Gates / Rockefeller Eugenics?

a reply to: carsforkids

No worries my friend - crazy times indeed and am reminded more and more of this old Twilight Zone.





Don't know if you caught it but back in 2010 ElectricUniverse made a great ATS thread about a secret meeting at the home of Sir Paul Nurse - the letter of invitation was signed by Gates, Rockefeller and Buffet (and Buffet ended up pledging over 80% of his fortune to the Gates Foundation).

The philanthropists who attended a summit convened on the initiative of Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder, discussed joining forces to overcome political and religious obstacles to change.

Described as the Good Club by one insider it included David Rockefeller Jr, the patriarch of America’s wealthiest dynasty, Warren Buffett and George Soros, the financiers, Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, and the media moguls Ted Turner and Oprah Winfrey.

Eugenics, The Goal of The Elites for Population Control

Would also be pretty interested to know what agenda Bill Gates was discussing at the 2010 Bilderberg conference in Spain.

Cheers.

a reply to: karl 12

Ha Ha one of my favorites I like to use here.

a reply to: carsforkids

Yes mate an absolute classic and that show was truly ahead of it's time.

When it comes to warnings from history, I also thought this was a good one.

"Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day."

Theodore Roosevelt, 26th President of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt, An Autobiography , 1913

Also can't help coming back to Aaron Russo's last interview many years ago where he states he was informed of the upcoming plans for global technocratic enslavement.

See 29:50

• Relevant 2017 quote:

"Their plan is to change society in every country in a way that provides them a reason to impose a world government. The creation of a world central bank and an electronic world currency, in conjunction with the elimination of cash, would allow them complete control to dictate financial policy around the globe. Their policies would be enforced by their world army, and a micro-chipped population would live in fear of having their electronic currency deleted if they ever crossed the world government"

Charlie Robinson, in his book "The Octopus of Global Control"

Cheers.

Why no mention of evolutionary philosophies or evolution in relation to eugenics (in the OP or by the sources used in the first 2 comments)? Eugenics is a direct product of evolutionary philosophies. In fact, in my historical research, I could not find a single promoter of eugenics that wasn't also a promoter and/or teacher of evolutionary philosophies. In spite of the denial by fans of evolutionary philosophies, the connection or link to eugenics is hard to overlook or argue away/downplay (even with the very sophisticated attempts by these fans or promoters of evolutionary philosophies, stories and mythology to disassociate the 2 subjects; or at least prevent people from doubting the so-called "evidence" for evolution because of the tarnished reputation of eugenicists, and making people overlook the fact that these are the same people presenting this so-called "evidence" for their so-called "science", con-artists calling themselves "scientists" in the business of selling unverified and sometimes unverifiable philosophies under the marketinglabel "science"; philosophies that often, as in the case of evolutionary philosophies, have an ancient Pagan origin).





The Pagan Religious Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies and Philosophical Naturalism (part 1 of 2)

In fact, eugenics is just a collective name to describe one more set of evolutionary philosophies. All its bogus claims and ideas are build upon Darwin's bogus claims and ideas concerning what has simply become known as "evolution" (but to avoid people conveniently switching to the definition that only mentions "change over time", nice and vague, conveniently ignoring all the claims about what kind of change over time people are usually talking about when they're talking biology, I tend to use "evolutionary philosophies" instead, just to be clear about what aspect of "evolution" I'm talking about, which includes the philosophies and storylines concerning the topic of "common descent"; which speaks about a very specific kind of change over time, going from a single-celled organism to all the different kinds of single-celled and multi-cellular lifeforms that have ever existed on earth, with far larger more sophisticated and complicated genomes than these supposed single-celled ancestors).

QUESTION 4: Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor? (The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking)

Evolution—Myths and Facts

Evolution Warps Religious Thinking (1957)

Evolution is an old idea that has been dusted off and doctored up for modern consumption. Though unprovable by the scientific method, it is assumed to be true. Even the clergy embrace it, saying God created by means of evolution. But the Bible disagrees.

THE Bible tells Christians to follow in the footsteps of Jesus, but today the religious fad is to trail off after the scientists who copy Greek philosophers. In the fifth century before Christ the Greek philosopher Empedocles believed in spontaneous generation of life, gradual evolution of organisms and survival of the fittest. In the following century Aristotle taught that “man is the highest point of one long and continuous ascent.” Greek philosophers in general preached the evolution idea.

Included in Paul’s warning, at Colossians 2:8 (NW), against traditions would be the evolutionary philosophies of these babblers, who were so wise in their own eyes and who mocked God’s wisdom as foolishness: “Look out: perhaps there may be some man that will carry you off as his prey through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ.”

Christendom’s clergymen have been carried off as the prey of evolution. The ancient Greeks ensnared many in their day; the modern scientists take captive by their wisdom millions today, including many clergymen. Evolution is the club used to beat into submission those who once believed the Bible. Like the ancient Greeks, the scientists are the wise ones, they have the facts, they follow the scientific method. Any who do not agree with them because of the Bible record of creation are gullible ignoramuses. The proud clergy do not want to be classed as gullible ignoramuses. So they fall prey to evolution.

RELIGIONISTS WARPED BY EVOLUTION

The Catholic Encyclopedia says that the idea that God used evolution to produce man’s body “was propounded by St. Augustine.” In August, 1950, Pope Pius removed any objection to considering “the doctrine of evolution in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter.” A year later he clarified this by saying that “the theory of evolution can be studied so far as it deals with origins of the human body but should not be allowed to raise questions as to the divine creation of the human soul.”

In 1947 Roman Catholic priest Hauber said, in Creation and Evolution, concerning God and evolution: “He initiated it, directs and guides it, He knows whither it is leading.” If you do not agree you are working harm: “Those who oppose sound scientific theories, such as the general theory of evolution has a right to be called, are doing harm to the cause of truth.” Like the Pharisees of old, these clergymen reject the truth themselves and hinder those who wish to accept it.

When asked, “Does evolution conflict with our Christian faith?” the Catholic Our Sunday Visitor, January 9, 1955, answered: “Christian scientists and philosophers on the whole regard evolution as merely the method which God used in causing various species of life to develop from antecedent forms. This involves contradiction neither with the Scriptures nor with any truth of the Christian faith.”

The Roman Catholic Church boasts that she has absorbed much that is related to paganism and demon worship, and she will not choke when swallowing this godless philosophy of the ancient Greeks, as shown on page 172 of the volume Catholic Cabinet: “As Rome absorbed Platonism and Aristotelianism, so will she absorb evolutionary philosophy.”

Judaism can swallow it also. Rabbi Tepfer says, as reported in an Associated Press dispatch dated August 14, 1953: “There is no contradiction, as we see it. Evolution itself may be part of God’s indirect revelation.” The same dispatch quoted Dr. Handy of Union Theological seminary as saying concerning Protestantism: “Nearly all ministers have come to see that there is no conflict between evolution and divine creation.” Life magazine, November 7, 1955, reported Baptist minister Harry Emerson Fosdick as saying: “Today the general idea of evolution is taken for granted as gravitation is.”

TOO WEAK TO RESIST WARPING

That is just the trouble. Evolution is taken for granted. What does it matter that scientists cannot prove it? Who are the clergy to demand proof for anything? They cannot prove such doctrines as trinity and immortal soul. Why demand proof for this new one they are adding to their creeds? By the din of repetition both the scientific falsehood and the religious lies are believed by millions. The blind lead the blind, the weak lead the weak, and where in the religious systems of Christendom can a hungry man find the spiritual food to build uncompromising strength? Preachers and parishioners are weaklings in righteousness and integrity, and who will exert themselves to practice the fine-sounding principles that are occasionally preached?

Sometimes the clergy complain of the listless apathy of their flocks, but how can the starving be strong? It is the Bible, not science, that contains spiritual water, but these supposed people of God hunger and thirst: “My people have committed two evils: they have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and hewed out cisterns for themselves, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.” The religious leaders do not stick to God’s Word but turn to the broken cisterns of evolutionary science. The result is a spiritually starved clergy, and how can the starved feed the starving? Jehovah foretold the famine conditions in Christendom’s religious systems: “The days come, saith the Lord Jehovah, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of Jehovah.”—Jer. 2:13, RS; Amos 8:11, AS.

Christendom’s clergy still pose as Christian, still claim belief in the Bible. But they are like weathercocks that turn with the wind of public opinion, lining up with what is currently popular, being swept along like fall leaves on a windy day. And in it all they try to drag God’s Word along, bending and twisting it to fit the popular whims that bend and twist them. Molded by evolution themselves, they wish to mold the Bible into conformity also.

THEY CANNOT WARP THE BIBLE!

...

Continued in next comment.

THEY CANNOT WARP THE BIBLE!

It will not bend to their will, it will not fit their scientific philosophy. The Bible cannot be made to say that man’s body evolved from lower animals, because each created family kind was made to reproduce only its own kind, “according to its kind.” Evolution says just the opposite, that one kind brings forth a new and different kind. But science has no proof, no evidence for this. Not only is the evolutionary chain missing its first link of spontaneous generation of life as a starting point, but it is missing thousands of links. This fictional chain is unsupported by the fossil record. Genetic changes, called mutations, cannot bridge the gaps between family kinds. Mutations supply great variety within the family kind, yes; but a new family kind, no. The compromising clergy may bed down with evolution, but the uncompromising Bible will not join such unscriptural relations.—Gen. 1:11, 12, NW.

Moreover, when the clergy try to split man into two pieces, a living human body and an immortal spiritual soul, and say the body evolved but the soul was directly implanted by God, they are again warped in their religious thinking. The human body was made directly from the dust and God started the living, breathing processes and man became a living soul, just as animals before him had been similarly made into living souls: “Then Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul.” “God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul that glides.” “Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and creeping animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind.”—Gen. 2:7; 1:21, 24, NW.

Man does not have a spiritual, immortal soul separate from the body, that lives on after the body dies. Man himself is a soul, and the human “soul that sins shall die.” Even in the case of the sinless soul of Jesus we read: “He poured out his soul to death.” Men who have died may have a hope of resurrection, but death itself is the same for man as for any other animal, and to think differently is vanity: “I said in my heart with regard to the sons of men that God is testing them to show them that they are but beasts. For the fate of the sons of men and the fate of beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other. They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts; for all is vanity. All go to one place; all are from the dust, and all turn to dust again.”—Ezek. 18:4; Isa. 53:12; Eccl. 3:18-20, RS. [whereislogic: also see my comment in the thread "Alien Abductions & The Concept of "Soul Agreements"/"Contracts"" or my commentary in the thread "his is a compelling story!!! (Earth, Heaven, Hell)"]

DO NOT YOU BE SHAMEFULLY WARPED!

True Christians will follow in the footsteps of Jesus, who said God’s Word is truth and that it is made void by human traditions. Blind clergymen and the blind flocks they mislead into the evolutionary philosophies of ancient Greeks and modern scientists are not following in the way of God or in the footsteps of Christ or the teachings of the Bible. Like green timber in the sun, those who soak up the speculations of the shining lights of evolutionary thinking have their religious thinking warped out of line with God’s Word. To say God created by means of evolution is to reject the Bible for human wisdom, and it leads to shame: “The wise men are put to shame, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they have rejected the word of Jehovah; and what manner of wisdom is in them?”—Jer. 8:9, AS.

Why should you let your thinking be warped by unprovable theories of men? Why should you let weak clerical leaders who are misshapen by human speculations make you spiritually deformed also? Why should you reject Jehovah’s Word and be put to shame with them? Do not be fearful of men and be pressured into conformity with warped men. Conform to God’s Word.

“So we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes.” (Ephesians 4:14)

If Not a Fact, What Is It? (Awake!—1981)

A RELIGIOUS “FAITH”? A PHILOSOPHY?

...

Effects of the Evolution Theory (Awake!—1995)

...
Effects on Philosophy and Politics

The Origin of Species offered a fresh outlook on human behavior. Why does one nation succeed in conquering another nation? Why does one race prevail over another race? The Origin of Species, with its emphasis on natural selection and survival of the fittest, gave explanations that stirred the leading philosophers of the 19th century.

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) and Karl Marx (1818-1883) were philosophers who had a profound effect on politics. Both were fascinated by evolution. “Darwin’s book is important,” said Marx, “and serves me as a natural scientific basis for the class struggle in history.” Historian Will Durant called Nietzsche a “child of Darwin.” The book Philosophy​—An Outline-​History summarized one of Nietzsche’s beliefs: “The strong, brave, domineering, proud, fit best the society that is to be.”

Darwin believed​—and wrote in a letter to a friend—​that in the future “an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.” He used as a precedent the European conquest of others and chalked this up to “the struggle for existence.”

The powerful were quick to latch on to such statements. H. G. Wells wrote in The Outline of History: “Prevalent peoples at the close of the nineteenth century believed that they prevailed by virtue of the Struggle for Existence, in which the strong and cunning get the better of the weak and confiding. And they believed further that they had to be strong, energetic, ruthless, ‘practical,’ egotistical.”

Thus, “survival of the fittest” took on philosophical, social, and political overtones, often to an absurd extent. “To some war became ‘a biological necessity,’” said the book Milestones of History. And this book noted that during the next century, “Darwinian ideas formed an integral part of Hitler’s doctrine of racial superiority.”

Of course, neither Darwin, Marx, nor Nietzsche lived to see how their ideas would be applied​—or misapplied. Indeed, they expected that the struggle for existence would improve man’s lot in life. Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species that “all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection.” Twentieth-​century priest and biologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin agreed with this, theorizing that eventually there would occur an ‘evolution of the minds of the entire human race; everyone would harmoniously work toward one goal.’

Degradation, Not Improvement

Do you see such improvement occurring? The book Clinging to a Myth commented on De Chardin’s optimism: “De Chardin must have been quite oblivious of the history of human bloodshed and of racist systems such as apartheid in South Africa. He sounds like a man who is not living in this world.” Rather than progress toward unity, humanity in this century has experienced racial and national division on an unprecedented scale.

The hope held out in The Origin of Species, that man would progress toward perfection, or at least improvement, is very much unfulfilled. And that hope keeps receding with time, for since the general acceptance of evolution, the human family all too often has descended into barbarism. Consider: More than 100 million people have been killed in the wars of this century, some 50 million in World War II alone. Also consider the recent ethnic slaughter in such places as Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.

Is this to say that there were no wars and brutalities in past centuries? No, there certainly were. But the acceptance of the theory of evolution, this brutal struggle-​for-​existence mind-​set, this survival-​of-​the-​fittest idea, has not served to improve man’s lot. So while evolution cannot be blamed for all of man’s ills, it has helped push the human family into ever greater hatred, crime, violence, immorality, and degradation. Since it is widely accepted that humans descended from beasts, it is not surprising that more and more people act like beasts.

originally posted by: lakenheath24

I wont be, guaranteed.

Can you actually explain why that is and why you are so sure about it?

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: karl 12
...
I been wondering about Putin's involvement with the church over there lately.
...

A little history lesson on Church collaboration with the Soviets, or the State:

By the time Nazi Germany invaded Russia in June 1941, the Soviets had practically annihilated the Russian Orthodox Church. But after the Nazi invasion, the Soviets began to change their attitude toward religion. What prompted this?

Richard Overy, professor of modern history at King’s College, London, explained in his book Russia’s War—Blood Upon the Snow: “Metropolitan Sergei [Sergius], head of the Church, appealed to the faithful on the very day of the German invasion to do everything to bring about victory. He published no fewer than twenty-three epistles in the next two years, calling on his flock to fight for the godless state they lived in.” So, as Overy continued, ‘Stalin allowed religion to flourish again.’

In 1943, Stalin finally agreed to recognize the Orthodox Church by appointing Sergius as its new patriarch. “The Church authorities responded by raising money from the faithful to fund a Soviet armored column,” Overy noted. “Priests and bishops exhorted their congregations to observe the faith, God’s and Stalin’s.”

Describing this period of Russian history, the Russian religious scholar Sergei Ivanenko wrote: ‘The official publication of the Russian Orthodox Church, The Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, praised Stalin as the greatest leader and teacher of all times and nations, sent by God to save the nation from oppression, landowners, and capitalists. It called upon believers to give their last drop of blood in defending the USSR from its enemies and to give their all to build Communism.’

“Highly Valued by the KGB”

Even after World War II ended in 1945, the Orthodox Church remained useful to the Communists. The Soviet Union: The Fifty Years, edited by Harrison Salisbury, revealed how this was so: “With the war’s end, church leaders fell in with the Cold War demands of Stalin’s foreign policy.”

The recent book The Sword and the Shield describes how church leaders served Soviet interests. It explains that Patriarch Alexis I, who had succeeded Sergius as patriarch in 1945, “joined the World Peace Council, the Soviet front organization founded in 1949.” The book also notes that he and Metropolitan Nikolai “were highly valued by the KGB [the Soviet State Security Committee] as agents of influence.”

Remarkably, in 1955, Patriarch Alexis I declared: “The Russian Orthodox Church supports the totally peaceful foreign policy of our government, not because the Church allegedly lacks freedom, but because Soviet policy is just and corresponds to the Christian ideals which the Church preaches.”

In the January 22, 2000, issue of The Guardian of London, England, dissident Orthodox priest Georgi Edelshtein is quoted as saying: “All the bishops were carefully picked so that they would work with the soviet government. All were KGB agents. It is well known that Patriarch Alexy was recruited by the KGB, under the code-name of Drozdov. Today, they are preserving the same politics that they had 20 or 30 years ago.”

A Handmaiden of the Soviet State

Regarding the relationship between the Orthodox Church and the Soviets, Life magazine of September 14, 1959, observed: “Stalin gave some concessions to religion, and the church treated him like a czar. Orthodoxy’s collaboration is ensured by a special government ministry and the Communists have utilized the church ever since as an arm of the Soviet state.”

Matthew Spinka, an authority on Russian church affairs, confirmed the existence of a close Church-State relationship in his 1956 book, The Church in Soviet Russia. “The present Patriarch Alexei,” he wrote, “has deliberately made his Church a tool of the government.” Indeed, the Orthodox Church, in effect, survived by becoming a handmaiden of the State. ‘But is that so reprehensible?’ you may ask. Well, consider how God and Christ view the matter.

Jesus Christ said of his true disciples: “You are no part of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world.” And God’s Word pointedly asks: “Adulteresses, do you not know that the friendship with the world is enmity with God?” (John 15:19; James 4:4) Thus, as the Bible presents it, the church made itself a religious harlot with whom “the kings of the earth committed fornication.” It has shown itself to be part of what the Bible calls “Babylon the Great, the mother of the harlots and of the disgusting things of the earth.”—Revelation 17:1-6.

In his 1945 book, Russia Is No Riddle, Edmund Stevens wrote: “The Church took great care not to bite the hand that was now feeding it. It fully realized that in return for the favors bestowed the State expected the Church to give its firm support to the system and to operate within certain limits.”

Stevens went on to explain: “The tradition of centuries as the official State religion was deeply rooted in the Orthodox Church, and it therefore slipped very naturally into its new role of close collaboration with the Soviet Government.”

The Keston Institute thoroughly researched the past collaboration between the Soviets and Alexis II, today’s patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church. Its report concluded: “Aleksi’s collaboration was nothing exceptional—almost all senior leaders of all officially-recognised religious faiths—including the Catholics, Baptists, Adventists, Muslims and Buddhists—were recruited KGB agents. Indeed, the annual report that describes Aleksi’s recruitment also covers numerous other agents, some of them in the Estonian Lutheran Church.”

Satan is “the spirit now at work among God’s rebel subjects” for he is “the commander of the spiritual powers of the air.”​—Ephesians 2:2, The New English Bible.

Some may find it hard to accept that there is an evil, invisible spiritual power motivating the political rulers of the world. Yet this is a keystone to understanding the overall picture that the Bible presents of a clash over universal sovereignty. (Revelation 12:7-9) Satan has used politics to divide mankind and divert man’s attention away from the true hope for restored righteous rulership, namely, God’s Kingdom government by Christ.​—Matthew 4:23; 9:35.

How successful Satan has been! By his exploitation of divisive politics and nationalism he has used men who “exalted the state as divine . . . or identified it with the march of God in history.” For some, the “worship of the state as the personification of the spirit of the nation was essential for realization of the national destiny.” (Ideas in Conflict, Edward Burns) Nazi Germany was a classic example. “Nothing was sponsored so much as worship of Nazism and its Führer,” states Professor Palmer. Even now politicians are using this same tool to advance their ambitions, but to mankind’s detriment.

Do you think the relationship and cooperation between Babylon the Great (false religion) and the Russian State has changed much now that there is no more Soviet State? Or do the same tactics of “collaboration” still work as effectively today as they did back then? Therefore, there is little reason to doubt they are still being used to manipulate and influence the masses into “worship of the state”?

The Dangers of Nationalism, Patriotism and Worship of the State (playlist)

originally posted by: whereislogic
...
In the January 22, 2000, issue of The Guardian of London, England, dissident Orthodox priest Georgi Edelshtein is quoted as saying: “All the bishops were carefully picked so that they would work with the soviet government. All were KGB agents. It is well known that Patriarch Alexy was recruited by the KGB, under the code-name of Drozdov. Today, they are preserving the same politics that they had 20 or 30 years ago.”
...
Do you think the relationship and cooperation between Babylon the Great (false religion) and the Russian State has changed much now that there is no more Soviet State? Or do the same tactics of “collaboration” still work as effectively today as they did back then? Therefore, there is little reason to doubt they are still being used to manipulate and influence the masses into “worship of the state”?

edit after the bolded part: Or do you agree with dissident Orthodox priest Georgi Edelshtein's way of putting it: “Today, they are preserving the same politics that they had 20 or 30 years ago.”

I prefer his way of putting it rather than my rhetorical question after the bolded question (which is for everyone here if they care to think about it and perhaps share their thoughts if they feel so inclined; i.e. the "you" in that question is a general 'you', not just carsforkids).

a reply to: whereislogic

...
Do you think the relationship and cooperation between Babylon the Great (false religion) and the Russian State has changed much now that there is no more Soviet State?

Or do you agree with dissident Orthodox priest Georgi Edelshtein's way of putting it: “Today, they are preserving the same politics that they had 20 or 30 years ago.”

First
Thank you for the read and favored information. Of course it hasn't changed.
It would still be a "Tool of the state" with the KGB's Vladimir Putin at the helm.
Just as I thought there might be something worth while to consider with Putin's
Russia. BTW can you take the brightness of that lite down a bit it's blinding? lol


I don't know which is worse now? Russia using God or China not allowing
God. It amazes me how lucky we've been in the US. God has surely kept the
devils hands off our nation into these last days. I find my self navigating this
world on two different vessels.

On the one vessel it's very old and slow. I set a course for the North to meet
the one true Commander. My King. The other ship is faster and I sail it to the
west. With a promise I have to keep to my wife. I will die protecting her
grand daughters from what's coming to this nation. I have to have that much
when I see her again I have to have that. I have to or I couldn't face her.
Unless I go before hand of course but as long as I'm here. That's how it must
be.

It's just hard the way time rolls thru all that has to happen. I mean Gods word
happens with no regard to how old we're getting or how it suits our lives.
That's so arrogant! lol

And with devil owning all kingdoms we must live our lives under. This is wicked
world where the only horrors I fear. Are those that happen to little kids. It bothers
me more everyday. I can't protect them all and I can't protect any of them forever.
So all I can do is keep my promise and leave the rest to God. Two ships.

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: whereislogic
...
I don't know which is worse now? Russia using God or China not allowing God. It amazes me how lucky we've been in the US. God has surely kept the devils hands off our nation into these last days.

There's certainly no denying that there are more freedoms in the US, but I wouldn't put it like that (the last sentence there).

...
Although millions in Christendom regularly use the Lord’s Prayer, in which they pray for God’s Kingdom to come, they have assiduously supported every form of political expression, to the exclusion of that theocratic rule. Centuries ago “princes” of the Catholic Church, such as Cardinals Richelieu, Mazarin, and Wolsey, acted also as secular statesmen, ministers of government.

More than 50 years ago, in the booklet entitled Religion Reaps the Whirlwind, Jehovah’s Witnesses exposed Christendom’s involvement with politics.* What was said then applies with equal force today: “Honest investigation of the conduct of the religious clergy of all denominations will reveal that the religious leaders of all ‘Christendom’ are participating with keen interest in the politics of ‘this present evil world’ and are dabbling in its mundane affairs.” Back then the Witnesses castigated Pope Pius XII for his concordats with Nazi Hitler (1933) and Fascist Franco (1941), as well as for the pope’s exchange of diplomatic representatives with the aggressor nation Japan in March 1942, just a few months after the infamous Pearl Harbor attack. The pope failed to heed James’ warning: “Adulteresses, do you not know that the friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever, therefore, wants to be a friend of the world is constituting himself an enemy of God.”—James 4:4.

8. How is the Roman Catholic Church involved in politics today?

8 What is the situation today? The papacy is still involved in politics, both through its clergy and through its laity representatives. Recent popes have put their stamp of approval on the United Nations by addressing that man-made counterfeit for world peace. A recent issue of L’Osservatore Romano, the official Vatican newspaper, announced that seven new diplomats, “ambassadors to the Holy See,” presented their credentials to the “Holy Father.” Could we imagine Jesus and Peter being involved in such diplomatic exchanges? Jesus refused to be made king by the Jews and said that his Kingdom was not of this world.—John 6:15; 18:36.

9. Why can we say that the Protestant religions are no better than their Catholic counterparts?

9 Are Protestant leaders any better than their Catholic counterparts? In the United States, many conservative Protestant religions, and Mormons as well, are identified with a certain political orientation. The Christian Coalition is deeply involved in U.S. politics. Other Protestant clergy clearly identify with a different political stance. It is sometimes forgotten that in the United States, political spokesmen such as Pat Robertson and Jesse Jackson are or were also “Reverends,” as is British member of Parliament Ian Paisley of Northern Ireland. How do they ever justify their positions?—Acts 10:34, 35; Galatians 2:6.

10. What clear statement was made in 1944?

10 As Religion Reaps the Whirlwind asked in 1944, so do we now: “Can any organization that enters into treaties with worldly powers and actively wiggles itself into the political affairs of this world, seeking advantage in and protection from this world . . . be God’s church or represent Christ Jesus on earth? . . . Manifestly, all religionists who make common cause with the kingdoms of this world cannot represent the kingdom of God by Christ Jesus.”
...

Source: Why Worldly Religion Will End (1996)

... Their work in the world is, according to Pope Pius XII, to form Catholic cells in workshops, to enter into public, economic, social and political life, to join trade union movements and cooperative associations of producers and consumers as well as international organizations like UNESCO, so as “to impart to it the mark of Christ.”* [*: The Lay Apostolate, §§ 43, 48, 50, 57, 23, 58, 44.]

6. What does the Catholic program, referred to as practicing a general priesthood, remind one of, and what has it been used to in the past?

6 All this smacks more of infiltration as used by certain political movements than of the work performed by the hard-preaching members of the early Christian general priesthood. The most important branch of the Catholic layman movement is the so-called Catholic Action, a semireligious movement that has often been used by the church the same way the Nazis used their SA-troops in Germany under Hitler, as, for instance, when Catholic Action in the years just before and during World War II in the United States and other countries was used by the church violently to break up religious meetings of Jehovah’s witnesses because she did not like the facts told at such meetings.*

...

Source: The General Priesthood Today (1963)

In the US, it's usually the religious leaders of Christendom that rile people up to display the kind of behaviour spoken of in the video I shared earlier about the dangers of nationalism, patriotism and worship of the state, after 5:03 below:

Most of the American self-professed 'patriots' behaving in the manner spoken of above (violent, agressive, fierce, lynchmob behaviour towards honest, non-violent, peaceful and meek Christians), also profess to be Christians. And it's in their Churches where they are riled up against such a minority of peaceful law-abiding Christians; that's where the hatred is conditioned into them by their religious leaders by the way these talk about these peaceful Christians (the term "cult" is very effectively used for this purpose*), resulting in this behaviour. Same situation here (except a different denomination within Christendom riling people up, Orthodox Church if I remember correctly):

*: see the sections "Lies, Lies!", "Making Generalizations", "Name-Calling" and "Playing on the Emotions" in the article called The Manipulation of Information, which is the page that precedes the page linked in my signature concerning propaganda.

originally posted by: karl 12

"They had to pursue a strategy … called “crypto-eugenics.” In essence, “You seek to fulfill the aims of eugenics without disclosing what you are really aiming at and without mentioning the word.” This is how the Eugenics Society conceived of its funding for the IPPF"

Matthew Connelly, Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population

Suppose controlling the world's food supply goes hand in hand with 'crypto-eugenics' and there's a great post here by Summer5 containing (amongst others) this video:

Rockefeller foundation "Reset The Table" reform US foods system.

Relevant thread authored by Dug88:

Developers of Oxford-AstraZeneca Vaccine Tied to UK Eugenics Movement


Arguably most troubling of all is the direct link of the vaccine’s lead developers to the Wellcome Trust and, in the case of Adrian Hill, the Galton Institute, two groups with longstanding ties to the UK eugenics movement. The latter organization, named for the “father of eugenics” Francis Galton, is the renamed UK Eugenics Society

The following may have been discussed somewhere here, but recently came across it and this stuff I find intriguing especially when centered around certain elites and bloodlines.

The Rockefeller's And The Unicorn - The hunt of the Unicorn Tapestries. Article has a video of David Rockefeller talking about the Unicorn Tapestries his father purchased in 1922 for $1 million dollars.

In the study of alchemy, the horn is the symbol for virility and sacred union. The powder ground from the unicorn’s horn was believed to be a powerful aphrodisiac and further reputed to purify polluted waters.

Esoteric interpretations of these various exotic legends, as depicted in the famous unicorn tapestries “La Dame à la licorne”, (The Lady and the Unicorn) suggest that the tapestries represent tenets of the Cathar heresy, a sect punished for the assertion that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were parents of a holy lineage whose descendants survived to become the peers of European noble families, the Bloodline heresy of the Sangraal (Holy Grail). Many elites (from gov to aerospace) and certain compartmentalized alphabet agencies are very deep into the occult.

Gibson Island and Eugenics Research in the 1930s.
“On the Island there is an Aristocracy of Wealth … the conferences are an Aristocracy of Brains.”

As the idea of a technocratic world gained followers, investments in science became even more necessary as well as collaboration. One of the more important collaboration conferences that these learned men would meet at each year was at the Gordon Research Conferences (GRC).

The first GRC was held in 1931 at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

Another important “player” in the medical sciences with potential eugenics applications, and conference attendee, was Dr. Thomas Parran Jr. (1892 – 1968.)

Dr. Parran was an attendee at the Gibson Island Vitamin Conference of 1941 (July 23) and possibly later and earlier conferences. Dr. Parran was the sixth US Surgeon General, serving under FDR. Although Dr. Parran passed away in 1968, his name has been in the news lately.

A 2016 lawsuit, on behalf of the survivors or the estates of the human “Guinea Pigs”, was filed against Johns Hopkins University, The Rockefeller Foundation and Bristol-Myers Squibb Company. Turner is mentioned about 50 times in the 180 page filing, and Parran, as Rockefeller Foundation trustee is mentioned 81 times.

a reply to: EndtheMadnessNow

Gibson Island is starting to turn up a lot.

Maybe you seen these allready...



Bill Gates’ Agenda: Connect Your Identity, Finances and Medical Records


Rockefeller Foundation’s 1968 annual report

The Rockefeller Foundation Annual Report 1968


Chapter 12: Population Stabilization



Population and the American Future The Report of The Commission on Population Growth and the American Future

a reply to: Kenzo

Yes some rather important links there my friend, especially the Rockefeller annual reports ('covert vaccine birth control' and 'sterilants in the water supply').


www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Also turns out Gates has investments with BioNTech.. I mean Bayer... I mean IGFarben.


youtu.be...

It's funny how YouTube has actively taken every video down like these.