How the ILLUMINATI made Baraxk Obama President

King Mob

Kernel wrote: »

Not secret anymore. Far advanced the plan is. Still, most sheeple will not understand as you can see today.

Right all those years of planing and cover ups. But they just let slip vital parts of there plan. That's ridiculous.

Kernel wrote: »

I've shown you video of leaders talking about the NWO, and advised you to read their published works. The works of Brzezinski and Kissinger. You've refused to read these, but these are exactly where the NWO agenda are explained in detail. What more can I do. *shrug*

Let him that has eyes see and all that.

You shown out of context quote and linked to unreliable looking authors(and fail to show otherwise) as well as probably misinterprated books from people you believe to be part of a conspiracy you've no proof of.
But it's obviously because I'm a sheeple.

Aye Matey!

King Mob wrote: »

Right all those years of planing and cover ups. But they just let slip vital parts of there plan. That's ridiculous.

Did you ever think that it might be as simple as audacity?

The Illuminati symbolism on the dollar bill which clearly states 'novus ordo seclorum' or 'new world order' and a very obvious depiction of the 'all-seeing eye' is perhaps the most brazen exhibition I've come across.

thecommander

Aye Matey! wrote: »

Did you ever think that it might be as simple as audacity?

The Illuminati symbolism on the dollar bill which clearly states 'novus ordo seclorum' or 'new world order' and a very obvious depiction of the 'all-seeing eye' is perhaps the most brazen exhibition I've come across.

Who attached the "all seeing eye" and "New World Order" to the Illuminati. Did they claim them as their own?

For example, if I said there was a new secret order called Stop, I could claim that all Stop signs around the world were them giving us the 2 fingers.

King Mob

Aye Matey! wrote: »

Did you ever think that it might be as simple as audacity?

The Illuminati symbolism on the dollar bill which clearly states 'novus ordo seclorum' or 'new world order' and a very obvious depiction of the 'all-seeing eye' is perhaps the most brazen exhibition I've come across.

How do you know that these are Illuminati symbols?

Why would they jepordise a plan decades old for audacity?

Ever think it's people reading too much into symbols?

Aye Matey!

thecommander wrote: »

For example, if I said there was a new secret order called Stop, I could claim that all Stop signs around the world were them giving us the 2 fingers.

Valid point. The difference is historical lineage and documentation. The Bavarian Illuminati are worthwhile researching as a starting point.

thecommander

Aye Matey! wrote: »

Valid point. The difference is historical lineage and documentation. The Bavarian Illuminati are worthwhile researching as a starting point.

So the Illuminati claimed them as their own then?

Kernel

King Mob wrote: »

You shown out of context quote and linked to unreliable looking authors(and fail to show otherwise) as well as probably misinterprated books from people you believe to be part of a conspiracy you've no proof of.
But it's obviously because I'm a sheeple.

Okay, prove it. Post the out of context quotes and we will discuss them. Also, Brzezinski (The Grand Chessboard) is an 'unreliable looking' author to you?? Would I consider you a sheeple? Yes.

Kernel

thecommander wrote: »

So the Illuminati claimed them as their own then?

Claimed what, where, when now lad?

King Mob

Kernel wrote: »

Okay, prove it. Post the out of context quotes and we will discuss them. Also, Brzezinski (The Grand Chessboard) is an 'unreliable looking' author to you?? Would I consider you a sheeple? Yes.

Go back through my posts I've called you and others on a lot of that.

Funny how you ask me and only me for evidence. Almost as if it's a bad thing.

Also ain't you heard there's a crack down on calling people sheeple.

Kernel

King Mob wrote: »

Go back through my posts I've called you and others on a lot of that.

Where have you called me up on it? I don't recall that, and I certainly don't recall you referring to any of my links in particular. Back it up Mob, point them out to me and I will stand over them or concede.

King Mob

Kernel wrote: »

Where have you called me up on it? I don't recall that, and I certainly don't recall you referring to any of my links in particular. Back it up Mob, point them out to me and I will stand over them or concede.

Wow imagine if you applied this level of skepticism to your own beliefs instead of whatever your trying to do.

Looking back I call people out on it a lot less then I thought. Only goes back to November though.

But from way back in November.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=58021224#post58021224
Post 109 referring to post 108.
I asked you to provide the best evidence from a book. You supplied a quote that was out of context.

Mahatma coat

Mob, you freely admit to not reading any of the books in that thread, yet you still try to suggest that the quote is 'probably out of context'

I think Kernel has a valid point there.

oh Kernel, the sheeple thing, lay of it for a bit.


so now links to YOUR claims please

King Mob

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Mob, you freely admit to not reading any of the books in that thread, yet you still try to suggest that the quote is 'probably out of context'

So a leading member of the NWO admits his membership in his freely accessible autobiography? You don't see the issue with this?

Secondly it's pretty apparent that he was referring to "build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will." as the charge he's guilty of. Not being part of a secret cabal.

I wonder has Kernel actually read the book or just found this quote on a website? Maybe he can put context on it?

Kernel

King Mob wrote: »

Wow imagine if you applied this level of skepticism to your own beliefs instead of whatever your trying to do.

I do.

King Mob wrote: »

Looking back I call people out on it a lot less then I thought. Only goes back to November though.

So you've been caught out throwing baseless accusations around?

Mahatma coat wrote:

oh Kernel, the sheeple thing, lay of it for a bit.

Sorry MC, I shall refrain from using the term.

King Mob

Kernel wrote: »

I do.

Right.....

Kernel wrote: »

So you've been caught out throwing baseless accusations around?

No I have provided a link to a time when I called you out on using out of context quotes, like you asked for.
I merely stated I was a little surprised about how far back I had to go to find it.
But hey if you want to move the goalposts rather than admit you were wrong...

Kernel

King Mob wrote: »

Right.....

Yeessss....

King Mob wrote: »

No I have provided a link to a time when I called you out on using out of context quotes, like you asked for.
I merely stated I was a little surprised about how far back I had to go to find it.
But hey if you want to move the goalposts rather than admit you were wrong...

I'm not wrong though, the quote was simply not out of context, as has been demonstrated by MC. In post #98 you said:

mob wrote:

Yea you've shown alot of out of context quotes. That's it.
You've failed to show anything more substantial than that.

So I've asked for evidence of that accusation and you've provided me with one quote which is clearly a stand alone quote and very much in context. Where's the 'alot of out of context quotes' you claim? Quite simply, the fact is that I *have* shown evidence for the existence of the NWO.

King Mob

Kernel wrote: »

I'm not wrong though, the quote was simply not out of context, as has been demonstrated by MC. In post #98 you said

Then please put that quote into context. What part of his autobiography was it in? What was the rest of the chapter about? Why would he admit his membership of a secret organisation is his freely accessible autobiography,

Kernel wrote: »

So I've asked for evidence of that accusation and you've provided me with one quote which is clearly a stand alone quote and very much in context. Where's the 'alot of out of context quotes' you claim? Quite simply, the fact is that I *have* shown evidence for the existence of the NWO.

You claimed that the evidence was provided by the leaders themselves and refered to Henry Kissinger et all. Plus the odd quote like that one. That's it.

But maybe you can back up your piont where and when did you provide evidence of the NWO?
Why not hit us with the best?

Kernel

King Mob wrote: »

Then please put that quote into context. What part of his autobiography was it in? What was the rest of the chapter about? Why would he admit his membership of a secret organisation is his freely accessible autobiography,

I'll dig out the book and post more from it, since you seem to think that it's absolutely necessary..... Or you could read some books by or about the Rockefellers, Rotchschilds, Kissinger, Brzezinski et al. yourself, as I've suggested.

King Mob wrote: »

You claimed that the evidence was provided by the leaders themselves and refered to Henry Kissinger et all. Plus the odd quote like that one. That's it.

I posted links of some of the most powerful men in the world openly talking about the NWO and calling for it's implementation. Including Barack. So don't simply dismiss such evidence with a flippant 'that's it'. You made an unsubstantiated accusation that I simply posted a lot of out of context quotes as my evidence of the NWO. That's untrue and you are wrong and throwing baseless accusations at me in order to undermine my credibility.

King Mob wrote: »

But maybe you can back up your piont where and when did you provide evidence of the NWO?
Why not hit us with the best?

You want me to post it all again do you? Jesus Christ..... :rolleyes:

King Mob

Kernel wrote: »

I'll dig out the book and post more from it, since you seem to think that it's absolutely necessary..... Or you could read some books by or about the Rockefellers, Rotchschilds, Kissinger, Brzezinski et al. yourself, as I've suggested.

Yes and said I don't have the time or money. But since you have read the book shouldn't be an issue to answer those question.

Kernel wrote: »

I posted links of some of the most powerful men in the world openly talking about the NWO and calling for it's implementation. Including Barack. So don't simply dismiss such evidence with a flippant 'that's it'.

Yes I think those quotes are very much out of context.

Kernel wrote: »

You made an unsubstantiated accusation that I simply posted a lot of out of context quotes as my evidence of the NWO. That's untrue and you are wrong and throwing baseless accusations at me in order to undermine my credibility.

I said I call you out when you post out of context quotes, you ask for evidence and I proved it.

Kernel wrote: »

You want me to post it all again do you? Jesus Christ..... :rolleyes:

But I had to go back through mine to find a post where I called you on using out of context quotes. Talk about double standards.

Kernel

King Mob wrote: »

Yes I think those quotes are very much out of context.

Which quotes? Until you tell me, I can't teach.

King Mob wrote: »

I said I call you out when you post out of context quotes, you ask for evidence and I proved it.

Wrong again, I asked for evidence that I had posted 'alot' of out of context quotes.... you posted one quote which was a standalone (therefore in context) quote. Stop lying. :rolleyes:

King Mob wrote: »

But I had to go back through mine to find a post where I called you on using out of context quotes. Talk about double standards.

No double standards. Stop trolling, would you?

King Mob

Kernel wrote: »

Which quotes? Until you tell me, I can't teach.

To be honest I can't remember. But I imagine the one you keep going on about, the Obama one.

Kernel wrote: »

Wrong again, I asked for evidence that I had posted 'alot' of out of context quotes.... you posted one quote which was a standalone (therefore in context) quote. Stop lying. :rolleyes:

Well it's not in context, you haven't explained what the rest of the chapter is about. Also I have shown that it can be interpreted in a different way. You have yet to explain why he has admitted membership to a secret organisation in his autobiography?

It's funny how you're playing semantics now.

Kernel wrote: »

No double standards. Stop trolling, would you?

Yep that's why I don't believe in these theories I'm only trolling. No skeptical inquiry at all.

Mahatma coat

Mob, the quote was in context to the discussion.

as for the context of the book, you have no Idea what the book was about, you freely admit to not reading it and having no intention of reading the book, yet you still try to claim an understanding of the context of the quotes taken from that book.

I'll ask you to stop please, your actions are derailing threads and generally
Making large swathes of 'Native' Posters 'Restless'

I've had a look at the charter and considerin the number of complaints I am recieving both publicly and privatley there are grounds to ban you.

I dont want to do that, because you can be a valued contributor to threads, as of late tho you are mostly being a pain in the ass.

So, Cop on or Sod off.

the choice (for the moment) is yours

King Mob

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Mob, the quote was in context to the discussion.

Never said it wasn't relevant to the discussion. I believe its taken out of it original context in the book and is be interpreted by itself.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

as for the context of the book, you have no Idea what the book was about, you freely admit to not reading it and having no intention of reading the book, yet you still try to claim an understanding of the context of the quotes taken from that book.

I didn't claim an understanding. I said it seem very likely that it was taken out of context. I've asked Kernel to explain the context as present in the book at least three times.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I'll ask you to stop please, your actions are derailing threads and generally
Making large swathes of 'Native' Posters 'Restless'

I've had a look at the charter and considerin the number of complaints I am recieving both publicly and privatley there are grounds to ban you.

I dont want to do that, because you can be a valued contributor to threads, as of late tho you are mostly being a pain in the ass.

So, Cop on or Sod off.

the choice (for the moment) is yours

And basic questions about theories are derailing threads? Seriously?

So how should I cop on just believe anything that's posted up here, even if it's demonstrably false?

Mahatma coat

demonstrate clearly how it is false then.

dont rely on 'Oh I use logic, it just is' as an argument, give us solid proof that Kernel is wrong, if it so clear to you.

King Mob

Mahatma coat wrote: »

demonstrate clearly how it is false then.

dont rely on 'Oh I use logic, it just is' as an argument, give us solid proof that Kernel is wrong, if it so clear to you.

Actually I was referring to the Jett Travolta thread. Wherein I provide rock solid evidence that there is no link between autism and vaccinations.

Mahatma coat

see, this is cross thread derailment again, refer to instances in this thread please

King Mob

Mahatma coat wrote: »

see, this is cross thread derailment again, refer to instances in this thread please

I wasn't referring to this thread when I said demonstrably false.
The autism thread was easier to show the scientific reasoning. Here not so much.
On this thread I was asking several questions I felt were unanswered.
How do we know the illuminati control the US.
How do we know that Obama is a member (or, as one person claimed, part of a royal illuminati bloodline.)?
How do we know that zionism is part of the illuminati scheme?
How do we know the media is controlled by the illuminati?

And so on....

The answers for these have been fairly flimsy.

But yea asking question is apparently a bad thing when some don't like you asking them.

Aye Matey!

King Mob wrote: »

On this thread I was asking several questions I felt were unanswered.

If that were all that you're doing then there wouldn't be an issue. You're also personally ridiculing Kernel (which tbh is border line trolling) for quotes that you cannot even recall.

King Mob wrote: »

To be honest I can't remember. But I imagine the one you keep going on about, the Obama one.

King Mob

Aye Matey! wrote: »

If that were all that you're doing then there wouldn't be an issue.

And what else exactly was I doing?

Aye Matey! wrote: »

You're also personally ridiculing Kernel (which tbh is border line trolling) for quotes that you cannot even recall.

I have not ridiculed anyone.
He said he had video of Obama admitting his involvement in a NWO.
As far as I know he's yet to show it, might be wrong though.

Maybe you can answer one of my questions?

Aye Matey!

King Mob wrote: »

And what else exactly was I doing?

My second sentence of my post should have answered that for you.

King Mob wrote: »

Maybe you can answer one of my questions?

You don't have the time to research the evidence presented by Kernel (which incidentally provides solid answers) therefore my answers will no better serve you.

King Mob

Aye Matey! wrote: »

My second sentence of my post should have answered that for you.

Yea wasn't my intention to ridicule anyone.

Aye Matey! wrote: »

You don't have the time to research the evidence presented by Kernel (which incidentally provides solid answers) therefore my answers will no better serve you.

Then why not sum up kernels answers?
Or give a good reason to invest time and money in one of the books he mentions?

Aye Matey!

King Mob wrote: »

Or give a good reason to invest time and money in one of the books he mentions?

Reason to invest time: Disputing a CT is hardly an intellectual feat of 'logic'. The very nature of CT's implies that they are difficult to prove. If you want to dispute a theory with effect and esteem from fellow CT members then at least research the provided evidence that other reputable CT members vouch for.

Reason to invest money: None at all. Many free and readily available resources exist online. Research objective critiques, reviews, segments, quotes and perhaps a synopsis of the suggested literature online. This will also save you time of filtering through the entire texts.

Sofa_King Good

Wouldn't a synopsis defeat the purpose? And to be fair it would be impossible to find a mutually accepted "objective" critique, review etc.

Aye Matey!

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

Wouldn't a synopsis defeat the purpose? And to be fair it would be impossible to find a mutually accepted "objective" critique, review etc.

Well thats another argument entirely the questions the integrity of primary and secondary sources. I trust that Mob can distinguish a synopsis scribed by a conspiracy theorist advocate from an objective literary critic.

King Mob

Aye Matey! wrote: »

Reason to invest time: Disputing a CT is hardly an intellectual feat of 'logic'. The very nature of CT's implies that they are difficult to prove. If you want to dispute a theory with effect and esteem from fellow CT members then at least research the provided evidence that other reputable CT members vouch for.

Well I do research Conspiracies. I ask for the references people use to come to their conclusions then research them were viable. The reason I don't buy the books suggested is 1) no money. 2) to time to read then check the references in the book. 3) Chances are good that it will be a bunch of logical fallacies and poor evidence, haven't seen anything to believe otherwise.

Even if a theory lacks definite proof you still need evidence to support your observations (e.g. I believe Bush to be a member of the illuminati. Evidence: genuine photo of him accepting an illuminati achievement award.) Furthermore the theory must follow good logic and not rely on logic fallacies.
Most conspiracy theories rely on either poor evidence or bad logic or both.

Aye Matey! wrote: »

Reason to invest money: None at all. Many free and readily available resources exist online. Research objective critiques, reviews, segments, quotes and perhaps a synopsis of the suggested literature online. This will also save you time of filtering through the entire texts.

And I read them when they are posted. Googleing "Obama Illuminati conspiracy" won't get me very far.

Aye Matey!

King Mob wrote: »

Googleing "Obama Illuminati conspiracy" won't get me very far.

Who said you should? I advised researching the literature as suggested by Kernel. Obective historical and biographical accounts that do not fall under the genre of conspiracy theory are available for each of the topics he suggested. The free online resources as I suggested exist for each of these as much as they do for any literary text.

Sofa_King Good

I believe Kernel was quoting Zbignieuw Brzeznski from his book the Grand Chessboard. He has been an influential presence in the White House Administration since the Carter Administration.


here is another Brzezinski quote from his senate testimony:"

If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the US blamed on Iran; culminating in a 'defensive' US military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan."
Hopefully it wont be prophetic. It's an eery vision of the future but seem to be the US's MO.

King Mob

Aye Matey! wrote: »

Who said you should? I advised researching the literature as suggested by Kernel. Obective historical and biographical accounts that do not fall under the genre of conspiracy theory are available for each of the topics he suggested. The free online resources as I suggested exist for each of these as much as they do for any literary text.

Aside from the Rockerfeller Memoirs and Brzezinski stuff. All the stuff Kernel suggested I read where in fact conspiracy books.
Unfortunatly provide only "read this book" doesn't cut it as evidence.

Aye Matey!

King Mob wrote: »

Aside from the Rockerfeller Memoirs and Brzezinski stuff. All the stuff Kernel suggested I read where in fact conspiracy books.
Unfortunatly provide only "read this book" doesn't cut it as evidence.

I'm not wasting anymore time on you King Mob. We're going in circles here and I'm having to repeat myself. For someone who excessivley cries out buzzwords such as "flawed logical fallacies" and "baseless speculation" like they're going out of fashion you're behaving like a hypocrit whose more concerned with coming across as being right rather than actually being right.

You've been recommended literature that supports Kernels claims but you refuse to research them based on the logic that they're conspiracy theory jargon.

To appease you I myself have suggested researching objective historical and autobiographical texts that do not fall under the conspiracy theory genre and simutaneously support Kernels claims yet you refuse to research them because according to you "read this book" doesn't cut as evidence.

No-one's going to spoon feed you an alphabetical ISBN appended list of literature based on the aforementioned stipulations. If you want to form an esteemed counterpoint then do your own homework. Any plebian can dispute a conspiracy theory using a "prove it or shut up" approach. An intellect however will intricatley research their counterpoint.

You're not prepared to the latter so I'm out. Last word and all subsequent words are yours. :rolleyes:

King Mob

Aye Matey! wrote: »

I'm not wasting anymore time on you King Mob. We're going in circles here and I'm having to repeat myself. For someone who excessivley cries out buzzwords such as "flawed logical fallacies" and "baseless speculation" like they're going out of fashion you're behaving like a hypocrit whose more concerned with coming across as being right rather than actually being right.

You've been recommended literature that supports Kernels claims but you refuse to research them based on the logic that they're conspiracy theory jargon.

To appease you I myself have suggested researching objective historical and autobiographical texts that do not fall under the conspiracy theory genre and simutaneously support Kernels claims yet you refuse to research them because according to you "read this book" doesn't cut as evidence.

No-one's going to spoon feed you an alphabetical ISBN appended list of literature based on the aforementioned stipulations. If you want to form an esteemed counterpoint then do your own homework. Any plebian can dispute a conspiracy theory using a "prove it or shut up" approach. An intellect however will intricatley research their counterpoint.

You're not prepared to the latter so I'm out. Last word and all subsequent words are yours. :rolleyes:

I use words like logical fallacies when people use a logical fallacy to support their point, not because it sounds cool. And if you speculate on something without evidence to support it, it's baseless.

Yea I've explained it before: I don't have the money to buy these books. I'm not refusing to research it, I'm asking for a nice summation of the points in the book that provide evidence to support the point you're making.

iPlop

I believe barak obama was picked for the job more than 3 years ago.The reason behind this is because "they" (i used that phrase loosley) always put the idea out there in movies and tv shows etc....For example the TV show 24 had 2 young black presidents that had to deal with alot of crap.We know from the lone gunmen and the x files that the pentagon will ask a TV studio to create scenarios and see what the public reaction is.My point bieng is that we have been getting used to a black president on TV in some movies and shows to be climatised for the future

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/haglund_on_cia_hollywood_911.htm

Aye Matey!

Interesting point. There was also a black president in The Fifth Element and Idiocracy.

thecommander

Septic Leper wrote: »

I believe barak obama was picked for the job more than 3 years ago.The reason behind this is because "they" (i used that phrase loosley) always put the idea out there in movies and tv shows etc....For example the TV show 24 had 2 young black presidents that had to deal with alot of crap.We know from the lone gunmen and the x files that the pentagon will ask a TV studio to create scenarios and see what the public reaction is.My point bieng is that we have been getting used to a black president on TV in some movies and shows to be climatised for the future

So instead of facts, you choose to base the reason Barack was selected because fictional TV shows had loosely related characters in them?

iPlop

Aye Matey! wrote: »

Interesting point. There was also a black president in The Fifth Element and Idiocracy.

and deep impact-- morgan freeman

iPlop

thecommander wrote: »

So instead of facts, you choose to base the reason Barack was selected because fictional TV shows had loosely related characters in them?

I see what you mean ,but it's well known that the pentagon and hollywood are hand in hand in swaying public opinion and creating scearios.Also it's well known the american election system has been a farse for years.Thats why I formed my own opinion on the matter ,I never said it was fact ,just opinion.But well known actors and directors have pretty much confirmed what all conspiracy guys love .

Just an example is the famous hollywood director Arron Russo that passed away recently who said david rockerfeller said "they were going to enslave the planet and microchip the population" this can be seen on youtube.heres the artical from arron russo

http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/rockefeller_admitted_elite_goal_microchipped_population.htm

Aye Matey!

Morgan Freeman is everywhere these days. A GPS narrated by Freeman would be soothing when lost in the back roads of our Emerald Isle.

I don't think Septic is implying that Obama was selected as a result of a handful of fictional series. Instead he's suggesting that the public was introduced to the concept of an African American president in popular culture to ease them into the strategized positioning of such a presedential candidate.

thecommander

Septic Leper wrote: »

david rockerfeller said "they were going to enslave the planet and microchip the population" this can be seen on youtube.

He's 93 and he hasnt done it yet, I doubt he will.

Hollywood has pretty much covered every subject known, so if something happens, that has happened in a film already, then you could claim the filmmaker was in on it.

Does it mean that when AI happens that Terminator, 2001, AI, Alien was getting us ready?

iPlop

Aye Matey! wrote: »

Morgan Freeman is everywhere these days. A GPS narrated by Freeman would be soothing when lost in the back roads of our Emerald Isle.

I don't think Septic is implying that Obama was selected as a result of a handful of fictional series. Instead he's suggesting that the public was introduced to the concept of an African American president in popular culture to ease them into the strategized positioning of such a presedential candidate.

exactly the point matey;)

iPlop

thecommander wrote: »

He's 93 and he hasnt done it yet, I doubt he will.

Hollywood has pretty much covered every subject known, so if something happens, that has happened in a film already, then you could claim the filmmaker was in on it.

Does it mean that when AI happens that Terminator, 2001, AI, Alien was foretelling us?

no Commander but you canot deny the 93 old man said it and he obviously means it and has people to take over for him when he burns in hell.By the way James Cameron in 33 degree freemason of the scotish rite.Im not going to say there is a link to terminator ,but mate it's all out here for people to read and see

Heres a company rockefeller setup

http://www.verichipcorp.com/

Aye Matey!

thecommander wrote: »

Does it mean that when AI happens that Terminator, 2001, AI, Alien was getting us ready?

It's a romantic notion to be fair. Its authenticity would require substantially more research on my part before I'd be willing to make a judgment call on it. I am however willing to entertain a discussion on the matter.

Imagine yourself as a world leader. Your perogative is the control and coordination of the masses. The resources I'd personally depend on to implement control would be education and the media. I'd rather condition someone to proactivley do what I want rather than having to directly instruct them which opens the equation to opposition. That and a keen military infrastructure that I groom overseas should I ever need to release them on my mass public should they break into civil unrest.