|
Post by 3onthetree on Apr 20, 2007 0:50:27 GMT -4
Yes maybe you are. It would explain a hell of a lot. www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/WSCwrote1920.htmlThe problem is that whenever someone tries to touch on this subject they are instantly labeled a Jew hater or hunter or something. Winston doesn't help in his talk of good and bad Jews in this however he said these things in 1920. Since then most people have realised that the average Jew has been blamed for just about everything. My interest is in who manipulates this perception for the advancement of their goal.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Apr 20, 2007 2:16:23 GMT -4
I said:
3onthetree said:
Let's get something clear. You provided the quote to explain DH's reference to THEM, and nothing else to back it up.
I Googled the statement to the extent that I got about 500 hits. The first 30-odd references I found to it were on web-sites claiming there's a worldwide Jewish conspiracy. What other interpretation am I supposed to put on it? You certainly didn't provide any other context for me to work with.
And without the full document from which that extract was quoted, how are we supposed to know what Churchill was talking about? For that matter, why should I believe that he said it? It's been my frustrating experience that many statements are attributed to people who never said/wrote them.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Apr 20, 2007 2:30:04 GMT -4
I see now that you've provided a link to the full article. Thanks for that.
Still, I see that it's a site promoting David Irving, who, in my mind, is a discredited historian.
Why don't you or Dead Hoosier tell us, in your own words, who THEY are?
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Apr 20, 2007 2:58:16 GMT -4
I see now that you've provided a link to the full article. Thanks for that. Still, I see that it's a site promoting David Irving, who, in my mind, is a discredited historian. Why don't you or Dead Hoosier tell us, in your own words, who THEY are? We have to start at the beginning and accept a few basis things first. Churchill mentioned Weishaupt in his article. Second, while Weishaupt may have been born the son of a Rabbi he was no more Jewish than the Pope as his parents converted to the Roman Catholic Church. Young Adam then went on to become Professor of Natural and Canon Law at the University of Ingolstadt.
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Apr 20, 2007 7:33:11 GMT -4
Yes maybe you are. It would explain a hell of a lot. www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/WSCwrote1920.htmlThe problem is that whenever someone tries to touch on this subject they are instantly labeled a Jew hater or hunter or something. Winston doesn't help in his talk of good and bad Jews in this however he said these things in 1920. Since then most people have realised that the average Jew has been blamed for just about everything. My interest is in who manipulates this perception for the advancement of their goal. Though I think the article is authentic most people would classify David Irving's anti-Semitic/Holocaust denial site as a "CT site". You didn't help matters by not providing a citation for the quote. Why don't you try answereing Peter's question with a real answer rather than a dodge? "Why don't you or Dead Hoosier tell us, in your own words, who THEY are?"
|
|
|
Post by SpitfireIX on Apr 20, 2007 18:18:29 GMT -4
. . . David Irving, who, in my mind, is a discredited historianHe's thoroughly discredited in my mind, and in the minds of an overwhelming majority of professional historians. Irving's is truly a sad case, IMO. From the decision in Irving's libel suit against Deborah Lipstadt and Penguin Books: Mr. Justice (Sir Charles) Gray However: Mr. Justice (Sir Charles) Gray
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Apr 20, 2007 20:07:57 GMT -4
I thought Irving might cause a bit of a reaction. Though the quote is all over the net in what was called CT sites I found most of them to be hate sites. Irving's page at least had the full quote and had no swastika artwork on the page. As for Churchill, I believe his view at the time was shaped by the hoaxers and yet he still managed to be reasonably straight. The people that are shaping the New world order are anti religion and to understand who they are you have to understand how they use religion. That's why the reference to Spartacus is important because he and his followers, not just Jews follow their own ideals.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Apr 22, 2007 22:09:53 GMT -4
3onthetree said:
Can you give us perhaps a few more details about why THEY are? Like naming a few, their agenda, their origins, and the supporting evidence for the above?
Agenda: Are THEY across political/cultural divides? Are they only Caucasian? Or are there Asians or Africans in their number? Are they pro-workers and anti-bosses? Are they pro-bosses and anti-workers? Do they support free trade or are they protectionists? Do they promote free enterprise or government control of the market? Are they committed to the development of science and technology, or do they wish to restrict knowledge?
Origins: Have they been active for more or less than a century? Who were their founders? Have they driven historical events? Been driven by historical events? Or tried to take advantage of historical events?
You know, that sort of stuff.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Apr 23, 2007 5:09:06 GMT -4
At the moment we're in it , it's us. I'm not really interested in getting into slanging matches or arguing the toss on minute points on this topic simply because it's so vast and I only have a limited understanding of the subject myself. What I do understand is that during the cold war we lived in a bipolar world order, with the US led west on one pole and the Soviet led communist bloc on the other. Since the fall of Communism we have been living in a Unipolar world order under US primacy. This primacy was seen to wane in conservative eyes during the mid nineties and when the Neoconservatives came to power they set about correcting some things with their Project for a New American Century. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_CenturyTrace the members and their financial connections for a broader understanding of who really runs things. Part of their plan was the integration of recourse rich Arab and Asian nations into the American world order and this is where they're failing, so far. There is no real difference between left and right in the west as far as the world order is concerned, they both get their turn at the tiller. Your very own Kevin Rudd was in New york recently to be anointed new Oarsman/Prime Minister of Australia recently meeting with Rupert Murdoch and investment banking giant Goldman Sachs.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Apr 23, 2007 10:58:51 GMT -4
3onthetree said: Origins: Have they been active for more or less than a century? Who were their founders? Have they driven historical events? Been driven by historical events? Or tried to take advantage of historical events? You know, that sort of stuff. You may find their origin here.They were responsible for the French Revolution www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Stauffer_Illuminati.htmand now their followers which are member of the Bilderberg Group,The Trilateral Commission for name a few New World Order organisations www.theinsider.org/reports/new-world-order/Note some evident citations 1. The NWO conspiracy theory that "everyone is talking about as we draw closer to the year 2000", BBC Radio 5, Conspiracy programme, October 1998. 2.a. U.S. President, George Bush (Snr) called for "a New World Order", ABC News, January 1991. 2.b. U.K. Prime Minister, Tony Blair's, "push for New World Order", BBC News, October 2001. 2.c. U.K. Prime Minister, Tony Blair, "set out his vision for a New World Order", BBC News, October 2001. 2.d. U.K. Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and "new, globalised world order", BBC News, January 2002. 2.e. U.K. Prime Minister, Tony Blair, calls for New World Order, Evening Standard newspaper, January 2002. 2.f. U.S. President Bush (Snr) "proclaimed the beginning of 'a new world order', according to the website for washington executives. 2.g. President of South Africa, Thabo Mbeki, announced in 1999: "We will make our due contribution to the construction of a new world order", BBC News, 25 June 1999. 2.h. CBC News website talks about President Bush, globalisation, and "a new world order". 2.i. Experts discuss "Bioterrorism in the New World Order", University of California official website. 2.j. ABC News website politics section mentions that "New World Order" arrived during office of U.S. President, George Bush (Snr). 2.k. A. R. Epperson, 1990. The New World Order. USA: Publius Press, Inc. 2.l. W. Still, 1990. New World Order: The Ancient Plan of Secret Societies. Louisiana, USA: Huntingdon House Publishers. 2.m. W. F. Jasper, et al. , 1992. The United Nations and the Emerging New World Order. USA: American Opinion
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Apr 23, 2007 11:52:10 GMT -4
1. The NWO conspiracy theory that "everyone is talking about as we draw closer to the year 2000", BBC Radio 5, Conspiracy programme, October 1998.
Don't you think using that as a citation is kind of ridiculous? It's like using a study paid for by cigarette companies to back up a claim that cigarettes are safe. The purpose of that radio show was to discuss conspiracy theories, the fact that they mentioned the NWO as a topic of discussion doesn't mean there actually is a New World Order.
2.a. U.S. President, George Bush (Snr) called for "a New World Order", ABC News, January 1991. 2.b. U.K. Prime Minister, Tony Blair's, "push for New World Order", BBC News, October 2001. 2.c. U.K. Prime Minister, Tony Blair, "set out his vision for a New World Order", BBC News, October 2001. 2.d. U.K. Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and "new, globalised world order", BBC News, January 2002. 2.e. U.K. Prime Minister, Tony Blair, calls for New World Order, Evening Standard newspaper, January 2002. 2.f. U.S. President Bush (Snr) "proclaimed the beginning of 'a new world order', according to the website for washington executives.
Try replacing the word "order" with the following synonyms:
- peace - stability
For example:
U.S. President, George Bush Sr. called for "a new world peace" U.K. Prime Minister, Tony Blair, and "new, globalized world stability"
|
|
lenbrazil
Saturn
Now there's a man with an open mind - you can feel the breeze from here!
Posts: 1,045
|
Post by lenbrazil on Apr 23, 2007 14:32:59 GMT -4
Did you actually read that? I only skimmed it and the author definitely doesn’t back your thesis in fact he debunks and ridicules it, he doesn’t even believe the “Illuminati” still existed in 1789 let alone today (Emphasis mine): By such means, and in such widely diverse and IRRATIONAL ways, the popular belief in the survival of THE DEFUNCT Order of the Illuminati was kept alive and supplied with definite points of attachment; but it remained for the French Revolution, in all the rapidity and vastness of its developments and in the terrifying effects which its more frightful aspects exercised upon its observers, to offer the most exciting suggestions and TO STIMULATE TO THE FREEST PLAY THE IMAGINATIONS OF THOSE WHO WERE ALREADY PERSUADED THAT THE SECRET ASSOCIATIONS THAT PLAGUED BAVARIA STILL LIVED TO TROUBLE THE EARTH,162.
THE SUPPOSED POINTS OF CONNECTION between the Order of the Illuminati and the French Revolution were partly tangible, though DECIDEDLY ELUSIVE,163. but much more largely of the nature of theories FRAMED TO MEET THE NECESSITIES OF A CASE WHICH IN THE JUDGMENT OF DILETTANTE HISTORIANS POSITIVELY REQUIRED THE HYPOTHESIS OF A DIABOLICAL CONSPIRACY against thrones and altars (i.e., the civil power and the church), though the labors of Hercules might have to be exceeded in putting the same to paper.
Of the EXIGUOUS RESOURCES of interpreters of the Revolution who made serious efforts to trace its impious and anarchical principles and its savage enormities to their lair in the lodges of the Illuminati, the following are PERHAPS THE ONLY ONES WORTHY OF NOTE.
[He goes on to summarize the arguments of the aforementioned “exiguous” “dilettante historians” “worthy of note” who “positively required the hypothesis of” Illuminati involvement in the Revolution]
AT EVERY POINT THIS FANTASTIC EXPOSITION SUFFERED THE FATAL DEFECT OF A LACK OF HISTORICAL PROOF. Even THE SPECIFIC ASSERTIONS OF ITS INVENTORS which were most necessary to their hypothesis WERE DISPROVED BY THE FACTS brought to light by more cautious and unbiased investigators who followed. E.g., the idea of Mirabeau’s intimate connection with the program of the Order of the Illuminati and his profound faith in it as the best of all instruments for the work of social amelioration IS RENDERED UNTENABLE the moment the rash and unrepublican temper of his spirit is called seriously to mind.176. Again, the real object of Bode’s visit to Paris, a matter of vital importance in the Illuminati-French Revolution hypothesis, was not to communicate Illuminism to French Freemasons, but to attend an assembly of representatives of the Philalèthes,…
<snip>
The much more important contention that the Illuminati were instrumental in starting the French Revolution, SHOWS A LACK OF HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE THAT EITHER LEAVES OUT OF ACCOUNT OR OBSCURES THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, POLITICAL, AND RELIGIOUS CAUSES, TANGIBLE AND OVERT, THOUGH COMPLEX, THAT RENDERED THE REVOLUTION INEVITABLE.
Yet THE LEGEND OF ILLUMINISM AS THE RESPONSIBLE AUTHOR OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTIOn found numerous vindicators and interpreters,180. to the efforts of two of which, because of their intimate relation to the interests of the investigation in hand, our attention in the remainder of this chapter is to be confined. The frequency at which CT’s cite sources that actually contradict them is quite surprising Your source doesn't even mention those organizations, the only evidence presented by the anonymous author is astrology gibberish, nonsense about the “Great Seal of the US” and ‘your’ list of NWO references (see below) which doesn’t serve as evidence of anything other than the one dimentional thinking of CT’s As LO pointed out most of them aren’t referring to the NWO in the same sense that you are, they are referring to the post cold war order with increased global trade free of superpower conflicts that until September 11, 2001 many people hoped would be an era of worldwide peace and cooperation etc. The few exceptions are either referring to NWO CT’s without endorsing them or are from CT sources.
|
|
|
Post by feelfree222 on Apr 23, 2007 23:32:21 GMT -4
Did you actually read that? I only skimmed it and the author definitely doesn’t back your thesis in fact he debunks and ridicules it, he doesn’t even believe the “Illuminati” still existed in 1789 let alone today (Emphasis mine): The frequency at which CT’s cite sources that actually contradict them is quite surprising Yes it debunks it. That is the interesting part. Lets see if the author get the facts straight. Remember I mentioned some organisations actually working to the Globalisation ie- New World Order - The Bilderberg Group,The Trilateral Commission , I have forget to name two other important group ,the Club of Rome and the CFR (Council on Foreing Relation) Check out the number of USA Presidents names listed on the CFR list..Note they were all members of the CFR before being elected. www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/roundtable/CFRA-Elist.htmlEdited info about the CFR organisation. www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/roundtable/CFRBlythe.htmlMore The Council on Foreign Relations And the Trilateral Commission The two organizations that run the United States www.prolognet.qc.ca/clyde/cfr.html
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Apr 24, 2007 3:42:14 GMT -4
At the moment we're in it, it's us. Eh? Who? You? Me? Things like people in THEM, THEIR agenda and THEIR origins are hardly minute points. They're about the most fundamental things we can possibly know about THEM. So how does the bi-polar or uni-polar world situation fit in with THEM? You do realise the Cold War can be explained in terms of the geopolitical enmity of the USA and the USSR? Heh. A bit tricky if you don't name many of them. And what's the reason for swapping sides? Why is it that it doesn't happen in all countries? Why, for example, did Mexico's Party for Institutional Revolution stay in power for decades, while the tenures of governments in other countries is much shorter? Likewise, my understanding is that the USA and USSR confronted each other militarily around the world during the Cold War by sponsoring coups and revolutions, and the fighting of proxy wars. Are you saying all of this was a front to make everyone in the world think the Cold War was real? For that matter, was every war fought since the French Revolution (or whenever THEY started) fought on THEIR instructions? Have any events in world history since THEY started been out of their control? The more I look at this thesis, the more it sounds like a conspiracy which involves everyone on Earth except you and Dead Hoosier.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on Apr 24, 2007 8:33:11 GMT -4
No just you, I abstain from being any part of it. I'll be one of the ones in the Orange overalls. you can visit us and watch us being walked around the yard in our leg irons. Their agenda is a world government based on the rule of law and sustainable development. Their law may not include Sharia and their development may not include sub Saharan Africans, just for example. It may also exclude the people flying about in Gulf Stream jets from villa to villa as well. Yes, just looking at the Stalin and post Stalin Soviet Union and ignoring the Wall Street financing of the red Bolsheviks. Their was a little chap with a moustache in there somewhere too. He never seemed short of cash or chemicals early on. Facade of democracy? The names are listed on the link provided, Google is your friend. No I think sitting Bull was acting without aid from major financiers. Though it probably should be investigated. I can't believe you forgot Feelfree222, He's enlightened too. www.guardian.co.uk/russia/article/0,,2054119,00.html reformed-theology.org/html/books/bolshevik_revolution/index.htmlYikes spelling errors.
|
|