King-Kill 33: Masonic Symbolism in JFK assassination

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: King-Kill 33: Masonic Symbolism in JFK assassination

Postby Stephen Morgan » Tue Dec 07, 2010 3:03 pm

Wombaticus Rex wrote:^^Roger that, appreciate the clarification. I find very little actually "offensive," btw, I've been reading outside my comfort zone for 20 years now, equally interested in Makow and Paglia. (Although Paglia is by far the better writer.) Most of my favorite authors espouse beliefs I disagree with, such as the Collins brothers, Howard Bloom, or John Dolan. That said, I do find the feminism/witchcraft correlation deeply stupid, but that's a whole other kettle of subjectivity.


From blacktown.net, I'd just like to offer this:

Image

They really like Obama over there. Don't seem at all disillusioned at all at all.
Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that all was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, and make it possible. -- Lawrence of Arabia
User avatar
Stephen Morgan
 
Posts: 3736
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:37 am
Location: England
Blog: View Blog (9)

Re: King-Kill 33: Masonic Symbolism in JFK assassination

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Tue Dec 07, 2010 3:08 pm

Hmmmm.....yep, stupid. I reckon that's about all I need from that site, thanks.
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10896
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: King-Kill 33: Masonic Symbolism in JFK assassination

Postby ray » Tue Dec 07, 2010 11:00 pm

Roger that, appreciate the clarification. I find very little actually "offensive," btw, I've been reading outside my comfort zone for 20 years now,

it shows


equally interested in Makow and Paglia. (Although Paglia is by far the better writer.)


better mind too, sane hurricane blew purty strong for a few years:

"Since femaleness suffuses creation, the pure male is cast out. He has no right to life."
User avatar
ray
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2010 6:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: King-Kill 33: Masonic Symbolism in JFK assassination

Postby Stephen Morgan » Wed Dec 08, 2010 2:26 pm

Wombaticus Rex wrote:Hmmmm.....yep, stupid. I reckon that's about all I need from that site, thanks.


Evidently you missed the deeper aspect of the picture, that feminism has become the guard dog of unseen forces, eliciting rabid reactions in its adherents as they defend the unseen masters, represented by the hand holding the lead, from the forces of barbarism, here represented by the black power afro.
Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that all was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, and make it possible. -- Lawrence of Arabia
User avatar
Stephen Morgan
 
Posts: 3736
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:37 am
Location: England
Blog: View Blog (9)

Re: King-Kill 33: Masonic Symbolism in JFK assassination

Postby Simulist » Wed Dec 08, 2010 2:31 pm

Stephen Morgan wrote:
Wombaticus Rex wrote:Hmmmm.....yep, stupid. I reckon that's about all I need from that site, thanks.


Evidently you missed the deeper aspect of the picture, that feminism has become the guard dog of unseen forces, eliciting rabid reactions in its adherents as they defend the unseen masters, represented by the hand holding the lead, from the forces of barbarism, here represented by the black power afro.

Fanaticism can find a "deeper aspect" to almost anything that even tangentially agrees with it.
"The most strongly enforced of all known taboos is the taboo against knowing who or what you really are behind the mask of your apparently separate, independent, and isolated ego."
    — Alan Watts
User avatar
Simulist
 
Posts: 4713
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:13 pm
Location: Here, and now.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: King-Kill 33: Masonic Symbolism in JFK assassination

Postby Stephen Morgan » Wed Dec 08, 2010 2:59 pm

I don't want to turn this into yet another wikileaks thread, but given the turn this thread has taken it seemed like the best place to put this, from the blog of Craig Murray, the former British Ambassador to Uzebekistan:

There are a couple of things to add. The lead complainant is a serial crier of rape who made allegations against someone else which were found groundless, and has published a guide to sexual revenge over men. She consulted with the second complainant before the second complainant went to the police; these are not two unrelated complaints. The second one relates to a Swedish offence of not wearing a condom.

This from Danish WMD whistelblower - jailed for two years for whistleblowing - Major Frank Grevil:

Comparison of crime statistics between the three Scandinavian countries,
which have historically a highly similar societal structure, gives the
remarkable result that the incidence of sexual crimes is about ten times
higher in Sweden than in Denmark or Norway. Usually Sweden's higher
proportion of unassimilated immigrants from first and foremost islamic
countries is blamed, but it would seem to be only a minor part of the
explanation. Rather, political instructions to the police seem to be the
major reason!
Critics maintain that Sweden has turned into a gynocracy, with some of the
most hateful female politicians - front figures for a party called
"Feministiskt initiativ"* - having publicly declared that male fetuses
should be selectively aborted, and all adult males castrated!
In such an atmosphere of hate, the Swedish police has been instructed to put
all alleged crimes of even the most remotely sexual character under the
statistical heading "rape". This includes consenting intercourse between
teenagers with the female part being slightly under-age. It also includes
consenting intercourse where the female part was drunk.


So whoever initiated the plot to go for Assange on Swedish sexual charges knew what they were doing.

I am not a fan of radical feminists. They are hate filled individuals whose very souls are ugly. They seem particularly fixated with causing trouble to political radicals. Anyone who knows the real story of the Tommy Sheridan debacle knows that. They succeeded in alienating me from the Stop the War movement
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/ ... is_po.html

Now, very much more importantly, they are gunning for Julian Assange at a crucial time for democracy. Silly little girls.


And ray says:

> two sluts, one probably:
>
> 1) a CIA asset
>
> and definittely:
>
> 2) a college "gender equity officer" (we all know what that shit
> means)
>
> 3) self-publisher of a guide on "how to take vengeance on men"
>
> 4) a member of some spook front called the "Ladies in White" <-- that
> got a shiver out of even me!
>
> so they star-fuck this semi-celebrity Assange, brag about it to their
> girlfriends, then bring rape/molestation charges, which Interpol
> enforces?
>
> huh? did the moon shit a jelly donut too?
> .....and dildoes call me paranoid and a conspiracy nut for asserting
> that a global gynogulag already exists and is in place -- how's the
> nut soundin to you geniuses now?
>
> as for Interpol, the CIA, and all the rest of the punks who get paid
> to enforce the diktat of Big Sis -- you are sellout cowards, lackeys
> of yo mama, not fit to be called men

That's why I like ray.
Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that all was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, and make it possible. -- Lawrence of Arabia
User avatar
Stephen Morgan
 
Posts: 3736
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:37 am
Location: England
Blog: View Blog (9)

Re: King-Kill 33: Masonic Symbolism in JFK assassination

Postby barracuda » Wed Dec 08, 2010 3:10 pm

Stephen Morgan wrote:That's why I like ray.


Why is that? Because he talks shit about a legal case he has no real information on? How very unsurprising to discover you two "completing" each other. Ray's comment in the Craig Murray blog borders on hate speech. Please don't get the idea that referring to women as "sluts" is welcome here.

The rush to smear Assange's rape accuser

Despite a lack of credible evidence, WikiLeaks supporters -- including Naomi Wolf -- lash out at the alleged victim

By Kate Harding

You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to find the timing of Interpol's warrant for the arrest of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who turned himself in to British authorities today, curious. The charges -- "one count of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation and one count of rape," according to a statement from Scotland Yard -- were brought against him in Sweden last August, yet he suddenly graduated to "most wanted" status just after releasing over a thousand leaked diplomatic cables in late November? It would be irresponsible of journalists, bloggers and average citizens of countries most eager to plug the gushing WikiLeaks not to wonder if those dots connect.

Still, as the New York Times put it, "there is no public evidence to suggest a connection," which some members of the public seem to find unbearably frustrating. With no specific target for their suspicions and no easy way to find one, folks all over the blogosphere have been settling for the next best thing: making light of the sexual assault charges and smearing one of the alleged victims.

By Sunday, when Keith Olbermann retweeted Bianca Jagger's link to a post about the accuser's supposed CIA ties -- complete with scare quotes around the word "rape" -- a narrative had clearly taken hold: Whatever Assange did, it sure wasn't rape-rape. All he did was fail to wear a rubber! And one woman who claims he assaulted her has serious credibility issues anyway. She threw a party in his honor after the fact and tried to pull down the incriminating tweets. Isn't that proof enough? The only reason the charges got traction is that, in the radical feminist utopia of Sweden under Queen Lisbeth Salander, if a woman doesn't have multiple orgasms during hetero sex, the man can be charged with rape. You didn't know?

As of today, even Naomi Wolf -- Naomi Effin' Wolf! -- has taken a public swipe at Assange's accusers, using her status as a "longtime feminist" to underscore the absurdity of "the alleged victims ... using feminist-inspired rhetoric and law to assuage what appears to be personal injured feelings."

Wow. Admittedly, I don't have as much experience being a feminist as Wolf has, but when I see a swarm of people with exactly zero direct access to the facts of a rape case loudly insisting that the accusation has no merit, I usually start to wonder about their credibility. And their sources.

Wolf links to exactly one, an article in British tabloid the Daily Mail. "Using a number of sources including leaked police interviews," writes Richard Pendlebury, "we can begin to piece together the sequence of events which led to Assange's liberty being threatened by Stockholm police rather than Washington, where already one U.S. politician has called on him to executed for 'spying'." Well! A reasonable person might be skeptical of information coming from a single anonymous source via a publication known for highly sensationalized reporting, sure, but in this case, there are a number of them.

That Daily Mail article also helped to inspire a Dec. 3 Gizmodo post in which Jesus Diaz boldy asserted, "While you can say Assange is a douchebag for not putting a condom on and continuing after the woman requested he use a condom, there was no rape accusation in both cases." The other source for that claim was an AOL News article that relied on (hey, look!) the same Daily Mail piece, a Swedish tabloid, and statements from Assange's lawyers to cobble together a theory of what happened and why Assange was charged. Rock solid!

To Diaz and Gizmodo's credit, they quickly posted an update upon learning that the Swedish prosecution office had "issued a notice saying that they are charging Assange with rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion." Diaz added, "Obviously, this is now a completely different issue altogether. Rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion are extremely grave accusations. This is not the 'sex by surprise' accusation that was discussed before." (I don't know that I'd go as far as "a completely different issue altogether" -- Feministe's Jill Filipovic wrote a terrific explanation of why "sex by surprise" actually is a pretty big deal -- but good on him for acknowledging that much.) Still, the notion that consensual, unprotected sex equals rape in Sweden (despite millions of Swedish fathers walking around free today) continues zipping around the Internet. One wonders if today's statement from Swedish authorities, which elaborates that Assange is accused of "using his body weight to hold [a woman] down in a sexual manner" and having intercourse with a sleeping woman, among other things, will even slow them down.

OK, so maybe the charges really are for rape-rape, but still -- the woman has CIA ties! I've read that on at least a dozen blogs! Keith Olbermann tweeted it and everything! That's got to be coming from a highly credible source, right?

Actually, as far as I can tell, the only source for that claim is an August Counterpunch article by Assange fanboys (seriously, they recast him as Neo of "The Matrix") Israel Shamir and Paul Bennett. Here's the most damning evidence Shamir and Bennett have compiled against Assange's accuser:

    1) She's published "anti-Castro diatribes" in a Swedish-language publication that, according to an Oslo professor, Michael Seltzer (who?), is "connected with Union Liberal Cubana led by Carlos Alberto Montaner," who reportedly has CIA ties. Let me repeat that: She has been published in a journal that is connected with a group that is led by a guy with CIA ties. Says this one guy.

    2) "In Cuba she interacted with the feminist anti-Castro group Las damas de blanco (the Ladies in White). This group receives US government funds and the convicted anti-communist terrorist Luis Posada Carriles is a friend and supporter." That link goes to an English translation of a Spanish article noting that at a march last spring, Posada "wander[ed] unleashed and un-vaccinated along Calle Ocho in Miami, marching alongside" -- wait for it -- "Gloria Estefan in support of the so-called Ladies in White." Apparently, it's "an established fact" that Posada and the Ladies also share a shady benefactor, which means he should clearly be called a "friend" of the organization, and this is totally relevant to the rape charges against Julian Assange, because the accuser once interacted with them in some manner.

    3) The accuser is a known feminist who once wrote a blog post about getting revenge on men, and "was involved in Gender Studies in Uppsala University, in charge of gender equality in the Students' Union, a junior inquisitor of sorts."

Are you kidding me? That's what we're basing the "CIA ties" meme on? An article that reads like a screenplay treatment by a college freshman who's terrified of women? Actual quote: "[T]he Matrix plays dirty and lets loose a sex bomb upon our intrepid Neo. When you can't contest the message, you smear the messenger. Sweden is tailor-made for sending a young man into a honey trap."

Look, for all I know, Assange's primary accuser does have CIA ties. Perhaps it was all a setup from the beginning. Perhaps she is lying through her teeth about the rape. Anything is possible. But in the absence of any real evidence one way or another, we're choosing to believe these guys? Or at least this guy at Firedoglake, who says he's "spent much of [his] professional life as a psychiatrist helping women (and men) who are survivors of sexual violence" -- giving his post a shiny veneer of credibility, even though it's a pure regurgitation of Shamir and Bennett's -- but segues from there into an indictment of the accuser's post-rape behavior. She socialized with her attacker again! An expert like him can tell you that real victims never do that.

The fact is, we just don't know anything right now. Assange may be a rapist, or he may not. His accuser may be a spy or a liar or the heir to Valerie Solanas, or she might be a sexual assault victim who now also gets to enjoy having her name dragged through the mud, or all of the above. The charges against Assange may be retaliation for Cablegate or (cough) they may not.

Public evidence, as the Times noted, is scarce. So, it's heartening to see that in the absence of same, my fellow liberal bloggers are so eager to abandon any pretense of healthy skepticism and rush to discredit an alleged rape victim based on some tabloid articles and a feverish post by someone who is perhaps not the most trustworthy source. Well done, friends! What a fantastic show of research, critical thinking and, as always, respect for women.
The most dangerous traps are the ones you set for yourself. - Phillip Marlowe
User avatar
barracuda
 
Posts: 12890
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Niles, California
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: King-Kill 33: Masonic Symbolism in JFK assassination

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Wed Dec 08, 2010 3:18 pm

rush to discredit an alleged rape victim


How is she an "alleged rape victim" if it was consensual sex, though? The language here is so loaded it's absurd.
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10896
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: King-Kill 33: Masonic Symbolism in JFK assassination

Postby barracuda » Wed Dec 08, 2010 3:23 pm

Because, like it or not, the charge brought against Assange by the state of Sweden is rape.
The most dangerous traps are the ones you set for yourself. - Phillip Marlowe
User avatar
barracuda
 
Posts: 12890
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Niles, California
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: King-Kill 33: Masonic Symbolism in JFK assassination

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Wed Dec 08, 2010 3:37 pm

barracuda wrote:Because, like it or not, the charge brought against Assange by the state of Sweden is rape.


I guess this article just confused the fucking shit out of me, then:
http://www.fastcompany.com/1707146/wiki ... s-a-rapist

But few outlets are as concerned as the Times with nuance. Washington's Blog, to its credit, does report that the Swedish arrest warrant--and the following Interpol alert, adding Assange to its "most wanted" list--makes no reference to "rape." Instead Assange is being sought for sexual "coercion," after engaging in what was an allegedly non-consensual sex act with two women on two separate occasions within a short space of time. The act in question was sex without a condom, seemingly without the consent of the two women involved. Assange is also alleged to have been reluctant to submit to medical tests for sexually transmitted diseases. The two women reported him to the police, together, leading to the first arrest warrant for "rape," from a duty prosecutor, which was quickly canceled, then a later warrant for "sexual coercion."

A Google search for "Julian Assange rape" returns over 445,000 responses. See the above wordcloud generated from the top 50. The stand-out word is obvious. And while some of these results include Assange's statements alleging a "dirty tricks" campaign, there are more damning mainstream links, such as a September 1st story from the Associated Press, picked up by the Huffington Post and headlined, "Julian Assange Rape Investigation Reopened: Sweden Probing Wikileaks Founder." The body of the text mentions Sweden's chief prosecutor's comments noting there was "no reason to suspect that Assange, an Australian citizen, had raped a Swedish woman who had reported him to the police," and the AP notes that the new warrant was for "sexual coercion and sexual molestation" which "overruled a previous decision to only investigate the case as 'molestation,' which is not a sex offense under Swedish law." In other words, the AP's text implies no mention of "rape" but the hot eye-grabbing headline does--it's an old libel loophole. The "rape" part technically describes the investigation, not what Assange allegedly did.


Now that every single fucking thread on RI is about Assange, I'm going to take a month off from this place. Peace out.
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10896
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: King-Kill 33: Masonic Symbolism in JFK assassination

Postby MacCruiskeen » Wed Dec 08, 2010 3:42 pm

Kate Harding of Salon.com, quoted by barracuda wrote:As of today, even Naomi Wolf -- Naomi Effin' Wolf! -- has taken a public swipe at Assange's accusers, using her status as a "longtime feminist" to underscore the absurdity of "the alleged victims ... using feminist-inspired rhetoric and law to assuage what appears to be personal injured feelings."


Kate Harding of Salon.com, quoted by barracuda wrote:according to an Oslo professor, Michael Seltzer (who?),


I, in another thread wrote:Naomi Klein twitter on the Assange 'rape' case:

Rape is being used in the Assange prosecution in the same way that women's freedom was used to invade Afghanistan. Wake up!

Naomi Klein

http://twitter.com/NaomiAKlein/statuses ... 3723709440


So that's Naomi Effin' Klein and Naomi Effin' Wolf now. According to Kate (not Effin', god forbid) Harding (who?), both of those women are media-dupes and evidence-averse airheads who care little or nothing for women's rights.

And according to Kate Harding, there is a "rush to smear Assange's rape accuser". No hint of a rush to smear Julian Assange, then, nor even of an integrated international Interpol-plus-media rush to imprison him (and maybe, eventually to deport him to Guantanamo Bay) on the basis of wholly unsubstantiated and highly dubious smears.
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966

TESTDEMIC ➝ "CASE"DEMIC
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: King-Kill 33: Masonic Symbolism in JFK assassination

Postby nathan28 » Wed Dec 08, 2010 4:11 pm

CROSS-POSTING KILLS.
„MAN MUSS BEFUERCHTEN, DASS DAS GANZE IN GOTTES HAND IST"

THE JEERLEADER
User avatar
nathan28
 
Posts: 2957
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 6:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: King-Kill 33: Masonic Symbolism in JFK assassination

Postby barracuda » Wed Dec 08, 2010 4:19 pm

Agreed.

Wombaticus Rex wrote:Now that every single fucking thread on RI is about Assange, I'm going to take a month off from this place. Peace out.


Sorry to hear that.

Mac, let's continue discussion on the Assange rape charges on a new thread, please.
The most dangerous traps are the ones you set for yourself. - Phillip Marlowe
User avatar
barracuda
 
Posts: 12890
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Niles, California
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: King-Kill 33: Masonic Symbolism in JFK assassination

Postby MacCruiskeen » Wed Dec 08, 2010 4:23 pm

Well, I suppose I could have replied to the points raised in this thread in another thread, or maybe in a new and equally pointless thread entitled "FN Naomi 69: Sexual Symbolism in Virtual Blonde Smear Land".

On the other hand, we could avoid confusion entirely by each having our own personal thread. Then none of us would ever have to reply to anyone again, anywhere. It would be totally rad.

I have seen the future and it is solipsist. Pass the condoms.
"Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen, wie ich kotzen möchte." - Max Liebermann,, Berlin, 1933

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman, NYC, 1966

TESTDEMIC ➝ "CASE"DEMIC
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 10558
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: King-Kill 33: Masonic Symbolism in JFK assassination

Postby Stephen Morgan » Thu Dec 09, 2010 2:43 pm

barracuda wrote:Ray's comment in the Craig Murray blog borders on hate speech. Please don't get the idea that referring to women as "sluts" is welcome here.


So I can call Eric Pickles a cunt and no body minds at all, but call some women, being the delicate flowers that they are, a far more accurate and less offensive insult and suddenly it's hate speech. I see that elsewhere you've objected to these same women being called hookers. Relatively reasonable, at least, in that they weren't hookers, while they seem to have been sluts. You don't like the insults, you imply, because they're alleged rape victims, but Bush Sr. was victim of several alleged murder plots by Saddam and friends, can't I call him a cunt now? These women have alleged links to the CIA, they've conspired together and made what seems to be a false rape allegation after a one-night stand, at least one of them has then bragged about it and one of them has written a guide to sexual revenge as a self-proclaimed expert. Not being one to call a spade a metal-tipped digging implement, I'd say they qualify as sluts, on the balance of probability.

Mind you, that's not what I was talking about.
Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that all was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, and make it possible. -- Lawrence of Arabia
User avatar
Stephen Morgan
 
Posts: 3736
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:37 am
Location: England
Blog: View Blog (9)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests