Intelligence Report #9
THOMAS JEFFERSON swore”eternal hostility” against the Christian clergy and allegiance to “Nature’s God” as presented in Intelligence Report #8. Who exactly is this “God of Nature” on whose altar Jefferson had sworn to fight the Christian clergy in the name of “liberty” and how exactly are the God of Nature and liberty related? Perhaps we can gain some insight into this highly relevant question by examining the “Statue of Liberty”. This historical monument was constructed by the French as a gift to the Americans in respect for their defense of liberty. Significantly the two – French and Americans-were allies in the business of “revolution”. The American phase of Revolution was fought in the New World against some of the same enemies the French were fighting in the old.
The French were engaged in a bloody struggle against the “Ancien Regime” of priests and kings under the same banner of “Liberty” that had inspired the Founders to draft a constitution that prohibited “titles of nobility” (Article 1 Sections 9 and 10 of the United States Constitution — there would be no Ancien Regime in America) and that sought to limit the Church and Her clergy by the establishment of a “Secular Regime” in which religion was reduced to the private forum and laws were derived from reason without any influence from God or His representatives on earth. They were to be constrained behind a “wall of separation” that kept them out of the courts, out of the senate, out of house, the executive branch, out of public schools, out of post offices and even public parks, in short out of the pubic affairs of the nation, which is basically just about all the affairs.
Behind one wall was a vast array of public power, economic wherewithal an absolute monopoly over law making and what amounts to a practical monopoly over education; behind the other, a few acres of private property on which to operate, voluntarism, and hopefully some good will. It seems the new government was ascribing full liberty for the exercise of its plans to establish a new word order “novos ordo seclorum”, while corralling or “chaining the Church” by severely constraining Her area of operation and limiting her support to voluntary donations. Liberty, supported by an abundant and mandatory cash flow, for the state and for the New World secular aristocracy of financiers and captains of capitalism to spread their revolutionary agenda far and wide, prohibition for the Old World landed aristocracy and constraint for the churches who were forced to exist by “good will” on a few acres of property off of which they were not allowed to operate without a license granted by the state. Basically excessive liberty for the state, partial liberty for the churches. It seems that liberty in the New World, was liberty with a bias against old ideas of religion but total freedom for revolutionary ideas, which had all the support of the state, as long as the “people” could be properly influenced. How is the “Statue of Liberty” involved in all of this?
The Statue of Liberty, known formally as “Liberty Enlightening the World, is a copper colossus designed by the talented French sculptor, Frederic Auguste Bartholdi. The statue represents the Roman goddess Libertas; in her jubilant right hand, stretched toward heaven, she holds forth a perpetual flame and in her left, she holds a tablet on which is inscribed, “July 4, 1776”, the monumental day that Thomas Jefferson, assisted by Ben Franklin, John Adams, Robert Livingston, and Roger Sherman presented the Declaration of Independence to the Second Continental Congress by which it was solemnly approved and promulgated.
Because Libertas represents light and liberty, she symbolizes power over tyrants and every form of tyranny that enslaves the minds of men; her power to liberate is symbolized by a sundered chain that lies prostrate at her feet. She symbolizes the apotheosis of freedom and hostility toward every form of tyranny, esp. that form recognized by Jefferson and Adams, which was the same form of tyranny violently opposed by the French, viz, the supposed tyranny of kings and clergy:
“The clergy…believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man” (Letter of Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, September 23, 1800)
James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution”, also harbored the same hostility for the clergy whom he referred to as “spiritual tyrants” who help kings to “subvert the public liberty”.
“What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not” (James Madison (1785) “A Memorial and Remonstrance“).
Libertas was (and still is-even more-so) a popular figure inscribed on many American coins of the time, the Morgan Dollar and later on, the Walking Liberty Half Dollar. She also occupies a prominent place atop the dome of the Unites States Capitol, which houses the United States Congress, the legislative branch delegated power to draft and promulgate laws under her aegis for the “good” of the people whom she has sworn to set free. In her Roman form, Libertas is depicted wearing a long flowing dress, sometimes wearing a wreath of laurels or a “liberty cap” or “pileus” (a cap donned by slaves when they were manumitted or set free). She is often depicted holding a spear or “liberty poll”. In her modern rendition, Libertas most often appears in some form as “Lady Liberty” as she does in the Statue of Liberty or Columbia, the national personification of the United States .
Ancient Romans, esp. of the Republic, had a unique reverence for various virtues some of which (Justice, Courage, and Piety, to name a few) overtime, they personified and then elevated to the status of a god or goddess. Liberty was a Roman concept, a personified and highly esteemed virtue before she ever became a goddess. Her apotheosis was not achieved until 232 BC. By that time, her cult had grown popular enough to justify her being enshrined in the Roman pantheon. This feat was accomplished by Tiberius Gracchus, a Roman Tribune stepped in democratic virtue and military valor and known to history as a “hero of the people”. Gracchus, as champion pro populo, favored agrarian land reform and distribution (distributive justice) for which he was eventually assassinated by wealthy patricians. It was this Gracchus, known for his bravery and military valor and eminence in virtue, who constructed the first temple to Libertas on Aventine Hill.
How does liberty a pure virtue personified and then deified as the goddess Libertas (liberty as a concept was also worshiped as the goddess Libera and her male counterpart, the god, Liber [Roman form of the Greek known Bacchus] who are not considered in this analysis – essentially all three represent the same concept of freedom), the champion of Roman valor and liberty, become a slave master and connoisseur of debauchery as she is presented in the writings of many ultraconservative Christians who claim that the American Statue of liberty” is a replica of Ishtar, Astarte or the Greek Aphrodite? What we find in their voluminous writings about the Statue of Liberty being a pagan goddess with roots reaching back to the mystery cults of Babylon seems to me unsupported conjecture. For example, Cicero is quoted as saying Libertas was the “Mother of Harlots”, but as is often the case, specious scholarship fails to provide proper citations by which to verify their statements. Perhaps the seven spiked crown above Liberty’s head represents the 7 crowns of light in esoteric lore, perhaps she is a rendition of the pagan goddess Astarte, perhaps – it is all conjecture. It is highly improbable, that a righteous champion of the people, like Tiberius Gracchus, would favor a debauched libertine or promote a whoring goddess. However, a debauched libertine and friend of esotericism like Publius Clodius Pulcher (58 BC) might.
Like Tiberius Gracchus, Clodius Pulcher also constructed a famous temple to Libertas on the Palatine Hill on the site of the former home of Marcus Tullius Cicero, the eminent philosopher, renowned statesman, and outstanding exemplar of Roman virtue. Clodius was a political enemy of Cicero who, when given the opportunity, had Cicero’s palatial home burnt and demolished in order to construct a new and second temple to Libertas.
Clodius, unlike Cicero and unlike Tiberius Gracchus, praised liberty as a virtue associated with, and then honored as, the goddess of freedom to satisfy concupiscence (freedom to do anything you want-which is first cousin to enlightened self-interest of American Liberalism); whereas Cicero, his political enemy, understood liberty as a virtue intended for the free pursuit of happiness, an intellectual attainment of the spiritual soul:
“Yet the case is simply this, that to me the supreme good seems to be in the soul” (Cicero’s Tusculan Disputations).
As a libertine, Clodius was complicit in transforming liberty into license under the cover of (sham) philosophy, which provided him with an ability to employ double meaning (liberty as an exoteric philosophical virtue and liberty as an esoteric form of indulgence) that enabled him to mask his vulgarity from the people (at least for a while), even ancient “politicians” had to cultivate the appearance of good . As stated above, Libertas was often portrayed wearing or holding a pileus or liberty cap associated with manumitted slaves who had prayed to her for their freedom – thus she also became known as “The Goddess of Slaves”. As with all things associated with the Libertas of Clodius, we must be careful not to fall into the esoteric trap; “Goddess of Slaves” has a double meaning, (1) A false meaning, that is a meaning she used to hide the truth, a meaning intended for public consumption by actual slaves or the downtrodden who had been set free from the bondage of servitude and (2) A true meaning, that is the meaning she kept hidden from the men and women who were becoming slaves by honoring her, especially the cohort of adepts she had introduced into her inner circle; these initiates into the secret societies and mystery cults of Rome were the most blind. Because they worked hard at learning her secrets and passing through her initiations, they cherished membership in a fraternity of men who believed that they were somehow worthy of lording it over other men – not of serving them but of being served by them. They were privy to esoteric secrets, and inflated with power to control the economic and political affairs of the ancient world, but unaware that the Goddess of Liberty (there was also a goddess honored as Libera with a male counterpart Liber who also represent liberty and fertility – I am not making a distinction between Libertas and Libera) was enslaving them as well as the rest of humanity who suffered the misfortunes of their leadership. The more they called themselves philosophers, the more foolish they became (Romans 1:22). Ignorant of what was going on in their own souls, they lustfully sang the praises of “liberty”, the goddess who stealthily bound them while they foolishly proclaimed their freedom.
“But many there are who follow in the footsteps of Lucifer, and adopt as their own his rebellious cry, “I will not serve”; and consequently substitute for true liberty what is sheer and most foolish license… which, under the guise of liberty, exonerates man from any obedience to the commands of God, and substitutes a boundless license” (Pope Leo XIII, Libertas).
Libertas was thus transformed from a goddess of virtuous freemen and emancipated slaves, as she was honored during the Roman Republic, into the “Goddess of Slaves” during the Roman Empire. She became the “Goddess of Slaves” because those who sang her praises the loudest, those who daily demanded ever more liberty, were the very ones being enslaved by concupiscence while believing themselves to be free. Libertas was not only honored by foolish men and women in the process of being enslaved; she was also honored by obedient Gnostic adepts, men who consciously committed themselves to her, while she feigned love for them by economic favors and positions of power.
“Then the devil took him (Jesus Christ) up to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in their magnificence, and he said to him, “All these I shall give to you, if you will prostrate yourself and worship me. At this, Jesus said to him, “Get away, Satan! It is written:‘The Lord, your God, shall you worship and him alone shall you serve” (Matthew 4: 8-10).
Libertas has given out many favors and can be imagined laughing with mocking scorn at her enslaved adepts who boast of their esoteric wisdom and at the blind commoners who unceasingly demand freedom while unawares they fastened chains of slavery upon themselves.
“Whoever commits a sin is the slave of sin” (John 8:34).
“Do you not know that if you present yourselves to someone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness” (Romans 6:16)?
Cicero, living during the time of transition from virtuous Roman Republic to increasingly decadent Empire, understood the difference between liberty and license. Thus, the political intrigue that ensued between himself and Clodius helps us understand how the virtue Liberty, of the early Roman Republic, became associated with decadence, immorality, cabal, and esotericism, the Libertas of the Roman Empire.
Contrary to Cicero, Clodius is known to have been both an effeminate sensualist and a corrupt politician not above stooping to chicanery to gain a public office. He cajoled his way to becoming one of the most powerful men in Rome and used patronage and inside information to advance his personal monetary interests throughout the empire. Unlike Gracchus, Clodius used his liberty to satisfy his lusts. He became a political enemy of the more virtuous Cicero whom he had exiled from Rome once he procured the chance. Clodius then acquired Cicero’s home on the Palatine and had it demolished; in its place, he constructed the second temple to Libertas. Because Clodius had made many enemies, and because Cicero was a gracious and affable man, several noblemen conspired for the return of the latter, who, upon returning, pursued litigation to receive his house back. However, by the time his house was returned, a Temple to Libertas was already in place and Cicero had to make an appeal for its removal. It is by understanding his argument in favor of getting back his property that we acquire insight that helps us understand how Libertas underwent a metamorphosis from goddess of the noble virtue of liberty to become a demon of license veiled in the false garb of a virtue.
Who is She that Sets Free by Warring against the Church of God ?
Cicero is ranked among the eminent men of Classical Antiquity, a lover of wisdom and an advocate of traditional Roman values. It is clear from his arguments against Epicurus, a Roman philosopher whom he accused of being a connoisseur of pleasure, that Cicero was a man of high philosophical ideals and refined moral acuity, which allowed him to properly enjoy the pleasures of life while advancing in knowledge and moral strength in the company of classical philosophers of whom he was speaking when he stated that.
“We love everything that is true, that is to say, that is faithful, simple, consistent, and we hate what is vain, false and deceitful, such as fraud, perjury, cunning and injustice.”
Thus, Cicero is a trustworthy spokesman for virtue (not the best spokesman, but a trustworthy one). As a lover of wisdom, he sang the traditional praises of Liberty (freedom to pursue truth and goodness unbound by the chains of sensuality which a wise man learns to conquer so that he can freely pursue the higher virtues — wisdom and love — by which he actualizes his human potential); however, there was poetic irony (not esoteric chicanery) in his words. He understood that “Freedom” could be presented correctly as a noble ideal, but wrongly understood, she could become a decadent licentiate. Cicero was therefore not fooled by esoteric babel. Because he understood false gods and false displays of piety, he was able to also represent Libertas as a prostitute who feigned freedom in order to enslave.
How did he arrive at this conclusion and how is the Statue of Liberty and her American votaries, “The Sons of Liberty” related to his conclusion? As stated above, Clodius was nothing like Gracchus. Clodius was an effeminate and excessive libertine who represented the physical excesses of the Empire while Cicero, like Gracchus, was a lover of virtue represented by allegiance to the Republic. Clodius, a true tyrant, loved freedom for himself but was an enemy of freedom for everyone else. Cicero made his case against Clodius and for the return of his property before the Roman pontifices. When Clodius demolished his home and erected a temple for Libertas, Cicero argued, he also evicted Cicero’s household gods, the virtuous gods of the Republic, thereby profaning authentic religion and replacing it with a deceptive counterfeit religion headed by a false goddess who, disguised as virtue, is in reality the “Mother of Slaves” and licentiousness as evidenced by what Clodius, her benefactor did in her name.
Cicero accused Clodius of being a transvestite and of exuding a sexual energy that attracted both men and women. Inflamed with passion he even dared to disguise himself as a woman and intruded upon the sacred rites of the vestal virgins seeking to consummate an adulterous relationship with Pompeia, the wife of Julius Caesar, at whose house the rites were being held. Cicero describes Clodius’ attire on the night that he intruded on the sacred rites of the vestals. Not only is his dress that of an effeminate; his discarding of clothing piece by piece amounts to what Eleanor Winsor Leach described as a verbal striptease:
|“Publius Clodius, out from his saffron dress, from his headdress, from his Cinderella slippers and his purple ribbons, from his breast band, from his dereliction, from his lust, is suddenly rendered a democrat.”
Cicero accused Clodius of sexual perversion, including the attempt to seduce the wife of Caesar and incestuous relations with his own sisters.
Clodius was a tyrant, Cicero continued, who not only profaned liberty; he also desecrated the sanctuary built to honor her. He did this by introducing a mock statue of Libertas intended to take the place of the original. This statue, according to Cicero, represented an act of desecration; “It is a portrait stolen from the tomb of a prostitute” pawned off as Liberty and “shipped to Rome” by his brother Appius Clodius. Clodius, the tyrant, according to Cicero, had the
“…effrontery to pass off…nothing but the funerary portrait of a prostitute” as the goddess “Libertas.”
By this act of ignominy, Clodius had symbolically at first, and then in essence, banished true liberty from the city and introduced licentiousness associated with his tyrannical political rule in her place. As a tyrant, Clodius had been very successful; he was able to entrap those endowed with great political power and able to reduce Rome’s most affluent men to a state of dependency. He had, Cicero said
“…shut off access to the temple of Castor, ordered his attendants to trample a distinguished (but unidentified) ex-consul, had driven Cicero from the city without due process using a “tyrant-like law directed at a single person” (privilegiis tyrannicis inrogatis), shut Pompey up in his house, and beset the forum with armed men. Moreover, Clodius set up his whoring “Libertas” in a house “that was itself a sign of … bloody despotism and of the wretched slavery of the Roman people”; all in the name of “freedom”.
Thus, because of Clodius’ tyranny, debauchery, and ignominy, the goddess Liberty, which was once a cause for celebration and courageous imitation now evoked “lamentations” because, according to Cicero, the people who used to “pack” his house to acquire wisdom and engage in philosophical discussions were displaced by Clodius who then filled the sanctuary with free thinking libertines full of lust and its attendant, foolishness. The new Libertas, Cicero argued, must be banished so that not only his house, but all of Rome could be returned to its original splendor. According to Latin scholar, Matthew Roller (2010), this was the motive behind Cicero’s appeal to the “pontifces”: that the sanctuary dedicated to Libertas be deconsecrated and the house returned to him so that the household gods, the virtuous icons of traditional Rome, could also return. Clodius had dethroned true religion and enthroned a fraudulent one in its place by placing a prostitute in the sanctuary and calling her Liberty.
Cicero was revealing the truth about what had happened to Liberty under Clodius. authentic Liberty was not honored by Clodius, but profaned by a false notion of freedom that made a mockery of her, after all, the statue set up by Clodius was in Cicero’s words, a “funerary portrait of a prostitute”, who in the name of false freedom led the people of Rome to slavery by licentiousness. Libertas did not, and does not, break chains of slavery; by cunning deceit she forges them in the name of false freedom. Libertas is a goddess who promises liberty but is in actuality a tyrant who enslaves her votaries by means of libido dominandi (the use of sexual liberation to gain dominance).
AN EXCELLENT INTERVIEW WITH E. MICHAEL JONES, AN AUTHORITY ON ZIONISM AND POLITICAL DOMINANCE BY MEANS OF SEXUAL LIBERATION (9:10)
Libertas is a goddess who promises liberty but is in actuality a tyrant who enslaves her votaries by means of libido dominandi (the use of sexual liberation to gain dominance). Thus, Boller (2010) Concludes:
“These structures (Cicero’s household gods and Clodius’ Shrine to Libertas) symbolically replicate the political struggle between them…. The debate… concerns which of the two alternative symbol-systems that have been attached to these structures—the Clodian interpretation or the Ciceronian one—will triumph politically.”
On the surface, it seems as if Cicero should have been the the winner: he was a noble man, he valued both true friendship and authentic freedom for the people, and he honored the virtues. He also saw through esoteric double meaning and claimed that the goddess Libertas, set up by Clodius, could be interpreted as her vicious double, as “Licentia”, who was, in fact, the actual goddess that Clodius honored — liberty as license– apropos for a tyrant seeking political control by means of feigned freedom — libido dominandi. In Cicero’s eyes, Clodius was one of those self-professing “wise” men who try to hide their nefarious intent behind a false veil of goodness, their intent to enslave behind a veil of freedom. In other words, he was Janus faced and two-tongued; his complex designs can be interpreted as part of a nefarious concealed plan to destroy the Republic that Cicero was trying to preserve.
“Let your ‘Yes’ mean ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No’ mean ‘No.’ Anything more is from the evil one” (Matt. 5:37).
Cicero did win the political battle to get his property back; however he lost the more important war for hard-earned virtue and resolute freedom; the manly Roman valor he so admired, was slowly effaced from Roman culture and, over the next few centuries, eradicated. Debauched and effeminate leaders, devotees of Libertas such as Nero, Caligula, and Diocletian would so feminize and weaken Rome that, in the end, she had to hire mercenaries to fight her battles.
By that time, the cult of Libertas introduced by Clodius had become so prominent in Rome; that during the fourth century St. Augustine was able to refer to Libertas as the “Great Mother” of whores who turned men into effeminate votaries.
Concerning the effeminates consecrated to the same Great Mother, in defiance of all the modesty which belongs to men and women…. These effeminates, no later than yesterday, were going through the streets and places of Carthage with anointed hair, whitened faces, relaxed bodies, and feminine gait, exacting from the people the means of maintaining their ignominious lives….The Great Mother has surpassed all her sons, not in greatness of deity, but of crime. To this monster not even the monstrosity of Janus is to be compared. His deformity was only in his image (two faces); hers was the deformity of cruelty in her sacred rites. He has a redundancy of members in stone images; she inflicts the loss of members (gentiles) on men” (Book 7 Chapter 26).
Rome had devolved from the virtuous glory days of the Republic admired by Cicero, to become a “savage animal” full of “lust and gluttony”.
“…man, if he have not virtue, is the most unholy and the most savage of animals, and the most full of lust and gluttony. (Politics, Book I).
Because she exiled her philosophers, lost her love of authentic virtue, and engaged in a cruel pogrom of Christian saints, the city of Rome was depicted by St. John the Evangelist as the “mother of fornications, and the abominations of the earth”, she rode on the back of a scarlet beast, the decadent Empire, which she ruled with a perverted mind, a mind intoxicated with the blood of martyrs.
“I saw a woman seated on a scarlet beast that was covered with blasphemous names, with seven heads and ten horns. And the woman was clothed roundabout with purple and scarlet, and gilt with gold, and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand, full of the abomination and filthiness of her fornication. And on her forehead a name was written: A mystery; Babylon the great, the mother of the fornications, and the abominations of the earth. And I saw the woman drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And I wondered, when I had seen her, with great admiration” (Rev. 17: 3-6).
The beast had seven heads (seven hills of Rome and the seven deadly sins) and 10 crowns (the 10 pagan kings or “Foederati” that conquered Rome’s enemies and then turned on Rome and devoured her) and was covered with blasphemous names (Rev 13:1). The mercenary “Foederati” (leaders of pagan tribes) were invited into the Empire to fight her battles; they partook of her food and prepared for the day when God providentially directed them to devour her. In fulfillment of scripture the Foederati made alliance with the beast (the Roman Empire and with the women who controlled the empire (rode on the beast’s back). The beast represents the empire and the woman is the city that controls the empire, Rome. The Foederati gave their power to the empire and later, with her oppressed and dissatisfied subjects throughout the empire, they turned on Rome, its head and capitol, and destroyed her as recorded in John’s Revelation on Patmos:
The ten horns that you saw represent ten kings who have not yet been crowned; they will receive royal authority along with the beast for one hour. They are of one mind and will give their power and authority to the beast. They will fight with the Lamb, but the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and king of kings, and those with him are called, chosen, and faithful.
Then he said to me, “The waters that you saw where the harlot lives represent large numbers of peoples, nations, and tongues.The ten horns that you saw and the beast will hate the harlot; they will leave her desolate and naked; they will eat her flesh and consume her with fire. For God has put it into their minds to carry out his purpose and to make them come to an agreement to give their kingdom to the beast until the words of God are accomplished. The woman whom you saw represents the great city that has sovereignty over the kings of the earth” (Rev 17:12-18).
Cicero, did not have the mystical vision of John, but foreseeing Rome poorly protected and being destroyed by an effeminate ruler like Clodius, he fulminated:
“If the Republic must be destroyed by someone, let it at least be destroyed by a real man.”
Cicero received his wish, but it was not one “real man”; many real men destroyed Rome. However, they were not Roman men but Celts, Slavs and the Catholic men of Gaul who established Christendom on her ruins.
By Rome’s end, Libertas, the Great Mother of Harlots” had turned all her votaries into slaves of sin (John 8:34). She then had to go underground as her temples and those all the false gods of the pagan world, which was previously under the rule of demons, (1 Corinthians 10:19-20) were demolished and replaced by Christian shrines, churches, monasteries, basilicas, convents, and cathedrals in a new empire called “Christendom”.
“All the gods of the pagans are demons“ (Psalm 96:5)
The Christian men did not make the mistake the Israelites had made (Psalm 106: 34-41). The Christian men routed sycophants and tyrants, blood thirsty chieftains, druids, necromancers, witches and wizards who in the name of unbridled freedom polluted Europe and the whole world, with unrestrained concupiscence, pride, sloth, gluttony and anger, jealousy, lust and greed — the signs of the lordship of Lucifer, who up until Christ’s death and Resurrection was the “Ruler of this World.” (John 12:31 and 14:30). Under his dominion men and women practiced demonology, witchcraft, wizardry, idolatry and human sacrifice, which was abhorrent to Christian men who could stand it no longer.
The Church had exposed these shameful things, which blinded the minds of men
“We have renounced shameful, hidden things; not acting deceitfully or falsifying the word of God, but by the open declaration of the truth we commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God. And even though our gospel is veiled, it is veiled for those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this age has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that they may not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God” (2 Corinthians 4:4).
Jesus had established the spiritual kingdom of heaven by His death and resurrection he took out Satan – then he left it to His the leaders of His Church, the priests and bishops as the teacher of nations to bring the kingdom of heaven by the sword of truth and love (Matthew 26:56-52) and to His other members, in this case, the non-ordained but priestly Christian men and women of Europe, to spread His kingdom by the sword of justice, which they wielded for God as avengers chosen to execute His wrath upon evildoers:
“LET every soul be subject to higher powers: for there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist, purchase to themselves damnation. For princes are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil….For he is God’s minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God’s minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. Wherefore be subject of necessity, not only for wrath, but also for conscience’ sake” (Romans 13:1-5).
Be subject to every human institution for the Lord’s sake, whether it be to the king as supreme or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the approval of those who do good” (1 Peter 2: 13-14).
Libertas and those who did evil in the sight of God and in the sight of men fought with frenzied anger against the warriors of Christendom, but they did not prevail. Libertas was then bound for a thousand years (Rev. 20:2), during which time, saintly kings such as King Saint Stephen of Hungary, King Saint Wenseslaus of Bohemia, King Saint Vladimir of Russia, Blessed Emperor Charlemagne of France and Germany, King Pelayo of Spain, King Saint Canute of Denmark, King St. Olaf of Norway, and Alfred the Great of England (to name a few) traversed the globe routing Libertas, establishing the temporal domains of His kingdom and thereby freeing her slaves, and the slaves of other deceitful demons, from the shackles of spiritual death by which she bound them in the false name of liberty.
When her thousand years were up, counted from the temporal establishment of Christendom by Charles the Great (Charles assumed the throne in 768 and was crowned Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire in 1800, although already recognized as de facto temporal arm of the church before that time), Libertas along with all the other demons, was let loose under the headship of Satan (Rev 20:3). His time being short, she immediately unleashed a barrage of cunning deceit in order to hasten a Revolution in the name of Liberty. Because the “Great Mother” is a deceiver, she worked in the shadow of secret societies, wherein she hatched her clandestine plan. Then, in the name of Liberty, she spewed forth a barrage of enticing propaganda intended to bring about a new order of the ages (Novus Ordo Seclorum), an era of slavery initiated in the deep darkness known as the “Enlightenment”. She was emblazened with the desire to restore her ancient mystery cults in place of the liturgical mysteries of the Christian faith that were (and still are) regent as she reemerged from the abyss.
By the time she emerged, the Christian men and women of Europe had already spread the faith so far and wide that it would take nefarious skill, innuendo, monetary allurement, false promises of enlightenment, sexual liberation, her old use of double meaning and other surreptitious crafts to bring about a revolution in her name.
The French were ahead of the Americans in concupiscence, Lady Liberty was portrayed by the them as a bare breasted woman leading men blinded by passion to tear down a prison and set prisoners free, when in reality they were spiritually, intellectually, and morally placing themselves behind walls more impregnable than the Bastille. Nothing had changed, Libertas was still the Goddess of Slaves — not of slaves being made free but of free men being made slaves.
THE STORY OF THE STATUE OF LIBERTY
Finished in France, Lady Liberty was shipped to, and reassembled in, America after which she was erected, set in place, and solemnly dedicated on Liberty Island in New York Harbor, October 28, 1866. Consistent with Jefferson’s and Adam’ theme of emancipation from religious tyranny, especially that of the Catholic Church (as demonstrated in Part One), it is not surprising to find (as we will below) that from A-Z, the Statue of Liberty (“Liberty Enlightening the World”) was a Masonic project. The Masons had vowed to destroy the Catholic Church, the “Bride of Christ”, the Prince of Peace who had come to set men free from false pagan gods and goddesses like Libertas.
This was the reason ST. MAXIMILIAN KOLBE ESTABLISHED A SPIRITUAL ARMY THAT HE NAMED THE “MILITIA IMMACULATA” (The Militia of the Immaculate Virgin Mary), in honor of the obedient, immaculate, and ever-virgin woman chosen by God to crush the head of the ancient serpent who, in the name of liberty, had come to enslave humanity. Kolbe took the words of Pope Leo XIII to heart: “In the presence of such audacious evils, it is not sufficient merely to be aware of the wiles of this vile sect (Masons): we must also war against it, using those very arms furnished by the divine faith which once prevailed against paganism” (Inimica Vis, Decmber 8, 1892).
As a seminarian (1917), Kolbe, the future saint, witnessed a massive anti-Catholic demonstration marking the 200th anniversary of the foundation of the Grand Lodge of London, apparently the first Masonic Lodge in the modern world.
“In Masonic demonstrations celebrating Freemasonry’s bicentenary, flags bearing an effigy of Lucifer were carried through the streets by demonstrators shouting: ‘The Devil shall rule in the Vatican and the Pope will be his lackey’”.
Kolbe later indicated that it was the Masons who were the lackeys, the lackeys of Zionism:
“These men [the Freemasons] believe that they are the ones who will rule everything, but let us hear what is written in the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Protocol n. 11 states: ‘We will create and put in effect the laws and the governments … in opportune moments … by means of national rebellions. … What we want is that the multitudes, disoriented by the revolt, still in a condition of terror and uncertainty, should understand once and for all that we are so strong, so untouchable, so powerful that in no way will we take into account their opinions and wishes. Instead we are ready and able to crush with irresistible power their manifestations at any moment and in every place. … Then, in fear and trembling, they will close their eyes to everything and await the consequences.”
“For what purpose have we created this policy and insinuated it into the minds of the Masons, without giving them any possibility of examining its underlying meaning? … This is what has served as the basis for our secret organization of Masonry, whose existence is not known or even suspected by these cattle, attracted by us into the army of Masonic lodges.”
If the Masons are under the influence of Zionists, it is not surprising that the poem dedicated to the world’s “huddled masses” inscribed on the statue’s base was composed by Emma Lazarus, an American Jewish advocate of Zionism, who imbued the poem with esoteric symbolism; nor is it surprising that the Masonic artist, Frederic Bartholdi, according to Robert Singer Deputy Grand Master Grand Lodge of New York, was inspired by a “a vision of a magnificent goddess, holding aloft a torch (of Illuminism) in one hand and welcoming all visitors to the land of freedom and opportunity”.
Zionists are a small congregation of men, purportedly Jews that reject both Jesus and their own Jewish faith. They call themselves Jews but do not practice or promote their faith. A recent gathering of over 10,00 Jewish rabbis in New York city loudly attests to this reality:
“Zionism redefines the true essential nature of the People of Israel, and substitutes for it a completely contradictory and opposite character – a materialistic worldly nation”.
Jesus had harsh words for this type of Jew. He referred to them as the “Synagogue” or “Assembly” “of Satan” (Rev. 3:9 and Rev. 2:9) The “Synagogue of Satan” is an assembly of individuals who “say they are Jews, and are not.”
“Behold, I will bring of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie. Behold, I will make them to come and adore before thy feet. And they shall know that I have loved thee” (Rev. 3:9).
“I know thy tribulation and thy poverty, but thou art rich: and thou art blasphemed by them that say they are Jews and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.” (Rev. 2:9).
True Jews, men who live their faith are not a threat, they are not haters of God and thus more likely to become Christians. Crafty false Jews could feign becoming Christians, in which case they would be lying twice – once about being Jewish and twice about accepting Christ. Clearly, there are false Christians and false Jews, what they have in common is rejection of Christ. The synagogue of Satan, however, is composed of false Jews, false Christians belong to “lodges” and “temples”.
In the Gospels, Jesus also referred to false Jews as sons of the devil:
“Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and am here; I did not come on my own, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I am saying? Because you cannot bear to hear my word. You belong to your father the devil and you willingly carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks in character, because he is a liar and the father of lies” (John 8:42-44).
If the devil is their father, we expect them, like the devil, to be thieves and masters of deceit who love power. Like their father, the devil, who wants to raise himself above God and humanity by the debt of sin, they want to raise themselves above men and women in order to enslave them by sinful debt and other forms of bondage, the most prevalent being usury and sinful sex by which they become sex slaves. It is not odd that men like these worship at the Altars of Liberty, when in fact Libertas is a slave master and master of slaves. It is not odd because in addition to being a slave master, Libertas, like the devil, is also a liar – the “Great Mother of Lies” – and her seed are like her, as they are like their father: they let their insatiable lust for pleasure and power involve them in deceit; nonetheless, they are easily known — they build all the wrong lodges and temples.
“Let no one deceive you in any way. For unless the apostasy comes first and the lawless one is revealed, the one doomed to perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god and object of worship, so as to seat himself in the temple of God” (2 Thessalonians 2: 3-4).
“And thou saidst in thy heart: I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God, I will sit in the mountain of the covenant, in the sides of the north.” (Isaiah 14:13).
Thus, not only is it becoming increasingly clear who Libertas is, it is very clear why Bartholdi planned to have her “tower over the steeple of Trinity Church, then the tallest building on the New York skyline”, he wanted Lady Liberty, like Lucifer, to ascend above the Holy Trinity.
As stated above, from inception to completion, the Statue of Liberty was a Masonic project that began with the laying of the cornerstone in 1884. The ceremony, as recalled by Robert C. Singer, the Deputy Grand Master of New York’s Grand Lodge, is outlined below:
“Chairman William M. Evarts of the American Committee contacted the Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of the State of New York, and requested a Masonic ceremony “appropriate to the occasion.”
“The date set for the ceremony was August 5, 1884…. gaily decorated vessel Bay Ridge, draped with the Tricolor of France and the Stars and Stripes, ferried approximately 100 members of the Grand Lodge of New York and visiting Masonic Grand Officers, along with many civic officials, to Bedloe’s Island.”
“Brother Richard M. Hunt, principal architect of the pedestal, presented the Working Tools to M. .W. . William A. Brodie, Grand Master, who in turn distributed them to the Grand Lodge officers.”
“By traditional ceremony, the cornerstone was then tested and being found, square, level and plumb, the Deputy Grand Master completed the work by applying the mortar and by having the stone lowered firmly into place. The Grand Master then struck three blows with the gavel and declared the stone duly laid.”
“The most Worshipful Grand Master then gave a brief but pointed talk. He posed a question: “Why call upon the Masonic Fraternity to lay the cornerstone of such a structure as is here to be erected?” His answer: “No institution has done more to promote liberty and to free men from the trammels and chains of ignorance and tyranny (sounds like Adams and Jefferson) than has Freemasonry.”
Dedication Day arrived two years late, October 28, 1886, which was declared a holiday in New York City.
“Charles P. Stone, Grand Marshal, led the 20,000 paraders, including many Masonic Lodges, from 57th Street past President Grover Cleveland’s reviewing stand at Madison Square Park and on down to the Battery, where groups were taken by steamer to Bedloe’s Island. Brother Henry C. Potter, Episcopal Bishop of New York, gave the Invocation and Comte Ferdinand de Lesseps presented the statue to Chairman Evarts in the name of the French people….”
“The main speaker was Chauncey M. Depew, United States Senator, railroad president, one of the most famous orators in American history, and an active member of Kane Lodge 454.
Given the Masonic connection to the Roman goddess, Libertas, it will further help to take a closer look at the acute fondness of many of the Founders with all things Roman, at the esoteric meaning latent in the statue of Libertas that was a gift of the French for America, and at the Sons of Liberty, predecessors of the ever waning sect of Masons – From whom, the light of liberty shall shine no more (Rev. 18:23).
Pope Leo XIII confirms this perspective, or rather his perspective is confirmed by this Intelligence Report: The Freemasons he says are:
“…prepared to shake the foundations of empires, to harass the rulers of the State, to accuse, and to cast them out, as often as they appear to govern otherwise than they themselves could have wished. In like manner, they have by flattery deluded the people. Proclaiming with a loud voice liberty and public prosperity, and saying that it was owing to the Church and to sovereigns that the multitude were not drawn out of their unjust servitude and poverty, they have imposed upon the people, and, exciting them by a thirst for novelty, they have urged them to assail both the Church and the civil power.”
“Nevertheless, the expectation of the benefits (freedom and prosperity) which was hoped for is greater than the reality; indeed, the common people, more oppressed than they were before, are deprived in their misery of that solace which, if things had been arranged in a Christian manner, they would have had with ease and in abundance. But, whoever strive against the order which Divine Providence has constituted pay usually the penalty of their pride, and meet with affliction and misery where they rashly hoped to find all things prosperous and in conformity with their desires” (Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884).
 This kind of specious reporting is all over the internet, the following are random examples (chosen for no reason at all, simply random) of the type that are legion: (1) http://humansarefree.com/2014/04/the-secret-worship-of-illuminati-statue.html; (2) http://yahushua.net/babylon/liberty/pagan_statue.htm; (3) http://humansarefree.com/2014/04/the-secret-worship-of-illuminati-statue.html
 See: Tullius Cicero, Book Two Treatise “On The Chief Good And Evil” (Treatise de Finibus).
 Marcus Tullius Cicero, Book Two Treatise “On The Chief Good And Evil” (Treatise de Finibus).
 Ancient History: http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/people/a/bingleycicero_3.htm
 Cicero, the speech De Haruspicium Responso 21.44, delivered May 56 BC. Translation and discussion by Leach, “Gendering Clodius,” p. 338 (Wikipedia).
 Castor, along with his brother Pollux, was accredited with helping to found the Roman Republic, whole virtues Cicero was trying to preserve.
 Matthew B. Roller
 MATTHEW B. ROLLER (2010), Demolished Houses, Monumentality, and Memory in Roman Culture. Classical Antiquity. Vol. 29, Issue 1, pp. 117–180. ISSN 0278-6656(p); 1067-8344 (e). Copyright © 2010 by The Regents of the University of California.
inbed video )
 Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publius_Clodius_Pulcher#cite_note-28
 “…a local cultus that had developed around the emperor persisted and spread to parts of Germany, Belgium, and France. No subsequent pope protested the cultus, so it endured for several centuries with the tacit permission of Rome. In the 18th century, Pope Benedict XIV confirmed the cultus, though apparently not as an official papal act. Ultimately, because the cultus continued to exist with the permission of the Church, Charlemagne is considered beatified. Charlemagne, therefore, can be referred to as Blessed Charlemagne; however, he is not Saint Charlemagne.
Quoted from “Reliquarian” http://reliquarian.com/2013/05/02/charlemagne-saint-of-the-holy-roman-empire/
 That is, from conception to finish including, idea, finance, creation, shipping, reassembly, installation and ceremony
 Immaculata Magazine (May/June, 1996): https://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/KOLANTI.HTM
 M. Kolbe to the Masons: You are Controlled by the Jews: http://www.traditioninaction.org/History/G_010_Kobe_Jewsl.html
In Polish: forumdlazycia Tradycji Katolickiej: https://forumdlazycia.wordpress.com/2012/08/14/sw-maksymilian-maria-kolbe-o-masonerii-i-zydach-pisma-wybrane-wyboru-i-opracowania-dokonal-dr-stanislaw-krajski/
 Virtual Jewish Library: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/lazarus.html
 Jews United against Zionism Website:http://www.nkusa.org/AboutUs/Zionism/opposition.cfm
 Since the designation Jewish is a religious and not a racial characteristic, anyone can become a “Jew”. Accepting the Jewish faith and living it is what makes one Jewish. Thus, the synagogue of Satan is composed of individuals who claim to be Jewish (this could be men and women of any race) but are not. They might have Abraham’s blood in them or they might not; race and blood are not the issues, acceptance of the faith and living it are the issues.