10 votes

Jordan Maxwell: The Inner World Of The Occult - Watch This!

This movie is important to understanding where our politics and religion come from. The Zeitgeist movies were based on Jordan Maxwell's findings. A must watch for all libertarians.


http://youtu.be/DU3I0Pi6y_8




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Well that's simply a false statement.

You do not know MY perspective. I find a little ridiculous that you assume you know my perspective, based on the limited number of words I typed in my comment on the internet.

I actually do GET IT. But I'm not sure you do.

Morality is NOT relative. It is universal.

The Lucifer the Masons worship has all the qualities, some seemingly good qualities, of the Lucifer of the Bible. It is the SAME Lucifer!
The Masons look at Lucifer as GOOD. They choose to see what some perceive as his 'good' qualities, and worship THAT. Jesus said to be wise as serpents, and gentle as doves. I understand there is a bit of 'complexity' in Masonry that is not directly comparable/contrastable to modern organized Christianity. I am a Messianic Jew and hold no preconceived assumption of the truth. But I have made my CHOICE (morality is universal). I was not raised "Christian" and am not coming from a "Christian perspective". I am coming from a historical, philosophical perspective.

I want to know Masonry's relationship to this world and other organized religions. Therefore I need to learn about it's origins. It's true, ancient origins. And I will know the truth vs. non-sense when I hear it. I have my own theories but I sure haven't gotten any productive responses from anyone on DP. I have not expressed those theories on DP, only asked certain questions, received no real answers.

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

Hey Lawman, first try to cool

Hey Lawman, first try to cool the rhetoric down a little. You know a lot about what your talking about but when you start calling people Nazis and Stormfront trolls it really turns people off from your posts, even if its just a reflection of the passion you have for a subject.

Anyway, an honest question. I have looked a little into the Tarrot deck and how it relates to the kabbalah tree of life. What is the connection between the kabbalah and Jewish tradition and doctrine?

We all share this eternally evolving present moment- The past and future only exist as inconsequential mental fabrications.

About Kabbalah... Good question.

Wish I knew.
Kabbalah is definitely not part of mainstream Judaism.
We never covered it when I went to Hebrew School on Saturdays and Wednesday after school. We barely learned about the Talmud, either.
Torah, Torah, Torah. That's what we learned.

In my limited knowledge on the subject, Kabbalah stems from the Talmud, which is about Rabbis arguing over interpretations of scripture. Kabbalah is about assigning numbers to meanings or something like that. When Yeshua says, in the New Testament, that "the number is that of man, and that number is 6 6 6" that is essentially Kabbalah. I believe it has something to with the Temple of Solomon, and the influence the Masons had on that ancient era of Judaism. It has clearly remained to this day, in some secretive circles of Rabbinic Talmudic Judaism and likely within secret societies such as the Masons, and Knights Templar (who probably re-discovered, and re-popularized this esoteric knowledge, when excavating under the Temple Mount, during the first Crusade).

Now. As for my abrasive style of argument, I apologize. I am used to having to have a thick skin, as I am Jewish, Messianic Jewish at that. I constantly see & hear things on this site that are highly critical of Jews, Israel, and Christianity/Yeshua Himself. Now, the same individuals who push this stuff, and claim that others are bowing to political correctness, while they openly rip on Jews, and Jesus, well they complain that I offend them, when I call them out. This is hypocrisy.

As those who are constantly harping on 'Zionism' have pointed out, you should base your judgment (and you up/down votes) on the points, and facts presented, not the political-correct buzzwords.

It seems, on DP, that there is a reverse-political-correctness. Jews, Blacks, Whites, Women, Christians, are all open season to criticism, but Neo-Nazis, stormfront, and radical Islam is not. Not without being told to 'Cool your rhetoric". It isn't rhetoric. It's the Truth.

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

Lawman,

I think you are using labels again to show what an idiot you are.

I had hopes for you, and hoped you wouldn't go over the edge. You, Goldspan, and Granger HATE the message of Jesus.

I'm not defining myself as a Christian, I'm just stating that YOU GUYS HATE HIS MESSAGE.

I'm sick of labels, what is in your heart LawmanJed?

Lawman,

Are you telling me that Americans that grow an share their food and share their food, along with their services to each other are Anti-American?

I notice you have garnered two 'down votes' stating that the message of Jesus is voted down Here.

What Lawman, do you HATE about Jesus? Don't just downvote me, lets converse.

...

A lot of his etymology doesn't seem very accurate. For example, 'elder' in religion comes from 'older', not 'el'(what he alleges is the name of a god of saturn) and 'der'. In most of his arguments he seems to be grasping at straws. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/grasp_at_straws

Please do not try to discredit the man

with whitewashed internet "facts" or disinfo. JM goes straight to the source and does the research himself. You only come off as a troll trying to discredit a man who has done over 40 years of research himself. Shame on you.

by 'the source' do you mean

by 'the source' do you mean the supernatural entities he talks about dealing with that he claims are angels? You can hear him speak for himself.

http://conspiracyclothes.com/nowheretorun/ntr-my-conversatio...

Or is 'the source' the same thing that Helena Blavatsky channeled?

actually, etymologically speaking,

the word "EL-der" has a MUCH more ancient origins than "OL-der."

elder (n.1) Look up elder at Dictionary.com
"senior citizen," c.1200, from Old English eldra "older person, parent" (used in biblical translation for Greek presbyter); see elder (adj.). The Old English for "grandfather" was ealdfæder.

Alt. etymology: http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/67718/origin-of-t...

The entry in Etymonline that Mahnax posted is correct, as far as it goes. But it turns out that elder the tree and elder = older come from different Proto-Indo-European (PIE) roots, according to the AH Dictionary of PIE Roots.

Elder the tree (English elderberry) comes from the PIE root *el-² (i.e, the second root in the PIE dictionary that has the shape el- -- the asterisk in front of the root is to show that it's reconstructed, not attested (PIE was spoken long before writing was invented. This root meant 'red, brown'; other English words derived from it include elm, alder, elk, auk, hellebore, and eland.

Elder the comparative form of old, on the other hand, comes from the PIE root *al-³, which means 'to grow or nourish'. A short list of other English words from this root includes alderman, old, alto, haughty, hawser, altitude, enhance, adult, alumnus, alimony, proletarian, and abolish.

Elder = older is an example (as Etymonline says) of Umlaut. Umlaut means changing a back vowel like a or o to a front vowel like ä or e in anticipation of a front vowel in the next syllable. This is still a productive process in German, where alt, the word for 'old', has a comparative älter (pronounced /elter/). But it's no longer productive in Modern English, though it's also responsible for the plural mice from mouse (originally /mise/ from /mus/ before the Great Vowel Shift).

As I understand it, "OL-der" is an anglicized form of "EL-der" or "alder" in Germanic tongue (like vowel "o" and/or "a" + umlaut sound, which is pronounced like an "eh-"):

old (adj.) Look up old at Dictionary.com
Old English ald (Anglian), eald (West Saxon) "aged, antique, primeval; elder, experienced," from West Germanic *althas "grown up, adult" (cf. Old Frisian ald, Gothic alþeis, Dutch oud, German alt), originally a past participle stem of a verb meaning "grow, nourish" (cf. Gothic alan "to grow up," Old Norse ala "to nourish"), from PIE root *al- "to grow, nourish" (cf. Greek aldaino "make grow, strengthen," althein, althainein "to get well;" Latin alere "to feed, nourish, bring up, increase," altus "high," literally "grown tall," almus "nurturing, nourishing," alumnus "fosterling, step-child;" Old Irish alim "I nourish").

The usual PIE root is *sen- (see senior (adj.)). A few Indo-European languages distinguish words for "old" (vs. young) from words for "old" (vs. new), and some have separate words for aged persons as opposed to old things. Latin senex was used of aged living things, mostly persons, while vetus (literally "having many years") was used of inanimate things. Greek geraios was used mostly of humans; Greek palaios was used mostly of things, of persons only in a derogatory sense. Greek also had arkhaios, literally "belonging to the beginning," which parallels French ancien, used mostly with reference to things "of former times."

Old English also had fyrn "ancient," related to Old English feor "far, distant" (see far, and cf. Gothic fairneis, Old Norse forn "old, of old, of former times," Old High German firni "old, experienced"). The original Old English vowel is preserved in Scots auld, also in alderman. The original comparative and superlative (elder, eldest) are retained in particular uses.

First record of old-timer is from 1860. Expression old as the hills first recorded 1819. The good old days dates from 1828. Of old "of old times" is from late 14c. Old Glory for "the American flag" is first attested 1862. Old maid "woman who remains single well beyond the usual marrying age" is from 1520s; the card game is attested by that name from 1844. Old man "man who has lived long" is from c.1200; sense of "husband, father, boss" is from 1854, earlier (1830) it was military slang for "commanding officer;" old lady "wife, mother" is attested from c.1775. Old English is attested from 1701, originally as a type of font. Old boy originally was a former pupil of one of the English public schools. Old Testament attested from mid-14c.

************************************************************

"EL-" itself in the ancient Biblical/deity/Hebrew context that Jordan is referring to, there is no dispute: "EL" means god, deity, and when used as a prefix, it means, of/related to/having to do with, that said god/deity.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/kjv/el.html
http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Names_of_G-d/El/el.html

Now the following is going to be a minefield-tricky, as if you're of Judeo-Christian faith, you're likely to not accept Jordan's assertions that Judaism itself was/is NOT monotheistic in origin, but a henotheistic one.

Henotheism (Greek εἷς θεός heis theos "one god") is the belief and worship of a single god while accepting the existence or possible existence of other deities that may also be worshipped.

As in: out of many accepted pre-existent beliefs, you chose one. So the acceptance of his/her faith for a henotheist does not preclude the existence of other 'god(s)' contrary nor similiar to their own.

A perfect example is in Latin American countries where the Conquistadors forcibly converted the natives. But modern converts still retain elements of their ancient animism and other deities, or even made older elements of worship as their new Catholic saints particular to their region. In fact, you'll observe this in a lot of countries where Catholics went in to conquer/forcibly convert or voluntarily convert later on as missionaries.

Be that as it may, now, Jordan's assertion is that Judaism itself was an amalgam of pre-existent cults of its epoch; while not specifically the following list, but some of its contemporaries like: Saturnian/Saturnine cult, Vulcan/Pyro-cult, SIN-ai/Moon/Lunar cult, etc.

If one were to invoke the term "EL-" before a modern Judeo-Christian who accepts "God" as they understand him, if they know their Bible, they'd all understand that any "el-" prefix means of/by/relating to God.

Likewise, if you asked a Saturnian cultist who worshiped Saturn, what his/her "EL-" refers to, they'd answer: Saturn.

So, the reference to what "EL" remains the same whether one speaks in context of Judeo-Christianity as a monotheistic or one believes Judaism as well as its contemporary, other faiths at the time: it'd still mean of/related to their god/deity. It's just that each adherent considers the term "EL"to refer to their own specific idea of a God/Deity.

And because the term meant "Deity" or God, anything related to it, was considered noble-r: thus if you're an EL-der you're closer to 'knowledge of god,' thus denoted: a 'wiser' person; as far as I know: over time, etymologically, anything with an "EL" as a prefix came to denote 'noble-r, high-er, of deity (god) or related to deity (god), etc.'

Jordan's been at this for over 50yrs.

Yeah. He's correct. But, if you think he's wrong, you may want to consult with an ancient linguist or etymologist for more distinguished discernment or even to properly refute Jordan's assertions: I will stay away from that fight as far as possible ,D

I just have a passing interests in etymology, often slightly more than some, but it's nothing serious. That said, as far as I can tell, he's been pretty much on point on etymology.

Now, whether one wants to debate (or not at all) as to his assertions about astrotheology, mono- vs. heno-theism, etc. that's a wholly another matter, which frankly, I'm certain, no one will ever agree on, nor settle this debate, for another century or so! LOL .o)

There have been a few "Anti-NWO Johnny Come Lately-s" who tried to 'debunk' him, like "Chris White" has done for years, without any success.

But, especially as contentious topic as religion, and even more dangerous, origins of a given religion, one truly has to be cognizant of whether they're strictly doing it, because they believe Jordan is 'attacking' the origins of their faith, or merely looking at it historically as far as he can research it.

People often forget, on religious matters: disagreeable assertions do not make either side a "fraud." Which, unfortunately is what some Christian Zionists/Dominionists (his most rabid critics) want to often paint him as: it's their SPLC equivalent of "You're an Anti-Semite! You're a Climate Change Denier!"

Which frankly, is absurd, considering, whether correct or not, there are equally, if not larger group among Christians themselves who'd call those two particular strains of Christianity as frauds.

It's bound to be a forever contentious issue. So, insofar as etymology goes, I just try to look/observe/critique within the conceptual abstract, as to avoid any unnecessary historical claymores. xD

Hope that cleared up some.)

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

pfft.

Nevermind that Proto-Indo-European is merely a constructed language, why would you say that a word allegedly derived from Proto-Indo-European holds a biblical Hebrew meaning in an English word when Biblical Hebrew is rather related to Afroasiatic and Proto-Semitic languages? Not only is there a language gap, but the main problem with his view is this:
In the new testament, the English word "elder" is translated from the Greek "pres-boo'-ter-os", meaning "elderly" or "old" in English(I don't see an 'el' in that Greek word, not that it would matter if there was one). And in the old testament the English word 'elder' is translated from the Hebrew word 'gaw-dole' meaning old as well in English. The etymology of English words prior to the translation of the Bible into English is completely irrelevant to the meaning conveyed in the Greek and Hebrew texts from which the religious use of the English word 'elder' is derived. For example, when the KJV Bible was first translated, the word 'prevent' had a completely different meaning than it does today. It used to mean 'precede'(i.e. chronologically), but today it means to 'hinder something from happening'. If I translate a German text into Modern English today, and I use the Modern English word 'prevent' in the translation, then it is totally preposterous to say that the German text somehow meant 'precede' when I used the modern English word 'prevent' for it's translation. This problem is only compounded when you cross larger language barriers, like Indo-European and Afroasiatic. What I gather is that in Maxwell's view of the world, it seems that homonyms don't exist, even if the similar sounds are in completely separate language families. This not only ignores language barriers, but it also ignores the fact that meaning changes over time with linguistic drift. I don't care if this guy spent 100 years grasping at straws, it's still nonsense. For the record, I have a degree in linguistics, and my professors seemed much more insightful than Maxwell. Tell me how Maxwell's reasoning is any different from the reasoning of Muslims in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JikrXk51L0M

meh

Hello linguist "b" :D

So, my following 'preface' didn't take, eh?

I just have a passing interests in etymology, often slightly more than some, but it's nothing serious. That said, as far as I can tell, he's been pretty much on point on etymology.

Now, whether one wants to debate (or not at all) as to his assertions about astrotheology, mono- vs. heno-theism, etc. that's a wholly another matter, which frankly, I'm certain, no one will ever agree on, nor settle this debate, for another century or so! LOL .o)

[...]

It's bound to be a forever contentious issue. So, insofar as etymology goes, I just try to look/observe/critique within the conceptual abstract, as to avoid any unnecessary historical claymores. xD

Hm, guess I should ignore your opinions too, seeing as how you're only a student of 4+Xyrs of academia, and don't do it, professionally:

I don't care if this guy spent 100 years grasping at straws, it's still nonsense. For the record, I have a degree in linguistics, and my professors seemed much more insightful than Maxwell.

I kid, I kid, 'cause I love .D

Obviously, you dispute the "That said, as far as I can tell, he's been pretty much on point on etymology."-part. Well, guess it's my fault for inviting by kinda-negating my own 'preface,' I suppose. lol!

Aside from the fact that these are questions you should really confront Jordan Maxwell personally with (if at all moved enough to want to dispute, or even dismiss, or 'P0wnz'), as origins of language itself is as contentious as origins of religions and history itself: you should know that I have no expectations of resolving this issue here, nor do I believe ANY component relative to this discussion to be set in stone. Though, I suspect that you may accept more to be set in stone, than me; that's fine too.

That said, your inference that language evolutions and developments must take into account migratory patterns, linguistic drift, cultural & language gap/barriers etc.?

You're 100% absolutely correct.

But, one should also know that this arena delves into known/unknown/accepted/disputed point of contact between various cultures/religions from when to where, not to mention whether one accepts the currently held linear view of history or not, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Suffice it to say, since I truly don't have a dog in this fight other than in context of this thread, than to convey what I understood to be the point that Jordan was probably making from HIS point of view, not mine (though I agree with some, to more, depending on topics), word definitions and establishment of your particular worldviews are important.

So, if I understand your assertions correctly, you may not have problem with the fact that "EL" means what it means in biblical context and the definition and usage as I've described: god/deity.

But, your real point of contention is that you don't accept Jordan's worldview that the Romanic/Germanic definition and/or translation of "EL-" as a prefix in "EL-der" or "OL-der" could have derived or evolved from Hebrew and/or Aramaic and old Greek translations? And, that it may simply be a 'fluke' of homonym, precisely because in your mind there's too much historical and cultural/language (really migratory/'lack' of trade) barrier/gap?

Do I more or less have that correct?

Then, in your mind, where, when, and what precise language tree/lineage do "EL," "EL-der," and "OL-der" come from?

Because believe me, I wholly grant you that those links and quotes I cited from the likes of etymonline are perfunctory at best; they were merely a 'drive-by' reference shorthands.

So, unless you yourself can assertively, for 100% certain state where and when, frankly your dispute has as much validity as Jordan Maxwell's assertions in your mind, to me.

Regardless, seeing as how it's likely that you and I hold different religious views, timeline acceptance, migratory pattern history acceptance as well as linguistic drift, I guarantee you, we're not gonna resolve this here.

Because frankly, everything we're talking about here, are ALL contentious and disputed.

Language origins and word etymologies are NOT set in stone, as for the greater part of human history, most of what we understand to be languages and its origins have been symbolic, pictoral, oral and anecdotal: NOT written with a footnoted, Google searchable database. Add in religions, its veracity, its disputed origins, various worldviews, linear vs fluctuating historical epochs, to various disputed understandings of antediluvian epochs: this is not an area of discussion we're gonna resolve here, to anyone's satisfaction, IMO.

If you and I lived near by and could talk face to face, it'd be one thing but seeing as how you're a christian, and I'm not, even though I wholly accept that there is an existence of a creative force in the Cosmos that I dare not arrogantly box-in and label for my humanly convenient consumption, I suspect that your quotient for taking offense in this arena would be much deeper than my well or capacity.

Plus, previous generations of linguists cannot wholly separate themselves from their own colonial mindset and worldviews in influencing their conclusions as to which origins, and language trees.

Because as you know, languages & origins of various languages, are not just about languages: you HAVE to take into account when/how/what of cultural history, population migratory patterns, cultural influx, point of contact, colonization, wars, history written by victors, traceable/verifiable oral traditions as well as assertions, disputed human historical timelines, religion, origins of religions, legitimacy of religions (yeah, talk about a minefield), etc. etc. etc.

Like I prefaced: "historical claymores," ie. a minefield in which you nor I will ever be able to flesh out over a few comment boxes; frankly nor do I have the patience to do so, as this is one of the few topics that truly MUST be done over a long time with sincerity, delicately with care, and face to face to have any truly meaningful conversation or debate on.

With that said, if you're still interested in disputing it, you can contact Jordan Maxwell directly. IF so, please let me know how it went:

http://jordanmaxwellshow.com/blog/contact-us/
Jordanmaxwellshow@gmail.com

Good luck '9)

PS. Seriously curious, ever since I saw your DP-alias; if you don't mind sharing: why does someone who studies languages use a single letter for an avatar? Or, does the letter "b" embody something to you personally, or etymologically, or perhaps as a Runic pictogram?

If you want to share or answer, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Even if not, that's cool, too. Just glad to have found a linguistics student here at DailyPaul =)

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Not exactly

Re:"Do I more or less have that correct?"

Not exactly. I'm saying that even if there was a direct etymological link, it wouldn't matter. It wouldn't support his view that 'elder' used in churches is a secret code meaning 'el'(saturn)-der. I'm not even getting into the fact that I don't see the validity of his alleged connection between a morpheme 'el' in a reconstructed Proto-Indo-European hypothetical language and the agricultural deity Saturn. The word 'elder' in English, as well as the older forms of it used in older forms of English, already carried the semantic meaning of 'older' as their primary meaning before the Greek and Hebrew words of the same semantic meaning(notably lacking that morpheme) were translated to those forms of English. The concept of deity wasn't present in the Old English or later forms of English usage of the word. The way translation works is that a word with semantic meaning in one language is used to convey the same semantic meaning from another language. Etymology isn't really relevant here, especially when the translators are unconcerned with the etymology they don't know about. Proto-Indo-European is not really a language, its a reconstruction of what is hypothetically thought to have been a language, and that reconstruction didn't exist until after the Bible was already translated into English. Study into the subject didn't even start until the 1780's. So Maxwell's Saturn-elder conspiracy suffers from anachronism as well as it's other problems since translators wouldn't have known about an etymological link even if there was one.

Re:"Then, in your mind, where, when, and what precise language tree/lineage do "EL," "EL-der," and "OL-der" come from?"

Since I didn't answer 'yes' I'm not sure if you want me to address this part, but I'll say this:
In Biblical Hebrew the word 'El'(which has nothing to do with the Greek and Hebrew words from which the English word "elder" is translated) is used to describe God, mighty men, strength, power, angels, etc. The related Hebrew words seem to all convey some form of strength. For example 'ayil can refer to rams, leaders, pillars, mighty trees, etc. That isn't the meaning of that morpheme in English, nor in the older forms of English. Another problem with Maxwell's approach is that he totally ignores the concept of "semantic domain" when associating meaning from completely foreign domains through his alleged etymological connections between similar sounding morphemes.

Re: "why does someone who studies languages use a single letter for an avatar"

Why not?

oh come on! you couldn't fancy a better

letter than just a "b?"

Just a "b"?? Seriously, why a "b?" Not even capitalized? No symbolic meaning, whatsoever?

"Why not?" is not good enough, gosh dang it! lol

Well, was hoping for a Runic derivative...or somethin'

c'est la vie .0)

Well, glad we at least agree on "El-" in the Hebrew context.

As for the rest, it's not that I don't have ready rebuttals and salient points to dispute, but as I keep inferring, it's a delicate subject matter, as there are too many data points to dispute, back and forth, and just not willing to dance into a series of "unnecessary historical claymores" on a topic that I know no one will ever agree on: point of fact, it's just something I've long chosen to do, when it comes to religious and/or its related & derivative matters: I only speak to someone IN person, face to face, over a long period of time, especially if I respect that person.

As the very 'historical gaps' inferred in our discussions so far, is where you and I would probably dispute really deeply on: mainly the who/where/what's of the antediluvian epoch/migratory patterns.

With this, there is no way in hell, if we are to have a proper discussion, that won't venture into fundamental questioning the nature of, and origins of religions itself and its adherents' migratory patterns. Not afraid of outcome or alienating my debate partners, but I always feel guilty afterwards. (Plus, I've had my fill of it recently. LOL: not about spend that deeply, on NON-simple 'copy & paste' matters)

So with that said, I'm perfectly comfortable to let this one lie, where it is. But glad to have found someone very informed on the subject matter, regardless.

So, my facetious light-hearted quip about the "student" aside, are you currently working in linguistics, now?

thanks.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

um

I don't see importance in the orthography of an internet alias. Orthography was largely unimportant in older forms of English. Some would spell their own name 50 different ways.

I really don't see what your entire approach has to do with my argument. Pre-flood history(and most history) is completely irrelevant to it. I've addressed the translation of the bible from the original languages into English. That is where his conspiracy would have to be active, and is where etymological history would be unimportant. I only mention the linguistic barrier between Indo European and Afroasiatic languages in passing to compound the problem, not to mention his problem of anachronism.
If you want to stick with an etymological conspiracy through history to give Christian presbyters some connection to Saturn through the English term 'elder', you'd have to assume that linguistic drift and the formation of English and all prior forms of English were controlled in either an attempt to associate Saturn with old age rather than agriculture, (making the connection to 'elder' accidental), or it would have to have been controlled in prophetic anticipation of later translation of foreign texts(pres-boo'-ter-os in Greek, senior in Latin) into allegedly controlled words('elder' and it's prior forms). Linguistic drift happens despite prescriptivist attempts to control language. Any way you look at it, his conspiracy is not plausible. You might not only have to assume that Bede and Aldhelm were involved in the conspiracy to use those allegedly controlled words when translating into old English from Latin, but also that every other translator of the Bible was involved when translating into forms of English since then (Alfric, Wycliffe, Tyndale, etc.). A completely preposterous idea as bible translation was never under centralized control but was performed by competing factions with different theologies; even I have translated Bible texts from antiquity into English and I can assure you that I have no interest in Saturn worship or in including it in my translation. Where is the connection to Saturn in the Greek word pres-boo'-ter-os or the Latin word 'Senior', and why does the alleged etymology of an English word even matter to you when it's used to convey semantics from words of a different language lacking that etymological connection?

Re:" are you currently working in linguistics"

I don't see how that is relevant. I've had a continuous personal interest in linguistics for about 20 years, but I've never intended to work in that field for anyone other than myself, though I'm currently involved with a group for which I've done translations for a few years now and have also done a little translation through corpus linguistics for my current employer. Recently my current income is based mostly on art unrelated to my 'job'.

hm

"I really don't see what your entire approach has to do with my argument. Pre-flood history(and most history) is completely irrelevant to it."
- that, simply proves my point, as per my previously referenced would-be-major point of dispute.

"I've addressed the translation of the bible from the original languages into English."
- no, you haven't addressed it.

You've explained your understanding as to why, to your satisfaction. Doesn't automatically make it an empirical point. Because we'd have to weigh the veracity of the Bible, itself, again, as per the previously implied said 'non-resolvables'/"claymores" to point of futile attempt to 'convince' each other.

"That is where his conspiracy would have to be active, and is where etymological history would be unimportant."
- I wholly agree with the basis of your logic, but not the conclusion. No, that assumes that linguistic drift in older English only happened in context of biblical translation: that, is preposterous; unless you want to assume that the concept of deity only existed in post-Judeo-Christian paradigm, when obviously, it's not. Plus you make it sound like if you remove etymology as a component, just because you say so, somehow its actual reality changes from its inseparable cultural derivative. It simply doesn't.

"A completely preposterous idea as bible translation was never under centralized control but was performed by competing factions with different theologies"
- I agree.

Precisely why it proves MY point: you can't factually prove, what you're asserting, in the end, either way, because you cannot pin point the point of departure for semantics seepage and derivatives, to any acceptable scientific verification.

"If you want to stick with an etymological conspiracy through history to give Christian presbyters some connection to Saturn through the English term 'elder', you'd have to assume that linguistic drift and the formation of English and all prior forms of English were controlled in either an attempt to associate Saturn with old age rather than agriculture,"
- again, I accept your underlying logic in reasoning, but not the conclusion: no I DON'T have to accept that process as if it were some central committee dictated dispersion, especially, when there is no lack of dispute over Christianity's origins itself from its contemporaries in its inability to wholly separate itself from previous systems of beliefs and customs of its adherents from subsuming their previous theistic customs, as well as linguistic ones onto their 'new' theological evolution: but that's just how people are.

"Linguistic drift happens despite prescriptivist attempts to control language."
- precisely, you've just made my point.

And there's no way in hell you can academically prove WHEN, where, and at what precise point, be it unidirectional or cyclic, that it occurred.

You're applying psychology paradigm to linguistics and etymology: likewise, it's NOT a 'real' science; at best, an honest person can accept, is as a set of temporary operative theories.

You make it sound like cultural, linguistic, customs, migratory mix result in clear cut a, b, c linear, traceable movements: another preposterous assumption. They don't.

Frankly I saw the video link you gave me: wasn't impressed at all. To use that example to basically imply and explain "EL" as a misusage of accidental homonyms, you'd have to assume such sounds and conceptual meaning (deity) that word it refers to, would've never existed in other cultures at all, prior to that said misusage or 'accidental' similar usage, in the first place.

Plus, you're assuming as if English and Hebrews never, ever, culturally or linguistically intermingled, for the concept and word "EL" to have filtered through, until Greek translation, strictly within the context of biblical transmography sans non-textual cultural mutative shifts.

"why does the alleged etymology of an English word even matter to you when it's used to convey semantics from words of a different language lacking that etymological connection?"
- lol: why not?

Especially when you assume it to convey semantics from words of a different language lacking that said etymological connection, when that's merely your assumption, however well argued?

"Where is the connection to Saturn in the Greek word pres-boo'-ter-os or the Latin word 'Senior',"

- you're right, there isn't; even if there were/are, I nor anyone else can like some speedometer tell you exactly where of when that would've happened.

But the kicker? I never said, nor asserted that the word EL or its meaning to have entered the old or later English lexicon, strictly via biblical translation context: you assumed so based on what you thought the basis for which I may have been saying so, and went on to build your entire argument, assuming to be so.

Hey, not my fault. LOL.

This, is where antediluvian dispute becomes important: you're accepting one linear timeline, and I'm not; that, would be the portion I previously cited would be a major point of contention.

The fact that you already assume it's "irrelevant" to the discussion, a-priori, already tells me as much.

You're simply proving my point, again.

You think you're telling me about a position you hold, as if I don't understand why I would disagree with you, or vice versa, but it's because I understand your position, I disagree with you, and am telling you, it's a fruitless, act of futility to try to convince each other of it; this isn't the first such discussion I've had.

Which, take a hint: "I'm perfectly comfortable to let this one lie, where it is."

With that said, this will be my last reply on this topic, on this thread; I appreciate your civility on a normally touchy subject matter.

Nice to have met you, "b".

If I may, I'd like to keep the line open, in case I have some non-religious/occult linguistics/etymological inquiry that I'd like to bounce off of ya, if you're open to it. If not, that's cool, too.

Thanks, Mr. "I don't see how that's relevant" .o)

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

err

Re:"- no, you haven't addressed it.
You've explained your understanding as to why, to your satisfaction. Doesn't automatically make it an empirical point. Because we'd have to weigh the veracity of the Bible, itself, again, as per the previously implied said 'non-resolvables'/"claymores" to point of futile attempt to 'convince' each other."

The irrelevance of your response to my argument proves none of your points. The veracity of the bible is completely irrelevant as well since my argument has nothing to do with it. We could be talking about the role of etymology in the translation of Dr. Suess for all I care. The fact that you don't agree with my argument is not a good reason to forgo interaction with it. You've merely dismissed it on extraneous variables.

Re:"- I wholly agree with the basis of your logic, but not the conclusion. No, that assumes that linguistic drift in older English only happened in context of biblical translation: that, is preposterous; unless you want to assume that the concept of deity only existed in post-Judeo-Christian paradigm, when obviously, it's not."

In logic, conclusions flow from premises with logic applied to them. If you agree with the logic, and not the conclusion, then you must disagree with a premise. But the things you bring up don't seem to have anything to do with the core of my argument or it's premises from what I can tell. I don't assume or believe that linguistic drift only happens in the context of translation. You've missed my point entirely. What I was saying was that linguistic drift that may have happened in language has no real bearing on translation at a point in time. For example, in the year 990, drift had brought the language to a certain point. The definitions of words used in 990 would then be the only relevant definitions in translation in 990, just as if I translate something into modern English today I'm not going to care that the word 'prevent' had a different meaning in the past because I am translating into today's English, not some other form of obsolete language. This is not a complicated point. If you don't agree with my point, could you demonstrate why without going off on a completely unrelated concept like an antediluvian epoch?

Re:"Plus you make it sound like if you remove etymology as a component, just because you say so, somehow its actual reality changes from its inseparable cultural derivative. It simply doesn't."

So are you saying that the word 'prevent' in today's usage still transfers obsolete meaning when people use it today with it's modern meaning? If so, I don't believe that you understand how meaning in language works, and would recommend a course in semantics. All translation cares about is conveying meaning, not obsolete meaning found in etymology.

Re:"(bible translation was never under centralized control...) Precisely why it proves MY point: you can't factually prove, what you're asserting, in the end, either way, because you cannot pin point the point of departure for semantics seepage and derivatives, to any acceptable scientific verification.

Again, locating pin points of semantic change in linguistic drift are irrelevant to my point, I was talking about translation at any given point in time(the several different points in time in which bible translation into English occurred). All one has to reference in this instance is the time of translation to limit the semantic scope of a term. Because the drift Maxwell suggests from proto-indo-european to modern English is much wider than any variation that would exist at any given point in time for the meaning of a word in any form of English. There is a big difference between 6000 years and 200 as far as linguistic drift is concerned.

Re:"- again, I accept your underlying logic in reasoning, but not the conclusion: no I DON'T have to accept that process as if it were some central committee dictated dispersion, especially, when there is no lack of dispute over Christianity's origins itself from its contemporaries in its inability to wholly separate itself from previous systems of beliefs and customs of its adherents from subsuming their previous theistic customs, as well as linguistic ones onto their 'new' theological evolution: but that's just how people are."

Maxwell seems to claim that there is kind of purpose behind the etymological connections, so that implies control where there is a connection. How can you do something on purpose without controlling it? Pee Wee Herman's "I meant to do that" is not really a good example.

Re:"And there's no way in hell you can academically prove WHEN, where, and at what precise point, be it unidirectional or cyclic, that it occurred."

Again, I don't have to, I'm talking about translation only pertaining to language at a given point in time.

Re:"You're applying psychology paradigm to linguistics and etymology: likewise, it's NOT a 'real' science; at best, an honest person can accept, is as a set of temporary operative theories."

I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that psychology has anything to do with this.

Re:" You make it sound like cultural, linguistic, customs, migratory mix result in clear cut a, b, c linear, traceable movements: another preposterous assumption. They don't."

I'm not convinced you really know what I am saying, but I would suggest you keep the scale of things in mind. If you are translating a word on a given day, there may be different meanings for that word in that day in any given language, and they may be relatively similar in scope to the meanings of that word a hundred years before or after that point. Now put this into perspective, you are talking about hypothetical proto-indo-european language around 6 thousand years old relating to modern English today, and then demanding that I map out all of linguistic history to show that a connection doesn't exist between a hypothetical PIE morpheme and a modern English morpheme. That is ridiculous. Why should anyone assume by default that a hypothetical reconstruction of an alleged morpheme is related to a modern English word who's meaning in the semantic domain in question is derived entirely from the translation of a text from a completely different language family?

Re:"Plus, you're assuming as if English and Hebrews never, ever, culturally or linguistically intermingled, for the concept and word "EL" to have filtered through, until Greek translation, strictly within the context of biblical transmography sans non-textual cultural mutative shifts."

I think you may be confused here. There are a couple of issues in play.
1. Connection of hypothetical Proto-indo-european 'el' (allegedly meaning Saturn according to Maxwell) with "elder" in English. That is where I bring up the origin of the church use of the word 'elder' from translation of biblical usage, and the nature of translation to dispute his point. The Christian church derives its definition of eldership entirely from the concepts conveyed through translation of Biblical texts. Requirements and functions of elders are defined in Greek texts, and those definitions are used by English speaking Christians thus nullifying the need for etymological understanding of the English word. Christians understand that the Bible is a translated book, so the English meaning of the Bible in English begins at it's translation, and Greek and Hebrew languages are consulted for further inquiry into etymology of biblical concepts. The fact that the word for loaf and bread were the same in old English does not mean that Christians today think their communion bread needs to be an entire loaf.
2. Meaning of the Hebrew word for God 'El' also being connected to the meaning of the English word 'elder'. This 2nd issue is so obviously wrong you've partially admitted it. The word 'elder' as used in Christian churches is based on the tradition that the word 'elder' is used in English translations of the Bible. That word 'elder' in the Bible was not translated from the Hebrew word for God. In the new testament 'elder' was translated from 'pres-boo'-ter-os, which is where christian churches would identify with the meaning, and is why some churches also refer to elders as presbyters. If you want to make a semantic connection between the Hebrew 'el' and the christian 'elder', you need to make the connection through pres-boo'ter-os because that is where Christians derive the meaning of their use of 'elder' as a church office. you admit you don't see any similar morpheme in the Greek word, but where does any Christian concern themselves with pre-bible-translation etymology of English words?

Re:"
"why does the alleged etymology of an English word even matter to you when it's used to convey semantics from words of a different language lacking that etymological connection?"
- lol: why not?"

Because translation transfers semantic meaning from one language to another through the use of pre-existing words which carry similar semantic meaning. All translation cares about is meaning, not obsolete meaning found in etymology.

Re:"Especially when you assume it to convey semantics from words of a different language lacking that said etymological connection, when that's merely your assumption, however well argued?"

So are you saying that obsolete usage of words is not actually obsolete but is transferred through translation intentionally to convey unknown or obsolete meaning along with relevant meaning despite the translators ignorance of the obsolete meaning?

Re:""Where is the connection to Saturn in the Greek word pres-boo'-ter-os or the Latin word 'Senior',"
- you're right, there isn't; even if there were/are, I nor anyone else can like some speedometer tell you exactly where of when that would've happened."
But the kicker? I never said, nor asserted that the word EL or its meaning to have entered the old or later English lexicon, strictly via biblical translation context: you assumed so based on what you thought the basis for which I may have been saying so, and went on to build your entire argument, assuming to be so."

You're right about me being right. But where/when some hypothetical thing would have happened is again completely irrelevant to my point. I know you don't think that translation is the only way for the meaning to get transferred in this instance, and that is precisely your problem. You just don't grasp how translation works. I don't have to deal with other scenarios of English etymology because they are made irrelevant by the nature of translation in this instance. If I have an English copy of one of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's books, looking at the etymology of English words in the book will tell me nothing about Bonhoeffer, because he thought and wrote in German. Similarly, Christians look at Greek and Hebrew etymologies when doing biblical word studies where etymology might be of concern, because they know the pre-translation English etymologies are irrelevant to the meaning of a non-English text. Which is why Christians look to what is written about "pres-boo'ter-os" when they concern themselves with church elders, and do not look to alleged hypothetical pre-christian obsolete meanings. Your antediluvian tangents are like saying that Bonhoeffer's books conveyed hidden meaning through obsolete meanings of English words only seen through etymological studies of the English translations of his books. One could swap any language with English in that scenario, and the etymology of Japanese words may give a different picture than the English ones, but that seems to be how Maxwell's reasoning would have it. It's grasping at straws.

Re:"The fact that you already assume it's "irrelevant" to the discussion, a-priori, already tells me as much."

It's not an assumption as much as a recognition of how translation works.

Re:"Which, take a hint: "I'm perfectly comfortable to let this one lie, where it is." With that said, this will be my last reply on this topic, on this thread; I appreciate your civility on a normally touchy subject matter."

Will it? I don't mind if you respond. Better to hash it out than see the same things popping up all over the place.

the following two paragraphs embody

precisely why this conversation between you and me, is going no where, nor will it:

In logic, conclusions flow from premises with logic applied to them. If you agree with the logic, and not the conclusion, then you must disagree with a premise.

No.

Not necessarily so.

Logic is the mechanism by which you apply your understood premise. Doesn't guarantee an immutable, same, repeatable conclusion, every time. That would be preposterous.

Oh? I "MUST disagree with a premise," if so?

Who says?

If you reach a wrong conclusion, even after deploying sound logic based on a sound premise, perhaps your premise isn't the problem or the logic applied; perhaps the participant is the problem.

After all, it all depends on the person carrying it all out.

So yes, premise and logic can be sound, but conclusion? Could be different than what's expected. Which is why, I can agree with the premise of your logic & argument, but not your conclusion.

This is just another way of saying: "I 'get'/understand where you're coming from, but I still disagree with you." Didn't think that would be that controversial, nor was it even that nuanced a distinction.

If you don't agree with my point, could you demonstrate why without going off on a completely unrelated concept like an antediluvian epoch?

That above sentence explains our minor irrelevant impasse: you already assume the "concept" is not relevant to the discussion, when to me, if the other person doesn't already realize why it IS relevant to this particular discussion we've been having, it's pointless to go on any further.

And, like I said, because it delves into 'that' arena, and that will be a lot longer discussion than I have the patience for in a non-face to face discussion format, it's bound not to be resolved. And, seeing as how I've mentioned it a few times, and you repeated that it's "irrelevant" enough times, it actually is, irrelevant, for me at this point to discuss it with you.

So, I see no point.

Also, you seem to think that this whole topic should be limited to being about a term cited in an already known text, merely translated in a different language for a term that denotes a pre-existent concept and prior usage, for example, as if you're translating "prevent" in Greek Harry Potter, to "prevent" in the English version, and not seeing etymology as relevant to the discussion because to you, from the time span in which that specific term has been used then translated, is already known to your satisfaction, so if other words in a different language sound similar, then you can proceed to dismiss them as mere homonyms.

That's fine. I don't accept the premise that it should be limited to that, thus etymology is an important component, because I'm not talking about you merely translating an already known term from an already known text book to be read in a different language. My question has been about the origins of the term, not whether one word sounds similar to other words that's been used in two separate cultures that are merely coincidentally dismissive homonyms.

So yes. I do understand where you're coming from and what you're asserting. Except it's not about text to text translation, but how the term embodying a concept may or may not have seeped into other languages/cultures, even though you believe there's a huge gap, which is where the antediluvian component, for me, comes in, which you a-priori reject.

Frankly, considering the type of back and forth, I thought it would also be clear to you by now as well, that we're not gonna agree, nor convince each other of anything, beyond the "EL" in Hebrew context, at least in context of this current DP-thread.

But as I said, that's cool, too; I'm not in the habit of rehashing irresolvable points of contention that has become irrelevant and have the "same things popping up all over the place."

What would be the point?

C'est la vie.

As such, indeed, this would be my closing comments, now. I respect your depth of knowledge, and your arguments (however I may disagree with conclusions). Enjoyed the convo, regardless.

Thanks, B.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

...

Re:"Logic is the mechanism by which you apply your understood premise. Doesn't guarantee an immutable, same, repeatable conclusion, every time. That would be preposterous."

If you've ever taken a course on logic, you should know that it is more like math or computer programming than typical philosophy. You already agreed that my logic was correct, but that you didn't agree with the conclusion. To say that you agree with my premises and my logic but not my conclusion is not logical. If you have true premises, a sound argument will "always" produce a true conclusion. Venn diagrams and truth tables should be able to show you that. You can learn about them in a logic course, probably philosophy 101 or 102.

Re:"That above sentence explains our minor irrelevant impasse: you already assume the "concept" is not relevant to the discussion, when to me, if the other person doesn't already realize why it IS relevant to this particular discussion we've been having, it's pointless to go on any further."

I'm not 'assuming' that it's irrelevant, I'm arguing that it's irrelevant by the nature of my argument.

Re:"Also, you seem to think that this whole topic should be limited to being about a term cited in an already known text, merely translated in a different language for a term that denotes a pre-existent concept and prior usage, for example, as if you're translating "prevent" in Greek Harry Potter, to "prevent" in the English version, and not seeing etymology as relevant to the discussion because to you, from the time span in which that specific term has been used then translated, is already known to your satisfaction, so if other words in a different language sound similar, then you can proceed to dismiss them as mere homonyms."

If you are translating from a Greek version of Harry Potter to create an English version of Harry Potter, you would end up with an English translation of the Greek translation of Harry Potter, and not necessarily the original. That is a poor example because Harry Potter was originally written in English. The etymology of the Greek words would be irrelevant to the original meaning conveyed by the English author. And the etymology of the English words would probably also be irrelevant. Etymology tells you about the history of where the word came from, but it doesn't tell you what the author was trying to convey. Only context can tell you that.

Re:" ...I'm not talking about you merely translating an already known term from an already known text book to be read in a different language. My question has been about the origins of the term, not whether one word sounds similar to other words that's been used in two separate cultures that are merely coincidentally dismissive homonyms."

The origins of the word may have nothing to do with the meaning conveyed by it. For example when people say 'cool' in the context of 'good' or 'likable', Maxwell's line of reasoning would have you believe that people were secretly saying that the music they liked was of low temperature because that's what 'cool' used to mean. And if someone then translated the slang use of 'cool' into slang German using the word 'geil' which means 'cool'(in the sense of good), then Maxwell would say that the German translation reveals that the original English speaker was secretly saying that the music was sexually aroused because the etymology of 'geil' shows that it used to more commonly mean 'sexually aroused' in German, which obviously results in nonsense. But if you want to say that because of some antediluvian hocus pocus that English 'cool' used to mean 'sexually aroused' also, and that is how Maxwell really came to his conclusion about the German translation of cool, then that is still silly because if that meaning existed in a pre-english related language before Noah's flood, it has since become obsolete and irrelevant to the meaning conveyed by the modern day speakers of English to the point that it's not within the semantic scope of the speakers use of the word, effectively making it a completely different word, maybe even a homonym if it sounded the same. That would be utterly irrelevant to the message conveyed by some kid saying they liked the music of Barney the purple dinosaur by describing it as 'cool'.

RandWatcher's picture

Listening now

Thanks.

crazy how most of what

people know today about the occult stems from much of Jordan's research. And of course, they conveniently, rarely, if ever, credit him.

Even though a lot of what Jordan does is analyses and discerned aggregation of existent, rare to unknown info (hey, what else is history but sometimes re-discovering works of those who came before us?), the way he can simplify and synthesize into short catchy etymological bursts, for the hungry Red-Pillers' consumption? That's all Jordan Maxwell (aka, Russell Pine), 100%.

Unfortunately, people outright copy his works without ever crediting him, all the time, INCLUDING Dan Brown's DaVinci Code. In the movie version, the entire scene where Tom Hanks is speaking about the eye of the pyramid as the slideshow's image is projected onto his face, is literally angle for angle, straight out of one of Jordan Maxwell's presentations.

The man needs to have a library, a school, a museum named after, dedicated to his works. yet, he'll most likely pass on penniless. And all those 'Anti-NWO Johnny Come Lately' claiming to 'debunk' Jordan are just frauds who're pissed off at what he says, particularly in regards to astro-theology. He's not saying the story isn't true, he's saying BECAUSE the story is same in many cultures who supposedly never spoke to each other in pre-Diluvian era, how is it possible that they all share similar human origin myths, unless they all either experienced it or heard about it from their ancestors about the same story: so there must be a single origin of that story, despite its myriad of seemingly disparate cultural iterations.

Well, he has a new website and radioshow, now. To those who maybe interested and were not aware of it, check it out y'all:

http://jordanmaxwellshow.com/blog/
http://jordanmaxwellshow.com/blog/archives/

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Hey Cap his last show was May 9th

What's up with that, is he okay?

PS If you call the phone number on http://jordanmaxwellshow.com/blog/ you get the grocery store Sprouts. I'm not discrediting Jordan just wondering where he is. Wikipedia apparently does not feel
Jordan is noteworthy "The page "Jordan Maxwell" does not exist." Jordan's insight must really destroy the o-fish-al narrative.

actually, not sure...

he's always had one business issue or another. supposedly his last site http://jordanmaxwell.com/ is now being run by a 'former pupil' who screwed him over or something, and he wants no part of it; supposedly that's why he began the new site.

Plus, after so many years of revealing info that no one would, I'm saddened that he'd rather take some of what he knows to the grave, as he publicly professed being frightened over what he believes was an NSA phonetap (hey, no one's gonna accuse him of 'hyping' that, now! lol) incident, and dismayed at the prospect, that in his mind, America, the whole country and the people, are utterly a lost cause; suppose that's because he hasn't been going around the country watching pockets of intellectual revolution/resistance going on all over the place to get a more visceral sense to be able to gauge the profound shift in zeitgeist, since he's begun traveling less and less to give speeches.

Manly P. Hall apparently gave him his whole library; EVEN IF one may not believe or disagree with such info, it's important to archive for posterity, and EVEN IF that his info may mean nothing at all to some, it should still be archived purely for opposition research value, alone. There were some .zip files of that archive going around on torrents networks, but not sure if it's still around.

Last time Jordan was on AJ's show, he literally sounded like he was making preparations, as if he were about to pass on, any minute.

Then he ended up making like 2 or 3 1hr-ish DVD's, I believe with that 'former pupil.' Not sure if the DVD's sold well. But, if Jordan has anything he wants to get across to the world, he can with a single camera and even with a library computer, upload hrs long talks on YT, Vimeo, etc. And even GoogleHangout chats with all his friends in the research community, or become a YT-partner and 'infiltrate the Matrix' and make enough FRN's off of the banksters to at least keep his operations going.

Beyond that, I'm just sad to see him like this... {:|

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Hopefully Jordan has a pure goal to get people interested

into looking into to things for themselves.

If so, it damn sure worked for me and while I may not agree at this time with all I've learned from him, the doors he opened for me years ago explained a lot to what I was questioning back then.

I think he describes the battle, as well what is going on here at DP very well.

Base1Ass ;)

ditto

that.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul