PDA

View Full Version : Masonry and Capital


luciferhorus
14-04-2009, 10:47 PM
Masonry and Capital

Lucifer

Crowley appeared to have very little respect for Masonry; he did not consider them to be serious magickans, but rather mostly ‘social climbers’ who joined for career advancement and such matters; at one point Crowley stated that he would ‘wipe his ass’ with the Masonic rituals; it is quite clear that Crowley believed that his revolution would in time succeed, and that Masonic cultism would pass away. However it seems to me that perhaps Crowley somewhat underestimated the financial power of Masonry; the total eradication of Masonry from above and below the earth shall require nothing less than the total eradication of Capitalism and the total defeat of the Capitalists in the forthcoming nuclear war.

In time, the kingdoms of Capital shall fall, their great cities shall turn to dust in the blink of an eye.

Woe to Babylon.

LL

Lux







________________________

On Usury and Monetarism (Capitalism). What is Money? What is to be done? A brief history of the loan-sharking scam from the Knight’s Templars to the present.

For children.

http://www.luciferia.tv/1ChildrenOftheSlaves/66666666.gif

By Lucifer
Light of the World.
For Anarchist Communismhttp://www.luciferia.tv/animation/A.gif

____________________

Introduction

Prior to the introduction of promissory notes, goods were exchanged for gold and silver coins. The production of gold and silver was a process which depended on sourcing natural deposits. When a tyrant (a statist) or private propertyist had deposits of precious metal on land he had stolen, the tyrant became rich and could pay his workers with such metal, often coins stamped with his face on them. Thus few people had much gold and silver, and many people had little gold and silver.

____________________

http://www.luciferia.tv/1ChildrenOftheSlaves/sterlingsilver.jpg
Part I: The Knight’s Templars

Once upon a time there was a religious cult called the Knight’s Templars (The soldiers / militants / mercenaries of Solomon’s Temple).

These men were heavily armed and had very safe and secure places (security depositories) where they would look after your gold and silver for you, so that no thief may break in and steal it.

Let us say that you had some Sterling silver (Sterling silver is an alloy that today must be 92.5% pure silver) to look after; they would give you a hand written note stating words to the effect of: ‘I promise to pay the bearer on demand, one pound (16 ounces) of sterling silver.’ This is still written on today’s pound sterling (UK) currency notes.

You could deposit one pound of sterling in the Templar depository in London, take one of their ships to Jerusalem, produce your promissory note and they would give you back the silver.

Eventually instead of purchasing things with silver, people began to exchange the promissory notes instead.
The bankers soon realised that they always had silver in their depositaries which few people came back to collect, and that their written promises alone could purchase commodities or be lent out at up to 30% interest. To issue a promise to pay on demand their depositor’s silver, when there could never possibly have enough silver to make good their promises, is the definition of ‘fraud’ and ‘theft.’

Eventually their cult became illegal in Europe and the Templars were tortured, imprisoned and thankfully executed, though their executioners who represented the religious tyrants (the European Church and the tyrannical states) were hardly any better than the bankers.

Many of the knights of the Usury cult fled to Scotland. Some time later we see these knights appear again under different names.

______________________



Part II: The Freemasons / Secret Societies.

Once upon a time there were groups of religious cultists who opened many security depositaries under different names.
They issued promises on notes to their customers as the Knight’s Templars did, and they believed themsleves to be continuing their loan-sharking legacy.
Soon their depositaries were filled with gold and silver.

The run on the bank.

One day the people lost confidence in one of these cultists and there was a ‘run’ on his bank.
Rumour soon spread that the banker did not have enough silver and gold in his vault to make good all his promises.
All his customers demanded that he ‘make good’ his promises and return their silver and gold.
That day the banker closed his doors, and stated ‘come back tomorrow.’

Covering each other’s back. One cult, many faces.

That night the banker met up with his fellow bankers, who emptied their vaults and gave him enough money to make good his worthless promises.
The next day his customers returned and he paid them in full.
His customers then took their gold and silver to the banks of the men who had covered their fellow cultist’s back.
That night the same cult of bankers counted their common assets and found that they had all their gold and silver back.
Soon the banker who made good all his promissory notes, became the most respected banker in the land.

___________________________

Part III: the legalisation of reserve banking.

Eventually it became clear that all bankers operated such a scam, so the bankers sought to make their scam legal.
Once this scam was legal, for every pound of silver in a depository, the banker could legally issue silver notes for many pounds of silver.
This was simply the legalisation of theft, and soon the bankers, not the tyrants who ran the government, became the richest Capitalists (monetarists) on the face of the earth.


The worker must sell his labour hours for Capital (money), but the bankers can simply issue Capital; this is simply theft of ‘labour.’
Since no new money is ever issued without being lent at interest, and since the worker cannot produce his own currency to pay this interest, since for monetarism to work, only a select few are ever given the power to issue money, there is always more money owed to the bankers, including the interest, than there is money in the system; thus the worker is enslaved by a system where he/she is constantly ‘chasing his/her tail,’ since it is impossible for all debt to be repaid; thus Capitalism (monetarism) is a system where debt and bankruptcy are inevitable for some (the indebted) and great wealth are inevitable for the Usuryists (money creators and lenders).

____________________________

Money is power; power corrupts.

Whether gold or silver, or whether promissory notes; as long as there is monetarism, and some can create Capital from nothing and lend it at interest, and others have to sell their labour (as labour slaves or sexual slaves) and become indebted to survive, there will be crime and poverty and some shall have abundant wealth and others will starve.

Slavery works.

The slave master and those who benefit from slavery can always be expected to argue that ‘slavery works,’ and this is true for the slave master since the slaves do all the work and the master reaps all the rewards of their labour.

Capitalism (Monetarism) works.

Capitalism works for those who are the beneficiaries of Capitalism. Those in the First World who are the beneficiaries of Third World labour slavery can mostly be expected to argue that ‘Capitalism works,’ which is true for the Capitalists, since it is their labour slaves in the Third World who make the products which fill the bargain shops of the First World, and specifically the bankers (Usuryists) who are the richest of the rich can be expected to argue this most of all.

Communism (Fr. To share) does not work as much as Capitalism.

In a world without governments, private property or money, where agriculture was the priority, people would not have to do as much work; they could spend their time enjoying the fruits of their collective labour, eating, drinking, making love, travelling, listening to music or whatever they chose to do.

In India today, for example, there are 15 million child labourers. In a Communist society they would probably do the least amount of work, and the Capitalists would still be expected to argue ‘Communism does not work’ since for those 15 million children it would be true, they would not work, they would not be enslaved to Capital, they would not make trinkets to be shipped around the globe to fill the bargain shops of the First World where the products of their labour would be stolen by their enemies who convince themselves that Capitalism works each time they buy an item for a dollar that took a child a day to make.


The liberation of the Third World proletariat and globalisation. Monetarist Imperialism: the highest stage of Capitalism


The term globalisation sounds very nice; it suggests that we are living in a global village, and that all people in the world are becoming closer; nothing could be further from the truth.

In Marx’s day, the European proletariat were impoverished and they lived side by side with the rich; in today’s world there are no children working down mines in Europe, and few workers in the First World are working in such appalling conditions for subsistence wages as there were in 19th century Europe, for such labour slavery has been exported to the Third World, where appalling working conditions for subsistence wages are the norm for much of the population, and extreme poverty is the norm for many.

The poorest nations of the world service debt to the richest Usuryists in the richest nations and the poorest people in the world export the products of their labour to the proletariat of the First World. Nothing much has changed since the era of Marx and Kropotkin and the 19th century Communists, merely that the world has divided into exploited nations and those nations who are the beneficiaries of their slavery.

Only war can resolve this problem. The Capitalists of the First World are militant and totally committed to militant evangelical world Capitalist revolution; only militant resistance can stop them.

Lucifer

For Anarchist Communism





'The revolution will have to be (Anarchist) Communist or it will be drowned in blood and will have to begin all over again'

'Either the State forever, crushing individual and local life, taking over in all fields of human activity, bringing with it its wars and its domestic struggles for power, its palace revolutions which only replace one tyrant with another.....Or the destruction of all states and new life starting again in thousands of centres on the principle that the lively initiative of the individual and groups of that Free Arrangement The choice lies with you'.. Kropotkin, 'Conquest of Bread' (1892). .

On the Pan-German banner is written: Retention and strengthening of the State at any cost. On our banner, the social-revolutionary banner, on the contrary, are inscribed, in fiery and bloody letters: the destruction of all States, the annihilation of bourgeois civilization, free and spontaneous organization from below upward, by means of free associations, the organization of the unbridled rabble of toilers, of all emancipated humanity, and the creation of a new universally human world. Mikhail Bakunin [/I]




Addendum


Children often ask, 'Since there are so many poor people in the world, why don't they just issue more money?'

A response by Lucifer

I asked this question as a child to my father who is an accountant and a Masonic cultist. At the time he simply told me that it was a ridiculous thing to ask and that it could not be done, but he offered no explanation that a child could understand.

Thus in the language that a child could understand.

Capital and labour hours. Price and value.

Marx argued that the 'value' of a commodity was the amount of labour hours it took to produce the commodity. Thus a pound of silver was worth more than a pound of sand. What Marx suggested was the introduction of 'labour vouchers,' by a temporary tyranny (government) where everyone had the same amount of labour vouchers per week. Thus no person could possibly be better off than anyone else. In the history of Marxist governments however this has never occurred and what we have seen is the history of 'Leninist' state Capitalist governments where the banks are nationalised and the issue of money continues.

Printing more money in State Capitalism

Let us take the example of Cuba. Everyone gets the same wages, lives rent free and only the state bank can issue currency. Cuba, North Korea and China all have state banks which are not privately owned; they do not practice reserve banking; unlike in Capitalism, they do not borrow in order to issue new currency. Let us say that Castro increased everyone's wages by 100 times. What would occur? Frankly the same amount of goods would be in the shops, the same amount of agriculture would be produced, but everyone would have 100 times their usual salary; what would have to occur to stop the shops emptying in the first few hours after everyone got paid, would be instant inflation; the goods would have to cost 100 times more and nothing would really change. The wealth of the nation can be determined firstly by how much food they produce and the standard of living (healthcare etc), not by how much money they have, but if everyone had ten times more money, and the same amount of commodities were produced, nothing would change. Thus printing more money in a state Capitalist (Leninist) system would not enrich the population; all that would occur would be inflation.

Those with Capital (money) can demand labour slavery of others.

For example in the UK, the minimum wage is about $10 an hour ($1600 a month), whereas there are 15 million child workers in India who work for a few dollars a week, and also millions of adult prisoners in China who work in government factories and who cost the government a few dollars a week to feed. The Capitalist in Britain can walk into a bargain shop and pick up something for a dollar that represents the labour slavery of some Third World labour slave, and the Capitalist thinks 'Oh isn't Capitalism wonderful, it would take me hours to make that and it would cost $20 if it was made in the First World.' However it is not wonderful for the labour slave who has to make it.

Money makes the Capitalist world go around, not love.

The Capitalist does not have to say please do this for me my love; the power of Capital makes the demand, 'do this or be impoverished.'

Capital works for the Capitalist in the same way that slavery works for the slave master.

The State Capitalist solution.

There are many people in the First World who have studied private Capitalism and who oppose it, and who call for the introduction of State Capitalism in the First World; i.e., the nationalisation of banking. This type of Capitalist government however would not be Cuba where all persons have the same wages; on the contrary some would be rich and others would be poor.
Economic power would be transferred from the private usuryists to the governments (police states / tyrannies). This would simply be a 'modification' of Capitalism. People would still starve in some regions, there would still be labour slavery in the Third World. There is no reason to believe that state terrorists such as the governments of George Bush and Elizabeth Windsor would not still be committed to World Capitalist Revolution, the holocaust of all militant enemies and the economic enslavement of humanity under Capital.

Capitalism cannot be reformed; it has to be abolished.

For a world where all persons are economically equal, Capitalism (monetarism) would have to be totally eradicated; State Capitalism simply leads to the corruption of the tyrants and the political elites. Private Capitalism leads to empowering the Usuryists and all who collaborate with them and serve them.

Lucifer
For stateless collectivism (Anarchist Communism)


http://www.luciferia.tv/animation/A.gif

grandsecretary
15-04-2009, 12:24 AM
If you don't want to handle your dirty money, please send it to me and I will clean it for you. ;)

luciferhorus
15-04-2009, 01:50 AM
If you don't want to handle your dirty money, please send it to me and I will clean it for you. ;)

I have been as polite to members of your fraternity on this forum as I possibly can be.

I have not responded to you prior since your responses tend to be a mixture of abuse / mockery and contradiction.

I have a rather short fuse when it comes to debating with fools; in fact it is generally impossible to have an intelligent debate with a fool.

You are obviously here to defend your Capitalist cult against it's opponents; mockery will not get you very far with me.

If you wish to engage in general mockery, abuse and contradiction, might I suggest that you would be more comfortable debating with some football hooligans or some primary school children who are usually well versed in that method of argument

LL

Lux

http://www.luciferia.tv/masongif.gif




There are numerous groups on the Internet where debate is confused with 'exchanges' of abuse.



I was did not always think as I do, and in the future I expect my positions to modify as a consequence of study, debate, life experience etc.



Debate and discussion is always a good thing.



I attended a London debating society over the years (The Cogers) which has an ancient tradition.



Every person in the room speaks for 5 minutes on politics / religon



The moderator (two of whom in recent years were Anarchist friends of mine) ensures that there is no heckling and no 'abuse.' Debaters would include far Rightists, far Leftists, religious fanatics, etc. You could attack them and tear their arguments to shreds during your 5 minutes, and they could attack you.



If an extremist was being heckled, the Anarchist (Communist) moderator would defend him and silence the rabble, no matter how extreme or offensive his views. It was generally always quite civil.



Certain ground rules of debate had to be respected.



Our political and metaphysical beliefs must go through a dialectical testing process.



When tested, if they fail or are destroyed by superior arguments; the person who is intellectually honest should concede and modify his position.



That is how adults 'develop' intellectually, morally (the discernment of good and evil), spiritually, whatever.



Children just slag each other off.



One of the amazing things about the Cogers was that at the conclusion of the debate, everyone went to the bar and had a drink together civilly. I don’t ever recall a single fight breaking out. Leftists would buy drinks for rightists and so forth. Usually when Left and Right have met on the streets of London, the police separate the crowd, chants, bottles and bricks are thrown.



The Socratic method psychologically involves a ‘healing process;’ everyone can at least get their truths and falsehoods off their chest.



I left London and the Cogers a couple of years ago; now I have to deal with the intellectual and religious fascists (the chaff) of the Internet; such is the way of the Bodhisattva.



Love and regards



Lux



On shall be taken…One shall be left behind.

______________





The Socratic Dialectic (Gr. Argument) 101



or:







‘Abuse, sophisty and contradiction (ASC) : the last cries of the desparate.’





What is ‘argument?

By Lucifer





Thesis (idea), anti-thesis (opposing idea) and synthesis (a combination of two ideas).



An argument in the English language can mean a fight between two football hooligans but this has nothing to do with the Greek meaning of ‘dialectic, ’ with regards to the teaching and debating method of Socrates. In Internet debates over the years I have often made many ‘arguments’ against the ‘ideas’ of other people who misunderstand the meaning of the term ‘dialectic, ’ and to simplify I have written the following explanation which I often post in response to my essays.





_____________________________________________



Abuse and contradiction are common and can be had from imbecile, football hooligan or a drunk at a bus stop and do not constitute argument.

Responses should follow certain standards or they may be responded to with ‘abuse, ’ but probably I will just ignore you.

_________________________________

Argument (Gr. dialectic) according to Socrates and John Cleese.





3 universally accepted ground rules of debating



1: Abuse.

Abuse does not constitute an argument.



2: Contradiction.

Contradiction is not an argument. ’I don’t agree with you’ is not an

argument. An Argument would state ‘why’ you disagree.



3: Sophistry (sophist: ’sophisticated / educated).

A Sophist generally avoids the question and rambles on about something else, often avoiding the argument made by the opponent and often utilising straw man arguments (attacking arguments and positions which the opponent does not hold) and creates confusion with language.



The use of the combination of 1, 2 and 3 is generally defined as ’arrogance’ and ‘avoidance of debate, ’ and by default ‘conceding the point to the opponent’



For those who do not understand the meaning of the term ‘argument, ’ for further information watch the 3 min video on the ground rules of debate on:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

(Monty Python Argument Sketch)



Note that this only covers abuse and contradiction, for ‘sophistry’ refer to me and I’ll shower you with abuse.



If you cannot understand this, I suggest the removal of your brain.



See

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIlKiRPSNGA

(Monty Python: ’My Brian Hurts)



’An argument is not contradiction (or abuse); it is a series of connected statements which establish a proposition; argument is generally a dialectical intellectual process between philosophers’



__________

lightgiver
15-04-2009, 02:00 AM
If you don't want to handle your dirty money, please send it to me and I will clean it for you. ;)

Very godly:rolleyes: yes there is only Profit on your mind oh greedy one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa3n9tSxA9A

Woe unto you, (Telly evangelists,masons, bankers,royalty and politicians)scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

Yours is the House of desolation the home of the lizard and the spider

I will post this again for St peter,just as a cautious reminder when he gets to the gates of heaven.

grandsecretary
15-04-2009, 02:24 AM
Oh yes - profit - unclean, unclean!

Abraham was one of the most successful businessmen in the Bible (Gen. 12-25). Job was the wealthiest man in his town of Uz (Job 1:3). The Apostle Paul was a successful tentmaker. All of the disciples were marketplace believers who fulfilled their calling in and through their workplace. Every one of these people had to make a profit in their work in order to stay in business.

lightgiver
15-04-2009, 02:36 AM
Oh yes - profit - unclean, unclean!

Abraham was one of the most successful businessmen in the Bible (Gen. 12-25). Job was the wealthiest man in his town of Uz (Job 1:3). The Apostle Paul was a successful tentmaker. All of the disciples were marketplace believers who fulfilled their calling in and through their workplace. Every one of these people had to make a profit in their work in order to stay in business.

so what:p according to you eh:D

did he clean dirty money.

The Joseph House is a non-profit charitable organization that helps the poor and homeless.

It is administered by the Little Sisters of Jesus and Mary, a community of Catholic women religious based in Salisbury, Maryland, USA.

"So it is with the man who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God "

"Instruct those who are rich in this present world not to be conceited or to fix their hope on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly supplies us with all things to enjoy

We see this quite clearly in the parable Jesus gives; "The land of a certain rich man was very productive. And he began reasoning to himself, saying, 'What shall I do, since I have no place to store my crops?' And he said, 'This is what I will do: I will tear down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I will say to my soul, 'Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years to come; take your ease, eat, drink, and be merry.' But God said to him, 'You fool! This very night your soul is required of you; and now who will own what you have prepared?' So is the man who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God

I could go on there are hundred more examples of the corruption of greed and profit,it appears this world is obsessed with it,I wonder why,I will tell you why because Satan is running the show.

http://www.thejosephhouse.org/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=th8wu7nUlEA

yes GS it appears you just like bitching and not telling the gospel truth.Yes you carry on I am sure your worldly life will be just fine.

Paul is reminding us that our earthly belongings have an expiry date. You cannot take your home to heaven with you. You cannot take your new car to heaven with you. You cannot take your big screen TV, your computer, or your living room ornaments to heaven with you. But you can take your godliness. You can take your contentment.

luciferhorus
15-04-2009, 02:52 AM
Oh yes - profit - unclean, unclean!

Abraham was one of the most successful businessmen in the Bible (Gen. 12-25). Job was the wealthiest man in his town of Uz (Job 1:3). The Apostle Paul was a successful tentmaker. All of the disciples were marketplace believers who fulfilled their calling in and through their workplace. Every one of these people had to make a profit in their work in order to stay in business.

http://www.luciferia.tv/1ChildrenOftheSlaves/godbush.jpg


A Christian is allegedly a 'Christ-like' person who looks to the Jesus of history as a mentor and who claims to believe in his teachings as ‘the word of God.’

‘And every one that hears these sayings of mine, and does them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand’ (Mt. 7)


Consider that the historical Jesus appears to have been a person who fits the following description.

Ten Tenets of the Historical Jesus.

1: Anti-Monetarism / Anti-Capitalism

He did not believe in any form of monetarism (do not carry money.... do not receive money, only food); he was a homeless (he had nowhere to lay his head), unemployed ( he called upon those with him to give up their professions), anti-propertyist who propagated not monetarism but proto-Communism (Fr. Communare: to share. Communism: to share all property in common)
.

‘Carry neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, neither two robes, neither shoes, nor yet a staff. Mt 10’

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
- Matthew 19:24


And the question needs to raised as to how a person who carries no money could pay taxes; one of the alleged reasons for his arrest.

Then the whole assembly rose and led him off to Pilate. And they began to accuse him, saying, “We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be a king.” (Luke 23:1-4)

..and of course without the swearing of oaths and contracts, Capitalism would cease to exist, and ‘I pledge allegiance to the flag…’ would be a violation of the words and edicts of Jesus.

But I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by heaven... nor by
earth.- Matthew 5:34-35

2: <Anti-materialism; anti-Consumerism.

Do not worship mammon (Aramaic: Material possessions / clothing / money). Consider Solomon in all his glory?

Lay not up for yourself treasures upon the earth...
- Matthew 6:19

3: He cried out against the rich and the religious hypocrites.

Woe to you brood of vipers… hypocrites…serpents.. in the name of the prophets you would have stoned the prophets, etc., etc.

4: He did not sell salvation for Capitalist coin.

5: He told the rich to devote their wealth to the poor.

Sell all that you have and give to the poor... Luke 12:33

6: He built no Temples (in fact he cursed the Temple); he was clearly ‘anti-religious’ and against any form of priesthood.

‘Be not called Rabbi (teacher)… and call no man your father upon the earth…neither be called masters……and whoever exalts himself shall be abased. (Mt.38)’

7: He was tortured and executed for his rebellion against the religious establishment, at their request, and allegedly as a political criminal; he did not support the corrupt government and the Solomonic priesthood (the Sadducees).

8: He was not an idolater, he never referred to himself as 'Yod He Vau He;' he may have invoked the Messianic prophecies but he clearly was not so arrogant as to consider himself to be the Creator; indeed he cried out to the Creator at times and referred constantly to the Creator in the Third person.

9: He told his followers, 'Do not pray in public in the streets and the Temples.'


And when you pray, you must not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the temples and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. I say to you, they have their reward. But you, when thou pray, enter into your room, and when you have shut the door, pray in secret; and your God which hears in secret shall answer you. And when you pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. (Mt. 6)

In other words, a true Christian would never pray in public or in a church, nor would they construct any form of Temple.

10: The revolutionary militant (terrorist) Jesus.
"Do not suppose that I come to bring peace to the earth: I
did not come to bring peace but a sword."


Consider that at one point he asks his followers to sell their robes if they have to and buy swords. There Are two interpretations of the answer, one being 'we have two swords,' and another being 'we have two swords each.' The Judean siccari (Swordsmen or 'terrorists’ to the Romans) commonly carried two swords, as opposed to the sword and shield of the Romans.

'Cohort' (L. a tenth of a Legion).

It clearly states that a cohort (L. a 10th of a legion) of Romans arrested Jesus. A legion was a minimum of 5000 men plus cavalry. Thus a minimum of 500 armed soldiers (plus the Temple guard, who were also armed) arrested Jesus in Gethsemane where an armed fight broke out; outnumbered his followers fled. This begs the question of why 500 armed soldiers would attempt to arrest a group of unarmed pacifists. It simply does not make sense.

http://www.luciferia.tv/1ChildrenOftheSlaves/iraqitorture.gif

Now compare this man to modern day Christians in general. Are they really Christ-like? Do they really believe in all of the above.

flyermay
15-04-2009, 09:28 AM
That was just great!!!

And if anyone still has any doubts about how the scam works, here is an easy to understand video explaining it all.

Money as Debt (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-2550156453790090544&ei=dYblSeP3HsHB-Abo55zmBw&q=money+as+debt&hl=en&dur=3&client=firefox-a)

But if you are really interested in how we all have been scammed by the international banking system, please watch this other vide; which includes the full scam through historical facts (It is a bit long, but it has no waste).

The Money Masters - How International Bankers Gained Control of America (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936&ei=yozlSfx_xMD4BteUjJ8I&q=money&hl=en)

luciferhorus
15-04-2009, 12:14 PM
And if anyone still has any doubts about how the scam works, here is an easy to understand video explaining it all.

Money as Debt (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-2550156453790090544&ei=dYblSeP3HsHB-Abo55zmBw&q=money+as+debt&hl=en&dur=3&client=firefox-a)

The Money Masters - How International Bankers Gained Control of America (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936&ei=yozlSfx_xMD4BteUjJ8I&q=money&hl=en)

Those are both excellen videos; in addition the New Zeitgeist Addendum on video.google is also quite an excellent summary of the monetarist system.

LL

Lux

grandsecretary
15-04-2009, 01:07 PM
The Gospel according to St Matthew

For it is like a man, going into another country, who called his own servants, and entrusted his goods to them. To one he gave five talents, to another two, to another one; to each according to his own ability. Then he went on his journey. Immediately he who received the five talents went and traded with them, and made another five talents. In the same way, he also who got the two gained another two. But he who received the one went away and dug in the earth, and hid his lord’s money.

Now after a long time the lord of those servants came, and reconciled accounts with them.

He who received the five talents came and brought another five talents, saying, "Lord, you delivered to me five talents. Behold, I have gained another five talents besides them."

His lord said to him, "Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a few things, I will set you over many things. Enter into the joy of your lord."

He also who got the two talents came and said, "Lord, you delivered to me two talents. Behold, I have gained another two talents besides them."

His lord said to him, "Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a few things, I will set you over many things. Enter into the joy of your lord."

He also who had received the one talent came and said, "Lord, I knew you that you are a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter. I was afraid, and went away and hid your talent in the earth. Behold, you have what is yours."

But his lord answered him, "You wicked and slothful servant. You knew that I reap where I didn’t sow, and gather where I didn’t scatter. You ought therefore to have deposited my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received back my own with interest. Take away therefore the talent from him, and give it to him who has the ten talents. For to everyone who has will be given, and he will have abundance, but from him who doesn’t have, even that which he has will be taken away. Throw out the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Money was very much in use at the time of Jesus Christ, as were banks, interest on loans, and profit from business and trade.

flyermay
15-04-2009, 01:51 PM
Money was very much in use at the time of Jesus Christ, as were banks, interest on loans, and profit from business and trade.

As well as slavery, torture, murder, executions, raping, robbery, war, etc, etc, etc. Does that make it right for you?

Either way, there is nothing wrong with using money; it has always existed in most cultures: whether it is in the form of seashells, tally sticks, tobacco leafs, or gold and silver. But it always existed as the means to facilitate the exchange of goods and services.

Banking and loans are not the problem; the problem is when they are used to control people, perpetuate slavery and increase/maintain poverty.

Interests were considered usury until the introduction of the mothern banking system; and all major religions condemned it and laws existed against it (up to the penalty of death).

Making a profit is perfectly legitimate and moral; after all, you have the right to live of your work; that is working for money. What is not ethical and moral is exploiting others to make a profit, or make your money work for us by scamming others.

grandsecretary
15-04-2009, 03:08 PM
As well as slavery, torture, murder, executions, raping, robbery, war, etc, etc, etc. Does that make it right for you?

Either way, there is nothing wrong with using money; it has always existed in most cultures: whether it is in the form of seashells, tally sticks, tobacco leafs, or gold and silver. But it always existed as the means to facilitate the exchange of goods and services.

Banking and loans are not the problem; the problem is when they are used to control people, perpetuate slavery and increase/maintain poverty.

Interests were considered usury until the introduction of the mother banking system; and all major religions condemned it and laws existed against it (up to the penalty of death).

Making a profit is perfectly legitimate and moral; after all, you have the right to live of your work; that is working for money. What is not ethical and moral is exploiting others to make a profit, or make your money make the work for by scamming others.

At last some sense.

1 Timothy 6:10. "For the love of money is the root of all evil."

Not money itself.

thelonious
15-04-2009, 03:38 PM
Masonry and Capital

Lucifer

Crowley appeared to have very little respect for Masonry; he did not consider them to be serious magickans, but rather mostly ‘social climbers’ who joined for career advancement and such matters; at one point Crowley stated that he would ‘wipe his ass’ with the Masonic rituals; it is quite clear that Crowley believed that his revolution would in time succeed, and that Masonic cultism would pass away.

This is not exactly correct. Crowley had high respect for Freemasonry per se, and in his preface to his "Book of Lies", he wrote that his association with Freemasonry would become the most important aspect of his career.

Further, in his M.M.M. documents, he defined "Freemasonry" as a method of "communicating truth". In a letter to Gerald Kelly, Crowley wrote:

"If you are not yet a Mason, it is worth your while to become one in a French lodge."

On the other hand, Crowley also was well familiar with how Freemasonry had been infiltrated and corrupted by imbeciles, and it was this he attacked. He eventually concluded that Freemasonry as it was could not be reformed, and the hope for the future rested in the O.T.O., which contained the sum total of Masonic knowledge.

Again, from the M.M.M. documents, Crowley wrote:

"Whereas the Institution of Free Masonry has fallen to complete and deserved contempt among all men but especially among true Masons, and whereas the traditional knowledge which it was designed to guard has been lost, degenerated, prostituted, or exploited, and whereas especially an America, the Institution serves as little else but a cloak for the operations of various gangs of swindlers, be it resolved by Us, the authorized representatives of its highest degrees and the faithful depositories of its ancient secrets that the present machinery for communicating its secrets, be declared obsolete and the work of all who may unlawfully attempt to usurp Our authority be declared void and of no effect. Be it further resolved that Our own powers be, during the period of reconstruction, concentrated in a single dictator. Be it further resolved that the whole symbolism of Free Masonry, and its name, be disused, that the true traditional knowledge be communicated in hieroglyphs unmistakably significant, although with the proper guards, in Rituals of first rate literary and dramatic merit, and so constructed that they shall require neither a gathering of many men nor expensive elaboration's for their operation.

However, this was penned after 1913, when Crowley submitted the following letter to the United Grand Lodge of England:

I wish to appeal to the fraternal Brothers of the Lodge of England in the following circumstances. I was made a Master Mason 17 December 1904 in Lodge 343 Anglo Saxon in Paris, working under the Grand Lodge of France. My proposer was the Rev J. L. Bowley, who I understand has been the Provincial Grand Officer in the Oxford Province, and I fully understood from him that the Anglo-Saxon Lodge was duly recognized by the Grand Lodge of England, and in fact numbers of admitted English Masons have attended the Lodge while on the other hand I have always been received with the greatest fraternal welcome in many lodges both in England and India, and no question has been raised as to my status except in the Grand Chapter of the Royal Arch at Freemasons' Hall. I must admit that at that time I was annoyed by what seemed to me a narrow-minded view of masonry. As the Ritual of my initiation was that in use all over England, and no such alteration of landmarks had taken place as that which has caused the breach between the G[rand] Lodge of England the G[rand] Orient. And I shall consequently prepare to support the G[rand] L[odge] of France in its claim to the validity of its initiations.

I am now, however, credibly informed that recently the Grand Lodge of France has tolerated and even recognized so-called comasonry, and in these circumstances I see no course open to me but to resign from that Lodge, not only on masonic grounds, but because co-masonry is merely a mask for the cult of 'Alcyone', which I have no hesitation in describing as the most impudent blasphemy and filthy fraud that has ever been attempted in the history of the world.

I write to assure you of my thorough loyalty and allegiance to the principles of the Grand Lodge of England and I ask your fraternal kindness to make it as easy as possible for me to regularize my position.

Fraternally,

Aleister Crowley

flyermay
15-04-2009, 04:15 PM
At last some sense.

1 Timothy 6:10. "For the love of money is the root of all evil."

Not money itself.

Doesn't Timothy says anything about the ones who support and defend those who love money?

grandsecretary
15-04-2009, 04:32 PM
Doesn't Timothy says anything about the ones who support and defend those who love money?

You tell me, and to whom are you referring? - "the ones" is not very specific.

luciferhorus
15-04-2009, 05:11 PM
I write to assure you of my thorough loyalty and allegiance to the principles of the Grand Lodge of England and I ask your fraternal kindness to make it as easy as possible for me to regularize my position.

Fraternally,

Aleister Crowley [/i]

Crowley's brand of magick and knowledge was a syncretic mixture of much that he had learned in other cults, Masonry clearly being one of them. His magick was a mixture of sex magick, necromancy and 'channelling,' aspects which Masons have a tendency of denying practicing.

Aleister's vast knowledge of the Kabbalah, Astrology and the Book of Thoth is unlikely to have been gleaned from Masonry, since the vast majority of Masons appear to be thoroughly unenlightened about such matters; indeed many deny having any interest and virtually no knowledge of such matters.

Again when we study secret societies, we often find cults within cults within cults and that the beliefs and behaviours higher echelons of such cults are deliberately made almost impossible to study, for they are shrouded in secrecy and confusion; one is then left with studying the public behaviour of the cultists in general, and here as I argue we have much of the Vanguard of the Capitalist, state terrorist, usuryist, establishment; which in my judgement represents 'evil;' irrespective of whatever it is they believe or practice.

LL


Lux

thelonious
15-04-2009, 05:45 PM
Crowley's brand of magick and knowledge was a syncretic mixture of much that he had learned in other cults, Masonry clearly being one of them. His magick was a mixture of sex magick, necromancy and 'channelling,' aspects which Masons have a tendency of denying practicing.

I would have to disagree that Crowley's Magick involved "necromancy", which is technically communication with the dead. Crowley believed in reincarnation, and I've found nothing in his writings to support he attempted to commune with anything claiming to be a deceased person.

Sex Magick was high on his agenda. And although I don't like the term "channelling" personally, it could probably be applied to some of his methods.

As for Masons denying practicing Magick and the like, they generally do not practice those things.

Aleister's vast knowledge of the Kabbalah, Astrology and the Book of Thoth is unlikely to have been gleaned from Masonry, since the vast majority of Masons appear to be thoroughly unenlightened about such matters; indeed many deny having any interest and virtually no knowledge of such matters.

I agree completely. Most of AC's practical knowledge came from the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (not Masonry per se), and probably most of his theoretical knowledge did as well.

Again when we study secret societies, we often find cults within cults within cults and that the beliefs and behaviours higher echelons of such cults are deliberately made almost impossible to study, for they are shrouded in secrecy and confusion

That may have been true in Crowley's time, but I don't think it is any more. Anybody with a library card can now study all the various secret societies in detail: Masonry, Golden Dawn, O.T.O., other Rosicrucians, etc. The idea of "secret" secret societies seems to me to be more play-acting than anything, on the part of the secret societies themselves.

I am almost to the point of concluding that "secret societies" as such are no longer desirable or needed. I do, however, continue to support magickal groups who want to work as unit.

grandsecretary
15-04-2009, 07:26 PM
Aleister's vast knowledge of the Kabbalah, Astrology and the Book of Thoth is unlikely to have been gleaned from Masonry, since the vast majority of Masons appear to be thoroughly unenlightened about such matters; indeed many deny having any interest and virtually no knowledge of such matters.

Well, at last something that we can all agree on. The vast majority of freemasons haven't a clue because it has become a mass membership organisation that has degenerated into a social club, but those that do, are very learned in all of the subjects that you list.

lightgiver
15-04-2009, 07:29 PM
Money was very much in use at the time of Jesus Christ, as were banks, interest on loans, and profit from business and trade.

Of course money was around but corrupt greed is another completely different matter,and the corruption we are seeing is against anything that is good and most who are awake know this,as it was over two thousand years ago,some things never change.

You appear to be obsessed with money and profit,maybe that's why you are a mason.

Paul is reminding us that our earthly belongings have an expiry date. You cannot take your home to heaven with you. You cannot take your new car to heaven with you. You cannot take your big screen TV, your computer, or your living room ornaments to heaven with you. But you can take your godliness. You can take your contentment.

lightgiver
15-04-2009, 07:33 PM
The Bible provides us with a rich definition of greed. From a Christian perspective, the core definition of greed is that it is the obsession with accumulating material goods. A greedy person values material goods more than they value God. The Bible also tells us that greed is something that can never be satisfied. Greed and slothfulness have similarities in definition. The greedy and slothful both crave material goods as well as they have no desire to work for or to exchange anything of value for the object of their desires. The slothful will not work even for basic necessities much less add value to the world around them. The greedy will use deception to acquire material goods. The greedy will lie and use false pretences to acquired goods at the expense of others.

Isaiah 56:11 advises us that greed is never satisfied ...

Luke 12:15 warns us not to be obsessed with accumulating wealth ...

luciferhorus
18-04-2009, 08:01 AM
I would have to disagree that Crowley's Magick involved "necromancy", which is technically communication with the dead. Crowley believed in reincarnation, and I've found nothing in his writings to support he attempted to commune with anything claiming to be a deceased person.

.

Well firstly consider the Holy Guardian Angel operation:

The method is in entire accordance with this. There are, it is true, certain prescriptions to be observed, but these really amount to little more than injunctions to observe decency in the performance of so august an operation. One must have a house where proper precautions against disturbance can be taken; this being arranged, there is really nothing to do but to aspire with increasing fervour and concentration, for six months, towards the obtaining of the Knowledge and Conversation of the Holy Guardian Angel. Once He has appeared, it is then necessary, first, to call forth the Four Great Princes of the Evil of the World; next, their eight sub-princes; and, lastly, the three hundred and sixteen servitors of these.

The entire text is available on sacredtexts.

This rite of Abramelin the Mage is a classic definition of the term necromancy (the evocation of ancestral spirits).

I think that it could not be even considered by one who believed in 'pure reincarnation,' but I should explain what that is.

I do understand that there are selected quotes by Crowley in which his magick can be interpreted psychologically, but Crowley was obsessed with necromancy (as am I).

The practice of necromancy in conjunction with shamanic substances produces for me a very real experience and communion with ancestral spirits, but I can only speak subjectively about this since it is occurring within my consciousness.

Practicing Magick can be a little dangerous on psychoactives, as I seem to have managed to attract the attention of the 'Dark Lord' of Hell on a number of occasions, but again this must be understood as a 'psychoactive' experience and not a literal, physical presence; nor do I worship him, I merely demand his servitude and obedience to my will.


Popular New Aeon Afterlife beliefs

1: Atheism.

The Anton LaVey crowd are all thelemites, but they are atheists who do not believe that the soul is eternal; it neither reincarnates nor passes over to the ancestral realm. 'Satan' and 'God' are both considered to be non-existant. It is a very popular view; it is generally a 'psychological' view.


2: Neo-Hinduist reincarnation.

The Hindus are not 'pure reincarnationists;' eventually the advanced soul attains elightenment and passes over into the eternal ancestral realm where they are liberated from the cycle of death and rebirth; here they get to hang out with Krishna (or their favorite deity) and his girlfriends and dance in his garden etc.

This does not explain the existance of Hindu 'demons' however, since allegedly there are only enlightened souls in the afterlife, so it is quite contradictory and also a very racist religion; the term caste regards 'colour' with the darkest people being considered untouchable. Dark skinned people don't get to join the gods in their gardens of Pradise; they have to reincarnate as a lighter skinned person first.

Crowley, having travelled in India and having studied Bhuddism and Hinduism was clearly affected by such beliefs.

3: Pure-Reincarnationism.

This is not the Hindu perspective and is a very recent modern belief; essentially it is the belief that all beings reincarnate and that there is no ancestral realm. Pure reincarnationists are usually annoyingly Anarchronistic (out of historical context) and have a habit of claiming that their belief is ancient and that many historical figures (such as Jesus) were pure reincarnationists.

4: Afterlife-ism

This is the belief that the soul is eternal and that upon death passes over into the ancestral realm. This is common in China, Japan Africa, Latin America and in numerous native religions and cultures; it was also the traditional pre-Christian European position of the Druids, Wiccanists and the traditional forms of spiritualism; ancient Greek, Roman and Egyptian religions took this position also; it is also my own position.

Among the neo-pagan movement you will find all 4 beliefs.

Just to restate, if Crowley had been a 'pure reincarnationist' the Abremelin rite would have been an act of folly.

Channelling.

Crowley clearly believed that he was in communication with 'secret chiefs' in another (spiritual) dimension; the 'Book of the Law' is a classic piece of channelling.

LL

Lux