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.
Yeah, I follow your positional statement of it quite possibly being about social unity. That’s basically been my primary guess as to where they came from, and it’s an interesting one as it makes The Adversary’s cries of “fascist” true, in a sense, but does anyone mean it or understand it in that way? Almost certainly not (they likely mean “I want power” and “I will gladly slander you for it” and “I am trying to look oppressed as the oppressor”) and we mostly would understand it by the history book definitions. Would they think that understanding of “unity” to be a good thing? Definitely not, as they seek temporary coalition from permanent division, and not unity per se, and definitely not unity around Christian morality. Should we appreciate their accusations of it? No, as it’s attempting to slander us with their deliberately false definition, that better describes their intentions.
Yet as you note, Rome is a curious beast…
Were the founders looking to usurp us from the beginning and reconstitute Rome’s civic law here?
Were they appropriating the idea of unity into a known symbol?
Did they perhaps use a few here and there, and there was a massive uptick in usage in the 1870’s-1940’s to indicate the impregnation of state authority into the apparatuses?
Other?
It seems like this could absolutely have 2, or maybe even 3 answers from just among those presented, and there may still be other cases that were missed.
I'm a symbolism skeptic. By which I mean
Like words, they can absolutely have multiple meanings ascribed and translated from them, sometimes even meanings that completely conflict - https://greatawakening.win/p/19BZkuH0BK/troublesome-words/c/Huge reason it’s basically impossible to sit down and say, “oh, it just means this.”
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....
Yeah, I follow your positional statement of it quite possibly being about social unity. That’s basically been my primary guess as to where they came from, and it’s an interesting one as it makes The Adversary’s cries of “fascist” true, in a sense, but does anyone mean it or understand it in that way? Almost certainly not (they likely mean “I want power” and “I will gladly slander you for it” and “I am trying to look oppressed as the oppressor”) and we mostly would understand it by the history book definitions. Would they think that understanding of “unity” to be a good thing? Definitely not, as they seek temporary coalition from permanent division, and not unity per se, and definitely not unity around Christian morality. Should we appreciate their accusations of it? No, as it’s attempting to slander us with their deliberately false definition, that better describes their intentions.
Yet as you note, Rome is a curious beast…
It seems like this could absolutely have 2, or maybe even 3 answers from just among those presented, and there may still be other cases that were missed.
Like words, they can absolutely have multiple meanings ascribed and translated from them, sometimes even meanings that completely conflict - https://greatawakening.win/p/19BZkuH0BK/troublesome-words/c/ Huge reason it’s basically impossible to sit down and say, “oh, it just means this.”