Re: The Superclass, Rothschilds, Rockefellers, Masons, Illuminati, et al

Just pointing out a few things here, namely some inconsistency to what you appear to be saying as well as the use of trigger words & phrases sprinkled throughout what you said:

"...to stay with concepts that can be proven and shone to be true....";

This is among the gold standards and remains as one of the more common trigger phrases that people can be observed parroting these days. While not always the case, it is often accompanied by people who ask for proof without ever providing example of what constitutes proof in their opinion. This is just my opinion but people who regularly fall into this "yeah, but where's the proof" trap generally seem to be people who are attempting to disprove something by way of asking for proof which they do not bother to qualify. This implies that proof, rare and ephemeral at best, nebulous to non-existent for the masses at worst, has been rendered into universally accepted boiler plate. Unfortunately, proof generally does not exist as such. By extension, the person seems to be asking for something that they themselves do not know the quality of by way of example IE> does not know what they are asking for. The real beauty in the design of this trigger is that it is embedded in a way that the person who really does not know what they are asking for generally does not let that get in the way of asking for it nonetheless. In this instance, you at least provided a nod in that direction of what you consider proof in this context ".... concepts that can be proven and shone to be true..... like this guy..." Correct me if I'm mistaken but you are holding this guy up as an example of what meets your standard of proof in this context, right? Meanwhile, another trigger phrase follows, one that, coincidentally, in just the past 1 to 2 years alone has been popularized, near instantly, at the speed of media, through saturation repetition via the media ...." .. and if its just something you read on the internet..." People say this "...just something on the internet..." as though it's a bad thing. How is something / anything found on the internet any different from, say, something found on TV, or on the radio, or in a newspaper, or at a movie house, or in a book, or heard during a conversation among people, or even seen with one's own two eyes? Again, there is an unspoken implication here; that the internet is somehow lacking credibility in ways that all these other avenues to information, apparently, presume to possess.

By the way, for the time being, Ropkopf is merely some guy that I read about, today, for the first time, on the internet, by way of your post. If I go with the route of ".....just something on the internet..." fear, I guess this means I should avoid Ropkopf like the plague. On the other hand, you seem to be holding him up as though he is a genuinely good example. Which is it? Is he bad, as in internet bad, or is he good, as in, A-OK because you give me your personal assurance? Before you answer, rest assured that I will be happy to point you in the direction of non-internet, non-media, non-hearsay sources of origin wherein upper level masons themselves reported what they know about the upper levels of masonic orders. The sources of origins were in large part published documents, loosely what many people know as "books", authored by various people claiming to have spent many years as high level masons, authored during a time decades to centuries before the internet ever came along. However, in many cases, long after those folks left the physical plane, the internet came along, and now has become a conduit "links" to many types of information INCLUDING some of these very same sources of origin.... does this mean that those sources of origin are now retroactively tainted because they have subsequently been propagated by the internet wherein somebody is now subject to going out and finding it as "oh, oh no, just another something I read on the internet" ?