Dubstepforum.com

some subliminonscious messagatisms

its easy to diss-believers n dat

lets get politicactive!!!

lol

you guys are the coolest

noam wrote:

Pedro Sánchez wrote:

noam wrote:

James Kofi wrote:

noam wrote:
is that true tho

are you suggesting a new conspiracy at work to defame the much envied american character?

im just saying its possible, im 100% open to any idea in the world ever

monkey tennis?

dont be afraid to think bigger

Gorilla tennis?

Pistons: Honestly, I keep writing that I can't be talking about you because you haven't said anything about what you believe (you've only got incredibly riled by me not liking a book which you did like), as I said before I'm talking in general about those that challenge me on this stuff - this thread is full of videos (some hours long!), links and book references. It's generally how this sort of thing goes. I'm generalising. I'm only frustrated with you for repeatedly taking it so personally... it's just a disagreement about a book!

I still recommend reading Voodoo Histories. Surely your open mind has nothing to fear from a book? It's not like I'm suggesting you take a four year course in astro-physics, I've just recommended a bit of reading!

im not taking anything personally just youre generalizing and not seeing the grey area between being a fanatic and taking the piss out of "conspiracy" stuff

its not a question of liking that book or not....i simply don't think saying it's 'made up' is accurate....maybe im being picky but its the wrong way to put it

they didnt 'make it up' did they?

you just think their views are stretching it a bit...huge difference...if someone believes something and reports on it and presents evidence which may or not have holes its not making it up

making something up is doing it knowingly to dupe people

Pistonsbeneath wrote:im not taking anything personally just youre generalizing and not seeing the grey area between being a fanatic and taking the piss out of "conspiracy" stuff

its not a question of liking that book or not....i simply don't think saying it's 'made up' is accurate....maybe im being picky but its the wrong way to put it

they didnt 'make it up' did they?

you're quoting me. I said "unchecked or made up". The son of Gerard de Sede has said many times that his father and Pierre Plantard who wrote the book HBHG is based on, and takes many of it's facts from, made up the Priory of Sion. This ties in to the fact that their is literally no evidence of such a group before PIERRE PLANTARD FOUNDED IT IN 1956!

"..as the search of Plantard's home in 1993, which revealed a plethora of forged documents, some of which proclaim that Plantard is the true kind of France. Under oath, Plantard admitted that everything had been a fabrication - the whole writhing, messy false history of the Priory and the secrets of the Magdalene's ancestors, his lineage and the 'secrets' the false sect he had said the Grand Masters were protecting. He was ordered to cease and desist all activities related to the Priory of Sion..."

So they based pretty much most of the book on that. Pierre Plantard even worked The Protocols of the Elders of Zion into his book and these historians didn't realise? Or hadn't heard it was a hoax?
I'm gonna go out on a big arrogant limb here and say that qualifies as made up. They knew they were fabricating a story, they wrote it for money.

Pistonsbeneath wrote: you just think their views are stretching it a bit...huge difference...if someone believes something and reports on it and presents evidence which may or not have holes its not making it up

No, they made it up, most probably for money. They sued Dan Brown when he wrote the Da Vinci Code. Why sue someone for basing a story on FACTS you had found out? That's what the judge asked and why he overturned the case "because it was published as a work of (alleged) history, its premises legally could be freely interpreted in any subsequent fictional work without any copyright infringement".

Conspiracies aren't always postulated by those with a weaker grip on reality and common sense but in some cases, by people who don't mind taking a bit of flak and ridicule from 99% of people as long as the other 1% buy their books.


Anyway, if the story were true and the bloodline of Jesus was nurtured and controlled up until the present day, it would have been quite a feat;

Ken Mondschein wrote:The idea of keeping the family tree pruned to bonsai-like proportions is also completely fallacious. Infant mortality in pre-modern times was ridiculously high, and you'd only need one childhood accident or disease in 2000 years to wipe out the bloodline; if, however, even one extra sibling per generation survived to reproduce, the numbers of descendants would increase at an exponential rate; keep the children of Christ marrying each other, on the other hand, and eventually they'd be so inbred that the sons of God would have flippers for feet.

lloydnoise wrote:

Pistonsbeneath wrote:im not taking anything personally just youre generalizing and not seeing the grey area between being a fanatic and taking the piss out of "conspiracy" stuff

its not a question of liking that book or not....i simply don't think saying it's 'made up' is accurate....maybe im being picky but its the wrong way to put it

they didnt 'make it up' did they?

you're quoting me. I said "unchecked or made up". The son of Gerard de Sede has said many times that his father and Pierre Plantard who wrote the book HBHG is based on, and takes many of it's facts from, made up the Priory of Sion. This ties in to the fact that their is literally no evidence of such a group before PIERRE PLANTARD FOUNDED IT IN 1956!

"..as the search of Plantard's home in 1993, which revealed a plethora of forged documents, some of which proclaim that Plantard is the true kind of France. Under oath, Plantard admitted that everything had been a fabrication - the whole writhing, messy false history of the Priory and the secrets of the Magdalene's ancestors, his lineage and the 'secrets' the false sect he had said the Grand Masters were protecting. He was ordered to cease and desist all activities related to the Priory of Sion..."

So they based pretty much most of the book on that. Pierre Plantard even worked The Protocols of the Elders of Zion into his book and these historians didn't realise? Or hadn't heard it was a hoax?
I'm gonna go out on a big arrogant limb here and say that qualifies as made up. They knew they were fabricating a story, they wrote it for money.

Pistonsbeneath wrote: you just think their views are stretching it a bit...huge difference...if someone believes something and reports on it and presents evidence which may or not have holes its not making it up

No, they made it up, most probably for money. They sued Dan Brown when he wrote the Da Vinci Code. Why sue someone for basing a story on FACTS you had found out? That's what the judge asked and why he overturned the case "because it was published as a work of (alleged) history, its premises legally could be freely interpreted in any subsequent fictional work without any copyright infringement".

Conspiracies aren't always postulated by those with a weaker grip on reality and common sense but in some cases, by people who don't mind taking a bit of flak and ridicule from 99% of people as long as the other 1% buy their books.


Anyway, if the story were true and the bloodline of Jesus was nurtured and controlled up until the present day, it would have been quite a feat;

Ken Mondschein wrote:The idea of keeping the family tree pruned to bonsai-like proportions is also completely fallacious. Infant mortality in pre-modern times was ridiculously high, and you'd only need one childhood accident or disease in 2000 years to wipe out the bloodline; if, however, even one extra sibling per generation survived to reproduce, the numbers of descendants would increase at an exponential rate; keep the children of Christ marrying each other, on the other hand, and eventually they'd be so inbred that the sons of God would have flippers for feet.

The most sensible post in this thread so far

fair play lloyd thats pretty convincing

i honestly dont know as much as you about it

i prefered the way you put it to the way magma put it though....just dont like the extreme condescending tone that needs to be directed towards curiousity

and jboy you havent exactly contributed yourself and are you telling me you know everything lloyd just presented?

Pistonsbeneath wrote:you just think their views are stretching it a bit...huge difference...if someone believes something and reports on it and presents evidence which may or not have holes its not making it up

making something up is doing it knowingly to dupe people

You just define "making it up" differently to me, I think.

If they have to invent, imagine or leap to anything then it's "made up" as far as I'm concerned, that's as true for a whole story or a "let's assume that..." leading to a hypothesis/action - for example, the reasons for the Iraq War were "made up" (obviously, since they didn't really exist), but that doesn't mean that those making it up necessarily wanted to "dupe" the People... Blair et al possibly thought it was more likely than not that WMD would be found... they "made up" a case based on an assumption rather than evidence in order to save time... in the process, they turned some harmless assumption trusting into a war killing hundreds of thousands. Not really much different in thought terms from taking a small misunderstanding involving something like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and turning it into Zionist conspiracy theory or, at it's most disgustingly misused, the Holocaust.

The Iraq war is an example... let's not get too far into it. I imagine many would disagree with me thinking it was any kind of mistake, but it's not for this thread.

Evidence is absolutely vital. There's no point in believing anything if you don't have evidence - you don't gain anything... you only end up leading more people down dead ends. I've been down this dead end (as I mention most times we have this chat), I'm pretty glad I found my way out. People have been following the rabbit hole for centuries... nothing's ever been found. Nobody's ever blabbed on their death bed. Nobody's ever told the stories of a spurned lover. Nobody's ever hit rock bottom and sold the story for bread and water? Not for this long... everything comes out eventually and this has had more than long enough for anyone to still be bothered.

But there are still people searching for God too, so I doubt anyone will stop looking any time soon.

magma wrote: I still recommend reading Voodoo Histories. Surely your open mind has nothing to fear from a book? It's not like I'm suggesting you take a four year course in astro-physics, I've just recommended a bit of reading!

it sounds like it has an agenda...and i dunno that particular agenda tbh sounds like i'd find it boring

Pistonsbeneath wrote:i prefered the way you put it to the way magma put it though....just dont like the extreme condescending tone that needs to be directed towards curiousity

I've apologised for my tone a couple of times - not sure why it comes out like this, but it's the way I write 'em. Most people seem cool with it, I'm sorry it's riled you.

It's not directed at curiosity though. Curiosity would want to read the book I suggested. Books can't hurt you.

Pistonsbeneath wrote:fair play lloyd thats pretty convincing

i honestly dont know as much as you about it

i prefered the way you put it to the way magma put it though....just dont like the extreme condescending tone that needs to be directed towards curiousity

and jboy you havent exactly contributed yourself and are you telling me you know everything lloyd just presented?

I cant be bothered going into massive long winded posts that will only be countered anyway. What he said is pretty much common knowledge, im not trying to sound big headed or anything mate just thought you were an educated guy and these things are pretty obvious.

oh dear god

Pistonsbeneath wrote:

magma wrote: I still recommend reading Voodoo Histories. Surely your open mind has nothing to fear from a book? It's not like I'm suggesting you take a four year course in astro-physics, I've just recommended a bit of reading!

it sounds like it has an agenda...and i dunno that particular agenda tbh sounds like i'd find it boring

And books espousing huge Zionist conspiracies to enslave mankind don't have an agenda?

I think the bold bit is probably most likely... but honestly, I loved reading Holy Blood and I loved reading Voodoo Histories, just in very different ways. They're both actually pretty entertainingly written. If you don't want to read it, cool, but you can't show off to me about having an open mind if you refuse books!!

magma wrote:

Pistonsbeneath wrote:i prefered the way you put it to the way magma put it though....just dont like the extreme condescending tone that needs to be directed towards curiousity

I've apologised for my tone a couple of times - not sure why it comes out like this, but it's the way I write 'em. Most people seem cool with it, I'm sorry it's riled you.

It's not directed at curiosity though. Curiosity would want to read the book I suggested. Books can't hurt you.

i only have a problem with this one thing not your overall approach

i have a problem with people scoffing at conspiracy theorists, religion and anything else that isnt scientific...especially when they try and lump people in with the extreme versions

science is a religion and its flawed too

overall i have no issue with you and am not riled

magma wrote:

Pistonsbeneath wrote:

magma wrote: I still recommend reading Voodoo Histories. Surely your open mind has nothing to fear from a book? It's not like I'm suggesting you take a four year course in astro-physics, I've just recommended a bit of reading!

it sounds like it has an agenda...and i dunno that particular agenda tbh sounds like i'd find it boring

And books espousing huge Zionist conspiracies to enslave mankind don't have an agenda?

I think the bold bit is probably most likely... but honestly, I loved reading Holy Blood and I loved reading Voodoo Histories, just in very different ways. They're both actually pretty entertainingly written. If you don't want to read it, cool, but you can't show off to me about having an open mind if you refuse books!!

i was kinda baiting ya magman

send it to me ill read it....i tend to enjoy living in a fantasy land which is why i read 50s and 60s sci fi the most
i tend to think books saying how something is all bullshit have more agenda than books presenting new ideas (not saying theyre always new ideas)

pistonsbeneath wrote:i have a problem with people scoffing at conspiracy theorists, religion and anything else that isnt scientific...especially when they try and lump people in with the extreme versions

I can often be found sticking up for religion against atheists (see my 'debates' with Alien Pimp!) because of course there is absolutely nothing wrong with taking a leap of faith on something... as long as they live virtuous lives, I really don't care what anyone believes... but if someone raises something for discussion on a forum I'm a member of and I have an opinion, I'm probably going to share it. I didn't start this thread, I just replied to it with my own take. The only thing I've actually taken offense to is being called "closed minded" when I'm pretty confident I've read more on this subject than most people in this thread... I've spent my whole life reading and any Ninja that's visited my flat will attest to my overflowing bookshelf. I did find that quite insulting actually... I'm sorry if my tone slipped.

Pistonsbeneath wrote:send it to me ill read it....i tend to enjoy living in a fantasy land which is why i read 50s and 60s sci fi the most
i tend to think books saying how something is all bullshit have more agenda than books presenting new ideas (not saying theyre always new ideas)

PM me your address and I'll drop it in a jiffy bag.

I think all books have an agenda... an author needs an impotus to start writing, a message they want to get across otherwise they wouldn't be picking up their pen. It's worth reading as many messages as possible to try and form your own worldview though, I find. I didn't agree with everything in Voodoo Histories, but I'm really glad I read it. I'm really glad I read Holy Blood too... both times.

Sadly though, in my experience, the world is filled bottom-to-top with people startlingly like you and me. Fantasy's an essential part of staying sane in what can be a fairly mundane existence - but IMHO it's worth keeping a handle on where the line is drawn, many don't and are perfectly happy/good people though. As long as they don't call me closed minded, that is...

pistonsbeneath wrote:science is a religion and its flawed too

We might come back to that another day.

how is science a religion when its very goal is to espouse the benefits of evidence and examination over faith ?

genuine question

science CAN be metaphorised as a religion as can sport/reading/making music etc. to anyone who wishes to argue for it as one

doesn't make it a religion anymore than football is a religion and not a sport

noam wrote:how is science a religion when its very goal is to espouse the benefits of evidence and examination over faith ?

genuine question

science CAN be metaphorised as a religion as can sport/reading/making music etc. to anyone who wishes to argue for it as one

doesn't make it a religion anymore than football is a religion and not a sport

science is like a religion when it's approaches become just as dogmatic as certain religions.

Good long article for anyone interested; Puts the whole masonry thing (and occult ties to the economy) into more of a workable perspective.

(it is very long by the way, go through each section in as much detail as you can and come to your own conclusions)

http://divinecosmos.com/start-here/davi ... al-tyranny

A 122-nation alliance is backing a lawsuit that could free the Earth from financial tyranny. This investigation reveals who the perpetrators are and what we can do to solve the problem.

The scientific method isn't at all religious, it's almost the opposite of faith; but most people who believe in and 'spread' scientific knowledge haven't seen or understood any proof for that they believe - most of us comfortably believe because the technology around us confirms that someone must know how it all works. There's still an element of trust, but it's pretty negligible - it's kind of obvious someone cracked the structure of light and the finer properties of electro-magnetism - I'm able to type this message.

Evolution's a bit harder and getting all dogmatic about it seems a tiny bit premature (especially as convincing the world to agree won't achieve much than piss everyone off); but hundreds of millions of years of casual, occasional interspecies sex certainly seems more likely than an all-powerful Creator to me. Life loves fucking.

Edit: But I'm also not sure what science being a religion or not has to do with either Occult symbolism or Zionist conspiracies.

d-T-r wrote:

noam wrote:how is science a religion when its very goal is to espouse the benefits of evidence and examination over faith ?

genuine question

science CAN be metaphorised as a religion as can sport/reading/making music etc. to anyone who wishes to argue for it as one

doesn't make it a religion anymore than football is a religion and not a sport

science is like a religion when it's approaches become just as dogmatic as certain religions.

science evolves

thats the point of science

its 'approach' or 'the method' entails this naturally within the structure of the concept

assumption-hypothesis-repeated testing under certain conditions-results-affirm or deny original assumption - isn't dogmatic because inherent in the structure is that by following a rigid protocol or methodology we get different results that are in total accordance with reality as we know it

the scientific method is like a mathematical function - a highly complex one

what is contained under the concept of science is changing all the time, allowing what science can both explain and 'be' to adapt and change, importantly, in accordance with reality as clear as it can be understood

when bible = god exists can be proven like 1 + 1 = 2 then the two can be analogised effectively

until then there is a semantic and very real world gulf between the two in almost every way

its possible to abstract the idea of science, and metaphorise it as religious in nature, but ACTUAL real world science is just different.