That's crazy. Dan Brown's book was a load of rubbish, in my opinion, and it remains that way to me.
That's one thing we can agree on. The scary thing is that he presents his book (I think it was called The Lost Word, about freemasonry) as fact rather than fiction even though many scientists and other experts have come out to say the vast majority is either complete BS or pure speculation. But some people who believe in these conspiracies are still using Dan Brown's books as a reference.
Well, I'm not one of the 'loonies', if that is what's being implied, because I don't see signs everywhere and am feeling at peace most of the time. There is no need to generalize religious people by saying they're gullible and, yes.. even loonies.
I never implied any of the things you're saying and I would certainly never refer to religious people as loonies. By 'believers' I mean believers in Illuminati (seems quite obvious to me as that is the subject of this thread) and when I said
many (not all) should be sent to the looney bin I was refering to the type I mentioned just a few sentences earlier, i.e. the ones who quote Dan Brown as evidence. The only parallel I drew with religion is that believing in conspiracy theories requires more faith than tangible evidence, just as with religion. Since religious people tend to be more open to the "invisible", they are more easily swayed to believe in conspiracy theories. It's not surprising that the Illuminati heavily involves religion in its theory (Illuminati made pact with the devil, only God can save you etc.). That is quite literally what I said so I don't understand how you can interpret that as me calling you a looney.
As for being gullible, again I am specifically refering to Illuminati believers who only have self-made videos, amateur websites and conspiracy books as evidence yet believe they know all the secrets of supposedly the most powerful organization in the world. I didn't even mention religion here, that is an entirely different concept... although I wouldn't like to imagine what scary cults could emerge if people find Dan Brown's novels 2000 years from now
Not all people are that way, and I am one that is very attentive about what to believe and what not to. You may call it an 8 year old experience in my case, since Michael's 2003 allegations up until now, I've accumulated a lot of.. loads, let's call 'em, and, of course, I'm not the only one who did. To me, Michael's is the perfect case study to understand all these kinds of things fully, on top of doing separate research.
Are you refering to an
Illuminati conspiracy with regard to Michael, or conspiracy in general? Cause I am just talking about the former. Did you know that Illuminati believers claim Michael "sold his soul to the devil" for the Illuminati (they use the song Money as evidence for that btw, cause Michael sings "even sell your soul to the devil" in that song :doh
. In general, I do believe there were people purposely trying to sabotage Michael's career for their own gains. I wouldn't claim my beliefs as facts though, cause they are merely suspicions and I can't really prove them.
Are you addressing me?.. Very sarcastically too. For I haven't judged most about whom I don't know. I'm not judging when I'm not sure. I never generalized, I never said 'All politicians are this and that'. And I specifically mentioned that previously. I absolutely didn't. Typing fast is not helpful in this regard either. Maybe you want to ignore that. And you don't know what my favorite book is, for I have no favorite books as of yet. I've started reading the Bible seriously just days ago, by the way.
Yes I'm addressing you and you most certainly generalized. Here's what you wrote:
They're also disinforming a lot, saying how they're just working for the benefit of civil rights and are promoting peace, so that is why virtually nobody is taking them seriously. That didn't stop the UN to grow into one of the most irrelevant orgs out there, and they're claiming the same, while war is getting to be legalized and necessary again.
And you clearly judge people without knowing them, as you imply that they are purposely disinforming people when they say to work for the benefit of civil rights and the promotion of peace. You can't possibly know that. The UN consists of hundreds of people, have you spoken to each and every one of them to find out what their motives are? "The UN" is not a "thing", it is a body of people (which is btw the very definition of a Nation,
a body of people, not some abstract concept). By insulting the UN, you insult the people working for the UN, which could very well be me in a few years. The UN is not a worthless organization. What about UNICEF, which has helped millions of children around the world? You can never please everyone. When the UN acts, people say they shouldn't get involved in other countries' business. When the UN doesn't act, people complain that the UN is worthless and/or doesn't care. In an attempt to appease both sides, the UN has become rather ineffective in certain areas, particularly political conflicts. It's inevitable. But it's better than nothing at all.
I will do it if fate brings me there. I'm very much into politics as well, and have been following many. Do I like politics? No. I've studied PR and Social Communication in University and I've had experience in this field long enough to remain grossed out about it (PR, generally, as well as politically). I choose not to judge politicians, and not anyone, though, but I'm very wary of many of them.
That's sad that your experience with politics hasn't been positive (although I can assure you that the tactics of PR, bargaining, informal agreements etc. are the same in any area where interests are at stake, such as business). I actually find this part of politics very interesting. In the EU particularly, it gives smaller countries a chance to have their interests heard, if they are able to speak convincingly or make secret package deals with other smaller countries (we enacted official council meetings like that, it was great fun). That's just how things work, I don't think it's wrong or evil or anything. Maybe if you assume that everything should be open and transparent in politics, but that is just not realistic nor efficient.
Yeah, fine line, but whatever. In my country, they're so transparent it hurts. It's almost rare to maintain a job in here if you're not a supporter of a certain party. Yeah, it's that bad and primeval. In some other countries, they're slicker (again, not all of them), though. My attitude is more than justified, I know what nobodies are rulling my country all too well, it'll soon become one of the poorest countries in the world. So I have the right to feel the way I do about many of them. Including internationally, following some of those more sophisticated gents. I don't think this thread is about politicians, though. ...
You are from Romania, right? It is true that in many former authoritarian countries, the transition to a representative democracy has been problematic and still not where it needs to be. I think that will take many more years to accomplish. But you will find that even in your country, although you think it is so corrupt and bad, there are young (future) politicians who genuinely want to improve the situation in your country. I actually know a few Romanians from my study as well. But it will take time.
They were opportunistic, evil families. And they collaborated with certain so-called officials for that, one of them being Tom Sneddon. The LAPD were highly biased and the way raided his home, his body, the way the media handled the trial and him just shows how eager and determined they were to bring him down. I'm sorry if this is not evident.
This is evident, of course. But I don't think it was part of some grand conspiracy. It was just two opportunistic families, a DA who wanted his 5 minutes of fame and a police for most of whom this was the most exciting case they had ever worked on.
Nobody said Illuminati was behind his downfall.
Uh, yes there are people who say exactly that, even on this forum.
You know, Linda, your getting insolent is not gonna do me the favor of 'waking up', because it is not I and 'loonies' like me who are needing to. Call me paranoid all you want, and other names, including in the Katy Perry's thread, where you said you can't wait for my new rants. . I'm glad some can be entertainers to others without even intending to, but being ignored instead would sound better and do a lot of good to many, so this circus doesn't extend. But apparently, some love to challenge it and be entertained. It's just like believing controversy is often done with no purpose whatsoever, but to fool people (wonders who) for entertainment purposes. Have fun, by all means, then.
I never meant to insult you and in my humble opinion, I didn't say anything offensive. I do think you come across a bit paranoid at times, but that is just my perception of you and if you personally know you're not paranoid, all the better. I think you meant the Lady Gaga thread, where I said I am looking forward to reading your rants about the new Judas video. I just find your posts entertaining as I feel you take these things too seriously. That's all :cheers:
