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!
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
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
“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).
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.
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
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
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.”
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.
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!
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.
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
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
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!
“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!
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)
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!
.jpg)
Dogman
Ann
Onymouse
Nov 15, 2014 @ 11:00:07