Right around the time he was explaining why an evil super villain sent hurricane Sandy to NYC in order to get Bloomberg to endorse Obama, he mentioned how he thought the Sandy Hook conspiracy theory was ridiculous. Go figure.
Yes, but perhaps by now it’s been discussed in the New York Times, making it unquestionably the truth.
As promised, I’m going to answer Larry Borgia’s critically important question, reply to Loach again, and answer all other questions.
I’ve been very busy with work and other things in my life and I haven’t had the time to answer as fully as I would like to. I’ve now had the opportunity to read through this entire thread, sleep on it, and now I will reply to posts that might facilitate the discussion.
I will explain my current understanding of the state of the world in the present and the state of the world in the past.
I also will explain my understanding of the Roman Emperor Diocletian.
My current understanding of the state of the world in the present and the past:
There are (cited by Wikipedia) 242 countries in the world. There are (cited by The New York Times) 192 governments in the world. From this, I understand that there are 192 heads of government. Among the heads of government, there is Kim Jong-un, head of government of North Korea, perhaps the last totalitarian dictator in the world and there is Barack Obama, head of government of The United States, possibly the most powerful person on the planet. Then there are 190 other heads of government that do not bear mentioning. Besides the heads of government, there is this family. Finally, there is the Pope of whom there is a power behind the throne, which is the Illuminati. Why do royalty and the Pope bear mentioning? Because both were once “in power”. Now, of course, Queen Elizabeth II is, in most respects, largely ceremonial. And, obviously, the Pope does not preside over Christendom as his predecessors once did.
Indeed, the Pope presided over Christendom, creating precedence of European rulers:
Now that’s power.
I can already anticipate the replies - “How could sovereigns agree to the ordering of who is more important and less important? What gives the Pope the authority to do that?”
Supreme authority!
I can anticipate further replies - “Supreme authority? What are you talking about? I thought you said that the Illuminati is the power behind the throne for the Pope? Now you’re saying that the Pope has/had all this power. Is the Pope the Anarch?”
No! The Pope is not the Anarch. The Pope is a mere figurehead, a decoy for the Anarch, a pawn, as it were. The Pope did not posses that power; the Illuminati exercised their power through the Pope to the “rulers” of Europe.
I’m sure that the rulers of Europe were all as confused as many of you all are now, when they were told that there would be a set order of precedence among them! 
So there is that family - the royal family, which includes Queen Elizabeth II, Albert II, Margrethe II, Beatrix, Harald V, Juan Carlos I, and Karl XVI Gustav. All related. All largely ceremonial.
Here come more replies - “What’s the point of all this? So there are ceremonial kings and queens and they’re all related? So what?”
The point is that before the modern heads of government, all of whom are theoretically equal, there were kings and queens and the Pope. Before the kings and queens and the Pope, there was the Roman Empire, the Roman Emperor. Which bring me to Diocletian.
proviso I ask that discussion of Diocletian be limited to The Encyclopaedia Britannica (1994). Yes, we could use Wikipedia (which I am fond of using) or other sources; however, considering that this specific discussion of Diocletian is not “current”, I’d rather use a source that is not edited and re-edited.
The Britannica article on Diocletian begins by pointing out that little is known of his background, that his father was either a slave or a scribe and that is wife, Prisca, is only known through one source - Lactantius Firmianus’s De mortibus persecutorum, which is of “debatable veracity”. Early in life he lived in military camps. According to the Historia Agusta, he may have been in Gaul. It is known that he fought against the Persians in 284 and, at the same time, became Emperor after Numerian was killed.
Diocletian became Emperor on November 17, 284.
The article explains that he possessed “real power” only in the parts of the Empire that were dominated by his army and that Numerian’s brother Carnius had power over the rest of the Empire. This state of affairs did not last long because in 285 Carnius was assassinated by a group of soldiers. Then in 286 Diocletian set out to remove the army from politics and, that same year, chose Maximian for Milan and then in 293 chose Galerius and Canstantius for other parts of the Empire. So Diocletian governed Egypt, Thrace, and Asia, Galerius governed Illyria and the Danubian provinces, Maximian governed Italy and Africa, and Constantius governed Gaul, Spain, and Britain.
Nevertheless, Diocletian remained a patrimonium indivisum, meaning that he was still the Emperor as were his successors up until the fall of the Roman Empire.
Do you know what Diocletian, Galerius, Maximian, and Constantius were known as? Quattuor principes mundi. The four princes of the world. Imagine that.
I can just see the reply - “That’s nice. What are you getting at?”
:smack:
Why couldn’t someone create precedence of the heads of government in the same way that the Pope created precedence of the rulers of Europe?
You’re not far off the mark:
:mad: :mad: :mad: This is what I mean by derisive and condescending: “right around the time”.
Try one month after. :rolleyes:
I do not believe that the Sandy Hook / Newton massacre was a hoax.
I think that they are misinformed. They are just watching CNN and making YouTube videos on what they are misinformed about. Remember what I told Marley about CNN here in regards to 9/11? Same applies to Sandy Hook.
A normal person would not need to say that.
I took the red pill. 
That does not necessarily mean his superiors did not know. By the way, The New York Times reported today on the Bradley Manning trial and the defense made the claim that, regarding the material he leaked, “some were found on Osama bin Laden’s computer”. I’m sure a lot of things were found on Osama bin Laden’s computer. :rolleyes:
It doesn’t.
It doesn’t matter if the lead is buried or not, as long as you actually read it. (At least you can identify the lead.)
Because they have already allowed themselves to be exposed in another public forum. (Or didn’t you know?)
Maybe I will.
I was not referring to the participants.
What would constitute evidence in your opinion?
No. It is telling that I believe that the next two movies were a total mess. I believe that the 1999 original film is worth more than a second look.
Ok. Then contemplate the state of the political world in the present.
I do not believe that “this fiction character” is real because, again, I have never read the novel! In fact, I never heard of that novel until you mentioned it.
Again with the condescending! “I am just fine dealing with reality.” What do you have against philosophers in general? They’ve done a better job of comprehending - and complemplating - reality than you can ever hope to do. (Prove me wrong.) You assume it is a question of there being order or disorder.
His book, Simulacra and Simulation was briefly shown in a scene in The Matrix.
Because then I can read about “Internet forums” in a source other than the SDMB…
Mission accomplished.
I think that this collection of opinions and discussions on Firefly and on what constitutes an assault rife is in a credible source:
[QUOTE=The New York Times, January 17, 2012]
On Internet forums there is perhaps no more fiercely discussed topic than the question of what constitutes an assault rife.
[/QUOTE]
Cite!
Now I’m going to show my work by linking to a credible source.
hint: What is the origin of the term “assault rife”? It’s explained in the cite.
another hint: Do you believe the explanation?
Except that one. Ironic.
Fair enough.
Because it is not about this website or that website. Why do you agree with me? Why aren’t you on my side? 
Nothing you said up to this point supports this statement. Nor is there anything here that supports all this Anarch gobbledygook.
Because power is distributed differently and governments work differently, and information flows differently. And you’re not just arguing that someone could do this, you’re arguing that someone did. There’s no evidence for that.
I thought the old timey popes got their power from
material wealth
a large and loyal army
and the fact that faithful Catholics think the pope is Christ’s vicar on earth.
In olde times most rulers claimed divine right to rule, the Pope was no different really. The real power came from having the ability to reliably tax their subjects and therefore build big arse armies wrapped up in a scary God.
Assuming the Illuminati are the power behind the Pope, how do we explain the often portrayed link between Illuminati and Freemasons and the hatred of the Church to Masons?
I have another question-
Why Diocletian? Why not some other Roman emperor?
Kozmik - one of the many, many things you don’t seem to grasp is that we’re not really all that interested in WHAT you believe so much as we’re trying to get you to explain WHY you believe it. This you have rather spectacularly failed to even try to explain.
Why do you think any of this makes sense? What was it that got this all into your head? What supporting evidence do you have for any of it? These are the questions that you seemingly cannot even wrap your head around.
You forgot the most obvious objection:
13 years later Christendom was shattered by the actions of a pissed-off monk. Who ordered that? How did the Reformation assist an organization that exerted its power through the authority of the Papacy?
The 1504 Papal order of precedence applied ONLY to ambassadors to the Vatican, and was rendered moot by the Reformation soon after.
One list I find is:
Holy Roman Emperor
King of the Romans
King of France
King of Spain
King of Aragon
King of Portugal
King of England
King of Scotland
King of Sicily
King of Hungary
King of Cyprus (held by Savoy)
King of Bohemia
King of Poland
King of Denmark
Republic of Venice
Duke of Brittany
Duke of Burgundy
Count Palatine
Elector of Saxony
Margrave of Brandenburg
Archduke of Austria
Duke of Savoy
Grand-Duke of Tuscany
Duke of Milan
Duke of Bavaria
Duke of Lorraine
other Italian princes
Roman families of Colonna and Ursini
Pope’s nephew
Cities of Bologna and Ferrara (alternating)
(Source: Jean Rousset de Missy: Cérémonial Diplomatique des Cours de l’Europe, 1739-45, which forms volumes 4 and 5 of the Supplement to Jean Dumont’s Corps Universel Diplomatique du Droit des Gens , Amsterdam, 1726-31; vol. 5, p. 201).
Apologies for the double post, but I took more than five minutes to collect further thoughts:
Precedence among ambassadors is currently (mostly) determined by the length of time that a particular person has held the position in a given capital city. More senior ambassadors have precedence over newcomers, regardless of the “ranking” of the country they represent.
International diplomacy is a fascinating topic if studied; apparently it is even more interesting if a person knows nothing about it and just makes things up as they read the paper.
You are a silly man. You say back in the 1500s the pope is a decoy for the Anarch. However the term Anarch was invented in 1977 in a book you have not bothered to read. Yet somehow you have recently latched on to the term.
Can you tell the Anarch to turn up his weather machine? It’s getting a little chilly.
Cue yet another random mention of the New York Times, possibly a link, and an explanation that doesn’t really explain anything.
Oh come now. He’s using “Anarch” as a shorthand title for the Powerful Person Who Pulls All The Strings Of The World. I prefer “Illuminati Primus” myself, but we all know that an office, entity or thing can exist well before the current name for it was coined.
You are being disingenuous.
How so? He had several multi-page threads of his ramblings. In the middle of his latest one he all of a sudden pulls out a shiny new word and pretends its what he meant all along. I’m sure he found it on some random Internet search and decided to adopt it without ever looking into it. It’s a term from a 70s German fiction book.
But ther are so many more fruitful avenues to pursue than nomenclature. I admit it is attractive, as his terminology is one of the only things that stays consistent for more than three posts, but I find highlighting his deliberate ignorance on international relations to be more profitable.
Of course, YMMV, and nothing comes close to the level of the hurricane machine for demonstative madness.
It’s not crazier but for some reason it annoys me more.
I do have to admire the conceit that a 500-year-old proclamation about which ambassadors will be announced first when visiting the Vatican can in any way validate his G-192 fantasy.