More of What Alex Jones is Meant to Conceal...
I think we can safely start calling Alex Jones a "right gatekeeper". So with the usual caveats, i.e. keep an open mind, keep an eye out for actual racism or hate, don't assume it's the whole story, or 100% accurate, etc. I'm going to be adding Donn de Grand Pre's books to my reading list. I found a link to the full text of the one below when googling "Moritz Gomberg's Group for a New World Order"which was referenced in Douglas Reed's Far and Away. The bottom line is that it looks like the bottom of the rabbit hole might just be nearby...
| Barbarians Inside the Gates: The Black Book of Bolshevism by Donn de Grand Pre (Hardcover - Jan 2000) |
|
|
|
|
|
Or read it free here:
- gretavo's blog
- Login to post comments
I should add...
that having gotten to know more than a few communists during my antiwar days I had long been intrigued by their antipathy to 9/11 truth. now I know!
comment
It is kind of a weird or good statistical move that Alex Jones did with the total information he provides over most 911 truth sites like 911 blogger.
I always wondering why, the merger of this We are change group and infowars was all about.
I can see clearly that AJ needs not only to control there message. Also to control the most popular 911 truth sites to wage war against all information he doesn't approve of and to discredit all who appose the info war agenda.
To deny Israel involvement in 911 is not only brain-dead, but it is purposely misleading.
A normal rational person with the facts to back up there case would ask the question why not pursue Israeli involvment AJ?
His response over and over again is, 'Israel didnt do it it was the US Government elites lucifarians and the Rockefeller's who all go to the bohemian Grove did it'
I wish people who had half a brain would question his moitives.
Whaaaa?
I hope you will describe in more detail what appeals to you about this guy -- perhaps as you get into the book. He doesn't sound like my cup of tea -- check out this truther's review from Amazon:
0 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars Don't bother, October 29, 2007
By Mark H. Gaffney
Soon after the events of Sept 11, 2001 the author (a former USAF pilot) helpd organize a panel of pilots to study the 9/11 attack. After 72 hours of deliberation, the panel concluded that 9/11 was almost certainly an inside job -- and the "hijacked" planes were probably under remote control. My own research had led me to consider this possibility -- so I was intrigued when I heard Col Donn had written several books. I also spoke to the author on the phone about 9/11 -- and this further whetted my appetite.
The author obviously did a lot of research on the book. I admit I did not finish it -- only dipped in here and there -- and finally gave up because there was simply no way to get through it. Donn's analysis is fatally flawed -- so much so that even when I agree with him -- and I do quite frequently -- it amounts to nothing.
For instance, I agree with the author that world Zionism has been horribly destructive. I'm sure I also agree with him about the Fed and the parasitic role of Wall Street. I could even agree with him about the evils of Bolshevism -- but I cannot because he seems to think that everyone on the left is morally depraved -- or worse. He also fails to understand that Capitalism is just as evil.
What I find most bizarre of all is that he seems to think the Zionists were somehow allied with the Bolsheviks. While it is true that Zionist Israel -- especially in the early years -- had a strong socialist movement (eg., the Histadrut), this was a unique Jewish phenomenon -- in no way comparable to what was happening in Russia.
The author has other bizarre ideas. He apparently thinks Joe McCarthy was a geat American. This is too stupefying for words. He is a fan of the fascist Generalissimo Franco, the fascist dictator of Spain -- as well as the murderous Pinochet of Chile, one of the worst and most bloody dictators the planet has ever seen.
No less bizarre is that the author despises the leader that Pinochet overthrew, Salvador Allende. The author wrongly claims that Allende was a Marxist. Not true. Yes, he was a Socialist -- but came to power through a free election. In short, the author is a hypocrit. He bemoans the loss of freedom in America -- and I agree with him on this -- but fails to understand that corruption and evil are universal. The problems of our time have no ideological label -- nor will they have an ideological solution. As Pogo Said: We have met the enemy - and he is us. It is no longer about right and left -- but rather: right and wrong. In fact, it always was.
Also bizarre -- I gathered this from my phone conversation with Col Donn -- is his naivete about the US military, which obviously helped stage the 911 attack. Yet Col Donn insists that Gen Myers is a straight arrow -- and supports the Constitution. Given the way Myers lied to the US Senate about NORAD -- I find this hard to swallow.
For the record, I am not anti military. My father was a USAF full bird Col and rose to be second in command of the OSI. My brother graduated from the USAF academy -- served a full career -- and also retired as a Col.
Perhaps my biggest problem with the author is that he was -- by his own admission -- deeply involved in the world arms trade -- to the tune of $100 billion in sales. I don't know the details and I don't care to know. The production and sale of armaments is one of our biggest global problems -- a problem that the author is clearly part of -- when he ought to be part of the solution. When 30,000 children around the world die every day of starvation -- the present levels of military spending are simply obscene.
In short, don't waste your money. The book has some good points -- but you need a heavy filter to screen out the nonsense. There are better books available. For example, check out David Ray Griffin's books about 9/11.
It's funny you post the
It's funny you post the comments about this author. I just finished reading "Pawns in the Game" by Guy Carr. He was an Admiral (if I remember correctly) in the Canadian military. He goes through many of the world's major revolutions and names names. He draws a clear line between Communism (evil) and God fearing religious cultures (good). But my problem is; from everything I've read there are hierarchical structures which support both of these sides and neither one has clean hands when it comes to forcing the masses to do their bidding. He too supported Franco and claimed he was against communism and was a Christian. In my mind, I don't differentiate between people who are willing to use force to make me do something. Christian or Atheist. I don't think reading these two books is a waste of time because if you have read enough so far you can understand where the authors are coming from and what they're pitching which will lead to a better understanding of what happened in history. It seems quite clear that the communists and their string pullers will work through deceit if it will achieve their purposes. I wouldn't doubt if the leaders of Christianity are the same way (they have established hierarchy for an organization which dictates how people should live/behave, some ideas are great but they should be voluntary guidelines).
The book I have just started "Gulag Archipelago" is pretty creepy so far (50pages in) because they describe what the secret police did in Russia. Rounding up dissidents and forcing them into labor camps. This was in the 20's-30's. Pre-Hitler. Hitler did the same thing. Pol pot has done the same, Mao,etc. I think the same will happen here in America with all of the FEMA camps. There were other HIGHLY similar events which took place in other country's. I do feel as if there is a working MO and that this is all part of social engineering towards the one world government. At any rate, keep digging for the truth ya'll.
-Whitey
sure Cass, the usual caveats apply
I'm after the information presented in the book, not the author's value judgements. My experience in reading broadly has to date included MUCH more left wing stuff than its right wing equivalents, and I grow more convinced each day that a true picture of history can only emerge when one is able to consider all available points of view. What I've noticed is that the "centrist" mainstream stuff we are all by default led to is utterly worthless except to understand what the truth is *not*. The real information seems to be hidden among the "radical" works that you are not supposed to read and if you do you *BETTER* not read both sides--that's why the powers that be think the info is safe in the extremes--people will generally take a liking to one side or the other and not get all the available information with which to triangulate successfully to the truth.
One example is the idea that Joe McCarthy was a bad guy. Many people take this to mean that there was absolutely no problem of Soviet communist spies, that it was just people like McCarthy who were paranoid and out to get people. I've read enough now to understand that Joe McCarthy does not define that era and that while his may have been inappropriate actions (I really don't know enough to say at this point) there was absolutely espionage going on and the mainstream narrative these days essentially dismisses it as a point that Americans should be concerned about.
Another issue is the idea that Bolshevism and Zionism eventually came to be dominated by the same interests. You have to understand that Zionism morphed from the time of Herzl and even Weizmann, and that Bolshevism was itself infiltrated--there is a big difference between Lenin and Stalin and one can't ignore the odd synergy with which Fascism under Hitler and Communism under Stalin served to manipulate Britain and America in a way that seems altogether too convenient to be a result of simple chance.
In any case, my core values are not going to be influenced by those who package political history for mass consumption. More likely is that I will continue to gain a better understanding of how real history is obcured in plain sight and how people continue to be divided along bogus political lines whose purpose becomes apparent after a broad enough reading. Think of what a traditional christian midwestern family would think if one of their kids took an interest studying Marxism and read the Communist Manifesto. They would probably freak out and think that their child was soon to become a raving mad radical. While there's always a risk of that, don't we know better? Free inquiry isn't just what we feel good about being open to--it also means breaching our comfort zones, because otherwise how will we learn?
As for thinking Pinochet or Franco were good guys, I would argue it's quite possible they were no worse than Castro, and just as much pawns in a much bigger game that they may well have sincerely felt to be on the right side of. If De Pre makes the mistake of playing into the game of taking sides in this charade so be it, I will find out and let you all know! But of course people should not rely on little old me to tell them what's what, they should decide what they think and we should all discuss.
I can't help it, but I will bring up the you know what o caust. If it hadn't been for David Cole making it "OK" for me to even consider looking at the arguments involved I would be much less wise to the ways of the world than I am today. I see no reason to think that for every issue there will be a similar key to understanding, so I will learn from that experience and henceforth have no fear when it comes to evaluating claims that might at first glance seem horribly outlandish. The idea that Hitler was a good guy, for instance, as some have tried to convince me. I have come to the conclusion that he was pretty much an asshole like so many other power hungry and personally insecure individuals. And that has taught me a lot about how and why some people claim otherwise--that he was either the embodiment of evil (he wasn't) or an angel walking the earth (please...)
Anyway, I'll report back!
a sample from something in a similar vein...
i.e. a few pages from Douglas Reed's "Far and Away" written in 1951... one thing to ask (one thing I ask myself that is) is why indeed did the USSR end up doing so well after WW2? What kind of help did the Soviets have and from whom in getting their hands on the atomic bomb so quickly? And when and how did the Zionists get *their* hands on it?
http://www.wtcdemolition.com/farandwide.pdf
Alex Jones, a right gate-keeper?
To be sure gretavo, I agree with you, that the perpetrators of 9/11 were mainly Zionist neocons as organizers, Israeli right-wingers were the instigators and Mossad units did most likely the dirty work, like the wiring of the towers.
But I don´t think, that would make the other 9/11 truthers, who do not publicly promote the Zionist angle into gate-keepers.
There are several reasons why many in the truth-movement are reluctant to name Zionism as the main culprit:
First they are afraid, of being called anti-Semitic and so dismissed as haters or crazy fanatics.
The realization that 9/11 was an inside job, planned and instigated by US government insiders, is a very hurtful one for the psyche of most of us westerners at first. When I came to that conclusion at first, it was like the whole world had bottomed out on me. All reality was lost, and I am not even an American.
In the same way is it hurtful to realize, that the Israelis, who had been considered dear friends and allies and the victims of terrorism, had actually committed so enormous terrorist attacks themselves and killed so many Americans, their staunchest allies.
You have to consider that for most Americans, by word of the so truthful and fully informative mainline media, Israel is still considered "the only democracy in the Middle East".
For most people to be called an Anti-Semite is still the most hurtful insult in the book. Psychologically this insult is connected to images of a hateful and possibly violent bigot. Even people who know about Israel´s crimes try to steer away from being labeled such.
Then there are people who are Jewish and have been taught, that "the gentiles" could go crazy any time and start an anti-Semitic riot and mass-murder. They might be afraid for themselves and their families to face and acknowledge the truth.
And then there is an argument I fully agree with, namely that the Zionist neocons and the Israeli were not alone in the planning of 9/11.
They could have never gotten away with it, if the the non-Zionist part of the elite with their connections in the CIA and the military had not covered for them.
And if they had not been involved in the cover-up, the non-Zionist elites could have pulled the plug on Israel´s insane plans for further wars in the Middle-East. Since the NIE reports on Iran we know for sure that the non-Zionist elites are opposed to these war-plans. But Israel wants to go ahead anyway and is trying to drag the Americans along.
And there can only be one reason why the Gentile elites can´t stop the Zionist elites, and this is that the non-Zionists were in on 9/11 to their necks, and the Israelis can prove it.
The whole purpose of the PNAC paper was to get the non-Zionist elites in industry, military and politics to the point where they agreed, that war in the Middle East was good for their power projects as well.
It were the non-Zionists who insisted on going after Afghanistan first. And in Iraq the non-Zionists wanted to keep the country together, but the Zionist want to cut it up in 3 pieces as Israeli policy makers had planned at least since the 1980s. The false flag attacks against Shiite civilians and the abductions and subsequent murders of Sunnis by hooded "militia" fighters blamed on the Mahdi army are most likely acts of Mossad units or mercenaries directed and paid by Mossad commanders.
The non-Zionist elites have now climbed out of the Zionist war-boat, but are seemingly unable to sink it.
As for Luciferian: This might sound ridiculous in the ears of secular people.
But you have to realize that Esoterics is not just some people having fun and games with a bunch of kinky rituals. Indeed from a political point of view the rituals are pretty much irrelevant, except that those rituals into certain fraternities serve in their disorientating strangeness as psychological indoctrination tools to keep the recruits in line.
The esoteric mindset is what matters and it is one of deep disdain for the general population:
Only the "elect" are allowed to gain knowledge and use this knowledge as power-tool in order to rule over the un-worthy, un-enlightened, stupid masses and as the Masons call them "the profane". And even their own "brothers" of the lower orders must be deceived. Only a few select will eventually reach the higher levels and become "worthy" of more of the truth. The whole pyramidical esoteric clap-trap becomes a perfect power tool with obedient foot-soldiers, who most often have no idea why they are ordered to do something or other.
We know with absolute certainty that a right-wing Masonic group had been used as false-flag operators in a terror campaign in Italy. They had worked as some kind of contractors for the CIA, and the Zionist and Iraq war-planner Michael Ledeen was their contact.
We do not know for sure, if any or how many of the real powerful elitists are true-believing members of some esoteric clap-trap. This actually isn´t too relevant either, because the esoteric fundamental ideologies have been secularized. They are at the foundation of the philosophies of Nietzsche, Hitler, Leo Strauss, Stalin and Mao, and at least in parts also at the foundation of Marxism itself. While they differ in their aims of how their final utopia should look like, they agree on one thing: common man is intrinsically violent and irrational incapable of self-rule and must be controlled by the "rational elite". (And there the ideologies of the non-Zionist elitists and avant-guardes meet quite nicely with the ideologies of the Zionist elites who believe, that gentile man is wicked to the core and dangerous for Jews and therefore must be controlled.)
This elitist control can come in the form of manipulation of information by rhetorical and psychological tricks or plain lies and distortions, or in the form of a show of raw violent power in killings, torture, disappearances, incarcerations and when whole nations are targeted, in acts of war or covert terror-campaigns.
All intelligence organizations work on the concepts of secular ideas, which originally have been derived from esoteric elitism, on the concepts that information must be monopolized and used as a power-tool or even a weapon.
At the moment the Zionist elite trying to drive the world into the next world war, is the more immediate dangerous of the two equally dangerous elites, but in the long run the whole concept of elitist control of information must fall, if we want to develop a real democracy in the west out of the propagandocracy we have at the moment.
An end of the propagandocratic information control is also necessary if we want to come to the point when war (overt or covert) is no longer considered a usable tool of economic politics.
I disagree with Alex Jones on several of his theories, but I do think, that he means well and has done quite a bit in bringing 9/11 truth to the general population. And he and his friends have indeed weakened the foundations of western propagandocracy somewhat.
And grevato, I fully agree with you on the you know what caust. My point of full conversion to other side came with the reading of Roger Garaudy´s book (online of course) "The founding Myths of Israeli Politics":
http://www.radioislam.org/islam/english/books/garaudy/main.htm
Mr Garaudy was a socialist, an anti-fascist, and a French resistant fighter during WWII. He is now a convert to Islam, but has criticized the violent and reactionary tendencies of some Islamic sects(most of those sectarians are sponsored by the CIA and the ISI anyway). The book mentions you know what just in one chapter, but afterwards Mr Garaudy, who had been a respected intellectual writer in France was put on the right-wing trash-heap.
Anyway the book is a very good analysis of many of the Zionists´most fundamental lies and deceptions.
As for the great H not even you dare to speak it´s name.
But I have come to the conviction that the H lie must be challenged, for it is the most successful prototype for all the other lies of the last century and this one, the lie that tells the world, that some wars are necessary and righteous and some war-crimes are justified to defend the "greater good". All targeted foreign politicians are now named "the new Hitler".
The great H is also the one thing, that keeps the Jewish people in line, without it, the Zionists would be a tiny minority among them.
It is also the greatest and best protected taboo in the western world and when it falls, the whole war-mongering ideology will fall with it.
And it is the one thought-crime which will get me to jail in my home country.No, I must correct myself, the daydreams of some not very intelligent young men about blowing up something or other with imaginary explosives, fully supported by agent provocateurs of internal intelligence units, can also get them to jail nowadays.
Comment from
no-one special
P.S.:
Thanking you,, gretavo for a great, informative blog and the higher powers of servers for the hiccups. Otherwise I would not have known about something being available on youtube. I downloaded it right away before it gets banned.
I agree with you, "no-one
I agree with you, "no-one special," about your post, esp the part about the you-know-what-o-caust (I guess we're trying to steer clear of being flagged by the Simon Weisenthal Center). I felt sad when I read about your pain at finding out about 9/11 - and you're not even American! I am still in pain and it's been 18 months or so...
I do want to chime in and say something about atheism and atheists (apropos to your post about the Boston indy article). Not all of us are bad people - I for one am behaviorally no different than the most born-again of folks; I obey laws, am a faithful wife and mum, am dedicated to my job and to making the world a better place; most of my sexual impulses have long since been sublimated into intellectual pursuits (not a good thing, I know), and I don't even drink save for a very occasional glass of wine. I do have a weakness for chocolate, but that's about all. Yet I harbour no delusions that an imaginary sky god exists, that such an entity created the earth and all its inhabitants, is ominipotent and omniscient, cares about us or me in particular; that I will reunite with dead relatives up in the sky after I die, etc. You don't need to believe in religion to be a nice person, and not all those who don't are bad. I'm afraid I agree that religion generally is a tool to manipulate people who fervently wish things that just aren't so, and yes, people who _are_ easily manipulated (because they have been indoctrinated from earliest youth by those whom they love), and who can't bear to face the facts of our meager and brief existence on this spinning rock circling a minor star in a far corner of an insignificant galaxy.
I don't mind these facts. Au contraire: I find life sweeter for its brevity. All I long for is the truth and more people to share it with (besides my hubby, whom I am eternally grateful for, but I need a wider community). And that's probably what all of us here on this site have in common, even if we don't all agree about religion. (My favorite fantasy is to take five years off from work and do nothing but read to get to the heart of it all.) I'm open to the evidence; show me the facts as you see them, and I'll listen to you and evaluate them. But I won't/can't pretend obeisance to some stone-age myth that conveniently shapes people according to the dictates of those in power. Any spiritual system worth its salt seems to eventually get co-opted and exploited by the powers-that-be, obliterating any inherent benefits to its would-be practitioners.
Enough said.
E Vero (registered but generally too lazy to sign in)
yoiks, it's feast or famine round here...
Things had been kind of slow recently around here and I meant to quickly check in before going to bed but found to my surprise some great discussion happening. Still, I do have to sleep. But a few things... I'm the first to say that we can't think we have it all figured out--I am still terribly confused about a LOT. But still I think that with things like the holocaust (the euphemism is more of a joke than anything, poking fun at the taboo) we have keys to make great strides in understanding. Am I tough on Alex Jones? Yes, and I can't bring myself to apologize ofr that--just seen too much, which we can discuss later.
I am happy you're here, no-one, because we can never have too many people who are willing to disagree and to do so constructively and intelligently. I want this site to be a place where we can learn from each other, not try to win arguments or points or popularity with anyone. I have no heroes--when I quote Nietzsche it's because he said something brilliant, not because he was great. When you read a book of famous quotes, isn't it striking how many totally different types of people can say so many things one finds enlightening and meaningful? I say bring it on--let's celebrate the good, the bad, the ugly, the beautiful, the perverse, the majestic, the humble--what was it that awful Karl Marx claimed his favorite aphorism was? I forget the Latin but it translates into "Nothing human is alien to me". Out of all of our confusions we can, through patience, love, and joie de vivre salvage something of humanity. If à didn't believe so I would have long ago turned my abck on everything and everyone.
To live is to fight, to love is to do it right!
Thank you gretavo, for my admission into the site
You are right, sometimes one can find quotes from people with totally opposing ideas in general, to fit one's own ideas in a certain instance.
But then, more often than not, quotes are taken out of context and if read in context they might not mean the same thing.
And there is another problem, that if you quote somebody you are often considered as supporting the general ideas of the person or institution you quote.
The other day I found a very interesting article from a 1933 British newspaper which was mainly written for a Jewish readership and most likely was published by a Zionist organization.
It was a photocopy from the original paper presented online.
The article showed quite clearly that the British Zionists goated the Hitler government deliberately into treating Germany´s Jews as dangerous enemies of the state.
It had the headline "Judah declares war on Germany".
It stated that the election of Hitler was uniting all Jews worldwide in a common cause. And it called for Jews around the world to instigate a general boycott of everything German.
And mind you, this article was written in 1933, long before the Nazi race laws of 1935 and long before the general boycott against Jewish shops in Germany in 1938. We have pictures of this Nazi boycott and it´s signs in our history books "Kauft nicht bei Juden" as evidence of the infamy of the Nazis, and then I found out that the Zionist instigated the exact same kind of boycott against Germans 5 years earlier.
The trouble however, with this piece of information is, that I found it on a web-site belonging to the "Christian Party".
Now as a European, "Christian Party" sounds quite innocent to me.
I nearly referenced it as a source to something I was going to write, and then cautiously looked up some other pages on the Christian Party website and it nearly made me throw up breakfast, lunch and dinner.
That party must be a direct affiliation of the KuKluxKlan or something. They actually have a poll on their site, where 97% of the respondents voted for deporting all black people out of the United States.
My point is, that quoting people you generally don´t agree with, can get you in trouble.
That´s what I thought when I read your post on the blogger Arabesque. You saw it as final proof that the man was a shill, when he quoted something from a Zionist website.
For me this doesn´t prove his guilt without a doubt. He might not have known, that the site was promoting Zionist ideologies.
And since he doesn´t believe that Israel had a major role in 9/11 he might not be too careful in distancing himself from Zionism, but that doesn´t necessarily make him a Zionist shill.
To be sure, I disagree with Arabesque on the assumption that every member of the 9/11 truth movement has to follow the same lines of thinking in order to get an independent investigation going.
I believe we do need diverse approaches to get to the whole truth, even if some approaches do lead down a garden path.
In my opinion given time the real truth is always more logical and therefor stronger than all the errors and the deliberate attempts of disinformation, so it will prevail, if it is not suppressed by censorship.
The reason why I felt so bad about 9/11 being an inside job
was, that all politicians and the whole media in Europe just like in America were covering up the facts.
This means that you can neither trust the politicians nor the media to tell you the facts which have become so important for all present politics, domestic and foreign.
All inner security matters are now based on 9/11, the treatment of Islamic immigrants and even Islamic citizens in Europe is based on 9/11, the relationship to many foreign countries is based on 9/11, and our attitude towards war or peace are based on 9/11.
I have known for a while that news as presented by the media are most often biased in some way. But I still had believed that they would at least give you the plain facts straight.
The realization that they don´t was a bad shock for me, because it quite obviously meant that we didn´t live in a democracy.
People can´t make informed decisions about anything when the most important facts on which they should base their decisions are kept hidden from them.
You can have different opinions on the better or worse solutions for an economic or social problem. But if you are lied to about the simple observable facts of the problem itself, there is no way that you can make any kind of rational decision.
E Vero, I do not think that all atheists are adulterers or alcohol or drug addicts,indeed most atheists are not.
Some of the people I admire and who taught me a lot of what I know today like Kurt Nimmo, who used to write the blog "Another Day in the Empire" and Bill Blum, who wrote "Killing Hope" and "Rogue State" are professed atheists.
The reason why I mentioned those atheist mass-murderers is to counter the argument that atheism makes a person more likely to be rational and compassionate than religion, and that the religious people are always the bad guys and the atheists always the good ones.
It´s just not true.
And for the stone age myths: If you do not see Christianity as exclusively represented by the Armageddon fraction of the Christian Zionists you would realize that most Christians have no problem with science nowadays, neither have most Muslims.
Indeed, when the devote Muslim Mahmood Ahmadinejad was holding a speech in Columbia University he was quoting the Quran to show that Islam was encouraging it´s believers to seek out scientific knowledge about the workings of nature and the universe as much as they can. But he pointed out, that a scientist who has no ethical foundation in compassion for humanity has lost his way and will do more harm than good to society.
In this speech the Iranian President seemed directly to answer a speech of Pope Benedict the XVI, which was also given in front of a University audience, namely in Munich.
Here the Pope tried to explain that modern rationality of the western world is too narrowly focused on materialism. And that this kind of rationality makes a dialog between our secular culture and other more religious cultures very difficult.
The Pope pointed out that Christianity wasn´t from it´s roots opposed to rationality, although the Church forgot those concepts for a while during the Middle Ages.
The Pope explained the theology of the beginning of the Gospel of John, where Jesus is called the "incarnate word of God through which all things were made".
It starts with: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word. All things were made by it and without it nothing was made."
In the Greek original it says "Logos" for what we have translated as "Word". But the Greek "Logos" also means logic.
So what that Bible passage tells us, is that God created the world by pure logic and the laws of nature are the logic of God.
This is how modern Catholic theology and the Pope himself see the relationship between rational science and Christian religion.
The difference to atheist ideas is, however, that Christians believe that the existence of man is in no way an accident, but that God´s laws and logic made the existence of man eventually inevitable.
And Christians and Muslims believe that human beings are, because of their intelligence and free will, different from and superior to any other species on earth, and that God cares deeply about mankind and every individual human being.
We also believe that God demands of us that we treat our fellow men with decency and compassion and that one day we will have to take responsibility before God for our actions in that regard.
whatever we believe...
to be the ultimate nature of the universe, whoever we believe may or may not be waiting for us upon death, however we think we all fit into the "bigger picture" in other words, we must acknowledge that certain principles should always be promoted and others always discouraged and prevented when possible. whenever anyone allows their identification with any particular belief system to influence them in a way that does not respect those principles, we have a problem. those belief systems can range from destructive nihilism to the most sacred beliefs. I have yet to find evdience of any system that is immune to corruption, faultless in its influence over people, or otherwise worthy of willing itself to be universally applied. what we are left with, in other words, is the need for constant dialogue that strives to be as inclusive as possible with regard to what the principles we will all accept are. not because we *must* but because we choose quite simply to share our planet with each other and must therefore find a way to do so that does not result in its destruction. I suppose someone could argue that that first principle, that all who come into existence on earth have a right to exist on earth, is itself debatable. but i'll be damned if I can think of any dialogue worth having with someone who can't accept that, if only for the sake of having a place to start.
well said. -E
well said. -E
You are right no system should be universally applied
I personally believe that it is no accident that we human beings are so diverse in everything, even in religions.
I believe that Divine inspiration works not only in my own religion, although I can find my inspiration only there.
I believe that there should never be a unification of all religious tradition into one single mode.
The differences of cultures and religions have a specific functions in humanity´s development, they create different thinking modes. And since the human condition in todays world becomes more and more complicated we might often need to see things from more than one perspective and tackle problems from more than one side to find valid solutions.
And as for doctrinal differences, maybe on God´s eternal level many differences aren´t real any more, and others are just misunderstandings or misinterpretations of metaphors on which future generations even in this world will look upon with different eyes.
We do not have to fix those differences here and now, indeed we shouldn´t. They are there for a purpose, possibly just to teach us the art of tolerance, to agree to disagree and leave it at that.
I believe that the worst solution of all politics would be a one world government, a one world economic system or a one world political-ideological system.
There need to be some kind of competition between several possibilities to be able to bring out the best in each one of them.
The same holds true for religious, cultural or philosophical ideas.
However I do not believe that all religions and philosophical views are of equal value.
I see a vast difference between
- on the one side universal religions and secular philosophies, which state that basically all men are created as of equal value and therefor human life and dignity must be respected at all cost,
- and on the other side, what I call esoteric elitist traditions, both religious and secular, which state that some are more valuable than others and that in order to reach a political aim one can walk over the dead, broken, tortured and mutilated bodies of those considered not valuable enough.
I also have little tolerance for those in the environmental movement, who consider the life of birds and frogs more valid than the life of human beings, since they are natural and we humans are somehow un-natural.
Hi No one, You've said so
Hi No one,
You've said so much that I want to respond to. Thanks for hanging out on this site; it's the only one I bother reading, besides "whatreallyhappened.com".
1) Yes, current national security policies around the world appear stem from 9/11. The wars certainly do. And, you're right - unless media reports the facts, we are doomed. Guess we were fools to really believe tv/newsprint/radio in the first place. (Maybe because tv feels so real we are more likely to think it's true.) But surely 9/11 isn't the first big lie you've encountered? What about the HIV-AIDs business? The Moon Landing? You've discussed the Holocaust; if that could be lied about, I guess they could make up any old thing and try to shove it down our throats. Like the idea that we have a democracy, America is free, elections are fair, anyone can make it to the top in America, taxes are constitutional, the federal reserve is a government agency designed to safeguard our welfare (cough, cough, like all the other government agencies), (pre-emptive) war is necessary for our survival and security, Sadam had nukes or nuke programs or biological weapons or connections to 9/11 or plans to hit Israel (more like he had plans to buy oil in Euros). And on and on. Cutting calories (and dietary fat) helps you lose weight and prevents metabolic disorders (diabetes, heart disease, cancer, arthritis, Alzheimer's - really caused by carbs, particularly refined sugars and starches and high fructose corn syrup).
2) And what about religion as a big lie? Dig very deeply and see the edifice come crumbling down. (I still cannot forgive the Church for that unfortunate business in the Middle Ages - accusing women of being witches and then killing them before appropriating their property, killing the women while babies were still suckling at their breasts, yes even in church. That, the burning of the library at Alexandria, which probably set us back a thousand years, and the current church's complicity in pederasty (while openly and sanctimoniously condemning homosexuality) are all unforgiveable. In my opinion, whenever you need someone human to explain to you what God said or is saying, you're in trouble. I'm sure that very far up the church hierarchy, the men are well educated and have been duly disabused of the fantasies that drew them into the employ of the church in the first place. So it doesn't surprise me that the Pope will try to reconcile the dogma with the most generally accepted framework for understanding truth in our era: the scientific method. If he has half a brain, he'd recognize the truth and what will sell; he can't seem too irrational or he'll turn off moderates like you. But probe more deeply, and I'm sure he won't want to submit the Church's theories to genuine scientific scrutiny.
3) As for religious zealots not being "real" christians: You either believe the "clap-trap" or you don't. Are you a religious moderate because you find it convenient to pick and choose which aspects of the bible you will endorse? Do you leave off the really weird bits? You probably think evolution is a credible theory and birth control is acceptable. Congratulations. But if you are a Christian, for example, then don't you subscribe to the Virgin Birth? Was Jesus part of the house of David (through his father Joseph) or was he conceived by God? Don't you believe that Jesus rose from the dead after three days? Did he turn water into wine? Does he get reincarnated when a priest anywhere in the world holds up wafers, mumbles some words in latin, and rings a bell? Don't you believe that he conducted miracles? Or do you just appreciate his Sermon on the Mount and "turn-the-other-cheek" admonitions? I don't think you can have it both ways. Similarly, if you are a Muslim, do you really think that Mohammad ascended to heaven from a rock in Jerusalem? If Jewish, do you really believe that God selected your people among all others for His favor? That he promised you that real estate over in the Middle East? If he really likes you, why does he keep letting others smite you (despite the exaggeratiosn surrounding the big H, there is still a lot of smiting going on)?
You grew up in Europe, so you (as a religious person) are a real outlier over there. Here the religious people are in the majority. I wonder how it is that you ended up being religious? Were you born into it? Or were you convinced to join as an adult? (Just curious)
I see from your writing that you can handle a lot of truths. But maybe no one can handle them all. And what do I know? If it makes you feel better, I'm not convinced about the Big Bang. I'm skeptical even (especially) of science, which was supposedly invented to forestall the hyperbolic rantings of the religious/political elite; like sports, the rules of inquiry are set up ahead of time, everything is public and open to inquiry. Alas, major factions of the scientific enterprise (for the HIV-AIDS myth, global warming) have been co-opted by the power structure (which decides which questions get the research funding to be asked and anwered). But I can find my way around a journal article; no one can intimidate me. I am a scientist and I know all about damned lies and statistics. And I will fight for the truth until I die. (And that might be soon, given my current line of inquiry [hehe, insert nervous laughter here].)
E Vero
p.s. You go, Gretavo/RT/whatever your name is! And I'd give up on converting Harvard to your cause. Seems like Harvard has the cream of the crop in terms of propagandists.
Of course I can´t handle the whole truth, eVero, neither can yo
nor do you have actually got the whole truth, neither do I.
The apostle Paul explained it pretty good on the lines of Plato: for here we only see shadows, but there we will stand in the full light of truth.
Sure there are words that have hurt me in the past and others which still might hurt me or get me mad. But my skin has grown quite a bit thicker by my experiences.
I just do like to talk freely and without restraint, when I disagree with something like the anti-religious intolerance I see among atheists mostly in America.
And no I´m not a moderate, neither am I a liberal, I´m just not a literalist.
I believe in the Divinity of Christ, that He is the Word of God through which all things were made. So all things are His, even the grapes and wheat-corns from which wine and bread are made. And so through the miracle of faith in the Eucharist they become the essence of Christ, body and blood.
I´m opposed to abortion. I accept that homosexuals are allowed to make legal civil contracts with each other giving them the same tax and inheritance rights as married couples, but I won´t call it marriage.
I see promiscuity both as a individual health-, as well as a social problem, but I would not support to make a criminal law against it.
I believe that, if we can talk about the issue from both sides in public without resorting to name calling and ad hominem attacks that´s fully sufficient, so people can make up their own mind about it.
And after I have researched the matter of the influence of neuro-transmitters and hormones on the mind, I have come to the conclusion that the Church was perfectly right in opposing artificial birth control.
And don´t give me that the Church is responsible for the AIDS epedemic in the developing world. That´s ridiculous. A person who fornicates or commits adultery in opposition to his faith doesn´t feel more guilty, if he does it with a condom.
It´s the promiscuity which is the greater sin, not the condom.
As for the population growth, the reason for that is poverty and social insecurity, not the lack condoms and pills.
I will go into the scientific explanations for that in some other post.
But actually I wasn´t about to go into a detailed theology here. I don´t feel compelled to convert anybody to save his soul. If a person lives according to his conscience and treats his fellow-men in the way Christians are supposed to do it, God´s grace will reach him, too. So I don´t worry about your soul.
As for the past violent actions of the Church. They were wrong no doubt about it,
- from a religious point of view: Christ has banned the use of violence
- and from a strategic point of view: every time the Church tried to solve a perceived problem using violence, there was an enormous blow-back and a loss of the moral high ground.
And these blow-backs of the past are still tormenting the Church today.
Why did God allow those failings and injustices?
Why does God allow any suffering and injustices in any age?
I don´t know, I only can give it my best guess: Maybe the Church like all of humanity needed to learn something.
And for the individual person, Christians and Muslims believe that suffering and death is not the final word.
As for the "pedophile scandal", I can see the same pattern repeated, as at the time of the Nazis.
The Church opposed the Nazi politics and so one scandal after the other was all over the papers and even in the courts.
Only the Nazis were a bit more clumsy in the way they entrapped the priests: Somebody called a priest to a dying person, but when the priest arrived he found a healthy and half-naked prostitute and an eager press-photographer.
This time around it started when Pope John Paul II opposed the first Iraq war and then the Nato bombing of Serbia.
And then after 9/11 when the Pope opposed the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, that´s when things got really rolling.
There surely were some real cases of molestations of teenagers by homosexual priests. They were tragic, they shouldn´t have happened and they make me mad.
But there is no way, that I believe that the victims go into the many hundreds - no way.
Some of the accusers are probably fellow-travelers out for money and men who have visited a "Recovered Memory" practitioner - and we know how reliable those guys and girls were in the past. This kind of psycho-therapy has been shown as one the most harmful and fraudulent of the last century.
And then there are the infiltrators into the Church.
There was this one American priest who together with 2 nuns published a so-called liberal Church-paper some time in the early 1980s, where he declared, that the Church should do away with all sexual restrictions. She should not only accept homosexuality and pre-marital and extra-marital sex as not sinful, but also group-sex, pedophilia and sex with animals.
Now the most interesting part in this whole affair was, that this priest had been a convert.
So why in God´s or more likely someone else´s name, would a man enter one of the most sexual restricted churches as a convert, become a member of the clergy, and then try to win followers for a sexual agenda which even for the most, most liberal Protestants would be beyond the pale?
Only a couple of years back in Austria there was a scandal around a priest seminary. There was a police-raid into the seminary and the police found boxes and boxes of pornographic videos, partly child-pornography. And they arrested a couple of the seminarians there.
Is there any logical and psychological reason why a few men enter a Catholic seminary to study to become priests, taking with them boxes of pornography, knowing full well, that the Church demands both celibacy and abstinence from all pornographic images from all her priests?
Nobody is forced to become a priest nowadays.
Being unable to control ones urges right at the beginning of his education?
I don´t think so.
The only reason why anybody would want to do this kind of thing, is to deliberately harm a church he hates.
And why was there a police raid in the first place?
The Austrian police doesn´t usually barge in doors in a Catholic institution. Who told them what they would find?
And who is interested in making the Church look really, really bad for it´s believers?
And in America, not in Austria, the whole "pedophile" scandal was followed up with lots and lots of TV-shows showing dirty priests. In some of those shows the good, intelligent Catholics were leaving the Church, while the slightly clumsy and not so intelligent ones stayed.
Who is Hollywood kidding? We Catholics are not as dumb and easily manipulated as they would wish.
And to your question, if I hadn´t seen all the other lies and falsehoods before 9/11.
No, I didn´t.
Like most citizens of middle and northern Europe I had trusted my government, not to be perfect, but to be reasonable decent.
Different from you Americans there never was a sense of fundamental distrust in our governments by most citizens over here.
Had we been naive? Maybe.
But our governments had treated us most often decently. We had no reason for distrust. We had not been used for CIA or army medical experiments, nor had we been drafted or send into wars for over 50 years.
There is no question here, if taxes are legal. Everybody, even the rich, believe in paying taxes to keep our state running. We only fight about how much we have to pay and in what form and what the money is used for.
Some people cheat on their taxes, no doubt, but to question the legitimacy of the idea of paying taxes, nobody would even think about it.
We used to believe that the state is ours - collectively, and the government represents mostly the will of the majority, even when we disagreed with some decisions.
That our government and our media would lie to us on something as important as 9/11, I couldn´t even imagine.
And now since my safe world-view has been shaken upside down by the 9/11 truth, I have come to the conclusion, that government, media and education system have lied about a lot of stuff, even one of the most talked about historical things of the last century, the Holocaust.
I live in a country with a
I live in a country with a Catholic majority. I am quite disappointed that the Church has been silent about 9-11. The Pope is a head of state and as such would have people under him who analyze world events and research facts to define foreign policy as would any other head of state. Given the resources at his disposal, I cannot help but think that he is aware of the big lie of 9-11. While other heads of state may be pursuing one agenda or another that makes them consider against coming out with the truth, the Church, I was hoping would take the moral high ground and openly oppose the injustice wrought with the crime of 9-11. If the Church cannot be open about such blatant evil, then what right does it have to preach on morality and values.
I have been skeptical of the Church for other reasons even before 9-11. But the 9-11 cover-up exposes the Church as part of the system of lies along with the government's and the school's and mass media which is used to control everyone.
Thanks for your thoughtful
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Am holding a sick bambina so cannot write much. Your thoughts on the pedophile scandal make a great deal of sense to me. Shocking that I didn't see it; but of course, I am dependent on the media for information, like everyone else. But I also believe that most people are allowed into positions of power because they are black-mailable - they have skeletons in their closets. So it could be a combination of both.
Re HIV-AIDS: I don't think that the Church planted AIDS. This will shock you but there is plenty of evidence that AIDS is due to environmental toxins - heavy drug use - and is not caused by HIV, which is a harmless retrovirus that doesn't even kill t-cells nor does it infect very many t-cells nor is it even sexually transmitted! The only gays who contracted AIDS were using heavy drugs (and also likely stressing their immune system by having lots of partners and getting plenty of other viral/bacterial infections). But men have been having sex with men since forever and have not died of it. AIDS (with or without HIV infection) is found in long-term recreational drug users (of heroin, cocaine, meth, etc.). Check here for more info:
Dr. Peter Duesberg’s website presents the ideas behind his assertion that HIV does not cause AIDS:
http://www.duesberg.com/
In addition, there is two-hour documentary film (‘HIV=AIDS: fact or fraud’) available for purchase inexpensively (the 20-minute version is free) at:
http://www.hiv-aids-factorfraud.com/
This is serious stuff, not kooky at all. Do you really have an open mind?? Go check it out.
I'm sure I have my blind spots (i.e., there's stuff I believe that I shouldn't) but obviously I don't know what they are. So yeah I don't believe I know the whole truth...I wish I did.
E
That was good typing
for a bambina-holder! Just having a bambina on the sofa next to me impairs my typing ability.
You said, "This will shock you but there is plenty of evidence that AIDS is due to environmental toxins - heavy drug use - and is not caused by HIV,"
What is the rationale for AIDS among heterosexual Africans according to this line of thought?
writing while holding bambini is a talent
Am now holding a bambino (they're older, so it's easier to write), since the bambina went to bed. Both are sick, boo hoo.
About Africa (I am pulled this info, paraphrased, from the video I cited above as well as from the Duesberg site and book [Inventing the AIDS virus]):
AIDS statistics differ dramatically in US/Western Europe vs. Africa. In Africa, the ratio of male to female AIDS cases is evenly split, 50-50, with no risk groups. Also, in Africa 90% of the cases of AIDS are microbial in nature, versus 62% in the US. AIDS is said to have originated in Tanzania, Africa, yet their rates of AIDS are much lower than in the US, which doesn’t make sense from an infectious disease model perspective. Comparisons of HIV infection rates show that, as of 1996, Africa had 14 million HIV positive people, whereas the US had 1 million. Yet rates of AIDS are nearly identical, and people in the US develop AIDS at a rate that is 10-20 times faster than in Africa. Why would the AIDS epidemic behave differently in one country than another? Certainly the use of hard drugs differs dramatically between the US/Western Europe and Africa. African AIDS appear caused by malnutrition, parasitic infections, and poor sanitation.
Additionally, due to the high cost of HIV tests in Africa, the tests are not generally used, and "AIDS" is defined (by World Health Organization standards) if three of the following symptoms are observed: weight loss of greater than 10% in the last two months, fever, diarrhea, persistent cough, itchy rash. These symptoms also correspond to local diseases -- such as tuberculosis and malaria -- that are a common result of poor nutrition, poor sanitation, and unsafe drinking water. Therefore, these diseases often mistaken for AIDS dramatically raise the number of individuals infected in Africa. Paradoxically, Africans are dying in no greater numbers than they ever were since the outbreak of “AIDS†in Africa.
Even if HIV tests were accurate, there is still a fatal flaw in using HIV tests to predict disease susceptibility: HIV tests check for the presence of antibodies to the virus. Normally, when antibodies appear, it means that the person has been previously exposed to and successfully fought off the virus; it does not mean that one is currently infected with the virus. The presence of antibodies also means that immunity has been built against the virus, and one is no longer susceptible to the disease. However, the HIV-AIDS hypothesis defies this standard, and one is said to have the virus (not have immunity) if antibodies are found, and one is considered to be in a “latency period,†until the disease, AIDS, manifests itself. No known microbe reemerges to cause disease only after antibodies have formed. This is the rationale for vaccines, which introduce a small amount of the microbe to stimulate the body to create antibodies to it. Therefore, unless the rules of virology are suspended, an AIDS vaccine would be redundant, given that the body quickly produces antibodies to HIV. An AIDS vaccine was supposed to be ready for clinical trials by 1986 (according to the Department of Health and Human Services), but I suspect that such a vaccine will likely remain “still years away†from development.
HTH,
E
Thanks...
Very interesting. Thanks for taking the time to post.
thank you for thanking me. E
thank you for thanking me.
E
Thank you, E Vero this was very informative
I have heard about the thesis, that HIV did not cause AIDS before, but only as one made by a single doctor.
I had no idea how many other scientists supported the thesis and how compelling the evidence is indeed.
I read the papers on Dr Duisberg´s site, you linked to, both the one on European/American AIDS and the one on Africa and I´m now thoroughly convinced that his thesis is right.
But with all the lies told by by the pharma-industry I am not surprised at all.
And of course it should not surprise anyone that drugs would harm or even destroy the immune system.
P.S,:
I hope your bambinis will recover soon.
best wishes
I'm glad you went to
I'm glad you went to Duesberg's site. There you will see what he describes as "AIDS by prescription" - very sinister, very sad, so many died taking DNA chain terminators. (I could say a lot about this.)
Thanks for the good wishes about the bambini; now they are well and I am sick...
E
also reading "Conjuring Hitler"
http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/074532181X/
You can read the intro free up there^...
Basically it blames Britain and America for enabling Hitler's rise (and the Bolshevik revolution in Russia) so as to prevent an alliance between the two that would have been unbeatable. It's an interesting thesis of course I just have a nagging suspicion that the idea is to whitewash a lot of the behind the scenes role played by Zionism. But overall it seems to be a nice exposé of the role that American and British financial and political figures played in building up the Nazi war machine and ensuring that the governments in Germany and Russia would be as antithetical to each other as possible.
I´m not sure about the Russian revolution
but I have a theory why Hitler was pushed on the
Germans. I think, I´ll make a post about it.