Home | Community | Message Board

Sporeworks
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibleRepertoire89
Cat
Male


Registered: 11/15/12
Posts: 21,773
Re: Whos Really Fucking Up The World? [Re: CookieCrumbs]
    #23847099 - 11/18/16 10:48 PM (7 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

CookieCrumbs said:
Britain, the US, India, China, Korea.




I meant one that doesn't have frequent corruption scandals
or rather, one that isn't corrupt

All governments I've heard of are corrupt, some of them just hide behind their larger allies and take advantage of the utopian safety they're being temporarily offered


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineConnoisseur

Registered: 05/13/11
Posts: 34,686
Last seen: 5 years, 2 months
Re: Whos Really Fucking Up The World? [Re: koods]
    #23847103 - 11/18/16 10:48 PM (7 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

koods said:
Quote:

Connoisseur said:
I think koods needs to watch me disappear and get his cage a lil rattled



I don't watch. I am the guy who makes people disappear. I also make you eat an entire GMO meal.




you may be own of the ones whos makes people disappear on here but not IRL.


silly goose!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineakira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
Re: Whos Really Fucking Up The World? [Re: Great Scott] * 1
    #23847104 - 11/18/16 10:49 PM (7 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

PeyoteZen said:
He won't. And I'll shoot you in the butt.




*asshole

don't worry man, you won't get clapped and thrown in the gaol for swearing these days.

Quote:

PeyoteZen said:
Of course you would, commie.



is he a commie if he doesn't ascribe to the communist philosophy? globalism isn't even a communist philosophy...it's an idea, at this point, and perhaps a fringe political movement, or at best, something that entails through the mass markets and infrastructure vastly expanding within the international world stage, growing interdependence in trade economies, and the (albeit failed) attempt at multi-culturalism.

god, why do i even bother. *because...you're an idiot*

thanks.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Onlinekoods
Ribbit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,066
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 3 minutes, 31 seconds
Re: Whos Really Fucking Up The World? [Re: Connoisseur]
    #23847105 - 11/18/16 10:49 PM (7 years, 2 months ago)

We might as we'll get started, What's 2 + 2?


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineConnoisseur

Registered: 05/13/11
Posts: 34,686
Last seen: 5 years, 2 months
Re: Whos Really Fucking Up The World? [Re: koods]
    #23847111 - 11/18/16 10:50 PM (7 years, 2 months ago)

dude what are you even saying, stop hitting yourself


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCookieCrumbsM
Fucked off to the pub
Female User Gallery

Registered: 12/10/11
Posts: 14,146
Re: Whos Really Fucking Up The World? [Re: larry.fisherman]
    #23847114 - 11/18/16 10:51 PM (7 years, 2 months ago)

Conn: the alt right, extreme conservatives, and the tea party have issues with what they see as overbearing authority. Thats why they're anti-NWO. But the thing that gives it its potential for success is the fact that so many people unwittingly feed it.

You and I do too, just by being members of society.


Koods is right in that you shouldn't worry so much about it. Not alot we can do and all you really might do for the time being is upset yourself and make yourself sad and paranoid to live as we must.

It helps to be aware, yes, but you shouldn't focus on it. Focus on you and being awesome :heart:


--------------------
          :dancingbear: Free time is the only time :dancingbear:                    :thatsinteresting:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineConnoisseur

Registered: 05/13/11
Posts: 34,686
Last seen: 5 years, 2 months
Re: Whos Really Fucking Up The World? [Re: CookieCrumbs]
    #23847127 - 11/18/16 10:57 PM (7 years, 2 months ago)

oh cookie its been many many years of awareness and research and discussion and expansion.

i began this journey in 11th grade but I've just never shared it with the shroomery because i didnt think the timing was right.

its not just me whos concerned about all this, its many friends of mine who i talk with every day who are ready to come out about all this.

im just playing my role and being me.

if anything ive been in the zone to ask questions or die trying for more than a couple years now so its not really a topic of sadness or paranoia for me like it was when i was first into it.

some people here just seem to think that since i havent talked about it on shroomery before very recently i must have just been introduced to alex jones or david icke or something like that lol.

i gather my information from sources i consider much more credible then those men i just mentioned.

:ahahaha:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineGreat Scott
Trigger Lover
Male User Gallery

Registered: 05/05/03
Posts: 19,797
Loc: Control Grid
Last seen: 4 years, 5 months
Re: Whos Really Fucking Up The World? [Re: Connoisseur]
    #23847131 - 11/18/16 10:58 PM (7 years, 2 months ago)



--------------------
:thumbup: :thumbdown:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblelarry.fisherman
shoulda died already
I'm a teapot

Registered: 11/03/12
Posts: 36,294
Re: Whos Really Fucking Up The World? [Re: Connoisseur]
    #23847135 - 11/18/16 10:59 PM (7 years, 2 months ago)

I figured it was dissociative psychosis/paranoia.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Onlinekoods
Ribbit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 106,066
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 3 minutes, 31 seconds
Re: Whos Really Fucking Up The World? [Re: CookieCrumbs] * 4
    #23847136 - 11/18/16 11:00 PM (7 years, 2 months ago)

On a serious note. Get some perspective, OP

Things are a lot more egalitarian than they were a century ago when the world truly was run by a few wealthy families and corporations. Even the names that you hear in contemporary NWO conspiracy theories are throw backs to the age before anti-trust and labor laws. The rockefellers and rothchilds just legacy wealth living on a dwindling inheritance.


--------------------
NotSheekle said
“if I believed she was 16 I would become unattracted to her”


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlineakira_akuma
Φύσις κρύπτεσθαι ὕψιστος φιλεῖ


Registered: 08/28/09
Posts: 82,455
Loc: Onypeirophóros
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
Re: Whos Really Fucking Up The World? [Re: koods]
    #23847140 - 11/18/16 11:01 PM (7 years, 2 months ago)

people are insisting on the brain drain and the social alienation...when really it's just anomie, compounded with impotence.

but...baby-steps. (foreshadowing!) (after all, we actually only have a single timeline, and people just make this shit up as we go along, so there is a telos to this society of man & woman & children, that needs be meet with our very comprehension of existence.)


Edited by akira_akuma (11/18/16 11:14 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCookieCrumbsM
Fucked off to the pub
Female User Gallery

Registered: 12/10/11
Posts: 14,146
Re: Whos Really Fucking Up The World? [Re: Connoisseur] * 1
    #23847143 - 11/18/16 11:02 PM (7 years, 2 months ago)

Lot of people on that page. I just don't think it's good for ones mental health to focus too much on it. But if you think you can bring some good out of it then more power to you


--------------------
          :dancingbear: Free time is the only time :dancingbear:                    :thatsinteresting:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineConnoisseur

Registered: 05/13/11
Posts: 34,686
Last seen: 5 years, 2 months
Re: Whos Really Fucking Up The World? [Re: koods]
    #23847153 - 11/18/16 11:06 PM (7 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

koods said:
On a serious note. Get some perspective, OP

Things are a lot more egalitarian than they were a century ago when the world truly was run by a few wealthy families and corporations. Even the names that you hear in contemporary NWO conspiracy theories are throw backs to the age before anti-trust and labor laws. The rockefellers and rothchilds just legacy wealth living on a dwindling inheritance.




i +1ed this because its an excellent point, the first you made in the whole thread actually!

while that is indeed the case i was in fact aware of this information already and it really doesnt do much to damage the credibility of any arguments i have so far presented.

also im not the one saying "the nwo doesnt exist but shut up or someone may come knocking in the middle of the night"

:ahahaha:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineConnoisseur

Registered: 05/13/11
Posts: 34,686
Last seen: 5 years, 2 months
Re: Whos Really Fucking Up The World? [Re: Connoisseur]
    #23847168 - 11/18/16 11:12 PM (7 years, 2 months ago)



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineConnoisseur

Registered: 05/13/11
Posts: 34,686
Last seen: 5 years, 2 months
Re: Whos Really Fucking Up The World? [Re: Connoisseur]
    #23848929 - 11/19/16 03:03 PM (7 years, 2 months ago)

I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.

You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.

You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.

We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the "lousiest petty bourgeois cheating."

But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.

If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man.

    I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the Press." Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded "The President Versus the Press." But those are not my sentiments tonight.

It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.

Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.

Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.

If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.

On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses that they once did.

It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one's golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.

My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.

I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.

This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.

I

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.

Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.

For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.

The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.

The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.

On many earlier occasions, I have said--and your newspapers have constantly said--that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.

I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.

Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level-- will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.

And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.

Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.

II

It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people--to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it.

III

It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.

And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibletyrannicalrex
Strange R
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/24/03
Posts: 38,323
Loc: subtropics
Re: Whos Really Fucking Up The World? [Re: Connoisseur] * 3
    #23848965 - 11/19/16 03:18 PM (7 years, 2 months ago)

well god damn, did you switch from opiates to speed? That's a lot to take in! (that's what she said)


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineConnoisseur

Registered: 05/13/11
Posts: 34,686
Last seen: 5 years, 2 months
Re: Whos Really Fucking Up The World? [Re: tyrannicalrex]
    #23848973 - 11/19/16 03:21 PM (7 years, 2 months ago)

Last post is the speech that got jfk killed for those who dont have the time to read heres jfk reading it aloud



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibletyrannicalrex
Strange R
Male User Gallery


Registered: 04/24/03
Posts: 38,323
Loc: subtropics
Re: Whos Really Fucking Up The World? [Re: Connoisseur] * 1
    #23848976 - 11/19/16 03:23 PM (7 years, 2 months ago)

WOW, I knew he was onto something, the murder proved it and at the same time "buried" it. :mad2::sad:


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineConnoisseur

Registered: 05/13/11
Posts: 34,686
Last seen: 5 years, 2 months
Re: Whos Really Fucking Up The World? [Re: tyrannicalrex]
    #23848984 - 11/19/16 03:27 PM (7 years, 2 months ago)

ding ding we got a winner, lets see what koods says bout this one


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineEzuma
Gontish Wizard
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/02/13
Posts: 8,423
Loc: Roke
Last seen: 10 months, 21 days
Re: Whos Really Fucking Up The World? [Re: Connoisseur] * 1
    #23849011 - 11/19/16 03:39 PM (7 years, 2 months ago)

The fuck-up that is the world is of course contributed to by many people and ideologies. States under all sorts of labels, from fascist to democratic to communist to capitalist have contributed, various industries, various belief systems, but in my view the CURRENT danger is posed by a tiny fraction (far less than 1%) I tend to call the corporate oligarchy, individuals of absurd wealth and influence, and more than the individuals themselves even, the corporations they own and/or work for, which are out of control and likely to stay that way

many governments operate in the interests of these oligarchs, and are even run by members of this class (Trump, Clinton, Obama, Bush, all the same shit with a different mask)

compared to that Jihadists, dangerous as they are, wannabe yuppie communists, vegans and all the other groups we like to hate on amount to very little. They are distractions nothing more.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Kratom Capsules for Sale   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* total benevolence
( 1 2 3 all )
MOTH 4,880 47 07/03/05 10:47 PM
by gdman
* these fucking 'romey' shirts LuSiD9 420 15 03/07/18 09:54 PM
by LuSiD9
* FUCK FILE SHARING!!!!!!!
( 1 2 all )
DoctorJ 3,996 21 11/22/03 11:21 PM
by Sombie
* fucking scary creature
( 1 2 3 all )
Lazerouth 9,478 55 09/30/03 02:55 AM
by DankBluntZ
* bonnaroo line up(like holy fucking shit man!)
( 1 2 3 all )
Adom 8,410 42 02/22/04 10:35 AM
by Adom
* Fucking.
( 1 2 all )
CherryBomM 8,862 36 08/29/03 04:46 AM
by geokills
* Fucking lady upstairs!
( 1 2 all )
Killjoy 7,637 29 03/24/03 10:00 AM
by Killjoy
* Fuck PETA!
( 1 2 3 all )
ToTheSummit 6,865 45 12/19/03 08:48 PM
by Adom

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Entire Staff
1,213 topic views. 11 members, 69 guests and 56 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.033 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 15 queries.