Post-Industrial Revolution Society

Rat

So let me get this straight – they worship Lucifer or Molech, but the Lucifer is not the biblical Lucifer, he represents hidden knowledge, so what about Molech, the ancient near eastern god that was also known as the “prince of hell”?

And if these elites see themselves ‘literally’ as gods what are they doing worshipping Lucifer and/or Molech I mean if they ‘literally’ think themselves gods wouldn’t they worship themselves?

As to you supporting the rich elites – I’ve asked if anyone can think of anything you’re suggested or proposed that would actually weaken the rich elite. I honestly can’t think of one.

 

God we've seen the gun topic with you and Pitt where it goes on and on and on and on, and now this is starting, give it a rest!!! Quite a few people seem to feel that Matt has provided an adequate response.

Nobody has alllll the answers.. look within yourself instead of asking everyone to always hold your hand for everything.

if only life was that simple, where we could describe everything in a few paragraphs on a forum and have things all figured. YOU CAN'T.

I mean, I tell that to five years for the most part.

 

Yah I don't mean that as a knock to you either, just that he goes on and on with these arguments ad nausea.

 

I will explain, Balbus, then I am through with this thread.

First, only Christianity equates Lucifer with "the devil." The devil is a creation of the Christian bible and was designed to create a frightening image in people's heads of some physical entity.

Lucifer has been represented by many "gods" throughout history, like the story of Prometheus, who stole fire (knowledge) from the gods and in turn used it to enslave humanity. Lucifer is represented by the morning star (Venus), and is the all-seeing eye over the pyramid seen on the dollar bill. Whether it's called the eye of Lucifer or the eye of Horus, it doesn't matter as they are the same thing under many different names.

Molech also represents hidden knowledge as owls see in the dark. They see things the "profane" cannot. This is why the owl is an important occult symbol.

Albert Pike, the former pope of Freemasonry, said that Lucifer is their god, and this is no doubt true for Masons below the 33 degree as Lucifer represents knowledge. However, the high-level masons, who have been grafted to the tree of life, do in fact see themselves as gods with the natural right to rule over the lesser, or those they see as being lesser. They have been "perfected" and have thus attained what they consider to be godhood.

 

Who's getting angry? Who's accusing people of being cointelpro? Calm down Rat.

I debate and people debate with me. What more can I contribute?

Your problem is that every topic, every thread, is about your conspiracy. You let nobody discuss anything without barging in and telling them the've been brainwashed because they don't believe in your conspiracy with its freemasons and evil owls and CIA mind control chemtrails. I accept two sides two every argument - you accept only one. In a way you're like some primitive tribe that thinks the sky god is angry and makes thunder. Everything, everywhere is always the conspiracy. The great conspiracy explains everything!

That's why I try to point out how ridiculous and stupid your theories are. You cannot even explain the basic principles of the core of your theory - that private banks control "The Fed". My simple question was

And your answer was: "The Fed is controlled by private banks".

This is a ridiculous, bullshit answer. It is a complete evasion. The reason you refer to "The Fed" is because you know that you need to stay vague or your argument collapses. Anyone can see that. But to you, since you gave an answer, all you have to do is run away and babble about cointelpro and owl spirits.

 

It's common knowledge the Fed is private, yet you pretend it's not. This has been admitted by people who have spent their entire lives studying the banking system. Even Wikipedia says it's private. Yet, you will use the fact that the BoG is presidentially-appointed to say it must be a government institution, when this is all smoke and mirrors to deceive the public so they think it's a government institution. You are a shill.

 

Carl

You tell five year olds not to ask questions and to just accept what anyone says even believe in it themselves without ever questioning it?

I for one would not let you anywhere near my child.

**

This attitude is one of the problems I see with American society, the view that all views are valid and should not be questioned. It’s a perversion of the idea of ‘free speech’ to the meaning that anything can be said and go unchallenged.

I was brought up to think differently to question everything even my own ideas. To present ideas and see if they stand up to scrutiny and I was taught to see debate as a means of separating the wheat from the chaff.

This American idea of ‘looking into yourself’ and if you think something is right it must be right is alien to me.

To think that your ideas must be right even if you are unable to defend them against criticism seems silly to me, especially if those criticisms seem valid or show the idea to be very wanting or deeply flawed.

For example you say “Quite a few people seem to feel that Matt has provided an adequate response”

They feel he has but they seem completely unable to actually defend him or his views in a public debate they just think his critics should just accept his views without question.

Do you think that is a good lesson to teach five year olds?

**

 

Oh look, Rat is talking about "The Fed" again. Not the FRS, the BoG, the FOMC, or the RFRBs, just his favorite, vague, evasive "The Fed". Oh and by the way, hearsay is not evidence.

Admitted? Or said. You know who used to word "admitted" to mean "said" a lot? Alex Jones. Anyway, once again, hearsay.

No it doesn't, liar. Here's a quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve

But you know what? Like usual, caught in a lie, you will just ignore it and move on. Being a conspiracy theorist means lying is OK.

How is it smoke and mirrors? You are not saying anything, you are just speaking like you are some kind of god that dictates what is truth. Lets see... the BoG is appointed by the FEDERAL government (which you just agreed). It has the status of a FEDERAL Agency (which you make no attempt to disprove).

Yet its not Federal because... well its just not because Rat says its not. Its smoke and mirrors, you see. Smoke and mirrors, because its not Federal really so therefore it isn't Federal! Lots of people know that, like people that totally studied it and stuff. I mean even Wikipedia says so, well it doesn't actually, but any way it is like so not Federal.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve

The Federal Reserve System (also the Federal Reserve; informally The Fed) is the central banking system of the United States. The Federal Reserve System, created in 1913, is a private banking system composed of (1) the presidentially-appointed Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in Washington, D.C.; (2) the Federal Open Market Committee; (3) 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks located in major cities throughout the nation acting as fiscal agents for the U.S. Treasury, each with its own nine-member board of directors; (4) numerous private U.S. member banks, which subscribe to required amounts of non-transferable stock in their regional Federal Reserve Banks; and (5) various advisory councils.

 

Well yes Rat, we live in a capitalist society, not a communist one. The US banking system is private. The Federal Reserve System includes not just "the Fed" but also Citibank, BoA, etc etc etc as they are member banks.

Now the part you intentially ignored is the part where the BoG, the governing body of the FRS, is appointed by the President and has the status of a Federal Agency. This is all contrary to what you have been telling us for months, and when I put the facts right in front of your face, you just ignore them.

You keep running and hiding or just ignoring anything you can't refute. Why are you are so fanatically convinced of something you can't even answer simple questions about?

 

No, Pepik, I have acknowledged that numerous times, but have stressed that it really means nothing at all. The president is a pawn of the central bankers that put him into power, so it really means nil that he appoints the Board of Governors, who are picked from a list the private banks provide to him. (He's actually told who to appoint.) As I have stated, this is simply the smoke screen so the public thinks we're dealing with a federal institution, when that institution completely controls the government to meet its own ends. The golden rule is that those with the gold makes the rules... or should I revert to this infamous quote from Mayer Amschel Rothschild?

Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws.

 

Yes that's always your favorite last resort argument, the get-out-of-jail-free card that means you can refuse to back up anything you say.

But it creates a problem - it means that your whole song and dance about whether private banks control the Fed is totally meaningless. You tell this exciting story about how private banks got control of the Fed and then when you can't prove it you just abandon the argument and fall back on the universal conspiracy theory - the conspirators control everything, so nothing matters anyway.

That's what happens with any debate with you. You say some bullshit, and when someone tries to tie you down to anything, you just throw your hands in the air and say "everything is a conspiracy because its a conspiracy". What's really bizarre is you don't even seem to have enough self awareness to see you're doing it.

 

The private banks didn't get control of the Fed, they created the Fed and control the Fed through their control of people in the government who allowed its creation in the first place in 1913. Don't you know anything about the history of the Federal Reserve and how the 16th Amendment was never even ratified?

 

Rat

…So nothing can be done – so just don’t bother – please just do nothing – that’s what the rich elites fear the most, you know, people doing nothing – don’t even think about politics, it’s all a sham anyway – look here’s a picture of a Zionist banker – go on say boo and hiss – but whatever you’re thinking – DON’T DO ANYTHING…


**

 

what the heck????

I never said that.

where do you get that from?

Nobody has alllll the answers. look within yourself instead of asking everyone to always hold your hand for everything - I think that is a valid lesson for anyone of any age. To teach a child to be independent as well as dependent on certian obvious needs.

(some guidance is needed OF COURSE)


Sooooo, interesting deduction....Of course a child should seek guidance and ask questions, but they should also be taught to seek answers for themselves in their own way.

Where the heck to you get "kids should NEVER ask questions? Did I ever say that????

I was a teachers aid for 3-5 year olds for 1.5 years. The parents loved me and I was very easy going around them. okay? I've been around kids all my life cause of my mothers daycare too.

I don't get the deductions you make out of peoples posts sometimes. You seem to twist words. And you can either argue what I said about twisting words, or you can accept that and try to improve yourself. as improving ones self is a life long task. Numerous people have accused you of twisting words, so I think it is something you can look into. Nowhere did I say kids should not ask questions, in my 1.5 years of teaching (along with my lifetime around kids at my moms daycare) I always encouraged it while encouraging independent routes as well.

But asking questions allll the time as if one person has alll the answers, well, that is naive, even if a five year old does that. they should know that no single person has all the answers. some, not all.

 

Carl

So what is it you are saying?

You seem to be unclear and contradictory. Trying to clean up this jumble is rather difficult; I mean you wouldn’t win any awards for plain speaking.

**

You seem to be saying now that you believe questions should be asked

But that isn’t what you said the first time

You said “Nobody has alllll the answers.. look within yourself instead of asking everyone to always hold your hand for everything”

Which implies - Look inside yourself instead of asking questions.

If that isn’t what you were implying why have the ‘instead’.

(and I’m still unsure what you mean by the whole ‘look within yourself’ thing anyway)

**

You now claim that is not what you were implying but you don’t clear up the discrepancies.

You have now added – “I think that is a valid lesson for anyone of any age”

What lesson? – the - Nobody has all the answers and to look within oneself instead of asking questions – or the thing about asking questions?

**

You then go on that doing (whatever you mean) – teaches people to be independent as well as dependent on certian obvious needs.

Independent as well as dependent – what? It teaches both, in what way?

Obvious needs? – what obvious needs?

So let me get this straight –

Looking in oneself instead of asking questions teaches people to be independent as well as dependent.

Or asking questions teaches people to be independent as well as dependent.

Which is it?

Is it either?

What are you talking about?

**

You then go on

(some guidance is needed OF COURSE)

Of course what? – of course people need guidance when they look inside themselves?

How are you to give them guidance if they are looking inside themselves?

What does it mean?

**

Then we come to the end.

“Of course a child should seek guidance and ask questions, but they should also be taught to seek answers for themselves in their own way.”

I wholeheartedly agree but that isn’t what you said at the beginning.

Lets compare and contrast –

First you said - Nobody has alllll the answers.. look within yourself instead of asking…”

Then you say - Of course a child should seek guidance and ask questions, but they should also be taught to seek answers for themselves in their own way

**

So you believe in teaching people to seek answers for themselves? How do they seek answers of someone’s views? Should they try and question them about their views or ‘look inside themselves’ and…well…and…well…what? Make it up? Accept it without question?

What?

**

You tell me you were a teacher’s aid, sorry but with this kind of confused and opaque thinking I’m glad you will never be allowed near my child.


**

 

I see, so you now admit "The Fed" is not private, it is controlled by the government, and all that stuff you were talking about before was complete bullshit.

I also see why this issue is so important to you. The private banks which controlled everything decided to create a central bank under the control of the government. But since they already controlled the government they are able to control the central bank. As a result, they now control everything whereas before they controlled everything. That's why you're against the Fed, because if we could just get rid of it, instead of the private bank conspirators controlling everything we could go back to the golden age where the private bank conspirators controlled everything.

Except that it was ratified. There are conspiracy theorists who believe that, but all the court cases which have tried to make the case have failed. That's what the Supreme Court if for Rat, to decide legal arguments. The Supreme Court decides what law is constitutional, not crackpots on the web arguing about incorrect punctuation in draft legislation.

 

The President of the Fed has to give annual testimony before the US Congres.


This testimony is compelled, it demonstrates goverment control.

The mandate of The Fed for stable prices, low inflation and full employment is a diktat from the US Goverment.

 

Low inflation? Are you brainwashed or just disingenuous? The Fed prints money out of nothing. What happens when the Fed prints more money out of thin air just to keep the markets afloat? What happens to the value of the dollar? Why do you think the value of the US dollar is so low?

Let's keep in mind that BEFORE the creation of the Federal Reserve, the US government had the ability to print its own money, INTEREST FREE. Now it must BARROW money from the PRIVATE BANKS of the Federal Reserve (which is neither federal, nor a reserve) WITH INTEREST. This makes the government indebted to the CENTRAL BANKS. Why don't you explain how this benefits the average working-class American and the value of the currency, as the dollar is worth less than ever because of manipulation on the part of the Fed.

 

No, it demonstrates the ILLUSION of government control.