Thread: The United Nations: Third Reich Reincarnated

I hadn't known about this forum before and posted this in world politics. I hope it gets a better reception here. In presenting this, I hope to do two things:

1) Make sure it's true. As of yet, I'm convinced but ready to change my opinion when it's show to be illogical.

2) Get word out. If true, this theory is very important to the world.

Please don't pick at what you consider to be ridiculous and call it a reason to not believe the conspiracy theory. Before discussing a point, please make sure:

1) It actually matters. If you want to point out how a certain person is "accused" (inaccurate because they allegedly "accused" themselves) of conspiring, first make sure that person actually plays a significant role in the theory.

2) You're willing to debate the point to its end. If you want to point out how evolution is rejected, be prepared to substantiate it and explain why the given quotes are either out of context or unreliable.

__________________________________________________ ______________

Hannah Newman, a Jewish housewife, has extensively researched the late Alice Bailey, supposed medium of "Tibetan Master" Djwhal Khul (pretty much the "Gabriel" of the New Age), and her teachings, successor (the UN), and associates. She's come to the conclusion that the Plan is "a kinder, gentler Final Solution" - the Second Holocaust.

Apparently, Djwhal Khul wants to exterminate the Jews because:

• they insist on being separate (which is actually the literal meaning of "holy," so Jewish proselytes, Christians, and their sympathizers are apparently in for extermination as well, because they aggravate the disease),
• they descend from a race from another world in another Age (or so Djwhal Khul says), perpetually reincarnated as inherently greedy, wandering Jews (so this disease can only be cured by killing every last Jew, preferably with their cooperation),
• and probably some other racist and anti-Judaism (but pro-Islam) charges which I can't remember.

So, who should be concerned? Basically, anyone who thinks that the astrological history (and consequent sociology) relayed by Alice Bailey will have an adverse effect on civilization.

Originally Posted by Picky

I hadn't known about this forum before and posted this in world politics. I hope it gets a better reception here. In presenting this, I hope to do two things:

1) Make sure it's true. As of yet, I'm convinced but ready to change my opinion when it's show to be illogical.

2) Get word out. If true, this theory is very important to the world.

Please don't pick at what you consider to be ridiculous and call it a reason to not believe the conspiracy theory. Before discussing a point, please make sure:

1) It actually matters. If you want to point out how a certain person is "accused" (inaccurate because they allegedly "accused" themselves) of conspiring, first make sure that person actually plays a significant role in the theory.

2) You're willing to debate the point to its end. If you want to point out how evolution is rejected, be prepared to substantiate it and explain why the given quotes are either out of context or unreliable.

__________________________________________________ ______________

Hannah Newman, a Jewish housewife, has extensively researched the late Alice Bailey, supposed medium of "Tibetan Master" Djwhal Khul (pretty much the "Gabriel" of the New Age), and her teachings, successor (the UN), and associates. She's come to the conclusion that the Plan is "a kinder, gentler Final Solution" - the Second Holocaust.

Apparently, Djwhal Khul wants to exterminate the Jews because:

• they insist on being separate (which is actually the literal meaning of "holy," so Jewish proselytes, Christians, and their sympathizers are apparently in for extermination as well, because they aggravate the disease),
• they descend from a race from another world in another Age (or so Djwhal Khul says), perpetually reincarnated as inherently greedy, wandering Jews (so this disease can only be cured by killing every last Jew, preferably with their cooperation),
• and probably some other racist and anti-Judaism (but pro-Islam) charges which I can't remember.

So, who should be concerned? Basically, anyone who thinks that the astrological history (and consequent sociology) relayed by Alice Bailey will have an adverse effect on civilization.

I know Alice. she was on the same quest that I witnessed. Castaneda was dishing out acid at the time. and the movement was pro-Islam.
but her message is the same as Salman Rushdie and others, and more and more people are spilling the secret that was kept locked away behind jizya and other curtains.

Huh? If you're serious, I'd appreciate more details.

Originally Posted by sectionOne

I know Alice.
.

I must say that is truly amazing. You claim to be 47. Alice Bailey died in 1949.

Alice Bailey

Don't bother, TFM. She was just trying to show me to be gullible, but I looked up some names and terms after posting. Jizya isn't a "curtain" at all but tribute demanded of non-Muslims by Muslims. Castaneda and Salma Rushdie are just other names connected with NA.

I don't think she meant she knew her personally. It's not like she said "Yea, Alice and I were tight, we used to hang out at this cool pub and talk about Islam and stuff, she was awesome."

Originally Posted by Picky

I hadn't known about this forum before and posted this....
2) You're willing to debate the point to its end. If you want to point out how evolution is rejected, be prepared to substantiate it and explain why the given quotes are either out of context or unreliable.

__________________________________________________ ______________

Hannah Newman, a Jewish housewife, has extensively researched the late Alice Bailey, supposed medium of "Tibetan Master" Djwhal Khul (pretty much the "Gabriel" of the New Age), and her teachings, successor (the UN), and associates. She's come to the conclusion that the Plan is "a kinder, gentler Final Solution" - the Second Holocaust.

Its interesting. On the one hand you say you came on this forum to debate but read your words after the number 2. I find it interesting you set the preconditions of what is allowed to be discussed. Why? Are you interested in a debate or leading a controlled dialogue where you get to control what is allowed to be discussed? Sounds to me like you have established parameters for what you will permit to be discussed-i.e., you are already trying to censor without even hearing what one might have to say.

With due respect if you were genuinely interested in peoples' feedback you would not start off dictating what they can and can not discuss.

More to the point read your but about Hannah Newman. How does one debate such things? This is a woman who claims to be a medium. Of course she has no proof. What she says in fact is her subjective feelings and opinions that are not based on anything that can be measured or tested or verified or evaluated using a neutral, objective process that all sides can agree upon.

What you want people to do is be irrational and simply assume she is a medium chanelling this person, and only after assuming its true, then discuss its merits, but as you said in 2, without questioning whether they are rational, but assume they are true and then speculate on whether the conspiracy is in progress.

Sorry this Jew says, this woman is just a person expressing her own subjective feelings. That is all they are. There is no meaning to them since they are only that, her subjective feelings.

Why would I debate them? How does one rationally debate someone who believes they are a prophet. How does one debate another's faith?

That is what you have done. Set this up as a faith issue. You've cloaked her subjective feeling as a faith doctrine and now you seek to find people to recruit do you not?

Sorry. This idea of spreading the word of a prophet is ridiculously unoriginal. Everytime its the same shit, some prophet who knows the truth and the impending apocolypse and is trying to save us if only we believe.

Its horseshit to me. See to me someone with a negative vision that invokes fear to get people to listen is nothing more then an emotional manipulator-someone with an anti-social histrionic personality to be specific-some who has narcissistic thought patterns and believes everyone must think like her/him and we are all unenlightened unless we buy her snake-oil.

Thanks. I am not some salivating victim in need of this woman or anyone else warning me of impending doom. Been there. Done that. Every minute of every day yet another genius with their prophecies of impending doom seek recruits.

I find it offensive you think Jews are such weaklings and so paranoid and afraid of other people that they would buy into this shit. Please do not exporpriate my culture and ethnic beliefs for this shit.

Judaism is about respecting all other peoples' religions and beliefs and customs not defining them as evil and to be feared.

To follow the most basic, simple precept of Judaism, is to respect other humans as equals and not to demonize them and treat them with the same respect we would want them to show us. Its not rocket science. Its the same precept all religions and disciplines that seek reason over irrational impulse seek to follow.

I say it again loud and clear-anyone who tells stories of doomsday scenarios is nothing more then engaging in emotional manipulation. You want to inspire people to do good, try present positive visions. Scaring people into obedience is as intellectually lazy as it gets.

Furthermore one can't debate this topic for there is no way to prove whether this women is a medium or someone who is manic depressive or schitzophrenic and off their medication and doing what they do, sharing their delusions which of course to them would be real but to me would simply be symptoms of neurotransmission disturbance and chemical imbalance or a possible brain tumour or lesion or hormonal balace or socio-pathic personality disorder or vitamin or potassium defficiency and so on.

Originally Posted by roobarb

Its interesting. On the one hand you say you came on this forum to debate but read your words after the number 2. I find it interesting you set the preconditions of what is allowed to be discussed. Why? Are you interested in a debate or leading a controlled dialogue where you get to control what is allowed to be discussed? Sounds to me like you have established parameters for what you will permit to be discussed-i.e., you are already trying to censor without even hearing what one might have to say.

What problems do you have with #2? What's wrong with debating a point to its end?

As for the rest of your post, I think you must be confused. Alice Bailey is a (supposed) medium; Hannah Newman is not. I don't care whether Alice Bailey is a medium or not; that's not the point. If she is a medium, why should we trust her source? If she is not, we're in an even worse position (as her chances of being right are much slimmer).

What I want to debate is whether the theory proposed by Hannah is correct (or at least valid).