I mentioned the Illuminati in a post on my other Blog.

It was Incidental to the main objective of the post.  But still worth noting here.

The Bible and Private Property

Here is my message to Donald Trump

As someone who didn't vote for you but is from the region chiefly responsible for your victory (Racine Wisconsin to be specific) my message is this.

If you are only going to keep only one of your campaign promises.  It better be ending the Free Trade Agreements, like NAFTA and CAFTA and the TPP, and stuff directly related to that.  Your strong turn out in Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota was chiefly because of people who voted for Bernie in the Primary (I voted for Bernie) and you in the general because they voted chiefly on that issue.  Because we are the most hurt the ramifications of those agreements.

They don't care if you build the Wall or even necessarily want that.  Or about your Muslim Ban, or defeating ISIS.  And certainly not any of the typical Republican positions you espoused.

I was unwilling to vote for because I didn't trust you on this, given how your businesses have themselves benefited from those agreements.  And because I was offended by the Xenophobia you appealed to.

IF however you actually do keep this promise, and the fears Mexicans and Muslims have of your turns out to be unfounded.  You might, just maybe might win my vote for 2020.

But if not, you don't keep that promise, you will lose the people who chiefly gave this victory and have no hope of reelection.

The second promise I personally care about (in the sense of would like you to keep it) is legalizing Marijuana.  But for that I see no evidence many people voted on that.

Another Melanson article dealing with The Rothschilds

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2016/08/09/murdochs-illuminati-the-expanded-canvas-of-national-geographic-magazine/

I also found this recently dealing the history of the Nathan Rothschild Waterloo legend.

http://tinyurl.com/RothschildLibel

The first Article also talks about the Kolmer Legend, so may be a source of a future article I write here.

Petition to add Gary Johnson and Jill Stein to the Presidential Debates

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/request-commission-presidential-debates-allow-gary-johnson-and-jill-stein-presidential-debates

I've already signed it.

We're seeing the Hegelian Dialectic in action

There is no doubt in my mind this Orlando shooting was staged, now that I see how it's all playing out.

In this case though it's not a standard Thesis-Antithesis, but rather more Demthesis (Democrat agenda) and Repubhesis (Republican agenda).

Demthesis: Ban guns, or at least require background checks, and maybe throw Hate-Crime legislation in there.

Repubthesis: Ban Muslims, be afraid of Muslims, spy on the Mosques, build a wall, turn away refugees, wage war in the middle east, increase military spending and the Patriot act.

Synthesis: Ban people on the Terror Watch list from buying Guns.

It didn't take long at all for the Dems to make that their starting point.  And now Trump is calling for it saying he's gonna sit down with the NRA on it.  And we got Fox News Pundits saying it's "Common Sense".

Don't forget thanks to the Patriot Act and everything passed after 9/11 how insanely easy it is to get put on the watch list.  You don't have to be a Muslim, plenty of White-Male-Christians have gotten on there for being Anti-Authoritarian.  But if you are a Muslim, good luck staying off it, I'll bet you are on it and don't even know it.

Basically this "compromise" will effectively kill the Second Amendment, the Dems won't need anything else they are calling for.  And the Islamophobes won't need anything else either once they've used this to disarm every Muslim.

This was the real goal all along, don't be fooled, we need to fight this tooth and nail.  Remember the first Gun Law in this country was supported by the NRA and was a law banning the newly freed slaved from owning guns.  So it's not the first time bigotry has factored into restricting gun rights.

Ancient Aliens just did an episode on Pyramids of Antarctica

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/review-of-ancient-aliens-s09e01-pyramids-of-antarctica

Conspiracy Theories surrounding Antarctica have also been important to the recent Flat Earth craze, hijacking claims originally made about Admiral Bird by Hollow Earth theorists.

Thing is, I have my doubts these real life fringe theories about something mysterious in Antarctica predate the known Fiction on the subject.

It begins at least as early as Edgar Allen Poe's The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket (1838) .

Jules Verne then wrote a sequel to that called Le Sphinx des glaces, The Sphinx of the Ice Fields.  Where Antarctica has a Sphinx rather then a Pyramid.

The French Wold Newton Universe authors love expanding on these stories and tying them into other fiction.

The Novel Who Goes There, which inspired The Thing from another World and it's remakes, speculates an Alien presence in Antarctica.

Another story to draw directly on Poe's was H. P. Lovecraft's At The Mountains of Madness.

And at least one Anime is relevant to this topic, Neon Genesis Evangelion.  I think there might be at least one other that involved something in Antarctica, I'll have to think about it.

I don't have anything in depth to say, I just want to spread awareness of it.

The Star of David, Occult or Hebrew?

The Star of David, also called the Shield of David or Magen David, is a six pointed star that is a popular symbol in modern Judaism, it appears on the flag of modern Israel.

It is also a Hexagram/Sexagram, which is a symbol the Occult uses, in Freemasonry and other traditions it's called the Seal of Solomon.  This fact is often pointed out to smear the symbol, including by myself in the past.

Thing is, Satan commonly takes and corrupts Godly symbols.  And many of the Christians most determined to use this symbol similarity to smear modern Judaism and modern Israel are all for using the contrived Pillar of Enoch mythology to claim the Pyramid as a Godly symbol.

To start with, claiming the symbol's affiliation with Judaism began with the Rothschild family is simply false, there are known Jewish usages of the symbol that predate the 18th Century (when Mayer Rothschild and his father Moses Baur lived).  There is evidence that early Kariates had used it, those are Jews deliberately rebelling against Rabbinic and Kabalistic traditions.  The Book Art in Ancient Palestine (can be found on Amazon) documents six pointed stars being found in Archaeological sites in Ancient Israel.

170. Kafr Yasīf III. L. f. Page 326
The report in Qobeṣ speaks of panels containing doves, serpents, cups, various fruits, a six-pointed star, &c.; intertwined crosses said to be later additions.

172. Khān El Ahmar XVIII. O. t. Page 327
Field: circle within square, the borders interlacing eight times, four times by a simple knot, in corners loops of type I 9. In circle six-pointed star, with trefoils filling the space between its re-entrant angles and the circumference.
--
Avi-Yonah, M. Art in Ancient Palestine: Selected Studies. Ed. Hannah Katzenstein and Yoram Tsafrir. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1981. Print.

It's popular to imagine the symbol being mentioned in The Bible negatively as the Star of Chiun in Amos 5:26 also called the Star of Rempham in Acts 7:43.  I think that reference is about actual worship of the Planet Saturn, (Chiun coming from the Akadian Kawanu, and the Babylonians called it Sukkot/Tabernacle, and Rempham comes from Repa a Coptic name for Saturn).  The Greeks tended to identify the main El the Pagan Canaanites worshiped with Kronos, who was Saturn to the Romans.

But if critics of the Symbol can read it into a Bible verse that just says "star" with no indicator of how many points it's depicted as having.  Then a supporter of the symbol can just as validly see it in the Star out of Jacob of Numbers 24:17, a Prophecy that refers first to David but ultimately to The Messiah.  Or for Christians the Star of Bethlehem, which we've often linked to the Star out of Jacob.

But what has become interesting to me lately is the Biblical significance of Lilies.  Hosea 14:5 uses The Lily as a symbol of Israel in a Prophecy of Israel's restoration.  The Song of Solomon uses it of Shulamith.  1 Kings 7:19&22 says the tops of the Pillars of Solomon's Temple were of Lily Work.

Lilies have 3 pedals and 3 sepedals that can look like pedals.  A Hexagram is a six pointed star that looks like two superimposed triangles.  Because of this Lilies can often look kind of like Hexagrams.  In fact there is a plant named Solomon's seal (Polygonatum multiflorum) in the lily family.  I've even seen in Japanese Anime (like YuriKuma Arashi) examples of lilies looking Hexagram like, where making a Jewish reference was not likely the Author's intent.

So maybe The Lily is the key to figuring out where the Star of David/Seal of Solomon came from?

Update January 30th 2017: Okay, one element of this I originally didn't want to include is how people say this has something to do with the Number of the Beast.  But I decided I should address that.

The Number of The Beast from the last verse of Revelation 13 is Six Hundred and Sixty Six.  Not Six-Six-Six.  So no, not every usage of the number 6 is about the Mark of The Beast.  And that is all that should need to be said to refute that absurdity.

Six is a number that is used positively sometimes in Scripture.  12 and 24 and 72, and 144,000 are numbers that are multiples of Six.  The Sixth day of a Biblical Week was the preparation day for The Sabbath.  Which I've argued was the day Jesus was buried.

Adam was created on the 6th Day, Jesus is the Last Adam, and that some symbolism linkable to Adam will be taken by The Beast is only because The Beast wants to claim titles of Christ for himself.

Update May 2017: My defense of Jews and Christians using it doesn't mean however that I think it inherently won't be used by The Antichrist in an End Times deception.  I talked recently on my Prophecy Blog about the Ring of Solomon. This symbol isn't what the Mark of the Beast is, but it could still become part of how The False Prophet packages it.  But it's not something I'm going to predict will happen either.

The Essenes were the Herodians

The esoterics' claim that Jesus and the earliest Christians were the Essenes or came out of them actually predates the Dead Sea Scrolls discovery, it goes back to the 1800s in the writings of many theosophists.  I'm mentioning this here to explain why the Essenes are relevant to my Conspiracy Blog.

I'm not the first to suggest the Essenes of Josephus were the Herodians of The Gospels.  The objections to that claim are dependent entirely on the assumption that the Dead Sea Scrolls were written by the Essenes.  Since those scrolls are very seemingly the product of a separatist sect that wanted nothing to do with any Government ruling in Jerusalem.

But objections to that identification are common, I own the DSS translation done by Michael Wise, Martin Abegg JR., and Edward Cook.  Their introduction lays out many of the flaws in that theory, but their own theory is that the Qumran community were a sub-sect of the Sadduces which I'm not sold on either, in fact their clearly not being Torah only contradicts them being Sadduces.

There is also the theory that those caves were simply used to hide scrolls from many different origins as the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD approached.  I'm sure you can find online articles about all these theories.

I think they could have been Essenes, but if they were they were a peculiar group not representative of the whole.  The biggest problem with the Essene theory to me is that Josephus clearly tells us the Essenes did not marry, while the Qumran community clearly did marry.  But Josephus does at one point refer to a group of "marrying Essenes", maybe those are the Essenes who wrote the DSS, I don't know.

What I do know is Josephus divides the Jews of pre 70 AD Judea into three major sects,  The Pharisees, the Sadducees and the Essenes.  (And then later the Zealots sprung from the Pharisees, and the Sicari from the Zelots).

The Gospels mention often the Pharisees and Sadducees, but by that name at least never the Essenes.  However Matthew 22, Mark 3 and Mark 12 seem to similarly depict the Jews of Jesus day as having three major sects, those two and the Herodians, with no group known by that name mentioned in Josephus.  So the Clark Kent rule tells me the Eseenes are probably the Herodians.

Josephus account of the rise of the Essenes revolves around a fellow named Menahem, in Antiquities Book 15, Chapter 10 Section 5.

Now there was one of these Essens, whose name was Manahem, who had this testimony, that he not only conducted his life after an excellent manner, but had the foreknowledge of future events given him by God also. This man once saw Herod when he was a child, and going to school, and saluted him as king of the Jews; but he, thinking that either he did not know him, or that he was in jest, put him in mind that he was but a private man; but Manahem smiled to himself, and clapped him on his backside with his hand, and said," However that be, thou wilt be king, and wilt begin thy reign happily, for God finds thee worthy of it. And do thou remember the blows that Manahem hath given thee, as being a signal of the change of thy fortune. And truly this will be the best reasoning for thee, that thou love justice [towards men], and piety towards God, and clemency towards thy citizens; yet do I know how thy whole conduct will be, that thou wilt not be such a one, for thou wilt excel all men in happiness, and obtain an everlasting reputation, but wilt forget piety and righteousness; and these crimes will not be concealed from God, at the conclusion of thy life, when thou wilt find that he will be mindful of them, and punish time for them." Now at that time Herod did not at all attend to what Manahem said, as having no hopes of such advancement; but a little afterward, when he was so fortunate as to be advanced to the dignity of king, and was in the height of his dominion, he sent for Manahem, and asked him how long he should reign. Manahem did not tell him the full length of his reign; wherefore, upon that silence of his, he asked him further, whether he should reign ten years or not? He replied, "Yes, twenty, nay, thirty years;" but did not assign the just determinate limit of his reign. Herod was satisfied with these replies, and gave Manahem his hand, and dismissed him; and from that time he continued to honor all the Essens. We have thought it proper to relate these facts to our readers, how strange soever they be, and to declare what hath happened among us, because many of these Essens have, by their excellent virtue, been thought worthy of this knowledge of Divine revelations.

So Josephus paints a pretty clear picture of the Essenes being politically tied to Herod.  Josephus had also said as much at the end of the section just before this.

This Menahem of Josephus is also thought to possibly be the same as the Menahem The Essene of the Talmud.  According to Mishanah Tractate Hagigah 16b he was the original Zugot with Hillel but left the Sanhedrin and was replaced by Shammai.  The Jerusalem Talmud says he left to be appointed to a position in the Government.

In The Gospels the Herodians seem to be kind of allied with the Phairsees, and The Talmud paints a similar picture of the Essenes given Menahem's connection to Hillel.

It may be they were called Herodians only by outsiders, and that label had gone out of use by the time Josephus started writing.

February 25th 2016 Update:  Beothusians

Another sect sometimes speculated to be the same as the Essenes partly on the grounds of both never showing up in the same source are the Beothusians. Apparently Talmudic sources only mention the Beothusians while Josephus only mentions the Essenes.  Of course as mentioned above a key Essene figure, Menahem, is possibly mentioned in the Talmud.  While the Kohen family linked to the Beothusians are talked about in Josephus.  But yet as a sect it seems only Josephus knows the Essenes and only the Talmud knows the Beothusians.

Well the relevance here is that the Beothusians are also not mentioned in the New Testament, and the Herodians are also not mentioned in the Talmud, at least not by those names.

The Family of High Priests linked to the Boethusians are also linked to Herod.  Simon ben Beothus was appointed by Herod, and was one of the longer lasting High Priests Herod appointed.  And Herod married his Daughter.

So perhaps the Boethusians can also be the same as the Herodians, and thus The Essenes were known by three names at least.  Perhaps only Josephus called them what they called themselves (he claimed to have spent some time studying under all three sects, so he could have had some inside knowledge of each even though he ultimately chose to be a Pharisee).  While other people tended to call them by the names of significant people they were linked to.  Like how Catholics don't call themselves Papists, and originally at least Protestants didn't call themselves Lutherans.

But, a key difference is that the Boethusians=Essenes connection is viewed as possibly supported by the DSS=Essenes connection, while as discussed above that is viewed as an obstacle for the Herodians=Essenes view.  Again, it may be that the DSS were written by a specific sub group of the Essenes not representative of the whole.

I want to diverge further on the subject of the family of Simon ben Beothus.  It is somewhat well known that this family came from Alexandria just before Herod put them in power.  What isn't as well known is what Josephus says in Antiquities Book 19 Chapter 6 Section 2.

"And when Agrippa had entirely finished all the duties of the Divine worship, he removed Theophilus, the son of Ananus, from the high priesthood, and bestowed that honor of his on Simon the son of Boethus, whose name was also Cantheras whose daughter king Herod married, as I have related above. Simon, therefore, had the [high] priesthood with his brethren, and with his father, in like manner as the sons of Simon, the son of Onias, who were three, had it formerly under the government of the Macedonians, as we have related in a former book. "

Which seems to imply this family descended from Onias III, most likely via Onias IV.  Which is interesting in light of theories that the "Teacher of Righteousness" of the DSS was a rightful High Priest robbed of his position, and that could easily have been Onias IV.

Because of how sects can often change over time, there is no guarantee Simon ben Beothus would have approved of all the doctrines The Talmud winds up attributing to this sect.  Or what this sect itself believed by a generation or two later.

The possibility that Simon Beothus might have been the first High Priest of the line of High Priest Jeshua of the books of Ezra and Zechariah since the time of Antiochus Epiphanes.  Makes me very open to the possibility that he was the same person as the Simeon of Luke 2's account of Jesus presentation in The Temple.  Many have suggested only a High Priest could have done what he did.  And because he's called "Just" some have even theorized he's part of the basis for the Talmud's Simon The Just.

Because Simon Beothus was removed and replaced by a son while still alive.  He may have been viewed as still a co High Priest for awhile similar to how Ananias was as refereed to in the Gospels.

Alex Jones has lost it supporting Trump

I should have said this much sooner, not that what I say matters.

But I stuck by Alex Jones long after the trend of calling him a shill started.  

I used bet my own credibility on IMDB boards on him to an extent, saying yes I know on the Radio he gets speculation and exaggerates but the actual articles on his site and material in his documentaries are based entirely on they admit.

But when I heard him come in favor of Trump I just couldn't believe it, how could someone who knows the game as well as he does be so easily suckered in.  Who opposed Islamophobia all through the Bush years suddenly be all on board with it.

I'm Nostalgic for listening to his Radio show during the Ron Paul campaigns.  So I emotionally don't want to believe he'd been a shill this whole time.  But I see no other explanation then he's just simply lost his mind.

That alarm bell helped make me more open to what Terry Melanson said here.

I'm still stewing on this.

You can learn more of my Trump thought here.

Why aren't SJWs offended by cultural appropriation objecting to the Shriners?

The Shrine is mostly made up of old white men who are nominally Christians in their normal life.

But it is a quasi Islamic order, and while all Masonic orders draw on religious themes much of what I've heard about the Shrine makes it seem the most immature obscene and frat like Masonic Lodge besides maybe the Jesters.

So basically they're making fun of Muslims.

And don't give them a pass because of their alleged charitable status, the 1913 law for tax exempt  charitable organizations allows them to spend over 90 % of what's donated on "in house" expenses and the Shriners fully take advantage of that, spending most of their money on building huge Shrines that are large and fancier then most actual Mosques in America.

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 (at the time) 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 their 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 people had 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 Barton 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 versa, 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.

This documentary 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.

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 Exiled 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 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 itself 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/

The Knights 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.

The Theory that the NWO will stage a Fake Rapture

Is one I talked about on another Blog

http://midseventiethweekrapture.blogspot.com/2014/10/nwo-stage-fake-rapture.html

Frank Gigliotti: Minister, Freemason, OSS and CIA

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/2015/10/30/frank-gigliotti-minister-freemason-oss-and-cia/

Dr. Frank Bruno Gigliotti (Oct. 15, 1896 San Bernardo [Catanzaro, Calabria], Italy – Sep. 20, 1975 Lemon Grove, Cal., USA)

By Terry Melanson (Oct. 30, 2015)