THE DERAILING ROOM

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

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

Postby starfish prime on Sun Oct 18, 2015 9:54 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:It may be kinda "shotgun" approach to promote religious situations that oppose and support such a conspiracy, but I am not sure there has been an effective argument made for the general reader to intelligently argue (with the least amount of guesswork) about how specific this issue is. It certainly doesn't seem "open". To isolate what evil here is "Jewish" is difficult so far. Also, to say what good things are "Christian" in America, for example, would be quite a feat. The Talmud seems especially important to this topic. It would be great to have more analysis of that. Also, the importance of "anti-semitism" or "hate" laws which have gotten out of control. Child abuse and mistreatment, I suspect, are very important clues. It's too bad for this particular angle to the conspiracy that so many people on the planet have different ideas about what that means. It's about as broad as what constitutes "acceptable" abuse of others, in general.


Would it not be reasonable to suggest that the JPMs might simply be Talmudists, in either Judaic or non-Judaic form? This term seems less likely to evoke ideas of race, or the denouncing of an entire culture, as most (ethnically or religiously) Jewish people are not Talmudic scholars, and are probably unfamiliar with its doctrine of racial supremacy, though they may certainly reap some of its benefits (sociopolitical connections, reparations payments to Israel, Kol Nidrei, etc.) or serve as unknowing "sayanim" (such as by defending the JPMs against "antisemitism"). It would seem that many of the so-called "Jewish" ideologies of manipulation (media deception, Zionism, Communism) have roots in the Talmud:

Baba Kamma 113a: Where a suit arises between an Israelite and a heathen, if you can justify the former according to the laws of Israel, justify him and say: 'This is our law'; so also if you can justify him by the laws of the heathens justify him and say [to the other party:] 'This is your law'; but if this can not be done, we use subterfuges to circumvent him.

http://www.come-and-hear.com/babakamma/babakamma_113.html

Regarding child abuse, the Talmud recounts the words of Rabbi Simeon bar Yochai, creator of the Kabbalah, to whom is attributed the infamous quote, "Even the best of Gentiles should be killed":

Yebamoth 60b: R. Simeon b. Yohai stated: A proselyte who is under the age of three years and one day is permitted to marry a priest, for it is said, But all the women children that have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves, and Phinehas surely was with them. And the Rabbis?[16]

[16] How could they, contrary to the opinion of R. Simeon b. Yohai, which has Scriptural support, forbid the marriage of the young proselyte?"

http://www.come-and-hear.com/yebamoth/yebamoth_60.html

Even if a rabbi wanted to oppose pedophilia, they would be unsuccessful, as it is designated "halakha" by bar Yochai.

Some more quotes from the Talmud:

Kethuboth 11b: When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing, for when the girl is less than this, it is as if one puts the finger into the eye [7]...

[7] I.e., tears come to the eye again and again, so does virginity come back to the little girl under three years. Cf. Nid. 45a.

http://www.come-and-hear.com/kethuboth/kethuboth_11.html

Sanhedrin 69a: A maiden aged three years and a day may be acquired in marriage by coition, and if her deceased husband's brother cohabited with her, she becomes his.

http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_69.html

Sanhedrin 54b: Pederasty with a child below nine years of age is not deemed as pederasty with a child above that. Samuel said: Pederasty with a child below three years is not treated as with a child above that.[24] What is the basis of their dispute? — Rab maintains that only he who is able to engage in sexual intercourse, may, as the passive subject of pederasty throw guilt [upon the active offender]; whilst he who is unable to engage in sexual intercourse cannot be a passive subject of pederasty [in that respect].[25] But Samuel maintains: Scripture writes, [And thou shalt not lie with mankind] as with the lyings of a woman.[26]
[24] I.e., Rab makes nine years the minimum; but if one committed sodomy with a child of lesser age, no guilt is incurred. Samuel makes three the minimum.
[25] At nine years a male attains sexual matureness.
[26] Lev. XVIII, 22. Thus the point of comparison is the sexual matureness of woman, which is reached at the age of three.

http://www.come-and-hear.com/sanhedrin/sanhedrin_54.html

---

Former students at the Jewish Yeshiva University High School in Manhattan filed a $380 million lawsuit against the school, claiming that rampant sexual abuse was concealed for decades:

Nineteen former students at Yeshiva University High School have filed a bombshell $380 million lawsuit against the prestigious Jewish institution claiming horrific acts of sexual abuse that went unchecked for two decades at the Manhattan school.

"Yeshiva University High School held itself out as an exemplary Jewish secondary school when in fact it was allowing known sexual predators to roam the school at will seeking other victims," said attorney Kevin Mulhearn, who filed the suit on behalf of the 19 plaintiffs. "Childhood sexual abuse in the Orthodox Jewish community can no longer be condoned and excused.”

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/yeshiva-university-high-school-students-file-380-million-sex-abuse-lawsuit-article-1.1393327

Former Dean of Yeshiva University and Talmudic scholar Rabbi Herschel Schachter decreed that families suspecting child abuse should first seek resolution within the Jewish community before going to the police:
Schachter also cautioned against reporting abuse to the authorities without first seeking advice from a Torah scholar, because, he said, "police and social service workers often don't handle the situation properly."

After citing anecdotes of alleged wrongful accusations against men in Israel and in America, Schachter said, "Before you go to the police and before you go to family services, every community should have a board, to investigate whether there's [reasonable suspicion of abuse] or not."

http://forward.com/news/173452/yeshiva-rabbi-hershel-schachter-stirs-hornets-nest/

---

I can't help but also be reminded of self-described "fanatical Jew" Sigmund Freud. Freud came out with a paper in 1896 entilted "The Aetiology of Hysteria," in which he argued that "hysteria" was the result of emotional trauma due to incest and sexual abuse. However, he later rejected this so-called "seduction theory," possibly to maintain his position within the field of psychiatry. Freud also believed that he and his siblings suffered from hysteria, and wrote in a letter to his friend Wilhelm Fleiss that his theory implied that "my own father was one of these perverts, and is responsible for the hysteria of my brother… and those of several younger sisters."
http://www.pbs.org/youngdrfreud/pages/analysis_doubts.htm

Could Freud have invented his "Oedipus complex" theory to cover up pervasive child sexual abuse among the wealthy Jewish community? This idea of a sex abuse cover up was even suggested by Jeffrey Masson, who served as Project Director of Freud's archives, in a book entitled "The Assault of Truth." (http://www.nytimes.com/1984/01/24/science/freud-secret-documents-reveal-years-of-strife.html?pagewanted=all)

And while ostensibly irreligious, Freud appears to have been inspired by certain Talmudic ideas:
"Ruthless egotism is much more common among Gentiles than among Jews," said Freud, "and Jewish family life and intellectual life are on a higher plane."

"You seem to think the Jews are a superior people, then," I said.

"I think nowadays they are,"' said Freud. "When one thinks that ten or twelve percent of the Nobel Prize winners are Jews and when one thinks of their other great achievements in sciences and in the arts, one has every reason to think them superior."

https://archive.org/stream/fragmentsofanana011502mbp/fragmentsofanana011502mbp_djvu.txt

Psychoanalysis itself was once considered a "Jewish science," and from its inception until 1906, the Vienna Psychoanalytic Society consisted entirely of Jews (http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/chap4.pdf). Freud and his followers promoted the idea that "antisemitism" was simply the result of sexual repression among Gentiles. Freud's own wife considered psychoanalysis "pornography," and it could easily be conceived of as a means of "hyper-sexualization" of the target population (including the sexualization of children). Jewish domination of the porn industry has already been mentioned, so I will only add that the Israel Defense Forces are no strangers to its use as a weapon:

The Israelis have recently shown themselves well-versed in what one could call the military use of pornography. At 4:30 PM on March 30, 2002, Israeli military forces took over Palestinian TV stations when they occupied Ramallah in the West Bank, immediately shutting them down. What followed was a little more unusual. Shortly after occupying the Al-Watan TV station, the Israeli forces began broadcasting pornography over its transmitter. Eventually, according to a report from The Advertiser, an Australian newspaper, the Israelis expanded their cultural offensive against the Palestinian people by broadcasting pornography over two other Palestinian stations, the Ammwaj and Al-Sharaq channels. One 52-year-old Palestinian mother of three children, according to the report in The Advertiser, complained about ‘the deliberate psychological damage caused by these broadcasts.‘

link

I will stop there for now. Am I being too speculative or paranoid? This is my first proper post, so feel free to critique it.
starfish prime
Member
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2015 4:36 am

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

Postby simonshack on Sun Oct 18, 2015 10:16 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:That really has been (for me) an unprecedented level of paranoia that Simon has allowed to slide in this topic particularly (speaking of special treatments), perhaps because he shares your fear. But it's too bad to see a potentially intellectual topic be so emotional from the start.

"Emotional"??? Hoi, I haven't the faintest idea of what you're on about - regarding "Simon allowing this topic to slide into an unprecedented level of paranoia" - but it does sound you're annoyed by something in relation to my moderation (or lack thereof) of this topic? Sheesh - maybe you can explain this to me over Skype some day. I can see no paranoia going on here in this topic - aside from a few unwarranted complaints aimed at the OP - in spite of his obviously good intentions. As for Jumpy and yours truly "sharing fear" - you are the only one here who keeps reiterating this silliness. What's up with that, bro? Isn't this very forum a (rare and valiant) platform for the truly fearless folks of this world? Would you, Jumpy, myself - or anyone else - keep discussing 'taboo' topics and ideas (those systematically suppressed / censored / banned / outlawed and even criminalized by the Nutwork) on this forum if we were blinded by fear? I only fear that you're somewhat 'enamored' with that four-letter word - in a rather odd kind of way.

hoi.polloi wrote: (...) I understand fear does that to people, and you have already explained your fear of these horrible "thought crime" laws, but when users trying to calm your fear only increase fear and suspicion in you, (...)

Good Heavens, Hoi. Need I say more? And what does that 'suspicion in you'-line (aimed at Jumpy) even mean? Paranoid much, bro?

***************************

Back on topic

Isn't it just amazing how these - ehrm - 'religious'(not) topics are so hard to have discussions about - without them turning into boring, reciprocal 'feuds' among the various debaters? Let us all try and stick to the topic at hand - one that could rightly be described as the most virulently hushed / suppressed / ostracized issue on this earth today. The sheer enormity of the "Jewish problem" (for lack of a better word) across the ages - and all over the world - simply cannot be ignored, nor can any honest person keep saying that it is a 'false problem of marginal relevance' - or much less 'a distraction only fit for conspiracy theorists driven by hate and prejudice'. Yet, I have unfortunately sensed - in some parts of this thread - the same old unwillingness to tackle the problem in earnest, what with regular dodgings / deviations of its core premise - and the occasional, less-than-subtle scoffings at (not to say 'attacks') or 'lecturings' of the messenger (in our case, Jumpy64).

Let us throw all hypocrisy out the window and just spell out what the quite legitimate concerns raised by Jumpy64 are. I will try my best to summarize the 'core question' of this thread as succintly as possible in one single - if somewhat long-winded - sentence (I hope Jumpy will correct me if I'm "putting words in his mouth"):

May the insane and asinine writings of the Talmud, a book described by Wikipedia as "the basis for all codes of Jewish law", possibly be a root cause of the "Jewish problem" insofar as the Talmud, what with its unspeakably arrogant "chosen people" mantra ("only Jews are human beings, the rest are mere animals") would mentally condition many members of this troublesome tribe to behave the way they behave - with no concerns for morality nor the slightest empathy for the other tribes sharing this world?


In order to underline said behaviour of the Jewish tribe (and lest people forget what they've been up to in later years), I will hereby embed a fine documentary made by a Jewish independent filmmaker, and ex-reserve soldier with the Israeli army - Ronen Berelovich. Please set aside an hour or so of your life (whenever you can) - and watch it all through. It's well worth your time.

(Note: you won't see ANY crisis actors here - only quite genuine Palestinians (and other fearless folks) telling their genuine stories.)


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufLAitMq3zI

Hoi, what we should 'fear' here on this forum is not fear itself (as someone famously said...) - it is hypocrisy - in all its forms and shapes.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6597
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

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

Postby hoi.polloi on Mon Oct 19, 2015 12:01 am

Sorry, Simon, but highlighting the word "fear" in red does not make me more concerned about its presence, nor its logical place in this discussion. In answer to the (maybe rhetorical) question, "Need I say more?" I would answer, "I would like to know why you are targeting my words rather than reading them."

simonshack wrote:"Emotional"???


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.

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?


:lol:

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:

Reform 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.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Judaism

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:

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


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. ;)
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

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

Postby simonshack on Mon Oct 19, 2015 12:16 am

hoi.polloi wrote:
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.


Yes, you are reading my triple question marks incorrectly, Hoi. Please stop being so assuming and - well - paranoid.

It belongs in this thread, because I felt it was right in order to capture your attention. Ok?
Triple question mark = expression of great surprise (in my world, that is).

As for the 'emotional' thing, please point out any part of this thread - by any contributor - that sounds 'emotional' to you.

I really need to understand your personal understanding of the 'emotional' word. Is a triple question mark - in your view - some sort of "tell-tale sign" of someone being unduly emotional, Hoi? Please let me know.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6597
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

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

Postby hoi.polloi on Mon Oct 19, 2015 12:21 am

Okay, fantastic. I'm glad. I was reading it incorrectly, then.

Things like "Good heavens, hoi" and "paranoid, much?" and other things like that must just be your new writing style. B)

---

I was just looking through the list of astronauts (about 1000 of them) and noticed that there's hardly 20 of them that are supposedly Jewish.

Yet, if you look at the number of Jewish names among them, it seems pretty low. That's not a lot of official Jews amongst that bunch of liars. What percentage of that is Talmudic? And, how many are Masons?
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

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

Postby simonshack on Mon Oct 19, 2015 12:42 am

Hoi, you never responded to my questioning of this line of yours:

That really has been (for me) an unprecedented level of paranoia that Simon has allowed to slide in this topic particularly (speaking of special treatments), perhaps because he shares your fear.


What does it even mean?
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6597
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

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

Postby hoi.polloi on Mon Oct 19, 2015 12:43 am

In my haste to reply, I accidentally hit "edit" on your post. :lol:

I deleted it because I had typed this into the box. You asked me what I meant by the statements about fear.

Well, if you go back to the start of this thread, you may note that I was confused about why we weren't being allowed to talk about something that was supposedly being censored — why we couldn't just say "Jewish conspiracy" and the response seemed to be that people could get arrested for that.

So I find that a fearful response. I think we should just bravely talk about what it is we are talking about, or else we aren't really clear what we're talking about. And to censor ourselves and claim that's coming from "out there" or "elsewhere" is probably one of the most paranoid things I've ever seen.

So I am trying to help people understand why that's taking place. I am confused because when I bring up the fear of those laws, I am accused of bringing up the laws in a paranoid fashion. I feel like that's really spinning the argument around.

I gathered it was "Jews" right away because I have noticed a lot of people on the Internet talking about "Jews" in hushed tones as if they are sacred and cannot be criticized. That kind of thing should really end if we are to get over the censorship problem, in my opinion. Self-censorship is the first step in the spiral of silence. Let us not do that. That has been my "call" to this thread.

It also makes us look as though we are inventing a problem, and that does the research a disservice. The Jewish conspiracy really is a bad problem. Let's not talk about it in a paranoid way. That's just making it seem more powerful than it probably is.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

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

Postby simonshack on Mon Oct 19, 2015 12:49 am

hoi.polloi wrote:The Jewish conspiracy really is a bad problem. Let's not talk about it in a paranoid way. That's just making it seem more powerful than it probably is.


Again, where in this thread have you seen any 'paranoid way' of addressing this serious problem, Hoi?

Please point it out to me. To just say it doesn't make it true.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6597
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

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

Postby hoi.polloi on Mon Oct 19, 2015 12:51 am

It was mainly the discussion at the start of the thread, where I changed the name to "the Jewish Conspiracy" and I was shamed and told to apologize for making accusations of jumpy64 I never made. Then it was changed back to the hushed-sounding "an open conspiracy" which doesn't describe the problem with the Jewish conspiracy ... at all. Except perhaps in terms that the Jews prefer us to talk about them. As if someone unnameable were some kind of super-powered superior people that cannot be questioned. I refuse to treat them like that. They aren't that. They are just people in some sort of cult. We also do not have a specific name yet, and that is the opposite of an "open" conspiracy. I am glad it gained quotes to make it more like an artistic title, which it is.

But when I asked why this was happening, the laws about being arrested were cited to me and it was kind of implied that I live in a "cozy" American environment where I am allowed to question Jews. That to me seemed paranoid. I really don't think you or jumpy64 are going to be arrested. I don't believe it. Sorry. On the contrary, I think this thread has the potential to wake up many more people about the faked Holocaust and other wartime lies.

And I think the more we unite to talk about it, the less they can do about it. I also think the concept of an "open conspiracy" has not really been explained. So presently, to me, it just seems it is more likely to be buried. I am glad someone started a post with "Jewish conspiracy" more or less in the title, which links to this thread.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

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

Postby ICfreely on Mon Oct 19, 2015 12:52 am

starfish prime wrote:I will stop there for now. Am I being too speculative or paranoid?


Not at all. Your post was methodically thorough!

starfish prime wrote:Could Freud have invented his "Oedipus complex" theory to cover up pervasive child sexual abuse among the wealthy Jewish community?


Oedipus complex – Every boy has an innate desire to kill his father & copulate with his mother! :puke:

According to legend Oedipus was a mythical Greek king. Sickman Fraud, being the astute psi-entist that he was, named it Oedipus in order to gain credibility (appeal to ancient authority). Tavistock Institute (in the City of London) has honored him with a statue on its campus. He’s right up there with the ‘greatest’ butchers of all time. I think the main goal of his Godforsaken theory was to normalize deviance & debauchery in the west.

Hence:

Miley Cyrus & Flaming Lips planning naked concert
Cyrus is planning a show where the she, the Flaming Lips and the audience are all completely naked and where "white stuff that looks like milk" will be "spewed" everywhere. The concept is for a video, he continued, for the song "Milky Milky Milk." See the post below.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/15/entertainment/miley-cyrus-flaming-lips-naked-billboard-feat/index.html


The Big Issue In Jay-Z's 'Big Pimpin' Lawsuit
http://www.wxyz.com/newsy/the-big-issue-in-jayzs-big-pimpin-lawsuit



Simon,

I think that if we rationally & methodically deconstruct the open conspiracy CF will gain credibility and attention. We all HATE the current state of affairs but if we get emotional we will play right into the hands of the assholes who use Judaism as a shield. They will easily besmear CF the way they do stormfront (a 'hate group'). I’m pretty sure that was the gist of hoi’s post.

Jumpy,

I strongly suspect your intentions are good. I was a bit too harsh with you. All apologies & let’s move forward with the research.



In the words of a 'King' whose name escapes me, 'Can't we all just get along?' :P
ICfreely
Member
 
Posts: 555
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

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

Postby hoi.polloi on Mon Oct 19, 2015 12:55 am

Right. Thanks, ICfreely.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

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

Postby simonshack on Mon Oct 19, 2015 1:03 am

hoi.polloi wrote:I really don't think you or jumpy64 are going to be arrested. I don't believe it. Sorry.


This isn't the point Hoi, as you surely must understand.

The point is that these thought-crime laws HAVE actually been passed. Now, whether they are going to be implemented here in Italy or not is a secondary question.

The point is that any Italian resident/citizen who questions the Holocaust will - OF COURSE - have heard about this new law being passed in the Italian parliament and, YES - will quite naturally fear (your favourite word) for himself and his family to keep questioning the holocaust - or ANYTHING related to the "jewish problem" we have in this world. As far as I'm concerned, you could call it "media fakery" if you wish. Yet, it works perfectly to hush down any dissenters /critical thinkers. How hard is this for you to understand - and to appreciate?
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6597
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

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

Postby hoi.polloi on Mon Oct 19, 2015 1:05 am

It is okay, but it worries me because I don't want you to feel afraid. You are my brave Simon, and my hero. And it bugs me that you should not act that way at all times. How hard is that for you to understand?
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5053
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

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

Postby jumpy64 on Mon Oct 19, 2015 1:17 am

Sorry guys, I had a very busy weekend and couldn't participate much to the discussion. And I have very busy days ahead too, so please don't think I want to snub anybody if I can't always be as present as I would like.

Having to optimize my time, I've decided to concentrate on my research and observations and on those of other members that I understand and find interesting and constructive. If I don't answer to some posts, even those that seem to be about me, it's just because maybe I don't understand them (I'm limited, you know), or I don't have anything constructive to say about them. And also because I don't think this thread is about me.
I've just proposed a topic and I'm trying to develop it as best I can, with the essential help of other members who may find it interesting.

I appreciate suggestions and accept constructive criticism. I read and try to assimilate every post, but I can respond only when I have something meaningful to say, which may not be always the case.

I hope nobody will take this personally, because I respect everybody here, and I'm sure everybody respects me. I just want to concentrate my efforts on posting something of value, if I can.

So as ICfreely says (thank you for your kind words, by the way): "let's move forward with the research".
jumpy64
Banned
 
Posts: 288
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 12:44 pm

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

Postby simonshack on Mon Oct 19, 2015 1:26 am

hoipolloi wrote:And it bugs me that you should not act that way at all times.


Well, it probably bugs me that you can't see that I act this way at ALL TIMES.

FFS, Hoi - no one is feeling afraid over here. Jumpy (my Italian friend) and I (your brave hero, lol) are completely disregarding this silly law they recently passed in the Italian parliament - and are calmly / diplomatically / intellectually sharing our "forbidden thoughts" over Cluesforum, a website accessible to anyone in this world - and one which exists also thanks to your fearless and brilliant endeavors!

So far, I have seen precious few contributions to this thread which actually address the Op's core issue. Can we do that now?
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6597
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy

PreviousNext

Return to THE LIVING ROOM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests