Pat Riot on The French Connection

[targa2]

I like the speach by Pat Riot on Smiths site. Here is a correction to his legal argument for the Constitution.  The Rothschilds and/or their helpers do not need to remove the Constitution.  The Constitution is null and void as soon as an individual signs his name to any contract, including, but not limited ,to the adhesion contracts we sign with our government.  By accepting any benefit,opportunity, priviledge or immunity you waive all constitutional rights.

This may seem like a small distinction but it is THE distinction we need to understand.   Contract vs rights.

[celticwarrior]

that's a great point to hammer home to the American public, the Constitution is your shield against your zogovernment's attempt to impose a communistic, totalitarian  police state; remember William Cooper's advice and don't let the Federal Big Brother steal away your God-given Constitutional rights

[§N9sh2bj]

The corporate Constitution is null and void anyway. It's just the corporate charter for the UNITED STATES corporation.
The declaration of independence and Constitution used to be displayed next to each other on the mall in washington, district of columbia. Then 'mysteriously', the Constitution, but not the declaration, needed to be taken down.
Turns out during the war of 1812, besides the white house being burned to the ground, the de jure original constitution, was replaced with another one, written in a style which was not present in the colonies / States until 1816. It is supposed people were asking too many questions, like why do two documents, suggested to be written at the same time by the same group of people, have different paper, and a completely different writing style.

The declaration was written in something called 'freeman script'.

The two main libraries which had copies and other records, burnt down. Supposedly a library in england in which a copy was found in their archives in the 1980's burnt down as well.

The text above, ties in with the original 13th amendment, which prohibited lawyers from being in politics, serving in public office, and banned titles in general, like 'titles of nobility'. It also ties in with what people are leaving messages about in this thread.

To the extent that the corporate Constitution reflects our rights and liberties -said as god-given, or present as natural law- it's text can be used in claims of right, legal notice and demand-type documents. But only to help men, as employees of the corporation, know what the hell you are talking about, as frequently they are only familiar with the private rules of the corporation, and not much if anything outside of it.

The CoR and LNaD-type documents exist in international jurisdiction, well outside the private law of any dead corporation. In regional versions, any references to the local STATE or FEDERAL Constitutions and codes are only for the benefit of the earthling robots who are employees, so they clearly know they are not just trespassing international borders and boundaries, but also, trampling on the private law of the corporation they work for.

Inclusions of a Constitution or the like 'founding' regulations for a particular given jurisdiction -which the living man is likely to come into contact with the employees of- is not relied upon, in my belief, to say by way of the declaring man: 'Hey, I have this right because your Constitution says so.'  References to local corporations are merely for the contextual benefit of the employee who reads the document.


As it turns out, most three-letter corporate jurisdictions, in their founding documents or other code, do acknowledge validity of such documents as a 'claim of right'. USA, CANADA, and probably all others. 'These rights are assumed not to be available to you unless you claim them.' An example are the CANADA documents, which say 'All property reverts to The Crown for lack of a competent heir.' I had to paraphrase that, but if you know The Crown is a corporation out of the City of London, and has little if any to do with the de jure queen of england, it makes sense. You don't become a 'competent heir' until you give notice essentially, of who you are. Giving notice removes the assumption you are a 'child of the State', a ward of the corporation's employees, incompetent and otherwise unable to manage your affairs. Continually applying for permission to do activities which are lawful anyway, further reinforce the assumption you are a ward of the State and incompetent.

Voting (signing up to vote in the corporate elections), driver's license, and many other contracts made between you, the living man, and the many subsidiary corporations of the 'more upstream' one, are for perceived 'benefits', such as limited liability. That you are fooled into buying insurance, such as house insurance or car insurance, is only more proof you are incompetent.

It's for entertainment only: are you being entertained, yet?

[celticwarrior]

interesting;  I take your points on board

[/tab]

.
Pat Riot [PATRIOT ] Nice Alias, I wonder who is behind the voice ?  

A comment : When the allusion to Rothschild as the author of the Protocols, well, that can alienate some people, but  like in philosophy, is good to discuss all kind of stuff and bring all the sh*t to the light.

The German leader Adolf Hitler proved the Protocols to be genuine. He also mentions the Protocols in his work Mein Kampf.
Even if The Protocols were fake, it in no way means that the majority of jews do not use the techniques as described in the book.They obviously do.

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Protocols

The interesting think is that when you take a look to the English version of  Metapedia there is not much over there . . .

In 1921 Lucien Wolf, a Jewish writer, claimed that the Protocols plagarized a pamphlet from 1864 "Dialogue aux enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu" written by Maurice Joly. These claims were repeated in the newspaper The Times in August. Later it had been suggested that Matvei Golovinski wrote the Protocols.

. . . but in the Metapedia's Spanish version of the same Protocols issue is a lot more information . . .

http://es.metapedia.org/wiki/Los_Protocolos_de_los_Sabios_de_Si%C3%B3n

 . . . we get this clues, I'll try now to quick translate this text :

Jacob Venedey (a Jew) published 1869 "The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu" this was written before Joly. Venedey had Karl Marx Rothchild as a very best friend. In 1843 Venedey was in England organizing another Secret Society so that Israel can dominate the world. (Comment, I wonder who was financing that actions  :roll: )

http://es.metapedia.org/wiki/Los_Protocolos_de_los_Sabios_de_Si%C3%B3n#Jacob_Venedey

Now we must repeat this one because is a very  important argument

Although the Protocols were viciously refuted by many on the left and Jewish radicals, and the authenticity of these texts are still hotly debated, part of the reason they gained such acceptance was that they agreed with many ideas that people already had about the Jews and that they contained the truth. Even if The Protocols were fake, it in no way means that the majority of jews do not use the techniques as described in the book.They obviously do.

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Protocols#Contents

On 22 October 1806 in London [Nathan Mayer Rothschild] married Hannah Barent-Cohen (1783–1850), daughter of Levi Barent-Cohen (1747–1808) and wife Lydia Diamantschleifer and paternal granddaughter of Barent Cohen and wife, whose other son Salomon David Barent-Cohen (d. 1807) married Sara Brandes, great-grandparents of Karl Marx.

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

Jacob Venedey
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:RwmNaMbCI3AJ:www.iisg.nl/collections/secretsocieties/germany.php+Jacob+Venedey&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk



Someone speak German ? Some  translation please ?
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Venedey

So, A lot of the expected connections are there : Jacob Venedey visiting England in 1843, House of Rothschild connections everywhere, thinktanks around with the "Protocols ideas" in embryo state, Joly already with "fame of plagiarism" and maybe Baron Rothschild didn't like Joly "spilling the beans" with his big mouth and then Joly committed of course "suicide", voilà mon cheri.

Subsequent research points out that Joly appears to have plagiarized a good amount of the material from a popular novel by Eugene Sue, namely Les Mystères du peuple (1849-1856).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Joly

______________________________ _ _______________________________

This site (and I do respect Jim Condit Jr and other names in that site)

http://www.aunetwork.tv/


has the names of Alex Ansary (Michael Tsarion's family)




and  

Dave vonKleist



. . . but is a lot of other names too. I gonna listen to some of the files, let's see later what more shake there in that cream.

http://www.aunetwork.tv/files/images/372.gif


.
.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Great finds there /tab. I learn something new and meaningful everyday here at TIU.

I actually believe the Jews concocted the Protocols from several sources over many decades,  but they mostly derive from the Basel 1897 conference.

Though Hitler did not openly supported the new paganism, he was not opposed to its ideas. In 1937, he awarded the National Prize, Germany's version of the Nobel Prize, to Alfred Rosenberg, maximum foe of Christianity and leader of the Neo-Pagans. Rosenberg, the White Russian turned into Nazi philosopher, wanted a return to the old Teutonic religion of fire, sword, and swastika.

NOTES:

1. The Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion purported to be a record of the proceedings of the Jewish World Congress held in Basel in 1897, at which, it was affirmed, plans were laid towards total world domination by an international Jewish conspiracy.

The Protocols , however, proved to be a hoax. They were the appendix of a work called The Anti-Christ, written by Nilus, a degenerate Russian writer and the protegé of Soloviev, the Russian philosopher.

The Protocols were largely copied from the book of Maurice Joly, Dialogues aux Enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu , published in 1864. The extraordinary resemblance of the two works could not be accidental, not only whole paragraphs are almost identical, but the various points in the programme follow each other in the same order.

Maurice Joly was a French lawyer, a conservative and a monarchist. He had no intention of writing a secret document; on the contrary, he had in mind a satire against the French emperor, Napoleon III.

The French police soon discovered the author of the anonymous pamphlet, and Joly was sent to prison for fifteen months. His book was published in a second edition and then forgotten. Today scarcely any copies of it can be found.

At the time when Joly published his Dialogues aux Enfers , the secret societies were particularly active and, as people feared that a number of Jews had penetrated their ranks, a whole crop of literary efforts directed against Jews and secret societies marked the decade.

After thirty years of oblivion, however, Joly's great day came--in Russia. A copy of his book fell in the hands of some agents of the Ochrana, the tsar's secret police. They wanted to scare the tsar and drive him to bloodshed. Using Joly's book as evidence, they persuaded him that the Jews of the whole world had devised a secret conspiracy to achieve domination, first over Russia, then over the whole world.

The superstitious Tsar became frightened. The religious community was concerned by Soloviev's warnings about the imminent coming of the Antichrist. Now Sergei Nilus, one of his disciples, had made the Antichrist a Jew.

(Note the paragraphs below are documented B.S.)
Authors Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln in their "The Holy Blood and Holy Grail", "The Messianic Legacy", and "The Temple and the Lodge" Trilogy say that the "Protocols" was actually based on an authentic document about not the "Jews", but about the mysterious Priory of Sion.

The Prioy of Sion is said to be a Secret Society that was alledgedly behind the Knights Templar, Freemasonry, and Arthurian and Grail Legends who are working towards the restoration of World Kingship for it's "hidden masters". These "hidden masters" are said to be of the Judaic Royal Messianic Bloodline descended from Merovingians, Arcadia, Troy, Jesus, Mary Magdalene, James, the Benjimites and King David who possess "powers" that are seemingly supernatural.

http://www.freemasonrywatch.org/P2.html#L14

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3300&p=15425&hilit=Joly#p15425

[/tab]

.

BOTTOM LINE : THE SOURCE OF THE PROTOCOLS (Even if Jacob Venedey Was  or not a Jew) ARE JEWISH, but of course with a twist, the Financiers and Promoters of this show seems once again be the usual suspects : House of Rothschild, their gatekeepers & Co. I begin to suspect than the so called JEWS are just the goym of the Zion Bloodlines . . . used as gatekeepers(god's chosen people) and sheeps("everybody hate us, watch out"), and in a very kabbalistic way, this very same gatekeepers are using us Gentiles in turn as cattle, masters using puppets wich in turn are using gentiles as slaves. To be Jewish can be synonym as been indoctrinated in Supremacy, Detachment, Indifference and Hate, the risk to this happening appears as very high, and here I am speaking they doing that by ways of indoctrination, it has nothing to do with race, but just mental control of their perception by classical brainwashing.



Jacob Venedey (* 24. Mai 1805 in Köln; † 8. Februar 1871 in Oberweiler) had all the connections with the NaZioN elites, "His activities are one of the best examples of Jewish internationalism", so, the question right now is how much of Venedey's book was used in the Protocols ? The book, in two volumes, is here, [please download the PDF version, for the 'records']  but is in GERMAN.

Machiavelli, Montesquieu & Rousseau, by Jacob Venedey

Macchiavel, Montesquieu, Rousseau (Volume 1) - Jacob Venedey
http://books.google.com/books?id=zmwSAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Jacob+Venedey&lr=&source=gbs_book_other_versions_r&cad=2#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Macchiavel, Montesquieu, Rousseau (Volume 2) - Jacob Venedey
http://books.google.com/books?id=8W8SAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Jacob+Venedey&lr=&source=gbs_book_other_versions_r&cad=2#v=onepage&q=&f=false



Then, here is Maurice Joly's piece
Dialogue in Hell between Machiavelli and Montesquieu
or the Politics of Machiavelli in the 19th Century, by a Contemporary
http://www.notbored.org/dialogue-in-hell.html

The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion
By Victor E. Marsden
http://books.google.com/books?id=76DhEY-2Y5cC&pg=PA127&dq=Jacob+Venedey&lr=#v=onepage&q=Jacob%20Venedey&f=false

_____________________________________

One might have thought that The Times, in its desire to publish the truth about the Protocols, would at least have given the correct title of the Geneva Dialogues, it is, Dialogues aux Enfers entre Machiavelli et Montesquieu, published anonymously in Brussels in 1865. Moreover a minute's search in a library catalogue shows that another book, bearing a similar title, was published some years earlier: namely, Machiavelli, Montesquieu & Rousseau, by Jacob Venedey, published by Franz Dunnicker in Berlin in 1850. The Times, with its interest in plagiarisms, might have been tempted to glance at this latter volume as also at The Prince by Machiavelli and L'Esprit des Lois by Montesquieu. Had it done so, its curiosity would have been amply rewarded: passages quoted from the Protocols as plagiarised from the Dialogues of 1865, are similar to several10 in Venedey's book of 1850, and both Jacob Venedey and Maurice Joly should be branded as plagiarists.
But the resemblance between the Protocols and Venedey's book does not stop with a few parallel passages: the spirit of both is the same; it is revolutionary, whereas the Dialogues of 1865 are socialistic and polemical. The anonymous author merely borrowed certain descriptive passages in Venedey to give colour to his argument.11 Space does not allow us here to trace the links between Jacob Venedey The Alliance Israelite Universelle, Adolphe Crémieux, Maurice Joly, and Jules Janin
Now hadn't The Times better discover a copy of Venedey belonging to a former Okhrana officer, so as to explain how the Russian secret police were able to plagiarize the spirit, as well as a few platitudes and descriptive bits, when forging the Protocols ? Its correspondent in Peiping might make that discovery some day? No, the Peiping correspondent (or any other) will be-very careful not to make that discovery, for the simple reason that Venedey was a Jew, whereas
The Times' point is that the Jews had nothing to do with the drafting of the Protocols. Its argument is that the author of the Dialogues was a Corsican; that the Corsicans in the Paris Police preserved the Dialogues and gave a copy to the Corsican members of the Russian police, who used it to forge the Protocols: these insidious Corsicans!12 But what of Venedey ?
Jacob Venedey, born in Cologne in May, 1805, was early engaged in revolutionary activities which caused his expulsion from Germany. He settled in Paris where, in 1835, he edited a paper of subversive character, called Le Proscrit. Driven from Paris by the police, he moved to Havre, until, thanks to the representations of Arago and Mignet, friends of Cr6mieux, he was allowed to return to the capital. Meanwhile his book, Romanisme, Christianisme et Germanisme, won the praise of the French Academy, Venedey was a close friend and associate of Karl Marx. After spending the years 1843-44 in England, the headquarters of continental revolutionaries, he worked in Brussels for the founding, with Marx in 1847, of a secret organization, " The Communist League of Workers " (later the " Societe internationale de la Democratic ").
After the February revolution in 1848, Venedey joined Marx in Germany, where he became one of the chiefs of the revolutionary committee of Fifty (March, 1848), and was sent as commissar into the Oberland to stand against Hecker. Later elected as a member of the Left from Hesse-Homburg, he continued to serve on the Committee of Fifty. It was at this time that he brought out in Berlin his Machia-yelli, Montesquieu & Rousseau, stressing the views attributed to Machiavelli and Rousseau in favour of despotism and oppression.13
When order was restored in Germany, Venedey was expelled from Berlin and Breslau. He was an active member of the Free Masons and affiliated with the Carbonari;14 he was also closely associated not only with the revolution 12. It is noteworthy that no Corsican has yet raised a voice ofprotest against the charges made in The Times. Yet it is the Corsicanswho are the real victims of a libel, not the Jews tionaries of his day, but (as might be expected) with the leading Jews, the founders of the Alliance Israelite Univer-selle.15 The latter included men of as different political parties as the reactionary-imperialist Fould, the liberal-conservative Disraeli, and the communist-revolutionary Marx, and whether living under an empire, a constitutional monarchy or a republic, all laboured towards a common aim, the establishment of an international Jewish world power.16 Prominent among them and in close touch with Venedey, was Adolphe Isaac Cr6mieux (1798-1880). A Nimes lawyer with an ardent admiration for Napoleon, he became legal adviser to the Bonaparte family and an intimate of Louis Napoleon with whom he joined in overthrowing the government of Louis Philippe in 1849. A member of the Mizraim Lodge, the Scottish Rite (of which he became Supreme Master on the death of Viennet), he was familiar with all new movements; and his influence enabled him to render at least one important service to Jewry by having the Jewish murderers of Father Thomas in Damascus (1841) set at liberty. One of the leaders in the revolution of February ] 848, he was appointed minister of justice under the provisional government, and used all his political influence in the election of Louis Napoleon to the presidency of the republic. Cremieux hoped in this way to be named Prime Minister and to control French policy for a period, as Disraeli did in England somewhat later. Like Disraeli, he had the financial support of the Rothschilds; but when the President chose for his banker another Jew, Fould, and named General Cavaignac premier, Cremieux saw he had lost. Bitterly disappointed, he became so hostile to his former friend that, at the time of the coup d'e"tat in 1851, he was imprisoned at Vincennes. On his release, he identified himself with the enemies of the emperor; these included the communist associates of Marx, Mazzini, Jacob Venedey (already mentioned), Louis Blanc, Ledru Rollin, Pierre Leroux, and a group of socialists, among whom was Maurice Joly.17
Joly, some thirty years younger than Cr6mieux, with an inherited hatred of the Bonapartes, seems to have fallen very largely under his influence. Through Cr6mieux, Joly became acquainted with communists and their writings. Though, until 1871 when his ambition for a government post turned him into a violent communist, he had not in 1864 gone beyond socialism, he was so impressed with the way they presented their arguments that he could not, if the chance were offered, refrain from imitating it. And this chance came in 1864-1865, when his hatred of Napoleon, whetted by Crdmieux, led him to publish anonymously in Brussels the Dialogues aux Enfers entre Machiavelli et Montesquieu. In this work he tells us,18 " Machiavelli represents the policy of Might, while Montesquieu stands for that of Right: Machiavelli will be Napoleon, who will himself describe his abominable policy ". It was natural that he should choose the Italian Machiavelli to stand for Bonaparte, and the Frenchman Montesquieu, for the ideal statesman: it was equally natural that he should put in the mouth of Machiavelli some of the same expressions which Venedey had put in it, and which Joly had admired. His own view was: " Socialism seems to me one of the forms of a new life for the people emancipated from the traditions of the old world. I accept a great many of the solutions offered by socialism; but I reject communism, either as a social factor, or as a political institution. Communism is but a school of socialism. In politics, I understand extreme means to gain one's ends—in that at least, I am a Jacobin."19
The French authorities, however, penetrated the thinlydisguised satire: Joly was arrested and sentenced to two years imprisonment (April, 1865). But the Dialogues had pleased Cremieux as much as they had displeased the emperor, and, when his term expired, his Jewish patron rallied to his support: Joly was able to found a legal review, Le Palais, with Jules Favre, Desmaret, Leblond, Arago, Berryer, and Adolphe Cremieux as its principal stockholders.
With the fall of Napoleon III, Adolphe Cremieux once more took an open part in politics. Pushing to the front his former secretary, Gambetta, he directed through him the negotiations with Bismarck. Bismarck himself was guided by the Jew Bamberger (1832-1899), a former revolutionary of '48, but who had for years managed the Paris branch of the Jewish bank Bischofsheim & Gold-schmidt; he was also a friend of Cremieux. A third Jew in the negotiations was the son of James Rothschild.20 In this way, care was taken that the treaty should be satisfactory, if not entirely to the signatories, yet at least so to the Alliance Israelite Universelle.
From then (1871) until his death in 1880, as President of the Alliance Israelite Universelle and Supreme Master of the Scottish Rite, Cremieux was one of the promoters of the anti-clerical movement following the Franco-Prussian war. His favourite theme was that there should be one cult: speaking at a general assembly of the Alliance he said: " The Alliance is not limited to our cult; it voices its appeal to all cults and wants to penetrate in all religions, as it has penetrated into all countries. Let us endeavour boldly to bring about the union of all cults under one flag of " Union and Progress ": such is the motto of humanity."21
One cult, one flag. Are the Protocols of Nilus, or the words of Machiavelli in Joly's book or in Venedey's book, anything but an elaborate exposition of the ideas thus briefly expressed by Cremieux? His activities are one of the best examples of Jewish internationalism. Thus the principal attempt to discredit the Protocols leads directly into historical studies which substantiate and illustrate their doctrine in a remarkable and unexpected manner.
_________________________________________________
In 1492, Chemor, chief Rabbi of Spain, wrote to the Grand Sanhedrin, which had its seat in Constantinople, for advice, when a Spanish law threatened expulsion.2 This was the reply:
" Beloved brethren in Moses, we have received your letter in which you tell us of the anxieties and misfortunes which you are enduring. We are pierced by as great pain to hear it as yourselves.
The advice of the Grand Satraps and Rabbis is the following:
1. As for what you say that the King of Spain 3 obliges you to become Christians: do it, since you cannot do otherwise.
2. As for what you say about the command to despoil you of your property: make your sons merchants that they may despoil, little by little, the Christians of theirs.
3. As for what you say about making attempts on your lives: make your sons doctors and apothecaries, that they may take away Christians' lives.
4. As for what you say of their destroying your syna gogues: make your sons canons and clerics in order that they may destroy their churches.
5. As for the many other vexations you complain of: arrange that your sons become advocates and lawyers, and see that they always mix in affairs of State, that by putting Christians under your yoke you may dominate the world and be avenged on them.
6. Do not swerve from this order that we give you, because you will find by experience that, humiliated as you are, you will reach the actuality of power.
(Signed) PRINCE OF THE JEWS OF CONSTANTINOPLE."

part 1
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apo ... part_1.htm

Part 2
http://www.catholicapologetics.info/apo ... part_2.htm

Don't ever forget Gaza and Palestine
http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2009/01/next-gaza.html



.
.