It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Tax Day April 15, 2010 the London Banker’s Celebration of the Anniversary of Lincoln’s Death

page: 8
130
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


There is just one problem with the Bankers, and that’s the same as Masons, Jews, Knights of Columbus and Malta, the Bildgergers, the Skull and Bones etc.

None of them are the conspiracy, Rome is the conspiracy, and by blaming it all on the Banks, and pinning it all on the Banks, when the Banks fail, because all their wealth came from Rome, it all just reverts back to Rome.

The Assassin is dead, the Bankers, but not the beast that created them and funded them, Rome!

Rome employs many different control elements like Bankers, and the Secret Societies, most of them don’t even know that they are just part of Hegelian principles to create synergy, and that the higher up they go, ultimately the harder they are going to fall.

The wealth of the world, the Age of Pisces emanated from Rome, the whole banking and currency system was born by a Roman Legion, the Templar Knights, and it all flows back to Rome.

Rome gives you people like Bankers and Masons, and Satanists, and Jews to blame it all on.

This is why Rome is eternal, some one else always takes the heat, and always is the heavy, and is always the fall guy.

They fall for the carrot, that Rome offers, or are driven by the stick Rome wields.

The Bankers are simply a mechanism Rome uses to acquire wealth, and that is what the thread is really about Rockpuck!


[edit on 15/4/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]




posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


I remember taking a pledge of allegiance to the REPUBLIC not the Democracy. I am enjoying your debates though, I am learning so much for researching. Thanks folks.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

His electoral title did come from the German part of the family...

His ARCH-TREASURER TITLE DIDN'T.


I do apologise for misquoting your original post, because I was doing that from memory.

My excuse is that I was associating the two titles together in my mind.

The reason why I was associating them together in my mind is that they belong together historically.

The title of Arch-Treasurer of the Holy Roman Empire is the title which was assigned to the Elector of Hanover in 1710. All the Electors were, nominally, officers of the Imperial Government, and the job of Arch-Treasurer was the one which, from that date, went with the electorate of Hanover. As I said, George inherited both titles from his German ancestry, because they went together. This is all explained in the standard historiesof Germany and also in a good Wikipedia article on the Prince-Electors (sorry, I haven't learned links yet).

So the ArchTreasurer title did, I'm afraid, come to George as a German noble and not as king of England.

Incidentally, I agreed with another poster who pointed out that the opening sentence of the Treaty of Paris is not identifying George as Elector of the United States.
The structure of that sentence is;
God has disposed the heart of the King (various titles, ending in the word Empire)
And also the heart of the United States..
To forget past misunderstandings and do all the other peaceful things described in that over-long sentence of the original draftsman.

[edit on 15-4-2010 by DISRAELI]



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 




His ARCH-TREASURER TITLE DIDN'T.


It kinda did. Arch-Treasurer is a High Office, but can only be assumed by a Royal within the Empire.. he was a Prince Elector, and thus was elected as head of that Office. I don't remember if it was a permanent title however. He would have been eligible only through being a Prince Elector, which is through ancestry.

At the time however, Italy was a feudal nightmare, and was not connected to the Holy Roman Empire.

Also at the same time, the Roman Catholic Church was the largest financial reserves/banking in the World.. they didn't need a Protestant King to do their banking?



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhyberDragon
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


I remember taking a pledge of allegiance to the REPUBLIC not the Democracy. I am enjoying your debates though, I am learning so much for researching. Thanks folks.


Which is ONE NATION UNDER GOD...who is legally the Vicar of Christ, that you have just sworn an allegiance and oath too.

Just like our Public Officials do when the place one hand on the Roman Bible and the other in the air, and say so help me God, they are asking for the Pope's assistance in dispatching their duties whether they know it or not.

Legally the Pope is God's only legal representative on earth, and God is in any legal document, song, pledge or oath, the Pope, the Vicar of Christ, Rome's High Priest.

All roads lead to Rome and in fact all one can do is deny that they don't for the sake of denying they don't, because all words have a legal meaning, in legal documents, and legal ceremony, and God legally means, the Vicar of Christ the Pope.

It's in our laws, in our architecture, in our money, in our religion, it is literally all around us.

It is what it is.

Between you and me, the Vatican sure does not look like a Bowery Homeless Shelter, and everyone of it's churches here in the United States is a legal sanctuary where the police can not venture without the churches permission. It's why illegal aliens often use them as sanctuary, each one is like a consulate of a foreign nation.

It is the greatest power sub structure within all power structures. The Vatican enjoys the status of a City/State immune from the laws of Italy, the United Nations, Interpol or any other entity, it has it's own prison, it has it's own private army to protect it, it has it's own laws, and it imposes all of it's laws on us.

None of that is about religion, it's about power, control, and self.

Plain and simple.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 




when the Banks fail, because all their wealth came from Rome, it all just reverts back to Rome.


How? why? It makes no sense what so ever.. why Rome? because 2000 years ago Rome was a global empire? Great Britain's empire far exceeded the size of Romes.

And Rome took it's ideas from Greece.. maybe the Greeks own all the finances! (though apparently not good at running it from what we've seen lately lol)

Also rome is not a center for banking.. London, Hong Kong, and New York are the largest banking cities in the world.

And the Vatican is practically bankrupt due to their obsession with children..



The Assassin is dead, the Bankers, but not the beast that created them and funded them, Rome!


??? What bank, major bank anyways, was founded in Rome, or is corporately based in Rome?????

Bank of America was once called the Bank of Italy.. but only because it's founders were Italian, it was founded I believe in San Fransisco.



Rome gives you people like Bankers and Masons, and Satanists, and Jews to blame it all on.


No no no.. Rome is not making me or anyone else suspicious of jews, masons, bankers etc.. you are.




The Bankers are simply a mechanism Rome uses to acquire wealth


Italy is one of the poorest (and most corrupt) countries in the EU .. they are a tip-toe behind Greece!



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by PhyberDragon
 




REPUBLIC not the Democracy.


Not all Republics are Democracies, and not all Democracies are Republics. The United States is a Representative Democracy AND a Republic. Democracy only alludes to the act of casting a vote.. since not all Republics require voting, only representation in some form, the United States is technically both. It's federal system is that of a Republic, hence the States elect the President, not the people.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 




Which is ONE NATION UNDER GOD...who is legally the Vicar of Christ, that you have just sworn an allegiance and oath too.


Woah hold on there.. Catholics do NOT see the Pope as God. He's seen as the "voice" of God (and still most don't take that seriously) .. he's simply the head honcho.. nothing more.. never, ever, EVER would the Pope say an allegiance to God is an allegiance to the Pope! God is God, it's not legally anything.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


Once again, Rome has long owed England, and as Arch-Treasurer he simply had the power to bank and distribute Rome's proceeds.

It's very simple.

Much like the First and Second United States Bank functioned, and the Federal Reserve.

Italy is not Rome, and the Vatican is a front for Rome, Rome is the concentration of Patrician and Equite wealth from the Republic, Empire and Holy Roman Empire, and using that wealth as leverage and power.

Rome is the shadow government, the Vatican is just there to trot out a grandfatherly looking benevolent figure to front for a repository of Roman Wealth.

Rome benefited from the Synergy of the Protestant Reformation and the Angelican Church, it allowed for the next phase to proceed without Rome having to loose face by changing it's own rules, it allowed Monarchs who were experiencing pressure from their people because of their ties to Rome to start distancing themselves publicly from Rome, in appearance, and not deed, because the Collective Roman Trust really has nothing to do with the Vatican which is just a front for it, or Catholicism which is just a front for the Vatican.

The fact that people get so bogged down in the religious aspects, and appearences is in fact what makes it such an incredibly effective plan for the Roman Shadow Government.

It's very simple, once you let go of the dogmas, and simply step back and take a hard look, looking to learn it all again from scratch, based on what you really see, not what you were told already to believe, and trying to reconcile those dogmas with what is going on behind the scenes.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


Once again it is not about what Catholics see, or Christians, or Americans, it's about what is established by binding treaties that establish the legal definition of words in legal documents.

I know you have heard me explain this too you about 20 times now, so I am going to assume you have a compelling, non factual reason to ignore treaties, and legal dictionaries, to bolster your contentions.

Legally, by treaty, by definition, God means the Vicar of Christ the Pope, it does not matter what the laity or congregants think it means, it matters what sovereigns and lawyers to sovereigns think it means, when they disclose their full and respective powers in binding legal documents and decrees.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 06:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 




Once again, Rome has long owed England, and as Arch-Treasurer he simply had the power to bank and distribute Rome's proceeds.


First:


The emperor was entitled to have a Household, a real one as well as one "for show" composed of the High Offices of the Empire (Erzämter, archiofficia). The four High Offices appear under the Ottonian dynasty: at the coronation of Otto I in 936, each of the Stammherzöge held one of the functions. The Golden Bull of 1356 assigned them to the lay electors (in fact, some electors may have become so because they were High Officers). After a new electorate was created for the count Palatine, a new office of Arch-Treasurer was created for him, in 1652. In 1706, after Bavaria was banned, the elector palatine resumed his office of Arch-Steward, and the office of Arch-Treasurer passed in 1710 to the newly created elector of Hanover. In 1714, Bavaria was reinstated, and the elector palatine resumed the office of Treasurer, but Hanover continued to use the title and augmentation of arms until the merger of the Bavarian and Palatine electorates in 1777 allowed Hanover to exercise the office. New offices were planned but never chosen for the electors created in 1803.


The "Titles" such as Arch-Treasurer (which was created only to appease someone) were not actual functions.. they were "ceremonial" .. they were designed to keep the highest ranking royals (Prince-Electorates) happy, by keeping them "in their court"...

The Treasurer never handled the finances of the Empire.



Rome is the shadow government, the Vatican is just there to trot out a grandfatherly looking benevolent figure to front for a repository of Roman Wealth.


Well for being the center of the World, Rome certainly isn't doing very well is it? Your hypothesis still makes no sense to me.

Edit to fix minor mistake

[edit on 4/15/2010 by Rockpuck]



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


That is not a true disclosure of the offices full and respective powers.

That is history's white washed version of it.

Once again words like Treasurer have a very precise legal meaning, and if your source is not a book published in the 1700's it's not accurate or reflective, the other thing would be the actual treaty where the titles were first made official.

Hint they would be in Latin, do you speak it?

A synopsis by a soundbite current publication, is just that a soundbite, aimed to portray what they want you to know and believe, the source documents on the other hand, are something else entirely.

Methodolagy in research is very important Rockpuck, if you want accurate answers.

Thanks.

[edit on 15/4/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 




Once again it is not about what Catholics see, or Christians, or Americans, it's about what is established by binding treaties that establish the legal definition of words in legal documents.


Treaties are not Laws. Laws are Laws. And when you say Rome (Capital city of Italy) is doing something, through the Vatican (Catholics) and that their leader (pope) considers himself God (through our pledge and currency?) but that it all doesn't really matter because it's all actually a front for a secret group that doesn't have a name, face or identity its just secret.... Well.. it gets confusing.



Legally, by treaty, by definition, God means the Vicar of Christ the Pope, it does not matter what the laity or congregants think it means, it matters what sovereigns and lawyers to sovereigns think it means, when they disclose their full and respective powers in binding legal documents and decrees.


Legally? I would like to see the U.S. Code that details specifically "God hence forth means Vicar of Christ AKA the Pope". Also, a Sovereign is not a Sovereign if he owes Sovereignty to another entity. But that's an oxymoron, because if there is Sovereignty then a Treaty cannot be binding at all.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


Weird, thanks. I thought it a democratic Republic. So, I'm still right on that I guess. But it is a Republic.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


Well you tell that to the next nation we decide to bomb for violating a treaty.

Once again, the Treaty of Paris, the Source Document uses very precise language amongst other things, the clause that states all parties have REVEALED, thats a very key word, because REVEALED meens previously unknown, FULL AND RESPECTIVE POWERS, that means everythign involved that was previously unknown and is a disclaimer and a disclosure meaning that EVERYONE PRESENT, and ONLY THOSE PRESENT know the FULL AND RESPECTIVE POWERS REVEALED.

Now were you present?

If not, you have no real idea just what all those FULL AND RESPECTIVE POWERS THAT WERE AGREED UPON BY ALL PARTIES, really mean do you?

Legal dictionaries, are modified on average every generation, do you have one from the late 1700's when the Treaty was made?

Yes or no?

If you don't you aren't in a position to honestly speak objectively to the questions raised.

That's just logistics my friend.

If you aren't properly equipped to research these things, why pretend that the research is valid, especially when it comes from a hodge podge of brevity inspired Internet Sources, that are poorly sourced themselves?

Do some real research with an open mind, join the discussion, when you can really bring something to it in the way of research, if you want to counter theories with research.

Thanks.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by Rockpuck


That is not a true disclosure of the offices full and respective powers.

That is history's white washed version of it.

Once again words like Treasurer have a very precise legal meaning, and if your source is not a book published in the 1700's it's not accurate or reflective, the other thing would be the actual treaty where the titles were first made official.

Hint they would be in Latin, do you speak it?



What documentary evidence are you citing for your understanding of the title and its practical implications?

I have some knowledge of Latin and would be prepared to have a go at it.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 




That is not a true disclosure of the offices full and respective powers. That is history's white washed version of it.


OK.. please show me proof that the Treasurer, holder of an Honorary title created in 1710 for the Prince Elector of Hanover began running the finances of the Empire. And note.. the office never existed before 1710.. before that it was Arch-Steward. The High Offices were formal ceremonial offices. Nothing more.



Once again words like Treasurer have a very precise legal meaning


No no no no no no and no. You cannot put a legal definition to a term, for starters. You can say in a legal document that a specific word will specifically mean a certain meaning in that particular document.. but you cannot say "well a treasurer is a treasurer, and you cannot say treasurer without meaning someone physically touching money"....

If that's where your getting your ideas from.. your literal interpretation of a word and not the historical facts, then I think we can wrap up the "rome runs the world" conspiracy.



Hint they would be in Latin, do you speak it?


Actually, it was in German. Erzschatzmeister



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


The Holy Roman Empire, especially during the time frame of 1710 was German (it was actually the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nations) so all titles, communication, etc is in German not Latin.


Four offices were:

High Steward Erztruchseß
Grand Marshal Erzmarschall
High Chamberlain Erzkämmerer
High Treasurer Erzschatzmeister

there was other offices to.. like Grand Cup-bearer (Erzschenk since he wants the translations) .. but somehow.. I doubt his profession was actually walking around bearing a cup.



new topics

top topics



 
130
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join