Show Posts
196
The Kitchen Sink / Re: Off the Reservation: by El Gallinazo
« on: April 15, 2012, 04:04:08 AM »
El Gallinazo
I think we may have a lot more in common than I made obvious in my first and only post here. For example, I agree with you that there is a high, if not absolute, probability that 9/11 was either an inside job, or in the least allowed to happen to justify the subsequent escapades in the Middle East. However, even on this point we may differ in our assessment of the reasons for activity in the ME. I've come to see it as an attempt to lock down the last remaining large reserves of crude oil, and control the flow of said oil from the region, against the backdrop of peak oil. To me this seems logical. To you it may not, I don't know where you stand, so I won't or can't speculate. I respectfully request that you also give me this same consideration until all the information is available to you.
My assertion that you were uninterested in realistic action was expressed poorly, and for that I apologise. I intended to communicate that you were uninterested in direct physical action. I based this on your following statement:
Perhaps I misunderstood. I didn't intend for this to be a criticism, but rather a reflection of the position you stated above, one which I can completely appreciate given your justification for that position; that it's attractiveness has waned with age. Since I am indeed a young man, I come from a position where I am interested in the "Don't just stand there .... do something" school of thought, and was opening up the dialogue in a sincere hope of some suggestions along this vein, as I've been hard pressed to come across in my travels.
As for my stance on the question of ET's, I've had a interest in the topic since a very young age, so it is not a topic I casually dismiss or believe to be outside the realm of possibility. I have done a lot of research on this topic and understand a good range of the body of knowledge, not necessarily in the detail you may, though I'll admit my interest has diminished in recent years as other topics have drawn my eye and there are only so many hours in the day. I have no doubt there is something going on here. Again, the exact nature of what is going on is up for debate. I've come to favour the Jacques Vallee assessment that UFO's and ET's represent a phenomenon of consciousness which is expressed in language and terms of the historical context in which it's experienced (hence chariots of fire, as depicted in the bible, or elves and gnomes during medieval times), rather than a "real" phenomenon in the traditional sense of metallic craft and humanoids from another world. That being said, I echo RE's point that it may be impossible to know the "real" truth, in fact there is a lot of evidence that there's no such thing as objective truth given discoveries in quantum physics of a participatory reality and the influences of our faculties on perceiving it. Also like RE, I find there is plenty of verifiable evidence that points to a narrative of completely homegrown threats rather than influences by "real" ET's. I suppose you might argue the existence of such a narrative could be misinformation, yet I could make the same claim of the ET threat; that a phenomenon of consciousness has been hijacked by TPTB to distract from the evidence of a finite world in which an infinite growth economic system that relies on debt that must be repaid, but can't due to dwindling resources, is unravelling against a backdrop of overpopulation, pollution, ecosystem collapse, and a host of other measurable datapoints.
That's my perspective, and like you, I am open to reconsidering it based on evidence presented to the contrary. As such I will have a look at the link you provided to the book which may present this evidence. I look forward to sharing of information and viewpoints on this blog and hope that the process can remain civil. At the same time, I have no problem calling things as I see them and if I perceive someone is being an asshole, am happy to name them as such. Too often political correctness is used as a mechanism to avoid honest debate.
I think we may have a lot more in common than I made obvious in my first and only post here. For example, I agree with you that there is a high, if not absolute, probability that 9/11 was either an inside job, or in the least allowed to happen to justify the subsequent escapades in the Middle East. However, even on this point we may differ in our assessment of the reasons for activity in the ME. I've come to see it as an attempt to lock down the last remaining large reserves of crude oil, and control the flow of said oil from the region, against the backdrop of peak oil. To me this seems logical. To you it may not, I don't know where you stand, so I won't or can't speculate. I respectfully request that you also give me this same consideration until all the information is available to you.
My assertion that you were uninterested in realistic action was expressed poorly, and for that I apologise. I intended to communicate that you were uninterested in direct physical action. I based this on your following statement:
Quote
As with everything under the sun, there are two schools of thought. One is, "Don't just stand there .... do something." And the other is, "Don't just do something .... stand there" :-) I have to admit that I have become somewhat partial to the second school as I age
Perhaps I misunderstood. I didn't intend for this to be a criticism, but rather a reflection of the position you stated above, one which I can completely appreciate given your justification for that position; that it's attractiveness has waned with age. Since I am indeed a young man, I come from a position where I am interested in the "Don't just stand there .... do something" school of thought, and was opening up the dialogue in a sincere hope of some suggestions along this vein, as I've been hard pressed to come across in my travels.
As for my stance on the question of ET's, I've had a interest in the topic since a very young age, so it is not a topic I casually dismiss or believe to be outside the realm of possibility. I have done a lot of research on this topic and understand a good range of the body of knowledge, not necessarily in the detail you may, though I'll admit my interest has diminished in recent years as other topics have drawn my eye and there are only so many hours in the day. I have no doubt there is something going on here. Again, the exact nature of what is going on is up for debate. I've come to favour the Jacques Vallee assessment that UFO's and ET's represent a phenomenon of consciousness which is expressed in language and terms of the historical context in which it's experienced (hence chariots of fire, as depicted in the bible, or elves and gnomes during medieval times), rather than a "real" phenomenon in the traditional sense of metallic craft and humanoids from another world. That being said, I echo RE's point that it may be impossible to know the "real" truth, in fact there is a lot of evidence that there's no such thing as objective truth given discoveries in quantum physics of a participatory reality and the influences of our faculties on perceiving it. Also like RE, I find there is plenty of verifiable evidence that points to a narrative of completely homegrown threats rather than influences by "real" ET's. I suppose you might argue the existence of such a narrative could be misinformation, yet I could make the same claim of the ET threat; that a phenomenon of consciousness has been hijacked by TPTB to distract from the evidence of a finite world in which an infinite growth economic system that relies on debt that must be repaid, but can't due to dwindling resources, is unravelling against a backdrop of overpopulation, pollution, ecosystem collapse, and a host of other measurable datapoints.
That's my perspective, and like you, I am open to reconsidering it based on evidence presented to the contrary. As such I will have a look at the link you provided to the book which may present this evidence. I look forward to sharing of information and viewpoints on this blog and hope that the process can remain civil. At the same time, I have no problem calling things as I see them and if I perceive someone is being an asshole, am happy to name them as such. Too often political correctness is used as a mechanism to avoid honest debate.