No mention of the founding fathers being lying muslims because of their secret oaths - is I think the double standard i was trying to get you to acknowledge
Oh, I'll be happy to go there, especially in Conspiracies. The founding fathers who were Masons had some secret goals that are included in our Great Seal and that continue Masonic purposes. Judging by their acts (the same way I judge Trump), they accomplished much good and God used them in spite of their religious issues. Plus, the actual oaths taken had not acquired the much deeper character that evidences Masonic oaths today, but that's ultimately irrelevant. George Washington cannot be accorded 100% approval because of this blot; but he did so many things well (unlike other secret swearers) that we recognize God's hand in putting him there in spite of himself.
If I were to spin the conspiracy theory, we have (1) America was founded not just to become a model republic but also to have backdoors to allow the actual satanists to "build" (masonry) in the misleading name of "religious liberty", as shown in their neo-Greek statuary including Washington as Zeus, and the apotheosis of Washington among 13 virgins in the capital dome art; (2) These backdoors allowed the two Banks of the United States, which by God's grace Andrew Jackson won against but which diverted their resources into overpowering influence in the 1850s; (3) Many Masons, and many Jews, and some others such as bankers worked closely together to create the Civil War conditions such that South Carolina would be tempted into following the example of Lexington and Concord except that it would backfire on them that time (evidence in Chiniquy, and in public Masonic codebooks, and in anti-Mason literature to the degree its facts can be verified); (4) Skipping the Fed and WWI-II, it's clear that many Masons and others have exploited liberty to create the world's largest-ever trafficking network (including abortion) and that the government has never restrained it, Rev. 18; (5) It's not clear that MAGA necessarily will succeed in dismantling the satanic work utterly as opposed to ripping off expired superstructures as satan is always prepared to do (his new sacrificial virgins), which is why I've said before Trump arrived that the current beast will eventually (always) be replaced by a worse beast until our Lord comes. The question is how much true believers can get done during their respite before the next crisis, which is why I operate here.
I appreciate your pointing out perceived double standards, it keeps me sharp! (I would also appreciate, and remind myself, that we both want to work on collegiality as students comparing notes. I suppose my view on cyclic catastrophes has made it hard for me to do that lately.)
unless you like them, in which case God is using their masonry for good
Why doesn’t this apply to Carlson again? Because masons became extra super duper evil at some point after the founding of America? Because you don’t like how his research points towards timescales > 6,000 years? It’s not clear to me any objective difference between carlsons masonry (which is a strike against listening to what he has to say) and the masonry of the masons you do like.
(I would also appreciate, and remind myself, that we both want to work on collegiality as students comparing notes. I suppose my view on cyclic catastrophes has made it hard for me to do that lately.)
Agreed, hence my seeking clarity on the notion that the guys who I get my notes from are evil muslims, and associating that with me (guilt by association much?) while plenty of guys who you get your notes from are “tools of God, in spite of themselves”
God is using everyone's Masonic ties for good, just as he uses the evil intents of ten Israelis for good (Gen. 50:20). And yes, I count credible evidence that a person has taken a secret oath as a "strike" meaning a grain of salt to be taken as seasoning in their presentation. There are some horrid secret oaths out there, but even many legal NDAs that are comparatively innocuous have the same problem. A human should be accountable to swear in public what he has sworn in private, or public swearing becomes jeopardized (like "swearing on a stack of Bibles", which Obama literally did, long story there). And yes, there's evidence that Masons got an influx of power in that period around 1800.
Now the only reason I brought that up was that if I get two of my red flags right next to each other, it's only fair for me to let you know I find those two a significant (not necessarily probative) part of the evidence, even if you disagree with my holding. The research itself stands or falls on its own, and since I've already given many objections to it separately I was trying a different method in this thread and seeing what I could affirm; but I thought it necessary to give you fair warning of what I saw. For that reason I'm not going to go into the evidence about events over 6,000 years ago, because it's not a matter of likes but of objective analysis that I've already published. I just said that Washington and Carlson and Muhammad should be judged on the whole of what they did, and if the judgment is that one made one mistake and another made many mistakes then that's not a double standard, because it's based on the whole of the evidence.
Nor did I associate any of this with you except for light allusion to your credulity, which is your own decision and not someone else's.
TLDR: Good sources are determined by the whole of their testimony in word and action, as any conspiracist should agree.
To return, I think the point ought to be that there's no problem with regarding God's symbol of bull, ram, fish, man (and the others) as significant primary indicators, nor with regarding his earth-shaking events as aligning with beginning of Taurus, end of Taurus, and beginning of Aquarius (garden, flood, tribulation rapture). This might inform why Carlson wants to see in the selected data other conjunctions with eight cardinal points in the precession cycle. But I reserve the right to say "Lincoln's secretary wasn't Kennedy" when the joke goes too far. And when we get to predictive power, I should have said the model predicts either extinction of civilization and perhaps life, or nothing happening different, or mass awakening to greater reality. And that's like the doctor who predicts the disease will either get worse, stay the same, or get better. So I seek models with the greatest explanatory and predictive power ....
No mention of the founding fathers being lying muslims because of their secret oaths - is I think the double standard i was trying to get you to acknowledge
Oh, I'll be happy to go there, especially in Conspiracies. The founding fathers who were Masons had some secret goals that are included in our Great Seal and that continue Masonic purposes. Judging by their acts (the same way I judge Trump), they accomplished much good and God used them in spite of their religious issues. Plus, the actual oaths taken had not acquired the much deeper character that evidences Masonic oaths today, but that's ultimately irrelevant. George Washington cannot be accorded 100% approval because of this blot; but he did so many things well (unlike other secret swearers) that we recognize God's hand in putting him there in spite of himself.
If I were to spin the conspiracy theory, we have (1) America was founded not just to become a model republic but also to have backdoors to allow the actual satanists to "build" (masonry) in the misleading name of "religious liberty", as shown in their neo-Greek statuary including Washington as Zeus, and the apotheosis of Washington among 13 virgins in the capital dome art; (2) These backdoors allowed the two Banks of the United States, which by God's grace Andrew Jackson won against but which diverted their resources into overpowering influence in the 1850s; (3) Many Masons, and many Jews, and some others such as bankers worked closely together to create the Civil War conditions such that South Carolina would be tempted into following the example of Lexington and Concord except that it would backfire on them that time (evidence in Chiniquy, and in public Masonic codebooks, and in anti-Mason literature to the degree its facts can be verified); (4) Skipping the Fed and WWI-II, it's clear that many Masons and others have exploited liberty to create the world's largest-ever trafficking network (including abortion) and that the government has never restrained it, Rev. 18; (5) It's not clear that MAGA necessarily will succeed in dismantling the satanic work utterly as opposed to ripping off expired superstructures as satan is always prepared to do (his new sacrificial virgins), which is why I've said before Trump arrived that the current beast will eventually (always) be replaced by a worse beast until our Lord comes. The question is how much true believers can get done during their respite before the next crisis, which is why I operate here.
I appreciate your pointing out perceived double standards, it keeps me sharp! (I would also appreciate, and remind myself, that we both want to work on collegiality as students comparing notes. I suppose my view on cyclic catastrophes has made it hard for me to do that lately.)
So, from this im getting that
being a mason is a strike against someone
unless you like them, in which case God is using their masonry for good
Why doesn’t this apply to Carlson again? Because masons became extra super duper evil at some point after the founding of America? Because you don’t like how his research points towards timescales > 6,000 years? It’s not clear to me any objective difference between carlsons masonry (which is a strike against listening to what he has to say) and the masonry of the masons you do like.
Agreed, hence my seeking clarity on the notion that the guys who I get my notes from are evil muslims, and associating that with me (guilt by association much?) while plenty of guys who you get your notes from are “tools of God, in spite of themselves”
God is using everyone's Masonic ties for good, just as he uses the evil intents of ten Israelis for good (Gen. 50:20). And yes, I count credible evidence that a person has taken a secret oath as a "strike" meaning a grain of salt to be taken as seasoning in their presentation. There are some horrid secret oaths out there, but even many legal NDAs that are comparatively innocuous have the same problem. A human should be accountable to swear in public what he has sworn in private, or public swearing becomes jeopardized (like "swearing on a stack of Bibles", which Obama literally did, long story there). And yes, there's evidence that Masons got an influx of power in that period around 1800.
Now the only reason I brought that up was that if I get two of my red flags right next to each other, it's only fair for me to let you know I find those two a significant (not necessarily probative) part of the evidence, even if you disagree with my holding. The research itself stands or falls on its own, and since I've already given many objections to it separately I was trying a different method in this thread and seeing what I could affirm; but I thought it necessary to give you fair warning of what I saw. For that reason I'm not going to go into the evidence about events over 6,000 years ago, because it's not a matter of likes but of objective analysis that I've already published. I just said that Washington and Carlson and Muhammad should be judged on the whole of what they did, and if the judgment is that one made one mistake and another made many mistakes then that's not a double standard, because it's based on the whole of the evidence.
Nor did I associate any of this with you except for light allusion to your credulity, which is your own decision and not someone else's.
TLDR: Good sources are determined by the whole of their testimony in word and action, as any conspiracist should agree.
To return, I think the point ought to be that there's no problem with regarding God's symbol of bull, ram, fish, man (and the others) as significant primary indicators, nor with regarding his earth-shaking events as aligning with beginning of Taurus, end of Taurus, and beginning of Aquarius (garden, flood, tribulation rapture). This might inform why Carlson wants to see in the selected data other conjunctions with eight cardinal points in the precession cycle. But I reserve the right to say "Lincoln's secretary wasn't Kennedy" when the joke goes too far. And when we get to predictive power, I should have said the model predicts either extinction of civilization and perhaps life, or nothing happening different, or mass awakening to greater reality. And that's like the doctor who predicts the disease will either get worse, stay the same, or get better. So I seek models with the greatest explanatory and predictive power ....
Oh, you’ve finished watching the videos I’ve linked?
Or is it like the scientist who says “the evidence pattern indicates there will be earthquakes soon, but if you prepare then you can minimize the senseless loss of life” who then gets silenced/ignored for retarded reasons?