One thing that the communists, and then the neo-communists of the Frankfurt School, for example, came to realize was the power of propaganda (early psyops) through the re-defining of language.
Rainbow > relative humanism, 'diversity', 'equality', etc.
But it is gross manipulation, grounded in a foundation of lies and evil (selfish) intent.
Do the fasces of Rome sort of have a philosophical and spiritual lineage connection to the modern 'fascism'?
Roman law became the foundation (I think) of the civil law that is used, for example, by France. Contrast this with the common law foundation that is the root of British and American law. That common law foundation is Christian civilization and ethics, the civil law of Rome, then France, is rooted in the power of the state.
In that civil system, if someone commits a crime, they commit a crime against the state, and so the State prosecutes them, whether it is murder, theft, etc, etc.
In common law, it is party vs party. So if you damage or somehow inflict problems by violating my rights, I am the one who prosecutes you and it is to me that the redress is given.
But don't confuse this sort of common law approach with the (now twisted) criminal law vs 'civil law' in systems based on the British way, such as in the US or Australia, etc.
Despite any similarities between our now 'civil law' and common law approaches, I think that they are probably different.
In any case, from Rome Fasces to Mussolini's fascism to then the modern, post WW2 concept of 'Fascism', the spirit is the same: supremacy of the State over the individual.
It is a testament to the effectiveness of the Communist / Political Satanist clique that somehow patriotic nationalism has been tainted with the concept of fascism.
But I think a clearer, more accurate nomenclature would be that fascism is very close to Communism, or any form of State-ism where the collective or state is held as superseding the inalienable rights of the individual (which after all, are based on the concept that each human being is a unique child of the Creator, God.)
Roman law became the foundation (I think) of the civil law that is used, for example, by France. Contrast this with the common law foundation that is the root of British and American law. That common law foundation is Christian civilization and ethics, the civil law of Rome, then France, is rooted in the power of the state.
Dude, I’ve been looking for that answer for a long time, and it looks like you nailed it.
My suspicion has been that the fasces might have been from the 1700’s/early 1800’s and been intended to represent the common man bundling together a la “WWG1WGA”, but if you combine your comment with my note on a lot of them showing up in the 1920’s and you have them being implemented, with Roman architecture, in the 1871-1941 era where the admiralty/civic/banking systems would have been being brought online. Looks like a perfect fit!
As far as the “common law” we still have - we apply common law as a “layer 2” to civic law. Primary is the civic law which is encoded at various nodes, then the judges aggregate and apply it, and call their binding legal opinions “precedent”, “common law”. In reality, it’s a gross hybrid that gives the judges a lot more power than they should have - effectively granting them superlegislative authority in lieu of Convener / Guide / Referee for the juries, who should be the ACTUAL civic law authors, using any sort of statutory codes as a guideline. (Criminal/felony law may differ somewhat to lesser trials)
Yes, another brick thrown into the confused (on purpose) jumble of law and 'legal' systems in our countries.
I did "Legal Studies" in high school, and learned that 'common law' meant yes, the precedents set by previous cases. But that's a wholey different beast than the real common law, aka the law of the land, that pertains between all peoples.
effectively granting them superlegislative authority in lieu of Convener / Guide / Referee for the juries, who should be the ACTUAL civic law authors, using any sort of statutory codes as a guideline
I think this is well stated.
but regarding fasces, are you postulating that the emergence of these in the early 1900s with architecture, etc, indicates possibly a resurgence of statist-type thinking in the US at that time?
IMO, the United states emerged the embodiment of the fruits of the Christian civilization up to that time, and so, during the last 250 years, the USA has been a microcosm of Christian history. Part of the makeup of the American history, then, over the last 250 years has been the reemergence or 're-representation' of all the issues and ins and outs of thought that the last 2000 years of Christian history has experienced.
Fundamentally, perhaps, you have the Hebraism rooted in the Bible vs the Hellanism of the Greek philosophical class. These two contrasting approaches to life and the universe manifested as Christian civilization in the Roman context, where temporarily, they existed together, with the Romanism being the external framework while the Christian-ism grew and developed.
It was finally in the birth of the USA that the Christianism eventually broke free of the Romanism (state-ism, in the form of the British Monarchy, who, as a representative of the State, was supreme over other individuals). Since that time, the two forces have been locked in a death struggle, much like Jacob and Esau struggling in the womb, one sometimes gaining advantage, the other then gaining advantage.
Is the emergence of Donald Trump the signal that finally, the younger brother (Jacob, Hebraism, Christian-ism, Abel) has finally gained the upper hand to the degree necessary for birth of the new era, when the correct Jacob-Esau / Abel-Cain / Zerah-Perez is accomplished on a permanent basis? And where the Christian spirit (Hebraism) will direct and govern the external Hellanistic/Romanistic spirit in the proper way, where Spirit guides the Flesh, and not the other way around?
Directly after Adam and Eve fell and established their family, God has the elder son be in a position to humble himself to the younger son. Why? Because the 'first born' aka first created Lucifer was supposed to humble himself to the second born (aka created 2nd), Adam, so that Adam could grow to perfection and God's dominion be established over the Earth, and the universe. As we know, Lucifer the elder, failed to humble himself to Adam, but actually fell and then murdered Eve and through her Adam spiritually, to gain control over the world through God's children.
Abel making the offering, and then Esau humbling himself to Abel, would have indicated conditionally that they were separated at least symbolically from the fallen foundation (satanic nature) that Adam and Eve inherited when they united with Lucifer.
If this has been successful, the process of Bringing Jesus Christ would have been accelerated tremendously. Tragically, The elder physically murdered the younger, repeating the (spiritual) murder of Adam by Lucifer, and requiring that the reversal of sonship: the elder humbling himself to the younger - be postponed and attempted time and again in the history that precedes Jesus. Jacob was a watershed victory, and this is why 'Israel' became the chosen people.
Jacob and Esau struggled in the womb. Esau was born first, but Jacob eventually won the birthright by winning his brother's unity through sacrificial love. He first bought it, symbolically, then gained it with Isaac's prayer, but then had to have Esau, the elder brother, voluntarily submit to him, which he achieved after 21 years and 10 deceptions in Haran.
In the case of Zerah and Perez, Zerah's hand came out first and a red ribbon was tied to him, indicating he was the official or recognized first born. But then his hand retreated, and Perez was 'born' first, thus becoming the first born. This story describes the struggle between the elder son and the younger son, in which victory was finally obtained within the womb.
This became the foundation for God to bring, at the right time, his son Christ in a womb that had been liberated from Satanic dominion, because the Elder-Younger order created by the fall had been reversed, in the womb.
OK, that was a big digression. My point, however, was to illustrate that this dynamic between elder and younger (or external and internal) and the need for the latter to gain voluntary or other submission by the former is not only found in the Bible, but is also found throughout Christian history itself, one example being the competing worldviews underpinning our different 'law' systems.
regarding fasces, are you postulating that the emergence of these in the early 1900s with architecture, etc, indicates possibly a resurgence of statist-type thinking in the US at that time?
I had previously been suspecting that it might have indicated a different understanding of what the fasces meant, by at least the higher echelons of authority, if not by the people as well.
Your comment has me thinking it could indicate the start of admiralty law being imposed over the American system in the period between the 1871ish bankruptcy and the end of WWII, with TPTSNB, as you note, establishing and declaring their Esauian authority over the land and populace. This actually seems more plausible than my take, as I couldn’t ever find a solid basis for the context of the fasces switching from symbolizing “authority of the state” to Americans-at-large hijacking the symbol to mean “we are the state now!” whereas not only there would be plenty of reason for admiralty impos(t)ers to install their symbolism, but also as the New Deal and accompanying beaurocracy were explicitly designed using explicitly and openly fascist principles and symbolism will be their downfall.
Really interesting Biblical tie-in!
I’m at a point where I’d wager there’s a lot of glossed-over history we could glean from the post-Lincoln to TR/Taft years, especially with McKinley and Grant.
Some resources for when I turn this into a thread:
The crests of many collegiate fraternities and sororities feature the fasces, including those of Chi Phi, Alpha Phi Delta, Sigma Alpha Mu, Phi Beta Sigma, and Psi Upsilon
Your comment has me thinking it could indicate the start of admiralty law being imposed over the American system in the period between the 1871ish bankruptcy and the end of WWII, with TPTSNB, as you note, establishing and declaring their Esauian authority over the land and populace.
Hmmm...
Dull disclosure: I'm a symbolism skeptic. By which I mean, while I believe on one hand that the echalons of the Political Satanists do engage in ritual, 'black' magic, spell-casting, and use symbolism for that, I also believe that not every instance of use of their symbols (by non-initiated persons) is deliberate. So, the symbolism is used by some with intent, and by others for an unrelated intent.
I also believe generally in the power of Heaven to work through people, and that sometimes, just as Satanic forces use their instruments to weave evil effect, Heavenly forces inspire, and work through earthly instruments to help shape the world.
Looking through some of the iconography in the archived link re: Symbols of Liberty, I'm inclined to think that the use of this symbol is not overtly 'magical' i.e. spell casting, but is very possibly exactly what it purports itself to be: an expression of the concept e pluribus unum, and the fundamental idea that strength (in these cases in the pursuit of freedom) is achieved through unity.
On the other hand, the origin connection to the Roman Empire cannot be denied.
Rome is a curious beast (no pun intended).
At the time of Christ, Rome was a massive empire with many organizational (civilizational) accomplishments, including the concept of election of govt officials.
When Christ was crucified, and Christianity founded, it moved to Rome and through Rome, subsequently, to the Western World. Although the Orthodox region of Christianity was alive, and has been alive all this time, it was in 'Western Christianity' that the primary principles forming the modern world were formed, aka the principles of freedom, individual sovereignty, the law rooted in Godly principles, etc.
In one sense, we might think of Rome as the body, the external structure, and Christianity the spirit, the internal impetus. Thus, Christian history culminating in the founding of the United States, based on inalienable principles, is necessarily intertwined with the Roman Empire and its decedents, such as the Papacy in Rome, Roman Catholicism, etc.
As I attempted to describe in the previous comment, the dynamic between Elder / Younger corresponds in many ways to the dynamic between Flesh (the body, external form) and the Spirit (the mind, internal character). After all, God created Adam's flesh first and THEN invested His spirit into it. Flesh first, Spirit Second.
But the proper order of God's creation is that spirit guide and govern over flesh. That proper order was decimated due to the fall of Adam and Eve, thus burdening all their decedents with the mind - body conflict, where the body, under the influence of Satan, contends with the mind, instead of obeying it.
Thus, just as we cannot cut ourselves off from our parents, or ancestral lineage, modern Western Christianity could not cut itself off from the inheritance of Rome.
Perhaps the emergence and use of fasces in the examples the archive shows is a well-intention and positive effort to claim some of the good found in the Roman context, emphasizing the principles the fasces exemplifies, even if the Romans themselves were not really the embodiment of Christian ethics.
One thing that the communists, and then the neo-communists of the Frankfurt School, for example, came to realize was the power of propaganda (early psyops) through the re-defining of language.
Rainbow > relative humanism, 'diversity', 'equality', etc.
But it is gross manipulation, grounded in a foundation of lies and evil (selfish) intent.
Do the fasces of Rome sort of have a philosophical and spiritual lineage connection to the modern 'fascism'?
Roman law became the foundation (I think) of the civil law that is used, for example, by France. Contrast this with the common law foundation that is the root of British and American law. That common law foundation is Christian civilization and ethics, the civil law of Rome, then France, is rooted in the power of the state.
In that civil system, if someone commits a crime, they commit a crime against the state, and so the State prosecutes them, whether it is murder, theft, etc, etc.
In common law, it is party vs party. So if you damage or somehow inflict problems by violating my rights, I am the one who prosecutes you and it is to me that the redress is given.
But don't confuse this sort of common law approach with the (now twisted) criminal law vs 'civil law' in systems based on the British way, such as in the US or Australia, etc.
Despite any similarities between our now 'civil law' and common law approaches, I think that they are probably different.
In any case, from Rome Fasces to Mussolini's fascism to then the modern, post WW2 concept of 'Fascism', the spirit is the same: supremacy of the State over the individual.
It is a testament to the effectiveness of the Communist / Political Satanist clique that somehow patriotic nationalism has been tainted with the concept of fascism.
But I think a clearer, more accurate nomenclature would be that fascism is very close to Communism, or any form of State-ism where the collective or state is held as superseding the inalienable rights of the individual (which after all, are based on the concept that each human being is a unique child of the Creator, God.)
Dude, I’ve been looking for that answer for a long time, and it looks like you nailed it.
My suspicion has been that the fasces might have been from the 1700’s/early 1800’s and been intended to represent the common man bundling together a la “WWG1WGA”, but if you combine your comment with my note on a lot of them showing up in the 1920’s and you have them being implemented, with Roman architecture, in the 1871-1941 era where the admiralty/civic/banking systems would have been being brought online. Looks like a perfect fit!
u/#updoot
As far as the “common law” we still have - we apply common law as a “layer 2” to civic law. Primary is the civic law which is encoded at various nodes, then the judges aggregate and apply it, and call their binding legal opinions “precedent”, “common law”. In reality, it’s a gross hybrid that gives the judges a lot more power than they should have - effectively granting them superlegislative authority in lieu of Convener / Guide / Referee for the juries, who should be the ACTUAL civic law authors, using any sort of statutory codes as a guideline. (Criminal/felony law may differ somewhat to lesser trials)
Yes, another brick thrown into the confused (on purpose) jumble of law and 'legal' systems in our countries.
I did "Legal Studies" in high school, and learned that 'common law' meant yes, the precedents set by previous cases. But that's a wholey different beast than the real common law, aka the law of the land, that pertains between all peoples.
I think this is well stated.
but regarding fasces, are you postulating that the emergence of these in the early 1900s with architecture, etc, indicates possibly a resurgence of statist-type thinking in the US at that time?
IMO, the United states emerged the embodiment of the fruits of the Christian civilization up to that time, and so, during the last 250 years, the USA has been a microcosm of Christian history. Part of the makeup of the American history, then, over the last 250 years has been the reemergence or 're-representation' of all the issues and ins and outs of thought that the last 2000 years of Christian history has experienced.
Fundamentally, perhaps, you have the Hebraism rooted in the Bible vs the Hellanism of the Greek philosophical class. These two contrasting approaches to life and the universe manifested as Christian civilization in the Roman context, where temporarily, they existed together, with the Romanism being the external framework while the Christian-ism grew and developed.
It was finally in the birth of the USA that the Christianism eventually broke free of the Romanism (state-ism, in the form of the British Monarchy, who, as a representative of the State, was supreme over other individuals). Since that time, the two forces have been locked in a death struggle, much like Jacob and Esau struggling in the womb, one sometimes gaining advantage, the other then gaining advantage.
Is the emergence of Donald Trump the signal that finally, the younger brother (Jacob, Hebraism, Christian-ism, Abel) has finally gained the upper hand to the degree necessary for birth of the new era, when the correct Jacob-Esau / Abel-Cain / Zerah-Perez is accomplished on a permanent basis? And where the Christian spirit (Hebraism) will direct and govern the external Hellanistic/Romanistic spirit in the proper way, where Spirit guides the Flesh, and not the other way around?
Abel making the offering, and then Esau humbling himself to Abel, would have indicated conditionally that they were separated at least symbolically from the fallen foundation (satanic nature) that Adam and Eve inherited when they united with Lucifer.
If this has been successful, the process of Bringing Jesus Christ would have been accelerated tremendously. Tragically, The elder physically murdered the younger, repeating the (spiritual) murder of Adam by Lucifer, and requiring that the reversal of sonship: the elder humbling himself to the younger - be postponed and attempted time and again in the history that precedes Jesus. Jacob was a watershed victory, and this is why 'Israel' became the chosen people.
Jacob and Esau struggled in the womb. Esau was born first, but Jacob eventually won the birthright by winning his brother's unity through sacrificial love. He first bought it, symbolically, then gained it with Isaac's prayer, but then had to have Esau, the elder brother, voluntarily submit to him, which he achieved after 21 years and 10 deceptions in Haran.
In the case of Zerah and Perez, Zerah's hand came out first and a red ribbon was tied to him, indicating he was the official or recognized first born. But then his hand retreated, and Perez was 'born' first, thus becoming the first born. This story describes the struggle between the elder son and the younger son, in which victory was finally obtained within the womb.
This became the foundation for God to bring, at the right time, his son Christ in a womb that had been liberated from Satanic dominion, because the Elder-Younger order created by the fall had been reversed, in the womb.
OK, that was a big digression. My point, however, was to illustrate that this dynamic between elder and younger (or external and internal) and the need for the latter to gain voluntary or other submission by the former is not only found in the Bible, but is also found throughout Christian history itself, one example being the competing worldviews underpinning our different 'law' systems.
I had previously been suspecting that it might have indicated a different understanding of what the fasces meant, by at least the higher echelons of authority, if not by the people as well.
Your comment has me thinking it could indicate the start of admiralty law being imposed over the American system in the period between the 1871ish bankruptcy and the end of WWII, with TPTSNB, as you note, establishing and declaring their Esauian authority over the land and populace. This actually seems more plausible than my take, as I couldn’t ever find a solid basis for the context of the fasces switching from symbolizing “authority of the state” to Americans-at-large hijacking the symbol to mean “we are the state now!” whereas not only there would be plenty of reason for admiralty impos(t)ers to install their symbolism, but also as the New Deal and accompanying beaurocracy were explicitly designed using explicitly and openly fascist principles and symbolism will be their downfall.
Really interesting Biblical tie-in!
I’m at a point where I’d wager there’s a lot of glossed-over history we could glean from the post-Lincoln to TR/Taft years, especially with McKinley and Grant.
Some resources for when I turn this into a thread:
https://web.archive.org/web/20230701062900/https://hermonatkinsmacneil.com/2023/07/01/fasces-symbols-abound-in-district-of-columbia-sculpture-architecture-and-coinage/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasces#cite_note-9
https://web.archive.org/web/20260206201704/https://www.govmint.com/learn/post/a-fascist-u-s-dime
https://web.archive.org/web/20260206202131/https://www.city-journal.org/article/when-fasces-arent-fascist
Hmmm...
Dull disclosure: I'm a symbolism skeptic. By which I mean, while I believe on one hand that the echalons of the Political Satanists do engage in ritual, 'black' magic, spell-casting, and use symbolism for that, I also believe that not every instance of use of their symbols (by non-initiated persons) is deliberate. So, the symbolism is used by some with intent, and by others for an unrelated intent.
I also believe generally in the power of Heaven to work through people, and that sometimes, just as Satanic forces use their instruments to weave evil effect, Heavenly forces inspire, and work through earthly instruments to help shape the world.
Looking through some of the iconography in the archived link re: Symbols of Liberty, I'm inclined to think that the use of this symbol is not overtly 'magical' i.e. spell casting, but is very possibly exactly what it purports itself to be: an expression of the concept e pluribus unum, and the fundamental idea that strength (in these cases in the pursuit of freedom) is achieved through unity.
On the other hand, the origin connection to the Roman Empire cannot be denied.
Rome is a curious beast (no pun intended).
At the time of Christ, Rome was a massive empire with many organizational (civilizational) accomplishments, including the concept of election of govt officials.
When Christ was crucified, and Christianity founded, it moved to Rome and through Rome, subsequently, to the Western World. Although the Orthodox region of Christianity was alive, and has been alive all this time, it was in 'Western Christianity' that the primary principles forming the modern world were formed, aka the principles of freedom, individual sovereignty, the law rooted in Godly principles, etc.
In one sense, we might think of Rome as the body, the external structure, and Christianity the spirit, the internal impetus. Thus, Christian history culminating in the founding of the United States, based on inalienable principles, is necessarily intertwined with the Roman Empire and its decedents, such as the Papacy in Rome, Roman Catholicism, etc.
As I attempted to describe in the previous comment, the dynamic between Elder / Younger corresponds in many ways to the dynamic between Flesh (the body, external form) and the Spirit (the mind, internal character). After all, God created Adam's flesh first and THEN invested His spirit into it. Flesh first, Spirit Second.
But the proper order of God's creation is that spirit guide and govern over flesh. That proper order was decimated due to the fall of Adam and Eve, thus burdening all their decedents with the mind - body conflict, where the body, under the influence of Satan, contends with the mind, instead of obeying it.
Thus, just as we cannot cut ourselves off from our parents, or ancestral lineage, modern Western Christianity could not cut itself off from the inheritance of Rome.
Perhaps the emergence and use of fasces in the examples the archive shows is a well-intention and positive effort to claim some of the good found in the Roman context, emphasizing the principles the fasces exemplifies, even if the Romans themselves were not really the embodiment of Christian ethics.
hmmm....