Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Secularism is defined by the Dictionary as:



The core contradiction behind the idea of secularism manifests itself, when the concepts which embody it are administered in a systematic fashion. Administering any ideology in an systematic/organized fashion, then turns that ideology into a religion.

The foundations of most secularistic belief systems are "naturalistic." "Naturalistic" meaning..attributing life's creation as being the by product of "natural" as opposed to "supernatural" processes.

So how is secularism attempting to destroy freedom?

Answer: By attempting to remove the "supernatural" aspect of what makes up many "authority" systems, and liken the existance of man to that of an animal.

By removing the idea of a supernatural Creator from a society, those with a secularistic agenda are attempting to take away the "unalienable" rights given to a man by his Creator..and attempting to define the rights of each individual as they see fit.

"Human" rights are no longer "unalienable" under a secularist government, because just like the laws that exist within the animal kingdom, rights are based on the "natural" powers one possesses, and the ability one has to exact their power. Races are reduced to a certain pecking orders just like animals in the wild..and human life as a whole is generally devalued.

In a nutshell.."Survival of the fittest" becomes the new prevalent doctrine..followed in such a system. Those with Governmental authority deem themselves as being at the top of the "food chain" so to speak, and believe that they are the ones who are the most fit to make decisions that effect those whom they've imposed their belief systems upon.

while I'm sure that you have a point... I'm starting to think your putting too much time into distroying the religious ideals of people on KMC.. I like my small belief in my faith....

Please don't confront me with science and clever thinking that forces me to abandon it....

Originally posted by whobdamandog


"Human" rights are no longer "unalienable" under a secularist government, because just like the laws that exist within the animal kingdom, rights are based on the "natural" powers one possesses, and the ability one has to exact their power. Races are reduced to a certain pecking orders just like animals in the wild..and human life as a whole is generally devalued.



So are you saying that those who lack a belief in god are:

-naturally predisposed to lack a sympathetic view towards humanity?
-inevitably racist?
-unable to guide themselves and thir conduct by any moral compass?

the very term "secularism" when applied to our democracy (u.s.) is simply a flatout lie of a label which neocon bible beaters use to erase the very foundation upon which our nation was formed.

although it was made clear that theology shall play no part in our system of government, it was also made very clear by most of our forfathers that faith is a very important part of our lives and we should never reject the teachings of such. the bible in particular.

in other words, live by the bible on your own terms, and uphold its moral values. if you refuse, then god will judge you. if you break the law in refusing (criminal behavior) then a jury of your peers will judge you, then eventually god. point being that the very term 'secularism' is just another sad attempt to change our history and discredit those who uphold one of our nation's fundamental values (separation of church and state) and label them as those who would let out an evil cackle as they burn every bible in existance.

neocons wish to create a theocracy, which throughout history has proven to be nothing but dangerous and devolutionary to ourselves and a menace to everyone else. *cough*911*cough*

Originally posted by KharmaDog
So are you saying that those who lack a belief in god are:

-naturally predisposed to lack a sympathetic view towards humanity?
-inevitably racist?
-unable to guide themselves and thir conduct by any moral compass?

I'm saying that those who "lack" a belief in God..and submit to an ideology that dismisses the "supernatural" are essentially making the authorities in which they submit themselves to "God."

Do you truly want to be ruled by a man made Government that considers itself the "absolute" authority on morality, spirituality, religion, and everything else that makes up life?

I do not. Without belief in "God", you and I would no longer have a privlage to even challenge a naturalistic government. If human rights are deemed given by men, then men can also take those rights away. If rights are given by "God", then no man can take another man's civil liberties away.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I'm saying that those who "lack" a belief in God..and submit to an ideology that dismisses the "supernatural" are essentially making the authorities in which they submit themselves to "God."

a brilliant work of fiction. you have found your calling.
unfortunately for you, this has no basis in reality.
no aspect of our ideology rejects religion. you are lying to yourself
and everyone here just to feel validated in playing the victim in this
imaginary biblical catastrophy.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Do you truly want to be ruled by a man made Government that considers itself the "absolute" authority on morality, spirituality, religion, and everything else that makes up life?

you mean like the taliban? a theocracy which forcefeeds religion to its inhabitants, and carries out judgements based strictly on religious scripture, leading to the destruction of cultural history and executions based on no real breach of morals? for example executions by stoning of women who were raped... and thus act as god? it is a theocracy you crave, isnt it?

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I do not. Without belief in "God", you and I would no longer have a privlage to even challenge a naturalistic government. If human rights are deemed given by men, then men can also take those rights away. If rights are given by "God", then no man can take another man's civil liberties away.

slavery was permitted in the old testament. so you are wrong

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I'm saying that those who "lack" a belief in God..and submit to an ideology that dismisses the "supernatural" are essentially making the authorities in which they submit themselves to "God."

You speak as though this is fact. All this is based on the belief that there is a god. You speak as though this is a fact that is accepted by everyone.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Do you truly want to be ruled by a man made Government that considers itself the "absolute" authority on morality, spirituality, religion, and everything else that makes up life?

I do not. Without belief in "God", you and I would no longer have a privlage to even challenge a naturalistic government. If human rights are deemed given by men, then men can also take those rights away. If rights are given by "God", then no man can take another man's civil liberties away.

As PVS has pointed out, history has shown time and again that gov't's too involved with religion have led to catastrophic results towards thir people. You say religion is the base of morality. Then please explain the crusades, holy wars, the inquisition, the dominance of the catholic church through the ages and their harsh treatment of people time and again. All these actions and more have been committed under the guise of religious beliefs. Religious leaders, religious beliefs, religious ideals and the followers of many religions are far more responsible for the inhuman and immoral treatment of others than you seem to admit or are aware.

Religious leaders and governments have had their time, and they consistently failed the people.

Do you think there has been a govenment that has actually BEEN truely religious?? all the religious acts that are used to bash religion are not supported by the teachings of the religions...

The base arugment that TRUE religious ideals might make up a good govement can't be nocked by BAD religious leaders..

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
Do you think there has been a govenment that has actually BEEN truely religious?? all the religious acts that are used to bash religion are not supported by the teachings of the religions...

The base arugment that TRUE religious ideals might make up a good govement can't be nocked by BAD religious leaders..

But a "truley religious" government can NEVER exist because man is infallible and would never be able to adhere to religious teachings.

Religion is perverted to accomodate the wishes of man. Many believe that religious beliefs first evolved so that early man could explain the mysteries of the world. Religious beliefs, customs and rules were further developed by man to maintain social order. It was also very apparent that religious beliefs are an easy leash with which to lead and control a population.

And though "all the religious acts that are used to bash religion are not supported by the teachings of the religions... ", those acts have been justified through the religious texts, leaders and beliefs of that time.

What makes today any different?

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Religion is perverted to accomodate the wishes of man.

this should be elaborated.

our system of government is based on a clearly written set of guidelines and laws. dispite what our current administration believes, there is no way to translate these words to mean something different. religion on the other hand is most often based on ancient scripture which has been translated over different languages and rewritten secondhand, thirdhand, etc with passages ommitted by those along the way who wished to alter the scripture to their liking. and who the **** actually thinks its all rooted in our contemporary sense of morality?

for instance we have the old testament bible, which as i stated condones slavery as well as revenge. also, such scripture is damning of other religions as well as sexual orientation. so a strict enough translation would make it illegal to practice any other religion or be homosexual, and any breaking of this law could be punishable by death.

there is no way to base a government on ancient vague scripture. if you think otherwise you should pack up and move your ass to iran, because america doesnt need your sorry asses anyway

Morality doesn' t require religion.

Personaly I don't take the bible for litteral meaning anymore... But rather as a template for which I can base if something is right or wrong.. I also factor in the "modern age"...

While its true that no govenment can be vague scripture I believe it could take into concideration what is "right" and not what is "right" for 1 set of people... I don't think Religion is the be all and end all... But I think it can help to shame some of the more selfish acts govenements have commited...

Originally posted by Storm
Morality doesn' t require religion.

But I think alot of the people who don't have a very strong moral sense tend not to care about religion... Kinda broad, I know but also kinda true..

It's an interesting topic however the definition of secularism is inaccurate:

secularism, the social ideology in which religion and supernatural beliefs are not seen as the key to understanding the world and are instead segregated from matters of governance and reasoning.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism

Secularism is not an outright, atheistic rejection of religion in society. It simply dictates that it has no place in the matters of law and state.

Originally posted by PVS
the very term "secularism" when applied to our democracy (u.s.) is simply a flatout lie of a label which neocon bible beaters use to erase the very foundation upon which our nation was formed.


Would you call the founding fathers of American society "Neocon" bible beaters?

Originally posted by PVS
although it was made clear that theology shall play no part in our system of government, it was also made very clear by most of our forfathers that faith is a very important part of our lives and we should never reject the teachings of such. the bible in particular.


in other words, live by the bible on your own terms, and uphold its moral values.



Do you understand that the idea you have posted is condusive to producing anarchy? A society in which everyone's "own terms" or standards becomes the "standard" would be an anarchaic one. I don't believe that the founding fathers of the US wanted to produce an anarchic system of government, rather..they wanted to produce a systematic form of government. One where an an individual could freely express their opinion..regardless of their religious faith or ideals.

The Freedoms of Speech/Expression/and Religion do not equate to "Freedom to do whatever one wants to do." The founding fathers did not want to create a secular government. In fact..I believe most of them knew that it is impossible to do so. What they wanted to do..and what they were able to do..was create a standard of Government that was based off of their own "Judeo Christian Ideals"

Moving on..if the possibility of "secularism" truly existed within this world, meaning all forms of organized religion..be they spiritual/supernatural/or natural could be removed from our society. Then there would be no need for us to have a consitution..or government for that matter. Each one of us would just rule over ourselves..and the only standard that any of us would have to subject ourselves to would be our own. Again PVS..TRUE secularism produces ANARCHY..their is no refuting this, and you provided nothing to prove to anyone that this is not the case.

What you and others like you truly want to do..is just remove "Judeo-Christian" value systems from governments and societies. You know, or at least I believe you know..(I may be giving you too much credit) that the concept of "TRUE" secularism is an impossibility, and just want to replace the "Judeo Christian" value system that embodies most modern civilizations with your own twisted..convuluted..dare I say it..DEMONIC..values.

the whob strategy of debate

1-ignore all points in a discussion

2-look for any term which leaves room for misinterpreting

3-run with it. dont think. just RUN WITH IT

meh, i see you quoting me. dont bother.
you refused to address my points, so you ended the
discussion rather cowardly.

dont try to pin that on me, since i addressed every one of
your points while you in turn dodged every one of mine.

now bring on the smilies

This thread depends on two things

1. Believing, as whob does, that any belief system is a religion

2. Believing, as whob does, that concepts such as 'unalienable rights' are impossible without religion (or in whob's case, the kind of religion with a supernatural element).


As neither of these hypotheses are very tenable, the entire thrust of the thread is entirely pointless and not worth arguing.

Originally posted by Draco69
It's an interesting topic however the definition of secularism is inaccurate:


Actually it is not. It was taken from the American Heritage dictionary..

I'll repost it for you with some more definitions from other sources..



Either way..when the concept of secularism becomes "idealized"..or is administered as being truth in some sort of organized system..it then becomes a "religion."

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Either way..when the concept of secularism becomes "idealized"..or is administered as being truth in some sort of organized system..it then becomes a "religion."

Didn't VVD ot Ush already correct you on that misinterpretation?

Even though the very dictionary definion- something you are keen to keep on posting- of the word 'secularism' makes out that it rejects religion?

You are just insulting yourself with such idotic postings now, Whob. To call secularism a religion is simple contradiction in terms. Only a complete moron would accept your logic.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Actually it is not. It was taken from the American Heritage dictionary..

I'll repost it for you with some more definitions from other sources..



Either way..when the concept of secularism becomes "idealized"..or is administered as being truth in some sort of organized system..it then becomes a "religion."

But you're referancing to the philosophical definiton of secularism. I'm assuming we're discussing the socio-political definition of secularism which is entirely different:

In government, secularism means a policy of avoiding entanglement between government and religion (ranging from reducing ties to a state religion to promoting secularism in society), of non-discrimination among religions (providing they don't deny primacy of civil laws), and of guaranteeing human rights of all citizens, regardless of the creed (and, if conflicting with certain religious rules, by imposing priority of the universal human rights).

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You are just insulting yourself with such idotic postings now, Whob. To call secularism a religion is simple contradiction in terms. Only a complete moron would accept your logic.

Or postulate said logic.

No one can outrightly reject religion , i hate religion and don't believe in anything , but somewhere inside of me theirs a little part wonders what will happen once i drop dead.....

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Even though the very dictionary definion- something you are keen to keep on posting- of the word 'secularism' makes out that it rejects religion?

You are just insulting yourself with such idotic postings now, Whob. To call secularism a religion is simple contradiction in terms. Only a complete moron would accept your logic.

Only a complete moron would believe that it is possible to seperate the concept of religion from government. What part of the this definition do you not understand ush..




Could the zealous pursuit of "secularistic" ideals be labeled as a "cause" a "principle" or an "activity"?

Of course it can..you are more foolish than I thought if you truly believe otherwise.

As for PVS and Karmadog..I will reply to you both later..I'm at work..and I don't have time to rebut every one of your non sensical rantings as of right now. Expect a reply to all the tripe that you've posted sometime tonight.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Only a complete moron would believe that it is possible to seperate the concept of religion from government. What part of the this definition do you not understand ush..

Could the zealous pursuit of "secularistic" ideals be labeled as a "cause" a "principle" or an "activity"?

Of course it can..you are more foolish than I thought if you truly believe otherwise.

Now you have taken one of the definitions of religion from dictionary.com and tried to use it to thrust home your point.

Unfortunately, the complicated english language has many words that can be applied to various circumstances, or items, that does not make it the best word for that circumstance or use.

The full dictionary.com definition is as follows


All but one of those definitions relate to the spirituality of the meaning of the word. You are basing your arguement on semantics.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
As for PVS and Karmadog..I will reply to you both later..I'm at work..and I don't have time to rebut every one of your non sensical rantings as of right now. Expect a reply to all the tripe that you've posted sometime tonight.

I would like to say that I look forward to your post, but I already know what''s coming. Instead of trying to be witty (and usually failing) or insulting, I 'd much rather see you try to lamely support your arguements. However, as Ush stated:

Originally posted by whobdamandog
This thread depends on two things

1. Believing, as whob does, that any belief system is a religion

2. Believing, as whob does, that concepts such as 'unalienable rights' are impossible without religion (or in whob's case, the kind of religion with a supernatural element).


As neither of these hypotheses are very tenable, the entire thrust of the thread is entirely pointless and not worth arguing.

Originally posted by Draco69
In government, secularism means a policy of avoiding entanglement between government and religion


According to who..you? Your definition of "secularism" as it relates to government is but only ONE interpretation. It is not the ABSOLUTE definition of how the term is defined.

Anyway..as I stated before, the premise of "secularism" is illogical and quite frankly an impossibility. When one becomes devoted to the activity of secularizing government, they are essentially idealizing the activity of "secularizing government", and this then makes secularism into a religion.

Regardless of what you, PVS, Karmadog, and others state regarding the definitions I've given, it doesn't take away from their validity. Unless you want to argue with me about your opinions of stated definitions being more authoritative than my own. Trust me...I don't really think you all want to get into that.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
According to who..you? Your definition of "secularism" as it relates to government is but only ONE interpretation. It is not the ABSOLUTE definition of how the term is defined.

And the absolute definition is....?

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Anyway..as I stated before, the premise of "secularism" is illogical and quite frankly an impossibility. When one becomes devoted to the activity of secularizing government, they are essentially idealizing the activity of "secularizing government", and this then makes secularism into a religion.

I don't see how government policy could possibly be religion. I'm not convinced. Especially when secularism is about seperating church and state. The very definition of secularism doesn't seem to match what makes a religion a religion. Unless you have a different definition of religion.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Now you have taken one of the definitions of religion from dictionary.com and tried to use it to thrust home your point.

Unfortunately, the complicated english language has many words that can be applied to various circumstances, or items, that does not make it the best word for that circumstance or use.

The full dictionary.com definition is as follows


Like Draco, you are assuming that I have to go solely by definitions given by yourself/others when defining the terms secularism/religion. It really doesn't matter which definition I've used..the point is that the possibilty of defining "secularism" as a religion clearly exists. If this wasn't a possibility..then you would have some credibility to your argument...unforfunately..based on it's existence..you do not.


Originally posted by KharmaDog
I would like to say that I look forward to your post, but I already know what''s coming. Instead of trying to be witty (and usually failing) or insulting, I 'd much rather see you try to lamely support your arguements. However, as Ush stated:


Well I'm glad to see that you look forward to my posts, but I do have to say that all of the arguments against what I have posted have been rather weak and disappointing. I'm not going to even bother responding to the rest of PVS's posts..most of what he posted were just one line strawman retorts. Let me repost my response to PVS..and perhaps you or others can directly rebut what I has been stated.

Originally posted by Draco69
And the absolute definition is....?

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Like Draco, you are assuming that I have to go solely by definitions given by yourself/others when defining the terms secularism/religion. It really doesn't matter which definition I've used..the point is that the possibilty of defining "secularism" as a religion clearly exists. If this wasn't a possibility..then you would have some credibility to your argument...unforfunately..based on it's existence..you do not.

So you are basically saying that you reserve the right to change or manipulate the meanings of words when it so suits your arguement?

Originally posted by KharmaDog
So you are basically saying that you reserve the right to change or manipulate the meanings of words when it so suits your arguement?

No, I think he's saying any idea or ideology can be coined as a religion...I think.

Originally posted by Draco69
No, I think he's saying any idea or ideology can be coined as a religion...I think.

O.K., but I still disagree with that.

Though you may adhere to a belief with religious-like fervor, that does not define it as a religion.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
As for PVS and Karmadog

reply to what? you misinterpreted a sentence in my post and ran with it on a 4 paragraph rant relevant to precisely nothing that i or anyone said, all the time ignoring valid points. wtf do i care what you have to say?

please, spare me the belly aching and overuse of smilies, i get the picture already. "waaaa waaaaa anarchist waaaaaa waaaaa group think waaaa waaaaa" noted

After many upon many posts..you finally took the time to read what I've posted.

So yes..any philosophy/activity/etc..followed with "conscientious" zeal and devotion..can be classified as a religion..


Originally posted by KharmaDog
O.K., but I still disagree with that.

Though you may adhere to a belief with religious-like fervor, that does not define it as a religion.

Well you're disagreeing with the Dictionary...write a letter to the lexicographers of the American Heritage Dictionary..and present your argument over the definition with them.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Well you're disagreeing with the Dictionary...write a letter to the lexicographers of the American Heritage Dictionary..and present your argument over the definition with them.

Please refer to my previous post:


Originally posted by Kharmadog
Now you have taken one of the definitions of religion from dictionary.com and tried to use it to thrust home your point.

Unfortunately, the complicated english language has many words that can be applied to various circumstances, or items, that does not make it the best word for that circumstance or use.

The full dictionary.com definition is as follows



All but one of those definitions relate to the spirituality of the meaning of the word. You are basing your argument on semantics.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Please refer to my previous post:

All but one of those definitions relate to the spirituality of the meaning of the word. You are basing your argument on semantics.




Which one of us is playing a game of semantics? Come on now my friend..what argument have you really presented that clearly refutes mine? This is getting silly..you all have clearly lost this argument.

Have a good night.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Which one of us is playing a game of semantics? Come on now my friend..what argument have you really presented that clearly refutes mine? This is getting silly..you all have clearly lost this argument.

Take Care..

Merely playing the game that you started. And we have not lost this argument, because as Ush stated, the arguement is moot.

But it is comforting to see you sit back and use the old tactics of declaring a non existant victory. I am sure the insults will soon follow.

whobdamandog, why do you insist that returning the world to divinely inspired medievalism will somehow restore a certain order and morality that never existed in the first place (outside of myth and senile/bias recollection)?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
whobdamandog, why do you insist that returning the world to divinely inspired medievalism will somehow restore a certain order and morality that never existed in the first place (outside of myth and senile/bias recollection)?

Actually what I truly hope that the world to returns to a state where divinely inspired idealism is the norm. This world would be comprised of order/freedom/love/and rightousness... and wouldn't attempt to masquerade selfishness/anarchy/bondage as truth.

Let me ask you all a few questions..what real spiritual/moral/physical benifits does secularism offer humanity?

If one does not have anything to look forward to after death..what is the purpose of living?

Would it not just make more sense for one to kill themselves as soon as they came of an age where they understood that life has no true purpose?

Originally posted by whobdamandog


If one does not have anything to look forward to after death..what is the purpose of living?


Carpe diem.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Carpe diem.

But what motivation does one have to "seize the day"..if the day unto itself has no true purpose?

Answer: None

That along with many other reasons listed within this thread demonstrates why "secularism" is a self defeating, illogical, and degenerative philosophy. It offers no true benefits to mankind..and essence..will ultimately assist in destroying it.

Fin.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I'm saying that those who "lack" a belief in God..and submit to an ideology that dismisses the "supernatural" are essentially making the authorities in which they submit themselves to "God."

Do you truly want to be ruled by a man made Government that considers itself the "absolute" authority on morality, spirituality, religion, and everything else that makes up life?

I do not. Without belief in "God", you and I would no longer have a privlage to even challenge a naturalistic government. If human rights are deemed given by men, then men can also take those rights away. If rights are given by "God", then no man can take another man's civil liberties away.

Apparently you forget that in a democray the people have a say. the government's word is not final. which means it's not god.

in fact, the people of the united states have the constitutional right to violently rebel against its own government in a revolution.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
But what motivation does one have to "seize the day"..if the day unto itself has no true purpose?

Answer: None



To you maybe.

For many people, the lack of an afterlife provides them with even more reason to make the most of their time here.

a lack of religious wars, persecution, and zealous morons

The Illuminati has planned first for a financial collapse that will make the great depression look like a picnic. This will occur through the maneuvering of the great banks and financial institutions of the world, through stock manipulation, and interest rate changes. Most people will be indebted to the federal government through bank and credit card debt, etc. The governments will recall all debts immediately, but most people will be unable to pay and will be bankrupted. This will cause generalized financial panic which will occur simultaneously worldwide, as the Illuminists firmly believe in controlling people through finances.



"Next there will be a military takeover, region by region, as the government declares a state of emergency and martial law. People will have panicked, there will be an anarchical state in most localities, and the government will justify its move as being necessary to control panicked citizens. The cult trained military leaders and people under their direction will use arms as well as crowd control techniques to implement this new state of affairs. This is why so many survivors under 36 years of age report having military programming. People who are not Illuminists or who are not sympathetic to their cause, will resist.



"The Illuminists expect this and will be (and are BEING) trained in how to deal with this eventuality. They are training their people in hand-to- hand combat, crowd control, and, if necessary, will kill to control crowds. The Illuminati is training their people to be prepared for every possible reaction to the takeover. Many mind control victims will also be called into duty with preset command codes. These codes are meant to call out a new, completely cult loyal presenting system. Shatter codes programmed under trauma will be used to destroy or bury non-cult loyal alters.

if there is an illuminati, its too bad there are so many horrible ambassadors to the cause against...

Originally posted by Deano
The Illuminati has planned first for a financial collapse that will make the great depression look like a picnic. This will occur through the maneuvering of the great banks and financial institutions of the world, through stock manipulation, and interest rate changes. Most people will be indebted to the federal government through bank and credit card debt, etc. The governments will recall all debts immediately, but most people will be unable to pay and will be bankrupted. This will cause generalized financial panic which will occur simultaneously worldwide, as the Illuminists firmly believe in controlling people through finances.



"Next there will be a military takeover, region by region, as the government declares a state of emergency and martial law. People will have panicked, there will be an anarchical state in most localities, and the government will justify its move as being necessary to control panicked citizens. The cult trained military leaders and people under their direction will use arms as well as crowd control techniques to implement this new state of affairs. This is why so many survivors under 36 years of age report having military programming. People who are not Illuminists or who are not sympathetic to their cause, will resist.



"The Illuminists expect this and will be (and are BEING) trained in how to deal with this eventuality. They are training their people in hand-to- hand combat, crowd control, and, if necessary, will kill to control crowds. The Illuminati is training their people to be prepared for every possible reaction to the takeover. Many mind control victims will also be called into duty with preset command codes. These codes are meant to call out a new, completely cult loyal presenting system. Shatter codes programmed under trauma will be used to destroy or bury non-cult loyal alters.


Belongs in the conspiracy thread, but thanks for playing.

not really. im showing you what will destroy the free world.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
But what motivation does one have to "seize the day"..if the day unto itself has no true purpose?

Answer: None

That along with many other reasons listed within this thread demonstrates why "secularism" is a self defeating, illogical, and degenerative philosophy. It offers no true benefits to mankind..and essence..will ultimately assist in destroying it.

Fin.





http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/6790/shitbomb9bs.gif

Originally posted by Deano
The Illuminati has planned first for a financial collapse that will make the great depression look like a picnic. This will occur through the maneuvering of the great banks and financial institutions of the world, through stock manipulation, and interest rate changes. Most people will be indebted to the federal government through bank and credit card debt, etc. The governments will recall all debts immediately, but most people will be unable to pay and will be bankrupted. This will cause generalized financial panic which will occur simultaneously worldwide, as the Illuminists firmly believe in controlling people through finances.



"Next there will be a military takeover, region by region, as the government declares a state of emergency and martial law. People will have panicked, there will be an anarchical state in most localities, and the government will justify its move as being necessary to control panicked citizens. The cult trained military leaders and people under their direction will use arms as well as crowd control techniques to implement this new state of affairs. This is why so many survivors under 36 years of age report having military programming. People who are not Illuminists or who are not sympathetic to their cause, will resist.



"The Illuminists expect this and will be (and are BEING) trained in how to deal with this eventuality. They are training their people in hand-to- hand combat, crowd control, and, if necessary, will kill to control crowds. The Illuminati is training their people to be prepared for every possible reaction to the takeover. Many mind control victims will also be called into duty with preset command codes. These codes are meant to call out a new, completely cult loyal presenting system. Shatter codes programmed under trauma will be used to destroy or bury non-cult loyal alters.


...

you know, in that bin laden thread you could have at least been half right. i'd have given you the benefit of the doubt. i dont read too many of your posts, but from what i hear and now this, its just ridiculous. this theory is just as bad as jesus rising from his throne and smiting everyone on earth.