Philosophy : the new "junk food for thought" ?

[NewWorldOrder]

It's ok for me to destroy religious beliefs because they just served political aims. But political aims have not disappeared so social engineering hasn't disappeared either. In fact it will become worse because there are reasons why they want to destroy these religious beliefs. There are numerous documents which show that philosophy, science and litterature are now used to endoctrine people much more efficiently than religious myths. One of the reason is to give people "junk food for thought" as you can read from a military document:
http://100777.com/swfqw

This is only a very short exerpt the whole text should be read above for the full context:

Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars

An introductory programming manual
Operations Research
Technical Manual
TM-SW7905.1


DIVERSION, THE PRIMARY STRATEGY

Experience has proven that the simplest method of securing a silent weapon and gaining control of the public is to keep the public undisciplined and ignorant of basic systems principles on the one hand, while keeping them confused, disorganized, and distracted with matters of no real importance on the other hand.

This is achieved by:

(1) disengaging their minds; sabotaging their mental activities; providing a low-quality program of public education in mathematics, logic, systems design and economics; and discouraging technical creativity.

(2) engaging their emotions, increasing their self-indulgence and their indulgence in emotional and physical activities, by:

(a) unrelenting emotional affrontations and attacks (mental and emotional rape) by way of a constant barrage of sex, violence, and wars in the media -- especially the T.V. and the newspapers.

(b) giving them what they desire -- in excess -- "junk food for thought" -- and depriving them of what they really need.

(3) rewriting history and law and subjecting the public to the deviant creation, thus being able to shift their thinking from personal needs to highly fabricated outside priorities.

These preclude their interest in and discovery of the silent weapons of social automation technology.

The general rule is that there is profit in confusion; the more confusion, the more profit. Therefore, the best approach is to create problems and then offer the solutions.

http://100777.com/swfqw

[subterranean]

Isn't this type of document suppose to be confidential?



Point 2 (a) was already succesfully accomplished, I suppose.

[NewWorldOrder]

Isn't this type of document suppose to be confidential?



Point 2 (a) was already succesfully accomplished, I suppose.

You would be surprised at what you can find which are supposedly secret.

For example weather manipulation for war is forbidden by international law so this kind of research should be kept secret well you can find on the site of the Federation of American Scientists this military document

Weather as a Force Multiplier: Owning the Weather in 2025
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/doco...15/v3c15-1.htm

[kaka]

What reason is there to believe that this document is genuine? It looks like a critique of modern Western society dressed up as a conspiracy theory.

[starrwriter]

What reason is there to believe that this document is genuine? It looks like a critique of modern Western society dressed up as a conspiracy theory.

That whole website is for and by conspiracy nutcases. Any time I see arguments that flouride in drinking water poisons people rather than just preventing tooth decay I know I'm in the Twilight Zone of sanity.

[IrishCanadian]

Literature has been a political "junk food for thought" since Sophocles competed against other state-loveing dramatists at the Dionesian festival (an appropriately relevent religious festival). This concept continued throught the history of theatre ... Roman Emperical propaganda ... medieval miricle plays ... and so on right up to today. This is not new stuff at all. But isn't article this a little too political for this forum?

[Diadem]

...Any time I see arguments that flouride in drinking water poisons people rather than just preventing tooth decay I know I'm in the Twilight Zone of sanity...

I wouldn't make such hasty conclusions. Just because the mainstream accepts something as standard practice does not make it an evident truism incapable of being refuted.

Let me provide you with an example of something that once was a standard medical practice that was later found to be entirely devoid of logic or proof to substantiate its basis:

Bloodletting:
http://www.georgewashington.si.edu/kids/pp4m_5.html

Here's more from opponents of fluoridation:
http://fluoridealert.org/50-reasons.htm

It's just nice to research for yourself if you're inclined rather than jumping the gun...unless you're a dentist who also holds a B.S. in Chemistry and then you have that right.

[kilted exile]

Ok, I'll make this quick as it is going off topic but I wrote my final project in college on Fluoridation of water, and I would offer this piece of advice with regards to any information you find on the net about fluoride - Dont trust the writing and opinion (on both sides) look solely at the chemical/technical data.

The link provided by Diadem is a perfect example - the writer talks of fluoride as toxic and theoretically he is correct, however the writer fails to mention that the level of fluoride which would be added to drinking water is so far below toxic levels as to have zero impact.

A useful site:http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts11.html
and another: http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc36.htm

[Diadem]

"...however the writer fails to mention that the level of fluoride which would be added to drinking water is so far below toxic levels as to have zero impact..."

Well, it's definitely difficult to discern whose experiments to consider more valid because both sides experimenting with the issue appear to have agendas: anti-fluoridation or pro-fluoridation. It's simply natural for any establishment to support its own cause. In addition, it's difficult for fluoridation opponents to perform the experiments to prove their claims because the NIH and FDA are the establishments who approve or reject research requests involving fluoride because fluoride itself is actually a drug, so researchers just can't conduct experiments on their own accord using fluoride on human beings (or even animals for that matter).

Being that the establishment has much to lose if the public finds out about fluoridation being responsible for deleterious long-term human health consequences, they do there very best to not only reject anti-fluoridation research proposals but suppress any information to the public about the detriment of fluoride. There's a reason why we're inundated with "fluoride prevents cavities and gingivitis" when we're young. We soak it up and accept it as fact because we don't have a means to verify it. That, and our parents told us it was for our own good. Humans have a natural tendency to obey authority figures when they're younger. Some may call it brainwashing when you tell children things that they cannot prove otherwise.

It is common knowledge that fluoride ions and compounds used in toothpaste can be hazardous to your health if consumed in large quantities, as evident by the warning on the toothpaste container. And, I'd tend to agree with your contention that fluoride in most water systems isn't high enough to prove toxic in a single dose, but fluoride, being a toxin, is cumulative in that, although some fluoride is excreted by the kidney daily, the remainder of fluoride accumulates in bones and tissues causing osteoporosis and systemic health detriment in the long-term.

Most if not all the studies afforded by the ADA establishment have been focused on short-term consequences, not long-term where fluoride has been blamed for many things. Not to mention, when fluoride actively binds with the aluminum in pots and pans, you're setting yourself up for serious central nervous system dysfunction, perhaps even Alzheimer's, because aluminum itself is neurotoxic. Long-term fluoride deposits have been found especially in the pineal gland which suggests that fluoride not only passes the blood-brain barrier but is also absorbed and stored by certain areas of the brain. When that fluoride bonds to the aluminum and is absorbed by the brain, it can causes nervous system disorders like Alzheimer's. Unfortunately, the fluoridation opponents are having a hard time proving this because of the pro-fluoridation bureaucracy supported by our own government that won't approve such research. It's called "stonewalling".

You see, they make money off you buying their products and getting sick from them. Why would they want you to stop using it? The pharmaceutical companies make billions off human disease.

Look up DuPont and it's use of Teflon altough it was proven to be carcinogenic and teratogenic. You see, big business doesn't have your back. It's only looking our for itself. Did you know that Adolf Hitler was one of the first government leaders to implement the fluoridation of his own population's water supply? Did you know that breast-fed children generally have higher IQ's than babies fed formula using fluoridated water?

So, it's not facile for a layperson to discern fact from fiction regarding fluoridation unless they were properly educated in chemistry, at least, although having a firm basis in anatomy and physiology wouldn't hurt either.

And, my apologies for going off-topic. I just had to add my two cents to that fluoride issue.

[jessezzel]

sorry i have something other to say than fluoride but oh well...
a good web site is www.fas.org and www.fas.org/secrecy which is a blog on secrecy news which you can subscribe to your email.
ive been getting it for awhile and ther is alot of little fun things to look at that the government does and declassifies. i just figure it is good to be informed, its not like you need to take everything seriously.