Monday, 17 November 2014

More grist to Hamlet’s Mill




Kind of continued from

and assorted other places





Dogman has been on a roll over at CS’ place.



FYI.

Dogman
Nov 16, 2014 @ 09:41:14
Dickens’ biographer Peter Ackroyd and others have credited the novelist with single-handedly creating the modern Christmas holiday. Oh, not the contemporary orgy of shopping, spending and ostentatious display. In A Christmas Carol there are no gaudy decorations, no Christmas trees and, except for “the big prize turkey” at the end, no presents at all. The only “gifts” exchanged are love, friendship and goodwill. Yet in this one small book, Dickens inspired his contemporaries, transformed a holiday and created an immortal message for us all. The lesson of A Christmas Carol is one of kindness, consideration and charity.
They’ve ruthlessly exploited this ever since though!

Dogman
Nov 15, 2014 @ 11:00:07
In order to fully understand the religion of Mithraism it is necessary to look to its foundation in Persia, where originally a multitude of gods were worshipped. Amongst them were Ahura-Mazda, god of the skies, and Ahriman, god of darkness. In the sixth and seventh century B.C., a vast reformation of the Persian pantheon was undertaken by Zarathustra (known in Greek as Zoroaster), a prophet from the kingdom of Bactria. The stature of Ahura-Mazda was elevated to that of supreme god of goodness, whereas the god Ahriman became the ultimate embodiment of evil.
In the same way that Akhenaton,º Abraham, Heliogabalus, and Mohammed later initiated henotheistic cults from the worship of their respective deities, Zarathustra created a henotheistic dualism with the gods Ahura-Mazda and Ahriman. As a result of the Babylonian captivity of the Jews (597 B.C.) and their later emancipation by King Cyrus the Great of Persia (538 B.C.),d Zoroastrian dualism was to influence the Jewish belief in the existence of HaShatan, the malicious Adversary of the god Yahweh, and later permit the evolution of the Christian Satan-Jehovah dichotomy. Persian religious dualism became the foundation of an ethical system that has lasted until this day.
According to Persian traditions, the god Mithras was actually incarnated into the human form of the Saviour expected by Zarathustra. Mithras was born of Anahita, an immaculate virgin mother once worshipped as a fertility goddess before the hierarchical reformation. Anahita was said to have conceived the Saviour from the seed of Zarathustra preserved in the waters of Lake Hamun in the Persian province of Sistan. Mithra’s ascension to heaven was said to have occurred in 208 B.C.
Persian Mithraism was more a collection of traditions and rites than a body of doctrines. However, once the Babylonians took the Mithraic rituals and mythology from the Persians, they thoroughly refined its theology. The Babylonian clergy assimilated Ahura-Mazda to the god Baal, Anahita to the goddess Ishtar, and Mithras to Shamash, their god of justice, victory and protection (and the sun god from whom King Hammurabi received his code of laws in the 18th century B.C.) As a result of the solar and astronomical associations of the Babylonians, Mithras later was referred to by Roman worshippers as ‘Sol invictus’, or the invincible sun. The sun itself was considered to be “the eye of Mithras”. The Persian crown, from which all present day crowns are derived, was designed to represent the golden sun-disc sacred to Mithras.
The Babylonians also incorporated their belief in destiny into the Mithraic worship of Zurvan, the Persian god of infinite time and father of the gods Ahura-Mazda and Ahriman. They superimposed astrology, the use of the zodiac, and the deification of the four seasons onto the Persian rites of Mithraism.
Mithras was worshipped as guardian of arms, and patron of soldiers and armies. The handshake was developed by those who worshipped him as a token of friendship and as a gesture to show that you were unarmed. When Mithras later became the Roman god of contracts, the handshake gesture was imported throughout the Mediterranean and Europe by Roman soldiers. (That bit’s got you thinking, hasn’t it?)
Five Mithraeums were found in Great Britain, where only three Roman legions were stationed. Remains were discovered in London near St. Paul’s Cathedral (a site which I visited in July 1992), in Segontium in Wales, and three were found along Hadrian’s Wall in Northern England. Mithraism also reached Northern Africa by Roman military recruits from abroad.
Mithraic worshippers believed that the human soul descended into the world at birth. Mithraic initiation required the symbolic climbing of a ceremonial ladder with seven rungs, each made of a different metal to symbolize the seven known celestial bodies. By symbolically ascending this ceremonial ladder through successive initiations, the neophyte could proceed through the seven levels of heaven.
The great festival of the Mithraic calendar was held on December the 25th, and the 16th of every month was kept holy to Mithras. The first day of the week was dedicated to the sun, to whom prayers were recited in the morning, noon, and evening. Services were held on Sundays, in which bells were sounded and praises were offered to Mithras. On great occasions, the ‘soldiers of Mithras’ took part in the sacrament of bread and wine as sacred bulls were sacrificed.
http://chrisspivey.org/forum2/viewforum.php?f=297
·         Dogman
Nov 15, 2014 @ 11:04:54
The mining magnate Cecil Rhodes and the British High Commissioner, Lord Alfred Milner instigated the Anglo-Boer War (South African War) of 1899-1902. Their purpose was to secure gold and other natural resources in South Africa with cheap indigenous labour in circumstances akin to slavery, and to extend British domination over the entire African continent “from Cape to Cairo.”
British imperial power had developed the strategy of “divide and rule.” Milner was the main drafter of the 1917 Balfour Declaration offering “establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” With the support of De Beers, the Israeli diamond cutting and polishing industry was established during the Second World War, and by 1975 accounted for almost 40 percent of Israel’s non-agricultural exports. The diamond industry then became the foundation of Israel’s armaments industry.
Yotam Feldman’s award-winning documentary film, The Lab, chillingly focuses upon how the armaments industry markets export sales on Israel’s tried and proven success in dealing with Palestinians. One particularly arrogant character describes the industry as “turning blood into money.”
Africa & Exploitation – http://chrisspivey.org/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=154&t=128#p255
o        Dogman
Nov 15, 2014 @ 11:22:24
“The surging global demand for mobile phones has been helping to bankroll armed groups in Eastern Congo’s conflict,” said Annie Dunnebacke of Global Witness. “Mobile phone manufacturers need to undertake checks all the way up their supply chains to make sure they are not buying from mines controlled by militias and military units.”
The UN Group of Experts’ latest report, published in December 2008, asserts that the world’s fifth largest tin-processing company, Thailand Smelting and Refining Co (Thaisarco), buys ore from an exporter who is supplied by mines controlled by the Forces Démocratiques pour la Libération du Rwanda (FDLR). The FDLR is a Hutu militia whose members are alleged to include perpetrators of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. The group continues to commit grave human rights abuses against Congolese civilians. Thaisarco, based in Thailand, is owned by British metals giant Amalgamated Metal Corporation (AMC) Group.
Global Witness recently wrote to major mobile phone manufacturers as well as mineral and metal traders to ask them what due diligence measures they are taking to ensure that their sourcing practices are not fuelling the conflict. While some firms have pledged to tighten their supply chain control, the mobile phone industry as a whole lacks sufficient measures to guarantee that phones and other electronics are free of conflict minerals.
“Mobile phone users do not want to buy products that are associated with crimes such as murder, torture and rape,” said Mike Davis of Global Witness. (I disagree, most don’t give a toss, as long as they get their new toy!)
The trade in precious minerals and its correlated violence is but one saga among many I grew deeply familiar with during the 1990s and the first decade of the new millennium in Africa, including poverty, corruption, dictators, child labor, malaria, leprosy, HIV-Aids, refugees, trauma victims and genocide1. But it is an important one and well depicted in Danish director Frank Poulson’s noteworthy documentary, Blood in the Mobile (Poulsen, 2010). Mr Poulson explores roughly three approaches to the problem of coltan as a conflict mineral. He pesters Nokia, one of the world’s largest mobile phone manufacturers, to justify using the mineral when it cannot insure that it does not come from the DRC. The demand for rubber a century earlier, largely for the production of tires when a nascent automobile industry took off, is aptly cited in Mr Poulson’s documentary. For many viewers it is likely the first they have heard of it. The Congolese rubber trade along with other practices is well accounted for in the work of a popular history writer (Hochschild, 1998). Meanwhile, for non African audiences living a century ago, when Congolese people were having a hand chopped off if they failed to deliver to their Belgian rulers the required daily quota of harvested rubber, the nefarious trade was publicized through of all things an enduring work of fiction. The Heart of Darkness (Conrad, 1903), a novella, gained considerable attention, shedding light on practices known to few.
Both Uganda and Rwanda cited the existence of rebels operating from across the border. Did this comprise a legitimate justification for crossing into the DRC, for example under the doctrine of hot pursuit? Or was it mere pretext for entering a neighboring country for covetous reasons? Reasons other than sorting out Ugandan and Rwandan rebels in the DRC were plain enough given that the combatants were largely ineffective, posing but a marginal threat to the increasingly powerful Rwandan military. Uganda, with more than double the population of Rwanda was not short on martial capacity either. Meanwhile, it is well established today that the prime motivator was mineral wealth. Mineral wealth in this volatile region implied not only riches for those in a position to exploit it – rulers, their armies, proxies and businessmen with inside connections – but also the ready capacity to transform that wealth into a meaningful form of power. Thus began the scramble for mineral resources.
There is a passage in the film Blood Diamond (Zwick, 2006) that depicts a similarly violence-fueling trade albeit in precious gems that sustained a long-standing war in Sierra Leone, West Africa. In the scene a villager sighs, “Thank God they didn’t find oil.” Indeed, “Since 1990 alone, the petroleum industry has invested more than $20 billion in exploration and production activity in Africa,” writes John Ghazvinian.
A further $50 billion will be spent between now and the end of the decade, the largest investment in the continent’s history. But most Africans are seeing little benefit from this influx of oil drillers and investment. In fact, because of an economic paradox known as the “Resource Curse,” they are often hurt by exports of their countries’ oil (Knowledge@Wharton, 2011).
It is well understood among local people that resources in their midst are extremely unlikely to benefit them. At the same time, with few options for survival, they become obliged to participate in the toxic economic activity no matter how perilous. Precious assets make life terrifying. Such was the case in Sierra Leone, much as it is in Nigeria, the continent’s most populous country. In Nigeria the country’s people are exceedingly poor. The destruction of the environment is rampant. In contrast, oil revenues are so enormous that Goldman Sachs recently bid to manage the Nigerian portfolio on behalf of the African country. (bless ‘em, they’re all heart)
New York Times correspondent Chris Hedges who worked for 20 years in conflict zones notes:
The enduring attraction of war is that even with its destruction and carnage it can give us what we long for in life. It can give us purpose, meaning, a reason for living. Only when we are in the midst of conflict does the shallowness and vapidness of much of our lives become apparent (Hedges, 2003, p.3).
Mobile Phones & Conflict Minerals – http://chrisspivey.org/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=154&t=147
o        Dogman
Nov 15, 2014 @ 11:26:14
The World Wildlife Fund (WWF, now the World Wide Fund for Nature), was founded in 1961 for one stated purpose: to raise money to drastically expand the operations of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
Established in Gland, Switzerland in 1948 on a British Foreign Office-drafted constitution, the IUCN today boasts that it is the largest “professional” international conservation organization – as of 1994 comprising 68 states, 103 governmental agencies, and over 640 non-governmental organizations, “many of global reach.”
Under the cover of “conserving nature,” the WWF-IUCN has in fact dedicated itself to:
1.reduce the world’s population, particularly in the developing sector
2.ensure that control of the world’s raw materials remains in the hands of a tiny handful of largely British (or Anglo-Dutch) multinationals.
These two goals, WWF-IUCN spokesmen have repeatedly stated, require a world government.
§         Dogman
Nov 15, 2014 @ 11:32:11
Cecil Rhodes (1853-1902), South African financier, British statesman and industrialist, who wanted to make Africa a “British dominion from the Cape to Cairo”, with the financial support of Nathaniel Mayer Rothschild (1840-1915) and Alfred Beit, was able to control the diamond mines of South Africa with his DeBeers Consolidated Mines Limited, by buying out the French Diamond Co. and then merging with the Barnato Diamond Mining Company. He eventually controlled the production of diamonds throughout the world.
His Consolidated Gold Fields was also a prosperous gold mining operation. He made $5 million annually.
In 1877, while still studying at Oxford (it took him 8 years because of having to run the diamond mines), he wrote the first of seven wills, in which each became a separate and legally binding document. It called for the establishment of a “secret society with but one object– the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole uncivilized world under British rule, for the recovery of the United States, (and) for … making the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire.” Frank Aydelotte, a founding member of the Council on Foreign Relations, and the American Secretary to the Rhodes Trustees, wrote in his book, American Rhodes Scholarships: “In his first will Rhodes states his aim still more specifically: ‘The extension of British rule throughout the world … the foundation of so great a power as to hereafter render wars impossible and promote the interests of humanity’.”
When he died, his third will, drafted in 1888, called for the establishment of a trust, run by his son-in-law Lord Rosebury, a Rothschild agent, to administer his fortune. His seventh and last will, named Rothschild the administrator of his estate, and established an educational grant known as the Rhodes Scholarships at Oxford University (which was controlled by the Fabians). The Scholarships provided a two-year program for young men, and later, women, from the United States, United Kingdom and Germany, to carry on the Illuminati conspiracy.
The Rhodes fortune, through the Rhodes Scholarship Fund, has been used to promote the concept of globalism and one-world government. Up to 1953, out of 1,372 American Rhodes Scholars, 431 had positions in teaching and educational administration, 31 were college presidents, 113 had government positions, 70 held positions in the media, and 14 were executives in foundations.
Rhodes talked about starting an organization to preserve and extend the British Empire. He said in 1877: “It is our duty to seize every opportunity of acquiring more territory … more territory simply means more of the Anglo-Saxon race, more of the best, the most human, most honorable race the world possesses … the absorption of the greater portion of the world under our rule simply means the end of all wars.”
(Misguided bigot)
Cecil Rhodes – http://chrisspivey.org/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=228&t=565

Dogman
Nov 16, 2014 @ 09:04:42
Scholars are in bitter disagreement over the origin of the the Yahweh religion and the identity of its founder, Moses. While Moses is an Egyptian name, the religion itself comes from Midian. In the account, Moses lives for a time with a Midianite priest, Jethro, at the foot of Mount Sinai. The Midianites seem to have a Yahweh religion already in place; they worship the god of Mount Sinai as a kind of powerful nature deity. So it’s possible that the Hebrews picked up the Yahweh religion from another group of Semites and that this Yahweh religion slowly developed into the central religion of the Hebrews. All scholars are agreed, however, that the process was slow and painful. In the Hebrew history, all during the migration and for two centuries afterwards, the Hebrews follow many various religions unevenly.
The Mosaic religion was initially a monolatrous religion; while the Hebrews are enjoined to worship no deity but Yahweh, there is no evidence that the earliest Mosaic religion denied the existence of other gods. In fact, the account of the migration contains numerous references by the historical characters to other gods, and the first law of the Decalogue is, after all, that no gods be put before Yahweh, not that no other gods exist. While controversial among many people, most scholars have concluded that the initial Mosaic religion for about two hundred years was a monolatrous religion. For there is ample evidence in the Hebrew account of the settlement of Palestine, that the Hebrews frequently changed religions, often several times in a single lifetime.
Cyrus sent the Jews home for religious purposes only. Judah was re-established only so Yahweh could be worshipped, and the Jews were sent to Judah for the express purpose of worshiping Yahweh. Before the Exile, Judah and Israel were merely kingdoms; now Judah was a theological state
Hebrew History & People – http://chrisspivey.org/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=190&t=3241&hilit=Mazda
Dogman
Nov 15, 2014 @ 12:22:21
48 B.C. Julius Caesar took back from the money changers the power to coin money and then minted coins for the benefit of all. With this new, plentiful supply of money, he established many massive construction projects and built great public works. By making money plentiful, Caesar won the love of the common people. But the money changers hated him for it and this is why Caesar was assassinated. Immediately after his assassination came the demise of plentiful money in Rome, taxes increased, as did corruption.
Eventually the Roman money supply was reduced by 90 per cent, which resulted in the common people losing their lands and homes.
30 A.D. Jesus Christ in the last year of his life uses physical force to throw the money changers out of the temple. This was the only time during the the life of his ministry in which he used physical force against anyone.
When Jews came to Jerusalem to pay their Temple tax, they could only pay it with a special coin, the half-shekel. This was a half-ounce of pure silver, about the size of a quarter. It was the only coin at that time which was pure silver and of assured weight, without the image of a pagan Emperor, and therefore to the Jews it was the only coin acceptable to God.
Unfortunately these coins were not plentiful, the money changers had cornered the market on them, and so they raised the price of them to whatever the market could bear. They used their monopoly they had on these coins to make exorbitant profits, forcing the Jews to pay whatever these money changers demanded. Jesus threw the money changers out as their monopoly on these coins totally violated the sanctity of God’s house. These money changers called for his death days later.
1024 The money changers had control of Medieval England’s money supply and at this time were generally known as goldsmiths. Paper money started out and this was simply a receipt you would get after depositing gold with a goldsmith, in their safe rooms or vaults. This paper started being traded as it was far more convenient than carrying round a lot of heavy gold and silver coins.
Over time, to simplify the process, the receipts were made to the bearer, rather than to the individual depositor, making it readily transferable without the need for a signature. This, also, broke the tie to any identifiable deposit of gold.
Eventually the goldsmiths recognized that only a fraction of depositors ever came in and demanded their gold at any one time, so they found out how they could cheat on the system. They started to issue more receipts than they had gold to back those receipts and no one would be any the wiser. They would loan out these receipts which were not backed by the gold they had in their depositories and collect interest on them.
This was the birth of the system we know today as Fractional Reserve Banking, and like this system of today this meant the goldsmiths were able to make astronomical amounts of money by loaning out, what was essentially fraudulent receipts, as they were for gold the goldsmiths didn’t even possess. As they gradually got more confident they would loan out up to 10 times the amount they had in their deposits.
To simplify how they made money on this, let’s give an example in which a goldsmith charges the same rate of interest to creditors and debtors. In this example a goldsmith would pay interest of 6% on gold you had deposited with them, and then charge 6% interest on money, I mean fraudulent receipts, you borrowed from them. As they would lend out ten times what you had deposited with them, whilst they’re paying you 6% interest, they are making 60% interest. This is on your gold.
The goldsmiths also discovered that their control of this fraudulent money supply gave them control over the economy and the assets of the people. They exacted their control by rowing the economy between easy money and tight money.
The way they did this was to make money easy to borrow and therefore increase the amount of money in circulation, then suddenly tighten the money supply, taking it out of circulation by making loans more difficult to get or stopping offering them altogether.
Why did they do this? Simple, because the result would be a certain percentage of the people being unable to repay their previous loans, and not having the facility to take out new ones, so they would go bankrupt and be forced to sell their assets to the goldsmiths for literally pennies on the dollar.
This is exactly what happens in the world economy of today, but is referred to with words like, “the business cycle,” “boom and bust,” “recession,” and “depression,” in order to confuse the population of the money changers scam.
1100 King Henry I succeeds King William II to the throne of England. During his reign he decided to take the power the money changers had over the people, and he did this by creating a completely new form of money that took the form of a stick! This stick was called, a “talley stick,” and ended up being the longest lasting form of currency, lasting 726 years until 1826 (even though other currencies came and went in that same period and ran alongside the talley sticks).
The talley stick was a stick of polished wood into which notches were cut along one side, to indicate the denomination of money the stick represented. The stick was then split lengthwise through the notches, so that both pieces had a record of the notches. The King kept one half to protect against counterfeiting and the other half was spent into the economy and circulated as money. It was also one of the most successful money systems in history, as the King demanded that all the King’s taxes had to be paid in, “talley sticks,” so this increased their circulation and acceptance as a legitimate form of money. This system would work well in keeping the power away from the money changers in England.
1225 St. Thomas Aquinas is born, the leading theologian of the Catholic Church who argued that the charging of interest is wrong because it applies to “double charging,” charging for both the money and the use of the money. This concept followed the teachings of Aristotle that taught the purpose of money was to serve the members of society and to facilitate the exchange of goods needed to lead a virtuous life. Interest was contrary to reason and justice because it put an unnecessary burden on the use of money.
Thus, Church law in Middle Ages Europe forbade the charging of interest on loans and even made it a crime called, “usury.”
1509 King Henry VIII succeeds King Henry VII to the throne in England. During his reign he relaxed the laws regarding usury, and and the money changers did not waste any time in re-asserting themselves over the population. They quickly made their gold and silver coin system plentiful again. It is interesting to note that under King Henry VIII the Church of England separated from Roman Catholicism, whose Church law prevented the charging of interest on money.
1553 Queen Mary I succeeds Lady Jane Grey’s nine day reign to the throne in England. During her reign, Queen Mary I, a staunch Catholic, tightened the usury laws again. The money changers were not amused and in revenge they tightened the money supply by hoarding gold and silver coins and causing the economy to plummet.
1558 Queen Elizabeth I succeeds Queen Mary I, her half sister, to the throne in England. During her reign, Queen Elizabeth I decided that in order to wrest control of the money supply she would have to issue her own gold and silver coins. She did this through the public treasury and successfully took control of the money supply from the money changers.
1609 The money changers in the Netherlands establish the the first central bank in history, in Amsterdam.
1642 Oliver Cromwell is financed by the money changers for the purposes of fomenting a revolution in England, and allowing them to take control of the money system again. After much bloodshed, Cromwell finally purges the parliament, overthrows King Charles I and puts him to death in 1649.
The money changers immediately consolidate their power and for the next few decades plunge Great Britain into a costly series of wars. They also take over a square mile of property in the center of London which becomes known as the City of London.
1688 The money changers in England following a series of squabbles with the Stuart Kings, Charles II (1660 – 1685) and James II (1685 – 1688), conspire with their far more successful money changing counterparts in the Netherlands, who had already set up a central bank there.
They decide to finance an invasion by William of Orange of Netherlands who they sound out and establish will be more favorable to them. The invasion is successful and William of Orange ascends to the throne in England as King William III in 1689.
1694 Following a costly series of wars over the last 50 years, English Government officials go, cap in hand, to the money changers for loans necessary to pursue their political purposes. The money changers agree to solve this problem in exchange for a government sanctioned privately owned bank which could issue money created out of nothing.
This was deceptively named the, “Bank of England,” for the sole purpose of duping the general public into believing it was part of the government, which it was not.
Like any other private corporation the Bank of England sold shares to get started. The private investors, whose names were never revealed, were supposed to put up £1,250,000 in gold coins to buy their shares in the bank, but only £750,000 was ever received. Despite that the bank was duly chartered and began loaning out several times the money it supposedly had in reserves, all at interest.
Although the Bank of England’s private investors were never revealed, one of the Directors, William Paterson, stated,
“The Bank hath benefit of interest on all monies which it creates out of nothing.”
Furthermore the Bank of England would loan government officials as much of the new currency as they wanted, as long as they secured the debt by direct taxation of the British people. The Bank of England amounted to nothing less than the legal counterfeiting of a national currency for private gain, and thus any country that would fall under the control of a private bank would amount to nothing more than a plutocracy.
Soon after the Bank of England was formed it attacked the talley stick system, as it was money outside of the power of the money changers, just as King Henry I had intended it to be.
1698 Following four years of the Bank of England, their plan to control the money supply had come on in leaps and bounds. They had flooded the country with so much money that the Government debt to the Bank had grown from the initial £1,250,000, to £16,000,000, in only four years. That’s an increase of 1,280%.
Why do they do it? Simple, if the money in circulation in a country is £5,000,000, and a central bank is set up and prints another £15,000,000, stage one of the plan, sends it out into the economy through loans etc, than this will reduce the value of the initial £5,000,000 in circulation before the bank was formed. This is because the initial £5,000,000 is now only 25% of the economy. It will also give the bank control of 75% of the money in circulation with the £15,000,000 they sent out into the economy.
This also causes inflation which is the reduction in worth of money borne by the common person, due to the economy being flooded with too much money, an economy which the Central Bank are responsible for. As the common person’s money is worth less, he has to go to the bank to get a loan to help run his business etc, and when the Central Bank are satisfied there are enough people with debt out there, the bank will tighten the supply of money by not offering loans. This is stage two of the plan.
Stage three, is sitting back and waiting for the debtors to them to go bankrupt, allowing the bank to then seize from them real wealth, businesses and property etc, for pennies on the dollar. Inflation never effects a central bank in fact they are the only group who can benefit from it, as if they are ever short of money they can simply print more.
1757 Benjamin Franklin travels to England and would spend the next 18 years of his life there until just before the start of the American Revolution.
1760 Mayer Amschel Bauer changes him name to Mayer Amschel Rothschild and sets up the, House Of Rothschild, and soon learns that if he loans out money to Governments and Royalty then this is far more profitable than loaning to individuals. This is because the loans made are bigger and backed by their nations’ taxes. He trains his five sons in the art of money creation.
1764 Benjamin Franklin is asked by officials of the Bank of England to explain the prosperity of the colonies in America. He replies,
“That is simple. In the Colonies we issue our own money. It is called Colonial Scrip. We issue it in proper proportion to the demands of trade and industry to make the products pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In this manner creating for ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay no one.”
As a result of Franklin’s statement, the British Parliament hurriedly passed the Currency Act of 1764. This prohibited colonial officials from issuing their own money and ordered them to pay all future taxes in gold or silver coins. Referring to after this act was passed, Franklin would state the following in his autobiography,
“In one year, the conditions were so reversed that the era of prosperity ended, and a depression set in, to such an extent that the streets of the colonies were filled with the unemployed…The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money which created unemployment and dissatisfaction.
1775 April 19th, start of the revolutionary war in Lexington, Massachusetts. By this time the colonies had been drained of silver and gold coins as a result of British taxation. As a result of this, the continental government had no choice but to print money to finance the war.
At the start of the revolution the American money supply stood at $12,000,000. By the end of the war it was nearly $500,000,000 and as a result the currency was virtually worthless.
1781 Towards the end of the American Revolution the Continental Congress were desperate for money, so they allowed Robert Morris, their Financial Superintendent, to open a privately owned central bank, in the hope this would sort out the money problem.
Morris was a wealthy man who had grown wealthier during the revolution by trading in war materials. This first central bank in America was called the Bank of North America, which was set up with a four year charter, and was closely modeled after the Bank of England. It was allowed to practice the fraudulent system of fractional reserve banking, so it could create money it didn’t have, then charge interest on it.
The bank’s charter called for private investors to put up $400,000 of initial capital, which Morris found himself unable to raise. Nevertheless he unashamedly used his political influence to have gold deposited in the bank, which had been loaned to America by France. Morris then loaned the money he needed to buy this bank from this deposit of gold that belonged to the government, or rather the American people.
This Bank of North America, again deceptively named so the common people would believe it was under the control of the government, was given a monopoly over the national currency.
1785 Despite the promises of Robert Morris that his privately owned Bank of North America would solve the problem with the money supply, of course the economy continued to plummet, forcing the Continental Congress not to renew the bank’s charter. The leader of the effort to kill this bank was William Findlay of Pennsylvania, who stated,
“This institution, having no principle but that of avarice, will never be varied in its objective…to engross all the wealth, power and influence of the state.”
Mayer Amschel Rothschild moves his family home to a five storey home in Frankfurt, Germany, which he shares with the Schiff family, (a descendant of both Rothschild and Schiff, Jacob Schiff, who would be born in this house, would, some 128 years later, be instrumental in the setting up of the Federal Reserve).
1787 Colonial leaders assemble in Philadelphia to replace the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution. Governor Morris headed the final draft of the Constitution and he knew the motivation of the bankers well as he had once worked for them. Governor Morris along with his former boss Robert Morris, and Alexander Hamilton had presented the original plan for the Bank of North America to the Continental Congress, in the final year of the Revolution.
Fortunately Governor Morris by this time had discovered his conscience, defected from Robert Morris, and in a letter to James Madison dated July 2nd of this year he stated,
“The rich will strive to establish their dominion and enslave the rest. They always did. They always will…They will have the same effect here as elsewhere, if we do not, by the power of government, keep them in their proper spheres.”
James Madison was opposed to a privately owned central bank after seeing the exploitation of the people by the Bank of England. Thomas Jefferson was also against it, and Jefferson later made the following statement:
“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and the corporations which grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”
·         Dogman
Nov 15, 2014 @ 12:23:57
1790 Less than 3 years after the Constitution had been signed, the newly appointed First Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, proposed a bill to the Congress calling for a new privately owned central bank. Interestingly, Alexander Hamilton’s first job after graduating from law school in 1782 was as an aide to Robert Morris, a man who he had written to in 1781 stating, “a national debt if it is not excessive will be to us a national blessing.”
1791 The three main players behind the Bank Of North America were: Robert Morris; Alexander Hamilton; and the Bank’s President, Thomas Willing. These men did not give up and Alexander Hamilton, now Secretary of the Treasury, a man who described Robert Morris as his, “mentor,” managed to get a new privately owned central bank through the new Congress.
This new bank was called the, “First Bank of the United States,” and was exactly the same as the Bank of North America. Robert Morris controlled it, Thomas Willing was the Bank’s President, only the name had changed.
This bank came into being after a year of intense debate and was given a 20 year charter. It was given a monopoly on printing United States currency even though 80% of it’s stock was held by private investors. The other 20% was purchased by the United States government, but this was not to give it a piece if the action, but to provide the capital for the private investors to purchase the other 80%.
As with the Bank of England and the old Bank of North America, these private investors never paid the full agreed amount for their shares. What happened was through the fraudulent system of fractional reserve banking, the government’s 20% stake which was $2,000,000 in cash, was used to make loans to its private investors to purchase the other 80% stake, £8,000,000, for this risk free investment.
Again like the Bank of England and the old Bank of North America, the name, “First Bank of the United States,” was deliberately chosen to hide from the common people the fact that it was privately owned. The names of the investors in this bank were never revealed, although it is now widely believed that the Rothschilds were behind it.
Interestingly in 1790 when Alexander Hamilton proposed this bank in Congress, Mayer Amschel Rothschild made the following statement from his bank in Frankfurt, Germany, “Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.”
1796 The First Bank of the United States has been controlling the American money supply for 5 years. During this time the American Government has borrowed $8,200,000 from this Central Bank, and prices in the country have increased by 72%. In relation to this, Thomas Jefferson, then Secretary of State stated,
“I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment to our constitution taking from the Federal Government their power of borrowing.”
1798 Mayer Amschel Rothschild sends his son, Nathan, at the age of 21, to England with a sum of money equivalent to £20,000, to set up a money changers there.
1800 In France, the Bank of France was set up. However Napoleon decided France had to break free of the debt and he therefore never trusted this bank. He declared that when a government is dependent on bankers for money, it is the bankers and not the government leaders that are in control. He stated,
“The hand that gives is among the hand that takes. Money has no motherland, financiers are without patriotism and without decency, their sole object is gain.”
1803 Now President Thomas Jefferson, President Jefferson struck a deal with Napoleon in France. The United States would give Napoleon $3,000,000 of gold in exchange for a huge chunk of territory west of the Mississippi River. This was called the Louisiana purchase.
Napoleon used this gold to put together an army. He then used this army to set off across Europe where he began to conquer everything in his path. The Bank of England quickly rose to oppose Napoleon and financed every nation in his path, as usual profiteering from war. Prussia, Austria, and then finally Russia all went heavily into debt in a futile attempt to stop Napoleon.
1807 30 year old Nathan Rothschild, head of the English branch of the family in London, personally takes charge of a plan to smuggle a much needed shipment of gold through France to Spain to finance an attack by the Duke Of Wellington on Napoleon, from there.
1811 A bill was put before Congress to renew the charter of the First Bank of the United States. The legislatures of both Pennsylvania and Virginia pass resolutions asking Congress to kill the bank. The national press openly attack the bank calling it: a great swindle; a vulture; a viper; and a cobra.
Nathan Rothschild gets in on the act and makes the following revealing statement as to who was really behind the First Bank of the United States,
“Either the application for renewal of the charter is granted, or the United States will find itself involved in a most disastrous war.”
When the smoke had cleared the renewal bill was cleared by a single vote in the house and was deadlocked in the Senate. At this point America’s fourth President, President James Madison was in the White House. He was a staunch opponent of the bank and he sent his Vice-President, George Clinton, to break a tie in the Senate which killed the bank.
1812 As promised by Nathan Rothschild, because the charter for the First Bank of the United States is not renewed, thousands have to die and the British attack America. However, as the British are still busy fighting Napoleon, they are unable to mount much of an assault and the war ends in 1814 with America undefeated.
1814 Wellington’s attacks from the South and other defeats eventually forced Napoleon to abdicate and Louis XVIII is crowned King. Napoleon is exiled to the tiny island of Elba, off the coast of Italy.
1815 Napoleon escapes his exile and returns to Paris. French troops were sent to capture him, but he uses his charisma to convince these soldiers to rally round him, and they subsequently hail him as their emperor once again. In March, Napoleon assembles an army which England’s Duke of Wellington defeated less than 90 days later at Waterloo.
Even though the outcome is predetermined, these bankers don’t like to take any sort of risk, they’re too used to a monopoly. Therefore Nathan Rothschild sent a trusted courier named Rothworth to Waterloo where he stayed on the edge of the battlefield. Once the battle was decided, Rothworth took off for the Channel, and delivered the news of Wellington’s victory to Nathan Rothschild a full 24 hours before Wellington’s own courier.
Nathan Rothschild hurried to the London Stock market and stood in his usual position. All eyes were on him as Rothschild had a legendary communications network. Rothschild stood there looking forlorn and suddenly started selling. The other traders believed that this meant he had heard that Napoleon had won so they all started selling frantically.
The market subsequently plummeted, soon everyone was selling their consuls (British Government Bonds), but then Rothschild secretly started buying them all up through his agents on the floor, for a fraction of what they were worth only hours before. A lot of these consuls were able to be converted to Bank of England stock, which is how Rothschild took over the control of the Bank of England and therefore the British money supply.
Interestingly, 100 years later, the New York Times ran a story stating that Nathan Rothschild’s grandson had attempted to secure a court order to suppress a book with this, what we would call today, “insider trading,” story in it. The Rothschild family claimed the story was untrue and libelous, but the court denied the Rothschilds request and ordered the family to pay all court costs.
Nathan Rothschild openly brags that in his 17 years in England he had increased his initial £20,000 stake given to him by his father, 2500 times to £50,000,000.
Some people ask, why do bankers want war? Simple, bankers finance both sides in a war. They do this because war is the biggest debt generator of them all. A nation will borrow any amount for victory, even though the banks have already predetermined the outcome. The ultimate loser is loaned just enough money to hold out a vain hope of victory and the ultimate winner is given enough to ensure that he does win.
How do the banks ensure they will get all their money back? Easy, such loans are given on the guarantee that the victor will honor the debts of the vanquished. Never mind the thousands of troops that give their lives on the pretext it is for the honor of their respective nations, when it is actually for the profits of bankers.
(plenty more here) History of the Money Changers – http://chrisspivey.org/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=241&t=1830
Dogman
Nov 15, 2014 @ 14:02:46
lin, they young are particularly vulnerable to the media sales hype. Your son isn’t unique, sadly, but hopefully he will wake up to it eventually. As for Coca Cola:
Early on in their history, The Coca-Cola Company assisted the U.S. in espionage. When the company set up bottling plants and distribution facilities in a new country, sent in were spy operatives. The place to hang their hat was the offices and plants, worldwide, of the much ballyhooed drink. The cocaine trace made it addictive. So did the sugar content, according to some nutritionist. With the U.S. Senate subcommittee hearings on Iran-Contra late in the 1980,s, the CIA-Coca-Cola link was dealt with. In Nicaragua, for example, those with CIA, when the Senate subcommittee asked, where with local offices of The Coca-Cola Company. By the end of the 20th Century, Coke bought about a billion dollars a year in advertisements in the monopoly press, even more when you add up their so-called “independent” subsidiaries.
Coke reportedly uses worldwide, mafia-type strong-arms to assure distribution and wreck competitors. Such as making soda pop competitors’ refrigerator units in stores to over-night, disappear. In some places it is the traditional Sicilian and Italian mafia. In other places, former Soviet Secret Police agents the KGB, like in the U.S. and current Russia, called the mafiya. Elsewhere used reportedly are the numerous Japanese underworld, the Yakuza.
Feeding on lush revenue of Coke ads, the press whores are not about to run news items or documentaries pointing out the reportedly close link between The Coca-Cola Company, covert operations of the American CIA, and the criminal cartel.
ht tp://rense.com/general3/coca.htm
Incidentally, I was told about the mafia link by a very senior ex-CC employee about ten years ago. They are reputedly involved in arms deals too. They’ve done well with a product that was originally used for industrial cleaning!
Dogman
Nov 15, 2014 @ 16:04:05
I doubt that it was ever really intended for the like of us serfs. Rhodes began developing his philosophy after hearing a speech by John Ruskin (1819-1900) at Christ Church at Oxford University, which furthered the teaching found in Plato’s Republic. Plato called for “…a ruling class with a powerful army to keep it in power and a society completely subordinate to the monolithic authority of the rulers.” Rhodes was also greatly influenced by Windom Reade’s book The Martyrdom of Man, published in 1872, which advocated Darwinism and the tremendous suffering that man must undergo, which was epitomized in the phrase “the survival of the fittest.”
Count Coudenhove Kalergi’s plan for multiculturism may have been well intentioned, although it may have just been meant to divide nationalities. Most of us have no real idea of our ancient historical roots, whereas Coudenhove Kalergi was part of the Committee of 300, Synarchy and the Illuminati and the Kalergi branch of the family has Byzantine and Venetian roots, so again, one rule for them and one for us.
Dogman
Nov 15, 2014 @ 18:12:27
Hi frifriendofthetruth2
John Hamer was talking about Prof Richard Dawkins who wrote several books, The God Delusion being one of them.
He also said “We are all atheists about most of the gods humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”
In my opinion, religion has been cobbled together to suit the purpose of controlling the masses, and I strongly doubt that the so called elite believe in any of the mainstream religions, despite appearances.
This agglomeration which was called and which still calls itself the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire.
– Voltaire (agreed)
If the universe is ever expanding, I struggle with the concept of time…
The pagan gods were turned into angels or demons, according to some beliefs. Ancient history is a fascinating but convoluted read, regardless of religious faith. Many people stop when they feel they have read enough or because they don’t like being confronted by things that question their beliefs. You could read a book a week and still only be scratching the surface. People are welcome to their own beliefs, but I don’t want them preaching to me. I’ll make my own mind up.
“I do not consider it an insult, but rather a compliment to be called an agnostic. I do not pretend to know where many ignorant men are sure — that is all that agnosticism means.” – Clarence Darrow, Scopes trial, 1925. (i’m with Clarence on this)
Satan, demons & djinn – http://chrisspivey.org/forum2/viewforum.php?f=133
Supernatural & Esoteric – http://chrisspivey.org/forum2/viewforum.php?f=7 (includes above topic)
History – http://chrisspivey.org/forum2/viewforum.php?f=31
Dogman
Nov 16, 2014 @ 08:21:14
I’ve been taking a look at what I had on the forum and have added to it and I’m now trying to work Thanksgiving traditions out.
So far, this is what I have:
The Pilgrims were on the Mayflower, and wanted total separation from the church of England. The Puritans were a separate group (Mass. Bay Company) and thought they could PURIFY the church of England. Now bearing that bit about the Mass Bay Co, please read on (it’s unpleasant)and consider replacing “pilgrims” with “puritans”:
The Thanksgiving holiday fable is at once a window on the way that many, if not most, white Americans view the world and their place in it, and a pollutant that leaches barbarism into the modern era. The fable attempts to glorify the indefensible, to enshrine an era and mission that represent the nation’s lowest moral denominators. Thanksgiving as framed in the mythology is, consequently, a drag on that which is potentially civilizing in the national character, a crippling, atavistic deformity. Defenders of the holiday will claim that the politically-corrected children’s version promotes brotherhood, but that is an impossibility – a bald excuse to prolong the worship of colonial “forefathers” and to erase the crimes they committed. Those bastards burned the Pequot women and children, and ushered in the multinational business of slavery. These are facts. The myth is an insidious diversion – and worse.
It is not at all clear what happened at the first – and only – “integrated” Thanksgiving feast. Only two written accounts of the three-day event exist, and one of them, by Governor William Bradford, was written 20 years after the fact. Was Chief Massasoit invited to bring 90 Indians with him to dine with 52 colonists, most of them women and children? This seems unlikely. A good harvest had provided the settlers with plenty of food, according to their accounts, so the whites didn’t really need the Wampanoag’s offering of five deer. What we do know is that there had been lots of tension between the two groups that fall. John Two-Hawks, who runs the Native Circle web site, gives a sketch of the facts:
“Thanksgiving’ did not begin as a great loving relationship between the pilgrims and the Wampanoag, Pequot and Narragansett people. In fact, in October of 1621 when the pilgrim survivors of their first winter in Turtle Island sat down to share the first unofficial ‘Thanksgiving’ meal, the Indians who were there were not even invited! There was no turkey, squash, cranberry sauce or pumpkin pie. A few days before this alleged feast took place, a company of ‘pilgrims’ led by Miles Standish actively sought the head of a local Indian chief, and an 11 foot high wall was erected around the entire Plymouth settlement for the very purpose of keeping Indians out!”
It is much more likely that Chief Massasoit either crashed the party, or brought enough men to ensure that he was not kidnapped or harmed by the Pilgrims. Dr. Tingba Apidta, in his “Black Folks’ Guide to Understanding Thanksgiving,” surmises that the settlers “brandished their weaponry” early and got drunk soon thereafter. He notes that “each Pilgrim drank at least a half gallon of beer a day, which they preferred even to water. This daily inebriation led their governor, William Bradford, to comment on his people’s ‘notorious sin,’ which included their ‘drunkenness and uncleanliness’ and rampant ‘sodomy.’”
Soon after the feast the brutish Miles Standish “got his bloody prize,” Dr. Apidta writes:
“He went to the Indians, pretended to be a trader, then beheaded an Indian man named Wituwamat. He brought the head to Plymouth, where it was displayed on a wooden spike for many years, according to Gary B. Nash, ‘as a symbol of white power.’ Standish had the Indian man’s young brother hanged from the rafters for good measure. From that time on, the whites were known to the Indians of Massachusetts by the name ‘Wotowquenange,’ which in their tongue meant cutthroats and stabbers.”
What is certain is that the first feast was not called a “Thanksgiving” at the time; no further integrated dining occasions were scheduled; and the first, official all-Pilgrim “Thanksgiving” had to wait until 1637, when the whites of New England celebrated the massacre of the Wampanoag’s southern neighbors, the Pequots.
Having subdued, intimidated or made mercenaries of most of the tribes of Massachusetts, the English turned their growing force southward, toward the rich Connecticut valley, the Pequot’s sphere of influence. At the point where the Mystic River meets the sea, the combined force of English and allied Indians bypassed the Pequot fort to attack and set ablaze a town full of women, children and old people.
William Bradford, the former Governor of Plymouth and one of the chroniclers of the 1621 feast, was also on hand for the great massacre of 1637:
“Those that escaped the fire were slain with the sword; some hewed to pieces, others run through with their rapiers, so that they were quickly dispatched and very few escaped. It was conceived they thus destroyed about 400 at this time. It was a fearful sight to see them thus frying in the fire…horrible was the stink and scent thereof, but the victory seemed a sweet sacrifice, and they gave the prayers thereof to God, who had wrought so wonderfully for them, thus to enclose their enemies in their hands, and give them so speedy a victory over so proud and insulting an enemy.”
The rest of the white folks thought so, too. “This day forth shall be a day of celebration and thanksgiving for subduing the Pequots,” read Governor John Winthrop’s proclamation. The authentic Thanksgiving Day was born.
Source is ww w.blackcommentator.com/66/66_cover_thanksgiving_pf.html
http://chrisspivey.org/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=273
Plenty more info here from a different source (worth reading)
Pilgrims & Puritans – http://chrisspivey.org/forum2/viewtopic.php?f=229&t=3245
·         Dogman
Nov 16, 2014 @ 11:47:15
An upstate New York shopping mall is threatening to fine retailers about $200 an hour if they fail to open at 6 p.m. on Thanksgiving.
Walden Galleria, a suburban Buffalo retail complex with more than 200 stores, told store managers in a meeting last week that they must open their doors when the shopping center opens on the holiday, or pay penalties specified in leases, 10 managers told The Huffington Post on Tuesday. Waiting until midnight to open may cost stores $1,200 or more.
Struggling to compete with big-box stores and online retailers, shopping malls aroundthe country plan to kick off Black Friday early by opening on Thanksgiving. The malls are trying to keep up with stores like Kmart, Target and Walmart, which have all pushed holiday shopping’s start date to turkey day.
The only thing that they worship is the dollar!
·         Ann Onymouse
Nov 16, 2014 @ 17:47:28
“Thanksgiving Day: The True Story
The Thanksgiving Day that millions of Americans celebrate, with turkey and stuffing, is a myth. The true history was forgotten long ago, and even most of the history books have it wrong.
The myth goes like this: The Pilgrims landed in 1620 and founded the Colony of New Plymouth. They had a difficult first winter, but survived with the help of the Indians. In the fall of 1621, the grateful Pilgrims held their first Thanksgiving Day and invited the Indians to a big Thanksgiving-Day feast with turkey and pumpkins.
Myth: The Pilgrims invited the Indians to celebrate the First Thanksgiving.
… Fact: According to oral accounts from the Wampanoag people, when the Native people nearby first heard the gunshots of the hunting colonists, they thought that the colonists were preparing for war and that Massasoit needed to be informed. When Massasoit showed up with 90 men and no women or children, it can be assumed that he was being cautious. When he saw there was a party going on, his men then went out and brought back five deer and lots of turkeys.     
 In addition, both the Wampanoag and the English settlers were long familiar with harvest celebrations. Long before the Europeans set foot on these shores, Native peoples gave thanks every day for all the gifts of life, and held thanksgiving celebrations and giveaways at certain times of the year. The Europeans also had days of thanksgiving, marked by religious services. So the coming together of two peoples to share food and company was not entirely a foreign thing for either. But the visit that by all accounts lasted three days was most likely one of a series of political meetings to discuss and secure a military alliance. Neither side totally trusted the other: The Europeans considered the Wampanoag soulless heathens and instruments of the devil, and the Wampanoag had seen the Europeans steal their seed corn and rob their graves. In any event, neither the Wampanoag nor the Europeans referred to this feast/meeting as “Thanksgiving.”
There was indeed a big feast in 1621, but it was not a Thanksgiving Day. This three-day feast was described in a letter by the colonist Edward Winslow. It was a shooting party with the Indians, but there was no Thanksgiving Day proclamation, nor any mention of a thanksgiving in 1621 in any historical record.
The history of the colony was chronicled by Governor William Bradford in his book, Of Plimouth Plantation, available at many libraries. Bradford relates how the Pilgrims set up a communist system in which they owned the land in common and would also share the harvests in common. By 1623, it became clear this system was not working out well. The men were not eager to work in the fields, since if they worked hard, they would have to share their produce with everyone else. The colonists faced another year of poor harvests. They held a meeting to decide what to do.
As Governor Bradford describes it, “At last after much debate of things, the governor gave way that they should set corn everyman for his own particular… That had very good success for it made all hands very industrious, so much [more] corn was planted than otherwise would have been”. The Pilgrims changed their economic system from communism to geoism; the land was still owned in common and could not be sold or inherited, but each family was allotted a portion, and they could keep whatever they grew. The governor “assigned to every family a parcel of land, according to the proportion of their number for that end.”
Bradford wrote that their experience taught them that communism, meaning sharing all the production, was vain and a failure:
The experience that has had in this common course and condition, tried sundrie years, and that amongst Godly and sober men, may well evince the Vanities of the conceit of Plato’s and other ancients, applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of propertie, and bringing into commone wealth, would make them happy and flourishing, as if they were wiser than God.
Their new geoist economic system was a great success. It looked like they would have an abundant harvest this time. But then, during the summer, the rains stopped, threatening the crops. The Pilgrims held a “Day of Humiliation” and prayer. The rains came and the harvest was saved. It is logical to surmise that the Pilgrims saw this as a was a sign that God blessed their new economic system, because Governor Bradford proclaimed November 29, 1623, as a Day of Thanksgiving.
This was the first proclamation of thanksgiving found in Bradford’s chronicles or any other historical record. The first Thanksgiving Day was therefore in November 1623. Much later, this first Thanksgiving Day became confused and mixed up with the shooting party with the Indians of 1621. And in the mixup, the great economics lesson was forgotten and then discarded by the time the Plymouth Colony merged with the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1691.
The Pilgrims recognized that the land itself was and should be their common community property, but that it is proper for the fruits of the labor of each person and family to belong to those who produced them. This was the great economics lesson the Pilgrims learned, a lesson that so impressed them that they commemorated it every year thereafter. This should have been a day to remember their vital economics lesson, but this lesson was later forgotten in the mixup with the shooting party with the Indians!
This bitter lesson would be learned all over again by the people of the Soviet Union, where socialism and communalism of production failed again. Fortunately the Pilgrims, a smaller community in simpler times, were able to switch quickly and realize the great prosperity that comes from applying the geoist principle of the common ownership of land and the individual ownership of labor.
Thanksgiving Day should be remembered not just as a day when we give thanks for our abundance, but more deeply and historically when we recall why we have this abundance. In our Thanksgiving Day celebrations, let us therefore tell one another the true origins of the thanksgiving and the great economic lesson that it rightfully should remember.” ht tp://www.landandfreedom.org/news/112204.htm
Two years later in 1625, two brothers from south Yorkshire headed to Massachusetts and one side of my family was established in “the new world”. You and your readers might find this site interesting, tracing the connections from England to Plimoth Plantation: ht tp://www.pilgrimfathersorigins.org Again, not the “Puritans”, but Pilgrims. Cheers!
Dogman
Nov 16, 2014 @ 07:30:44
Agreed Martin, this is from the forum:
The historical “reason for the season,” for many of these celebrations can be indirectly traced back to the 23.5º tilt of the earth’s rotation axis relative to the plane of the ecliptic.
The earth spins like a gyroscope or a child’s toy top. It constantly points to the same region far out in the universe.
The seasons are not caused by the earth getting closer or farther away from the sun, as many people believe. It is caused by this 23.5º tilt. As the earth travels around the sun, the density of the sun’s rays differs between the Northern and Southern hemispheres. In early December of each year, the sun is very low in the northern sky, and very high in the southern sky. This produces winter in the north and summer in the south. In the northern hemisphere, the daylight hours shorten each day and the nighttime lengthens.
On or about DEC-21, the daytime is at a minimum and the nighttime is at a maximum. This is the winter solstice. Humans living millennia ago were far more aware of the shortening day, an apparent pause, and then a gradual lengthening of the daylight hours in late December. Living in a pre-scientific era, many cultures were terrified that the daylight interval would continue to shorten, causing an end to life on Earth. So the winter solstice or the days immediately following the solstice were a time of great celebration. Ancient faiths attributed a major religious theme to the solstice: it was a time of the birth of a new God to replace the old, dying deity. Implicit in this is the hope for a new warm season and a return to the earth’s fertility.
The historical origins of religious observances in December:
The celebrations of various religions are tied directly or indirectly to the earth’s tilt on its axis:
Wiccans, and other Neopagans celebrate Yule, which is their name for the Winter Solstice.
The American Atheists and local Atheist groups have chosen to have celebrations on the solstice which they call by various names: the Great North Texas Infidel Bash, the Winter Solstice bash, the Winter Solstice Parties, etc. Again, their day is tied to the solstice
Nova Romans, celebrate Saturnalia, an ancient Roman holiday. This was the Festival of Saturn which was gradually extended in duration until it became a seven day observance from DEC-17 to 23 each year. The Romans decorated living trees outside their homes, and hung garlands, wreathes and other decorations on their doorways, windows, and stairs. It was also observed at the winter solstice.
Ancient Rome: In the religious melting pot which was the Mediterranean in ancient times, there were many celebrations of the births of saviors at this season:
The ancient Roman Pagan religion celebrated the birth of one of their Gods, Attis, in December of each year. Attis was born of the virgin Nana. He was sacrificed as an adult in order to bring salvation to mankind. He died about MAR-25, after being crucified on a tree, and descended for three days into the underworld. On Sunday, he arose, “as the solar deity for the new season.” His followers tied an image of Attis to a tree on “Black Friday,” and carried him in a procession to the temple. His body was symbolically eaten by his followers in the form of bread. Worship of Attis began in Rome circa 200 BCE.
The Babylonians celebrated their “Victory of the Sun-God” Festival on DEC-25.
The followers of the Pagan mystery religion Mithraism observed the birth of the savior Mithra, the “Deus sol invictus” (“unconquered sun”). Their God was believed to have been born on DEC-25, circa 500 BCE. His birth was witnessed by shepherds and by gift-carrying Magi. This date was celebrated as the “Dies Natalis Solic Invite,” The “Birthday of the Unconquered Sun” each year. Some followers believed that he was born of a virgin. During his life, he performed many miracles, cured many illnesses, and cast out devils. He celebrated a Last Supper with his 12 disciples. He ascended to heaven at the time of the spring equinox, about March 21.
The Roman Emperor Aurelian (circa 214-275 CE) blended Saturnalia with a number of birth celebrations of savior Gods from other religions, into a single holy day: DEC-25. At the time, the various Christian movements were not recognized as legitimate religions. They were subject to intermittent oppression. This new holy day partially lost its close connection to the Winter Solstice.
Christianity: By the third century CE the main surviving Christian movement who were spiritual descendents of the first century CE Pauline Christians, had forgotten Yeshua of Nazareth’s (Jesus Christ’s) birth day. An anonymous third century document “The DePascha Computus,” “placed Jesus birth on March 28. Clement, a bishop of Alexandria (d. ca. 215 CE), thought Jesus was born on November 18.” After much argument, the developing Christian church adopted the Pagan Emperor Aurelian’s date as the birthday of their savior.
Since the people of the Roman Empire were accustomed to celebrating the birth of various Gods on that day, it was easy for the church to divert people’s attention to Jesus’ birth. The earliest Christmas holidays were celebrated in the same way as Saturnalia. They involved drinking, sexual indulgence, and singing naked in the streets. These practices have long since been abandoned, although naked singing evolved into modern caroling. According to the Judaism Online web site: “Some of the most depraved customs of the Saturnalia carnival were intentionally revived by the Catholic Church in 1466 when Pope Paul II, for the amusement of his Roman citizens, forced Jews to race naked through the streets of the city.”
Source is religioustolerance.org (great concept)
Dogman
Nov 17, 2014 @ 14:38:41
Twas always the way for those in power maryanne. The following is from the forum and the source is one-evil.org
Child Molestation is when an adult engages in intimate sexually related contact with a child under the generally accepted completion age of puberty. It is also one of the oldest and most sacred rituals of the Roman Cult and Sabbatean Occultists since the 14th Century. The words Molestation/Molest come from the 14th Century religious term “Mollista” created from Moll (from Latin Mollis meaning “soft, weak, young child/boy) and Ista (Latin suffix used to indicate adherence to a certain doctrine or custom).
The most evil, brutal, bizarre and psychologically twisted ancient religious ceremonies involving human sacrifice revolve around the trinity of Sadducee demon gods. The principle pantheon of gods of the Sadducees were mainly derived from their Syrian Ugarit roots.
The most senior God was was Ashtoreth the goddess of fertility, sexuality and war. Her most famous temples were on Cyprus as Aphrodite and in Rome on Vatican Hill as Cybele. Her ceremonial headdress was the Kippa, the cap worn thousands of years before Christianity adopted it for its leadership followed by the Jews and then the Sadducee influenced Muslims.
The second was Dagan, the god of agriculture, plenty (food) and good fortune. The priests of Dagan wore fish dress , the archetype of the Mitre (fish) hats of Christian bishops. The Mitre hat of Dagan was always worn over the Kippa of Ashtoreth/Cybele as it is still done today in the Roman Catholic Church.
Then there was Moloch, Hebrew name for Ba’al and “King” of the land. This god also equated to “Attis” and his ceremonial cap is now variously known as the Phrygian cap and the Cap of Liberty also worn ceremonially over the kippa cap of Cybele.
Attis/Moloch had several ritual sacrifice rituals associated with this demon god including wild sexual orgies in which priests themselves would often cut their bodies and drink the blood/eat the flesh of their victims. Similarly, Cybele had important sexually explicit orgy like rituals involving cannibalism and human sacrifice apart from obligatory child sacrifice and human burning.
Of all ancient religions, it is the Sadducees that were most evil and involved the incorporation of sex and violent frenzied murder to its absolute maximum.
The principle god to which people were sacrificed by burning is and has always been Ba’al also known in the instance as Ba’al Moloch- one of the oldest fertility gods of the Middle East whose most important shrine remains Baalbek.
However, the practice of burning, particular small infants appears to be unique in its origins to the Phoenician exiles (also known as the Amorites) from Phoenicia, who settled in hundreds of locations across the world including North Africa, Italy, Spain and as far away as Britain.
The ceremony of Beltaine, originally comes from Baal- a unique and distinct Phoenician ceremony introduced into certain celtic culture and not native to the celts.
The most common and continued Catholic honor to Moloch is through the legal definition of “Immolate” to describe all victims of fire literally as “To Moloch.”
While it may appear odd to consider different forms of human sacrifice having a higher power, or more base motive, the burning of people and children alive to Moloch is and has always been about perpetuating power and good fortune through the influence of demons.
It appears this Satanic liturgy has never been about the higher motives of favourable seasons, harvest and life attributed to the worship of the Mother Goddess, or even the worship of Osiris reborn.
A section of the Phoenicians adopted a very pragmatic and shallow cosmology of the world- that the world is largely dominated by demonic forces which can only be overcome by effectively “doing deals” with such demons- hence the cruel and unspeakable act of burning people.
———
Daniel P Mannix’s 1958 non-fiction book Those about to Die (reprinted in 2001 as The Way of the Gladiator) was the inspiration for David Franzoni’s screenplay for the 2000 movie Gladiator.
But the movie left out the bits about men dressed in animal skins raping young boys and girls in the arena.



There we are.  Not much further to add at the moment except to note that I am beginning to form the opinion, bearing in mind the artificially induced ancient silver/gold East/West trade, that the Americas, viewed over millennia, might have been left as fallow fields. Something about the Marco Polo bollox, Prince Henry the Navigator and the bollockless Chink Yahweist Admiral stinks.

Talking of which USofA corps.

Notice that you lot, and the Russ, were shut out of this meeting.



Venetian and Manchurian candidates; the lot!

Thursday, 13 November 2014

Thomas Sheridan's Official Blog: Infant Cannibalism Ritual for Thanksgiving?





Thomas Sheridan's Official Blog: Infant Cannibalism Ritual for Thanksgiving?: As much as I hate to give Monsanto ideas for their future product ranges, but US crafts websites aimed at Middle America have long been a b...



Relics of Carthage
Show Brutality Amid the Good Life

By MALCOLM W. BROWNE

Published: September 1, 1987
A TROVE of relics now arriving in New York contains evidence that the ritual slaying of
children in ancient Carthage
was so common that it helped control the growth of the population and helped
families keep fortunes intact over generations, archeologists say.
And through these indirect economic effects,
some scholars assert, the practice of infanticide helped produce Carthage's great wealth
and its flowering of artistic achievement.
Among the treasures being uncrated at the American Museum
of Natural History in New York
are magnificent bronze figures, opulent jewelry and ornaments, and some of the
most beautiful mosaics of antiquity. Such masterpieces, scholars believe, were
made possible by the patronage of the merchant rulers of Carthage, whose wealth was without equal in
the ancient world.
But the collection
also includes cremation urns and religious paraphernalia of the kind used to
sacrifice some 20,000 children from about 800 B.C. until Carthage's destruction by Roman invaders in
146 B.C. At the site where Carthage stood, now a
wealthy suburb of Tunis
on the north African coast, is a place scholars regard as the largest cemetery
of sacrificed humans ever discovered.




The
175 pieces in the Carthaginian collection, whose five-month display at the
museum begins in December, were lent by six Tunisian museums, which are the
repositories of all Carthaginian relics. Some artifacts were found in current
excavations.
Dr. David Soren of the University of Arizona,
who spent seven years organizing the collection on behalf of the museum here
and other sponsoring institutions, believes that it casts new light on a
longstanding paradox. Carthage,
the most important commercial center of its day, produced one of the greatest
civilizations of antiquity, and yet it practiced ritual barbarities that
horrified even its brutal contemporaries.
''There was a peculiar dualism in Carthage,'' Dr. Soren
said, ''in which the thrust for commerce, prosperity and the good life were
blended with a religion so intense that the richest Carthaginian could
cheerfully consign a son or daughter to the flames of the sacrificial pit to
redeem a pledge to the gods.''
Not all scholars believe that the sacrifice of
children in Carthage
was widespread or systematic. The Carthaginian artifacts now in New York typify the kind
of evidence that is fueling scientific debate on the issue.
''This debate has something in common with
disagreements among anthropologists as to whether or not any society ever
practiced ritual cannibalism,'' said Dr. Lawrence E. Stager, professor of
Middle Eastern archeology at Harvard University, In both debates, he said in an
interview, scholars have sometimes been influenced by their feelings about the
societies involved. ''Some scholars,'' he said, ''regard Carthaginian
civilization as so advanced and sophisticated that widespread human sacrifice
would have been unthinkable.''
He suggested that this view may have
influenced the opinions of the French archeologists Claude Schaeffer and Helene
Benicho-Safar and Moshe Weinfeld of Israel, who are among the scholars
who doubt Carthaginian human sacrifice was extensive. Some See 'a Bad Rap'
''Their contention,'' he said, ''is this: Carthage was vanquished
and its records were destroyed. Carthaginian history was therefore handed down
by the enemies of Carthage, namely Greece and Rome,
and Carthage
has therefore had a bad rap.''
For example, the 3d-century B.C. Greek author
Kleitarchos is credited with the following report from Carthage, in which the author refers to the
the Greek equivalent of the Carthaginian god Ba'al Hammon:
''Out of reverence for Kronos the Phoenicians,
and especially the Carthaginians, whenever they seek to obtain some great
favor, vow one of their children, burning it as a sacrifice to the deity, if
they are especially eager to gain success. There stands in their midst a bronze
statue of Kronos, its hands extended over a bronze brazier, the flames of which
engulf the child. When the flames fall upon the body, the limbs contract and
the open mouth seems almost to be laughing, until the body slips quietly into
the brazier.''
But anti-Carthaginian propaganda or not, the
evidence of classical writers is now supported by some of the pathetic objects
at the American Museum of Natural History gathered from the Precinct of Tanit,
the huge and sinister children's cemetery of ancient Carthage.
''Some have argued that those children died
natural deaths and that the Precinct of Tanit is an ordinary cemetery,'' Dr.
Stager said. ''But in an ordinary Carthaginian necropolis, one finds normal
proportions of both adults and children, some cremated and some not.
''At the Precinct of Tanit, however, there are
only cremated children ranging in age from still-born fetuses to children four
years old. There are also bodies of young cremated animals. The charred bones
of both children and animals were buried individually in special clay urns with
stone markers dedicating them by a special symbol to Tanit, the preeminent
Carthaginian goddess, and to Ba'al Hammon, of whom Tanit was the consort. The
graves in normal cemeteries do not have these dedicatory markers.'' Grave
Markers' Stick Figures
The art and artifacts assembled in New York include urns
and markers gathered in recent expeditions from the Precinct of Tanit. The
grave markers are decorated with a peculiarly primitive stick figure
representing the bloodthirsty goddess.
From its earliest days in the 8th century
B.C., Carthage
sacrificed animals (lambs and kids) to Ba'al and Tanit, dedicating the
offerings as ''substitutes for children.'' Traditionally, Dr. Stager said,
archeologists have tended to the view that as Carthage advanced over the following 600
years, the practice of human sacrifice subsided as the sacrifice of animal
substitutes increased. This is in keeping with the supposition by historians
that human sacrifice, at first transformed into animal sacrifice, eventually
evolved into the bloodless wine-and-wafer Eucharist of Christianity.
But excavations led by Dr. Stager and others
have shown, he said, that in Carthage,
the trend was reversed. The oldest burial layers at the Precinct of Tanit hold
urns containing burned skeletal remains in the ratio of three children for one
animal, but in a later era, the 3d century B.C., the ratio increased to ten
children for one animal.
''It has yet to be
proved,'' he said, ''but the evidence is accumulating that Carthage found
religion to be a convenient basis for controlling the size of the population.




''In
the first place, Carthage
became extremely crowded as it prospered. According to the Greek geographer
Strabo, the capital city had 800,000 people at its peak, and even allowing for
exaggeration, Carthage
probably had a minimum of 100,000. Farmers and nomads, including ancient
Berbers closely related to today's Berbers, moved in large numbers to the city.
This would have been a huge population for the time, and might have stretched
food and other resources.''
Dr. Stager believes that a major reason for
the depletion of resources may have been the large-scale abandonment of farms
as farmers sought the opportunities afforded by life in the big city.
Dr. Stager sees an important clue in the fact
that a very high proportion of sacrificed children seem to have come from the
wealthy class that ruled plutocratic Carthage.
Rich Carthaginians were anxious to avoid having to divide their estates among
many offspring, he believes, and solved potential inheritance problems by
handing unwanted heirs over to the priests of the cult of Tanit. During the
Tokugawa period in Japan,
he said, child sacrifice for similar reasons became common. In feudal Europe, the rule of primogeniture helped to ensure that
an estate would descend intact to a single heir. Lower Classes, Too
Child sacrifice in Carthage was gradually ''democratized,'' he
said. The children sacrificed during the 5th century B.C. were nearly all
''offered'' by parents of the elite class; by the 3d century B.C., many of the
offeratory markers were from parents in the professional classes and even mere
artisans.
Excavations have been hampered by modern
housing developments since the children's bones were first discovered in 1921. Carthage, a fashionable
seaside suburb, is the site of the Tunisian presidential palace, and real
estate values there have soared.
In 1974 the United Nations, assisted by
institutions from 12 countries, began a drive to ''save Carthage'' by
preserving or studying as many ancient Carthaginian sites as possible in the
face of rapid urban sprawl.
''We were already too late,'' Dr. Stager said,
''and it is now harder than ever to get permission to dig in the garden of
somebody's villa. We have not even been able to determine the exact boundaries
of the Precinct of Tanit.''
Archeologists point out, too, that in the sack
of Carthage in
146 B.C. the Romans razed the city, even exporting the multicolored marble
rubble for use in Roman construction projects abroad. Any Carthaginian
documents or literature that may have been written on parchment or papyrus has
long perished. Even the last-ditch expeditions of the past several years to
save what was left have failed to turn up ostraca - texts written in ink on
fragments of pottery. Such records made by the Phoenicians, the ancestors of
the Carthaginians, are often found elsewhere.
Another threat to the vanishing traces of Carthage is water, Dr.
Stager said. A rise in the water table linked to changes in land use has
immersed the pre-Roman layers of Carthage,
and pumps are needed for excavation.
In the 3d century B.C., Carthage
was the equal of Rome in power, wealth and pomp,
but in 146 B.C., at the conclusion of the three bitter Punic wars, Rome wiped the
Carthaginian capital off the map. However, in its place arose a new Roman
Carthage, and Dr. Soren points out that Carthage
did not entirely die with the Roman conquest. Rome
forced the Carthaginians to learn Latin and to give up human sacrifices, but Carthaginian
sculptors and artists were soon enriching the Roman empire
with their unique gifts. They also continued to worship Ba'al in his new
incarnation as the Roman god Saturn. Hannibal's
Elephant
Some of Carthage's
most magnificent polychrome mosaics of hunting scenes, feasts and gladiatorial
contests date from its period as a colony of Rome. One mosaic on loan for this exhibit
depicts a fanciful elephant in the coils of an immense python.
The great Carthaginian general Hannibal used elephants in crossing the Alps to Italy in 218 B.C. and in the course of his
campaigns, Hannibal almost wiped out Rome's defenses. But 38
years after Hannibal's death, Rome won its revenge: the destruction of its
rival.
The anonymous artist who created the great
elephant mosaic may have been thinking of Hannibal's
elephants and the lost greatness of Carthage
as he worked. ''In any case,'' a museum official said, ''the artist certainly
left us something beautiful to take our minds off those poor Carthaginian
children.''
Photos of a clay urn and a bronze Dionysus,
dating from Roman period (NYT/Keith Meyers); map of Mediterranean area around Carthage; photo of first
excavation of the Precinct of Tanit (World Wide Photos)



BWAHAHAAHAAAAA,