"Hiding in Plain Sight: Reflections on an Open Conspiracy"

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest

Re: "Hiding in Plain Sight: Reflections on an Open Conspirac

Postby Selene on October 6th, 2015, 1:29 am

simonshack wrote:
Selene wrote:
Doesn't the claim for a "Jewish* conspiracy" deserve research at least worked out on a more professional level? Up to September Clues standards? Such that no counterargument would pass? That all crtics are silenced by the complete and well-argumented nature of it?
Selene


Oh, absolutely, dear Selene.

We need to maintain a 'professional' - as you say - and even scientific / mathematical approach to this matter. Let us not be swayed by the fact that at least one, two or more Jewish people (reputedly a group of only 14 million individuals making up 0.2% of this planet's 7 billion inhabitants) inevitably seem to pop up in virtually 100% of all of the psyops and mega-scams ever researched on this forum.

Some say it may be just be a mere coincidence.
Some say it is a purposeful ploy to scapegoat the world's Jewish community (who, as that theory goes, just LOVE to be scapegoated).
Some say that to point out this undeniable statistical fact is due to "antisemitism" and "racial prejudice".

Indeed, let us research this on a professional level - and see where it goes. That is, providing no one stops us from performing such a research.

I consider your trained eye on your own friends far beyond my membership here Simon. I stand behind hoi's reasoning and caution without forgetting that good friendship leads to the most valuable insights and I would like more jumpy's to join, let that be clear.

On-topic;
The whole case falls or stays with me regarding:
- does a Jewish people even EXIST? - see Shlomo Sand for intellectual information which may or may not be correct or complete, but it's the foundation of all, wouldn't you say?
- the mere facts that you name, and researching minds wouldn't dispute those nor laugh them away or throw insane insults showing a lack of reasonable response, are those enough to speak of a Jewish* conspiracy?

Tendencies for family marriages (usually more distant than direct inbred), a focus on intellectual topics, art, acting and other creative professions, tendencies for organization within some classes, do those tendencies, that can bring people easier up social ladders, together with an increased probability for psychopathical behaviour due to circumcision, helped by family bankers, politicians and other crooks all justify a "Jewish conspiracy"??

It is stated that the Holocaust was a set-up plan by zionists. True or not, but does killing x number (which may or may not be the "magical 6 million") of JEWS really mean a JEWISH conspiracy? :wacko:

How "Jewish" is a conspiracy performed by
1 - Jews 1
2 - Jews type 2 - non-religious
3 - type 3 semijews - Jewish maternal law and christian paternal naming laws do make this search very extensive...
4 - fake Jews
5 - any f*cking other psychopath who stood behind these plans and executions of them...

I just adapt to high standards, simon. Please watch Sand and tell me what you think. Without a jewish people the whole topic would become rather unstable, not?
Selene
Member
 
Posts: 195
Joined: January 19th, 2015, 8:59 pm

Re: "Hiding in Plain Sight: Reflections on an Open Conspirac

Postby Selene on October 6th, 2015, 1:59 am

simonshack wrote:
fbenario wrote: Wiki indicates that nearly 80% of American men are circumcised, yet only 1.4% of America is Jewish.


??????? :o :blink: :huh:


Circumcisional evidence, Simon... :ph34r:

Is this an example of the "Jewish* Conspiracy" jumpy is looking for, In Plain Sight?


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eydDN55Vyc

Link to start at directly "Jewish part": https://youtu.be/8eydDN55Vyc?t=13m25s

Link to end, nuance about the Jewish contributions to the world, that Molyneux sees: https://youtu.be/8eydDN55Vyc?t=35m20s

Short summary:

The "Jews" (Molyneux means the Zionists/Israelis) can build a fence to keep immigrants out. Hungary is criticised and called "nazis" for doing just the same. Is Israel relieved from charges in world politics?? Hmm... :unsure:

Basic ground is the non-agression principle, slaughtered by governments. Self-protection is not initiating force.

But, are we talking Jewish or Zionist conspiracies? The latter would be just normal politics, no surprise for informed people, right? But that is NOT a "Jewish* conspiracy"?!

Or is "Jewish*" just some wasted term where you can dump the niece of auntie Clara together with that Jewish name, yet no Judaist, nor Jew by "laws", and just that creep?

The vast majority of Jews over the centuries were just normal people, like any other. Working class people, just getting by, working hard, keeping strong and growing old, like any other. That a higher percentage of Jews is and was present in higher-regarded professions is no surprise nor complaint, see earlier posts.

Jewish anarchists and Jewish statists stand linea recta against each other and are still "Jewish*". How foolish would a conspiracy be stemming from both these individuals...?

What binds people is just what divides us from them
What separates people is just what they want you to see


Selene
Selene
Member
 
Posts: 195
Joined: January 19th, 2015, 8:59 pm

Re: "Hiding in Plain Sight: Reflections on an Open Conspirac

Postby Seneca on October 6th, 2015, 9:43 am

I agree with Selene that we have to be clear about the words we are using. I think the combination "the jewish conspiracy" (introduced in this topic by hoi) can be dividing and confusing. I think we really need another term. A term that doesn't risk scapegoating people that don't belong to or endorse this conspiracy. But a term that also doesn't hide or deny the reality we try to convey with the other term, at least our current understanding of this reality. I don't think the adjective zionist is helpful either. I am not so good with coming up with new terms.

It is obvious that a conspiracy can never involve a whole "people". An essential part is the recruitment of new members. I am not saying that circumcision is a cause of psychopathology based on this study of 22 people! But if we think we are dealing with psychopaths we should investigate all systematic practices that could cause trauma to children, especially to very young children. Vaccination is also high on that list. (Obviously pedophilia is at the very top of the list, this is discussed here: viewtopic.php?f=27&t=1760).
I know Jumpy64 was being ironic but I think he hit a nail here:
What we need most would be a team of psychiatrists and psychologists. Is anybody here of that profession? Let's gather them quickly, what are we waiting for?

Edit: I realize that what I just wrote goes against the title of this topic "Hiding in Plain Sight: Reflections on an Open Conspiracy", because I am still looking for things that are hidden. Let me try a different view: for me and many other people it is obvious that every state has become (or even begins as) a sort conspiracy. (A definition of conspiracy : "An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act."). You don't have to agree.
So if there is a Jewish State, it follows that there is a Jewish conspiracy (at least for many people). States are open organizations, always looking for new members. You can hardly say Israel is hiding it's existence or even its intentions. So I think Jumpy64's title is totally correct. Now the question is: how is this conspiracy related to the conspiracy that is somehow responsible for 99% of the hoaxes we are uncovering here?
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 422
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

Re: "Hiding in Plain Sight: Reflections on an Open Conspirac

Postby hoi.polloi on October 6th, 2015, 1:06 pm

Statism is a problem, and a conspiracy. Good point. And it ties in with existing knowledge of Communism. Communism, like Capitalism, is Statism. It was written out by Jews and it turned out to be a terrible PsyOp on those that have attempted it according to the texts. Idealism gone awry or not, there may be something deeply wrong with the idea that we all need an artificial government to regulate people en masse. It is a very old problem. And big. If we could uncover the idea that Statism was first invented and was always promoted by a "Statist" aspect of "Jews", you have your conspiracy with a Jew-related core right there.

How about a title like this? "There are a disproportionate number of Statists in the Jewish population"

Okay, it's a bit long, but does it sum up what we are dealing with better than the present title? We may uncover that the "Why?" is a number of reasons. One may be due to trauma induced by and for Jews that control Jews (and the rest of the world) into feeling that a "Jewish State" must exist.

That creates the motivation for Israel and the Mossad and the rest. It also suggests the inadequate word "Zionism" isn't the only form of Jewish Statism. Jews that live in New York City who may admit Israel is a problem and a mess will still say they'd rather have America and will cavalierly dismiss the wholesale slaughter of the native populations of the North American continent (or any other land where the native population is wiped out by an invading force). We certainly may notice a pattern in that attitude. Jews always seem to support the idea that "might makes right" retroactively. Jews may have also been heavily involved in (if not primary designers or inheriters of) the Transatlantic slave trade. Unfortunately, some of this research I only came across on the Rense site, but it seems worth looking into. Based in Jewish-mafia Boston (among other places you can learn about in America), the Jewish bankers and rum factories involved in the Northern slave operations (used by Spain and England and others to bribe African chiefs for innocent children and families to turn into a work force) were the vestiges of centuries of horrible treatment of African peoples. What a coincidence that America still has not persecuted, punished nor asked for reparations from JP Morgan and other bankers that built their empires on the blood of innocent people.

It seems unproven to me to say that Jews are primarily responsible for human dilemmas we have come to understand as the real crux of corrupt States: evils of slavery, empire, Statism, "royalty", "racism", colonialism, "intelligent groups" and so on. Seems to me more like "empire" and "elitism" are the problem. However, Jews have been some of the most eager to benefit from all empires — and to get in the good graces of elites by sucking up to them — and to try to control them so that they don't have to do the fighting of defending an evil behemoth, but simply receive the benefits. My god, if that's the problem people are trying to pin down, we are currently facing the controversy of pacifism. And hundreds of millions of people who do the same thing. It's even part of the mainstream media's message that we all need to be thankful to our State.

Perhaps a big problem contributing to how we have become so passive towards cultural creatives excusing the actions of empires (Kissinger comes to mind) is "lost history" and why peoples get to such a state, how each people had been displaced and by whom. They say species have collective memory based on trauma. Maybe human populations have that as well. Also, the genetic, cultural or other highly inherent differences between nomadic people versus non-nomadic people. Maybe the myth of the "Jewish holocaust" is a fantasy version of what people around the world have all felt they suffered deep down and wish to use as an excuse, on some level, for the so-called "comforts" they have been brainwashed into thinking the empires give them. (Did the empire make your living room? Your couch?)

Well, not all people feel this way. There are even strong differences between nomadic groups sucking up to empire and those that have historically resisted. This may explain why some Jews act so hateful and racist toward the Roma/'Gypsy'/Bohemian population and other nomads that do not overtly go along with empire. It may also explain some resistance people have to our research. It reveals core issues with the endorsement of empires people benefit from. And hence our subconscious was exploited to protect the myths invented and written by a colonialist statist Jewish population, that seems to religiously control banking and media to make armies of non-Jews go to war for them and even feel patriotic about it!

As such, Israel is a terrorist state created deliberately — invented and designed by self-styled elites, as the USA was — to be a problem. It is a problem. Especially for populations that dislike empire. That was its design. And as Simon sort of suggests (and as others I've read too) it may have something to do with why Israel is so eager to defend its actions and why so many Jews promote colonialist Statism in all its horrible varieties. Anyone who wants to be a terrorist, nationalist, colonialist State simply looks to the Jews for motivation and mythmaking (i.e.; contemporary justification) for their actions. Does that make sense?

This means, to me, the trifecta problem is something like the above combined with at least two other issues: any/all delusional inbred psychotic "royalty" or "nobility" who want to use that dark force for power (many different branches of the shrewd but insane who would use the traditionally Jewish "services" of population control); and the willing, parasitic, bloodthirsty, military mindset which is just looking for an excuse to have a boss tell them who to kill and when.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4866
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: "Hiding in Plain Sight: Reflections on an Open Conspirac

Postby jumpy64 on October 6th, 2015, 1:38 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:Very interesting and relevant to media fakery:
Jews own most of the media. That's a big problem. Jews influence Christian/Anglo beliefs in order to weaken them. Jews circumcise babies and drink baby penis blood, which possibly traumatizes them and makes them more susceptible to psychological influence of some kind.


Thank you, Hoi, for recognizing that this thread is raising some very interesting points and for summarizing them. And most of all for saying that they are relevant to media fakery, admittedly the main subject of this forum. In fact, all I want is to concentrate on them. And it would be great if you and other members, who are certainly more experienced and capable than me, could also help me investigating them (and others that may arise) by contributing their precious research, like Flabbergasted and Seneca are doing, for example. Because when I started this thread I thought this was going to be a collaborative effort, while most of the time here I feel as if, since I started the thread, it were my "duty" to do most of the research and also counter all the criticism that arises. Well, sorry folks, but if that's the case, I can't keep up, both because I have my limitations (which I hoped you could help me overcome or at least improve) and because I can't do this full time.

So let's get back to business. Already the first point makes all the relevance in the world, because here we know better than most people that, since the advent and exponentially rapid development of mass media, you don't really need to conquer the world militarily. All you really need is to influence and control people's perception of the world. Particularly revealing examples of this are the ones we're exposing here as products of media fakery, like serial killers, crazy bombers and other "lone nuts", or A-bombs. It's not necessary for all these things, and similar others, to really exist, as long as the mass of people believes they exist and is afraid of them. And we all know this all too well here.

Therefore, it would be safe to assume that whoever controls the media controls the world, right? Then let's look at who could be controlling the media. And before looking in the darkest corners for obscure conspiracies, I suggest to look to what's in front of our eyes (hence the "open" adjective). In fact, there is an ethnic group of people who says it plainly all the time: "We control the media". And nobody here seems to question that there is a Jewish control of the media, although some people have raised the possibility that there might be another group of people who hides behind the Jews. Well, that could be, but before investigating that possibility I'd like to verify if things can be taken at face value or not. After all, if you're investigating a homicide and somebody comes in saying "I'm the killer", you can't avoid making him at least a suspect and verifying his claims before discarding them, right? So that's what I'm trying to do here: investigate to discover if certain claims of a group of people who identify themselves as Jews can be true or not.

And since some people here (most notably Selene, I think) ask to specify who could be the "Jews" we're talking about here, I'll give you my working definition.

First of all, let me make this absolutely clear: I firmly believe people of all "races" are all essentially human beings with equal dignity and importance. We're all different waves of the same sea of humanity, and deep down we're all the same. The superficial differences between us are given either by nature (different sexes, different skin colors and physical traits, etc.) or by different forms of conditioning (call it cultural, religious or whatever you like).

The second category is what interests me here, because my contention is that we can consider "Jewish" all people who have been subjected to the influence of Jewish culture and religion since birth or later in life. Of course, it can be said that people who have been subjected to this conditioning since birth didn't have a choice at the time, but maybe later they have either confirmed their conditioning or denied it.

I greatly admire people who question their own conditioning, if they find it unfit or morally wrong, but often it's not enough to deny it consciously, because even if you do so it could still have an unconscious effect, especially if it was instilled in people at such an early age that they couldn't process it consciously.

That's why I wanted to start this examination of "Jewish" conditioning from the practice of ritual circumcision on eight-days old infants. I'm not referring to medical circumcision, and especially not to that practiced on older people who had the opportunity to choose it more consciously at an older age, so please don't give me statistics on how many Americans are cirumcised, because they're not relevant to my point.

Somebody also arose the question: why are you concentrating on the Jewish religion? There are mainly two reasons for that, which I’ve already stated, but maybe I can do it more clearly here:
1) Jewish religion and culture is the religion of culture of the group of people who say themselves proudly that they control the media, and hence the world through its perception of reality
2) It seems to me, through my limited knowledge of the Talmud, that this religion creates an extremely dangerous mindset of violent and profoundly racist "elitism" that could easily legitimate a "world domination".

So I strongly contend that this kind of investigation into a certain mindset is totally relevant to the main theme of media fakery. Of course, we're not investigating specific "media hoaxes" here (perhaps we will, but there are already lots of threads here that do just that), but we're trying to understand why these hoaxes are created and who seems to benefit more from their results.

Having said this clearly (I hope), in my future posts I want to concentrate on the other two points (how Jews "influence Christian/Anglo beliefs in order to weaken them", and how certain traumas could make people who are subjected to them practically at birth "more susceptible to psychological influence of some kind", as Hoi put it. And I want to do it with links and quotes resulting from my research, of course.

As soon as possible I will continue with the latter point: the trauma of circumcision as capable of facilitating subsequent conditioning imparted through religious scriptures. Please, just give me the time and space to do that. And by all means, do it yourselves too (as some of you are already doing here, including Hoi in his latest, very interesting posts, which I've just read), if you think there might be something important to discover. And if you don't think so, I hope you can respect me anyway. After all, there are so many threads here that it's virtually impossible for everybody to be interested in all of them.
Last edited by jumpy64 on October 6th, 2015, 2:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
jumpy64
Member
 
Posts: 288
Joined: June 27th, 2013, 1:44 pm

Re: "Hiding in Plain Sight: Reflections on an Open Conspirac

Postby Critical Mass on October 6th, 2015, 2:04 pm

simonshack wrote:
fbenario wrote: Wiki indicates that nearly 80% of American men are circumcised, yet only 1.4% of America is Jewish.


??????? :o :blink: :huh:

It's hilarious reading a 'Pro-circumcision' review.

I mean this...

Humans most likely evolved as a circumcising species.


... is insane on any number of levels.

So all the people who don't cut up their children (at least 70% of the world) are supposedly the unnatural ones?

Either way most cultures do not circumcise babies... it's often a rite of manhood thing (though obviously most cultures definition of manhood differs from 'Modern Western legal tradition'). Even most Muslims will at least wait till the child is old enough to somewhat 'understand'.

Clearly though the practice, when performed on children, is against the 'human rights' of any one individual.

What if your parents were Jewish but you didn't wish to be circumcised? Well hard luck buddy.

It speaks volume on the nature of humans that they can even consider performing such acts on obviously unconsenting individuals. Inevitably though humans will justify their beliefs with the usual clap trap of scientific & religious 'facts'.
Critical Mass
Member
 
Posts: 544
Joined: July 8th, 2014, 11:33 pm

Re: "Hiding in Plain Sight: Reflections on an Open Conspirac

Postby hoi.polloi on October 6th, 2015, 2:10 pm

Thank you, jumpy64, for not being on my case for getting on your case. Detective speak. :P

Another thought I want to add here that I think is relevant to the subject of what makes people people. The Japanese came roughly from the Korean peninsula, as its understood by the Koreans, and 8,000 years ago invaded the island they wanted, all but exterminated the native Ainu bear people population and to this day relegate this bit of history to the most obscure corners of their culture, where actually few Japanese can learn the truth about it. That island is now called Japan.

This had nothing to do with Jews, I am fairly sure. Yet, to me, it represents a parallel to the European "conquest" (if it can be called that) of the millions of inhabitants of the North American continent prior, when there was a similar invasion of various pale folks from Europe. It's a big problem, to me. It represents what people do.

Now, we may argue that Jews have taken the lead in purposely motivating humans to do this sort of thing to one another by exploiting a "natural tendency" if you will. And that seems perfectly plausible to me. Yet, let's distinguish time periods of this conspiracy as well. I have heard that medieval times are the most relevant to look at for a "turning point" when powerful Jews decided to get back to their "conquesting" roots. Maybe not. To me, however, I have no doubt that invading hordes of Jews were going about forcing people to convert when they first formed, just like every other Abrahamic religion, and it's a contemporary myth (just like the similar one Christians invented for themselves) that they represent one giant swirling massive empire of a "persecuted" people. (One day, perhaps, we can crack open a serious exploration about how all religions begin — something blatantly missing from all history books, and usually comically supplanted for each by the creation story myth that the given religion created for itself!)

At the center of each modern empire is a motivating factor. For many of them today, it can be seen to be Jewish. England, America and so on. Even Saudi Arabia, or so I understand from cursory examination of this problem. However, Israel is a strange case because it is a place where both the psychological core (traditionally Jewish in many modern imperial States) and the military itself are both Jewish. Jews in Israel (and Londonites apparently, at least when I was in London) are brainwashed daily to believe that this makes Israel's imperial ambitions somehow more "pure" or "honest". What a laugh. On the contrary, I would argue Israel is a poisonous mentality on the "world stage" that gives a "might makes right" excuse to the entire concept that a Jewish-designed psychological core to a nation somehow makes it superior to another. In other words, Israel's designed existence creates a monopoly on thought in the world's largest unified populations.

Easier said than done, but I think we as a species need to end the reign of all empires. Empires should not exist. They are an abomination. Especially since the Jewish PR weapon jumpy64 describes is far too effective at creating and uniting them in a way that is dangerous to humankind.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 4866
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: "Hiding in Plain Sight: Reflections on an Open Conspirac

Postby jumpy64 on October 6th, 2015, 2:20 pm

Hoi, I greatly appreciate your latest post, which deepens perspectives on the subject at hand.

But enough with "personal asides" now. I wouldn't want people to think that after "bickering", now we're kissing each other's ass or, as we say in Italian (I'm roughly translating an idiom here), "giving each other BJs" :D
jumpy64
Member
 
Posts: 288
Joined: June 27th, 2013, 1:44 pm

Re: "Hiding in Plain Sight: Reflections on an Open Conspirac

Postby Seneca on October 6th, 2015, 2:38 pm

I come back to my argument about statism. I think this is valuable not because Jews have somehow invented the modern state (I have no idea) but because it is an open conspiracy we are all very familiar with. It shows that you can take part in a conspiracy without making you necessarily a bad person. I am still a part of the Belgian conspiracy as well as the European Union conspiracy. I still pay them taxes because I don't want to risk going to prison. It also shows that there is not always a clear line between most of the victims and most of the perpetrators. I think this is important to make this information digestible for jewish people.
Jumpy64 has also attention for the fact that jews are also victims of this conspiracy.

But I think his definition of Jewish may be too broad:
because my contention is that we can consider "Jewish" all people who have been subjected to the influence of Jewish culture and religion since birth or later in life. Of course, it can be said that people who have been subjected to this conditioning since birth didn't have a choice at the time, but maybe later they have either confirmed their conditioning or denied it.

Because the media is controlled by jewish people, isn't the whole world somewhat "subjected to the influence of Jewish culture and religion since birth"? And he seems to overrate the amount of choice people have.

Maybe it is not useful to define the adjective "jewish" without a noun.

About circumcision, I just want to add that it is not only the men that are affected by it. The women are also harmed. As mothers: http://www.circumcision.org/mothers.htm:
Regarding circumcision, the father is more likely to deny his son’s pain because it could remind him of his own circumcision feelings. Therefore, witnessing the circumcision and the infant’s response can have a particularly shocking effect on the mother.

Studies have shown that circumcision can adversely affect mother-infant bonding.
Based on more than twenty years of clinical observations using leading-edge techniques, psychiatrist Rima Laibow, M.D., reports,
When a child is subjected to intolerable, overwhelming pain, he conceptualizes mother as both participatory and responsible regardless of mother's intent. . . . The consequences for impaired bonding are significant. . . . Circumcision is an enormous obstacle to the development of basic trust between mother and child.

Even though the physician does the circumcising, and the father may have made the final decision to circumcise, the newborn infant connects the experience to the mother. Because the experience is repressed, the connection between the event and the mother is also repressed. (How this repressed connection affects men's feelings toward women is not known.)


And as sexual partners: http://www.circumcision.org/femalesex.htm
With circumcised partners, surveyed women were more likely to feel unappreciated, distanced, disinterested, frustrated, and discontented.

It is possible to compare circumcision rates by country to prevalence of male abuses toward women that include violence, repression, isolation, murder, rape, and forced marriage. The ten worst countries for women are Afghanistan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, Nepal, Sudan, Guatemala, Mali, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Somalia. Eight of these countries have a male circumcision rate that exceeds 80%. Two other countries have a rate between 20% and 80%.

Edit: added 2 more quotes
Last edited by Seneca on October 6th, 2015, 5:23 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 422
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

Re: "Hiding in Plain Sight: Reflections on an Open Conspirac

Postby Critical Mass on October 6th, 2015, 2:40 pm

It is interesting that 'Jews' always get 'openly' brought into these terror stories... not only with the famous 'Dancing Israeli's' but with even recently admitted hoaxes like 'Joshua Goldberg'.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoEfF6SIazE

I find it interesting that Josh's alleged terror target was Kansas City... anyone ever heard of a Kansas city shuffle?

The con isn't in getting you to pick the wrong shell. The con is in getting you to accept that the basic premise of the game is still being followed. The con is in getting you to pick a shell at all.



full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxF5bfVofkk
Critical Mass
Member
 
Posts: 544
Joined: July 8th, 2014, 11:33 pm

Re: "Hiding in Plain Sight: Reflections on an Open Conspirac

Postby jumpy64 on October 6th, 2015, 3:11 pm

Seneca wrote:Because the media is controlled by jewish people, isn't the whole world somewhat "subjected to the influence of Jewish culture and religion since birth"?


Yes, Seneca, I think we're all submitted to the influence of Jewish culture and religion much more than most people realize. Maybe not since birth, though. Let's say "since we start watching tv and/or movies". :)

By the way, I'd like to throw a challenge to you and to all members here. Could you please give me notable examples of movies that, since let's say the Nineties, depict a Jewish person under an unfavorable light?

I can't seem to remember any. I had high hopes (joking, of course :P ) for Al Pacino's "Merchant of Venice", but even there the persecutory context seems to justify the main character's actions.

This goes to show how, in the last decades at least, we've all been conditioned to see the Jews as always "good people", and that we should feel guilty if we dare to think otherwise, while of course all other races have bad guys in them. In fact, I remember a "Law and Order: Criminal Intent" episode in which a Jewish father is suspected of abusing his daughter. Wow, I couldn't believe that they could even suggest such an eventuality in a tv show. But of course in the end it turns out that such suspects were unfounded, so the viewer might even feel guilty for maybe having suspected a Jew guy out of "prejudice". Nice trick, eh?
jumpy64
Member
 
Posts: 288
Joined: June 27th, 2013, 1:44 pm

Re: "Hiding in Plain Sight: Reflections on an Open Conspirac

Postby jumpy64 on October 6th, 2015, 4:01 pm

Although the "movie challenge" I've just thrown still stands, I want to go back briefly to circumcision as promised.

I've read Seneca's post about it, and it's already almost exhaustive.

Now I just want to add one more link to what I consider a very significant document:

http://www.circumcision.org/brain.htm

It's titled "Circumcision permanently alters the brain".

I think the document should be read in its entirety because it's extremely significant and not very long. Anyway, basically it says that a team of physicians circumcised a baby to see how such a traumatic experience (in a medical environment, mind you, and with no sucking involved, but without anesthetic) could affect the baby.

A neurologist who saw the results postulated that the data indicated that circumcision affected most intensely the portions of the victim's brain associated with reasoning, perception and emotions. Follow up tests on the infant one day, one week and one month after the surgery indicated that the child's brain never returned to its baseline configuration. In other words, the evidence generated by this research indicated that the brain of the circumcised infant was permanently changed by the surgery.


At the end of the article the author, Dr. Paul D. Tinari, denounces the fact that "Not only could we not publish the results of our research, but we also had to destroy all of our results. If we refused to comply, we were all threatened with immediate dismissal and legal action".

Mmm, I wonder why...
jumpy64
Member
 
Posts: 288
Joined: June 27th, 2013, 1:44 pm

Re: "Hiding in Plain Sight: Reflections on an Open Conspirac

Postby Seneca on October 6th, 2015, 4:33 pm

OK, I have some problems with this study, aside from the ethical questions

We tightly strapped an infant to a traditional plastic "circumstraint" using Velcro restraints. We also completely immobilized the infant's head using standard surgical tape. The entire apparatus was then introduced into the MRI chamber. Since no metal objects could be used because of the high magnetic fields, the doctor who performed the surgery used a plastic bell with a sterilized obsidian bade to cut the foreskin. No anesthetic was used.

The baby was kept in the machine for several minutes to generate baseline data of the normal metabolic activity in the brain. This was used to compare to the data gathered during and after the surgery.

I wouldn't call this a normal situation for a baby, so this doesn't seem like a good baseline. And I don't think normal parents would go along with this, so we don't know what other traumas this baby had.

So for me the most interesting part is the reaction of the Canadian hospital discipline committee.
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 422
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

Re: "Hiding in Plain Sight: Reflections on an Open Conspirac

Postby Seneca on October 6th, 2015, 6:36 pm

jumpy64 wrote:Yes, Seneca, I think we're all submitted to the influence of Jewish culture and religion much more than most people realize. Maybe not since birth, though. Let's say "since we start watching tv and/or movies". :)

By the way, I'd like to throw a challenge to you and to all members here. Could you please give me notable examples of movies that, since let's say the Nineties, depict a Jewish person under an unfavorable light?

Movies about Jesus Christ! For example "The Passion of the Christ ", starring a jew called Judas Iscariot. He is in 213 other movies. What do I win? B)
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 422
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

Re: "Hiding in Plain Sight: Reflections on an Open Conspirac

Postby jumpy64 on October 6th, 2015, 8:18 pm

Seneca wrote:Movies about Jesus Christ! For example "The Passion of the Christ ", starring a jew called Judas Iscariot. He is in 213 other movies. What do I win? B)


Well, I don't know Seneca, that one is too obvious and I think it doesn't count. Too many Jews there, so at least one had to be the bad guy :)

Actually, that movie by Mel Gibson was harshly criticised by Jewish religious authorities because it reaffirmed that it was the Jews who wanted to kill Christ, as the Gospels say pretty clearly already, I think. But in recent times the Church changed its tune and started saying it was the Romans' fault. Actually, I heard in a conference by an Italian author that it was a Jewish bishop converted to Christianity who convinced the Church to place the blame on the Romans, but I couldn't find any reference to this online yet. Does anybody know the name of this Bishop (I think it was a Bishop or a cardinal, I'm not sure)? Otherwise I could try and contact the author in question to get more accurate information, and then get back to you here.

To be honest, I don't even know if what the Gospels say about Jesus is historically accurate (I wasn't there ;) ), so I don't want to raise any religious issue here. The only interesting thing is that, if I can find confirmation about this converted Jewish cleric, it could be an example of Jewish influence even on the catholic Church's beliefs "in order to weaken them", which is another point to develop here.
jumpy64
Member
 
Posts: 288
Joined: June 27th, 2013, 1:44 pm

PreviousNext

Return to THE LIVING ROOM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests