Is the UK under military rule/martial law? - Page 5

girlgye · 07-05-2011, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Jackie G: A book has been prepared in cooperation with the Canadian Government to define the writing "styles" to be used in Canadian English, as well as by lawyers. The book is entitled The Canadian Style (ISBN 1-55002-276-8). According to Chapter 4 in this book, and specifically Section 4.03, Personal Names are to have the first letter capitalized only, such as John Doe. In Section 4.13 that discusses Military Terms it reads "In Department of National Defense [sic]documents, the specific part of an exercise name is written entirely in upper case, e.g. Exercise SILENT DEFENDER"

I know who the original instigator of this ALL CAPS REMEDY IS but this is a sterling expansion upon the original piece of work. Would you agree.

It clearly denotes Miltary Law.

tinyint · 08-05-2011, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by girlgye

I know who the original instigator of this ALL CAPS REMEDY IS but this is a sterling expansion upon the original piece of work. Would you agree.

It clearly denotes Miltary Law.

Yep... look at your passports and ID cards(if such exist).
The military administers this status by corporations.

Would be interesting to see UK documents pre (WWI)WWII.

mark1963 · 08-05-2011, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by girlgye

I know who the original instigator of this ALL CAPS REMEDY IS but this is a sterling expansion upon the original piece of work. Would you agree.

It clearly denotes Miltary Law.

It certainly looks that way.

So when the folks want to let off steam soon and the provocateurs join in to make the steam letting into fully grown riots, the gloves will come off and summary courts will be in session.

wispy · 08-05-2011, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yozhik

Irrelevant?
Ummmm ... no.

And during this ceasefire the UK has decided to scale down the military, scrap defence procurment programmes, oh and not have any fighters for the new carriers for a few years.

In addition the Germans and French have set up a joint army brigade with Germany in NATO along with the UK as well as other former enemies of theirs.

I guess we'll have to break out the muskets and Gatling guns from the Tower of London if hostilities re-open full scale.

But seriously, so you are saying that after all these years of arguing for it, we're not actually under Admiralty law, but military law instead. Oh I see. And does military law deal with commerce and stock markets as well as the administration and governing of soldiers? Wow. Please, how is this applied then in our current society. I must admit I haven't seen many khaki uniforms in the local council office or men with military bearing.

Good job it's not the sort of hot peace in place between North and South Korea.

tinyint · 10-05-2011, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Fifty-third session
Agenda item 110 (b)
RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
[on the report of the Third Committee (A/53/625/Add.2)]
53/144. Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and
Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
The General Assembly,
Reaffirming the importance of the observance of the purposes and principles of the Charter of the
United Nations for the promotion and protection of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all
persons in all countries of the world,
Taking note of Commission on Human Rights resolution 1998/7 of 3 April 1998,1 in which the
Commission approved the text of the draft declaration on the right and responsibility of individuals, groups
and organs of society to promote and protect universally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Taking note also of Economic and Social Council resolution 1998/33 of 30 July 1998, in which the
Council recommended the draft declaration to the General Assembly for adoption,
Conscious of the importance of the adoption of the draft declaration in the context of the fiftieth
anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,2

1. Adopts the Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of
Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, annexed
to the present resolution;
2. Invites Governments, agencies and organizations of the United Nations system and
intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations to intensify their efforts to disseminate the
Declaration and to promote universal respect and understanding thereof, and requests the Secretary-General
to include the text of the Declaration in the next edition of Human Rights: A Compilation of International
Instruments.

http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf.../53/144&Lang=E

.

tinyint · 11-05-2011, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tinyint

Ok, now it gets really funny when dealing with the time from 1990(at Paris conference) until now.

Let me pick up at 3. meeting Paris conference on "2+4".

There exists the protocol of that 17.9.1990 foreign minister meeting in a German official book("Deutsche Einheit").

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_pqKk05bOpx...ann%2B354B.JPG

The highlighted passages read:

Quote:

(...)
The polish foreign minister Krzysztof Skubiszewski points out according to polish Government's views, that this declaration does not constitute a border guarantee by the four powers. (...)
The FRG agrees with the statement of the four powers and emphasizes that events or conditions mentioned in this declaration will not occur , ie, a PEACE TREATY or a peace regulation is not intended. The GDR agrees with the statement made by the FRG.

It indirectly refers to section 146 Basic Law.

Quote:

This basic law that applies loses its validity on the date on which occurs a Constitution in force, which has been adopted by the German people in a free decision.

That is also the reason why it is called the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany, expressing the dictate.
Section 146 is one of the almost exclusive sections indeed for the German people.

Lets have a look quickly at UN.
UN was formed as a war alliance against Germany(Reich) and Japan in San Francisco on 25. April 1945.

Quote:

On 25 April 1945, the UN Conference on International Organization began in San Francisco, attended by 50 governments and a number of non-governmental organizations involved in drafting the Charter of the United Nations. The UN officially came into existence on 24 October 1945 upon ratification of the Charter by the five permanent members of the Security Council—France, the Republic of China, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States—and by a majority of the other 46 signatories.

(...)

Since its creation, there has been controversy and criticism of the UN organization. In the United States, an early opponent of the UN was the John Birch Society, which began a "get US out of the UN" campaign in 1959, charging that the UN's aim was to establish a "One World Government." After the Second World War, the French Committee of National Liberation was late to be recognized by the US as the government of France, and so the country was initially excluded from the conferences that aimed at creating the new organization. Charles de Gaulle criticized the UN, famously calling it le machin ("the thing"), and was not convinced that a global security alliance would help maintain world peace, preferring direct defence treaties between countries.[5]

This is stated in the still present sections 53 & 107 of the UN charter:

Quote:

Article 53
The Security Council shall, where appropriate, utilize such regional arrangements or agencies for enforcement action under its authority. But no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council, with the exception of measures against any enemy state, as defined in paragraph 2 of this Article, provided for pursuant to Article 107 or in regional arrangements directed against renewal of aggressive policy on the part of any such state, until such time as the Organization may, on request of the Governments concerned, be charged with the responsibility for preventing further aggression by such a state.
The term enemy state as used in paragraph 1 of this Article applies to any state which during the Second World War has been an enemy of any signatory of the present Charter.

http://www.un.org/Overview/Charter/chapter8.html

Quote:

Article 107
Nothing in the present Charter shall invalidate or preclude action, in relation to any state which during the Second World War has been an enemy of any signatory to the present Charter, taken or authorized as a result of that war by the Governments having responsibility for such action.

Enemy states:

Quote:

Originally Posted by wiki(translated)
The enemy states are those states defined in Article 53, which were during the Second World War enemy of a recent signatory to the Charter - that is, primarily Germany and Japan.

The article originated in 1945 with the original version of the Charter in the final stages of World War II, however, also contained in the currently valid version.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN-Feindstaatenklausel

Note, the only other wki entry on this is in Japanese!

This should make clear that a peace treaty is a serious issue, taken seriously at the establishments, and that such stupid discussion about the sense of a peace treaty are blatant attempts to derail the point.
It would not have been forced into a new "treaty" if it was all utter nonsense, given there are still about 60000 US troops and nukes on our soil, as well as

United States Africa Command - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
United States Africa Command - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

plan their raids from Stuttgart, Rhein-Main Airbase Frankfurt, Landstuhl US hospital...

Anyway, remember at this meeting was the "constitution" of GDR
as well as section 23 basic law repealed(area of application).

Proof:

Quote:

17.07.90
Dienstag Paris - Zwei-plus-Vier Außenministerkonferenz
Für Schewardnadse ist die Blockbildung beendet mit der Aufhebung der Vier Mächte Rechte nach der Wiedervereinigung. DDR gegen Kaukasus Ergebnis , wollen keine NATO Truppen auf ihrem Gebiet und nuklearwaffenfreies Deutschland.
BRD muß polnische Westgrenze vertraglich anerkennen und Artikel 23 aus Grundgesetz streichen. (180-181)
Eins plus Vier " . . . waren Anspruch und Aufgabe einer eigenständigen Außenpolitik der abtretenden DDR beendet".(199).
http://www.2plus4.de/abstracts.php3?year=1990&month=07

Summary: section 23 repealed by James Baker, FRG was forced to acknowledge the eastern border.
The Russians favored a fully reunified Germany(as a whole), ie restoration of the legal subject German Reich and a peace treaty, as Stalin already offered the west in the 50ies.
The Russian position has not changed on this, unofficially of course.

So, in short, the German establishment of both dissolved fragment "states" transformed the 2 dead corpses into a GmbH, by taking an insolvent GDR business/firm as base before they legally married the corpses by making join GDR to the repealed area of application(sec 23) of FRG's Basic Law, which came legally in effect on 31.8 1990 with the "unification treaty"!

Nowadays they claim the FRG Ltd is equal to Germany(as a whole)(so full reunification has been achieved) with a constitution named Basic Law for the FRG, in blatant violation to Carlo Schmid speech, international law and their own BS repealed "Basic Law".
You'll see, we enter organized insanity and high criminality here.
They basically claim black became white.

Quote:

Originally Posted by section 146 current version(void!)
This Basic Law, which since the achievement of the unity and freedom of Germany applies to the entire German people, shall cease to apply on the day on which a constitution freely adopted by the German people takes effect.
http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/GG.htm#146

This is a brazen and impertinent lie!

http://www.donaukurier.de/storage/pi...setz_cover.jpg

http://forum.davidicke.com/showthrea...=112617&page=8

A

Gesellschaft mit beschrÃ¤nkter Haftung - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gesellschaft mit beschrÃ¤nkter Haftung - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

is equal a limited holding in UK, with a start capital of 25000€, however owners are not personally liable for the company's debts.

The trade register of Frankfurt/Main proves it:

Quote:

District court Frankfurt am Main 72 HRB 51411

http://c3.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/i...7906ec3516.jpg

Founded: 29.8.1990!

In 2000, they founded, based on HRB 51411 the "BRD Finanzagentur GmbH"(FRG financial agency).

That is their official site and in fact the FRG Ltd:
http://www.deutsche-finanzagentur.de/startseite/

So after dead corpse GDR joined dead corpse FRG, the section 23 after 1990 only contains EU nonsense, but no area of application. This has moved to the preamble, which is not legally binding. Its a foreword.

Quote:

Preamble

Conscious of their responsibility before God and man,

Inspired by the determination to promote world peace as an equal partner in a united Europe, the German people, in the exercise of their constituent power, have adopted this Basic Law.

Germans in the Länder of Baden-Württemberg, Bavaria, Berlin, Brandenburg, Bremen, Hamburg, Hesse, Lower Saxony, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, North Rhine-Westphalia, Rhineland-Palatinate, Saarland, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, Schleswig-Holstein, and Thuringia have achieved the unity and freedom of Germany in free self-determination. This Basic Law thus applies to the entire German people.
http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/statutes/GG.htm#Preamble

I mentioned earlier Berlin not being part of FRG Ltd, which is also the reason why all "Federal Laws" get always handed out in Bonn(announced in Berlin)!

http://www.vdv-online.de/typo3temp/pics/20944a145d.jpg

I decided to separate the Federal Settlement Acts of 2006/2007 into a new post, as it will get really strange, funny and mad then.

I'll close this post with:

The Federal Constitutional Court - itself an organ of foreign rule - stated in an unanimous verdict of 31 July 1973 authoritatively :

Quote:

It is noted (see, eg, BVerfGE, 1956-08-17, 1 BvB 2 / 51, BVerfGE 5, 85 <126>), that the German Reich survived the collapse of 1945 with the surrender, and neither perished later with the exercise of foreign power by the Allies in Germany, it still has legal capacity, but is not functioning as a single state for lack of organization. The FRG is not "legal successor" of the German Reich, but identical with the state as a state "Deutsches Reich" - in reference to its territorial expanse only "partially identical".

In its order of 21 October 1987, the Federal Constitutional Court confirmed this position.

This raises the question about the relationship between the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Reich.

All in all, Carlo Schmid would rotate in his grave, if he knew this.

It also becomes evident why a peace treaty has not been on the US/UK/UN table for 66 years.
A peace treaty would make the UN obsolete and started a new world order ending the illegal, criminal post 1945 order.

Media bandit is back; quoted to show embedded media.

tinyint · 11-05-2011, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tinyint

To pick up at the administration of the GDR and FRG prior 1990.
This post should do.
I'll try to keep it short, since it filled dozens of books on each part alone.

map with 1937 borders

http://www.deutsche-seite.com/deusei...-1937-1945.jpg

It becomes clear why the US have forbidden the administrative entity Prussia, all blue.

and the occupation zones of the German Reich.

http://www.hexenhort.de/reich1871/be...zonen1945a.png

Not shown on the map is the swap of parts of saxony from US to Soviets in exchange for west Berlin. So this happened prior to the final zones and will play an important role, discussed on other thread.

East Germany became not subject to occupation(military) law. SHAEF.

Berlin, still does not technically belong to FRG Ltd(post 1990) and is illegal capital of FRG Ltd(despite allied military orders), so no change in status. West Berlin never belonged to FRG(prior 1990) as well as it was illegal to install east Berlin as GDR's capital! That is also the reason why West-Berliners did not have to serve in the FRG Bundeswehr and had a slightly different ID card.

Occupied enemy capital means the enemy country is (still) occupied.

The FRG, US/UK/French occupied:
Founded: 23. May 1949, effectively leading to the partition and "cold war".

Following western demand by SHAEF(Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force) of forming an administrative entity by the Frankfurt Document and the so called "Rittersturz-Konferenz", on 1. September 1948 a Parliamentary Council was hand-picked by the western powers. So this was not democratically sanctioned by the west German people, but dictated, where the west Germans were only allowed to do the formalities, such as spelling.
This lead on 23.5. 1949 to FRG's "Basic Law", partly based on the Weimar Constitution of 1919. Again, this was no democratic process, but a dictate, where they had to fight for every little right.

The FRG is - as the constitutional and international law teacher Prof. Dr. Carlo Schmid In his keynote speech to the Parliamentary Council on September 8, 1948 expressed it - nothing else than the "organizational modality of a foreign rule" (OMF). The Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany is no constitution.

Constitutional discussion is still a inconvenient subject for the establishment, just look up swindlepedia.

There are quite a few international law professors in Germany nowadays who have filed several complaints at "constitutional" court in context with the EU/Euro, also touching this hot topic. There exist several expertise by respected law teaching people basically confirming the status.

Here is a snippet of the speech:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carlo Schmid in 1948
<...>
We have to create something that gives us the opportunity, to better master the conditions, as far as we could. Even a state fragment must have an organization that is appropriate, the practical needs of the internal order of a region's needs. Even a fragment state needs a legislature, executive and needs a jurisdiction.

If asked, where the line between the full-state, and a full constitution is drawn: Well, this is a matter of practical assessment in individual cases.
On the following points however, unity should be achieved:

First, the Basic Law for the state fragment must express in its inner self being that it limits itself in time. The future full constitution of Germany must not have incurred by amendment of the Basic Law of this state fragment, but must arise original. But that assumes that the Basic Law contains a provision that it automatically expires, if a particular event will occur. Well, I think, there can be no doubt about that date, "the day at which a free self-adopted constitution is enacted by the German people.

Second, <...>

Full Speech(german):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSA5FVWKu1U

With the Basic Law the FRG was also administratively restructured, revised later.

I will cite here some passages of the allied dictate, the Basic Law, as they will later(post 1990) become enormously important.

date of termination:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Section 146
This basic law that applies loses its validity on the date on which occurs a Constitution in force, which has been adopted by the German people in a free decision.
http://www.documentarchiv.de/brd/1949/grundgesetz.html

area of application:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Section 23
This Basic Law applies initially in areas of the states of Baden, Bavaria, Bremen, Greater Berlin, Hamburg, Hesse, Lower Saxony, North Rhine-Westphalia, Rhineland-Palatinate, Schleswig-Holstein, Württemberg-Baden and Wuerttemberg-Hohenzollern. In other parts of Germany it is set according to their accession.

Expressed by electoral campaigns during the 50ies by all western political parties:

CDU(torry like)
http://www.fuer-deutschland.net/gif_...eutschland.jpg

SPD(labour like)
http://danijela3314.files.wordpress....swahl_1949.jpg

Section 23 of the Basic Law was repealed at Foreign Minister conference on "2+4" on 18.7.1990 in Paris by James Baker!

Ok, now GDR, occupied by the Soviets:

Founded: 7. October 1949 as a reaction to western tri-zone's monetary reform on 21. June 1948, which triggered the US caused West-Berlin-Blockade(initially only against US forces to enter West-Berlin, not German population) by the soviets, and 23. May 1949 Basic law.
Was divided 1952 into 15 districts, violating international law.
GDR had a "constitution", obviously a vassal client "state", but actually and ironically more people's participation in "constitution" as in the west. BBasically, a couple of drafts had been worked out, one also based on Weimar Constitution but rejected by communists, of course supervised by SMAD(Soviet Military Administration).

In middle Germany the one and only socialist unity party(SED) however still expressed the reunification intend.

"Demand for an entire German consultation!"
http://www.hdg.de/lemo/objekte/pict/...tung/index.jpg

The "constitution" was repealed at the Foreign Minister conference on "2+4" in Paris, 18.7.1990 by Eduard Shevardnadze.

Next post and last post will deal with "reunification" scam post 1990 and the judicial/legal questions(peace treaty/sovereignty/UN) and latest developments in FRG Ltd.

...

girlgye · 11-05-2011, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mark1963

It certainly looks that way.

So when the folks want to let off steam soon and the provocateurs join in to make the steam letting into fully grown riots, the gloves will come off and summary courts will be in session.

Summary courts are in session. Isn't that what is the point of your thread.

girlgye · 11-05-2011, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tinyint

East Germany became not subject to occupation(military) law. SHAEF....

Tiny how come East Germany has the same Kangeroo Courts as everywhere else?

tinyint · 11-05-2011, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by girlgye

Tiny how come East Germany has the same Kangeroo Courts as everywhere else?

It depends what you consider east germany. According to law of nations, international law and several court ruling, it is the part east of the Elbe/Neiße river, currently illegally administered by Poland/Russia/Lithuania.
That why the Polish Foreign minister complained about the non existing border guarantee and why on the other hand the new partly reunified economic administrative entity known as FRG Ltd cannot either sign a final boarder treaty nor a peace treaty, since the house owner is the de jure existing German Reich in its borders of 31.12.1937. It is the reason why only the Reich can sign a final peace treaty, which is a logic thought, since its still the "house owner".

I think, you will start to see how vast the consequences and implications.
Peace means a legitimization problem for the UN.
I will state again, the German Reich as an international subject of law has nothing to do with Hitler or anything like that.

If you refer to the nowadays falsely labelled former GDR, we had instead of SHAEF the SMAD(Soviet Military Administration in Germany).

http://www.hexenhort.de/reich1871/be...zonen1945a.png

So East Germany is the de facto illegally annexed part.

girlgye · 11-05-2011, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tinyint

It depends what you consider east germany. According to law of nations, international law and several court ruling, it is the part east of the Elbe/Neiße river, currently illegally administered by Poland/Russia/Lithuania.
That why the Polish Foreign minister complained about the non existing border guarantee and why on the other hand the new partly reunified economic administrative entity known as FRG Ltd cannot either sign a final boarder treaty nor a peace treaty, since the house owner is the de jure existing German Reich in its borders of 31.12.1937. It is the reason why only the Reich can sign a final peace treaty, which is a logic thought, since its still the "house owner".

I think, you will start to see how vast the consequences and implications.
Peace means a legitimization problem for the UN.
I will state again, the German Reich as an international subject of law has nothing to do with Hitler or anything like that.

If you refer to the nowadays falsely labelled former GDR, we had instead of SHAEF the SMAD(Soviet Military Administration in Germany).

http://www.hexenhort.de/reich1871/be...zonen1945a.png

So East Germany is the de facto illegally annexed part.

Sorry if I am being a bit thick here. How exactly peace a legitimization problem for the UN.

Exactly how is this affecting the rest of us? I would put it to you that the fulcrum is what we now have as a Defacto German state and a world under summary law of a private banking cartel. Who expressly is behind this cartel is not plain apparent. Really it's still admiralty I can't see how military law is any different. An officer is still not allowed to be a crook.

tinyint · 11-05-2011, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by girlgye

Sorry if I am being a bit thick here. How exactly peace a legitimization problem for the UN.

Exactly how is this affecting the rest of us? I would put it to you that the fulcrum is what we now have as a Defacto German state and a world under summary law of a private banking cartel. Who expressly is behind this cartel is not plain apparent. Really it's still admiralty I can't see how military law is any different. An officer is still not allowed to be a crook.

Well, remember the UN was put in place as a war alliance against Germany and Japan. The why the enemy states are still present in current Charter of UN.
How would they legitimize themselves if a peace treaty was signed?

I remind of last Mr A of Iran speech at UN, or in 2009 Gadaffi or Chavez.

Full Ahmadinejad UN Nuclear Nonproliferation Speech 2010 \| May 3, 2010 - YouTube

Hugo Chavez at the UN - part 1 - YouTube

Muammar Gaddafi Speech To United Nations Sept 23, 2009 pt.1 - YouTube

(too lazy to post all part here...)

They are of course all aware of the facts.

There is huge discontent of the nations, which do not --in newspeak term-- belong to the "international community" ... yet to be "democratized"... WWI & II were sort of prototype war for the later policies of the aggressors, the UN.

Ahmadinejad richtet sein Wort an Deutschland - YouTube

Fell free to ask more questions, I know its a very deep and complex rabbit hole, the Germans have just started to grasp.
There is not much information on all this in English, it seems.

rodin · 12-07-2011, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by girlgye

I would put it to you that the fulcrum is what we now have as a Defacto German state and a world under summary law of a private banking cartel. Who expressly is behind this cartel is not plain apparent.

Jews fit the bill for me

LiveLeak.com - The Federal Reserve - List of Jewish Private Bankers

girlgye · 12-07-2011, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodin

Jews fit the bill for me

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=412_1238532107

I know they do Rodin. I must check my user CP to see whereupon you answered my questions. I believe you haven't but I shall ask it again as I seemed to have spawned a generation of Youtube Vids asking this same direct question.

What of the others?
The other Empires. The Ottomans, The Roman, The British, Austro Hungarian, Eygptian, Sumerian, We don't know what Empire is behind the Bosnian Pyramids and many are being invited to explain.

You think they just hid behind 'jew' the word you so disparagingly use?

Is this what you think. A religion that was invented 5000 years ago?

Answer the question. I'd like to see you think outside your routine Rodon.

tinyint · 12-07-2011, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by girlgye

Is this what you think. A religion that was invented 5000 years ago?

Well, I do.

If you compare jewish caledar and masonic calendars, you will notice we are somewhere 5770, they match more or less Anno Lucis.

http://forum.davidicke.com/showthrea...=83674&page=14

If I consider, some US 'christians' seriously think earth is 6000 years old, uhm, that fits the bill as well for the 6000 year old cult.

girlgye · 12-07-2011, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tinyint

Well, I do.

If you compare jewish caledar and masonic calendars, you will notice we are somewhere 5770, they match more or less Anno Lucis.

http://forum.davidicke.com/showthrea...=83674&page=14

If I consider, some US 'christians' seriously think earth is 6000 years old, uhm, that fits the bill as well for the 6000 year old cult.

Listen I'm pleased to have a discussion that isn't based on a moronic iq of 75.

I'm struggling with comprehension here Tiny I know you are German and we find it difficult with each others vernacular.

I can't see any parity between the Archetype religions of sacrifice and worship and the Christian Religion.

What does go in the name of Christianity goes on in Secret. The Romans and the Greeks were out there and flagrantly got on with it as did the Mayans and Egyptians.

Apart from large cocks (penises) in Christian Graveyards and the Poppy Obelisks in Squares all over my country and Semiramis, gargoyles and dragons that is all that I can see remains on the face of it.

I'd say 95% of Masons have no idea what they signed up for and still don't. Though this is used as a means to ascertain those that have the best occult power and I suggest this is done from school and more latterly being deduced from on here and facebook.

and the likes.

You are defeating your own argument now. You are saying they are all the same so that wouldn't make it Jewish would it?

Btw Bosnian Pyaramids are 10,000 years ago predating Judaism.

mfrey0118 · 12-07-2011, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mark1963

I have been trying to find any peace treaty or official declaration of peace from WWII.

A country is under military rule once war is declared and that was done in September of 1939 by Neville Chamberlain.

I cannot find a peace treaty for the UK. Japan certainly had one some years after the war.

It seems to me we are under secret military rule and possibly martial law until a peace treaty is signed.

This of course would have a massive effect on the interpretation of the law in courts, etc.

Many people are under a lot of major assumptions...why do you think the US authorized the Trading With the Enemy Act? What enemy? The people!

It's so funny. The government sits there and tells you what's going on...

"Hey! We're a dead corporate fiction...we are your Enemy by nature (corporations are contrary to Living Beings) and we have to gain your consent to engage in Commerce with you, our enemy, that we are actively killing by sticking sodium fluoride in everything, criminalizing nutrients while deregulating more poisons, raiding local milk and cheese farmers...but hey, we NEED YOUR CREDIT TO GET ENOUGH MONEY TO KILL YOU so yeah, you are the enemy and we are in honor by filing these documents that tell you that you are the enemy...now shut up, get back to your voluntary slave job, and let us protect you goddammit!"

tinyint · 12-07-2011, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by girlgye

Listen I'm pleased to have a discussion that isn't based on a moronic iq of 75.

I'm struggling with comprehension here Tiny I know you are German and we find it difficult with each others vernacular.

I can't see any parity between the Archetype religions of sacrifice and worship and the Christian Religion.

What does go in the name of Christianity goes on in Secret. The Romans and the Greeks were out there and flagrantly got on with it as did the Mayans and Egyptians.

Apart from large cocks (penises) in Christian Graveyards and the Poppy Obelisks in Squares all over my country and Semiramis, gargoyles and dragons that is all that I can see remains on the face of it.

I'd say 95% of Masons have no idea what they signed up for and still don't. Though this is used as a means to ascertain those that have the best occult power and I suggest this is done from school and more latterly being deduced from on here and facebook.

and the likes.

You are defeating your own argument now. You are saying they are all the same so that wouldn't make it Jewish would it?

Btw Bosnian Pyaramids are 10,000 years ago predating Judaism.

A big question, not easily answered.

I talk about a cult, which I think was blueprint for judaism, and consequently christians(OT) as well as muslims.
All 3 have one root source, which is a plagiate of the original sumerian creation myth. That said, the hebrew torah is a bit different from OT, and not the same book just translated. At the bottom we have the talmud and oral traditions.
The NT of the bible is totally opposing the OT when considering the message behind.
I assume NT and OT are approximately of the same age, maybe NT even older. So in my view, the OT should have never made it into the bible.
The power play of the two faction is virtually going through the bible. That is why Christianity has been corrupted, in my opinion.

That if Jesus message just a much older tradition which has survived the catholic cult 'christian' missionaries, and made it in the NT?
That said as well, the anglo-saxon christianity has become like catholicism, an abomination of the original reformers ideas.

Its why Rome/Vatican has been so much infiltrated by masonry, and in fact is kind of masonry in itself.

What have Pyramids have to do with Judaism or Masonry? What if Caucasians build all the pyramids many eons ago?
How can you assume all ancient cultures did sacrifices? What is the source of this?

I think you shouldn't put all ancient cultures into one pot, and are we less blood thirsty than some of them?

Quote:

Freemasonry is a Jewish organization from A to Z, its history, its requirements, its ranks, its degrees, its passwords or secret words, all its descriptions, except a secondary single degree and a few words in the oaths passage, are Jewish.(The British Journal 30 April 1965).
--Rabbi Isaac Wise

mfrey0118 · 12-07-2011, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by girlgye

Btw Bosnian Pyaramids are 10,000 years ago predating Judaism.

Ah, and much more massive than the Great Pyramids or anything in South America. I think the only ones that come close are in China, right? How about the stone megaliths that are so massive even to this very day we do not have the mechanical capability to move them...but I bet Tesla could've...or check out the guy that built the "coral castle" in Homestead, Florida. Then all the symbolism that Zionists and the like have hijacked start to make sense. They aren't referring to THEIR religion...they are all about the true nature of the Universe that thousands of years ago was common knowledge to all...

The history of this planet is so freakin' interesting. I am constantly frustrated by the current system of compartmentalized knowledge coupled with universal deception...

Ok a bit off topic...