Sunday, October 26, 2008

[priory of sion] and other tares

The things which have to be borne in mind when contemplating the Da Vinci Code and the forces behind it, as well as the forces contained within the Church itself, include:

"If they "are going to take any sort of movie at face value, particularly a huge-budget motion picture like this, (they'd) be making a very big mistake." [Tom Hanks]

... and:

Also at Cannes, Sir Ian McKellen was quoted as saying — "While I was reading the book I believed it entirely. Clever Dan Brown twisted my mind convincingly. But when I put it down I thought, 'What a load of [pause] potential codswallop."

This last quote was intended to go on to show that the Bible itself was also bunkum but what it actually shows is nothing at all, when it is not backed by something supporting the point of view. It is just a point of view.

Hanks' playing down of big budget movies in turn plays down the value of such an amazing medium for disseminating one's world view to the widest possible audience, something the Church does not have the facility to do except to church-goers. Hanks need not have known anything of the real symbology going on and for whom it was intended, with him being the big budget "token", the bait to get people through the cinema doors and later to buy the DVDs.

Running blind

People are so critical of substantial evidence that the resurrection and redemption could well have something to it - they'll go to great lengths - but they are so uncritical when it comes to alternative explanations for our condition.

It's also interesting that in times of deep trouble for the world [such as today], these debunkings of the Christ "myth" become all the more intense. In happier times they don't seem to crop up as much. It's not Christians who have become more vocal but anti-Christians who have become shrill, for seemingly no reason if the myth has supposedly been finally debunked.

They are launching scathing attacks on something which was not even being discussed by anyone, thereby bringing the theological aspects of Christianity back onto the discussion table in a way that Christians could never hope to do. About all that was left of Christianity was the "love thy neighbour" and "turn the other cheek" exhortations ... plus the faithful who know the truth.

In the movie/book, a distinction was made between the Church and elements within it. Much has been written about P2, for example and elements within Opus Dei. Opposing that was the Priory of Sion. The latter were disposed of in the film with the clip of the satanic sexual orgy involving the Grand Master who had been looking after the little girl of royal blood. Remember she went back to their "care" at the end. Some "care" that would be, looking as she did.

So who ends up as the Goodies in this whole saga? Not P2 and associates who have/had a stranglehold on the Church, not the Priory and Templars. One can only conclude that the goodies are meant to be the faithless great unwashed who smilingly "know" that it is all so much "hooey". You and me, the sceptics, all the shopping and credit worshippers and today's drug-addled youth.

Tale from the other side

Let's say, hypothetically, that you were one of three angels attending G-d in Heaven and you became aware of His plan to create, [or evolve, if you're that way inclined], a species which would contain elements of the deity inside its circuit board, i.e. you're talking little gods here.

Now you are the light bearer, one of the three greatest and here are these imperfect creatures running round naked in this garden paradise and each one is actually higher than you, when it comes down to it.

You'd be pretty p---ed off, wouldn't you? You'd protest and when that came to nought, you'd lead a rebellion and you'd lose. Fine, so you and your troops would find yourself on this earth and your first task would be to adulterate the human bloodline with your own kind - the Annunaki or Nephilim.

You'd create a race of giants, otherwise human in form, and they would assume control of the political side of the world through the generations. All the while, you'd be doing all you could to b-gg-r everything up [even literally] and laying false trails, providing mumbo jumbo rituals and ways to satisfy people's need to worship the deity they know exists because it is encoded in them.

You provide Baal and the Sun and Set and so on, creating hidden mysteries and all sorts of things humans find plausible and exciting but they are unaware they are actually worshipping you. Only the afficianados, the adepts, the inner circle, know that.

Spanner in the works

One day, the Force, reviewing the way things have not gone so well on earth so far, due to your meddling, comes up with a brilliant plan.

He sends some aspect of himself to earth with two simple messages. Believe in the power of the resurrection and do only good to your fellow man. Everyone knows, deep down, that Number two would transform society if it was allowed to succeed. Number one though is tougher to sell because though believers then do come to know, Doubting Thomases will never know and have no basis on which to refute it.

The moment JC pulls this resurrection trick, you know you have a problem on your hands. So you do all the usual things - kill off believers, create false churches, rewrite history so that "ancient documents" show the true royal bloodline, create an arcane knowledge which is known only to the adepts and get your PR right so that your product promises so much more and is more immediately gratifying to the punters.

An example of this is your festival of Hallowe'en, whereas the following days, All Saints and All Souls, are just grey dreariness by comparison. Do any shops sell All Saints gear? Like Robbie Rotten in Lazytown, he's more interesting than Sportacus, a dull fellow who pops up saving people from time to time.

In an infantilized society where deep things are never of interest, you have a captive audience.

Your real purpose though, as it has always been, is to destroy humans but it's a hard task as there are too many of the pests now. Sudan, Somalia, the world wars - good stuff but they don't provide the "final solution" you need. You have the world leadership in your pocket, you have most humans either deluded or cowed and the others are happily kept in their ignorance, the Church having been made to look ridiculous, even perverted and doing nothing to improve its image worldwide. Everything is image, after all, in a market economy.

And yet, like Agent Smith, despite everything you have tried, you still can't seem to deliver that killer blow.

Two no-nos

Apart form humanity itself, there are three other things that you need to kill off:

Faith, hope and charity

Once no one believes anything any more, once hope for society is gone and once we stop charitable feelings, the coast is then clear for the knockout blow to be delivered.


Gracchi said...

James the Da Vinci Code came out long before the financial crisis was ever known about- its separate as well from the new atheist phenomena of Dawkins and Hitchens.

The Da Vinci Code I'd suggest is unremitting rubbish from beggining to end with no truth or substance within it save that invented by charlatans and assumed by the witchdoctors of history. Every medieval historian I know reacts to it with anger and contempt.

It is part of a wider phenomenon I agree- but I don't think it has much to do with agnosticism or atheism- it has to do with a population that are still in my view deeply superstitious and confronted by changes they cannot understand- global processes that noone controls and the expansion of knowledge which demonstrates our powerlessness in the universe. I'd suggest that the rising shrill tone of evangelical conservative religion whether Christian, Muslim or Hindu, the rise of cults like scientology and of idiocy like the Da Vinci code has the same root.

To parphrase Arnold (Dover beach is a wonderful poem for our hour)- we are lost amidst ignorant armies fighting by night- and we have to explain what is going on.

Longrider said...

I read The Da Vinci Code over a couple of days last Christmas. It was enjoyable bunkum; nothing more. Indeed, my reaction was similar to Ian McKellan's - I was able to suspend disbelief for a few hours. That's what fiction is supposed to do. The same applies to films and plays; sit back, suspend disbelief and enjoy the ride. No one is reasonably expected to take them too seriously. That is why they are not subjected to the same critical analysis as biblical myths. No one has claimed that the Da Vinci Code is "the truth" - and does anyone realistically believe the claims of the authors of the work on which it is based? Not least given that there is no contemporaneous historical reference to Jesus Christ on which to base this fanciful theory?

Christians on the other hand do claim that the Gospels are truth even though they fly in the face of biology and physics; hence the critical analysis. If you are going to make claims to having access to the truth - as the church does - then you should expect some awkward questions about your evidence.

Anonymous said...

James, you're flailing and thrashing about in the undergrowth, searching for something that is staring you in the face.

Have patience, buddy :>)

I don't have the confidence that gracchi apparently holds for "medieval historians", but then again I have a wider, multi-disciplined view/study format. In any event, "medieval" does not begin to cover it.

I care not for whatever "root" is tagged onto current popular obsessions, I have researched extensively for 40+ years, in some very dusty places, holding a variety of disciplines.

There is an identifiable line, spanning the eons, that can be proven empirically/mathematically/scientifically.

"Medieval historians" do not stand a snowballs chance in hell of finding such a thread, their gaze at their favourite circumstances is far too myopic.

I am not lost amidst any armies, the facts have never been clearer, - the reason, as I have stated more than once, - but you keep missing it, - is a total lack of a multidisciplinary, but coherent, approach.

Unfortunately, this approach requires a reasonable level of knowledge in a series of disciplines, which is rare these days, given the crappy education levels current.

And to answer longrider, - the church HAD access to truth, but chose to suppress it in favour of a political hierarchy structured for control and extortion.

Nothing changes!

More than that, - I remain mute.

But soon.....

James Higham said...

If you want to conceal a tree, the way is to surround it with a forest of trees.

That's what's happened here. A very simple tale has been confused by gobbledegook surrounding it and leaves people "flailing around" when it need not be so.

The truth is there for all to see, even Anon but it is also human nature to want to complicate it.

Anonymous said...

The truth is there for all to see, even Anon

2 responses.

1) You haven't found it.
2) - -relating to the final 2 of your above words, - you are being foolish, - again!

Pause for (rational) thought, James.

James Higham said...

Anon, I don't know how to say this without offending you.

You can't see, with your mindset, what is the truth because your conditioning, your upbringing is so different.

There are very cogent reasons that one side does not wish you or anyone else from seeing the truth - that's why I don't push it onto the 99% of people who would never accept it.

Society is conditioned today, not only not to be presented with it but to have sufficient barriers to evaluating it to make belief well nigh impossible.

People can't see what their eyes won't let them, which doesn't make it any less true for all that. It matters not what ad hominems you throw at me - it actually has little to do with me.

Truth though, will out.

CherryPie said...

If you want to conceal a tree, the way is to surround it with a forest of trees.

Very true James, you always need to stand back from things and analyse them on a more basic level. Or cut the waffle and get to the facts, things are so much easier to work out if you do that.

Gracchi said...

Anon- I'd be interested in hearing some specifics from you about what the story is in medieval history- or even better early modern history which is my own speciality which is being supressed. What is being suppressed say about the English Civil War?