Freedoms/Benefits in 1800's and prior we don't have today

[Winston]

If you like history then here is something interesting. We all know that in the modern world, there are many technologies and consumer goods produced through industrialization that have given us many conveniences that were not available in the past prior to industrialization. However, what we aren't told is that in the 1800's and prior, there were many freedoms and benefits that aren't available today, that will shock you. Here are some examples.

- Did you know that back in the 1800's there were no passports and no visas? You could travel abroad by ship, or come to America by ship, and get off and then do what you wanted. Customs was much simpler and easier.

- The government was very small and did not bother anyone most of the time. Today the government is like a giant monster in comparison.

- There was no income tax and no inflation.

- The value of the dollar was steady and in fact was worth more at the end of the 19th century than at the beginning.

- Doctors would give you naturopathic and herbal remedies. No big pharma dominated the medical profession.

- You could buy a house in America for 200 or 300 dollars. So even with your salary now, you could have bought a house in America during the 1800s! Incredible huh?! Or you could go out into unsettled land on the frontier and build your own house for FREE! You'd still have to plant crops though, to eat and sell to get money for other things.

- You could go to Washington DC and knock on the front door of the white house and ask to meet the President of the United States.

- School was a POSITIVE environment where kids went to by choice, not the prison-like environment it is today. Before schools became ran by the state in the 1870's, children went to private schools so they could learn useful skills and trades that they and their parents wanted. Either that, or they were home schooled. The kids and parents could choose the courses their children took. They were not forced to take useless courses like in state run schools. Also, there were no teachers unions to prevent teachers from getting fired for doing a bad job like there is today, so if a teacher sucked, he/she would get fired and replaced with a better one. So the private schools had quality control over the teachers. As a result, education was much higher quality.

There was so much more freedom during the 1800s compared to now. America was much more wild and free back then, even though it was more dangerous, wild and lawless as well. Very interesting huh?

The government and media today don't want you to know all this. They don't want you to know that your country used to be a lot more free, because their job is to keep you producing and not complaining. Government and media today are mere forms of "human livestock management".

[Moretorque]

Yaa King Winston when I read it only took 15% of our GDP to run the government 100 years ago I new those were much better days. You are correct, Socialism is top down cattle control.

[publicduende]

Yaa King Winston when I read it only took 15% of our GDP to run the government 100 years ago I new those were much better days. You are correct, Socialism is top down cattle control.

What socialism? The problem with America is, and has always been, unbridled capitalism fuelled by greed, selfishness, cynicism. Even what you have now with Obama and his million and one welfare programs isn't really socialism, just desperate measures to avoid hundry or idle people flooding the streets with guns and rifles in their hands.

[Ghost]

.

[MrMan]

I would imagine you could also easily start a business without having to have a business license from the state. You could start some kind of food business without the expense of having to buy expensive state-approved, health department approved equipment or special licenses in some areas, especially early in the century.

A man had freedom to direct the affairs of his house and to tell his wife and children what to do without the state interfering. You had the right to stay married without your spouse being able to run off, divorce you against your will and legally (by man's laws, not God's) marry someone else.

Not having to pay income tax would be a great freedom to enjoy. Just as great is not having to keep track of all the money you make for income tax purposes if you were self-employed.

There are benefits, though, to having some government, civil defense, roads, and other aspects of infrastructure. Even health departments and building codes, while restricting freedom in some ways, are useful, especially when people live in crowded cities. Large cities don't work without government to build the sewage system and other investments that are necessary, but which the individual cannot make on his own and has no motivation to make.

$200 for a house what a whopping amount of money. How much was a loaf of bread? I read online that loaf of bread was a penny in 1800. I live in an expensive city where bread can be over $4.00. I'm guess whole wheat bread runs about $2.00 on the mainland. They ate something more like that than this fake wonder bread we have now. A $200 house would be $40,000. A $300 house would be $60,000. That sounds cheap, but a lot of them lived in smaller houses, sometimes with one main room, and they didn't have the heat and air conditioning systems or indoor plumbing or electricity, or the burden of living up to a building code meant to keep the house from burning or falling down, either.

Was medical care better? At least by the late 1800's, there was a big drug industry. Companies would manufacture tonics with cocaine and morphine in them. Doctors would sell the tonics, and there was no government control over it. Britain was a big drug dealer country and fought a war with China because China wanted to outlaw opium because so much of his country, including the government officials, were drug addicts. In the US, the government didn't regulate the claims on the medicines full of these addicting drugs like they do now. Sometimes, these drugs were recommended for babies. And plenty of people died from doctors not washing their hands in the 1800's. In the early part of the century, many of them weren't aware of the germ theory. Medicine was brutal back then. I don't know about China, where you might get herbal remedies (or get a recommendation to eat bear gall bladder or live baby rats), but in the US, medicine could be rather primitive and brutal back then.

[Moretorque]

Yaa King Winston when I read it only took 15% of our GDP to run the government 100 years ago I new those were much better days. You are correct, Socialism is top down cattle control.

What socialism? The problem with America is, and has always been, unbridled capitalism fuelled by greed, selfishness, cynicism. Even what you have now with Obama and his million and one welfare programs isn't really socialism, just desperate measures to avoid hundry or idle people flooding the streets with guns and rifles in their hands.

Most people are to stupid to understand the purpose of honest money backed by rule of law to back property rights.

[Moretorque]

Yaa King Winston when I read it only took 15% of our GDP to run the government 100 years ago I new those were much better days. You are correct, Socialism is top down cattle control.

What socialism? The problem with America is, and has always been, unbridled capitalism fuelled by greed, selfishness, cynicism. Even what you have now with Obama and his million and one welfare programs isn't really socialism, just desperate measures to avoid hundry or idle people flooding the streets with guns and rifles in their hands.

Capitalism, Socialism, Communism...why do all these -isms end up looking the same?

Ask the creditor who is funding all of them.

[Winston]

Some more freedoms and benefits of the past that we don't have today, that most people don't know about:

1. Contrary to what modern media portrays, people were actually more educated, intellectual and sophisticated in the past during the 1600's and 1700's, than they are today. You can see it in the literature and books of those eras. The English language was more refined, sophisticated, elegant, poetic and graceful. Anyone who reads classical literature can see this, including the works of Shakespeare. Even in the literature and novels of the Victorian era of the 1800's, the writers expressed emotions, thoughts and feelings that were far deeper than today. The English language itself has been dumbed down for modern times. English today is more for practical purposes and lacks the graceful poetic style is used to have back during the Renaissance. Back then, people didn't watch trash TV and entertainment or listen to trashy pop music. They read books at night (if they could afford them since books were expensive back then) and thus developed a joy of learning and knowledge. So the past cultures were more conducive to intellectualism.

It was only during the mid 1800's that Western cultures and societies become very greedy, materialistic and profit motivated. That's when industrialization and modernization began, which made people more soulless and greedy, and less virtuous and less natural. That's when people began to become dumbed down and roboticized, and not as into philosophy and intellectualism. With modernization, clothing began to look plain and dull as well, not as beautiful, elegant, artistic and creative as in the past. The architecture of buildings also began to look bland and dull in modern times, not artistic and lovely as it did in the historic past. So language, literature, clothing and architecture all degraded and devolved as a result of modernization. This all in contrast to the popular conception that modernization improves everything.

2. In the 1600's and 1700's, Europe was in the Renaissance era, and so being an intellectual, deep thinker and philosopher was seen as cool and attractive. It also branded you as an aristocrat and upper class, which made you appealing to women. Being smart or intellectual didn't make you look like a nerd or geek, which carries negative connotations today. So people like us would have been far more appreciated back then and been admired by women, including aristocratic ladies. This was probably the case in the Victorian era as well. In that sense, I would have fit in far better back then. So those were probably the best eras to live in.

3. School was also a much more positive and joyful place back then than it is today. Before the late 1800's, schools were PRIVATE, and not run by the state, which means that children and parents could CHOOSE the subjects they wanted to learn and the teachers they wanted as well. Thus schools were not the oppressive prison-like system run by government that it is today, where kids and teens are treated like prison inmates. Back then, children were not forced to take subjects they didn't want, nor forced to memorize large volumes of useless data they weren't interested in, as they are today. Nor were they forced to have teachers they didn't like. Instead, they chose what they wanted to learn and what they found useful to them, and they chose the teachers they studied under too. They could learn useful trade skills or take classes on how to start a business, etc. (which you do not have in public schools today)

Thus, children of the past loved going to school and DESIRED it. It was a positive environment where they had CHOICE and POWER, totally unlike today. So youngsters preferred going to school, if they could that is, and didn't have to work for their family. As a result, they developed a love of learning, not a hatred of it like today.

Back then schools did NOT have the objective of dumbing people down as they do today. Government insiders such as Charlotte Iszterby, who was education secretary under President Ronald Reagan, have blown the whistle and exposed the deliberate agenda to dumb down kids in public education, which has worked very well for the elite.

You see, in the late 1800's, the elite and upper class decided that giving everyone easy access to high quality education in private schools was NOT in their best interest. To do so would threaten their monopolies on their industries, because it would mean that the lower classes could start their own businesses to compete with the upper classes and thus drive down prices and threaten their profits and power. Plus the elite needed a large supply of cheap labor from the lower classes that they could exploit. If everyone became too educated and skilled through good private schools, then they would lose that. And also of course, the state needed a mass population that was easily controllable and dumb, who would believe whatever they were told. (That's why the elite were able to convince millions of men to fight in World War One and believe that it was a just cause, when in fact there was no cause to fight for at all.)

So the elite decided that it was in their best interests to have the government run a public school system that was state-controlled, and that's exactly what happened. That's how school went from a joyous positive place that children liked and enjoyed, where they had choices and power, into an oppressive negative prison-like environment where they were forced by law to take classes and teachers they didn't want. Thus the attitude of children toward school went from positive to negative. After that, only rich families could afford private schools and be exempt from the dumbing down state education system. That's the sad history that the elite don't want you to know about, because they want you to believe the myth that everyone has improved and is better today than in the best, using highly selective examples of course.

Think about it. Do you see public schools (or even colleges) today offering classes on how to start your own business? Or even on how to raise a good family? Or even on how to live a wise life? No of course not. Because the elite want you to be an compliant employee, worker and wage slave of course. Not someone wise who will be an innovator or entrepreneur or become as smart as they are. No way. The elite will hire and control their own innovators when they need them. But they do not want the masses to become innovators. No way.

They also do not want common people starting businesses to compete with corporations. Instead, they prefer you to work for a corporation and have corporations decide everything and run everything, which they already do. America is run by corporations, as we all know, and even the US government is run by corporations. In fact, America itself is a corporation and was incorporated in 1871. They want everything corporatized, because big corporations help to centralize power, which is exactly what the elites want and serve their best interests.

Everything they do is in THEIR interests, not yours. So if you think the elite care about human rights or equality or your freedoms or your best interests, you are deluded and naive. No way. Everything they engineer is in their interests, not yours. Occasionally they will give the masses some perceived benefits and legislation they want to make them believe that the system works sometimes, in order to allay their frustrations. They gotta throw some bread crumbs to the masses sometimes after all. But they will never allow big fundamental change in the status quo or power structure. No way.

[IraqVet2003]

Some more freedoms and benefits of the past that we don't have today, that most people don't know about:

1. Contrary to what modern media portrays, people were actually more educated, intellectual and sophisticated in the past during the 1600's and 1700's, than they are today. You can see it in the literature and books of those eras. The English language was more refined, sophisticated, elegant, poetic and graceful. Anyone who reads classical literature can see this, including the works of Shakespeare. Even in the literature and novels of the Victorian era of the 1800's, the writers expressed emotions, thoughts and feelings that were far deeper than today. The English language itself has been dumbed down for modern times. English today is more for practical purposes and lacks the graceful poetic style is used to have back during the Renaissance. Back then, people didn't watch trash TV and entertainment or listen to trashy pop music. They read books at night (if they could afford them since books were expensive back then) and thus developed a joy of learning and knowledge. So the past cultures were more conducive to intellectualism.

It was only during the mid 1800's that Western cultures and societies become very greedy, materialistic and profit motivated. That's when industrialization and modernization began, which made people more soulless and greedy, and less virtuous and less natural. That's when people began to become dumbed down and roboticized, and not as into philosophy and intellectualism. With modernization, clothing began to look plain and dull as well, not as beautiful, elegant, artistic and creative as in the past. The architecture of buildings also began to look bland and dull in modern times, not artistic and lovely as it did in the historic past. So language, literature, clothing and architecture all degraded and devolved as a result of modernization. This all in contrast to the popular conception that modernization improves everything.

2. In the 1600's and 1700's, Europe was in the Renaissance era, and so being an intellectual, deep thinker and philosopher was seen as cool and attractive. It also branded you as an aristocrat and upper class, which made you appealing to women. Being smart or intellectual didn't make you look like a nerd or geek, which carries negative connotations today. So people like us would have been far more appreciated back then and been admired by women, including aristocratic ladies. This was probably the case in the Victorian era as well. In that sense, I would have fit in far better back then. So those were probably the best eras to live in.

3. School was also a much more positive and joyful place back then than it is today. Before the late 1800's, schools were PRIVATE, and not run by the state, which means that children and parents could CHOOSE the subjects they wanted to learn and the teachers they wanted as well. Thus schools were not the oppressive prison-like system run by government that it is today, where kids and teens are treated like prison inmates. Back then, children were not forced to take subjects they didn't want, nor forced to memorize large volumes of useless data they weren't interested in, as they are today. Nor were they forced to have teachers they didn't like. Instead, they chose what they wanted to learn and what they found useful to them, and they chose the teachers they studied under too. They could learn useful trade skills or take classes on how to start a business, etc. (which you do not have in public schools today)

Thus, children of the past loved going to school and DESIRED it. It was a positive environment where they had CHOICE and POWER, totally unlike today. So youngsters preferred going to school, if they could that is, and didn't have to work for their family. As a result, they developed a love of learning, not a hatred of it like today.

Back then schools did NOT have the objective of dumbing people down as they do today. Government insiders such as Charlotte Iszterby, who was education secretary under President Ronald Reagan, have blown the whistle and exposed the deliberate agenda to dumb down kids in public education, which has worked very well for the elite.

You see, in the late 1800's, the elite and upper class decided that giving everyone easy access to high quality education in private schools was NOT in their best interest. To do so would threaten their monopolies on their industries, because it would mean that the lower classes could start their own businesses to compete with the upper classes and thus drive down prices and threaten their profits and power. Plus the elite needed a large supply of cheap labor from the lower classes that they could exploit. If everyone became too educated and skilled through good private schools, then they would lose that. And also of course, the state needed a mass population that was easily controllable and dumb, who would believe whatever they were told. (That's why the elite were able to convince millions of men to fight in World War One and believe that it was a just cause, when in fact there was no cause to fight for at all.)

So the elite decided that it was in their best interests to have the government run a public school system that was state-controlled, and that's exactly what happened. That's how school went from a joyous positive place that children liked and enjoyed, where they had choices and power, into an oppressive negative prison-like environment where they were forced by law to take classes and teachers they didn't want. Thus the attitude of children toward school went from positive to negative. After that, only rich families could afford private schools and be exempt from the dumbing down state education system. That's the sad history that the elite don't want you to know about, because they want you to believe the myth that everyone has improved and is better today than in the best, using highly selective examples of course.

Think about it. Do you see public schools (or even colleges) today offering classes on how to start your own business? Or even on how to raise a good family? Or even on how to live a wise life? No of course not. Because the elite want you to be an compliant employee, worker and wage slave of course. Not someone wise who will be an innovator or entrepreneur or become as smart as they are. No way. The elite will hire and control their own innovators when they need them. But they do not want the masses to become innovators. No way.

They also do not want common people starting businesses to compete with corporations. Instead, they prefer you to work for a corporation and have corporations decide everything and run everything, which they already do. America is run by corporations, as we all know, and even the US government is run by corporations. In fact, America itself is a corporation and was incorporated in 1871. They want everything corporatized, because big corporations help to centralize power, which is exactly what the elites want and serve their best interests.

Everything they do is in THEIR interests, not yours. So if you think the elite care about human rights or equality or your freedoms or your best interests, you are deluded and naive. No way. Everything they engineer is in their interests, not yours. Occasionally they will give the masses some perceived benefits and legislation they want to make them believe that the system works sometimes, in order to allay their frustrations. They gotta throw some bread crumbs to the masses sometimes after all. But they will never allow big fundamental change in the status quo or power structure. No way.

Great points Winston!!! But I would also like to add that back during those times the women's minds were not poisoned by RADICAL FEMINISM!!! Most young women were RAISED to become LADIES in which they acted, looked, and dressed FEMININE. Not to mention they were taught to RESPECT AND NEED MEN. After all this was during the "Victorian Era" in which young women were expected to find a husband and start a family or risk being labeled an "old maid". You would see this reality reflected in books such as "Pride and Prejudice".

However Winston, it was in during the 1960's that radical feminism emerged. This movement (so-called "women's liberation") had been secretly by the Rockefeller Foundation through the CIA according to Nick Rockefeller who told the late Aaron Russell the producer of the documentary "From Freedom to Fascism". This movement created by the Elite was designed to serve two main purposes. The first was to get women out of the home and into the workforce so as to have new source of TAX REVENUE for big government. Also because of this, the corporations decided to raise the price of everything making it necessary to "live to work" and have the "two income trap". The second was to take the children out of the home at an earlier stage of development so as to put them in public schools and for the STATE not the parents can teach them (or I should say indoctrinate them). The end result of such INDOCTRINATION AND SOCIALIZATION was to mass produce future WORKERS AND SOLDIERS not deep thinkers, artists, philosophers, or anyone who can "connect the dots" or think outside the box (or Matrix) that would challenge the system. Here's a link to back up this claim:

"10 WAYS TRUE FEMINISM IS UNDER ATTACK"
http://www.infowars.com/10-ways-true-fe ... der-attack

[fschmidt]

Winston gets some things right about history. Yes almost everything was better in the 1700s and 1800s. But no, Winston, it wasn't some elite conspiracy that ruined this. It was the change in religion in the Second Great Awakening that ruined American culture.

[Winston]

Winston gets some things right about history. Yes almost everything was better in the 1700s and 1800s. But no, Winston, it wasn't some elite conspiracy that ruined this. It was the change in religion in the Second Great Awakening that ruined American culture.

By the second great awakening, do you mean the Enlightenment era where atheism, science and humanism were promoted over religion? Or the time when Darwinism came into science, which challenged religion?

How do you know there was no conspiracy? You don't seem very well read or educated when it comes to conspiracies at all, right? So how can you make such a statement that there are no conspiracies when you aren't qualified to make it? You have done no research in this area right? All you've done is deny them a priori without investigation. All you seek is to validate your belief that large scale elite conspiracies don't exist, it seems, so you never research material that proves you wrong. Thus you are only seeking confirmation bias, is that correct?

Let me get this straight. Your opinion is that all the evils of the world and the moral/cultural decay of Western societies are all due to greedy corporations and corrupt politicians right? And you believe that the corrupt immoral elite are NOT working together, because you as you told me before, the elite are ruthless sociopaths who would never trust each other enough to plot conspiracies together right? That's your position right?

Well regardless, I've done a lot more research than you on this topic and can say that you are definitely WRONG about it.

Let me ask you this: Have you read "Proofs of a Conspiracy" by John Robison, published in 1798? It was published at the time that the Bavarian Illuminati started by Adam Weishaupt existed, and was based on primary sources at the time. In that book, Robison explained how the Illuminati infiltrated Freemasonry and fled to America to escape persecution, and how it was responsible for the French Revolution too (which were not random uprisings as you've been told Fschmidt). He exposed the plans of the Illuminati to abolish the monarchy, religion (which is what you stand for), breakup the family, spread feminism, start a new world order and global government, and use "democracy" and "socialism" as a stepping stone to all these goals. Today we see that most of these objectives of Weishaupt's Illuminati have COME TRUE, as we all know. Coincidence? Yeah right. I think not.

Even George Washington said that the Illuminati existed. A copy of Robison's book was sent to George Washington, and Washington admitted in his personal letters that it was true that the Illuminati had come to America and infiltrated Freemasonry. This is a PRIMARY SOURCE Fschmidt! And you are all about primary sources right? Here are Washington's exact words about it in his letter:

"It was not my intention to doubt that, the Doctrines of the Illuminati, and principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more truly satisfied of this fact than I am."
- George Washington, Mount Vernon, October 24, 1798.

The letter is archived in the Library of Congress here:
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?a ... 0395%29%29

Here is a scanned copy of Washington's handwritten letter:



Anyhow, you can read John Robison's "Proofs of a Conspiracy" for free online. Just Google "John Robison Proofs of a Conspiracy". You can also get it from Amazon Kindle for free. The full title of it is: "PROOFS OF A CONSPIRACY AGAINST ALL THE RELIGIONS AND GOVERNMENTS OF EUROPE, CARRIED ON IN THE SECRET MEETINGS OF FREE MASONS, ILLUMINATI, AND READING SOCIETIES". It was written during the time that the Bavarian Illuminati was exposed and went underground so it's a primary source, which even contains quotes from Adam Weishaupt himself, such as this:

"The great strength of our Order lies in its concealment; let it never appear in any place in its own name, but always covered by another name, and another occupation. None is better than the three lower degrees of Free Masonry; the public is accustomed to it, expects little from it, and therefore takes little notice of it. Next to this, the form of a learned or literary society is best suited to our purpose, and had Free Masonry not existed, this cover would have been employed; and it may be much more than a cover, it may be a powerful engine in our hands. By establishing reading societies, and subscription libraries, and taking these under our direction, and supplying them through our labours, we may turn the public mind which way we will." - Adam Weishaupt

Links to this historical book:
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/PROOFS ... obison.pdf
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2864 ... conspiracy
http://www.sacred-texts.com/sro/pc/pc03.htm

John Robison (1739-1805) was a Scottish scientist, who late in life wrote the one of the definitive studies of the Bavarian Illuminati. He was a contemporary and collaborator with James Watt, with whom he worked on an early steam car, contributor to the 1797 Encylopedia Britannica, professor of philosophy at the University of Edinburgh, and inventor of the siren.

Although Robison was very much an advocate of science and rationalism, in later life, disillusioned by the French Revolution, he became an ardent monarchist. In this work, Proofs of a Conspiracy, Robison laid the groundwork for modern conspiracy theorists by implicating the Bavarian Illuminati as responsible for the excesses of the French Revolution. The Bavarian Illuminati, a rationalist secret society, was founded by Adam Weishaupt in 1776 in what is today Germany. They had an inner core of true believers, who secretly held radical atheist, anti-monarchist and possibly proto-feminist views, at that time considered beyond the pale. They recruited by infiltrating the numerous (and otherwise benign) Freemasonic groups which were active at the time on the continent. Necessarily they had a clandestine, compartmentalized, hierarchical organizational form, which has led some modern conspiracy theorists to identify them as the original Marxist-Leninist group. However, this is most likely simply a case of parallel evolution.

Another book that also came out in 1798 that also exposed the Illuminati was "Code of the Illuminati" by Abbe Barreul:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ ... etsacredte

This is the third part (of four) of Abbé Barreul's massive polemic history of the French Revolution. This book is of interest because it contains extensive quotes from the actual literature of the Bavarian Illuminati.

This is the most comprehensive work in English on the historical theory, structure and practice of the Bavarian Illuminati. It complements Robison's Proofs of a Conspiracy, the other major contemporary account.

Founded in 1776, shortly before the American Revolution, the Bavarian Illuminati were a secret society with a revolutionary ideology, and a centralized structure. According to Abbé Barreul, they subverted the Masonic lodges of Europe, and were one of the key driving forces behind the French Revolution. New members were gradually initiated into the group's radical ideas, which, according to Barreul, were atheist and anarchist in essence.

And yes Fschmidt, this is a PRIMARY SOURCE, because:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/sro/mhj/index.htm

Barreul was very conservative, and his translator, Robert Edward Clifford, likewise. However, Barreul was a serious historian, even though he wrote from a decidedly non-neutral point of view. As a contemporary, he was able to view the primary source documents and interview participants. As such this book is today, in and of itself, a primary source.

So you see Fschmidt, these primary sources say that this Illuminati was in fact responsible for the downfall of religion and the tide toward atheism, which we both despise. Now do you see the light?

Also, in 1924, Nesta Webster published a book called "Secret Societies and Subversive Movements" where she exposed the Illuminati, Freemasons, and Zionist conspiracies. Do you know about that? It is referenced by conspiracy researchers, and you can read it for free online or get it for free from Amazon Kindle.

In the 1960's, a NWO elite insider named Dr. Carroll Quigley, who was Bill Clinton's mentor, published a 1300 page book called "Hope and Tragedy" where he outlined the NWO plan of the elites. However, he was very pro-NWO, not against it, and thought it was a good thing. His only beef with it was that he believed it should be made public, not kept secret. You can read it for free online by Googling it too.

So you see Fschmidt, there are LOTS of primary sources and historical documents from insiders and astute researchers about the Illuminati, Freemasonry and NWO conspiracies. So why are you pretending that such conspiracies don't exist? What are you smoking? Why are you so closed/narrow minded? And why do you REFUSE to EDUCATE yourself on such things? What is the problem Fschmidt? Can you be honest and reasonable here? Why do you turn a blind eye to all the proof, documentation and evidence all around you?! Come on man. Are you trying to be a disinfo agent? Why are you so closed minded and irrational on this topic? Why aren't you objective? You appear to be intelligent and educated, so what gives?

For God sake, please try to EDUCATE yourself on such things. Check out the books above, which are close to being primary sources or contain them.

You can also start by watching this presentation by the John Birch Society called "Overview of America II" which presents historical documents about the Illuminati, NWO and Council on Foreign Relations, that ties it all together. It's very good and informative. You will learn a lot from it, and in fact, it represents your views because they also teach that a strong religious values are needed for a stable prosperous country, which is what you believe as well. So it's right up your alley.

Overview of America II
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eOS5acoEJk

Also see the original "Overview of America", a 30 minute documentary that presents facts and truths that agree with you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MzxC8Mqupw

Next, see this 45 minute documentary "The Capitalist Conspiracy" by Edward G Griffin, which gives a great factual introduction to the conspiracies that rule the Western world today.

The Capitalist Conspiracy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udWXFC2sWU8

Come on Fschmidt. I'm gonna keep throwing these documents and links at you until you agree to get yourself EDUCATED and stop living in denial about these historical facts and modern realities about conspiracies. Don't make me repeat all this again please. Oh and sorry but waving your hand in dismissal DOES NOT remove all this evidence, historical documents and facts. Neither does ignoring all this. So don't even try to do that. No can do. Deal with the reality please. You are a rational man right? So why are you so irrational in accepting the reality of conspiracies?

[fschmidt]

By the second great awakening, do you mean the Enlightenment era where atheism, science and humanism were promoted over religion? Or the time when Darwinism came into science, which challenged religion?

None of these. You can find the answer easily enough using google.

How do you know there was no conspiracy? You don't seem very well read or educated when it comes to conspiracies at all, right? So how can you make such a statement that there are no conspiracies when you aren't qualified to make it? You have done no research in this area right? All you've done is deny them a priori without investigation. All you seek is to validate your belief that large scale elite conspiracies don't exist, it seems, so you never research material that proves you wrong. Thus you are only seeking confirmation bias, is that correct?

The overwhelming poor logic of conspiracy theorists has so far made me avoid them. But in fact I am impressed enough with Mark Dice, who is a conspiracy theorist, that I plan to read him soon.

Let me get this straight. Your opinion is that all the evils of the world and the moral/cultural decay of Western societies are all due to greedy corporations and corrupt politicians right? And you believe that the corrupt immoral elite are NOT working together, because you as you told me before, the elite are ruthless sociopaths who would never trust each other enough to plot conspiracies together right? That's your position right?

The second part is right, the first part is wrong. The moral strength of a society completely depends on its religion. As Western Christianity went to shit in the 1800s, the West began its decline.

Well regardless, I've done a lot more research than you on this topic and can say that you are definitely WRONG about it.

The rest of your post is a list of sources. I am not going to read a list. Give me just one primary source to consider, and I will look at it after reading Mark Dice.

[Winston]

By the second great awakening, do you mean the Enlightenment era where atheism, science and humanism were promoted over religion? Or the time when Darwinism came into science, which challenged religion?

None of these. You can find the answer easily enough using google.

How do you know there was no conspiracy? You don't seem very well read or educated when it comes to conspiracies at all, right? So how can you make such a statement that there are no conspiracies when you aren't qualified to make it? You have done no research in this area right? All you've done is deny them a priori without investigation. All you seek is to validate your belief that large scale elite conspiracies don't exist, it seems, so you never research material that proves you wrong. Thus you are only seeking confirmation bias, is that correct?

The overwhelming poor logic of conspiracy theorists has so far made me avoid them. But in fact I am impressed enough with Mark Dice, who is a conspiracy theorist, that I plan to read him soon.

Let me get this straight. Your opinion is that all the evils of the world and the moral/cultural decay of Western societies are all due to greedy corporations and corrupt politicians right? And you believe that the corrupt immoral elite are NOT working together, because you as you told me before, the elite are ruthless sociopaths who would never trust each other enough to plot conspiracies together right? That's your position right?

The second part is right, the first part is wrong. The moral strength of a society completely depends on its religion. As Western Christianity went to shit in the 1800s, the West began its decline.

Well regardless, I've done a lot more research than you on this topic and can say that you are definitely WRONG about it.

The rest of your post is a list of sources. I am not going to read a list. Give me just one primary source to consider, and I will look at it after reading Mark Dice.

Well you must be talking about the age where science and reason began to trump religion. That happened somewhat during the Renaissance and then when Darwin published his book. But there have always been a large percentage of Christians in the West, even today there are.

How do you know about Mark Dice? Did I mention him? Which of his books are you going to read? He has a YouTube channel too. I am reading his book "Inside the Illuminati" now. It is scholarly and cites and references many historical documents and primary sources that evidence a conspiracy throughout the last 200 years. I would recommend that one. He also has a book called "Illuminati Facts and Fiction".

Also, in the Jon Ronson thread, I posted many quotes from US Presidents warning about a conspiracy and elite cabal running the US government. See those quotes and you will see. They are all primary sources and you can't deny them.

So let me get this straight. Your NON belief in conspiracies and your denial of them, is all based on your speculation that "The elite are too ruthless to trust each other and plot together and conspire together"? Your whole position on conspiracies is based on that little speculation? LOL. Are you serious? You think you can ignore all the evidence, historical documents, primary sources, insider whistleblowers, circumstantial evidence, etc. just because of that little speculation of yours? That is very bizarre logic man! LOL

You said: "The moral strength of a society completely depends on its religion." Well that's what the John Birch Society says too. So why don't you listen to them when they talk about the Illuminati and NWO? Listen to their presentation I posted above called "Overview of America II". It references historical documents and primary sources that testify to conspiracies and hidden cabals of the last 200 years which led to the downfall of America.

Like I said, a good primary source to consider is "Proofs of a Conspiracy" by John Robison, published in 1798. It's a primary source because he examined the secret documents that were exposed written by Adam Weishaupt, the founder of the Bavarian Illuminati. And he talked to people involved with the French Revolution and referenced news articles of the time. Etc. You can read it for free online. I provided links earlier. Another book published in 1798 called "Code of the Illuminati" exposed the same plot based on primary sources. Primary sources are what you want remember? You can't be in denial anymore.

[Winston]

Great points Winston!!! But I would also like to add that back during those times the women's minds were not poisoned by RADICAL FEMINISM!!! Most young women were RAISED to become LADIES in which they acted, looked, and dressed FEMININE. Not to mention they were taught to RESPECT AND NEED MEN. After all this was during the "Victorian Era" in which young women were expected to find a husband and start a family or risk being labeled an "old maid". You would see this reality reflected in books such as "Pride and Prejudice".

However Winston, it was in during the 1960's that radical feminism emerged. This movement (so-called "women's liberation") had been secretly by the Rockefeller Foundation through the CIA according to Nick Rockefeller who told the late Aaron Russell the producer of the documentary "From Freedom to Fascism". This movement created by the Elite was designed to serve two main purposes. The first was to get women out of the home and into the workforce so as to have new source of TAX REVENUE for big government. Also because of this, the corporations decided to raise the price of everything making it necessary to "live to work" and have the "two income trap". The second was to take the children out of the home at an earlier stage of development so as to put them in public schools and for the STATE not the parents can teach them (or I should say indoctrinate them). The end result of such INDOCTRINATION AND SOCIALIZATION was to mass produce future WORKERS AND SOLDIERS not deep thinkers, artists, philosophers, or anyone who can "connect the dots" or think outside the box (or Matrix) that would challenge the system. Here's a link to back up this claim:

"10 WAYS TRUE FEMINISM IS UNDER ATTACK"
http://www.infowars.com/10-ways-true-fe ... der-attack

Yes all that is true. But you forgot to mention that another primary goal of feminism is to REDUCE the population and destroy the family. It's a eugenics program too. The Georgia Guidestones outline the plan of the elite to reduce the population to under 500 million. They don't want an overpopulated world that they can't manage. So it's population control too.

The neo feminism we have today is Satanic in its philosophy and divides the genders. Mark Passion talked about it in his podcasts. See them on YouTube here:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... o+feminism