Jesus God. Why don't you all just jump all over someone who thinks a bit differently than you do? Now I have to write a bloody novel in response to you people. Thanks, really.
Can't handle the VOLUMINOUS starting points provided by a google search result? Then start at one site, Henry Makow's website for "Illuminati proof." henrymakow.com He's a PhD. Are those credentials good enough?
Thank you for the link. I didn't particularly want to read through a hundred million google search results.
He has interviews and articles with various people who have come out of the Illuminati. Yes, there have been defectors from the Illuminati family cult. But I'm not about to waste time supplying tons of links and proof either. If the closed-mindedness is there it's a waste of time and energy. We've already worked our buns off doing our own homework. I won't do it for somebody else who has such a negative attitude to start with.
Yes, all that I wanted was some proof. People here act like asking for a bit of proof beyond simple handwaving arguments is like calling their mother a whore.
But I'll throw you one bone: You can find links to the Svali interviews at Makow's site. She did 18 interviews with Centrex News, at some point after her defection. Read what she has to say, and then listen to her audio/radio interviews from 2006 at Greg Szymanski's Arctic Beacon site archives, and tell me you don't believe that lady. God bless her. What courage she has and she's been through hell because of her choosing to defect from her Illuminati family around 1995, at 45 years of age.
I'll give it a listen. Thanks.
Great answer Patriot One, Truth Warrior, and the others who have already done their homework.
Insulting people for asking questions does not make a good answer. I asked specifically for proof, and they refused to produce any.
You are just wasting folks time and using this as a reason to ridicule them. Pretty much like the argument on plowing down housing went with you. No one here needs to prove to one individual badly enough when they ignore logical evidence that exists out there wanting people to spoon feed them an entire slew of history in a sound byte and refuse to acknowledge a correlation between power, money, and the need for secrecy as to a public agenda that as you quoted :"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."
I didn't ridicule anyone. I said only that presenting a raving wild theory without producing ANY evidence (not even circumstantial) and then insulting those who asked for a little evidence makes them look like a nut. I didn't intend it as an insult. TruthWarrior in particular has a problem with this, and it weakens all of his arguments, which I think that, while generally sound, turn more people off than educate (he preaches to the choir and attacks potential converts with a baseball bat, figuratively, of course).
No, they don't "need" to prove it, but they will have to if they want to convince anyone. There is a lot of noise out there, and wikipedia, my normal starting point for research, indicated that it was nothing more than a nutty conspiracy theory. Of course, you can't take what Wikipedia says at face value, but given the lack of evidence produced by the other people in this thread (except for a few, whom I thank), it makes me think that there's not much there.
You are dancing around the subject by trying to redefine it as a harmless quest by selfish individuals with a stroke of luck due to apathetic government. Wow what a trifecta!!! You know what? If you just call your congressman and request them to represent their constituents they will listen to you because the government works for the people not the other way around.
HARMLESS!? ARE YOU HIGH!? I advocated BRUTAL TORTURE of bankers in this thread (and meant it). I don't advocate such means for ANYONE unless I think they are a: slavers, and b: know of worse offenders. I said that if there were a deeper conspiracy that was as large as people tend to say, and it was as long lasting as people say, then there would have been evidence which came out over the years. Everyone in this thread (until politicsNproverbs--thanks again) refused to even link to any evidence of this. I have never seen any. I haven't reviewed it yet, so I can't speak to its veracity yet, though.
For me the Lindbergh case was enough. The final straw per se in my search to dismiss the conspiracy. I had read about Jeckyll Island and all sorts of information that floats around on the sites you wish to malign. I wondered the same thing as to how they kept people quiet...and the Lindbergh case sealed it for me. These folks play hardball and if you want to act like an ostrich so be it. We don't need to prove it to you. What they are doing in the open is bad enough to warrant contempt.
I didn't malign any individual sites. I just wanted a good source, not a hundred million sites of questionable veracity. I don't have enough time to read every guy with a weblog's opinion about every conspiracy theory in the world, and neither does anyone else. Ridiculing someone for not wanting to spend a bunch of time doing original research is ludicrous, given that other people have done the exact same research before, and could save me hundreds of hours of research by posting a simple link to a website that they think has a good rundown. I never asked anyone to write a bloody book about this, but I thought it would be nice if someone had a link to someone who did.
I'm a professional researcher (in the hard sciences and medical technology). What I asked for is the exact same thing I would ask of anyone when they come to me with a new idea, or one that had been presented previously but was shown (or widely believed to be) false. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. In my previous posts in this thread I outlined just how extraordinary this conspiracy would be if it existed. A lot of people seem to have taken that as a personal attack. I didn't mean it in that way.
You think you can just know who is against you? You think it will be that easy to regain the powers we have lost by a government that has contempt for its people? You are part of the problem by trying to oversimplify and they will re-educate you soon enough....
I am an advocate of violent revolution and the execution of officeholders who violated the constitution. You might not have known this before you said that. I'll let you reconsider. Anyone trying to take me or a member of my family is going to be on the business end of a lead torrent.
Looks like they already have.
No. Just no.
If the Kennedys are Illuminati, explain JFK and RFK's assassinations, please.
Now there's some critical thinking! I haven't seen anyone answering this.
I personally think that LBJ had him assassinated. Again, look at the people who benefit from an action, and apply Occum's Razor, but above all, remember to think critically as well.
If you've really looked into the 'banking conspiracy' and have come to understand Ron Paul's positions and Austrian Economics, then I'm surprised you haven't concluded that its about power more than money. And power is about controlling people, and a clear division between servants and masters. How is it such a great leap to believe these people aren't trying to permanently solidify their power by establishing a global economic and political order?
Quite simple. There is no need. He who has the gold makes the rules, as they say. Having money is a lot more flexible than having to be involved in the day to day operations of a nation. When the people rise up, they topple the political leaders, generally leaving the economic leaders alone (or the economic leaders are elsewhere).
They are clearly behind every war we've had or fought in, here in America, which I'm sure you've discovered in your research. They funded Hitler, they funded the concentration camps. They've had their tentacles in virtually every large scale assault on freedom, life and liberty throughout history.
One could say the same of the FSM (Flying Spaghetti Monster). Clearly, it is His noodly appendage behind all of the evens you mentioned.
Again, if you are going to make extraordinary claims, you need to have extraordinary proof. But really, I'm not even asking for that. I'm just asking for a few links.
It looks like a 'banking conspiracy' because that is the part that can't be hidden. If you choose economic tyranny instead of military tyranny-which they discovered 400 years ago, is much more palpable to the sheople-then that part of it is the most clearly visible. It's where the rubber meets the road. It is the bread crumb trail to the belly of the beast.
Not so. Bureaucracy is a force to be reckoned with, and you can't manage large, dispersed groups of people efficiently without it. They would need loads of office space (think about how much office space the banking conspiracy takes up--even small cities like mine have a bloody 20 story skyscraper owned by some bank in them--always the largest in town).
You don't have to believe in the 13 families, or eugenics, or fluoride in your water, or that they control they have consolidated and controlled most of the MSM, that the CIA is a terrorist organization that controls most of the illegal drug trade, that they spray bacteria and viruses on meats, that aspartame is a poison, that flu vaccines have mercury in them, that DARPA is funding killer robots, that the Theosophical Society is a front for a Luciferian cult, that Kerry and Bush are Bonesman, that FEMA camps exist, or any of that stuff. But the evidence for all this is there the same as it is for the 'banking conspiracy'.
Some of that is true, but most of it is not. If I remember correctly, the 13 families are the starting point of the banking conspiracy. Eugenics isn't practiced anymore, and it's fundamental tenants have been proven wrong by evolutionary biology (useful evolution occurs quickest when there are long periods of time for mutation, producing numerous base changes, sometimes for the worse before another change makes a better trait, before a fairly short period of strong selective pressure), fluoride in the water only induces docility at very high concentrations (100-1000X higher than they put in municipal water), and result in disfigured, yellow teeth before they cause the mental symptoms. I agree about the media, although I think that is a government initiative, separate from other conspiracies (I don't have anything to back that up, that's just what I think). I agree that the CIA is a terrorist organization and it should be disbanded (and those guilty of crimes domestic and foreign be brought to justice). They don't spray bacteria or viruses on meat. If they did, people who ate those things would be sick or dead. I know all about infection. I work with it every day (working on disabling a wide variety of pathogens). Aspartame is only a carcinogen at the level of a half a kilo/day or more. Most dirt is probably more toxic. Yes, flu vaccines do have mercury in them. I'm actually working on a project to replace the thiomersal with an amino acid that promotes immunity. Yes, DARPA is funding killer robots, and I have always been against that (the depersonalization of war). This is a government program, however. I have no idea what the Theosophical society is, but I'm not sure why I should care that some secret society is a satan worshipping cult, as only goths and retards worship the Devil (acknowledging the existence of Satan implicitly acknowledges that God exists, and automatically puts the worshipper on the wrong side). Yes, Kerry and Bush both belonged to Skull and Bones. I'm not sure what the implications of that are, but I doubt if a college based secret society is a part of the Illuminati. If it were, it would just be a local chapter, or somewhere in a hierarchy, rather than a separate society. This is the strongest link I have seen so far, but I remain dubious. As to the FEMA camps, I keep hearing about them, but I never see any real pictures or systematic documentation. I'd like to see some pictures of cattle cars with shackles in them. Once again, though, this is a government program, and simply part of a fascist grab for power, not necessarily a part of a wider conspiracy.
These people are not 'selfish rich guys'. They are sociapaths corrupted by power. The same way a drug addict starts at beer, goes to weed, then acid, then ecstacy, then finally robbing his mother and sucking dicks for a heroin dose.
Are you high? Sociopathy is a disease. Sociopaths are born, not made (you can make monsters, but they still have feelings, sociopaths don't have feelings). I really hope you aren't arguing that weed is a gateway drug, because that is nothing but ludicrous propaganda. You should be ashamed for drawing such a comparison.
I would also note that even if they WERE all sociopaths, they would end up slitting each others throats for more power, and the infighting would destroy the conspiracy in well under a generation.
If all they cared about was money, they would have long ago realized the principles of sound money and free markets, would have shrunk the government in whatever country they decided to bless with their presence, applied Austrian Economic theory, and the whole world would be living in the Garden of Eden by now and we'd be colonizing the stars.
No, that's not right. Sound money puts people on an even playing field. Fiat money puts money in the hands of the bankers first. Infinite free money=unlimited power.
THAT is my 'evidence'. If me, you, and 2 million Paulites can understand basic economics, sound money, and free markets, and private property, and limited constitutional government, and how it benefits everyone, INCLUDING rich people, and makes EVERYONE richer. Why haven't 'they' figured it out?
Thank you for backing up your argument. Spirited discussion is the lifeblood of these forums. I would again argue that while sound money enriches the vast majority of people, it removes the banker's ability to operate with impunity, and they can't make as nearly unlimited money by pushing zeros around.
Awwww....your in luck TMosley....no need to research for yourself. Fox Business News' Cody Willard isd talking about the Illuminati. Phew.....you don't have to think afterall!
I never watch Fox News. I haven't tuned in to that channel in about 4 years. I was never a regular viewer. I think more in a day than most people do in a month. It's my job. In a couple of years when you and everyone you know is immune to cavities, you can thank me. When diabetics no longer lose their legs from that disease, you can thank my research group. When medical implants no longer get infected or cause cancer, you can thank me. When malaria and tuberculosis are eradicated, you can thank me and my research group. These are all things that I am working on RIGHT NOW. Don't tell me that I don't think.
What Paulson, Ben, and The Illuminati Bankers Actually Said Behind Those Closed Doors
October 14, 2008 2:28PM
http://cody.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2...kers-actually-said-behind-those-closed-doors/
I had a spy fly on the wall at the big explicit Illuminati meeting yesterday between Paulson, Ben, and the nine biggest surviving banks in the country.
And so let’s actually picture the discussion in that room. The very CEOs who drove these giant banks into insolvency are sitting around with their former partners/co-workers/friends from the Treasury and the bookish Fed heads. These guys lock themselves in a room to discuss how best to divvy up the $700 billion blank check that the socialist Republicans and Democrats in power just handed them.
I can hear it now:
CitiGroup (C: 12.14, -0.97, -7.39%) CEO Vikram Pandit, “Guys, first and foremost, we need to protect the taxpayers and stabilize the financial markets.”
Treasury Paulson, “Yeah, exactly. So here’s what we’re thinking — I’ll take the $250 billion installment that we just got from the taxpayers and we’ll give it to you guys in exchange for some notes that would probably go up in value if you guys don’t blow yourselves up too quickly over the next few years again. Do you think you can stay solvent for a few more years? You could try lending the money out, I’ve read in some papers that Ben wrote that lending via fractional reserve banking — lending out many more times the amount of capital that we give you, in hopes you don’t have another run on your bank — can even make you some money.”
JP Morgan (JPM: 35.43, -2.42, -6.39%) CEO James Dimon, “Yes, I think giving us the money for nothing — not even making us trade in all this junk that’s made us insolvent is definitely the best way to protect the taxpayer up front…oh, and of course to stabilize the banking industry. Yes, give me the money and everything will be much better for everybody in the world.”
Well Fargo (WFC: 30.91, -0.42, -1.34%) CEO Richard Kovacevich, “Yes, that logic makes sense to me. Give my bank’s shareholders money for some of those preferred share thingees and then the system will be fine. Tell them, Ben.”
Fed chief, Ben Bernanke, looking up from his Spiderman comic book neatly folded inside of his giant text book in the same way he’s been tricking his students and before that his teachers for years, “Well, if we do nothing, I think the world will fall apart since nobody in America is creative or entrepreneur anymore. And if we create money out of thin air and just give it to the banking industry, then we hurt nobody. Indeed, we can erase the Gotham banking industry’s trillions of dollars of losses and pretend that it never happened. Nobody will be hurt and everybody in society will benefit if we give these guys $250 billion for free — yeah don’t even bother punishing the shareholders who got to divvy up trillions of dollars of false profits in the good times. That will hurt society. Pain is bad. Money is good.”
Paulson, dictating to his secretary, a sultry 30-something who’s penchant for black leather boots and off-beat outfits make her hot despite her lazy left eye, “Take this down and let’s send this out to public. They are gonna be pumped that we figured out that just giving the money to the very banks and people who created this crisis and not punishing any executives or shareholders is the best way to fix it. Confidence, here we come!
“The minimum subscription amount available to a participating institution is 1 percent of risk-weighted assets. The maximum subscription amount is the lesser of $25 billion or 3 percent of risk-weighted assets. Treasury will fund the senior preferred shares purchased under the program by year-end 2008. Institutions interested in participating in the program should contact their primary federal regulator for specific enrollment details.”
Paulson drops the lemon he always requires in his Diet Coke on his tie and loses his thought for a moment. He repeats the last line, “Institutions interested in participating in the program should contact their primary federal regulator for specific enrollment details.”
One of his aides steps up, hands him a piece of paper and whispers in his ear. Paulson says, “Ah, dammit fellas, he’s right. I gotta pretend that you can’t get paid tens of millions of dollars a year as an executive running these banks while giving you free tax payer money. Let’s add this little gobbledygook in there and we’ll just work around it later, okay?
“The financial institution must meet certain standards, including: (1) ensuring that incentive compensation for senior executives does not encourage unnecessary and excessive risks that threaten the value of the financial institution; (2) required clawback of any bonus or incentive compensation paid to a senior executive based on statements of earnings, gains or other criteria that are later proven to be materially inaccurate; (3) prohibition on the financial institution from making any golden parachute payment to a senior executive based on the Internal Revenue Code provision; and (4) agreement not to deduct for tax purposes executive compensation in excess of $500,000 for each senior executive. Treasury has issued interim final rules for these executive compensation standards.”
Interim Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Stability, Neel Kashkari pulls his shirt down from off of his head where he had been zenning out pipes up saying, “Hey, if we call the nine firms that would be insolvent without this program ‘healthy’, I bet that might help get confidence back into the system.”
Nine large financial institutions already have agreed to participate in this program, moving quickly and collectively to signal the importance of the program for the system. These healthy institutions have voluntarily agreed to participate on the same terms that will be available to small and medium-sized banks and thrifts across the nation.
So we’ve gone from saying we were going to extract maximum pain on those who took risks of ownership of shares (shareholders) in any financial institutions that took in tax dollars in the bail out plan to simply handing them the money.
The WSJ reports today that: “Some of the big banks were unhappy about the government taking equity stakes, but acquiesced under pressure from Mr. Paulson in a meeting Monday.”
I happen to have read the actual TARP bailout bill, and it had this little section in it:
NECESSARY ACTIONS.—The Secretary is authorized to take such actions as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out the authorities in this Act, including, without limitation, the following:
Designating financial institutions as financial agents of the Federal Government, and such institutions shall perform all such reasonable duties related to this Act as financial agents of the Federal Government as may be required.
Can’t imagine there weren’t any threats of nationalization to the banks that “were unhappy about the government taking equity stakes, but acquiesced under pressure from Mr. Paulson in a meeting Monday.” Nah, surely not. I’m sure that just because Hank Putin/Paulson has the right to deem any bank an instant financial agent of the US — whether justified or even if just because Mr. Paulson doesn’t like it’s name — yeah, I’m sure he’d never actually use that as a political and profit-seeking tool for him and his cronies. Right? Right? Hello, is this thing working?
Feeling better about the outlook for economy and the credit crisis now? No, not so much?
I love it. Very good article. Unfortunately, the only 'evidence' presented in that article is for a banking conspiracy, not a purposeful push by a vast conspiratorial organization seeking to enslave mankind. I might be wrong, as I didn't have time to read it thoroughly (I just skimmed it). I'll read it in greater detail later.
