This YouTube video talks a lot about the Widow's Son concept in Freemasonry, philosophically and mystically, showing how Gnostic the Masonic Lore can be.
Mystery of the Widow's Son - The Legend of the Craft
But I want to talk a little bit about the potential Biblical significance of this phrase.
What does it mean to call someone a Widow's Son? Just that the mother was a Widow at the time the statement is made or refers to? Statistically most women outlive their husbands (Miriam died less then a year before Moses even though she was older then him by enough to supervise his basket's journey down the Nile), so there is no shortage of mothers who have been Widows at some point in their life. Or does it mean she was one by the time the son was born? Is the implied dead husband the father or someone else?
Because Joseph doesn't seem to be present in The Gospel narrative after the jump from Jesus being 12 to "about 30", many speculate he must have died by then. Yet The Bible never explicitly tells us that, and never calls Mary a Widow or Jesus the Son of a Widow.
The Widow's Son of Freemasonry is ostensibly supposed to be Hiram the architect of Solomon's Temple (not to be confused with Hiram king of Tyre, called Hirom in my English translation of Josephus quotation of Meander, who recommended this Hiram for that job).
This Hiram, sometimes called Huram in translations, is the subject of an alleged Bible contradiction. A number of alleged contradictions come from Kings and Chronicles accounts of the same history describing things differently. In this case, Hiram's mother is called both a Widow of Naphtali (in 1 Kings 7:14) and a Daughter of Dan (in II Chronicles 2:14). The answer here is simple in my view, she was a Danite by birth, married a man of Naphtali, he died (I suspect they had heirs since there wasn't a Leverite marriage), then she entered a relationship with a man of Tyre (this man of Tyre is never refereed to as her husband) and by him had Hiram/Huram.
The Masonic story of Hiram interests me in how it demonstrates how determined Satan is to contradict The Bible. The Bible says so little about Hiram (What little it says is all in 1 Kings 7 and II Chronicles 2-4.), that it would be easy I feel to write a fictional elaboration on the character without contradicting what little The Bible says, I could write multiple scripts that go in different directions and still each one would not contradict what little The Bible says.
So that the Masonic narrative makes a pretty big blunder I feel must have been on purpose, the people who wrote these rituals were clearly educated men of their time, I do not doubt that they did what research was available to them.
1 Kings 7:40 clearly says Hiram did finish all the work Solomon gave him. The II Chronicles account does not disagree with that. But the Masonic narrative says he died while a key stone had still not been put in place. And this stone becomes known as "The Stone that the Builders rejected" which is a phrase taken from Psalm 118 that The New Testament uses as a Title of Christ.
Josephus in Against Apion Book 1 chapters 17 and 18 quotes two Phoenician Historians, Dius and Meander. Both refer to a person of Tyre who solved problems with Solomon (as Hiram is also described as doing) though there is no clear reference to this person being an Architect. Dius names this person Abdemon, in Meander he's unnamed but called a younger son of Abdemon. It could be this was the name of his father, or another name he went by, sometimes people in antiquity were called by the name of their father. I can't help but suspect this name is partly where the Abiff surname for the Masonic Hiram comes from.
Another Biblical figure who could be called a Widow's Son was also a contemporary of Solomon. Jeroboam son of Nebat. 1 Kings 11:26 says his mother's name was Zeruah and that she was a Widow. And another thing these two widow's sons have in common is a connection to Dan, since Jeroboam built one of his two Calfs at Dan. Is it possible that the Masons want to claim descent from Solomon's Temple when they really come from Jeroboam's Temples? Masonry does heavily promote British Israelism, particularly the Orange Lodge.
Another Widow's Son of The Bible would be the Son of the Widow of Zarephath who Elijah rose from The Dead. There is an obscure passage in The Talmud that suggests this Widow's son is Messiah Ben-Joseph, interestingly Jeroboam is also someone a wanna be Messiah Ben-Joseph might seek to identify himself with.
Acts 1 quotes a verse of Psalm 109 in reference to Judas Iscariot, that leads to speculation if all of Psalm 109 could be applied to Judas. Verse 9 says "Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.". So if Judas had a wife and children (which some passages are taken as implying all the Disciples did), any son would be a Widow's Son.
Showing posts with label Freemasonry. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Freemasonry. Show all posts
Monday, June 5, 2017
Wednesday, January 4, 2017
Freemasonry and British Espionage
I am still a conspiracy theorist. But I've grown to view the fixation on the Bavarian Illuminati as a bit of a distraction. They are relevant, but I think the greater narrative is less that they took over Freemasonry and more that older agendas within Freemasonry hijacked their methods. I've alluded to much of this before in Illuminati Vs Esoteric Freemasonry.
The source of the Conspiracy I believe in is British Freemasonry, and related institutions of the British Occult. I find it suspicions that England's Monarchy was the only one never toppled by the Masonic influenced Revolutions of the late 18th and 19th Centuries. Given how Organized Freemasonry began in Britain and then spread to other regions from there. A fact I make a point of talking about in England and Egypt.
1717 is the year the Premier Grand Lodge of England was founded. The same year George I became King establishing the House of Hanover. In the party system of England at that time the Whig Party was the party that was most allied with King George himself. It's interesting then how many notable Freemasons of this period, including Grand Masters, were Whigs. Philip Wharton was the most notable exception, he was an Early Grand Master, but was a Jacobite rather then a Whig. He also founded the original Hellfire Club, which has no provable connection to the later more famous one.
Sir Robert Walpole was a Freemason, in fact it seems the Masons sometimes met in his residence.
http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/texts/masons_at_sight.html
http://www.freemasonrytoday.com/ugle-sgc/ugle/tag/Robert%20Walpole
He was a very important figure in the Whig party. He is considered both the first Prime Minister, and still the longest serving one, his ambitions pretty much created the office and made it rather then the King the real Head of Government. His rise to power is also tied to The South Sea Bubble.
Many notable Freemasons of of the 18th Century, including Grand Masters, were members of the Royal Society first. Isaac Newton was in charge of the Royal Society from the beginning of the Century until his death in 1727. Newton is not known to have been a Freemason himself, but John Theophilus Desaguliers was a important early Grand Master and was also a student of Isaac Newton. Newton was involved in Alchemy and Rosicrucianism, which goes back to Sir Francis Bacon and his mentor John Dee. And among his occult studies was a fixation on studying the architecture of Solomon's Temple, an important theme of Freemasonry.
At the same time he ran the Royal Society he was also in charge of the Royal Mint. Newton is really the one who invented the Gold Standard. Contrary to what many Libertarians think Silver far more often then Gold was the standard unit of common currency for most of Human History. Just studying financial transactions in The Bible will show that Gold was used mostly in really large transactions.
All these connections of Newton are probably why the authors of the Priory of Sion hoax made him one of it's Grand Masters. It's a Hoax I know full well is a Hoax but I can't help but be curious about the logic that went behind who they chose to make Grand Masters. At first it makes sense, people in positions to possibly care about an alternative claim to the French Throne, (besides two random Italians). But from 1595-1745 they are all Englishmen, most of them part of England's occult history. Then two members of the House of Lorraine, then Frenchmen who weren't Monarchists at all.
Much has been written about how Espionage used to often be carried out via Occult Secret Society Circles back before they had official Government Agencies like the CIA or MI6. Francis Walsingham spymaster of Queen Elizabeth is often credited with inventing modern espionage. There is reason to suspect John Dee served as a spy under him, and also Francis Bacon.
It is possible that within these circles there would also develop different factions driven by the different political factions England was divided into. Support for the new post Stuart monarchs allied with the Whigs or Tories, and Jacobites supporting the Stuarts who were often Catholic. But perhaps also Anti-Monarchists descended from various factions of the failed English Revolution. Like those I talked about on my other Blog about Libertarian-Communism.
The early development of organized Freemasonry in France and Italy can both be traced to English Freemasonry. Dilon claimed that Voltaire was initiated into a Lodge in England while he was there in his early life, but there is no real independent evidence to confirm that claim. The Count of Saint-Germain also first popped up in England. And Cagliostro founded his Memphis-Misraim lodge in England in 1776, then spread it all over the continent.
Sir Francis Dashwood who founded the famous Hellfire Club has no known connection to the original Hellfire Club. But like it's founder he was an enemy politically of Walpole. And while not openly a Jacobite there is reason to suspect he might have been one secretly. Also I know of no evidence he was a Freemason but he was a member of the Royal Society.
Benjamin Franklin makes at least one known overlap between the Hellfire Club and the Nine Sisters Lodge, a Lodge in France devoted to gaining French support for the American Revolution. And I've discussed on this blog before reasons to suspect a Jacobite connection to the American Revolution.
Nicolas Bonneville wrote books on Freemasonry while being involved in Freemasonry in England before returning to France to be a vital figure in the French Revolution. It seems he was friends with John Oswald, I don't know if he can be proven to have been a Mason.
Erasmus Darwin was a documented member of English Freemasonry, as was his brother and son. He was the Grandfather of Charles Darwin and Francis Galton, and actually anticipated their Pseudo-Scientific theories in his own writings.
In 1795-98 The Orange Lodge and Orange Order were founded, which could be viewed as the Anglican Church's counterpart to the Jesuits. It has been strongly politically involved in opposing both Irish and Scottish independence. And they encourage belief in British Israelism.
In the 19th Century it starts becoming common for the Grand Master to be a member of the Royal Family. The father of Queen Victoria was a Grand Master and very involved in reorganizing Masonry at the time. Later her son and Crown Prince would be Grand Master until he took the Throne and then the Grand Mastership was taken by his brother. The Grand Masters during World War II were a brother and brother in-law of the then reigning King. The current Grand Master is the heir of one of the WWII Grand Masters.
The movie From Hell is based on a Comic Book based on a real theory about Jack The Ripper and his murders being tied to Freemasonry and the Royal Family. Not sure if I think that theory is the correct one, but it's interesting.
Giuseppe Mazzini who was an important figure in both Italian Freemasonry and the Carbonari before creating his own Secret Societies (starting with Young Italy and Young Europa), was harbored in England and closely tied to Lord Palmerston, who had been Prime Minister, and had a complicated relationship with Napoleon III. Palmerston has been a focus of many conspiracy theory themed books. At the moment I do not know if it can be confirmed that he was a Freemason. But I know he wasn't the official Grand Master as Dilon made it sound.
Aleister Crowley was an Englishman. There is no proof he was a Mason like many claim. But the Secret Societies he was involved with before creating his own were ones founded by 19th Century English Freemasons, chiefly the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn.
The source of the Conspiracy I believe in is British Freemasonry, and related institutions of the British Occult. I find it suspicions that England's Monarchy was the only one never toppled by the Masonic influenced Revolutions of the late 18th and 19th Centuries. Given how Organized Freemasonry began in Britain and then spread to other regions from there. A fact I make a point of talking about in England and Egypt.
1717 is the year the Premier Grand Lodge of England was founded. The same year George I became King establishing the House of Hanover. In the party system of England at that time the Whig Party was the party that was most allied with King George himself. It's interesting then how many notable Freemasons of this period, including Grand Masters, were Whigs. Philip Wharton was the most notable exception, he was an Early Grand Master, but was a Jacobite rather then a Whig. He also founded the original Hellfire Club, which has no provable connection to the later more famous one.
Sir Robert Walpole was a Freemason, in fact it seems the Masons sometimes met in his residence.
http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/texts/masons_at_sight.html
http://www.freemasonrytoday.com/ugle-sgc/ugle/tag/Robert%20Walpole
He was a very important figure in the Whig party. He is considered both the first Prime Minister, and still the longest serving one, his ambitions pretty much created the office and made it rather then the King the real Head of Government. His rise to power is also tied to The South Sea Bubble.
Many notable Freemasons of of the 18th Century, including Grand Masters, were members of the Royal Society first. Isaac Newton was in charge of the Royal Society from the beginning of the Century until his death in 1727. Newton is not known to have been a Freemason himself, but John Theophilus Desaguliers was a important early Grand Master and was also a student of Isaac Newton. Newton was involved in Alchemy and Rosicrucianism, which goes back to Sir Francis Bacon and his mentor John Dee. And among his occult studies was a fixation on studying the architecture of Solomon's Temple, an important theme of Freemasonry.
At the same time he ran the Royal Society he was also in charge of the Royal Mint. Newton is really the one who invented the Gold Standard. Contrary to what many Libertarians think Silver far more often then Gold was the standard unit of common currency for most of Human History. Just studying financial transactions in The Bible will show that Gold was used mostly in really large transactions.
All these connections of Newton are probably why the authors of the Priory of Sion hoax made him one of it's Grand Masters. It's a Hoax I know full well is a Hoax but I can't help but be curious about the logic that went behind who they chose to make Grand Masters. At first it makes sense, people in positions to possibly care about an alternative claim to the French Throne, (besides two random Italians). But from 1595-1745 they are all Englishmen, most of them part of England's occult history. Then two members of the House of Lorraine, then Frenchmen who weren't Monarchists at all.
Much has been written about how Espionage used to often be carried out via Occult Secret Society Circles back before they had official Government Agencies like the CIA or MI6. Francis Walsingham spymaster of Queen Elizabeth is often credited with inventing modern espionage. There is reason to suspect John Dee served as a spy under him, and also Francis Bacon.
It is possible that within these circles there would also develop different factions driven by the different political factions England was divided into. Support for the new post Stuart monarchs allied with the Whigs or Tories, and Jacobites supporting the Stuarts who were often Catholic. But perhaps also Anti-Monarchists descended from various factions of the failed English Revolution. Like those I talked about on my other Blog about Libertarian-Communism.
The early development of organized Freemasonry in France and Italy can both be traced to English Freemasonry. Dilon claimed that Voltaire was initiated into a Lodge in England while he was there in his early life, but there is no real independent evidence to confirm that claim. The Count of Saint-Germain also first popped up in England. And Cagliostro founded his Memphis-Misraim lodge in England in 1776, then spread it all over the continent.
Sir Francis Dashwood who founded the famous Hellfire Club has no known connection to the original Hellfire Club. But like it's founder he was an enemy politically of Walpole. And while not openly a Jacobite there is reason to suspect he might have been one secretly. Also I know of no evidence he was a Freemason but he was a member of the Royal Society.
Benjamin Franklin makes at least one known overlap between the Hellfire Club and the Nine Sisters Lodge, a Lodge in France devoted to gaining French support for the American Revolution. And I've discussed on this blog before reasons to suspect a Jacobite connection to the American Revolution.
Nicolas Bonneville wrote books on Freemasonry while being involved in Freemasonry in England before returning to France to be a vital figure in the French Revolution. It seems he was friends with John Oswald, I don't know if he can be proven to have been a Mason.
Erasmus Darwin was a documented member of English Freemasonry, as was his brother and son. He was the Grandfather of Charles Darwin and Francis Galton, and actually anticipated their Pseudo-Scientific theories in his own writings.
In 1795-98 The Orange Lodge and Orange Order were founded, which could be viewed as the Anglican Church's counterpart to the Jesuits. It has been strongly politically involved in opposing both Irish and Scottish independence. And they encourage belief in British Israelism.
In the 19th Century it starts becoming common for the Grand Master to be a member of the Royal Family. The father of Queen Victoria was a Grand Master and very involved in reorganizing Masonry at the time. Later her son and Crown Prince would be Grand Master until he took the Throne and then the Grand Mastership was taken by his brother. The Grand Masters during World War II were a brother and brother in-law of the then reigning King. The current Grand Master is the heir of one of the WWII Grand Masters.
The movie From Hell is based on a Comic Book based on a real theory about Jack The Ripper and his murders being tied to Freemasonry and the Royal Family. Not sure if I think that theory is the correct one, but it's interesting.
Giuseppe Mazzini who was an important figure in both Italian Freemasonry and the Carbonari before creating his own Secret Societies (starting with Young Italy and Young Europa), was harbored in England and closely tied to Lord Palmerston, who had been Prime Minister, and had a complicated relationship with Napoleon III. Palmerston has been a focus of many conspiracy theory themed books. At the moment I do not know if it can be confirmed that he was a Freemason. But I know he wasn't the official Grand Master as Dilon made it sound.
Aleister Crowley was an Englishman. There is no proof he was a Mason like many claim. But the Secret Societies he was involved with before creating his own were ones founded by 19th Century English Freemasons, chiefly the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn.
Wednesday, March 2, 2016
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
The Hidden Faith of the Founding Fathers
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.
Update August 20th 2024:
Washington's odd behavior attending an Episcopal Church could be just much explained by his true allegiance being to Low Church Protestantism. There a story that he was Baptized by Baptist John Gano, but I am skeptical of the story since it originates with Gano's grandson decades later.
As far as the official nominal religious affiliations of the signers of the three founding documents so I found these links.
Also our first five Presidents and five Vice Presidents I consider among the Founding Fathers.
Plenty of Deists in this period consider themselves still Christian at the same time, even Franklin and Jefferson. Jefferson said he fully agreed with the views of leading Unitarian Joseph Priestley, making him in a sense more Unitarian then Adams.
Rush is listed as Presbyterian in those links but he actually never settled on a specific denomination being close to both leading Episcopal Bishop William White and Baptist Pastor/Universalist Church co-founding Elhanan Winchester.
Friday, January 22, 2016
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)
Sunday, October 4, 2015
Tupac, Biggie, Equinoxes and New Moons
I've been into researching Pac and Big's murders on and off since the beginning of my time as a Conspiracy Theorist.
But there is something I noticed just recently. Tupac and Biggie were killed almost exactly sux months apart. Tupac was shot on the 7th and died on the 13th of September 1996 and Biggie was shot and killed on the 9th of March 1997.
Then I remembered that September is the month the Autumn Equinox happens, and March the Spring Equinox. They weren't killed on the Equinoxes which are the 21st-23rd, but about the same amount of time before them.
The Autumn Equinox is in the midst of the time that days are getting shorter, thus it is sort of the sun set of the year. The Sun sets in the West, Tupac was the biggest West Coast rapper. The Spring Equinox is in the midst of the time that the days get longer, hence the sun rise of the year. The Sun rises in the East, Biggies was the biggest East Coast rapper.
Then I felt compelled to look at the Lunar cycles, because I'd already noticed that the day Tupac died, September 13th 1996 was the day before the New Moon. The last day of the month on a lunar calendar. Well I checked Stellerium and other sources and March 9th was also the day before the New Moon. So the last New Moon before each Equinox the two biggest Rappers were killed.
Biggie was shot and died the same day, but Tupac was shot 6 days before (died on the 7th Day) so you may be thinking "how could that be planned". Well back when I theorized Tupac might have faked his death (a theory I abandoned in 2003) I had noted how at first the Doctors were claiming he was probably gonna live, but then on Friday the 13th suddenly he's dead. It could be someone paid off doctors in that hospital to manipulate things.
That the amount of time Tupac spent in the Hospital happened to correspond to the name of his last album has become a very big deal to people. Tupac gave it that name apparently because it took 7 days to record.
There is a trend out there of people saying the Illuminati references Tupac made were really against conspiracy theorists. This is really a massive oversimplification out of context manipulation of what he said. You can certainly demonstrate from things he said with no Illuminati references that he certainly believed the Government was corrupt and controlled by the Super Rich. Which is the gist of what all Conspiracy theorists agree on.
The ultimate point of what Tupac said about Pharakon in his last interview was that he was accusing Pharakon of being part of it. Indeed the Nation of Islam, the religion Pharakon leads has deep Masonic roots. That is why I remain suspicious of Professor Griff, as long as he's Nation of Islam he could be a dis info agent.
Now Tupac does seem to have felt the name Illuminati was a bit of a distraction, and now so do I, part of the theme of this blog is that the Bavarian Illuminati has a tenuous connection to what's going on today, but it's not really the prime origin of it.
And Tupac lived pre-Zeitgeist, when most of those talking about the Illuminati, the authors of the main books on it, were all Right Wingers talking about it with a Right Wing agenda. That is one reason Tupac may have wanted to distance his conspiracy theories from that name.
Tupac was someone they had reason to silence, Biggies was probably killed just so to prop up the whole East Vs West thing and distract people.
But there is something I noticed just recently. Tupac and Biggie were killed almost exactly sux months apart. Tupac was shot on the 7th and died on the 13th of September 1996 and Biggie was shot and killed on the 9th of March 1997.
Then I remembered that September is the month the Autumn Equinox happens, and March the Spring Equinox. They weren't killed on the Equinoxes which are the 21st-23rd, but about the same amount of time before them.
The Autumn Equinox is in the midst of the time that days are getting shorter, thus it is sort of the sun set of the year. The Sun sets in the West, Tupac was the biggest West Coast rapper. The Spring Equinox is in the midst of the time that the days get longer, hence the sun rise of the year. The Sun rises in the East, Biggies was the biggest East Coast rapper.
Then I felt compelled to look at the Lunar cycles, because I'd already noticed that the day Tupac died, September 13th 1996 was the day before the New Moon. The last day of the month on a lunar calendar. Well I checked Stellerium and other sources and March 9th was also the day before the New Moon. So the last New Moon before each Equinox the two biggest Rappers were killed.
Biggie was shot and died the same day, but Tupac was shot 6 days before (died on the 7th Day) so you may be thinking "how could that be planned". Well back when I theorized Tupac might have faked his death (a theory I abandoned in 2003) I had noted how at first the Doctors were claiming he was probably gonna live, but then on Friday the 13th suddenly he's dead. It could be someone paid off doctors in that hospital to manipulate things.
That the amount of time Tupac spent in the Hospital happened to correspond to the name of his last album has become a very big deal to people. Tupac gave it that name apparently because it took 7 days to record.
There is a trend out there of people saying the Illuminati references Tupac made were really against conspiracy theorists. This is really a massive oversimplification out of context manipulation of what he said. You can certainly demonstrate from things he said with no Illuminati references that he certainly believed the Government was corrupt and controlled by the Super Rich. Which is the gist of what all Conspiracy theorists agree on.
The ultimate point of what Tupac said about Pharakon in his last interview was that he was accusing Pharakon of being part of it. Indeed the Nation of Islam, the religion Pharakon leads has deep Masonic roots. That is why I remain suspicious of Professor Griff, as long as he's Nation of Islam he could be a dis info agent.
Now Tupac does seem to have felt the name Illuminati was a bit of a distraction, and now so do I, part of the theme of this blog is that the Bavarian Illuminati has a tenuous connection to what's going on today, but it's not really the prime origin of it.
And Tupac lived pre-Zeitgeist, when most of those talking about the Illuminati, the authors of the main books on it, were all Right Wingers talking about it with a Right Wing agenda. That is one reason Tupac may have wanted to distance his conspiracy theories from that name.
Tupac was someone they had reason to silence, Biggies was probably killed just so to prop up the whole East Vs West thing and distract people.
Friday, June 26, 2015
Saturday, June 6, 2015
The Great Pyramid was not built by Enoch or any other worshiper of The Biblical God
I have been a believer of the Enochian Pyramid fad in the past. But I'm not anymore.
I'm not anti Fringe theorizing. Every lie has some truth in it. I agree 100% with the arguments against it being built by Kufu. I own Ken Klein's The Pillar of Enoch, it's a fun documentary (but even when I agreed with the theory I wish he'd have left the UFO stuff out of it). It definitely seems to be older then Kufu's time.
Because of my view on The Flood, that there was more to it then just water going up and coming down, I'm not as inclined to agree it could have been a Pre-Flood structure.
I recommend the Great Pyramid part of Chris White's Ancient Aliens Debunked. It was built by Human beings, maybe it's true the Giza Pyramids weren't tombs like the others, but they weren't the product of an Abrahamic Faith.
One of the main popularizers of the Great Pyramid being a Godly structure theory was Charles Taze Russell, founder of the Watch Tower society. Russell was also a Freemason and not a Casual one. He was buried at an important Masonic Cemetery with a huge All Seeing Eye Pyramid structure in it. Other early founders of the theory include John Taylor, who I've fond no documentation of being a Freemason but was interested in a lot of Neo-Pagan stuff. Then there was Charles Smyth who was also into British Israelism, another doctrine Freemasons like especially the Orange Lodge.
The specific claim of it being built by Enoch has it's origins in Hermetic tradition saying the Pyramids were build by Hermes-Thoth Trismegistus, and them Arabic Alchemist tradition identifying Trismegistus with Enoch. And that tradition in turn influencing Masonic lore.
Linking the Pyramid to Enoch is an idea that is vital to Masonic lore, among what they borrowed via the Alchemists from Arabian folklore. Enoch is important to Masonic lore which is why it was Masons who rediscovered the Book of Enoch, Just look up the Royal Arch of Enoch.
People involved in this "Christian" Pyramidology often argue that New Jerusalem/Yahweh-Shammah could be Pyramid shaped rather then a Cube, which they say is the only way it makes sense for a four sided structure to have a single cornerstone.
It is true that "Corner" is not the best translation of the Hebrew Term, in fact pinnacle could work better. But that word when used in connection with The Temple seems to refer to a pinnacle above the gate of The Temple, not the Capstone of a Pyramid like structure.
The passage from Josephus cited (Antiquities of The Jews Book 1 Chapter 2 Section 3) about the Pillars of Seth is merely describing simple pillars with info written on them. The Giza pyramids have no engravings which is the whole foundation of thinking they have a separate purpose from other Egyptian Pyramids to begin with. And saying Siriad means Egypt is a very recent claim, that term was commonly understood in antiquity as referring to Syria.
I think Siriad might actually come from the Hebrew place name rendered Sarid in the KJV of Joshua 19:10-12 in the allotment of Zebulun. In Deuteronomy 33:18-19, Moses prophesying of Zebulun with Issachar dwelling among them, refers to "treasures hid in the sand".
Isaiah 19 is a Prophecy, it's about the Future not the past. The first 17 verses were fulfilled in the 20th Century.
Isaiah 19:19 is the verse in question.
Where exactly the border was isn't entirely clear, but Lower Egypt consistently always included the entire Delta region and Giza is firmly within the Delta.
Because of the nature of Hebrew poetic expression it is hypothetically possible Isaiah 19:19 could be describing the same thing in two different ways. But equally possible it's describing two similar yet distinct things. The question is, is it plausible for the Hebrew terms rendered "Altar" and "Pillar" here to refer to the same thing" There doesn't seem to be any other Hebrew precedent for it.
An Altar is pretty consistently a place where sacrificial offerings were made. While a Pillar is just a simple stone structure made in honor of God that isn't an Idol (this Hebrew word is sometimes translated Idol when in reference to things honoring false gods). Since there is no way burnt offerings were made in or on the Great Pyramid, clearly only the latter could even remotely describe the Great Pyramid. Yet as I showed it is only the former that could fit it's location.
Exodus 24:4 is another verse that uses both these same Hebrew words together, clearly they are separate things.
The way people describe the Great Pyramid lay out as fitting Biblical symbolism is very manipulative, you can do it with anything if you try hard enough. As Chuck Missler likes to say "If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything".
Two Jewish Temples were built in Egypt in ancient history. Neither of those I believe is the fulfillment of this Prophecy. But if you want to use structures that have already existed as a model for how this Millennial picture of Egypt might look, they are far more appropriate.
First there was the one on Elephantine Island. I agree with Bob Cornuke that The Ark of the Covenant and The Mercy Seat were housed there for awhile on their way to Ethiopia. It is pretty close to where the traditional southern border of Egypt usually was.
Then there is the Leontopolis Temple build by Onias IV after around the time of the Maccabees. This location could fit the Midst of the Land of Egypt. And Onias attempted to present it as fulfilling Isaiah 19:18-19 when he built it.
Wikipedia is of course quite skeptical of Josephus. I am in many places too, but I think everything they criticize in the Onias Letter section is still possible. As for the discrepancy between what's said in Wars and Antiquities, in Antiquities Josephus fully explains at the beginning he shall be correcting mistakes he made in the earlier Wars.
I'm not anti Fringe theorizing. Every lie has some truth in it. I agree 100% with the arguments against it being built by Kufu. I own Ken Klein's The Pillar of Enoch, it's a fun documentary (but even when I agreed with the theory I wish he'd have left the UFO stuff out of it). It definitely seems to be older then Kufu's time.
Because of my view on The Flood, that there was more to it then just water going up and coming down, I'm not as inclined to agree it could have been a Pre-Flood structure.
I recommend the Great Pyramid part of Chris White's Ancient Aliens Debunked. It was built by Human beings, maybe it's true the Giza Pyramids weren't tombs like the others, but they weren't the product of an Abrahamic Faith.
One of the main popularizers of the Great Pyramid being a Godly structure theory was Charles Taze Russell, founder of the Watch Tower society. Russell was also a Freemason and not a Casual one. He was buried at an important Masonic Cemetery with a huge All Seeing Eye Pyramid structure in it. Other early founders of the theory include John Taylor, who I've fond no documentation of being a Freemason but was interested in a lot of Neo-Pagan stuff. Then there was Charles Smyth who was also into British Israelism, another doctrine Freemasons like especially the Orange Lodge.
The specific claim of it being built by Enoch has it's origins in Hermetic tradition saying the Pyramids were build by Hermes-Thoth Trismegistus, and them Arabic Alchemist tradition identifying Trismegistus with Enoch. And that tradition in turn influencing Masonic lore.
Linking the Pyramid to Enoch is an idea that is vital to Masonic lore, among what they borrowed via the Alchemists from Arabian folklore. Enoch is important to Masonic lore which is why it was Masons who rediscovered the Book of Enoch, Just look up the Royal Arch of Enoch.
People involved in this "Christian" Pyramidology often argue that New Jerusalem/Yahweh-Shammah could be Pyramid shaped rather then a Cube, which they say is the only way it makes sense for a four sided structure to have a single cornerstone.
It is true that "Corner" is not the best translation of the Hebrew Term, in fact pinnacle could work better. But that word when used in connection with The Temple seems to refer to a pinnacle above the gate of The Temple, not the Capstone of a Pyramid like structure.
The passage from Josephus cited (Antiquities of The Jews Book 1 Chapter 2 Section 3) about the Pillars of Seth is merely describing simple pillars with info written on them. The Giza pyramids have no engravings which is the whole foundation of thinking they have a separate purpose from other Egyptian Pyramids to begin with. And saying Siriad means Egypt is a very recent claim, that term was commonly understood in antiquity as referring to Syria.
I think Siriad might actually come from the Hebrew place name rendered Sarid in the KJV of Joshua 19:10-12 in the allotment of Zebulun. In Deuteronomy 33:18-19, Moses prophesying of Zebulun with Issachar dwelling among them, refers to "treasures hid in the sand".
Isaiah 19 is a Prophecy, it's about the Future not the past. The first 17 verses were fulfilled in the 20th Century.
Isaiah 19:19 is the verse in question.
In that day shall there be an altar to the LORD in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to the LORD.The claim is made that the Great Pyramid is at the border between Upper and Lower Egypt allowing it to fit both these descriptions. That is an error.
Where exactly the border was isn't entirely clear, but Lower Egypt consistently always included the entire Delta region and Giza is firmly within the Delta.
Because of the nature of Hebrew poetic expression it is hypothetically possible Isaiah 19:19 could be describing the same thing in two different ways. But equally possible it's describing two similar yet distinct things. The question is, is it plausible for the Hebrew terms rendered "Altar" and "Pillar" here to refer to the same thing" There doesn't seem to be any other Hebrew precedent for it.
An Altar is pretty consistently a place where sacrificial offerings were made. While a Pillar is just a simple stone structure made in honor of God that isn't an Idol (this Hebrew word is sometimes translated Idol when in reference to things honoring false gods). Since there is no way burnt offerings were made in or on the Great Pyramid, clearly only the latter could even remotely describe the Great Pyramid. Yet as I showed it is only the former that could fit it's location.
Exodus 24:4 is another verse that uses both these same Hebrew words together, clearly they are separate things.
The way people describe the Great Pyramid lay out as fitting Biblical symbolism is very manipulative, you can do it with anything if you try hard enough. As Chuck Missler likes to say "If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything".
Two Jewish Temples were built in Egypt in ancient history. Neither of those I believe is the fulfillment of this Prophecy. But if you want to use structures that have already existed as a model for how this Millennial picture of Egypt might look, they are far more appropriate.
First there was the one on Elephantine Island. I agree with Bob Cornuke that The Ark of the Covenant and The Mercy Seat were housed there for awhile on their way to Ethiopia. It is pretty close to where the traditional southern border of Egypt usually was.
Then there is the Leontopolis Temple build by Onias IV after around the time of the Maccabees. This location could fit the Midst of the Land of Egypt. And Onias attempted to present it as fulfilling Isaiah 19:18-19 when he built it.
Wikipedia is of course quite skeptical of Josephus. I am in many places too, but I think everything they criticize in the Onias Letter section is still possible. As for the discrepancy between what's said in Wars and Antiquities, in Antiquities Josephus fully explains at the beginning he shall be correcting mistakes he made in the earlier Wars.
Monday, February 9, 2015
Nobody expects the French Revolution
Conspiracy Theorists are constantly accused of having an overly simplified view of things. This is in my view absurd, we're fully aware of the complexities of politics, our theories only add more layers of complexity, not take any away. Maybe we do indeed sound simplistic about it sometimes, but if you really pay attention we're not, not the best of us. I kind of addressed this already in one of my earliest posts. That was made in it's earliest form before I came to many of the conclusions I have now however.
In the early history of Masonic conspiracies, no where is this more frequently an issue then The French Revolution. By accusing Masonic instigators of being the architects we're accused of being ignorant of the hardships faced by the common people of France that had been building up for generations before modern Freemasonry was even formed in the 17teens. I can assure you I have no such ignorance, one does not watch all 40 episodes of Rose of Versailles in one day loving every minute of it if they have no sympathy for the plight of peasants. Also my favorite Musical is Les Miserables, which leads me to recommend this LesMis/RoV AMV.
And I express my Biblical disapproval of Monarchism on another Blog.
It's likely France was targeted precisely because of all the circumstances that made it a fertile ground for Revolution. But I'll go well beyond that, I do believe Revolution was inevitable in France even if the conspirators had done nothing. It's more about them seeking to control the Revolution, just as the elite have hijacked and taken control of the Tea Party and Occupy Wallstreet movements today.
The main thing I do not think would have been the case if the Revolution had grown organically is how strongly it was driven by Atheist, Deist and anti-Christian sentiments. That is something that was inserted by certain egotistical intellectuals who thought the Revolution needed them in order to work. Yes the Catholic clergy was corrupt and out of touch, but previously in most countries people getting sick of them lead to Protestantism. So anti-Catholic sentiments may have been inevitable, but there were French Protestants who'd been victimized by the Crown before "Rationalism" started.
The claim has been made by some that the King was trying to work with the Revolutionaries to come to some agreement like a Constitutional Monarchy. I do not currently feel qualified to asses the accuracy of that claim.
For evidence to general Masonic Influence on the Revolution read this article by Terry Meleanson.
There are indeed some conspiracy theorists who feel compelled to tie the Bavarian Illuminati to just one of the many factions among the revolutionaries. But I don't see things as that simple, just as the modern conspirators attached themselves to Republicans and Democrats, so I believe it was then too. Any discussion of specifically the Illuminati's role should be viewed in the context of my earlier post on them.
Bode became chief executive of the order in 1784, he traveled to France in 1787. He recruited many Illuminati from the Masonic Lodges of France. Particularly the Philalethes. Among people proven and documented to have become Illuminati at this time were Charles-Pierre-Paul, Marquis de Savalette de Langes (1745-1797) and Alexandre-Louis Roëttiers de Montaleau (1748-1808). Both of whom had direct ties to the Duke of Orleans, the Grand Master of French Freemasonry leading up to the Revolution. Montaleau become the head of French Freemasonry after the Revolution.
Another known Illuminati member to contribute to the Revolution was Johann Caspar [Jean Gaspard] Schweizer (1754-1811).
It is popular to speculate members beyond those we can prove, Terry Melanson suspects Mirabeu, and Marco di Luchetti suspects Nicolas Bonneville. For both of them having defended the Illuminati is the main circumstantial evidence, which Thomas Jefferson also did.
The thing that's important to remember is the Illuminati as it originally was was dying in 1787, Bode helped form a secret society within French Freemasonry at that time, and it's possible only the earliest direct recruits of his were initiated into the Illuminati proper, but those who become part of this new order without such an initiation were no less important to it.
Luchetti seems to feel Bonneville was a direct recruit of Bode however, If Bode's own records of his 1787 trip had mentioned Bonneville as a recruit I don't think Melanson would be as skeptical of his membership as he is. The key thing is, almost anyone in French Masonry could have become officially or unofficially a part of what Bode started, it's impossible to know for sure.
Brissiot was also a known Freemason. Brissiot and Bonneville were the real ideological leaders of the early Revolution, before it was hijacked by jerks like Marat and Robespierre. Eventually Brissiot and his allies became derogatorily known as the Girondions
The thing that does work against the usual conspiracy theory narrative is that the men most responsible for the Terror (Marat, Danton, Robsepierre, ect) are the ones least likely to have Illuminati connections, and flimsy even in their Masonic connections. It seems the Masons unleashed a monster they couldn't control. Buonarroti was the one person with debatable Illuminati ties who was of Robsepierre's way of thinking, he'll be discussed in a future post eventually.
Bonneville's camp were indeed the men in the Revolution most ideologically similar to the political theories advocated by Weishaupt and Kingge. And besides being so anti-Christian I don't consider what their political ideas were to be the worst. But the way Weishaupt ran the order showed he tended to be very controlling. I enjoy a great deal of Luchetti's political analysis, but he slips on the secret society aspect. Another chief villain of Luchetti's narrative is Buonarroti.
In the early history of Masonic conspiracies, no where is this more frequently an issue then The French Revolution. By accusing Masonic instigators of being the architects we're accused of being ignorant of the hardships faced by the common people of France that had been building up for generations before modern Freemasonry was even formed in the 17teens. I can assure you I have no such ignorance, one does not watch all 40 episodes of Rose of Versailles in one day loving every minute of it if they have no sympathy for the plight of peasants. Also my favorite Musical is Les Miserables, which leads me to recommend this LesMis/RoV AMV.
And I express my Biblical disapproval of Monarchism on another Blog.
It's likely France was targeted precisely because of all the circumstances that made it a fertile ground for Revolution. But I'll go well beyond that, I do believe Revolution was inevitable in France even if the conspirators had done nothing. It's more about them seeking to control the Revolution, just as the elite have hijacked and taken control of the Tea Party and Occupy Wallstreet movements today.
The main thing I do not think would have been the case if the Revolution had grown organically is how strongly it was driven by Atheist, Deist and anti-Christian sentiments. That is something that was inserted by certain egotistical intellectuals who thought the Revolution needed them in order to work. Yes the Catholic clergy was corrupt and out of touch, but previously in most countries people getting sick of them lead to Protestantism. So anti-Catholic sentiments may have been inevitable, but there were French Protestants who'd been victimized by the Crown before "Rationalism" started.
The claim has been made by some that the King was trying to work with the Revolutionaries to come to some agreement like a Constitutional Monarchy. I do not currently feel qualified to asses the accuracy of that claim.
For evidence to general Masonic Influence on the Revolution read this article by Terry Meleanson.
There are indeed some conspiracy theorists who feel compelled to tie the Bavarian Illuminati to just one of the many factions among the revolutionaries. But I don't see things as that simple, just as the modern conspirators attached themselves to Republicans and Democrats, so I believe it was then too. Any discussion of specifically the Illuminati's role should be viewed in the context of my earlier post on them.
Bode became chief executive of the order in 1784, he traveled to France in 1787. He recruited many Illuminati from the Masonic Lodges of France. Particularly the Philalethes. Among people proven and documented to have become Illuminati at this time were Charles-Pierre-Paul, Marquis de Savalette de Langes (1745-1797) and Alexandre-Louis Roëttiers de Montaleau (1748-1808). Both of whom had direct ties to the Duke of Orleans, the Grand Master of French Freemasonry leading up to the Revolution. Montaleau become the head of French Freemasonry after the Revolution.
Another known Illuminati member to contribute to the Revolution was Johann Caspar [Jean Gaspard] Schweizer (1754-1811).
It is popular to speculate members beyond those we can prove, Terry Melanson suspects Mirabeu, and Marco di Luchetti suspects Nicolas Bonneville. For both of them having defended the Illuminati is the main circumstantial evidence, which Thomas Jefferson also did.
The thing that's important to remember is the Illuminati as it originally was was dying in 1787, Bode helped form a secret society within French Freemasonry at that time, and it's possible only the earliest direct recruits of his were initiated into the Illuminati proper, but those who become part of this new order without such an initiation were no less important to it.
Luchetti seems to feel Bonneville was a direct recruit of Bode however, If Bode's own records of his 1787 trip had mentioned Bonneville as a recruit I don't think Melanson would be as skeptical of his membership as he is. The key thing is, almost anyone in French Masonry could have become officially or unofficially a part of what Bode started, it's impossible to know for sure.
Brissiot was also a known Freemason. Brissiot and Bonneville were the real ideological leaders of the early Revolution, before it was hijacked by jerks like Marat and Robespierre. Eventually Brissiot and his allies became derogatorily known as the Girondions
The thing that does work against the usual conspiracy theory narrative is that the men most responsible for the Terror (Marat, Danton, Robsepierre, ect) are the ones least likely to have Illuminati connections, and flimsy even in their Masonic connections. It seems the Masons unleashed a monster they couldn't control. Buonarroti was the one person with debatable Illuminati ties who was of Robsepierre's way of thinking, he'll be discussed in a future post eventually.
Bonneville's camp were indeed the men in the Revolution most ideologically similar to the political theories advocated by Weishaupt and Kingge. And besides being so anti-Christian I don't consider what their political ideas were to be the worst. But the way Weishaupt ran the order showed he tended to be very controlling. I enjoy a great deal of Luchetti's political analysis, but he slips on the secret society aspect. Another chief villain of Luchetti's narrative is Buonarroti.
Sunday, February 8, 2015
The Illuminati vs Esoteric Freemasonry
I want to use this blog to shoot down many popular myths about the Illuminati, and Secret Societies in general. (Even that they used the All Seeing Eye and Pyramid as a symbol is one such myth.) I am a Conspiracy Theorist, but it hurts our credibility when we take at face value so many claims without investigating them. I love Alex Jones [Update 2016, used to], he's great at breaking down what's going on in the present. But when he goes back to 18th and 19th century History, he repeats many common mistakes.
In Evangelical Christian circles we want to view the "Illuminati" (which has become a byword for the enemy in general without much care for what the Bavarian Illuminati was) as synonymous with the highest level occult activity, Satanists and Neo-Pagans. And it backs up that desire that the O.T.O and Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn claim Illuminati ancestry. I feel like Occult exposing Christians need to stop believing what the occult groups and Freemasons claim about themselves so much.
The truth however is that while the Bavarian Illuminati's rituals superficially incorporated ritualistic and mythological ideas, Adam Weishaupt was actually a devout "Rationalist" who hated the Esoterisism of the Rosicrucians and more mystical brands of Freemasonry (the real ancestors of the O.T.O and Golden Dawn). This fact becomes apparent studying the diligent research of Terry Melanson author of The Perfectibilists, and Jeva Singh-Anand who recently translated Kingge's book Philo's Reply. Melanson is a fellow conspiracy theorist, Anand is not. They are among the few who research the Illuminati going back to the oldest contemporary documents, most of which sadly aren't available in English yet.
This conflict has some overlap with his hatred of the Jesuits, (pretty much all Continental Rosecurcians at this time were Jesuits). But some of the above historians will overlook how you can be an Esoteric and still oppose the Jesutis and the Catholic Church. Especially those esoterics who were probably in secret serving British Intelligence.
Another important note, Weishaupt's order were not the first to use a name derived from the Latin "Illuminate". Many of the Esoteric groups Weishaupt hated were associated with terms like Iluminees and Illuminisim. This has caused researchers to often confuse references to them with the Bavarian Illuminati. Going back to Barruel and Robinson early on, and still today by authors like Marco Di Luchetti.
I have a theory however.
While the traditional Conspiracy Theory narrative is that the Bavarian Illuminati took over Freemasonry, I'm thinking it might have been the other way around. The Esoteric Masons infiltrated and took over the Illuminati, then after the Illuminati was "disbanded" they incorporated much of the infrastructure and strategy that Weishaupt had devised into their own political machinations they already had planned. Still the claim that the Illuminati took over Masonry has more creditably then it's given credit for, upon studying provable Illuminati members, some either already were or become the highest ranking Masons in their respective countries.
The Strict Observance Rite was a popular mystical Masonic order during the mid 18th Century. This order became a bit of a problem after it's founder died. He had made up a story about mysterious unseen superiors overseeing the order, but it seems they didn't actually exist. It was a strict observance lodge Weishaupt was initiated into in 1777 the year after he founded the Illuminati.
In 1782 Karl Langrave of Hesse-Kassel, who was the second highest ranking man in German Freemasonry, organized a Masonic conference at Wilhelmsbad to decide what to do about the Strict Observance Rite (which was among the many secret societies he himself was a member of). It wound up being dissolved, and as Melenson's article shows many members joined the Bavarian Illuminati either right then or in the coming months. These included Karl of Hesse-Kassel himself, and the highest ranking man in German Freemasonry, the Duke of Brunswick (there were two at this time, don't confuse them as Nesta Webster did, the other was his nephew and not a known Illuminati member or Mason, though he was sympathetic to the Revolutionaries in-spite his involvement in the war against them).
Karl would latter claim in his official memoirs that he joined the order to try and sabotage their political agenda, but I think that was saving face. Karl was very deeply involved in the occult/esoteric side of Masonry. It was he who lodged the Comte de Saint-Germain during the last years of his Life. Saint-Germain first popped up in England, I think he was possibly a British Spy.
But also among the Wilhelmsbad recruits was Johann Joachim Christopher Bode. He was deeply involved in Esoteric Masonry before joining the Illuminati, supposedly he turned his back on Mysticism and became a Rationalist like Weishaupt when he joined the Illuminati. But I have trouble believing that, one doesn't simply reject the Esoteric so easily when they'd been deeply involved in it. I think he was claiming that to gain the trust of Weishaupt and the other leaders of the order.
After the order was "disbanded" in 1784, Bode became the de facto chief executive of the order. It was he who traveled to France in 1787, which I shall expand on in future posts.
Saint-Martin is an important figure in the history of the Occult at this time. He was friends with Nicolas Bonneville (who was an Illuminati sympathizer but not quite a confirmed member, and he also wrote against the Jesuits).
Also important to the History of Esoteric Freemasonry was the order of Memphis-Misraim.
Other known esoterics and occultists who become Illuminati members include Johann Caspar [Jean Gaspard] Schweizer (1754-1811), Count Franz Joseph von Kolowrat-Liebensteinsky (b. 1748), and probably most recruited from the French Philadelthes. I could also mention Goethe but there is disagreement on how active his membership was.
In Evangelical Christian circles we want to view the "Illuminati" (which has become a byword for the enemy in general without much care for what the Bavarian Illuminati was) as synonymous with the highest level occult activity, Satanists and Neo-Pagans. And it backs up that desire that the O.T.O and Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn claim Illuminati ancestry. I feel like Occult exposing Christians need to stop believing what the occult groups and Freemasons claim about themselves so much.
The truth however is that while the Bavarian Illuminati's rituals superficially incorporated ritualistic and mythological ideas, Adam Weishaupt was actually a devout "Rationalist" who hated the Esoterisism of the Rosicrucians and more mystical brands of Freemasonry (the real ancestors of the O.T.O and Golden Dawn). This fact becomes apparent studying the diligent research of Terry Melanson author of The Perfectibilists, and Jeva Singh-Anand who recently translated Kingge's book Philo's Reply. Melanson is a fellow conspiracy theorist, Anand is not. They are among the few who research the Illuminati going back to the oldest contemporary documents, most of which sadly aren't available in English yet.
This conflict has some overlap with his hatred of the Jesuits, (pretty much all Continental Rosecurcians at this time were Jesuits). But some of the above historians will overlook how you can be an Esoteric and still oppose the Jesutis and the Catholic Church. Especially those esoterics who were probably in secret serving British Intelligence.
Another important note, Weishaupt's order were not the first to use a name derived from the Latin "Illuminate". Many of the Esoteric groups Weishaupt hated were associated with terms like Iluminees and Illuminisim. This has caused researchers to often confuse references to them with the Bavarian Illuminati. Going back to Barruel and Robinson early on, and still today by authors like Marco Di Luchetti.
I have a theory however.
While the traditional Conspiracy Theory narrative is that the Bavarian Illuminati took over Freemasonry, I'm thinking it might have been the other way around. The Esoteric Masons infiltrated and took over the Illuminati, then after the Illuminati was "disbanded" they incorporated much of the infrastructure and strategy that Weishaupt had devised into their own political machinations they already had planned. Still the claim that the Illuminati took over Masonry has more creditably then it's given credit for, upon studying provable Illuminati members, some either already were or become the highest ranking Masons in their respective countries.
The Strict Observance Rite was a popular mystical Masonic order during the mid 18th Century. This order became a bit of a problem after it's founder died. He had made up a story about mysterious unseen superiors overseeing the order, but it seems they didn't actually exist. It was a strict observance lodge Weishaupt was initiated into in 1777 the year after he founded the Illuminati.
In 1782 Karl Langrave of Hesse-Kassel, who was the second highest ranking man in German Freemasonry, organized a Masonic conference at Wilhelmsbad to decide what to do about the Strict Observance Rite (which was among the many secret societies he himself was a member of). It wound up being dissolved, and as Melenson's article shows many members joined the Bavarian Illuminati either right then or in the coming months. These included Karl of Hesse-Kassel himself, and the highest ranking man in German Freemasonry, the Duke of Brunswick (there were two at this time, don't confuse them as Nesta Webster did, the other was his nephew and not a known Illuminati member or Mason, though he was sympathetic to the Revolutionaries in-spite his involvement in the war against them).
Karl would latter claim in his official memoirs that he joined the order to try and sabotage their political agenda, but I think that was saving face. Karl was very deeply involved in the occult/esoteric side of Masonry. It was he who lodged the Comte de Saint-Germain during the last years of his Life. Saint-Germain first popped up in England, I think he was possibly a British Spy.
But also among the Wilhelmsbad recruits was Johann Joachim Christopher Bode. He was deeply involved in Esoteric Masonry before joining the Illuminati, supposedly he turned his back on Mysticism and became a Rationalist like Weishaupt when he joined the Illuminati. But I have trouble believing that, one doesn't simply reject the Esoteric so easily when they'd been deeply involved in it. I think he was claiming that to gain the trust of Weishaupt and the other leaders of the order.
After the order was "disbanded" in 1784, Bode became the de facto chief executive of the order. It was he who traveled to France in 1787, which I shall expand on in future posts.
Saint-Martin is an important figure in the history of the Occult at this time. He was friends with Nicolas Bonneville (who was an Illuminati sympathizer but not quite a confirmed member, and he also wrote against the Jesuits).
Also important to the History of Esoteric Freemasonry was the order of Memphis-Misraim.
Other known esoterics and occultists who become Illuminati members include Johann Caspar [Jean Gaspard] Schweizer (1754-1811), Count Franz Joseph von Kolowrat-Liebensteinsky (b. 1748), and probably most recruited from the French Philadelthes. I could also mention Goethe but there is disagreement on how active his membership was.
Friday, February 6, 2015
Mayer Rothschild did not create the Bavarian Illuminati
One of the most persistent myths about the origin of the Illuminati you frequently see being repeated online without any source is a claim that Weishaupt was recruited to form the Illuminati by Mayer Amschel Rothschild.
The story goes that either in 1770 or 1773 Rothschild presented Weishaupt at a meeting to 12 unidentified business partners.
The facts are that Mayer Rothschild was still pretty small potatoes when the Illuminati was founded in 1776, just a local business man in Frankfurt. No conceivable way he could have had influence over anyone at Ingolstadt university. It was following the French Revolution that his business really began to take off. And not till the 19th Century he truly became an International Banker.
Also all through the 18th Century both the Bavarian Illuminati and Freemasonry strictly forbid Jews from joining.
His tenuous connection to the Illuminati is through Wilhelm IX of Hesse-Kassel, he was patronaged by him since the 1760s and eventually became his main Banker. Wilhelm himself is not known to have been either Illuminati or a Mason. But his brother Karl Langrave of Hesse-Kassel was the number two man in German Freemasonry and the Strict Observance Rite, and among the former Strict Observance members who joined the Illuminati after the Masonic Congress at Wilhelmsbad in 1782. He'll be a subject of future posts of this blog.
There is one other connection, Baron Karl Theodor Dalberg (1744-1817)
The Rothschilds certainly became part of the Oligarchy over time. But they didn't start it.
The story goes that either in 1770 or 1773 Rothschild presented Weishaupt at a meeting to 12 unidentified business partners.
The facts are that Mayer Rothschild was still pretty small potatoes when the Illuminati was founded in 1776, just a local business man in Frankfurt. No conceivable way he could have had influence over anyone at Ingolstadt university. It was following the French Revolution that his business really began to take off. And not till the 19th Century he truly became an International Banker.
Also all through the 18th Century both the Bavarian Illuminati and Freemasonry strictly forbid Jews from joining.
His tenuous connection to the Illuminati is through Wilhelm IX of Hesse-Kassel, he was patronaged by him since the 1760s and eventually became his main Banker. Wilhelm himself is not known to have been either Illuminati or a Mason. But his brother Karl Langrave of Hesse-Kassel was the number two man in German Freemasonry and the Strict Observance Rite, and among the former Strict Observance members who joined the Illuminati after the Masonic Congress at Wilhelmsbad in 1782. He'll be a subject of future posts of this blog.
There is one other connection, Baron Karl Theodor Dalberg (1744-1817)
The Rothschilds certainly became part of the Oligarchy over time. But they didn't start it.
Wednesday, November 5, 2014
The book Secrecy or Freedom, Sumerizes other old Conspiracy books
One book I recently ordered off Amazon cheaply is Secrecy of Freedom, a
book with gives in-depth reviews of a dozen older books going back 200
years. A shot statement of the book's goal exists here.
http://www.abjpress.com/sofpage.html
I ordered it off Amazon
And I shall copy the review of it I left there.
http://tarpley.net/online-books/against-oligarchy/
The the pre-1923 ones should be possible to find online free too, but Dillon's might not be because of it having been lost till rediscovered in 1950.
I've learned since I first made that review that Webster's books make some major errors. She confuses the two Dukes of Brunswick. And she desired to connect the Illuminati to only one factions of the French Revolutionaries. In fact they had ties to many factions, including the Duke of Orleans.
The mission statement of groups like the Illuminati, the Jacobins and the Carbonari may have been opposition to Royalty and Aristocracy in-principle, and the rank and file members and their non member supporters truly believed that ideal. But the evidence suggests the power behind them was one clan of Nobility trying to wipe out their rivals.
Chief among them were the British Oligarchy who gained absolute power in Britain upon the establishment of the House of Hannover with King George I, who controlled the Bank of England and the East India Company. But outside England they were allied with the Venetian Nobility, and a collection of Germanic Noble and Royal families they intermarried with. The enemies they wanted dealt with were mainly the French (main Bourbon line) and Austrian Royal Families of the time originally, but in time they grew to really hate Russia's Tzars. The Duke of Orleans was related the Bourbans, but had a connection to those German families.
Fredrick The Great king of Prussia who was a key collaborator of Voltaire (in known to have played a vital role in forming German Freemasonry in the years before the founding of the Bavarian Illuminati) was a grandson of George I. Wilhelm IX, Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel who played an important role in the biography of Mayer Amschel Rothschild (the relationship didn't begin till the early 1800s however, and neither the Freemasons or Jews in the late 1700s allowed Jews to join) was a Grandson of George II. And his Brother Karl was the number two person in German Freemasonry, and was inducted into the Illuminati in 1782. Another Grandson of George II was William V, Prince of Orange-Nassau an ancestor of the current Royal Family of the Netherlands, who are key players in the Bilderberg group. Duke Ernest II of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg (1745–1804) harbored Adam Weishaut during his latter life, he's of the same Noble family that produced Albert, Prince Consort of Queen Victoria as well as Victoria herself, and thus the current Windsor dynasty. Also related to both the Hannover and Saxe-Gotha families were the Dukes of Brunswick, the older of whom was the Grand Master of German Freemasonry.
Voltaire had been originally inducted into Freemasonry in England, and there is evidence of British and Venetian spies being involved in the French Revolution. According to Tarply both Cagliostro and Casanova were Venetian agents. The British Crown and it's system was never even scratched by the Revolutions of the 19th Century. They had Popular Uprisings in 1848, but they could never get the Support of the grander Masonic-Carbonari Conspiracy. Dillon notes how Mazzini neglects to mention the Irish as being among the people who deserve Freedom and Independence.
Another mysterious figure is Nubius. In the records available to Dillon he is known only by his Codename (which is Nubius) his real name and identity isn't known. (This can clearly make him very attractive to a writer of fiction, like myself). All we know is....
1. He became leader of the Carbonari many years before Weishaut died in 1830 (at least by 1822), and after Weishaut's Death he became head of the entire Conspiracy.
2. He was an Italian Nobleman.
3. He was alive at least as late as August 9th 1838. But died soon after (maybe in 1838, or a few years latter, probably no latter then 1844), was possibly Poisoned by Mazzini or his supporters who wanted to take the leadership of the Carbonari for himself, but Nubius didn't even let him into the Inner Circle (the Alta Vendita) because Mazzini desired a strategy that he considered to aggressive and bloody at that point.
I have come to suspect he's possibly Philippe Buonarroti/Filippo Giuseppe Maria Ludovico Buonarroti.
After Nubius's death Mazzini gained power within the Carbonari and Italian Freemasonry, but Lord Palmerston become the leader of the grander Conspiracy.
Count Calgiostro can be the one most difficult to study. Many real Conspiracy Theory websites that don't do enough fact checking have trouble separating the real figure from the fiction of Alexandre Dumas. Only the Second Dumas novel featuring him The Queen's Necklace is even loosely based on his real history. The narrative of Joseph Balsamo a.k.a. Memoirs of a Physician set in 1770 to 1773 is pure fiction, but the fantastic background he claims for himself is basically what the real Calgiostro claimed.
Cagliostro is historically attributed with playing a key role in the history of the Masonic Rite of Misriam. Which latter merges with the rite of Memphis to form the rite of Memphis-Misraim, the exclusive Masonic order William Schneobelen says he joined and reached the 90th Degree of.
There were also Pro-Catholic and Pro-Royalist secret societies, lead by the Jesuits, in opposition to the Masonic-Illuminati-Carbonari conspirators.
Their mission statement being The Secret Treaty of Verona of 1822.
In time however the Catholic Church was completely taken over the Masonic conspirators. John the 23rd played a key role in that take over, as did the P2 Lodge. John Paul II cemented it.
http://www.abjpress.com/sofpage.html
I ordered it off Amazon
And I shall copy the review of it I left there.
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1HXQCC8QPBMO4/ref=cm_cr_pr_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0964084821Tarpley's book can be read online free here.
This book is a review of a number of older earlier books, some from the 19th Century. It's now allot cheaper then buying all these books on their own, some are rare now. It presents some of the most detailed information you can find on the History of Conspiracies, but there are some issues of perspective.
Many of the books chosen (Starting with favoring Barruel over Robinson) presents thing from a very Pro-Catholic and Anti-Protestant (especially Anglican) perspective. Tarpley especially is worth taking issue with. He says the Reformation was created by Venice is response to a threat against them from the the early 1500s in order to divide Europe. This ignores men like Girolamo Savonarola and John Wycliffe who were reformers well before Luther. And there were always groups in Western Europe that did not submit to the Vatican. He refers to England having been Catholic for 900 years before the time of Henry VIII, but the Britons were already Christian before Augustine came with roots going back to the First Century, and he persecuted these Celtic Christians.
Now, I am not a mainline Protestant. I'm a member of no Denomination as I hate organized religion. But I am philosophically a cross between an Independent Baptist and a Pentecostal. So I do agree, the more organized Reformation of men like Calvin was the Church of Sardis.
The first 2 of the 3 Webster books covered are very good at giving detailed information on the French Revolution and latter European Revolutions. That show that the common people wanted a Constitutional Monarchy from of Government inspired by America's, but the Conspirators manipulated events to follow their Anti-Christian and Socialist agenda. The third however as it talks about about the history of Monotheistic Religion gets into allot of questionable areas.
My last significant comment is on Treason in America. Mostly this books is all very good information, but one area that surprised me, is seeing a book on Conspiracy that says Andrew Jackson's ending the Central Bank was a bad thing and gave more power to the English aristocrats. The fact is the Bank was controlled by the British. I can agree then Von Buren's actions on how to deal with the changes in Economy following the Bank's removal were problematic.
The book also has a few points were it debunks the notion of viewing it as a Jewish Conspiracy. Which is very good.
http://tarpley.net/online-books/against-oligarchy/
The the pre-1923 ones should be possible to find online free too, but Dillon's might not be because of it having been lost till rediscovered in 1950.
I've learned since I first made that review that Webster's books make some major errors. She confuses the two Dukes of Brunswick. And she desired to connect the Illuminati to only one factions of the French Revolutionaries. In fact they had ties to many factions, including the Duke of Orleans.
The mission statement of groups like the Illuminati, the Jacobins and the Carbonari may have been opposition to Royalty and Aristocracy in-principle, and the rank and file members and their non member supporters truly believed that ideal. But the evidence suggests the power behind them was one clan of Nobility trying to wipe out their rivals.
Chief among them were the British Oligarchy who gained absolute power in Britain upon the establishment of the House of Hannover with King George I, who controlled the Bank of England and the East India Company. But outside England they were allied with the Venetian Nobility, and a collection of Germanic Noble and Royal families they intermarried with. The enemies they wanted dealt with were mainly the French (main Bourbon line) and Austrian Royal Families of the time originally, but in time they grew to really hate Russia's Tzars. The Duke of Orleans was related the Bourbans, but had a connection to those German families.
Fredrick The Great king of Prussia who was a key collaborator of Voltaire (in known to have played a vital role in forming German Freemasonry in the years before the founding of the Bavarian Illuminati) was a grandson of George I. Wilhelm IX, Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel who played an important role in the biography of Mayer Amschel Rothschild (the relationship didn't begin till the early 1800s however, and neither the Freemasons or Jews in the late 1700s allowed Jews to join) was a Grandson of George II. And his Brother Karl was the number two person in German Freemasonry, and was inducted into the Illuminati in 1782. Another Grandson of George II was William V, Prince of Orange-Nassau an ancestor of the current Royal Family of the Netherlands, who are key players in the Bilderberg group. Duke Ernest II of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg (1745–1804) harbored Adam Weishaut during his latter life, he's of the same Noble family that produced Albert, Prince Consort of Queen Victoria as well as Victoria herself, and thus the current Windsor dynasty. Also related to both the Hannover and Saxe-Gotha families were the Dukes of Brunswick, the older of whom was the Grand Master of German Freemasonry.
Voltaire had been originally inducted into Freemasonry in England, and there is evidence of British and Venetian spies being involved in the French Revolution. According to Tarply both Cagliostro and Casanova were Venetian agents. The British Crown and it's system was never even scratched by the Revolutions of the 19th Century. They had Popular Uprisings in 1848, but they could never get the Support of the grander Masonic-Carbonari Conspiracy. Dillon notes how Mazzini neglects to mention the Irish as being among the people who deserve Freedom and Independence.
Another mysterious figure is Nubius. In the records available to Dillon he is known only by his Codename (which is Nubius) his real name and identity isn't known. (This can clearly make him very attractive to a writer of fiction, like myself). All we know is....
1. He became leader of the Carbonari many years before Weishaut died in 1830 (at least by 1822), and after Weishaut's Death he became head of the entire Conspiracy.
2. He was an Italian Nobleman.
3. He was alive at least as late as August 9th 1838. But died soon after (maybe in 1838, or a few years latter, probably no latter then 1844), was possibly Poisoned by Mazzini or his supporters who wanted to take the leadership of the Carbonari for himself, but Nubius didn't even let him into the Inner Circle (the Alta Vendita) because Mazzini desired a strategy that he considered to aggressive and bloody at that point.
I have come to suspect he's possibly Philippe Buonarroti/Filippo Giuseppe Maria Ludovico Buonarroti.
After Nubius's death Mazzini gained power within the Carbonari and Italian Freemasonry, but Lord Palmerston become the leader of the grander Conspiracy.
Count Calgiostro can be the one most difficult to study. Many real Conspiracy Theory websites that don't do enough fact checking have trouble separating the real figure from the fiction of Alexandre Dumas. Only the Second Dumas novel featuring him The Queen's Necklace is even loosely based on his real history. The narrative of Joseph Balsamo a.k.a. Memoirs of a Physician set in 1770 to 1773 is pure fiction, but the fantastic background he claims for himself is basically what the real Calgiostro claimed.
Cagliostro is historically attributed with playing a key role in the history of the Masonic Rite of Misriam. Which latter merges with the rite of Memphis to form the rite of Memphis-Misraim, the exclusive Masonic order William Schneobelen says he joined and reached the 90th Degree of.
There were also Pro-Catholic and Pro-Royalist secret societies, lead by the Jesuits, in opposition to the Masonic-Illuminati-Carbonari conspirators.
Their mission statement being The Secret Treaty of Verona of 1822.
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/secret_treaty_of_verona.htmOne thing both conspiracies had in common was being threatened by the United States Constitution.
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE.
64th CONGRESS, 1st SESSION
VOLUME 53, PART 7
Page 6781
25 April 1916
I wish to put in the RECORD the secret treaty of Verona of November 22, 1822, showing what this ancient conflict is between the rule of the few and the rule of the many. I wish to call the attention of the Senate to this treaty because it is the threat of this treaty which was the basis of the Monroe doctrine. It throws a powerful white light upon the conflict between monarchial government and government by the people. The Holy Alliance under the influence of Metternich, the Premier of Austria, in 1822, issued this remarkable secret document :
[American Diplomatic Code, 1778 - 1884, vol. 2 ; Elliott, p. 179.]
SECRET TREATY OF VERONA
The undersigned, specially authorized to make some additions to the treaty of the Holy Alliance, after having exchanged their respective credentials, have agreed as follows :
ARTICLE 1. The high contracting powers being convinced that the system of representative government is equally as incompatible with the monarchial principles as the maxim of the sovereignty of the people with the high divine right, engage mutually in the most solemn manner, to use all their efforts to put an end to the system of representative governments, in whatever country it may exist in Europe, and to prevent its being introduced in those countries where it is not yet known.
ART. 2. As it can not be doubted that the liberty of the press is the most powerful means used by the pretended supporters of the rights of nations to the detriment of those princes, the high contracting parties promise reciprocally to adopt all proper measures to suppress it, not only in their own states but also in the rest of Europe.
ART. 3. Convinced that the principles of religion contribute most powerfully to keep nations in the state of passive obedience which they owe to their princes, the high contracting parties declare it to be their intention to sustain in their respective States those measures which the clergy may adopt, with the aim of ameliorating their own interests, so intimately connected with the preservation of the authority of the princes ; and the contracting powers join in offering their thanks to the Pope for what he has already done for them, and solicit his constant cooperation in their views of submitting the nations.
ART. 4. The situation of Spain and Portugal unite unhappily all the circumstances to which this treaty has particular reference. The high contracting parties, in confiding to France the care of putting an end to them, engaged to assist her in the manner which may the least compromit them with their own people and the people of France by means of a subsidy on the part of the two empires of 20,000,000 of francs every year from the date of the signature of this treaty to the end of the war.
ART. 5. In order to establish in the Peninsula the order of things which existed before the revolution of Cadiz, and to insure the entire execution of the articles of the present treaty, the high contracting parties give to each other the reciprocal assurance that as long as their views are not fulfilled, rejecting all other ideas of utility or other measure to be taken, they will address themselves with the shortest possible delay to all the authorities existing in their States and to all their agents in foreign countries, with the view to establish connections tending toward the accomplishment of the objects proposed by this treaty.
ART. 6. This treaty shall be renewed with such changes as new circumstances may give occasion for, either at a new congress or at the court of one of the contracting parties, as soon as the war with Spain shall be terminated.
ART. 7. The present treaty shall be ratified and the ratifications exchanged at Paris within the space of six months.
Made at Verona the 22d November, 1822.
For Austria :-----------------------------------------------------METTERNICH.
For France :------------------------------------------------CHATEAUBRIAND.
For Prussia :---------------------------------------------------------BERNSTET.
For Russia :------------------------------------------------------NESSELRODE.
I ask to have printed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD this secret treaty, because I think it ought to be called now to the attention of the people of the United States and of the world. This evidence of the conflict between the rule of the few verses popular government should be emphasized on the minds of the people of the United States, that the conflict now waging throughout the world may be more clearly understood, for after all said the great pending war springs from the weakness and frailty of government by the few, where human error is far more probable than the error of the many where aggressive war is only permitted upon the authorizing vote of those whose lives are jeopardized in the trenches of modern war.
Mr. SHAFROTH. Mr. President, I should like to have the senator state whether in that treaty there was not a coalition formed between the powerful countries of Europe to reestablish the sovereignty of Spain in the Republics of South and Central America?
Mr. OWEN. I was just going to comment upon that, and I am going to take but a few moments to do so because I realize the pressure of other matters. This Holy Alliance, having put a Bourbon prince upon the throne of France by force, then used France to suppress the constitution of Spain immediately afterwards, and by this very treaty gave her a subsidy of 20,000,000 francs annually to enable her to wage war upon the people of Spain and to prevent their exercise of any measure of the right of self-government. The Holy Alliance immediately did the same thing in Italy, by sending Austrian troops to Italy, where the people there attempted to exercise a like measure of liberal constitutional self-government ; and it was not until the printing press, which the Holy Alliance so stoutly opposed, taught the people of Europe the value of liberty that finally one country after another seized a greater and greater right of self government, until now it may be fairly said that nearly all the nations of Europe have a very large measure of self government. However, I wish to call the attention of the Senate and the country to this important history in the growth of constitutional popular self-government. The Holy Alliance made its powers felt by the wholesale drastic suppression of the press in Europe, by universal censorship, by killing free speech and all ideas of popular rights, and by the complete suppression of popular government. The Holy Alliance having destroyed popular government in Spain and in Italy, had well-laid plans also to destroy popular government in the American colonies which had revolted from Spain and Portugal in Central and South America under the influence of the successful example of the United States. It was because of this conspiracy against the American Republics by the European monarchies that the great English statesman, Canning, called the attention of our government to it, and our statesmen then, including Thomas Jefferson, took an active part to bring about the declaration by President Monroe in his next annual message to the Congress of the United States that the United States should regard it as an act of hostility to the government of the United States and an unfriendly act if this coalition or if any power of Europe ever undertook to establish upon the American Continent any control of any American Republic or to acquire any territorial rights. This is the so-called Monroe doctrine. The threat under the secret treaty of Verona to suppress popular governments in the American Republics is the basis of the Monroe doctrine. This secret treaty sets forth clearly the conflict between monarchial government and popular government and the government of the few as against the government of the many. It is a part, in reality, of developing popular sovereignty when we demand for women equal rights to life, to liberty, to the possession of property, to an equal voice in the making of the laws and the administration of the laws. This demand on the part of the women is made by men, and it ought to be made by men as well as by thinking, progressive women, as it will promote human liberty and human happiness. I sympathize with it, and I hope that all parties will in the national conventions give their approval to this larger measure of liberty to the better half of the human race.
Official Records of the Union Confederate Navies in the War of the Rebellion
In time however the Catholic Church was completely taken over the Masonic conspirators. John the 23rd played a key role in that take over, as did the P2 Lodge. John Paul II cemented it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)