Soros vs 13 Illuminati Bloodlines; Rise of the Anti-Christ

page: 16
79
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint
reply to post by King Seesar
 


Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I don't think John meant that there would be many
Anti-Christs all at the same time. I think he
meant collectively since the dawn of mankind.
Or who people thought or claimed to be Anti-Christ.
So the plural form is kinda out of context here.
And he refers to the last one, meaning a single
entity and the last one before Armageddon.
I would still interpret that to be a single entity.
But that's just my 2 shillings



Yea i agree with you depending on your definition of anti-christ i don't think there's gonna be a army of like ten thousand anti-christs at the same time attacking per say, they come in drips and drabs like Nero, Genghis Khan, Vlad the Impaler and Adolf Hitler you get one that pops up from time to time that constitutes what many perceive a anti-christ, however if you go by the definition that anyone who dosen't believe in Jesus Christ is a anti-christ then we have tons...just depends on your definition.




posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   
Nope.
Not buying any of the religious stuff.
Sure...I edited my post because I re-thought my words.
But still...all this stuff going on in the world is not religious in origin.
That's like saying it's thundering because Thor is mad.
Well...he might be, so don't upset him.
Because I'm fairly sure Thor can beat jesus in arm wrestling.

Anywho...I'm noticing that this thread has sort of taken on a different debate of sorts.
Still...not buying the religious nonsense.
edit on 1/14/11 by Matthew Dark because: I re-thought my words...that's the beauty of the interweb.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by King Seesar
 


That's another misconception that I ardently disagree with.
Just because someone doesn't believe in your jesus guy, doesn't make them part of your problem.
Religion is brainwashing. And, for some reason, anyone who doesn't fall in line with its ideals is a dissident. That's hardly the attitude your jesus guy would want for his flock.
Now, is this thread really going to deteriorate into a religious debate or are we going to delve deeper into what's-'is-name's motivation for accumulating so much power and influence?
What's it going to be, people?
Hocus pocus mumbo jumbo, or evidence of conspiracy?



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Matthew Dark
 
If it could be shown that the Roman Catholic Church was behind this,would you consider it to be religious? When the term anti-Christ comes into the conversation it can take on a religious element ,,no .?

peace



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Can't believe people are talking about a fictional character like the anti-Christ in the 21st century pretending he/she/it is real...that's like playing Dungeons of Dragons in real life, quite sad really.



"Lightning bolt...lightning bolt...oh...I mean...ANTI-CHRIST...ANTI-CHRIST!!!"

So sad



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by CayceFan
I imagine you are (were) pretty proud of your screen name considering "The Boondock Saints" is an awesome movie. I cant help wonder though, after the release of the sequel did you contemplate changing it? LOL that movie blowed!!! I walked out after 20 minutes!!!

i did not create my username here
based upon the movie.

boondock saint was a shorter version
of the real name i wanted, which was
hillbilly christian.

boondock saint had less letters and
didn't truncate to a second line
but it had absolutely nothing to do
with the movie. there's no hidden
plots in my username.



Down boy! I didn't say anything about a hidden plot. Its not unreasonable for anyone to think you were a fan of the movie thus your screen name was born. I merely was saying I liked the first movie but the second one SUCKED!



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint
The Handler: John Wheeler

John Wheeler is also part of the Illuminati
in the Freeman Bloodline. John is connected
on 2 fronts in this. His possible role as a master handler
for the Illuminati and maybe even for Jared Loughner
and his role as an operative for the CIA for the
Raytheon Corp. on loan to the MITRE Corp as an
adviser.


Can you please provide me the links for this information?

I know Cisco Wheeler by her co-written book
where she admits to being a programer/handler.

What relation is Cisco to John?
Other than last name are there any links?

Thank you.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by the2ofusr1
reply to post by Matthew Dark
 
If it could be shown that the Roman Catholic Church was behind this,would you consider it to be religious? When the term anti-Christ comes into the conversation it can take on a religious element ,,no .?

peace



Just because there might be a chance that the church is behind this certainly does not make it religious.
That's like saying raping altar boys is religious.
No. It's just wrong.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Can't believe people are talking about a fictional character like the anti-Christ in the 21st century pretending he/she/it is real...that's like playing Dungeons of Dragons in real life, quite sad really.



"Lightning bolt...lightning bolt...oh...I mean...ANTI-CHRIST...ANTI-CHRIST!!!"

So sad


Agreed.
And, as you have so adequately shown to us, the anti-christ was decisively defeated by a bunch of larping, parent-basement-dwelling nerds.
Good show my friend...good show.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matthew Dark
reply to post by King Seesar
 


That's another misconception that I ardently disagree with.
Just because someone doesn't believe in your jesus guy, doesn't make them part of your problem.
Religion is brainwashing. And, for some reason, anyone who doesn't fall in line with its ideals is a dissident. That's hardly the attitude your jesus guy would want for his flock.
Now, is this thread really going to deteriorate into a religious debate or are we going to delve deeper into what's-'is-name's motivation for accumulating so much power and influence?
What's it going to be, people?
Hocus pocus mumbo jumbo, or evidence of conspiracy?



You make some very good points, for the record i don't believe in organized religion because i feel it's corrupt even tho i consider my self Christian so i'm not gonna discount everything you said, as far as if you don't believe in Jesus then your considered a anti-christ, well that's a tricky one that's why i prefrenced it on the basis of perception to what that actually means to people...but your wrong Jesus would kill thor in a arm wreslting contest i mean for gods sake he's not even the first Avenger that duty gos to Captin America(coming soon to a theater near you)....lol


As far as the 13 Illuminati bloodlines i'v read Fritz Springmeiers work and say what you want but this guy was definitely on to something, some of his research i feel was right on point....a very wise man.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Matthew Dark
 


If they were just LARPing in their own private homes, and not influencing the rest (sane) of us, I'd be all good. Sadly, their larping is costing lives on all sides while the rest of us are looking in awe at the "lightning bolt" guys as they make complete fools out of themselves.

We have people blowing others up because of ridiculous goat herder myths, and others who believe in a holy crusade to the Middle East. They're all fools, and the sane rest of us is suffering because of them. In the west we have to fund their wars, and in the east they all get a bad rep because of a few nutcase fundies.

It's time the sane people stand up and tell those guys to get back into their corner!!



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 09:51 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Well i'll tell you what if more people were like the lighting bolt guys this world would be a much better place, just people having harmless fun no mater how stupid you think it is, however your right on in your theory TPTB will go to war for anything gas land because of there misguided religious beliefs ect ect ect.....

What we need to do is get honest politicians into office like Ron Paul Jim Guest and such also we need a third legit party so we can break up the monopoly that the Republicans and Democrats now have....


Also getting rid of the federal reserve is a step in the right direction because it takes some of the power away from the corrupt elites also i'd take a look at the Military–industrial complex because there working on weapons that shouldn't be made and have and are using these for mind control, there's a video some where were Donald Rumsfeld admited they were working on such weapons....that's a start any how.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Has anyone been able to find a basis for the notion that Soros was raised by the Rothschilds? That seems to be the first link in the chain of this premise. Without that, what evidence is there that he is a part of a supposed Illuminati bloodline? As I posted in my reply in this post, I can't find any proof that he was raised or adopted by the Rothschilds. Not in the videos posted in the other thread, and not in the transcripts of his interviews. They do paint a picture of an unrepentant (albeit at the time a child) Nazi collaborator, and someone with a completely amoral view of their behavior in the world's markets. But that isn't what is being asserted in this theory. What's being asserted is that he was raised by the Rothschilds and is therefore considered a part of the Merovingian bloodline, and I still have yet to see any proof of that. He never says it in his interviews, and the only other sources of the claim appear to be occult books and online conspiracy theories.

I’m not saying it’s impossible or that it’s not true. Only that I can find no proof.

Anyone?



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by AceWombat04
 


The entire thread is fictional



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Do you mean that literally?
Or are you just saying that OP's theory is so unsupported as to be considered fictional? I'm hoping it's the latter, because if OP has ever come right out and said that this was all just a bit of fun on their part I will be disappointed - to say the least - personally.

I was hoping that, since they profess to believe the theory or at least believe it's possible, OP would discuss or refute the lack of evidence (that I can see at least) for Soros having been adopted by the Rothschilds that I have now posted twice about (in response to their request that I read another thread and search for transcripts which they said, combined, would demonstrate that he was in fact adopted/raised by the Rothschilds) without response. I'm not trying to argue with anyone or "win" or anything. That doesn't enter into it. I just like to discuss things fully, to their conclusion, based on the available evidence so that we can all establish the truth - whatever that may be - in a careful and thorough way. Isn't that why we're on ATS? Not to argue and win or lose debates?

The trend of posting in threads on ATS with evidence potentially confronting a theory and then receiving no reply after going to the trouble of actually searching for it is becoming frustrating and disappointing.
I thought it was against the T&C to post knowingly fictional information anywhere other than one (possibly two depending on how you look at it) boards here. So I have to assume, since I don't want to indict anyone without proof, that OP was sincere in his or her belief at least when they created this thread.

So with that said, I would like to respectfully and politely request a reply regarding the lack of evidence that Soros was ever adopted or raised by the Rothschilds. (Or a refutation of it proving that he was.) Just not replying after so many pages, assertions, stars, and flags is disappointing to me. I haven't asserted any facts, but rather, have simply stated that I can find no proof of the cardinal claim made in this thread; that Soros is part of the Merovingian bloodline by virtue of having been raised/adopted by the Rothschilds. I think after making this thread, that should at least be addressed.



posted on Jan, 15 2011 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint
since Prince William has been brought up here
I feel it necessary to note some other info I found
in the course of research.

When Prince Charles was hunting a bride,
the Illuminati searched high and low to find
a virgin from the Merovingian bloodline. They
found this virgin by the name of Diana Spencer.
So you see how important this fact was for
the Illuminati to adhere to this ancient
requirement for the Merovingian bloodline.


When the Queen 'crowned' Charles, she said something along the lines of 'this dragon gives you your authority and your power.'
Similarly written the Revelations, no?



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by AceWombat04
 


The claims have never been backed up by evidence...that's why I said it's fictional. I like conspiracy theories, but they should contain at least a bit of evidence as otherwise they're nothing but rants and/or speculation.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


That's what I would like the OP to address (or try to refute.) If he or she has some reason for believing that Soros was adopted or raised by the Rothschilds, I would like to see that evidence. Or if they don't, I would like them to say they don't. That would be fairly conclusive with regard to the validity of this theory.

I respect everyone's opinions, feelings and/or beliefs, and if they choose to believe this then I can accept that whether I agree or not. But after all the discussion that was carried on, I don't think it's too much to ask personally that they address such a challenge to the primary theory put forth in the thread.

Then again, they are free not to of course. I just thought I'd ask.

Peace.



posted on Jan, 16 2011 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by AceWombat04
 


It's not boon's first anti-Soros thread not backed up by real evidence...I wouldn't hold my breath for evidence if I were you


Agree with you though, evidence would be nice of course...



posted on Jan, 17 2011 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Can I at least expect an acknowledgment of the lack of evidence? A lot of assertions have been made which rely on evidence that I can't find anywhere. It would be nice to at least have that acknowledged. I said so once, and was referred to sources which also failed to yield any evidence of the claim.

I want to give OP the benefit of the doubt and try to be open-minded. I don't want to make any assumptions, such as this being a "hit and run" thread where once a challenge to a premise arises it is abandoned by its creator. But it's looking more and more like another example of that apparent trend on ATS, which is becoming highly disappointing and frustrating. Again, I'm not going to just assume that's what this is, as I try to keep an open mind and give everyone the benefit of the doubt. But some kind of reply and acknowledgment would be greatly appreciated.





new topics

top topics



 
79
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join