THE DERAILING ROOM

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest
Post Reply
Seneca
Member
Posts: 458
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm
Contact:

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

Unread post by Seneca » Wed Nov 11, 2015 2:14 pm

Hi jumpy64, I agree with most of hat you write but I find your working definition problematic:
jumpy64 wrote:
hoi.poloi wrote:I personally think the terrorism hoax shows the involvement of a bizarre Gnostic/Masonic/Abrahamic/Pagan cult and other weird connections that sometimes go by contemporary names (perhaps "Jewish" is one of them, since Judaism apparently arose out of a kind of Paganism/Shamanism, or so I hear), and I find the Pope's endorsement of the victim vicsim memorial rather problematic. But I suppose the Pope and the Dalai Lama could be Jewish too. Who knows? Makes me wonder what "Jewish" means, then

Most probably I'll talk about this more in depth in a future post, but I'll give you a simple "working definition" here.

For me, "Jewish" refers fundamentally to a very strong form of cultural/religious conditioning based on the idea of a "chosen" group of people with a strong "ingroup/outgroup" mentality who, referring to and identifying themselves with "sacred" texts like the Torah and especially the Talmud, consider themself as members of a superior race destined to rule over other races, perceived as inferior and even sub-human. But since this group of people constitutes a minority, and wants to stay that way, they must use indirect, surreptitious means to rule over and exploit the overwhelming majority of other people by undermining them through various forms of deceit and even mind-control.

To me this is a historically provable fact, although not all the evidence can be given at once here, of course. But I think we can get there, bit by bit.
I am not arguing the facts behind it. The problem is that the definition is completely different from what most people understand by the term "Jewish".

For example, In your definition you exclude people who don't identify with the texts like the Talmud, and people who don't consider other people subhuman but that still indentify themselves as Jewish.

I think what most people would consider their definition is this:
A Jew= someone identifying himself as a Jew, at least in private.
Jewish= related to Jews.

Having different definitions for the same word is very confusing and leads to misunderstandings. And we should avoid that the subject is difficult enough without it. You can stick with your working definition but then I suggest you stick it to one of the other words that were suggested another word like JPM, Talmudist....

I will also try to rephrase Hoi's question in my own words: "But I suppose the Pope and the Dalai Lama could be Jewish Power Maniacs too. Who knows? Makes me wonder what the Talmud means for them. (since they are promoting other books)"

Seneca
Member
Posts: 458
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm
Contact:

Re: Why a topic about a conspiracy dominated by Jews

Unread post by Seneca » Wed Nov 11, 2015 3:06 pm

jumpy64 wrote: Thank you, Seneca, point taken. I've edited my post. I can't edit the quote, but I think the term "tribe" balances out there, because Simon uses it to define both the Jews and the "other tribes".
Thanks for editing that post in the open conspiracy topic. I will use another quote from that topic to illustrate another point without derailing the topic.
hoi.poloi wrote:You are right to point out what evil there is in Judaic fanaticism. I don't think I missed that point. I just think all religious fanaticisms have their particular characteristics; that's why they are considered different world views. To say that one world view is more insidious than another is itself a basic tenant of a world view.

The problem with saying one is just pointing out what one observes about other world views is that it inherently relies on the world views of the writer. I am skeptical of all world views including my own, but I have faith in my little principle that people see things very differently from one another on this planet, and trying very hard to understand those different world views is productive (unless it reaches the point of exhaustion).
What does this mean: "To say that one world view is more insidious than another is itself a basic tenant of a world view."

This reminds me of an idea that many (educated) Western people have adopted. That it is bad to criticize another culture. Because that criticism is always informed by your own culture and is a form of ethnocentricity.

I would love to hear from Hoi and other people what they think about that idea I underlined, which I believed for a long time, if I remember correctly.

ICfreely
Member
Posts: 819
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: Why a topic about a conspiracy dominated by Jews

Unread post by ICfreely » Wed Nov 11, 2015 7:50 pm

I think moral relativism is a euphemism for mental retardation. It’s a psychological tactic which pits rational intelligence against emotional intelligence thereby creating cognitive dissonance. IMO, cross-cultural criticism is a healthy peer-review of sorts. For instance, I wasn’t offended by your “Don’t want to be an American Idiot” post in the “Songs that speak the truth” thread (although I can’t stand Billie Joe Armstrong’s poser, wanna-be Brit punk rocker accent). I don’t think Critical Mass is offended by my ‘crusade’ against the Royal Society of London.

IMO, if you think of yourself as a victim, you’ll most likely scapegoat your perceived oppressor. In so doing, you cloud your judgment & build a false, fear-based construct of reality. Speaking of which, I was dumbfounded by an article I just read. It touches on many of the topics bandied about lately on CF. Here it is in its entirety:

NYU JILP Symposium: The Memories of Collectives, the Gadgetry of Victimhood
November 11th, 2015
by Mark Drumbl

[Mark A. Drumbl is the Class of 1975 Alumni Professor of Law and Director, Transnational Law Institute, Washington & Lee University, and Visiting Scholar, CICJ, VU University Amsterdam.]

This post is part of the NYU Journal of International Law and Politics, Vol. 47, No. 4, symposium. Other posts in this series can be found in the related posts below.


Atrocity begins with story-telling. Elegies lament unrighted wrongs from ancient battles. Fables weave and spin the bravado of national or ethnic superiority. The roll, pitch, and yaw of an entire literature ritualizes dehumanization: stories of vermin, poisonous mushrooms in children’s books, bespectacled intellectuals, enemies of the state. Then come exhortations to cut the tall trees, to take out the garbage, and to make way for Lebensraum. The filth is to be scrubbed, the society purified, the landscape cleansed.

Atrocity metastasizes once these stories become performed. New stories then emerge. These stories narrate pain and suffering. Their tales, however, may redound with redemption; their ballads may record harrowing strategies of survival paired with forensic accounts of death; at times, too, chants of resistance arise.

In the aftermath of atrocity, these stories become memory. The construction of memory, then, becomes an act of the living and a sign of life. For survivors, authorship over memory represents the exercise of agency and autonomy. For perpetrators and their supporters, revising (or denying) memory – also an act of authorship – becomes a tactic to thrive in changing times.

It is no surprise that in the aftermath of mass atrocity the recovery of memory, and its reclamation, matters so much to so many. The hunger for memory, however, intersects with the blandness of law. This encounter frustrates, perhaps most acutely for victims.

It is here that Professor Lopez enters the conversation. She recognizes this frustration. She also gestures towards a path forward. For her, law can respect memory. [ :huh: ] It can channel stories of survival, subjugation, and suffering. While Professor Lopez is an optimist about law’s potential, she remains more circumspect about how, exactly, we should understand memory. In a particularly thoughtful argument, she contends that conversations ought to move towards “collective memory.” For Professor Lopez, collective memory arises when those most affected by mass atrocity “though discussion and ritual … merge their fragmented recollections into one holistic narrative.” Collective memory is unscripted. It emerges organically through a synthesis of informal conversations, shared glances, tacit rejections, and knowing nods. Drawing from a rich array of sources, Professor Lopez posits that collective memory is more accurate, consistent, and concise than individual memory.

In sum, then, Professor Lopez effectively exposes law’s predilection for individual conduct and illustrates how this penchant inhibits law’s ability to inflect collective action. For her, this is a loss. It is a loss because victims yearn for more. Professor Lopez’s response is reformist. Human rights lawyers should preserve and promote collective memory. Integrating collective memory of victims into legal process, for Professor Lopez, would clarify how atrocity begins and could document the pain it inflicts, while also furthering aspirations of reconciliation, transition, the development of an historical record, nation-building, and legal reform.

How to accommodate collective memory into legal proceedings? Professor Lopez’s recognizes that the criminal law may find such accommodations awkward, if not downright unworkable. The criminal law, after all, is primarily about adjudging the guilt or innocence of the defendant. The need to focus on the defendant requires the foregrounding of all sorts of due process rules. This need stymies the use of collective memory in penal process because collective memory cannot be properly vetted. Professor Lopez therefore directs our gaze elsewhere. She points to tort-based claims, action civile, and the victims’ participation scheme built by the Rome Statute and present at the ECCC.

Professor Lopez’s article makes a tremendously valuable contribution to the literature on transitional justice. Her diagnosis of law’s foibles, and her proclamation of the potential of collective memory, is sterling. She has the courage to offer some remedial responses. Her article is a rich base for a symposium.

For me, her piece opens two shutters. The first is architectural. The second is discursive.

On architecture: if collective memory is a worthwhile goal, a claim on which Professor Lopez convinces, then why bother to hook it into penal process? Why must the criminal law always hang around, diversified cosmetically with hangers-on like partie civile or victim’s participation? If criminal law can’t accommodate collective memory (which it can’t, really) and if collective memory matters (which it does), then why not jettison the criminal law as a point of reference? The criminal law cannot be all things to all people all the time. Massaging goals of restoration, reparation, reconciliation, and now the preservation of collective memory into an architectural framework girded by penal process (the guilt or innocence of the defendant pursuant to prosecutorial charges) may simply be too much or, perhaps, far too little. Rather than subordinating collective memory, why not give it its own institutions entirely, including at the international level? These institutions could eschew the adversarialism, microscopic truths, and rules of evidence that contour legal process. And perhaps lawyers – whether steeped in criminal law, civil litigation, arbitration, or mediation – should stray, or perhaps simply stay, far away from them.

On discourse, or – better put – story-telling: in the aftermath of atrocity, how often does a single shared collective memory of victimhood emerge? Professor Lopez elaborates how, following sustained human rights abuses, an informal distillation of collective memory emerges. But care should be had not to overstate the impulse among survivors to unite and together remember experiences. The collectivization of memory in the aftermath of mass violence may not necessarily be seamless or integrative. Instead, this process may be fraught with dissensus. This dissensus, however, may be healthy. It may democratize. Pushing one correct remembrance, and collectivizing it, risks memorializing the experiences of the strongest among the survivors while neglecting the recollections of the weakest. Survivors may remember differently, or memorialize selectively, or in many cases not wish to remember anything at all and simply overlook (or forget).

It is not always the case, moreover, that one collective memory organically emerges. Hence, it may be more apt to speak of collective memories. And these aggregated memories may compete, complement, or even contradict.

In post-war Poland, as I discuss in a forthcoming article in the Journal of International Criminal Justice, memories of human rights abuses were synthesized, to be sure, but into different collectives. One collective memory was that of Jewish suffering at the hands of the Nazis. Poland, after all, was the site of several of the most horrific German concentration camps. Another memory, deliberately distilled and articulated by the Supreme National Tribunal of Poland, recollects Polish suffering at the hands of Nazi Germanization. This Tribunal was created to circulate this memory precisely because of Polish frustration with the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg’s perceived anemia in concretizing the Nazi fervor to destroy the Polish nation. A third collective narrative involved efforts to memorialize extensive Soviet atrocities: a politically pointless endeavor at the time and for many decades thereafter.
If collectivized memories are diverse, then, the choice as to which one to authenticate, or which one to solemnize more than others, become deeply contested and political.

The ICC’s inclusion of victim participation and entitlements to reparation, however beneficial, has created new tensions. Who is a victim? What is a memory of victimization? Who can claim to survive atrocity? Law’s categories include only by excluding. This is the legal imperative. Yet, collective memories of suffering in times of atrocity are capacious. Saira Mohamed daringly writes about perpetrator trauma. The Dominic Ongwen case, as I have discussed elsewhere, uncorks the granularity of when a victim becomes a victimizer and the victimizer, too, is a victim. Ongwen – a formerly abducted child soldier – is soon to face prosecution at the ICC. He is accused of crimes that he himself suffered, to wit, enslavement as a crime against humanity and apparently now child soldiering.

By-standers and side-standers, upstanding collaborators, idlers, piddlers, and profiteers also may see themselves as victims.

We are spending the semester in Amsterdam. Last month we and took our children to the Dutch Resistance Museum. The museum has a gripping children’s section. I say gripping because it held the attention of our eight- and six-year old sons. It did so because it narrates life in Amsterdam during the Second World War through the stories of four children: Henk, Ava, Nelly, and Jan. Jan’s family is in the resistance. Henk’s family members are mind-your-own-business types and Henk initially finds the war exciting. Nelly’s parents are avid Nazi collaborators. Eva is Jewish. In the last room, each of these four children – real people – appear in video recordings as they now are, namely, elderly. It is Nelly who most sees herself as a victim: a victim of imprisonment after the war, a victim because her memories of a joyful adolescence in spirited (and healthy, fit, tanned) right-wing youth groups now are socially toxic, and because she is dogged by loneliness and longing. A conjured victimhood? Glib? Pitiful? Sure: but her memories are, for her and anyone who listens, very real.
http://opiniojuris.org/2015/11/11/nyu-j ... more-32202
A conjured victimhood? Glib? Pitiful? Sure: but Mark Drumbl’s memories are, for him and anyone who listens, very real.

I’m interested in CF’s contributors’ (you, Simon, Hoi, Farcevalue, Anonjedi2, BTO, Jumpy, etc.) take on the above article. In particular, CF’s legal minds (smj, SacredCowSlayer and CF’s senior legal eagle – The Honorable Fbenario!).

hoi.polloi
Administrator
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Why a topic about a conspiracy dominated by Jews

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Thu Nov 12, 2015 7:10 am

Seneca wrote:What does this mean: "To say that one world view is more insidious than another is itself a basic tenant of a world view."

This reminds me of an idea that many (educated) Western people have adopted. That it is bad to criticize another culture. Because that criticism is always informed by your own culture and is a form of ethnocentricity.
Every culture has venues for critiquing other cultures. The ways in which those venues differ contributes to breakdowns in communication between cultures at peace, and those breakdowns seem to be the first place exploited by wedges of propaganda placed by militants of either culture.

Why we would want to point precisely at these conflicts without showing the highest amount of desire for understanding them without emotional pleas is indicative to me that we are creating a platform for the most enormous disagreements known to humankind.

Why we would want our forum to get buried in such things, I cannot say.

Is it bad to criticize another culture? Hmm, that's a valuable question. In America we are taught something called "political correctness" which many people on the Internet complain about, because it feels to them like censorship. In that case, it may be considered bad not to criticize other cultures.

But when it is done, I think it's best done sensitively, in person, with the presence of members of the culture being critiqued, with the expectation that you might get some responses from that culture about your own.

However, that's just my personal opinion and so although I haven't seen many people be very tactful about their discussions of other cultures, this is the Internet and free speech is important, so we should support the discussion threads about evils done in the world by various cultures even when they are a bit clumsy. After all, how much experience have we had?

We should also bear in mind that pitting world views is the main tenant of a lot of propaganda. And so it's a subject that I think should be treated delicately — not to protect propagandists but to prevent ourselves shooting ourselves in the foot in the eyes of interested readers. So far, we've only appeared to offend a couple members (who were not acting totally forthright or intelligently) so I would say it's not going so badly. And that's a big credit to our forum.

hoi.polloi
Administrator
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: THE DERAILING ROOM

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Thu Nov 12, 2015 8:32 am

I'm not testing you. I've never heard such a theory. I admit it's extremely absurd to my ears, even though I know that there is some connection between Hollywood and pro-Anglo beliefs. But don't you think it's more likely that Zionists and U.S.A.-Israeli dual citizens are the ones shaking hands with such "White Power" people because it's been a profitable alliance in the Middle East for violent, colonialist land grabs?

How does Scientology fit in with your theory that neo-Nazis "run" Hollywood? The only suspected Nazi I can think of is the director of the 1939 Wizard of Oz movie, and that was in the very height of the Jewish takeover of Hollywood.

A few 68's here and there are not so convincing to me, I am sorry. Your "Adidas" stripes do seem a bit off topic, since the majority of the PsyOps with blue-and-white (Israeli-flag-looking) stripes have been on shirts, and your post quickly became something else entirely.

jumpy64
Banned
Posts: 288
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 12:44 pm

Re: Why a topic about a conspiracy dominated by Jews

Unread post by jumpy64 » Thu Nov 12, 2015 11:08 am

hoi.polloi wrote:Is it bad to criticize another culture? Hmm, that's a valuable question. In America we are taught something called "political correctness" which many people on the Internet complain about, because it feels to them like censorship. In that case, it may be considered bad not to criticize other cultures.

But when it is done, I think it's best done sensitively, in person, with the presence of members of the culture being critiqued, with the expectation that you might get some responses from that culture about your own.
Regarding the second part of the quote, I would like to have more declared members of the Jewish culture participating to the discussion, but unfortunately so far we've had only one that I remember: Omaxsteve, whom I have always commended for declaring his cultural/religious allegiance.

I don't know how many members Cluesforum has. I think it's much more than a hundred, but even if it were a hundred, considering that Jews are at least 2% of the world population, we should have at least two members of the Jewish culture here.

Evidently Jews, who are usually overrepresented in intellectual endeavors, are underrepresented in this forum. Or maybe there are some who so far have not felt comfortable with divulging details of their cultural/religious upbringing, as Simon, Seneca and I (and probably someone else I don't remember right now) have done, for example.

That could be understandable, I guess, but maybe someone will respond to Hoi's observation by declaring a link with or at least a more direct knowledge of the Jewish culture and/or religion. Since I'm discovering here that there are some peculiar rules for the transimission of the so-called Jewish race, it could be also an incomplete link through the wrong parent (i.e. the father, since apparently you need a Jewish mother to be considered Jewish) or a more distant relative, I don't know.

I still hope that will happen sooner or later. But if it won't, it's not anybody's fault here. Nobody has ever prevented anyone of any culture or religion from participating freely to the debate, I think.

hoi.polloi
Administrator
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Why a topic about a conspiracy dominated by Jews

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Thu Nov 12, 2015 12:40 pm

You're right jumpy64. And of course, I find it quite suspicious that no Jews have joined the forum to say, "You know what? Here is the strange abuse going on that I have observed. Here are the lies that are told in such-and-such Jewish community." And why did member Selene take such quick offense to the most simple of questions about that obviously propaganda-infused "Holocaust"?

It adds credence to your theory that the tribal bond of Judaic beliefs is not limited to the Talmud. Of course, it is important to specify and clarify as much as possible. However, I think it is safe for me to speculate that there may be some kind of subconscious fear instilled in Jews everywhere that "Jews are constantly persecuted! Look out! Don't trust non-Jews!" and perhaps that is one reason the media constantly emphasizes the lie. "Don't step outta line, or you're a self-hating Jew! Nazis are everywhere!"

It's really a ridiculous and somewhat offensive paranoia, but it's even worse because I am positive that there are extremists in such an "opinion leader" position who spew that poison in one very public direction and meanwhile secretly plan their next colonial or systemic attack on a sovereign people that does little to truly benefit the generic Jewish populace, except perhaps some kind of twisted ego boost for what Americans would call its "conservative" members. I am not a huge fan of States, but when they're happily born by an innocent indigenous people who have found their State is the only way to survive an imperial invasion, and some Zionist schemer acts like that is some kind of invitation to parasitically attack and weaken the host for take over by an Anglo ally or other alliance, I must wonder if the devil you know (States) is better than the alternative — an arrogant, deluded and self-important "race" claiming its medieval beliefs bring an important element to the civilizations they target.

I would also like to echo jumpy64's invitation to anyone with any experience in any sort of Jewish community, where they have noticed such things, that here on this forum is a safe place your exposure of the dark underbelly can be safely written out. And such a person should not fear being "persecuted". On the contrary, we would highly welcome those who are capable of examining their own culture and recognizing what mania or fanaticism may have seized its leadership, just as we have done so regarding our own American and Italian "bosses" and "leaders" that are abusing their power.

I think, sadly, just as there are so few of us researchers capable of looking at this stuff in the entire English-language Internet-using public, there is also probably an even smaller percentage within any given ethnic pool willing to share known inherited evils with outside cultures. Especially so for a nexus of cultures that have so comfortably stationed themselves with (if not as) recent and current empires.

jumpy64
Banned
Posts: 288
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 12:44 pm

Re: Why a topic about a conspiracy dominated by Jews

Unread post by jumpy64 » Thu Nov 12, 2015 1:05 pm

Seneca wrote:What does this mean: "To say that one world view is more insidious than another is itself a basic tenant of a world view."

This reminds me of an idea that many (educated) Western people have adopted. That it is bad to criticize another culture. Because that criticism is always informed by your own culture and is a form of ethnocentricity.

I would love to hear from Hoi and other people what they think about that idea I underlined, which I believed for a long time, if I remember correctly.
I think here you're referring to the idea of cultural relativism, Seneca, which as far as I know was introduced by Jewish anthropologist Franz Boas in the first decades of the 20th century, and maybe also to moral relativism, which seems to have more ancient origins, but it's represented in our modern era by Sephardic Jew philosopher Baruch Spinoza.

While Spinoza notably held that nothing is inherently good or evil, Boas considered any form of ethnocentrism - including criticism of other cultures as a product of the ethnocentrism in question - as a pathology. But since he was strongly identified with his Jewish affiliation, Jewish ethnocentrism was excluded from the "scientific" examination, unfortunately.

For me cultural relativism especially is one of the best examples of the blatant use of double standars involving the Jews and the rest of the world, i.e. what is good for "Jews" must be made bad for "Gentiles" (in this case, we're talking about having a strong racial/cultural identity). I think its main function, from Boas' perspective (and a bit later also from that of the mainly Jewish Frankfurt School) was to undermine "Gentile" culture though what professor Kevin MacDonald defines "The culture of critique", while at the same time preventing criticism of the Jewish culture. I plan to write a post about professor MacDonald's work in the "Hidden in plain sight" thread, also to expand on the concepts oversynthesized here.

But coming back to what pertains to our discussion here, I think "cultural relativism" can be used to stifle it. Since it's obvious and implicit that each one on earth comes from a particular culture, I think that, instead of talking about "cultures" in general, anyone who's participating to the discussion should declare his cultural background, so that we can know where everyone is coming from, and take that into due consideration, also to try and and understand him or her better, as Hoi especially invites us to do.

I think I have done that for myself, but I have no problems in doing it again here in more detail.

Being Italian, I come from a catholic upbringing, then I became an atheist (and politically a radical leftist) when I was fifteen, and stayed that way until, in the Eighties, I tried buddhism for a while, then esotericism. I abandoned my "esoteric" studies after discovering the Indian "philosopher" Krishnamurti. In the nineties I discovered and embraced the "New Age movement" and a "syncretistic" form of spiritual culture. Then in the 21st century I went back to a more personal version of the Christian (and not necessarily Catholic) religion, adopting also a more "conservative" political view, and lately I've re-discovered a more Western version of Buddhism (which includes also strong elements of Christianity) though the teachings of the popular German author Eckhart Tolle.

So now, after having "exposed" my cultural and religious background, I feel somewhat entitled to ask to other people to do the same. And especially to you, Hoi, since you're the one here who's predominantly advocating points of view that seem influenced by cultural relativism, and since you've also tried at least a couple of times to put me on the "psychoanalist's couch", so to speak, by asking me "how I feel" and what brings me to questioning Jewish influence in our society.

So of course you're free not to answer my question, Hoi, but at this point, as I said, I feel entitled to ask it. Where do you come from? What kind of cultural and religious environment did you grow up in? Being an American, the kind of conditioning you were subjected to is less obvious. Was it Chistian (Catholic or protestant)? Atheistic? Jewish? Buddhist? Hindu? Muslim? Something else?

Please help us understand you better, as you're asking us to do with anyone else. What's the starting point of your perspective, relativistic as it seems or otherwise? Whatever it is, I'm convinced it's nothing to be ashamed of, and I hope you (and others here) will agree with me on this point.

jumpy64
Banned
Posts: 288
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 12:44 pm

Re: Why a topic about a conspiracy dominated by Jews

Unread post by jumpy64 » Thu Nov 12, 2015 1:26 pm

I'm sorry, Hoi, but I had not read your latest post when I posted mine, and the system didn't alert me to the new post, as it usually does, so we probably have posted almost at the same time :)

Anyway, I've given a cursory look at your post, and it seems very interesting. Now I can't answer it because I have a foot out of the door already, but I'll come back to it, and hopefully also to your answer to my latest post, when I'll be home again.

See ya!

ICfreely
Member
Posts: 819
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: Why a topic about a conspiracy dominated by Jews

Unread post by ICfreely » Thu Nov 12, 2015 1:43 pm

Jewish people are composed of three ethnic groups – Ashkenazi, Mizrahi & Sephardic. In Israel, the Ashkenazi are first class citizens & the Mizrahi/Sephardic are second class citizens. It’s not really a big secret. It is, however, a taboo subject for the media. Last year’s Donald Sterling controversy highlighted this fact.
Donald Sterling points to Israel, V. Stiviano cites Holocaust
By Daniel Treiman April 28, 2014 12:18am

L.A. Clippers owner Donald Sterling’s scolding of his mixed-race girlfriend for associating with black people is no longer just an appalling exchange at the center of a media frenzy. It’s now an appalling exchange at the center of a media frenzy that involves Israel and the Holocaust.

The NBA announced that it is probing Sterling after audio surfaced of a man identified as him berating his girlfriend, V. Stiviano, for posting photos to Instagram of herself posing with black athletes. In the audio, Sterling also warns his girlfriend not to bring black people to Clippers games.

Now more audio from the conversation has been released by the website Deadspin. In it, the man identified as Sterling is heard explaining that his views reflect the way the world works, and as evidence he says that black Jews in Israel “are just treated like dogs.” His girlfriend is heard countering that as a Jew Sterling should know better than to advocate discrimination, and she cites the Holocaust as an example of where racism can lead.

Here’s a transcript (via Deadspin) of the exchange between the two about Israel:

DS: It’s the world! You go to Israel, the blacks are just treated like dogs.
V: So do you have to treat them like that too?
DS: The white Jews, there’s white Jews and black Jews, do you understand?
V: And are the black Jews less than the white Jews?
DS: A hundred percent, fifty, a hundred percent.
V: And is that right?
DS: It isn’t a question—we don’t evaluate what’s right and wrong, we live in a society. We live in a culture. We have to live within that culture.
V: It’s like saying, “Let’s just persecute and kill all of the Jews.”
DS: Oh, it’s the same thing, right?
V: Isn’t it wrong? Wasn’t it wrong then? With the Holocaust? And you’re Jewish, you understand discrimination.
DS: You’re a mental case, you’re really a mental case. The Holocaust, we’re comparing with—
V: Racism! Discrimination.
DS: There’s no racism here. If you don’t want to be… walking… into a basketball game with a certain… person, is that racism?
http://www.jta.org/2014/04/28/news-opin ... -holocaust
Although Sterling is a despicable person, he was speaking the truth – black Jews (Mizrahi & Sephardic) are the lowest class citizens in Israel. Acknowledging this is a big no, no! Of course the media spun it into a ‘Donald hates blacks’ story as a cover for why he had to go.

Don really sealed his fate in an interview with CNN’s Mr. ‘Keeping them honest’ Vanderbilt:

Donald Sterling on race, Magic & the NBA


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5hj057WrxY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5hj057WrxY
0:21
COOPER: Magic Johnson, you know, has made a public comment. What — do you have something to say to him?
D. STERLING: What could I say to him? He — it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter.
I’m hurt, but it doesn’t matter.
COOPER: You’re hurt that he — that he said — that he spoke out publicly?
D. STERLING: I’m hurt that he called me up and he said: “Don’t do anything. Wait until you hear from me.”
Then somebody called me later and said, he doesn’t want to be involved. And then he released the tape that I sent to him, that I talked to him in confidence.
I — I don’t — I didn’t give any interviews. You are my interview. I’m deciding if I like you.
No, but I — here is a man who is — I don’t know if I say this. He acts so holy. I mean, he made love to every girl in every city in America. And he had AIDS.
And when he had those AIDS [those AIDS? :lol: ], I went to my synagogue and I prayed for him. I hoped he could live and be well.
I didn’t criticize him. I could have. Is he an example for children? You know, because he has money, he’s able to treat himself.
2:04
D. STERLING: I don’t think it’s worthy of me even discussing. Such a stupid remark.
But he lulled me into waiting a week. Do you know what I mean? He says, “Don’t do anything.”
COOPER: He told you — you’re saying he told you not to say anything?
D. STERLING: Yes: “Don’t do anything. I know the girl. Don’t do anything. I will help you.”
I’m waiting and I’m waiting and I’m waiting
.
COOPER: What you’re saying is, Magic Johnson called you up, or you called him up?
D. STERLING: I don’t know his phone number.
COOPER: He called you up when the tape broke?
D. STERLING: Yes. I don’t call anybody.
COOPER: He called you up?
D. STERLING: I’m loyal to you.
COOPER: He called you up when the tape came out and he told you not to say anything?
D. STERLING: Yes.
COOPER: Why did he say, don’t say anything?
D. STERLING: He just said: “Wait. Be patient. I will help you. We will — we will work it out.”
COOPER: Why do you think he said that?
D. STERLING: I think he wanted me just to do nothing, so he could buy the team.
He thought maybe the whole thing would be resolved in two weeks.
What has he done? Can you tell me? Big Magic Johnson, what has he done?
COOPER: Well, he has — he’s a businessperson. He…
D. STERLING: He’s got AIDS. Did he do any business? I would like — did he help anybody in South L.A.?
COOPER: Well, I think he has HIV. He doesn’t actually have full-blown AIDS, but…
D. STERLING: Well, what kind of a guy goes to every city, he has sex with every girl, then he catches HIV and — is that someone we want to respect and tell our kids about? I think he should be ashamed of himself. I think he should go into the background.
But what does he do for the black people? Doesn’t do anything.
You call up and say — well…
(CROSSTALK)
COOPER: He’s opened a lot of businesses in inner-city neighborhoods.
D. STERLING: The Jewish people — the Jewish people have a company, and it’s for people who want to borrow money and no interest. They want to give them a fish pole — a fishing pole. We want to help people. If they don’t have money, we will loan to it you. You don’t have interest. One day, you will pay us back.
COOPER: So…
D. STERLING: I’m just telling you, he does nothing. It’s all talk.


http://www.insidesocal.com/clippers/201 ... on-cooper/


“There is an idea that many fear: to be made an example out of when we have done wrong. This is to receive a particular kind of punishment that often is severe and unrelenting so that other potential law breakers can see what happened to you and resolve to not follow the same course.” –Dana Dill

Sterling royally screwed himself when he said, “The Jewish people — the Jewish people have a company, and it’s for people who want to borrow money and no interest.” That’s another big no, no! IMO, the JPM made an example out of him to send a (subtle/subconscious) message to the elite Anglo-Jewry – ‘STFU or else!’

As for Magic Johnson - he truly is a scumbag! He gets praised for his business acumen (despite his atrocious grammar) and altruism (for establishing businesses in predominantly African American communities). In reality, he’s nothing more than a ‘Stepin Fetchit’ Uncle Tom. After the L.A. riots, corporate America became even more hesitant to ‘invest’ in African American communities. Magic is basically an insurance policy. Corporations give him a piece of the pie in exchange for using his name (i.e. Magic Johnson Starbucks, 24 Hour Fitness, Fat Burger, theaters…). The idea being, blacks are less likely to steal from or burn down an ‘MJ’ establishment. But I digress (I’ll elaborate on Magic in a future AID$ post).

Anyhow, the Donald Sterling affair is a good example of, “When keepin’ it real goes too far!”

Apache
Member
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 11:02 am

Re: Why a topic about a conspiracy dominated by Jews

Unread post by Apache » Thu Nov 12, 2015 5:06 pm

jumpy64 wrote:So now, after having "exposed" my cultural and religious background, I feel somewhat entitled to ask to other people to do the same.
English. Religious background - none. Not baptised, so apparently I'm straight off to Hell when I die :lol:, which might suit me after putting up with UK perishingly cold winters all my life.

jumpy64
Banned
Posts: 288
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 12:44 pm

Re: Why a topic about a conspiracy dominated by Jews

Unread post by jumpy64 » Thu Nov 12, 2015 10:36 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:You're right jumpy64. And of course, I find it quite suspicious that no Jews have joined the forum to say, "You know what? Here is the strange abuse going on that I have observed. Here are the lies that are told in such-and-such Jewish community." And why did member Selene take such quick offense to the most simple of questions about that obviously propaganda-infused "Holocaust"?

It adds credence to your theory that the tribal bond of Judaic beliefs is not limited to the Talmud. Of course, it is important to specify and clarify as much as possible. However, I think it is safe for me to speculate that there may be some kind of subconscious fear instilled in Jews everywhere that "Jews are constantly persecuted! Look out! Don't trust non-Jews!" and perhaps that is one reason the media constantly emphasizes the lie. "Don't step outta line, or you're a self-hating Jew! Nazis are everywhere!"

It's really a ridiculous and somewhat offensive paranoia, but it's even worse because I am positive that there are extremists in such an "opinion leader" position who spew that poison in one very public direction and meanwhile secretly plan their next colonial or systemic attack on a sovereign people that does little to truly benefit the generic Jewish populace, except perhaps some kind of twisted ego boost for what Americans would call its "conservative" members. I am not a huge fan of States, but when they're happily born by an innocent indigenous people who have found their State is the only way to survive an imperial invasion, and some Zionist schemer acts like that is some kind of invitation to parasitically attack and weaken the host for take over by an Anglo ally or other alliance, I must wonder if the devil you know (States) is better than the alternative — an arrogant, deluded and self-important "race" claiming its medieval beliefs bring an important element to the civilizations they target.

I would also like to echo jumpy64's invitation to anyone with any experience in any sort of Jewish community, where they have noticed such things, that here on this forum is a safe place your exposure of the dark underbelly can be safely written out. And such a person should not fear being "persecuted". On the contrary, we would highly welcome those who are capable of examining their own culture and recognizing what mania or fanaticism may have seized its leadership, just as we have done so regarding our own American and Italian "bosses" and "leaders" that are abusing their power.

I think, sadly, just as there are so few of us researchers capable of looking at this stuff in the entire English-language Internet-using public, there is also probably an even smaller percentage within any given ethnic pool willing to share known inherited evils with outside cultures. Especially so for a nexus of cultures that have so comfortably stationed themselves with (if not as) recent and current empires.
Hoi, this is by far the best post I've read from you on this topic. For the first time, I think, I agree with everything you say here, and especially with what pertains to Jews' fear of persecution, and to the media constantly reinforcing it. That concept in particular couldn't be expressed better. Thank you for your clear analysis of the subject at hand.

I still hope you will answer my question, though, as Apache did in a humorous and effective way.
Last edited by jumpy64 on Thu Nov 12, 2015 10:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

hoi.polloi
Administrator
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Why a topic about a conspiracy dominated by Jews

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Thu Nov 12, 2015 10:40 pm

Well, unlike Simon, I prefer not to talk about anything personal about me or my family. But I understand your worry. Let it be known that I belong to no religious "order" whatsoever! I barely can hold a conversation with my family about most religious things because they are so staunchly atheist or real Bible believers. However, I have family, friends, associates, work buddies and fellow researchers in just about all of them, except Hindi. But I mean to change that since I am very attracted to the ancient Vedic beliefs and I want to know more about them.

My closest experience to Judaism is not my estranged relatives on my mom's side (my closest Jewish relative is a grandfather who speaks no English and lives somewhere in Germany last I heard, and I have absolutely no inkling of his faith. I've met him one time and he said he loved me and that was about the end of our relationship! He might not even be alive, anymore.) but some young Jews I lived with who shared with me a lot of their interesting and fun culture. The rest of my family (non-atheist) is Catholic, Protestant or agnostic. However, since the majority live in America, they are all indoctrinated by television and movies, unfortunately. And that "religion" is just about one of the worst I can think of.

My Jewish friends are huge critics of Israel, regularly attend anti-Israel protests and some refused to go there because of their disagreement with its existence. Could they all have been lying to my face to save face, because they are secretly trained in the Talmud? I really don't think so.

When we next meet in person, I will be happy to share more details, but that will have to do for now, I am afraid. Please know that it is part of my stance — Simon wishes me to take more "stances" as he recently advised me — that personal spirituality or world view does not belong on the forum. However, in this case, I understand where you are coming from. You are worried that I am Jewish and therefore a liar. I am quite proudly neither.

The "cultural relativism" you mention — that I definitely got from my own explorations of right and wrong. I never knew about Spinoza "originating" something that I felt through my own explorations of this world, but if you had to credit an influence in my life, I think it might be the Buddhists, Methodists and Catholics in my family, who preach it constantly. May I please request that you refrain from further questions about my personal life to be displayed on the forum? I just don't wish to go into it, nor all my experience with travel and conversation that has brought me to my present world view. I think it's much more important that each person, regardless of background, presents good research that unites people against the true problems of this world, and helps people from everywhere work together, despite differences surface or deep, to solve them.

Simon and other researchers who have gotten to know me have expressed a kind of fascination with my life, which I don't understand, but which I have been trying to respond to by writing my memoirs little by little. One day, I could try to figure out a way to get those into the world without hurting people connected to my life, but it may be a long time, maybe after all of us are dead in a hundred years.

---

As for putting people on the couch, we all do that to each other around here. Constantly. Infiltrations are not part of something called "psychological operations" for nothing. We all have our interrogation techniques. I'd say your "Are you Jewish?!" litmus test is kind of another one. Unfortunately, identifying who is or is not a liar doesn't seem to help the scientific facts presented by both. That's why I think it's best to stick to forensics and so on. We have, in the past, only been forced to "expose" people who volunteer their personal information and tried to use it as some kind of proof of their legitimacy. I have no illusions that I can do that, because I don't give much credence out period. I advise people to adopt a similar attitude rather than pretending or implying there are traits that are somehow obviously/universally trustworthy, and cannot be exploited to gain trust — particularly of people with even slight religious inclinations who are eager to use our forum as a platform to promote their world view.

Before, we wondered about why Jews may not talk about problems within their community on forums like this one. If it's not self-evident, have we really created a space for that? Have we seen any "former [religious belief]" person ever come forward on the forum and expose all their personal troubles? I don't know. It's kind of suspicious, but it's kind of not now that I think of it. It also occurs to me that fbenario and other Christians on the forum aren't very willing to come forth about faults in their own religious community. It might be that's what religion does to people. It might also just be that's what people do. I say we stick to evidence that doesn't bother with having to sort who is or is not a shill, unless it's obviously plain they are claiming some picture fabrication or hoaxy technology is a real record (a la ozzybinoswald, Brian S Staveley, etc.) of their life.

I also think it's totally legitimate for users to say, "I prefer not to comment on this aspect" if they haven't done something like that. And that is not a vague policy. I think protecting anonymity has done really well in protecting the forum from needless spirals into distracting personality discussions. I think it also makes people more safe to come forward with information.

Perhaps we could say to new users, "Hello there. What's your entire religious background from every angle?" and our forum would be changing from basic evidence (my favorite — raw data — yum yum!) to basic evidence precluding the various beliefs in legitimacy of various world views and all the conflict and bias that entails. I just don't know if that's a positive step. Maybe it is! Maybe it would help the forum in some way!

"Hello, are you Jewish?" might not create the most magnanimous first impression. And if I may borrow a phrase from that horrible industry — advertising — I might add, "All attention is good attention." The Jews thrive on attention — good, bad, whatever — for some reason. It definitely makes me wonder about them. But it also makes me very curious about those who don't like so much attention.

jumpy64
Banned
Posts: 288
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 12:44 pm

Re: Why a topic about a conspiracy dominated by Jews

Unread post by jumpy64 » Thu Nov 12, 2015 11:36 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:Well, unlike Simon, I prefer not to talk about anything personal about me or my family. But I understand your concern. Let it be known that I belong to no religious "order" whatsoever! I barely can hold a conversation with my family about most religious things because they are so staunchly atheist or real Bible believers. However, I have family, friends, associates, work buddies and fellow researchers in just about all of them, except Hindi. But I mean to change that since I am very attracted to the ancient Vedic beliefs and I want to know more about them.

My closest experience to Judaism is not my estranged relatives on my mom's side (my closest Jewish relative is a grandfather who speaks no English and lives somewhere in Germany last I heard, and I have absolutely no inkling of his faith. I've met him one time and he said he loved me and that was about the end of our relationship! He might not even be alive, anymore.) but some young Jews I lived with who shared with me a lot of their interesting and fun culture. The rest of my family (non-atheist) is Catholic, Protestant or agnostic. However, since the majority live in America, they are all indoctrinated by television and movies, unfortunately. And that "religion" is just about one of the worst I can think of.

My Jewish friends are huge critics of Israel, regularly attend anti-Israel protests and some refused to go there because of their disagreement with its existence. Could they all have been lying to my face to save face, because they are secretly trained in the Talmud? I really don't think so.

When we next meet in person, I will be happy to share more details, but that will have to do for now, I am afraid. Please know that it is part of my stance — Simon wishes me to take more "stances" as he recently advised me — that personal spirituality or world view does not belong on the forum. However, in this case, I understand where you are coming from. You are worried that I am Jewish and therefore a liar. I am quite proudly neither.

The "cultural relativism" you mention — that I definitely got from my own explorations of right and wrong. I never knew about Spinoza "originating" something that I felt through my own explorations of this world, but if you had to credit an influence in my life, I think it might be the Buddhists, Methodists and Catholics in my family, who preach it constantly. May I please request that you refrain from further questions about my personal life to be displayed on the forum? I just don't wish to go into it, nor all my experience with travel and conversation that has brought me to my present world view. I think it's much more important that each person, regardless of background, presents good research that unites people against the true problems of this world, and helps people from everywhere work together, despite differences surface or deep, to solve them.

Simon and other researchers who have gotten to know me have expressed a kind of fascination with my life, which I don't understand, but which I have been trying to respond to by writing my memoirs little by little. One day, I could try to figure out a way to get those into the world without hurting people connected to my life, but it may be a long time, maybe after all of us are dead in a hundred years.
Thank you for sharing, Hoi. Of course, I have no intention to force you to open up more than you deem appropriate, but I think you're the one who started to ask personal questions, especially in the post at page 19 of the "Open Conspiracy" thread. For me that's water under the bridge, anyway, and I respect your position.

You have a Jewish grandfather, though, so if the line of transmission of "Jewishness" wasn't as peculiar as it is (i.e. transmitted through a Jewish mother), it could be said that you have at least some "Jewish blood in your veins". Let's say, then, that you get off on a technicality :)

But contrary to what you said, I don't equate "Jewish" with "liar". That's unfair to say, I think. My contention is just that Jewish conditioning can be so strong as to act even in people who, having been exposed to it, ultimately rebel to it. I'm not saying that's your case (you're not giving me enough elements to say that, and I can't ask any further), but honestly it is a possibiity I have considered, most of all to explain my impression that, while being at times acutely conscious of the pernicious role of JPMs in our current society, as you've demonstrated in your previous post for example, other times you seemed to want to deflect attention from it in a less rational and clear way than usual, I would say. But again that's just been my impression, and I'll leave it at that. I'm just being honest with you here, so I hope you won't take this personally.

And if anything, if you had been exposed to Jewish conditioning (and again I'm not saying you have been), that would have only increased your merit for having become such an independent thinker.

As for the rest of your post that you've added later, I haven't brought up the "Jewish question" here because I want to judge people based on their religion. I think that what I've shared of my personal "spiritual story" demonstrates that I'm not a Catholic bigot out to get people of other religions, having been attracted by different spiritual perspectives over the years.

So what worries me about Judaism, and Talmudism in particular, is what this faith inspires JPMs to do in practical, worldly terms, i.e to dominate over other peoples of the world in a mostly surreptitious way. Therefore I'm trying to give as many examples I can find of how they are putting their supremacist "religious" principles into practice. And unfortunately there seem to be even more than I expected when I started this research.

But I'll repeat my invitation here. If you think there are other religions that are doing as much concrete damage in the world, please point me towards them with facts.

hoi.polloi
Administrator
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Why a topic about a conspiracy dominated by Jews

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Fri Nov 13, 2015 12:19 am

I don't think our job on the forum is to point to the evils of religion or non-religion or world views, which I think are multitudinous. So the dilemma I face is that you want attention on the only thread like it, and I don't want to create more of them. That's not my furtive way of endorsing your position that Jews are the worst. I am just stuck because Simon wants to keep this thread and I think we shouldn't even have any of them. And that is a rather familiar situation on the Internet — people who dislike crimes associated with Jews are sometimes more adamant about promoting that belief than others with enemies. You struck a rich vein there. Jews are clearly the enemy to some people, and anyone with an enemy will be looking for who can help divide people into enemies and allies in that sense.

If the CluesForum hand were absolutely forced to create more threads by your influence, I guess I would consider we should make one each for Jesuits (which I think might be a PsyOp cover up of Zionists or some collaboration with a form of Zionism that we don't have a name for yet — but it's definitely a distinct and weird and highly suspicious thing), Masons (ostensibly "safe" because it's supposedly not a religion, but I don't think that's an excuse for it to be the only religion-like thing that adamantly denies it's a religion) or even Islam (but I am so sick and tired of sickening anti-Islamic propaganda I don't know if I could stomach such a thing, especially here of all places!). I think the fates of Paganism and various indigenous Shamanisms probably hold very interesting cases. It might have been perverted by Masons into a secret evil thing. I just don't think this is going to give us much because your pattern is that you continue to be thrilled that you've got confirmation of your beliefs whenever you come back to the thread and dissenters are told to offer proof against a pronouncement of evil.

Well, if it's unfair to say we are in danger of equating the word "Jew" with "liar" is it unfair to say we are in danger of conflating them because of a promoted belief that it's the most evil world religion? The thing is jumpy64, I just don't hold that view point, even though I probably love you like a brother. That's all. There is no evil bias behind it. It's something we are all coming to terms with now because you and Simon have made this subject and belief stand out recently. That's a good thing from your point of view, I am sure. You could be totally right! I haven't been alive as long as you or Simon or a lot of other researchers, and maybe that or some other personal experience is giving you some kind of greater insight that I don't have. We can have a very high suspicion (even some solid proof) that Europe has been hit particularly hard by Jewish colonialism, and it's a historic problem. I have been to Europe a lot but didn't grow up there like Europeans, nor suffered what Europeans have suffered from all sides and even within that belabored continent. If I am accused of being a bit Socratic (or Spinozan) or like any other dead dude, all I can say is that's how I was born and/or come to be under my own self-respect. I am a mutt of not just different bloods but different cultures, and I have spent my short lifetime weighing them all from the perspective that I am simply me, and I really like life and the whole human race. I think a great thread would just be about how religions over the centuries can be subjected to corruption from within or without, and how they have become corrupted. I think each world view is capable of extremism and finding enemies in others. Some find enemies in one kind of person, whereas others like Talmudists seem to like to find enemies in just about everyone! I wonder if even Talmudists are in-fighting they seem to love degrading people so much.

The problem with trying to figure out who to trust and who not to trust among this bizarre species we are in is that even when you have people who are finally worthy of trust because they believe what they're saying, you still can run into the human problem of those people being simply wrong. If you think that's the case with me, whether or not you believe I can be tainted from birth with a non-psychopathic but nonetheless annoying trait you dislike — boy, talk about the story of people! — I guess I couldn't help you with that view point, could I? But maybe when we talk in person we will get more on the same page. Semi-anonymous Internet forums that simulate conversation are useful to a point, anyway. Keep at it! I am sorry I won't be joining you much in what brianv calls the "god botherers" investigation. However, I sincerely hope it leads to a more peaceful and just world and I may occasionally try to contribute to or learn from investigations into ethnicities, especially if more show up on the forum.

Post Reply