Friday, July 25, 2008

eLLUMINATI: Barack Obama's fake birth certificate and mysterious orgins.

Check out eLLUMINATI's scoop:Barack Obama's fake birth certificate and mysterious orgins.


JaySeeEye said...

Sorry for the long post, but something needs to be said. Yeah, big scoop there...not. I try to be open-minded, but that just seems kind of silly on the surface, and, after further looking into it, the author of elluminati and you, too, dedroidify seem to be a bit to quick to pull the anti-Obama, indeed, the seemingly anti-anything trigger. Did you notice how the sources cited by elluminati are so basisly speculative in their nature and utterly biased(dogmatic, i.e. droidified) in their perspective that even a brief dip into those thought-streams should serve as a valuable reminder of the 'consider the source' axiom. No Quarter has been pro-Clinton, anti-Obama propaganda throughout the primary election season. Sure, there are plenty of pro-Obama propaganda sites out there too, as there are also pro-McCain and all other sorts of propaganda, which should come as no surprise to any serious observer of modern politics, but that doesn't mean anything. If Clinton would've won the Democratic Nomination, I'd bet that elluminati's 'everything-is-conspiracy' mindset would have pitted him/her against those very same anti-Obama propaganda folks as Hitlary'(as she's been called) would've then represented the 'not-to-be-trusted' favorite to become the next President. Of course, elluminati might respond that Hillary could never have won because it had all been decided already in a back room, or masonic lodge, somewhere that Obama would rise up and take command, at least as a figurehead, of the newly revitalized global conspiracy..etc.etc...maybe he read that on Project Camelot - among other places. It's all too predictable, you see - and this should frustrate you as much as anyone, dedroidify.

I'm not saying Obama is totally innocent and sincere(to the limited degree that any politician could ever allow themself to be), and I'm not even saying that he'd make a good leader. But I allow myself to consider that he might be. Is that so hard for you to even consider at this point. It sure seems that way. Basically, I'm saying that I don't know enough to speculate on that question in any way definitive way. I can only develop my thoughts enough on such a subject to be considered at best a tentative truth'(or 'catma', as you might say). It seems like, for some reason, despite your professed affinity for a generally agnostic approach to all subjects, you are not in the least agnostic when it comes to such speculations. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I've misinterpreted the nature of your professed agnosticism as such. Maybe not.

Though this is a direct challenge to your thought process in this instance, I truly mean no offense, and I do truly admire your blogging as a whole and appreciate your propagation of fearless open-mindedness. Indeed, I've been an avid reader of this blog among others like it for some time. It does seem, at least in this instance, and perhpaps in others I have noticed, which have overall collectively compelled me to respond as I have, as if some your 'catmas' are getting a bit too canine, at least for my taste.

Quite simply stated, I smell bullshit here. Why the ever present and seemingly knee-jerk impulse to reject anything that seems to be embraced, if even momentarily, by the collective body politic? Is the starting point of this thought stream that anyone who has ever attained and will ever attain(could ever attain) a position of public prominence to be automatically assumed to have the same commonly identified nefarious intentions and generally 'threatening-to-the-individual'(i.e. ego) and humanity-as-a-whole('we're all doomed!') nature? It sure seems this way to me. Am I wrong? Or is there at least a little bit of truth that there's a sort of thought-trap that even the most aggressively open minds can get stuck in from time to time. I understand healthy skepticism, and I'm not trying a 'guilt-by-association' argument here, but this Obama birth certificate thing is in league with much of the fear-based dogma coming out of the fundamentalist Christians and the pro-Hillary Clinton bloggers who have been grasping at any anti-Obama thread they can cling to in order to salvage their dwindling blog traffic statistics. This is really scraping the bottom of the cognitive barrell, in my opinion.

Considering this rather impulsive(might I say droidish) aspect of such commentaries, I find quite ironic(and a bit frustrating) the degree to which the viewpoints expressed by folks like the author of elluminati, and sometimes you yourself, that they are somehow the voices of clear-eyed and courageous openness towards the mysteries that confront humanity, whilst they are willing to believe someone in the same league of speculation as Larry Sinclair, a life-long con man, and, in the same mind, automatically and quite robotically rejecting anything anyone might have to say that has anything to do with Obama that doesn't confirm or inflame a fear or projection of negativity upon the figure, within the public concoiusness, that he has become, to say nothing of the man himself. No evidence has been presented by elluminati, yourself, or others, aside from his unexpected electoral success and his oratorical eloquence that there is in fact anything of truth in the caricatures that have been so hastily sketched of Obama by those who have been so robotically rejective of seemingly everything and anything associated with him. Is it helpful to view any and every politician that is successful or effective in any way through such a dark lens? Yes, it can be, but only if one is to at least consider the view through a different lens, preferably in several different ways, some hopefully less robotically negativistic and rejective lenses from time to time, is it not? In many of the thought-circles which have swirled from time to time into your blogposts, even the word 'hope' has been a target of ridicule due to its association with Obama. Once again, I understand a healthy skepticism and I agree that one should be weary of such collectively 'hopeful' movements as 'Obamamania'. But to reject it all in a purity of negation is, for me, at least, just as futile a way of mentally digesting the phenomenon. I find it a bit puzzling that some of the very folks who had been warning that Bush was going to declare himself dictator and institute a fascist marshal law(any day now, right?) in the USA find it so easy to ridicule and reject, indeed, to not even consider as possibly legitimate, the presence of hope that some folks here in the USA, at varying levels of sophistication, may be feeling at this point in time considering that the Bush administration is seemingly coming to an end. Unless you know that for a fact all of the the conspiratorial speculations and scenarios are true, then it is irrational to behave, indeed, to allow yourself to think, as if you do. That isn't how I understand agnosticism and that isn't how I practice it.

I understand - "question everything". I get it. In fact, I encourage it and I try to practice it on a daily basis. That's fine, but that doesn't mean throwing Occam's Razor out the window. What about this - imagine if Obama is just a flawed, but not fatally so, candidate for political office. What if you met Obama? What if he was pretty cool guy? What if he was open to some of your ideas? Would you be open to his? Would that blow your mind? If so, why? The human imagination is a powerful tool. Ironic, no?...the imagination has gotten us to the point where it becomes shocking, or at least uncomfortable, for some of us to consider that someone or something may be alot more 'normal', indeed, 'real', in a sense, than we have been able to imagine.

AUDACIOUSLY HOPE-ing(yes, I'm trying to trigger an impulsive reaction) for a response, JaySeeEye

Dedroidify said...

Jayseeeye I lost my reply thanks to a "blogger cannot post your request now" which took me long to type up, geez I should take up the habit of typing it in notepad first this isn't the first time.

As you can see by the low nr of posts and the early 'sporadicity' post I have been busy and had to go to sleep an hour ago but will summarize for you the general message of what I first typed up I can reply to further questions then tomorrow if you feel that's necessary.

First of all I wanna thank you sincerely for the nudge in agnosticism and skepticism and I agree I should have used (and I will from now on try to use) more agnostic language to come across clearly to people of all belief systems.

I sometimes think I'm only talking to truth seekers who are about on the same frequency as me and this isn't broad enough I realize now. This blog is mostly about popularizing brainfood that I feel is important or interesting (I have been thinking of putting the word catma somewhere visible at all times on the top too so people realize all views expressed are just catmas). Of course some catmas or opinions are felt more strongly and importantly than others and get shared more. From Obama's voting record, associates and speeches, etc I don't trust him and hence posted material to counter the hype and Obama-BS (literally, as the message is hope you can believe in). Of the 3 I'd vote for him though (as none of the above isn't an option, and my reality tunnel of not having to vote isn't that obvious as we have to vote in my country.) and have made that clear I thought though didn't include it in every post, but maybe should have for ultimate clarity).

I am open to evidence that he can be fulfill this promise, though you have not included any of this in your post which I find rather important, so if you could provide me reasons why I should see more positivity in his potential presidency I would greatly appreciate it - though don't get me wrong, I don't expect you to or see this as a criteria for succesful argument. I already feel this exchange is very valuable as I will be able to change the message on my blog to be more open to lots more people and as you very well put, less robotic, point well taken! The last thing I wanna sound like is robotic ;) But obviously I will still popularize the brainfood I find is most important though more openly, I will however not promote views I find are not helpful to people. Though the Obama-skepticism , and I mean skepticism towards the conspiratorial view of him too is important and I will try to include it from now on. Maybe even change my previous Obama posts for more clarity and openness when I have time.

It seems we have different opinions on politics and Obama, and I hope I have explained my thought processes a little to make you understand my point of view, please also remember that having different opinions is ok, and while we might feel uneasy when someone expresses a different opinion it is not personal or even negative, it's just a different view. Some people are already satisfied if people remain civil, even better is obviously if people are openminded about their views and are open to contradicting evidence which I am. So in summary I agree I have to be more agnostic about Obama's future and will be. If you have any more questions please feel free and thanks again. Btw I think this summary is way more readable than the long thing I typed up before ;p

Unknown said...

hi ringo, have you read any interesting books ie brainfood lately? and no i don't mean anything about our culturally created "history" with its events and political figures from past and present! :P

i'm currently reading the glass bead game (some herman hesse quotes on this blog would be good) last week i read stranger in a strange land and neuromancer, and have been submerged in some other lilly books like the dyadic cyclone and simulations of god. i highly recommend the dyadic cyclone though it's more stuff along the lines of the center of the cyclone, but elebarotes on toni his wife creating the god as the dyad simulation

also read rupert sheldrakes the presence of the past and learys chaos and cyberculture

would love to see more biology, cosmology, technology, hesse, leary, lilly, sheldrake, watts, wilson, grof, jung, wilber psychology, science and reality exploring material

Dedroidify said...

Those are great suggestions to post about Kieran, I'll make a note of it.

How are you liking the glass bead game? I quit reading it after 400 pages or something, but I liked some of it a lot.

The books I'm finishing up now are Jung: Dreams, Piers Vitebsky: The Shaman, John Lilly simulations of god, lon milo duquette: chicken qaballah (though I'm not sure I'm gonna learn the hebrew alphabet :p), I'm late for the library again and have no time to go until at least wednesday or something ;)

ps: I'm not quitting the daily conspiracies (there aren't much anyway) no matter how much whining there is from the bliss bunnies :p exploring everything, remember.