[KMA]Avenger wrote:you dont need everyone to be in "the know" to have a conspiracy of massive proportions, you only need to have a lie which is different on every level, meaning that if you are at the top you lie to the people below (after you have rationalized the lie to them) and they in turn pass that lie on and so the lie gets passed down the chain and changes with each step down the chain because it would be ridiculous to think someone on that chain wouldn't stand up and say something if they knew it was a complete lie from start to finish.
This is based on the assumption that people will completely accept the lie. People like yourself seem to question whatever an authority like the Government says (don't take this as criticism: skepticism is an admirable trait, but there is such a thing as taking it too far. I can't remember who said this, but it's true: "we must be open minded, but not so much as our brain falls out"). There are also people like myself who will reasonably demand proof for
all claims before accepting them, so I think your 'chain lie' theory doesn't really hold up.
While you may respond with the actions of the Nazi party or various Communist parties, who managed to con large numbers of people, you must remember that in that time there was brutal suppression of opposing views, which would have helped in the acceptance of the lie.
[url]teachers cannot be trusted for the simple fact that they are in the above chain and they are being taught lies and half truths, for instance...my son started learning about the 2 world wars but was told we needed to fight because of evil and tyrannical leaders who were hell bent on world domination and murder, what the teacher failed to tell was who funded these wars, and in the case of the nazis, who funded germany's rebuilding of its arms industry and which american computer company, built supplied and serviced the punch card machines which kept the records of the holocaust victims,[/url]Yeah, IBM. I agree that that was very unethical but this is not an example of a chain lie: it is simple and easily correctable ignorance (and while I think that most people really need to know about this fact, it really isn't very relevant to high school education on the war, which usually focuses on the political situation that led to the war breaking out).
the teacher went away and researched what my son and i told him and he came back to us simply stunned at what he had learned and told us he would be including this "new" information into the curriculum, the head teacher of the school soon found out and put a stop to it and wouldn't even consider doing any research of her own to confirm this, now why is that?
There could be a multiple reasons, but the main one I think is outlined above: that it isn't relevant to the curriculum, no matter how shocking it is. Teachers, at least int eh school I go to, ahve no control over what they have to teach, only the way in which they teach it.
i also do not sit around watching google vids and clips on youtube and think they are 100% correct, i do a little digging of my own before quoting or passing on anything, just so you know that i'm not gullible.
much of what i say i expect people to research and see for themselves, the last thing i want and i discourage is for anyone to take me at my word, please go and look for yourselves because ultimately there is no substitute for your own research.
i can provide information, links to films and whatever but please look deeper and see for yourselves. i've been watching films, reading and researching the things i have learned for quite some time now and believe me, i would not be passing on information like this if i thought it was incorrect or some outlandish conspiracy pipe dream.
That is good. However, I would suggest that you take a look at some sources that you may be initially unwilling to trust, like mainstream academics. Researching only one side of an argument isn't researching.
i hope i am wrong about everything i say but what am i to believe when the UN and the Rockefeller's have publicly admitted they want to wipe out 90% of the worlds population and have openly admitted that Food and the environment issues are be used as weapons against the whole population of the world?
I have never heard such a thing, a seriously doubt that this was said. Evidence, if you please.
what am i to believe when i see pagan symbolism threw out the catholic church and the pope even goes so far as to adorn pagan symbolism all over himself and threw out the vatican?
I have no idea what you are talking about, or why it is relevant, but I do know that many Christian rituals were adapted from paganism due to many pagans being converted. Decorating Christmas trees is an example of this.
what am i to believe when they put rat poison in our water and our toothpaste and now they are putting it into bottled water? i'm referring to the 2nd most toxic substance known to man...fluorine based compounds...
Fluoride and Organophosphates
Fluoride again becomes fluorine. Oh yes, just for a mili-second, ...
Fluoridated organophosphates are some of the most toxic substances known and can have a ...http://www.ghorganics.com/Fluoride%20an ... phates.htm - 9k - Cached - Similar pages
still don't believe what i say about Fluoride?
try researching what happened to Dr. Phyllis Mullenix when she published a paper trying to warn people about fluorides toxicity in rats.
Erm, water has been fluoridated for a long time. If it were toxic, there would have been signs by now.
Also, when reacted with other elements, some chemicals can turn from hazardous to beneficial. For example, sodium chloride (table salt) is composed of both an element that explodes violently when it comes into contact with water and another that is a highly toxic gas, yet when in a compund form together it is mostly harmless.
did you know that the 2 food advisory groups to the UN (sorry forgotten their names, will post them when i remember) have made public statements declaring nutrients to be toxic?
No, and I doubt they ever did. Source.
cancer is a deficiency disease and still they are removing nutrients from the food chain causing yet more complications and deficiency based illnesses and obesity due to the fact we have to eat more to get the same amount of nutrients...
No, cancer is, to my understanding, caused by a defect in the gene that limits the growth of cells. This damaged cell then 'steals' resources from other cells until they die.
why wont they tell us about the benefits of Laetrile which has been known to keep cancer at bay?
why are doctors who have discovered the drug (for lack of a better word) Laetrile on their own and have prescribed it to patience with cancer, being persecuted and driven out of the medical profession for simply having the best interests of the patient/s at heart?
Well, has this 'drug' ever been trailed under double-blind conditions? Because if it hasn't, then a patient who takes it and has no benefit may sue, which is why other doctors may be wary of it.
Also, how did they present this drug? Did they do studies and present them for peer review?
unrestrained government is one of the most harmful and destructive institutions towards the very people it is supposed to serve and yet people still cant see this fact...that just defies all logic and reason
Government isn't unrestrained. The court system acts as a check, and whistle blowers can be particularly troublesome for governments.
EPIC post.
One final point: Please address my arguments directly next time, instead of throwing out a whole bunch of red herrings.
I'm a slow poster.
