Several thoughts on the clip in the OP:
The author espouses the formation of the United States in 1787 as part of the Great Awakening
There is a great deal of fuckery in the actual government we got at its foundation. As just one example, the fifth amendment includes explicit statements that people in our military have no constitutional rights. Military enrollment (conscription) was not optional, so really, no one had any rights under any condition where the PTB considered the public to be endangered (AKA "National Security"). Women had no rights. Slaves had no rights, but it wasn't just them. No one but a land owner could participate in government at all. Indeed, no one else could even vote. Land owners made up a very small percent of the population at the time (I think around 6%). Most men were wage laborers, indentured servants, or slaves.
The government we actually got was made strictly and intentionally for the Aristocrats.
The fifth amendment also makes clear that the government ultimately owns everyone's property.
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
If the Aristocrats who run the government want your stuff they can take it. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. You can't defend your property from the Rulers. It's written into the constitution. The Right to Defend your property is inalienable, but this writ of Treaty, which no one but a few people actually signed, states unequivocally that the people who run the government (Aristocrats, every single one), are the Ultimate Authority over your property.
Prior to a "Constitutional Republic" that type of government had a different name, it was called feudalism.
The author espouses Lincoln's assassination as a loss for the Great Awakening
After looking into Lincoln, I do not think he was a hero at all. If you consider the actual consequences of his actions, either his efforts were subverted, or they were intentional. Yes, there was the whole "greenback" thing, but he had still taken out so many loans already that it was a meaningless gesture. BOTH SIDES of the civil war had indebted themselves to the bankers so deeply that America has never recovered since. People blame the Fed for our debt problems. It was actually the Civil War that did it. The Fed was inevitable after that indebtedness.
The Civil War also wasn't about slavery. It was about setting up the Federal Government as Sovereign over the States. Lincoln ensured that the "United States," a treaty of Sovereign States became the "United States," a single nation, with subordinate areas called "States" in name only.
Aside from all of that, I'm not even convinced that Lincoln was assassinated. Literally everyone involved was an actor. His son was a Rockefeller croney. There is so much fuckery there... I think the reason Lincoln is an "American Hero" is purposeful promotion by the Cabal to hide what really happened.
The author espouses the speech by JFK as an exposure of the Cabal.
In context, this speech is actually about justifying silencing the media for "National Security."
This one is a tough one, because it really does two things. It brings to the fore ideas of an exposure of the Cabal. But it also is, in context, suggesting that it is talking about the Soviet Union. So is it a veiled message about the Cabal? Maybe. Is it a veiled message letting people know that the news is being censored by nefarious actors (the C_A) under false pretenses of "National Security"? Maybe.
I don't know what the intent is behind this speech. What it is saying is, "The USSR is evil, and because of that we need to censor the news, for the greater good; to keep everyone safe." That is what the speech says. However, the delivery is such that it sounds like something much more. It could be that that is exactly what it is; two speeches in one. A speech that was intended to have a double meaning. "Say what the Cabal wants you to say," and "Tell everyone the truth" at the same time.
I honestly have no idea. JFK is an enigma, no matter how deep I dig, his enigmatic nature persists. That alone makes him stand out. Everyone else I dig into lose any "enigma" quality after not too much investigation. These investigations inevitably suggest that by force or by choice, everyone else is Cabal.
There is a lot going on with the ideas espoused in the clip in the OP, but the context surrounding them is important. Whatever the truth is, there is more to everything than it appears on the surface. Understanding someone's true motives is impossible. The best "red pills" are the ones that get people to ask the right questions. I'm not convinced that this piece will convince anyone to do that who hasn't already done so.
Several thoughts on the clip in the OP:
The author espouses the formation of the United States in 1787 as part of the Great Awakening
There is a great deal of fuckery in the actual government we got at its foundation. As just one example, the fifth amendment includes explicit statements that people in our military have no constitutional rights. Military enrollment (conscription) was not optional, so really, no one had any rights under any condition where the PTB considered the public to be endangered (AKA "National Security"). Women had no rights. Slaves had no rights, but it wasn't just them. No one but a land owner could participate in government at all. Indeed, no one else could even vote. Land owners made up a very small percent of the population at the time (I think around 6%). Most men were wage laborers, indentured servants, or slaves.
The government we actually got was made strictly and intentionally for the Aristocrats.
The fifth amendment also makes clear that the government ultimately owns everyone's property.
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
If the Aristocrats who run the government want your stuff they can take it. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. You can't defend your property from the Rulers. It's written into the constitution. The Right to Defend your property is inalienable, but this writ of Treaty, which no one but a few people actually signed, states unequivocally that the people who run the government (Aristocrats, every single one), are the Ultimate Authority over your property.
Prior to a "Constitutional Republic" that type of government had a different name, it was called feudalism.
The author espouses Lincoln's assassination as a loss for the Great Awakening
After looking into Lincoln, I do not think he was a hero at all. If you consider the actual consequences of his actions, either his efforts were subverted, or they were intentional. Yes, there was the whole "greenback" thing, but he had still taken out so many loans already that it was a meaningless gesture. BOTH SIDES of the civil war had indebted themselves to the bankers so deeply that America has never recovered since. People blame the Fed for our debt problems. It was actually the Civil War that did it. The Fed was inevitable after that indebtedness.
The Civil War also wasn't about slavery. It was about setting up the Federal Government as Sovereign over the States. Lincoln ensured that the "United States," a treaty of Sovereign States became the "United States," a single nation, with subordinate areas called "States" in name only.
Aside from all of that, I'm not even convinced that Lincoln was assassinated. Literally everyone involved was an actor. His son was a Rockefeller croney. There is so much fuckery there... I think the reason Lincoln is an "American Hero" is purposeful promotion by the Cabal to hide what really happened.
The author espouses the speech by JFK as an exposure of the Cabal.
In context, this speech is actually about justifying silencing the media for "National Security."
This one is a tough one, because it really does two things. It brings to the fore ideas of an exposure of the Cabal. But it also is, in context, suggesting that it is talking about the Soviet Union. So is it a veiled message about the Cabal? Maybe. Is it a veiled message letting people know that the news is being censored by nefarious actors (the C_A) under false pretenses of "National Security"? Maybe.
I don't know what the intent is behind this speech. What it is saying is, "The USSR is evil, and because of that we need to censor the news, for the greater good; to keep everyone safe." That is what the speech says. However, the delivery is such that it sounds like something much more. It could be that that is exactly what it is; two speeches in one. A speech that was intended to have a double meaning. "Say what the Cabal wants you to say," and "Tell everyone the truth" at the same time.
I honestly have no idea. JFK is an enigma, no matter how deep I dig, his enigmatic nature persists. That alone makes him stand out. Everyone else I dig into lose any "enigma" quality after not too much investigation --> by force or by choice, everyone else is Cabal.
There is a lot going on with the ideas espoused in the clip in the OP, but the context surrounding them is important. Whatever the truth is, there is more to everything than it appears on the surface. Understanding someone's true motives is impossible. The best "red pills" are the ones that get people to ask the right questions. I'm not convinced that this piece will convince anyone to do that who hasn't already done so.
Several thoughts on the clip in the OP:
The author espouses the formation of the United States in 1787 as part of the Great Awakening
There is a great deal of fuckery in the actual government we got at its foundation. As just one example, the fifth amendment includes explicit statements that people in our military have no constitutional rights. Military enrollment (conscription) was not optional, so really, no one had any rights under any condition where the PTB considered the public to be endangered (AKA "National Security"). Women had no rights. Slaves had no rights, but it wasn't just them. No one but a land owner could participate in government at all. Indeed, no one else could even vote. Land owners made up a very small percent of the population at the time (I think around 6%). Most men were wage laborers, indentured servants, or slaves.
The government we actually got was made strictly and intentionally for the Aristocrats.
The fifth amendment also makes clear that the government ultimately owns everyone's property.
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
If the Aristocrats who run the government want your stuff they can take it. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. You can't defend your property from the Rulers. It's written into the constitution. The Right to Defend your property is inalienable, but this writ of Treaty, which no one but a few people actually signed, states unequivocally that the people who run the government (Aristocrats, every single one), are the Ultimate Authority over your property.
Prior to a "Constitutional Republic" that type of government had a different name, it was called feudalism.
The author espouses Lincoln's assassination as a loss for the Great Awakening
After looking into Lincoln, I do not think he was a hero at all. If you consider the actual consequences of his actions, either his efforts were subverted, or they were intentional. Yes, there was the whole "greenback" thing, but he had still taken out so many loans already that it was a meaningless gesture. BOTH SIDES of the civil war had indebted themselves to the bankers so deeply that America has never recovered since. People blame the Fed for our debt problems. It was actually the Civil War that did it. The Fed was inevitable after that indebtedness.
The Civil War also wasn't about slavery. It was about setting up the Federal Government as Sovereign over the States. Lincoln ensured that the "United States," a treaty of Sovereign States became the "United States," a single nation, with subordinate areas called "States" in name only.
Aside from all of that, I'm not even convinced that Lincoln was assassinated. Literally everyone involved was an actor. His son was a Rockefeller croney. There is so much fuckery there... I think the reason Lincoln is an "American Hero" is purposeful promotion by the Cabal to hide what really happened.
The author espouses the speech by JFK as an exposure of the Cabal.
In context, this speech is actually about justifying silencing the media for "National Security."
This one is a tough one, because it really does two things. It brings to the fore ideas of an exposure of the Cabal. But it also is, in context, suggesting that it is talking about the Soviet Union. So is it a veiled message about the Cabal? Maybe. Is it a veiled message letting people know that the news is being censored by nefarious actors (the C_A) under false pretenses of "National Security"? Maybe.
I don't know what the intent is behind this speech. What it is saying is, "The USSR is evil, and because of that we need to censor the news, for the greater good; to keep everyone safe." That is what the speech says. However, the delivery is such that it sounds like something much more. It could be that that is exactly what it is; two speeches in one. A speech that was intended to have a double meaning. "Say what the Cabal wants you to say," and "Tell everyone the truth" at the same time.
I honestly have no idea. JFK is an enigma, no matter how deep I dig, his enigmatic nature persists. That alone makes him stand out. Everyone else I dig into lose any "enigma" quality after not too much investigation.
To wit, by force or by choice, everyone else is Cabal.
There is a lot going on with the ideas espoused in the clip in the OP, but the context surrounding them is important. Whatever the truth is, there is more to everything than it appears on the surface. Understanding someone's true motives is impossible. The best "red pills" are the ones that get people to ask the right questions. I'm not convinced that this piece will convince anyone to do that who hasn't already done so.
Several thoughts on the clip in the OP:
The author espouses the formation of the United States in 1787 as part of the Great Awakening
There is a great deal of fuckery in the actual government we got at its foundation. As just one example, the fifth amendment includes explicit statements that people in our military have no constitutional rights. Military enrollment (conscription) was not optional, so really, no one had any rights under any condition where the PTB considered the public to be endangered (AKA "National Security"). Women had no rights. Slaves had no rights, but it wasn't just them. No one but a land owner could participate in government at all. Indeed, no one else could even vote. Land owners made up a very small percent of the population at the time (I think around 6%). Most men were wage laborers, indentured servants, or slaves.
The government we actually got was made strictly and intentionally for the Aristocrats.
The fifth amendment also makes clear that the government ultimately owns everyone's property.
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
If the Aristocrats who run the government want your stuff they can take it. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. You can't defend your property from the Rulers. It's written into the constitution. The Right to Defend your property is inalienable, but this writ of Treaty, which no one but a few people actually signed, states unequivocally that the people who run the government (Aristocrats, every single one), are the Ultimate Authority over your property.
Prior to a "Constitutional Republic" that type of government had a different name, it was called feudalism.
The author espouses Lincoln's assassination as a loss for the Great Awakening
After looking into Lincoln, I do not think he was a hero at all. If you consider the actual consequences of his actions, either his efforts were subverted, or they were intentional. Yes, there was the whole "greenback" thing, but he had still taken out so many loans already that it was a meaningless gesture. BOTH SIDES of the civil war had indebted themselves to the bankers so deeply that America has never recovered since. People blame the Fed for our debt problems. It was actually the Civil War that did it. The Fed was inevitable after that indebtedness.
The Civil War also wasn't about slavery. It was about setting up the Federal Government as Sovereign over the States. Lincoln ensured that the "United States," a treaty of Sovereign States became the "United States," a single nation, with subordinate areas called "States" in name only.
Aside from all of that, I'm not even convinced that Lincoln was assassinated. Literally everyone involved was an actor. His son was a Rockefeller croney. There is so much fuckery there... I think the reason Lincoln is an "American Hero" is purposeful promotion by the Cabal to hide what really happened.
The author espouses the speech by JFK as an exposure of the Cabal.
In context, this speech is actually about justifying silencing the media for "National Security."
This one is a tough one, because it really does two things. It brings to the fore ideas of an exposure of the Cabal. But it also is, in context, suggesting that it is talking about the Soviet Union. So is it a veiled message about the Cabal? Maybe. Is it a veiled message letting people know that the news is being censored by nefarious actors (the C_A) under false pretenses of "National Security"? Maybe.
I don't know what the intent is behind this speech. What it is saying is, "The USSR is evil, and because of that we need to censor the news, for the greater good; to keep everyone safe." That is what the speech says. However, the delivery is such that it sounds like something much more. It could be that that is exactly what it is; two speeches in one. A speech that was intended to have a double meaning. "Say what the Cabal wants you to say," and "Tell everyone the truth" at the same time.
I honestly have no idea. JFK is an enigma, no matter how deep I dig, his enigmatic nature persists. That lone makes him stand out. Everyone else I dig into lose any "enigma" quality after not too much investigation.
To wit, by force or by choice, everyone else is Cabal.
There is a lot going on with the ideas espoused in the clip in the OP, but the context surrounding them is important. Whatever the truth is, there is more to everything than it appears on the surface. Understanding someone's true motives is impossible. The best "red pills" are the ones that get people to ask the right questions. I'm not convinced that this piece will convince anyone to do that who hasn't already done so.
Several thoughts on the clip in the OP:
The author espouses the formation of the United States in 1787 as part of the Great Awakening
There is a great deal of fuckery in the actual government we got at its foundation. As just one example, the fifth amendment includes explicit statements that people in our military have no constitutional rights. Military enrollment (conscription) was not optional, so really, no one had any rights under any condition where the PTB considered the public to be endangered (AKA "National Security"). Women had no rights. Slaves had no rights, but it wasn't just them. No one but a land owner could participate in government at all. Indeed, no one else could even vote. Land owners made up a very small percent of the population at the time (I think around 6%). Most men were wage laborers, indentured servants, or slaves.
The government we actually got was made strictly and intentionally for the Aristocrats.
The fifth amendment also makes clear that the government ultimately owns everyone's property.
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
If the Aristocrats who run the government want your stuff they can take it. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. You can't defend your property from the Rulers. It's written into the constitution. The Right to Defend your property is inalienable, but this writ of Treaty, which no one but a few people actually signed, states unequivocally that the people who run the government (Aristocrats, every single one), are the Ultimate Authority over your property.
Prior to a "Constitutional Republic" that type of government had a different name, it was called feudalism.
The author espouses Lincoln's assassination as a loss for the Great Awakening
After looking into Lincoln, I do not think he was a hero at all. If you consider the actual consequences of his actions, either his efforts were subverted, or they were intentional. Yes, there was the whole "greenback" thing, but he had still taken out so many loans already that it was a meaningless gesture. BOTH SIDES of the civil war had indebted themselves to the bankers so deeply that America has never recovered since. People blame the Fed for our debt problems. It was actually the Civil War that did it. The Fed was inevitable after that indebtedness.
The Civil War also wasn't about slavery. It was about setting up the Federal Government as Sovereign over the States. Lincoln ensured that the "United States," a treaty of Sovereign States became the "United States," a single nation, with subordinate areas called "States" in name only.
Aside from all of that, I'm not even convinced that Lincoln was assassinated. Literally everyone involved was an actor. His son was a Rockefeller croney. There is so much fuckery there... I think the reason Lincoln is an "American Hero" is purposeful promotion by the Cabal to hide what really happened.
The author espouses the speech by JFK as an exposure of the Cabal.
In context, this speech is actually about justifying silencing the media for "National Security."
This one is a tough one, because it really does two things. It brings to the fore ideas of an exposure of the Cabal. But it also is, in context, suggesting that it is talking about the Soviet Union. So is it a veiled message about the Cabal? Maybe. Is it a veiled message letting people know that the news is being censored by nefarious actors (the C_A) under false pretenses of "National Security"? Maybe.
I don't know what the intent is behind this speech. What it is saying is, "The USSR is evil, and because of that we need to censor the news, for the greater good; to keep everyone safe." That is what the speech says. However, the delivery is such that it sounds like something much more. It could be that that is exactly what it is; two speeches in one. A speech that was intended to have a double meaning. "Say what the Cabal wants you to say," and "Tell everyone the truth" at the same time.
I honestly have no idea. JFK is an enigma, no matter how deep I dig, his enigmatic nature persists.
There is a lot going on with the ideas espoused in the clip in the OP, but the context surrounding them is important. Whatever the truth is, there is more to everything than it appears on the surface. Understanding someone's true motives is impossible. The best "red pills" are the ones that get people to ask the right questions. I'm not convinced that this piece will convince anyone to do that who hasn't already done so.
Several thoughts on the clip in the OP:
The author espouses the formation of the United States in 1787 as part of the Great Awakening
There is a great deal of fuckery in the actual government we got at its foundation. As just one example, the fifth amendment includes explicit statements that people in our military have no constitutional rights. Military enrollment (conscription) was not optional, so really, no one had any rights under any condition where the PTB considered the public to be endangered (AKA "National Security"). Women had no rights. Slaves had no rights, but it wasn't just them. No one but a land owner could participate in government at all. Indeed, no one else could even vote. Land owners made up a very small percent of the population at the time (I think around 6%). Most men were wage laborers, indentured servants, or slaves.
The government we actually got was made strictly and intentionally for the Aristocrats.
The fifth amendment also makes clear that the government ultimately owns everyone's property.
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
If the Aristocrats who run the government want your stuff they can take it. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. You can't defend your property from the Rulers. It's written into the constitution. The Right to Defend your property is inalienable, but this writ of Treaty, which no one but a few people actually signed, states unequivocally that the people who run the government (Aristocrats, every single one), are the Ultimate Authority over your property.
Prior to a "Constitutional Republic" that type of government had a different name, it was called feudalism.
The author espouses Lincoln as a loss for the Great Awakening
After looking into Lincoln, I do not think he was a hero at all. If you consider the actual consequences of his actions, either his efforts were subverted, or they were intentional. Yes, there was the whole "greenback" thing, but he had still taken out so many loans already that it was a meaningless gesture. BOTH SIDES of the civil war had indebted themselves to the bankers so deeply that America has never recovered since. People blame the Fed for our debt problems. It was actually the Civil War that did it. The Fed was inevitable after that indebtedness.
The Civil War also wasn't about slavery. It was about setting up the Federal Government as Sovereign over the States. Lincoln ensured that the "United States," a treaty of Sovereign States became the "United States," a single nation, with subordinate areas called "States" in name only.
Aside from all of that, I'm not even convinced that Lincoln was assassinated. Literally everyone involved was an actor. His son was a Rockefeller croney. There is so much fuckery there... I think the reason Lincoln is an "American Hero" is purposeful promotion by the Cabal to hide what really happened.
The author espouses the speech by JFK as an exposure of the Cabal.
In context, this speech is actually about justifying silencing the media for "National Security."
This one is a tough one, because it really does two things. It brings to the fore ideas of an exposure of the Cabal. But it also is, in context, suggesting that it is talking about the Soviet Union. So is it a veiled message about the Cabal? Maybe. Is it a veiled message letting people know that the news is being censored by nefarious actors (the C_A) under false pretenses of "National Security"? Maybe.
I don't know what the intent is behind this speech. What it is saying is, "The USSR is evil, and because of that we need to censor the news, for the greater good; to keep everyone safe." That is what the speech says. However, the delivery is such that it sounds like something much more. It could be that that is exactly what it is; two speeches in one. A speech that was intended to have a double meaning. "Say what the Cabal wants you to say," and "Tell everyone the truth" at the same time.
I honestly have no idea. JFK is an enigma, no matter how deep I dig, his enigmatic nature persists.
There is a lot going on with the ideas espoused in the clip in the OP, but the context surrounding them is important. Whatever the truth is, there is more to everything than it appears on the surface. Understanding someone's true motives is impossible. The best "red pills" are the ones that get people to ask the right questions. I'm not convinced that this piece will convince anyone to do that who hasn't already done so.
Several thoughts on the clip in the OP:
The author espouses the formation of the United States in 1787 as part of the Great Awakening
There is a great deal of fuckery in the actual government we got at its foundation. As just one example, the fifth amendment includes explicit statements that people in our military have no constitutional rights. Military enrollment (conscription) was not optional, so really, no one had any rights under any condition where the PTB considered the public to be endangered (AKA "National Security"). Women had no rights. Slaves had no rights, but it wasn't just them. No one but a land owner could participate in government at all. Indeed, no one else could even vote. Land owners made up a very small percent of the population at the time (I think around 6%). Most men were wage laborers, indentured servants, or slaves.
The government we actually got was made strictly and intentionally for the Aristocrats.
The fifth amendment also makes clear that the government ultimately owns everyone's property.
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
If the Aristocrats who run the government want your stuff they can take it. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. You can't defend your property from the government. It's written into the constitution. The Right to Defend your property is inalienable, but this writ of Treaty, which no one but a few people actually signed, states unequivocally that the people who run the government (Aristocrats, every single one), are the Ultimate Authority over your property.
Prior to a "Constitutional Republic" that type of government had a different name, it was called feudalism.
The author espouses Lincoln as a loss for the Great Awakening
After looking into Lincoln, I do not think he was a hero at all. If you consider the actual consequences of his actions, either his efforts were subverted, or they were intentional. Yes, there was the whole "greenback" thing, but he had still taken out so many loans already that it was a meaningless gesture. BOTH SIDES of the civil war had indebted themselves to the bankers so deeply that America has never recovered since. People blame the Fed for our debt problems. It was actually the Civil War that did it. The Fed was inevitable after that indebtedness.
The Civil War also wasn't about slavery. It was about setting up the Federal Government as Sovereign over the States. Lincoln ensured that the "United States," a treaty of Sovereign States became the "United States," a single nation, with subordinate areas called "States" in name only.
Aside from all of that, I'm not even convinced that Lincoln was assassinated. Literally everyone involved was an actor. His son was a Rockefeller croney. There is so much fuckery there... I think the reason Lincoln is an "American Hero" is purposeful promotion by the Cabal to hide what really happened.
The author espouses the speech by JFK as an exposure of the Cabal.
In context, this speech is actually about justifying silencing the media for "National Security."
This one is a tough one, because it really does two things. It brings to the fore ideas of an exposure of the Cabal. But it also is, in context, suggesting that it is talking about the Soviet Union. So is it a veiled message about the Cabal? Maybe. Is it a veiled message letting people know that the news is being censored by nefarious actors (the C_A) under false pretenses of "National Security"? Maybe.
I don't know what the intent is behind this speech. What it is saying is, "The USSR is evil, and because of that we need to censor the news, for the greater good; to keep everyone safe." That is what the speech says. However, the delivery is such that it sounds like something much more. It could be that that is exactly what it is; two speeches in one. A speech that was intended to have a double meaning. "Say what the Cabal wants you to say," and "Tell everyone the truth" at the same time.
I honestly have no idea. JFK is an enigma, no matter how deep I dig, his enigmatic nature persists.
There is a lot going on with the ideas espoused in the clip in the OP, but the context surrounding them is important. Whatever the truth is, there is more to everything than it appears on the surface. Understanding someone's true motives is impossible. The best "red pills" are the ones that get people to ask the right questions. I'm not convinced that this piece will convince anyone to do that who hasn't already done so.
Several thoughts on the clip in the OP:
The author espouses the formation of the United States in 1787 as part of the Great Awakening
There is a great deal of fuckery in the actual government we got at its foundation. As just one example, the fifth amendment includes explicit statements that people in our military have no constitutional rights. Military enrollment (conscription) was not optional, so really, no one had any rights under any condition where the PTB considered the public to be endangered (AKA "National Security"). Women had no rights. Slaves had no rights, but it wasn't just them. No one but a land owner could participate in government at all. Indeed, no one else could even vote. Land owners made up a very small percent of the population at the time (I think around 6%). Most men were wage laborers, indentured servants, or slaves.
The government we actually got was made strictly and intentionally for the Aristocrats.
The fifth amendment also makes clear that the government ultimately owns everyone's property.
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
If the government wants your stuff, it can take it. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. You can't defend your property from the government. It's written into the constitution. The Right to Defend your property is inalienable, but this writ of Treaty, which no one but a few people actually signed, states unequivocally that the people who run the government (Aristocrats, every single one), are the Ultimate Authority over your property.
Prior to a "Constitutional Republic" that type of government had a different name, it was called feudalism.
The author espouses Lincoln as a loss for the Great Awakening
After looking into Lincoln, I do not think he was a hero at all. If you consider the actual consequences of his actions, either his efforts were subverted, or they were intentional. Yes, there was the whole "greenback" thing, but he had still taken out so many loans already that it was a meaningless gesture. BOTH SIDES of the civil war had indebted themselves to the bankers so deeply that America has never recovered since. People blame the Fed for our debt problems. It was actually the Civil War that did it. The Fed was inevitable after that indebtedness.
The Civil War also wasn't about slavery. It was about setting up the Federal Government as Sovereign over the States. Lincoln ensured that the "United States," a treaty of Sovereign States became the "United States," a single nation, with subordinate areas called "States" in name only.
Aside from all of that, I'm not even convinced that Lincoln was assassinated. Literally everyone involved was an actor. His son was a Rockefeller croney. There is so much fuckery there... I think the reason Lincoln is an "American Hero" is purposeful promotion by the Cabal to hide what really happened.
The author espouses the speech by JFK as an exposure of the Cabal.
In context, this speech is actually about justifying silencing the media for "National Security."
This one is a tough one, because it really does two things. It brings to the fore ideas of an exposure of the Cabal. But it also is, in context, suggesting that it is talking about the Soviet Union. So is it a veiled message about the Cabal? Maybe. Is it a veiled message letting people know that the news is being censored by nefarious actors (the C_A) under false pretenses of "National Security"? Maybe.
I don't know what the intent is behind this speech. What it is saying is, "The USSR is evil, and because of that we need to censor the news, for the greater good; to keep everyone safe." That is what the speech says. However, the delivery is such that it sounds like something much more. It could be that that is exactly what it is; two speeches in one. A speech that was intended to have a double meaning. "Say what the Cabal wants you to say," and "Tell everyone the truth" at the same time.
I honestly have no idea. JFK is an enigma, no matter how deep I dig, his enigmatic nature persists.
There is a lot going on with the ideas espoused in the clip in the OP, but the context surrounding them is important. Whatever the truth is, there is more to everything than it appears on the surface. Understanding someone's true motives is impossible. The best "red pills" are the ones that get people to ask the right questions. I'm not convinced that this piece will convince anyone to do that who hasn't already done so.
Several thoughts on the clip in the OP:
The author espouses the formation of the United States in 1787 as part of the Great Awakening
There is a great deal of fuckery in the actual government we got at its foundation. As just one example, the fifth amendment includes explicit statements that people in our military have no constitutional rights. Military enrollment (conscription) was not optional, so really, no one had any rights. Women had no rights. Slaves had no rights, but it wasn't just them. No one but a land owner could participate in government at all. Indeed, no one else could even vote. Land owners made up a very small percent of the population at the time (I think around 6%). Most men were wage laborers, indentured servants, or slaves.
The government we actually got was made strictly and intentionally for the Aristocrats.
The fifth amendment also makes clear that the government ultimately owns everyone's property.
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
If the government wants your stuff, it can take it. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. You can't defend your property from the government. It's written into the constitution. The Right to Defend your property is inalienable, but this writ of Treaty, which no one but a few people actually signed, states unequivocally that the people who run the government (Aristocrats, every single one), are the Ultimate Authority over your property.
Prior to a "Constitutional Republic" that type of government had a different name, it was called feudalism.
The author espouses Lincoln as a loss for the Great Awakening
After looking into Lincoln, I do not think he was a hero at all. If you consider the actual consequences of his actions, either his efforts were subverted, or they were intentional. Yes, there was the whole "greenback" thing, but he had still taken out so many loans already that it was a meaningless gesture. BOTH SIDES of the civil war had indebted themselves to the bankers so deeply that America has never recovered since. People blame the Fed for our debt problems. It was actually the Civil War that did it. The Fed was inevitable after that indebtedness.
The Civil War also wasn't about slavery. It was about setting up the Federal Government as Sovereign over the States. Lincoln ensured that the "United States," a treaty of Sovereign States became the "United States," a single nation, with subordinate areas called "States" in name only.
Aside from all of that, I'm not even convinced that Lincoln was assassinated. Literally everyone involved was an actor. His son was a Rockefeller croney. There is so much fuckery there... I think the reason Lincoln is an "American Hero" is purposeful promotion by the Cabal to hide what really happened.
The author espouses the speech by JFK as an exposure of the Cabal.
In context, this speech is actually about justifying silencing the media for "National Security."
This one is a tough one, because it really does two things. It brings to the fore ideas of an exposure of the Cabal. But it also is, in context, suggesting that it is talking about the Soviet Union. So is it a veiled message about the Cabal? Maybe. Is it a veiled message letting people know that the news is being censored by nefarious actors (the C_A) under false pretenses of "National Security"? Maybe.
I don't know what the intent is behind this speech. What it is saying is, "The USSR is evil, and because of that we need to censor the news, for the greater good; to keep everyone safe." That is what the speech says. However, the delivery is such that it sounds like something much more. It could be that that is exactly what it is; two speeches in one. A speech that was intended to have a double meaning. "Say what the Cabal wants you to say," and "Tell everyone the truth" at the same time.
I honestly have no idea. JFK is an enigma, no matter how deep I dig, his enigmatic nature persists.
There is a lot going on with the ideas espoused in the clip in the OP, but the context surrounding them is important. Whatever the truth is, there is more to everything than it appears on the surface. Understanding someone's true motives is impossible. The best "red pills" are the ones that get people to ask the right questions. I'm not convinced that this piece will convince anyone to do that who hasn't already done so.
Several thoughts on the clip in the OP:
The author espouses the formation of the United States as part of the Great Awakening
There is a great deal of fuckery in the actual government we got at its foundation. As just one example, the fifth amendment includes explicit statements that people in our military have no constitutional rights. Military enrollment (conscription) was not optional, so really, no one had any rights. Women had no rights. Slaves had no rights, but it wasn't just them. No one but a land owner could participate in government at all. Indeed, no one else could even vote. Land owners made up a very small percent of the population at the time (I think around 6%). Most men were wage laborers, indentured servants, or slaves.
The government we actually got was made strictly and intentionally for the Aristocrats.
The fifth amendment also makes clear that the government ultimately owns everyone's property.
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
If the government wants your stuff, it can take it. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. You can't defend your property from the government. It's written into the constitution. The Right to Defend your property is inalienable, but this writ of Treaty, which no one but a few people actually signed, states unequivocally that the people who run the government (Aristocrats, every single one), are the Ultimate Authority over your property.
Prior to a "Constitutional Republic" that type of government had a different name, it was called feudalism.
The author espouses Lincoln as a loss for the Great Awakening
After looking into Lincoln, I do not think he was a hero at all. If you consider the actual consequences of his actions, either his efforts were subverted, or they were intentional. Yes, there was the whole "greenback" thing, but he had still taken out so many loans already that it was a meaningless gesture. BOTH SIDES of the civil war had indebted themselves to the bankers so deeply that America has never recovered since. People blame the Fed for our debt problems. It was actually the Civil War that did it. The Fed was inevitable after that indebtedness.
The Civil War also wasn't about slavery. It was about setting up the Federal Government as Sovereign over the States. Lincoln ensured that the "United States," a treaty of Sovereign States became the "United States," a single nation, with subordinate areas called "States" in name only.
Aside from all of that, I'm not even convinced that Lincoln was assassinated. Literally everyone involved was an actor. His son was a Rockefeller croney. There is so much fuckery there... I think the reason Lincoln is an "American Hero" is purposeful promotion by the Cabal to hide what really happened.
The author espouses the speech by JFK as an exposure of the Cabal.
In context, this speech is actually about justifying silencing the media for "National Security."
This one is a tough one, because it really does two things. It brings to the fore ideas of an exposure of the Cabal. But it also is, in context, suggesting that it is talking about the Soviet Union. So is it a veiled message about the Cabal? Maybe. Is it a veiled message letting people know that the news is being censored by nefarious actors (the C_A) under false pretenses of "National Security"? Maybe.
I don't know what the intent is behind this speech. What it is saying is, "The USSR is evil, and because of that we need to censor the news, for the greater good; to keep everyone safe." That is what the speech says. However, the delivery is such that it sounds like something much more. It could be that that is exactly what it is; two speeches in one. A speech that was intended to have a double meaning. "Say what the Cabal wants you to say," and "Tell everyone the truth" at the same time.
I honestly have no idea. JFK is an enigma, no matter how deep I dig, his enigmatic nature persists.
There is a lot going on with the ideas espoused in the clip in the OP, but the context surrounding them is important. Whatever the truth is, there is more to everything than it appears on the surface. Understanding someone's true motives is impossible. The best "red pills" are the ones that get people to ask the right questions. I'm not convinced that this piece will convince anyone to do that who hasn't already done so.
Several thoughts on the clip in the OP:
The author espouses the formation of the United States as part of the Great Awakening
There is a great deal of fuckery in the actual government we got at its foundation. As just one example, the fifth amendment includes explicit statements that people in our military have no constitutional rights. Military enrollment (conscription) was not optional, so really, no one had any rights. Women had no rights. Slaves had no rights, but it wasn't just them. No one but a land owner could participate in government at all. Indeed, no one else could even vote. Land owners made up a very small percent of the population at the time (I think around 6%). Most men were wage laborers, indentured servants, or slaves.
The government we actually got was made strictly and intentionally for the Aristocrats.
The fifth amendment also makes clear that the government ultimately owns everyone's property.
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
If the government wants your stuff, it can take it. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. You can't defend your property from the government. It's written into the constitution. The Right to Defend your property is inalienable, but this writ of Treaty, which no one but a few people actually signed, states unequivocally that the people who run the government (Aristocrats, every single one), are the Ultimate Authority over your property.
Prior to a "Constitutional Republic" that type of government had a different name, it was called feudalism.
The author espouses Lincoln as a loss for the Great Awakening
After looking into Lincoln, I do not think he was a hero at all. If you consider the actual consequences of his actions, either his efforts were subverted, or they were intentional. Yes, there was the whole "greenback" thing, but he had still taken out so many loans already that it was a meaningless gesture. BOTH SIDES of the civil war had indebted themselves to the bankers so deeply that America has never recovered since. People blame the Fed for our debt problems. It was actually the Civil War that did it. The Fed was inevitable after that indebtedness.
The Civil War also wasn't about slavery. It was about setting up the Federal Government as Sovereign over the States. Lincoln ensured that the "United States," a treaty of Sovereign States became the "United States," a single nation, with subordinate areas called "States" in name only.
Aside from all of that, I'm not even convinced that Lincoln was assassinated. Literally everyone involved was an actor. His son was a Rockefeller croney. There is so much fuckery there... I think the reason Lincoln is an "American Hero" is purposeful promotion by the Cabal to hide what really happened.
The author espouses the speech by JFK as an exposure of the Cabal.
In context, this speech is actually about justifying silencing the media for "National Security."
This one is a tough one, because it really does two things. It brings to the fore ideas of an exposure of the Cabal. But it also is, in context, suggesting that it is talking about the Soviet Union. So is it a veiled message about the Cabal? Maybe. Is it a veiled message letting people know that the news is being censored by nefarious actors (the C_A) under false pretenses of "National Security"? Maybe.
I don't know what the intent is behind this speech. What it is saying is, "The USSR is evil, and because of that we need to censor the news, for the greater good; to keep everyone safe." That is what the speech says. However, the delivery is such that it sounds like something much more. It could be that that is exactly what it is; two speeches in one. A speech that was intended to have a double meaning. "Say what the Cabal wants you to say," and "Tell everyone the truth" at the same time.
There is a lot going on with the ideas espoused in the clip in the OP, but the context surrounding them is important. Whatever the truth is, there is more to everything than it appears on the surface. Understanding someone's true motives is impossible. The best "red pills" are the ones that get people to ask the right questions. I'm not convinced that this piece will convince anyone to do that who hasn't already done so.
Several thoughts on the clip in the OP:
The author espouses the formation of the United States as part of the Great Awakening
There is a great deal of fuckery in the actual government we got at its foundation. As just one example, the fifth amendment includes explicit statements that people in our military have no constitutional rights. Military enrollment (conscription) was not optional, so really, no one had any rights. Women had no rights. Slaves had no rights, but it wasn't just them. No one but a land owner could participate in government at all. Indeed, no one else could even vote. Land owners made up a very small percent of the population at the time (I think around 6%). Most men were wage laborers, indentured servants, or slaves. The government was made purely for the Aristocrats.
The fifth amendment also makes clear that the government ultimately owns everyone's property.
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
If the government wants your stuff, it can take it. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. You can't defend your property from the government. It's written into the constitution. The Right to Defend your property is inalienable, but this writ of Treaty, which no one but a few people actually signed, states unequivocally that the people who run the government (Aristocrats, every single one), are the Ultimate Authority over your property.
Prior to a "Constitutional Republic" that type of government had a different name, it was called feudalism.
The author espouses Lincoln as a loss for the Great Awakening
After looking into Lincoln, I do not think he was a hero at all. If you consider the actual consequences of his actions, either his efforts were subverted, or they were intentional. Yes, there was the whole "greenback" thing, but he had still taken out so many loans already that it was a meaningless gesture. BOTH SIDES of the civil war had indebted themselves to the bankers so deeply that America has never recovered since. People blame the Fed for our debt problems. It was actually the Civil War that did it. The Fed was inevitable after that indebtedness.
The Civil War also wasn't about slavery. It was about setting up the Federal Government as Sovereign over the States. Lincoln ensured that the "United States," a treaty of Sovereign States became the "United States," a single nation, with subordinate areas called "States" in name only.
Aside from all of that, I'm not even convinced that Lincoln was assassinated. Literally everyone involved was an actor. His son was a Rockefeller croney. There is so much fuckery there... I think the reason Lincoln is an "American Hero" is purposeful promotion by the Cabal to hide what really happened.
The author espouses the speech by JFK as an exposure of the Cabal.
In context, this speech is actually about justifying silencing the media for "National Security."
This one is a tough one, because it really does two things. It brings to the fore ideas of an exposure of the Cabal. But it also is, in context, suggesting that it is talking about the Soviet Union. So is it a veiled message about the Cabal? Maybe. Is it a veiled message letting people know that the news is being censored by nefarious actors (the C_A) under false pretenses of "National Security"? Maybe.
I don't know what the intent is behind this speech. What it is saying is, "The USSR is evil, and because of that we need to censor the news, for the greater good; to keep everyone safe." That is what the speech says. However, the delivery is such that it sounds like something much more. It could be that that is exactly what it is; two speeches in one. A speech that was intended to have a double meaning. "Say what the Cabal wants you to say," and "Tell everyone the truth" at the same time.
There is a lot going on with the ideas espoused in the clip in the OP, but the context surrounding them is important. Whatever the truth is, there is more to everything than it appears on the surface. Understanding someone's true motives is impossible. The best "red pills" are the ones that get people to ask the right questions. I'm not convinced that this piece will convince anyone to do that who hasn't already done so.
Several thoughts on the clip in the OP:
The author espouses the formation of the United States as part of the Great Awakening
There is a great deal of fuckery in our constitution. As just one example, the fifth amendment includes explicit statements that people in our military have no constitutional rights. Military enrollment (conscription) was not optional, so really, no one had any rights. Women had no rights. Slaves had no rights, but it wasn't just them. No one but a land owner could participate in government at all. Indeed, no one else could even vote. Land owners made up a very small percent of the population at the time (I think around 6%). Most men were wage laborers, indentured servants, or slaves. The government was made purely for the Aristocrats.
The fifth amendment also makes clear that the government ultimately owns everyone's property.
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
If the government wants your stuff, it can take it. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. You can't defend your property from the government. It's written into the constitution. The Right to Defend your property is inalienable, but this writ of Treaty, which no one but a few people actually signed, states unequivocally that the people who run the government (Aristocrats, every single one), are the Ultimate Authority over your property.
Prior to a "Constitutional Republic" that type of government had a different name, it was called feudalism.
The author espouses Lincoln as a loss for the Great Awakening
After looking into Lincoln, I do not think he was a hero at all. If you consider the actual consequences of his actions, either his efforts were subverted, or they were intentional. Yes, there was the whole "greenback" thing, but he had still taken out so many loans already that it was a meaningless gesture. BOTH SIDES of the civil war had indebted themselves to the bankers so deeply that America has never recovered since. People blame the Fed for our debt problems. It was actually the Civil War that did it. The Fed was inevitable after that indebtedness.
The Civil War also wasn't about slavery. It was about setting up the Federal Government as Sovereign over the States. Lincoln ensured that the "United States," a treaty of Sovereign States became the "United States," a single nation, with subordinate areas called "States" in name only.
Aside from all of that, I'm not even convinced that Lincoln was assassinated. Literally everyone involved was an actor. His son was a Rockefeller croney. There is so much fuckery there... I think the reason Lincoln is an "American Hero" is purposeful promotion by the Cabal to hide what really happened.
The author espouses the speech by JFK as an exposure of the Cabal.
In context, this speech is actually about justifying silencing the media for "National Security."
This one is a tough one, because it really does two things. It brings to the fore ideas of an exposure of the Cabal. But it also is, in context, suggesting that it is talking about the Soviet Union. So is it a veiled message about the Cabal? Maybe. Is it a veiled message letting people know that the news is being censored by nefarious actors (the C_A) under false pretenses of "National Security"? Maybe.
I don't know what the intent is behind this speech. What it is saying is, "The USSR is evil, and because of that we need to censor the news, for the greater good; to keep everyone safe." That is what the speech says. However, the delivery is such that it sounds like something much more. It could be that that is exactly what it is; two speeches in one. A speech that was intended to have a double meaning. "Say what the Cabal wants you to say," and "Tell everyone the truth" at the same time.
There is a lot going on with the ideas espoused in the clip in the OP, but the context surrounding them is important. Whatever the truth is, there is more to everything than it appears on the surface. Understanding someone's true motives is impossible. The best "red pills" are the ones that get people to ask the right questions. I'm not convinced that this piece will convince anyone to do that who hasn't already done so.
Several thoughts on the clip in the OP:
*** The author espouses the formation of the United States as part of the Great Awakening***
There is a great deal of fuckery in our constitution. As just one example, the fifth amendment includes explicit statements that people in our military have no constitutional rights. Military enrollment (conscription) was not optional, so really, no one had any rights. Women had no rights. Slaves had no rights, but it wasn't just them. No one but a land owner could participate in government at all. Indeed, no one else could even vote. Land owners made up a very small percent of the population at the time (I think around 6%). Most men were wage laborers, indentured servants, or slaves. The government was made purely for the Aristocrats.
The fifth amendment also makes clear that the government ultimately owns everyone's property.
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
If the government wants your stuff, it can take it. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. You can't defend your property from the government. It's written into the constitution. The Right to Defend your property is inalienable, but this writ of Treaty, which no one but a few people actually signed, states unequivocally that the people who run the government (Aristocrats, every single one), are the Ultimate Authority over your property.
Prior to a "Constitutional Republic" that type of government had a different name, it was called feudalism.
*** The author espouses Lincoln as a loss for the Great Awakening***
After looking into Lincoln, I do not think he was a hero at all. If you consider the actual consequences of his actions, either his efforts were subverted, or they were intentional. Yes, there was the whole "greenback" thing, but he had still taken out so many loans already that it was a meaningless gesture. BOTH SIDES of the civil war had indebted themselves to the bankers so deeply that America has never recovered since. People blame the Fed for our debt problems. It was actually the Civil War that did it. The Fed was inevitable after that indebtedness.
The Civil War also wasn't about slavery. It was about setting up the Federal Government as Sovereign over the States. Lincoln ensured that the "United States," a treaty of Sovereign States became the "United States," a single nation, with subordinate areas called "States" in name only.
Aside from all of that, I'm not even convinced that Lincoln was assassinated. Literally everyone involved was an actor. His son was a Rockefeller croney. There is so much fuckery there... I think the reason Lincoln is an "American Hero" is purposeful promotion by the Cabal to hide what really happened.
The author espouses the speech by JFK as an exposure of the Cabal.
In context, this speech is actually about justifying silencing the media for "National Security."
This one is a tough one, because it really does two things. It brings to the fore ideas of an exposure of the Cabal. But it also is, in context, suggesting that it is talking about the Soviet Union. So is it a veiled message about the Cabal? Maybe. Is it a veiled message letting people know that the news is being censored by nefarious actors (the C_A) under false pretenses of "National Security"? Maybe.
I don't know what the intent is behind this speech. What it is saying is, "The USSR is evil, and because of that we need to censor the news, for the greater good; to keep everyone safe." That is what the speech says. However, the delivery is such that it sounds like something much more. It could be that that is exactly what it is; two speeches in one. A speech that was intended to have a double meaning. "Say what the Cabal wants you to say," and "Tell everyone the truth" at the same time.
There is a lot going on with the ideas espoused in the clip in the OP, but the context surrounding them is important. Whatever the truth is, there is more to everything than it appears on the surface. Understanding someone's true motives is impossible. The best "red pills" are the ones that get people to ask the right questions. I'm not convinced that this piece will convince anyone to do that who hasn't already done so.
Several thoughts on the clip in the OP:
The author espouses the formation of the United States as part of the Great Awakening**
There is a great deal of fuckery in our constitution. As just one example, the fifth amendment includes explicit statements that people in our military have no constitutional rights. Military enrollment (conscription) was not optional, so really, no one had any rights. Women had no rights. Slaves had no rights, but it wasn't just them. No one but a land owner could participate in government at all. Indeed, no one else could even vote. Land owners made up a very small percent of the population at the time (I think around 6%). Most men were wage laborers, indentured servants, or slaves. The government was made purely for the Aristocrats.
The fifth amendment also makes clear that the government ultimately owns everyone's property.
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
If the government wants your stuff, it can take it. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. You can't defend your property from the government. It's written into the constitution. The Right to Defend your property is inalienable, but this writ of Treaty, which no one but a few people actually signed, states unequivocally that the people who run the government (Aristocrats, every single one), are the Ultimate Authority over your property.
Prior to a "Constitutional Republic" that type of government had a different name, it was called feudalism.
The author espouses Lincoln as a loss for the Great Awakening.
After looking into Lincoln, I do not think he was a hero at all. If you consider the actual consequences of his actions, either his efforts were subverted, or they were intentional. Yes, there was the whole "greenback" thing, but he had still taken out so many loans already that it was a meaningless gesture. BOTH SIDES of the civil war had indebted themselves to the bankers so deeply that America has never recovered since. People blame the Fed for our debt problems. It was actually the Civil War that did it. The Fed was inevitable after that indebtedness.
The Civil War also wasn't about slavery. It was about setting up the Federal Government as Sovereign over the States. Lincoln ensured that the "United States," a treaty of Sovereign States became the "United States," a single nation, with subordinate areas called "States" in name only.
Aside from all of that, I'm not even convinced that Lincoln was assassinated. Literally everyone involved was an actor. His son was a Rockefeller croney. There is so much fuckery there... I think the reason Lincoln is an "American Hero" is purposeful promotion by the Cabal to hide what really happened.
The author espouses the speech by JFK as an exposure of the Cabal.
In context, this speech is actually about justifying silencing the media for "National Security."
This one is a tough one, because it really does two things. It brings to the fore ideas of an exposure of the Cabal. But it also is, in context, suggesting that it is talking about the Soviet Union. So is it a veiled message about the Cabal? Maybe. Is it a veiled message letting people know that the news is being censored by nefarious actors (the C_A) under false pretenses of "National Security"? Maybe.
I don't know what the intent is behind this speech. What it is saying is, "The USSR is evil, and because of that we need to censor the news, for the greater good; to keep everyone safe." That is what the speech says. However, the delivery is such that it sounds like something much more. It could be that that is exactly what it is; two speeches in one. A speech that was intended to have a double meaning. "Say what the Cabal wants you to say," and "Tell everyone the truth" at the same time.
There is a lot going on with the ideas espoused in the clip in the OP, but the context surrounding them is important. Whatever the truth is, there is more to everything than it appears on the surface. Understanding someone's true motives is impossible. The best "red pills" are the ones that get people to ask the right questions. I'm not convinced that this piece will convince anyone to do that who hasn't already done so.
Several thoughts on the clip in the OP:
The author espouses the formation of the United States as part of the Great Awakening
There is a great deal of fuckery in our constitution. As just one example, the fifth amendment includes explicit statements that people in our military have no constitutional rights. Military enrollment (conscription) was not optional, so really, no one had any rights. Women had no rights. Slaves had no rights, but it wasn't just them. No one but a land owner could participate in government at all. Indeed, no one else could even vote. Land owners made up a very small percent of the population at the time (I think around 6%). Most men were wage laborers, indentured servants, or slaves. The government was made purely for the Aristocrats.
The fifth amendment also makes clear that the government ultimately owns everyone's property.
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
If the government wants your stuff, it can take it. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. You can't defend your property from the government. It's written into the constitution. The Right to Defend your property is inalienable, but this writ of Treaty, which no one but a few people actually signed, states unequivocally that the people who run the government (Aristocrats, every single one), are the Ultimate Authority over your property.
Prior to a "Constitutional Republic" that type of government had a different name, it was called feudalism.
The author espouses Lincoln as a loss for the Great Awakening.
After looking into Lincoln, I do not think he was a hero at all. If you consider the actual consequences of his actions, either his efforts were subverted, or they were intentional. Yes, there was the whole "greenback" thing, but he had still taken out so many loans already that it was a meaningless gesture. BOTH SIDES of the civil war had indebted themselves to the bankers so deeply that America has never recovered since. People blame the Fed for our debt problems. It was actually the Civil War that did it. The Fed was inevitable after that indebtedness.
The Civil War also wasn't about slavery. It was about setting up the Federal Government as Sovereign over the States. Lincoln ensured that the "United States," a treaty of Sovereign States became the "United States," a single nation, with subordinate areas called "States" in name only.
Aside from all of that, I'm not even convinced that Lincoln was assassinated. Literally everyone involved was an actor. His son was a Rockefeller croney. There is so much fuckery there... I think the reason Lincoln is an "American Hero" is purposeful promotion by the Cabal to hide what really happened.
The author espouses the speech by JFK as an exposure of the Cabal.
In context, this speech is actually about justifying silencing the media for "National Security."
This one is a tough one, because it really does two things. It brings to the fore ideas of an exposure of the Cabal. But it also is, in context, suggesting that it is talking about the Soviet Union. So is it a veiled message about the Cabal? Maybe. Is it a veiled message letting people know that the news is being censored by nefarious actors (the C_A) under false pretenses of "National Security"? Maybe.
I don't know what the intent is behind this speech. What it is saying is, "The USSR is evil, and because of that we need to censor the news, for the greater good; to keep everyone safe." That is what the speech says. However, the delivery is such that it sounds like something much more. It could be that that is exactly what it is; two speeches in one. A speech that was intended to have a double meaning. "Say what the Cabal wants you to say," and "Tell everyone the truth" at the same time.
There is a lot going on with the ideas espoused in the clip in the OP, but the context surrounding them is important. Whatever the truth is, there is more to everything than it appears on the surface. Understanding someone's true motives is impossible. The best "red pills" are the ones that get people to ask the right questions. I'm not convinced that this piece will convince anyone to do that who hasn't already done so.
Several thoughts on the clip in the OP:
The author espouses the formation of the United States as part of the Great Awakening
There is a great deal of fuckery in our constitution. As just one example, the fifth amendment includes explicit statements that people in our military have no constitutional rights. Military enrollment (conscription) was not optional, so really, no one had any rights. Women had no rights. Slaves had no rights, but it wasn't just them. No one but a land owner could participate in government at all. Indeed, no one else could even vote. Land owners made up a very small percent of the population at the time (I think around 6%). Most men were wage laborers, indentured servants, or slaves. The government was made purely for the Aristocrats.
The fifth amendment also makes clear that the government ultimately owns everyone's property.
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
If the government wants your stuff, it can take it. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. You can't defend your property from the government. It's written into the constitution. The Right to Defend your property is inalienable, but this writ of Treaty, which no one but a few people actually signed, states unequivocally that the people who run the government (Aristocrats, every single one), are the Ultimate Authority over your property.
Prior to a "Constitutional Republic" that type of government had a different name, it was called feudalism.
The author espouses Lincoln as a loss for the Great Awakening.
After looking into Lincoln, I do not think he was a hero at all. If you consider the actual consequences of his actions, either his efforts were subverted, or they were intentional. Yes, there was the whole "greenback" thing, but he had still taken out so many loans already that it was a meaningless gesture. BOTH SIDES of the civil war had indebted themselves to the bankers so deeply that America has never recovered since. People blame the Fed for our debt problems. It was actually the Civil War that did it. The Fed was inevitable after that indebtedness.
The Civil War also wasn't about slavery. It was about setting up the Federal Government as Sovereign over the States. Lincoln ensured that the "United States," a treaty of Sovereign States became the "United States," a single nation, with subordinate areas called "States" in name only.
Aside from all of that, I'm not even convinced that Lincoln was assassinated. Literally everyone involved was an actor. His son was a Rockefeller croney. There is so much fuckery there... I think the reason Lincoln is an "American Hero" is purposeful promotion by the Cabal to hide what really happened.
The author espouses the speech by JFK as an exposure of the Cabal.
In context, this speech is actually about justifying silencing the media for "National Security."
This one is a tough one, because it really does two things. It brings to the fore ideas of an exposure of the Cabal. But it also is, in context, suggesting that it is talking about the Soviet Union. So is it a veiled message about the Cabal? Maybe. Is it a veiled message letting people know that the news is being censored by nefarious actors (the C_A) under false pretenses of "National Security"? Maybe.
I don't know what the intent is behind this speech. What it is saying is, "The USSR is evil, and because of that we need to censor the news, for the greater good; to keep everyone safe." That is what the speech says. However, the delivery is such that it sounds like something much more. It could be that that is exactly what it is; two speeches in one. A speech that was intended to have a double meaning. "Say what the Cabal wants you to say," and "Tell everyone the truth" at the same time.
There is a lot going on with the ideas espoused in the clip in the OP, but the context surrounding them is important. Whatever the truth is, there is more to everything than it appears on the surface. Understanding someone's true motives is impossible. The best "red pills" are the ones that get people to ask the right questions. I'm not convinced that this piece will convince anyone to do that who hasn't already done so.
Several thoughts:
The Author espouses the formation of the United States as part of the Great Awakening
There is a great deal of fuckery in our constitution. As just one example, the fifth amendment includes explicit statements that people in our military have no constitutional rights. Military enrollment (conscription) was not optional, so really, no one had any rights. Women had no rights. Slaves had no rights, but it wasn't just them. No one but a land owner could participate in government at all. Indeed, no one else could even vote. Land owners made up a very small percent of the population at the time (I think around 6%). Most men were wage laborers, indentured servants, or slaves. The government was made purely for the Aristocrats.
The fifth amendment also makes clear that the government ultimately owns everyone's property.
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
If the government wants your stuff, it can take it. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. You can't defend your property from the government. It's written into the constitution. The Right to Defend your property is inalienable, but this writ of Treaty, which no one but a few people actually signed, states unequivocally that the people who run the government (Aristocrats, every single one), are the Ultimate Authority over your property.
Prior to a "Constitutional Republic" that type of government had a different name, it was called feudalism.
The Author espouses Lincoln as a loss for the Great Awakening.
After looking into Lincoln, I do not think he was a hero at all. If you consider the actual consequences of his actions, either his efforts were subverted, or they were intentional. Yes, there was the whole "greenback" thing, but he had still taken out so many loans already that it was a meaningless gesture. BOTH SIDES of the civil war had indebted themselves to the bankers so deeply that America has never recovered since. People blame the Fed for our debt problems. It was actually the Civil War that did it. The Fed was inevitable after that indebtedness.
The Civil War also wasn't about slavery. It was about setting up the Federal Government as Sovereign over the States. Lincoln ensured that the "United States," a treaty of Sovereign States became the "United States," a single nation, with subordinate areas called "States" in name only.
Aside from all of that, I'm not even convinced that Lincoln was assassinated. Literally everyone involved was an actor. His son was a Rockefeller croney. There is so much fuckery there... I think the reason Lincoln is an "American Hero" is purposeful promotion by the Cabal to hide what really happened.
The Author espouses the speech by JFK as an exposure of the Cabal.
In context, this speech is actually about justifying silencing the media for "National Security."
This one is a tough one, because it really does two things. It brings to the fore ideas of an exposure of the Cabal. But it also is, in context, suggesting that it is talking about the Soviet Union. So is it a veiled message about the Cabal? Maybe. Is it a veiled message letting people know that the news is being censored by nefarious actors (the C_A) under false pretenses of "National Security"? Maybe.
I don't know what the intent is behind this speech. What it is saying is, "The USSR is evil, and because of that we need to censor the news, for the greater good; to keep everyone safe." That is what the speech says. However, the delivery is such that it sounds like something much more. It could be that that is exactly what it is; two speeches in one. A speech that was intended to have a double meaning. "Say what the Cabal wants you to say," and "Tell everyone the truth" at the same time.
There is a lot going on with the ideas espoused in the clip in the OP, but the context surrounding them is important. Whatever the truth is, there is more to everything than it appears on the surface. Understanding someone's true motives is impossible. The best "red pills" are the ones that get people to ask the right questions. I'm not convinced that this piece will convince anyone to do that who hasn't already done so.
Several thoughts:
The Author espouses the formation of the United States as part of the Great Awakening
There is a great deal of fuckery in our constitution. As just one example, the fifth amendment includes explicit statements that people in our military have no constitutional rights. Military enrollment (conscription) was not optional, so really, no one had any rights. Women had no rights. Slaves had no rights, but it wasn't just them. No one but a land owner could participate in government at all. Indeed, no one else could even vote. Land owners made up a very small percent of the population at the time (I think around 6%). Most men were wage laborers, indentured servants, or slaves. The government was made purely for the Aristocrats.
The fifth amendment also makes clear that the government ultimately owns everyone's property.
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
If the government wants your stuff, it can take it. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. You can't defend your property from the government. It's written into the constitution. The Right to Defend your property is inalienable, but this writ of Treaty, which no one but a few people actually signed, states unequivocally that the people who run the government (Aristocrats, every single one), are the Ultimate Authority over your property.
Prior to a "Constitutional Republic" that type of government had a different name, it was called feudalism.
The Author espouses Lincoln as a loss for the Great Awakening.
After looking into Lincoln, I do not think he was a hero at all. If you consider the actual consequences of his actions, either his efforts were subverted, or they were intentional. Yes, there was the whole "greenback" thing, but he had still taken out so many loans already that it was a meaningless gesture. BOTH SIDES of the civil war had indebted themselves to the bankers so deeply that America has never recovered since. People blame the Fed for our debt problems. It was actually the Civil War that did it. The Fed was inevitable after that indebtedness.
The Civil War also wasn't about slavery. It was about setting up the Federal Government as Sovereign over the States. Lincoln ensured that the "United States," a treaty of Sovereign States became the "United States," a single nation, with subordinate areas called "States" in name only.
The Author espouses the speech by JFK as an exposure of the Cabal.
In context, this speech is actually about justifying silencing the media for "National Security."
This one is a tough one, because it really does two things. It brings to the fore ideas of an exposure of the Cabal. But it also is, in context, suggesting that it is talking about the Soviet Union. So is it a veiled message about the Cabal? Maybe. Is it a veiled message letting people know that the news is being censored by nefarious actors (the C_A) under false pretenses of "National Security"? Maybe.
I don't know what the intent is behind this speech. What it is saying is, "The USSR is evil, and because of that we need to censor the news, for the greater good; to keep everyone safe." That is what the speech says. However, the delivery is such that it sounds like something much more. It could be that that is exactly what it is; two speeches in one. A speech that was intended to have a double meaning. "Say what the Cabal wants you to say," and "Tell everyone the truth" at the same time.
There is a lot going on with the ideas espoused in the clip in the OP, but the context surrounding them is important. Whatever the truth is, there is more to everything than it appears on the surface. Understanding someone's true motives is impossible. The best "red pills" are the ones that get people to ask the right questions. I'm not convinced that this piece will convince anyone to do that who hasn't already done so.
Several thoughts:
The Author espouses the formation of the United States as part of the Great Awakening
There is a great deal of fuckery in our constitution. As just one example, the fifth amendment includes explicit statements that people in our military have no constitutional rights. Military enrollment (conscription) was not optional, so really, no one had any rights. Women had no rights. Slaves had no rights, but it wasn't just them. No one but a land owner could participate in government at all. Indeed, no one else could even vote. Land owners made up a very small percent of the population at the time (I think around 6%). Most men were wage laborers, indentured servants, or slaves. The government was made purely for the Aristocrats.
The fifth amendment also makes clear that the government ultimately owns all the land.
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
If the government wants your stuff, it can take it. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. You can't defend your property from the government. It's written into the constitution. The Right to Defend your property is inalienable, but this writ of Treaty, which no one but a few people actually signed, states unequivocally that the people who run the government (Aristocrats, every single one), are the Ultimate Authority over your property.
Prior to a "Constitutional Republic" that type of government had a different name, it was called feudalism.
The Author espouses Lincoln as a loss for the Great Awakening.
After looking into Lincoln, I do not think he was a hero at all. If you consider the actual consequences of his actions, either his efforts were subverted, or they were intentional. Yes, there was the whole "greenback" thing, but he had still taken out so many loans already that it was a meaningless gesture. BOTH SIDES of the civil war had indebted themselves to the bankers so deeply that America has never recovered since. People blame the Fed for our debt problems. It was actually the Civil War that did it. The Fed was inevitable after that indebtedness.
The Civil War also wasn't about slavery. It was about setting up the Federal Government as Sovereign over the States. Lincoln ensured that the "United States," a treaty of Sovereign States became the "United States," a single nation, with subordinate areas called "States" in name only.
The Author espouses the speech by JFK as an exposure of the Cabal.
In context, this speech is actually about justifying silencing the media for "National Security."
This one is a tough one, because it really does two things. It brings to the fore ideas of an exposure of the Cabal. But it also is, in context, suggesting that it is talking about the Soviet Union. So is it a veiled message about the Cabal? Maybe. Is it a veiled message letting people know that the news is being censored by nefarious actors (the C_A) under false pretenses of "National Security"? Maybe.
I don't know what the intent is behind this speech. What it is saying is, "The USSR is evil, and because of that we need to censor the news, for the greater good; to keep everyone safe." That is what the speech says. However, the delivery is such that it sounds like something much more. It could be that that is exactly what it is; two speeches in one. A speech that was intended to have a double meaning. "Say what the Cabal wants you to say," and "Tell everyone the truth" at the same time.
There is a lot going on with the ideas espoused in the clip in the OP, but the context surrounding them is important. Whatever the truth is, there is more to everything than it appears on the surface. Understanding someone's true motives is impossible. The best "red pills" are the ones that get people to ask the right questions. I'm not convinced that this piece will convince anyone to do that who hasn't already done so.
Several thoughts:
The Author espouses the formation of the United States as part of the Great Awakening
There is a great deal of fuckery in our constitution. The fifth amendment includes explicit statements that people in our military have no constitutional rights. Military enrollment (conscription) was not optional, so really, no one had any rights. Women had no rights. Slaves had no rights, but it wasn't just them. No one but a land owner could participate in government at all. Indeed, no one else could even vote. Land owners made up a very small percent of the population at the time (I think around 6%). Most men were wage laborers, indentured servants, or slaves. The government was made purely for the Aristocrats.
The fifth amendment also makes clear that the government ultimately owns all the land.
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
If the government wants your stuff, it can take it. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. You can't defend your property from the government. It's written into the constitution. The Right to Defend your property is inalienable, but this writ of Treaty, which no one but a few people actually signed, states unequivocally that the people who run the government (Aristocrats, every single one), are the Ultimate Authority over your property.
Prior to a "Constitutional Republic" that type of government had a different name, it was called feudalism.
The Author espouses Lincoln as a loss for the Great Awakening.
After looking into Lincoln, I do not think he was a hero at all. If you consider the actual consequences of his actions, either his efforts were subverted, or they were intentional. Yes, there was the whole "greenback" thing, but he had still taken out so many loans already that it was a meaningless gesture. BOTH SIDES of the civil war had indebted themselves to the bankers so deeply that America has never recovered since. People blame the Fed for our debt problems. It was actually the Civil War that did it. The Fed was inevitable after that indebtedness.
The Civil War also wasn't about slavery. It was about setting up the Federal Government as Sovereign over the States. Lincoln ensured that the "United States," a treaty of Sovereign States became the "United States," a single nation, with subordinate areas called "States" in name only.
The Author espouses the speech by JFK as an exposure of the Cabal.
In context, this speech is actually about justifying silencing the media for "National Security."
This one is a tough one, because it really does two things. It brings to the fore ideas of an exposure of the Cabal. But it also is, in context, suggesting that it is talking about the Soviet Union. So is it a veiled message about the Cabal? Maybe. Is it a veiled message letting people know that the news is being censored by nefarious actors (the C_A) under false pretenses of "National Security"? Maybe.
I don't know what the intent is behind this speech. What it is saying is, "The USSR is evil, and because of that we need to censor the news, for the greater good; to keep everyone safe." That is what the speech says. However, the delivery is such that it sounds like something much more. It could be that that is exactly what it is; two speeches in one. A speech that was intended to have a double meaning. "Say what the Cabal wants you to say," and "Tell everyone the truth" at the same time.
There is a lot going on with the ideas espoused in the clip in the OP, but the context surrounding them is important. Whatever the truth is, there is more to everything than it appears on the surface. Understanding someone's true motives is impossible. The best "red pills" are the ones that get people to ask the right questions. I'm not convinced that this piece will convince anyone to do that who hasn't already done so.
Several thoughts:
The Author espouses the formation of the United States as part of the Great Awakening
There is a great deal of fuckery in our constitution. The fifth amendment includes explicit statements that people in our military have no constitutional rights. Military enrollment (conscription) was not optional, so really, no one had any rights. Women had no rights. Slaves had no rights, but it wasn't just them. No one but a land owner could participate in government at all. Indeed, no one else could even vote. Land owners made up a very small percent of the population at the time (I think around 6%). Most men were wage laborers, indentured servants, or slaves. The government was made purely for the Aristocrats.
The fifth amendment also makes clear that the government ultimately owns all the land.
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
If the government wants your stuff, it can take it. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. You can't defend your property from the government. It's written into the constitution. The Right to Defend your property is inalienable, but this writ of Treaty, which no one but a few people actually signed, states unequivocally that the people who run the government (Aristocrats, every single one), are the Ultimate Authority over your property.
Prior to a "Constitutional Republic" that type of government had a different name, it was called feudalism.
The Author espouses Lincoln as a loss for the Great Awakening.
After looking into Lincoln, I do not think he was a hero at all. If you consider the actual consequences of his actions, either his efforts were subverted, or they were intentional. Yes, there was the whole "greenback" thing, but he had still taken out so many loans already that it was a meaningless gesture. BOTH SIDES of the civil war had indebted themselves to the bankers so deeply that America has never recovered since. People blame the Fed for our debt problems. It was actually the Civil War that did it. The Fed was inevitable after that indebtedness.
The Civil War also wasn't about slavery. It was about setting up the Federal Government as Sovereign over the States. Lincoln ensured that the "United States," a treaty of Sovereign States became the "United States," a single nation, with subordinate areas called "States" in name only.
The Author espouses the speech by JFK as an exposure of the Cabal.
In context, this speech is actually about justifying silencing the media for "National Security."
This one is a tough one, because it really does two things. It brings to the fore ideas of an exposure of the Cabal. But it also is, in context, suggesting that it is talking about the Soviet Union. So is it a veiled message about the Cabal? Maybe. Is it a veiled message letting people know that the news is being censored by nefarious actors (the C_A) under false pretenses of "National Security"? Maybe.
I don't know what the intent is behind this speech. What it is saying is, "The USSR is evil, and because of that we need to censor the news, for the greater good; to keep everyone safe." That is what the speech says. However, the delivery is such that it sounds like something much more. It could be that that is exactly what it is; two speeches in one. A speech that was intended to have a double meaning. "Say what the Cabal wants you to say," and "Tell everyone the truth" at the same time.
There is a lot going on with the ideas espoused in the clip in the OP, but the context surrounding them is important. Whatever the truth is, there is more to everything than it appears on the surface. Understanding someone's true motives is impossible. The best "red pills" are the ones that get people to ask the right questions. I'm not convinced that this piece will convince anyone to do that who hasn't already done so already.
Several thoughts:
The Author espouses the formation of the United States as part of the Great Awakening
There is a great deal of fuckery in our constitution. The fifth amendment includes explicit statements that people in our military have no constitutional rights. Military enrollment (conscription) was not optional, so really, no one had any rights. Women had no rights. Slaves had no rights, but it wasn't just them. No one but a land owner could participate in government at all. Indeed, no one else could even vote. Land owners made up a very small percent of the population at the time (I think around 6%). Most men were wage laborers, indentured servants, or slaves. The government was made purely for the Aristocrats.
The fifth amendment also makes clear that the government ultimately owns all the land.
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
If the government wants your stuff, it can take it. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. You can't defend your property from the government. It's written into the constitution. The Right to Defend your property is inalienable, but this writ of Treaty, which no one but a few people actually signed, states unequivocally that the people who run the government (Aristocrats, every single one), are the Ultimate Authority over your property.
Prior to a "Constitutional Republic" that type of government had a different name, it was called feudalism.
The Author espouses Lincoln as a loss for the Great Awakening.
After looking into Lincoln, I do not think he was a hero at all. If you consider the actual consequences of his actions, either his efforts were subverted, or they were intentional. Yes, there was the whole "greenback" thing, but he had still taken out so many loans already that it was a meaningless gesture. BOTH SIDES of the civil war had indebted themselves to the bankers so deeply that America has never recovered since. People blame the Fed for our debt problems. It was actually the Civil War that did it. The Fed was inevitable after that indebtedness.
The Civil War also wasn't about slavery. It was about setting up the Federal Government as Sovereign over the States. Lincoln ensured that the "United States," a treaty of Sovereign States became the "United States," a single nation, with subordinate areas called "States" in name only.
The Author espouses the speech by JFK as an exposure of the Cabal.
In context, this speech is actually about justifying silencing the media for "National Security."
This one is a tough one, because it really does two things. It brings to the fore ideas of an exposure of the Cabal. But it also is, in context, suggesting that it is talking about the Soviet Union. So is it a veiled message about the Cabal? Maybe. Is it a veiled message letting people know that the news is being censored by nefarious actors (the C_A) under false pretenses of "National Security"? Maybe.
I don't know what the intent is behind this speech. What it is saying is, "The USSR is evil, and because of that we need to censor the news, for the greater good; to keep everyone safe." That is what the speech says. However, the delivery is such that it sounds like something much more. It could be that that is exactly what it is; two speeches in one. A speech that was intended to have a double meaning. "Say what the Cabal wants you to say," and "Tell everyone the truth" at the same time.
There is a lot going on with these ideas, but the context surrounding them is important. Whatever the truth is, there is more to everything than it appears on the surface. Understanding someone's true motives is impossible. The best "red pills" are the ones that get people to ask the right questions. I'm not convinced that this piece will convince anyone to do that who hasn't already done so already.
Several thoughts:
The Author espouses the formation of the United States as part of the Great Awakening
There is a great deal of fuckery in our constitution. The fifth amendment includes explicit statements that people in our military have no constitutional rights. Military enrollment (conscription) was not optional, so really, no one had any rights. Women had no rights. Slaves had no rights, but it wasn't just them. No one but a land owner could participate in government at all. Indeed, no one else could even vote. Land owners made up a very small percent of the population at the time (I think around 6%). Most men were wage laborers, indentured servants, or slaves. The government was made purely for the Aristocrats.
The fifth amendment also makes clear that the government ultimately owns all the land.
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
If the government wants your stuff, it can take it. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. You can't defend your property from the government. It's written into the constitution. The Right to Defend your property is inalienable, but this writ of Treaty, which no one but a few people actually signed, states unequivocally that the people who run the government (Aristocrats, every single one), are the Ultimate Authority over your property.
Prior to a "Constitutional Republic" that type of government had a different name, it was called feudalism.
The Author espouses Lincoln as a loss for the Great Awakening.
After looking into Lincoln, I do not think he was a hero at all. If you consider the actual consequences of his actions, either his efforts were subverted, or they were intentional. Yes, there was the whole "greenback" thing, but he had still taken out so many loans already that it was a meaningless gesture. BOTH SIDES of the civil war had indebted themselves to the bankers so deeply that America has never recovered since. People blame the Fed for our debt problems. It was actually the Civil War that did it. The Fed was inevitable after that indebtedness.
The Civil War also wasn't about slavery. It was about setting up the Federal Government as Sovereign over the States. Lincoln ensured that the "United States," a treaty of Sovereign States became the "United States," a single nation, with subordinate areas called "States" in name only.
The Author espouses the speech by JFK as an exposure of the Cabal.
In context, this speech is actually about justifying silencing the media for "National Security."
This one is a tough one, because it really does two things. It brings to the fore ideas of an exposure of the Cabal. But it also is, in context, suggesting that it is talking about the Soviet Union. So is it a veiled message about the Cabal? Maybe. Is it a veiled message letting people know that the news is being censored for "National Security" by nefarious actors (the C_A)? Maybe.
I don't know what the intent is behind this speech. What it is saying is, "The USSR is evil, and because of that we need to censor the news, for the greater good; to keep everyone safe." That is what the speech says. However, the delivery is such that it sounds like something much more. It could be that that is exactly what it is; two speeches in one. A speech that was intended to have a double meaning. "Say what the Cabal wants you to say," and "Tell everyone the truth" at the same time.
There is a lot going on with these ideas, but the context surrounding them is important. Whatever the truth is, there is more to everything than it appears on the surface. Understanding someone's true motives is impossible. The best "red pills" are the ones that get people to ask the right questions. I'm not convinced that this piece will convince anyone to do that who hasn't already done so already.
Several thoughts:
The Author espouses the formation of the United States as part of the Great Awakening
There is a great deal of fuckery in our constitution. The fifth amendment includes explicit statements that people in our military have no constitutional rights. Military enrollment (conscription) was not optional, so really, no one had any rights. Women had no rights. Slaves had no rights, but it wasn't just them. No one but a land owner could participate in government at all. Indeed, no one else could even vote. Land owners made up a very small percent of the population at the time (I think around 6%). Most men were wage laborers, indentured servants, or slaves. The government was made purely for the Aristocrats.
The fifth amendment also makes clear that the government ultimately owns all the land.
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
If the government wants your stuff, it can take it. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. You can't defend your property from the government. It's written into the constitution. The Right to Defend your property is inalienable, but this writ of Treaty, which no one but a few people actually signed, states unequivocally that the people who run the government (Aristocrats, every single one), are the Ultimate Authority over your property.
Prior to a "Constitutional Republic" that type of government had a different name, it was called feudalism.
The Author espouses Lincoln as a loss for the Great Awakening.
After looking into Lincoln, I do not think he was a hero at all. If you consider the actual consequences of his actions, either his efforts were subverted, or they were intentional. Yes, there was the whole "greenback" thing, but he had still taken out so many loans already that it was a meaningless gesture. BOTH SIDES of the civil war had indebted themselves to the bankers so deeply that America has never recovered since. People blame the Fed for our debt problems. It was actually the Civil War that did it. The Fed was inevitable after that indebtedness.
The Civil War also wasn't about slavery. It was about setting up the Federal Government as Sovereign over the States. Lincoln ensured that the "United States," a treaty of Sovereign States became the "United States," a single nation, with subordinate areas called "States" in name only.
The Author espouses the speech by JFK as an exposure of the Cabal.
In context, this speech is actually about justifying silencing the media for "National Security."
This one is a tough one, because it really does two things. It brings to the fore ideas of an exposure of the Cabal. But it also is, in context, suggesting that it is talking about the Soviet Union. So it is a veiled message about the Cabal? Maybe. Is it a veiled message letting people know that the news is being censored for "National Security" by nefarious actors (the C_A)? Maybe.
I don't know what the intent is behind this speech. What it is saying is, "The USSR is evil, and because of that we need to censor the news, for the greater good; to keep everyone safe." That is what the speech says. However, the delivery is such that it sounds like something much more. It could be that that is exactly what it is; two speeches in one. A speech that was intended to have a double meaning. "Say what the Cabal wants you to say," and "Tell everyone the truth" at the same time.
There is a lot going on with these ideas, but the context surrounding them is important. Whatever the truth is, there is more to everything than it appears on the surface. Understanding someone's true motives is impossible. The best "red pills" are the ones that get people to ask the right questions. I'm not convinced that this piece will convince anyone to do that who hasn't already done so already.
Several thoughts:
The Author espouses the formation of the United States as part of the Great Awakening
There is a great deal of fuckery in our constitution. The fifth amendment includes explicit statements that people in our military have no constitutional rights. Military enrollment (conscription) was not optional, so really, no one had any rights. Women had no rights. Slaves had no rights, but it wasn't just them. No one but a land owner could participate in government at all. Indeed, no one else could even vote. Land owners made up a very small percent of the population at the time (I think around 6%). Most men were wage laborers, indentured servants, or slaves. The government was made purely for the Aristocrats.
The fifth amendment also makes clear that the government ultimately owns all the land.
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
If the government wants your stuff, it can take it. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. You can't defend your property from the government. It's written into the constitution. The Right to Defend your property is inalienable, but this writ of Treaty, which no one but a few people actually signed, states unequivocally that the people who run the government (Aristocrats, every single one), are the Ultimate Authority over your property.
Prior to a "Constitutional Republic" that type of government had a different name, it was called feudalism.
The Author espouses Lincoln as a loss for the Great Awakening.
After looking into Lincoln, I do not think he was a hero at all. If you consider the actual consequences of his actions, either his efforts were subverted, or they were intentional. Yes, there was the whole "greenback" thing, but he had still taken out so many loans already that it was a meaningless gesture. BOTH SIDES of the civil war had indebted themselves to the bankers so deeply that America has never recovered since. People blame the Fed for our debt problems. It was actually the Civil War that did it. The Fed was inevitable after that indebtedness.
The Civil War also wasn't about slavery. It was about setting up the Federal Government as Sovereign over the States. Lincoln ensured that the "United States," a treaty of Sovereign States became the "United States," a single nation, with subordinate areas called "States" in name only.
The Author espouses the speech by JFK as an exposure of the Cabal.
In context, this speech is actually about justifying silencing the media for "National Security."
This one is a tough one, because it really does two things. It brings to the fore ideas of an exposure of the Cabal. But it also is, in context, suggesting that it is talking about the Soviet Union. So it is a veiled message about the Cabal? Maybe. Is it a veiled message letting people know that the news is being censored for "National Security" by nefarious actors (the C_A)? Maybe.
I don't know what the intent is behind this speech. What it is saying is, "The USSR is evil, and because of that we need to censor the news, for the greater good; to keep everyone safe." That is what the speech says. However, the delivery is such that it sounds like something much more. It could be that that is what it is. A speech that was intended to have a double meaning. "Say what the Cabal wants you to say," and "Tell everyone the truth" at the same time.
There is a lot going on with these ideas, but the context surrounding them is important. Whatever the truth is, there is more to everything than it appears on the surface. Understanding someone's true motives is impossible. The best "red pills" are the ones that get people to ask the right questions. I'm not convinced that this piece will convince anyone to do that who hasn't already done so already.