Freemasonic symbols and american corporation's logos: one thing.

[Kernunnos]

What is for sure is that freemasons like to show their power.

In this video a freemason shows how many american corporate logos have masonic roots and meanings.

Transaltion of the video: we are the power behind all.

YouTube - Corporate Logos and Freemasonry (Freeman Perspective)

I remembre having listened several times to interviews with the most famous italian Grand Master, Licio Gelli.

What transpired from his words was a strong sense of pride, he was politely vaunting it in an almost clear manner.

A WORD OF WARNING

The user who uploaded the video is an islamist ... handle with care as long as we don't know the documentary source

And american politicians are all in the Craft ...

[Zrinski]

99% of people don't know the masonic symbols so why wouldn't they show them so openly?

[Kernunnos]

Originally Posted by Zrinski

99% of people don't know the masonic symbols so why wouldn't they show them so openly?

It is a way to show they are powerful and pervasive: as I said, i listened carefully to the interviews of the famous (in Italy) freemason Licio Gelli, a man involved in several american directed anti - communist activities.

He bragged about having saved Italy from communism, and it was proved that his lodge had amongst its member he most powerful men in Italy, starting from the still not famous industrialist and later President of the Council Berlusconi.

The style of Gelli's public interviews was pretty much the same as the movie we see above.

Masons flaunt their powerful connection, not in the style of the mafiosi, but in style: we are the good leaders, the wise, there is an undertone of pride as well as of gentleness when they say it.

So, no mafioso bragging about, on the contrary they show their awareness of their power and the strongest self confidence: just like the old nobility they have fought and despised so much.

[Gladstone]

Originally Posted by Breha

Masons flaunt their powerful connection, not in the style of the mafiosi, but in style: we are the good leaders, the wise, there is an undertone of pride...

Yes, they are very proud. But everyone knows what they say pride goes before...

[Gladstone]

Originally Posted by Breha

It is a way to show they are powerful and pervasive: as I said, i listened carefully to the interviews of the famous (in Italy) freemason Licio Gelli, a man involved in several american directed anti - communist activities.

He bragged about having saved Italy from communism...

Why is this man bragging? Either he is ignorant or deceitful, or perhaps some combination of both. All the evidence, once one gets past the rhetoric, indicates that the Capitalists and Reds were controlled opposition, the one of the other, steered by finance from the beginning, and that the respective 1776 and 1789 American and French Revolutions that gave birth to the rise of those ideologies, were always intended to 'converge' as we see today in Multi-Culturalism. And that the primary political objectives* of the Capitalist and Red ideologies, with their respective individualistic and collectivistic slants** regarding those same objectives, were and are identical. What else could explain that when the bastion of Capitalism, the United States, had in its grasps the power to conquer Communism in the immediate post WWII world, and some apparently believing their government's 'Cold War' rhetoric attempted to act on this, were blocked at every turn? Patton for instance winds up dead in a freak auto accident, MacArthur is cashiered, McCarthy is politically destroyed. Similarly what could explain when the Soviet Union at the seeming heighth of its power in the 1980's, when it appeared to be on the verge of having the world under its power, dismantles itself from the top down. This is said to have been brought about by US economic pressure, which might well be so, but if it was so easy to bring down Communism, why wasn't this done 60 years before? After all, the US dominated the world economically then just as today. However, once a person gets past the rhetoric, you will find that in general the US/UK was quite active in being economically supportive of the reds. Another example of reality contradicting the rhetoric is when France had been brought to its knees by the Marxists in 1968, and could (it would seem) very easily have had their 'revolution', but were instead ordered to stand down by their own Communist party bosses.

No, the ideologies of Capitalism and Marxism were never intended to triumph one over the other, but to 'converge' in Multi-culturalism, just as we see. Some, such as the proto-Marxist who fled Germany to the then very Capitalistic United States shortly after their failed socialist revolution there in 1848, and wrote the excerpt below, apparently understood about this 'convergance' early on, as did those who ordered propaganda photographs taken and published like the one shown at the end of WWII.

The many tens of millions of people who died or suffered in the contrived building up of and 'struggle' between these two dysfunctional ideologies to form the backwards ideology of Multi-Culturalism did so in what is ultimately a gigantic fraud perpetrated upon the world.

"...Can we hope for a revolution in this unhappy Germany? The liberal leaders are all in exile and those who remain behind have lapsed into their former state of contended servitude. It remains therefore the task of the liberal Germans in America to propagate the American World State in Germany itself....It is the office of America to vindicate individualism against nationality. When the dominion of nationality is crushed everywhere and everyhow in the world and the sovereignty of the individuals attained, the mission of the American revolution will be accomplished." The New Rome; or, the United States of the World - 1853

* The Capitalist and Marxist primary political objectives being 'free trade', the free movement of workers (aka 'immigrants') so as to be exploited in that incredibly profitable for a few, but incredibly socially destructive for most, modern variant of slavery known as 'cheap labor', the forced destruction of the distinct peoples and cultures of the world by mixing them away, referred to as 'integration' by the Capitalists and 'fusion' by the Reds, the creation of continental super states (these super-states themselves each constituted by 'republics) in the form of 'federal democratic republics' modeled upon the United States of (North) America/American Union, and in turn the joining together of these continental super-states to form a United States of the World/Global Union to be dominated in apparent accordance with the ideology of British Israelism by the US/UK. One here ought to remember that powerful elements of the US/UK elites are operating in conjunction with elites of a people, who far disproportionate to their numbers, hold great sway in the US/UK, these latter elites dominating the former ones.

** Slants which have allowed for much noise to be made about supposed 'differences' in the ideologies. With the Capitalists' and Marxists' respective individualist and collective slants being smoothed away by their 'convergance', the two ideologies now form a united front against man in Multi-Culturalism.

The New Rome; or, the United States of the World (circa 1853)

Source

Source

[Zrinski]

Exactly. Gladstone nailed it. The different ideologies are just the two sides of the same coin. They are just means to an end. The main goal of the globalist elite is to control, to be on top and in that sense religion, political ideology, etc., are just means to an end.

This same elite is also using religion as means of manipulation and diversion.

[Sergius]

Originally Posted by Zrinski

This same elite is also using religion as means of manipulation and diversion.

I agreed up to this point. Please elaborate.

[Zrinski]

Originally Posted by Ljubomir

I agreed up to this point. Please elaborate.

Religion is a fabrication created to control the massess.

[Crvena zvezda]

Interestingly, I like the case of the Fedex arrow.

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/59/FedEx_Corp.svg/120px-FedEx_Corp.svg.png[/img]

Most people do not realize there is an arrow between the E and the X.

[Marulus]

Originally Posted by Zrinski

This same elite is also using religion as means of manipulation and diversion.

Originally Posted by Zrinski

Religion is a fabrication created to control the massess.

Marxism, communism, globalism, multiculturalism, oneworldism are different sorts of religions.

Once when Christian religion was removed as leading spiritual force in European lands, other religions popped up taking its place.

[Marulus]

Originally Posted by Gladstone

And that the primary political objectives* of the Capitalist and Red ideologies, with their respective individualistic and collectivistic slants** regarding those same objectives, were and are identical. What else could explain that when the bastion of Capitalism, the United States, had in its grasps the power to conquer Communism in the immediate post WWII world, and some apparently believing their government's 'Cold War' rhetoric attempted to act on this, were blocked at every turn? Patton for instance winds up dead in a freak auto accident, MacArthur is cashiered, McCarthy is politically destroyed. Similarly what could explain when the Soviet Union at the seeming heighth of its power in the 1980's, when it appeared to be on the verge of having the world under its power, dismantles itself from the top down. This is said to have been brought about by US economic pressure, which might well be so, but if it was so easy to bring down Communism, why wasn't this done 60 years before? After all, the US dominated the world economically then just as today. However, once a person gets past the rhetoric, you will find that in general the US/UK was quite active in being economically supportive of the reds.

Ah, the good old phony Cold War. Maybe one day when the circumstances in the world and the whole structure of power change, some new documents will be unearthed from dusty archives, that will demask completely this gigantic fraud of the so-called ideological confrontation between East and West.

The funny thing is that the very ideology against which the liberal capitalistic world supposedly fought, namely, Marxism, is of prominently Western origin. Communism is nothing else than the application, to their furthest limits, of the original premises of the ideology of the French (and American) Revolution, the most radicalized version of the Enlightenment philosophy.

It is also noteworthy a fact that during this farcical and surealistic confrontation between East and West, Marxism thrived in the Western intellectual circles and in the Academia. Not only in Academia, but also many prominent Marxists were employed as state officials in very important positions. A very illustrious example of that phenomenon is one of the greatest Marxist philosophers of the 20th century Alexandre Kojeve, an emigrant from Russia (possibly a Jew), who came to work for the French government in the 60ies and became one of the ideological founders of the present-day EU! And all that happened in the glorious West which was, allegedly, engaged in a life-death struggle with the "Empire of Evil", with nuclear missiles pointed at each other's major capitals.

In 1945, when the war ended, the UK-USA were the only true winners of the war, while everyone else in fact lost it, including the nominal winners like USSR and China, because the war had caused such an extensive damage to them, that it can in some way be considered as Pyrrhus' victory, which is tantamount to defeat. A Chinese theoretician (maybe Sun Tzu) on warfare once said: "Once you have achieved complete victory, you are defeated." USA were aware that they have acquired such a boundless military power (not just nuclear weapons, but unrivalled aircraft power, both in numbers and in effectiveness), as to be able to conquer the entire world. Such big amount of power is harmful, especially for the one who holds it. If you achieve a total victory over everything and everyone else, what next? Such an empire founded on confrontation with enemies, once deprived from any threat or enemy, must necessarily start to decay, to disintegrate. Hence maybe came the invention of the fake Communist enemy, of the farcical Cold War (a contradiction in terms).

Yes, they would have been able to overrun the USSR immediately after 1945, but that would bring the empire to an end quite quickly. Or they just thought so?

[Gladstone]

Originally Posted by Breha

It is a way to show they are powerful and pervasive: as I said, i listened carefully to the interviews of the famous (in Italy) freemason Licio Gelli, a man involved in several american directed anti - communist activities.

He bragged about having saved Italy from communism...

A member of one of the most historically powerful families in North America, that of British Royal Governor and freemason Jonathan Belcher* (1682-1757), and a person who is a firm believer in the ideology of the 1776 American Revolution, operates a foundation which provides policy analysis (PA's) for political leadership within the United States. One of these PA's details the relationship between the American and French Revolutions of 1776 and 1789 respectively, of which the Capitalist and Red ideologies would grow out of. If there were to be a person 'in the know' about the relationship of those two Revolutions, it would be a person from a family such as the Belchers.

But first, let's take a look at the Belcher family crest as the bottom center of the official portrait painted decades before the 1776 Revolution, and compare it to the shield of the United States, in front of the eagle on the Great Seal. The Belcher family member who operates the foundation which writes the PA's claims the shield on the Great Seal was likely modeled on his family's crest in his familys' honor, and sure enough, they do have a small resemblance.

Jonathan Belcher


Great Seal of the United States (circa 1850)


Excerpts from the policy analysis...

"This study proposes that the end effects of France aiding the American Revolution were both practical and ideological: That to some French philosophes, America literally was to serve as the training ground for future French republicans, and ultimately, to serve as the Great Exemplar of Utopia, Acadia, the New Atlantis--the New World Order--the republican world that France could become once revolution overturned the Ancien Regime. And the American Revolution was a prelude to that French Revolution that was to launch a world-wide revolutionary campaign to free oppressed peoples throughout the world by bringing them republican or democratic government, beginning with a stable, consolidated Concert of Europe, with America as its guiding force, its ideological inspiration--its Trilateral Center.

Franklin and the ideological example of the American Revolution simultaneously prepared the substrate for the French Revolution that ultimately overthrew Louis XVI and crystallized into a sister republic. As soon as America gained her independence from Great Britain (with substantial French assistance), first Franklin and then Jefferson went on missions to France where they served as nuclei around which formed a latticework of interrelated or interconnected French revolutionary leaders, one of whom was Marie Joseph Paul Ives Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette, who, after fighting in the American Revolution, imported revolutionary ideology into his native France under Jefferson's guidance and inspiration.

The Trilateral Center:

Benjamin Franklin and the New World Order

I. Introduction

"This study aims to investigate the possibility of a relationship between a particular system of thought--republican ideology--and one of its component ideas, the concept of universal citizenship, and the actions of certain individuals, American and French, which catalyzed the French Revolution through the development of a universalist philosophy. The goals of this study thus are twofold: (1) to examine the role of Benjamin Franklin as an American catalyst, interacting with Frenchmen such as the Marquis de Lafayette to facilitate the coming of the French Revolution; and (2) to assess possible effects of that Gallo-American ideology on the tangentially related question of European cooperation.

In examining intellectual origins of the French Revolution, this study will focus on the factors leading up to the revolt nobiliare of 1788-89: the first, or pre-phase, of the French Revolution that occurred when France's representative body, the Estates-General, met in May 1789 for the first time since 1614. Groundwork for this was laid when Benjamin Franklin built a Gallo-American revolutionary latticework to support the American Revolution that also provided a socio-political and intellectual foundation for the French Revolution over a decade later--a superstructure that not only accelerated the socio-political forces leading to revolution in France, but also survived that society-shattering event to crystallize into a new concept of European government: the precursor for the European phase of the New World Order.

Though covering the events of the French Revolution is beyond the scope of this study, this examination will focus on the development of an idea--or rather, an idea system--and the Frenchmen and Americans who catalyzed successive steps in its formation: the process of republican reaction leading to the subsequent development of a new concept in European government."

"This study proposes that the end effects of France aiding the American Revolution were both practical and ideological: That to some French philosophes, America literally was to serve as the training ground for future French republicans, and ultimately, to serve as the Great Exemplar of Utopia, Acadia, the New Atlantis--the New World Order--the republican world that France could become once revolution overturned the Ancien Regime. And the American Revolution was a prelude to that French Revolution that was to launch a world-wide revolutionary campaign to free oppressed peoples throughout the world by bringing them republican or democratic government, beginning with a stable, consolidated Concert of Europe, with America as its guiding force, its ideological inspiration--its Trilateral Center.

During the 1770's-80's, certain Enlightened French noblemen and bourgeoisie assisted in the creation of, and then used, the United States of America as France's revolutionary outpost (and conversely, Americans like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were ready and willing to assist France in achieving its goal). The intertwining of French and American foreign affairs occurred with the blessings of prominent Enlightened Americans--particulary Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson--who enlisted the aid of the government of French King Louis XVI (specifically, the Enlightened foreign minister, the Comte de Vergennes) to gain independence for America's future Republic.

However, unknown to Louis XVI, creation of the United States was only a prelude to a chain reaction that resulted in a new French polity. Franklin and the ideological example of the American Revolution simultaneously prepared the substrate for the French Revolution that ultimately overthrew Louis XVI and crystallized into a sister republic. As soon as America gained her independence from Great Britain (with substantial French assistance), first Franklin and then Jefferson went on missions to France where they served as nuclei around which formed a latticework of interrelated or interconnected French revolutionary leaders, one of whom was Marie Joseph Paul Ives Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette, who, after fighting in the American Revolution, imported revolutionary ideology into his native France under Jefferson's guidance and inspiration. Products of the European Enlightenment, Franklin and Jefferson were station masters of France's American depot, as Lafayette was an agent of the French central station trained on the American revolutionary training ground. Seeding the revolutionary cloud was not a one-sided French venture, however. On the contrary: the seedtime of the French Revolution was during Benjamin Franklin's ministry to France--and that American was the seed-planter."

III. Benjamin Franklin, Catalyst

"A corollary antithesis to the idea of Enlightenment spreading from Europe to America is this: republican ideology moved from Britain to America to France to Europe, transmitted by American carrier-catalysts who activated the Marquis de Lafayette, the Vicomte de Mirabeau, the Brissot de Warville, and others. Whereas Enlightenment spread from Europe to America, Revolution (or the concrete example of liberty, equality, and fraternity) spread from America to Europe--the reverse of the ideological current flowing through the earlier eighteenth century.

In pre-Revolutionary France, probably the most visible trailblazer of republican ideology was Benjamin Franklin, the American minister to France from 1778 to 1785, without whose ministry the French Revolution might not have occurred when it did. But whereas the humble example of equality and fraternity he provided was American, the ideology he spread was international and cosmopolitan--which he learned from the British, as did other prominent Colonial Americans, as expressed in the language of official documents such as the "Proclamation concerning an international peace treaty" (1730) signed by Royal Colonial Governor Jonathan Belcher (1682-1757) (whom Benjamin Franklin knew and corresponded with).

This cosmopolitan/internationalist ideology was previously embraced by certain of the French nobility who frequented the court of Louis XIV, the absolutist Sun King. Frustrated by their declining influence at the Sun King's court, those nobles created their own cosmopolitan society that shaped intellectual, political, and social trends for generations, and like their English ideological counterparts, promoted the Enlightenment--debatably, one intellectual cause of the French Revolution. Society players--the nobility of the Sword and the Robe and in the latter eighteenth-century, the middle class (bourgeoisie)--discussed philosophic, religious, and political ideas. This French "high society" was led by a few powerful members--chiefly the Duc de Saint-Simon, Duc de la Rochefoucauld, and the Duc de Noailles (President of the Council of Finances)--whose ideal form of government was British constitutional monarchy, and whose chief organizer was Saint-Simon's relative, the Comte de Boulainvilliers. The "civic religion" he promoted became the new ideological watchword of Enlightened nobles such as the Noailles family, the in-laws of the Marquis de Lafayette, during the reign of Louis XVI. The home of the Baron d'Holbach and the Paris salon of the Duc de la Rochefoucauld's mother became gathering places for future French Revolutionary figures such as Lafayette, Rochefoucauld himself, and Condorcet (a French philosopher, or philosophe, who was raised by the Duc de Rouchefaucauld as his own son). Whereas D'Holbach's Coterie--whose philosophy of liberty, equality, religious tolerance, and checks on the monarchy was propagated by philosophe-members Voltaire, d'Alembert, Diderot, Condorcet, and La Close--lacked sufficient means to produce the Revolution itself, their civic religion merely completed the process of ushering in republican government that was begun by certain of the nobility and the bourgeoisie."

Here we have the primary political objectives of both the Capitalist and Marxist published in the United States in 1899 by a member of the US Establishment, the American Peace Society president Dr. Benjamin F. Trueblood. What Trueblood does not mention in the article is that much, if not the vast majority, of the 'mixing' of peoples and cultures tending towards their destruction, was a direct result of the variant of slavery known as 'cheap labor'. Cheap labor itself is central to the ideology of Multi-Culturalism.

"We said that the great cause had found voice in Boston, and had also found a book. It is a singular good fortune by which at this precise moment appears Dr. Trueblood's book on "The Federation of the World." Dr. Trueblood's services in America for the cause of peace and international fraternity have been immense. "The Advocate of Peace," which he edits with such distinguished ability, ought to be every month on the table of every thoughtful man in the country, whatever else is there or is not there. His pamphlets on the history of arbitration and related subjects are the best which there are. No other translations of Kant's "Eternal Peace" is so good as his. But in this little book (Houghton, Mifflin and Company, Boston, $1.00) he covers the whole ground in brief. The ten chapters treat: The Solidarity of Humanity, Solidarity Unrealized, The Causes of the Disunity, The Development of the War System, The Influence of Christianity in restoring the Federative Principle, War Ethically Wrong, War Anti-Federative, The New World Society, The Growing Triumph of Arbitration, and The United States of the World. An appendix contains the Czar's rescript, calling for the conference on reduction of armaments; and seven pages are given to a bibliography of the most important publications relating to the federation of the world. We wish that it were possible to illustrate here, by passages from sucessive chapters, the broad range, the wisdom and the vitality of this timely book; but this is not here possible. One pregnant passage from the striking chapter on "The United States of the World" we give, as an interesting forecast of the steps by which the better organization of the world may ultimately come about:

"Along what lines the movement toward this general world government will take place it is not easy to forecast, except in a general way. Two or three courses are open, any one or all of which may be followed. The United States of America may in time become really such. The very name seems to be prophetic. Canada, Mexico, and Central America may some day of their own accord, ask to be admitted into a federal union with the United States. In time a great South American republic of republics may be formed, through some movement or groups of movements akin to that already taking place among the Central American states and the British Australian colonies. Then may follow a federation of the two American continents. The United States of Europe, so long dreamed of and written of by European reformers, seem today but the shadow of a name; but whoever remembers the history of the consolidation of France and Italy, or Germany, or the still more remarkable history of the consolidation of the Swiss cantons composed of peoples of different races, speaking different languages, into a coherant national federation, will not say that a United States of Europe is an impossibility. On the contrary, the whole course of the modern history of nation building foreshadows a European federation. The continent of Asia may some day have a like transformation; and that of Africa, too, renewed at last by a Christian civilization; and that of Australia before either of them, if one may judge from the federative tendencies already showing themselves between the colonies there. If this should prove to be the way in which the world state is to work itself out, the islands of the sea will group themselves in with the continental federations where they naturally belong. At last these continental federations will flow together into a great world federation, the final political destiny of humanity, where all the larger hopes of love and fellowship, of peace and happy prosperity lie. I do not pretend to assert that the actual order of movement will be as here outlined, but only that this is a possible, perhaps a probable order in which the federation of the world will come, at least in part. This forecast is in harmony with actual historic processes now working, and having for generations worked, at several points in civilized society."

"Another course is possible. A great racial federation, as of the Anglo-Saxon people, may come first, with its centres of agglomeration in all parts of the world, which will gather to itself by an irresistable moral gravitation all other peoples. Racial federation is already playing its part very powerfully in the processes of civilization. Several races, it is true, are exhibiting, in greater or less degree, kindred phenomena. But racial distinctions are in many respects beginning to break down, because of the intermingling of peoples in all quarters of the globe. What may be styled the universal human characteristics, those belonging to the one race of man lying at the basis of all sub-races, are destined thus more and more to come to the front as against those whose which have marked off one portion of mankind from another. That race, whichever it may prove to be, which develops these general human characteristics most fully and most rapidly, and throws off most completely all that is adventitious and unessential, will, in the nature of the case, prove to be the nucleus or furnish the nuclei about which civilization in all parts of the world will crystallize. Men will not care at last by what racial name they are called, or what language they speak, provided their higher interests of every kind are served. They will feel it more noble to be men and to speak the one universal language of men than to be Englishmen or Germans or Frenchmen, and to speak any of these great tongues. Whatever race shall prove itself fittest to lead in this federative process, whether the Anglo-Saxon, as now seems possible, or some other, will itself be modified, purified, and strengthened for its work as the final world race by what it receives from the races which it draws to itself, and even from those which through weakness shall finally be eliminated."

Dr. Trueblood's book is the book of books for the crusade which is now being inaugurated among us; and it should be circulated by the thousands. It is a book of hope and confidence. After all the long and dark survey of history and sober estimate of present facts, the last word is the word of one to whom the federation of the world is already in sight; and we can close with no better word: "The great idea of a world federation in some form has gotten clearly into men's minds. It is too powerful, too attractive and inspiring to be resisted. All obstacles to its realization will be broken down, if not tomorrow, then afterwards. How soon, will depend largely on the purpose, the intelligence, the heart, which those already possessed of the great idea shall put into the work of reconstructing and reorganizing humanity on a world basis."

Article published by Dr. Trueblood in 1899 referencing Czar Nicholas's II international peace conference at The Hague that same year. What it says about economics somehow bringing peace sounds very familiar, a nice way of what seems to be trying to say that greed should be the basis of the world order. Not surprisingly in that light, the very next year it would be proposed that the wealthy industrialist Andrew Carnegie be Dr. Trueblood's vice president of the peace society.**


"By repeating with every possible variation, that labor and exchange are the law of the world, that therein are only found the happiness of peoples and the greatness of states, economists have everywhere propagated ideas promotive of peace." Dr Benjamin F. Trueblood

Accounts published in the United States on March 6, 1794 regarding events then taking place in France. What is it with the fascination these proto-reds, even then, have with dead bodies and quick lime?

The defection of Marseilles soon produced that of Lyons. This important city became the central point of the counter revolution in the South...

Her [Queen Antoinette's] beautiful hair from behind was entirely cut off & her hands were tied behind her back...On her right, upon the cart, was seated the executioner...A young man who dipped his pocket handkerchief in the Queen's blood and pressed it with veneratio