The Future is Calling (an illuminating view of history and our future)
 

For those who like to read ... this is one of the most interesting things I've read in a while:

http://freedom-force.org/pdf/futurecalling1.pdf
http://freedom-force.org/pdf/futurecalling2.pdf
http://freedom-force.org/pdf/futurecalling3.pdf
http://freedom-force.org/pdf/futurecalling4.pdf

It's about how we got here and where do we go from here...

I downloaded your pdfs. I'll let you know what I think when I get the time to read them.

Thanks

I read the first 8 pages so far. Good stuff so far.

Any cliff notes? Whats this about?

Politics.

Jason, what's your own summary and conclusion.

Chris

I don't think I want to know, if it's anything like his summary and conclusions about Sep 11th 2001.

No offense meant Jason - you and I should stick to talking about cars IOT keep this forum peaceful. :)

Miatamaniac, the series is a concise summary of history and philosophy of governments. Why governments have a natural tendency to become bigger and more totalitarian as time goes on. And the philosophy of people who tend to want to rule by getting into government. That's the first third. ;)

Haha kotomile, I'm sorry that you can't open your mind regarding the physical evidence of the WTC crime. ;)

Every time you post stuff like this I picture you wearing a tin foil hat surrounded by stacks of old newspapers.

I said cars, not armchair structural engineering!

:giggle: You are so full of cliches!

You can't be serious.

edit:
First, I am a forensic structural engineer; I do structural failure analysis for a living. Second, not sure how I missed the "911 Challenge" thread from months ago (guess I too thought it was a Porsche thread). While I don't want to go into it here heavily, and don't want to bring that thread back from the dead, if you'd like some clarifications, feel free to PM me. I can't claim to have all the answers, but I do have some technical explanations for most of the points I saw you (Jason) wrongly using as "evidence" and "proof" against conventional collapse theories.

I have dealt with this ae911 group on several occasions, and let me say: they are not a group of respected professionals. I have also done work with several of the official and unofficial investigators, including Dr. Bazant, whose self-labeled "quick analysis" of progressive collapse feasibility has been under attack by the "esteemed" :giggle: ae911 group and has been described as "an incomprehensible sea of mathematical formulae." Hmm; if we don't understand it, it can't be correct!

Atlanta,

Pls. PM me the stuff, I'd be interested in reading it.



I

I for one, would also be interested in reading it. Please do post.

When I say I have technical explanations, I'm not talking about them being written down. There are structural concepts that any decent structural investigator should be able to use to explain certain phenomena under dispute. Read the NIST reports. If you don't think the answers are there, then you don't understand structural response well enough to make a judgment as to their validity. End of story.

The Matarese Circle was a better read. Similar idea - somebody's taking over with our unwitting consent, but with big corporations instead of governments and non-profits.

That's why the 2nd amendment counts - the founding fathers were more afraid of governments than citizens. If nobody has guns, or if the government knows exactly who has what guns and where, then they have the edge. If not, there's always the possibility of a nationwide Red Dawn.

The difference is, the Matarese Circle is fiction...

Ok.

Good read, I got through all 4 plus the video. I wish everyone would at least read part 1 before they vote..

Support your second amendment rights, or else you may lose all your others.

Heller V District of Columbia appears to have secured that for the moment.

__________________________________________________ ___________________________

And on the idea of conspiracy, it brings my mind back to this Maddox comic.

Link to article: http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse....i?u=911_morons

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse....racy_news1.gif
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse....racy_news2.gif
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse....racy_news3.gif


Please no one take offense to this comment, its me ranting:

Its my same argument against religion. Its denialism at its max. People have a hard time thinking "this is it". They want to believe in a big man in the sky, they want to believe in a secret society ruling everything. They want to imagine themselves as the saviors of society and the good of man. We're humans, and humans are animals. It's sadly a lot more simple than people want to grasp.

My best friend has been on an alien rant lately, telling me all this evidence for government cover-ups. I really feel the extent of his problem is a lack of ability to accept life. He wants to believe in something so much bigger than himself. In the end, all the exists is you and the relationships you've cultivated (and relationships are a lot bigger than just boyfriend or wife ect, its how you interact in this world). A lot of people are scared by that notion.

Throw in, I've yet to hear a legitimate reason why the 9/11 conspiracy was pulled off without a single leak. Or why aliens come light years to come here and not communicate with anyone.

I'll never convince anyone I guess.

nearleven,

what does your post have to do with my original post?

I was relating the notion of secret societies to aliens. It was a rant, I have been dealing lately with a lot of conspiracy and such and felt the need to go off. The maddox comic was more about conspiracies in general.

As for the summation of politics into "collectivist" and "individualist" is obviously far too short sighted. Reminds me of Donnie Darko when the main character is asked to take an event and put it on a emotional chart divided into love and fear. Despite being the core aspects of most emotions, the scale of emotions is far to complex to just split into 2 categories. Same thing with this article. You would be hard pressed to find anyone who would agree with all aspects of his summation of politics.

Just like anything else in this world you cant divide things into supposed good and evil.

Actually, aliens I find much more plausible.

Personally I start losing interest when they get into all the conspiracy theory and extremist stuff, because I think the world is a big grey area, but the author was all reiterating things I have heard before and none the less an interestig read. What really resonates with me however are just the basic principles in part 1 about individualist vs. collectivist theory. (I spent a semester in College debating much the sme thing.) I was raised in the socialist state of CA, and every year as I was growing up there were new laws making the things we enjoyed doing illegal. It became so oppressive that it made me sick, and perpetuated my desire to move to a free state. Now that I've made that move I'd vote / fight / etc. to keep it free where I am now, as would most of the people that live here. Whether or not you like the 2 party system that's the way it is for now, and the more knowledge that can be shared the more likely it is people will make their decisions informed so that they at least understand what it is they are choosing.

Sociologists and political scientists prove time and time again that the supposed ideological war in america of red vs blue states is a farce. The majority of americans when asked real political questions (like realistic question about subsidies or foreign relations not are you liberal or are you conservative) almost always head to a more moderate or centrist area.

The esteemed author of this piece of writing discounts the balanced moderate opinions of millions of people by saying if you're a moderate; you're only scared of making a real decision on politics.

I call myself a centrist because I feel there are aspects of all political systems which must be implemented when they're needed. Not some extreme ideology that must be kept up. Balance and moderation is the key in all aspects of life. You would be hard pressed to find someone who legitimately can't see the logic in a balanced political system.

But when you divide things into factions, as Mr. Griffin did so extremely, and the media attempts to do on a more subtle level, people attempt to come together. To have the feeling of factions and political groups. Though I have only read the research of others, the ideological war is about as real as WMDs in Iraq.

Griffin doesn't say anything about "ruling everything". He said the world has 3 major factions - the theocracies (e.g. Isamic countries), the Leninists (e.g. Cuba, China), and the "Rhodes-ians" (e.g. western countries). He never said "ruling everything", he more says "huge influence".


If one is convinced that certain secret societies existed in history (several have come and gone), what does that have to do with "aliens"?

That would be like a soccer mom neighbor accusing you, an autocrosser, of being "one of those dangerous speeding street racers".

Is it impossible for a secret or semi-secret society to exist, just because you can't imagine how they might operate? (e.g. "that's like conspiracy-alien talk!) If such a secret or semi-secret society existed for several generations existed, is it impossible that their philosophies have spread?

Let's take a non secret society, the MADD (mothers against drunk driving). If you study their early work, they did good stuff (targeting truly drunk driving). After they achieved their success, they continued on and successfully lobbied to lower the legal BAC limit to 0.08%. If you study the literature, you'll find that the vast majority of drunk driving crashes are with drivers way over 0.12%. The crash *rates* of drivers at 0.08 to 0.10 are *lower* than sober drivers. So a lot of safe drivers are being arrested and charged, at great expense to these individuals to hire lawyers, pay more insurance, etc. It has become a huge money machine for the courts, cities, insurance cos, lawyers, et al.

Now this society, MADD, has successfully spread the philosophy that all "drinking and driving is evil" and "you are a criminal for driving at 0.08". Note that MADD started out doing real good work...

Let's pretend that MADD stayed secret or semi-secret, that it was a group of concerned influential citizens, and achieved the same goals. They believed in the goodness of what they were doing.

Would their secrecy have invalidated their existence? If one studied the progression of anti drunk driving, and found a consistent pattern that shows a small group of people was the source, would that be beyond the realm of possibility?

What if the Neocons (Rove, Cheney), had never come out with their PNAC (project for a new american century), and nobody figured out where all this pro war imperialist rhetoric came from, does it mean such a group never existed?

People are so inured to hare-brained crazy theories of "one small group rules the whole world" that they automatically and summarily reject any notion of small influential groups.

He didn't so much "divide people into factions", as show that governments of the world all lean towards collectivism, because of their very nature, while the US Constitution was an attempt to PREVENT the government from turning collectivist, as would be its natural tendency.

I take it you read all 4 PDFs?

Collectivism was far from the enemy of the constitution. In fact the idea of collectivism was a philosophy from nearly 100 years later than the constitution was written.

It was more accurately a measure against government oppression, specifically in the case of monarchies which was the dominate political system of the time.

You'll find I am not even defending collectivist ideas, but I think this is an amateurish take on political history as a whole.

The NAMING of collectivism came later, but not the PHILOSOPHY. The philosophy has been around for thousands of years.

Collectivist government and tyranny go hand in hand.