"Blair revelations reiterate elite occult obsession&quo

by **dbeach** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 2:03 pm

wow .did bliar attend Bohemian Groove this summer?? What would Gandolph say?? <a href="http://prisonplanet.com/Pages/Sept05/210905Blair_revelations.htm">prisonplanet.com/Pages/Se...ations.htm</a> Blair revelations reiterate elite occult obsession Remember the Aztec Re-birthing rituals and "channeling the light"? Steve Watson | September 21 2005 "This week's revelations in the London Independent about the obsessive "new age" activities of the Blairs reveal nothing new but serve to reiterate how our leaders are fascinated by "bizarre practices", odd ceremonies and rituals that any right minded person would find eerily occultist, certainly beyond the level an elected so called "Christian" leader should be engaging in. Of course, this is not the first time we have heard of the Blairs' penchant for making major decisions via bizarre practices. In 2004 the London Times reported on the fact that Tony Blair had made political decisions based on new age readings of a hidden force called 'The Light'. Whether the term "The Light" does or does not represent Lucifer, as it is commonly known, is an afterthought. The fact that The Prime Minister of Britain, who has made the call to partake in multiple armed conflicts around the world since 1997, makes political decisions by channeling anything is beyond the pale."

by **antiaristo** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:55 pm

So we know that Blair is solicitous to Murdoch, to the point of subservience. That is all of a piece with a choice of friends that includes Silvio Berlusconi, the ousted the Spanish conservative José Maria Aznar and, lest we forget, George Bush. How dearly Blair wanted to add Angela Merkel to that list, his aides briefing anyone who would listen that Gerhard Schröder was history and that Merkel would carry the Blairite torch in Berlin. Therefore we owe Murdoch a great debt. He has given us a single sentence that says so much. It reveals a Labour prime minister whose every instinct is at odds with the movement he leads. The BBC or Fox News? He chooses Fox. The victims of Katrina or the Bush White House? His sympathies go to the White House. German Social Democrat or the Prussian Thatcher? He chooses Thatcher. This is Tony Blair, utterly out of step with the party he has led for 11 years. There is no outrage, just a shrug of the shoulders. Next week at the party conference he will get a standing ovation, as out of reach as an American second-term president - there is no realistic way of getting rid of him. Instead Labour will just wait for the day he goes, off to meet his inevitable destiny - the US lecture circuit - to earn millions and eat fine dinners with the Kissingers and Murdochs, the Berlusconis and Bushes, who are for him what Labour never was: his natural home. <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1574483,00.html">www.guardian.co.uk/commen...83,00.html</a> Blair is part of a cult. At the head of that cult is the Order of the Garter. Their motto is Honi Soit Qui Mal y Pense - "Shame on him who thinks ill of it." The guy "can't remember" if he condoned the policy that murdered de Menezes. He "can't remember" authorising death squads on to the Streets of London. And the British press tell us NOW that "there is no (realistic) way of getting rid of him." Pray tell, Mr High Paid Commentator, what do you mean by "realistic"?

by **DrDebugDU** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 6:13 pm

It doesn't surprise me that Blair went to pray at Moloch this summer. He is part of the satanic elite. He probably had some great sex with Murdoch and Cheney while he was there <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/sick.gif ALT=":x">

by **jenz** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 9:27 am

when you say blair is part of the satanic elite - are you able to say what you base this on? I'm trying to understand if you are using this terminology in a general way, to group those who use their power for evil ends and for profit, or if you are being much more specific than that and referring to direct involvement in satanic practices.

by **DrDebugDU** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 9:38 am

See link above. Or below: <a href="http://prisonplanet.com/Pages/Sept05/210905Blair_revelations.htm">prisonplanet.com/Pages/Sept05/210905Blair_revelations.htm</a> I mean both parts. It is satanism in the direct meaning of occult practices, but that mainly depends on hearsay so it is a weak argument, however since power yields corruption and absolute power yields absolute corruption which means absolute evil meaning satanism as defined by biblical term. Satanic elite is also a short cut for high degree freemasons and Tony Blair is a 33rd degree mason ( http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=3240 ). <img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v226/JeffWells/upsidedown.jpg"/> Quick excerpt of the Jeff's blog entry about freemasonry and satanism <blockquote>Quote:<hr> (...) The hidden knowledge reserved for the final degrees seems often to stand the earlier teaching on its head. God can turn out to be the devil, and the devil your elder brother Lucifer. You thought you were illuminated? Here's your illumination for ya, right here. (...) Is it possible that the Morning Star remained in the rituals, not by mistake, but as a deliberate but cryptic Masonic reference to Lucifer? If so, this would invert the meaning of a crucial section of the third-degree ritual: '...the Lord of Life will enable us to trample the King of Terror beneath our feet, and lift our eyes to that bright Morning Star, whose rising brings peace and salvation to the faithful and obedient of the human race.' To the men who drew up this ritual in 1816, who was the Lord of Life and who the King of Terror? Could God be Lucifer, and Lucifer God? Might they be sitting in each other's seats? Are Masons today inadvertently worshipping the devil instead of a benign God? (...) On July 14, 1889, Albert Pike, the "Grand Commander, Sovereign Pontiff" of Scottish Rite Freemasonry in the United States allegedly issued these instructions to 23 Scottish Rite Supreme Councils throughout the world (again from Short): That which we must say to the crowd is - we worship a God, but it is the God that one adores without superstition. To you, Sovereign Grand Inspectors General, we say this, that you may repeat it to the Brethren of the 32nd, 31st and 30th degrees - the Masonic Religion should be, by all of us initiates in the high degrees, maintained in the purity of the Luciferian Doctrine. ... Thus the doctrine of Satanism is a heresy; and the true and pure philosophical religion is the belief in Lucifer, the equal of Adonay; but Lucifer, God of Light and God of Good is struggling for humanity against Adonay, the God of Darkness and Evil. (...) http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2005/04/whats-up-is-down-what-isnt<hr></blockquote> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=drdebugdu>DrDebugDU</A> at: 9/22/05 7:40 am

by **Martha** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 10:09 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>He probably had some great sex with Murdoch and Cheney while he was there<hr></blockquote> Bleh! That's a mental image I could do without.

by **dbeach** » Thu Sep 22, 2005 1:55 pm

"Moloch this summer. He is part of the satanic elite. He probably had some great sex with Murdoch .' SO BLIAR had sex with the owl or .....eechhh. oops.... he worshipped murdoch..now that makes sense..

by **jenz** » Fri Sep 23, 2005 8:33 am

Its the hearsay bit I'm interested in. the masonic connection does turn up time and time again in ra matters , but can't per se be held as proof. nor can hearsay, of course, but how interesting it seems depends who does the hearing and saying. being involved in counter-ra to some extent, I'm trying to log these bits of info, without necessarily regarding them as firmed up. so for instance, against the blairite administration, anyone might notice that the police operation which began in response to information given by the FBI about 2000 downloader paedophiles, vanished from the front pages following the report that the investigation had reached in to the heart of no.10, (no names) that Hilary Benn subsequently could not provide the extra resources the police said they needed to follow up such a massive overload of cases. that is in the press. but as hearsay, one might learn from someone who has seen the police files on the Belgium x witnesses that a banker, honoured in his own country and now helping to direct a cross border insurance company was named by more than one witness separately, that along with the other publicly unidentified perps in high places, he was protected by the collapsing of the testimony of those witnesses by the operation of a lawyer supposedly acting for a victim who sweepingly debunked the testimony.at the same time one hears that the Belgium govt was threatened with exposure of this dirty underbelly by mossad if sharon, who was another client of this lawyer as it happens, was not let off the war crimes hook. but swipe me, just recently,'sources' tell the press that an Isreali general visiting Britain had a narrow escape from similar debacle, and had to stay on his plane for fear of arrrest, and these sources just know that when Sharon was almost invited to Britain by Blair, he turned it down sharply on the grounds that he might be arrested and we should surely have a law-change to protect visiting war criminals from embarassment. (so blair, ex lawyer and hubby of human rights lawyer, did not know what lots of us knew about belgium dirt and blackmail??? or maybe it had slipped his mind like shoot to kill). then into the same bag goes information given by a bit more than a dozen victims about a former top civil servant, and a British Minister, and lots more of this kind of stuff from victims (hearsay of course, but the route the telling takes makes it interesting.) so I was wondering where you rank your hearsay info?

by **DrDebugDU** » Fri Sep 23, 2005 9:23 am

So it's very hard to read. Let's start at the bottom > so I was wondering where you rank your hearsay info? Blair involved in satanic groups? I think so. Just like Bush. And when I mean satanic as "chosing evil over good in order to gain power and control". As proof goes. There is no definite proof in these matters. As far as the masons go. The masonic groups have gained control a centuries ago and make sure that whomever moves up is part of their group. It's a well oiled machinery especially in the UK where they have a large support. So anybody becoming prime minister without being a freemason or a related group (Knights Templar, Opus Dei etc.) is 0%. Since they are a secret group the likelyhood of a subgroup being involved in RA is very likely and the non-participants will cover the tracks of the participants by their brotherhood ideal. Don't know anything about the 2000 story or the Israel connection (don't want to know the last one either, because it'll lead to immediate name calling and flag raising), so I can't help you there. I only know a bit of the Belgian case and there is a lot of good documentation about it as well and that case smells to hell and back with active interference in the investigation, discrediting of witnesses and police officers, massive popular uproar against the stonewalling of the investigation by the Belgian government and even those massive demonstrations were ignored. No sensible government would do that unless they knew that there was more to it. And the rumors about P-2 connections are abundant. The upper layers tried to stop the investigation from spreading beyond the 'lone nut' Dutroux. It took years before he was finally convicted - including a weird escape where he grabs an unloaded gun from his guardians and they let him get away knowing that the gun had no bullets - and the case is almost entirely against Dutroux with no mentioning for whom he was doing it.

by **emad** » Sat Sep 24, 2005 11:17 am

Blair and his uterine brother Bush Jr are cold-war mercenary plants protecting the 19th and 20th centuries' satanic pedophile cults whose most memorable achievements were World War I and II. The collusion between Stalin, Hitler and Pius XII is still the most highly censored and classified secret on both sides of the Atlantic. The scum that started the Iraq war are merely the hybrid offspring of that pedophile cult.

by **dbeach** » Sat Sep 24, 2005 12:19 pm

EMAD TOTALLY AGREE I am lil confused by what you implied on different thread that the Windsors were unfairly smeared as nazis by fascist catholics..Clarify please

by **emad** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 11:41 am

Families related to British Union of Fascists leader Oswald Moseley were sued in the UK lawcourts for slander/gross defamation by the Duke/Duchess in 1967. The Mitfords, Redesdales and Guinesses all paid up substantial damages for the initial smear that Edward VIII was paid to marry Wallis and abdicate. When they lost that one, they were sued for saying that a deal had been done to put Edward VIII back on the throne in the event of a successful Hitler takeover of the UK. Papers relating to this are letters and official documents of correspondence between ther Labour UK Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain - whose policies of appeasing Hitler during the late 1930s contributed to Edward VIII's rejection of the throne - and Giovanni Pacelli, elected Pope Pius XII in 1939. John Cornwell's book 'Hitler's Pope' has some good background information about this. Chamberlain wanted a deal whereby Edward VIII would reject the ban on catholics marrying into the UK royal family, and put pressure on him to consider becoming catholic himself. The Duke/Duchess Nazi smear has continued since the year 2000 after David Irving lost his holocaust denial lawsuit in the UK following Dr Deborah Lipstadt's testimony that he fabricated docuemtns and published them in the full knowledge they were fakes. The recet news story that the UK's Fraud Squad cops are now investigating fraudulent document archives at the Public Records Office relates.

by **dbeach** » Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:34 pm

EMAD thanx for info Difficult for me to think of windsors as innocent..BUT whatever Joe Kennedy sr had some Nazi stock and was smeared as a Nazi sympathizer .. HOWEVER Prescott Bush was ordered by Congress in 1942 to stop trading with Fritz Thyulsen..which is all documented in Natl Archives which BTW is being privatized into the clutches of Bectel or some other corrupt bush croonie . but as usual the MM Yawns on and feeds the public tragedys about hurricaines and the next reality TV show all to keep them defocused from the next criminal enterprise while still praising bush jr as the war time president

by **emad** » Mon Sep 26, 2005 11:47 am

See my post on the Truman connection: Wallis was Bessie Truman's niece. Edit: it's here: <a href="http://p216.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=1079.topic">p216.ezboard.com/frigorou...1079.topic</a> The present House of Windsor is 99/9% cold war impostor plants, DNA hybrids directly related to Hilter, Stalin and Pacelli (Pius XII). The only non-impostor is Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester. All the others are largely IRA fakes. Including QEII - in reality Barbara Freeman, married to Frank Gelli, and sister of Michael Freeman RIP, aka Ronald Reagan. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=emad@rigorousintuition>emad</A> at: 9/26/05 9:51 am

"Blair revelations reiterate elite occult obsession&quo

"Blair revelations reiterate elite occult obsession&quo

Re: "Blair revelations reiterate elite occult obsession

Re: "Blair revelations reiterate elite occult obsession

DrDe

Re: DrDe

Re: "Blair revelations reiterate elite occult obsession

Re: "Blair revelations reiterate elite occult obsession

DrDe "hearsay"

You make a very long story without any paragraphs

Blair elite occult cult: P2 Lodge self re-invention

Re: Blair elite occult cult: P2 Lodge self re-invention

UK fascist catholics/Duke&Duchess of Windsor

Re: UK fascist catholics/Duke&Duchess of Windsor

Duke/Duchess of Windsor:

Who is online