In reply to this comment by bleedmegood:
Thank you for the promote....I really dig that vid....I'd like to make a transition to the more high-brow intellectually stimulating posts, and I get discouraged when they aren't recognized....good to see someone recognize them...I hope all is well with you....

In reply to this comment by enoch:
*promote

no prob bud.
i love vids like that also.you will find there are a few here on the sift gravitate towards esoteric videos.

>> ^raverman:

Isn't that Napoleon Dynamite's brother?


Back in my high school years, I bullied quite a few guys with similar esoteric ramblings expressed in an awfully wimpish voice...

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to get back to my janitor work...

I wonder if these ladies subscribe to the belief that Jesus actually lived in India for about a decade, learning meditation and other esoteric practices from Buddhist and Hindu gurus? Maybe not?

>> ^choggie:
"corporate think tanks, blogs, public relations firms" are the same places that fuel both sides dystop....you have made no point, you simply react to a nay-sayer with the same bullshit script-This is NOT an issue about anything else BUT, "follow the money"....Al Gore would have been the same brand of turd as any of them, creating empire and wealth and consolidating it for those who run the show.
Global Warming....Climate Change, no matter what the fuck you call it, it's obvious on this site and many others that there are still folks who think they have a clue as to what the fuck is going on based on the so-called findings of so-called experts.....Why not ask yourselves the questions instead of parroting answers. Could the nuclear furnace that appears on the horizon everyday have anything to do with climate change?? Could it be possible that pumping megawatts of energy into the ionosphere by the Dept of Defense have anything to do with erratic weather conditions? Could it all be a fucking hoax designed to further enslave the gullible populace(s) worldwide with the burden of so-called, carbon emission taxes?
There's a reason why carbon is not taxed yet....because people with a clue stand against the absolute absurdity of it. Want to eliminate the carbon footprints you leave??? STOP BUYING WORTHLESS PLASTIC SHIT, STOP EATING NON-NUTRITIVE FUCKING FOODS, AND FILLING YOUR HEADS WITH FUCKING INFOTAINMENT!!


There is consensus on this, regardless of how it fits into your world view. No internationally recognized scientific body holds a dissenting view on the reality of climate change. Not that there aren't exaggerated claims, politics and falsehoods from those who support the science side of the argument, but their actions do not discredit any of the standing research or the overwhelming consensus that climate change is real.

You are correct in saying I am ignorant of the specifics (as are you), which is why I choose take my 'bullshit script' from the 'so called experts' who have dedicated their lives to the study of climate change. You are free to take your 'bullshit script' from 'non experts' if you like, but it comes at the cost of your credibility, and doubly so when you make goofball AlexJonesian claims about ENSLAVING THE WORLD!!!!1!!

On the surface, a phony global climate change scare would seem to be a pretty complicated and esoteric means of enslaving the world. Don't you think there might be better, more efficient ways of putting us all in bondage? Buying governments? Building high tech mercenary armies? Destroying economies and then offering aid at a large premium? Destroying democracy under the banner of 'individual rights' and then picking off those powerless 'individuals' one by one? Creating massive unemployment to exploit the existing labor force via supply and demand? Creating some kind of deadly plague with an expensive proprietary antidote? These are just off the top of my head, but all of them would seem to be simpler, more logical, more direct avenues for world enslavement. I don't know, I'm no expert on world slaving.

I've got some logical issues with the conspiracy theorists that maybe you can help me clear up:

-How can you 'follow the money' and end up siding with industrialist polluters who stand to lose a lot of money if they are forced to clean up their act?

-How were the masterminds of this nefarious plot able to coordinate and control the research of many thousands of scientists from all over the world over many decades?

-How do you get from 'climate change' to world enslavement?

-Are the underpants gnomes somehow involved in this conspiracy?

1) Create a global climate change scare
2) ??????
3) Enslave the world

These conspiracy theories are vague, illogical and contradictory. In your response you throw out several possibilities a) It's real and caused solely by the sun (which is like saying tornadoes are caused solely by wind and have nothing to do with weather fronts) b) It's real and was intentionally created by the military (for some mysterious reason) c) It's a hoax to enslave the world through carbon taxes (but only polluting corporations pay these taxes).

It all comes out like a bunch of hastily though out nonsense, especially coming from someone who seems to think he has a monopoly on the truth. I'd love to hear an attempt to fashion these random bits into something vaguely plausible. Who might have engineered such a plot? How did they get the ball rolling? What was their overall plan from start to finish? How specifically might they parlay this into mass slavery? What do they intend to do with this massive slave force?

I totally concur that Deadwood was the best thing ever produced for television. The Wire is a close 2nd, so my vote is for that.

Also worth consideration:

Carnivale- also prematurely cancelled after 2 seasons. A little more esoteric by definition.

I Clavdivs: Very much in the Deadwood vein, a little bit cheesey by today's standards, but definitely quality drama. Also much less of a commitment, only 13 episodes in total, but it is a complete story arc.

Logic, evidence, reason...none of those things hold any value to a person with faith. In fact, the god-fearing are as interested in logic, evidence, and reason as the non-theist is interested in emotional appeals, anecdotal evidence, and using subjective experience as a basis for objective claims. Hence, any debate about the existence of god is a wholesale waste of time for all involved, which is why I don't involve myself in them.

If someone wants to limit the debate to something less esoteric like, say, the morality of the bible?...oh, I'm on it like a bonnet.

1. We support the union of all United States citizens for a greater good on the basis of the right of national and global self-determination.
What do they actually propose here? Isn't the UNITED states already a union? Or do they want to change something?

2. We support equality of rights for the United States citizens in its dealings with other nations.
Seems reasonable, but this is not really something that can be settled internally in the US, the "other nations" would have to agree as well. Internally, of course, anyone should be allowed to trade internationally as they please, not some people favored.

3. We support land and territory to feed our people and to settle our surplus population.
Either this is a painfully obvious point, or something more sinister is behind it. "We will grow stuff and farm it", well sure, knock yourselves out. "We will clear nature preserves and such to increase our use of the land" Less good. "We will only use what land is necessary to support the people." Better. A matter of interpretation.

4. We propose that the United States shall make it its primary duty to provide a livelihood for its citizens.
A job at all costs? Jobs can't just be created out of thin air - there has to be a reason for them. Welfare is better than a job that has no value.

5. We propose all citizens shall have equal rights and duties.
Well, duh.

6. It must be the first duty of every citizen to perform physical or mental work. The activities of the individual must not clash with the general interest, but must proceed within the framework of the community and be for the general good.
Yes and no. I agree that the first duty of a citizen should be to work, but this is indirectly determined by the fact that if you don't work--> you don't earn--> you die. Whether or not something "clashes with general interest" is harder to define, because plenty of work has not been in the gneral interest, but have been useful in the end anyway. Say, stem-cell research. No matter how many people want to ban it should not matter, because it is indeed useful to the survival of the human race.

7. We support the abolition of incomes unearned by work.
End welfare? Sure, but then you'll have to make up dummy-jobs, which in the end is welfare anyway. I can see the value in getting cheap labor this way, but I think this is worse than just plain welfare until a real job comes around.

8. In view of the enormous sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the confiscation of all war profits.
End wars. Sounds noble enough. Confiscating war profits sounds an awful lot like theft though. What needs to be done, is make sure that there is fair dealings in companies that provide services for war - the corruption that makes sure that companies like blackwater and halliburton gets all the deals must be quelled. A company exists in part to create profit for its people - if no profit should be made on war, then the state should make its own stuff. It is the one "company" that shouldn't make a profit.

9. We support the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).
Uhm, what!? I think this is a bad idea. Oversight, bureaucracy, conflicts of interest are all stuff I can see arising for this. If something has gotten big, it's because people have bought their product. We shouldn't penalize a good company just because it's big.

10. We support profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.
Again, what the hell is this? "Oh poor apple, I see you haven't made as much profits as us.. here, have some money." - microsoft. That's just stupid.

11. We support the extensive development of insurance for old age.
Fair. Pension should be maintained for those who need it.

12. We support the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of national and municipal orders.
I don't like the concept of classes - mostly because I don't think it's all that applicable anymore. People should get payed for their abilities + supply/demand of the job. And again they want to take the "evil big stores" and turn them into nice little stores. It's a dream world, Neo. They are not big because they are evil, they are big because they sell a good product. If you want to "level the playing field", then give incentives to make jobs locally and penalize foreign jobs (like sweatshops and such).

13. We support a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.
"Expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation".. get the fuck out of here. This land is my land, that land is your land♫ let's keep it that way. If there is a dire communal need for some of MY land, then you can well enough buy it from me, so I can move somewhere better.

14. The United States must consider a thorough reconstruction of our national system of education (with the aim of opening up to every able and hard-working American the possibility of higher education and of thus obtaining advancement). The curricula of all educational establishments must be brought into line with the requirements of practical life. The aim of the school must be to give the pupil, beginning with the first sign of intelligence, a grasp of the nation (through the study of civic affairs). We propose the education of gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State.
Education must be reformed, I agree, but this is not the way to do it. "Practical life"? There are plenty of things that ought to be taught that have nothing to do with practical life, biology, chemistry, mathematics (beyond the basics), history - we can't all go to knitting and shop-class. And in the higher educations the subjects become even more esoteric. What's "practical life" for some, is not at all for others. Hell, specialization is the cornerstone of education.

15. The nation must ensure that health standards are raised by protecting mothers and infants, by prohibiting child labor, by promoting physical strength through legislation providing for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and by the extensive support of clubs engaged in the physical training of youth.
Mandatory fat camps! Heh, I do think that gymnastics and sports should be mandatory in school, but that's it. English is mandatory too, why not some for of physical activity? I don't think that adults should be compelled to do sports directly though - that's their choice. I would rather that incentives were made to be healthy, or maybe certain penalties for being grossly unhealthy.

16. We propose the Federal abolition of any militia except as implemented by Congress.
Of course. There should only be one army. If you want to make "Bob's army" you can go off and make "Bob's Country" and do it.

17. To put the whole of this program into effect, we support a strong central power for the United States Federal Government; and the formation of Corporations based on estate and occupation for the purpose of carrying out the general legislation passed by Congress in the United States.

This seems to be against what's been said earlier. Now they want to MAKE corporations? Confusing. Don't they trust the states to carry out the legislation?

I wonder if the guys at Red vs. Blue are behind this. ie. Rooster Teeth Productions, otherwise known as...

(Maybe a little too esoteric this early in the morning)

His best one of recent work. The "slimy white burst of fan-wank circling the shower drain" line had me rolling. He reminds me of Dennis Miller's style; with the esoteric references. That was before Miller turned into the aforementioned slimy white burst of fan-wank.

I found something that you absolutely must watch. I found it tonight by chance and thought it pertained to our discussion perfectly and it's spoken beautifully. I think it will help you understand some of what I've explained that I might not have had the best words for and it should help clear up your thoughts on what atheists are not saying. (P.S. I'm not implying that you're saying that I should be more open minded, it just happened to be the prime relation point in the video). I implore you to watch it a few times.

Open-mindedness (youtube link)

To continue our discussion; I think that what we actually disagree on is the definition of "truth".

You're saying that truth is subjective; meaning that truth is contingent on the presence of a mind.

I'm saying that truth is objective; meaning that truth it exists outside of mind and that we can know it through the tools of logic, reason, and the scientific method.

The reason that I say that truth is objective, not contingent on a mind, is that if it were subjective, you could have two truths which contradict each other and then you'd be left with a paradoxes.

I think that you're boyfriend/girlfriend analogy is a good one because it helps proves a point.

That being that there is no such thing as "more true" when analyzing multiple claims. "More true" is a misnomer

It is a claim for the girlfriend to say that she feels heartbreak.
It is a claim for the boyfriend to say that he does not feel heartbreak.

The logical reason why they can both be true in their claims is that both claims are independent of one another. More important than knowing that both are true is to know why both claims can logically be true at the same time. Neither claim is dependent or contingent on the other claim in order to be true.

With the concept of subjective truth, if I were to consider what I believe as "my truths", what need would I have to question whether or not they are true? I mean, if they're my truths then that means that they're already true, no need to evaluate them. If everything that I believed was subjectively "my truth", then how would I distinguish functional reality from "my reality"? If truth is subjective, how could I determine how large or small my world is verses the rest of the world? What would I do when I come to a truth claim that contradicts my truth claim? How can something be true for me and the contradictory be true at the same time for someone else? Most importantly, how can I define reality if all truth is subjective? Furthermore, if only some truth is subjective, then how do we know what is subjectively true and what is objectively true? I'm sure that you can see that there are a lot of problems with the concept of subjective truth.

A huge key point that I wish to address:

You said "for either one of us to attempt to convince the other OUR truth is somehow more relevant than the others is not only insulting,but an exercise in futility"

I cannot agree with that statement at all. Besides my disagreement that truth is relative; for someone to be insulted by someone contesting a truth claim means that the person insulted has more invested in believing the claim rather than in caring whether or not the claim is true or not. Furthermore, if someone mistakingly holds a lie to be truth and you know that it's a lie and lead them to understand why their believed claim is false, you're helping that person to avoid any potential pitfalls associated with the lie; I cannot see how that is an exercise in futility.


In reply to this comment by enoch:
i know secular humanism well.
its not a bad way to be at all.
i think we may disagree on absolutes though.
you MUST be either a math major,or prone to maths definitive understandings of absolutes.(though quantum theory throws a wrench in that,yes?).
i am a poet,seeker and thinker and for good or ill my philosophy resides almost exclusively in the abstract,or gray.
my premise was basically to be aware that absolutist thinking:
1.the fundamentalist knows they are right because they have a book to prove it.
we both know the book is rife with contradictions,hypocrisy and outright fallacies.
2.the atheist comes at this problem from a differing origin but uses the SAME absolutist thinking that the fundamentalist employs.this is where,in my opinion,the danger lies.

this is why i used the term "agnostic" in its literal translation,and also why i feel the argument is semantics.
i.e:you say potato and i say potato.just variants of the same word for garnering different results.
it is also why i pointed out that while religious people can be biased towards atheists for not believing in their good book.atheists also will come to presumptive conclusions also based on their perceptions.
truth is a relative perception.i know you disagree,but i am not saying empirically,just when human ideologies,feelings and thoughts are concerned.
example:
you break up with your GF of 5 years.she is heartbroken,yet you are not.
which feelings are MORE true?
neither..both are true.one is the heartbroken and the other heartbreaker,yet both are equally true.
which is a point i think you were attempting to convey.i agree.
i am a man of faith,based on my experiences,feelings and things that i cannot explain away.
you are a man of reason,and dismiss any thoughts or concerns deity related (i am assuming).
which is MORE true?
neither..both are equally true,based on individual perceptions.
so while i cannot prove and validate my reasons for being a man of faith,i dont even try.
why?
because your experiences and understanding of the world is different than mine.
does that mean i am more right then you?
of course not.
and for either one of us to attempt to convince the other OUR truth is somehow more relevant than the others is not only insulting,but an exercise in futility.
it benefits neither of us.
which is what i was attempting to convey.
there is ONE thing you did that i have never (and im old) seen another do.be they religious or atheist.
you did not assume anything about where my faith may have come from,and that little fact my friend reveals a sharp intelligence.
i am not religious.i teach cultural religious history and comparative religions,but i am vehemently anti-religious.
i deal with the esoteric and the occult,but practice none of it.
if i was forced to choose which best describes my path...hmmm..
kabbalistic zen gnosticism.
but not really..that comes closest though.
so you keep calling me out if i am not making coherent points,i do not insult easy nor embarrass.and in the end we all benefit.
i do hope i did better this time at clarifying my point,as you have seen..i tend to ramble.
its the preacher in me LOL.
in any case.i do thank you for this conversation,i am sure there will be others.
until that time...namste.

i know secular humanism well.
its not a bad way to be at all.
i think we may disagree on absolutes though.
you MUST be either a math major,or prone to maths definitive understandings of absolutes.(though quantum theory throws a wrench in that,yes?).
i am a poet,seeker and thinker and for good or ill my philosophy resides almost exclusively in the abstract,or gray.
my premise was basically to be aware that absolutist thinking:
1.the fundamentalist knows they are right because they have a book to prove it.
we both know the book is rife with contradictions,hypocrisy and outright fallacies.
2.the atheist comes at this problem from a differing origin but uses the SAME absolutist thinking that the fundamentalist employs.this is where,in my opinion,the danger lies.

this is why i used the term "agnostic" in its literal translation,and also why i feel the argument is semantics.
i.e:you say potato and i say potato.just variants of the same word for garnering different results.
it is also why i pointed out that while religious people can be biased towards atheists for not believing in their good book.atheists also will come to presumptive conclusions also based on their perceptions.
truth is a relative perception.i know you disagree,but i am not saying empirically,just when human ideologies,feelings and thoughts are concerned.
example:
you break up with your GF of 5 years.she is heartbroken,yet you are not.
which feelings are MORE true?
neither..both are true.one is the heartbroken and the other heartbreaker,yet both are equally true.
which is a point i think you were attempting to convey.i agree.
i am a man of faith,based on my experiences,feelings and things that i cannot explain away.
you are a man of reason,and dismiss any thoughts or concerns deity related (i am assuming).
which is MORE true?
neither..both are equally true,based on individual perceptions.
so while i cannot prove and validate my reasons for being a man of faith,i dont even try.
why?
because your experiences and understanding of the world is different than mine.
does that mean i am more right then you?
of course not.
and for either one of us to attempt to convince the other OUR truth is somehow more relevant than the others is not only insulting,but an exercise in futility.
it benefits neither of us.
which is what i was attempting to convey.
there is ONE thing you did that i have never (and im old) seen another do.be they religious or atheist.
you did not assume anything about where my faith may have come from,and that little fact my friend reveals a sharp intelligence.
i am not religious.i teach cultural religious history and comparative religions,but i am vehemently anti-religious.
i deal with the esoteric and the occult,but practice none of it.
if i was forced to choose which best describes my path...hmmm..
kabbalistic zen gnosticism.
but not really..that comes closest though.
so you keep calling me out if i am not making coherent points,i do not insult easy nor embarrass.and in the end we all benefit.
i do hope i did better this time at clarifying my point,as you have seen..i tend to ramble.
its the preacher in me LOL.
in any case.i do thank you for this conversation,i am sure there will be others.
until that time...namste.

I think the movies he listed do embody the craft. I believe they all show areas of the art form being pushed in esoteric ways. As he mentioned with "Speed" it doesn't just have to be the movie but the experience as well. Whoever said above that he's a geek should really evaluate the word cool before throwing words around like that on a web page like this. Go back to high school.

I'm starting to get tired of Yahtzee. Sure he's ball-busting funny at times and has taken the place of Dennis Miller with all the esoteric references and other errata, but he's gotten too "damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't" for me. For this example, the game revists the old areas of the movie and faithfully recreate the proton streams, he bitches. If the game didn't do those things, he'd bitch because it didn't. I guess he's figured out that sells to his angst-ridden fanbase, so milk it for all it's worth.

Zzzzzzzz.

This is just further evidence that Bush was just really finishing the job his father started, whether we liked it or not... Well, sir you got your revenge, and you got your trillions of dollars in war profiteering for you and your esoteric cronies.

I just hope that sooner rather than later the rest of this nation will wake up and understand that the government who got us into this shit hole is not going to be the same one that gets us out, and that Obama's administration is really no different from Bush's, and all the others going back to Kennedy...

You want change? Obama is certainly not change. Not enough, anyway.

Thanks, Ollie! That did the trick.

See you at the next Bilderberg / Illuminati meeting ol' chum!

In reply to this comment by EndAll:
I'm pretty sure the embed for the video 'Esoteric Agenda' you sifted is dead, as it's just showing a black screen for me. Here's a new embed. And if you're still interested in that kinda stuff check out Ben Stewart's (the maker of the film) sequel to it, which I just submitted.