Response
Did you do any research of your own or did you just swallow the premise whole and then get led by the nose?
Hmm. You got led by the nose.
I suggest you read the material from Larry Brennan who actually KNOWS what was set up because he did most of it.
He aint guessing - unlike the conspiracy theorists of veritas.
I also thought it was hilarious that you thought CST's logo looked like some sort of Illuminati sign. you didnt look at the CST logo - did you? You read about it and just decided to parrot it.
Are you seriously trying to suggest that the "Illuminati" have a cross-eyed owl as a symbol?
Sorry to fully disagree here. First of all, I have formal education in the scientific method, having a scientific background in one top European University, which doesn´t matter which is it. Way BEFORE Scn... I´m also versed in epistemology, and philosophy of science, Kuhn, Hume, Locke, Bacon, Foucalt, and others, just to name a few, having read the SOURCES. Have you read any of those Mike??
To the scientific method, there is 2 basic ways to go about it, the inductive and the deductive method. You are confusing both here, hence your problems with my style of argumenting. You want to see it DE-ducted, while I came from and IN-ductive approach. Besides to logic, there is many ways to present an argument.
Second, I didn´t affirm 100% anything, it said clearly "Speculations on...", if for your way of thinking it doesn´t fit into your frame of mind the starting of the sentence and you had better the argument presented this or this other way with a question mark, well, I´m not gonna play into that, I have my way of expressing things, and can clarify as on the go. SAME as you do.
Third, one can also follow on intuition, or gut-feeling and THEN look for the facts. The more I live, the more I do it. It gets me the best results many times, I´m getting. When I disociated the gut from the head, many problems happened, such as not seeing the OBVIOUS in Scn. (Ignosis, it´s called in another thread). So I recomend an approach of heart-head (reciprocal feedback between these 2, if you get what I mean), and not the traditional western approach of JUST head, who has lead the western man to the monsters created by Western society, one more of them being the Scn. structure.
Fourth, your way of speaking is demeaning, and AUTHORITATIVE, not argumenting with logic either, but stating YOUR truths as THE facts.
Did you do any research of your own or did you just swallow the premise whole and then get led by the nose?
Hmm. You got led by the nose.
This in oratoria, is called a RHETORICAL QUESTION, meaning, the question is not made to get an answer, but is self-answered, leaving no space to the other party to reply. Very much in the Hubbard style, WELL DONE. Thought we were here to step down of his paradigm and way of doing things... but I see some still carry on, the same destructive ways of dealing with one´s fellow man. So for that case, fighting with the same weapons of intolerance, not listening, demeaning, for me is then the same to be a blind anon, or a blind Scngist, both authorative in their way...
So I won´t even play along with your argument here, as if it´s off-topic anyway. A typical way of argumenting by some politicians, sway the argument off the topic, demean the other party, to look more authoritative, and then make one´s point, as the other party has already been COMPARED and REDUCED, etiquetted to be less worth, then one´s argument will come over STRONGER. Sounds to me as a weak way of uncalm argumenting. Besides does it sound familiar to you from somehwere else?
I suggest you read the material from Larry Brennan who actually KNOWS what was set up because he did most of it.
You are incurring here so to say in the same "mistake" taking data from a third party by "face value". The only difference that he "KNOWS", here is the TRUTH, man. I no long believe there is just ONE TRUTH anymore. But more different truths, that can be understood from each viewpoint, trying to see if more of them allign or show one direction, more of a statistical probability that things may have been with PROBABILITY, this or this other way. More in the sense of Quantum Physics, than of Newtonian Physics, if you get what i mean... "He KNOWS" is the old Newtonian Paradigm, of close determinism, that I believe after Foucalt and others is no more acceptable in a XXIst century.
But yes, I will read this material, didn´t know about it, any good links for that?
What I´m saying here is there is a probability factor, and the arguments of that link are interesting.
I never followed the logic of the remote viewing subtle argument being made.
1. Ingo Swann apparently was remote viewing BEFORE he got into Scn.
2. I have not enough data on that, or there is no stringent logic, to make me believe that this was, and that there is a causal relationship, between remote viewing and the IRS-Scn. issue. This was NOT my argument ever, and some people are trying to INFER THIS to my argument, which is NOT the case.
3. Besides, I have no data to DENY remote viewing exists, and following my gut, it very well may be the case. But again, it´s not my point.
Somebody else asked here for a WHY a reason for this supposed takeover. Again, I´m not affirming, I´m just making an argument on a high chance possibility, following all this documents with precise dates on them, and a possible internal logic of possible causation.
This was actually the question I posed, and as happens sometimes quite often on threads of this board, people quite often sway off, or reply off-topic.
a. It could be of interest to control such a big money making operation.
b. Isn´t it ideal to have an almost "perfect" orwellian group, in which all the person´s details are filed up in folders, even many of their intimate thoughts? Wouldn´t it be appealing somehow to control such an operation?
c. I won´t enter in detail, but it´s more possible that this world is somehow controlled by an ellite clique in many subtle and not so subtle ways, that it is NOT. That Hubbard stated there existed such an operation, doesn´t make it more or less valid.
Not because some or many data in Hubbard´s paradigm were falsely induced, or simply assumed, doesn´t change the fact, that some things he hit or mentioned where true. Besides I´m not coming from his self-fullfilled paranoia on being prosecuted. I´m coming from my EXPERIENCES in the Church, the radical change regarding taxation, and the two clear ways it was treated from having an opposed group to the IRS, the period before 1993, I don´t remember it´s name, but I met people involved in that, CATS (now i remember, citizen´s for an alternative tax system) proposing to reform the tax system, and then becoming the most zealot tax collector. That´s a 180 degree change. Besides, I don´t know of any other church ENFORCING tax collection so much, do you? This is the departing point for my assumptions, nothing else. While I remember many Scngists. having off-shore accounts, and being loose in many countries about taxes, and this being FINE, nowadays in the group, it´s totally THE OPPOSITE, and a group member would be seen as a complete out-ethics cat if doing so. A lot of ethics actions in many countries are oriented at putting the "ethics in" on tax collection.
Another point is, that there is nothing wrong with WHY finding and WHY logic. It is used daily in physics, chemistry and biology departments, it´s the daily bread of a scientific investigator. The Law of Cause and Effect, keeps existing, no matter if Hubbard stated it or not. Assumptions made be made as to why things are one way or the other, further researched or disproved as on the go. Also there may be two-valued logic, or grey scales, or possibilities, both can be applicable depending on the specific situation. Two value logic is applied quadrillions of times in computers all over the planet all day long, and the fruits of that are VERY valid and workable in that realm.
So, with the arguments presented and staying IN-TOPIC, there is first some correlation, and second some cause and effect situations, and there some interesting "coincidences". This was my initial point, and wanted you guys to comment on how you saw it, or if you had any more data, or argued opinions on it.
