Jump to content

Talk to me for my research into hegemony and truth regimes!


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, emresearch said:

I don't mean to argue for socialism here, but I sometimes feel like capitalism is what makes people competitive and lack sympathy and empathy, so I would hope that if money wouldn't 'rule' us as much, we would automatically find ways to sympathise and cooperate peacefully. Obviously that wouldn't rid us of conflicts of interest, but maybe at least smoothen them out a little bit. What are your thoughts?

 

My thoughts are that most people are tribal and I don't see that ending any time soon, and I think it's unfair that white people are the only group that are not allowed to be. Obviously I'm not advocating aggressive tribalism or supremacy though, just people looking out for their own.

 

As for socialism, I can't get behind any Marxian socialism. Old Germanic traditions of countrymen helping out the their fellow countrymen, and regulations to stop elites and corporations from plundering nations, now that I can get behind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

If an engineer builds a bridge and that bridge works, then you can tell from that that his theories are truthful or relatively truthful ... because they are tested in the natural world.  He has theori

There are a lot of people doing great work out there and i could name a bunch and still miss out a load of great researchers so I'll keep it simple. David Icke goes into specifics as does James Corbet

1 hour ago, emresearch said:

Who do you mean with this?

 

I'm talking about those that keep banging on about destroying Edom/Rome/Europe etc. I can't trust them to tell me what is best for me or any other group of people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, rideforever said:

Yeah, everybody is always moaning and begging.

 

don't be so ignorant

 

13 hours ago, rideforever said:

What was wrong with the East India Company, it was great wasn't it?

Fantastic, new legal system, new personal wealth, exploration and expansion.

 

no it was a vehicle of the sabbatean-freemasonic network that is currently placing us all under covid-hysteria house arrest and which intends to enslave the entire human race under its technocracy

 

Their base of operations was holland where they set up the dutch central bank and the dutch east india company and then they moved their base to london, with the help of the prince of orange where they then set up the central bank of england and the east india company

 

It's their schemes that all white people are now being blamed for through the simplistic narratives of critical race theory

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, emresearch said:

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.

To Understand Sabbatian Frankism, Is To Understand The World – David Icke

https://davidicke.com/2020/01/18/understand-sabbatian-frankism-understand-world-david-icke/

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, emresearch said:

Are there people who do the work Chomsky does better and do give the names and specifics, in your opinion?

 

There are a lot of people doing great work out there and i could name a bunch and still miss out a load of great researchers so I'll keep it simple. David Icke goes into specifics as does James Corbett of the Corbett Report and the UK Column are good at digging into who the personnel are behind initiatives. Whitney Webb writes great exposes for the lastamericanvagabond website and truth stream media cover a lot of good ground too.

 

Two of the best documentaries to summarise what is going on are by james corbett and they are:

 

How Big oil conquered the World: https://www.bitchute.com/video/U67rpGthMRQe/

Why big oil conquered the world: https://www.bitchute.com/video/0wlNey9t7hQ/

 

Quote

Do you think that the 'power elites' (who/whatever they may be) are actively trying to influence the interests of average Americans (i.e. do they profit off of a rhetoric such as Chomsky's because he makes it sound like it's all of the US which divers attention from specific people)?

 

Yes i believe that Chomsky is keeping perception within certain parameters which protects the power elites that are behind THE conspiracy. There are many conspiracies but i am referring to the big over-arching one!

 

Quote

Do you think it's generally a problem that 'intellectuals' are given the voice and position in society to discuss about other people's issues?

 

The problem in the example i gave is that there is no palestinean voice in that debate on the idea of a palestinean nation state. It is a debate between two jews who arguably are invested in the interests of israel.

 

Re intellectuals controlling the public conversations though there is the issue of the politicisation of science where you can get one side on an issue who present their 'experts' that support their position whilst their opponents can bring forth their own set of 'experts' who express a totally different position

 

'Experts' don't always agree and the concept of the 'technocracy' as a system of ordering society is that it is rule by experts; but whose experts get to call the shots? If you are the power elite then you can simply use your own corrupt 'experts' and say to the public that the 'experts' have spoken and therefore that is what must be done.

 

That is what we are seeing with this covid-hysteria, where boris johnson is saying that the small SAGE team have advised him and therefore his hands are tied and he must follow their advice. But who do those SAGE scientists really work for? They have been found to have many conflicts of interest and ties to the bill and melinda gates foundation. Meanwhile there are tens of thousands of experts around the world who have signed the barrington declaration who disagree with boris's tiny, unelected SAGE team

 

So clearly technocracy is just a scam through which the power elites justify what they intend to do anyway by hiding behind corrupt 'experts'

Edited by Macnamara
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/4/2021 at 7:37 PM, Macnamara said:

Noam will also blame 'the US' for things but is the US a homogenous entity with a cohesive identity or is it riven with factionalism? What is 'the US?' Is it the 'power elites' who have their hands on the levers of power or is it joe and jane bloggs on the street who care about their jobs, their family, their past times and the safety and security of their neighbourhood and by extension their country because they want to raise their children in a safe environment? Because clearly the interests of the 'power elite' and the interests of joe and jane bloggs on the street are NOT the same

 

So Noam has some of the broad strokes but never turns up the microscope any further

 

We could speculate about why this is.

 

Essentially what chomsky is doing is a form of CRITICAL THEORY which is to say the tactic of the jewish-marxist-frankfurt school which was to condition US students to constantly criticise their own nation without discussing any real solutions to any problems. This is to teach the young to despise their own nation in order to psychologically prepare them to let go of their nation so that they may be subsumed into a global citizenry under the control of a world government

Jeffrey Blankfort - Are there Israel lobby gatekeepers and damage control squads on the Left?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, emresearch said:

thank you!

Hopefully only relevant to today's subjects as well as the idea of 'truth', all available on archive.org I think.:

 

Michael Collins Piper - 'The New Babylon'. This book and his other works will demonstrate that you have an uphill task. 'The Judas Goats' is also revealing and the method should be applied to today's personalities - I mention these first only because I'm still reading them.

 

'Bechamp or Pasteur' (Plain text version available on archive.org) by Ethel. D. Hume, which may lead you to reading Bechamps work: The Blood and its third anatomical element. The one exposes Pasteur and 'germ theory', the other details Bechamps discoveries on blood and mycrozymas.

 

Witness the effect on society at the time vaccination was introduced and revel in the work of a 1900's activist with 'VACCINATION A CURSE And  a  Menace TO Personal Liberty', by J.  M. PEEBLES. A. M., M. D., Ph. D.

 

Then enjoy;

 

White slavery in the barbary states, sumner. One may deduce from this that the issue of historical slavery is not as 'black and white' as portrayed. I mean for heavens sake what is the etymology of the word slave?

 

Also if you have a couple of weeks to spare read The New Chronology - http://chronologia.org/en/seven/chronology1.html

Please start and continue from the link given above before you look at the rest of the site. DO NOT READ ANY SUMMARIES UNTIL YOU READ THE DETAILED (SOMETIMES BORING) RESEARCH.

 

Basically, everything you know is a lie - on purpose.

 

Good luck!

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/5/2021 at 4:50 PM, EnigmaticWorld said:

My thoughts are that most people are tribal and I don't see that ending any time soon, and I think it's unfair that white people are the only group that are not allowed to be. Obviously I'm not advocating aggressive tribalism or supremacy though, just people looking out for their own.

 

As for socialism, I can't get behind any Marxian socialism. Old Germanic traditions of countrymen helping out the their fellow countrymen, and regulations to stop elites and corporations from plundering nations, now that I can get behind.

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?

On 4/5/2021 at 4:52 PM, EnigmaticWorld said:

Edom/Rome/Europe

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?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@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.

 

On 4/5/2021 at 10:37 PM, Macnamara said:

Two of the best documentaries to summarise what is going on are by james corbett and they are:

 

How Big oil conquered the World: https://www.bitchute.com/video/U67rpGthMRQe/

Why big oil conquered the world: https://www.bitchute.com/video/0wlNey9t7hQ/

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?

 

On 4/5/2021 at 10:21 PM, Macnamara said:

To Understand Sabbatian Frankism, Is To Understand The World – David Icke

https://davidicke.com/2020/01/18/understand-sabbatian-frankism-understand-world-david-icke/

 

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?

 

On 4/5/2021 at 10:37 PM, Macnamara said:

'Experts' don't always agree and the concept of the 'technocracy' as a system of ordering society is that it is rule by experts; but whose experts get to call the shots? If you are the power elite then you can simply use your own corrupt 'experts' and say to the public that the 'experts' have spoken and therefore that is what must be done.

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?

 

On 4/5/2021 at 10:37 PM, Macnamara said:

So clearly technocracy is just a scam through which the power elites justify what they intend to do anyway by hiding behind corrupt 'experts'

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)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/6/2021 at 12:09 PM, Nobby Noboddy said:

Hopefully only relevant to today's subjects as well as the idea of 'truth', all available on archive.org I think.:

 

Michael Collins Piper - 'The New Babylon'. This book and his other works will demonstrate that you have an uphill task. 'The Judas Goats' is also revealing and the method should be applied to today's personalities - I mention these first only because I'm still reading them.

 

'Bechamp or Pasteur' (Plain text version available on archive.org) by Ethel. D. Hume, which may lead you to reading Bechamps work: The Blood and its third anatomical element. The one exposes Pasteur and 'germ theory', the other details Bechamps discoveries on blood and mycrozymas.

 

Witness the effect on society at the time vaccination was introduced and revel in the work of a 1900's activist with 'VACCINATION A CURSE And  a  Menace TO Personal Liberty', by J.  M. PEEBLES. A. M., M. D., Ph. D.

 

Then enjoy;

 

White slavery in the barbary states, sumner. One may deduce from this that the issue of historical slavery is not as 'black and white' as portrayed. I mean for heavens sake what is the etymology of the word slave?

 

Also if you have a couple of weeks to spare read The New Chronology - http://chronologia.org/en/seven/chronology1.html

Please start and continue from the link given above before you look at the rest of the site. DO NOT READ ANY SUMMARIES UNTIL YOU READ THE DETAILED (SOMETIMES BORING) RESEARCH.

 

Basically, everything you know is a lie - on purpose.

 

Good luck!

thanks! I'm working on it

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, emresearch said:

@Macnamara

 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.

 

by 'realm of thinking' you mean people who follow the information to where it leads instead of blindly trusting the governments account of things?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, emresearch said:

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?

 

i think you are wrong. I doubt you will find that information on netflix!

 

What corbett has which many people don't have is a depth of knowledge which provides him with a wider context within which to view events.

 

This means his interpretation of events is based on more context than yours and as a result his interpretation is more likely to be accurate. When you have his depth of knowledge people may listen to you too

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Macnamara said:

 

by 'realm of thinking' you mean people who follow the information to where it leads instead of blindly trusting the governments account of things?

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, emresearch said:

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.

but then that also obviously depends on how far you think the reach and influence of e.g. controlled opposition goes

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Macnamara said:

 

i think you are wrong. I doubt you will find that information on netflix!

 

What corbett has which many people don't have is a depth of knowledge which provides him with a wider context within which to view events.

 

This means his interpretation of events is based on more context than yours and as a result his interpretation is more likely to be accurate. When you have his depth of knowledge people may listen to you too

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, emresearch said:

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?

 

Much as I respect James Corbett there are places he doesn't go and there are gaps in some of his documentaries that make me suspicious.

 

If you want examples of REAL researchers, people who spend decades on detailed investigations, going around the world for sources of all kinds you should look at (REGARDLESS of how you feel about their subjects and conclusions etc.): David Irving, Anatoly Fomenko and  Gleb Nosovsky and to a lesser degree Michael Collins Piper.

 

It occurs to me that the way to tell if a researcher is genuine or not is if their lives have been destroyed, or they've simply been killed. Sad as it sounds I think this is very close to the truth.

Edited by Nobby Noboddy
another thought....
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, emresearch said:

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.

 

Ok but the cabal control areas such as education through tax exempt foundations (see clip of normon dodd below for example)

 

They are setting the parameters of acceptable discourse within the 'institutionalised realm of knowledge' to create an 'overton window' where people are terrified of being labelled a 'conspiracy theorist' if they stray outside of the overton window of acceptable discourse. If there is a climate of fear then there can't be honest exploration of the truth. Political correctness works the same way by making society police itself

 

An interesting podcast by corbett looks into problems in the area of science (poignant in the current climate of covid-hysteria):

Episode 353 – The Crisis of Science

Corbett02/23/2019

Norman Dodd - The Hidden Agenda For World Government

Edited by Macnamara
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/15/2021 at 9:57 PM, Macnamara said:

Ok but the cabal control areas such as education through tax exempt foundations (see clip of normon dodd below for example)

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?

 

On 4/15/2021 at 9:57 PM, Macnamara said:

They are setting the parameters of acceptable discourse within the 'institutionalised realm of knowledge' to create an 'overton window' where people are terrified of being labelled a 'conspiracy theorist' if they stray outside of the overton window of acceptable discourse. If there is a climate of fear then there can't be honest exploration of the truth. Political correctness works the same way by making society police itself

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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, emresearch said:

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?

 

what's your research area?

 

do you work in the field of artificial intelligence?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@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

 

Edited by emresearch
forgot to @
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, emresearch said:

@Macnamara

 I'm hoping to find clues as to which aspects of the human life-world are cast out of the general discourse

 

so one way to do that from scratch would be to look at what the end goal of the conspiracy is and then reverse engineer it

 

This way you could understand what things they don't want you to talk about!

 

So for example if their goal is to centralise power into their hands on a global scale then of course anything relating to individual empowerment and enlightenment and self-sufficiency is going to come under attack

 

Equally if you wish to be the resistance then you would embrace such things

Edited by Macnamara
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Macnamara said:

 

so one way to do that from scratch would be to look at what the end goal of the conspiracy is and then reverse engineer it

 

This way you could understand what things they don't want you to talk about!

 

So for example if their goal is to centralise power into their hands on a global scale then of course anything relating to individual empowerment and enlightenment and self-sufficiency is going to come under attack

 

Equally if you wish to be the resistance then you would embrace such things

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, emresearch said:

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.

 

That's where that depth of knowledge thing comes in....it gives you the context within which to see events

 

Much of the conspiracy is not actually hidden it's just that most people don't read the documents or listen to the whistleblowers who are exposing it

 

Try doing that for over a decade....you'll start to get the gist

 

Or you could watch all of james corbetts back catalogue of podcasts lol....although it might take you ten years to do that!

 

The other thing you could be doing during that ten years is looking at david's headlines section of his website EVERY SINGLE DAY before then discussing those issues with a wide range of people from all backgrounds, countries, beliefs and viewpoints. David has also written lots of great books that are worth a read and the ickes have their ikonic channel now too

 

UKColumn do a newspiece three times a week that looks at documents and listens to whistleblowers

 

So in short....a whole load of legwork

Edited by Macnamara
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...