The 'Real' Estate Dialectic

[Richard Stanley]

I was going to explicitly suggest in Black Collared Magic that at the root of all significant politics, or 'Realpolitik' is in fact real estate. The excerpt below from Peter Levenda's Sinister Forces - A Warm Gun provides an even wider contextual expansion on this, which also happens to include in the associated, unincluded text an explanation for why women have been devalued in Western civilization, and in my opinion, even wider.

The explanation below provides the explicit basis for why 'traditional' values, such as espoused by the so-called 'Collectivist' member of Postflaviana, are those that necessarily align with monarchist tendencies. As such, anything that threatens the plantation mentality must be reacted to, either obsessively, or conversely by ignoring when the less attention brought to an issue has a better cost / benefit ratio or the 'ignoring' is part of a diversionary 'change the subject' stratagem.

Levenda also discusses shamanic practices (including Qabbalah) which preceded state religions and, which as I stated to Collectivist in the Group Think discussion, has much older roots than Judaism or the Lubavitchers. McEvilley, in his The Shape of Ancient Thoughts, shows that the roots of Philosophy are grounded in attempts to bypass the 'consensus reality' system of the integrated state and religion by what evolved from shamans standing outside of newer theocratic state systems. This is why Rome's Apostle Paul warned against the philosopher 'sophists'.

But as I suggested in BCM, all 'reform' attempts are subject to co-optation, and in Christianity the oligarchical shepherds co-opted aspects of the Cynics' messages, as witnessed in the Beatitudes. "The Devil comes in many guises." It is vital for the sheep to believe that they are being cared for while they are being fleeced.

The word “real” and the word “royal” are inextricably linked. Indeed , in some languages the word for “real” and the word for “royal” is the same, such as Spanish real. Reality is, in this view, linked with Royalty; what is real is what is part of the kingdom , the “real estate.” What is outside the kingdom is, therefore, outside of reality. It is not “royal,” hence it is not “real.” This speaks to Robert Anton Wilson’s concept of “consensus reality,” mentioned in the previous volume. Reality is a shape -shifter, dependent as much on political decisions as it is on scientific observations. And these decisions and observations are usually not the prerogative of the individual citizen . An essential part— a fundamental part— of the social contract, and imposed from the top down, is a general agreement as to what constitutes reality. To deviate from that agreement is to deviate from society— the kingdom, the real estate, the state religion— itself. It is to become, in a sense, a Satanist, a worshipper of an adversary; or a witch, a worshipper of an unapproved God.

We can take this analogy one step further, to the political arena, and say that he who attacks the king is insane, i.e., out of touch with reality. That is why our most famous assassins have all been pronounced “crazed” and “lone”: they are insane and not part of a social group, at least not a social group recognized as valid in the kingdom. An attack on the king cannot be seen to originate from within the kingdom, from within the king’s “reality”: it has to come from outside, from the realm of the unreal, the unholy, for if it came from within the kingdom it would partake of the logic of the kingdom.

Levenda, Dick Russell Peter (2011-06-27). Sinister Forces-A Warm Gun: A Grimoire of American Political Witchcraft (Kindle Locations 233-245). Independent Publishers Group. Kindle Edition.​

 

[Jerry Russell]

Hi Rick,

If Kabbalah is rooted in shamanic practices preceding state religions, do you have any thoughts about how it came to be affiliated with orthodox (rabbinical) Judaism? How could it really be true that they stand outside the consensus reality, when at the same time they seem to be the very most ancient instantiation of statecraft?

 

[Richard Stanley]

Hi Rick,

... when at the same time they seem to be the very most ancient instantiation of statecraft?

What? What happened to Sumeria, the IVC, Egypt?

As far as I know Kabbalah is not considered mainstream Judaism. It is an occult practice which can be found inside Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Satanism (the 4th Abramic 'scarecrow' religion). It was likely known widespread throughout the general region, because its analogues were known from Scandinavia to Japan. What is perhaps unique about Judaism, is that it seems to be the first attempt to renounce such practices, at least overtly.

This is another thread that links a rationalism, and Materialist 'cause and effect' sensibility from the Jews (as evidenced by Freeman) to Aristotle and beyond. From Aristotle, we get to Alexander the G. and various admiring Romans like Julius. Then onto Venice according to Tarpley.

Perhaps as a diversionary 'sheepdog' tactic, the oligarchic shepherds quietly encouraged a residual usage of a black form of Kabbalah so as to be part of the scapegoat system?

 

[Jerry Russell]

Collins dates the earliest evidence of Siberian shamanic culture to 24,000 BC, including an ivory carving of a spiral maze and three serpents. He also dates the Willendorf Venus and other manifestations of Goddess culture to an age before 20,000 BC. If correct, that's far more ancient than Sumeria, Egypt or IVC.

When you talk about mysticism vs. rationalism as two threads, wouldn't it be fair to say that these are highly intertwined philosophies that attract adherents within every society and every major world religion? I'm having trouble, though, seeing them as warring camps, or seeing this as a major fissure dividing the oligarchic system into competing factions.

I'm not sure whether Kabbalah is part of a scapegoat system. Haven't we suggested in the past that Freemasonry, Jesuitry and Kabbalah are tightly interwoven, and all are an aspect of the occulted religious system that the oligarchs seem to have a special fondness for?

 

[Richard Stanley]

Collins dates the earliest evidence of Siberian shamanic culture to 24,000 BC, including an ivory carving of a spiral maze and three serpents. He also dates the Willendorf Venus and other manifestations of Goddess culture to an age before 20,000 BC. If correct, that's far more ancient than Sumeria, Egypt or IVC.​

Can I assume that you are now in accord with me here? Otherwise I have no idea of what you are saying in relation to my claim. Judaism is a fairly late religious construct and they clearly failed to fully redact its polytheistic roots from its cribbed sources. The effect of that effort, and probably its intent, was to steer adherents away from 'most' superstitious beliefs that can get individuals and societies into various troubles. The problem was the violent dialectic animus that was generated, as discussed by Assmann in Moses the Egyptian. Such an animus towards monotheism was already well understood from the several experiments of the Egyptian 18th Dynasty, e.g. Amarna, and may likely have been understood as a 'wedge' dialectic that could be geo-politically exploited.

When you talk about mysticism vs. rationalism as two threads, wouldn't it be fair to say that these are highly intertwined philosophies that attract adherents within every society and every major world religion?​

Yes, in any population one can find adherents of widely contrasting beliefs, hence the need for mechanisms to entrain a "consensus real-ity", where those who chose to remain outside the new or old mainstream are 'dev-iate' and 'Satanic' in one sense or another. The 'king', so to speak, and his elect entourage have the luxury of living in the largest 'real-ity' sandbox, but must necessarily 'usually' keep any heterodox practices esoteric so as not to disturb the cognitive dissonance of the hoi polloi who are constrained by the king's exoteric system to the paradigm du jour or 'of the Age'. We witness this frequently in various aspects of the Abramic religions that are embedded in the canon, for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

I'm having trouble, though, seeing them as warring camps, or seeing this as a major fissure dividing the oligarchic system into competing factions.​

Seen from the perspective of the exoteric 'true believer' these systems are definitely warring camps. That's what Satan's supposed function is in the Abramic hoi polloi sandbox is. But from the esoteric perspective, this all just part of one 'control' system, whose primary function is to divert focus away from the Wizard(s), or in the terms of Jupiter Ascending, allegorically away from the Abraxsis family.

I'm not sure whether Kabbalah is part of a scapegoat system. Haven't we suggested in the past that Freemasonry, Jesuitry and Kabbalah are tightly interwoven, and all are an aspect of the occulted religious system that the oligarchs seem to have a special fondness for?​

We have someone asserting that Kabbalists are the sole cause of humanities problems on this forum about that right now.

While I tend to concur with him that such as the Kabbala is of dubious use in effecting outcomes, I think that it, and its shamanic relatives are likely to be useful in some senses in gaining insights into the underlying structure of reality that we can not other detect with our human senses. The evidence of this is bountiful. He is 'possibly' even right in stating that Kabbalah, like many other non-related techniques, has been put to use to effect psychological distortions in people, but via different mechanisms than supernatural.

In this manner, as the possible 'part of a scapegoat system' I am suggesting that perhaps the 'real' elites have encouraged such practices that can later be profitably exploited to divert attention away from themselves. So then, if the 'real' elites have a desire to affect various social changes in either a locality, region, or globally, then they might choose to associate various 'occult' semiotics with emotionally impactful events, i.e. terrorism, serial killers, mass shootings, etc.. As such, these provide some kind of 'signature' that there really is some sponsor of the events, but it is all plausibly deniable as to being able to associate such acts and signature symbolism with the elites, why not provide the 'seekers' with an easy scapegoat - patsy solution. The tried and true solution, for those who claim to take the hard path, but really take the easy one. And if you don't have a scapegoat, you have to create one.

As Moses Hadas stated at the end of his Introduction to Hellenistic Culture: Fusion and Diffusion that 'certain' people would be unhappy with what he would reveal in the dense text. For those observant enough, too few apparently, this is the curious synthetic nature of the Judaic construct, as was the case with Sparta.

 

[Jerry Russell]

Hi Rick,

Maybe when you say shamanism "stands outside of newer theocratic state systems", you mean only in a false dialectic sense, or in the perception of mystical true believers? My point was that shamanism seems to be the ancestor, or at least the predecessor, of those newer theocratic state systems; and also that the elite seem to have retained an interest in Kabbala and other forms of mysticism.

I think we're both trying to say the same thing here.

 

[Richard Stanley]

Yes

 

[lorenhough]

The word “real” and the word “royal” are inextricably linked. Indeed , in some languages the word for “real” and the word for “royal” is the same, such as Spanish real. Reality is, in this view, linked with Royalty; what is real is what is part of the kingdom , the “real estate.” What is outside the kingdom is, therefore, outside of reality. It is not “royal,” hence it is not “real.” This speaks to Robert Anton Wilson’s concept of “consensus reality,” mentioned in the previous volume. Reality is a shape -shifter, dependent as much on political decisions as it is on scientific observations. And these decisions and observations are usually not the prerogative of the individual citizen . An essential part— a fundamental part— of the social contract, and imposed from the top down, is a general agreement as to what constitutes reality. To deviate from that agreement is to deviate from society— the kingdom, the real estate, the state religion— itself. It is to become, in a sense, a Satanist, a worshipper of an adversary; or a witch, a worshipper of an unapproved God.

We can take this analogy one step further, to the political arena, and say that he who attacks the king is insane, i.e., out of touch with reality. That is why our most famous assassins have all been pronounced “crazed” and “lone”: they are insane and not part of a social group, at least not a social group recognized as valid in the kingdom. An attack on the king cannot be seen to originate from within the kingdom, from within the king’s “reality”: it has to come from outside, from the realm of the unreal, the unholy, for if it came from within the kingdom it would partake of the logic of the kingdom.
​

. to who it may concern

as i see it When the real people own there real land & there real bodies and real thoughts and honor the real individual. Then freedom is-real for every one Pst F! see; Volitional science
http://postflaviana.org/community/i...the-trilateral-commission-and-technocracy.28/

Volitional science
Galambos rejected the term social science, in part because most social scientists do not employ the scientific method to test their hypotheses. Jay Snelson suggested the term "volitional science" for its implication that volition, meaning the act of choosing, is at the center of Galambos' philosophy.

In course V-50, Galambos laid out his two postulates of volitional science:

• "Postulate Number One: All volitional beings live to pursue happiness,"[11] and
• "Postulate Number Two: All concepts of happiness pursued through moral action are equally valid."[12]

what is real? the earth; you own all the land and you own it all! and who owns what's real?

as you know from the book I spoke of in sitting on a corn flake, by Kevin Cahill

The book presents the results of the first-ever landownership survey of all 197 states and 6-Only 15% of the world's population lays claim to landownership, and that landownership in too few hands is "the Single Greatest Cause of Poverty!" see update to this post; http://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/sitting-on-a-cornflake-decoding-typology.5/

who owns earth of your birth? not us, any more. welcome to the reservation they kept for us all; its the kings Caesar in popes clothing etc families land; who comes and goes as they know but the earth is real as it is it gets. who owns you your land and your thoughts your body is what the land is all about. the friendly Christion name surf for slaves came with the land they kings popes etc. [etc.?] own. what you do as a delta salve or a free wild man is real; but to keep the slaves they are taught in fish school 'nothing is real.' but heaven; and o ya drink the cool aid & hav another vaccine with the fluoride gmo food. delta. surf slave. there little secret writing mystifying is on the wall don't like it well F u.


Who Owns Britain Hardcover – August, 2000
by Kevin M. Cahill (Author) $200

A startling expose of Britain's most valuable asset - its land. Kevin Cahill's investigations reveal how the 6000 or so landowners -mostly aristocrats, but also large institutions and the Crown - own about 40 million acres, more than half the country, and have maintained their grip on the land right throughout the 20th century. The book argues that our present system of landownership is of material detriment to the vast majority of homeowners in the UK, imposing a land tax on homeowners while many of the wealthiest landowners in the country pay no rates and actually receive money in the form of grants and subsidies for owning land. Cahill's arguments are supported with 80 pages of tables, maps and statistics.
.
About the Author
Kevin Cahill is a former army officer who has worked at the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the European Parliament as an advisor and researcher. He is the author of books on business, trade and politics, and researched the original Sunday Times Rich List.

Superb study of landowning bit of Britain's capitalist class
By William Podmore on March 21, 2005
This is a remarkable and original survey of landownership in Britain and Ireland, detailed county by county.

For Britain, Cahill analyses this landownership, showing how a tiny minority exploits British society. 160,000 families, 0.3% of the population, own 37 million acres, two thirds of Britain, 230 acres each. Just 1,252 of them own 57% of Scotland. They pay no land tax. Instead every government gives them £2.3 billion a year and the EU gives them a further £2 billion. Each family gets £26,875.

By contrast, 57.5 million of us pay £10 billion a year in council tax, a land tax, £550 per household. We live in 24 million homes on about four million acres. 65% of homes are privately owned, so 16 million of us own just 2.8 million acres, an average 0.18 acres each.


Through the 18th century enclosures, the landowning class stole eight million acres from the people. They still hide their crimes and their takings.

Cahill compares Britain with other countries where revolutions have ended the feudal tenure of land. Denmark redistributed its land to the peasantry in 1800. In Ireland, in 1876, 616 landowners owned 80% of the country. By 1930, 13 million acres of Ireland's 20 million acres had been sold to owner-occupiers. Now, there are no landlords - home ownership is 82%, Ireland's 149,500 farms are 97% owner-occupied and owner-farmed, there is no poll tax, water is free and pensioners get free transport, TV and glasses.

Cahill claims that Blair's reform of the House of Lords \"definitively cut the permanent link between power and the landowners.\" But just as in 1872, the state is defending landed capital by making it less visible. Class power does not depend on sitting in the House of Lords, but on private ownership of the means of production, protected and subsidised by a capitalist state. The Greens, like the heritage lobby, shield the landowners against public ownership of the land.


Landowners' wealth is a parasite on Britain, the least productive part of the economy, with the most state support. Their wealth comes not from farming, nor even from renting, but from trickling land onto the urban housing market. They sell land to property developers, at an average price per acre of £404,000 in 1999. The clearing banks and building societies strip our industries of investment capital, then support their clients the landowners by running the rigged and overpriced land market.


Will Britain Wake Up?
By Chris Fogarty on June 27, 2013
Who Owns Britain is important because it reveals two things:

1) Ireland, genocided by English landlords for centuries, culminating in the "Holocaust of Humanity" of 1845-1850 (misrepresented as "potato famine"), got rid of its foreign-imposed latifundists and its land is now the most owner-occupied and -farmed on earth.

2) The land of Britain remains the most oligarch-owned of all. The same titled families collect rent from those who produce.

 

[lorenhough]

Uploaded on Oct 21, 2010
Kevin Cahill and Rob McMahon provide startling statistics about who really owns the land in every country and territory on earth. Tables and charts, complete with numbers of owned acres, demonstrate that the ownership of land everywhere is not widely held. Instead, a few wealthy people, members of royal families, churches, and governments represent the vast overwhelming majority of land ownership. http://www.whoownstheworld.com/<src="

"<iframe ="

"<iframe ="

" 8 min in understating the 'doomsday' book. whose day? find out.

Loren

we continue our discussion on the Trivium and Quadrivium and go for a full-blown as we complete this series with the Qabalah and the mystery schools with Gene Odening. Here we continue to learn about learning, logic, critical thinking, Hegelian dialectics, Plato, the Trivium, the Quadrivium, the 7 liberal arts, and freeing your mind from the box that's been built around it.
http://www.gnosticmedia.com/051-the...chools-an-interview-with-gene-odening-part-3/

="

"

[PDF]
Abraham of Children Abraham of Children the of Heritage ...
www.workofthechariot.com/PDF/Qabalah '03 2color.pdf

• Daniel Hale Feldman - Qabalah, The Mystical Heritage of ...
  https://www.scribd.com/doc/22482660/Daniel-Hale-Feldman-Qabalah...
  Daniel Hale Feldman - Qabalah, The Mystical Heritage of the Children of Abraham - Free ebook download as PDF File (.pdf), Text file (.txt) or read book online for free.

Daniel Hale Feldman. Daniel Hale Feldman, 2001 ... What is the Mystical Qabalah of the Children of Abraham? 28: Mystical Qabalah and the Mystical Tradition of Islam . 42: