reply to post by Pythein
Thank you for permitting me to criticize your world view and education. Since you fail to refute some of my assertions concerning your inaccuracies
and inconsistencies -- I will conclude that some of them have struck true.
It is important for me to set the record straight, since you have formed and thus are in possession of inaccurate conclusions about me:
I don't follow the cults of celebrity and personality. If you have formed this belief because I choose to accurately distinguish the subject to which
I may be referring, by giving it a detailed and long form of description –- then you are wrong to believe thus, and I would instruct you to find,
instead, the habit of a researcher genuinely interested in all manner of subjects, books, and items, and wanting to be accurate.
There is no reason - at all - for you to come up with a better answer in finding a more appropriate broker than the one you named as a Warren
Buffet-type, because I have done the research for both of us it seems, and indeed found the best answer you will ever find. Furthermore, that you have
chosen to defer to my opinion concerning this matter, acknowledges that my answer is the superior one.
Regardless of who actually steps forth for such a challenge (if anyone even does?) it is true that they will have their name etched in history,
pursuant to actually brokering such a peace. However, to invite speculation on the reason for a potential broker's reason for stepping into the role,
presents an environment of stale insipidness and dearth of evidential inquiry. Here, you are telling me more about yourself, or rather your mindset,
than the reason or reasons behind why someone would enter the position. The picture is clear, so thank you for painting it so clearly for me.
If you belong in the same place as you asserted the Israelis' belong, in making their claim of ownership to their land based on the G_D provision, you
are not only doing yourself a disservice, but also dropping the credibility of your “cloud cuckoo land” position in regard to it. I was correct to
object at your position since you released it with such abject ease, and indeed I have come out of this particular exploration in the ascendancy. The
second one so far it seems, and I've barely cleared half-a-dozen paragraphs.
Your “map room” assembly, while idealized in the impression it presents, seems tricky, but it also seems to be the idea with the most common
sense. I cannot fault it, and I would only hope that an eventual adviser doing research on behalf of the broker, would find this post of yours or form
the same faultless, systematic approach.
Moreover, I will accept your obvious depth of knowledge concerning the ideology to which you refer in your longest paragraph as I am of the opinion
that middle ground between a range of political theories can be accommodated in realizing a promising way forward for such tight places as the Holy
Land. Indeed, here I am expounding on the central position and theme present in American political scientist and political economist, Francis
Fukuyama's book titled, “The End of History and the Last Man”, which he expanded on from his 1989 article entitled “The End of History” for
the journal, The National Interest, and which the American author and journalist Tom Wolfe quotes as; “A fascinating historical and philosophical
setting for the twenty-first century.”
I don't accept your position that “the majority is often legislated against in favor of a minority elite”. There might be such a suggestion
evident in the acceptance of the position that wealth buys access into the corridors of government, and this access provides a smoother lobby platform
–- but to draw such an assumption over an undisclosed reference makes more for a jocular reference than actual, inverted happenstance. I mean,
governments are varied and many across the globe, so until you pin down your position to the specific, you must see that you are being foolish with
your statement. To which you would then need to attach appropriate evidence of a systematic and deliberate account of such instances, in any case.
...More appropriate is keeping the run on formulation to the Palestinian argument, which you tend to describe as something of a paternal form of
enslavement. I would suggest that here, though, you have used a messy and broad brush to paint the picture from – and in relation to - the Arab
perspective and question. I think this is the paragraph you feared as being “non-sensical” in your penultimate place of reply. Balderdash of the
finest order, I am of the opinion, by skipping from one to the other in the kind of keen manner appropriate for a little girl who has found herself in
the pouring rain, but in appropriate wet-weather gear. You would have done far better if you had decided to respect the existence of Hamas, and built
your many varied paths from this central point; an Islamist political party which governs the Gaza Strip, and which could be suggested are similar to
Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland - a topic which we have discussed earlier, and not necessarily put to rest that it couldn't have been used again
I will admit that if one is to have a garden, a constant gardener approach is the best approach, for tending it constantly allows one to know what is
happening in the garden. Knowing what is happening, therefore allows one to know the garden, and a garden which is understood allows one to know what
to do with it, and where to take it. For example, knowing that when the sun is shining some good tending can be undertaken. Obviously, children need
supervision and a responsible person should always carry out this obligation.
So, the world we live in - is one where the sun sometimes shines and at other times it doesn't, it perhaps rains instead, and little girls with
carefree outlooks get caught out, and so this world is also one where not all claims of ownership are taken to court and even counter-productive
arguments are perpetuated. Then, do we substitute a word such as 'pander' with a word such as 'disrespect'? What would President Clinton think, now
that you have abandoned your initially preferred “Realpolik” with my “Realpolitik”? He might say that the first time you used it you made a
spelling error which wasn't an error, but a different form of spelling of the same word. So why change now, I ask? In fact; why suddenly claim that
you might be the descendant of this or that, when we both know that G_D is eternal and so the inference of a creator creating the Creator is plainly
immature? Wouldn't it be far superior a position to claim, to accept that some claims of ancient ownership exist through a historical understanding
and working with this obvious evidence? I certainly maintain that such a claim can withstand even the closest and finest scrutiny, by the best and
most supple minds in the business of investigating such things. The only thing which is unreasonable, in fact, in this position you have appropriated
for yourself, here - the argument that the Arabs have somehow overlooked an opportunity for themselves to claim ownership to Hebron and its surrounds,
by way of your Abraham descendant theory. For they haven't, and it would have been ludicrous for them to have ever attempted to do so, with one of the
“four holy cities of Islam”. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are the three major Abrahamic religions, so for Islam to claim your position on
those grounds, would confound the other two, I'm sure.
How "real" peace is achieved can best be described as you have done so, though.
Your 'Protocol complicated' paragraph and discussion is sound for the most part, and as far as such a complicated subject can go without requiring the
need to itemize each point in description and origin by way of footnotes - it contains an understanding of fair import. But lets not import too much
from one place as we might find that another place is going out of business. It may be appropriate to remember, therefore, that the Cliveden Set, and
what happened with people's playing of the game of charades at this address – may have equally been responsible for links and relationships which
only a closer study would make discovery likely.
Interesting to note your assertion that “the German edition of the Protocols was very successful”. I didn't know that, furthermore, I wasn't in
possession of the interesting pdf link you provided, and so had no knowledge of its existence, in fact. Very interesting reading, indeed quite
curious. Your understanding of the potential for either of the two probabilities being true is welcome, in terms of either limiting its influence or
intensifying its mystique. Thanks for making it known. With doubt being such a powerful feeling in such affairs, I can fully accept that it would be
used in such an underhand way.
So now, to get to your placement where things can be long and short, or simply conclusive in conclusion:
You make sense to some extent, and perhaps I have somehow set the groundwork, but your juxtaposition of 'plan' details also seems to mirror the whole
Howard Hughes/Clifford Irving/Richard Nixon affair. In that, an equally resourceful power was able to eclipse the originator in bringing a suitable
outcome for oneself. I would need you to comb this over a little more neatly to fully appreciate what you are saying, but I cannot accept that a
production was to be forthcoming when this “Khawdash” production has existed for some sixty years from the evidence I have, and only its release
by me would make its existence more real. And, also, that given the state of affairs in this world at the present it would be easy to understand for
the Learned Elders of Zion, that the “Khawdash” Protocols would not make for appreciative reading with many people around the world looking for
someone to blame for their lot in life at present. And, that very much, if I was an adviser to the Learned Elders of Zion, I would not wish for such a
body of information to come to light, when all that is necessary to prevent it from coming out is a start on peace in the Middle East, in finding a
Two-State solution between the oppressed Palestinian people and the people of Israel.
Finally, your “tattiness” matches your tardiness, but disclosing to me that it was through “unavoidable distractions” makes me think that your
primary focus in life up till a little before, has been this thread. You understand, that if something is distracting it is distracting from what it
is which is in focus. Apart from one instance, which I mentioned, it was hardly nonsensical, indeed it was appreciated for its meaningful and
appropriate examination of a broad discussion. You have eluded, from some points of order, but in so doing you have also said so much to me that an
inclusion wasn't necessary.
I would conclude by saying that if the Learned Elders of Zion were to ignore my threat, it is them and not me whom will instigate or proliferate the
things which might potentially come from the release of the “Khawdash”. There is no peace presently in the Holy Land, in any case. If this is what
they want than they must know that this is what they will make happen. After all, the “Khawdash” may be the first accurate and actual work of the
meetings of the learned Elders of Zion. Only they know 100% if such a work is real. I have included as many details as necessary to provide an
accurate portrayal of what I have in my possession, and am threatening to release. Indeed, threatening to release if peace is not found by the
deadline I've put forward.
Peace be with you, and may peace come to all the people of the Holy Land,
edit on 4-6-2011 by YHWH2 because: Paragraph split for the purpose of easier reading.