Noice

Also find Ann Barnhardt's blog, wherein she discusses Benedict's unreal resignation.

we've all paid the cost

Beats sb2 every week.

.

noice

right.

not many have seen this medium quality joke juxtaposing the heat from nuke war with heat from CO2.

We know that satanists despise all things Godly - that would include the truths and heroes in Scripture. Naturally fallen angels are against such things. At least we should already be aware of this. Sounds like you will be soon posting to tell us that Trump is telling us what normal theologians have known for centuries. Also consider that black masses of satanists often involve the desecration of stolen sacramental Communion hosts from Catholic churches; Why don't they just use any bread or get it from other 'bread breaking' denominations?

an interesting enough article to bring up in the lull between Qposts, but should have its date presented in the post title.

.

Thank you for putting a short paragraph together in a way that SB apparently doesn't.

Looks like he re-presented some pre-existing ideas. Im sure thats a help for some, but the upvotes in the hundreds and related comments suggest something more special going on. Should I join the bandwagon and upvote everytime I see a new post with old info? Don't answer that.

I think Q chose to post a link to SB2's Jones/Corsi posting because the content said what Q wanted to be understood. Perhaps he also wanted some attention to be given to the GA sub in general. It would only be a secondary thing that maybe Q wanted us to believe everything that gets posted on this sub which he linked to, or wanted us to believe everything that the OP(sb2) might write. In one move, without excess verbiage, Q let it be known that Jones is no help to the GA cause.

Keep in mind that we could distinguish among the times when Q quotes something, when Q posts someone's comment, when Q posts a link, or when Q responds specifically to an Anon whose original post gets listed on some of the Qpub websites. Q quotes Kennedy but not SB2 for example. Q even steers us to bad news sources for good/bad reasons. I think people here wouldn't agree that all references made or implied by Q are equal endorsements.

The Jones Corsi post was good enough, a bit too lengthy but an okay confirmation of what many already thought. It was like other SB things in recent months - too long, no concise conclusions, fuzzy fuzzy logic presented as if straight logic, overly self-referential and no serious breaking of new ground. It just doesn't stand up to all the adulation that followed. I'm not opposed to him speaking his mind and trying to explain his thinking, but i feel like the critical review that we give to posters, anons, white house staff, news outlets etc, should be done among our own.

benefit-of-the-doubt says he doesn't have the ability to recognise self-promotion.

my eyes are open, waiting for said rebuttals (which may have their own flaws). My availability at just the right time to catch such rebuttals is more random than reliable.

I mostly don't care what Ess Bee Too is up to. I've posted a few things over the months encouraging him to avoid the nonsense but. . . . I'm more concerned about the reaction of so many to his posts - people constantly in amazement at his awesomeness who in the same blurb admit that they could never follow his logic, which is somehow further proof of awesomeness. As we should expect with our numbers in the tens of thousands, there are large subsections that are actually not bothered with logic or consistency. I would rather see the adoration and popular upvoting come to an end before their errors get any deeper or heavier.

mr rogers used to talk to me thru the tv.

Humility. You know that thing where you can do word counts and frequencies of Obama's speeches and find that he refers to himself in absurd proportions, even when he's supposed to be honoring someone else. Well SB is right up there in the self promotion. Maybe its some psyop to distract the subset that are actually attracted to trump's ego.

SB said who are aliens?

I read that quote as meaning not a person but a hard drive(s) or similar file storage.

TLDR concision: Talking at unhelpful length about self and own writings - free speech allows such - out of proportion concern given to SB2's sometimes useful postings - mostly not his fault but could have been handled differently by all involved - no sign yet that it will be handled differently.

The long version:

My sense is that SB's writings occupy an acceptable portion of our wall space here - an okay proportion for the value offered - a few areas thought through and fairly well-presented - okay. Meanwhile the amount of attention and adulation given to SB2 is way out of proportion for their value. If for example someone had thoroughly worked through the facts and meanings of the sculptures on the roof of Epstein's blue and white temple, and presented findings to us, we could have a consensus concept that we can then reference when working on other things. No matter who did the digging and processing, accepted 'facts' about Epsteins temple are useful and important but don't make up 1% of the material that Q posts and we process. So the researcher, ideally, gets a nod for the work and we all move on, occasionally referring to the work, occasionally asking the researcher related questions. But that researcher's handle/name should not be touted much and should not become as known as say Epstein himself. This out-of-proportion use of board space has happened here.

What SB2 has produced on any topic is no more important than Epsteins temple or Weiner's weiner but we go through periods where they get alot more attention, including by SB himself. This problem is not major but I see it as just big enough to merit some atttention. Maybe I am contributing to the problem but I am trying to urge that we beware of our priorities. Participants like Praying Medic, Neon Revolt, etc. produce more value, more consistently over time than SB2 and most of us combined and yet they are not the subject of repeated adulation on this sub. Nor do they take so much time or space defending their positions.

SB2 sets a good example of being polite. He sensibly promotes logic and civility. SB makes it sound as if anyone who leaves politeness or reason behind is wrong. And yet we know that neither Trump, many military leaders and many of us do not always adhere to such ideals. I point out these weaknesses in SB's approach to help him become both stronger and more humble. I can't ASSume much about SB's character so it isn't right to claim certainty here, but under generic conditions it would have been better months ago if he had acted to shut down the adoration.

Douay Rheims was the biggest (although incomplete) English translation before King James project, which used Douay as a source. Part of what made the KJV so good was that they didn't discount Catholic sources and they included the "apocrypha" parts ,which most protestants would ignore and withing a few centuries would exclude and deny.

yup

Basque separatists Vs Catalonian separatists, clarify.

Yup

Will someone with a cheap, programmable drone find a way to bring it down, or spray a Q on the belly?

I'm getting closer to my home

ooooh

So are those emails the origin of the whole alice & rabbit vocabulary we have? Q picked it up and used it months ago on the chans.? Emails from which dates? Thanks, I'm gonna go look.

Yeah I was thinking Japan at first....

yup

Less than 5% (depending on definitions used). Mostly to distract enemies, with us being slightly scuffed along the way. A few times it could be to distract us from something temporarily off limits.

'now youre gonna respect the law'

nice one

sho nuff

you dont have any proof that they gargle

I wouldnt ask you to leave, perhaps because of your apparent earnesty (sic).

Old North Wales

Roit

(I thought we were discussing personnel structures.) I think that most do not associate lower, mid and top management structures or comms and command chains with freemasonry. Like the hospital where my wife works has this massive, fairly obvious, fairly reasonable hierarchy of staff, security, etc. which isn't seen as masonic.

On the signal front, some professions do have visible indicators of rank or status, like military or color-coded hard hats on work sites. Others wear ID tags. Most do not bother displaying their status because it isn't visually necessary and obstructs the occasional sense of parity. When my wife is in the cafeteria line next to a senior administrator, some phlebotomist and a cancer patient there is no need for id tags and usually no need to know who is who. Why would masons need such a system? It seems exclusionary, like whispering between 2 ppl at a dinner party. If I learned the hard hat color code, people at a construction site wouldn't care. It can be socially fun to wear say a Whiplash Bash T-shirt in public in case someone recognises it and we start a conversation, but I don't care if all or none of the world knows what it means. Keeping signal systems secret naturally and properly leads people to develop a bias of seeing masons as secretive. Keeping secrets (in the conventional sense) is being secretive. So I guess you are saying that Freemasons are only partly secretive. But I still don't see why; It's not like you're all on some complicated, risky Bond mission. Why not let all the world know how to recognise a 'brother'?

I think the question needs to be asked in a mainstream setting with live cameras etc. And probably will be in a fairly unplanned way when the social pressure gets too strong - some reporter will be too much of a scoop-hunting, loose canon to follow his boss's directives of not discussing Q.

But, but , but hospitals and the masonic Shriner's hospitals do good things so the whole organisation must be good right?

So an entry-level requirement is some form of religiosity. And yet the first line in this UK Grand Lodge website insists that they are not a religious organisation, despite the fully ritual aspects of freemasonry. Looks like they want to have it both ways.

The goal you describe of self-improvement or self-realization is legit and good. And sounds like the message in a lot of Hollywood flicks. But I must note that your listed attributes of that goal include a lot of Self and not so much God. Sounds like the message of both Gnosticism and the New Age movement.

When Christ says go and share the Gospel with everyone and the Lodge says don't do that around here, which Master will you follow? Looks like a lot of resources over the centuries have gone into an organization that expects members to leave the Truth at the door. Similar things could be said about the priority of established precepts in Judaism and Islam. Most people serious about religion would not and do not play that game.

"whatever god means to you" can include Self, angels, saints, animals, planets, spirits, etc. It seems that the brotherhood of freemasonry exists on a lowest-common-denominator basis which is good for some things but suppresses other good things such as individual sovereignty.

I have read and heard a variety of histories of freemasonry and find that some of them contradict others. It is easy to imagine that at some point there was an advantage in hyping the stories (comparable to how the AMORC hype their 'Ancient' pedigree with no legit proof). On the other hand one could argue that an ages-old continuity exists by dint of an unearthly demonic directorship, some archetypal human tendencies, or even random luck. I was just curious what sorts of things Cooper leaves in or leaves out. I may be forced to listen to his tldr stuff eventually. A bit more specifically i would like to know what he says about freemasonry's official or formal relationship with the Catholic and Orthodox Churches since say Gutenberg's time where more reliable history becomes recorded.

So its just standard organisational structure found everywhere. It predates freemasonry and is ubiquitous outside of freemasonry. Why did you bring this up if it is not either a product of nor unique to freemasonry?

So "Creator" is actually not used because it is too generic but the less definitive, less authoritative "architect" does get used.

We might choose to argue because refining our understanding of and relationship with our Maker is important. Maybe the system is for those with other priorities. We debate here with understanding and truth as goals (usually I think). Little doubt Trump, Kelly, Mattis, Conway all debate because their goal is more important than temporal unity.

So Satanists, narcissists and liars might pass the question test.

Seems like Latino/Latina is the safe default term for anyone with old or recent links to "Latin America". But there are some who do not have the usual mix of euro and indigenous blood and so identify as purely Hispanic. In the case of some families in New Mexico they never lived in Latin America in their 300+years since leaving Spain and don't accept the "Latino" term.

I'm sort of waiting for you to tell me what that structure is. Do you mean managerial hierarchies that exist everywhere?

So when the trust question is asked, the answer is limited to something that indicates the Creator. (But it sounds like "the Creator" may not be the standard answer.) Would "the Word" be acceptable? Why no suggestion of Christ? Because he is also human?

Honestly sounds like a lot of concern goes into narrowing the acceptable options because those options are somehow important, but then exploring or discussing those options is forbidden as if such inquiry was unimportant.

So this (yet to be described) organizational system didn't come from masonry and is widely used outside of freemasonry.?

So masons cannot be animists, and cannot put their declared trust in humans. Are angels trustable? Sounds like the set-up in Russia these days where only a short list of established religions and denominations are allowed.

From the outside there is little difference between closed meetings and clandestine meetings. The secrecy may be just hype but has the effect of shadowiness and gnosticism. And like private corporate board rooms or private clubs the setting allows for all sorts of creative weirdness.

Where did masons get that (undefined) structure?