May 1, 2011

Comments on Clint's Reality Blog

04/11'11 tt) Skyscrapers that are suddenly erupting like volcanoes ...
"This is how I feel when I try and wake people up." Yeah, man, and that's exactly what I'm talking about. But in a way you don't know yet. For sure. Because what's the use of all your knowledge if nobody is listening to you.

04/19'11 -Clint- to Ron Mamita: "Well my friend, I think we are on the same page.
The reason I like the idea of Walter's TRF is that it is based on the foundation of lawful (voted by the people) transparency. So if all the books and paper trails were opened to scrutiny, the trail I'm sure would lead to the folks you refer to here as the elite 'cabal'.
But the point I am making is that unless we get that transparency and change the laws, you and I will never be able to gain access to that trail. So I believe we should all be focusing on attaining that privilege by changing the law accordingly. Otherwise, we are beating a dead horse with 9/11, the Rothschilds, elites, etc. ... for we cannot do anything about it or them while the law is not on our side.
I'll be posting a new website soon that will be aimed at changing all of this ... will be up soon. It just might work: Clint for President You'll get it when you see it!"

05/01'11 tt) I like the article, which means I will use your thoughts in it, but you can't really expect to be taken seriously, Clint, if you, on the one hand, elaborate about conspiracy theory as a state of mind (as an ideology or kind of piety) and then, at the same time, preaching the "Jewish World Conspiracy" under the catch-word "Zionism 101" on the other hand, you see? This simply doesn't work. You can't speak of American Feudal fiefdoms and then pass responsibility for this to one particular group, you know. In your case, the Jews.

05/02'11 -Clint-: "Take the time to listen to the three hour recording I made after painstaking research located on this blog (Zionism 101).
If you still feel the same way, even after my avid defense of the real Sephardic 'Jews' who are against Zionism and even Israel (occupied Palestine) then by all means, dismiss this with the 'race card'. If that's what you're supposed to do. You learn to do this from kindergarten. Ignore the fact that Schindler's wife said Spielberg lied about the whole movie. Forget that Anne Frank's diary is a proven fraud in a court of law and written by a famous playwright. Forget all the admitted lies ...
I refuse to be silent about the truth. Understanding CAFRs and Zionism are paramount to any understanding at all about reality.

'I am a Zionist. You don't have to be Jewish to be a Zionist.'
Joe Biden, U.S. Vice-President

Need I say more, really?"

05/05'11 tt) Did I say you should be silent about anything, Clint?
What makes you think that I would dare to demand something like this from you? Hey, it's me, okay?
The issue of my comment, I think, was mainly that you can't argue against believing in a conspiracy at the same time you advocate a conspiracy yourself. That is simply a matter of logic, alright? Nothing else.
In other words, preaching "the truth" will always contradict oneself at some point.

"Understanding CAFRs and Zionism are paramount to any understanding at all about reality."
I totally agree with that, but there is a lot more that's paramount to this very goal ...
I promise to you that I will take the time to listen to your three hour recording, I take back the "in your case, the Jews" part, and I will comment your painstaking research about the subject.
"Need I say more, really?" Not to me (at this particular point anyway), but there's, of course, a lot more to say about than what you hint at in your reply. And there's really no reason to feel attacked by me, not at all.
Because I'm not in the convincing business, you know:

"But all civility that we know of has a very strong military touch, and the reason why 'war is not merely an act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse carried on with other means' can, in my opinion, be found behind this shimmering veneer of sensationalist conspiracy theory: which is the fact that, despite all this professional theatricality around apparent democratic proceedings, there is a pretty monolithic, very bureaucratic, quasi-monarchic structure in power inside this culture that makes politics a military instrument in the first place.
And belligerent persuasion-oriented rhetoric is the way this system operates,

The Jesuit educational model of Prussia What country does North America's education system come from?

"And now we come to the great man himself, a man history reports as being instrumental in the creation of America's public education system. Horace Man was the American educator who served as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, part of the American Congress.
Horace Man was the key reformer of the education system at the time. In 1837, he became the head of the newly created Board of Education in Massachusetts where he began the work that would eventually earn him the title as "The Father of American Public Education".
After reading through the educational models of different countries, Man finally hears about a particularly successful style that had been developed in Prussia, which is now modern-day Germany.
The Prussian system had shown to be such a successful to government's purposes that, accompanied by few other educators, Horace Man travels to Germany to investigate. Upon their return to the U.S., they lobbied heavily to have the Prussian model adopted. [...] Around this time, the Canadian superintendent of schools, Egerton Ryerson, travelled to Prussia in search of a new model of education."

Now, what do we know about that time, the Prussian King Frederick the Great, and "our holy fathers" of the Jesuit Knight Order?
By the way, "I have never let schooling interfere with my education" is such a typical swaggering Huck Finn type of statement ... "Swaggering yet vulnerable, like a cross between Huck Finn and Holden Caulfield ..."


Jtfreelander on 12/04'09: "I feel it was sinister because the Prussian model was for the use of the state and the state doesn't respond to market signals. Therefore, it doesn't serve the people it serves itself.
It seeks to have people march lockstep with its diktats. It produces weapons of mass instruction. Education not molested by the state would have to produce more critical thinkers."

Rcallicott on 12/03'09: "The Prussian model of education had some very practical applications and is more centered to creating a literate work force necessary to a market economy. I use the word "literate" loosely, since this model is not known to produce great thinkers in as much as it produces good engineers, accountants and other specialists through the university level. You get the picture. I don't think it was a diabolical conspiracy from the onset, but in the wrong hands (Department of Education) it can be used to propagandize the general population, thus the spike in home schooling as a moral education was just as important.
The Edinburgh model of education on the other hand has produced most of the great thinkers in the western world. If there is any doubt, read Arthur Herman's "How the Scots Invented the Modern World". The contributions to western civilization by the Scottish educated under this model are extraordinary. It is a shame that more of our Universities do not replica this exemplary form of education. FYI: The Scottish Kirk first required mass education to ensure its citizenry could read the Holy Bible and as a result Scotland enjoyed the highest literacy rates in Europe in the 1600s. In 1696 the Scottish Parliament passed the "Act for Setting Schools" which solidified the necessity for educating every citizen by providing teachers in every parish.
While the Prussian model fails to create the critical thinkers necessary to a free society, it can provide a decent level of literacy. The problem I have with public schools is the Department of Education.
In my opinion, that one act by former President Jimmy Carter put too much power in the hands of people we don't know, don't trust and don't vote for. In retrospect, since the department's inception it has ruined the public educational system in America. At least most high school graduates can read and read for themselves if they so wish, just don't expect critical thinkers from those indoctrinated in public schools."

Cookie on 07/17'09: "One of the many reasons we homeschool our child. Schools teach children what to think not how to think. Critical thinking is considered blasphemy in brick and mortar schools. Borg mentality, you must assimilate. Way before video on the internet there was a like article written on this very subject.
I found it interesting then and I find it just as interesting now."

Rakib101 on 04/08'08: "History is good ... nice video!"
Zona on 03/26'08: "History was my worst subject!"
Nadinebrown on 03/24'08: "Good video – a bit controversial, but you're eliciting a reaction which is always good."

Yessir on 01/13'08: "To be perfectly honest, I really enjoyed this video, but I found the conclusion extremely sudden. You basically just list off factoids, some statistics, and bam, you have a potentially derogatory conclusion that I felt was a little "out of thin air". I felt like the facts were primarily historical and you didn't really link them to any modern facts, nor show the evolution from one to the other – you just kind of put it out there.
I understand that you are leaving the viewer with an open-ended statement to instill thought rather than shove a definitive answer down their throats, and I really respect that. However, I just get the impression that you had fully decided on your underlying thoughts on the matter before doing the research and thus your quick conclusion might not make as much sense to the learning viewer as the educated film-creator.

Nazd said on 01/07'08: "Well, it seems like I'm not the only one who reacted with a bit of shock and feeling incredibly disturbed ... I've had the opportunity to share the video with flatmates, and I've noticed similar responses from them as well. Definitely needs to be expanded upon, with greater historical emphasis [...] Lots of people were wondering how the other 'great power' fits into the equation, while this was all happening (UK)."

The difference between pieties and blindspots

Richard Grove

03/12'11 tt = Tosco T.) Now take Boorstin's all-deciding realization, "the greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance – it is the illusion of knowledge," and look at it with the eyes of the top culture creators.
I think you will recognize that building castles of piety "in the air" isn't something that the bank's level of consciousness was able to be in control of.

04/17'11 tt) Hey Rich, my favorite ex-"Wallstreet-rockstar", you may not forget that I'm not in the preacher's, philosopher's, professor's, or politician's business. Propagating is not what "pietologists" do. This would be absurd!
Now, since I will definitely not become part of this vociferous punditry circus with my attitude as a whisperer, the question is, if you will deliver any comments also outside of your T'n'H clubhouse, isn't it?
Because I thought that you were some sort of "synchronicity superstar" in the making, you know.
I'm simply looking for Jon's arbiters. They don't have to necessarily be real persons, with regard to the potential riskiness of this job – the reason why I only accept avatars as facebook friends from now on.
But it obviously won't work behind closed doors. It won't work within a privatized public, within private circles of enlightened alumni that will always act politically when it comes to the public in its entirety, you see?

04/18'11 Hi Tosco, I've been having pc problems all week, so if you've sent any other messages, I haven't seen them, I just got my email to open, saw your note ... and my responses are found below: "RG".

04/17'11 tt) Howdy, Rich!
You may have wondered why I put Thomas Richards in the same league of passionate uncoverers and comprehensive lecturers like you and Clint Richardson, whereas it is quite obvious that you are so much more intellectual, so much more studied and so much more eloquent than him. *) 1 The main reason therefore is probably one of my biggest concerns about your "blindspotology", which appears to me to be simply too rational. *) 2 There is no room or respect for romantic thoughts or let's say for the freedom of thinking romantically, you know. *) 3 Your sense for language seems to me to be too nominal, if you can guess what I am suggesting here. Sort of too "mathematical", too mechanical somehow. *) 4 This adumbrates my notion when I said that "I don't think of 'piety theory' as being the exact same thing as Richard's 'blindspotology'" and it surely will be one of the big central topics between the two approaches. Clint Richardson is another story but also similar in a way.

Furthermore, I mentioned something like becoming synchronicity experts in consequence of Jon Stewart's call for "an arbiter of what's real and what's not". The thing is that I don't need an answer or a decision from you on this. There is also no time limit involved or any rules of engagement etc., nothing. I think, for instance, at the moment only that it would be certainly interesting to conduct a correspondence with someone of your intellect, who sees him, of all authors, as the real deal, who taught Bill (and Hill) Clinton the Jesuitical Argument. *) 5 "Which people like Quigley did not see fit to share with the public" – is that supposed to mean that you think of him as kind of a deserter from the Catholic corporate system? *) 6
If we really want to outgrow this military monolith of concentrated intelligence, to which Quigley was committed all his life, there is no other way than to do it methodically: to simply challenge their parasite model of the mob, the corporation. To fight the ruthless and contemptuous business model of the priests of the Leviathan of church and state is, in my opinion, to be meant as a healing process from their deepest and strongest piety-scientific tricks and methods. *) 7 I'll be available for contact not before next weekend.

PS: "Literacy is a form of slavery, until critical thinking is exercised by the reader."
Says the man who believes the books were already written that could make you really understand what's going on and what it is ... *) 8 For example, to "occult information" or, more precisely, all efforts being made to shape reality in the eye of the beholder in certain ways are the basis for business on all levels of spiritual and economic power and are undertaken by everyone, right up to the business of love (either in its religious dimension or in its most intimate familial form). *) 9

02/24'11 "Anonymous attacks whoever attacks Wikileaks. [...] They ruined both his lives." Glenn Greenwald
02/28'11 Jesuit-trained CIA top agent and CBS media officer Michael Scheuer

RG = Richard Grove)
*) 1 RG: It's no wonder, I've been acquainted with Thomas Richards and his work for many years, as I used to follow Phelps' work with great attention.
*) 2 RG: I don't have a "blindspotology", only the observation that all individuals have blind spots, and those who do not examine theirs by identifying the contradictions to identify the knowledge, seem to arrive at knowledge without a method. That's great for some people, but I possess no psychic powers, so I need logic to validate the contents of my mind. If it appears "too rational", I would ask: do you have any proof of this, or is it a subjective observation which has yet to be validated?
*) 3 RG: There is plenty of room and respect for the freedom of thinking, in fact, I know it encourages thinking by requiring questions to be asked, and valid answers to be found, this is through the process of thinking, which is the process of asking the (5 W's + How?) to ascertain identity without contradiction.
*) 4 RG: I'm a work in progress, a student of life, not a final product, so I hope that I become less "mathematical" b/c I hate math :)

*) 5 RG: I don't think Quigley is any more the "real deal" than his student Clinton, rather, I think that by demonstrating that a) people like Quigley train Clinton, and that people don't see Clinton as "good", communicates as: Clinton's a manipulator (one of many) and he's trained by people like Quigley, and to know the enemy, you must gain knowledge of what info/intel the enemy is using ... thus, get to know Quigley and the whole mess through his books, then learn about the blind spots of Quigley (the history of the Jesuits, Christianity, "government" which is mind control, in general ...)
*) 6 RG: No, it means that Quigley is part of the NWO, and if you think he's telling you everything, that's not accurate. He only un-occults what is convenient to him, thus the need for studying Antony Sutton, Eustace Mullins, Nesta Webster, Ida Tarbull, as well as the source materials which Phelps uses, etc.

*) 7 RG: Again, you're disagreement is unfounded, as we both understand this.
You seem to have been misinterpreting my art, or not using the art to formulate your perspectives of my position. I hope that this email has made it more clear that we are not in opposition on these topics.
*) 8 RG: Again, you are quoting me, and then erecting a straw man, which is an error in formulating your conclusion/judgement of my actions. Please re-consider observing the art and media I've created, and work from what's there. The process of understanding is achieved by observing, and answering the 5 W's + How, as peace revolution 023 exhibits for your participation.

*) 9 RG: There are two reasons to occult information, to gain power, or to protect yourself from predators who occult info to prey on you.
Example of the former: The Roman Empire, example of the latter: The Essenes, Dead Sea Scrolls.

tt) Of course you haven't, Rich, I made it up. Blindspotology is just a way to label the course that you're following with headlines like "What you've been missing" or such statements that books were filling or replacing blindspots, purposely created by traditional state education in the first place, and so forth.
I made this word up not to offend you but to demarcate the idea of a piety-theoretical research approach from your very conspiracy-theoretical general understanding.
The main reason why I think it's necessary has to be seen in that major magic ideological trick to overemphasize the military aspect of secrecy in favor of hiding the far more important military aspect of blind belief from coming to public attention, because, contrary to you, I believe that "occulting the truth" isn't the main source of political power. The main source of political power consists of the ability to rule the biggest desires, wishes and hopes of people, which makes the profession of the priest to the most politically influential of all, in my opinion, and the entire history of human civilization shows that this is exactly the case.

I totally share your "observation that all individuals are having blind spots" and also almost everything that you say about that very natural human condition, but do you also think about the individual need for having these blindspots to one's own taste, for instance? "There is no room for romantic thoughts" etc. was a weak expression for saying that analyzing the irrationality of human thoughts and decisions has to play an equal role like dedicating attention to the needs of the human soul for consistent, clear, and comprehensive evaluations.
Romantic thoughts deserve the same respect as rational thoughts is what I was actually trying to say, because I don't think you can expect from others to think critically and logically in front of the mystery of life, and I think we both agree to the fact that nobody can really force others into doing so. Meaning you're left with hope alone that they would, and hope is nothing I want to base research projects on.

You'll find in Carlos Castaneda's "A Separate Reality" an interesting passage in chapter ten, where he wrote about death as the "central force in every bit of knowledge that becomes power":

"My benefactor said that when a man embarks on the paths of sorcery he becomes aware, in a gradual manner, that ordinary life has been forever left behind. That knowledge is indeed a frightening affair. That the means of the ordinary world are no longer a buffer for him. And that he must adopt a new way of life if he is going to survive. The first thing he ought to do, at that point, is to want to become a warrior, a very important step and decision.
The frightening nature of knowledge leaves one no alternative but to become a warrior.

By the time knowledge becomes a frightening affair the man also realizes that death is the irreplaceable partner that sits next to him on the mat. Every bit of knowledge that becomes power has death as its central force. Death lends the ultimate touch, and whatever is touched by death indeed becomes power. A man who follows the paths of sorcery is confronted with imminent annihilation every turn of the way, and unavoidably he becomes keenly aware of his death. Without the awareness of death he would be only an ordinary man involved in ordinary acts. He would lack the necessary potency, the necessary concentration that transforms one's ordinary time on earth into magical power. Thus to be a warrior a man has to be, first of all, and rightfully so, keenly aware of his own death. But to be concerned with death would force any one of us to focus on the self and that would be debilitating. So the next thing one needs to be a warrior is detachment.
The idea of imminent death, instead of becoming an obsession, becomes an indifference."

Do you now understand a little bit better what the "piety theorist" is missing in the world of the "blindspotologist"?
If not, that's not a problem at all, because I'm pretty sure that I can deliver you the proof of my impression that your focus of interest would be "too rational" and "your sense for language too nominal" that you ask me for, although I'm not directly prepared for it yet. Let's drop the not so appropriate notion of "too mathematical" or "too mechanical", okay? But the "too nominal" part has to be kept for the time being.

A month ago, in a reply to Lisa, I announced a topic that I want to discuss with you by saying "[it's] the underlying tacit realm of deliberately poorly unarticulated public opinion, where I see a parallel to the usage of the phrase 'you know' in everybody's speech habits," which is of great importance especially on a day like today (when Nobel Peace Prize winner Barry "Obama" Soetoro caught, killed and buried Osama) and which perfectly fits in this conversation at this very point.
Like I said: "it surely will be one of the big central topics between the two approaches."
If there is a between ...

See, I don't believe, for instance, that the secret and bloody history of the Jesuit Order or the massive centralization through Rome's Christianization of Europe are kind of blindspots for Quigley. For him as a full-blood Papist, they are rather spots to make others blind for. Anti-psychedelic book religions live, in my opinion, for the predominant part of their momentousness from the language's potential to cast a spell over the less educated and more superficially thinking: Religion in its historical and current monotheistic form is pure devotional science. In the same way, the modern belief of the citizen in "his" state or "his" republic has also unmissable religious features, don't you think so too? According to Jon-Boy Stewart, "we're living in insanity", and I think we have to kind of respect this for the purpose of understanding it all in all, not only to accurse it, you know.

Your mail was indeed a great help in making it more clear to me where we're not in opposition, especially with regard to Professor Quigley ("'government' which is mind control, in general"), and I definitely didn't want to construe any artificial disagreements between both of us by insisting on the right method that had the power to compete with the allmighty straw man, which is the corporation, which is essentially the Company of Jesus as the ultimate form of a global corporation for equal-minded collectivists.
Now, let's focus on this for a while to make it hopefully more clear to you that those two sentences "If we really want to outgrow this" etc. weren't meant to be a critique of you as the "work in progress" that you are :)
When I speak of outgrowing the militance of the Roman corporate system in the way of an healing process from spiritually strong, psychologically deep, and politically supreme piety-strategic tricks on the individual as well as the social level, it is first and foremost meant as an attempt to find the right words for a methodical decision of direction. You know, you're now marching under the banner of the trivium for that matter, which is excellent in my eyes, but I'm afraid it will be insufficient as long as we can't handle these profound religious (philosophy with God) and secular (philosophy without God) layers of piety that obviously determine our all too civilized, "overcivilized", denaturized life.

"You seem to have been misinterpreting my art, or not using the art to formulate your perspectives of my position."
Well, unlike you, I don't see you or myself as an artist, misinterpretations are of course always possible, and I believe what I'm doing is to formulate my perspective on your position, not of your position, isn't it?
And I think it's important not to confuse the search for exactitude with the search for conflict.

"Again, you are quoting me, and then erecting a straw man, which is an error in formulating your conclusion/judgement of my actions." Yes, it looks like I did, I completely understand this reaction.
But let's keep that in mind and let's see how this subject unfolds through the next weeks and months and if it's actually just a straw man or something more real, alright?
How much you've invested in the "peace revolution" podcast no. 23 hasn't escape my notice, although I haven't listened to it yet except for the first ten minutes or so, and I downloaded the transcript.

To RG #09: There are many reasons to occult information or to play resp. to make policy with information, not just those two, and I simply felt it would be important to refer to the extraordinarily high level of mutual thievishness throughout all domains of our corporate culture with the intention to develop a little bit of understanding why such mega lies like the incineration of entire cities, the public executions of top politicians (presidents), the pulverization of office towers, or "a burial at sea of Osama through Obama" remain undisturbed by any considerable resistance "from below", meaning this theater will continue to happen.
You now don't compare the underground nature of your privatized Tragedy and Hope network with the situation of those Jewish monks in the monastery of Qumran, do you? Because if you do so, I wasn't that much off the mark with my "Tragedyandhopianism", was I?

From a conversation on the T'n'H website ...
02/27'11 tt) "The Jesuits are indeed a remarkable educational order."

You should know, Rich, that I have complete understanding for your situation, in which it seems almost impossible to go to the very bottom of all the Tragedy and Hope stuff, but if you don't want to call our common friend a henchman of the Knights of Jesus, then I will.
You know, there are greater inspirations out there in cyberspace, nevertheless you have maintained your role as a shining beacon of indefatigable search for what's really going on. Your way to position yourself as a true corner stone of open-minded willingness to negotiate is uncompromised. And so by weaving all major threads together, synchronistically and synergistically, your and your friend's ambitious media network has been remained my most central source of wisdom in the English-speaking world.
Especially the focus on the trivium method elevates the project from any other conspiratorial terminology using website or community. I'm here to support and promote this promising accomplishment and also, of course, to take advantage of it: "The little bell and the big swoosh"

02/28'11 Lisa: "Hi Tosco :) When you refer to "our common friend" above, do you mean Carroll Quigley?
Indeed, Georgetown is a Jesuit university ... and Rhodes based his secret society on the Jesuits ... and the State of Israel is modeled on Cecil Rhodes's secret society which means likewise that the Zionists were using Jesuit strategies ... and going even a step further, Ignatius Loyola grew up in Spain surrounded by quabalistic/occult/mystery school teachings, his being born into the time when both the Sephardim and the Moors had been expelled ... going back further, you will note that the institutionalized plans for destruction come from a time which pre-dates the Levitical Priesthood who worshipped Moloch and atone for their destruction through the sacrifice of others ... and that repeating pattern of history illustrates a scarlet thread of destruction out of which Western civilization has been woven ...
But ... that being read ... I don't know everything, and I may learn something today which totally evolves and elevates my current understanding :)"

02/28'11 tt) Hi Lisa :) Nice to meet you here in one of the front rooms of your virtual T'n'H headquarters and thanks for taking notice that promptly. Could I ever get a better answer than this one from you? I think not.
It seems to me as if you've already perfected your warm up or introduction routine for a new discussion.
Or who else do you know who comes up with "I may learn something today which totally evolves and elevates my current understanding" among the first lines?
Carroll Quigley was a Jesuit professor like Adam Weishaupt, was he not?
So maybe we shouldn't judge the Illuminist movement that hard ... I mean, as Tragedyandhopians :)
Joking aside, it's true: I'm here to present a pivotal paradigm shift. I'm here to introduce you and Richard and the "9/11" Synchronicity community to a more complex and more precise theoretical approach.
Well, I'm here to show Richard his big blindspot, allright?
You both are enlightened, that's for sure, but from my point of view only on one eye, so to speak. And it's always better to use the other too, makes a lot clearer and easier to understand.
Are you, for example, aware of how many Jesuit top universities exist everywhere in the world today?

03/01'11 tt) You know, you sometimes blink with the second eye but somehow you can't open it up :)
"Peace revolution" podcast no. 15 "Compassionate communication – How to mitigate conflict in our thoughts"
Richard @ 40 min:

"Both religion and politics, the church and the state are one and the same creation in the past. They split and gave us the illusion that we have freedom from church and state. But church and state, when you look at the history and who is in control now, have never been separated, because to believe in the separation of church and state is to believe in the illusion of government and religion in the first place, because you don't understand the piece of grammar which is the additional knowledge base of the noble lie. Once you understand that there is that thing called the noble lie that has been used for thousand of years successfully by all these rulers [...]

Of course he is the first to discover those things: they just made those points up.
It is in history of the republic this idea that is set forward, so it is that one lie, the idea, and then it's the use of that idea to create the status quo for the past several thousand years. So when you're looking at chemtrails, well, that's part of the noble lie. The noble lie is like this veil behind which everything that is going on in reality is known, but it's not being shown to the audience.
And so we are all trying to lift this veil and that's what apocalypse is. Is the lifting of a veil so you can see what's really going on. And once people see what's really going on for the first time in human history, it's no wonder that the Bible is scared of this apocalypse because their corporation is over, their control over people will cease to be in control.
And if people use the Bible as an inspirational spiritual book – great. But it's no longer gonna be used as a control system in the future once people understand the nature of why words were structured that way, to have people judging each other and have all these crazy words put up there, that purposely put people into conflict and give a very small percentage, one percentage of people on this planet, all the power while the 99 percent of the people sit here and some of them are under the belief that they are in power and free and what not, but when you look at the history it has not happened yet. But it can happen if we learn from our history."

tt) Well, it took me by surprise recently when Lisa initiated me into the private concept of the T'n'H community, because I had no idea that I could be seen as kind of an identity leak with my behavior as a person who runs a cojo (short for comment journal). Now, after she explained me your "8th Estate Media & Research" strategy in detail again, I guess I have to outline my own methodical considerations behind things like cojos, comment agencies, or a central "Stewart-Burien Comment Exchange" (working title) as a new international non-corporate business and banking platform.

"By transcribing the private discussions that take place within the T&H community and posting these private discussions on your public website, you are making them 'google-searchable' – and thereby making opportunities for predators – those who would seek to silence such discussions and communities – now and in the future (as that is the nature of google)."

One of the key sentences in Lisa's request to stop my "leaking" (of course, she never used that word as the lady she is) of – let's say – identifiable lines of thought from the private public among the T'n'H club membership.
The problem is that since November 2007 I'm heavily into making everything that's interesting to me gooooogle-searchable. The main reason, for example, why the first cojo came into existence at all was my desire to bypass any traditional opinion-maker (bloggers, journalists) who still believes in censoring critical reflections of others. So, here comes why I need every important bit of information searchable on the web, and this is actually quite easy to understand, I think:

First, I have to find single thoughts or trains of thoughts again as quickly as possible. Which means that all those accentuations in bold and red letters aren't primarily meant to help other readers, technically, they're there as sort of orientation guides for me alone to let me be more efficient in recognizing archived texts. That does regard the thoughts of others as well as of mine, because second, I find it absolutely necessary to have a chronological protocol – as rough as it may be – of my very own way of thinking. And I need it completely transparent out there in full daylight, so to speak, because third, I don't want to repeat myself over and over again.
Altogether this entirely web-searchable body of knowledge gives me the opportunity to communicate without greater loss in terms of waste of time, you know, and, in so doing, every new comment can become the next step or the next passage on this journey of discovery, this adventure trip through cyber"space – the final frontier" :) And every new comment should be an advancement of what was before!

As to the thing with the identity, I don't really see any necessity for myself to do this kind of mining work or foundational research under my real name like you and your friends, pretty much all authors of conspiracy-theoretical books and reading matter, or book authors in general. I'm neither in the position to come forward as a whistleblower of any sort, nor I really do have a party to join, you know, as long as I believe that our culture or civilization is no more a conspiracy than a corporation is a conspiracy, or, to put it plain and simple, that piety matters over conspiracy. So I'm standing alone with my focus on the interaction of all the different belief and value systems and how they are being managed based of a combination of spiritual and financial needs, and to create some space of sanity within this post-"9/11" mess of two opposing main opinion streams that are escalating each other's impact into an all-swallowing maelstrom of non-understandable information overload isn't something for me that has to be connected with becoming famous or having followers or so.
Meanwhile, I'd mostly prefer unknown commentators to publicly correspond with and I wished every real face on facebook had an anonymized separate avatar for exactly this highly political as well as a highly intimate area of much-needed non-corporate and non-conspiratorial social communication, especially with regard to that ubiquity of conscious and unconscious mutual thievishness that comes automatically with the ubiquity of modern Jesuitism in successfully and thoroughly infiltrated societies.
All I'm really fighting for is to contribute to develop a new and comprehensive understanding of what's really going on, which I look at as one of the probably most dangerous things you can do in a world where the supposedly biggest benefactors are in fact the worst criminals. Because if I don't there will be no choice other than being chased through the streets of my town by the next man-made pyroclastic clouds, metaphorically speaking.

I'm feeling truly honored, Richard, to be endowed with such a detailed answer from you – I really mean it. Thanks a lot for your time and your attention. You know that I am a great admirer of you as a personality and of your media work as "Mr. 9/11 Synchronicity".
Unfortunately, I don't have much time in these days, but I thought it would be the right thing to do to first offer you an open discussion about this idea of "a new kind of money and media machine" à la Walter Burien, Jon Stewart, your "9/11 Synchronicity" approach, and the concept that Jane McGonigal is pushing in form of a comment exchange or a piety or attention bourse, however you want to look at it.
You said:

"Transmute your research into a step-by-step presentation which allows those who are not as aware of such events as you to start their journey towards understanding that which you're attempting to articulate. That way, those pieces will act as components, and as you compose each blog, the audience will likewise be able to be empowered by your perspective."

On which I said that I don't like to blog or lecture, although I really appreciate your advice and will definitely keep it in mind.
The thing here is, writing without a counterpart is a very lonely work in my eyes that doesn't pique me at all.
I thought about writing two or three books so far but my own "pulsating ellipse of cohesive understanding" seems to be too much in the move yet to be able to aggregate some secured and solid systematic stuff already. So if you want to have me systematically you have to watch out for summaries, or maybe I just need the right questions, critiques or annotations, because I like to correspond. Take my comments as those components and compose them according to your "pulsating ellipse" and then confront me with every unanswered or uncleared aspect and I'm pretty sure we will have a fascinating conversation and a lot of fun too. And in case you're not that interested to enter into an open correspondence with such an impersonal and invisible foreign Tosco character I'll make the same offer to a commentator from the Gnostic Media website who writes under the pseudonym Gene Matto.

The big question, I think, is if we can do business together in a less conspiratorial, deceitful and despicable manner at all, and the open discussion I'm offering you and Gene and anybody else with a similar desire for honesty out of transparency and clarity out of synchronicity instead of over-centralized Kafkaesque power out of piety should particularly turn on real possibilities for that. And to get a first glimpse of what I bear in mind with such a finance exchange about comments, to do charts, debates, round tables and all other sorts of online involvements, I imagine it's like a counterdraft to twitter and facebook in terms of in-depth communication.
On March 3rd I've asked you how do you feel about this comment (11/11'09) 16 months later?
Now I ask you if you want to discuss and develop the basis for business of "Jon's arbiters" with me, which will be a more competitive game compared to what you or Jan Irvin are practicing at the moment, but it theoretically will show everybody where she or he stands with her or his understanding and opinions and how corrupt professional propagandists actually are. By the way, what's with Stewart's "I thought both men took rhetoric to another level. Too see the use of litotes, puns, syllogisms ... I was truly blown away. Cicero himself would have ..." – no help with that or can't you understand the word neither?

Thanks for the Unhived Mind link:

"The most powerful man right now in the conspiracy over this world is a Roman by the name of Pepe Orsini of the powerful Roman Papal Bloodline the Orsini also known as Orso and the ancient Maximus family.
There is no one more powerful than this figure who is really the Grey Pope.
The Papal Bloodlines are the secret shadow hierachy of the Jesuit Order even behind the Black Pope touted at the no. 1. [...] Both this Black Pope and the White Pope aren't of Papal Bloodline, they are both commoners. I've named the most powerful families on the planet.
I've named the Grey Pope the one inbetween the white and black but unseen."

I've never heard someone calling these bloodline parties Zoroastrian ("The Real 13 Zoroastrian Bloodlines").
"9/11": Black Nobility

And have you seen this yet?
Dimitri Khalezov – WTC Nuclear Demolition pt 1 of 26 on – playlist pt 1 & pt 2

The opposite of teaching

Conspiracy Conference 2010, panel pt 4

Dough Millar and Mike Tsarion confront Papal Knight Horowitz from the "black" (invisible) Party of the Papists

"To me that disingenuous ploy of pretending that he did not know what the phrase referred to – 'jesuitical argument' – is his biggest faux pas. A man of his knowledge would certainly know what it referred to. If he was trained by Jesuits then he would specialize in that kind of sophistry. That is why I wanted to directly bring that up to him, to see his response.
Of course, he responded jesuitically – that is, by simply stating that the term meant nothing to him. Brilliant."

The Trivium vs the Jesuitical Argument

Is the "Jesuitical Argument" actually a fallacy of its own or a compilation of several deceptive maneuvers?
What exactly is a "Jesuitical Argument"?

Richard Grove) Excellent observation, Tosco!
Now you're getting to the point of why we're teaching intellectual self-defense :)

The "Jesuitical Argument" is a) a fallacy, as it tries to deceive, and b) a compilation of several layers of deception. The point is ... "Jesuitical Argument" is the opposite of teaching, it's the use of words to obscure the truth ... or, to occult the truth (as "occult" comes from Latin, meaning to obscure from view, occultare, which is a verb).

The ruling class hides all of its sources of power, these secrets are hidden in an area where things which have been occulted reside. This creates a gap in situational awareness, wherein the group which occults has access to all the info, and the general public only has access to part of the information.
See: National Security, and the fact that one-third of American History has been occulted ... for what purpose? To empower those who occult things.
The aristocrat class has (for thousands of years) used words to control people, as it's more efficient than having to prod them all with spears, etc. ... That takes a lot more money to keep people against their will ...
The solution (in their eyes): to get people to willingly consent to their slavery. They did this by creating a gap in knowledge/power/liberty/wealth (all the same thing) in the form of providing their class of elites with an education which supercedes that of the population ... this is how they maintain power.
Their use of intellectual tools and teachings (the seven liberal arts for example, according to the 1610 Wood Manuscript, are the ancient foundations of "masonry" ... which is using words and word magic to build the world in their image) create a gap, which is thereby used as a sword (or weapon) against those who are un-armed (with the ability to learn for themselves).

The reason most people don't recognize the "Jesuitical Argument" is that they a) lack any form of critical thinking skills, which b) blinds them from the rhetoric, and thus c) puts them under the "spell" of an "authority figure", which is all created as a function of the ignorance or nescience of the audience.
However, by educating the audience to a) be aware of logical fallacies, b) practice a systematic form of bull-shit detection and c) a methodology of how to learn anything for yourself, the audience becomes resistant/immune to d) "Jesuitical Argumentation" and other forms of persuasive rhetoric, which aim to control them.
Intellectual-Self Defense: Because most of the ties which bond us are not physical!

tt) Self-defense, defense, always defending ... I want to attack, man!
No false flag peace with the "piety profiler" ... :)
per mail) Just "the opposite of teaching" you say, and that from the teachers of all nations? Fascinating.
Thank you very much, Richard, for your first-class reply.
A more detailed comment follows presently after I will have finished my thoughts on Lisa's "the media we publish" ... I'm slow, you know.

Fabius Maximus and the Cecil Rhodes legacy

tt) Do you know any criticism of "forward thinker" Professor Quigley regarding the public education system?

Richard Grove)
When I first read T&H, I searched the index for all the hallmark words of the world revolution movement, including Jesuits ... to my recollection, Quigley only mentions Jesuits once in the 1300 pages, near the end, in the context of education. Being that a) the Jesuits were here in America (British East India Company), b) the BEIC flag adopted and amended to be the "American Flag", c) John Carroll, Daniel Carroll, Fr. Neil (Georgetown University founders), d) the naming of Georgetown after G. Washington, etc. etc. etc. that Quigley is speaking representing the ruling educational establishment.
That being read, the Jesuits start with Loyola, whose "spiritual exercises" learned in Qabalist Spain etc. are based on the Alumbrados, whose practices and traditions of controlling the masses through mis-education and word magic are ancient ... so while I think all who have done their homework can agree that the Jesuits play a role as a military order and controller of education (providing it to their "forces", denying it to "infidels"), etc. is not indicative of their control in totality ... there are many groups, all specialized, working in concert, under a common ideology (self-worship above god, ego worship, selfishness fulfilled through the destruction and undermining of others).

None of us to my knowledge consider Quigley to be someone other than a) a cog in the Establishment, whose b) artifacts of research illustrate some, but not all, of the shadows. His focus was not on (why we weren't being taught the actual history of the world in our time) but rather, to illustrate that some people were being educated to rule over the rest of us, and doing such so successfully that they can write about it ... and the Establishment hasn't yet felt a ripple of consequence.
Reading these artifacts, left by people within the Establishment are our best source of intelligence into the mindset, modus opporendi, etc. of those who seek to suppress consciousness ... as that is the single thread of warfare and secrecy that has woven the fabric of human history.
For more on the answer to your question above, try F. Tupper Saussy's "Rulers of Evil".


"A leader, like a shepherd, he sends his fastest nimble sheep out front and the others will follow while the shepherd, he walks quietly behind it.
Now, he's got the stick and the cane, he will use it if he has to.
But most times he doesn't have to, he moves the whole herd quietly."
*) 1

"Not indicative of their control in totality" says the one of all who have done their homework, who named his entire publish and research campaign after a bible-esque book of a quasi-Jesuit? "The most tremendously powerful and paradigm changing body of facts [...] you could read it and read it and read it over and over and over again." *) 2
Hey, let's call it what it is, okay? A Jesuit paradigm. And that has something of a totality in itself, even though you consider your idol now as "a cog in the Establishment" (the British, I guess) and as "someone whose artifacts of research illustrate some, but not all, of the shadows." In August last year, you seemed to still think of him as an author who would "fill in all the blindspots that's provided through our traditional education."

The history that he lays out might not be taught in school, it nevertheless is just another Jesuit version to keep your attention off the one organization that thrones above all others.
I mean, do you think those highest sophisticated plumbers of piety would non-Papists let indoctrinate their "fastest nimble sheeps" like Clinton and Petraeus, or Ray McGovern and Michael Scheuer?

No offense, chief navigator, but the homework that I did led me to another conclusion, and I'm afraid that as long as you are under the spell of Mr. Quigley, you probably won't be able to see the monolithic nature of the actual global Sherpherd's Fold, which, in my opinion, is in fact "a tightly knit and highly efficient machine" in the shape of a pyramid of military or militarized (quasi-military) command structure, effectively in charge at least since World War II and Nagasaki. Meaning a world order, world governance, already exists from my point of view.
But maybe I'm wrong. How about we look together for some indicators for this venturous thesis and let's see where it will lead us, alright?

Let's start with subjects you are familiar with.
Two weeks ago, you recommended a video on the Prussian origins of the North American education system and I have asked you what we'd know about the time when Horace Man and other designees from the New World discovered the advantages of a specific German teaching model in connection with the fatherly knights of the Jesuit Order. Well, the Prussian Frederick II and the Russian Catherine II were the two main monarchies in Europe that have been giving shelter to the outlaws of the 1773 terminated Company of Jesus, and you ought to find this information even in some regular textbooks that Frederick wanted the Roman priest professors to become the teaching force in his kingdom. Now, count two and two together and we will end up with the observation that "The Father of American Public Education" was as much as a fan of the Men in Black as Carroll was and probably the vast majority of all Christians are today. Eric Phelps writes in his magnum opus in chapter 13:

"Later in 1754, the Jesuits created Scottish Rite Freemasonry and in 1786 with their protector, Frederick the Great, centralized all Masonic power with the creation of Shriner Freemasonry."

Just as an aside. Because I believe, to be in control of education means a lot more than just providing knowledge selectively: for me, it means to be in control of knowledge on all levels of the pyramid of power as mentioned above.

I also know from episode six (@ 69 min) that you are familiar with the Fabian Strategy and who Fabius Maximus was and how you take the Cecil Rhodes legacy and British Fabianism for the original source of the global Socialist takeover, but have you never heard of highly educated Christian extremists who literally went into the wilderness of the rainforest in South America to build up a Jesus society with native inhabitants from the scratch? They didn't only theorize about Communism they actually did it, experimentally, and Friedrich Nietzsche knew it, like Fyodor Dostoyevsky knew it, that Socialism in all its disguises is a Jesuit invention, nothing else:

"Der moderne Sozialismus will die weltliche Nebenform des Jesuitismus schaffen." *) 3
(Modern Socialism will pull off the secular variant of Jesuitism.)

But maybe he was already too badly mentally deranged in the 90s to recognize Socialism as a British interpretation of a Roman emperor, instead of a Roman, you know – okay, this was almost pure polemic now.
Socialism, Communism, Solidarism and any other considerable modification of so-called Distributism have in my opinion one and the same central intellectual source and are being executed by the Roman Catholic Empire (Vatican City), which the British Empire (City of London) with the United States of America (Washington, D.C.) is part of. I mean, have you ever thought about why the clergy held their Vatican II council directly after it was clear through the erection of the Berlin Wall that the Communist experiment has failed?
I think they did it because they needed a quasi-Protestant mask for their brotherhood then after the collapse of the second most important mainstay (in the course) of the Counter-Reformation. And it works till this day.
Or are you, for instance, aware of what the Jesuits did first with their papal approbation? They reformed the entire church, and that alone through their teachings – I find this remarkable.
That must have been the reason why the Venetian nobility saw themselves forced to found the newest military order for their universal church according to the conspiracy mastermind Mr. Tarpley, right?

We live in a world today that is totally and thoroughly incorporated, with a general superior, an executive officer or secretary general, on top of every single corporation – you don't necessarily need official Communism for that, obviously – including the government, including practically everything, and you really think the overall power structure is not like a corporation?
You really think this completely militarized system that literally looks at us speaking together, existing as corporate beings, corporate entities, doesn't have one global leader at the very top?
Will be interesting to see why you think so: "working in concert, under a common ideology" together, but not in form of a corporation. Along the lines of if you show me my blindspots, I'll show you yours, because that's what the whole piety profiling business is basically about: how to deal with all the blindspots, and a little bit more.
And I think to remember to have promised it to you to at least examine the one big elephant in the room that you don't care about. But only if you want to address this issue with me since I do not lecture, I only correspond.

My personal feeling is that most people actually want to believe what most people (already) do believe.
And piety as a common value is without a doubt underpinning the state more than any other phenomenon, in the same way nobody wants to talk or even think about.
Everybody is sucked into this controlled controversy whether it's a conspiracy or not, as if there was no room beyond that pretty useless, very distracting and all too usual debate. Sure, there are obviously all sorts of conspiratorial elements but do they really make the entirety of societal characteristics, structures, perspectives, tendencies, the whole constitution of civilization or creation of culture, a conspiracy? Or maybe are there certain aspects that could be more important, more influential, more power-breaking than sheer military secrecy?

Of course, Quigley would have criticized the Jesuit college education system if anything only for controversial purposes, not for a better understanding. Think about what you have said yourself:

"The Jesuitical Argument is a) a fallacy, as it tries to deceive, and b) a compilation of several layers of deception. The point is ... Jesuitical Argument is the opposite of teaching, it's the use of words to obscure the truth ... or, to occult the truth."

The "opposite of teaching" practiced from the teachers of all nations – well, if that's not another totality, I don't know. I ask you, who do you think has supposedly the greatest expertise to incorporate, to bureaucratize, to takeover whole continents with brotherhood-like societal structures where the incorporated individual believes that that's exactly what's needed to be free and happy, you know?

One of my slogans is: the conspiracy is us. You can say the same thing about the corporation: it's us! The so-called conspiracy as well as the corporation is how we are, every individual personality as well as certain companionships. I want to start a solution-oriented togetherness-thinking with this kind of idea. And I think we should continue to list such indicators to have another map that could help to gain a better overview on the overall status.
The basic outcome from my online studies of the past seven years condensed is however that Christianity and Freemasonry belong together like Democrats and Republicans, and the so-called Society of Jesus as the one and only true successor of the Knights Templar embodies the bridge between both mystery schools, both business infrastructures.

It looks as it could be that I'd like to address the more complicated questions and deliberations to you directly, boss. Which doesn't mean that I expect you to feel obliged about that. Definitely not.
I simply put it on your desk, that's all. What else?
This for instance: Where do you think the British monarchy would be today without a) a christianized people and b) the occult Masonic apparatus of power? You know, I look at this whole culture cabal how it actually occurs and enfolds in time against the backdrop of the two biggest civilizing shifts of tectonic plates in modern history, which I think are obviously the Christianization 1500-1000 years ago and the Protestant Reformation.
Now, who do you know who elaborates the Christianization? Does it not matter? We are talking here about nothing less than the most fundamental layer of all layers of piety in our culture: Christianization means the ruthless implementation of monolithic collectivism in Europa in the first place, and this basic layer is still ruled by those who had accomplished it then, the Roman priesthood.
And everything, everything goes from there. And it's easy to understand. Nonetheless it remains widely untouched by any social commentator.

To be continued ...

Could you help me with one word, Rich, that Jon Stewart had used at two minutes and fifty seconds into his "we're living in insanity" interview on C-SPAN in October 2004 where he said:
"I thought both men took rhetoric to another level. Too see the use of litotes, puns, syllogisms ... I was truly blown away. Cicero himself would have ..."
I just can't "crack the code".

* 1) Hollywood Programming 2007: American Gangster @ 19 min
* 2) Peace Revolution podcast episode six @ 51 min
* 3) Erkme Joseph: "Nietzsche im Zauberberg" (1996) pp. 175 ff.

Richard) Hey Tosco, you seem to have a lot of knowledge to share on the topic of Jesuit influence on education and history overall, so I would like to encourage you to focus your comprehensive knowledge into a series of blogs aimed at transmuting your research into a step-by-step presentation which allows those in the community who are not as aware of such events as you, to start their journey towards understanding that which you're attempting to articulate. That way, those pieces will act as components, and as you compose each blog, the audience will likewise be able to be empowered by your perspective.
As it stands now, you seem to do a lot of observation, thought, and sharing of what you've learned. But it is not easy for those who are not as familiar to follow your stream of consciousness.
I just thought that it's the next step for you, to begin to focus on explaining it in a way that becomes valuable to more people and more effectively communicates that which you wish to share.

I don't think any of us disagree with you regarding your observations of the Jesuits, and T&H (the book by Quigley) is just a stepping stone for the public to get a grip that a) there's more going on than the general public is aware, b) that there's more to be learned, and c) there's a process for learning it ... which people like Quigley did not see fit to share with the public ... so we're all on the same page, and from this common ground we can make progress toward further understanding how the Jesuits' influence has shaped the world.
Thanks for all of your hard work!

tt) Since I don't like to lecture, to blog or to even behave in any kind of traditional pc-web-less way, I have to find other methods to develop my own understanding together with others. And I think I'm about to uncover some new possibilities for this right now ... Thanks for your experienced advice though. I think, for instance, we are already "on the same page", even if we are not entirely conscious about it. The new theoretical approach that I'm working on should make that clear more quickly and more thoroughly than specifically and solely focussing on the Jesuit Knights Templar. Because it is not a conspiracy on the whole.

(Rich: "I thought it might help you to use the Brain, to coordinate your research and organize it so as you can lead others through your brain model.
It's free for all the features you need and we'll be starting a brain modeling group and therein we can start to learn more from each other as we improve our individual skills of organization and presentation.")

They regulate how people police themselves

Richard Grove

08/13'10 PR podcast episode six) The intellectual elite vs. you

Where the British monarchy claims to ...

@ 41 min – Rich) Who was Cecil John Rhodes?
Once upon a time there was this gentleman named William T. Stead who later dies on the Titanic. And William T. Stead invented something called the interview where one person asks another person questions. [...] William T. Stead happened to publish several books as part of his role as a journalist bringing information to people, and one of the books he published was called "The last will and testament of Cecil John Rhodes. With elucidatory notes to which are added some chapters describing the political and religious ideas of the testator" edited by William T. Stead. Very fancy title. And I heard about this book like it was some kind of myth. And I went out and sought the book [...] I wanted to obtain a copy for myself, so I looked for this book for several years.
I happened to come across a copy that I bought through this book exchange that happens to be the actual copy owned by William T. Stead, sold to me by the guy who bought William T. Stead's entire archive as Stead was the editor of a thing called the Review of Reviews this magazine of the elite.
So the gentleman I purchased this book from owned the entire archives, all the library of the Review of Reviews, and he said, this is William T. Stead's actual copy of the book. I was very excited when I got this in the mail.
So, take it out, we'll be careful. It's printed in 1902 [...]
This a book that we are about to re-publish and re-release to the public because I think it contains some of the most important words in the free world. [...] That's the first edition. And, as you can see, several pages are in Cecil Rhodes' own handwriting. This is Cecil John Rhodes in his own words, he says:

"Please remember the key of my idea discussed with you is a Society, copied from the Jesuits as to organisation, the practical solution a differential rate and a copy of the U.S. Constitution."

According to Rhodes' last will and testament, the mandate is to set forth a secret society to be funded by his wealth as the De Beers diamond magnate and creator of Rhodesia to create a secret society based on the tenets, and the structure, and the organizational know-how of the Jesuits, but instead of being for Catholic aims it's for the expansion and world domination of the British Empire under the idea of something called British Israelism, where the British monarchy claims to be related to characters from the early Bible.
Rhodes says on page 73:

"What an awful thought it is that if we had not lost America, or if even now we could arrange with the present members of the United States Assembly and our House of Commons, the peace of the world is secured for all eternity! We could hold your federal parliament five years at Washington and five at London. The only thing feasible to carry this idea out is a secret one (a society) gradually absorbing the wealth of the world to be devoted to such an object."

Which is world domination or a new world order.
And for anyone who doubts how the N.W.O. or this idea of a one world government that's not elected, an elite ruling class, taking care of all the business of the world and just basically giving you a feeder that let you think that it is over your own choosing, when really it's through mechanism of propaganda and continuous bombardment with these ideas telling you what to think instead of teaching you how to think.
If anyone has any of those doubts you can look into a teacher from Georgetown University named Carroll Quigley who is the mentor of Rhodes scholar William Jefferson Clinton who was also happened to be President of the United States. Now, Quigley was a teacher in [Edmund A. Walsh] Georgetown School of Foreign Service, and in his last lecture a couple of weeks before he died he had this to say:

"Another thing which may serve to point out the instability of the power system of the state:
The individual cannot be made the basic unit of society, as we have tried to do, or of the state, since the internalization of controls must be the preponderant influence in any stable society."

He goes on to say talking about this internalization of controls that basically they can't control all the people on the planet through shock weapons and through physical man-to-man combat, so what they have to do is effectively use propaganda and the media to kind of control people's ideas: when they control basically how people police themselves.

And he describes in his last lecture that the military-industrial complex and the media-industrial complex have combined forces, because they realized that neither one could control the population by itself.
So they kind of merged and conglomerated their forces so that they have a strategic and comprehensive system of control, which effects you in a variety of ways throughout each and every day of your lifes.
Because they're privatizing water, there's companies like Monsanto that's poisoning your food by these groups, prohibiting green solutions that had been used for thousands of years like hemp, and standardizing us on a poisonous petrochemical carbon-emitting system.
The corporations that are running the 500 largest moving vehicles on this planet to transport things back and forth emit more carbon than all cars on the earth. So when you're talking about things like Global Warming, whether or not that exists, the point will be that even if Global Warming is grounded in suspicion as to whether or not it's real, the reality is: the creation of an artificially obsolescent culture where we're producing more and more garbage, more and more pollution, these things do build up, that is a problem, but it's not being done by the individuals and it's not something that's happened by accident. This is been in their plans since 1967 in the first documents that I've seen, that successfully predict that we can cause a global warming stir. We can get people who get concerned about their environment, but in 1917 they were predicting that they would need to do like a generation to a generation and a half of heavy heavy pollution before we would even become reliable that people could believe that.

So what you have here in Quigley's body of work is "The Evolution of Civilizations" ("This is the bible of historical analysis.") which gives you the history of Maritime Admiralty Law, the use of commerce as a control mechanism to subvert populations without ...
The old way of war, the old form of war was to go and actually conquer your enemy and they knew you conquer them. The new form of war started 6000 years ago was to subvert your enemy through controlling their commerce. And once you control commercial activity you can leave the puppet government in place.
So when the Carthaginians took over Rome, for instance, you don't see evidence of the Carthaginians in their actually managing Rome. The people who controlled the economy that took over the Carthaginians and then went and conquered other countries veil themselves through the ubiquity of commerce.
Because you are born into the status quo, and money is always been here, and the people around you usually don't define it for you, and unless you go and look for yourself and define it than it's just this thing like, you know, fish can't notice the water because it was always surrounded by the water. But every now and then you see a fish that goes and jumps out of the water: 'Hey what was that? I went out of this and came back into it, so there is something else there.' We must be surrounded by this thing all the time.

And so in Quigley's The Anglo-American Establishment we have him explaining on top of the evolution of civilization: here is the modernized form, here is what's going on. Here is the people that are running the world. Here is how they promised Palastine to three different groups of people at the same time. Here is why they gave it to a certain group of people and here is [...] and now when understanding World War One and WW II you're prepared for Quigley's masterpiece, his magnum opus "Tragedy and Hope – A History of the World in Our Time".

The Tragedy and Hope "Bible",
the most tremendously powerful and paradigm changing body of facts –

a heavy book, 1300 pages:
you could read it and read it and read it over and over and over again

Now had they just taught this one simple book to me in college I could have saved thousands and thousands of hours of reading. But the fact is that this book for years was not available to the general public, that the plates were destroyed. They tried to suppress it every which way and still, 40 years later, it stands as the premier work of American history and the history of the Western world. Because what's in this book comes from Carroll Quigley, the Georgetown professor, spending 20 years in compiling this history, and two years among the CFR's private archives, which tells you the story of the 20th century.
And so having been so close to these groups and being able to put this body of work together and to lay out the history that's not taught to us at our schools, I thought it was the most tremendously powerful and paradigm changing body of facts, all put together in context such that you can understand.
And it's a heavy book, 1300 pages: you could read it and read it and read it over and over and over again until you see how these things blend together and it makes a lot of sense, because it's filling in all the blindspots that's provided through our traditional education.

Liberal education disappeared 150 years ago

@ 60 min – Rich) "The Great Conversation" is the first book in a 54-volume series printed in 1953, and the key author that put that altogether is a gentleman named Robert Hutchins.

"This private library edition of great books of the Western world was originally made possible 1952 by the generous support of the subscribers to the founder's edition."

Now, I was interested through the founder's edition who were these 500 bright-minded people, and you got people like David Ben-Gurion, you got the Rockefellers, you got the Vanderbilts, you got Edward Bernays [...]
Who's Who – these books were made for the elite to teach themselves, to teach their children the things that they won't even put out in a public university. And unless you go to certain Prep schools, or certain Ivy League schools, or join certain mystery schools like the Freemasons, or the Rosecrucians, or any number of ancient mystery schools that are out there, the only way to get this education is to a) know about it and b) go/set about reading "The Great Conversation", because what we have is something called "The Tradition of the West". And everything we see around us comes from some place. Even the pillars on buildings, those come from thousands of years of architectural tradition.
So our words, and our ideas, and our ways of persuasive speech are much the same way.

In Chapter IV rather Hutchins goes into "The Disappearance of Liberal Education" – I'm not trying to read that, but it's interesting. What I want to get into is Chapter X, "A Letter to the Reader". There he says:

"We say that these books contain a liberal education and that everyone ought to try to get one.
You say that either you have had one, or that you are not bright enough to get one, or that you do not need one."

And this is where Hutchins had me when he says:

"You cannot have had one.
If you're an American under the age of ninety, you can have acquired in the educational system only the faintest glimmerings of the beginnings of a liberal education."

So in 1952, Robert Hutchins, who had been on the cover of Time Magazines like three times in his life time, he's saying that the liberal education has been taken out of our education system for ninety years.
He's telling you in 1952 that for ninety years the liberal education has been denied to everybody in America.
What we look like if you took away the ability to think critically from the American population for ninety years before 1952 and then just picture what happened since 1952 ... Because until recently I haven't heard too much talk about the liberal education or what it even means to be able to understand the words of Homer, and Aristotle, and Plato, all the way up through Thomas Malthus and all these ... This is the N.W.O.'s education, this is were they get their ideas, they're not getting them from the public school system. So unless we go and learn and read the books that they read and understand where they're trying to take everything, we can continue to guess everyday as the newspapers tell us one thing on this page and another thing on this page just to confuse us. They're looking for a zero-sum game. It's like you're confused, that's all they want.
They're not looking to purvey information or share knowledge through that system.

Liberal education what it is, it's all the works of Western culture's literature in chronological order, because as writers progressed ... let's say you have Aristotle and he has read the work of Plato and Socrates and Homer. And by the time you get to Dante he has read every one before him.
So, you know, it's the continued chiming in of intellect throughout history: all talking about the same things. Because look, Plato was talking about the republic 2500 years ago is exactly what's going on today.

The Fabian Strategy

@ 68 min – Rich) However, at this point in the early 20th century, you got people participating in the consequences of Cecil Rhodes's Last Will and Testament, that being the round table work groups, which were then spun up into the Royal Institute for International Affairs, the CFR, which is the North American extension of Cecil Rhodes's legacy. At the same time they created groups like Tavistock in order to control people's public opinion about the upcoming war with Germany, and after the war managing what people were to think of the situation created by the Versailles Treaty. The interesting thing about these Fabian Socialists, and this is easy enough to gooooogle, the Fabian Socialists' emblem – their avatar, if you will – was a wolf in sheep's clothing. And there's actually pictures of stained-glass windows where the Fabian Socialists were standing on either side and they're pounding the world with these big hammers. And they are talking about shaping it into the image that they're picturing for the world. And when you have an emblem that is a wolf in sheep's clothing that's very telling, but if you do another gooooogle search and search out who is Fabius, where does Fabian Socialism come from, you will learn that Fabius became a Roman dictator, because Hannibal was threatening Rome, and the Roman people panicked, and he said I can stop Hannibal, and he did. He did this through a war of attrition, which was a long, prolonged, drawn-out war where you're denying the other side of the resources and needs to exist. This then became the philosophy of the Fabian Socialists who then domineered the 20th century in their image.

Propaganda is everywhere. Every documentary, every film you've ever seen is a piece of propaganda, technically, because it's trying to propagate a view, it's trying to propagate certain pieces of information. It may claim to be objective, It may actually be near that goal, but at the end of the day, every single piece of media is a piece of propaganda. The only question is, is it helping you to expand your consciousness or is it working to suppress your consciousness? Is it helping you to express who you are or is it working to suppress and tell you who you are?