IDF have told The Times they expect to invade Gaza this weekend.

[awepittance]

today masons are very mundane and pretty powerless. I think however it needs to be mentioned that Masons once wielded a huge amount of power, especially in the United States. There is ample evidence to suggest that without the early intelligence gathering operations of masonic lodges, the American Revolution might not have taken place in the way that it did. The first 3rd political party in the United States was called the Anti-masonic party because of the public backlash against how powerful they had become, corrupting many levels of public office, police forces, judges, military, etc.

The catalyst for the anti-masonic party (which later became the whig party) was the high level assassination of William Morgan, an ex-mason who announced he was publishing a book revealing masonic secrets. He was arrested for petty charges by a police force comprised of mostly freemasons and charged/incarcerated by a masonic judge. Later, several different lodges got together to burn down and/or damage the printing press in which his book was to be manufactured. Morgan was later mysteriously kidnapped from his locked jail cell and was drowned in a river.

The boston tea party was staged and organized in secret during lodge meetings and at the masonic bar the 'green dragon tavern'. As far as i'm concerned you can't historically describe the beginnings of the United States and the signing of the constitution without covering how much freemasonary played a role.

The layout of Washington D.C. where the capitol building and whitehouse are were modeled after the masonic logo of the protractor and compass. The washington monument is a mock egyptian obelisk, egyptian iconography is common in freemasonry and plays a role in the design of their temples.

 

This may sound like some kind of national treasure conspiracy theory shit, but it's 100% true and well documented. Believing that a high level group of elitists who consolidated secret power played a role in the American Revolution seems contradictory towards the rebellion against the king for setting blanket decrees. It's not such a big leap between an anointed king to a small group of people making public policy in secret juking the law and having judges and police in their pocket.

[baph]

today masons are very mundane and pretty powerless. I think however it needs to be mentioned that Masons once wielded a huge amount of power, especially in the United States. There is ample evidence to suggest that without the early intelligence gathering operations of masonic lodges, the American Revolution might not have taken place in the way that it did. The first 3rd political party in the United States was called the Anti-masonic party because of the public backlash against how powerful they had become, corrupting many levels of public office, police forces, judges, military, etc. The boston tea party was staged and organized in secret during lodge meetings and at the masonic bar the 'green dragon tavern'. As far as i'm concerned you can't historically describe the beginnings of the United States and the signing of the constitution without covering how much freemasonary played a role.

 

That's certainly true, too. And of course any group that accumulates power in great numbers is going to eventually bend towards corruption and doing shitty things, because that's how humans seem to work, unfortunately.

 

They definitely were interesting, if only because of influence and numbers, and by turns capable of achieving interesting, progressive, laudable results, and being corrupt and culty and power-hungry. But that's also just a cross section of the age of enlightenment itself.

[syd syside]

http://youtu.be/CiZPli_Pw_0

 

http://youtu.be/SZOGuGv5aWA

[Guest Adjective]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cVlTeIATBs

 

[syd syside]

http://youtu.be/HAq_qUyV72c

 

Posting these to fully convey my perspective on Islam (religion) more poignantly lol

[syd syside]

http://youtu.be/yNd1zTcvlC0

 

last post

[SR4]

today masons are very mundane and pretty powerless. I think however it needs to be mentioned that Masons once wielded a huge amount of power, especially in the United States. There is ample evidence to suggest that without the early intelligence gathering operations of masonic lodges, the American Revolution might not have taken place in the way that it did. The first 3rd political party in the United States was called the Anti-masonic party because of the public backlash against how powerful they had become, corrupting many levels of public office, police forces, judges, military, etc.

The catalyst for the anti-masonic party (which later became the whig party) was the high level assassination of William Morgan, an ex-mason who announced he was publishing a book revealing masonic secrets. He was arrested for petty charges by a police force comprised of mostly freemasons and charged/incarcerated by a masonic judge. Later, several different lodges got together to burn down and/or damage the printing press in which his book was to be manufactured. Morgan was later mysteriously kidnapped from his locked jail cell and was drowned in a river.

The boston tea party was staged and organized in secret during lodge meetings and at the masonic bar the 'green dragon tavern'. As far as i'm concerned you can't historically describe the beginnings of the United States and the signing of the constitution without covering how much freemasonary played a role.

The layout of Washington D.C. where the capitol building and whitehouse are were modeled after the masonic logo of the protractor and compass. The washington monument is a mock egyptian obelisk, egyptian iconography is common in freemasonry and plays a role in the design of their temples.

 

This may sound like some kind of national treasure conspiracy theory shit, but it's 100% true and well documented. Believing that a high level group of elitists who consolidated secret power played a role in the American Revolution seems contradictory towards the rebellion against the king for setting blanket decrees. It's not such a big leap between an anointed king to a small group of people making public policy in secret juking the law and having judges and police in their pocket.

 

im not going to go into this too much, but ultimately some of this is true, it is over exaggerated, and still has nothing to do with refuting the claim that the French Revolution resulted in a Masonic French government.

 

even so, the Anti-Masonic party was created as a reaction to political discontent, the Morgan drowning was the spark that set off the powderkeg, so to speak

 

also to say that the anti-Masonic Party later became the Whig Party is a bit of an over generalization.

[Silent Member]

last post

[syd syside]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVr9bJ8Sctk

 

last post lol

[brian trageskin]

today masons are very mundane and pretty powerless. I think however it needs to be mentioned that Masons once wielded a huge amount of power, especially in the United States. There is ample evidence to suggest that without the early intelligence gathering operations of masonic lodges, the American Revolution might not have taken place in the way that it did. The first 3rd political party in the United States was called the Anti-masonic party because of the public backlash against how powerful they had become, corrupting many levels of public office, police forces, judges, military, etc.

The catalyst for the anti-masonic party (which later became the whig party) was the high level assassination of William Morgan, an ex-mason who announced he was publishing a book revealing masonic secrets. He was arrested for petty charges by a police force comprised of mostly freemasons and charged/incarcerated by a masonic judge. Later, several different lodges got together to burn down and/or damage the printing press in which his book was to be manufactured. Morgan was later mysteriously kidnapped from his locked jail cell and was drowned in a river.

The boston tea party was staged and organized in secret during lodge meetings and at the masonic bar the 'green dragon tavern'. As far as i'm concerned you can't historically describe the beginnings of the United States and the signing of the constitution without covering how much freemasonary played a role.

The layout of Washington D.C. where the capitol building and whitehouse are were modeled after the masonic logo of the protractor and compass. The washington monument is a mock egyptian obelisk, egyptian iconography is common in freemasonry and plays a role in the design of their temples.

 

This may sound like some kind of national treasure conspiracy theory shit, but it's 100% true and well documented. Believing that a high level group of elitists who consolidated secret power played a role in the American Revolution seems contradictory towards the rebellion against the king for setting blanket decrees. It's not such a big leap between an anointed king to a small group of people making public policy in secret juking the law and having judges and police in their pocket.

 

im not going to go into this too much, but ultimately some of this is true, it is over exaggerated, and still has nothing to do with refuting the claim that the French Revolution resulted in a Masonic French government.

 

even so, the Anti-Masonic party was created as a reaction to political discontent, the Morgan drowning was the spark that set off the powderkeg, so to speak

 

also to say that the anti-Masonic Party later became the Whig Party is a bit of an over generalization.

 

i just find it interesting that for a powerless syndicate/tea club, french presidents and ministers continue meeting in masonic lodges.

i also find it interesting that the french minister of the interior, manuel valls, is a convinced zionist and participated to the 2008 bilderberg meeting. president françois hollande and the minister of finance, among other ministers, are "young leaders" of the french-american foundation, an atlanticist NGO. i'm not saying that freemasonry is the thing to focus on, i just think it continues to play a role to put together the elites, among other and more powerfull organizations, such as think tanks. why do i focus on zionism then? because in france, the government is not impartial depending on your origins/ethnicity/religion. there really are double standards. for example, the toulouse killings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toulouse_and_Montauban_shootings) are a very interesting case of false flag operation by the intelligence service.

i could also talk about the manipulation of anti-racism to maintain power, but that's a different topic (even though it's actually related to it).

[brian trageskin]

last post

[DerWaschbar]

Things have certainly calmed down here in here...

Palastine statehood recognized.

Israel expanding West Bank settlements.

[SR4]

Things have certainly calmed down here in here...

 

Palastine statehood recognized.

 

Israel expanding West Bank settlements.

 

 

Wow......so Palestine is almost universally recognized as an official sovereign nation now? Im still confused about how this is all going down.....the US I assume does not?

[baph]

So I guess a nonmember observer state = basically the same category as the Vatican?

 

 

 

 

[awepittance]

RT’s Abby Martin Accuses Israel of War Crimes for Targeting Journalists
by Juan Cole - commondreams.org


Can Photos From Gaza Help Blaze the Path to Peace? - Huffington Post
"The most vocal challenger of Israel's aggression is Abby Martin, a TV anchor for Russia's RT station. After Israel accused Martin of being a terror sympathizer, Martin hit back at Israel

in a no-holds-barred lashing for Israel's bombing of RT's office in Gaza."

[sweepstakes]

Your sister is awesome and I kinda have a crush on her.

[awepittance]

[goDel]

 

last post

 

[awepittance]

http://youtu.be/yNd1zTcvlC0

 

last post

 

oh christ, Hitchens perspective on islam and the war on terror is maddening. It's too bad to have actual intellectuals like him basically regurgitating the fear mongering Bush era bullshit to other quasi intellectuals in the world. Not as disgusting as Thomas Friedman but pretty damn close

 

Hitchens was a full supporter of the Iraq war and the insane bloodthirsty neocon cult that ran the Bush administration.

 

should anybody who supported our invasion of Iraq be taken seriously on any issue regarding the middle east? God i hope not

 

 

In the years after the fatwa issued against Salman Rushdie, Hitchens became increasingly critical of what he called "excuse making" on the left. At the same time, he was attracted to the foreign policy ideas of some on the Republican-right that promoted pro-liberalism intervention, especially the neoconservative group that included Paul Wolfowitz.^[72]Around this time, he befriended the Iraqi dissident and businessman Ahmed Chalabi.^[73] In 2004, Hitchens stated that neoconservative support for US intervention in Iraq convinced him that he was "on the same side as the neo-conservatives" when it came to contemporary foreign policy issues.^[74] Hitchens had also been known to refer to his association with "temporary neocon allies".^[75]

 

[awepittance]

 

 

Posting these to fully convey my perspective on Islam (religion) more poignantly lol

 

well now that i know you are in line with Hitchens extremely warped and knee jerkish position on Islam and potentially the war on terror, a lot of your posts regarding middle east foreign policy make more sense now.

[awepittance]

and still has nothing to do with refuting the claim that the French Revolution resulted in a Masonic French government.

 

 

 

it was in direct response to Baph's post about his freemasons, not the french revolution.

 

 

also to say that the anti-Masonic Party later became the Whig Party is a bit of an over generalization.

 

feel free to unpack it for me.

[eugene]

RT’s Abby Martin Accuses Israel of War Crimes for Targeting Journalists

by Juan Cole - commondreams.org

 

 

but israel didn't target the journalists, it targeted some shit on the roof of that building, which in strictly legal terms isn't a war crime as far as i know. why didn't he bother to even mention the other side's claim ? was it intentionally omitted ? and now this shit will be regurgitated throughout the internet for years.

 

that's not how you do science.

[SR4]

 

and still has nothing to do with refuting the claim that the French Revolution resulted in a Masonic French government.

 

 

it was in direct response to Baph's post about his freemasons, not the french revolution.

 

 

also to say that the anti-Masonic Party later became the Whig Party is a bit of an over generalization.

 

feel free to unpack it for me.

 

 

 

 

There's not too much to unpack, the Whig party was formed out of a bunch of different splinter groups and anti-Jacksonian temperament amongst the Senate/state political bents, etc. No doubt there were people within the Whig party who were Masons and/or members of the Anti-Masonic Party, but certainly nowhere a majority. Lincoln used to be a Whig, and he was denied application to the Masonic Lodge in Illinois...he later became President and the Whig party completely collapsed over internal bickering. Many Whig party members had next to nothing to do with Masonry or the Anti-Masonic party. They were mostly anti-hawk, pro-industrialization sectionalists.

 

Its just the wording that doesn't make sense. It would be like claiming the States' Rights Party formed into the Republican Party.

[SR4]

http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Fall-American-Whig-Party/dp/0195161041

 

its expensive, but a pretty amazing and exhaustive analysis into the rise and fall of the American Whigs. Definitely worth a read.

 

Daniel Walker Howe is also a reknown historian of the antebellum political era,

 

http://www.amazon.com/The-Political-Culture-American-Whigs/dp/0226354792/ref=pd_sim_b_2

[Hoodie]

 

 

RTs Abby Martin Accuses Israel of War Crimes for Targeting Journalists

by Juan Cole - commondreams.org

 

 

but israel didn't target the journalists, it targeted some shit on the roof of that building, which in strictly legal terms isn't a war crime as far as i know. why didn't he bother to even mention the other side's claim ? was it intentionally omitted ? and now this shit will be regurgitated throughout the internet for years.

 

that's not how you do science.

that's like saying the usa didn't "target" hiroshima, we targeted some clouds above the city.