ep74-Robin Fisher

Be the 1st to vote.


ep74-Robin fisher

Showtime: Friday, November 8, 2013 9:11pm

We talk with Robin Fisher about his latest videos, past Canadian , who’s controlling the show in Toronto and Canada, and of course our world famous mayor Rob Ford.






No tags for this post.

30 thoughts on “ep74-Robin Fisher

  1. wanda

    Armunn… you wrote: What therefore I was asking whether you agreed or not was that to take in info from a member of a religion, knowing the precepts it sets in place within the mind, is therefore unnacceptable – unless that person is an honest defector who exposes his experiences.

    I would have to agree with that because if the person is not an honest defector, he is still under the spell of delusion. How can he be honest with you, if he is not even being honest with himself?

    So, i can see how that relates to Robin Fisher, but that does not take from his interpretation of the symbolism, which is basically what he was espousing, imo, not prophecy or other hair brain suppositions. The symbolism is not a choice… this answer is correct, that answer is correct… no, instead, there are many answers, many interpretations… but their use in occurrence and context do tell a story… and i know you know something about that.

    1. ArmunnRigh

      Symbolism is never an objective matter. It is always subjective. To acknowledge what symbols subjectively mean to “them” is important, as stated.

      However, it is the exact subjective nature of symbols that makes the subject prone to manipulation. Since they do not hold concreteness by themselves, the direction of interpretations can be used to “prove” any point. I avoid discussing symbology exactly for that reason. It is much more fruitful to just point out a symbol and have people who may have interest getting their own analysis or decoding, because it is always a personal interpretation. The moment a non-practical symbol takes a groupal shared interpretation, then a new religion is born.

      Yes, I do entertain symbolism myself, but I do not assume to be “correct” nor even unbiased in my meanderings. Otherwise, the symbols will take over the significance and importance of the interpreter, which is one of the first steps towards insanity, in my opinion.

      Religious people will have a collective set story influencing the outcome of their symbolic interpretation which leads to the uncontrollable desire of needing to see and “prove” that story to be not only true but also the only true one.

      Again, I would say that truth is not found out by what it is, but by what it isn’t.

      1. Herge Degrelle

        @ “Symbolism is never an objective matter.”

        Say what ?

        If that is such a truism then how are you able to communicate with other human beings through the symbolism of language itself, in your case here, the English language, where each letter is a complex symbol of its own joined with others with meaning that registers in your subconscious in more-or-less definitive ways even before it leads in cumulative, synergetic effect to the very creation of your higher conceptual consciousness as a literate person ? The sounds that illiterate men and women made to communicate with each other for millennia are also symbols are they not ? Aural symbols for something pointed to ? And where would these some-‘things’ be but in objective reality from whose foundation even all irrational fables are weaved ?

        1. ArmunnRigh

          Well, they aren’t objective by themselves, but are given a practical meaning as a group of people agree – or at least that should be the case, as our modern languages have been more or less rearranged by “experts”. Therefore, I do agree that symbols have a use and a value, but it is always given by the interpreter. The sound value of the letter “A” to you as a native english speaker is different from mine as a portuguese native speaker, despite sharing the same alphabet. Still, it’s the same visible symbol with two different sound interpretations.

          Language is supposed to be practical and functional and agreed upon by its beneficiaries. “They” may even use symbols as a language, granted, but that doesn’t mean that we should… unless we want to become “them”.

          Quoting from my own response above: «The moment a non-practical symbol takes a groupal shared interpretation, then a new religion is born.»

          So if a symbol has no practical use and a group is lead to see it in a specific way only, (like the cross for the christians, for example) then the danger of religion comes about.

          It is not the letter “A” or the cross that hold a natural meaning, it is the interpreter who provides the meaning for them, whichever it may be – unless, I repeat, used for practical ends, like language should be.

  2. wanda

    I find it very interesting that all of the detractors oF Robin Fisher that have shown up need to be in anger management programs and can only fight their battles with insulting ad hominem comments and sarcasm. “Robin makes retarded comments.” “The show made me snooze off after 10 minutes.”… Really?

    Anyhow… this looks like an appropriate place to post this, what is to me OBVIOUS psy-op…


    1. ab Post author

      If you can’t fight the truth, attack. Robin has been targetted by shills wherever he goes. That’s why I like to listen to him. He must be flying over the target.

      1. wanda

        Well Ab, religion is a hot topic… ain’t it? Like i am fond of saying: All religions are the same government. All governments are the same religion.

      2. Herge Degrelle

        By that logic, Alex Jones is the ultimate truth-teller since thousands of people attack him all over the net, you know the “Cointelpro operatives” and “Agent Provacateurs” provocateuring. lol AJ is the only guy to to invent a new French-English word called “provocateuring” to suit his purpose: projecting his own shillery onto others.

        The way I see it, there are 3 identifiable types of shillery:

        1) direct agent

        2) self-appointed know-where-your-bread-is-buttered shilling


        3) more-or-less well-intentioned useful idiocy.

        It’s pointless to try to differentiate the types of shillery outside of a court of law trying to determine premeditation and intentionality. The fact remains that the result of all 3 paths of shillery is the same, disinformation: making everything believable and nothing knowable.

        In light of this, and because most shills fall into the 2nd and 3rd categories, shill-proofing is a life-long ongoing process each “truth-seeker” has to do on their own and shill-proofing yourself from others & from yourself goes hand-in-hand. Anybody who was more-or-less honest today could end up somewhat of a shill tomorrow and yes, even long-time shills may come to realize the error of their ways every once-in-a-while and correct themselves in opposition to where their “bread is buttered” in the short term and subsist on dry bread for a while so that they might have a chance at arriving at the integration needed to butter much more than their bread in the longer term. Without integration or the state of being complete or undivided, a wholeness based on non-contradictory principles and therefore capable of being structurally sound, undamaged and not even susceptible to easy damage, there can be no integrity.

        “When the law’s on your side, pound the law. When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. And when neither is on your side, pound the table.” – Unknown

        “When neither their property nor their honor is touched, the majority of men live content.” — Niccolo Machiavelli

        “The difference between a moral man and a man of honor is that the latter regrets a discreditable act, even when it has worked and he has not been caught.”~ H.L. Mencken

        “Democracy is a form of religion, it is the worship of jackals by jack asses.” H.L. Mencken

        “Thus, to comprise all my meaning in a single proposition, the dissimilarities and inequalities of men gave rise to the notion of honor; that notion is weakened in proportion as these differences are obliterated, and with them it would disappear.” ~ Alexis de Tocqueville – from “Democracy in America” – Chapter XVIII: “Of Honor in the United States and in Democratic Communities -”

        “His honor rooted in dishonor stood,
        And faith unfaithful kept him falsely true.”
        Alfred Tennyson, Idyls of the King, Lancelot and Elaine, line 886

        “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” — H. L. Mencken

        If you revise the above to “most of them imaginary,” but realize also that any occasional non-imaginary “hobgoblins” are almost always there to make you swallow the next 10 imaginary ones that much better, you’ll be as close to the true modus-operandi of media-fakery PsyOps as you’re likely to get. It’s not rocket science, it’s just a few tricks of bait and switch.

        Clint Richardson’s Corporation Nation Radio Show – 11 / 18 / 2013

        Clint’s Guest tonight: John Kaminski – Excellent show. They discuss “Electric Universe theory” and much more. Kaminski used to be a science writer



        Commercial-free archives of all of Clint’s RBN shows so far:


        Who Controls America ? List Summaries (latest revised friggin’ edition) :


        The apotheosis of 12 bar blues:



        All hail, Delusion! Were it not for thee
        The world turned topsy-turvy we should see;
        For Vice, respectable with cleanly fancies,
        Would fly abandoned Virtue’s gross advances.

        His right to govern me is clear as day,
        My duty manifest to disobey;
        And if that fit observance e’er I shut
        May I and duty be alike undone.

        — from “The Devil’s Dictionary” by Ambrose Bierce

    2. ArmunnRigh

      Well, Wanda, I won’t even go into the stories of History on what he is wrong or right about them. Herge posted an excerpt from Nietzsche in the forums that appropriately addresses the problems about christians trying to be “truthers” (or whatever we may want to call it). I would highlight, from that excerpt, this part:

      «We meet with the same phenomenon elsewhere, but all disjointed, a mere copy, for the Christian church lacks all claim to originality as compared with the ‘holy race’…

      Because of their capacity for distortion, the Jews are the most fateful people in human history. In the course of their operations they have hoodwinked mankind so much that, even to this day, the Christian can feel anti-Semitic without realizing that he himself is the logical consequence of Judaism.

      In my ‘Genealogy of Morals’, I give the first psychological explanation of the distinction between a noble morality and a morality of resentment; the latter being merely a negation of the former and this latter is the Jewish-Christian morality through and through!»


      «The kind of man who seeks power under Judaism or Christianity uses decadence as no more than a means to an end. This kind of fellow has a real interest in making people sick, and in upsetting the ideas of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ ‘true’ and ‘false’ in a way which is dangerous to life and a slander against this world in which we live… »

      So my take on Robin‘s ideas are not based on what he does know or not from the stories of History, but on the fact that his precept as he decodes reality is founded upon a pre-written story (produced by the religious storytellers) that influences any objectivity when analysing.

      1. wanda

        To get any realistic perspective you need to go back in history. Once you go back far enough, it becomes evident that both Christianity and Judaism are plagiarized, completely. Any Christian thinking (as obtuse as that sounds) they are opposed to the jewish faith needs a reality check… Judaism, Islam and Christianity all worship the god of Abraham and the jews did it first, the other two were spin-offs.

        Hmmm… Spin-Offs. Holy Wood… what’s old is new again. The never ending story.

        1. wanda

          I mean, i feel it is important to know what these religions are saying, because that gives us a window into the mind of the psychopath and a key to what drives the minions… outside of that – religion need to be put in the round file, forever… and society needs to be educated. If talmud-vision told them the truth, they would believe it.

          1. ArmunnRigh

            Right, it is important to study religions to get an insight into the workings of the parasites, as religions themselves are, as you said, trash to be thrown away given their psychopathic nature.

            What therefore I was asking whether you agreed or not was that to take in info from a member of a religion, knowing the precepts it sets in place within the mind, is therefore unnacceptable – unless that person is an honest defector who exposes his experiences.

  3. Christopher Marlowe

    Listening right now. General theory is that Robin is proof of a little knowledge being dangerous.

    1st retarded thing: Robin says that Orange order are Catholics. The Orangemen were the followers of William of Orange, who defeated the last Catholic King of England, James II, at the battle of Boyne. The orangmen persecuted Catholics in Ireland.

    2nd retarded thing: Robin tries to make some association between freemasonry and Catholicism. The reason why this is so retarded is that freemasons are the archenemies of Catholicism, and freemasons are supposed to be excommunicated from the Catholic Church.

    3rd retarded thing: Robin says that the Jesuits control the Crown of London. Robin should open an thing called a “book” and read about how the Jesuits were drawn and quartered during the times of Queen Elizabeth. This was because the Catholic religion was outlawed in England.

    4th retarded thing: that priests who made great discovery were all trying to find the philosopher’s stone. Robin is just hating on the Catholic Church. Period. If you catch a Catholic doing anything good or useful, Robin will find something wrong about it. And he doesn’t depend on evidence. Robin will just make up retarded stuff out of his back pocket.

    I can’t listen any more. Listening to this makes a person stupider.

    1. ala samoan

      Hi Christopher,

      I myself don’t know much about #1 & 4 but I think you better do some more research on #2 & 3 you can start here with the oaths of the Jesuits and the Knights of Malta www.biblebelievers.org.au/jesu…

      Regarding the Queen, you need to look deep into The Knights of Malta, you’ll find the Queen is Dame of Malta, these oaths are important, the Queen has taken The Knight of Malta oath which makes her subservient to the Pope. Here’s a link to The Queen all dressed up in her Malta uniform ready to serve the Pope galatiansfour.blogspot.com.au/…

      I also think you’ll find that the Jesuits infiltrated Freemasonry, you just have to look at the Mystery Religion to realise what they are both worshipping (sun worship/Saturn worship) That should keep you busy for a while, have fun with the research.

      I think the most important part of Robin’s talk was this statement

      Ephesians 6:12
      12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

      If you’re not a believer you’re missing out on the big picture.

      1. Herge Degrelle

        @ “If you’re not a believer you’re missing out on the big picture.”

        Why should I be a “believer,” (whatever that means absent any logic or evidence) when:

        “The objective of DISINFORMATION is not to convince you of one point of view or another, it is to create enough uncertainty so that everything is BELIEVABLE and nothing is KNOWABLE. ” — Jim Fetzer

        So, according to you, in order for people NOT to miss out on the BIG picture, which would have to presuppose at least some KNOWING of the ‘big picture’ (since how could you avoid missing the ‘big picture’ if you do not even know it ? And you certainly could avoid knowing it if you simply MISS it altogether), they have to simply “BELIEVE,” based on nothing but their feelings and emotions (and the previously programmed values, right-or-wrong-and-more-likely-to-be-wrong that give rise to those emotions) regardless of any facts or logic and therefore any KNOWABLE conclusions (obviously not 100% truth or ‘the final truth’ but the minimal knowable requirement to serve as a solid foundation for further truths to be built upon).

        But, lo and behold ! In order for us mere mortals to arrive at your level of “Big Picture’ hallucinations (for which the vulgarities of ‘regular’ reason and logic are not enough but the intricate ‘higher logic’ of which will someday reveal themselves out of the mush to enlighten us when we vibrate like hippies tripping on LSD to that level) we have to join the ranks of some mystical cult religion, is that it ?

        No thanks.

        That’s just disinformation in highfalutin’ clothes.

        This show made me snooz off within 10 minutes.

      2. Christopher Marlowe

        I’m surprised that someone writing on a fakologist site would fall so easily for fake information. For starters, you may want to do a little HONEST research. That means not just cutting and pasting from an anti-Catholic site, but rather doing original research on original documents. If you want to understand the difference, go look up a thing called “plagiarism”. If you are writing in a scholarly journal, you have to quote original sources. Failure to do so in those journals is called “plagiarism”. The reason why that sort of research is frowned upon is that we have the same result that is often seen on the internet, and which you have just demonstrated: people repeat lies, over and over. And the lies are thought to be true.

        The Catholic Church outlawed freemasonry back in 1738. Pope Clement XII in his encyclical “IN EMINENTI, ON FREEMASONRY” wrote:

        “Wherefore We command most strictly and in virtue of holy obedience, all the faithful of whatever state, grade, condition, order, dignity or pre-eminence, whether clerical or lay, secular or regular, even those who are entitled to specific and individual mention, that none, under any pretext or for any reason, shall dare or presume to enter, propagate or support these aforesaid societies of Liberi Muratori or Francs Massons, or however else they are called, or to receive them in their houses or dwellings or to hide them, be enrolled among them, joined to them, be present with them, give power or permission for them to meet elsewhere, to help them in any way, to give them in any way advice, encouragement or support either openly or in secret, directly or indirectly, on their own or through others; nor are they to urge others or tell them, incite or persuade them to be enrolled in such societies or to be counted among their number, or to be present or to assist them in any way; but they must stay completely clear of such Societies, Companies, Assemblies, Meetings, Congregations or Conventicles, under pain of excommunication for all the above mentioned people, which is incurred by the very deed without any declaration being required, and from which no one can obtain the benefit of absolution, other than at the hour of death, except through Ourselves or the Roman Pontiff of the time.”

        After Clement XII, a whole parade of popes wrote encyclicals condemning freemasonry. If one only takes a moment to think clearly on this matter, one can understand why this is so. The Catholic Church teaches that no one is saved outside of the Church. Freemasonry teaches that all religions are essentially the same. Regardless of how you feel about the truth of these statements, you must concede that these two ideas are polar opposites. Therefore, Catholics, by definition, are not freemasons. To this I will add that I do believe that there are people who pretend to be Catholic and who are practicing freemasons. In this same sense I believe that there are Jews who are pretending to be Catholics, etc…. But the evidence that one or many persons make a false profession of faith does not prove anything about what the Catholic Church teaches.

        The ” the “Jesuit Oath” that you are relying on is fake:
        This BS story was entered into the congressional record as part of a complaint by a Catholic Congressman, Bonniwell, a democrat, who had lost his seat to Butler, a republican. Butler’s friend owned a newspaper that printed a story that slandered Catholics, and in particular, the Knights of Columbus. You will see that the “Jesuit Oath” printed over at baloney site you posted was printed here as a “Knights of Columbus oath”.

        You can read a copy of this fake oath at:
        It starts at page 3216
        That is a pdf copy of the congressional record from the 62nd congress, 1913. If you read through 3221 you will see that Bonniwell, Butler, and the US Congress deny that the oath is real. It is just a slander that was used against Bonniwell because he was a Catholic and a Knight of Columbus. Here we are, one hundred years later, and retards are cutting and pasting it, and calling it a Jesuit Oath. And they don’t have any proof, nor do they have an original document. They just have their own hatred of the Catholic faith and their own reliable ignorance. It’s sad that these “cut and pasters” think of themselves as part of a “Truth” movement.

        The “Knight of Malta” is just an honorary title. To make any supposition about the Queen of England being controlled by the Catholic Church is truly the weakest sort of deduction. It lacks any proof. It is like claiming that I am the king of England because I have a crown from Burger King.

        All of this baloney about Jesuits infiltrating and somehow controlling freemasonry based on vague symbols is equally ridiculous. If Jesuits controlled freemasons, then they would have stopped them. If you look at the recent history of the Jesuit order, it is more likely that the freemasons have infiltrated the Jesuit order, and the vatican as well. If you look into Vatican II documents, you will see that the latest Popes and bishops have been going against the teachings of the Catholic Church. JP II taught heresy and promoted ecumenism. That is not Catholic, but is freemasonic. These Popes teach that Protestantism is legitimate, and that Luther was not a heretic. The Vatican even plans to celebrate the 500th anniversary of Luther’s 95 thesis. www.religionnews.com/2013/06/1…

        I think it is ironic that the Vatican and Jesuits are turning Protestant, and these Protestants react by calling them demonic.

        Protestantism is based on several fallacies. They preach ‘solo scriptura’, but this is not found in scripture. They teach ‘faith alone’, but the scripture says that we need faith and works. They teach ‘once saved always saved’, which is not found in scripture. They teach that the first Bible, the King James version, was written in the 17th century. And their ridiculous notion of ‘sola scriptura’ makes no account for how the books in the Bible were decided upon. The awful secret is that the Catholic Church, guided always by the Holy Spirit, decided which books made up the Bible. Yes. If you are not a believer, you’re missing out on the big picture.

        1. Herge Degrelle

          Two guys arguing different interpretations of the same Jewish scripted 2013 year old Jesus movie, made by different directors in different eras. Logic based on absurd allegorical fables. How exciting !!


          Hey, at least neither of you is claiming that Whites were really the Jews of the bible and all non-Whites are the seed of the devil like those friggin’ Christian Identity nutbags !

          1. wanda

            LOL… i could not agree more. Can it get any zanier than Christian Identity?? Tune in next week.

            Yep… the bible thumpers don’t know history, they think it began with Genesis… and they can’t see that the scriptures are merely some fictional scripts they keep rehearsing on and on and on… it’s a farce. It’s right in the words… Gospel/GoSpell… Scripts/Scriptures. The bible is a book of spells. They trap the minds of the innocent, those who are in no sense… full grown men, falling for this.

            Oy vey. It’s all spell craft. And now for some shameless self promotion, i refer to my website, dedicated to spell craft and breaking the illusion. It gets so much easier when you can see and hear it for yourself: www.akisstobreakthespell.com/

          2. Christopher Marlowe

            Herge is obviously not a very good reader, or he would not have published such a dishonest account of this debate. My original post was pointing out obviously wrong points that Robin had made in the broadcast. The points I had made were not based in the different views of Protestantism and Catholicism, (which is the very weak point you are trying to make), but rather that Robin’s attacks on the Catholic Church were obviously and provably wrong. For example, Robin said that ‘Orangemen’ freemasons were Catholics. This is so obviously stupid. Ask any Irishman. I don’t deny that Robin’s motivation is based purely in his hatred of the Catholic Church, as my example proves out. But it is similarly small-minded to say that these matters are all a disagreement over faith. Consider the example of a KKK member who is accused of dragging a black man from the bumper of his truck. Either he did this crime or he is innocent. This could hopefully be proven by facts. But it would be nonsense to dismiss this is just a disagreement over race. Certainly race might be a motivating factor, but there are provable facts outside of this motive.

  4. wanda

    Too much great insight here to be overlooked… whether you go the religious route or not. It matters what they believe, not what you or i believe.

    It’s got me re-thinking some stuff i thought i knew.

    Thanks Ab.

  5. Verge

    I believe that the mayor is a decent man who wasn’t supposed to win the election. However, it doesn’t mean there isn’t a power he is afraid of and will follow orders. The initial photo is such an obvious fake but he has never come out and said so. All the events over the past couple of weeks have been timed and scripted and must have been planned for quite a while. We are all be distracted and manipulated, including the mayor. The GridEx II drill is going to be held Nov 13 & 14 fot the US, Canada and Mexico. There was a movie this past Oct 37 called Blackout. Toronto is in disaray with a mayor that is being forced to take a leave for a few weeks. Are we going to have a blackout? There is also a motion by Denzil Rammon Wong whowas born in China to try and change the City’s voting process to overthrow the mayor.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.