Paine's royalist detractors took his staying at a couple's residence while in Paris as opportunity to slander him. You fall prey to their machinations. Have you read his personal letters to his wife? No you have not.
Either way, the fact he was very close to Bonneville is much worse than the supposed debauchery. Bonneville was a revolutionary proto-socialist, a freemason and an illuminist (his Cercle Social and Amis de la Verite).
The cabal toppled some royals and not others to usurp the power as their own. It was a cabalist who told me they were monarchists, not that I needed him to say it.
Sure, there's black aristocracy left from the old world. Don't let me defend them - they have betrayed their people and serve Satan along with the transhumanist technocrats. They operate within the framework of the NWO and aren't monarchists at all. They are very happy as internationalists, globalists and socialists. In fact they're it's opposite and make a mockery of the monarchical institution just like modern skittles churches make a mockery of Christianity.
You have no idea of the history of the revolutionary ideas that have led to today's NWO (or you do and you are pleased with how things are going). I recommend you read Billington's book who's a librarian of congress and an Ivy league prof. - he's a supporter of the revolutionary new world order, so he's on your side and has no monarchist bias.
I'm of the line of VonHaderschot, who were orignators of the so-called Bavarian Illuminatti (Home base for the cabal of the past) nd know its history well.
Makes sense. You espouse their ideas too. The irony of saying I have no place here when you're of illuminati lineage...
Dude, calm down. I don't know her story but knowing how many of those girls were groomed and trafficked early on I'd rather give her the benefit of the doubt than cast the first stone. I'm willing to bet she was a victim of SRA.
I don't excuse prostitution and degeneracy. Stop channeling Andrew Tate with this pathetic performative pseudo-masculine behavior, it's cringe.
The globalist transhumanists were inspired by that depiction, that's the point. No one knows what the actual tower looked like.
consider the size of the people that made it
What would their size be? This is after the flood so it was made by people like me and you.
Tower of Babel was the size of a continent
That's ridiculous. No human structure can have such a massive scale. It was a huge pyramid/zuggurat that symbolized man's ascend to the heavens and dethroning God. This is why it was destroyed by Him and why we see similar temples all over the world among different cultures. Common to all of them was human sacrifice which is what the original Babylonian temples were used for.
This is why Planned Parenthood HQ is a stylized pyramid/ziggurat too. There are no coincidences and this symbolism is very ancient and deliberate.
It was a ziggurat so it was closer to the size of a large pyramid.
Either way, scale is not important. It's what it symbolizes.
I've red Paine's Common Sense. He was a degenerate liberal living in a menage a trois in Paris (source: Fire in the Minds of Men: Origin of the revolutionary faith by J. Billington). But so were most of the founding daddies who were influenced by both the girondin and jacobin faction of the French revolutionaries. I'm not saying the US never had good people as leaders (I think Andrew Jackson is a great example), but it's wrong from the outset due to foundational philosophical problems of the project.
How about Nancy Pelosi as your king? How about King Biden, drooling on the throne? What a joke.
The joke is that those leaders are the logical consequence of the system you support. These types of globalist technocratic goblins aren't to be found in the monarchy I described. But either way, having a bad leader or a monarch doesn't invalidate the system. Sure there were weak and corrupted monarchs and still it's a better system than a secular freemasonic republic or a democracy.
Tell us who is to remove the despotic monarch.
The aristocracy and contenders to the throne. Still much easier done than removing a psychopathic and tyrannical technocratic Big Brother government that's been institutionalized and cemented in all spheres of society. We've been under the control of that system for centuries now (or at least since WWII). When was the last time a despotic monarch ruled for 80 years?
The cabal are monarchists. You're obviously simp-pathetic to their cause and are a glow-worm who doesn't belong here.
Lol sure. This is why they toppled the monarchies with their masonic talmudic revolutions and we're constantly force fed propaganda about how great democracy is and how bad absolute power is (your arguments are textbook examples of that propaganda). We surely live in an evil monarchist world and not in a "Liberty, equality, fraternity" freemasonic NWO. The very idea of it being called a new world order is to set it in opposition to the old world order which was based ruled by the Church and the monarchy.
But don't let common sense, countless books on the topic (at least read the Protocols maybe) and history get in the way of your narrative - we all just need to double down on the thing that got us in this clown world in the first place, which is revolutionary emancipation, liberalism and individualism, and we'll get there!
You should rename yourself 2EyesWideShut
She was probably trafficked as a child. Hope you get to experience what she did.
Yes they did. Cholesterol is essential for testosterone production along with Vit D. It's easy to see why they did that.
An action taken in history is not an ideological position.
Your ideological position is to be proud (that's in first person) of that action taken in history because it was done by white men, dumbass.
Thanks for the strawman and goalpost moving.
How's that a strawman? You insisted to be proud that white men walked the moon. Those same white men happened to be freemasons and employed by NASA which is a deep state institution involved in Crowleyan ritual magick.I dare you to dispute any of this.
Aren’t you proud of no longer beating your wife?
Again with the wife beating? Why are you projecting your degeneracy on me you twat?
Maybe. Does that prevent him from making good investments?
Great. Now we have to get clear who decides what works and who is "us"?
A monarchist will nearly always find a need to control the church and religions or vice-versa, as occurred in both world wars, as well as countless times in prior history.
Yes, in the West this was the case but this was after the schism and after the papacy became a geopolitical power in its own right and rivaled against the monarchs for power.
In the East there was no rivalry between Church and state because the model was different. Both institutions had their respective roles and the roles but the state itself wasn't secular but confessional because the people and the aristocracy were Christian (Orthodox). This meant the empire was unified in creed and worldview, and had a cohesive community.
Our founding fathers knew better than to attempt to weld two powers that were impossible to remove, hence the 'separation of church and state' and 'freedom of religion' that stipulates a ban on both oppression of religion and the establishing of a state religion.
Yes, that would be the instutionalization of pluralism and liberalism. But is that a good thing? You can see the fruits such propositions bear. And still people wonder why people in the US can't agree on anything and are divided? Maybe because the whole project is based on individualism, liberalism and pluralism? Not to mention that religion itself is inseparable from government. Every person holds religious believes and it's inevitable that they'll influence their decision making. It's very naive to assume people can be Christians or freemasons in their private life, but somehow when they become presidents, it all of a sudden stops being relevant? Not only this doesn't happen but it's illogical to expect it.
Sharia law or an equivalent is the very thing we as a democracy now fight.
Last time I checked, most western democracies facilitated the immigration of millions of muslims and gave them free reign under the rights of religion, expression and free speech. How can democracy fight anything when it has to be accepting of it by virtue of being a democracy? Do you realize there's internal contradiction in that system? Karl Popper called it the paradox of tolerance but it's no paradox at all - it's a built in self-destructing logic because democracies can't guard themselves against any majority - be it Christian nationalists, muslims, communists or fascists.
An unremovable principality is absolute power and complete power corrupts absolutely.
That's a cliche that has aged like milk. There's nothing inherent about holding power that makes a government corrupt. What makes it corrupt is the corrupt ideas behind it. As if cutting the power in small pieces makes the system less corruptible? On the contrary - such compartmentalization makes it ripe for the creation of a technocratic deep state that can centrally control the smaller offices of power and be way more corrupted than an absolute monarch or a dictator. Case in point - the NWO after WWII.
It never happened and it never will. The true Church will stand the gates of hell and to the end of times as the gospels teach us. The processes you mention are problems within the sects who are outside the Body of Christ (since they're not the Eastern Orthodox Church).
Sure, liberals, freemasons, ecumenists and modernists attempt to infiltrate and subvert the Church sure but it's grounded in tradition, dogma and the Church fathers - it's not susceptible to modernization in any way. Its teachings have remained unchanged for the past 2000 years and it will always remain the same, because the word of our Lord is unchanging.
Today what the true Church is is more obvious than ever just by looking at what the supposed "Churches" teach: Rome, the anglicans and most of the protestants are pro skittles, pro immigration, pro globalism, pro climate change, pro ecumenism (receptive of other religions), pro vaxx, pro feminism (female preachers, deacons and bishops) - they are completely aligned with the NWO agenda which is antichristian and satanic.
This is what makes Eastern Orthodoxy unique because while Roman Catholicism also lays claim to tradition and apostolic succession, it has deviated and "evolved" their doctrines, structure and faith from the Early Church of the time of the Apostles (that we see in Acts and Epistles), becoming a worldly geopolitical power. Just think about it - a few centuries back Rome was fighting crusades against the muslim and today the Pope prays in a mosque towards Mecca and issues documents stating the jews, muslims and hindus worship the same God as Christians and all are on the path to salvation. Rome forbids the conversion of jews. They bless same sex couples. Should I even go on? This is absolutely ridiculous and it invalidates the whole RC Church.
Or what if the monarch is bribed?
Bribes don't work on monarchs when they control the economy and finances of the country. A good Christian monarch is a servant of the people and takes care of his flock because he aspires to be like Christ Himself, who is the King of kings. But they are still human and susceptible to bad influence, moral degradation, decadence, etc. The good thing about it is that they still can be replaced because there's always someone waiting to inherit the throne. Sure you get weak monarchs from time to time but you also get great ones. In the freemasonic dual party system (or in any democracy for that matter) you only get pawns of the Deep State because everyone who is preselected and groomed to be a leader is compromised and kept on a leash. The ultimate power never lies in the official leaders - it's all a facade built on marketing schemes.
Dual eagled monarchy aka symphonia where Church and state have unique roles in the governance and the monarch himself assumes a minor clerical office (a deacon). Thus state policy is influenced by the Church and its moral teachings.
A historical example would be the Byzantine empire which is the longest standing empire in history. It coincided with the golden age of the Orthodox Catholic Church and the ecumenical councils where the orthodox faith was dogmatized (this is the true Chruch before the falling away of Rome; it is now known as the Eastern Orthodox Church).
Or maybe Trump is a good businessmen and knows BTC is a good investment? He knows that if the US doesn't buy BTC and continues going into fiat debt, El Salvador will be ahead of them in 10-20 years.
If I find an article of Trump endorsing gold will you say the same about it?
That's not a good argument. Kubrick had just filmed Space Odyssey 2001 and it looked more convincing than the moon landing.
Reported for having multiple accounts and upvoting your posts through them.
You’ve already conceded that the white man walked on the surface of the Moon.
Your ideological position is retarded. Being proud of the NWO government sending freemasonic puppets to the moon (probably didn't happen) is like being proud of "white men" dropping a nuclear bomb over Japan. "But we did it first guys!" It just shows where your allegiance lies. Did you know that white men also made the covid gmo vaccine? Aren't you proud of that?
The founding daddies wouldn't approve that. They presupposed voting in their freemasonic enlightened republic. You complaining about free speech suppression and suggesting democracy be suspended is a contradiction.
This just in: The Deep State began operating in 1971. Why exactly then? Because fuck you, that's why.
Apollo 17 supposedly landed on Dec 1972 but that's because they were still new at conspiring against people going to the moon. The jews upped their game after that and not a single white goy has set foot on the moon and not a single 'Murican flag was planted in the desolate Hollywood studio...I mean moonscape.
Source: a genius with multiple accounts on a conspiracy forum.
This explains Pythagorean Music of the spheres.
WOW! SO, LIKE, IF THERE WAS A SINGLE GLOBAL AUTHORITY THAT SAID “DO NOT GO BACK TO SPACE” WAS A RULE, THEY COULD… MAKE THAT RULE? AND PEOPLE WOULD OBEY IT? BECAUSE THEY HAD THE MOST POWER? WOWIE ZOWIE! I WISH SOMEONE IN THIS CONVERSATION HAD SAID THIS ALREADY!
I love the goalpost move. When did that global authority became a thing? Was it not active in 1969-1970 when the US allegedly sent people to the moon? How come they allowed the Apollo missions and later banned anyone going back?
The more you talk, the more you're digging yourself in a hole.
No. Dipshit. It wasn’t. It was me proving to you that everyone agreed to ban it for the same reason chemical and biological weapons are banned. Because they are banned. You are physically incapable of denying this.
Let's unpack. I wrote:
If they truly did it 60 years ago, we'd see numerous moon bases and satellites all over it by now. Just think of the military superiority that would come from controlling the moon - what, you think that the Pentagon, Russia and China would spare resources to get the upper hand?
You answered sarcastically:
also it makes no sense not to weaponize space because every country regularly uses chemical and biological weapons on each other and there’s absolutely no way anyone would simply agree to ban them from use because… uh…
Then I countered that:
International law has banned a lot of things that are currently going on, do you realize that? There is no stupid ban or law that will prevent a world power to do as it pleases if it's geopolitically beneficial and viable to do so. This is what power means. This includes not only setting military bases anywhere, but also use of biological and nuclear weapons or committing genocide.
And you still didn't get it. The point I made was that no one could forbid a global power to go and set moon bases. Even if everyone agrees to ban this, it could still be violated just like the other instances of international law violations that are happening. Only a complete tool like yourself thinks that banning something prevents it from happening. Who is going to enforce the ban, genius? If the US decides to build a military base as part of their Full Spectrum Dominance strategy, who is gonna stop them? Pakistan? It's not that hard - those who hold the most power can make or break the rules. Tell me you're not that stupid and you get this at least.
I'm sorry I doubted you may be a fedboy - you're clearly a retard and a troll.
??? tradition as the source of scripture?
Scripture is a liturgical document. It didn't grow on a tree. It was written by many divinely inspired authors within the tradition and compiled and preserved by the Church that you deny, so that it can arrive comfortably in your hands 2000 years later. Early Christians didn't have the Bible - if understand this you can no longer be protestant because that leads to Sola Scriptura being false.
Listen to this short excerpt on the subject: https://youtu.be/LZDaB5wT40E?t=4417
My understanding is shared by others, it's not just me.
Except when it's not and your believes contradict. No way to determine who's correct because everyone has equal authority and is equally inspired by the Spirit, or at least you have to assume that. You realize historically protestants brutally killed each other for centuries over such disagreements, right?
It's bad to deny the power of the Holy Spirit. It's possible to "have a form of godliness but deny the power thereof". So simply don't deny the transformative powers that scripture clearly lays out.
Strawman. I never denied the power of the Holy Spirit who normatively works through the Church. Christ teachus us that there is no salvation outside of His Church (the Ark of salvation, the Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ). This is completely scriptural and orthodox.
Christianity is lived, communal, sacramental and participatory. It's not an abstract intellectual idea or a book you read on your own. You only know Christ by participating in His uncreated divine energies and being part of His Church (by baptism and eating His body and drinking His blood - the eucharist).
It's cool you're so enthusiastic about NASA and freemasonry. Your heart is in the right place.
Because their idea of an enlightened democratic republic is satanic and revolutionary. Those people were degenerate psychopaths, communists and occultist luciferians. They opposed the Christian world order that ruled the West since the fall of pagan Rome. Naturally, the status quo of the old world order wasn't pleased with those plans and prosecuted the conspirators.
There we go. I thought with all your sophistication you'd see right to the cabal's psy ops but alas you fell for it. I've never been to the US and I don't need to go to Babylon, thank you. Temple, really? Can you be even more freemasonic than this?
Let's see what the Protocols say about democracy, liberalism and republicanism and the revolutions that toppled the old monarchies brought the NWO about.
All of the above has come to pass, proving this was indeed the plan of the cabal. Yet here you are defending republicanism and democracy while admitting you are descended from illuminists. I think I know where you stand.