Stupid Conspiracy Theorists! Chemicals Aren't Turning The Frogs GAY!!

07/24/2017121 Comments

Watch this video on BitChuteYouTube

Ugh. How can people believe such stupid things? Chemicals aren't turning the frogs gay, you conspiracy idiot! They're turning them hermaphroditic! And they're making the fish trans. But I bet you think that's something to be concerned about, don't you? There's just no reasoning with some people.

Pesticide Turns Male Frogs into Females

Study: Birth control turning male fish into females

As more male bass switch sex, a strange fish story expands

These fish started life as boys. Now scientists aren’t sure what sex they are.

Male fish becoming female?

Prevalent Use Of Chemicals Contributed To The Increasing Rate Of Male Infertility

Exposure to Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals and Male Reproductive Health

The Disappearing Male

Exposure to Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals and Male Reproductive Health

Episode 094 – You Are Being Sterilized

Filed in: Videos
Tagged with:

Comments (121)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Pablo de Boer says:

    Politics is devastating for all Frog(g)s.
    Another good example is señor James own residential socialist Frog

    • PeaceFroggs says:

      “Another good example is señor James own residential socialist Frog”
      — Pfft, what does that even mean Pablo?

      I’ve never made fun of articles like this before, ever. I remember hearing this while listening to Alex Jones years ago.

      You know, it’s possible for someone to be both a socialist and a conspiracy theorist. We do exist.

      • Pablo de Boer says:

        Hola aloha country boy,

        I never met or encountered a socialist who is sane in her or his mind like a conspiracy theorist is. The socialist I know behave as your person and your idol the mass murder and child killer Barack Obomber and for me that is disgusting. That’s why I consider your person and your leaders as psychopathic beings and just as evil as pedophiles, because for evil people like your person and pedophiles the life of a child means nothing.

        I know some people in the western society say that I must have empathy for sick minded people like your person and Obomber and I do feel sorry that your are completely sick in your mind, but I also will warn others for your psychopathic behavior and will never let you in my casa, because just like in shamanic societies I will never let people like you come or invite into my house, because you behavior is carcinogenic just like the western society.

        And because I feel sorry for you estimado amphibious country boy, I only can suggest to you,

        Take Control of Your Life and don’t let rule others over your life and please don;t impose your life on others….

        Saludos y abarzos,

        Pablo de Boer

        • PeaceFroggs says:

          Geez, you’re not the least bit self righteous now aren’t you Pablo? Haha!
          (In case you’re wondering I’m being sarcastic)

          But seriously, out of curiosity, you’re not religious are you?

          • Pablo de Boer says:

            If you were more attentive, yo already would know I’m not religious, but also not an atheist..
            I don’t need like the western religious people and socialist like your person another person to tell me how to life and rule over me. That’s why I’m not sick minded like your person and your psychopathic leaders.
            That’s also what Alan Watts says in his presentation

            • Pablo de Boer says:

              And I know a psychopath like your person has self his own cure, so I wish you all best and good luck psycho froggie

              chaoooooooooooo y hasta la vista

              Pablo de Boer

              • PeaceFroggs says:

                Well what do you know, we got something in common Pablo. Like you, I don’t need western religious people, nor do I need people like you telling me how to live and rule over me.

                I’m a paid subscriber here at the Corbett Report, and like everyone else here, I’m free to believe in whatever it is that I want too, and I’m free to share my beliefs.

                Although I live in what is considered a socialist country, I’ve never let others rule over my life, and I’ve never imposed my beliefs on others either.

                I’d like to remind you Pablo, that it is you and a few others here at the CR (that shall go nameless), that have tried to silence me through intimidation since pretty much the first day I started posting here at the CR.

                If you cannot accept my beliefs without bullying me, or attacking my character, or belittling me, because I do not conform to your beliefs, at least do me the favor of simply ignoring me, and I’ll promise you Pablo, I’ll do the same.


        • wingsuitfreak says:

          Hola Pablo! I just downloaded those three Jungian videos, plus all the rest of the Academy of Ideas channel. I feel like I will have another minor if I just watch them all! Good luck on trying to have a two way conversation with the mindless one. Off to do my cardio now as cardio is very important when running from latex wearing face-eating zombies! Jim

          • Pablo de Boer says:

            Hola aloha amigo Jim,

            I wish you a lot of wisdom while you are watching the vids of the academy of ideas. It was a good idea of yours to inform me about this channel, muchas gracias again amigo. And good luck with avoiding those latex wearing zombies on bike and I will ignore socialists on this page, because they behave like the face eating zombies from your state :).

            Saludos and catch you later amigo.


      • Pablo de Boer says:

        Hola aloha Froggie,

        I don’t try to intimidate you or silence your person, I only tell your person honestly what I think about your person’s attitude. That’s for me true freedom of speech and that is also not bullying. Or do you consider señor James also as a bully, when he reports that Politicians are psychopaths???

        As long people like your person supports psychopaths like Obomber, there will be no peace. That’s why I consider you as a psychopath just like Obomber.

        Saludos y abrazos,

        Pablo de Boer

        • wingsuitfreak says:

          Hola Pablo! I see you are still trying to reason with the Borg. While I don’t read it’s drivel (I say it because to become a human being requires work), it is apparent he doesn’t know the definition of censorship. Not surprising as he didn’t know what an ad hominem attack was either.
          I did not come here to discuss zombies though. I don’t remember who recommended the Stefan Molyneaux woodshed video to me, but I do wish to thank them. I also watched his Alex Jones woodshed video as well. This fellow may be young, but he gives me faith in the next generation as he is far and above me in terms of critical thinking and many other areas. While the majority will always be mindless little drones, the truly exceptional shall shine far brighter than their delusions of intelligence. Oh well, back to work, just thought I would share yet another fantastic video series, and thank whomever it was that gave me the link. Chao, Jim still staying alert for zombies as lerts live longer!

          • Pablo de Boer says:

            Hola aloha amigo Jim,

            This was my last response to Borg :).

            And did you read my other comment for you about the human puppies in latex dog suit??


            Ryan Dawson from the woodsheds is awesome. His latest documentary “God is not a real estate agent” is also mind blowing.
            The new film is about an hour long, and details the Real Estate oligopolies in NJ and NY that feed into the Zionist power structure. In particular the Kushner clan and Donald Trump
            The audio has been completed and the research is finished. All that is left now is pain painstakingly adding the visuals.

            Saludos y abrazos,


            • wingsuitfreak says:

              Hola! I did not, but that is because I have heard of them before and they are really weird. Apparently they are one of the infinite numbers of sexes (or species) the SJW crowd wants us to believe exist. Mental illness isn’t a sex in my book, but then again, I don’t care how others get their rocks off as long as it’s consensual. Me? I “identify” as a human male, but that’s just my sexist biology speaking! Jim who now really must get back to work if I am going to build my machine with Pinky to take over the world! 🙂

          • Pablo de Boer says:

            God is Not a Real Estate Agent, Trump’s Zionist Ball & Chain

  2. m.clare says:

    Only yesterday a friend …(who has a PhD in the arts so, of course, he is loyal to the Left tribe)…. phoned me to ridicule a class action lawsuit involving male children who are growing breasts. Crazy, right? Ha ha ha. Crazy litigious ‘Mericans all want to sue themselves into a life of luxury. How absurd.

    He has been a mainstream “news” junky for 30 years. It’s an uphill battle.

    Kids are conditioned in school to paraphrase wisdom dispensed from those in authority. Original, creative, independent thinking is punished with poor test marks and public shaming. The media continues “educating” the masses after graduation. Peer pressure is an extremely effective weapon. Who am I to contradict the scientific experts at NASA who warn of imminent climate catastrophe?

    So, the intelligent response to the observation of breast development in young boys is to share a laugh at the expense of the greedy and confused parents who dare to make ill-founded accusations.

    Ha ha ha.

    • Skutch~ says:

      No worries though since the right has assured us that they will use their bibles to fend off all these problems and we can always have those frogs “pray the gay away”, right ? Never mind that the problem stems from bipartisan corruption that allows corporations and plutocrats to buy the policies that allow for this to happen in the first place. When too much capital is allowed into too few hands everything becomes a commodity. The meme is completely inaccurate and incomplete in describing the problem as most memes are but it is correct that Obomber didn’t turn any frogs gay. The bipartisan policies over the years polluted their environment since environment has been for sale to the highest bidder for centuries.

  3. Skutch~ says:

    So in other words the study proves the meme is wrong and that the problem predates the Obomber administration ? Rather confusing POV when you think about the fact profit over life is auctioned off daily in the auction house formerly known as congress to the highest capitalist bidder. We can rest assured that the partisan moron patrol will be applying the “pray the gay away” solution while fending off this phenomena with it’s bibles and the “God will not allow humankind to damage the earth” policy. This another tragedy caught within a rhetorical trap that ignores solutions and merely results in finger pointing and blame shifting in order to kick the can down the road for the profit of the corporate fascists.

  4. HomeRemedySupply says:

    James Corbett poses: What is the best way to put this information in front of someone where they don’t just laugh it off?…

    One thing which we all can do…
    Repeat the Message

    “Repeat the Message” is so important. Teachers employ it all the time. Marketing companies use this all the time. Your Mother utilized this mantra all the time when you were growing up…chances are she still does.

    • Skutch~ says:

      Yes let’s just add to the noise and pretend affixing blame is problem solving. Chances are idiots like you will never do anything but whine, piss, and moan anyway right ?

      • HomeRemedySupply says:

        ? I don’t follow. What are you saying?

        • Skutch~ says:

          That calling out one group of people for one specific incident only divides us further by putting them on the defensive. This is part of the divide and conquer strategy that has been working for decades now. Everyone has the right to be wrong and you can repeat the facts and right answer without spiking the football over something as trivial as a meme.
          Especially when the meme isn’t totally wrong. The problem predates Obomber and the accusation that Obomber made the frogs gay was more than likely not flung by “lefties”.

          Since there is no left or right anymore that actually has access to power it’s a moot point.

          What needs to be pointed out is nothing is being done to address the problem by the mob family pretending to be both left and right. That’s the rallying point….. not making fun of people that still suffer from the fake left/right paradigm. We are guilty of buying into that fairy tale at some point. And if you ever want actual change you need everyone on board you can get. Therefore making light of their mistake or insensitivity only drives them back into the echo chamber of the two party hustle and the “elites will save us” delusion.

          • HomeRemedySupply says:

            Say guy, perhaps you misinterpreted what I was trying to say.

            I am saying to Repeat the Message about things like 9/11 Truth, or “How Big Oil Conquered the World”, or “Information about Psychopaths and Kakistocracy and Catallaxy”.

            And just so you know…
            I personally am not a whiner sitting at a keyboard, but have been EXTREMELY active on the front lines, personally giving out tens of thousands of free DVDs and involved in many, many truth type actions.
            If you want documentation of my actions, let me know because you would not be able to read/see it all even if looking through it for a week full-time.

  5. xxCRM114xx says:

    If you haven’t heard it already:
    (this is from 2012)

  6. HomeRemedySupply says:

    I remember back in the late 90’s trying to tell people about Atrazine and its effects on frogs. Often, I would be met with bored yawns or scoffs.

    Bisphenol A type chemicals were prescribed in the 1940’s for ‘controlling’ women’s hormones.
    (See scientific paper “The Politics of Plastics: The Making and Unmaking of Bisphenol A ‘Safety'” by Sarah Vogel.)

    Killing Babies with synthetic chemical fertilizers.
    Even in the 1990’s, I was warning folks about synthetic chemical fertilizers. One aspect of the harmful effects of synthetic chemical fertilizers is the Blue Baby Syndrome.

    Synthetic chemical fertilizers contain primarily these three substances (N-P-K) Nitrogen, Phosphorous, and Potassium.
    Too much nitrogen can cause a nitrate issue. Nitrates get into the water supply and are difficult, if not virtually impossible, to remove.

    Nitrates can cause a condition with human infants where they die from lack of oxygen called “Blue Baby Syndrome”. (Older humans have a more developed gut which better handles nitrates.) Nitrates also kill different types of livestock.

    Every Spring, especially in places like Iowa where a lot of farming and fertilizer are happening, there is an increase in deaths of both livestock and human infants. Nitrates are also linked to other health ailments.

    In 2007-2008, I asked my Texas A&M Chemistry Professor about this nitrate issue. He was doing intense research on methods of how to remove nitrates from water. Nitrates in the water supply are a major issue which does not get much press. If people were aware of the nitrate issue, it certainly would impact the fertilizer industry.

    All this is another reason to go “Organic” and “Permaculture” and to look into “David Blume’s Permaculture / Alcohol Can be a Gas”.

    • amjamiediggins says:

      HRS, I am not a scientist or a chemist, but I am a science/astrophysics/history nut!
      I’m curious as to what mechanism is causing these birth defects / morphing sex issues, both in nature and humanity???
      I live in a desert (far SE AZ @4300′), very dry and lacking in vegetation, save a few tenacious species that thrive here, till monsoon season. After a day or two of high humidity and a few sprinkles, we are ass deep in frogs, bugs, and weeds .I see the flora and fauna profusion as a healthy part of the local environment, a good sign. I am aware that there is a lot of nitrogen in rain, and that our (local) soil has nitrogen but it is chemically bonded and unavailable. I’m surrounded by ag, corn, cotton, alfalfa, barley, wheat, milo, soybeans, pintos, chili, as well as orchards of pistachios, pecans, peaches, apples, cherries, etc. All of this is managed by artificial irrigation AND lots of fertilizers and other chems!
      My query is; is it a problem of too much nitrogen or artificial nitrogen? I grow a garden without the use of any additives, just my pure clean UNtreated well water and my compost. I gave up on corn after 3 years due to worms eating up the ears, and I do not want GMO poison!
      I’d appreciate your thoughts.

      • HomeRemedySupply says:

        Important points you bring up. I am thrilled to hear your story.

        Typically, an organic/natural person doesn’t need to worry about too many nitrates (nitrogen), unless you are dumping piles of poultry manure in an area. Sounds like you are doing great! Compost contains nitrogen. (By the way, most poultry manure from non-organic chicken farms contains high amounts of arsenic.) Nitrogen from the rain is great. There is a lot of nitrogen in the air.

        A tidbit on nitrogen. Nitrogen makes up most amino acids (protein). So, we get a cycle that goes something like this… Plants take up nitrogen. Cows eat the plants and build protein based muscle. People eat the muscle for the protein. Cow poop and piss and people poop and piss contains excess nitrogen. Plants like that poop’s nitrogen content. Microbes in the soil help the plant take up the nutrients. StartPage search or Google “nitrogen cycle”.

        A trick I use in gardening… Certain plants are very good at pulling nitrogen from the air and placing it in the soil. Alfalfa and peanuts are two such plants. Often, I will plant peanuts (the same raw in-the-shell found in the grocery store), next to other plants like tomatoes or peppers or whatever in order to facilitate more nitrogen. Peanuts in themselves are a fascinating plant…the new “nut” forms on the stem of the plant and the plant lowers the stem back into the ground. Peanut plants can be used to test for certain chemicals.

        Howard Garrett – “The Dirt Doctor” is a tremendous resource.

        Tidbit – You know that dry, white, salty looking stuff on the top of compost sometimes… That usually is potassium nitrate or sodium nitrate. This is the same substance used to make gunpowder. The South did it sometimes during the Civil War. Potassium/sodium nitrate has been used for other purposes also such as to keep teenage boys from being horny in the 1950’s to currently used as a preservative for sausage or something.

      • HomeRemedySupply says:

        In a nutshell, without going into diatribe detail, my take on the morphing sex issues

        Hormones are interesting “chemicals” in the body and how the body balances things. Many other body chemicals get involved. The amount of body hormone which is secreted is incredibly small… smaller than the head of a pin. And often, as is the case of testosterone, right away the body works to break it down.

        Many things mimic hormones. Even many plants do. A problem which we are seeing is that our environment has an over abundance of female mimicking type hormones. From chemicals like BPA to soy protein to drugs.

        I hypothesize that all these hormone influencing factors are also impacting society’s take on sexuality and also impacting society’s behavior in general.
        In this era, we see a lot of emphasis on transgender identity.
        Also, we see a lot erratically emotional behavior much like a woman on her period or pregnancy. A woman’s hormones jump all over the place during these fluctuations. (Sometimes, I really feel for the husband. 😉 )
        Anyway, in this era we are seeing some bizarre behaviors. The environmental hormone influence could be a contributing factor.

    • wingsuitfreak says:

      I remember when those studies on fish changing their sexes near the water drains from pharmaceutical companies. But real science isn’t allowed near the scientism crowd.

  7. Murray says:

    The Episode 094 link doesn’t seem to be working at this moment so I’m listening on YouTube.

    Regarding the episode question, a brief suggestion for an ideal situation:

    1. Avoid using trigger words like “gay” that most likely occur frequently in personal verbal abuse than any gender study.
    2. Employ well-researched educational tools like TED-Ed’s animated style which helps to push along logical deductive process and avoid impressions of personal confrontation for certain audiences more susceptible to passive selective acceptance of knowledge.
    3. Give a thorough thesis presentation down to every mathematical/physics/chemistry detail possible. Self-question one’s every step, leaving no stone unturned. Remarks in TED-Ed like “Some scientists think…” certainly proves nothing.
    4. Linking the sources directly to peer-reviewed papers instead of 2nd-hand publishers like Live Science who inserted a video amid the gay-frog article descriptively explaining how sunburn comes along ending the video on the note of sun-screams high concentrations of which in urine samples have been linked to Endometriosis, ironically, in females.
    5. Stamp it with a straight forward title: Gender Change with Atrazine.
    6. A follow-up episode could then be produced studying the logistical systems that deliver these pollutants and what’s being/not being none. A finger-pointing on the spots that could most likely generate a non-empty response from the regulatory systems with potential complicity and how individuals could observe and test the cause-and-effect themselves – A small household experiment would be exciting.

    • Pablo de Boer says:

      Hola aloha Murray ,

      this is the working link, I just listened it 🙂

      Episode 094 – You Are Being Sterilized

      Saludos y abrazos,

      Pablo de Boer

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      You make some interesting suggestions.

      For my taste, I enjoy just plain, free, relaxed, friendly, from the heart, real genuine communication. You know…like sitting in Rosa’s diner chatting with friends. This is just my preference.
      Yes, I realize that James is a cracker of Canuck origin who may use a term which could offend some people, like the trigger words “gay” or “Texas trailer trash”. That is too bad that some people are so sensitive to words. The intent behind the words is what I like to view.

      Anyway, I personally enjoy the way James communicates.

      • Murray says:

        James most likely has thought of this:
        There will be a time, if not already, when the Corbett Report is mapped by information theory and a computer program will generate the news, rhetoric, political talking points and analysis by dinner-table comradeship.
        I hope this program will be a weaponry-grade self-learning virus instead of a social-massage therapy that tickles the right amount yet lacking the rigor and creativity to go any further.

        • nosoapradio says:

          Are you more interested in highly evolved man-made consciousness than highly evolved human consciousness?

          • Murray says:

            I see no difference since both are in essence CPUs.

            • nosoapradio says:

              in essence… Murray

              for the first, abusing children is an a-moral calculation.

              for the second, abusing children is immoral in such an idiosynchratic, profoundly instinctive and emotional way as to defy algorithms.

              Humans need privacy and a sense of dignity.
              CPUs need much less sophisticated, objective physical conditions to operate.

              Humans are capable of the most horrific sort of perversity that could ostensibly be mirrored through programming into AI. But just the semblence of it. A simulation.

              The opposite, mirroring or simulating a sense of morality is impossible. As it is something that is as much felt in biochemical, electro-magnetic and perhaps even “supernatural” (the immaterial dynamics that currently escape our understanding) terms as it is reasoned.

              The prisoners dilemma or the ultimatum games are but simulations. Programming that attempts to imitate the essence of being human remains a simulation, devoid of profound human feelings and emotion.

              in essence, they are not the same sort of CPU.

              And human consciousness needs to be able to flourish before it is necessarily destroyed, dominated and/or deformed by Artificial Intelligence and binary calculations.

              • wingsuitfreak says:

                Exactly. This whole AI thing is over-rated. This according to people who are working in the field, not my ignorant opinion. AI is hype. And our brains are far more than a CPU. In just one example, we don’t have just one brain, but three. The gut is now thought of as a brain, and the heart is also thought to be one as well. While this thought did originate in folk philosophies, there is scientific research in these areas that back it up.

              • Murray says:

                You just delivered your “profound” calculations with words, attempting to subjectively define objectivity. A physics presentation of the current state of your bio machinery, nothing less nothing more.

              • HomeRemedySupply says:

                Corbett Member, author and researcher and biosemiotician Victoria Alexander has this to say about the Artificial Intelligence hype…

                Here is a recent “Corbett Board” comment from her…

              • Murray says:

                The narrative of the video does not contradict any aspect of the statement to regard consciousness as a central-processing unit.
                I’ve replied to the thread of discussion of your link.

            • wingsuitfreak says:

              CPUs are not plastic, brains are.

              • Murray says:

                A functionality in its regard can take on different physical forms between homomorphic systems.

  8. Richard Ran says:

    Hi James,

    Not a sociological observation perhaps, but a conspiracy theory (according to the ICNIRPians in charge) about yet another weapon in the war on male reproductive health: cell phone and low frequency emf.

    Think about that guys, when you’re out there apping yourself to.. well, Neil Postman could have written a nice tome about that 😉 Or when you place a laptop on your lap (even with sickening wifi turned off). Reading about BPA with a sterilizer right there on your body. Seems ironic.

    Just some random links:

    Low frequency electromagnetic fields long-term exposure effects on testicular histology, sperm quality and testosterone levels of male rats.

    The influence of direct mobile phone radiation on sperm quality.

    Effect of mobile telephones on sperm quality: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

    Any CR episodes covering the adverse health effects of wireless tech? If not, consider this a suggestion James. I couldn’t find one. Pablo, perhaps you have a CR link handy?

    Cheers from Amsterdam,

    • HomeRemedySupply says:

      ha! Most guys would raise their eyebrows on that. Kind of joking…I wonder if voice changes go up an octave over time.

      (I try to keep my cell phone distant from me.)

      • Richard Ran says:

        Your cell phone won’t like that HRS.
        It’s a Tamagotchi you know (remember those?). Likes to be close to you 😉

      • amjamiediggins says:

        Ha, got ya beat buddy. I do not have a phone, home or cell! And I like it that way .
        Wanna communicate with me, lick a stamp, or send an email… or stop by and have a beer! BTW, I turned off the transceiver function on my router too, just gotta figure out how to shield my “smart meter” or GTF off the grid!
        I find it amusing when my Grand kids ask “why doesn’t my wifi work Grandpa”??? I tell em to put down their phone and go play, you can go as far as you want and still see the house!

    • wingsuitfreak says:

      Activist post has nearly daily articles on these effects. They use Catherine Fromovich as that correspondent. She puts out a lot of scary stuff about the 5g network and smartmeters. There is a lot more to it than I pretend to understand. i never carry my cell phone and won’t use a smartphone. They have been proven to dumb you down anyway. I don’t need in any help in that area! Jim of the face-eating zombie state of Flouride-a

      • Pablo de Boer says:

        Hola aloha amigo wingsuitfreak,

        I have a very old mobile phone without internet, that’s the reason I not became an smart(dumb)phone zombie. Here in Holanda the smartphone/I-pohne zombies are a big plague and all of them “zijn erg dom” / are very dumb.

        5 Ways Smart Phones Are Dumbing People Down

        Here in Holland I also see bikers with latex clothes who are observing their smartphone while biking……. ai ai ai caramba

        Saludos and abrazos,


        • HomeRemedySupply says:

          …I also see bikers with latex clothes who are observing their smartphone while biking…

          So comical.
          Can you imagine those folks being dressed/acting that way walking into a southern café during the 1960’s!
          (30 seconds)

        • Richard Ran says:

          Perhaps you’ve seen this one already, but here goes:

          Smartphone Zombie Society (animation)

        • bas says:

          Hi Pablo

          Hetzelfde hier bij je zuiderburen / Same here in Belgium. I constantly find myself justifying to them smart/dump phoners why I don’t have one. The Truthstream Media video made me decide not to buy one, at least until I’m literally forced to perhaps.

          • Pablo de Boer says:

            Hoi Bas,

            Het is dus niet cultuur afhankelijk of iemand tot een smartphone zombie verwordt, maar het is een menselijke afwijking :). It doesn’t depend of the culture if somebody becomes a smartphone zombie, but it is a human abnormality .

            Saludos y abrazos,


            • wingsuitfreak says:

              For years I’ve been wondering when the zombie apocalypse was going to end. Now, I’m convinced it will only end with our extinction.

              • Pablo de Boer says:

                Amigo Jim,

                The only person you have to take care for is yourself, that’s why I’m not a collectivist, but I always voluntarily help my fellow humans and I will never ever give up

              • wingsuitfreak says:

                Oh yes, I agree. In fact, I find just figuring out what is going on around me is a full time job!

              • Pablo de Boer says:

                C U later alligator and hasta mañama amigos & amigas

              • Pablo de Boer says:

                amigo Jim,

                last for today but not least for tomorrow,

                listen to the first ten or more minutes of

                and now really hasta mañana


              • Pablo de Boer says:

                Hola aloha amigo Jim form face eating zombies state Florida,

                Last summer I was walking along the canals in the center of Amsterdam and there I observed a woman and a man. The woman was dressed as a female, but the man wore a latex dog suit. The woman took also her male (human doggie) companion for a walk on a DOG LEASH, the leash wasn’t made of latex but of leather.

                My first reaction was, Ai ai ai caramba que pasa and I began to laugh hardly. After that I encountered more of such Human puppies and I searched on the internet what is this all about and this one of the many human pup videos on the internet

                Secret Life of the Human Pups

                Saludos and enjoy your dia among the face eating and latex wearing zombies and human pups,

                Pablo de Boer

              • Pablo de Boer says:

                Secret Life of the Human Pups – 2017

              • HomeRemedySupply says:

                Regarding the human dogs.

                I am writing my Congressmandog to help create another law which mandates a 4th bathroom facility in all public schools.

              • Pablo de Boer says:

                Hola aloha HRS,

                Dogs can always piss outside against a tree
                Or do you want to create bathrooms with trees?

        • wingsuitfreak says:

          Oh yes, Truthstream Media is excellent! I once saw a biker on a Harley using both hands to text while riding down the road. I wanted to scream at him and make him wreck while the road was empty of future victims, but I was in shock and could only stare at him.

      • Richard Ran says:

        Hi Jim,

        Activist Post is a good resource (on many subjects).
        Another one is from a “collective” (ouch, I know, sorry ’bout that) of concerned scientists.

        As is the case with the Global Warming/Climate Change scheme, there is a choice, still, between consensual “government science” [pause for hissing/booing] and more independent research, often done by individuals who seem to put into practice some good solid advice, voiced by James some time ago:

        “The best we can do is check and recheck our assumptions..”

        Amen to that 😉

  9. whateverittakes2 says:

    James, while they’re fiddling with the endocrine system and reproductive functions, they are dumbing us down so we won’t understand what is happening to us. Take a look at this:

    They are destroying this planet and all life on it. This is the NWO freaks and specifically David Rockefeller and friends. Donald Rumsfeld, with the help of Monsanto and Searle, has backed the production of fake sugars that are deadly… and are now found in the public water systems along with every kind of phony drug Big Pharma has foisted on the population (with the help of the Rockefeller Foundation).

    The only good side of this dismal picture is that it only takes a few people to wake up… Thanks for your contribution.

  10. wattscroft says:

    While I’ve always thought IQ is overrated, maybe some IQ points are relevant to skepticism. I’m coming around to the notion that if nothing about 9/11, for example, seemed off at second glance , no amount of information is going to budge people. The ridiculing of “conspiracy theorists” is so entertaining and satisfactory, because whether some of us realized it or not, differences in sharpness must be more obvious and grating to those on the thick end than they are to those on the other end, and so ridiculing people as “conspiracy theorists” must be as irresistable and fun as having a classroom teacher actually encourage everyone else to ostracize and ridicule the sharper kids.

  11. john.o says:

    Such a great question. The power of this type of “humor” is hard to underestimate. Even when it does not succeed in stifling inquiry itself (which it does often) it suppresses expression of doubt and disagreement, since the effort to “argue” with it is so often a waste of energy

    It is in that sense like a “TOP SECRET DO NOT ENTER” sign. Even when I do not believe anyone really has a moral or legal right to keep me out of some particular bit of public space, I don’t usually risk the loss of time and energy challenging it might incur.

    I am still struggling with how to counter this psycho-social control mechanism, but I am very keen on understanding it. James, I believe you are closer than any commenter so far to answering your own question, by pointing to the “child’s mentality” this humor implies.

    The keys to the “joke” are the psychic drivers behind 4 words: Obama, gay, frog, chemicals.

    “Obama” is the trusted parent. This is “funny” because Dad would never do that. You are obviously weird and not really in the family.

    “Gay” is an interesting challenge. This is “funny” because if you are worried about things turning gay, ipso facto you are a bigot; and if you happen to know that the chemicals are really turning male frogs into females and you are worried about that, well, you are weird and probably insecure about your masculinity.

    “Frog” is even more interesting. There is a certain “wit” to this “joke.” The joker does not say “turn my lab rat gay.” Frogs occupy a certain fairy tale position in the life of children. They tend to pop up in stories from some depth of creativity and vitality. They turn into princes when kissed and go a courtin’ with sword and rapier…The use of frog here exactly inverts the real situation. It is implied that those who worry about such things are in in the world of fairy tales, when in fact, as James points out, it is the reverse. This is where this stupid humor is not so stupid. It is very intelligent in its design.

    “Chemicals” is “funny” because every school boy now knows that everything is just chemicals, even himself, so obviously they can’t be that bad and to worry about them is to betray a lack of faith in science.

    This power of this type of psycho-social control is, again, hard to underestimate. I live in a house full of good liberals who cheer while Bill Maher makes millions by poisoning their minds with this stuff. The “conservative” versions are not hard to find, though, and in fact the alt-news “right” like Molyneux et al. use exactly the same type of humor with the same psychic drivers adapted for their audience.

  12. john.o says:

    And one more comment.I do think wattscroft is right here:

    “…if nothing about 9/11, for example, seemed off at second glance, no amount of information is going to budge people.”

    I do not believe “IQ” (a slope past slippery if ever there were one) is an indicator of the ability to question authority and oppose reason and fact to a a dominant narrative. Nor is resentment against the more intelligent a very strong behavior driver in my experience.

    I believe psychic forces around authority, trust and oppression usually work off two fundamental drivers: 1) family orientation (i.e. attachment style to parent[s] and the order of and relationship to ones siblings) and 2) infancy and childhood trauma (universal to some degree and unimaginably deep in many cases) and ones primary strategy for dealing with it.

    One set of dialectical forces in modern politics is driven by the question: Is the parent I have now (Obama? Clinton? Trump?) the good real parent? And if not, how can I get the good real parent? (Sanders? Paul?)

    (When I first discovered, from research I could not ignore, that my “parents” were murderous psychopaths I didn’t sleep for days and got the flu. My real parents were no such thing, but neither were they always perfect or trustworthy in every way for a child. None are, but some come closer that others. I did not usually deny the research after that, but for some time could only handle it and process its implications in small doses with much psychic resistance.)

    Another set of dialectical forces is driven by dynamics in the family pecking order. Is ones position in the family structure reassuring and supporting? If so one may find the notion of malevolent parents absurd.

    But–and here is the rub, if one occupies a demeaned position in the family and especially if one has been traumatized and/or ones existence resented, the confrontation with ones own terror in the face of reminders of a malevolent parent may make one even more averse to evidence of a malevolent parent.

    Or, a different strategy, it may help one call bullshit on authority with ease and mistrust it deeply.

    • nosoapradio says:

      I agree. You’re right; Wattscroft is right. If a second glance doesn’t tip you off that something’s wrong, nothing will.

      And you’re right again; it’s not a question of “intelligence” and could very well be a question of rapport with authority; And “family pecking order” dynamics.

      Very interesting. I’ll try to look into that a little more.

    • wingsuitfreak says:

      What will cause one to question authority? That is a very interesting question. I am rephrasing of if nothing will cause you to question 9/11. For myself, I do not remember the actual event which caused me to give up hope in government, or to automatically distrust it and put the burden of truth on it.
      I remember when the people at Waco were murdered. I had left the Army just a few years before and turned on the tv. To my horror, I saw a military force in action in Amerika! Keep in mind that I had always equated communism with the Warsaw Uprising, so to see the same on our shores was an abomination in my mind; then and now. Still, I bought the 9/11 story, even though I wondered about so many aspects of the story.
      The reality is that we do not know what will change someone. For me, someone telling me something isn’t going to do it. For me, I think it was a series of inconsistencies which had been brewing over a life-time of being deceived. I have no way of knowing though, and it matters little to me now.
      I agree it isn’t IQ, but rather a function of what determines intelligence that will cause people to question the validity of having criminals run our lives. The ability to question authority. Not that many people can do this. If we do, then we must re-think our entire lives, and that is not only scary, but a lot of work. It’s not as if the majority of people ever look into the mirror anyway. We would rather remain superficial, count anyone we talk to as a close friend, blindly trust that those we do not even know always have our best interests in mind, and so on.
      I do remember one instance though that helped me to overcome some of the worst aspects of my PTSD though. I was in a VA clinic, not to see one of their butchers though, when I picked up one of their little cards that had a checklist of PTSD symptoms. I was going, check. check. check. when all of a sudden I came to the last “symptom”. Distrusts authority figures. A light went off in my head, for it had been trusting authority figures which had led to all my troubles. I’ve never looked back. cheers, Jim who is still happy despite being surrounded by face eating zombies in Flouride-a.

  13. nosoapradio says:

    Indirectly related, just saw this on twitter:

    Eugenicists are alive and well and living in Tennessee… and India…
    …and Africa …and China… and Seattle… and …

    • m.clare says:

      Hey, nosoap,

      Yesterday a comedian made me laugh. The joke involved a drug store that was concerned about the theft of condoms. The punch line…. the people stealing condoms are precisely the ones we want using condoms. Letting them have them is an investment in a better future (i.e. allow the crime today to ensure reduced crime tomorrow)

      This illustrates the subtle psy-op power of comedy. Al Franken made me laugh on SNL…. therefore…..

  14. Octium says:

    Well it is by no accident that people laugh off these stories as “crazy conspiracy theories”

    Disinfo agents like Alex Jones have been conflating news like this to the “hidden gay agenda” for whatever purposes it serves them.

    Instead of giving people like Jones the credit for waking people up, we should be calling them out for holding back the waking up of the human race by decades.

    For every person they wake up, how many have they put to sleep?

  15. andrew.s says:

    Hi James

    Ridicule is a powerful tool. Here are 2 examples:

    Georg Mielke, the head of the Stasi in East Germany, was also known as The Master of Fear. Have a look at this video clip of a speech Mielke gave. People started laughing at him (not with him). 4 days later he was out.

    In this scene from the French film “Ridicule”, you can see how ridicule kills.

    Anyone who questions the official narrative is ridiculed and then silenced by being portrayed as a loony “tin foil hat conspiracy theorist”, and it seems to work. Gore Vidal tried to counter this by saying he was a conspiracy “analyst”, but that repartee was too cerebral and subtle to work on a mass scale.

    So getting back to what you asked, what we need is for a good wordsmith or graphic designer to come up with a caricature of or epithet for the conspiracy denier, making him a ridiculous figure of fun to be laughed at. Then the battle is almost won.

    • wingsuitfreak says:

      Gore Vidal! One of my mentors. He still lives on despite the death of his mortal body. The first time I read his work was when I was in the service in the early ’80s. It was some article in The Nation about how the flag was basically just a bunch of cloth. The part that stuck with me to this day though was a quote he wrote, which went “To be free, one must be willing to fight anyone, anywhere, anytime, and for any reason.” As you can tell, I filed that away for long-term referral. For someone so effeminate in person, he was still the manliest man I’ve ever known. I’m surprised the library in my small bible belt town in northern Flouride-a had a copy of his “Road to Golgotha”, but they did and I laughed what’s left of my old man butt off reading it! Thanks, Jim who lives less than 60 miles away from where a zombie who ate parts of two people made his meal. Toxicology showed no drugs. Which is almost unheard of for anyone in this part of the country. Much less face-eating zombies!

    • john.o says:

      andrew.s I believe yours is the best practical answer to James'”how to respond?” question.

      Anger, resistance, rational deconstruction, they often just play into the “joke.” I think James early original “911, a Conspiracy Theory” was so successful precisely because his fearless sarcasm turned the tide of the ridicule battle for many, and subtly, without them even noticing, emotionally altered the “burden of proof” in the minds of the listener.

      • HomeRemedySupply says:

        I think James early original “911, a Conspiracy Theory” was so successful precisely because his fearless sarcasm turned the tide of the ridicule battle for many, and subtly, without them even noticing, emotionally altered the “burden of proof” in the minds of the listener. –john.o

  16. nosoapradio says:

    “subjectively define objectivity”

    Thank-you Murray.

    Conversely, AI cannot objectively reproduce subjectivity which in humans is filled with emotion as is a sense of morality.

    AI’s attempts at subjectivity will always be a result of objective calculations, binary, a simulation. Objective.

    Fundamental difference between humans and man-made CPUs.

    Our language barrier.

    • Murray says:

      In replying to your statement I suggest watching the HRS-recommended biosemiotics video and reading my reply to Victoria.
      Advanced capability doesn’t mean lessened capacity.

      • nosoapradio says:

        Murray and HRS,

        Many thanks for the Victoria Alexander link. I’m thrilled to have discovered this person who has a talent for the vulgarization of science! Her own enthusiasm and fascination are contagious.

        As for the attempt to recreate human consciousness using linear and non-linear systems and organic and non-organic materials…

        it might very well be meaningful, and it may well help humans to evolve and survive. Many will see a boon for transhumanism…

        but I maintain that these attempts at recreating human consciousness are doomed to approximation, substitution, simulation

        and that the human mind, however limited, malleable, fallible, and destructive it can be,

        must be valued above all else as something irreproducible and precious

        and can not be summarized as being a CPU as it is much, much more than that.

        Can a CPU be moved by Ms. Alexander’s physical beauty, her voice, her gaze? Can it reproduce the complexity of the resulting emotions and the way they colour how her verbal and non-verbal information is received, rejected, filtered, interpreted, stored, recommunicated? Will a CPU make the associations, logical and illogical born of ebbing, mutating emotions and the resulting idiosychratic emergent thoughts?

        Finally, what troubles me I guess is that humans, in their fascination for AI, are tending to deify and, imitate a-moral machines more than machines are learning about beauty, joy and awe for the human race.

        If humans realized how awesome they are, instead of how shallow, malleable, fearful and manipulative they are, they might contribute infinitely more to their own evolution than a CPU ever could.

        • HomeRemedySupply says:

          …Can a CPU be moved by Ms. Alexander’s physical beauty, her voice, her gaze? Can it reproduce the complexity of the resulting emotions and the way they colour how her verbal and non-verbal information is received, rejected, filtered, interpreted, stored, recommunicated? — nosoapradio

          VIDEO of Victoria N. Alexander talking about her book and 9/11 and food and more…

          Taken from…

          • nosoapradio says:

            Wow. HRS. Thanks so much! I’ve only had time to listen to half of the video for the moment but now I’ve already got a project! Bring her revisitation of Hamlet back to the stage! Or maybe fuse her own experience of writing the book with the updated Hamlet version… wow…of course I’d ask for permission!

            Hope I’ll actually get around to doing that in some way shape or form…

            a truly inspiring person this Victoria Alexander!

            Thanks again for taking the time and trouble of posting the link! (and maybe of filming it???) 😎

        • nosoapradio says:

          as the antithesis to the inspiration that Ms Alexander’s work provokes

          the rant linked below feels pretty good and fairly well describes what I meant in my last two ‘paragraphs’:

          • HomeRemedySupply says:


            *BUMP* on that recent TruthStreamMedia video link!
            “…they have completely hollowed people out. It is like the thing that is driving the meatsuit isn’t really much there anymore…”

            Actually, this ties well into Corbett’s recent posts on Psychopaths and their contagion of aberration. Psychopaths intentionally generate this type of “society meme”. It benefits them in so many ways.
            Just like Hitler & his minions generated a society meme.

        • Murray says:

          The combination of scrambled logic and enthusiasm raised by the cosmetics of a person is common yet cringe-worthy, fatal in any genre of intelligence operation.

          • nosoapradio says:

            Life is not just one long (or short) intelligence operation. If you want to replicate human consciousness then you need to be able to integrate this sort of perception.

            Awe of beauty, though cringeworthy for some, is not always fatal in all types of intelligence operations.

            It’s part of the human intelligence panoply.

            However your reaction does not surprise me in the least.

          • nosoapradio says:

            Incidentally, my enthousiasm, in Ms. Alexander’s case, is not limited to the cosmetics of her person.

            • HomeRemedySupply says:

              I know. Me too.

            • wingsuitfreak says:

              1- The brain is far more than a CPU. It is a biological, electro-magnetic, chemical organ.

              2- Scientists have yet to even define what or where consciousnesses is.

              3- Logic and reasoning are aspects of the human brain, but they do not constitute the most valuable, nor the majority of its processes.

              4- We have more than the one brain between our ears. Neuroscience research indicates we have three brains. One is the one between the ears. Another is in the intestinal area, and the other the heart. This is not woo-woo science, but it is in the early stages of acknowledgement. They all have different priorities.

              5- AI may become a spock-lite type of calculator, but we will probably not survive long enough for us to even understand our own emotions, much less be able to figure out the bare bones necessities of programming them into an artificial construct.

              6- Even for the foreseeable future, AI will be dependent upon the constraints of its programming, even to evolve its own programming. Human brains are able to make wildly divergent swings in their own programming.

              7- Just as those who only develop their logical aspects of their mind are incapable of realizing their own potential in creativity, and all its sub-sets; so are computers.

              8- Without the emotive aspects being programmed into them, even the most advanced AI would never be any better than a true psychopath. In effect, it could mimic emotions, but never actually experience them. This alone makes it far inferior than a healthy human mind. And our mind is the combination of the three brains. Not just a CPU.
              9- Scientism is not science. It is just another flawed religion. True science would actually follow the stoic principles in that it would seek to understand a thing from all sides, inside and out, and it’s relationship to all around it. Since the very science that is working on AI does not follow these principles, it is incapable of developing anything more than a really efficient calculator. That sex-bot may say it loves you, but it won’t even know what you are.

              • Murray says:

                My reply is the same as to your “plastic” argument above.

              • wingsuitfreak says:

                i will take your non-reply as an admission that you are all hat and no cattle. Which is something I suspected all along. After all, your deflection was a hybrid deflection-ad hominem attack. You can’t beat the argument, so you insulted the person posing it. Yet another sign of an inferior mind. That is typical of the inferior analytic. They don’t have the necessary reason to back it up. I guess that you can join psycho frog as another mindless being to ignore. Congrats, you were just intellectually conquered by a dope smoking hippy. Ain’t you special? 🙂

            • HomeRemedySupply says:

              A Simple Exercise – “What am I viewing?” “Who or What is viewing?”

              a person closes his eyes and recalls the previous day’s events with imagery.

              Who or what is looking at the imagery?
              …and thoughts come up…
              Who or what is looking at those thoughts?

              One could start to get complex by asking other questions such as “Who or What generated those thoughts?”
              But, for now, “Who LOOKS? Who or what views?”

              ~~~ ~~~ ~~~
              By the way, it is interesting to note that controlling one’s attention can be sometimes difficult.
              Ever drive your car down the road and realize that in your head you are a million miles away? i.e …that one is not really viewing the road with recognition, but viewing ideas and images in the mind.

              This is actually alarming sometimes. Cars go pretty fast… The drivers of those cars. Are they looking at things in their head?

              • wingsuitfreak says:

                Yes, in meditation it is called being the observer. I remember when I was in grad school, I was dealing with a very severe case of PTSD and developed my analytical mind to the point where I scored a 760 out of a possible 800 on the not even counted section of my GRE. However, when I got out of school, I found myself pitching stocks in Dallas over a telephone. Logic has no real value in sales, so I had to completely re-program the way I thought. Not just my deeds, but the way I thought about those deeds. A computer can not do such a thing. They have the same flaw that many really intelligent people possess. They find one way of doing things and they stick with that one. It’s easy to forget there is more than one way to skin a cat (I have never figured out why anyone would want to do such a thing, cat meat is too stringy! 🙂 ). They find it hard to think there is any other way of doing things. This is why the Bonanza V-tail is called the “Doctor Killer”. It is also why hallucinogenics are making such a come-back in Silicon Valley. That whole smelling the sunset experience lies at the heart of creativity. A robot can’t smell, or even be aware of what a smell is. It may have programming that will detect chemical compounds, but it will never have the purely joyous sensation of enjoying the smell of fresh cut grass screaming it’s last. A robot could never do such a thing. It would always lie outside the constraints of their programming. For programming is logic, you can fuzz it up all you want but it will never taste a rainbow.

              • Murray says:

                Imao, talking about taking the GRE General during graduate school?
                I guess the experimental section must be so special in your mind.

              • wingsuitfreak says:

                Grammar nazi. For my acceptance into Graduate School. Does that meet your standards? There is nothing like hiding your failings behind the tiniest errors. Please expand your mind beyond the minuscule.

              • wingsuitfreak says:

                By the way, I couldn’t help but notice that though you pay such special attention to details of grammar that you forgot the existence of the statement itself. Or was your criticism a deflection of the argument? That is an inferior method of argument. I sound vicious because I despise petty minds. They seek failure in others while successful people do the opposite. Please illuminate us with your theories as to why a computer program is superior (or will be soon) to us. After all, my Windows 10 is the first platform that they put out to date that doesn’t have a regularly scheduled crash. And you think AI will be better?

                By the way, I put in errors on purpose this time. I like annoying little minds.

              • wingsuitfreak says:

                That’s what I thought. You have no argument. Just pettiness. Did you think your opinion of my educational levels mattered to me? Why would it? I don’t know you. You have given me no reason to believe you will significantly impact my life in any way at all. Yet, you seem to think your opinion of my writing matters. Keep deflecting; your lack of substantive argument is showing. I notice how it’s got ‘lectrolytes!

  17. wingsuitfreak says:

    By the way, I just remembered when you mentioned LiveScience as a source, that that site was the reason I went back on facebook for a short time as I wanted to mock them for their scientism. Their reefer madness articles, their demonizing of green tea, even the astrophysic who chose to believe in the multi-verse, not out of reason, but because they had concluded we must either live in a multi-verse or there had to be a god. While it is one thing to not have a belief in a god, but just to choose one scenario because you didn’t WANT to believe in something is hardly scientific. They were so amusing, but I dropped my facebook account soon after because it wasn’t worth being on facebook just to mock another fake religious site. While I myself do choose to believe in a diety, I choose the Stoic version of theology. I also do not particularly worry if I’m right or wrong as it helps me to shape my own sense of purpose. But I definitely could never believe in a religion as they are all nothing but primitive forms of governments.

    Oh yeah, while I’m here I might as well answer your question as to what I would do to counter someone wearing such a t-shirt? Nothing. Why would I waste my energy on someone when I could spend my time constructively with someone who isn’t a complete idiot?

  18. X. says:

    If I may suggest some strategies against basic defence like this “funny haha” – it could be either:

    1) to be sarcastic, and quote something from an extensive library of comedians and popular movie shows (I’m particularly fond of House MD’s witty bits on human need to live in a comfortable lie) as it may be exactly the language good for this level of sense of humor,

    2) or – in case of more intelligent people – point them to ethnological studies on how native communities absolutely naturally laugh at others’ misfortunes, as it is not only a good sense of humor but also a social norm and a way to build sense of belonging to a tribe (so, what tribe do you wish to belong to?),

    3) or in case of even more intelligent people – ask them if they are in any way familiar with six basic defence reactions against fear, that originate in cerebellum, and continue from there to the way human brain handles overload with contradictory information, the way it goes into “powersave mode” with generalizations and stereotypes.

  19. wattscroft says:

    My notion, or rather my disappointing conclusion, that if events such as 9/11 didn’t strike people as off on a second glance – then no amount of facts and reasoning would persuade them otherwise, also has something to do with “points of reference”. If you don’t already otherwise know that the Pentagon is protected space and doesn’t normally exist as a sitting duck, then i suppose it is conceivable that it could be vulnerable to a passenger plane coming in across the lawn like a hoover board, shape-shifting all the while. If you didn’t assume there must be safeguard procedures for cockpit personnel to follow, then 3 successful cockpit entries with no alarms or escort jets isn’t a stretch and you wouldnt wonder why their destinations seemed to helplessly unfold. If you didn’t know responding EMT personnel normally accesses injured children immediately when secured and that emergency procedures follow common sense established routines, maybe you don’t realize how odd Sandy Hook was. If you don’t travel or aren’t particularly observant, you wouldn’t notice cameras everywhere and expect they could answer some unknowns. So – yes, maybe IQ isn’t an explanation, but a certain type of intelligence is a factor. Is it simply observation and curiosity that results in skepticism? Nerve, as in “some nerve” is related as well. But I also know that many ranchers and farmers I n Texas, who finangled a look at the LHO crap rifle and even worse scope, knew immediately that even a top shot couldn’t have made that angle with that equipment, and LHO wasn’t – yet still thought the government must be lying for a good reason. And I was the kind of kid who was an Apollo buff and knew all the missions and payloads and trajectories and years later when I learned photography and realized the photos taken were impossible for several reasons – and still thought well, ok, so they needed good PR photos and took them in studios but that didn’t mean we didn’t go, until other nagging details kept resurfacing, not to mention a truly shocking class trip viewing the lander. So sometimes even when you know, you still half believe for awhile. We can’t tell what stage of doubt anyone is actually in or why. If we need a retort to “conspiracy theorist” it has to be simple enough for the person who uses that term – conspiracy blind or conspiracy denier. But otherwise, we are preaching to the choir and the best we can do is let doubters know they aren’t nuts

  20. wattscroft says:

    And so , anyway, the point about pre-existing “points of reference” being a factor in understanding the non-doubters is that if it is valid, then all the talk of how the 9/11 buildings collapsed is the least effective angle. Few people have points of references concerning building explosions plus fire plus collapse in an hour People may have better pre-existing points of reference concerning assumptions of cockpit hi-jack protocols and locked cabins etc. or pre-existing familiarity or assumptions regarding military protected airspaces and government facilities. So information about false flags should take into account the angles where people have better pre-existing points of reference – even if they have it from common culture like movies, or personal observance familiarities like airport cameras etc. because somehow even the best factual and logical information is not finding their receptor faculties and again, maybe it’s ground that has to have been prepared already by pre-existing reference points

    • wingsuitfreak says:

      It’s comments like yours which make me glad that I don’t feel any particular need to try and “educate” others on conspiracy theories. Instead, I try and educate myself. Changing the minds of others is their business as far as I am concerned. I know many will disagree with this perspective, and they may be correct. However, I do know my diplomacy skills are not my strength, nor do I have any desire to make them so. The collective mind-set already has enough reason to hate me without my giving them another. And yes, that mind-set will hate you for it. An experience I am sure you have had. But, I am glad that others feel this need. Thanks, Jim from flouride-a and who is still on the look-out for those face eating zombies wearing latex! 🙂

      • wattscroft says:

        In case I sounded like one of your apparently off-putting “educators”, my main point was to the question I raised about why events such as 9/11 don’t strike most people as being “off” and therefore the official story doesn’t raise questions in their minds. I think if people don’t have that reaction at least on second glance, most subsequent information isnt going to budge them unless it comes from the same news sources as their believed story. I also speculated as to why the official stories don’t spark that “something sounds off” reaction, and that it may have something to do with pre-existing points of reference. The news presentations seem to grasp this very well. The coverage focused on events very few people would have pre-existing points of references for. So perhaps it would be more effective to place a little more emphasis on questioning angles where most people do have pre-existing points of reference – because hi-rise structural engineering isn’t that common – whereas most of us would assume the Pentagon is protected space at least on days other than 9/11. And yes, I’ve seen these other anomalies mentioned, but they are usually buried as leads by the expert-related info. that non-skeptics aren’t going to believe over the word of news anchors. As for myself, I limit my oddity of outlook to very few people and though I have mentioned a few of what seems the biggest problems with the official story, my experience is that IQ is not the explanation for people who don’t question. I also think it would help a great deal for truthful news analysts to dress exactly like tv presenters (and there is a range of styles) and mimic the sets as closely as possible because otherwise – and unfortunately – their information isnt competing as well for reasons we should probably take more seriously if effectiveness is our concern. We do need to increase the spread of truthful information and remove what barriers we can, and visual perception is one of them, like it or not, and needs to be taken into account and is simple enough to do

        • wingsuitfreak says:

          Not to sound like I am belittling your efforts, nor to make it seem that some degree of professionalism isn’t needed in the arena; but why should we care about this particular segment of society? Not only will they never believe anything that doesn’t come from their chosen mouthpiece, they will never do anything of import regardless of who speaks.
          The majority of this group are those who gave up their humanity when they gave up their individuality to join the Borg (whether it be the collective of any group). This is the group whose entire foreign policy consists of “Support the troops” and such drivel. If their thoughts are not their own, how can we call them important?
          I know this sounds elitist, but the reality is that most people are nothing more than automatons who would rather put a knife in your heart than face the truth of their own existence. Why not concentrate your energies on the ones that do matter. Individuals. Not the stupid collective mind-set.
          These little robots will only sit on the side-lines of any affair and do nothing. At the end of the skirmish, anyone can come by and tell them what to think and they will be happy with it. Thus it has always been and thus it will always be.

          • wingsuitfreak says:

            I think it might be helpful if I clarified my reasonings. When the settlers arrived in Plymouth, they kept kicking their leader out of the group. He didn’t comply with their ideas. Instead, he was a person of integrity and common sense. They nearly died as a result, and he (for some reason) kept helping them to survive. The Donner Party was a similar tale. They put themselves in their situation and kicked out the one person who had any sense at all. It was only his ability to survive (which they gave not one damn about) and then report that others even knew to look for the survivors.
            Survival isn’t our highest priority. At least not for the majority of us. We would rather die than change our world view. How many times have you answered someone’s question and they responded with “I know, but….” and then asked the same question over and over ad nauseum? They literally cannot hear your answer.
            I recently watched an interesting video on this concerning how hallucinogenics kick our brains out of its default mode and force us to view the world differently. It would take such an experience for these people to ever become a person worthy of the attention needed for them to concentrate. Why not work on the strengths instead of the weaknesses? Sorry for the brevity, but I don’t think you need a detailed explanation from me. And if you did….. 😉 Jim from fluoride-a

            • wattscroft says:

              The answer to why we should care about whatever particular segment of society you are referring to – which for unclear reasons you describe as supporters of our troops – comes down to numbers. Because if we care where things are headed and believe truthful information is part of the answer, we have a guaranteed-to-lose numbers problem – because some of us realize taking the aloof detached stance is delusional – “elitist” admissions aside. And I also don’t believe caring for our troops predisposes anyone one way or other skeptic-wise. I care for our troops as well and believe our young volunteers especially, are paying a far heavier price than anyone of us who woke up the easy way compared to how any of our troops are having to wake up when they realize the agenda they serve has nothing to do with American defense, and also get the cynicism slam of the risk/pay/benefits difference between themselves and the contractor mercenaries.

              • wingsuitfreak says:

                When you can properly read my statement, then I will respond. Either you are doing this intentionally to support your prejudice, or you are incapable of reading it properly. Either way, the result is the same. Delusion. It is yours, not mine. Perhaps it is an error, or perhaps not. I don’t know nor do I truly care. Either way, I find it interesting how you can misread such a simple sentence where I mention support the troops as being their entire foreign policy and come up with the response you did unless you are delusional yourself.

              • wingsuitfreak says:

                We are done. Deliberate or not, you chose a lie.

            • wattscroft says:

              The answer to why we should care about whatever particular segment of society you are referring to – which for unclear reasons you describe as supporters of our troops – comes down to numbers. Because if we care where things are headed and believe truthful information is part of the answer, we have a guaranteed-to-lose numbers problem – because some of us realize taking the aloof detached stance is delusional – “elitist” admissions aside. And I also don’t believe caring for our troops predisposes anyone one way or other skeptic-wise. I care for our troops as well and believe our young volunteers especially, are paying a far heavier price than anyone of us who woke up the easy way compared to how any of our troops are having to wake up when they realize the agenda they serve has nothing to do with American defense, and also get the cynicism slam of the risk/pay/benefits difference between themselves and the contractor mercenaries. I also substantially disagree with your understanding of the historical events mentioned, but no matter

              • wattscroft says:

                Seeing either event in terms of innate inability to recognize the superior expertness of a leader bypasses most of the preceding events and ensuing debacles, not to mention the personalities involved

              • wattscroft says:

                I may have misunderstood your intentions but I did not misunderstand your written commentary concerning why it wasn’t worth persuading whatever segment of society whose foreign policy consisted of supporting the troops So I am acknowledging your additional mention of what seemed to be a commentary on simplistic foreign policy views, but it is still unrealistic to take an aloof detached view of fellow citizens co sidering the numbers and the current state of affairs. As for tendencies of any such segments historically or current to fail to go along with superior expertness of leadership, I take it you mean leaders like Reed of the Donner/Reed party who comes out best of the disastrous “leaders” probably because of his wealth and position before and afterward, in spite of the fact that he is primarily to blame for ignoring facts and advice from experienced people and put his party in danger taking the turnoff and at every turn held the party up on the basis of his considerable payload and herd. Then in spite of abandoning women and children in even worse conditions than he found them, he gets credit for leading a semi-rescue. There must be some updated presentation portraying him in favorable light somewhere that I’m not aware of, which must explain anyone coming away with an idea of under-appreciated leadership in his case

  21. heartruth says:

    Comedic dramatization of this disturbing conspiracy fact: The Man Drought

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to Top