|
Post by outlier on Apr 10, 2020 16:49:04 GMT -5
newspunch.com is about as far away from mainstream as it gets. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NewsPunchwww.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/sean-adltabatabai-on-being-in-the-eye-of-the-fake-news-storm-a3468361.htmlIMO, they're a crazier, more politically oriented online version of supermarket tabloids; except that once in a very long while, the National Enquirer has actually had a legitimate story, whereas I have my doubts that newspunch.com would even want one (although there might perhaps be occasional limits to their full-on crazy). Of course, anyone you agree with MUST be right, and everyone else MUST be wrong, no matter how wild the one is. I would CERTAINLY agree that most of the MSM is more interested in the left-leaning narrative than in facts; I don't want to spend the time now tracking down evidence, but doubters of that should do the exercise for themselves.. But that doesn't mean the wilder alternatives are credible. Do you have a source showing that any of the banks on that list are not owned by the Rothschilds? Or do you have a list you believe to be complete and accurate?
|
|
|
Post by eulenspiegel on Apr 10, 2020 18:35:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on Apr 10, 2020 18:39:37 GMT -5
newspunch.com is about as far away from mainstream as it gets. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NewsPunchwww.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/sean-adltabatabai-on-being-in-the-eye-of-the-fake-news-storm-a3468361.htmlIMO, they're a crazier, more politically oriented online version of supermarket tabloids; except that once in a very long while, the National Enquirer has actually had a legitimate story, whereas I have my doubts that newspunch.com would even want one (although there might perhaps be occasional limits to their full-on crazy). Of course, anyone you agree with MUST be right, and everyone else MUST be wrong, no matter how wild the one is. I would CERTAINLY agree that most of the MSM is more interested in the left-leaning narrative than in facts; I don't want to spend the time now tracking down evidence, but doubters of that should do the exercise for themselves.. But that doesn't mean the wilder alternatives are credible. Do you have a source showing that any of the banks on that list are not owned by the Rothschilds? Or do you have a list you believe to be complete and accurate? Some branches of the family own some banks. I don't know or care in the slightest how many they own, because I don't believe that bankers, or the top multibillionaires, or big pharma, or anyone except maybe communists and Russia and maybe militant Muslims are conspiring to rule the world behind the scenes. Yes, many countries do at least talk about enough economic or fiscal policy cooperation to keep from trashing the world economy. But I would not expect talk to consistently translate to action, so I don't see conspiracy in the regular G7 or G20 talks. That's not saying that the rich won't protect their wealth; heck, regular folks would do that if they could. And since governments love $$ and regulations, and most politicians have their hands out for contributions, there's plenty of tax and regulation breaks for the rich to lobby for, and plenty of revolving door between business and government. The solution is simple, if non-obvious: the less government there is, the less it can be corrupted. Still, here's some non-crazy-talk links. The picture I get is that up until WWI, they had maybe half the influence that conspiracy theorists attribute to them today; but after that, it dwindled considerably. There's still a lot of wealth spread among them, but there's enough branches that they do NOT all share one master plan. ideapod.com/rothschild-family-control-worlds-money-supply-heres-truth/www.investopedia.com/updates/history-rothschild-family/This one is interesting, because it suggests a real rather than imaginary threat: China www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/122315/worlds-top-10-banks-jpm-wfc.asp
|
|
|
Post by outlier on Apr 10, 2020 21:28:23 GMT -5
Do you have a source showing that any of the banks on that list are not owned by the Rothschilds? Or do you have a list you believe to be complete and accurate? Some branches of the family own some banks. I don't know or care in the slightest how many they own, because I don't believe that bankers, or the top multibillionaires, or big pharma, or anyone except maybe communists and Russia and maybe militant Muslims are conspiring to rule the world behind the scenes. Yes, many countries do at least talk about enough economic or fiscal policy cooperation to keep from trashing the world economy. But I would not expect talk to consistently translate to action, so I don't see conspiracy in the regular G7 or G20 talks. That's not saying that the rich won't protect their wealth; heck, regular folks would do that if they could. And since governments love $$ and regulations, and most politicians have their hands out for contributions, there's plenty of tax and regulation breaks for the rich to lobby for, and plenty of revolving door between business and government. The solution is simple, if non-obvious: the less government there is, the less it can be corrupted. Still, here's some non-crazy-talk links. The picture I get is that up until WWI, they had maybe half the influence that conspiracy theorists attribute to them today; but after that, it dwindled considerably. There's still a lot of wealth spread among them, but there's enough branches that they do NOT all share one master plan. ideapod.com/rothschild-family-control-worlds-money-supply-heres-truth/www.investopedia.com/updates/history-rothschild-family/This one is interesting, because it suggests a real rather than imaginary threat: China www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/122315/worlds-top-10-banks-jpm-wfc.aspFirst, I didn't find a list of banks in the links you provided, or any thing else to refute the validity of the list in my link. And I never endorsed the opinions, antisemitic or otherwise in the link I submitted -- I only presented a list of bank ownerships. If I could find a naked list I would use that, but I'm not industrious enough to copy that entire list just so I can strip some offensive opinions away. Second, there are two issues that have been conflated. One is the push to strengthen international institutions while weakening national institutions. Taken to it's conclusion, that ends in one world government. That is the fundamental goal of the globalists. And obviously, those people who are part of a one world government will have enormous power. The other issue is how much power banks have. Perhaps you noticed who got the bailout money in the 2008 economic crisis. How come everyone else didn't get bailed out like the financial institutions did? And are you noticing that the Trump administration is at the mercy of the Federal reserve to keep interest rates down so that interest payments on our national debt don't become unmanageable? The Federal Reserve is running the show, and they have been for decades. They have a target of 2% inflation - why? Because the goal is theft of your money by inflation. One dollar has less than 3 % of the buying power it had in 1913. And now they have been adding trillions of dollars to the money supply at a furious rate, so the dollar will be worthless very soon. Our entire economy and monetary system is being controlled by banks. That is a LOT of power. And if you think that bank's influence on when and whom we go to war with is a conspiracy theory, ask yourself what President Eisenhower meant by his parting statement "Beware the military industrial complex."
|
|
|
Post by eulenspiegel on Apr 10, 2020 22:41:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on Apr 11, 2020 4:35:17 GMT -5
And if you think that bank's influence on when and whom we go to war with is a conspiracy theory, ask yourself what President Eisenhower meant by his parting statement "Beware the military industrial complex." He meant a permanent arms industry, not banks. At one time, even a massive permanent military was distrusted; but with ICBMs and missile subs, the oceans no longer offer sufficient protection not to have one, although adventurism without sufficient consideration of cost in blood and treasure, or of unintended consequences, is demonstrably a risk. (plenty of examples there, although which were more or less justifiable and which weren't is subject to considerable debate) He also warned about the corruption of government-sponsored scientists gaining political influence. (curious how few scientist dissenters of climate-change alarmism (not _some_ climate change, but its alleged severity and the intrusiveness of effective countermeasures) are government-employed; in a balanced situation, that should be similar among government, commercial, and, non-government academic scientists) And he favored a "confederation" of nations, in which the weakest were "equals" of the strongest (sound like the UN? although some not so weak (like the Chinese and Russians), by pandering to assorted troublemakers that divert our resources and attention from trade, limit us considerably). Read the entire speech, it doesn't seem to mean what you think it does. I suppose not ALL globalists are leftists, but most are. Even that's a bit deceptive though. Most leftists bought that notion; but underneath the pretense of globalism of the former USSR (which in its time pushed globalist communism/marxism) was quite a bit of totalitarian Russian nationalism. Why do you think the modern left hates Putin (not that anyone should like him!)? Aside from taking bogus shots at Trump (they didn't hate Putin when Obama was in office, despite the open-mic moment with Putin's proxy Medvedev that filled in as President of Russia so Putin could remain influential as Prime Minister for awhile while complying with a then-limit on consecutive terms), the left can't stand that Putin kept the totalitarian Russian nationalism, but was fine with the demise of the communism that once had so many of our leftists cozying up to assorted communist monsters (Stalin, Castro, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, and others). But really, the conspiracy of international bankers is as nutty as the Illuminati, the "greys" at Area 51 and other secure government installations, etc. Or HAARP being some sort of weather control or mind control device (no, just research on unusual ionospheric communication modes, and possibly on the potential risk of others disrupting conventional communications modes, as well as just generic basic ionospheric research; long-range communication on occasions of meteor impacting the atmosphere has long been known, but that's not something one can conveniently control the schedule of). Or vaccines being part of some imaginary government and/or big pharma conspiracy (they're not; a long-term broad-spectrum flu vaccine is simply difficult out of all proportion to the likelihood of making enough back to pay for developing it; but the flu vaccine we have WORKS, even if not equally well each year; likewise, permanent cures for many conditions (if possible at all) are difficult for medicine and patient alike, more often than not requiring challenging lifestyle changes; a magic pill you just take once to make everything better would indeed not be profitable, but in most cases it also simply wouldn't be POSSIBLE; short of Star-Trek level technology to manipulate molecules in real time with a micro-resolution transporter or nanotech, only the latter EVER being likely, magic-like cures are almost never possible, aside from severe deficiencies, most of which aren't that severe in most people in prosperous nations, although an ability to test and tailor to the individual might help a lot).
|
|
djt2020
Political Only
Posts: 1,597
|
Post by djt2020 on Apr 11, 2020 10:54:18 GMT -5
And if you think that bank's influence on when and whom we go to war with is a conspiracy theory, ask yourself what President Eisenhower meant by his parting statement "Beware the military industrial complex." He meant a permanent arms industry, not banks. At one time, even a massive permanent military was distrusted; but with ICBMs and missile subs, the oceans no longer offer sufficient protection not to have one, although adventurism without sufficient consideration of cost in blood and treasure, or of unintended consequences, is demonstrably a risk. (plenty of examples there, although which were more or less justifiable and which weren't is subject to considerable debate) He also warned about the corruption of government-sponsored scientists gaining political influence. (curious how few scientist dissenters of climate-change alarmism (not _some_ climate change, but its alleged severity and the intrusiveness of effective countermeasures) are government-employed; in a balanced situation, that should be similar among government, commercial, and, non-government academic scientists) And he favored a "confederation" of nations, in which the weakest were "equals" of the strongest (sound like the UN? although some not so weak (like the Chinese and Russians), by pandering to assorted troublemakers that divert our resources and attention from trade, limit us considerably). Read the entire speech, it doesn't seem to mean what you think it does. I suppose not ALL globalists are leftists, but most are. Even that's a bit deceptive though. Most leftists bought that notion; but underneath the pretense of globalism of the former USSR (which in its time pushed globalist communism/marxism) was quite a bit of totalitarian Russian nationalism. Why do you think the modern left hates Putin (not that anyone should like him!)? Aside from taking bogus shots at Trump (they didn't hate Putin when Obama was in office, despite the open-mic moment with Putin's proxy Medvedev that filled in as President of Russia so Putin could remain influential as Prime Minister for awhile while complying with a then-limit on consecutive terms), the left can't stand that Putin kept the totalitarian Russian nationalism, but was fine with the demise of the communism that once had so many of our leftists cozying up to assorted communist monsters (Stalin, Castro, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, and others). But really, the conspiracy of international bankers is as nutty as the Illuminati, the "greys" at Area 51 and other secure government installations, etc. Or HAARP being some sort of weather control or mind control device (no, just research on unusual ionospheric communication modes, and possibly on the potential risk of others disrupting conventional communications modes, as well as just generic basic ionospheric research; long-range communication on occasions of meteor impacting the atmosphere has long been known, but that's not something one can conveniently control the schedule of). Or vaccines being part of some imaginary government and/or big pharma conspiracy (they're not; a long-term broad-spectrum flu vaccine is simply difficult out of all proportion to the likelihood of making enough back to pay for developing it; but the flu vaccine we have WORKS, even if not equally well each year; likewise, permanent cures for many conditions (if possible at all) are difficult for medicine and patient alike, more often than not requiring challenging lifestyle changes; a magic pill you just take once to make everything better would indeed not be profitable, but in most cases it also simply wouldn't be POSSIBLE; short of Star-Trek level technology to manipulate molecules in real time with a micro-resolution transporter or nanotech, only the latter EVER being likely, magic-like cures are almost never possible, aside from severe deficiencies, most of which aren't that severe in most people in prosperous nations, although an ability to test and tailor to the individual might help a lot). Globalist, the actual Globalist, are Globalist. They have been around since way before there was a concept of leftist, before Columbus was a gleam in his daddy's eye. I think you are confusing Globalist with Globalist puppets and useful idiots.
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on Apr 11, 2020 12:29:54 GMT -5
They have been around since way before there was a concept of leftist, before Columbus was a gleam in his daddy's eye. Only if you stretch the idea to include those that wanted to rule the (known) world as a monarch rather than a group or organiization, and maybe even came close, like Alexander and a few others. There have always been and will always be people that want to control everything, everyone. Some of them don't care if the different regions have different laws and customs; some do. In that sense, I'm not sure one could call the Roman Empire globalist, more like an EU that would use force to keep conquered but still semiautonomous regions from leaving. Notice that none of those held together all that long. Yes, speed-of-light comms and other tech gives the powerful the ability to hold more power; OTOH, there are a LOT more people now than then, so I wouldn't necessarily expect an attempt now to last very long either; by some traditions, perhaps not more than seven years. :-)
|
|
djt2020
Political Only
Posts: 1,597
|
Post by djt2020 on Apr 11, 2020 13:17:18 GMT -5
No, not close. Not Alexander, nor any others like him. Globalist is a modern day term. I, and others, who know who are the real threat to our very existence as free men, not slaves, use the term because it is convenient, even though it's not exactly correct, since they have been called by several different names over the centuries. Just like you have shown, Globalist means different things to different people.
EDIT: As to there being to many people, The 'Globalist' agree with you. They plan to wipe out around 6.5 billion of them/us.
|
|
djt2020
Political Only
Posts: 1,597
|
Post by djt2020 on Apr 11, 2020 13:53:41 GMT -5
Transcript Published of FBI Spy’s Call with George Papadopoulos Two Weeks Before Election In Attempt to Take Down Trump Campaign
In late October 2016, less than two weeks before the presidential election, a former adviser to then-presidential candidate Donald Trump, George Papadopoulos, denied to an FBI confidential source that the campaign was involved in the circumstances surrounding the hack of the Democratic National Committee’s email system, calling the idea “illegal.”
CBS News has now reviewed the transcript of the conversation between Papadopoulos and the confidential source working for the FBI, and has published key excerpts below.
The recorded conversation between Papadopoulos and the confidential source working for the FBI was documented in the December report issued by Justice Department Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz into the FBI’s surveillance of campaign aide Carter Page and other actions related to the FBI probe known as “Crossfire Hurricane.” But the excerpts of the transcript published here provide new details about the interaction between Papadopoulos and the FBI source in the final days of the presidential campaign.
The transcript, in which Papadopulos is apparently given the code name “Crossfire Typhoon” or CT, at the end of the hours-long conversation, shows the confidential human source questioning him about the DNC hack:
CHS: You don’t think anyone from the Trump campaign had anything to do with the f***ing over the, at the DNC?
Papadopoulos: No
CHS: Really?
Papadopoulos: No. I know that for a fact.
CHS: How do you know that for a fact?
Papadopoulos: ‘Cause I go, I’ve been working with them for the last nine months. That’s (unintelligible) And all of this stuff has been happening, what, the last four months?
The FBI source then pressed Papadopoulos on whether someone on the Trump campaign might have been secretly involved.
CHS: But you don’t think anyone would have done it, like under, undercover or anything like that?
Papadopoulos: No, I don’t think so…..There’s absolutely no reason…First of all, it’s illegal, you know, to do that s***.
|
|
djt2020
Political Only
Posts: 1,597
|
Post by djt2020 on Apr 11, 2020 16:16:25 GMT -5
behiveofhealing.com/forgotten-genius-royal-raymond-rife/Suppressed Cure or "nothing to see here move along"? Could be bull-Profanity-, but we live in an upside down world. Rife Frequency Instrument RVM 12, Model SQ2 It’s exciting and enraging to think that cancer, along with many other diseases, was cured 83 years ago, and yet half a million people die from malignancies every year. Recently I read an article that explained how current research is using resonant frequency to destroy cancer cells. As exciting as that prospect is, it’s not a new approach. What surprised me most about the article was that it didn’t mention one of the greatest but long forgotten scientists of the 20th century, who many believe cured cancer by the same method 83 years ago. The other astounding feature of the Rife Universal Microscope was that viruses could be viewed in their live state, like a movie, whereas the electron microscope could only view viruses in still images, or like photos. When studying any organism, observing how it moves and behaves in real time provides much more valuable information than viewing it as a static image. Over the course of 20 years, Rife would build five of his microscopes, some requested by the most prestigious research scientists in the world. The Rife Universal Microscope created a paradigm shift in pathology and microbiology research because much of what his device could do is still considered impossible today. But the biggest change was yet to come. Knowing everything vibrated at its own frequency, Rife believed that if he could discover the vibrational frequencies at which disease-causing microorganisms vibrated, then he could bombard them with that frequency until they shook so hard they exploded, the same way an opera singer matches the frequency of a wine glass with her voice and shatters it. Rife discovered that a simple electromagnetic wave wasn’t enough to destroy a microorganism. Instead he found a radio frequency wave was readily accepted by the body if it was emitted by a gas within a glass tube. This allowed the frequency wave to penetrate deeply into the body with scalpel-like precision. Because the wave was precisely tuned to the frequency of the microorganism, only the pathogen was affected, leaving the surrounding tissue unharmed. Rife considered a disease cured when he could destroy a microorganism ten consecutive times using what he called its Mortal Oscillatory Rate (MOR). His surviving records show he found the MOR for 24 microorganisms including anthrax, cholera, tetanus, B. coli, influenza, spinal meningitis, tuberculosis, pneumonia, syphilis, gonorrhea, leprosy, streptococcus, conjunctivitis, bubonic plague, staphylococcus, diphtheria, and typhoid. By now Rife’s accomplishments were attracting a lot of attention from the press and he was working with the most respected medical experts of the day. These included Dr. E. C. Rosenow, bacteriologist and head of the pathology department at the Mayo Clinic, Dr. Arthur Kendall, bacteriologist at Northwestern University, Dr. Milbank Johnson of the University of Southern California (USC) and head of the Medical Society of California, Lee De Forrest, technology scientist, and William D. Coolidge, physicist. Unfortunately Rife was also attracting a lot of negative press, mainly from the medical establishment and Harvard University. To prove his detractors wrong, he along with Dr. Rosenow invited several of Rife’s most prestigious but severest critics to a demonstration where he destroyed the poliomyelitis virus with its MOR in 1932, twenty years before the vaccine was invented and thirty years before it became available to the public. Hidden beneath his critics’ astonishment at what they’d seen was panic. They knew Rife’s microscope and beam-ray technology would mean the loss of billions of dollars to hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and research institutes, not to mention the overnight elimination of entire fields of medical science and research, as well as the discrediting of thousands of careers of the most highly respected university and medical center physicians, scientists and administrators. Just days after the demonstration, Dr. Rosenow was fired from his position at the Mayo Clinic, and the fix was in to bury Rife’s research.
|
|
|
Post by eulenspiegel on Apr 11, 2020 17:25:03 GMT -5
behiveofhealing.com/forgotten-genius-royal-raymond-rife/Suppressed Cure or "nothing to see here move along"? Could be bull-Profanity-, but we live in an upside down world. Rife Frequency Instrument RVM 12, Model SQ2 It’s exciting and enraging to think that cancer, along with many other diseases, was cured 83 years ago, and yet half a million people die from malignancies every year. Recently I read an article that explained how current research is using resonant frequency to destroy cancer cells. As exciting as that prospect is, it’s not a new approach. What surprised me most about the article was that it didn’t mention one of the greatest but long forgotten scientists of the 20th century, who many believe cured cancer by the same method 83 years ago. The other astounding feature of the Rife Universal Microscope was that viruses could be viewed in their live state, like a movie, whereas the electron microscope could only view viruses in still images, or like photos. When studying any organism, observing how it moves and behaves in real time provides much more valuable information than viewing it as a static image. Over the course of 20 years, Rife would build five of his microscopes, some requested by the most prestigious research scientists in the world. The Rife Universal Microscope created a paradigm shift in pathology and microbiology research because much of what his device could do is still considered impossible today. But the biggest change was yet to come. Knowing everything vibrated at its own frequency, Rife believed that if he could discover the vibrational frequencies at which disease-causing microorganisms vibrated, then he could bombard them with that frequency until they shook so hard they exploded, the same way an opera singer matches the frequency of a wine glass with her voice and shatters it. Rife discovered that a simple electromagnetic wave wasn’t enough to destroy a microorganism. Instead he found a radio frequency wave was readily accepted by the body if it was emitted by a gas within a glass tube. This allowed the frequency wave to penetrate deeply into the body with scalpel-like precision. Because the wave was precisely tuned to the frequency of the microorganism, only the pathogen was affected, leaving the surrounding tissue unharmed. Rife considered a disease cured when he could destroy a microorganism ten consecutive times using what he called its Mortal Oscillatory Rate (MOR). His surviving records show he found the MOR for 24 microorganisms including anthrax, cholera, tetanus, B. coli, influenza, spinal meningitis, tuberculosis, pneumonia, syphilis, gonorrhea, leprosy, streptococcus, conjunctivitis, bubonic plague, staphylococcus, diphtheria, and typhoid. By now Rife’s accomplishments were attracting a lot of attention from the press and he was working with the most respected medical experts of the day. These included Dr. E. C. Rosenow, bacteriologist and head of the pathology department at the Mayo Clinic, Dr. Arthur Kendall, bacteriologist at Northwestern University, Dr. Milbank Johnson of the University of Southern California (USC) and head of the Medical Society of California, Lee De Forrest, technology scientist, and William D. Coolidge, physicist. Unfortunately Rife was also attracting a lot of negative press, mainly from the medical establishment and Harvard University. To prove his detractors wrong, he along with Dr. Rosenow invited several of Rife’s most prestigious but severest critics to a demonstration where he destroyed the poliomyelitis virus with its MOR in 1932, twenty years before the vaccine was invented and thirty years before it became available to the public. Hidden beneath his critics’ astonishment at what they’d seen was panic. They knew Rife’s microscope and beam-ray technology would mean the loss of billions of dollars to hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and research institutes, not to mention the overnight elimination of entire fields of medical science and research, as well as the discrediting of thousands of careers of the most highly respected university and medical center physicians, scientists and administrators. Just days after the demonstration, Dr. Rosenow was fired from his position at the Mayo Clinic, and the fix was in to bury Rife’s research. healthwatcher.net/Quackerywatch/Cancer/Cancer-news/smh001230rife-aus.html
|
|
|
Post by eulenspiegel on Apr 11, 2020 17:39:21 GMT -5
By December, we are going to go through this again’ A conversation with Dr. Janis Orlowski, chief health care officer of the Association of American Medical Colleges. www.politico.com/news/2020/04/08/coronavirus-when-normal-expert-health-care-172005„I believe that we're going to return to a semi-normal life at the end of May — Memorial Day. But the other thing that I would say is that we have to prepare ourselves to go through a similar exercise in the fall, in the late fall. If you take a look at the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic, and if you take a look at how coronavirus is acting, this is not just the winter and spring of 2020. Probably late November, by December, we are going to go through this again.“
|
|
djt2020
Political Only
Posts: 1,597
|
Post by djt2020 on Apr 11, 2020 18:04:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by eulenspiegel on Apr 11, 2020 18:15:46 GMT -5
Socal Fan our forum troll is now spamming this thread also...may you please ban him from this thread
|
|