Discussions on the Flat Earth Community

Yes, I agree the true shape of the Earth is not like JFK, 911 or the moon landing and is more powerful.  I also agree about the possibility of demons and ghosts.  I agree, if demons and ghosts are real, we would gain more evidence as people invent different ways of measuring their influence or even communication.

If demons and ghosts are real, and I am one who is open to the idea (I want no interaction with them myself), then the materialist paradigm would fall apart.  So, these things must be ignored right now as they are anomalies to their theory.  But the more anomalies that pile up will likely cause there to be a change into another paradigm which would allow for demons and ghosts.

Addendum:
Showing all the FE Domed world movie clips tells us something really true about our world. Now that we know we live in a domed flat world, looking back at these movies further reinforce belief in the domed world.  Giving one an, "aha", moment.

Yeah, I seriously doubt the dome. And there's no reason to believe it as far as I can tell. I ignore dome talk now. Sorry to them, but movies showing us a domed world convince me of conditioning to a dome rather than to its truth.

Flat Earth. Proceed with discernment.
Daniel Pratt




It's Flat - Daniel Pratt Plug - Funny Guy & B.O.B Mix The Crazies
jeranism
time stamped at 11:39




I understand what he is saying as follows~

.  National Borders and Governments are lies and under a false paradigm.

.  All religions were created to cause dissension, division and have misattributed scriptures but most have the same message.

.  Love is what are here for.

.  The need for leadership is a lie.

.  The monetary system is also a lie (he says we can do something like barter)

.  He seems to espouse some sort of collectivist anarchism

.  Your labor, your time, your food, your water is your money. 

.  All things built today can be built under his system and can be shared with everybody no matter the country, people, group.

.  Flath Earthers and Concavers ought be exposing, do not fall for another leader.

.  The NWO may have a peaceful plan of revealing the flat earth as a way of exposing all govts and religions as illegitimate, which may usher in the NWO.

.  A new Messiah may be the leader who accomplishes these goals



Suppose humans do need leaders and organize hierarchically, while the FE message is to tell people they don't need leaders and all leadership institutions are inherently made up of liars as well as being illegitimate?  That the people were brainwashed into believing they need leaders.

Suppose humans organize hierarchically, with some leaders and many followers?  And this is needed more-so as society becomes larger and more complex than a small band of hunter gatherers?  

Furthermore, many mammals organize hierarchically.  So leadership and hierarchy aren't inherently false or a lie, it is found in the real world that some social animals have leaders and organize themselves into a hierarchy, all without being brainwashed.

I don't think having no leaders would lead to chaos because I misunderstand anarchism, but because I believe humans are hierarchical social animals and the more complex and larger a society is, the more the need for rules and laws, and thus hierarchy.

Now, all the other things he says, are about borders, govts., money, and religion being illegitimate, or lies and/or causing divisions between people.  But if you don't want a one world government, it seems to me, divisions wouldn't be such a bad thing.  If those divisions are broken down, and yet people naturally look for leaders, couldn't it be possible the outcome may be a 'global' government, or a global religion? 

I don't have too much of a problem of with decentralization, but I do not believe having no leaders is possible or, even likely to happen, nor necessarily preferable.

If you are going to espouse decentralization while also not wanting a one world govt, than maybe you should also promote group identities that naturally arise, as this real pluralism would make one world-ism unlikely.

I personally think the individualism we have in modern times is unsustainable because humans are naturally group oriented, starting from having their preferences for their particular family, clan and tribe, and so, I think a return to this is more likely.  I do not believe a world without division is sustainable or would make most people happy.

If all things are shared, no matter the country, people or group, than the human preference for their family, group and tribe would have to be stopped in some way.  They would have to follow an abstract love for the universal or, whole, without preferences for the particular.

If people have group identities, than borders are not a lie, but a real boundary drawing a line between one group and another.

Some means of transactions is easier than bartering as the barterer would have to find another person who coincidentally wants what you have.  It would be  more convenient and efficient to have some other means of value to use to give and receive goods.

Being against religion is like being against kitchens or being against methods of cooking.  We all need to eat food and we have different places and methods for eating.  Humans experience the spiritual sense and inspiration.  Humans are social animals.  Humans, being social and hierarchical organisms, who also have the spiritual sense and impulse, will create religions similar to how we create kitchens and recipes for our sense of taste and of being hungry, but do so in a social/group context.  It is more complicated, I know, but the gist is there to understand.  But I want to finish this post.

heathen

You address so many issues in this post that it is going to be difficult to respond to all of them. I will just pick out a few of the more salient points and talk about those.



Yes, Daniel Pratt does seem to be right on in most of his assertions especially anarchy. That people in general don't really understand what anarchy is. I think that the elite have played this hand though in making the general populace associate anarchy with chaos as DP mentions.

Anarchy is a Greek word, the prefix an- negating the root archon which means rulers. So by its etymology anarchy simply means "no rulers." And DP is right, I don't need any rulers over me neither does he consider them necessary for himself.

Many other people have spoken out about this most notably Stefan Moylneux, Larken Rose, and even though I hate to give him any credit, yes even that freemasonic Jesuit coadjutor Eric Dubay with his "voluntaryism." Here are a couple of videos introducing the subject although I see that you yourself are quite familiar with it:


The Truth About Stefan Molyneux


Statism: The Most Dangerous Religion (feat. Larken Rose)

And if you haven't read Larken Rose's tome The Most Dangerous Superstition you can download the pdf for free.



This is a very good point. Human beings are social creatures. However, I do not see this as any sort of justification for any kind of government. I think that even the united States founding fathers' experiment on limited government was a failure and I think that they were the first to say so.



I think you are correct in your assessment of divisions, that they are a good thing. However, I do think that they are antithetical to the NWO and that is why we won't be seeing them incorporated into this NWO anytime soon. They are pushing for multiculturalism (i.e. they want to water down the differences). And they are doing away with countries, and borders, etc.

I believe that individualism has also been their ploy to create divisions, because as you say that people are group oriented. Yes, people naturally form groups, and leaders of groups always emerge. This probably emanates from an innate desire to follow, but also from the individual shirking his/her responsibility.

So I seem anarchism as the solution. I saw a t-shirt that said, "There's no government like no government." We will need to take the responsibility to learn to govern ourselves, and any "governmental system" that is created should be like the rest of society--on a voluntary association basis (i.e. voluntaryism).

Not that I am against the ownership of private property. I just don't take it to an abosolute conclusion as some may.  I think social and economic systems  based around the family or tribe may ballance private property and the need for social support.

Daniel Pratt is back. I subscribe but don't watch much of his videos.

www.youtube.com/channel/UC7ZcVMbz0p59WOwiwG1W2TA

Max Igan - Raconteurs News - Jan 23rd, 2016
thecrowhouse

In the first 20 minutes he talks about flat earth. He thinks it is "controlled opposition".

minute 14-15
"...the stuff they say about curvature is quite interesting..." and "...but that is the only thing..."

Right, that is our best evidence, so why doesn't he investigate it further?

At minute 3 he starts discussing the flat earth community. You can tell this guy has original thoughts, because he does not care about what anyone else thinks of him -- look at his editing of his videos.



My Awakening and Flat Earth
Sleepy Eye

Another who says he is being censored:



Flat Earth B.o.B. Censored On Twitter
Flat Earth Head

Flat Earth VLOG [2-2-16] Docile Dumbasses
Jeff Stewart

Flat Earth Leadership Accountability Needed!
Stargods

I asked Stargods a question on youtube. In the latest video he critiques Mark for not taking on the hard questions. I shall wait and see. I just hope others don't decide to answer for Stargods.