Is this guy full of crap?

[Dieseler]

Or is he not?
I'm not a history major so I don't know.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=VpESn0mxSdk

Pretty bold claims that he is making.

 

[The One]

Bumping for opinions......

 

[Dieseler]

We need a Constitutional Lawyer and a Historian to collaborate on this for a fair opinion.
If the guy is right, well we have big problems.
If he is full of shit we need to shut his ass down as we already have enough problems as it is.

Bump, only takes a few minutes to look at it.

 

[skeryl]

seems like it..

 

[The One]

seems like it..

Very informative...thanks for your input.

 

[Lisa S]

Wow! If this is true. I definitely agree with him about the internet. I brought this up before. Some said it couldn't happen and then the cables were cut the next day.

 

[Agent CSL]

To my knowledge he may be making this up. Of all the websites I've gone to, and the history I've read, I don't believe the founding fathers were British agents. Masons, yes. British agents, no. If the debt started back in the 1700s wouldn't you think the EITC would have just TAKEN their fair share of land and left it be? It doesn't seem reasonable to allow loans for 70 years and let it keep piling up. The people who would profit from the payment of these loans would have been dead. It does seem odd that the biggest events in our history have occurred very roughly in 70 year intervals, but then we'd have to disregard all the other events that were smaller. The Vietnam war didn't happen within the expiration of a 70 year interval, nor did the cold war or any other incident between the 40s and 90s.

With all the conspiracy theories on the internet flying around, anyone can claim any coincidence as truth and fact. A red flag gets thrown up, to me, when he calls for more dramatic civil disobedience. I'm an advocate for civil disobedience but his mostly unbacked claims (I haven't read the links yet) and calls for action throws up the red flag.

I do believe (keyword:believe, as in a personal opinion) the British stills plays a major role in US politics but we're not necessarily controlled by them. It's my opinion that all this starting with the EITC couldn't be true, it just doesn't seem logical to me when much of the country was still young and the fathers could have easily paid off ANY debt with a small piece of land.

I'll give the links a look. I agree with Dieseler that any fair opinion would come from a historian.

 

[Broadlighter]

I've seen and heard this material and like-minded stuff on different websites and pdf docs.

Ed Griffin talks about this in another way here:

http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=US_corporation&refpage=issues

It sounds really interesting, but it's really reaching as far as I'm concerned.

Much of this stuff can be verified and/or debunked by reading actual historical docments like the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, The U.S. Constitution and the Treaty of Paris 1783.

I read the treaty and there is a clause where the king of England ceded all territorial claims of the land held by colonists. The king was also granted the right to continue receiving payments for debts owed by the Colonists.

I don't know how long after the War for Indendendence the United States continued paying the King's debt, but I believe it was retired sometime during the 19th Century.

 

[virgil47]

This guys British accent gives him away. He is an agent provocateur and is trying to disrupt the U.S. political system. It is interesting that worms like him are starting to come out from under their rocks now that a Fabian socialist has ascended to the thrown (leadership) of England. Gordon Brown is truly anti america in all ways possible. It would not surprise me to find out that the youtube poster is an agent of Brown's government. It is a fantastical story at best and political interference by another country at worst.

 

[Mach]

First of all........ "time constraints", it's youtube, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, etc...etc.. or just GoogleVideo it........ so, why can't he get into detail!

O.k...... I have to say, I have heard things before about them still controlling us, it's the old..... they lost the war (Revolutionary) so took things over with a stroke of the pen kinda thing........ also, I have to say, I look back into history and do see that Royalty does have a lot of experience as far as control, one way or the other...... when they lost the war do you think that they just said...... "oh well, no biggie" and went on with their lives? Hell no!

Now, another thing some of you will be disgusted by, is this.......... maybe this whole Revolution thing being pushed by the guys in control, blatantly taking our rights and snubbing there noses at the same time, all the people that won't just follow along gather themselves together to be herded, you voice out and are marked... no? If there is civil discord then that will give them more excuses to create even more laws against the people, it's definitely a "Catch 22", damned if you do, damned if you don't.... mine as well go for the "do" otherwise you lose before you ever even try and then you'll regret never even having the chance to do your best!

Bloodlines are in office to this very day.


Here is some Federal Reserve type history..... only about 3 1/2 hours long...

Money Masters - Part 1
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6076118677860424204


-Two neighbor horse farmers came together one day to talk business. The first farmer sold his horse to the second for a quarter million dollars, and then bought it back for about $20 more. He could now advertise his horse (actually worth $20), as a horse he that he had paid over a quarter of a million dollars for.-
.
.
.

 

[Agora]

1st time I've got across that issues watching Jordan Maxwell.
That is the most important stuff /freedom/ and deserve more research.

I do like when somebody tells: check it yourself.

 

[Mach]

Ron Paul

I don't know all the Facts on all the videos, but, I totally agree with this "AntiTerrorist Video"


on Ron Paul


.

 

[GMoney]

To my knowledge, it's true.

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfvZXkbe4b0
(start at around 2:25 - it talks about the hidden relationship between the British and the USA)

By the way, this video is part 5 of a 29-part documentary (each part is 10 minutes long) on YouTube. The whole documentary is very fascinating and revealing, and I recommend you watch it all the way from the beginning (part 1). It gives a "big picture" of what's REALLY going on in the world today (the secret history and hidden agendas of the world's rulers, that you'll never hear from the mainstream media).

Watch it - then spread the word about this documentary!

 

[CaveDog]

I have my doubts. It's a little known historical truth that the Tea tossed into the harbor at the Boston tea party belonged to the East India trading company. They had tons of tea in warehouses that was going to mildew if it wasn't sold, so they concocted a plan to unload it onto the American market at steeply discounted prices in order to stay out of bankruptcy themselves. It's also not widely mentioned that most of the patriots who dressed up as indians to toss that tea into the harbor were merchants who would have suffered financially because the East India tea would have undercut thier profits on the tea they were already smuggling in. It was ingenious to paint it as an act of protest while downplaying the profit motive, but that wasn't uncommon.

The unspoken reality of the American revolution was that patriotism and profit motive were inseperably mixed up in the minds of the colonists. The idea of "free trade" was integral, though not mentioned as much today, but for many the fact of having to pay England as a colony to trade around the world rubbed a lot of Americans the wrong way. The money behind the revolution didn't just come from France. There were countless merchant-smugglers who cherished the idea of independance because it would do away with English dominance of American trade and be very profitable for them. John Hancock himself was a smuggler and he himself instigated one of the early insurrections in Boston after the British siezed his ship smuggling in wine from Madeira.

The idea that they would have accepted some sort of scheme to cut England back in at all, much less become subservient to some bankruptcy scheme is fairly ludicrous in a historical context. If there's any sort of corporate cabal in this country you can be pretty sure it's homegrown.

 

[GMoney]

It is a little-known fact that almost every US president (if not every single one of them) throughout history is directly related to the British Royal bloodline.

People think US presidents are democratically elected, and there is no more aristocracy - but that is only an illusion. Yes, there are elections, but the elections are controlled by the powers-that-be (largely through their control over the mainstream media). For example, in the 2004 elections, BOTH George W Bush and John Kerry are related to the British Royal bloodline. So it really made no difference no matter who won.

You don't have to take my word for it - you can go look up the genealogies of the US presidents yourself.

Most people would find this very hard to believe, because of what they were taught in school about history. But most people don't know that history (as is taught in the mainstream) has largely been manipulated (by the same powers-that-be who manipulate the mainstream media).

As someone once said: "The study of history is one of the most boring subjects in the world. The study of the manipulation of history is one of the most fascinating subjects in the world."