding the activity stream.
 
Again, I'm not asking you to stop posting. I'm asking you to slow down your posting rate. That's it. I was only addressing you because this is a trend that you've set in your own thread, but this goes for anyone who is just posting long post after long post after long post flooding the activity stream.

I have just been responding to people

I have been waiting for things to slow down so that i can start posting some solutions. Which hopefully ill get a chance to post tomorrow

But at the moment i am still having to defend myself
 
@Stu

thanks for all those articles helping to show that the tea party had big money behind it

That helps illustrate how the cabal play both ends against the middle

Whilst 'conservatives' and 'liberals' are both at each others throats the cabal are taking their money and freedoms away
 
A lot of people like to throw around terms they have picked up from the world of psychiatry like 'personality disorder' or 'schizoid' or whatever

Perhaps these people have missed the link between the American Psychiatric Association which is responsible for creating all these terms and categorising them in their DSM manual and the big pharmaceutical corporations owned by the corporate elite

Here's some info from wikipedia:

The APA president in 2005, Steven Sharfstein, caused controversy when, although praising the pharmaceutical industry, he argued that American psychiatry had "allowed the biopsychosocial model to become the bio-bio-bio model" and accepted "kickbacks and bribes" from pharmaceutical companies leading to the over-use of medication and neglect of other approaches.[SUP][25][/SUP] In 2008 APA became a focus of congressional investigations regarding the way that money from the pharmaceutical industry can shape the practices of nonprofit organizations that purport to be independent in their viewpoints and actions. The drug industry accounted in 2006 for about 30 percent of the association’s $62.5 million in financing, half through drug advertisements in its journals and meeting exhibits, and the other half sponsoring fellowships, conferences and industry symposiums at its annual meeting. APA is considering its response to increasingly intense scrutiny and questions about conflicts of interest.[SUP][26][/SUP] The APA president of 2009-2010, Alan Schatzberg, has also come under fire after it came to light that he was principal investigator on a federal study into a drug being developed by Corcept Therapeutics, a company Schatzberg had himself set up and in which he had several millions of dollars’ worth of stock.[SUP][27][/SUP]

In his book Anatomy of an Epidemic (2010), Robert Whitaker described the partnership that has developed between the APA and pharmaceutical companies since the 1980s.[SUP][16][/SUP] APA has come to depend on pharmaceutical money.[SUP][16][/SUP] The drug companies endowed continuing education and psychiatric "grand rounds" at hospitals. They funded a political action committee (PAC) in 1982 to lobby Congress.[SUP][16][/SUP] The industry helped to pay for the APA's media training workshops.[SUP][16][/SUP] It was able to turn psychiatrists at top schools into speakers, and although the doctors felt they were independents, they rehearsed their speeches and likely would not be invited back if they discussed drug side effects.[SUP][16][/SUP] "Thought leaders" became the experts quoted in the media.[SUP][16][/SUP] As Marcia Angell wrote in The New England Journal of Medicine (2000), "thought leaders" could agree to be listed as an author of ghostwritten articles,[SUP][17][/SUP] and she cites Thomas Bodenheimer and David Rothman who describe the extent of the drug industry's involvement with doctors.[SUP][18][/SUP][SUP][19][/SUP] The New York Times published a summary about antipsychotic medications in October 2010.[2
 
Last edited:
One common form of scapegoating is the singling out of people discussing conspiracy theories

People who try to talk about some issues are scapegoated by those that only listen to the mainstream media. Anyone trying to scrape beneath the mainstream news is treated with the same contempt whether their reasoning is sound or not. All are tarred with the same brush

Here is how scapegaoting is described. it does seem to fit the aggression that is often desplayed against people discussing conspiracy theorys:

A medical definition of scapegoating is:[SUP][2][/SUP]
"Process in which the mechanisms of projection or displacement are utilized in focusing feelings of aggression, hostility, frustration, etc., upon another individual or group; the amount of blame being unwarranted." Scapegoating is a tactic often employed to characterize an entire group of individuals according to the unethical or immoral conduct of a small number of individuals belonging to that group. Scapegoating relates to guilt by association and stereotyping.

Scapegoated groups throughout history have included almost every imaginable group of people: genders, religions, people of different races or nations, people with different political beliefs, or people differing in behaviour from the majority. However, scapegoating may also be applied to organizations, such as governments, corporations, or various political groups.

Projection
: Unwanted thoughts and feelings can be unconsciously projected onto another who becomes a scapegoat for one's own problems. This concept can be extended to projection by groups. In this case the chosen individual, or group, becomes the scapegoat for the group's problems. "Political agitation in all countries is full of such projections, just as much as the backyard gossip of little groups and individuals."[SUP][3][/SUP] Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung considered indeed that "there must be some people who behave in the wrong way; they act as scapegoats and objects of interest for the normal ones".[SUP][4][/SUP]
 
Last edited:
You know why people start resorting to what you are doing ie name calling and baseless accusations? They do it because they have lost the debate. they do it because they cannot prove their point.

You cannot prove your point so you are having a little tantrum

A debate would have involved two people with clearly defined stances arguing over a single issue by making clearly defined points before preparing rebuttals to each other's points-- NOT me making a point and then you ignoring that point and instead going off on 12 different semi-related or completely unrelated tangents involving endless walls of text and videos and copypasted comments that you didn't even read.

We didn't have a debate, muir... I was trying to explain why debating you is impossible because you don't follow the rules, and you continued to break or otherwise ignore them.
If we were playing chess, you would be the guy who stands up, sweeps all of the pieces off the board, throws the board to the ground and screams 'I WIN!!!'.
 
A debate would have involved two people with clearly defined stances arguing over a single issue by making clearly defined points before preparing rebuttals to each other's points-- NOT me making a point and then you ignoring that point and instead going off on 12 different semi-related or completely unrelated tangents involving endless walls of text and videos and copypasted comments that you didn't even read.

We didn't have a debate, muir... I was trying to explain why debating you is impossible because you don't follow the rules, and you continued to break or otherwise ignore them.
If we were playing chess, you would be the guy who stands up, sweeps all of the pieces off the board, throws the board to the ground and screams 'I WIN!!!'.

You are being manipulative again

You have just tried to tell me and anyone else reading how i would behave if i were playing chess to try and discredit me in the eyes of any reader

You don't know how i would behave while playing chess

I am the one who has remained calm in the face of insults and who has tried hard to provide evidence to support what i am saying

I have siad to you again and again to talk about what evidence we can each find but you have continued to attack me and my character and you are STILL doing it

Listen man. You have chosen to come into this thread....into this virtual room on the forum, if you like. Within this room is a guy..me....talking about certain issues

Now instead of you then either adding information to support what i'm saying like some people have done here OR trying to give evidence to counter what i'm saying like some have done here, all you have done is try to shout over me while i'm talking about these issues

You haven't given any information you just keep attacking me

It would be like going into a room where a discussion or debate is going on and just shouting over everyone ''you suck!'', ''you suck!'', ''you suck!''

Its rude and unproductive

I have not gone off on irrelevant tangents....all these things are related. They are all to do with the cabal that is behind the syria issue

Most of these current affairs threads on this forum can all boil down to one thing: ''who is behind all this''? And when you follow the money you find it all goes back to the same people

I am now sharing that information with anyone who is interested but inevitably some people will want some more clarification which i'm happy to give and some people will outright disagree because they haven't yet found out the information about where all the money traces back to...and thats ok as well because as long as they aren't rude and don't keep shouting over me i am happy to explain it to them

If you want a central issue to hinge this discussion/debate around then at its core would be the cabal. But this discussion really grew out of the syria thread, which i left alone

So the relevant issue there as i see it was whether or not we were being lied to to take us into another war (as part of that is also whether our governments have a moral case for taking us to war)

These have been the things that me and others have been discussing and giving evidence for to try and shed more light on the situation but you have just been attacking me personally

If however a person mentions the cabal in relation to say the syria situation then inevitably there will be some people who say ''what cabal? What are you talking about'' and then the discussion moves to the issue of discussing who the cabal are

So its not about talking about unrelated things, it is just about talking about different layers of the same thing
 
Last edited:
[video=youtube;FVBMjU7_L9c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_548853&feature=iv&s rc_vid=9gBna3zozRo&v=FVBMjU7_L9c[/video]
 
Look at the title of this thread:

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

You don't debate this by talking about a cabal, Syria, WMDs, anarchy, and Noam Chomsky.
You don't debate this by changing the topic of the thread 17 times in every post.

So what are we debating, exactly?

Here is an example of some rules of a debate:
http://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/cur/socstud/frame_found_sr2/tns/tn-13.pdf

Maybe we should try following them on this part of the forum?
It might prevent a lot of frustration.
 
Look at the title of this thread:

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

You don't debate this by talking about a cabal, Syria, WMDs, anarchy, and Noam Chomsky.
You don't debate this by changing the topic of the thread 17 times in every post.

So what are we debating, exactly?

Here is an example of some rules of a debate:
http://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/cur/socstud/frame_found_sr2/tns/tn-13.pdf

Maybe we should try following them on this part of the forum?
It might prevent a lot of frustration.

Hi GD

I think this thread has been controversial enough for the time being

Although there has been some positive encouragement there has also been some negativity around it as well

I think i would like to let everything just cool down for a while like TDHT has suggested

So what do you say to a truce?

I would like to respond to several peoples request to discuss some solutions to some of the problems raised and would ideally like to put more energy into that now

For the record i want to make it very clear that i have been talking about a cabal of occultists NOT any people of a certain faith. i believe that this cabal uses people of all faiths for example christian, muslims and jews as pawns in its games

Perhaps in the interim you might like to look at the 'beyond the matrix' series of 7 video clips the first one i have posted above

Although there is all the sensationalist matrix stuff and music and all that, within that the clips do actually post a lot of actual footage which they use to show clearly the lying campaign of the neocons

Or you could ignore it....its totally upto you!

All the best

muir
 
I WON THE DEBATE!
The cabal doesn't exist!

I'm going to throw away all of my guns, brush my teeth and buy things.
 
lol

You can get flouride free toothpaste off the internet

Buy gold and silver
 
Buy gold and silver

I'm not sure if this is even the right thread for this anymore, but why invest in gold and silver? Fiat money is awful, but how are precious metals any better? They are only good for a few applications. Wouldn't investing in seeds, informational material and other useful commodities be a better idea?
 
I'm not sure if this is even the right thread for this anymore, but why invest in gold and silver? Fiat money is awful, but how are precious metals any better? They are only good for a few applications. Wouldn't investing in seeds, informational material and other useful commodities be a better idea?

It should be the right thread for this because as i say these are all layers of the same thing

My only reservation is that i am concerned that there is a bit of an overload going on for some people....but at the same time i have people like yourself asking me questions so i am pulled in two different directions

Do i shut up and let things cool off and ignore questions like yours or do i respond? Do you see my dillema

I was thinking of starting a second thread in response to calls for ideas of solutions. I was going to discuss the whole currency thing in that thread

I think you are right about buying more immediately useful items especially if you don't have enough money to invest in gold

Essentials like: shelter, food, fuel, clean water are the most important items of course

After that it is a case of having something to trade

I am talking about the scenario of a dollar collapse which because it is the global reserve currency will collapse the other fiat currencies as well like the pound in my country

This would render paper money worthless. but before such a thing will happen the central banks will do a bail in to enable them to keep kicking the fiat currency can down the road for a bit longer

This will involve freezing peoples accounts and then plundering their deposits. Whilst this is being done people may be given limited access to their funds for example they might be allowed to withdraw a maximum of $100 a day for as long as the bank holiday lasts; this is what the central bankers did to cyprus and many people believe that was just a dry run for the US and europe

So in the bail in scenario a stash of cash held outside the bank will enable you to get essentials. Of course if you have stockpiled some essentials then you can draw on that as well.

So after the bail in will come the collapse. This will then see a period of chaos whislt an alternative system is put in place for example the central bankers then telling everyone that they must now use the even more globalised IMF currency called 'special drawing rights'

So its that period of instability that is the unknown. How long will it last? What will it involve? Will there be food shortages? etc

Inevitably there would be some food riots and looting which would then precipitate a government lock down on the civilian population. Whether they also use that as a pretext to then detain or destroy dissidents i don't know for example under the shadow of martial law. Such conditions could allow room for all sorts of skullduggery on the part of the government

Would such a crack down then precipitate a backlash from civilian militias?

So if you are not a cop or a militia member then you might be thinking about just keeping your head down. This would require a store of essentials or access to essentials

We are looking at the fall of US empire so its a question of how messy that will be

Paper currencies come and go but the only constant throughout the rise and fall of empires throughout history is GOLD. Gold holds its value. Some might say the value of gold fluctuates but it is not the gold that is fluctuating it is the dollar

Gold is going to be used by the rest of the world as a basis for new currencies. This is why China is secretly hoarding gold. This is why countries like venezuala, germany and others are asking the western banks to repatriate their gold

So if a person has a lot of wealth then gold would be a good investment. But only if you can store it out of the clutches of the central bankers otherwise they will just grab it when the new gold standard comes in

So yeah for the average person without much money i guess the best things to invest in would be a store of essentials (which is kind of an insurance policy in a way, but one you can actually use), tools and other hard assets and also skills. if you have hard assets, skills and valuable consumables then you will always have something to trade

If you can grow your own food, gather and purify your own water and protect it then you're sorted

Regarding shelter some peope with money are moving to new settlements for example galts gulch in chile and then at the budget end of things some people are clubbing together to build tented yurt communities where each person buys a stake in the plot of land for an entrance fee eg £5000

[video=youtube;AHovLai1cMw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHovLai1cMw[/video]

Sorry if that all sounds a bit alarming but that's what i'm getting ready for

Many americans think their nation owns a lot of gold in fort knox but no auditors are being allowed in to verify this. What they are going to find out is that the central bankers based in europe who own their federal reserve bank have sold all of their gold off from underneath them

Ron paul has ben pushing to have fort knox audited: http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/24/news/economy/ron_paul_gold_audit/index.htm
 
[video=youtube;8x_vusWz33c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8x_vusWz33c#t=97[/video]
 
[video=youtube;6bJQlTXinns]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6bJQlTXinns#t=541[/video]
 
get-attachment%201.jpg
 
Here is a recent article from the ''Jerusalem Times'' newspaper saying that the Israeli lobby group ''AIPAC'' is going to step up pressure on the US government to try to get them to go to war in Syria:

But first some pictures of some US presidents speaking at AIPAC meetings:

obamaaipac.bmp


208s500x5.jpg


3034666763.jpg


ai4.jpg


http://www.jpost.com/International/...ing-blitz-for-Obamas-Syria-strike-plan-325381

[h=1]Report: AIPAC to mount major lobbying blitz for Obama's Syria strike plan[/h] By JPOST.COM STAFF, REUTERS
09/06/2013 04:23







cleardot.gif
Select Language
cleardot.gif
cleardot.gif




[h=2]Politico: Lobby to campaign for resolution as the measure to attack Syria was thus far failing to muster sufficient support in House.[/h]
ShowImage.ashx
US President Obama pictured on-screen speaking at AIPAC policy conference in Washington, March, 2012 Photo: REUTERS
The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) is set to "mount a major blitz" in support of US President Barack Obama's resolution to take military action in Syria, the Washington-based Politico website quoted officials with the group as saying on Thursday.
The powerful pro-Israel lobby in Washington came out in support of the resolution in a statement issued earlier this week, but was expected to step-up its lobbying efforts, as the measure to attack Syria was thus far failing to muster a sufficient number of votes to pass in the House of Representatives, according to lawmakers.
Related:

Politico quoted officials as saying some 250 Jewish leaders planned to make the case to lawmakers next week that failure to act in the face of Syrian President Bashar Assad's use of chemical weapons would serve to embolden Iran in its pursuit of nuclear weapons.
AIPAC was expected to lobby "virtually every member of Congress," according to the report.
AIPAC has close ties to Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Minority Whip John Cornyn, Republican leaders who have thus far withheld support for the Syria resolution, Politico reported.
Even after congressional hearings featuring Obama's secretaries of state and defense, a half dozen closed-door briefings and phone calls from Obama himself, it was too close to call on whether Congress will authorize military force.
First-term Democratic Senator Joe Manchin, who had been seen as a possible swing vote, dealt the president a setback when he announced on Thursday he would oppose the resolution to authorize military strikes.
"Given the case that has been presented to me, I believe that a military strike against Syria at this time is the wrong course of action," Manchin said.
Republican Representative Michael Grimm, who initially backed Obama's call last month for military strikes, withdrew his support on Thursday. "Unfortunately, the time to act was then and the moment to show our strength has passed," said Grimm, a Marine combat veteran.
If Obama fails to win congressional support, he would face two undesirable options. One would be to go ahead with military strikes anyway, which could provoke an angry showdown with Congress over their respective powers.
The other would be to do nothing, which White House officials privately acknowledge would damage the credibility of any future Obama ultimatum to other countries.
Twenty-four of the Senate's 100 members oppose or lean toward opposing authorizing military strikes, according to estimates by several news organizations, with an equal number favoring military action and roughly 50 undecided.
Every vote will count in the Senate, where a super-majority of 60 will likely be needed because of possible procedural hurdles for a final vote on approving military action.
A count by the Washington Post listed 103 members of the House of Representatives as undecided, of whom 62 are Democrats. There are 433 members currently sitting in the House.
Party loyalty, which drives most issues in a Congress known for its partisan gridlock, was becoming increasingly irrelevant, particularly among Obama's fellow Democrats. Some Democratic liberals who usually line up behind Obama's policies have expressed reluctance to back an attack on Syria.
'I'M AN ADULT'
"I support the president," said Democratic Representative Bill Pascrell, who remained undecided.
"I want him to succeed. But he isn't asking me to be - nor will I be - a lap dog. So I will make my own decision. I'm an adult," Pascrell said.
Republicans have opposed Obama on a host of issues in Congress - and those aligned with the conservative Tea Party movement appear likely to do so on this matter. But other Republicans who favor strong American engagement internationally are lining up behind the Syria military strike authorization.
Most House Republicans are expected to vote "no," even though their top two leaders, Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor, have endorsed the military strikes.
While Obama administration officials continued to express confidence about ultimately winning congressional support, it was clear on Thursday that their blitz of briefings was not having the desired impact, especially with many lawmakers reporting opposition to strikes among their constituents.
Manchin said he listened to the concerns of thousands of people in his home state of West Virginia, attended hearings and briefings, and spoke with former and current military leaders.
In a statement, he said that "in good conscience, I cannot support" the resolution authorizing force and that he will work to develop other options. "I believe that we must exhaust all diplomatic options and have a comprehensive plan for international involvement before we act," Manchin added.
Democratic Senator Barbara Mikulski told reporters, "I have more questions than I have answers, and I hope to get them over the course of today and tomorrow."
She spoke as she entered the latest closed-door session on Thursday with Obama's national security team, only to emerge two hours later saying she still had "more questions."
"What we heard today made a compelling forensic case that, one, nerve gas was used, and number two, that it was used" by Assad's forces, Mikulski said. "The next step, then, has to be ... what is the way to both deter and degrade his ability to ever do it again? ... Does a military strike do that?"

FIRST HURDLE CLEARED

The Democratic-controlled Senate and Republican-controlled House both must approve the measure. It cleared its first hurdle on Wednesday when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the resolution by a 10-7 vote - with Democrats and Republicans voting on both sides of the issue.
The full Senate is likely to begin voting next Wednesday, a Senate aide said. It will start with a vote on an anticipated legislative roadblock by Republicans, and then move on to a vote on the resolution to authorize the use of force, the aide added.
The timing of a vote in the House remained unclear.
Memories of the protracted wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are still fresh in the minds of members of Congress, leaving many in both parties worried that a military strike could lead to a longer and larger US engagement in Syria.
If Obama is going to win passage of the measure in the House, he must convince fellow Democrats like Representative Zoe Lofgren and Pascrell.
The two liberals have been reliable Obama allies on a crush of issues since Obama entered office, but now voice plenty of questions and concerns about his bid to attack Syria.
Lofgren joined a conference call for House Democrats on Monday given by Obama administration officials. Lofgren complained that the briefing did not provide nearly as much information as she had sought and disliked at least a portion of Secretary of State John Kerry's presentation.
Kerry invoked memories of Nazi Germany when he told the House Democrats that the United States faces "a Munich moment" in deciding whether to wage military strikes against Syria.
"I thought it was a very unfortunate comment. We need facts, not overheated emotional rhetoric," Lofgren said.
 
Back
Top