Isaiah 40:22

ON CONSPIRACY THEORISTS
When ever I speak to Conspiracy Theorists, they've almost always speak as if you're the silly blind "Sheeple" who bellieve every word. While it is true that many of us are gullible, and that "the powers that be", at least we can hardly be blamed for it.

On the other hand, that is not true with Conspiracy Theorists. People like them can easily believe in it because it seemed true

Such stories grabs their attention by a sensational claim, plays on their suspicions or exploit unanswered questions; feeding into the story, a little truth (i.e. "Well you know the government lied before, right"?), and are given more and more allegations for credibility, and there you have your Conspiracy Theorist.

It doesn't dawn on them that they're fed only allegations and hearsay, and as they read more, they've mistaken it for evidence. The evidence thus to them is so overwhelming, that anyone who disbelieves them lives in their Wonderland, and refuses to wake up to reality.

And these people feel like they're special; after all, they are the very few who knows the "Real Truth". They also feel that they're in a great and noble crusade to expose the Matrix of deception

With the Flat Earth Society, the belief in the Flat Earth is not accompanied with a conspiracy, but the same believe in NASA Conspiracy as they believe that the said administration champions space exploration just to have military dominance over space (1).
.
NOTE: The word "Sheeple" does not come from them, but it's being used more widely. It was a word probably invented within the gun and LEO/Mil community

Sheeple is a word combination of "Sheep" and "People". The former is a term used by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman from a veteran Green Beret to describe average people in society who are kind, gentle, and productive. Then there are Wolves; evil men who prey on the Sheep. Finally, there is what's called a "Sheepdog": those who train to save, protect, and if necessary, die to save the Sheep (2).

Source(s):
1. "The Conspiracy" https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy
2. "Lt. Col. (Ret.) Dave Grossman speaks on being a Warrior!. OUTSTANDING!!!"
The Drew Berquist Show Published on Mar 29, 2011 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FTV9nExiDE&t=1900s

All that is needed to know whether a conspiracy theory is true is if it is ridiculed by the mainstream media. This eliminates the possibility of the vegan conspiracy (the idea that the Illuminati are using veganism to control us) being true because no one ridicules it, and animal agriculture is THE MOST subsidized industry. The flat earth theory, on the other hand, is being censored by the tech companies, instead of NASA trying to show us legit evidence by showing videos of the earth spinning (which have actually never been released by NASA), or a 24/7 livestream of exactly what NASA is doing.

No offense, but:

"The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going." - Proverbs 14:15

What they mean by “every word” is every word that comes from indoctrination. One cannot simply believe every word, since some contradict others.

Well then think, Mario: do you really think every estabilishment is an extention of the evil Occtopus from the very beginning? Of course not.

the success of business is always owed to customers; any business entitiy who could supply the most qualitiy goods and services at the least expense to the consumer is the one that will succeed and dominate. So while you have the four evil newsmedia allegedly controlled by the Jews or the Illuminati, Fox News still dominates 20 years in a row. Why, because most consumers tire of the biased media. And you would think that 8 years of Obamanation, in Illuminati/Zionist Hands would spell the end Fox, take away guns, and persecute Christians... it didn't. Because NEWSFLASH: THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT HIJACKED BY THEM.

There will always be Special Intrerest and Lobby groups, some directed by foreign entities. It is no sign or evidence of "Oh Crap!" cospiracy, it's called GEOPOLITICS. It's state and nonstate actors seeking to fulfill the interests of their country or group to affect a favorable outcome in trade, regional influence, and security.

And since the interest of every heads of state is to stay in power, why the hell would they want to share it with a shadowy entity that their own intelligence services knows nothing about? For all they know, the group could be a front or a cell group of a rival state seeking dominance over it. And if that entity does indeed have a global reach even to have it's own military and intelligence, then it is a security threat becuase of it's ability to infiltrate and affect policy in their favor.

Sometimes, the Illuminati have to control us slowly so we won’t realize it; this way, there will be no protest.

The slower they are, the greater the chance of discovery. And an organization such as the Illuminati (L) is too big not to be discoverved. To have a global reach, it must be as big as the government and to survive, it must be well funded (as there are not just operational costs including weapons, equipmewnt, training, logistics, etc, but must pay their own employees from the chain of command on down).

And to claim that they own banks without anyone outside of their sphere is pure fantasy; why, because they're using their customer's money. They'll know right when they get a hike in fees, charges, and interests. Mind you, they also have competing banks and so they can never be as well funded as the government. And as big as the government is, as the United States, it could not infiltrate and control governments around the world. So how can the Illuminati do it?

And state securities tended to be proactive, not reactionary. They'll look for threats and once found will conduct surveillance, infiltrate, find their suppliers, financiers, connections, etc. Moles will be introduced, which will further yield information, The elimination of such an entity takes time, but how long has the illuminati has existed? Time is on the side of government.

Have you ever heard of Area 51? Or the mysterious classified part of the Denver airport?

Yes, and who are they controlled and funded by, Mario? The illuminati, or the government whose interest is to test new technologies before being issued to the military?

Yes, I think you are finally correct, but IDK what LEO stands for.

Law Enforcement Officer.

You mischaracterized my argument to mean that I disagree with the Ten Commandments.

No, that's to show you that if you believe that we do not need rules at all, then we don't need the 10 commandments, I'm using your rationale, against you. That is not a Strawman fallacy at al!

And there you have no choice but to re-think your arghumentation, or recognize a conflict between your political ideal and that if scripture.

Do you see that now? Do you want me to find you example of actual examples of Strawan fallacy? And don't worry, the sites I'll give are of repuite!

What I meant is that he only law we don’t need is law enforced by Humans.

I also never said that we’re good. It’s just that most people won’t feel like sinning for no reason, especially when everyone else is armed. Evil is most present in humans when they gain power.

OK, I think I now have a better understanding of your argument. To you, the laws enforced by LEO is superfluous, am I correct>

I meant it has nothing to do with when I said that the last thing you want to do is give humans power if they’re inherently bad!

IRON VS IRON & MIRY CLAY - PART 1

OK Mario; I'm going to show you, through history, examples of smaller nations in a confederacy overcome by larger ones; & it is not for the simple reason that they're small.

Other states have overcome larger ones, for example, the Greek city-states have twice defeated the mighty Persian Empire that have dwaft them all. there, admittedly, is your finest historical example of what's possible with your Non-Aggression paradigm.

With that said however, there are critical factors as to why they've won. First though I will list confederacies that haven't, and show you the commonalities as to why they've lost.

1. Celtic tribes
2. Native American tribes
3. African tribes

What do they have in common? they're all tribal nation-states. All of them have faced the might of Empires, and lost for factors that cannot be ignored.

1st - They're small in comparison. When your size dwarfs that of the other, then there's only so much you can produce in terms of weapons and ammunition before all expended. Furthermore, the size of territory also plays a role because part of the effectiveness of defense is defense in-depth.
2nd - Due to smallness of your state (let's say "A", i.e. "Atlantis"), you must ally yourself with neighboring states with a common interest. If an adversarial state ("B" as in "Bolivia") is 5x larger than you are, ally w/ 4 states of equal size, then you've reached parity w/ B.
However, that carries w/ it serious problems

A) Each state has it's own interest relative to their needs
B) Training Standards & Motivation will differ from state to state. This is the biblical Iron ,mixed w/ Miry Clay. You may have 4 Iron clad states but 1 Clay can be the chink in the armor that would undo all.
C) Depending on the quality of their leadership, or people, they're vulnerable to a tried & true strategy of "Divide & Conquer".

And that's why the listed nations state were defeated because their foes were able to exploit the interests of weaker tribes, use them as allies as they know how their fellow triblesmen fought, their strenghths & weaknesses; & know the lay of the land.

I'm all for the 2nd Amendment; but when you're given a gun, you've gained power. When you have loyal friends equally armed then you've gained power; and when you're low on natural resources and your neighbors are unwilling to share what little they have, you go to war (Look up, the "Stag Theory").

Now I have a question for you, do we need laws?

IRON VS. IRON & MIRY CLAY - PART 2

But what about the Greek City-States? The key resason why they've won is that

1. They have battle-hardened militaries as they've fought each other for centuries.
2. Their armies are qualitiatively better than the Persians who depends lardly on conscript armies. They also have better weapons and armour than the Persians.
3. The Persian Army consists of conquered peoples having different languages. Thus issuing a command to move against the other's left flank will take longer as a translater must interpret the command to his respective commander.
4. The Greeks were all united because all were convinced that Persia was the biggest theat, and not their age-old enemies. Nothing makes an alliance stronger than a common enemy.
5. The Greeks posssessed better and/or more gifted leaders than the Persian, despite having a sea of people in their empire.

Thus, the Greek alliance were able to defeat the Persians despite being dwarfed by them, 5-10 to 1.

“Because we’re basically evil”

If humans are so evil, the last thing you want to do is corrupt them even further by letting them control other humans, which causes them to do even more damage! You have it all wrong!

No,because history backs me fully. If we're basically good, then we wouldn't have the empires now would we, such as the Egpptian, the Babylonian and Persian Empires; the Greek and the Roman Empires, the many Islamic Empires, the Mongol and the Ottoman Empires, and the many European Empires and the United States.

We wouldn't have constant warfare between states and kingdoms too many to name but one of which lasted for a 100 years ("The 100 Years War between England and France"), the Mongol Conquests that have lasted for three centuries, WWI and WWII.

The longest peace that had existed was called "Pax Romana" which lasted for 200 years. The reason for that is simple, and it is not because the Romans were a peaceful people: Rome was the most dominate civilization in Europe and the Meditteranian area.

It had, by brute force, conquered all of southern and western Europe (and half of Britanny). It has also captured the coast of northern Africa, the Levant, and Asia Minor. And through such conquest have experienced unprecedented prosperty during that time. Roman Peace lasted from 27 BC to 180 AD (1).

1. http://www.ushistory.org/civ/6c.asp

Well, most people are not gonna feel like going on war. It seems like you think history is on your side much more than it actually is. The less government a society has, the more it prospers.

Do we need laws? Not at all! I already told you that the non-aggression principle makes laws obsolete!

I suppose then that we don't need the 10 Commandments now do we?

We're naturally good, right? Yet God gave us it and the penalty for the breaking of the commandments is eternal damnation. If you know how serious God is on sin, please read James 2:10.

That is just 10 of the 613 commandments in scripture. They're there to keep our nature in check because we're born in sin, meaning we're born with an inclination to sin (Genesis 8:21).

As a matter of fact, how did He see human government for all their evil potential? As a minister of justice, who bearth not a sword in vain (Romans 13:1-4). When Paul wrote that, it was during Pax Romana, and the government is Rome.

Their only motive is to control us. Why are conspiracy theorists like myself being so ridiculed if the Illuminati really have nothing to hide?

EVERY governmnet in the whole world wants to control us, Mario. even the democratic governments for the simple reason that they want to stay in power. So because they introduce more and more restrictive measures means that they're infiltrrated by the Illuminati?

Again, it’s always either history or the Bible you use for your (strawman) arguments, since you think you know so much about both.

When I said that laws are bad, I meant laws established & enforced by the government, as you should know. The Ten Commandments were conceived by God, not by humans. Since no potentially-corruptible human authorities are enforcing the Ten Commandments, they would be naturally-obeyed by the non-aggression principle. It’s far more common for governments like the pope to disobey the Ten Commandments.

A "Straw Man" is where you take the argument from your opponent, and mischaracterize it so that it is an easy target for you to destory. You don't know what a Straw Man is.

Also, History is the most important tool for shows what happens and why one must learn it in order not to repeat the same mistake. Do you know what happens when an empire meets a decentralized state, or smaller states in a confederacy? Certain defeat. History proved that over, and over, and over again.

And what do you have? A lofty theory that has never been proven.

And why did I always bring scripture? Because iti's the word of God, maybe you've forgotten that? You're a believer, and you don't see the validity of my use of it?

I've shown you, verse after verse, proving that we're sinful by nature; are you going to dismiss that for your man-made theory? Again YET PROVEN, in history?

I told you that difference is the Ten Commandments are made by God, not by humans.

OK but earlier you've said that we don't need rules because we're basically good. Rght?

So if we don't need rules for that reason, then why do we need the commandments? Don't just say "because it's God's word", tell why we need the commandments opposed to the law.

The non-aggression principle is how crime would be stopped in an anarchist society. It’s the idea that everyone would use weapons for self-defense instead of depending on police. If the law is so morally correct, why would it need to enforce all of its morals?

Because we're basically evil (Romans 5:12-14, 6:16-18, 8:7). That's the quinessential reason why no decenteralized form of government would ever work.

While we are not as bad as we can be because God in His Common Grace wouldn't allow it for our sakes (2 Thessalonians 2:2-3), but we are enough that no peace could never last.

Not untill Jesus returns again.

Your last reply had nothing to do with what I said!

If you mean prosperity, well it has everything to do with what you've said. Why? Because prosperity is one of the main incentive for conquest.

When you conquer your neighboring state, you obtain the natural resources of that state, needed to grow food, mine for precious metals for currency, and trade; woods for ship-building (to name just one), and free labor in the form of slaves.

In terms of security, the more territory gained the greater space for a buffer zone and defense indepth (and that buys you more time to mobilize your forces to meet the invading threat).

Do you see that?

A "Straw Man" is where you take the argument from your opponent, and mischaracterize it so that it is an easy target for you to destory. You don't know what a Straw Man is.

I know exactly what a strawman is, and you mischaracterized my statement that we don’t need laws to mean that I’m against the Ten Commandments.

Also, History is the most important tool for shows what happens and why one must learn it in order not to repeat the same mistake. Do you know what happens when an empire meets a decentralized state, or smaller states in a confederacy? Certain defeat. History proved that over, and over, and over again. And what do you have? A lofty theory that has never been proven.

I understand that history is an important tool, but you keep making false analogy fallacies about history. You also seem to know less about it than you think,

And why did I always bring scripture? Because iti's the word of God, maybe you've forgotten that? You're a believer, and you don't see the validity of my use of it?

I’m not against reference of the Bible. The problem is that, just like your references to history, you keep using the Bible to make strawmen and false analogy fallacies.

I've shown you, verse after verse, proving that we're sinful by nature; are you going to dismiss that for your man-made theory? Again YET PROVEN, in history?

Yet again with your strawmen, I never said that we are not sinful! And you still haven’t used history to prove me wrong!

I misrepresented your argument, how? I'm not moving ahead until YOU give me an example of how I took your argument and turn it into an easy target.

We don’t need any form of government because the non-aggression principle ensures that everything is done for the benefit of society.

That is something Realists will find hard to believe; and they're almost always right.

So tell me about the Non-Aggression principle; is it a decentralized system of govenment resembling the Article of Confederation that ultimately did not work?

Keep going, Mario; you're only grasping straws.

Whoosh…

I bet if there was a Donkey Conpiracy because the media laughs at Donkeys you'll believe that too.

LEL, what motives can possibly be behind that, though?

Ideological to Religious groups can justify the extermination of it as it may represent to them the worst of undesirables..

Donkeys are not the lost loved of animals; they're stubborn, sounds funny, and least good looking. Indeed for most of these reasons Feminists can liken them to men. Superstituous religious groups can see it as a representation of humanity so killing it might somehow reform. It's not too far from reality as cats were widely hunted in Europe because they were thought to be pets of Witches.

Today, of course, the slaughtering of the animal would be an unthinkable practice in the Western world, but that can't be said in third world countries/