9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom :: View topic

FAQ

Memberlist

Chat

Usergroups

Calendar

Profile

Conspiracy of multi-culturalism
Goto page 1, 2 Next

9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

rodin
Validated Poster

Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK

Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 12:26 am Post subject: Conspiracy of multi-culturalism

_________________ Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com

Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster

Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616

Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:40 am Post subject:

I may comment on some of the inaccuracies and crude propaganda tricks employed in some of these articles later if I get round to; however I'm conscious I have been posting rather a lot on this sort of stuff - I do have quite strong feelings about the way this 1930s Germany stuff is being recycled for the modern age, particularly the way it lays on wholly legitimate concerns about the actions of Israel (though we hear much less about the horrific actions of other states such as muslim dominated Indonesia - genocide in East Timor then numerous atrocities in Aceh and West Guinea - you'd think this 'Jewish media' would prefer to concentrate on stories from such countries where people are being killed to secure resources that benefit huge, non Jewish owned multinationals - funny, that) And I seriously dislike racism and homophobia - irrational manifestations of insecurities and primitive primate 'them and us' instinct.

However, I immediately noticed another striking paragraph from one of the Rense articles -

Quote:

The BBC, like the rest of the supposedly British media, is fully-geared to the all-out promotion of "multiculturalism". Its Producers' Guidelines specify to its potential programme producers that: "People from all groups should be represented in the full range of our programmes. [...] BBC programmes should not categorise black people as criminals. [...] Colour should be mentioned only when it is relevant. Ask yourself each time: would you say "white" in similar circumstances? [...] Programmes must not allow offensive assumptions or generalisations in scripted material, and interviewees who express them need to be challenged wherever possible. [...] BBC programmes must not be vehicles for prejudice. Lesbians and gay men can be particularly subject to thoughtless and offensive stereotyping. [...] Programmes must not allow offensive assumptions or generalisations in scripted material, and interviewees who express them need to be challenged with vigour. [...] Be sensitive to the effect of language. 'Homosexual' has wide currency. 'Gay and lesbian' is often preferred and is certainly acceptable." Kosher TV

Right - so the BBC shouldn't highlight black people just for being black and shouldn't portray them just as criminals. It shouldn't make generalisations and should be sensitive to gays and lesbians.

Is that bad?

Is that part of a 'conspiracy of multi-culturalism'?

Why would someone object to the BBC being conscious of being positive to black and gay people? What kind of person thinks like that?

Other than that, it looks like some bigots with agendas have gone to great pains to find as many Jewish/Jewish linked people as they can and say it means Jews 'control the media'. This stuff really reaches -

Quote:

He was quoted in the Jewish Chronicle as declaring that: "I am very aware of being Jewish." Kosher TV.

He's a media person being interviewed for the Jewish Chronicle - what's he going to say - "I don't really give a nonsense about being Jewish"? What else did he say? What was the context? Why no link to the full article?

However accurate portrayals of some people as being Jewish really are (that would need some checking - I suspect some of this stuff uses the nazi definition of 'Jewish blood'), what does it mean? Are you suggesting they all 'work together'? To the same 'agenda'? Do they have meetings? Jewish only ones?

This is telling -

Quote:

For good measure the atheist Jew, Alan Bookbinder was appointed the BBC's new Head of Religion and Ethics in July 2001. Kosher TV.

So it's Jews by race we're interested in? Sieg Heil!

Here's an exercise for you - compile a list of all the non-Jewish people in the media - I think you'll find it will give you the impression Jews are perhaps less prevalent and more scattered about than you believe

Quote:

We have already seen the pro-multicultural policies of the Jewish-controlled BBC, whereby "the full range" of their programmes are constantly to be used as instruments for the promotion of "multiculturalism". The same is true of all the other Jewish-controlled broadcasters in Britain, too. They are all committed in their policies to the intense, systematic promotion of a permanent transformation of Britain into a multiracial, "multicultural" Britain.

Right, so the fact that Britain is a multicultural society should be ignored? All those brown skinned folk shipped here a few decades ago to do the nonsense jobs we didn't want to and (curses!) never left were part of some 'Jewish plot' then? So we shouldn't be sensitive to how the media portrays, say, Asian muslims? - Does it not occur to you that there are way more muslims/Asians in this country than Jews? That benefit way more from a media sensitive to multiculturalism?
Should the media be instead pushing for white supremacy?

What a crock of nonsense.

Frankly, I like Britain being multiracial and multicultural - if that's a 'Jewish plot', I say bring it on.

You really buy this stuff??
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD

Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill

Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628

Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 12:03 pm Post subject: Re: While the Jury is out

rodin wrote:

My main issue really is that from what I have read it seems to me that one group dominate the media, and the media are the ones covering up 911. In response to a request to substantiate the media dominance issue I did the usual - Googled - and posted an article that seemed to answer the question asked. The article it seems came from a proscribed site. I will know better in future.

Quite. You simply adopted the usual "truthseeker" approach, you came to an opinion, you searched the internet for anything that supported that opinion, and then you posted it without thinking or considering for a moment whether it might be even vaguely accurate. It chimed with what you already thought, so that was good enough. It is surprising that the "truth movement" has its critics?
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek

Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster

Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616

Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:22 pm Post subject:

double post _________________ It's a man's life in MOSSAD Last edited by Dogsmilk on Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:28 pm; edited 1 time in total

Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster

Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616

Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 1:27 pm Post subject:

Quote:

To be fair, that is hardly unique to the truth movement and is not an accurate description of how it always operates.

I'm a (pretty conservative) truther and spend easily as much time lurking at JREF and reading stuff like 911myths as I do reading CT sites. I've modified my views continually according to what I consider the most plausible arguments at the time. With much of it I feel I just don't know what's 'true'. I'm not alone in that.

In fact, it's fairly regular at JREF that you'll see someone post something along the lines of -
"I encountered someone saying (CT argument, not necessarily 911 based); does anyone have a comeback to that?" - they've clearly already decided it's 'wrong' and want an off-the-shelf debunking argument to throw back. How's that different?
In fact, I see more open mindedness here than the zealous determination to not allow ANY factoid that in any way supports the CT to stand.
If you put aside your own beliefs and follow JREF with an open mind, you'll find many (by no means all) posters there display astonishing levels of utter belief. They are no less 'religious'.

I recall a while ago reading a JREF thread where 'the doc' (the guy who made screw 911mysteries) was talking about pictures of white smoke emanating from the base of the twin towers. His immediate response? Truthers 'doctored' pictures in photoshop. They must have. (someone did pick him up on this - IIRC they suggested 'burning cars'). Yet when truthers suggest evidence may have been tampered with, it's all sneers they're paranoid. It's interesting that whenever anything looking faked turns up (like that footage of the tower collapse with the added sounds of explosions) it's always 'truthers' that 'must have done it'. It never seems to occur to these 'conspiracy theory experts' that fakes may be done by non-CT pranksters to wind people up or lure CTists into a trap and make them look foolish. It's happened a lot in the past with, e.g. UFO stuff, but they seem to forget this. Cause they despise 'truthers' and wish to ridicule them at every available opportunity - irrespective of actual evidence.
Dylan Avery may have his flaws, but their perpetual venom towards the guy is both intriguing and alarming - I'm just waiting for someone to exclaim "Let's get some rope and string him up - right now!!!!" Interestingly, Rodin's beloved "Judicialbiz" website doesn't like Dylan Avery cos he's (apparently) a Jew who refuses to accept 'the jooos dunnit' - JREF doesn't like him cos he's a truther who refuses to admit OBL dunnit. JREF surprisingly are way more vitriolic in their ad homs than the anti-semite crowd. Fascinating stuff.

However blinkered some truthers may be, if a secret diary by Donald Rumsfeld entitled "How I orchestrated 911 and blamed it on the arabs" were discovered, some 'critics' would still believe it was OBL wot dunnit.

Both sides have their equal share of conclusion-before-the-evidence mindsets.

This 'Jews rule the world' stuff is a perfect example of how 'conspiracy theories' in their most negative sense do distort information to fit a pre-ordained (politically motivated) conclusion. It does not therefore follow that other notions labelled 'conspiracy theory' necessarily follow the same pattern in terms of all people 'involved' with them.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD

rodin
Validated Poster

Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK

Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 7:47 pm Post subject:

Dogsmılk asked 'Do you really buy all that stuff' and 'Do you thınk all Jews are ınvolved ın a gıant conspıracy'. The answer ıs no and ı very much doubt ıt. However I do thınk there has been a delıberate program of breakıng up famıly lıfe, promotıon of modes of behavıour ın whıch self-relıance becomes a handıcap, and a flourıshıng of gamblıng, borrowıng, pornography etc.. None of whıch embellısh the human spırıt. As for OPENness ın sexualıty I agree wıth you. The more we understand ourselves and each other the better our world wıll be. Secrets are a curse. I do thınk though that the medıa ıs largely ıf not totally controlled by a cabal. I also know that Freemasonry ıs a Zıonıst organısatıon and ıs very much 'the' secret brotherhood ın the UK. The artıcles I posted showed that attempts may be beıng made to cover up the extent of the cabal's operatıon. Wıtness the denıal of Rupert Murdoch's Jewısh ancestry. Murdoch ıs close wıth Netenyahu. Reseach our old frıend Robert Maxwell and you wıll fınd lınks to MOSSAD and PROMIS ınterestıng I thınk. And the lıst of TV channel controllers anyone can check. Lastly may I say I enjoy debatıng thıs wıth you as I respect your opınıons and the way they are logıcally presented. You certaınly wıll not let me away wıth any sloppıness! _________________ Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com

Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster

Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616

Posted: Tue Mar 06, 2007 10:35 pm Post subject:

rodin wrote:

However I do thınk there has been a delıberate program of breakıng up famıly lıfe, promotıon of modes of behavıour ın whıch self-relıance becomes a handıcap, and a flourıshıng of gamblıng, borrowıng, pornography etc.. None of whıch embellısh the human spırıt. As for OPENness ın sexualıty I agree wıth you. The more we understand ourselves and each other the better our world wıll be.

I think this very much depends on your perspective - regarding self-reliance you can also argue that the dog-eat-dog ideology of modern Milton Friedman style capitalism very much tries to pit us all against one another in the name of 'competition' ("There is no such thing as society" as Friedman whore Thatcher once said) - in which case we are urged to abandon the power of community and engage in a war of 'each against all' - it depends what you mean by self reliance.
Humans have had a taste for gambling pretty much for ever - I believe the Romans were very fond of their dice, and porn is nearly as old as man (if you follow the introduction of any new communications medium from photography through to the net, it has always been quickly utilised for porn - though I grant it took a while for phones to be used for sex lines.
This is quite an interesting read on the dynamics of contemporary porn. It's quite a complex industry and the debates on the morality of it are fascinating. It is far from a Jewish concern.). But, with borrowing, these are IMO very much things that are utilised to cash in on basic human drives to make shedloads of money. You needn't look further than the wonderful world of advertising and marketing to find villains there; the media is, in reality, (mostly) owned by corporate structures that specifically exist to grow in size and profit. According to Maslow's hierarchy of need (which I consider to be quite sensible), humans seek to 'self actualise' or whatever once basic needs are met. This makes them susceptible to be blagged into consuming tat. It also makes them dangerous - they may go on to challenge power. Personally I think gambling is a bit daft (but hang on - you do the stock market, right? What's that if not gambling?) unless you're massively skilled (I know a professional spread better - that guy is loaded) but don't have a problem with it, nor with porn. I think borrowing is an enormous swindle, but a very old one and one used by many groups - I highlighted the Quakers earlier and they do have a significant historical presence in British lending.

The 'decline of the family' is such an enormous issue I'm not sure I can handle broaching it. Though I see it more as an evolution than a 'plan' (if it is, indeed, happening)

rodin wrote:

I do thınk though that the medıa ıs largely ıf not totally controlled by a cabal. I also know that Freemasonry ıs a Zıonıst organısatıon and ıs very much 'the' secret brotherhood ın the UK. The artıcles I posted showed that attempts may be beıng made to cover up the extent of the cabal's operatıon. Wıtness the denıal of Rupert Murdoch's Jewısh ancestry. Murdoch ıs close wıth Netenyahu. Reseach our old frıend Robert Maxwell and you wıll fınd lınks to MOSSAD and PROMIS ınterestıng I thınk. And the lıst of TV channel controllers anyone can check.

Murdoch is also close with Blair (who some believe has a history with MI5). So his mum's (apparently) Jewish - it doesn't matter if she is. No-ones trying to cover it up because the ethnic make-up of power is irrelevant. If you want to find Jews, you'll find Jews. If you want to find Christians, you'll find Christians. Even muslims - rich Saudi Arabians own a lot of western assets (now that never gets much attention). If the media were 'Jewish controlled' and that powerful, there wouldn't be so much blatant criticism of Israel that crops up in the msm. The media is a complex beast that serves the status quo via the mindset of it's members, but any journalist will honestly tell you they are not 'controlled' or forced to push an agenda, no matter what their ethnicity. They don't need to be - they've internalised societal values. The one thing they very consistently do (in the west) is promote western interests. Countries like Colombia and Indonesia don't get bad press because they're allies, they play the game with the WTO and IMF (Suharto was ousted when he f&cked up with the latter), facilitate multinational interests and we flog them arms (I'm curious as to why the arms industry is absent from your analysis. The US and UK are the biggest sellers and we've recently seen how BAE are above the law. Do not underestimate the power of the arms trade, direct beneficiaries of war. John Major has feathered his nest nicely with the Carlyle Group. Ex ministers/PMs always go on to sit on some nice boards of directors - track where these anglo-saxons end up)

Though I believe these people do have ideologies they subscribe to, the base equation is POWER. The Talmud, the Bible and the Koran are just books. I'm not knocking religion (in terms of genuine spirituality) here, but when Marx said religion was the opium of the people he was right. As is gambling, porn, and getting a loan for that dream kitchen. And it wouldn't matter if it wasn't the case people were getting butchered while we played with our toys. The really clever people know these games with religion based politics are just a blag to push the right buttons at the right time. While you chase after 'elite jews', you're being tacitly coerced into handing over your money and liberty every day by a mish-mash of all kinds of folk who worship no-one but mammon. Every time to see a commercial break you're witness to a concerted effort to manipulate your desires. That's not controlled by Jews. It's people doing a job in the belief they're producing something 'artistic' who want to win an ad award. Their managers care about nothing but pleasing the client. The client wants to see sales go up so the shareholders will be happy. The shareholders just want a bigger dividend so they can buy more nonsense they saw advertised on TV. I personally don't see a specific effort to undermine morality - it's just moral values don't count if they interfere with the pursuit of wealth and power. Morals are something to be invoked to get people to do what you want - like with the invasion of Iraq. 'Moral decline' is fairly elusive as it's a concern of many eras, but morals are always compared to those that came before. I'm sure some people saw the end of burning witches as a 'decline in standards'.

We plebs scurry around trying to make sense of it all and latch on to various ideas along the way. We all have an 'agenda'. This 'overcome the left/right paradigm' stuff is great, but in practice we tend to be 'infected' with our fave ideologies so are as well to recognise them. Mine is flagrantly and unashamedly aligned with (predominantly) left anarchism (not that I'm dogmatic about it or uncritical of it). If you let me, I will try to convince you capitalism is a source of many of our current woes. That's my commercial. From this perspective, I do assert that a lot of this 'Jewish cabal' stuff is mostly pushed by a far right set of websites with their own agenda. Anyone can cherry pick factoids (or outright falsehoods) and stick 'em on the net in whatever context they like - this itself is a curse of this 911 stuff, truthers and critics alike. Picking out one group does, IMO, ignore the stark truth that the beast has many heads.

I don't disagree some Jews are very powerful, that Zionism sucks and that Israel has a lot to answer for regarding Palestine.
I also think the Zionist lobby is one among many.
If there is a secret cabal that has wielded so much power for so long, do you really think they'd let you see them?

rodin wrote:

Lastly may I say I enjoy debatıng thıs wıth you as I respect your opınıons and the way they are logıcally presented. You certaınly wıll not let me away wıth any sloppıness!

Ta. Reciprocated. Though ironically, on completeing this particular post, I feel it may be slightly incoherent. I am tired.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD

rodin
Validated Poster

Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK

Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:51 pm Post subject:

[quote="Dogsmilk"]

Quote:

The self relıance ıssue ıs a bıggıe. I thınk I wıll leave that to another day. It ıs devılısh ın ıts subtlety. Let's just say for now that egalıte & lıberte are mutually exclusıve.

Keepıng up wıth the Jones' ıs the recıpe for eternal dısappoıntment and wealth erosıon. We are traıned what to desıre. By advertısıng and medıa ımages. The father of modern advertısıng (mınd control)...

Quote:

With such a powerful backer, Bernays felt confident enough to launch his "PROPAGANDA":

"As civilization becomes more complex, AND AS THE NEED FOR INVISIBLE GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN INCREASINGLY DEMONSTRATED (emphasis added-JC), the technical means have been invented and developed BY WHICH PUBLIC OPINION MAY BE REGIMENTED (emphasis added-JC). With printing press and newspaper, the telephone, telegraph, radio and airplanes, ideas can be spread rapidly, and even instantaneously, across the whole of America."

Bernays had not yet seen how much better television, which was to follow, would do the job.

I wonder what you make of

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/bestauthenticationsofprotocolszion06jan 06.shtml

[quote="Dogsmilk"]

Quote:

Humans have had a taste for gambling pretty much for ever - I believe the Romans were very fond of their dice, and porn is nearly as old as man (if you follow the introduction of any new communications medium from photography through to the net, it has always been quickly utilised for porn - though I grant it took a while for phones to be used for sex lines.

Quote:

I think borrowing is an enormous swindle, but a very old one and one used by many groups - I highlighted the Quakers earlier and they do have a significant historical presence in British lending.

Quote:

The 'decline of the family' is such an enormous issue I'm not sure I can handle broaching it. Though I see it more as an evolution than a 'plan' (if it is, indeed, happening)

Gamblıng ıs ınstınctıve. Hunter gatherers took rısks all the tıme. However cash gamblıng has been heavıly promoted and marketed towards the maınstream most of whom wıll lose. Guess who predomınate ın the casıno arena?

Usury - I wıll leave ıt there!

Erotıca and porn - ıs there a dıfference? I thınk so. Both are compulsıve vıewıng. Porn depersonalıses sex. There was a study recently that showed more or less thıs. I have no strong objectıon to porn beıng made and consumed by consentıng adults. I have a problem wıth not knowıng under hwat condıtıons porn ıs made. There seems to be a thrıvıng global sex-slave busıness. Guess who predomınate ın the porn area? Famılıes - Put a socıalıst structure ın place and watch the famıly dısıntergate as a unıt. The two-workıng-parent famıly and the lone non-workıng parent famıly are the norm now. Kıds need the closeness of a decent role model parent. I can stıll remember beıng shoved ınto a nursery for just a week when my sıster was born - ıt was not the empowerıng experıence needs must parents are taught. Socıalısm ıs a pyramıd game to suck the wealth of the bottom makıng the top ever more powerful and ın control.

Dogsmilk wrote:

Murdoch is also close with Blair (who some believe has a history with MI5). So his mum's (apparently) Jewish - it doesn't matter if she is. No-ones trying to cover it up because the ethnic make-up of power is irrelevant. .... If the media were 'Jewish controlled' and that powerful, there wouldn't be so much blatant criticism of Israel that crops up in the msm. ... John Major has feathered his nest nicely with the Carlyle Group. Ex ministers/PMs always go on to sit on some nice boards of directors - track where these anglo-saxons end up).....

Though I believe these people do have ideologies they subscribe to, the base equation is POWER. The Talmud, the Bible and the Koran are just books. I'm not knocking religion (in terms of genuine spirituality) here, but when Marx said religion was the opium of the people he was right.

I do not see much crıtıcısm of Israel ın the MSM. The odd sop perhaps. Post a damnıng artıcle on the treatment of the Palestınıans ıf you know of one - I don't. BBC911 dıd not touch anythıng ın thıs area far as I recall. Marx & co and the Bolshevıcks who whacked the Tsar and famıly were Jews. Blıar - Major etc all played theır part. Major's part was to complete the handover of power from Thatcher (who I have a hunch was a 'loose cannon') to theır lackey Blıar. John Smıth was IMO murdered to make way for Phoney. The old heart attack ıs a really easy wet op. Storey goıng the rounds that Lord Levy promısed Blıar the leadershıp of the country ın return for unflınchıng support for Israel. That last one ıs a rumour...

Have you studıed Myron Fagen or Benjamın Freedman or Eustace Mullıns and Ezra Pound? Or these pıctures?

http://bristol.indymedia.org/newswire.php?story_id=25574Array&sc=1

Fınally you ask would they not want to keep ıt a secret. YES! Same as the perps of 911 want to. But we have the ınternet now.

Nıce to chat
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com

Ignatz
Moderate Poster

Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918

Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 11:34 pm Post subject:

Dogsmilk wrote:

In fact, it's fairly regular at JREF that you'll see someone post something along the lines of -
"I encountered someone saying (CT argument, not necessarily 911 based); does anyone have a comeback to that?" - they've clearly already decided it's 'wrong' and want an off-the-shelf debunking argument to throw back. How's that different?
.....

Well, we've disagreed about this kind of thing before. But perhaps I can state my case a bit better this time -

Some subjects are naturally debatable in that the various sides of the argument have a certain strength. For example, the sporting prowess of different racial types .. is it genetic or cultural (or a bit of both)?

Some subjects are not naturally debatable. For example, is the earth flat or is it roughly spherical? There's trivial and horribly subjective evidence to suggest it's flat - and that indeed was the belief for thousands of years - but it doesn't hold up under even modest scientific scrutiny. Should we give flat-earthism a respectable hearing? Nah. Except for fun.

Now, let's take homeopathy. To me, the very idea that a patient might benefit from being given (mathematically speaking) pure distilled water or a pure 'blank' tablet is anathema. Nothing to debate there. If the patient claims a benefit it can only be driven by their pre-existing faith in the product. Is homeopathy worthy of "equal treatment" in any debate? No. It's on a par with "flat earth" belief.

So, to 9/11.

You say that critics have their debunks all lined up and ready to go. Well, yes they do. But with good reason.

CD? It takes months and scores of people working full time to rig much smaller buildings, in plain view, in stripped-down buildings. Then they collapse from the bottom.
Thermite? Not used in CD.
The Towers fell at free-fall speeds ? No. The seismic records say otherwise, and they're the only source of the original "free-fall" timings anyway.
WTC7 was CD'd? Strange, then, that the FDNY were predicting its collapse hours in advance.
Pyroclastic flow? No, otherwise the folks in the street would have been burnt to death. They weren't.
Missile at The Pentagon? Nope. Dozens of witnesses saw the airliner fly in and hit. The wreckage and DNA confirm it.
Fake at Shanksville? Much of the plane was picked/dug up and the victims were identified by DNA.
Lucky Larry? Worst insurance scam in history.
"Pull" WTC7? Even the CTists have abandoned that.

... and so on ...

Examined step-by-step, the CT falls flat on its face. So why should critics not be dismissive when so much of the CT "evidence" has no substance? Should they treat is as a reasonable subject for debate when the evidence for the CT is so easily debunked by 'off the shelf' counter-arguments that actually bear scrutiny?

If people want to believe that Flt 93 landed elsewhere and the passengers were killed even while a fake plane was being planted at Shanksville (etc etc etc), well, I'll present the evidence against it if the mood takes. But it's mostly an intellectual exercise akin to playing internet chess. It won't change the world but it might slow down the onset of Alzheimer's. But 9/11 CT has as much substance as homeopathy. That is, none.

Meantime many seeds are planted and some seedlings even coming on. The veg patch is dug and lovely and the improvised poly tunnels set up with some early broad beans snug already, and a few risky lettuces in the greenhouse. Come springtime proper and this 9/11 cr#p takes second place. I'd hazard a serious bet that 9/11 scepticism is just an interesting distraction for many of us "shills".
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car

Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster

Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616

Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 1:27 am Post subject:

Quote:

Keepıng up wıth the Jones' ıs the recıpe for eternal dısappoıntment and wealth erosıon. We are traıned what to desıre.

I think we can agree there. However, I would argue this is a machine that runs under it's own steam. It's everywhere.

Check out this lovely lady:

http://www.adlink.com/resource_center/press/releases.cfm?viewRelease=t rue&&release=press/2003-0815-135325.cfm

While at Initiative Media, luvverly Lucy did a study called 'The Nag Factor'. This basically entailed working out how kids get their parents to buy stuff so they could devise means of getting kids to nag more efficiently and thus get their parents to buy more stuff. It had the added bonus of helping to create a 'relationship' with the child so they are more receptive to advertising as they age. She got featured in the film 'The Corporation'
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article12998.htm
It's very good - I recommend it (though it's a bit 'woolly'), though it's probably too 'left' for your liking (same team that made the Noam Chomsky doc 'Manufacturing Consent')
The process is perfectly logical - in a world that is built on perpetual economic growth based on the corporate form, it makes absolute sense, is necessary, to make sure people keep consuming. He that sells the most for the greatest return wins. The stock market quickly punishes those that fail.
What was done to Marx has been done to Adam Smith - using well intentioned ideas for something that goes bad.

Quote:

wonder what you make of

Not a great deal. Of course the protocols are generally regarded as fake, but I don't have the time to examine the 'evidence' right now and am not an expert in such matters. I might look at it at some point. However, from the previous page you linked to, I have my doubts about this Makow fella.

Interestingly, following this link offf the page -

http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/british-conspiracy.html

You find (among some wholly unsubstantiated claims about the 'illuminati' )the usual stuff -

Quote:

The Socialist Internationalists (New Left), who can be considered either the Left faction of the "British", or as the Left faction of the "Jewish" block, are led by George Soros and Noam Chomsky. Both are Jewish; both oppose the war. Both support minority causes of the Gay Marriage type; a part of Chomsky's website is devoted to Gay and Lesbian issues.

So they're Jewish? So what? It's like saying if my parents were Jehovas Witnesses and I'm an atheist, I'm still somehow Jobo in some significant sense. Unless you play the 'race' card in which case you're somehow arguing Jews are 'different' to other humans; that's just ridiculous.
Chomsky's work is consistently underpinned by traditional enlightenment rationalism - the way he thinks is very much in sync with standard western philosophy.
So, er, why do they think it an issue he cares about gays'n'lesbians?
One can only assume they think it's 'bad' - that's seriously irrational.

These people really want the protocols to be real - they've already decided the content is 'true'.
They don't even need them - they decided already.

The Bernays quote is neither unique nor particularly striking. If you read vintage Chomsky, he quotes tons of this stuff and has a penchant for getting his phrases (necessary illusions, manufacture of consent) from these guys. The one I remember offhand is Rhienhold Niebur (sp?) who wrote 'Moral man and immoral society' - he was a Christian theologian. Loads of 'elite' types across the board have written stuff to the tune that the proles are morons and can't be allowed to make their own decisions on account of being nonsense-thick. They need to be manipulated. Ol' Rheinhold thought that. It's not new and it's not a conspiracy of any particular group. I agree it's grim - Robert Anton Wilson reckoned the TV not the atom bomb was the most dangerous weapon and he may well be right - but it's not directly traceable to one group or individual. Propaganda dates at least as far back as Alexander the Great (great spin machine there) and democracy poses the danger the public think they should call the shots when they clearly (in their minds) cannot be trusted to do so. That got clocked all over the shop.

Quote:

Ooh who do you think predominates?...let me guess...
Dunno about casinos - I've only ever even been in one when I was in Vegas where you kinda have to to get the vibe.
However, slot machines, the lottery, the stock market are all vast gambling empires. I'd wager everyone is in on it if they think they can make a buck. Nothing stopping you trying to start on online poker site...

Quote:

Erotıca and porn - ıs there a dıfference? I thınk so. Both are compulsıve vıewıng. Porn depersonalıses sex. There was a study recently that showed more or less thıs. I have no strong objectıon to porn beıng made and consumed by consentıng adults. I have a problem wıth not knowıng under hwat condıtıons porn ıs made. There seems to be a thrıvıng global sex-slave busıness. Guess who predomınate ın the porn area? Famılıes - Put a socıalıst structure ın place and watch the famıly dısıntergate as a unıt. The two-workıng-parent famıly and the lone non-workıng parent famıly are the norm now. Kıds need the closeness of a decent role model parent. I can stıll remember beıng shoved ınto a nursery for just a week when my sıster was born - ıt was not the empowerıng experıence needs must parents are taught. Socıalısm ıs a pyramıd game to suck the wealth of the bottom makıng the top ever more powerful and ın control.

I agree erotica and porn are probably different. Sex slavery and porn are run by all kinds of groups - the porn industry is VAST and I'd take some serious convincing Jews dominate. I was very curious Judicialbiz called Hustler a 'Zionist porn rag' Larry Flint? Jewish? Of course again you run into the same problem again and again -

Say you look for Jews who run porn
What's your defintion?
Practicing Jew?
Jewish family?
Jewish relatives?

(has it occurred to you just how many people on the planet will have Jewish blood somewhere?)

It's back to that Chomsky stuff - making 'links' because he's Jewish by birth is, to me, bizarre and irrational.
They're not looking for a 'cabal'
They're looking for Jews
That smacks rather suspiciously of racial prejudice

People say "not all Jews are these bad Jews"
But they assume every Jew who is rich/successful/famous/influential is 'one of them'
And 'pulling the strings".

Thats like saying each rich/successful/famous/influential Christian is part of a hypothetical Christian ruling cabal.

It makes no sense outside of prejudicial thinking.

Quote:

do not see much crıtıcısm of Israel ın the MSM. The odd sop perhaps. Post a damnıng artıcle on the treatment of the Palestınıans ıf you know of one - I don't. BBC911 dıd not touch anythıng ın thıs area far as I recall. Marx & co and the Bolshevıcks who whacked the Tsar and famıly were Jews. Blıar - Major etc all played theır part. Major's part was to complete the handover of power from Thatcher (who I have a hunch was a 'loose cannon') to theır lackey Blıar. John Smıth was IMO murdered to make way for Phoney. The old heart attack ıs a really easy wet op. Storey goıng the rounds that Lord Levy promısed Blıar the leadershıp of the country ın return for unflınchıng support for Israel. That last one ıs a rumour...

People who back Israel claim it's critical, those rooting for Palestine say it's pro-Israel. What matters is it's covered. At all. And when Israel does a hit on some Hizbollah guy, it gets a mention, often mentioning dead civilians. Not saying the coverage is accurate, but it's often there. However, when the Tsunami struck, there was much media sympathy for the good people of Aceh, but nary a mention of the run-amok policies of Indonesian troops there. It's not news, Same with Colombia - occasionally a 'war on drugs' mention - no mention of the bad antics of the coke-dealing government. Loads of other places, too.

Marx never whacked the Tsar. Didn't ask anyone to either. Marx thought the revolution would arise spontaneously when capitalism collapsed through its internal contradictions. He thought this was inevitable. He may well turn out to be right on that collapse part.
The Bolsheviks ended up doing what all totalitarians doing - making an excuse for being dictators. It's a shame the Makhnovists in the Ukraine got crushed by the Red army under Trotsky cause they were doing a much more anarchist thing.
At the time, there were a host of similar thinkers feeding into the revolutionary pot. Marx fell out with a lot of them - his big idea of the state persisting to 'wither away' didn't sit well with the anarchists (the word being at the time interchangeable with communists) who correctly saw that no-one who gets power lets it go without a fight. Kropotkin (see avatar) was around at the same time and had his own influence. He was born into Russian nobility. No-one 'made' Marx 'happen'. He's part of a very complex and convoluted story. Marx was an accident. I suspect he won out because his ideas can be more easily twisted to authoritarianism. But it's still twisting - same as the nazis totally misread Nietzsche (who, ironically, hated anti-semitism).

Can't say what's going on with Bliar? Who really can? Thatcher was just evil. But there is something very, very wrong with Bliar.

Quote:

Have you studıed Myron Fagen or Benjamın Freedman or Eustace Mullıns and Ezra Pound? Or these pıctures?

http://bristol.indymedia.org/newswire.php?story_id=25574Array&sc=1

No.

Will comment on pictures tomorrow

and

Quote:

Socıalısm ıs a pyramıd game to suck the wealth of the bottom makıng the top ever more powerful and ın control.

that.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD

Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster

Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616

Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 12:06 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Some subjects are not naturally debatable. For example, is the earth flat or is it roughly spherical? There's trivial and horribly subjective evidence to suggest it's flat - and that indeed was the belief for thousands of years - but it doesn't hold up under even modest scientific scrutiny. Should we give flat-earthism a respectable hearing? Nah. Except for fun.

Now, let's take homeopathy. To me, the very idea that a patient might benefit from being given (mathematically speaking) pure distilled water or a pure 'blank' tablet is anathema. Nothing to debate there. If the patient claims a benefit it can only be driven by their pre-existing faith in the product. Is homeopathy worthy of "equal treatment" in any debate? No. It's on a par with "flat earth" belief.

I'd say this are a bit different to '911 studies' as they make general claims about the ongoing nature of the world that can be experimentally tested at your leisure.
For example, I'd say homeopathy deserves a hearing if it claims it can effect cures. If repeated double blind studies turned out to demonstrate it displayed a markedly better result than placebo, it wouldn't matter how implausible you personally consider it or that no-one understood how it could work - if the standard procedures used to test such claims showed it works, you'd be a bad scientist if you said it can't because you can't see why it should. AFAIK homeopathy hasn't been thus 'proved', so that's ok. However, if a lot of people think it works and tangibly get better from believing this, I say good luck to them. The power of faith is a remarkable thing in itself.
I don't believe Reiki should 'work' but when I had a 'taster' session for a laugh and did so with the firm belief it's bullsh!t, to my surprise I found it had a noticeable beneficial effect. I'd be lying to myself to fit a preconceived notion if I didn't admit this. Mind you, I've never repeated the 'experiment' - I'm not bloody paying for it.

Quote:

You say that critics have their debunks all lined up and ready to go. Well, yes they do. But with good reason.

Whether they do or not is irrelevant. My original point was the problem of approaching 'conspiracy theories' with the preconceived notion they are untrue.
If you feel the evidence convinces you either way, then that's fine, but I'm more objecting to the preconceived belief that 'conspiracy theories' are not true.
There is a difference between having your debunks lined up and specifically seeking out debunking information to confirm your belief - that is exactly what CTs are accused of.
All I am saying is that it is false to assume that 'conspiracy theorists' are faith-based wackos but 'critics' are bastions of detached, impartial objectivity. Some are, some certainly aren't and all territory in between, on both sides.

Take this thread -

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=76491

At time of writing, the main thrust of the posts seems to be about being chuffed that a 'CT sympathiser' has said something that allegedly undermines the CT position (at time of writing, only one person appears to have picked up on the fact the article in question doesn't support the OT) - there is very little discussion on what the article actually says and if they agree its conclusions stand up to scrutiny. I would bet a months pay that if the article was presenting video analysis claiming to prove it was not OBL, they'd be all over it like a shot picking whatever holes they could.
They want to see information that confirms their beliefs.
This is not unusual.

While I was looking at the forum, I noticed this -
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=76141&page=2
Suddenly, I'm on their side. I agree that MaGZ has some seriously messed up views. However, they can't help resorting to hurling insults at the (I assume) guy.
Anyway, I digress.

The eternal arguments about 'the evidence' are a separate issue to how you approach the subject. All I'm saying is dogma afflicts us all.

I like Defector's new thread -

Quote:

How many critics believe there is a worldwide Islamic conspiracy to take over the world through violent means or otherwise?

It's a very good point.
MIHOP is seen as 'woo'
The assertion that there are hordes of Islamic Fundamentalists itching to 'destroy our way of life' (about as incoherent as it gets) but never quite getting round to attacking the very fabric of civilisation is somehow, at most, just flawed. No-one calls it 'woo'.
Why?
IMO 911 was unequivocally an inside job - on the mind. The myth created by the PTB almost overrides what actually happened. thus, I actually have a lot of sympathy with the Chomsky position insofar as it has been used to prop up all kinds of nonsensical 'conspiracy theories' regarding the 'unprecedented threat' we face.
Though the term 'conspiracy theorists' never seems to get applied to governments.

Among the critics there seems to be an almost pathological determination to prove that nothing is amiss with 911. Even when the idea that the US Gov. may simply have been seriously negligent regarding prior warnings is broached, it tends to get framed as 'one of those things'.
If one of your kids with behavioural problems you work with (had to do a bit of work in kids homes myself - little angels, aren't they?) killed themself and it was shown you'd been told they were suicidal beforehand and did nothing, I doubt it would be viewed as just 'one of those things'.

This is simply my perception and I'm not offering it as a 'fact', but I assert if you follow 'critics' you will tend to find a readiness to accept 'critical' claims with less scrutiny than 'CT' ones. This is fairly natural.

If we take the Atta passport claim, 911 myths does a pretty reasonable job of showing that various random artifacts survive plane crashes. I agree.
What it doesn't do is address the handy coincidence that in this case one of the artifacts just happened to be the one artifact you'd really, really want to find. We assume (can't be sure - could have been dropped anywhere in he plane) that it was on Atta's person when the plane hit with him in the hotseat. No-one found him. They quote the report

Quote:

The passport was recovered by NYPD Detective Yuk H. Chin from a male passerby in a business suit, about 30 years old. The passerby left before being identified, while debris was falling from WTC 2. The tower collapsed shortly afterwards. The detective then gave the passport to the FBI on 9/11.
Page 40

Pretty convenient - some anonymous bloke just handed it in.
Well, it's not entirely implausible that someone may give such an item to a copper.
But not only did the one item you wanted to find survive, but it was found sharpish in a time of extraordinary chaos and handed to a copper.

The way you view this depends on your other views -
If you think there are no major holes in the story, you can accept it's one of those mad coincidences.
If you think there are, it looks pretty dodgy.
I fail to see how this has been 'debunked' because nobody can conclusively prove the matter either way.
But if you mock truthers for being paranoid for thinking it was planted, you 're still making an assumption based on other beliefs yourself.

IMO opinion a similar dynamic applies to stuff like the Atta money transfer.

There often seems to be little room for "I don't know"
Incidentally, if the OT is actually true, does anyone really know why the twin towers came down? I mean, everyone agrees that no building has before or since collapsed from the combination of high speed jet impact, jet fuel and fire. It's not like there's an existing body of prior study or the possibility of replication.

My comments about Dylan Avery were intended to illustrate the surprising venom that appears to be directed at 'woo'. I really believe some critics would ban Loose Change for being 'wrong' given half a chance.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD

Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster

Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616

Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 3:39 pm Post subject:

rodin wrote:

http://bristol.indymedia.org/newswire.php?story_id=25574Array&sc=1

You want me to 'see' the hexagram, right?

The caption makes a great assumption referring to it as 'Zionist' I think.

I confess I don't know much at all about freemasons
I have no idea if this idea of 'great secrets' and the fabled 33rd degree are anything other than myth, but I'm fairly sure your standard magistrate who's a mason is in a club for the local elite where, as the cliche goes, his funny handshake gets him off a speeding ticket. Anything more would have to be for a select minority.The hexagram is very old, whereas the common Star of David usage is only a couple of hundred years old.

Yes I know this is a Jewish website, but if you look around this is a standard history -

http://www.menorah.org/starofdavid.html\

As the article notes, it has Kabbalistic linkages and through this has come to have certain 'occult' connections, often departing quite drastically from a specifically Jewish mindset - the most obvious example being Alistair Crowley (a man who liked his hexagrams). He wasn't Jewish neither. (though his star pupil Israel Regardie was - I'm sure you can read something into that!). An awful lot of rubbish has been said about the Golden Dawn, the OTO and the like (especially Crowley - he certainly got enough people believing his hype) - these people are certainly not part of any 'elite'. In fact, the very notion runs in stark contrast to the whole point of that stuff which is primarily concerned with self-overcoming.

I don't know when that hexagram was put there or exactly why, but assuming it's 'Zionist' just because it is there is like assuming a pentagram is 'satanic'.

There is also the point that people like symbols and use them in different ways - the cross hasn't always been a symbol of Jesus.

rodin wrote:

Kıds need the closeness of a decent role model parent. I can stıll remember beıng shoved ınto a nursery for just a week when my sıster was born - ıt was not the empowerıng experıence needs must parents are taught. Socıalısm ıs a pyramıd game to suck the wealth of the bottom makıng the top ever more powerful and ın control.

I agree parental contact and warmth is important. God knows, I've worked with enough young people who's heads have been wrecked by absentee or f*cked up parenting.
However, I don't know what any of this has to do with socialism. I suspect you're using the term in a highly generalised fashion; I interpret it as the development of an ideology that asserts that wealth should be redistributed from the top back down. It's the 'trickle down' theory adopted by the likes of Thatcher that suggested the rich should get richer and by some strange process of magic it would bleed back down to the poor. Which, of course, does not happen. So how socialism sucks out wealth upwards is beyond me.
Neither is it anti-family. Indeed, benefits systems that allow parents to stay at home to care for their young were a product of socialist thinking in the first place. With the Labour Party under Bliar totally abandoning socialism and embracing what a couple of decades ago would have been a radical right wing position, it's easy to forget many of the social benefits we take for granted were birthed by socialism. Like free healthcare, free libraries, the dole and trade unions to protect our rights at work. All of which are being progressively undermined or destroyed in the name of the 'magic of the marketplace'.
Unfortunately, Bliar has kept the socialist tendency towards paternalism and pushed it further than any previous Labour government ever even tried to. It's a move towards capitalist totalitarianism.

If you just call hierarchical systems 'socialist', you're basically just re-defining the word in a manner of your choosing.
I suspect this has something to do with your 'mutually exclusive egalite and liberte' comment, but I'm not sure exactly what you mean.

Have you seen this?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/G-B-H-Robert-Lindsay-II/dp/B000F9REZU/ref=pd_b owtega_1/202-8236392-0889443?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1173366182&sr=1-1

It's the best use of drama to examine the positive and dark side of socialism I know, written by a fine old lefty. And it's quite unusual insofar as portraying the UK Gov as engaging in false flag ops.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD

rodin
Validated Poster

Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK

Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 6:45 pm Post subject:

Plenty of stuff for me to respond to Dogsmilk. I will in time. Right now I am up my ears renovating 2 stone houses in Turkey. Here there are no (far as I know) f***ed up kids. Families stick together. People are self reliant - they have to be - the state does not provide much of a safety net. The air is clear from chentrails and everyone seems to have a ready smile. Regarding the pics I take your point about the hexagram - that could or could not be the star of David on the carpet pattern. (Spoken Like Telecaster - the ultimate Devil's Advocate ). Like so much on the web it needs triple checking out. A bit about freemasonry. It seems to be the club you must be in to really get on in the police force, military and judicial. Also in politics and some business especially large scale property development (building I suppose). I think some high-profile forum members have more first hand knowledge than me on this. The degrees have ever more bizarre and unsavoury rituals associated with them as you ascend the pyramid (there it is again). All in all it smells really bad. But is it really anything to do with Zionists? The flags of the 12 tribes of Israel in the picture set are for me the clincher. Especially as I know where the clandestine pictures came from. There is no doubt at all the connection is vivid. Those of us not initated are called 'the profane'. That's us, Dogsmik. Profane. It's an upside down world right enough. Socialism is a protection racket. It says - give me some of what you've got and in return I will organise the lives of our citizens. It's a control thing. Like democracy it promises free lunches. Free lunches come at someone else's expense. That's the bit they don't tell you. I will expand on this at length when time permits. Goodness - Just had a terrible thought - renovating stone houses - does that make me a....a..... MASON???? _________________ Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com

rodin
Validated Poster

Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK

Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 7:45 pm Post subject:

A really remarkable interview. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5420753830426590918 The Rockefellers were originally Rockenfelders - in bed with the Rothschilds since the 18th century. A good casino story with Mr Atta in it... http://www.madcowprod.com/06202005.html Noam Chomsky - framing Palestinians gets gr8 press http://www.fpp.co.uk/BoD/origins/Chomsky_JoanPeters.html Bingo! http://www.jewishquarterly.org/article.asp?articleid=38 Ecstasy http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/04/11/Israeli_ecstasy.html _________________ Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com

Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster

Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616

Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 9:36 pm Post subject:

Rodin -

I'm glad you're in Turkey and a bit tied up as I'm finding my rather voluminous posting over the last couple of days is eating up too much time of what is supposed to be constructively spent annual leave. So I could do with easing off somewhat.

However, one thing leaped out so drastically, I can't resist...

Quote:

Ecstasy

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/04/11/Israeli_ecstasy.html

And the significance of this is...?

You seem to be attempting to suggest something of a significant Israeli/Jewish drugs presence...

I'd put forward this is, again, wanting to find it.

According to this -

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/02/05/Israel/student_spyring2.html

the Israelis quite like their pills - a bit weird that these evil plotters would be getting their own mashed, but there you go. It stands to reason a big scene stimulates production. Approaching the territory of old fart as I am, I'm getting a bit out of touch, but I do know that up until a few years ago Israel was big in the trance scene (mostly psy trance I think). Not surprising if they're all luvved up - or is that significant...?

I found this particularly interesting -

Quote:

According to a U.N. study, illicit drugs were virtually nonexistent in Israel until 1967. They became available only after the Six-Day War, when Israelis suddenly found themselves in contact with East Jerusalem Arabs, who had access to the extensive cannabis plantations of Lebanon and Syria. Hashish was suddenly cheap and available. After the war, tens of thousands of tourists from around the world came to Israel, among them young people from high schools and colleges in North America and Europe. They volunteered on kibbutzim and toured the new "greater Israel"-in the process, turning curious Israelis on to drugs. By the mid-1970s, some of Israel's most popular musical stars were rumored to have experimented with heroin, cocaine, and hashish.

The links between Israeli narcotics importers and Lebanese brokers were strengthened after the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. Lebanon has always been a major source of narcotics flowing to Europe and the United States. The poppy fields of the Beka'a Valley supplied manufacturers in Sicily and Marseilles with the raw product needed to produce heroin, and a considerable part of the Lebanese economy is based on the export of poppy products from the ports of Tyre, Beirut, and Tripoli.

Because it made me wonder if it was the other way round - Israelis playing a role in getting arabs into drugs, you'd 'see something in it'...?

However, you can also point to stuff like this -

http://www.expatica.com/actual/article.asp?subchannel_id=63&story_id=3 6
http://www.techno.de/mixmag/98.08/ecs/ecs.1.html
http://www.marijuananews.com/marijuananews/cowan/prohibitionist_uk__no t_holland_.htm (towards bottom of page)

Everyone knows the Dutch have been churning out the most pills for years, but also everyone has their own story on who's the new big supplier. And that's just pills. Speed, ketamine, heroin, weed, coke, 2CB, everyone's favourite fermented liquid drug, etc etc - Israelis controlling a big share of the US pill market is a piss in a puddle. And the yanks have never really done pills like we have - when I was there in 02, I asked about (I hold a professional qualification in substance misuse management, so I have a particular interest in this area) and was astonished to find they cost $20 each. By 02 they'd already settled on the standard (or cheaper) 3-4 for a tenner you get in the Northwest today. The USA Today was running the same kind of 'Rave-shock-kids-on-ecstasy' stories you saw in the UK in the early nineties. Of course I suppose America's peculiarly repressive drug laws play their part. I believe it has grown in popularity, but nothing like us Euros. Jeez, I've known of people taking up to 15 or so on a single night out.

At any rate, we all know the CIA are the big players in coke and heroin.

But, say we do see Israel heavily implicated in little fellas - how does a multitude of young adults staring vacantly at Teletubbies at 6am on a Sunday morning while they smoke spliffs and mumble about how 'we're all connected' serve the machinations of the New World Order?

Ecstasy isn't without its risks, but as drugs go, there's much worse.

People have always used drugs and people have always found ways to supply them irrespective of legislation.

Israelis? If you wish to find it, you will find it.

I will respond to the other stuff later - the porn one looks particularly interesting - I had no idea many Jewish men had been 'actors' - poor blighters - bottom of the pile that - paid less than the women and yet expected to 'get wood' on demand which can't be easy... in front of all those people..

I'm a little confused as to the significance of the Chomsky one - it's no secret some folk tried to blag that Palestine was empty, and hats off to Chomsky for backing Finkelstein in saying it ain't so...kind of confirms my position on Chomsky...I have a lot of time for Finkelstein, too.

Oh yeah - All government is a protection racket...

Quote:

Goodness - Just had a terrible thought - renovating stone houses - does that make me a....a.....

MASON????

You also certainly have your own take on libertarianism. Sounds like you might consider yourself free. In which case...
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD

rodin
Validated Poster

Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK

Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 9:53 pm Post subject:

Ecstasy aids promiscuity Ecstasy and V1agra cocktail very popular Never tried either myself. What am I missing? _________________ Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com

KP50
Validated Poster

Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ

Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:37 pm Post subject:

Ignatz wrote:

So, to 9/11.

You say that critics have their debunks all lined up and ready to go. Well, yes they do. But with good reason.

CD? It takes months and scores of people working full time to rig much smaller buildings, in plain view, in stripped-down buildings. Then they collapse from the bottom.
Thermite? Not used in CD.
The Towers fell at free-fall speeds ? No. The seismic records say otherwise, and they're the only source of the original "free-fall" timings anyway.
WTC7 was CD'd? Strange, then, that the FDNY were predicting its collapse hours in advance.
Pyroclastic flow? No, otherwise the folks in the street would have been burnt to death. They weren't.
Missile at The Pentagon? Nope. Dozens of witnesses saw the airliner fly in and hit. The wreckage and DNA confirm it.
Fake at Shanksville? Much of the plane was picked/dug up and the victims were identified by DNA.
Lucky Larry? Worst insurance scam in history.
"Pull" WTC7? Even the CTists have abandoned that.

I am glad you are comforted by these beliefs - it shows a lot of faith in the honesty of the "establishment". For example at the Pentagon, witnesses plus "The wreckage and DNA confirm it." clinch it for you but at the WTC you seem incapable of believing that there were explosive devices there despite extensive corroborated evidence in the sub-basements. So you believe witnesses who saw "the guy wrestling with the controls before the plane hit the Pentagon" but not William Rodriguez and all the others in the basement who back his story. Some vague notion of "there was a fire, things explode in fires" and voila, you can believe there were no explosives in the basement. Does that not keep you awake at night?

You see, I don't need to believe that the towers were "blown up", just the evidence suggests that there is no other way for them to disappear the way they did. The fact that it would have been damned hard to blow the towers up does not make it impossible.

I don't need to believe a plane never hit the Pentagon - just a photo of the front of the Pentagon, before the roof conveniently collapsed and the fires were all but extinguished makes it seem that way. The lamp post through the windscreen with an undamaged bonnet is bizarre and no way comforting in believing the official tale.

As for homeopathy, as I understand it you cannot do a direct comparison with the effects of medicine as they are fundamentally different approaches. As you say the belief in 911 being a US govt inspired initiative is the same likelihood as homeopathy being effective, I am now a complete convert.

Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster

Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616

Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:40 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Ecstasy aids promiscuity

Ecstasy and V1agra cocktail very popular

Never tried either myself. What am I missing?

Well, I'd have to dispute that.
A defining characteristic of the ecstasy phenomenon in the UK was a direct product of it's pretty unique empathogenic effect. Since ecstasy tends to generate a feeling of union and oneness with one's peers, many women in clubs in the early nineties observed that it reduced the usual fervent desire to get into their knickers expressed by men. Many people were happy with hugging and going on about notions of us all been connected. Tactile sense is enhanced often profoundly, and this may be manifested in stuff like stroking hair, cuddling etc. Ecstasy does generally enhance the physical pleasure of the sexual act, but (particularly at high doses or very heavy use) can interfere with 'getting it up' (though less so than speed tends to) and delays orgasm (sometimes to the extent of an inability to cum). Which is why v1agra combo ('sextasy') comes in handy. (some people also reckon they get a buzz just off V, but I only have anecdotes on that). It doesn't seem to be that common to do the two together. A lot of the ecstasy/promiscuity stuff comes from US narratives - always be wary of 'official' American drugs 'information'.

However, like any drug, the social set up, expectation and individual character causes wide variety in behaviour and experiences. Ecstasy was birthed in the UK primarily as a club experience, but many young people nowadays seem to use it more at parties or hanging around on the streets. Some lads even go out fighting on it which is most bizarre.
Still - drug/set/setting - always the key.

There is simply zero evidence ecstasy specifically encourages promiscuity in any notable sense or in people who wouldn't already be inclined to act in such a manner. It does contribute to disinhibition, but not in any way tons of other drugs don't already do.
If you want 'em to sleep around, give 'em booze.

This is what you're missing -

POSITIVE

* extreme mood lift
* increased willingness to communicate
* increase in energy (stimulation)
* ego softening
* feelings of comfort, belonging, and closeness to others
* feelings of love and empathy
* forgiveness
* increased awareness & appreciation of music
* increased awareness of senses. (eating, drinking, smell)
* profound life-changing spiritual experiences
* neurotically based fear dissolution
* sensations bright and intense
* urge to hug and kiss people

NEUTRAL

* appetite loss
* visual distortion
* rapid, involuntary eye jiggling (nystagmus)
* mild visual hallucinations (uncommon)
* moderately increased heart rate and blood pressure (increases with dose)
* restlessness, nervousness, shivering
* change in body temperature regulation
* upwellings of unexpected emotion, emotional lability
* strong desire to do or want more when coming down

NEGATIVE

(negative side effects increase with higher doses and frequent use)
* inappropriate and/or unintended emotional bonding
* tendency to say things you might feel uncomfortable about later
* mild to extreme jaw clenching (trisma), tongue and cheek chewing, and teeth grinding (bruxia)
* difficulty concentrating & problems with activities requiring linear focus
* short-term memory scramble or loss & confusion
* muscle tension
* erectile disfunction and difficulty reaching orgasm
* increase in body temperature, hyperthermia, dehydration (drink water)
* hyponatremia (don't drink too much water)
* nausea and vomiting
* headaches, dizziness, loss of balance, and vertigo
* sadness on coming down, sense of loss or immediate nostalgia
* post-trip Crash - unpleasantly harsh comedown from the peak effect
* hangover the next day, lasting days to weeks
* mild depression and fatigue for up to a week
* severe depression and/or fatigue (uncommon)
* possible strong urge to repeat the experience, though not physically addictive
* possible psychological crisis requiring hospitalization (psychotic episodes, severe panic attacks, etc) (rare)
* possible liver toxicity (rare)
* possible neurotoxicity (controversial)
* small risk of death. Approximately 2 per 100,000 users have extreme negative reactions resulting in death. (rare)

From the ever excellent (independent) US site http://www.erowid.org/
Used'n'endorsed by UK Gov, but still good - http://www.drugscope.org.uk/
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD

Ignatz
Moderate Poster

Joined: 14 Sep 2006
Posts: 918

Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 11:56 am Post subject:

KP50 wrote:

.....
As for homeopathy, as I understand it you cannot do a direct comparison with the effects of medicine as they are fundamentally different approaches. As you say the belief in 911 being a US govt inspired initiative is the same likelihood as homeopathy being effective, I am now a complete convert.

Does this mean you believe that distilled water can be a useful treatment for your ailments?

Question -
If I were supplying aspirin tablets to Boots, they could quality-control my product to check that I'm not diddling them with blank tablets.
If I were supplying them with a "fake" D23 homeopathic remedy (blank tablets), how would they ever be able to tell?
_________________
So remember - next time you can't find a parking spot, go to plan B: blow up your car

conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter

Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2279

Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 12:39 pm Post subject:

rodin wrote:

If by socialism you meant Russia this is a funny post.
Casinos and the porn industry have been catapulted into the mainstream since its collapse and the heralding of the ...market.

When there were jobs for life there was a raison d'etre for the family. As work became fragmented, subcontracted, depersonalised, so did the family structure.

Capitalism undermines the family more than any other social system.
You need to read your own history.
The temperance movement a couple of centuries ago.

Most women in the brothels of today are from Eastern Europe. This was not the case 30 years ago. Indeed the growth of lapdancing, 'gentlemens' clubs etc can be clearly traced back to the mid-1970's in the USA after it lost Vietnam. Now that period has gone global.

If there is an agenda, its capitalist decline...

Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster

Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616

Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 12:51 pm Post subject:

conspirator wrote:

rodin wrote:

Very good points, well put.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD

rodin
Validated Poster

Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK

Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 6:45 am Post subject:

conspirator wrote:

rodin wrote:

By socialism I mean the Brazil-esque structure we live under in every 'developed' country. State extortion for state-defined benefits. The rich are getting farther away from the bottom of the pyramid all the time. It's working.

Where the state benefit system is not so well entrenched we have backsheesh between the bottom and the lower layers of authority. Bachsheesh always sucks money from a lower layer to the one above. Social anything - security, services, education, all is run under rules made for us, not by us. Hence history lessons studiously avoid the Rothschilds - who made history for 200 years.

Wherever wealth is redistributed there is a 'take' in the process. Management fees or backsheesh.

The Soviet Union was a more obvious case of rigid socialism where the state (ie the elite) came first, lackeys second and the proles last. Parallels with what is happening in the UK can be drawn, though our loss of freedom has so far been drip fed - evolution rather than devolution. The only areas where we are more free is to access morally corrupting influences.

Ultra-surveillance, more state benefits and even more taxes. Imprisonment without trial. Growing rich/poor divide. All made tolerable to the sleeple by the illusion of a healthy economy, a belief in mortgage monetisation, and the thought that only Muslims are at risk of being disappeared.

One good housing crash and the middle classes are toast. Suddenly there will not be enough in the Socialist pot to look after these most assiduous contributors to the socialist monster.

It was always a Ponzi scheme. A timeshare to nowhere. Too bad they did not see the writing...

The growth of porn since the swinging sixties has been driven by the same shower that brought you the Bolshevick revolution. Socialism is a capitalist trick. (Capital = money.) Oh yes - the money supply. That is at the root of the power structure.

Perhaps some idealists genuinely thought socialism would work - its a nice warm-sounding idea - but smarter minds reasoned otherwise and assumed the levers of power any top-down systen must have.

Top-down systems must be destroyed. So far the Internet is the only truly formidable antipyramid. Perhaps it will be enough.
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com

Last edited by rodin on Sun Mar 11, 2007 8:45 am; edited 2 times in total

rodin
Validated Poster

Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK

Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 8:23 am Post subject:

Yesterday my friend took me away from the building site to see a friend of his, a master carpenter, who has over 30 years built and constructed the most fantastic house atop a wooded hill with a 360 degree panorama. I became the third person to hear of this artisan's plan. He wants to build stone houses on his land, similar to the two I am restoring. The situation means the houses will be very desirable. Drinking some of his finest home-made wine my friend's friend outlined his plan. He would build a house for someone he approved of (my friend). Then the two of them would interview candidates for the next house. Each time another house was to be built, all the residents would be involved in the selection process of their new neighbour. The idea is to build a community of like-minded people (artists, intellectuals etc). One that will be stimulating, empathic etc. to the master carpenter. His idea is not altruistic, it is an expression of self-interest. He wants to age in good company, and to leave a legacy people will appreciate. He wants to be remembered well, and for his craftsmanship to survive. With the ubiquitous internet is it not possible that we could similary devolve responsibility for decision making to the population at large on issues that affect them? Do we need to be governed from on high? I don't think so. I would be interested to hear opinions on this. _________________ Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com

conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter

Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2279

Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 9:36 am Post subject:

rodin wrote:

conspirator wrote:

rodin wrote:

Without the state benefits that exist which were a direct result of the fear of revolutionn AFTER the end of WW2 capitalism would not have gained a lease of life after two mass wars in Europe which left 100 odd million dead.

The development of capitalism by its own internal logic leads to monopoly. Monopoly leads to the ending of competition and the destruction of prices and the market in goods and services. The state is then forced either to intervene to stop the extension of monopoly or limit its power.

A comparative analogy of socio-economic systems would show that Russia in 1900 was equivalent to India in the same period. WHilst India has remained stuck in 1900 Russia became developed. The concept that the lower levels ini Russia never developed over the last 100 years is warped, just as warped as stating this was actually existing socialism. When Britain lost its empire peoples lives became better than before.

Now things are getting worse. Banks are recentralising their power. Large monopolies scour the earth for cheap labour, the underside of which is large population movements for work as their is both an oversupply of goods and an underconsumption of them.

To assert that the fault of everything is capital, capital equals jews, is a basic viewpoint, very basic. If one analyses the Fortune 500 companies there is no majority jewish shareholders or in these or are they based solely in one geographic region. They are integrated across the planet.

Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster

Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616

Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 12:28 pm Post subject:

Quote:

To assert that the fault of everything is capital, capital equals jews, is a basic viewpoint, very basic. If one analyses the Fortune 500 companies there is no majority jewish shareholders or in these or are they based solely in one geographic region. They are integrated across the planet.

Quite.

Rodin -

The assertions that Jews control this or that industry or movement can be generally challenged if you dig about in he particular field in question, though that often takes a bit of research. However, the elephant in the room here is the flaws in the basic methodology.
The basic method appears to be to find jews with wealth, influence and power and to highlight their jewishness (which according to some of the links posted here often seems to be a pretty tenuous connection) which 'means'
1/'Jews' are running things behind the scenes
2/The 'Jews' highlighted are part of this system.

This goes on to assume -
1/All these people are working towards a particular end no matter what their ostensive politics or viewpoints. Do these people all have secret meetings or what? It can't be Bilderberg or Bohemian Grove - they're not Jewish dominated and half the 'elite jews' highlighted don't even get an invite.
2/Powerful non-jews are, in some sense, working for them not the other way round
3/There is a 'master plan' (what? - don't tell me it's in 'The Protocols')
4/Jews regard themselves as 'superior' (apparently based on cherry picking stuff from religious texts - like you can't do the same with the Bible or Koran - many Fundamentalist Christians think all non-believers are hellbound heathens and they run the White House)
5/There is great margin in Israel being a 'Jewish State' - America is a 'Christian State', Saudi Arabia is "Muslim State', but curiously the only Jewish state is the one most commonly seen specifically in terms of religion.

It's a rigid, linear idea that ignores anything that doesn't fit. It honestly seems to me to be about just finding wealthy, powerful influential jews and just deciding they must be in charge. I just can't see how that makes sense.

the Bolsheviks didn't just spring fully formed from the ether. There had been over a hundred years of various revolutionary ideals becoming popular across Europe. Marx was just part of that.

After WWII, there was a concerted effort to make sure revolutionary left ideals were crushed in e.g. Greece and Italy.
Then of course we have Gladio.

Modern capitalism gives state benefits to private capital - see e.g. PFI, nuclear power, the railways and the arms industry for further details.
None of these recipients, apparently demonstrating corporations are more 'efficient' by taking huge wedges of money, are run by Jews. I don't like any government but I still think state run services that made no profit and often supported a level of sinecures that in turn propped up the economy are preferable to corporations that have to make a profit for rich shareholders and just do one abroad if they can find cheaper labour there.

I agree with the undesirability of top-down systems. That's why I don't like corporate feudalism which is what we're moving into. It's totally unaccountable. Nike make running shoes using the cheapest, sub poverty paid, labour available in whatever third world slavestate they can find. Then sell them for over a hundred quid. Then work hard to convince the more affluent owning their sh!tty shoes is somehow a positive lifestyle statement. They are following corporate feudalism well - maximal profits for minimal costs. This is reality. It's not Jews, it's the system we have blatantly laid out in front of you. If you really want to find the evil forces, study advertising and marketing. It's the real con trick and has taken propaganda beyond what Goebbels ever dreamed of.

Top down systems are very, very old. They date back to the alpha male exerting power among our simian ancestors. Hardly anything to do with Jews, that. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Anyone. At a fundamental level, all we need to do is stop being bamboozled by people trying to get us to follow their lead. Wars wouldn't happen if people simply observed they have no compelling reason to travel abroad and kill people they've never met and have nothing personally against. Isolating one group and saying "see them - they're not like us" is the oldest trick in the book. And it's been done with Jews before now. Simple scapegoating, sleight of hand, divide and rule.
Incidentally, I've commented before on how many of the links posted on these 'Jews rule' websites have a bit of a 'thing' about gays. Seems to me that's more 'them and us' scapegoating. What possible rational basis can anyone have for being homophobic? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Why is sexual orientation such a big issue for these people? But then I still don't get why porn is so important - I fail to see how some couple watching images of two other humans rutting to get themselves in the mood or some teenager furtively masturbating to his beneath-mattress collection of scud mags while hoping his mum doesn't come in is a threat to civilisation. You can argue porn dehumanises sex, but if it don't ring your bell, you don't watch it, simple as. I've yet to see any evidence it helps the NWO - repressing sex is generally more useful for totalitarians. Most of the anti-porn arguments are either (frequently religion based) 'decline of moral standards' arguments or feminist ones. And the feminist ones now have to account for increased participation in the management of any consumption of porn by women. How do they fit here? Sex comes into its own with capitalism because it's used to sell tat. Frankly, I find that more distasteful that footage of other humans copulating with a superfluous plot about some woman calling a plumber or whatever tagged on.

Personally, I regard all my fellow humans as being neither inherently better nor inferior to me. I recognise we all have differing abilities and believe we should strive to show compassion and support to those that need it; you cannot fulfill your potential unless your society facilitates this. Mutual aid makes a lot more sense that the war of each against all. We should develop the skills to overcome our primate tendency to lead/follow and strive to not let ourselves be beguiled into becoming pawns. No masters, no slaves.

Anarchy, peace & freedom!
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD

conspiracy analyst
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter

Joined: 27 Sep 2005
Posts: 2279

Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 7:07 pm Post subject:

Dogsmilk wrote:

5/There is great margin in Israel being a 'Jewish State' - America is a 'Christian State', Saudi Arabia is "Muslim State', but curiously the only Jewish state is the one most commonly seen specifically in terms of religion.

In the propaganda film The Good Shepherd with Matt Damon there is a statement there in one scene where the CIA meets some italian mobster who lost his casino in Cuba, whilst they were trying to organise the Bay of Pigs invasion the following conversation.

Italian mobster to Matt Damon who is the CIA rep

What is it makes you lot tick, what is it you have that binds you. We as italians have family, the jews have their traditions, the blacks their music, the irish memories of their homeland.

CIA rep- We have the United States of America.

In a nutshell the USA is made up of a series of ghettoised sub-ethnic groups, each one does most business amongst itself but there are overlords who oversee everything.

The role of the jewish sub-group is elevated beyond its size. If they have overrepsentation in the media that does not mean they have overrepresentation in the autoindustry, the supermarket industry, the oil industry etc.

KP50
Validated Poster

Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ

Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 8:35 pm Post subject:

Ignatz wrote:

KP50 wrote:

Once again, the approach of homeopathy is not to provide pills for ailments, thus your Boots analogy is invalid. You consult a homeopath who decides what to give to you based on a whole view of yourself, not the fact that you have a snuffly nose today. I am pretty neutral on the subject either way to be honest, but at least the approach seems more sensible than the "traditional" medical way of repeatedly treating the same symptom without addressing the cause.

Actually I was more interested in seeing your response to my 911 comments - I am increasingly disappointed in this home of critics, seems like whenever I try to talk specifics the shutters go up. Whether it is the details of the Pentagon, bombs in the basement ... the critics always go back to the tedious "show me one structural engineer or demolitions expert" line.

rodin
Validated Poster

Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK

Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 5:33 pm Post subject:

conspirator wrote:

rodin wrote:

conspirator wrote:

rodin wrote:

Socıalısm ıs the ultımate monopoly. It ıs a mısnomer. What we really have ıs fascısm wearıng a mask. One whıch ıs slıppıng badly ıf you pay attentıons to the loss of freedom.

Fascısm = State owned by Busıness. Communısm = Busıness owned by state. Socıalısm = somethıng ın between the two. It's all about busıness and state lınked dırectly one way or the other. Thıs ıs how monopolıes are enforced. Backsheesh. Legıslatıon. Rules. For them.

What ıs capıtalısm? Defıne ıt. I own two houses and mıght rent one. Am I a capıtalıst?
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com

rodin
Validated Poster

Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK

Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 5:43 pm Post subject:

Dogsmilk wrote:

Quote:

Lets get thıs straıght.

Jews overwhelmıngly control the medıa and have a bıg chunk of bankıng. Do you deny that Rothschıld saıd 'Gıve me control of a natıons money supply and I care not who makes ıts laws?' He controlled the money supply. Thınk of the power that gave hım.

Freemasons control NASA probably the mılıtary ındustrıal complex certaınly the mılıtary the polıce and bıg constructıon. I doubt there ıs a mjaor sector NOT controlled by one of these groups. Can you thınk of any?

The masons have the star of Davıd and flags of the twelve trıbes of Israel ın theır lodges. Answer me thıs. WHY!
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com

Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster

Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616

Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:42 pm Post subject:

Quote:

If we assume for a moment that Jews are as prevalent as you claim (which I think you're over-egging), it doesn't mean Jews 'control' the media. For a start you're assuming they're a homogenous unit all thinking as one and in some kind of big 'club' - Jews are a disparate bunch with a range of opinions. All this stuff saying 'jews this, Jews that' just finds Jews where it can and says "look - Jews controlling everything" - even 'Jew by birth' or 'Jewish parent' which is just really reaching. Not to mention that's how the nazis defined Jew. As I keep saying, look at the power certain Christians wield and you can draw conclusions about them. You could even suggest gays control the media. Nobody controls the media in a monolothic sense, it just doesn't work like that. The media operates on the internalised societal values of its participants. Chomsky has looked closely at this - tell me how this noted 'Jewish' critic of the media is wrong.
At the most, if you went for a job and were Jewish, being interviewed by a high-flyin' Jew may grease the wheels at bit if you could play on it. At least that's what my friend who used to work in publishing reckons.

Can't say about freemasons controlling NASA - don't know about that. There are numerous 'boys clubs' - that's no secret - elites stick together. Always have, always will. One one hand you can say the freemasons control everything, on the other that the freemasons are an elite club that tends to draw in the powerful who control everything already. Or those who aspire to. I don't know - I'm still waiting for my invite.

I don't deny Rothchild said it (I'm happy to take your word on it) - don't deny the power - don't see why ethnic background matters unless you convincing demonstrate why he's inextricably linked with all these Jewish media people.

I don't know exactly why they had a hexagram at that one lodge. I'm not yet 100% convinced the flags were the twelve tribes - the lion one looked right, but I'm not sure about some of the others. Need to find time to check 'em out properly. However, they're not exclusively important to Jews neither. See e.g. Revelation 7:4.

More to say on that perhaps, but I'm going to have my tea and watch 'Pans Labyrinth' which I've been wanting to see.

So...did this jury punish you yet or what?!
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD

Display posts from previous:

	9/11, 7/7, Covid-1984 & the War on Freedom Forum Index -> Critics' Corner	All times are GMT Goto page 1, 2 Next
Page 1 of 2

Jump to:

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 cannot download files in this forum