The Roman Empire Rules Today.

Torakx

I came across this video last night, trying to connect the bible prophesies with the roman empire and todays equivalent.

I dont entertain any of the bible stuff to be honest.Unless it was used against the public for coercion.
My only interest is the facts and newspapers reports he uses.
With those alone he makes an interesting case.

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

The video covers symbols used by the vatican and secret societies, covers the history of the vatican and relations during wars with fascist statesmen.
And shows the influence the Vatican may have today.

Overall i think im unsure whether he is correct that the overall lead is the Jesuit order above the Vatican.
But its an interesting theory and insinuates that all these secret societies, Templars,Freemasons,Mafia,Illuminatti etc etc were started by this same "beast".

Alot of what he states and shows may be questionable, so im curious what others here think.

Is the Roman Empire still around?

If so in what form?


Ps, theres an interesting little bit on the IRA also.

kryogen

I feel I have done well to make it 20 minutes or so in, but now he is just lying and some of the things he says are so cringy

Torakx

Yeah i know what you mean.
I find the idea of the Jesuit order being at the head interesting anyway.
And some of the stuff he covers on the nazi badge hitler wore on his chest.

Saying he was still catholic.
Maybe somebody knows what the real meaning of that was, to clear that one up at least.

Duckworth_Luas

Torakx wrote: »

Yeah i know what you mean.
I find the idea of the Jesuit order being at the head interesting anyway.
And some of the stuff he covers on the nazi badge hitler wore on his chest.

Saying he was still catholic.
Maybe somebody knows what the real meaning of that was, to clear that one up at least.

I havent watched the video but the cross on Hitler's chest is not a Nazi badge. Instead it is a German military award commonly known as the Iron Cross.

Hitler was twice awarded the Iron Cross while serving in the German Army in World War I.

Torakx

Thanks, I had forgotten what that was for.

Another theory he has, is that the titanic was deliberately taken down.
His evidence is that a Jesuit was captain at the time, there were rich people on board that protested the federal reserve and they only had white flares on board, which i checked and pretty sure it indicates a celebration at sea.
Coloured flares are for trouble ussually.
The Titanic, "accidently" had only white flares.
And in my own research i found that the radio guy on the titanic had told the nearest ships radioman to "shut up" and that was the last they heard from them.

Found this too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuit_conspiracy_theories

In their book Titanic & Olympic: The Truth Behind the Conspiracy, historians Bruce Beveridge and Steve Hall debunk various conspiracy theories about the sinking of the Titanic, including one, which they describe as falling into the category of the "completely ridiculous", that the Jesuits were responsible. In the early 20th century, the Jesuits were supposedly seeking a means to fund their schemes and wars. In 1910, at a clandestine meeting hosted by J. P. Morgan, seven major financiers controlled by or in league with the Jesuits came to an agreement on the need to eliminate outside competition in the banking world and to create a central bank backed by the United States Government, to be known later as the Federal Reserve.
This scheme, however, was opposed by certain influential businessmen such as Benjamin Guggenheim, Isador Strauss and John Jacob Astor IV. In order to eliminate these three powerful "enemies", the Jesuits ordered Morgan to build the Titanic and arrange for them to board it for a pre-arranged fatal maiden voyage.[8]


The theory makes the unlikely claim that Captain Edward Smith was a "Jesuit temporal coadjutor".[9] The "accidental sinking" was arranged by having Smith's "Jesuit master", Father Francis Browne, board the Titanic and order Smith to run his ship at full speed through an ice field on a moonless night, ignoring any ice warnings including those from the lookouts, with the purpose of hitting an iceberg severely enough to cause the ship to founder and the three businessmen to drown.
In other words, the Titanic was built and then sunk, and her crew and passengers sacrificed, simply to eliminate these three men. As evidence, the conspiracy theorists say that after the sinking, all opposition to the Federal Reserve disappeared. It was set up in December 1913, and eight months later the Jesuits allegedly had sufficient funding to launch a European war.
Beveridge and Hall note that the theory never addresses "why conspirators in 1910 would feel sinking a ship was an economical way to eliminate 'enemies' or how they would arrange for all three victims to board a specific ship on a specific voyage two years later"

Seems this one has been doing the rounds already.
The only catch apparently on wiki was not lack of motive, but more that they would not have spent 2 years building a ship just to kill a few people.
But im not convinced either way on that one.
After the titanic went down all, opposition was gone against the federal reserve according to this.

kryogen

Titanic conspiracies are around a long time, and there is some logic to some of them alright if your so inclined.

SoulandForm

Crazy stuff.

The actual Roman Empire continued in the east while Rome and the Papacy was taken over by Germanic tribes (thus eventually leading to the great schism); the power battle between the Latin-Germanic west and the Byzantine east doesnt feature at all here. I wonder why?

Can you tell us what time the stuff about the IRA comes up?

Torakx

01:07:00 But its a bit ridiculous i think.
Something about the Vatican(near the top of the pyramid) heading the IRA and when Al Qaida came around they could do the ceasefire and use the other network.

I think he uses alot of speculation.
But im not one to say for sure that the Iron Cross didnt originate somehow with Christ or the trinity.
Which has been the vaticans symbol I think from the start.Lets not go into Egypt

The Iron Cross also looks very similar to the Templars cross.
If thats really a Jesuit symbol and the Vatican created the templars aswell, then i could see the Iron Cross in black MIGHT have represented the Black pope blessing O.o dun DUN DUUUNN!

enno99

Torakx wrote: »

01:07:00 But its a bit ridiculous i think.
Something about the Vatican(near the top of the pyramid) heading the IRA and when Al Qaida came around they could do the ceasefire and use the other network.

I think he uses alot of speculation.
But im not one to say for sure that the Iron Cross didnt originate somehow with Christ or the trinity.
Which has been the vaticans symbol I think from the start.Lets not go into Egypt

The Iron Cross also looks very similar to the Templars cross.
If thats really a Jesuit symbol and the Vatican created the templars aswell, then i could see the Iron Cross in black MIGHT have represented the Black pope blessing O.o dun DUN DUUUNN!

I didnt watch all the video hes hard to listen to

Re the cross This might be where it stems from


The Iron Cross (German: About this sound Eisernes Kreuz (help·info)) is a cross symbol typically in black with a white or silver outline that originated after 1219 when the Kingdom of Jerusalem granted the Teutonic Order the right to combine the Teutonic Black Cross placed above a silver Cross of Jerusalem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Cross


The SS placed an intense emphasis upon elitism, and portrayed themselves as part of an elite order, which "...explicitly modelled on an a historical version of religious orders, such as the Teutonic Knights or the Jesuits, whose dedication to a higher idea was admired in these otherwise anti-clerical circles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology_of_the_SS


The Roman Catholic order continued to exist in Austria, out of Napoleon's reach. Beginning in 1804 and until 1923 (in which year Archduke Eugen of Austria resigned the grandmastership), it was headed by members of the Habsburg dynasty. All the following Grand Masters were priests.

In 1929, that branch of the Teutonic knights was converted to a purely spiritual Roman Catholic religious order and renamed the Deutscher Orden ("German Order"). After Austria's annexation by Nazi Germany in 1938, the Teutonic Order was suppressed throughout the Großdeutsches Reich until defeat of that regime, although the Nazis used imagery of the medieval Teutonic knights for propagandistic purposes.[31] The Roman Catholic order survived in Italy, however, and was reconstituted in Germany and Austria in 1945

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teutonic_Order

Torakx

Interesting reading.
Its seems attempts were made to limit the Catholic churches influence in Germany at that time.
So im not sure what that says for the Vatican and the idea they "rule the world".
Unless they would intentionally do all that to make it look like they are not involved.

Aquarius34

SoulandForm wrote: »

Crazy stuff.

The actual Roman Empire continued in the east while Rome and the Papacy was taken over by Germanic tribes (thus eventually leading to the great schism); the power battle between the Latin-Germanic west and the Byzantine east doesnt feature at all here. I wonder why?

Can you tell us what time the stuff about the IRA comes up?

Which would mean that Rome, then became the Holy Roman Empire, which was centred around Germany at the time. The Roman Empire never died out, it just evolved like anything else does through time. The EU is basically the political Rome and the Vatican is the religious sector.

SoulandForm

http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.03.en.franks_romans_feudalism_and_doctrine.01.htm

The claim of the Holy Roman Empire to be the continuation of Rome is something very much denied by conservative Greeks and Russians. You should check out the above link for their view.

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Which would mean that Rome, then became the Holy Roman Empire, which was centred around Germany at the time. The Roman Empire never died out, it just evolved like anything else does through time. The EU is basically the political Rome and the Vatican is the religious sector.

Torakx

Theres alot of information in there.
Its hard to learn all that history and check out its legitimacy.
The Greek side of the story is interesting though.
Its hard for me to say now, which the Vatican originated from.
Or is that not contested? I presume it is.

If there is some force controlling world policy though the church its probably going to be through the Vatican.
I dont know if the origins of the Roman Empire are an important factor, if the Vatican was created by Jesuits or compromised by infiltration.
I guess that takes me back to the Vatican and the Jesuits.

I suppose my interest is more with the current day "Roman Empire".
Until recently i had considered Freemasons and some other societies as being against the church who apparently persecuted them.

But then the Templars at the least inspired Freemasons and the Templars were, i think, considering themselves holy knights on a mission and i believe had strong roots with Christian religion.

Tzar Chasm

the templars were royally shafted, their rise to power and subsequent destruction is the stuff of legends, it makes for a very interesting read.

as for the holy roman empire, my favourite quote on it is

it was neither Holy, Roman or an Empire

Aquarius34

The Templars are the stringers to all of this.

SoulandForm

Torakx wrote: »

I suppose my interest is more with the current day "Roman Empire".
Until recently i had considered Freemasons and some other societies as being against the church who apparently persecuted them.

But then the Templars at the least inspired Freemasons and the Templars were, i think, considering themselves holy knights on a mission and i believe had strong roots with Christian religion.

The Templars and the whole thing about chivalry did not come from Christianity, it arose out of the old Germanic Warrior societies though given society at the time it took on a Christian veneer. The Templars tended to side with the Empire in its struggle against the Church Hierarchy. The politics and society of the Middle Ages was a lot more complex and less monolithic than people give it credit for. A lot of Templars fled to Scotland where they could well have been birth to Scottish Rite Freemasonry.

And yes the Roman Catholic Church waged a battle against Freemasonry until in suddenly went silent on the issue in the 60s.

SoulandForm

Torakx wrote: »

Theres alot of information in there.
Its hard to learn all that history and check out its legitimacy.
The Greek side of the story is interesting though.
Its hard for me to say now, which the Vatican originated from.
Or is that not contested? I presume it is.
.

I would take Fr Romanides with a large pinch of salt- however there is a lot of truth in some of what he writes. He is believed though by a lot of people in Eastern Europe and the Balkans. I dont think though its disputable that "Romanitas" died out in the West giving rise to a new civilization while in continued in the East and that the Crusades basically finished off genuinely "Roman" Christian civilization.

Aquarius34

SoulandForm wrote: »

The Templars and the whole thing about chivalry did not come from Christianity, it arose out of the old Germanic Warrior societies though given society at the time it took on a Christian veneer. The Templars tended to side with the Empire in its struggle against the Church Hierarchy. The politics and society of the Middle Ages was a lot more complex and less monolithic than people give it credit for. A lot of Templars fled to Scotland where they could well have been birth to Scottish Rite Freemasonry.

And yes the Roman Catholic Church waged a battle against Freemasonry until in suddenly went silent on the issue in the 60s.

Yes that's what history tells you, but things are not what they seem. I didn't say the Templars were the string pullers for nothing. They played both sides, and yes it does look like the Templars were waging war against the Catholic church, but it''s not true in the way you say it. The true Templars, are above all of it. They created both sides, just like they orchestrated the crusades in the middle east. The Vatican/Roman catholic church is not the most powerful organisation on Earth. It is the religious power house of the world alright. It's just one faction of the main group that controls the entire globe, which are the Jesuits/Templars that rule from behind the veil.

Torakx

If that is the case, what is the connection the Templars have with the Jesuits?
And is there any defining point in history anyone knows of, that could indicate this?
Or anything in History that might show the Templars playing both sides?

I have seen a video of the irish Freemasons giving a tour of a lodge and explaining they were inspired by the Templars.

So it would be handy to confirm how much "inspiration" the Freemasons got and also the Templars link to the Vatican if possible.

SoulandForm

The Jesuits have weird roots and a weird history- they have been suppressed by the Papacy and ignored that suppression. So much for their fabled loyality to the Pope. Interestingly enough the Jesuits in Northern Ireland tend to be the most Unionist, while the Ciscterians, the most Protestant of the Roman Catholic orders, tend to be the most Republican.

Torakx wrote: »

If that is the case, what is the connection the Templars have with the Jesuits?
And is there any defining point in history anyone knows of, that could indicate this?
Or anything in History that might show the Templars playing both sides?

I have seen a video of the irish Freemasons giving a tour of a lodge and explaining they were inspired by the Templars.

So it would be handy to confirm how much "inspiration" the Freemasons got and also the Templars link to the Vatican if possible.

Aquarius34

SoulandForm wrote: »

Interestingly enough the Jesuits in Northern Ireland tend to be the most Unionist, while the Ciscterians, the most Protestant of the Roman Catholic orders, tend to be the most Republican.

Where did you get the notion that Northern Jesuits would be Unionist? I've never heard that one before. But it doesn't really matter now because once you know the truth, you understand that both sides are control by the same factions. Protestantism vs Catholicism is like Goats cheezs vs Cows Cheese. It's still cheese. People have been mind controlled and thrown about in segregation.

SoulandForm

Its in article in a sociology magazine I have somewhere around the place. I was looking for it today. When I find it I will start a thread on it. The problems of OWC are not solely, or mainly, about religion.

Aquarius34 wrote: »

Where did you get the notion that Northern Jesuits would be Unionist? I've never heard that one before. But it doesn't really matter now because once you know the truth, you understand that both sides are control by the same factions. Protestantism vs Catholicism is like Goats cheezs vs Cows Cheese. It's still cheese. People have been mind controlled and thrown about in segregation.

SoulandForm

You might find this interesting Torax.

http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/religion/catholic/secretsupressed1.shtml

http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/religion/catholic/secretsupressed2.shtml

http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/religion/catholic/secretsupressed3.shtml

Torakx

Thanks.
I got halfway down the first page and the zionists came to town lol
Is this going to end up saying zionists took over the church?
Interesting enough read so far though.
As to how much could be true, ive no idea.

Edit: ok warning to readers, the child sacrifice stuff is disturbing.
I have read some creepy stuff, but even that detail I couldnt read.Some things you really just dont want to know.

But it does seem that the overall theme is going along the idea that Zionists took controll at the early stages.
Id be more interested in confirming these ideas than reading more of that letter.
Since the source is anonymous, I cant be sure where it really came from.

Last link had an interesting ending, heres a snippet.

The reason behind this reduction is among the most frightening revelations I feel I shall make: according to the best estimates of clique-employed climatologists, the world - contrary to the current "greenhouse effecC' story - is drawing inexorably toward another glaciation. The "Ice Ages" are always spoken of in the past tense, always treated as occurrences in prehistory, never to be repeated; however, glaciation has been the norm for this world since roughly two million years ago; alternating cycles of glaciation and warm interstadial, following an approximate one-hundred-thousand year cycle (ninety thousand years of glaciation, followed by ten thousand of interstadial, plus or minus as much as two thousand years) are the normal climate of our Earth, since the end of the Pliocene era (or perhaps slightly earlier). When the icesheets once again advance, it is the plan of the elite to move the trappings of civilization south, a forced march of laden slaves to the southern hemisphere (the glaciers cover only the northern portion climes), and to this end, "housecleaning" has already begun. AIDS ravages primarily (though not exclusively) third-world populations, hence the southern lands will be defenseless; massive tracts are already being cleared and prepared for construction in South America, and North America - expected to be covered, by the middle of the twenty-second century, with a two-mile-thick blanket of ice - is being treated as a garbage bin, industrial effluvia of the most noxious varieties being poured out all over the land; it will cease to be of use to the elite, ergo it must be rendered useless to anyone else.

Even the most dangerous of the industrial wastes will break down and he reassimilated by the soil in ninety thousand years, hence, when the ice clears, a trek back to the North will be possible, if desired. In the interim, the commoners are kept palliated, entertained, too busy to investigate the world around them - and reduced, by slow attrition of incurable disease, to a desired size. I wish that I could say that there is some sustained, organized resistance within the lower ranks of the Church. Indeed, there is not. I wish I could say that some faction among the elite held more humane views; I cannot. Briefly, there was hope. John Fitzgerald Kennedy, a drunkard and a boor, perhaps the best of a very bad lot (the Kennedy clan) had some pretensions to fulfilling his baptismal vows, if only in the breach. He had some desire to treat the slaves humanely. He was used to set an example to any others who might attempt to defy the higher-ups, to over-reach the boundaries set up by the various factions of the elite. So much for political help. John Paul I attempted to wrest control of the Vatican away from the Marcinkus clique; an example was made of him, also. Far from discouraging, however, is the fact that such occurrences could be at all - such is a sign of the internal disunity of the elite.

http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/religion/catholic/secretsupressed3.shtml

SoulandForm

I think they are saying that "Zionists" i.e. their name a shadowy elite group have a different Religion to other jews. Certainly child sacrifice did feature in parts of ancient Hebrew religious life (going on archelogical evidence and the evidence of the prophets). The idea of aristocratic clans continuing struggling among themselves though is interesting. With all these things its hard to know what to believe and what not to believe.

SoulandForm

I posted it because it fit in up to a point with the ideas of Fr John Romanides (the Greek).

The book where I came across it is actually pretty cool and has a lot of interesting information. You might want to check it out.

http://www.amazon.com/Secret-Suppressed-Banned-Hidden-History/dp/0922915148

Im open minded when it comes to conspiracy theories, and belief firmly that there is a lot of hidden stuff going on behind the scenes, however I just cant swallow the idea of a huge over arching conspiracy.