Occult and sinister symbolism behind Obama's regime

Run_to_da_hills

I request mods to split the thread and merge it with this one.

gibraltar wrote: »

Ok so you were wrong because you did not have your glasses on... but its still an evil symbol because Obama is associated with it.... just for fun could you describe any symbol that Obama could use that you would not consider sinister?

hooradiation wrote: »

And yet, you felt compelled to argue with people on what was depicted on a logo you couldn't see properly.

Simply stunning.

Sarky wrote: »

So now because you can't see the bottom third of the two snakes it's still evil? Can you not just admit you were wrong about it?

This might throw a spanner in the works

The winged staff with copulating serpents wrapped around it in the Obamacare logo is the Caduceus symbol, identified with the Greek god, Hermes. It is a symbol with occult connotations, that a man can become god, as was possible in many pagan religions. It is often used incorrectly as the symbol of medicine in the US.



The “staff of Asclepius” shown below is the traditional symbol of medicine. Hermes is also the god, who conducts the dead souls into the underworld, which makes the use of the Caduceus in the Obamacare logo particularly interesting and ironic.



The Caduceus vs the Staff of Asclepius

Even with my glasses on the two logos still look strikingly similar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Smp3HN4ctEM

gibraltar

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The winged staff with copulating serpents wrapped around it in the Obamacare logo is the Caduceus symbol, identified with the Greek god, Hermes. It is a symbol with occult connotations, that a man can become god, as was possible in many pagan religions. It is often used incorrectly as the symbol of medicine in the US.

Incorrectly? according to who?

And if you could answer my question that you quoted please, could you describe any symbol that Obama could use that you would not consider sinister?

Quatermain

Thoroughly, massively, even hilariously incorrect. Nowhere is the Caduceus associated with divine ascension. I read your link, and it seems to think that the main reason the symbol is evil is because it appears fleetingly in a violent film. How is this any sort of proof?

From the second link:

Like the staff of Asclepius, the caduceus became associated with medicine through its use as a printer’s mark, as printers saw themselves as messengers of the printed word and diffusers of knowledge (hence the choice of the symbol of the messenger of the ancient gods). A major reason for the current popularity of the caduceus as a medical symbol was its illinformed [03] official adoption as the insignia for the Medical Department of the United States Army in 1902.

Quite a while before Obama was even born, much less before he was elected. About 76% of healthcare organisations use the caduceus. Given its symbolic association with merchants, it even appears on medals given to German customs staff. It is not a symbol of one man's rise to power.

Run_to_da_hills

gibraltar wrote: »

Incorrectly? according to who?

According to this article.

And if you could answer my question that you quoted please, could you describe any symbol that Obama could use that you would not consider sinister?

It would be very difficult to find any symbol of his that would not be deep rooted and sinister.

As I pointed out before his Missile defense logo is another interesting one.

Monty Burnz

Would you like to explain - because you didn't in the other thread - why the Anti-Christ (Obama) keeps giving the American far-right these sneaky clues that he is the new Hitler? Is it for sh!ts and giggles?

Or is it more likely that paranoid, hate-filled people on the American far-right will see what they want to see?

Run_to_da_hills

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

It would be very difficult to find any symbol of his that would not be deep rooted and sinister.

Because you are apparently ok with declaring any and all symbols at all evil.
Even if you can't actually see the symbol you are declaring is evil and are only declaring it's evil cause the lower half isn't visible.

The symbols are only evil because you are desperate for them to be.

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

As I pointed out before his Missile defense logo is another interesting one.

Yes, another evil symbol with a long and mystic history :rolleyes:

The Bishop!

What a load of bollocks...

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Brown Bomber

[SIZE=-1] CADUCEUS

The Caduceus was the magic wand of the god Hermes. It was an olive staff twined with fillets, which were gradually converted to wings and serpents. Hermes, or Mercury, was the messenger of Jove. Among his numerous attributes, one of the most important was that of conducting disembodied spirits to the other world, and, on necessary occasions, of bringing them back. He was the guide of souls, and the restorer of the dead to life.

Thus, Horace, in addressing him, says:
Unspotted spirits you consign
To blissful seats and joys divine,
And powerful with your golden wand
The light unburied crowd command.
Vergil also alludes to this attribute of the magic wand
when he is describing the flight of
Mercury on his way to bear Jove's warning message to Aeneas:
His wand he takes ; with this pale ghost he calls
From Pluto's realms, or sends to Tartarus' shore.

And Statius, imitating this passage, makes the same allusion in his Thebaid (1, 314), thus translated by Lewis:
He grasps the wand which draws from hollow graves,
Or drives the trembling shades to Stygian waves ;
With magic power seals the watchful eye
In slumbers soft or causes sleep to fly.

The history of this Caduceus, or magic wand, will lead us to its symbolism. Mercury, who had invented the lyre, making it out of the shell of the tortoise, exchanged it with Apollo for the latter's magical wand. This wand was simply an olive branch around which were placed two fillets of ribbon. Afterward, when Mercury was in Arcadia, he encountered two serpents engaged in deadly combat. These he separated with his wand; hence the olive wand became the symbol of peace, and the two fillets were replaced by the two serpents, thus giving to the Caduceus its well-known form of a staff, around which two serpents are entwined.

Such is the legend; but we may readily see that in the olive, as the symbol of immortality, borne as the attribute of Mercury, the giver of life to the dead, we have a more ancient and profounder symbolism. The serpents, symbols also of immortality, are appropriately united with the olive wand. The legend also accounts for a later and secondary symbolism-that of peace.

The Caduceus then-the original meaning of which word is a herald's staff-as the attribute of a life-restoring God, is in its primary. meaning the symbol of immortality; so in Freemasonry the rod of the Senior Deacon, or the Master of Ceremonies, is but an analogue or representation of the Hermean Caduceus. This officer, as leading the aspirant through the forms of initiation into his new birth or Masonic regeneration, and teaching him in the solemn ceremonies of the Third Degree the lesson of eternal life, may well use the magic wand as a representation of it, which was the attribute of that ancient deity who brought the dead into life.
[/SIZE][SIZE=-1] [/SIZE]
- Source: Mackey's Encyclopedia of Freemasonry

http://masonicdictionary.com/caduceus.html

gibraltar

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

It would be very difficult to find any symbol of his that would not be deep rooted and sinister.

As I pointed out before his Missile defense logo is another interesting one.

So can you cant imagine any symbol that Obama could use that you would not consider sinister?

Also I suggest you read the link you posted as the entire page is pointing out how silly the idea of the logo being evil is..

Also if you would be kind enough to explain how the Caduceus has used incorrectly as the symbol of medicine in the US.

Brown Bomber

gibraltar wrote: »

So can you cant imagine any symbol that Obama could use that you would not consider sinister?

Also I suggest you read the link you posted as the entire page is pointing out how silly the idea of the logo being evil is..

Also if you would be kind enough to explain how the Caduceus has used incorrectly as the symbol of medicine in the US.

Where has he said it is evil?

The Bishop!

I'm no fan of militant greenies who want to destroy all industrial output and who advocate for a one child policy or mass depopultion etc.
They're nutters to be sure.

But. Thom Hartmann really nails it in this vid:

Now here is a conspiracy OP! Listen good!! This man talks sense and cuts through the absolute bollocks right wing pap you've been parroting..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD7RvQvsPc0

Corkfeen

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Where has he said it is evil?

Constant comparisons to Nazism does it and the title itself ' Occult and sinister symbolism behind Obama's regime'. Evil connotations more than anything which they clearly don't.

gibraltar

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Where has he said it is evil?

By he I presume you mean RTDH, where did I say that RTDH had said it was evil?

I posted that the link that was posted to (I presume) re-enforce his opinion was a page that made light of any link between the logo and evil. So yes I was the one to use the word evil.


RTDH stated that almost any symbol associated with Obama would be sinister, btw you might want to read the first two definitions of sinister.

The Bishop!

I'm sorry, but this is the biggest load of right-wing ****.

:pac:

I mean c'mon Bomber. Wtf??

The Bishop!

sorry..

heart is in the right place though.

Torakx

Nice one The Bishop.
He pretty much hit the nail on the head.

Obviously alot of other crap going on too, but for me the main issue for our government and more so in the future, will be losing control of our laws and land, due to these big corperations funding politics.

At the core, it seems to be the origin of the most recent fiat currency (plus the interest scam on top ofc).And from there it really took off in the wrong direction.

The Bishop!

Torakx wrote: »

At the core, it seems to be the origin of the most recent fiat currency.

Your post on the economics forum was v. interesting T.:o. **** it..

Sarky

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I request mods to split the thread and merge it with this one.

Do you think if you keep getting threads split you won't have to admit how you totally cocked up here? When you declare something is evil and full of sinister connotations, then admit you couldn't even see it properly, what most reasonable people do is say that they were wrong, and that they apologise.

We're waiting, RTDH.

Brown Bomber

Sarky wrote: »

Do you think if you keep getting threads split you won't have to admit how you totally cocked up here? When you declare something is evil and full of sinister connotations, then admit you couldn't even see it properly, what most reasonable people do is say that they were wrong, and that they apologise.

We're waiting, RTDH.

He never said it was "evil". And it does have sinister connotations. For examplem the Caedecus was used in infamous occultists Elias Levi's famous portrayal of baphomet/pentagram popularised by satanists. It was actually baphomets cock.

hooradiation

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And it does have sinister connotations.

Given that in particular work the staff lacks wings traditionally associated with caedecus I think you need to stop reaching.
Again.

FISMA

The medical symbol comes from the "13th" sign of the zodiac. If you are born in the last two weeks of the year, you're an Ophiucan!

Ophiucus is the serpent bearer.

Pick the star story that you like, however, most stories point towards Ophiucus being a healer, or the first of what we would call medicine men/doctors.

gibraltar

Brown Bomber wrote: »

He never said it was "evil". And it does have sinister connotations. For examplem the Caedecus was used in infamous occultists Elias Levi's famous portrayal of baphomet/pentagram popularised by satanists. It was actually baphomets cock.

What do you think the word sinister means?

Genghiz Cohen

gibraltar wrote: »

What do you think the word sinister means?

Left Handed, obviously.

gibraltar

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Left Handed, obviously.

Well if thats the meaning that someone wanted to use it might make some sense, after all Obama is more to the left than RTDH... but Glenn Beck is more left-wing than RTDH.;)

gnfnrhead

Can we not just have an Obama superthread? A new one seems to pop up every couple of weeks at the latest. They are usually the same thing as well (I.E. Obama is evil!!!!!!).

hooradiation

gnfnrhead wrote: »

Can we not just have an Obama superthread? A new one seems to pop up every couple of weeks at the latest. They are usually the same thing as well (I.E. Obama is evil!!!!!!).

"[The current US President] is literally worse than eleven Hitlers" might be a bit more honest and fitting.

Run_to_da_hills

gnfnrhead wrote: »

Can we not just have an Obama superthread? A new one seems to pop up every couple of weeks at the latest. They are usually the same thing as well (I.E. Obama is evil!!!!!!).

We could always ask the mods to re open this thread.

gibraltar

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

We could always ask the mods to re open this thread.

If it was reopened would you be willing to answer questions people asked you this time?

miketh2005

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Would you like to explain - because you didn't in the other thread - why the Anti-Christ (Obama) keeps giving the American far-right these sneaky clues that he is the new Hitler? Is it for sh!ts and giggles?

Or is it more likely that paranoid, hate-filled people on the American far-right will see what they want to see?

Hahaha. BURN! (See wha I did thar?)

So true.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

He never said it was "evil". And it does have sinister connotations. For examplem the Caedecus was used in infamous occultists Elias Levi's famous portrayal of baphomet/pentagram popularised by satanists. It was actually baphomets cock.

You mean this?



Look out! He's watching you while you sleep....

Brown Bomber

gnfnrhead wrote: »

Can we not just have an Obama superthread? A new one seems to pop up every couple of weeks at the latest. They are usually the same thing as well (I.E. Obama is evil!!!!!!).

By the same token then there should be an "I heart Obama; "He makes me go weak at the knees. He only kills people because he cares!!! Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld...Boooooo! Obama/Clinton....Yay!!! Because they are "progressive" liberals and so am I!" I just love him so much that I can rationalise killing innocent people (if they are brown skinned)" Superthread.

Brown Bomber

miketh2005 wrote: »

Hahaha. BURN! (See wha I did thar?)

So true.
You mean this?
Look out! He's watching you while you sleep....

Just what we need, more "wit". Welcome to the forum. I look forward to your future off-topic comedy.

Brown Bomber

gibraltar wrote: »

What do you think the word sinister means?

I know what it means. Don't you worry. Which is why I know it is not always interchangeable with "evil".

Brown Bomber

hooradiation wrote: »

Given that in particular work the staff lacks wings traditionally associated with caedecus I think you need to stop reaching.
Again.

Wikipedia says your wrong.

Lévi's depiction is similar to that of the Devil in early Tarot cards.[44] Lévi, working with correspondences different from those later used by Samuel Liddell MacGregor Mathers, "equated the Devil Tarot key with Mercury," giving "his figure Mercury's caduceus, rising like a phallus from his groin."[45]

Run_to_da_hills

gibraltar wrote: »

If it was reopened would you be willing to answer questions people asked you this time?

Depending on the manner at which some of these questions were put to me. As usual I will always ignore condescending and derogatory comments.

hooradiation

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Wikipedia says your wrong.

Not really. But sure, let's buy into this "sinister" nonsense on the basis you've found one example that kinda, might be related to this.

gibraltar

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I know what it means. Don't you worry. Which is why I know it is not always interchangeable with "evil".

Not always interchangeable, ok so we agree that sinister and evil are synonymous - I have no idea why are you arguing that they are not while agreeing that they are.

Lets move on and forget about it.

Monty Burnz

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Depending on the manner at which some of these questions were put to me. As usual I will always ignore condescending and derogatory comments.

And questions that blow huge holes in your theories....

gnfnrhead

Brown Bomber wrote: »

By the same token then there should be an "I heart Obama; "He makes me go weak at the knees. He only kills people because he cares!!! Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld...Boooooo! Obama/Clinton....Yay!!! Because they are "progressive" liberals and so am I!" I just love him so much that I can rationalise killing innocent people (if they are brown skinned)" Superthread.

Someone is touchy. I didn't suggest an anti-Obama thread, but rather an all purpose Obama thread. Have a look through the forum and I suspect the vast, vast majority of threads relating to him, will be about how he is evil, or the anti Christ, or whatever. They usually follow the same pattern so why keep repeating it in new threads? Just stick them all in the one, positive or negative.

Father Damo

Brown Bomber wrote: »

By the same token then there should be an "I heart Obama; "He makes me go weak at the knees. He only kills people because he cares!!! Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld...Boooooo! Obama/Clinton....Yay!!! Because they are "progressive" liberals and so am I!" I just love him so much that I can rationalise killing innocent people (if they are brown skinned)" Superthread.

People who have appeared in online videos encouraging or admitting to terrorist involvement are innocent?

Mind you, maybe they are. If this thread shows anything it is that there are an awful lot of rubbish talking attention seekers on the net!

Monty Burnz

Father Damo wrote: »

People who have appeared in online videos encouraging or admitting to terrorist involvement are innocent?

Mind you, maybe they are. If this thread shows anything it is that there are an awful lot of rubbish talking attention seekers on the net!

Well they certainly aren't innocent, but the unfortunate families or kids or wedding parties they are standing beside when the rocket hits them often are. I presume the US tries to limit these happenings, but it still happens rather a lot.

Father Damo

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Well they certainly aren't innocent, but the unfortunate families or kids or wedding parties they are standing beside when the rocket hits them often are. I presume the US tries to limit these happenings, but it still happens rather a lot.

These strikes generally seem to take place in very remote places far from the reach of regular police. Most of the people surrounding them, or their prents at least, know the risk they are putting they and themselves in associating with these people.

You cant really compare that to the Israelis destroying five houses in Gaza in order to hit the apartment of one of their Hamas neighbours. That is murder. What the US is doing is enforcing law in an area without laws.

weisses

Father Damo wrote: »

These strikes generally seem to take place in very remote places far from the reach of regular police. Most of the people surrounding them, or their prents at least, know the risk they are putting they and themselves in associating with these people.

Of course your right here ... Whole family's/friends must be wiped out ...

See how reactions here would be if said IRA members were taken out the same way over here killing innocent Irish children due to collateral damage ...

Father Damo wrote: »

You cant really compare that to the Israelis destroying five houses in Gaza in order to hit the apartment of one of their Hamas neighbours. That is murder. What the US is doing is enforcing law in an area without laws.

There are laws ... The same laws that will be there when the US leaves in 2014

Distorted view of the world

Jonny7

weisses wrote: »

Of course your right here ... Whole family's/friends must be wiped out ...

See how reactions here would be if said IRA members were taken out the same way over here killing innocent Irish children due to collateral damage ...

The IRA weren't using children as suicide bombers and killing upwards of 300 civilians a month, so pretty absurd comparison.

There are laws ... The same laws that will be there when the US leaves in 2014

*Laws subject to change, may include stonings, beheadings, being cooked alive in metal boxes, self immolations to escape forced marriages and acid thrown on those who attempt to go to school.

weisses

Jonny7 wrote: »

The IRA weren't using children as suicide bombers and killing upwards of 300 civilians a month, so pretty absurd comparison.

No its not .. they were terrorists ... They controlled the drug scene .. any idea how many "innocent" people got killed because of it ?

A terrorist is a terrorist .. take em out fine but don't be a hypocrite by stating that its okay to take out the whole family in another far away country while the lads here are not that bad really

So your point is .. once they use children as terrorists you can bomb them .. killing other children in the process .. they could be potential suicide bombers indeed

Jonny7 wrote: »

*Laws subject to change, may include stonings, beheadings, being cooked alive in metal boxes, self immolations to escape forced marriages and acid thrown on those who attempt to go to school.

Yes but its their law .. and again ... just bomb a house not knowing who's in it because people abide the Law ?

Jonny7

weisses wrote: »

No its not .. they were terrorists ... They controlled the drug scene .. any idea how many "innocent" people got killed because of it ?

Yes I do. Comparing Northern Ireland with the situation in Afghanistan/Pakistan is absurd.

A terrorist is a terrorist .. take em out fine but don't be a hypocrite by stating that its okay to take out the whole family in another far away country while the lads here are not that bad really

Whether or not you agree that they should be there in the first place (I don't) the cold reality is that they have to make the place safer before they pull out and leave the Afghans to the wolves. They don't target families or innocents, however they are fighting an enemy that do.

Yes but its their law .. and again ... just bomb a house not knowing who's in it because people abide the Law ?

Sorry, who's law?

weisses

Jonny7 wrote: »

Yes I do. Comparing Northern Ireland with the situation in Afghanistan/Pakistan is absurd.

For me a terrorist is a terrorist .. we just have to agree to disagree

Jonny7 wrote: »

Whether or not you agree that they should be there in the first place (I don't) the cold reality is that they have to make the place safer before they pull out and leave the Afghans to the wolves. They don't target families or innocents, however they are fighting an enemy that do.

They are not making it safer .. the only thing they are "making" are potential terrorists and once they pull out the Taliban will take over again and yes they target suspects where women and children are collateral damage ..

Nothing good came out of this pointless war on terror besides creating more terror

Jonny7 wrote: »

Sorry, who's law?

Jonny7 wrote: »

*Laws subject to change, may include stonings, beheadings, being cooked alive in metal boxes, self immolations to escape forced marriages and acid thrown on those who attempt to go to school.

Jonny7

weisses wrote: »

For me a terrorist is a terrorist .. we just have to agree to disagree

For me there are many differences.

They are not making it safer .. the only thing they are "making" are potential terrorists and once they pull out the Taliban will take over again and yes they target suspects where women and children are collateral damage ..

Open to interpretation. The 'potential terrorists' were already there in their tens of thousands during the civil war (gladly supported by Pakistan, the PAF, the ISI and fed from the madrassas) and controlled around 90% of the country, this fundamentalist militia subjected the people to one of the most strict and severe versions of Shariah law anywhere in the world (one that most Muslims strongly disagree with)

The Taliban are intent on retaking Afghanistan, all that stands between them and the local people are the US/NATO forces and the fledgling Afghan army/police forces (which the coalition are desperately trying to train)

wingsof daun

weisses wrote: »

No its not .. they were terrorists ... They controlled the drug scene

It's strange that when maniacs blow themselves up overseas and commit sadistic acts against innocent people you don't regard them as terrorists (people who need to be killed imo), but when our own little republican army was fighting a foreign army in Ireland you call them terrorists? I think you need to check up on your country's history more.

Monty Burnz

wingsof daun wrote: »

It's strange that when maniacs blow themselves up overseas and commit sadistic acts against innocent people you don't regard them as terrorists (people who need to be killed imo), but when our own little republican army was fighting a foreign army in Ireland you call them terrorists? I think you need to check up on your country's history more.

Unfortunately their idea of 'fighting a foreign army' involved blowing up completely innocent men, women and children.

weisses

wingsof daun wrote: »

It's strange that when maniacs blow themselves up overseas and commit sadistic acts against innocent people you don't regard them as terrorists (people who need to be killed imo), but when our own little republican army was fighting a foreign army in Ireland you call them terrorists? I think you need to check up on your country's history more.

I never said that they shouldn't kill these terrorists abroad .. its the targeting that i have a problem with ..

So the innocent people blasted to peaces by your local terrorists are okay but when it happens abroad they are maniacs .... terrific

Torakx

The "terrorists" that are being targeted are not the problem.
Its the people in higher positions of power arming them and using various means of coercion to cause conflicts.

If America werent interfering then it would probably be the russians or chinese instead.
There doesnt seem to be any organisation that uses force to keep peace and succeeds.
Becuase they ussually end up beating down the citizens of the country they are occupying, instead of kicking out all foriegn interests and helping the country become truly independant.

My overall view on the IRA is that it might have started out legit, but got infiltrated and sidetracked long ago, by intelligence agencies, to allow control of the population by using terrorism scare tactics.

I see the taliban issue as a little similar.I think its been infiltrated a good while back to create an unstable enviornment.
Whats even better for this type of technique, is that when legitimate freedom fighters get involved it paints a picture, that seems to justify going after these terrorists.
The only way i can guess if its real terrorism or not is the actual targets.
I think real terrorists attack targets for publicity and strategic political manouvering.

Freedom fighters in my oppinion attack real targets( and i believe have yet to learn about publicity and politics).But i guess alot of the freedom fighters in the world are mostly busy fighting armies on their front doorstep.
I dont think people turn to freedom fighting until the issue is right in their face.
And when it comes to what the irish might call terrorism at home,Why did they bomb innocent citizens and tourists?
Was it to stop them "invading"? To make the statement to the irish people that they are murderers of innocents?
To help their cause?

I doubt it.

Its very sad to me, that a majority of people will sit in front of a tv and listen to news reports and accept everything at face value.
The education people are getting from the tv programming is very biased i feel.

One reason why i can see the internet as it is now, a possible threat to Obamas handlers and co.
Too much free information is great to confuse issues and complicate things, but every now and then people make real use of it and get organised.

The counter to that is CIA types starting these projects before hand as a pre-emptive.In my opinion of course.