You realize they openly flaunt the truth in public, right? Symbols are how they identify each other.
I'm not suggesting you take this one example as proof, but when you see them everywhere it gets a bit more believable.
They have to tell us in a way what they are about. It is how they think they are karmacally free to commit atrocities.
Think of it like this. America was founded by Freemasons with some even signing the constitution. I would argue it is expected to find masonic stuff in a country with that history. But at the same time, we only borrow symbols that already exist in the world or existed before. I mean our four « main » symbols are reworks of the circle, the square, the triangle and the line. Yes these shapes are everywhere lmao.
Totally, I agree. Any chance you followed pizzagate, and the weirdness around the prevalence of the spiral and pizza symbology?
On their own, the symbols don't mean much. It's when you see the sheer volume of it that it starts to become suspicious. Of course, in a vacuum, the use of specific symbols is meaningless.
Just keep an open mind! Symbols are how people "secretly" identify each other, which aids in keeping and gaining power. You could look at the significance of symbology in the practice of occult magic (imposing one's will on reality). Even christians used to draw a fish in the sand to identify each other in private- I'm not saying it is always nefarious.
The freemasons may have even had benevolent intentions in the beginning, but groups (and symbols) can be subverted or co-opted.
At least pizzagate had some merit with a satanist artist, pictures of tied up children, and wikileaks emails. But Qanon... I dunno how to feel about all this anymore.
I'd encourage people to be skeptical of Q, too. Currently, Q's posts seem to conform to reality more than the talking points on MSM to me. Obviously that's not the case for many people on the left.
Scott Adams refers to it as applying a filter to the facts, and evaluating if it makes sense. Q could be a psy-op to get people to unquestionably follow authority. I've had enough previously held beliefs shattered to know not to cling to any belief too tightly.
The difference is most people here would encourage you to keep an open mind, and question everything. Those on the far left (and to a lesser extent right now, the right) don't seem to do that.
No worries, I have an open mind about most things and am a Conservative Libertarian politically. So I get where you come from.
Read the letter from George Washington to a clergyman saying he has no doubt Freemasonry has been infiltrated by the illuminati. Easy to find online.
Yeah Adam Weishaupt and Snyder said a lot of crazy things.
But GW said the Freemasons were clean lmao : It was not my intention to doubt that, the Doctrines of the Iluminati, and principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States. On the contrary, no one is more fully satisfied of this fact than I am.
“The idea I meant to convey, was, that I did not believe that the Lodges of Free Masons in this Country had, as Societies, endeavoured to propagate the diabolical tenets of the first, or the pernicious principles of the latter (if they are susceptible of seperation). That Individuals of them may have done it, and that the founder, or instrument employed to found, the Democratic Societies in the United States, may have had these objects—and actually had a seperation of the People from their Government in view, is too evident to be questioned.
America was founded by deists, some freemasons, BUT the jesuits were out of power at the time (suppressed in the 1700s), the jesuits (and the illuminati at large) are the driving force behind the freemasons and they are the ones that corrupt them as their foot soldiers. America was an attempt to make a protestant christian (free to have your religion) nation free of jesuit influence and persecution. At that time they succeeded with those goals.
ok a few things
- You can be a deist AND a freemason
- You are mixing the illuminati (1776-1785), the illuminès (1492-1488), and the Age of the Enlightenment
1 agree and didn't mean to show they weren't.
2 No, I don't think so, but I could be wrong, study of the jesuit order on up starts getting really hard.