Full of hot air

Posts: 5

I think you guys are way off on your assessment of the JBS.

The John Birch Society describes itself as “a membership-based organization dedicated to restoring and preserving freedom under the United States Constitution.” According to my research this is exactly the case. The insinuations made in the links presented are nothing more than whacked-out finger pointing and make the false presumption that power=complicity with the globalists in feats of geopolitical engineering. You have to remember that this is the height of the Cold War that we're talking about, and I would challenge you to find any conservative politician or political movement in the late 50s/early 60s who wasn't in on the plot AND didn't buy into the Red Scare propaganda. The JBS was apparently little more than conspiracy-conscious attempt at reinstituting Constitutional precedent for government, regardless of how its political views have been twisted, reinterpreted and represented. The same can be said of ANY political organization in the US, except perhaps the Constitutionalist Party. That Paul supports them just goes to show you that they are both of the pre-neo-con school of thought in conservative American politics. Most of us aren't old enough to remember such a time, when the Republicans were the good guys, but that doesn't mean that it didn't exist. McCarthy was demonized and censored, but do you really think that would have happened if he hadn't been pissing off the right people? It wasn't a coincidence that they were mostly Democrats and military leaders--these were left over from the Roosevelt days, or like in the case of Gen. Marshall, very much part of the plot and very active in it, having been promoted through the ranks when the policies were being set in the 20s and 30s. It is a FACT that Marshall personally and singlehandedly destroyed the nation of China on behalf of the American government specifically to set up the Communists. I'm not foolish enough to think that Marxist-Leninism represents Communism, but in the context of the JBS's origins and purpose, especially during the 50s and 60s, Chinese socialism was by far the most tangible product of the Talmudic/Luciferian protocols put into action, at least as the average American would have perceived them.

In a paragraph I wrote for an e-book I wrote about The Secretive Societies I have this to say about them: "The JBS is, in fact, hated and openly ridiculed by conservative and liberal groups alike. Its second chairman Congressman Larry McDonald was even the apparent target of the KAL-007 disaster. It has staunchly opposed the globalization movement since the late 1950s and lobbied for the US to withdraw from the United Nations and free-trade agreements. However, it does not endorse politicians like the other lobby groups and therefore has no power in Congress. Instead it criticizes every politician responsible for the subversion of the United States, beginning with Dwight D. Eisenhower, the 'conscious, dedicated agent of the Communist Conspiracy.'"

Here's what the Political Research Associates say about the JBS, trying to appeal to our supposed notions of how "conspiracy theorists" are insane or whatever: “According to [JBS leader Robert] Welch, both the US and Soviet governments are controlled by the same furtive conspiratorial cabal of internationalists, greedy bankers, and corrupt politicians. If left unexposed, the traitors inside the US government would betray the country’s sovereignty to the United Nations for a collectivist New World Order managed by a ‘one-world socialist government.’ The Birch Society incorporated many themes from pre-WWII rightist groups opposed to the New Deal, and had its base in the business nationalist sector.”

Of course, we all already know that this is all true. So it seems to me that in an information war, discrediting your allies is counterproductive to your ends.

Posts: 8243

Why is it you come across as a Christian White Nationalist also then malakh?

Posts: 5

Because the normal behavioral response for a person who doesn't like something that he hears or reads because it doesn't fit into his preconceived paradigm is to attack the source--to "shoot the messenger" so to speak. Every lawyer knows this. It's called argumentum ad hominem and it is the most prevalent of the logical fallacies present in any form of discourse where one or more sides are hostile to the other. However, such an association is irrational and such an emotion or outburst is childish and only furthers the agenda of the messenger in the mind of a reasonable observer.

I suppose you could say that I'm white, but given your stance on racism I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is not meant to be offensive since it is not something I have ever had any control of. Christian? Ha! That doesn't even merit a response. Nationalist? Try expatriot. (You are apparently assuming that I am an American.)

Since my person or the characteristics thereof seem to be the only things which have solicited a knee-jerk reaction, allow me to enlighten you on that subject. I am what you might call someone who thinks for himself and does his own research in order to find the faults in other people's paradigms because I am concerned with what I take and apply to my own. I also occasionally speak my mind because I believe that other people should have the right to liberate themselves from such polemical ideologies which are counterproductive to their stated aims. Normally I don't interfere because I realize that most of it is BS, but sometimes I find something which is diluted enough that I am inclined to think it's worth preserving because it can tend to be a good medium for someone who wants to understand truth or truths. Is this a problem for you?

You make it sound like I'm a Bircher because I said you're wrong about them. I didn't even know who they were until about 2 years ago. If I have quoted from a book about secretive societies, and you are basing that assumption on what is contained therein, and the JBS only takes up 2 or 3 paragraphs worth of material, then exactly how many secretive societies do you think I belong to?

Don't be absurd. Just be rational.

Posts: 5

There is one other thing that I'd like to address, which is the fact that the association of Rep. Paul with the JBS is seen in the light of public scrutiny as a "concern," and that such criticism is being applied to him due to the bogus media spin which I've already made evident. I am so far removed from American politics that I have no interest whatsoever in any American politician or political viewpoint, and am a little shocked to see so many people talking about Paul or any other politician in the context of globalization, but nevertheless it is here and it is worth looking in to.

For instance, "Why didn’t Mr. Paul stand with any of them? Why didn’t he appear at antiwar demonstrations or stand with other non-politicians who were against the Invasion?"

Might it have anything to do with the fact that he is a Republican and they are all Democrats except for Nader? A more pertinent fact is that he voiced his opinion, regardless of whether or not people were paying attention or whether it got adequate attention (the media is controlled), and told everyone interested in the way he knew best how the war is not being run by the Bush administration but by the people running the Bush administration. And people wonder why wars keep happening! It's pretty simple really, find someone to take the heat. He doesn't even have to be real.

I was in Minnesota during this time period which saw (among other things) the beginnings of anti-war protest and Wellstone's murder, and have been personally acquainted with LaDuke and other Green Party members and Independents like Ventura, and these people have nothing whatsoever in common with Ron Paul. He is a political anomaly. He's not going to go to your protest or your convention just because you are standing up for the same thing you are. The fact is that if you're a politician or a wannabe legislator he doesn't like you because he thinks you're part of the problem. He speaks for himself and wants to keep it that way because he knows exactly how the Illuminati think and how they can so easily undermine someone like him who has so little political power. His voting record attests to this much. He doesn't like the American government, and for all intents and purposes is a Constitutionalist. Could it be that the phrase I am about to quote may have something to do with the fact that HE IS THE ONLY MEMBER OF CONGRESS of whom this can be said?

"Even more troubling are his past comments on racial minorities and his association with the John Birch Society. Paul is the only Congressperson to receive a 100% approval rating from the Birchers. His MySpace page links directly to the John Birch Society."

Let's ignore the fact that we are implicitly grouping the JBS with racial bigotry. Let's ignore the fact that as ridiculous as it is, this is the basis for the criticism which is that Paul's ideology is the same as the Birchers. These lies acknowledged, the fact remains that Paul is trying to tell the world about how the American people have been sold out by international bankers, and so is the JBS, and that this is the reason both for their commonality and association and for their demonization by spin pundits. It's not like Paul is the first member of Congress (nor JBS the only publisher) who has ever tried to warn people about the New World Order. The problem is that Americans don't want to hear it because they would rather believe that all is well in their citadel of "freedom" and "democracy."

See, here's the problem: people. Is the statement: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be" necessarily racist? Yes. Is it true? Yes. Is it derogatory? No, it's a compliment. Is he speaking from personal experience, and making light of the fact that he was robbed when in fact he could be saying that black people are more inclined to rob you for whatever reason? Yes. Then why take offense? Is this the kind of guy you want to represent you, or is it the kind of guy who's going to hold a silent grudge? Is Paul one of the many members of Congress who is responsible for the murders of hundreds of millions of black people (not to mention Asians, Middle Easterners, Serbs, Latin Americans, etc.) around the world? No. So are you definitely barking up the wrong tree when you consider a politician's WORDS instead of his ACTIONS? Absolutely. Will the system ever remedy itself when you get Mr. Right in there? Of course not. Because politics is about manipulating you, the individual, with words, into giving up your alienable rights of sovereignty to someone who intends to abuse it. White, black, Hispanic, whatever...we are all their victims. madthumbs, why would someone such as yourself who knows about the Talmud and how it is applied today care enough about political spin to post this rubbish? If at some point you run for political office because you sincerely want to make the world a better place, how are you going to feel if I say you called me a "Christian White Nationalist" in order to adversely affect your chances? Is it YOU that I am ultimately hurting, or SOCIETY? I don't see Arnold's racist Nazi past being talking about (it's too late to talk about Bush's Nazi past-present-future). Is he not regarded as a serious contender for the presidency, or is it just that he is protected by the media? Does this website represent the media's perspective (or some other controlled paradigm) more than it acknowledges? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for exposing the Zionists behind the common threads of conspiracism in America. But who are you to think you're above the mechanisms of disinformation to such a degree that you can criticize the JBS or any other group which has achieved some measure of respectibility against all odds and without succumbing to antithetical pressures?

Has it occurred to you that if by some miracle the system does manage to correct itself, that it will only ever be made possible by men with good intent, who will be judged as politically incorrect?

Tell the truth. Paul doesn't have a problem with "Jews," he has a problem with racist back-stabbing Khazars who want to rule the world at all cost. He doesn't have a problem with the "stock market," he has a problem with fractional reserve banking and the lack of public redress concerning the Fed, or the fact that America is owned by foreigners. About the only imperative or moral conclusion presented so far that I agree with is "The Ron Paul Express needs much closer and thorough examination before those who champion his antiwar stance jump on-board." Of course, with this kind of critical thinking any reasonable person would realize that the whole system is bunk, and that Paul is the only viable choice for attempting to correct it without violent revolution. You're getting your views from a Democrat, whose only purpose in life it is to contradict a Republican. Here's an idea: let's not be so polemical! Let's ditch the "us or them" mentality and do what's RIGHT. Here's a hint: that doesn't consist of picking someone else to do your responsibilities.

I bet Hegel is laughing in his grave at the prospect of how easy it was.

Posts: 8243

	Quote:
	The insinuations made in the links presented are nothing more than whacked-out finger pointing

After writing:

	Quote:
	Because the normal behavioral response for a person who doesn't like something that he hears or reads because it doesn't fit into his preconceived paradigm is to attack the source--to "shoot the messenger" so to speak.

	Quote:
	However, such an association is irrational and such an emotion or outburst is childish and only furthers the agenda of the messenger in the mind of a reasonable observer.

You said it! - You do realize I was dishing it back to you?

	Quote:
	Christian? Ha! That doesn't even merit a response.

But you gave a worthless one anyway.

	Quote:
	Try expatriot

I'm an ex-infant. -Pretty descriptive huh? Should I write more about what I'm not while avoiding addressing anything pertinent?

	Quote:
	I am what you might call someone who thinks for himself and does his own research in order to find the faults in other people's paradigms because I am concerned with what I take and apply to my own.

I'm sure most people think they think for themselves. Most criminals believe they're good people. Many even think Jesus was good. Why don't you let your words speak for you instead of bragging yourself up?

	Quote:
	You make it sound like I'm a Bircher because I said you're wrong about them.

So Birchers are Christian White Nationalists?

	Quote:
	Don't be absurd. Just be rational.

Like you right? Making no points, using rhetoric, condescension, boasting and expecting us to believe what you say because according to you; it's whacked out finger pointing.

	Quote:
	being applied to him due to the bogus media spin which I've already made evident.

Yes.. using your normal behavioral response of attacking the messenger.

	Quote:
	I am so far removed from American politics that I have no interest whatsoever in any American politician or political viewpoint, and am a little shocked to see so many people talking about Paul or any other politician in the context of globalization, but nevertheless it is here and it is worth looking in to.

Do you ever make sense?

	Quote:
	Might it have anything to do with the fact that he is a Republican and they are all Democrats except for Nader?

What's the difference between Republican and Democrat?

	Quote:
	He's not going to go to your protest or your convention just because you are standing up for the same thing you are.

Did I make a deal about this?

	Quote:
	It's not like Paul is the first member of Congress (nor JBS the only publisher) who has ever tried to warn people about the New World Order.

That fake wrestling group? -Funny! There you go using a Christian buzz term that makes no sense.

	Quote:
	Is he speaking from personal experience, and making light of the fact that he was robbed when in fact he could be saying that black people are more inclined to rob you for whatever reason? Yes.

How many times have you been robbed in this fashion? If you are a white politician, how many times would you expect to be? Would that number give you a good idea of how fleet-footed they can be?

	Quote:
	So are you definitely barking up the wrong tree when you consider a politician's WORDS instead of his ACTIONS?

Yet you sit here spewing rhetoric without showing any examples whatsoever. For instance: you could have shown how the John Birch Society exposed Zionism, how they fight racism, how they denounce Christianity, etc.. instead you're just filling the page with useless text.

	Quote:
	madthumbs, why would someone such as yourself who knows about the Talmud and how it is applied today care enough about political spin to post this rubbish?

Can you actually make a point or do I have to ban you? Who needs to read through a bunch of condescending pointless argument? Call it rubbish? How about showing us how it is? You certainly typed enough words and made enough effort to have if you could have.

	Quote:
	If at some point you run for political office because you sincerely want to make the world a better place, how are you going to feel if I say you called me a "Christian White Nationalist" in order to adversely affect your chances?

You'd be lying wouldn't you? I'd feel like you were the annoying worthless waste of time you're being.

	Quote:
	I don't see Arnold's racist Nazi past being talking about (it's too late to talk about Bush's Nazi past-present-future).

Old news, Arnold isn't qualified. Why not make a point instead of diverting?

	Quote:
	Does this website represent the media's perspective (or some other controlled paradigm) more than it acknowledges?

Should I quote you again on attacking the messenger?

	Quote:
	But who are you to think you're above the mechanisms of disinformation to such a degree that you can criticize the JBS or any other group which has achieved some measure of respectibility against all odds and without succumbing to antithetical pressures?

Uh oh.. the God argument. I get this one from Jesus lovers all the time. Instead of making a point, they'll just invoke authority.

	Quote:
	Paul doesn't have a problem with "Jews," he has a problem with racist back-stabbing Khazars who want to rule the world at all cost.

You've got things backwards. Jew is a racist religion: not a race. It would be ok to have a problem with Jews. Khazars are a race (human), and what you said is racist.

	Quote:
	The Ron Paul Express needs much closer and thorough examination before those who champion his antiwar stance jump on-board.

Then quit wasting your time, and mine on mashing your fingers into the keyboard with your knee jerk reactions.

	Quote:
	Paul is the only viable choice for attempting to correct it without violent revolution.

While people like you ignore vote fraud, and all the other issues that can be changed.

Posts: 5

An expat is defined as:

1. One who has taken up residence in a foreign country.
2. One who has renounced one's native land.

Now it was my understanding, since I have only ever seen you write in English, that this was an acceptable form of dialect between us, mutually agreed upon. If it is not then you have the responsibility of telling me, otherwise I suggest you learn the language you so regularly use to avoid making yourself look like an ass by saying that certain words are non-descriptive when in fact they say an awful lot about a person. Just a personal suggestion though, and I can't promise that it will help you.

"I'm sure most people think they think for themselves. Most criminals believe they're good people. Many even think Jesus was good. Why don't you let your words speak for you instead of bragging yourself up?"

No doubt. Still attacking the person, eh? I had no desire to talk about myself. The only time I remember using the first person pronoun when I was quoting myself which was just handy since I had already done the research. It was you, not me, that wanted to talk about me, clearly because of the relevance of the points I was making and whatever emotional reaction you have to being told that your paradigm is not as airtight as you'd like to believe it is. That's what this is really about, isn't it? Were you to show me that I was wrong about the JBS or anything else, not only would I take it like a man, I'd probably thank you for enlightening me. But that's because I DO think for myself.

"So Birchers are Christian White Nationalists?"

Isn't that the implication? It's certainly what others have said about them, and you have consciously regurgitated their views.

"according to you; it's whacked out finger pointing."

Have you read the content of those links?? Where is the so-called evidence used to back up these spurious claims? Open a sociological dictionary, like Collins, and you'll see why so many people are turned off to the truth because of what they perceive as wild/fringe conspiracy theories because of a few mistakes or errors of judgment, such as your completely unsubstantiated claims regarding the JBS.

"Yes.. using your normal behavioral response of attacking the messenger."

News flash: The media are not a messenger. They are a tool of disinformation put out by people who have no desire for you to come to the knowledge of any truth. You know this already. Why do I have to tell you?

"Do you ever make sense?"

Is this a logical response in your mind? To the senseless, I probably don't. Please realize that I'm not saying or insinuating you're senseless, nor do I believe that you are, so if you take offense it's because YOU think that it applies to you.

"What's the difference between Republican and Democrat?"

Gee, I don't know...one's heads, the other's tails...point is, would you go to a Democratic National Convention looking for Republicans?

"Did I make a deal about this?"

No, but the source you quoted did. You did read it, didn't you?

"There you go using a Christian buzz term that makes no sense."

Actually it makes perfect sense, and the reason it has become a buzz word is that it is familiar to many people, so it should not be a problem if I use it here. I think you know exactly what I mean by it. I mean, I thought everyone knew what an expat was, but I clearly overestimated somebody, whereas if I were to talk about the people running the world government in collective terms I wouldn't even expect the average person to know what the NWO is, much less who or what they represent. It's actually from Alice Bailey and the books published by the Lucis Trust. Would you prefer it if I said "New Order" instead?

"How many times have you been robbed in this fashion?"

Twice. But I'm not rich like Ron Paul. I laughed both times. But I doubt you would see the humor in it...you seem to be a very angry person.

"you could have shown how the John Birch Society exposed Zionism, how they fight racism"

I am not responsible for your education. http://www.jbs.org/ Just trying to encourage you to correct some of your mistakes, since you seem to want to educate other people but haven't taken the time to do your own research, nor do you apparently have the will to do so even with a bit of prodding. Normally I wouldn't even care, but there is enough content on this website that is quality material that it is not entirely useless. Right now the JBS is trying to create awareness of the North American Union and the SPP (not that anyone will listen or do anything to prevent the continual economic decline of the US), but beyond that I don't know much about their specific issues, nor do I care. I told you a little bit about the JBS's picking up the torch of McCarthyism and you seemed to have ignored it, as you have with the rest of the info. I say this because you called it "useless text."

"How about showing us how it is?"

Didn't I? Shall I use MORE words, and talk to you like you are not an intelligent, fully grown adult? I've already been accused of being condscending.

"Can you actually make a point or do I have to ban you?"

Yes, there you go! Censor me! That will certainly add to your credibility. And why do you have the urge to censor me? Because I told you the truth, and it conflicts with your world view. Here's something for you to consider before you make the final decision:

http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_about/prohibition

"You'd be lying wouldn't you?"

And this is not done to stain the reputations of politicians? Come on...You're the one promoting such nonsense, not me. I called it rubbish because that's what it is. It would be rubbish if I posted it too, but I happen to have higher standards for the things that come out of my mouth or off my fingertips.

"Old news, Arnold isn't qualified. Why not make a point instead of diverting?"

Laws change to conform to the whims of the powers that be. If Arnold is selected, Arnold will be elected. The point is that there are bigger fish to fry, and you've gone after the wrong guy. I'm not concerned about whether you should be attacking him, and certainly a politician should be scrutinized, but how can you justify attacking THE ONLY GUY who is trying to fix the problems which you have presented on this website from within the US legislature? That's all I want to know!

"Should I quote you again on attacking the messenger?"

It's not an attack, and especially not an ad hominem attack, a la "annoying worthless waste of time." It is a valid question, wherein I am asking you if you think you are above the stain of disinformation, and if not then you would be attacking the media source which is.

"Uh oh.. the God argument. I get this one from Jesus lovers all the time."

What are you talking about? I'm sure you do get it, and so do I, but what are you talking about? Where have I talked about God or Jesus or anything which could reasonably misconstrued as religious?

"what you said is racist."

Khazars aren't a race. It's a tribal identification. Not arguing that Jews comprise a religious preference, but they are more of a race than Khazars, since the word implies "Judaean," even though it's been falsely applied. A race, unlike a tribe, can create itself out of thin air. You, sir, are an American, and of the American racial identity, even though you presumably have many ethnic traits. Thus the Jewish identity is as valid as a racial identity (though not as a tribal identity) as any other. There were no "Germans" until there was a Germany, but there were Saxons and Marcomanii, etc. At some point the Saxons and the Bavarians, etc., all got together and said "Now we are Germans." If you think that they are ethnically any different from the people living in England or Denmark or the US, you are wrong and you know virtually nothing about history. So from now on I'll assume that's not the case until I see you say it again. What I personally think you would be better off doing is making a clear distinction between modern Jews and Israelis of antiquity and dropping the anti-everything bias, whether it is anti-JBS or anti-religion or whatever, if only temporarily. This will at least give you a window of time to try to understand things from other people's perspectives. It's a much gentler and more rewarding way of pursuing enlightenment.

"Then quit wasting your time, and mine on mashing your fingers into the keyboard"

Your perspective is also included in that statement, whether you realize it or not. Unless, of course, you feel that your voice is not worth being heard, or you are pro-war...

"While people like you ignore vote fraud"

I'm not sure why you think you even so much as know people like me, much less why you think I ignore vote fraud, but if I ignore it I only do so because I ignore the vote itself and take the fraud for granted, since it is necessary if the ballots don't match the predetermined selection. You should too, unless you like having false hopes that the American political machine is salvageable. That's really all that can be changed...this ridiculous idea which so many Americans cling to. The real fraud is not that votes are switched or counted wrong; it's the fact that people are presented with a fraudulent illusion of choice. There is only one country on the whole planet which passes laws through referendum. A wise man once said that man is sovereign over institutions, not they over him. When people figure that out, their problems will vanish.

Posts: 5

JBS publishes The New American, which is a politically (ultra) conservative, as in libertarian magazine. It's pretty much the most active, successful and down-to-earth news source regarding the actual American political climate, as opposed to what is perceived by the sheeple. Their main focus is on defeating US acts legislation which are undermining America's autonomy and criticizing the media for neglecting to report it. In the older days they talked about "collectivism," and still do, but with the demise of Soviet socialism the definition has been broadened to include neo-liberalism. Unfortunately the website's links all go back to the homepage but if you go there http://www.thenewamerican.com/ and do an on-site search for "Ron Paul" you'll get about 100 returns. Some are interviews, some direct contributions, others third person commentary.

Unlike the stance promoted on this website, which by Paul's definition is racist (and I fully agree, though not for obvious reasons), he actually describes himself as abhorring racism, and uses the JBS collectivist language:

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul, retrieved from his website

In other words, by saying "I am this or that" instead of just "I am" or "we are" you are casting your fealty to some ideology in order to be manipulated into doing something which is destructive toward another group. In logic this is called the law of identity, and it is EXACTLY how the men at the top pulling the strings get the rest of us to fight each other. What he's talking about is called Hegelianism. It is the status quo of all modern political science theory. Anyone familiar with Antony C. Sutton should also know about it.

The article (Texas Monthly, 2001) was an interview in which he responded to those allegations of racism. He also says this:

"They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them...I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they [campaign aides] said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'"

God forbid America ever elects a man to the presidency who holds himself accountable for his mistakes, even if they are trivial oversights. That any sane individual could criticize this organization without knowing what it is about just proves it, and is tantamount to saying "let America destroy itself," which I'm not necessarily opposed to, having seen nothing but group identification and hate-mongering spewing from every channel of information including this one...but I would hate to see it come to that if it doesn't need to.

Posts: 8243

	Quote:
	Yes, there you go! Censor me! That will certainly add to your credibility. And why do you have the urge to censor me? Because I told you the truth, and it conflicts with your world view. Here's something for you to consider before you make the final decision:

To idiots like you: removing graffiti from my property is censorship and ruins my credibility. If you told the truth, you did it in long winded rants without backing up anything you said even after I gave you the chance and urged you to validate your statements.

I don't claim to not censor here, and Ron Paul's paper doesn't offer you near the voice I just did. Go call him a discredited censorer! ATM I'm in control of this site, and I don't want your nonsense on it.