Showing posts with label conspiracy theory. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conspiracy theory. Show all posts

Apr 6, 2017

Let us talk rationally about conspiracy 



Why are conspiracy "theories" so popular on the internet? What provokes ordinary humans to get drawn into researching them? Could it be that nagging gut instinct that something is amiss? Fear. 



Let's look at the facts ~


1.) 1 in 100 of every American is a diagnosed clinical sociopath and these are only those who confess to a psychologist. source: https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/statistics/prevalence/antisocial-personality-disorder.shtml

2.) 0.36% of the world's population own more than $50 million which is more money than they can ever spend in a lifetime if they tried and their children tried and their grandchildren tried because let's say if they spent it all they would be rewarded another $50 million.. They couldn't and of course they're not trying to spend it and instead invest it into more wealth and power with a lust that shows no remorse. Meanwhile 71% of the population owns less than $10 grand which is the recommended "emergency savings" not an actual retirement fund. source:
http://fortune.com/2015/10/14/1-percent-global-wealth-credit-suisse/ 

3.) 23% have far, far less than $10 grand in savings. In fact, 23% of Americans struggle and will continue to struggle indefinitely just to bring their accumulated life's net worth value back to the $0 they were born with. I would call this volunteer or more likely coerced slavery considering that the odds are stacked against them given the current rate of inflation, interest rates, and the average wage increase compared to the rate of inflation or costs of living are nowhere near an ideal match. Not to mention credit card interest rates compared to savings account growth which is easily annihilated by overdraft fees which this 23% know about all too well. I know! I paid my bank $140 for the month of March and was literally starving 5 days of it but I am not in this category as I have zero dollars net worth opposed to negative $10 grand. source: www.bankrate.com/finance/consumer-index/many-americans-living-paycheck-to-paycheck.aspx



So from these 3 facts we can draw irrefutable conclusions that are also facts. This is known as circumstantial evidence and it is precisely what every day is used by a Court of Law to convict criminals. Circumstantial evidence is equal to eyewitness testimony. This is by way of the constitution that set in place a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. But who really controls the facts or rather our perception of these facts? What's the difference between the conjecture of something labeled a "theory" and something declared an "official" agreed upon irrefutable "fact". Acknowledgement of the press. Do I even need to dig up the facts on who owns the press or is it safe to say now that we have a common household term of "fake news" that there is in fact a conspiracy to control our perception and enslave us to suffer endlessly at the hands of overly greedy, malicious, evil sociopaths? I have proven it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Now, what are we going to do about it?

They know if we stop believing in the system then we will starve to death. They don't care, they laugh and pat themselves on the back taking joy in how brilliant their plan is taking effect. They also know that our emotions are our weakness and stress will likely kill us before we are able to organize ourselves into a more powerful mass. Let us begin to think of a simple solution to take our lives and our world's bountiful resources back. We know where the source of power lies: The banking industry and the federal reserve.

What fuels it? The internet or world wide web we're all caught in like dolphins in a tuna net. What if we flick the switch? Let us contemplate the greater good and the end result of short term suffering vs. long term if not infinite slavery and continual suffering. Or maybe our God the Sun/Son will save us. I'll pray for us and I'm a rational agnostic which is why I refer to Jesus as Sol. This opinion matters not and does not negate a single fact as we are united in one common denominator:


"We the people of the United States of America, in order to form a more perfect union... with Liberty and Justice for all."



Feb 3, 2017

Defining Fringe Theater or Art in General

When my insomnia turns or decides to try and be productive and DO something, this is what happens: 

All while trying to write a new business description for Heartsinpyre Entertainment, I wondered if "fringe" might be a good new buzz word #hashtag to describe our services since we are not a big top circus, nor theater company, nor catering service... but now I'm considering re-writing or writing an edit for the wikipedia article for "fringe theatre" because the one I found that currently exists is completely biased sounding and vastly incorrect to the best of my own personal knowledge, understanding, and experience which of course could be incorrect...?

From what I understand, using the term "fringe" to describe any artist, artistic form or format (theater, film, dance, sculpture, etc), art piece/product/ production or event and even when including a collection such work (fringe festival) means it is anything adding to the periphery of mainstream. The term is reserved for works inspired by a form but not held to that form in every aspect of it's traditionally known restraints in that of structure, staging, content, creation, character, flow, format or follow through, dialogue or delivery, principle or purpose, and particularly that of participating entities be they part of the contributing body or audience receiving in terms of role, idea, education, expression, compensation, and level of experience. Fringe theater can be all plot, and no story line.. Waiting for Godot fits this precisely. Or fringe theater may lack a script, a stage, a character, a cause, a concept, or purpose which doesn't mean it is less than what was meant by it. Lacking safe solid traditional structure does not automatically mean it was produced by bad artists, or strictly amateurs, nor under funded companies, nor poorly screened art collectives. The writer or the found wiki page seems to think "fringe theatre" is like "community theatre" only without auditions so anybody can play a role and get paid even less for doing it which of course is possible in theater it's called a "stipend".

In short "fringe" is anything on the outskirts of mainstream. 

It's not the main freeway but a contributory stream. It's not opening on Broadway, but it is musical theater in a box with an imaginary 4th wall or people may not sing at all because that's realistic which may or may not add or subtract to its entertainment value and fanatical or financial success or sudden death. Just think once upon a time some crazy person thought what if we miniaturized the *theatre stage and multiplied them into take home mini-boxes. Yup, television was fringe once and it had nothing to do with budget limits, bad writing, bad plots, bad concepts that fail to congeal or turn into mush we call abstract art. Not by a long shot! It was just fringe entertainment possibilities outside the realm of mainstream theatre that didn't stick to a traditional theatre format when it changed mediums because it evolved. Radio, however didn't change story telling from single read novels or playwright read scripts. Honestly the writer of the subject wiki link seems to only think in terms of "festivals" which makes me believe they're an amateur film director instead of having anything to do with theatre or else they're a union grip. My reason for this is personal experience with trying to write/direct/and stage my own production and coming to the conclusion that it's impossible to get an art grant unless you're already rich enough to not need it and bored enough to start your own non-profit to pool your wealth into exorbitant corporate shaped systems where you develop volunteer programs to save you money on paying artist so you can employ a herd of non-acting union workers because you think in terms of building railway lines and not in connecting people with art. Employees of bureaucracies seem to focus solely on finding it in their budget to hire an assistant to their work for them which was given to them by their superior who was never assigned to do anything for the City but the budget of the department. How many people does it require to comprise of an art festival jury or to determine the winner of an annual grant? Why do I get a weekly newsletter about non-profit art organizations that only issue one grant per year but constantly announce new program titles and administrative hires to over see them which typically requires them to hire a social media intern, marketing assistant, blah blah blah.. communications specialist to write a new newsletter about all the meetings and conventions they are having for admins to talk about more hashtag catch phrases and niche minority demographics to branch into or specialize.

I've never known a theatre festival nor a film festival that was produced for picking winners or casting best of award placards. Is this norm or am I truly just that fringe of a human with a fringe career in art? I've yet to mention fringe science but there's a whole show on the subject with an IMDB and everything so #suckit

*pss.. when I use re instead or er for theater it means I'm referring to stagecraft opposed to cinema. example: Shakespeare is theatre, Spielberg makes movies for a silver screen that's hung in a theater.. usually I tend to not be pretentious and admit I'm American, not European but on rare occasions when it becomes necessary I instantly revert for distinction, as do all those who have been trained in acting or get paid to deal with actors

Oct 11, 2011

how to kill a revolution ~ follow a leader!

 Here's the link: http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2011/10/10/this-is-how-you-kill-a-movement
 
My comment #162:
Guys ~ you do realize that the system of having 2-8 official leaders elected to represent everyone in the state is precisely what is FAILING. The problem is that if there's only a few leaders at the top then that's only a few to bribe, blackmail, or otherwise corrupt and the people and their interests are no longer represented even remotely.. I keep hearing similar sentiments like this slogger:

"We are fully on board with the message of the 99%, but not with the people who believe the only valid way to make a decision is by consensus." ~Christopher Frizzelle

  How is that on board with the 99%? Either you, just like the city, are contradicting yourself or we find ourselves in a bit of a paradox. Believe me, I find the GA frustrating and annoying as can be but the fact of the matter is that if there are no leaders then it can't be corrupted, though it can creep and crawl and hardly accomplish anything. However, this movement is about change. Everybody fears change therefore is readily willing to defend their current way of life despite the fact that it's a futile facade..

   The OWS has already succeeded in that it's made us think about new models of governing ourselves! It's made us check our egos as to why we want to be in charge of something! It's made us decide if we agree, or don't agree, or don't care, or are prone to sitting on the fence only to decide according to what our peers think! That's pure and simply [R]evolutionary!

If the people lead then the leaders will follow. As much as I hate it I'm willing to test this theory because I'm sick and tired of following leaders while they follow whoever is the highest bidder... 


"None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe that they are free." ~Goethe

Sep 27, 2011

Psychopaths who Occupy Wall Street

“Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.”  
~Amschel Mayer Rothschild

“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.”  
~Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

“Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.”  
~Henry Kissinger


  I read an on this psychology study on the psycho-pathological tendencies of brokers on Wall Street on my Discovery News iPhone app which was fascinating. About an hour later I came across a campaign to support the protesters currently staging the Occupy Wall Street campaign and decided to go back and retrieve the link to it AND IT WAS GONE!! So I'm now taking it upon myself to find what few sources still remain accessible to the general public NOW in the US and blog some quotes with links that I assume will still be available archives even though all the reputable major media companies are suddenly dropping these kinds of stories at unreasonable rates leaving them to appear as if they exist only in the minds of conspiracy theorists and criminally contentious activists. Honestly, who do you believe to be more insane, those who would control all the world's resources for their own greedy purposes and enslave the world's population in unnecessary perverse poverty? Or those who would call that a unconscionably corrupt conspiracy?


From The Huffington Post by (First Posted: 9/26/11 05:50 PM ET Updated: 9/26/11 05:50 PM ET)  

Stockbrokers More Competitive, Willing To Take Risks Than Psychopaths: Study
 
  A recent study from the University of St. Gallen, in Switzerland, goes one step further. The research, led by forensics expert Pascal Scherrer and prison administrator Thomas Noll, finds that professional stock traders actually outperform diagnosed psychopaths when it comes to competitive and risk-taking behavior.
  
  According to Der Spiegel, Scherrer and Noll had a group of 28 stockbrokers participate in various simulations and intelligence tests, and then compared their results to a group of psychopaths.
They found that the traders showed a higher degree of competitiveness than the psychopaths -- and that the traders were surprisingly willing to cause harm to their competitors if they thought it would bring them an advantage.




“I sincerely believe the banking institutions having the issuing power of money are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies“.  
~Thomas Jefferson

“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”  
~Henry Ford

Aug 23, 2011

lunatic pandemic




more conspiracy something.. won't insult science by using the word "theory" because this is pure lunacy! people will believe anything? it's completely baffles me. it's like they know change is coming or no.. it's like they're ready for a change, a very major change but they haven't realized yet that this change comes from within. they don't grok as above, so below. so they look up and so sincerely expect to see something off or unexpected and they welcome it because they really long for change but aren't willing to change their themselves nor the way they live so they expect some dumb comet, or planet, or mothership to come force them to evolve. can't wait til it's 2013 and everyone calls it y2kpsyche and laughs like they never believed it when the truth is change has come! you just create your own reality so if you're not willing to change you'll never see..

anyway about this video above.. page is full of people's comments about comet elenin (which is about 2-3 miles or kilometers wide max) is causing the moon to wobble or planet niburu is behind it and all that kind of shit. power of suggestion is potent. all of a sudden everyone else seems to recall having noticed it as well. no one mentions the fact that you can't see the ground to orientate your vantage point... yeah, fucking 2 second edit to flip a stupid video 90 degrees! really. easiest hoax in the whole entire known universe! what fools these mortals be

Aug 20, 2011

Conspiracy theories, oh my!

Question everything ~ This my philosophy! 
That means don't just question all the official stories and conclude that any alternate theory must be closer to the truth since there appears to be a conspiracy to conceal something.. No, question everything! Question your questions and your reasons for questioning a thing every bit as indiscriminately. Accept nothing as steadfastly verifiable evidence if you yourself did not personally bear witness to it and even then question the limits of what you can or care to perceive. Everything is a mere possibility as is nothing is purely infallible. Careful that you're not co-conspiring unconsciously.

There is information and there is disinformation but the existence of a contrary does not validate nor confirm that there's a conspiracy but only the fact that people are prone to repeat undisputed testimony. There are no experts. Always check your sources and re-investigate their facts. If your source lists their sources who also listed their sources then it's safe to say there's substantiated evidence but be certain to cite the source you claim substantial or you can be certain you'll get dismissed as editorial because otherwise you fail to demonstrate any integrity of intention which automatically makes it disinformation since you declined the opportunity for informed opposition. Trust no one who expects you to just trust them.

Dialogue be damned

Whenever I reflect upon my short comings, paranoid thinking due to incidents of abuse in my formative years that shattered my trust, and the...