PDA

View Full Version : The Illuminati: Keeping it all in the Family; OBAMA AND CHENEY ARE DISTANT COUSINS


BlueAngel
10-16-2007, 05:34 PM
Cheney and Obama are distant cousins:
Mrs. Cheney 1 hour, 30 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - There's no sign of a family reunion planned, but U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama are distant cousins.

So says the vice president's wife, Lynne Cheney, who said she discovered that her husband of 43 years is eighth cousins with the senator from Illinois.

The two men could hardly be more different. Cheney is an advocate for pursuing the war in Iraq to try to stabilize the country, while Obama wants to get U.S. troops out of Iraq.

Mrs. Cheney told MSNBC on Tuesday that it was "an amazing American story that one ancestor ... could be responsible down the family line for lives that have taken such different and varied paths."

The common ancestor was Mareen Devall, who the Chicago Sun-Times said was a 17th century immigrant from France.

Mrs. Cheney said she discovered the link through family research for her new book, "Blue Skies, No Fences," about growing up in Wyoming.

---------------------------------------------

I've said it before and so, too, have many others. They are all related in some form or fashion, which makes them all a part of the Illuminati family.

Some, of course, higher up on the ladder, but, in time, those at the bottom rise up and take-over their terrority, whatever it may be; fulfill their positions, etc.

When you think about the structure of the Illuminati, it's not much different than the Mafia.

KEEPIN' IT ALL IN THE FAMILY.

BlueAngel
10-16-2007, 11:11 PM
Cheney and Obama are distant cousins:
Mrs. Cheney Tue Oct 16, 6:01 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - There's no sign of a family reunion planned, but U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama are distant cousins.

So says the vice president's wife, Lynne Cheney, who said she discovered that her husband of 43 years is eighth cousins with the senator from Illinois.

The two men could hardly be more different. Cheney is an advocate for pursuing the war in Iraq to try to stabilize the country, while Obama wants to get U.S. troops out of Iraq.

Mrs. Cheney told MSNBC on Tuesday that it was "an amazing American story that one ancestor ... could be responsible down the family line for lives that have taken such different and varied paths."

The common ancestor was Mareen Devall, who the Chicago Sun-Times said was a 17th century immigrant from France.

Mrs. Cheney said she discovered the link through family research for her new book, "Blue Skies, No Fences," about growing up in Wyoming.

Peter
11-28-2007, 06:09 PM
Bloodlines are all important for the illuminati. John Kerry and George Bush are third degree cousins. They are also related to the house of windsor. The house of windsor are relatives of the former kaizer of germany and the former tsar of russia. One big happy family.

Out of the Box
07-28-2008, 06:47 AM
If you go back far enough in the past, you'll probably find blood ties between almost all elite families. I wouldn't regard these blood ties as proof of anything.

BlueAngel
07-28-2008, 11:29 AM
If you go back far enough in the past, you'll probably find blood ties between almost all elite families. I wouldn't regard these blood ties as proof of anything.

I would.

Out of the Box
07-28-2008, 11:47 AM
I would.

Why?

BlueAngel
07-28-2008, 04:11 PM
Why?

This is how they keep wealth and power amongst themselves.

Out of the Box
07-28-2008, 04:50 PM
This is how they keep wealth and power amongst themselves.

Staying within the family is indeed a means to keep wealth and power amongst themselves, but remote family connections hardly imply a conspiracy.

BlueAngel
07-28-2008, 05:32 PM
Staying within the family is indeed a means to keep wealth and power amongst themselves, but remote family connections hardly imply a conspiracy.

I don't recall that anyone professed it to be a conspiracy.

Out of the Box
07-29-2008, 03:11 AM
I don't recall that anyone professed it to be a conspiracy.

Or nepotism. Whatever.

You can't even distinguish national-socialism, fascism and socialism so don't you start semantics on me now.....

BlueAngel
07-29-2008, 06:02 AM
Or nepotism. Whatever.

You can't even distinguish national-socialism, fascism and socialism so don't you start semantics on me now.....

Yes, we can distinguish them, but as I said they basically have the same principles.

No need to get into a lengthy discussion about it.

Out of the Box
07-29-2008, 06:06 AM
Yes, we can distinguish them, but as I said they basically have the same principles.

No, they don't. Differences between eg. communism and national-socialism are quite significant.

Besides... you seem to imply that only the most limited form of government is a good form of government. This is a typical libertarian fallacy. Very limited governments tend to lead to an economical variation on social darwinism which in turn leads to the most extreme sort of exploitation imaginable.

BlueAngel
07-29-2008, 06:11 AM
No, they don't. Differences between eg. communism and national-socialism are quite significant.

Besides... you seem to imply that only the most limited form of government is a good form of government. This is a typical libertarian fallacy. Very limited governments tend to lead to an economical variation on social darwinism which in turn leads to the most extreme sort of exploitation imaginable.

This thread isn't the place where our discussion about the different forms of government began.

That was on the "Are they all a bunch of Nazi's" thread.

In that thread, I suggested that fascism; Nazism and totalitarian governments were alike.

You brought up socialism, etc.

I did not imply that a limited form of government is a good government.

As I said, and I'll repeat, I suggested that fascism; Nazism and totalitarian government were alike.

Out of the Box
07-29-2008, 06:23 AM
In that thread, I suggested that fascism; Nazism and totalitarian governments were alike.

You brought up socialism, etc.

No, I didn't. I mentioned national-socialism, which is the neutral term for nazism. National-socialism == nazism and Hitler's party was called the National-Socialist German Worker's Party.

I did not imply that a limited form of government is a good government.

Then what type of government do you prefer?

As I said, and I'll repeat, I suggested that fascism; Nazism and totalitarian government were alike.

Hardly. The most totalitarian governments are Western-European 'democracies' and communist nations. Fascism and national-socialism (nazism) are alike, but they nevertheless differ on key issues.

BlueAngel
07-29-2008, 07:52 AM
No, I didn't. I mentioned national-socialism, which is the neutral term for nazism. National-socialism == nazism and Hitler's party was called the National-Socialist German Worker's Party.



Then what type of government do you prefer?



Hardly. The most totalitarian governments are Western-European 'democracies' and communist nations. Fascism and national-socialism (nazism) are alike, but they nevertheless differ on key issues.

Totalitarianism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Forms of government

Totalitarianism (or totalitarian rule) is a concept used to describe political systems where a state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private life. The term is usually applied to Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany or communist states, such as Stalinist Russia, Democratic Kampuchea, Vietnam, China, Cuba and North Korea. Totalitarian regimes or movements maintain themselves in political power by means of an official all-embracing ideology and propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, a single party that controls the state, personality cults, central state-controlled economy, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror tactics.

BlueAngel
07-29-2008, 07:56 AM
Nazism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism)

Nazism, commonly known as National Socialism (German: Nationalsozialismus),[1][2][3][4] refers primarily to the ideology and practices of the Nazi Party under Adolf Hitler; and the policies adopted by the government of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945, a period also known as the Third Reich.[5][6][7][8] The official name of the party was Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei[9] (NSDAP) — “National Socialist German Workers’ Party”. The Nazis were one of several historical groups that used the term National Socialism to describe themselves, and in the 1920s they became the largest such group. Nazism is generally considered by scholars to be a form of fascism, and while it incorporated elements from both political wings, it formed most of its temporary alliances on the political right.[10] Among the key elements of Nazism were anti-parliamentarism, ethnic nationalism, racism, collectivism,[11][12] eugenics, antisemitism, opposition to economic liberalism and political liberalism,[13][14][12] anti-communism, and totalitarianism.

BlueAngel
07-29-2008, 07:59 AM
Yes, you brought up national socialism, for the record.

As we see, national-socialism is equivalent to Nazism; Nazism is equivalent to fascism; fascism is equivalent to a totalitarian government.

As I said.

Out of the Box
07-29-2008, 08:46 AM
Yes, you brought up national socialism, for the record.

As we see, national-socialism is equivalent to Nazism; Nazism is equivalent to fascism; fascism is equivalent to a totalitarian government.

As I said.

One one hand you claim we live in an Illuminati-controlled society and on the other hand you use very simplistic mainstream definitions (definitions accepted and used by our political leaders) to desribe political ideologies. Don't you see what's wrong with that picture?

- Nazism === national-socialism
- Nazism =/= fascism, although both are similar
- Totalitarianism is completely unrelated to both. As I said : the most totalitarian governments are Western-European 'democracies' and communist nations.

BlueAngel
07-29-2008, 08:14 PM
One one hand you claim we live in an Illuminati-controlled society and on the other hand you use very simplistic mainstream definitions (definitions accepted and used by our political leaders) to desribe political ideologies. Don't you see what's wrong with that picture?

- Nazism === national-socialism
- Nazism =/= fascism, although both are similar
- Totalitarianism is completely unrelated to both. As I said : the most totalitarian governments are Western-European 'democracies' and communist nations.

I don't use simplistic mainstream definitions to describe political ideologies.

Those are the definitions.

You just DON'T want to accept them.

An Illuminati controlled society is one of fascism, Nazism (national socialism) and a totalitarian government

Out of the Box
07-30-2008, 04:25 AM
I don't use simplistic mainstream definitions to describe political ideologies.

Those are the definitions.

Those are the definitions used by the NWO and other enemies of national-socialism and fascism and far from objective definitions.

Would you consider an anti-communist's definition of communism to be a suitable definition? Would you consider an anti-libertarian definition of libertarianism to be a suitable definition?

David Myatt describes national-socialism like this :

National-Socialism believes there are two fundamental ways of living, and thus two fundamental types of society based upon these two ways. There is the material way of living, with individuals striving for, or pursuing, "happiness", material comfort and wealth. Then there is the way of excellence, of idealism (or nobility) with individuals striving for an idealistic goal. National-Socialism believes the material way is decadent - a waste of our lives, a waste of the evolutionary potential which we possess.

Furthermore, National-Socialism believes that the life of an individual is better, more fulfilling, if the idealistic goal that is pursued is in accord with the will of Nature. That is, if this idealistic goal aids Nature, and continues the evolutionary work of Nature. This stems from the National-Socialist assertion that we, as human beings, are part of Nature, and subject to the laws of Nature. All other philosophies, political beliefs or religions assert that we, as human beings, are somehow "above", different or separate from, Nature and her laws.

One of the fundamental aims of National-Socialism is to continue the work of Nature by creating better, more advanced, individuals and by creating a better, more advanced, more civilized society for these individuals to live and flourish in. National-Socialism believes that better individuals can only be created through the pursuit of noble values - by individuals changing themselves for the better through a personal act of will. This requires individuals, and society itself, to champion and uphold those values which create personal excellence, which aid the individual change necessary. According to National-Socialism, these values are honour, loyalty and duty - for only these values create the right type of idealistic person, someone with a purity of purpose. It is these values, and these values alone, which create a civilized individual. A civilized person is a more evolved individual - someone with a higher, a noble, personal character. Further, it is the duty of each noble individual to act in accord with the workings, the will, of Nature herself.

According to National-Socialism, the folk - or "race" - is how Nature works. For National-Socialism, the folk is Nature made manifest; the folk is our connection to Nature. The different folks which exist among our human species are an expression of evolution in action - of Nature working over Aeons to produce diversity and difference. Thus, the folk is an expression of our very humanity - of our human identity.

Accordingly, National-Socialism desires to preserve and further evolve, in an honourable way, the folk itself. All other philosophies, political beliefs or religions desire to destroy the folk through creating multi-racial, multi-cultural societies.

However, it needs to be stressed that National-Socialism - being based upon honour - demands that all National-Socialists treat all people, of whatever race and culture, with respect. To do otherwise, is contrary to the ethics of National-Socialism, based as these ethics are upon honour.

For National-Socialism, the fundamental meaning of our lives, as individuals, is to strive to continue the work of Nature. This means striving to advance ourselves through upholding, in our own lives, the civilized values of honour, loyalty and duty; it means us doing our noble and civilized duty by striving to preserve and further evolve our own folk or race, and those things which make our own people unique. These unique things are the ethos, the soul, the character, the culture, of our folk. According to National-Socialism, the ethos, the character of our human species is expressed by honour, curiosity, exploration - these things express the true nature of we human beings. Furthermore, National-Socialism believes that it is the ultimate Destiny of our human species to settle among the stars of our galaxy - to create a Galactic Empire or Federation.

In contrast to the inspiring, the noble, the Galactic - the numinous - goals of National-Socialism, the goals of all other philosophies, political beliefs or religions are mundane, materialistic and a complete waste of our lives.

This is far from the way national-socialism is described by the NWO (as a monstuous totalitarian and genocidal ideology), yet it is completely in line with historical evidence.

An Illuminati controlled society is one of fascism, Nazism (national socialism) and a totalitarian government

An Illuminati controlled society is a totalitarian system that incorporates zionism, fake "democracy", "multi-culturalism", global free trade, commercialised hedonism and perversity, the dumbing down of the masses and mass consumerism. Fascism and national-socialism are the exact oposite of an Illuminati controlled society.

BlueAngel
07-31-2008, 10:04 AM
An Illuminati controlled society is a totalitarian system that incorporates zionism, fake "democracy", "multi-culturalism", global free trade, commercialised hedonism and perversity, the dumbing down of the masses and mass consumerism. Fascism and national-socialism are the exact oposite of an Illuminati controlled society.

I have already defined Nazism; national-socialism; facism and totalitarian forms of government as being equivalent to one another.

To say that the NWO does not seek THIS form of government in the USA and in other parts of the world would be incorrect.

Fake democracy has been incorporated since the inception of this country.

Perversity, commercialized hedonism, to name a few, are all by-products of the mind controllers.

They are not forms of government, but ways in which they alter the environment and "condition" the masses toward the loss of morals and, in the process, place them in altered state's of consciousness so they are, therefore, more suggestible and susceptible to that which they see, hear and read.

As far as Zionism, they are a political movement that seeks the same totalitarian government of which I speak.

All one in the same.

Different factions, but basically with the same goal.

No need for semantics.

We're all on the same page.

Out of the Box
07-31-2008, 10:59 AM
I have already defined Nazism; national-socialism; facism and totalitarian forms of government as being equivalent to one another.

And I already explained why that's wrong. By making this connection, you're doing exactly what the NWO wants you to do.

Fake democracy has been incorporated since the inception of this country.

The US wasn't all too bad for about a century or so. It all went downhill ever since.

Perversity, commercialized hedonism, to name a few, are all by-products of the mind controllers.

They are not forms of government, but ways in which they alter the environment and "condition" the masses toward the loss of morals and, in the process, place them in altered state's of consciousness so they are, therefore, more suggestible and susceptible to that which they see, hear and read.

Correct.

As far as Zionism, they are a political movement that seeks the same totalitarian government of which I speak.

All one in the same.

Different factions, but basically with the same goal.

Not really. National-socialists and fascists have goals oposite of those of zionists and capitalists.

BlueAngel
07-31-2008, 07:54 PM
I don't do anything that the NWO wants me to do.

Our country has never been a democracy.

Yes, really.

Out of the Box
08-01-2008, 01:45 AM
I don't do anything that the NWO wants me to do.That's what they want you to believe.Our country has never been a democracy.What is a democracy in your opinion and why does this matter? Do you believe a democracy is necessary?

BlueAngel
08-01-2008, 05:37 PM
That's what they want you to believe.What is a democracy in your opinion and why does this matter? Do you believe a democracy is necessary?

Like I said, I don't do anything that the NWO wants me to do and I really do detest referring to this entity as such.

The acronym has become so common that its' meaning and consequences are lost.

A democracy is a system of government whereby the people elect their Representatives.

No, democracy isn't necessary.

Freedom is.

Without freedom, there is no democracy.

BlueAngel
08-01-2008, 10:04 PM
Elections are fixed and only those who are a part of the elite are presented to the public to represent us in CONGRESS and the White House.

They, however, do not represent us.

They represent the wants and desires of their masters.

The secret/shadow government.

The ZIONISTS.

The Banksters.

They have been corrupted, groomed and bred from a very young age; with bloodlines to the wealthy elitists to serve their masters and their master's agenda and that agenda is not an agenda that is in the best interest of the citizen's of this country.

We do not live in a democracy.

This is a fallacy.

We have been brainwashed to believe that our politicians work for us.

THEY DO NOT.

Out of the Box
08-04-2008, 02:09 AM
Like I said, I don't do anything that the NWO wants me to do and I really do detest referring to this entity as such.

None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free.

It would be quite naieve to believe that you are not the slightest bit indoctrinated. It took me years to realise that most of what I was taught to believe was based on lies.

No, democracy isn't necessary.

Freedom is.

Without freedom, there is no democracy.

Define freedom.

Elections are fixed and only those who are a part of the elite are presented to the public to represent us in CONGRESS and the White House.

They, however, do not represent us.

They represent the wants and desires of their masters.

The secret/shadow government.

The ZIONISTS.

The Banksters.

They have been corrupted, groomed and bred from a very young age; with bloodlines to the wealthy elitists to serve their masters and their master's agenda and that agenda is not an agenda that is in the best interest of the citizen's of this country.

We do not live in a democracy.

This is a fallacy.

We have been brainwashed to believe that our politicians work for us.

THEY DO NOT.

There's no need in telling the obvious. I'm sure most folks on this forum have figured that out years ago.

BlueAngel
08-05-2008, 04:53 PM
QUOTE=Out of the Box;50206]None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free.

Excuse me, but I'm neither enslaved nor do I falsely believe I am free. I don't know who you are and you don't know who I am, and, therefore, you FALSELY believe you can make statements about me that are untrue.

It would be quite naieve to believe that you are not the slightest bit indoctrinated. It took me years to realise that most of what I was taught to believe was based on lies.

Excuse me, again, but because it took you years to realize that most of what you were taught was based on lies, doesn't mean this applies to everyone else.

Define freedom.

There's no need in telling the obvious. I'm sure most folks on this forum have figured that out years ago.

Excuse me for the third time, but you asked for my opinion regarding FREEDOM and then tell me there is no need to state the obvious. Don't bother asking the next time.

[/quote]

Out of the Box
08-06-2008, 02:07 AM
Excuse me, but I'm neither enslaved nor do I falsely believe I am free. I don't know who you are and you don't know who I am, and, therefore, you FALSELY believe you can make statements about me that are untrue.

You believe your mind is free, but it is not.

Excuse me, again, but because it took you years to realize that most of what you were taught was based on lies, doesn't mean this applies to everyone else.

Indeed, it doesn't. Most people remain largely indoctrinated. At most, they just replace one belief system by another one.

Excuse me for the third time, but you asked for my opinion regarding FREEDOM and then tell me there is no need to state the obvious.

The definition of the word "freedom" is not obvious. I know for sure that what you regard as freedom sounds like tyranny to me and vice versa.

BlueAngel
09-12-2008, 10:10 PM
You believe your mind is free, but it is not.

This poster has the audacity to tell me that I believe my mind is free, but it is not. I assume he would tell us that his mind is free, no doubt.



Indeed, it doesn't. Most people remain largely indoctrinated. At most, they just replace one belief system by another one.



The definition of the word "freedom" is not obvious. I know for sure that what you regard as freedom sounds like tyranny to me and vice versa.

He also has the audacity to state that he KNOWS FOR SURE that what I regard as freedom sounds like tyranny to him and vice versa.

Obviously, he knows ME better than I KNOW MYSELF.

Go figure.



Here is an example of a posting when I receive the message that the "message is too short."

As you see, my comments are all contained within the quote and the system doesn't recognize that I've responded, I guess, unless I comment outside of the quote/underneath.

Out of the Box
09-17-2008, 04:57 AM
This poster has the audacity to tell me that I believe my mind is free, but it is not. I assume he would tell us that his mind is free, no doubt.

I used to be brainwashed like everyone else and I'll probably never be certain I'm entirely deprogrammed. Nevertheless, I've definitely gone through far more deprogramming than most people.

He also has the audacity to state that he KNOWS FOR SURE that what I regard as freedom sounds like tyranny to him and vice versa.

I judged based on what you said about tyranny and freedom in other posts.

Here is an example of a posting when I receive the message that the "message is too short."

As you see, my comments are all contained within the quote and the system doesn't recognize that I've responded, I guess, unless I comment outside of the quote/underneath.

You should cut up the quotes like I do and then reply underneath. It's easier to read and won't give you the "message is too short" message.

BlueAngel
09-17-2008, 09:06 AM
I really prefer to respond in BOLD most times; however, there are times I would rather cut up the quotes, but I CAN'T SEEM TO DO THAT!!

Instructions, please.

Thanks.

Oh, and your judgement of me would be wrong.

Out of the Box
09-17-2008, 09:19 AM
Instructions, please.

A quote starts with [ quote=BlueAngel;51320 ] (without the spaces) and ends with [ /quote ]. Just change [ quote=BlueAngel;51320 ] quote1 reply1 quote2 reply2 [ /quote ] to [ quote=BlueAngel;51320 ] quote1 [ /quote ] reply1 [ quote=BlueAngel;51320 ] quote2 [ /quote ] reply2.

A little bit of IT knowledge can make life a lot easier ;)

Oh, and your judgement of me would be wrong.

Maybe. Maybe not ;)

BlueAngel
09-17-2008, 12:48 PM
A quote starts with [ quote=BlueAngel;51320 ] (without the spaces) and ends with [ /quote ]. Just change [ quote=BlueAngel;51320 ] quote1 reply1 quote2 reply2 [ /quote ] to [ quote=BlueAngel;51320 ] quote1 [ /quote ] reply1 [ quote=BlueAngel;51320 ] quote2 [ /quote ] reply2.

A little bit of IT knowledge can make life a lot easier ;)



Maybe. Maybe not ;)

Sometimes, technology makes our lives a whole lot more complicated and time consuming with or without IT knowledge as demonstrated in your instructions.

Thanks, anyway.

Out of the Box
09-17-2008, 01:27 PM
Sometimes, technology makes our lives a whole lot more complicated and time consuming with or without IT knowledge as demonstrated in your instructions.

Technology can be both a blessing and a curse. It's all a matter of who uses it and how it is used.

BlueAngel
09-17-2008, 03:47 PM
Absolutely and since the CONTROLLERS are in possession of lethal technology, you've made your point.