A curiosity recently discovered-
CIA headquarters built by Harrison & Abramovitz: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Bush_Center_for_Intelligence
Founding members of the firm:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Abramovitz
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Harrison
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Andr%C3%A9_Fouilhoux
Wallace Harrison was personal friends with Nelson Rockefeller (governor of New York) and also built the Rockefeller Center.
As I'm sure you know, all of the Rockefellers were true red communists. See: https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/erased-history-how-rockefeller-bankrolled-soviet-russia/
There is a difference between "being a communist" and trying to push the entire world into communism, creating a willing slave cast under the pretense of "the good of the many" so that you can rule it from on high as the god-king.
Communism and communists is Luciferianism. It is at its core the old evil that has existed for all too many millennia and simply keeps changing its name to fit various societies. Make no mistake, another alias is Babylon and the followers of Nimrod. This is quite a deep topic.
You are right in the sense that the Rockerfellers see themselves as closer to the top maybe near Lucifer.
I completely disagree with this equivocation.
Luciferianism is the worshiping of Satan. It is a religion that is based on a perversion of Natural Law.
Communism is a social control mechanism. It promotes the "good of the many" (an undefinable measure of a population that doesn't actually exist) over the inalienable rights of the individual, where inalienable means that which we are born with (i.e. rights under Natural Law) and cannot be removed by any means.
Communism may have been around a very long time under different names, and it may have been employed by adherents to the same perverted Natural Law religion (what you are calling Luciferianism) to control the world, but they are not the same thing.
One is the religion (the guiding belief system) of the elite, the other is the belief system of the masses, where they believe that they are (and allow themselves to be) slaves to "good of others."
These two groups are completely separated by a different set of beliefs. They do not share the same beliefs at all. One set is employed by the group that adheres to the other.
Sadly your remarks are completely missing an understanding of history. I'll work on digging up some content for you to review that should help.
Why would you say such a thing? How do you have any idea what I know or what evidence I have to support the claims (without even caring to ask)? Did you address a single point I made? Nope, not a one. Address my points if you wish to debate, don't use ad hominem attacks.