It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Masonic Light
I agree. Hall did not invent the Bacon-Shakespeare myth, but was taken in by it, as other non-elitists have been (same as many poor folks buy into capitalism and anti-socialism).
www.britannica.com
...the English philosopher Bertrand Russell noted, ironically, that Marx adapted the Jewish messianic pattern of history to socialism...
Klipoth 7: Saturn
...A theory that destroys Divinity is a crime against nature. Marx did that consciously because he is awakened; he is a Black Master, of the Black Lodge. He knew what he was making, even though he didn't believe in it. In the first congress that they had, Karl Marx stood up and said: "I am not Marxist." Everyone complained, asking why he was saying this if he was the creator of Marxism, and he said, "I am not Marxist, I am not Marxist." Three times in all.
And from that gathering that they had, Marxism split into many sects, Bolshevism etc. and many other sects of communism.
But he didn't believe in it, because he knew that it was just gibberish that he created. Karl Marx is just a disciple of the Black Lodge that is fighting in order to conquer the world.
The dialectic of Marxism is just plagiarism - the real dialectic was created by Hegel. Marx took that dialectic, and anything that was too spiritual he took it out, and made his dialectic. It does not resist a deep analysis, but a lot of people think it is the way.
Lenin is asleep.
Marx was a Rabbi - some Black Magicians who follow the Demon Javhe want to establish the religion of Moses by force, and support anybody who criticizes, is violent against, other religions. There are many fanatics who talk against other religions.
There is no legitimate evidence that Bacon wrote any Shakespeare plays for him. In reality, it would have been impossible. Shakespeare's work required a full-time writer, and quite simply, there's no way Bacon would have the time even if he had wanted to. Also, Bacon's writings lack the pure pure poetic genius needed. Simply put, Bacon was interesting writer, but he was no Shakespeare.
Originally posted by buddhaLight
one word.. Confusion!
Originally posted by Tamahu
Well I don't think he would have been so easily taken in, if there were no very-good reasons for believing the "myth".
We need to be much more worried about Karl Marx than we do Francis Bacon:
But he didn't believe in it, because he knew that it was just gibberish that he created.
The dialectic of Marxism is just plagiarism - the real dialectic was created by Hegel. Marx took that dialectic, and anything that was too spiritual he took it out, and made his dialectic. It does not resist a deep analysis, but a lot of people think it is the way.
Marx was a Rabbi -.
Perhaps Hegel's philosophy might contain positive applications of socialism?
Originally posted by Masonic Light
That isn't correct. To begin with, Marxian formula certainly isn't gibberish. It is a unified scientific theory of economics.
Gnosis: The Science of Mysticism
"There is an incontrovertible mass of evidence indicating the existence of initiated philosophers possessing a superior knowledge of divine and natural laws. There is also sufficient proof that these initiates were the agents of a World Fraternity or Brotherhood of Adepts that has existed from the most remote time. This overfraternity has been called the Philosophic Empire, the Great School, the College of the Holy Spirit, and the Invisible Government of the World. References to this sovereign body of "the ancient ones of the earth" occur in the sacred writings, the philosophical literature, and the mystical traditions of all races and nations of mankind.
"…[we] have referred to the stream of the secret doctrine as Humanism.
The term is not used in its popular sense, but to describe the grand program of the Mystery Schools for the emancipation of man from bondage to ignorance, superstition, and Fear.
But personally, I think Plato had the right idea, at least if you actually want a perfectly "just" society.
Originally posted by Tamahu
It is "gibberish" in the sense that it is not useful for the positive developement of Humanity.
It appears to be positive(because it does contain some positive aspects of socialism); but in the end, it is just another scheme to put power into the hands of the few, while appearing to be beneficial for the whole.
Where is the "socialism" in the brutal, oppressive, tyrannical communist dictatorships?
Atheistic "Humanism" is absolutely worthless; because without INRI, Nous, the Divinity, we are nothing more than "Empty Shells".