The Sorrows Of Empire by Chalmers Johnson by chrisisall

I haven't read the book, what's it about?

Empires are notoriously bad. It's just an extra big govt. on top of big govt, which exists for no other purpose be to keep growing. The US has always been an empire, it's composed of little or rather normal sized, countries called states.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 22, 2006 5:14 AM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

I think my mother is reading that. I believe it is one of the things that brought on the latest ventathon in the political observation world of FMF.

My mom could run a country. Shoot - she SHOULD run this one.

We would be WAY better off!

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

one of the Forsaken TM

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 22, 2006 5:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I haven't read the book, what's it about?

The dish on the Military Industrial Complex, PNAC, the Empire of the United States, and the history of the direction of this country's government since the Gulf War.

Lite reading.

It's heavy Martyisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 22, 2006 9:10 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

No, but I read Blowback (same author) and Confession of an Economic Hit Man by John perkins, who writes

Quote:
The book was to be dedicated to the presidents of two countries, men who had been his clients whom I respected and thought of as kindred spirits - Jaime Roldós, president of Ecuador, and Omar Torrijos, president of Panama. Both had just died in fiery crashes. Their deaths were not accidental. They were assassinated because they opposed that fraternity of corporate, government, and banking heads whose goal is global empire. We Economic Hit Men failed to bring Roldós and Torrijos around, and the other type of hit men, the CIA-sanctioned jackals who were always right behind us, stepped in.

Perkins also writes about his role in Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. If you can get around the self-aggrandizement you'll find a lot of specific details about our economic enmeshment with debtor nations.

I also highly- and I mean HIGHLY- recommend Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed by Jared Diamond. If you read nothing else, read the chapter on Easter Islanders. Their island no more than 9 miles across- it's day to day condition fully visible to everyone who lived there- and yet they managed to pillage it from a island full of large trees and deep soil to one in where mulching with stones became a necessity and the tallest plant extant was a 3 foot weed. They reduced themselves to a nightmare of barbarism and cannibalism. It drove the point home that entire societies can flush themsleves through sheer stupidity. That book destroyed my faith that people bumbling around will eventually find a path to wisdom.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 22, 2006 9:36 AM

Quote:
The dish on the Military Industrial Complex, PNAC, the Empire of the United States, and the history of the direction of this country's government since the Gulf War.

Ah, or as my mother put it, the protocol of the ninnies of zion. (not an anti-semitic remark, and anti-wolfowitz-perle-remark)

The neocon agenda has been pretty well spelled out, and I think they'd stop at nothing. The upside is that they are so incompetent and pseudo-intellectual that they will fail without any intervention from us. The downside is that they will cause a lot of damage in the process. Best to at the very least get out of the way. Anyway, I'll check out the book. Know thine enemy, and yeah, I hope everyone is on that page, these guys are the enemy, not just a misguided group of folks (that would be al qaeda). At least, that's what my congressman, senior republican representative Sherwood Bohlert said (too bad he's retiring.)

I think the neocons don't realize that they have just about no one fooled. I suspect they're arrogant enough to not care. And for all you on the left, I give you this very clear heads up:

The neocons are making the shift to the democratic party. They know enough to know that they've worn out their welcome on the right. They'll be the ones saying all of, er., some of, the right things, er., the left things, against this admin. without attacking key parts of the agenda. If someone on the left up and says 'the war on terror is a sham' or 'the patriot act is evil' you'll know they're not on the team. If they say 'we need more troops in Iraq,' or 'the problem with Bush is he's too right-wing' they just might be. And I think I've tossed this out a few times, Hillary, Lieberman, Nelson, DiFi, and I'm suspecting Harry Reid, probably a couple others, but they know Bush is a throw away, and are building ranks on the left and are prepared to lead you down the garden path. Learn from our mistakes: don't fall for it.

Thanks for the tip on the book.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 22, 2006 9:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

The neocons are making the shift to the democratic party. They know enough to know that they've worn out their welcome on the right.

All too true, and I suspect many won't see it coming, even with warning.
So many in the U.S. stay fooled and in comfortable submission (See: Hero and AURaptor for example).

I fear our only hope is the psudo-neo-cons continual pressing for war, the body count will shut them down eventually, sad to say...

"We are defined by our enemies" is crap. We define ourselves with our own actions. How much longer will it take until peeps absorb this?

"For God Damn ever, bitch! That's how long! That's how long!" Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 22, 2006 10:12 AM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Quote:
The dish on the Military Industrial Complex, PNAC, the Empire of the United States, and the history of the direction of this country's government since the Gulf War.

Ah, or as my mother put it, the protocol of the ninnies of zion. (not an anti-semitic remark, and anti-wolfowitz-perle-remark)

The neocon agenda...

*ahem* ...getting out my favorite soapbox...

If the US is acting imperially (and not having read the book, I'm not commenting one way or the other) and if it has been doing so at least since the Gulf War I (at least, I assume that that's the "Gulf War" Chris referred to above), then America's imperialist ambitions are more deeply seated than the current neo-con government. Truth to tell, Bush and Co. are certainly responsible for contributing to the situation (given that they were in the halls of power when the opportunity for a war rolled around), but they haven't done it single-handedly. I'm of the opinion that our entire political system is broken in some way (electoral college, campaign finance, racial issues, the two-party system--take your pick). It's not that Republicans are pure evil and the country would be steaming nicely twoard Utopia if only Gore had gone to the White House. It's that there's something wrong at a systemic level. Can anyone tell me if this book addresses that? Because I'm far more interested in critical analysis than in a partisan rant.

************************************************************************
Edited to add: don't misunderstand--I'm not downplaying the responsibility of Bush and Co. bear in making some radical advances in the cause of American empire. What I am saying is that they do not bear responsibility alone.

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 22, 2006 10:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
It's that there's something wrong at a systemic level. Can anyone tell me if this book addresses that? Because I'm far more interested in critical analysis than in a partisan rant.

It goes into a history of Empires, and Imperialism and all that led up to this point, it just does it's heavyest hitting in the Post-Gulf War ballpark.

Ah...Rome Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 22, 2006 10:38 AM

CAUSAL

Good to know. Was I correct in assuming Gulf War I (1991, Bush Sr. era)?

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 22, 2006 1:17 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I haven't read that book, but Blowback makes somewhat the same case. American imperialism dates waaaay back. I dunno, how far back to do want to go? Manifest Destiny (1840s) in which we acquired the Oregon Territory, the Texas Annexation, and the Mexican Cession (Mexican War 1847)? The Spanish American War in which we acquired Cuba, Guam, the Phillipines, and Puerto Rico (1898)? The establishment of banana republics (Jamaica, Columbia, Santa Domingo, Guatemala, Panama, and Nicaragua) throughout South and Central America?

Yes there is something systemically wrong, but not ALL nations become imperial.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 22, 2006 2:34 PM

Quote:
All too true, and I suspect many won't see it coming, even with warning.
So many in the U.S. stay fooled and in comfortable submission (See: Hero and AURaptor for example).

I suspect AUraptor is waking up to the reality, I don't imagine Hero will.

Quote:
I fear our only hope is the pseudo-neo-cons continual pressing for war, the body count will shut them down eventually, sad to say...

I don't think so. I think that as long as our press lies about numbers for them, it won't be an issue. I heard a lot of under the table data on Katrina, and I know we way underestimated the casualties there, mostly by not including the homeless because they had no registered address. Lebanon is being under-rated, as is the toll in Iraq (we have numbers of confirmed KIAs with identified bodies, that's much less than US soldiers killed, and doesn't include allied Iraqi soldier deaths.)

Overall, I suspect what will hurt them is they are their own worst enemy. These guys are neither brilliant nor masterful, in fact their above avg. know it alls who think they're brilliant, and only borderline competent. Their only real skills are in defeating a discreet system and covering their own tracks. This is very typical of a particular type of person.

Quote:
"We are defined by our enemies" is crap. We define ourselves with our own actions. How much longer will it take until peeps absorb this?

People are stupid, and getting stupider.

Quote:
"For God Damn ever, bitch! That's how long! That's how long!" Chrisisall

Yeah, I think that's the one.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 22, 2006 2:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Anyone here read it? I just skimmed it (My FIL brought a copy over w/him) and BOY does it seem like something we should all take a good look at....

Especially 'some of us' Chrisisall

No. But I understand it is a story of American "imperialism" and the International Jew. It's probably right up most of your allies, actually. I think I’m going to wait for the next Terry Brooks novel.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 22, 2006 2:58 PM

Casual

Quote:
*ahem* ...getting out my favorite soapbox...

HmmHmm!

Quote:
If the US is acting imperially (and not having read the book, I'm not commenting one way or the other) and if it has been doing so at least since the Gulf War I (at least, I assume that that's the "Gulf War" Chris referred to above), then America's imperialist ambitions are more deeply seated than the current neo-con government.

Not necessarily so. The neocon revolution was Watergate, and neocons have been building a base in washington ever since. It was Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld in the Bush 41 admin. who is alleged to have created the situation by misleading Saddam into thinking that the US would not respond to an invasion of Kuwait. It was Cheney having a huge fight with 41 about invading Iraq. Dick said, 'you've got half a million men on the border, just give the order' or something like that. And 41 said "no way, the world would hate us if we become the aggressor." It was Dick Cheney and co. who supported Clinton in the '92 democratic campaign, and in exchange got Halliburton and Halliburton got the job of the old Quartermaster's Corps, under Clinton's military restructuring.

So, Bush and co has to at least include Cheney, and by extension Clinton.

But I was actually suggesting the US was an empire of states, and not a coalition of them, and has been since the constitution replaced the articles of confederation in 1789, which, imho, was a mistake (and a conspiracy of the federalists, who themselves were almost as much of an isolated think tank as these guys)

Quote:
Truth to tell, Bush and Co. are certainly responsible for contributing to the situation (given that they were in the halls of power when the opportunity for a war rolled around), but they haven't done it single-handedly.

Depends how large the company is.

Quote:
I'm of the opinion that our entire political system is broken in some way (electoral college, campaign finance, racial issues, the two-party system--take your pick).

Here you are spot on. It's been broken for a while. I think it ran aground in 1960 when Kennedy was allowed to steal the election from Dick Nixon, and it's been a cheat and steal govt. in part ever since. But our democracy, if it is a democracy (technically I believe in ancient greece a democracy was where elected officials argued for the peoples positions, which were decided by referendum, and the system where the elected officials choose the positions as we have was called oligarchy.)

Quote:
It's not that Republicans are pure evil and the country would be steaming nicely twoard Utopia if only Gore had gone to the White House. It's that there's something wrong at a systemic level. Can anyone tell me if this book addresses that? Because I'm far more interested in critical analysis than in a partisan rant.

Certainly not. I'm not saying republicans are pure evil for obvious reasons. Democrats I'm not so sure about, but I'll drop that for the moment. But Gore had Lieberman as a VP, possibly the most hawkish zionist on the hill. It's hard to credit that we wouldn't be in the same mess we are today (outside of the global warming issue, and possibly spending.)

My own analysis leads me to believe that govts. have a limited lifespan, of about a human lifespan.

A look at Athenian democracy which lasted 77 years before the war, at which point the system had essentially droven over the edge and was no longer functioning. This is roughly the same as Spartan communism, (depends where you measure, but the system was fully established by 450bc, and began to crumple in 371, so 79 years) or Soviet communism, 72 years. It's also similar to the span of the United States from the signing of the constitution until the civil war is 72 years.
If there's a theory here, it's that a system of govt. has about the same lifespan as a person, which is probably no accident. It would make sense that as long as the youngers of the crowd who set it up were still around to be elders, that the system would function. While it seems like some societies persist, such as the UK, I think that there were a lot of periods of non-fuctionality, and some reinventions. So adding this to my previous statement that democracy works well for about 35 years from the installation, which would by logical from the lifespans of the principle founders. You lose the founders, and the youngers keep the society running, but not as well as the founders do, hence jackson, wilson, steer the country more astray, but don't collapse the system.

So, if you count this govt from it's real start with reconstruction in 1877, its lease on life expired in 1956 or so, or with Eisenhower's re-election. Every election after that has more or less either be questioned or has had extenuating circumstances which just happen to come up. I guess the logical conclusion is that the US hasn't been a functional democracy for some time.

I think america's political system is headed over the falls in a barrell at the moment, and something new needs to be constructed, but I'm appalled by what the neocons et al have created.

Actually, neocons are just a subset of a larger group. By themselves, it's not a logical distinction. The word was first coined by socialist Mike Harrington, who was using it to refer to 'socialists who support the conservative movement.' The socialists in question specifically were irving kristol, max shachtman, paul wolfowitz and richard perle, and some other names which keep coming up.

But that is an important distinction "They *support* the conservative movement" that doesn't mean that "they *are* conservatives." Rather they are still ideologically socialist, which when you scrutinize the policies, makes more sense. They don't go creating the welfare state because they support conservatives, who would privatize things, etc., but they do make spending and regulatory choices which are geared towards monopolies and state-corporate ties and big govt., strong hand with a top down structure.

The left counterpart was called the social democats, I've ranted about all of this before, but there are a lot of these guys coming out of the woodwork now as the more background socialist figures are supporting a switch to Hillary '08. That last part may be conspiracy theory, but I'm pretty sure it's accurate. The rest is just history. It's not a speculation that neocon is a form of socialist, it's american political history. I think irving kristol said something like 'a necon is a leftist who was mugged by reality, a social dem is a neocon who didn't press charges' But the reality wasn't that conservative ideology was "correct" but that it had a broader base of "support" within the US. Hence, a social dem like Scoop Jackson had no chance of actually getting elected.

Later, they would fix that with Bill Clinton by ensuring a three way split. It doesn't have to be true that "clinton created perot" or even that he just had to make sure that lots of money and people with expertise joined perot's organziation. A three way split would happen naturally in american politics if there were a set of stops preventing it. Clinton just pulled out the stops.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 22, 2006 3:10 PM

CAUSAL

DT, you must read Twilight of American Culture by Morris Berman. Berman argues that America is on the verge of cultural collapse, and though he does not argue from the causes, his analysis of the trends of cultural collapse (increasing gap between rich and poor, loss of true education and all that that entails, dwindling return on institutional solutions to problems, and what he calls "the emptying out of culture" into kitsch) are spot-on, and quite chilling. He predicts cultural death to be replaced by a consumerist/corporate oligarchy (the beginnings of which can be detected in businesses like Wal-Mart). Fantastic read.

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 22, 2006 3:56 PM

Finn,

Unless you have a specific allegation against chalmers as an anti-semite, which I think is a stretch, can the coutner-PC. The 'everyone who disagrees with me is a racist' got real old a long time ago when the left was doing it. I recognize the same B^!!$#!+ when Bush and co. pull is. I already debunked the idea that neocon=jew and I would be happy to do it again.

Casual,

Thanks for the tip. I actually have Bork's Slouching Towards Gomorrah stacked up by my bed as a next read. It's a Clinton era ultra-right look at the decline. If anyone has read it and wants to recommend or dis-recommend, go ahead. I find it time to fit all these in. I wish books were like pages, get everyone's basic take, click for more details.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 22, 2006 4:06 PM

ANTIMASON

DT- we believe essentially the same things regarding our establishment; you may actually know more then me since i havent focused on it as intently as in i used to...i just took it and ran from there. but heres what i want to know from you: im sure you know that the Illumaniti was established in 1776; what is your take on these secretive, satanic organisations and their influence in America(seeing as how freemasonry can be proven to be Luciferian), since so many prominant elitists are affiliated with them? and what in your opinion is the goal of the Federalists(agenda)?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, August 22, 2006 5:06 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
But I understand it is a story of American "imperialism" and the International Jew.

Poor Finn. He just can't stop racial profiling no matter what. It's a reflex!

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 5:56 AM

Quote:
Orignally posted by antimason:

DT- we believe essentially the same things regarding our establishment; you may actually know more then me since i havent focused on it as intently as in i used to...i just took it and ran from there. but heres what i want to know from you: im sure you know that the Illumaniti was established in 1776; what is your take on these secretive, satanic organisations and their influence in America(seeing as how freemasonry can be proven to be Luciferian), since so many prominant elitists are affiliated with them? and what in your opinion is the goal of the Federalists(agenda)?

antimason,

Actually, it's a little more complicated than that. The Illuminati is circa 1400 or so, about 200 years after the Masons began (they don't date back to Solomon, that's a myth, they were founded in 13th c. florence i believe.) The Illuminati was founded by masonic orders knights templars, etc. to organize to destroy the catholic churches iron grip on power over europe. It's a matter of perspective. If you look at life in the middle ages, the king was increasingly subserviant to the bishops, who answered to rome. The idea that the masons were anti-christian comes from the RCC, but it wasn't necessarily so. Some masons were undoubtedly pagans, but many were devout christians who opposed Rome. Roman Catholicism itself is historically, no offense to anyone, a corruption. Rome had a vested interest in hijacking christianity as a means of controlling their own population. So the govt. of rome took over the roman orthodox, through conversion, and then outlawed all others, and the church-state union was born.

The Illuminati, or enlightened, were quite strong at one point. They believed firmly in a seperation of church and state, and were widely persecuted for it by the inquisition. (The roman inquisition, not the spanish inquisition, who persecuted ethnic groups) The conflict ended with the reformation, (the christian illuminati faction) and the renaissance (the pagan illuminati faction).

By 1776, this was all old hat, and the first nation of the separation of church and state, being US, was already a reality. Adam Weishaupt is far more of a footnote to history that the conspiracists give him credit for. His organization, the Bavarian Illuminati, was formed that same year, and disbanded a few years later when the baron arrested all of its members including Weishaupt. (c. 1780 something)

In 1832, William Henry Russell, who was an opium smuggler with ports in Istanbul and near Saigon, was studying in a german university under a professor who had a fondness for Weishaupts idea. Russell picked up the notion, and came here to create a new illuminati which he called Phi Beta Kappa. There were many spin off organizations we call frats, and sororities. He realized that Phi Beta Kappa was nowhere near secret enough (nor was weishaupts organizaion, hence the arrests) so he created skull and bones. For quite some time, S+B was engaged in drug trafficking, but they have since moved on (or expanded) into education, pharmaceuticals and media. Time Warner, minus the Warner, and CBS/Viacom, both parts, were created in S+B secret meetings.

Secret societies have been a european tradition for thousands of years. This is hardly a new thing. The historical precedents for Merlin, etc. were known to have secret societies. open society is actually not our tradition. The Masons are far from satanic, even the KKK, in its various incarnations, is not satanic. Satanic is almost an absurd identifier.

The Masons are more or less a dead organization. If you travel the country you see vacant halls everywhere. It's experienced a decline and fall lately. This happens to secret organizations when they become not secret. S+B is undoubtedly as good as dead now. I think I've said much of this before.

I'm not sure which Federalist agenda you mean, the old one or the new one. The new one is essentially socialist/trotsky communist, and essentially wants to rule the world. The old one wanted to be king of america essentially. I usually just call the new federalists the NWO, but I'm sure I've detailed the whole idea in earlier posts. A lot of people think this is conspiracy theory stuff, but it's not at all. The federalists, NWO et al, have an uncanny habit of publishing volumes about what they're going to do long before they do it. It's hardly even in keeping with the whole secret society thing. PNAC had all of their ideas about pro-US imperialist expansion before 9-11 up on their web page, and as a daily visitor I read a lot of that stuff, it was somewhat scary, and they had their names on their, more names then there are now. There was nothing secret about this society. Back in the '70s they were publishing this stuff, great socialist revolution, new world order. And all those guys who wrote that stuff are now in office.

I think one of the places where these people went wrong is Israel. (hold the anti-semitism) Virtually all of these guys have been essentially new-isrealites, even if they're not jewish, they've been swallowed by the idea. The Nazis were known for believing, as they still do, that they are the true descendents of the children of Israel, and that the jews were the canaanites, all based on some misleading archaeology, whether malicious or not. The jewish Israelites of today believe that they are the children of Israel, and that the arabs are the canaanites. I strongly suspect this is also fallacious. Most of the jews of today are actually italians. They are decended from people who converted to judaism in order to conduct business after the catholic church outlawed moneyhandling by christians. No diasporrah in history is complete, and many are pretty weak. The primary descendants of the ancient israelites, if anyone actually cared, are still there, they are the palestinians. The Canaanites were actually of somalian descent, and part of a great yemeni empire of the time. Many still live in the region, though most of the black population is west african and was imported as slaves in the 18th and 19th centuries. Early americans, btw, believed that *they* were the true children of israel and the blacks (or occassionally the indians) were the children of Cain and that America was the promised land.

Of course, the main main place where these people, NWO, go wrong is in subscribing to the idea of a rigid top down structure and world govt., ideas that they got from trotsky by way of max shachtman. Ie. Communism.

The crossover with the illumanity is really misleading. Secret society one way to affect radical change in a well regulated society, but really the illuminati were much more like our founding fathers then they were like the neocons. This is more or less exactly the sort of people the founding fathers were, and they knew it, hence the separation of church and state. It's also been an issue for hundred of years that non-christians have often been the allies of non-traditional chrisitans in this matter. If you were not anglican, than it hardly mattered whether you were christian, bhuddist, or a follower of Kaliak, as far as either side was concerned. You wanted the established tyrannical church gone, and it wanted you gone.

The idea that people other than rebelious teenagers worship satan is pure christian fantasy. If anyone actually did, it would be a non-event. Seten for example, was an egyptian god. If people worship him (i doubt it) then it wouldn't be particularly significant. A unified satanic entity is actually a complete fabrication of the assemblers of the bible. They wanted to make all the various enemies into one being, an arch-nemesis, so they did a lot of creative fudging (he has many names) etc. Really these were all various non-yhwh deities, with little or no relation to one another. A lot of so called 'satanic' symbols were actually hindu religious icons, showing a historical clash between hindus and jews/christians. But this idea of a universal boogieman exists only in the heads of christians, to keep them fighting against absolutely everything else that was not them. I strongly suspect, btw, that jesus himself was a zoroastrian for what it's worth. People in different parts of the world come up with different theologies. There's nothing more to it then that. It's not the world against christians.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 7:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

No. But I understand it is a story of American "imperialism" and the International Jew. It's probably right up most of your allies, actually.

International WHO?
That is not a componant of this book, I believe.
Are you denying the imperialist nature of the U.S. as patterned after the British Empire, which was patterned after the Roman Empire, which was patterned after....etc.?

The Chrisisall Strikes Back

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 7:19 AM

Chris,

It's a flame war waiting to happen, like a pirate news moment. I simply said the first time something to the affect that jews are minority of neocons, actually jews are a minority of pnac, the most jewish neocon organization out there, and there is only one jew in the bush cabinet, the world's most powerful neocon organization, and that jew is michael chertoff, who holds the bottom spot in the cabinet, according to the line of succession. By distribution of executive power, neocons are more black then they are jewish. (think about the absurdity of the black neocon agenda? Actually, neocons are very pan-africanist, and strongly support mandela, and his followers, and many of them worked with MLK. But anyone can look at Katrina and see how pro-black the agenda is. I hope that sarcasm came through)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 7:26 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
It was Cheney having a huge fight with 41 about invading Iraq. Dick said, 'you've got half a million men on the border, just give the order' or something like that. And 41 said "no way, the world would hate us if we become the aggressor." It was Dick Cheney and co. who supported Clinton in the '92 democratic campaign, and in exchange got Halliburton and Halliburton got the job of the old Quartermaster's Corps, under Clinton's military restructuring.

DT- I'm with you on most of this, but when you say It was Dick Cheney and co. who supported Clinton in the '92 democratic campaign you lose me. I haven't seen any evidence that this was the case. Do you have something to back that up?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 8:12 AM

ERIC

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Can anyone tell me if this book addresses that? Because I'm far more interested in critical analysis than in a partisan rant.

Have you seen the documentary 'Why We Fight' by Eugene Jarecki? It's all about Eisenhower's M-I-C and how it relates to today's situation, etc. Also fair and balanced in dishing out the blame.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 9:08 AM

Signym,

I can dig some up. The short of it is that Cheney's big Halliburton deals with Clinton, and Clinton's big Iraq campaign, and the way they worked together in Kosovo, the very clear break there was between Bush 41 and Cheney after the gulf war, the whole Texas tie in with the Perot campaign for me all adds together and spells "Duh."

But I'm sure there's people out there who've done more research. This whole Bush is Clinton conspiracy is not really that far out there, there were a lot of people working in cooperation here.

Here's my first starting point, when I threw out the possibility that Clinton was "A good guy" which was I think around december of 1991 or whenever, when he entered the race. The media clearly loved him, and was willing to completely overlook fatal flaws. Time opened with a cover shot and the words "Next President of the United States." That was a pretty round endorsement for a guy who was nowhere in the polls, was under investigation in his own state for criminal activity and mismanagement of govt., and was a known philanderer. But the media loved him. It was willing to love him to the point that it was willing to hate every other democratic candidate.

I think it was somewhere shortly after here that I gave up completely on democrats. I had already been impressed by Bush 41 as not being nearly as bad as my liberal friends promised he would be (nor was reagan) And Clinton started out terrible. Waco, the Iraq stuff, more sleaze, and weird financial deals, some totally anti-American were all underway and out in the open I think within the first year.

Why does this smell like Cheney to me? I mean, I can tell you right now, no, I'm probably not going to dig up the smoking gun on this one. but here's some thoughts:

Cheney goes to Yale, gets in close with some of the skull and bones crowd, ie. Time Magazine and co., who are more liberal than conservative and even though they have their guy Bush in the whitehouse, they're wiling to feed us Clinton. Someone is shaking things up.

Who is Bill Clinton? His wife is a former watergate prosecutor, and both of them had some dealings in the 70s with a group called the social democrats, of which many of cheney's associates were members. Cheney himself prefered to remain a 'non-partisan' civil servant. But Wolfowitz and Perle, his closest advisors, were charter members.

The whole thing strikes me as a set-up. A coup.

The problem is, virtually everyone was taken in at some point, and voted for either Bush or Clinton, which makes it hard for them to say "hey, I was duped." But the reality is, a close examination of Clinton policy shows that it is virtually identical to Bush policy. And Bush 43 policy is not Bush policy because Bush 43 is an idiot. It's Cheney policy. One man has been president, Cheney, and one woman VP, Hillary, for 16 years. Bill Clinton spent his presidency chasing tail, and Bush 43 spends his snorting coke.

Warrantless wiretapping outside the law. Check.
Daily bombing of Iraq. Check.
Multiple wars for oil. Check.
Unchecked support for communist China. Check.
Support for monopolistic mergers. Check.
Unchecked support for Israeli aggression. Check.
Support for NAFTA, WTO and the whole NWO. Check.
Eco-cidal environmental policy. Check.
Secret drug deals. Check.
Support for Pharmagod. Check.
Corporate welfare and corruption. Check.
Stole over two trillion dollars from the people. Check.

And the list goes on.
I'ts not that all govt. is corrupt, or that everyone has supported these things, or that they're very similar administrations.

It's the identical corrupt govt.

No and ifs or buts. I recognize the beast, it's the exact same thing.

People think "Oh in 1995 Clinton made a new FISA law."

No, he didn't. It never happened. In 1994, Clinton broke the law repeatedly with unchecked wiretapping of Americans. in 1995, because Clinton got caught, a group of democrats got together and made a catch-up law to make what Clinton was already doing legal, if he later supplied the names. This is exactly what republicans just tried to do for Bush, which got democrats upset.

The only slight difference is that the media loved Clinton and is a little less loving of Bush, because the media is liberal, and even if it's owned by Bush/Clinton/Cheney's friends, they can't just say "hey, we're the same admin, tell all; your writers, and oh yeah, we don't want this getting out."

So, this is my conspiracy theory, sure. But do you have a better explanation of why Bill Clinton, a hopeless corruptogram with friends in common with Cheney should suddenly shoot through the ranks to victory after Cheney had a big fight with Bush 41 over Bush 41 refused to invade Iraq and then Clinton becomes president and suddenly does everything Cheney has been writing about for years that he wants done, and seems to worship Cheney and throw billions of dollars at him?

Here's another note from Larry Craig, a senator from Idaho:

Clinton used the US peacekeeping contingent to funnel arms to muslim fighters to sieze a strip of land needed to get a Halliburton pipeline to the sea. 100,000 more people (in addition to the million plus dead already from the war) are estimated to have died as a result.

Great guy.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 9:23 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I'll need to look this over in detial, but thanks for getting back to me.

Couple of things right offhand-

First of all, I've noticed that while Cheney is behind a lot of things his fingerprints are hard to detect. Picking thru the PNAC website and doing a little background on the neocons and so forth, their affiliations with JINSA, the Carlyle Group and each other are out in the open... until you get to Cheney, whose "background" affiliations are a little harder to track. So I'm open to the idea of Cheney being the puppet-master, but I doubt he's the only driving force.

And I'm happy to say I didn't vote for either Bush OR Clinton (whew! wipes brow!) so I have no personal stake in either one.

But- to get back to the topic of the thread- the urge to imperialism has been with America for a long time, well before Bush 41 or Cheney or the Civil War. This "unipolar" movement is just the latest expansionist rush- likely it will be the last one since I don't foresee our empire surviving in a world where everyone is pushing back. I think there is something systemic in the USA, above and beyond the individuals involved, that is propelling us in that direciton.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 9:36 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Poor Finn. He just can't stop racial profiling no matter what. It's a reflex!

That's funny.

Last I saw on the other thread, it is religious profiling that he endorses.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 9:47 AM

ANTIMASON

DT- you are a smart guy...but i think you are underestimating the collective knowledge of the ancients. i realize that in your opinion, there is no difference between christianity and occultism(pagan idol worship), because they are both based off of abrahamic theological principles, and you consider them both to be equally distorted, mythological fables. since you dont believe in an all powerful God, you consider this history to be a result of imagination, forced will, and essentially unsubstantiated, right?

i disagree with your premise, because i do believe a creator God exists, above the multi gods that visited early man; only neither of us can prove what the truth behind these stories were..whether they are purely myth(and the ensuing history of man was an effect of these beliefs), or a literal example of events. that it is true is the premise that i work with, because IMO the bible gives the best encompassing explanation. i would sumbit to you just for consideration, that idolatry, occultism and satanism, is the worship of multi-deity gods, or the rebellious fallen angels, such as the Samarians record, with the goal of decieving man to worship them over the Creator.

i only bring this up, because ive heard you say that Yahway is evil, and that is contrary to everything ive learned; i know that Satan and his angles(demons) are the ones with the agenda. this is also why i regard the occult as more insidious and legitimate than yourself, because in my mind this is proof of a religion based on Satan, with the goal of a global government/currency/religion. you dont believe in God, or Satan, so this is just outward expression to you, but their is visible evidence in the real world of such a conspiracy..so i believe this all to be fullfilling prophecy

in christianity, Jesus says "what you hear in secret, make known from the rooftops", in other words implying that the gift of wisdom and knowledge of God belongs to everyone, and is freely given. gnosticism, which is gaining enlightenment through experience, such as freemasonry, the illuminati, or any secret organisation which hides truth and knowledge behind secrecy and diception, is then(by our definition)Satanic. now i can prove to you that masonry is Luciferian, and that the visible exposed portion of freemasonry is a front for the inner core of practioners...but its up to you to read into what you will.

the Nazis werent christians, because they followed none of Jesus' doctrines..plain and simple. they were occultists, as evidenced by their symbology, their motives and their hatefull rhetoric. i dont claim to know the true heirs to Israel, but it is important to remember that Noahs son Ham became the father of the Canaanites, which are documented in ancient egpyt as caucasiodal peoples. in some manner they are related to the Israelites through their father Noah; but were cursed and set apart.

whats interesting is that the moch sacrifice that is performed at bohemian grove, is performed to the god Molech..a canaanite deity. the nature of skull and bones, and the illumaniti..it all goes back to the ancient world, but to the forces opposing yahweh. youll notice Masonic symbolism, such as the pyramids, the all seeing eye etc come out of egypt and babylon, who were well known idolatrous peoples, with canaanite influences, opposed to the will of Yahweh. if God is evil, then occultism is good..therefore the agenda of the elite, which parellels that of Satan, is good...by that logic. i just dont think that is a fair, or accurate interpretation of the bible

**edit**-- im not diverting this discussion towards religion; im saying that i agree wtih Dreamtrove 90%, except that he doesnt believe in God. politically, i am your allie, and you need me to oppose the "Bush" christians, 'God bless them...', but they are falling for the deception of the beast ie. the fullfillment of the NWO agenda

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 2:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
International WHO?

The International Jew is a conspiracy theory that made its run among intellectuals in the early part of last century. Advocates opined that certain powerful and wealthy, as of yet unnamed, Jews (clearly all bankers) were controlling the governments to do their evil Jew-biding. The term itself is derived from the title of a paper Henry Ford wrote that discussed the evils of international financiers. However, the conspiracy theory was widespread and often employed by the likes of Hitler to explain why Germany was in debt. Today the conspiracy has changed, instead of evil bankers it is now the evil Israeli military machine in cahoots with the Bush Administration via PNAC, an American political think-tank, but the end of story is the same, world domination by Jews.

And I’ve never read the book to know if it is or isn’t. I was just being facetious.

Knowing something about the Roman Empire, I’m pretty certain that the US isn’t patterned after it, though.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 3:29 PM

Quote:
Knowing something about the Roman Empire, I’m pretty certain that the US isn’t patterned after it, though.

I know a fair amount about it as well.

Sure, the differences are obvious. The US isn't an empire of nations, it's not a pure republic, nor is it ruled by a dominant state. But the similarities are also evident. The increase in executive power, the marginalizing of the senate, the constant military agenda being forced by the overbalanced economy of the state.

I think there's a lot of fair comparisons to be made here, and many of the same forces at work. I strongly suspect Rome collapsed not because of outside forces but internal ones, which ultimately come down to a central truth, that being part of the empire had become more of a liability than an asset for the member states. I think things like the patriot act, the war on terror, etc., and esp. the american tax and regulatory structure, federal spending, all help push us to that point, but we may still be a ways away from it. At some point, I'm sure, we'll hit the breaking point. When the vandals finally come, we will open the gates and welcome them in. Understandably, this issue comes up more in NY than other places. Except California, which I suspect will be the first to leave the union. And also, I suspect, when this union finally does crumble, it will do so without a war. It will just more or less peacefully fall apart, like the soviet union.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 4:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Sure, the differences are obvious. The US isn't an empire of nations, it's not a pure republic, nor is it ruled by a dominant state. But the similarities are also evident. The increase in executive power, the marginalizing of the senate, the constant military agenda being forced by the overbalanced economy of the state.

The executive power would have to increase quite a bit before a president could become equivalent to a Roman Emperor, and I doubt that’s even possible. The Roman Senate had no similarity at all to the US Senate. Roman Senators were senators by birthright, not election. The only senators who were ever elected into the senate were the consuls, and they were simply elected by the senate as consul and then retired into the senate. Though by 14 AD the senate had already become marginalized. The only constant military agenda of the Roman Emperors was stabilizing revolt within the empire, political oppression or staving off attack. The US does not deploy its troops to stabilize revolts within its borders, and every country deploys troops in its defense. They are two completely different things and only at the very broadest level can one draw any kind of similarity.

But if one were to attempt to draw a conclusion of the fate of the US from the Roman Empire, then since the Roman Empire lasted continuously from the first century AD to the Thirteen century AD, and the US is only slightly over 200 years old, I’d say we have at least another thousand years before that comparison would become relevant.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 4:31 PM

Finn,

I wish I have a better way to put this, but obviously I know all this already. But it took much of a century before the Praetor of Rome became an Emperor of Divine Rite. But you missed the part where the Roman empire promised land, which often it didn't have, and so the need to gain more land, and the fact that rome was constant on campaigns to add territory, many of which, like the german and russian campaigns, never succeeded.

The US oil quest is similar. The roman senate, which I mentioned was not democratic, which is why I said pure-republic, vs democratic republic, was very similar in its function and the way in which that function was superceded by the praetor.

Timeline, for those who cared about the republic, was very important, and the republic disolved immediately. But where the differences end, I think is that the US doesn't have a millenium of empire left, because unlike rome, which was unchallenged for supremacy in its economic system, the US is getting trampled by China.

I was never suggesting the situations were identical, but that historical analogies are always useful, and if they weren't, we wouldn't study history. Learn from your mistakes. Or, in this case, don't, and do exactly what we're doing now, what the romans did. The other thing is, parts of the patriot act, the tax structure, all of that, resembles not the exuctive power jump of the end of the republic, but the time just before the sacking of rome in 476.

If one actually used what one knew, one might decide not to make those mistakes rome made which caused or led to its destruction. I thought it was a simple logical step. Of course, when in doubt, perpetual denial will keep you company until the collapse arrives.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 4:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
If one actually used what one knew, one might decide not to make those mistakes rome made which caused or led to its destruction. I thought it was a simple logical step. Of course, when in doubt, perpetual denial will keep you company until the collapse arrives.

Or caused or lead it to last for ~1800 years. You’ve decided that the comparisons stops where the Roman Empire/Republic lasted 9 times longer then the US has been a nation, because that’s not the result you want the comparison to produce. It’s a contrived comparison designed to elicit a preconceived notion. There’s no real similarity between the Roman Empire and the US. If for no other reason then that the Roman Empire was a hell of lot more successful, but that’s not what you want to focus on, I think.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 5:18 PM

Finn, the Roman Empire was high on itself; that's the most relevant comparison. Other comparisons timewise concerning longevity are out the window, as information exchange moves at the speed of light when measured against the past. Get with the curve, and apply your admittedly extensive and awesome knowledge thusly. The rules are changing as we type.

Respectfully, Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 5:34 PM

Quote:
DT- you are a smart guy...but i think you are underestimating the collective knowledge of the ancients. i realize that in your opinion, there is no difference between christianity and occultism(pagan idol worship), because they are both based off of abrahamic theological principles, and you consider them both to be equally distorted, mythological fables. since you dont believe in an all powerful God, you consider this history to be a result of imagination, forced will, and essentially unsubstantiated, right?

WHAT?!?!?!

Err. No, I didn't say that.

Pagans worship a different faith. I personally think many of the modern crowleyites are misguided, because they take a christian reconstruction of their faith for the real thing. They originally had no connection to Abraham. They are not related to the ancient ME civ.

The history of the religion is history, most of the bible is more or less historically accurate, even if it's full of spin.

Quote:
i disagree with your premise, because i do believe a creator God exists, above the multi gods that visited early man; only neither of us can prove what the truth behind these stories were..whether they are purely myth(and the ensuing history of man was an effect of these beliefs), or a literal example of events. that it is true is the premise that i work with, because IMO the bible gives the best encompassing explanation. i would sumbit to you just for consideration, that idolatry, occultism and satanism, is the worship of multi-deity gods, or the rebellious fallen angels, such as the Samarians record, with the goal of decieving man to worship them over the Creator.

The belief in a creator is one belief.
The belief that that belief in a creator effects other beliefs is another belief
The belief that Yhwh is that creator is yet another belief.
These three beliefs are not closely tied to one another.

I believe most stuff can be shown through a balance of evidence, and proof is not needed. Evolution is real, evidence is there and the smart learn that and move on, design their beliefs around that, and hopefully learn that evolution is a powerful god. The stupid block out new knowledge in spite of the overwhelming burder of support for the idea, and remain ignorant, learn nothing, and effect nothing, and become like a stone at the bottom fo the sea.

The part you are missing is where euro-paganism and chinese mysticism are NOT a twisted form of western faith but developed in its utter absence, and in fact, before the existance of said so called western faith. Moses is circa, what 1350, 1400 bc? Pagans were well into being pagans in the UK, and early taoists, proto-taoists, had begun to figure out the way, the ancient ariens of

Kashmir had spawned Sindu (shin-du aka Hinduism) as a faith, and it was already a thousand years old, and native american animal worship had grown to a great civilization and then crumbled, and then morphed into animal-human hybrids, like the egyptians, whose cults were already older then than christianity is now.

Quote:
i only bring this up, because ive heard you say that Yahway is evil, and that is contrary to everything ive learned; i know that Satan and his angles(demons) are the ones with the agenda. this is also why i regard the occult as more insidious and legitimate than yourself, because in my mind this is proof of a religion based on Satan, with the goal of a global government/currency/religion. you dont believe in God, or Satan, so this is just outward expression to you, but their is visible evidence in the real world of such a conspiracy..so i believe this all to be fullfilling prophecy

Read the book, God's book. Yhwh, the 'hero' is a real sob. Leads his people to hate, torture, genocide, ecocide, etc. Satan is only mildly annoying. This is perfectly fitting, since Yhwh was the Herbrew's own war god, and Set was just a rival deity of a rival culture.

You've learned everything you've learned through a tinted lense. I tries my best to gather everything objectively from a historical perspective. I know a lot of stuff that christians don't about their own religion, like that Jezebel queen of lebanon-syria was assassinated for invading israel, and that david's battle with goliath wasn't like a greek legend, but was also an assassination of a king of the hittites, who ruled now turkey, and was killed by a team of assassins led by david, and that they were told he had to be killed as being a freak of nature. A lot of this stuff is well recorded history in other parts of the world. The bible does spin, but it also does tell the story. I think from a historical perspective, Yhwh was the original enemy god of the hebrew people, and when he became the one true god, things degenerated. Obviously, there had been problems in the past, because look at the land, nomadic sheherds make desserts, and they did a job on the ME.

Quote:
in christianity, Jesus says "what you hear in secret, make known from the rooftops", in other words implying that the gift of wisdom and knowledge of God belongs to everyone, and is freely given. gnosticism, which is gaining enlightenment through experience, such as freemasonry, the illuminati, or any secret organisation which hides truth and knowledge behind secrecy and diception, is then(by our definition)Satanic. now i can prove to you that masonry is Luciferian, and that the visible exposed portion of freemasonry is a front for the inner core of practioners...but its up to you to read into what you will.

You're a smart cookie who has been studying one side of the story way too much. You should step back and take a look at it from all angles. I don't mean to break your faith, that's not really my goal, I don't know what my goal is, but I think you have a world view which is slightly twisted from reality, and thrusts an unnecessary amount of hatred towards the masons (of which I'm not a member) and an undue amount of trust towards christian sources. Ideally, a wise man should be an objective viewer of all things.

Gnosticism is not related to clandestiny. Gnosticism is more or less what I just spilled out to you, discovering the truth about the bible and jesus through intellectual historical study. Given their methods, I'm more apt to trust the gnostics (who were not the sources for my above information) than I am the christian mystics, whose methods were entirely questionable.

Quote:
the Nazis werent christians, because they followed none of Jesus' doctrines..plain and simple. they were occultists, as evidenced by their symbology, their motives and their hatefull rhetoric. i dont claim to know the true heirs to Israel, but it is important to remember that Noahs son Ham became the father of the Canaanites, which are documented in ancient egpyt as caucasiodal peoples. in some manner they are related to the Israelites through their father Noah; but were cursed and set apart.

Some this is gibberish. I hope you don't seriously believe that the ancient egyptians were descended from Noah. Anyway, many ancient egyptians were nubian, ie, somoli, racially speaking, ie. black, but not west-african. others were white. The white race of ancient egypt is almost certainly extinct, so the only remaining egyptians today would be the nubians, who are being genocidally slaughtered, and have been for decades. At the present rate, they'll be exinct in our lifetimes, possibly within 20-30 years.

It's a simple rule. If you say you are an X you are an X unless the society of X made some hoop for you to jump through to become an X. I'm not a mason because the masons made a hoop, and unless i jump through, I'm not a mason. But if I say I'm a christian, I can become so (I read the book, and then some) Heck, a lot of so called christians have never read the bible through. It would be hard to call someone a taoist who hadn't read the tao te ching, actually, reading the book isn't enough, it's a whole seek thing. But chrisitanity is pretty open, hence, has many followers. Nazis were nominally among them. I think it's possible to call them neo-israelites or some such, so long as you don't confuse them with the modern israelites, who were their enemies. But the nazis were serious about their bible. They may not have been serious about christ, though they thought he was an aryan. I think the thule society is a red herring, because hitler was never a serious member, and its other members were appalled by the later nazi germany. It's also possible that the whole holocaust was a swiss banking scam. Actually happened, but the goal was financial gain. It's an interesting counter theory which is out there on the web, which is probably at least in part true.

Quote:
whats interesting is that the moch sacrifice that is performed at bohemian grove, is performed to the god Molech..a canaanite deity. the nature of skull and bones, and the illumaniti..it all goes back to the ancient world, but to the forces opposing yahweh. youll notice Masonic symbolism, such as the pyramids, the all seeing eye etc come out of egypt and babylon, who were well known idolatrous peoples, with canaanite influences, opposed to the will of Yahweh. if God is evil, then occultism is good..therefore the agenda of the elite, which parellels that of Satan, is good...by that logic. i just dont think that is a fair, or accurate interpretation of the bible

Ah, there's the Pirate News I've been waiting for. I know who Moloch was. I doubt the existance of Moloch worship. I believe Moloch was of african origin, though it has been suggested by some historians that he is actually yhwh. Both did have worshipers who thought their god lived in mt. sinai.

You do read my posts don't you?
please differentiate your illuminatis. if you say the illuminati, i tend to think 1400 to 1517.
Also, I hope this isn't a conversion attempt, it would be extremely unlikely to succeed.
People choose religious symbols of deities with followers with ideas or scriptures which they like. The sacred text of Baal which I have read, is actually a much better guide for life than the old testament. IMHO. I think there's a reason that christians don't encourage their kids to read all of the competing ideas, if they did, there would be fewer christians. (it's even worse with muslims)

Quote:
**edit**-- im not diverting this discussion towards religion; im saying that i agree wtih Dreamtrove 90%, except that he doesnt believe in God. politically, i am your allie, and you need me to oppose the "Bush" christians, 'God bless them...', but they are falling for the deception of the beast ie. the fullfillment of the NWO agenda

Ah, a much more tempered stance. Here's the kicker.

I think an alliance is to everyone's benefit, though I'd say "persuade" rather than "oppose"
Neocons are goners, and probably aren't coming back, and sure, I buy you're analysis that they are "great satan" if satan is to be used in that sense, as I would say "evil" a word I don't think we should use until we've made sure it has the right etymology (many negatives are actually just ethnic slurs in diguise, such as 'gypped.' Wicked is literally twisted, but is also a reference to early wicca, and is an ethnic slur.) I think Malevolent is safe. I've been trying to find out if 'evil' is a reference to 'eve'.

But, negotiation is a negotiation, it's a compromise, and if you are Russia, and I am Iran, my request is that we hammer out this small difference where you have a holy war against everything that is not christian, which includes the rest of us, including the clandestine societies of which I am not a member, but which also represent a not-us sort of organization. No philosophy based on the idea that ideas which are not ours are inherently malevolent and made of death, is going nowhere good.

Now, since your name is "antimason" I know that this is going to be a bit of a hurdle to get over, but I still have hope that there is an agreement to be reached somewhere.

So, let's think more, which may mean typing shorter, and hammed out the exact problem areas.

Do you get what I'm saying about the non-relation of the religious systems which are not judeo-christian-islamic, ie so called western (actually mideastern) faiths? That they are not in fact distorted versions of the bible, but societies in many cases older than, and with no contact with, the bible, which was assembled out of books from 1500 or so forwards, though genesis is based on an older sumerian myth, it probably contains some hebrew stories. but overall, the text of the OT wasn't totally complete until 440 or so, well into athenian democracy.

I think if we can address just this point, and then move on to the next, one at a time, instead of a wholistic approach, we can come to an agreement.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 5:54 PM

Finn,

Actually, I know something about history, and know where and when to draw parallels, I'm not citing convenient examples to sway the feebleminded.

Also, you're 1800 figure is absurd. The Roman empire collapsed in the fifth century, and other insitutions ruled later, but they were not the emperor of rome, just as the roman republic collapsed in 55 or so bc. Actually, it first collapsed in 93 bc, but clung together a little longer.

This situation bears some similarity to both collapses. History never repeats itself completely, but the symptoms of collapse are evident, and there is more than enough here to have me worried.

I'm actually quite ticked off at the idea that I'm attempting to decieve. That's f^&king b^!!$#!+.
I'm trying to address what is one of the major concerns to me about what is wrong with Bush/Clinton, which is that they are steering us over a cliff, and this parallel is one of many places that initially led me to that now rather obvious conclusion that almost everyone on the board gets. These days, you could use anything to predict America's coming collapse, like the daily newspaper. The US, for example, is about to be passed by China, economically. But the thing is, a trend is a trend. We can correct our disasterous policy, and compete with china as an equal, we probably can never regain the high ground of the 80s when we were twice as rich as the second richest, which was the russia. But if we fail to change course, then we will follow the path of russia, and our economic competitor will quickly become brazil. Brazil, btw, is on the way up, economically, and the US is on the way down. I suspect, with people like bush or clinton at the helm, they could cross paths in 15 years. Let's look 30 years out. America now lives in the shadow of brazil, and has just been surpassed economically by mexico. It is dwarfed by the EU and China, and even by the unified Korea. This is what I see, and I think I'm not shooting in the dark here. This is America, brokeback cowboy style, where the ass is doing the driving.

And since this is a sci-fi board

45 year out or more, America is like today's subsaharan africa, subsaharan is like another planet, disease runs rampant, war is neverending. Israel no longer exists do to a nuclear war, and china controls most of asia and south america. The internal collapse of the EU renders it unable to assist the US in its spiral towards utter chaos. Mexico has sealed the border and is not letting any more Americans in. There is a govt. in washington dc, but nobody cares. Kids don't even know where washington is.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 6:23 PM

The Roman Empire continued on well past the collapse of the Western Empire. In fact it continued into the 15th century. Although by that time it had been in its death throws for over 200 years and was composed of several successor states. But without a doubt the Roman Empire existed continuously until the sacking of Constantinople in 1204 AD.

The Roman states origins are lost to antiquity, but 509 BC is the establishment of the Republic of Rome. The Roman state then existed continuously 1713 years. I rounded up to account for discrepancies in Rome’s origins.

Also the distinction between Republic and Empire is generally set at Augustus' death in 14 AD. Though the power of the Senate had been failing long before that. From Sulla to Augustus there were several periods of dictatorial rule.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, August 23, 2006 6:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I'm actually quite ticked off at the idea that I'm attempting to decieve. That's f^&king b^!!$#!+.

The comparison probably means something to you and chris and others, but it doesn’t to me, because it’s not an historical comparison; it’s a political one and it’s designed to put forth a political opinion. In order to understand that comparison, one must first understand the political statement that is being made from it.

I understand that you’re using the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West as an allegory for the direction you think the US is headed. Fine. I disagree, but I understand your point now.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 1:57 AM

Finn,

yeah, I know all this stuff about Bizantium, but that's a far cry from saying Rome. That's like saying America continues to exist because at some point, texas joins mexico, and after the collapse of america, mexico still exists.

You don't fully get my point.

It's not a political statement being made through clever disguise, it's a "look! someone tried this heavy spending, rights curtailing and aggressive expansionist strategy before in a republic. And look what happened. Hmm maybe we should think twice about doing the same thing."

It's like people like Chavez who look at the USSR and say "there was a good idea, let's do that."
History is there for a reason. Don't study it, which means not only read about it, but learn from it, condemned to repeat it.

So, sure, I politically oppose you're guys who do that thing that was already done and worked out terribly, because I don't want america to collapse.

And if I oppose a radical agenda of heavy taxation, heavy spending, and a large scale effort of interventionist military exansionism for the purpose of social re-engineering of conservative societies into a more liberal and large scale multi-national union.... Then what's the matter, that's not conservative enough?

Not part of a sercret political debate on the fall of America, or part of a doom saying circle which has been saying this for years because it hates the success of capitalism, I'm aware that such a group exists, and I see your rejection of the idea, but that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying, specifically, we have recently made, and are making, some very republic-to-empire decisions, and some other fall-of-rome decisions.

The US was based in part on the Roman republic, and in part on Athenian democracy. Comparisons to the two are *always* fair. Just as it is fair to compare the USSR to Sparta, and the collapse of the USSR to the collapse of Sparta, which we did, you probably did it to. Which is totally valid because the Soviet Union stated right in its constitution that it was deliberately basing its society on Sparta.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 2:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Finn,

yeah, I know all this stuff about Bizantium, but that's a far cry from saying Rome. That's like saying America continues to exist because at some point, texas joins mexico, and after the collapse of america, mexico still exists.

No. That’s not even close. The Eastern Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire are the same thing. “Byzantine” is a term applied after the fall of Constantinople and wasn’t in wide use to describe the Eastern Roman Empire until the 18th century. The political boundaries, the government and the people of the East Roman Empire, all referred to themselves as “Romans.” The Emperors of the Eastern Roman Empire were an unbroken change of Roman Emperors. “Byzantium,” if you want to call it that, was in every way the exact continuation of the Roman Empire.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 3:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Finn, the Roman Empire was high on itself; that's the most relevant comparison. Other comparisons timewise concerning longevity are out the window, as information exchange moves at the speed of light when measured against the past. Get with the curve, and apply your admittedly extensive and awesome knowledge thusly. The rules are changing as we type.

Respectfully, Chrisisall

I started making a long-winded response to this, then it occurred to me that I’m hijacking your thread and you don't like it. My apologies. .

Back to your regularly scheduled programming... I won’t interject anymore discussion of Roman history.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 4:35 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Since some folk didn't catch, or didn't take, the hint.

You DO realize this particular poster drags every thread completely off topic into petty sniping and tit-for-tat nitpicking, yes ?

And you let that happen and even participate.

Instead of discussing what who said, who misquoted who, grammatical or spelling errors, we COULD you know.. be discussing the topic at hand ?

But some folks don't seem to want that, and given the sheer amount of topic derailing, it makes one suspect it might be deliberate.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 7:38 AM

In the way that an America that had only texas and mexico in would be a continuation of america, and i'm not saying that won't happen.

And stop with the indignant tone, I thought I made it painfully clear that I knew this, since I do have a degree in ancient and medieval history, it stands to reason I did study a little bit about rome.

Territorially speaking, the byzantine empire, which spoke greek, was like the US of Texas and Mexico, with a few other states in the beginning before they flaked off.

That's not a stable continuation of the US from a NY perspective.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 7:39 AM

I don't think that Rome is totally of topic of "Sorrows of Empire" since we haven't read the book, anything empire should be okay.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 8:48 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Oh, i wasn't goin off about discussing Rome, any discussion of empire is gonna go there cause overall Rome was the most well known, longest lasting, and most successful empire in history.

That's not to say it was a good idea, mind you.

I am just getting frustrated that every single thread some folk drag it into a petty spat of nitpicking, which destroys its integrity and the interest of folks in the topic - or resort to spouting a party line, over and over, and insulting anyone who deviates, destroying its integrity and the interest of folks in the topic.

It's happening often enough to become very frustrating to people wishing to see an honest, rational discourse on a topic.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 8:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
it occurred to me that I’m hijacking your thread and you don't like it. My apologies. .

Back to your regularly scheduled programming... I won’t interject anymore discussion of Roman history.

Finn, anything you have to say is always interesting, even when I disagree with it, or it seems off-topic. Feel free to post at will on any thread I start. Really, a history expert's voice is never out of place in this kind of discussion.

Karp eh deeum Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 9:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I don't think that Rome is totally of topic of "Sorrows of Empire" since we haven't read the book, anything empire should be okay.

Agreed.

Verbose Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 9:04 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I'm saying, specifically, we have recently made, and are making, some very republic-to-empire decisions, and some other fall-of-rome decisions.

I think this bears repeating and I would appreciate elucidation.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, August 24, 2006 10:29 AM

Signym

I think I enumerated them

But in general

1. extended executive power, marginalizing the senate, silencing opposition, republican collapse.
2. limiting freedoms, heavy spending, over 50% taxes, perpetual enemies, perpetual war, imperial collapse.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 26, 2006 5:48 AM