J.L.W Posted March 14, 2018 Posted March 14, 2018 I don't know how wise people are to these beliefs and I would argue... realities. But here I am mentioning it in relation to the philosophy of it rather than whether it is factually true or not (i.e. posted not in 'political events' but 'philosophy') So, the new age believes and has believed for a long time, that there is a group called the Illuminati that is always attempting to run things for a negative agenda and gets up to seriously bad things such as paedophilia, child sacrifice etc. They also believe, less of them but still a large amount, that there is a group that is running against these people that are just as well organised. This is an excerpt for one of the people that talks about these areas (Benjamin Fulford): Quote The Khazarian mafia faction that has been trying to start World War III and kill 90% of humanity is now on its last legs, multiple sources agree. The clearest sign of this was an executive order and a 636-page annex issued on March 1 by U.S. President Donald Trump and the Department of Defense that prepares the way for Nuremberg-style tribunals. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2018-amendments-manual-courts-martial-united-states/ https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=DOD-2017-OS-0032-0003 There are those who defend some of these people that have been doing things like torturing children for sexual gratifications, saying that these people experienced a lot of advanced abuse and brainwashing themselves and never really had a choice. (David Wilcock). There are other such as David Seaman who believe they should have a 'fair trial' (although you get the feeling Seamans emotions don't agree with that!) and then execution! This is also complicated apparently by many of those being in 'the Alliance' having been ex Illuminati. There are other crimes on the same level as paedophilia or even worse also associated with this group. So the philosophical question is, 'If this is true, what should be done with these people?' Opportunity to change or death sentence. This is some Jordan Petersons ideas that might be interesting: Quote Jordan Peterson: Although I do think there are irredeemable people. The death penalty issue is interesting in that regard because I’ve read a lot about really terrible people; and I’ve also read a lot about what really terrible people said about themselves and many of them wished for the death penalty; and so it’s absolutely clear that there are things that you can do that deserve the death penalty. but that doesn’t mean the state should have the right to impose it: Jordan Peterson – What We Still Don’t Know About Psychopathshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9qKRhZmaYs
S1988 Posted March 18, 2018 Posted March 18, 2018 On 3/14/2018 at 8:42 AM, J.L.W said: So the philosophical question is, 'If this is true, what should be done with these people?' Opportunity to change or death sentence. What, no mention of life in prison, which is what some criminals are doing already, like Josef Fritzl? I agree with this option, too, because some people are just too incorrigible and too dangerous to be around peaceful citizens. I doubt that a guy like Fritzl would suddenly have a change of heart after imprisoning and torturing his daughter for 24 years. In a sense, life in prison is harsher than the death penalty because while a prisoner's life isn't threatened, they have to deal with the fact that they'd spend the rest of their lives with no freedom since the death penalty is an easy way out. It's not just punishing them; it's protecting others from their evil. Slightly off-topic: I've been in a similar situation with people who are not criminals, but are toxic in other ways. I've given them chances, but they took advantage of my kindness. I realized that the only way to put a stop to their behavior was to distance myself from them. Their "punishment" is not having me in their lives again, though it's more about self-protection than revenge. 1
MercurySunlight Posted March 18, 2018 Posted March 18, 2018 Perhaps the third option is to keep them in confinement but alive in order to study them? Most of the time, I substitute the word "evil" with the word "toxic". The definition of the word toxic indicates someone as being poisonous, dangerous, or harmful to others. In nature, the words evil or toxic don't have much meaning since animals generally only cause harm to other living beings they view as Foes=Adversaries or Food=Consumables or Resources. In fighting my way back from the brink and the damage my own toxic family took me to, I found the breakthrough moment happened when I took a step back and started studying them like bugs. I set aside my personal position as a victim in their world and took on a more clinical stance. In talking with other survivors of toxic family dynamics, I have found they also had their breakthrough moment when they did the same.
Siegfried von Walheim Posted March 18, 2018 Posted March 18, 2018 3 hours ago, MercurySunlight said: Perhaps the third option is to keep them in confinement but alive in order to study them? Most of the time, I substitute the word "evil" with the word "toxic". The definition of the word toxic indicates someone as being poisonous, dangerous, or harmful to others. In nature, the words evil or toxic don't have much meaning since animals generally only cause harm to other living beings they view as Foes=Adversaries or Food=Consumables or Resources. In fighting my way back from the brink and the damage my own toxic family took me to, I found the breakthrough moment happened when I took a step back and started studying them like bugs. I set aside my personal position as a victim in their world and took on a more clinical stance. In talking with other survivors of toxic family dynamics, I have found they also had their breakthrough moment when they did the same. I would never try to replace the word "evil" with anything because that's the beginning of moral relativism and determinism. Allow some people to be called "toxic" (an environmental poison) versus evil (someone who willfully does immorality or does actions that results in immorality) and why not simply go all kinds of solipsistic and presume nothing outside yourself is real and everyone but you (or including you) is a reactive robot? I know that might sound like a slippery slope... But by God aren't there a whole lot of true slippery slopes? The first step to curing something is to call out the disease by its proper name. Evil people are not "toxic" (i.e. passive agents without free will) but EVIL (i.e. they choose to do evil things). Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise, you ought to view as trying to own you or control you for some purpose or another. 15 hours ago, S1988 said: What, no mention of life in prison, which is what some criminals are doing already, like Josef Fritzl? I agree with this option, too, because some people are just too incorrigible and too dangerous to be around peaceful citizens. I doubt that a guy like Fritzl would suddenly have a change of heart after imprisoning and torturing his daughter for 24 years. In a sense, life in prison is harsher than the death penalty because while a prisoner's life isn't threatened, they have to deal with the fact that they'd spend the rest of their lives with no freedom since the death penalty is an easy way out. It's not just punishing them; it's protecting others from their evil. Slightly off-topic: I've been in a similar situation with people who are not criminals, but are toxic in other ways. I've given them chances, but they took advantage of my kindness. I realized that the only way to put a stop to their behavior was to distance myself from them. Their "punishment" is not having me in their lives again, though it's more about self-protection than revenge. I'd rather simply execute evil people then spend millions of tax dollars confining them. They're already doing the evil of, in this example, torturing kids, why spend millions feeding, housing, and keeping them? I'd rather they simply be killed and sent down to Hell for God to sort out. @J.L.W It's always a safe assumption to assume a few cliques of people are controlling certain regions of the world and occasionally bumping heads with similar groups. We call them "politicians" and "statesmen". Some may be covert rather than public but ultimately they are still mortal. A rare few might be carrying a legacy far greater and older than themselves, but being human and mortal that legacy undoubtedly becomes perverted or neutered over time. You simply have to accept there will always be shadowy people you will never know controlling others' in secret. And realize they are also probably keeping each other in check because 1984 and Brave New World, though theoretically possible futures, have never throughout human history occurred and it appears we're slowing sailing away from the iceberg rather than crashing into it. So stop navel gazing and being all conspiratorial and actually do something self-actualizing and fulfilling. Maybe once you're a renown talker like Stefpai, Alex Jones, or Paul Joseph Watson or billionaire like George Soros or a heroic statesman like Trump or Putin you can start trying to "uncover" and "defeat" the shadowy cliques that are the bane of civilized society. Until then they are essentially just masturbatory fears and distractions that common sense and self-protection can keep you safe from. Like getting into investing and moving somewhere safe and conservative like the Midwest (and if you're English or any other kind of European getting the frick out and heading for either America or Russia).
MercurySunlight Posted March 21, 2018 Posted March 21, 2018 On 3/18/2018 at 2:48 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said: On 3/18/2018 at 11:26 AM, MercurySunlight said: Perhaps the third option is to keep them in confinement but alive in order to study them? Most of the time, I substitute the word "evil" with the word "toxic". The definition of the word toxic indicates someone as being poisonous, dangerous, or harmful to others. In nature, the words evil or toxic don't have much meaning since animals generally only cause harm to other living beings they view as Foes=Adversaries or Food=Consumables or Resources. In fighting my way back from the brink and the damage my own toxic family took me to, I found the breakthrough moment happened when I took a step back and started studying them like bugs. I set aside my personal position as a victim in their world and took on a more clinical stance. In talking with other survivors of toxic family dynamics, I have found they also had their breakthrough moment when they did the same. I would never try to replace the word "evil" with anything because that's the beginning of moral relativism and determinism. Allow some people to be called "toxic" (an environmental poison) versus evil (someone who willfully does immorality or does actions that results in immorality) and why not simply go all kinds of solipsistic and presume nothing outside yourself is real and everyone but you (or including you) is a reactive robot? I know that might sound like a slippery slope... But by God aren't there a whole lot of true slippery slopes? The first step to curing something is to call out the disease by its proper name. Evil people are not "toxic" (i.e. passive agents without free will) but EVIL (i.e. they choose to do evil things). Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise, you ought to view as trying to own you or control you for some purpose or another. On 3/17/2018 at 10:57 PM, S1988 said: Yes. Slippery slopes seem to surround us every time we attempt to climb to the top to see how far we can look past the trees. Four sided pyramids suck. For me, the word evil brings to mind "The devil made me do it". Biblical temptation and the like. Makes me think of exorcism. A rose by any other name, still has nasty thorns.
Recommended Posts