]]>
]]>
]]>
Ok, I have some issues with how this is worded, but lets accept that the proposition is: If you are perceived as a genuine threat or as a "problem" that you will either be 1) kidnapped (and presumably killed), 2) killed in a manner made to look like an accident, or 3) be publicly painted as a deluded fool (presumably in a dishonest manner). Ok, how is this proposition defended?
Ok, I have to comment on this in that there IS a plethora of evidence that supports every one of these scenarios, most especially item #3 in which one is painted to be a nut-job and what you offer is “quack-science” This is one of the JREF & CSICOP organization’s favorite dodges but you find it echoed in how certain government agencies operate as well, including the CIA, FBI and now Homeland Security (a.k.a. American Gestapo… trust me on this “prediction”) You will likewise see this same bias within the “scientific” and “academic” communities. Just look at the contentions around Global Warming/Climate Change and how big business has deliberately tainted and diluted the facts shared by researchers NOT dependent on “industry” based income/sponsorship, etc. (I’m not saying that some of this research isn’t biased; there are too many profiteers jumping on this bandwagon to not be so).
Ok, here's where the fallacies start. The proposition is that people who attempt to expose this government corruption are dispatched with or otherwise nullified. However, when presented with some examples of some very high profile people with large followings who are doing just that and apparently suffering no harm, rather than consider this to be evidence AGAINST the proposition, the OP invokes Special Pleading. 1) they haven't done enough damage yet - this effectively renders the proposition unfalsifiable - any case where measures are not taken can be explained away by this. 2) they are dupes who have been fed false information and serve some secret government use. Again this renders the original proposition unfalsifiable, and is also an argument from ignorance.
This is just a rephrasing of the previously stated views and thus, the answer is more or less, the same. While there are instances of “highly placed”/politically potent individuals don’t seem to suffer the negatives noted previously, you will find that they do loose influence and depending on whose toes they step on, could lose more at a quicker rate. They are not however, untouchable and unless they know how to play “the game” within the social-political arena, they will come to know a great deal of censure. Frequently this proves to be a slow-boat when it comes to persons of “high” standing, allowing them the opportunity to back-peddle. Again, we can see this in various situations IF we choose to look into such things.
Same thing with these examples. Rather than use the Jones and icke cases to consider it less likely that these three folks were assassinated by the "establishment", the OP is confirmed and rather than ask "does this make it less likely that JH, MLK and BJ were assassinated by the establishment, the question is simply asked why those three were picked for assassination and not Jone and Icke.
While I agree with the idea of not leaning too heavily on the Icke theories I do have to point out that the U.S. Government isn’t too abashed at removing problems. We have (unofficially) done this many times at home and abroad even though the official story is that we don’t do such things. If we didn’t, we’d really not need our own professional hit-men on payroll.
It is well known that Hoover had many personal agenda when it came to everyone from the Kennedy family and Martin Luther King to persecuting his own i.e. transvestites/homosexuals, etc. He kept more files and infringed on more rights of American citizens than any previous director but, he set a standard for such infringements that literally deprives all Americans of genuine privacy in today’s world. The expansion of these antics coming to us via the Patriot Act and invention of the Department of Homeland Security (which was attempted before {see:}… a strong-arm asset for the ultra-conservatives such as we caught a glimpse of during the Bush, Jr. reign of terror & debacle.
Churchmen would tell you that the best trick the devil every played on man was convincing us that he doesn’t exist. This is exactly how any covert/secret society/conspiracy element would operate that’s just plain logic and what magic fans would refer to as “misdirection”… a very common tool used at the military/intelligence level by ALL governments via misinformation programs, double-agents, etc. When the façade is properly set, it would be difficult to prove it a house of cards.
Statistics: Posted by Craig Browning — 08 Aug 2010, 23:41
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
Statistics: Posted by Scepcop — 29 Jul 2010, 12:11
]]>
Statistics: Posted by NinjaPuppy — 23 Jul 2010, 23:59
]]>
As for a "decorum vs. the more dramatic modes of expression", decorum is sooooo overrated.
But I sure do hate anything dramatic. I prefer a no nonsense, upfront approach. Especially when I'm expected to vote for a political candidate. To quote SCEPCOP: "NOTHING exists that we don't know about, so there are no "fantastic" secrets that are being kept from us." I would actually have to agree with that statement eventhough SCEPCOP was being facetious. There really are no fantastic secrets that are being kept from us because every danged political candidate lies through their teeths during their campaign. We are continually subjected to having to choose the lesser of two evils, rather than the best person for the job. Only those who conform to the agenda of those in power can rise to the top. It's not a hidden agenda either. We all know they are a bunch of slimeballs, the next one worse than his/her predicessor to make sure that the little guy never gets a slice of that tasty pie they dangle like a carrot. Yes, every once in a while, they throw us a 'wildcard' candidate that they can control completely to look good in front of the cameras (think Reagan) so that the next slimeball looks like a bargain and we all jump on the bandwagon in their propaganda mission for whatever BS they are selling that year.Statistics: Posted by NinjaPuppy — 23 Jul 2010, 23:56
]]>
I can agree with a lot of what you've said though I do believe that "discipline" is needed in life...such as learning to color within the lines and proper modes of effective speaking... I'm also one for decorum vs. the more dramatic modes of expression for the most part BUT, believe the latter has its time and place as well... the gods know I'm not one to bite my tongue
Then again, they are quite aware as to how I've found myself ostracized in a general way, because of my views and willingness to express them; this is especially true when it comes to my family, that ban of loving Christians who loathe me because of my sexual identity, my social-political beliefs and the level of my education over theirs (they think me arrogant because I graduated high school when most of them didn't)We mustn't blame the government completely when it comes to the sort of indoctrination process you're speaking of though, there is a far older and more cunning demon involved that shares the same bed -- Religion.
I can't recall the book I read it in, but the essence of what it expressed is that the Government passes laws and establishes the parameters of a society while the Church "governs" by way of psychological/emotional manipulation i.e. if you don't behave you'll go to hell... Of course, when theocracy becomes the rule there is no such thing as "freedom" on any front, so what we have is probably the lesser of the two poisons
Statistics: Posted by Craig Browning — 23 Jul 2010, 23:07
]]>