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 Seneca on October 6th, 2015, 2:38 pm

I come back to my argument about statism. I think this is valuable not because Jews have somehow invented the modern state (I have no idea) but because it is an open conspiracy we are all very familiar with. It shows that you can take part in a conspiracy without making you necessarily a bad person. I am still a part of the Belgian conspiracy as well as the European Union conspiracy. I still pay them taxes because I don't want to risk going to prison. It also shows that there is not always a clear line between most of the victims and most of the perpetrators. I think this is important to make this information digestible for jewish people.
Jumpy64 has also attention for the fact that jews are also victims of this conspiracy.

But I think his definition of Jewish may be too broad:
because my contention is that we can consider "Jewish" all people who have been subjected to the influence of Jewish culture and religion since birth or later in life. Of course, it can be said that people who have been subjected to this conditioning since birth didn't have a choice at the time, but maybe later they have either confirmed their conditioning or denied it.

Because the media is controlled by jewish people, isn't the whole world somewhat "subjected to the influence of Jewish culture and religion since birth"? And he seems to overrate the amount of choice people have.

Maybe it is not useful to define the adjective "jewish" without a noun.

About circumcision, I just want to add that it is not only the men that are affected by it. The women are also harmed. As mothers: http://www.circumcision.org/mothers.htm:
Regarding circumcision, the father is more likely to deny his son’s pain because it could remind him of his own circumcision feelings. Therefore, witnessing the circumcision and the infant’s response can have a particularly shocking effect on the mother.

Studies have shown that circumcision can adversely affect mother-infant bonding.
Based on more than twenty years of clinical observations using leading-edge techniques, psychiatrist Rima Laibow, M.D., reports,
When a child is subjected to intolerable, overwhelming pain, he conceptualizes mother as both participatory and responsible regardless of mother's intent. . . . The consequences for impaired bonding are significant. . . . Circumcision is an enormous obstacle to the development of basic trust between mother and child.

Even though the physician does the circumcising, and the father may have made the final decision to circumcise, the newborn infant connects the experience to the mother. Because the experience is repressed, the connection between the event and the mother is also repressed. (How this repressed connection affects men's feelings toward women is not known.)


And as sexual partners: http://www.circumcision.org/femalesex.htm
With circumcised partners, surveyed women were more likely to feel unappreciated, distanced, disinterested, frustrated, and discontented.

It is possible to compare circumcision rates by country to prevalence of male abuses toward women that include violence, repression, isolation, murder, rape, and forced marriage. The ten worst countries for women are Afghanistan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, Nepal, Sudan, Guatemala, Mali, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Somalia. Eight of these countries have a male circumcision rate that exceeds 80%. Two other countries have a rate between 20% and 80%.

Edit: added 2 more quotes
Last edited by Seneca on October 6th, 2015, 5:23 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 446
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

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

Postby Critical Mass on October 6th, 2015, 2:40 pm

It is interesting that 'Jews' always get 'openly' brought into these terror stories... not only with the famous 'Dancing Israeli's' but with even recently admitted hoaxes like 'Joshua Goldberg'.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoEfF6SIazE

I find it interesting that Josh's alleged terror target was Kansas City... anyone ever heard of a Kansas city shuffle?

The con isn't in getting you to pick the wrong shell. The con is in getting you to accept that the basic premise of the game is still being followed. The con is in getting you to pick a shell at all.



full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxF5bfVofkk
Critical Mass
Member
 
Posts: 544
Joined: July 8th, 2014, 11:33 pm

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

Postby jumpy64 on October 6th, 2015, 3:11 pm

Seneca wrote:Because the media is controlled by jewish people, isn't the whole world somewhat "subjected to the influence of Jewish culture and religion since birth"?


Yes, Seneca, I think we're all submitted to the influence of Jewish culture and religion much more than most people realize. Maybe not since birth, though. Let's say "since we start watching tv and/or movies". :)

By the way, I'd like to throw a challenge to you and to all members here. Could you please give me notable examples of movies that, since let's say the Nineties, depict a Jewish person under an unfavorable light?

I can't seem to remember any. I had high hopes (joking, of course :P ) for Al Pacino's "Merchant of Venice", but even there the persecutory context seems to justify the main character's actions.

This goes to show how, in the last decades at least, we've all been conditioned to see the Jews as always "good people", and that we should feel guilty if we dare to think otherwise, while of course all other races have bad guys in them. In fact, I remember a "Law and Order: Criminal Intent" episode in which a Jewish father is suspected of abusing his daughter. Wow, I couldn't believe that they could even suggest such an eventuality in a tv show. But of course in the end it turns out that such suspects were unfounded, so the viewer might even feel guilty for maybe having suspected a Jew guy out of "prejudice". Nice trick, eh?
jumpy64
Member
 
Posts: 288
Joined: June 27th, 2013, 1:44 pm

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

Postby jumpy64 on October 6th, 2015, 4:01 pm

Although the "movie challenge" I've just thrown still stands, I want to go back briefly to circumcision as promised.

I've read Seneca's post about it, and it's already almost exhaustive.

Now I just want to add one more link to what I consider a very significant document:

http://www.circumcision.org/brain.htm

It's titled "Circumcision permanently alters the brain".

I think the document should be read in its entirety because it's extremely significant and not very long. Anyway, basically it says that a team of physicians circumcised a baby to see how such a traumatic experience (in a medical environment, mind you, and with no sucking involved, but without anesthetic) could affect the baby.

A neurologist who saw the results postulated that the data indicated that circumcision affected most intensely the portions of the victim's brain associated with reasoning, perception and emotions. Follow up tests on the infant one day, one week and one month after the surgery indicated that the child's brain never returned to its baseline configuration. In other words, the evidence generated by this research indicated that the brain of the circumcised infant was permanently changed by the surgery.


At the end of the article the author, Dr. Paul D. Tinari, denounces the fact that "Not only could we not publish the results of our research, but we also had to destroy all of our results. If we refused to comply, we were all threatened with immediate dismissal and legal action".

Mmm, I wonder why...
jumpy64
Member
 
Posts: 288
Joined: June 27th, 2013, 1:44 pm

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

Postby Seneca on October 6th, 2015, 4:33 pm

OK, I have some problems with this study, aside from the ethical questions

We tightly strapped an infant to a traditional plastic "circumstraint" using Velcro restraints. We also completely immobilized the infant's head using standard surgical tape. The entire apparatus was then introduced into the MRI chamber. Since no metal objects could be used because of the high magnetic fields, the doctor who performed the surgery used a plastic bell with a sterilized obsidian bade to cut the foreskin. No anesthetic was used.

The baby was kept in the machine for several minutes to generate baseline data of the normal metabolic activity in the brain. This was used to compare to the data gathered during and after the surgery.

I wouldn't call this a normal situation for a baby, so this doesn't seem like a good baseline. And I don't think normal parents would go along with this, so we don't know what other traumas this baby had.

So for me the most interesting part is the reaction of the Canadian hospital discipline committee.
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 446
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

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

Postby Seneca on October 6th, 2015, 6:36 pm

jumpy64 wrote:Yes, Seneca, I think we're all submitted to the influence of Jewish culture and religion much more than most people realize. Maybe not since birth, though. Let's say "since we start watching tv and/or movies". :)

By the way, I'd like to throw a challenge to you and to all members here. Could you please give me notable examples of movies that, since let's say the Nineties, depict a Jewish person under an unfavorable light?

Movies about Jesus Christ! For example "The Passion of the Christ ", starring a jew called Judas Iscariot. He is in 213 other movies. What do I win? B)
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 446
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

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

Postby jumpy64 on October 6th, 2015, 8:18 pm

Seneca wrote:Movies about Jesus Christ! For example "The Passion of the Christ ", starring a jew called Judas Iscariot. He is in 213 other movies. What do I win? B)


Well, I don't know Seneca, that one is too obvious and I think it doesn't count. Too many Jews there, so at least one had to be the bad guy :)

Actually, that movie by Mel Gibson was harshly criticised by Jewish religious authorities because it reaffirmed that it was the Jews who wanted to kill Christ, as the Gospels say pretty clearly already, I think. But in recent times the Church changed its tune and started saying it was the Romans' fault. Actually, I heard in a conference by an Italian author that it was a Jewish bishop converted to Christianity who convinced the Church to place the blame on the Romans, but I couldn't find any reference to this online yet. Does anybody know the name of this Bishop (I think it was a Bishop or a cardinal, I'm not sure)? Otherwise I could try and contact the author in question to get more accurate information, and then get back to you here.

To be honest, I don't even know if what the Gospels say about Jesus is historically accurate (I wasn't there ;) ), so I don't want to raise any religious issue here. The only interesting thing is that, if I can find confirmation about this converted Jewish cleric, it could be an example of Jewish influence even on the catholic Church's beliefs "in order to weaken them", which is another point to develop here.
jumpy64
Member
 
Posts: 288
Joined: June 27th, 2013, 1:44 pm

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

Postby omaxsteve on October 6th, 2015, 8:28 pm

hoi.polloi wrote:
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.


A lot of misinformation (disinformation?) being spread here. Within the Jewish population , the huge majority are secular jews who really do not observe any 'jewish" religious practices other than perhaps the holidays such as passover where they do not eat bread for 8 days , perhaps the the sons have a bar -mitzvah ceremony where they read from the Torah (not the Talmud). There are many orthodox Jews, whose level of orthodoxy ranges form observing the Sabbath, to following strictly Kosher dietary laws,, then there is a very small minority of ultra -orthodox Jews also called Hassidic Jews, The Hassidics are quite extreme, they stand out like a sore thumb, with their unusual dress, funny hats and long black coats, long beards and sideburns which are never cut or trimmed. It is the Hassidic Jews that study and live by the preachings of the Talmud. If there are any Mohel's still sucking the blood from the wounded penis they would be found in that group. Other than the ultra orthodox Hassidic jews, the rest of the Jewish population that circumcise their young will either use a swab OR a tube to suction the blood in a way that ensures there is no oral -genital contact.

I believe it is misinformed for one to equate the actions of the extremely orthodox Hassidic Jews with the common "every day" Jew. In fact , their way of life and the way they dress ensures that no one will confuse them with the "less- orthodox" Jews . The Hassidic stand out as much as would an Amish family riding a horse and buggy through the streets of a modern city.

Interestingly, you will not find any Hassidic Jews occupying the positions of power and influence that would allow them to engineer any of the hoaxes or psy-ops that have been exposed in this forum.

It is therefore , in my opinion, wrong to attempt to paint he modern secular Jews (those that control the media) with the actions of the Hassidic Jews that re trying to preserve a way of life that existed many hundreds, if not thousands, of years ago.

It is also equally wrong, in my opinion, to paint the entoire population of Jews with the actions of the handful of rich and powerful that control the media and participate in the hoaxes and psyops that are regularly exposed here

As much as I appreciate this forum for its unparalleled brilliance in exposing the rampant and despicable media fakery (yes the primarily Jewish controlled media fakery) . I must say I am disappointed (not offended) that amongst so many otherwise intelligent people here do not see the fallacy and danger in stereotyping an entire group of people based on the religion they were born into.

Lets assume for a moment that there are was an actual cell of real terrorists, all of them from one identifiable group such as Muslims, that were actually found guilty of a horrific act of terror in which they killed thousands of innocent civilians; Would it be acceptable to label all Muslims as terrorists? Would it be okay to call it a "Muslim" conspiracy? True, in this hypothetical scenario all the terrorists were Muslims but what they have in common is that they are all terrorists. Their actions should, at least among open-minded people, NOT reflect on the majority of the Muslims who were not involved in any way shape or form with the terrorist activity.

Perhaps I am misreading this whole thread because I would think that this should be obvious.

Finally on the subject of circumcision, it is not completely black and white issue. There are some very strong arguments on the anti-circumcision side, but it is not a totally one-sided argument;

Here is a link to an article entited "the case against the case against circumcision" http://nymag.com/health/features/60146/

again an excerpt for those who are short on time:

Every year, it seems, a new study confirms that the foreskin is pretty much like the appendix or the wisdom tooth—it is an evolutionary footnote that serves no purpose other than to incubate infections. There’s no single overwhelming health reason to remove it, but there are a lot of smaller health reasons that add up. It’s not critical that any individual boy get circumcised. For the growing number of people who feel hysterical at the thought, just don’t do it. But don’t ruin it for the rest of us. It’s perfectly clear that on a grand public-health level, the more boys who get circumcised, the better it is for everyone.

Twenty years ago, this would have been a boring, obvious thing to say, like feed your baby rice cereal before bananas, or don’t smoke while pregnant. These days, in certain newly enlightened circles on the East and West Coasts, it puts you in league with Josef Mengele. Late this summer, when the New York Times reported that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control might consider promoting routine circumcision as a tool in the fight against AIDS, the vicious comments that ensued included references to mass genocide.

There’s no use arguing with the anti-circ activists, who only got through the headline of this story before hunting down my e-mail and offering to pay for me to be genitally mutilated. But for those in the nervous middle, here is my best case for why you should do it. Biologists think the foreskin plays a critical role in the womb, protecting the penis as it is growing during the third month of gestation. Outside the womb, the best guess is that it once kept the penis safe from, say, low-hanging thorny branches. Nowadays, we have pants for that.

Circumcision dates back some 6,000 years and was mostly associated with religious rituals, especially for Jews and Muslims. In the nineteenth century, moralists concocted some unfortunate theories about the connection between the foreskin and masturbation and other such degenerate impulses. The genuinely useful medical rationales came later. During the World War II campaign in North Africa, tens of thousands of American GIs fell short on their hygiene routines. Many of them came down with a host of painful and annoying infections, such as phimosis, where the foreskin gets too tight to retract over the glans. Doctors already knew about the connection to sexually transmitted diseases and began recommending routine circumcision.

In the late eighties, researchers began to suspect a relationship between circumcision and transmission of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. One researcher wondered why certain Kenyan men who see prostitutes get infected and others don’t. The answer, it turned out, was that the ones who don’t were circumcised. Three separate trials in Uganda, Kenya, and South Africa involving over 10,000 men turned up the same finding again and again. Circumcision, it turns out, could reduce the risk of HIV transmission by at least 60 percent, which, in Africa, adds up to 3 million lives saved over the next twenty years. The governments of Uganda and Kenya recently started mass-circumcision campaigns.

These studies are not entirely relevant to the U.S. They apply only to female-to-male transmission, which is relatively rare here. But the results are so dramatic that people who work in AIDS prevention can’t ignore them. Daniel Halperin, an AIDS expert at the Harvard School of Public Health, has compared various countries, and the patterns are obvious. In a study of 28 nations, he found that low circumcision rates (fewer than 20 percent) match up with high HIV rates, and vice versa. Similar patterns are turning up in the U.S. as well. A team of researchers from the CDC and Johns Hopkins analysed records of over 26,000 heterosexual African-American men who showed up at a Baltimore clinic for HIV testing and denied any drug use or homosexual contact. Among those with known HIV exposure, the ones who did turn out to be HIV-positive were twice as likely to be uncircumcised. There’s no causal relationship here; foreskin does not cause HIV transmission. But researchers guess that foreskins are more susceptible to sores, and also have a high concentration of certain immune cells that are the main portals for HIV infection.


Regards,

Steve O.

(edited for some minor additions and typos)
omaxsteve
Member
 
Posts: 192
Joined: March 29th, 2010, 1:44 am

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

Postby Seneca on October 6th, 2015, 8:49 pm

jumpy64 wrote:
Seneca wrote:Movies about Jesus Christ! For example "The Passion of the Christ ", starring a jew called Judas Iscariot. He is in 213 other movies. What do I win? B)


Well, I don't know Seneca, that one is too obvious and I think it doesn't count. Too many Jews there, so at least one had to be the bad guy :)


Oh so now you are changing the rules? Actually, all the good jews in that movie were christians ;)

What about "Once upon a time in America?". I don't remember it but it is about Jewish mobsters. It is from 1984 but was restored in 2012.
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 446
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

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

Postby Selene on October 6th, 2015, 9:06 pm

SteveO, you describe well some concerns I have with the Jewish-cultural-religious "conspiracy" that would be in plain sight, towering over all other psychopath Risk-characters playing the world like their private casino-slaughter-hoaxhouse...

In answer to jumpy, you never heard of this fellow? A "true jew/Jew/cult-reli-Jew" or not, it does not seem too positive, especially not for children? Since 1959...

Image 

Selene
Selene
Member
 
Posts: 195
Joined: January 19th, 2015, 8:59 pm

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

Postby jumpy64 on October 6th, 2015, 9:07 pm

Steve, I can't write much right now, but I promise that I will get back to the legitimate points you'raising here, also to clarify some important things.

Now I just want to tell you that I much appreciate your contribution here, especially in your latest posts. I might not agree with you here and there, but you're the only declared Jew in this thread, and you're legitimately defending your values and traditions in a very civil, polite way. And you're also offering valuable firsthand accounts of things most of us know only indirectly.

So thank you and write to you soon.

EDIT: I got a bit carried away here :) In fact, I disagree with Steve on most things, not just "here and there", but I still respect where he's coming from.
Last edited by jumpy64 on October 7th, 2015, 7:38 am, 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 Selene on October 6th, 2015, 9:21 pm

jumpy64 wrote:Steve, I can't write much right now, but I promise that I will get back to the legitimate points you'raising here, also to clarify some important things.

Now I just want to tell you that I much appreciate your contribution here, especially in your latest posts. I might not agree with you here and there, but you're the only declared Jew in this thread, and you're legitimately defending your values and traditions in a very civil, polite way. And you're also offering valuable firsthand accounts of things most of us know only indirectly.

So thank you and write to you soon.

Jumpy, you are Italian, right? Have you ever been to Amsterdam? Or Antwerp? London maybe? New York? Israel? Moscow? Armenia? Persia?

Cities full of "cultural Jews" (as you labeled them, still a mystery to me how you can know that for all the conspirators around), are they living under a "Jewish_cult-reli conspiracy"? All those normal people having normal jobs and don't have any political or other power aspirations? The mayor of Amsterdam, Job Cohen, was a Jew (clear enough from the name), yet was criticised for being too multicultural-friendly (arguments for that are strong enough). Would you call promoting immigration of many muslims a "Jewish conspiracy"?? What is "Jewish" about it?

The second city of the country Rotterdam got a Moroccan-Dutch muslim (!) mayor not long after that. Did the people from Rotterdam live under a Moroccan/Muslim conspiracy, or is that different somehow?

Question is; which measures did you build in into your research based on intuition that help preventing you using a confirmation bias? Counting heads (I assume you haven't seen all -lacking?- foreskins...), is that enough stable ground for this uni-cultural-religious conspiracy to stand on??

Selene
Last edited by Selene on October 6th, 2015, 9:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Selene
Member
 
Posts: 195
Joined: January 19th, 2015, 8:59 pm

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

Postby jumpy64 on October 6th, 2015, 9:22 pm

Seneca wrote:Oh so now you are changing the rules? Actually, all the good jews in that movie were christians ;)

What about "Once upon a time in America?". I don't remember it but it is about Jewish mobsters. It is from 1984 but was restored in 2012.


As you said, it is from 1984... But the reference to Jewish mobsters is very interesting. That is also a topic I'd like to be addressed here. Hoi already mentioned it in a previous post.

I mean, we Italian get almost all the attention in Mafia related topics and movies, but what about guys like Meyer Lansky (who was even acquitted in 1974), Bugsy Siegel (who's even memorialized in a New York's synagogue), Lepke Buchalter and the National Crime Syndicate, to give just a few examples? We haven't seen as many movies about them, have we?
jumpy64
Member
 
Posts: 288
Joined: June 27th, 2013, 1:44 pm

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

Postby jumpy64 on October 6th, 2015, 9:29 pm

Selene wrote:Cities full of "cultural Jews" (as you labeled them, still a mystery to me how you can know that for all the conspirators around), are they living under a "Jewish_cult-reli conspiracy"? All those normal people having normal jobs and don't have any political or other power aspirations? The mayor of Amsterdam, Job Cohen, was a Jew (clear enough from the name), yet was criticised for being too multicultural-friendly (arguments for that are strong enough). Would you call promoting immigration of many muslims a "Jewish conspiracy"?? What is "Jewish" about it?


Selene, I just said I can't write much right now, but one of your objections is so easy to deal with that I'm doing it anyway.

I've already said that Jewish politicians and activists are extremely "multicultural-friendly", but just in foreign cities and States, while advocating even dna tests to preserve the "Jewness" (I hope I wrote it rightly) of Israel. And that I think it's part of their tactics to weaken other countries while preserving their own.
jumpy64
Member
 
Posts: 288
Joined: June 27th, 2013, 1:44 pm

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

Postby Seneca on October 6th, 2015, 9:32 pm

Steve, if you are seeing there is misinformation spread here, it would be helpful if you provide a meaningful quote. The quote from Hoi and Simon you provided about blood sucking is clearly not misinformation. Neither of them was implying that the majority of jews were doing it at this moment in history.
I think that the only misinformation in that quote was "There is not a single Jew, or person of any religion, that I know that would tolerate such behavior."
I don't think it is very useful posting info about HIV on an anti-propaganda website. (I like this term Hoi)
Last edited by Seneca on October 6th, 2015, 9:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Seneca
Member
 
Posts: 446
Joined: October 21st, 2009, 3:36 pm

PreviousNext

Return to THE LIVING ROOM

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests