Win / GreatAwakening
GreatAwakening
Sign In
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES All General AskWin Funny Technology Animals Sports Gaming DIY Health Positive Privacy
Reason: None provided.

I am actually suggesting that you are limiting your own scope by defining things in black and white the way you have done. Reality is not black and white and I am hoping you will see that.

I appreciate I may have come across that way, but that is more a function of trying to have a conversation about "unbelievable" things without the benefit of all the evidence I have in my report (or notes, or whatever). That is not how I do research. I do not hold on to any beliefs any tighter than the next piece of evidence and I fully recognize my own ignorance.

Let me ask you this, what do you think is my analysis?

You have given far too small of a scope to the C_A, and the Cabal. (Or "the Bankers," if you wish, since what I define as the Cabal have been the Bankers for a few thousand years, and it is by their control of money and information (propaganda) that they have ruled the world for all that time).

You seem to think there are two factions to the Cabal, when the Cabal is primarily a religious entity (there is no room for humanists in that religion). I think you may be confusing the Freemasons (a secret society) or the Aristocracy (the "elite" who are often members of the Cabal, but not always, and are the primary feedstock for their agents) with the Cabal (a religious sect that rules the world and hides within other secret societies, including the Freemasons). In short, your analyses seem to, like almost everyone, not appreciate the connectedness of everything, or the scope of the control of The Machine, and the Cabal that runs it. It is likely impossible to appreciate that scope without having seen all the evidence I have seen (thus the reason for my report).

But really I can only go by what you tell me in response, much of which seems just as "black and white" as you accuse me of. It's probably a problem for anyone who tries to talk about stuff that requires evidence for each sentence, but doesn't want to always take the time to dig it up. People tend to use forceful rhetoric to shore up a lack of evidence. I think that may be happening for both of us. For my part, I apologize. I don't want to come across that way.

1 year ago
1 score
Reason: Original

I am actually suggesting that you are limiting your own scope by defining things in black and white the way you have done. Reality is not black and white and I am hoping you will see that.

I appreciate I may have come across that way, but that is more a function of trying to have a conversation about "unbelievable" things without the benefit of all the evidence I have in my report (or notes, or whatever). That is not how I do research. I do not hold on to any beliefs any tighter than the next piece of evidence and I fully recognize my own ignorance.

Let me ask you this, what do you think is my analysis?

You have given far too small of a scope to the C_A, and the Cabal. (Or "the Bankers," if you wish, since what I define as the Cabal have been the Bankers for a few thousand years, and it is by their control of money and information (propaganda) that they have ruled the world for all that time).

You seem to think there are two factions to the Cabal, when the Cabal is primarily a religious entity (there is no room for humanists in that religion). I think you may be confusing the Freemasons (a secret society) or the Aristocracy (the "elite" who are often members of the Cabal, but not always, and are the primary feedstock for their agents) with the Cabal (a religious sect that rules the world and hides within other secret societies, including the Freemasons). In short, your analyses seem to, like almost everyone, not appreciate the connectedness of everything, or the scope of the control of The Machine, and the Cabal that runs it. It is likely impossible to appreciate that scope without having seen all the evidence I have seen (thus the reason for my report).

But really I can only go by what you tell me in response, much of which seems just as "black and white" as you accuse me of. It's probably a problem for anyone who tries to talk about stuff that requires evidence for each sentence, but doesn't want to always take the time to dig it up.

1 year ago
1 score