Disqus - Latest Comments for jonathangems

Re: Ask this One Question to Determine if Someone is a Narcissist

Jonathan Gems — Fri, 29 Aug 2014 20:38:52 -0000

Another new exciting NLP discovery recently made by neuroscientists is known as the SIM Test (Single Item Moron Test). The participant is asked: "Are you a moron?" If the participant answers "Yes", then he or she is a moron.

Re: The Genius of Charles Darwin

Jonathan Gems — Sat, 16 Apr 2011 14:49:41 -0000

The failure of Darwin's theory of evolution is nothing to do with religion -
that's a distraction. It's probably a political issue. The 'survival of
the fittest' concept supports social management and social engineering
strategies employed by dominant establishments. It suits the ruling class
to have people believe in 'evolution'; it makes people accept the concept of
hierarchy and striving to get ahead to please those above them in the
hierarchy. The best slaves are those who choose their slavery voluntarily.
So evolutionary theory has political traction for our lords and masters.
Of course, it also leads to the philosophy of eugenics - of superior and
inferior humans - a philosophy still embraced by the ruling elite today.
Darwinism led to the atrocities of the Nazis, the death camps, and the
eugenics courts of the 1920s and 30s that led to thousands of 'inferior'
women being sterilised. Some claim the UN, Unesco, the World Health
Organisation and other globalist institutions, are currently engaged in
sterilising hundreds of millions of people via vaccination programs,
genetically modified food, sodium fluoride and other sterilants in drinking
water etc. in order to rid the world of 'inferior' human. Ruling class
families eat only organic food grown on their own farms and spring water
bottled from their own springs.
Most microbiologists and many biologists and zoologists no longer regard
Darwin's theory as credible. There's no evidence to support it and too much
data that contradicts it. The notion that all of nature somehow "evolved"
out of a mud puddle containing some amino acids is not feasible. The DNA in
one human cell, if unravelled, stretches over 6 feet in length and is
fantastically complex and well-organised. The idea that such a structure,
which is a million times more complex than our most advanced computers,
could happen randomly - or via a process of 'natural selection' - is absurd.
What IS 'right under our noses' is the evidence (tons of it) that all
biological and non-biological matter has been intelligently designed.
Who or what designed it? We don't know. But, if we open our minds and are
properly scientific (that is, empirical) we may find out one day. Darwinsim
is a politically convenient dogma that has put the academic sciences in an
intellectual straitjacket. Fortunately, more and more people are beginning
to break out of it.

Re: Oil, Smoke and Mirrors

Jonathan Gems — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 08:55:19 -0000

I used to believe that we needed oil for plastics, pesticides, beauty products etc. too. Then I learned that we don't. Scientists working for I.G. Farben, the first great chemical corporation, discovered back in the 1930's how to synthesize molecules and polymers using raw materials that included plants with high cellulose content (such as wood and hemp), coal, seawater, sand and rocks. Coal is a source of all the same hydrocarbons you find in oil. Oil is a useful raw material for chemical production but is not necessary for it. The reason oil became so economically dominant (when we don't actually need oil at all) is because of one man: John D. Rockefeller. By 1910, John D. Rockefeller had become - mostly thanks to engineering an oil monopoly in the US - the richest man in the world. Anti-Trust laws were introduced to break his monopoly but failed to do so because he simply split his monopoly up into seven shell companies. John D. used his immense wealth and social contacts to promote oil products. He, through his friend the American beauty and socialite Jennie Churchill, persuaded her son, Winston Churchill, in 1915 (when he was First Lord of the Admiralty) to switch all naval vessels to oil from coal - even though Britain produced no oil! John D. - mostly through his tax-free Rockefeller Foundation - instigated the pharmaceutical industry we have today, which is based on petroleum derivatives. It was the Rockefellers, working with I.G. Farben, Dow Chemicals and DuPont, who financed the development of oil-based plastics, paints and solvents. The toxicity of these chemicals and pharmaceuticals is well-known and, for this reason, some chemists say that crude oil is an inappropriate raw material for chemical production. Other raw materials, such as wood or hemp, would be far less poisonous and polluting. And you don't need 'energy' to make coal a power source. All you do is burn it.

Re: The Genius of Charles Darwin

Jonathan Gems — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 13:17:28 -0000

No doubt if you had an argument you would make it. It's not your fault.
You've been taught to believe that Darwin's so-called theory of evolution
(which actually wasn't his theory) is true. If you had evidence you would
present it - not have a tantrum.

Re: The Genius of Charles Darwin

Jonathan Gems — Tue, 08 Mar 2011 13:14:05 -0000

Please give one example (just one) of a species of animal or plant life
changing into another. Blustering is not the same
as rational argument.

Re: The Genius of Charles Darwin

Jonathan Gems — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 20:45:25 -0000

The theory of evolution is a theory - and not a very good one. If it were, it would have been proven by now. Even Darwin himself acknowledged there was no evidence in the fossil record or biology of animals or plants changing species. His theory of Natural Selection can be proven empirically but this only covers variation within a species. People have practised Unnatural Selection for many centuries, it's called breeding. There are records of people breeding horses 3,000 years ago in China for instance. But no one has ever been able to breed a horse into another different type of animal. Plant breeding has also been done for centuries. Nature gave us only two varieties of camellia, for example, a red one and a white one; but breeders have been able to create pink camellias and variegated camellias. In Holland in the 18th century, breeders managed to grow a black tulip - but never has a breeder been able to create a rose out of a tulip or a daffodil out of a dandelion. The idea that this could happen over millions of years is not supported by evidence.
I don't have an explanation - or a theory - for how our plant and animal species came into being. One thing is sure though: 'evolution' ain't it.

Re: Oil, Smoke and Mirrors

Jonathan Gems — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 18:23:58 -0000

I'm sorry but this documentary is flat out wrong. The peak oil theory, which is debatable (abiotic oil, anyone?), is anyway irrelevant to our future because we have coal. Lots of it. Enough for the next 800 years at least.
I think the reason these talking heads are so hypnotised by oil is because they can't think outside the very small box of the recent past when oil became the world's currency. Prior to 1916, coal was our main power source - and it can be again - but it never became a currency like oil did.
The reason oil became the world's currency was because the oil barons in league with governments, engineered an oil addiction and legislated against coal.
In the UK, during the 1980s (when 60% of our power was still produced by coal) the government, advised by the oil companies, deliberately destroyed 90% of the Britain's coal mines.
Before 1916, most automobiles and trucks were battery-powered, then the oil barons persuaded Henry Ford and others to switch to gasoline-burning internal combustion engines.
Before 1916, ships and trains were fuelled by coal - and they can be again if necessary. But the reason oil is so important to these establishment-types is because it backs the world's currencies. Oil is money in a way coal never was. The conniving oil barons, over the years, maimed or destroyed their competition, and manipulated industry to become oil-dependent.
In a sense, oil is like heroin and, for the past 90 years, the oil barons have gotten everyone in the world hooked on it.
Oil barons like John D Rockefeller also became bankers and manipulated our fiat monetary system so that when Western governments took their currencies off the gold standard, their currencies became linked to the 'oil standard'.
The reason the US dollar has been able to retain (since 1945) its world 'reserve' currency status is because - thanks to U.S. military superiority - it's been able to force the world to buy and sell oil in U.S. dollars. This gives the Federal Reserve (a cartel of international private banks) a license to print money.
Peak oil (if true) is not what scares the establishment, it's that declining oil reserves would damage the fiat money system that keeps the establishment in power.
Besides, we already have new technologies waiting in the wings to provide us with unlimited cheap power - if only the governments and corporations that rule us would get out of the way. We already have bio-fuels and high-tech solar panels (as used in satellites) that can power airplanes.
Petroleum IS needed for the manufacture of chemicals. The chemical industry needs oil. But it's the only industry that does.

Re: How much security did $1 trillion buy?

Jonathan Gems — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:00:43 -0000

Nothing at all.

Re: How much security did $1 trillion buy?

Jonathan Gems — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 19:33:19 -0000

BillBill - So you worked for Halliburton and everyone working there thought Dick Cheney was a sociopath?
That's real interesting.
Al Quaeda is Arabic for "The base" and (some say) a shortened term used by the CIA for 'The data base'. This was a database compiled by the CIA in the 1980's of mujahadeen soldiers who were fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan.
One of their leaders was Osama Bin Laden, and he was selected (probably because of his family's business connections with the Bush family) to receive CIA funding.
In 1989, AFTER - I repeat AFTER - the Soviets left Afghanistan, Osama was funded to build and direct military training camps to train terrorists. These terrorists (some of whom also received training in the US) were all on the CIA's 'database' - al quaeda. In other words, Al Quaeda was a CIA creation and possibly may still be a CIA asset today.
As was widely reported in the mainstream media at the time (2001), Mullah Omar, the Taliban president of Afghanistan, under threat of a missile strike, offered to arrest Osama Bin Laden and try him in a clerical court. This was rejected by the Pentagon. Next, Mullah Omar offered to deliver Osama to US forces if they could provide evidence he was connected to 9/11. Despite propaganda to the contrary, the Taliban are not entirely unreasonable people.
But the US refused to provide evidence.
Even today, no evidence has been produced to connect Bin Laden to 9/11. The various videos of Bin Laden making speeches cannot be relied upon as evidence of anything. They are too easy to fake. None have been verified as genuine.

The twin towers came down at free-fall speed into their own footprint (exactly like a controlled demolition) less than an hour after being impacted by the planes. Anyone looking at the footage can see the fires were not fierce ones - you can hardly see any flames. In fact many people in Tower 2 who were in their offices above the impact walked down the stairs to safety, past the 76th floor where the fire was burning. They said the fire wasn't very hot.
No tower has ever collapsed as a result of fire.
Independent investigators examining the dust and molten metal from the basement of the buildings, found the presence of a patented barium enhanced thermite (a military grade thermite known as 'thermate'). Thermite is the only explosive substance powerful enough to slice through steel girders.
Many witnesses, including firemen and policemen (some of whom can be seen in various videoed reports) said they heard a rapid series of explosions before the towers came down.
It seems almost certain 9/11 was an inside job. The evidence is overwhelming.
The question remains: who on earth would do such a profoundly evil thing?
Probably a sociopath.