Do u agree that "tolerance" promoted today is a conspiracy?

[Nerd]

Here is an article by Dr. Henry Markow:

"For centuries the Masonic central bankers who control Western society and culture have been pushing "tolerance." Why?

"The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is a notorious "forgery" that uncannily explains our predicament. It says the Illuminati bankers want to "dislocate all collective forces which are still unwilling to submit to us." (Protocols, Section 5)

The four major collective forces are: Race, Religion, Family and Nation. They are the four pillars of our human identity.

How do you undermine them? Certainly a frontal attack would meet with spirited resistance. Instead you promote "tolerance" which destroys these collective forces by erasing the differences between them. "

if you want to read the whole article follow this link "Tolerance: a sneaky attack on your identity"

[Gator]

Yes I do, but its actually due to aliens from the planet Zarantha who wish to become our alien overlords.

Thanks.

[barney]

Tony Blair was a Lizard from Hubbardland. He flew to earth in 1950 on a DC9-like spacerocket.

If he can get to be PM, then you know that there are dark forces working, and we are all to be turned into humanistic roboslaves. A Bit like a cross between a Homersapien and Ghandi.

[Keltoi]

Tony Blair was a Lizard from Hubbardland. He flew to earth in 1950 on a DC9-like spacerocket.

If he can get to be PM, then you know that there are dark forces working, and we are all to be turned into humanistic roboslaves. A Bit like a cross between a Homersapien and Ghandi.

Maybe that is what they want us to think, to deflect from what is really going on....:X

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[YusufNoor]

Here is an article by Dr. Henry Markow:

"For centuries the Masonic central bankers who control Western society and culture have been pushing "tolerance." Why?

it is bankers, period, and because they are greedy...

"The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is a notorious "forgery" that uncannily explains our predicament. It says the Illuminati bankers want to "dislocate all collective forces which are still unwilling to submit to us." (Protocols, Section 5)

The four major collective forces are: Race, Religion, Family and Nation. They are the four pillars of our human identity.

How do you undermine them? Certainly a frontal attack would meet with spirited resistance. Instead you promote "tolerance" which destroys these collective forces by erasing the differences between them. "

return to Islam, ban Riba and pay Zakat! that should do it. oh yeah, and print enough money to pay off all debts...

if you want to read the whole article follow this link "Tolerance: a sneaky attack on your identity"

:sl:

check out these videos:

history of the Federal Reserve:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...19560256183936

Money As Debt:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...74362583451279

:w:

[Azy]

print enough money to pay off all debts

If you just print off more money to pay back imaginary created money, what's the point? It's not worth anything.
I might as well write all the world's governments a check for $10 trillion trillion on the back of my underpants.

[Keltoi]

If you just print off more money to pay back imaginary created money, what's the point? It's not worth anything.
I might as well write all the world's governments a check for $10 trillion trillion on the back of my underpants.

Inflation is much, much worse than recession. :D

[Amadeus85]

Lately i am reading some about this masonic stuff and I must say that it is very interesting and misterious.When I was younger I was thinking that this kind of stuff is just out of the space and it should be only laughed, like you all did.. Now i can say that masons do exists, the question is whether they are as powerful as some say or not.There are proofs showing that they took part in majority of anti-catholic revolutions (in France,Portugal, Mexico). The Illuminati did exist and they were created in Bavaria in Germnay in 1 May 1776. their founder was Adam Weishaupt.He was raised by jezuits and later became atheist and enemy of the Church.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Weishaupt

[Keltoi]

Of course "Masons" exist. You can find a chapter of it in just about every town in America. Are they some elite club of type A personalities bent on world domination? I seriously doubt it.

[Azy]

I meant to post sooner but got sidetracked.
I watched the money as debt video, quite interesting, but while I found the information about governments and the creation of their own money interesting, it seems to me there were some things that may be a bit misleading.

The statement 'there can be infinite debt, so there can be an infinite amount of money created' is one of them. Have you ever tried to get a loan for $3 billion secured on a house worth 100,000? No, because the debt and the money created is basically just money borrowed from your future earnings, not just imagined out of nowhere at a whim.

[YusufNoor]

I meant to post sooner but got sidetracked.
I watched the money as debt video, quite interesting, but while I found the information about governments and the creation of their own money interesting, it seems to me there were some things that may be a bit misleading.

The statement 'there can be infinite debt, so there can be an infinite amount of money created' is one of them. Have you ever tried to get a loan for $3 billion secured on a house worth 100,000? No, because the debt and the money created is basically just money borrowed from your future earnings, not just imagined out of nowhere at a whim.

right, but i think they were saying if the bank owned the mortgage for the house, THEN they loan out 900,000 based upon the "future earnings" of the loan! it's not about what WE can borrow from the bank but about what the bank reaps on the loan that you DO get!?

thanks for watching the video. i think the point they were trying to make is that "infinite debt" is possible, as the video is a follow up on the longer one, BUT the "contraction end" of the "business cycle" is not a natural phenomenom but a precisely calculated scheme to increase the portfolio of the bankers. the longer vid goes on to describe all the worst depressions and recessions as ploya of the ownwers of the central banks.

i know that i don't accurately translate the stuff from the vid, but i found them fascinating nonetheless! [as well as scary!]

i've been trying to get folks to watch so they can explain it to me!

:w:

[ranma1/2]

yes, alhtough we know the real conspiracy is from the vile starberry alliance.

[Abdul Fattah]

I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand wheter or not there is such a conspiracy doesn't really change my mind on tolerance. It's something good that should be sought out. On the other hand I do agree with the line of thinking that we should be weary of over-tolerance. It's a bit like anti-weapon laws. I agree that weapons are bad and should be avoided when possible, however getting rid of all weapons isn't the solution. So I would defenitly support tolerance, but only to the degree that it still allows for ones own identity. In fact if anything, tolerance is meant to protect identity, and people's birth right to have their own identity rather then fighting it.

[MSalman]

No, because the debt and the money created is basically just money borrowed from your future earnings, not just imagined out of nowhere at a whim.

yes but at the time when your borrow the money the actual value of that money does not exist; It is fake. Let me illustrate this with a simple example:

Let's say you deposit $100 in the bank and this is the only money that the bank have. Normally, banks keep small portion of it as reserve just in case if you withdraw and rest as available loan or to print more money out of it (recently learned in economics). Let's say for our case, bank keeps 10% as reserve and rest as available loan. Now If i go to bank and say I need $90, they will loan me those $90. Now, you own $100 and I own $90 which adds up to $190 but in reality there are only $100. There are extra fake $90 in circulation. Imagine, if we both withdraw the money at the same time, guess what will happen? Bank will print extra $90 without the existence of equivalent value. On top of that, the bank will be asking me to pay them interest on a money which in reality is fake.

I hope this makes sense!

[YusufNoor]

yes but at the time when your borrow the money the actual value of that money does not exist; It is fake. Let me illustrate this with a simple example:

Let's say you deposit $100 in the bank and this is the only money that the bank have. Normally, banks keep small portion of it as reserve just in case if you withdraw and rest as available loan or to print more money out of it (recently learned in economics). Let's say for our case, bank keeps 10% as reserve and rest as available loan. Now If i go to bank and say I need $90, they will loan me those $90. Now, you own $100 and I own $90 which adds up to $190 but in reality there are only $100. There are extra fake $90 in circulation. Imagine, if we both withdraw the money at the same time, guess what will happen? Bank will print extra $90 without the existence of equivalent value. On top of that, the bank will be asking me to pay them interest on a money which in reality is fake.

I hope this makes sense!

:sl:

watch the 2nd vid, it's MUCH WORSE than that! the bank gets to loan the $90 10 times!

AND now with debt as money, if you borrow 200,000 from the bank, they now have an imaginary 200,000 in "reserves" that they can loan out!

AND with the Federal Reserve Bank [and other central banks] being in the hands of private stockholders, the US [for example] DOESN'T print money, the Federal Reserve does which it then lends AT INTEREST to the US!!

who needs conspiracies when the real thing is much worse!!!!

watch the vid!!

edit: in fact there is Maulana that says that paper money is haram because it is no longer backed by gold [OR ANYTHING!} and therefore has no real value!

:w:

[AntiKarateKid]

I wouldnt describe it as a conspiracy. The Christians tolerate what they belive is truth, MUslims theirs, Jews theirs, Hindus there. WHat matters is what Allah tolerates and we can see quite clearly that he does not tolerate ( according to Islam), Christian versions of Jesus, Jewish obstinacy in accepting prophets, Hindu idols and etc. Tolerance has its limits. Full and unadulterated tolerance is impossible. There is truth and falsehood, noone will tolerate falsehood, all that remains is to find the truth one way or another.

By the way I disagree with the pillars of humankind that you gave there

RELIGION is the identity that destroys the barriers of race, family or nation. I say salaam to black Muslims in the Mosque and dont care about their race, family or nationality. It is not even brought up.

Religion >>>>> race, nationality, family, whatever the heck else there is

[MSalman]

:sl:

watch the 2nd vid, it's MUCH WORSE than that! the bank gets to loan the $90 10 times!

Wa'alaykum As-Salam akhi

I haven't watched the video but from what i studied in economics the banks can do that. The more reserved loan they have, the more money they can print out without the existence of equivalent value. I was trying to illustrate with a simplest example.

I do not know if people have ever thought of this before: since the paper money came into existence we have prospered and advanced in no time. All these nice looking facilities etc became possible for everyone (at least in West) in last few centuries. Off course, there is trade off in everything. What is the trade off in this case: only few people controlling the world's wealth and have turned everyone into slaves by creating fake money, loaning them out and then making the borrowers pay interest on a money which in reality does not exist. They can shut down the world anytime they want. The sudden food crisis and inflation in food prices do tell us something.

As-Salamu 'Alaykum

[YusufNoor]

Wa'alaykum As-Salam akhi

I haven't watched the video but from what i studied in economics the banks can do that. The more reserved loan they have, the more money they can print out without the existence of equivalent value. I was trying to illustrate with a simplest example.

I do not know if people have ever thought of this before: since the paper money came into existence we have prospered and advanced in no time.

i would say that AT TIMES [minus the 30's depression and a few recessions] the we IN THE WEST have prospered. and yet this "prosperity" seems to linked to materialism, as the proportional increase of 3% or so of "growth" helps keep the "system" well greased! and all at a decrease in spirituality. im would say that an increase in Taqwa and Imaan is better than a new couch and the latest HD-TV liquid crystal set...

All these nice looking facilities etc became possible for everyone (at least in West) in last few centuries. Off course, there is trade off in everything. What is the trade off in this case: only few people controlling the world's wealth and have turned everyone into slaves by creating fake money, loaning them out and then making the borrowers pay interest on a money which in reality does not exist. They can shut down the world anytime they want.

they actually do that partially. all they need to do is "decrease the money supply" which causes negative growth, which causes a drop in the stock market, which causes people to sell their stock and banks to refuse to lend. the "Few with the money" are able to "increase their piece of the pie" when stocks plummet and bad loans and mortgages are called in. once the redistribution of wealth is complete, all they need to do is increase the money supply - TO THE GOVERNMENT WHICH ACCEPTS IT WITH INTEREST OWED!

The sudden food crisis and inflation in food prices do tell us something.

while the 1st world lives through the "business cycles" and the 2nd world tries emulate the 1st, the 3rd languishes in the most perilous conditions on the brink of starvation and teaming with disease.
As-Salamu 'Alaykum

:w:

now, i'm no student of economics so i can be way off, BUT after watching the 1st video on the History of the Federal Reserve, which made absolute sense to me, and then watching the Debt as Money vid, my wife and i were astonished to watch lecture by Dr. Imran N. Hosien entitled The Prohibition of RIBA in the Qur'an & Sunnah; Dr Hosein's lecture include 80 to 90% of the rational of the 2 vids and we were amazed that just after grasping an [somewhat simplified] understanding of the situation that here was a Maulana warning us of the same thing!

May Allah Subhannahu Wa Ta' Aala protect us all!

:w:

[Azy]

edit: in fact there is Maulana that says that paper money is haram because it is no longer backed by gold [OR ANYTHING!} and therefore has no real value!

And what real value does gold have?

[MSalman]

^gold coins/silver coins, which were in the old times, tells us how much wealth a country has because you cannot make more gold/silver coins unless there is more gold/silver. The wealth of a country is determined by its production. If a country produces more, their wealth will increase as more people will be spending (internally and externally-exports). In the case of paper money, about 50 years ago a country needed to show equivalent value of gold for the money which they wish to print out but now it is not needed. Now we call it is "fite" money (economics term). It means that we do not need to hold gold of equivalent value and we are sure that we can exchange it with someone else.

[snakelegs]

And what real value does gold have?

i don't think it has any value at all inherently - only if people decide to agree to view it as having value. it's all quite mystical.

[Azy]

^gold coins/silver coins, which were in the old times, tells us how much wealth a country has because you cannot make more gold/silver coins unless there is more gold/silver. The wealth of a country is determined by its production. If a country produces more, their wealth will increase as more people will be spending (internally and externally-exports). In the case of paper money, about 50 years ago a country needed to show equivalent value of gold for the money which they wish to print out but now it is not needed. Now we call it is "fite" money (economics term). It means that we do not need to hold gold of equivalent value and we are sure that we can exchange it with someone else.

There are a couple of problems with this.
Digging up more gold is the same as printing more money, this was a problem for early banks when Spain dumped a lot of gold onto the market, the gold that was there already was suddenly worth less than before.

Who decides how much the gold is worth, and what happens when people are not willing to trade it?
In many countries now there are food shortages. Imagine a farmer with a bucket of grain, just enough to feed his family. You can drive up to his door with 50 tonnes of gold, but is he likely to trade with you when food is in short supply?

[barney]

A Saudi Cleric spoke recently on TV, explaining how Tolerance is an attack on Islam.

Muhammad Al-Munajid: "Some of these heretics say: 'Islam is not the private property of anyone.' So what do they want? They say: 'No sect has a monopoly on Islam.' So what do they want? They say: 'We want to issue rulings.' Someone who is ignorant, who does not know any Arabic, or who has no knowledge of Islamic jurisprudence wants to issue rulings?! They say: 'We reinterpret the texts.' There is a very dangerous conspiracy against the religion of Islam in newspapers and in what these people say. A journalist, or one of those lowlifes, wants to... These people are a mixture of Western, local, and imported ideologies, but they want to express their views with regard to religious rulings. This is the prerogative of religious scholars, not of ignorant people - the prerogative of knowledgeable people, not of fools or heretics.

[...]

"The problem is that they want to open a debate on whether Islam is true or not, and on whether Judaism and Christianity are false or not. In other words, they want to open up everything for debate. Now they want to open up all issues for debate. That's it.

"It begins with freedom of thought, it continues with freedom of speech, and it ends up with freedom of belief. So where's the conspiracy? They say: Let's have freedom of thought in Islam. Well, what do they want?

"They say: I think, therefore I want to express my thoughts. I want to express myself, I want to talk and say, for example, that there are loopholes in Islam, or that Christianity is the truth.

"Then they will talk about freedom of belief, and say that anyone is entitled to believe in whatever he wants... If you want to become an apostate - go ahead. You like Buddhism? Leave Islam, and join Buddhism. No problem. That's what freedom of belief is all about. They want freedom of everything. What they want is very dangerous.

[...]

"Freedom of thought, within some constraints, is blessed. Islam calls for thinking, for interpretation, and for the use of the mind. But as for freedom of heresy, which allows anyone to criticize whatever he wants in Islam, saying, for example, that he does not like the punishment for apostasy, that he doesn't like the punishment for drinking alcohol, or that he does not like the punishment of stoning adulterers - this is barbarism.

"They ask: Why should a thief have his hand chopped off? Some of them say that this is 'too much.' Two-three much on you and your rotten mind. If you abolish this punishment, you will see the rise in thefts. On the other hand, people feel their property is secure because of this punishment."

[AntiKarateKid]

^^^^^ Strong words. But ultimately true words. I agree with him. Allah knows best for us. Sooner or later people will find that out.

[Azy]

Do you want the right to criticise non-muslims for their ungodly depravity and misguided opinions, but restrict others in their rights to criticise you?

[barney]

Do you want the right to criticise but restrict others in their rights to criticise you?

Why not?
I just realised My wife has been using that Concept for twenty years.:)

Best bit in the Clerics speech? IMO it's that he does not like the punishment of stoning adulterers - this is barbarism :rollseyes

[IbnAbdulHakim]

^ lol

the wise know how far to take their tolerance :D

[aamirsaab]

:sl:

Edit:

Do you want the right to criticise non-muslims for their ungodly depravity and misguided opinions, but restrict others in their rights to criticise you?

Surely, by allowing that one would be tolerant, no? Not that I condone it or anything, just making a point about tolerance.

And that's the problem with tolerance: What is tolerance? How far can tolerance go? Is it subjective or objective? What are you allowed to tolerate and not tolerate? What are the advantages and disadvantages of a tolerant society? Is being tolerant a sign of a moral society or an apathetic one?

I think that there are some tolerances are complete bull and go against society (freedom to insult a religion or homosexuality [don't bother attempting a reply to the latter point - I'd crush it fairly quickly]) yet there are those that I believe are truly beneficial for society (anti-racism etc). Of course, you could easily call me up on two instances;
1) You agree with homosexuality and that is the norm of today so I must be abnormal and therefore incorrect.
2) bias since I am both a muslim and an ethnic minority i.e. my view of tolerance is completely subjective and shows clear bias. To which I'd agree --- which would eventually lead us in circles.

Dang, I miss my psychology days :(

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I can't see how tolerance can be considered a conspiracy. It's normally considered a liberal virtue, but if that worries you, then I suppose you're entitled to your opinion. I wouldn't recommend using 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' to bolster your view, though.

Muhammad Al-Munajid: These people are a mixture of Western, local, and imported ideologies, but they want to express their views with regard to religious rulings. This is the prerogative of religious scholars, not of ignorant people - the prerogative of knowledgeable people, not of fools or heretics.

This is the sort of thing Christian clerics used to say. For the most part, they've learned to tone it down more recently.

"The problem is that they want to open a debate on whether Islam is true or not, and on whether Judaism and Christianity are false or not. In other words, they want to open up everything for debate. Now they want to open up all issues for debate. That's it.

What a wonderful idea. Fear is the only thing that is holding this guy back from joining in the debate.

Then they will talk about freedom of belief, and say that anyone is entitled to believe in whatever he wants... If you want to become an apostate - go ahead. You like Buddhism? Leave Islam, and join Buddhism. No problem. That's what freedom of belief is all about. They want freedom of everything. What they want is very dangerous.

It's only "dangerous" because this person is terrified that if people were given the absolute moral liberty to examine their beliefs critically they'd be leaving Islam in droves.

or that he does not like the punishment of stoning adulterers - this is barbarism.

I agree with barney - this is a classic line.

Peace

[Azy]

Of course, you could easily call me up on two instances;
1) You agree with homosexuality and that is the norm of today so I must be abnormal and therefore incorrect.
2) bias since I am both a muslim and an ethnic minority i.e. my view of tolerance is completely subjective and shows clear bias.

Well I wouldn't have argued either that way.
Whether you're abnormal or a minority depends entirely on whether you actually are a minority, but I would hope that your views would be consistent if you weren't in the minority.