Comment

Comment by Doug Singleton on April 9, 2010 at 3:25pm

Question raised 'Is there anywhere you can go to get away from the NWO?'
Answer; Southern Mexico and the country's interior, (depends on whether your more partial to mountain, desert, or sea side), Panama, Costa Rica and some of the Pacific Islands.
Mexico is probably the easiest for gringos as you can plug into the life down there without too much difficulty.
Just learn Spanish, accept your in a foreign country and don't tell the locals; "Back home we don't do it that way".
Pick your land purchase carefully, many a victory was won by topography. Remember water, medical needs, communication equipment and food. A skill or trade helps alot also.
Accept the fact that you don't need much. Roof over the head, food, protection, and a full tank of gas at all times, access to easily disposable assets which can be used for barter and a valid passport from somewhere.
Keep the police on your side, and the local bad guys. If you gotta ask how, or feel faint hearted then don't bother coming.
This is the year I do it permanently. Always easier to head farther south too. Mexico's southern boarder is pretty porus.
The more non computerized the country the better. Mexico talks a good talk 'bout computerization, however the paperwork is still horrendous and 'stuff always falls through the cracks'.
Adios amigos.

Comment by OAbrey on April 9, 2010 at 3:20pm

Hmm,

My understanding was the Dark Ages ended with Anselm.
Must have been mistaken

Comment by claudette langley on April 9, 2010 at 3:19pm

As for who the enemy is, might I suggest reading Dr. John Coleman's "The Committee of 300" just an idea.

Comment by claudette langley on April 9, 2010 at 3:12pm

well now thanks for listening. Because I was what I believed to a revolutionary in my youth, I experienced first hand the "contemplation of the belly button" haha. The past few years however, I learned that us so called "revolutionaries" were just the "left" hand of the elite and by fighting with each other we were doing exactly what they wanted from us. Fast forward about 30 years, 9/11 and then the Truth movement, which quickly deteriorated into infighting which once again split the movement and took the focus off the elite and their agendas. So, I guess I am little jumpy, haha.

Comment by OAbrey on April 9, 2010 at 2:35pm

It certainly wasn't meant for arguing, in the fighting sense of the word.

I think it is important to think about these things because this sort of thinking may be important post NWO. I might be dead by then. Somewhere somehow the best of philosophy and thinking must survive, or humanity will fall into madness and extinguish itself.

Comment by Jeff on April 9, 2010 at 2:15pm

Arguing is an intellectual method of sharing facts and opinions. In spite of what may appear to you to be argument I would suggest that we're all quite good friends and most of us enjoy the discussions. It causes us to think.

Comment by claudette langley on April 9, 2010 at 1:58pm

Wonder why you would spend so much time arguing with each other at a time when we should circling our wagons and just be glad that there are those of us who are waking up.

Comment by OAbrey on April 9, 2010 at 1:46pm

Let me dive in on this one. The term "Philosophy" has several different denotations. In the original sense philosophy was a world view. In the post enlightenment era it has come to mean a certain field of thought, comprised of one or more different classes of philosophy.
When I use the word to specifically mean world-view, I use the term philosophicum the latin derivitive of the greek philasophia.

The original sense of the word was preserved until the period of enlightenment. Just as the church broke apart, Catholic/Lutheran/Anabaptist/Quaker and later Methodist. Philosophy and Science diverged significantly.

This wasn't totally new, since in the era around Socrates and Plato, there were several philosophica,
For example, there was Stoicism, Gnosticism, Epicurianism. These various philosophical world views vied for taking the number one slot, that would subsume the others.

Because I know the Christian Community well, it needs to be said that the hostility to existentialism comes from the writing of Sir Francis Shaeffer. Shaeffer did an excellent multi-volume & exhaustive study of Western Civilization. However, in the beginning of his first volume he laid out a philosophicum that was badly flawed. In fact he was seriously wrong about his facts.

The conclusion of the philosophicum laid the decline and ultimate demise of Western Civilization at the feet of Soren Kierkegaard, followed by Nietze, Camus and Sartre, and their philosophy of existentialism.

More recently, the work of C. Stephen Evans, PhD Yale, currently professor of philosophy and humanities Baylor University, has called for a rethinking of Kierkegaard and Existentialism.

Existentialism as introduced by Kierkegaard, proceeded to use the logic of his era to follow to its ultimate ends. Kierkegaards work is exhaustive. His primary book is "Sickness unto Death"

For Christians, we have always believed mankind fell in the Garden, and has had Death as his ultimate physical end as part of the Curse. Soren Kierkegaard didn't start there, but he ended there. Shaeffer and other Christians ironically have rejected this. Primarily because Kierkegaard in the process delivered a scathing critique of "Christendom". It is important to understand however, Kierkegaard was a Dane. This was one of those tribal groups who when the King converted to Christianity in the Dark Ages the whole nation was called Christian. When most Christians realize this their hackles tend to come down. Since particularly in North America one's individual free choice causes them to become a Christian.

In conclusion, and forgive the essay here folks,
Existentialism is about Existence, and asks the question is there any meaning in it? Kierkegaard's existentialsim is far closer to Christianity than it is to Atheism, Because there can be no ultimate meaning to life if all that meaning is when we die the lights go out, and that's it. The Book of Ecclesiastes is in my opinion the earliest study of existentialism. Written between 500-700 BC, it was way ahead of its time.
Vanity Vanity all is Vanity, there is no meaning to all the toil, riches, pleasure and political pursuits in the end its vain because we die. Kierkegaard said the same thing. We just don't like to hear it.

Comment by Jeff on April 9, 2010 at 10:27am

And Steve has potato gun for small arms repelling and a backyard pumpkin gun that shoots over a mile...

Comment by Jeff on April 9, 2010 at 4:44am

Well, I don't own any guns but I can shoot.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 8
• 9
• 10
• 11
• 12
• …
• 19
• Next ›
• Page