Conspiracy Talk Archive June 30 2013


Use our posting form to send us conpiracy talk.

30 Jun 2013 22:49:16
In response to Franky's post further down, the nameless family/ corpaoration is the Rothschild banking dynasty. Media will have you believe they went bankrupt but they had around $50 trillion in 1950, how do you lose that? You don't.

Rockefeller was always thought to be the richest man in the world but when he died it was revealed that he owned less than 20% of his companies, the rest belonging to the Rothschilds.

Bank of England, as well as other centralised banks (most of which set up by Amschel Rothschild's 5 sons), use recessions to generate even more wealth and therefore power for themselves. Remember, wealth is never lost and is only ever transferred.

Central banks have promised since their introduction to minimise ups and downs in the economy, yet that is all there has ever been!

Most of the public don't understand this though which brings me to a famous quote from George Orwell, "as society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it".

Vive la revolution!


Believable1 Unbelievable1

{Ed033's Note - I'm not convinced that the Rothschilds are at the top of the tree, and Frankyscouser appeared to be asking about those higher than Rothschild. I think all of the regulars on here know of the name Rothschild, but to me they are just minions to others higher up.

Totally agree ed! The rothschilds are just a wealthy family! Don't get me wrong I do think they have some say in what happens! Maybe could be classed as an elite! But we all know that there are powers above with a lot more power and wealth than all the word put together!

Agree1 Disagree1

Sorry Ed didn't mean to patronise. If you don't think Rothschild's are the most powerful, who do you think are really in power?


Agree2 Disagree0

{Ed033's Note - I don't know who's really in power.

No doubt the Rothschild family are rich and powerful but I have always had a opinion that the most powerful figures are nameless.

Agree3 Disagree1

The Rothchilds are not the ones at the top, sounds out there but I seriously belief the ones at the top are not human. i'm talking Archons.

There is a belief that low down in the deep web, underneath all the disgusting and scary stuff, you have an Archon interface which is only accessible through impossibly high level clearance etc.

Agree2 Disagree2

To regulars to this site and new followers what gibsy says will sound ridiculous and absurd but to me a higher intelligence pulls the strings, everyone assumes the richest is the real leader, I have not got a clue who or what is but it's evil.

Agree3 Disagree0

01 Jul 2013 20:04:09
"Archon" - ruler or lord? "Archon Interface" - what is that? Would you be able to tell us a bit more about this? pea

Agree0 Disagree0

{Ed033's Note - John Lash talked about the Archons years ago but here is David Icke's interpretation of what the Archon's are:

30 Jun 2013 21:08:47
Hi ed and every body i've recently come across something called fema concentration camps that are in the usa now. What do people make of these concentration camps?

Believable0 Unbelievable0

{Ed033's Note - Conspiracy Theory - Jesse Ventura - Police State FEMA Camps and Fusion Centers

29 Jun 2013 22:04:24
more evidence of a pro active agenda to get children used to sex at a early age, a school wanted to show to a class of ten year olds, two adults having sex, then you have schools in germany that are teaching /learning how to masturbate, these authorities allowing this are the real pedophiles setting in motion that it all this is normal.

Believable6 Unbelievable9

Don't get what you mean- sex is normal isn't it? Most theorists agree that teaching kids about sex early is the best way to avoid increased teenage pregnancies and STD's etc. Sex education in no way is encouraging paedophiles. If anything, it helps youngsters to grow up understanding what is acceptable and what isn't. They need to learn this stuff before they get access to pornsites on the net which will really warp their perspectives on sex.

Agree10 Disagree0

Unfortunately Kids are able to access sites at such an early age that the need to teach them what is reality is very important.
Back in the day it was blue movies on your brothers VHS tapes and maybe a dirty mag you found now its everywhere and much more graphic.

Kopping a feel

Agree4 Disagree0

I think you have got this wrong, Franky.
The sexualisation of our children is coming from the media and is not being dealt with by parents.
Look at the music industry, Beiber, in particular. There is someone, a near child himself, who has been marketed at 10-15yr old girls. Corporations selling sex to children is the only way you can describe that. Parents can choose to moniter their kids accessibility to such things but choose not to. If parents are not dealing with this properly and teaching their kids about this topic, the only place left to educate them in such matters is the schools. My brother-in-law is a primary school teacher and he says that the fellow teachers he has spoken to do not want to be teaching kids this stuff, it's a parents job.

The audio and visual bombardment of this generations children, from the media, celebrity and music industries, in particular, is where the blame should lie.


Agree0 Disagree0

{Ed033's Note - As they control both the schools and the main stream media, I would say, they would use both the schooling system and the mainstream media to brainwash children into their agenda.

It appears that there is an agenda over the longer term to make pedophilia appear as 'normal' and so they would brainwash the children, seeing as you quite rightly pointed out that generally, parents aren't "dealing with this properly".

Sex education fine at an appropriate age not ten years old and under and yes I agree kids can easily stumble on porn on the net, but showing nine and ten year olds two adults have full penetrative sex and the same thing with masturbation is way to young, and there motives I treat with suspicion.

Agree2 Disagree4

What age would you say is right then? Because kids are accessing horrible stuff far younger. There was a case in our local primary school when 2 lads were caught with porn on their phones- they were 7. Attempting to show them what's normal is important, even if it seems too young to you and I think it's slightly ludicrous to suggest there's an agenda to promote paedophilia in this. Attitudes to that have got far stricter over the years.

Agree5 Disagree2

What is an appropriate age? Some kids are more mature than others.
I could have handled sex education at eight years old. At that age I already understood that other mammals did it. I have read about cases of young girls becoming pregnant as young as 11. If that's the case, then their sex education should have started at 9 or 10 to prevent it. Is that too young, Franky?

Jimi 88

Agree0 Disagree2

You do get more mature kids developing than some other kids and there will always be the odd case of very young kids getting pregnant but guys I think you are missing my point, you mention kids having porn on a phone/internet easy to access which is my whole point, I will give you a example there has been a big crackdown on downloading torrents for movies and the chipped satellite boxes , the corporations were losing money big-time solution? they all got together and stopped it or made it very hard, now ask yourself could they do the same for anything pornographic? of course they could, there solution is to make it normal and that is there agenda and I am sorry that's what I genuinely think, let kids be kids because if this is going to be the norm god help kids in twenty years time.

btw I think the right age for sex education is when kids develop 12/13 average.

Agree4 Disagree4

I'm fine with 10 year olds learning about sex education but showing them two adults having sex is just wrong.

Sex education should be diagrams on a white board and an animated video.

Agree2 Disagree2

I agree with Franky and 10 is way too young!

Its not just about what is out there that they can access etc its about their understanding. How do you test a 10 year old has understood a sex education DVD. They would just giggle and most would not ask any questions.

It's too young ~ Mrs E

Agree5 Disagree6

When I was 10, before the internet I may add, I had seen a porno film (soft by today's comparisons) and had 3 classmates who were no longer virgins. Mad but true.

Today, adding the internet to the mix, porn exposure prevails.

Those supporting frankie's view here are I fear wishing to project innocence onto our children in a world where none exists. I see that as the more dangerous option and draw parallels with my this and my mothers approach to parenting. I had sex education before leaving primary school and yet was almost 14 and in puberty when she sat me down for a birds and bees chat. I just laughed at her: too late isn't necessarily better than too early with such information.


Agree0 Disagree0

The horse has definitely bolted p and there is no going back but I do not see the need to up the ante on sex education.

Agree0 Disagree0

{Ed033's Note - I think that royalty all of the earth have been into blood sacrifices for thousands of years, why would they suddenly stop?

29 Jun 2013 21:54:48
China have been building entire blocks in Africa, and I mean entire blocks! These ghost towns are a real mystery. Funny thing is, China have been arming groups on the continent, pirates etc.

South Africa will collapse and the Chinese will colonize, mark my words!

Believable1 Unbelievable5

Mate, china have ghost towns built all over china, there are a few reasons why they are doing this, one is they are the richest nation on earth but also know the debts that other countries owe them count for nothing if there other countries can't or won't pay them back so the wise thing is to build or buy all over the world, look at it on a smaller scale, you have a bit of money in a bank, do you you leave it in there doing nothing with the real possibility that it could get frozen or taxed or do you buy something that everybody needs like housing etc? I really do not think its a tactic to invade anyone, just they are in a strong position compared to most countries and because they are getting a good deal to boot.

Agree2 Disagree0

{Ed033's Note - At some point in the future, China will want to expand out of China, parts of Africa would be a possibility

Migration is seeing many populous nations move elsewhere. This is nothing new. I fear China much less than I fear the UK govt. right now.

Agree4 Disagree0