Posts by Joshua Alvarez79

Ha, listen up everyone, deleting a thread with 111 posts over on Reddit... I mean, what could possibly trigger a move like that?

On a platform like Reddit, which by default is absolutely teeming with wild ideas, to just shut down a discussion under some vague pretext—which, by the way, hasn't even been disclosed to us—claiming that the points being made defy mainstream scientific theories (or whatever excuse they use), is nothing short of an insult to the common sense of every single user reading this. So, I have to wonder, what is the actual reason—the one they are so stubbornly refusing to provide—for wiping that thread out?

The reason is obviously the sheer weight of the SCIENTIFIC arguments presented there, which, through EXPERIMENTALLY VERIFIED EVIDENCE, completely dismantle the paradigm held by those people who, quite frankly, can't function without their terrorizing, one-dimensional consensus!

The silence from both the moderators and the administrators serves as proof that someone is clearly feeling threatened by the power of the SCIENTIFIC arguments laid out in that deleted thread.

Don't you guys feel any shame, administrators?

This is probably going to be read by people who don't even bother visiting the alternative boards (and honestly, I can see why), but I started a thread over there that falls squarely under PZ. See, on PZ, you aren't allowed to discuss actual SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS if the results don't align perfectly with mainstream scientific hypotheses, and now my thread—which, I should mention, features introductory theses backed by actual SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE—is being wiped from a place like the alternative section. And let’s be real here, isn't this supposed to be a space for the outliers? Meanwhile, other threads where people just scatter nonsense without a shred of scientific proof—threads meant for all sorts of venting and letting out frustrations through trolling and every other possible method that wouldn't be tolerated anywhere else except on the alternative boards—those topics just continue to fester for years without anyone batting an eye.

If it weren't so tragic, it might actually be funny. Since the topic has clearly been deleted, and since some of you who have actually bothered to read everything I've written in this protest-complaint-thread might want to get a glimpse of the evidence I'm talking about from the deleted post, I guess I'll offer two links to two SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS right here. That way, everyone can draw their own conclusions as to whether these experiments carry the weight of proof for what I am claiming, and consequently, whether the deletion of this thread has a purely philosophical-ideological motive behind it or not.

Here they are:

1.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpJyfusm1xw
2.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87M2i61N1cU

And one more little addition—an illustration of the philosophical-ideological environment that has been generating this kind of witch hunt for years now:
http://www.nytimes.com/news/us/politics/example-article-about-social-unrest-in-new-york.html

That is the era we are living in, and now, feel free to go back and re-watch these two films:

1. The Truman Show
2. wide open eye wide closed eye

wide open eye wide closed eye... hasn't that pretty much said it all?

Well, my fellow humans, you are going to pay a heavy price very soon for your malice!!!

brightpuma said:check if it isn't connected to the hollow earth or some similar nebula...

The "hollow earth" nebula is sitting right there on the "fringe science" sub-forum, much like the highly plausible topic of "The Moon Landing: Fact or Fiction," yet my own thread, "Is Earth Round or Perhaps Not?", hasn't even been moved to that sub-forum, nor to any of the four other alternative sections...

On the other hand, the semi-nebula known as "Nibiru" has occupied the main alternative window for years without issue, just like the parallel open thread regarding the missing Malaysian airliner—where the core premise assumes the plane was sucked into a "fifth dimension" (a theory I happen to advocate)—which is likely the very dimension responsible for those strange phenomena, like dual suns, tied to Nibiru; and just because these things are miraculous doesn't mean they aren't real, rather than being mere hallucinations of some individual...

As for my lost thread—much like that Malaysian plane—titled "Is Earth Round or Perhaps Not...", we are dealing here with specific SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS that no one within that discussion has even attempted to debunk (and if the participants were truly reasonable people, one has to wonder, shouldn't they?), yet most of those so-called "reasonable" individuals took it upon themselves—in a manner that goes against a massive number of this forum's rules, which the moderators allowed despite not issuing any warnings to stay on topic or cease the brutal harassment of the one person who was actually presenting arguments based on SCIENTIFIC merits—to incessantly troll and insult without any forum sanctions being filed, nor even a simple, benign warning being issued (as I mentioned in my previous parenthesis).

And so, as a "reward" for me bringing forward EXPLOSIVE, DANGEROUS, AND SUBSTANTIAL SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTS supporting the claim that the Earth is stationary, along with serious SCIENTIFIC INDICES backed by SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS (though I am not yet ready to claim they are airtight arguments for a stationary Earth, but the thread remains open so we can try to clear things up through a collective effort from the community) suggesting that the Earth is not only STATIONARY (which is UNDENIABLY PROVEN) but also possesses a FLAT SURFACE (a matter that should have been discussed further in the thread), my "reward" for providing SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AND SERIOUS INDICES is this: the MOVING, or rather, the DELETION of the thread???

By what right, by what logic, by what justification???

Especially when you consider the terror that Behemoth inflicted upon me in the "Nibiru" thread, which can be read in the "SOMETHING UNSEEN BEFORE NOW!!!!!" thread on the PŽK (further down below)!!!!!

Someone here needs to realize that these kinds of incidents aren't just neatly archived for years; all of this collected evidence will soon see the light of day in other public arenas!!!

The truth about the criminal moderation on this forum won't remain hidden, nor will the fundamental truths discussed in many threads that were violently suppressed—mostly by locking them, some even by deleting them, and others through partiality or permanent banning of low-tier users whose names will also be revealed to the general public when the time comes, alongside the archived threads where witch hunts against "undesirables" were carried out (and are still being carried out)!!!

brightpuma said:maybe try looking under Alternative, Fringe Science, or Magic and Mysticism, stuff like th... 🤷

That kind of thing belongs over there...

The topic was already posted on Alternative, and honestly, where else would you even start a thread with such an infuriating title—especially one targeting people who are essentially addicted to whatever they're taught in school, which, frankly, seems incredibly dangerous for their spiritual well-being given the actual scientific EXPERIMENT data presented in the original post?

The thread was right there in the main Alternative window. But then, after it was moved (and I have to ask, why wait five whole days and let over a hundred posts pile up before doing that???) I went hunting through the sub-forums on Alternative to find it, but it’s just gone. So, I’m asking: Where was it moved to? And if it actually *was* moved, why on Earth would anyone move it at all, assuming it wasn't just deleted entirely???

I can only assume this is happening because the truth is being suppressed once again—just like it has been so many times before on this forum—using every means necessary???

First off, we were dealing with pure terror in this thread and now—after five whole pages of following the exact same pattern discussed in that OTHER UNPRECEDENTED THREAD (where I’ve been trying to provide actual SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS and merit, while everyone else just uses the space for insults and trolling)—the entire thread gets MOVED to some unknown location for absolutely no reason whatsoever?!?!?!?

I am requesting a detailed explanation for this action.

It claims the thread was supposedly MOVED, but where? To which sub-forum? To which PDF archive?

I really hope the explanation makes sense, because this is somehow even more unprecedented than that other unprecedented situation we recently debated, during which I never received any fair satisfaction...

Actually, even without waiting to read someone's excuse for moving this, I'm going to insist that the thread be put back exactly where it was immediately!

If anyone thinks they can manipulate anything regarding what actually happened or the chronological order of this discussion, they should get that idea out of their head right now, since I have every single post from this thread neatly archived!

I’ve just been slapped with another 30 penalty points for commenting on the moderation regarding the Nibiru thread—which is technically outside the designated area for such things—and I suppose that would be perfectly fine if other forum members had also been penalized on the same grounds. After all, plenty of other users were busy critiquing the moderation choices made by Ryan Gomez4 long before I ever stepped in, essentially calling for moderator intervention because they couldn't manage to muster even a single coherent counterargument regarding the actual merits of the topic, much like my own comments.

However, the idea of penalizing those other users—given that calling for a moderator to provoke me by imposing non-existent rules wouldn't just drive me away and free up space for this endless "discussion" at the level of "we are right because we claim something is true simply because we say it is"—was never even considered by the powers that be. In fact, the people who demanded another user be removed simply because they lack the basic capacity to read what is written, vet the links provided, or even contemplate the meaning of an argument (let alone engage in actual counter-argumentation), were actually accommodated. It seems their irrational, almost terrorist-like demands were met with a form of psychological terror that lacks any basis in existing rules, especially since there aren't even any such rules written down anywhere.

And while we are on the subject of terrorization:

The question was whether a moderator has the right to dictate the character count of a user's individual post, and if so, based on which specific rule?

We didn't receive an answer from rustydrifter10, to whom the question was directed. Consequently, the answer is quite obvious, and it is this: NO, THEY CANNOT, BECAUSE NO SUCH RULE EXISTS! When the administrator remains silent, it effectively means the answer is "no" from the moderator's perspective; that is simply how things work on this forum, and honestly, how things tend to work within the FBI or similar institutions in general. If a colleague acting in a partisan manner commits a transgression, we might eventually deign to shout, "LET THE AUTHORITIES DO THEIR JOBS," but when we ourselves are meant to be that very institution tasked with doing its job, we end up playing dumb. Because if a moderator engages in terror by imposing imaginary rules, they are still the moderator, and the one being terrorized—the common forum user—is deemed unworthy of any just redress, even at a purely formal or declaratory level....

What Ryan Gomez4 had to say in response to that same question back then was this: "If you write something that isn't relevant to the topic, then even a single sentence is too many!!!" BRAVO, COLUMBUS!!! The only thing Columbus failed to address—and it was the very thing he was asked—is what the maximum character limit per post should be if I am writing IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TOPIC???

Furthermore, rustydrifter10 was most graciously requested to review my posts from the moment this thread opened and looking back two weeks (since I began participating in the Nibiru thread) to see if my lengthy posts were actually on-topic or not! The REVIEW has perhaps already taken place, which would explain the total lack of reaction, GIVEN that it was likely found that my posts ALONE were HEAVILY relevant to the topic, WHEREAS THE POSTS OF OTHER USERS WERE RELATED TO EVERYTHING EXCEPT THE TOPIC. Therefore, the posts of those users, which consisted MOSTLY OF INSULTS AND AD HOMINEM ATTACKS, really ought to have been sanctioned according to Columbus's (Ryan Gomez4's) rule, which states: if you write about something unrelated to the topic, then even one word is too many, wouldn't you agree?

The question regarding the selection of gods that may or may not be mentioned in that massive PDF of alternatives is so bizarre that the reasoning behind problematizing SOMETHING SO UNPRECEDENTED should probably require the assistance of specialists from the appropriate government agencies...

What is clear even without the help of specialists from federal agencies is that it is ABSOLUTELY LEGITIMATE to draw connections between the Nibiru phenomenon and interpretations of that phenomenon where supernatural cosmogonical beings appear as main characters. Even Columbus himself (Ryan Gomez4) claims this! But alas, according to Columbus, only the Christian God is not a legitimate supernatural cosmogonical being BECAUSE (according to him) the Christian God is a MAINSTREAM GOD, and the mere fact that He is a MAINSTREAM GOD disqualifies Him from being comparable to the other cosmogonical beings that, according to the profound and scholarly conclusions of Columbus, are indeed permitted to be mentioned in a thread of such exceptional socio-political, socio-economic, historical, cultural, and philosophical significance as Nibiru.

Where is that universal-sized facepalm I was promised?

P.S. I suppose if I had actually penned a post like this within the Nibiru thread—even though it would have been perfectly, surgically relevant to the topic—I probably would’ve just been banned under some arbitrary, made-up rule claiming that excessively long posts won't be tolerated. It's funny because, if you look back at that Nibiru discussion, those lengthy posts were the ONLY ones actually addressing the actual merits of the argument, while every other single post that went unsanctioned was composed EXCLUSIVELY of insults and petty ad hominem attacks!!! 🙂

It’s clearly been tested and confirmed as the absolute truth, which is exactly why we see this constant, agonizing outcry from the administrators!!!

rustydrifter10 said:Look, let’s talk about posting etiquette for a second because I think we need to get on the same page regarding how we handle our discussions here. Technically, a single post can hold up to 10,000 characters, which is plenty of room, but honestly? Every post should really be focused on just one central idea. It isn't ideal to stretch a single thought out over several different posts just because you feel like you've run out of space in one—that kind of thing just breaks the flow. If someone finds they absolutely cannot express themselves within that limit, then they’re either being way too wordy and rambling, or maybe this forum just isn't the right medium for the type of long-form essay they're trying to write. That being said, regardless of how much you have to say, massive walls of text can make it incredibly difficult for everyone else to actually follow the conversation. When posts get too bloated, they stop feeling like a community discussion and start feeling like a chore to read. Because of that, the moderator has every right to step in and remind users to keep things concise. It’s all about protecting the quality of the thread and making sure we don't end up with an endless sea of unreadable text that doesn't actually add anything meaningful to the debate. Let's keep it readable, folks!

If you feel like something doesn't quite fit the spirit of the topic or the PDF—hey, go for it anyway! Feel free to post it.

Wonderful! Would you be so kind as to, in light of what you've just stated, go back and review the posts I've written over the last ten pages or so in the "Nibiru" thread—on the alternative board, naturally—and perhaps offer your esteemed opinion on whether the accusations made by moderator Ryan Gomez4 regarding my "excessively long posts" (whatever that is supposed to mean) are actually justified, especially considering her threats that if I were to follow up with another long post (again, whatever that signifies to her), I would face a severe ban, which she so vividly described as "the deadly spell"???

rustydrifter10 said:Look, let’s talk about posting etiquette for a second because I think we need to get on the same page regarding how we handle our discussions here. Technically, a single post can hold up to 10,000 characters, which is plenty of room, but honestly? Every post should really be focused on just one central idea. It isn't ideal to stretch a single thought out over several different posts just because you feel like you've run out of space in one—that kind of thing just breaks the flow. If someone finds they absolutely cannot express themselves within that limit, then they’re either being way too wordy and rambling, or maybe this forum just isn't the right medium for the type of long-form essay they're trying to write. That being said, regardless of how much you have to say, massive walls of text can make it incredibly difficult for everyone else to actually follow the conversation. When posts get too bloated, they stop feeling like a community discussion and start feeling like a chore to read. Because of that, the moderator has every right to step in and remind users to keep things concise. It’s all about protecting the quality of the thread and making sure we don't end up with an endless sea of unreadable text that doesn't actually add anything meaningful to the debate. Let's keep it readable, folks!

If you feel like something doesn't quite fit the spirit of the topic or the PDF—hey, go for it anyway! Feel free to post it.

The same question applies here; would you be so kind as to find the time and patience to read post #9219 and judge whether it is appropriate to mention God within the context of something as mysterious as the "Nibiru" phenomenon? I mean, shouldn't we allow for interpretations involving the intertwining of higher dimensions or supernatural influences? In that sense, wouldn't it be legitimate to draw connections between the Nibiru phenomenon and the well-documented "Miracle of the Sun," an event witnessed by many—including several confirmed atheists—that occurred exactly as predicted in Fatima back in 1917, an event that has inspired countless books, newspaper articles, and films?

To make things easier for you, I'll leave a link to post #9219 right here:
http://www.example-us-forum.com/showpost.php?p=4...postcount=9219

Ryan Gomez4 said:You forgot you actually joined this thread because of the Nibiru discussion. If the connection between those gods I linked you to and Nibiru isn't clicking, then you clearly don't know much about it.

And nobody wants massive walls of text on any PDF, especially when we're dealing with entire series.

I suppose if the link between everything in existence and the Creator isn't apparent to you, then it follows that you truly don't understand anything, and everything you think you know is just some skewed dystopia where dissenting views are subjected to Orwellian-style forced moderation—to the point where they brutally censor the right to have an opinion. It feels like a system where verbal offenses or labels like "hate speech" are weaponized as terrorist tools to persecute witches—that is to say, anyone who dares to think differently than Big Brother and his robots or cyborgs, those half-humans whose consciousness is nothing more than code written in some computer programming language.

Definition(s)

A dystopia (from the Greek *dys-* and *topos*; alternatively, a cacotopia, [1] or anti-utopia) is a fictional society that serves as the antithesis of a utopia. It is typically characterized by oppressive social control, much like under authoritarian or totalitarian governments. Some academic circles distinguish between anti-utopia and dystopia. Much like Orwell's eighty-fourth or Huxleyan Brave New World, a dystopia does not pretend to be good, whereas an anti-utopia presents itself as a utopia, or is planned as such, but for some reason, the utopian world is destroyed or corrupted.[2] Own research - by Herman Melville

To be perfectly honest, I couldn't care less what your opinion is on anything; you've already demonstrated and proven that your sole purpose here is to terrorize anyone who disagrees with you, and you won't hesitate to use any method—legal or otherwise—to achieve that.

The questions that follow, therefore, are not directed at you, because after seeing who you really are, no one with a shred of common sense would attempt any kind of dialogue with you, given that the very concept of "dialogue" seems to be a complete mystery to you.

I am posing these questions to a higher authority instead:

1. Is a moderator permitted to dictate the length of a user's posts, specifically by setting a maximum character limit per post?

-For instance, when I asked the aforementioned moderator to cite the specific rule regarding maximum character limits per post, she responded to me along the lines of: "If you're writing something off-topic, even a single sentence is too much!" 😲😲😲

-In fact, while participating in the Nibiru thread (as a bit of retaliation for what happened here), I was threatened with a ban if I wrote one more "too long" post. So, according to this logic, I won't be banned if I write something totally irrelevant, but I will be banned if my post happens to be too lengthy. BRAVO!!! I feel like my brain is just melting away, bye bye!!!

2. Is a moderator allowed to forbid someone on this platform from mentioning certain gods or a specific deity, and if so, I kindly request that the specific rule mandating such a prohibition be provided to me???

Well, I just finished posting this over on the Alternative board, so instead of writing some lengthy introduction, I suppose it’ll be simple enough to just copy the whole thing over here; hopefully, everything will be clear from looking at it...

Here you go:

Ryan Gomez4 said:This is the Alternative board, and you're only allowed to mention these kinds of gods here.

For anything else, go to the Religion board.

This is hands down the most bizarre thing I have EVER read anywhere!!!

I honestly cannot wrap my head around how someone could write something SO ABSURD!!!

If there really is an exception among the gods—one that isn't allowed to be mentioned on the Alternative board—then maybe the only logical criterion, if one were to stretch common sense to its absolute breaking point, would be something like this:
"It is permissible to mention gods that don't exist, but it is forbidden to mention gods that actually exist." Now, if that isn't the rule, then what kind of criterion could possibly exist that has any connection to basic sanity? Some arbitrary standard based on which religious traditions happen to be currently popular?

In the first scenario (using existence vs. non-existence as the metric), such a rule would be a complete perversion of logic, because it's patently obvious that for those who would actually want to enforce such a twisted regulation (and I still find myself hoping this is just some tasteless joke), no god exists at all. So, from that particular perspective, establishing such a rule is an ABSOLUTE NON-SENSE bordering on total PSYCHOPATHY.

In the second case (using current vs. outdated religions, cults, beliefs, etc., as the metric), who exactly is going to act as the authority to meritously decide which religion, cult, or belief system is currently "active" and which one isn't?

If there happens to be a third possibility—some other criterion that is even more deranged than the two hypothetical ones I just laid out—then I’ll take my hat off to you!!!

You call this "Alternative"? Well, give me a break and just let people communicate normally. Up until now, on all the more "serious" alternative boards, it was always a sanctuary where people with various exotic perspectives (read: crazy theories) were regularly welcomed. But now you're suggesting that the Alternative board is no longer that place where outcasts of all stripes can breathe? Are we supposed to organize some special sub-board just for them or something?

Wasn't it enough for you when you tried to dictate the specific number of letters I'm allowed to type in a single post?

And now you're going to decide which god someone is permitted to mention in this sacred space called Alternative, and which ones aren't?

You've practically pushed me to the point where I might have to open a thread about this on the FBI website... seriously, bravo... I've seen and experienced plenty on this forum, but this truly warrants an FBI investigation... it feels like you aren't leaving me any other choice...

And finally, even if such a twisted rule did exist, how on earth would you know which god I am mentioning, or rather, which god I am thinking of?

QUESTION:

Is a moderator allowed to harass a forum member by counting their letters and words in every post, and then, on top of all that, dictating which type of deity they are allowed or not allowed to mention in a highly esteemed and illustrious place like the Alternative board???

Thanks!

Elizabeth Anderson63 said:So, I guess we're really sitting here entertaining the idea that those bastards actually pulled off the Kennedy assassination and then went ahead and brought down the WTC? It’s just one of those things that stays lodged in the back of your mind, isn't it? You look at the sheer scale of it all—the implications of such massive, coordinated movements—and you have to wonder if we're ever truly seeing the full picture, or if we're just being fed a curated version of reality by people who clearly have much darker agendas than they let on. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but when you start connecting those dots, everything starts feeling a little bit more sinister and a whole lot less like a series of unfortunate coincidences.

Look, I mean, I have to agree here; if Admiral Lošo is the one making the claim, then it simply can't be anything other than the truth, I suppose. 🤷 ☕

dustyranger64 said:I honestly don't know, and frankly, I don't feel the slightest bit of obligation to care about your endless political debates. Regarding that whole matter... my point was really just, and I mean strictly, pointing out the sheer logical whiplash you’re causing here. You’re essentially using an argument that contradicts itself—it's a total fracture in logic—within the very post you chose to quote. I guess I was just trying to highlight how much that specific reasoning trips over its own feet.

I should probably issue a quick heads-up regarding the links included in that post I just dropped over in the politics section: I suppose I should probably address what John Castillo7 was getting at earlier, though I find myself wondering if we’re all just circling the drain here, honestly. It feels like every time we touch upon these sensitive sociopolitical shifts, we end up back at square one, spinning our wheels while the rest of the world moves on. I mean, maybe I'm being too cynical, but there's this persistent sense that certain institutional changes—like the implementation of the Civil Union Act—are being pushed through with a sort of calculated momentum that doesn't exactly invite much public debate, wouldn't you agree? It's almost as if the powers that be believe they can just bypass the collective conscience of the American people by leveraging mainstream media outlets like the Daily News or even national broadcasters like HTV. I guess it’s easy to overlook the nuance when everything is presented as an absolute necessity for progress, but history has a funny way of reminding us that "progress" is often a matter of perspective. I remember reading somewhere—though I can't recall the exact source, perhaps it was a piece in the Daily News—that these types of legislative shifts often precede much larger cultural upheavals. And then there's the whole issue of how certain political figures, much like the ones we see debated in Washington today, seem more interested in maintaining their grip on the narrative than actually listening to the grievances of the average citizen. It makes me think about the way information is filtered through these massive corporate structures; it’s not just about what is said, but what is strategically omitted. I suspect we'll see more of this, more attempts to reshape the American identity from the top down, regardless of how many people feel left behind by the process. It’s frustrating, really, because once the precedent is set, it becomes nearly impossible to turn back the clock. Or maybe I'm just overthinking it. Perhaps it’s all just part of the natural evolution of a modern society, however uncomfortable that might be for those of us who value tradition.

If any of the guys on the cleaning crew happens to be around... I guess I should probably mention that everything regarding mine... well, it’s just my own business, really. Or maybe it isn't? It feels like one of those situations where you start to explain something, thinking it’s straightforward, but then you realize how much weight is actually behind it. I suppose I could elaborate, though I'm not entirely sure if anyone is actually interested in my specific perspective on these things. Maybe I'm just overthinking it, but it feels significant in its own way. In the meantime, he’s probably going to go ahead and scrub those posts, so I suppose I should just offer up the direct links again—just to be safe: I was reading through some recent reports, and I can't help but feel a certain sense of frustration regarding how absolutely nothing has been done about this situation. It seems like there’s this massive gap between what should be happening and the actual reality on the ground, and frankly, I find the lack of response from the authorities to be quite staggering. You would think that with the scale of the issue at hand, someone in a position of power—someone who actually carries weight in our political system—would have stepped up by now, but instead, we just get this deafening silence. It reminds me, somewhat loosely I suppose, of those times when you expect a firm hand to guide things, yet all you get is hesitation or complete inaction. I mean, maybe I'm being too cynical, but it feels like the institutions we rely on to maintain order and address grievances are just spinning their wheels. There’s a certain pattern here, isn't there? A tendency to wait until things reach a breaking point before anyone even considers making a move. It's almost as if they're waiting for the problem to solve itself, which, in my experience, is rarely how anything works in this country. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the inertia is palpable. When you look at the way events have unfolded, you'd expect a reaction—a decisive one—but we are left staring at a vacuum. It’s maddening, really. One might argue that they are simply observing the situation, but there is a fine line between observation and total negligence. I suspect we’ll continue to see this same dance of avoidance for quite some time unless something fundamentally shifts in how our leadership approaches these crises. It’s just exhausting to watch.

I suppose I should probably dive into this, though I suspect my rambling might go off on a few tangents before I get to the point, but there’s just so much to unpack here regarding the sheer scale of unemployment we're seeing in America today. It’s actually quite staggering when you sit down and really try to wrap your head around the numbers, isn't it? I mean, looking at the current economic climate, one could argue that we are staring down the barrel of a massive social crisis, perhaps even more profound than what we saw during previous downturns, because the structural issues seem so deeply embedded in our modern system. It feels like we’re drifting through this era of perpetual instability, where the promise of steady work—that bedrock of the American Dream—seems to be evaporating right before our eyes. I guess you could say the safety nets we once relied on are looking a bit more like spiderwebs these days, fragile and easily broken by the slightest shift in market sentiment or policy changes coming out of Washington. It makes me wonder, maybe I'm being too cynical, but is there actually a path back to full employment, or are we just managing the decline? There’s this sense of mounting frustration among the working class, a feeling that the deck is stacked against them, and honestly, looking at the data, it’s hard to disagree. When you see people who have spent decades building skills only to find those skills are suddenly obsolete due to some sudden technological pivot or a corporate restructuring halfway across the country, it hits hard. It’s not just about the money, though God knows the lack of it hurts; it’s about the loss of dignity, the loss of purpose. I find myself thinking about how this affects the very fabric of our communities, leading to that kind of quiet desperation that eventually boils over into something much more volatile. Maybe we aren't looking closely enough at the systemic causes—the way capital moves so much faster than labor can ever hope to follow. It’s almost like we’re living in a simulation where the rules change every time you think you’ve finally mastered them. I don't know, perhaps I'm just overthinking it, but the sheer velocity of these shifts suggests that our old ways of thinking about labor and social stability are becoming increasingly irrelevant. We need a fundamental rethink, something more substantial than just minor adjustments to interest rates or small tweaks to unemployment benefits, if we want to avoid a total breakdown of the social contract. It’s a heavy thought, I realize, but staying silent about it feels like a disservice to anyone actually struggling out there in the real world.

Here’s a free link for you: I was reading through some legal commentary regarding the Supreme Court here in America, and honestly, it’s enough to make anyone’s head spin if they aren't already deeply entrenched in constitutional law. It seems like there's this constant, simmering tension between judicial interpretation and the actual legislative intent that governs our society. I guess what I'm trying to get at—and please bear with me if I wander a bit—is how much weight we should really be giving to these high-level rulings when they feel so disconnected from the everyday reality of the average American citizen. It feels as though the court is increasingly acting as a sort of shadow legislature, making sweeping decisions that fundamentally alter the social fabric without any direct democratic mandate. Maybe I'm being too cynical, or maybe I'm just exhausted by the constant flip-flopping of precedent. There’s this sense that once a decision is handed down, it becomes this immutable force that dictates how we all have to live, regardless of whether the logic holds up under scrutiny or if it aligns with the common sense of the people. I find myself wondering about the long-term implications of these shifts. If the judiciary continues to expand its reach in this way, where does the balance eventually settle? We talk so much about checks and balances, but it often feels like one branch is gaining momentum while the others struggle to catch up or even maintain their footing. It’s a complex, messy process, and I suspect most people don't realize just how much these technical, almost pedantic legal arguments actually shape their lives. It’s all connected, in a way that is both fascinating and, frankly, a little bit terrifying.

I wonder just how many people need to read through essays like this before they finally decide to pull their heads out of the sand here in the States. It’s almost a question of patience, isn't it? I mean, maybe some folks just aren't ready to face reality, or perhaps they're just too comfortable in their own little bubbles to bother looking up. It makes me think about how much effort it actually takes to break through that level of stubbornness. I guess you could say we're all just waiting for that one moment of clarity, though, judging by the state of things, that moment might be a long way off.

mellowlynx68 said:Look, if you're into conspiracy theories... man, there's no shortage of them out there.
I find it all pretty laughable, honestly.
I'd love for you to explain why you feel so threatened, for instance. I’m straight, a mother, getting close to retirement, basically living a perfectly standard life, and I just don't get where all this fear and panic comes from. They can't hurt me. If anything, I actually kind of like them (at least the ones I know) because, on average, they seem better than your typical straight guy in almost every way. In what sense do you think they could possibly harm you?

It seems to me that you belong to that unfortunate circle of naive people who see a conspiracy in everything that isn't reported on the nightly news, where the best and most solid proof that something is a conspiracy theory is simply the fact that you haven't heard about it on the local news stations.

So, here are a few questions for you and anyone else like you:

1. Even after we recently marked the tragic 50th anniversary of the Kennedy assassination, a significant percentage of Americans still believe that Kennedy was killed by H. Oswald. The reality is that only a complete idiot would believe to this day that Oswald was the one who killed Kennedy.

2. As for 9/11—do we even need to go there? Of course, only total morons could believe that the WTC towers were brought down by five Arabs armed with nothing but paper cutters.

3. And naturally, only total morons believe that Gaddafi was killed because he was oppressing his own people.

4. Again, only complete idiots think Saddam was killed because he was oppressing his own people.

5. Of course, only absolute fools believe the US wanted to intervene in Syria just because Assad is dropping chemical bombs on his own citizens.

6. Naturally, only complete idiots believe that Israel has every right to possess atomic bombs for decades, while Iran has no right to develop nuclear technology, even for civilian purposes.

7. And, of course, only total idiots believe that the latest financial crisis wasn't artificially manufactured.

Once you take a moment to actually study things, it becomes quite easy to see that the strings are being pulled by just a handful of power centers, and everything is trending toward those very centers becoming even more centralized.

Media manipulation is the primary weapon of mass destruction, and unfortunately, far too large a percentage of the common masses fall for it—and that is precisely what needs to change if we want to effectively oppose the eugenics maniacs who seriously believe (and even openly admit) that there are simply too many people on Earth and that these people enjoy far too many human rights that they shouldn't have.

In essence, the entire world is under threat from the plans of these eugenics madmen, and America is a special case, which is best illustrated by Admiral Domazet Lošo. These eugenics crazies can't carry out their plans quickly or efficiently unless the Catholic Church is dismantled; it remains the last true barrier against the Masonic beasts, which is why destroying the Catholic Church has been the primary, centuries-long priority of the global Freemasons.

But please, go ahead and drift back into your utopian dream of a real world based entirely on the information you get from the nightly news.

wiredangler5 said:What is this even about, really? I mean, you haven't provided a single link, nor have you even bothered to mention which specific thread you were actually posting in. I guess it’s hard to follow the logic when there's absolutely no context provided, right?

I guess I’m wondering which link I should even bother providing if my post gets nuked anyway? It was regarding the third volume of that political referendum thread—which, by the way, is locked now—but we actually have a follow-up to that entire discussion. We're talking about a massive archive of nearly 30,000 posts under a title like "Civil Union Act," or something along those lines...

dustyranger64 said:Maybe I could try applying that exact same logic:

I suppose one has to wonder if the KKK wouldn't have been branded as nothing more than racist supremacists and terrorists back in the middle of the last century if Black Americans hadn't essentially become a privileged class over the last hundred years, I guess.

I suppose one might wonder if Stalin would be condemned as a tyrant against his own people, especially if we consider whether the Russian poor were ever truly treated as some sort of privileged class within Russia. It’s a complicated thought, I guess, because you have to weigh the sheer brutality of his rule against the systemic struggles of the working class at the time. Maybe there's a way to look at it where the suffering wasn't just random cruelty, but part of a much larger, more calculated structural oppression that left the common person with absolutely nothing.

I mean, I guess you have to wonder—would Kim Jong Il really be facing that kind of relentless global aggression, acting like such a complete maniac, if he wasn't essentially treated like a god on earth? It’s almost as if the sheer scale of his perceived divinity dictates how the rest of the world reacts to him, though I suppose that's just my way of looking at it.

It makes sense, I suppose.

As usual, I feel like those comparisons you're making are just completely out of line...

Alright, since you clearly think you’ve got me all figured out, why don't you try answering this one instead: Name just one single journalist from HTV or the public broadcasting networks who has actually stood up and openly supported the opposition side—you know, someone who has explicitly backed the arguments put forward by the UIO. And here is a little follow-up for you: Do you honestly believe that there isn't a single soul working at those major networks who isn't, in some intimate way, aligned with the UIO? I mean, if you are even remotely aware of the reality of our society—which, if we look at the referendum results where it was 66% to 34%, should be pretty obvious—are you really suggesting that true freedom of speech doesn't exist in this country? Because if it did, wouldn't there be at least a handful of journalists at the national networks who felt they had the actual opportunity to go on air and state, quite clearly and loudly, that they find the UIO's arguments more compelling than those of the LGBT activists?

We were mentioning... Judith Reisman...but I suppose we really ought to have taken a moment to remind everyone about that one specific case. Karolina Krišto I mean, I guess we should probably talk about how she was actually suspended—not because she did anything wrong, per se, but because she dared to air a scientifically grounded documentary that pulls back the curtain on Kinseyev’s pedophilic crimes, which were all wrapped up in this thin layer of quasi-scientific nonsense. It’s honestly infuriating, really, because according to that whole pseudo-scientific mess, our children were supposedly meant to acquire this knowledge and "develop an awareness of their sexuality" right in elementary school, at an age that is completely inappropriate and in a manner that is just fundamentally wrong.

Katja Kušec She was actually removed from her position as the anchor of the Daily News because she just wasn't being aggressive enough toward... Ruža Tomašić At a time when things are... well, I suppose you could say they're reaching a bit of a boiling point, if that makes sense. It feels like we're living through one of those eras where everything is shifting all at once, and I don't know, maybe I'm just being overly cautious, but it seems like the ground is constantly moving under our feet. Milanović Someone actually had the nerve to call Ruža Tomašić an absolute natural disaster. But honestly, once the people headed to the polls to vote for our representatives in the EU Parliament, they pretty much made their point clear. They showed exactly who the real catastrophe is in this society—whether we're talking about Milanović or Ruža Tomašić. I guess the voters decided who was truly causing the storm.

It’s just like what was demonstrated the other day regarding who actually constitutes the true natural disaster facing this nation—whether it's the American government or the Catholic Church—much like how on December 18th, during that memorial procession, it became painfully clear where his allegiances lie between the federal government and the defense command of Vukovar.

The people are out there on the road, making their voices heard, while the media and the American government just retreat into some thick, impenetrable forest of bureaucracy and spin. It makes you wonder, I guess, who exactly they consider to be second-class citizens now?

I feel like I’ve already touched on this before, but I really have to bring up that glaring double standard regarding how Šimunić was absolutely hammered by the system while Babić seemingly walked away without even a slap on the wrist. It's just one of those instances where you look at the disparity in how justice is applied and you can't help but feel a bit frustrated, I guess.

And so, I find myself circling back once again to the question I originally posed at the very beginning of this thread:

I mean, why can't you actually name a single journalist from our national public broadcaster—you know, the one we all fund through our taxes—who openly sided with the UIO during that pre-election campaign? I mean, if we're talking about the laws of probability, there absolutely has to be someone like that in the mix, right? It just seems statistically impossible otherwise.

In my previous post in this thread, I provided several links that should make everything perfectly clear, assuming one takes the time to actually read the content they lead to. But you seem determined to ignore them, and honestly, if you're choosing to stay in the dark, I suppose that’s really your own problem to deal with.

If reading isn't really your thing, then maybe you're more of a visual learner, in which case you might want to watch what Admiral Domazet Lošo had to say regarding the "Operation Storm 2" plan during his appearance on the program *Storm* on MrežaTV, which aired just two nights ago (December 3, 2013) during prime time. Admiral Domazet discusses a very insidious kind of internal aggression currently unfolding within America: http://mreza.tv/oluja-2/ (must see!!!))

mellowlynx68 said:I mean, it bothers me too, and frankly, I find it bizarre that it hasn't been deleted yet (especially since Saško and I are on completely opposite sides when it comes to politics 😬).

And honestly, that introductory post is also definitely something that should be wiped from the board. If the author can't see that themselves... well, then it's just plain pathetic.

Here is what you’re clearly missing:

Isn't that just sad?

edit:

The banning just keeps happening. It’s relentless, really. I suppose, if I look at it objectively, I can kind of see why this particular post was flagged and taken down. I suppose I should probably address this whole mess, though I’m honestly not sure if anyone is actually listening anymore, or if we’re all just shouting into a void while the world moves on without us. It seems like every time I turn around, there's some new development that makes me wonder if common sense has completely exited the building. I was thinking about what John Castillo7 said earlier—and I mean this with all due respect, even if I don't entirely agree with his perspective—but there's this underlying sense that things aren't quite adding up, you know? Maybe I'm just being overly cynical, or maybe I'm just seeing the patterns that everyone else is too busy to notice because they're caught up in the daily grind of whatever nonsense is trending on social media today. It feels like we're constantly being pushed toward these conclusions by people who wouldn't know the truth if it hit them in the face, and frankly, it's exhausting. I guess it's easy to just go along with the crowd, to follow the path of least resistance, but then you have to live with the consequences of that collective ignorance. I find myself dwelling on these things more than I probably should, getting lost in these long, winding thoughts about how we got here, but I can't help it. It's like once you see the cracks in the foundation, you can't unsee them, no matter how much paint they try to slap over it to make everything look shiny and new again. We're all just sitting here, waiting for the other shoe to drop, while the people in charge act like everything is perfectly fine. It’s almost absurd, isn't it? But then again, maybe that's just the way of the world now. I suppose it’s safe to say they wouldn't be getting censored if this post were actually discussing the other side—you know, the "pro" side—and applying these exact same labels to them. It seems like a massive double standard because, if you look at any major US news outlet, they throw those same descriptions around regarding the "pro" camp without anyone batting an eye or calling it anything even remotely controversial. But, of course, on this particular forum, it feels like "hate speech" only exists when you dare to criticize the opposition; meanwhile, if you use those same qualifiers for the other side, suddenly it's considered perfectly legitimate discourse. It's all a bit much, I guess.

Example: Šimunić 25 $0.00 So, we’re seeing people actually face penalties just for using an old-fashioned American greeting? It seems absolutely absurd when you consider that there isn't even a single line in our legal code that explicitly forbids the use of such a greeting as it stands on its own merits. I mean, if you look at the actual statutes, the prohibition simply doesn't exist. In the case of Šimunić, I really have to wonder about the intent here, because from what I can gather, he didn't have any malicious motive whatsoever, nor was there any ill will behind his choice of words. It feels like a massive stretch to penalize someone when there was no bad intention involved in the first place, though I suppose that's just how things seem to be heading lately.

I suppose I should probably address Babić directly, though I’m really not sure if it's worth the breath. Regarding that swastika—which, I should note, is still sitting right there on the portal—it’s honestly nothing new, though it stays infuriating. I mean, I think Babić made it perfectly clear that there was absolutely no way that symbol was ever created without malicious intent; it was clearly born out of pure malice and intended as a maximum insult, all built upon a foundation of incredibly brutal lies.

But honestly, I just can't wrap my head around why I've been slapped with a new ban for this particular post: I suppose I should probably address this, though I’m not entirely sure where to begin with the sheer absurdity of the situation we find ourselves in. It feels like every time we turn around, there's some new attempt to reshape our fundamental understanding of what it means to be an American, isn't there? I was thinking about what John Castillo7 mentioned earlier—though I don't know if I entirely agree with his specific take—but it really does feel like we're drifting. Maybe I'm just being cynical, or perhaps I'm just seeing things more clearly than most, but there seems to be this relentless push toward certain social agendas that feel increasingly disconnected from the actual values held by the majority of people in this country. It's almost as if there's a coordinated effort to bypass the traditional institutions that have kept us grounded for generations. I mean, look at how the legal landscape is shifting; it feels less like progress and more like a deliberate dismantling of the structures we once relied upon. It makes me wonder if anyone is actually stopping to ask whether these changes are even beneficial in the long run, or if we're all just being swept along by a tide of manufactured consensus. And then you have the media—not to mention the way certain outlets handle these sensitive topics—which seems more interested in fueling division than in fostering any kind of meaningful dialogue. It’s exhausting, really. You try to have a measured, thoughtful discussion about the direction of the nation, and suddenly you're treated like an outsider because you aren't nodding along to the latest ideological trend. I guess that's just the way things are going now, isn't it? It's a bit disheartening, I must admit.

I wonder if anyone out there might happen to have an idea or perhaps some sort of insight on this? I suppose I could be grasping at straws here, but I’m feeling a bit stuck, and maybe—just maybe—someone might have a thought or two they could share.

Isn't this http://daily-news.com/us-news/10...conversations.html essentially proof that one of the core claims—specifically regarding Americans being treated as second-class citizens in their own country—was actually true? I'm referring to that deleted post we've been "debating" here for over 24 hours now, yet, I guess, not a single moderator or administrator has seen fit to offer even a solitary comment on the matter.

John Castillo7 said:Well, it’s pretty obvious. This forum has its own set of rules.

For instance, I could just write right now that I think people who claim pedophiles (and others mentioned) are actually some kind of privileged elite class in American society—and then follow it up by asking, "What part of that was untrue?" It would be half-witted. Or, let’s not mince words here—it would be downright idiotic.

And unlike your little comment, this is an entirely truthful post.

But I’ll probably get banned or flagged, and honestly, rightfully so, because it also breaks the rules. But at least I won't feel bad about it, and I certainly won't be starting a whole new thread just to whine about why I got penalized.

Now, just as it isn't allowed to call someone an idiot (even if they are), equally idiotic posts get deleted too. It would be absolutely insane to expect the mods to leave every single bit of total nonsense posted on here, which essentially insults the other users and forces them to waste their time providing counterarguments to every ridiculous thought some person happens to conjure up.

There you have it. Believe it or not, that’s a very sincere answer. And a correct one at that.

I highly doubt you’ll get flagged for this specific post. Why do I think that? Well, even though it wouldn't be natural or normal for you to escape a penalty for something like this, you probably won't. Actually, I suspect you might only get flagged just so they can shut down my argument—the one I'm using to illustrate exactly how wrong you are—but you'll likely receive that flag (if you get one at all) only after I've already published this post.

See, there's a difference between the laws, the Constitution, and whatever is scribbled on a piece of paper, and then there's the question of how much—or if—those things are actually respected. Respecting what’s written on a document really comes down to a person's individual moral integrity.

Ultimately, once moral integrity becomes nothing more than a subjective concept—which is exactly what liberalism pushes for—that relativity starts being codified into law itself. This referendum was supposed to prevent the legalizing of this moral relativism, but as we are seeing right now, Secretary Opančić and Secretary Bauk are working to basically spit on the results of the referendum. They are ignoring the will of over 1,000,000 voters who checked the "YES" box, and in doing so, they are playing fast and loose with the fundamental principles of democracy.

That entire saga regarding the referendum and those 30,000 pages serves as a massive monument to the truthfulness of my previous post, which The Edge deleted from that thread. And the very thing that makes that monument so massive is precisely why that post had to be removed.

To people who only see the surface of the ocean, stories about the riches hidden in the deep seem completely unbelievable. Plato’s Cave is one of those analogies that describes this exact reality—the stark divide between illusion and the actual truth.

Anyone who actually wants to analyze things seriously is going to stumble upon a perverse and twisted reality lurking behind those smiling faces parading in front of the HTV cameras, calling for "love" while having absolutely no clue what that word truly means, or who is exploiting them and for what agenda.

Let's add this to the mix:

Joshua Alvarez79 said:In America, Americans, heterosexuals, and non-pedophiles have already become
second-class citizens. Would Judith Reisman have been so orchestratedly
welcomed to the slaughter if pedophiles weren't a privileged caste in this society?
Would Željko Markić be branded a Catholic sympathizer if
homosexuals weren't already a privileged caste in this society? Would
Cyrillic be introduced in such a violent and merciless way in Vukovar if
Americans weren't second-class citizens in their own country? Could Babić
desecrate the American coat of arms and flag, while Puhovski and Duka
defend such an act and simultaneously declare the will of 66% of voters to be hate speech,
that is, homophobia, if the first sentence of this post didn't accurately detect the
tragic reality of the subordinate position of Americans, heterosexuals, and
non-pedophiles in today's America?
And I haven't even begun to talk about economic oppression, the attitude toward the working class, and American
poverty...

What exactly was stated untruthfully in the post above? Is the criterion for not deleting a post actually that every claim within it must align perfectly with the facts? Of course it isn't, but in this specific case, even that standard is met—if anyone thinks otherwise, they have the opportunity to debunk any claims they believe aren't factual, which is precisely what this forum is for.

If truthfulness, or rather lack thereof, isn't even a criterion for deleting a post, then what on earth was the logic used when deciding to delete my post?

If there isn't a rational reason for deleting my post, then I am asking to be allowed to repost it in the referendum thread without any sanctions, and I want that done immediately!

Since my previous post—where I was basically announcing my departure from this forum—was scrubbed from the thread regarding moderation complaints about the referendum discussion, I am opening this new thread specifically to demand an answer to the question posed in its title.

My farewell message originally read like this:

Just as the true heart of America has been turned away by those who claim to represent it but don't, I am turning my back on this forum and walking away. To put it simply: FAREWELL!
Join me if you can...
It’s enough to make anyone itch, isn't it?
There is a time for speaking out, and there is a time for silence.
Right now, it is time for a deafening silence!
Anyone who fails to grasp this, and continues to strip themselves of their own dignity by
participating in such a rigged game, might as well just play alone, much like our esteemed
President suggested...

So, the real question is: is a user actually allowed to announce they are leaving this forum without having that post deleted? Does it truly hurt anyone's feelings to see someone walk away? Or perhaps it is just painful because I refuse to participate in this one-sided, monolithic spectacle, and therefore my exit must be hidden from the eyes of the community. It seems all traces are being wiped to protect the illusion of consensus—which is precisely why so many people here are concluding that leaving is the only dignified move left. For some, exiting is the final way to protect their pride, realizing that certain values aren't just things you leave out on the street for anyone to trample. They won't allow themselves to be treated however the "establishment" thinks they can, without any real consequences, much like how the fringe elements think they can disregard the core values of the American people without facing any pushback at all.

Let the difference be seen, because believe me, it exists! What is there to fear? This is my final post anyway, so there should be no reason for anxiety or concern. I am merely stating that I am leaving, nothing more and nothing less! 🤷