First be armed

[muir]

Yeah, that was a stretch, but even if we weren't directly involved, we were still giving aid to Britain for those bombs, and perhaps France would be speaking German. Who the hell knows? The point is that someone comes at you with a knife, you don't sing kumbaya.

The history books which the state approves of are used in the school curriculem. These teach people to think in terms of countries, armies and governments

When we get older we learn things are more complicated than that

For example the Warburg family are a powerful jewish banking family which has its roots in Germany. Around the time of world war 2 there were two warburg brothers running the warburg family interests. One brother was based in germany running the bank there and the other was based in the US and helped create the federal reserve bank

The Rothschild family were a jewish banking family that originated from germany. The head of their family had 4 sons and sent them from frankfurt to set up family banks in 4 european capitals

The rothschilds over time gained control of the british central bank and also the federal reserve through agents such as J.P.Morgan.

All these families had business interests and family members in many different countries even though those countries were often at war with each other

They didn't just stick to banking either. they diversified into oil, railways, steel, weapons, medicines and so on. In fact they supplied all the things needed to fight wars.

The other thing you need to fight wars is MONEY which usually is given to governments in the form of LOANS and those powerful oligarchic families were able to give the loans too!

The oligarchic families have no national loyalties and will supply both sides in wars so that they can profit from the death and carnage

You really can't understand wars and the driving forces behind them without looking at the oligarchic families and their activities

I'll give you an example.....General Motors was the only company which supplied a certain fuel additive which the german airforce needed to power their planes. The germans bought the fuel additives from GM who shipped it from their branch in London to germany. The germans then fuelled up their bombers and flew over and bombed London, where the fuel additive had come from!

many financial transactions were hidden by swiss banks

Prescott Bush who was the father and grandfather of two US presidents was investigated for his part in funding the nazis through the Union Banking Corporation who he worked for. UBC was owned by the Thyssen family who were german industrialists who funded Hitler into power

''War is a racket'' as major eneral Smedley Butler said. Some very powerful people benefit from war.

So it wasn't that the US was giving bombs to the UK, it was that the war profiteers were playing a game walled 'war' where they use the public as pawns to make themselves richer. The UK public could ask the US ''what took you so long to get involved?'' but that might seem ungrateful

They don't tell you any of this stuff at school. All they go on about is the jewish holocaust and even then they don't mention the secret deal the rothschilds made with the british government called 'the balfour declaration' before world war one where the oligarchs agreed to use their influence over the US media to bring the US into WW1 on the side of the british in return for the british giving them Palestine

 

[muir]

That's right. You don't fight for peace, you cower.

If one would sit there and watch rape and murder over and over and not lift a finger against it then they shouldn't even bother preaching, or doing anything for that matter. May as well be an indolent piece of crap that just throws away the entire world because you love everybody too much to do a damn thing about anything.

You know what they do to passive villagers? People that don't fight? Hmm? Like in Cambodia or Sierra Leone? THEY MAKE THEM WATCH.

Pacifists should be made to watch all violence that happens. If you love everyone so much then watch this one handful of people you love commit murder and atrocities on this other handful of people you love.

Who would bomb their landing craft if violence is never the solution? How exactly does that work?

If you go back and read my posts you will see that i say people should hold onto their guns in case they need to defend themselves

Until that point however they shouldn't initiate violence and should seek to use peaceful methods

I do believe in the right to self defence which is why i am arguing that people should hold onto their guns

 

[digitalbum]

The history books which the state approves of are used in the school curriculem. These teach people to think in terms of countries, armies and governments

When we get older we learn things are more complicated than that

For example the Warburg family are a powerful jewish banking family which has its roots in Germany. Around the time of world war 2 there were two warburg brothers running the warburg family interests. One brother was based in germany running the bank there and the other was based in the US and helped create the federal reserve bank

The Rothschild family were a jewish banking family that originated from germany. The head of their family had 4 sons and sent them from frankfurt to set up family banks in 4 european capitals

The rothschilds over time gained control of the british central bank and also the federal reserve through agents such as J.P.Morgan.

All these families had business interests and family members in many different countries even though those countries were often at war with each other

They didn't just stick to banking either. they diversified into oil, railways, steel, weapons, medicines and so on. In fact they supplied all the things needed to fight wars.

The other thing you need to fight wars is MONEY which usually is given to governments in the form of LOANS and those powerful oligarchic families were able to give the loans too!

The oligarchic families have no national loyalties and will supply both sides in wars so that they can profit from the death and carnage

You really can't understand wars and the driving forces behind them without looking at the oligarchic families and their activities

I'll give you an example.....General Motors was the only company which supplied a certain fuel additive which the german airforce needed to power their planes. The germans bought the fuel additives from GM who shipped it from their branch in London to germany. The germans then fuelled up their bombers and flew over and bombed London, where the fuel additive had come from!

many financial transactions were hidden by swiss banks

Prescott Bush who was the father and grandfather of two US presidents was investigated for his part in funding the nazis through the Union Banking Corporation who he worked for. UBC was owned by the Thyssen family who were german industrialists who funded Hitler into power

''War is a racket'' as major eneral Smedley Butler said. Some very powerful people benefit from war.

So it wasn't that the US was giving bombs to the UK, it was that the war profiteers were playing a game walled 'war' where they use the public as pawns to make themselves richer. The UK public could ask the US ''what took you so long to get involved?'' but that might seem ungrateful

They don't tell you any of this stuff at school. All they go on about is the jewish holocaust and even then they don't mention the secret deal the rothschilds made with the british government called 'the balfour declaration' before world war one where the oligarchs agreed to use their influence over the US media to bring the US into WW1 on the side of the british in return for the british giving them Palestine

Weird how you're the only one that knows the Truth on this forum.

 

[muir]

Weird how you're the only one that knows the Truth on this forum.

I'm not the only one, there's a bunch of us who all communicate

I have a lot of thumbs up and i had a full lightsaber of reps before they scrapped them. You don't get that if people disagree with you especially on only 5 and half thousand posts

What you do get sometimes though is someone aggressively disagreeing with new information that challenges their currently held perception of reality; so you won't always hear my allies you'll usually only hear my very vocal opponents

But i don't mind debating with them because it allows me to present information and if they can then see what i see then they tend to stop being my opponents

 

[Cornerstone]

Mhmm...I agree with Muir on a lot of things.

How I go about sharing the information may vary slightly but it is essentially the same message.
I also tweak which aspect I share depending on the audience because it is such a broad and multi-faceted topic.
I do think that challenging your current perception of reality is a big task and can be very painful and it isn't easy.

That's why I try to go a little easier on people but, if they get into debates, then they are opening themselves up to opposition.
There are probably more steps taken between a decision by Rothschilds and manifestation in our world.
The institutions are still used to almost launder the oligarch's plans and because they have to have an altruistic-sounding function, they do!
Of course, the odds of using them efficiently for their rhetorical purpose are stacked against the ordinary citizen.
This is why I don't think it is worth it, but if I see someone who believes it can be done then I don't see a moron, I see someone who wants change.



But I'm still too shy to talk to them.

 

[sprinkles]

If you go back and read my posts you will see that i say people should hold onto their guns in case they need to defend themselves

Until that point however they shouldn't initiate violence and should seek to use peaceful methods

I do believe in the right to self defence which is why i am arguing that people should hold onto their guns

I know. Even though I quoted you I was actually writing that to him.

But anyway. I don't get it. I don't get why people quote Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi. Like they are that righteous and full of themselves. It kind of ticks me off.

I mean it's great that Martin Luther King and Gandhi could be so non-violent. Good for them. But that was their prerogative. That isn't something one should blindly follow out of some moral high road bullshit.

Moreover I don't understand how people could follow those two and then grieve to the point of rioting when they were killed. What was the whole point of that? If their cause died with one man then they weren't very resolute, were they? Especially when the man was basically fatalist and did not worry about being killed. King even said it himself that he wasn't worried about being killed.
"I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord."

So why did they even bother to mourn for him and be angry that he was killed? What was the entire point? If you don't fear any man, don't want to protect yourself, and aren't worried about dying then why should you concern yourself about any earthly matters? There were already rumors of death threats floating around before King was killed, and assassins tried to kill Gandhi four or five times before finally succeeding. They both essentially had it coming to them and neither would have done anything about it so who are we to naysay it and mourn them?? That was clearly their destiny wasn't it??

 

[muir]

Yeah totally there are many people who mean well but don't realise how they are actually being used as dupes

I try to put names or keywords in my posts which can then serve as launch pads for the curious

if for example someone wanted to look into what i'm saying to either learn more about it or to see if there is truth in it they can then use those names or words as a starting point in searches

Its like a tree with many branches that all connect up. So once you start digging it all begins to link up into a cohesive image that begins to make sense of all the things that have happened and are currently happening

The seemingly random and frightening events in the world that we hear about in the news suddenly make sense. They are still quite frightening but at least once you understand why something is happening and who is doing it you can then be proactive about how you engage with that reality.....you become a player not a pawn

 

[Lark]

I didn't say it was the only answer, I said MANY times (really should be sometimes) it's the only answer. Some drunk guy starts beating up your girlfriend, I hope you respond with violence and not "hey can we talk about this?" But that's me. I wouldn't hesitate.

I think that success is a factor too, I dont believe in lost causes or martyrdom or poetic gestures, despite being Irish and all that, like mankind has been gifted with "fight or flight" and sometimes flight is a good idea, provided you're "advancing in a different direction" rather than simply retreating.

Although I know what you mean and I dont think that its something people should repress, that instinct to defend yourself, even if its doomed.

 

[digitalbum]

Moreover I don't understand how people could follow those two and then grieve to the point of rioting when they were killed. What was the whole point of that? If their cause died with one man then they weren't very resolute, were they? Especially when the man was basically fatalist and did not worry about being killed. King even said it himself that he wasn't worried about being killed.
"I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord."

I don't think the civil rights cause died with MLK.

Btw.......and along came Malcom X. Very pacifist.

 

[muir]

I know. Even though I quoted you I was actually writing that to him.

But anyway. I don't get it. I don't get why people quote Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi. Like they are that righteous and full of themselves. It kind of ticks me off.

I mean it's great that Martin Luther King and Gandhi could be so non-violent. Good for them. But that was their prerogative. That isn't something one should blindly follow out of some moral high road bullshit.

I think there are very practical reasons to avoid using violence

The oppressors are experts in violence. So for example in India the British army gunned down over 400 civilain at a peaceful protest in Amritsar in 1919 (firing over 1600 bullets into a crowd)

Long before that they had used violence to quell what the british authorities called 'the Indian Mutiny' but what is nowadays more correctly being called the Indian rising because it was people pushing back against armed colonists. Prisoners were strapped to the front of cannons and then blown apart.

So the British had shown themselves to be willing to use extreme violence to control people. Violence is the specialty of the oppressors....it's their game. if you use violence you're playing on their turf

So that's one practical reason. Another reason is that even if you defeat your enemy using violence there will be a cost to you not just in terms of physical loss and damage but also in terms of mental and spiritual scarring. In a sense you become the monster you are trying to fight

So if you are trying to build a better world you don't want to build it on foundations of blood and bone because then you are already off on the wrong foot

In the US south black people were being lynched so the oppressors there were showing that they were willing to use extreme violence and intimidation.

So King like Ghandi understood all these things. he knew they had to rise above and be better than the oppressors if a better world was to be created.

Moreover I don't understand how people could follow those two and then grieve to the point of rioting when they were killed. What was the whole point of that? If their cause died with one man then they weren't very resolute, were they? Especially when the man was basically fatalist and did not worry about being killed. King even said it himself that he wasn't worried about being killed.
"I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord."

So why did they even bother to mourn for him and be angry that he was killed? What was the entire point? If you don't fear any man, don't want to protect yourself, and aren't worried about dying then why should you concern yourself about any earthly matters? There were already rumors of death threats floating around before King was killed, and assassins tried to kill Gandhi four or five times before finally succeeding. They both essentially had it coming to them and neither would have done anything about it so who are we to naysay it and mourn them?? That was clearly their destiny wasn't it??

This is why it is absolutely vital that people do not do things because they are being led

It is no good for people to follow someone else because they think that person understands things that they don't understand.

People need to do things because THEY THEMSELVES understand how the game is played, whats being done to them and by who and what they as aware and empowered people can do about it

if they then act together in a coordinated way it is through the understanding that working together brings the best results not through herd mentality

There is no use having one enlightened leader leading a million people; we need a million enlightened people working together through conscious choice because it makes sense to do so

 

[j654dgj7]

To answer the original question, I think that people are basically animals that just arrived out of the caves. Our brains haven't adapted to civilization yet, so we train our kids to be that way and hopefully they learn it and don't shoot up schools and stuff, but who knows? Who knows if it sticks? For a lot of people, civilization doesn't stick.

I think that's basically the same truth with countries. Some countries are more civilized than others, and some like weapons more than others. Okay, I know it's not just a natural occurrence. White men have ruined the planet, we're on the same page. Hopefully it's a matter of time before every person and country will be so civilized that people don't have weapons and states don't have weapons, but I'm not holding my breath.

Basically what we're doing is showing off our territory. We're saying "don't come here and tell me what to like when I like this thing!". We're afraid of most things, that's just the way our brains work. Our brains are extremely conservative. Just today I saw a small group of Middle Eastern teenagers talking together and I seriously considered moving away from my apartment for that reason. They were talking about soccer. It's not like they were a bunch of gang-bangers that were going to be breaking in to houses around midnight. There's no reason why I should be afraid of them, but that's the thing - we weren't hard-coded with reason. It's just this thing that we all expect every one to have. "Be reasonable!".

I don't have a weapon. I figure that if I die, bless 'em. I don't want to die, but I'm not going to walk around carrying a heavy and stupidly dangerous weapon to protect myself against an imaginary enemy in my head. And who am I to kill somebody? I'm just not narcissistic enough for an action like that. I guess I'm at the narcissism level of having to share my feelings with everyone on a message board, but not narcissistic enough to exterminate a fellow animal. I bet there's a scale somewhere that tells me how much of a narcissist that makes me!

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION]
Oh I totally agree.

I don't feel that violence should be used as punishment, or for revenge. Non violent resistance can be a key strategy in some cases.

I don't think it is right to go and bomb somebody else's house just because they bomb your house. I don't think it is right to shoot somebody else's protesters just because they shoot yours. I think the riots that happened after King and Gandhi were wrong and also illegal.

On the other hand I also feel that if you're complicit with something then you're saying that the perpetuation of it is acceptable. Like the conscientious objectors in various wars who decided to be medics or chaplains so they wouldn't have to shoot people - they're still being complicit by helping.

I think it is wrong to always respond with complete and equal violence but I feel it is also wrong to implicitly allow people to trundle bombs through your streets for example.

 

[digitalbum]

I think that success is a factor too, I dont believe in lost causes or martyrdom or poetic gestures, despite being Irish and all that, like mankind has been gifted with "fight or flight" and sometimes flight is a good idea, provided you're "advancing in a different direction" rather than simply retreating.

Although I know what you mean and I dont think that its something people should repress, that instinct to defend yourself, even if its doomed.

I'm no martyr. I assess a situation first. If it's someone I care about deeply, that MIGHT be a different story. Then, it's like you said, instinct.

I've actually only been in like 3 physical confrontations in my adult life, and that was AFTER trying to talk, or letting the drunk asshole get away with a little more than he should. Violence has always been a last resort for me, but it doesn't mean I don't know how to inflict it, and may possibly be a reason why I am able to avoid it, for the most part.

 

[digitalbum]

To answer the original question, I think that people are basically animals that just arrived out of the caves. Our brains haven't adapted to civilization yet, so we train our kids to be that way and hopefully they learn it and don't shoot up schools and stuff, but who knows? Who knows if it sticks? For a lot of people, civilization doesn't stick.

I think that's basically the same truth with countries. Some countries are more civilized than others, and some like weapons more than others. Okay, I know it's not just a natural occurrence. White men have ruined the planet, we're on the same page. Hopefully it's a matter of time before every person and country will be so civilized that people don't have weapons and states don't have weapons, but I'm not holding my breath.

Basically what we're doing is showing off our territory. We're saying "don't come here and tell me what to like when I like this thing!". We're afraid of most things, that's just the way our brains work. Our brains are extremely conservative. Just today I saw a small group of Middle Eastern teenagers talking together and I seriously considered moving away from my apartment for that reason. They were talking about soccer. It's not like they were a bunch of gang-bangers that were going to be breaking in to houses around midnight. There's no reason why I should be afraid of them, but that's the thing - we weren't hard-coded with reason. It's just this thing that we all expect every one to have. "Be reasonable!".

I don't have a weapon. I figure that if I die, bless 'em. I don't want to die, but I'm not going to walk around carrying a heavy and stupidly dangerous weapon to protect myself against an imaginary enemy in my head. And who am I to kill somebody? I'm just not narcissistic enough for an action like that. I guess I'm at the narcissism level of having to share my feelings with everyone on a message board, but not narcissistic enough to exterminate a fellow animal. I bet there's a scale somewhere that tells me how much of a narcissist that makes me!

I agree, humans so easily forget that we are animals. Just slightly smarter, with the ability to make weapons.

 

[sprinkles]

I don't think the civil rights cause died with MLK.

Btw.......and along came Malcom X. Very pacifist.

Oh true, but they're just advocating civil rights.

Who enforces the civil rights, hmm? Who is it that says you can't just go and shoot a black man?

 

[digitalbum]

Oh true, but they're just advocating civil rights.

Who enforces the civil rights, hmm? Who is it that says you can't just go and shoot a black man?

Well uh, the Black Panthers began to arm themselves and started saying that for one.

 

[sprinkles]

Well uh, the Black Panthers began to arm themselves and started saying that for one.

Really? That's the first thing you think of? Hmm?

Who made the Thirteenth Amendment?
Who made the Fourteenth Amendment?
Who signed the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968?
Who had the court case of Brown v. Board of Education in 1954?

What happened with the Little Rock Nine? Hmm??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Rock_Nine

Little Rock Nine were a group of African American students enrolled in Little Rock Central High School in 1957. Their enrollment was followed by the Little Rock Crisis, in which the students were initially prevented from entering the racially segregated school by Orval Faubus, the Governor of Arkansas. They then attended after the intervention of President Eisenhower.

National Guard blockade
Main article: Arkansas National Guard and the Integration of Central High School
Several segregationist councils threatened to hold protests at Central High and physically block the black students from entering the school. Governor Orval Faubus deployed the Arkansas National Guard to support the segregationists on September 4, 1957. The sight of a line of soldiers blocking out the students made national headlines and polarized the nation. Regarding the accompanying crowd, one of the nine students, Elizabeth Eckford, recalled:

They moved closer and closer. ... Somebody started yelling. ... I tried to see a friendly face somewhere in the crowd–someone who maybe could help. I looked into the face of an old woman and it seemed a kind face, but when I looked at her again, she spat on me.

On September 9, the Little Rock School District issued a statement condemning the governor's deployment of soldiers to the school, and called for a citywide prayer service on September 12. Even President Dwight Eisenhower attempted to de-escalate the situation by summoning Faubus for a meeting, warning him not to defy the Supreme Court's ruling.

Armed escort
Woodrow Wilson Mann, the mayor of Little Rock, asked President Eisenhower to send federal troops to enforce integration and protect the nine students. On September 24, the President ordered the 101st Airborne Division of the United States Army–without its black soldiers, who rejoined the division a month later–to Little Rock and federalized the entire 10,000-member Arkansas National Guard, taking it out of the hands of Faubus.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=11089]digitalbum[/MENTION]

Or basically my point is that the civil rights movement sought peaceful resolutions. They were not pacifist resolutions. There's a huge difference.

These peaceful resolutions have always been backed by force and guns. They aren't pacifist resolutions. The weight of force is still there in the sovereignty of the nation and its government and backed by its police and its army.

 

[digitalbum]

[MENTION=11089]digitalbum[/MENTION]

Or basically my point is that the civil rights movement sought peaceful resolutions. They were not pacifist resolutions. There's a huge difference.

These peaceful resolutions have always been backed by force and guns. They aren't pacifist resolutions. The weight of force is still there in the sovereignty of the nation and its government and backed by its police and its army.

Yeah, I knew you were fishing for the gubment.

MLK paved the way, and threw the civil rights movement with all it's imagery of dogs and firehoses aimed at blacks up on the national news. Thus getting the peoples' backing, thus the gubment, thus the ahhrmeee. And I'm from, live in Arkansas. Know all about it.

 

[sprinkles]

Yeah, I knew you were fishing for the gubment.

MLK paved the way, and threw the civil rights movement with all it's imagery of dogs and firehoses aimed at blacks up on the national news. Thus getting the peoples' backing, thus the gubment.

Government backing is force by proxy.