The Mountain in the Distance

[TokenLiberal]

Yeah, you're right. 

The people that were massacred, turning around to massacre innocent people always brings a *yawn* to my face. 

The fact that they have the strongest nation on the planet doing their every bidding almost as if their Mossad set up a successful honeytrap and are blackmailing its politicians to play their game.

Yeah. 

Nothing to see there.

I didn't say there was nothing to see, just that it's not a subject I'm interested in discussing. I agree that what's going on there is terrible, and the US' position that Israel can do no wrong makes me cringe, and yes, Israel's intelligence service is one of the most effective in the world. None of that requires me to be passionate about the issue. There are other things I care more about. We aren't all required to care about the same things.

I think to myself how does a 'normy' simply stumble onto MPP? And before you answer, I did read your back-story. Either way, my welcome stands even if we do shadow box a bit. 

I don't think I've ever been called a normy before. It's interesting that you seem to think you know me well enough to attach such labels. By "I read your back story" you don't mean you doxxed me, I hope?

As for how I got here: Via ATS, as you probably read in my introduction. I got to ATS because I asked around if anyone knew of any conservative-dominated forums that I could join and where I wouldn't be banned faster than you can count to Trump's IQ. Someone who used to be into conspiracy theories back in the day suggested it.

It's funny what we define as worthy of respect.

As for me, it's the ability to present yourself honestly and not attempt to employ guile into a first impression, regardless of what you're opinion may be. 

For example, highlighting your stance on abortion as a crucial part of your ideal state but then relegating the topic into the drawer of obscurity by declaring it doesn't interest you that much even when you know that it is one of the most important topics out there just doesn't sound right to my ears. 

Abortion is an issue I care about, and have discussed at length with people across the political spectrum. I'm just tired of reading and writing the same old arguments, I guess. But I do care about the issue, and thought it was relevant to mention in a post about my core values. It's good to know that you take a different position, and I would like to know everyone's position on it, it's just not something I want to dig into.

Then you say: "You prosecute them for acts that are against the law. Period. It doesn't matter how they feel in their heart of hearts."

Except it does. It's called hatespeech. And people get punished for it. 

As per the first quote, you can't punish someone for what's in their heart. 

You punish them when they break the law. 

Hate speech laws are laws. So if people engage in hate speech in a place where it's illegal, they are breaking the law.

Does "I don't necessarily believe that hate speech laws are necessary" equate to "I don't necessarily believe that hate speech laws are unnecessary"?

I don't like hate speech laws because they infringe on our right to free speech, but I do recognize their practical utility in helping different cultures live together. As someone who tends towards utilitarianism, that matters to me. But in principle, I am against.

If we ever reach a world where incompatible cultures are no longer forced to live together, which you mentioned in the other thread, the practical utility of hate speech laws goes down and we can get rid of them. At that point, we can draw the line more cleanly at incitement to violence and I would be more strongly against hate speech laws.

Because that's a sneaky way to frame it don't you think so? 

That was not my intent. I am genuinely somewhere in the middle on it. I think you could have asked for clarification without suggesting I'm "sneaky".

You mean to tell me there's a group of people that have a history of being mass murdered?

I wouldn't know. I guess it just doesn't interest me.

That's fine. I'm also not interested in discussing the holocaust, or any other genocide for that matter. (To be clear, that doesn't mean I think genocide is okay).

Ever heard of holocaust deniers that are anti-violence?

I don't know any holocaust deniers.

[TokenLiberal]

More on topic: What do you believe the mountain in the distance is? What is the obscured truth? You must be thinking of something, or some direction at least?

[19Bones79]

 

Israel's intelligence service is one of the most effective in the world. None of that requires me to be passionate about the issue. There are other things I care more about. We aren't all required to care about the same things. 

 

Alright, we can defuse this. From where I stand this is the single most important issue in the world right now because of the power structures it highlights and how it is able to influence foreign governments with double standards. 

Telling Western nations to take on more illegals from Gaza while Europe is already being damaged severely by the influx of foreigners is one example. 

Israel can always play the victim card but they never live by the standards THEY SET for others. 

I accept that not everybody is on that page yet, but it has to do with the push, not fall, of Western civilization. 

A topic that should interest everyone, in my opinion.

 

I don't think I've ever been called a normy before. 

 

I don't think it's ever been indirectly implied that I'm interested in topics that simply aren't that interesting. 

 

We aren't all required to care about the same things. 

 


Fair enough. What interests you in this current day and age and the direction things are moving? 

 

I don't think I've ever been called a normy before. It's interesting that you seem to think you know me well enough to attach such labels. By "I read your back story" you don't mean you doxxed me, I hope? 

 

Ha. No. Nothing like that. But if you had to channel such paranoia into a contemporary conspiracy, what would you say?

 

That was not my intent. I am genuinely somewhere in the middle on it. I think you could have asked for clarification without suggesting I'm "sneaky". 

 


Fair enough. I'm sometimes guilty of chasing ghosts. My failings are public, too.

[19Bones79]

More on topic: What do you believe the mountain in the distance is? What is the obscured truth? You must be thinking of something, or some direction at least?

I believe that the official history of watershed events have been lies intended to cast the narrators in a suitable light. 

I believe some lies to contain varied amounts of truth while others are straight up false flags. 

As I don't believe that humanity can free itself through violence, the only way forward is for the correct version of historical events to be shared globally.

And that is one hell of a mountain would you agree?

If our civilization is built upon lies that inhibit and enslave us, then we are in deep waters right now. 

Having children compels me to understand the true nature of the threat being handed down to them.

[TokenLiberal]

A topic that should interest everyone, in my opinion.

Understandable.

I don't think it's ever been indirectly implied that I'm interested in topics that simply aren't that interesting. 

That's my bad, I read back where I initially said this and I should've said "not particularly interesting to me". That last bit was worth adding.

It was a topic of interest to me at one point and I've spent plenty of time discussing it. It's just been going on for a very long time and not much is changing, so at the risk of sounding apathetic, it's sort of "old news" to me.

Fair enough. What interests you in this current day and age and the direction things are moving?

I would say my main topic of interest right now is global political trends. Specifically, I believe we have come to the end of the neoliberal order, and a new global political order is forming. We are in a very tumultuous and formative time when it comes to politics, and the stability of our democracies and our global economic order is at risk, particularly with the US retreating from the world stage.

The other two big topics of our time are AI and Russia's invasion of Ukraine, imo. AI has the power to transform our economy and will require major tax overhaul. Russia's war could escalate to WW3 if we're not careful, and the US is not being careful right now.

Ha. No. Nothing like that. But if you had to channel such paranoia into a contemporary conspiracy, what would you say?

Interesting question. As far as conspiracies go, I suppose I'd be most concerned about Musk's position in the US government after donating $300 million to Trump's campaign. That's probably a boring answer to you. Tbh, I'm usually skeptical of conspiracy theories.

(I never actually thought you doxxed me, that was a tongue-in-cheek question).

[TokenLiberal]

I believe that the official history of watershed events have been lies intended to cast the narrators in a suitable light. 

I believe some lies to contain varied amounts of truth while others are straight up false flags. 

As I don't believe that humanity can free itself through violence, the only way forward is for the correct version of historical events to be shared globally.

And that is one hell of a mountain would you agree?

If our civilization is built upon lies that inhibit and enslave us, then we are in deep waters right now. 

Having children compels me to understand the true nature of the threat being handed down to them.

Ah, so it's a general belief that our historical record contains many lies and that knowing the truth would set us on a better path.

What would you say are (likely to be) some of the biggest or, if you prefer, most influential lies in the historical record?

It reminds me of an interesting experience I had reading a book, "To kill a nation" by Michael Parenti. It's about the Yugoslav wars and takes the rather contrarian position that Milosevic's Serbia was the good guy (denying genocide in the process), and America was the evil imperialist bad guy that was using its global influence to push Yugoslavia into civil war in order to discredit socialism (Yugoslavia was a socialist state, and the author claims it was doing well. Too well...).

It was a book recommended to me by some rando on Reddit. I had no idea what it was about, or that it took such a contrary position to established historical record. I just pirated it and started reading because why not? Mind you, I was not at all informed about the Yugoslav wars, and didn't remember much from when they were going on. And I remember finding the book entertaining and convincing, no doubt because I had my own biases coming in (I was in a bit of a "the US is evil" phase). Then afterwards I researched the issue more and found out that the author was very much on the wrong side of history and his framing of events was dishonest. It really opened my eyes to how easily we can be convinced by smart framing and the occasional, hard to fact-check lie sprinkled in.

All that to say that yeah, history is often disputed, and it takes effort to find the truth sometimes. But I do think that when it comes to big events that are widely reported on and written about by people with different sets of biases, if we do our due diligence, are critical of our sources, and don't just take one biased guy's word for it, we can form a pretty reliable model of what happened. And when it comes to events in history that we would learn from in our efforts to shape future society, I think the historical record mostly serves us well. It's good, for example, that the established wisdom is that communism and fascism are bad ideas.

[19Bones79]

 

I would say my main topic of interest right now is global political trends.

 


Same. 

 

Specifically, I believe we have come to the end of the neoliberal order, and a new global political order is forming. We are in a very tumultuous and formative time when it comes to politics, and the stability of our democracies and our global economic order is at risk, particularly with the US retreating from the world stage.

 

It's never too late for Trump to turn fascist. Historically speaking, the conditions are favorable. A lot of people aren't seeing it, though. 

I hope I'm wrong. 

 

The other two big topics of our time are AI and Russia's invasion of Ukraine, imo. AI has the power to transform our economy and will require major tax overhaul. Russia's war could escalate to WW3 if we're not careful, and the US is not being careful right now.

 


It's over. WW3 won't start there. Zelensky has gone through the humiliation ritual with Trump quite recently. Blackrock is eager to get to work I remember something about a $1 trillion dollar contract a while back.. 

 

Interesting question. As far as conspiracies go, I suppose I'd be most concerned about Musk's position in the US government after donating $300 million to Trump's campaign. That's probably a boring answer to you. Tbh, I'm usually skeptical of conspiracy theories.

 


I believe that governments need a corporate overhaul in order to be streamlined for a one world-government.

Even to the point of AI for intelligence gathering on the total populace to the point where 'citizens' could be arrested for something they were about to commit based upon a physiological analysis of their body. 

If the alphabet agencies are going to clean house pretty soon, perhaps that signals the replacement of human beings by a machine. It would be like them to replace a lot of people with AI while the focus is on 'draining muh swamp'.

Elon will have a lot of business coming his way directly or indirectly. 

However my main obsession would be who's behind the scenes pulling the strings, why and how?

And to what end, of course.

 

(I never actually thought you doxxed me, that was a tongue-in-cheek question).

 

Even if I could, I wouldn't. It's not my style.

[19Bones79]

 

(Yugoslavia was a socialist state, and the author claims it was doing well. Too well...).

 

There are quite a few examples in history where a country freed itself from the chains that bound them and began a sort of 'golden age'. 

Those countries are usually dealt with swiftly and decisively. 

Globalism could never work if every country just wanted to do their own thing. 

Enough countries would need to be subverted into chasing a larger, common goal. 

Which is why it seems like a lot of world leaders have lost their minds. It only makes sense if everyone is under similar instructions tailor made for each country and it's circumstances.

It also automatically implies that there are people in positions of power that have an unshakeable loyalty to the cause, whether it be through coercion, blackmail or worse they are psychopaths.

Nothing gets done without the psychopaths in place.

 

What would you say are (likely to be) some of the biggest or, if you prefer, most influential lies in the historical record? 

 


That's a good question. There are so many to choose from if you believe like me that real history is, for the most part dead and that important events in history are scriptured and manufactured.

So it's not just about lies, but also illusion. 

While lies can be debunked individually, an illusion is a mix of lies and truth in a house of mirrors, with a general public hostile to anyone stupid enough to question the official narrative. That's me.

I would say.. the history of banking but then I start thinking about the history of usury, which leads to to the history of the Jewish people, secret societies, religious constructs, money Magick, Satanism, child sacrifice, how civilizations fell throughout history, an old testament god that has nothing to do with what's happening in the new testament, self fulfilling prophecy, what existed before the last global catastrophe, ancient 'mythological' cities and how that knowledge was preserved through what I presume was a priestly order. Why one group of people is unlike any other in the world. 

That was a mouthful, but that's usually where my curiosity takes me. Perhaps I could say that the continuous strand throughout history is what interests me.

 

It reminds me of an interesting experience I had reading a book, "To kill a nation" by Michael Parenti. It's about the Yugoslav wars and takes the rather contrarian position that Milosevic's Serbia was the good guy (denying genocide in the process), and America was the evil imperialist bad guy that was using its global influence to push Yugoslavia into civil war in order to discredit socialism (Yugoslavia was a socialist state, and the author claims it was doing well. Too well...). 

 


The places I've traveled to were never treated fairly by US or other foreign policies. It was always brutal but cold and calculated. The emotion was manufactured for the folks back home, to keep support for the war(invasion) going.

 

 (I was in a bit of a "the US is evil" phase). 

 

Lol. Glad you're out of it. I'm still in my 'the US is captured' phase.

 

Then afterwards I researched the issue more and found out that the author was very much on the wrong side of history and his framing of events was dishonest. It really opened my eyes to how easily we can be convinced by smart framing and the occasional, hard to fact-check lie sprinkled in. 

 

Don't feel bad. I've used the CIA as a source. 

I don't know much about Yugoslavia and what happened there yet, but I'll get there. I'll keep in mind what you discovered.

 

All that to say that yeah, history is often disputed, and it takes effort to find the truth sometimes. But I do think that when it comes to big events that are widely reported on and written about by people with different sets of biases, if we do our due diligence, are critical of our sources, and don't just take one biased guy's word for it, we can form a pretty reliable model of what happened. 

 


I take it you trust most official accepted sources then, or?

Which historical event would you say sounds fishy and why?

 

And when it comes to events in history that we would learn from in our efforts to shape future society, I think the historical record mostly serves us well. It's good, for example, that the established wisdom is that communism and fascism are bad ideas. 

 


Would you say that a total surveillance of every person globally, a universal basic income and punishment (such as freezing funds albeit more flexible and sophisticated) as a form of conditioning socialy acceptable behavior are good ideas?

What's your idea of a good idea?

[TokenLiberal]

It's never too late for Trump to turn fascist. Historically speaking, the conditions are favorable. A lot of people aren't seeing it, though.

Wdym?

It's over. WW3 won't start there. Zelensky has gone through the humiliation ritual with Trump quite recently. Blackrock is eager to get to work I remember something about a $1 trillion dollar contract a while back.. 

It's over as in the war is over? If it ends anytime soon it will be on Russia's terms, and that would mean Putin, with his war economy, might feel empowered to keep the troops rolling further west. That would start WW3.

When the war ends, Russia's bill will come due. Russians are going to feel that, and during peace time they might start asking questions like "was this war worth it?". Putin can keep the war going as a way to postpone this. He won't necessarily do this, but it's a concern to me.
 

I believe that governments need a corporate overhaul in order to be streamlined for a one world-government.

A what?

Even to the point of AI for intelligence gathering on the total populace to the point where 'citizens' could be arrested for something they were about to commit based upon a physiological analysis of their body. 

This is highly futuristic, and I have some moral concerns. But let's not keep expanding the discussion

If the alphabet agencies are going to clean house pretty soon, perhaps that signals the replacement of human beings by a machine. It would be like them to replace a lot of people with AI while the focus is on 'draining muh swamp'.

AI replacing humans in the workforce is still a ways away. I hope that, when it happens, an actual competent person will be in the white house.

Elon will have a lot of business coming his way directly or indirectly. 

Yes, the $300m was a smart investment. It's baffling to me that he so transparently bought the US president, and Trump's supporters cheer it on.

However my main obsession would be who's behind the scenes pulling the strings, why and how?

You mean to say you think there is a guy behind Elon Musk pulling his strings? I doubt that. If there is a "deep state", like the kids are saying, it's the heritage foundation, and they're actually been pretty transparent. So nice of them. Musk I think is just temporarily allied with them, or is at least pretending to be while he uses his access to the president and US government data to enrich himself.

[TokenLiberal]

There are quite a few examples in history where a country freed itself from the chains that bound them and began a sort of 'golden age'. 

Those countries are usually dealt with swiftly and decisively. 

Globalism could never work if every country just wanted to do their own thing. 

Enough countries would need to be subverted into chasing a larger, common goal. 

Which is why it seems like a lot of world leaders have lost their minds. It only makes sense if everyone is under similar instructions tailor made for each country and it's circumstances.

It also automatically implies that there are people in positions of power that have an unshakeable loyalty to the cause, whether it be through coercion, blackmail or worse they are psychopaths.

Nothing gets done without the psychopaths in place.

To be fair, while the author claimed socialist Yugoslavia was doing economically well, it actually wasn't (more info). That claim was just part of his false narrative.

But I take your point. And I do think the US has definitely crossed some lines in exercising its soft power around the world. Ultimately though, I came to the conclusion that it is mostly a benevolent hegemon when it comes to the goals it's trying to achieve. Its own interests often happen to align with the interests of the countries it's influencing. It wants every country to be democratic, to free up its markets, and to be stable. That tends to be a healthy goal for everyone involved, even if the means by which it's achieved are often ugly.

That's a good question. There are so many to choose from if you believe like me that real history is, for the most part dead and that important events in history are scriptured and manufactured.

So it's not just about lies, but also illusion. 

While lies can be debunked individually, an illusion is a mix of lies and truth in a house of mirrors, with a general public hostile to anyone stupid enough to question the official narrative. That's me.

So you're saying most of history is a lie?

I would say.. the history of banking but then I start thinking about the history of usury, which leads to to the history of the Jewish people, secret societies, religious constructs, money Magick, Satanism, child sacrifice, how civilizations fell throughout history, an old testament god that has nothing to do with what's happening in the new testament, self fulfilling prophecy, what existed before the last global catastrophe, ancient 'mythological' cities and how that knowledge was preserved through what I presume was a priestly order. Why one group of people is unlike any other in the world. 

I happen to be reading a book about the great depression, and have also done some reading about the great recession. Both were of course major events in the history of banking. Do you think the historical record about those events, specifically, is full of lies? Do you have any specific examples of things you think historians are lying about?

And what about the history of the Jewish people? This reminds me of a discussion I had once with someone who insisted that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was a real document. They were convinced Jews rule the world.

Money Magick???? (I mean, I looked it up, but please, explain).

I don't particularly care about religion and its history (though I recognize it has played a crucial role shaping our civilization) because reading about it is boring to me. There's a lot of "this guy started a cult by telling people a made up story and they loved it, then this guy did the same and they loved it even more, and this story is slightly different from that one because of reasons reasons reasons" ffs I don't care about your stupid made up stories.

I'm still in my 'the US is captured' phase.

By whom?

I take it you trust most official accepted sources then, or?

Absolutely. I think when it comes to big events that are widely reported on, especially if the reporting was done in places where free speech is well-established, it is virtually impossible for bad actors to create a false narrative. Maybe in the moment it's doable, but over time, historians debate each other and the most fact-based takes survive to form the historical record. Dissenters like that Parenti guy I mentioned will still exist, but they will be eclipsed by serious historians who, out of a passion for their field, simply deliver better work.

When it comes to the smaller, less impactful events which were written about only once or twice, it's much more plausible that whatever record we have is biased or otherwise wrong.

Which historical event would you say sounds fishy and why?

Honestly I have to disappoint you on this one. I'm sure there's lots of fishy stuff in the historical record, but I can't think of examples from the top of my head. When I read about history I will sometimes find narratives unconvincing, but that's not something I remember way after the fact. In my future readings I'll try to catch myself when I think "hmm, this doesn't sound convincing" and make a mental note.

Would you say that a total surveillance of every person globally, a universal basic income and punishment (such as freezing funds albeit more flexible and sophisticated) as a form of conditioning socialy acceptable behavior are good ideas?

I like the question because this is a world we might actually end up living in some day. I am in favor of UBI in a world where human labor no longer has value because it's replaced by machines. We will almost certainly live in that world some day.

If by socially unacceptable behavior you mean law-breaking, then punishing it is normal and it's what we already do. If you mean something else, then what do you mean?

There is nothing wrong in my opinion with finding creative ways like freezing UBI to punish people in order to condition them, as long as this punishment isn't worse than what we do now (imprisonment). You can't freeze funds to such an extent that they will be unable to feed themselves, for example. That will just lead to more crime.

As for surveillance, in my opinion the state needs probable cause just like they do if they want to search your house.

What's your idea of a good idea?

Do you mean an idea on how to structure future society?