Tuesday, June 02, 2009
The Queen was embarrassed by remarks made by Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, at the weekend that he had "done his public duty" by accepting an invitation from French President Nicolas Sarkozy.
In an interview on the BBC, Mr Brown said: "If the Queen wanted to attend these events, or if any member of the Royal family wanted to attend these events, I would make that possible."
Did Sarkozy snub her or was it that Brown b--g-red up the protocols? Will someone tell me?
A young man [or woman] of intellect, thirsting for knowledge and answers to the whys and wherefores of life is going to be attracted to the mystic elements of gnosis and overly impressed by its long history, where he would be repelled by the take-it-or-leave-it dogma and narrowmindedness of the only manifestation of Christianity allowed to be made visible to a sceptical world, especially that vision projected by the fundamentalist American Right and exacerbated by fanatical, seemingly intolerant and inflexible disciples of weirdo sects.
Gnosis helps this perception along, ignoring the quite gentle nature of grass roots Christianity and instead emphasizing the hellfire and brimstone aspect, which is so far from an accurate reading of the synoptic gospels as to induce tears from that vast misrepresented and slandered group of ordinary men and women you never get to hear from.
Taking Gnosis to task casts the detractor as an unreasoning, narrow-minded brute, steeped in dogma and conversely, casts the Gnostic as an unharmful, gentle soul who believes in the fusion of all religion and would simply like to be allowed to get on with his own pursuit of spiritual ascendancy without coming under fire, a view quite appealing to a libertarian, for example. That the hellfire and brimstone detractors are their own worst enemies only lends validity to the image which the Gnostic seeks to project.
Christianity, in its visible form, visible to a non-believing wider world, I mean, has always meant the bloody Crusades, the Inquisition’s torture chambers, the moral crusaders, the intolerant bible bashers, the corrupt Church with its selling of pardons, child molesting and so on and so on. Literature, popular tradition and the fifth column within the Church-State nexus, have always perverted the true nature of the message and reinforced this image in people’s minds for two millennia now.
People like Jimmy Swaggart, Mel Gibson and Tom Cruise do nothing to dispel this.
Any PR agency, if it wanted, could do the same with Gnosis. Gathering some charismatic but slightly dodgy figures together to argue for Gnosis, this agency could then progressively reveal its flaws, ‘accidentally’ revealing child sacrifices, social destabilization, it’s connection with the kabbalistic and satanic and the corruption of its disciples. There’d be fisking on the net and exposes on TV. It could bring the most esoteric and opaque apologist for Gnosis onto a chat show with a less than intellectual audience and turn everybody off. It’s the oldest trick in the book - discrediting a movement and its devotees by means of tearing down strawmen.
Yet the Gnostics are left largely untouched.
What we have here is the most ancient of ongoing battles from far earlier than the relative newcomer, Christianity, back even before the ziggurats on the Babylonian plains, back to the dawn of time. Gnosis is correct in saying it has always existed and the Keepers of the Transcended Wisdom, they who come from the stars, from another dimension, have been at it since the earliest times.
Gary H. Kah, in "En Route to Global Occupation", Huntington House, 1991, wrote:
Gnosticism, the most effective and widely accepted form of pantheism, was more deceptive and clever than the others, developing the occult's only major counter explanation to the Message and Person of Christ. The Gnostics were the chief adversaries of the Apostle Paul and the early Church, relentlessly pursuing Christians wherever they went, long before the mystery religions even began to crumble.
The world has remained largely ignorant of this eternal war and the problem is that even scholastic Christians must admit that what the other side says does refer to historical events and what could well be truths, albeit selectively chosen, incorrectly interpreted, twisted and arranged to open a portal for one you really don’t want to have as your god. It’s a finely woven pantheistic synthesis of all religions and philosophical thought, the ‘big tent’ concept, thereby appealing to a far broader base than mere Christianity, Islam, Judaeism or any other single school of thought.
The concept of striving to reach the Light, of the perfectability of man to a state of Illumination, even draws people like technophiles under its canopy, using other-worldly but beautiful phraseology which creates a feeling, in earnest scholars, that there has to be something in this, doesn’t there?
As with the Masons, the down side is never mentioned to the Blue Orders, only the mystical aspects of transcendence.
Leaving Gnosis aside for one moment, it’s as well to know what satanism preaches, in all its manifestations, through Baal, Moloch, Kali, Ea, Ishtar, Matreya, Set, the Sumerian, the Assyrian – take your pick.
The Cult of Lucifer
Let’s dispel the illusion straight away peddled by those projecting themselves, by means of esoteric rhetoric, as historical scholars, that Satan and Lucifer are two separate entities. Satan is simply a derogatory term used by the detractors of the fallen Lucifer, especially by Christians. It does not refer to a separate entity in any way, except in non-biblical literature.
1. Dualism or the dual nature of man which manifests itself in acts of philanthropy, balanced by atrocity.
2. That power passes to humans at the points of birth and death. That’s why an animal is bled over a human and the blood is drunk at the point of death. That animal can be human, the younger and ‘purer’ the better, hence the traffic in human female children.
3. That sexuality is far more than reproduction, it being tied in with the Sacred Feminin and so involves participation in ancient mystery rituals of sexual ‘celebration’, accompanied, at Grand Climax, by death of the victim.
4. That Man has been misled into thinking that the creator is ‘good’ whereas he is flawed and has brought into existence a flawed world with wars, suffering and horror. He allows these things to continue because the creator is bad, flawed – quite persuasive, yes?
5. That Man should not artificially place limits on his instincts and feelings - that if he is angry, it’s OK to kill, that if he feels lust, it’s OK to rape, that if he feels happy, it’s OK to sing, that if it’s necessary to climb higher, it’s OK to betray. It’s never mentioned that the longer one places no self-limits on oneself, the more bestial and the more easily enslaved one becomes by one’s own emotions, which are progressively more easily manipulated.
According to the satanists/luciferinans, the True God, Lucifer, draws man into a realization of the piece of divinity within him, the soul, the ‘divine spark’ and so, from the Tower of Babel through to modern technology, man must ignore the namby-pamby, flawed weakness of the false creator and his pathetic ‘faith, hope and charity’ and instead strive towards a new form of Man – a Nietzschean superman, with a divine king to inspire him, ultimately revealed as Lucifer, of course, the lightbearer, the bringer of true synthetic, relativistic wisdom.
Through the ensuing carnage, suffering, betrayal, desolation, personal despair and misery, all laid at the door of the false creator, Man throws off the shackles placed on him by a cynical god, becomes strong and perfects himself.
Also sprach Zarathustra was yet another example of this motif of false dualism which, if a significant number of people are fooled by it, can cause mayhem.
People do actually believe this stuff.
Gnosticism – views from within
In this I quote heavily from Stephan A. Hoeller (Tau Stephanus, Gnostic Bishop):
The Gnostic concept of the world sounds a little different, ‘the knowledge of transcendence arrived at by way of interior, intuitive means, most Gnostic scriptures taking the form of myths, as distinct from the dogmas of theology or the statements of philosophy.’
So, in one fell swoop, the positivist philosophy I attacked the other day, all other forms of philosophy, Christianity plus any other form of understanding of the world not Gnostic in nature, is consigned to the scrapheap.
‘Gnostics hold that the world is flawed because it was created in a flawed manner. In order to nourish themselves, all forms of life consume each other, thereby visiting pain, fear, and death upon one another.
Genesis, according to the Gnostic, was a myth in declaring that transgressions committed by the first human pair brought about a ‘fall’ of creation, resulting in the present corrupt state of the world’, a selective distortion of what Christianity actually says, a strawman in fact. Gnostics respond to their own strawman by saying that ‘this interpretation of the myth is false’.
‘The blame for the world’s failings lies not with humans, but with the creator. In the Gnostic world, there are many beings and one is called Sophia [or wisdom].
In the course of her journeys, Sophia came to emanate, from her own being, a flawed consciousness, a being who became the creator of the material and psychic cosmos, all of which he created in the image of his own flaw.
This being, unaware of his origins, imagined himself to be the ultimate and absolute God, the Demiurge, but was not and brought chaos. Humankind contains a perishable physical and psychic component, as well as a spiritual component which is a fragment of the divine essence.
Human nature mirrors the duality found in the world: in part it was made by the false creator God and in part it consists of the light of the True God.
The recognition of this dual nature of the world and of the human being has earned the Gnostic tradition the epithet of “dualist”.
Humans are generally ignorant of the divine spark resident within them. This ignorance is fostered in human nature by the influence of the false creator and his Archons, who together are intent upon keeping men and women ignorant of their true nature and destiny.
Humans are caught in a predicament consisting of physical existence combined with ignorance of their true origins, their essential nature and their ultimate destiny. To be liberated from this predicament, human beings require help, although they must also contribute their own efforts.
Ignorance - whereby is meant ignorance of spiritual realities - is dispelled only by Gnosis, and the decisive revelation of Gnosis is brought by the Messengers of Light, especially by Christ, the Logos of the True God.’
This Christ is not Jesus of Nazareth, by the way but an entirely different being. Guess who? Remember, as a human, you are ignorant and only these Messengers of Light can lead you to perfection by going through the Inferno [fire] of matter and the Purgatory of morals to arrive at the spiritual Paradise. That ‘passing through the fire’ motif yet again.
Gnosis dispels other modes of thought as well:
‘Karma, at best, can only explain how the chain of suffering and imperfection works and to worship the cosmos or nature or embodied creatures is thus tantamount to worshipping alienated and corrupt portions of the emanated divine essence.
Thus, Gnosis, with one stroke of the pen, eliminates eastern religions and Paganism and instead, institutes a mish-mash of religions and world movements into an all-in-one explanation, ultimately controlled by the ‘True God’.’
The Gnostic apologists state: ‘The God concept is more subtle than that of most religions. In its way, it unites and reconciles the recognitions of Monotheism and Polytheism, as well as of Theism, Deism and Pantheism. One may begin to recognize that it is in fact the most sensible of all explanations.’
All eminently reasonable, yes? Appeals very much to the young philosopher who yearns to know about the cosmos and the meaning of life.
What is the gnostic view of ethics and morals?
‘If the words ‘ethics’ or ‘morality’ are taken to mean a system of rules, then Gnosticism is opposed to them both’, an attractive view for those of a libertarian bent.
‘Rules of conduct may serve numerous ends, including the structuring of an ordered and peaceful society, and the maintenance of harmonious relations within social groups. Rules, however, are not relevant to salvation; that is brought about only by Gnosis. Morality therefore needs to be viewed primarily in temporal and secular terms.’
Do as thou wilt shall be the whole law, with no constraint whatsoever, except that which you impose on yourself.
‘Gnosticism embraces numerous general attitudes toward life: it encourages non-attachment and non-conformity to the world, a ‘being in the world, but not of the world’; a lack of egotism; and a respect for the freedom and dignity of other beings. Nonetheless, it appertains to the intuition and wisdom of every individual ‘Gnostic’ to distil from these principles individual guidelines for their personal application.’
A practical application of this is that if you are angry with someone, you may strike him down and kill him; if you desire some girl, you may rape her, as there is no danger of non-salvation attached to your act; what you did is largely irrelevant in terms of you spiritually ‘finding yourself’.
The only constraint on such acts is if it impairs your spiritual journey upwards.
Like the myth of the Muslim 72 virgins, it’s a seductive, persuasive and pervasive world view, appealing to people on many levels, from the scholastic halls of learning to the gullible seeking for an answer, especially an easy, neat answer which ties up the loose ends and explains all, which is philosophy’s remit as well.
To embrace Gnosticism labels you as an august scholar, not least because it attracts those who would be august scholars.
Contrast that with Christianity and its seeming anomalies, heavily dependent on acceptance of a metaphysical plane and on belief as its driving force.
Christianity has its second side though – the caring ministry of practical help, support, charity and compassion, never mentioned by its detractors except for the ungracious rejoinder, ‘Well they don’t have a monopoly on compassion, do they?’
Question - if you were starving in an economic depression, would you rather go for relief to a Salvation Army soup kitchen, to a Gnostic discussion group or to a Luciferian ‘raped baby on the bonfire’ sacrificial ritual?
Which do you feel you’d get the most compassionate treatment from?
Gnosticism – views from without
From "En Route to Global Occupation" by Gary H. Kah
If Kabalism could be viewed as the occult counter-explanation of the Old Testament, Gnosticism, existing as a further development of Kabalism and taking into account Satan's "new problem" posed by the risen Christ, would serve as the main occult counterattack against the New Testament. Thus, Kabalism and Gnosticism combined, composed a type of occult parallel to the Old and New Testaments.
Gnosticism, although originally composed of Jewish occultists, rapidly gained Gentile followers until it soon became predominantly Gentile. As the priesthoods were forced to take on new forms, Gnosticism became a magnet for these occult adepts. Branches of Gnosticism represented the first significant secret societies of the post-resurrection era with various degrees or levels of initiation and the inner circle of initiates worshiping Lucifer.
From Albert Pike, ‘Morals and Dogma’:
"The Gnostics derived their leading doctrines and ideas from Plato and Philo, the Zend-avesta and the Kabalah,and the Sacred books of India and Egypt; and thus introduced into the bosom of Christianity the cosmological and theosophical speculations, which had formed the larger portion of the ancient religions of the Orient, joined to those of the Egyptian, Greek, and Jewish doctrines, which the New-Platonists had equally adopted in the Occident" (Morals and Dogma, 248).
Pike shows the connection: Kabbalah-Gnosticism-Templars-Masons-Satan. Madonna’s mocking of the cross in Moscow was but one manifestation of the interconnection.
"The Templars, like all other Secret Orders and Associations, had two doctrines, one concealed and reserved for the Masters . . . the other public . . . Thus they deceived the adversaries whom they sought to supplant." (Morals and Dogma, 817-818).
From "En Route to Global Occupation" by Gary H. Kah:
Gnosticism flourished through various offshoots such as the Manicheans of the third century, the Euchites of the fourth century, the Paulicans of the seventh century, and the Bogomils of the ninth century (Nesta H. Webster, Secret Societies and Subversive Movements, Hawthorne, CA, 1924, p.32-34, 63).
It is not possible within the scope of this book to identify and define each branch of Gnosticism that has existed over the centuries, but the following teaching of the Bogomils will give us an idea of what beliefs the Knights Templars embraced before passing them on to Freemasonry.
‘God, the Supreme Father, has two sons, the elder Satanael, the younger Jesus. To Satanael, who sat on the right hand of God, belonged the right of governing the celestial world, but filled with pride, he rebelled against his Father and fell from Heaven. Then, aided by the companions of his fall, he created the visible world, image of the celestial, having like the other its sun, moon, and stars, and last he created man and the serpent which became his minister.
Later Christ came to earth in order to show men the way to Heaven, but His death was ineffectual, for even by descending into Hell He could not wrest the power from Satanael, i.e., Satan. This belief in the impotence of Christ and the necessity therefore for placating Satan, not only "the Prince of this world," but its creator, led to the further doctrine that Satan, being all-powerful, should be adored.’ (Ibid., 63).
From Edith Starr Miller, Occult Theocracy, Hawthorne, CA, 1933:
"Pike named the Order the New and Reformed Palladian Rite. Historian Edith Starr Miller describes it as neo-Gnosticism, "teaching that the divinity is dual and that Lucifer is the equal of Adonay (Ibid., 216-217). It is in fact Lucifer who is worshipped within this Rite of Freemasonry."
This comes from an article on the Priory of Sion and also seems relevant:
The Priory of Sion is a secret society whose roots are believed by some to go back to the 12th century but some believe the Priory can trace its heritage back to the 1st century AD. It was at this time that Ormus was converted to the Gnostic view of Christianity by Mark, a disciple of Jesus.
It was Ormus who founded a secret society, which united esoteric Christianity with the teachings of the pagan mystery schools. He adopted the symbol of a cross, surmounted by a rose, to symbolize the specifically pagan brand of Christianity he embraced. The symbol of a red or 'rosy' cross was later adopted by the Templars, while the cross with surmounting rose was embraced by the medieval Rosicrucians.
The Priory of Sion consisted of an inner circle of initiates, which controlled the Knights Templar from above. Whatever aim the Priory or Freemasons may have had formerly, their long-term goal today is referred to as "The Great Work of Ages" and consists of a plan to centralize power and impose a global dictatorship.
Call Gnostics what you like but do not call them innocent philosophers with the good of the world at heart. They have a specific agenda, just as do all other arcane and nefarious organizations.
Monday, June 01, 2009
Has a mouthful of razor sharp teeth and will eat anything it can. Luckily it is only found in warmer climates and, for me, I find the first reason I can subscribe to for stopping global warming.
For my other favourite, click here.
Who do you rate the top ten science fiction authors and/or books?
It seems to me you need to define science fiction first. What about Spielberg [admittedly a producer/director], Douglas Adams, Wyndham? Was that SF? Is there a clear distinction between SF and Fantasy?
In a recent poll, these two were not even mentioned:
Alan Dean Foster - Alien, for example plus a hundred other things he's done.
Patrick Tilley - Xan.
What would your top ten be?
H/T my mate.
Liberty is liberty, not equality or human happiness or a quiet conscience. [Isaiah Berlin, 1958]
In the lip service paid in this era by governments and the powers behind them to the concepts of fairness and justice through their ‘positive discrimination’ and ‘egalitarian society’, the central aim all along has been the curtailment of liberty.
To return to the original plan of Them, a plan which has never altered, the aims have always been:
1) Abolition of all ordered governments
2) Abolition of private property
3) Abolition of inheritance
4) Abolition of patriotism
5) Abolition of the family
6) Abolition of religion
7) Creation of a world government
[May 1st, 1776]
How many of the above are they on the way to achieving today and more importantly, how many of them would you subscribe to?
If you believe in N5, then you are subscribing to the removal of the building blocks of society, the primary loyalty of human beings, the last bastion of freedom. If you believe in N6, then you are subscribing to the suppression of free thought.
There are many measures of a society. If you feel fear when:
1. You are driving along the road, road tax paid up, MOT, all things in order and driving within the speed limit, then you see two police cars rapidly approaching;
2. You speak out on behalf of Christianity, you are attacked from all sides for your views and you patiently wait for them to come for you or to put a bureaucratic spanner in your works;
3. You enter a government agency building;
4. You are in trouble, you see armed policemen and don’t feel you can approach them for help;
5. It’s not possible to go through one day without breaking some law, old or new and you have no way of knowing which law you broke, until you are charged;
6. You are eternally enslaved by debt …
… then something is terribly wrong in that society and in its government’s views on the personal freedom of the individual.
Even more frightening than this is that people could even be speaking of a hung parliament in the next general election. If this government turns out to be, as is generally acknowledged, the worst government in living memory and the PM is an actual, real criminal who has broken the laws of the land, and if it still looks as if the results of the election would be line ball, then what does that say about the parliamentary process of party politics and about the leadership preselection process?
Even more frightening than this is that people, as they’ve been manipulated to do in this very cynical pan-European and pan-global planned agenda, have started looking seriously at alternative means of governance, oblivious to the EU monster’s slavering jaws on their necks, Common Purpose graduates in place in the regions to seize control, FEMA ready in America and the PR machine working overtime to prepare people for ‘Post Democracy’.
Examine every one of Blair/Brown’s 3000+ new laws and say which of these were instituted to allow people more personal freedom?
Do you really believe that the Expenses Scandal would ever have been allowed to see the light of day, especially by the Barclay Brothers, if it wasn’t time for the people to be so outraged by MPs on all sides that they’ll accede to a new model, miraculously ready to be put in place, which will ‘sweep away all this corruption’ in one fell swoop?
Plus the new global Brownean Economics.
Can’t you see the manipulation here and the cynical hand behind it? If you can’t see that hand, then start with Poettering over here and the CFR over there.
My area of historical study is Early C20th and as one reads the texts, correspondence and subsequent commentary on those, the correlation between the timeline of yesteryear and today is chilling.
One difference is that the Warburgs and Colonel Houses of today are far less visible, due to the increased political consciousness of sections of the populace and their ability to go to print through the internet.
We are now in the days of the new Weimar Republic - cumbersome, corrupt, inefficient and out of touch with people’s needs, if not in terminal inflation. Liberty is being increasingly portrayed as a luxury we can’t afford any more, a noble experiment which brought on all the ills from the moral bankruptcy of capitalism [in the socialist rhetoric] to the corruption at Westminster and on Capitol Hill.
Cometh the Man
He’ll be charismatic.
The people will nod at his angry denouncements of the corruption and uselessness of the incumbent structure and will say to you, ‘Just give me the tools and I’ll do the job.’
Just as Hitler did.
Then they’ll sign away their remaining rights and turn a blind eye to the coming privations [the early sacrifices for a better world] and inevitable atrocities.
You have to admire the grass-roots American with his implicit faith in his Constitution and the inviolability of the Yoo Ess of Ay. Maybe grass-roots civil disobedience and a new Paul Revere will stymie the cynical bypassing of these institutions by the CFR, TLC, NAAC and the military-industrial complex. Maybe the people can stymie the new gestapo, FEMA and actually pull this off.
Maybe the silent stubbornness of the average Brit will bring down the best laid plans of Brussels, the Scottish Rite, the Bavarian Bruderheist and the Clubs of Paris, Rome and anywhere else there’s a club dedicated to the seven holy principles quoted at the start of this article.
Balls, Millipede, Kaletsky, Raymond Barre, Thomas Friedman, Maurice Strong, Julia Middleton, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Queen Beatrix, Prince Bernhard, Lord Black of Crossharbour, Nicholas Brady, Gordon Brown, Lord Peter Carrington, Bill Clinton, Marc Ladreit de la Charriere, Arthur Dunkel, Lawrence Freedman, Fritz Gerber, Katie Graham, Hank Greenberg, Henry Kissinger, Veronique Morali, David Oddson, David Rockefeller Sr, Queen Sophia, Michael Wilson, Grant Winthrop, J D Wolfensen, Véronique Morali, Marc Ladreit de la Charriere, Felicia Cavasse, Birgit Breuel, Virginia Rogononi …
… and so on and so on. It’s chilling to think that there are actually such as these dedicated to and working towards, either directly or by consequence, bringing down society, as we know it and snuffing out the candle of liberty.
The political question will not be framed in this way but this is what it will come down to:
Would you prefer to feed your family and enjoy a modicum of comfort in your life OR would you prefer liberty?
This is how liberty will be all but snuffed out. Richard Rorty, in ‘Is this the end of democracy?’, April 27, 2004, quotes Attorney-General John Ashcroft, in reply to critics of the Patriot Act:
To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve.
This is the sort of thing we’re up against.
I'd like to know what I posted on which brought on a goth ad like the one in the screenshot [left]. something about the dark side or was it god-free-morals or was it the youtubes?
Interesting. Still, it's quite flattering.