News Briefs 12-09-2007

Jameske's having Windows problems...Bill Gates is heading out for some personalised service.

Thanks Jameske.

Quote of the Day:

I think that fantasy must possess the author and simply use him. I know that is true of ‘A Wrinkle in Time.’ I cannot possibly tell you how I came to write it. It was simply a book I had to write. I had no choice...It was only after it was written that I realized what some of it meant.

Madelaine L'Engle

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
SynKronoS's picture
Member since:
5 October 2005
Last activity:
6 years 29 weeks

the evidence presented countering the demolition theories was non existant-- asserting the buildings fell in a natural manner without presenting evidence is not gonna cut it-- you guys are pathetic for giving that nonsense a platform-- we'll see how well that analysis stands up to scrutiny although im sure it is going to contain the same amount of evidence as the propaganda lead you presented did

"Liberty has never come from Government. Liberty has always come from the subjects of it... The history of liberty is a history of limitations of governmental power, not the increase of it."
Woodrow T. Wilson

Greg's picture
Member since:
30 April 2004
Last activity:
6 hours 23 min
SynKronoS wrote:

you guys are pathetic for giving that nonsense a platform

Thanks for your indulgence...

Kind regards,
Greg
-------------------------------------------
You monkeys only think you're running things

Richard's picture
Member since:
1 May 2004
Last activity:
1 year 13 weeks

Come on SynKronos, what is this habit that some have to refuse the exposition of others' diverging opinions by seeking the exclusiveness of the available platforms?

Not wanting people to hear about all possibilities is an attempt at controlling them. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that this is not on your agenda.

As for the article, someone would still have to explain the disappearance of the core.

IMO, the pancake theory would not have been challenged if the core had subsisted.

pacificwhim's picture
Member since:
21 June 2007
Last activity:
1 year 2 weeks

The fawning coverage of this obesity story and the pseudo-OBE story make me want to retch. The media falls all over itself trumpeting some "explanation" of some mainstream phenomenon, even if the science is lamer than what we might see at a fourth-grade science fair. Yet experiments on the paranormal, some of which set the standard for rigor, are ignored or ridiculed.

Pathetic.

Richard's picture
Member since:
1 May 2004
Last activity:
1 year 13 weeks

A majority of people want to feel reassured that the world is not out of control.

It is funny because it never was under control.

What is funnier still is to believe that understanding gives control, while this understanding only serves to hide the fact that it is not under control

etc.

anthonynorth's picture
Member since:
13 April 2007
Last activity:
5 years 43 weeks

Hi Richard,
I've always had the feeling that 'understanding' is often the vehicle of anarchy. Because it kicks out the previous paradigm, and that's scary.

...

I'm fanatical about moderation

Anthony North

earthling's picture
Member since:
22 November 2004
Last activity:
2 weeks 3 days

Of course the world around us is not under control. All the end-of-the-world scenarios exploit this basic fact, and as Richard says, the desire of most people to be reassured. Everything will be ok, if you just follow our recipe.

Sacrifice chickens, captured enemy soldiers, your children, etc etc, to the proper gods, and things will be ok.

Eliminate the bad outsiders from your society, and the problems will go away.

Slow down the economy, and (in 1970 or so), we won't see half the population starve, or (in 2006), the Earth climate won't turn into Venus.

However, I want to add: understanding is still necessary. To the extent that we can understand. I tells you when you can fix things, and when you have to stand your ground. When you have to hide, or walk away, or when you have to run.

So yes, understanding some problem does not always, or even usually give you a solution. But also, deliberately not understanding some problem severely limits your options. Sometimes there are good options.

----
The cost of living has not affected its popularity.

red pill junkie's picture
Member since:
12 April 2007
Last activity:
4 hours 16 min

That by the time you fully understand a problem,it may already be too late.

That has always be the paradox of mankind, we have always embarked in wild endeavours without fully knowing their final outcomes; but if we hadn't done it, we might still be living in caves.

-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

Red Pill Junkie

earthling's picture
Member since:
22 November 2004
Last activity:
2 weeks 3 days

Ok I don't disagree with anything said here. But to finish my point, which I forgot to do previously:

Consider the ordinary problem of driving a car. You observe and understand that the road ahead is turning left. You have a steering wheel, so you think you have control over the direction of the car. So you steer to the left. Simple, no?

Well, no it is not simple. You have to change the controls at the right time. The direction, that is the angle of the wheels, the speed, the power and the whole rest.

If you think that turning left is as simple as turning the steering wheel, try that on snow, or on ice, or when you are going really fast. It is not so simple then.

This is the normal situation in real life, and in pretty much all societies - there are many factors to consider, and the interactions are not straightforward.

Understanding these things is necessary, but it is not sufficient.

----
The cost of living has not affected its popularity.

anthonynorth's picture
Member since:
13 April 2007
Last activity:
5 years 43 weeks

Good morning everyone,
Timing, yes. And moderation. Not going overboard. Not doing too little. Getting the balance right.
That's what we haven't learnt to do yet. Balance, and moderation.
As you may know, I'm fanatical about that.

earthling's picture
Member since:
22 November 2004
Last activity:
2 weeks 3 days

On the smaller scale, if you have observations (or measurements) on the scale of, let's say 1/10th of a second, and your control mechanism operates at 10 seconds, then controlling things is very difficult. You have to estimate.

This is a reason why Alan Greenspan was so successful - he did practically nothing.

But also, when you steer a sailboat, or some vehicle like that. You have to know how fast it responds to control input - twiddling the controls faster than that time does not do anything useful.

----
The cost of living has not affected its popularity.

Richard's picture
Member since:
1 May 2004
Last activity:
1 year 13 weeks

Actually Earthling, don't you 'know' that the road is turning rather than understand it is?

This is where I make a distinction. Understanding a phenomena based on an interpretation that fills the voids compared to knowing it because you have validated it.

Generally, understanding as taken in this context, is created by interpolating possibilities that already conform with a projected view on how things work, which is why understanding becomes both comfortable and desirable.

But when you know something, you don't need to understand it because you don't interpret it.

The impression of control, even over one's own life, is based on the particular impression of understanding one's life for a person for instance.

This is why putting someone in front of the reality behind his life would be an extreme shock and this also explains, in part, why the ego can be so obtuse when facing anything that is outside of the limit of his understanding or that challenges the ruled upon which his understanding is based.

Yet, I of course agree, that while we don't know, understanding remains a useful tool to bring some measure of progress at the material level. It is understanding that has driven material sciences for instance and not real knowledge. This is why science is useful in describing but not very apt at explaining.

You also make a good point by bringing the complexities of human interactions.

If we consider a moment that an individual's appreciation of life is based on his understanding, understanding that responds to both that individual's personal intellectual projections and to a collective set of adopted conventions, the complexity becomes quickly unmanageable in appearance because there is no real absolute set of validated facts.

It is not a good idea to interpret another person's actions and understanding based on one's own rules for understanding. Therefore people don't know who they deal with, they rather mutually understand each other based on exclusive and only partially mutual grounds.

I hope I am not being opaque with this remark.

earthling's picture
Member since:
22 November 2004
Last activity:
2 weeks 3 days

Well, my interpretation, based on observations is more or less this:

When someone says "I know", it means they are convinced. They are certain. But they don't know.

The pope doesn't know, Buddah didn't know. They were convinced. There are parts of the Jesus story (whether you believe any of it or not), that say Jesus didn't know.

So while you make a lot of sense, I don't accept the notion that someone, anyone, can really know. Of that includes both of us.

So that leaves us with the incomplete tools we have available - observation, analysis, understanding. And yes, mathematics :)

----
The cost of living has not affected its popularity.

Richard's picture
Member since:
1 May 2004
Last activity:
1 year 13 weeks

Of course, this means that were someone to really know, you could not take advantage of this because you would start from the basis of this particular prejudice, because of course you can't ever be certain that nobody could know.

It is part of common wisdom to believe that it is impossible for anyone to know and that has forced humanity to postulate that anyone claiming to know was arrogant and to refuse what was said.

You can say that you don't know but how could you say somebody else does not? Of course we should never believe while always keeping an aware eye on what comes to us.

In any event, we can never speak for anyone else than oneself although I will still claim that even in face of what you just said you do know certain things incompatible with common wisdom but perhaps feel more secure within the covenant of collectively accredited notions.

What you know cannot be complacent with a fraction of reality. The severe but temporary limitation forced upon the human mind for experimental purposes limits the known to that fraction, indeed forcing upon us the need to understand.

Somewhere deep within, one knows there is more to it because he can't fake towards himself the impression to have encompassed the whole of his reality within his memorial consciousness. Therefore, he knows he is more than what his memory tells him, which means what he is - is far greater than what he remembers.

You can never tell someone:
Because I don't know, you don't. Or because you don't know, you could not.

Saying so would be equivalent of leveling by the base of collective consciousness and refusing that man could rise above the state of the animal or even wost, refuse to a man the possibility of knowing simply because it is not collectively correct.

anthonynorth's picture
Member since:
13 April 2007
Last activity:
5 years 43 weeks

We're seeing knowledge, here, from a mystical view, and a material view. Personally, I think 'correct' knowledge tends to be that which is accepted by a particular society at a particular time.
When a Medieval Inquisitor lit the bonfire, the knowledge certainly seemed true to the heretic.
To a certain extent, we make our own societal proofs as we go along.

...

Reality, like time, is relative to the observer

Anthony North

earthling's picture
Member since:
22 November 2004
Last activity:
2 weeks 3 days

Of course my argument here is based on my philosophy. I do not accept that some people, through some supposedly psychic ability, are fundamentally better than the rest of us.

This is mostly based on life experience. I have met people who could run faster than me, but nobody who could run twice as fast. I have met people who are taller, but nobody twice as tall. I have met people who are more intelligent than me, but nobody who really knows.

More to the point, I have met people who claim to be more spiritual, to the point of claiming they know the nature of the universe. Every last one of those I have met personally was a pretender.

Of course this does not give me complete knowledge about the absence of complete knowledge, but I am pretty confident. My best guess (and it is pretty good I think) is that complete knowledge does not exist in humans.

----
The cost of living has not affected its popularity.

anthonynorth's picture
Member since:
13 April 2007
Last activity:
5 years 43 weeks

Hi Earthling,
I think I said something similar when I wrote:

'I think 'correct' knowledge tends to be that which is accepted by a particular society at a particular time.'

Obviously if the nature of knowledge changes dependent upon a particular society, then absolute knowledge is most likely unattainable.
This is one reason why I'm so passionate about moderation. I just don't see how we can become fanatical about something that is unlikely ever to be absolutely true.

...

I'm fanatical about ... you know ...

Anthony North

Richard's picture
Member since:
1 May 2004
Last activity:
1 year 13 weeks

I say that the next evolution for man will have him know.

Man has not known in the past because of several factors, but most especially because he had to rely on memory and experimental functions to create what we call bodies sufficiently strong and resistant to support his reality all the way down to matter.

This has been achieved and he will reconnect with his reality.

This state of thing being reflected in the symbology of the tree of the science of good and evil, representing the mind divided against itself.

But of course, this cannot be proven to anyone else than oneself and each person will have to become his proof.

So, this proof will not come from others but from within, when an individual starts communicating with this other self who is part of a hierarchy of creators and has access to the sciences of creation, until the two are brought to unity.

This is why believing this would be useless, the only thing real being that thing that has been integrated in experience.

Still Earthling, you know more than you remember but what you know has no form, not being from your memory.

One day, man will realize that the last bastion of ignorance is thoughts themselves and that thoughts have been used to keep him prisonner of his impression of being a small creature. This has been true both to spiritualists and materialists alike. At one point, both spiritualists and materialists will have to meet and join the visible with the invisible.

No man is better than another man. It is only the experience on this planet and on other worlds that may be different. We can't live by comparison and when we put our finger on our real identity, there will be no need to look into the other's garden.

The seperation between the incarnated and his source has left a man bereft of his identity and has forced him to seek this identity by association to groups and collective truths.

Man is really a lot more than just the matter that vehicles him but he remains limited by the strong influence of his senses and has forgotten what he is.

What man thinks of himself as his reality relative to the whole of what he is - is proportional to what man thinks he knows of the universe relative to what the universe is.

This said, each has his time but then again that time will always come and it cannot be escaped.

earthling's picture
Member since:
22 November 2004
Last activity:
2 weeks 3 days

How do you tell the difference between such a state of knowledge and self-delusion? That is a difficult problem.

----
The cost of living has not affected its popularity.

Richard's picture
Member since:
1 May 2004
Last activity:
1 year 13 weeks

Delusion can only come from the psychological ego.

The process I am describing involves the penetration of a new energy in the psychic field that totally reverses the way the ego functioned in the past.

The psychological ego tends to seek and assign himself something he does not have. He wants to reach a state, a goal, whether that state or goal is spiritual or material is irrelevant but he seeks to reach something and be recognize for it. Self delusion comes from the ignorance of what lies behind the thought process and the ego who identifies himself to it.

This mind change replaces the subjective thought process with a communication process. The ego cannot identify himself to an objective process. His psychological foundations are put to death and he is forced to deal with the inability to identify to anything other than what he is. Self-delusion then becomes impossible.

There are traps that remain though. The first and most important one being the need to believe. The ego will want to believe his cosmic counterpart who's only goal is to bring him to such a state of mental freedom from his planetary functions and to an acute intelligence in regards to the laws of life, and will therefore bring the ego to direct himself into situations that will kill totally any spiritual feelings he may have had towards his counterpart and to act only in accordance to further increase his countenance, which equates to his capacity to contain his own energy.

This will be the future initiation of the individual who will have to totally strip himself from his ancient experimental mechanisms, step necessary in order to prevent planetary thoughts from polluting the perfect ethers that are the world where the source of his reality evolves.

This initiation will force him to shed any spiritual illusions, any spiritual desires, any love for the invisible, any beliefs he might otherwise entertain for it.

This process will bring man to transfer the experimental planetary energy that he used as an interface body between his materiality and his astrality to higher vibrations that in turn will support the access to the worlds from which this source originates and to transport himself in these worlds to study, not learn but study their laws.

This will be a totally objective activity that will shed light on all aspects, historical and energetic, of his reality and that of the worlds he evolved in, getting answers to what is useful to know rather than seeking answers to what his curiosity might bring him to seek.

He will be forced to pierce all the veils of his illusions, illusions that were the result of a lie imposed upon his consciousness to force the rising of a spirit within matter who would eventually be capable of integrating energies that otherwise could not penetrate realms of such low vibration rates. All illusions he may have about himself, whether illusions of grandeur, illusions of intelligence, spiritual illusions, materialistic illusions, beliefs, fears, everything that was used to force him to bond and remain bonded to his material experience, will be stripped from him as he will be shown the lies and manipulations to which he was subjected.

This will bring him to an level of lucidity he never knew since his descent in matter and he will see that he had been forced into delusion as he was denied access to what he knew for the benefit of hierarchies that had no love for him.

Man is in a state of delusion and he has no choice. He does not choose how he thinks, he does not choose the information that comes to him, he is forced into a thought convention that makes him think with the thoughts of a collective program.

Until he realizes that he is not the source of his thoughts, that thought is a pulsating energy that originates from planes of reality located extremely far from us in the universe, and that this energy has been responsible for his predicament in matter for its own future evolution, he will not be aware of the manipulation that comes through thoughts and he will continue playing the game of his life ignorant of its laws of of his reality.

I hope this answered the question. Did I make any sense to you at all?

earthling's picture
Member since:
22 November 2004
Last activity:
2 weeks 3 days

It sort of make sense as a consistent argument.

What is the reason you have any amount of confidence in this? To me it looks like pure speculation, if not pure fiction.
A literary exercise perhaps.

----
The cost of living has not affected its popularity.

Richard's picture
Member since:
1 May 2004
Last activity:
1 year 13 weeks

Either I am speculating and creating fiction, in which case what I say has some literary value at worst or I know what I am talking about, in which case it is advantageous to at least give this some attention.

The only rule of thumb is to not believe anyway.

Eventually, we realize that not believing even means not believing what we say ourselves.

I could say I know it is so but what value would that have to you if you are smart enough, and I know you are, not to believe?

The only value this has is in the measure that you know this for yourself, and certainly not because somebody else told you so.

I can say that the reason I have confidence in this is due to my exposition to it. Actually, I can say anything I want but in the end it is how far each individual can come to dig through what is and has been hidden within under a pile of memorial content, highly magnetic to the mind, and from which the ego had to make sense for himself, being severed from what he otherwise knew but for the purpose of him becoming intelligent by his own bootstraps.

So, in the mean time, it can make for some interesting subject of conversation to some, of course will remain nonsense to most, but to those who know this at least by intuition, they can start exploring the nature of their mind by taking a certain distance from the subject and evaluating hawt they know they can't take for theirs but realize has been acquired to shape what we call a personality.

Not unlike we have been told, the environment makes us. We have to make ourselves, then only do we have a real identity that does not proceed from influences and sources that have nothing to do with us but with a collective construction that has been profitable to social structures and civilization.

The only advantage of knowing is that we are warned of the impact of depersonalization when it happens to us as a person. All the rest remains in the realm of philosophy and speculation as you say and this will have to stop, at least in regards to knowing ourselves really rather than believing what the spiritual and esoteric schools as well as the materialistic empiricists have decided for us.

anthonynorth's picture
Member since:
13 April 2007
Last activity:
5 years 43 weeks

We're experiencing two sides of the great debate here - what is reality, consciousness, knowledge? Earthling asks how we can know a system of thought is not a delusion. The answer is, we can't, including the materialist, scientific view. We can only find validity within the 'system' of thought, without any outside validation.
Richard, as I understand him, is speaking of a universal consciousness without ego. If we delete ego and insert individuality, then a universal consciousness would be communal, and thus above the individual.
This message is actually there throughout history and in all cultures in terms of mysticism. Indeed, so fundamental is it to all cultures that this itself recommends itself as a form of 'truth' due to its constant repetition. How would all societies, all cultures, have a reflection of the idea if it does not hold validity?
But catching it in a definite philosophy is another matter. If a universal consciousness does exist, then it would be far above our mere understanding. The best we can hope for is an expression of it acceptable to a particular society - which is what has been done throughout history with religions.
And perhaps this is equally so with knowledge. To repeat the answer to Earthling's question, maybe all systems of knowledge are delusions. And if so, the best we can come to pure, 'truthful' knowledge is a system of thought that accepts the validity and rights of us all.
That which offers the best life for us all recommends itself as the greatest 'truth'.

...

I'm fanatical about moderation

Anthony North

earthling's picture
Member since:
22 November 2004
Last activity:
2 weeks 3 days

Actually I nominate a volunteer for starting the new thread.

Yes, you guessed it. anthonynorth should do it.

Enough goading?

:)

Richard's picture
Member since:
1 May 2004
Last activity:
1 year 13 weeks

This is what I say:

All thought systems are delusions, being given to us in relation to a program. It is once we have met with the source of thoughts that we can validate outside of the forms of thoughts because we can get answers from the originator.

The ego must not be deleted, he is fundamental in the equation. It is the altered consciousness, as driven by mechanisms that are fundamentally bound to the functions of an animal body and its ruling astral cohesive actions, that must be purged from the egoic psychic force center to allow this other cosmic ego to join with the planetary ego.

The illusive psychological attributes cannot be removed before it is time without risking damage to the psychic fabric and destroy the spirit. On the other hand, when it is the time of an individual, whether he believes or not, whether he wants or not, this will be done.

The ego has no choice and never had a choice in the matter and historical mysticism only added to the confusion because it always vehicled partial truths.

@Earthling:
I will start a thread as soon as I have the chance.
I too was starting to feel confined with the texts alignment.

SiriusRising's picture
Member since:
3 October 2005
Last activity:
6 years 29 weeks

On that note, naturally Alex Jones and Prison Planet presented us with a biased yet well put together retort. Pancake theory debunked.

Also this morning, I began a search concerning Putin dissolving the Russian government (or rather his own administration, thanks for the sensationalist headlines mainstream media) and discovered Pravda is reporting what in the U.S. is deemed "9/11 conspiracy theories" as mainstream news.

And last, but not least. Is an arms race starting with Russia or what?

That's all I got, thanks for providing me with stuff worth reading Greg!

- Justin

23 33 666

Rho's picture
Member since:
14 June 2006
Last activity:
18 weeks 3 days

Hi SiriusRising

It is sad that the bbc is still letting someone promote the official truth, ridiculous as it is, maybe the beeb are oxfordians, in which case having a cambridge man making a fool of himself serves their purpose.

This demonstration of the superbomb(less explosives, 4 times more effective) was timely, and showing off they are smarter then the americans. If the US had it they probably would have dropped some on Iran already. As it is the Iranians have some very effective russian sunburn rocket bombs that could sink aircraft carriers, btw one of those is supposed to leave commission upon return to the states, so expect that one to sink..

A matter of choice;
Intimidation, corruption and lies, or serenity, sharing and sincerity.

earthling's picture
Member since:
22 November 2004
Last activity:
2 weeks 3 days

As far as I know, this type of bomb is called a fuel-air bomb. The US (and I am sure Russia) has had those things for 40 years or so. Now Russia has made a bigger one. perhaps (they won't say in the press), with improved techinque.

So what is the big deal?

----
The cost of living has not affected its popularity.

Greg's picture
Member since:
30 April 2004
Last activity:
6 hours 23 min

It makes for good copy. And TV visuals.

It's like the alien behind Bush thing...absolutely no value whatsoever, but everyone wants to see it.

Kind regards,
Greg
-------------------------------------------
You monkeys only think you're running things

anthonynorth's picture
Member since:
13 April 2007
Last activity:
5 years 43 weeks

The fuel-air bomb is just a variation of nepalm - ok, much more technical and powerful, but the same fundamental principle.
Don't make too much of it. It would be stupid to use it against a foe with an integrated air defence system. This is because the bomb is so huge and heavy that it cannot be delivered by a fast jet.
The American version is actually dropped out of the rear cargo door of the Hercules transport. I don't think it would get through an integrated air defence system intact.
Like much of the 'super-weaponry' being talked about today, it is for low-level combat, not hi-tech.

...

I'm fanatical about moderation

Anthony North

red pill junkie's picture
Member since:
12 April 2007
Last activity:
4 hours 16 min

"The building before them, which they call "the big house", is home to a man who they have spent their entire lives worshipping. Prince Philip, they reckon, is God made flesh."

Well now!

Who dares to say life hasn't some funny ways to compensate for one's lot? The man who was never a king turned out to be a living deity :-)

And this also shows that now matter how weird and grandiloquent our mental image of God is, it will always be dissapointingly (even EMBARRASINGLY)limited compared to the real deal.

-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!

Red Pill Junkie

gbv23's picture
Member since:
5 June 2006
Last activity:
6 weeks 2 days

There's that Bruce Dickinson (Iron Maiden singer)film again---it looks interesting. Its not a Crowley bio-pic but does touch on his influence.

There was that other film in the works back in '05 called "revolt of the magicians" but it seems to be "on-hold" (based on some quick googling) That one even had Lon Duquette helping-out.

There's one called the Abbey of Thelema that looks promising--even described as a dark comedy.

I still want the juicy blockbuster film about Alesteir--the guy was fascinating-- protean in appearance and behavior. Release date: Dec. 21 2012 (better get started now y'all)

anthonynorth's picture
Member since:
13 April 2007
Last activity:
5 years 43 weeks

Good morning everyone,
Sorry to leap-frog, fellas, but I hope you understand.
Earthling, why start a new thread when there's so much left on this one?
Hope it wasn't too technical for you :-)

...

Always check out the wider picture. P-ology rules, OK!

Anthony North

earthling's picture
Member since:
22 November 2004
Last activity:
2 weeks 3 days

The conversation was getting way too narrow, and way too far to the right. And all the empty space was on the left.

And this has nothing whatsoever to do with communism.

I was just hoping you could come up with a good title, as a sort-of neutral observer.

----
The cost of living has not affected its popularity.

anthonynorth's picture
Member since:
13 April 2007
Last activity:
5 years 43 weeks

Threadism

earthling's picture
Member since:
22 November 2004
Last activity:
2 weeks 3 days

is it "you" or "ye"?
----
The cost of living has not affected its popularity.