[Tfug] Gates-Rockefeller eugenics projects

[John Mc]

Sorry, I can't let this go. The comment I made last week about everything being "crystal clear" was a thinly veiled reference to the movie, A FEW GOOD MEN. That great American, Nathan R. Jessup, I wrote about is the Jack Nicholson character, the colonel in charge of pre 9-11, Gitmo. It was all meant as a joke because I had the time to accurately look up (and thus reference them in my own mind for accuracy) the comments I made.

Dude, sorry to have to tell you this, but the Jim March comment below is dead-on accurate. Not all things you read on that great information source of electrons is true. Some people just make things up trying to influence the thinking of others. That is why the web site, scopes.com was written. I watched that YouTube video you linked to a week ago. The one with the Linux mascot inter-spaced in the middle of the grainy video about the Illumenati. I laughed out loud at that. It was actually worth the time I spent for the effort. That video gave me the energy to write the satire comment about now being "crystal clear in the manner of the great American, Nathan Jessup." It appears that you weren't part of the comedy. People seem to just enjoy making things up and either putting those thoughts on a web page or into an email with which they can then hit the send button. There is a scientific difference between facts and opinions. Facts can be verified by our commonly shared knowledge base, more education and scholarly/academic research. Despite what a lot of opinion pundits inherently claim, everyone isn't entitled to their own facts. Opinions are available to everyone, usually unequally. It is extremely important in this life to understand the difference between facts and opinions. When somebody at a national level, a position of authority because of that soap box, asserts something in a statement, we all take those statements as automatically true until we find out otherwise. Our leadership isn't supposed to lie to us. That's fraud. It is supposed to work that when those statements are shown to be flat out, bold faced lies within hours of being made, and that those statements are easily verified and understood to be lies, we call that person a liar and he/she loses any remaining credibility they may still cling to. Having a conscience and being able to reason is part of what enables a nation of laws and not men. A conscience is required to exist in society without being thrown in jail. A person without a conscience is at best, marginally psychopathic. That is the difference between a Democracy and lesser forms of government. If enough people in society can't reason effectively then you won't have or be able to keep a Democracy.

Dude, either get back on your meds or find a different life outside of posting this crap. What you have been advocating isn't factual, or even close. It doesn't even rise to the level of opinion since it is so lame. A reasonable person, upon viewing the Tux image in the grainy Illumenati video, understood what it was about. It was a great, short comedy piece but nothing more. Really. After that initial posting the subject lost its comic edge. If you can't think through and understand this then you need to drop off the list and spend your new found time improving yourself, educationally speaking. People who can't think rationally are holding back the future of mankind. National leaders without a conscience who repeatedly lie (and thus aren't rational) to their fellow citizens are at best, just plain evil. They establish a new low level of behavior that causes mankind to regress instead of progress.

And if you have been doing all this as a running gag, a joke, then that is just as lame. Just think of the personal time you have wasted. Try to imagine what you could have been doing to improve your life. There is a life outside of sitcoms and trolling the internet for bites. Go find it.


Eric Christian wrote:
>>Jim, ...like the Mormans, KKK, mafia, Unitarian Chuch and many other
such groups are mason fronts or spin offs. Why and what they're up to, i dunno. Most of this just make sense. I had allways seen the direct links KKK/masonry. Some makes less sense.

>> check it out: google "jehovah's witnesses" freemasonry

Jim March wrote:
>...makes a big difference.  Now we start to get to what you're talking
>about, stuff like:
>http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/jws_christian_science.htm
>
>OK Eric, let's test you: what's wrong with that site?  Be honest now,
>go look, figure it out, come back when you're done.  Others can play
>too.
>---
>Ready?
>---
>If you answered "it doesn't provide ANY method of verifying the site's
statements", you got it right.  If you didn't figure that out in the
first three minutes, then your critical thinking abilities are WAY
screwed up.
>Let's take one example: the alleged pyramid-shaped gravestone of CT Russell.
>Where is it?  What?  See, cemeteries are places you can walk into and
see for yourself.  So if you know the city and graveyard somebody is
buried in, or even just the city most times, you can figure it out and
do some independent digging.  And a pyramid is odd enough that it'll
be dead simple (sigh, pun again...) to spot, and one or more of the
hits to that site will be from somebody reasonably near if it's in the
US as I assume it is.
>ALL PUBLISHED SCHOLARSHIP REFERS BACK TO ORIGINAL SOURCES.  Got that?
>Ever read a REAL history book, one written for a scholarly audience?
The footnotes at the back will be unbelievably long.  Let's see, I
happen to have a copy of "The Bill Of Rights" by Yale law professor
Akhil Reed Amar nearby.  It's a "trade paperback" (big size), pretty
dense stuff (HIGHLY recommended by the way, esp. if you want to know
what that whole 14th Amendment thing was all about...).  The text ends
on page 312.  The footnotes run from 313 through 396.  I can't quickly
add up how many because they're numbered by chapter but trust me,
they're in small print and there's a buttload of 'em.  The majority
refer the reader to period historical documents...proceedings of
congress circa 1865-1868 for example (which are all online now).
>The point is, Prof. Amar doesn't make you "take his word for it".  He
shows you his proof.  (And it's proof of a conspiracy WAY worse than
anything you've been describing - the systematic destruction of the
14th Amendment by the US Supreme Court.)
>Now, sometimes this still goes wrong and a real scholar makes stuff up
and fakes the footnotes.  But then he risks getting caught.  This
happened to a jackass name of Michael Bellesiles of Emory University,
now thrown out in disgrace for the book "Arming America" (written in
'00) which early on won the Bancroft Award (and $5000) for the best
history book of the year.  But about a year after that the Bancroft
committee demanded their money back after a friend of mine exposed the
twit.  This episode is worth studying to understand why real
scholarship is supposed to work the way it does.
>"Why Footnotes Matter: Checking Arming America's Claims", Plagiary 1(11):1-31 [2006]: http://www.plagiary.org/why-footnotes-matter.pdf
>The short form is that showing primary sources in a history document
is much like publishing the source code in Linux or whatever.  True,
most users won't be able to (or willing to) peer in under the hood but
enough will that real nastiness gets caught.  In the case of "Arming
America", Clayton Cramer was familiar with some of the source material
Bellesiles "cited" (letters by George Washington fr'instance) and knew
right away that they didn't read that way.  Then he dug for
others...it was so bad, I know of at least one 9th Circuit court
decision that was revised after the fact to strip out references to
"Arming America" once the disgrace was public.
>Whenever somebody writes something alleged to be historical and does
NOT refer to PRIMARY sources, your BS meter should peg out.  "Primary"
means original source, not another book that also doesn't contain real
footnotes to period sources.
>EVERYTHING you're discussing involves history.  And believe it or not,
history really is a science.
>http://thestubborncurmudgeon.blogspot.com/2008/03/recruiting-em-while-theyre-young.html