Sign in to follow this  
Heartbreak

If you know Aliens run your world governments, wouldn't that change your perspective on life?

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

And as you find it so distasteful yourself, please try not to attribute emotions to others. My thoughts were not "proud" ones - not even deep inside, but a very simple sharing of my own thoughts on the subject matter. 

 

Didn't mean you personally, I was speaking in generalities -- the stance of "we the people" in general.  It's pretty common for "us" to say "we" when talking about things "we personally" have absolutely nothing to do with.  I don't like it, but it's an idiom hard to avoid, despite it being so very untrue and so very misguiding, perhaps deliberately so.  When you, e.g., mention "our" bulldozing etc., I don't think you personally did that, and know for a fact I personally didn't.  I have no information as to whether you even know how to drive a bulldozer.  I for one don't.  

  So, a misreading occurred, which is normal when all we see is letters on the screen.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Taomeow said:

 

Didn't mean you personally, I was speaking in generalities -- the stance of "we the people" in general.  It's pretty common for "us" to say "we" when talking about things "we personally" have absolutely nothing to do with.  I don't like it, but it's an idiom hard to avoid, despite it being so very untrue and so very misguiding, perhaps deliberately so.  When you, e.g., mention "our" bulldozing etc., I don't think you personally did that, and know for a fact I personally didn't.  I have no information as to whether you even know how to drive a bulldozer.  I for one don't.  

  So, a misreading occurred, which is normal when all we see is letters on the screen.   

 

I don't think "proud" of free will which chose evil would apply generally either, but do accept your explanation it was not directed at me personally. 

 

Thank you for the speed with which you sought clarity between us. 

 

:respect:

 

Edited by ilumairen
typo
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ilumairen said:

Thank you for the speed with which you sought clarity between us. 

 

:respect:

 

Thank you for your thoughts too.

 

Respect. :) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Taomeow said:

The way I see it, it's a fractal, a self-replication/self-similarity process not unlike land erosion brought about by deforestation.  The land does not corrupt itself -- it gets corrupted by what  was done to it, what went before (and never stopped happening), what caused a repetitive self-replicating pattern of corruption that looks as though it is happening "by itself," as though it's doing it to itself.  But what's really happened is an intervention that threw it off balance -- once and for all.  The trauma will keep reverberating and self-replicating and someone who comes later will not know that there were forests on that land holding it together and not letting its fertile topsoil to get washed away by rains and blown away by winds.  They won't know the forests used to be there, they won't know they got destroyed, they won't even believe someone destroyed something that used to be there.  All they will find will be the land that is corrupted and keeps seemingly self-corrupting.  

 

But whoever cut down the trees was an alien government to that forest, to any and all its native inhabitants great and small, and to that land those native creatures created by living on it rather than destroyed.  Yet someone who comes later, hundreds, thousands of years later may find no trace of what that alien intrusion into the life of the forest and the land did.  And then they will assume that what's being observed is merely the "nature of things."  And that stories of forests that got destroyed by someone alien to the forest are merely "mythos we crafted."

Yes, and here again we see the STARK difference between sustainable aboriginalism vs parasitic colonialism:

Spoiler

For example, this colonialist spent his entire life illegally dumping invasive fish into Kiwiland...in order to allow leisure sport fishing there.  Despite the fact that it completely destroyed all the fragile ecosystems on the isolated island.  But he never gave a f*ck about that...a man needs his S&M hobby of hooking fish!

Quote

How one man's 15,000 pest fish changed New Zealand's waterways
Stewart Smith is an old man
An aging communist armed with oxygenated fish tanks in his car roamed New Zealand's countryside for decades in a bizarre crime spree that forever changed our environment. It led him to be called one of the country's worst environmental criminals
According to his own records, Smith was personally responsible for liberating more than 15,000 fish between 1964 and 1987, in hundreds of distinct locations.
New Zealand has several dozen native freshwater fish, most of which are nocturnal, discrete, and tucked away in streams far from civilisation. Few of them grow larger than 10cm; they don't make for great angling.
Recognising this, early European settlers decided to bring their favourite sports fish with them: Trout. Trout flourished in New Zealand's cooler waters, with limited competition from native species. The trout fishery is now so prosperous it attracts anglers from around the world.
Some immigrants, including Smith, did not grow up trout fishing, which in England was a sport reserved for the elite. They fished for the so-called "coarse fish" ‚Äď among them rudd, perch, tench and carp, named for their rough skin.
This class divide bled into New Zealand. While trout soon followed the immigrants, attempts to bring in coarse fish were rebuffed, largely because they would compete with trout.
And so Smith, who paid dues to New Zealand's communist party for much of his life and had a pathological dislike for social hierarchy, sought to equalise the playing field.
Over the course of 20 years, Smith released more than 10,000 rudd, 2300 tench, 1000 perch, and hundreds of koi, goldfish, and orfe.
Rudd, which feed on native macrophytes, reduced the lake's water quality. Then the perch started dominating the native species. Between 2003 and 2011, monitoring showed dwarf inanga numbers had dropped by more than 99 per cent, and the species is now functionally extinct in the lake. KŇćura numbers had dropped by 90 per cent, and common bullies by 80 per cent.
"Competition between native species is very balanced in an ecosystem,"
says Dr Cindy Baker, a freshwater fish scientist at NIWA.
"They tend to have different niches and it all works together well. Once you put these introduced fish in, you have more overlap in niches for certain species, and that's where you have more competition for food resources."
Introduced fish have a significant effect on New Zealand's freshwater biodiversity, Baker says, particularly in lakes, from which they are hard to remove.

Meanwhile, in aboriginal culture:

5.png

Quote

Civilized tribes operate differently [to get colonialists to understand]...
Like for instance, they had spent four months trying to come up with metaphors so that he would understand.  They don't have words like 'my,' they don't have possessives in their culture.  They don't...it's not, it's all ONE.

Aborigines in the Outback are telepathic.

Seriously, these peoples' ecospiritual IQ is literally OFF THE CHARTS!!!

 

Edited by gendao

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may ask yourself
What is that beautiful house?
You may ask yourself
Where does that highway go to?
And you may ask yourself
Am I right? Am I wrong?
And you may say to yourself
"My God! What have I done?"

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

How many humans around you are really shapeshifter aliens in disguise?

Edited by Heartbreak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Heartbreak said:

How many humans around you are really shapeshifter aliens in disguise?


they-live-e1453243988987.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2020 at 2:00 AM, thelerner said:

They're mimicking human behavior with its pandering and chaos so well that it makes no difference. 

so, no  it wouldn't change my perspective.

 

Hi Michael,

 

But of course not - as Heartbreak is merely mimicking human behavior with its pandering and chaos.

 

- Anand

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Here is absolute proof that aliens are running things. :lol: I have spent a good deal of time in that area and there are UFO's everywhere.

 

http://pagosasprings.com/margaritas-and-ufos-at-chama-train/

 

https://curiosity.com/topics/allegedly-there-is-a-secret-underground-alien-base-in-dulce-new-mexico-curiosity/

 

Alleged UFO base which must have an invisible door or secret code to obtain entry.

 

b84ae1d6-9b7a-46e3-8597-f14e148ac498.jpg

Edited by ralis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, ralis said:

I have spent a good deal of time in that area and there are UFO's everywhere.

 

I try to get close to some aliens yesterday doing their own things and they told me ~ "UFO".

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/02/2020 at 4:52 AM, Taomeow said:

 

The human nature is not corrupt, it is corrupted.  That's what I believe.  Although "believe" is not the right word for it and "know" would invite "prove it" and I can't prove it.  But I know.  We need a word that is missing.  For "know to the extent that I don't need to believe, but don't believe I know how to make anyone know what I know."    

 

How about a phrase then  ;       ' very strong belief '   :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/02/2020 at 5:06 AM, SirPalomides said:


It is the common assumption of so many myths around the world, so there must be something to it. It‚Äôs a basic human intuition- ‚Äúwe should be better than this.‚ÄĚ On the other hand no argument- mythic or philosophic- that I have seen really satisfactorily explains why this corruption is. If we say aliens or demons that still begs the question of how¬†they got corrupted.

 

Yes, so lets own it , then maybe we can try to change it  ... at least in ourselves

 

OR

 

'the devil made me do it '   - so not really my  fault

 

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Nungali said:

' very strong belief '

 

Hi Nun,

 

I know and believe in nothing...

 

th?id=OIP.MzNOrrSGllluSuImwI5qEAHaEN&pid=Api&P=0&w=289&h=165

 

Peace and silence suit me better.

 

- Anand

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/02/2020 at 5:35 AM, ilumairen said:

 

I suspect we, as in the large human race we, have and continue to corrupt ourselves.

 

Indeed . And we find in  ancient Zoroastrianism that certain modes of behaviour  add to the corruption of the human mind and spirit, in the individual, the society and in the leaders or kings  and good mind , thoughts and deeds are the base . Even some things that do not seem too bad (on the surface) can gradually erode the whole 'moral structure '  ( eg, the treatment of animals and livestock ) .

 

In all the  'primitive' societies I have studied , that maintain some originality  and a still preserve or record their 'way'  (f they are uncorrupted )   have some type of 'initiation' progression  'task' .  - a person is said to be an animal - a type of 'wild' animal . It isnt until first initiation that they begin to become a 'real person' - a human member of a society culture or clan  with regulated behaviour. 

 

In some cultures they have groups of men that didnt , for whatever reason, achieve or have an initiation. Some of them exhibit the worst behaviour .  And of course , if the whole culture looses its 'rights of humanity'  then it declines into a mess of   substance abuse , disrespect ( particularity of young and elders  and also traditions ) , crime, not looking after  sacred sites / vandalism of public amenities,  pointless violence, breakdown of family units , sense of worthlessness / pointlessness, self harm and high suicide rate  and eventually extinction .

 

 

On 16/02/2020 at 5:35 AM, ilumairen said:

. And finding this unsatisfactory we (again general we) have crafted mythos to explain this - where in we are unwitting pawns, and therefore without blame (and in a sense responsibility). 

 

Yes, in some cases  - like ours  (our society that is )   but some times , these mythos can be an explanation of the above process I outlined .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

How about a phrase then  ;       ' very strong belief '   :)

 

I have a very strong belief that I didn't turn down caviar for breakfast today.  But I can't prove it.  I have a very strong belief that I didn't have any for breakfast.  But I can't prove it.  I have a very strong belief I love it.  But I can't prove I love it.  I have a very strong belief that my love of unavailable caviar made no impact on world politics today.  But I can't prove it.   

 

Does that work for you?  'cause it certainly doesn't work to express what I meant when I said that between "believe" and "know" we're missing a word. 

Edited by Taomeow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Limahong said:

 

Hi Nun,

 

I know and believe in nothing...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bullshit  Limi .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Taomeow said:

 

I have a very strong belief that I didn't turn down caviar for breakfast today.  But I can't prove it.  I have a strong belief that I didn't have any for breakfast.  But I can't prove it.  I have a very strong belief I love it.  But I can't prove I love it.  I have a very strong belief that my love of unavailable caviar made no impact on world politics today.  But I can't prove it.   

 

Does that work for you?  

 

Not really becasue I dont believe caviar exists .   I think its a conspiracy .

 

:D 

 

 

 

But really, it works, as far as caviar   is concerned   ( except for the part where you said  ;   I didn't turn down caviar for breakfast today  ... I didn't have any for breakfast.   ?  You did accept the caviar  for breakfast but didnt have it for breakfast   ?  :huh: )  .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Limahong said:

 

th?id=OIP.SFkPngSVdRSgc-vpN7wDGgHaDf&pid=Api&P=0&w=333&h=157

 

 

yes, and thats why I responded back there with two simple words   :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

Not really becasue I dont believe caviar exists .   I think its a conspiracy .

 

:D 

 

 

 

But really, it works, as far as caviar   is concerned   ( except for the part where you said  ;   I didn't turn down caviar for breakfast today  ... I didn't have any for breakfast.   ?  You did accept the caviar  for breakfast but didnt have it for breakfast   ?  :huh: )  .

 

Nope.  I didn't turn it down doesn't mean I accepted it.  It means no one offered it.  So I didn't have any.  

 

I also didn't turn down a cash gift of 1.5 billion US dollars this morning.

Edited by Taomeow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But to turn it down  means it must have been offered  ?    Thats how the 'turn of that phrase'  works down here anyway .

 

Its had some good effect though  - now, I have decided I need breakfast , and I have some caviar  in the fridge   , should be good on dry rye toast  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

yes, and thats why I responded back there with two simple words

.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Nungali said:

But to turn it down  means it must have been offered  ?    Thats how the 'turn of that phrase'  works down here anyway .

 

Its had some good effect though  - now, I have decided I need breakfast , and I have some caviar  in the fridge   , should be good on dry rye toast  :)

 

 

Nope --that's how assumptions work. :) I specifically chose this ambiguous phrase to illustrate.  You assumed I mean something -- while I meant something else:  I can't prove I didn't turn it down, that's the idea.  I can't prove anyone offered it and I turned it down rather than there was any other reason I didn't have it for breakfast.  And here's where the word I'm talking about could be handy -- it does exist in some languages though.

 

As for your second paragraph, you can just take a picture and show your face ears deep in a caviar on dry rye toast.  I don't have to have or not have a very strong belief that that's the case.  You can prove it.  

 

Prove it, caviar boy.

Edited by Taomeow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Taomeow, you're making me miss the blini/caviar in Moscow and St. Petersburg, especially the one wrapped in the crepe-like dough now. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this