THE DERAILING ROOM

A place to relax and socialize - to muse, think aloud and suggest
Apache
Member
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 11:02 am

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

Unread post by Apache »

jumpy64 wrote:Unfortunately - but also quite predictably, I'm afraid - the Canadian writer, publisher and activist has been convicted of "promoting hatred against Jews" on his website RadicalPress.com.
As this site is here to question what we are sold by both the mainstream and alternative media I want to put forward the proposition that the Topham case isn't all that it appears to be on the surface. I have seen much worse than his "Israel must perish" satire online and considering that he's been married to a Jewish woman for 37 years, along with his use of Gilad Atzmon as a main witness, the entire "trial" doesn't pass my smell test. Atzmon talks out of both sides of his mouth and isn't to be trusted. Topham describes himself as "only" an anti-Zionist, but what I see is someone who bolsters the "anti-semitism is alive and well" meme.

I question the entire "trial" and why it even occurred. It simply doesn't look like an authentic attack against "hate speech" to me, but an attempt to create a fake story of "hate speech" using Topham and a "fake trial" to do so. Why did he use the entire Kaufman pamphlet "Germany must perish" and switch each and every instance of the word "Germany" for "Israel" in order to bring its egregious message into the public consciousness? I came across that particulary vile piece of propaganda without Topham's help. Did he think his readers needed the entirety of the text to be satirised rather than simply saying "switch the word Germany for the word Israel" in order to get his message across? If so, then he was asking for trouble. He did step over the line from satire to "hate speech" by using the entire text to make his point (using a sledgehammer to crack a nut) and my question is: did he do that deliberately knowing that there would be a trial and a conviction for "hate speech" bolstering the "anti-semitism is alive and well" propaganda? Doesn't it also explain why he was only convicted on one count and not both, contrary to logic? :rolleyes:
jumpy64
Member
Posts: 288
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 12:44 pm

Re: Why a topic about a conspiracy dominated by Jews

Unread post by jumpy64 »

ICfreely, your latest post here would hit the nail right on the head, if it wasn't for at least a single, questionable line.

You're right about the Golden Rule, in all its variations, being the common denominator amongst practically all organized religions. But are you sure it applies also to Judaism? To the Torah, maybe, but certainly not to the Talmud.

In fact, it seems to me that, referring to the phrase I find questionable in your post, what the Talmud says could be summarized as "Whatever thou hatest thyself, that do not to another... of your own race (or cultural/religious group). But yes, by all means, do it to all others, i.e. the Goyim or Gentiles".

I'm not sure about the Islamic religion, which is also influenced by a certain "ingroup Vs. outgroup" mentality, although probably a milder one. I haven't studied it, though, because I'm not a scholar of comparative religion. I was born into Christianity (catholicism, to be exact), and over the years I've been attracted, for spiritual reasons, by other religions you mention, like Buddhism and Taoism.

The reason why I've started studying Judaism, a religion I've never had any spiritual interest for, is just because I discovered the disproportionate power of JPMs in our society and I wanted to understand their mindset and its practical consequences in the world, through media fakery and other pernicious phenomena.

That's exactly why I started "a topic about a conspiracy dominated by Jews".

So thank you for giving me the opportunity to spell it out.
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

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

Unread post by simonshack »

That's mighty interesting, Apache. Believe it or not (well, I hope you do believe me :) ) but yesterday I had a long phone call with Jumpy - and at one point we talked a little about the Topham case. Jumpy, who has - unlike myself - been looking a bit deeper into it lately, told me that he now nurtures more or less the exact same doubts / suspicions as the ones expressed in your above post. So yes, I'd say this is definitely a hypothesis worth looking into.
jumpy64
Member
Posts: 288
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 12:44 pm

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

Unread post by jumpy64 »

Apache wrote:As this site is here to question what we are sold by both the mainstream and alternative media I want to put forward the proposition that the Topham case isn't all that it appears to be on the surface. I have seen much worse than his "Israel must perish" satire online and considering that he's been married to a Jewish woman for 37 years, along with his use of Gilad Atzmon as a main witness, the entire "trial" doesn't pass my smell test. Atzmon talks out of both sides of his mouth and isn't to be trusted. Topham describes himself as "only" an anti-Zionist, but what I see is someone who bolsters the "anti-semitism is alive and well" meme.

I question the entire "trial" and why it even occurred. It simply doesn't look like an authentic attack against "hate speech" to me, but an attempt to create a fake story of "hate speech" using Topham and a "fake trial" to do so. Why did he use the entire Kaufman pamphlet "Germany must perish" and switch each and every instance of the word "Germany" for "Israel" in order to bring its egregious message into the public consciousness? I came across that particulary vile piece of propaganda without Topham's help. Did he think his readers needed the entirety of the text to be satirised rather than simply saying "switch the word Germany for the word Israel" in order to get his message across? If so, then he was asking for trouble. He did step over the line from satire to "hate speech" by using the entire text to make his point (using a sledgehammer to crack a nut) and my question is: did he do that deliberately knowing that there would be a trial and a conviction for "hate speech" bolstering the "anti-semitism is alive and well" propaganda? Doesn't it also explain why he was only convicted on one count and not both, contrary to logic? :rolleyes:
Thank you so much for your post, Apache! It's a great example of what could be defined as "syncronicity in action". And Simon's post, which the system showed to me while I was ready to submit mine, is another!

As a matter of fact, in the last few days - actually right after writing my previous post on Topham - I started having doubts about the whole thing, thinking it could be an orchestrated event to "bolster the 'anti-semitism is alive and well' meme", as you effectively say, in order to promote the fear of anti-semitism among the public, I think. And yes, as Simon just said, I was talking about this yesterday with him, actually extending my suspicions to the Ernst Zundel trial in Canada, also mentioned in my post.

But it was just a feeling I started having, based on pure intuition if you will, so I took a mental note to start researching and see if there was something to back it up before expressing it here. But I haven't started yet, and I'm glad you beat me to it.

Yes, I agree with you and Simon that we should definitely investigate the possibility of at least some of this kind of trials being not what it appears on the surface.

To be honest, I think it was Hoi who first suggested such a possibility on this thread, so I hope he too will lend his unquestionable talent to this particular effort.
ICfreely
Member
Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Re: Why a topic about a conspiracy dominated by Jews

Unread post by ICfreely »

jumpy64 wrote:You're right about the Golden Rule, in all its variations, being the common denominator amongst practically all organized religions. But are you sure it applies also to Judaism? To the Torah, maybe, but certainly not to the Talmud.
It applies to the Torah exoterically only! It most certainly doesn't apply to any excerpts of the Talmud that I've read.
jumpy64 wrote:In fact, it seems to me that, referring to the phrase I find questionable in your post, what the Talmud says could be summarized as "Whatever thou hatest thyself, that do not to another... of your own race (or cultural/religious group). But yes, by all means, do it to all others, i.e. the Goyim or Gentiles".
Let me put it this way jumpy, I'm all for cultural, religious and national identity/kinship and whatnot but I revile supremacism/Darwinism of any sort. It's a direct violation of thr Golden Rule.
Supremacism is the worldview that a particular age, race, species, ethnic group, religion, gender, social class, belief system, or culture is superior to other variations of that trait, and entitles those who identify with it to dominate, control, or exploit those who do not.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacism
Here's a wiki link addressing Jewish supremacism:
Some academics and writers allege Jewish supremacism, often in relation to Israel and Zionism. Author Minna Rozen writes that 17th century Jews who lived in Jerusalem were supremacist in their views that they were superior over other Jews. Ilan Pappé, an Israeli historian, writes that the First Aliyah to Israel "established a society based on Jewish supremacy." Joseph Massad, a Professor of Arab Studies, holds that "Jewish supremacism" always has been a "dominating principle" in religious and secular Zionism. Kevin B. MacDonald, known for his theory of Judaism as a "group evolutionary strategy", has been accused by the ADL and his own university psychology department of being "antisemitic" and white supremacist in his writings on the subject. However, prominent rabbis have, in fact, explicitly made claims regarding purported Jewish superiority.

Zoroastrianism, an early monotheistic faith that influenced Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, originated among a people who called themselves Aryans, including the Persians. Friedrich Nietzsche's writings, such as Thus Spoke Zarathustra (Zarathustra being another name for Zoroaster), were interpreted by Nazis as a foundation for their ideas of the Aryan Übermensch and white supremacism. The Nazis also appropriated the Zoroastrian symbol of the faravahar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacism#Religious
I think the Abrahamic religions, in addition to most organized religions, are controlled/manipulated by Judaism which in turn is controlled/manipulated by the 'learned' elders of Zion.
jumpy64 wrote:I'm not sure about the Islamic religion, which is also influenced by a certain "ingroup Vs. outgroup" mentality, although probably a milder one. I haven't studied it, though, because I'm not a scholar of comparative religion. I was born into Christianity (catholicism, to be exact), and over the years I've been attracted, for spiritual reasons, by other religions you mention, like Buddhism and Taoism.
Every group, by definition, is influenced by a certain "ingroup Vs. outgroup" mentality which can be radicalized periodically. At the exoteric level all religions are appealing. Think of it this way, In order to get a rat to eat poison you must dilute it in something appealing (seemingly good). The poison is the esoteric agenda of the apex of the group.
jumpy64 wrote:The reason why I've started studying Judaism, a religion I've never had any spiritual interest for, is just because I discovered the disproportionate power of JPMs in our society and I wanted to understand their mindset.
I don't think the JPM's have any spiritual interest in Judaism either. The only god they trust in is the green one they create out of thin air. Sociopaths! As for the Jewish people I've personally interacted with, they've run the gamut from very nice to complete assholes.
jumpy64 wrote:That's exactly why I started "a topic about a conspiracy dominated by Jews".

So thank you for giving me the opportunity to spell it out.



The Torah is a collection/consolidation of multiple belief systems and sacred texts. It's a perpetual myth making machine.

The commonality of religious teachings derives from many sources. One is the common experiences and (literally) world shaking events which have molded our consciousnesses. Whether it is the creation of the world itself, a Great Flood/Deluge, or an event which allows a massive exodus of a subjugated people from a powerful overlord, these are the paradigm shaking moments which must be accounted for in any religion.

A second reason for the commonality of religions is that the ancients did a lot of copying of others works. Bernstein [3], for example has written: “When Moses led the Israelites out of the land of bondage, he carried with him the mysteries of Egyptian knowledge acquired by Moses himself at the court of the Pharaoh.” The Hebrews also took much of the knowledge of creation from the Babylonians, who had in turn learned their lessons from the Sumerians. The Jewish Kaballah (aka Ha Qabala) is replicated in large part by the Christian Caballah, and the ecumenical Qaballah, and all may very well have originated from the Sumerians’ “Table of Destiny”.

As Mark Twain has observed: “The ancients have stolen all our really good, new ideas.”

Differences in Religion are purely in the details and the facades we place around our core beliefs in order to appear unique. On the one hand, religion’s exoteric doctrines (“for the many”) designed for the common man contains all manner of interesting and original notions of what’s important (i.e. “full of sound and fury and signifying nothing”). On the other hand, the esoteric doctrines (“for the few”) are where the real meat is, and is limited to those willing to make the effort to pursue the higher truths of life. And the esoteric portions are also the connecting links of commonality of all viable religions.

At the most fundamental level, all religions are pretty much the same. They are, after all, talking about the same Universal Creator, the same history of Earth (however much we argue about the sequence and dating of events), and the same humanoids, extraterrestrials, and interdimensional beings running amuck on the planet’s surface and surrounding space.

Everything is connected, everything is one. But everything is also disguised in order to make it interesting in finding out how everything is one and connected.
http://www.halexandria.org/dward181.htm
Dan Sewell Ward seems to be an intelligent and open-minded person. He’s also a physicist who happens to believe that ancient aliens created us in their own image (crossing their DNA with primates) which explains the ‘missing link’ in the evolution of Homo sp. ( à la Zecharia Sitchin et al. :rolleyes: ). With regards to mainstream science he's either 'in on it' or has 'bought into it' or a combination of both.

The power of fakery (journalistic/academic) is highly underestimated. Belief in the big bang, evolution, heliocentricity (which are continually reinforced) fundamentally limits and skews our depth/breadth of thought. Scientism, in essence, is a deliberate dumbing down and consolidation of multiple belief systems – a continuation of Sumerian swindle. The ‘full spectrum dominance’ (anti-Scientism <- -> anti-Semitism) of the Torah’s esoteric doctrines, IMO, fundamentally distinguishes it from other ‘sacred texts.’

Torah – Age of Taurus (Bull)
New Testament – Age of Pisces (Fish)
Scientism – Age of Aquarius (Water)*

*It’s important to note that during the European so called ‘Dark Ages’ the Islamic world was reaching the heights of its own ‘Scientific Enlightenment.’ For every European science god/polymath there’s a corollary Persian/Arab/Muslim science god as if to lend legitimacy (similar to Greek psi-gods).
ICfreely
Member
Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

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

Unread post by ICfreely »

jumpy64 wrote:To be honest, I think it was Hoi who first suggested such a possibility on this thread...
I was about to say the same thing but you beat me to it! :)
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

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

Unread post by simonshack »

jumpy64 wrote: Yes, I agree with you and Simon that we should definitely investigate the possibility of at least some of this kind of trials being not what it appears on the surface.

To be honest, I think it was Hoi who first suggested such a possibility on this thread, so I hope he too will lend his unquestionable talent to this particular effort.
Admittedly, if it turns out some of these trials are not what they appear to be on the surface, I may have to eat a little humble pie since, as you rightly mention, it was Hoi who first suggested this may be the case (and I responded a bit dismissively to that...).
jumpy64
Member
Posts: 288
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 12:44 pm

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

Unread post by jumpy64 »

Anyway, Simon, so far the faking of hate-speech or anti-semitism trials and/or convictions is just an hypothesis based on a hunch and on certain suspicious elements Apache brought up about the Topham story. I'm far from ready to say that someone can't really go to prison because of anti-semitism or hate-speech charges, and I wouldn't be willing to put such a theory to the test myself directly. Not yet, at least! :P

Actually, what I suspect is that, as practically anything that is publicized by the media, certain famous cases of convicted anti-semites (who deep down must be or have become shills or gatekeepers) could be faked or at least manipulated mostly to instill fear of dire consequences into people who have similar ideas, as part of the media's fear-mongering agenda we know very well. It could act as a deterrent for many more people who might be inclined to denounce Jewish power and control, but I'm sure that whoever doesn't heed the warning can be persecuted in various ways, including being thrown in jail or at least heavily discriminated.

I know this in part from direct experience, because I was myself a victim of such discrimination almost ten years ago.

Without going much into details now, let's say that someone who had the power to hire me for a certain job for an important publishing company I had already started working for wanted to have a private conversation with me first. And what did this conversation turn out to be about? Nothing directly related to what I would have done for the company, surprisingly.

The first question this guy asked me really took me aback. It essentially boiled down to: "What do you think about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion?".

Mind you, at the time I wasn't nearly as aware of Jewish power and control as I am today. At the time, I had just witnessed some strange and not so friendly behaviors from Jewish acquaintances, and heard from a friend that in Israel cars with Palestinian license plates had to stop and give precedence to cars with Israeli license plates whenever they saw them (which is true, as you can verify at http://nigelparry.com/diary/ramallah/plates.html). That had rubbed me the wrong way, of course, leading me to discover some "questionable" quotations from the Talmud, and to read parts of the Protocols. But I certainly wasn't as "gung ho" as I may appear today ;) :D

So, not really knowing what I was getting into, I tried a cautious (or at least that's how it seemed to me, although it probably wasn't) but essentially truthful answer. I avoided questioning the Holocaust story (which I was already starting to doubt a little bit), and said only that maybe behind the great suffering of so many poor Jewish people (I even tried to emphasize this point, hoping to sugarcoat the other I was about to make) there could be hiding a powerful group of interest keen on avoiding any form of criticism.

The guy was evidently part of that group (see a previous post of mine about Sayanim), because after conversing with me for a while as if nothing had happened, he dismissed me and I never heard from him again. Not only he didn't hire me for the new, more important job, but even the collaboration I already had was immediately discontinued. Nobody ever said I couldn't work with them anymore, but whenever I called to ask why I wasn't receiving any new work to do, they kept stalling and making up excuses until I finally gave up and stopped calling them altogether.

For a while I kept thinking that the question about the Protocols was just an unlucky coincidence, but then I discovered that it wasn't.

So now I feel entitled to smirk a little bit every time I hear someone say that there is no Jewish control of the media, or that the Protocols are "just a fake" or "not really important".
Apache
Member
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 11:02 am

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

Unread post by Apache »

jumpy64 wrote:I'm far from ready to say that someone can't really go to prison because of anti-semitism or hate-speech charges, and I wouldn't be willing to put such a theory to the test myself directly.
I agree, I'm not either; although it is a good idea to raise questions around the issue of which trials are real and which ones are not. Jürgen Graf does appear to have been imprisoned for his questioning of certain "historical facts" and I expect that eventually Carlo Mattogno will be jailed too (after next January). I'm not convinced that Topham is going to serve a major sentence, based on his using Gilad Atzmon as an "expert witness".

Here's what raised certain red flags for me: http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2015/11 ... ess-part-1
I have gone through the court case documentation and detected a considerable lack of understanding of the complexity of the terminology related to Jewish matters: identity, religion, race and politics. In particular, I encountered confusion in the comprehension of the crucial distinction among:

A: Judaism (the religion)

B: The Jews (the people)

C: Jewishness (the ideology)

In order to grasp these notions we must elaborate first on the meaning of Jewish Identity Politics.

Years of studying of Jewish identity politics led me to the conclusion that we are dealing with three non-exclusive categories.

A: The Religion – people who identify as Jews because they believe and follow the Torah/Talmud. Ladies and gentlemen-this category is innocent. The history of hundreds of years of rabbinical Judaism proves that orthodox Jews have never been involved in a genocidal act against another people.
:blink:
Attorney Barclay Johnson: In the last 7 days this court learned about some very problematic segments within the Talmud and the Torah. Yet, you insist here that the religion is innocent. Can you please enlighten us about the role of religion?

Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon: This is a crucial point. While I argue that the Jewish religion is an innocent category, this is far from saying that Judaism is clean of some very problematic teachings and even racist and supremacist preaching.

Here is the problem. The historical facts are plain. In spite of some very problematic Judaic teachings that are both Talmud and Torah related, rabbinical Jews have never been involved in any collective murderous attempt against anyone else. This fact suggests that in spite of some horrid segments, it was actually the Talmud that restrained the Jews for centuries. Such a view vindicates the Talmud despite its uncomfortable teachings. But things are about to get very uncomfortable now.

It is not a secret that in contemporary Israel, it is the orthodox Jews and the followers of the Talmud who lead the most racist and murderous abuse of the indigenous Palestinian population. Thus, we have a clear question to answer. If it was the Talmud that restrained the Jews for centuries, why doesn’t it restrain orthodox Israeli Jews now? The orthodox rabbis argue that it is the addition of political orientation that interfered with Judaic peaceful teaching.
Got all that? Judaism/Talmud/Torah is peaceful, no Rabbi ever called for anyone else's death, the Roman-Jewish wars never happened and even if they did it's all the fault of Judaism becoming politicised.

(Edit: removed Moses Mendelssohn quote as I can't find an authentic source for it.)
ICfreely
Member
Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

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

Unread post by ICfreely »

Ψ-chiatry plays a big role in the open conspiracy. I’ll follow up on the following excerpt in the ‘Psychiatry” thread.
A Brief History of Psychiatry and the Mental Health System
By Emil Colangelo

Did you ever wonder how psychiatry began? Did you ever wonder when people began seeing psychiatrists or were they in existence since people organized themselves? Did you ever wonder how the mentally ill were treated in the dim past, in more enlightened times or even in our more modern times? Did you ever ponder how the entire mental health system developed or, was there always a mental health system even in the antique past? I will try in this small work to tell the story of psychiatry, psychiatrists, how the mental health system developed and the mentally ill were dealt with. The treatment of the mentally ill throughout time is not generally a pretty picture.

Then came more "enlightened and scientific" times. The period was called the Age of Reason or the Age of Enlightenment. In 1752 the "lunatick" hospital was opened. It was called the Pennsylvania Hospital.

In the Middle Ages there were almshouses and work houses rather than asylums that catered to the mentally ill exclusively. As was already mentioned Bedlam grew out of Bethlehem Hospital that later became know as Bedlam.

The 19th Century was one of great asylum building. Asylums sprung up all over the country and in many states. Now, as yet, these were not government-funded asylums. The asylums were private endeavors to take care of people that were mainly a burden to society especially financially.

Psychiatry still had to be revived. A reliance of slices on brains showing lesions was not enough to prove mental illness and advance psychiatry. But a famous man named Jean-Martin Charcot(1825-1893) came up with a more psychosocial view of mental illness. He presented a slant of psychiatry that would try to explain the theory of mental illness and also advance the specialty of psychiatry itself. He virtually ignored the major mental illnesses such as schizophrenia and paranoia and such and focused more on the child hoods and history of the patients. He concentrated more on patients who suffered from other disorders such as anxiety, nervousness, and obsessive compulsiveness and shied away from the major illnesses. He even gave a name to people who suffered from anxiety, nervousness and the stresses of life. He called the new slant on illnesses "hysteria" or "neurosis." He reasoned he could get more paying patients into his offices because anxiety and stresses could command more patients than the more serious illness such as schizophrenia. He could make psychiatry a very lucrative endeavor. Charcot was known as a dreamer. But his famous pupil Sigmund Freud, who brought psychiatry to new levels of popularity and financial advancement, further, expounded his dreams. Charcot was an icon of his age, almost like Dr. Benjamin Rush. "Charcot is described by an historian as: "quite lacking in common sense and grandiosity sure of his judgment, it harbors it harbors the potential for calamity."

Sigmund Freud was born of humble beginnings in Vienna, Austria and lived from 1857 to 1939. He made the practice of psychiatry more profitable and viable by developing theories of the unconscious and various sexual theories. Again, people grew tired of theories involving dissecting brains and looking for lesions. He was Jewish by religion and many of his patient's were Jewish. He was first trained as a neurologist but did not establish a career for quite a while. He was too poor to marry. His studies initially began with biology and the study of lower sea life. He has not as yet developed the wide and voluminous theories of the causes of hysteria. So, in the meanwhile, in order to make a living he used hypnotism on hysterical patients and some used mild electric shock, which was then called "faradization." He still could not make an adequate living. But his mind went to work. He also attended lectures by his mentor Charcot and another of his contemporaries, a man named Joseph Breuer. Freud began to notice that his patient' were unashamed to speak of their sexual lives, both in early childhood and a present. They spoke about sex in the form of traumas during child hood, illicit affairs, and their desires in general and of course about masturbation. Again, his patients' were primarily young Jewish women who did not seem to mind revealing the sexual side of their inner lives. It was the Victorian Era, and it was safe to talk about sex to a therapist. Freud began to think that sexual incest played a part in hysteria, especially in women. Before long Freud had a thriving practice of young, well-to-do Jewish women and they flocked to him more than any other therapist. His fees were enormous for his time and his delving into the sexuality of his patients was to the point of extreme excessiveness.

One contemporary of Freud observed: ": "Freud pressed his patients very hard, to the point of suggesting them into recalling events that may not have occurred or of vastly exalting the importance of trivia." He "pressed" his patients so hard that they became sexually aroused by the process. After a while, Freud began to become absorbed in his own praise of his theories of dreams, fear of castration, homosexual longings, penis envy, incest, ego, superego, and id. He began to behave more as a monarch than a scientist. Freud thought his psychoanalytical theory were law as Marx saw his theory of history as such. Nerves ruffled. His esteemed fellow analysts feel away. He broke ties with Carl Jung because Jung was not Jewish. He broke with Alfred Adler for the same reason. He alienated even Eugen Bleuler who helped him by procuring patients for him. Freud saw himself as the dictator of psychoanalysis that could do no wrong. His theories were the Bible. A clear insight into the nature of this man could be ascertained in his own words: "I am actually not at all a man of science, not an observer, not an experimenter, not a thinker. I am by temperament nothing but a conquistador-an adventurer, if you want it translated-with all the curiosity, daring, and tenacity characteristic of a man of this sort." A conquistador? An adventurer? I say he was that and also the best pipe dreamer psychiatry can produce. Freud made other psychoanalysts dependent on him for patients. As far as religion was concerned there is ample evidence that he wanted to keep his great biblical theory Jewish only.

During WWII psychoanalysis was [officially] banned in Europe as was evident by the rise of Fascism. Many psychoanalysts fled Europe for the freedom of America. It was not long before analyst's offices sprung up all over America. This was the real beginning of office practice psychiatry and outpatient treatments. The American Psychiatric Association became enwrapped into the American Psychoanalytic Association. Also, it was decided that if a student wanted to become a psychoanalyst he first had to undergo analysis himself and also become a physician. Freud created a system called psychoanalysis that would rapidly become a medical specialty.

http://www.dearshrink.com/A%20Brief%20H ... try_v3.pdf
Apache
Member
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2015 11:02 am

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

Unread post by Apache »

I'm not sure whether to post this in the "Einstein and other gods of science" thread, but one feeds into the other.

There is no post on CF showing the extensive link between Francis Crick and Rosalind Franklin.

I'll try to keep this brief (which isn't easy). The vast majority of information comes from Wikedpedia. I'll simply highlight the red flags.

Francis Crick
He shared the Walter Knox Prize for Chemistry on Mill Hill School's Foundation Day, Friday, 7 July 1933.
17 years old.
He did his postdoc at the Polytechnic Institute of Brooklyn
In 1947, aged 31, Crick began studying biology and became part of an important migration of physical scientists into biology research.
1947 is year zero of the CIA.

King's College:
experimental work leading to the discovery of the structure of DNA was made there by Rosalind Franklin, Raymond Gosling, Maurice Wilkins, Alex Stokes and Herbert R. Wilson.
Maurice Wilkins shared the 1962 Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine with James Watson and Francis Crick; Rosalind Franklin had already died from cancer in 1958.
I'll cover Franklin shortly.
Stimulated by their discussions with Wilkins and what Watson learned by attending a talk given by Franklin about her work on DNA, Crick and Watson produced and showed off an erroneous first model of DNA.
Having failed once, Watson and Crick were now somewhat reluctant to try again and for a while they were forbidden to make further efforts to find a molecular model of DNA.
In order to construct their model of DNA, Watson and Crick made use of information from unpublished X-ray diffraction images of Franklin's (shown at meetings and freely shared by Wilkins), including preliminary accounts of Franklin's results/photographs of the X-ray images that were included in a written progress report for the King's College laboratory of Sir John Randall from late 1952.
As a result of leaving King's College for Birkbeck College, Franklin was asked by John Randall to give up her work on DNA.
When she left King's College, Director Sir John Randall insisted that all DNA work belonged exclusively to King's and ordered Franklin to not even think about it.
See what they did there? Passed the baton. Crick and Watson's DNA theory basically came from Rosalind Franklin.
Her work was a crucial part in the discovery of DNA, which Francis Crick, James Watson, and Maurice Wilkins were awarded a Nobel Prize in 1962.
Rosalind Franklin
Franklin was born in 50 Chepstow Villas, Notting Hill, London into an affluent and influential British Jewish family. Her father was Ellis Arthur Franklin (1894–1964), a politically liberal London merchant banker who taught at the city's Working Men's College, and her mother was Muriel Frances Waley (1894–1976).
Her father's uncle was Herbert Samuel (later Viscount Samuel), who was the Home Secretary in 1916 and the first practising Jew to serve in the British Cabinet. Her aunt, Helen Caroline Franklin, known in the family as Mamie, was married to Norman de Mattos Bentwich, who was the Attorney General in the British Mandate of Palestine.

She however did not abandon Jewish traditions. As the only Jewish student at Lindores School, she had Hebrew lessons on her own while her friends went to church. She joined the Jewish Society at age 27 out of respect of her grandfather's request.
Franklin allegedly died of cancer in 1958.
she described English people as having "vacant stupid faces and childlike complacency".
Source: Polcovar, Jane (2006). Rosalind Franklin and the Structure of Life. Greensboro, N.C.: Morgan Reynolds Publishing Inc.
jumpy64
Member
Posts: 288
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 12:44 pm

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

Unread post by jumpy64 »

Great work in connecting the dots, Apache.

So what you're implying here is that the DNA myth or hoax has Jewish origins through the "seminal work" of Rosalind Franklin, right?
ICfreely wrote:Ψ-chiatry plays a big role in the open conspiracy. I’ll follow up on the following excerpt in the ‘Psychiatry” thread.
Could you at least provide a link here when you do, please, so that we can follow your line of reasoning? Thanks!
Last edited by jumpy64 on Mon Nov 23, 2015 12:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ICfreely
Member
Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

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

Unread post by ICfreely »

Very interesting, Apache! Your post also feeds into the “DNA” thread. Ol’ Rosa is portrayed as the Joan of Arc of the genetics world for being ‘too cautious’ a researcher & getting ripped off by Watson (similar to Alfred Russel Wallace & Charles Darwin). I think it’s more likely that Watson & Crick’s ‘elucidation’ of the structure of DNA was 'spiritually' inspired:

http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?f= ... 7#p2394080

Although we mere mortals have never seen a ‘DNA double helix,’ our Sir Oracles assure us they can, by means of complex mathematics, visualize its image!
Transmission electron microscopy DNA sequencing
In order for DNA to be clearly visualized under an electron microscope, it must be labeled with heavy atoms. In addition, specialized imaging techniques and aberration corrected optics are beneficial for obtaining the resolution required to image the labeled DNA molecule. In theory, transmission electron microscopy DNA sequencing could provide extremely long read lengths, but the issue of electron beam damage may still remain and the technology has not yet been commercially developed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmiss ... sequencing
Visualize
verb (used without object), visualized, visualizing.
1. to recall or form mental images or pictures.
verb (used with object), visualized, visualizing.
2. to make visual or visible.
3. to form a mental image of.
4. to make perceptible to the mind or imagination.
verb
1. to form a mental image of (something incapable of being viewed or not at that moment visible)
2. (med) to view by means of an X-ray the outline of (a bodily organ, structure, or part)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/visualize

They can also feel its structure:

DNA imaged with electron microscope for the first time

The structure of DNA was originally discovered by using X-ray crystallography, which involves scattering X-rays off atoms in crystallized arrays of DNA to form complex patterns of dots on photographic film. Images were then interpreted using complex mathematics.

The scientists published their findings in the journal Nanoletters. Enzo di Fabrizio, from the University of Genoa, Italy, and his team were able to snag DNA threads out of a dilute solution and lay them on a bed of nanoscopic silicon pillars.
Using more sensitive detectors that can respond to lower-energy electrons should soon allow the team to see individual double helices, and even unwound single strands of DNA. “With improved sample preparation and better imaging resolution, we could directly observe DNA at the level of single bases,” says di Fabrizio.

Earlier this year a University College London team led by Bart Hoogenboom felt their way along individual strands of DNA using the Braille-like technique of atomic-force microscopy (doi.org/jvc). Like the Italian team, they were able to detect the twisting groove that separates the twin strands of the double helix.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn ... first-time
The Braille-like technique of atomic-force microscopy? Oh, I see! ;)
Last edited by ICfreely on Mon Nov 23, 2015 5:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.
ICfreely
Member
Posts: 1078
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2015 5:41 pm

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

Unread post by ICfreely »

jumpy64 wrote:Could you at least provide a link here when you do, please, so that we can follow your line of reasoning? Thanks!
Yes, Kommissar Jumpy! I, at the very least, think I can manage to do that.
jumpy64
Member
Posts: 288
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 12:44 pm

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

Unread post by jumpy64 »

ICfreely wrote:
jumpy64 wrote:Could you at least provide a link here when you do, please, so that we can follow your line of reasoning? Thanks!
Yes, Kommissar Jumpy! I, at the very least, think I can manage to do that.
It's commissario, prego! :P
Post Reply