The fight against Newspeak

Comprehending laws and contracts is impossible, unless we first learn the meaning of the words and phrases they contain.

Moderator: notmartha

User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1190
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

The fight against Newspeak

Post by Firestarter » Tue Jun 07, 2016 3:53 pm

An important aspect about the “Newspeak” in the 1984 of George Orwell is that the number of “words” is reduced. It is safe to say that in reality the number of “words” keeps increasing (the amount of words in the dictionary increases with each new edition). In Dutch there are only 80,000 words while in German some 135,000 words and in English even 650,000 words exist. So if the English speaking people are more brainwashed than the Germans or Dutch, this could prove that increasing the amount of words is being used for mind control.

1984 is the Orwell book I love to hate; Animal farm is much better. Orwell was also wrong that “Newspeak” is “new”; mind conditioning by changing language has been going for thousands of years. In Animal farm the farm animals chase the cruel farmer away, then the pigs take control and before you know it the (other) animals have to work really hard for the greed of the pigs. One of the first things the pigs did was writing 7 commandments, of which the last reads: “All animals are equal”. During the course of the book the 7 commandments are changed and in the end all commandments are replaced by the single: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others”.
This shows that even good rules (or a constitution) in the end prevents freedom of thought. Officially we are told that both Animal farm and 1984 are about the atrocities in the Soviet Union of Stalin. It cannot be coincidental that Orwell was speaking about 7 “commandments”; he must have had doubts about Moses’ 10 commandments.

There is a surprisingly effective, simple strategy to fight Newspeak: making a mockery of the political sayings by replacing the usual sayings with rhyme words and/or changing the order of words, for example:
Home of the slave.
War in error.
What doesn’t make you stronger kills you.
My fellow Samaritans, ask not what your country can do for you, demand what you get in return for your tax money.

There can be different interpretations of Jesus Christ: I prefer to see him as revolutionary. Jesus was fighting against the dictatorship of the elite 2000 years ago and - because this was founded on the Tenach (the Old Testament) - he was (also) fighting against the Tenach. He used the concepts, words of the Tenach, while changing their meaning. Jesus Christ was of course sentenced to death by a court of law, in all justice, for his criminal words.
I have 5 quotes from Matthew (NIV) where Jesus criticised the rich and reversed eye for eye, tooth for tooth.
Matthew 5:38-40:
You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.

Matthew 5:43-44:
You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.

Matthew 6:14:
For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.

Matthew 19:23-24:
Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God”.

Matthew 21:12-13:
Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. “It is written,” he said to them, “‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’ but you are making it ‘a den of robbers’.

If you’ve read the Tenach you must have noted that all of the Jewish heroes in the book are rewarded for their good faith with many wives, a large family and material possessions (land, slaves and cattle). There are also a lot of passages that define that the preachers should be considered our masters and have to receive presents (like tax), because they are better than others. I think the worst of the Bible are the rules on the sacrifice (or bought with 2 pigeons or a lamb) of first-born male animals and humans (Jesus was obviously furious about this practice).
Exodus 13:2:
Consecrate to me every firstborn male. The first offspring of every womb among the Israelites belongs to me, whether human or animal.

Exodus 13:11-13:
After the LORD brings you into the land of the Canaanites and gives it to you, as he promised on oath to you and your ancestors, you are to give over to the LORD the first offspring of every womb. All the firstborn males of your livestock belong to the LORD. Redeem with a lamb every firstborn donkey, but if you do not redeem it, break its neck. Redeem every firstborn among your sons.

Luke 2:23-24:
(as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male is to be consecrated to the Lord”), and to offer a sacrifice in keeping with what is said in the Law of the Lord: “a pair of doves or two young pigeons.”

Numbers 3:45-48:
Take the Levites in place of all the firstborn of Israel, and the livestock of the Levites in place of their livestock. The Levites are to be mine. I am the LORD. To redeem the 273 firstborn Israelites who exceed the number of the Levites, collect five shekels for each one, according to the sanctuary shekel, which weighs twenty gerahs. Give the money for the redemption of the additional Israelites to Aaron and his sons.

Numbers 18:14-19:
Everything in Israel that is devoted to the LORD is yours. The first offspring of every womb, both human and animal, that is offered to the LORD is yours. But you must redeem every firstborn son and every firstborn male of unclean animals. When they are a month old, you must redeem them at the redemption price set at five shekels of silver, according to the sanctuary shekel, which weighs twenty gerahs.
“But you must not redeem the firstborn of a cow, a sheep or a goat; they are holy. Splash their blood against the altar and burn their fat as a food offering, an aroma pleasing to the LORD. Their meat is to be yours, just as the breast of the wave offering and the right thigh are yours. Whatever is set aside from the holy offerings the Israelites present to the LORD I give to you and your sons and daughters as your perpetual share. It is an everlasting covenant of salt before the LORD for both you and your offspring.

In Spain ten thousands (or even hundreds of thousands) first-born babies were stolen from their parents. When this could not be denied anymore the state propaganda invented that these children - were not sacrificed (to The Lord), but – were sold for adoption. This scandal came to light in 2011 when Juan Luis Moreno and Antonio Barroso discovered they had been bought in the Kingdom of Spain from a catholic priest in Zaragoza and set up Anadit, after which 2000 mothers filed charges that their first-born baby was stolen: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... Spain.html
My parents were told that my older (first-born) brother died during childbirth. Is this just a coincidence?
Last edited by Firestarter on Sat Jan 13, 2018 6:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 737
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: The fight against Newspeak

Post by notmartha » Fri Jun 10, 2016 10:26 am

Firestarter wrote:An important aspect about the “Newspeak” in the 1984 of George Orwell is that the number of “words” is reduced. It is safe to say that in reality the number of “words” keeps increasing (the amount of words in the dictionary increases with each new edition). In Dutch there are only 80,000 words while in German some 135,000 words and in English even 650,000 words exist. So if the English speaking people are more brainwashed than the Germans or Dutch, this could prove that increasing the amount of words is being used for mind control.
The American dictionaries include many foreign words that have been adopted from the "melting pot" of immigrants. I can't say whether the large number of dictionary entries is proof of increased brainwash activity. Latin is a "dead language" and the Roman's were highly brainwashed.
Firestarter wrote:This shows that even good rules (or a constitution) in the end prevents freedom of thought. Officially we are told that both Animal farm and 1984 are about the atrocities in the Soviet Union of Stalin. It cannot be coincidental that Orwell was speaking about 7 “commandments”; he must have had doubts about Moses’ 10 commandments.
Because the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God are immutable and innumerable, to try to write them only limits them. Man will always work at finding ways to circumvent laws etched in stone or scribed with ink. But Men cannot ignore the perfect, perpetual, Holy, and exceedingly broad Laws that are written on their hearts.
Firestarter wrote:I have 5 quotes from Matthew (NIV) where Jesus criticised the rich and reversed eye for eye, tooth for tooth.
I recommend extreme caution when using the NIV. It is a thought-for-thought (mis)translation that includes much newspeak. This site talks about its corruptness. HERE too. And HERE.
Firestarter wrote:I think the worst of the Bible are the rules on the sacrifice (or bought with 2 pigeons or a lamb) of first-born male animals and humans (Jesus was obviously furious about this practice).
I want to preface this to say that I don’t believe myself qualified to teach about the Word of God, and I was hoping the men here would pipe up. That being said, please take the following as friendly discourse, and not as an attempt to teach.

I’ve done a lot of foolish things in my life, but I’m not so foolish as to marginalize the sovereignty of God by thinking the Creator can’t do as He pleases with His creation. If He wanted to sacrifice the firstborn Israelite sons on the altar, He could have; but He didn’t.

The sacrificing of people was a heathen practice, and sometimes, like in the case of the Egyptians or the idolatrous Israelites (see 2 Kings 17:17 and Ezekiel 20:24-26), God will turn them over to their own evils.

When God slew the firstborn of Egypt (keeping in mind that the Egyptians already customarily sacrificed their infants to the gods) he spared the firstborn Israelites. The verses in Exodus 13 explain the memorial ceremony that God instituted, sanctifying (setting aside for His special purposes) the firstborn sons who were then redeemed (bought back). This was a symbolic gesture, so the Israelites would not soon forget God’s providence, as well as a practical one. Originally, the eldest son was priest of the household after his father’s death. He received the “birthright” which included special privileges such as authority over younger siblings, double portion of inheritance, royal succession, etc. Later, as we read in Num 3:11–13 and 8:14–19, God chose the Levites to serve as sanctuary priests instead of the firstborn son household priests. But the firstborn Israelite sons were still required to be redeemed and still received the birthright.

If God had slew all the firstborn sons, as I think I understand you as saying, there would be no one to receive this birthright. We know from Numbers 3:43 that “all the firstborn males by the number of names, from a month old and upward, of those that were numbered of them, were twenty and two thousand two hundred and threescore and thirteen.” And people like Esau (who sold his birthright), Reuben (who forfeited his birthright), Samuel, Samson, etc. would not have had a history to be told.

As the sovereign Creator, God did choose to set apart His firstborn Son according to an eternal purpose (Ephesians 3:11). After Mary’s days of purification ended, Jehoshua was taken to Jerusalem, presented to the Lord, and redeemed with of a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons (Luke 2:22-24). Later, Jehoshua, God manifest in flesh, voluntarily and freely sacrificed Himself on the cross, fulfilling His purpose, and becoming our Redeemer. "He put away sin by the sacrifice of himself" (Hebrew 9:26).

While many denominations today still practice a ceremony of dedicating infants to the Lord, no redemption is necessary because we have been redeemed by the blood of Christ.
Firestarter wrote:In Spain ten thousands (or even hundreds of thousands) first-born babies were stolen from their parents. When this could not be denied anymore the state propaganda invented that these children - were not sacrificed (to The Lord), but – were sold for adoption. This scandal came to light in 2011 when Juan Luis Moreno and Antonio Barroso discovered they had been bought in the Kingdom of Spain from a catholic priest in Zaragoza and set up Anadit, after which 2000 mothers filed charges that their first-born baby was stolen: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... Spain.htmlMy parents were told that my older (first-born) brother died during childbirth. Is this just a coincidence?
They are robbers and liars. Because people like them twist the Word of God for their own financial gain does not make the Word wrong. People that call themselves Catholics have been stealing children for centuries. Research the Native American children stolen by Catholic Church in Canada. This is their own evil doing, not the hand of God.

Deuteronomy 24:7 (KJV)
7 If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die; and thou shalt put evil away from among you.

Exodus 21:16 (KJV)
16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.

It is no wonder you are skeptical of the God of the Bible, if you base your beliefs on the atrocities so-called Christians commit. It is all Satan's plan, to twist the truth (newspeak) to turn people from the loving, merciful Father.
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1190
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: The fight against Newspeak

Post by Firestarter » Tue Jun 14, 2016 2:54 pm

notmartha wrote:Because the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God are immutable and innumerable, to try to write them only limits them.
I'm glad we agree on the relative value of words.
The Tenach (Old Testament) was written by the Jewish elite to control the masses. The strategy is surprisingly effective (and thousands of years later is still used): tell the slaves they’re free and prove this by showing other slaves that got it much worse. The writers of the Tenach said their book was written by Yahwe (God). Every artist can claim his work (e.g. book, painting or music) was made by God. Why would anybody believe the writers of the Tenach?
An example of how this works. If I would give 9 Christians 100 dollars and 1 Christian 50 dollars: the Christian with the 50 dollar complains the others got more. On the other hand if the government punishes 9 Christians by locking them up for 5 years and 1 Christian for 1 year: the Christian that got only 1 year will be happy that he got off easier than the others.
notmartha wrote:Later, Jehoshua, God manifest in flesh, voluntarily and freely sacrificed Himself on the cross, fulfilling His purpose, and becoming our Redeemer. "He put away sin by the sacrifice of himself" (Hebrew 9:26).
Jesus was not afraid to die and maybe he even wanted to be "sacrificied", maybe this was because he figured out this was the best way to fight against the slavery based on the Tenach. I don't consider it voluntarily: he didn't turn himself in (although he probably knew that Judas would turn him in).
notmartha wrote:If God had slew all the firstborn sons, as I think I understand you as saying, there would be no one to receive this birthright.
I'm not saying God slew any first-born son, but that the Tenach approves genocide and that it also condones the sacrifice of first-born sons (still being done these days based on the Tenach).
I'm also saying that Jesus Christ was fighting against the mental slavery caused by the Tenach. If I could prove that the teachings of Jesus are against the Tenach, Christians get in the difficult position that they cannot believe in both the Tenach and the teachings of Jesus. I hope some Christians start to think (instead of repeating the Newspeak of the Tenach over and over again and calling this believe).
notmartha wrote:The sacrificing of people was a heathen practice, and sometimes, like in the case of the Egyptians or the idolatrous Israelites (see 2 Kings 17:17 and Ezekiel 20:24-26), God will turn them over to their own evils.
When God slew the firstborn of Egypt (keeping in mind that the Egyptians already customarily sacrificed their infants to the gods) he spared the firstborn Israelites.
notmartha wrote:They are robbers and liars. Because people like them twist the Word of God for their own financial gain does not make the Word wrong. People that call themselves Catholics have been stealing children for centuries. Research the Native American children stolen by Catholic Church in Canada. This is their own evil doing, not the hand of God.
notmartha wrote:It is no wonder you are skeptical of the God of the Bible, if you base your beliefs on the atrocities so-called Christians commit. It is all Satan's plan, to twist the truth (newspeak) to turn people from the loving, merciful Father.
Here’s evidence that you’re the victim of mind control. This is a prime example of doublethink: you claim that when the Egyptians sacrificed children to (their) God it was evil, but when the Jews sacrificed children to God it was good, because this was the will of (the true) God.
You know the Bible much better than I do, so you know that the sacrifice of first-born males is part of the Tenach (so Christians are heathen?). When Christians these days murder little children (and invent they were sold for adoption), you simply say these aren’t (good) Christians. They are doing these evil deeds, based on the Old Testament...
notmartha wrote:While many denominations today still practice a ceremony of dedicating infants to the Lord, no redemption is necessary because we have been redeemed by the blood of Christ.
When Christians say things like “be thankful that Jesus died for our sins”: I find it difficult to remain polite. These Christians insult me by saying I’m a sinner. Sometimes it gets even worse: Christians can say that all other people are bad (which is part of the racism of the Tenach) but when a Christian performs an evil act, this cannot be a Christian, because Christians are good (as per definition). So now Christians not only judge, but condemn other religions of people they don’t even know (and use doublethink to protect their believe in Big Brother).
The practice of sacrificing first-born males of the Tenach has not been redeemed by the execution of Jesus.
You must have seen the golden calves in the churches: all of the statues of Jesus, other "saints" and angels. The most strange imagery is the cross (and even Jesus nailed to it). I think it was an evil deed to execute Jesus, are Christians happy he was murdered?

Another example of where Jesus contradicts the Tenach, is where he said that the kingdom of God is for the children (this time quoted from the KJV).
Mark 10:14-15:
But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.


The following quotes from the Tenach define that elders should be honoured (over the young).
Leviticus 19:32:
Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and honour the face of the old man, and fear thy God: I am the LORD.

Job 12:12-13:
With the ancient is wisdom; and in length of days understanding. With him is wisdom and strength, he hath counsel and understanding.

To make things even worse according to the New testament elders should be respected over the young, so ironically the New Testament is against Jesus Christ.
1 Peter 5:1:
The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed

1 Timothy 5:17-19:
Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. For the scripture saith, thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward. Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.

Hebrews 13:17:
Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
Last edited by Firestarter on Sat Jan 13, 2018 6:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 737
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: The fight against Newspeak

Post by notmartha » Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:19 pm

Firestarter wrote:The Tenach (Old Testament) was written by the Jewish elite to control the masses. The strategy is surprisingly effective (and thousands of years later is still used): tell the slaves they’re free and prove this by showing other slaves that got it much worse. The writers of the Tenach said their book was written by Yahwe (God). Every artist can claim his work (e.g. book, painting or music) was made by God. Why would anybody believe the writers of the Tenach?
I get what you are saying, all religion is for control, but neither of us were eyewitnesses to the writing of the books. I have no reason to believe that all the books of the OT were written by Jewish elite. If you have proof they were, please provide. Maybe you mean translated, and I would not disagree. Here is a list of purported authors. Moses, Samuel, Joshua, to name a few, were not Jews. You won't even find the word "Jew" in the KJV until the Book of Esther, and then it means a descendant of Judah. I don't "believe" the translators of the OT. I "believe" that if God can speak through the jawbone of an ass He can surely speak through words on paper. But those words on paper need to be Spiritually discerned, so as not to believe lies from infiltrators (mistranslations).

2 Corinthians 3:2-6 says:
"Ye are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read of all men: Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. And such trust have we through Christ to God-ward: Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves; but our sufficiency is of God; Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life."
Reading words on paper (Bible) without having the Spirit will be a useless endeavor.
Firestarter wrote:I'm not saying God slew any first-born son, but that the Tenach approves genocide and that it also condones the sacrifice of first-born sons (still being done these days based on the Tenach).I'm also saying that Jesus Christ was fighting against the mental slavery caused by the Tenach. If I could prove that the teachings of Jesus are against the Tenach, Christians get in the difficult position that they cannot believe in both the Tenach and the teachings of Jesus. I hope some Christians start to think (instead of repeating the Newspeak of the Tenach over and over again and calling this believe).
Could you please qualify your use of the word "sacrifice".
"Jesus" was not fighting against the Old Testament. He came to fulfill it. This article explains the fallacy of your interpretation: http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/antinomianism.shtml
Firestarter wrote:Here’s evidence that you’re the victim of mind control. This is a prime example of doublethink: you claim that when the Egyptians sacrificed children to (their) God it was evil, but when the Jews sacrificed children to God it was good, because this was the will of (the true) God.You know the Bible much better than I do, so you know that the sacrifice of first-born males is part of the Tenach (so Christians are heathen?). When Christians these days murder little children (and invent they were sold for adoption), you simply say these aren’t (good) Christians. They are doing these evil deeds, based on the Old Testament...
I HOPE I'm a "victim" of mind control, having turned my heart and mind over to God. :)

But I never claimed that the sacrificial killing of children was good. And I don't recall saying anything about Jews sacrificing children. Not sure where you got that. If you are using the words "Jew" and "Israelite" synonymously, then YOUR mind control is showing through. The word "Christian," also, has become a term of art. It means, simply, being Christ-like. Just because someone calls themselves a Christian does not make it so. Those who steal and/or murder children are not acting Christ-like, or even trying to be Christ-like, therefore they are not Christians. They are not doing these things because of the Old Testament, they are doing them because they are evil.
Firestarter wrote:When Christians say things like “be thankful that Jesus died for our sins”: I find it difficult to remain polite. These Christians insult me by saying I’m a sinner. Sometimes it gets even worse: Christians can say that all other people are bad (which is part of the racism of the Tenach) but when a Christian performs an evil act, this cannot be a Christian, because Christians are good (as per definition). So now Christians not only judge, but condemn other religions of people they don’t even know (and use doublethink to protect their believe in Big Brother).The practice of sacrificing first-born males of the Tenach has not been redeemed by the execution of Jesus.You must have seen the golden calves in the churches: all of the statues of Jesus, other "saints" and angels. The most strange imagery is the cross (and even Jesus nailed to it). I think it was an evil deed to execute Jesus, are Christians happy he was murdered?
I can see where you could take the poem I quoted as being an "in your face" insult. That was not my intent, so I deleted it.

Well, Christians believe everyone is a sinner; they are not singling out non-Christians. If you read the article on antinomianism it explains how there must be law for there to be sin, and nobody can uphold all the Law, so they are therefor sinners. Until, of course, regeneration.

Galatians 3:21-26 (KJV)
Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.


It is not a Christian's job to judge those outside the Church (body of believers, NOT a building or corporation). We will leave that for God. It is our job to judge (not an eternal judgment) those within.

1 Corinthians 5:11-13 (KJV)
But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
All of the symbols/idols you mentioned are anti-Christ. Yes, many churchgoers have been deceived into believing they are somehow "Christian".
Firestarter wrote:Another example of where Jesus contradicts the Tenach, is where he said that the kingdom of God is for the children
Again, it is not a contradiction. Obviously, the kingdom of God is not exclusive to children, but rather to those who come to Christ with a state of mind as a child.
Firestarter wrote:To make things even worse according to the New testament elders should be respected over the young, so ironically the New Testament is against Jesus Christ.
No where in the KJV does it say elders should be "respected."

I'm not sure whether your understanding of the language or of the ideas is lacking. It is hard to communicate if we don't have a meeting of the minds on the meanings of words.

(Sorry I keep adding to this, I think I'm done now. :) )
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1190
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: The fight against Newspeak

Post by Firestarter » Wed Jun 15, 2016 2:39 pm

notmartha wrote:(Sorry I keep adding to this, I think I'm done now. :) )
I’m glad your smiling, when I was something like 5 years old, I told my (Catholic) grandfather that the God he believes in doesn’t exist, he got really angry: yelled at me ( “snotneus”, which is impossible to translate), which made me even angrier.
I never said anything about Christianity to him again and we got along pretty well (although I still blame my grandparents and parents that I was baptised). I think he died 3 years later, I always suspected he was poisoned…

I feared you would be angry, if I can, I will answer later (but am not sure when).
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1190
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: The fight against Newspeak

Post by Firestarter » Sat Jul 02, 2016 1:36 pm

notmartha wrote:I'm not sure whether your understanding of the language or of the ideas is lacking.It is hard to communicate if we don't have a meeting of the minds on the meanings of words.
I thought we were having a meeting of the minds. First you were brainwashed, and then you use doublethink to believe that my “understanding” “is lacking” because I´m not.
notmartha wrote:I can see where you could take the poem I quoted as being an "in your face" insult. That was not my intent, so I deleted it.
Most of my criticism is aimed at both the Bible and Christianity and not at you personally (you could say I was motivated by you). I was not insulted by “your” poem, but it provided a bridge to some of the insults I had to deal with. Most of the things I´m writing here are general comments on Christianity and the Bible and not aimed at you.

Another example when I got upset, was when I listened to some preacher when I had to beg for food (because my bank accounts were blocked); eating with the homeless. This filthy excuse for a man came to preach about the famous “eye of the needle” quote of Jesus and explained that this means that poor people shouldn’t cling to their possessions. How disgusting is that: this rich man, who never had a shortage of anything in his life, preaching to homeless people that cannot even buy food, that carry their worldly possessions (things like: a sleeping bag, a pair of trousers, scissors, a knife or a mobile phone) in a bag, that they’re too greedy? Can you even imagine what it´s like to lose a valuable pair of scissors if you can´t simply buy a new one?
When I asked for help of a Christian pastor, she blamed me for having my bank accounts blocked. It would be real Christian-like to blame Jesus for being executed…
notmartha wrote:"Jesus" was not fighting against the Old Testament. He came to fulfill it. This article explains the fallacy of your interpretation: http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/antinomianism.shtml
Matthew 5:17-18:
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

The words of Jesus can be explained in different ways: he designed his teachings to make you think (but when you’re already an expert in doublethink, this doesn’t even help). Jesus didn’t come to fulfil the Tenach, but came to fulfil the Kingdom of God. I have already provided examples of Jesus contradicting the Tenach. Another one is breaking the sabbath; see for example Mark 2:23-27:
And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:

If the Tenach is the word of God, this is pure blasphemy; see Exodus 20:8-10:
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:

There are some other examples where Jesus lets his disciples know, he’s planning to manipulate what happens because he wants to “fulfil” (the prophecies of) the Tenach. Did he want to become famously known as the Son of God, because this was his ultimate goal, or did he want to become famous to be able to fight against the Tenach even after his death? If Jesus would stick to the Tenach he wouldn’t need to teach anything new, he could have become part of the religious establishment and died at an old age (and nobody would know his name these days).

The article you are referring to is a prime example of doublethink. Man wasn’t created in God’s image, but man invented God in his own image. The Bible is manmade, so the men that created the Bible - and called it the word of God - were some arrogant, greedy slave drivers. I have corrected a short section in this article about the effect of the Bible on children:
Ahead for them is a long future of brutalization and abuse by the words of the Bible which will demoralize, denude, and brainwash them so that they no longer can hear the words of truth. Good is bad, right is wrong, light is dark ... and dark is light. Lawlessness is learned from the Bible... both by principle and example. The churches lock step with the Bible promoting lawlessness, teaching that Jesus came to fulfil the Bible. Children are assaulted with this on every front.
notmartha wrote:Reading words on paper (Bible) without having the Spirit will be a useless endeavor.
On the contrary: it is really useful to create mental slavery if their slaves keep on repeating words (of the Bible). By repeating over and over again that they have to believe, that the Bible is the word of God, etc., they come to the point that doublethink has taken over from (knowing) the truth. While if you think about (the words of) the Bible you know it’s only fiction.
notmartha wrote:I HOPE I'm a "victim" of mind control, having turned my heart and mind over to God.
Individually Christians are no better or worse than believers in other religions, but where it goes wrong is when (brainwashed) Christians are part of a group and simply follow the orders from their superiors (and then Christians can simply claim because they’re sinners they cannot be Christians per definition). Now they perform the most hideous crimes against humanity and by using the mechanism of doublethink believe it’s right because they are just following orders.
notmartha wrote:But I never claimed that the sacrificial killing of children was good. And I don't recall saying anything about Jews sacrificing children. Not sure where you got that. If you are using the words "Jew" and "Israelite" synonymously, then YOUR mind control is showing through. The word "Christian," also, has become a term of art. It means, simply, being Christ-like. Just because someone calls themselves a Christian does not make it so. Those who steal and/or murder children are not acting Christ-like, or even trying to be Christ-like, therefore they are not Christians. They are not doing these things because of the Old Testament, they are doing them because they are evil.
I have to apologise: you never claimed that Jews sacrificed children or that this is good, but you didn´t disagree that God committed and ordered genocide (including the murder of children). The Tenach says sacrificing children is OK: Exodus 13:2, Luke 2:23-24, Numbers 18:14-19. According to (these parts of) the Tenach, all first-borns must be given/consecrated to the Lord or must be “bought”, while slaughtering the Egyptian sons is according to the Spirit of the Tenach. That according to the Tenach it’s good to sacrifice children, also see Genesis 22: 1-2:
And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

Abraham only stopped in the last minute, when an angel of the Lord said - Genesis 22: 12:
Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

Then God rewarded (the evil) Abraham - Genesis 22: 16-18:
And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.

According to the Bible men having sex with each other must be killed (although I don´t remember any example of this practise in the Bible). It´s just practical, that since the elite can buy as many wives as they can afford, sex between women is not forbidden. So it´s real Christian-like to claim that AIDS is judgement by God.
To understand the evil of (the writers of) the Bible you only have to read Job. Here God challenges his (favourite?) arch angel Satan to test Job for some comic diversion. Satan - with the approval of God - murders the family of Job, takes all of his possessions, makes him ill and gives him skin rashes. Then God has had enough fun, speaks angrily to Job’s “friends” and promises Job a reward.
If there would be an evil, all-powerful God (like that of the Bible) or an all-powerful religion that brainwashes children to sell their soul (like Christianity) to the “Devil” or “God” (which name you prefer?), I would fight him/them any way I can.
notmartha wrote:I get what you are saying, all religion is for control, but neither of us were eyewitnesses to the writing of the books. I have no reason to believe that all the books of the OT were written by Jewish elite. If you have proof they were, please provide. Maybe you mean translated, and I would not disagree. Here is a list of purported authors. Moses, Samuel, Joshua, to name a few, were not Jews. You won't even find the word "Jew" in the KJV until the Book of Esther, and then it means a descendant of Judah.
I think “Jew” is the tribe that occupied Israel some 2500 ago, that spoke and wrote in Hebrew and because someone is a Jew is decided by the Jewishness of the mother, also all their forefathers must be Jews. This leads to the conclusion that Noah and his family were Jews and so - according to the Tenach – all humans must be Jews. I haven’t been found a clear definition on Jew in the Tenach, so you have every right to disagree with me on this one. I have even seen Christian websites that claim that Jesus was no Jew.
Children that aren’t brainwashed yet shouldn’t be brainwashed by any religious mind control (they still think freely). Jesus preferred “sinners” to teach; this makes clear that Jesus wanted to teach sinners, but knew that people that don’t sin have no real need for religion (see for example Luke 15: 3-7) and Jesus didn´t teach his gospel to children.
notmartha wrote:No where in the KJV does it say elders should be "respected."
According to Leviticus 19:32, Job 12:12-13, 1 Peter 5:1-5, 1 Timothy 5:17-19: 1) the hoary head and face of the old man must be honoured; 2) with the ancient, with length of days is wisdom, strength, counsel and understanding; 3) the elders feed the flock, take oversight, are examples to the flock, while the younger must submit to the elder; 4) the elders that rule well require double honour. While Hebrews 13:17 describes that the flock must obey their rulers (the elders).
I don’t get why you won’t understand that the Bible prescribes respect for the old of age (elders).
notmartha wrote:Obviously, the kingdom of God is not exclusive to children, but rather to those who come to Christ with a state of mind as a child.
So you agree that Jesus preferred (the state of mind of) children over elders. Some of the (hyperactive?) behaviour of children I’ve seen: climbing trees, yelling, running in circles until so dizzy they fall down, stomping their feet in a puddle of water or rolling around in the grass while it’s raining. I think that a horrible thoughtcriminal like Jesus would agree (with me) that Christians could better roll around in the grass in the rain in their good Sunday cloths, than listen to the lies of some greedy, hypocritical preacher in church that tells them to be a good slave in this life, to get a reward in the eternal life after death.

The believe of Jesus is completely different from the faith of Christians, maybe this is best described in Matthew 17:20:
And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.
If you want to have “faith” like this, you’d better limit yourself to the quotes coming directly from Jesus and ignore the rest of the Bible. The best books I’ve read on the teachings of Jesus are of Dostoyevsky. I cannot advise his books to everyone, because they are difficult to read. Here’s the Idiot: http://www.planetpdf.com/planetpdf/pdfs ... iot_NT.pdf
The best book I’ve read about Jesus is “Jesus the Son of Man” by Kahlil Gibran: http://www.thenazareneway.com/Kahlil%20 ... of_man.htm
Last edited by Firestarter on Sat Jan 13, 2018 6:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 737
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: The fight against Newspeak

Post by notmartha » Sun Jul 03, 2016 7:57 am

Firestarter wrote:notmartha wrote:I'm not sure whether your understanding of the language or of the ideas is lacking.It is hard to communicate if we don't have a meeting of the minds on the meanings of words.I thought we were having a meeting of the minds. First you were brainwashed, and then you use doublethink to believe that my “understanding” “is lacking” because I´m not.
I'm afraid this post will lose continuity as I attempt to quote quotes. I'll do the best I can. :) (Yes, I'm still smiling)

I try to speak (write) with specificity, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to read into what I say, or change the meanings of my words. I said "I'm not sure" and you tell me what I believe. You had indicated that English was not your first language in a previous post. If we can't agree on the meanings of words, we can't discuss the validity of the ideas surrounding them. The words sacrifice, Jew, Christian, respect, elder and children are among those that need qualification. You have qualified some of these terms, with meanings foreign to me. We'd have to go back and forth and agree on meanings before we could ever agree on ideas. And I don't think that will happen until we can agree that short of living your entire life in a vacuum, everyone has a certain amount of dissidence to overcome.

I'm sorry you have been treated badly by "Christians". They don't sound like they were being at all Christ-like. Had I been able to help, I would have.

It is obviously your right and prerogative to believe (or not believe) as you see fit, but I think you may miss out on blessings in life by making such broad generalizations about the Christian faith. I'm familiar with this kind of jaded mindset among European friends who knew no faith but that of State indoctrinated "churches". I really do understand. But I can assure you, we are not all members of a "group" and in fact, some of us completely disavow any connection to STATE run corporate "churches".

That being said, I enjoy your posts here, and in general, we probably agree more than we disagree.
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 737
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: The fight against Newspeak

Post by notmartha » Tue Jul 05, 2016 10:39 am

I should just delete everything I wrote and let Ben Williams' latest newsletter speak for me. While I don't agree with everything he says 100%, he is much more eloquent than I, and expresses how, even though man will change the meanings of words, God and His Word never change.

This is the man whose article on antinomianism you claimed was
Firestarter wrote:a prime example of doublethink.
.

You may want to consider the possibility that he understands something you don't.

Anyway, here is the beginning of the newsletter:
WORDS OF RELIGION AND CONFUSION OF LANGUAGE

DIMINISHING COMMUNICATION

Religions affect languages by inventing new words and redefining old words already in use. They need religious words and phrases to facilitate religious rhetoric. Special, often bizarre, words and phrases are employed to give voice to religious tenets.

In the realm of religion, words and phrases are often hijacked from the common vernacular and given new religious meanings that only work in religious venues.

For example, the term “saved” means to be rescued from a bad, or potentially bad, situation. But the same word
in religious realms can mean “qualified to go to heaven.”

Likewise, the word “worships" means to admire and honor someone. But in religious circles the term ‘worship” can
mean “attending a church meeting.”

Religions require their own sets of words and phrases to facilitate their religious tenets. So they invent words and
redefine words. Words of religion become code-like terms, supportive of their particular theologies. In time those
religious code words gain general acceptance and are used in the common language. This affects entire cultures.

Read the rest of the newsletter here:
st16-7&8.pdf
(99.66 KiB) Downloaded 337 times
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1190
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: The fight against Newspeak

Post by Firestarter » Thu Jul 07, 2016 2:49 pm

It sounds wonderful, words like: freedom, democracy and justice. But when the state effectively controls which information we have access to, these words are pretty wordless, because we cannot inform ourselves of all the horrible crimes against humanity by governments.

In April 2012 I went over to the local office of Amnesty International for help. Amnesty told me that they don´t provide any help whatsoever for the “type” of human rights violations I described and that I couldn´t expect any help from other human rights organisations either and advised me to put information on the internet.
Since then I´ve put some texts about personal experiences and also state terrorism on several internet forums. Most of my texts have been removed. All of the following forums have removed information and/or blocked my profile: forum.www.radartv.nl, eerstehulpbijrecht.nl/forum, rechtenforum.nl, ouders.nl/forum, indymedia.nl, forum.viva.nl/forum, schulden-vrij.info, denk.onsgeld.nu, internationalskeptics.com/forums, projectavalon.net, educationforum.ipbhost.com, forum.thefreedictionary.com, forum.davidicke.com.
The only websites that allowed me to place information without problems are: lawfulpath.com/forum and madinamerica.com/forums.

An important aspect of the 1984 of George Orwell described is changing history books. I am certainly not the only one that has seen information being removed from the internet. Maybe not many people have experienced the government breaking into their house to replace legal documents.
In June 2012 I found the judgement of a court case concerning ABN AMRO (that got help from the government agency UWV to fire a CEO), when I looked at this verdict again in April 2015 “ABN AMRO” had been replaced by “ING” (another bank based in the Netherlands), not only on the internet but also the copy I saved in my email account. Here´s this verdict (in Dutch): http://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inzien ... 012:BV8922

I have found an easy way to prevent the government from changing and hiding information. I save copies on an USB-stick that I carry with me.
I´m still looking for a way to reach the masses before it´s too late…
User avatar
Firestarter
Posts: 1190
Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: The fight against Newspeak

Post by Firestarter » Sat Jul 23, 2016 3:17 pm

notmartha wrote:That being said, I enjoy your posts here, and in general, we probably agree more than we disagree.
I agree we have similar views on a lot of things. I think we agree that most Christians don’t live according to the teachings of Jesus Christ. We also agree that Christian churches have done a lot of evil (although you maybe think that the Protestant is better than the Catholic church).
notmartha wrote:I should just delete everything I wrote and let Ben Williams' latest newsletter speak for me. While I don't agree with everything he says 100%, he is much more eloquent than I, and expresses how, even though man will change the meanings of words, God and His Word never change.
I hope you don´t delete everything and I hate to admit it, but I think parts of this newsletter of Ben Williams are actually quite good. I especially like the paragraph with the following quote:
They are the words and phrases reinvented and/or redefined by priests and politicians. The public uses these words without knowing what the words mean. Thus a major part of our common language consists of words that have been changed from their original meanings and forgotten. Americans, for the most part, have no idea what the words mean when they use them. In most cases people resort to popular terms and believe whatever the priests and politicians tell them the words mean.
This is also appropriate for Europeans.

For me the most interesting of Williams' remarks is that “Christ” was really the name for “Mithras”. I will not try to figure out what he means by this, but it appears to be a missing piece in my knowledge about Christianity.
The first 50 years or so after the death of Jesus, his followers staid close to his teachings, and then got further and further away. Christians were persecuted like Jesus had predicted, while Christianity became ever more popular among the poor people. Then the Romans found a better way to pacify Christians: in the 4 century AD the Roman Emperor Constantine merged the teaching of Jesus with Judaism and Mithraism. So instead Christians fighting against the rich slavedrivers, they learned to respect the elite.

Of course this would mean that the New Testament was only written during the reign of Constantine. It is known that the Council of Nicaea officially recognised the New Testament as being written by God in 325 AD (almost 300 years after Jesus was crucified). This isn’t evidence it was only written down shortly before, but it is unlikely that the last book of the New Testament was written in 95 AD (like most Christians claim), and then only recognised 230 years later. Some say that already in 180 Ad the early church-father Iraneus quoted from and attested about most books of the New Testament; this doesn’t mean this was the same as the later New Testament.
There are of course a lot of Christian websites that don’t agree that the influence of Mithraism on Christianity was enormous (and as this is new for me I don’t know for sure). Mithra was a God born from a virgin mother and died on a cross at Easter. Mithraists were baptised and the sign of the cross was made on the foreheads of all converts. The Romans had festivities on 25 December for Sol invictus (invincible sun); some say that Mithra was the sun god born on 25 December, this would explain the church service on “Sunday”: http://www.truthbeknown.com/mithra.htm

A lot of people agree that putting candles in a tree in the darkest time of year is really a pagan ritual coming from North Europe. The reason I am disgusted with the Christmas ritual is teaching children that lying is OK and hypocrisy is rewarded with gifts. I’m talking about the ugly Sinterklaas-ritual originating from Belgium and the Netherlands on December 5, the lying to children feast, that has become very popular in the Anglo-Saxon world and has even spread over the world.

I think most of all we agree that there’s something wrong with our legal system, politics, religion, media and education. A Christian should know that no mere mortal has the right to rule over others, because this is like placing themselves in the place of God. I come to the conclusion (without God) that the elite is really evil and shouldn’t be allowed to satisfy their limitless greed. If you say the answer is the word of God, I reply that humans wouldn’t recognise the word of God if their life depended on it. In my opinion religion (or philosophy) is meant to make people free in their mind. This leaves the problem that “evil” people will still commit foul acts. I think this can only be solved by some kind of just legal system (law) that prevents “evil”.

To illustrate that there can be such a thing as a good law, justice, see the following from John Perkins’ Confessions of an Economic Hit Man:
They told us that shortly after the workers returned to the oil company, over a hundred Ecuadorian soldiers arrived in their small community. They reminded us that this was at the beginning of a special season in the rain forests, the fruiting of the chonta. A tree sacred to indigenous cultures, its fruit comes but once a year and signals the start of the mating season for many of the region's birds, including rare and endangered species. As they flock to it, the birds are extremely vulnerable. The tribes enforce strict policies forbidding the hunting of these birds during chonta season. "The timing of the soldiers couldn't have been worse," a woman explained. I felt her pain and that of her companions as they told their tragic stories about how the soldiers ignored the prohibitions.
They shot down the birds for sport and for food. In addition, they raided family gardens, banana groves, and manioc fields, often irreparably destroying the sparse topsoil. They used explosives in the rivers for fishing, and they ate family pets. They confiscated the local hunters' guns and blowguns, dug improper latrines, polluted the rivers with fuel oil and solvents, sexually molested women, and neglected to properly dispose of garbage, which attracted insects and vermin.
These "pagan" indigenous people of Ecuador had laws to protect birds during mating season. This sounds better then the “law” I’ve seen in Christian culture.

Still I cannot rule out that mindfreedom shouldn’t be the (only) objective of religion, because this doesn’t prevent “sin”. This revolves around the question if humans are “good” or “evil” by nature. If religion should prevent sinning, then I only have to look at history, to conclude that Christianity serves crimes against humanity. So with this criterion once again the Bible doesn’t deliver.
The only religion I know of that makes people fight against injustice is Rastafarai (while it doesn´t create mindfreedom); Rasta’s will fight against (the evil) Babylon… I tried to find out what Rastafarai is all about from talking to Rasta’s but didn’t get very far. My knowledge of Rastafarai is limited to listening to reggae. That the most important reggae stars of the 1970s died at a young age cannot be coincidental.

Reggae star Peter Tosh was one the greatest wordslingers, he could say things like: the “shytstem” of “politrics” and the “Crime Ministers who shit in the House of Represent-A-Thief” we got to rearrange. Tosh and 2 of his houseguests were murdered on September 11, 1987 in his own house. After the driver of the car, Steve Russell, identified one of the 3 killers as Dennis Lobban, also Marlene Brown and Michael Robinson testified against Lobban. Lobban’s defence was that he had been drinking with some friends the night Tosh was killed. Lobban was sentenced by the jury after a deliberation of only 11 minutes; the other 2 shooters were never found. Peter Tosh helped Lobban with money, food and a bed to sleep. Why would he murder his well doer? I haven’t found more information on this murder: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/news/The ... was-killed

The most famous member of the Wailers was - not Tosh, but - Bob Marley. Marley became a real threat because he got an immense popularity and also popularised other reggae artists and Rastafarai. In1976 Marley was shot, the shooters were never found. A week after the shooting Marley received boots from Carl Colby (son of CIA-director William Colby), which wounded his toe. On September 23, 1980 in Pittsburgh (USA) Marley collapsed while running, now they said that cancer of his toe in 1976 caused a brain tumour. If this were true Marley couldn’t have continued to work hard before collapsing. Marley left for Germany, where the “alternative” therapy of Dr. Issels was nothing less than torture. Issels starved Marley and gave him injections with enormous needles. In May1981 Marley left by plane to Jamaica: on May 11, 1981 he died in the Cedars of Lebanon Hospital in Miami (also in the USA): http://www.hightimes.com/read/chanting- ... bob-marley
Another important reggae musician, Jacob Miller, died on March 23,1980 in a car accident, where his car hit a pole, unfortunately I couldn’t find more information: http://forever-27.com/jacob-miller/jaco ... to-reggae/

One of my problems with the newspeak these days is that the biggest hypocritical scumbags talk about “love” (not only Christians). What I’ve learned is that nobody really wants to love someone, but everybody wants to be loved, so they can use “love” for emotional blackmail.
Last edited by Firestarter on Sat Jan 13, 2018 6:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply