911 by far. People dont wanna believe because "it was sad, people died'

And it was treason.

Its so easily proven tho. People choose to not hear it

Hands down. The operation was so fucked up and has so many holes and people just don't want to see it because it means re-thinking everything they know.

9/11 has so many conflicting details and leaps of logic required to believe the official story. Laws of physics broke for that day in several different parts of the US.

All I want is for people to question the official story. That's all. Let's start there. I simply want them to take a small bit of their time to look into it and realize that there was some fishy bullshit going on. Look into it and draw your own conclusion. I don't care if they think it was just the CIA or if they go all the way to the thermite paint theory. I just want them to question what they've been told. If we can get that much going, I will be happy.

It's funny, but I direct so much traffic to the NIST FAQ, the FEMA metallurgical paper, and NIST final report that you'd almost think I support the official narrative. But nope, all I want to do is to get people to understand what the official narrative actually is . It's so indefensible when you get into the details, but almost no one ever does that.

Jesus, when I see someone asshole with 500 upvotes authoritatively explaining how the WTC floors pancaked I go a bit mental.

the pentagon and wtc7 are pretty big WTF even at just a quick glance.

those and Federal reserve are how i try to get people started.

waking people up can get aggresive/violent however when it's a core belief for some people.

Yep. It was treason.

I always liked the Coincidence Theorists Guide to 9/11 as a starting point for people who want to talk "controlled demolitions".

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.ca/2004/08/coincidence-theorists-guide-to-911.html

Since it focuses on (some of) the shenanigans going on leading up to 9/11, it lays out a great case for the means, motive, and opportunity, without needing to get into the specific forensics of "controlled demolition".

I was in denial for a long time. I don't know if this is the intended effect or not but Trump is actually the phenomena that broke down that wall. He made it so plainly obvious that we are watching political theater. My mind finally flipped to being like that scene in Stranger Things season 2, when Nancy is drunk and she's just like "THIS IS BULLSHIT!". So then I looked at all the evidence with fresh eyes. Holy shit man.

Not saying DT is good or bad. But it pushed me through the denial. The system is fucked.

I find it infuriating that places like r/conspiracy are gated and peddling made up conspiracies with the purpose to cover the real ones.

9/11 was a media hoax. The only real thing was that the buildings were brought down behind that massive smoke screen.

septembercluesDOTinfo

As long as we are believing things without questioning the topics may need discussion to get the thinking process going.

The no planes 9/11 might be one of such. At first when I saw it I thought there could be something to it, but today as there is more footage available I don't think it's the case. Would've been easier to fly in the planes than do it with CGI.

Some topics are infuriating indeed as people aren't willing to discuss about it like flat earth.

Either you are a troll or you have lost the capability to think logically (you are in good company).

The ONLY failsafe way to pull off 9/11 was to air a prerecorded movie that day and that was exactly what they did and are capable of. Just as they have done with many other "world events" including the Moon Landings.

How often do planes drop from the sky because of malfunction or such? I'd say flying a plane is quite failsafe too, especially if it is preprogrammed for a certain route. I can think plenty of more things to go wrong with a prerecorded movie, like independent footage of an explosion but no plane and no eyewitnesses for planes. Then some other things that could be verifiable like having different weather IRL and in the movie, or something happening that'd be visible but couldn't be predicted and put into the movie.

For some Moon landings I think they could have had recorded some things in advance just to be sure all looks good. But to have it all prerecorded seems impossible to me. I am not sure if the footage especially from the later missions could be faked even today. And that's only a part of it.

How often do planes drop from the sky because of malfunction or such?

You do realize I hope, since you are at least woke enough to read r/conspiracy even though it's almost nothing but disinfo, that the planes flew in ways that are physically impossible on 9/11. And there's a simple explanation for that - It was a prerecorded movie and all the upset relatives and firemen and conspiracy profiles like Jim Fetzer and 9/11 truth are there to make that movie true to you and everyone. Geddit?

Find out more at Cluesforum.info

Yeah I do, they most probably wasn't the passenger planes they were supposed to. CGI or not, that much I agree here. Assuming no CGI, if we knew what kind of planes they were it could be proven if they behaved in a physically impossible way. At the moment that they exceeded the limits of the alleged planes they were is not proof to me it was CGI.

Relatives can be upset no matter how people died and I have no doubt whoever was behind the false flag had no issues with getting people killed in whatever way is the most convenient. I don't know who is Jim Fetzer, but you don't need to be a public/conspiracy figure to have had a relative die or have witnessed the event.

Why do you think the Pentagon attack was not CGI'd too? Not saying this is an argument against what you're saying, but asking genuinely.

Why do you think the Pentagon attack was not CGI'd

I do think it was fake. Media has been used throughout the entire 20th century to fool us with images. We are probably the most decived generation in history. Go read on Cluesforum.

I tried reading the forum. If you can point me to some good bits about either 911 or the Moon landings I'd be glad to read. Especially about Moon landings as that is more settled as being mostly true in my head. True in the sense that men walked on the Moon, but some aspects of it may be fake.

I think the Pentagon was not hit by a plane either. Also Shanksville. But about the towers I am inclined to say some planes did hit. If there was only the news broadcast footage available I'd be less sure, but there's plenty more.

why didn't they put a plane in the video, or to multiple CCTV videos

Because the conspiracy theorizing that goes on at places like r/conspiracy helps psychologically confirming the event the way they want it to be confirmed – That something real happened and that there where no image fakery involved. The clues to what happened in the contrived conspiracies always looks a the imagery of the event. We can see with our own eyes that 9/11 was a controlled demolition and the camera doesn’t lie . JFK was of course murdered. We all saw that on TV. Let’s scrutinize the imagery to find out what really happened and don’t for once come up with a theory that maybe JFK wasn’t shot at all and that the murder might have been a movie production.

I don't see the logic. Something real did happen and it had consequences.

If I had to draw some conclusions about how the discussions here or anywhere help "their" goals is by having all the concentration on the act itself, not in the motives or whos and whys. Sometimes the discussions do help in confirming the event in one way or another, I agree.

I tried again looking at the forum, but I have to say it sounds even more like an echo chamber than this sub. I read some chunks of the "why rockets don't work in space" thread and then quit again.

I don't see the logic. Something real did happen and it had consequences.

Nope. No evidence that anyone died on 9/11 exist, but since what we've see on TV is real if the news anchor says it is, very few people seem to be able to grasp this.

And rockets have no way of working in vaccum. Physics, including Newton says no.

Didn't say anything specific about what was real. But something was I guess you agree too.

In your opinion does any form of propulsion work in space? (currently available tech)

It doesn't. Plain simple physics. As the air gets thinner a rocket will lose its momentum and fall back to earth. Nothing man made has gone into orbit.

If you accelerate a mass and throw it away / let go of it, in any way, be it a bowling ball or exhaust gas, will lead to a +-0 change in total momentum and as one can observe the mass going away, the other part that threw it needs now move to the other direction.

Why would a rocket lose momentum when air gets thinner? I read in the forum that rockets push themselves against air. If no air is present there is nothing to push against. Why is it invalid to think accelerating a mass and releasing it is not pushing the vessel/whatever against that accelerated mass?

Why is it invalid to think accelerating a mass and releasing it would be pushing the vessel/whatever against that accelerated mass?

There’s nothing wrong with thinking like that, it’s just that when it comes to rockets it is not relevant because they cannot operate with this principle. A rocket operates by a chemical reaction that converts its fuel into gas and heat. But if that reaction does not have anything to react against outside the system, like air molecules, then there can simply be no Newtonian action/reaction. So a rocket will for example work in air and water, but if there are no molecules outside the rocket in can react against, as with vacuum, then no movement. This is and has been proven with experiments despite what you can find on Youtube. The rocket experiments there are flawed usually because they use a vacuum chamber that are small enough to let the rocket push against the wall of the chamber and then pressurize the chamber with its own exhaust gasses.

A gun in space would produce a Newtonian action/reaction. Because then the gas expansion have something to react against – the bullet. The gas will push the bullet through the barrel, and in that process push the gun the other way provided the space between the bullet and gun is gas tight.

As with your bullet example, you don't need anything to react with outside the system. Think of replacing the bullet with gas. An explosion will force that out, and keep repeating the process and you have a continuous thrust. Assuming the gas would stay in place like the bullet, but that's just in the case of a single explosion. For a continuous process where the expelled mass gets more velocity than would happen by just vacuum sucking it out you will have something "to push against".

If you had two sources of liquid in the vacuum of space, oxidizer and fuel, aimed towards each other from a good distance, they would react upon getting in contact and then expand to every direction due to nothing restraining that reaction. Thus the point of the reaction stays stationary, nothing to react against (other than other molecules produced in the reaction, but net change would be zero).

The restraint in rockets is the combustion chamber and next is the nozzle. They make sure the products of the reaction are pointed at a certain direction and thus it is very much like shooting out bullets. If the chamber & nozzle did not place constraints for the gases they would be going through the vessel to every direction, which would lead to the vessel staying stationary, also being a bit odd.

If the exhaust gases expand to any direction other than equally everywhere (or in some number of directions than cancel each other out), where do they gain their momentum and where is the counter-action to that gained momentum? If you are saying there is such things as actions without counter-action then I don't know how to discuss this. I can see the laws in action every second and I cannot think of a reason why vacuum would cancel some basic laws.

As with your bullet example, you don't need anything to react with outside the system.

Logical fallacy. The bullet is something outside the system since it leaves the system permanently.

If you look into it with a mind that not presupposes that rockets have to work in vacuum because satellites/ISS you will find that it is in direct contradiction with known and verified physics. In particular Fluid dynamics and Thermodynamics.

If you want explanations on how GPS, Satellite TV and what we see moving rapidly across our skies are, look into Triangulation, Loran, Skywave and near earth objects/asteroids. This is thoroughly gone through at Cluesforum. And no, you don’t have to buy into that the earth is flat to understand these matters. The Flat Earth campaign is disinfo. The astronomer Ptolemy from 100 AD explains very well in his book Almagest (google almagest English translation) why Earth can be nothing but round.

Realized I wrote that out rather misleading. The same applies to whether the mass is gas or something solid, nevertheless it is something you can push against. Did you read my reply further?

I did, but I’ve been in countless discussions like this before and frankly its becoming a bit frustrating. Gas is free molecules. When a solid/fluid mass transforms into gas as with rockets the molecules cannot magically react with each other and produce Newtonian inertia. Rocket science is pseudoscience that has noting to do with reality.

Do you believe exothermic chemical reactions are at all possible in a vacuum? If so, where does the energy of that reaction go?

Yes of course I do. The energy/expansion follows the laws of physics described in fluid/thermal dynamics. If the molecules of a gas expansion encunters no resistance, the will be a free molecular flow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_molecular_flow . The gas/heat from a chemical reaction will have no way to convert into kinetic energy if there's nothing outside the system to react with. It's like if you had turned on a powerful laser at the back of your rocket. Yes, lots of energy will go into the void of space, but there's no way that energy can turn into motion.

Actually light has momentum too and does produce thrust.

The gas does encounter resistance in a rocket combustion chamber and in the nozzle. Likewise does in a gun.

If you had an explosion happening behind an object in space and the fast traveling gas hit the object, would it go through it, bounce off without any action on the object, or give momentum?

Keep it to what have actually been verified with experiment. Kind of important in these days of pseudoscience.

An explosion in space will not produce any pressure since the molecules will expand in the direction with least resistance

That photons have momentum or that in gas can expand & produce pressure in vacuum? What is our atmosphere if not gas in vacuum?

That light can produce motion is what I'm sceptical of.

Perhaps it would help you to think about it this way: What is pressure? Evenly (because it's free molecules) distributed gas in an area. More gas more pressure. What is vacuum? No pressure. Absence of gas. So what will free molecules do there? Distribute themselves according to entropy until it gets crowded which it never will because it's an unrestricted vacuum.

Indeed if you take a box of air and open it in space, they will happily distribute themselves freely as you say. Unless you enforce some constraints or build up a heavy pressure that forces them to act in a certain way, like happens in an explosion that produce temperatures & pressure from the mixed components. I can think they way you suggested, but can't relate that to why gas could not have constraints in vacuum. The Earth places constraints on the gas too. If it didn't our atmosphere would escape, freely, to space, vacuum, but it doesn't.

Go to this site and read that to find about photons ;-)

Another help for thought: The argument for "rockets work in vacuum because Newton" often brings up high velocity as if that would be a factor. But no matter how fast the chemical reaction is it still have to have something to build up pressure against and that cannot be itself. Imagine bringing down the reaction into slow motion. Each molecule will slowly drift away maybe bounce into something but then find the direction where it will float away into the endless vaccum of space. No interaction. No pressure buildup.

I guess this is pointless if you think free molecules cannot transfer momentum. To each other or to another object.

I wonder how propellers work. It seems gas is interacting with the propeller. Or wind, it tends to feel on your skin or even try to bump you over if the gust is strong enough.

Produce a controlled explosion with molecules bouncing off the object in front of it will lead to momentum transfer from the molecules to the object. A rocket in another words.

After the gas exits the nozzle they indeed are free to do whatever, but while they are constrained they do interact with each other and the nozzle / chamber.

Again, if they didn't, wouldn't they pass straight through said object / nozzle / chamber / rocket, without having an effect?

I guess this is pointless if you think free molecules cannot transfer momentum. To each other or to another object.

I have the same feeling because you and most others don't seem to grasp actually very simple physics. Of course a propeller works. But what is the difference between water and vacuum? Molecules. So the molecules in the propeller have something to interact with as opposed to rockets and vacuum.

Can you answer what an explosion producing gas behind and object in space will do to that object?

The way an explosion works is that it produces a pressure difference/wave. Think of it as throwing a rock into a pond. The bird that flies by will be unaffected but when it lands in the lake the adjacent fish will notice.

In an unrestricted vacuum like space we get the same effect. The molecules “set free” by the chemical reaction will not have to push any existing molecules away in all directions in the medium to expand (since there simply is no medium). Thus no pressure wave in the medium. Thus no “effect” of the explosion.

Another way to think of it that this is also it means that a vacuum is completely frictionless. No reaction occurs between the molecules in an moving object and the surrounding ones (since there are none). If you would drop that rock high up in space within earths attraction field it will pick up speed constantly until it encounters the atmosphere. And then as with meteorites it will burn up because of the high momentum it has picked up in the vaccum causing an intense reaction with the surrounding molecules.

Alright, next question. Can you explain why molecules are "set free" and will not need to push any existing molecules away?

Assume a case of 1 moleucle, then 2, and then any number.

Sure. Again slow down the reaction in your mind and watch molecule no 1 pop away from its confinement. It will drift away without interacting with any other molecules since there are none and keep its speed. Then molecule 2 pops and even if it has the exact same direction as no 1 it will never be able to catch up with it and cause a reaction since no 1 is a tiny bit ahead losing no speed. This is what free expansion means.

Now think of the confinement as not a singular point in space, but a volume that is reacting and producing those molecules. What happens with the molecules and to which direction do they go and why?

Now think of the confinement as not a singular point in space, but a volume that is reacting and producing those molecules. What happens with the molecules and to which direction do they go and why?

Too close to breaking through? ;)

Listen, the reason I haven’t replied again because I simply don’t have the time and already had countless discussions on this (look at my comment history) and sadly it seems impossible for the majority to comprehend what basic verifiable physics, like fluid-/thermodynamics, says about the alleged function of rockets in a vacuum. I understand this is hard to comprehend, because the implications are so vast. But for the sake of sanity just TRY to look at these things without having the things you THINK must be true about Satellites in the back of your head. Confidence can be good, and bad (arrogance). If it makes any difference, I’m 40+ and hold an MSc, but of course I’ve have not doubted rockets either until I found reason to recently. I’ve been a fool just as much.

Doesn't make a difference. This isn't a game, but hard reality. I don't want to go through your posts to find clues. It is easier if someone explained why fluid/thermodynamics don't apply in space. "Free expansion" is not an answer to cover it all. It's very basic things, like what is gas pressure and why it exists (in space and on Earth).

This isn't a game, but hard reality

I agree. That's why I'm spending time to get anyone who'll listen to understand that we've been dragged into a rabbit hole the entire 20th century. And as long as we're stuck there very little actual human progress can occur.

And I appreciate that. Only thing that bothers me here is that you don't seem to take the last step in explaining your theory. Usually that means someone doesn't understand what he's talking about, or doing it on purpose.

I would be plenty happy understanding a major scale fuck us in the ass scenario, going beyond the usual theatrics of money & power.

But still, you have contradicted yourself a few times, saying you think pressure in gas is possible in space, and then it isn't, and the explanation you have is "free expansion". I am not sure you understand what that might even means - why particles / molecules move in space the way they do or allegedly do.

What is pressure in gas? Do or don't the molecules interact with each other?

In some response you said they'd need magic to interact with other objects, if I remember right even with each other. Physics could aswell be magic because we don't understand it fully, but there are certain reasons why a gaseous volume gain temperature when forced into smaller and smaller volume, and tend to want to expand the more there is pressure. If there is none, one molecule surrounded by vacuum without any significant force acting on it, there is no expansion happening to any direction. It already needs pressure as a prerequisite.

Pressure is born from molecules interacting with each other. If it so happens an explosion happens in a volume, not in a singular point, some of the molecules are forced to move closer to each other, and not follow one and other as in your example of two molecules coming from a singular point. Just like on Earth, in our atmosphere, in vacuum chamber tests, or wherever here, the molecules interact and it manifests as something we call pressure.

If you can have pressure, you already have forces acting, between the molecules in this case, and those forces are directly able to influence other molecules or solid objects, made up of molecules aswell. They don't need to be molecules even, but apart from the laser example that's what we've been discussing about.

Hi murtokala and thank you for the encouragement. I may not be very good at explaining. I'm reaching for non abstract antologier to explain what to me is very straightforward - Rockets in vacuum contradicts fundamental and proven physics.

I suggest that you ponder this by yourself for a while if it's interesting to you. I'm here if you have questions but now I feel we're going in circles.

All the best /Patrix

special shout out to the guy driving near me on today's morning commute. had a "9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB" bumper sticker. I was like fuck yeah my dude

people who say the way the buildings fell was totally normal might be the most maddening.

Oh so basically another holocaust

all races are equal

The fuck?

There is only one human race.

Wait I don’t actually know what exactly you’re saying here...

He is using semantics. There is only the human species. But it has many races, ethnicities, however you want to call it. Nobody is equal to anybody else.

There is also the human race, but yes, still semantics.

But I bet he has Genghis Khan DNA and doesn't call himself a Mongol.

People really don't like genetics in this context. We are all mixed race genetically, we are all one family. That's just a scientific perspective though, biology might be a good thing to consider and not throw away for tribalism, I think.

And what I said is simply nobody is equal to anybody else not even two oneegged twins are.

Yes. But still it seems you are interpreting equal as better or worse in some regard then saying people are not better or worse. 'Equality' was always meant in a human rights context of personhood. We don't fundamentally disagree here, I just think biology has its own valuable element in the context of humans and races and racism. It is actually a separate point from personhood. We can all generally agree as a society on human rights, but when people are baited into racism itself, based on false biological premises, I think its ok to point out the biological fact that we are one, not different as a whole. As you expressed, we are different individually.

You don't call a black lab and a yellow lab different races of dog, because the category of 'race' is rooted only in culture and not biology.

Sorry for not writing a long response to this as I think what i just wrote in response to idgafabtwhatyouthink should provide you with a sufficient answer, if not feel free to ask again.

And there is only one species of dog. The lie is that there are different breeds.

Good point. And still they're all mutts until we decide what constitutes a pure breed, since their case is so artificial, and their genetics are so vastly different to each others because of it.

Its cool to know they are still just our distant cousins heretically.

Right, and in the same way, what constitutes a race is also artificial. That doesn't mean that there aren't significant genetic differences between those artificial classifications, though.

I wouldn't call them significant. Geneticists wouldn't either. And no, artificial selection doesn't quite apply to humans the same as it does for dogs. The point is its up to you to decide where race lines are drawn. Or rather, society, which you're a part of. Its been done for us, its only natural. Most people go with the obvious, like color. Those lines are fading away nowadays tho. To define one's race accurately a lot of people need multiple terms. In fact we all do really, its just only obvious on a genetic level not a visual one.

Sorry I made points about our 99.9 percent genetic similarity between any random stranger. If that bothers you, sorry. I seem to be the only one making this point, I think we would be much better off if we all did. Even if you don't care its still true.

" How many single base pair variations would you expect between yourself and a randomly selected person from a street corner? Sequencing efforts such as the 1000 genomes project give us a rule of thumb. They find about one SNP per 1000 bases. That is, other components set aside, the basis for the claim that people are 99.9% genetically similar. But this genetic similarity begs the question: how come we feel so different from that person we run into on the street? Well, keep on reading to learn of other genetic differences, but one should also appreciate how our brains are tuned to notice and amplify differences and dispense the unifying properties such as all of us having two hands, one nose, a big brain and so forth. To an alien we probably would all look identical, just like you may see two mice and if their fur coat is the same they would seem like clones even if one is the Richard Feynman of his clan and the other the Winston Churchill"

There absolutely are statistically significant genetic differences between the races. I have read the articles, and I have a PhD in biochemistry.

Here is an example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/

And here is the pertinent bit: "sufficient genetic data can permit accurate classification of individuals into populations."

So, while individuals from different populations (or races) can be more genetically similar to each other than they are with another member of their race, a scientist could look at the genetics of an individual and accurately determine what their race is. I hope that makes sense.

Sorry I made points about our 99.9 percent genetic similarity between any random stranger. If that bothers you, sorry.

Why on earth would that bother me? Its actually completely beside the point. Most genetic elements are highly conserved because they are required for basic biochemical processes.

Appreciate that. I don't think its completely besides the point in the context of this thread tho, where Im trying to emphasize the greater* similarities between different populations (or races) of our species, specifically because people who aren't interested in biology don't often bother to distinguish between the words races and species in a literal sense. They do it to make a point about Us vs Them and promote separation or inferiority, and like another theme in this thread, there is good reason to make a case for our similarities. You're making a big point about such a small genetic difference rather than make the point about the gigantic genetic similarities. Thank you for making the point, its just the science, but its also better to clarify what you mean in this particular context. A conspiracy thread with a racial debate. And the more proper term is populations right? Aren't there many subsets of populations? Does society determine all those subsets when using the word race?

Anyway, I understand a geneticist can determine a shit ton about an individual on that basis, thanks for the link! But is it really A or B or C in the way that people regularly use the word race? I appreciate correcting me if I'm wrong, but would the geneticist say this person is Asian, and leave it at that? It wouldn't be more complicated? Because that's how most of the world sees the word race. I don't know if "Sufficient genetic data can permit accurate classification of individuals into populations" can simply be translated to 'can determine your race.' And even then the differences in how we live and experience our lives is not very extreme. The wording is exact for a reason it seems because its a scientific hereditary perspective, not a classification by means of superficial color-coded people.

Look, most of my motivation was to point out how we are probably 1000x more alike than we are different, is that so crazy? I should have made it succinct and clear.

Sorry I'm getting too used to paranoid creationist type responses, I jumped the gun.

Yup, its a very nuanced subject. And like you said and like the paper I linked says, we are very similar, and people of different populations or races can sometimes (but not usually) be more similar to one another than other individuals within their own population or race!

I think people go to far on both sides. One will say "the races are completely different, I'm nothing like people from that other race. None of them are as smart as I am!" And the other side says, "No, race is only skin color. Otherwise we are all exactly the same."

I think the truth is somewhere in between those two extremes. It is a very touchy subject, and made more complicated because our definition of what makes a race is arbitrary and not based on anything scientific really.

But I think there are undeniable differences between, say someone from Kenya who's ancestors have been there for hundreds of generations, and someone who is likewise pure Japanese. The physiological differences that we see are not purely aesthetic. It would be intellectually dishonest to say that those genetic differences that lead to those physiological differences do not have some effect on the brain, and therefore behavior, personality and intellect as well.

Yeah that's crazy stuff, how it might be the opposite of what appearances might tell you, or it might be spot on. I think another aspect is that we drifted apart for so long, and now (since antiquity) our populations are mingling again, so its just a big messy pie.

I suppose a good lesson to reference is not to get the "ought from the is"

Nature is brutal and beautiful and apathetic all the same. We shouldn't be looking at the way something IS, in nature or in modern culture or whatever, to then determine what OUGHT to be. We can make that determination ourselves.

You made a good point that its just extreme on either side of the idea. One side fears loss of culture or control, whereas the other fears neo social darwinism used against them or others. Both are valid fears in their own respects.

It’s intellectually dishonest.

Equal means the same.

Denying those differences, and attempts to deny those differences are the large “hypnotic hook” for lack of a better term. It’s the lie that everybody has to agree to believe.

The truth is far more comfortable:

We are different, it’s OK, and it should be celebrated.

“How are you different from me? Neat! This is how my people do it.”

But once the PC lens of “sameness” has been put on a society, is there any room to even mention difference without being branded racist?

In this way, societal expectations of equality foment tension.

Okay, so I want to agree with most of that. Especially celebrating our differences. That’s good. Except for the fact that you’re still implying that there is an underdog in this equation, a lower, which is not true.

Prove that all people are equal. Define "equal", btw.

Yes.

Their intellectual capacities does not diminish their personhood.

Ok, then. You mean equal under the law, not equal in every way. I agree.

Then the statement is literally meaningless because nobody is equal to someone else. so unless there is something effective about being equal (for example, a cow isn't equal to a human so it's ok to eat cows) there's no point in bringing it up. If you're claiming the races aren't equal you're implying certain races should have more rights/power/preferences than others.

All races are not equal at everything. Accept the truth and move on.

lol, you just contradicted yourself. If the races aren't equal then the people within those races must be equal with each other but you said no one's equal which would then make race irrelevant to equality. Ahahahahaha

No, you are not very good at reading. Have a good one.

If nobody is equal then everybody is equally unequal.

Equality in this context is about personhood. People who conflate that are doing so on purpose, or are repeating things they heard before. No one ever thought that everyone was the same. Its just not how the word is being used, or ever was in a human rights context.

I think you're conflating differences among races with superiority and inferiority. Differences are observable facts, superiority and inferiority are subjective opinions.

So if you're white, you think Asians are superior because they score higher I'm IQ tests? And they should have more rights and more power because of this?

If that is the only metric being compared, yes. Does that mean every white person is dumber than every asian? Nope. Does it mean I can do a little math in my head if it's absolutely necessary to make that comparison and get pretty close? Yep.

What?

Who is talking about rights and power besides you? Nobody is questioning that every person should have the same rights and obligations. But this does not make two people equal.

You are not equal to your father, to you mother, to your brother or sister let alone some other guy from around the world. People can be more or less similar based on their genes and culture and live experience but never be equal. The only way to have everyone being equal is everybody being a clone living the exact same life. How boring.

Because that's the resultant behaviour of a society in which the idea of racial superiority is accepted.. People are not treated as equals if they're not considered as equals.. I didn't think it really needed explanation, I guess some people just have one dimensional minds

Sorry but this is bs. People being different - every single one being unique - is what brings our civilization forward because different people combining their strengths. Not everyone being the same.

Get yourself a dictionary and look up the words "different" and "equal". You'll be surprised to learn that they are different concepts. What you're actually talking about is difference, not equality..

people can only be equal if there is no difference. As I said before this has nothing to do with rights. People can be equal before the law. But two persons can never be truly equal.

Define equal, in your opinion?

It has multiple meanings. Equality in rights and obligations is one where we are both on the same side i suppose. Then there is equality which means equal in capabilities which is not true for any two persons. Which also means I did not make any assumptions of "races" as a whole. I am speaking about individuals, there is no other way to compare. That example about asians being better in mathematics is worthless, if mathematics is not the thing that counts in a given situation. Every person has different capabilities in all the fields there are. THIS is why I say there is and has never been nor will ever be equality. Not between two white people, not between to black people not between a white and a black, because race does not matter, the individual does. Then there is equality in status which I did not even touch yet. The color of your skin should have nothing to do with that in my opinion.

So I am left handed, my friend is right handed, therefore we are not equals...?? I'm done with this. I can feel my IQ dropping with each of your comments

If you don't get it, well, sorry for you.

Aw man. I feel like I'm missing out on so much!! If only I could be as happy and as cool as you guys!!

I have no time for psuedointellctual pothead philosophy.. I feel like I'm arguing with a twelve year old. Goodbye, uninformed stranger. Ask santa Claus for a few books this year.. Knowledge is power!

I don't think being similar is anything to do with being equal.

You are sort of proving the argument that races aren't equal. When it comes "superiority," that is entirely subjective and depends on what sorts of traits you value. And of course, there is lots of variation within the races. There are black people who are smarter than 99% of asians, and asians who are more athletic than 99% of black people, etc.

isn't racism communistic? Considering they don't believe in individualism.

Freedom

4D chess

the 6 million

Do u mean global population ?

SIX MILLION JEWS 1915-1938 HD - YouTube Video for 6 million figure before ww2▶ 22:10 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dda-0Q_XUhk

Ahh haha it was strange...I though u meant that world population is about 6 billion....

Why would you assume that?? Are you twelve

Nope man, but I heard about some conspirations that we are not as much as goverments say

600 billion

Yeah a lot more than 6 million died

I don’t think that’s what he meant as the video he linked says the holocaust “allegedly” happened

yeah, lots of chinese and japanese died, also many native americans, yet it is only illegal in some countries to say anything bad about the jewish, this is unfair to say the least

Okay cupcake

In which country is it illegal to say you don't like jews? Here in Germany you can say that, on the other hand denying the Holocaust is illegal here and the absolute majority of the Germans is pretty fine with that. Maybe because we did dig a bit deeper in our own history and saw the things that happened.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/dec/12/antisemitism-definition-government-combat-hate-crime-jews-israel

I'm x-posting this from another thread I just posted this in, about this exact topic.

The 6 million number. Plain and simple.

I'm not saying millions didn't die. I'm not saying denying a holocaust ever happened. I'm simply saying, the fact that "historians" cling to this number so hard is half of the reason why there are "revisionist historians" in the first place.

Have you ever seen the number of times the 6 million figure was used before WW2, and it's religious implications? Check out this for examples.

Even when they drastically changed the official number of those who died in camps, the total 6 million number remained unchanged by attributing the difference to other categories.

All I'm really trying to say is that there is MUCH more to the tragedies of WW2 than you've most likely ever been told. Unfortunately, you're forbidden to ever question the narrative we've all been given (after all, the victors write the history books, right?). It's even illegal in some countries to question the narrative.

I'm not some anti-Semetic lunatic, nor am I trying to be disrespectful to anyone by asking either. But I feel that the amount of effort put into making sure that nobody challenges the official narrative with legitimate scrutiny, really just raises even more questions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Holocaust_denial#Death_Toll

That's it? That's all you have to say in response? Wikipedia is arguably the WORST place to try and get information on controversial subjects.

Username checks out, I guess.

fwiw. it is a good summary.

Albeit a heavily skewed summary, I agree.

My question is, if the ideas of "denialists" are so preposterous and unfounded... why is there a need to make it illegal in 14 countries? Shouldn't the arguments they make discredit themselves?

In the "Holocaust?" No. By the Bolshevik Communists? Yes.

Nice use of quotes. Guessing you're a denier

Depends on what you mean by "denier."

I just watched Geostorm so I am going to say propaganda from CIA Hollywood films.

So much predictive programming and pervasive programming.

See this movie if you want to laugh.

I just watched this for shit and giggles this past weekend, it was quite humorous

Stranger Things anyone?

??

I'm confused by your comment.

They are rubbing our noses in the truth.

ah so implying Geostorm has more truth than we want to let on. I can see it. Most movies these days seem somewhere caught up in the truth or at least "this is what happened on Earth 2" type shit

That eating meat and dairy is Good for health. when it is absolutely terrible for humans.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5541848/

Hello, I'm a bot! The movie you linked is called What the Health , here are some Trailers

Yup milk is cow pus.

And iys yummy on my cereal.

Eating meat is fine. Diary is ass if you’re done growing

yeah wrong... thats the infuriating part. what our digestive tract is design to eat is not up for debate. it is what it is. if you looked at some evidence you would see.

evidence? Facts? Proof?

Your condescension doesn't count as proof buck-o

Good luck with your meat...

Exactly. I ask for any amount of proof and all you have to say is "ya you do that" "have fun with that" always redirecting the conversation.

Humans are and have always been omnivores, thats not hard to see. Dna testing on ancient preserved specimens shows meat in their digestive tracts.

So...? It was a necessity then, not now. Your argument is not logical. There is a lot of research available showing meat causing heart disease and diabetes. Don't blame me for your lazy inability to do your own research.

Eating meats in such high portions is not ideal no. I never said it was you fucking cunt.

I was arguing your "DONT EAT MEAT AT ALL ITS BAD FOR YOU OOOoooOOoOOOoo" point.

Obviously anything In too high a dose is bad for you like fuck off. Water can kill you if you drink too much. Ohhh better fucking quit drinking wayer and dehydrate myself to death.

Your petulance is showing.

BTW asking for "proof" illustrates your intellectual immaturity. Probably as a result of eating too much meat...animal fat impedes nerve impulse transmission.

Uh uh. Ok thanks :). Ill take my stupid immature brain and go look for this "information" that you allude to and probably never find a clear and concise place on it because nobody can fucking explain it clearly.

You could literaly get people to join your point of view. But NOOooOoOoOo you need to tell people their stupid and act like a fucking wanker just because somebody cant understand where the fuck out of left field you came from.

Piss off.

bro i could show you stacks and stacks of evidence and i will if you need me to, but if you just checked google for yourself you are more likly to believe it. just check google regarding our colons....... also fact check if we are frugivores. the human race has had its vision blurred.... just check the evidence for yourself. peace. :D

And im entirely open to hearing it. And YES! PLEASE EXPLAIN!

Like I said, my googling of whatever he is trying to say could end up with varying results based on my previous search results or any number of things. Maybe I dont put credit in what he puts credit into.

The most aggrevating thing about this sub is that when you ask so eone for proof or substance they automaticaly resort to "youre a shill" "youre too blind" "sheeple"

The entire point of a debate or presenting your point of view is to be able to back it up with why you believe what you believe.

mate there is a mountain of proof... i will send you it but you have to fact check it yourself please. in this case its easy to see which is truth and which is big business propadanda. as they can't openly lie. but if you ask any zoo keeper or anyone who studies physiology its right there as proven science. we are apes, great apes in fact. the difference between monkeys and apes is that monkeys have tails. all apes are frugivores/herbivore.

our closest relatives are gorilla chimpanzie, bonobo and orangutan. all are frugivores.

we have very similar anatomy (organs) if you feed these apes meat... they get the same diseases as sick people in who eat western food..

this book explains it well https://www.amazon.co.uk/China-Study-Comprehensive-Nutrition-Implications/dp/1932100660

if you don't want to read it this doco explain the book.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1567233/

please at least read the reviews

Hello, I'm a bot! The movie you linked is called Episode dated 25 May 2011 , here are some Trailers

Thank you!! This is all I wanted.

I will read up shortly when I get the time.

ok i have loads more.. please let me know what you think....

Sorry, Nothing there gives me any confidence in your stance. I've also looked up anything i could on google and as I suspected most of the "articles" are just that. articles and not scientific experiences or understanding. I studied history for years and i can't even fathom how humans would have been able to evolve the way we have without the higher nutrient value and proteins found in animal meat. We don't need to eat half as much as we do today, but i just can't get on board with the ban all meat wagon.

meh timewaster

Because i disagree?

What the health is a prop piece for the sugar industry. Terrible information in their. Sugar is not responsible for diabetes? Jesus, seriously? You should go to /r/keto and read some of the success stories there.

I'm not totally disagreeing with you though. Meat and dairy are terrible for the environment, so they're probably not good for humans, but in a different way.

its not the case my friend. what the health is 100% correct (((They))) just don't want you to know it... if you look into it there is stacks of evidence to prove it.

diabetes is caused by intracellular fat, that stops sugar from getting into the cells to builds up.

things you can check for yourself... our cells are fueled by sugar (glycogen) why would our fuel be a problem to us?

as soon as you go low fat high carb diabetes will start to resolve in a matter of a few days.

consider why there are so many what the health advocates and high carbers who are thriving, the raw food diet is considered to be the healthiest.... as can be plainly seen these foods break down into sugar and not fat.

please look at the reviews of these books

https://www.amazon.co.uk/China-Study-Comprehensive-Nutrition-Implications/dp/1932100660

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1567233/

Hello, I'm a bot! The movie you linked is called Episode dated 25 May 2011 , here are some Trailers

Flouride is necessary

Agreed. People are slowly catching on to the toxicity of daily tasks, so we can hope that will continue. Any amount of poison removed from the body is progress. There's also the importance of removing toxicity from your mind, which almost seems harder than the first. Any amount of meditation is progress though, we've got this.

National Security and Double Government .

Great read on this topic. Published in the Harvard National Security Journal. Legit author, legit source.

Heliocentrism.

You mean as the sun being the center of Sol is a conspiracy or do you mean people believe it to be the center of the universe?

He believes the earth is flat and is the centre of the universe.

It's really sad that people actually fall for this garbage.

Cannot even call that a conspiracy theory, it's plain lunacy.

Or plane lunacy

All the points to this guy!

Oh snap!

Who cares? People are going to think whatever they want to think. I'm 99.999% sure he is wrong, but this is a conspiracy forum after all and who are we to judge?

Conspiracy does not mean unfounded lunacy. The only way well ever be taken seriously is if we root out the crazies.

The only way well ever be taken seriously is if we root out the crazies.

I think that's a pretty dangerous mindset. Nobody appointed you as the arbiter of whether a conspiracy is valid or not. Where do you draw the line? Better to just ignore them in my opinion.

I draw the line at things which are proven 100% incorrect, like the flat earth bullshit.

That tax cuts for the richest humans on the planet translate to massive investments in business with a mind toward creating high paying jobs.

I bought that lie for almost 40 years of my life. It's so clearly a lie it's hard to believe I ever supported it. In my defense, I was 6 years old when Reagan became President and trickle down economics became a buzz phrase so the brainwashing was strong.

Everything is rigged to protect profits by those who stand to gain the most from that circumstance. As humans, if we acted more collectively, especially say in the field of healthcare great things could be accomplished. It's humbling how my life has seen payphones to cellphones yet similar advances and prioritization in civility remain stagnant.

Lol yeah, OOOOOKKKKKKK👌🏻

There will always be winners and losers, no matter what happens.

No one ever wins. No one finally loses. Except the dead. Under the sun, they rot together with absolute biological equality

But the 'winners' are winning disproportionately to their efforts.and the 'losers' are suffering despite their efforts.

We told them the wealth would trickle down

That mass surveillance is for our own security. They don't understand that terrorists will just go underground.

The terrorists are working with the people that watch us

The terrorists are the people that watch us

It's likely a mixture of both. The burden of proof is on the accuser though so I try to be careful who I call a terrorist if I have no solid evidence. We are definitely giving away too much privacy though, I know that. Let's not forget that most of these terrorists are also known to the spy agencies and they still carry out their attacks.

No one believes that, it's just that no one cares about it. It's not like you can do anything about it without a shit ton of hassle.

People still say "why worry if you have nothing to hide" though and it's terrible logic.

A better version is "why worry if you have nothing to give them". Which essentially means that you'll be fine as long as you stay out of the spotlight. Don't say anything controversial, don't run for office, don't be a public figure, etc. Most people do those things and don't need to worry.

Very true. The majority of the time when I raise these issues to the average Joe they probably think I mean all this data that they're collecting will be used against us immediatly, but it's definitely more a case of it sitting in the cloud in case you become a problem and they need to dig up dirt. They know the world is becoming more unstable so they build profiles on everybody so they can prevent uprisings. It's not to catch terrorists anyway, at least it isn't in my opinion. It's population control. The push for censorship, closed internet and the surveillance state is basically turning the west into a prison. We're funding it all as well, and being shamed into censoring ourselves. There is way too many layers to this mess.

I think the Trump campaign and Roy Moore has shown us that people don't really care about that kind of dirt any more, no matter how bad it is. So maybe in the future surveillance will lead to us being a more open society? Lol that's way too optimistic.

Maybe true in regards to the people not caring, but I think governments the giant corporations of this world care about dissenting opinions. Look at the way truthers and conspiracy theorists are being demonized and ridiculed at the moment for example. If you don't follow groupthink then you're under the watchful eye. As long you're only smart enough to work and consume, but not smart enough to use critical thinking then they don't care.

In the US the information collected by intelligence can't be used in courts yet so they just sit on their asses with it. Corporations use data mining pretty heavily for advertising and shit. Also I think that conspiracy theorists are getting more and more accepted nowadays at least among my age group. Shows like Stranger Things are pretty popular and once people realize that MKULTRA is real they start going down the rabbit hole. Also when I get intoxicated I sometimes let that shit out and people are surprisingly accepting of it.

That's good to hear. Maybe I just need to interact with less judgemental people on social media.

That anyone has the right to delegate to someone else a right which they don't have.

more on that thought by Larken Rose

A government is nothing more than a monopoly on the use of violent force.

The US Goverment has powers, tho, not rights. They are very different actually. Individuals have rights.

This is part of why categorizing corporations as people is so disastrous to the political environment, people get rights.

Rights vs Powers in historic context

Really nice share, thank you. Love me some Jefferson v Hamilton historical political theory.

A shame that the US experiment failed so miserably by paying only lip service to Jefferson whilst executing Hamiltonian principles in practice. Look where that's gotten us!

The gist of Rose's argument is that people can't collectively confer powers (or rights) that they do not themselves individually have. The semantics of powers v rights makes no difference in this context. The establishment of an institution to execute through a monopoly of force objectives which would be immoral if done individually doesn't make the objectives moral. Or to say it another way, if an individual doesn't have the right to encroach on someone else, they can't morally gain that right or imbue an institution with that power through collective action.

The difference is big tho. The powers are...

A. Conditional (can be taken away by laws) B. Limited (are defined individually, rather than saying "anything but these things") and C. They exist to protect the rights of people. How does anyone have any guarantee of rights without any ability whatsoever for anyone at all to protect them? If you don't have it guaranteed then it isn't a right. Obviously this isn't a retail guarantee, it means that if your rights are violated then you have the right to use the powers of the state. Otherwise, I can punch you, and I didn't have the right, but guess what, no one has the right to do anything about it. Give limited powers and grant

I understand the sort of moral paradoxical dilemma, but it kinda just leads to anarchy in a way. Which Id be fine with if the masses could handle it. But they don't fare that well. Not at this point in history. Maybe Im wrong. Im not against it per say its just unrealistic. It just won't happen, governments or groups of leaders will inevitably form together, you can't avoid that with a pretty philosophy. Its like dodging the rain. Its better to develop a system that can get wet.

The system is broken because advertising and political science and industrial revolution and military industrial compx has been festering with greed for hundred years plus... but there is a big difference between a bad idea, and a bad execution of a good idea.

The moral imperative of nonviolence, or more specifically non aggression, precedes the concept of government - or how humans choose to self-organize. Yes, it does sort of lead to anarchy in a way, or to say it another way - anarchy is the default state of humanity. And I'm with you on being fine with it if the masses could handle it. But, you are absolutely correct in that they aren't. I don't know that governments are necessarily the way humans would choose to self-organize given current technology, but so many people think that's the only way to do it. I don't know what the answer is, but I do know that increasing the size and scope of government - the direction the US has been headed - isn't the right answer.

I don't think you escape greed - it is a fundamental human motivation - but you can reduce the scale of the systems available to humans (and cabals) to hijack for their own purposes. I don't think democracy is necessarily a very good idea at any type of large scale. Maybe that's the key to functional execution - scale.

That the two parties in America are not working together and funded by the same business interests.

I’ll add to that: that all 60,000,000 conservatives or liberals are enemies. The seemingly brigaded veritas post from last night highlights it, hundred of upvotes for someone claiming all American conservatives are immoral, honorless idiots incapable of seeing how being liberal is right. We are all more alike than different but we are much more controllable if we are pitted against one another. There are forces in this sub who want more than anything to do just that, and our emotional reactions are allowing them to succeed.

No we're all just sick of the TD idiots posting about "pizzagate" and then turning around and defending a pedophile due to "lack of evidence."

The hypocrisy was so sickening (and the end goal, so disturbing) that folks came out in droves to let the community know where they stand. It was a good night for reason in a generally unreasonable place.

So someone can accuse you of being a pedo, without any form of evidence at all, and everyone in your life should believe them, correct?

Pizzagate had no victims. Also, no crimes. Moore has had at least nine people come forward so far.

No victims have come forward as of yet. Yet the cryptic e-mails and weird instagram posts surely indicate smoke. And usually where's smoke there is fire. Also look how long Harvey Weinstein was able to abuse women without it coming to light.

If one person makes an accusation on this kind of thing (happened long ago, mostly he-said-she-said) it's something to be investigated but not taken at their word.

When nine people come forward with eerily similar accusations and former police say they were instructed to keep him away from cheerleaders and he says he would "not generally" be dating underage girls at 30+ unless he had parental permission (instead of, you know, unequivocally denying that he dated children like any sane response would be) and by his own math he met his wife when she was 15 and he was 29 at a high school dance recital.

I mean that's surely equivalent to "someone accusing you of being a pedo, without any form of evidence at all", right?

without any form of evidence at all

What are you on about? Moore was not booted out of the mall for pestering young girls?

Again, no evidence of that. Just someone who said they remember one specific person who was kicked out of a mall 35 years ago haha.

At least four people say he was known for hitting on girls at the mall...

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/360210-local-residents-moore-was-known-for-flirting-with-and-dating-teenage-girls

And at least 3 people say the story on of the accusers told had many factual inaccuracies. And that those people went to the news outlets and were ignored....

A night of liberals vs conservatives on this sub is not a good night for reason.

Get me Roger Stone

Yeah, I just took a look at that thread and my first thought was...why are all these people on the conspiracy sub?? I come here for info. on MKUltra, mind control, demonic possession etc. X-files type stuff. A lot of people seem to come here just to yell about politics when both sides are dirty.

The real conspiracy is that Foreign agents are the voices behind the extreme left and right views and are hoping to pull in any more moderate leaning folks into the fight as the shit gets flung back and forth. Increasing public angst against each other and causing division.

It's the CIA you dummies.

They killed MLK when he tried to unite the poor.

Well, they're half right.

CIA + Mossad.

I think other countries are involved but I also think that the more divided people are, the easier it will be to bring in a world wide government/religion so it is pushed by many different factions. Just my thoughts.

Democracy is an illusion. The invisible hand makes all our decisions for us.

But but what about the vote counts on certain high emotion bills? They prove that one side, with moral superiority, is there to save America and it's people and the only reason they continually fail is because the other side is standing in their way.

sounds believable

"Goys why you not hate Trump yet? You know how expensive this is to keep trying?" I don't mind you saying that, but I like people who are honest; who don't hide behind double speak.

Goys

Seriously?

What's the problem?

You really can't even guess?

You can't say?

Let me put it this way. Do you wonder why /r/isrconspiracyracist exists?

Inb4 "Jews aren't a race!1!"

Lol ok.

Of course the parties themselves are funded by these interests, but I'd say once they've been re-elected, it's the backroom dealings, like insider IPOs that really get the gears of political corruption moving. I think funding the parties themselves is to ensure that "flexible" politicians are nominated in the first place, and bribery is the vehicle through which they are flexed.

If the people are divided, being taught each other are the political enemies, the government and the businesses who support them can do what they want in peace.

Oh, we spilled millions of tons of oil? Watch your monkey president dance, isn’t he funny??

You can literally look at voting record to see thats not true.

The votes are planned out in advance to keep up appearances but anything that isn't asserting creeping authoritarianism is always left at a stalemate.

What evidence do you have that this is true?

upvotes

The Republicans were not winning the 2008 election. The nation was tired of them. McCain was a good candidate. He had a good story, good policies, and wide appeal. But there was no way a Republican was winning that election.

Clintons.

The Federal Reserve is a government office.

It's not. It's not even presented as such in schools. It's the media coverage of The Federal Reserve that makes it appear as though it is a government office. In reality it is a hybrid of public and private institution.

Thats a Bingo.

You just say "bingo."

Learning what the Federal Reserve is and what they have done is a good starting point for realizing how fucked everything is. That's a big part of what got me invested in this stuff in the first place.

What have you, uh, "learned"?

Money used to be backed by gold, the gold standard. So our money was worth whatever because it was backed by gold.

at some point in the last 100 years or so the gold that backed the money was taken out of the vaults and they just started printing, money inflating, being Worth actual dog shit, if that.

So basically our money is symbolic. And that wars are usually in the search of the petro-dollar.

This is a very gross oversimplification and details are shakey bc I haven’t looked st th specifics in a while, but there’s a really good cartoon documentary that was on YouTube (idk if it still is) that goes into explaining this.

this is a good one to get people started on their own path down the rabbit hole. the problem though is that so few will keep searching.

this one links so many though, Lincoln, JFK, 9/11, Libya, etc etc.

Pretty much yeah, this.

Money used to be backed by gold, the gold standard.

That is pretty much correct. Silver was also used in the US, which raised another host of problems, because silver's value relative to gold changed a lot faster than the laws governing the amount of gold and silver in a dollar.

So our money was worth whatever because it was backed by gold.

A dollar could buy a certain number of grains of gold. What it could buy in things people actually bought, like food, or real estate, or clothes, was all over the place . It turns out the value of gold can fluctuate just as much as anything else.

at some point in the last 100 years or so the gold that backed the money was taken out of the vaults

This is just straight up false. The US still has over 8000 tons of gold in Fort Knox and other repositories throughout the nation. One of the reasons the US went completely off the gold standard in the 1970s was because maintaining it was draining our gold reserves so quickly. When we left the gold standard, we just said we would no longer buy dollars with gold. We didn't do anything with our gold.

they just started printing, money inflating, being Worth actual dog shit, if that.

If you think money is worth dog shit, I have a dog, and I will gladly trade his shit for the content of your bank account. I am guessing you won't take me up on that, because money is not worth dog shit, it is worth what you are willing to buy and sellers are willing to sell for it.

So basically our money is symbolic.

People use it. It has value. It is not symbolic.

And that wars are usually in the search of the petro-dollar.

That just doesn't make sense. The US economy is over 10 times the size of the entire world oil trade, and why would we invade countries and destroy the oil producing capacity if we wanted to them to trade oil in dollars?

This is a very gross oversimplification and details are shakey

No. That was flat out incorrect.

It’s funny because everything you said didn’t make sense either but apparently it’s true?

Prove to me that everything you said is fact, then I’ll believe everything I said is false.

Which I know you can’t, but at least give me some compelling evidence to support your claims. Because quite frankly I don’t care that our vaults still have gold and that we don’t use gold to buy dollars anymore.

What do we use to buy dollars then?

We don’t. We fucking print shit ambiguously and our prices rise every year and no one cares.

Globe model

That the food pyramid isn't full of shit. Thankfully, they rarely teach it anymore.

That DDT is dangerous. Which has been disproven over and over again. The belief came from the book A Silent Spring by Rachel Carson who used anecdotal evidence while ignoring real evidence that was available at the time. (Bird population) It was fucking all fake.

Hmm this one is new to me...very interesting.

Moon landing.

1) 9/11. The official story is so easily disproved. At the very least, if you can watch Building 7 collapse and not see the fuckery then you’re functionally retarded.

2) That Democrats and Republicans (establishment) are adversaries. We have a uniparty. If you haven’t realized that since Trump took office then you’re functionally retarded.

3) That security > privacy. Dolts.

4) Media manipulation. People really think “oh no, they’d never lie to us like that.” Dolts.

What boggles my mind is.. you can watch footage of controlled demolition of buildings.. then see the same characteristics in fall of WTC7 and people DEFEND it as being caused by office fires. Even if you want to ignore who signed a new 99-year lease 2 months before, took out insurance specific to terrorist acts.. the same person who decided to "pull" WTC7. All that aside.. isn't it abundantly clear to anyone with eyes, that something isn't right? That no skyscraper has ever collapsed in 14 seconds (WTC1/2) or 8 seconds (WTC7).

9/11 was a day that 8 indestructible titanium fanned engines vanished.. isn't that weird?

Almost 3,000 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth want 9/11 re-investigated.. when is that going to happen?

This is our generations JFK.. the clear to be seen video evidence (or suppression of video evidence), obvious collusion, the mountains of omitted testimonies from eye witnesses hearing explosions - pilots that say the Pentagon maneuvers were impossible for a 747, let alone an amateur pilot to do, even the BBC finding all of the "terrorists" still being alive.

And with all of this rudimentary stuff.. the mere mention of the subject means you're talking about a conspiracy theory. A term as synonymous with crazy as Kleenex is with tissue. The meaning of the word has been lost.. obviously people conspired the events to occur, the planes didn't crash themselves.

People would rather watch CSI fiction instead of acknowledge the real crime committed against them and investigate a mystery more complex than any Oliver Stone script could ever dream up How many more times will the 9th of September roll past and nothing happen?
Maybe 50 years from now when documents are declassified.. with redactions in place for the war criminals still alive..

How many WTC skyscrapers have been hit by two jet aircraft? "it's never happened like that before" isn't exactly proof when the event has literally never happened before.

WTC 7 is an interesting case, but lumping the other towers in is how you get ignored. There are mountains of studies and basic science that say that's exactly how they would have collapsed.

The Empire State Building was hit by a B-25 bomber in 1945 causing extensive fires and 14 deaths. Building is still standing. The WTC basement was bombed in 1993. Remained standing. Seismic data from the day shows evidence of explosions prior to the towers collapsing.. not as they were collapsing. Steel skyscrapers have burnt for +12hrs down to their frame and not collapsed. So the kinetic force of a plane would cause more damage. Shouldn't the impact sites on the towers have meant the section above would lean towards the path of least resistance instead of a symmetrical collapse staight down.. not once, but twice? So all the floor pancaked ontop of each other.. that's the official story.. so why wasn't there dozens of stories worth of concrete stacked on stop of each other? Instead all concrete turns to dust and seems to have thermite particles within. Molten steel at ground zero which could not be extinguished for 3 months and what was safe to handle was exported to China before experts could investigate. Of 2 pieces of steel that FEMA gained access too, they found traces of thermite too. Simple fact is.. building don't collapse in seconds, ever. When investigation was delayed, underfunded and conducted by people with ulterior motives.. it is clear that it needs to be done again and properly. University of Alaska aren't far away from releasing a thorough report on WTC7 right now.. http://www.wtc7evaluation.org

A bomber accidentally crashing into a building and then a fully loaded airliner crashing into a building as fast as they can get it to go aren't comparable in the least bit. That's like comparing a car bumping into a pedestrian in a crosswalk and causing a bruise to a guy going 70 on the interstate in a semi running into a dude and saying but wait why did the guy on the interstate turn to mush!

As far as the thermite I don't know a lot about it but I'm guessing it's made of a lot of common materials that could be explained by things the building was built with/already contained inside. Also there were workers cutting down pieces of the structure still standing in order to clean debris and search for bodies. They probably left a lot of materials behind.

The real cover-up with 9/11 is all the first responders and workers being exposed to toxic chemicals and getting very sick and dying. Some of them being denied funds to get medical attention.

No trying to separate them is even more ludicrous.

3000 architects and engineers isnt really that much. Some universities graduate more of those people than that a year.

You are completely right. 3000 is not a high figure at all. The fact that people just down-vote you instead of providing a counter-point illustrates the I want to believism of this sub.

The reason is looks like a demolition is because thats how buildings like that fall. Im sorry that they dont snap in half and fall over like youve seen in the movies but those arent real. Jet fuel doesnt need to melt steel beams, just weaken them to the point where they can no longer support the weight above them.

Stop lying to yourself.

There were melted steel beams found in the rubble. How does that happen?

I havent heard anything about that but think of it this way, every flammable substance has a temperature at which it burns at. As people have pointed out, jet fuel does not burn at the melting point of steel. But you can light a match and use it to ignite kerosene for example, which would burn at a different temperature than the wooden match originally did. The plane was like a match, it started the fire, and then the various materials within the building burned at their own different temperatures. Some of which, could have been hot enough to melt steel beams. But again, the melting point is just the point where the steel turns into a liquid. But it can become weakened and deformed at a much lower temperature. So the beams didnt need to “melt” in order for the building to fall.

This picture was taken weeks into the clean up operation. Still molten.

Not only is it how buildings like that fall, it is how buildings like that are supposed to fall, if they fall. They aren't supposed to snap and fold over, because they would cause far greater destruction to surrounding areas and other buildings.

Perfectly good point about the logic of taking out terrorist insurance because of the previous attacks, and also because the building were extremely symbolic and logical terrorist targets. On top of the this, the Eiffel Tower was also an intended target in 1994 by hijackers of Air France 8969 in 1994, who intended to carry out a similar attack to what occurred in 2001, so it is completely logical that immensely symbolic buildings like the WTC towers, were covered by terrorism-specific insurance policies.

Again, this sub just demonstrates the hive-mindedness of people who down-vote, instead of providing counterpoints, with the only person who bothered trying to reply, simply providing the generic throwaway line "Stop lying to yourself".

Unfortunately people invest so much of their own identities into taking a position with regards to immense historical events, that they just cannot countenance changing their minds after spending so much of their lives down a rabbit hole of theories.

this.

Aaandnd right here you have a great example of someone who has become so emotionally invested into one version of reality, and so confident that their version is correct, that they are prepared to label anyone who doesn't share their version of reality as being "functionally retarded". For someone this invested, and this confident, it is almost impossible that they will ever take a backward step now, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that their position is wrong.

To cap it off, you have to paint a picture of people who don't share your version of reality, as all being stupid and credulous enough to think that the media would not lie to them or misrepresent information. Classic straw-man debating tactic.

I don't see how you have made any case whatsoever that Trump's presidency has proven that a uni-party form of government exists in the United States either, the two major parties may receive lobbying and funding from the same sources frequently, but if anything, all Trump's ascendency to the presidency has displayed, is how far off the political spectrum the Republican party in the United States has flown, and how easily convinced people can be convinced that a candidate can be an attractive option, based on nothing more than outrage manufacturing, slogans and bluster.

I think the term your wall of text is alluding to is "Dunning-Kruger". It is very frustrating trying to pass knowledge onto people who don't want it. Twain did say it was easier to fool people than convince them they have been fooled.

No, not really. I don't think that Dunning Krueger is the correct term I am looking for, although it does have some connection to what I am talking about. People who are so confident about their enlightened status relative to others, often do so because they lack the cognitive ability to be able to discern the flaws in their own thinking, or the adequate critical thinking abilities to adequately critique their own positions. However despite studies that have pointed out some correlation between lower levels of education and lower levels of cognitive abilities, with higher tendencies to believe in one, or multiple conspiracy theories, many extremely intelligent people have been avid believers of conspiracies that have been turned out to be false. On top of this, some conspiracy theories, have turned out to be true.

I think I am more pointing to the issues of close-mindedness and tribal thinking, emotional attachment to a position, as well as perhaps, emotional maturity when it comes to conspiracy theories and theorists. It is so evident when you come to this sub, that the conspiracy theorists here, especially those super confident in their own enlightened thinking abilities, relative to the average member of the public who falls for "official lines", suffer simultaneously from both super cynicism and super gullibility. They have an emotional attachment to one position, and therefore display very little scepticism towards their own positions, yet extreme scepticism to any official positons.

That reddit is a platform to voice an opinion.

What is it a platform for then? If you are talking about this sub in particular, then I would agree that it isn't a platform for individual opinion. Just group-think, and I want to believism.

Goku can beat superman. normalfags thing goku who is almost as fast as the speed of light can beat someone who is dozens of times faster.

I must respectfully disagree. Goku is most definitely faster than light (not even counting his ability of instant teleportation), and I really don’t understand how anyone could think Superman would even come close to standing a chance vs Goku.

goku will tire out, Super man has unlimited energy,stamina, and is indestructible.

But, he got tired out and killed by Doomsday. So clearly he does not possess unlimited stamina, nor is he indestructible.

The issue comes down to what Superman are we talking about here?

Goku is the same Goku through the whole series. His current status is SSB with KK and UI.

Superman has been rebooted and subject to multiple what ifs and spin offs.

If we went All Star Superman vs current Goku? Superman wins.

If we went current run Superman vs current Goku? I'd say Goku wins.

Some people think the Dragon Ball ki blasts count as magic, which Superman is weak against.

The big thing is both these characters always have hacks to some degree

That Wikipedia is a "bad source" of information.

A lot of people get butt hurt in their professions knowing that a simple website can replace all their years of studying. People in these professions aren’t worthless though. I still admire their hands on experience.

Sometimes it can be, though. It just depends.

Take any thematic critical of Jews and you won't find anything on Wikipedia.

Good example.

That Hillary should have won.

There is no conspiracy

The beLIEf that there is no agenda, no intention that the people in charge would ever collude to control them. They're not organised enough.. yet your lights are on and water is running..

The blind belief that we aren't just free range cattle being milked of our worth.

That the goal within the next 2 decades isn't for a 100% voluntarily surveillanced, microchipped society - which has to accept having their chip (a source of currency, food, water, entertainment and social interaction) that can be turned on or off at any time for any reason.

Let's believe we aren't headed towards an Orwellian not to distant future

We don’t need microchips inserted into our bodies at this point in the timeline. We have cellphones

Technology is imperfect and flawed, biology is perfect and able to adapt. Tech will forever be inferior. I'm not saying I disagree with you but at the end of the end, there's no way tech will outdo life.

Moore’s law is certainly faster than biology 🤔

That social media was made for their benefit

That being glued a phone at every chance they get isn't a hindrance at all to their and their offspring's spiritual development.

Well crap. I'm pretty glued to my phone :(

Prescription medications are better for you than a natural plant. The amount of people that sneer at weed smokers, the whole time popping Xanax and oxy because their doctors said they were ok to take

Don't you know that if a doctor prescribes it that it is inherently good for you and only bad for people that use a drug without a doctor's prescription. /s

Unfortunately this is the line often trotted out by the conditioned sheeple

This is reductive and silly.

Chances are, most people don't smoke marijuana because it's still illegal . Hell, I agree with you about the positive effects, but I'd never smoke it because I could currently lose my job and get arrested.

I bet you'd find with mass legalization, the amount of people saying that prescriptions are more beneficial than marijuana would go down.

Or act like they don't understand how to help resolve the current opioid epidemic we have but let drs prescribe Norco to every man woman and child that wants it, hand out dilaudid in the er like candy, and continue the war on drugs. Prescription drugs are a fucking catastrophe and are likely hurting way more people than they help.

Many people, the elderly especially, overdose on their meds because if it says take every 4 hours as needed they just fucking take it like clockwork. People od all the time without even taking more than the recommended dose. It's fucking sickening.

The American Dream.

That DDT kills birds. Rachel Carlson makes Hitler, Stalin and Mao look like slackers.

Huh? Can you elaborate?

Malaria remains the primary public health challenge in many countries. In 2015, there were 214 million cases of malaria worldwide resulting in an estimated 438,000 deaths, 90% of which occurred in Africa.[92] DDT is one of many tools to fight the disease. Its use in this context has been called everything from a "miracle weapon [that is] like Kryptonite to the mosquitoes,"[93] to "toxic colonialism".[94]

Very interesting.

Am I allowed to say Holohoax here?

You are. Most won't believe you though.

Can you expand on that. I still don't wrap my head around how one can say that the holocaust never happened. Neither sides were clean of atrocities i'll be the first to agree, but there is documentation and evidence of it happening.

it fits into their narrative, like the people who Deny Sandy Hook. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial

Research the work if David Irving. No one is denying the holocaust, but they're saying that what is told to people is mostly lies. For example, there's no proof of gaschambers being used to kill anything else than lice. Look it up, all what we are trusting is some self contradicting eyewitnesses and the anti nazi propaganda of Stalin and his Jewish henchmen.

But what about the starving? The videos of dozers pushing hundreds of bodies into graves? And what about the non-jews? More blacks/cripples died at the hands of Nazis then jews did. (But we dont get taught that)

Ill full heartedly agree that we get a candy coated version of real events. Propaganda is propagands after all and warbos war. I, myself, just cant put that first hand documentation aside as non-proof.

That chemotherapy has ever been properly studied. It hasn't, and what research does exist that manages to compare those who receive chemo to those who don't implies that most of the time and for most cancer types you're better off receiving no treatment at all. Of course I would personally forgo chemo and rather than doing nothing in its place would use IV Vitamin C, cannabis extract, and various other natural modalities (as long as they were demonstrated to. E synergistic rather than interfering w each other).

And you would end up like Steve Jobs

Your comment illustrates your backwards thinking. Do you not realize how many people die right after getting chemo? Or how many gradually suffer and die from chemo with their cancer never being fully cured? I could hold up the names of any of those people and say "and you would end up like Jane Doe" in response to someones decision to use chemotherapy.

Do you not see how stupid your comment is? You act like I claimed everyone who uses a natural modality will be cured and survive, which I never claimed. The question is which modality is more appropriate and offering a better chance of survival and quality of life?

On the other hand, your asinine Steve Jobs comment implies that YOU think everyone who gets chemo will be cured and live happily-ever-after...which is just plain ignorant.

lmfao you actually wrote an essay in response to a tongue in cheek comment.

Nice rebuttal.

I wasn't posing an argument you fool, so there isn't nothing to rebut.

If you consider trying to derail efforts to help people understand what is really going on with chemotherapy "tongue in cheek" then you may be a sociopath.

Again, you are taking the comment way too serious and it went waaaay your head. I think you are just a sensitive idiot.

Removed. Rule 10

Cool. Can openly insult by baselessly calling someone a sociopath, but idiot is just too far, eh?

Saying you may be a sociopath is not the same as calling you a sociopath. Definitely not surprised you fail to appreciate that subtlety.

You are fucking retarded. Ban that.

You're very easily angered.

No, you being an autist does not anger me in the slightest. Btw, the whole "you seem mad" bit is very childish and outdated. Have a good one. :)

Chemo is deadly, but natural remedies will get you killed. Some cancers might respond to it, but only a select group of it. Chemo on the other hand is a nuclear bomb. It will kill the cancer a lot of the times, problem is it could very well take you out to.

"Some cancers might respond to it, but only a select group of it."

And you know this how? From what I have discovered all cancers respond to high-doses of cannabinoids. Many but not all respond to IV Vitamin C, many but not all respond to apricot pits, ALL respond to a whole-foods plant based diet. There are more of course but I don't have the time or energy to go in the detail on every one.

"Chemo on the other hand is a nuclear bomb. It will kill the cancer a lot of the times, problem is it could very well take you out to."

Most of the time chemo will take you out. Sometimes gradually, sometimes right away. They are each poisonous after all.

Don't fail to appreciate the point I made in my original post--what research does exist that compares no-treatment to a chemo regimen implies that those receiving no-treatment actually fared better than those who did. Of course the records of these studies by Hardin Jones can only be accessed at the Berkeley library and the other study done by Linus Pauling can be found by purchasing a collection of his research.

Chemo has never been properly studied in a no-treatment placebo-controlled fashion. Not even in animals. Or if the animal studies have been done they are no where to be found (perhaps because they are being surprised due to what they reveal). If you want to "nuke" your body go ahead, but in my opinion you would be making a grave mistake and accepting an anti-scientific treatment modality.

Look man I'm not completely disagreeing with you. Chemo is definetely poison. The oncologists I know even advertise it as such. However that poison does save some people lives. I know people personally that have gone into full remission because of chemo. To say they would have lived otherwise is simply not true.

There is obviously a huge push by big pharma to sell chemo, and yes it's probably overused. Right now I work with a lady who has breast cancer. He insurance won't cover a mastectomy, but they will let her get all the chemo she wants. It's fucking crazy. She is going to probably due because of this and it makes me sick. The chemo isn't working and her fucking hair is falling off and her skin is literally pealing off every surface of her body.

Some cancers respond to natural remedies and some don't. There is a severe lack of research into this for sure, but if every cancer patient went with these treatments more people would die. If chemo didn't work then survival rates of cancer patients would not be improving. Its dangerous to advise every patient to not use chemo and stick with a holistic approach. Diet is definetely a big factor but Its absolutely not going to simply cure all cancers or be better than medical treatment. Though every patient should eat a strict diet.

Some cancers are certainly better left without chemo and radiation, like slow moving prostate cancer, but sometimes chemo is going to be necessary to survive.

Fair enough, but you have to understand that I am not saying that everyone who receives chemo will die. Some will survive the assault of the toxins and if their cancers do not then they survive cancer free. This does happen. What I take issue with is your other statements:

"To say they would have lived otherwise is simply not true."

How do you know that these people would not have survived and even thrived using, say, high doses of cannabinoids instead of chemo? It's like a mantra that you have without any sort of rational basis. Do you just believe this without any reason? If so, maybe you should confront that within yourself.

"Some cancers respond to natural remedies and some don't. There is a severe lack of research into this for sure, but if every cancer patient went with these treatments more people would die."

Again, what are you basing these statements on? Have you done a comprehensive study that proves what you are saying to be true--or have you just been weakened by decades of propaganda to the point where you simply believe it without question?

"If chemo didn't work then survival rates of cancer patients would not be improving."

So do you mean to tell me you have accounted for all other possible confounding variables, such that this is a rational statement? If you haven't done so you are--again--merely begging the question.

"but sometimes chemo is going to be necessary to survive."

And again--based on what do you claim this? You can't just keep making bald statements like this and fail to justify them with actual research that shows the people you think "need" chemo and chemo only would not have done better with a natural modality. It's just blatant cognitive bias otherwise.

And I must reiterate: Chemo has never been properly studied in a no-treatment placebo-controlled fashion. Not even in animals. The irony is, it is that type of study that would be required to substantiate each of your statements that I have highlighted above--but the studies have not been done, so unless you can put up something of substance other than your baseless statements, your beliefs about chemo are merely unfounded biases.

Does a study that shows a much higher death rate in alternative medicine vs current medical treatments mean anything? https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/110/1/djx145/4064136

No. This study does very little to illustrate a proper comparison. Read the abstract--they looked at people who were marked as "other" and who did not receive chemo. This does nothing to compare alternative vs conventional treatments. For all we know, these people could have been given injections of dishsoap.

For instance, look at one of the studies used for comparison (in the citations at the bottom):

"Alternative medicine--the risks of untested and unregulated remedies.

Angell M, Kassirer JP. Comment on Clinical and biologic activity of an estrogenic herbal combination (PC-SPES) in prostate cancer. [N Engl J Med. 1998] Butyrolactone-induced central nervous system depression after ingestion of RenewTrient, a "dietary supplement". [N Engl J Med. 1998] Adulterants in Asian patent medicines. [N Engl J Med. 1998] Alternative therapies for the treatment of childhood cancer. [N Engl J Med. 1998] Clinical problem-solving. A leading question. [N Engl J Med. 1998] Contamination of botanical dietary supplements by Digitalis lanata. [N Engl J Med. 1998]"

This list of studies used for this study show that they were studying adulterated asian remedies and dangerous central nervous system depressants. This tells us nothing other than the remedies tested in these studies were dangerous, contaminated and/or ineffective.

This also shows us that the study you linked was a meta-analysis of other studies that themselves were meta-analyses. In other words meta-meta-analysis--quite possibly the poorest quality data that can be derived.

What you need to do is find natural treatments that have been shown to be effective, find people who used only those treatments and not conventional, and compare them to people who only used conventional. Two agents that need to be tested in this manner are IV Vitamin C and Cannabinoids. A direct (IE not metaanalytical) comparison of this manner needs to be made.

Otherwise the "Alternatives" that are being referred to in these metaanalytical studies may simply be toxic, unregulated substances that are only "alternative" in that they are not legally permitted for use in a conventional setting. This mixed-bag approach tells us nothing of substance.

Try again.

That money is like water, just there, like it's just an element of nature. That we have to change society and laws around it, but never question money itself. Just want it, need it, work for it, do anything for it, even be evil to get it, because the mere act of acquiring wealth is good in and of itself. And we should sacrifice our freedom for the exalted, sacred, and unpredictable "Economy". Money has become your God. The economy works in mysterious ways. Don't upset the Free Hand of the Market. Money makes the world go round. etc.

The truth is money is just an arbitrary man-made point system.

here here. we cant progress as a race until we get past the idea that money is everything and anything else is secondary

Autism/ADHD/autoimmune disease/Alzheimers isn't an epidemic.

"Neurodiversity" isn't varying levels of brain damage, but simply "evolution".

The "natural" pancaking of the WTC buildings, due to "structural weakening".

Muslims are our enemy.

(all of these are the same flavor of willful authoritarianism, redundant)

Muslims are our enemy.

Muslims aren't our enemy, but the Quran is the single most fucked up religious text ever written which encourages and rewards violence against innocent people. Muslims can be progressive, and that's all fine and dandy, but the Quran itself is a problem. I see what you're saying though, yeah, the demonizing of Muslims and targeting of them as nothing more than a threat to our existence, instead of the human beings that they are is bullshit.

Same is said for the new testament

The New Testament? You mean the Old Testament, right? The Old Testament doesn't contain even 10% of the justifications and encouragements of violence against innocent people that the Quran does, and most of the time those calls to violence in the Old Testament are specific, given by God himself for the unique situations, according to the writers of the Old Testament. They are not often open ended declarations of obligation to kill those that refuse to believe in Allah. It is very, very different. I am not saying this as a Christian, I'm agnostic. I tried to find out the truth about the Quran versus the Bible, and I thought I'd find that the Quran was no worse than the Old Testament, but I was wrong. It is many times worse. They aren't even remotely comparable.

Yes I meant old testament. Fixing it now. Trust me I found alot of the quaran verses downright barbaric and they are if you read them with no context or with a misunderstanding of the language.. I can't find it now but it was on YouTube a video of an actual religious scholar on some panel show. She was explaining how some of the most popular verses that are used to paint all muslims as dangerous,because at first glance they seem brutal, with the context it made more sense. I think all religion is wacky anyways but it's dangerous to single one out and go thats the dangerous one when they all have done harm

I couldn't agree more, it is dangerous to single out people, but that's why I say there is a problem with the Quran. There's nothing wrong with Muslims inherently, there's something disturbingly wrong with the Quran, and Hadith as well.

Verse 3:28 in the Quran tells Muslims to not "take allies" of nonbelievers instead of Muslims, except to protect themselves from those nonbelievers, i.e. don't befriend nonbelievers when you can befriend Muslims. It further warns Muslims to not befriend non-Muslims, for if they do, they "have nothing with Allah".

Then verse 49:857 of Sahih al-Bukhari very plainly justifies lying if the ends justify the means.

I was literally taught ,as a Christian, the same things you're referring to in your first verse,to be wary of making friends of non believers because they can make you stray from the path. Plus you just gave the context of the 2nd verse being only in times of war. There are "Christian" countries in Africa that are just as barbaric as any Islamic one

I was literally taught ,as a Christian, the same things you're referring to in your first verse,to be wary of making friends of non believers because they can make you stray from the path

That's very different from God commanding you to not make friends with non believers or face God's punishment for disobeying him, explicitly. They're very, very different things.

Plus you just gave the context of the 2nd verse being only in times of war.

But that is the context that is given for every single violent verse in the Quran, and there are hundreds. That's the problem, there's so much room for radicalism it's ridiculous.

There are "Christian" countries in Africa that are just as barbaric as any Islamic one.

But do they carry out their barbarism in the name of Christ? Very rarely.

https://www.salon.com/2015/04/07/6_modern_day_christian_terrorist_groups_our_media_conveniently_ignores_partner/

Theres no shortage of Christian terrorist groups they just don't get the same airplay

Yes and in the U.S. they have killed a whopping 11 people in 25 years. Outside the U.S., particularly in Africa, there are a handful of very violent Christian terrorist organizations, and they have kill counts in the hundreds, yes. Without even counting 9/11 however, the kill count of Islamic extremism in the U.S. is about half way to 1,000, and if you look at global numbers for Islamic extremism, you're looking at numbers that makes the Christian terrorists in Africa look like a peaceful protest. Seriously. The two are completely incomparable.

I always figure: if there's a book that says that you should kill people who disagree with you, and someone decides that they believe that book to be Truth with a capital T and the word of God himself.... said person is imminently dangerous. The moment we acknowledge the problem within the text itself, it becomes automatic that any person who believes it to be the highest truth available to human beings, is also a problem.

The main problem is that it only takes a few nutcases to begin acting on that book and what you end up with is a horde of complicit people who, while not themselves acting on its instructions to kill, are willing to stand by in silence and allow it. And this is what we find with the majority of Muslims worldwide.

So, while they're not all actively terrorists.... there is a problem, and they are directly involved in the problem. Until they speak out and denounce said aspects of their books, we all ought to be wary.

The moment we acknowledge the problem within the text itself, it becomes automatic that any person who believes it to be the highest truth available to human beings, is also a problem.

That's where I differ, although the text of the Quran and related holy books does make me suspicious of Muslims, I wouldn't say I regard all Muslims as "a problem". My biggest complain with Islam is that even if you could explain away "the truth" of the Quran and related holy books, it still leaves open many opportunities to be interpreted in a way that justifies violence, lying, and other nefarious behavior. The Bible, on the other hand, does not. I'm not religious, so my perspective on this is to approach religion pragmatically. The Quran is way too open to extremist interpretation. It is no surprise that we have a problem with radical terrorism in the middle east. It would be more surprising if we didn't. That's the problem.

To clarify: the people are a problem in the sense that a book itself is powerless but it takes people who believe it to manifest its violence into real life. Thus my point that if the book is problematic, the people who believe it to be infallible truth are problematic, as they will be the only ones to manifest its commands into real life.

And I agree with the rest of what you wrote in the sense that Christianity has a very different, and ultimately peaceful message. The two are definitely not the same and that pretty much boils down to the nature of their founders: Christ (how he is portrayed at least, leaving aside the historicity aspect) vs. Mohammed are two very different examples to follow.

the people who believe it to be infallible truth are problematic, as they will be the only ones to manifest its commands into real life.

Unfortunately this is more true than not :(.

That doctors are gods

They're just like I.T. specialists: guess, test, success/fail, repeat!

And SCIENCE! ^TM is infallible.

That the Allies were the "good guys" in WW2.

The biggest PsyOP in history

Yup, that's exactly how I feel. What a mindfuck it was when I realized that.

How was it a PsyOP?

Nothing I say here would sound credible. David Irvings research is a good start. The PsyOP is that people nowadays think that the Germans were evil, and the allies good.

What reason would they have for the PsyOP though?

To control the narrative.

The victors of the 2nd WW are hardly likely to indoctrinate their citizens to believe their governments were the bad guys.

Are you asking me why the allies needed the world to think that the axis were bad? That's a pretty redundant question don't you think? I could give one reason: so that people think they are fighting germans because they are evil, not because they for example got rid of their rothschild controlled central bank.

not because they for example got rid of their rothschild controlled central bank.

yuppppp

David Irvings is amazing.

That pizzagate is real

You're blind.

Democracy is real

Human caused global warming.

You're a sheep.

The pope is a good person

The idea that the US is a democracy, and that we are "FREE".

You can tell it is a con by how much they have to repeat it, and how it does not fit the facts on the ground.

The US is one of the free-est first wold countries you can live in. We're still peasant slaves.

Election is real.

Depending what side you're on...Trump pulled the upset via electoral college.

It was completely by design. Even the conspiracy crowd can't see the forest for the trees when it comes to this, because most believe in Trump, and most are pro-infowars.

Why is this relevant?

UFO's?

Lol.

The Globe lie

Once again, funny how all of us are at the bottom.

CO2 is bad for humanity.

Humanity will survive. Civilization won't.

Extraterrestrial life.

Have we had contact? Maybe, maybe not. Is there life somewhere other than our planet? It’s mathematically improbable that we are alone.

Not really a conspiracy. You'd have to be uneducated idiot to not believe extraterrestrial life exists. Although, chances for any contact are extremely, ridiculously small and people claiming they saw UFO's are morons.

Firm believer over here that the government isn’t filling ya in on the whole picture. (WRT any subject, actually)

It’s not in the public’s best interest to be in the know.

Try opening a physics textbook. Oh, wait, they aren't telling us everything they know on physics either...

That cities keep fluoridating the water.

They don’t?

The lie that the government tells its citizens the truth.

The lie that elected officials have autonomous authority.

That Western history, pre-enlightenment, either was a travesty of monumental proportions, or an idyllic paradise.

Flat earth. People too lazy and too brainwashed to even begin to think it might be true. So flat earth is the most frustrating and difficult to talk about. Because so many will shoot you down and have the whole crowd laughing at you, because at the end of the day, it sounds crazy, and people seem to love mocking and making fun of someone whenever they find the option. Reminds me of the old tribal times, where if you say something so backwards you are ostracized and tossed out of the group and nobody wants to be seen as someone who may be on your side because then they may be kicked out of the "smart and know all" group.

What are the most infuriating lies that the masses still fully believe?

Do you mean it's 'infuriating' that people believe the earth is round ?

Great job.....lol

You are on a conspiracy Reddit, once again look at the mockery.

Calories. Fat was strategically demonized to take the heat off sugar. Keep in mind that in the world of calories fat is more than double the calories per gram of sugar (carbs). This give sugar the appearance of being healthy and half as fattening as fat. Why would they do this? Fat costs 10x more than carbs. Convince the population that carb calories are more food for less calories and even make the cals BOLD on the label. Then people will fill up on the cheap stuff instead of demanding value for their food dollars. Calories have convinced people to get less food for their money. A perfect scam. Nobody on r/fitness will accept this, but anyone who understand math and business knows I speak the truth.

That top brass is part of the elite. They are just as clueless as the masses.

Trickle down economics.

1. That Trump actually wants to help the middle class.

2. That the RNC or DNC will ever nominate a candidate that isn't bought by the state sponsored, capitalist, monopoly oligarchy and its global trade/banking cartel institutions.

America was founded on the most complete genocide in recorded history, yet has a museum in the cap city proclaiming another not-as-bad genocide as the greatest genocide.

American Jews are still portrayed as a people struggling under oppression when in reality they (1.8%) are the richest and most powerful ethnic group in the country.

In fact, the other day, they were skipped and the radio said Indian-Americans are now the wealthiest ethnic group. It's a lie.

If you call attention to this, someone always retorts they are a poor Jewish kid living in the ghetto and don't know anyone in his temple that has money or power.

The idiotic neo-nazi moral panic this summer is a prime example of faked oppression.

The "heroes" are fighting a war on terrorism to protect our freedom.

Nice try CIA/NSA list makers!

That throughout your lifetime you eat a ridiculous amount of spiders in your sleep

The construction of ancient pyramids/monoliths.

Flat earth has countless proofs and is a better at explaining celestial observations.

Funny how we both end up at the bottom....

Funny or sad it is definantly something hah.

Marijuana's classification as a Schedule I Drug

Bitcoin

GOD

Our knowledge of ancient history is accurately presented in history books.

Skin color confers some type of genetic superiority/inferiority.

Genetics are different and this helps doctors bc different races are predisposed to certain illnesses. Superior or not is subjective but sometimes it isn't, like natural immunity.

that the Queen of England and the Royal family don't have any political influence...

1. That terrorism+countries like N. Korea and Iran are not only threats to our security but the Genesis of our insecurity.
2. The business vs government paradigm. There is no dichotomy. There is no competition. There is only centralized power and powerlessness.
3. That we can trust the news. 9/11, advertising, cultural belief in our system never failing.
4. War is necessary.

The 'official' 9/11 conspiracy theory

that North Korea is the "aggressor"

Religion

That it is stupid to believe in conspiracies... or even to suspect them.

That race is a meaningful biological category.

Immunizations cause autism, jet fuel can’t melt steel beams, vibrations from twin towers falling couldn’t cause WTC 7 to weaken, pentagon was hit by a missile, Obama’s a Muslim, keystone pipeline is safe, the earth is flat...and on and on and on

That people died at Sandy Hook, Pulse, San Bern, or Las Vegas.

Trust us, we're you're government!

That the government has our best interest in mind.

That chemtrails aren't real.

That Snopes is a reliable, unbiased source for fact checking.

The police have a duty to protect you. Not.

9/11

That an incompetent useless government can pull off a conspiracy with 500 participants and not leave any evidence and have no whistle blowers.

No wait you guys totally believe that, nevermind

That evolution has been ‘proven’ - more or less a fact or someother mealy mouthed nonsense.

"Net Neutrality being dismantled will save the bandwidth from gamers and netflixers" my dumbass roommate last night who has a doctorate but it brainwashed. I than proceeded to show him example after example of billions of dollars of us aid being given to improve the internet and ISP's doing nothing. Still thinks it's a good idea to dismantle NN because 2/4 roommates are gamers and apparently we ruin the internet. More like his 10 yr old Dell and iPhone 4 are what fuck the internet.

That socialism is the solution.. (its not its greed)

You mean as the sun being the center of Sol is a conspiracy or do you mean people believe it to be the center of the universe?

I’ll add to that: that all 60,000,000 conservatives or liberals are enemies. The seemingly brigaded veritas post from last night highlights it, hundred of upvotes for someone claiming all American conservatives are immoral, honorless idiots incapable of seeing how being liberal is right. We are all more alike than different but we are much more controllable if we are pitted against one another. There are forces in this sub who want more than anything to do just that, and our emotional reactions are allowing them to succeed.

But but what about the vote counts on certain high emotion bills? They prove that one side, with moral superiority, is there to save America and it's people and the only reason they continually fail is because the other side is standing in their way.

"Goys why you not hate Trump yet? You know how expensive this is to keep trying?" I don't mind you saying that, but I like people who are honest; who don't hide behind double speak.

Of course the parties themselves are funded by these interests, but I'd say once they've been re-elected, it's the backroom dealings, like insider IPOs that really get the gears of political corruption moving. I think funding the parties themselves is to ensure that "flexible" politicians are nominated in the first place, and bribery is the vehicle through which they are flexed.

It's not. It's not even presented as such in schools. It's the media coverage of The Federal Reserve that makes it appear as though it is a government office. In reality it is a hybrid of public and private institution.

If the people are divided, being taught each other are the political enemies, the government and the businesses who support them can do what they want in peace.

Oh, we spilled millions of tons of oil? Watch your monkey president dance, isn’t he funny??

You can literally look at voting record to see thats not true.

The New Testament? You mean the Old Testament, right? The Old Testament doesn't contain even 10% of the justifications and encouragements of violence against innocent people that the Quran does, and most of the time those calls to violence in the Old Testament are specific, given by God himself for the unique situations, according to the writers of the Old Testament. They are not often open ended declarations of obligation to kill those that refuse to believe in Allah. It is very, very different. I am not saying this as a Christian, I'm agnostic. I tried to find out the truth about the Quran versus the Bible, and I thought I'd find that the Quran was no worse than the Old Testament, but I was wrong. It is many times worse. They aren't even remotely comparable.

Yes I meant old testament. Fixing it now. Trust me I found alot of the quaran verses downright barbaric and they are if you read them with no context or with a misunderstanding of the language.. I can't find it now but it was on YouTube a video of an actual religious scholar on some panel show. She was explaining how some of the most popular verses that are used to paint all muslims as dangerous,because at first glance they seem brutal, with the context it made more sense. I think all religion is wacky anyways but it's dangerous to single one out and go thats the dangerous one when they all have done harm

Learning what the Federal Reserve is and what they have done is a good starting point for realizing how fucked everything is. That's a big part of what got me invested in this stuff in the first place.

ah so implying Geostorm has more truth than we want to let on. I can see it. Most movies these days seem somewhere caught up in the truth or at least "this is what happened on Earth 2" type shit

The issue comes down to what Superman are we talking about here?

Goku is the same Goku through the whole series. His current status is SSB with KK and UI.

Superman has been rebooted and subject to multiple what ifs and spin offs.

If we went All Star Superman vs current Goku? Superman wins.

If we went current run Superman vs current Goku? I'd say Goku wins.

Some people think the Dragon Ball ki blasts count as magic, which Superman is weak against.

The big thing is both these characters always have hacks to some degree

What evidence do you have that this is true?

Again, you are taking the comment way too serious and it went waaaay your head. I think you are just a sensitive idiot.

As with your bullet example, you don't need anything to react with outside the system. Think of replacing the bullet with gas. An explosion will force that out, and keep repeating the process and you have a continuous thrust. Assuming the gas would stay in place like the bullet, but that's just in the case of a single explosion. For a continuous process where the expelled mass gets more velocity than would happen by just vacuum sucking it out you will have something "to push against".

If you had two sources of liquid in the vacuum of space, oxidizer and fuel, aimed towards each other from a good distance, they would react upon getting in contact and then expand to every direction due to nothing restraining that reaction. Thus the point of the reaction stays stationary, nothing to react against (other than other molecules produced in the reaction, but net change would be zero).

The restraint in rockets is the combustion chamber and next is the nozzle. They make sure the products of the reaction are pointed at a certain direction and thus it is very much like shooting out bullets. If the chamber & nozzle did not place constraints for the gases they would be going through the vessel to every direction, which would lead to the vessel staying stationary, also being a bit odd.

If the exhaust gases expand to any direction other than equally everywhere (or in some number of directions than cancel each other out), where do they gain their momentum and where is the counter-action to that gained momentum? If you are saying there is such things as actions without counter-action then I don't know how to discuss this. I can see the laws in action every second and I cannot think of a reason why vacuum would cancel some basic laws.

As with your bullet example, you don't need anything to react with outside the system.

Logical fallacy. The bullet is something outside the system since it leaves the system permanently.

If you look into it with a mind that not presupposes that rockets have to work in vacuum because satellites/ISS you will find that it is in direct contradiction with known and verified physics. In particular Fluid dynamics and Thermodynamics.

If you want explanations on how GPS, Satellite TV and what we see moving rapidly across our skies are, look into Triangulation, Loran, Skywave and near earth objects/asteroids. This is thoroughly gone through at Cluesforum. And no, you don’t have to buy into that the earth is flat to understand these matters. The Flat Earth campaign is disinfo. The astronomer Ptolemy from 100 AD explains very well in his book Almagest (google almagest English translation) why Earth can be nothing but round.