Why didn’t this nigger Washington Duke of America and institute feudalism to prevent masonic satanism from taking over the continent?
>>538928502make Washington*
>>538928502He was a dumbass whiteoid
>>538928502You lost, Christrannieshttps://www.goodreads.com/quotes/70319-as-the-government-of-the-united-states-of-america-is
No kings migger.
>>538928502Because Washington was peak Masonic Satanist?Also, Washington was the richest man in America at the time. His interests were firmly aligned with the capitalists (also smugglers and privateers) rather than with the aristocratic nobility.Reminder that the US Capitol rotunda has a mural of George Washington ascending to godhood.
>>538928779>with the capitalists (also smugglers and privateers) rather than with the aristocratic nobility.Same thing. Are you telling me that merchant families do not see themselves as aristocracy?
>>538928779Washington was just a possible person, he could have made it anyone. But investing someone as a Duke and giving then massive holding to extract taxes from would separate their interests from the merchant class.
>>538928886Merchants derive their wealth from trade, aristocracy derives it from the land. This is why jews are wanderers. They see working the land as less than cleaning garbage.
>>538928894Yeah, but imagine making this guy a Duke, in order to prevent "masonic satanism" from taking over the continent.>>538928886In America they do, yes, but it would be irrelevant in a real feudal system. Instituting feudalism in America would involve putting the merchant class in their place, beneath the blooded nobility. Hence, making the Merchant Prince of America into a Duke might be a smart move in one sense, but on the other hand creating him a hereditary title would have pissed off a lot of people on both sides of the pond. Anyway, like I said, you wouldn't want to make pic related a duke if your goal was to prevent the growth of masonic power in America. (P.S. that wasn't/wouldn't have been their goal, the UK aristocracy was also heavily masonic, and so were the French revolutionaries, highly suspicious, eh?)
>>538929099Why didn’t they do it from the start? Instead of having Royal Governors, have titled nobility that was tied to the land and swore fealty to the king.
>>538928502he was one of them?!?!
>>538928779Apotheosis by way of monument worship. This is the big secret of the Freemasons. This has been done since ancient Egypt. It why the same architecture exists in DC, city of London, the Vatican, Ancient Greece/Rome and Egypt They have drug those obelisks around the world from Heliopolis. Cleapatras needle is the oldest permanently situated man made object in manhattan. The Washington monument was the tallest structure in the world when it was made To be as the most high.
He had no power. The “tyrant king” is a mutt myth.Masons and Jews moved over from Holland, and had already captured England in 1688.The American conflict was between two Masonic factions; officers from both sides would regularly meet each other in their lodges.
>>538928502>>538928623He was a freemason
>>538928502Because everyone involved on both sides of the American revolution were satanic masons. You'd have to go back to at least 1688 to save any part of the Anglosphere.
>>538928502You're not a truth seeker if you believe that any elite since the founding of Babylon hasn't been a Satanist
>>538928502Chinese bot schizo wrangling thread.,
>>538928502Because Washington the fag was masonic satanism impersonated.Jesus! How new are you?What do you think America is outside of judaism and freemasonic satanism?Why do you think it was created for, anon?
>>538928779>Reminder that the US Capitol rotunda has a mural of George Washington ascending to godhood.You Phillistine satanists and jews!REEEEEE!>When I tought I knew how bad things alwys had been in 'murica
>>538928886Merchants are not aristocrats. Why would you say such a retarded thing?
>>538928502Because he was a Masonic Satanist
>>538928502even the king succumbs to conspiracy
>>538930977Anton was a Jew btw
>>538931029That's what he claims, Mohel
>>538931089Also he had connection with the son of Moshe dayan
>>538929099While you are right that the English aristocracy was already heavily freemasonic by the time the US got independent... one should ask ourselves since when? How did it happen?And the XVII century take over of Britain by the Dutch and their jews and the smashing of the propper British aristocracy, including the Stewart Kings, as well as the Reformation in the XVI century... anon the English aristocracy by then was not really that aristocratic now was it? And the French Revolutionaries were anti aristocracy even though many of them (few actually) were from the aristocracy.The French were also known by then for a century or two for their propensity to buy and sell noble titles and by how the absolute King had smashed their aristocracy and how the real aristocracy had been put aside and replaced by an aristocracy "of the pen", which was not that much a real aristocracy by blood and time but an aristocracy recently elevated from burocratic services to the (now) absolute King and for capital accumualation.
>>538929009>Merchants derive their wealth from trade, aristocracy derives it from the land.They may begin that way, but ultimately, they become bankers, and make their wealth from usury. The lower order of merchants are left to commercial and industrial pursuits.The power of any faction within a state can be determined by the amount of usury going on within that state.The landed aristocracy (and church) were borrowers, and therefore were incentivized to be against usury. The mercantiles were lenders, and therefore were incentivized to promote usury.Ever since the mercantile victory, usury has exploded like a supernova.The timeline of their takeover was thus:1688: The glorious revolution, and installation of the puppet monarch William of Orange and Anne, the daughter of the last true monarch, James II. Every British monarch since then has been a powerless puppet.1694: The founding of the Bank of England, the first true central bank, modeled after the bank of Amsterdam, the proto-central bank.1717: The founding of the Premier Grand Lodge of England (not truly a founding, but simply a "coming out" party for secret societies than already existed).
>>538929731Probably because many of the colonies were founded by companies with a royal charter (i.e. they were founded by merchant companies looking to profit, and not by landed aristocracy looking for more land).But the rest of the colonies were proprietorships, which were often given to nobility, like Maryland was granted to Baron Calvert (Lord Baltimore) and his family. New York was seized from the Dutch and granted to the Duke of York. New Jersey was given by the Duke of York to his friends, Lord Berkeley and Sir Carteret. North and South Carolina had a board of Lord Proprietors, who were all nobility. William Penn was granted Pennsylvania because the King was in debt to Penn's father, Admiral Sir William Penn. Etc etcMany of the colonies became crown colonies over time, and the crown had much more direct control over them through their governors. The crown actively bought back charters and tried to centralize economic control. In other words, in the end, they didn't want to give the land up to companies or to their own nobility to own for themselves, they wanted the economic output of the colonies for the Crown. Mostly the nobles wanted to live in England so they were absentee landlords of the colonies anyway, and England pursued a policy of mercantilism nationally and internationally which meant they wanted to strictly control trade and economic output, so they really didn't want to give the development over such a valuable economic zone over to a bunch of lazy assholes who didn't even reside in the land they were supposed to be developing (i.e. they hardly gave a shit about it). The proprietorships often had trouble defending the land properly, and people in the colonies generally just refused to honor old-world feudal rights anyway when the lords were living across the Atlantic anyway.
>>538931130America could have been GREAT, but you fucking grabblers had to ruin itAmalek will make you pay for this
>>538931313>Aristocracy derives it from the landNo, no.Aristocracy derives its wealth from its control of the state and the military machine, thus, from taxing and regulating the merchants.Banking can't really exist in the way you think with aristocrats imposing limits upon it, so in order for banking to flourish aristocracies had to die. The problem though is that the aristocratic system is the natural system and eventually the people will want aristocrats to smother the jews. The people already want it, they just can't realise it succintly in their heads.And electing Trump was exactly that. There was no (speculative) freemasonry that we know of before 1717.
>>538931608>Aristocracy derives its wealth from its control of the state and the military machine, thus, from taxing and regulating the merchants.Yes, but they could only do that while they controlled the mounted knights. The invention of the flintlock musket equalized military power between the aristocracy and the mercantile, whereupon the mercantiles seized the opportunity to overthrow the old order, something which couldn't have happened until the musket.Unfortunately, weaponry is now becoming unbalanced again, and the current banking elite wish to make themselves a neo-aristocracy by controlling space lasers and nano drones, but without any of the moral or religious scruples that restrained the old aristocracy.>The problem though is that the aristocratic system is the natural system and eventually the people will want aristocrats to smother the jews.>The people already want it, they just can't realise it succintly in their heads.>And electing Trump was exactly that.Yes, Brexit also. It's no coincidence that Downton Abbey was one of the most popular shows in the run up to 2016.>There was no (speculative) freemasonry that we know of before 1717.They were Rosicrucians and Kabbalists and other various occult treehouse clubs, which later amalgamated into the freemasons.
>>538931608This guy knows some stuff. Good stuff, Portuguy.>There was no (speculative) freemasonry that we know of before 1717.This part is only true by the official history book, but within the Masonic tradition itself, no one believes this. For example, if speculative freemasonry began in 1717 with the founding of the Grand Lodge of London and Westminster, then how did King James VI and I get raised in the Lodge of Scone in Scotland in 1601? Publicly this is considered "apocryphal" but within Freemasonry itself, 1717 is not considered the beginning of speculative masonry, just the beginning of the Grand Lodge of England, the predecessor of the United Grand Lodge of England we have today.The transition to speculative masonry was gradual and took place over a long period of time. We have masonic guild documents containing things like the pillars of Jachin and Boaz and so on going back to the 13th century in England. By the time of Schaw being appointed Master of Works by King James and instituting the Schaw Statutes for the lodges, masonry had already taken on a heavily speculative bent, and many of the court of King James, like Francis Bacon, demonstrate elements of Freemasonry in their works. The lodges in Scotland were initiating people who were not masons by trade by at least 1600. So speculative masonry had already begun by the time of King James VI and I. And over a hundred years later in 1717, masonry clearly already was being practiced in a speculative sense by the four lodges that came together to found the Grand Lodge of London and Westminster.
>>538931472But... we're amalk, and sorry
>>538932404>how did King James VI and I get raised in the Lodge of Scone in Scotland in 1601?I know nothing about any of that anon. IIt's the first time I hear about that and the lodge of scone. Having said that it appears to me that the Stewart Monarchs were very opposed to freemasonic values.What I think should be clear to all is that freemasons lie extensively. Regarding muh Templars or muh Crusades or muh Knowledge of Salomon ... it makes no sense, it's all fake. And a quick research about "evidences" or whatever takes it all into the ground.And freemasonry started small. Before that there were only jews conspiring in their synagogues. Freemason followed the mo of the jews and became big exactly because it became a place where important people could go and do the biding of the jews without appearing to be conspiring in their synagogues, which would have been treason and not only "secular" but judaising and anti Christian. I don't think operative freemasonry which was just another guild (or syndicate of technically educated workers) had significant precedent to turn into speculative freemasonry. Thus from what I remember of my inquiries the transition into speculative freemasonry was rather rapid and a departure from what existed before. Why do you say that freemasonry had a speculative bent by the time of Schaw? What has Francis Bacon with common with Freemasonry? All that plus the XVII century "freemasonry" lodges of Scotland is all new to me. I am interested though.
>>538932801Can't believe people are still larping about Freefagsons, a nearly extinct dinosaur relic that had its prime and peak long ago and has since faded away entirely while Jews, oil money, and big data megacorps run the world.
>>538931330I was aware of the land being given to existing nobles, it just seems to me that should have invested new nobles that would have resided within the North American continent. I’m sure they cod have come up with novel feudal contracts that would have given the crown as much control as it desired since they would have been creating an entirely new noble estate with no existing privileges to complicate things. Allowing merchants to lead colonization efforts was a big mistake.
>>538932951>t. master masonshut the fuck up you retarded cunt
>>538932225Consider aristocracy as a military dictatorship which has the natural support of the people ruled by it and which gets renovated each generation because it's ... hereditary.Consider if the US had a minimum IQ for and racial discrimination in its special forces: All those that went to the special forces and then to higher up positions in the military (say military officiers) would become the politicians and the rulling elite. After a time there would be a significant divergence between the aristocracy and the common folk. The muskets and fire arms did not kill the aristocracy. Liberalism and especially WWI did. But not even really, WWII and jewish power via the Soviet Union and the USA did. But it still will not be enough to kill it - so natural and engrained in the human spirit it is. An aristocracy can't really be imposed though, so the banks have no chance. They will remain an oligarchy but not an aristocracy.Because an aristocracy must come from wider pool - the people. Even in British India or in colonial South America not all of the few Spaniards / British in the colonies were aristocrats. And they all supported their aristocrats. Because otherwise... they would be swallowed by the brown masses.In Europe it's the same although without the browns: The aristocracy needs a % of the population (call it the middle class) to keep those below in check and to defend the aristocracy from revolution or what not. I think Downtown Abbey is a mockery of an already decadent aristocracy. They still have all the power and oppulence, but the spirit of aristocracy has already been vanquished. Think more about the ancient Greeks and Romans (especially Sparta and Republic Senatorial Patrician Rome), than late XIX century aristocracy. It's how it lived, not how it ended. The Rosacrutians were not freemasons and did not became freemasons, despite any cross polination or any individual that might have transfered himself from one to another.
>>538932225And the Kabbalists... I wish I could say the same... but the Kabbalists were a purely jewish phenomena. They remained always at the top of freemasonry but they were not the only flavour. Kaballists are sort of irrelevant to freemasonry because they were a way of intepreting the occult inside talmudic judaism. Yes, they had an influence over freemasonry but their purpose was another. It became more freemasons getting inspiration and maybe a mo from Kabbalists as a pure form of appreciation than anythhing else. One organisation / form of thinking does not directly descend from the other.
>>538933160The American founding fathers openly showed their allegiance, as did many of the academics in Europe's intellectual circles. How many mainstream and big figure Freemasons do you know nowadays? You're literally yelling at the clouds and shaking fists at made up enemies. I'm sure you also believe in Weishaupt's illuminati while the kike syndicates rob you blind and infest your lands with pajeets.
>>538932951Freemasons are still hugely relevant if only because they shape the world we live in today.And rather honestly they pretty much achieved all their goals in a spectacular way.If today they seem to be a dinossaur and a larp it's because they have been so fucking successfull that we don't need freemasonry any more: Because freemasons won everything and passed on all the power they had accumulated to their masters who had always used them as a front: The jews.
>>538933373Why on earth would you think that freemasons and jews are different things?They are different phases of the same evil.
>>538933373Wasnt the king also a freemason?So why did we fight a fake war?Just because America needed a narrative for existing?
>>538933373weishaupt was a (((jesuit))) funded by (((rothschild))) to infilitrate masonry you fucking retarded cuntits jewsits freemasonsits freemasons and jewsthey are the same thing you dumb cunt
>>538933640Weisgenhupt was a Jew himself, you think Meyer Rothschild and Jacob frank would trust him if he wasn't?
>>538933057I think it's an interesting idea, but I think it would have pissed off the nobility in England too much. Every new title you create and give to someone is a whole collection of people you chose NOT to honor with it. Nobility would be clamoring for their sons to receive the new honors, and giving the honors to commoners would be quite insulting. And what rights do they receive? Ought they to have a seat on the House of Lords as Duke of Carolina or whatever? And how will they serve, or split their time between England and their new land? And with what funding will they develop and protect their new holding? Undeveloped land needs people to work it, and people to defend it. Thus, it requires investment, and who will invest? Do you then give only the independently wealthy the new land, and require them to live on it as well as develop it, and give them new titles that piss off all the old peerage? Does this become a kind of exile, or...?Anyway I can see all kinds of reasons they didn't do it, and mostly it's just that it didn't really fit with the way their country worked at the time. Even the way they did it didn't really fit with the way things worked at the time, hence the charters and proprietorships changing to royal colonies with governors, and then the colonists rebelling and declaring independence.Basically I think it comes down to the fact that simply giving someone a title and some land doesn't automatically make them able to develop and defend that land. There is no income on the land without labor, and there is no labor without investment, even if it is prison labor. So I think it was just easier for them to let the charter companies and the wealthy proprietors do it. The proprietors largely failed at it, too, (particularly paying for the proper defense of their colonial holdings) which is why so many of them became royal colonies in the end.
>>538933640It’s hard for me to understand Jesuit hate when they were designed to be the Popes militia to stamp out the reformation (freemasonry)
>>538933742>>538933782all the higher up jesuits are jewsit was started by ignatius who was a marrano jewthe jesuits are the first modern intelligence agencymossad, cia, etc all started with them
>>538933782If you haven't noticed it, these idiots collapse everything into a single all-powerful entity.Catholics -> JewsJesuits -> JewsMasons -> JewsIlluminati -> JewsNSDAP -> JewsTo them everything is either jewish or working under jews, so no matter who wins or loses they can safely say "jews won". The concept of competing factions with different motivations and morality simply doesn't exist in the mind of the plebes.
>>538933854Not all, but most.>>538933959Catholics aren't Jews, were just subverted via Vatican 2 Lots of the founding Jesuits were Jews . are they Jewish? To an extent Masons? Prior to 1776, nope, just christian stone masons,past 1776 when Adam weisgenhupt took over, mostly Jewish.Illuminati was created by 3 Jews Adam weisgenhupt Meyer Rothschild and Jacob frank Nsdap?Lmao
>>538933959you're a blue lodge profanewait till you get to the 33rd degreefucking retard
>>538933959Its literally about solomans temple. And is extremely kabbalistic.Of course freemasonry is jewish.
>>538934184Hey buddy. I would never willingly join an ideology that hides its nature behind secret rituals and unknown motives. That doesn't stop me from figuring out that it's a largely defunct and irrelevant organization in the year 2026. You can keep coping with your made up world, or you can accept that the 20th and 21st centuries have seen a serious shake up and that many of the old factions aren't at the forefront anymore.
>>538933959also you yourself kept saying its not masons its kikeshypocritical lying masonic cuntyou need to work on your pilpul
>>538934336i'm not your buddy, pal
>>538934348Because it is kikes. Not masons, rosicrucians, catholics, or whatever other meme faction you want to pin blame on, asshole.
>>538934402i'm not your pal, guy
>>538933535It's actually kind of interesting, the lodges were divided between the Antient Grand Lodge of England, which was more liberal/democratic and which chartered most of the American lodges, and the Premier Grand Lodge of England which was more conservative. The two eventually unified in 1813 to become the United Grand Lodge of England. George III was not himself a mason, but many of the people around him, including his children, were members of the Premier Grand Lodge of England and later the United Grand Lodge of England (whose first grandmaster was King George III's son, the Duke of Sussex).This split was largely termed "the antients" and "the moderns." The Duke of Sussex was leader of the moderns at the time of the unification of the lodges. They had a major split ~1752, which is just before George Washington was raised an entered apprentice, though George Washington was raised in a non-chartered lodge which later became chartered.Only 9 of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence were Freemasons, but there are some big names like Benjamin Franklin and John Hancock. So really the war isn't really a matter of Masons vs Masons, but there were certainly masons on both sides, and masonry was very popular in the military on both sides.>>538934336Yeah, that's why I declined to take the oaths when I was elected to the lodge. I still decided to learn as much as possible about Freemasonry, though, because it seems very relevant to American and European history of the past few centuries.
>>538934275
>>538933782The reformation was a schism between the two factions of aristocracy, even if some mercantiles were allied to one of the factions.The taxonomy goes:I. The aristocracy-Ia: The Germanic princes-Ib: The Church (Italian black nobility)II. The mercantiles-IIa: (Mostly Germanic) Masons-IIb: JewsThere is internecine conflict between each subfaction within each faction.For example, the conflict in ZOG at the moment seems to be between the WASPs (mason and mason descendents) and the neocon Jews. (The "it's all jews "theory falls down because big families like the Rockefellers and the Morgans in the USA were not Jews.)The aristocracy (princes and church) are barely even players nowdays, unless you follow the thread all the way through to outfits like Bilderberg group, where a few Princes like the Dutch royals and King Charles begin to show up again.You have go deep into tinfoil rabbit holes to show the Church playing any role in current affairs, but it's not totally impossible. If the church is playing, they are the certainly the most secretive of the factions.One of the greatest mysteries is why the Ivy League WASP/mason faction in the USA, which ruled the place until the late 20th century, simply gave up the ghost and let the necon Jews takeover. If Tucker Carlson is anything to go by, WASPs aren't very happy about the way Jews have been managing their inheritance.
>>538934413so by your own admission you're an idiot pleb collapsing everything into a single all powerful entity which you call kikestotally dismissing what you said about competing factionsnice one
>>538934698I'm not pretending that they are all factions, just the most powerful one at present. We've all seen American politics and media and we know exactly who makes up most of that. There's no hypocrisy gotcha here.
>>538933959'these idiots just say everything is jews'>>538934413'its just jews no one else'>>538934892tell me again there's no hypocrisy hereanyway you're fucking retarded
>>538935094Serious question, how do you struggle with basic reading comprehension this much?
>>538932636pilpul harder
>>538932951The Arabs give their oil money back to Wall St to manage. They are too stupid to manage it themselves.Big Tech is just a bunch of DARPA fronts, run out of the US military.So in the end it still boils down to the same two institutions: 1. the weapons (US military) and 2. the money (finance and NYFed).The question is who controls each of those.
>>538935485At the end, he is straight up saying "the real Amalek was inside us all along"Hint hint
As is often said all wars are bankers wars. Not really, but theres often rich people funding them. Often a banker or a government, or a rich criminal like a drug lord.The US war of independence was funded by the dutch and fought on the ground by the french and spaniards (in Florida, Pensacola battle). Other moneys were raised selling war bonds in Europe, all the weaponry of George Washington was donated by european governments. You get the picture.After this war everything fell down for the whites as if dominoes. The french revolution, followed by the haitian revolution, followed by the rise of napoleon, followed by the end of the spanish empire. Only Britain stood victorious, which for a brit means teaching english to a billion jeets.
>>538928502England was literally the center of the satanic masonic world at the time
>>538937609I genuinely hope you realize how these mental gymnastics are related to you voting for Zion Don not once, not twice, but three times in fact
>>538935485jacob pretended to be esaunow esau (amalek) is pretending to be jacob (israel)you will know them by their fruits
>>538939875>Now Christians are claiming to be the real Jews
>>538933854>all the higher up jesuits are jewsCurrent Jesuit superior general is a catholic from Venezuela.
>>538940082the khazar hypothesis isn't an antisemitic trope
>>538928502He was a Mason.>>538928623I don't know if these guys were playing the hatchling during the Barbary wars, but the ignorance they displayed when faced with the warships of Islam and the reason they were attacked is just embarrassingly childish if not malicious.
>>538930268Why is masonry bad?
>>538939856Is this independence day or neon Genesis?
>>538930504>SatanistsWeren't most of them deists?
>>538940562
>>538940713fair enough
>>538940697I was under the impression that's a reference to the 10th Angel
>>538935485mlk is cananite for molochAmaLeK
>>538941135>b-but think about the dead jewish babies!I thought dead Jews were a good thing?
