Nazis, Muslim Brotherhood and the CIA (Must Read)

by **Seventhson** » Tue Jul 26, 2005 10:08 pm

I am having time issues and I know quite a bit about the Lubavitchers and the Hasidim. But the PL you mentioned - what is it --- why is it a problem. Why do I need my shades on??? I'd appreciate, again, some perspective. RE: Sweejak: THE IHR issues get fouled up by the association with what are clearly perceived by most thinking peope as antiSemitic disinformational rhetoric. That is NOT to say (and I hope I made this clear) that the issues raised and articles have to be taken individually if given any credence at all. Like the damn LaRouchians, however, EVERYTHING associated with the IHR is tainted and has little credibility in most scholars' circles. The tough part is even bothering to try and read between the lines to find something that, at least to me, seems pretty clearly to be a right wing White "Christian" fundamentalist agenda. Problem is - even these folks are not monolithic and might even have a few scholars amongst them who do not shy at conspiracy theories or their exploration. My alarums are based on what i believe to be the IHR disinformationist agenda overall and how this organization and its spinoffs in publishing are pursuing the BFEE agenda. So I tend to dismiss it all unless I have carefully studied the specifics, primary sources, and other douments. The issue of Holocaust mythmaking and propaganda is a valid concern. But again it has a taint of antiSemitism even venturing into the issues. There are sme proven myths that Jewish Holocaust scholars have acknowledged (I have studied the literature pretty extensively but no comprehensively). There are those who reject the term Holocaust for the term "Shoah" (which I agree with is appropriate. Holocaust is a symbolic term. But being very familiar with camp survivors (friends), rescuers, and having studied these issues extensively, I DO believe it is anti-Semitic to support Holocaust denial as IHR does. I also think that to deny the dangers of the "Holocaust" industry is a disservice and betrayal of the Jews and all who suffered and died in the camps. The Truth is what is critical. But that is sometimes almost impossible to discern amidst all the bullshit all around that fogs the lens of history

by **rain** » Wed Jul 27, 2005 12:33 pm

the short answer - no. simply because I take the position that doing the leg work for oneself is crucial. but I'm curious. if you 'know quite a bit about the Lubavitchers' why the question about Talmud. what about the Sanhedrin? and if you can't see a problem with P.L.102-14, then I don't have a problem with you not having a problem. good luck on that one.

by **Seventhson** » Wed Jul 27, 2005 10:18 pm

I guess the problem is that if people just say its "this" or that" I want to here WHY they feel that way. I do not know what the Public law you site is, but would appreciate a little of your perspective on it. Hell I migth agree 100%. But these posts take time and getting all the info does too. So if you won't enlighten me I just probably won't get what you are trying to make me get. If I have to search for every obscure reference (or non obscure reference) and then STILL have to try and guess what the poster meant by it - it is just too damn time consuming. So thanks , I guess, for not helping me understand what your point is.

by **Starman** » Wed Jul 27, 2005 10:55 pm

Seventhson -- On the notorious Biaothonal thread, one of the things I commented on was that I resented the two hours it took me to google and wade through a buncha articles just to find out what Thelamic Fundamentalism really MEANT -- In what can't be seen as anything but the most mean-spirited disrespect, you distorted what I actually said, turned-it-around in a monologue-post to Biao to insult me by claiming I was "too lazy" to do any background reading. FWIW -- That has set the tone for my 'regard' for you. And now on this post you say: "If I have to search for every obscure reference (or non obscure reference) and then STILL have to try and guess what the poster meant by it - it is just too damn time consuming." Jeez, what a self-absorbed opportunistic poseur you are -- you represent yourself as a guardian of the site's moral and intellectual integrity, but you're always making exceptions for yourself. Your quote above was the PRECISE point I had made earlier, but which you used as an opportunity to ridicule me. Do you have ANY awareness of what kind of character-sketch reflection this provides? I also don't forget that when I acknowledged Biao's point you accused me of sucking-up to him. You occasionally make some excellant points but I'm hardly disposed to say so -- lest you accuse me of sucking up to YOU. I simply can't understand someone who's so driven to put people in their place by any means possible. It smacks of manipulation and dishonesty. And too -- Making a catch-all blanket 'apology' to those you 'might' have offended just won't do -- that's chickenshit, an easy-out to avoid acknowledging specific, unwarranted incivilities. I don't really care if you acknowledge this -- Just, this latest example of hypocrisy was so blatant I couldn't resist pointing out the double-standards you hold for yourself. Starman

by **anon** » Thu Jul 28, 2005 12:16 am

Not to judge your post, Starman, but I wouldn't blame Seventh for his (admittedly mild) rebuke to rain, whose incessant cryptograms are the stuff of which evaporation is made.

by **Seventhson** » Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:06 am

Starman said to me: Seventhson -- On the notorious Biaothonal thread, one of the things I commented on was that I resented the two hours it took me to google and wade through a buncha articles just to find out what Thelamic Fundamentalism really MEANT -- In what can't be seen as anything but the most mean-spirited disrespect, you distorted what I actually said, turned-it-around in a monologue-post to Biao to insult me by claiming I was "too lazy" to do any background reading. FWIW -- That has set the tone for my 'regard' for you. Maybe you could provide a link? Then I would not have to search it out on the older board--- Look - my memory gets hazy. I do not remember precisely what I said or the context --- but I would be happy to respond to specifics. Same thing with my post to rain: I wanted his/her perspective on the issues raised and why it was significant. Just saying, for example, "Its the babylonian Talmud, stupid" doesn't help me much. Usually I like researching these things and finding out what they are --- but recently I had a back injury and sitting at the computer hurts like hell. But i try to stay abreast especially in a "debate" on an issue. My issues on the Baio thread had to do with people calling him hysterical for citing the Thelemic fundies as the perps... That was his opinion and opinions are hardly hysterical... My problem with it was mostly the ad hominem attack - a character attack ---and you now do it again. But hell if I called you "lazy" I apologize. With respect to the general apology it serves the purpose it is meant to. Some folks here I regard as professional disinformationists as near as I can tell. Others are just either naive or really really malinformed. For the naive and malinformed I send my apologies for thinking you are a professional at mucking things up or for implying that when I have no way of being certain (altho I have my guidelines for my own reasonable probabilites.) I do not really remember either saying you sucked up to Biao after bashing him or what and so i need a signpost ( a link) telling me what I did weeks ago...otherwise I have no hope of responding intelligently. Some of this territory is completely new to me (the RA stuff especially and the Crowley ties or unties to the CIA BFEE tyoes especially).. I just hate it when people attawck folks personally and not for the content of what they say... BUT My role here is one of critical observer and critic. I call them as I see them and sometimes I am wrong or too quick to jump top conclusions. My other role is to point out the posts and posters (here in this anonymous space) who SEEM to be touting disinformationist lines. My proposal to have folks send their identities and bona fides etc to Jeff so that he could make a judgment on the validity of the posters' integrity here was roundly either ignored or dissed. I suspect that those like me who are legitimate antifascists would only be apprehensive doing this if they worries about "leaks" - but I figure any antifascist worth their salt is already targete and all their communications scooped (In fact that is one of my motives for maintaining a high profile --- to ediucate and "turn" BFEE agents who are not wuite fed up enough yet to blow the whislte. Anyhow, calling people lazy and suckups is uncool - so if I did it, I am sorry. But show me where so I can know if you limited context here is a true refelction of what I posted. Thanks

by **Seventhson** » Thu Jul 28, 2005 2:26 pm

You accuse me of saying things (which I might have, I guess, but tend to be uncertain without a link since it sounds kind of out of my usual synch- altho in the wake of Andy's death I was particularly sensitive as he and I had spoken recently, he had entrusted me to Jeff Wells and vouched for me, and he, like me, was a victim of vicious disinformation campaigns across the net) But I do wish you would provide me with QUOTES and links so thatr I can at least TRY to defend myself and/or rebut intelligently. I usually do site a specific quote when I critique and think it is good form...

by **human** » Thu Jul 28, 2005 2:34 pm

on the original topic, Dave Emory does some good analysis... <a href="http://www.spitfirelist.com/ftr.html">www.spitfirelist.com/ftr.html</a> although i dont agree with him, and sometimes he puts me to sleep, i listen to his show every week... one human?

by **Starman** » Thu Jul 28, 2005 4:27 pm

Seventh: I'm not gonna play this game. Esp. if you're going to throw the 'ad hominem' card around without acknowledging your authorship of most of this board's character attacks. I objected to your display of double standards. I'd be happy to refresh your selectively-faltering memory, but Biao's 'Perp Set-Up' thread with more than 60 replies has disappeared down Ez-Board's 20-page archive memory hole -- as has everything posted prior to about the middle of May. It's ackward when someone holds you to your own standards, eh? That was my only point. As you say, likely your back pain and bewilderment/inexperience in discussing such a complex topic as RA issues and focussing on incidental details contributed to your making inappropriate comments. I'm agreeable to letting it go at that and accepting your apology. Starman

by **Seventhsonjr** » Thu Jul 28, 2005 7:25 pm

Is this the thread you are referring to which I found no problem after about a fiteen minute search? I don't recall another such thread where I was attacked and got so defensive for feeling that ad hominem attacks were becoming abusive of this board - Here is one of my poosts on this subject BUT it misses entirely the point I was trying to make: That just posting a COMMENT such as "It's the baylonian Talmud, stupid" (a paraphrase) is NOIT he same as explaining what something is or why it means something to the poster. I ASKED for explication because for one thing ANY Public Law is going to be long and might have thousands of provisions. I wanted direction and perspective. I guess my response herein in that othger thread was a general problem with laziness oin just the simple MEANING" of a term and, in this case, the fact that Crowley himself identified himself and his followers as Thelemites (and it could be inferred from a very quick search of "Crowley" and "Thelemites" and Blood rituals that this was an apropos (and not hysterical) connection to make. I thought that was intellectually lazy and dishonest under the cirumstances. Here is MY quote from that easily found (though time consuming search to vindicate myself) of one referred to: "This is the first time I have spoken directly with you and I want to express gratitude for this post, as it explains WHY you used the term (one I am totally unfamiliar with) and what its context is. This explanation early on would have been very useful for those too lazy or to disruptive to do a google search. Someone here said they did not have two hours to search it. But when I FIRST read the assault on you here (the use of the word "hysterical" which is another spook-necrophile [my name for these creeps] buzz word often used to demean, degrade and discredit progressives and searchers of the truth) it took me exactly ONE quick google search (about thirty seconds) using the name Croweley and thelemite and I had many hits and one where Crowley proclaims himself and his followers Thelemites." I did NOT name you directly and you took the whole post out of context in your attack here - calling me a hypocrite, essentially. I think trying to discredit me in this disingenuous way will be more evidence to discredit you. (Unless there is some other mysterious thread that I cannot find from that period which says the same thing in a different context, but I doubt it). Be honest, folks, I did NOT attack "Starman" directly nor did the context fit my request or point on this thread. So what is it? That Public law. Tell me. WHY is the Babylonian Talmud significant for those who want to trumpet the Protocols as gospel Zionism? That's all I was asking. This is beginning to reek of chaos making and dissembling, from my perspective: To CLAIM I said you were lazy and to put it in a wholely unrelated context and THEN claim that the thread is GONE (when it is not as far as I can tell) so I cannot defend myself --- well, it just has a stinkiness to it...

by **Seventhsonjr** » Thu Jul 28, 2005 7:34 pm

<a href="http://p097.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm7.showMessageRange?topicID=473.topic&start=101&stop=119">p097.ezboard.com/frigorou...1&stop=119</a>

by **Seventhsonjr** » Thu Jul 28, 2005 8:14 pm

on page 5 of the same thread I posted the following which anyone can read and look at the original post by Starman to see if I sadi he was "sucking up" I guess I'd prefer llinks and quotes as again you have slightly twisted the actual words used. (Sucking up is not really in my vocabulary, it sounds more like a military/corporate term). You went to great lengths to disparage me AND Biao and then you did in fact do what appears like a turnabout after bashing me for defending him (and again the term "hysterical" is a VERY loaded term - which pissed me off) - anyway here is MY response (readers can judge for themselves) and the post of Starman is at the link in my previous post here but you must go back to the fiufth page from the sixth of the thread that Starman SAID was no more... I pretty much take back my apology. The term "sucking up" is pejoritive and insulting, but feeling and stating with specifics how and why I felt that I considered Starman's turnaround with Baio disingenuous after his defense of those bashing Biao mercilessly in what seemed an organized defense of the idea that RA is a myth and that the CIA/Crowley Military and connection (and the RI topics on the subject) are looneytoons or so far down the rabbit hole that it is just not credible. I wish I knew more... But this is a war of attrition folks, and the attacks just keep on coming. But judge for yourselves: son Unregistered User (7/4/05 7:08 pm) Okay Starman - You ASKED for it... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You (Starman, in bold) say: Oh Come ON ?! Nobody's been 'attacking' Biao -- Get a grip, pleeze. But what's really odd is that, from my POV, you yourself have been exhibiting more of these very patterns than anyone else: disruptions, 'constant' demeaning slurs and challenges to credibility -- like, HullO????? Seventhson (in italics) : I beg to differ. An attack on credibility and name calling IS an ad hominem personal attack. My posts have been in RESPONSE to these ad hominem attacks and have focused on the motive for the attacks, i.e. an attempt to harm the credibility of this site as a place where victims can tell their stories with relatively little fear of persecution from their perpetrators. Obviously if this site becomes effective on the RA issue (which really started in many ways with the Johnny Gosch (sp?) stories and the ties of these rings to the White Hoiuse and to the Bushes, then it is going to be a magnet for right wing defenders of the dark slimey evil which is RA. So I am merely pointing out the obvious: those who intend to demean Baio by namecalling and ridicule become suspects as fascist disruptors nd are not acting in good faith. The only way to expose the slime is to shine a light on it. If people want to prove they are for real they can provide their bona fides (real name, background, phone, etc., articles they've posted --- verfiable facts and info) that can be used to relatively dispel the taint of their assaultive posts demeaning to Biao and all purported RA vicitms. (And don't get me wrong, purported victims could be blackoperators too, posing as victims) And what's this harping about volunteering Jeff to arbitrate people 'proving their bonafides?? From what I've seen, the intimidation and name-calling hasn't come from those you've listed. It is the only means I can see to get people to either put up or shut up. It is directed at possible disruptors who SHOULD have a real and viable cover story even if they are pro-perps --- but at least Jeff will know exactly who you are and keep an eye on you. I have done this and urge others who are sincere to do so. It cuts through a lot of the bullshit quickly. Unless one doesn't trust Jeff or believes their info will be gleaned by the extremists or anyone else: they should ante up their info. I imagine that blackoperators will obfuscate on this point and blather, but otherwise, in my mind, they are just dissembling and breaking. It's like, having started-off on a track of criticizing JM for questioning Biao's conclusions on a trivial point and slamming him for use of the qualified descriptor 'hysterical' (for which he's apologized at-least -twice- : a more appropriate word to describe the apparant jumping to a hasty conclusion based on a very weak evidence link not even supported by a testable argument might have been impulsive, desperate, reactionary, over-eager or presumptuous -- and the distinction has to be made that JM wasn't making a character-slur but stating his impression of the impulse itself by which a leap of logic is made) you just can't back down or get back on-topic, but elevated this apparant but silly disagreement into a conspiracy including Tabasco and Avalon, even alleging some kind of sinister, organized black-ops agenda.  Interesting - you say the "disagreement is "silly" and you say that instead of hysterical Biao's thoughts should have been called "a hasty conclusion based on weak evidence link not even supported by a testable argument" and "impulsive, desperate, reactionary, over-eager or presumptuous" You compound the insults to Baio and defend the insult argument and then, irrationally, embrace Baio's proposal in some obtuse and transparent false effort at conciliation or alliance with Biao, whom you have further insulted and demeaned. How neat!  I am not elevating the "silly disagreement" into a conspiracy. I am basically saying that the attack on Baio seems to me to be a concerted effort to throw the discussions off track and to try to discredit those who are investigating and discussing the BFEE related RA issues; the primary purpose being to prevent this movement and this board from growing and having credibility. I just don't see it. Take your blinders off. Open your eyes. Or wake up. The escalating argument about intentions and accusations that developed over the relatively innocuous stating of opinion and asking for elaboration has been little more than silly, entirely off the point and from what I can see, argumentative for the sake of being combative; not constructive at all. If you think calling a victim hysterical because they identify the RA they have experienced and have discussed here at RI with Thelemic fundamentalism (which is really, after all, just a modest opinion regarding how to best describe the perpetrators) is an "innocuous stating of opinion and asking for elaboration" - then I imagine that you can come up with a thesaurus full of euphemisms for insulting and trying to discredit victims of the BFEE and their necrophile apologists.

by **robertdreed** » Thu Jul 28, 2005 9:35 pm

Starman, Seventhson, I've been reading both of you for some time now. Granted, it's often difficult to discern "disinformationists"- and the better they are at it, the tougher the discerning. But I'm leaning toward the notion that both of you guys are okay. Even if one or both of you aren't okay, you're at least interesting. Sharp cookies. Your skills are good. You both can string ideas together coherently and persuasively. That makes you entertaining, to me, irrespective of the merits of your respective positions ;^) or your "ulterior motives" ;^0 A common response of anyone who's been taking this game seriously- often in near-isolation, alienated from the "consensus reality"- for a wearisome length of time is, metaphorically speaking, to put out a DEW line tripwire rigged with mercury fulminate detonators, primed to go off at the slghtest trigger from criticism, sarcasm, dismissal, etc. I understand. I look back at some of my early responses on the Internet (c. 1998-99) to people skeptical of my unorthodox opinions and cringe..."waving a marlin spike around, yelling about reptiles", that's what the worst of it looks like, in review. I entreat you both not to make the same mistake. I went through that phase, and eventually figured that maybe I didn't need anything quite as extreme as explosive detonators. The NSA uses geese to signal interlopers on the protected territory of its installations. So do I, these days...metaphorical geese, that only I can hear. And I track suspected infiltrators, rather than attempting to blow their heads off at the first alerting signal. I want both of you to stick around.

by **Seventhsonjr** » Thu Jul 28, 2005 10:56 pm

If I see the geese fly I sound the alarm and turn the lights on. In this last exchange I put all the evidence out regarding duplicity and accuracy and context. Readers can assess for themselves who is speaking the truth or who is spinning. For the record, a lengthier reply about folks here working for Halliburton etc was deleted when I hit the post reply button

by **Seventhsonjr** » Sun Jul 31, 2005 1:53 am

but the silence on my last few posts in this thread and on the evidence I have produced is deafening. I think I am due some apology or at least an acknowledgment that the posts are not "vanished" and that I did not say what it is alleged I said. I wanted this thread to serve as an example of what we all need to watch out for here and to understand the motivations (ad hominem attacks to try and damage honest poster's credibility) which seem to be at work.

Nazis, Muslim Brotherhood and the CIA (Must Read)

could you summarize for me, Rain??

'could you summarize for me...'

I just wanted info

Talk about Takin' the Cake ....

Re: Talk about Takin' the Cake ....

To

Can I get a response Starman?

the original topic

re: Can I get a response

I have to wonder, Starman

Here's the link

Re: Nazis, Muslim Brotherhood and the CIA (Must Read)

please, take a step back

Re: please, take a step back

Odd, I usually get some rebuttal

Who is online