StarGateWars Forums

Rufus: He still digs humanity, but it bothers Him to see the **Filtered** that gets carried out in His name - wars, bigotry, televangelism. But especially the factioning of all the religions. He said humanity took a good idea and, like always, built a belief structure on it.

Bethany: Having beliefs isn't good?

Rufus: I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can't generate. Life becomes stagnant.

DOGMA FTW

This is creating money out of thin air, account money, no money has actually been printed yet now out of the 98% available to be loaned out, you now owe more interest and no money has been printed to repay the principle much less the interest. This money can continue to be loaned out until it reaches zero. What a scam! If it's not obvious to you yet, this was a fraud from the beginning because bank created money was required to repay the interest, which was impossible because only principle money was created.

An insane amount of our money is not printed out. Can you really imagine the countless trillions are all printed out? it's one of the main reasons we left the gold standard, there is so much USD floating around being used that all the gold in the world is barely a fraction of it's value.

[KMA]Avenger wrote:
1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.
2. Guide reproduction wisely - improving fitness and diversity.
3. Unite humanity with a living new language.
4. Rule passion - faith - tradition - and all things with tempered reason.
5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts.
6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court.
7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials.
8. Balance personal rights with social duties.
9. Prize truth - beauty - love - seeking harmony with the infinite.
10.Be not a cancer on the earth - Leave room for nature - Leave room for nature.

read that above text VERY carefully for it declares humanity (and you) a danger to nature and the benefits of a 1 world government and elevates nature to the status of God....paganism anyone?


http://www.radioliberty.com/stones.htm



Davide Rockefeller gives UN speech about population control

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEJxr1HxwuE


"2. Guide reproduction wisely - improving fitness and diversity." ask chinese parents who are under a 1 child per family restriction how they feel when they are imprisoned for having more than 1 child, a policy which has been publicly praised by the globalists and china has even been given awards for it.


everything i have said in this post and my last is true, but as i keep saying...PLEASE DO NOT TAKE MY WORD FOR IT, GO FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF

Turning anything be it an "idea", "nature" or a person into a god is quite unbelievable. It slows down progress and finding answers to questions that remain unanswered. Imagine what the world would be like without a "god". Would it be better? Maybe. Would it be worse? Maybe. We don't know because we never had a chance to find out.

The human race is "destroying" this planet so yes, we are a danger to nature but anything that is powerful enough to destroy anything else is powerful enough to destroy itself, for example - war. And why is most wars fought? Religion and/or a belief that a collected people think they're "idea's" (beliefs) are right and everyone else is wrong.

Biscuit wrote:
The human race is "destroying" this planet so yes, we are a danger to nature but anything that is powerful enough to destroy anything else is powerful enough to destroy itself, for example - war. And why is most wars fought? Religion and/or a belief that a collected people think they're "idea's" (beliefs) are right and everyone else is wrong.

erm...this may come as a shock but all modern wars are fought because of money and control and no other reason.

exactly how are people "destroying" (as you say) the planet?

i don't get that part

[KMA]Avenger wrote:exactly how are people "destroying" (as you say) the planet?

i don't get that part

I think that's the entire problem, don't you? People not getting that?

[KMA]Avenger wrote:

Biscuit wrote:
The human race is "destroying" this planet so yes, we are a danger to nature but anything that is powerful enough to destroy anything else is powerful enough to destroy itself, for example - war. And why is most wars fought? Religion and/or a belief that a collected people think they're "idea's" (beliefs) are right and everyone else is wrong.

erm...this may come as a shock but all modern wars are fought because of money and control and no other reason.

exactly how are people "destroying" (as you say) the planet?

i don't get that part

One simple answer - abusing natural resources for our benefit.
There's one simple solution to most abuse of the worlds natural resources and that's nuclear power. It's cheap, efficient and the safest way to produce energy.


Yes, I know wars are funded purely for profit on the "war economy" but the reasons for fighting aren't purely for money. I mean in the course of history you can see many reasons for going to war and religion pops up quite often.

what about the standing problems between palastiens and Israelies, that isnt a war about money....

Rev. Auriel Daniels wrote:

[KMA]Avenger wrote:exactly how are people "destroying" (as you say) the planet?

i don't get that part

I think that's the entire problem, don't you? People not getting that?

now now, your being clever

i'm serious, someone please tell me how man is responsible for the destruction of the earth?

i was referring to every war since napoleon

There's more evidence to the fact that the human-virus is destroying the earth as there is to support many claims you've made over the past few months, dear. And yes.. I am at the moment too lazy to list a few for you, as I think you're pretty good with Google yourself.


I did however write something else, wrote it a while ago, just couldn't ever find a proper thread to put it in.

Let's presume the fact that humanity is dissocialised, overconsuming, and generally requires too much of the earth.

...: Solve the issue of humanity by restoring the earlier rule of survival of the fittest. First and foremost, cancel the 'let genetically failed humans survive and reproduce' thing.. it's sickening. Second, restrict reproduction from non-failed humans, instate an embryo-check policy for common faults. Thirdly, limit healthcare for non-productive humans. Fourthly, enforce families to pursue the maximum potential.
And finally.. stick the world in a Dark Age (restrict communications, electricity, internet to the leading class) for 40 years, after which gradually these basic needs are provided again, provided as a reward to excellent communities who prove they are able to live harmoniously and consensually. Those groups that prove to be able to thrive are selected and allowed to reproduce more as the other groups, and the failing communities are eradicated. They lack the ability to prosper, which is consistent with a generic deficiency as humans. In the end, you'll end up with many good and advanced communities, with a very clear vision of advancement of the human race as a goal.

Yes.. I could say so much more.. in fact, I have at one occasion ordered a field study to be done to the potential of this scenario. It would reach interesting goals, is all I will say to that. Why would one want to let evolution stop by polluting our gene pool with deficient matter?

Rev. Auriel Daniels wrote:There's more evidence to the fact that the human-virus is destroying the earth as there is to support many claims you've made over the past few months, dear. And yes.. I am at the moment too lazy to list a few for you, as I think you're pretty good with Google yourself.


I did however write something else, wrote it a while ago, just couldn't ever find a proper thread to put it in.

Let's presume the fact that humanity is dissocialised, overconsuming, and generally requires too much of the earth.

...: Solve the issue of humanity by restoring the earlier rule of survival of the fittest. First and foremost, cancel the 'let genetically failed humans survive and reproduce' thing.. it's sickening. Second, restrict reproduction from non-failed humans, instate an embryo-check policy for common faults. Thirdly, limit healthcare for non-productive humans. Fourthly, enforce families to pursue the maximum potential.
And finally.. stick the world in a Dark Age (restrict communications, electricity, internet to the leading class) for 40 years, after which gradually these basic needs are provided again, provided as a reward to excellent communities who prove they are able to live harmoniously and consensually. Those groups that prove to be able to thrive are selected and allowed to reproduce more as the other groups, and the failing communities are eradicated. They lack the ability to prosper, which is consistent with a generic deficiency as humans. In the end, you'll end up with many good and advanced communities, with a very clear vision of advancement of the human race as a goal.

Yes.. I could say so much more.. in fact, I have at one occasion ordered a field study to be done to the potential of this scenario. It would reach interesting goals, is all I will say to that. Why would one want to let evolution stop by polluting our gene pool with deficient matter?

you are mad, thank god you in no postion of power. People are human after all, and in no way should any human be ok with the iradication "genetically failed humans". What your talking about is genocide and your studing euginics far to much

erm...what ifrit said

Genocide is not necessarily a bad thing, if it works to further the human race.
Eugenics are not necessarily a bad thing, since it's what nature would do through the entire principle of 'evolution'.
Why would anyone make a fuss over that?

So I am mad. Interesting response, people.. instead of giving it some rational thought, we just insult the person who gives the idea. *sigh* That's poor.

i dont think you quite understand what it is you are saying

far be it from me to insult anyone but thats just downright madness...your saying your in favor of wiping out whole peoples and that nature would do the same??


i'm sorry but i would not want to evolve or whatever at the expense of anyone, i would sooner die than kill or for someone to die so i could benefit in anyway shape or form.

[KMA]Avenger wrote::shock: i dont think you quite understand what it is you are saying

far be it from me to insult anyone but thats just downright madness...your saying your in favor of wiping out whole peoples and that nature would do the same??

I am in favour of wiping out groups in the human society which would be wiped out by nature if left to that.

Do you think people who limp would survive back in Prehistoric days? When they were throwing a spear at a raging bull, they would miss the target, just because they couldn't stand up straight.
Okay, being able to stand up straight is perhaps a bad example, but certainly you know how much of a strain on society the terminally ill and disabled are? Society bends the basic principles of human development, so that they can live and sometimes even procreate. That's unnatural, and if unstopped will ultimately cause the breakdown of society as a whole. Nature would have filtered these errors out of the species a long time ago had we let it.

I'd like to introduce the aspect of "High Society", a perspective most conspirationists (sorry for the somewhat pejorative term, but I have yet to find a better one) are familiar with from a distance.
High Society is human excellence in its prime. High Society suffers as the amount of failures increases.. and ultimately, High Society is the only thing that defines human civilization.
Do you think after aeons have passed, that the "common man" is what defines humanity? We remember Rome by the elite. We will be remembered by our own. High Society will always be the definition of human civilization, despite the best efforts of those who oppose it. It is by the balance of High Society ("Good") versus the barbarisms of the common man ("Evil") that humankind prevails. Disturb that balance (f.x. by exponentially increasing the amount of failures and genetic defects) and eventually you risk the survival of both High Society and the common man. Then you're left with the dead hulk of mankind, crawling back into the caves of their minds.

But by all means.. kill the one who tells you that bright light you see is actually only a reflection of the world being on fire. Go ahead, be hostile.


edit: I'd love to stay and chat, but I have a dinner to attend. Will reply when I get back.

Biscuit wrote:I have heard about such things but never looked into it Avenger. Humans lie, they lie more than they tell the truth.
Sure they found a way to stop cervical cancer and it costs too much to give the vaccination to girls in the UK? Come on.. That's just stupid.. They'd rather spend millions on speed camera's, taking care of people who don't need it, funding a war rather than save their own people from a disease?

That vaccine only works with a small number of the virus's that cause cervical cancer. It's side effects include horrific pain at the time of the administration and a huge amount of women getting chronic conditions from the vaccine itself. There is a lot they don't tell you about that vaccine that is becoming common knowledge here in the U.s. thru the hardwork of some doctors that knew it got released prematurely for business reasons.