+ Reply to Thread
Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst 1 11
Results 201 to 208 of 208

Thread: The Anglo-Saxon Mission

  1. Link to Post #201
    On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    10th July 2013
    Location
    Project Avalon
    Posts
    3,661
    Thanks
    19,216
    Thanked 16,125 times in 3,214 posts

    Default Re: The Anglo-Saxon Mission

    This 1921 article reads: "domination of the world by Anglo-Saxons wearing the tarn helmar":



    These guys knew what they were doing...

    From wikipedia.org/Cloak_of_invisibility#Tarnkappe:
    Although occurrences in fairy tales are rare, the cloak of invisibility appears in the German tale The Twelve Dancing Princesses and in The King of the Golden Mountain in Grimm's Fairy Tales. The cloak in German fairy tales may be traceable to the tarnkappe ("cloak of concealment"), such as the one that the hero Sîfrit (Siegfried) acquires from the dwarf Alberich in the Middle High German epic Nibelungenlied. [...]
    Last edited by Atlas; 22nd August 2016 at 19:09.

  2. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Atlas For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (22nd August 2016), bluestflame (22nd August 2016), Foxie Loxie (22nd August 2016), william r sanford72 (22nd August 2016)

  3. Link to Post #202
    Australia Avalon Member bluestflame's Avatar
    Join Date
    21st April 2010
    Location
    a spark
    Age
    48
    Posts
    2,564
    Thanks
    10,330
    Thanked 6,316 times in 1,546 posts

    Default Re: The Anglo-Saxon Mission

    yep , still on the cards i rekon too much planning has gone into it to abandon completely , surely they've allowed for adaptations , zionists may have thier own plans but it's all in the timing isn't it ?

    no point tipping thier hand till it's time to act , allowing things to run thier course for now i rekon

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to bluestflame For This Post:

    Atlas (22nd August 2016), Foxie Loxie (22nd August 2016)

  5. Link to Post #203
    France Avalon Member araucaria's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th January 2011
    Posts
    5,027
    Thanks
    11,911
    Thanked 28,391 times in 4,640 posts

    Default Re: The Anglo-Saxon Mission

    The following twenty-page essay is based on the quote below from the transcript of Bill Ryan’s Anglo-Saxon Mission presentation video.
    I want just to apply a little logical thinking to one small snippet regarding population, and explore a few of its numerous implications without any preconceived ideas as to where this will lead. While preferred outcomes are no more than wishful thinking, adopting a neutral stance amounts to bracing oneself for a possible shock, which is probably why it is never easy.
    Quote He said: Absolutely, it’s about population reduction.

    So, I said: Well, in this meeting, did they mention any figures?

    And he said: Yes, they did. Fifty percent.
    Half the world’s population. This is planned, as per the Georgia Guidestones. For those of you who don’t know what the Georgia Guidestones are, it’s a stone monument in Georgia, in America, [Ed note: Elberton, Georgia] that was erected anonymously a number of years ago. It’s in eight languages, and it’s like an Illuminati manifesto for a “new world”, as it were. And just hold that thought about this being a manifesto for a new world. This is an important concept here in what I’m presenting.

    One of the key parts of this manifesto for this new world is that there should be a population of 500 million people. Now, 500 million people is an enormous reduction from the nearly 7 billion that we’ve got at the moment. That’s pretty much 95% of people who would no longer be on this planet. And 50% is a step towards that, and there’s a reason why they’re doing all of this. There’s a reason why they’re in a hurry. There’s a reason for this insanity.

    And when he was explaining this, then he said that they have a name for this plan. This project has got a name. And I said: Well, what is this name?

    He said: It is called the “Anglo-Saxon Mission”.
    Bill’s idea is that the ‘New World’ as in ‘New World Order’ may refer to a new post-cataclysmic world after the next in a cyclical series of cataclysms. Someone (I forget who: possibly George Green) has suggested that the Earth was planned by Pleiadians from the outset as a 500-million person project. Be that as it may, the major question has to be: accepting for just a moment (all that is needed at this stage) that controllers have been operating behind the scenes for thousands of years, how on earth has this control been failing so miserably over population control, to the extent that we are now fourteen times over the ideal figure, and counting? There is something so extremely far-fetched about this scenario that conspiracy-scepticism is clearly by far the safer option.

    When you fill a kettle with water, you slow down as you approach the top so as to avoid spilling liquid everywhere. Similarly, you would begin to apply the brakes on population as soon as you are approaching the planet’s capacity. Working on the principle that the oldest available source might be the most reliable, I checked my 1976 Encyclopédie Larousse, to discover that this ‘ideal’ population of 500 million was reached in the early seventeenth century. That means that population levels have been getting increasingly unmanageable for all of four centuries. Another major question then becomes: since we are all still here, albeit only just hanging on, why is the ideal figure so small? It is like we have poured 14 liters into a 1-liter kettle with little or no spillage. The answer is fairly simple, but some careful analysis is needed to make the point crystal clear.

    While overpopulation makes no sense in those particular terms, the scale-model approach of subsystem analogies is all an earth-bound human has to comprehend such matters of a global nature. The only alternative is an advanced ET civilization able to embrace the situation from an even bigger perspective. In other words, paraphrasing the French writer Voltaire with reference to God, if such a perspective did not exist, we would have to invent it. This is what channellers, contactees and deep thinkers all have in common: they are simply using different tools (some possibly rather blunt) to gain this understanding from a higher perspective. My own tool is just a human brain, which it is important for people to see in action whose minds are closed to the woo-woo element involved in other approaches. The idea then is to explore the properties of devices with a maximum capacity specification that are more familiar than planets and their populations, of which we really only have one probably atypical instance.

    The first observation is that capacity is a function of the space and time requirement of individuals. You can build a restaurant to seat fifty people which will serve 150 evening meals in 3 sittings or 50 wedding guests spending the whole evening. Here the time requirement is the variable factor, not the amount of available food. The time requirement means that life expectancy is a factor in population – a long-lived group would need fewer numbers than a more ephemeral one with a higher turnover. The space requirement will be fairly stable based on average body size: you may be able to squeeze in a few extra places, but not many, and you may at other times have to operate under capacity, say to accommodate a team of heavyweights. There is a balance to be struck between numbers and comfort. The balance will be different in an underground train compared with a bus (more standing room, less seats), or in a lowcost short-haul flight (more seats, less baggage).

    You know the old joke: how many elephants can you fit into a small saloon car? Answer: 4 (two in the front, two in the back)! Here is another unfunny version: how many people can you fit into a jumbo jet? Answer: 660 tourists, or just a handful of ultrarich using it as a private plane.

    Hence the 500m population makes better sense in terms of comfort. It is a setup for the superrich, who, as we know, ‘need’ kingsize beds in kingsize suites in kingsize mansions on kingsize estates etc. – in one well-chosen word, they have a greater ‘need’ than ordinary mortals for ‘Lebensraum’. The elite is itself the proverbial ‘waste of space’, not the ‘useless eaters’ whose space they confiscate. Why do they need so much space? Simple answer: they cannot live together. Personal space requirement is reduced with intimacy: a loving couple at a pinch can share a single bed; others cannot survive alone in a 2m bed, they need a room of their own. But when space becomes a finite resource, they have to confine people together in a way that, owing to their lack of intimacy, amounts to an encroachment of personal space that is the source of all kinds of trouble and strife on every scale. So the basic, theoretical equation of spatial capacity is a balancing act whereby on the one hand, peace and harmony rely on a certain distance – the need for personal space – and yet greater intimacy is achieved by reducing that distance, and mutually entering and sharing that personal space, but without abolishing it. On the other hand, it would seem that the inability to share personal space tends to worsen, resulting in an insatiable greed for more space, and hence more isolation.

    The French word promiscuité simply describes such enforced intimacy: one sees how the Anglo-Saxon (i.e. English-speaking) connotation of sexual permissiveness has been latched onto this basic premise. Promiscuity in the English sense is then the clumsy way in which these ‘space invaders’ attempt to deal with physical closeness.

    What is happening with the global increase in awareness, however, is probably that enforced and prolonged intimacy is leading to real intimacy, rather in the way an arranged marriage can turn into a loving relationship, or strangers forced to sit together on public transport will often start chatting. It is a two-way process: just as heat increases pressure (e.g. in a pressure cooker) and pressure increases heat (e.g. a car tyre melting snow), the pressure of overpopulation can produce warmth through this reverse action. So, for example, many people are racist towards groups they have never encountered, but when they do meet individual members of the hated group, they start making exceptions. Anyone following the opposite Big-Bang type path of expansion may not be able to benefit from or perhaps even see this unexpected advantage of the Big Crunch scenario, and there will (has?) come a point where the two diverging groups are beyond each other’s range altogether.

    The example of the bed was a static case: when you are asleep you need little more space than the size of a coffin, which is an unpalatable thought for many of us, I expect. Life on the other hand is motion, dynamic. Something interesting happens when you factor in motion. What you find is that speed has a spatial extension. If, say, you are waiting on a sideroad to join a busy highway, the faster the traffic, the bigger the empty space it commands around it. You can only jump out in front of a slow vehicle, a faster one can be much further away and still too close for comfort. So it takes very few fast-moving vehicles to cause a traffic jam at the junction. Hence you have the paradoxical situation where congestion (i.e. dead slow traffic) is caused not by dead slow traffic but by high speed traffic. The elite’s answer is to have advanced private (sometimes secret) high-speed transport to private destinations. This is no bad thing inasmuch as it takes their traffic off the public highways, which can then become faster and more (democratically) efficient by slowing down.

    This is further evidence that shared space is subjectively larger than the same space used selfishly. A small house has private areas and common areas. Larger properties such as mansions, palaces or hotels could accommodate more people equally comfortably, but they often don’t. What industrialists call ‘economy of scale’ works very well in their businesses, but they will not hear of it being applied to their private lives.

    So what is the ideal space requirement for a human individual? If we take the analogy of trees in nature, is it more like the area occupied by a fine old oak in the grounds of some stately home, or the much more confined space of a forest tree? The latter gains what it loses in surface coverage in height and straightness of knot-free timber, and most of all in sheer numbers of trees, while the former branches out superbly in all directions, like a small forest unto itself: what might be called a ‘family tree’, but one highly hierarchized into a ‘tree diagram’. In other words, there are two possible lines of evolution: the one taken by nature, the other taken by civilization, a kind of Nietzschean overtree. There is an interesting parallel with humanity right there: with the rise of the Überbaum, we have seen deforestation on a scale that is jeopardizing the future of the planet. Meanwhile, with the rise of the superhuman, we are seeing the demise of the ordinary forest-tree human, with the final collapse to coincide, we are told, with planetary cataclysm. As we know, when we fail to take responsibility for our own disastrous ways, catastrophe will seem to come in the shape of some uncontrollable outside force.

    Another point we need to examine therefore, is the relationship between the two events. The Anglo-Saxon Mission claims that since humanity is going to be largely wiped out anyway, they might as well stage-manage the event for the best possible outcome, which happens to coincide with their own personal best interests. Since cataclysm is synonymous with mass death, demographic issues are crucial to the question of survival and revival, and so it is important to see how each type of human tree would fare. In normal circumstances, the forest tree sows its annual crop of acorns at its foot. Most of them don’t survive for any length of time, but they do produce a lush undergrowth providing food and shelter for wild life, and whenever the parent tree finally dies, there are sure to be enough partly grown survivors to fill the gap. This notion of filling a gap (‘Nature abhors a vacuum’) applies equally to individual branches; it is well known for example that if you want to trim a tree or bush on say its left side, you cut back the other side, since pruning stimulates growth and hence no pruning keeps it slow.

    The large oak at the stately home, on the other hand, will be mostly sterile, its acorns swept up as so much litter, except perhaps for any sent to seed banks and other nursery projects. It is basically a star all on its own, the subject of lavish photos for coffee table books; and when it’s gone it’s gone, mostly as firewood. The matter of continuity is no longer a naturally fertile, self-sustaining process; it tends towards a sterile test-tube environment where human intervention is necessary and difficult. However, there is a situation where human intervention does become necessary, if only to offset human interference in the natural process. As Shakespeare and Tolkein knew, the natural process is also somewhat dynamic: trees sow seeds outside of their own footprint, enabling them slowly to move to wherever is better suited to their needs, notably to adjust to climate change. Since farming and urbanization interfere with this process, forestry management is a necessary tool to help this migration along. Hence, here in France we have a project to import Mediterranean oaks up north to the old battlefields of Verdun, where they will do better than both the original local population and their home population down south.


    This is interesting from the perspective of the Anglo-Saxon Mission, which expects some kind of earth crustal shift, in the order of 1700-2000 miles southward for the West, as I recall. (Incidentally, others talk about Maine experiencing a Siberian climate, which is rather going in the opposite direction; this is a major discrepancy in the catastrophe meme.) This is one way in which man and nature can work together as of now and lessen the catastrophic effects of any coming cataclysm. That one French project has already cut 500 miles off the afore-mentioned distance. It would seem from this perspective that the optimum survival of the species on this planet does not lie in seed banks and sperm banks and tiny elites holed up in underground bunkers, but in the work of many hands on the planet’s surface right now. This is common to most known emergency situations, where many hands cooperate to remove casualties from rubble after e.g. earthquakes, or to provide disaster relief. What we generally find is cooperation and heroism, when the likes of the Anglo-Saxon Mission threaten us with nothing but selfish violence. They are merely projecting their own fear: for them there is no safety in numbers. But that is not how it would be.

    Coming back to human population, clearly the lesson of pruning has been lost on any controllers resorting to war as a population control mechanism. The generation of baby boomers that followed World War II was just one example of how killing off large numbers of mostly young males tends to have the opposite effect. We may also note another paradox: the world’s population as a whole has never risen so steeply as it has since the advent of effective contraceptives. If we take the last generation of families in Catholic Europe before the arrival of the pill, which changed attitudes to the Church’s teaching, Catholics would have their planned quota of children and then apply the natural temperature method to determine the most fertile days in the menstrual cycle requiring abstinence. Presumably some would quickly get the hang of the system, only to tire of the constraints involved, while others might take a while, and still others might never do so. The point is that, even if sometimes ineffectually, people started taking action to control births as soon as they reached their ideal family size. This brings us back to the earlier question: if anyone has been controlling the planet all along, and a fortiori if the planet was designed to certain specifications, when and why and how did such laxity and incompetence creep in leading to the current situation? The answer, one suspects, lies in the field of economics. What changed attitudes in the second half of the twentieth century compared with a century earlier was not so much a loss of child-bearing ability as the loss of home-makers, with women joining the labour force during and after two world wars. They were too busy and too poor to have children beyond those who would replace them in the workforce. In other words, any others were made redundant before birth. Note how birth control was not regulated by central policy as later in China; not until only very recently (this century) were people worried about overburdening the planet, being mainly concerned about overburdening their own household.

    The global awareness needed for this kind of thinking only really arrives with the Internet. Of course conspiracy theory implies global awareness among the elite. That is not the same thing as global awareness for all, i.e. global self-awareness. The difference is quantitative of course, but mostly qualitative. Global awareness for the few is equatable with the ‘bigger perspective’ of the ET type I mentioned earlier. What it lacks is the sense of belonging that comes from removing the distance that the bigger perspective implies, in other words the degree of intimacy required for humans to function together normally. Hence any application of this bigger perspective without that degree of intimacy becomes either non-benevolent (ET) or inhuman (human) behaviour. It doesn’t really matter which terminology you use: the bottom line is that humans and humanity are getting hurt. Global self-awareness resolves that issue, regardless of whether any particular individual is a perpetrator or victim, willing or unwilling – that is what we mean by global. There is one overriding rule in operation here that goes flatly against the oligarchical misrule that has governed human existence for so long: this process of global self-awareness is fully democratic, involving on an equal footing, one man one vote, all those entities who have incarnated on this planet, and none of those prevented from so doing by various types of population control. In French we say ‘les absents on toujours tort’ (the absent are always wrong). The elite define themselves as an elite by precisely their heavy reliance upon those absent ones. They cannot prevail. The remainder of this essay explores this idea of this Achilles’ heel of theirs: underpopulation.

    Since the Georgia Guidestones/Anglo-Saxon Mission 500 million mark was reached, as I indicated, in the early 17th century, there is a possible explanation for why nothing effective was undertaken or achieved at that time. This was when people started emigrating to America. In other words, a form of overpopulation may have been felt locally in Europe, only for the pressure to be removed by the availability of this Lebensraum in America. This is the stage in my thinking I had reached when I synchronistically leafed through a book I reread last spring: Joseph P. Farrell’s The Financial Vipers of Venice. Flicking through its pages from the end, I noted the following:

    1) On page 218, this quote from Webster Tarpley:
    Quote The status of Britain as the nation foutué of modern history is due in particular to the sixteenth and seventeenth century metastasis into England and Scotland of the Venetian oligarchy along with its philosophy, political forms, family fortunes and imperial geopolitics.
    (I am not sure what is meant by ‘foutué’, but the French word ‘foutu/foutue’ means f*cked-up, which sounds about right.) One’s first reaction is that such an influx might be enough to trigger a wave of emigrations. Shakespeare’s Shylock dates from this period, whose most notable feature was likely not his Jewishness but his status as a Merchant of Venice, not out there in far-off Italy but something rotten back home in the kingdom of England, as it was then.

    2) On page 205, this (original emphasis):
    Quote Venice, at least, had knowledge of the New World, and actively suppressed this knowledge for nearly three centuries. The reason for such suppression is abundantly clear, for the New World would represent possible new sources of bullion, ending the virtual Venetian monopoly on international bullion trade, and it would also represent an end to the Venetian near-monopoly on trade with the Far East...
    Farrell explains how Christopher Columbus, representing Genoese and Spanish interests against Venice, was seeking to break this Venetian monopoly in what amounts to an act of economic warfare. It appears then that the subsequent colonization of the New World, as the next stage in this war, took place when Venice made its move north, first to Amsterdam, then to London, both like Venice, located in swampy lagoons, but much better globally positioned than at the top end of the Adriatic Sea. Hence, while the New World Order meme may indeed refer to life after some global cataclysm, it would seem to have originally pointed to the emergence of America on the world scene. The crucial lesson here is that the current monolithic connotation of the New World Order, equated with One World Government, is, from the historical viewpoint at least, entirely mistaken; the phrase actually referring to attempts to outflank the Venetian oligarchs. Independently of possible confiscation of the New World Order label, why the Anglo-Saxon Mission in London’s City is seeing its agenda (as overheard more than ten years ago now) getting increasingly behind schedule is because it is encountering major opposition in high places, presumably operating under some other name; it is not the all-powerful force it would like us to believe it is.

    3) The whole of Farrell’s book is germane to the present discussion, and this includes one of the more unexpected sections which next caught my eye on page 103-4: on ‘Giammaria Ortes and the Origin of the Carrying Capacity Myth, and other Oligarchical Memes’.
    Quote Giammaria Ortes, whom Webster Tarpley, in a significant and magisterial piece of research exposing the origin of the meme of overpopulation, called “the decadent Venetian kook who originated the myth of ‘carrying capacity’”. Carrying capacity is simply the idea that the Earth has a maximum population that it can “carry” or support, an idea that, not surprisingly, originated with Venice’s financial oligarchy. This “meme” was the brainchild of one Giammaria Ortes, “a defrocked ... monk and libertine, who in 1790, in the last year of his life, published the raving tract ‘Reflections on the Population of Nations in Relation to National Economy’.
    As Tarpley indicates, Ortes calculates contemporary global (by now truly worldwide) population at 1.1 billion, making his theory of a ceiling at 3 billion purely futuristic conjecture, and with the benefit of hindsight utter tosh:
    Quote “In this way, since it is believed that all the products mentioned above as necessary for human life which can be extracted from the entire surface of the earth and from the animals that are found there are as many as are sufficient to feed, to dress, and to house up to 3,000 million persons, this will therefore be the maximum of persons capable of surviving at the same time on earth, and that progression will have to stop when it arrives at that number; this is something that will happen after 840 years if the 7 persons assumed had found themselves alone on the earth at the creation of the world or after a universal flood. If that progression [of population] were to proceed beyond this, the parents would have to strangle their babies in their diapers or use them as food, unless the earth were to expand like a balloon blown up from the inside, and did not double its surface for each new generation until it filled the immensity of the skies.” [Ortes, p. 34]
    Hence Ortes was talking about a time 160 years in his future and 60 years in our past (1959). It is not clear when the practice of using (other people’s) babies as food became widespread, as alleged by some, but this date sounds about right.

    The very existence of the New World busted the idea of the Old World as being a closed system: it clearly wasn’t that, and it was quite an achievement to manage to keep the lid on that secret for several centuries. And the fact that the current world is not a closed system either is another impossible-to-keep secret; it cannot be claimed that we have nowhere to go. Quite apart from other planets out there, we have a planet right here which is, on the one hand, 70% under water and rising (the water and the percentage), and seeing increasing desertification on the other. This is clearly a crazy contradiction since a major effort to desalinize sea water and pump it into deserts would increase available land mass from two directions at once – reclaiming both arid land and areas under shallow water. And of course another major factor in this open system is the Earth’s unexhausted potential for harbouring life, including human (7.4 bn and still rising).

    In other words, in practical terms, our current world is not going to behave like a closed system any time soon. But more than that, as we saw above, and as Joseph Farrell makes abundantly clear, in theoretical terms, the very principle of the closed system is busted: it is the product of a very basic misunderstanding of how reality works that has proved irresistibly attractive to some in a very limited and misguided way. Hence we cannot put a theoretical maximum figure on population or anything else: it depends on how much our spiritual evolution allows us to handle and how willing we are to go with that. Alternatively, the lower one’s artificial ceiling, the closer it gets to the personal hell of Just Me. Absolute population control at extremely low levels is indeed the major problem above all for the extraordinarily dysfunctional families of the (Venetian) oligarchy itself, as Tarpley points out in a passage not quoted by Farrell:
    Quote Ortes admitted more or less openly that he was writing about Venice. His chapters on the demographics of noble families reflected the Venetian decadence: for the family fondo to remain concentrated in a single line of biological inheritance, all the sons but one had to remain unmarried, with the youngest son often being given the responsibility for carrying on the line. More than two-thirds of the daughters of the aristocracy had no hope of finding husbands, and generally entered convents and other religious institutions which quickly acquired a reputation for licentiousness. According to E. Rodenwalt, in the sixteenth century 51% of Venetian male nobles remained unmarried; in the seventeenth century this had risen to 60%, and in Venice’s final century to 66%. Of the fourteen doges who reigned between 1675 and 1775, only four were ever married–and this does not count the “dogaressa” mentioned above.
    The impoverished nobility formed a social class known as the barnabotti who retained their membership in the Maggior Consiglio, but who were forced by their noble status to abstain from any productive work and who thus tended to become corrupt state officials, political fixers, spies for the Council of Ten, etc. Many barnabotti lived on government welfare payments. Free housing and other provisions were offered to any of the barnabotti who agreed to remain unmarried and to have no offspring. In order to avoid the decimation of the ranks of the aristocracy, family membership in the Maggior Consiglio was offered in return for large cash payments at various times during the eighteenth century. This was the policy warmly recommended by Ortes as one of the main policy points of his Reflections on Population: a way of selling luxurious state rooms on the Titanic.
    Hence population control is essentially a concern for those intent on the survival of this artificial structure called an oligarchy. To remain effective it has to keep the top of the pyramid tiny, but not too tiny (a difficult balancing act), thereby resulting in this by-product, lower echelons devoted to supporting the apex. This is a useful tier of loyal servants (family members) who are nonetheless diverted from normal healthy living and perverted into such things as a celibate, paedophilic rather than fertile clerical class, including but not limited to the clergy

    This is a recipe for breeding contented malcontents. Take prince Charles: he produces an heir and a spare, then discards his wife. His mother also produced an heir and a spare, and later on two more useless eaters, just to keep up the public pretence of a normal family. Such overpopulation is necessary simply to keep the bloodline going; but that is what it is: overpopulation in the service of underpopulation.

    However, the overpopulation rate among the elite is much higher than the above. There is another whole layer still, comprising people at the point of leakage of the oligarchy into the population at large. This is the population of illegitimate offspring we rarely get to hear about because they aren’t supposed to exist at all, but reportedly do exist in large numbers. This is where the malcontents can become dangerously subversive, but they come with an inbuilt safety mechanism. So for example, if anyone finds out that Karl Marx (who mentions Ortes in a positive light) was a Rothschild bastard, this only serves to discredit both him, as being one of them instead of being a powerful whistle-blower, and his work. This is how they control both sides of a given situation, to the point of nullifying the argument itself, with no right and wrong positions. Of course many such people are truly compromised, but others are not, and most of all, there are very much two sides to the argument, and a choice has finally to be made.

    This is – or should be – the message of the alternative media, which can be paraphrased by saying: even for the oligarchs, population is what it is, a collective uncontrollable by anything less than its entire individual membership. The vote of every person in attendance counts, and no one else’s. Another way of saying that the human experience is a physical, hands-on affair. You cannot hold your nose and fail to turn up; you cannot have someone else to do your dirty work for you – things that royalty and discarnate spirits have in common. You have to feel you belong here and get your hands dirty. This is how you put the ‘self’ into global self-awareness. There is no other way – card-carrying members only. If you didn’t ‘sign up for this’, you get cleared out. That means catastrophe for some, no doubt – they will not be missed, they were never truly here; catastrophe for all, no way.


  6. The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to araucaria For This Post:

    Atlas (31st August 2016), Bill Ryan (31st August 2016), bluestflame (31st August 2016), Bruno (16th December 2016), eaglespirit (22nd May 2017), Ewan (31st August 2016), Foxie Loxie (31st August 2016), happyuk (26th February 2019), Michelle Marie (9th February 2018), pabranno (22nd May 2017), pounamuknight (25th February 2019), PurpleLama (25th February 2019), silvanelf (8th June 2019), Tintin (25th February 2019)

  7. Link to Post #204
    Wales Avalon Member thedood73's Avatar
    Join Date
    21st May 2017
    Location
    Glastonbury
    Age
    49
    Posts
    57
    Thanks
    60
    Thanked 183 times in 41 posts

    Default Re: The Anglo-Saxon Mission

    Who or what is at the top of the pyramid in your opinion?

  8. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to thedood73 For This Post:

    araucaria (22nd May 2017), Atlas (22nd May 2017), Bill Ryan (22nd May 2017), Billy (22nd May 2017), eaglespirit (22nd May 2017), Ewan (23rd May 2017), Foxie Loxie (22nd May 2017), Michelle Marie (9th February 2018)

  9. Link to Post #205
    UK Avalon Founder Bill Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th February 2010
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    21,270
    Thanks
    73,302
    Thanked 267,854 times in 19,755 posts

    Default Re: The Anglo-Saxon Mission

    Quote Posted by thedood73 (here)
    Who or what is at the top of the pyramid in your opinion?
    If that question's addressed to myself, I think the very top of the pyramid (restricting the issue to this planet!) is a small multinational group, primarily based in the UK and Europe, that has no public name, and no publicly known individuals.

    Within that, I think there have for a while been two factions, that may have recently come to some agreement. But not every national administration in the world (e.g. Russia and China) may be under their full control, or even maybe under much control at all.

    If that's broadly correct, the Bilderbergers, CFR, Trilateral Commission, PNAC, Illuminati, Knights of Malta, Skull and Bones, and even the Jesuits and the Vatican (and certainly the US presidential apparatus and even those that control that) are all in the levels below.
    Last edited by Bill Ryan; 22nd May 2017 at 16:17.

  10. The Following 14 Users Say Thank You to Bill Ryan For This Post:

    Alan (23rd May 2017), araucaria (22nd May 2017), Atlas (22nd May 2017), Billy (22nd May 2017), eaglespirit (22nd May 2017), Ewan (23rd May 2017), Foxie Loxie (22nd May 2017), Magnus (24th May 2017), Michelle Marie (9th February 2018), Nasu (23rd May 2017), pounamuknight (25th February 2019), silvanelf (8th June 2019), Tintin (25th February 2019), Valerie Villars (25th February 2019)

  11. Link to Post #206
    France Avalon Member araucaria's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th January 2011
    Posts
    5,027
    Thanks
    11,911
    Thanked 28,391 times in 4,640 posts

    Default Re: The Anglo-Saxon Mission

    Quote Posted by thedood73 (here)
    Who or what is at the top of the pyramid in your opinion?
    Just in case it was me you were asking, let me add to Bill’s answer by simply referring to some posts of mine that make explicit something implicit in many of my contributions: the ‘top of the pyramid’ notion is highly problematic. This is also implied in your question and in Bill’s answer when he says ‘(restricting the issue to this planet!)’.
    http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post828566
    http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post720830
    Or (not for the faint-hearted ): http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post748031
    If you read these posts, you will understand why I prefer to focus on the ‘grassroots up’ approach, which also happens to be where we are and where we can make a difference, whereas the ‘top of the pyramid’ is up in the clouds, out of sight if it exists at all. I read recently somewhere that people in the 1% view themselves as not belonging to the elite: no one ever does, and that is precisely the main feature of this phenomenon whereby the most powerful man on earth is always someone’s puppet – and as below, so above.
    So if you want to find the people with real power, come back down here.


  12. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to araucaria For This Post:

    Atlas (22nd May 2017), Bill Ryan (22nd May 2017), eaglespirit (22nd May 2017), Ewan (23rd May 2017), Foxie Loxie (22nd May 2017), Michelle Marie (9th February 2018), Nasu (23rd May 2017), Tintin (25th February 2019), Valerie Villars (25th February 2019)

  13. Link to Post #207
    New Zealand Avalon Member
    Join Date
    25th December 2018
    Posts
    6
    Thanks
    41
    Thanked 28 times in 5 posts

    Default Re: The Anglo-Saxon Mission

    An interview with Max Blumenthal and Ben Norton from Moderate Rebels, interviewing propaganda expert Professor David Miller, about the Integrity Initiative: a propaganda outfit employed by dark elements within UK secret service



    Partway through the interview, they discuss Ukranian neo-Nazi contact being briefed by an Integrity Initiative executive, where he mentions threats to the "Anglo-Saxon world view..." https://youtu.be/doip79-pYn0?t=1071

    I recommend listening to the entire thing. But that part really blew me away
    Last edited by pounamuknight; 25th February 2019 at 07:55.

  14. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to pounamuknight For This Post:

    Bill Ryan (25th February 2019), Deux Corbeaux (27th February 2019), mountain_jim (28th February 2019), Nasu (25th February 2019)

  15. Link to Post #208
    UK Avalon Founder Bill Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th February 2010
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    21,270
    Thanks
    73,302
    Thanked 267,854 times in 19,755 posts

    Default Re: The Anglo-Saxon Mission

    Quote Posted by pounamuknight (here)
    An interview with Max Blumenthal and Ben Norton from Moderate Rebels, interviewing propaganda expert Professor David Miller, about the Integrity Initiative: a propaganda outfit employed by dark elements within UK secret service



    Partway through the interview, they discuss Ukranian neo-Nazi contact being briefed by an Integrity Initiative executive, where he mentions threats to the "Anglo-Saxon world view..." https://youtu.be/doip79-pYn0?t=1071

    I recommend listening to the entire thing. But that part really blew me away
    ~~~

    Thanks! There's a whole section in the Avalon Library, here:

  16. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Bill Ryan For This Post:

    Deux Corbeaux (27th February 2019), happyuk (25th February 2019), mountain_jim (28th February 2019), pounamuknight (25th February 2019), silvanelf (8th June 2019), Tintin (25th February 2019), Yoda (25th February 2019)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst 1 11

Similar Threads

  1. The Anglo-Saxon Mission [Persian subtiltes]
    By AlphaZebra in forum Project Avalon YouTube Videos
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 18th June 2010, 12:20
  2. The Anglo-Saxon Mission [English subtiltes]
    By AlphaZebra in forum Project Avalon YouTube Videos
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 18th June 2010, 12:20
  3. AR - The Anglo-Saxon Mission
    By AlphaZebra in forum Project Avalon YouTube Videos
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 18th June 2010, 12:20
  4. The Anglo-Saxon Mission [Greek subtiltes]
    By AlphaZebra in forum Project Avalon YouTube Videos
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 18th June 2010, 11:10
  5. The Anglo-Saxon Mission [Japanese subtiltes]
    By AlphaZebra in forum Project Avalon YouTube Videos
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 18th June 2010, 10:10

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts