Monthly Archives: January 2014

2O14 ILLUMINATI NWO BEGINS – Video

Posted: January 3, 2014 at 10:43 pm


2O14 ILLUMINATI NWO BEGINS
SYDNEY HONG KON ARIS LONDON THE OE AND QUEEN ALL LIGHT FOR LUCIFER.

By: JUNGLE SURFER

Here is the original post:
2O14 ILLUMINATI NWO BEGINS - Video

Posted in Illuminati | Comments Off on 2O14 ILLUMINATI NWO BEGINS – Video

Illuminati: The Game of Conspiracy

Posted: at 10:43 pm

They're all around us. Secret conspiracies are everywhere, and where can you find the only truth? Certainly not in the game of Illuminati. Fnord.

The object of Illuminati is to take control of the world. The phone company is controlled by creatures from outer space. The Congressional Wives have taken over the Pentagon. And the Boy Sprouts are cashing in their secret Swiss Bank Account to smash the IRS!

Illuminati was an instant hit when it was released in 1982 and won the Origins Award for Best Science Fiction Boardgame. It has been Steve Jackson's signature title ever since.

Two to six players compete to take control of groups ranging from the FBI and CIA to the Dentists, increasing their wealth and power for further takeovers, until one rules supreme. Every player has different victory conditions! No ploy is too devious, no stratagem too low, as you scheme your way to victory.

When you're ready to continue on the path to world domination, check out these other Illuminati games and expansions:

And don't miss INWO, the trading-card version of Illuminati!

Read this article:
Illuminati: The Game of Conspiracy

Posted in Illuminati | Comments Off on Illuminati: The Game of Conspiracy

Scholarly info on the Order of the Illuminati | Bavarian …

Posted: at 10:43 pm

Thursday, January 2nd, 2014 | Illuminati myths | 2 Comments

Trevor W. McKeown, the freemason webmaster at the Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon, has maintained a page on the Bavarian Illuminati for a least a decade. Only infrequently has it been updated, and inaccuracies remain. Wikipedia has used it as a reliable source for many years on their own Illuminati page, likely because the most active editor for that subject is himself a Freemason. Ive written about one egregious error before, however an assessment of the page as a whole is overdue.

The beginning pullquote from Thomas Jefferson is meant to set the reader up for what follows that the Illuminati had good intentions and were misunderstood; nothing nefarious went on.

Much has been made about the Jefferson letter, but the pullquote that McKeown uses is in fact a misrepresentation and out of context. Below, how it was quoted (on the left), and the way it actually is (on the right).

As Wishaupt [sic.] lived under the tyranny of a despot & priests, he knew that caution was necessary even in spreading information, & the principles of pure morality. He proposed therefore to lead the Free masons to adopt this object & to make the objects of their institution the diffusion of science & virtue. He proposed to initiate new members into his body by gradations proportioned to his fears of the thunderbolts of tyranny.

This has given an air of mystery to his views, was the foundation of his banishment, the subversion of the masonic order, & is the colour for the ravings against him of Robinson, Barruel & Morse, whose real fears are that the craft would be endangered by the spreading of information, reason, & natural morality among men

Obviously he intended to leave out the part after pure morality but neglected to include an ellipsis before This has given an air of mystery to his views. Thats a serious lapse. And seems intentional, to omit Jeffersons accurate assessment that the Illuminati wanted to lead the Free masons and were engaged in the subversion of the masonic order.

Continue reading

Tags: Freemasonry, Trevor W. McKeown, Wikipedia

Well, the cats out of the bag. Jeva Singh-Anand, Josef Wges, and Illuminaten scholar Reinhard Markner have been collaborating on an English translation of the ritual work of the Illuminati. All the rituals will be featured, from the Novice degree all the way to lesser and greater mysteries, including Regent and Provincial directives, Epopt and Doceten degrees. Conservatively, Id estimate that the total amount of pages will be over five-hundred at the very least. This amounts to the most significant English translation of primary material in over 200 years.

Read the rest here:
Scholarly info on the Order of the Illuminati | Bavarian ...

Posted in Illuminati | Comments Off on Scholarly info on the Order of the Illuminati | Bavarian …

2nd Amendment – Constitution- Constitution Law, US …

Posted: at 10:41 pm

Second Amendment: The right to bear armsWhat is the Second Amendment?There are two principle versions of the Second Amendment: one version was passed by Congress, while the other is found in the copies distributed to each individual state and later ratified by themAs passed by the Congress:A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.As ratified by the States: A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.The Second Amendment Defined:The Second Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights, which are the first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution and the framework to elucidate upon the freedoms of the individual. The Bill of Rights were proposed and sent to the states by the first session of the First Congress. They were later ratified on December 15, 1791.The first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution were introduced by James Madison as a series of legislative articles and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments following the process of ratification by three-fourths of the States on December 15, 1791.Stipulations of the 2nd Amendment:The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of the individual to keep and bear firearms.The right to arm oneself is viewed as a personal liberty to deter undemocratic or oppressive governing bodies from forming and to repel impending invasions. Furthermore, the right to bear arms was instituted within the Bill of Rights to suppress insurrection, participate and uphold the law, enable the citizens of the United States to organize a militia, and to facilitate the natural right to self-defense.The Second Amendment was developed as a result of the tyrannous rule of the British parliament. Colonists were often oppressed and forced to pay unjust taxes at the hand of the unruly parliament. As a result, the American people yearned for an Amendment that would guarantee them the right to bear arms and protect themselves against similar situations. The Second Amendment was drafted to provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States through the ability to raise and support militias.Court Cases Tied into the Second AmendmentIn District of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individuals right to possess a firearm to use for traditionally lawful purposes, such as defending oneself within their home or on their property. The court case ruled that the Amendment was not connected to service in a militia.ControversyThe gun debate in the United States widely revolves around the intended interpretation of the Second Amendment. Those who support gun rights claim that the founding fathers developed and subsequently ratified the Second Amendment to guarantee the individuals right to keep and bear arms. Those who want more stringent gun laws feel that the founding fathers directed this Amendment solely to the formation of militias and are thus, at least by theory, archaic.State Timeline for Ratification of the Bill of RightsNew Jersey:November 20, 1789; rejected article IIMaryland:December 19, 1789; approved allNorth Carolina:December 22, 1789; approved allSouth Carolina: January 19, 1790; approved allNew Hampshire: January 25, 1790; rejected article IIDelaware: January 28, 1790; rejected article INew York: February 27, 1790; rejected article IIPennsylvania: March 10, 1790; rejected article IIRhode Island: June 7, 1790; rejected article IIVermont: November 3, 1791; approved allVirginia: December 15, 1791; approved all

Second Amendment: The right to bear arms What is the Second Amendment? There are two principle versions of the Second Amendment: one version was passed by Congress, while the other is found in the copies distributed to each individual state and later ratified by them

As passed by the Congress:A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

As ratified by the States: A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment Defined:

The Second Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights, which are the first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution and the framework to elucidate upon the freedoms of the individual. The Bill of Rights were proposed and sent to the states by the first session of the First Congress. They were later ratified on December 15, 1791.

The first 10 Amendments to the United States Constitution were introduced by James Madison as a series of legislative articles and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments following the process of ratification by three-fourths of the States on December 15, 1791.

Stipulations of the 2nd Amendment:

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of the individual to keep and bear firearms.

The right to arm oneself is viewed as a personal liberty to deter undemocratic or oppressive governing bodies from forming and to repel impending invasions. Furthermore, the right to bear arms was instituted within the Bill of Rights to suppress insurrection, participate and uphold the law, enable the citizens of the United States to organize a militia, and to facilitate the natural right to self-defense.

Read more:
2nd Amendment - Constitution- Constitution Law, US ...

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on 2nd Amendment – Constitution- Constitution Law, US …

NRA-ILA | Second Amendment

Posted: at 10:41 pm

In 1776, America's Founders came together in Philadelphia to draw up a "Declaration of Independence," ending political ties to Great Britain. Written by Thomas Jefferson, it is the fundamental statement of people`s rights and what government is and from what source it derives its powers:

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness--That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.

The Founders were declaring that we are all equal, and that we are defined by rights that we are born with, not given to us by government. Among those rights is the right to pursue happiness--to live our lives as we think best, as long as we respect the right of all other individuals to do the same. The Founders also declared that governments are created by people to secure their rights. Whatever powers government has are not "just" unless they come from us, the people. Read more

Read the original here:
NRA-ILA | Second Amendment

Posted in Second Amendment | Comments Off on NRA-ILA | Second Amendment

Segment from Free Speech TV: New Face of Wall Street Corruption – Video

Posted: at 10:40 pm


Segment from Free Speech TV: New Face of Wall Street Corruption
In this segment on Free Speech TV #39;s "Ring of Fire" program, Howard L. Nations, a nationally renowned trial lawyer, sheds light on how Wall Street #39;s political influence with Republicans and...

By: HowardNations

See the original post here:
Segment from Free Speech TV: New Face of Wall Street Corruption - Video

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on Segment from Free Speech TV: New Face of Wall Street Corruption – Video

The Next HOPE (2010): Net Wars Over Free Speech, Freedom, and Secrecy – Video

Posted: at 10:40 pm


The Next HOPE (2010): Net Wars Over Free Speech, Freedom, and Secrecy
Saturday, July 17, 2010: 11:00 pm (Tesla): Following a brief lecture on Project Chanology, the question will be posed: how can we harness the power of lulzy ...

By: Channel2600

More:
The Next HOPE (2010): Net Wars Over Free Speech, Freedom, and Secrecy - Video

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on The Next HOPE (2010): Net Wars Over Free Speech, Freedom, and Secrecy – Video

What is free software? – GNU Project – Free Software Foundation

Posted: at 10:40 pm

The Free Software Definition

The free software definition presents the criteria for whether a particular software program qualifies as free software. From time to time we revise this definition, to clarify it or to resolve questions about subtle issues. See the History section below for a list of changes that affect the definition of free software.

Free software means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. Thus, free software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of free as in free speech, not as in free beer.

We campaign for these freedoms because everyone deserves them. With these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control the program and what it does for them. When users don't control the program, we call it a nonfree or proprietary program. The nonfree program controls the users, and the developer controls the program; which makes the program an instrument of unjust power.

A program is free software if the program's users have the four essential freedoms:

A program is free software if it gives users adequately all of these freedoms. Otherwise, it is nonfree. While we can distinguish various nonfree distribution schemes in terms of how far they fall short of being free, we consider them all equally unethical.

The rest of this page clarifies certain points about what makes specific freedoms adequate or not.

Freedom to distribute (freedoms 2 and 3) means you are free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission to do so.

You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.

The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific entity. In this freedom, it is the user's purpose that matters, not the developer's purpose; you as a user are free to run the program for your purposes, and if you distribute it to someone else, she is then free to run it for her purposes, but you are not entitled to impose your purposes on her.

Follow this link:
What is free software? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on What is free software? – GNU Project – Free Software Foundation

OK, GOP, defend speech you don’t agree with

Posted: at 10:40 pm

As the dust settles over A&Es Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertsons interview in GQ, Id like to offer a challenge to all who defended his right to wax nostalgic about how happy black people were before the civil rights era (also stating that Shintoism is basically Nazism and homosexuality is basically bestiality). To all those who rushed to Robertsons defense invoking the First Amendment of the Constitution, specifically free speech in an effort to immunize against any repercussions Id like to dare you folks to defend controversial speech that doesnt fit your worldview.

If you really believe in free speech, if you really think its in danger of being abridged, if you really believe its an absolute right of living in a free country then stand up for liberals who say dumb things, too. Rally for Alec Baldwin. How about the governor of Louisiana spend an afternoon tweeting support for Martin Bashirs alleged right to a basic cable show. Get some Change.org petitions going. Get these people back on TV!

In 2010, Sarah Palin called for President Obamas then chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, to be fired because he privately used the word retarded. Palin was so offended by the word retard she equated it to the N-word (then later passionately defended the use of the N-word when Dr. Laura was the one slinging it across the airwaves). Palin cited her child with Down Syndrome as the reason Rahm should lose his job for his potty mouth. She wrote on Facebook: I would ask the president to show decency in this process by eliminating one member of that inner circle, Mr. Rahm Emanuel, and not allow Rahms continued indecent tactics to cloud efforts.

I have no idea what indecent tactics to cloud efforts means but I defend her right to use her random thesaurus generator app to create fake controversies against her political enemies.

Corporations should not have to sponsor people who say things which will hurt their brand. Thats their choice. Its, in the literal sense, their business. The Constitution is about what the government can and cant do not what A&E execs can and cant do. Thats the issue I have with privatization: It erodes liberties ensured by the government.

But also, my telling you to shut up is not infringing on your constitutional rights. There is no law or ordinance against private citizens telling each other to shut their yap traps, nor should there be. The First Amendment is about the government specifically Congress not creating laws to curb speech.

That being said you the chattering class of conservative culture war mercenaries; you the Trumped-up, tooth-bleached, memo-driven, outrage industrial complex genuflectors; you the good-old-days evangelizing, controversy-touting, overly aghast gasbags: You dont actually believe in free speech. So shut up.

Why am I convinced Americas right wing is not a bastion of unfettered uninterrupted speech impunity? Ill sum it up in one name: Shirley Sherrod.

There was no 24-hour news cycle defense of Shirley Sherrod being able to say whatever she wanted without consequence. No. Her words were taken out of context edited with an agenda and she lost her job as Georgia State Director of Rural Development along with her reputation. Did anyone at Fox News stand up and raise an inaccurate interpretation of the scope of the First Amendment to defend Ms. Sherrod? No.

Theyre for selective free speech. Its like saying everyone has an absolute right to own a gun as long as youre a Republican. Then you are not actually for the absolute right to own a gun. Youre for the absolute rights of Republicans.

Read more:
OK, GOP, defend speech you don’t agree with

Posted in Free Speech | Comments Off on OK, GOP, defend speech you don’t agree with

End Times News! Transhumanism; GMO Cloned Babies, Luciferian …

Posted: at 8:46 pm

Loading...

Published on May 17, 2013

Breaking Bible Prophecy News for 05.17.13 Get all these Breaking News headlines at: http://www.facebook.com/openyoureyespeople.emoaf

To know what it means to be Born Again and Baptized in the Holy Spirit and with Fire go to: http://www.emoaf.org God bless you and THANK YOU for listening! In Jesus name, Amen! **** DISCLAIMER: As owner of these youtube videos and channel I have the right to delete and block any one who defames, disrespects, misrepresents, or causes division/strife, introduces falsehood and the like at anytime with no apologies. "Remind them of these things, charging them before the Lord not to strive about words to no profit, TO THE RUIN OF THE HEARERS. Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. But shun profane and idle babblings, for they will increase to more ungodliness." 2 Timothy 2:14-16 God bless you

See the rest here:
End Times News! Transhumanism; GMO Cloned Babies, Luciferian ...

Posted in Transhuman News | Comments Off on End Times News! Transhumanism; GMO Cloned Babies, Luciferian …