Place Your Rants Here

[Witis]

You cannot win a media war with the Illuminati.

By Illuminati are you referring to the view that some people are trying to move the away from a world community founded on separate nations and freeness and towards a world ruled by an authoritarian government controlled by a single individual, which, in Christian eschatology, is typically a monarchistic theocracy controlled by the Pope (i.e false light)?

[dunfiddlin]

in Christian eschatology, is typically a monarchistic theocracy controlled by the Pope (i.e false light)?

Say what now? No Christian eschatology that I'm aware of, even if it were possible to have a monarchy, a theocracy, and a hierarchy (in the strictest sense of the word) all at the same time!

[Witis]

Say what now? No Christian eschatology that I'm aware of, even if it were possible to have a monarchy, a theocracy, and a hierarchy (in the strictest sense of the word) all at the same time!

Not sure exactly what you mean Dunfiddlin? The Roman Catholic church is all of those things, it is a theocracy which also happens to be an absolute monarchy with a relatively strict hierarchy.
See here for example "The Vatican is the only remaining absolute monarchy in Europe." source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City

In relation to christian eschatology I am referring to views such as:
"Since the 19th century, many apocalyptic millennial Christian eschatologists, starting with John Nelson Darby, have feared a globalist conspiracy to impose a tyrannical New World Order [...] They claim that people who have made a deal with the Devil to gain wealth and power have become pawns in a supernatural chess game to move humanity into accepting a utopian world government, which rests on the spiritual foundations of a syncretic-messianic world religion, that will later reveal itself to be a dystopian world empire, which imposes the imperial cult of an “Unholy Trinity” — Satan, the Antichrist and the False Prophet. In many contemporary Christian conspiracy theories, the False Prophet will either be the last pope of the Catholic Church."

[dunfiddlin]

The Church of Rome may have characteristics of all three but it is none of them. The truth is that neither the Pope, nor the priesthood in general rules anybody. It has neither executive nor judicial powers except in so far as it is capable of disciplining its membership (a capability which has eroded to the point of near extinction in recent years). It governs nobody. The Pope can declaim as much as he likes on what he considers wrong and proclaim to the ends of the Earth what he believes right but nobody on the planet is required to accept either as a governing principle and nobody may be tried or convicted as a result of denying it.

Even within the Vatican state, claims of monarchy, let alone absolutism, are immediately undermined by the simple fact that the Pope is elected, albeit by a very small electorate and, as has only recently been shown, the incumbent is at liberty to simply resign with no say in the identity of his successor. One might very well argue that the model is much more akin to the Presidential system of the United States, electoral college and all, than to the kingdoms of the Middle Ages, and indeed with an absence of the self-preening, politicking, and public decrying of one's opponents necessary to reach office in the so-called beacon of democracy, might even be considered a vast improvement upon it.

The absurdities of World Governing Antichrist eschatology (which I will always maintain cannot ever be described as Christian eschatology), especially those which seek to promote the Pope to the hot seat therein, have never been more obvious than now with the Vatican never so denuded of any genuine political power and the number of independent, secular nations never so great. The sooner the Christian Right wakes up to the fact that Revelations is apocalyptic, not eschatological, the better. (Well, we can dream!)

[Witis]

The Church of Rome may have characteristics of all three but it is none of them.

You dare to argue with Wikipedia???!!!

The truth is that neither the Pope, nor the priesthood in general rules anybody.

Disagree, the Pope is an absolute ruler, a living king of kings, the topmost Catholic kahuna, the puppet master, the guy with the bundle of birch rods; by the way what do you have to do if you happen to be catholic and have to meet with him, do you bow, lie completely prostrate on the ground in complete submission, kiss his hands or feet or something else???

It has neither executive nor judicial powers

Sure the pope does, you didn't read my previously cited Wiki page did you???
"The politics of Vatican City takes place in an absolute elective monarchy, in which the head of the Catholic Church takes power. The Pope exercises principal legislative, executive, and judicial power over the State of Vatican City (an entity distinct from the Holy See), which is a rare case of a non-hereditary monarchy. The Vatican is the only remaining absolute monarchy in Europe." As a result the Vatican City "is currently the only widely recognised independent state that has not become a member of the UN."

Also from the same Wiki page:
"Vatican City is an ecclesiastical or sacerdotal-monarchical state, ruled by the Bishop of Rome—the Pope."
"Government: Ecclesiastical, sacerdotal, absolute elective theocracy"
"Independence from the Kingdom of Italy - Lateran Treaty 11 February 1929"

Even within the Vatican state, claims of monarchy, let alone absolutism, are immediately undermined by the simple fact that the Pope is elected, albeit by a very small electorate and, as has only recently been shown, the incumbent is at liberty to simply resign with no say in the identity of his successor.

An "absolute elective theocracy" is nevertheless exactly that. Being able to choose one's successor is not a traditional prerequisite for a monarchy to be considered absolute, typically being based on blood lineage not personal choice, although being an absolute monarch the Pope could no doubt single handedly change the rules regarding elections at any point, if he so desires!!!

One might very well argue that the model is much more akin to the Presidential system of the United States, electoral college and all, than to the kingdoms of the Middle Ages, and indeed with an absence of the self-preening, politicking, and public decrying of one's opponents necessary to reach office in the so-called beacon of democracy, might even be considered a vast improvement upon it.

So are you admitting that you are one of the Illuminati actively trying to replace democracy with an absolute monarchy by illusorily selling it as the next generation of democracy???

The absurdities of World Governing Antichrist eschatology (which I will always maintain cannot ever be described as Christian eschatology), especially those which seek to promote the Pope to the hot seat therein, have never been more obvious than now with the Vatican never so denuded of any genuine political power and the number of independent, secular nations never so great.

Ah, the point is that for those bent on world domination, the catholic model represents a still active and viable way to achieve such a goal!!!

[dunfiddlin]

Well, there's obviously no point in arguing with hyperparanoia, so I won't. But yes, I dare to argue with Wikipedia, especially where opinion is disguised as fact. It is after all a Christian duty to beware wolves in sheep's clothing!

[Witis]

But yes, I dare to argue with Wikipedia, especially where opinion is disguised as fact.

A Wikipedia dissenter, and I thought they only formed part of folklore and urban myth!!!

It is after all a Christian duty to beware wolves in sheep's clothing!

I am sure Wikipedia would take that as a compliment although it might also meow at the reference!

[Shaggy Hiker]

"Hmm. Caveat emptor and all that. Although this might fall foul of advertising standards, it's not a fraud. When all is said and done they offered you an item at a price of $25 and you accepted their offer believing that to be a fair price for the item. The reasonable consumer (which is what courts have to measure by) is not affected by any previous offers and decides entirely upon the offer they are currently presented with. The onus really is on you to shop wisely, comparing prices at other outlets etc. The argument that you would never have bought the item if you'd know that it was previously offered at $35 is not going to get you very far in law."

I’m not sure where that response came from…I wasn’t crying foul of any kind as far as me being duped. But obviously my intent didn’t come across as I meant it. Part of that is probably I have closely followed the story over the last year or so and a lot of people may not have been.

What scalds me is JC Penny is supposedly trying to win their old customer base back and part of doing that seems to include “making up” a sale. The pants I’m referring to wouldn’t command $60.00 on their best day.

The whole “we are sorry please come back to us” campaign is in part based on this lie. Just marked down from $35.00 to $24.99 is good enough. They had to make up this inflated price. I just consider it insulting.

So I disagree and think they are doing something wrong. They are inflating sale savings in an attempt to say “yay! We brought sales back”. The sale prices they advertise are deliberately misleading.

So it’s not that I feel ripped off. I feel I’m being lied to.

I agree about an internet campaign not fitting this scenario. I have enough trouble keeping my foot out of my mouth here let alone taking on the whole net

What I find interesting about this is that what you describe is what I always assumed that companies like that were doing. I occasionally go to some place (I forget the name, which probably would disturb their marketers to no end) whenever they send me a $10 off coupon, which they do roughly once a month. By being patient, I end up with a bunch of very cheap clothes. I think they might be noticing that I only buy a single item with the coupon, so they are wasting their time sending them to me, which might be why I haven't gotten any in a few months. The point is that they have a bunch of stuff at jacked up prices, but all of it is on perpetual sale (using digital price tags, so they can change the sale price at the touch of a key). I think that the price after the sale is probably a reasonable retail price, so I figure they are boosting the advertised price then showing a big sale that results in a reasonable retail price, which I then undercut with the coupon. It's all just a game.

[FunkyDexter]

While it goes against the grain to agree with Witis I have to say that the Vatican is a theocracy, monarchy and hierarchy. I don't think anyone would argue with the theocracy and hierarchy bits but the monarchy bit is obviously more controversial. But the only thing that a state requires to be defined as a monarchy is to have a monarch at it's head and there is plenty of historical precendent for monarchs being elected rather than hereditary. There are plenty of examples here.

Note that while the Vatican may be a monarchy the Catholic Church is not, not least because it's not a state.

As for the stuff about World Governing Anti-Christian Hegemonies... well that's just the usual Witis Whitter.

[Witis]

While it goes against the grain to agree with Witis I have to say that the Vatican is a theocracy, monarchy and hierarchy.

It's a minor miracle!

I don't think anyone would argue with the theocracy and hierarchy bits but the monarchy bit is obviously more controversial.

I dunno the Pope's official title with regard to Vatican City is Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City,
and check out the papal crown the Pope used to wear: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pa...ems_pearls.jpg

But the only thing that a state requires to be defined as a monarchy is to have a monarch at it's head and there is plenty of historical precendent for monarchs being elected rather than hereditary. There are plenty of examples here.

Well said Funky, and from that page:
"An elective monarchy is a monarchy ruled by an elected monarch, in contrast to a hereditary monarchy in which the office is automatically passed down as a family inheritance. The manner of election, the nature of candidate qualifications, and the electors vary from case to case. Historically it is not uncommon for elective monarchies to transform into hereditary ones over time, or for hereditary ones to acquire at least occasional elective aspects."

Note that while the Vatican may be a monarchy the Catholic Church is not, not least because it's not a state.

Can you go any deeper on that point and explain the difference between the Vatican City and the Catholic Church and why you believe the Catholic Church is not a monarchistic construct?

As for the stuff about World Governing Anti-Christian Hegemonies... well that's just the usual Witis Whitter.

Don't leave out the false prophet i.e the Catholic Church which is my main point of focus!!!

[FunkyDexter]

Can you go any deeper on that point and explain the difference between the Vatican City and the Catholic Church and why you believe the Catholic Church is not a monarchistic construct?

I guess it would depend on how you define the term "monarchistic construct". Certainly the Catholic Church isn't a "monarchy" (which is what I said) because the Catholic church isn't a state. I think that's pretty cut and dried. Whether it's a "Monarchistic Construct" would depend on how you defined that term. If you define it as "a body whose leaders are a monarchy" then it's a monarchistic construct. If you define it as "a body whose members must abide by the legislation laid down by their monarchistic rulers" then it isn't because, as Dunfiddlin pointed out, the catholic church does not impose any legal obligation on its members. It merely requests that follow certain practices should they choose to be a member, and it doesn't even rigidly enforce those practices as a pre-requisite to membership.

[Witis]

I guess it would depend on how you define the term "monarchistic construct". Certainly the Catholic Church isn't a "monarchy" (which is what I said) because the Catholic church isn't a state. I think that's pretty cut and dried. Whether it's a "Monarchistic Construct" would depend on how you defined that term. If you define it as "a body whose leaders are a monarchy" then it's a monarchistic construct.

That's the point, the Catholic church is headed by an absolute monarch who is officially the "Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City" and has absolute control over the city.

If you define it as "a body whose members must abide by the legislation laid down by their monarchistic rulers" then it isn't because, as Dunfiddlin pointed out, the catholic church does not impose any legal obligation on its members. It merely requests that follow certain practices should they choose to be a member, and it doesn't even rigidly enforce those practices as a pre-requisite to membership.

Ah, I think you are confusing those Catholics residing in the Vatican City who are subject to the Pope's absolute legislative, executive, and judicial rule, with Catholics residing in other states (nations) who must abide by international and national democratically determined laws.

However, the problem is obvious: extend and apply the absolute elective theocratic model from the Vatican City to the rest of the world and the world falls under the absolute control of the Pope!!!

[Shaggy Hiker]

Also, if you do not extend and apply the absolute elective theocratic model of the Vatican City, then the world does not fall under the absolute control of the pope. That's the direction things have been going for many centuries now, and it isn't likely to change.

[dunfiddlin]

However, the problem is obvious: extend and apply the absolute elective theocratic model from the Vatican City to the rest of the world and the world falls under the absolute control of the Pope!!!

If things were different they wouldn't be the same! What's your point?

Extend and apply the ruling principles of China to the rest of the world and we'd all be communist slaves. Extend the plutocracy of the United States to the rest of the world and the gap between rich and poor would grow exponentially. As both of these options are millions of times more likely to occur perhaps it's time to set your watchtowers to looking in the right direction!

[dunfiddlin]

You set your watchtowers to keep an eye on those you have genuine reason to fear. Anarchy, being entirely mythical, to say nothing of really, really disorganised, isn't one of them.

[Witis]

Also, if you do not extend and apply the absolute elective theocratic model of the Vatican City, then the world does not fall under the absolute control of the pope. That's the direction things have been going for many centuries now, and it isn't likely to change.

Sure, however, that was not the point that started the discussion, see post #42

You cannot win a media war with the Illuminati.

Hence the issue has been explored in an attempt to determine just exactly what the Illuminati is, and what level of threat they pose to society.
It is timeless issue which, in the case of the Catholic Church, has even made it into the plots of recent Hollywood films such as Angels and Demons which was set in the Vatican.

It also recently reappeared as a major issue in Australian politics when Anthony Abbott, a well known Catholic who studied for several years at a Catholic seminary, took over the leadership of the Australian Liberal Party and together with his religiously named deputy Julie Bishop seem likley to win the upcoming September elections.

Although perhaps Niya means to use the term Illuminati in a different sense?

[dunfiddlin]

has even made it into the plots of recent Hollywood films such as Angels and Demons which was set in the Vatican.

You get that they aren't documentaries, right?

[homer13j]

I hate everyone that argues endlessly about religion.

[Witis]

Extend and apply the ruling principles of China to the rest of the world and we'd all be communist slaves.

Where did you get that piece of misinformation from???
"China is a charter member of the United Nations and one of five permanent members of the Security Council."
"The 'Big Four' victors of World War II (Republic of China, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States) were the founding members of the United Nations that drafted the United Nations Charter in 1944, which was ratified on 26 June 1945 by the representatives of 50 countries."
Slavery is not legal according to U.N law, for example article 4 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stipulates that "No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms."

Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_a...United_Nations
http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Extend the plutocracy of the United States to the rest of the world and the gap between rich and poor would grow exponentially.

The United States of America is clearly not a plutocracy, it is not controlled by a wealthy ruling class, it is a democracy where essentially any U.S citizen can run for public office and vote!
Care of the poor is always a strong electoral issue as they represent such a large segment of the voting population so I am not convinced the matter you have identified is anything other than an obvious red herring!!!

As both of these options are millions of times more likely to occur perhaps it's time to set your watchtowers to looking in the right direction!

You seem to be saying that I should look anywhere else except at those trying to replacing freedom and democracy with tyranny and slavery!!!

[Witis]

Anarchy, being entirely mythical, to say nothing of really, really disorganised, isn't one of them.

Anarchy is not mythical just think of ye olde pirates to see through that obvious sophistry!!!

[Witis]

You get that they aren't documentaries, right?

The point is that the Illuminati is a recurring topic in modern society that has even made it into the scripts of Hollywood blockbusters,
not just some minor issue that makes it onto the back pages every now and again.

As another example I wonder how much of an influence the Catholic church had on the civil unrest in modern Ireland?

[Niya]

Although perhaps Niya means to use the term Illuminati in a different sense?

My idea of the Illuminati is a bunch of rich old Jews who get hard for profits and have no problem facilitating genocides to further the goal of more profits. I donno about all the churchy stuff. That's just wacko.

Just to show you how clever they are, they somehow own the Federal Reserve which all my common sense tell me should be owned and controlled by the government. But the really great part of all this is that its public knowledge yet no one complains. There are no protests about it, no riots, no crazies blowing up buildings to make a statement about it. Just nothing. Now that is power.

[Witis]

My idea of the Illuminati is a bunch of rich old Jews who get hard for profits and have no problem facilitating genocides to further the goal of more profits.

I have to ask, which genocides are you talking about???

Just to show you how clever they are, they somehow own the Federal Reserve which all my common sense tell me should be owned and controlled by the government. But the really great part of all this is that its public knowledge yet no one complains. There are no protests about it, no riots, no crazies blowing up buildings to make a statement about it. Just nothing. Now that is power.

Are you talking about that -> http://archive.adl.org/special_repor...rothschild.asp ?

[FunkyDexter]

Where did you get that piece of misinformation from???

I believe Dunfiddlin was engaging in some mild and entirely understandable hyperbole. I doubt very much that he believes China actually engages in slavery and I doubt very much that anyone, other than perhaps yourself, interpretted his post in such a way. Rather he was trying to colourfully express that China is a more repressive regime than our own Western culture. It's really quite simple, you know, and if you'd actually engage in meaningful debate rather than persistently throwing up straw man arguments you'd probably be able to get it too.

BTW, just to pre-empt you, you're about to admonish me for "speaking for others" on the forum. When you do, the point you'll be missing is that I'm actually not speaking for them. I'm simply demonstrating that I've bothered to read what they've said and attempted to understand their underlying argument rather than search for minor semantic or grammatical minutae I can pull at in a vain attempt to appear more intelligent than I really am.

[Witis]

I believe Dunfiddlin was engaging in some mild and entirely understandable hyperbole. I doubt very much that he believes China actually engages in slavery and I doubt very much that anyone, other than perhaps yourself, interpretted his post in such a way.

Funky you can't speak for anyone except yourself, he was after all very direct and very explicit about his views regarding China!!!
It is also a very common legacy view to take a strong anti communist stand as a result of wars such as the Vietnam war, even if such views are entirely baseless!

Rather he was trying to colourfully express that China is a more repressive regime than our own Western culture.

That too seems to be a somewhat outdated view, for example from the Wiki page I previously cited:
"On human rights issues, the PRC[People's Republic of China] has been increasingly influential. In 1995, they won 43 percent of the votes in the [UN] General Assembly; by 2006 they won 82 percent."

It's really quite simple, you know, and if you'd actually engage in meaningful debate rather than persistently throwing up straw man arguments you'd probably be able to get it too.

I do exactly that (engage in meaningful debates) and tend to avoid straw man arguments (misrepresenting another's position) via extensive use of quotes (to avoid quoting out of context) in order to ensure that I only ever respond to the point of view actually being described by the author!

BTW, just to pre-empt you, you're about to admonish me for "speaking for others" on the forum.

Too late, already done!

When you do, the point you'll be missing is that I'm actually not speaking for them.

I think you know that you have which is why you are writing about it!!

I'm simply demonstrating that I've bothered to read what they've said and attempted to understand their underlying argument rather than search for minor semantic or grammatical minutae I can pull at in a vain attempt to appear more intelligent than I really am.

What you are actually doing is overlaying your interpretation of somebody else's words, and, in doing so, speaking for them instead of asking them to clarify their own thoughts!

[Shaggy Hiker]

I do exactly that (engage in meaningful debates) and tend to avoid straw man arguments (misrepresenting another's position) via extensive use of quotes (to avoid quoting out of context) in order to ensure that I only ever respond to the point of view actually being described by the author!

Who are you talking about? The I in question surely can't mean you, so was that whole statement just a quote?

[dunfiddlin]

The United States of America is clearly not a plutocracy, it is not controlled by a wealthy ruling class, it is a democracy where essentially any U.S citizen can run for public office and vote!

Yeah, right. Go find an accountant to tell you how much it costs to get elected to any level of State government, multiply it by 20 for Senate or Congress and by a further 100 for President. There are no poor men in the Government of the United States because only the rich can afford the price of the ticket for admission. Representative democracy is but a shadow of the ideal which we are supposed to cherish and evangelise for at the best of times. When it is so utterly unrepresentative of the vast majority of its own people it becomes nothing more than a mockery. Plutocracy is as plutocracy does no matter what it says on the tin!

[dunfiddlin]

I hereby endorse post #73 as a true representation of my intent and an apt description of my rhetorical style, just so's we're clear.

[Witis]

Not to worry, you can have both.

That didn't quite parse, can you explain exactly what you mean???

[Witis]

Who are you talking about?

Me silly!

The I in question surely can't mean you,

Why not???

so was that whole statement just a quote?

No, pure fact!!!!!

[Witis]

Yeah, right. Go find an accountant to tell you how much it costs to get elected to any level of State government, multiply it by 20 for Senate or Congress and by a further 100 for President. There are no poor men in the Government of the United States because only the rich can afford the price of the ticket for admission. Representative democracy is but a shadow of the ideal which we are supposed to cherish and evangelise for at the best of times. When it is so utterly unrepresentative of the vast majority of its own people it becomes nothing more than a mockery. Plutocracy is as plutocracy does no matter what it says on the tin!

Didn't they just relax the rules on Political Action Committees so that it doesn't matter how much money a candidate has personally they can still run for the office of president if they have enough public support?
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee

[Witis]

I hereby endorse post #73 as a true representation of my intent and an apt description of my rhetorical style, just so's we're clear.

That's sad, I was hoping you actually had some sort of basis for your argument!

[Niya]

I have to ask, which genocides are you talking about???

I have none to point to. Every thing I've come across on the topic strongly indicates that these people really have no limits. Its been said they have the power to decide the winners and losers in wars between nations and its been implied that their primary motivation is money. Its not a stretch in my mind to believe that they are capable of allowing or even encouraging genocides towards that end. They don't have to do it themselves, they just have to facilitate it. If all they care about is wealth, why should anyone assume they wouldn't go that far if they haven't already.

Are you talking about that -> http://archive.adl.org/special_repor...rothschild.asp ?

Yep.

[Niya]

I saw a signature in this forums once that said, "They're 10 kinds of people. Those who know binary, and those who don't."

Yea, I saw it too. I just can't remember who's it was.

[Witis]

I have none to point to. Every thing I've come across on the topic strongly indicates that these people really have no limits. Its been said they have the power to decide the winners and losers in wars between nations and its been implied that their primary motivation is money. Its not a stretch in my mind to believe that they are capable of allowing or even encouraging genocides towards that end. They don't have to do it themselves, they just have to facilitate it. If all they care about is wealth, why should anyone assume they wouldn't go that far if they haven't already.

Have you got any facts to support those quite extreme and overtly anti-Semitic views???

[Niya]

Have you got any facts to support those quite extreme and overtly anti-Semitic views???

How would I know that facts are actually facts. In the end, I am consuming information provided by other people who will surely have their own bias and their own agendas. I'm not into conspiracy tin-foil hats nonsense but I have to admit in this case, the arguments really do sound quite convincing so I'm not ready to just dismiss it.

Btw....How is acknowledging that Jews are powerful, is in any way, anti-Semitic ?

[Witis]

How would I know that facts are actually facts. In the end, I am consuming information provided by other people who will surely have their own bias and their own agendas. I'm not into conspiracy tin-foil hats nonsense but I have to admit in this case, the arguments really do sound quite convincing so I'm not ready to just dismiss it.

R.O.F.L!!! I dunno if you should dismiss your right to wear a tin foil hat so soon!

Btw....How is acknowledging that Jews are powerful, is in any way, anti-Semitic ?

I think most men would agree that an unsubstantiated belief that Jews control the world's banking system and misuse their power and wealth to directly or indirectly cause genocides qualifies as anti-Semitism!!!

[rosepawla]

I just hate those peoples who abuse the children sexually.

[Jacob Roman]

Ironically I live in the Jewish community of Bay Harbor Islands out here in Miami. o.O

Nah this can't be a coincidence that would be silly All these rich people living around me with their Lamborghinis, Ferraris, Porsches.....and their multi million dollar homes and condos.....and their money..............and.......and.......God Im so jealous. perhaps I should convert to judaism.

This calls for a rant!!!!

[FunkyDexter]

Yea, I saw it too. I just can't remember who's it was.

I think it's MMock's. It always struck me as funny.

I think most men would agree that an unsubstantiated belief that Jews control the world's banking system and misuse their power and wealth to directly or indirectly cause genocides qualifies as anti-Semitism!!!

Oh God. Twice in one thread I find myself agreeing with Witis. They do say that the mad never recognise their own madness so perhaps everything I'm saying is drivel. Heaven forfend.

Niya, as Witis said, it's not so much the ackonowldgement that Jews tend to be powerful in financial markets that could be construed as anti-semitic (historically that's actually true and goes back to the fact that they were allowed to engage in usuray while Christians weren't) but rather that they're engaged in some global conspiracy to use that power to dominate the globe. It's exactly the sort of propaganda that was floating round at the turn of the century and which the Nazi's used to whip up hatred against them. Have a google for the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and you'll see what I mean.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you are anti semitic (it's certainly not an impression I've got from you in the past) but rather that the particular conspiracy theory you've touched on there has a very dark precedent in history and is one I'd encourage you to re-examine. All people with money, be they Jew or Gentile, will probably use some of that money to garner influence. It's a pretty natural motive. But jumping from there to a Global Jewish Conspiracy is a dangerous step.