Thursday, August 31, 2006:
Before I go into the following, let me say that just because this shares aspects of the starting place for the John Birch Society doesn't mean that it is wrong or that we agree with all of the positions of that society (we don't) or that we agree with their solutions (we don't). The John Birchers were, and are, a sort of libertarian-capitalist-nationalist group with racist overtones from some of its members—far from our position.
If you think it is a good thing, you call it a plan. If you think it is a bad thing, you call it a conspiracy. Are the ends and means of the international-banking families good or bad? Do they simply make plans, or do they conspire? What was Jesus's position vis-Ã -vis serving mammon? That tells you everything you need to know. Serving mammon is serving selfishness, and it is wrong to do. Those who make plans serving mammon are conspiring.
People such as Carroll Quigley, Cleon Skousen, and G. Edward Griffin (we aren't saying they were, or are, members of the John Birch Society) did not imagine (in relative terms) everything they put forward. They just had limited vision, as do we all until God gives us otherwise. What they did is give too much credit to the conspirators while under estimating the dark spirit. The best laid plans of those working in darkness fail in succession. However, the general direction of that dark spirit builds upon those failures. It is compounding failure. This is the method in the madness. This is why every fallen empire was built in darkness and yet every empire (including the current one) is the inheritor of the previous. It is of the same selfish spirit just manifested with a different faÃ§ade.
The John Birch Society was wrong in concluding that the oligarchy has wanted to bring in socialism. Socialism won't bring the oligarchs what they want, far from it. The oligarchs are capitalists. They want what they think is in their best interest, and they don't see that as being real-liberal Christianity, which contains small-c communism.
It is true though that the national debt is a backdoor tax on the people and that the tax revenues end up in the pockets of the rich lenders, central banks and the lesser banks that own shares in those banks. The full faith and trust of the US is built upon the injustice of the system. It will fall.
On December 22, 1913, the Federal Reserve Act was signed into law privatizing the US treasury. Private interests determine the printing of money and charge the people of the US interest on their own money printed by the Federal Reserve private bank out of thin air. The wealthiest families in the world, such as the Rothschild and Morgan families, own the banks behind the Federal Reserve or central bank that earn the interest on that fabricated money they control exclusively. Your elected members of Congress have done nothing to correct this criminal state of affairs.
Moreover, until recently by law, the names of the owners of the Federal Reserve were kept secret due to a provision of the Federal Reserve Act, which stated that the identities of the Federal Reserve Bank Class A stockholders couldn't be made public. It is now believed that original Federal Reserve Bank principle stockholders at the time of its founding were the ROTHSCHILD [capitalization was in the original] banks of London and Berlin; the LAZARD BROTHERS Banks of Paris; the ISRAEL MOSES SEIF Banks of Italy, the WARBURG Bank of Hamburg and Amsterdam; the LEHMAN BROTHERS Bank of New York; the GOLDMAN, Sachs Banks of New York; the KUHN, Loeb Bank of New York; and the CHASE MANHATTAN Bank of New York. These are the principle interests, which own and operate the Federal Reserve System, which has expanded to approximately three hundred stockholders. All of these interests are very well known to each other through many banking business relationships, and in fact many are related through marriage and biological decent [sic].
The quote above came from Answers.com. Answers.com is based upon the Wikipedia. When one visits the Wikipedia page entitled "international financiers," the article shown on Answers.com is gone. Wikipedia has been edited for the sake of perception management. The fact of the conspiracy is gone. The impression that the Wikipedia attempts to leave with the reader is that any fact of the conspiracy is really reducible to anti-Semitism. It is a very transparent attempt at thought control. In fact, it succeeds with the vast majority, who are naÃ¯ve and gullible concerning what constitutes wrong-doing that is selfishness that, of course, is embodied in private financial concentration in the hands of the few families and individuals who make up the top (or bottom, depending upon one's perspective) of the international financiers.
If those international financiers were Black Africans or Latinos of Central and South America or Anglo-Saxons, it wouldn't matter. It would still be wrong. The fact that most of them are Jews has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. Wrong is wrong, no matter which members of which ethnic groups are the perpetrators.
It is also a deliberate programming choice that a Google search as of Monday, January 01, 2007 on the terms: "Federal Reserve Rothschild Lazard Brothers Israel Moses Seif Warburg Lehman Brothers Goldman Sachs Kuhn Loeb Chase Manhattan," yields as its first link, "The Myth of Jewish Control of the Federal Reserve: The 'Rothschild ... ," by the Jewish Anti-Defamation League. It was forced to the top.
The Federal Reserve Bank denies the ownership; however, those who have researched it say that "a study of Standards and Poors will verify the ownerships."
Considering the huge interest payments that are transferred from the people to the top stockholders of the banks, why does the Jewish Anti-Defamation League ignore the interest paid on the national debt to the bankers and their stockholders? Why isn't the secret and illegal manner in which the Federal Reserve was set up, and by whom, of concern to the Jewish Anti-Defamation League?
The job of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League is to defend the very people who are behind the set up of the Federal Reserve that has been systematically draining the American economy and causing the wars for profit, all doing direct harm to, and causing the death of, the common people in the US and around the world. Why does the Jewish Anti-Defamation League so carefully cherry pick its information from the culprits? It won't bite the bloody hands that feeds it. How can they deny the preponderance of evidence? People let them get away with it.
The Jewish Anti-Defamation League simply says the families named as controlling the Federal Reserve aren't listed as such by the Federal Reserve. Well, the banks are the most sophisticated mechanisms for creating shells and fronts devised by the minds of evil men. They launder all the money of the criminals who won't point the finger back at them. Point the finger if your evil or shine the light of truth and you die, they think.
The banks are a pyramid. The money at the top has the most control over the entire economy. That's where the mark of the beast is greatest (the image on the coin). They don't own the top by not owning the holding companies that own other holding companies and shells, etc., ad nauseam. They own the controlling interest in the corporations below. They own the network. They own the souls of those who have sold them to them. That's how it works despite the crafty twisting and selectivity of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League.
Does this mean that there is no such thing as anti-Semitism? Of course it doesn't mean that. There are some really hardhearted racists who just don't understand that Jesus was a direct descendant of Jacob (Israel). They'd kill Jesus for being an Israelite even though he came to save them from themselves.
No, the Jewish Anti-Defamation League cannot hide the full truth behind the fact that there is real anti-Semitism in the world. Being anti-greed is anti-greedy Semites, but not every Semite is greedy . Even still, we don't want anything for the greedy but that they should repent, turn to God, atone, and be spared and saved and forgiven, shown the mercy of God. How can that be anti-Semitism. It can't. It isn't. It's love for one's lost brothers and sisters.
Of course anti-Semites are going to be citing evidence against Jews. It doesn't mean that everyone citing the same evidence for the sake of correcting the path is anti-Semitic. In fact, to allege that they are, as the Jewish Anti-Defamation League does, is itself defamation without cause.
Also, many Jews are relatively laudable souls. One cannot hold that stand and at the same time be anti-Semitic, per se, can they.
Now, consider some of that preponderance of evidence as follows (not to judge and condemn but to save with the truth):
The Federal Reserve is closed to government inspection. Think of that. Those who control the US money supply, that is supposed to be the people's money, are never audited by the federal government that is supposed to be the people's government. The people have no say or control or power, despite the claims of democracy by the US powers that be. The people are enslaved through psychological conditioning from before conception, because their parents have been brainwashed and hypnotized, literally.
To increase the money supply, the misnomered Federal Reserve Bank prints money and uses that printed money to buy US government securities from selected entities. The people now owe the international bankers interest for nothing—because the superrich bankers have said so, have deceptively colluded to sneak unconstitutional so-called laws onto the books of the US (read on). To decrease the supply, the Fed sells securities. The Fed also adjusts the discount rate (the rate it charges on loans to member banks). The lower the rate, the more the banks can supposedly afford to borrow and then in turn lend out at lower rates, thereby, increasing the money supply, which can inflate prices if the supply outpaces production and demand. The Fed can also change the percentage of deposit reserves the member banks must hold at any given time. The higher the percentage, the tighter the money supply. Those deposit reserves are not gold reserves. That means that ninety percent of their demand deposits are backed by nothing and the other ten percent is backed by cash reserves. If all the people attempted to withdraw their life savings at once, there would only be ten cents on the dollar covered by the banking system. It doesn't matter that the deposits are FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) insured. There wouldn't be anything but the good faith credit of the US as a borrower to make good on the deposits. In other words, the people have agreed never to conduct such a run on their own bank their own banking system, or what is supposed to be their banking system.
Concerning gold reserves, currently the gold-reserve rate for the Federal Reserve is supposedly ten percent. Many people believe that the gold in Fort Knox has even been removed to Europe for instance. Therefore, the money supply is theoretically backed by no more than, say, one percent gold reserves say the experts: Ten percent at the Federal Reserve divided by, say, ten percent deposit requirement at the banks. That's ten percent of ten percent. The deposit-reserve rate can change just as the Fed discount rate changes.
However, no one outside the top of the banking system actually knows how much gold there is, because it is never audited by governmental authorities. One dollar in gold is converted into one thousand dollars in money in circulation, and the people then owe the bankers interest on that money put into circulation by the bankers when the people themselves, through their Congress, have the constitutional obligation to do it interest free! Why are the people paying the superrich bankers interest on money pumped into circulation? Why aren't the people controlling the value of their currency and deciding the amount of money in circulation by a governmentally controlled department?
Not only that but the banks get to lend out the ninety percent of thin-air money they have and charge interest on it at much more than it costs them.
This whole system controls the boom and bust business cycle. It's science and art that ruins people's lives.
The big banks do this while they conduct their real profit-making operation that is laundering money: Government black-budgets and dictator-embezzled and crime-syndicate funds.
Edward Mandell House (1858–1938), as the closest inside advisor to president Woodrow Wilson to start with, handpicked the first Federal Reserve Board. Edward House, referred to as colonel House, authored the novel Phillip Dru: Administrator—A story of Tomorrow in 1912. This book is probably the impetus behind the idea to overthrow FDR. It lays out much of what was attempted in reality against FDR. Fiction is always the cover, especially when published under a pseudonym, for the perception-management forces of the spirit. Fiction opens reality up to fantasy becoming manifest, of course.
House also explains the exact system the Bush-43 administration and the neocons are using to bring about the globalization of US corporatism as the new world order or the one-world government by the global oligarchy. House explains that one must create fear such that the people will give up their liberties as the price of safety and security. The big lie is what Hitler called it.
It is still in use and will continue to be so until the people, the whole people, the remnant, overcome. The Muslims, the militant ones, are to the US neocons what the Jews were to the Nazis. They are the drummed up threat being created via a self-fulfilling prophecy—revving up the permanent war. Patriotism, nationalism, and chauvinism are the libidinousness of the people. Males should not think with their testes.
This is why Bush and the others are not ever disturbed by events that disturb the general public. They are fomenting them on purpose. It is a game, and they think they are way out ahead although they know that there is a real possibility that they could be overthrown by a clever enough operator. Nevertheless, just as the huge international banking houses funded the Bolsheviks and the Nazis and the British, etc., all at the same time, the Ford Foundation funds the socialist/anarchist-ish DemocracyNow.org. It seems counterintuitive, but it isn't at all once one understands the game of playing both sides to ratchet or heat things up.
House was probably influenced by the ideas of professor John Ruskin at Oxford University, London, who in 1870 taught Cecil Rhodes of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) and of Rhodes Scholarship fame, the diamond magnate financed by the Rothschild family that took its great and evil cut off the backs of black slaves in the diamond mines and gold mines too. Ruskin was a dictatorial socialist. The state owns or controls production but is headed by a dictatorship. This dictatorial idea has been widely held throughout the ages, including now in the US by the ruling elite, that the grassroots are incapable of ruling. Mixing our metaphors, the grassroots are seen collectively as a great, stupid beast, a herd of animals to be manipulated for the sake of their betters.
This is social Darwinism or survival of the fittest or rulership by the fittest. The problem has always been with human understanding of what ultimately survives. Will it be the competitive or the cooperative? Will it be the materialists, meaning those who believe that there is nothing beyond what they can see, or will it be the metaphysicians, the spiritual? Will the earth and heaven meet for the cooperative spiritualists (those who are certain of the spiritual aspect of being)? Jesus said yes.
Profit from competition is the heart and soul of mammon worship. World War is the macrocosmic aspect of this phenomenon. Once an enemy is defeated, syncretism develops downwardly again by identifying yet another, or the next drowned-out enemy, against whom to unite. This system though is the real enemy.
On the mundane level, of course competition leads to change, evolution, and survival of the more fleshly fit to the given circumstances. That though ought not to be taken as the end of reality or the sum total of the rule of existence. The term itself "competition" is contextual. The darkness is competing with the light even though there is no contest from the light's perspective, which is the correct perspective by definition. It is a huge error to rule things out just because one finds something that works within a given confine. Genetics works. It doesn't disprove transfiguration of matter to a higher state and back again. So such transfiguration isn't testable. Is that any reason to close the mind to it?
This is the same government within the government and even another layer within that inner government that we've seen advocated by Francis Bacon and is so prevalent within some of what are called secret societies. Remember, Bacon was a master spy-network administrator, a master at deception, the leader of the Rosicrucians, coming out of the Knights Templar of Freemasonry. World domination by the New Atlantis, Anglo-Saxon America, via technology resulting from his scientific method was his ultimate vision shared by his inner circle. The Nazis had hoped to fill that vision, but Hitler and his circle were too irrational to pull it off.
Today, many of their institutions have more-public names as so-called think tanks and the Council on Foreign Relations and such. Membership is exclusive, and the inner circles within these circles are that much more exclusive and secretive. This all grew up because of the fanatical competitiveness of the selfish. The unselfish-and-cooperative leaning even engaged in, and still engages in, the process out of necessity. God engages in concealing God's means and ends, making them beyond the grasp and comprehension of the unprepared, untrustworthy.
Secret groups are always in competition.
Which spirit will win out? Which spirit is the best? Which is the true light? Which will gain the other? Which is the true genius as opposed to muddling and bumbling? How much is conscious versus subconscious? How much is false consciousness? Who's oppressing whom?
The medieval church was dark spirited. However, all those who conspired against it were not themselves of the light.
The oppressed are not all of the vine of God.
Who engages in assassinations, blackmail, bribery, torture, wars of aggression? Who controls the money?
This is a class struggle but superimposed is the struggle between the forces of light and dark.
Many people on the bottom want to rise only to lord it over others. That's darkness. That's Godless.
Now, it must be understood that making (printing) money and earning interest on lending it out is the main aim. The bankers will lend to anyone so long as there is a way of earning a profit on the deal, even if it means revving up a war and funding both sides with money printed out of thin air. In fact, one of the fastest ways for them to gain profits is via wars. They make money by funding the destruction and then on funding the rebuilding. The victorious nation(s) guarantee the banks that lent to them and to the opposition. It is very lucrative for the international bankers. For instance, the international banking families funded the Bolsheviks in Russia. It may seem counterintuitive, but the perpetual war is the biggest money maker there is, or so they have thought and still think.
The idea is making money. With money, they control everything. They control the flow of money. They can cut off anyone. They don't care about competition at the lowest levels. They are for monopolizing just so long as they are the ones at the top. That's why George W. Bush said things would be easier for a dictator just so long as he (Bush) is the dictator. It is also the reason why Hugo Chavez has been pushing so hard to establish a South American bank outside the World Bank system. That's why he's such a threat. He has oil money to use, and he's won the hearts and minds of the people he has educated and warned. He's more than one step ahead of Washington, which is very unusual in US history. With the lack of depth in strategic thinking or competence in the White House, the US is just going to weaken itself continually until the Empire moves to a different power center in the world.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)