I really do not want to spend too much time on this, but it seems hard to get this point across and I have had to be patient and slowly approach the thread with this point, due to the way I am treated when I bring it up.simonshack wrote:"Emotional"???
Rather than calmly reading my writing with the same assumptions of good intentions that you have graced jumpy64 with, you seem bothered by my concern for you. My concern for you is that you are approaching a "grand Jewish conspiracy" from a very emotional standpoint, and it is not really clear what this Jewish conspiracy is.
I have tried to help narrow it down by reiterating the media ownership issue, the Jewish connections to Masonry and to secret societies. I totally agree with the recent post about "Talmudists" being a good term for something.
Unless I am reading things like your triple question marks incorrectly, you do type to me as though you were emotional. It's there. And I'm not sure it belongs in the thread. And when it's pointed out, you seem to get quite bothered by it.
simonshack wrote:And what does that 'suspicion in you'-line (aimed at Jumpy) even mean? Paranoid much, bro?
Uh, no. It was not aimed at jumpy64. This is yet another case where you (or jumpy64) misread my statement in the worst possible way. What the 'suspicion in you'-line means is that when it is pointed out to you that you are acting suspicious of others, you become very suspicious of the people pointing that out to you. You have just done it again. "Suspicion in" someone means that someone is gathering doubts. I am characterizing you as "gathering doubts" by simply being annoyed with something. This is to be differentiated from "Suspicious of (someone)", which I am not. I am not suspicious of you or jumpy64. At all. I am concerned that you guys are holding a lot of suspicion about something that you cannot describe, you are acting on the-four-letter-word-that-apparently-shall-not-be-named (fear) and that it is coming through your text. This may stem from a confusion about English, which is totally understandable, but it must be pointed out.
I am just suggesting you have let yourself get this way and only you can control it. If you don't want to, it's none of my business and you just come across the way you come across and that is a bit like someone who won't read me fairly. I still assert it is wiser to come at religious topics from a very calm, rational point of view. I agree that hypocrisy is awful and there is nothing to fear. That has pretty much been the whole point of my statements to you and jumpy64. Please, before quoting my text and misinterpreting it again, please please just read it with the same level of assumed good intentions that you give to posts by jumpy64. I really do mean well.
I want the thread to succeed, and I am concerned that if we are not allowed to discuss the ways in which we discuss this topic, we will end up sounding paranoid. I understand your frustration with me not sounding exactly like your friend jumpy64 but please do try to see it from my point of view just once. Thanks.
---
Moving on, I was looking recently into the "Gabby Giffords shooting" event and I recognized something interesting about the character of Gabby Giffords. Her religion according to Wickedpeddler is "Reform Judaism". Now, presuming she is a real person that we can contact and ask about her role in the supposed "assassination attempt" of herself, we could try to see if she really was a "Reform Judaism" believer, despite being raised by a Christian-Scientist mother and a Jewish father.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabrielle_Giffords
According to Wicked, that same (American) Judaism may be described thus:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_JudaismReform Judaism and Orthodox Judaism are the two largest denominations of American Jews today.[11] In a 2013 opinion poll, 35% of American Jews described themselves as Reform Jews (compared with 18% Conservative Judaism and 10% who identify themselves as Orthodox),[11] but in terms of actual membership Reform Judaism with an estimated 670,000 members was roughly the same size as Orthodox Judaism in 2013.[11] However, Reform Judaism accounts for the largest number of Jews affiliated with Progressive Judaism worldwide. It was founded by Rabbi Isaac M. Wise in Cincinnati, Ohio in the mid-1800s.
Before moving on from here, it should be noted that the state of Ohio's original motto may have been something like "Empire within an empire", if documents are to be believed. Today, the reference of a "state within a state" is often used to refer to intelligence organizations like the CIA. It is an atypical reference to suggest that before 1900, the United States should already be considered an "empire". Or is it? Ohio is also strange in the sense that a drive through its highways is like a tour of sparse land, where military bases and lack of normal exits is plain. Anyway, was the USA already being planned as an "empire" for use by nefarious powers as early as that? Well, after the Civil War that forced the country to unite under threat of federal violence, you can bet that it was being especially put into action. In America, criticizing a Jewish conspiracy is mocked, but it is not as taboo as suggesting a plot by Masons to create America with explicit dark purposes in mind.
Back to "Reform Judaism", we are meant to believe that over one third of all American Jews consider themselves this "progressive" form of Judaism, versus almost another third which considers itself conservative or even Orthodox. If Giffords is an example of what we may consider "progressive" and she is still involved in such apparently public-hating PsyOps, I shudder to think at what a "conservative" Jew thinks is permissible. This is kind of a weird area to talk about because Nixon was supposedly a Quaker! And we know that conservative movements in America are sometimes aligned more with "Libertarian"-esque principles like our own. However, if all (or just two thirds) of them are trained in the Talmud (or at least, the culture of the Talmud as it spreads to "normal" Judaism), we might consider the idea that two thirds (or, very conservatively, some portion) of the American Jewish population that considers itself "progressive" may have no qualms whatsoever about keeping dreadful lies a secret from the rest of the population.
That is, however, until we consider the fact that religion is often a cover for these people. Her alleged husband, the fake ass-tro-nut "Mark Kelly" (complete with fake twin!) is not considered "Jewish" (yet) but he is part of that other great conspiracy of the State of "United States" (of deep states) — the military. I wonder what this "couple" has in common together. Being near Tucson, perhaps I should try to find them and find out.
Their enemy, the sim-mad "Loughner" has another "religious" story going on, according to that same Wickedpedia:
It's almost as though part of the PsyOp is to make people fearful of criticizing the Jewish religion or making it seem "too taboo to talk about rationally". That seems like a pretty strong defense for something that is both "open", and yet near the core of the controlling parties of the USA population. So, that is a case for jumpy64's suspicions, I suspect.Journalists had speculated that Loughner was anti-Semitic due to his attack on Rep. Giffords, who is Jewish, but the Anti-Defamation League's analysis of the messages by Loughner found that he had a more generalized dislike of religion, and of government.
A police report noted that he had previously been caught making graffiti associated with Christian anti-abortion groups. [56]
Loughner declined to state his religion in his Army application. In his "Final Thoughts" video, Loughner stated, "No, I don't trust in God!", in reference to the controversial phrase printed on US coins and US paper currency, "In God We Trust". He has been described as an atheist and as particularly critical of Christians