Dragon Flood - Part Eleven - Freedom of Speech

Joseph Herrin (9-29-2012)

America has been heralded as a land where her citizens are free to speak their minds without fear of repression. This perception is more myth than reality. Understanding that the United States was formed as a Luciferian nation, the perceptive will consider that Satan is not a champion of human freedom. Although both he and his disciples masquerade as messengers of truth and righteousness, Yahshua revealed the truth of Satan’s nature when He declared that he “comes only to kill, steal, and destroy.” If you get in the way of Satan’s agenda, all the vaunted freedoms of those societies he rules will flee away.

This has been true from the very beginning of America as a nation. The men who were proponents of rebellion against England were very intolerant of those colonists who were loyal to the King. The men who were in favor of rebellion never obtained a majority in the colonies, but they were able to carry forth their revolution by intimidating and silencing all opposition. Those loyal to the King of England, or neutral in their politics, had many valid reasons for not supporting the rebellion. The American Revolution, far from being a war against the British, was also a war against a large number of colonists from the thirteen states. John Adams stated in a letter to Thomas McKean that the Patriots had to struggle against approximately one third of the population. This by no means meant that two thirds were in favor of revolution, for a significant percentage of the population remained neutral.

In any struggle between men, it is common for the group in power to seek to silence the opposition. Free speech in times of conflict is very rare. The sinful nature of man does not overflow with patience and tolerance. Rather, it exhibits a tendency to violence and suppression of any dissenting opinions, no matter how legitimate or sincere the arguments.

The Patriots employed violent means to silence those among their fellow citizens who objected to their aims. Many who were loyal to the King were tarred and feathered. Others had their homes and businesses set on fire. Such tactics were commonplace during the years of the Revolution, and were quite effective. Loyalists ended up fleeing their homes, and relocating to lands under British control and protection. In areas under rebel control, Loyalists were subject to confiscation of property. Opposition press was silenced by threat of violence so that the only viewpoint being set forth among the people was that in favor of armed revolt.

In practice, freedom of speech was only available to those who agreed with the aims of the  rebels in those territories which they held. Some may think that this situation changed once the war was ended and the American government was formed. After all, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution secures for all Americans the right to freely speak their minds. The Amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791, and states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In practice, however, this Constitutional right has always had limits placed upon it, and has frequently been suspended. Just seven years after passage of the First Amendment, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts.

In 1798, Congress, which contained several of the ratifiers of the First Amendment at the time, adopted the Alien and Sedition Acts. The laws prohibited the publication of "false, scandalous, and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame ... or to bring them ... into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them ... hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States."
[Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States]

In 1798 war between America and France was looming, and members of Congress sought to silence those who wrote anything in defense of France, or critical of the policy of the United States. About 25 people were arrested under the Sedition Act, and ten of them convicted. One who was convicted was a grandson of Benjamin Franklin. Like his grandfather, Bache was a newspaper editor, overseeing a publication called the Aurora. In April 1798, Benjamin Franklin Bache was arrested when he referred to the president as "old, querulous, bald, blind, crippled, toothless Adams."

The Sedition Act of July 14, 1798 included the following words:

That if any person shall write, print, utter, or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against the United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.

This law proved highly unpopular with the people. Thomas Jefferson was an outspoken critic of the Alien and Sedition Acts. In an upswelling of popular opposition to these acts, Thomas Jefferson was elected as President in 1800. Jefferson opposed the law on the grounds that it was unconstitutional, and upon his election he freed those who had been imprisoned for violations of this law.

Freedom of speech is a fundamental problem, serving as a great obstacle to any minority group of elite men who would seek to rule over a people. An aristocracy has always found free speech to be a bane to their continued rule. As I have been researching various sources for this series of writings I have paid much attention to a man by the name of Edward Bernays. Bernays was doubly a nephew of Sigmund Freud.

Edward Bernays - 1891-1995

Bernays is often called the father of public relations. Bernays preferred the word “propaganda,” but it had developed a negative stigma. Edward Bernays came from a wealthy family that had about a dozen servants. He was a member of an aristocratic elite. Bernays gave much thought to the means by which an aristocracy might maintain power in a democratic environment. He was unabashed in his advocacy of the elite using propaganda to control the masses through acts and words of deception. In his book titled Propaganda, published in 1928, Bernays wrote:

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.

We are governed, our minds molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which democratic society is organized...

Whatever attitude one chooses toward this condition, it remains a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons - a trifling fraction... who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world.

It is not usually realized how necessary these invisible governors are to the orderly functioning of our group life. In theory, every citizen may vote for whom he pleases...

In theory, every citizen makes up his own mind on public questions and matters of private conduct. In practice, if all men had to study for themselves the abstruse economic, political, and ethical data involved in every question, they would find it impossible to come to a conclusion about anything. We have voluntarily agreed to let an invisible government sift the data and high-spot the outstanding issue so that our field of choice is narrowed to practical proportions. From our leaders and the media they use to reach the public, we accept the evidence and the demarcation of issues bearing upon public question...

Bernays was very much in agreement with Manly Hall’s premise that the ideal government was one of philosopher kings, a group of elite men who had the wisdom and understanding to govern. Just one page over from where the preceding quote was taken, Bernays states the following.

It might be better to have, instead of propaganda and special pleading, committees of wise men who would choose our rulers, dictate our conduct, private and public, and decide upon the best types of clothes for us to wear and the best kinds of food for us to eat. But we have chosen the opposite method, that of open competition.
[Source: Ibid]

Perhaps you are appalled, as I am, at the hubris of such statements. Bernays is not being insincere. He is setting forth what he believes to be a reasonable conclusion. Edward Bernays believed that the mass of men would be better off to have an elite group of “wise men” to dictate their conduct, both private and public. Bernays would certainly have considered himself to be among that cabal of wise men. He believed that he understood the group mind, as well as the dangers of granting the rabble any power to direct societal and world events.

I have come to understand that this is actually the mindset of a global elite who exist at this time, wealthy men and women of privilege who control world commerce, finance, and politics, and constitute an unseen government that guides the affairs of nations. These people sincerely believe that they are divinely appointed, and uniquely qualified, to make decisions for all of mankind.

It has always been necessary for a ruling elite to control public opinion. Bernays in the book Propaganda states:

Governments, whether they are monarchical, constitutional, democratic or communist, depend upon acquiescent public opinion for the success of their efforts and, in fact, government is government only by virtue of public acquiescence.

The Bible reveals that Satan and his disciples are intrinsically violent. He comes to “kill, steal, and destroy.” What the men of the American revolution could not achieve with guns and bullets, they accomplished by confiscating (stealing) the possessions of those opposed to them, or destroying their possessions and livelihood as they did in burning many homes and businesses to the ground. The Boston Tea Party was but the initial act of theft and destruction in the campaign to create a new Luciferian nation.

The Bible also describes Satan as “the great deceiver who deceives the whole world.” What we have experienced, particularly since the advent of radio and television, is a change in practice. Satan and his disciples must still control public opinion, but rather than do it through violent suppression, confiscation of goods, imprisonment, and even killing, they have pursued a policy of cunning deception poured out as a flood through the various media. Media ownership has been concentrated into the hands of a small group of corporations who inundate the population with a cunningly designed world view.

These two principle methods, violence and deception, have been utilized throughout America’s history to guide and direct the populace to perform the will of an elite. Freemasonry is itself a deceptive organization. The men of the Blue Lodges, those at the lower levels, are intentionally misled as to the true meaning of the various Masonic symbols and rites. Understanding that America was birthed by men under this Luciferian influence, would they reasonably have created a government that operates by a different principle? Is it not logical to conclude that deception would be an integral part of the government’s policy even as it is the policy of Freemasonry?

The historical evidence that free speech and thought has never actually been an aim of the government is overwhelming. I will cite a few pertinent examples. The actions of Congress to control the press through the Sedition Act of 1798 were mild when compared to the policy carried out by the administration of Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War.

A tremendous mythology has grown up around Lincoln. However, like so many other figures from American history, the true tale of this man’s character, motives, and actions has been deftly manipulated to serve the ends of those who find value in doing so. Even as public school students are not taught about the role Freemasonry played in the American Revolution, so too are a great many very important facts relating to the Lincoln Presidency passed over.

Abraham Lincoln was a shrewd politician. He understood the power of the press. During the Civil War he stated, “no man, whether he be private citizen or president of the United States, can successfully carry on a controversy with a great newspaper, and escape destruction, unless he owns a newspaper equally great, with a circulation in the same neighborhood.”

The largest ethnic group in America are Germans. There are approximately fifty million Americans of at least partial German ancestry in the United States today. This equates to 17% of the U.S. population. Lincoln came from the American Midwest where there was a particularly large concentration of Americans of German ancestry. At the time Lincoln was running for President it is estimated that there were 700,000 Germans living in the United States. Perceiving the need to influence the opinion of this large segment of the population, Lincoln purchased the German language newspaper Illinois Staatsanzeiger, press and all, in May of 1859. Lincoln manifested an awareness of the power of the press that was remarkable. He was not the backwood’s rail splitter that he is often characterized to be. He was a cunning trial lawyer who understood the nature of the political system.

Lincoln enlisted the aid of newspaper editors across the country to get his speeches, biography, and portrait published. There were some truly deceptive maneuvers used by Lincoln’s campaign managers to obtain the Republican nomination. Two men working for the Lincoln campaign, Ward Hill Lamon and Jesse Fell, ordered a local printer to create a large number of extra tickets for the Republican Convention. They distributed these counterfeit tickets among Lincoln’s supporters and told them to arrive early at the convention. When many of William H. Seward’s (the leading candidate’s) supporters arrived with legitimate tickets, they were turned away because the hall was already full.

With Lincoln’s perception of the power of the press, it is little wonder that after being elected he carried out a systematic attack on the opposition press. The actual events of this attack on the free press, and other unconstitutional acts of the Lincoln administration, are detailed in the book Lincoln’s Wrath: Fierce Mobs, Brilliant Scoundrels and a President’s Mission to Destroy the Press by Jeffrey Manber and Neil Dahlstrom. The New York Herald on August 28, 1861 gave an accounting of the opposition newspapers that had experienced the consequences of being on the wrong side of the government’s policy.

Northern Papers destroyed by mob
Jeffersonian, West Chester, PA
Sentinel, Easton, PA
Farmer, Bridgeport, CT
Democrat, Canton, OH
Standard, Concord, NH
Democrat, Bangor, ME
Clinton Journal, KS

Northern secession papers suppressed by civil authority
Catholic Herald, Philadelphia, PA
Christian Observer, Philadelphia, PA

Northern secession papers died
Herald, Leavenworth, NJ
American, Trenton, NJ

Northern secession papers denied transportation in the mails
Journal of Commerce, NY
News, NY
Day Book, NY
Freeman’s Journal, NY

Secession papers changed to union
Eagle, Brooklyn, NY
Republican, St. Louis, MO
Democrat, Haverhill, MA
[End Quote]

Things were just getting started when this list was published in August 1861. So dependent upon the nation’s newspapers was the new administration, to gain and maintain public support for the war, that within the first month of Lincoln’s inauguration at least twenty newspaper editors had received appointments in the government.

The ministers to Rome, Portugal, Turkey, commissioner of patents, and at least eight postmaster positions were awarded as favors upon newspaper editors. Murat Halstead of the Cincinnati Gazette printed all of the names and their positions, what he called a “disgrace to journalism.”
[Source: Lincoln’s Wrath, Manber and Dahlstrom]

Violent and coercive measures similar to that witnessed during the American Revolution were once again employed during the Civil War to silence all dissent. The Civil War was never clearly demarcated between North and South as some have supposed. There were many people living in northern states who were not in favor of armed warfare against their brothers in the Southern states. Most newspapers at the time were aligned with political parties. Lincoln was a Republican, and most Republican publications did well during the Civil War years. However, the Democratic papers which were most prone to criticize Lincoln’s policies, suffered greatly.

The Jeffersonian was a newspaper in West Chester, Pennsylvania, a suburb of Philadelphia,  owned and run by a man named John Hodgson. In the book Lincoln’s Wrath, the authors give a detailed account of Hodgson’s conflict with the Lincoln administration, the threats he received, and the resulting mob violence when he continued to publish articles critical of the government’s policies.

Guided by the moonlit sky, the lawless group of conspirators finally closed in on their destination: the small, two-story office building at 12 South High Street, the home of the prospering West Chester Jeffersonian...

Nearly as the courthouse clock struck midnight, according to newspaper accounts in West Chester and Philadelphia after the fact, the unidentified mob crashed through the front door of the building proudly owned by the Hodgson family and swarmed into the brick office building of West Chester’s only remaining Democratic newspaper. Quietly, and with little attention, the men quickly and systematically destroyed the press equipment and anything else they stumbled upon. They callously overturned office furniture - chairs, tables, and desks - and smashed the small wood and metal type blocks. So intent were the men on putting the newspaper out of circulation that they made the effort to destroy even the huge cylinder printing press, the paper’s very lifeblood. It is not easy to destroy a solid cast-iron press in the thick of night; whomever these men were, we can say they were strong and determined to shut down Hodgson for good.

They quickly climbed the narrow steps in the rear of the building, destroying the paper’s most vital business records as if dumping the foul-smelling refuse of a chamber pot into the alley below. Subscription lists were ripped into pieces and thrown through the shattered front window, the bundles catching on the jagged shards of glass that jutted from the wooden frame...

Such destruction is not a Christian act. It is Satan who comes to “kill, steal and destroy.” It says something about the nature of a government that will sanction such actions. No effort was ever made to rein in the mobs who repeated this scene across the Northern states. The government turned a blind eye, giving tacit approval to the silencing of all opposition voices.

The government’s involvement was not merely one of failing to act to protect the rights and property of its citizens. In the same month of April 1861 Lincoln suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

The writ of habeas corpus guarantees the right of a citizen to be charged with a specific crime if arrested, a basic constitutional guarantee...

The chief justice of the Supreme Court, appalled at the extreme use of executive power, soon weighed in on the question. On May 27, 1861, eighty-four-year-old Chief Justice Roger Taney ruled that military arrest... violated the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus... Taney... wrote that the president “cannot suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, nor authorize any military officer to do so. Only Congress has that power...”

But Lincoln would not be pressured by the Chief Justice, and he ignored the ruling.
[Source: Ibid]

This was followed later that summer with one of many confiscation acts written by Congress and signed into law by Lincoln.

On August 6, 1861, President Lincoln signed S. 25, “An Act to Confiscate Property Used for Insurrectionary Purposes...”

Any persons engaged in supporting “the present or any future insurrection” by aiding and abetting the enemy in any form shall be open to the seizure of property used for that aim.

What it meant was that any Southern supporter in the North could face the loss of their property if it was used to help the Confederacy... Union Democrats feared that the administration would consider an anti-Lincoln newspaper to be a tool against the Union and hence, it could be confiscated. And not just the newspaper but the type, the press, the office, and all associated with it.
[Source: Ibid]

These were not idle worries. “Two days after the passage of the Confiscation Act, soldiers of the First New Hampshire sacked the Democratic Standard in Concord, Maine.” Then the courts got involved, signaling their agreement with the President and the Congress.

On August 15, 1861, a week after the signing of the Confiscation Act... the administration’s battle against the antiwar newspapers broadened to include the courts. A grand jury was convened in New York... to determine the legality of indicting Northern newspapers that openly opposed the war...

Each paper identified was now a target and was publicly warned to change their editorial tone or face the consequences... The government quickly used the event to begin seizing the newspapers named, and stopped their shipment through the mail.

On August 22, the newspapers named by the grand jury were suspended from the mail per order of the New York postmaster. As the papers arrived in Northern cities that day by train, the United States marshal for the Eastern District seized all copies. The legal justification was the War Department’s General Order No. 67, which ordered that all correspondence and communications, verbal or written, that put the “public safety” at risk, should be confiscated. The punishment for creating such correspondence and communications, according to the order, was death.
[Source: Ibid]

Not So Free Speech

Following the ransacking of Hodgson’s newspaper, he continued to write articles that he sent out for publication in other newspapers. That the mob violence done to his business was approved by the Lincoln administration was further evidenced when not many days later his building and all that was in it was seized by two United State’s marshal’s deputies.

They handed William a document. In part, it called for the deputies to “take, hold, and keep possession of the building, as well as all property of every kind whatsoever, used in and about the publication of said newspaper...”

The document handed to them revealed the takeover of the building and the suppression of the newspaper were being taken “upon the authority of the president of the United States.”
[Source: Ibid]

A wave of arrests now swept the nation as the Lincoln administration sought to silence all dissent. Especially targeted were any Americans who had the power to sway public opinion. These men were arrested, held without charges, and were granted no opportunity to defend themselves in court.

There was a structure in the harbor of Baltimore that brought to life the fears of the antiwar editors. Though conceived as a fort, it was transformed in the opening days of the Civil War into a prison - a place to house the men who opposed Lincoln and his war.

Rarely in American history have there been prisons like Fort McHenry in Baltimore and Fort Monroe in New York and a dozen more scattered through the Union. Through their gates passed the entire spectrum of American society of the 1860s, apparently united only in their ability to sway the voters to turn against the conduct of the war.

“Among the prisoners may be found representatives of every grade of society,” wrote the author of the 1863 pamphlet Bastilles of the North. “Governors of state, foreign ministers, members of Congress and of different state legislatures, mayors, police commissioners... doctors, civil, naval, and military... mechanics (especially machinists and inventors, whom the government regards as a dangerous class); editors of newspapers, religious and political...”

Those taken to prison were all the living embodiment of the power of the Confiscation Act. As explained by one prisoner, these men were referred to as “prisoners of state, a term happily hitherto unknown on this side of the Atlantic, the sound of which instinctively carries us to Italy and Austria, or the blackest period in the history of France...”

Overall, it is estimated that more than twelve thousand arrests of noncombatant citizens were made during the Civil War.
[Source: Ibid]

People of God, although this series main focus is to expose the level of deception that most Christians are operating under, and I have been focusing on some of the actual events of  history to reveal how a false historical view of America as a Christian nation has been foisted upon the people and the notion that the United States was founded by fundamentalist Christians is untenable, I would digress a moment to share something I believe is immediately pertinent.

Much has been made of the similarities between Barack Obama and Abraham Lincoln. Both men were politicians from Illinois. Both had very short, and unremarkable experience in the Illinois State legislature before being elected President of the United States. Neither man would have been elected apart from the collusion of the media of their day. Barack Obama took his oath of office as President of the United States with his hand upon the same Bible used by Abraham Lincoln.

Barack Obama - Lincoln’s Bible

The parallels have continued since Barack Obama has been in office. Even as Lincoln vastly expanded the executive powers of the President, so too has Obama. In recent months Barack Obama has signed into Law the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, and the National Defense Resources Preparedness Act. This latter Act in particular bears very real similarities to the Confiscation Act signed by Lincoln. Congresswoman Kay Granger from Texas sent out a letter to her constituents to alert them.

Dear Friend,

With all that is going in Washington these days some things don’t make the news the way they should. (This is evidence of media control.) Fourteen days ago President Obama issued an Executive Order that you should know about.  This order gives an unprecedented level of authority to the President and the federal government to take over all the fundamental parts of our economy - in the name of national security - in times of national emergency.

This means all of our water resources, construction services and materials (steel, concrete, etc.), our civil transportation system, food and health resources, our energy supplies including oil and natural gas – even farm equipment – can be taken over by the President and his cabinet secretaries.  The Government can also draft U.S. citizens into the military and force U.S. citizens to fulfill "labor requirements" for the purposes of "national defense."  There is not even any Congressional oversight, only briefings are required.
[Source: http://kaygranger.house.gov/weekly-enewsletter-executive-order-you-should-know-about]

Additionally, even as the Republicans took over both houses of C0ngress when Lincoln was elected, the Democrats took over both houses when Obama was swept into office. The 111th Congress began its session concurrently with Obama’s term as President. One of their first acts was to establish national detention centers on military bases all across the nation. The legislation can be read at the government’s website.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.645:

This is a remarkable similarity to what I have just shared about Fort McHenry, Fort Monroe, and a dozen other similar detention centers established by the Lincoln administration. These former military bases were converted to be used as prison camps for prisoners of state. In these camps men were held without charge, and without trial, simply because the government perceived them as a threat to their policies.

Such preparations are not being made by the Obama administration and the Congress for no purpose. The Spirit has been testifying that a time of great political, economic, and civil unrest is coming to the nation. We will see in coming days that the ability to communicate any opposition perspective will be tightly suppressed. Already the government has enacted laws by which it might take control of the Internet in a time of national crisis. The mainstream media is owned by the elite, unseen, invisible government that is the true power. Free speech will be as repressed as it was in the days of Lincoln, and all it will take is one trigger event.

In Lincoln’s day that event was the capture of Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor by the Confederate States. This led to an immediate suspension of Constitutional rights, and the enactment of draconian measures such as the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus and the passage of the Confiscation Act.

We should not think that such oppression is new to this nation. Twelve thousand people were arrested and imprisoned during the Civil War by the Union, citizens of their own Northern states, simply for disagreeing with the government’s policies. The coming days will be different only in scope. There will be far more arrested, imprisoned, and held without charge or legal recourse.

The parallels we are seeing at this time to what occurred under the Lincoln administration are not coincidental. Our Father would have His sons and daughters to make Him their refuge. It is a time to walk closely to the Father, to be surrendered to the direction of the Spirit. He will guide His elect through the perilous days ahead.

Much more could be shared about the need of an elite group to control the public opinion, and the methods they employ, and more is forthcoming. Yet, to keep this post from being excessive in length I will conclude this chapter here.


Heart4God Website: http://www.heart4god.ws    

Parables Blog: www.parablesblog.blogspot.com    

Mailing Address:
Joseph Herrin
P.O. Box 804
Montezuma, GA 31063

Dragon Flood - Part Ten - Aristocracy of Deceit

Joseph Herrin (09-26-2012)

Opening Line from Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson chose as the opening line to the Declaration of Independence the words:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

In the 1940s, George Orwell published the book Animal Farm in which he made a clever reference to these words of Jefferson. What is interesting is that Orwell wrote his political satire as an attack on communism, but the literary reference of what is perhaps the most famous line in his book points back to America’s founding document. Indeed, the entire plot of Animal Farm could very well be the story of America.

In Orwell’s book a group of animals revolt against the farm’s owner who is a severe alcoholic. The farmer, a Mr. Jones, neglects to feed and care for the farm animals so they run him off of the farm. Although Orwell may not have intended this association, there is a parallel found here between the colonialists of America who banded together to overthrown the rule of the King of England whom they accused of mistreating them.

Old Major, the old boar on the Manor Farm, calls the animals on the farm for a meeting, where he compares the humans to parasites and teaches the animals a revolutionary song, 'Beasts of England.' When Major dies, two young pigs, Snowball and Napoleon, assume command and turn his dream into a philosophy. The animals revolt and drive the drunken and irresponsible Mr. Jones from the farm, renaming it "Animal Farm." They adopt Seven Commandments of Animal-ism, the most important of which is, "All animals are equal."
[Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm]

Animal Farm

I question whether Orwell did not secretly have America in mind when he wrote this book. After all, America’s conflict was with England, and the most important commandment of the animals does not derive from the founding documents of Communist Russia, but from the Declaration of Independence of America.

The application to America becomes more apparent as the book progresses. The animals, having driven out Mr. Jones, set up their own government based upon a type of Constitution that includes a Bill of Rights. These rights are seven in total.

1.    Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
2.    Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
3.    No animal shall wear clothes.
4.    No animal shall sleep in a bed.
5.    No animal shall drink alcohol.
6.    No animal shall kill any other animal.
7.    All animals are equal.

Over time, one of the pigs (Napoleon) begins taking the pups away from the dogs when they are born and trains them as his personal protection force. Napoleon then drives away Snowball, wresting control of the farm to himself. He ends the full community meetings of the animals and sets up a committee of pigs that will govern the farm. Napoleon begins to take the best food and supplies of the farm for his personal use, and that of the other pigs, while also altering the laws to benefit his committee. Following are some of the changes enacted to the original seven commandments.

“No animal shall sleep in a bed,” becomes “No animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets.”
“No animal shall drink alcohol,” is changed to “No animal shall drink alcohol to excess.”
“No animal shall kill any other animal,” becomes “No animal shall kill any other animal without cause.”

Yet, the greatest change, and most noteworthy, is that “All animals are equal” is restated as “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

   













Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others

As I have studied the history of America, I have observed that this last tenet has been in evidence among American government ever since its founding as a nation separate from England. Some months back I read the book The Secret Destiny of America by Manly P. Hall. Manly Hall is a Masonic author greatly admired by men of the lodge. In 1944 he published the aforementioned book, setting forth a case for America fulfilling her destiny as “the new Atlantis.”

Manly Hall makes reference to the writing Critias that was authored by the Greek philosopher Plato in the fourth century B.C.. In Critias Plato imagines a dialogue between Socrates and a man named Critias, who was named as a descendant of the Greek politician Solon. Critias is telling Socrates of a trip made by his forebear to Egypt, where Solon was shown mysteries by the Egyptian priests who guarded the wisdom of that ancient nation. What Solon was shown related to the lost kingdom of Atlantis.

What stood out to me in Manly Hall’s review of this ancient writing was the claim that Atlantis was ruled over by “philosopher kings.” These were men who had achieved an illumined state through self-discipline and self-improvement. They were also learned in ancient wisdom, and these qualities commended these men as nature’s only true aristocracy. It was suggested by Manly Hall that certain men reach a state of moral and philosophical advancement that sets them apart from the common man as being worthy of ruling over others.

THE destruction of Atlantis, as described by Plato in the “Critias,” can be interpreted as a political fable. The tradition of the Lost Empire as descended from Solon was enlarged and embellished according to the formulas of the Orphic theology; but it does not follow necessarily that Plato intended to disparage the idea that a lost continent had actually existed west of Europe. Plato was a philosopher; he saw in the account of the fall of Atlantis an admirable opportunity to summarize his convictions concerning government and politics.

The “Critias” first describes the blessed state of the Atlantean people under the benevolent rulership of ten kings who were bound together in a league. These kings were monarchs over seven islands and three great continents. From the fable we can infer that the ten rulers of the Atlantic league were philosopher kings, endowed with all virtues and wise guardians of the public good. These kings obeyed the laws of the divine father of their house, Poseidon, god of the seas...

In this way Plato describes the government of the Golden Age, in which men live on earth according to the laws of heaven.

By the three great continents of Atlantis are to be understood, Europe, Asia, and Africa; and by the seven islands, all the lesser peoples of the earth. The league of the ten kings is the cooperative commonwealth of mankind, the natural and proper form of human government. The Atlantis, therefore, is the archetype or the pattern of right government, which existed in ancient days but was destroyed by the selfishness and ignorance of men.

Plato, it must be remembered, was a monarchist by philosophic conviction, but his ideal king was the wise man perfect in the virtues and the natural ruler of those less informed than himself. This king was the father of his people, impersonal and unselfish, dedicated to the public good, a servant of both the gods and his fellow men. This king was descended of a divine race; that is, he belonged to the Order of the Illumined; for those who come to a state of wisdom then belong to the family of the heroes - perfected human beings.

Plato's monarchy was therefore a philosophic democracy; for all men had the right to become wise through self-discipline and self-improvement. One who achieved this state was by virtue of his own action a superior man, and this superiority was the only aristocracy recognized by Natural Law.
[Source: The Secret Destiny of America, Manly P. Hall]

What Manly P. Hall describes here is a manifestation of Masonic theology. Freemasonry claims to exist to “make good men better.” The various degrees of Masonry are displayed as a ladder, signifying man’s advancement toward godhood.

Steps of Freemasonry

This mythos of Freemasonry is not some obscure idea. It is well known by those who have founded and perpetuated America’s government. We saw in the Apotheosis of Washington, painted on the interior of the Capitol Dome, the belief that men can attain to godhood by self-discipline and self-improvement. Freemasonry purports to be the guardian of this method of self-improvement, and the guardian of all secret wisdom that men lack. At the top of the Masonic pyramid is the all-seeing eye, representing not only Lucifer, but those elite men who attain to godhood through Luciferian means. Satan’s first lie to mankind was “You shall be as God.” This is a lie he has not deviated from in his long career.

Although not all the men involved in the formation of America as a nation were Freemasons, one common thought held among them was that there are various classes of men. There is the rabble who are incapable of governing themselves, and there are those who are enlightened. Thomas Jefferson was an adherent to the philosophy of The Enlightenment. Manly Hall, writing as a Freemason, spoke of “the Order of the Illumined.” Although different in form, both The Enlightenment and Freemasonry have the same author. They both hold to a view that certain men are by virtue of their wisdom and moral virtues qualified to govern, while the vast majority of mankind needs to be governed, and true power must be withheld from them. This philosophy is not unlike Orwell’s description of the pigs’ attitude in the book Animal Farm declaring that some animals (pigs in particular) are more equal than others.

I found the above graphic online quite appropriate as it incorporates the figure of a pyramid, with an opening at the top where one might commonly see the all seeing eye. In the window is a pig who has determined that he is better than others, and has the divine right to rule over lesser creatures. Surely Yahweh sees the lies of Satan, the deceptions of Freemasonry, the delusions of the Illuminati, and the pride of the proponents of a New World Order in a similar fashion.

As I was preparing for this series of writings I became acquainted with a book titled An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States by Charles A. Beard. This book, originally published in 1913, the same year that the Federal Reserve Act was passed (which strikes me as an interesting “coincidence”), sets forth an articulate, clearly argued, and meticulously documented case that America’s Constitution was written by men of property and substance to give them specific advantages and protections from the rest of the American population. Having read the book, I am persuaded that the author’s viewpoint is correct. At the end of the book there is a section where he sums up the book’s major points. I will paraphrase since some of the language used by the author is archaic, or obscure.

Conclusions

The people involved in the design and adoption of the U.S. Constitution can be divided into four economic groups: banking, public securities, manufacturing, and trade and shipping.

The first firm steps toward the formation of the Constitution were taken by a small and active group of men who were motivated by personal financial and property interests.

The framing of the Constitution was not a democratic process.

A large percentage of the American population who lacked property, was excluded from having any input into the formation of the Constitution by voting qualifications that were in force in a majority of the states. A man could not vote unless he paid a certain amount of taxes, or owned a specific amount of land, in most of the states.

The members of the Philadelphia Convention which drafted the Constitution were, with few exceptions, immediately, directly, and personally interested in, and derived economic advantages from, the establishment of the new system.

The Constitution was ratified by a vote of probably not more than 1/6th of adult males in the existing states.

Historical evidence reveals that the voters of New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Virginia, and South Carolina did NOT approve the ratification of the Constitution, but state representatives with financial interests approved it anyway.

During the ratification process for the Constitution, it became clear that the moneyed and propertied classes supported it, while the small farmers and debtors (a majority of the American population) opposed it. Many of this latter group were unable to vote due to voting qualifications that favored those with property and money.
[End Summary]

What Charles Beard’s book reveals is that America’s government has never been in the hands of the common man, nor was the Constitution written to give every citizen of the nation equal rights. This document was formed primarily to protect the propertied classes from the rabble, and to give them distinct advantages upon its passage.

One of the means by which the men gathered at the Constitutional Convention stood to gain financially was related to land scrip, a form of payment issued by the Federal government to pay soldiers during the war, and for payment of government debts. America had vast tracts of western land that had not been developed, and the government being short on cash, offered land scrip in its stead. This land scrip was worth only what it could be sold for. As long as the Native American Indians remained a threat (legitimately so, for they were having their lands forcibly wrested from them), and settlement and development of the land was delayed, the scrip was worth only pennies an acre.

Many soldiers after the war needed money and sold their scrip for a pittance to speculators who bought it up in anticipation of its value rising. The men speculating in this land scrip foresaw that once a strong Federal government was in place that the value of this Scrip would greatly increase. A strong federal government could raise a standing army to fight the Indians, and promote settlement of these western lands. Beard writes, “Every leading capitalist of the time thoroughly understood the relation of a new constitution to the rise in land values beyond the Alleghenies.”

Charles Beard proceeds in his book to show from existing records, the financial condition of each man that participated in the Constitutional Convention, and how they stood to gain financially, or materially, through passage of this document. Beard sums up this lengthy section of his book with the following statements:

The overwhelming majority of its members, at least five-sixths, were immediately, directly, and personally interested in the outcome of their labors at Philadelphia, and were to a greater or less extent economic beneficiaries from the adoption of the Constitution.

1. Public security interests were extensively represented in the Convention. Of the fifty-five members who attended, no less than forty appear on records of the Treasury Department...

2. Personal assets invested in lands for speculation was represented by at least fourteen members...

3. Personal assets in the form of money loaned at interest was represented by at least twenty-four members...

4. Personal assets in mercantile, manufacturing, and shipping lines was represented by at least eleven members...

5. Personal assets in slaves was represented by at least fifteen members...

It cannot be said, therefore, that the members of the Convention were “disinterested.” On the contrary, we are forced to accept the profoundly significant conclusion that they knew through their personal experiences in economic affairs the precise results which the new government that they were setting up was designed to attain.
[End Excerpt]

Beard proceeds to set forth cogent arguments for the design of the government. He presents a convincing view of the separation of powers as a means by which the moneyed and propertied classes could protect themselves against the popular will of the people. By separating the government into Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches, and by staggering the election of public officials (Representatives - 2 years; Senators - 6 years; President - 4 years; Supreme Court - Lifetime Appointment), the Convention members were insuring that a sudden popular uprising against the moneyed and propertied classes would be stymied. It would be nearly impossible to pass any sweeping reforms that would adversely effect that aristocratic class of Americans who were men of money and property.

Keep in mind that many of these men at the Convention were Freemasons. There was a prevailing conviction among them (expressed in the words of Manly Hall) that certain men were born to govern, and the majority of men must in turn be content to be governed by others. Charles Beard writes of the “notions of government which were common to the Federalists” at that time. One of the Convention members was George Clymer who asserted that “a representative of the people is appointed to think FOR and not WITH his constituents.”

James Madison took detailed notes of the Convention and recorded the following about John Dickinson of Delaware. “Mr. Dickinson had a very different idea of the tendency of vesting the right of suffrage in the freeholders of the country. He considered them as the best guardians of liberty; And the restriction of the right to them as a necessary defense against the dangerous influence of those multitudes without property and without principle, with which our Country like all others, will in time abound.”

The men who participated in the Convention by and large were opposed to “leveling democracy.” They believed that it was dangerous for the unpropertied classes to have equal say as those with property. Many of the convention members wanted to establish a property clause in the Constitution whereby only those with significant property could vote. The reason such a restriction did not find its way into the Constitution is that the members never could come to agreement on what those requirements should be. The sticking point was that some of the men present had large land holdings, but very little actual cash or stocks or bonds. Others were flush with cash and various financial instruments, but had little in the way of real property. In the end, they chose to leave it to the states to establish voting qualifications, which most had in place already.

In his book, Beard cites Alexander Hamilton:

All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and well born, the other the mass of the people. The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true in fact. The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second...

There were numerous members of the Constitutional Convention who argued that a permanent aristocracy should be built into America’s government. Some made reference to the House of Lords in England, and suggested that America should have something similar. A few, however, were opposed to giving power to an aristocracy. Governeur Morris of Pennsylvania weighed in on the issue. He said:

The sound of (the word) Aristocracy, therefore had no effect on him. It was the thing, not the name, to which he was opposed, and one of his principal objections to the Constitution as it is now before us, is that it threatens this Country with an Aristocracy. The Aristocracy will grow out of the House of Representatives... Give the votes to the people who have no property, and they will sell them to the rich who will be able to buy them.

Some of the Convention members argued that Senators should not be paid, for they believed this would insure that only wealthy men would apply for the positions, keeping the Senate firmly in the hands of the moneyed and propertied class.

Roger Sherman believed in reducing the popular influence in the new government to the minimum... The people, he said, immediately should have as little to do as may be about the government. They want (lack) information and are constantly liable to be misled.

When it came time to vote on ratification of the Constitution, it is little wonder that the population was deeply divided. Beard provides vote counts by city and region that demonstrate that the small farmers, who were far more common than today, and the common laborers, were overwhelmingly opposed to the Constitution. The rural areas voted against the Constitution. It was the cities where the merchants, bankers, shippers, and other men of wealth congregated that voted in favor of the Constitution.

In this chapter I am building a bridge to what follows. It has been my intent to demonstrate that there has always been a ruling elite in the nation. They are guided by an unseen hand. The government follows a course that is steered y what Manly Hall refers to as “the Order of the Illumined.”

As the nation has grown in population, and the middle class has burgeoned, new methods had to be developed to insure the continuance of the rule of America’s aristocracy. The chief tool has been deception. This should not be surprising when one considers what has been set forth thus far in this series. A nation whose founding fathers were Freemasons, deists, disciples of the Enlightenment, and members of groups such as the Hellfire Club, who formed counsels in the Green Dragon Tavern, and adopted the image of a serpent as an emblem of their rebellion, may disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, but the truth will come out in the end.

II Corinthians 11:14-15
No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.


Heart4God Website: http://www.heart4god.ws    

Parables Blog: www.parablesblog.blogspot.com    

Mailing Address:
Joseph Herrin
P.O. Box 804
Montezuma, GA 31063

Dragon Flood - Part Nine - Do What Thou Wilt

Joseph Herrin (09-24-2012)

Some months back I posted a blog on the subject of the Liberty Bell. The story of the Liberty Bell features prominently in the founding of America as a nation, and is a staple of public school history lessons. Following is an excerpt from that article.
---
The Liberty Bell has become a symbol of America as a constitutional nation. The Liberty Bell was hung in Independence Hall where the American Constitution was voted on and adopted. For many years The Liberty Bell was displayed inside Constitution Hall. The Liberty Bell is readily identified by a prominent crack that is quite extensive.

Liberty Bell Crack

To understand the parable contained in this symbol of America one needs to know a little of the history of this bell. Keep in mind that Philadelphia was the Capital of the nascent nation prior to Washington D.C. being constructed.

In 1751, with a bell tower being built in the Pennsylvania State House, civic authorities sought a bell of better quality, which could be heard at a further distance in the rapidly expanding city. Isaac Norris, speaker of the Pennsylvania Provincial Assembly, gave orders to the colony's London agent, Robert Charles, to obtain a "good Bell of about two thousands pound weight."
                           
We hope and rely on thy care and assistance in this affair and that thou wilt procure and forward it by the first good oppo as our workmen inform us it will be much less trouble to hang the Bell before their Scaffolds are struck from the Building where we intend to place it which will not be done 'till the end of next Summer or beginning of the Fall. Let the bell be cast by the best workmen & examined carefully before it is Shipped with the following words well shaped around it vizt. By Order of the Assembly of the Province  [sic] of Pensylvania [sic] for the State house in the City of Philada 1752 and Underneath Proclaim Liberty thro' all the Land to all the Inhabitants thereof.-Levit. XXV. 10...

It arrived in Philadelphia in August 1752. Norris wrote to Charles that the bell was in good order, but they had not yet sounded it, as they were building a clock for the State House's tower. The bell was mounted on a stand to test the sound, and at the first strike of the clapper, the bell's rim cracked...

Philadelphia authorities tried to return it by ship, but the master of the vessel which had brought it was unable to take it on board.

Two local founders, John Pass and John Stow, offered to recast the bell. Though they were inexperienced in bell casting, Pass had headed the Mount Holly Iron Foundry in neighboring New Jersey and came from Malta, which had a tradition of bell casting. Stow, on the other hand, was only four years out of his apprenticeship as a brass founder. At Stow's foundry on Second Street, the bell was broken into small pieces, melted down, and cast into a new bell. The two founders decided that the metal was too brittle, and augmented the bell metal by about ten percent, using copper. The bell was ready in March 1753, and Norris reported that the lettering (which included the founders' names and the year) was even clearer on the new bell than on the old.

City officials scheduled a public celebration with free food and drink for the testing of the recast bell. When the bell was struck, it did not break, but the sound produced was described by one hearer as like two coal scuttles being banged together. Mocked by the crowd, Pass and Stow hastily took the bell away and again recast it. When the fruit of the two founders' renewed efforts was brought forth in June 1753, the sound was deemed satisfactory, though Norris indicated that he did not personally like it. The bell was hung in the steeple of the State House the same month...

It is uncertain how the bell came to be cracked; the damage occurred sometime between 1817 and 1846. The bell is mentioned in a number of newspaper articles during that time; no mention of a crack can be found until 1846. In fact, in 1837, the bell was depicted in an anti-slavery publication—uncracked. In February 1846 Public Ledger reported that the bell had been rung on February 23, 1846 in celebration of Washington's Birthday (as February 22 fell on a Sunday, the celebration occurred the next day), and also reported that the bell had long been cracked, but had been "put in order" by having the sides of the crack filed. The paper reported that around noon, it was discovered that the ringing had caused the crack to be greatly extended, and that "the old Independence Bell...now hangs in the great city steeple irreparably cracked and forever dumb."
[Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Liberty_Bell]

The remarkable history of this bell, serving as it does as a great symbol of American liberty, and replete with highly unusual events, causes me to suspect a divine hand in sending forth a message as God is wont to do. The founders of America set forth to create a government where “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” were guaranteed (albeit, not to all). The framer’s of the Constitution understood that man was easily corrupted, and they sought to form a government that would resist this tendency toward corruption...

Like The Liberty Bell, the American form of government was flawed from the start. It was assumed that wise men, by discerning “the laws of nature and of nature’s God,” could codify these laws into such a form that an utopian society could be created. Men could then live life, enjoy liberty, and pursue happiness without the interference of tyrannical leaders or the imposition of unjust laws. What the founding father’s did not perceive was the depths to which mankind is corrupt. These were not Christian men who professed themselves as disciples of the Son of God. These men were Deists, Unitarians, and many were Freemasons. Their beliefs were largely drawn from the teachings of those men they considered sages from the Enlightenment...

I believe it was Yahweh that cracked The Liberty Bell from the very first time it was struck. He was testifying that the sound produced by men being given liberty to follow the passions of their souls would produce only a discordant sound in His ears. Even after the bell was repaired, it sounded with such a jarring and unpleasant sound that it was compared to two coal scuttles being banged together.

Coal Scuttle
(A bucket for carrying coal.)

Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for Literature in 1970,  commented on what he observed in the nation of America.

"Destructive and irresponsible freedom has been granted boundless space. Society appears to have little defense against the abyss of human decadence, such as, for example, misuse of liberty for moral violence against young people..."

The Liberty Bell is a symbol of America. The sound of her abominations has arisen to the heavens. She is under judgment. Seeing that there is no repentance, no repudiation of the immorality she has chosen, nor sorrow over her transgressions, the judgments of God will fall with even greater severity.

If Sodom had a bell, would not America’s Liberty Bell be a fitting symbol for that wicked city? Did not the leading men of Philadelphia those years ago invite God’s judgment when they inscribed their bell with words from His holy scriptures as if Yahweh were Himself putting His blessing upon the works of their hands?...

Who cracked The Liberty Bell? Yahweh did. He was sending forth a message that men granted free reign to choose the course their souls dictated would end up in absolute spiritual poverty and in the depths of moral depravity. Such is the social fabric of America today. It is a filthy garment, detestable to the heavens.

As America’s leaders stand and deliver speeches about celebrating homosexuality, does not the sound of man’s liberty reach the heavens with great dissonance? America has let man’s freedom ring. The sound has been discordant. Soon the liberty and freedom of America will be a thing of distant memory.
[End Excerpt]

This present series is offered with the intent to open the eyes of the saints of God to the great extent to which they have been propagandized. Certain words have been imbued by Satan with false meaning. They are held forth as emblems of righteousness, and heralded as marks of great virtue. Two of the most corrupted words in the English language today, especially in their association with the people of America, are the words “Freedom” and “Liberty.”

Day after day Americans are inundated with media stories that proclaim the virtues of democracy being spread throughout the world. We are told that dictators are being cast down and democracy is being put in place. This is reported as if it is great progress. America is characterized as a benevolent champion of human rights and personal freedom. We are told that oppressed people are being liberated. In Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Syria, and nation after nation, we see national leaders being swept aside and democratic governments set in place. (More will be shared on the falseness of what is reported later.)

Where did this notion arise that nations ruled by a strong central ruler are evil, and democratic government “of the people, by the people, for the people” are righteous and honorable? As one reads the Bible they will find that there were no democratic nations. Israel was a theocracy until the people demanded a king. For many centuries following it was a Monarchy. There were both good kings, and evil kings, but Yahweh never suggested that the Monarchy itself was evil, and the people would be better served with a democratic form of government.

I Peter 2:17
Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.

As Americans, we have been indoctrinated from our youth on up to believe there is some intrinsic virtue to a democratic republic where the people choose their leaders, and form their own laws. Stop for just a moment and consider how antithetical such a concept is to the Kingdom of God. How does this natural realm of government correlate to the spiritual realm?

The Bible describes the domain of Yahweh’s rule as a Kingdom. Christ came preaching that the KINGDOM of God was at hand. We understand that in the Kingdom of God there is a central figure who is ruler over all things. This is Yahweh, the Creator, and the sustainer of all life. Would any Christian dare think that it is an evil thing for Yahweh to rule over His creation? Would any be justified to suggest that mankind would be better off to choose its own spiritual Head and Sovereign, or to form her own laws? Does any saint dare infer that the world would be better off with men being the source of governmental authority in the Kingdom of God, in place of Yahweh?

There is one being, however, who has in his pride and conceit rebelled against the King of heaven and sought to establish his own rule. This one is Satan. What form of government do you suppose Satan would set forth as superior to subjecting oneself to the rule of the King of Heaven? It is self-rule! The motto of Satan’s kingdom is the same as we previously found to be adopted by the Hellfire Club. It is “Do as thou wilt!”

Do What Thou Wilt

Satan is a rebel. He was not content to do the will of Yahweh, choosing rather to do his own will. The self-willed nature of Satan is revealed in the famous passage from Isaiah that recounts the fall of this heavenly being.

Isaiah 14:12-14
How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, you who have weakened the nations!  But you said in your heart,
‘I will ascend to heaven;
I will raise my throne above the stars of God, and
I will sit on the mount of assembly in the recesses of the north.
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High.’

Satan was given a very high and glorious position as the Covering Cherub who stood in the presence of Yahweh. Nevertheless, he came to view his role as detestable. He wanted to ascend higher. Pride and conceit corrupted his wisdom and led to his rebellion. The apostle Paul recognized the source of Satan’s fall as he was giving counsel to Timothy regarding the appointment of church elders.

I Timothy 3:6
And not a new convert, so that he will not become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil.

The prophet Ezekiel describes the fall of Satan in greater detail.

Ezekiel 28:12-17
"You had the seal of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God; Every precious stone was your covering: The ruby, the topaz and the diamond; The beryl, the onyx and the jasper; The lapis lazuli, the turquoise and the emerald; And the gold, the workmanship of your settings and sockets, was in you. On the day that you were created they were prepared. You were the anointed cherub who covers, and I placed you there. You were on the holy mountain of God; You walked in the midst of the stones of fire. You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created until unrighteousness was found in you. By the abundance of your trade you were internally filled with violence, and you sinned; Therefore I have cast you as profane from the mountain of God. And I have destroyed you, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. Your heart was lifted up because of your beauty; You corrupted your wisdom by reason of your splendor.”

Despite the high and glorious position assigned to him by Yahweh, Satan desired more. He wanted to ascend. He wanted to be equal to God. He wanted to do his own will rather than serve the will of Another. Consider the great contrast between the attitude manifested by Satan, and that revealed in the life of the Son of God. The apostle Paul tells us:

Philippians 2:5-8
Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Yahshua, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Christ existed in the form of God. We are told that Yahshua is the firstborn of all creation. He was the first exhalation of the Father. He was the word of Yahweh given form. He fully expressed the image and likeness of His Father. Yet, Christ did not demand to be equal in authority, to choose His own way, nor to do His own will. He freely SUBMITTED to Yahweh, and was willing even to take upon a form that was humble and lowly. He stooped to serve, willingly laying aside the glory He had with the Father to walk about in the form of fallen mankind.

II Corinthians 8:9
For you know the grace of our Lord Yahshua Christ, that though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, so that you through His poverty might become rich.

Hebrews 2:9
But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Yahshua...

The glorious Son of God, took upon a form that was lower than the angels, though all the angels were created by Him.

Colossians 1:15-16
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities -- all things have been created through Him and for Him.

Not only did the Son of God willingly humble Himself at the Father’s direction, but He became more lowly still. He was despised and rejected by men. He did not demand to be worshiped. He became a servant to others. He even girded Himself about with a towel and bent down to wash the feet of His disciples when none of them would do so.

In His entire earthly career, the Son of God never once did anything of His own initiative. He only did that which the Father commanded Him to do.

John 8:42
Yahshua said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me.”

John 5:30
“I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.”

Observe the stark contrast in the attitude of Christ and that of Satan. Satan said five times, “I WILL!” The Son of God said, “I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.” Even at the end of His earthly course, as the Father made known to the Son that He must be rejected by the Jews, beaten, spat upon, scourged, and nailed to a cross, Yahshua did not shrink back from doing the Father’s will. Though His own soul recoiled greatly at the cup of suffering presented to Him, His commitment to do ONLY the will of the Father remained unshaken.

Luke 22:42
"Father, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Yours be done."

People of God, this is the great distinction between the pride and rebellion of Satan and the humility and submission of Yahshua. I ask you, which of these two heavenly beings attitude was exemplified by the founding father’s of America? This is a question that seems to be completely avoided by men and women who describe the United States as a Christian nation. What plan did Satan inspire Freemasons to embrace as they met in the Green Dragon Tavern? Was it not a mirror of his own rebellion? Did not these men determine that they would not be ruled over by another, but would cast off the authority of a king and establish their own government? Let us judge with righteous judgment. It was not the Spirit of Christ that inspired men to rebel against the king. It was the proud spirit of Lucifer. Under the banner of their spiritual leader these men went forth.

Satan’s motto is “Do what thou wilt.” This expression which is embraced by Satanists, witches, and other occultists today, which was the motto of the Hellfire Club of which Benjamin Franklin was a member, has found expression in the seminal documents of America. Over and over it has been declared that America is a righteous nation, even a Christian nation. Her form of government is deemed to be divinely blessed.

In the previous chapter titled As Above, So Below, the mirroring of things in the heavens upon the earth was in view. The Bible reveals that Satan is a rebel. He revolted against the rule of Yahweh has King of all creation. He has sought to induce men to follow his example as they engage in revolts and usurpations.

When Satan five times stated “I will,” he was declaring his independence from the rule of Yahweh. He sought to set his own throne beside the throne of the Almighty. He did not want to be ruled, but to be his own ruler. Thomas Jefferson wrote The Declaration of Independence, echoing Satan’s own revolt against the King of heaven. Jefferson described the King of England as a tyrant, and Satan also seeks to disparage Yahweh in order to justify his rebellion.

There is no correspondence between America’s form of government and the government of God. Yahweh’s dominion is a kingdom. The form of government adopted by America’s founding father’s is that of Lucifer. He has enticed men with the promise of ruling themselves, creating their own government, writing their own laws, and appointing and removing their rulers at will. Even as the Liberty bell sounded a discordant note when struck, so too does America’s form of government find great harmonic dissonance with the Kingdom of God.

Satan has sought to disguise the rebellious nature of this form of government. He uses words like “Freedom” and “Liberty” to put a positive spin on things. Recently the XXX Olympiad was held in London, the Satanic city that is dominated by images of dragons. The opening and closing ceremonies were showpieces of occult and Satanic rule. During the closing ceremony the word “FREEDOM” was displayed in large letters.

I ask you, “What does Satan have to do with freedom?” It was his own personal freedom and liberty that he sought when he rebelled against Yahweh. When Satan says “Freedom” he means “Rebellion.” When he says “Liberty” he means “Self-rule.” He has persuaded mankind that it is their right to do as they please, unfettered by any moral restraint from God or man. We are seeing the diabolical fruit of his campaign in the mature fruit of America as a nation. We can observe where unfettered liberty and freedom have led.

America is a nation that has slaughtered more than 50 million unborn children in a hedonistic pursuit of sexual liberation, and unbridled lust. It has “pleased” millions of men and women to fornicate, and to commit adultery, without the consequence of child rearing. America is a nation that champions homosexuality in the name of personal freedom. She exports pornography, violence, rebellion, the drug culture, profane and obscene music, movies, and television programs throughout the world. America has truly lived by the motto “Do as thou wilt” and she is morally, spiritually, and financially bankrupt.

People of God, understand that there have been no more dangerous words sold to mankind as their inalienable rights that “Freedom” and “Liberty.” Christ said:

John 6:38
“For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.”

Christ is the pattern for those who would be His disciples. Why then has the church embraced the government and behavior of Satan as their pattern? Are they not deceived?

Christ is set forth as the pattern for righteousness. He did not live to please self. He had no overriding principle of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. On the contrary, Yahshua laid down His life. He surrendered His liberty as was proven at the cross when He said “Not My will, but Thy will be done.” He did not live for the pursuit of His own happiness. The apostle Paul testified:

Romans 15:3
For even Christ did not please Himself...

People of God, if you have the discernment of heaven, when you hear the words “Freedom” and “Liberty” being championed in this hour, they should strike your ears with a discordant sound. You too should recognize that Satan is using such words to lead mankind down that broad path that leads to destruction.

When Satan says “Let freedom ring,” he means you should cast off all restraint, including that of heaven. Live for self. Pursue your own happiness. This is his message of light, but it is truly darkness.

Christ said:

John 12:25-26
“He who loves his life loses it, and he who hates his life in this world will keep it to life eternal. If anyone serves Me, he must follow Me...”

There is a cross for every son of God. There is a path of self-denial to be walked. We too must say, “Not my will, but Thy will be done.”

This is NOT the path the founding fathers of America chose, and the end will surely show it.


Heart4God Website: http://www.heart4god.ws    

Parables Blog: www.parablesblog.blogspot.com    

Mailing Address:
Joseph Herrin
P.O. Box 804
Montezuma, GA 31063

Dragon Flood - Part Eight - As Above, So Below

Joseph Herrin (09-23-2012)

Washington Monument and Reflecting Pool

Matthew 6:9-10
After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
KJV

Satan is an usurper. He seeks to claim for himself that role which belongs to Yahweh. We read of Satan’s first attempt at usurpation in the following passage from the prophet Isaiah.

Isaiah 14:13-14
You said in your heart, 'I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God, and I will sit on the mount of assembly in the recesses of the north. I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.'

In the words from the Lord’s prayer that are cited at the top of this post we see Yahshua, the Son of God, expressing the proper attitude for all who acknowledge Yahweh as the Creator and God of the universe. Christ taught His disciples to pray that the will of their heavenly Father would be done on the earth (or in the earth of our flesh) in the same way as it is accomplished by the holy angels in the heavens.

In imitation of Yahshua, Satan has taught his disciples a similar phrase. This phrase is “As above, so below.” This very common occult expression means many things to different people. Some relate it to the testimony of the stars above being reflected in the events on the earth. Some suggest that it means that god is like man, and man is like god. (Who they identify as god varies. Certainly some are identifying Satan/Lucifer as god.) In this writing I would also postulate that these words are an expression of Satan’s desire to establish his rule upon the earth as a reflection of his present rule among the fallen angels in the heavens.

Great Seal of Solomon

Eliphas Levi, born Alphonse Louis Constant, has had a great influence upon modern occult practice. He was a magician and writer of occult books. The image above that is referred to as the Great Seal of Solomon is attributed to Eliphas Levi. It can be understood as a symbolic illustration of the phrase “As above, so below.” We further see this expression given physical embodiment in the drawing of Baphomet.

Baphomet

You can see the name Eliphas Levi written at the bottom of this image which was published in his book Dogma and Ritual of High Magic in 1855. It is interesting to note that when the Knight’s Templars were arrested, their properties confiscated, and many of them burnt at the stake in the 1300s, one of the charges brought against them by King Philip IV of France was that the Knights Templars worshiped an idol named Baphomet. This name was traceable back to Mahomet, or Mohammed. You may note the double image of the crescent moon in the drawing of Baphomet above. Mohammed was the prophet of Allah, who was known as a lunar deity. The crescent moon figures prominently in Islam.

Baphomet has become associated with Satan, and no doubt Satan is the originator of all idols and false gods. Even the Bible associates goats with evil. Christ spoke a message regarding the day of judgment where the sheep were being separated from the goats. To the goats He will say:

Matthew 25:41
“Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the aionian fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels...”

In the image of Baphomet we see the right hand pointing up, and the left hand pointing down, once again bringing to mind the expression “As above, so below.” What I would bring out in relation to this present study is that Satan is called the Prince of the Power of the Air in the Bible.

Ephesians 2:1-2
And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience.

Satan has a spiritual kingdom of which he is the head. It is this kingdom Christ refers to in the following Scripture.

Luke 11:15-18
But some of them said, "He casts out demons by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons..." But He knew their thoughts and said to them, “Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and a house divided against itself falls. If Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? For you say that I cast out demons by Beelzebul.”

The Jews called Satan (Beelzebul) “the ruler of the demons.” Yet Satan has greater aspirations than to rule over demons. He seeks to rule over all mankind. That rule that he has in the heavenly realms he wishes to see brought to fulness as all mankind bows before him in open worship. Satan sought to accomplish this end by inducing the Son of God in the flesh to bow before him in worship.

Matthew 4:8-9
Again, the devil took Him to a very high mountain and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory; and he said to Him, "All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me."

Having failed in tempting Yahshua to worship him, Satan has not given up his quest. He is ever working toward the goal of getting all men to worship him. The book of Revelations reveals that he will achieve this goal among the mass of humanity at the end of the age.

Revelation 13:3-4
And the whole earth was amazed and followed after the beast; they worshiped the dragon because he gave his authority to the beast...

Even as the demons worship Satan, and even as 1/3rd of the angels followed Satan in rebelling against Yawheh, so too does Satan seek to induce all mankind to follow and worship him. “As above, so below.”

It was shown earlier that the capital city of America is laid out with many occult symbols. We observed the Star of Mendes, another image of Satan as the goat headed god of this world, laid out in the streets of Washington, D.C.. The chin of the goat, representing the spirit of Satan, rests right upon the White House. If one were to overlay the image of Baphomet shown above onto the street grid of Washington, D.C., with the chin resting on the White House, they would find that the flame atop the torch would rest directly upon the House of the Temple, the headquarters of Freemasonry in North America. This Masonic building is precisely 13 blocks from the White House.

In 1832, the 100th anniversary of the birth of George Washington, Horatio Greenough was commissioned by the Congress to create a statue of Washington to be placed in the Capitol Rotunda. The marble statue attracted controversy as soon as it was unveiled in 1841. Greenough had modeled the body of Washington after the Roman god Zeus. He was bare chested, wearing a toga, and many thought it was indecent to display an image of Washington in this immodest condition.

George Washington Statue

What is striking is that Washington is posed similarly to Eliphas Levi’s drawing of Baphomet.

Baphomet/Washington

The statue was eventually removed from the Rotunda due to public outcry. It now sits in the Smithsonian Museum. One gets a sense of the meaning of Washington’s hand gestures as they consider where his statue was designed to be placed, and what was directly overhead in the Rotunda.

   













Apotheosis of Washington
(Click on Image to View Larger)

This painting on the inside of the Capitol Dome is called The Apotheosis of Washington. It shows George Washington ascending into the heavens to take his place alongside the gods of Rome. The word apotheosis means “elevation to a divine status.” This painting portrays one of the foremost teachings of Freemasonry. It is taught that as a man advances through the various degrees of Freemasonry that he is ascending toward godhood. The Freemasons often employ an image of a ladder ascending into heaven as a symbol of man’s progress toward deification.

Masonic Ladder

As a man advances in the esoteric knowledge of Freemasonry, being trained in the Luciferian doctrines, he is ever striving toward a state of enlightenment. He is told that he can be a light upon the earth, having the key of wisdom, the secret to ascending to godhood. (Note the key hanging from the ladder in the image above.)

The message portrayed in the Rotunda Dome is that George Washington, as the first president of the new Masonic nation, himself being a lifelong Freemason, had attained to a state of godhood. If you look closely at the image of Washington in this painting, you can see that his pose mirrors that of the statue that was placed underneath.

George Washington - As Above, So Below

Note also the stars in the painting to the far left and right in the image above. Once again Satan is mimicking the promises of Yahweh.

Daniel 12:3
“Those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.”

Satan, the great deceiver, promises that he holds the key to mankind’s ascension to godhood. He pretends to have the secret knowledge whereby man might ascend to the heavens and rule as gods. He would invite men to devote themselves to the study of his Luciferian doctrines, and obedience to his rule.

It is not by coincidence that Mormon belief includes this same teaching. Mormons are taught that they can become gods of their own planets. They are exhorted to devote themselves to the Mormon church. To become a member of the Temple. To pass through various initiation rites. To adopt certain symbols that are plainly Masonic in origin, such as the Temple garments that faithful Mormons must wear under their clothes at all times.

The angled shapes on either breast of the garment signify the square and compass of Freemasonry. As the Republican Party has set forth Mitt Romney as their candidate for President of the United States, we see that things have not changed much at all since George Washington entered office in 1789.

In many ways, Washington, D.C. is a Luciferian message board. It is declaring on earth what Satan is seeking to bring about. He would set his throne beside the throne of God and be worshiped by angels and men. The layout of the city gives testimony to the fact that Satan is the one who rules over the affairs of men. His chin is resting upon the White House, the building where the most powerful political figure in the world is seated and conducts the affairs of this nation, and many others.

In the various reflecting pools throughout this nation we see an expression of the Luciferian motto “As above, so below.” The image at the very top of this post shows the Washington Monument mirrored in the reflecting pool. These things were built with great thought and purpose. They are showpieces to Masonic/Luciferian doctrine. Once again we have the promise of Satan that men can become as gods if they will seek after the wisdom he can give to them. In the image in the water we also see reflected Satan’s heavenly kingdom. Satan has been working steadily toward that day when his kingdom will include the worship and fealty of all mankind. All the nations will worship the dragon.

This testimony was expressed by numerous means as the nation was being formed. You will recall in a numerous post that at the Masonic cornerstone laying ceremonies and other key events in the history of America, the Dragon’s Head, a node of the moon, was prominently featured astrologically. In the heavens we also find the constellation Draco, the Dragon. This constellation represents Satan, the adversary of the people of God.

Constellation Draco

This is actually a poor depiction, for as I have shared in other writings, Ursa Minor, also known as the Little Bear, was in ancient times known as the Lesser Sheepfold. Ursa Major, was similarly referenced as the Greater Sheepfold. These two constellations represent the people of God, Israel and the Church. Note the proximity of the Dragon to those stars representing the people of God.

This image of Draco, as is true of most depictions of this constellation, looks more like a serpent than a dragon. Dragons are actually nothing more than winged, flying serpents. In the Garden of Eden we read of the serpent’s encounter with Eve. He is figured as being in the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, tempting her to eat. When Yahweh pronounces judgment on the serpent, we are told that the serpent is cursed from that day forward to go forth on its belly, eating the dust of the earth.

What we learn from this is that the serpent did not previously go forth on its belly. This was its condition AFTER Yahweh judged the serpent. How then did it travel before it was cursed? I see only one appropriate answer. The serpent was winged, and it flew. Satan is called both “the dragon,” and “the serpent of old” (Revelation 12:9, 20:2). In one form he is a serpent, and in the other he is a flying serpent.

Unknown to many people, the first emblem of America as a nation was not an eagle, it was a serpent. The very first political cartoon published in a newspaper in America is attributed to Benjamin Franklin.

This cartoon, published in 1754 during the French and Indian War, gained great popularity among those colonialists who desired their own identity separate from England. Images have a powerful way of uniting people together. In 1774, Freemason Paul Revere used this image in his publications, and in 1775 Benjamin Frankin wrote an article in which he suggested that the serpent was a fitting symbol of the American “spirit.” Yes, indeed!

"I recollected that her eye excelled in brightness, that of any other animal, and that she has no eye-lids—She may therefore be esteemed an emblem of vigilance.—She never begins an attack, nor, when once engaged, ever surrenders: She is therefore an emblem of magnanimity and true courage.—As if anxious to prevent all pretensions of quarreling with her, the weapons with which nature has furnished her, she conceals in the roof of her mouth, so that, to those who are unacquainted with her, she appears to be a most defenseless animal; and even when those weapons are shewn and extended for her defense, they appear weak and contemptible; but their wounds however small, are decisive and fatal:—Conscious of this, she never wounds till she has generously given notice, even to her enemy, and cautioned him against the danger of stepping on her.—Was I wrong, Sir, in thinking this a strong picture of the temper and conduct of America?"
[Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadsden_flag]

Does it not seem fitting that the man who was a member of the Hellfire Club should choose a serpent as the emblem of America, and that Paul Revere who frequented the Green Dragon Tavern in Boston, the headquarters of the American Revolution, should also adopt this symbol? We need not guess who is the ultimate author of both the Hellfire Club and Freemasonry. It is none other than the dragon and serpent of old.

When the United States formed a navy in 1775 to intercept British ships, the first flag flown from the fleet was known as the Gadsden Flag, named after Christopher Gadsden, a member of the Continental Congress from South Carolina. The flag featured a yellow background with a coiled rattlesnake in the center. On the serpent’s tail were thirteen rattles.

Gadsden Flag

This flag was soon afterwards modified and became one of the first official flags of America, before the stars and stripes. In the following form it was, and still is, called the First Navy Jack.

This flag continues to be flown from the oldest ship in the United States Navy. At the time of this writing, it is being flown from the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise.

What I would point out in all of this is that there is a very discernible link between the “influences of the heavens,” as David Ovason refers to in The Secret Architecture of Our Nation’s Capital, and the nation that is called the United States of America. The same symbol in the heavens that represents “the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan,” was adopted by the men who under his guidance and inspiration were the founding fathers of America.

This is important to know, for as the book of Genesis reveals, “the serpent was more cunning than any other beast of the field.” These words describe the policy by which America’s government has operated since her inception. This is the manner in which the government guides and directs the citizens of her own nation. She practices cunning and deception. This will become more obvious as this present series develops.


Heart4God Website: http://www.heart4god.ws    

Parables Blog: www.parablesblog.blogspot.com    

Mailing Address:
Joseph Herrin
P.O. Box 804
Montezuma, GA 31063