Paper "AMERO" will replace the dollar by spring!? - page 68
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Of course, it is better to keep quiet and god forbid to publish a book about 09/11 or else be accused of wanting to make money.
Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Please answer unequivocally: yes or no. Any other answers are considered cowardice and hypocrisy, an inability to face the truth.
And you?
Of course, it's better to keep quiet and God forbid you publish a book about 09/11 - otherwise you'll be accused of wanting to make money.
Hello, Alexei.
Isn't the human psyche interesting? To kill a bunch of people for power or money goes without saying. But to write a book about how it was done, to disavow the bastards in this way is blasphemy. After all it was written only for the sake of money. Exclusively.
What is this? Stupidity? Primitive thinking? We can understand a petty game - write a book for the sake of money, but all the bigger ones just do not fit in our heads. Maybe it's just scary to wake up? Much more comfortable to dream under the blanket, chewing the myths that were fed from the television.
I can understand how a person can believe in some "capitalist paradise" or "communist paradise", but I cannot understand why a person with such stubbornness, even aggression, defends this myth, thus fooling himself. What is he defending, the right to ignorance? The right to be lazy? Or an ideal that helps him live?
Would you care to explain it to me?
is primarily designed to make money off of anti-American hysteria, tabloid style.
As for making money, all of the world's literature could be considered yellow press, since much of it was paid for by royalties.
As for the hysteria, the book was written on pro-American hysteria, i.e. on those fried "facts" which the American yellow press cited as "evidence" of involvement in the 9/11 attacks of certain personalities who came out of the caves of Afghanistan. No one doubts that there are some people who resist American occupants because they were driven into caves by those very occupants, because it is hard to survive in those conditions. About the rest, i.e. real possibilities of committing such terrorist acts with the help of passenger planes, of course, there are obvious doubts - there are too many inconsistencies.
Hi Alexey.
I can understand how a person can believe in some "capitalist paradise" or "communist paradise", but I cannot understand why a person with such stubbornness, even aggression, defends this myth, thus fooling himself. What is he defending, the right to ignorance? The right to be lazy? Or an ideal that helps him live?
Would you care to explain it to me?
Can I answer that?
It's hard to let go of your illusions.
Can I answer that?
It's hard to let go of your illusions.
It's true.
Although it gets easier as the years go by.
Now we just have to figure out who has the illusions.
How will you find out, given that no one present on the ill-fated plane flew and did not conduct the case while on the job?
You can measure the number of links to movies, books, websites, anti-websites, anti-books, anti-films, etc.
>> You can shout and spam and figure out whose myth is bigger and cite the same links as proof.
By the way, which board number flew into the pentagon?
PS: Forgot to add :o)
It's hard to let go of your illusions.
Difficult, of course, that is understandable. However, the main question here is human psychology - why is it hard?
If, for example, it is hard to part with money, then it is easy to understand - less money, less opportunities. If it is hard to part with a person, it is also clear - people need each other, it is an axiom. And why is it hard to part with an illusion, or even easier - with some of your beliefs?
It doesn't happen out of the blue. But if the facts contradict these beliefs, why is it easier to deny the facts (like I don't believe them), to ignore them than to accept their reality and, with interest and objectivity, to get to the truth? Is it laziness, an admission of helplessness, intellectual impotence, or, on the contrary, an inability to admit that it was a fallacy (like I am always right, full stop) ? Whatever it is, it cannot help one to live, rather the opposite, it hinders one.
So why is it easier to defend the permanence of one's flawed position than to expand one's consciousness ? After all, it is a very simple process, called cognition. And it is precisely in the rejection of more flawed beliefs in favor of less flawed ones. :-)
How will you find out, given that no one present on the ill-fated plane flew and did not conduct the case while on the job in question?
You can measure the number of links to movies, books, websites, antisites, anti-books, anti-films, etc.
You can shout and mouth off and try to figure out whose myth is bigger and cite the same links as proof.
Poor toolkit. Why is there no way to "use your brain"? Don't you ever use it?
A poor toolkit. Why is there no way to "use your brain"? Never used it?
Tried it a couple of times, didn't work.
Teach me how to do it