alien pimp wrote:apparently your opinion about "conspirationism" is based on one movie and some alex jones' stuff, it's not how i do thingsseckle wrote:your sources. are they all internet sources? do these sources rely on income from their research or their products (dvd's,books)?alien pimp wrote:not as much as many of my sources!seckle wrote:are you an expert?alien pimp wrote:then i am thousands of pages and hours ahead of your research
are you up to your own words? then would be nice to know what's debatable about the monetary system as described in zeitgeist, since you only saw that one (all parts?) and alex jones'
and if some of it is true, would be nice to tell us why isn't that in history books and media?
i will reply later, but i will, a bit busy know..
that contradicts yourself also
on the other hand i don't judge truth by the media format is transmitted on, but you keep failing at answering me if official sites of governmental institutions or UN institutions are to be believed
you also failed answering me if your belief system is based only on offline sources
basically you keep moving focus from my questions because you can't be up to your words with your superficial knowledge, looks to me
basically, i've never moved focus. all you've done is put yourself on this "thousands of hours" of research pedestal. that doesn't give you some sort of smoking gun. in fact right now, you seem to be getting pretty upset about a simple conversation. i'm not asking you to defend what you believe in. i'm telling you how i see it.
1. i watched all of zeitgiest. all parts. i think the allegations of the amero are full of holes and smoke in mirrors and he said/she said. i think the tie into the rockerfeller family is a bit dark because the rockerfeller family ties into oil money, and standard oil from 100 years ago. the motive of unification of mexico into north america and the NAFTA implications are interesting, and it made me look into NAFTA more closely. there's no clearcut evidence right now that a one world government is a reality. it maybe something that's being discussed in certain circles, but i think zeitgiest is not meant to give you all the answers to that. its just to make you ask questions. it does this very well.
2. i'm up on 9/11. not every fucking NWO/big brother/apocalypse is here conspiracy blog out there. i've said that. i'm not someone that's spent "thousands" of hours pouring over conspiracies. if you want to have a discussion about who you consider an expert and who you don't we can do that. i asked you a bit further back if you have faith in science, and you never answered my question. so?
3. who brought UN sources into this? all i asked you is if your sources were online or offline?(offline meaning something i can go to a library and read on my own. in my mind an offline source means that its been somewhat fact checked and published via a publisher that i've heard of, or is recognized in the literary world.) this is critical, because as with wikipedia...online knowledge is being put into a microscope more and more in the world we live in because there is barely fact checking involved. most online sources and blogs are mostly in the "business" of conspiracy...ie: making income from conspiracy theory. if so, then i'm sorry but in my mind, thats a conflict of interest, and in my non-expert opinion, i'll probably find them to be a big house of cards of one unproven allegation upon another. sitting on top of a foundation of hype and profit motivation.
