Are we being duped by the Tribe of Levi?

Hey Craig,

Did you see the similarity between the logo of JTAC (Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre) and the possibly Rosecrution influenced crest of Martin Luther?

I put the crest upside down next to JTAC so you can see the very striking resemblance - even the shape of the flower is the same.

Maybe not important - just my 2 cents…

WbR,
Boris

Dear Eric,

I disagree with much of your writings below. I totally believe the New Testament to be a complete fraud almost completely contradicting the Old Testament. I also believe Luther was a Rosicrucian and the evidence for this is tremendous. Regardless of wether Freemasonry is illuminised or not, it has nothing to do with any bible teachings you follow. Their God is not your God and never has been from day one of the Masonic teachings. Their God is Lucifer period wether so-called illuminised or not. The King James Bible is no where near the be all and end all. Yes it's the be all and end all of the true history on Earth which it's hidden. It's utter nonsense to believe this World is only what 6000 years old? Crazy but yet again when you realise who created it finally then you can understand why they would write themselves out of history completely. I know I would do exactly the same if it were me in their shoes.

Thankyou
Craig Oxley
"The Unhived Mind"

--------------------------------------

Eric,

Greetings, just a brief question. I have read some of the information on your website linking to Luciferian Freemasonry.

On Craig Oxley website, I have read many of your posts, and you speak very highly of Luther, Washington and Bismark giving freedoms to the public. Now that may be so, but weren't those guys Freemasons surrounded by Freemasons?

Luther was not a Freemason, ever! He was a mere Augustinian monk who left the Order after he was saved by the grace of God, he fully understanding justification by faith alone (Romans 1:17). Washington was inducted into the lodge in 1754 but according to his own letter quoted in VAIII, he did not enter a Masonic lodge but once or twice during the last thirty years of his life. Futher, Washington became a true saved Bible-believing man; for one of his captains, Baptist Calvinist Pastor John Gano, baptized the father of our Calvinist Republic (1787-1868) in the Hudson River after the War for Independence. Bismarck was a low level Freemason whose loyalto was to the Word of God and to his Kaiser. For this reason he expelled the Jesuits in 1872, gave 550,000 German Jews the vote, and planned for another war with the French thus working with General von Molte the Elder to devise the Schliffen Plan. Washington lived during the first great Masonic Schism and Bismarck lived during the second great Masonic Schism.

All three men were hated by the Jesuits. Luther died in 1546 under questionable conditions, looking like poison to me. Washington was poisoned with anthrax and the guides at Valley Forge will even tell the tourists this fact. The assassination of Bismarck was attempted once in 1866 and again, after his victorious victory over the French, in 1874. Bismarck even had the priests arrested in their pulpits for preaching sedition against the Kaiser via the Falk or May Laws.

Why should the rest of the populace feel that we should be guided by individuals who swear secret oaths. Your Luciferian Freemasons link suggest that Freemasons are going very much against the word of God and the word of the Bible.

Agreed.

Yet you praise Luther and Washington as being "bible-believeing Christians". Isn't there a conflict between of loyalties if you are a Freemason.

The first great Masonic Schism was in about 1750. The suppression of the Jesuits was carried out by those Masons advising the kings of Spain and Portugal. Thus at that time Freemasonry was divided---thank the Lord! There was Illuminized Freemasonry serving the Order and low-level Freemasonry that was largely anti-Jesuit and nationalistic. Washington and Lafayette were both anti-Jesuit, low level, nationalistic Freemasons. Thus, politically speaking, they were a boon to the patriots of their day. Neither were devoted Freemasons, as were Jesuit Coadjutors Frederick II and Napoleon I, and neither were active in the Lodge. Nonetheless, no leader of any nation should be allowed to be an active member of a lodge and must formally renounce any attachment to any secret society. The Lord Jesus Christ said nothing in secret concerning his nationalistic purpose; neither should the man of God.

Another point which confuses me a little, You often refer to "bible-believeing Protestants" and the Protestant Bible. I thought the Bible was the same for both the Protestants and the Catholics and the only signficance was the interpretation.

Disagreed. The Bible of the Protestant Reformation is the Greek Textus Receptus and Hebrew Masoretic Text as translated into the languages of the nations. In English it is the Geneva Bible, the AV1611; in Arabic it is the Cornelius Van Dyke translation of 1867, etc. The bible of the Jesuits is Jerome's Latin Vulgate as translated into the English Rheims Douay Version. Today every English bible subsequent to the AV1611 is now in fact Roman Catholic as they are based upon a Westcott and Hort Greek Text. That text is a work of the Jesuits and is merely the Textus Receptus revisied in over 5700 places to comport with Jerome's Latin Vulgate. These false Protestant bibles include the ASV, NASV, NIV, etc. The Order's Council of Trent specifically rejects the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures as not being the Word of God. Thus Protestantism and Romanism have absolutely nothing in common including church history.

I know many Catholics who grew up believeing the bible. I went to schools that were predominantly Catholic and reading certain chapters and stories from the bible was part of our education. So whats the difference between the Protestant and Catholic Bibles. The Bible is the Bible regardless of where your coming from.

Disagreed and disproved above.

I also have issues regarding the authenticity of the Bible, how much of it was changed and manipulated particularly in the early years by the early Popes. Didn't Constantine change and manipulate some of the Bible, so how do we know which stories were his and which are genuine?

What God inspired He preserved. If not, we are all yet in our sins and we have no hope of ever abiding by any final authority given by God. Therefore, God has preserved his Hebrew and Greek Testaments that He inspired through "holy men of God." All scriptures are "God-breathed." By the end of the Second Century, the true Church of the Lord Jesus Christ had decided upon and accepted what is now the Canon of the New Testament. Constantine, the sun-worshipper and founder of Roman Catholicism, was never allowed to corrupt the true Bible at the Council of Nicea; he had expensive versions of the corrupt manuscripts made from vellum that were written in all upper case Greek letters---completely contrary to the true, Koine Greek NT Scriptures. And the popes neither corrupted the true Bible nor did they succeed in destroying it out of Europe. Rome has always hated the true Bible being in the hands of the "vulgar" peoples with it translated into the "vulgar tongues" of those peoples. The Jesuit Order's Counter Reformation Council of Trent (1545-1563) makes this clear.

Thus, the genuine Bible, the true Word of God, is the Hebrew Masoretic OT composed of 37 books, and the TR Greek NT composed of 27 books---66 books in all---uncorrupted by the Jesuit/Masonic rationalism of the 19th Century. When that Bible is translated into other languages those Bibles are also the Word of God in a specific language as mentioned above. Therefore, we have a lettered Final Authority outside of ourselves. If not, our ultimate final authority will be the pope of Rome.

I have heard King James Bible mentioned alot too. What is the difference with the King James Bible. It has been said to me that the King James Bible was translated in a very big hurry, so it was liable to mis-translations.

Disagreed. The 47 learned and godly Puritan men on three councils (Oxford, Cambridge, and Westminster) labored in their work from 1607 to 1611. It was open to the public and not hurried. You should consult Final Authority by William Grady (1993), Our Authorized Bible Vindicated by Benjamin Wilkinson (1930) and Translators Revived by Alexander McClure (1868). These works will answer all of your questions as to the topic of the AV1611.

I grew up in a Roman Catholic family, even though I am not affiliated to any religion these days. I feel the Bible can be read by anyone without needing to be part of an organised religion.

Agreed.

I have sometimes considered going to Protestant Mass, but is the Protestant Church just as corrupted as the Catholic church?

Protestantism is completely corrupted. The heart of the Protestant American Constitution is complete eaten out. It is fraught with Jesuitized, Illuminized Freemasonry; it uses only English bibles based upon pro-Jerome Latin Vulgate Greek Texts. The same is true for the Orthodox Churches of the East. Do not waste your time in any main-line Protestant Church as they are all apostate. The Protestant churches in the National Council and World Council of Churches are all serving the pope.

I recommend that you purchase an Authorzed King James Bible (Oxford Edition) and read the gospel of John. When finished then read the book of Romans following John. The Spirit of God will work upon your heart as he did mine, Lord willing. If you have any questions, let me know.

Regards

Sincerely in faith,

Brother Eric

Luther had rosicucian connections. One example is how Luther wore a Rose and Cross logo. He wasn't a Freemason since modern Freemasonry wasn't invented yet. The Rosicrucians are a precusor to the Masonic Order. The situation back then and today was a dirty game. This doesn't mean everything Luther did was wrong. He was right to promote justification by faith and he stood adamantly against papal legends, but he wasn't a perfect man. The Rosicrucians and some Protestants worked together to prevent the Roman Church from killing them. I don't justify that colloboration, but that's the realty of the situaton . The lesson is not place these men like Luther as idols. I accept what they say that is true, but I don't put them on a pedestal.

By Timothy

I would have some questions about the Tribe of Levi, or the Zadokites being above the Jesuits in the NWO scheme of things. I understand that is the suggestion, that there is another group of individuals above the Jesuits in the heirarchy. Have spent only very limited time on this I certainly don't claim to have any extensive knowledge, but the more I think of it the more I feel it is unlikely that the jesuits would allow themselves to be subordinate to anyone. History has shown us that the Jesuits were ruthless in their pursuit of power, and in fact the one person who they did claim to be servile to was the Pope, and we know how that ended up, the Jesuits control him, and they were willing to go to the most extraordinary and extreme lenghts to gain such control. Now if there was another tribe of people who were higher again than the pope, isn't it more than likely that the Jesuits would have gained control of them also??? What would have prevented them from going farther? If they were able to start the French Revolution, create the bloody Napoleonic wars to remove the monarchs of Europe to aid their restoration and to gain control of the Overt world leaders, what would have prevented them from taking control of other Covert leaders who could hardly muster more armies than the Monarchs could? The Jesuits showed the world they had the power to over-run anyone in any country, the Bolshevik Revolution being another example. I find it improbable that the Jesuits wouldn't have satisfied their lust for power and continued to devour whichever other powerful tribes existed, they gained control of the Knights of Malta, the Vatican, and the Monarchs of Europe, including the very powerful British Monarch!!! To gain control of another Tribe wouldn't have been any more difficult hurdle to surmount.

Folks remember how I've spoken of Tanis in Egypt controlling The Roman Empire? Well I also spoke of Athens in Greece didn't I? Well remember on if you take away the h and s you get Aten. Making some sense now? Remember how the Atonists fled out to Argos? This is Greece for those that don't know and Greece means light. Now is that connecting any dots for you? The Light, The Light haha! Well Athens goes back to Aten and of course the Uainn which is Egyptian for Greece. Amenhotep IV was the giver of Light. Remember they arrived in Greece around 700 years before it became powerful. Notice how this regions King known as Gelanor was taken over by the Atonists with deception as we see today around the World. Now from a Tanis point of view we may understand why Wimbledon is the biggest Tennis tournament in the World, which everyone wants to win. Theres the Royal Hyksos box at Wimbledon and it's president is non other than The Duke of Kent of the Pilgrims Society, Order of the Garter. Remember when I highlighted his connections with Egypt via the Kent? Connecting more dots for you? Now we see the Hyksos very clearly indeed.

-Craig Oxley

can you elaborate on that, why exactly do you say Lenin was a failed masonic experiment, and I assume you are saying the masons were directed by the jesuits (how, and why did it fail, how did it nearly devour the jesuits)

The Duke and Duchess of Kent

Monday 8 January 2007
- Margaret Weatherford
margaret.w@etoile.co.uk
http://www.etoile.co.uk/Columns/Margaret/070108.html


Finally concluding my series on the Queen's cousins this month is her cousin the Duke of Kent. The Queen's uncle Prince George, Duke of Kent, married Princess Marina of Greece and had three children: Edward in 1935, Alexandra on Christmas Day 1936, and Michael in July 1942. Prince George was killed in a plane crash in August 1942, and Princess Marina died of a brain tumor in 1968. Their children have always been close to the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh, partly because they are his cousins as well as hers.

Prince Edward George Nicholas Paul Patrick of Kent became Duke of Kent in 1942, when he was not yet seven years old, and virtually no one realizes now that there is more than one Prince Edward in the royal family. He went to Eton and to Le Rosay in Switzerland, then to Sandhurst, where he qualified as an interpreter of French. (The Kents are all good at languages.) His first Army posting in 1956 was to the North Riding of Yorkshire, where he fell in love with the Lord Lieutenant's shy, musical daughter, Katherine Worsley. Princess Marina had doubts about whether her 21-year-old son was ready for marriage and insisted that he wait. Then he was posted abroad for two years, and then they were not allowed to marry during the same year as Princess Margaret. They finally married on June 8,
1961, in York Minster, with a reception in the grounds of Katherine's family home, Hovington Hall. It was a very informal wedding by royal standards.

The early years of the Kents' marriage were happy and informal, as Katherine followed "Eddie" to his Army postings. They have three children: George, Earl of St. Andrews, born in 1963; Lady Helen Taylor, born in 1964; and Lord Nicholas Windsor, born in 1970. Both Kents were active and devoted parents. The family estate at Coppins proved too expensive to run, and the Duke sold it in 1973. He leased Anmer Hall on the Sandringham estate as a smaller country residence, and the Queen gave the Kents a grace-and-favor residence at York House in St. James' Palace. They later moved to Wren House in Kensington Palace and the Prince of Wales moved into York House in 1993 after separating from his wife.

The Duke of Kent retired from the Army in 1976 and took on full-time royal duties. The Queen appointed him a Knight of the Garter in 1985. He followed his mother as president of the Wimbledon All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club, and has often awarded trophies at the Wimbledon tennis tournament, as have his wife and sister. He is also Grand Master of the United Grand Lodge of Freemasons of England; his father and grandfather were also Masons. Although now over seventy, the Duke continues to perform royal duties, often with military connections. He visited troops in Iraq earlier this year.

The duchess suffered an emotional breakdown in 1979 following a stillbirth and the death of her mother, and she continued to suffer from depression during the 1980s. She was received into the Roman Catholic church in 1994, but that did not affect her husband's position in the line of succession. The Duke and Duchess of Kent's marriage is said to be unhappy, but they have always remained discreet and dutiful. The duchess asked to relinquish
the style of royal highness in 2002, and although she still does charity work and appears at large family events, she seems to have quietly left the royal family. She teaches music under the name "Mrs. Kent" and has her own apartment. In 2004 she founded a charity called "Future Talent" to encourage children's musical talent.

The Earl of St. Andrews is probably the most intellectual of George V's descendants: he was a King's Scholar at Eton and went on to Cambridge. He married a Catholic divorcee, Sylvana Tomaselli, and had to give up his place in the line of succession. The Countess is a professor at Cambridge, and the Earl has done much of the child care for their children, Lord Downpatrick, Lady Marina-Charlotte Windsor, and Lady Amelia Windsor. (Both of the Dukes of Kent were also hands-on fathers.) Lord Downpatrick has been received into the Roman Catholic church and is also excluded from the line of succession. The Kents are becoming a prominent Catholic family.

Lady Helen Taylor features frequently in the society pages. She works as an ambassador for Armani and Bulgari, which means that she is photographed
wearing their products and only their products. (Nice work if you can get it.) However, she has always maintained a wholesome, maternal image. She is married to the art dealer Tim Taylor, who recently had cancer. They have four children, Columbus, Cassius, Eloise, and Estella. Lord Nicholas Windsor, the youngest of the Kent children, recently made what will probably be the biggest news of his life: he got married in the Vatican, the only member of the British royal family ever to do so. He is, of course, out of the line of succession. Lady Nicholas is the former Paola Doimi de Frankopan. Lord Nicholas has struggled with problems including depression and anorexia, and has not established a career, preferring to do charity work.

That brings three columns on the Kents and four on the Queen's cousins to a close. I think that the Kents are a very interesting branch of the royal family tree, and hope that you have enjoyed hearing about them.

Is the suggestion that the Duke of Kent is one of the Tribe Of Levi, or Zadokytes?

Their connections to the Vatican would suggest the Kents are subordinate to the Pope

The Mysterious Rosicrucian Who Was the Father of the American Republic

Chapter Eleven from: Great Secret: Count St. Germain by Raymond Bernard

http://www.illuminati-news.com/Articles/86.html

Comment: For more information on The Founding Fathers and America's Secret Destiny, see my section, "America's Secret Destiny". Wes Penre, www.illuminati-news.com

Comte de Saint Germain, a.k.a. "The Professor"

hroughout his life, Francis Bacon's fondest hope was the, creation of a Utopia across the Atlantic, the realization of his "New Atlantis" in the form of a society of free men, governed by sages and scientists, in which his Freemasonic and Rosicrucian principles would govern the social, political and economic life of the new nation. It was for this reason why, as Lord Chancellor, he took such an active interest in the colonization of America, and why he sent his son to Virginia as one of the early colonists. For it was in America, through the pen of Thomas Paine and the writings of Thomas Jefferson, as well as through the revolutionary activities of his many Rosicrucian-Freemasonic followers, most prominent among whom were George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, that he hoped to create a new nation dedicated to his political philosophy.

In his Secret Destiny of America, Manly Hall, Bacon's most understanding modern scholar, refers to the appearance in America, prior to the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776, of a mysterious Rosicrucian philosopher, a strict vegetarian who ate only foods that grew above the ground, who was a friend and teacher of Franklin and Washington and who seemed to have played an important role in the founding of the new republic. Why most historians failed to mention him is a puzzle, for that he existed is a certainty.

He was known as the "Professor." Together with Franklin and Washington, he was a member of the committee selected by the Continental Congress in 1775 to create a design for the American Flag. The design he made was accepted by the committee and given to Betsy Ross to execute into the first model.

A year later, on July 4, 1776, this mysterious stranger, whose name nobody knew, suddenly appeared in Independence Hall and delivered a stirring address to the fearful men there gathered, who were wondering whether they should risk their lives as traitors by affixing their names to the memorable document which Thomas Jefferson wrote and of whose ideals Francis Bacon, founder of Freemasonry and Rosicrucianism, was the true originator.

The flag unfurled at Cambridge, Mass. in 1775, which the Professor designed, symbolized the union of the colonies; it was called the Grand Union Flag, and its design was as follows: In the blue field of the upperleft-hand corner was the white diagonal cross of St. Andrews. Imposed on this was the Red Cross, which was given the name of St. George. The thirteen stripes, seven of red and six of white, alternating in the flag, represented the thirteen colonies.

The flag was used for some time, but owing to its similarity with the British flag, which supposedly symbolized the unity of England and Scotland, considerable controversy arose over it. In order to overcome this objection, in 1776 it was decided to design another flag which would follow the spirit of the original design; and the inverted triangle over the upright triangle, generally known as the St. Andrew's Cross, a Masonic symbol of Kabbalistic origin and denoting that the originator of the flag was a Freemason and Rosicrucian, was preserved by using a six-pointed star, placed in irregular fashion on a blue back-ground in the form of a new constellation.

When General Johnson and Doctor Franklin visited Mrs. Elizabeth Ross, otherwise known as Betsy Ross, to get her cooperation in making the flag, the five-pointed star appealed to her as being more beautiful than the six-pointed star of the Professor's original design which the committee accepted. Hence, out of deference to her sense of beauty, the five-pointed stars were used instead, and thirteen of them were placed in a circle on a blue field with the standard seven red and six white stripes completing the flag.


Betsy Ross
This sample flag was made just before the Declaration of Independence, although the resolution endorsing it was not passed by the Continental Congress until July 14, 1777.

A second time did this mysterious stranger, the "Professor," whose name and origin was unknown, pay a vital role in American history. This time it was at the signing of the Declaration' of Independence. It was on June 7, 1776, that Richard Henry Lee, a delegate from Virginia, offered in Congress the first resolution declaring that the United Colonies were, and of right ought. to be, free and independent states. Soon after Mr. Lee introduced his resolution, he was taken sick and returned to his home in Virginia, whereupon on June 11th, 1776, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman and Robert Livingston were appointed as a committee to prepare a formal Declaration of Independence.

On the first of July, 1776, the committee made its report to Congress. On the second of July, Lee's resolution was adopted in its original words. During the third of July, the formal Declaration of Independence was reported by the committee and debated with great enthusiasm. The discussion was resumed on the fourth, Jefferson having been elected as chairman of the committee.

On July 4th, there was great suspense throughout the nation. Many were adverse to severing the ties with the mother country; and many feared the vengeance of the king and his armies. Many battles had been fought already, but no decisive victory had been won by the rebel colonists. Each man in the Continental Congress realized as Patrick Henry did that it was either Liberty or Death. A rash move could mean death. After all, they were not free but subjects of a king who considered them as rebels and could punish them accordingly. They could be convicted for treason and put to death.

Just what connection did the mysterious stranger who designed the American flag and encouraged the signing of the Declaration of Independence have to Francis Bacon or Count Saint-Germain? Writing on this subject, Manly Hall says:

"Many times the question has been asked, Was Francis Bacon's vision of the "New Atlantis" a prophetic dream of the great civilization which was so soon to rise upon the soil of the New World? It cannot be doubted that the secret societies of. Europe conspired to establish upon the American continent 'a new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.' Two incidents in the early history of the United States evidence the influence of that secret body, which has so long guided the destinies of peoples and religions. By them nations are created as vehicles for the promulgation of ideals, and while nations are true to these ideals they survive; when they vary from them, they vanish like the Atlantis of old which had ceased to 'know the gods.'"

In his admirable little treatise, "Our Flag," Robert Allen Campbell revives the details of an obscure, but most important, episode of American history—the designing of the Colonial flag of 1775. The account involves a mysterious man concerning whom no information is available other than that he was on familiar terms with both General Washington and Dr. Benjamin Franklin. The following description of him is taken from Campbell's treatise:

"Little seems to have been known concerning this old gentleman; and in the materials from which this account is compiled, his name is not even once mentioned, for he is uniformly spoken of or referred to as 'the Professor.' He was evidently far beyond his threescore and ten years; and he often referred to historical events of more than a century previous just as if he had been a living witness to their occurrence; still he was erect, vigorous and active—hale, hearty and clear-minded, as strong and energetic every way as in the prime of life. He was tall, of fine figure, perfectly easy, very dignified in his manners, being at once courteous, gracious and commanding. He was, for those times, and considering the customs of the Colonists, very peculiar in his method of living; for he ate no flesh, fowl or fish; he never used for food any 'green thing', any roots or anything unripe; he drank no liquor, wine or ale; but confined his diet to cereals and their products, fruits that were ripened on the stem in the sun, nuts, mild tea and the sweet of honey, sugar and molasses. [ Editor's note: The Comte de Saint Germain's same abstemious behavior regarding food was well documented in Europe.]

"He was well educated, highly cultivated, of extensive as well as varied information, and very studious. He spent considerable of his time in the patient and persistent scanning of a number of very rare old books and ancient manuscripts which he seemed to be deciphering, translating or rewriting. These books, and manuscripts, together with his own writings, he never showed to anyone; and he did not even mention them in his conversations with the family, except in the most casual way; and he always locked them up carefully in a large, old-fashioned, cubically shaped, iron-bound, heavy oaken chest, whenever he left his room, even for his meals. He took long and frequent walks alone, sat on the brows of the neighboring hills, or mused in the midst of the green and flower-gemmed meadows. He was fairly liberal—but in no way lavish—in spending his money, with which he was well supplied. He was a quiet, though a very genial and very interesting member of the family; and he was seemingly at home upon any and every topic coming up in conversation. He was, in short, one whom everyone would notice and respect, whom few would feel well acquainted with, and whom no one would presume to question concerning himself—as to whence he came, why he tarried or whither he journeyed."

"By something more than a mere coincidence, the committee appointed by the Colonial Congress to design a flag accepted an invitation to be guests, while at Cambridge, of the family with which the Professor was staying. It was here that General Washington joined them for the purpose of deciding upon a fitting emblem. By the signs that passed between them, it was evident that General Washington and Doctor Franklin recognized the Professor, and by unanimous approval, he was invited to become an active member of the committee. During the proceedings which followed, the Professor was treated with the most profound respect and all his suggestions immediately acted upon. He submitted a pattern which he considered symbolically appropriate for the new flag, and this was unhesitatingly accepted by the six other members of the committee, who voted that the arrangement suggested by the Professor be forthwith adopted. After the episode of the flag, the Professor quickly vanished; and nothing further is known concerning him.


George Washington
"Did General Washington and Doctor Franklin recognize the Professor as an emissary of the Mystery School which has so long controlled the political destinies of this planet? Benjamin Franklin was a philosopher and a Freemason—possibly a Rosicrucian initiate. He and the Marquis de Lafayette—also a man of mystery—constitute two of the important links in the chain of circumstance that culminated in the establishment of the original thirteen American colonies as a free and independent nation. Dr. Franklin's philosophic attainments are well attested in Poor Richard's Almanac, published by him for many years under the name of Richard Saunders. His interest in the cause of Freemasonry is also shown in his publication of Anderson's Constitutions of 'Freemasonry.

"It was during the, evening of July 4, 1776, that the second of these mysterious episodes occurred. In the old State House in Philadelphia, a group of men were gathered for the momentous task of severing the tie between the old country and the new. It was a grave moment, and not a few of those present feared that their lives would be the forfeit for their audacity. In the midst of the debate a fierce voice rang out. The debaters stopped and turned to look upon the stranger. Who was this man who had suddenly appeared in their midst and had transfixed them with his oratory? They had never seen him before, none knew when he had entered; but his tall form and pale face filled them with awe. His voice ringing with a holy zeal, the stranger stirred them to their very souls. His closing words rang. through the building, 'God has given America to be free!' As the stranger sank into a chair exhausted, a wild enthusiasm burst forth. Name after name was placed upon the parchment: the Declaration of Independence was signed. But where was the man who had precipitated the accomplishment of this immortal task—who had lifted for a moment the veil from the eyes of the assemblage and revealed to them a part at least of the great purpose for which the, new nation was conceived? He had disappeared, nor was he ever seen or his identity established. This episode parallels others of a similar kind recorded by ancient historians attendant upon the founding of every new nation. Are they coincidence, or do they indicate that the divine wisdom of the ancient mysteries still is present in the world, serving mankind as it did of old?"

The End

Greetings, I recently made some interesting finding's with respect to the alleged connection between MARTIN LUTHER'S rose and cross seal and that of the rose and cross symbol of the adherents to the ANCIENT MYSTERY RELIGION (BABYLON THE GREAT) (ESOTERIC/EXOTERIC) "ILLUMINATI" which I would like to share with you. "According to the ROSICRUCIAN DIGEST vol 85 number 2 , 2007 page "2" ESSENES were a branch of the "ILLUMINATED GREAT WHITE LODGE" from Egypt preceding Akhnaton , pharaoh and founder of the first monotheistic religion. (Essene is derived from the word kashai which means "SECRET)..."The rose cross became the offical symbol of the ROSICRUCIANS, but was used by various branches of the essenes and the GWB. Before it's official adoption as a universal emblem"THE EMBLEM OF THE EARLY TEMPLARS WAS A "RED ROSE ON A CROSS", ADOPTED BY THEM BECAUSE OF IT'S USE BY THE ESSENES. see www.rosicrucian.org (ROSICRUCIAN ORDER OF AMORC) ... In contrast according to MARTIN LUTHER'S letter to Lazarus Spengler 18th of July 1530 quoted at Seiyaku.com see (Lutheran cross) Martin Luther explains his thoughts and reason for his rose and cross "seal" which was to be a "BLACK CROSS ON A "WHITE" ROSE WITH A GOLDEN OUTER RING" He goes on to explain why? his "seal" is a symbol of his theology. So now I am able to understand the tactics being used by the jesuits in associating THE ESSENES ROSICRUCIAN "RED" ROSE ON CROSS SYMBOL with that of Martin Luther's (LUTHERAN SEAL) which is distinct in design and intent. It is the objective of the SATANIC ORDER (S.J.) to discredit any and all people's associated with the PROTESTANT MOVEMENT and make it appear, as in this case that Protestantism as it was "founded", to be associated with the "ANCIENT MYSTERY RELIGION". It also explains why? "today" the Lutheran church is associated with the "RED ROSE" and cross SEAL and why? many researchers believe that Luther was a member of a secret society, because of "JESUIT INFILTRATION" into the Lutheran church......THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND GOD BLESS YOU. BLESSED SABBATH DAY!!!!!! Mr Flores/Brooklyn N.Y.