Is at all about serpents?

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
I am saying that you have (intellectually) pre-destined the sheep of your model to a fate prescribed by the shepherds(-as-surrogates-for-G-d)
I think you are confusing short term despair with my alleged god like capability. In the long term I am fairly optimistic, that is if we don't cause ourselves to become extinct first. But then the Sun will burn out, unless the Electric Universe is correct.

Richard... does it seem reasonable to you that such an unwieldy and complex explanation would be necessary?
You aren't going to invoke poor old Occam are you?

You haven't even heard what my explanation is, so how can you make a comment like that? And besides you haven't been able to tell me anything to convince me that what I've told you previously is wrong.

Your Postmodernist and American cultural blinders have allowed you to place contemporary contextual constraints upon the manner in which societal elites conducted themselves and what they socially valued more than anything else. There is a reason that institutionally inspired Postmodernism came along to replace the worn and baseless edifice of institutionally inspired Romanticism, and the reason is found in its summary dismissal of grand meta-narrative, and just who would benefit by doing so.

This also gets us to your issue with intelligence. The science of Mind asserts that one of the principle signs of intelligence is Deceit -- and also the ability to recognize it. Machiavellian behavior existed a long time before Mr. Machiavelli did describe it it The Prince.

In Josephus, I confess I project something of myself. As I want to (re-)create the Gospel story that it might both destroy and renew the Faith, so it is easy for me to see how Josephus would have seized the opportunity to do the same.
I see Josephus as having been a double agent from at least the time of his initial trip to Rome to negotiate with Nero. Once he is made general in charge of the northern Palestine even he is suspected of being just so by fellow Jews.

Your glee over his being a Hellenistic Jew is a huge problem then, as this does indeed place him at ideological and theological odds with the rebels, and thus he would not be under danger with the Flavians. His story about pandering to Vespasian's vanity that saved his life is just a cover story, his just prior behavior in deceiving his rebel colleagues with the short straws is also telling.

What would this new Faith encompass that is different than exists now?
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
However, as a higher consciousness arises from the interaction of the individual cells in our brains, so do I also believe that our brains interact with one another, and through these interactions create ever higher orders of consciousness.
This is a sort of pantheism that (as we've discussed before) is not so far from the same thing as atheism. It's a basic sort of faith that life has some meaning or purpose, and that there's some value in truth-seeking and truth-telling. Intelligence leads to asking the hard questions about 'what is truth?' and per Al Gore, 'truth' can be inconvenient.

I think we're mostly on the same page here, just that we have a disagreement about tactics. That is, whether to collaborate with existing churches, or whether to eschew them as enablers for all sorts of superstition and mischief. Whether to praise Josephus for creativity and spiritual adaptability, or complain about his treachery.
 

Marcilla Smith

Active Member
you haven't been able to tell me anything to convince me that what I've told you previously is wrong.
Just because one cannot prove it is "wrong" to shave with a three-handed sword does not mean a razor is not a better implement

the reason is found in its summary dismissal of grand meta-narrative, and just who would benefit by doing so.
"meta-narrative" or "arch-narrative"?

The science of Mind asserts that one of the principle signs of intelligence is Deceit
And here I thought honesty was the best policy

Once he is made general in charge of the northern Palestine even he is suspected of being just so by fellow Jews.
I'm fairly certain I would also be considered suspect by more than a few of my "fellow Christians" in the SBC

Your glee over his being a Hellenistic Jew is a huge problem then, as this does indeed place him at ideological and theological odds with the rebels, and thus he would not be under danger with the Flavians.
Richard, certainly I must be misinterpreting your statement. Ideological and theological differences did not save the Essenes, the Sadducees, nor the other Pharisees

his just prior behavior in deceiving his rebel colleagues with the short straws is also telling.
You would judge a member of the People's Temple who did not participate in Reverend Jones' KoolAid communion?

What would this new Faith encompass that is different than exists now?
Not my place to say

This is a sort of pantheism that (as we've discussed before) is not so far from the same thing as atheism. It's a basic sort of faith that life has some meaning or purpose, and that there's some value in truth-seeking and truth-telling. Intelligence leads to asking the hard questions about 'what is truth?' and per Al Gore, 'truth' can be inconvenient.
Yes, only I wouldn't go so far as to say that life has meaning or purpose, although it can be given meaning or purpose. Luckily I was taught as a child that serving the Lord is the most important thing a person can do, that way when I got bored with atheism and waiting for self-styled revolutionaries to get serious about the revolution, I had something on which to fall back

I think we're mostly on the same page here, just that we have a disagreement about tactics. That is, whether to collaborate with existing churches, or whether to eschew them as enablers for all sorts of superstition and mischief. Whether to praise Josephus for creativity and spiritual adaptability, or complain about his treachery.
Collaborate with the churches? I should hope not! They are most certainly all manner of enablers for superstition and mischief, and much more conformed to the ways of the world than of the Spirit. Our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ Reason dictates that for those of us called to do so, we must infiltrate the institutional church and like a virus, we must spread our love for the Logos which is our Lord Jesus Christ Truth.

As for Josephus, I really find the charge of treachery to be unfair. Is there a part of his story that reads as treachery, or is there a part that seems to be a deception in his recounting of the events?
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Collaborate with the churches? I should hope not!
I'm confused. When you go to church, put a few bucks in the collection plate, and chit-chat with the pastor, is that not collaboration? When you want to make a film to save the Faith of the Church from its internal contradictions and the bankruptcy of its teachings, isn't that more collaboration?

As for Josephus, I really find the charge of treachery to be unfair. Is there a part of his story that reads as treachery, or is there a part that seems to be a deception in his recounting of the events?
I can't say it any better than Richard did above: Josephus was a double agent from at least the time of his initial trip to Rome to negotiate with Nero, presenting himself as having Jewish loyalties while collaborating with the Romans.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
As for Josephus, I really find the charge of treachery to be unfair. Is there a part of his story that reads as treachery, or is there a part that seems to be a deception in his recounting of the events?
Once again, you are telling us that you believe, like us, that Josephus was a Hellenistic Jew. We say that he was a Hellenistic Jew as were the Macabbees -- contrary to the popular view of the latter.

As such, how does a Hellenistic Jew then fight for the nationalist Jews against the Romans? He even warned them that starting the war was a bad idea for them. The problem is that we see Josephus as always being a Hellenist at heart, not being converted on the road from Damascus. Nor that he decided that he could deceive his Roman sponsors and launch a Trojan Horse into their polity as you desire to emulate.

This is where John Bartram's Chrestian theory is quite helpful in showing that the Flavians were on board with this covert phase.

Vespasian and Titus would have clearly seen through Josephus's cover story that supposedly saved him from their wrath. And you should be critically reading Jewish War as it was written, as propaganda, which is the only way that the Romans would let that be circulated.
 

Marcilla Smith

Active Member
I'm confused. When you go to church, put a few bucks in the collection plate, and chit-chat with the pastor, is that not collaboration? When you want to make a film to save the Faith of the Church from its internal contradictions and the bankruptcy of its teachings, isn't that more collaboration?
I certainly hope the church sees it that way

But for the sake of bringing this back to the topic of the OP, did the serpent collaborate with Eve when he enticed her to taste of the fruit of the tree of knowledge?
I can't say it any better than Richard did above: Josephus was a double agent from at least the time of his initial trip to Rome to negotiate with Nero, presenting himself as having Jewish loyalties while collaborating with the Romans.
Once again, you are telling us that you believe, like us, that Josephus was a Hellenistic Jew. We say that he was a Hellenistic Jew as were the Macabbees -- contrary to the popular view of the latter.
I do not disagree that Josephus and the Maccabees were Hellenists. I have to wonder if you mean that to resign them to a specific kind of Hellenism that prioritizes the supremacy of the temporal authority to the spiritual. IDK that Josephus addresses this specifically; I think one would be hard-pressed to make a case one way or the other, definitively. Please alert me if I've overlooked something

As such, how does a Hellenistic Jew then fight for the nationalist Jews against the Romans? He even warned them that starting the war was a bad idea for them.
According to his own accounts, he did a better job than expected. And as you say yourself, this included and was despite his attempt to give wise counsel to the contrary.

If your question is how can someone lead the army of a rebellion with whom they have ideological differences, I submit the case of Robert E. Lee, which certainly must be a far more extreme example of this

Nor that he decided that he could deceive his Roman sponsors and launch a Trojan Horse into their polity as you desire to emulate.
I must apologize for having failed to convey my thoughts more clearly, then. Please allow me to try another way...

If we believe that Josephus had a hand in the Gospels, then he has made his philosophy known in this way, "give to the emperor the things that are the emperor's, and to God the things that are God's." In the Gospel story, he does both. You can disagree with his philosophy, certainly, but how can you show an inconsistency in his logic? Far less an offense than a double agent, how can one even show Josephus to be a hypocrite? To the extent he practices what he preaches, he's doing better than most people

This is where John Bartram's Chrestian theory is quite helpful in showing that the Flavians were on board with this covert phase.

Vespasian and Titus would have clearly seen through Josephus's cover story that supposedly saved him from their wrath. And you should be critically reading Jewish War as it was written, as propaganda, which is the only way that the Romans would let that be circulated.
I agree with that. I don't see what would have brought a Flavian wrath down on Josephus. It seems one of the things we all agree on when it comes to his story is that he would have been neither surprised nor terribly upset at the triumph of the Legions.

The Bartram material is very interesting, and seems very extensive in terms of the players it covers. Do you think he maybe provides the best source material for a "multiple theories" piece of media, with others (Joe, Carotta, Sabbahs, etc) brought in as they supplement that?
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
did the serpent collaborate with Eve when he enticed her to taste of the fruit of the tree of knowledge?
I would prefer to say that Eve collaborated with the serpent, which makes it a collaboration. And I'm not necessarily saying that collaboration is evil, just that we have a difference of opinion about whether it's the best strategy. I, myself, am an open collaborator with the US banking system, and the IRS, at least to the extent that I achieve the minimum with respect to their requirements.

Far less an offense than a double agent, how can one even show Josephus to be a hypocrite?
Who says that double agents have to be hypocrites? But as far as I know, nobody has accused Robert E. Lee of being a double agent working for Lincoln.

The idea that Josephus was a double agent, is an unproven theory about conspiracy. I think it's that in subtle ways, he threw the game to the Romans at every opportunity, spied for them, and obviously must have rigged the lottery at Jotapata so that he survived. Richard might have more to say about details.

It's very possible that Josephus was in fact an illegitimate son of Caligula and Arria the Younger, aka the Virgin Mary. As such, his loyalties were very much always with the Roman court. See my article Mateo Piso Christ on the front page. Or if you aren't buying that (and who could blame you if you didn't,) Ralph Ellis in King Jesus has some analysis from the Talmud trying to prove the double agent theory.

If you want to believe Josephus' narration about himself, then he was a great guy for sure.
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
I certainly hope the church sees it that way

But for the sake of bringing this back to the topic of the OP, did the serpent collaborate with Eve when he enticed her to taste of the fruit of the tree of knowledge?
Yes, I think you can collaborate as suggested as one avenue of making change. But to introduce a replacement gospel to this audience likely requires some more finesse than overtly showing up with it, much less openly discussing it beforehand.

Yes, the metaphorical serpent did collaborate with the metaphorical Eve (before it was introduced to Adam). Of course, the most compelling use of this story was generally that of the gnostics, in that being booted from Eden was not to be taken as literally the result of evil, but that this was really a description of the descent of Man and Matter into the Material plane.

I do not disagree that Josephus and the Maccabees were Hellenists. I have to wonder if you mean that to resign them to a specific kind of Hellenism that prioritizes the supremacy of the temporal authority to the spiritual. IDK that Josephus addresses this specifically; I think one would be hard-pressed to make a case one way or the other, definitively. Please alert me if I've overlooked something
Perhaps it would be more helpful to consider both Josephus and the Flavians et al. in a more nuanced light than what typically devolves into a purely black and white approach. Such people, as even we do today, have to live in a balance of differing demands, and as well, I see them collaborating on a long term project, just as stated in the canons.

Carrying out such a long term project, by necessity, demands the dealing with secular ambitions and corruptions all the while glacially advancing a theological endeavor that dovetails with geo-political consolidations. Theology, is after all, the sibling of governance, and such as Josephus and the Flavians were absolutely aware of this.

Just as you are contemplating what your new faith needs to deliver to the unfolding order, these people thought along the exact same lines. And just as then, we witness the amazing personal excesses of those running the program, believing they are so entitled.

According to his own accounts, he did a better job than expected. And as you say yourself, this included and was despite his attempt to give wise counsel to the contrary.

If your question is how can someone lead the army of a rebellion with whom they have ideological differences, I submit the case of Robert E. Lee, which certainly must be a far more extreme example of this
Well, as we also like to look at issues such as Freemasonry and Jesuits, and how they impact such historical events, I'm not sure that I would count him as a good example of what your wanting to represent, but rather that there is something much deeper going on that doesn't make it into the mainstream history accounts.

Similar to what has been discussed here regarding Tupper Saussey's Rulers of Evil in regards to the deeper history of the American Revolution, I believe I posted something about masonic collaboration on both sides of the Civil War, which happened during the Revolution (and ....). This especially occurred with the generals.

Would you really expect Josephus to say that he did a terrible job serving his people? Of course, in his minds eye, he's really working for a larger good, and thus he is the agent for making his people suffer further in the furtherance of his God's will.

As I have stated before, I might not have such objection to any of this, if it was not so loaded with elitist duplicity and depravity from start to finish. In fact, this is Saussey's underlying premise that such as the Jesuits are operating under the premise that they seek to achieve their noble aims via managing and manipulating the elite douche bags of the world to their end. Because they came to the conclusion that this is the only manner which humans' corrupt nature allows for.

If we believe that Josephus had a hand in the Gospels, then he has made his philosophy known in this way, "give to the emperor the things that are the emperor's, and to God the things that are God's." In the Gospel story, he does both. You can disagree with his philosophy, certainly, but how can you show an inconsistency in his logic? Far less an offense than a double agent, how can one even show Josephus to be a hypocrite? To the extent he practices what he preaches, he's doing better than most people
Addressed just prior.

The Bartram material is very interesting, and seems very extensive in terms of the players it covers. Do you think he maybe provides the best source material for a "multiple theories" piece of media, with others (Joe, Carotta, Sabbahs, etc) brought in as they supplement that?
It might be the best way to tie them all together.

BTW, we can thank Tyrone for introducing us to Bartram's material.
 

Marcilla Smith

Active Member
I would prefer to say that Eve collaborated with the serpent, which makes it a collaboration.
Now I understand... if it is the serpent (innovator) whom is collaborated with, rather than who collaborates, then by that logic, it is the church which is collaborating with me, lol

It's very possible that Josephus was in fact an illegitimate son of Caligula and Arria the Younger, aka the Virgin Mary. As such, his loyalties were very much always with the Roman court. See my article Mateo Piso Christ on the front page.
Goodness! I was joking when I speculated in another thread that maybe Josephus did not exist :eek:

But what was the source for that theory? I saw the pdf, but I could not decipher the logic behind the story (albeit a good story... btw, are you trying to turn me into a Jew? lol)

Yes, I think you can collaborate as suggested as one avenue of making change. But to introduce a replacement gospel to this audience likely requires some more finesse than overtly showing up with it, much less openly discussing it beforehand.
^^ This ^^ is in no way evidence that you are projecting your own ideas about social change onto Josephus, I assume :: raised eyebrow ::

Carrying out such a long term project, by necessity, demands the dealing with secular ambitions and corruptions all the while glacially advancing a theological endeavor that dovetails with geo-political consolidations. Theology, is after all, the sibling of governance, and such as Josephus and the Flavians were absolutely aware of this.
I would go as far as to say it is the parent

Just as you are contemplating what your new faith needs to deliver to the unfolding order, these people thought along the exact same lines. And just as then, we witness the amazing personal excesses of those running the program, believing they are so entitled.
:: looks around, then says under breath :: was I just accused of "amazing personal excesses"?

Similar to what has been discussed here regarding Tupper Saussey's
Rulers of Evil in regards to the deeper history of the American Revolution, I believe I posted something about masonic collaboration on both sides of the Civil War, which happened during the Revolution (and ....). This especially occurred with the generals.
Yes, the gentile and noble at the top of the social pyramid are always calling for "more bipartisan cooperation"

Would you really expect Josephus to say that he did a terrible job serving his people? Of course, in his minds eye, he's really working for a larger good, and thus he is the agent for making his people suffer further in the furtherance of his God's will.
Please excuse me for asking again, but what do you mean by "cynical," then?

BTW, we can thank Tyrone for introducing us to Bartram's material.
Thank you, Tyrone! :)
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
if it is the serpent (innovator) whom is collaborated with, rather than who collaborates, then by that logic, it is the church which is collaborating with me, lol
No, in my syntax it is the less powerful entity that collaborates with the more powerful, whose purpose is basically unchanging. By collaborating with the church (which is much bigger than you), you're hoping that you can change it, but it's much more likely that it will change you.

According to standard exegesis, Adam and Eve had both been collaborating with God, but Eve switched teams to collaborate with the serpent instead. The Gnostic version would say that the serpent was collaborating with God in foisting some elaborate and confusing theological tutorial on the humans? Or that God and the serpent are one and the same? I get confused.

Goodness! I was joking when I speculated in another thread that maybe Josephus did not exist :eek:

But what was the source for that theory? I saw the pdf, but I could not decipher the logic behind the story (albeit a good story... btw, are you trying to turn me into a Jew? lol)
Josephus most certainly did exist. Someone wrote his books (or supervised the committee that did). But if the Roman Piso theory is correct, Josephus' autobiography of his youth would be a fiction.

Piso theory fits into an open slot in classical Roman history, and provides answers for some riddles, but basically it seems to come out of nowhere. Joe says that he asked Abelard Reuchlin about this, and Reuchlin said he had been clued in about the story by some English Jewish rabbis in his family. It had allegedly been handed down through the generations from ancient times.

After people get tired of accusing me of being a CIA agent, the next thing they always want to know is if I'm Jewish and if I'm trying to convert them. My dad's family was from Texas and there are a lot of crypto-Jews living there, but nobody has ever been able to prove anything.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
^^ This ^^ is in no way evidence that you are projecting your own ideas about social change onto Josephus, I assume :: raised eyebrow ::
I guess I'm not self aware enough to gnow whether I am projecting such or not, versus making an observation of what it seems that Josephus and the imperium appear to have gone about the matter. It seems to me that they clearly engaged in a long term process of slipstreaming a new paradigm into place, rather than attempting to make everything go 'cold turkey'.

Why would they do this? Because they were aware of just how protectively and militantly 'reactionary' people are of the culture that they grew up in, like a pearl 'cultured' in its protective oyster. This is likely the very reason that the "Jews were invented" (to borrow from Shlomo Sand) in the first place. They became a clear foil for all the goy others to focus upon as the problem with being too insular. Ironically, after the Resurrection they became the Sheepdogs of multiculturalism. But this is how 'God' work after all.

But perhaps, we are in a gNew Age and yall can accomplish even more in this open source environment. Maybe people will be even more accepting of it since it is all being done transparently.

But I'm still waiting to hear your vision of the gNew Chrest.

I would go as far as to say it is the parent
I'd like to know why you say this? If anything I though I was being generous, because otherwise I would say that Theology is the child or servant of Governance. In reality, the pope is a king at the end of the day, one who is not traditionally dynastic from his close family, but is Elected from inside the corporate clan. Except for Pope Joan of course.

:: looks around, then says under breath :: was I just accused of "amazing personal excesses"?
You are not a 'they'. But sorry, I could have been more explicite. I'm referring to the excesses of those Elect who steering us into the next corrupt New Order. Meet the New Boss, same as the Old Boss.

But, OK, anyone who mortifies flesh might qualify in my book. ;)

Please excuse me for asking again, but what do you mean by "cynical," then?
People are complicated. Hence: "Oh, what a tangled web we weave." On Monday he's enjoying his luxurious treats with the emperor, grousing about the masses, and on Tuesday he's justified their project in that he is advancing the cause of globally establishing the elect seed of Jesse, the wild and domesticated branches grafted back together.
 

Marcilla Smith

Active Member
By collaborating with the church (which is much bigger than you), you're hoping that you can change it, but it's much more likely that it will change you.
My only desire is to do the will of my Father, and blessed shall I be that He will prune me that I may bear more fruit

According to standard exegesis, Adam and Eve had both been collaborating with God, but Eve switched teams to collaborate with the serpent instead. The Gnostic version would say that the serpent was collaborating with God in foisting some elaborate and confusing theological tutorial on the humans? Or that God and the serpent are one and the same? I get confused.
I have never read an explanation that sat with me as feeling "right." It seems to me to be a rather straightforward and general allegory about the consequences of curiosity versus obedience, and can easily be interpreted in a more specific way about the specific "forbidden fruit" that the "Eve's" of the world tend to tempt the "Adam's" of the world into pursuing, and for the sake of "the serpent," after all.

Then again, maybe I've allowed my pristine mind to be corrupted by too much secular media.

But if the Roman Piso theory is correct, Josephus' autobiography of his youth would be a fiction.
This I find difficult to swallow. If Josephus' childhood was fabricated, I think it makes more sense to say he was a loyal Pharisee from start to finish

It had allegedly been handed down through the generations from ancient times.
There is a long history of preserved oral tradition, but it's difficult to take on faith that in our current age, such a staggering revelation would be passed on orally, with just the one and only one written account

After people get tired of accusing me of being a CIA agent, the next thing they always want to know is if I'm Jewish and if I'm trying to convert them.
Sorry to have gotten out of order, then, spook

But I'm still waiting to hear your vision of the gNew Chrest.
As I keep saying, not my will, but His

I'd like to know why you say this? If anything I though I was being generous, because otherwise I would say that Theology is the child or servant of Governance. In reality, the pope is a king at the end of the day, one who is not traditionally dynastic from his close family, but is Elected from inside the corporate clan. Except for Pope Joan of course.
I see what you are saying. I think I meant "governance" in terms of the State. I said this because historically, pre-governed "primordial anarchist" hunter-gatherer bands have animistic spirituality before they develop chieftains. Later in the development of Western civilization, we saw that the First Estate was the clergy, giving its blessing to the temporal authority of the nobility. Even today, elected policy-makers will claim to be acting under religious conviction, and even the secularists talk about "doing the right thing"
 

Matt Zeffiro

New Member
I'm bad about assuming people will automatically understand what I'm referring to. This is pretty good however I attempted to correct her about
Terence McKenna. It is not without some other fluff to be honest. It does make a solid case about word origins as they relate to dragonology and serpents.

 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
It seems to me to be a rather straightforward and general allegory about the consequences of curiosity versus obedience, and can easily be interpreted in a more specific way about the specific "forbidden fruit" that the "Eve's" of the world tend to tempt the "Adam's" of the world into pursuing, and for the sake of "the serpent," after all.
I'm bad about assuming people will automatically understand what I'm referring to.
You mean everybody else has been talking about trouser snakes all along, and I've completely missed that entire level of the allegory? Well, if that's what we're talking about, all I have to say is this. Women certainly are tempted by snakes aka lingam, although they might not want just anybody to know it.

Matt: if you post links to videos that are an hour and thirty minutes long, it's possible that some of us still won't know what you're trying to say. Any chance you could give us a summary of what's in the video?

I know, it's time for me to give up binge watching 'Jane the Virgin' and 'Crazy Ex Girlfriend' and make the time for some serious conspiracy documentaries, but we all have our priorities. Besides, 'Crazy Ex Girlfriend' has some really deep allegory about the Water Truth Movement, and it looks like the conspiracy theorists are going to win in the end. Illuminati Confirmed!
 

Matt Zeffiro

New Member
You mean everybody else has been talking about trouser snakes all along, and I've completely missed that entire level of the allegory? Well, if that's what we're talking about, all I have to say is this. Women certainly are tempted by snakes aka lingam, although they might not want just anybody to know it.(I haven't found that to be the case.)

Matt: if you post links to videos that are an hour and thirty minutes long, it's possible that some of us still won't know what you're trying to say. Any chance you could give us a summary of what's in the video?

I know, it's time for me to give up binge watching 'Jane the Virgin' and 'Crazy Ex Girlfriend' and make the time for some serious conspiracy documentaries, but we all have our priorities. Besides, 'Crazy Ex Girlfriend' has some really deep allegory about the Water Truth Movement, and it looks like the conspiracy theorists are going to win in the end. Illuminati Confirmed!
I was actually coming back to change the way that showed up. I'm not going all Freud on you. Examples:Orphan means dragon food. Oval office is about the vagina. Theater has many ties to ritual Theos(word-forming element meaning "god, gods, God," from comb. form of Greek theos "god," from PIE root *dhes-, root of words applied to various religious concepts, such as Latin feriae "holidays," festus "festive," fanum "temple.") It's actually easy to jump around in a video. If you skip to the part where she has certain words on the screen you can understand what I'm saying.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
At lunch yesterday I was telling my friend about the legend that Octavian Augustus's mother had been impregnated at a temple by a sacred snake. My friend said, "Oh yes, those one eyed snakes."
 

Matt Zeffiro

New Member
http://www.hope-of-israel.org/i000035a.htm "The Serpent's Trail" ---Tribe of Dan

The word 'vatican' comes from Latin and is a contraction of two words in the following way:
'Vatis' = 'profetic' or 'diviner' 'Can' = 'serpent/snake'
These two words combined make:
'the profetic- or made devine serpent'


This is just further support of my point.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
I just finished watching the video, Matt. It does indeed have a lot of good info, including many of the things talked about here. One in particular is her opening focus on the central aspect of just how important 'Culture' is to affecting what we think and do as individuals and groups.

upload_2016-9-8_12-53-3.png

Additionally, to the statement I copied above, this elevation of the arts to a set of beliefs is really done without most of us being consciously aware of how, or why, we are being so influenced. As a result, most everyone walks around with the mindset that whatever they grew up with must be correct.

Furthermore, I think it should be pointed out in that the presentation is almost exclusively focused on the deep 'pagan' / Greek and Egyptian influence, as opposed to the common Jewish focus of many, which Jerry and I believe is a programmatic distraction away from the real problem -- that is inherent to all religiousities and ethnicities.

As I have stated recently on another thread, I will quote something from David Fideler on how the Classical Greeks (presumably the intelligensia) understood the gods and their interplay with humans. In my interpretation of all this then is that all this cultic ritual, in all its forms, is affecting us in how we are neurologically wired to respond to such external stimuli.

This exact same effect can be seen in the simple changes that the Dog Whisperer makes to having humans change their behavior towards their dogs. This works because dogs are hard wired to respond to such things, just as we are, all subconsciously. The is the underlying basis for Jerry's and my use of the Shepherd and Sheepdog paradigm as to the elite people that control us with these cultural prods.

In this regards, I take issue with Crowley's invocation of supernatural beings as being our controllers, but rather that this formed a useful spooky meme for him and his kind.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
The Automatic Brain documentary goes to a lot of these issues about how easy we all are to fool and control without our knowing its going on. It also reminds me of a psychological experiment where subjects were brought into a room and read a series of innocuous sentences. Each sentence, however, had a word or two that communicated to the subject the need to 'slow down', despite the fact that the employment of each of those words was used in a completely different context in each sentence. The subjects were monitored as to walking speed, both upon entering the experiment room and upon exiting, and discovered to mostly walk slower in a repeatable manner.

Of course, all this implies that, like the dog and horse whisperers, one can also utilize such techniques for positive ends, but who's in the drivers' seat?
 

Matt Zeffiro

New Member
"But in a little while Darkness came settling down on part [of it], awesome and gloomy, coiling in sinuous folds, so that methought it like unto a snake.

And then the Darkness changed into some sort of a Moist Nature, tossed about beyond all power of words, belching out smoke as from a fire, and groaning forth a wailing sound that beggars all description."
http://gnosis.org/library/hermes1.html
 
Top