Intelligence Is All Around You

[DawN]

Awesome thread! Just to give pimpnamedraypeat some backup: you super smart x-ray, go and look in your books which tribe invented christianity and the whole residue of Scheiße being teached about some meaningless revoluzzer some thousand years back then.

 

[x-ray peat]

Awesome thread! Just to give pimpnamedraypeat some backup: you super smart x-ray, go and look in your books which tribe invented christianity and the whole residue of Scheiße being teached about some meaningless revoluzzer some thousand years back then.

It was Rome under Constantine that decided upon the tenets of Christianity. Jesus said he did not come to start a new religion or to abolish the old one.

 

[x-ray peat]

That's f**** up and disturbing beyond imagination. And I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that Black Pope guy is a pedophile just from that picture.

Yeah I wouldn't let him near my nephew and niece. I think at a high enough level they all are forced to do some really disgusting things that are are secretly taped. This ensures undivided loyalty and control through black mail.

 

[DawN]

No need here for me being teached about this "facts", as a child I had to read the bible daily, I know very well what is written about Jesus; and about Constantine theres also no requirement being teached, I live 30 miles away from Trier, it was Constantines residence and a centre of power for ruling over the western terretories of the roman empire.

 

[DawN]

"...or to abolish the old one." - and here lies the problem

 

[DawN]

So why not come back to the original intent of the thread and discuss the reasons why some people organize their life that the outcomes are a general pain in the neck to the earth and other humans, and others don't? And why not philosophize about the chance of developing a technique, or even better a quite scientific method to distinguish precisely the "agents" from the "non-agents". I really seek forward to such a project! I bet it would contribute a lot to our health. Like Joker said: "It's not about money. It's about sending a message." And what kind of message can someone send if he/she is ignorant of our broadly observable social circumstances?

 

[BigPapaChakra]

Will try to contribute to this thread more in depth in the coming days, as I'm incredibly busy now; but pretty interesting thread. I have some generalized disagreements with some of the conclusions, though I have been introduced to a few new sources of info that I will investigate further to incorporate into my knowledge base, and I will try to place some sources here, so if anything, there is at least a growth in the breadth of information readily accessible in this thread.

Having done (scientific-mathematical) studies myself I am trying to become more scientific in studying these issues, and will in the future try to do some statistical analyses of things to draw more conclusive ideas. I think quantitative analysis of literature, photos, etc. is a potentially useful avenue, as opposed to looking for answers based off of what various people ("authorities") say, or what one can typically view in say, a handful of magazine covers with interesting (to say the least) symbolism (NOT that I'm saying anyone here just blindly accepts what others state is true).

My direct and indirect experiences with local 'elite', prominent families, political families, family members previously involved in crime, and masons, leads me to firmly believe (outside of some of the evidence I'm compiling in my limited spare time) that there is no one group that has global dominance (as I mentioned in the Dr. Peterson thread) - the closest things they resemble from my own experiences, and which makes sense off of actual sociopolitical/economic/military research, are the most prominent models for defining and investigating organized crime groups (I posted some cites in the Dr. Peterson thread, but one can look up Lyman and Potter, Models of Organized Crime, William Chambliss's studies on the Crime Network Model/Theory, Joseph Albini's Patron-Client Model studies, and others I'll post later, are good starting points for learning about the more evidence based structure of crime syndicates, which is almost always not top-down with a definitive hierarchy, many of which (outside of the Yakuza, for the most part) are extremely secretive and require secret rituals, performances, activities, etc. to be done for initial and continual membership, etc. and many of which have been at least partly involved with Intelligence at some point).

Anyhow, I have to get back to my studies before I post back here for some time. That being said, I'll post something I just found: American Journal of Economics and Sociology - Volume 76, Issue 2 - March 2017 - Wiley Online Library this is from the American Journal of Economics and Sociology. Bunch of studies regarding intelligence agencies budgeting, policies, their influence in Hollywood, etc. If one has access to a local college or university they can obtain the full-text of this (I don't have it on my pc and am not currently on campus) “The world is a forest of symbols”: Italian Freemasonry and the practice of discretion
The world is a forest of symbols”: Italian Freemasonry and the practice of discretion
Published in the Journal of the American Ethnological Society

 

[x-ray peat]

Will try to contribute to this thread more in depth in the coming days, as I'm incredibly busy now; but pretty interesting thread. I have some generalized disagreements with some of the conclusions, though I have been introduced to a few new sources of info that I will investigate further to incorporate into my knowledge base, and I will try to place some sources here, so if anything, there is at least a growth in the breadth of information readily accessible in this thread.

Having done (scientific-mathematical) studies myself I am trying to become more scientific in studying these issues, and will in the future try to do some statistical analyses of things to draw more conclusive ideas. I think quantitative analysis of literature, photos, etc. is a potentially useful avenue, as opposed to looking for answers based off of what various people ("authorities") say, or what one can typically view in say, a handful of magazine covers with interesting (to say the least) symbolism (NOT that I'm saying anyone here just blindly accepts what others state is true).

My direct and indirect experiences with local 'elite', prominent families, political families, family members previously involved in crime, and masons, leads me to firmly believe (outside of some of the evidence I'm compiling in my limited spare time) that there is no one group that has global dominance (as I mentioned in the Dr. Peterson thread) - the closest things they resemble from my own experiences, and which makes sense off of actual sociopolitical/economic/military research, are the most prominent models for defining and investigating organized crime groups (I posted some cites in the Dr. Peterson thread, but one can look up Lyman and Potter, Models of Organized Crime, William Chambliss's studies on the Crime Network Model/Theory, Joseph Albini's Patron-Client Model studies, and others I'll post later, are good starting points for learning about the more evidence based structure of crime syndicates, which is almost always not top-down with a definitive hierarchy, many of which (outside of the Yakuza, for the most part) are extremely secretive and require secret rituals, performances, activities, etc. to be done for initial and continual membership, etc. and many of which have been at least partly involved with Intelligence at some point).

Anyhow, I have to get back to my studies before I post back here for some time. That being said, I'll post something I just found: American Journal of Economics and Sociology - Volume 76, Issue 2 - March 2017 - Wiley Online Library this is from the American Journal of Economics and Sociology. Bunch of studies regarding intelligence agencies budgeting, policies, their influence in Hollywood, etc. If one has access to a local college or university they can obtain the full-text of this (I don't have it on my pc and am not currently on campus) “The world is a forest of symbols”: Italian Freemasonry and the practice of discretion
The world is a forest of symbols”: Italian Freemasonry and the practice of discretion
Published in the Journal of the American Ethnological Society

Here is a good list of relevant sources that could be of interest. index - RomeRules

IMO I am not sure how useful a quantitative analysis of the media would be as it breaks the first rule of statistics which is a randomized sampling of events. The media is anything but random. Events that help the NOW agenda are promoted while others that don’t are ignored. I think the best approach is old fashioned historical research but would be curious to read what you come up with regardless.

 

[DawN]

Also important would be to analyze every historical meaning of the examinated symbols, that would allow one to dive deeper into the psychological structure of these "agent-agenda-promoters".

 

[BigPapaChakra]

Here is a good list of relevant sources that could be of interest. index - RomeRules

IMO I am not sure how useful a quantitative analysis of the media would be as it breaks the first rule of statistics which is a randomized sampling of events. The media is anything but random. Events that help the NOW agenda are promoted while others that don’t are ignored. I think the best approach is old fashioned historical research but would be curious to read what you come up with regardless.

Thanks for that resource. Looks like a ton of great stuff on there.

With quant. analysis, I should've been more specific. I meant quant. analysis of essentially everything, not just media. For instance, photographs, old memoirs, diaries, letters, textbooks, documentaries, quantitative literature analysis, etc. Anything, really.

Technically speaking, random sampling isn't needed in statistical analyses. Random sampling just increases internal validity, protects from selection bias, and things of that sort. It is optimal, but is not an out right pre-requisite of statistical research and analysis. Further, we would still be capable of incorporating random sampling. Random sampling won't be altered even if we believe that 100% of events are controlled, as we will randomly select events, media, articles, etc. from which to include in our sample, to protect from selection biases, expectancy effects, etc. We could even include blinding - in a way - by having different individuals doing random sampling, random assignment, formulation of hypotheses, running statistics, etc. There are also ways to statistically manipulate data or alter variables in studies to protect from any detriment from lack of random sampling or random assignment (random assignment being randomly assigning participants, groups, events, etc. to a given treatment - control, placebo, etc, where random sampling would simply be the random collection of participants from which to randomly assign to different treatments). Things such as matched pairs sampling, chi squared tests, etc. would all help. This doesn't even get into Bayesian analysis.

 

[x-ray peat]

Thanks for that resource. Looks like a ton of great stuff on there.

With quant. analysis, I should've been more specific. I meant quant. analysis of essentially everything, not just media. For instance, photographs, old memoirs, diaries, letters, textbooks, documentaries, quantitative literature analysis, etc. Anything, really.

Technically speaking, random sampling isn't needed in statistical analyses. Random sampling just increases internal validity, protects from selection bias, and things of that sort. It is optimal, but is not an out right pre-requisite of statistical research and analysis. Further, we would still be capable of incorporating random sampling. Random sampling won't be altered even if we believe that 100% of events are controlled, as we will randomly select events, media, articles, etc. from which to include in our sample, to protect from selection biases, expectancy effects, etc. We could even include blinding - in a way - by having different individuals doing random sampling, random assignment, formulation of hypotheses, running statistics, etc. There are also ways to statistically manipulate data or alter variables in studies to protect from any detriment from lack of random sampling or random assignment (random assignment being randomly assigning participants, groups, events, etc. to a given treatment - control, placebo, etc, where random sampling would simply be the random collection of participants from which to randomly assign to different treatments). Things such as matched pairs sampling, chi squared tests, etc. would all help. This doesn't even get into Bayesian analysis.

I should have been a bit clearer. My concern is not about random sampling but rather that what you are sampling from does not truly represent reality. Winners write history not truth tellers. For every item that represents the truth there are 100s of counterfactual items that would say something completely different. The truly incriminating diaries or letters are rarely available. Imagine you were to use statistical analysis to investigate the Kennedy shooting. That analysis would point to Oswald as the lone gunman. The few items that may point in another direction would just be seen as outliers. You would be studying the shadows on the wall and not what is actually casting the shadows. I personally would look at the available evidence like a juror in a trial. Evaluate the credibility of the eye witnesses, the historical research, the symbolism and any other bits of evidence and then construct a truer historical narrative that best fits the evidence.

 

[xiaohua]

I just noticed that this thread is consistently not showing up on the front page of "Recent Posts" when it should after posting something new.

I too have noticed this.

 

[BigPapaChakra]

I should have been a bit clearer. My concern is not about random sampling but rather that what you are sampling from does not truly represent reality. Winners write history not truth tellers. For every item that represents the truth there are 100s of counterfactual items that would say something completely different. The truly incriminating diaries or letters are rarely available. Imagine you were to use statistical analysis to investigate the Kennedy shooting. That analysis would point to Oswald as the lone gunman. The few items that may point in another direction would just be seen as outliers. You would be studying the shadows on the wall and not what is actually casting the shadows. I personally would look at the available evidence like a juror in a trial. Evaluate the credibility of the eye witnesses, the historical research, the symbolism and any other bits of evidence and then construct a truer historical narrative that best fits the evidence.

Will reply to this quote in particular in more depth later, as I'm getting married tomorrow, still have a bunch of papers to edit, etc. but these are all things that we can actually test statistically using things like multifactorial ANOVAs, chi squared, Bayesian analysis, etc. in fact, we could even test the assertion that "winners write history not truth tellers" statistically to see if that is a valid assertion (I would argue that it is, but I'm just making the case that we could test the validity of simple assertions).

Statistical reasoning would make understanding things like this much less difficult: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...nd-Deacons-in-the-United-States-1950-2002.pdf The Nature and Scope of Sexual Abuse of Minors By Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States 1950-2002. On the r/RomeRules page, someone quoted a book that quoted an extremely small segment of this large study that completely twisted many of the very nuanced findings. I can write a 10+ page essay on that study alone, but the misuse of quotations in that study alone can largely misrepresent entire hypotheses formed from them. The abstract itself notes that the study - though double-blinded - was done largely using surveys, and further, surveys of those who were alleged abusers. Thus when statements are made like "It concluded that 95 percent of American dioceses had at least one complaint of a sexual assault by a priest against a minor" misleading to a great extent, because the 240+ page report used a variety of methods to determine that 4,392 priests in the survey had allegations of abuse, which was about 4.0% of all priests in 1950-2002, further, over 25% of allegations (not definitive evidences) happened 30 years after the purported incidents; and 68% of the priests with allegations actually were ordained between '50 and '79, with another 21.3% of allegations being from priests ordained before 1950 (almost 90% of priests with allegations were ordained before '50 up through '79, with a drastic reduction thereafter). These numbers agree with the figures in their other data sections and citations, which indicate the allegations and convictions of these activities have dropped drastically after this time period. In the abstract alone (let alone the amazing data sections) it was mentioned that 3.5% of the priests in the sample (which was a sample of people with allegations, and then further reduced to those with allegations who fit the studies criteria) allegedly committed 26% of the crimes. Thus, even if we were to state that all the priests alleged to engage in these behaviors actually did such things, the fact would remain that an extremely small amount of priests account for a large portion of the allegations.

I would urge everyone to actually read that paper in its entirety. I read something like 100 pages of it when I saw the movie Spotlight, and plan on returning to finish the rest of the paper at some time. There are tons of great citations in there, as well.

Now, as compared to most of society, I would agree that the catholic church seems to have a problem with sexual abuse, but from what I saw from a few posts on r/RomeRules, people made it seem like damn near every priest and diocese had a definitive problem, whereas when using actual data (that they themselves cite), the issue is much less prevalent (in fact, arguably less prevalent than what occurs in Mosques, yet that is barely being discussed).

 

[x-ray peat]

Will reply to this quote in particular in more depth later, as I'm getting married tomorrow, still have a bunch of papers to edit, etc. but these are all things that we can actually test statistically using things like multifactorial ANOVAs, chi squared, Bayesian analysis, etc. in fact, we could even test the assertion that "winners write history not truth tellers" statistically to see if that is a valid assertion (I would argue that it is, but I'm just making the case that we could test the validity of simple assertions).

Statistical reasoning would make understanding things like this much less difficult: http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-act...nd-Deacons-in-the-United-States-1950-2002.pdf The Nature and Scope of Sexual Abuse of Minors By Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States 1950-2002. On the r/RomeRules page, someone quoted a book that quoted an extremely small segment of this large study that completely twisted many of the very nuanced findings. I can write a 10+ page essay on that study alone, but the misuse of quotations in that study alone can largely misrepresent entire hypotheses formed from them. The abstract itself notes that the study - though double-blinded - was done largely using surveys, and further, surveys of those who were alleged abusers. Thus when statements are made like "It concluded that 95 percent of American dioceses had at least one complaint of a sexual assault by a priest against a minor" misleading to a great extent, because the 240+ page report used a variety of methods to determine that 4,392 priests in the survey had allegations of abuse, which was about 4.0% of all priests in 1950-2002, further, over 25% of allegations (not definitive evidences) happened 30 years after the purported incidents; and 68% of the priests with allegations actually were ordained between '50 and '79, with another 21.3% of allegations being from priests ordained before 1950 (almost 90% of priests with allegations were ordained before '50 up through '79, with a drastic reduction thereafter). These numbers agree with the figures in their other data sections and citations, which indicate the allegations and convictions of these activities have dropped drastically after this time period. In the abstract alone (let alone the amazing data sections) it was mentioned that 3.5% of the priests in the sample (which was a sample of people with allegations, and then further reduced to those with allegations who fit the studies criteria) allegedly committed 26% of the crimes. Thus, even if we were to state that all the priests alleged to engage in these behaviors actually did such things, the fact would remain that an extremely small amount of priests account for a large portion of the allegations.

I would urge everyone to actually read that paper in its entirety. I read something like 100 pages of it when I saw the movie Spotlight, and plan on returning to finish the rest of the paper at some time. There are tons of great citations in there, as well.

Now, as compared to most of society, I would agree that the catholic church seems to have a problem with sexual abuse, but from what I saw from a few posts on r/RomeRules, people made it seem like damn near every priest and diocese had a definitive problem, whereas when using actual data (that they themselves cite), the issue is much less prevalent (in fact, arguably less prevalent than what occurs in Mosques, yet that is barely being discussed).

This study is a good example of what I am trying to get at. You are assuming that it, the movie Spotlight or any of the media accounts or studies of church pedophilia are actually telling us the whole story. In reality the church pedophile problem is just a very small part of what's going on. The exposure of low level priests is what the intelligence community refers to as a limited hangout. By exposing a small part of a bigger operation, you provide a diversion that is designed to keep anyone from discovering the full extent of the operation. It also meets the Luciferian belief that you must tell your victims what you are doing to them.

Like drugs, human trafficking and every vice imaginable, the pedophile networks are run at the highest levels of power in the world. Since the media, academia, law enforcement or what have you are all controlled, you should not expect them to actually tell you the whole truth. Any statistical analysis of disinfo will only give you more disinfo.

Here is some info that barely scratches at the surface of what is really behind the pedophile priest scandals. This quote is from an interview with the first NY Police Detective to try to investigate elite pedophile rings in NY City. He was quickly shut down. The Arctic Beacon

"The trail of guilt went right to the steps of the Vatican and the highest government officials in our country," said Rothstein. "I had informants who help us finally realized Cardinal Spellman was behind the problem. He was one of the most powerful and evil men in this country and after his death, the same thing is going on with Cardinal Egan.

"Not one case had ever been allowed to proceed to the real perpetrators as people like NY District Attorney Morgenthal are always protecting the higher-ups. People need to realize who are the real perpetrators in our government and the government, demanding that the kidnapping of our children finally be stopped. I consider this problem to be the biggest terrorist threat facing our country.

"The real story has always been kept from the people and when it does break like in the Franklin Cover-up, only the lower level people are arrested. When I was getting close to the real Vatican and U.S. government perpetrators, my partner and I were offered two million dollars to drop the investigation, the money coming in two suitcases each loaded with a million dollars.” Former NYPD Detective Jim Rothstein

Here is another interview with Detective Rothstein skip to minute 15. Investigative Journal » Orion Talk Radio 2012 02 05 01 05 56

Some summary articles on the issue.
Presidents, Popes, Queen, Elite Illuminati Pedophilia and Child Sacrifice
Investigative Journal » Pedophile Rings Linked To Vatican: NY District Atty. Halts Investigation

edit: congratulations on the wedding !!

 

[x-ray peat]

I too have noticed this.

I'm glad I'm not the only one.

 

[BigPapaChakra]

@x-ray peat thank you! Less than 12 hours away. Extremely excited about it!

With regards to your comment above, there are a few issues I have to take with it. "You are assuming that it, the movie Spotlight or any of the media accounts or studies of church pedophilia are actually telling us the whole story."

- Actually, I'm assuming that Spotlight, the media, and studies are NOT telling us the whole story
- Spotlight used exaggerated numbers from inappropriate sources that in fact, link back to the report I linked to above; they claim in the movies at a variety of parts that the numbers are MUCH MUCH higher than what I showed. At about the 1 hour mark in Spotlight they mention there being something around 90 pedophilic priests in Boston. They say something like, “90 f****** priests?. . . and no one said a thing?” Using the math from the report which Spotlight even gets its numbers, and what is known of the priests of Boston, the number of pedophilic priests in the area is likely less than 1 (this is something even Miles Mathis, previously cited here, has stated, coming up with an number like 0.216; I get slightly different numbers, but I guess it depends on what statistic reported in the report you are using).
- Further, the report includes ephebophilia, in some areas, in the statistics on pedophilia (this further messes with the numbers).

"By exposing a small part of a bigger operation, you provide a diversion that is designed to keep anyone from discovering the full extent of the operation."

- A lot to unpack here, but: if it were as simple as that, why has the entire intelligence community not collapsed? All it takes is a group of people online to completely oust the intelligence community - they mustn't be too good at their game, then.

"It also meets the Luciferian belief that you must tell your victims what you are doing to them."

- I've been seeing this type of stuff said a lot on r/RomeRules.
- Many people there seem to state things like "This will lay the foundation for the antichrist's one world government to be a communist dictatorship," "The one world religion too will be led by the final antichrist Pope, but his religion won't be the same Catholicism that we are familiar with. From the time of the Second Vatican Council, the Jesuits have been working to morph all religions into one as a primer for the bringing forth of the antichrist final pope of their making via the Jesuits' ecumenical movement. The new age beliefs mixed with deceptions like evolution are more in line with what the one world religion will be like with the Jesuits having transformed the Vatican to align with some of these views already, like when the Vatican declared to subscribe to evolutionism under John Paul II and now with the Jesuit Francis the First, this transformation has gone into overdrive with the pope saying things like homosexuals may be saved; communistic heresy."
- The vast majority of posts worth reading in r/RomeRules is from one user Veritas__Aequitas; further, he seems to repeatedly imply that the Bible offers 100% truthful interpretations of the future, that there is or very soon will be an anti-christ, and evolution and other similar theories are deceptive and false (okay, lol)
- The same sources keep coming up in the sources put forth by r/RomeRules and Veritas__Aequitas: Greg Szymanski, JD; Eric John Phelps, Brother Alan Lamont, Brother Niall Kilkenny, and many others, saying nonsense like this about Ron Paul "May the Risen Lord Jesus Christ reward him according to his works." in a derogatory manner because they claim - with no evidence - he is a Jesuit and part of a global conspiracy

"Like drugs, human trafficking and every vice imaginable,"

- What drugs?
- Even hard drugs are difficult to describe as something as morally insipid and socially damaging as human trafficking
- is human trafficking actually a vice?
- Evidence tends to support the utilization of drugs, depending upon what drug your speaking about, and what context.
- The things chosen to be likened to vices are rather extreme; things as simple as reading online can be a vice, and things as seemingly 'holy' as prayer can and often is a vice

"Since the media, academia, law enforcement or what have you are all controlled, you should not expect them to actually tell you the whole truth."

- So, only Greg Szymanski, JD, and Veritas__Aequitas can tell the truth?
- We don't need the "whole truth" to study conspiracy theories or topics such as these; some glimmer of truth offers enough insight, and further, it casts light on what is considered to be non-truth, or outright lies, from which we can, as I discussed previously, run stats on to compile correlations and common themes, sources, etc. that offer a tell so we can avoid said materials in the future
- I, as a student, not only study, but work in academia; I'm not controlled or part of intelligence. Most people I know are not, and many others I know are at the very least, very likely not.

"Any statistical analysis of disinfo will only give you more disinfo."

- That's not how statistics, hypotheses, or hypothesis testing works
- You can, if you want, operate from the baseline that something (such as a global Jesuit conspiracy network; disinfo; controlled opposition, etc) exists, and then test that statistically, but this is difficult due to how hypothesis testing normally works
- Normally, in science and stats, you operate from the baseline that something doesn't exist and go from there; then, you compile studies and/or statistics and attempt to determine if some relationship or construct exists, and further, if that relationship/construct can be said with confidence to not occur from chance alone, normally the bar is set at around 5%. Meaning, one is 95% confident that the results obtained are not due to chance alone.
- You can, for instance, run a chi squared with an alternative/research hypothesis that "articles published in the mainstream media will be, on average, more frequently connected to Jesuits than those published in alternative/independent media", and set your expected data based off your null hypothesis of "articles published in mainstream media will, on average, have no difference in frequency of connection to Jesuits than those publishedi n alternative/independent media". This is likely a poor example, and it's more complicated than this, but you get the picture. Even if everything is disinfo, you can make use of it.

"Here is some info that barely scratches at the surface of what is really behind the pedophile priest scandals. This quote is from an interview"

- This gets to my point above - are we only supposed to trust these men and what they say, rather than empirical testing methods?
- That article with the interview is, interestingly enough, posted by none other than Greg Szymanski, JD.
- Ironically, the website frequently refers to Eric John Phelps (hmmm...) and Pastor Tony Alamo

 

[BigPapaChakra]

- The second link you provide is from none other than.... Greg Szymanski, JD. Which, this isn't even his name, which is Greg Anthony, and JD is purportedly because he went to law school for "the fun of learning more nonsense in a world filled with a lot more." (so, he may not even have a law degree and uses a false name).
- The third link at least has dozens of things to click on that may be useful for future research, but many of the "sources" are links to webpages that no longer exist, wikipedia, or obscure youtube channels, and then also some documentaries, but again, aren't documentaries just controlled disinfo?
- The fourth link is again, Greg Szymanski, offering nothing more than quotations

Interestingly, I decided to dig deeper into this seemingly poorly read individual known as Greg, and found this: Defamation Of Masonry - Reply To Greg Szymanski Defamation of Masonry - Reply to Greg Szymanski by Mark Whaldon

"You see, Jeff, I'm a Mason. I also read Rense.com every day. And while I appreciate most of what you carry on your site, I find Szymanski's rants -- because that is what they are; they certainly do not resemble anything that could be called scholarship -- highly offensive. They are also completely baseless."

"In the United States, there is a separate Grand Lodge for each _state_, a relic of the time when each state was considered an autonomous sovereign country. That makes fifty Grand Lodges in the United States....or fifty-one, since the District of Columbia has its own Grand Lodge. To make matters more complex, because of past racial prejudice in this country a completely separate form of Masonry, called Prince Hall Masonry, exists in this country. It is made up of blacks who were barred from being Masons in past times....though unfortunately this tradition of Masonic prejudice continues in the Grand Lodges of the Bible Belt (as you can see, I don't cover up distasteful Masonic practices where such actually do exist). There is thus also a Prince Hall Grand Lodge for each state (and, again, the District of Columbia). What all this adds up to is that there are no fewer than _one hundred and two_ entirely separate and autonomous Grand Lodges operating in the United States. Thus, far from being a vast monolithic hierarchy with sinister tendrils extending all through the modern world, Masonry is actually probably the most decentralized organization you will ever see."

"It is also run quite democratically, as the officers of a lodge (who typically only serve for a single year) are elected by lodge members, and new additions to the bylaws for a Grand Lodge have to be voted on by the various lodges that operate under that Grand Lodge's jurisdiction. Masonry's structure is not authoritarian in the least. One must also be a law-abiding citizen to join and remain a brother, as well as hold a belief in a Supreme Being.

He goes on, describing things in more detail, and also offers direct rebuttals to many of Greg's rants. Then, things get more interesting, at the bottom when a man named Michael Shore comments and says

"This is basically what is going on in Masonry. The average Mason at the bottom of the pyramid is not aware what is going on at the top of the pyramid. The agenda of the 33 degree Masons at the top of the Masonic organization is kept hidden and what they are doing is not told to the "laymen" at the bottom of the pyramid."

"What is desperately needed is a MAJOR investigation of the Vatican and the Roman Catholic Church and the top level of the Mason organization. We must find out WHAT IS THE AGENDA of the few men at the top of the pyramid, who control these organizations and what they are doing with the many billions of dollars these organizations have in their vaults, along with the billions of dollars of property they control world wide."

(further, most of the stuff discussed by 33 degree masons is not kept hidden, most masons even discuss this stuff online, and further, many times mentors are involved in getting one from the status of an initiate all the way up to 33 degree; masons are no more secretive (in most cases, but not all, obviously) than most local churches)

Now, I'll offer a conspiracy theory. Is Michael Shore actually x-ray peat? Is Michael Shore x-ray peat is Veritas__Aequinas? The language used is remarkably similar, the anti-masonic claims, frequent referrals to wikipedia, Greg, and men of the faith. Further, upon looking at your posts at the Peat forum, there is a remarkably short time here with a significant portion of comments having to do with masons, the Vatican, fake news, jesuits, false flags, etc. and remarkably little else (though there is some good stuff about oxtail soup/gelatin, light, etc).

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

Sorry but I've given you all sorts of historical proof that Rome is at the top including quotes from several Popes calling for a New World Order. All you do is repeat Its the Jews, Its the Jews like a modern day Goebbels. It seems that you are unable or unwilling to incorporate any new information that contradicts what you already think is true. Maybe you would feel more comfortable back on Stormfront were facts and reason don't matter.

Yeah no. Throwing out insults and making wild claims doesn't constitute as proof

 

[x-ray peat]

Actually, I'm assuming that Spotlight, the media, and studies are NOT telling us the whole story
- Spotlight used exaggerated numbers from inappropriate sources that in fact, link back to the report I linked to above; they claim in the movies at a variety of parts that the numbers are MUCH MUCH higher than what I showed. At about the 1 hour mark in Spotlight they mention there being something around 90 pedophilic priests in Boston. They say something like, “90 f****** priests?. . . and no one said a thing?” Using the math from the report which Spotlight even gets its numbers, and what is known of the priests of Boston, the number of pedophilic priests in the area is likely less than 1 (this is something even Miles Mathis, previously cited here, has stated, coming up with an number like 0.216; I get slightly different numbers, but I guess it depends on what statistic reported in the report you are using).
- Further, the report includes ephebophilia, in some areas, in the statistics on pedophilia (this further messes with the numbers).

I think you may want to check your math or your sources if you think that the number of pedophile priests in the Boston Diocese is 0.216. Here is a list of the Priests who have been publicly accused of pedophile abuse in the Boston Diocese; most of whom have been either found guilty, sued, or kicked out of the Church. Database of Priests Accused of Sexual Abuse . If you select the Boston Diocese you can see the number is a bit higher than 0.216 and even higher than the 90 you think is a huge exaggeration. The number is 260 pedophile priests in Boston alone. So much for statistical analysis.

"By exposing a small part of a bigger operation, you provide a diversion that is designed to keep anyone from discovering the full extent of the operation."
A lot to unpack here, but: if it were as simple as that, why has the entire intelligence community not collapsed? All it takes is a group of people online to completely oust the intelligence community - they mustn't be too good at their game, then.

I am not sure you quite understand how disinfo and counter intelligence works. Limited hangout - Wikipedia

"It also meets the Luciferian belief that you must tell your victims what you are doing to them."
- I've been seeing this type of stuff said a lot on r/RomeRules.
- Many people there seem to state things like "This will lay the foundation for the antichrist's one world government to be a communist dictatorship," "The one world religion too will be led by the final antichrist Pope, but his religion won't be the same Catholicism that we are familiar with. From the time of the Second Vatican Council, the Jesuits have been working to morph all religions into one as a primer for the bringing forth of the antichrist final pope of their making via the Jesuits' ecumenical movement. The new age beliefs mixed with deceptions like evolution are more in line with what the one world religion will be like with the Jesuits having transformed the Vatican to align with some of these views already, like when the Vatican declared to subscribe to evolutionism under John Paul II and now with the Jesuit Francis the First, this transformation has gone into overdrive with the pope saying things like homosexuals may be saved; communistic heresy."
- The vast majority of posts worth reading in r/RomeRules is from one user Veritas__Aequitas; further, he seems to repeatedly imply that the Bible offers 100% truthful interpretations of the future, that there is or very soon will be an anti-christ, and evolution and other similar theories are deceptive and false (okay, lol)
- The same sources keep coming up in the sources put forth by r/RomeRules and Veritas__Aequitas: Greg Szymanski, JD; Eric John Phelps, Brother Alan Lamont, Brother Niall Kilkenny, and many others, saying nonsense like this about Ron Paul "May the Risen Lord Jesus Christ reward him according to his works." in a derogatory manner because they claim - with no evidence - he is a Jesuit and part of a global conspiracy

Much of this is just consist of cherry picking, a few strawmen and a sprinkling of ad hominems. I know for someone just encountering the real ruling elite, all of this seems too far beyond your own experience that it couldn’t possibly be true. This is one reason why they have been so successful in keeping things under wraps even though the truth is available to anyone with the patience to sift through the lies covering it. Since you seem to have a problem with a few of the current Bible believing researcher on the Internet, I suggest you focus on the words of people you may find more credible, like Abraham Lincoln, Dostoevsky, Napoleon, Lafayette, john Adams, Jefferson, Samuel Morse, or any of the several hundred historians who have written on this subject. You will soon see that they are saying the same things that many of today’s Internet researchers are saying.

"Like drugs, human trafficking and every vice imaginable,"
- What drugs?
- Even hard drugs are difficult to describe as something as morally insipid and socially damaging as human trafficking
- is human trafficking actually a vice?
- Evidence tends to support the utilization of drugs, depending upon what drug your speaking about, and what context.
- The things chosen to be likened to vices are rather extreme; things as simple as reading online can be a vice, and things as seemingly 'holy' as prayer can and often is a vice

This is just another attempt at creating a rather obvious strawman. Here it is just laughably obvious as you couldn’t even quote a full sentence of mine to create it. My argument was that the elite control the pedophile networks as well as drugs and human trafficking. You seem to have missed the long quote from the former NYPD Detective that found that the pedophile networks are run by the highest levels in the Vatican. I am not quite sure what point you are trying to make by saying human trafficking i.e. prostitution isn’t a vice but you conveniently ignored mine.

"Since the media, academia, law enforcement or what have you are all controlled, you should not expect them to actually tell you the whole truth."
- So, only Greg Szymanski, JD, and Veritas__Aequitas can tell the truth?

More strawmen. See above comment for a short list of other truth tellers.

"Any statistical analysis of disinfo will only give you more disinfo."
- We don't need the "whole truth" to study conspiracy theories or topics such as these; some glimmer of truth offers enough insight, and further, it casts light on what is considered to be non-truth, or outright lies, from which we can, as I discussed previously, run stats on to compile correlations and common themes, sources, etc. that offer a tell so we can avoid said materials in the future
- I, as a student, not only study, but work in academia; I'm not controlled or part of intelligence. Most people I know are not, and many others I know are at the very least, very likely not.
- That's not how statistics, hypotheses, or hypothesis testing works
- You can, if you want, operate from the baseline that something (such as a global Jesuit conspiracy network; disinfo; controlled opposition, etc) exists, and then test that statistically, but this is difficult due to how hypothesis testing normally works
- Normally, in science and stats, you operate from the baseline that something doesn't exist and go from there; then, you compile studies and/or statistics and attempt to determine if some relationship or construct exists, and further, if that relationship/construct can be said with confidence to not occur from chance alone, normally the bar is set at around 5%. Meaning, one is 95% confident that the results obtained are not due to chance alone.
- You can, for instance, run a chi squared with an alternative/research hypothesis that "articles published in the mainstream media will be, on average, more frequently connected to Jesuits than those published in alternative/independent media", and set your expected data based off your null hypothesis of "articles published in mainstream media will, on average, have no difference in frequency of connection to Jesuits than those publishedi n alternative/independent media". This is likely a poor example, and it's more complicated than this, but you get the picture. Even if everything is disinfo, you can make use of it.

Sorry but the saying garbage in equals garbage out applies. I too have a scientific background and can tell you that all the statistical manipulations in the world cannot fix a data set that has no connection to reality. Your estimate that there are 0.216 pedophile priests in Boston only proves this. It also shows a complete lack of number sense and a disregard for the proper use of significant figures but I’ll let that be as it is. Just please no more talk of chi squares and other intro to statistics concepts. I am very familiar with them and they are not very relevant.

I can also tell you that as an undergraduate and as someone who has obviously never properly researched the occult, you have no idea what is going on above you.

 

[x-ray peat]

- The second link you provide is from none other than.... Greg Szymanski, JD. Which, this isn't even his name, which is Greg Anthony, and JD is purportedly because he went to law school for "the fun of learning more nonsense in a world filled with a lot more." (so, he may not even have a law degree and uses a false name).
- The third link at least has dozens of things to click on that may be useful for future research, but many of the "sources" are links to webpages that no longer exist, wikipedia, or obscure youtube channels, and then also some documentaries, but again, aren't documentaries just controlled disinfo?
- The fourth link is again, Greg Szymanski, offering nothing more than quotations

Interestingly, I decided to dig deeper into this seemingly poorly read individual known as Greg, and found this: Defamation Of Masonry - Reply To Greg Szymanski Defamation of Masonry - Reply to Greg Szymanski by Mark Whaldon

"You see, Jeff, I'm a Mason. I also read Rense.com every day. And while I appreciate most of what you carry on your site, I find Szymanski's rants -- because that is what they are; they certainly do not resemble anything that could be called scholarship -- highly offensive. They are also completely baseless."

"In the United States, there is a separate Grand Lodge for each _state_, a relic of the time when each state was considered an autonomous sovereign country. That makes fifty Grand Lodges in the United States....or fifty-one, since the District of Columbia has its own Grand Lodge. To make matters more complex, because of past racial prejudice in this country a completely separate form of Masonry, called Prince Hall Masonry, exists in this country. It is made up of blacks who were barred from being Masons in past times....though unfortunately this tradition of Masonic prejudice continues in the Grand Lodges of the Bible Belt (as you can see, I don't cover up distasteful Masonic practices where such actually do exist). There is thus also a Prince Hall Grand Lodge for each state (and, again, the District of Columbia). What all this adds up to is that there are no fewer than _one hundred and two_ entirely separate and autonomous Grand Lodges operating in the United States. Thus, far from being a vast monolithic hierarchy with sinister tendrils extending all through the modern world, Masonry is actually probably the most decentralized organization you will ever see."

"It is also run quite democratically, as the officers of a lodge (who typically only serve for a single year) are elected by lodge members, and new additions to the bylaws for a Grand Lodge have to be voted on by the various lodges that operate under that Grand Lodge's jurisdiction. Masonry's structure is not authoritarian in the least. One must also be a law-abiding citizen to join and remain a brother, as well as hold a belief in a Supreme Being.

He goes on, describing things in more detail, and also offers direct rebuttals to many of Greg's rants. Then, things get more interesting, at the bottom when a man named Michael Shore comments and says

"This is basically what is going on in Masonry. The average Mason at the bottom of the pyramid is not aware what is going on at the top of the pyramid. The agenda of the 33 degree Masons at the top of the Masonic organization is kept hidden and what they are doing is not told to the "laymen" at the bottom of the pyramid."

"What is desperately needed is a MAJOR investigation of the Vatican and the Roman Catholic Church and the top level of the Mason organization. We must find out WHAT IS THE AGENDA of the few men at the top of the pyramid, who control these organizations and what they are doing with the many billions of dollars these organizations have in their vaults, along with the billions of dollars of property they control world wide."

(further, most of the stuff discussed by 33 degree masons is not kept hidden, most masons even discuss this stuff online, and further, many times mentors are involved in getting one from the status of an initiate all the way up to 33 degree; masons are no more secretive (in most cases, but not all, obviously) than most local churches)

Now, I'll offer a conspiracy theory. Is Michael Shore actually x-ray peat? Is Michael Shore x-ray peat is Veritas__Aequinas? The language used is remarkably similar, the anti-masonic claims, frequent referrals to wikipedia, Greg, and men of the faith. Further, upon looking at your posts at the Peat forum, there is a remarkably short time here with a significant portion of comments having to do with masons, the Vatican, fake news, jesuits, false flags, etc. and remarkably little else (though there is some good stuff about oxtail soup/gelatin, light, etc).

This just shows how little lower level Mason’s know about what is actually going on in their organizations.

"The Blue Degrees are but the outer court or portico of the Temple. Part of the symbols are displayed there to the Initiate, but he is intentionally misled by false interpretations. It is not intended that he shall understand them; but it is intended that he shall imagine he understands them. Their true explication is reserved for the Adepts, the Princes of Masonry…It is well enough for the mass of those called Masons, to imagine that all is contained in the Blue Degrees; and whoso attempts to undeceive them will labor in vain.” Book of the Words - Albert Pike Sovereign Grand Commander of the Scottish Rite's Southern Jurisdiction and one of the most influential Freemasons in American History.

Albert Pike is also the only Confederate General with a statue in his honor in Washington DC but yet there are no calls to tear it down. Hmm I wonder why. I also am starting to understand what he means by laboring in vain.

As for your conspiracy theory about me, I’ll just say that the truth always sounds the same, no matter who is telling it, because there is only one truth.
Veritas Aequinas aka x-ray peat. lol