De nieuwe wereld orde

[Argusx43]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Hertog van Gelre

Nieuw NWO-probleem: Binnenkort krijgt ons zonnestelsel er drie planeten bij.

U bent wel specialist om een thread te vullen met niets....

[Hertog van Gelre]

Citaat:
Oorspronkelijk bericht door Hertog van Gelre
Nieuw NWO-probleem: Binnenkort krijgt ons zonnestelsel er drie planeten bij.

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Argusx43

U bent wel specialist om een thread te vullen met niets....

Goed, dan geloof je het niet.

[Lex Blanca]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Hertog van Gelre

Citaat:
Oorspronkelijk bericht door Hertog van Gelre
Nieuw NWO-probleem: Binnenkort krijgt ons zonnestelsel er drie planeten bij.




Goed, dan geloof je het niet.

Daar is het hem Argus niet om te doen...
Het gaat hem erom waarom je het een NWO probleem noemt.
En dat weet je (weer) al te goed.

[Gun]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Argusx43

Als nasa nooit op de maan is geweest, hoe komen ze dan aan fotos van de aarde vanaf de maan gemaakt:

http://www.edugraphics.net/gu-universe/gu182-mn.htm

Zie jij sterren op die foto's?

[Gun]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Hertog van Gelre

Nieuw NWO-probleem: Binnenkort krijgt ons zonnestelsel er drie planeten bij.

Proficiat, U bevestigt alweer ...

[Hertog van Gelre]

Brrrrrrrrrrr. Koud hier. Kan er geen lachje meer af jongens?

[Lex Blanca]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Hertog van Gelre

Brrrrrrrrrrr. Koud hier. Kan er geen lachje meer af jongens?

Allez dan...

[Pindar]

Dit wi8l ik nog even kwijt over de protocollen:

William Cooper zegt dit in zijn boek “Behold a pale Horse” waarin de protocollen staan:


Author’s Note:
This is an exact reprint of the original text.
This has been written intentionally to deceive people.
For clear understanding, the word “Zion” should be “Sion”
Any reference to Jews should be replaced with the word “illuminati”
And the word “goyim” shoould be replaced with the word “cattle”

Behold a Pale Horse, blz 267



en hier wil ik het bij laten




Pin d'Ar

[Pindar]

voor 3,99(!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!) euro

bij een zeer commerciele DVD CD en electronica gigant ,net gehaald.

9-11 The greatest Lie ever Sold


Tekst achterkant:

Slechts door de daders van het eerste bombardement op het WTC in 1993 te ontmaskeren,
hadden we het tweede bombardement op het WTC 9-11 kunnen voorkomen
..
Het is ons niet gelukt om er voor te zorgen dat, na het bombardement van 1993, iedereen
zou weten dat dit tweede bombardement werd uitgelokt door de FBI...

Daarnaast is het een feit dat de Amerikaanse belastingbetalers de bommen betaald hebben.

Erger nog, sinds 11 september 2001 heeft het makke Amerikaanse volk
geloofd dat de grootste terreurdaad in de Amerikaanse geschiedenis werd uitgevoerd door
negentien boze Arabieren en Osama Bin Laden.\

Maar het kan nog gekker!

Het 9-11 vwerhaal is de grootste leugen ooit verteld.......en ondertussen worden de Amerikanen voorbereid op de volgende bekokstoofde ramp.
Geheim agenten van de FBI, CIA, NSA, en de propaganda pers zullen
Osama Bin Bush, Rumsfeld, Aschroft, Kissinger en consoretn vrijpleiten en de schuld in
de schoenen schuiven van mensen die geen blaam treffen
Alleen om Bush en zijn vrienden te beschermen.


War gaat het nu eigenlijk over?
Bush & zee Boys from er Brotherhood of Death, Skull en Bones bereiden
ons voor op een politiestaat.

Bush zal proberen om de grondwet, inclusief de 10 grondrechten van elke
Amerikaans burger te offeren.

Zijn ultieme doel?

Het vestigen van een Nieuwe Wereld Orde.

Nouuuuu. kom op non-believers, naar de winkel voor 3,99!!!!!


Nuff said

Pin d'Ar

[Monocle]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Pindar

voor 3,99(!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!) euro

bij een zeer commerciele DVD CD en electronica gigant ,net gehaald.

Nouuuuu. kom op non-believers, naar de winkel voor 3,99!!!!!


Nuff said

Pin d'Ar

Heb deze film vorig jaar al gezien, en ik moet zeggen it sucks !!!
Slecht gemaakt, slecht gepresenteerd,...
Niet moeilijk dat ze die voor €3.99- aanbieden.
Ik moet zegggen dat in diezelfde genre documentaires Loose Change dan nog veel beter is.

[Pindar]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Monocle

Heb deze film vorig jaar al gezien, en ik moet zeggen it sucks !!!
Slecht gemaakt, slecht gepresenteerd,...
Niet moeilijk dat ze die voor €3.99- aanbieden.
Ik moet zegggen dat in diezelfde genre documentaires Loose Change dan nog veel beter is.

ok ok in all fairness, ik heb hem net gehaald dus moet hem nog bekijken.
Hoewel slechte presentatie en zo jammer ja, maar klopt de inhoud een beetje?


Pin d'Ar

[Pindar]

Er wordt me wel eens gevraagd wat te doen aan de NWO.

Welnu, ten eerste vind ik educatie heel belangrijk, want wat je niet weet kan je wel degelijk deren!


Maar dit is ook een manier.
Het komt van John Rappaport en hij heeft het boek geschreven:
""The Secret Behind Secret Societies"
Een van de conclusies die hij er uit trekt is dat een van de gezamenlijke doelen van de geheime genootschappen is het vernietigen van onze creativiteit.
Welnu, als we dus onze creativiteit beter ontwikkelen (en ik heb het niet over vingerverven of zo), verhogen we onze macht en verminderen we de greep van deze genootschappen op ons leven.

Nicely put:

WHAT ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO NOT KNOW?

As a human being, what you are supposed to know depends on who is asking. Let me put it this way. From your perspective, what you are supposed to know is exactly what various elites think you are NOT supposed to know.

Much more importantly, what you are supposed to know depends on whether YOU are interested or your SELF-IMPOSED BRAINWASHING is asking.

This is what you are really supposed to know:

YOU ARE IMMORTAL.

YOU LIVE MANY, MANY LIVES INHABITING VARIOUS PHYSICAL FORMS, INCLUDING PHYSICAL BODIES.

YOUR CENTRAL CAPACITY IS CREATING.

YOU CREATE.

OR YOU CAN CHOOSE NOT TO CREATE.

THERE IS NO LIMIT ON WHAT YOU CAN CREATE (MANIFEST).

LIVING INSIDE A SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM CAUSES A DELAY. THERE IS USUALLY A DELAY BETWEEN YOU MANIFESTING WHAT YOU WANT AND YOU GETTING IT. THAT IS WHAT TIME IS REALLY ALL ABOUT.

THE SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM CANNOT STOP YOU FROM MANIFESTING WHAT YOU WANT AND GETTING IT.

SELF-IMPOSED IGNORANCE ABOUT CREATING/MANIFESTING WHAT YOU WANT IS THE ULTIMATE SOURCE OF ALL SO-CALLED PROBLEMS.

ONCE YOU PLANT YOUR FEET FIRMLY ON THE ROAD TO MANIFESTING WHAT YOU WANT, YOUR LIFE CHANGES.

MANIFESTING WHAT YOU WANT IS A COMMITMENT.

WHEN YOU KEEP MANIFESTING WHAT YOU WANT, YOUR CREATIVE POWER INCREASES.

YOUR POWER IS INFINITE.

EXPERIENCING, OVER AND OVER, THIS POWER CHANGES YOUR LIFE IN EXTREMELY POSITIVE WAYS.

In truth, planetary elites don't have any sort of handle on these major facts. They are imposing their will in a much smaller sphere. Each one of us has walled himself/herself off from what we are supposed to know. That is the main "problem."

When we take down the wall and stop playing the ignorance game, space opens up.

Manifesting what you want does, in fact, take down the wall. The wall dissolves.

www.nomorefakenews.com



my two cents

Pin d'Ar

[Monocle]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Pindar

ok ok in all fairness, ik heb hem net gehaald dus moet hem nog bekijken.
Hoewel slechte presentatie en zo jammer ja, maar klopt de inhoud een beetje?


Pin d'Ar

Ik zou zeggen bekijk hem... ik wil uw oordeel niet beinvloeden
Maar ik vond het nogal wat bij het haar gegrepen, er komen veel dingen terug die hier in de draden ter sprake kwamen/komen. Maar de Hyperkinetische manier van presenteren stoorde mij enorm. Ook het oeverloos herhalen van hetzelfde zinnetje (wel 20x na elkaar, en door gans de documentaire heen).
Tevens werden de verschillende stellingen niet genoeg bewezen... ()
Ik vond het een onafgewerkte, slechte docu.... Op het web zijn er dan betere te vinden, daarvoor niet meer of minder correct...
De manier van brengen, onderzoeken, presenteren en editen doet er natuurlijk veel aan.

In elk geval try to enjoy (maar ergens denk ik dat dit bij u geen probleem zal zijn)

[Pindar]

ok ik ga hem vanmiddag bekijken dus U hoort nog van me
Maar uw commentaar is gewaardeerd.



Pin d'Ar

[Pindar]

Spychips: How Major Corporations and Government Plan to Track Your Every Move with RFID

Book Description
RFID, which stands for Radio Frequency IDentification, is a technology that uses computer chips smaller than a grain of sand to track items from a distance. And as this mind-blowing book explains, plans and efforts are being made now by global corporations and the U.S government to turn this advanced technology, these spychips, into a way to track our daily activities-and keep us all on Big Brother's short leash. Compiling massive amounts of research with firsthand knowledge, Spychips explains RFID technology and reveals the history and future of the master planners' strategies to imbed these trackers on everything-from postage stamps to shoes to people themselves-and spy on Americans without our knowledge or consent. It also urgently encourages consumers to take action now-to protect their privacy and civil liberties before it's too late

What critics are saying about "Spychips," the book:

"This is the first, and maybe the loudest, popular book on a crucial technology of our times...all of it is fascinating, some is gross and revolting, and most of it is hilarious... this is a masterpiece of technocriticism."

–From the foreword by Bruce Sterling, best-selling author and technology commentator

Spychips "make[s] a stunningly powerful argument against plans for RFID being mapped out by government agencies, retail and manufacturing companies."
–Evan Schuman, CIO Insight

"The book makes a very persuasive case that some of America's biggest companies want to embed tracking technology into virtually everything we own, and then study our usage pattens 24 hours a day. It's a truly creepy book and well worth reading." –Hiawatha Bray, Boston Globe technology reporter [/b]

"Brilliantly written...so full of fascinating vignettes and facts that I can't put it down." –Author Claire Wolfe

"Spychips is one of the best privacy books in many years… The privacy movement needs a book. I nominate Spychips." –Marc Rotenberg, Executive Director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)

From Katherine Albrecht… "Spychips"--autographed!

For those of you who have not yet bought the book, you can read the entire first chapter… here is an appetizer, courtesy of Laissez Faire books and Nelson Current publishers. >>

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1595550208/

review:

This book covers, in detail, the existing use of RF technology to violate consumer privacy. RF chips are small and innocuous. RF chips can easily be seen as a benign technology if used appropriately (for example to reduce shoplifting by enhancing loss protection capabilities of retail stores and improved stock management).

The authors have identified numerous examples of multinational companies misusing RF chip technology.

The research behind this book appears both thorough and comprehensive. The use of statements lifted from patents really helps the authors make their case that these chips are likely to be put to use in ways the majority of us would find disturbing if not repugnant.

Negatives: the style of writing is very sensationalist. The mix of editorial comment and research lessons the impact of some of the material presented. The material sometimes lacks context: almost any technology can be abused. Also, in some instances loss of privacy may be a reasonable trade off for improved service/protection.

Also, RF Chips are not a unique risk (add data mining, "smart" chips and even car electronics - e.g. the chip that operates airbags,in some models, will record the impact speed of an accident).

The book draws on examples from around the World. US consumers have more to worry about than Canada, Australia and Europe where there is at least some protection from data protection legislation. US Privacy legislation lags behind (could this possibly be the result of lobbying by corporate political action committees?).

The bottom line is that the authors are right to raise a very loud warning to act on misuse of this technology, before it is too late.

Pin d'Ar

[Pindar]

en dan effe voor de wetenschappers die beweren dat wetenschap wetenschappelijk is!
"ze' weten wel wie ik bedoel!

Q: By what authority do you state that the scientific method is not a valid tool for probing
physical reality?
A: By no authority. Well, perhaps by the authority of physical reality itself.

Q: How can physical reality have authority?
A: By its very existence. Facts exist, concepts about facts don't exist. Empirical science claims that the scientific method can prove hypotheses. It then claims that proven hypotheses are facts.
Hypotheses are nothing more than concepts. Concepts can never be proven. So empirical science is merely another belief system.

Q: A belief system?
A: Sure. It allows its practitioners to believe that its beliefs are fact. The great religions of the world demand that believers accept religious facts on faith in revealed truth. Empirical science asks its believers to accept its scientific facts on faith in a process that turns those beliefs into facts. Of course, the testing part of the scientific method, the trial and error process that leads to technological development does so because it disproves what doesn't work, directing engineers and inventors in the direction of what does. When it is applied to the realm of ideas, however, the only ideas that can be disproven are ideas that are not physical facts. Thus, instead of proving ideas, the scientific method just leaves standing nondisprovable ideas.

Q: Such as...
A: Gravity as a property of mass is the most widespread...

Q: But it is a physical fact that objects fall.
A: Sure it is. But ideas about why they fall are not fact, they are ideas. Mass/gravity is nothing more than a simple belief.

Q: But I thought that Newton proved gravity was a property of mass.
A: Newton attempted to show that the amount of matter in the Earth and the moon by volume
would produce a force that, computed on the basis of an inverse square law that is measurable in
falling objects, would keep the moon from moving in a straight line. This, he felt, would show the
connection between falling objects and the motion of the moon and thus demonstrate that gravity
was a property of the matter by volume.

Q: Didn't he?
A: The moon had too much matter measured by volume to stay in orbit. Everyone has heard the
stories about it being riddled with caves and other fantasies to reduce the apparent matter. Newton
bugged Sir Edmund Halley, the Astronomer Royal, till his death to get more accurate measurements of the moon's motion in an attempt to prove the theory, but it never happened. Then when the same logic was applied to the planets, it was found to never work.

Q: So how is it accepted as fact?
A: Everyone decided, and when you are dealing with a belief system, you are dealing with a
system in which the consensus rules, whether elite or not, everyone reached a consensus that they
could measure the rate objects fall over and over and therefore there was no question about the
nature of the inverse square law. That being a physical fact, all they had to do was apply it to
Newton's assumption that gravity was proportional to and a property of matter, and they could let
the assumption determine the amount of matter in the moon or a planet. This can never be verified,
so the entire house of cards can never be disproven, leaving it one of the pre-eminent beliefs of the
empirical belief system.

Q: There are others?
A: Mass/gravity isn't even the biggest. The silliest concept, one that reverses reality but is still at
the basis of empirical reality, is that objects move in a straight line unless a force acts to change that motion. You couldn't find a more untestable proposition yet who could ever disagree with it?

Q: So what's the problem with it?
A: It assumes away motion! If you start out with everything going in a straight line, then you don't have to ever worry about what's making things move in the first place. And you don't just assume away the motion of the planets, the moons, even the stars. You assume away the motion of falling objects, because the only thing that changes straight line motion is the gravity produced by the mass that is moving by an assumed away motion to start with. We have absolutely no idea what's going on in the physical reality around us because we have abdicated the effort to find out to a belief system that claims we know everything there is to know, and what we don't know is not worth knowing, is a question of philosophy. Thus, why objects fall, why the planets orbit, even why they rotate, which is basically the question of why the sun comes up each and every day, these are questions unworthy of the noble science of empiricism.

Q: But look around you. We live in a era of technological wonder. Empirical science can't be
wrong if it has produced cars, planes, spaceships, planetary exploration.
A: Technology has nothing to do with empirical science, and in fact, it is a wonder technological
progress has proceeded this far in the atmosphere produced by empirical science. Any gains in
technology have been made in spite of, rather than in pursuance of empirical science.

Q: That's a pretty broad statement.
A: Nonetheless, it's one that empirical science generally agrees with. Technology is the product of
engineering, both vision and the resulting trial and error process that brings vision into the realm of
reality. Empirical science negates vision because its mathematical process requires that reality be
limited to conform to the strict requirements of the testing necessary for proving hypotheses to be
fact. Empirical science creates laws that discourage vision. With gravity a property of mass, it can
never be overcome because it would take more mass to do so. Energy can never be created nor
destroyed so that any attempt to create overunity devices is laughed out of existence, the definition
of overunity being anything that remains undiscovered. We can't even go anywhere, we're doomed
to die on the planet, or at least in the solar system, because nothing can go faster than the speed of
light and the nearest star, the distance to which is empirically measured of course, is too far away.

Q: But surely empirical science made the space program possible.
A: Empirical science couldn't even hit the moon with a rocket. Because the inverse square law
predicts the wrong neutral point between the Earth and the moon, rockets were going every which
way. It was only by actual trial and error experience that we got there.

Q: And the probes to the outer planets?
A: Course correction committees worked full time analyzing elapsed time, course history, and
primarily current photographs to locate where the probes were and make course corrections from
there.

Q: But the atom bomb...
A: Who wants to take credit for that? Surely not empirical science. But seriously, most of the
vision for the atom was laid down by talented amateurs working in privately financed laboratories
with success as the major criteria. The concept of the atom is the most successful concept in history simply because it has been so commercially productive. We're clearly in the realm of the engineers.

Q: Well, given that everything you say is true, who the hell cares? We're doing fine with
technology, and why the sun comes up every morning, well, it does come up every morning, so
who cares about the why, or in your terms, the what makes it?
A: I don't know about you, but I want a consistent picture of the physical reality of which I am a
part. I am only going to be here so long, and before I go, I'd like to get at least a glimmering of
what I'm doing here, even if the answer is nothing. Empirical science is delusional. It is made up of a bunch of made up stuff that has no relation whatsoever to the reality that we occupy. Because it can't answer the obvious questions in our reality, what makes objects fall, what makes the planet rotate, what makes the planets and moons orbit, what makes the sun burn, what is light, where life comes from, what, for crying out loud, is going on when we snap a light switch on, even why little magnetic dogs kiss and turn tail, empirical science makes up a whole bunch of stuff that nobody will ever be able to know about, black holes in space, dark matter, worm holes, subatomic particles with color and personality, and then directs our attention at massive projects to prove the existence of these exotic things.

Q: Maybe it's not so delusional.
A: Maybe not. Maybe it's just using the delusions it creates to misdirect our attention while it pulls
another rabbit out of the hat, but that shouldn't stop the rest of us, the ones that know that the
magician's tricks are just that, tricks, from putting together a consistent picture of physical reality,
or from at least making the attempt. And, of course, there is another reason we might want to find
out what is actually going on in physical reality.

Q: What's that?
A: Because empirical science is delusional, because it doesn't have any actual answers about
what's going on in physical reality, it has brought heaven to Earth to keep the deluded happy.

Q: What does that mean?
A: It has created an incomprehensible time frame in which we evolved, which of course puts our
source back beyond rational analysis and hides empirical science's actual ignorance about that
source. But creating an impossible historical time frame also produces an impossible future, a future without end. Thus, it may be okay to know nothing, but we have an eternity to find out all of these inscrutable answers.

Q: And the fact?
A: I don't know what the facts are. We can't know anything but the present, history and the future
being nonexistent. But I think that a good look at the moon will provide a picture of the Earth's
future. The model of the Earth that empirical science provides is one in which there is thermal
equilibrium, all incoming radiation (another something for which empirical science has no
explanation) exactly matches all outgoing radiation so that the temperature we see is what we've had for five billion years.

Q: And will continue for five billion more unless the greenhouse effect produces global warming and kills us all!
A: See. Now there's an excellent delusion. Here we are, a planet sitting in space, a space with a
temperature that approaches no motion, nothing, really cold, and the planet is supposed to be
getting warmer. When hot things exist in a cold environment, they get cold, not hot. The planet, at
one time probably as hot as Venus, has been cooling off, and will continue to cool off until it is as
cold as the moon. Of course, that can't be because the moon, the Earth and Venus were all formed
out of the same empirically verified swirling mass of gas, but I rather think it is true. The planet is
cooling, and I think the effects of its cooling are evident today. One of the biggest delusions we
have is that if we want to survive we have to do so on Earth. If we want to survive, if the life that
evolved on this planet is to survive in the universe, it is going to do so only if it gets off this planet.
And the time for getting off this planet is not measured in the billions of years, or even in millions
of years. The time is now. It is said that of the two types of scientific revolution, seeing old things in new ways and finding new things, finding new things leads to technological revolutions. However, when we can't see what we find because we are seeing new things in old ways, the technology we develop from the new things we find will be distorted. It is only by seeing old things in new ways that we will be able to see the new things we find clearly, and thus create a technology that reflects physical reality. If we don't start seeing old things in new ways, we will be chiselling our epitaph by inaction.

http://www.copernican-series.com/interview.html


Nuff said


Pin d'Ar

[Pindar]

Nog een aanrader die aantoont waar wetenschap vandaan komt:
(wetenschap is een iluminatie-religie!)

Book Description
A. In the past, the elite manipulated the population through a more mystical belief system. In particular, there was the institution of Sun worship (typified by deities such as Osiris and Set). However, as antiquity gave way to modern history, this system of control began to lose its effectiveness. During the sixteenth century, the ruling class managed to co-opt a relatively new methodology of truth discernment…science. Over the years, they would contaminate this institution with their own virulent strains of thought…metaphysical naturalism, radical empiricism, Malthusianism, Darwinism, behaviorism, radical environmentalism, etc. Many of these paradigms were derivative of their own occult doctrines, thinly veiled to appear as objective science. All of these concepts correlate in some way and, at some point, coalesce. Together, they are gradually paving the way for the re-introduction of the hidden god of the Ancient Mysteries.

http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/b...=0-595-31164-4

[Firestone]

Pindar, je post weer de zever over gravitatie.
Vorig jaar is gebleken dat je niet in staat was daar zinnig dieper op in te gaan.

Zal het deze keer wel lukken, of heb je genoeg aan lange copy-paste posts om propaganda te maken en is discussie iets waar je voor past?

[Jozef Ostyn]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Firestone

Pindar, je post weer de zever over gravitatie.
Vorig jaar is gebleken dat je niet in staat was daar zinnig dieper op in te gaan.

Zal het deze keer wel lukken, of heb je genoeg aan lange copy-paste posts om propaganda te maken en is discussie iets waar je voor past?

Is dat een rethorische vraag?

[Pindar]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Firestone

Pindar, je post weer de zever over gravitatie.
Vorig jaar is gebleken dat je niet in staat was daar zinnig dieper op in te gaan.

Zal het deze keer wel lukken, of heb je genoeg aan lange copy-paste posts om propaganda te maken en is discussie iets waar je voor past?

Zever?
Zeker nog geen bladzijde van het genoemde gelezen?

en discussieren? jawel hoor, maar ik ben niet zo gek om met jou, Firestone, of met Parcifal te discussieren.
Het is al lang gebeleken hier dat jullie er geen eerlijke en faire
discussie methoden op na houden, zie ook de post van

styllo-ben:

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door styllo_ben

Alleen heb ik jou nog nooit ietswat uitgebreidere uiteenzettingen of redevoeringen zien houden. Het enige wat ik je heb zien doen was elementen uit teksten plukken die wat twijfelachtig waren en vervolgens de hele redevoering ermee neersabelen.[..]

Dus succes maar ik doe niet mee met deze methodes en verwacht dan ook geen reactie meer van mij
Beiden staan op mijn negeer, dus dan weet je dat en bespaar je de moeite.

Dag.


Pin d'Ar