Interview 1056 – Austin Green Shines Light on The Shadow Ring

by | Jun 17, 2015 | Interviews | 3 comments

shadowringsquareAustin Green of Free Mind Films joins us today to discuss his new documentary, ShadowRing. Written by James Perloff, narrated by Kevin Sorbo and featuring commentary from G. Edward Griffin, Rosa Koire, Aaron Dykes, Patrick Wood, Katherine Albrecht and many others, Shadow Ring shines a light on the secret powers that control the money supply and manipulate the world into war.

3 Comments

  1. garyegeberg,

    I would be foolish to suggest that all of the teaching of Gandhi were wrong and the people of India cannot make a good cup of chai, which I love, simply because of Hinduism.

    I would be foolish to not marvel at the beauty and technical achievements that have happened in the city of Mecca because they are Moslem.

    I would be foolish to throw out all of the arguments of the evolutionist because of some of the clear fallacies and they are Atheists.

    At least usually I’m not a fool. On these pages I have made reasoned technical arguments about privacy technology but lambasted because I will also make reasoned arguments for the veracity of Scripture.

    A demonstrable truth does not become untrue because of the persuasion of the presenter. An ad hominem attack is not a characteristic of those who seek the truth.

    Respectfully,

    • Distinctiveness: When I read your statement I was annoyed.

      I do not read garyegeberg’s comment about Perloff as “ad hominem”, meaning an attack on Perloff’s character or opinions. Nor that truth seeking holds one to expressing desirable opinions in appeasement of others. (A wonderfully successful marketing campaign called PC–a control valve placed on everyone’s opinions that was set in the last two generations.) Everyone has opinions. Truth-seekers want to add-to, change or enhance their knowledge as information is made available. Garyegeberg’s remarks are simply a statement of his opinion regarding the brand of preaching within the piece he referred to. It made the information less agreeable to him. He, as anyone, has the right to his opinion as long as he does not meanly dress down (so to speak) the individual or the work. He did not.

      BTW–Evolutionists are not necessarily atheists. One can study and understand the processes of evolution in any species today while still knowing the engine is powered by a higher knowledge. Farmers use natural selection as a means of choosing evident genetics to perpetuate the best qualities in their stock. It means: “a person who believes in the theories of evolution and natural selection”

      …and that’s all I have to say about that. (Forrest Gump)

      • NES (AKA Mr. Gump),

        You are correct that “Evolutionists are not necessarily atheists”. Of my three examples this was the most poorly worded and widened the discussion where I would delight but it is off topic. It should not have been included.

        I’m afraid you made the “PC” arguments yourself. The “right to his opinion as long as…” is setting up a set of rules before you can offer an opinion. I have far greater respect and appreciation for an argument against me based on fact, even when I am dressed down, compared to an opinion that just make someone feel democratic. Correct me where I’m wrong from evidence and I will be corrected. Opinions and feelings will lead us both astray.

        I suggest that the “Hopefully his religious opining is absent” is both an ad hominem attack and poisoning the well; perhaps more so the latter. On that I continue to stand.

        Mr. Gump, one thing we do fully agree on: I like chocolate!

Submit a Comment


SUPPORT

Become a Corbett Report member

RECENT POSTS


RECENT COMMENTS


ARCHIVES