Wednesday, February 17, 2016

The Hidden Faith of the Founding Fathers

I just watched this documentary from the same people who did "Secret Mysteries of America's Beginnings" a video where the only major objection I had was the Bacon wrote Shakesphere stuff.

For the first like half of the Documentary the only thing I strongly object to is when they get into the Bavarian Illuminati while talking about Thomas Paine where they repeat a lot of the common misinformation that people like Terry Melanson have been trying to correct.  And make a false claim of Voltaire being Jesuit trained.

During the part on Washington I noticed first they are largely now contradicting the position they took on Washington in the previous documentary I'd watched, "Secret Mysteries of America's Beginnings".

The big deal made out of him not taking Communion did not strike me as evidence of being a non-Christian.  If he was attending the Church only as a public show but was in fact a Deist or Atheist there would be no reason for him to object to Communion.  Rather I'm reminded of how as someone raised Catholic I know that some devout Catholics are willing to attend Protestant Churches for whatever reason but would not take their Eucharist.  (and indeed later a Catholic accusation is what they make).

But I also considered the opposite explanation, this Church he was attending sounds like one of those Protestant Churches that was pretty effectively Catholic in many areas.  If I were attending it out of some obligation I too depending on my mood would refuse to take the Eucharist or genuflect (the not kneeling issue).

It seemed like this was a Church he was attending because his Wife went there.

I was naturally intrigued by their Jesuit spy conclusion, and amused at how certain they were their target audience wouldn't object to not counting Catholics as Christian.  They are a from of Christianity that I agree is heretical, but they are Christians.

My last post on this blog observed an overlap between Jesuit activities in Masonry and the Jacobite Stuart cause.  And I remembered the laughable Pseudo History book "Bloodline of the Holy Grail" by Laurence Gardiner.  Because one claim made in it that seemed pretty well documented compared to most of his claims was that Washington had sent a delegation in 1782 to Charles III Stuart to offer him to be King of America.  Mr. Galloway of Maryland, two Sylvester brothers from Pennsylvania
and Attorney Fish of New York made up the delegation.  It is supposedly documented in the Senate Archives and in something called the Manorwater Papers.  It has not been easy for me to look into it.

False accusations of Jesuit connections are quite common however, so I shall reserve Judgment on this.

My major objection to the film came as it reached the climax of this Jesuit centric section.  When they had the audacity to proclaim Religious Liberty a bad thing, because the Jesuits supported it at a time when it would have benefited them.  Never mind that any Christians with the views most modern American Evangelicals have would have been equally persecuted under that Anglican Government of 17th century Britain, which is why our Spiritual Ancestors came to this continent to begin with.

They cite The Ten Commandments as proof that Religious Freedom is unBiblical.  That's not even about Civil Authority.  But yes the Law of Moses had no Freedom of Religion, but we are not under The Law of Moses.  It was not Masonic Founding Fathers who invented the idea of Religious Liberty as an American Value.  It goes back to Roger Williams the founder of Rhode Island.

I often say disparaging things about the Puritans, especially the ones that stayed in England and became part of Oliver Cromwell's proto-fascist regime.  But I am a big fan of certain individuals who started out in the Puritan community but became rebels against the mainstream of Puritanism and thus effectively excommunicated from it.  Roger Williams was one of those.  He argued based on the examples of The Bible's praise of Cyrus and Artaxerxes that even before The Cross God always preferred Gentiles Governments to take the position of religious liberty.  Williams also strongly disagreed with the common racist views of Native Americans and opposed slavery.  To me he is the true Founding Father of the America I Love.

The documentary goes on to shows how deceptive David Barton is.  But I find it all pointless when he effectively advocates the same contemporary political agenda as Barton.  He's more honest about it at least, when Barotn is interviewed by a liberal like John Stewart he'll seek to assure the viewers he's all for religious freedom.  But the obvious end result of his Dominionist political agenda (which is also now strongly attached to Ted Cruz) would be the destruction of Religious Liberty.

At the end he cites the Book of Revelation to prove that even under The New Testament God clearly has no respect for Religious Freedom.  I suggest he read Luke 19 starting in verse 11 The Parable of the Ten Minas.  And if that passage confuses you and you honestly can't tell it's instructing believers to never force people to convert, I recommend this good analysis of it.

It's sickening because he would not be able to freely and openly make and distribute this film without the Freedom he's condemning, because you can't have Freedom of Speech without Freedom of Religion, or visa verse, they go hand in hand.  Would a nation without Freedom of Speech allow someone to make a documentary effectively vilifying that nation's founders?  Of course not.

As far as the basic question of if the Founding Fathers were Christians.  The desire of people on either side to make it a unilateral yes or no is really ridiculous.  The Founding Fathers were a large group of people, only a handful of whom are house hold names today.  They did not all agree with each other and in fact they argued bitterly taking over a decade to settle on the final Constitution.

Barton manipulates quotes to make them all seem Christian, even the most flagrantly heretical of them.  But his less famous and more savvy counterparts will concede the obvious Deists among the most famous names while focusing on many mostly lesser known individuals who this documentary didn't acknowledge at all.  Names that escape me at the moment.  But the quotes I recall reading are pretty Fundamentalist, including one of the first of our Judges calling for Homosexuality to be a Capital offense based on Leviticus 20.

Indeed before the Civil War the Bill Rights was viewed as only applying to the Federal Government and many state governments codified the first four commands of the Decalogue into Civil Law.

He singles out 5 founding fathers to talk about extensively.  Of those 3 were indeed Masonic style Deists.  They weren't the only Deists of course.

But this is one of those Christians who feels you're NOT a Christians if you don't agree with HIS interpretation of Christianity.  He considers the accusation that Obama is a Muslim just as obviously proven as Jefferson being a Deist.  And I myself hold positions he considers proof of not being a Christian (like support of Gay Rights).

Now I agree you're not Biblical Christianity just because you say nice things about Jesus, in which case yes even Jefferson was a Christian.  But fact is Muslims believe more of what the New Testament says about Jesus then Jefferson.  Muslims believe in The Virgin Birth but not in His Divinity.

But I consider you a fellow Bible Believing Christian as long as from your own POV you believe The Bible, (and from there we can debate what The Bible says).  Which generally Unitarians like John Adams do.  But yes I do consider denial of The Trinity heretical enough to be effectively no different then being a Deist.  John Adams was up and down about his faith over the course of his life, this documentary focused on quotes from when he was down on it.

I object only to their certainty about Washington.  Which mostly seems to come down to him not wearing his Faith on his Sleeve.  Now you can hold the personal view that a "good Christian" is someone who never goes five minutes without saying they're a Christian all you like.  But the fact is many Christians don't feel that way.

To quote one YouTube comment.
Among the delegates were twenty-eight Episcopalians, eight Presbyterians, seven Congregationalists, two Lutherans, two Dutch Reformed, two Methodists, two Roman Catholics, one unknown, and only three deists — Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin. 51 of 55 — a full 93 percent — of the members of the Constitutional Convention, the most influential group of men shaping the political underpinnings of America, were Christians, not deists.
I'll try to fact check that later.

As far as the treaty of Tripoli goes.  It was firstly a political decision when trying to make an agreement with a non Christian nation.  But even so I as a Christian if I ever started my own country would state clearly in every founding document that it was NOT a Christian Nation.  That it would be a nation with full Freedom of Religion.

I agree fully with the Christian objections to Freemasonry.  But the fact is through out history and to this day plenty of Christians are members of Maonsic Lodges and don't get the conflict, to them it's compatible.  You can criticize that all you want, but not every Mason is an Anti-Christian carrying out an Anti-Christian agenda, those people tend to be the ones who dedicate their lives almost solely to Freemasonry.

What Washington personally believed we really don't know.

Monday, February 15, 2016

Adam Weishaupt was (Not) a Jesuit

Terry Melanson does a good job of documenting how Adam Weistaupt was an enemy of the Jesuits.

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2015/02/08/illuminati-conspiracy-part-two-sniffing-out-jesuits/#Strategems-of

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2015/07/28/roots-of-the-hermetic-order-of-the-golden-dawn/

But I'm doing this post as an overdue response to Johnny Cirucci and his claims in his two part Interview with Rob Skiba.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIgwnwpCanA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lo-vmhhpgmE

For the first part I and some others left comments correcting this myth which Rob Skiba asked him to respond to in part two.  And he just kept up his usual spiel.

He fully admits we have no documentation of Weishaupt ever being a member of the Jesuits.  His argument is solely that he could not possibly have become Professor of Cannon Law at a Jesuit controlled university if he wasn't a Jesuit.

But he goes on to talk about the history surrounding the suppression of the Jesuit order, and is blindingly ignorant to how that destroyed his entire argument about Weishaupt being a Jesuit.  He was appointed Professor of Canon Law AFTER the Suppression, he was entrusted with that position at that time precisely because he hated the Jesuits and was determined to root them out.

He talks also about presumed Jesuit take over of Freemasonry.  The Masons who joined the Illuminati were attracted to it precisely because they too were paranoid about that very subject.  Kingge and Bode and so on.  Also Nicolas Bonneville who was not a known member but was a known sympathizer.

What's amusing is the claim of Templar origin of Freemasonry that modern Conspiracy Theorists both for and against the Masons accept at face value, was a myth created as part of the Jesuit infiltration.  It was largely the Strict Observance Rite that popularized it.

Interestingly in the original version of the myth it wasn't the Templars but rather the Knights Hospilitars.  In a narrative promoted by Michael Ramsay in 1737.  Ramsay was a member himself of a totally different Crusader era monastic order, the Order of Lazarus.  It's also notable that in Cagliastro's fanciful origin story he wrote for himself he connected himself to the Knights of Malta via his imagined mentor Althotas.  (Althotas was clearly the basis for the later Kolmer legend added to Weishaupt's fictional biography).

I find it interesting in all those links however, that these attempts by the Jesuits to Catholisize Freemasonry went hand in hand with the Jacobite Stuart cause, (Ramsey was a Jacobite and the Strict Observance Rite at least claimed connections to the Exiles Stuarts).  Because the same Pope who suppressed the Jesuits was also the one who stopped officially recognizing the exiled Stuarts when Charles Edward Stuart become the rightful Stuart heir in 1766.  That direct Stuart line died out, so who knows if the modern Stuart claimants have the same Jesuit connections.

The Jesuits today are a shadow of what they once were.  People make a big deal out of Francis being the first Jesuit to become Pope.  But he also has this Liberal Obama clone reputation that is totally counter to the political agenda of the Jesuits who Weishaupt and Eugene Sue where so determined to demonize.

Let's talk about Eugene Sue for a bit.  Besides being a Socialist rather then Protestant he was kind of the Jack Chick of Nineteenth Century France.

When discussing the origins of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion hoax.  People will talk about how it plagiarized from Dialogue in Hell between Machiavelli and Montesquieu a political satire by Maurice Jolly.  And a chapter of Biarritz an 1868 novel by Anti-Semitic German author Hermann Goedsche.

Somewhat more Esoteric but still fairly well known is that the Dialouge in Hell was also plagiarizing the 1856 published last volume of Eugene Sue's Les Mysteries Du Peuple (Mysteries of a People) series of novellas.

In the last few Novels of that saga during their depiction of the French Revolutions (both the original and the 1848 one) Sue decided to build a Shared Universe by incorporating both the Hero of his first hit The Mysteries of Paris, Rodolphe Duke of Gerolstien, and the Villain of his second hit The Wandering Jew, the Jesuit Magnificent Bastard Father Robin.

At the end of the last novel set in 1848 Rodolphe thwarts Father Rodin's effort to carry out a Jesuit master plan for world domination.  This plan (which was removed from the only existing English Translation of the Novel titled The Galley Slave's Ring; or, The Family Lebrenn) is the literary ancestor of the Protocols.

What is very rarely known however is that there was a book published in 1848 claiming to expose a real life Jesuit Conspiracy not at all unlike the one depicted in Eugene Sue's fiction.  The Jesuit Conspiracy. The Secret Plan of The Order by Jacopo Leon.

So the history of Jesuit Conspiracy theories, real or imagined, is a long and complicated one.  Today it tends to manifest in fiction not with actual Jesuits but Fictional analogues (or Dan Brown's view of Opus Dei).  The Hellsing Anime is probably more in line with Jack Chick then Eugene Sue with it's Anglican POV.  But I still see it's Ultimate (pun intended) literary debt as being to Sue.

In counter to them sometimes are works like the last three of Ponson Du Terril's Rocambole novels which depict an imagined Anglican counterpart to the Jesuits, and with Jesuits portrayed positively.  If Ponson was more informed he could have used the real life Orange Lodge of Freemasonry which is/was very much politically involved in opposing the causes of Irish and Scottish independence.

If you want to for fun read an Unintentionally (maybe) hilarious defense of the Jesuits by a 19th Century French Catholic Royalist.  I recommend Paul Feval's, it's the only of his post "conversion" works available in English. http://theshadowmenlounge.tumblr.com/post/138210841036/jesuits-enlgish-translation-interesting

None of my undermining of Jesuit Conspiracy theories here makes me a Catholic Apologist, you can see my opposition to Catholic Doctrine is quite harsh on my Socla Scirptura Blog.

Another Terry Melanson article

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2016/01/31/conspiracy-roundup-31-01-2016/

Tuesday, February 9, 2016

Knight of Malta and the War on Terror

This is an old videos and there are some details I disagree with.

It's newly relevant in this election because Ted Cruz is very strongly courted and being praised by Dominionists.