November 24, 2009

Investigative Journal comments 2


"I think this is a typically crafty thing for a Mason to say. I think that if you look at the occult symbols of the Masonic aprons of Washington, they speak for themselves. It is said that Washington and Weishaupt were doubles. Masonry had been occult from the time that the Knights Templar landed in Scotland. The American and French Revolutions were naught but the English and French Masons working together with their 'worshipful brothers' in the colonies to gain parity with the Monarchy in England and destroy it entirely in favor of mercantilism in France. I think that both the US and Israel are artificial Masonic constructs. Just look at the Supreme Court building of the State of Israel. That's what I think."
Doreen Ellen Bell-Dotan, Tzfat, Israel

Canada's current Chief Justice is Beverly McLachlan. Here she is wearing the traditional robes of the office.

11/19'09 Catholics like Joseph don't care about freedom at all

One of the most devout among the devout ones, Joe Fromm, went through the Ignatian Exercises and now he's convinced that freedom would be something that Judas stands with his life for ... as "antithesis", of course, antithesis. In other words, thoughts about living free, which means living without the murderous as well as soapy and slimy (spiritual and political) wardship of the priestly "fathers" including all of their wannabe followers, are considered by him as anti. When "free" equals "anti", "devout" behaviour appears to be "normal". Matching the norm is what Loyal Joe wishes for the most as the best way of life he seems to be able of thinking of. This particular characteristic makes him in my eyes to a shining prototype of what conspiracy theorists call "sheeple" (in doing so almost all of them sadly not seeing the glaring sheep-shepherd connection and therefore unfortunately not being aware of this second false flag public-opinion mainstream, intentionally and very skillfully misdirected by leading "9/11" truth protagonists like Jones/Tarpley/Griffin). From a piety-theoretical viewpoint there is nothing that will ever unsettle this kind of faith in his god represented by the Roman brotherhoods, because in such a thoroughgoing, total collectivist mind set where freedom is equivalent to treason, Mr. Fromm just loves being incorporated by "God" in form of a dogmatic society of Jesus-like conformists. And incorporated according to his theory mostly for a happy afterlife! What does it matter that his real life proceeds in its social dimension as a (legal) fiction? Nothing! Not. A. Bit. That's where the frontline goes, I believe. Exactly at this point.
Therefore the main methods and principles of how the Roman brotherhoods under the Catholic fold (in its 3 meanings) succeed in generating devoutness with a romantic semblance across the board have to be found and formulated. And this specific knowledge about the corresponding manufactures of "holy" celebrities within and outside of the Church, "icons for the masses to illumining them", cultural saints or simply gods of culture, so to speak, could become a key for a deeper understanding of the ongoing process of mental enslavement, called Inculturation by the Jesuits, of which "9/11" is a considerable part.

"Hallo, das ist ganz schön starker Tobak, wie man so sagt. Wem soll ich jetzt glauben? Dir oder den Zeugnissen (in Wort und Leben) von Maximilian Kolbe, Theresa von Kalkutta, Bernadette Soubirous, Giovanni Bosco bis zu Simon Petrus und Paulus von Tarsus?
Hey hey, this is, as the saying goes, pretty strong stuff. Whom shall I believe now? You or the testimonies (in words and deeds) of Maximilian Kolbe, Mother Teresa, Bernadette Soubirous, John Bosco right up to Simon Peter and Paul of Tarsus?"
You see? Canonized individuals can counterbalance whole crusades, wars, genocides, conquests, simply every single cardinal crime. Like Jesus himself.


If a political instrument like Brookhiser points out, "what George Washington made a good president was that he was able to pick people and then he was willing to trust them," what could it mean?

Excellent comment, Geus. Very powerful.


Bush, the idiot.
Hitler, the idot.
But the generals, the "dumb stupid" military men, now and then go and went along with the orders given them by the Cardinal criminals. And that always with a deadpan expression.


Right hand up, please!
From the guy that brought you your new Día del Ejército.
"Loyalty" in the sense of "Loyola". Hail!


A false flag constitution is nothing but a chimera, a phantom.
"The well-ordered Republic: For the Church amongst you, unopposed by the Constitution and the government of your nation, fettered by no hostile legislation, protected against violence by the common laws and the impartiality of the tribunals, is free to live and act without hindrance."
Just listen when the bishops speak! But listen very, very carefully!
"I am so thrilled to know that George Washington died a Catholic. He was our best president."
"Washington was by far our best president, Mary. After his terms it was all downhill."


Craig M. Lyons) It is like a 10,000 piece theological puzzle to which 400 parts are missing, thus giving a false picture of what was intended by the "maker", God. There is only one truth about mankind's Soul and it lies in the dark Skies overhead enlightening the way for the whole of mankind. And we never knew that the path for mankind Spiritual enlightenment and Spiritual development lays over our heads at night. The uranograph has laid silent since the persecutions started with the emergence of Orthodox Roman Christianity in the early 3rd century. But, by no means, think that such persecutions of the Gnostic Christians started this late, because actually it began with Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus in the late Second Century and only gained momentum from there in destroying this "One Faith" intended for the whole of mankind, this Science of the Soul. This "One Faith" and "One Way" for all mankind does not separate mankind and breed hatred and suspicion between mankind, nor is it the cause of wars and untold bloodshed seen in the likes of the Christian inquisition, crusades, progroms, etc. Don't get me wrong, Christianity is not the only world religion to be guilty of such atrocities committed in the name of religion, but their persecution of Judaism, which just happens to teach this Ancient Spiritual Wisdom which they inherited by their biological parents in Ancient Egypt, is a crime of all crimes against mankind and is responsible for the Dark Ages and repression of mankind's development on this planet even today. Two thousand years down the road we, as children growing up in this Western Christian hemisphere, have not one clue about the truth behind our inherited "Jesus Story" or how to accurately interpret out Bibles. Not one clue that the truth is not about some supposed man who was personified and "carnalized" and "literalized" some two thousand years ago by an emerging Gentile anti-Jewish establishment who did not want to live according to "ma'at" and the Laws of God as did Egypt and Egypt's children, the Jewish nation. This terrible Roman "reinterpretation" of Sacred Religious Knowledge of the Soul in the Egyptian religion has robbed mankind today of its righful heritage and plunged the world into the Dark Ages to which mankind has been deliberately trying to emerge in the last two hundred years. The hope for mankind is on the horizon as such knowledge is again seeing the light of day and at the same time exposing the Roman lies and their "way of salvation" which they forced upon the world at the point of a sword for over 1,800 years.


"Caritas in Veritate" or: "All We Need is the Right Major Crisis"

07/07'09 The Romish Pharaoh says: To the bishops, priests and deacons, men and women religious, the lay faithful and all people of good will on integral human development in charity and truth

1. Charity in truth, to which Jesus Christ bore witness by his earthly life and especially by his death and resurrection, is the principal driving force behind the authentic development of every person and of all humanity. Love – caritas – is an extraordinary force which leads people to opt for courageous and generous engagement in the field of justice and peace. It is a force that has its origin in God, Eternal Love and Absolute Truth. Each person finds his good by adherence to God's plan for him, in order to realize it fully: in this plan, he finds his truth, and through adherence to this truth he becomes free (cf. Jn 8:32). To defend the truth, to articulate it with humility and conviction, and to bear witness to it in life are therefore exacting and indispensable forms of charity. Charity, in fact, "rejoices in the truth" (1 Cor 13:6). All people feel the interior impulse to love authentically: love and truth never abandon them completely, because these are the vocation planted by God in the heart and mind of every human person. The search for love and truth is purified and liberated by Jesus Christ from the impoverishment that our humanity brings to it, and he reveals to us in all its fullness the initiative of love and the plan for true life that God has prepared for us. In Christ, charity in truth becomes the Face of his Person, and so on and so forth. See Part 1 of the Popish N.W.O. Encyclical.

A true masterpiece of clerical demagogy!
But it really doesn't get fatter anymore: love ('mostly from a god's death, which mysteriously didn't last besides a couple of hours'), truth – it's all the way in. I'd like to suggest that there is no further progression possible.

For all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago. Such an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe consistently the principles of subsidiarity & solidarity.

Step by step into the New World Order under the bloody Jesuit Shepherd's Fold …


Speaking of good writing.
1848, from the editor's preface of Abbate Leone's The Jesuit Conspiracy. The Secret Plan
Victor Considérant, London, January 27, 1845)
"I must confess that at that time I did not believe much in the Jesuits, and therefore I was disposed to attach but little importance to the publication of the Conference. It had always struck me that the public did the Jesuits too much honour in giving themselves so much concern about them. I believed indeed that the order was deeply committed to very retrograde ideas, but I did not give it credit for the activity, profundity, or Machiavellian ubiquity generally imputed to it. In a word, to use a phrase that accurately expresses what I then thought, I calculated that at least a discount of from sixty to eighty per cent should be struck off from the current estimate respecting the Jesuits.
As for their obscurantist and retrograde conspiracy, I thought it of no more account against the development of human progress and liberty, than the barriers of sand raised by children against the tides of the ocean. And even now, though enlightened as to the character and intrinsic power of the celebrated Company, I still persist in that opinion. For, however strong the arms that raise it, the anti-democratic barrier is still but a rampart of shifting sand, incapable of stopping the rising tide: at most it can but trouble the clearness of the foremost waves. [...]
But the guarantees afforded by the character of the witness are not the only motives that have convinced me of the authenticity of his testimony. Thousands of proofs, incidents of conversation, questions put at long intervals on delicate points, and imperceptible circumstances of the drama, have always resulted in an agreement so exact, positive, and formal, that truth alone could produce such perfect coaptation. [...]
The utmost skill in lying could not produce a tissue always perfectly smooth in its most delicate interruptions. Imagination may, no doubt, very ingeniously arrange the plot and details of a fiction. But if at long intervals, in the thousand turns of conversation, and without letting the author perceive your drift, you make him talk at random of all the details which the story suggests, then certainly if the web is spurious you will discover many a broken thread. Now, this web of Leone's I have examined with a microscope for months together in every part, and I have not been able to detect in it one broker thread or one knot. I have no doubt, therefore, if the authenticity of the narrative become the subject of serious discussion, that narrator will rise victorious over every difficulty that can be raised up against him. For I do not think that he can encounter any stronger or more numerous that I myself and some of my friends have directly or indirectly set before him. [...]

It seems evident to me that these speeches cannot be the produce of a literary artist's imagination: the imitation of nature is not to be carried to such a pitch. Certainly, it is not a young man, a young Piedmontese priest, though endowed with talent, sensibility, imagination, and good sense, who could have produced such a work. To this day, though his intellect is much more mature and his aquirements considerably enlarged, I do not hesitate to declare Leone quite incapable of composing such a piece. I go further and assert, that there is not one among all the living writers of Europe who could have been capable of doing so. There is in those speeches a mixture of strength, weakness, brilliancy, a variety of styles and views, a composite of puerilities, grandeur, ridiculous hopes, and audacious conceptions, such as no art could create.
Yes, they are surely priests who speak those speeches – not good and simple priests, but proud priests, versed in a profound policy, nurtured in the traditions of an order that regards itself as the citadel and soul of Catholic Theocracy – whose gigantic ambition, whose hopes and whose substance, it has gathered up and condensed. An order whose constant thought is a thought of universal sway, and which ceases not to strive after the possession of influences, positions, and consciences, by the audacious employment of every means. Yes, those who speak thus are indeed men detached from every social tie – emancipated from every obligation of ordinary morality – reckoning as nothing whatever is not the Order, in which they are blended like metals in the melting pot, the corporation, in which they are absorbed as rivers in the sea, the supreme end, to which they remorselessly sacrifice everything – having begun by sacrificing to it each his life, his soul, his free-will, his whole personality. Yes, those are truly the leaders of a mysterious formidable initiation – patient as the drop of water that wears down the rock – prosecuting in darkness its works of centuries over the whole globe – despising men, and founding its strength upon their weakness – covering its political encroachments under the veil of humility and the interests of Heaven – and weaving with invincible perseverance the meshes of the net with which, in the pride that is become its faith, its morals, and its religion, it dreams of enclosing Kings and Peoples, States and Churches, and all mankind.

Now, the Theocratic genius, founding its domination on the alleged interests of God – covering them with the impenetrable veil of the Sanctuary – marching with the infinite resources aquired in a long practice of confession, in a profound study of the human heart, and in the arsenal of all the seductions of matter and mysticism, taking for the auxiliaries of its inimitable design human passions, obscurity, and time – the Theocratic genius – if, with a deliberate consciousness of its aim, it has constituted itself a hierarchical militia, detached from all ties of affectionmust necessarily carry to its maximum of concentration and energy that politic spirit before which persons and the morality of actions disappear, and which retains but one human sentiment and one moral principle – that of absolute devotedness to the animus of the corporation, to its aim and its triumph. And who, then, save eight or ten of those strong heads among the higher class of the initiated – those politic priests, those brains without heart, puffed up by the defeat of the modern spirit (1824), intoxicated by a recent triumph, and by the perfume of that general Restoration which had already given them back a legal and canonical existence, and the favour of the governments of Italy, France, Austria etc. – who but such men, taking measure at such a moment of their forces for conquest, could have held such language?
There are mad flights of pride so delirious, that no imagination could invent them. To set them forth with the fire, brilliancy, and energetic audacity, they display in a great number of passages in the Secret Conference, the Word that speaks must itself be wholly profundity – that laborious patience, proof against the toil of ages – that sense of ubiquity – that absolute devotedness to a purpose whose fulfilment is seen through the vista of many generations – that absorption of the personal and transient individual in the corporate and permanent individual – and above all, if I may so express myself, that transcendant immorality, which all stamp upon the Secret Conference the character of a monstrous and insane grandeur. These are surely the tokens of a paroxysm of subversive unitism, such as could only be manifested, the moment after a European resurrection and victory, by Policy and Theocracy allied in an Order self-constituted as the occult brain of the Church, and the predestined supreme government of the world.

And truly, when we reflect on the organic virtue of that theocratic power, which feels itself immutable amidst the vacillations of the political world, we are constrained to own, that such is the nature of its means, such the temper of its weapons, that it might with more reason than any conqueror, or even than any people, aspire to universal dominion, if instead of seeking to cast back the nations into the past, and to plunge mankind again into the night of the Middle Ages, a thing which is purely impossible, it had undertaken the glorious tast of guiding men towards the splendours of freedom and the future. That Order, which for many a century has braved kings and nations – which neither the decrees of princes, nor the bulls of popes, nor the anathemas of the conscience of nations, nor the terrible wrath of revolutions, have been able to crush – whose severed fragments reunite in the shade like those of the hydra – that Order, everywhere present and impalpable, which feels itself living, with its eternal and mute thought, in the midst of all that makes a noise and passes away – that Order, on comparing itself with those governments whose vices, corruption, and caducity, would make them pliant subjects for its crafty magnetism – must certainly have conceived through its chiefs the plan developed in the Secret Conference, and none but the initiated could have given to that plan the profound, eloquent, and impassioned forms, which that grand folly there assumes. The fumes of pride have mounted to the brain of the mysterious colossus, and he has failed to perceive that this feet are of clay, and that the inevitable flood of the modern spirit is reaching them and washing them away.
Boundless ambition, a mighty organization, indomitable perseverance, and absolute devotedness, all directed to the attainment of an impossible object, an absurd chimera pursued by a transcendent system of means as immoral as they are puerile – such are, in brief, the characteristics of that modern incarnation of Theocracy which is called Jesuitism. [...]
I say for my part, instead of the veracity of the story being impugned by its improbability, that very improbability is a pledge of veracity. [...]
The Jesuits are the Janissaries of theocratic Catholicism."

"At the London economic conference in 1933 attended by representatives of about 65 nations, all eyes and hopes were on Roosevelt. Instead of supporting pragmatic economic measures including the strengthening of the gold standard, Roosevelt did the complete opposite: effectively destroying the international currency and monetary system over night through the Emergency Banking Act of 1933.

The Federal Reserve is a maritime lender, and/or maritime insurance underwriter to the federal United States operating exclusively under Admiralty/Maritime law. The lender or underwriter bears the risks, and the Maritime law compelling specific performance in paying the interest, or premiums are the same. [...] The U.S. citizen (tenant, franchisee) was registered as a 'beneficiary' of the trust via his/her birth certificate. In 1933, the federal United States hypothecated all of the present and future properties, assets and labor of their 'subjects', the 14th Amendment U.S. citizen, to the Federal Reserve System.

Banning gold exports. The actions of Roosevelt had the ultimate, immediate effect of drying up the last remaining liquidity capital in global markets enforcing the United States to borrow large sums of money from the private bankers owning what: the gold, the Federal Reserve ... getting these guys rich, the money cartell we talked about – that's all it is! It's like a drug cartell, they just do it with money. Same thing, Same principle. Economist desicions that defy logical explanation to this day! There is no reason for that, unless he was being controlled by the bankers themselves who're controlled by the Jesuits who founded the western banking systems, and told them exactly what to do."

The shill and the demon
Richard Bell interviewed by John Rappoport, read aloud by Greg to his broad- and podcast auditory

"The Roman Catholic Church will rule the world again."
No message is more important

November 22, 2009

Vatican Assassins comments 1

EJP lopo

Every gatekeeper helps in this circus of (genuine/authentic and false flag/dogmatically acting) conspiracist criminalistics where you have to figure out all of their tricks like in every computer game, before you can pass through them up to the next level. Every major contributor helps in this open and ongoing fight between open-minded researchers and their well-shepherded, well-protected opponents, the controlled controversialists: political instruments like "cultural gods/trendsetters", "icons/celebrities", "experts/professors", "agents", "journalists", "lawyers", "actors", "politicians", "soldiers" and so on and so forth. Could it be possible to escape from such a monstrous labyrinthian trap of modern dialectics for the purpose of preserving control over the public mind as it worked for millennia? How could one break through this nerve-racking and contemptuous theatre of half-truths? How to not only cut through it but make "the matrix" literally transparent without missing the point? Well, I think, it's not that much of an unsolvable problem, in fact, it's relatively easy. I mean, of course, only for those who are really open-minded, who don't try to protect a certain piety for themselves, a certain personal romantic spiritual home – only then it will work.

OG said, "it is not always a matter of one person being right and the other being wrong. Often times both can be right," while my impression is that a lot of squabble about "lying" and "saying the truth" can simply be ascribed as outgrowths of impreciseness. So where is the way out?
Let's take a look at Webster Tarpley. I listed him kind of in a category of high-level academics which was a big mistake. It is ridiculous to think of him as an outstanding scientist or so, I'll never do that again, because the more intense you're learing, the quicker he'll lose his reputation as an unprejudiced investigator and turns into an blatantly helpless false flag historian. Why do I know he is a disinformation artist like his buddy Alex Jones and many others? I can see the parameters wherein they operate. Webster, for instance, never goes as far as Jordan. Why not? Is the subject maybe not interesting enough for him or too complexe or something? Is it not worth to ask for details and to focus on the origins of our beloved ingrained Roman British corporatocracy? He seems to be immune to the whole legal fiction fraud that's going on for centuries. He can't either verify nor falsify such coherences. All what remains for him is to deny it or joking around. And at this point, you have found the contours of Mr. Tarpley's grid square of propaganda where you can take the next step: mapping out this labyrinth of post-"9/11" conspiracy theories and theorists, mapping out this virtually confusing battlefield of all varieties of professional psychological warfare technics. From Noam Chomsky to the-guy-who-is-not-Steve-Doocy – map them out! Define the actual pieties – that's the key! Because once you have them, once you are aware of the frontiers in the spirit of corporate as well as conspiratorial mainstream protagonists, you will come up with a new level, a new dimension of not only unanswered but yet unproposed questions, and this then will become a complete different game, a complete different fight with complete different rules.

All of those methodologically predominant and scientifically sophisticated academics that Terry Melanson swears by can't stand a debate with an expert on the field of historical research concerning the Knights of Jesus as the real possessors of political power, and so can't he. There is no chance, so they won't try. Henry Makow does actually pretend to "wonder what the Jesuits' source of power is", playing not being able to make the connection between the radical loss of his Church's most important psychic instrument, the book, for political dominance based on "morale superiority" through letterpress and following Protestant Reformation and – as last exit – the resurrection/refoundation of the Knights Templar with a new livery: Jesuit blackness. Sure, "why should anyone obey the" secret service, the SS/CIA of the Vatican? As a Catholic, to boot! Not mysticism, moneytheism rules in the eyes of Henry. As if the Catholic Empire had conquered Europe and the world with money instead of Jesus/Horus. Remember those blood-curdling secret oaths of the bankers ... Listen, Dear Sir, it's simply to memorize: mystery, military, then comes the money – it's always the same succession since the fuehrers were called "pharaohs", and "9/11" is the absolute paramount example for this little secret. What a job you have choosen! Not enviable at all.


This summer, Carolyn Harris maybe could have delivered a pretty comprehensive little series on this particular issue on Mystic Politics' "Online Radio" Podcast, in which, I think, she succeeded to back up statements such as done by Jordan Maxwell ("Since Jesus isn't here, they own you for the Pope.") and Marc Stevens ("What do they fear the most? Their perception of legitimacy.") with some considerably juicy arguments. Study materials are available, for instance, in the "old" library or where "America bends over". Part 1 and Part 2 are titled "Constitutional Crisis and the Patriot Paradigm", Part 3 then brings up the question: "Does the Constitution apply to you? Did it ever?" The second part is a true launching from the inception. Two further recommendations were the Thomas section of the Library of Congress and FindLaw.

05/28'09 Eric Jon Phelps with Nick and Everett, Orwell's Ghost calling in
06/04'09 Eric B. Orwell, the ghost himself, with Everett Tucker and Nick Spero


"Washington worked with them –

Principally responsible for this change of attitude by Maryland was [Jesuit Alumnus] Charles Carroll, who was afterwards rewarded in being elected a delegate to the Continental Congress on the 4th of July. He took his seat on the 18th of July and signed the Declaration of Independence on the 2nd of August, when the copy engrossed on parchment was presented for signature. Of all the signers he risked the most.

to establish the Republic."
Now, Marc Stevens raises the question: "Is there a state at all?"
And not only this, but: "Did anyone sign the Constitution?" That very unique constitution!
How could one get these informations synchronized?
"Why do we not realize: it's just a damn piece of paper?!"


Personally known to me, Richard Grove is honest, eloquent and confrontational in his exposure of the powers running Wall Street. He is well aware of the Knights of Malta and their financial monopoly over the banks, lending institutions and the market.

Good to hear, Sir.
He would be my first choice to become the arbiter. A very premium candidate for the job and, in my eyes, one of the greatest inspirations out there on the web. I mean, this guy is tremendous. In 2006, it was him who got me really started with his 911Synchronicity podcast. It was him who introduced me into the fields of investigative research à la Phelps, McKenna, Maxwell, Emory, Irvin, Hicks and others.
This is from an interview with Keith "Vyzygoth" Hanson of Episode No. 15.

12/15'06 @171min, Richard) Well, here is how I kind of see it. So, I can make it clear. From my understanding, the British Empire was under the control of the Vatican, and you can see this in the symbolism: an over head shot of the Vatican out in front the obelisk, you'll see an Union Jack. So, the flag of Britain is that of the over head shot of the Vatican. Now, there is other symbols from the over head shot, but that's one of them. So from that you had the 1922 September 11th British mandate over Palestine to create a future Zionist state, which is Israel in the future. That you then have the same people participate in the funding of the Nazis and the creation of the Holocaust, the persecution of the Jews, in order to justify creating this British Vatican stronghold and populating it with Jewish people as an asylum, basically – to use a little Templar symbolism. It's an asylum: a save place for the Jews to go. Now, you also have the creation of Zionism that makes () stay on Israel. You then have, after the creation of Israel, the creation of the CIA by Reinhard Gehlen, who is a Nazi, funded by the same people that are creating it. And Gehlen also founds the Mossad! So, the Mossad and the whole Jewish question rolls back up to the same people who had been creating states and money systems, and control systems, and mapping out the planet for the past eleven centuries. That's how I see it.

@174min, Keith) To be honest with you, I don't think the United States ever really was all that free from Britain. The Revolutionary War didn't accomplish anything to the most part – that's another whole thing. So when you look at the Treaty of Paris, that I would ask people to read, [...] Then we've got a central bank here that – obviously – the colonists never wanted, because they knew that scam by the central bank in England by the Rothschilds. And also then that happened. So they get their tentacles into us through the banking. And I'm not blaming British people, I'm just saying that I think Cecil Rhodes was right, when he said that we have to bring the U.S. back into () crown and make them the dumb beast to fight the wars that our best () can no longer do. And therefore you look at WW I and II [...] I think what happened is we'd become the Roman Legions for the 20th and 21th century, and I think really, that we are the New World Order – our military is been abused. But for a particular purpose. That's very frightening. [...]

The whole idea of Columbia ... when Freeman was on and we were talking about that, I used to say like 'what is Columbia come from'? I mean, what is 'Columbia'? District of Columbia, Columbia this, Columbia that – where does this fit into the whole scheme of the founding of this country? And then you realize that that's a female image that goes back to the representation of Isis. [...] Statue of Liberty [...] So, I'm looking at the U.S. – and I sent you that book by Wilcox, The Transformation of the Republic, not that Phelps doesn't do this also with Vatican Assassins – but then you start to find the real deal: that the Vatican hated the U.S. because it was an extension on the Protestant Reformation. Which always bug them. Secondly, the monarchies hated the U.S., 'cause, you know, 'come on, we don't want this spirit of constitutional republicanism coming over here.' Hence the Secret Treaty of Verona in 1822, it's like 'we're not gonna let this happen here, guys'. So, where we felt we were loved, we've always been hated. And, basically, they got us back during the Civil War, which is another whole story. And then in the afterward, more and more, we were basically used by the landed and generational powers from Europe – to include both the Vatican and the Crown. I really do believe that we were raised up to be a pitbull for old wealth. And I think eventually what will happen, as happened with Napoleon's armies and Hitler's: after you take a scorcher, and they've done their job, you got to get rid off them. [...] And probably we ever do leave Iraq, the U.N. will come in and never leave, the Pope's army.

@182min, Richard) The U.S. was set up as an experiment, and France was also set up as an experiment, but there was a different variation. Because the elite was trying to figure out, 'how we can have total control of the people in such a way that they won't even think that they're enslaved, and they won't revolt, therefore.' That they can have permanent control. So, they are doing these different experiments, whether it's communism, or socialism, or capitalism, or it's the US version, where it's a heavy military state, or the French version, where it's a very light military state. They are just working on these different versions to take the synthesis out of that and say: allright, here is the model for a New World Order control. [...] I think, there is a race against time right now, while they try to figure out the final combination of how to suppress people. [...] That's where the hope is. The hope is that people are waking up and they're refusing the artificial construct that's being provided by corporate mass media. And it's very much like The Matrix in that sense.

@186min, Keith) What's also not known is that the Vatican seeks a second Holy Roman Empire. Not so much through Roman Legions, but through this Veneer of Religiosity.

@189min, Richard) Well, and I'd even take this a step further and say this: I tell Carroll Quigley's Tragedy and Hope all the time, I think, it's a great book. And I was very moved when I found out that book was there and had been suppressed, and I discovered it and had a lot of information. However, where was Carroll Quigley from? He is from Georgetown! He is a professor from Georgetown that taught Clinton. So, he works in a Jesuit university. So here you are: another layer to the cake. 'Cause I went and found that stuff, I was like, 'oh, that's pretty clever,' because not a lot of people mentioned that. They'll tell you about Quigley but they won't say that, you know, he is a Jesuit professor. And when you make those discoveries for yourself, you want not only to share it with other people, but you want other people to realize what that means, because that raises your intellect in this game another level higher: that you're discovering, 'oh, I see how the people up here are controlling all of these layers' [...] It's an interesting dynamic when you take it on context.

November 15, 2009

Eric Shine

Eric Shine: Whistleblowers – Americans who expose the truth

Eric Shine: Globalization

Eric Shine: New World Order & North American Union

Eric Shine: Is America Being Sold Out From Within?

Eric Shine: US Navy, US Merchant Marine, and US Coast Guard's use of Military Tribunals

November 13, 2009

Investigative Journal comments 1

Were Washington and Papist John Carroll good buddies?
"Their blood flowed as freely to cement the fabric of independence as that of any of their fellow-citizens. They concurred with perhaps greater unanimity than any other body of men in recommending and promoting that government from whose influence America anticipates all the blessings of justice, peace, plenty, good order, and civil and religious liberty."

State is the continuation of Church by other means.

What would if Georg could hear us?

Catholics don't care about freedom.

Like Communists.
They both are like the Ancient Egyptians. They want to be shephered.

They wouldn't dare to think of being not less smart than their cute asexual Jesus-like brotherhood. They wouldn't dare to think they possibly could know slightly better than what they get preached from their priests all the time. So all you need to do as the Chief Executive Officer of the Institution of Inquisition is to restage the Reichstag fire in front of their eyes, combined with elements of Pearl Harbor ("coincidentally" also the summer blockbuster of 2001) and Hiroshima/Nagasaki, and the Catholic Columns, the holy "angelic hosts" of Catholic lay people, marche more or less all by themselves, quasi automatically, in the acquired direction against the assumed archenemy, the Jews, from whom they've gotten their book anyway. With one single beat of the drum you mobilize an army of millions of bloggers who are passionately confusing the new communication sphere with "outrageous conspiracy theories", thus providing a tremendously successful remake of the Hitleresque "Jewish World Conspiracy", now with digital means, so-called "Data Highways".

"That thing that could not happen has, indeed, happened in America. [...] something else showed up in America for the first time – something very ugly."

Former Finnish Minister of Health speaks out on Swine Flu scandal and about "The Elite"

"The patriotic part which Papists took ..."
As always, Greg, magnificent investigative work. Thank's a lot for both articles around the corporation's president's presumable Jesuitism!
Bishop Carroll is extremely important for an appropriate understanding of the whole situation.
"He loved republicanism. [...] There was an irresistible charm and elegance indeed in his conversations."
The two main Roman "weapons of piety" I found out so far are the "balsam of words" and the fabrication of holy heros. Because piety is the key.

"You have to know as much as you can about what's going on at the top to know what to do at the bottom." Richard Bell

A concordat with the Vatican is like dancing with the devil

03/25'09 In the words of Richard Bennett:

The Pope authorized the invasion of Ireland and sent the King a Ring of Investiture as Lord of Ireland.
Ireland was conquered for Papal profit:
The fact is that many Irish Catholics find it hard to accept that the Church of Rome, as a temporal and feudal institution, was not a friend to the Irish nation. It is hard to accept that there was something other to the Church of Rome than its professed "spirituality". The Popes regarded themselves as temporal princes, with more feudal power than most emperors, and they often led their own armies into battle to assert that power and reap tribute from those they subjected. [...]
So it is quite clear that when Ireland became just another province of the Angevin Empire, with its High King having accepted Henry II as his feudal lord – that is Dominus Hiberniae (Lord of Ireland) – Ireland had, in fact, constitutionally become a Papal fiefdom. The Bishops of Rome, as temporal feudal princes, had conspired in the conquest of Ireland, asserting themselves as feudal lords of all the lands of Europe. In this position, they were able to give Ireland into the charge of Henry II in return for payment. [...]
Ireland continued to be a Papal fiefdom, at the whim and gift of the Bishops of Rome, but with the English kings as middlemen. The Irish kings and princes were instructed, on pain of excommunication, to obey the authority of the English kings. It was in 1534 that Henry VIII broke with Rome. Yet the important year for Ireland was 1541 when Henry VIII, rejecting the title of "Lord of Ireland", styled himself King of Ireland (Rex Hiberniae) becoming the first English King to do so and making Ireland a separate realm from his kingdom of England.
To achieve this, Henry VIII determined to pursue a policy which abolished all the Irish titles and styles of the kings, princes and nobility. The Irish aristocracy were forced to surrender their titles and, in turn, accept English titles, methods of land holding, English law, the English language and, of course, the Reformed Faith with Henry VIII as head of the new church.
If they did not do so, they were be eliminated or forced to flee into exile.

So while today the Roman Empire incorporates all of its further provinces with treaties called concordats, the Papacy has been enthroned its new provincials throughout the Middle Ages with the Ring of Investiture making kings with rings to lords "by the grace of god". And while Alexandre Dumas portrayed his "Count of Monte Cristo" after the Superior General being confronted with the Papal suppression order, couldn't therefore the Pope himself as the "King of the Kings" not been considered as a "Lord of the Rings"?

From Jerome Corsi's C-Span interview on "05/10'07 ...
"This comes on the heels, this was done on May 9, it was signed on April 30, 2007: President Bush – again without congressional approval – signed an agreement with the European Union in which he created a transatlantic economic council, a new cabinet level office. Again, no congressional approval of the office being created with the idea to economically integrate us with the European Union. And it was co-signed [...]"
I'm afraid this signature set extensive centralization procedures in motion although my search for more thorough informations on this agreement and the announced "economic council" hasn't had any success yet.
Putting aside the fact that Bush officials have denied Congressman Peter DeFazio from his duty to review classified White House documents that describe how the Administration plans to conduct the US government if martial law is declared, the thing that was much more critical from my point of view was what else happened on April 30, 2007:

The Congress, by Public Law 85-529, as amended, has designated May 1 of each year as "Loyalty Day". This Loyalty Day, and throughout the year, I ask all Americans to join me in reaffirming our allegiance to our Nation. Now, therefore, I, George W. Bush, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 1, 2007, as Loyalty Day. I call upon the people of the United States to participate in this national observance and to display the flag of the United States on Loyalty Day as a symbol of pride in our Nation. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this thirtieth day of April, in the year of our Lord two thousand seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-first.

Yes, "Illuminati Day"! With greetings from the "righteous" brotherhood of Loyola …
"26,000 Pastors for Martial Law Continuity of Government"

The Inquisition was a model of agreement between the Church and the State

Let's hear some interesting and concordat-related thoughts on the state and church issue from a member of the notorious Society of St. Pius X which doggedly refuses to call the Dark Ages dark:

In effect, the black legend of the Inquisition is the product of Protestant propaganda, which was passed down to the 18th century by the philosophy of the "enlightenment", to the 19th century by Masonic anticlericalism, and to the 20th by "Christian-democracy".
Nevertheless, the most serious historical studies have henceforth recognized that the Inquisition was an honest tribunal, which sought to convert heretics more than to punish them, which condemned relatively few people to the flames, and which only employed torture in exceptional cases. However, the anti-inquisitorial myth still circulates in public opinion. [...]
The doctrine of the Syllabus, which recognized for the Church and for the State a power of constraint in religious matters, was in accord with Catholic tradition. Pope Leo X (1513-1521) specifically condemned Martin Luther's proposition which affirmed that the Church did not have the right to burn heretics.
Bellarmine and Suarez also defended the right of the Church to impose the death penalty, on condition that the sentence be executed by the secular power, that is to say by the State. St. Thomas Aquinas supported the use of constraint, even physical, to combat heresy. St. Augustine appealed to the Imperial [Roman] authority to suppress the Donatist schism by force. The Old Testament punished by death idolaters and blasphemers.
The power of constraint in religious matters rests upon the principle of the duties of the State toward the true religion. The divine law does not apply only to individuals, it must include all social life. [...] In the true Gospel there is nothing to be seen of that moral and doctrinal laxity which the modernists qualify as "tolerance" or as "liberty of conscience". Christ was patient and merciful with repentant sinners, but He never recognized any right of error and He exposed obstinate propagators of error to public condemnation. The Inquisition adopted an attitude toward heretics comparable to that of our Lord. [...]

The anti-inquisitorial argument rests also upon a confusion between freedom of conscience and religious liberty. The act of faith must be freely consented to, since it constitutes definitively an act of love toward God. A forced love cannot be a true love. That is why the Church has always been opposed to forced conversions. Epinal's famous image of the Spanish monk who is presenting a crucifix to an Indian while the conquistador threatens him with his sword, is yet another fruit of Protestant propaganda. If a few princes had occasionally forced the baptism of conquered peoples, as, for example, Charlemagne did in Saxony (ca. 780), this was done against the will of the Church.
But if the Church recognizes the freedom of conscience of the individual in his innermost heart, if the individual is free, at the risk of his salvation, to refuse the faith, it does not follow that he can propagate his errors and thus lead other souls to hell. So, the Church respects the freedom of conscience of individuals, but not the freedom of expression of false doctrines. [...]
Nevertheless, while the Church denies in principle the right of public expression of false religions, she may not necessarily persecute them in practice. To avoid a greater evil, such as a civil war, the Church can tolerate the sects. This is what Henry IV did in promulgating the Edict of Nantes (1598) which granted a certain amount of liberty to the Protestants of France. But this tolerance does not constitute a right. When political circumstances permit it, the State must re-establish the exclusive rights of Catholicism, as Louis XIV did when he revoked the Edict of Nantes in 1685. Moreover, the pope congratulated the "Sun King" for taking this action.
Naturally, the traditional doctrine of the Church on religious intolerance is only applicable in those countries where the State is officially Catholic. The harmony between priesthood and empire is the normal order of things in societies. In this regard, the Inquisition was a model of agreement between the Church and the State, since the tribunal exercised a mixed jurisdiction, both religious and civil. [...]

The central idea which justifies the Inquisition is that heresy professed publicly is a crime similar to any other crime against the common law. Religion being the foundation of morality, and morality being the foundation of the social order, it follows that a falsification of the faith leads, ultimately, to an offense against the social order. St. Thomas compared heretics to counterfeiters, who, during the Middle Ages, were condemned to the flames. Thus the State, as guardian of the public order, had the duty to combat heresy. But in its role of temporal power, it was not competent to distinguish between heresy and orthodoxy. For this, it had to rely upon an ecclesiastical tribunal. [...]
As in all wars, the Albigensian Crusade was the occasion of excesses. The taking of Béziers (1209) was a veritable massacre. It was impossible to distinguish the Cathari from the Catholics among the population of the city. The papal legate, Arnold de Citeaux, was to have said, "Kill them all. God will recognize his own." The words are probably apocryphal and can be filed under the panoply of anticlerical commonplaces. But they reflect all the same an undoubted fact: the Cathari, who had, for a long time, been drawing down the hatred of the people upon themselves because of their immorality and their practicing of usury, ran the risk of a general lynching.
But the Inquisition prevented this massacre by distinguishing between the heretics and the orthodox, and between the leaders and the followers, and by applying proportionate punishments to the diverse degrees of heresy.
Finally, the Inquisition was a humanitarian work. In severely punishing the leaders, she spared the mass of the Cathari, who were more victim of than responsible for the heresy. In ferreting out the heretics who had gone underground, she prevented the renaissance of Catharism and of all the social and moral disorders that this doctrine provoked. [...]

The inquisitorial procedure varied according to the country and the times, but a basic outline becomes clear. In a general manner, one can say that the Inquisition left the heretic every chance to extricate himself, and only severely punished the "irreducibles," those who were pertinacious in their rejection of the Faith. The Inquisition sought to educate as much as to restrain. Its action sometimes was more of a work of eradicating popular superstitions than of battling against subversion. The judicial procedure was always accompanied by solemn preachings. [...] The Inquisition did not have at its command a secret police or a network of spies. It counted upon the collaboration of the Catholic people, acting in this way more as a guardian of the social consensus than as an oppressive apparatus of the State. [...] The Inquisition was not concerned with the conscience of the heretics, but only with their exterior action.
The Pope confided the Medieval Inquisition to the Dominicans and the Franciscans. These two newly founded orders gave serious guarantees of probity and sanctity. The theological and canonical knowledge of the inquisitors was remarkable. In fact, the Inquisition was entrusted to the finest flowers of the clergy of the era. [...]
The Inquisitor did not render his judgment alone. He was assisted by some assessors (assistant judges), selected from the local clergy. The Inquisition was, in a way, the beginning of the institution of the jury system. In addition, the bishop audited the sentences and the accused could appeal to the Pope. Thus the inquisitorial procedure was suitable, even by the standards of our modern criteria of justice. [...] The number of heretics burned by the Inquisition has been greatly exaggerated. [...] Jean Dumont speaks of about 400 executions during the 24 years of the reign of Isabella the Catholic. That's few indeed in comparison to the 100,000 victims of the purge of "collaborators" in France from 1944-45, or the tens of millions killed by the Communists in Russia, China, and elsewhere.

The State's primary duty of charity is to protect the public order, to defend the physical and spiritual well-being of its subjects. If capital punishment is necessary to assure public security, the State or the Church can have recourse to it. The Catechism of the Council of Trent (chap. 33, §1) and the Catechism of the Catholic Church issued by John Paul II (art. 2266) recognize the legitimacy of the death penalty.
St. Thomas Aquinas justified the execution of criminals in noting that the fear of death often facilitated their conversion. Indeed, prison chaplains can bear witness to the fact that during the era that hanging still existed as a punishment in Canada, it was rare to see one of the condemned mount the scaffold without being confessed by a priest. Thus, the temporal punishment of death allowed the criminal to avoid the eternal death penalty which is hell. In this way, the State was practicing true charity. To restore him to freedom, as is done today on the pretense of forgiveness, is to give the criminal the occasion of relapsing back into sin and losing his soul. [...] At any rate, the death penalty constituted less than 1% of the sentences pronounced by the Inquisition. [...]
The Inquisition was not charged with protecting persons and property from the various aggressions they might undergo. It was created to prohibit a belief and a cult. Now we are at the heart of the matter. [...]
After all, the only thing that the liberals can still reproach the Inquisition for is having fought against the false religions. That is normal enough, since the liberals do not believe that the Catholic Church is the one way to salvation. They cannot comprehend the supernatural finality of the Inquisition. [...] Recall that a third of the German population perished during the numerous religious wars which took place between 1520 and 1648. If the burning of a few hundred heretics had enabled Spain to avoid such a conflict, one must conclude that the Holy Office performed a humanitarian act. [...]
But if there is not occasion to restore the Inquisition, one must certainly rehabilitate it in the eyes of history. With all due deference to those who love to see the Church disparage itself, Catholics have nothing to be ashamed of in the past work of this holy tribunal.

"The harmony between priesthood and empire is the normal order of things in societies …"
This seems to me a more likely face of the Roman clergy in general. And while "the German Pope is trying desperately to rewrite history", outfoxed anchorpeople are still believing they would do themselves a tremendous favor with what they're doing every day.

Obama's Jesuit connections surface

03/21'09 Investigative dynamite!
Many thanks for sharing your research mailbox and for the corresponding January 8's Beacon Broadcast with EJP about the Jesuit surroundings of the Obama presidency which begins with: "You have to remember that the Pope has his International Intelligence Community which is the modern day Holy Office of Inquisition, and that International Intelligence Community begun to be put together in WWII and was perfected during the Cold War. And that Intelligence Community today is really overseen by the CIA in conjunction with the Britisch secret intelligence service. [...] The Vatican controls Hamas, it controls Hisbollah through the CIA and the Vatican controls the Mossad through the CIA. So, the Vatican controls both sides and the purpose for this neverending ceaseless warfare is to ultimately bring the Pope to world power in Jerusalem [...] This war has been financed and armed on both sides from the Pope's Intelligence Community overseen by the CIA, and thus we see the Israeli and the US government – both controlled by the Vatican – had provided all the necessary weapons to launch this war."
This amount of mismatch to the Corporate Mainstream as well as to the Conspiracy Mainstream is therefore the one we're dealing with here.

Why does the majority of academics deny to look into the "9/11" abyss? They all know perhaps Faust's pact with the devil and found out that Goethe was introduced into the Bavarian brotherhood from which Jesuit illuminism then emanated into European and international freemasonry capturing and controlling the new upcoming scientific and economic elites.
Aren't we all to nearly full extend mentally embedded in the fascicled intelligence of the highest ranks of the Jesuit Shepherd’s Fold? Isn't the whole fatherly attitude of any of their pseudo-religious business brotherhoods (Freemasonry, Mormons, Scientology and what not) till this day the ideational core of social loyalty at all? Don't we all unwittingly posess their corporate identity, that artificial legal business personality, as some existential sort of social compagnon and supervisory staff?
Which manager, bureaucrat or officer has and shows any interest in deep clarification of the murderous psycho attack in the early days of the new century? That ignorance has reasons behind it that are part of the truth about "9/11" too and far more important as all technical details of the crime itself! The aspect of conspiracy is of second rank in my eyes. For what we are confronted with first and foremost should be called devoutness or something. Television devoutness, politics devoutness, democracy devoutness, science devoutness and so on, church and agency devoutness.
Walter Burien calls the CAFRs the bible of the corporate system that nobody else than the adepts and insiders should see. Isn't the trick not exactly the same the Catholic church played with its believers throughout the whole mediaeval times?

The majestic-dignity of interpretation delivers the central key to power whatsoever, and that’s probably one of the most important secrets of the mysterious Jesuit supremacy, I think. What's the difference, let's say, between freedom as "the insight into necessity" (Friedrich Engels, the high-level Freemason) and the famous letter Loyola wrote – "de virtute obedientiae" – on March 26, 1553, where he defined the three degrees of "Manchurian Candidate" obedience towards the next superior brother? Hoensbroech translated its main passages into German, the last sentence goes like: "I beseech you by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ [...] bestir you to subjugate (expugnare) and subdue (subicere) the most highbred and difficult part of your mind: reason and judgement."

Jesuit motivated Internet propaganda deceives millions

03/20'09 "I am the best you can get!"
The self-appointed "T-Rex of Political Talk" in his own words.
"The tip of the spear. [...] the ultimate resistance." I know how it hurts.
After all, he's the most efficient gatekeeper of the Roman N.W.O., that damn fricking Jones joker!
Good article and nice try, Tom. I call him the big instantaneous water heater: lots of hue and information with very little useful coherence.
Do you know what happend on May 14, 2008 on his show? The videos of the interview with David J. Smith that I downloaded from Youtube months ago have been unfortunately deleted, meanwhile.
I think he acts like a Lewis Prothero but in a sneaky twisted kind of inverted way introducing the Jesuit "prison planet" by negative advertisement, in a manner of speaking, while concurrently sustaining the Corporate Mainstream the tried and tested dialectical way. Together with Tarpley and a formidable row of generally accepted "truth heros", Alex became the strongest public relations anchor of that type of future he reputedly fights against. His role had to be custom-made for the goals that are being pursued with the "9/11" project, and that's the ultimate question from my point of view: for what exact reason was that psycho tsunami absolutely unevitable?

May 15, 2007 Eric Jon Phelps with Lenny Bloom
Eric) Alex Jones is the topic: He refuses to deal with the Jesuit order.
Lenny) They don't want the truth to get out. They are hiding the truth.
Right. But the deception here is his great credibility on most every other topic: on "9/11", the demolition of the WTC, Oklahoma City, you know, the whole nine yards, the destruction of Waco – he is absolutely credible on all those other topics. And that's what suck the people into following him away from Vatican control.
Lenny) That's a half-truth. That's how he gets people. Create a half-truth, hook them in!
Eric) So this is typical Jesuit casuistry at its best, and we always have to watch out for this and be aware that there is always somebody trying to seduce the listener away from realizing that Rome is the mother of harlots and the abominations of the earth: Rome is that great city which rules all the kings on the earth.
So, and I would welcome a debate with Alex Jones. I'll welcome any confrontation with him, if he seeks to refute me about this or correct me for final analysis. All I ask is that he deals with the Jesuit order. It doesn't have to be me, I'm nothing. But that subject is everything, and he must deal with it if he use to maintain his credibility.
Lenny) Well, he has to stay in the shadows. He can't afford to let the light shine on and has to stay under his rock. And the thing is this, he will not enter into any neutral debate with you. He'll have to have his finger on the button at his radio station. He is too frightened and he doesn't have the debating expertise or intelligence or lateral thinking enough to move into that area of expertise and go one on one with you. But he can buster and fuel people with cleverly devised fables. Alex Jones is a Jesuit coadjutor, a fake.
Eric) That's absolutely right.

November 9, 2009

Marc Stevens

If you consider yourself a citizen of the United States of America, or of any other country, you should not watch this video until you have mentally prepared yourself to have everything you believe in challenged. You have been warned.
What if everything you believed in turned out to be just a set of delusions programmed into you from early childhood? How would you react upon learning this? Most people will go into denial and get very highly emotional, even to the point of violence. You are probably no exception.

Marc Stevens, the guy who rips your reality from you: Delusions

On the Knoll – Adventures in Legal Land
@51min) Like I say, anything done under the guise of consent can be done by consent. And really, the only ... I always urge people: go in or buy the movie A Bug's Life because it's not a children's video. It graphically demonstrates the government fraud. It's an exellent video or cartoon and it describes to the key what we have been talking about. [...] The solution is simple, is withdraw your participation as far as you can. I wouldn't vote. I would never register to vote because it's giving legitimacy to a gang of killers, thiefs and liars. I would pull my kids out of public school. If I had to pay taxes, I () right on there on the protest. And whatever could be done to withdraw legitimacy ... I mean, could you just imagine if people just didn't help them? They don't oppose them in any way, they just didn't help them anymore: 'Oh, you think you have a right to control my life and property without my consent? Oh, then you certainly don't need my help. If you don't need my permission, you don't need my help.' Can you imagine how the traffic system would function if nobody helped them? [...] Fighting them is not effective because that just gives them legitimacy: 'Well, we have to protect other people the more you fight and picking up guns and going after these people.' They have more guns, and that gives them legitimacy. But: What do they fear the most? And that is: Their perception of legitimacy. You know, people go on: 'We've gotta go back to the Constitution!' No. That's the problem. Your problem is that you're giving legitimacy to a gang of killers, thiefs and liars, and whenever you look at the Constitution, or whenever you accept the 'Oh, it's just a few bad apples, it's we can just pull this guy out, everything would be perfect!' No. If you stop accepting this religion called politics. Clear your mind of it! I mean, hey, I left the Catholic Church and, unlike the way it used to be, they are not sending the Jesuits out to murder me where I stand.

Adventures in Legal Land, where black is white and white is black and other shocking discoveries from America's courtrooms

Free State Project

Center for a Stateless Society

Drug war is a scam


WTPRN Radio Archive

Christopher Strunk

12/09'09 New York is the New Jerusalem and this is our town (IJ:09/18'09)
10/18'09 Should be registered as a dangerous weapon (IJ:08/13'09)

Investigative Journal interviews)

Conversations with H.H. Channer: 08/11'09 & 06/26'08

06/05'09 on Speak Up Part 1 & Part 2

November 4, 2009

Vyzygoth Keith Hanson

The Knoll

Apropos Corsi and "The Bush legacy? European socialism.", can anybody perhaps associate that on April 30, 2007 signed agreement about "a transatlantic economic council" with the new cabinet? Because it can't be the one with Skull and Bones Goolsbee, and I'd like to presume that this "agreement" – never heard of it again since then – could have been something much bigger than C-Span had told about with regard of the Queen's visit only a few days later and the proclamation of the most ominous "Loyola Day" on May 1, the day after.

By the way, great interview, Vyzygoth!
If I may ask you a particular question about the "locked head" you spoke of: why do you think, "the truth" would be something that has to be believed? Because of its religious nature?
You know, McKenna's phrase was: "If the truth can be told so as to be understood, it will be believed." The same thing, isn't it?
I don't see it that way, I can't.
("The Conspiracy is us" because "the conspiracy" is a fractal phenomenon.)
And the thing with this "peering-behind-the-veil" channel of Greg, the "Rochester" guy, seems to me to be an almost openly Catholic/Freemasonic/Theosophical/Scientological – what cultish ideologies/memestreams have you – podcast when you listen, for example, to episode 71.

@22min, Mitch) To me, this material really humanizes Joseph Smith. It explains to me a little bit of where he comes from, helps me see him as a fuller figure, and that was a great surprise, and in many respects a delightful surprise, to find him, and to be able to locate him within the occult history that I explore in Occult America. And I would suggest that, you know, all this material to me deepens and broadens the person that he was. I think, he was a remarkable man. And some of this material is offensive and challenging to people within LDS today, but I would say that this is material that enriches and deepens – it doesn't in any way detract from who Smith was. It helps set him in a context, a great American context. And people can have the virgin beliefs about the figure he was and the man he was, but it's not necessary for any of the richness of his background to be seen as something that detracts or compromises his greatness. In fact, to me it builds it.
Greg) Yeah, I agree completely by viewing it in this context, as you mentioned it. It definitely – as you said – humanizes him. It allows us to see what he did, the life he lived, the church that he helped found.
Mitch) Many outsiders to the Mormon Church have a hard time understanding where some of the ideas, the concepts, the historical timeline that you find in the Book of Mormon, where all this comes from. To some people it seems very alien.