Ray Peat Intersectional Feminist Facebook Group

Kyle M

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
1,407
I'm assuming anyone who disagrees with me in this thread has already stopped reading my replies, but in case that isn't true here's a great rule of thumb:

Could your conspiracy theory threshold, as in the amount of information you need about someone else to decide they are a conspirator, be applied to you by a stranger to decide that you are a conspirator? If so, your threshold is too low, unless you are in fact a conspirator.
 

x-ray peat

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
2,343
No, not all. I am implying the opposite: that you not blindly accept every conspiracy theory, every accusation of a B behind an A, and a C behind a B, ad infinitum, every tiny bit of merely coincidental and circumstantial data as "proof" to be screamed from the roof indicating "conspiracy" and so on and so forth. Part of what the CIA and and the IC does is create and distribute large amounts of disinformation, fake news and falsehoods and slanders based on NOTHING. No proof, no evidence, I repeat: nothing! This is done to drown out awareness of real conspiracies and create an atmosphere of skepticism in the public that ALL conspiracies are perpetuated by nutballs, not be be paid any attention. This keeps the public away from real conspiracies and allows the status quo to go right along its merry way. Accepting conspiracy theories should be done only after rigorous analysis and scholarship. "Proof by assertion" - the prevailing mode of much conspiracy theorizing, of proving something by merely saying it is so, completely discredits all theorizing about it. That's the the way the 1% - who you purport to detest, or are you working for them as a disinfo specialist? - likes it. The idea that you are a disinfo specialist for them, doing your part to delegitimize authentic conspiracy analysis, is more plausible than lots of questionable ideas you embrace. Because disinfo and propaganda ops - that's a real conspiracy.
I understood exactly what you were implying, and it is still a very poor strawman argument. Assuming that I am just shouting conspiracy willy nilly without any basis, is only slightly better than the CIA developed tactic of using the term conspiracy theorist to stop any further rational thought. Attacking the messenger is straight out of the disinfo playbook btw.

As for the merits of what I am claiming, I highly doubt that you have read any of the hundreds of books on the Jesuit conspiracy, including the one I mentioned available online. Nor have you answered why so many of our Presidents and famous statesmen have issued warnings against the Jesuits.

It was not my intent to try and convince anyone of what I am saying but only present enough curious facts that may spark some interest for them to do their own research and come to their own conclusions. The brainwashing has been too powerful for too long to convince anyone that their entire world view maybe completely false. They have to do that for themselves. Isn’t it said that condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance?

Finally you accuse me of covering up real conspiracies yet you don’t present any of those conspiracies for us to evaluate. Your one post that Jews own 96% of the media was so weak that it was easily proven false by another user. It doesn’t take a media analyst to see it for the obvious scapegoating and Internet disinfo that it is. Of course blaming the Jews is an old Jesuit tactic and maybe that is why you posted it. Accusing others of what you yourself are doing is also a common intelligence activity. You accused both @Queequeg and me that we are disinfo agents but I think it much more likely that it is exactly what you are doing.
 
Last edited:

x-ray peat

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
2,343
I'm assuming anyone who disagrees with me in this thread has already stopped reading my replies, but in case that isn't true here's a great rule of thumb:

Could your conspiracy theory threshold, as in the amount of information you need about someone else to decide they are a conspirator, be applied to you by a stranger to decide that you are a conspirator? If so, your threshold is too low, unless you are in fact a conspirator.
If you had anything interesting or vaguely meaningful to say I would gladly respond.

As to the video, it was not meant as a full fledged brief to support any claim but just a convenient answer to AJC's question of who was behind the Jesuits. Interestingly the vast majority of viewers do not agree with your little movie review.
 
Last edited:

x-ray peat

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
2,343
For those interested in a truthful intro to the New World Order, I would humbly suggest the video below. A fellow RPFer asked me to suggest a starting point for his research and I suggested this video. His response was “Walter Veith is the bomb.” Have a watch and see what you think. Professor Veith was a full tenured professor from South Africa before he found God and his new calling. Don’t let his religiosity scare you; he knows his stuff. He lets the primary sources speak for themselves and the quotes are quite amazing. This is an abridged version of his series of 36 videos called Total Onslaught so it may seem to jump around a bit. You can watch them all on Youtube.

skip to 1:48
 
Last edited:

AJC

Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2016
Messages
196
For those interested in a truthful intro to the New World Order, I would humbly suggest the video below. A fellow RPFer asked me to suggest a starting point for his research and I suggested this video. His response was “Walter Veith is the bomb.” Have a watch and see what you think. Professor Veith was a full tenured professor from South Africa before he found God and his new calling. Don’t let his religiosity scare you; he knows his stuff. He lets the primary sources speak for themselves and the quotes are quite amazing. This is an abridged version of his series of 36 videos called Total Onslaught so it may seem to jump around a bit. You can watch them all on Youtube.

skip to 1:48

Ok. I'm interested in a more or less historical-factual exposition of some of these powers and so am looking at at least the beginning of this video (I enjoy a good historically and evidence-driven discussion on these matters). I will just say, however, that within less than a minute of the man talking I've already seen him do at least two of the so-called "Masonic Recognition" signs--Sign of Praise and Ancient Vesica Pisces Sign--which gives some credence to what me and KyleM have been saying regarding the threshold of valid evidence when relating public figures to collusion with the conspiracy. But I digress...

In my mind your Jesuit Argument is distinct from your Vigilant Citizen/Masonic Hand Sign Argument.
 

Badger

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2017
Messages
960
Oh, I have no doubt you have read "hundreds" of books on Jesuit conspiracy. Should we be impressed? And I bet every single one of them supports the idea there is a Jesuit conspiracy! I bet you never read a single book or serious articles questioning the idea. You read only that which reinforces your confirmation bias on the subject, ignoring that which may weaken it. I think this also has a lot to do with the time, energy, money and investment of your own identity in studying the conspiracy entity you have chosen to. Pulling away from it and focusing on a completely different entity is way too hard. Every bad thing in the world is always the outcome of a Jesuit plot (or for others, Jewish, Communist, Muslim, Nazi and more plots of many other nefarious groups). Your ego investment in fingering the Jesuits (or fill in the blank of your favorite conspirator), it does not matter, prohibits you to relax your rigidity and see a possibly much bigger and very different picture.

That's because you are an amateur, and not a scholar. Scholars look at the both and all sides of issues. They will either successfully prove an opposing view wrong, or if they can't, just accept it, either fully or partially, letting if modify some of their views. One can find folks just like you who have read hundreds of books on Jewish conspiracies, or 100s of books on old money European conspiracies, or 100s on Mafia, Asian, Yukuza and many other conspiracies, and arrive at, with the same degree as you of what strikes me as over-heated certainty, that their candidate for world domination is the major domo behind all other conspiracies. You and this type of conspiracy researcher never could do this, however, unless you made a fundamental assumption, which you never ever question nor analyze, and that is the conspiracy is centralized. One entity or group controls all others. I think this is a highly dubious and fragile assumption, though it always seems to go mostly unexamined.

A much better assumption to go by is that conspiracy is decentralized, there is nobody in charge of all the conspiracies, nobody who rules them all. Oh, there might be a few conspiracies strongly or loosely allied or connected, as the case might be, but absolutely nothing that remotely approaches complete control and remaining statically in place over the centuries. In this interpretive model, the dozens and hundreds or thousands of conspiracies and conspirators constantly vie for dominance with each other, they are always in motion. So maybe today the military-industrial complex is top dog, next month it's the Jewish bankers and their media friends, months later, the Jesuits and old world royalty or the Dominicans and old world royalty . Partnerships are made then broken, made again with different players, broken again, a dominant group overnight becomes dependent on another group that it lorded over. Then the reverse happens years later. On and on and on and on it goes. Wins, losses, reverses, advances, morphings of name or identity, growth and decay. Evolution, involution. Birth, death. All conspiracies experience or experienced these things. It needs to be stressed over and over in order to properly think about them to prevent degeneration into becoming a paranoid, fearful fanatic.

I have read a great deal of very good quality conspiracy literature and scholarship over many years looking at many different conspirators. When I see someone, as you, focus on just one, and conclude you have it all figured out, I smile, because I know you don't have it all figured out, since you and your resources have obviously omitted a vast amount of good information related to conspiracy phenomena and behavior from unrelated groups pertinent to the event. And I know this because, as I said, I've already read a lot of other quality materials. Many people here knowledgeable about other conspiracies you and I are not could say the same.

You and your buddy Queequeg use dubious methods in citing resources or assertions in connection to others in a way that omits context. You and your resources tell us something apparently horrible about a supposed boogyman without giving us all relevant information about them that, if we knew, would eliminate or attenuate the horror. "What a bad person, he MURDERED my dad!!!" But you neglected to tell us: your dad started shooting first, and the defendant merely returned fire in self-defense. Context.

In the end, you 100% miss my point in my responses to this thread: I have, at best only mild interest, and mostly none, in offering conspiracies for you and others to evaluate. My primary interest is in asking the process and methods of evaluation be much more disciplined, assumptions clarified, questionable and bad sources mercilessly ridiculed and rejected quickly, sweeping conclusions radically constrained or kept unstated, much more modest claims made about the resources used, while constantly attuned to whether they are relevant or not. And all the other tenets of good scholarship be rigorously applied. You want to speculate from here to Jupiter, fine, knock yourself out. I like speculation. That's why I love to read science fiction. But don't tell me your speculation or theory is proven true with evidence when it's not. Yes, I know, applying standards of analysis is very hard and often tedious, time-consuming work. But that's the way it is. When doing scholarship. What you do isn't.

One last point: any person who wants to raise the bar in analyzing this material to arrive at much more solid and truthful conclusions would be one hell of a lousy and incompetent disinfo agent. A capable disinfo agent would only want to keep standards low, amateurish and crappy, and get as many people as possible to accept them. Since you seem to identity with the lesser standards, I'll let others here decide who is the disinfo-fake news agent, whether unconsciously (as a dupe) or consciously (taking orders from somebody).

I understood exactly what you were implying, and it is still a very poor strawman argument. Assuming that I am just shouting conspiracy willy nilly without any basis, is only slightly better than the CIA developed tactic of using the term conspiracy theorist to stop any further rational thought. Attacking the messenger is straight out of the disinfo playbook btw.

As for the merits of what I am claiming, I highly doubt that you have read any of the hundreds of books on the Jesuit conspiracy, including the one I mentioned available online. Nor have you answered why so many of our Presidents and famous statesmen have issued warnings against the Jesuits.

It was not my intent to try and convince anyone of what I am saying but only present enough curious facts that may spark some interest for them to do their own research and come to their own conclusions. The brainwashing has been too powerful for too long to convince anyone that their entire world view maybe completely false. They have to do that for themselves. Isn’t it said that condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance?

Finally you accuse me of covering up real conspiracies yet you don’t present any of those conspiracies for us to evaluate. Your one post that Jews own 96% of the media was so weak that it was easily proven false. It doesn’t take a media analyst to see it for the obvious scapegoating and Internet disinfo that it is. Of course blaming the Jews is an old Jesuit tactic and maybe that is why you posted it. Accusing others of what you yourself are doing is also a common intelligence activity. You accused both @Queequeg and me that we are disinfo agents but I think it much more likely that it is exactly what you are doing.
 

Kyle M

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
1,407
I will just say, however, that within less than a minute of the man talking I've already seen him do at least two of the so-called "Masonic Recognition" signs--Sign of Praise and Ancient Vesica Pisces Sign--which gives some credence to what me and KyleM have been saying regarding the threshold of valid evidence when relating public figures to collusion with the conspiracy. But I digress...

This argument cannot be countered, it is the foundational fallacy of irrational conspiracy theorists.

Btw I LOVE conspiracy theories, and I believe a lot of them, but if you spend enough time around (IRL or online) people that are really into it, you find that there seems to be a psychological component that, similar to normies who actually believe the main stream media, causes these people to see connections everywhere, to the point where they would view themselves as a likely Illuminati to use a common term. Literally everyone has an uncle or lived with a roommate or something that is connected to a big bank, a large corporation, a politician, etc. Until you have had a hit piece written about you, or an argument made about why you are doing what you are doing (which you know to be false, being yourself aware of your motivations more clearly than the accuser) you don't realize the problem there.
 

Badger

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2017
Messages
960
"Until you have had a hit piece written about you, or an argument made about why you are doing what you are doing (which you know to be false, being yourself aware of your motivations more clearly than the accuser) you don't realize the problem there."

My speculating that xray Peat is a disinfo agent using a little of his own methods was not serious, just wanted to give him a taste of what it feels like when people - who are valued or revered - he accuses as really being a nefarious conspirator. I don't think he got the point.

This argument cannot be countered, it is the foundational fallacy of irrational conspiracy theorists.

Btw I LOVE conspiracy theories, and I believe a lot of them, but if you spend enough time around (IRL or online) people that are really into it, you find that there seems to be a psychological component that, similar to normies who actually believe the main stream media, causes these people to see connections everywhere, to the point where they would view themselves as a likely Illuminati to use a common term. Literally everyone has an uncle or lived with a roommate or something that is connected to a big bank, a large corporation, a politician, etc. Until you have had a hit piece written about you, or an argument made about why you are doing what you are doing (which you know to be false, being yourself aware of your motivations more clearly than the accuser) you don't realize the problem there.
 
Last edited:

x-ray peat

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
2,343
Ok. I'm interested in a more or less historical-factual exposition of some of these powers and so am looking at at least the beginning of this video (I enjoy a good historically and evidence-driven discussion on these matters). I will just say, however, that within less than a minute of the man talking I've already seen him do at least two of the so-called "Masonic Recognition" signs--Sign of Praise and Ancient Vesica Pisces Sign--which gives some credence to what me and KyleM have been saying regarding the threshold of valid evidence when relating public figures to collusion with the conspiracy. But I digress...

In my mind your Jesuit Argument is distinct from your Vigilant Citizen/Masonic Hand Sign Argument.
Yeah, the Masonic symbolism and hand signs is not for everyone and maybe one has to realize the bigger picture before you can accept that there is something more to it than just coincidence. However if you can just ignore the small amount of referencing to the Masonic symbols and focus only on the history he presents, I think you will find it particularly interesting. Again all of his points are taken from referenced works and he is mostly just reading quotations to you. Also keep in mind that this video was cut and pasted by a youtuber from the more than 50 hours of lectures he gave and is not the best job. However it is much more digestible than watching the whole series. I should also have mentioned that Walter Veith is a former Catholic so it is not anti-Catholic prejudice driving him.

I will just leave you with something else to think about:
upload_2017-9-2_12-59-59.jpeg
 
Last edited:

x-ray peat

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
2,343
Oh, I have no doubt you have read "hundreds" of books on Jesuit conspiracy. Should we be impressed? And I bet every single one of them supports the idea there is a Jesuit conspiracy! I bet you never read a single book or serious articles questioning the idea. You read only that which reinforces your confirmation bias on the subject, ignoring that which may weaken it. I think this also has a lot to do with the time, energy, money and investment of your own identity in studying the conspiracy entity you have chosen to. Pulling away from it and focusing on a completely different entity is way too hard. Every bad thing in the world is always the outcome of a Jesuit plot (or for others, Jewish, Communist, Muslim, Nazi and more plots of many other nefarious groups). Your ego investment in fingering the Jesuits (or fill in the blank of your favorite conspirator), it does not matter, prohibits you to relax your rigidity and see a possibly much bigger and very different picture.

That's because you are an amateur, and not a scholar. Scholars look at the both and all sides of issues. They will either successfully prove an opposing view wrong, or if they can't, just accept it, either fully or partially, letting if modify some of their views. One can find folks just like you who have read hundreds of books on Jewish conspiracies, or 100s of books on old money European conspiracies, or 100s on Mafia, Asian, Yukuza and many other conspiracies, and arrive at, with the same degree as you of what strikes me as over-heated certainty, that their candidate for world domination is the major domo behind all other conspiracies. You and this type of conspiracy researcher never could do this, however, unless you made a fundamental assumption, which you never ever question nor analyze, and that is the conspiracy is centralized. One entity or group controls all others. I think this is a highly dubious and fragile assumption, though it always seems to go mostly unexamined.

A much better assumption to go by is that conspiracy is decentralized, there is nobody in charge of all the conspiracies, nobody who rules them all. Oh, there might be a few conspiracies strongly or loosely allied or connected, as the case might be, but absolutely nothing that remotely approaches complete control and remaining statically in place over the centuries. In this interpretive model, the dozens and hundreds or thousands of conspiracies and conspirators constantly vie for dominance with each other, they are always in motion. So maybe today the military-industrial complex is top dog, next month it's the Jewish bankers and their media friends, months later, the Jesuits and old world royalty or the Dominicans and old world royalty . Partnerships are made then broken, made again with different players, broken again, a dominant group overnight becomes dependent on another group that it lorded over. Then the reverse happens years later. On and on and on and on it goes. Wins, losses, reverses, advances, morphings of name or identity, growth and decay. Evolution, involution. Birth, death. All conspiracies experience or experienced these things. It needs to be stressed over and over in order to properly think about them to prevent degeneration into becoming a paranoid, fearful fanatic.

I have read a great deal of very good quality conspiracy literature and scholarship over many years looking at many different conspirators. When I see someone, as you, focus on just one, and conclude you have it all figured out, I smile, because I know you don't have it all figured out, since you and your resources have obviously omitted a vast amount of good information related to conspiracy phenomena and behavior from unrelated groups pertinent to the event. And I know this because, as I said, I've already read a lot of other quality materials. Many people here knowledgeable about other conspiracies you and I are not could say the same.

You and your buddy Queequeg use dubious methods in citing resources or assertions in connection to others in a way that omits context. You and your resources tell us something apparently horrible about a supposed boogyman without giving us all relevant information about them that, if we knew, would eliminate or attenuate the horror. "What a bad person, he MURDERED my dad!!!" But you neglected to tell us: your dad started shooting first, and the defendant merely returned fire in self-defense. Context.

In the end, you 100% miss my point in my responses to this thread: I have, at best only mild interest, and mostly none, in offering conspiracies for you and others to evaluate. My primary interest is in asking the process and methods of evaluation be much more disciplined, assumptions clarified, questionable and bad sources mercilessly ridiculed and rejected quickly, sweeping conclusions radically constrained or kept unstated, much more modest claims made about the resources used, while constantly attuned to whether they are relevant or not. And all the other tenets of good scholarship be rigorously applied. You want to speculate from here to Jupiter, fine, knock yourself out. I like speculation. That's why I love to read science fiction. But don't tell me your speculation or theory is proven true with evidence when it's not. Yes, I know, applying standards of analysis is very hard and often tedious, time-consuming work. But that's the way it is. When doing scholarship. What you do isn't.

One last point: any person who wants to raise the bar in analyzing this material to arrive at much more solid and truthful conclusions would be one hell of a lousy and incompetent disinfo agent. A capable disinfo agent would only want to keep standards low, amateurish and crappy, and get as many people as possible to accept them. Since you seem to identity with the lesser standards, I'll let others here decide who is the disinfo-fake news agent, whether unconsciously (as a dupe) or consciously (taking orders from somebody).
Once again your response is completely devoid of any substance as it continues to avoid discussing the evidence presented either by me or in the over 2 hour video I had posted. Rather than engage in “serious scholarship” as you claim is your wont, why do you continue to throw out one ad hominem attack after another? Do you think that people will accept that for a real argument? Your unsubstantiated claim that there are many conspiracies at work may have been true two hundred years ago but that was all decided after the Napoleonic Wars in which the Jesuits utterly destroyed or cowed their rivals.

Just to be clear, I never claimed that my reading of the 100 or so books on Jesuit history was at issue. My point was that it is obvious that you have not read even one of them. Yet you somehow can unabashedly claim that the Jesuit conspiracy must be a lie and it is "other" conspiracies to blame. Talk about poor scholarship, confirmation bias, and uncritical thinking.

If you were actually the scholar you claim to be, you would surely realize that there is no comparison between the quality of source material pointing to the Jesuits and the Vatican as opposed to the mostly specious material blaming the Jews, Aliens, Illuminati etc. Despite your accusations, I have read material on all sides and there is no question as to what is more credible. Unsurprisingly, the most infamous one “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion” was authored by the Jesuits and was a rehash of a hit piece they did on their enemy the Jansenists in France hundreds of years before; "The Secrets of the Elders of Bourg-Fontaine" www.historicism.com/misc/protocols.htm

I’ll give you a short list of credible persons who have tried to expose the Order. These include Statesmen like John Adams, Lincoln, LaFayette, Napoleon, UK Prime Minister Lord Palmerston,; Military leaders like R.W. Thompson Secretary of the Navy, US Army General and Jury Member at the Lincoln assassination trial Thomas Harris, and Major and Head of Lincoln's Honor Guard Edwin A. Sherman; prominent historians like James Parton, Theodor Gresinger, Avro Manhattan, and J.A. Wylie; ex Catholic Priests like Jeremiah Crowley, Leo Lehmann, MF Cusack, Edmond Paris, and Alberto Rivera and other prominent personages like Samuel Morse, Dostoyevsky and Madame Helena Blavatsky and even Pope Clement XIV. Many of these people's books can be obtained here for free The Jesuit Vatican New World Order

I would like to see if you can come up with an equivalent list that supports your previous claim that the Jews own 96% of the media and by extension are at the top of the pyramid. Here is one to get you started. Mein Kampf ghost written by Catholic Priest and Jesuit Coadjutor Bernhard Stempfle on behalf of Adolf Hitler. Though I am sure you already knew that. I should also add that you should hold yourself to the same standard you ask of me. Namely that "the process and methods of evaluation be much more disciplined, assumptions clarified, questionable and bad sources mercilessly ridiculed and rejected quickly." That one piece of evidence you did manage to post was very far from your proposed standards you claim I an not following. A bit hypocritical no?

Finally I would remind you that it is an undisputed historical fact that only the Vatican claims dominion over the entire world and has fought religious wars for hundreds of years to assert that right. They ruled Europe for hundreds and hundreds of years so your utter disbelief that they could possibly be still but this time from behind the scenes is naïve at best.

If interested here is a lecture discussing the true controllers of Hollywood.
 
Last edited:

Atman

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2016
Messages
393
Once again your response is completely devoid of any substance as it continues to avoid discussing the evidence presented either by me or in the over 2 hour video I had posted. Rather than engage in “serious scholarship” as you claim is your wont, why do you continue to throw out one ad hominem attack after another? Do you think that people will accept that for a real argument? Your unsubstantiated claim that there are many conspiracies at work may have been true two hundred years ago but that was all decided after the Napoleonic Wars in which the Jesuits utterly destroyed or cowed their rivals.

Just to be clear, I never claimed that my reading of the 100 or so books on Jesuit history was at issue. My point was that it is obvious that you have not read even one of them. Yet you somehow can unabashedly claim that the Jesuit conspiracy must be a lie and it is "other" conspiracies to blame. Talk about poor scholarship, confirmation bias, and uncritical thinking.

If you were actually the scholar you claim to be, you would surely realize that there is no comparison between the quality of source material pointing to the Jesuits and the Vatican as opposed to the mostly specious material blaming the Jews, Aliens, Illuminati etc. Despite your accusations, I have read material on all sides and there is no question as to what is more credible. Unsurprisingly, the most infamous one “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion” was authored by the Jesuits and was a rehash of a hit piece they did on their enemy the Jansenists in France hundreds of years before; "The Secrets of the Elders of Bourg-Fontaine" www.historicism.com/misc/protocols.htm

Since I doubt you will actually try to remedy your knowledge gap, I’ll give you a short list of credible persons who have tried to expose the Order. These include Statesmen like John Adams, Lincoln, LaFayette, Napoleon, UK Prime Minister Lord Palmerston,; Military leaders like R.W. Thompson Secretary of the Navy, US Army General and Jury Member at the Lincoln assassination trial Thomas Harris, and Major and Head of Lincoln's Honor Guard Edwin A. Sherman; prominent historians like James Parton, Theodor Gresinger, Avro Manhattan, and J.A. Wylie; ex Catholic Priests like Jeremiah Crowley, Leo Lehmann, MF Cusack, Edmond Paris, and Alberto Rivera and other prominent personages like Samuel Morse, Dostoyevsky and Madame Helena Blavatsky and even Pope Clement XIV. Many of these people's books can be obtained here for free The Jesuit Vatican New World Order

I would like to see if you can come up with an equivalent list that supports your previous claim that the Jews own 96% of the media and by extension are at the top of the pyramid. Here is one to get you started. Mein Kampf ghost written by Catholic Priest and Jesuit Coadjutor Bernhard Stempfle on behalf of Adolf Hitler. Though I am sure you already knew that.

Finally I would remind you that it is an undisputed historical fact that only the Vatican claims dominion over the entire world and has fought religious wars for hundreds of years to assert that right. They ruled Europe for hundreds and hundreds of years so your utter disbelief that they could possibly be still but this time from behind the scenes is naïve at best.

If interested here is a lecture discussing the true controllers of Hollywood.


Why are they producing so many holocaust movies? I thought they hate the jews?
Why are they pushing so many ideas which go completely against Christianity like third wave feminism?

Was Henry Ford also a Jesuit?

If hitler's national socialism was a Jesuit creation, why didn't they let him win?
Assuming the official WW2/hitler narrative is correct, he would have acquired world domination and eliminated judaism.
Wouldn't that be the jesuit's wet dream?

Nothing what you claim makes any sense. It's absolutely incoherent.
 

x-ray peat

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
2,343
Why are they producing so many holocaust movies? I thought they hate the jews?
Why are they pushing so many ideas which go completely against Christianity like third wave feminism?

Was Henry Ford also a Jesuit?

If hitler's national socialism was a Jesuit creation, why didn't they let him win?
Assuming the official WW2/hitler narrative is correct, he would have acquired world domination and eliminated judaism.
Wouldn't that be the jesuit's wet dream?

Nothing what you claim makes any sense. It's absolutely incoherent.
Why don't you watch one of the above videos and see why.
Henry Ford was a 33 degree Mason. Ask yourself why Ford motor company built up much of the infrastructure in both the Soviet Union and in Nazi Germany. Ford 'used slave labour' in Nazi German plants
How We Built the Soviet Might | Ashbrook

Why also did the West fund the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany? The answer is that both World War one and Two were controlled on both sides by the Jesuits. The world is much more complicated than thinking good against evil, our side vs their side. I should also add that not understanding how something works is not a real argument against it.

WW2 was not just an inquisition against the Jews but an inquisition against all non Catholics to bring them back into the fold. Germany was half Protestant so the Jesuits not only succeeded in destroying European Jewry but also destroyed Protestant Prussia by first having the West bomb only the north, think Dresden, and then marching the Northern German Protestant divisions into Russia right before the winter and only in their Summer uniforms. There was very little bombing in the Catholic south. Also it was mostly Prussian Germany that was given to the Soviet sphere to fully remove them of any vestiges of Protestantism. Look into the Croation Ustashi and what they did to the Orthodox Serbs as well.

A better question to ask is why did Hitler go against his Generals so many times to the point of insanity like when he allowed the British to evacuate Dunkirk or when he launched a two front war in attacking his ally Stalin. That should be what doesnt make any sense to you.
 

Atman

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2016
Messages
393
A better question to ask is why did Hitler go against his Generals so many times to the point of insanity like when he allowed the British to evacuate Dunkirk or when he launched a two front war in attacking his ally Stalin. That should be what doesnt make any sense to you.

He had too much sympathy for the British people. He didn't want the war, especially with Britain, to begin with, as proven by dozens of his speeches and peace offers.
I think in his idealistic naivety he still believed a peace treaty was a possibility at that point and a gesture of mercy would provide a good opening.

The attack on Russia was an attempt for a preemptive strike after information of Stalins unbelievable mobilization and stationing on his west borders started accumulating.

Remember that Britain and France declared war only on Germany, after Germany and the Soviet Union invaded Poland.
 
Last edited:

Kyle M

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
1,407
My point was that it is obvious that you have not read even one of them.

Kind of like you with anything other than Jesuit history, like Austrian economics or libertarian literature for example. Doesn't slow you down in passing judgment on those things.
 

Queequeg

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
1,191
Queequeg, you want to play the game of citing your occupation as a means to show you have some sort of superior insight, beyond us mere mortals, on these matters? Ok, cool, I'll bite, though mildly this time.

I've worked in both university/college environments and in more recent years, billion dollar businesses supporting senior management up to the CEO and board, and for now, I'll spare you what I think about business consultants/consultancies (you wouldn't like it) as a way to balance the picture and show the other side of the coin. But for a good read on the most famous of them, McKinsey, this book is the best for showing their shortcomings, which includes their often-times corrupting and baneful influence on the unfortunate businesses that use them. What you learn about McKinsey is a paradigm of what most or all such firms do to their clients or how businesses use such firms to harm their own companies, with the consultancies quite willing to be used in exchange for very extraordinary money:
The Firm: The Story of McKinsey and Its Secret Influence on American Business
https://www.amazon.com/Firm-McKinse...504199564&sr=1-7&keywords=mckinsey+consulting
A quote related to the book: "But he also answers the question that’s on the mind of anyone who has ever heard the word McKinsey: Are they worth it? After all, just as McKinsey can be shown to have helped invent most of the tools of modern management, the company was also involved with a number of striking failures. Its consultants were on the scene when General Motors drove itself into the ground, and they were K-Mart’s advisers when the retailer tumbled into disarray. They played a critical role in building the bomb known as Enron."

So you want us to bow to your superior insight because you are a business consultant? Nah, I don't think so.

You are taking my comments completely out of context. My only reason for mentioning my MBA was to refute your buddy Kyle’s claim that his “knowledge of this topic [economics] is greater than [mine]” because he has read a few books on economics and spends his spare time on the Mises Institute website.

My only reason for mentioning what I do is to refute his claim that because of his new fangled PhD from Joe State School or his Post Doc position at Disney World U., “many more people read and will read what [he has] to write and come to see [him] talk than will ever pay attention to [my] garbage Google search scholarship.”

Both of my points were said in response to him and directed only to him. I am not claiming that I think I have greater insight than anyone else, just Kyle when it comes to matters of economics.

It seems that you may be unfamiliar with Kyle’s anti-social manner of debate. For a laugh you could always look back in the thread to see his civility in action when challenged by the ladies for his overly reductionist view on the sexes.
 
Last edited:

whodathunkit

Member
Joined
May 6, 2016
Messages
777
For the MBA thing, I strongly advise people to get into Nassim Taleb. He holds an MBA, is one of the best minds about economics and finance risks out there now, and trashes that degree and holders of it in an eloquent way.
MBA's with more credentials than sense, perspective, or general knowledge about the world and human nature, are the ROOT OF ALL EVIL.

Shakespeare seemed to think (or at least he joked about it) that killing all the lawyers would be the first step in making the world a better place to live. To put a more modern spin on it, I would suggest replacing "lawyers" with "MBA's" (or at least adding them to the short list).

:D
 

whodathunkit

Member
Joined
May 6, 2016
Messages
777
Why does every interesting topic on this forum ALWAYS devolve into the same (now soporific) arguments about economics, The Jooooozzzz, oblique (or direct) references to the Illuminati or similar hidden power structures, and ad hominems by various parties towards parties who disagree with them?

Why, guys?

This was a pretty good discussion for a while. @Regina gave it an even bigger boost by bringing dogs into it. :thumbsup: :D Been gone for a week and now this.

Jeez, pleez. Give it a rest, huh? Or at least, please try to keep it out of any thread that mentions dogs. :p:
 

charlie

Admin
The Law & Order Admin
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
14,363
Location
USA
Why does every interesting topic on this forum ALWAYS devolve into the same (now soporific) arguments about economics, The Jooooozzzz, oblique (or direct) references to the Illuminati or similar hidden power structures, and ad hominems by various parties towards parties who disagree with them?
Good question. Glad you said something because I have been meaning too.

@XRayPeat/@Queequeg keep your conspiracy theories to one thread please. You have tied up many a good threads with your info. Please make one single thread and keep it all in there. :hattip
 

Queequeg

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2016
Messages
1,191
Good question. Glad you said something because I have been meaning too.

@XRayPeat/@Queequeg keep your conspiracy theories to one thread please. You have tied up many a good threads with your info. Please make one single thread and keep it all in there. :hattip

I would be happy to but would only ask that you apply those same rules to others as well. This all started when @Badger posted his anti-Semitic cartoon showing a Nazi era “greedy Jew” portrayed as the head of the international conspiracy. I flagged the post as not only untrue but offensive as well. Your reply was that it was appropriate and that I should address my concerns in the thread. That is what I did but now apparently you are telling me to not even do that.

So if you don’t wish me to refute others conspiracy theories in these threads then I only ask that you employ some consistency to others and remove their posts when flagged. I would also hope that this would apply to your conspiracy theory posts on the evil Jews being the Satanic seed of Cain.

Very true about difficulties involved of determining who is doing the sticking. The Sufis know about the subtle difficulties of getting the whole truth in observing that people think they have the whole truth when they only have a piece of it, illustrating this with the image of the elephant being examined by blind men who all describe an elephant differently, depending on what part of an elephant is being investigated.

A start for a possible jokey Sufi mind map of who is behind the social engineering:

elefant-in-the-room.jpg

Personally I don't have my mind made up on the JQ, but I don't see any Jesuit authors on this paper. I guess this is custodial work here too, in science.
View attachment 6393

Kyle, I would add most of MSM is owned by Jews, too: Six Jewish Companies Control 96% of the World’s Media |
 

charlie

Admin
The Law & Order Admin
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
14,363
Location
USA
So if you don’t wish me to refute others conspiracy theories in these threads then I only ask that you employ some consistency to others and remove their posts when flagged.
Be the change and lead by example. :hattip
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom