Jump to content

emresearch

Members
  • Posts

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

280 profile views

emresearch's Achievements

0

Reputation

  1. why do you think people aren't interested in knowing this information? do you think they make the conscious decision to stay uninformed? would you say this is also the purpose this forum is serving? To provide space for this kind of conversation and discussion? This reminds me a little about this concept I read about called 'communities of inquiry', where instead of having an exclusive group of people – who acquired expert status within a certain (institutionalised) framework – makes decisions about what should be the accepted truths and facts about their area of expertise, instead of that you have groups and communities of people from different contexts and different kinds of motivations and world views discuss together to find a consensus. Does that resonate with you? that's interesting, thanks well... being intelligent and thinking autonomously is no bed of roses
  2. but how do we ever truly know what the end goal is? There are so many options and all of them can seem plausible on a certain level, imo.
  3. @Macnamara so a long-term aim would be to contribute to work that opens up the discourse in the general public away from a rigid framework in which only one kind of knowledge and data is accepted as 'fact' like it is now. and in order to do that I want to understand what's going on in debate and discussion outside of the mainstream. So currently I'm hoping to find clues as to which aspects of the human life-world are cast out of the general discourse
  4. Yeah but how do you determine whose opinions and positions are controlled? It sometimes seems really random to me and I'd like to understand the decision process behind people deciding whose opinion is controlled and whose isn't. Because I personally don't see any reason for believing someone I've never heard of before about a personal conversation he had with someone that no one else has witnessed (the official Report he wrote back then is worded very differently and doesn't point to any of the extremes he sketches out in the interview so I'm leaving that out right now), especially if he only talks about it years later.. So why should I believe him? What are the reasons for believing an argument that uses conversations without any witnesses as hard evidence? I agree that the status quo of what's seen as acceptable knowledge is very limited and that that is intended, but what do you mean with political correctness working the same way?
  5. Do you think other people generally don't have the ability to gather that much knowledge and to contextualise on Corbett's level or do you think it's a decision to make to stay within the realm of 'accepted' / 'mainstream' knowledge?
  6. but then that also obviously depends on how far you think the reach and influence of e.g. controlled opposition goes
  7. I guess that's how you could put it. I mean I would generally consider myself very critical and not "blindly trusting the governments account of things", but I'm still used and acquainted to doing research differently than Corbett for example (like reading social science papers for information) – so in a way I stay within a certain realm of knowledge and resources and information that Corbett and Icke dare to leave. So what I meant was the realm of thinking outside of the institutionalised realm of knowledge, if that makes sense.
  8. @Macnamara Sorry for taking so long to respond, I really appreciate your help and I watched all the documentaries but took my time because of the vast amounts of information they contain. Thank you for the resources, I feel like they contain many of the links I was missing in order to understand some positions in this realm of thinking. I was wondering if you (and maybe others) would be willing to tell me what exactly it is that makes you seek or rely on e.g. the Corbett Report for a source of information. While a lot of the Big Oil documentary was new (and pretty astonishing) to me I felt like I would also be able to find such information in a documentary on ‘mainstream’ sources, on Netflix for example – but maybe I’m wrong? And I was also wondering if you personally support his notion that ultimately what the PTB want is control, as Corbett says. Because I would personally intuitively argue that control and money are somewhat the same thing and that therefore it was always about money (I mean, it obviously was never about oil, because the oil was the gateway to influence, power, aka money, right?) and that the ultimate goal is money. How would you interpret that? And would you say that, in order to gain power, one already has to belong to the elite (the oiligarchy, royalty, etc.) or would you say it’s possible for anyone to gain power? Is power always the same as belonging to these existing elites or do power and influence and wealth also exist outside of this pre-existing framework? What are your thoughts on the opposition between ‘good’ and ‘evil’ and the way they are often used in reference to the absolute character of a person/a being? What are some of the characteristics a news agency or media outlet or information creator has to fulfill in order for you to seriously consider what they have to say? (For example, I noticed that David Icke mostly refers to the books he wrote himself in his speeches – correct me if I’m wrong – while Corbett provides hyperlinks in his transcripts that also lead to external sources). And a really important question: In what way did personalities like James Corbett or David Icke, who provide such elaborate informational accounts and overviews, influence, change, or confirm your worldview and perspectives? How would you say have these sources influenced your critical thinking? I also noticed that this video revolves a lot about technological development and the way technology is slowly being integrated into our lives (e.g. with the AI advancement). What would you describe your position towards and opinions on technology as? Would you say that technology is human-made or that technology (or at least the knowledge about how to make it) was introduced/’inserted’ into our world by an alien force? What would you say the solution for this 'expert' dilemma is? Do we need some sort of expert status in society and who should determine who is experts? What would you think about a scenario where instead of experts the masses come together and discuss and decide instead of a few experts deciding for everyone else? So what I'm reading from this is that it is generally not good to have people in society who have more power or are given more legitimacy in what they say because of a status that a few established institutions/people decided to give them, right? And lastly, in your opinion: What is the difference between politicians/the government and people like the 'oiligarchs' Corbett talks about? And how is this connected to "social engineering?" Sorry for so many questions! (they’re obviously also directed at everyone else, too)
  9. So in other words you think that it would be the most natural thing for people to be looking out for their own? And do you think it's still possible (despite globalisation) to create a world in which such a political system/societal organisation exists? So the same powers that were responsible for destroying ancient empires are still at play today? Which similarities do you see between those historical events and now? And how do they tell people what's best for them?
  10. also thanks for this reference! I never read the book, so I guess this is my call to do it...
  11. Also, I was wondering, do you have a source for this or know where I could find it? I remember David Icke's lectures being on youtube but it seems that they were removed, or at least I can't find them anymore.
  12. That makes sense, thanks for clarifying! very nicely said. I might quote you on one day this if that's okay. Are you speaking of God in a Christian sense or a more 'universal' context (or different)? How would you describe your spirituality/spiritual belief? Sorry if this is too personal, I'm just interested in the language people use to describe this kind of experience. Oh I heard about Sheldrake and then completely forgot about him! His theories are interesting, they seem to go into the spheres of life that mainstream sciences often do not 'dare' to touch upon. I don't know enough about him but Yes, this is so intriguing. I also understand it in the way that no one can possess entirely truthful knowledge, that there's always a chance of things being completely different. Would you say it's more important to know and investigate the truth or to understand yourself and other people and be comfortable with your own existence? and thanks for coming back to the questions!
×
×
  • Create New...