Everything is a Rich Man's Trick - one of the bet docus ever made.

Discussion in 'Videos' started by gilius, Dec 28, 2016.

  1. gilius

    gilius Active Member

    Not sure if I've posted this before, but it's the best documentary hands down IMO regarding JFK and the events that preceded his assassination - namely World War II. However, the film-maker Francis Richard Conolly never reveals that that elite were working for the Vatican, but he quotes many commercial British/Hollywood movies of the time to support his view that the American and British industrialists supplied and built the Nazi war machine down to the Ford engines used in ground vehicles, materials essential for fighter planes, railroads for concentration camps, and even the gas used to genocide the Jews. He shows that many influential leaders of the west supported the rise of the Nazis and visited them frequently, whilst the media covered up what was happening in concentration camps. The docu shows that Hitler was a puppet, whose Nazi headquarters (first building) was located in Manhattan, USA before a new building was constructed in Germany. Again, it's all backed up by movie clips, which even mentions the Vatican and concordat that Hitler signed in 1933 - yet the film-maker never talks about the Vatican - only the super rich guys operating at the level between Hitler and the Vatican, such as the Rothschilds and the Mafia. Still, I think this is one of the top 5 documentaries - 4 million+ views (probably 5.5 in total) - that should be watched ASAP. Note: all the main portraits of the royal families around the globe shown herein, including the Russian rulers and Hitler, all donned clothes with Vatican symbolism. But to understand you would need to watch other docus besides this.

  2. Sgt Pepper

    Sgt Pepper Member

    Watched the whole thing. A bit too much JFK worship me thinks.

    I'm trying to wrap my head around the Soviet part. Since the British and Russian royals were related why was the murder of the Russian royal family permitted?
    How does this jive with Karl Marx, Prussian government agent?
  3. Richard Stanley

    Richard Stanley Administrator

    Just because the Euro-royals are one big incestuous family of kissing cousins doesn't mean they don't eat each others' young from time to time. Historically, the Romanovs seemed to go against the monarchist grain in various regards, such as supporting America in its causes versus Britain. The French 'appeared' to do the same and look where this got Louis and Marie "let them eat cake" Antoinette. But did they really lose their heads ... or go to the proverbial Hidden Resort? I know they claim to have recovered some of the Romanovs' remains.

    My personal opinion is that the Stalinist outcome was the desired goal of the system. This is why the Rothschild financial network supported the Soviets, with Lenin as a transitional player. Stalin became the necessary, controlled opposition - 'collectivist' foil, with which Hitler could be deployed against. The Vatican (who the Rothschilds are bankers for) rallied global Catholics to come to the aid of Hitler in the fulfillment of Fatima's Second Prophecy in fighting 'atheist' collectivism. The diabolically ingenious linkage of atheism and collectivism as necessary codependents was a centrally important non sequitor.

    People (the non-players here specifically) of both left and right side extremes love to get distracted by (black and white) Capitalism versus Socialism, but Jerry and I have come to see this as a huge distraction from the underlying power plays for global consolidation. This is not to say that the original Capitalists, the nobility and their hofjuden (because they had ALL the original Capital), didn't have a distinct financial interest in co-opting workers' power via unions and Socialism by the muddling gloss of Marxism, where the Capitalist financial interests could intervene. And more importantly they could steer geo-politics (controlling both sides as always), whereby the outcome of WWII was the key formation of Israel. Without which it being formed, there can be no second (Futurist) Second Coming.
  4. Sgt Pepper

    Sgt Pepper Member

    Thanks for clearing that up.
  5. Richard Stanley

    Richard Stanley Administrator

    We've been having some heated discussion on the forum about whether or not the Apostle Paul was a Roman intelligence agent or not. One of the items of note was how many times Roman troops protected Paul from agitated Jews, and placed him in jail -- 'protective custody'. From there he could communicate freely and then be released to go about his mission.

    Uncle Stalin's early career was similar. When he was supposedly working for the revolutionaries, he would occasionally get arrested by the Russian secret police and then mysteriously released. Prior to this time, there are claims that when he was attending seminary at a Russian Orthodox institution, it was really being taught by Jesuits.
  6. And there are theories that Julian Assange works for US intelligence, and that's why he is in "protective custody." And I, myself, have been placed in "protective custody," so maybe I also work for the "imperial" intelligence, and I suppose in some abstarct sense, we all do.

    Returning to the Director of the Tarsus Field Office... where, may I ask, are these stories of Paul being protected from the Jews by the Romans? Is it Acts (of the Apostles)?
  7. Richard Stanley

    Richard Stanley Administrator

    I believe that is correct.

    Don't forget the same generally applies for Justin 'Martyr' and John of Patmos.

    Of course, maybe John's assertion that the 144,000 celibate and select males was his manner of helping control the population growth of the Jews. These Jews and Hebrews (of Sion) were the only ones to be let in on the Big Secret.
  8. Isn't the PF doctrine that Acts was written by Josephus' Roman Gospel committee?
  9. Richard Stanley

    Richard Stanley Administrator

    There is a PF doctrine on that?
  10. Perhaps not. "Luke-Acts" is considered a continuous work by a single author (or group of authors) by mainstream theological scholarship, however

Share This Page