Who is the Enemy?: The Illuminati versus the Jews

Karl Radl · June 22nd, 2013

Who is the Enemy?: The Illuminati versus the Jews

It has come to my attention recently that there are quite few people out there who believe that the jews are not a problem in the world today, but that a shadowy group known as the Illuminati are. Of this positions there are three general variants.

In the first instance the jews are not a problem at all, but rather the Illuminati are and the two groups have little to no relation above some members of the Illuminati being jewish. This is the position held by individuals like Alex Jones and David Icke.

In the second instance the jews are a problem, but they are being controlled as a group by several members of the Illuminati who are; in fact, jewish. This is the position held by individuals like William Guy Carr.

In the third instance the jews are a problem and a major element of the Illuminati, but not all of the Illuminati. This is the position held by individuals like Nesta Webster.

Now the interesting thing about the above sequence is that the origin of most subsequent views on the Illuminati was in fact the originator of the third position; Nesta Webster, whose views became more progressively anti-jewish as she did more research. However Webster never blamed the jews exclusively and the posthumous editor of her works; Anthony Gittens, did much to soften this in the later editions of her work. We note with interest that in the chapters Gittens added to 'World Revolution' to cover events up the time of the 1950s: he had more or less written the jews out of; what we may call, the conspiratorial scheme of things.

This was in fact part of a general trend exemplified by William Guy Carr where authors; who had first began their research in the 1920s/1930s, began to modify the traditional views of the jews in conspiratorial literature, which; as it was derived from a meeting of minds between anti-jewish and anti-Freemasonic material, had up until till that time been equally anti-jewish and anti-Masonic, but with the normal caveat that they were only criticising specific jews and not all jews (and thus weren't anti-Semitic or 'blaming the jews').

With the Second World War and the fall of the Third Reich however; which had championed both the anti-jewish and anti-Masonic cause, these two traditional themes suffered public relations disasters from which they have only begun to recover from in recent years. The; for lack of a better name, conspiracy milieu had to forge a new way forward for its theories and make them attractive to new audiences thirsting for alternative explanations of world events.

The vehicle that this milieu largely chose was Christianity in so far as in the 1950s and 1960s Christianity was suffering; as it is now, in Europe from falling congregations and the significant loss of such beliefs among intellectuals as it being the perceived bedrock of European civilization. Thus the conspiratorial writers; who were often older, devoutly Christian men, began to try and rally people around shared religious beliefs.

To do this they simply began downplaying the anti-jewish side of the literature from which they drew their ideas and playing up the anti-Masonic angle with the caveat that the Freemasons were just the obvious branches of a much larger conspiratorial organization: Webster's Illuminati.

To play up the issue of Freemasonry was necessary precisely because in order to argue that such a conspiracy exists then once has to show evidence of it and the way to do that would either be to use the disproportionate number of jews in positions of influence or to use the disproportionate number of Freemasons in positions of influence. Without using one of these bases then the conspiratorial milieu would have had to reconstruct their own arguments from scratch and re-do large amounts of their research.

The path of least resistance was simply to take the now socially and politically unacceptable anti-jewish slants out of the literature as much as possible over time and then replace the traditional conspiracy of jews and Freemasons with a conspiracy of Freemasons being headed by a highly secret elite (i.e. the Illuminati).

This then lead to the widely read anti-secularization and anti-Illuminati books; which focused on Freemasonry and the Illuminati as the active agents while capitalists and communists were relegated to being passive agencies along with the jews, of; what we could term, Christian Fascist authors like William Guy Carr and George Knupffer. Who espoused anti-Masonic views linked with anti-Illuminati views tied via the doctrines of Christianity into the belief that a new Christian society was what was needed with a king who ruled by divine right at its head.

Authors like Carr and Knupffer then passed away while their works were being reprinted and read by those seeking alternative explanations for the plight of Western society generally and also the social, cultural, economic and political chaos of the Cold War era. Increasingly those who followed Carr and Knuppfer kept their conclusions about an Illuminati conspiracy operating, but removed; what we may term, the Christian Fascist elements while keeping the focus on the Illuminati.

One of the principle additions by Carr that has made it; albeit usually tacitly (i.e. it is an unstated assumption that actually underpins most of their argument), into the beliefs of individuals like Alex Jones and David Icke is the idea that the Illuminati are fundamentally part of a supernatural conspiracy. The underpinning of this is Carr's belief that the Illuminati were originally created and then subsequently sustained in their conspiratorial activities by none other than the Devil himself while Jones and Icke usually don't mention it (aside from references to the Illuminati as a 'satanic' force).

Their arguments however necessitate belief in such a scenario; or at least one where some supernatural agency is present, in Jones' case it is more faithful to Carr's original concept with his belief that the Illuminati worship old Canaanite Gods (specifically Moloch) than Icke's version which replaces the Devil with intergalactic shape-shifting lizards (I wish I was being hyperbolic but alas I am not).

The point is very simple in that by introducing supernatural forces into the equation the likes of Jones and Icke are trying to explain to both their active and passive readership why the Illuminati conspiracy has been able to survive and propagate itself in spite of the many challenges that it would necessarily have faced by being extant in the material world.

This need to explain the origin of the powerful and apparent dastardly abilities of the Illuminati to escape detection (except by Illuminati researchers) as a supernatural phenomenon brings us onto the crux of this article: the problem with positing an Illuminati conspiracy as opposed to a jewish conspiracy.

This contrast can be elucidated very easily by pointing out that it is not possible to reasonably identify a current or recent member of the Illuminati, because no researcher on the subject has ever produced concrete documentation or evidence of membership of the Illuminati (aside from the original members of Weishaupt and Knigge's group) other than by inferring it.

The logic used by Illuminati researchers is as simple as it is fallacious: it equates seeming to hold power, positions of ostensible influence and even simple success as necessarily equating some kind of collaboration with the Illuminati or; more often, membership of that group (i.e. someone I perceive as influential that I don't like the politics/ideas of is necessarily a member etc [or put more succinctly it is a subjective identification]). So for example if you were an individual who was successful in business and by dint of that success you had gained entry into exclusive clubs and groups then it wouldn't be long before Illuminati researchers would begin to finger you as a stooge; or simply a member, of the Illuminati.

The problem with the Illuminati theory is that it associates status within the Illuminati retrospectively to events as opposed to predicting and evidencing this is so. It doesn't take into account that if any such conspiracy existing then it would be very difficult for it to take up every new member and control them precisely because of the extent and the malleability of human thought and feelings over time.

A good example of this is Freemasonry. Few would dispute the contention that the craft; as it likes to call itself, has at times wielded significant active and passive influence in elite circles, but the key element in that is that unlike the Illuminati there have been plenty of historic traitors to Freemasonry. Who in spite of betraying and then fighting a powerful; if disparate, organization were able survive and prosper.

No such verifiable ex-member literature exists for the Illuminati as it does for Freemasonry with a similar example for those interested being anti-Jesuitism with the accompanying literature of ex-Jesuits writing against their former brothers in the Society of Jesus or the CIA with its occasional traitors with the most recent being Edward Snowden.

Jews by contrast are a group whose members are easily verifiable as they are a series of genetic clusters and some recent researchers believe may be a sub-race all by themselves.. We can tell who is a jew before they rise to power if we so wish (i.e. we can predict probable rise to power/influence because they are jewish which are objectively measure through genetics). We know how many jews there are in the world (well at least officially) and we know that they are disproportionately represented in positions of power, prestige and influence.

Anti-Semites and philo-Semites might disagree about the precise scale as well as the pros and cons of disproportionate jewish representation in these positions, but there is a consensus (as it is easy to evidence) that the jews are disproportionately represented in them.

The point is simple enough in so far as the Illuminati researchers cannot evidence who among the power-brokers of modern society is an Illuminus and who isn't. They can only guess and all too often their guess is no guess at all. It is simply an accusatory version of a shotgun shell: if in doubt then they are all members!

This clearly is unlikely to be true by any standard for the simple reason that there will always be social and political renegades among the elite as well as at any other part of the class structure of society. The lack of such renegades and the literature they necessarily produce about their experiences suggests that the Illuminati are not a power in the world today if they ever were historically.

This is where the proponents of the Illuminati position; notably Jones following Carr, bring in the supernatural part of their thesis in that they have to hurdle the issue of just who is a member of the Illuminati precisely because they don't know. To explain why they don't know and to further infer some kind of necessary vagueness: they suggest that the Illuminati are diabolically guided and thus have a greater degree of control exerted on them than any human could conceive of.

This then serves as the get out clause for the inability of Illuminati researchers to provide direct evidence of the membership of current; or those in recent history, individuals in said organization. They are essentially arguing that because they are fighting a supernatural conspiracy then they have severe difficulty in pinning it down and documenting it.

This supernatural identification however produces three major problems for Illuminati researchers: in the first they have not evidenced the fact that an organization such as the Illuminati exists and has existed since the original group were forcibly dissolved. Let alone whether that group is inspired by the devil or even whether the devil even exists.

This then leads into the second problem with it, which is that the logic the Illuminati researchers are using is circular in that they are asserting that they know (i.e. they believe) the Illuminati exist and because they know they exist they know (i.e. they believe) what the Illuminati want, which in turn they identify as being opposed to what they want politically/intellectually/ideologically and thus inspired by the anti-force of many of their own belief systems (i.e. Satan). Therefore the Illuminati worship Satan; passively or actively, and thus being inspired by the devil we cannot know who the Illuminati really are. This then explains why we we cannot find evidence of the Illuminati's existence, because they are diabolical and this then serves to reinforce the belief in the near omni-potency of the Illuminati.

The above is also a fine example of the self-fulfilling prophecy where non-existence and failure to uncover evidence is taken as ipso facto proof of the power and potency of the foe. It is not disprovable for the believer precisely because a lack of proof is taken by them to be proof.

Further we should note that Illuminati researchers frequently talk about the Illuminati's 'agenda' and what they have done in the past. However they are seemingly unable to tell us on what basis they know what the Illuminati's current agenda is other than by pure guesswork on the assumption of constancy of purpose with a document from over two centuries ago.

In essence they are assuming that after two centuries the Illuminati's goals and methods have not changed, which seems improbable to say the least as even the most stodgy and reactionary organisation or group will change its spots once in a while to allow them to engage with new generations, new concepts and new realities.

If we posit a jewish enemy by contrast we can show their various and evolving agendas throughout history with ease and not only that with the existence of large jewish organisations that are not shrouded in the shadowy cloak of mystery: we can point to a definite agenda for each of them and show their specific activities to push that agenda forward.

We can evidence jewish power easily enough and we give the who and the where as well as the why: we cannot do that with the Illuminati for the simple reason that even the best of the researchers on them do not know that themselves.

The third problem with it is perhaps the most obvious in that the supernatural element means that we are introducing a very powerful being (or beings) into the equation, which is the rationale for the means of the tight Illuminati control over their members and their surprising lack of defections.

However are we then to believe that in spite of this evidently powerful control over their members: the Illuminati cannot control an American radio host (i.e. Alex Jones) and a small number of other writers (e.g. John Coleman) who are out of expose them?

It is a bit of a conundrum: isn't it?

The Illuminati are nearly omni-potent and have an overt or covert supernatural backer, but yet said supernatural backer and his powerful agents cannot silence their enemies. If we are to go by the logic of Jones et al then surely it would be the case that because they are not actively suppressed then they are either Illuminati hirelings themselves or are off-target in who they have fingered as bearing a large part of the blame for the current world situation.

This stands in stark contrast to those who argue that it is the jews not the Illuminati that are the problem. Unlike the Illuminati researchers: anti-jewish researchers have special laws made against them, are actively targeted on a personal and professional level by both well-funded organisations and small groups of 'anti-racist' fanatics and are unable to broadcast their views on the airwaves with ease without government attempts to shut them down.

Ask yourself: what Illuminati researcher has been subject to similar treatment?

The answer is: none.

The concomitant question to that is: who then; does that suggest, holds the power?

The Illuminati or the jews?

The answer is obvious: the jews.

-------------------------------------------

This was originally published at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...rsus-jews.html

Togar mah · June 22nd, 2013

Quote:

Originally Posted by Karl Radl

The answer is obvious: the jews.

George Carlin - It's a big club and you ain't in it

George Carlin & New World Order Exposed - YouTube

HardHawk · June 22nd, 2013

The question is not unlike one trying to figure out a global company who has 100s of different branches each of them to appear on the surface independent of the other and completely autonomous.

Kind of same shit different name, in a manner of speaking.

Roy Wagahuski · June 25th, 2013

Quote:

the most recent being Edgar Snowden.

Heads up.

.

Karl Radl · June 25th, 2013

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roy Wagahuski

Heads up.

.

Corrected.

Thanks: don't know where I got Edgar from.

June 22nd, 2013	#1
Karl Radl The Epitome of Evil Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: The Unseen University of New York Posts: 3,130	Who is the Enemy?: The Illuminati versus the Jews Who is the Enemy?: The Illuminati versus the Jews It has come to my attention recently that there are quite few people out there who believe that the jews are not a problem in the world today, but that a shadowy group known as the Illuminati are. Of this positions there are three general variants. In the first instance the jews are not a problem at all, but rather the Illuminati are and the two groups have little to no relation above some members of the Illuminati being jewish. This is the position held by individuals like Alex Jones and David Icke. In the second instance the jews are a problem, but they are being controlled as a group by several members of the Illuminati who are; in fact, jewish. This is the position held by individuals like William Guy Carr. In the third instance the jews are a problem and a major element of the Illuminati, but not all of the Illuminati. This is the position held by individuals like Nesta Webster. Now the interesting thing about the above sequence is that the origin of most subsequent views on the Illuminati was in fact the originator of the third position; Nesta Webster, whose views became more progressively anti-jewish as she did more research. However Webster never blamed the jews exclusively and the posthumous editor of her works; Anthony Gittens, did much to soften this in the later editions of her work. We note with interest that in the chapters Gittens added to 'World Revolution' to cover events up the time of the 1950s: he had more or less written the jews out of; what we may call, the conspiratorial scheme of things. This was in fact part of a general trend exemplified by William Guy Carr where authors; who had first began their research in the 1920s/1930s, began to modify the traditional views of the jews in conspiratorial literature, which; as it was derived from a meeting of minds between anti-jewish and anti-Freemasonic material, had up until till that time been equally anti-jewish and anti-Masonic, but with the normal caveat that they were only criticising specific jews and not all jews (and thus weren't anti-Semitic or 'blaming the jews'). With the Second World War and the fall of the Third Reich however; which had championed both the anti-jewish and anti-Masonic cause, these two traditional themes suffered public relations disasters from which they have only begun to recover from in recent years. The; for lack of a better name, conspiracy milieu had to forge a new way forward for its theories and make them attractive to new audiences thirsting for alternative explanations of world events. The vehicle that this milieu largely chose was Christianity in so far as in the 1950s and 1960s Christianity was suffering; as it is now, in Europe from falling congregations and the significant loss of such beliefs among intellectuals as it being the perceived bedrock of European civilization. Thus the conspiratorial writers; who were often older, devoutly Christian men, began to try and rally people around shared religious beliefs. To do this they simply began downplaying the anti-jewish side of the literature from which they drew their ideas and playing up the anti-Masonic angle with the caveat that the Freemasons were just the obvious branches of a much larger conspiratorial organization: Webster's Illuminati. To play up the issue of Freemasonry was necessary precisely because in order to argue that such a conspiracy exists then once has to show evidence of it and the way to do that would either be to use the disproportionate number of jews in positions of influence or to use the disproportionate number of Freemasons in positions of influence. Without using one of these bases then the conspiratorial milieu would have had to reconstruct their own arguments from scratch and re-do large amounts of their research. The path of least resistance was simply to take the now socially and politically unacceptable anti-jewish slants out of the literature as much as possible over time and then replace the traditional conspiracy of jews and Freemasons with a conspiracy of Freemasons being headed by a highly secret elite (i.e. the Illuminati). This then lead to the widely read anti-secularization and anti-Illuminati books; which focused on Freemasonry and the Illuminati as the active agents while capitalists and communists were relegated to being passive agencies along with the jews, of; what we could term, Christian Fascist authors like William Guy Carr and George Knupffer. Who espoused anti-Masonic views linked with anti-Illuminati views tied via the doctrines of Christianity into the belief that a new Christian society was what was needed with a king who ruled by divine right at its head. Authors like Carr and Knupffer then passed away while their works were being reprinted and read by those seeking alternative explanations for the plight of Western society generally and also the social, cultural, economic and political chaos of the Cold War era. Increasingly those who followed Carr and Knuppfer kept their conclusions about an Illuminati conspiracy operating, but removed; what we may term, the Christian Fascist elements while keeping the focus on the Illuminati. One of the principle additions by Carr that has made it; albeit usually tacitly (i.e. it is an unstated assumption that actually underpins most of their argument), into the beliefs of individuals like Alex Jones and David Icke is the idea that the Illuminati are fundamentally part of a supernatural conspiracy. The underpinning of this is Carr's belief that the Illuminati were originally created and then subsequently sustained in their conspiratorial activities by none other than the Devil himself while Jones and Icke usually don't mention it (aside from references to the Illuminati as a 'satanic' force). Their arguments however necessitate belief in such a scenario; or at least one where some supernatural agency is present, in Jones' case it is more faithful to Carr's original concept with his belief that the Illuminati worship old Canaanite Gods (specifically Moloch) than Icke's version which replaces the Devil with intergalactic shape-shifting lizards (I wish I was being hyperbolic but alas I am not). The point is very simple in that by introducing supernatural forces into the equation the likes of Jones and Icke are trying to explain to both their active and passive readership why the Illuminati conspiracy has been able to survive and propagate itself in spite of the many challenges that it would necessarily have faced by being extant in the material world. This need to explain the origin of the powerful and apparent dastardly abilities of the Illuminati to escape detection (except by Illuminati researchers) as a supernatural phenomenon brings us onto the crux of this article: the problem with positing an Illuminati conspiracy as opposed to a jewish conspiracy. This contrast can be elucidated very easily by pointing out that it is not possible to reasonably identify a current or recent member of the Illuminati, because no researcher on the subject has ever produced concrete documentation or evidence of membership of the Illuminati (aside from the original members of Weishaupt and Knigge's group) other than by inferring it. The logic used by Illuminati researchers is as simple as it is fallacious: it equates seeming to hold power, positions of ostensible influence and even simple success as necessarily equating some kind of collaboration with the Illuminati or; more often, membership of that group (i.e. someone I perceive as influential that I don't like the politics/ideas of is necessarily a member etc [or put more succinctly it is a subjective identification]). So for example if you were an individual who was successful in business and by dint of that success you had gained entry into exclusive clubs and groups then it wouldn't be long before Illuminati researchers would begin to finger you as a stooge; or simply a member, of the Illuminati. The problem with the Illuminati theory is that it associates status within the Illuminati retrospectively to events as opposed to predicting and evidencing this is so. It doesn't take into account that if any such conspiracy existing then it would be very difficult for it to take up every new member and control them precisely because of the extent and the malleability of human thought and feelings over time. A good example of this is Freemasonry. Few would dispute the contention that the craft; as it likes to call itself, has at times wielded significant active and passive influence in elite circles, but the key element in that is that unlike the Illuminati there have been plenty of historic traitors to Freemasonry. Who in spite of betraying and then fighting a powerful; if disparate, organization were able survive and prosper. No such verifiable ex-member literature exists for the Illuminati as it does for Freemasonry with a similar example for those interested being anti-Jesuitism with the accompanying literature of ex-Jesuits writing against their former brothers in the Society of Jesus or the CIA with its occasional traitors with the most recent being Edward Snowden. Jews by contrast are a group whose members are easily verifiable as they are a series of genetic clusters and some recent researchers believe may be a sub-race all by themselves.. We can tell who is a jew before they rise to power if we so wish (i.e. we can predict probable rise to power/influence because they are jewish which are objectively measure through genetics). We know how many jews there are in the world (well at least officially) and we know that they are disproportionately represented in positions of power, prestige and influence. Anti-Semites and philo-Semites might disagree about the precise scale as well as the pros and cons of disproportionate jewish representation in these positions, but there is a consensus (as it is easy to evidence) that the jews are disproportionately represented in them. The point is simple enough in so far as the Illuminati researchers cannot evidence who among the power-brokers of modern society is an Illuminus and who isn't. They can only guess and all too often their guess is no guess at all. It is simply an accusatory version of a shotgun shell: if in doubt then they are all members! This clearly is unlikely to be true by any standard for the simple reason that there will always be social and political renegades among the elite as well as at any other part of the class structure of society. The lack of such renegades and the literature they necessarily produce about their experiences suggests that the Illuminati are not a power in the world today if they ever were historically. This is where the proponents of the Illuminati position; notably Jones following Carr, bring in the supernatural part of their thesis in that they have to hurdle the issue of just who is a member of the Illuminati precisely because they don't know. To explain why they don't know and to further infer some kind of necessary vagueness: they suggest that the Illuminati are diabolically guided and thus have a greater degree of control exerted on them than any human could conceive of. This then serves as the get out clause for the inability of Illuminati researchers to provide direct evidence of the membership of current; or those in recent history, individuals in said organization. They are essentially arguing that because they are fighting a supernatural conspiracy then they have severe difficulty in pinning it down and documenting it. This supernatural identification however produces three major problems for Illuminati researchers: in the first they have not evidenced the fact that an organization such as the Illuminati exists and has existed since the original group were forcibly dissolved. Let alone whether that group is inspired by the devil or even whether the devil even exists. This then leads into the second problem with it, which is that the logic the Illuminati researchers are using is circular in that they are asserting that they know (i.e. they believe) the Illuminati exist and because they know they exist they know (i.e. they believe) what the Illuminati want, which in turn they identify as being opposed to what they want politically/intellectually/ideologically and thus inspired by the anti-force of many of their own belief systems (i.e. Satan). Therefore the Illuminati worship Satan; passively or actively, and thus being inspired by the devil we cannot know who the Illuminati really are. This then explains why we we cannot find evidence of the Illuminati's existence, because they are diabolical and this then serves to reinforce the belief in the near omni-potency of the Illuminati. The above is also a fine example of the self-fulfilling prophecy where non-existence and failure to uncover evidence is taken as ipso facto proof of the power and potency of the foe. It is not disprovable for the believer precisely because a lack of proof is taken by them to be proof. Further we should note that Illuminati researchers frequently talk about the Illuminati's 'agenda' and what they have done in the past. However they are seemingly unable to tell us on what basis they know what the Illuminati's current agenda is other than by pure guesswork on the assumption of constancy of purpose with a document from over two centuries ago. In essence they are assuming that after two centuries the Illuminati's goals and methods have not changed, which seems improbable to say the least as even the most stodgy and reactionary organisation or group will change its spots once in a while to allow them to engage with new generations, new concepts and new realities. If we posit a jewish enemy by contrast we can show their various and evolving agendas throughout history with ease and not only that with the existence of large jewish organisations that are not shrouded in the shadowy cloak of mystery: we can point to a definite agenda for each of them and show their specific activities to push that agenda forward. We can evidence jewish power easily enough and we give the who and the where as well as the why: we cannot do that with the Illuminati for the simple reason that even the best of the researchers on them do not know that themselves. The third problem with it is perhaps the most obvious in that the supernatural element means that we are introducing a very powerful being (or beings) into the equation, which is the rationale for the means of the tight Illuminati control over their members and their surprising lack of defections. However are we then to believe that in spite of this evidently powerful control over their members: the Illuminati cannot control an American radio host (i.e. Alex Jones) and a small number of other writers (e.g. John Coleman) who are out of expose them? It is a bit of a conundrum: isn't it? The Illuminati are nearly omni-potent and have an overt or covert supernatural backer, but yet said supernatural backer and his powerful agents cannot silence their enemies. If we are to go by the logic of Jones et al then surely it would be the case that because they are not actively suppressed then they are either Illuminati hirelings themselves or are off-target in who they have fingered as bearing a large part of the blame for the current world situation. This stands in stark contrast to those who argue that it is the jews not the Illuminati that are the problem. Unlike the Illuminati researchers: anti-jewish researchers have special laws made against them, are actively targeted on a personal and professional level by both well-funded organisations and small groups of 'anti-racist' fanatics and are unable to broadcast their views on the airwaves with ease without government attempts to shut them down. Ask yourself: what Illuminati researcher has been subject to similar treatment? The answer is: none. The concomitant question to that is: who then; does that suggest, holds the power? The Illuminati or the jews? The answer is obvious: the jews. ------------------------------------------- This was originally published at the following address: http://semiticcontroversies.blogspot...rsus-jews.html __________________ Semitic Controversies Last edited by Karl Radl; June 25th, 2013 at 11:11 AM.

Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

June 22nd, 2013	#3
HardHawk Banned Join Date: May 2013 Location: a LAND that never been occupied Posts: 1,933	The question is not unlike one trying to figure out a global company who has 100s of different branches each of them to appear on the surface independent of the other and completely autonomous. Kind of same shit different name, in a manner of speaking.