I spend a good portion of my time trying to communicate to people about peak oil, the evils of the PNAC, the Iranian Oil Bourse, the federal reserve system scam, global control by banking elites, etc. etc. I find that most people are not swayed by facts--they have already made up their mind whether they want to break free from the shackles of social conditioning or not. Any attempt at challenging their world view is met with either being ignored or being insulted.
I'm wodering if I should just give up, keep putting my money in the bank, and just watch things come crashing down when they eventually do... or if it's worth it to continue trying to share unpopular information with the people that it adversely affects in the hopes that more and more eyes will be opened and eventually people will mount some sort of reasonable opposition to the global elites? I'm not sayin' I can change the world, but I want to spark the mind that will...
What do you all think?
To read my collection of unpopular information, check my blog, Truth Addicts Anonymous. Thanks for voting.
PeakOil is You
Is it worth it trying to share unpopular information?
First unread post • 18 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Is it worth it trying to share unpopular information?
by deconstructionist » Tue 14 Feb 2006, 14:04:34
UNLESS
-
deconstructionist - Coal
- Posts: 435
- Joined: Sat 25 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
- Location: Salem, MA
Re: Is it worth it trying to share unpopular information?
by Ludi » Tue 14 Feb 2006, 14:20:12
Yes, it's worth it, but you have to be prepared to be called all kinds of horrible names - stupid, fascist, insane, irrational, naive, etc etc
- Ludi
Re: Is it worth it trying to share unpopular information?
by Schweinshaxe » Tue 14 Feb 2006, 17:31:11
No.
Was soll das?
-
Schweinshaxe - Tar Sands
- Posts: 700
- Joined: Sun 29 May 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Schweinland-Pfalz
Re: Is it worth it trying to share unpopular information?
by Carlhole » Tue 14 Feb 2006, 17:31:15
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('deconstructionist', 'I') spend a good portion of my time trying to communicate to people about peak oil, the evils of the PNAC, the Iranian Oil Bourse, the federal reserve system scam, global control by banking elites, etc. etc. I find that most people are not swayed by facts--they have already made up their mind whether they want to break free from the shackles of social conditioning or not. Any attempt at challenging their world view is met with either being ignored or being insulted.
HA! Yer outta the closet now...
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Truth Addict', 'A')nd if you look just slightly below the surface, 9/11 is not that hard to understand... Iraq started selling oil for Euros in September of 2000 in protest of US sanctions (source). The reprehensible 9/11 attacks manufactured sufficient consent amongst the public for the US to go to war with Iraq. The attacks were perpetrated by Saudis--15 of the 19 hijackers were saudis (source). The Saudis directly benefit from the petrodollar recycling system (source) and it was in both their and the US's best interests to stop Iraq from doing so--by removing Saddam from power.
The organization that benefits most from the petrodollar recycling system is the Federal Reserve (source). They have vast influence over both the US and Saudi governments. The war in Iraq was made possible by a so-called terrorist attack on US soil perpetrated by a nation (Saudi Arabia) who was similarly economically threatened by Iraq's shift from the dollar to the Euro. The Federal Reserve--via Saudi Arabia and the US--had to send a message to other OPEC nations that a challenge to the petrodollar hegemony would not be tolerated.
9/11 was a horrific sacrifice made by the global elites of the New World Order in order to save the US dollar from total collapse.
It's something like that. Probably more complicated.
One also has to marvel at how the US is being hollowed out through its sending manufacturing, service and IT jobs to Asia with a vengeance, how we are supposedly fighting this war on terror while our borders are wide open, how the media refuses to talk about some subjects, such as 911 anomalies, or the 4 permanent superbases being built in Iraq:
[url=http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?emx=x&pid=59774]
Tomgram: A Permanent Basis for Withdrawal?[/url]
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tom Engelhardt', '
')
Can You Say "Permanent Bases"?
The American Press Can't
There are at least four such "super-bases" in Iraq, none of which have anything to do with "withdrawal" from that country. Quite the contrary, these bases are being constructed as little American islands of eternal order in an anarchic sea. Whatever top administration officials and military commanders say -- and they always deny that we seek "permanent" bases in Iraq -– facts-on-the-ground speak with another voice entirely. These bases practically scream "permanency."
Unfortunately, there's a problem here. American reporters adhere to a simple rule: The words "permanent," "bases," and "Iraq" should never be placed in the same sentence, not even in the same paragraph; in fact, not even in the same news report. While a LexisNexis search of the last 90 days of press coverage of Iraq produced a number of examples of the use of those three words in the British press, the only U.S. examples that could be found occurred when 80% of Iraqis (obviously somewhat unhinged by their difficult lives) insisted in a poll that the United States might indeed desire to establish bases and remain permanently in their country; or when "no" or "not" was added to the mix via any American official denial. (It's strange, isn't it, that such bases, imposing as they are, generally only exist in our papers in the negative.) Three examples will do: ...
And this article probably belongs here. Apparently, it is the most read article ever at EV World at over 3000 reads:
The Iran crisis & global peak oil
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Charles Whalen', '.')..Everything I see and read tells me that this clash and conflict is probably now inevitable, especially due to the belligerent, bellicose, intransigent, uncompromising nature of the antagonists on each side whose positions and rhetoric are becoming increasingly hardened and dug in. The world is becoming increasingly polarized in this brewing conflict, with the Europeans now becoming more unified and pushed into the American camp by the whole Prophet Muhammed cartoon affair with all of its targeted violence directed against Denmark, Norway, France, Britain, and Germany. On Iran's side, you have Russia, China, Syria, and Venezuela (which is the United States' third largest oil supplier, after Canada and Mexico, and whose president, Hugo Chavez, has said that he would cut off all oil exports to the US in the event of any US attack on Iran). The other Arabs and the Turks seem to be caught somewhere in the middle at the moment. The battle lines are hardening. I can see the train wreck coming. The repercussions will be devastating. As I said, we'll have oil over $300 and gasoline over $10. We will see a worldwide depression on a scale not seen since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The US dollar will collapse against the euro and go into free fall. China will use the opportunity to seize Taiwan. The Chinese will also engage in economic sabotage against the US through the enormous financial leverage they have over us with their massive US Treasury debt holdings, which they will dump en masse on world financial markets. Yes, that's a bit like shooting oneself in the foot, but at that point it won't matter any more because things will have moved way beyond such considerations...
- Carlhole
