Titors claim of Civil war starting in 2k4

Skep wrote:

"JT claimed that US civil War would begin in 2k4. And , that we would not recognize Civil war until about 2k8"

Don't forget Titor wrote:

"...are dependant on Western stability, which collapses in 2005"

Titor said the civil war starts in 2004. It is hard to define what "start" means. It likely means some incident that happens that history later looks back on and says "that was the start."

Like ww1. History looking back places the start of ww1 with the assasination of Archduke Ferdinand. No one at the time would say that. Only those looking back at history could make such a statement.

Could some event have already happened in 2004 that leads to civil war in the USA? It would be very hard to tell unless you have the benefit of looking at the whole picture which is what looking back on history gives you.

However, the statement about western stability collapsing in 2005 is pretty clear. Collapse, ku'laps, n, The act of falling down or inward, as from loss of supports.
 
Re: No Civil War. Its bigger than just the USA

RainManTime wrote:

"Did it ever occur to anyone that the person(s) telling the Titor story had a functional purpose in mind? In other words, to actually try to get America to believe that its demise was at hand, and that a Civil War was around the corner?"

Actually yes. I acknowledge that is a very real possibility.
 
Could some event have already happened in 2004 that leads to civil war in the USA? It would be very hard to tell unless you have the benefit of looking at the whole picture which is what looking back on history gives you.
Click to expand...

I still think the Death of Arafat is going to kick off this whole thing. if I remember correctly I believe the Arch Duke died because he had on so many layers of clothing they couldn't get to the wound to prevent the blood loss and he bled to death. Would be interesting to travel back in time and tell him not to dress up on that day.
 
RenUnconscious wrote:

"I still think the Death of Arafat is going to kick off this whole thing. "

I would like to hear why you think so.
 
Arafat's death certainly changed things in the middle east, for the worse or better we just don't know yet.
Click to expand...
While this could be true, I have to say that early indications seem to be looking like his death is exactly what was needed to bring progressive leadership to the Palestianians and their plight. How often have you heard the following said by ANY Israeli prime minister about Arafat:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/27/sharon.ap/index.html

RMT
 
True, but who knows what Isreal is going to do, they seem to change their minds loads.
Click to expand...
No, that is actually incorrect. They have been nothing but extremely consistent: They want security, and that is their ultimate priority. Please recall the Oslo Accords, and what Israel was willing to give Arafat. Who was it who changed his mind (and asked for more) then?

I think it is eminently clear that Israel has been much more predictable over the years than Arafat and his thugs. It's called "credibility". Arafat had virtually none. It seems that Abbas currently has a great deal of credibility with Sharon, not to mention the rest of the world. He is doing the right thing now in taking actions to crack down on terrorism, and this is what is bringing Israel back to the table.

This could be a VERY good thing for Mideast peace if Abbas is able to turn his government into one that has international credibility for adhering to its word.

RMT
 
No, that is actually incorrect. They have been nothing but extremely consistent: They want security, and that is their ultimate priority. Please recall the Oslo Accords, and what Israel was willing to give Arafat. Who was it who changed his mind (and asked for more) then?
Click to expand...
Ok, I admit that I was wrong about that. Arafat wasn't exactly the easiest person to negotiate with.
 
I just thought of something. Who's to say that the "war" hasn't already started, but we just don't know it yet?
Click to expand...

Me BABY - MEEEE! There is no civil war. The globalists and the elite are not real, they are inventions to trick people into handing over their MONEY to those who have no heart, no soul.
 
Cryo,

If there was a civil war you'd know.

But Titor wouldn't know.

Titor said that he moved to the country to get away from the city in 2006 (when he was 8 years old). But "Mom" Titor, in the Titor book, said that she moved him to Nebraska to live in the country in January of 2003. He never experienced, according to mom's version, anything that he said that he experienced in Florida. In her version he's already been living in the Nebraska farmland for two years.
 
Walmart closing stores in Canada that voted in a union.. Why doesn't that happen in the US? Why wouldn't people at walmart in the US want unions all around?
 
"But "Mom" Titor, in the Titor book, said that she moved him to Nebraska to live in the country in January of 2003."

If you believe that Titor's mom is connected to the book then I suppose that is correct.

Alo, did she actually say she moved him to Nebraska or is that your addition?
 
they went to nebraska because they wanted the most boring experience life could possibly grant a person. Have you ever drove through Nebraska? Its one long 200+ mile road, completely straight, a few small hills, it feels like eternity stuck in the desert.
 
Did JT post about his family? Did JT actually say he wanted his family to leave Florida and move to Nebraska? Or was that someone who showed up after he left claiming to be related and happened to be selling a book that included YOUR forum posts (the members of the forum communities, not me, I wasnt around). Did you guys give her permission to use them?

IMO, Nebraska is a bad idea. Scottland, better.


Sep 26, 03 on johntitor.com they posted a link to a forum post (that doesn't seem to be up anymore):

9/26/03


!!! DID JOHN TITOR'S MOTHER LEAVE A FINAL MESSAGE ONLINE? !!!

The following letter was posted here a few days ago.


http://66.242.35.139/bbs/message.php?page=13&topic=3&message= 145105&mpage= 1&showweek=9/1/2003

Are these the real words of John's mother on our world line? Who or what attorney is she speaking about and what did he leave behind?


To Whom It May Concern:

John was indeed real and appeared to have knowledge of events in our future.
I am aware of the angst his words have caused some of you and for this I
apologize. I do not think John expected or wished for his presence to become
an online myth. Before he left, John warned us about certain events he
thought would unfold. They have.

John's world was engulfed by war and suffering. His major concern in this
world was for us, his family. While he was here, he did and said many things
we did not understand. In spite of the differences between our worlds, his
pessimism about our ability to avert a civil war was always evident.

John asked us to be vigilant concerning the residual effects the 2000
election would have on this country. Although he expected the same
disruptions and arguments over the election process, his one bit of optimism
concerned the courts future ability to let an election proceed. Apparently,
in California, it has and it will. For me, this is the event John spoke
about that would possibly avert civil disorder and conflict. Only time will
tell.

John asked us to videotape his departure. We did and it was sent to several
people who have apparently decided not to release it. Anything else John
wrote or left behind with us was destroyed or is in the care of an attorney.

For us, it is over. We have since moved away from Florida and our son is
safe and unaware of these events. We plan to keep it that way and hope you
will respect our wishes.

Sincerely,

John's Mother
Click to expand...




But really, what is up with the lack of unions. Why do people let corporations push them around when it's so easy to get a union.
 
But really, what is up with the lack of unions. Why do people let corporations push them around when it's so easy to get a union.
Click to expand...
Ummmmmm..... well, are you aware that there are also downsides to unions just as much as there are upsides? Especially when unions get too big, and the people running the union lose touch with the people they represent, and the people simply become pawns for the union leaders to gain more money and power.

Dude, ask a few of the grocery store workers here in SoCal what THEY think of their union! Over two years ago, right before the Thanksgiving/Christmas season, their union leadership talked them into going on strike... just because they are going to have to start paying part of their healthcare (something that highly trained professional people like me have been doing for years). They were on strike for OVER 3 months. In the end, the companies they worked for put the EXACT same contract that they refused when they went on strike.... and the union members ratified it. SO what, if anything, did the dues-paying union members get out of THAT strike, other than a couple of months without being paid?

It is well-established that unions drive up prices. When you are an executive in a company that has a lot of competition, you don't like having to raise prices, because people will go buy from your competition. Walmart is simply exercising its corporate right to avoid union shops for the sheer reason that it makes them less competitive. Contrary to the way your country sees "business", our country still believes in the balance of market forces.

In many cases, unions are dinosaurs. They no longer provide the kinds of "protection" against those who run the business as they did before. And this is simply because there are many laws in place now, that were not in place at the advent of workers unions, that now restrict companies and what they can do with workers.

Now let me ask you a question: What good is a union going to do for you if your business is so uncompetetive that it goes out of business? A very harsh reality, but this issue is EXACTLY what drove many smaller companies in the grocery industry to fold or merge. Their unions prevented them from being competetive, and so the union members lost their jobs. Funny thing though... the union leaders did not lose their jobs!

I could also talk about excessive corruption in labor unions (think Jimmy Hoffa was killed just by some random wacko?) but I will leave it at this.
RMT
 
MEM, The original poster was asking about the grocers union going on strike could lead to violence. I heard they were on strike because Walmart started to sell groceries and they wouldn't let their bag boys be a part of any unions. They are allowed to close stores in Canada and the US that vote in a union. They are building a walmart on an abandoned GM plant next to the UAW union hall.

Rainman, your first argument that unions drive up prices is the inverse of my argument. I'm suggesting you should expect higher prices so people can earn higher wages. It's not a downside for me. And you know what, if you say that it drives up prices, I say with 8 billion in profit, it's not the extra 2 bucks an hour per employee that will raise the price, it's greed.

But a corrupt leader is something that is a problem with human beings, not unions themselves.
 
Back
Top