Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

castille · May 17, 2005, 11:07 pm

So, are the owners of this shadow government human, or lizard folk?

caspian88 · May 17, 2005, 11:23 pm

Quote:

Quote by: PatrickHenry

Proof is not what we do here, caspian. Debate is the presentation of evidence. We have no subpoena powers and our testimony from witnesses is not under oath. But there is incontrovertible evidence that there is some sort of a Shadow Government, even if it is to be utilized only in times of crisis. Many things exist that cannot be proven in a court of law. Prove love.

Prove either the existence or non-existence of God. One of those propositions is the correct one, but proving it is another matter, isn't it? So what we are limited to here is presenting evidence. Some of us have our minds closed on uncomfortable subjects. To consider them creates too much internal stress.

Don't feel obligated to investigate this line of inquiry if you find it distressing. There are plenty of hopeful things to focus on...

Let's settle this one at a time, shall we?

"Debate is the presentation of evidence."

Debate is also the utilization of that evidence, but that's another matter. If you can present evidence, you must do it. I'll explain why later.

"We have no subpoena powers and our testimony from witnesses is not under oath."

You really shouldn't need those if you can prove the existence of said Shadow Government. No group of people is so perfect that they cannot make mistakes. If you have evidence, present it.

"But there is incontrovertible evidence that there is some sort of a Shadow Government, even if it is to be utilized only in times of crisis."

So then, what is it? You have proof, why don't you show it? Is it that you don't actually have proof, that you don't want to show proof, or that you are lazy? There aren't many other options here. Do you want me to take this on faith? I'm afraid, with something so sinister, I can't do that. No rational human being should,in my opinion.

"Many things exist that cannot be proven in a court of law. "

And what are these things? 'Inalienable rights?' Those don't actually exist, except in common convention. Numbers don't actually exist, but are an invention of ours used to organize things. There are things that do not exist, but they are used because they are convenient. However, most of the time, they aren't things that can cause life or death solely with themselves, but only if misused.

"Prove love."

Love is a word describing the chemical reaction in the brain that makes someone want to be around a particular person. It's also a device invented by bank managers to make you overdrawn. It's an abstract concept invented for convenience. It's a religion, in a strange way.

"Prove either the existence or non-existence of God."

God is an invention, like love, to explain something - why we are here. It cannot be proven, because it doesn't exist. However, this isn't relevant to the discussion of a giant Shadow Government. This government must be organized, if it is as you obviously believe it to be. There must be people who meet at times, somehow, to discuss plans. There must be events attributable to this group. The JFK assassination, perhaps? That's a common one. Why cannot you prove the existence of something you so firmly believe to be true?
Is it your own religion?

"So what we are limited to here is presenting evidence. Some of us have our minds closed on uncomfortable subjects."

Well, you either have evidence, or you don't. You're a rational person, as near as I can tell. Would you believe in something that doesn't truly exist, for no other reason that it makes things easier to explain? That's religion, and you can't prove it. Why should we then listen to you, if our lives could be at risk if you're wrong?

I wouldn't be surprised if there was a giant organization bent on total world domination other than Starbucks. However, I'm not going to risk my life or those of others for the sake of something that doesn't exist - I always default on the side of nonexistence if there's no evidence. Please, show your evidence, because otherwise what you're saying really only amounts to the ravings of a madman.

PatrickHenry · May 18, 2005, 03:09 am

Well, caspian. Will you believe the Washington Post? http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer
Will you at least walk with me as far as admitting that there are arrangements for "continuity of government" that are not provided for by the Constitution of the United States? And that it is secret? Also, regarding your objections to my last post, have you read any of the material I presented in this thread? I mean followed the link and read the articles I referred to in full? Sadly, the other members have not respected the integrity of the thread and much of what they posted was off topic and extraneous to the discussion. But my stuff was focussed on the issue...

Maybe you will not buy the more conspiracy oriented sites presentations. Many debaters don't. I find those folks are usually somewhat naive supporters of the government, who are unable to conceive that there are people much more evil than ourselves in charge of various elements of the FedGov. The evidence isn't hard to find, but you may dispute its authenticity, since it is from sources which are not mainstream...

Mia · May 18, 2005, 04:37 am

Quote:

Quote by: Osborn F Enready

The party selected Edwards, not Kerry in my opinion,

???

caspian88 · May 18, 2005, 09:28 am

I remember reading about the bunker people a while back, but only vaguely. That doesn't surprise me, because I've known about things like FEMA for quite a while, and I will never willingly let FEMA take control of the US. I'm not sure these bunker people have anything really to do with a shadow government, except as contingency plans for an emergency government, which isn't a great thing anyway.

The Free Republic link was interesting, if a bit long and difficult to read. I still have to check on the claims they made with other sources, though. Never believe something based on one source.

As for conspiracy sites, there's a problem with them - some of them might be legitimate, but how many others are run by nutcases who believe that eating bread makes you more susceptible by alien abduction, or that pencils are mind control devices? You have to separate out the good ones from the bad ones, and that's a difficult, slow process. Also, you have to separate out any biases - most to all of the people running those sites are libertarians or anarchists politically, and they'll be looking for evidence to support their views, and sometimes ignoring the stuff that contradicts it.

You also have to contend with the fact that although there certainly are elements who want total control of the world (I've met one), are they actually connected, or are they fighting amongst each other, and so on. I find it highly unlikely that there would be one Shadow Organization - I'd think there'd be several. Internal bickering, power struggles, even ideological differences would almost certainly bring about a splintering.

caspian88 · May 18, 2005, 09:30 am

I remember reading about the bunker people a while back, but only vaguely. That doesn't surprise me, because I've known about things like FEMA for quite a while, and I will never willingly let FEMA take control of the US. I'm not sure these bunker people have anything really to do with a shadow government, except as contingency plans for an emergency government, which isn't a great thing anyway.

The Free Republic link was interesting, if a bit long and difficult to read. I still have to check on the claims they made with other sources, though. Never believe something based on one source.

As for conspiracy sites, there's a problem with them - some of them might be legitimate, but how many others are run by nutcases who believe that eating bread makes you more susceptible by alien abduction, or that pencils are mind control devices? You have to separate out the good ones from the bad ones, and that's a difficult, slow process. Also, you have to separate out any biases - most to all of the people running those sites are libertarians or anarchists politically, and they'll be looking for evidence to support their views, and sometimes ignoring the stuff that contradicts it.

You also have to contend with the fact that although there certainly are elements who want total control of the world (I've met one), are they actually connected, or are they fighting amongst each other, and so on. I find it highly unlikely that there would be one Shadow Organization - I'd think there'd be several. Internal bickering, power struggles, even ideological differences would almost certainly bring about a splintering.

I should probobly say that I wouldn't be surprised if there was one, but as of yet, I don't have the evidence to back up any of the claims made here. However, I do support most of what that link said (The one dealing with how to fight the Shadow Government), not neccesarily as a way to fight shadow government, but a way to fight government in general.

caspian88 · May 18, 2005, 09:35 am

Sorry about the double post.

Cephus · May 18, 2005, 11:13 am

I don't know if I'd say there's a shadow government, that implies conspiracy theories, etc. However, I don't think there's any question that our own government operates under the table a large percentage of the time and it's certainly obvious that there are many things they are lying to the people about. I think that this lying has become a matter of course, not necessity and the time has come for independent civilian oversight of the government.

But of course, they'd never allow that and most Americans are sheep who wouldn't fight the system.

Milton Bradley · May 18, 2005, 12:46 pm

Quote:

Quote by: caspian88

The Free Republic link was interesting, if a bit long and difficult to read. I still have to check on the claims they made with other sources, though. Never believe something based on one source.

I hope you are practicing what you preach.

When CNN, Fox, NBC, ABC, and CBS all use the State Department as a single source to spread all kinds of rumors, or outright lies, I don't see you requiring another source.

Oh, I bet I know, you consider CNN, Fox, NBC, ABC, and CBS to be the diferent sources.

caspian88 · May 18, 2005, 12:48 pm

CNN, CBS, Fox, etc, are have different biases. Apart from that, they're pretty much useless.

There are other sources. Or is it simply that only one person is privy to certian information? That's not exactly a strong argument.

Milton Bradley · May 18, 2005, 12:54 pm

Notice I said that all of the above mentioned "news organizations" used the State Dept. as their single source.

I was hoping you would notice how many fail to question the source if all the big news organizations agreed on the story, even though it only used one source.

incka · May 18, 2005, 01:40 pm

To add the what Mr Bradley said, you can find documented proof of disinformation coming from the US government and being showed as truth in all the media, yet when it's proved to be false they don't even cover it. A book with a lot of examples of this in is Understanding Power by Noam Chomsky.

italiangm · May 18, 2005, 01:51 pm

The current appeal to morals and values is a facade. It's the result of a well-orchestrated plan to make some people very, very rich. The plot is as old as the hills:

A relatively small, influential group of people quietly organize a shift in power. This time around, the Group chose to manipulate the republican party simply because its pro-business, anti-regulation, anti-tax platform closely matched the environment needed for their business interests to prosper. The Group hand-selected and supported younger, idealistic republican candidates who were hungry for the prestige and perquisites that come with elected office. The Group encouraged platform changes which generated sufficient controversy to keep the public distracted from the underlying scheme.

The Group carefully studied the behavior of voters, mounted campaigns to create "issues" for them to identify with and rally around, then urged them to respond with money and votes to put their selected candidates into office.

The Group positioned the campaign to convince everyone to believe the shift is about morals and values, but it's really about money and power. Citizens believe they're doing the right thing. Most have no idea they're being used as pawns. The few that do are content to ride the gravy train until it runs out of gas. Once that happens, those who benefit the most will be set for life. The rest will wake up in a year or three and discover the bill they and their children are going to pay.

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
.

PatrickHenry · May 18, 2005, 02:47 pm

Sheesh, italiangm. You're as cynically calm as me, maybe more! But you're definitely on to something.

And caspian, you identified the hope that average citizens like us have of fighting the tyranny that proceeds from power. Namely competitiveness and overreaching by the elite.

caspian88 · May 18, 2005, 03:05 pm

Maybe I'm just being stupid, but your last sentence just confused me. Could you explain it?

Milton Bradley · May 18, 2005, 03:10 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Mia

???

I believe that Osborn was pointing out that the "Establishment" party picked Kerry's running mate, not Kerry.

Milton Bradley · May 18, 2005, 03:13 pm

Quote:

Quote by: capian88

Maybe I'm just being stupid, but your last sentence just confused me. Could you explain it?

I belive that was patrick commenting on this paragraph that you wrote about the will too resist.

Quote:

Quote by: caspian88

I remember reading about the bunker people a while back, but only vaguely. That doesn't surprise me, because I've known about things like FEMA for quite a while, and I will never willingly let FEMA take control of the US. I'm not sure these bunker people have anything really to do with a shadow government, except as contingency plans for an emergency government, which isn't a great thing anyway.

italiangm · May 18, 2005, 03:37 pm

Quote:

Quote by: PatrickHenry

Sheesh, italiangm. You're as cynically calm as me, maybe more! But you're definitely on to something.

Comes from 15 years work in a support role for a major direct marketing firm selling insurance and financial products.

I was privy to watching huge jumps in response rate when we tested copy that portrayed as threatening a world as insurance regulators would allow. I now clearly understand how rattling the amygdala pays off handsomely.

Manipulating the mind of most US citizens is shamefully easy. And immensely profitable. Every time I see a Zig Ziglar-type book or seminar, or any infomercial, I know there's someone out there that loves that particular facet (flaw?) in Americans and is laughing all the way to the bank.

It's the American way, yaknow.

PatrickHenry · May 18, 2005, 09:47 pm

Quote:

Quote by: caspian88

Maybe I'm just being stupid, but your last sentence just confused me. Could you explain it?

Sorry, caspian. I can see how it might have been garbled in transmission...let me rephrase: I believe that tyranny is proceeding from an elite group of powerful people whose headquarters is New York City and Washington, DC. You mentioned the best hope that we as average citizens have of escaping their evil designs. The facts are that these snakes are cannabalistic towards each other in many situations, and also that their hubris causes them to overreach, and go so far that their schemes, previously hidden, come into sharp focus for the average news-observing citizen.

italiangm · May 19, 2005, 08:57 am

Another example of 'business' as 'shadow government':

When alcoholic beverage revenue dried up as a result of Prohibition, a handful of folks in the industry quietly launched a campaign to fight back. They formulated a plan to convince the Great Unwashed that their freedoms were in jeopardy, hired operatives to carry out the plan, and carefully hid their tracks. You know the rest.

The only freedoms the alcohol industry cared about at the time was the freedom to make money. The rest was a carefully executed marketing campaign to achieve a goal.

Business is enjoying their association with moralists due to the revenue stream generated from recent surges in religious-themed books, articles and entertainment. Once revenue for this profit center begins to decline, business will focus on something else.

Moralists are allowed off their leash when it is financially expedient to do so. When crusaders get greedy and compete with commerce, they get knocked back into place.

View Poll Results: Is there a Shadow US Government? If so what is its purpose and aims?
No. There is only one US Government and it operates entirely in the open.	8	17.78%
Yes. There is a Shadow US Government, but it is entirely benign and only exists to help the country continue to function in a serious emergency.	6	13.33%
Yes. A Shadow US government exists and its purpose is complex and hard to define.	12	26.67%
Yes. There is a Shadow Government. It was established for a noble purpose, but its aims have become confused and are now mostly detrimental.	4	8.89%
Yes. There is a Shadow Government and it was established to destroy the freedom of America. It is unspeakably evil.	15	33.33%
Voters: 45. You may not vote

May 17, 2005, 11:07 pm	#21 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	So, are the owners of this shadow government human, or lizard folk? Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

May 18, 2005, 03:09 am	#23 (permalink) (top)
PatrickHenry 9/11: Inside Job Location: Hawai'i, Big Island Posts: 10,437	Well, caspian. Will you believe the Washington Post? http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer Will you at least walk with me as far as admitting that there are arrangements for "continuity of government" that are not provided for by the Constitution of the United States? And that it is secret? Also, regarding your objections to my last post, have you read any of the material I presented in this thread? I mean followed the link and read the articles I referred to in full? Sadly, the other members have not respected the integrity of the thread and much of what they posted was off topic and extraneous to the discussion. But my stuff was focussed on the issue... Maybe you will not buy the more conspiracy oriented sites presentations. Many debaters don't. I find those folks are usually somewhat naive supporters of the government, who are unable to conceive that there are people much more evil than ourselves in charge of various elements of the FedGov. The evidence isn't hard to find, but you may dispute its authenticity, since it is from sources which are not mainstream... "Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." -- John Adams

May 18, 2005, 01:51 pm	#33 (permalink) (top)
italiangm Chocoholic Posts: 887	The current appeal to morals and values is a facade. It's the result of a well-orchestrated plan to make some people very, very rich. The plot is as old as the hills: A relatively small, influential group of people quietly organize a shift in power. This time around, the Group chose to manipulate the republican party simply because its pro-business, anti-regulation, anti-tax platform closely matched the environment needed for their business interests to prosper. The Group hand-selected and supported younger, idealistic republican candidates who were hungry for the prestige and perquisites that come with elected office. The Group encouraged platform changes which generated sufficient controversy to keep the public distracted from the underlying scheme. The Group carefully studied the behavior of voters, mounted campaigns to create "issues" for them to identify with and rally around, then urged them to respond with money and votes to put their selected candidates into office. The Group positioned the campaign to convince everyone to believe the shift is about morals and values, but it's really about money and power. Citizens believe they're doing the right thing. Most have no idea they're being used as pawns. The few that do are content to ride the gravy train until it runs out of gas. Once that happens, those who benefit the most will be set for life. The rest will wake up in a year or three and discover the bill they and their children are going to pay. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. . Last edited by italiangm; May 18, 2005 at 01:54 pm.

May 18, 2005, 02:47 pm	#34 (permalink) (top)
PatrickHenry 9/11: Inside Job Location: Hawai'i, Big Island Posts: 10,437	Sheesh, italiangm. You're as cynically calm as me, maybe more! But you're definitely on to something. And caspian, you identified the hope that average citizens like us have of fighting the tyranny that proceeds from power. Namely competitiveness and overreaching by the elite. "Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." -- John Adams

May 18, 2005, 09:28 am	#25 (permalink) (top)
caspian88 Molten Ash Posts: 85	I remember reading about the bunker people a while back, but only vaguely. That doesn't surprise me, because I've known about things like FEMA for quite a while, and I will never willingly let FEMA take control of the US. I'm not sure these bunker people have anything really to do with a shadow government, except as contingency plans for an emergency government, which isn't a great thing anyway. The Free Republic link was interesting, if a bit long and difficult to read. I still have to check on the claims they made with other sources, though. Never believe something based on one source. As for conspiracy sites, there's a problem with them - some of them might be legitimate, but how many others are run by nutcases who believe that eating bread makes you more susceptible by alien abduction, or that pencils are mind control devices? You have to separate out the good ones from the bad ones, and that's a difficult, slow process. Also, you have to separate out any biases - most to all of the people running those sites are libertarians or anarchists politically, and they'll be looking for evidence to support their views, and sometimes ignoring the stuff that contradicts it. You also have to contend with the fact that although there certainly are elements who want total control of the world (I've met one), are they actually connected, or are they fighting amongst each other, and so on. I find it highly unlikely that there would be one Shadow Organization - I'd think there'd be several. Internal bickering, power struggles, even ideological differences would almost certainly bring about a splintering.

May 18, 2005, 09:30 am	#26 (permalink) (top)
caspian88 Molten Ash Posts: 85	I remember reading about the bunker people a while back, but only vaguely. That doesn't surprise me, because I've known about things like FEMA for quite a while, and I will never willingly let FEMA take control of the US. I'm not sure these bunker people have anything really to do with a shadow government, except as contingency plans for an emergency government, which isn't a great thing anyway. The Free Republic link was interesting, if a bit long and difficult to read. I still have to check on the claims they made with other sources, though. Never believe something based on one source. As for conspiracy sites, there's a problem with them - some of them might be legitimate, but how many others are run by nutcases who believe that eating bread makes you more susceptible by alien abduction, or that pencils are mind control devices? You have to separate out the good ones from the bad ones, and that's a difficult, slow process. Also, you have to separate out any biases - most to all of the people running those sites are libertarians or anarchists politically, and they'll be looking for evidence to support their views, and sometimes ignoring the stuff that contradicts it. You also have to contend with the fact that although there certainly are elements who want total control of the world (I've met one), are they actually connected, or are they fighting amongst each other, and so on. I find it highly unlikely that there would be one Shadow Organization - I'd think there'd be several. Internal bickering, power struggles, even ideological differences would almost certainly bring about a splintering. I should probobly say that I wouldn't be surprised if there was one, but as of yet, I don't have the evidence to back up any of the claims made here. However, I do support most of what that link said (The one dealing with how to fight the Shadow Government), not neccesarily as a way to fight shadow government, but a way to fight government in general.

May 18, 2005, 09:35 am	#27 (permalink) (top)
caspian88 Molten Ash Posts: 85	Sorry about the double post.

May 18, 2005, 11:13 am	#28 (permalink) (top)
Cephus Hot Lava Location: Redlands, CA Posts: 2,258	I don't know if I'd say there's a shadow government, that implies conspiracy theories, etc. However, I don't think there's any question that our own government operates under the table a large percentage of the time and it's certainly obvious that there are many things they are lying to the people about. I think that this lying has become a matter of course, not necessity and the time has come for independent civilian oversight of the government. But of course, they'd never allow that and most Americans are sheep who wouldn't fight the system.

May 18, 2005, 12:48 pm	#30 (permalink) (top)
caspian88 Molten Ash Posts: 85	CNN, CBS, Fox, etc, are have different biases. Apart from that, they're pretty much useless. There are other sources. Or is it simply that only one person is privy to certian information? That's not exactly a strong argument.

May 18, 2005, 12:54 pm	#31 (permalink) (top)
Milton Bradley BANNED Location: Ohio Province, Rep. of Comerica Posts: 7,320	Notice I said that all of the above mentioned "news organizations" used the State Dept. as their single source. I was hoping you would notice how many fail to question the source if all the big news organizations agreed on the story, even though it only used one source.

May 18, 2005, 01:40 pm	#32 (permalink) (top)
incka Sedimentary Rock Posts: 10	To add the what Mr Bradley said, you can find documented proof of disinformation coming from the US government and being showed as truth in all the media, yet when it's proved to be false they don't even cover it. A book with a lot of examples of this in is Understanding Power by Noam Chomsky.

May 18, 2005, 03:05 pm	#35 (permalink) (top)
caspian88 Molten Ash Posts: 85	Maybe I'm just being stupid, but your last sentence just confused me. Could you explain it?

May 19, 2005, 08:57 am	#40 (permalink) (top)
italiangm Chocoholic Posts: 887	Another example of 'business' as 'shadow government': When alcoholic beverage revenue dried up as a result of Prohibition, a handful of folks in the industry quietly launched a campaign to fight back. They formulated a plan to convince the Great Unwashed that their freedoms were in jeopardy, hired operatives to carry out the plan, and carefully hid their tracks. You know the rest. The only freedoms the alcohol industry cared about at the time was the freedom to make money. The rest was a carefully executed marketing campaign to achieve a goal. Business is enjoying their association with moralists due to the revenue stream generated from recent surges in religious-themed books, articles and entertainment. Once revenue for this profit center begins to decline, business will focus on something else. Moralists are allowed off their leash when it is financially expedient to do so. When crusaders get greedy and compete with commerce, they get knocked back into place.