Theos-Talk Archives (July 2002 Message tt00168)

Steve Stubbs wrote:
> Morten: "Nixon ? just make you laugh when
> compared....>:?) ("I am no crook !")
> 
> Yes, people have been making fun of that line for
> years.

However, many forget exactly how popular and powerful Nixon was before
Watergate, John Dean, and the tapes brought him down. There was strong
talk of amending the Constitution to allow him to run for a 3rd term;
there was a real fear that he might effectively become America's first
king.

That is one of the reasons why the U.S. political system, as designed,
is so effective. It takes karma into account. Unlike parliamentary
systems, where a leader who does something very unpopular can be tossed
out based on momentary public opinion, leaders have an opportunity to
concentrate on the results of their actions rather than the actions
themselves. And the voting public tends to remember the results more
than the actions themselves.

> Morten: "But this website although interesting is not
> quite following King's ideas on non?voilence!
> 
> Actually, those were Gandhi's ideas. One of King's
> sayings was: "Christ gave me the message, Gandhi gave
> me the method."

Who got it from Thoreau, who got it from Indian philosophy...

> Morten: "What about some honest UN?meetings on the
> world?religions role in the world of politics and
> greed?
> 
> I have not noticed that religious leaders are free
> from greed. 

And I have not noitced an honest UN meeting. 

> A priest novelist named Greeley once
> categorized his own employer (the cardinals of the RC
> church) as "heirs to 2,000 years of corruption." The
> Palestinians are being oppressed in the name of a
> religion which deserves better than to be used that
> way INO. 

Which one are you referring to? The perversion of Judaism, which is
causing Jewish settlers to continue to try to take over more land in the
West Bank, or the perversion of Islam, which makes the destruction of
Israel so important that the Palestinians rejected an offer of statehood
because Israel would not accept its own destruction as a condition?

> Yes, and the problem with Larouche is, you never know
> when the bullshit ends and the truth begins or vice
> versa. That is why I would prefer to learn from
> someone else more reputable. I am open to the
> possibility that Rothschild financed the Holocaust,
> for example, (his ancestors financed the war against
> Napoleon, even though Napoleon emancipated the Jews)
> but would not believe this just because some character
> like Larouche says so. 

There are two lies which are far more effective than others. The first
is stating a truth in a way that nobody would believe it (so they
therefore beleve the lie), and the second is to make a lie with a kernel
of truth in it. In the first, if anybody tries to defend the truth, they
will appear a fool, and in the second, if anybody tries to defend the
truth, the liar will keep bringing the argument back to the kernel, and
fend aside the lie part.

I suspect that the story of the Rothchilds financing the Holocaust is
of the 2nd type. While facism was heavily associated with racism,
particularly agaisnt the Jews, people forget that the hatred was NOT an
integral part of the political system. Facism managed to survive for
years after WWII in Spain, for example, and it was certainly no worse
(and in many ways not as bad) than many other totalitarian systems. I
can certainly see how a lot of people supporting the system could ignore
the anti-Jewish rhetoric early on; there were many Jews in the early
leadership of the Nazi party, and a number of Theosophists thought that
the Nazi party had good ideas, also early on. Given that, and the
bleaching quality of money, I can certainly believe that many banks,
even those whose directors were horrified by the later actions of the
Nazi's, supported them early on. After all, Germany's economy was
virtually destroyed, and they were the only party offering a workable
plan to fix it.

To give an example, take, for example Louis Farrakhan. While the press
tends to concentrate on his anti-Jewish (among anti other things)
message, he is pretty much the only major Black leader who is saying,
"Don't depend on goverment. Get a job. Get an education, but study
something practical, and give back to the community. Get married to the
other parent of your children, and support them; better yet, do not have
children until you are married and ready to support them. Take
responsibility for your own actions. Have self-respect. Don't use drugs.
Don't prey on your other human beings. Act with honor." (There are other
black leaders, such as Tony Brown, saying the same things, but they
cannot really be called major even if they have national exposure). In
any case, with a message like that, one can see, if the press were not
concentrating on his statements of hatred, how people might dismiss the
hatred as minor rhetoric and support him because of his main message.
And I can see people supporting the early Nazi party for just those
reasons, especially if their message of hatred was not well-publicized
or minimalized.

And, of course, remember that the Rothschilds represent Judaism about
as much as the Rockefellers represent Episcopalianism.

> Morten: "A new Congress ? with 3 parties would do
> better than the present one.
> 
> There is a Libertarian Party but they are very small.
> The two dozen or so others are much smaller.

Third parties can be deadly when they give a minority power because the
majority is split between the other two parties. When a third minority
party can tip the balance between two otherwise balanced parties, that
third party gets a disproportionate amount of power. Many of the evils
in the State of Israel can be traced to that. In Chile, Salvadore
Allende got into power because the conservative and centrist vote was
split between two parties, giving him the Presidency with only about 36%
of the vote. He then began to act as if he had gotten 96% of the vote,
destroying the economy, which finally triggered off a repressive and
bloody military coup. Even in the United States, Ralph Nader effectively
cost Albert Gore the Presidency (and don't give me anything about the
multiple Florida recounts; all of them, including the ones done bt
independent news agencies after the fact of Bush's election, showed Bush
winning), just as H. Ross Perot probably cost Bush, Sr. the Presidency. 

Bart Lidofsky