Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Is the Statue of Liberty Masonic?

page: 10
8
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 08:45 PM
link   
It doesnt help to say "masonic". One who is a freemason tends to show a deeper interest in philosophy and metaphysics. So, "masonic" just refers to the organization in which people study ancient philosophy (not freemasonic philosophy) and metaphysics.

The statue of liberty doesnt have to be a 'pagan' statue of any particular deity. One could argue that todays 'deities' are somewhat different, if even they share some core similarities with ancient pagan deities.

A deity is really just the concretization and representation of an idea, or principle which one considers worthy of worship. Hence the biblical admonition against such 'lowly' and 'idolatrous' behavior.

Thus, if i were to explain the statue of liberty, i would have to say that she corresponds more to Ishtar, then to the goddess Diana (as is often said)

Ishtar represented the complete liberation (hence statue of liberty) of man from his surroundings; from law, from civilization. Hence, the cult of Ishtar often involved gross acts of sexual immorality, like orgies, homosexuality etc.

Ishtar could be described as the personification of the 'unconscious'; as the divine mother, the black darkness and chaos that precedes the 'light'. Hence, Ishtar was oft associated with an 8 pointed star. 7 corresponds to the physical, while 8 transcends the physical, and so corresponds to the unconscious; or the "mother", anima mundi.

Here, the statue of liberty has a 7 pointed starred crown on her head. The '8th' could be said to be the torch in her hand, representing the 'light of freedom'.

In anycase, the very fact that it is a statue and symbol relates it to pagan ideations.




posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 04:28 AM
link   


I have a friend whom I met on this site who built a brick house and made a plumb, square, and level in the brickwork to let future generations of people who pay attention that he was a mason. He didn't do it to take over the world or even his neighborhood. If there is a grand masonic scheme to rule the world, then we suck at it. The world is in piss poor shape.

You should know homes are no symbols.




The world is in piss poor shape.

It is because of the people who run it, it's what they want, people to suffer, to work hard so they can build the enerprise, the enterprise in the NWO. Who would want to be part of it if everybody had what they wanted.
Unity comes when things go wrong, as an excuse to make things better, it's why they mingle with nations with the IMF to put people in debt to make it harder and harder. It's no conspiracy theory.



edit on 20-6-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 

For your reading pleasure:


French freemasons of the 18th century were, in the main, aristocrats, priests, military officers or bourgeoisie. They were not in sympathy with radical social change. A growing belief that a ruler governed by right of the people and not by right of God provided a backdrop for much of the French Revolution. Whatever the actions of individual freemasons, Freemasonry as a whole was indifferent to politics.

SOURCE


reply to post by pepsi78
 

Sounds like scapegoating to me.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   


For your reading pleasure:

French freemasons of the 18th century were, in the main, aristocrats, priests, military officers or bourgeoisie. They were not in sympathy with radical social change. A growing belief that a ruler governed by right of the people and not by right of God provided a backdrop for much of the French Revolution. Whatever the actions of individual freemasons, Freemasonry as a whole was indifferent to politics.

1 Stop posting from masonic sites, it favors your side view.
2 That is a bunch of hogwash. They hated the ruling party with all their hearts.
3 If you mean after the 3rd republic then yes, but that just proves my point because it's after 3rd republic where they got what they wanted. French 3rd repbulic begins from 1870 meaning you are incorect.

Now let me prove you otherwise.

Freemasonry is at the core of the french revolution participated into the french revolution, they wanted the change, liberty but after the revolution napoleon III saw to it and imposed strict rules even if the french revolution had made some changes, it was not until the 3rd republic that they got what they wanted, in other words the french revolution served as a state hit and masons were crossed, instead they got a severe dictatorship.



en.wikipedia.org...
In France Napoleon III established a dictatorship over official French Freemasonry, appointing first Prince Lucien Murat and later Marshal Magnan to closely supervise the craft and suppress any hints of opposition to the regime.



Here you go:


www.neatorama.com...
Bartholdi spent the next five months traveling around the U.S. and getting support for the statue. Then he went back to France, where the government of Emperor Napoléon III (Napoléon Bonaparte’s nephew) was openly hostile to the democratic and republican ideals celebrated by the Statue of Liberty. They would have jailed him if he’d spoken of the project openly – so Bartholdi kept a low profile until 1874, when the Third Republic was proclaimed after Napoléon III’s defeat in the Franco-Russian Prussian War.

Meaning if such symbol was ever to get out public they would be hung, If napoleon found out about the making of the statue of Liberty Lady there would of been a high price to pay by fellow masons alike
It was why the designer of the statue kept it hidden until the coming of the 3rd republic,he was afraid of being persecuted.


The coming of the 3rd republic.


The Grand Orient was instrumental in the founding of the left wing Republican Party.[19]
The Grand Orient was implicated in the Affaire Des Fiches, where it was accused of collecting[20] and holding information on the religious and political affiliation of army officers, passed on by a member of the government,[21] having been collected with the intention of blocking practicing Catholics and non-Republicans from further advancement.[22]



The desire to separate from the curch, what they wanted.


Separation of Church and State

The Grand Orient advanced the concept of Laïcité, a French concept of the separation of church and state and the absence of religious interference in government affairs.[23] In the 1930s the Grand Orient was still hostile to Church interests, wishing to close private schools (which were predominantly Catholic), or failing that to reintroduce an insistence that only state schools could provide civil servants.[24]

This dislike of religious participation is still an official policy of the Grand Orient de France today.[25] The Grand Orient de France is concerned about a 'silent revolution' of a return of religion in society.[26] It is openly hostile to granting the right of expression and practice to movements elsewhere recognized as religions in the European Union, which it calls "cults" (sectes). It advocates government action against (according to its own terms) an 'offensive of cults in Europe'.[27] In April 2008, when the legitimacy of the anti-cult ministerial group (MIVILUDES) was questioned, the Great Master of the Order Jean-Michel Quillardet intervened personally with the President of the French parliament in order to maintain its activity.[28]



We find out that:


The Lodge Les Neuf Sœurs was a prominent lodge attached to the Grand Orient de France that was particularly influential in organising French support for the American Revolution and later in the intellectual ferment that preceded the French Revolution. Benjamin Franklin was a member of this Lodge when he was serving as liaison in Paris.


And that..


The Lodge Les Neuf Sœurs was a prominent lodge attached to the Grand Orient de France that was particularly influential in organising French support for the American Revolution and later in the intellectual ferment that preceded the French Revolution. Benjamin Franklin was a member of this Lodge when he was serving as liaison in Paris.


Meaning the french masons played a role in the american revolution, meaning the icon of liberty lady came from the masons. It can be shown in masonic art at that time, she is depicted in it. There is plenty of masonic art work with her in it before the 3rd repubulic was installed.

It's what secret sociaties wanted such as illuminati, it's the desiered utopian world that started with these revolutions. Masonry of course is part of it, it always was, the introduction of symbols alike , the eye and pyramid, statue of liberty and other icons, in religion, public places on currency and other places is the work of the secret sociaties, this objects were imported from the ancient world from such organisations that have adopted them.

You would not think that napoleon embraced this symbol of the Liberty Lady, of course not. She is the work of secret sociaties, she was kept hidden then presented into the open as an icon of liberty.

Nice try.
edit on 20-6-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 



Prior to the revolutionary period there were 1,250 lodges in France with an estimated 40,000 members.

link to source

And at the begining of that article:


While it is both simplistic and specious to lay the responsibility for the French Revolution at the door of Freemasonry, there is no question that freemasons, as individuals, were active in building, and rebuilding, a new society. Considering the large number of bodies claiming masonic authority,1. . many men identified today as freemasons were probably unaware of each other’s masonic association and clearly cannot be seen as acting in concert. Yet they did share certain beliefs and ideals.


This is the point I keep trying to get across. To no avail, but trying none the less.

If you have a city meeting and 500 people show up for that meeting, there is a good chance that up to 10% of them might be masons. It is doubtful however that many more than a few would know any others. So no matter what the public opinion of the crowd was, it would be the opinion of men and women, and the men, some might have been masons, but not acting on any masonic orders or agenda. But to a person wrapped up with conspiracies, they will always see Satan or Lucifer, or whomever they chose to blame today as the bad guy.


Pepsie, you should become a brick layer, build a wall and argue with it to hone your skills.



posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 04:15 PM
link   



Prior to the revolutionary period there were 1,250 lodges in France with an estimated 40,000 members.

link to source

It does not mean that during comunism for example you can't play football, of course there were lodges. Jews for example live in Iran, there are many examples in this universe and in this world, the existing lodges does not prove anything, they were under the close supervision of the ruling class at that time.

So let me show you.
This is your point of view, now see "how they existed"


www.aboutfreemasons.com...
When Napoleon became emperor after the French Revolution, French Freemasonry was immediately affected. Napoleon declared his brother, Joseph Bonaparte, Grand Master of the Grand Orient de France. Napoleon also ensured that administration of French Freemasonry was overseen by Jean-Jacques-Régis de Cambacérès, effectively ensuing that Napoleon had full control over the fraternal order. Napoleon himself seems to have thought little of French Freemasonry. While he acknowledged that Masons “carried out good actions from time to time” he also described Freemasonry as a group of “imbeciles who assemble for good cheer and for the execution of many ridiculous follies.” Under Napoleon, the Grand Orient de France was controlled by political forces but was also given new powers as a result and was able to gather all lodges under its power. As well, the number of lodges during the Napoleonic reign grew to 1,200, largely due to a large influx of military lodges.


Just shows he took control of the lodges, calling them imbeciles. After the french revolution they came under his control, they were duped. It's why Masonic convention at Strasbourg allegedly ploted the second French Revolution (1848). You can imagine what a symbol like the statue of liberty would of have caused at that time
in France, this shows masons were not free to do anything under the rule of napoleon, never mind going public with Lady Liberty in such a dictatorship. It's why Lady Liberty remained how should I call this "Top secret"





And at the begining of that article:


While it is both simplistic and specious to lay the responsibility for the French Revolution at the door of Freemasonry, there is no question that freemasons, as individuals, were active in building, and rebuilding, a new society. Considering the large number of bodies claiming masonic authority,1. . many men identified today as freemasons were probably unaware of each other’s masonic association and clearly cannot be seen as acting in concert. Yet they did share certain beliefs and ideals.



Masons did not get what they wanted, that is the truth, they only got it after the 3rd republic.
This just shows you are unable to comprehend and we are drifting away from the subject.
'
As for masons, it is why Napoleon III took control and impose a dictatorship over masonry in France, out of the fear that they would take control of the country. Napoleon III condemns Grand Orient for dabbling in radical politics (1850). French masons were involved in the french revolution as a whole unit. It is why Napoleon took control of the lodges.



edit on 20-6-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


and that is probably why he didn't fair so well. He spent too much time worrying about an enemy that wasn't an enemy. I have no doubt that some Frenchmen wanted him out. And they plotted to overthrow him. And some of those men were probably masons. But that in itself does not make the French Revolution a masonic endeavor. For it to be masonic, I think it would have to be discussed in lodge and organized solely by masons. After all, you cannot come to a masonic meeting unless you are a mason. So it's all or nothing with this claim.

I am proud of the part masons have played in history, and sadly there are some not so shining examples out there. But there is a big difference with claiming anything is a masonic event when many of who were involved were not members. It's just history.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 

It is safe to assume that no one had knowlege at that time of the ancient world except the people at the top and the secret clubs. Such things such as the statue of liberty come from the ranks of secret fraternal organisations as an idea. The rest of the people fall under the rule of the curch, and could not have an idea of such depictions or representations coming from the ancient word since they are simple people and live by strict rules imposed on them by the sociaty of that time "the curch state"where everything is considered treason and blasfemy , the only place where the notion where the statue of liberty may have come from at that time is from secret sociaties/masonry.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


what completely baffles me is how you can explain this history, understand who was the bad guys and who was the good guys, yet you still have a hatred for masonry. It's almost like you don't read your own posts.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by network dude
reply to post by pepsi78
 


what completely baffles me is how you can explain this history, understand who was the bad guys and who was the good guys, yet you still have a hatred for masonry. It's almost like you don't read your own posts.


Freedom, from "Free"-masons and liberty lady.(lady freedom)
I'll put it like this, what seems good is not always good, and that go's for anything. Now where were we ?
Freedom to kill, freedom to rape, freedom to make prostitution, freedom to rob others of their posesions, freedom to do anything at all without caring at all. It's what she stands for, is it not ?

That is total freedom, since we are talking about total freedom, here is one "the freedom to control and manipulate others" how does that sound to you ? It's what the Lady Liberty stands for, total freedom.

Look at the land of the free, where the statue of liberty resides, they are free to oppress anyone, they constantly harass other nations, they constantly blow up things killing people all around, because they are free to do anything. Right now they are in Libya mass killing everyone.

The ability to do anything at all by having freedom does not render a person good.
In other words, when you are totaly free to do anything at all, there is nothing holding you back, no feelings , no emotions, 100% Free.

That is total freedom, you can kill someone because you were free to do so, since nothing is holding you back.
If say for example something is holding you back then you are not truly free at all.
edit on 23-6-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78
I'll put it like this, what seems good is not always good, and that go's for anything. Now where were we ?
Freedom to kill, freedom to rape, freedom to make prostitution, freedom to rob others of their posesions, freedom to do anything at all without caring at all. It's what she stands for, is it not ?

That is total freedom, since we are talking about total freedom, here is one "the freedom to control and manipulate others" how does that sound to you ? It's what the Lady Liberty stands for, total freedom.

Accordingly, men become daily more free, because the freedom of the man lies in his reason. He can reflect upon his own future conduct, and summon up its consequences; he can take wide views of human life, and lay down rules for constant guidance. Thus he is relieved of the tyranny of sense and passion, and enabled at any time to live according to the whole light of the knowledge that is within him, instead of being driven, like a dry leaf on the wings of the wind, by every present impulse. Herein lies the freedom of the man as regarded in connection with the necessity imposed by the omnipotence and fore-knowledge of God. So much light, so much liberty. When emperor and church appeal to reason there is naturally universal suffrage.
Morals & Dogma, Ch. III, p94

With man's exercise of thought are inseparably connected freedom and responsibility. Man assumes his proper rank as a moral agent, when with a sense of the limitations of his nature arise the consciousness of freedom, and of the obligations accompanying its exercise, the sense of duty and of the capacity to perform it. To suppose that man ever imagined himself not to be a free agent until he had argued himself into that belief, would be to suppose that he was in that below the brutes; for he, like them, is conscious of his freedom to act. Experience alone teaches him that this freedom of action is limited and controlled; and when what is outward to him restrains and limits this freedom of action, he instinctively rebels against it as a wrong. The rule of duty and the materials of experience are derived from an acquaintance with the conditions of the external world, in which the faculties are exerted; and thus the problem of man involves those of Nature and God. Our freedom, we learn by experience, is determined by an agency external to us; our happiness is intimately dependent on the relations of the outward World, and on the moral character of its Ruler.
Morals & Dogma, Ch. XXVIII, p686

Man is a free agent, though Omnipotence is above and all around him. To be free to do good, he must be free to do evil. The Light necessitates the Shadow. A State is free like an individual in any government worthy of the name. The State is less potent than the Deity, and therefore the freedom of the individual citizen is consistent with its Sovereignty. These are opposites, but not antagonistic. So, in a union of States, the freedom of the States is consistent with the Supremacy of the Nation. When either obtains the permanent mastery over the other, and they cease to be in equilibrio, the encroachment continues with a velocity that is accelerated like that of a falling body, until the feebler is annihilated, and then, there being no resistance to support the stronger, it rushes into ruin.
Morals & Dogma, Ch. XVIII, p307

Preacher of Liberty, Fraternity, and Equality, it desires them to be attained by making men fit to receive them, and by the moral power of an intelligent and enlightened People. It lays no plots and conspiracies. It hatches no premature revolutions; it encourages no people to revolt against the constituted authorities; but recognizing the great truth that freedom follows fitness for freedom as the corollary follows the axiom, it strives to prepare men to govern themselves.
Morals & Dogma, Ch. XX, pp329-330

[Masonry] does not preach revolution to those who are fond of kings, nor rebellion that can end only in disaster and defeat, or in substituting one tyrant for another, or a multitude of despots for one.

Wherever a people is fit to be free and to govern itself, and generously strives to be so, there go all its sympathies. It detests the tyrant, the lawless oppressor, the military usurper, and him who abuses a lawful power. It frowns upon cruelty, and a wanton disregard of the rights of humanity. It abhors the selfish employer, and exerts its influence to lighten the burdens which want and dependence impose upon the workman, and to foster that humanity and kindness which man owes to even the poorest and most unfortunate brother.

It can never be employed, in any country under Heaven, to teach a toleration for cruelty, to weaken moral hatred for guilt, or to deprave and brutalize the human mind. The dread of punishment will never make a Mason an accomplice in so corrupting his countrymen, and a teacher of depravity and barbarity. If anywhere, as has heretofore happened, a tyrant should send a satirist on his tyranny to be convicted and punished as a libeller, in a court of justice, a Mason, if a juror in such a case, though in sight of the scaffold streaming with the blood of the innocent, and within hearing of the clash of the bayonets meant to overawe the court, would rescue the intrepid satirist from the tyrant's fangs, and send his officers out from the court with defeat and disgrace.
Morals & Dogma, Ch. IX, p154



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 06:02 AM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 


you are a free man correct? Slavery ended many years ago. You are free to go anywhere you want. You are even free to become a mass murderer.(as long as you don't get caught) But for some reason you aren't. Why is that? IS it because you don't feel you have time to hide all the bodies? Is it because you worry too much about the clean up? Or is it because you care too much about human life to take it away? If the third is right, where did that feeling come from?

I am afraid you aren't giving the human race enough credit. Our forefathers wanted a nation where we as individuals could control our own destiny, where we could work together and build whatever we wanted. Big towering cities, small communities, all free from oppression. Dare I say it, like the Illuminati ideals were, also like the masonic ideals were.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 06:34 AM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 

Those that you listed are not freedoms. When you encroach upon another human, your freedom, your rights stop. To kill, to rape, to prostitute, to rob, and any other immoral act is not the act of freedom or free men. These are hideous acts. We have freedom to live, to be happy, and to be prosperous. Free will may cause a man to do evil, but freedom should never be associated with evil, with tyranny as they cannot co-exist together. You confuse free will with freedom, and by that confusion pervert the word freedom and her fair values. Freedom requires a sense of responsibility, accountability for your decisions and actions.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 06:47 AM
link   


you are a free man correct? Slavery ended many years ago. You are free to go anywhere you want. You are even free to become a mass murderer.(as long as you don't get caught) But for some reason you aren't. Why is that? IS it because you don't feel you have time to hide all the bodies? Is it because you worry too much about the clean up? Or is it because you care too much about human life to take it away? If the third is right, where did that feeling come from?

Care is conditioning, it's why the practice of the "CREMATION OF CARE" for total freedom in sociaties such as the Bohemian Grove, you do see where I'm getting now.


en.wikipedia.org...
The Cremation of Care is an annual theatrical production written, produced and performed by and for members of the Bohemian Club, and staged at the Bohemian Grove near Monte Rio, California at a small artificial lake amid a private old-growth grove of Redwood trees.


Other concepts with the Vulcanians from star treck that do not feel at all, they are 100% logical.
Since a "vulcan erupted in their heads" "cremation of care" they don't feel at all.
Of course all movies are made by the same people, concepts, etc, the movie stage is controled by the occult.



I am afraid you aren't giving the human race enough credit. Our forefathers wanted a nation where we as individuals could control our own destiny, where we could work together and build whatever we wanted. Big towering cities, small communities, all free from oppression. Dare I say it, like the Illuminati ideals were, also like the masonic ideals were.


Yes the illuminati are in control, masons/illuminati is the same thing. Now how about we wake everyone up and see who has been controlling them, why it's the very same people that promote the goals you talk about.

The freedom promoted deals with the material, in other words "a prison for your mind" where you are not really free. The very same people that you talk about hide things, conceal them, go by secret meetings, I don't see where you might be right.

edit on 24-6-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by KSigMason
reply to post by pepsi78
 

Those that you listed are not freedoms. When you encroach upon another human, your freedom, your rights stop. To kill, to rape, to prostitute, to rob, and any other immoral act is not the act of freedom or free men. These are hideous acts.

It's freedom, I do not know what you are talking about. Look it up into the dictionary.
The notion of freedom does not involve an act of good faith and has nothing to do with it, it can involve anything, from free to give to others to free to molest and rape.




edit on 24-6-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by pepsi78
 

so your thoughts are that our forefathers helped free us from the tyranny of England, and then immediately started trying to secretly enslave us to a secret society who's goal is personal growth? How friggin deep does this conspiracy go?


edit to add:
You are aware that masonry has nothing to do with the Bohemian Grove right?
Nor does the lions club, or the cub scouts.
edit on 24-6-2011 by network dude because: Augustusmasonicus won't share his beer



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   


so your thoughts are that our forefathers helped free us from the tyranny of England, and then immediately started trying to secretly enslave us to a secret society who's goal is personal growth? How friggin deep does this conspiracy go?

That is all in the past, the royal and the secret clubs rule the united states, these forces today work hand in hand, what was in the past, the hate between the two parties is mostly gone. They have learned to control the sheep(people) in harmony and peace.

I would say today there is a promotion of the royal class into secret sociaties, as an encouragement.
Just look of the most royal of them, today they are free masons. Duke of kent, the prince, these are just a few names.



You are aware that masonry has nothing to do with the Bohemian Grove right?
Nor does the lions club, or the cub scouts.

I posted this as an example, the cremation of care, to gain total liberty. Masonry is part of the establishment. They don't have to be members of the grove.
edit on 24-6-2011 by pepsi78 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by pepsi78

I posted this as an example, the cremation of care, to gain total liberty. Masonry is part of the establishment. They don't have to be members of the grove.


So in short your entire posting position is that if you're not part of the (in your oh-so-humble-opinion) part of the solution, you're part of the problem? OK, so as a Mason and obviously a "part of the establishment", I should be able to march right into the Bohemian Grove and be recognised as one of their fellow travellers? Gotta try that sometime



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fitzgibbon

Originally posted by pepsi78

I posted this as an example, the cremation of care, to gain total liberty. Masonry is part of the establishment. They don't have to be members of the grove.


So in short your entire posting position is that if you're not part of the (in your oh-so-humble-opinion) part of the solution, you're part of the problem? OK, so as a Mason and obviously a "part of the establishment", I should be able to march right into the Bohemian Grove and be recognised as one of their fellow travellers? Gotta try that sometime


Just say you are part if the Hill billies



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by TribeOfManyColours
 

What's wrong with Hill billies?





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join