The Controversy of Zion

[the rabbit]

Well im only up to chapter 27 at present and hope to get through this one in a minuit before the melatonin kicks in,but i wanred to post this one sentence which blew me away. From Chapter 27 where it is mentioned how the Weishaupt papers where discovered.

"An illuminist emissary was struck by lightning on a journey to Silesia in 1795" Wow thats how the papers where discovered. What are the chances of that.Very strange indeed.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Just how did Louis Brandeis become the first Jewish Supreme Court Justice? According to Freedman, blackmail. http://www.historicist.com/untermeyer/wilson.htm

Mr. Untermeyer volunteered to give President Wilson's former sweetheart the $40,000 out of his own pocket on one condition: that Wilson promise Untermeyer to appoint to the first vacancy on the United States Supreme court a nominee to be recommended to Wilson by Untermeyer.

Without further talk, President Wilson accepted Mr. Untermeyer's generous offer and Mr. Untermeyer promptly paid the $40,000 in currency to president Wilson's former sweetheart. The contemplated breach of promise suit was never heard of after that. Mr. Untermeyer retained in his possession permanently the packet of letters to insure against any similar attempt at some future time. [or could it be the letters were held by Untermeyer to further blackmail him should Wilson 'step out of line'? jp]

 

[Anders]

Thanks HKoehli for the pictures. They are indeed very telling and chilling I should add. I am waiting for a hard copy of C of Z from Amazon and am amazed that it is still there to buy new.

The C's has something interesting to say about spiritual orientation and physical structure:

Q: (L) I have thought about my question from the last session and I want to ask it this way: You have said that Hitler
received instructions from higher density beings about creating a 'Master Race.' Why were the Aryan genetic types seen
to be more desirable for creation of this Germanic 'master race?'
A: Both, similarity and ancestral link most unblemished from Orion 3rd and 4th density stock.
Q: (L) So they were essentially trying to breed a group of people like themselves?
A: Yes.
Q:
A: Not point. How would you suggest creation?
Q: (L) Okay. They were preparing this breeding ground, so to speak. Obviously this was for the introduction of some
other genetic strain. What was this?
A: Nephalim.
Q: (L) Well, if the Nephilim are coming in ships, 36 million of them, why bother to create half-breeds here?
A: Yes, but having an "advance party" makes 3rd density conquest much easier.

Q: (L) So, this Master Race was supposed to get everything ready...
A: Yes.
Q: (L) Okay, what is it about the Semitic genes that was considered to be so undesirable in the creation of this 'Master
Race?'
A: Would blemish genetic characteristics inclined to ruthlessness and domination.
Q: (L) So, you are saying that there is something, some genetic tendency or set of genes in the Semitic type that would
counteract this?
A: Close.
Q: (L) But isn't the nature of a person determined by their soul and not the physical body?
A: Partially, remember, aural profile and karmic reference merges with physical structure.
Q: (L) So you are saying that particular genetic conditions are a physical reflection of a spiritual orientation? That the
soul must match itself to the genetics, even if only in potential?
A: Yes, precisely.
Q: (L) So a person's potential for spiritual advancement or unfoldment is, to a great extent, dependent upon their genes?
A: Natural process marries with systematic construct when present.

Anders

 

[name]

You forgot Jabotinsky.

Brandeis gives me the creeps. If cruelty can be expressed in a look, that pic shows it. While the other people depicted have obviously evil looks, he is obviously a step above them. I wonder how this man could have become one of the most venerated judges of the US. Looking thru the cases decided by him as well as to his other activities should be very interesting taking into account that his nomination was obtained by way of bribery.

 

[dant]

Who among the leaders today occupy the high positions of power
are subservient to the Zionist, Illuminati, FreeMasons and it derivitives
directly and/or indirectly? At least expect this, and be aware of this
possibility so that you are not caught unawares. I believe Reed is
trying to be the oracle of warning for those who are not of Zionist
breed or to those who are currently subjects of the Zionist and fate
that will befall them one way or another. This was sort of the point
of the movie: "The Matrix", where Cyclops makes a comment to Mr.
Smith while chewing on a steak: "Ignorance is bliss!"

The look of the faces in the photos are highly subjective and
misleading because you cannot judge outward appearances as
it is akin to judging a book only by it's cover.

I would suspect that the best cover of evil is to take advantage
of all situations, to appear handsome, to be popular, befriend
the enemy, to appear outwardly good in every actions, so when
the time is right to strike against the enemy, catch them unawares
like a thief in the night so that they are in the most defenseless of
position to repel their attackers.

That is what the enemy preparing for us as we all know, for "knowledge
protects, ignorance endangers". Know your enemies so that you can be
aware, ready, and to protect yourself.

 

[Anders]

The look of the faces in the photos are highly subjective and
misleading because you cannot judge outward appearances as
it is akin to judging a book only by it's cover.

While I used to normally agree with this, I now think after reading about ponerology that we have been brainwashed into negating our own intuitive hunch with sayings like " You can't judge a book by it's cover."
The cover of a book is ALSO part of the book and therefore also has validity in the overall impression of a book. In real life it might just mean that one raises the alert level, when countering someone of the above appearance and then see whether actions support the initial impression that the appearance gave.

This was also why I gave the quote from the C's on page 8, as it probably shocked a few of us who have been taught to disregard the initial impression. The strategy of the pathocracy has been to deliberately promote the idea not to judge by the cover, as we normally after a little bit of time gets caught in the spellbinding effect of the psychopath and become easy prey.

The first impression therefore for most of us is like a vaccination shot, which should make us pay attention, NOT judge.

Having said that I agree with Dant that one should not be fooled into thinking that all psychopaths look a certain way or that they are easy to spot by their appearance. It takes careful observation and the appearance is but one amongst many observations. OSIT

Anders

 

[Alana]

There are also the epithets Hervey Cleckley used to describe his patients diagnosed as psychopaths: "Likeable," "Charming," "Intelligent," "Alert," "Impressive," "Confidence-inspiring," and "A great success with the ladies"

And if we then bring to mind how our media and societies promote the "bowing down" before anyone who is all of these, i wonder whether our initial gut feeling about a person will last enough for us to take notice, before our conditioning and the psychopaths' spellbinding techniques take effect. In my opinion, one should be observant and await to see the "fruits" of a person, the discrepancies between their talk and their action. And then observe and wait some more, to see this pattern's repetition before they diagnose anyone as a psychopath. Just don't give anything to a person you suspect as such of yourself. It is Martha Stout who gave this advice.

Hmmmmmmmm..........

Vampires can appear as "Likeable," "Charming," "Intelligent," "Alert," "Impressive," "Confidence-inspiring," and "A great success with the ladies" and/or gentlemen. They also posses spellbinding abilities. Vampires must also be avoided! (sight!)

 

[dant]

The look of the faces in the photos are highly subjective and
misleading because you cannot judge outward appearances as
it is akin to judging a book only by it's cover.

While I used to normally agree with this, I now think after reading about ponerology
that we have been brainwashed into negating our own intuitive hunch with sayings
like " You can't judge a book by it's cover." The cover of a book is ALSO part of the
book and therefore also has validity in the overall impression of a book. In real life
it might just mean that one raises the alert level, when countering someone of the
above appearance and then see whether actions support the initial impression that
the appearance gave.

In case you might not have noticed, please look at my phrasing and I added the word
only to make it clear that the entire book must be read. This is subtle. I think the
correct phrasing of: "You can't judge a book by it's cover." should read: "You can't judge
a book only by it's cover." so that it is clear what is meant. What is not clear is that
not only the entire book should be read cover to cover but that the facts contained within
this book must be checked for factual contents as not to mislead. The devil in the details.
Perhaps you meant the same thing as I was alluding to?

This was also why I gave the quote from the C's on page 8, as it probably
shocked a few of us who have been taught to disregard the initial impression.

Well, I never was taught to disregard initial impressions or otherwise. Acutally, quite the
opposite because I am constantly aware of whom I am associating with as I know that
people you associate yourself with may not have your best interest at heart. If you choose
to put yourself into dangerous situations (like getting tipsy/drunk, taking drugs, hanging/traveling
around with "strangers", you are lowering your guard and you may be taken advantage of or
attacked, OSIT).

My reading of Ponerology only serves notice of the fact that not everyone is same in thought,
in word, or in deed. They may not even be of the same substance! In addition, other writings
such as "The Controversy of Zion", by Douglas Reed points out the mindset of certain people
who truly think they are "God's chosen people" (or race) are so driven inwards that evil pours
forth hence psychopaths, who by the way are highy intellegent and cunning, but obviously do
not have have the goi's best interests at heart but only to use them as animals for their evil
purposes.

The strategy of the pathocracy has been to deliberately promote the idea not to judge by
the cover, as we normally after a little bit of time gets caught in the spellbinding effect of
the psychopath and become easy prey.

Not if you are fully aware. But I agree that not all of "us" are always alert and watch the
sign posts carefully.

The first impression therefore for most of us is like a vaccination shot, which should make
us pay attention, NOT judge.

Well, there does come a point in time where we do judge as it is inherent in most "normal"
people, OSIT. This is especially true when you have arrived to a conclusion in some point
in time and until the "facts" proves otherwise and you will continue to hold onto this judgement.
If you are honest, you may see this is true in most cases. I cannot vouch for the psychopaths.

Having said that I agree with Dant that one should not be fooled into thinking
that all psychopaths look a certain way or that they are easy to spot by their appearance. It
takes careful observation and the appearance is but one amongst many observations. OSIT
Anders

Yes, by all accounts, be fully aware and dilegently watch the sign posts! I believe this
warning has been given to us many times, more than once!

 

[Anders]

The look of the faces in the photos are highly subjective and
misleading because you cannot judge outward appearances as
it is akin to judging a book only by it's cover.

In case you might not have noticed, please look at my phrasing and I added the word
only to make it clear that the entire book must be read. This is subtle. I think the
correct phrasing of: "You can't judge a book by it's cover." should read: "You can't judge
a book only by it's cover." so that it is clear what is meant. What is not clear is that
not only the entire book should be read cover to cover but that the facts contained within
this book must be checked for factual contents as not to mislead. The devil in the details.
Perhaps you meant the same thing as I was alluding to?

Yes, I agree that the devil is in the details. What caused me to post initially was that in this thread the subject is the 'C of Z'. And in regard to these people that there are pictures of, we do know an adequate amount of 'the book' to be able to make a reasonable assessment about same people. One can argue that we don't know everything and while that is true, we do know quite a lot more than just the appearance.

This was also why I gave the quote from the C's on page 8, as it probably
shocked a few of us who have been taught to disregard the initial impression.

Well, I never was taught to disregard initial impressions or otherwise. Acutally, quite the
opposite because I am constantly aware of whom I am associating with as I know that
people you associate yourself with may not have your best interest at heart.

Lucky for you not to be taught this. I was, and when I read your comment initially, it caused me to stop as I recognized that it was an old program that I had believed in for a long time. For some reason I was able to see it then as I felt something was not quite 'right' there. =)
My impression was further that it was not only a specific program that I alone had received, but that this was quite common. The way I see this program operating, then people do have an initial impression, but due to the programming " One should never judge a book by its cover (alone)", then an internal guilt trip is activated and the initial impression is disregarded. I put the 'alone' in brackets as I think that part is mostly forgotten or bypassed by the brain. OSIT.

Anders

 

[Guest]

Point taken, forumites. You cannot judge a book exclusively by its cover, but it remains a part of the book. By their fruits, we shall know them. Personally I couldn't care less how a man or woman looks, but it merely seemed beyond coincidence when struck by their visual "signature".

Chapter 45 was gruesome reading for me yesterday, which shed some further light upon the ponerization of religious/political idolatry, and its mutation into ultra-violence and mania. From the very premise, this process seems tragically inevitable. The Levitical hijacking of decent people can be mirrored in many races in different places and times. Spiritually sterile? Spiritually deviant? I discern little trace of spirit in these men, beyond the soul of entropy.

Step forward one Eugene Levine; Dr. Lobaczewski will see you now.

Oh for a correspondent of the calibre of Reed working in such proximity to the power structure today.

 

[Joshua]

On the subject of Masons there is also this from C of Z:

What does "C of Z" refer to? I'm missing the sourcing here.

 

[domi]

On the subject of Masons there is also this from C of Z:

What does "C of Z" refer to? I'm missing the sourcing here.

The Controversy of Zion, the topic of this thread.
I added it to the acronyms page as well with a link to the book: http://www.laughingtick.com/sottfap.php

Dominique.

 

[Joshua]

LOL, being that I'm reading the book as we 'write' that should have been apparent to me.

Man, this stuff is dense. I'm still reading and re-reading the first 10 pages of the book to deeply assimilate the
'deuteronimilogical' twisting of Universal God, as Reed states was done. And to understand who all the players are,
and their proper significance.

Jehovah
Levites
Israelites
Judah-ists-if you will
Caanan
The differing tribes
Etc.

Am I correct in understanding that the "Jehovah" Reed refers to is meant to be "God"?

Thanks

 

[dant]

...
Am I correct in understanding that the "Jehovah" Reed refers to is meant to be "God"?
...

Invariably, yes.

Some may infer that 'Jehovah (Yahweh) is the God of the Christians/Jews/Hebrews'
but this 'God' as defined is not the same as the 'Universal God' or the 7 density "God"
as is invariably known in this forum, IMO. Different people may have different personal
interpretations as to what 'God' is in their own minds, OSIT.

Anyway a couple of different links are provided below from
Google search but visit more Google searches or these links
for more details if you are so inclined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah

Jehovah
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Jehovah is an English transcription of יְהֹוָה, which is a specific vocalized spelling of יהוה [ i.e. the Tetragrammaton ] that is found in the Masoretic Text.

Under the heading "יהוה c. 6823", the editors of the the Brown-Driver-Briggs Lexicon write that יְהֹוָה occurs 6518 times in the Masoretic Text, however in the middle of the 17th century [or possibly even earlier] scholars were questioning whether or not the vowel points found in the Hebrew spelling יְהֹוָה were the actual vowel points of God's name.
Jehovah's Witnesses use the name extensively worldwide as the most common version of the tetragrammaton. This form has been in use for centuries.

King-James-Only Movement Christians believe that Jehovah is God's correct name for English speaking people.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08329a.htm

Jehovah (Yahweh):

The proper name of God in the Old Testament; hence the Jews called it the name by excellence, the great name, the only name, the glorious and terrible name, the hidden and mysterious name, the name of the substance, the proper name, and most frequently shem hammephorash, i.e. the explicit or the separated name, though the precise meaning of this last expression is a matter of discussion (cf. Buxtorf, "Lexicon", Basle, 1639, col. 2432 sqq.).

Jehovah occurs more frequently than any other Divine name. The Concordances of Furst ("Vet. Test. Concordantiae", Leipzig, 1840) and Mandelkern ("Vet. Test. Concordantiae", Leipzig, 1896) do not exactly agree as to the number of its occurrences; but in round numbers it is found in the Old Testament 6000 times, either alone or in conjunction with another Divine name. The Septuagint and the Vulgate render the name generally by "Lord" (Kyrios, Dominus), a translation of Adonai-usually substituted for Jehovah in reading.

 

[Guest]

Joshua, you could refer to "Jehovah" as being a face of God, and then proceed to a little task of determining if this is factual. Not all of the faces of God are pretty to behold, for instance. Consider the dichotomy of mercy and wrath, and reflect.

Of course, our learned man Mr. Reed clearly has his own conceptions regarding Christian theological doctrines, which will become apparent as you proceed with C of Z. I also think a detailed look at Deutoronomy in the Old Testament will provide you with much food for thought, as it has for me and no doubt most others.

This "Deu" prefix has led me to ponder the notion of "two-ness", for example. Suggestive of opposition? Gnostic dualism? Usurpation?

Historically the number two makes a decisive appearance whenever a conflict of interest arises, itself indicating an absence of unity. I thought of a text by Aldous Huxley regarding this;

"For example, how significant it is that in the Indo-European languages, as Darmsteter has pointed out, the root meaning -two- should connote badness. The Greek prefix dys- (as in dyspepsia) and the latin dis- (as in dishonourable) are both derived from duo. The cognate bis- gives a pejorative sense to such modern French words as bevue ("blunder", literally "two-sight")."

(From "The Perennial Philosophy")

Ultimately it really depends on whether you read "God" in the sense of a separate entity, or in the conception of an all permeating consciousness. Certainly, for the Levitical pathocrats, Jehovah represented a god of unmitigated power, which has its own implications, for sure.

Hope this helps!