WT and the Illuminati - truth or fiction?

by SnowQueen 268 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  EntirelyPossible

  Are you a paid shill, or do you serve them for free?

  I also wanted to address this accusation.

  1. You don't know who "they" are, by your own admission, unless you claim you do, in which case you are claiming there is a secret society with a known membership, in which case you are simply proving you have no idea what "secret" means.

  2. This is an adorable attempt to somehow suggest I am serving dark forces simply because I don't think providing links to people just a nutters as you equals evidence.

  3. You are bonkers.

  4. I am not a shill, even for the people that DO pay me.

  5. Who are YOU a paid shill for?
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  where the heck is the evidence I was promised?
• 

  ProdigalSon

  1. You don't know who "they" are, by your own admission, unless you claim you do, in which case you are claiming there is a secret society with a known membership, in which case you are simply proving you have no idea what "secret" means.

  Which "they" are you talking about? The "they" I referred to is the Old WOrld Order. You want names? The list of names on the Committee of 300 and the more than 600 top bankers who have resigned over the last 8 months would be a good place to start. As for the people in the secret societies, DUH, they're not published. That means they don't exist, right?

  2. This is an adorable attempt to somehow suggest I am serving dark forces simply because I don't think providing links to people just a nutters as you equals evidence.

  That link was only to two of the many people who have cited a complex study done by a team of Swiss Scientists to expose the fact that 147 interconnected super-companies, almost all banks, are running the world together, owning all of each others stocks. If this doesn't qualify as collusion to you, then you are a disingenuous sock puppet. Additionally, all the proof one needs of a conspiracy is to look at the COLD HARD DATA of the concentration of wealth since the what used to be the top ten percent in the 1980's into the top one tenth of one percent in 2012. And if that wasn't enough, the LIBOR and FED scandals are all over the news these days, and even Elliott Spitzer has done in-depth coverage of it on his show "Viewpoint" expressing total outrage and disbelief at the sheer magnitude of the corruption and the mass robbery of all humanity by these banksters. Their history is long and detailed. But when any evidence is presented to you that conflicts with your oblivious world view, you write it off as "bonkers", "batshit crazy" or an assortment of other childish and stupid adjectives.

  For those of you who missed it, here is the "nutters" website that EntirelyArrogant is referring to (undoubtedly Pseudo-Science to him, because he doesn't like it)

  http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228354.500-revealed--the-capitalist-network-that-runs-the-world.html

  3. You are bonkers.

  There you go again, just being your asshole self.
• 

  bohm

  the illuminati is so cunning the only evidence they let slip into the public happends to make the people who promolugate it sound bat shit crazy.
• 

  ProdigalSon

  bohm: It is that kind of super sharp logic which is required to figure out JFK might be talking about Soviet as an enemy a week after the bay of pigs! I feel you are getting your critical thinking skills warmed up now.

  It's you who has limited thinking skills. JFK could not have been talking about the Soviets in his Secret Society Speech. It was no secret what the Soviets were up to. They didn't do anything to hide the fact that it was a tyrannical regime and were not one bit interested in what was good for the people in general. It was all about the regime, it was openly evil, and everyone knew it. None of the things that JFK used to describe them would apply to the Soviets.

  Instead, why not try opening your eyes and putting it together with all the other presidents, supreme court justices, congressmen, prime ministers, et al who made unambiguous statements about the shadow government that works behind the scenes that everyone is afraid of and is subject to no laws?

  C'mon bohm, a cocksure scientist such as yourself should have no problem connecting a couple of dots. Unless of course you have an agenda to keep everyone as passive as a lug nut.
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  As for the people in the secret societies, DUH, they're not published.

  Convenient.

  That link was only to two of the many people who have cited a complex study done by a team of Swiss Scientists to expose the fact that 147 interconnected super-companies, almost all banks, are running the world together, owning all of each others stocks.

  It's nutters because it's impossible for them to each own all of each others stocks.

  If this doesn't qualify as collusion to you, then you are a disingenuous sock puppet.

  Of course comapnies collude, but the collusion you are referring to isn't possible.

  you write it off as "bonkers", "batshit crazy" or an assortment of other childish and stupid adjectives.

  Well, mainly because you go don't make sense and can't ever seem to provide actual proof of what you are claiming.
• 

  jgnat

  There's a music to reason, a simplicity that is beautiful to behold. Occam's razor rules. Become enamoured of that, and all lesser theories lose their lustre.

  We are the great tribe of humanity working through to maturity on a planet that suddenly, is fragile. Nobody is in charge.

  http://youtu.be/jfqwHT3u1-8

  murmuration
• 

  ProdigalSon

  It's nutters because it's impossible for them to each own all of each others stocks.

  No it isn't. Instead of throwing around your never ending peanut-gallery psychological assessments (your varied fields of expertise are quite astounding), try to understand what they're saying. From the link:

  When the team further untangled the web of ownership, it found much of it tracked back to a "super-entity" of 147 even more tightly knit companies - all of their ownership was held by other members of the super-entity - that controlled 40 per cent of the total wealth in the network. "In effect, less than 1 per cent of the companies were able to control 40 per cent of the entire network," says Glattfelder. Most were financial institutions. The top 20 included Barclays Bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co, and The Goldman Sachs Group.
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  No it isn't.

  Yes. It is. Their stocks are publicly traded. I realize that have no idea how finance works and are resorting to insults becuase you can't reationallt defend these theories that feed into yout conspiracy dreams, but at least try to understand the basics.

  (your varied fields of expertise are quite astounding

  Indeed. Educating yourself can do wonders.

  From the link..."Reality is so complex, we must move away from dogma, whether it's conspiracy theories or free-market," says James Glattfelder. "Our analysis is reality-based."
• 

  Prognoser

  Calling it a conspiracy theory doesn't make it so, EntirelyPossible.