This illuminati shit everytime I go on youtube

[0calli]

I gave you numerous reference points in my post do the finger work yourself lazy !!!!!!!

what exactly did you prove other than your utter disregard for periods, commas, exclamation points, and question marks?

You told me that the push for equal rights for females was funded by the rockefeller family in order to make women taxable. That is only a claim. You did not cite anything, much less enough to make me believe your claim.

 

[0calli]

Now back to more important things like helping growers and chatting with non closed minded people and not getting into a mindless uneducated rant with ol buk-o

 

[greengenez]

I think the world benefits from having the, I aint gonna believe shit 'till I step in it, and the, it's the end cause the sky is hitting me in the head, types.

Usually, I like to fall in the middle. There are however, MANY higher powers. (diplomatic approach)

Feel free to correct my punctuation, I did try. ( That first sentence about killed me.lol)

 

[STACKB]

LOL, Ignorance is bliss my friend. You are the perfect contender. Again read a book, " Morals And Dogma" , it will explain everything you need to know. Not about illuminati but freemasonry. Illmunati is a branch of what you call " Bad guys" off freemasonry. Your boy george washington was a freemason .. And so is your boy Obama. Peace God


You need to understand something , before you make assumptions. I actually wasnt a fan of freemasons till i picked up the book and read all of the knowledge and was amazed of the truth. You think religion is bs? You on the right path. You wanna be president kid? Go be a freemason.

 

[jonblaze420]

OP you need to read some books. Forget the internet.

 

[chad851]

dont be fuckin ignorant of course the Illuminati is real and they are fuckin us up wake the fuck up

 

[jonblaze420]

dont be fuckin ignorant of course the Illuminati is real and they are fuckin us up wake the fuck up

There's positive factions in everything. Have another cup of coffee why don't ya.

 

[cannabineer]

0calli, with all respect ... your support for your claim is in these two phrases:
"searchable on the Internet"
"it's all known history"

Without links, neither of these are compelling. The amount of sheer nonsense that can be searched on the Internet is one of that medium's distinguishing features. One can read, with a very authentic air of authority,
→ how HAARp isn't a benign experiment into the electrical properties of the upper atmosphere, but actually a HAARibble engine for mind control.
→ how colossal electric discharges between planets playing "bumper cars" in the last ten thousand years! shaped both our climate and our mythologies.
→ the precise number, location and identity of our ET "guests" in that secret ~wink, wink~ facility
→ why Scientology is really not complete bull splat
→ why diverting electrical power from your car's alternator into a Mason jar of salt water will greatly increase your fuel mileage (this example is good because for over 1000 Google hits that say "It's true! It's true!" there are maybe two that bring physics and chemistry to bear to show that it's ridiculously untrue)

"Known history" suffers similar diversity of compliance-with-reality. Imo what is badly needed are LINKS to sites that display the info and also conform to standards of academic or journalistic rigor. Adopting the attitude that makes Romans 1:20 such a throwaway (the truth is all around you if you only care to open your eyes ... shyaaah) won't wash. Imo. cn

 

[jonblaze420]

Might as well start here.

 

[0calli]

im not here to do finger work for others if they want to reffernce the points ive made they will see like i said search cross refernce etc and you will find what im talking about go back to my last post where i said you have to do all this searching cross refrencing etc and not to take the first link you see etc

ive done all this its a lil time consuming so pardon me if i have better things to do than to prove to lazy people my point with links and all my references when they already have an informed opinon of the matter they need to read discover for themselfs for them to realize not somebody tellinbg them go here go there follow this link cause then there argument is this everytime " well your just posting links to sites that support your claims" even though it may have been a very renowned well based media outlet from many diff sources and countries etc

0calli, with all respect ... your support for your claim is in these two phrases:
"searchable on the Internet"
"it's all known history"

Without links, neither of these are compelling. The amount of sheer nonsense that can be searched on the Internet is one of that medium's distinguishing features. One can read, with a very authentic air of authority,
→ how HAARp isn't a benign experiment into the electrical properties of the upper atmosphere, but actually a HAARibble engine for mind control.
→ how colossal electric discharges between planets playing "bumper cars" in the last ten thousand years! shaped both our climate and our mythologies.
→ the precise number, location and identity of our ET "guests" in that secret ~wink, wink~ facility
→ why Scientology is really not complete bull splat
→ why diverting electrical power from your car's alternator into a Mason jar of salt water will greatly increase your fuel mileage (this example is good because for over 1000 Google hits that say "It's true! It's true!" there are maybe two that bring physics and chemistry to bear to show that it's ridiculously untrue)

"Known history" suffers similar diversity of compliance-with-reality. Imo what is badly needed are LINKS to sites that display the info and also conform to standards of academic or journalistic rigor. Adopting the attitude that makes Romans 1:20 such a throwaway (the truth is all around you if you only care to open your eyes ... shyaaah) won't wash. Imo. cn

 

[cannabineer]

im not here to do finger work for others if they want to reffernce the points ive made they will see like i said search cross refernce etc and you will find what im talking about go back to my last post where i said you have to do all this searching cross refrencing etc and not to take the first link you see etc

ive done all this its a lil time consuming so pardon me if i have better things to do than to prove to lazy people my point with links and all my references when they already have an informed opinon of the matter they need to read discover for themselfs for them to realize not somebody tellinbg them go here go there follow this link cause then there argument is this everytime " well your just posting links to sites that support your claims" even though it may have been a very renowned well based media outlet from many diff sources and countries etc

Thwe way I see it, you are saying three things:
The following is fact.
It can be found on the Internet.
You will not provide a link.

Now if I had something interesting to say and someone asked me for a "start here" link, I would provide one such ... naturally, cheerfully, without question or rancor.
If I did not, my interlocutor would be a) within his rights, and b) likely correct, in assuming that the real weak point here is the first statement, "the following is fact" especially if the "facts" involved are not without controversy.
So I feel that I am quite within the boundaries of polite behavior when I ask for a link. You can of course dismiss me as lazy, but that would be facile and beneath an adult's dignity. Imo.

The other thing that actually made me lol was the phrase " very renowned well-based media outlet". Of course media outlets are, as a category, excluded from the class of acceptable links in defending a position. Media outlets, by their nature, are meme markets ... they are selling editorial content. So any link that won't get peremptorily chucked out would have to be more "well-based" (if I understand the term) than a media outlet of any stripe. Furthermore, the "renown" of a source is entirely beside the point ... there is no good corelation between an idea's renown and its correctness. I am after correctness.

So it is my considered opinion that if you cannot even get yourself to provide me one sound link, your basic premise is forfeit. cn

 

[WeedKillsBrainCells]

Thwe way I see it, you are saying three things:
The following is fact.
It can be found on the Internet.
You will not provide a link.

Now if I had something interesting to say and someone asked me for a "start here" link, I would provide one such ... naturally, cheerfully, without question or rancor.
If I did not, my interlocutor would be a) within his rights, and b) likely correct, in assuming that the real weak point here is the first statement, "the following is fact" especially if the "facts" involved are not without controversy.
So I feel that I am quite within the boundaries of polite behavior when I ask for a link. You can of course dismiss me as lazy, but that would be facile and beneath an adult's dignity. Imo.

The other thing that actually made me lol was the phrase " very renowned well-based media outlet". Of course media outlets are, as a category, excluded from the class of acceptable links in defending a position. Media outlets, by their nature, are meme markets ... they are selling editorial content. So any link that won't get peremptorily chucked out would have to be more "well-based" (if I understand the term) than a media outlet of any stripe. Furthermore, the "renown" of a source is entirely beside the point ... there is no good corelation between an idea's renown and its correctness. I am after correctness.

So it is my considered opinion that if you cannot even get yourself to provide me one sound link, your basic premise is forfeit. cn

Right... exactly

I really am fairly open as open as I am to people proving god exists, but it's not gonna happen. That rockerfeller thing WAS an interesting read if he was truely quoted as saying that, but again its no proof of some new world order or some gigantic music business conspiracy.

On top of the fact that these "symbols" in music videos are always up for interpretation and people see what they wanna see, does anybody actually care to tell me what it allegedly means? It varies from them being members to the messages being part of the 'brainwashing' lol. All the nuts can really do is say "somethings not right with the world, there is injustice" and leave it at that. The point is everybody knows that and even with solid evidence of it, what are you gonna do anyway?

 

[ChronicObsession]

Firstly, does anybody actually believe in these secret societys behind controlling the whole world? I'm not denying it could be real but at the same time god could be real... but I don't really believe in him either

I mean, if there was a group of people controlling the world, why would they have secret signs put in music videos. It's a bizarre theory lmao.

Anyone else witness to this mindbogglingly stupid phenomenon

Hi, I agree that it is mind bogglingly stupid that us sheeple should know anything about our earthly master's plan. It all seems laughable at first, but one should know about what the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States is, and one should know history, when an enormous bank funded both sides of the same war in Europe. The whole system is fucked! Keep stacking the paper money while it lasts. I wonder what will happen to the Europeon Union. I hope they kick the United State's ass and dissolve the war on drugs

 

[0calli]

No its premise that your a lazy sheeple that cant do his own work to form your own opinion thats not my task its up to you im not ya teacher

thwe way i see it, you are saying three things:
The following is fact.
It can be found on the internet.
You will not provide a link.

Now if i had something interesting to say and someone asked me for a "start here" link, i would provide one such ... Naturally, cheerfully, without question or rancor.
If i did not, my interlocutor would be a) within his rights, and b) likely correct, in assuming that the real weak point here is the first statement, "the following is fact" especially if the "facts" involved are not without controversy.
So i feel that i am quite within the boundaries of polite behavior when i ask for a link. You can of course dismiss me as lazy, but that would be facile and beneath an adult's dignity. Imo.

The other thing that actually made me lol was the phrase " very renowned well-based media outlet". Of course media outlets are, as a category, excluded from the class of acceptable links in defending a position. Media outlets, by their nature, are meme markets ... They are selling editorial content. So any link that won't get peremptorily chucked out would have to be more "well-based" (if i understand the term) than a media outlet of any stripe. Furthermore, the "renown" of a source is entirely beside the point ... There is no good corelation between an idea's renown and its correctness. I am after correctness.

So it is my considered opinion that if you cannot even get yourself to provide me one sound link, your basic premise is forfeit. Cn

 

[0calli]

but again its no proof of some new world order or some gigantic music business conspiracy............... YES AND NO YOUR RIGHT IT IS PROOF OF MASS INFLUENCE BUT I GUESS YA MISSED THAT

GO GOOGLE THE SHIT YOURSELVES AND FIND OUT AND FORM YOUR OWN OPINION NOT AN OPINION BASED ON WHAT YOU THINK IS RIGHT OR WRONG

 

[Orithil]

I believe it's possible they exist, though I have no proof and will not insist they DO exist I will admit it is possible. However, I will also admit that if they do exist I know there is little to nothing I would ever be able to do about it, so I am content that either way, existing or not, it doesn't affect my day-to-day life in any way I'd probably notice anyway.

 

[WeedKillsBrainCells]

but again its no proof of some new world order or some gigantic music business conspiracy............... YES AND NO YOUR RIGHT IT IS PROOF OF MASS INFLUENCE BUT I GUESS YA MISSED THAT

GO GOOGLE THE SHIT YOURSELVES AND FIND OUT AND FORM YOUR OWN OPINION NOT AN OPINION BASED ON WHAT YOU THINK IS RIGHT OR WRONG

Mass influence to what, buy lady gaga? Cmon thats really not enough. I'd say at least 5 adverts at least every 20 minutes on tv was mass influence, so what? That's how the world works. Are the illuminati trying to make me buy jay-z's album, or eat more twinkies?

 

[cannabineer]

No its premise that your a lazy sheeple that cant do his own work to form your own opinion thats not my task its up to you im not ya teacher

Then I have no idea what your point was. A point not worth defending is not worth holding. cn

 

[UncleBuck]

No its premise that your a lazy sheeple that cant do his own work to form your own opinion thats not my task its up to you im not ya teacher

it seems counterproductive to spend so much time insulting anyone who asks you for evidence of your assertions, rather than just take a few moments and provide a few links.

you have put more effort into belittling those requesting evidence than you have put into actually backing up your claims.

 

[jeeba]

Simple as this, the rich exploit the poor and the strong exploit the weak, arguments over.We see it everyday!Are they called the illumanati I dont know,what I do know is when spring hits the occupy movement might be a lil bigger!