Ask an Illuminated Rosicrucian Mad Hatter anything...

reply to post by Bilk22


I am familiar with certain 33° Masons, however I'd like to mention to you that there is nothing particularly different about them. Scottish Rite Freemasonry is separate from that of the original Blue Lodge. A 33° Mason is no better than a 3° Master Mason. It is a fallacy that only the 33° Masons are aware of the 'true' purpose of Freemasonry. Just like there is good and bad apples in any group, so would it be with Freemasonry, even if it was to a significantly smaller extent. This is why it is illogical to argue that all Masons are pedophiles, satanists, luciferians, ad infinitum.

I actually regret opening this thread now. I may have said a few things that were of use to a few people, but since then I have moved back to Florida and spent some time rebuilding myself. To be brutally honest, when I opened this thread I was going through a very stressful time in my life, and I was also in the middle of a bad bout of insomnia...

I have come to a few realizations since then.

The occult symbolism and verbal tokens that I hinted at in this thread are a bit antiquated and are often just an overly complicated way of approaching spirituality. I feel that I may have just contributed to the confusion surrounding the occult sciences.

I am reconsidering my stance on secret societies, and my own place in the world. I feel I had been pushing myself too hard when I wrote this thread.

The path of Illuminism is one of understanding, not one of complication. I hope that I have not complicated things for anyone. I apologize for any confusion or anger that I may have brought abut in this thread.

"Cautious be the babbler if he wishes to turn darkness into light.", indeed. Take care, everyone.

Originally posted by sigil23
reply to post by redbarron626

 

Of course, dear ser. May I relieve you of your menial task, for a token? If you accept, we may enter the Grotto now, as equals.

hmmmm....

for an illuminated one.. that's 'Sir' not ser..

Did someone say they worship the demon ("god" HAHA, why is throghout history pagans have called demons "gods" and practiced witchcraft?) Moloch and do the "required" sacrifice of babies by eating their own sperm and smearing it on walls in disobedience to their "prison"? Yes they did I will not quote though, that feels like it would be evil of me, but it is pages back.



This should serve as a reminder to Christians that masturbation is a sin for some very good reasons.

Also, paganism and Christianity do not mix. 1st commandment anyone?

Yeah... it's the Catholics that are pagans worshiping Satan and demons.... not the guy eating his own sperm.

Before you kill yourself call out to Jesus, His mercy is infinite. Don't take it for granted though, because His punishments are just. BTW that is what Moloch is looking for you to do eventually (kill yourself) . You are not the first one to fall for this ancient deception.



Oh and don't act like JFK was a part of your paganism that is completely absurd and slander. JFK was a Catholic, and you are now slandering him. JFK was killed because he was speaking out AGAINST secret societies not just the elite. He was challenging the elite in his policies though.

He was Catholic not Pagan. Demons copy God all of the time, that is why you feel like he shared your beliefs.

The stuff you hear on the internet amazes me.

reply to post by NarrowGate

There's nothing wrong with Rosicrucianism.

JFK didn't speak out against fraternal orders. His speech (President and the Press) was about national security and the freedom of the press, but you'd know that if you read the entire speech and not just the one paragraph that is misused.

reply to post by NarrowGate

Before you kill yourself call out to Jesus, His mercy is infinite. Don't take it for granted though, because His punishments are just.

>god is infinitely merciful
>god will punish you

Does anyone else see what I see?

Originally posted by KSigMason
reply to post by NarrowGate

 

There's nothing wrong with Rosicrucianism.

JFK didn't speak out against fraternal orders. His speech (President and the Press) was about national security and the freedom of the press, but you'd know that if you read the entire speech and not just the one paragraph that is misused.

I am aware that Masons believe he was referring to communists when he said "secret societies".

I see no reason to believe that, furthermore he said "global monolithic conspiracy" not "communist or eastern". Communists never infiltrated every aspect of every institution but secret societies have.

Actually the reason he made the speech was to explain the bill on the federal reserve so I am wondering if we are talking about the same speech. Do you believe we are on the same page? I could look it up...

reply to post by NarrowGate

Well, one just needs to read the entire speech to realize what he was talking about which wasn't a condemnation of private fraternal organizations. One just needs to read the speech, see the events surrounding this speech, and the audience he was speaking to.

Actually the reason he made the speech was to explain the bill on the federal reserve so I am wondering if we are talking about the same speech. Do you believe we are on the same page? I could look it up...

The Federal Reserve had nothing to do with this speech. Please look up the speech.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by NarrowGate

 

Before you kill yourself call out to Jesus, His mercy is infinite. Don't take it for granted though, because His punishments are just.

>god is infinitely merciful
>god will punish you

Does anyone else see what I see?

God will punish you in a perfectly just way that is for your own good (on this earth) or a result of you wanting to be in Hell (in the next life). God will not take away your free will, and furthermore does not owe you a thing. You have sinned a lot since birth no? Looks like you owe the debt. He payed it for you, and you reject Him. He had to suffer more than you can imagine for our sins, and your individual sins have cause him pain (he is timeless, don't listen to protestants I am telling you...). God sweated blood he was so nervous about his Crucifixion.

The infinite mercy part comes from the fact that if you want eternal life in heaven with him you can always turn back to him, even if you persecuted Christians like St. Paul did before God came to him. If you repent and believe in the Lord you will be saved. To do this, you must first know Him though and that means you have to want to do it. He will never take away your free will.

reply to post by KSigMason


Executive Order 11110 ???? Isn't that part of the reason he was making that speech.....


OK this is the actual speech on youtube. Actually a great reminder, and falls right in line with Catholic beliefs about oaths as well.


www.youtube.com...


edit; the killed his brother too.....

come on. don't try to tell me.... you interpret that speech..l.. a different way than me.

impossible.


We are taught to make our yes mean yes and our no mean no. When you live the Truth, the lie is what is uncommon and therefore what deserves special treatment.

BTW I am not sure if I already said this, but I am aware that Masons write this off as him talking about communists. ok : listen to the speech again.



*Global* monolothic conspiracy. Global.... every institution. Communists never achieved that.

Originally posted by NarrowGate

Originally posted by KSigMason
reply to post by NarrowGate

 

There's nothing wrong with Rosicrucianism.

JFK didn't speak out against fraternal orders. His speech (President and the Press) was about national security and the freedom of the press, but you'd know that if you read the entire speech and not just the one paragraph that is misused.

I am aware that Masons believe he was referring to communists when he said "secret societies".

I see no reason to believe that, furthermore he said "global monolithic conspiracy" not "communist or eastern". Communists never infiltrated every aspect of every institution but secret societies have.

Actually the reason he made the speech was to explain the bill on the federal reserve so I am wondering if we are talking about the same speech. Do you believe we are on the same page? I could look it up...

As it turns out I did just say that. Way to dodge and then bait to counter.

Why not just address the issue in a blunt and forthcoming manner? Because you are playing games maybe? A conclusion I am jumping to that may be untrue, but it does seem that way.

reply to post by NarrowGate

Most YouTube videos of this speech only cover about half the speech and it usually starts from the "secrecy is repugnant" (mis)quote.

Here are some often overlooked parts of the speech:

I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the Press." Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded "The President Versus the Press." But those are not my sentiments tonight.

Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.

This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.

But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.

For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.

On many earlier occasions, I have said--and your newspapers have constantly said--that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.

I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.

Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level-- will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.

Here is his complete speech, as your YouTube link doesn't provide the full speech: www.jfklibrary.org...

Originally posted by NarrowGate

Originally posted by NarrowGate

Originally posted by KSigMason
reply to post by NarrowGate

 

There's nothing wrong with Rosicrucianism.

JFK didn't speak out against fraternal orders. His speech (President and the Press) was about national security and the freedom of the press, but you'd know that if you read the entire speech and not just the one paragraph that is misused.

I am aware that Masons believe he was referring to communists when he said "secret societies".

I see no reason to believe that, furthermore he said "global monolithic conspiracy" not "communist or eastern". Communists never infiltrated every aspect of every institution but secret societies have.

Actually the reason he made the speech was to explain the bill on the federal reserve so I am wondering if we are talking about the same speech. Do you believe we are on the same page? I could look it up...

As it turns out I did just say that. Way to dodge and then bait to counter.

Why not just address the issue in a blunt and forthcoming manner? Because you are playing games maybe? A conclusion I am jumping to that may be untrue, but it does seem that way.

You do realize you just responded to your own post, right? Maybe you should take a walk, clear your head a little. At this rate, the discussion is doomed to be extremely unproductive, considering you seem to be incapable of keeping track of your own posts.

Take a break, come at it with a fresh head later. Otherwise, you'll just continue to make a fool out of yourself.

reply to post by NarrowGate

Like I point in my previous post, he was talking to the media about the need for secrecy in regards to national security. Maybe you should do more research lest you make a fool of yourself some more.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I did not reply to myself I was showing the post I was referring to where I already said that. Having problems with logic today?

I have a question

is there any original source material that could be used as a footnote in a work of non-fiction that demonstrates the illuminati survived beyond 1785 ?

reply to post by KSigMason


nice and vague. "idk" would have been much more appropriate.


Who was he referring to holder of secret knowledge that I must beg to know or you will not tell me...? Sorry for the sarcasm but you refuse to be forthcoming with what you have to say, and instead try to appear wise with vague assertions that can apply in a wide variety of ways.

you are going to have to listen to the speech and tell me which and I quote "secret societies" he was referring to?


btw if you say communists I am going to be laughing very very hard.we could have avoided all of this in that case..


And that bill about the federal reserve..... very bad for the elite.

Originally posted by NarrowGate
reply to post by KSigMason

 

Executive Order 11110 ???? Isn't that part of the reason he was making that speech.....


OK this is the actual speech on youtube. Actually a great reminder, and falls right in line with Catholic beliefs about oaths as well.


www.youtube.com...

edit on 8-12-2012 by NarrowGate because: (no reason given)

edit; the killed his brother too.....

come on. don't try to tell me.... you interpret that speech..l.. a different way than me.

impossible.

edit on 8-12-2012 by NarrowGate because: (no reason given)

We are taught to make our yes mean yes and our no mean no. When you live the Truth, the lie is what is uncommon and therefore what deserves special treatment.

edit on 8-12-2012 by NarrowGate because: (no reason given)

Listen to this specific part of the speech coupled with that Executive Order and tell me how exactly this could be misinterpreted or taken out of context.

He was indeed talking about National Security in a lot of this speech. He talks about how secret societies are a threat to it in this specific part, and that is why it is shortened. This is not done intentionally to deceive, because there is no way to take those words out of context and make them something else.

Originally posted by sigil23
Hi! have you ever seen a twinkle in an admirable person's left eye? Well, then you might just be the next Illuminati to enter the fold.


Hi. I was born under a lucky star, as they say. I hold oral traditions of great import, and I hold a Noble Burden, as well. I have first hand knowledge of the activities of the Hidden Hand. For I have spent eternities beside them in the Astral Plane and on earth as well. There are many groups with no current names or faces. Instead, they abide, like the Dude. The lurk hard, anonymous, and confident in their ability to know the names and shapes as they surface. The secrets lie deep within antedeluvian bloodlines that have been meticulously rebuilt from scratch, with a freshly invigorated, augmented and stronger genetic makeup, by a brave few, who shall forever keep watch on the fringes, eternally young and old as dirt at heart.

I have walked thru many a portal that I cannot speak of unless I can assist you in finding a token. I shall not spill the beans all at once and make a babbling fool of myself, either. I took a long break from ats, and have been lurking to keep up with the effects of the "confessions" of the likely Illuminati Shard who claimed to be from amongst the Hidden Hand.

He knew naught of the singular contents of my particular chalices. Drink deeply and be filled with light.
The raven has returned to his roost, and he clutches the light in his beak, his pure white feathers feathers now blackened and smoking. Behold his wounded majesty. Behold the father of the hawk. The Roc bird spreads his wings in triumph once more, at the sight of his only son's return.

Have you ever wondered why both blood and water streamed forth from the side of the Christ? And why he breathed on them and said The Spirit of God is within you? Then you might just be a prospective Rosicrucian...

Have you ever felt that Monty Python's Holy Grail and Life of Brian movies were just a bit like Stephen Spielberg's E.T.? Then you might be a Seeker of the Grail and not know it.

Come forth, one and all. Face the Heirophant, don the Phrygian cap, or walk the labyrinth, the choice is yours.

Also, The Chymical Wedding of Christian Rosencreutz cannot go without mention. My dad walked me thru that text when I was first learning to read, and set me on my Path.

I have have seen things over the last years that made me break my silence. There is naught being manifested that is as pure and white as the gifts and burdens that my family gave up its noble name for. I gave up many of my opportunities for folding my wings, and now I am washed clean. I by no means know all things, but I can set you on the path of all paths.

I now respectfully open the floor, to you, my fellow Seekers of ATS. What do you desire to know?

Where do I start on the path to inner truth, and the seeking of the path that leads to God?