The Egyptian Roots of 'Freemasonry', the inner cult of the 'kings'

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Under Barbiero's schema, which generally appears very reasonable to me, with a few exceptions, the entire Euro-royalty is made up of whom Barbiero terms the 'priestly descendants of Moses', including Josephus's Hasmonean kin, who frequently cryptically reveal themselves to fellow insiders by appending variants of 'Flavi' to their names, whether they are officiants of the Christian Church, the mystery cult of Mithra, the secular imperium, or later institutions. This especially includes the Carolingian Dynasty (aka the Holy Roman Empire), founded by Charlemagne, that superceded that of the curious Merovingian Dynasty. Barbiero explains that Charlemagne's immediate ancestors used their royal court positions as 'mayors of the court' to slipstream their way into ultimate control. This office, so to speak, seems much like a 'vizier's' position from biblical times, ala Joseph to the 'pharaoh', and then later much like the term hofjuden, or 'house Jew'. Ironically with the later term, 'common' Jews seem just as befuddled about who these later hofjuden were in relation to themselves, and doubly ironic since these hofjuden were serving the Euro-royalty that, under Barbiero's schema (and Nicholas DeVere's, and ours), were/are the real players that the OT was really talking about - as to being in Kontrol.

This all gets to the central issue of 'Identity', and here, Barbiero occasionally falls into the trap referring to these elites, as 'Jews'. It's so easy to do, after all, the Bible tells us that any such people must be right. Well, not really. And one never hears of the Euro-royalty self-identifying as such, but one might claim that this is merely these parties displaying their deceit. After all, they do indeed display Judaic heraldry such as the 'Lion of Judah'. The important point here is that we, and even Barbiero, are really drawing attention to a lineage, and agenda, that extends back further than the cryptic 'Moses', of which the same modus operandi of insinuating themselves into power appears to be used, over and over again. The implications of this are profound, and thus one must face such as the claim over whether or not the cryptoJews are seeking revenge on the goyim for such as their loss of Jerusalem. Barbiero uses a version of this motive to claim that the motive for the Crusades was to reclaim Jerusalem which they unwilling ceded to the Romans, the Flavians. Hence the adoptive use of the name Flavian by Josephus and his 'freedmen' kin (a common Roman practice) would be a sardonic form of revenge -- instead of being a form of homage.

But if Josephus and his ancestors were already in bigly "big league" (as apocalyptic Beast of the Sea, Mr. Drumpf says) with the Romans, and even related to the Spartans (as asserted Moses Hadas vis-a-vis the famous letter in one of the books of Maccabees) then perhaps this changes the motivational framing -- dramatically so? As with Alice in Wonderland, where "nothing is as it seems", why should we be expected to believe that the Sabine (the elites) Romans were what is commonly claimed for them, just some overly ambitious pagans. No, they start out, via their dubious foundational narrative, the Aeneid, arriving from a destroyed Troy, that had been destroyed centuries before (as part of the curious widespread collapse of the Late Bronze Age civilizations). And soon achieve their power over the 'natives' via the odd story of The Rape of the Sabine Women, where it is their maidens' 'distress' that gain them entry to power. 'Today the city-state of Rome, tomorrow the ...'

Similarly, Barbiero has Josephus's kin veil themselves as both pagan priests of the cult of Mithra and as founders and hereditary ecclesia of the Roman Christian Church. Begging the question, "Were the popes CryptoJews (or CryptoJosephans at least)? Barbiero generally argues his case well here, and if so, why are not the earlier Sabine Romans just a prior wave, preparing the way for the future? In this light, such a literally clannish priesthood, as was also described of the Medes, can easily represent themselves in a 'crypto' fashion. And if so, there might be no basis for the claim that there is some motive of revenge in play, unless used to further distract. Distract from the long term agenda to expand world domination, as the Old and New Testaments are salted with claims. The book of Isaiah states that the seed of Jesse is to inherit the Earth. As has been identified, the patriarch narratives of the OT are all referring to societal elites, and not such as rude shepherds, ones that can banter and muck about with such as 'pharaoh' and other kings du jour.

If such people created Christianity - and are not really Christians, then can they else be 'Jews' if they also synthetically created Judaism in the exact same fashion? And now we must be reminded of that old saw: 'When in Rome ...'

What can we make of this for today?

If we now understand (or believe) that the Euro-royalty are/were an inherent part of the lineage of the global agenda (the seed of Jesse) then it becomes easier to comprehend that the Americas were indeed claimed for the various important thrones of Europe and were colonized under such aegis. With the USA, at least, this was done so via the dovetailing machinations of such as the Freemasons and the Jesuits. However, we have been deluded, whether religious minded or not, that all that is no longer relevant to our current situation. We ... uhmm ... 'liberal' democratic moderns have been long emancipated from the crowns right? Or is this just a temporary illusion appealing to our collective vanity?

Did the "seed of Jesse" work so hard just to let a bunch of secular Philistines (us) muck it all up for them? All that after the Old Testament Conquest tropes like Providence and the Promised Land were invoked to the Pilgrims? Gee, is this a convenient segue into the story of Samson and the ~3,000 Philistines who died when the two columns Samson pushed on collapsed the temple they were dancing on?

About 3,000? How many 'Philistines' died in the Twin Towers? The towers, one of which became the Bottomless Pit?
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Part 6

The most famous of the Biblical judges is Samson, of whom most of us know the major highlights of his narrative, and that ultimately he single-handedly brought down the Philistines' temple. Well ... single-handedly in addition to waiting for his long locks to regrow, after Delilah had shorn them in his sleep. But what did we learn or remember of the narrative minutia?

The first thing is that, unlike the other judges, Samson acts alone in his actions against the enemy. The narrative pericopes seem to be a collection of tribal folk tales cobbled together, later on, to provide some vivid color to the Judges compilation. But as well, the arc of the narrative also appears to be supporting the buildup to the need for a real dynastic king to arise over the land, and thus the tribal folklore becomes repurposed into the national political propaganda of Judea. Also, and likely significant, is that Samson is also rather morally suspect, in that he cannot keep his pants on, so to speak, constantly engaging with the shiksa Philistine women, the last one who causes him real problems. Here we might want to pause briefly to reflect on whether this character profile might cause of to think of a contemporary political figure, ... one with some odd hair, and woman problems of his own.

The Birth of Samson (Judges 13 KJV)
1And the children of Israel did evil again in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD delivered them into the hand of the Philistines forty years.
Here we see the common theme post-Moses, in the people not conforming to the new paradigm that had been imposed upon them, by a God supposedly renowned for his terminal vengeance and jealousy, much less the Creator of the Universe. Given that the whole OT is really a compilation to advance the Judean POV then should we be surprised that it uses the term "The children of Israel"? And then we see that the Lord has delivered the people in question over to the Philistines for the symbolic 40 years. A number of years which is also used frequently to represent one human generation. From our perspective, the Lord is really the Egyptians that run the show in the Promised Land by the Hidden Hand, via their proxies in Bethel / Shiloh.

2And there was a certain man of Zorah, of the family of the Danites, whose name was Manoah; and his wife was barren, and bare not. 3And the angel of the LORD appeared unto the woman, and said unto her, Behold now, thou art barren, and bearest not: but thou shalt conceive, and bear a son. 4Now therefore beware, I pray thee, and drink not wine nor strong drink, and eat not any unclean thing: 5For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no rasor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines.
And so quickly we learn that Samson's father, at least, is of the tribe of Dan. This is rather interesting in light of recent archaeological confirmation that the tribe of Dan is the same as the Danoi of the Greeks, but that these Danoi seem to have been fellow mercenary tribes along with the Philistines. Both of which end up encamped in the Promised Land -- along with the 'Hebrews', whose name appears likely to have derived from the mercenary Apiru, which the extrabiblical Canaanites complained to pharaoh Akhenaten as harassing them. Archaeology has also revealed that the Philistines arrived in Canaan relatively peacefully amongst the native population and interbred with them. The Egyptians are recorded to have allowed one of the so-called Sea People tribes to have settled in the Nile Delta, despite supposedly having to have fought fiercely against the Sea Peoples. Irish and Scottish Celtic legends have associations with such as the Danaan and royalty (Scota) of Egyptian descent emigrating there. I have mentioned, as well, that all this seems to be tied to the curious collapse of the Late Bronze Age civilizations of the 12th century BCE, and an odd state visit to Mycenae of Amenhotep III, Akhenaten's father some time earlier.

Next, we see that Manoah's wife is barren, yet God's angel informs them that she shall deliver a special child. This angel "comes unto" the wife twice, out of the presence of Manoah, but of course, Manoah presumes that the angel has only "spoken to" his wife. Is this a familiar theme? This special child will then, not deliver Israel, but begin to deliver Israel. And, from the womb, he will be a Nazarite, a special and royal classification within the Judaic system. This is where Samson's requirement for long hair comes in, part of the ritual requirements in the Nazarite code in Numbers 6 [not Lev 6 as I originally wrote]. The consonants, NZR, as related elsewhere, relate to the Egyptian term for 'prince'. Hence the Nazarite rites are purification qualifications for royalty, not merely some obscure Judaic sect. And in this case, we are explicitly told that the child shall be a Nazarite "from the womb". Yet nothing is implied about his father, Manoah, being of elevated status. So where does this elevated status come from? Well, Samson's mother is visited twice, by an angel of the Lord, ... who comes unto her outside of the presence of Manoah.

6Then the woman came and told her husband, saying, A man of God came unto me, and his countenance was like the countenance of an angel of God, very terrible: but I asked him not whence he was, neither told he me his name: 7But he said unto me, Behold, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and now drink no wine nor strong drink, neither eat any unclean thing: for the child shall be a Nazarite to God from the womb to the day of his death. 8Then Manoah intreated the LORD, and said, O my Lord, let the man of God which thou didst send come again unto us, and teach us what we shall do unto the child that shall be born. 9And God hearkened to the voice of Manoah; and the angel of God came again unto the woman as she sat in the field: but Manoah her husband was not with her. 10And the woman made haste, and ran, and shewed her husband, and said unto him, Behold, the man hath appeared unto me, that came unto me the other day. 11And Manoah arose, and went after his wife, and came to the man, and said unto him, Art thou the man that spakest unto the woman? And he said, I am. 12And Manoah said, Now let thy words come to pass. How shall we order the child, and how shall we do unto him?

 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Part 7

Continuing on with Samson in Judges 13 KJV:

10And the woman made haste, and ran, and shewed her husband, and said unto him, Behold, the man hath appeared unto me, that came unto me the other day. 11And Manoah arose, and went after his wife, and came to the man, and said unto him, Art thou the man that spakest unto the woman? And he said, I am. 12And Manoah said, Now let thy words come to pass. How shall we order the child, and how shall we do unto him? 13And the angel of the LORD said unto Manoah, Of all that I said unto the woman let her beware. 14She may not eat of any thing that cometh of the vine, neither let her drink wine or strong drink, nor eat any unclean thing: all that I commanded her let her observe.

15And Manoah said unto the angel of the LORD, I pray thee, let us detain thee, until we shall have made ready a kid for thee. 16And the angel of the LORD said unto Manoah, Though thou detain me, I will not eat of thy bread: and if thou wilt offer a burnt offering, thou must offer it unto the LORD. For Manoah knew not that he was an angel of the LORD. 17And Manoah said unto the angel of the LORD, What is thy name, that when thy sayings come to pass we may do thee honour? 18And the angel of the LORD said unto him, Why askest thou thus after my name, seeing it is secret? 19So Manoah took a kid with a meat offering, and offered it upon a rock unto the LORD: and the angel did wondrously; and Manoah and his wife looked on. 20For it came to pass, when the flame went up toward heaven from off the altar, that the angel of the LORD ascended in the flame of the altar. And Manoah and his wife looked on it, and fell on their faces to the ground. 21But the angel of the LORD did no more appear to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was an angel of the LORD. 22And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God. 23But his wife said unto him, If the LORD were pleased to kill us, he would not have received a burnt offering and a meat offering at our hands, neither would he have shewed us all these things, nor would as at this time have told us such things as these.

24And the woman bare a son, and called his name Samson: and the child grew, and the LORD blessed him. 25And the Spirit of the LORD began to move him at times in the camp of Dan between Zorah and Eshtaol.
My interpretation of the above is admittedly highly speculative, but given the wider contextual framework we've developed, I think it makes sense.

Firstly, the angel's response at the end of verse 11 is interestingly ambiguous, but one has to wonder if there is some traditional ancient wordplay involved with the "I am". The Tetragrammaton, YHWH, translates to "I am that I am", despite the Hebrew word utilized is ’ā·nî. This latter evokes the Egyptian Heliopolitan solar god, On, and the Mesopotamian heavenly father god, Anu. The Tetragrammaton was supposed to be unspoken, and thus its meaning secret except to the exalted, and so we find a similar concept in verse 18.

Remember that all these stories have been highly redacted and reworked from the original folk tellings. Is this a remnant that the pharaoh, the Earthly representative of God was this 'initiating' entity. This being similar to the story of God and the two angels hanging out with Abraham and Sarah just before the ethnic cleansing of Sodom and Gomorrah. In this case, the concept of a shared meal with a seeming human guest and a burnt offering to God become muddied. The 'kid's' burnt offering provides the vehicle for the angel to ascend back to Heaven, which evokes the similar ascents to Heaven of Romulus and Julius Caesar, albeit upon their 'sacrificial' deaths. According to Suetonius, JC was led to his death at Pompey's Theater as if a pure lamb to the slaughter, then ascending to the Heavens once his funeral bier was lit afire (and mourned most loudly by the attending Jews).

Manoah, who as mentioned previously is presented as being clueless about how his unnamed wife became with child, can't differentiate between this entity as being a 'man' or an 'angel'. Yet he asks in what special manner the child should be taken care of. What has been commanded is stated fairly ambiguously, as it is stated "Of all that I said", yet the only specifics are left that Samson's mother cannot drink certain things nor eat of the vine. Strangely, the Hebrews had supposedly long been told by Moses that they could not eat unclean things, ... ever. So why does this angel need to reiterate Moses's commandments from God in this regard?

Behind the dietary proscriptions specified, can we assume that the "ordering of the child" and the "how shall we do unto him" means that Samson is to be raised and trained in a different and exceptional manner from others. As we shall see, Samson turns out to be rather a rather self-absorbed, lusty, and entitled 'savior', his central destructive accomplishment does not resolve the Israelites problems with the Philistines. In fact, it seems to lead to the destruction of the prior order, centered around the temple at Shiloh / Bethel. The place where God wrestled Jacob (Israel) all night long, which set the out the general Abrahamic clan's stage order for the unfolding historical drama that seeded Western Civilization as we know it, even today.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Behind the dietary proscriptions specified, can we assume that the "ordering of the child" and the "how shall we do unto him" means that Samson is to be raised and trained in a different and exceptional manner from others.
Forgive me for my suspicious nature, but the way I took it was that Manoah knew full well that 'the Angel' was the only possible father. There must have been good reasons why his wife was barren, after all. Accordingly, he wanted to know whether to name the baby after the 'angel', or whether to kill the baby, and maybe the angel too. Must have been a good magic show at the altar -- or maybe a bribe was secretly offered, or a blackmail threat.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Good points, I'll have to think it over. However, in the case of these barren women becoming fertile by divine intervention, I think is always a transparent trope to inform the alert audience that outside interference, by the PTB, is effecting significant change amongst the people. And, that this is one mechanism to explain the insinuation of a new ruling class into a target population. I'm guessing Manoah was likely a leader of the Danites, though this is not mentioned. Most named individuals are of a ruling class.

This in addition to the 'secret names' and the name changes of individuals (Abram, Jacob, Saul) indicating a mission change.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
A symbolic cuckolding of an entire population, instead of a literal, single event. I guess this makes sense, and will wait patiently for the next installment where we learn what the "significant change" is going to be. Is it as simple as a new regime for the Philistines, who are being brought into the fold with the rest of the Yahweh worshippers?
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
A symbolic cuckolding of an entire population, instead of a literal, single event.
Well, at least cuckholding of the leadership bloodline. But, yes it seems that the Danites are also being slipstreamed into the Hebrew tribal polity, and maybe so for the Philistines as well, who I believe get their comeuppance via David, albeit I don't remember what the narrative claims happened to them all.

There is a later story in Judges regarding the Danites having been allotted their own temple, in association with the Levites, but this episode is cast in a negative light, because the later Judean construct mandated that there only be one temple, and that in Jerusalem. So, I suggest that we are seeing the reworked literary traces of the Danites' original role in the conversion process. And therefore having been granted their own temple, and a legend of the Lord having fathered a tribal hero, named Samson, is evidence of the special treatment by the 'Lord' to garner their favor. Imagine that a story is presented to the other tribes that the blinded Samson collapses the Philistine temple causing about ~3,000 Philistines to die. (And that it happened on some eleventh day of the ninth month. But it was really an inside job. :rolleyes:)
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Part 8

Samson's Marriage
1And Samson went down to Timnath, and saw a woman in Timnath of the daughters of the Philistines. 2And he came up, and told his father and his mother, and said, I have seen a woman in Timnath of the daughters of the Philistines: now therefore get her for me to wife. 3Then his father and his mother said unto him, Is there never a woman among the daughters of thy brethren, or among all my people, that thou goest to take a wife of the uncircumcised Philistines? And Samson said unto his father, Get her for me; for she pleaseth me well. 4But his father and his mother knew not that it was of the LORD, that he sought an occasion against the Philistines: for at that time the Philistines had dominion over Israel. 5Then went Samson down, and his father and his mother, to Timnath, and came to the vineyards of Timnath: and, behold, a young lion roared against him. 6And the Spirit of the LORD came mightily upon him, and he rent him as he would have rent a kid, and he had nothing in his hand: but he told not his father or his mother what he had done. 7And he went down, and talked with the woman; and she pleased Samson well. (Judges 14 KJV)​

As I had wondered prior about the meaning of how Manoah and his wife should treat their son, here we see that Samson orders his parents to arrange his marriage to a woman of the uncircumcised Philistines, in other words: a shiksa. The parents even inquire about this problem to Samson, yet he orders them to proceed, as the marriage was the demand of the Lord, and that therefore, the motivation was, also unknown to the parents, a hidden agenda of the Lord's. That agenda being "an occasion against the Philistines". Ironically, in the prior chapter, we are first told that the Philistines had been placed, by the very same Lord, over the Israelites for forty years, because the Israelites had been evil.

Note the interesting use of the phrase, "an occasion against the Philistines". Why would the Lord desire an occasion against the very people that he had placed in charge? And doesn't this phraseology imply something of a false flag is up? Samson has been granted the equivalent of a dispensation to violate Mosaic Law in the pursuit of the Lord's secret agenda, and using a woman (actually several women) to precipitate the "occasion".

Now note the otherwise improbable inclusion of a story about Samson having killed a young lion by use of his bare hands. In any case, this element is directly connected to his association with the future wife. The Lord who has instigated this hidden agenda also instills in Samson the ability to kill the lion. Are we being literal here, or is this metaphor? The lion is the symbol associated by Jacob with the tribe of Judah, and in the next passages we'll see something else rather significant from a metaphoric POV, and otherwise odd in a literal context.

Samson's Riddle
8And after a time he returned to take her, and he turned aside to see the carcase of the lion: and, behold, there was a swarm of bees and honey in the carcase of the lion. 9And he took thereof in his hands, and went on eating, and came to his father and mother, and he gave them, and they did eat: but he told not them that he had taken the honey out of the carcase of the lion. 10So his father went down unto the woman: and Samson made there a feast; for so used the young men to do. 11And it came to pass, when they saw him, that they brought thirty companions to be with him.

12And Samson said unto them, I will now put forth a riddle unto you: if ye can certainly declare it me within the seven days of the feast, and find it out, then I will give you thirty sheets and thirty change of garments: 13But if ye cannot declare it me, then shall ye give me thirty sheets and thirty change of garments. And they said unto him, Put forth thy riddle, that we may hear it.
14And he said unto them, Out of the eater came forth meat, and out of the strong came forth sweetness. And they could not in three days expound the riddle.

"After a time" Samson finds that there was a swarm of bees and honey in the lion's carcass, but for some reason (from a literalist POV) he can't bring himself to tell his parents that the honey had come from out of the lion's carcass, just as he had not told them that he had killed the lion in the first place (at the end of verse 6). Like the symbol of the lion, bees are a royal symbol, and they become associated with such as the later Maccabees. The usage of such derived honey, from the secret source, can be seen as a source of covert emolument patronage, to induce the parents to cooperate with the hidden agenda that even they are not aware of the plans or existence of. And remember here, that the parents were earlier not even allowed to know the name of the Lord's angel.

To digress briefly, Flavio Barbiero demonstrates that various symbology of the Maccabees is later transmitted into subsequent Euro-royal lineages.

And to what end is all this strange activity, that it is intimately interlinked into the narrative of Samson's marriage? After eating the royal honey, Manoah immediate goes to intercede with the intended bride. And Samson arranges a traditional wedding feast for the Philistines. At this feast, Samson proposes a riddle that centers on the odd lion and bees, and the reward or consequence is the respective exchange of garments and sheets. If we are to interpret all this figuratively, then we are not talking about the rather mundane exchange of clothing and bedding as mere gifts, but something deeper then. Wearing of another's garments, like sleeping in others' 'tents' (which we've seen before in Genesis) thus appears like a change of identity. Like, when in Rome do (or rather dress) as the Romans.

...
15And it came to pass on the seventh day, that they said unto Samson's wife, Entice thy husband, that he may declare unto us the riddle, lest we burn thee and thy father's house with fire: have ye called us to take that we have? is it not so? 16And Samson's wife wept before him, and said, Thou dost but hate me, and lovest me not: thou hast put forth a riddle unto the children of my people, and hast not told it me. And he said unto her, Behold, I have not told it my father nor my mother, and shall I tell it thee? 17And she wept before him the seven days, while their feast lasted: and it came to pass on the seventh day, that he told her, because she lay sore upon him: and she told the riddle to the children of her people.

18And the men of the city said unto him on the seventh day before the sun went down, What is sweeter than honey? and what is stronger than a lion? And he said unto them, If ye had not plowed with my heifer, ye had not found out my riddle. 19And the Spirit of the LORD came upon him, and he went down to Ashkelon, and slew thirty men of them, and took their spoil, and gave change of garments unto them which expounded the riddle. And his anger was kindled, and he went up to his father's house. 20But Samson's wife was given to his companion, whom he had used as his friend.

Samson, once again reiterates that there is a secret, even unknown by his parents, but on the last day possible he relents, such that he will ultimately be forced to pay the reward. But not after the Spirit of the Lord comes upon him and he is compelled to kill thirty Philistines. But apparently not the same thirty that he issued the riddle to at the wedding feast, as he provided the change of garments which he was required to by his own terms. Why provide garments to dead men, as they tell no tales and need no new change of clothes? As we'll see in the subsequent chapter, the Philistines are not all killed, only the thirty, and yet some Philistines are left with "new garments and sheets".

Finally, Samson's wife has been given to a friend of Samson's, by, it turns out (revealed in the next chapter) by the unnamed wife's father. After all, Samson must have 'something' against the Philistines, since he got mad (filled with the Spirit of the Lord) and killed thirty of them, right? But it only gets stranger.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
The end of Barbiero's book gets into the intermediate 'dark period' between the end of the Crusade era and the Templars and the time commonly acknowledged as the beginning of Freemasonry. Barbiero argues that the very beginning of the Freemasonic period, the lodges everywhere were entirely made up of the nobility, and only as time went on were the lower grades opened up to the non-nobility. Barbiero argues for a different interpretation of the terms "speculative" and 'operative" as applied to types of Masonry. He asserts that the common notion is incorrect as being applied to stone craftsmen (operative) versus non-craftsmen (speculative). He claims that this interpretation was a purposeful cryptic deceit. Instead, he claims that 'speculative' meant to apply to the lower orders now being let into the club, but not into what the real 'operating' plans were. The latter was the sole purview of the highest nobility in understanding and initiating the original designs of the group.

Such an arrangement, in widening the admissions to the 'club', would be necessary with the liberalization of Europe and especially so with the USA, a Masonic creation in its own 'rite'. With the USA, there could be no visible participation of the nobility at all. Everything must be steered by sub rosa means.

And so the following excerpt is just one of many evidences that Barbiero discusses to demonstrate a contiguous span of such an organization. "A rose by any other name is still a rose."

From: "The Secret Society of Moses: The Mosaic Bloodline and a Conspiracy Spanning Three Millennia" by Flavio Barbiero

"The so-called journey to Prussia [the assembled state of the Teutonic Knights post-Crusades - rs] had become a compulsory step in the training of the low-and medium-level nobility. One of the customary ways of honoring the best fighters was the “table of honor,” a ritual banquet that took place at a round table, following the Arthurian model.4 These journeys contributed decisively to the integration of the European aristocracy and to the homogenization and fraternization of the guilds of nobles in their various parts. As a result, in the course of the Hundred Years War between France and England, French and English nobles who had met in Prussia honored each other and saved each other’s lives. The guilds of nobles, more than the city trade corporations, seem to be at the origin of what later became modern-day Masonry. This is so not only with regard to the structure, contents, and social rank of the noble guilds’ members, but also for a temporal reason: their existence is well documented during all the period from the end of the Crusades to the eve of the official institution of Masonry."

Start reading this book for free: http://a.co/iySfwju
And note the comradeship shown between nobles supposedly engaged in warfare against each other. This is reflective of what happened during the American Revolutionary War and the American Civil War between Freemasons on each side. This type of brotherly activity of intel spooks was also reported during the so-called Cold War, and imagine if Mr. Putin (former KGB) is ...

As a reminder, it is in Prussia where Karl Marx is married into the Prussian aristocracy and gets his first assignment to spy on his 'friend', Bruno Bauer - who first critiques the historicity of the Christian narrative.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Part 9

Judges 15 takes the Samson narrative into even more disturbing ground, following up on the role that his Philistine wife had been forced to play against him. What follows is a tit-for-tat mini-epic in which we must remember that Samson has already articulated an agenda (of the Lord's) for him to harm the Philistines. And he has demonstrated his 'strength' by killing a young lion from which bees take up residence in the carcass and Samson makes use of the resulting honey. But can we take this story literally, instead of it being a metaphor for something much different? We were left with the bizarre notion of the respective outcome of a riddle solving, as to why 30 Philistines would be killed by Samson. His unnamed wife was threatened with death by her fellow Philistines if she can't obtain the riddle's answer for them from Samson. Can we take this aspect on face value either, similar to the lion story?

And so after 30 Philistines are killed, because they cheated in solving the riddle, with his wife's (the heifer) assistance, Judges 15 begins:

1But it came to pass within a while after, in the time of wheat harvest, that Samson visited his wife with a kid; and he said, I will go in to my wife into the chamber. But her father would not suffer him to go in. 2And her father said, I verily thought that thou hadst utterly hated her; therefore I gave her to thy companion: is not her younger sister fairer than she? take her, I pray thee, instead of her.

Samson comes to visit his wife, staying with her father, with a 'kid', a young goat. Likely there may have been some cultural basis for a new wife to stay in her father's house for some time, and the 'kid' was likely a traditional gift or sacrifice offering. It is not explained any further. But let's remember this otherwise unexplained goat for when we get to the end of the Samson narrative in the next chapter.

In any case, we are also left with the odd circumstances of Samson's father-in-law deciding that Samson hates his new wife and thus offers her to Samson's unnamed companion. And now that the unpredictable lion killer, Samson, has shown up again is offered the younger sister in the wife's stead. Interesting also in that Judges 14:20, Samson has used the supposed 'companion' "as a friend", so perhaps this companion was a Philistine who had been 'used' by Samson in the furtherance of the Lord's plan.

Samson makes the following remark:

3And Samson said concerning them, Now shall I be more blameless than the Philistines, though I do them a displeasure.

Is this not a statement of moral relativism or what? He admits that he has done them a 'displeasure', and in the prior chapter that it was the Lord's plan that he would seek "an occasion against the Philistines" prior to the marriage arrangement being made. The marriage itself was a false pretext to instigate the 'occasion', a 'false flag'.

Then comes:

4And Samson went and caught three hundred foxes, and took firebrands, and turned tail to tail, and put a firebrand in the midst between two tails. 5And when he had set the brands on fire, he let them go into the standing corn of the Philistines, and burnt up both the shocks, and also the standing corn, with the vineyards and olives. 6Then the Philistines said, Who hath done this? And they answered, Samson, the son in law of the Timnite, because he had taken his wife, and given her to his companion. And the Philistines came up, and burnt her and her father with fire. 7And Samson said unto them, Though ye have done this, yet will I be avenged of you, and after that I will cease. 8And he smote them hip and thigh with a great slaughter: and he went down and dwelt in the top of the rock Etam.

Besides having to ask how one goes about catching 300 foxes alive, and how long that takes, with just how many men involved, this is a pretty bizarre means of burning an enemies' harvest. But after all, we are talking about an ubermensch, right? This guy killed a lion barehanded and will do some other amazing feats of strength. Ordinary 'actors' would just send some disguised agents into the fields to burn these products.

We are also told, seemingly out of sequence, that the Philistines had indeed burned Samson's wife and father-in-law to death. Ironically she had previously done as they had required of her, in helping solve Samson's riddle. And thus they pay the price in the furtherance of the Lord's plan. Samson tells the Philistines that he will get his blood revenge on them and then 'cease', going to live on top of an apparently very large 'rock'.

Next:

9Then the Philistines went up, and pitched in Judah, and spread themselves in Lehi. 10And the men of Judah said, Why are ye come up against us? And they answered, To bind Samson are we come up, to do to him as he hath done to us. 11Then three thousand men of Judah went to the top of the rock Etam, and said to Samson, Knowest thou not that the Philistines are rulers over us? what is this that thou hast done unto us? And he said unto them, As they did unto me, so have I done unto them. 12And they said unto him, We are come down to bind thee, that we may deliver thee into the hand of the Philistines. And Samson said unto them, Swear unto me, that ye will not fall upon me yourselves. 13And they spake unto him, saying, No; but we will bind thee fast, and deliver thee into their hand: but surely we will not kill thee. And they bound him with two new cords, and brought him up from the rock.

The people of Judah know that 'something' is up, but that can't quite fathom exactly what it is, the hidden hand of the Lord not being revealed to them any more than to the Philistines.

Finally for this chapter:

14And when he came unto Lehi, the Philistines shouted against him: and the Spirit of the LORD came mightily upon him, and the cords that were upon his arms became as flax that was burnt with fire, and his bands loosed from off his hands. 15And he found a new jawbone of an ass, and put forth his hand, and took it, and slew a thousand men therewith. 16And Samson said, With the jawbone of an ass, heaps upon heaps, with the jaw of an ass have I slain a thousand men. 17And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking, that he cast away the jawbone out of his hand, and called that place Ramathlehi. 18And he was sore athirst, and called on the LORD, and said, Thou hast given this great deliverance into the hand of thy servant: and now shall I die for thirst, and fall into the hand of the uncircumcised? 19But God clave an hollow place that was in the jaw, and there came water thereout; and when he had drunk, his spirit came again, and he revived: wherefore he called the name thereof Enhakkore, which is in Lehi unto this day. 20And he judged Israel in the days of the Philistines twenty years.

And so in the custody of the Judeans, they come upon the Philistines. But before he can be turned over to the Philistine masters, the spirit of the Lord comes upon Samson and, via the "jawbone of an ass" he slays a thousand men. But which men, the Judeans, the Philistines, or some of both?

After the thousand men have been killed, Samson is thirsty (wouldn't you be?) and the Lord makes water come forth from the ass's jawbone. Well, OK now.

We are clearly being told something else has transpired than the literal details are meant to communicate.

Remember the goat.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
We are clearly being told something else has transpired than the literal details are meant to communicate.
Yes, but I thought the point was to encourage "jawboning" (that is, talking on the telephone, or giving speeches) as an effective means of economic policymaking. As in, "the Federal Reserve chairman engaged in jawboning to keep prices and interest rates low." If you have a jawbone, it's like you become one of the lilies in the field that the Lord takes care of.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Yes, but I thought the point was to encourage "jawboning" (that is, talking on the telephone, or giving speeches) as an effective means of economic policymaking.
I decided to ponder this point some more, but in any case, no, I don't think this was the point. And besides I think your tongue was in cheek when you typed that.

Word Origin and History for jawboning
jawbone n. mid-15c., from jaw (n.) + bone (n.). Hence jawboning "lecturing, hectoring," a term associated with the U.S. Lyndon Johnson presidential administration (1966); cf. jaw (v.).
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/jawboning

It's interesting to note that this usage for the term is now archaic - with the contemporary slang usage being rather risque. So be careful whom you use it with and when.

Hmmm, but then again, along these lines, the thought has just occurred to me that maybe they are cryptically trying to say that the Logos emanates from the Ja-bone? Critics will complain that 'jawbone' comes from the Hebrew word lehi, but maybe this is the divine plan and the divine evolution of the English language. And thus we have evolved from killing thousands of befuddled innocents with donkey parts as weapons to merely hectoring them with political and pompous ass-holes.

Well, at least that's the plan. I have a good feeling about this.

Hmmm, I wonder what they learn at Lehigh University?

The Ja-bone's connected to the ...
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
We are clearly being told something else has transpired than the literal details are meant to communicate.
Having cryptically identified three to five meanings which the literal details might have meant to communicate (but probably didn't), we are still waiting for the definitive analysis of the true meaning of the passage.
 

Richard Stanley

Administrator
Jerry, your impertinent persistence in hectoring this matter smacks of an bald attempt to interfere in this divine investigation. I advise you to proceed cautiously and seek 'council', as the tweeting orangutan in charge has suggested.

And as the health industry says, "Patients are a virtue."
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
All right then, the suspenseful drum-rolling shall be continued until the divine revelation is revealed. The Ja-bone's connected to the ...?
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Is the Ja-bone also connected to the YWH-bone? As in, every bone connects to every other bone?

Samson: Illuminati Confirmed?
 
Top