Jump to content

Hegel Schmegel

Members
  • Posts

    195
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Hegel Schmegel's Achievements

84

Reputation

  1. Sounds like something the Black Pope or an agent/asset of his might say. Both controlled by the capstone conspirators and Luciferians, the very ones who had a hand in re-establishing the state of Israel as per the divine plan and who have persecuted and slandered Jews (eg, Protocols) all throughout history, as with the Inquisition. U.S. foreign policy directly benefits the military-industrial complex, CIA, the pseudo-Zionists, the Saudis, et al, but guess who has been in control of the U.S. from the shadows since circa 1868? Those responsible for the Counter-Reformation have hated the (original) United States from its beginning and have sought to undermine it ever since. The 'melting plot' is just one method they've used in their 'globalist' agenda, one which includes their attack on Protestantism and Orthodox Christianity, specifically. Incidentally, I did not mean to imply a connection between Antifa and the Jesuits per se, if one reads what I said carefully. Re: Eric Jon Phelps. In said video interview the author of Vatican Assassins assures the audience that everything contained in the book is backed up by references, primary sources; that it's meticulously and well-researched, with something like 3000 quotes, including the re-printing of entire texts in the public domain dating back a century or more, that nothing in it is the product of his imagination. He has simply documented and framed the extensive amount of material of which he'd studied for twenty years into a composite and cohesive whole. Attacking the messenger is a tired and predictable tactic, that in modern times has its origins with the CIA and Operation Mockingbird. Ever since, legitimate truth-seeking conspiracy researchers have been ridiculed and smeared, with one of the purposes of COINTELPRO being to discredit NWO whistleblowers and especially upholders of the Constitution; coincidentally, both of which apply to Mr. Phelps.
  2. In response to the question posed in the thread title: Yes, sort of, but it's a little deeper than that... 'Mystery Babylon' of Revelation 17, 18. Without doubt, one of the more intriguing passages in all of Holy Writ. This was one of William 'Bill' Cooper's pet topics. 'Tis a portion of Scripture that has seduced numerous thinkers -- religionists and spiritually minded secularists alike -- into playing Sherlock with its devilishly ambiguous text. Who can't help but keep coming back to it; those who stray from it are often pulled back into its magnetic labyrinth, as I was and am now, thanks largely to a book I'm presently reading. Queen of All is the title. A book by Jim Tetlow, Roger Oakland, and Brad Myers. I assume these are three different persons and not just one. To this day, I still struggle with the doctrine of the Trinity, and there are those who believe the teaching is not Christian at all but has its roots in ancient Babylon/occult Mystery Religions. Let the games begin. With regard to the One World Religion, specifically... As to the identity of 'Mystery Babylon' it is not a stretch nor is it unsurprising that Rome would be a favorite suspect for many literary sleuths. Of the five commonly named suspects entertained, it's one of the more plausible ones. New York City? Ha. Jerusalem? Whatever. Iraq? The least likely of the five. Saudi Arabia/Mecca? Now we're getting somewhere. Author/researcher Joel Richardson definitely makes a strong and convincing case for this, and no, he is not a crypto-Jesuit just because he favors Mecca over Rome, as one or two published antipapal paranoiac character assassins make him out to be. As much as I lean toward Richardson's eschatological worldview centering around Islam/Chrislam being the One World Religion/Mystery Babylon, perhaps in the end all roads do lead back to Rome. In any case, this 'Babylon' is a Mystery, and not a Dogma. Queen of All, however, does provide some titillating information that has got me thinking once again of who this 'Woman' mentioned in the Book of Revelation might be. Note: Queen of All is not a book on Mystery Babylon, but rather concerns itself with how a One World Religion might come into play. Indeed, what could possibly unite the nations of the world under the umbrella of a New World Religion? Maitreya? Heard of this one but to me doesn't seem realistic. ET? Maybe. Not real space aliens, mind you, we know that. More like an 'invasion' like the kind Nazi/NASA rocket scientist Wernher von Braun during an alleged deathbed confession predicted would one day happen. Christ in holographic form? The technology certainly exists should the powers that be opt for this scenario. Holographic entertainers already 'perform' at concerts, with one nation's head of state reported to have appeared before a mass gathering in holographic form. Still, would 'ET' have the power to convert the more than two billion devout monotheists of the world, to the extent that such ones would be willing to relinquish their long- and deeply held Abrahamic creeds for godless techno-saviors espousing an ahistoric message devoid of holiness and religious tradition? That Marian apparitions have the power to transform the minds and lives of their eye-witnesses can be seen in the most famous case of them all: Fatima, in which hundreds of thousands in attendance became instant believers; among them, numerous atheists and communists. That an image of Christ could be produced via holographic projection is not out of the realm of possibility, but would it have any effect on the over 1 billion Muslims in the world? Highly unlikely. Yet, there would be no need for holograms so long as the Madonna continues to be observed in the skies. And she is. As this book documents, Marian apparitions are becoming ever more frequent and are being seen worldwide -- not just in Catholic-predominant lands but in such places as the Orient, as well. How to account for this? Most intriguingly, these heavenly visions of Mary all seem to impart the same message: Universalism (What a beautiful concept, this, however unbiblical.) Or, more precisely, ecumenicism -- the operative word, here. Interestingly, the authors tell of Muslims making pilgrimages to Marian apparition sites and shrines. The authors also quote from a Catholic Catechism in which the comment is made of how Muslims basically worship the same God that Christians do. Here we can see how 'Chrislam' would have the power to catch on with many within these faiths who tote olive branches. One thing I didn't know prior to reading this book was the extent to which Muslims venerate the Blessed Mother. Apparently, the Virgin Mary is revered within Islamic holy texts. Most surprisingly, the authors tell of increasing Mary worship and observed Marian apparitions within Protestant denominations as well. What of non-monotheistic religions and spiritualities? As one learns from reading this most fascinating book, Marian-like apparitions are also being reported among, for instance, the New Agers and neo-pagans, accompanied by the similar message that all religious beliefs are at their core equal and of the Creator, only these visions aren't perceived as Mary but of Diana -- a goddess with a 'Queen of Heaven' title, herself. Here we can see how the nature worshippers might be drawn into the NWO as well. Will Marian visions play a key factor in helping to unite the religions of the world, leading them to worldwide peace under the headship/dictatorship of the Roman Catholic Church? Of the other theories out there vying for the One World Religion position, this one to me has all the makings of a potential conspiracy-fact.
  3. Of the many points to be gleaned from this video interview, I think the most important to be taken from it is that we must learn to recognize exactly who it is that's in ultimate temporal power. For one to zero in excessively on one specific group under the control of the controllers (those as identified in this interview) only ends up missing the capstone for the lower pyramidal structure. This is exactly what they want, to keep us focused on this cusp group or that political movement and arguing amongst ourselves who of these are most influential, all the while these master manipulators are pissing in their black cassocks, watching as those who seek truth create and cling to their various and competing conspiratorial sub-culprits. With regard to this point, a brief digression but one very pertinent to this discussion...As much as I respect David Icke's work in general, I think he has done a disservice in his overemphasizing the role Zionism has played in world events, especially since 9/11. If Zionism was a creation of a largely non-Jewish One Percent (which Icke admits to) and this One Percent are themselves under the control of the Illuminati (aka, Luciferian Jesuits), then with that in mind it seems an obliquity that Icke would go on and on, as he does in The Trigger, about Zionism, opting for the term 'ultra-Zionists' and using this hypenate ad nauseum, since what this does is exactly what Phelps warns against doing -- as it ends up missing the larger picture, in its focusing on a control group instead of the controllers. Meanwhile, others point to the Saudis or the Nazis behind, say, 9/11 and the NWO. No doubt true to some degree, yet if under the control of the Luciferian Jesuits then actually red herrings in the grand scheme of things. (As an aside, I have yet to read Secret Terrorists by Bill Hughes but I have perused Edmond Paris's Secret History Of The Jesuits, which does a great job going deeper and beyond the usual list of suspects popularly given within the largely controlled alt-media.) Note: For those who will enjoy watching Vatican Assassins, I also recommend checking out two archived episodes of a now defunct radio program which deals more on this very subject and can be found online. I refer to a show hosted by Vyzygoth. In the one interview, Eric Jon Phelps appears as guest, picking up where he left off here, and has him speaking mainly about (illegal) immigration and race wars and how these are being used by the Jesuits to undermine the national sovereignty of the United States (just as, I might add, Pierre Trudeau was responsible for introducing multiculturalism in Canada). This interview first aired long before "Black Lives Matter" and Antifa came along, and the listener will note Phelps mention Louis Farakhan in a similar vein as we do today of these elite-engineered control groups. The other episode worth a listen has Vyzygoth interviewing a guy by the name of Thomas Richards, a man who was raised Catholic but who has since spoken out against the Vatican and the Jesuits. Some interesting and important information in this one as well, sure to appeal to those who enjoyed Vatican Assassins.
  4. Jordan Maxwell was a bit before my time and only recently have I become familiar with his work, upon discovering not too long ago a video interview titled Brothers In Arms. This has Maxwell and David Icke seated down together, engaged in an extended metaphysical discussion. Whereas Icke goes on about expanded awareness, infinite consciousness, vibrations and all that jazz, Maxwell, on the other hand, appears more into the blues, unable to reconcile this upbeat worldview of his fellow interlocutor with his own, one that has dark and powerful otherworldly entities ultimately controlling things on Earth. How is it possible, Maxwell wonders, for mankind to ever experience a mass spiritual awakening when the rulers of this system possess the superhuman ability of keeping mankind as a whole in perpetual, perceptual servitude? The two men go back and forth wrestling with this issue at some length. Whatever the case, wherever Maxwell is today, I'm sure he's by now solved this riddle, God rest his soul. A good interview, showing how people do not have to be of one mind philosophically to be united where it counts, in heart as spiritual brothers on the side of freedom and humanity.
  5. Title: Gods Of The New Age Author: Caryl Matrisciana Published: 1985 In Gods Of The New Age, Ms. Matrisciana tells of her growing up in India and, as a child born and raised into a British household, being horrified by some of the traditions and practices of Hinduism, of witnessing 'untouchables' in the streets and other negative social effects as the result of a religion steeped in karmic superstition. Years later, as an adult living in the U.S., Caryl would find herself reflecting back on her childhood, upon getting involved in New Age mysticism and noting many similarities between it and the exotic religion that both fascinated and disgusted her as a young girl. The forepart of the book also details the hedonistic years Matrisciana experienced in-between these two periods; namely, her time spent as a professionally successful single woman living the high-life in London, England, employed with the BBC as an artist, surrounded by elitist bohemians, soulless socialites, pitiful glitterati and soporific jet-setters. Yet, despite all the travels to Europe and the late-night parties, the fun and laughter, Caryl felt something missing from her life, an inner void which first saw to her experimenting with sex and drugs in the hope that these would fill the vacuum, only to turn to escapism of the spirit when the pleasures of the flesh failed in providing any lasting fulfillment. For Caryl, it must have felt a bit like deja vu when, after moving to the United States, she found herself full circle in a sense, only this time embracing the very Eastern mysticism that as a child repulsed her so, only this a (politically motivated) spirituality imported to the States by the social engineers and culture creators. Like the (Tavistock-engineered?) Beatles who returned to the West all agog upon visiting an Indian guru, Matrisciana for a time believed she'd struck spiritual gold, and soon her whole life was one of chakras and yoga, of attaining the power of attraction in the most uncanny of ways, of astral projecting and embracing 'oneness' within an illusory reality...as if a mind not quite healed from the whole psychedelic scene she'd left back in England. Did not the gurus of her youth also teach 'maya'? Hmm. Gods Of The New Age was first published in 1985, only two years after Constance Cumbey's The Hidden Dangers Of The Rainbow, and makes for an excellent companion to the latter title. Although Gods is not an impersonal examination of its subject in the way the slightly scholarly Hidden Dangers is, it is an equally important read nevertheless and a winner in its own right, with its more intimate tone and semi-biographical style likely to appeal to an entirely different readership than Cumbey's, yet a book no less essential a read.
  6. This is a two-hour video-presentation of a two-part studio interview that took place circa 2001; a program originally broadcast on a public access show that ran for seven years, hosted by the late Dennis Grover. In this riveting video, author Eric Jon Phelps discusses some of the material presented in his largely suppressed work, Vatican Assassins. According to Phelps, comments of which are supported by his vast, in-depth research into this religious order/militia group, the office of Jesuit Father General, along with his black-robed minions, not only controls the Vatican but pretty much everything, including all the world's intelligence agencies, key cusp groups and major secret societies and, most intriguing of all, organized religion. Ultimately, we are dealing with Luciferians who wield their worldly influence over the earth from the capstone of the temporal pyramid. Although Phelps hints at and acknowledges a metaphysical component to this grand conspiracy, that is, a spiritually dark nonhuman force operating from behind the curtain, for the most part the information he presents in this is grounded, with woo-speak kept to a bare minimum. Whether discussing vaccinations, chemtrails, gun control, education, the money system, priesthoods, geopolitics, Phelps' work points to the Jesuits as the predominant conspirators running the show. In this, Phelps refers to the United States as a Jesuit Empire and says of organized religion that its various governing bodies are ultimately under the control of high-level Freemasons, who in turn are subject to the Jesuits. I would agree with this, as I do also that Islamism is primarily being played, and that the Luciferians are covertly manipulating affairs using this religious-ideological pawn of theirs in their quest for world domination. Apparently, the rebuilding of Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem will play a significant part in this master plan of theirs, in which it is then thought 'the Black Pope' will openly emerge and take his seat. Is the mainstream media controlled by the Knights of Malta? Will the U.S. one day be invaded militarily by the Chinese and/or Islamists? Are the Mossad, MI5, MI6, CIA, all under the control of the Vatican? Are heads of state who appear adversarial actually in cahoots, despite their public persona? Are the courts, at least those within the U.S. generally controlled by Shriner Freemasons? These questions, among others, are considered in this rather obscure yet must-see video featuring the highly intelligent and articulate Eric Jon Phelps; this interview, refreshingly downhome and deliciously cracker-barrel. Here is a guy who's clearly not out after fame; it's all about the information. Vatican Assassins is definitely worth checking out and is not to be missed. As for the book, good luck finding a physical copy, or least one that's affordable. This, not surprising, what with truth often so very hard to come by in this fallen world.
  7. In studying the Jesuits it's interesting to learn that, as with the Freemasons, not all members of this Order were/are nefarious plotters. Some early ones were said to be canonized as saints, while others have contributed to various schools of science, as human race-contributing inventors and discoverers. There are those researchers who point to the 1960s and the Second Vatican Council as being a defining moment, when an anti-papal faction within the Order began to rear its serpentine head, prior to which the Jesuits as a whole were known for being loyal to and defenders of the papacy. So, then, are we to chalk up this purported coup to the work of, say, one Jacob Frank? I think not, as this infiltration into the ranks of the Vatican appears to be, for the most part, limited to a 20th-century manifestation. Since the 1960s, we have seen the U.S. counterculture and the impact its drug-laden philosophy has had on the minds and values of countless American youth. This would be in keeping with a Jesuit influence, an Order said to be anti-American and pro-socialist at its core. Of course, you have some who regard the Roman Catholic Church/Vatican itself as being satanic and since its very inception; their constituting the very 'whore of Babylon' with the papacy viewed as the Antichrist. Although certainly not a fan of the RCC nor the Vatican, I personally wouldn't go to such perceptual extremes as to believe this, myself. Indeed, a few anti-Catholic researchers have even gone so far as to claim that the late, great Malachi Martin, author of a large critical expose of the Jesuits, was nothing but an agent of the Order, simply because he saw the Society of Jesus as having been infiltrated by anti-papal fifth columnists, as opposed to perceiving the entire Order and the RCC as false and evil from their very start. Malachi Martin, a Jesuit shill? What bull. More Martin-bashing is found in a little known book titled, Clerical Error, authored by 'former' Jesuit Robert Blair Kaiser. Within the pages of this highly entertaining and often amusing memoir, Kaiser portrays Martin as a Vatican agent not to be trusted, as one who got excited while watching a Marilyn Monroe movie, and as a man whom he suspected of having an affair with his wife. These portions of the book read like a hit piece to me. (Martin was a man of God, imo, who knew that dark supernatural entities were at work in the world and who spoke at length exposing and warning of this, so it's no surprise that he would be the victim of various character assassination attempts,) In answer to the Protestant Reformation of 1517, the Society of Jesus was founded in 1540 as a counter force against it. It is on this point that some researchers have put forth the claim that teachings since this period of a future, individual Antichrist is nothing but Jesuit propaganda, designed to deflect attention away from the RCC, the 'true' Antichrist, so these ones imagine. What is worth noting, however, is that eschatological futurism did not originate in the 16th century but in fact has it roots in many of the early first- and second-century Church Fathers, who had been premillennial restorationists, themselves -- and obviously not Jesuits. That the Jesuits were always more than just a religious order, one primarily driven by sociopolitical aims and goals, there is no doubt. Illuminati-founder, Adam Weishaupt, was one such notable Jesuit, as Pierre Trudeau was reportedly to have been as well. None, however, have been as culturally influential, perhaps, than Pierre Tielhard de Chardin -- coiner of pretentious neologisms, moronic disbeliever in the supernatural, anti-capitalist, deluded evolutionist, benighted heliocentrist, proto-transhumanist, eugenicist, and misguided proponent of linear human progress, toward what in his grand vision for the world he dubbed the 'Omega Point,' a time he envisioned of panoramic apotheosis and insanity for all. ('Tielhardism' arguably being Jesuitism at its most masterfully insidious form.)
  8. Some additional comments with regard to a few scenes in the movie... Among the more zealous members of the JW faith, it's not uncommon for full-time ministers ('pioneers' as they're called) to learn a foreign language, in order to be able to communicate more effectively with the variety of householders they encounter in their local assigned territory, or so as to later relocate and serve in regions of the world where the organization feels there's a need for 'Christian' missionaries. In the movie, Alex and Luisa are shown to be somewhat fluent in Urdu. When the question is asked of them as to what becomes of unbelievers come Armageddon, one of the girls remarks how perhaps not every non-JW will be destroyed, as God knows what's inside the hearts of people. Applying the Great Commission as recorded at Matthew 24:14 to themselves, the JWs feel it is their scriptural duty to proclaim 'the good news' of Christ's (invisible) return and established heavenly reign. Some of the more pious even go so far as to learn a new language so that all may get to hear the JW message. A curiosity, however: If God is omniscient, a reader of hearts, and knows who belongs to him and who doesn't, why the need for door-to-door preachers, and to go through all the trouble of learning a new language, as if the salvation of non-members somehow depends on their hearing what amounts to a rehearsed sales pitch? Seems rather superfluous, if in the end God is the final judge and will save and destroy whom He pleases, anyway. I've heard it said of JWs by one ex-member how generally 'square' they are. In keeping with this quadrate perception, the JW culture, it has also been said, is known for its micro-managing and structure -- its organization. Even when it comes to recreational activities, over-planning is often involved; even these events are 'controlled' so to speak. At informal get-togethers, for example, in which secular music is played, the playlist is often if not always reviewed beforehand by an elder so as to make sure all the music is suitable for listening and dancing to. Often there's an elder in attendance to supervise these events. There's a scene in Apostasy that has Alex and her mother attending a party at the home of a co-congregant. Observe in this scene how the women are shown dancing, as if keeping their minimal movements restricted to an imaginary box about them; their dancing, self-conscious and lacking in spontaneity. This is their time to have a little fun. Next on the subconscious schedule: A Bible drama performed by the children -- laugh here. Consider another scene that has the mother at her place of worship, listening to a talk being given by the same 'brother' who has recently privately counseled Ivanna for associating with her disfellowshipped daughter; the speaker making it appear that he's talking to all those in attendance when he's really speaking to one person, however indirectly. Understandably, this makes Ivanna uncomfortable, to the point that she gets up and leaves the auditorium, no doubt displeased with this act of verbal underhandedness/personal opportunism on the part of the smug, unctuous homilist who, like the odd study magazine Sunday commenter, enjoys pointing out the faults of fellow believers in attendance in a self-righteous, roundabout manner. Although for every ex-JW there is a story, behind why they decided to leave or the reason for their ex-communication, none are more interesting than the experiences of those who at time during their membership served at one or more of the society's branch locations, or even at headquarters itself. One of the better ex-JW sources to be found online is a show called "Critical Thought," hosted by a married couple (JT & Lady Cee) who were one-time 'Bethelites' and, as such, were privy to a lot of stuff that went on 'behind the scenes,' if you will. One episode, in particular, is quite intriguing: titled "Vow of Poverty." In this, the show's host talks about how in recent years many Bethelites have been let go on account of the society no longer being in need of their live-in services. Some of these are men and women in their fifties and older who gave up homes and careers in order to devote their entire lives to 'serving Jehovah,' and who now after decades of living sheltered from the harsh realities of the working world find themselves placed into a situation where they must now fend for themselves, all the while being close to retirement age, with very little if no financial savings and little to no experience in the workforce. Twice in Apostasy, one of the characters mentions how nice it would be to be a Bethelite or a 'Circuit Overseer,' in which all one's basic needs are looked after and one doesn't have to work in the world. In almost every episode of "Critical Thought," the curtain is pulled back as it were, and makes for essential listening for anyone interested in learning more about this religious group, from a husband-and-wife team whose experience within the organization was unlike many compared to those among the rank-and-file. As for the movie itself, obviously it's not to everyone's liking, but it's well-made, observant, and quiet -- so very quiet; contemplative. One will note the absence of musical underscoring which -- for those of us who appreciate great works of 'cinematic theater' -- adds to its overall appeal. Kudos to Daniel Kokotajlo for making such an exceptional film, one that has more than just entertainment value.
  9. Movie Title: Apostasy Director: Daniel Kokotajlo Released: 2017 Although the term apostasy carries with it a negative connotation within the narrow-minded confines of religious dogmatism, and in the eyes of monotheistic, triumphalist zealots primarily, for numerous others, especially those who've escaped such pious power structures, the term is a beautiful and positive one, a synonym for freedom. Apostates -- or freedom-lovers, if you will -- exist the world over and have since the beginning of pseudo-spiritual, mind-controlling belief systems. Such admirable, independent-minded escapees come from various backgrounds but tend mostly to have their origins in the controlling Abrahamic theocracies and their cult-like splinter groups. Apostasy is an excellent, well-made indie film written and directed by a former Jehovah's Witness, whose insider knowledge and personal experience of what it's like to be a JW adds greatly to the story. Ivanna (Siobhan Finnerman) is a middle-aged single mom and devotee of the sect, with two teenage daughters living at home: Alex (Molly Wright) and Luisa (Sacha Parkinson). As the movie opens we find the girls dressed in their Sunday best and engaged in proselytizing. Both appear to be believing members, just like their serious-minded mother, knocking on doors, out and about in the 'ministerial work' peddling their salvationist literature. The sympathetic character here is Luisa, as will be shown further along as the movie progresses. Lovely and good-natured, our likable heroine longs to be free yet at the same time doesn't want to hurt her mother whom she loves deeply. Apostasy is very well-acted and Sacha Parkinson as Luisa especially turns in an impressive, realistic performance as a young woman who'd rather stay true to herself than live a lie, even if it means having to struggle out in the world -- away from the cozy, close-knit congregation -- as a disbelieving bachelorette, without any financial and emotional support. This she chooses than live under a roof as a fraud and an inmate of sorts. Siobhan Finnerman is also very good in her role as a woman torn between her (unconditional?) love for her 'aberrant' daughter (of whom she is told by the elders she must ostracize) and the clannish organization she's a part of, headed by a few semi-idolized men based out of New York who call themselves the Governing Body. Apostasy is a quiet, captivating and deeply affecting photoplay with emotional depth and complexity. This is drama at its finest and the best film out there that I know of on what it's like to be a 'PIMO' or an outright lapser within this particular faith -- these groupthink sects and opposers of free-thinkers. Highly recommended and, as with all great movies, best watched in a single viewing and without interruption, so as to experience its full filmic impact.
  10. David Icke, is that you? Joking aside, as much as I enjoy and prefer being liked, in the end when it comes to remaining true to myself, I could care less what others here or anywhere else think of me...as well as whether other forum members agree with Icke that we live in a simulation. It is interesting, though, and I do have to ask: Has Icke ever moved on from New Age teachings? After all, this 'All is One' concept is a fundamental doctrine of the NAM (New Age Movement). More commonly known as monism, it is found in numerous NAM writings, including those of Theosophist Alice Bailey and New Ager Neale Donald Walsch. Walsch, via his alleged spirit guide (whose name, by the way, was not 'Master Rakorski') also preaches that there is no such thing as death and that everything we see is an illusion. As far as gatekeeping is concerned, a gatekeeper is someone who consciously seeks to conceal truth from others. All I'm doing is freely expressing my thoughts as an intellectual dissident at times, or simply putting forth questions in the spirit of a Devil's Advocate, as one who is not dogmatic when it comes to metaphysical issues. (Sheesh, and here I thought the religious faith I was raised into was triumphalist!) David Icke has been called many smears, as was Christ. Was it not the Pharisees who wickedly accused Christ of being in league with Satan? Everyone's entitled to their opinion of a person, but it says a lot about what type of person one is when they're so quick to brand someone something he's entirely not and opposed to himself simply for disagreeing with them. (For anyone interested in hearing it directly from me what I think of David Icke, I refer them to the third post I made in the thread I started titled, "Christian Zionism.") Furthermore, this poster ought to know since s/he has read the "Christian Zionism" thread, that I state there right from the outset of my being a non-Christian, so how can it be that I consider Yahweh or Christ my god? Far from me having a closed mind, I at least have a mind open enough to consider other possibilities and to entertain other points of view that may even conflict with my own, in the manner of a truth-seeking critical thinker. The concept of there existing a Demiurge might very well be true, and if it turns out to be, so be it, I would accept that. One will note that I phrased several of my comments in the above post in the form of questions. I remember listening to a David Icke presentation long ago. In it, he spoke of occasionally meeting up with certain Christians along his travels who take offense to what he teaches and who are even quite nasty in their dislike of him. His point being, so you disagree with what he says. Fine. No need for it to create a division. Cheers, mate.
  11. Movie Title: The Man In The Glass Booth Director: Arthur Hiller Released: 1975 Distinguished thespian and ethnic German Maximillian Schell is probably best known for his role in Judgment at Nuremberg (1961), as Hans Rolfe, defense attorney to the Nazis on trial for committing war crimes. As equally impressive as Schell's appearance was in that film was his appearance in this one, this time around playing not a German but a Jew. Meet Arthur Goldman, an opulent Jew who lives high atop his (ivory) tower, in a penthouse suite overlooking New York City. Goldman, as his name suggests, is quite wealthy, and as such can afford to live as a reclusive eccentric prone to bouts of conspiranoia. Despite the widower being opinionated on any number of subjects, the loquacious rambler's pet topic is Jewishness. He loves to talk about his father who was murdered in a concentration camp, and the virtues of being a Jew. But is Arthur Goldman all that he appears? Could this appearing Jew in fact be a crypto-Nazi? To say that Goldman is a psychoanalyst's wet dream come true would be an understatement! AG"s siege mentality, it turns out, was not unwarranted. For no sooner is our balding, bespectacled protagonist kidnapped by Israeli agents (the Mossad) and put on trial as Adolph Dorf, alleged ex-commandant of a Nazi death camp. Maximillian Schell once again turns in a tour de force performance, inhabiting the role of Goldman/Dorf, a Nazi war criminal hiding out in NYC, posing as a financially successful Jew, who doesn't like there being more than one 'about' in the same sentence and who in one scene instructs his manservant to bring him both a coffee and a tea. The last hour, set inside the courtroom, with Goldman/Dorf locked inside a transparent booth for his own protection, is the best. The Man in the Glass Booth, which sparked controversy upon its release, is such a brilliantly acted and well-written story that credit must also be given to Robert Shaw who wrote the absurdist screenplay. This is cinematic theater at its best. After many years, I watched it again the other night.
  12. I finished perusing The Trap and I must say I most enjoyed reading all the personal material that it contains -- the related early-childhood memories, the anecdotes, and the pictures of Icke when he was young. Who knew our beloved septuagenarian likes to watch cinematic weepies? Also of surprise to me was learning of Icke's love of privacy and solitude, considering his being a public figure and all and seeming to enjoy the publicity that comes with it. There's a picture of Icke in The Trap as an infant, staring at the camera with an expression on his face as if to suggest, alternately, a feeling of being uncomfortable with being photographed, accompanied by a precocious, innate sense of what kind of world he has been born into. This image (Figure 2) reminded me of how I also looked at this age. I recall a picture of me taken by parents when I was four or five, clad in my Sunday best and looking every bit uneasy and forlorn even though I had wonderful parents who loved me more than anything. I think my soul, even at that tender age, knew what it was in for and, like Icke, I too was a shrinking violet all through most of my grade-school years. Which is all a way of saying, it was kind of interesting to see a lot of myself in the younger Icke. Icke writes of a life-long sense of being metaphysically watched over, or guided, and I think we all are to one degree or another; it's only that some of us are more conscious of our 'guardian angel' (for lack of a better term) than are most people; the more oblivious of these being especially those given to the belief in self-determination. (This has not been my own experience and is where Icke's message and I divaricate.) 'Tis must be why I've never once in my life felt alone, and as such have never understood it when others speak of loneliness, being this Presence, as I shall call it, has been with me for as long as I can remember, and likely always will. In The Trap, a comment is made in passing, to the effect that more and more people are starting to awaken and to come out from the mass trance-like state that has been imposed upon them. This may be true, but I don't think it'll ever be enough to turn the tide. I say this not pessimistically, but as a self-perceived realist. The sad fact is, the average citizen continues to sleepwalk in lockstep to the hypnotic beat of the masters' drum. The QAnon crowd also envision a 'Great Awakening' as did the '2012' enthusiasts. This warm-and-fuzzy and dare I say unrealistic notion of a paradigm shift in human consciousness to one of mass enlightenment has its roots, partially, in New Age idealism. Barbara Marx Hubbard, one of the pioneers of the movement, as just one example, titled one of her writings, "Conscious Evolution: Awakening the Power of Our Social Potential." Interestingly, Ms. Hubbard also likened the material world to a prison of sorts and spoke of the illusion of separation; things which Icke speaks of as well. As much as I enjoyed The Trap, I must add that, for me, Icke is at his strongest when he sticks to the geopolitical sphere and the five-sense conspiratorial world. I understand that his message extends far beyond this, into what might be called alternative spirituality, but as I grow older and learn ever more to appreciate nature and the miracle of being human, I find myself asking: Is materiality really so base? Is the psychic and the spiritual necessarily 'higher' than the physical? What is, say, monopsychism compared to the beauty of a garden park, or the pleasure derived from an ecstatic lay? Is materiality in and of itself a prison, as the Gnostics of yore would have us believe, or does the problem simply lie with our outlook on it? This idea that matter is 'bad' and spirit (consciousness) is 'good' has its origins at least as far back as Plato, if not farther. Does this world really belong to some Demiurge? There is so much beauty here to be seen and experienced by those who see life's chalice as half-full. What is wanting to 'transcend' the human experience by spiritual means than just another form of transhumanism? Personally, were it not for all the scumbags and their parasitic overlords ruling and ruining this lovely earth of ours, I for one would love to return to this world to live again, as life on earth was perhaps meant to be lived, free of these negative forces. That's the small Bible-student in me speaking, but I do think I'd prefer resurrection to escaping the space-time matrix...for what...? I myself have never longed to be God or like God or 'a' god. Furthermore, would existing in an immaterial state possessing infinite consciousness really be such a good thing, anyway? To me the prospect of this doesn't sound all that appealing. Spiritualist doctrine also considers the human experience enslaving, in its viewing of the human body as an imprisoning obstacle to be overcome by the spirit which longs to be set free, to take flight, echoing once again the dualistic view of early Platonic thought. Yet, if the human being/experience is a miracle and so cosmically precious, then why do so many adhere to a worldview that seeks to 'transcend' this?
  13. Re: Who some think were ultimately responsible for 9/11 (those popular scapegoats of theirs) and why they say they did it... I would like to make a few comments in regard to the treasured conviction held among a number of (mostly UK-based and European) (9/11) researchers and their impressionable, rabid, vocal followers, who seem to derive tremendous satisfaction from zeroing in on this one particular, arguably speculative, motive behind 9/11 which they love the best and that keeps them ranting and raving endlessly like good little malleable mouthpieces on the front lines of this diabolically lop-sided information war. Although I do not discount this possibility entirely, my own feeling is that too much focus has been put on it, to the point that it causes some to see only what they want to see at the expense of failing to notice (either unwittingly or deliberately) a Trojan-horse after much territory itself. Buraq whinnies, yet how many of us are awake to the steaming manure? One thing I've noticed in the course of my studies is that when it comes to 9/11, it's often been the case of anti-Israel intellectuals co-opting this tragic event in order to suit and promote their own ideological agendas. On one level, these mostly (far)leftist academics and revisionist historians pretty much all seem to share the idea of a global Jewish conspiracy (including the belief that 9/11 was orchestrated by Jewish masterminds), or strictly are opposed to the state of Israel. However, in their response to 9/11, these crafty devils often begin by posing to their readers their much-loved 'rhetorical' question along the lines of, Why do they [meaning the Arab world/Muslims] hate the United States so much that they would want to attack it? They ask this as if they sincerely believe this themselves when in fact they raise this question only as a means of leading into an often lengthy diatribe in which their own anti-American biases are clearly made evident. While they themselves do not believe the perps to have been Islamists (or if one or two of them do, they simply glaze over it and treat it as a triviality), they respond to the question which they've raised as a pretext by commenting that the motives for the attacks were in response to imperialist U.S. foreign policy, without ever acknowledging that much if not most U.S. imperialism that has affected Middle Eastern countries negatively, has been caused by rogue factions within the U.S. of whom it could be effectively argued are anti-American themselves, or who at the very least are not representative of the American people (i.e. the U.S.). It's always made me wonder, are these intellectuals (in and outside of discussing 9/11) so apologetic of Islamism that they couldn't give a damn about western freedom? Conveniently, these ones never seem to question why in recent decades there has been such a steady stream of Muslims fleeing their native lands for western parts from countries whose human rights records and totalitarian laws make places such as the U.S. seem like heaven. Not to excuse the actions of the rogue imperialist factions operating within the U.S., but want to talk imperialism and expansionism, there's been no greater example of this within the last 1400 years than the Islamic Empire. This is still going on today, although not as militantly as in the past, but primarily via stealth jihad.
  14. Note: I didn't know exactly which thread of the two opposing camps to place this under so I contacted a moderator for advice. Although it was suggested that I could post my question in both of these threads, I've decided on this one only, since I kind of would like to get the flat-earthers input on the question I have more than anyone else on the forum. Q: What to make of these portable devices called gravimeters? These are said to measure the gravitational pull on earth and hardened skeptics of the flat-earth theory often use this as a talking point in their attempts to debunk the theory. I pose this question as one with one leg on a plane and the other on a planet, which is another way of saying, on this particular issue I'm a theory-straddler, as I don't adamantly defend/oppose either model and am merely wanting to learn more and to get the flat-earthers' take on this.
  15. I simply couldn't let some of the comments you make go unanswered. Clearly, you have a distorted impression of Pawson and where he's coming from. Secondly, I have the utmost respect for David Icke and his life's work fighting for freedom, even though I disagree (perhaps emphatically) with his opinion of Christian Zionism as he has understood it to be. I don't consider that a reason for me to go asking for divine forgiveness. As memory serves, I've heard Icke express more than once how he's not out to have us all think like cult members. 'Take it or leave it' has been his attitude with regard to the information he presents. Does Icke think himself omniscient? That I don't know and shall remain in doubt about. For the record, I've defended Icke's work countless times when speaking to ones in person, and in print, and have even encouraged others to read The Trigger even though I do not agree with some of its conclusions. Before attacking the messenger (in this case Pawson's character) in kneejerk fashion (as many critics do Icke, who quickly write him off using any number of smears) all I've done is encourage readers to go check out Pawson's material for themselves. Whether one accepts everything he says is left up to each individual to decide. In defense of Pawson, as one familiar with his work, I would say he spoke the truth as he read it to be from Scripture, mildly and lovingly yet always uncompromisingly, to the point that some of his honest-hearted and more 'controversial' Bible-based sermons/stances sometimes ruffled the feathers of even those among the faithful. (Take Hell. Pawson freely admitted he never liked teaching it but went about teaching it anyway, so true he was in wanting to keep to what he understood the Bible to teach.) Pawson described himself as an 'unorthodox evangelical' and his published memoirs (Not As Bad As The Truth) shows the likable man behind the likable minister.
×
×
  • Create New...