That's in part to do with how during WW2 Europe had the bulk population of Jewish faithed people.

Outside of Europe, the population of Jewish faithed persons was scattered throughout little towns and ghettos (in the social sense, eg. like NY's Chinatown for the Chinese).

There was a small-ish population of Jewish Poles (called the Zionists) that had in the WW1 era moved to Palestine and bought land together to form their own communities.

Basically, the high concentration of Jewish faithed persons in Europe in the WW2 era made it easy to target a large percentage of their overall population.

Judea (Referred to as "Palestine" by the Romans - hence why in modern times Judea was called Palestine) had converted from Judaism to Christianity around 300 ish AD (under the influence of Rome), and then to Islam around 700 ish AD (Under the influence of the Islamic expansions). By WW2, Judaism was an archaic religion in the middle east. Similar to Zoroastrianism, where small pockets still can be found, but its otherwise not represented.

It's not till after WW2 (1948) when Britain carved out the nation of Israel from [at the time British colonial] Palestine, and surviving Jewish Europeans immigrated there from Europe, and subsequently Jewish faithed Arabs/Burburs immigrated there from around the middle east, that there was another major concentration of Jewish faithed persons to be found.

(This is when the Arab vs Israel conflict(s) began. A fun irony is that much of Israel's military in 1948 was German equipment (bf109s, etc), and much of the Arab equipment was British (spitfires, etc).)

(The Nazi government did a lot of killing, tho. The Soviet Union alone lost ~10 million soldiers, ~14-17 million civilians, and ~1-2 million Jewish persons.)

One of the reasons why Israel is so insular in regards to non-Jews, is because their overall population is small enough that they would be bred out of existence in a few generations.

-scheherazade

Actually, having sex with children isn't what is harmful to children (Unless done in a physical manner that causes bodily destruction.) Oh shit, call the PC patrol, Lawdeedaw said pedophiles aren't monsters or hurt children!

Or wait, did I? By your assumptions that I assume you would assume I would be saying those things. But only a fuck-tard would. And hence why PC attacks are for fucking tards.

In history sex with kids was fine. In Rome it was an honor and often the child had power over the adult. Even in America it was fine when the average age of living was dying young. In Mexico 13 is the legal age, but younger is often accepted. Even by older men. This is still true in many places.

HOWEVER, pedophiles in America deserve to have their dicks cut off! Their clits burned away! Etc. Why? What makes pedophiles so vile here is the fact that they do it when society condemns it so much. Because of this children's lives are utterly destroyed. It is like sibling sex and how that is condemned--but to a much greater level. Under no circumstances in abusing children in this manner okay, or excusable. Even in the case of mental retardation.

So yeah...

As I said before, the US is a unique nation. We grant our people rights that no other nation before or since would consider. It has worked for us so far and I for one would not trade these rights to live in any other country.

I don't think we will need to rebel against our government or that the world is going to come to an end tomorrow. I do think that having an armed citizenry does prepare us for any situation and also does provide another check and balance for our government, should it ever try to deprive us of our freedom.

In any case, as screwed up as we may be, we are still the shining light. Even if we are Rome in decline, we are still Rome until another country is willing to step up to the plate. People still flock to us for the freedoms and chances that they can't get anywhere else in the world.

"People choose to be polygamous" means people what polygamy? A-they are born that way? B-it just happens? Or C-Hrm, lets see...they must LEARN it. You specifically compared it with being born gay versus choosing (ie., learning something and then choosing it.) Whether this was intentional or not is...irrelevant...

Second, most of the stuff was meant to be irrelevant to the content but also explaining why I hate moral connotations from judgmental assholes. You twist that as though I related it to the video or used it directly against your argument--which I did not. If you didn't understand this, I am not sure how to spell out something so obvious, especially to someone as well-learned as you Chaos. Even if you didn't twist it, your constant poking at it was irrelevant to the argument, and makes your argument seem very petty.

Furthermore, the definition of monogamy is crafted in the best possible light for those "practicing it." They can sugar coat the shit all they want, but it's still shit. Basically they took the most convenient definition they could find and applied it. Remember, I said, "You could argue that boning, fucking, sucking, dating people until you decide it is convenient to settle down is monogamy, and that's fine." Keyword, "that's fine." So yeah, I agreed in a way that the common definition accepted by others is as you said--don't correct bullshit that didn't need correcting.

Lastly, Rome was an example of how history affects perception. Nothing paranoid about that. I think its bullshit, but it happens. It would be like saying that people hate persecution of Jews because of Nazis. In fact Israel can abuse Palestinians these days exactly because of the past. @newtboy was damn right about child rape and didn't need to use sarcasm. Yeah, Rome/Greece had some good and bad, absolutely. But all in all they were hated as a greedy, mass-murdering peoples who brought hell to their vanquished.

So...are we talking about Swan monogamy or situational or temporary monogamy? Because last time I checked the majority of Americans or others haven't had just one partner. Nor, even if they have, do they keep those "feelings" of relationship to one individual (Such as that soulmate feeling, sex-free.)

You could argue that boning, fucking, sucking, dating people until you decide it is convenient to settle down is monogamy, and that's fine. Well, right until most people leave/cheat/explore. Then they gotta get back into the routine eventually, because you know it's so natural...

You are born human, sexual, primal, and society tames you. You are born uncircumcised, and who tells you it is wrong? Religious freaks. Who tells you missionary is right, and sex is for procreation? Society. Basically, anything that Rome and Greece did, after they committed atrocities around the world, is now considered wrong. Orgies, emperors, GAY SEX, etc. Coincidence? Probably not.

Tell me Chaos, who did tell you polyamory was "learned"? Biologists? Or society? Or some crappy half-witted data that just says so?

No, devil's advocate here is the same, to me, as devil's advocate against homosexuals.

At least that's my heartfelt belief. I was once wholly monogamous, even turned down a threesome with my first girlfriend. Then I realized that marriage was based on ownership, a very human trait, but monogamy is inconvenient for damn near everyone who practices it.

The name Rome and Greece must be changed, because those symbols (names are symbols) are offensive...so must Egypt, Russia, pretty much every country in the world. Native Americans need to get rid of their symbols as well--all that scalping and such...Lets not even talk about anything related to men--who have been nothing but rapist control freaks, especially in places like India where women are burned alive with their husbands...God, we have a lot of symbols to kill bud--nearly every symbol made by humans...

Dang, now I want to go play Rome Total War.

Prefabricated construction has a long history both in China and the west, and to some degree almost every modern building uses the technique. There is a video on here about the construction of the Empire State building for instance, and the WTC twin towers were quite prefabricated too. (*related: Steel erecting on the Empire State Building -1930s, Building the World Trade Center Towers 720p HD)

It was particularly popular in ancient Rome, and combined with the use of cranes and concrete their construction times weren't that different to the modern era (actually sometimes faster, I think the planning process must have been more streamlined).

The standardised look of ancient Chinese buildings is for the same reason, the parts were standardised to make prefabrication easier, certainly by the Ming dynasty if not earlier - see http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/705 for instance.

This particular building just does a particularly good job of it.

Yahweh has NEVER given evidence of his existence. No more so than any other god anyhow. They all answer prayer equally and randomly well. They all claim to have made the universe/world, they all claim to be the true one... Near death experiences differ by culture expectations of that culture and don't all conform to the supposed Christian expectation... he has done nothing to make himself stand out from the rest of the gods that Christians dismiss. Heck, I've never seen a Frost Giant or evidence they ever existed, so clearly Odin has one up on Yahweh.

In the 4,000 years or so from Adam and Eve's time in the Garden to Jesus, Yahweh couldn't or wouldn't make himself known to the other races. He didn't reveal himself to those in Africa, Asia, the Americas or Europe, just to one tiny specific group of people in the Middle East. If couldn't then he's not the omnipotent, omnipresent god he claims, if he wouldn't that makes him a racist ass not worthy of following by picking one people to be his chosen people.

The only reason Europe became Christian was forced conversion when the Christian armies of Rome forced them to, which setup a tradition of most Europeans and later Americans being born into a faith. Were the exact same people born in Saudi Arabia they "would know that they know" that Islam is the true religion, or same in India but applying to Hinduism.

And saying that atheists have had supernatural experiences and can change to theism when talking about it, ignores the whole point of the video, especially the part when he talks about the linked Darren Brown video, which demonstrates that it is easy to make a spiritual experience happen that has no basis on any real god.

By way of example: I used to be a heavy evangelical Christian, I watched TBN and Fox News religiously (pun intended, see this old post of mine here on the sift from an old account that I couldn't recover http://videosift.com/usercomments/Charon... heck see my Revelations from the Word posts on my blog, http://www.brianathomas.com/archives/category/religion/revelations-from-the-word/ or more embarrassing my older political posts http://www.brianathomas.com/archives/category/politics/ which while progressive now, go to page 4 or so around June 2008 and back and you see a Libertarian and further back Republican with some crazy anti-vaccine paranoia , climate change denialism, science denaillism and other things I'm deeply ashamed of now)... I've had deep and meaningful spiritual experiences with god. After Republicans ruined Christianity for me (as the Republican party is clearly 100% against every teaching of Jesus... and yeah we can tick that off as being humans, but god does nothing to correct them, he may have spoke to my heart or whatever one wants to say to have more empathy, but over half the Christians in this nation still vote for a party 100% devoid of the teachings of the Jesus of the Bible while claiming to do it for Christian reasons) and I eventually lost faith (while Republicans are the reason I initially lost faith, they aren't the reason I stayed away, god is a dick is why I stayed away). After I lost faith in the Christian god, I gave paganism a try, and I've had just a meaningful spiritual experiences while worshiping at a Druid rite as I have at any Christian church. This is why people pick a religion, first by accident of birth (most people are Christian in the US because their parents were, and back to Europe where going back further they were forced to convert by invading Christian armies), second by choosing one that connects more personally with them... for many they see the hypocrisy of Christianity (and its general lack of empathy) but do connect with some form of paganism, and pagans generally have a patron god they serve above most others, and that god is the one they have a deep connection to, the same deep connection that Christians claim to have with Jesus/Yahweh... One doesn't drive a plane into a building killing 3,000 plus people without a deep and meaningful relationship with their god, and to dismiss t hat relationship as being deceived is naive and demonstrates a lack of empathy.

Now, I will allow the possibility that god does exist, but not in the form Christians propose, but perhaps closer to what the US Founding Fathers believed, but perhaps expanded a bit with more modern knowledge. A Deist like view. That this god somehow this god, created the energy and set into motion the laws of this physical universe that spun out from the big bang, but he's had nothing to do with anything since then. Perhaps all religions actually worship the same god but with their own culture's expectations and interpretations. However this would mean that all religions and lack there of are equally valid, which most faiths (aside from most modern paganism) doesn't allow for as their claim rests on being the true one.

I've rambled on far too long already so I'll leave it at that.

God the US will miss Chomsky when he's gone.

So will the ROW (the 19 out of 20 people on Earth that US power considers disposable meat..)

BTW from the outside it looks like the last days of Rome.. crazy all round, torture, non-judicial murder, mobs burning things, unchecked power, total obfuscation and confusion sown all around by rogue members of the powerbase for their own reasons, xenophobia, public statements of religious eschatology.. ..

Take it from a Brit - the end of total global power does not HAVE to be an apocalypse.. you guys need to get into tea and cricket, stat..

when one of your first posts on this site is admitting that you don't give a shit about this community and that you admit that your sole purpose here is to push your Jesus agenda on the site, that tends to not win you too many friends.

Virtually everyone on this site has multiple facets to their personalty, like different things, talk about different subjects, do different things....

....whereas you are completely, utterly, fanatically focused on one...and one subject only. That tends to not win you any friends here.

...when your response to every question is to quote the bible instead of use any rational discourse. That tends to not win you any friends here.

in other words, you dug your own grave. You brought it on yourself. You've made poor decisions

you can spin it into your own persecution fantasy as you have before, but that's between you and your psychiatrist or your invisible sky daddy

But as @ChaosEngine has pointed out, since no punishments or administrative actions have happened. all the whining and persecution fantasies are just that.

It's getting to the point where I can't blame the inmates anymore for taking over the asylum when the warden is asleep at the wheel and refuses to enforce their own rules.

Once again, we see another user blatantly violate the rules....and nothing happens which proves my earlier point.

There have been rumblings for a long while now that the sift is in dire straits and we're seeing the fall of rome here. In this thread alone, we've had yet another user get fed up and abandon the sinking ship.

As for why the video itself isn't getting more attention. There are numerous sifts where the discussion has evolved far beyond the original video and took on a life of it's own. If you were an actual member of this community instead of a Bible Quote Robot, you would know that.

There are lots of things about this site you probably don't know because you've decided to be a One Note Charlie

Hm, so if businesses don't create jobs, I guess the only other option would be employment by the state... That's the theory that John Galt put to the test in fiction, and Joseph Stalin put to the test in practice. (And we all know how well that went!)

Jeez, 4 years under a Clinton regime seems like such a long time! I suppose the only glimmer of hope would be that, given how pro-cronyism she clearly is, I doubt she really believes what she says here. Maybe what she means is that businesses don't create jobs unless they are cronies. Otherwise, they just have to go out of business. Perhaps having a hypocrite in office may be better than having a fanatic, but who can tell?

Of course, there's always the chance that she actually knows nothing of economics and has no common sense either....

People who spend all their lives in "public service" often have no clue of how businesses actually run or what businesses do or need to function. Such people live in a different world where money "magically" comes out of a (Federal-Reserve-controlled) "printing press" at the push of a button whenever the powers-that-be deem it so. They live in a world where the "customers" are forced by law to pay for "services" they don't want, and follow rules that are not applicable to the rulers themselves.


(But then, again, Hilary says she was "dead broke" when she left the White House. I guess we should take her word for it.)

Note: Ancient Rome also had its share of crazy Patricians and rulers. This tends to become more commonplace as empires go off the deep end.

Jews have the old testament.
Christians have the old testament and new testament.
Muslims have the old testament, new testament, and yet a newer testament.

All 3 share the old testament.
The 'violence promoting' scriptures are found in the old testament - which all 3 have in common.

Reza is right.
If people want peace, the religious of them simply ignore the violent edicts of their religions.
If they want to be violent, the religious of them legitimize it with excuses from their religions.

He's also right about the national hypocrisy. Al-Qaeda at the time of 9/11 was a pet organization of members of the Saudi royal family.
But instead of going after the Saudis (who also today finance ISIS), we go after 2 countries that are unrelated to the attack.

Look at today's irony. Assad in Syria (who we wanted deposed because he was friendlier to Russia than the U.S., and allowed Russian bases on Syrian soil [in the middle east]) is now fighting ISIS, while we ally with the Saudis who are supporting ISIS.

We also didn't mind supporting the Mujahedin (Jihadi fighters) in Afghanistan when they were fighting our enemy. We had no problem throwing Afghanistan into the dark ages when it suited us.

Ultimately, extremist Islam is a foil, meant to rouse western people's emotions. As national policy, we don't _actually_ do anything to stop it, we just use it as an excuse to do whatever else is of national interest.
Who would be the boogey man if extremist Islam was gone? We need a boogey man if we want to keep excusing and paying for a large military. People simply don't have the foresight and patience to maintain a strong military without someone scaring them into support. Particularly now, when we don't have the manufacturing capacity to quickly build a large military.

However, Reza is ignoring Turkey's and the Pacific islander's Muslim problems. Indonesia and the Philippines have extremist Muslim organizations doing attacks home (Philippines also has Christian terrorists). Turkey is a large source of Muslim fighters pouring into Syria.



The various related religions also have historical developmental differences.

Jews were for a long time in such minorities that they did not have the political capability of waging any campaign of violence. They were either too small, or too busy being occupied by European powers (Rome, etc).

Christians did have a long period of majority, starting around 400ad when Rome decided that a good way to control/pacify any dissent within the empire was to make the empire 1 religion and make Rome the head of that religion. They elected Christianity as the state religion, forced everyone in the Roman empire to convert, and you had a continent's worth of Christians.
This included north Africa and Middle East - and is when Jews (by now called Palestinians) were forced to convert from Judaism to Christianity (**and few hundred years later forced to convert from Christianity to Islam).

Although, Christians had the benefit of the Inquisition(s) to temper their enthusiasm for Christianity. A large part of the population was killed for consorting with the devil. Once it got so bad that everyone knew someone who had been convicted and killed - and everyone was sure that those killed were innocent, it cast a large doubt on Christianity as whole. People questioned if the devil even exists, or if it's all a sham. The distrust and resentment paved the way for the eventual birth of Deism and Empiricism. A time when the scientific method and physical observation started to take over.

Islam is still a young religion. They still have to experience their religion becoming all powerful, and the inquisitions that inevitably come from absolute power. The one good thing about Islamic extremism is that it makes the people living under those conditions more likely to suffer. Once the suffering becomes so pervasive that everyone is suffering, the people will start to dislike/distrust their religion, and the extremism will resolve itself from the inside out - like it did with Christianity.

The bigger problem would be if things are 'too tolerable', and the religion grows more extreme (no one is inclined to say 'no'). The biggest problem would be if the religious leaders 'solve' the balance issue, and manage to stabilize the oppression at a level that is as extreme as it can be while still being permanently sustainable. Then the religious leaders can live the life of power without the threat of deposition.

-scheherazade

Um....did you forget what color the slaves that built the pyramids were? Have you heard of indentured servitude? Ever heard of an empire called Rome? Whites HAVE a history of being slaves.
Have you forgotten how the Irish, or German, or Chinese, or Japanese, etc. were treated? White, and other non-blacks have been treated as dirty on mass for the color of their skin, or the lilt of their voice, or the shape of their eyes, really for just about every ridiculous reason man could think of. Blacks have no monopoly on a history of mistreatment of their 'group'. They do seem to be the main target today however.
Do you think ghettos are 100% black? Let me dissuade you of that fallacy...they are not. Many 'white' people have LIVED many if not all of the experiences of people of color, for example, mixed race people (particularly those in the south), adopted white babies in black families, and whites that simply identify more closely with a 'black' community. Not ALL white people are ignorant of the reality and implications of racism. Some are.
Because 'white people' may not have ALL the answers does not mean they should not have a voice at the table discussing racial issues....but they should certainly not be the only voice either....they probably should not be the loudest voice too.

Up until I saw my fellow countrymen (including many I respected) fawning like chimps at a tea party during that whole "jubilee" thing I might have agreed. There seems to be a huge cognitive dissonance for most people when it comes to the royals.

On the one hand most don't really take it very seriously, on the other many (maybe even most) appear to have a sub-conscious desire/need to submit to their natural betters. Our whole national identity is built on the myths of Kings and failed rebellions and I fear for many the Monarchy represents a kind of bizarre political security blanket. We claim to not really care but deep down I think many of us secretly fear loosing our mythical matriarch.

One might liken it to celebrity worship backed by 100's & 1000's of years of religious mythology. The Royal's aren't really human to us, they are more like some closely related parent species born to a life we could only dream of. I realise that when asked directly most people would consciously acknowledge that was silly, but most would also respond the same to say Christian sexual repression. They know sex and nakedness when considered rationally are nothing to be ashamed of, but they still continue to treat their own urges as somehow sinful when they do not fall within rigidly defined social parameters.

We still haven't gotten over such Judeo-Christian self policing because the social structures built up around it are still with us (even if we fool ourselves into thinking we are beyond the reach of such sub-conscious influences). I don't think we will ever get over our master-slave culture while class and unearned privilege are still built into the fabric of our society. Having a Royal family, no matter how symbolic, is the very living embodiment of this kind of backwards ideology.

It's like trying to quit heroin while locked in a room with a big bag of the stuff.

It's true to say most don't take the whole thing very seriously but that to me is almost as concerning. Most people when asked don't believe advertising has a significant effect on their psyche but Coke-a-cola still feels like spending about 3 billion a year on it is worthwhile. One of them is clearly mistaken!

Our royal family here, is to me working in the same way as coke's advertising. It's a focal point for a lot of sub-conscious concepts we are bombarded with our whole lives. Naturally there are many sides to this and it wouldn't work without heavy media manipulation, state indoctrination etc. but it's an intrinsic part of the coercive myth none the less. Monarch's, Emperors and wealthy Dynasties are all poisons to me. No matter the pragmatic details, the sub-conscious effect seems significant and cumulative.

"Dead" symbolisms IMHO can often be the most dangerous. At least one is consciously aware of the devils we see. No one is watching the one's we have forgotten.....

The above is reason enough for me but I have bog all better to do this aft so I'll dive into the rabbithole a bit.....

(We do very quickly start getting into conspiracy theory territory hare so I'll try to keep it as uncontroversial as I can.)

A. The UK is truly ruled by financial elites not political ones IMHO. "The city" says jump, Whitehall says how high. The Royal family being among the wealthiest landowners and investors in the world (let alone UK) presumably can exert the same kind of influence. Naturally this occurs behind closed doors, but when the ownership class puts it's foot down the government ignores them to their extreme detriment. (It's hard to argue with people who own your economy de-facto and can make or break your career)

B. The queen herself sits on the council on foreign relations & Bilderberg group and she was actually the chairwoman of the "committee of 300" for several years. (and that's not even starting on club of Rome, shares in Goldman Sachs etc.)

C. SIS the uk's intelligence services (MI5/6 etc.), which have been proven to on occasion operate without civilian oversight in the past, are sworn to the crown. This is always going to be a most contentious point as it's incredibly difficult to prove wrongdoings, but I have very strong suspicions based on various incidents (David Kelly, James Andanson, Jill Dando etc.), that if they wanted/needed you dead/threatened that would not be especially difficult to arrange.

D. Jimmy Saville. This one really is tin foil hat territory, but it's no secret he was close to the Royal family. I am of the opinion this is because he was a top level procurer of "things", for which I feel there is a great deal of evidence, but I can't expect people to just go along with that idea. However given the latest "paedogeddon" scandal involving a extremely high level abuse ring (cabinet members, mi5/6, bankers etc.) it certainly would come as little surprise to find royal family members involved.

Points A&B I would stand behind firmly. C&D are drifting into conjecture but still potentially relevant I feel.

But even if we ignore all of them, our culture is built from the ground up upon the idea of privilege of birth. That there are some people born better or more deserving than the rest of us. When I refer to symbolism this is what I mean. Obviously the buck does not stop with the monarchy, England is hopelessly stratified by class all the way through, but the royal family exemplify this to absurd extremes.

At best I feel this hopelessly distorts and corrupts our collective sense of identity on a sub-conscious level. At worst....Well you must have some idea now how paranoid I'm capable of being about the way the world is run. (Not that I necessarily believe it all wholeheartedly, but I'm open to the possibility and inclined to suggest it more likely than the mainstream narrative)


On a pragmatic note: Tourism would be fine without them I think, we still have the history and the castles and the soldiers with silly hats etc. And I think the palaces would make great hotels and museums. They make great zoo exhibits I agree, just maybe not let them continue to own half the zoo and bribe the zoo keepers?


Anyway much love as always. You responded with considered points which is always worthy of respect, regardless of whether I agree with it all.