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 –
to establish the Republic."
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.
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?!"
Good to hear, Sir.
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.
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.