Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Wed Oct 03, 2007 3:37 pm Post subject:
Yup - it's an anti-God movie - nothing new there then. There is always dosh for this pied piper style material which has loads of truth and pretends to be objective.
Joined: 02 Oct 2006 Posts: 577 Location: Yorkshire
Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 9:33 pm Post subject: NOT anti GOD
TonyGosling wrote:
Yup - it's an anti-God movie - nothing new there then. There is always dosh for this pied piper style material which has loads of truth and pretends to be objective.
My thesis is that the ultimate goal of the War on Terror is as a vehicle to blame the monotheistic religions for all the world's ills, AFTER the NWO have occupied them that is!
No, it is NOT an anti-God movie, as Jordan Maxwell who appears on the movie and whom refers to the divine, shows us. However, it is anti religious and there is a big difference between the divine (or God) and religion - most or all, which were set up by the so-called Illuminati.
Darwin is one of the biggest and most damaging liars around because his thoroughly disproven novels have been used as a blueprint by many mass murderes including Hitler and Pol Pot.
*.
Darwin has as much to do with eugenics as Dr. Cerf has to do with porn on the internet.
stelios wrote:
The word Rothschild means red flag which is the symbol of the entire communist movement
No, it doesn't mean 'red flag'. It means 'red shield'. And it might as well have been blue, pink or yellow.
The Darwins were practicing Eugenecists. They were married into the Wedgewood family over 4 generations.
Charles Darwins father and grandfather married Wedgewoods as did Charles himself, who married his Aunts daughter - his first cousin. Nearly all the offspring from that union died or went mad. When his first wife died he married his Aunt.
I thought Rothschild mean RedSheild? _________________ www.wytruth.org.uk
To suggest that Rothchild 'started' communism is patently ludicrous.
I don't think it's ludicrous at all. Quite logical infact. Although I have never found the links between Marx, Engles and the Rothschilds. _________________ www.wytruth.org.uk
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Tue Oct 09, 2007 8:06 pm Post subject:
Much of this movie is great but its utterly tainted by its appaulingly slanted take on God.
Appears that is the entire point of the movie - to make it appear that God is the problem when, if you read either Nazi or Templar history or the Bible He isn't.
To suggest that Rothchild 'started' communism is patently ludicrous.
I don't think it's ludicrous at all. Quite logical infact. Although I have never found the links between Marx, Engles and the Rothschilds.
THere are a number of facts.
all the people who took part in the Russian communist takeover were not living in Russia. They were all in Austria, Britain, america and other parts of Europe but none of them was in Russia.
Rothschild provided the finance.
David Bernstein was an actor plying his trade on the New York theatre circuit. he was given $20,000,000 and told to go to Russia and spread the cash. Guess who David Bernstein changed his name to?
Leon Trotsky.
Lenin lived in Switzerland - again who paid his rent?
Everyone knows Karl Marx is buried at Highgate cemetry and obviously lived in London. Who paid his board and lodgings?
The word Rothschild means Red Flag or Red shield.
In the same way as today many examples of leaders being flown in to take over countries.
Like the Ayatollah flown in from Paris widely know to have been a CIA agent to take over in Iran.
Think about today how many people who are Sandhurst educated or similar are flown into a country and unveiled as the new leader.
In the Russian takeover by the Rothschilds the same thing happened Russian exiles and non Russians were shipped in and took over the country, hkilled the Tsars and started persecuting the people for the next 70 years. _________________
I'm aware of some of the funding links between the the revolution and English bankers Jacob Schiff of Khun and Loeb bragging about sending 600,000 rubles for the cause.
I was also wondering about the two Bauers, one of which was Bruno, who were in a group with Marx and Engles called something like 'The League of ******** Gentlemen'.
Were these two characters related to the Rothschilds - remember Bauer is the old family name of Rothschild. _________________ www.wytruth.org.uk
To suggest that Rothchild 'started' communism is patently ludicrous.
I don't think it's ludicrous at all. Quite logical infact. Although I have never found the links between Marx, Engles and the Rothschilds.
Though my understanding of Marx is very limited, AFAIK what's particularly unique about Marx is his attempt to use Hegelian dialectics to propose a deterministic, (pseudo)scientific view of history, not the notion of a communist society itself. The Russian revolution actually contradicted Marxist theory as he envisaged revolution occurring in advanced capitalist countries whereby capitalism would collapse under its own contradictions as opposed to revolution in a relatively underdeveloped and largely agrarian country. However, Marx did not simply invent communism as communist type ideas date back centuries. The Diggers, for example, were basically Christian anarchist-communists in today's money. There were many anarchist communist / anarcho-syndicalist thinkers contemporary to Marx who had broadly similar notions of revolution and the ideal society arising from it. A principle point of departure was, however, the notion that the transitional state would 'wither away' as people don't tend to give up power when they have it. But if there had been no Marx (or Engels), there would still have been communism. So any hypothetical links to Rothchild or whoever simply aren't massively significant. And even if 'scientific socialism' doesn't go beyond an interesting model, I'm personally very glad we have Marx as Marxist theory has influenced a plethora of fine thinkers ranging from Walter Benjamin to Wilhelm Reich. So if that's down to Rothchild funding, I say it was money well spent - the Russians would otherwise just have had a revolution under a different banner.
Stelios - could you possibly advise me as to when exactly Trotsky worked as an actor? Who are you suggesting paid Lenin's rent? Do you know how he 'officially' paid it or are you just speculating? What kind of lifestyle did Marx lead when he was alive? _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
To suggest that Rothchild 'started' communism is patently ludicrous.
I don't think it's ludicrous at all. Quite logical infact. Although I have never found the links between Marx, Engles and the Rothschilds.
Though my understanding of Marx is very limited, AFAIK what's particularly unique about Marx is his attempt to use Hegelian dialectics to propose a deterministic, (pseudo)scientific view of history, not the notion of a communist society itself. The Russian revolution actually contradicted Marxist theory as he envisaged revolution occurring in advanced capitalist countries whereby capitalism would collapse under its own contradictions as opposed to revolution in a relatively underdeveloped and largely agrarian country. However, Marx did not simply invent communism as communist type ideas date back centuries. The Diggers, for example, were basically Christian anarchist-communists in today's money. There were many anarchist communist / anarcho-syndicalist thinkers contemporary to Marx who had broadly similar notions of revolution and the ideal society arising from it. A principle point of departure was, however, the notion that the transitional state would 'wither away' as people don't tend to give up power when they have it. But if there had been no Marx (or Engels), there would still have been communism. So any hypothetical links to Rothchild or whoever simply aren't massively significant. And even if 'scientific socialism' doesn't go beyond an interesting model, I'm personally very glad we have Marx as Marxist theory has influenced a plethora of fine thinkers ranging from Walter Benjamin to Wilhelm Reich. So if that's down to Rothchild funding, I say it was money well spent - the Russians would otherwise just have had a revolution under a different banner.
Stelios - could you possibly advise me as to when exactly Trotsky worked as an actor? Who are you suggesting paid Lenin's rent? Do you know how he 'officially' paid it or are you just speculating? What kind of lifestyle did Marx lead when he was alive?
The Diggers - now they were a good crew. The world turned upside down was a good tradition in those people based times as opposed to the top-down effort nowadays
There has been a fine and untainted tradition in UK revolutionaries, such as Mary Wollstonecraft, Godwin, Blake, Shelley, Tom Paine et al _________________ http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction
However, Marx did not simply invent communism as communist type ideas date back centuries. The Diggers, for example, were basically Christian anarchist-communists in today's money. There were many anarchist communist / anarcho-syndicalist thinkers contemporary to Marx who had broadly similar notions of revolution and the ideal society arising from it. A principle point of departure was, however, the notion that the transitional state would 'wither away' as people don't tend to give up power when they have it. But if there had been no Marx (or Engels), there would still have been communism. So any hypothetical links to Rothchild or whoever simply aren't massively significant.
Yes I acknowledge that Marx himself didn't invent Communism but the point is that, as with almost every other genuine movement, the psycopathic clique counterfit their own version.
Yes I think the dictatorship of the proletariat part of Marxism is crazy. Afterall, by the time a government that was scientific enough had ruled totaly for a generation or so the population wouldn't even know they were under a dictatorship. If the goverment chose it to be so. _________________ www.wytruth.org.uk
However, Marx did not simply invent communism as communist type ideas date back centuries. The Diggers, for example, were basically Christian anarchist-communists in today's money. There were many anarchist communist / anarcho-syndicalist thinkers contemporary to Marx who had broadly similar notions of revolution and the ideal society arising from it. A principle point of departure was, however, the notion that the transitional state would 'wither away' as people don't tend to give up power when they have it. But if there had been no Marx (or Engels), there would still have been communism. So any hypothetical links to Rothchild or whoever simply aren't massively significant.
Yes I acknowledge that Marx himself didn't invent Communism but the point is that, as with almost every other genuine movement, the psycopathic clique counterfit their own version.
Yes I think the dictatorship of the proletariat part of Marxism is crazy. Afterall, by the time a government that was scientific enough had ruled totaly for a generation or so the population wouldn't even know they were under a dictatorship. If the goverment chose it to be so.
Yeah. I just think Marx gets a bum rap with loads of people knocking him when it's usually Marxists that are the problem. Jesus has had similar problems.
I suppose that whole dictatorship thing makes more sense in its context, though it does come across like the sort of thing you'd dream up when you're pissed as your objection is a pretty obvious and totally valid one.
I think the lesson is that he that dabbles in historical determinism will likely end up talking out his arse. _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 486 Location: Manchester
Posted: Wed Oct 24, 2007 9:33 am Post subject:
It appears that Zeitgeist is nominated for the Artivist awards that Supersize me, Fast Food Nation and The Corporation achieved before. Its getting screened in LA at the festival.
Acharya S writes:
Quote:
November 10, 2007, the movie phenomenon "Zeitgeist," created by Peter Joseph and featuring my work in Part 1, will be honored at the star-studded Artivist Films Festival & Artivist Awards at the Egyptian Theater in Hollywood, CA.
Last year's Artivist Film Festival featured the documentary "Fast Food Nation" and drew a wide variety of artists and activists, including several celebrities who were honored with Artivist Awards, such Ed Begley, Jr., James Cromwell, Mike Farrell, Daryl Hannah and Matthew McConaughey, among others.
1:09:22- 1:11:05
These extracts from the JFK speech entitled "The President and the Press" from April 27, 1961,
are used as a dramatized introduction to Part 3, and are not exactly in context with the original intent
of JFK's speech. Though President Kennedy does indeed address the peril of secrecy, denouncing
"secret societies", "secret oaths" and "secret proceedings" in his statements, the latter section is
related to his views on Communism and not these societies.
He ought to retract that "correction" and not fall for the bull that JFK was referring to Communism. He mentioned it, and specious Zionist apologists seize on that fact to imply the whole warning was about Communism, when it is nonsense to make that conclusion. It does not fit with the context of his speech and it certainly does not fit with his subsequent murder. It is as pathetic as attempting to smear Communists with his murder by associating a patsy with Soviet connections as the culprit. He knew who he was targetting in his speech and they knew and they murdered him. He was trying to do something about them and persistent claims that he was NOT referring to them is an insult to his bravery in tackling them. Anyway, we do not have to fear Communist Russia these days apparently, but something lurks within all the darkness that is slowly blanketing us all so even if he wasn't talking about "them" the points he made about a secretive and massive conspiracy against us still, by sheer coincidence some would believe, exists.
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 486 Location: Manchester
Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 11:35 am Post subject:
Apparently Zeitgeist won the Artivists film festival.
A companion guide to the film is to be produced shortly aswell.
A poster from on the Dawkins forum added the following:
Quote:
For those who are interested the Zeitgeist Movie has won the top award from the Artivist Film Festival http://www.artivists.org
Acharya appeared on a panel to answer questions about part 1 in front of a packed house at the Egyptian Theater in Hollywood, CA.
The Zeitgeist Movie has gone "viral" with over 6 million views. And it appears that Acharya is going to come out with "A Companion Guide to the Zeitgeist Movie part 1" in the very near future.
The "Zeitgeist" part 1 video is largely based on Acharya's work (starts @ 9:45 - 35)(Acharya has nothing to do with parts 2 & 3)
http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com
Joined: 14 Dec 2005 Posts: 475 Location: North London
Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 12:21 pm Post subject: the Marxism problem
Marxism as part of the New World Order conspiracy is a debate we need to have. The Left consist of people who are humanitarian in inclination and critical of the current order. They should be allied but are often competitors. This is because Marxism creates a blindspot. We need to undermine Marxism.
Marxism as an explanation of the world is credible enough to attract critical thinkers. And yet, it is useful for the New World Order because it helps to keep much of what they do in the shadows. The Left can also be mobilised in support of New World Order campaigns such as climate change. The Left has been thoroughly hoodwinked over the de Menezes shooting and have been mobilised to support the diversionary aim of getting Ian Blair sacked.
It was Webster Tarpley, in his recent talk, who shone a light on a particular question. It is a question that could go far to create the criticism of Marxism. He asked why it was that at a time when the British empire was rampaging around the world in its genocidal way did Marx suggest that class was the big problem? Tarpley suggested that Marxism was developed as a tool of the British to be used to destabilise their Western enemy countries, such as Germany. He, though, did not know whether Marx was a willing and conscious tool. But he said that Marxism was a millstone around the world’s neck.
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 12:51 pm Post subject:
acrobat74 wrote:
stelios wrote:
Darwin is one of the biggest and most damaging liars around because his thoroughly disproven novels have been used as a blueprint by many mass murderes including Hitler and Pol Pot.
*.
Darwin has as much to do with eugenics as Dr. Cerf has to do with porn on the internet.
Very many thanks for "Fraser" (412/1. "Hereditary Improvement," by Francis Galton, "Fraser's Magazine," January 1873, page 116.): I have been greatly interested by your article. The idea of castes being spontaneously formed and leading to intermarriage (412/2. "My object is to build up, by the mere process of extensive enquiry and publication of results, a sentiment of caste among those who are naturally gifted, and to procure for them, before the system has fairly taken root, such moderate social favours and preference, no more no less, as would seem reasonable to those who were justly informed of the precise measure of their importance to the nation" (loc. cit., page 123).) is quite new to me, and I should suppose to others. I am not, however, so hopeful as you. Your proposed Society (412/3. Mr. Galton proposes that "Some society should undertake three scientific services: the first, by means of a moderate number of influential local agencies, to institute continuous enquiries into the facts of human heredity; the second to be a centre of information on heredity for breeders of animals and plants; and the third to discuss and classify the facts that were collected" (loc. cit., page 124).) would have awfully laborious work, and I doubt whether you could ever get efficient workers. As it is, there is much concealment of insanity and wickedness in families; and there would be more if there was a register. But the greatest difficulty, I think, would be in deciding who deserved to be on the register. How few are above mediocrity in health, strength, morals and intellect; and how difficult to judge on these latter heads. As far as I see, within the same large superior family, only a few of the children would deserve to be on the register; and these would naturally stick to their own families, so that the superior children of distinct families would have no good chance of associating much and forming a caste. Though I see so much difficulty, the object seems a grand one; and you have pointed out the sole feasible, yet I fear utopian, plan of procedure in improving the human race. I should be inclined to trust more (and this is part of your plan) to disseminating and insisting on the importance of the all-important principle of inheritance. I will make one or two minor criticisms. Is it not possible that the inhabitants of malarious countries owe their degraded and miserable appearance to the bad atmosphere, though this does not kill them, rather than to "economy of structure"? I do not see that an orthognathous face would cost more than a prognathous face; or a good morale than a bad one. That is a fine simile (page 119) about the chip of a statue (412/4. "...The life of the individual is treated as of absolutely no importance, while the race is as everything; Nature being wholly careless of the former except as a contributor to the maintenance and evolution of the latter. Myriads of inchoate lives are produced in what, to our best judgment, seems a wasteful and reckless manner, in order that a few selected specimens may survive, and be the parents of the next generation. It is as though individual lives were of no more consideration than are the senseless chips which fall from the chisel of the artist who is elaborating some ideal form from a rude block" (loc. cit., page 119).); but surely Nature does not more carefully regard races than individuals, as (I believe I have misunderstood what you mean) evidenced by the multitude of races and species which have become extinct. Would it not be truer to say that Nature cares only for the superior individuals and then makes her new and better races? But we ought both to shudder in using so freely the word "Nature" (412/5. See Letter 190, Volume I.) after what De Candolle has said. Again let me thank you for the interest received in reading your essay.
Many thanks about the rabbits; your letter has been sent to Balfour: he is a very clever young man, and I believe owes his cleverness to Salisbury blood. This letter will not be worth your deciphering. I have almost finished Greg's "Enigmas." (412/6. "The Enigmas of Life," 1872.) It is grand poetry--but too Utopian and too full of faith for me; so that I have been rather disappointed. What do you think about it? He must be a delightful man.
I doubt whether you have made clear how the families on the Register are to be kept pure or superior, and how they are to be in course of time still further improved.
Seems like support for the broad principle of eugenics with a lot of questions about the specifics of application to me...
Once certain ideas are established, certain consequences become inevitable _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 12:53 pm Post subject:
Chalres Darwin wrote:
As far as I see, within the same large superior family, only a few of the children would deserve to be on the register; and these would naturally stick to their own families, so that the superior children of distinct families would have no good chance of associating much and forming a caste. Though I see so much difficulty, the object seems a grand one; and you have pointed out the sole feasible, yet I fear utopian, plan of procedure in improving the human race
_________________ Free your Self and Free the World
Hey you never know, maybe Dr. Cerf also sympathizes with porn on the web?
Seriously though, I'm happy to stand corrected and I guess I owe an apology of sorts to stelios for having been a bit disrespectful.
I guess my point was that Darwin never really advocated industrial scale extermination of fellow humans.
You could of course argue that he provides some soil for dangerous ideas to flourish, and you'd probably be right.
In the end of the day, I believe we all understand evolution in similar terms.
Imagine you're a dad, and your kid walks in with a partner that is 'intellectually challenged'.
In my view, it is not the thought process behind evolution that is to be condemned, but rather the notion that evolution should be controlled to produce specific results.
The latter is clearly evil and absurd and smacks of the control-freak attitude of the sick, sad elitists.
Joined: 27 Mar 2006 Posts: 3187 Location: Here to help!
Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2007 11:58 pm Post subject:
acrobat74 wrote:
Nice post John, and thanks for the sources.
Hey you never know, maybe Dr. Cerf also sympathizes with porn on the web?
Seriously though, I'm happy to stand corrected and I guess I owe an apology of sorts to stelios for having been a bit disrespectful.
I guess my point was that Darwin never really advocated industrial scale extermination of fellow humans.
You could of course argue that he provides some soil for dangerous ideas to flourish, and you'd probably be right.
In the end of the day, I believe we all understand evolution in similar terms.
Imagine you're a dad, and your kid walks in with a partner that is 'intellectually challenged'.
In my view, it is not the thought process behind evolution that is to be condemned, but rather the notion that evolution should be controlled to produce specific results.
The latter is clearly evil and absurd and smacks of the control-freak attitude of the sick, sad elitists.
To lose compassion is to lose one's connection with humanity.
Well firstly thanks for not minding me bringing it up 'cos its a while since your post I quoted, I happened to have that peice in my archive at Malvern Messages, and thought it worth bringing to your attention
I'd say it was quite right that Darwin never advocated mass extermination/ mass sterilisation: but it is quite clear that darwin entertained the hubris that mankind could be improved through the application of his theory: in essence, that old sin of believing those with power could MAKE people better... and really the ivory tower scienitifc detachment of not thinking certain things through is a poor defense... but of course, darwininsts tend to be extrmely vigerous in denying any connection between Darwin and eugenics. Obviously thats not really the case: no more than Marx can be divorced from Lenin. Marx would'nt have advocated the deliberate startvation of the peasants to bring them to heel, I'm sure: but without him, the bolshevik revolutionaruies would have had no intellectual basis for their actions
I looked into all this becuase I tend to debate dawkinists from time to time, and its no suprise they commit the same mistakes today
For example, one popular view over there is that the teaching about Hell to chuildren should be classified as "child Abuse" and made a serious crime, to which I ask:
So how many prisons would you build? Would you severely punish all offenders or only the worst cases? How would you catagorise? Who would care to explain to those children that mummy and daddy have to go away now and they wont see them for several years? etc etc etc
To which, of course, we get no answer. I'm sure Darwin would have had "no comment" to make either if the natural consequences of his "excitement" over Dalton's ideas were pointed out to him as well _________________ Free your Self and Free the World
"They must find it difficult...
Those who have taken authority as the truth,
rather than truth as the authority."
- Gerald Massey _________________ FORGIVENESS IS FREEDOM
Zeitgeist Addendum Trailer _________________ "The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes."
- Benjamin Disraeli ; English statesman, in his novel Coningsby, 1844
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 7:54 pm Post subject: Zeitgeist... The Revolution is Anti-Christian
Zeitgeist as AntiChrist propaganda?
Revolutionaries have to deny Christ? What tosh. The anonymites are still trying to justify the polished lies in part 1 of Zeitgeist
Zeitgeist contradicts historical fact
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPaXoZTLn6I
Zeitgeist: The Movie was released June 2007. With its release many viewers were shocked at what they were viewing. Many believed Christianity had finally been proven false and began sending the movie everywhere they could. Sadly the believers of the movie had not and have not researched the claims that were made in the movie.
Part 1 of the movie focuses its attack on Christianity. The movie claims Christianity was borrowed from pagan myths, the Bible was plagiarized, Jesus wasn't a historical figure, Christianity was created for social control, and that the Bible is based on astrology. Though the claims they make sound accurate, they are completely false and go against the historical records of pagan deities. The point of this video is to quickly show historical facts that contradict against Zeitgeist, proving it false.
Zeitgeist makes roughly 50 claims about various ancient gods and their similarities to Jesus Christ. The problem I have found is that no one seems to be able to show us where Zeitgeist's claims can be found in actual ancient texts. Please go to the following links below to find out what is being put into your mind and how Zeitgeist: the movie is completely false and full of lies.
if you haven't seen this yet check it out now:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-594683847743189197
"They must find it difficult...
Those who have taken authority as the truth,
rather than truth as the authority."
- Gerald Massey
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 2017 Location: Croydon, Surrey
Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 8:41 pm Post subject:
So, Zeitgiest part 1 can be demonstrated to be a load of lying, deliberately falsified shy*e.
So Henry Makow (www.savethemales.ca) is right. Christianity is under severe attack.......not just from the promoters of the NWO but, it would seem, from within the ranks of those who would oppose them (therefore in such groups [as our own] many NWO agents are obviously embedded).
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 11:42 pm Post subject:
To be expected I'm afraid since we're dealing with Nazis in plain clothes who believe themselves to be Teutonic gods who have to wipe out Jews, Muslims and Christians from the face of the earth.
Anyone who has sympathy for old fashioned love thy neighbour morality.
Any strong faith, in fact, that is a challenge to their diseased elitist wet dreams of power, power, power.
kbo234 wrote:
So, Zeitgiest part 1 can be demonstrated to be a load of lying, deliberately falsified shy*e.
So Henry Makow (www.savethemales.ca) is right. Christianity is under severe attack.......not just from the promoters of the NWO but, it would seem, from within the ranks of those who would oppose them (therefore in such groups [as our own] many NWO agents are obviously embedded).
Joined: 10 Dec 2005 Posts: 2017 Location: Croydon, Surrey
Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2008 8:22 am Post subject:
Here's an example of why Christianity is under attack. Holding to biblical beliefs will incline a person to oppose authority on all sorts of issues.
There is a new tyranny abroad. It's mantra is 'diversity' and 'tolerance', not necessarily bad things in themselves but this paradigm, like the notions of ''equality' by which communism was sold to the masses, is a false and deceptive model of morality. It's purpose is the destruction of all real religions in order to empower a central authority.
These people are very cunning. It is so difficult to argue against 'tolerance' isn't it?
Policeman Faces Charges of Homophobia
Catholic Action UK – July 27, 2008
From CWNews, via CFNews:
A decorated British police officer has filed a complaint before a local employment tribunal, charging that he has been harassed by his superiors because of his Christian beliefs.
Graham Cogman, a 15-year veteran of the Norfolk police force, says that he has been subjected to complaints and investigations because he strongly resisted a campaign to encourage support for 'Gay History Month' among the members of that force. Cogman has already been forced to pay a fine of £1,200 for alleged violations of department regulations, because he encouraged colleagues to resist the department's pro-homosexual campaign. He now faces further disciplinary hearings on charges that he has promoted 'homophobic' viewpoints.
http://catholicactionuk.blogspot.com/2008/07/policeman-faces-charges-o f-homophobia.html
Yes Tony. The Dawkins hypothesis sours the world without a doubt. There is an expressive and creative force and we're all it. We're all little atoms of God surely. There is no non-purpose - we are the purpose. That realisation is fuelling the change. Something is contained of this in the Zeitgeist kind of position.. It tries to explain how the symbolism is reiterated via religions in order to restrict progress through mythologising.
The initiated have known always that we are free and unfettered if left alone to mix and fulfill
Yes God exists and we are beginning to realise that because we are that expression, not because of religion or its opposition _________________ http://www.exopolitics-leeds.co.uk/introduction
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
