Decoding "Brad Meltzer's Decoded": Freemasonry

I left the following two comments over on the linked video:

Mark Koltko-Rivera is NOT a theologian but a 32nd degree Freemason and Mormon. Nebuchadnezzar II is referred to in Isaiah 14:12. He was brought low after being prideful and unjust. One can't understand 14:12 without 14:13-15. Freemasonry and Illuminism are definitely anti-Christ. Anyone who has read and understood the scriptures and compares them to even the openly admitted doctrines and rituals of Freemasonry cannot help but see that Masonry is against the specific teachings of Jesus Christ.

TomUsherRLCC 7 hours ago

Mark Koltko-Rivera, read it: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit."

TomUsherRLCC 8 hours ago

via YouTube - Statue of Liberty • Brad Meltzer's Decoded (Part 4 of 4) • December 16th, 2010.

Nebuchadnezzar was at the time the epitome of the incarnate son of Satan. Satan is the rebellious one against God. Satan is the spirit of humanism writ large. Freemasonry and all of the "Mystery Religions" are that kind of humanistic to one degree or another. The distinction becomes subtler and subtler for the uninitiated; however, for those of us who have delved into this at great length and who have inside experiences with Freemasonry, the contrast becomes extremely stark.

In the end, the choice is between joining in the spirit of God, the one and only truth and righteousness or becoming so egotistical and self-centered as to believe oneself the source usurping the spirit of God, who is the real source and real force, to use Buddhist and "Star Wars" terms within this humanist-apart-from-God versus human-closest-to-God context.

The author, editors, producers, and staff of the History Channel TV show called "Brad Meltzer's Decoded," clearly employed childish psychological devices to "prove" Brad Meltzer's pre-conceived position. He fixed the interviews and running commentary of the actors (and they were acting — it was scripted and heavily edited) around how he wanted it all to come out for the sake of twisting the minds of the audience into believing that the Statue of Liberty is not a central icon of the millennia-old anti-Christ agenda.

Brad Meltzer did not reveal Mark Koltko-Rivera's background. He simply had the screen call Rivera a "Theologian," which is far from his primary area of study, etc.

To use a 32nd degree Freemason without identifying him as such (unless that part was clipped out by for the purposes of establishing the fact that the Freemasons do not worship the Luciferian-humanist spirit clearly and plainly meant by Isaiah in Isaiah 14:12-15 is a very intellectually dishonest and weak thing to do.

If you watch the other 3 parts of the video series or playlist, you will here Christine McKinley (described as "a mechanical engineer and is currently managing sustainable commercial construction. She has a degree in Mechanical Engineering from the California Polytechnic University") stating that John F. Kennedy's "Secret Society" speech was about the Cold War and Communism. I have written as much here on this blog; however, Kennedy was rebuking the Marxist-Leninist-Stalinists for being as a huge secret society, such as Freemasonry, which Kennedy did find repugnant.

The basic tenets of the current iteration of Masonry are ultimately reflected in what is referred to as "The Enlightenment." The "Founding Fathers" of the United States of America are nearly all rightly called sons of "The Enlightenment." That "Enlightenment" is not the same thing as the light emanating from the revelation of Jesus Christ.

That "Enlightenment" of the "Founding Fathers" completely disbelieves in what is termed the supernatural.

While there is no doubt that scientific testing yields certain results, there is no possibility of demonstrating the nonexistence of the supernatural or in other words, what will not be forced by the non-supernatural means that is called "science" today, which termed "science" is actually a misnomer there. As currently misused today, science is a closed-loop that precludes any revelation beyond itself. Jesus said that we are not to test God. Jesus did not test God. If the historical record of the Gospels is to be believed even slightly, we are to conclude from that record that Jesus revealed the supernatural power of God to the people at the time who suspended disbelief and became more enlightened.

Now, all of that said, I want to point out that there is also a spiritual thread in Masonry that is at odds with the seemingly non-spiritual but highest tenets of Masonry, which spirit is not revealed to lower initiates. In other words, the Masons actually have never made up their minds concerning the materialist versus spirit-over-matter debate.

Many 33rd degree Freemasons have been very, very deep in anti-Christ occultism. Understand here that what is occulted is the same as what is hidden. Jesus's own teachings remain hidden to those who cannot grasp them even though his teachings are right out in the open. The same can be said of Freemasonry with the exception that in the final analysis, the Freemasons below the very top do not know what those at the very top ultimately have in mind. This hearkens back to where I began with the following: "The distinction becomes subtler and subtler for the uninitiated; however, for those of us who have delved into this at great length and who have inside experiences with Freemasonry, the contrast becomes extremely stark."

Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing. (John 18:20)

Here is the point of points for you. The top leadership of Freemasonry hides its ultimate beliefs and goals. It hides in the shadows, in the dark. It is that to which John F. Kennedy was referring as being repugnant, and he was right about it.

Freemasonry is decidedly anti-Christ, and no amount of twisting by anyone will alter that fact.

The tenets, doctrines, rituals, and secrecy surrounding those beliefs and rituals, etc., of Freemasonry run exactly contrary to the tenets, doctrines, and rituals of Jesus Christ.

The Freemasonic spirit is the Babylonian spirit as referred to in both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. It is the Nimrodian spirit, the builder of the Tower of Babel (whether you take that literally or not). It is the God-usurper, evil-excuser, soul-destroying spirit. It will take you way up high and drop you. It will not take you to God to join God as one part of the wholeness that is God. It will take you to where you will consider yourself a god apart from God. It will take you to where you will rail against the strictures against sexual and other manifestations of depravity — offenses in the eyes of the one God with whom you ought to want to join rather than against whom you otherwise fight.

Some of the top Freemasons (33 degree) in the U.S. have been out-and-out Satanists, Aleister Crowley being a prime example. Now, what "good" organization would support a Satanist rising up through its ranks to become a member of the highest hierarchical tier of that group?

The reason Freemasonry not only allows it but encourages it is because Freemasonry is a mystery-religion (Theosophical) based where Satan is the illuminator and Jesus is claimed by them to be either actually Satan or the real fallen one and bad for being anti-Satan. Either way, the position is that God, the one who says that sexual libertinism is evil, is therefore bad.

In addition to licensing sexual libertinism, hedonism, and a host of other self-centered and shortsighted aspects, it all licenses greed and violence and results, in fact, in sociopathy. Read Crowley. I have. He was openly in favor of child sacrifices and literally eating the body parts of the sacrificed to gain "power." What organization would allow such a person to remain at its top level, in this case, 33 degree rather then severely rebuking him and if he refused to repent of his call to evil, casting him out lock, stock, and barrel?

The Freemasons are one-worlders. There's no doubt about it. The United Nations is a supranational governmental organization. The G20 is an attempt to allow the elites to by-pass greater direct-democracy. The European Union is quite far from direct democracy. The driving forces behind the U.N. were the Roosevelt's (Franklin and Eleanor) and Harry Truman and others. Roosevelt was 32 degree and Truman was 33 degree. Roosevelt's first Vice President, Henry Wallace, was very deeply involved in the anti-Christ version of the occult. Harry Truman, next to George Washington himself, was likely the most ardent Mason who ever occupied the White House. George Washington was and remains the highest ranking Freemason ever.

Let me make absolutely clear here that the right kinds of One World Government and New World Order are not anti-Christ. The right kinds are Christian. They are non-coercive (direct democracy can be coercive). They are the result of real enlightenment where every soul really does follow the dictates of the Sermon on the Mount. Unfortunately, the Freemason versions of One World Government and New World Order are not that.

Let me also address both Buddhism and Hinduism that both assert that there are many paths to enlightenment.

There are many experiential paths to getting to the top of the Buddhist and Hindu Mountain; but once there, one is faced by the strait gate that opens onto the narrow way of Jesus Christ. The top of the Buddhist and Hindu Mountain is not the enlightenment that results from entering in at that strait gate.

That is the point of departure. That is the place where the Hindu Vedas stop.

There really is God the Father Almighty, who is the father of Jesus Christ in exactly the way Jesus describes his relationship as related in the Gospels.

Is Yahoveh-Elohim also Brahma? There are areas of overlap. Those commonalities in the minds of devotees are not the important aspects. The points of conflict are and always.

The Hindus do not accept Jesus as the one and only path to God Most High.

Why does it matter? It matters because the issue is that of getting it right and out into eternity and infinity. The doctrines of Jesus if adhered to by everyone will get humanity the farthest — to the best and even perfect place. Even the slightest uncorrected deviation completely misses the mark and ends up in Hell again.

So, while there are many interesting statements and concepts expressed in the Vedas, the Vedas as a whole or in part don't open that strait gate. The Gospel of Jesus Christ does. It is ego that keeps one from seeing it and accepting it.

Jesus was a type of Jew. I know that many people have a huge problem with that. I don't. God shows through Jesus. There's nothing wrong with that, and it doesn't render other ethnicities as being inherently unworthy.

Please understand that Jesus made very clear that the people who refused to bring forth are cut off as being chosen.

Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. (Matthew 7:19)

Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. (Matthew 21:42-43)

He was and still is speaking directly to those of the Jews (not all Jews) who considered/consider themselves the chosen of God forever no matter how evil they might become. Now, there is the prophecy that says that the remnant of Jacob (who was also called Israel) will not fall forever; however, it is only a remnant, as many have fallen and history repeats itself until it's over — until real enlightenment that is perfection that is the God of Jesus Christ per the Gospels in the Bible: One soul.


I just watched Mark Dice's version of this over on his YouTube channel. Mark added some text-over that adds more to what he was trying to get through to them. I decided to leave him a comment on YouTube as follows:

I saw it yesterday on another YouTube channel and did a blog post on it. Google:

"Decoding "Brad Meltzer's Decoded": Freemasonry"

It's interesting to me that you, Mark, also have the text-over quoting Aleister Crowley. I named him in my post too. What I'd like you to focus on the most in that post of mine though is how I handled the so-called theologian they used (Mark Koltko-Rivera) to refute your point that the Freemasons worship Lucifer/Satan. They do, and his refutation is junk.

Take a look at Mark's work. He knows a great deal more about the whole subject of the Illuminati than does anyone involved in that "Brad Meltzer's Decoded" show:


The following should appear at the end of every post:

According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":

Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.

Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.

Political Campaign Intervention

Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.

Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.

Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:

  • Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
  • Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
  • Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
  • Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
  • Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office

Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:

  • The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
  • Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
  • We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
  • When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
  • It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
  • We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
  • We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
  • When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
  • We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
  • It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.

And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 - present, website developer and writer. 2015 - present, insurance broker. Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration. Volunteerism: 2007 - present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.
    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
    • Mina

      Your ramblings about Christianity as the superior "One True World Religion" sounds exactly like the spoutings of the opposing view. How can anyone really know what the truth is until they die? What makes you or anyone else an expert. You are just blindly following a book that was heavily edited by Constantine. Also your understanding of Buddhism is extremely flawed and damaging to others who should be allowed to make their own choice of faith. Sorry my opinion was harsh, but that is all it is...on opinion.

      • "ramblings"? The article isn't aimless. It is hardly loaded with digressions. It's also rather naturally structured. You may outline it yourself to confirm it. In that case, what's rambling about it? Be specific please.

        I believe you used the term "ramblings" in a parroting fashion without understanding its meaning. You seem to have seen it thrown out there as an attack mechanism and have simply used it falsely imagining it will work in your favor. However, when its misuse is pointed out to people, most will have the good conscience not to fall for the ruse.

        "How can anyone really know what the truth is until they die?" Can you define truth and death? If you can, do it here for me.

        "What makes you or anyone else an expert." You didn't end that with a question mark; however, you asked. What makes you expert enough to ask?

        "You are just blindly following a book that was heavily edited by Constantine." Those are bold statements from one who suggest she can't know until she's dead. How can you know that I blindly follow anything? Where did you get the idea that Constantine edited the Bible? Even if you simply mean he had influence over what was included in some version or versions, what do you know about my beliefs vis-a-vis Constantine? You just jumped to false conclusions. That's not a good sign, is it? It's a sign that there's something wrong. What is it?

        Do members of other religions follow anything? Which ones follow blindly, and which ones don't?

        "your understanding of Buddhism is extremely flawed" You understand Buddhism? You're more "expert" than am I concerning what lies at the core of Buddhism? Exactly how do you know that?

        I referred to Buddhism in two contexts in the article and didn't go into detail concerning either and especially not the first.

        There is no doubt that the vast majority of Buddhist do not accept God the Father of Jesus (note: as Jesus defined/defines God) as the Buddhists' God, "the source." Is that something you dispute? It so, please state your argument in reasonable detail so we may all see whether or not it as merit. Back it up with Buddhist scripture please. I was, and remain, aware that there are Buddhists who openly believe in both Jesus and Jesus's Father God by name. They remain a tiny minority.

        In addition, is it your contention that Buddhism does not in general subscribe to the "many paths" concept as opposed to Jesus as the strait gate and narrow way and one and only path to God the Father, again as Jesus defined and defines God (Jesus still being alive)? The concept of "many paths" in Hinduism is relatively easy to grasp. I won't go into detail about that here. If you are unfamiliar with it, you may research it rather easily on the Internet. Concerning Buddhism, it is similar to Christianity in that many people "come to Christ" who are experiencing many different situations in this world. The same may be said of Buddhism. My point still remains though that even though people of many different backgrounds and circumstances come upon Buddhism, with its "Four Noble Truths" and "Noble Eightfold Path," those who go through it are still faced with Jesus as the one and only strait gate and his way as the one and only and narrow path. Saying that, I am not saying that there is nothing worth considering in Buddhism. There are definitely areas of overlap. It is where Christianity and Buddhism part company though that matters in the end, and they do part company.

        Jesus and Siddhartha Gautama are not the same person. They did not teach the same path. Those are facts. In Buddhism, there is no ultimate "I." In God and Christ, there is the one "I." Siddhartha Gautama certainly did not lead to that "I." Jesus does.

        "and damaging to others who should be allowed to make their own choice of faith." To spread the Gospel of Jesus is certainly not damaging to anyone, quite the contrary. In what way is the teaching of Jesus harmful to anyone? Also, am I stopping anyone from being a Buddhist? There are Buddhist who don't believe in Jesus. They don't stop me from believing in him. A person who understands Buddhism would not accuse me of stopping anyone from being a Buddhist. In what way am I preventing anyone from rejecting Christ other than that I speak the truth about Jesus and those who love the truth love Jesus and want to follow his teachings and exemplary life? If the truth prevents what is inferior to itself, that's fine by me. If it's not for you, that's your problem. Have you even read Jesus's words (his actual sayings in the Gospels)?

        Jesus was and is superior. What do you have against that? In what way was he inferior to or equaled by whom?

        You only took the time to negatively criticize my posting. You focused on Buddhism while the posting barely touched upon it. My point about Mark Koltko-Rivera and Brad Meltzer's failure (deliberate?) to even mention Koltko-Rivera's Freemasonry is completely valid. Did you feel unqualified to agree with me on anything, or were you simply interested in projecting negativity concerning my writing?

        "Sorry my opinion was harsh, but that is all it is...on opinion." Your opinion is garbled. You haven't helped anyone here, including yourself, unless you reevaluate in light of my comment and begin the process of reading and considering Jesus's actual teachings.