Who controls the BIS?

[Sol Logos]

Alkhemst, after reviewing your Posts in this thread - I highly suggest the "link" provided by Possibility of Being - as a starting point in answering your questions.

Thanks read through those essays before, worth another read when I've got some time aside. Did you also notice there were a lot of other useful references on this thread too?

At this point I'm still feeling the exercise of seeking responsibility in an organisation, a religion, a culture, a nationality, a gene, an affiliation, an association, a government, a movement, a book, a family, a single person etc etc. as the cause is futile. However pointing out where these things connect and are complicit in this psychopathology is vital.

So to ask who controls the BIS and answer Rome, the Venetians, the Mossad, the Khazars, the Jesuits, the Kabbalists etc. is not really answering anything actually. We could say for example, who controls the Mossad and say it's the BIS, and it might be as right as any other conclusion but it's self referential and that's how we might just end up talking in circles.

It might be easier to say that where points of power consolidate in a world that is full of suffering and denial it's likely that psychopaths are there in high ratio. That's no revelation here though.

Edit: grammar

 

[angelburst29]

Alkhemst, after reviewing your Posts in this thread - I highly suggest the "link" provided by Possibility of Being - as a starting point in answering your questions.

Thanks read through those essays before, worth another read when I've got some time aside. Did you also notice there were a lot of other useful references on this thread too?

Yes, I did review the other references. It's the main reason, I suggested Possibility of Being's link - as a starting point.

 

[Sol Logos]

Alkhemst, after reviewing your Posts in this thread - I highly suggest the "link" provided by Possibility of Being - as a starting point in answering your questions.

Thanks read through those essays before, worth another read when I've got some time aside. Did you also notice there were a lot of other useful references on this thread too?

Yes, I did review the other references. It's the main reason, I suggested Possibility of Being's link - as a starting point.

OK I get it, you know something I don't please share it, I'm happy to learn more. I did question some of those things you brought up but you've only responded with a hint of superior knowledge you have on these matters without elucidating more. But I'm actually interested in your take on those things. Perhaps you're being evasive for some reason I can't guess at why, if that's right then why?

 

[Nienna]

Alkhemst, after reviewing your Posts in this thread - I highly suggest the "link" provided by Possibility of Being - as a starting point in answering your questions.

Thanks read through those essays before, worth another read when I've got some time aside. Did you also notice there were a lot of other useful references on this thread too?

Yes, I did review the other references. It's the main reason, I suggested Possibility of Being's link - as a starting point.

OK I get it, you know something I don't please share it, I'm happy to learn more. I did question some of those things you brought up but you've only responded with a hint of superior knowledge you have on these matters without elucidating more. But I'm actually interested in your take on those things. Perhaps you're being evasive for some reason I can't guess at why, if that's right then why?

Not to answer for angelburst, I'm just giving you my take on why she is being, what you call, evasive.

Many times it has been said here to do your own research. Not to hand out answers like candy because things are learned better, and we grow more, by doing the recommended reading and research. angelburst may be giving you the means to find the answers you want by steering you back to those links. The "aha!" moment that comes with finding the answers out ourselves is quite exciting.

And, I found no sense of superiority in angelburst's post.

 

[Sol Logos]

Alkhemst, after reviewing your Posts in this thread - I highly suggest the "link" provided by Possibility of Being - as a starting point in answering your questions.

Thanks read through those essays before, worth another read when I've got some time aside. Did you also notice there were a lot of other useful references on this thread too?

Yes, I did review the other references. It's the main reason, I suggested Possibility of Being's link - as a starting point.

OK I get it, you know something I don't please share it, I'm happy to learn more. I did question some of those things you brought up but you've only responded with a hint of superior knowledge you have on these matters without elucidating more. But I'm actually interested in your take on those things. Perhaps you're being evasive for some reason I can't guess at why, if that's right then why?

Not to answer for angelburst, I'm just giving you my take on why she is being, what you call, evasive.

Many times it has been said here to do your own research. Not to hand out answers like candy because things are learned better, and we grow more, by doing the recommended reading and research. angelburst may be giving you the means to find the answers you want by steering you back to those links. The "aha!" moment that comes with finding the answers out ourselves is quite exciting.

And, I found no sense of superiority in angelburst's post.

Yes you could be right I don't about the inner landscape of others, I have trouble enough figuring out my own. I wasn't sure why after saying that I read Tarpley's material what exactly Angelburst was sure I've missed. It seemed at least to me that she felt I had missed something but it wasn't clear what that was, nor was she forthcoming about what it was. Whether or not this was intentional and if it was for what reason I really don't know. But its true it's wrong for me to assume that she's coming from any feelings of superiority, I don't know enough about her to even guess at that.

 

[Sol Logos]

I haven't really reviewed this in total nor vetted the source, although some vetting does come out as highly dubious. But there was some interesting ideas with a scan of it I felt worth further investigation.

It's titled the "history of banking", claims to be answering what this thread is about in some respects:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2W5qvQMnb5ETEt5ekdRek1xVEU/view?usp=sharing

My main interest as I mentioned opening this thread was if there was any validity to this notion of the Jesuits through the Vatican controlling banking and other main power plays since their inception. Of course was also interested in if not them, who. Seems to be some hearsay about it, circumstantial evidence but as I've said above, I don't feel it's that useful to look at one source, it's seems to me that where power operates, there's bound to be a psychopathic direction that's been around for a long time, across many nationalities and religions and perhaps largely operates with a very high degree of other dimensional influence, if not foundation.

 

[sitting]

My main interest as I mentioned opening this thread was if there was any validity to this notion of the Jesuits through the Vatican controlling banking and other main power plays since their inception.

My answer is no.

But I could be wrong.

FWIW.

 

[Sol Logos]

My main interest as I mentioned opening this thread was if there was any validity to this notion of the Jesuits through the Vatican controlling banking and other main power plays since their inception.

My answer is no.

But I could be wrong.

FWIW.

It's interesting you say that without any reason why. It's seems to be a fairly common response today but not until perhaps 100 years back or so, that wasn't as common as today. At least that's what I can gather from passages and quotes about the widespread power of the Catholic church and particularly how that was at the hand of the Jesuits since their inception. Much of that was documented on this thread.

I can only conclude that either common opinion has woken up to the fact that this was a false view of the Jesuits / Catholic church, or that it was true and their purported goal at world control and mass deception was a success. I can't say for sure which it is, the door is open for me on that.

I came across an article by Blavatsky, who's a bit topical now on the forum, irrespective of her, it does indicate this view of the Jesuits discussed openly in her time. Here's a bit:

The recent Brevet of the Pope (hardly two years old) dated July 13th (the same fatal figure), 1886, is an event, the importance of which can never be overvalued. It begins with the words Dolemus inter alia, and reinstalls the Jesuits in all the rights of the Order that had ever been cancelled. It was a manifesto and a loud defiant insult to all the Christian nations of the New and the Old worlds. From an article by Louis Lambert in the Gaulois (August 18th, 1886) we learn that "In 1750 there were 40,000 Jesuits all over the world. In 1800, officially they were reckoned at about 1,000 men, only. In 1886, they numbered between 7 and 8,000." This last modest number can well be doubted. For, verily now--"Where you meet a man believing in the salutary nature of falsehoods, or the divine authority of things doubtful, and fancying that to serve the good cause he must call the devil to his aid, there is a follower of Unsaint Ignatius," says Carlyle, and adds of that black militia of Ignatius that: "They have given a new substantive to modern languages. The word Jesuitism now, in all countries, expresses an idea for which there was in nature no prototype before. Not till these last centuries had the human soul generated that abomination, or needed to name it. Truly they have achieved great things in the world, and a general result that we may call stupendous."

_http://www.blavatsky.net/index.php/17-hpblavatsky/hpb-articles/100-theosophy-or-jesuitism

 

[angelburst29]

My main interest as I mentioned opening this thread was if there was any validity to this notion of the Jesuits through the Vatican controlling banking and other main power plays since their inception. Of course was also interested in if not them, who. Seems to be some hearsay about it, circumstantial evidence but as I've said above, I don't feel it's that useful to look at one source, it's seems to me that where power operates, there's bound to be a psychopathic direction that's been around for a long time, across many nationalities and religions and perhaps largely operates with a very high degree of other dimensional influence, if not foundation.

With the bolded in mind, consider this hypothesis - Any one individual, who carries Rank and Title and provides a functional duty, takes orders from someone higher in the pyramid. The Pope's and Jesuit's - carry Rank and Title and perform certain duties. They both work within a structural pyramid, like a Corporation. The one at the top (Pope Francis/Black General) represent the Figure-head of a Corporation. Who's the Parent Company (Boss) behind them - that created them - to perform a certain function and is pulling the strings?

To find the Man behind the curtain, so to speak, you have to search back to the time the Catholic Church/Pope was formed or created. Same with the Jesuit's. And before it was called, "the Jesuit's" was it called something else? So, there's a need to go back, as far as possible, in your investigation.

Many of the links you have provided are interesting but they are like - pulling from the middle of a subject - to find an answer that can only be justified, by going back - to the root of it's inception, it's birth. Once you get to base or the beginning, then you can work your way up the ladder, to see where other pieces and links fit in or need to be discarded.

 

[sitting]

My main interest as I mentioned opening this thread was if there was any validity to this notion of the Jesuits through the Vatican controlling banking and other main power plays since their inception.

My answer is no.

But I could be wrong.

FWIW.

It's interesting you say that without any reason why.

Your question implied their preeminence -- in power & in finance. And you wanted affirmation.
My take is that they were influential ... but no where near preeminent. Not even close.

Trouble is one can debate this forever, each side coming up with endless sources & references. I did not wish to go down that route. But I did want to give you a heads up ... of sorts.

The C's have already answered:

They said Mossad is near the "apex of the consortium". (This one needs no elaboration.)

They then said the Rothschilds are "similar ... to Sargon". (Here some interpretation is necessary.)

Sargon (The Great) founded the Akkadian empire. The Rothschilds (like Sargon) founded a similar empire, though not as blatantly obvious. But no less powerful. This empire has had a grip on the world -- through debt & compound interest (along with an endless line of agents) for over 200 years. It's what C.A. Fitts would call "the central banking-warfare model" empire.

Now these two references were given in the same session -- and I've interpreted that to mean equal billing, regarding the underlying theme of who controls the world. I believe that was Laura's line of inquiry at that moment.

But I could be wrong.

FWIW.

PS
Hopefully this Rothschild empire will soon go the way of Sargon's empire. When Naram-Sin (his successor) incurred the wrath of the Annunaki gods. Enlil cleaned house. This time around, it'll probably be due to the displeasure of the universe.

 

[sitting]

Now please take a moment and ponder this as well:


Regarding the Rothschilds, the C's added " ... deep level punctuator. One who emerges from seeming obscurity to make a mark on history. Think deep." Laura took that to mean coming from an underground race. C's did not object.

As the Rothschilds are "similar" to Sargon, then perhaps Sargon too had an extraordinary origin. This would fit into the legend of him (as a baby) found floating down a river in a basket -- to be discovered by the gardener of the royal court.

Other examples abound in history and mythology. Padmasambhava in India (considered the second Buddha) was "of the Lotus born." The legends of Alexander the Great also comes to mind.

These stories suggest much possible extraordinary (ET ?) intervention in critical junctures of human history. Some of divine nature ... others not so nice.

Now I like to ask you this: who in our present time has emerged from seeming obscurity, and is making a noticeable mark on history? Right before our very own eyes?

This I think is worthy of some thought, crazy as it sounds.

FWIW.

 

[angelburst29]

Getting back on topic, I was sifting through news articles when I came across a Court Case and the words, "Cestui que Vie" which came up in the past, in connection with the Vatican Accounts, the London Business District, the BIS, IMF and more recently, the Federal Reserve Act. I could never get a clear connection, as to what the Cestui que Vie actually represented, other than it came into being in 1666 A.D. My impression was that it had something to do with "War efforts - possible financing?" A Bond of some type or certificate? I would later learn, it was some type "Insurance Policy" and the BIS and Vatican were directly involved but I never explored deeper.

This concept of the "Crown" is another interesting avenue. Who is the "Crown"? It's often talked about in terms of the ruling government at the time being subservient to this so-called Crown, ie US, Canada, UK are all legally bound somehow to this "Crown" which is basically in the end just a piece of fiction (it has no physcial existence).

The Top of the Pyramid
http://geopolitics.co/2014/12/23/the-top-of-the-pyramid/

There are two operant Crowns in England, one being Queen Elizabeth II.

Although extremely wealthy, the Queen functions largely in a ceremonial capacity and serves to deflect attention away from the other Crown, who issues her marching orders through their control of the English Parliament.

This other Crown is comprised of a committee of 12 banks headed by the Bank of England (House of Rothschild). They rule the world from the 677-acre, independent sovereign state know as The City of London, or simply ‘The City.’

The City is not a part of England, just as Washington D.C., is not a part of the USA.

 

[sitting]

C's: "One who emerges from seeming obscurity to make a mark on history."

For whatever reason ... maybe even inspiration perhaps, but certainly unintentional -- I thought of Putin.

If there's even the slightest bit of truth to it, then the source was clearly divine.

FWIW.

 

[clerck de bonk]

C's: "One who emerges from seeming obscurity to make a mark on history."

For whatever reason ... maybe even inspiration perhaps, but certainly unintentional -- I thought of Putin.

If there's even the slightest bit of truth to it, then the source was clearly divine.

FWIW.

Isn't Obummers past a bit obscure too?

 

[sitting]

C's: "One who emerges from seeming obscurity to make a mark on history."

For whatever reason ... maybe even inspiration perhaps, but certainly unintentional -- I thought of Putin.

If there's even the slightest bit of truth to it, then the source was clearly divine.

FWIW.

Isn't Obummers past a bit obscure too?

Okay.

But somehow the list: Sargon ... Rothschild ... Putin ... Obummer looks a bit off.

FWIW.