Go Back   Science Forums Biology Forum Molecular Biology Forum Physics Chemistry Forum > General Science Forums > Physics Forum
Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Physics Forum Physics Forum. Discuss and ask physics questions, kinematics and other physics problems.


Earthlings as Beings of Harvested Consciousness

Earthlings as Beings of Harvested Consciousness - Physics Forum

Earthlings as Beings of Harvested Consciousness - Physics Forum. Discuss and ask physics questions, kinematics and other physics problems.


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-02-2008, 03:27 PM
American
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Earthlings as Beings of Harvested Consciousness



"It Came from Outer Space"
[Only registered users see links. ]

In this sci-fi thriller from 1953, aliens who crash-
landed on the earth intermingle with humans by controlling
them robotically, sort of like androids. Note the
thematic allusion:

"The film has been interpreted as a metaphorical refutation
of xenophobic attitudes and ideology of the Cold War."

With the advent of an intelligent designer, and "aliens"
who looked and acted similar to modern man, would this
sort of technology be within reach to "earthlings" as
space travelers?

If not, have some of us become, or are in the process of
becoming "earthlings as beings of harvested consciousness"?

American
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-03-2008, 01:37 AM
tadchem
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Earthlings as Beings of Harvested Consciousness

On Jan 2, 10:27 am, American <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

Have you been reading the works of L. Ron Hubbard?

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-03-2008, 02:38 AM
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Earthlings as Beings of Harvested Consciousness

On Jan 2, 10:27 am, American <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

It seems to me that the simplest refutation of cold war ideology is
that we paid, trained, and armed the people who became the Taliban and
that we are now attempting to extinguish them. This ambiguity is
evident in plenty of other cold war actions e.g. operation Condor is
South America. Now some of these countries are enemies of the USA even
without the Soviet influence that supposedly was the source.

In terms of human behavior I like the tree you are barking up, but no
aliens are needed to generate troubling results. We seem to operate on
mimicry and variation. How else can a false belief system perpetuate
itself for thousands of years? Most want to be good dogs. That measure
of 'good' comes from a collective approval for most. When
disinformation enters the equation you can be sure that the result
will be poor. Mass hypnosis seems to be a natural human trait. If
Peter Pan couldn't fly but everybody believed he did does it matter?
At some level the belief becomes the human reality whether it is
accurate or not.

Beneath a belief system tend to be assumptions, these forming a basis.
If an assumption can be exposed as false then the belief system built
atop will have to be revised. I'm not so sure that the harvested
consciousness is a bad thing; it would be best to seek a healthy
harvest. It looks like the Abrahamics are heading for a different sort
of harvest.

-Tim
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-03-2008, 05:09 PM
Eric Chomko
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Earthlings as Beings of Harvested Consciousness

On Jan 2, 9:38*pm, "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com"
<[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

C'mon on now, you know there is a NEED for an enemy to justify much of
the US budget. If we actually get rid of all enemies then what? What
would the Little Pattons do? No, we'll create an enemy if need be and
the Taliban is merely one example.

Eric

Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-03-2008, 10:48 PM
American
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Earthlings as Beings of Harvested Consciousness

On Jan 3, 12:09*pm, Eric Chomko <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:
:
: C'mon on now, you know there is a NEED for an enemy to
: justify much of the US budget. If we actually get rid of
: all enemies then what? What would the Little Pattons do?
: No, we'll create an enemy if need be and the Taliban is
: merely one example.
:
: Eric

I'm not answering for Tim, but we seem to be getting
off-topic here w.r.t. hypothetically, who got to the
crash site first. You see, Eric, WE ARE the military,
because they are supposed to represent us, right?

Neither the warmongering armies of the earth who steal
our precious tithes for puppet or hollywood presidents
can save the U.S. from becoming more capitally (and
more lately, militaristically) plutocratic.

Can the internet, e.g. 'word salads' actually redefine
how capital becomes invested militarily? - No they can't
- esp. not - if attorneys act as 'overlords' to every
military action that warrants an investigation. This is
what the U.N. wants - complete military passivity,
monitored by an international force of 'observers'.
That means that our role in Iran has become more as
an interloper than a protector.

Are not these 'observers' just being a little too com-
fortable using their own socio-economic behavior to
license and warrant the behavior of others, who either
are unable, or feel trapped and cannot get involved
with their own socio-economic surroundings?

Yes, they most certainly are.

If this is true, then these 'observers' are nothing
more than puppet capitalists, who want their own variety
of luke warm technology to remain 'closer to earth', so
that, eventually, all of their own class of
'observationists' or 'watchers' can have a piece of
the heavenly pie.

We're not dumbing ourselves down to become more like
communists here. We're trying to help Israel protect
itself against terrorists, and maybe we're doing just
enough to prolong or prevent the inevitable. It's
still coming down to us from our 'top', or NWO if
you like, but it still seems to confirm some ancient
prophecy. To me, the war in Iraq is more bloodlust
in nature, sort of metaphorical, than even being
religiously symbolic. We're slowly observing the
dormant DNA of an oppressed people come to life.

Yet, a greater number of uneducated, unwise people
of the world cannot rule over the wise and educated,
so military action must also defend the 'observers'.
But the practice of being an 'observationist' has
reached its saturation point, or nemesis, if an attor-
ney must rule on every case in question to be a
contrast of national to international security.

Dominionism seeks no witness protection program for
the greater promise market participation - it must
be accomplished by individual effort - and the
training that precedes that effort must also have
conditions built into protecting the national inter-
est, whether it's for the future of Iraq, or any
other country for that matter.

- That doesn't require military intervention any
more than the NWO dictates how the U.S. economy gets
involved. Since they do, then our military is only as
good as the NWO wants it to be. Since it's easier to
put a price tag on the equipment and weapons of war,
the destruction of war material does not necessarily
mean that war material needs to be replaced.

However, the technology that comes with the manufac-
ture and operation of this material identifies a trans-
ferrable skill set within and between industries that
are related to the vehicular, mass transit, and
transportation infrastructure. Yet this is no replay
of the WWII, Korean, Vietnam, or even Gulf War eras
of technological warfare. From satellite and F-16
technology to Stealth fighter and B-2 bomber technology
- all have played a key role in intelligence gathering
and border protection - these technologies have all
become transferrable skill sets in the larger scheme
of newer, revolutionary technology - not tools that
must continually be invented and used to beat and dumb
down religious and revolutionary fundamentalists
half way around the world. It's only more misery that
loves the company of more death machines.

Our present government needs to be ripped out by its
lobbyist roots, or promise markets will also become
dumbed down, lackluster performers (esp. in the larger
scheme of worldwide earth-to-orbit competition).
The only way to do that is to reinvent America - from
the inside out!


American

"Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to
do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity."

- George S. Patton

Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-04-2008, 08:17 AM
Willie.Mookie@gmail.com
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Earthlings as Beings of Harvested Consciousness

Alice Miller pointed out decades ago why adult humans uniformly have a
fascination with power money and death. You are all concerned with
being fooled in one way or another.

I would suggest you all read Drama of the Gifted Child.

Things will be clear.



Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-04-2008, 02:26 PM
American
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Earthlings as Beings of Harvested Consciousness

On Jan 4, 3:17*am, [Only registered users see links. ] wrote:

Nice try, Mook, but I wasn't abused.

And I despise the culture of death that consumes the
world today.

As far as money, sure I'd like to have more - but I'm
afraid that you're mis-categorizing the intended USE
of that capital in not being used as the *driver* for
increasing promise market potential - amongst a
team of recipients. Those recipients are ourselves -
simple technocrats who would love a shot at mass-
marketing some very inexpensive and useful earth-
to-orbit technologies. (Well, maybe not initially THAT
inexpensive!)

But I know for certain that you at least, have posted
about the positive aspects of SSP, in addition to
some interesting launch concepts with an Orion
nuclear pulse type spacecraft, in addition to the
interesting post on the "8 element reusable launch
vehicle". However, I disagree that this launch vehicle
should be used to deploy a Mars direct vehicle.

Let's face it. Mars is a dead planet. What we need
right now, are powerful, orbiting telescopes that can
find those earth-like planets. We're soooo close to
achieving this - but the first deployment won't be
until 2010 at the earliest - and data won't be coming
in till after 2012 - what a sham.

But until then, we could be gearing up for the
largest exodus in history - by making our presence
known by exploring space for useful things, like
dry ices and water ices, metals, and silicon.

These are just some of the extraterrestrial resources
available to us, if only the cheap earth-to-orbit
access were there. My gut feeling is that, if this
cheap, massive, earth-to-orbit technology doesn't
come soon, then very nearly at 2012, when the
earth-like-planet-searching-telescope's data starts
coming in, certain people on this planet will make
themselves unavailable.

I'm in favor of making the jump to a new planetary
system starting from our own orbital infrastructure
- including hotels, refineries, or even interplanetary
entransit refineries. This type of spacefaring would
help to bolster our extraterrestrial presence in the
fashion of an extraterrestrial 'privateer'.

If we don't start from our own orbital infrastructure,
then we are just condemning ourselves to repeat
the past of our invalidating peers - namely,
the NWO. Damn it, we're explorers, not robots!

As I see it, you've had some pretty good ideas
yourself - backed by engineering analysis -
so you don't have to ask me about where the
potential lies. Are you scouting for prospective
clients by posting your ideas up front?

Then I have to say that I support your good
intentions.

As for myself, I have much to say about the
acquisition of precious metals from the asteroids.

But that is for another time.

Regards,

American
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-04-2008, 07:45 PM
Eric Chomko
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Earthlings as Beings of Harvested Consciousness

On Jan 3, 5:48*pm, American <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

Actually no. The average American has no say about what the military
does. There is no vote for military policy. The best we can do is vote
for or against those that set policy but that is indirect at best. Did
we vote for the Iraq war? Could we have voted against it?


The Plutocrats use the military for their own ends. The miltary and
the intelligence community in general has been liken to a gun. Who
decides where that gun points and if and when we pull the trigger is
NOT a decison that is made by you and me. Bush and the government he
heads weighs in on that decision and "officially" is responsible for
the decsion, however, other powerful forces are at work that is in
control of that gun when it comes $$$. Therefore, they can influence
the decision much moreso than you and I can indirectly via the voting
process.


The war in Iraq seems endless, or having an end that is not good for
the US.


When the whole world is watching, then no one can continually screw
over weaker nations.


The US can't expect to claim victory in Iraq when said victory is
likened to defeat by those we are claiming to liberate. If the terms
of their victory means our loss then what is more important, their
victory or ours? THAT is the mess that Bush and Cheney have dragged us
into.


But why not? Surely the job of industry is to create or replace what
is needed or has been destroyed. THAT is the nature of the DOD as a
social program of which the GOP has fallen victum to in the guise of
protecting its citizens.


Yes and no. Was ARPAnet a military entity before it became the
Internet? Can we use government funds in a peaceful manner and yet
have the byproducts of such be as useful as what you claim we get from
the military? I think NASa and others have proven that to be yes. Do
we need $500+ billion as our annual DOD budget when other agencies
like NOAA don't even get $5 billion? Does the DOD produce 100 times
what NOAA does?


Human intelligence (HUMINT) against this enemy (Middle Eastern
terrorists) is more valauble than any single piece of military
hardware, because the latter is of no use to an enemy that a) has no
country, flag or uniform that identifies him as an enemy combant, b)
that uses guerilla tactics of blending in with the populace and
strikes our troops, as they proudly display their country of orgin,
flag and uniform, and c) an enemy that sees its participants as
martyrs when they decide to blow themselves up for what they see as
the common good, while our troops are looking for a transferable
skills to use stateside when they rotate out as if the service was
some sort of free vocational school as promised. Yet here we are
making more planes, bombs and recruiting more troops as if that is
supposed to stem the tide of this enemy.


But how?

Eric


Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-05-2008, 12:33 AM
American
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Bureaucracy as Beings of Harvested Dictatorships

:On Jan 4, 2:45 pm, Eric Chomko <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:
:::
::: C'mon on now, you know there is a NEED for an enemy
::: to justify much of the US budget. If we actually get rid of
::: all enemies then what? What would the Little Pattons do?
::: No, we'll create an enemy if need be and the Taliban is
::: merely one example.
:::
::: Eric
::
:: I'm not answering for Tim, but we seem to be getting
:: off-topic here w.r.t. hypothetically, who got to the
:: crash site first. You see, Eric, WE ARE the military,
:: because they are supposed to represent us, right?
:
: Actually no. The average American has no say about
: what the military does. There is no vote for military policy.
: The best we can do is vote for or against those that set
: policy but that is indirect at best. Did we vote for the
: Iraq war? Could we have voted against it?
:
I'm keeping quite abreast of what our military "accomplishes"
abroad, and have noticed how quickly they got involved after
Bush Jr. got elected. 9-11 was purely opportunistic, but
now we see the push and pull of capitalized markets being
both strained and compressed like they were polar opposites.

They are not. On the one hand, we have things like compu-
ters, video games, simulation, robotics, and AI networks
competing for investment capital at the same time we're
fighting terrorism around the globe. To put it plainly, the
U.S. is leading the drive for developing an internationalist
state. THAT has either one or two outcomes: generating
(1) a marshalled-based economy of observationist oppor-
tunity at the lowest end of there being any kind of individual
intellectual capital, as an affected or manipulated populus-
at-large, or (2) a revolutionized economy that completely
changes the way that the Fed issues notes, in order to
permit an accelerated growth in the manufacture of
revolutionary technologies, at a growth rate exceeding the
lousy 4% the the Fed currently mandates, that would com-
pletely replace our current concrete-and-mortar transporta-
tional infrastructure by introducing a plan to replace the
common automobile with a completely atmospheric-based
craft, eliminating or restricting most formerly public-based
roadways for shipping, housing, and cargo-based infra-
structure.

Now, going back to your original point that "the average
American has no say about what the military does", I can
say that, with this belief system, that outcome #1 has
absolutely nothing to do with outcome #2.

This is an election year.

Is a vote not a statement or litmus test on how our
government is performing? And does not this performance
include our military involvement overseas?

It most certainly is.

But now we have come to the realization that there can
be no vision for America if everything that a prospec-
tive president promises turns completely inside out -
into a complete negative of what was originally pre-
sented to the public-at-large, placing us at the com-
plete mercy of a virgin idea gone harlot.

The Middle East, the new Babylon - is the harlot -
and the enormous power struggles behind the military
machines are also driving dictatorships, at the
expense of its own people.

Remember, it was Sparta who eventually became over-
whelmed by the Greeks, when the Greeks finally decided
to organize militarily (and similarly) like Sparta.
The organizational efforts of a larger body of people
was the deciding factor.

With internationalism, we're talking more about
terrorist action from within, and these events can
only steer the masses of those involved with the best
ideas (seems to be internet based) into some kind of
effort to reorganize our combined intelligence of
*where* those threats exist.

We're becoming more an economy of police intelligence
on the outside of our meat suits, so much so that it
causes me to notice how interdependent people really
have become.

Yet the strain of our military on the American
economic system makes me question the system that
produces dictatorial, fear-based markets in the name
of code-words like "terrorism" on behalf of the
"Harlot economies of the world".
::
:: Neither the warmongering armies of the earth who steal
:: our precious tithes for puppet or hollywood presidents
:: can save the U.S. from becoming more capitally (and
:: more lately, militaristically) plutocratic.
:
: The Plutocrats use the military for their own ends. The
: miltary and the intelligence community in general has been
: liken to a gun. Who decides where that gun points and if
: and when we pull the trigger is NOT a decison that is made
: by you and me. Bush and the government he heads weighs
: in on that decision and "officially" is responsible for the
: decsion, however, other powerful forces are at work that
: is in control of that gun when it comes $$$. Therefore,
: they can influence the decision much moreso than you
: and I can indirectly via the voting process.
:
:: Can the internet, e.g. 'word salads' actually redefine
:: how capital becomes invested militarily? - No they can't
:: - esp. not - if attorneys act as 'overlords' to every
:: military action that warrants an investigation. This is
:: what the U.N. wants - complete military passivity,
:: monitored by an international force of 'observers'.
:: That means that our role in Iran has become more as
:: an interloper than a protector.
::
:: Are not these 'observers' just being a little too com-
:: fortable using their own socio-economic behavior to
:: license and warrant the behavior of others, who either
:: are unable, or feel trapped and cannot get involved
:: with their own socio-economic surroundings?
::
:: Yes, they most certainly are.
::
:: If this is true, then these 'observers' are nothing
:: more than puppet capitalists, who want their own
:: variety of luke warm technology to remain 'closer to
:: earth', so that, eventually, all of their own class of
:: 'observationists' or 'watchers' can have a piece of
:: the heavenly pie.
::
:: We're not dumbing ourselves down to become more like
:: communists here. We're trying to help Israel protect
:: itself against terrorists, and maybe we're doing just
:: enough to prolong or prevent the inevitable. It's
:: still coming down to us from our 'top', or NWO if
:: you like, but it still seems to confirm some ancient
:: prophecy. To me, the war in Iraq is more bloodlust
:: in nature, sort of metaphorical, than even being
:: religiously symbolic. We're slowly observing the
:: dormant DNA of an oppressed people come to life.
:
: The war in Iraq seems endless, or having an end that is
: not good for the US.
:
:
:
:: Yet, a greater number of uneducated, unwise people
:: of the world cannot rule over the wise and educated,
:: so military action must also defend the 'observers'.
:: But the practice of being an 'observationist' has
:: reached its saturation point, or nemesis, if an attor-
:: ney must rule on every case in question to be a
:: contrast of national to international security.
:
: When the whole world is watching, then no one can
: continually screw over weaker nations.
:
And as every eye watches together, one single observer
who records the event has absolutely no idea what led
up to a particular "disaster". Therefore, superficial,
recorded events instead of actual events (that our
military is supposed to be trained with the most
expertise) are continually "suspect".
::
:: Dominionism seeks no witness protection program for
:: the greater promise market participation - it must
:: be accomplished by individual effort - and the
:: training that precedes that effort must also have
:: conditions built into protecting the national inter-
:: est, whether it's for the future of Iraq, or any
:: other country for that matter.
:
: The US can't expect to claim victory in Iraq when
: said victory is likened to defeat by those we are
: claiming to liberate. If the terms of their victory
: means our loss then what is more important, their
: victory or ours? THAT is the mess that Bush and
: Cheney have dragged us into.
:
:: - That doesn't require military intervention any
:: more than the NWO dictates how the U.S. economy
:: gets involved. Since they do, then our military is only
:: as good as the NWO wants it to be. Since it's easier to
:: put a price tag on the equipment and weapons of war,
:: the destruction of war material does not necessarily
:: mean that war material needs to be replaced.
::
: But why not? Surely the job of industry is to create
: or replace what is needed or has been destroyed. THAT
: is the nature of the DOD as a social program of which
: the GOP has fallen victum to in the guise of protecting
: its citizens.
:
I think that our job as a people of America is not just
supposed to be about pricing and moving around a lot
of war-based material, unless you believe that it's an
all-out war to continually purge us of *harlot* bureau-
cracy, e.g., Patriot Acts, statist Zionism, U.S. statism,
U.S. nationalism, Senate Bill 1959, the current Federal
Reserve, greed, corruption, and tyranny in the highest
places of government.
::
:: However, the technology that comes with the manufac-
:: ture and operation of this material identifies a trans-
:: ferrable skill set within and between industries that
:: are related to the vehicular, mass transit, and
:: transportation infrastructure.
:
: Yes and no. Was ARPAnet a military entity before it
: became the Internet? Can we use government funds in a
: peaceful manner and yet have the byproducts of such be
: as useful as what you claim we get from the military?
: I think NASa and others have proven that to be yes. Do
: we need $500+ billion as our annual DOD budget when
: other agencies like NOAA don't even get $5 billion?
: Does the DOD produce 100 times what NOAA does?
:
Yeah, and we can thank our lucky stars that the military
wasn't able to spiff Windows technology like Gates did -
but I believe that what happened with people like Bill
Gates and Windows technology is only the very tip of
an infinitely deepening and quantum energized potential
well of promise markets - yet we're being told by most
of the contemporary "establishment markets" that there
can be no transferrable skill set into something that
competes with their now antiquated, harlot economies of
'wannabe' dictatorships - and it is 'they' who, continu-
ally being blinded like the oppressed people of Iraq -
do not understand the new world economy as it unfolds
before their very eyes. The trading of truth for a lie,
while accepting the premise that some kind of luke warm
status quo will insulate themselves with some kind of
media god, materialism, drunkeness, or hallucination,
that is continually being presented to us in a form of
media-spun addiction to eye-candy, rather than the hard
science of physical systems.

The ultimate choice that a military dictatorship has to
make is whether or not to remain in a constant state of
infantile paralysis, while it defends the very nature of
its own existence.
::
:: Yet this is no replay
:: of the WWII, Korean, Vietnam, or even Gulf War eras
:: of technological warfare. From satellite and F-16
:: technology to Stealth fighter and B-2 bomber technology
:: - all have played a key role in intelligence gathering
:: and border protection - these technologies have all
:: become transferrable skill sets in the larger scheme
:: of newer, revolutionary technology - not tools that
:: must continually be invented and used to beat and dumb
:: down religious and revolutionary fundamentalists
:: half way around the world. It's only more misery that
:: loves the company of more death machines.
:
: Human intelligence (HUMINT) against this enemy (Middle
: Eastern terrorists) is more valauble than any single
: piece of military hardware, because the latter is of no
: use to an enemy that a) has no country, flag or uniform
: that identifies him as an enemy combant, b) that uses
: guerilla tactics of blending in with the populace and
: strikes our troops, as they proudly display their country
: of orgin, flag and uniform, and c) an enemy that sees its
: participants as martyrs when they decide to blow selves
: up for what they see as the common good, while our troops
: are looking for a transferable skills used stateside when
: they rotate out as if the service was some sort of free
: vocational school as promised. Yet here we are making
: planes, bombs and recruiting more troops as if that is
: supposed to stem the tide of this enemy.
:
Think about how many more markets and babies could
have been made stateside for 1 trillion dollars and com-
pare that to 9-11 or the Iraq war and ask yourself: Is the
perception alone of our military involved in a war that
is (somehow) winding down enough to completely insulate
this society from further aggression? If the answer is NO,
then either the scientific and engineering colleges have
failed to revolutionize the free market economy because
of their rush to military projects, or military intelligence
has failed to locate most of the terrorist cells both
home and abroad.

So now you see that it's become a two-edged sword a-
gainst the middle class, there must be an NWO elite that
this nation has become too dependent on.

We're much smarter than that, and we're also much
better than that. Like my previous supposition, I con-
tend that we must rip out by their roots all of the
government lobbyists that do not espouse the revolu-
tionary promise markets, including revolutionary
earth-to-orbit technology.
::
:: Our present government needs to be ripped out by its
:: lobbyist roots, or promise markets will also become
:: dumbed down, lackluster performers (esp. in the larger
:: scheme of worldwide earth-to-orbit competition).
:: The only way to do that is to reinvent America - from
:: the inside out!
:
: But how?
:
Start by making your voice heard in the Congress, the
Senate, and the Legislature at the grass roots level,
and keep pounding home the economic issue of a
marshalled U.S. economy becoming a
military dictatorship.
:
: Eric
:
:
::
:: American
::
:: "Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to
:: do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity."
::
:: - George S. Patton
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-05-2008, 08:04 PM
Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Earthlings as Beings of Harvested Consciousness

On Jan 4, 2:45 pm, Eric Chomko <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

Very good point above. If the pentagon budget were resteered toward
medical technology and renewable energy then many of the feeders could
simply change technology and still feed at the same old trough. This
would answer a large portion of the cost of health care and speed the
transition to renewable energy sources. This could sell especially
amongst the engineers who are ashamed of the work that they do making
weapons of mass destruction for false wars. Does the suicide rate of
returning soldiers speak to the level of moral ground that the USFG
stands on? Every taxpaying American has blood on their hands or has
payed for the blood on hands of others. Could the engineers and
factory workers who assemble the weapons be reaching a turning point?
Do they feel able to speak? To speak for such a conversion would be an
active way out for them.



Again, solid point above. I have a loose (and off-topic) theory that
the secrecy at Guantanamo and the length of stay of the prisoners
there is for the cause of establishing doubles to infiltrate Al
Quaida. The more distant and loosely coupled people (doubles of the
people) could vouch for each other and work their way in. Under this
paradigm if successful then Al Quaida is compromised. If unsuccessful
then Al Quaida still feels compromised in its uncertainty of its
structure. A few loose accusations in such an environment could do
wonders to topple critical members of an organization.

From my vantage the situation feels bleak. The misinformation and
disinformation that the USFG and corporate media continue to purvey is
deeply troubling. Misinformed voters cannot form a valid democracy.

- Tim
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
beings , consciousness , earthlings , harvested


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wave Function Manipulation Experiments Consc Physics Forum 0 12-27-2004 11:07 PM
Consciousness 2 Tarald Andresen Physics Forum 52 12-27-2003 12:03 PM
Qi: Standard Model Extension or Fifth Force? cinquirer Physics Forum 88 11-21-2003 10:45 PM
Consciousness / Physics of Qi (Chi) yuan Physics Forum 8 08-19-2003 08:19 PM
A consciousness question kogs Physics Forum 14 07-14-2003 06:57 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005 - 2012 Molecular Station | All Rights Reserved
Page generated in 0.25859 seconds with 16 queries