Zionist feminisation of society

Post questions or suggestions here.
Richard
Posts: 20
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:24 am
Location: UK

Zionist feminisation of society

Post by Richard »

Having come to terms with the fact that Zionists carried out the 9/11 attacks (beyond any reasonable doubt when one looks into it), I am finding the deeper implications of what this means rather mind-boggling. http://www.iamthewitness.com/ is worth a visit.

Excerpted from The Rosenthal Document:
Continuing his thought of Jewish control over the goy, Mr. Rosenthal said:

"We have castrated society through fear and intimidation. Its manhood exists only in combination with a feminine outward appearance. Being so neutered, the populace has become docile and easily ruled.

As all geldings in nature, their thoughts are not involved with the concerns of the future and their posterity, but only with the present toil and the next meal."


"At first, by controlling the banking system we were able to control corporation capital. Through this, we acquired total monopoly of the movie industry, the radio networks and the newly developing television media. The printing industry, newspapers, periodicals and technical journals had already fallen into our hands.

The richest plum was later to come when we took over the publication of all school materials. Through these vehicles we could mold public opinion to suit our own purposes. The people are only stupid pigs that grunt and squeal the chants we give them, whether they be truth or lies."


By controlling industry, we have become the task masters and the people the slaves. When the pressure of daily toil builds to an explosive degree, we have provided the safety valve of momentary pleasure.

The television and movie industries furnish the necessary temporary distraction. These programs are carefully designed to appeal to the sensuous emotions, never to the logical thinking mind. Because of this, the people are programmed to respond according to our dictates, not according to reason. Silent they never are; unthinking they will remain."


Through religion we have gained complete control of society, government and economics. No law is ever passed except its merits have previously been taught from the pulpits.

An example of this is race equality which led to integration and ultimately to mongrelization. The gullible clergy in one breath instruct their parishioners that we are a special, chosen people while in another breath proclaim all races are the same.

Their inconsistency is never discovered. So we Jews enjoy a special place in society while all other races are reduced to racial equality. It is for this reason that we authored the equality hoax, thereby reducing all to a lower level.


Until recently, the pride of workmanship exceeded the quest for high incomes. However, we have been able to enslave society to our own power which is money, by causing them to seek after it.

We have converted the people to our philosophy of getting and acquiring so that they will never be satisfied. A dissatisfied people are the pawns in our game of world conquest. Thus, they are always seeking and never able to find satisfaction. The very moment they seek happiness outside themselves, they become our willing servants.

Your people never realize that we offer them only worthless baubles that can not bring fulfillment. They procure one and consume it and are not filled. They procure one and consume it and are not filled. We present another.

We have an infinite number of outward distractions, to the extent that life can not again turn inward to find its definite fulfillment. You have become addicted to our medicine through which we have become your absolute masters.


The American people have been easily ruled through our propaganda that the pen is mightier than the sword. We virtually get away with murder, and all the goy do is to talk about it, which is ineffective since we, the masters of propaganda, always publish a contradicting account.


Your people don't have guts. We establish your thinking -- we even place within you a 'guilt complex' making you afraid to criticize Jewry openly.
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kevin Solway »

I've looked at the so-called "evidence" that Zionists were behind 9/11, and there is no evidence.

"The idea that Zionists were behind 9/11 is a Zionist plot to polarise public opinion, which brings more people to the side of the Zionists who are perceived to be victimized by such slander." - The New Rosenthal Document
Excerpted from The Rosenthal Document:
There is some good writing here but unfortunately it is made worthless by the fact that it is presented in an irrational context.

If instead of "Jewish control" it spoke of "control by materialists", it might have made more sense and had more of an impact.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Post by Dan Rowden »

Kevin Solway wrote:I've looked at the so-called "evidence" that Zionists were behind 9/11, and there is no evidence.
There's also no credible evidence that 19 Muslim extremists did it. There's a reason that 9/11 is not mentioned on Bin Laden's FBI arrest warrant.
User avatar
Katy
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 8:08 am
Location: Georgia
Contact:

Post by Katy »

Dan Rowden wrote: There's also no credible evidence that 19 Muslim extremists did it. There's a reason that 9/11 is not mentioned on Bin Laden's FBI arrest warrant.
There's really no credible evidence of who did it other than the lack of credible evidence. Seriously. Why did we get rid of all the evidence?
-Katy
Tharan
Posts: 337
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 5:14 am
Location: Seattle

Post by Tharan »

Is there irrefutable evidence that the Twin towers ever existed?
User avatar
Katy
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 8:08 am
Location: Georgia
Contact:

Post by Katy »

Tharan wrote:Is there irrefutable evidence that the Twin towers ever existed?
I worked there! I worked there in Sept 2001! And my father worked on construction. I thus firmly believe that it existed.
-Katy
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Post by Dan Rowden »

Tharan wrote:Is there irrefutable evidence that the Twin towers ever existed?
Well, duh, don't you watch movies. They're there all the time! What do you think it is, CGI?

Anyway, I didn't say "irrefutable", I said "credible".
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

FAIRYTALES

Post by Leyla Shen »

It is rather convenient, Richard, how many seem to have a passion for ignoring the events and conditions preceding WWII--like, oh, WWI, for example, as if they never existed or were totally disrelated--and concoct "facts" from whatever theory suits their own egoes, historical and intellectual limitations.

Now, it's not that I propose exposing the truth of such a thing would magically resolve the issues but certainly it would go a long way in addressing the most glaring and influential delusions in international politics today.

.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen »

Kevin wrote:
If instead of "Jewish control" it spoke of "control by materialists", it might have made more sense and had more of an impact.
I have not read that particular article. However, since I have committed every fibre of my body and soul to disabusing you of your irrational love for Jews, I will ask you why you are quite happy to associate the whole of the Islamic world with irrational fundamentalism and not the whole of the Jewish world with materialist control.

.
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kevin Solway »

Dan Rowden wrote:There's also no credible evidence that 19 Muslim extremists did it.
You mean those people who did flying lessons in how to take-off in those particular aircraft, but not land?

Are you saying there's no credible evidence they were involved?

Or do you mean there's no credible evidence that they were Muslim extremists?
There's a reason that 9/11 is not mentioned on Bin Laden's FBI arrest warrant.
He may have had nothing to do with it, other than offering moral support.
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kevin Solway »

Leyla Shen wrote:I will ask you why you are quite happy to associate the whole of the Islamic world with irrational fundamentalism and not the whole of the Jewish world with materialist control.
The Jewish world may be wholly concerned with materialist control - I don't know - but a lot of other people are wholly concerned with materialist control as well - such as everyone who has supported the Australian Liberal Party, and probably all Americans. I don't believe they're all Jewish. Materialism has a much broader base than just Jews.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen »

Um, are you having me on, Kevin?

Irrational fundamentalism has a much broader base than "just Muslims," such as everyone who believes in an anthropomorphised God (and the Australian Liberal Party), capitalism (and the Australian Liberal Party)...

I don’t believe they’re all Muslims.

Now answer the flippen question.

.
ExpectantlyIronic
Posts: 411
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 7:11 pm

Post by ExpectantlyIronic »

"If you wish to study a granfalloon, just remove the skin of a toy balloon." -Bokonon (or actually Vonnegut)

You folks all realize that hasty generalizations are a logical error right? Just because you know twenty folks from group Q that all think P, doesn't mean that everyone in group Q thinks P.
oborden
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 2:38 am

Post by oborden »

Expectantly,

The rationality of a thought can only be judged from logically examining it and probing it for faults, dismissing a thought as irrational based on how quickly it was thought of is irrational.

If it is well known that concept A is believed by a solid majority of group X then I think it is acceptable to make a generalized statement about group X being followers of A as long as it is understood as a generalization. Why point out that generalizations aren't 100% accurate?
ExpectantlyIronic
Posts: 411
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 7:11 pm

Post by ExpectantlyIronic »

The rationality of a thought can only be judged from logically examining it and probing it for faults, dismissing a thought as irrational based on how quickly it was thought of is irrational.
"Hasty generalization" is just the common name of the logical fallacy. It has nothing to do with how quickly one is able to make the error.
If it is well known that concept A is believed by a solid majority of group X then I think it is acceptable to make a generalized statement about group X being followers of A as long as it is understood as a generalization. Why point out that generalizations aren't 100% accurate?
If it were well known that the majority of folks in group X thought Y, then it'd be perfectly fair to say that the majority of folks in group X thought Y. That's not a hasty generalization. Now, if you happen to only know twenty folks from group X, and your basing your opinion on your interaction with those twenty folks, you are making a logical error. Assuming, of course, that group X has a whole lot more then twenty folks in it.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Post by Dan Rowden »

Kevin Solway wrote:
Dan Rowden wrote:There's also no credible evidence that 19 Muslim extremists did it.
You mean those people who did flying lessons in how to take-off in those particular aircraft, but not land?
What? No-one learned to fly in jets. A couple of those supposed terrorists took a few flying lessons in light aircraft. In fact, one of them was so inept it counts as evidence he was not involved. And just because Joe Blogs goes to the firing range every other day doesn't mean he shot anyone. When you say you looked at the evidence that Zionists were responsible for 9/11 I have to say I frankly don't believe you. I say that because I don't believe you have sufficient interest in the issue to have done so.
Are you saying there's no credible evidence they were involved?
I'm saying that very thing because there isn't. There's barely even circumstantial evidence. That doesn't mean they weren't involved of course. It just means that if they were to be posthumously prosecuted for it there's no way they could be found guilty.
Or do you mean there's no credible evidence that they were Muslim extremists?
Well, there's evidence that they weren't. At least, there's evidence they weren't very good Muslims even if very good extremists.
There's a reason that 9/11 is not mentioned on Bin Laden's FBI arrest warrant.
He may have had nothing to do with it, other than offering moral support.
Well, yes, but that's not much of a point. Fact is, he is directly associated with it, at least politically and yet there's ............

Actually, nevermind, I don't know why I'm attempting to associate reality with politics.
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kelly Jones »

Dan,

Do you put so much effort into understanding the degrees of insanity of participants in world wars because politics and wisdom are identical at base?


Would you agree that the greatest efforts towards enlightenment (judging the strength of insanity, AND willing and support the overpowering of the greatest insanity) are political? Why would you not interact in a "worldly" political realm? Where would you best be able to influence people's decisions about "what has the right to live"?


What do you consider the greatest power one ought to be actively fighting, and what path have you chosen to do it?

.
User avatar
sue hindmarsh
Posts: 1083
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:02 am
Location: Sous Le Soleil

Post by sue hindmarsh »

Kelly,

Dan answered your questions when he wrote:
Actually, nevermind, I don't know why I'm attempting to associate reality with politics.
But since you have raised those questions, your answers to them may make clear what your ideas are on this subject.

-
Sue
User avatar
Kelly Jones
Posts: 2665
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 3:51 pm
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kelly Jones »

Sue,

I define politics as generating wisdom. Politics is always based on judgments and values, so why not go to the source? Why not connect with reality?

Dan speaks often of the current world war. I admit i can't see why he does this, since war is a simple thing. I asked him questions to see why he disassociates society and wisdom. How can wisdom continue when all social policies unconsciously destroy everything that creates it?



Do you put so much effort into understanding the degrees of insanity of participants in world wars because politics and wisdom are identical at base?
Yes, because i am interested to know which seed bears fruit.

Would you agree that the greatest efforts towards enlightenment (judging the strength of insanity, AND willing and support the overpowering of the greatest insanity) are political?
Yes, because politics is "how humans ought to live" or "what ought to live", and enlightenment destroys ignorance and wills Truth-awareness.

Why would you not interact in a "worldly" political realm?


If no seeds bore fruit there. But the ground is so barren, that one can really start bloody anywhere! "Look! A human on tv" --- the barrenness is the effect of "humans" who haven't pushed themselves to grow stronger. Procrastinating and making excuses.

Where would you best be able to influence people's decisions about "what has the right to live"?
Grounded in Reality, from which can flow an ongoing, persistent influence, in person and in writing. A city is best, because cities tear away the contented masks of contented country animals, showing up the ego in high definition.

What do you consider the greatest power one ought to be actively fighting, and what path have you chosen to do it?
Ignorance.

The path i've chosen is to keep steering to perfection, and to keep helping the law of mediocrity see that living by reason is a reality, not idealism, regardless of how much i'm accused of egotism and stupidity.

.
oborden
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2006 2:38 am

Post by oborden »

ExpectantlyIronic wrote:"Hasty generalization" is just the common name of the logical fallacy. It has nothing to do with how quickly one is able to make the error.
I didn't know what a Hasty Generalization was. I was assuming your original comment was directed towards what Leyla and Kevin were talking about. So I thought that you were implying that they were wrong or making a logical error in their "hasty generalization" of said political doctrines.

Empirically, no, you can't know for sure that every American is controlled by desire for material without interacting with every American and discovering if they truly are controlled by desire for material.
User avatar
Dan Rowden
Posts: 5739
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
Contact:

Post by Dan Rowden »

Kelly,
Do you put so much effort into understanding the degrees of insanity of participants in world wars because politics and wisdom are identical at base?
No, not really; I've only taken a passing interest in the events surrounding 9/11 because the very social fabric of the world is changing because of it. Our arses are being bitten by it in an number of ways so it is of some measure of interest to me. I'm not really sure why you would associate politics with wisdom, at least not the politics we have at present.
Would you agree that the greatest efforts towards enlightenment (judging the strength of insanity, AND willing and support the overpowering of the greatest insanity) are political?
There's a political dimension to what the wise person does because it involves certain social realities. For example, politics that doesn't allow for people like me to be on the dole or disability or whatever are necessarily bad for the cause of wisdom. To the extent that is true I am somewhat politically engaged.
Why would you not interact in a "worldly" political realm?
For the same reason I would not join a church. I might try and influence it in ways that are helpful to me, but actual involvement is not on my agenda. The reason for this being that I would be thrown out in 5 minutes flat.
Where would you best be able to influence people's decisions about "what has the right to live"?
I don't think I have the capacity to influence on this scale. I work incrementally with individuals. I would not be an acceptable figure in any normal political environement, and certainly not in a democratic one given that I think people are totallly fucked up. "I think you're an idiot" Vote for me and prove me right!"
What do you consider the greatest power one ought to be actively fighting, and what path have you chosen to do it?
The greatest power we ought be fighting is our own delusions and ignorance. It's only from there that we can make sound judgements about what else to do. The path to that is the one that I/we have deliniated for the last decade.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen »

Kelly Jones wrote:
Would you agree that the greatest efforts towards enlightenment (judging the strength of insanity, AND willing and support the overpowering of the greatest insanity) are political?

Yes, because politics is "how humans ought to live" or "what ought to live", and enlightenment destroys ignorance and wills Truth-awareness.
Dan Rowden wrote:
I'm not really sure why you would associate politics with wisdom, at least not the politics we have at present.
Man, I must be weirder than I thought. I thought Kelly made a perfectly clear point, here. How can you make a judgment about how you will be affected without making a truth-judgment about the things affecting?

.
User avatar
Ryan Rudolph
Posts: 2490
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:32 am
Location: British Columbia, Canada

Post by Ryan Rudolph »

Kelly Jones wrote:
I define politics as generating wisdom. Politics is always based on judgments and values, so why not go to the source? Why not connect with reality?
I agree with Dan on this one, It doesn’t make sense for a wise man to become involved with politics because to be voted in your views must mirror the majority of the masses. It doesn’t make sense, it’s a lost cause.

Socrates was offered a position in politics and he turned it down flat, and rightfully so.

The best political speaker in the US is probably Noam Chomsky, who is more of a “historian of countries who abuse their power” than a genuine sage, however his work is beneficial to help people get over the hump of nationalism and see the universality of power struggles regardless of nation-state.

However at this present time, given the maturity of those in politics, it doesn’t make any sense for a genuine sage to get involved in the political structure.

Humanity isn’t ready for it yet. The philosopher kings will have to wait, and ironically by the time humanity is ready for philosophers to govern (if that ever happens, which I can only speculate), then they won’t need to be governed anyway.
User avatar
Katy
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 8:08 am
Location: Georgia
Contact:

Post by Katy »

Leyla Shen wrote: Man, I must be weirder than I thought. I thought Kelly made a perfectly clear point, here. How can you make a judgment about how you will be affected without making a truth-judgment about the things affecting?

.
Well I think there's a difference between being informed enough to vote how you want to and actually being involved in politics. Being involved is a bunch of backstabbing gossip and compromising your values.
-Katy
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen »

No, Katy. If it is true that the people get the government they deserve, then every time you open your mouth, you’re a politician.

I don’t believe--though I might be mistaken--Kelly was talking about a career choice.

.
Locked