SYMBOLISM - Witchcraft, Mind Control, Masons, Illuminati

reply to post by aivlas


Sounds very similar to the quote posted,

Furthermore, that I will keep the secrets of a worthy brother Master Mason as inviolable as my own, when communicated to and received by me as such, murder and treason excepted.*

But it doesn't exsist.........

It does.

reply to post by Wifibrains


It's not though is it

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by aivlas
reply to post by Wifibrains

 

It's not though is it

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's not similar, or not there? not sure what that link is sopposed to point out..

reply to post by Wifibrains


Doh it's linking to a random page because I got the post link through 'posts in this thread', will sort that now.

quote (kwt)
v. quot·ed, quot·ing, quotes
v.tr.
1. To repeat or copy the words of (another), usually with acknowledgment of the source.
2. To cite or refer to for illustration or proof.
3. To repeat a brief passage or excerpt from: The saxophonist quoted a Duke Ellington melody in his solo.
4. To state (a price) for securities, goods, or services.
v.intr.
To give a quotation, as from a book.
n.
1. Informal A quotation.
2. A quotation mark.
3. Used by a speaker to indicate the beginning of a quotation.
4. A dictum; a saying.

So are we going to go down the route that the script those were taken from was changed making the book the op got them from moot? seeing as he updated/revised if no change occurred why would he change parts of the book so much.


mini book version tl
masons evil
masons evil?
masons evil

reply to post by aivlas


Sim-i-lar

1. Related in appearance or nature; alike though not identical

In my eyes that quote is similar enough for me, to be similar.

reply to post by Wifibrains


And the rest? or does the rest not matter?

For example

You must conceal all the crimes of your brother mason, except murder and treason, and these only at your own option and should you be summoned as a witness against a brother mason be always sure to shield him. Prevaricate, don't tell the whole truth in this case, keep his secrets forget the most important points. It may be perjury to do this, it is true, but you're keeping you obligations and remember if you live up to your obligation stricly, you'll be free from sin

Which is the quote the op used
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by aivlas


It says murder and treason excepted.

That's enought to raise eyebrows, no, the rest does not matter.

Not that it matters, didn't the author defect, and become a hoaxer, or is this a cover for his revealed secrets...
Who knows? It's a very grey area if you ask me.

Originally posted by Wifibrains
reply to post by aivlas

 

It says murder and treason excepted.

That's enought to raise eyebrows, no, the rest does not matter.

Do you know the difference between excepted and accepted


Well that is the question isn't it Wifibrains. I think finding why the books are so different would help as well.

My appogies for my confusion.

So fraud and deception is ok? Manipulation, extortion, robbery, rape, peadophillia.......ect.........ect as long as it is not against another mason or their family. *raises other eyebrow*

reply to post by Wifibrains


Depending on which version of the handbook you read edmond seems to think yes for arch masons and maybe for masons(?)

Originally posted by aivlas
reply to post by Wifibrains

 

Depending on which version of the handbook you read edmond seems to think yes for arch masons and maybe for masons(?)

Hmmmmm, paints a pretty little picture, and I would say they most proberly do! Or they would not be much of a brotherhood if you ain't gotcha brothers back.

Originally posted by Wifibrains


Not word for word but it IS in a version of the book, apparently in a foot note, shame we cant see what the foot note itself is referring too....

Apparently you aren't too good at reading? I quoted the footnote AND the section of the book it was referencing....

The section of the book it quotes is generally very vague and DOES NOT tell Masons to lie with impunity. It is the author's footnote that expounds upon the original portion of the oath and provides his opinion that is what it means.

reply to post by CIAGypsy


And I said I can only discern from the text I can see, and I could only see the foot notes. Why would I take your word?

If you knew some of your banking buddies connected to the SS's were defrauding and decieving the masses, would you tell the truth, or conceal their crimes? Surely you are bound by oath, no? So your loyalty to humanity is pushed aside for your cult...er society. You guys are nothing special, we are all equal. Shame your Rothschild buddies can't see it and don't want too.

Originally posted by bknapple32
Just because you say I dont have consistency doesnt mean youre right. Becoming a finger warrior sir. The argument is that DISNEY PURPOSELY PUT THIS IN THE MOVIE.

The point is, they did not as the person who did this wasnt an employee. Im not saying they are or arent liable to be sued for it. But the point remains, they themselves did not do it.


What is so hard to understand?

You can say there is no clear theory, but in the article in in fact says what I presented was the most agreed upon theory. Hardly ' not clear'

edit on 1-1-2013 by bknapple32 because: (no reason given)

My first question is, do you think he just likes drawing golden dongs amidst golden pillars? Does this artist have an unfathomable love for underwater whores riding golden princely schlongs?

Did he donate his fetish to Disney and call it a day? How is his work a part of a disney movie if it was not paid for. Thereby creating some sort of contract; perhaps you could consider this some form of employment.

reply to post by denver22


You realize the purpose is to deny ignorance, not to perpetuate it?

Do you know what ignorance means? It means choosing to know # all in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Originally posted by TRUELIES11

Do you think Walt Disney was sitting in his office one day and decided to do that to the children?
Do you think the artist working for Disney decided to create those images?

The images were created on an individual basis, by demons. Not people. The artist is not aware of what was created until later when it is too late. It happens much more often than people realize. I can show you an example.

The following picture is of the logo used by The Greater Boston Food Bank in Boston. The building is new enough having been built shortly after the tunnel was finished. The first time I saw this image, I thought it looked like an asteroid hitting the atmosphere and then the planet.

Now you might think, why would you think such a thing because it looks nothing like that?
That is what I saw because of the image on the building which is in the following picture.

edit on 2-1-2013 by TRUELIES11 because: (no reason given)

If you've ever tried to do something creative in your life; you would find that it is mostly your subconscious that does the work; and your conscious is merely left pronouncing the words as they spring to mind. OP has a TED talk with the chick who wrote eat, pray, love. I think she's talking about it the whole time ("the other person who is Tom but not quite Tom") and she either purposely avoids mentioning it or she is unaware of any Freudian theory.

Also I see a flower, perception and symbols are two entirely different things.

An alien whom visited our planet may have no awareness of our symbols and therefore be entirely dazed and confused when it comes to discerning the rules of traffic. This is not because of a failure of perception; but the failure to have learned the symbols of the land.

Originally posted by aivlas
reply to post by Wifibrains

 

They seem to change as well here are the closest ones from a 1923 reprint of the 1917 revised edition (Published by ezara a. cook)

"Giving testimony against a brother mason in court which oath is to be obeyed? This or the legal oath?"
p171.
view.samurajdata.se...
or
i46.tinypic.com...

"Will a masonic juror obey this or his legal oath? which?"
p172.
view.samurajdata.se...
or
i46.tinypic.com...

and from a 1968 reprint of the 1917 revised edition (Published by Pomeroy?)
i45.tinypic.com...

Wonder where that page came from and why it was left out of an earlier edition published by someone who was anti secret societies.

edit on 5-1-2013 by aivlas because: (no reason given)

See this is some good work you have done here.

The text changes so dramatically that the point seems almost moot. It seems as if every publisher has taken it upon themselves to re-write the text as if it was translated from some foreign language.



And to BKNApple:
Manly P Hall is certainly a 'father' of Freemasonry just as Pike and Mackey would be.

You claim that there are volumes of errors and yet you produce nothing when I ask you for a list of them all, it makes one think you BS'ing in the extreme.

Also where was are the volumes of information proving the conspiracy wrong?

You don't provide anything you merely copy and paste the same post over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

I think after ten or twelve of the same posts we get your position, now please offer some source material.

BUMPING MY ENTIRE RESPONSE FROM PAGE 37 FOR WIFIBRAINS

You didn't *HAVE* to take my word for anything. I posted the entire part of the oath that footnote was referencing and I got it FROM YOUR LINK. Perhaps you don't remember your own link?

Originally posted by CIAGypsy
reply to post by Wifibrains

 

I could be speaking out of turn because I have not followed the whole book thing too closely.... But this is what shows up on page 220 that you are quoting:

In the Master Mason's degree murder and treason are excepted or left to one's own option but here no crime is excepted - the bishop and preacher being bound under oath to keep all criminal acts of a companion Royal Arch Mason coming to their knowledge profoundly secret. This is simply wicked beyond expression."

Quote above is found as a FOOTNOTE which is referencing the Royal Arch Oath:

I do furthermore promise and swear, that I will keep the secrets of a companion Royal Arch Mason when given to and received by me as such sacred and inviolable.

So...it seems to me that the footnote you are pointing out is referring to the bishops and preachers (don't they already withhold criminal reporting? Isn't that why the Catholic church was found liable in the sex crimes against children? Because they didn't report priest abuses?)...and subsequently states disapproval with this practice.

Just my .02....take it for what it's worth.

edit on 4-1-2013 by CIAGypsy because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-1-2013 by CIAGypsy because: (no reason given)

reply to post by VeritasAequitas


Okay let me explain this to you in a simple manner.

Roman Catholicism is based on the same Sun cults as Amun-Ra, that is it is a modern mystery school. Its actions and leaders do not follow the words of the book they claim to be preaching and according to that book they are blasphemers and 'anti-christ'.

You can site all of their rituals you like but note that the celebration of Easter is supposed to occur during the Jewish 'Pass Over' however whenever the to dates coincide the Papacy changes the day in which Easter is celebrated. The eucharist ritual is based on the same solar cult rituals, yes.

Roman Catholicism, if one refers to the texts which their religion is based, is NOT Christian. This is why individuals such as Martin Luther pushed for the reformation.

Christianity is based on the idea that God through Jesus came down and lived the perfect life following all the laws of God which were offered in the old testament which mankind was never able to fulfill. This was done for all mankind and so to get into heaven one only needs to accept that Jesus was God and lived the law of God for all mankind to gain access to heaven. That is Christianity in a nutshell for you.


The mysteries base access to heaven and/or becoming god on actions which people can accomplish in their lives which gives them authority over the Earth.

Most of the mysteries are based on solar cults whose inner doctrine is enlightenment/illumination and includes the likes of Baal/Tammuz, Amun-Ra, Osiris/Horus, and the Nazi cult of the black sun. Others compare themselves to vegetation which is nourished by the light aka illumination such as the Dionysian/ Eulesian, and green-man mysteries found historically through Europe.

The two faiths are based on entirely different approaches to heaven. Most of the mysteries preach reincarnation and if that is what you believe then why do you have such an issue with the 'vulgar herd' who will merely reincarnate again after you have 'ascended'? Come on show a little backbone in your faith.

I am more interested in the truth of the matter and find far greater volumes of BS concerning the mysteries than I do of other faiths and so I have grown rather tired of them. Not that there isn't legit information to be gleaned from them but it is so caked in crap that it hardly seems worth it.


Oh and to your comment about your solar cult preaching the world was flat and so on and so on about how they are anti-science you are actually fairly mis-informed in this regard as well. It was a fairly recent claim of the religion vs science;

en.wikipedia.org...

The conflict thesis, which holds that religion and science have been in conflict continuously throughout history, was popularized in the 19th century by John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White. Most contemporary historians of science now reject the conflict thesis in its original form, arguing instead that it has been superseded by subsequent historical research indicating a more nuanced understanding

Today, much of the scholarship in which the conflict thesis was originally based is considered to be inaccurate. For instance, the claim that people of the Middle Ages widely believed that the Earth was flat was first propagated in the same period that originated the conflict thesis[11] and is still very common in popular culture. Modern scholars regard this claim as mistaken, as the contemporary historians of science David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers write: "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference."[11][12]

Other misconceptions such as: "the Church prohibited autopsies and dissections during the Middle Ages," "the rise of Christianity killed off ancient science," and "the medieval Christian church suppressed the growth of the natural sciences," are all reported by Numbers as examples of widely popular myths that still pass as historical truth, even though they are not supported by current historical research. They help maintain the popular image of "the warfare of science and religion."[13]

While H. Floris Cohen states that most scholars reject crude articulations of the conflict thesis, such as Andrew D. White's, he also states that milder versions of this thesis still hold some sway. This is because "it remains an incontrovertible fact of history that, to say the least, the new science was accorded a less than enthusiastic acclaim by many religious authorities at the time." Cohen therefore considers it paradoxical "that the rise of early modern science was due at least in part to developments in Christian thought—in particular, to certain aspects of Protestantism" (a thesis first developed as what is now sometimes called the Merton thesis).[14]

edit on 5-1-2013 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101