[Tfug] Gates-Rockefeller eugenics projects

[Jim March]

Comments interspersed...

On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 12:59 AM, eric christian <ericdanc at alice-dsl.net> wrote:
> Jim March schrieb:
>
>> Even assuming the benefits are real, the problem is that the contracts
>> prevent the farmers from re-using seed.  Worst of all, when the
>
> Monsanto uses the "terminator seeds" so farmers cant use seeds for planting.

Well yeah, Monsanto TRIES to do this.  It isn't 100% successful.  So
they've turned to the courts for patent/trademark-law protection...

>> However, just because PARTS of Erics..."theology" let's call it makes,
>> doesn't mean the rest holds together.  As one example: calling the
>> Jehovah's Witnesses part of a word domination scheme (or for that
>> matter secret allies of any other faith) is beyond ludicrous to
>> anybody that knows them.  Don't get me wrong, I ain't one now, but I
>> was raised with that stuff.  They don't have quite the lock on "the
>> truth" as they think they do, but they're otherwise harmless and
>> extremely non-political.
>>
> Jim, i respect your posts here, they're often very informitive. I want
> to step on no ones toes, i made that clear with the post to porch
> masons. Now, i made no assertion that Jehovah's Witnesses are "part of a
> word domination scheme", just that they - like the Mormans, KKK, mafia,
> Unitarian Chuch and many other such groups are mason fronts or spin
> offs. Why and what they're up to, i dunno. Most of this just make sense.
> I had allways seen the direct links KKK/masonry. Some makes less sense.
>
> check it out: google "jehovah's witnesses freemasonry"

Yeah, just did.  More on that in a moment...

> While we're at this, check out Scientology too.

NO argument there, Hubbard was completely nutso and did indeed have
ties to Crowley and God(s?) only knows what else.  Read the
unauthorized biography that had a chapter by his son.  Yikes.

But let's get back to the JWs for a sec.  Understand, it's not because
I care about them in particular, I'm just using them as a test case.

I did as you said and googled that string all in quotes.  There's
nothing significant except a bit of rant by some fundamentalist (or
more "mainstream") Christians.  No surprise there and certainly biased
as hell (pardon the pun).

Changing the google search string to:

"jehovah's witnesses" freemasonry

...makes a big difference.  Now we start to get to what you're talking
about, stuff like:

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/jws_christian_science.htm

OK Eric, let's test you: what's wrong with that site?  Be honest now,
go look, figure it out, come back when you're done.  Others can play
too.

---

Ready?

---

If you answered "it doesn't provide ANY method of verifying the site's
statements", you got it right.  If you didn't figure that out in the
first three minutes, then your critical thinking abilities are WAY
screwed up.

Let's take one example: the alleged pyramid-shaped gravestone of CT Russell.

Where is it?  What?  See, cemeteries are places you can walk into and
see for yourself.  So if you know the city and graveyard somebody is
buried in, or even just the city most times, you can figure it out and
do some independent digging.  And a pyramid is odd enough that it'll
be dead simple (sigh, pun again...) to spot, and one or more of the
hits to that site will be from somebody reasonably near if it's in the
US as I assume it is.

ALL PUBLISHED SCHOLARSHIP REFERS BACK TO ORIGINAL SOURCES.  Got that?

Ever read a REAL history book, one written for a scholarly audience?
The footnotes at the back will be unbelievably long.  Let's see, I
happen to have a copy of "The Bill Of Rights" by Yale law professor
Akhil Reed Amar nearby.  It's a "trade paperback" (big size), pretty
dense stuff (HIGHLY recommended by the way, esp. if you want to know
what that whole 14th Amendment thing was all about...).  The text ends
on page 312.  The footnotes run from 313 through 396.  I can't quickly
add up how many because they're numbered by chapter but trust me,
they're in small print and there's a buttload of 'em.  The majority
refer the reader to period historical documents...proceedings of
congress circa 1865-1868 for example (which are all online now).

The point is, Prof. Amar doesn't make you "take his word for it".  He
shows you his proof.  (And it's proof of a conspiracy WAY worse than
anything you've been describing - the systematic destruction of the
14th Amendment by the US Supreme Court.)

Now, sometimes this still goes wrong and a real scholar makes stuff up
and fakes the footnotes.  But then he risks getting caught.  This
happened to a jackass name of Michael Bellesiles of Emory University,
now thrown out in disgrace for the book "Arming America" (written in
'00) which early on won the Bancroft Award (and $5000) for the best
history book of the year.  But about a year after that the Bancroft
committee demanded their money back after a friend of mine exposed the
twit.  This episode is worth studying to understand why real
scholarship is supposed to work the way it does.

"Why Footnotes Matter: Checking Arming America's Claims", Plagiary
1(11):1-31 [2006]:

http://www.plagiary.org/why-footnotes-matter.pdf

The short form is that showing primary sources in a history document
is much like publishing the source code in Linux or whatever.  True,
most users won't be able to (or willing to) peer in under the hood but
enough will that real nastiness gets caught.  In the case of "Arming
America", Clayton Cramer was familiar with some of the source material
Bellesiles "cited" (letters by George Washington fr'instance) and knew
right away that they didn't read that way.  Then he dug for
others...it was so bad, I know of at least one 9th Circuit court
decision that was revised after the fact to strip out references to
"Arming America" once the disgrace was public.

Whenever somebody writes something alleged to be historical and does
NOT refer to PRIMARY sources, your BS meter should peg out.  "Primary"
means original source, not another book that also doesn't contain real
footnotes to period sources.

EVERYTHING you're discussing involves history.  And believe it or not,
history really is a science.

http://thestubborncurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2008/03/recruiting-em-while-theyre-young.html

Jim March