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 jumpy64 on October 5th, 2015, 5:07 pm

Flabbergasted wrote:No surprise the UNICEF/WHO is whitewashing circumcision.

To properly address this topic requires an understanding of what rituals and sacraments are, in Judaism and elsewhere, why they exist and what they effect (or do not effect).

The only point I want to make here is that, despite lack of personal experience in this regard, it may be safely affirmed that circumcision causes a significant loss of sensitivity in the glans (which has to be made up for some other way).

The foreskin also acts as a mechanical lubricant during sex. The penis is not designed to slide in and out of a woman, but in and out of its own skin during sex. Without a foreskin, a man has to build friction to feel pleasure.
- David Richards (on Makow).


Good points, thank you. In fact, I read the article you hint to, and I found it very interesting in its entirety, including the links at the end.

So I hope you don't mind if I link it here:

http://www.henrymakow.com/the_circumcision_debate.html

I also remember reading something about traumas (and especially early ones) making people more susceptible to mental conditioning/programming, but I haven't researched this yet, so take it with a grain of salt.
jumpy64
Member
 
Posts: 288
Joined: June 27th, 2013, 1:44 pm

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

Postby hoi.polloi on October 5th, 2015, 6:57 pm

I also remember reading something about traumas (and especially early ones) making people more susceptible to mental conditioning/programming, but I haven't researched this yet, so take it with a grain of salt.


I definitely recommend making the subject relevant to your thread by actually researching this.

Again, please, if you are going to make a thread about a Jewish conspiracy, focus on how that actually manifests and is obvious, rather than working backwards from your "intuition" that Judaism (like many world views claiming to be spiritual) is generally fucked up, which we can plainly see.

I am starting to get the feeling that your approach to this topic is not very honest about a much more simple thing you are trying to say: "I think Jewishness sucks" or "I think some practices of Abrahamic religions suck". Well, no shit! That is not so much a "conspiracy" as it is a personal preference. Are we going to tell people how to believe?

This possible confusion in yourself also explains why you want to keep the topic name vague — you have not yet realized the extent of your own personal revulsion from people just because of the culture they were born into or chose to have (or were forced to have!).

And I am sorry but if this does not progress from a familiar hate blog, I will advocate for this thread to be closed like our other failed religious discussion that went nowhere, despite our vast patience with it: the "Truth About Christianity" distraction.

I think you are slowly piecing together something worthwhile. But please do some more designing and thinking before posting another generic critique of religion. What lies, in particular, do you imagine you are exposing? What are you "clearing up" for us here? Let's make it better.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5016
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

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

Postby simonshack on October 5th, 2015, 8:26 pm

*

Hoi, I'm sure you're familiar with this expression:

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks" is a quotation from the 1599/ 1600 play Hamlet by William Shakespeare. It has been used as a figure of speech, in various phrasings, to indicate that a person's overly frequent or vehement attempts to convince others of something have ironically helped to convince others that the opposite is true, by making the person look insincere and defensive."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_lady_ ... ,_methinks

A bon entendeur
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6525
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

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

Postby brianv on October 5th, 2015, 8:34 pm

I'd bet "Frank" is a Round-head not a Cavalier. Shudders at the thought!! :lol:

Le Bons A Bender
brianv
Member
 
Posts: 3959
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 11:19 pm

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

Postby simonshack on October 5th, 2015, 8:36 pm

Hoi, I'm sure you're familiar with this expression:

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks" is a quotation from the 1599/ 1600 play Hamlet by William Shakespeare. It has been used as a figure of speech, in various phrasings, to indicate that a person's overly frequent or vehement attempts to convince others of something have ironically helped to convince others that the opposite is true, by making the person look insincere and defensive."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_lady_ ... ,_methinks

A bon entendeur


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

hoipolloi wrote:"Are we going to tell people how to believe?"


No, Hoi - everyone is the master of their own beliefs - and concerns. Here on this forum, we mostly air our concerns about the problems of this mad world we live in. As it is, what we mostly deal with here are concerns - not beliefs.

hoipolloi wrote:"And I am sorry but if this does not progress from a familiar hate blog, I will advocate for this thread to be closed like our other failed religious discussion that went nowhere."


So far, I have seen no hate whatsoever here - what on Earth are you on about? And didn't you say it would be a cowardly move to close this thread? I, for one ( and FWIW) will not allow it. This thread has every right to exist - and is certainly a part of my urgent concerns regarding this fucked up planet.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6525
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

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

Postby Seneca on October 5th, 2015, 8:43 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:
I also remember reading something about traumas (and especially early ones) making people more susceptible to mental conditioning/programming, but I haven't researched this yet, so take it with a grain of salt.


I definitely recommend making the subject relevant to your thread by actually researching this.

Maybe this can help: Traumatic experiences in childhood and psychopathy: a study on a sample of violent offenders from Italy

Results

There was a high prevalence of childhood experiences of neglect and abuse among the offenders. Higher levels of childhood relational trauma were found among participants who obtained high scores on the PCL-R. There was also a significant negative association between age of first relational trauma and psychopathy scores.

I don't want to jump to conclusions. I am not saying that circumcised people are more inclined to be psychopatic than others. We have to ask: can circumcision be experienced as a relational trauma by the child? I would argue that in some cases this is possible. The child obviously can feel betrayed by the parents because they don't protect him .
Why is this somewhat relevant to this topic? Not because I don't like Jewish people, I judge them by their actions just like omaxsteve. Not because there aren't worse religious practices. But because we are trying to identify a powerful group of possibly psychopathic people that is able to exist over multiple generations. A relatively small group, that is living among other, more normal people. There are other candidates. The prevalent religion in my country, catholicism has a very bad record when it comes to protecting children.

Edit: more on circumcision and trauma :
Journal of Health Psychology: http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/boyle6/

Circumcision trauma

A traumatic experience is defined in DSM-IV as the direct consequence of experiencing or witnessing of serious injury or threat to physical integrity that produces intense fear, helplessness or (in the case of children) agitation (American Psychiatric Association, 1994). The significant pain and distress described earlier is consistent with this definition. Moreover, the disturbance (e.g., physiological arousal, avoidant behaviour) qualifies for a diagnosis of acute stress disorder if it lasts at least two days or even a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) if it lasts more than a month. Circumcision without anaesthesia constitutes a severely traumatic event in a child's life (Lander, Brady-Freyer, Metcalfe, Nazerali, & Muttit, 1997; Ramos & Boyle, 2001; Taddio, Katz, Ilersich, & Koren, 1997). It is possible that the trauma of genital surgery might have long-lasting psychological effects (Bigelow, 1995; Levy, 1945; Jacobson & Bygdeman, 1998; Anand & Scalzo, 2000).

Van Howe (1996, p. 431) reported that, "Newborn males respond to circumcision with a marked reduction in oxygenation during the procedure, a cortisol surge, decreased wakefulness, increased vagal tone, and less interactions with their environment following the procedure..." Rhinehart (1999) in a report of clinical cases noted that the only response available to the infant is shock, wherein the central nervous system is overwhelmed by pain, followed by numbing, paralysis, and dissociation. Possibly, dissociation of the traumatic experience and emotional pain may be employed by the infant as a psychological defence (Chu & Dill, 1990; Noyes, 1977; Rhinehart, 1999). While some babies have been described as being "quiet" after circumcision, Rhinehart concluded that the observed stillness most likely represents a state of dissociation or shock in response to the overwhelming pain.

Consistent with the early reports of Anna Freud (1952), McFadyen (1998) observed psychological trauma in her son following circumcision. This is sometimes extreme enough to impede the maternal-infant bonding (Marshall et al., 1982; Van Howe, 1996). As reasoned by Herman (1992) and Rhinehart (1999) the common factor underlying circumcision trauma is an experience of violence and powerlessness--inflicted by other human beings. Such an event was described in a study of 12 Turkish boys circumcised in late childhood. Cansever (1965, p. 328) reported that "Circumcision is perceived by the child as an aggressive attack upon his body, which damaged, mutilated, and, in some cases, totally destroyed him." Ritual circumcision appeared to be associated with increased aggressiveness, weakening of the ego, withdrawal, reduced functioning and adaptation, and nightmares consistent with PTSD.

Ramos and Boyle (2001) investigated the psychological effects associated with medical and ritual "operation tuli" circumcision procedures in the Philippines. Some 1577 boys aged 11 to 16 years (1072 boys circumcised under medical procedures; 505 subjected to ritual circumcision) were surveyed to see if genital cutting led to the development of PTSD. Interestingly, Mezey and Robbins (2001) estimated the incidence of PTSD as 1.0% to 7.8% in the general British population where circumcision is not very prevalent. On the other hand, using the PTSD-I questionnaire (Watson et al., 1991) in a predominantly circumcised population, Ramos and Boyle observed an incidence of PTSD of almost 70% among boys subjected to ritual circumcision, and 51% among boys subjected to medical circumcision (with local anaesthetic). Long-term follow-up would be needed to gauge the extent to which PTSD persists over the lifespan of these circumcised boys.

The outcome of painful childhood trauma includes long-lasting neurophysiological and neurochemical brain changes (Anand & Carr, 1989; Anand & Scalzo, 2000; Ciaranello, 1983; Taddio et al., 1997; van der Kolk & Saporta, 1991). Richards, Bernal, and Brackbill (1976) found that circumcision may impact adversely on the developing brain, and that reported "gender differences" may actually arise from behavioural changes induced by infant or childhood circumcision.

Rhinehart (1999) in a report of adult clinical cases concluded that a man circumcised as a child is more likely to react with terror, rage and/or dissociation when confronted with situations interpreted as threatening. As in any situation of post-traumatic stress, an event resembling any aspect of the original traumatic experience is more likely to provoke negative emotions such as panic, rage, violence, or dissociation.

It is therefore not surprising that PTSD may result from childhood circumcision
(Goldman, 1997, 1999, Menage, 1999; Ramos & Boyle, 2001), just as it does from childhood sexual abuse and rape (Bownes, O'Gorman, & Sayers, 1991; Deblinger, McLeer, & Henry, 1990; Duddle, 1991). Several researchers have concluded that PTSD may result from circumcision and/or from circumcision-related sequelae in later life. For example, Rhinehart (1999) reported finding PTSD in middle-aged men who had been subjected to infant circumcision. Circumcision involves an imbalance of power between perpetrator and victim, contains both aggressive and libidinal elements, and threatens a child's sexual integrity by amputating part of the genitalia. Some men circumcised in infancy or childhood without their consent have described their present feelings in the language of violation, torture, mutilation, and sexual assault (Bigelow, 1995; Hammond, 1997, 1999).

Even if the psychological sequelae of circumcision do not coalesce into a formal diagnosis of PTSD, it is possible that there may be long-lasting effects on a man's life, particularly in psychologically sensitive individuals with comorbidity factors (cf. Mezey & Robbins, 2001). Presumably responding to their current interpretation and feelings, many circumcised men who have recognised the loss of a highly erogenous, irreplaceable part of their penis have reported long-lasting emotional suffering, grief, anxiety, and depression, and a sense of personal vulnerability (Hammond, 1997, 1999). Avoidance or obsessive preoccupation with such a loss, along with anger, can be difficult to reconcile for some men depending on their particular personality (Bigelow, 1995; Maguire, 1998; van der Kolk, 1989). Emotional numbing, avoidance of the topic of circumcision, and anger are potential long-term psychological consequences of the circumcision trauma (Bigelow, 1995; Bensley & Boyle, 2001; Boyle & Bensley, 2001; Gemmell & Boyle, 2001; Goldman, 1997, 1999). In extreme cases, there might be aggressive, violent, and/or suicidal behaviour (Anand & Scalzo, 2000; Bradley, Oliver, & Chernick, 1998; Jacobson et al., 1987; Jacobson & Bygdeman, 1998).

Edit: underlined more of the quotes
Last edited by Seneca on October 5th, 2015, 9:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 446
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

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

Postby hoi.polloi on October 5th, 2015, 9:16 pm

Seneca, yes! Well done! Now that is research. Why is this so hard to ask from people using "intuition" instead of collecting and highlighting relevant data?

Simon, I really don't think I am protesting too much and it sounds like an accusation of some kind, which is shocking and sad. I am not sure what I have done besides ask us to make this thread more about its ostensible topic. So far, Seneca and Flabbergasted have connected the dots better than jumpy64 even though it's ostensibly his thread. Though so far, he has made a good point about how it's a waste of public funds to support potentially traumatic (or other sexual) religious practices.

I do see hate a lot on our forum. We protest about media fakery practices, we show intolerance for shills, and so on. I think a lot of it is justified. Hate may be a strong word for discrimination, which I think is a mostly positive word, but I am just wondering if we are inviting all the anger and wrath of religious readers.

Let's look at what traditional fights between most people in this world explode over. What people start feuds over and so on. It's typically "world view" that people see differently on. I agree with fbenario that we should not be afraid to publish the most insane religious texts to expose them for what they are, but I don't want to endanger anyone in Europe who uses our site.

We don't have threads about many religious atrocities. Maybe we should and maybe this is a change for the better. Maybe jump64's assumptions will make more sense if I am just patient. It does make a good deal of sense to see if the Jewish mindframe creates more violence or less violence in our world, on a mass scale, in general. And in that sense, I guess it is all "on topic" with media fakery. However, I am still laughing over the title and how "jumpy" you have become over this topic, Simon. Let's face it. Religion is not really a conspiracy. Conspiracies hide within and use religion.

Genital mutilation is bad. So is, for example, foot binding. And stoning. And the ways we do capital punishment in America.

I hear your complaint, Simon. Please understand that the only thing I want to prevent happening to the forum is people duking it out over all sorts of various moral issues, like veganism, et cetera. And I want to stay consistent in our rather tight "rule" over this forum to prevent us being accused of being "slid" one direction or another. And so it previously seemed safe to simply take on the stance that we disagree with all crazy religions and all crazy practices.

On the other hand, maybe we should spend more threads talking about all the real violent crimes of humanity. In that case, would it be appropriate for us to open more threads about such topics? Would it be okay? Or would those be considered not Jew-focused enough for your liking? :P
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5016
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

Re: Hiding in Plain Sight: Reflections on A Very Open Conspi

Postby omaxsteve on October 5th, 2015, 9:39 pm

simonshack wrote:
omaxsteve wrote:Here is an interesting, albeit long. article written by a Muslim ....

By: Dr Farrukh Saleem

Why are Jews so powerful?

(............bla...................
..............bla...............
..............bla...............
..............bla...............)


So, why are Muslims so powerless?
Answer: Lack of education.

All we do is shout to Allah the whole day !!! and blame everyone else for our multiple failures!!!!!


Omaxsteve,

Just in what way, if you please, is that article 'interesting' - or relevant to the present discussion? :wacko:

Oh wait - I take it that the 'lesson' you're proposing here is that education is the key to becoming powerful? And that if 'uneducated people' are powerless - it is just due to their 'inferior education'? And that if (so many) Jews are rich & powerful - it is simply to be ascribed to their 'superior education' ? Good grief.

Excuse me, but just because that pathetic piece is authored by a Muslim writer doesn't make it sound any less crass than your average, shallow and condescending imperialist 'think tank' twaddle - as might just as well have been put together by your typical, gloating Jewish supremacist. So let's see who this Farrukh Saleem guy is - and what he's up to.


Image
"Dr. Farrukh Saleem is the Pakistani Executive Director of the Center for Research and Security Studies, a think tank established in 2007, and an Islamabad-based freelance columnist - [ cum-economic theorist, financial analyst writer, and television personality]."
http://www.aish.com/authors/111846219.html

"The Center for Research and Security Studies (CRSS) is a Pakistani independent non-profit think tank founded by civil society activists to conduct research and advocacy on democratic governance, regional peace and security, human rights, and counter-radicalization. The head of the think tank is Imtiaz Gul, a strategic analyst, writer, and journalist. Besides writing for national and international magazines, he is the author of books such as The Unholy Nexus: Afghan-Pakistan Relations under the Taliban Militia, The Al-Qaeda Connection, The Most Dangerous Place, and Pakistan: Before and After Osama bin Laden."

"Saleem extensively writes on Jewish people, Israel and its geopolitical policies. In his recent article, Saleem advocated for directing a friendly-foreign policy for Israel. In his notable article, "Why are Jews so powerful and Muslims so powerless?", Saleem argues that, for every single Jew in the world there are 100 Muslims. Yet, Jews are more than a hundred times more powerful than all the Muslims put together. Concluding the article, Saleem pointed out that, the Muslim world is failing to diffuse knowledge".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farrukh_Saleem


Aha! So it is KNOWLEDGE - and not EDUCATION - that's the real problem here. Well, come to think of it, our Farrukh "think tanker" guy may actually have a great point after all: just imagine what would happen if the entire Muslim world were properly informed with the knowledge we have gathered over the years on this very forum. See, something tells me that the folks controlling the world's media outlets are working very, very hard to keep this knowledge from reaching the Muslim world.


Hmmm, I thought that I already posted a response , but alas it is nowhere to be found.

The reason I thought the article was interesting, Simon, is that Jumpy"s original post to start this thread seemed to infer that it was BECAUSE of their religion that Jews were holding a disproportionate number of positions and power and influence, which I maintain is utter nonsense. There are approximately 14 million Jews , reportedly, in the world and the overwhelming majority of them are not wealthy nor do they have extraordinary influence. Furthermore the Jews are not exempt from, or immune to, the very same psyops and media fakery that the rest of mankind are exposed to.

My mistake, was to try and use logic to point out the obvious;

There are two reasons why it is almost impossible to get a person holding a deep-seated prejudice to change his or her mind. First, it is primarily the emotional aspect of attitudes that makes a prejudiced person hard to argue with; logic is not effective in countering emotions—people will ignore or distort any challenge to their belief. Second, people with strong prejudices have a firmly established schema for the target group(s); this will lead them to pay attention to, and recall more often, information that is consistent with their beliefs than that which is inconsistent. Thus stereotypes become relatively impervious to change.


above quote from: Social Psychology, Sixth Edition by Elliot Aronson, University of California-Santa Cruz Timothy D. Wilson, University of Virginia
Robin M. Akert, Wellesley College.


regards,

Steve O.

(edited to correct typos)
Last edited by omaxsteve on October 5th, 2015, 10:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
omaxsteve
Member
 
Posts: 192
Joined: March 29th, 2010, 1:44 am

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

Postby hoi.polloi on October 5th, 2015, 9:47 pm

Ugh. This is getting ridiculous. I thought this was why we don't have these threads. Whatever. "Steven"/"Steve O.", if you are implying Simon is prejudiced against Jews in particular, please think again.

We have patiently, demonstratively shown over the years an openness to who or what or what organizations are pulling off the PsyOps. Now jumpy64 may come across as someone a bit lost in their own prejudice, but you come across as a Zionist pro-Israel racist Jew by posting some guy of whatever background trumpeting the greatness of the Jewish "race"; and that's definitely a bit "jumpy" yourself. Now, I hate to keep playing the only real fucking moderator in this thread while getting it from both sides, but both may want to try to see the other's point of view if this is going to make any sense to the most amount of average readers in the world.

You make a point that, yes, alright, most Jews are just people. However, you genuinely seemed to be overly forgiving of the most questionable Jewish practices by implying Jews were somehow "better" than other people. In other words, you would be fitting jumpy64's description of the "semite" and that's a pretty horrifying thought to think of you. You don't generally consider Jews "better" or "above" other people, do you?

In that case, your clever little post about preconceived notions fits yourself, doesn't it? Even if you are chalking up superiority to something like "education" — which can be defined a huge number of valid ways — you are assuming this is a an "anti-Jew" thread, which I have been trying for the last day to make clearly not one.

Have you not been reading what I'm trying to explain to Simon and jumpy64?

Please, everyone, try harder to make this thread about Jewish conspiracy rather than "general mistrust of Jews" vs. "general mistrust of general mistrust of Jews". Okay?

As long as you are not being a "semite", nor accusing us of being "anti-semites" — both labels I refuse to wear as much as I can, since I refuse to belong to any religion, fraternity, dogma, secret or open dogmatic think tank or anything like it of any kind — perhaps we can move on. Let's see where we are at so far:

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

Less interesting:
Jews are taught to read. (But apparently do not review their posts for typos before posting.)

---

Addendum: I feel perhaps this is what happens when we act afraid of topics. We invite controversy where there doesn't have to be. We should either avoid topics we won't talk about straight, or just talk about them. This has always been our policy in the past and it has been a super strong position. I highly doubt we are in danger for exposing insane religious fanatics. If that's really the concern, send it to me through e-mail and I'll post it for goodness' sakes.

Or, make another user name (one that isn't even close to personal data) and post under that! That's why we have anonymity!
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5016
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

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

Postby omaxsteve on October 5th, 2015, 10:25 pm

Hoi<

I am neither a zionist, or Pro Israel, While I was born "jewish" and have grown up in a largely Jewish milieu, I personally , am not at all religious, and I do not believe that Jews are a superior race. I simply posted an article that shows there could be a reason , other than their religion, why there are a disproportionate number of Jews in positions of influence.

I have not read you r articles on this matter, I responded (to Simon) only because he seemed to be asking for my rationale, for posting that article.

This entire thread , in my opinion, does not anything useful to the forum. I apologize,if I mistakenly inferred from what I read that anyone is prejudiced, or racist.

I spend a fair amount of time and energy arguing with associates who are anti-German, anti-Arab and anti-Muslim, because I know many wonderful Arab and Muslim people, and they too, should not be held accountable for the actions of other Arabs, or Muslims.
Are there any questionable Jewish practices? I am sure there are , but no Jewish parent is forced to bring up their kids , or circumcise their kids , they do so because they choose to. I have never done any research about the pros and cons of circumcision, but I have also never known of any Jewish child adversely affected.

As a parent, of one son, I chose to have my son circumcised and at that time I thought it was a "good" thing to do. I had heard at that time that it reduces the chances for infection, and all the males in my family had undergone the procedure without any incident.

As barbaric as it seems, it is only a small piece of skin that is removed and I have been present at many circumcisions and have never seen or heard of the Mohel using his mouth on the baby"s penis. There is not a single Jew, or person of any religion , that I know that would tolerate such behavior.

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


I agree that concentration of ownership of the media is a big problem. I am not certain that it matters that the concentration is mostly Jewish, or all Jewish.
Can you show an example of Jews influencing Christian/Anglo beliefs in order to weaken them?

As barbaric as it seems, it is only a small piece of foreskin that is removed and I have been present at many circumcisions and have never seen, or heard, of the Mohel using his mouth on the baby"s penis. My own son was not two feet away from me when he was circumcised and I promise you that there was not oral- genital contact of any kind. A piece of cotton is dipped in wine, and put to the baby lips, which acts as an anesthetic. During the procedure the baby tends to cry for a short time, at most. There is not a single Jew, or person of any religion , that I know of that would tolerate such behavior.

While I suppose that it is possible that the act of circumcision makes people susceptible to psychological influence, It seems highly unlikely to me that a very minor procedure, 8 days after birth has any lasting effects.

The reason I am so voiciferous about this issue , is that often when trying to point people towards the problem of media fakery, a typical response I get is " where do you get that information from? An anti-semitic, "conspiracy theory" website? I truly believe that it behooves us all to eliminate the "labelling" of the perpetrators. Each person (group) are responsible for their own actions. If someone , (some group), is guilty of a transgression they should be judged on their actions , not on their race, ethnicity, or religion. If a Jewish person is evil, it is because he is evil... and not because he is Jewish.

Jews hold the majority of powerful positions in the media, the media is bad/evil. therefore all Jews are bad/evil? Flawed logic.

regards,

Steve O.
Last edited by omaxsteve on October 5th, 2015, 11:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
omaxsteve
Member
 
Posts: 192
Joined: March 29th, 2010, 1:44 am

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

Postby simonshack on October 5th, 2015, 10:50 pm

omaxsteve wrote:As barbaric as it seems, it is only a small piece of skin that is removed and I have been present at many circumcisions and have never seen or heard of the Mohel using his mouth on the baby"s penis. There is not a single Jew, or person of any religion , that I know that would tolerate such behavior.


Now, that's comforting to hear, Omaxsteve. If that's the case, then perhaps we should open a thread titled:
"Are All Videos of Mohel's Sucking Infants' Penises Fake?"
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6525
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

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

Postby hoi.polloi on October 5th, 2015, 10:58 pm

simonshack wrote:
omaxsteve wrote:As barbaric as it seems, it is only a small piece of skin that is removed and I have been present at many circumcisions and have never seen or heard of the Mohel using his mouth on the baby"s penis. There is not a single Jew, or person of any religion , that I know that would tolerate such behavior.


Now, that's comforting to hear, Omaxsteve. If that's the case, then perhaps we should open a thread titled:
"Are All Videos of Mohel's Sucking Infants' Penises Fake?"


:lol:

Exactly, Simon! It's real.

Not only that, the Mohels give their adult sexual diseases to the children by doing so, making the babies more at risk for cancer and other diseases — even death. I can't believe you would deny this, omaxsteve. You may claim to not know anyone, but try asking around in the Jewish community.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5016
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

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

Postby jumpy64 on October 5th, 2015, 11:02 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:Yes, Flabbergasted. Thank you for bringing it back on topic. The psychological effects of circumcision and how it ties to media fakery must be discussed if we are going to not just make a hate thread. I have heard arguments that it increases pleasure but I would have no idea until I do more research on it.


Ciao Hoi, it's good to hear from you again, even though I still get the feeling you don't like this thread very much. I'm sorry about this, because I value the approval of an intelligent and experienced researcher like you, but I hope you won't mind if I say that getting it is not my primary purpose here. Unless, of course, your approval is essential for keeping this thread alive :)

So I'll try to respond to your observations as best I can. Let's start from the fact that you seem inclined to consider it a possible "hate thread", as you say here.

Gee, I really don't understand this. Am I using hate words or arguments here? I really don't think so. I mean, we've just had brianv definining Christianity "jeziz zombie religion". Wouldn't such a definition be more worthy of your attention if you don't like things to go into the "hate" direction? No, you ignored that, so I wonder if your "hate radar" is properly working here.

I can't help noticing that Simon had a similar impression, it seems. And, man, I don't want to fan any possible fire here, but I must say that his shakespearian quote is absolutely brilliant! And very pertinent here, I'm afraid.

Female genital mutilation, from the perspective of numerous non-males in my culture (who don't necessarily do as intensive research as we do), is a more horrendous practice because it is done specifically to rob those people of sexual pleasure and control them. I highly suggest not comparing the two practices very casually, or if doing so, finding females and/or non-males who have experienced it, to ask of their experiences. Then, find mutilated males and ask them their experience. I think you may find some key differences. Just a suggestion, and not to get even more off topic than this thread already is.


I don't think that here we have to establish what kind of mutilation is worse than the other. They're different because male and female are different, but they're of the same kind, so I don't think you can say that one is more horrendous than the other. After all, what else can you do to mutilate sexually a male? Cut his dick or his balls? That is what you would consider deserving of a comparison to female genital mutilation? Come on, man.

And thank you again for remarking again that you consider this thread "off topic". I really wonder why. It even ties to media fakery in a very substantial, causal way, being the media possibly owned by people with a certain mentality that I'm trying to point out and define here.

I appreciate you doing more solid research, but I am still confused about why we have a thread with a particular attack against the bad practices of Judaism, but not those of other equally stupid religions. Shall we start threads which expose the disgusting practices of every religion the world over? There are tons of human rights violations the world over, but when you focus on one belief system, you start to sound like the perps that constantly talk about the various human rights violations of Muslim people. "Cast not the first stone" and all that, no?


I'm glad you appreciate my research efforts. Actually, I wanted to post even more research tonight, but I can't ignore your observations, especially you being an administrator and all, and I have to answer them first. I hope to post new research tomorrow, then, if this thread will be still alive... Just joking :)

Anyway, I think I've just said this with different words, but I'll try to be clearer here: I'm focusing on this particular belief system because I think it produces a mentality strangely similar, for me, to the one we tend to attribute to the people who control the world.

By the way, thank you for comparing me to the "perps", but I don't think I deserve such an honor, at least for one simple reason: I'm not pointing the finger in bad faith, to distract somebody's attention. Actually, misguided as I may be, I think I'm doing just the opposite: I'm trying to direct people's attention on something specific that is difficult to say even here, it seems, at least with you.

I don't care about exposing "the disgusting practices of every religion the world over", but I do care to point out a particular belief system when it happens to be shared by a group of people that exerts a disproportionate degree of control in our current society.

Also, are you sure your "intuition" isn't just some kind of prejudice that you are using CluesForum as a platform for? You sound to me a bit like one of two things:

1. Someone very suppressed on a topic due to scary (and perfectly horrible) laws that ban rightful criticism of Jews, therefore feeling the need to make your voice heard somewhere.

or, what I really do not want to believe you are, but which you sound like

2. Many perfectly nice people who have a deep mistrust or hate of some cultures, which they call an "intuition" rather than a simple prejudice


Actually, I think you sound a little prejudiced yourself against me. Why should you assume that I've hated a certain culture all my life and now I've finally found an outlet for my long-repressed hate? Am I really sounding so prejudiced here?

Of course, you can disagree with me all you want and try to make your points. But why are you questioning my motives here? Doesn't it sound a bit like a "character assassination" attempt, launched also from a higher position of power? Do I have to be prejudiced just because I want to address a question that you don't seem willing to address?

I gather it may be suggested once more that it's wrong of me to say this because I don't live in Europe. Well, I'm sorry but I do come from a different culture. Perhaps, arguably, a more tolerant one, for better or worse.


Well, if you come from a more tolerant culture, I don't think it shows here. I must say you're not sounding very tolerant with me here.

I am starting to get the feeling that your approach to this topic is not very honest about a much more simple thing you are trying to say: "I think Jewishness sucks" or "I think some practices of Abrahamic religions suck". Well, no shit! That is not so much a "conspiracy" as it is a personal preference. Are we going to tell people how to believe?


Well, I'm sorry to say this, but it seems that every new thing I post makes you more aggressive towards me.

You accuse my approach to be "not very honest" (character assassination again) because I don't say what YOU think I really want to say. Well, I can assure you that I'm saying exactly what I want to say, and I'm saying it my way and not yours, if you don't mind. I would say I'm using a non-confrontational way, but from your aggressive responses it would seem that I'm attacking you directly. I wonder why you're taking this so personally, and try to make it personal for me too by trying to offend me.

This possible confusion in yourself also explains why you want to keep the topic name vague — you have not yet realized the extent of your own personal revulsion from people just because of the culture they were born into or chose to have (or were forced to have!).

And I am sorry but if this does not progress from a familiar hate blog, I will advocate for this thread to be closed like our other failed religious discussion that went nowhere, despite our vast patience with it: the "Truth About Christianity" distraction.


Now I sound like a "hate blog", while in a previous post you accused me of sounding like David Icke, no less! When did I start to talk about reptilians? I must have missed it...

Seriously, here we go again with your character assassination attempts: possible confusion, personal revulsion... Since it seems you're even trying to psycho-analyze me here, I dare ask you a personal question: who or what are you defending here, and why? I think I've only said positive things about you so far. So why do you feel attacked and react in such an uncharacteristically aggressive way? Do you realize you're even threatening to close the thread, despite having just recognized my efforts to improve my research? I feel like anything I say here has the power to upset you, and I don't understand why.

So please, try and control your aggressivenes a bit more, will you? Not because I get offended, but because I'm getting tired of having to justify myself to you every step of the way, even when I'm trying to do what you suggested me to do, i.e.more research. Actually, this way you're preventing me to do that. And even to keep up with the thread, because I just realized there are new posts I haven't had the time to read.

So I really hope I will not be forced to ignore your future posts - if they will be in the same, unreasonably aggressive line - and keep posting just my research and observations until maybe you get your way and close the thread.
Last edited by jumpy64 on October 5th, 2015, 11:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
jumpy64
Member
 
Posts: 288
Joined: June 27th, 2013, 1:44 pm

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

Postby simonshack on October 5th, 2015, 11:26 pm

*
Dear Hoi and Jumpy,

Good Lord - isn't it just amazing how questions of religion causes divisiveness even among like-minded people? Is the very invention of religion (in general) perhaps the Greatest of All Psyops - EVER - designed to "divide and conquer" ?

It certainly looks like it, guys. I know both of you personally - and have known you for several years (well, I've known Hoi for more years than Jumpy, actually). I know that neither of you vouch for / participate with / nor support ANY given religion or creed. So why are you even bickering with each other?

I find it surreal.
simonshack
Administrator
 
Posts: 6525
Joined: October 18th, 2009, 9:09 pm
Location: italy

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

Postby hoi.polloi on October 5th, 2015, 11:35 pm

simonshack wrote:*
Dear Hoi and Jumpy,

Good Lord - isn't it just amazing how questions of religion causes divisiveness even among like-minded people? Is the very invention of religion (in general) perhaps the Greatest of All Psyops - EVER - designed to "divide and conquer" ?

It certainly looks like it, guys. I know both of you personally - and have known you for several years (well, I've known Hoi for more years than Jumpy, actually). I know that neither of you vouch for / participate with / nor support ANY given religion or creed. So why are you even bickering with each other?

I find it surreal.


Thank you for making peace, Simon.

I was getting the feeling you wouldn't defend this very true position because your mind had been clouded by the cloudy topic.

For goodness sakes, if we simply called this topic "The Jewish Conspiracy" in the first place, I don't think we'd be making so many exceptions for this topic.

But you have both already made it clear why it's a problem: you fear legal repercussions.

What can I do to alleviate you from this fear? I don't think you should be afraid. I think you should just talk about this conspiracy and expose it.

Saying, "The Talmud is bad but it's so bad we can't post about it" is not very CluesForum-y.

Simon, let's face it. I definitely have always acted aggressive in my moderation of topics. I am not really sure how to respond to the swipes at me given with plenty of sarcastic smiling faces. I am being straight with jumpy64 and I always have been, even when we met in person.

I don't think I am being paid the same courtesy.

Clearly, there is some kind of "let's look at every aspect of the problem with Jews in order to find out if it gives clues about why the media is broken" thing happening. But more problematically, there is also a "if you find fault with this reasoning, if you think it's a weak position or even if you see improvements could be made, you are doing it for ulterior motives."

:huh:

If Simon really believes this attitude will improve the forum, alright. Go for it. Nothing I can do about it. I've just had to act aggressive in the past in order to make it clear where I stand. Expose evil. Out your demons. Let me just write now that I haven't seen evidence of the foggy and blurry enemy being conjured here, and I do have a problem with the lack of specific ties to media fakery. However, as I said, maybe I just need to be patient.

I know that many horrible Jews have created a big problem for lots of people in this world. Where I stand is still the same. Many religions are at fault together. Jews no more than other religions. Well, maybe Jews a little more at fault in some cases. But let's nail those down properly so we can account for which crimes are done by which peoples.

However, I think irresponsible Jewish leaders are guilty with lots of other problematic folks, and it's actually a really good point that Jews in particular are responsible for the media. So, let's see where it goes.

(If you'd like to me respond to jumpy64's critique above, I would just suggest we take it into the DERAILING ROOM. Otherwise, I have to let all his misinterpretations of my statements (or my disagreements with him) stand here in the thread, as if they are perfect interpretations of our discussion, which in my opinion they aren't. Your call bro.)
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5016
Joined: November 14th, 2010, 8:24 pm

PreviousNext

Return to THE LIVING ROOM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron