Thread: Illuminati Secret Covenant Revealed

Why would the government ban or try to ban something that according to them doesn't exist?

Originally Posted by Jeff777

Why would the government ban try to ban something that according to them doesn't exist?

My question, exactly. I was just about the post that bill, but I saw that born beat me to it. *snaps his fingers*

ethen:
I'm sure you understand that peoples' perspective on things is usually the sum of their experiences/input on the topic, not just the single pieces of "evidence." This being the case, it is much more likely that you're not going to understand exactly why someone sees evidence in something that you don't find as evidential, when you first see it. If you don't understand why they see evidence in it, it's better to ask them how it is they came to that conclusion, based on that single piece of evidence (with the chance of them adding to it, and giving you a broader perspective as to how they see it) than being a dick about it. Just some food for thought.

Ok, why are clouds a hidden reference to chemtrails? Is it because of the torch in her hand and what that references? Is the "B" really just a "13" because its the B of a promanent bank?

Or maybe, just maybe, people might be reading too far into things...because YES, there is a "too far". And maybe im not going to be another easy "your just too ignorant to understand" person to blow off.

Because thats way easier than actually making sense of some of these connections, isn't it? Wait, let me guess, the fact there is a reasonable and yet contradictory explanation behind most of it is all part of their plan...

Originally Posted by ethen

wow, some of you guys are disturbingly paranoid, but not because you believe that an organisation like the illuminatti exists. Generally speaking, the idea of a secret-ish organisation having an extremely large amount of power is very plausible. But the way in which you find evidence of their existence in anything and nothing is fucking rediculous.

Okay, then why are we paranoid? It's known that the government can hear anything you say, whether on the phone or not. So watch out. They are just trying to make it even easier to track you with thesee cards/chips/whatever it will be, which I don't need. I would never be stupid enough to get a "NID".

Originally Posted by Michael

Okay, then why are we paranoid? It's known that the government can hear anything you say, whether on the phone or not. So watch out. They are just trying to make it even easier to track you with thesee cards/chips/whatever it will be, which I don't need. I would never be stupid enough to get a "NID".

I have yet to get a source that verifies that these NIDs are actually going to have tracking devices in them.

Originally Posted by ethen

I have yet to get a source that verifies that these NIDs are actually going to have tracking devices in them.

Doesn't matter if they do or not. It would still make it easier to track you. With tracking devices, it would just be too easy.

I posted this earlier today:

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Taking away human rights is still a recent event and protesting the NID is just the opportunity Americans all finally have to say no to all the BS the federal government has been trying to pull.

But what rights do we have now that we will loose if we get NIDs?

I mean, if you are going to protest stuff like this, that’s perfectly fine. I'm all for challenging the government when its warranted...but don't do it just to do it. Try to accomplish something a bit more constructive than defiance for defiance's sake. Like I said before, we already have national ID's. Protesting this isn't going to change that. We already need ID's to drive, and protesting this isn't going to change that.

So what's the point in protesting this, seriously?

I may just be missing something, but as I understand the issue, all this is is the consolidation of several different types of IDs *we already have* into one. There is nothing dubious about that, its just more efficient. And to tell you the truth, I’ve never seen anyone complain about SSNs or needing a license to drive until the idea of NIDs...which makes me wonder why suddenly people seem to act like this stuff is a "new and serious threat to our rights" even though this level of citizen-documentation has been around long before people our age had even been born. It’s almost as if this anti-government mentality is just another trend the youth is buying into.

But don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the government, and I do believe that our rights are slowly being eroded away. I just think protesting this specific issue is a waist of time and energy because, even if people somehow managed to keep the government from making NIDs mandatory, it doesn't actually change anything. We're all already in the system to the same extent we would be with NIDs. If you want to counteract the erosion of our rights, do something that is actually going to make a difference.

For your average citizen, this isn't going to change anything. Your SSN can be flagged and your driver's license can be revoked without your permission nowadays, so no change there. The only changes will be that undocumented citizens are going to have a MUCH harder time surviving in this country (since the NID can't be easily forged), and I imagine that this would be the same for wanted criminals.

So, in what situations exactly would this ID take your rights away? You no longer have the right to get a job if your a wanted criminal or an illegal immigrant? Ok. You can no longer legally drive if your a wanted criminal or an illegal immigrant? Fine. And how exactly does this harm your average citizen?

Originally Posted by ethen

The card doesn't allow the government any more power over the citizens than they already have. What it does do is allow the government to make it much harder to be an undocumented citizen and survive in this country, and the same would probably be true for criminal with warrants.






Paranoia seems like one of the most effective tools for manipulating the populations, and makes me wonder if the illuminatti has as much control over the world as people seem to think, and if they "control all sides", then stuff like that video seems suspect for foul play in itself, no?

Nothing would distract us more or destroy us faster than ourselves fighting each other as "they" sit back and watch...

Originally Posted by ethen

Ok, why are clouds a hidden reference to chemtrails?

Clouds, in general, aren't. If you seriously give the allegations of chemtrails the time of day enough to look into them and try to disprove them, you might get suspicious when you see them behaving the way that the allegations say is "unusual." So far, personally, I've heard many allegations of the strange nature of these alleged chemtrails, and one (Spart's explanation as to why they are contrails). I can't speak for anyone else here, but to ask the question you did (which is a perfectly legit question, and will give you more information than coming across the way you did), that's the only answer I have, so far.

Originally Posted by ethen

Is it because of the torch in her hand and what that references?

That's called a "straw man."

Originally Posted by ethen

Is the "B" really just a "13" because its the B of a promanent bank?

Actually, I think that one was an M, but that remains to be seen. That's the first time I've heard of that particular theory, though, so I don't really ascribe to that one either.

Originally Posted by ethen

Or maybe, just maybe, people might be reading too far into things...because YES, there is a "too far".

I don't think there's been anyone here who has stated otherwise.

Originally Posted by ethen

And maybe im not going to be another easy "your just too ignorant to understand" person to blow off.

Who's blowing you off?

Originally Posted by ethen

Because thats way easier than actually making sense of some of these connections, isn't it? Wait, let me guess, the fact there is a reasonable and yet contradictory explanation behind most of it is all part of their plan...

I'm not a fan of Occam's Razor, especially in the area of human, social affairs.

[Edit: Oh, and regarding NID's. They may not have "tracking devices" in them, but think about it. If, over time, EVERYTHING that we do, electronically, can be stored on these cards, including monetary transactions (when we pay for gas, when we go to the grocery store, when we're ID'd to get in the club, the movies, etc.), how would they NOT be able to track your movements? All they'd have to do is look up when the last time your card was swiped which, over time, could be 10 times a day. Perfect way to track. Not full-proof, by any means, but more effective than what we have now, with simple credit card transactions.]

Originally Posted by born_2_kill

admit its existance, the gouvernment knows and no they didnt ban it.

Originally Posted by Jeff777

Why would the government ban or try to ban something that according to them doesn't exist?

There's also a treaty against using and testing weapons in Antarctica and against the militarization of the Moon. Does this mean that somebody strapped a laser to the moon once or that the penguins should fear being nuked? Of course not, it's just called covering all your bases. And I like how no one seemed to care that the "banned" part was carefully omitted in Born 2 Kill's post, you guys are starting to grasp at straws...

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Clouds, in general, aren't. If you seriously give the allegations of chemtrails the time of day enough to look into them and try to disprove them, you might get suspicious when you see them behaving the way that the allegations say is "unusual." So far, personally, I've heard many allegations of the strange nature of these alleged chemtrails, and one (Spart's explanation as to why they are contrails). I can't speak for anyone else here, but to ask the question you did (which is a perfectly legit question, and will give you more information than coming across the way you did), that's the only answer I have, so far.

You see, its not the notion of chemtrails that is absurd, its how any reference to anything that even remotely appears similar to them is a "sign".

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

That's called a "straw man."

How is that a strawman? The torch is a very important symbol in the context of this theory. Wait...how do I know more about this than someone who is advocating it?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Actually, I think that one was an M, but that remains to be seen. That's the first time I've heard of that particular theory, though, so I don't really ascribe to that one either.

I admit, I don't know much about this specific one either...

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I don't think there's been anyone here who has stated otherwise.

i'll quote it for you when I find it (seriously).

[edit] sorry, misread spartiates post

Originally Posted by Spartiate

there's such a thing as looking too far...

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Who's blowing you off?

Maybe I was over reacting, but often people will blow off those who don't buy into this theory as ignorant sheeple who don't believe because they don't know enough about the subject...which just so happens to give them the benefit of the doubt without them having to justify even the most outrageous claims. I appologise if you didn't make this assumption about me, it felt like I was about to be overlooked as yet another "sleeping" individual who's not competent enough on the subject to question such claims...

Originally Posted by Spartiate

There's also a treaty against using and testing weapons in Antarctica and against the militarization of the Moon. Does this mean that somebody strapped a laser to the moon once or that the penguins should fear being nuked? Of course not, it's just called covering all your bases. And I like how no one seemed to care that the "banned" part was carefully omitted in Born 2 Kill's post, you guys are starting to grasp at straws...

The banned part was simply irrelevant. I made a post about this same bill, ages ago. What's interesting is that they would put a ban on something that so "absolutely ludicrous" that people simply hear about the idea and scoff at it. Testing weapons in Antarctica is extremely plausible. The militarization of the moon is extremely plausible. For someone to laugh at the possibility of those things happening (and I'm not saying you are (...are you?) but hear me out) shows that they really don't understand what they are talking about.

Again, the point sticks: Why would you "ban" something that is not likely to ever happen. Do you see them banning telekinesis as a weapon? Do you see them banning superluminal artillery? telepathy? If we are going on the wings of the impossible, then that would be considered "covering all your bases," wouldn't it?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

There's also a treaty against using and testing weapons in Antarctica and against the militarization of the Moon. Does this mean that somebody strapped a laser to the moon once or that the penguins should fear being nuked? Of course not, it's just called covering all your bases. And I like how no one seemed to care that the "banned" part was carefully omitted in Born 2 Kill's post, you guys are starting to grasp at straws...

I haven't said I believe in anything, the only thing I've done was point out the obvious and you seem to merely take things at face value. If your government told you that the sky was radiating a mist that would grant you eternal life, you would probably sooner believe it coming from them than if it came from a third party perspective. There are no straws to be grasped, I am taking what you are saying and sifting through it and merely asking questions, when did that become straw grasping?

Edit:

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Again, the point sticks: Why would you "ban" something that is not likely to ever happen. Do you see them banning telekinesis as a weapon? Do you see them banning superluminal artillery? telepathy? If we are going on the wings of the impossible, then that would be considered "covering all your bases," wouldn't it?

Originally Posted by ethen

How is that a strawman? The torch is a very important symbol in the context of this theory. Wait...how do I know more about this than someone who is advocating it?

I'm not advocating the theory. I am simply presenting a base for it, to the extent that I have seen. It could all be bullshit, as far as I know, and I am not willing to state otherwise, at this point in time. BUT, I know nothing about the torch being a part of anything that has to do with chemtrails, so if you do, please enlighten me, and I will retract the strawman comment.

Originally Posted by ethen

Maybe I was over reacting, but often people will blow off those who don't buy into this theory as ignorant sheeple who don't believe because they don't know enough about the subject...which just so happens to give them the benefit of the doubt without them having to justify even the most outrageous claims. I appologise if you didn't make this assumption about me, it felt like I was about to be overlooked as yet another "sleeping" individual who's not competent enough on the subject to question such claims...

I only call people "sheeple" if I know for a fact that they are being deluded, and I'm not one that quickly assigns the label "fact" to any theory, unless I've got some pretty hardcore proof that it's true. I'd rather actually explore all points of view on the subject before throwing insults at you for your own.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

The banned part was simply irrelevant. I made a post about this same bill, ages ago. What's interesting is that they would put a ban on something that so "absolutely ludicrous" that people simply hear about the idea and scoff at it. Testing weapons in Antarctica is extremely plausible. The militarization of the moon is extremely plausible. For someone to laugh at the possibility of those things happening (and I'm not saying you are (...are you?) but hear me out) shows that they really don't understand what they are talking about.

Again, the point sticks: Why would you "ban" something that is not likely to ever happen. Do you see them banning telekinesis as a weapon? Do you see them banning superluminal artillery? telepathy? If we are going on the wings of the impossible, then that would be considered "covering all your bases," wouldn't it?

I'm not saying it's impossible to use aircraft to spread so-called "chemtrails". The use of airplanes as means of delivery for chemical and biological weapons has already been proven (heck, the pesticide spray from a crop duster can be considered a "chemtrail"). I'm just saying that it's not happening right now, and a ban on such weapons should make that all the more obvious.

Originally Posted by Jeff777

I haven't said I believe in anything, the only thing I've done was point out the obvious and you seem to merely take things at face value. If your government told you that the sky was radiating a mist that would grant you eternal life, you would probably sooner believe it coming from them than if it came from a third party perspective. There are no straws to be grasped, I am taking what you are saying and sifting through it and merely asking questions, when did that become straw grasping?

It became straw grasping when Born 2 Kill neglected to mention that the bill was calling for a ban (did that bill pass anyways?).



And also, that bill bans everything from earthquake machines to extraterrestrial weapons, so yeah, I would say they are covering all their bases ...

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I'm not advocating the theory. I am simply presenting a base for it, to the extent that I have seen. It could all be bullshit, as far as I know, and I am not willing to state otherwise, at this point in time. BUT, I know nothing about the torch being a part of anything that has to do with chemtrails, so if you do, please enlighten me, and I will retract the strawman comment.

This is a just a quick copy/paste off of one of the first results I got on google.

"Their most used symbols is the lighted torch, the symbol of knowledge and the Sun. When an initiate reaches a certain level in the pyramid they are said to be illuminated, more symbolism of the lighted torch. One of the recurring stories in the ancient world is of a hero figure who takes fire (knowledge) from the gods and gives it to the people - the chosen few people, that is. The Watchers (extraterrestrials) called Azazel and Shemyaza were among those who gave advanced knowledge to humans, according to the Book of Enoch."

Symbol appears on the statue of liberty, olympics, world trade center memorial, numerous crests with supposed significance, etc. Lot of stuff on this one.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I only call people "sheeple" if I know for a fact that they are being deluded, and I'm not one that quickly assigns the label "fact" to any theory, unless I've got some pretty hardcore proof that it's true. I'd rather actually explore all points of view on the subject before throwing insults at you for your own.

Thats good.

I think the point O is trying to make is why "cover bases" such as "extraterrestial weapons" if there are no bases to be covered? If I started preparing myself for a giant meteor to hit earth in 2008 (metaphorically speaking) and people asked me what I was doing and I told them "I'm just covering me bases" would that make much sens? Obviously there has to be SOMETHING going on if they even FEEL they have to "cover their bases".

Originally Posted by Jeff777

I think the point O is trying to make is why "cover bases" such as "extraterrestial weapons" if there are no bases to be covered? If I started preparing myself for a giant meteor to hit earth in 2008 (metaphorically speaking) and people asked me what I was doing and I told them "I'm just covering me bases" would that make much sens? Obviously there has to be SOMETHING going on if they even FEEL they have to "cover their bases".

Uhm, that's politics, if you omit the seemingly impossible, someone's going to find a loophole and take advantage of it. Kind of like why the EULA on a new program can empty a new ink cartridge.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Uhm, that's politics, if you omit the seemingly impossible, someone's going to find a loophole and take advantage of it. Kind of like why the EULA on a new program can empty a new ink cartridge.

but..."extraterrestrial weapons"...?

Originally Posted by Jeff777

but..."extraterrestrial weapons"...?

A hundred years from now, the Chinese mine the ore on an asteroid and use it to create shell casings. Boom, there's your extraterrestrial weapon; it's far-fetched, but then again, since when do politicians have to worry about plausibility...

Originally Posted by Spartiate

A hundred years from now, the Chinese mine the ore on an asteroid and use it to create shell casings. Boom, there's your extraterrestrial weapon; it's far-fetched, but then again, since when do politicians have to worry about plausibility...

Lmao

Godamn. It's blatently obvious that it's all metaphoric. Whether this is a true document or something written as a gag. The latter of the to the most likely. It applies to our times. It could be about the American government or any Government. On the other hand it could also be about the Gods. Either way the poisons he refers to are fast food, chemicals, and the medicines that only cause us more harm. They guide us because they make the laws. And it is right, if we all were to rise up together we would outnumber the wicked tenfold. But, it will never happen. The same way 100 slaves on a plantation were almost always completely cluesless to the fact that there was but one man on that plantation controlling them.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

That's very impressive (if true). However, one must ask himself; If there was no static record of the original material, how do we know that it was passed-down without alteration? I'm not saying it's not possible, but if it's explained in the text your father read, I'd like to read it, too.

I believe these people were in India like 4000 years ago. They passed down their sacred text (Vede?) from generation to generation, only by memory of a select few (is this gramatically correct...select few ?). I guess if your purpose in life is remembering some thousand words, then it's not so impossible.

We need to look at the world as a whole, in order to understand their true intentions.
How primitive do you have to be, to not see the resemblance. How ignorant do you have to be, to reject its existence. Have you ever asked your self if the bible is real? and not some random BS? , why not ask for proof? , because there is none.

The text, was written by someone out there, who decided to open our eyes, at least on a level, where we would accept something we never thought before.
The person might have been killed, the day after he showed it to the public, and we are here, reading it.. and asking for proof? the proof is around you. Its all real, and its taking place right between your eyes. Have you asked your self, if indeed what you were taught ur whole life was true? none of my professors knew the answer. Do you know it?

Look at your self in the mirror, and ask your self that question. And than look at the world as a whole. Do you see something?
How long will we kill each other? is this why we were born? what value do we have than?

Critical thinking is what matters most. Thats what they dont want to see. Will you be a sheep for the rest of your little life?
Will you surrender your life? will you replace your life with paper ($) that has nothing behind it?

Originally Posted by born_2_kill

Critical thinking is what matters most

what, except for when it comes to questioning the validity of these theories? People are just supposed to accept it like the sheeple you say they shouldn't be?

I don't think so.

Those who buy into this stuff because its what they are being spoon-fed by poorly made youtube propaganda videos (as opposed to those who do so for justified reasons) are still sheeple, are still asleep, and are still just assuming the information they are being fed is legitimate. Nothing up here *taps head* has changed.

People who demand proof for claims, be them the governments OR those who challenge the government, are the ONLY ones who aren't sheep...because unlike this double standard I keep comming across, questioning these sort of theories is exactly what these theories are telling us we should do. To think critically about it all, not just one side of it. Anything other than that is completely missing the point

[/rant]