On the Kabbalah. On Esoteric “Secrets.” A Luciferian Perspective. On the Prophet of the New Aeon

reply to post by Lucifer777

Too bad you preach all this under this name, LUCIFER, or perhaps it's just your answer to attack people that are Christians, is that what the name is for ? as an opposing side ?

Who is this Lucifer ?

Lucifer is of course symbolic of that which is known as the Light Bearer, and also Light and Fire.

Christus-Lucifer is the Ain Soph Aur from which the Triune Sephirothic Crown (the Logos) emerges, whereas Lucifer is the shadow of the Logos/the Christ.

Lucifer (the sexual impulse, of which is the "origin of Beasts, Men, and Gods") becomes Satan within any Human Elemental and/or any Bodhisattva of a God who allows themselves to fall.

Lucifer as Satan is the psychological trainer, adversary, and tempter of the fallen ones.

As an analogy imagine having a martial arts Sensei, during sparring who, even though he does not go easy on us by any means, deep down wants us to defeat him so that we can be worthy of becoming a Sensei ourselves.

So when we defeat Satan, Lucifer becomes once again the Brightest Angel in Heaven.

Although not a perfect explanation of Lucifer, this is how I understand it thus far.

Jahve/Javhe

"Lucifer and Jahve are not the same.

"Jahve has no interest in our betterment.

"Lucifer is Prometheus, who gives the illumination to Man (manas = mind)."

It is taught that Luci - Fer is the only aspect of God who mixes with the ego (the pluralized ego, the "I's", "me", or "myself" is symbolized by Set or Satan).


Lucifer is also said to be the name of a particular Monad whose Bodhisattva or Human Soul fell at some point:

War in Heaven

"The horns of every black magician are certainly the mark of the beast.

"These horns belong to the Guardian of the Threshold, who becomes the superior “I” of the black magician.

"Ariman, a great black hierarch, wears a red turban and is chief of enormous legions.

"Lucifer was the greatest black Initiate from the Lunar epoch; his legions are numerous.

"All of these millions of demons remained in the environment of our Earth.

"They dedicated themselves to placing all of the human souls on the way of the black path."

– Samael Aun Weor

On "777" see the links to the following forum threads:

Chakra Meditation and the Middle Pillar (Golden Dawn)

"777 is the official number of the Black Lodge, since 7 + 7 + 7 = 21: The Fool."

"Crowley converted himself into a fool through fornication and many other negative practices which he teaches in his books, which is why we at Glorian do not support or proliferate his teachings.

"This does not mean to burn his books. To truly burn a book means to consume it through the fire of comprehension, to know its inherent value: whether positive, in service of the divine, or negative, in service to the ego, as evidenced by Crowley's Thelemite maxim: "Do what thou wilt, that shalt be the whole of the law!"

"However, this does not mean we willingly consume garbage. To clarify Universal Gnosticism, the motto of the Gnostics who practice the three factors for positive spiritual revolution states:

"Do what thou wilt, but know that thou wilt have to answer to the Law (of Karma) for all thy deeds!"

Here are some particularly lucid and pithy explanations of Lucifer:

Post: Lucifer vs. Satan

Another Post: Lucifer vs. Satan

reply to post by Tamahu

Some insist the name is an error to the translation of the Bible to latin, never the less it does mean the shining one, similar to the fiery cherubium that was kicked out of paradise/heaven with the fallen angels , a sort of angel that was very very shinny.

Lucifer, the name Lucifer from what I know only appears once in the bible.
Some stipulate it's a refrence to planet Venus, or to a red dwarf star, some even go further and say lucifer, the light bringer and Jesus are one and the same, one thing is for sure they are bolth on the light side meaning "knowlege"

"Lucifer is Prometheus, who gives the illumination to Man (manas = mind)."

It would match the story of Zeus with the blacket also, "let me bring them something to worm up, NO leave them as they are." But it does not match the story from the bible, if Lucifer is Satan from the bible then it does not match with Prometheus, while Prometheus wanted to help man kind we see jealousy against man kind in the other story, but there is the story with the tree of life that is similar in aspect with Prometheus, the apple or the tourch are one in the same but told as two stories apart with different symbols maybe.

Seems that the snake from the garden is different from the fallen ones that have rebeled and fallen fallen from heaven, but then again maybe the snake has done it to get back at it's master for revenge. We know the snake may make refrence to some kind of beings, serpent people, not necesary snakes that crawl on the ground.

Originally posted by Tamahu

Here are some particularly lucid and pithy explanations of Lucifer:

Post: Lucifer vs. Satan

Another Post: Lucifer vs. Satan

edit on 2-4-2011 by Tamahu because: edited links

Lucifer

By Lucifer


Lucifer in the Roman Pantheon

It needs to be understood that the Romans had a vast pantheon of deities. www.unrv.com... for example lists the numerous major and minor deities, deities adopted from other cultures (primarily from the Greeks), and imperial deities who were Emperors who were deified.

In addition to this, there are the later Roman Catholic saints and angels, and there are so many of these that it is impossible to say exactly how many there are. In addition to this the Roman Emperors, such as Constantine, who was the high priest of the sun cult (Sol Invictus: Sun unconquered), often served a dual role as head of state and as Pontifex Maximus (High Priest / Pope) of the Roman cult, and such Emperors were also commonly worshipped as gods. Then in addition to all gods, we have to consider also Roman demonology ( see www.deliriumsrealm.com... for example.

When one ploughs through the lists of gods, angels, demons and deified persons (saints and Emperors), one soon realises that a list of such figures would run into 1000's of different archetypal figures, around all of which there are invented myths, and it is one of such archetypes, Lucifer, a god of love, whom the Christians seem to hate the most; and this is unsurpising that the devotees of a hateful human-hating deity would choose a god of love to villify.

Venus and Lucifer

In many cultures, such as the Egyptian, Greek and Hindu cultures, deities usually always came in male and female pairs. Lucifer is a relatively minor Roman deity, and in the Roman pantheon, he was the male companion to the major Roman Love goddess, Venus. I think that what occurred was that the Christians merely sought to demonise the Roman god and goddess of love, and replace such archetypes with the more sexually repressed archetype of Jesus and the Virgin Mary.

Venus of course was generally an archetype associated with female sexuality, much like the Thelemic goddess Babalon; whereas the Virgin Mary is quite the opposite of this, she represents a sexually repressed women associated with both celibacy and with the faithful "wife (i.e., a monogamous sex slave)" and mother.

The belief that the Christian god (i.e., Jesus) impregnated his mother to give birth to himself is not generally associated with sex; and that Mary also allegedly became married and gave birth to other children, is generally not considered in the cult of the worship of the Holy Virgin. Thus essentially what we have is the replacement of a highly sexualised deity, Venus, with a sexually repressed and even celibate female deity, whose priestesses (i.e., nuns) revere celibacy as the most sacred lifestyle, not human erotic freedom, but erotic repression. Human sexuality has come to be thought of as the most “ungodly” and even “unnatural” aspect of human experience, and all relationships other than the relationship between a Master and his monogamous sex slave (i.e., his wife) have been considered sinful by the fanatics of the human hating demon referred to as “God.”

Lucifer in the Bible.

The Greek and Hebrew texts of the Bible do not mention the deity Lucifer; however with the translation of the Bible into the Latin (i.e., the Vulgate), references of the Roman god of love, were simply inserted into the text by the translators (commonly attributed to Jerome). A credible reason may have been an attempt to demonise the Roman god of love, such as in the Isaiah 14 passage; however even the original Hebrew does refer to the "Morning Star" but this was not equated with "Lucifer" in the Hebrew; it was merely an association which the Italians would make.

"How you have fallen from heaven,
morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!
You said in your heart,
“I will ascend to the heavens;
I will raise my throne
above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon.
I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High.”
But you are brought down to the realm of the dead,
to the depths of the pit.

“Morning Star, Son of the Dawn,” is a translation of Helel Ben-Shachar, which was translated into Latin as "lucifer qui mane oriebaris (see en.wikipedia.org... )," and the myth of Lucifer as a "fallen angels" seems to have developed out of this; thus the Babylonian King of Isaiah became the deity / god / angel Lucifer who became Satan, the embodiment of all evil to the men of God

Satan

Like almost all languages, Hebrew is a syncretic (a mixture of various sources) language and contains Egyptian words and roots of words, which is entirely unsurprising given the predominence and power of the Egyptian culture for many centuries long before Rome rose to prominence. Since the ports of the Mediterranean Sea allowed a common market for the exchange of goods between Africa, the Near Eeast and Southern Europe, it is unsurprising that the deities and languages of the region intermingled. The similarities between the Biblical Satan, the Egyptian Set and the Roman Saturnus are similarly sunsuprising.

Saturnus of course, like all astrological archetypes has both malevolent and benevolent qualities, and we would not refer to a person born when the sun is in Capricorn (ruled by Saturn) as “evil,” simply because they were born around the time of the winter solstice where the Son both died and was born again. Never the less, the belief that human beings are guided by “familiars” or “guardian angels” or “demons” is an ancient belief common to many cultures, and to the Christians it became “Satan” who was chosen as the chief of demons, and the human hating Bronze Age tribal diety of the ancient Israelites as a representation of all that was good, and the enemies of the faith were demonised as “Satanists.” This is probably partly due to the translation of the Hebrew Satan in the Greek Septuagint as “diablos;” thus Lucifer, Satan and the english “Devil (O.E. “deofol;” i.e., an evil spirit) have become entwined.

Christ as Lucifer

Then of course we have to consider other factors such as the representation of Christ as Lucifer in Roman liturgy such as Flammas eius lucifer matutinus inveniat: ille, inquam, lucifer, qui nescit occasum, Christus Filius tuus qui (see en.wikipedia.orgen.wikipedia.org... ), and as the “Bright Morning Star” in Revelations 22.16. Thus we find both the demonisation of the Roman love god Lucifer "and" the identification of Christ as Lucifer. However if one is attempting to make sense of the numerous contradictory beliefs of Christianity, one is on a lost cause, since the religious fanatic is always comfortable with holding two contradictory views at the same time, and human reason becomes redundant when attempting to explain the irrationality of the ramblings of theologians.

The Development of Myth

So, to the later "myth" of Lucifer who allegedly rebelled against God and “fell from heaven,” well let's face it, "all" the various Roman gods, goddesses, angels and astrological archetypes are human inventions, myths that have developed over time. Similarly with the 78 archetypes of the Tarot or the 33 aspects of the Tree of Life or the 64 hexagrams of the I Ching; this is not to say that such archetypal persons and experiences being represented are meaningless, but merely that they are human inventions.

The identification of Lucifer with both “Satan” and the Promethian archetype may be a human invention, and we could even say a "fabrication," but never the less this would be true for all the gods, angels and demons. In the myths of the gods and goddesses of the ancient world they were often portrayed in highly sexual ways; they could commit murder, incest, rape, engage in war, plant crops etc. Similarly with the Biblical god, who walked around his garden (of Eden), he was jealous, angry, hateful, vengeful, and he demanded war against the devotees of all competing deities; he also despised human freedom, especially sexual freedom, especially for females, and he permitted enslavement and sexual enslavement; he eventually impregnated his mother (the mother of God) in order to give birth to himself, to live as a human and to eventually offer himself as a human sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins (unlawful acts; essentially disobedience to the primitive and genocidal Mosaic Law).

Lucifer in the post-Enlightenment Age. The Rebellion against God.

By the Enlightenment I refer to the Age of Science and Reason which is essentially the period we are living in now and which began around the 17th to 18th centuries.

As Martin Luther argued, human reason, is of course the enemy of faith; this is not to say of course that the religious fanatic cannot utilise reason in order to explain why God had to impregnate his mother, in order to give birth to himself, or to explain why there are both three separate persons but only One God, or to explain the hundreds of contradictions of the Bible, however one must firstly deny the highest authority of human reason and begin with faith; human reason is of course the enemy of blind faith.

In a modern secular education we are taught to constructively criticise, and "critical thinking," questioning and enquiring is rewarded, whereas the unquestioning, uncritical, accepting mind is scolded and demeaned, and this is as it should be.

Thus "Lucifer," despite being a fabricated myth, is still a useful archetype representing rebellion against God, the rebellion of human reason against the stupidity of blind faith. Nietzsche's proclamations that he had killed God and that human history should begin again with his publication of the Antichrist should not be taken literally, but neither are such proclamations meaningless; Nietzsche was of course not referring to "God" as an existent being but to the "God" who was an anthropomorphic projection of religions fanatics who were the enemies of human reason.

Enlightenment and Doublespeak.

It was to the eminent saint and martyr Promethius whom Marx dedicated his PhD thesis (in philosophy). The sin of Prometheus was his love for humankind and his hatred of the gods, whom he rebelled against, and even when tortured endlessly for his crime, cried out that he would rather remain chained to his rock and to have eagles devour his liver than to worship an evil god. When dissecting the myth of Prometheus, one of course is merely dissecting a human invention based upon a human archeytpe. “Stealing fire from the gods” is of course now a common metaphor, however, the “Enlightenment” of humankind is unfortunately a term of doublespeak often used by religious fanatics, New Age cultists and the human-nature-hating Gnostics to refer to quite the opposite process of an “education;” it has come to refer to a process of dumbing down, the suspension of human reason and the term “Enlightened” has come to be used to refer to the state of mind of a person who is suffering from the effects of religious schizophrenia and who has a fear and loathing of human nature.

Revolution against God and against the “men of God.”

Lucifer and Luciferians (i.e., humanists) can proudly proclaim intellectual and moral victory over the numerous proponents of "slave morality" religion, and the vile and abominable ramblings of theologians and their evil human-hating God, however this moral and intellectual superiority has yet to be translated into an "actual" victory over the enemies of humankind who are the "men of God (i.e., the priesthood, clergy and the evangelists of transcendental evil)," for there are still hundreds of millions of religious fanatics in the world who spread their vile indoctrination and hypnosis like a deadly plague infecting the lives of our human companions with misery, slavery, self-hatred, the hatred of others and the hatred of human nature in general.

The philosophical humanist or “Luciferian” archetypal person is generally a person who loves humankind and who despises God. The love of man (and woman) is a far, far greater power than the love of the diabolical transcendental human hating demon whom the fanatics refer to as God. In time, in a future world, the power of human love shall and must prevail over the hatred of the priesthood of God, but since the fanatics of religion are apocalyptic, genocidal and entirely militant, the blood sacrifice of martyrs, tyrants and the priesthood and fanatics of religion (the “men of god”) shall inevitable be required.

“Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.” …...Diderot.

Unfortunately it is not merely the professional priesthood who are the problem, but also their millions of victims who are suffering from the effects of religious hypnosis and indoctrination. One may be tempted to feel as sorry for such victims, just as one might feel sorry for a child raised in a Nazi orphanage who considered his Fuhrer to be embodiment of human goodness, however such sympathy and compassion are not useful. One cannot wage war against a merciless and demonic opponent with mercy and compassion. The idea of “loving one's enemies” is totally ridiculous, and it is simply not in accord with human nature, nor does it it fit well with the history of Christian tyranny, slavery, war, genocides and Inquistions. “Loving one's enemies” in Christian doublespeak can just as easily mean killing them or shelling them with depleted uranium.

The Return to Year Zero.

The Christians await the day when their world saviour will appear; an alleged fascist global military dictator who will allegedly genocidally eradicate the non believers and his enemies, and restart human history. Similarly the humanists who are the militant enemies of God may well have to respond in a similar genocidal fashion. The establishment of a New Heaven and a New Earth is dependent on the eradication of religious fanaticism, and the creation of a totally humanist and Socialist world where the ideals of the Enlightenment are manifested; this is the purpose of Luciferian revolution whose Revolutionary Vanguard includes the Communists, Anarchists, Socialists, humanists, atheists and certain facets of the New Age / Neopagan movement. .

The 1000 Year Revolution of Light has only just begun and will require rivers of blood and human sacrifice to fully establish, and perhaps most importantly of all, the total eradication of the fanatics of organised religion and of transcendental hatred.

Lucifer
No mercy on they who deserve none.

THE ANTICHRIST (Extracts]

Friedrich Nietzsche (1895)

www.fns.org.uk...

So long as the priest, that professional denier, calumniator and poisoner of life, is accepted as a higher variety of man, there can be no answer to the question, What is truth? Truth has already been stood on its head when the obvious attorney of mere emptiness is mistaken for its representative.

Upon this theological instinct I make war: I find the tracks of it everywhere. Whoever has theological blood in his veins is shifty and dishonourable in all things. The pathetic thing that grows out of this condition is called faith: in other words, closing one's eyes upon one's self once for all, to avoid suffering the sight of incurable falsehood. People erect a concept of morality, of virtue, of holiness upon this false view of all things; they ground good conscience upon faulty vision; they argue that no other sort of vision has value any more, once they have made theirs sacrosanct with the names of "God," "salvation" and "eternity." I unearth this theological instinct in all directions: it is the most widespread and the most subterranean form of falsehood to be found on earth. Whatever a theologian regards as true must be false: there you have almost a criterion of truth. His profound instinct of self-preservation stands against truth ever coming into honour in any way, or even getting stated. Wherever the influence of theologians is felt there is a transvaluation of values, and the concepts "true" and "false" are forced to change places: what ever is most damaging to life is there called "true," and whatever exalts it, intensifies it, approves it, justifies it and makes it triumphant is there called "false."...

Let us not under-estimate this fact: that we ourselves, we free spirits, are already a "transvaluation of all values," a visualized declaration of war and victory against all the old concepts of "true" and "not true." The most valuable intuitions are the last to be attained; the most valuable of all are those which determine methods. All the methods, all the principles of the scientific spirit of today, were the targets for thousands of years of the most profound contempt; if a man inclined to them he was excluded from the society of "decent" people--he passed as "an enemy of God," as a scoffer at the truth, as one "possessed."....

The Christian concept of a god--the god as the patron of the sick, the god as a spinner of cobwebs, the god as a spirit--is one of the most corrupt concepts that has ever been set up in the world: it probably touches low-water mark in the ebbing evolution of the god-type. God degenerated into the contradiction of life. Instead of being its transfiguration and eternal Yea! In him war is declared on life, on nature, on the will to live! God becomes the formula for every slander upon the "here and now," and for every lie about the "beyond"! In him nothingness is deified, and the will to nothingness is made holy! . . .

The priest depreciates and desecrates nature: it is only at this price that he can exist at all.--Disobedience to God, which actually means to the priest, to "the law," now gets the name of "sin"; the means prescribed for "reconciliation with God" are, of course, precisely the means which bring one most effectively under the thumb of the priest; he alone can "save". Psychologically considered, "sins" are indispensable to every society organized on an ecclesiastical basis; they are the only reliable weapons of power; the priest lives upon sins; it is necessary to him that there be "sinning". . . . Prime axiom: "God forgiveth him that repenteth"--in plain English, him that submitteth to the priest.
..

Christianity also stands in opposition to all intellectual well-being,--sick reasoning is the only sort that it can use as Christian reasoning; it takes the side of everything that is idiotic; it pronounces a curse upon "intellect," upon the superbia of the healthy intellect...

"Faith" means the will to avoid knowing what is true. The pietist, the priest of either sex, is a fraud because he is sick: his instinct demands that the truth shall never be allowed its rights on any point. "Whatever makes for illness is good; whatever issues from abundance, from super-abundance, from power, is evil": so argues the believer. The impulse to lie--it is by this that I recognize every foreordained theologian.....

With this I come to a conclusion and pronounce my judgment. I condemn Christianity; I bring against the Christian church the most terrible of all the accusations that an accuser has ever had in his mouth. It is, to me, the greatest of all imaginable corruptions; it seeks to work the ultimate corruption, the worst possible corruption. The Christian church has left nothing untouched by its depravity; it has turned every value into worthlessness, and every truth into a lie, and every integrity into baseness of soul.....

To breed out of humanitas a self-contradiction, an art of self-pollution, a will to lie at any price, an aversion and contempt for all good and honest instincts! All this, to me, is the "humanitarianism" of Christianity!--Parasitism as the only practice of the church; with its anaemic and "holy" ideals, sucking all the blood, all the love, all the hope out of life; the beyond as the will to deny all reality; the cross as the distinguishing mark of the most subterranean conspiracy ever heard of,--against health, beauty, well-being, intellect, kindness of soul--against life itself. . . .

This eternal accusation against Christianity I shall write upon all walls, wherever walls are to be found--I have letters that even the blind will be able to see. . . . I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are venomous enough, or secret, subterranean and small enough,--I call it the one immortal blemish upon the human race. . . .

__________________

Originally posted by Tamahu

Christus-Lucifer is the Ain Soph Aur from which the Triune Sephirothic Crown (the Logos) emerges, whereas Lucifer is the shadow of the Logos/the Christ.

Lucifer (the sexual impulse, of which is the "origin of Beasts, Men, and Gods") becomes Satan within any Human Elemental and/or any Bodhisattva of a God who allows themselves to fall.

Lucifer as Satan is the psychological trainer, adversary, and tempter of the fallen ones.

As an analogy imagine having a martial arts Sensei, during sparring who, even though he does not go easy on us by any means, deep down wants us to defeat him so that we can be worthy of becoming a Sensei ourselves.

So when we defeat Satan, Lucifer becomes once again the Brightest Angel in Heaven.

I have got around to trying to read my way through the works of Samael Aun Weor and I can see where you get your habit of speaking in verbal diarrhea, religious sophistry and your hatred of human nature from. Rarely have I ever read to much rubbish as the writings of Weor; his metaphysical ramblings are painful and embarrasing to read. He seems to represent the worst and most hideous type of human-nature-hating "Gnostic" of the New Age. However I think it better that rather than merely responding to his nonsense with a few paragraphs, that he deserves a more lengthy critic, which I intend to put my mind to when I have time.

Unfortunately part of the problem of the New Age, is that with the decline of Christianity there are numerous New Religious Movement gurus who have attempted to modernise and "upgrade" the conception of a human-nature-hating deity and "slave morality," rather than merely abandoning such a demon and abandoning slave morality.

"777 is the official number of the Black Lodge, since 7 + 7 + 7 = 21: The Fool."

The Angel with the Flaming Sword

777 has nothing to do with 7+7+ 7, it refers to seven "hundred" and seventy seven, which is a number Crowley reached by adding up the numerical values of Hebrew letters representing the "Flaming Sword." of the Tree of Life

In achieving a value of 777 for the paths of the Flaming Sword, Crowley added the numerical values of the Hebrew letters -- he did not work with the actual numbers of the paths themselves. I hope this is clear.

So the actual equation Crowley worked with is as follows:

Path 11, letter Aleph, value 1
Path 14, letter Daleth, value 4
[no path], letter Gimel, value 3
Path 19, letter Teth, value 9
Path 22, letter Lamed, value 30
Path 24, letter Nun, value 50
Path 27, letter Peh, value 80
Path 30, letter Resh, value 200
Path 32, letter Tau, value 400

This is the Way of the Lightning down the Tree of Life, also known as the Flaming Sword. If you add the number values together, you get:

400+200+80+50+30+9+3+4+1 = 777

source

I have no idea why anyone would attribute "The Fool" to 21 since it is the first path on the tree and generally assigned to zero whereas 21 is the final destination of the fool, "The Universe" in the Thoth system, but as we are merely speaking of a system of human archetypes and experience, people tend to just make things up as they go along and it is pointless to argue.

Lux

“Morning Star, Son of the Dawn,” is a translation of Helel Ben-Shachar, which was translated into Latin as "lucifer qui mane oriebaris (see en.wikipedia.org... )," and the myth of Lucifer as a "fallen angels" seems to have developed out of this; thus the Babylonian King of Isaiah became the deity / god / angel Lucifer who became Satan, the embodiment of all evil to the men of God

I'm sorry but Helel is the character that saw to overthrow the chief god, to climb the mountain top and to rebel and gain control by overthrowing the god at the top of the mountain. It's not only in hebrew but in other cultures as well.

In Canaantie or Phoenician mythology about Helel, who is the son of the god Shahar. Helel sought the throne of the chief god and was cast down into the abyss because of this, so you got the translation of the same character. It is the same fallen angel except his name is not helel anymore but
lucifer.

What does the passage in the bible read, it reads a similar story ?
Ohhh lucifer..morning star how have you fallen...and so on.


King of tire was controled by this entity, fallen angel, king of tire was the fallen angel/satan

It's very clear.

Moreover, the word of the LORD came to me "Son of man, raise a lamentation over the king of Tyre, and say to him, Thus says the Lord GOD:

You were the signet of perfection,[a]
(D) full of wisdom and(E) perfect in beauty.
13You were in(F) Eden, the garden of God;
(G) every precious stone was your covering,
(H) sardius, topaz, and diamond,
beryl, onyx, and jasper,
sapphire,(I) emerald, and carbuncle;
and crafted in gold were your settings
and your engravings.[c]
On the day that you were created
they were prepared.
14You were an anointed(J) guardian cherub.
I placed you;[d] you were on(K) the holy mountain of God;
in the midst of the stones of fire you walked.
15You were blameless in your ways
(L) from the day you were created,
till unrighteousness was found in you.
16In the abundance of(M) your trade
you were filled with violence in your midst, and you sinned;
so I cast you as a profane thing from(N) the mountain of God,
and I destroyed you,[e](O) O guardian cherub,
from the midst of the stones of fire.
17(P) Your heart was proud because of(Q) your beauty;
you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor.
I cast you to the ground;
I exposed you before kings,
to feast their eyes on you.
18By the multitude of your iniquities,
in the unrighteousness of your trade
you profaned your sanctuaries;
so(R) I brought fire out from your midst;
it consumed you,
and I turned you to ashes on the earth
(S) in the sight of all who saw you.
19All who know you among the peoples
are appalled at you;
(T) you have come to a dreadful end
and shall be no more forever."

You can see the same character is addressed, the king of tire, and then we find out who the king really is as you can see above, the fallen angel.

It's the same character, king of tire is helel and helel is translated to lucifer.
Helel is translated into "to shine" I think the translation stands correct, lucifer is satan as in the adversary of god as you can see the description of the king of tire, it fits the description correct. Same guy.

Originally posted by pepsi78

“Morning Star, Son of the Dawn,” is a translation of Helel Ben-Shachar, which was translated into Latin as "lucifer qui mane oriebaris (see en.wikipedia.org... )," and the myth of Lucifer as a "fallen angels" seems to have developed out of this; thus the Babylonian King of Isaiah became the deity / god / angel Lucifer who became Satan, the embodiment of all evil to the men of God

I'm sorry but Helel is the character that saw to overthrow the chief god, to climb the mountain top and to rebel and gain control by overthrowing the god at the top of the mountain. It's not only in hebrew but in other cultures as well.

In Canaantie or Phoenician mythology about Helel, who is the son of the god Shahar. Helel sought the throne of the chief god and was cast down into the abyss because of this, so you got the translation of the same character. It is the same fallen angel except his name is not helel anymore but
lucifer.

That is an explanation which has been offered but it is entirely speculative

...it is more probable that this passage is an allusion to a Canaantie or Phoenician myth about how Helel, son of the god Shahar, sought the throne of the chief god and was cast down into the abyss because of this. Evidence for this theory comes from an Ugaritic poem about two divine children, Shachar (dawn) and Shalim (dusk), who were born as the result of the intercourse of the god El with mortal women. That would make El, Elyon, and Shahar members of the Canaanite pantheon and the "mount of meeting" is the abode of the gods, which corresponds to Mount Olympus in Greek mythology.

Unfortunately, this is just speculation as archaeologists have not uncovered any Canaanite sources that describe Helel ben Shahar or a revolt against Elyon.

www.deliriumsrealm.com...

What does the passage in the bible read, it reads a similar story ?
Ohhh lucifer..morning star how have you fallen...and so on.


King of tire was controled by this entity, fallen angel, king of tire was the fallen angel/satan

It's very clear.

Moreover, the word of the LORD came to me "Son of man, raise a lamentation over the king of Tyre, and say to him, Thus says the Lord GOD:

You were the signet of perfection,[a]
(D) full of wisdom and(E) perfect in beauty.
13You were in(F) Eden, the garden of God;
(G) every precious stone was your covering,
(H) sardius, topaz, and diamond,
beryl, onyx, and jasper,
sapphire,(I) emerald, and carbuncle;
and crafted in gold were your settings
and your engravings.[c]
On the day that you were created
they were prepared.
14You were an anointed(J) guardian cherub.
I placed you;[d] you were on(K) the holy mountain of God;
in the midst of the stones of fire you walked.
15You were blameless in your ways
(L) from the day you were created,
till unrighteousness was found in you.
16In the abundance of(M) your trade
you were filled with violence in your midst, and you sinned;
so I cast you as a profane thing from(N) the mountain of God,
and I destroyed you,[e](O) O guardian cherub,
from the midst of the stones of fire.
17(P) Your heart was proud because of(Q) your beauty;
you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor.
I cast you to the ground;
I exposed you before kings,
to feast their eyes on you.
18By the multitude of your iniquities,
in the unrighteousness of your trade
you profaned your sanctuaries;
so(R) I brought fire out from your midst;
it consumed you,
and I turned you to ashes on the earth
(S) in the sight of all who saw you.
19All who know you among the peoples
are appalled at you;
(T) you have come to a dreadful end
and shall be no more forever."

You can see the same character is addressed, the king of tire, and then we find out who the king really is as you can see above, the fallen angel.

It's the same character, king of tire is helel and helel is translated to lucifer.
Helel is translated into "to shine" I think the translation stands correct, lucifer is satan as in the adversary of god as you can see the description of the king of tire, it fits the description correct. Same guy.

Considering that Isaiah is set in the 8th century BC, it seems to be rather speculative to work out what the text really refers to, and let us not forget that we are just speaking of ancient religious ramblings that if we were to imagine in a Monty Python "Life of Brian" type setting, we would probably consider most of the ramblings of the prophets of the ancient world to be ridiculous.

Essentially the theologian firstly starts with some bizzarre metaphysical belief than then "works backwards" attempting to utilise reason, though really it is an offense against human reason; so firstly we start with the "belief" that the Roman deity and "love god" Lucifer is "Satan" and the person referred to as Helel Ben-Shachar and then an entire argument is based around that.; further with your argument above, you "believe" that the King of Tyre is Lucifer, a deity never mentioned in the Bible, but as long as you believe that, it becomes true for you; this is how "faith" based "truth" becomes established, but it is just a doublespeak definition of truth; it is not "truth" at all but merely "belief" which requires the suspension of human reason.

Since the Isaiah passage in question is clearly directed to the KIng of Babylon and begins with "thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say.... " then it has often been stated that Helel Ben-Shachar refers to the KIng of Babylon, though I do concede that this is also speculative.

It is merely because of the insertion of the name "Lucifer" into the Latin text and later in the English 1611 version of the King James Bible that this myth has become popular, however the name Lucifer certainly does not appear in the original.

I suppose ultimately that any of the numerous deities from any of the ancient pantheons are going to be considered to be "demons" by the Christians anyway, and if the Christians have to believe that the gods live on the tops of high mountains or that the gods can impregnate women, or indeed any bizzare myth in order to support their Lucifer myth it is unsurprising that they would take such a position.

With regards to Lucifer being the enemy of the Biblical god; bear in mind that the Biblical god was not a monotheistic deity, but merely a Bronze Age tribal deity of a particular tribe, and "all" other deities were his enemies, as he was a jealous god who demanded the eradication of the adherents of all competing deities; he was just portrayed as a bigger, badder and better deity than his competitors. By the time that Isaiah was written, this the tribal deity was then depicted as the only god, and that there were no other gods, however if you are looking for a lack of contradictions in the Bible, this is a lost cause since it Old Testament is a product of different authors writing in different periods of history, and the New Testament is anyway a 4th century fabrication.

“God (Elohim; plural of El) stands in the congregation of God (El); he judges among the gods (elohim). How long will you judge unjustly, and show partiality to the wicked?….” Psalm 82:1-2, 6-7

“I will praise you, O LORD, with all my heart; before the ‘gods’ I will sing your praise.” Psalm 138:1

It is quite clear that the Israelite tribal deity is depicted as a judge of the other gods; and numerous other passages testify to the fact that the Israelite deity was not the "only" god, but merely superior to other gods; however one also finds passages which suggest that there are no other gods; thus if one is looking for a lack of contradiction in the Bible, it is simply a fools' quest.

“When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of Elohim (plural of El) saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose ... The Nephilim were on the earth in those days- and also afterward- when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them.” Genesis 6:1-2, 4

Attempts to make make historical sense of ancient myths are generally always speculative, but the idea that the gods had children who intermarried with humans is unsurprising since most of the gods of the ancient world had human qualities, since they were anyway the anthropomorphic projections of human beings in the first place. Then of course we have an even bigger leap of faith where it is commonly believed that the Christian God (i.e., Jesus) impregnated his mother in order to give birth to himself; thus portraying him as a "Motherf*****. No sane, rational, modern, scientific, educated person could possibly believe such a thing unless they had been subjected to religious hypnosis and indoctrination, and once a person can be made to accept "any" irrational belief, hey unlock the gates of Hell and the "slippery slope" to believing almost "any" irrational belief.

Lux

The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts (Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press, 2001)
www.bibleinterp.com...

As a result of comparing biblical and inscriptional evidence with the Ugaritic texts, we can see how the worship of other deities lasted for quite a long time in Israel's pantheon.

By Mark S. Smith
Skirball Professor of Bible and Near Eastern Studies
New York University
For decades, scholars have tried to penetrate the Bible's story about Israelite monotheism. According to traditional interpretations of the Bible, monotheism was part of Israel's original covenant with Yahweh on Mount Sinai, and the idolatry subsequently criticized by the prophets was due to Israel's backsliding from its own heritage and history with Yahweh. However, scholars have long noted that beneath this presentation lies a number of questions. Why do the Ten Commandments command that there should be no other gods "before Me" (the Lord), if there are no other gods as claimed by other biblical texts? Why should the Israelites sing at the crossing of the Red Sea that "there is no god like You, O Lord?" (Exodus 15:11). Such passages suggest that Israelites knew about other gods and did not simply reject them. It seems that Israelites may have known of other deities and perhaps various passages suggest that behind the Bible's broader picture of monotheism was a spectrum of polytheisms that centered on the worship of Yahweh as the pantheon's greatest figure.

In the past, the question of Israelite polytheism has been approached by looking for evidence of specific deities worshipped by Israelites in addition to Yahweh. These would include biblical criticisms of the worship of other deities, such as the goddess Asherah in 2 Kings 21 and 23, as well as apparent references to this goddess or at least her symbol in the inscriptions from Kuntillet 'Ajrud and Khirbet el-Qom in the eighth century. In the Kuntillet 'Ajrud inscriptions, the symbol is treated respectfully as part of the worship of Yahweh. The gods Resheph and Deber appear in Habakkuk 3:5 as part of the military retinue of Yahweh. Other deities who gain some mention in the Bible include the "hosts of heaven" criticized in 2 Kings 21:5, but mentioned without such criticism in 1 Kings 22:19 and Zephaniah 1:5. Scholars have also noted that the god El is identified with Yahweh in the Bible, again with no criticism. The criticisms of Yahweh's archenemy, the storm god, Baal, also seem to reflect Israelite worship of this god. While many of these deities are not well known from the Bible, they are described sometimes at considerable length in the Ugaritic texts, discovered first in 1928 at the site of Ras Shamra (located on the coast of Syria about 100 miles north of Beirut). As a result of comparing biblical and inscriptional evidence with the Ugaritic texts, we can see how the worship of other deities lasted for quite a long time in Israel down to the Exile in ca. 586.

This approach to the study of specific deities in ancient Israel was summarized in Smith's earlier book, The Early History of God (which is due to be published in 2002 in a revised version by Eerdmans), and it reached its apex in the valuable collection, Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (edited by Karel van der Toorn et al.; second edition; Leiden: Brill; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999). On the whole, Smith's book -- following a number of other scholars-- shows how Israelite polytheism was a feature of Israelite religion down through the end of the Iron Age and how monotheism emerged in the seventh and sixth centuries. It is in this period when the clearest monotheistic statements can be seen in the Bible, for example, in the apparently seventh-century works of Deuteronomy 4:35, 39, 1 Samuel 2:2 (earlier?), 2 Samuel 7:22, 2 Kings 19:15, 19 (= Isaiah 37:16, 20), and Jeremiah 16:19, 20 and the sixth-century portion of Isaiah 43:10-11, 44:6, 8, 45:5-7, 14, 18, 21, and 46:9. Because many of the passages involved appear in biblical works associated with either Deuteronomy, the Deuteronomistic History (Joshua through Kings) or in Jeremiah (with its similar language and ideas as these other works), most scholarly treatments until recently have suggested that a deuteronomistic movement of this period developed the idea of monotheism as a response to the religious issues of the time. The question has remained: why in the seventh and sixth centuries?

In his newest book, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism, Smith tries to address this question, but from a different angle in regards to monotheism and polytheism. Beginning with the Ugaritic texts, Smith asks what is monistic about polytheism and how the answer to this question might help make the emergence of Israelite monotheism more intelligible. Ugaritic polytheism is expressed as a monism through the concepts of the divine council or assembly and in the divine family. The two structures are essentially understood as a single entity with four levels: the chief god and his wife (El and Asherah); the seventy divine children (including Baal, Astarte, Anat, probably Resheph as well as the sun-goddess Shapshu and the moon-god Yerak) evidently characterized as the stars of El; the head helper of the divine household, Kothar wa-Hasis; and the servants of the divine household, who include what the Bible understands to be "angels" (in other words, messenger-gods).

This four-tiered model of the divine family and council apparently went through a number of changes in early Israel. In the earliest stage, it would appear that Yahweh was one of these seventy children, each of whom was the patron deity of the seventy nations. This idea appears behind the Dead Sea Scrolls reading and the Septuagint translation of Deuteronomy 32:8-9. In this passage, El is the head of the divine family, and each member of the divine family receives a nation of hi s own: Israel is the portion of Yahweh. The Masoretic Text, evidently uncomfortable with the polytheism expressed in the phrase "according to the number of the divine sons," altered the reading to "according to the number of the children of Israel" (also thought to be seventy). Psalm 82 also presents the god El presiding in a divine assembly at which Yahweh stands up and makes his accusation against the other gods. Here the text shows the older religious worldview which the passage is denouncing.

By some point in the late monarchy, it is evident that the god El was identified with Yahweh, and as a result, Yahweh-El is the husband of the goddess, Asherah. This is the situation represented by biblical condemnations of her cult symbol in the Jerusalem temple (evidently) and in the inscriptions mentioned above. In this form, the religious devotion to Yahweh casts him in the role of the Divine King ruling over all the other deities. This religious outlook appears, for example, in Psalm 29:2, where the "sons of God" or really divine sons or children are called upon to worship Yahweh, the Divine King. The Temple, with its various expressions of polytheism, also assumed that this place was Yahweh's palace which was populated by those under his power. The tour given by Ezekiel 8-10 suggests such a picture. This picture of royal power was further developed with the monotheism of the eighth to the sixth centuries. The other gods became mere expressions of Yahweh's power, and the divine messengers became understood as little more than minor divine beings expressive of Yahweh's power. In other words, the head god became the godhead.

Originally posted by KSigMason
reply to post by Lucifer777

 

You have suggested that though in past
posts. You have presumed the guilt of people by suggesting that the only way to rid that ideology is through genocide.

Some of my writings are satirical and some are perfectly appropriate dialectical responses to genocidal faiths and genocidal militarism and US state terrorism. Since the Biblical faith is a genocidal faith with genocidal end times prophecies, it is an entirely appropriate to suggest the genocide of the Christians. The Biblical faith is not merely a religion, it is a system of law and government (theocratic monarchy; i.e., dictatorship) which if ever introduced would be regress humankind to a state of barbarism and would be utterly genocidal.

We have already had a centuries' long history of Christian monarchies, and the long history of Christian tyranny, wars, slavery, Inquisitions and genocides is written in blood and human misery; thus the genocidal and barbaric nature of Christianity is not just an "idea," but a fact of history. Of course it is often argued by religious fanatics that the many Christian tyrants did not follow the religion (Judaism) and teachings of Jesus closely enough, and thankfully they did not, for the fundamentalist adherence to the bigoted Judaic Law which the Jesus of the Gospels advocated would have had even more genocidal consequences for humankind.

Capitalism is nothing more than a free market, free from government intrusion. Nothing wrong with freedom of individual and economic freedom.

"Economic Freedom" as defined by an ideological Capitalist is much the same as economic freedom as defined by a slavemaster. The idea of total economic freedom without government intrusion (which is essentially Anarcho-Capitalism) would lead to the reintorduction of slavery and the rule of organised crime syndicates. Total economic freedom without government intrusion would be the dream of any criminal; but since you are already part of the world's leading terrorist and narco-terrorist organisation, I suppose that your organistion has for many decades already had that privilege.

I have no will to commit any atrocity. Nor has any order from my lips or thus under my watch.  You don't even know what I do.

If a person is a member of a terrorist organisation such as the CIA created Al Queda, I don't think that the US military cares what their "role" is; merely that they identify themselves with that terrorist organisation is sufficient to assume guilt; thus the US military can expect to be judged in the same way, not that I am suggesting in any way that the Al Queda is anywhere near as genocidal in their behaviour as the US state terrorist military, nor would I wish to imply support for militant Islam in any way. The Muslims and the US state terrorists have long been the traditional enemies of the Communists, and if you want to kill each other off, the Machievellian style mantra of "[i[Why fight your enemies if you can incite them to fight each other?" applies.

The US military is so hated and despised internationally that you are simply setting yourselves up for genocidal (i.e., nuclear) retaliation and karmic retribution. The very conditions for future world revolution are being created by your militant evil.

The Duke of Kent is not my leader. He only has power over Masons in England. What part of this don't you get?

The Fieldmarsall is simply the most well known cult leader of Freemasonry and a Communist's definition of the embodiment of human evil; he is the archetypal monarchist, aristocrat and Anglo-American state terrorist / narco-terrorist collaborator. I doubt if anyone would join a cult with such a celebrity cult leader unless they admired such a personification of human evil.

You are very much like the Nazis you try to paint me to be. It's ironic if someone came in here and compared our posts you'd sound like the monster in all of it.

I have never compared you to a Nazi. I would refer to the Freemasons as a cult of assorted Neofascists, anti-Communists and militant ideological Capitalists, but clearly the Nazis were a competing military order.

Never knew we were narcotics traffickers.  When did that happen?    

I really don't believe that you are unaware of that. It is no conicidence that when the US military were fighting in Vietnam that most of the world's heroin supply came from the Golden Triangle and that now they are in Afghanistan, most of the world's heroin supply now comes from there where the Anglo-American narco-terrorists prop up a narco-state whose president and his brother are probably the world's major suppliers of heroin ( en.wikipedia.org... ).

According to the UN, under the Taliban, who were trying to stop opium production, back in 2001 Afghanistian was only producing less than 200 tons of heroin per annum and it is now around 6000 tons ( www.time.com... ) under the regime of the US allies who are essentially the same drug dealers whom the Taliban overthrew. That is what the Anglo-American mercenaries have been dying for, though in line with the "Give me one, two...many Vietnams." mantra, I suppose that it is good for generating militant hatred against the Anglo-American narco-terrorists.

"In my 30-year history in the Drug Enforcement Administration and related agencies, the major targets of my investigations almost invariably turned out to be working for the CIA." --Dennis Dayle, former chief of an elite DEA enforcement unit.

"For decades, the CIA, the Pentagon, and secret organizations like Oliver North's Enterprise have been supporting and protecting the world's biggest drug dealers.... The Contras and some of their Central American allies ... have been documented by DEA as supplying ... at least 50 percent of our national coc aine consumption. They were the main conduit to the United States for Colombian coc aine during the 1980's. The rest of the drug supply ... came from other CIA-supported groups, such as DFS (the Mexican CIA) ... [and] other groups and/or individuals like Manual Noriega." (Ex-DEA agent Michael Levine: The Big White Lie: The CIA and the Cocaine/Crack Epidemic)

ciadrugs.homestead.com...

More on: www.ciadrugs.com... (50 Years of CIA drug trafficking).

Google Video Link

Above: Michael Ruppert - CIA and Drug Running

Google Video Link

Above: The Secret History: CIA Drug Ops Conspiracy (unaired documentary)

www.youtube.com...

I'm not here to discuss the evils of the US through liberal eyes.

Oh well of course only a "liberal" would object to US state terrorism, narco-terrorism, US imperialism, wars, assassinations, military coups, covert terrorist operations, false flag operations and even military operations against the American people themselves such as 9/11. We "liberals" are obviously all evil Satanists for objecting to such "good" and godly activities of the US state terrorist military; while it is those good, godly US Christian Neofascists who consider the genocidal terrorism of the US military to be heroic.

More on CIA drugs trafficking:
The CIA: America's Premier International Terrorist Organization www.serendipity.li...
A timeline of CIA atrocities: www.serendipity.li...
CIA support for death squads www.serendipity.li...

Really if I was going to properly offer a dialectical response to collaborators, supporters and members of the world's leading terrorist and narco-terrorist organisation (the US military) perhaps it would be more appropriate if I were to suggest that they and their families should be rounded up, force fed heroin, exposed to depleted uranium, gang raped and tortured by death squads, however I that is simply a bridge to far for me even as a satirical or appropriate dialectical response for the sake of argument, as I believe that we Communists have a responsibility to have a higher moral standards than the US state terrorist subhuman vermin themselves, and anyway I oppose the use of torture; thus I merely take the rather moderate position that death and hell will suffice.

"Kill and torture; spare not; be upon them!" is not really one of my favorite lines from Crowley's Book of the Law, however since the US state terrorists are torturers, murderers and genocidal Capitalists and imperialists themselves, I expect that in time there shall be karmic retribution in the wars and revolutions of the future world; however by "karmic" I don't refer to some transcendental form of judgement, but to human retribution through the application of militant will and militant vengeance. What goes around comes around. I do recall hearing that the Vietcong would crucify US soldiers and leave them in areas where US patrols would find them; it was certainly effective in demoralising the US troops.


Lux

CIA Report Exposes Drug Smuggling Scandal

By GARY WEBB

The sale of missiles to the Ayatollah Khomeini, it seems, wasn't the
real scandal of the Iran-contra affair. It was the sale of coc aine to
American citizens.

This we know thanks to a recently declassified CIA inspector
general's report.

Though hacked and shredded to about half its original length for
alleged national security reasons, the 361-page CIA report paints a
damning picture of official malfeasance.

Had these secret cables surfaced during the firestorm of controversy
then raging over Iran-contra, it is likely neither the CIA nor the
Reagan administration would have survived the conflagration.

By 1987, the CIA report shows, the agency was sitting on six years'
worth of reports from field agents, station chiefs, informants,
private citizens and some of the contras themselves, all indicating
that Ronald Reagan's "freedom fighters'' were shipping planeloads of
coc aine and marijuana into the U.S.

The justice department's files likewise bulged with evidence of
contra drug-running, including eyewitness testimony from inside
informants. Ditto for the state department. The CIA had briefed
vice-president George Bush personally.

"Allegations of drug trafficking continue to plague our operations,''
CIA headquarters grumbled in a July 1986 cable to its agents in Costa
Rica.

Prime example

A prime example was international drug kingpin Norwin Meneses, a
California-based contra who supplied the South-Central L.A. crack
market with coc aine powder during the 80s and early 90s.

A 1988 FBI cable shows that the bureau knew Meneses was working for
the drug enforcement agency (DEA) and believed he "was, and may still
be, an informant for the Central Intelligence Agency.'' At the time,
the FBI was unsuccessfully seeking his indictment on federal
coc aine-trafficking charges.

According to the report, the CIA not only failed to act against the
contra traffickers, but also, deliberately or otherwise, misled
others who were investigating them.

The agency repeatedly sent false reports to U.S. attorneys, U.S.
customs and other federal agencies assuring them that the CIA had no
record of men and companies who were plainly listed in CIA files as
being involved with drugs.

Most important, the declassified cables show that the CIA knew
exactly what it was doing and was fully aware of how the American
public would react if word of its shenanigans ever surfaced.

"There is a very real risk that news of our relationship with (Alan
Hyde), whose reputation as an alleged drug trafficker is widely known
to various agencies, will hit the public domain -- something that
could bring our program to a full stop,'' CIA headquarters nervously
cabled its agents in Honduras in July 1987.

Six years later, the CIA report says, the agency was still protecting
Honduran trafficker Hyde in an effort to keep the CIA's relationship
with drug dealers during the contra war under wraps.

A March 11, 1993, cable discouraged counter-narcotics efforts against
Hyde because "his connection to the CIA is well documented and could
prove difficult in the prosecution stage,'' says the report, which
was posted on the CIA's Web site in early October.

The CIA knew from the very beginning of the war that the men it had
hired to run its main contra army were narco-terrorists, but it
continued to finance and protect them.

Contra army

In September 1981 -- to take just one example -- as the CIA was
becoming formally involved with the contras, the agency learned that
a faction called the Legion of September 15 "had made a decision to
engage in drug smuggling to the United States in order to finance its
anti-Sandinista operations.''

A few months after discovering the Legion's involvement with drugs,
the CIA put the group's senior commanders in charge of the agency's
newly formed contra organization, the Nicaraguan Democratic Force
(FDN).

According to the testimony of former L.A. drug kingpin Danilo
Blandon, the contra middleman who sold Meneses' coc aine to
South-Central's crack dealers, it was the Legion's commander in
chief, Enrique Bermudez, who recruited him and Meneses in late 1981
to raise money for the contras in California.

As part of their fundraising efforts, they began selling coc aine to
the street gangs of South-Central and, in the process, helped touch
off the crack-coc aine explosion there.

The inspector general's report should put to rest the long-simmering
historical debate over what the CIA as an institution knew about the
contras' drug trafficking. The answer? It knew everything, despite
its best efforts to remain ignorant.

So where was the watchdog press while the Reagan administration,
Congress and the CIA were scrambling to keep a lid on the contra drug
connection? Dishing out the official story as fast as possible.

Only now -- nearly 12 years later -- can we fully appreciate what an
astounding lie that was and how eagerly it was swallowed by a
gullible Washington, DC, press corps.

While the press was dismissing the issue as the combined fantasies of
dopers and contra-haters, the DEA was sitting on information from
several reliable informants -- eyewitnesses on the U.S. government's
payroll -- who reported that the contras were selling drugs in Los
Angeles and San Francisco with the CIA's connivance.


DEA operative

In one case, Ivan Torres, a contra official who was part of Blandon's
South Central drug ring, told an undercover DEA operative that "CIA
representatives are aware of his drug-related activities and that
they don't mind. He said they have gone so far as to as to encourage
coc aine trafficking by members of the contras because they know it is
a good source of income.''

That 1987 DEA report corroborated information the drug agency had
received two years earlier from Renato Pena, another member of the
Blandon/Meneses coc aine ring and the FDN's military representative in
San Francisco.

In 1985, Pena told the DEA that "the CIA was allowing the contras to
fly drugs into the United States, sell them and keep the proceeds.''
Pena told CIA inspectors that "Norwin Meneses and Danilo Blandon told
him they were raising money for the contras through drug-dealing and
that Blandon stated that the contras would not have been able to
operate without drug proceeds."

Ironically, these recently declassified reports are still secret to
most Americans.

ciadrugs.homestead.com...

More on THE CIA: "COCAINE IMPORTING AGENCY"
on: www.angelfire.com...

The entirety of Rodney Stiche's exhaustive work of Biblical proportaions, "Defrauding America" can be read on: www.copi.com...

See also: ciadrugs.homestead.com...

You are clouding the minds of others.

You have subjective judgments about the validity of others spiritual paths.

Are you explaining your own spiritual path, or are you dissuading others from theirs?

Originally posted by onequestion
You are clouding the minds of others.

I merely seek to "free" the minds of others from religious hypnosis and indoctrination and from the evils of organised religion.

You have subjective judgments about the validity of others spiritual paths.

A moral judgement is a subjective discernment of good and evil; thus all such judgements are subjective. A biblical fanatic may "believe" that it is "good" to execute a female slave who is found not to be a virgin when she is sold into a life of sex slavery, as the Biblical law demands and a humanist person may believe that it is evil to execute a person for that, but both judgements are subjective and based on a religious or humanist morality. Of course most Christians don't believe in the primitive and savage teachings of the Bible anyway and merely "cherry pick" and "quote mine" the text to suit their own personal bigotry.

Are you explaining your own spiritual path, or are you dissuading others from theirs?

Beliefs and Behaviour

I have no objection to persons who have harmless spiritual beliefs, such as that "God is a Lesbian" or whatever, but the texts of the Koran and the Bible, for example, are not merely religions, but systems of government (theocratic monarchy or "tyranny") and systems of law, which would have genocidal consequences if introduced; further "beliefs" also affect human behaviour; thus if a person reveres the definition of a Biblical deity which Richard Dawkins refers to as "arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully," then it is a natural consequence that when a person considers such a demonic human-hating and human-nature hating deity to be the definition of absolute goodness, that they will tend to emulate such qualities, and the long history of Christianity provides ample evidence of that.

Lucifer

Since the Isaiah passage in question is clearly directed to the KIng of Babylon and begins with "thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say.... " then it has often been stated that Helel Ben-Shachar refers to the KIng of Babylon, though I do concede that this is also speculative.

The king of babilon is named helel because helele is behind the king of babilon, I showed you the text who the king of babilon is.

...it is more probable that this passage is an allusion to a Canaantie or Phoenician myth about how Helel, son of the god Shahar, sought the throne of the chief god and was cast down into the abyss because of this. Evidence for this theory comes from an Ugaritic poem about two divine children, Shachar (dawn) and Shalim (dusk), who were born as the result of the intercourse of the god El with mortal women. That would make El, Elyon, and Shahar members of the Canaanite pantheon and the "mount of meeting" is the abode of the gods, which corresponds to Mount Olympus in Greek mythology.

Unfortunately, this is just speculation as archaeologists have not uncovered any Canaanite sources that describe Helel ben Shahar or a revolt against Elyon.

So what if they have not uncovered any evidence, it's part of the mithology.
That what a myth is "mythology"

....Second you got the bible text of who the king of tire is directly, it is describing the king of tire, here he is.

You were the signet of perfection,[a]
(D) full of wisdom and(E) perfect in beauty.
13You were in(F) Eden, the garden of God;
(G) every precious stone was your covering,
(H) sardius, topaz, and diamond,
beryl, onyx, and jasper,
sapphire,(I) emerald, and carbuncle;
and crafted in gold were your settings
and your engravings.[c]
On the day that you were created
they were prepared.
14You were an anointed(J) guardian cherub.
I placed you;[d] you were on(K) the holy mountain of God;
in the midst of the stones of fire you walked.
15You were blameless in your ways
(L) from the day you were created,
till unrighteousness was found in you.
16In the abundance of(M) your trade
you were filled with violence in your midst, and you sinned;
so I cast you as a profane thing from(N) the mountain of God,
and I destroyed you,[e](O) O guardian cherub,
from the midst of the stones of fire.
17(P) Your heart was proud because of(Q) your beauty;
you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor.
I cast you to the ground;
I exposed you before kings,
to feast their eyes on you.
18By the multitude of your iniquities,
in the unrighteousness of your trade
you profaned your sanctuaries;
so(R) I brought fire out from your midst;
it consumed you,
and I turned you to ashes on the earth
(S) in the sight of all who saw you.
19All who know you among the peoples
are appalled at you;
(T) you have come to a dreadful end
and shall be no more forever."

It is refering to the angel that was kicked out of heaven I'm sorry.

It is merely because of the insertion of the name "Lucifer" into the Latin text and later in the English 1611 version of the King James Bible that this myth has become popular, however the name Lucifer certainly does not appear in the original.

No in stead Helel apears, and helel translates to shine, shinny or bright, so the translation is pretty good.
Lucifer means to shine, bright as the morning star.

The complete translation:
elel Ben-Schachar is translated into English as O shining star

Other instances.
Luke 10:18-19

And he said to them, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.

You can sugar coat it all you like but it's what it is.

Originally posted by "Lucifer777"
"This is the Way of the Lightning down the Tree of Life, also known as the Flaming Sword."

I have no idea why anyone would attribute "The Fool" to 21 since it is the first path on the tree and generally assigned to zero whereas 21 is the final destination of the fool, "The Universe" in the Thoth system, but as we are merely speaking of a system of human archetypes and experience, people tend to just make things up as they go along and it is pointless to argue.

It is taught that the one who receives the Flaming Sword is the one who is capable of Raising the Kundalini with the Karmamudra practice (see also: Dharmamudra, Jnanamudra, Samayamudra, and Mahamudra), which is working with the Shekinah and the Three Fires of the Hebrew letter Shin.

In relation to this, the explanation of the correct assigning of the attributes of the Arcana of the Tarot ("The Fool" in particular) is found within the first link posted in this post:

Lost Keys of Freemasonry


Regarding the Ray of Creation of the Tree of Life, the following audio lectures come to mind:

The Ray of Creation

10: Runes Ur, Is, and Sig

Anyway, perhaps I'll have more time to post in this thread later on.

Originally posted by Tamahu

Originally posted by "Lucifer777"
"This is the Way of the Lightning down the Tree of Life, also known as the Flaming Sword."

I have no idea why anyone would attribute "The Fool" to 21 since it is the first path on the tree and generally assigned to zero whereas 21 is the final destination of the fool, "The Universe" in the Thoth system, but as we are merely speaking of a system of human archetypes and experience, people tend to just make things up as they go along and it is pointless to argue.

It is taught that the one who receives the Flaming Sword is the one who is capable of Raising the Kundalini with the Karmamudra practice (see also: Dharmamudra, Jnanamudra, Samayamudra, and Mahamudra), which is working with the Shekinah and the Three Fires of the Hebrew letter Shin.

In relation to this, the explanation of the correct assigning of the attributes of the Arcana of the Tarot ("The Fool" in particular) is found within the first link posted in this post:

Lost Keys of Freemasonry


Regarding the Ray of Creation of the Tree of Life, the following audio lectures come to mind:

The Ray of Creation

10: Runes Ur, Is, and Sig

Anyway, perhaps I'll have more time to post in this thread later on.

edit on 4-4-2011 by Tamahu because: edited text

All chidren begin the path as fools; and hopefuly we end up as wise men and women, but the idea that we are born wise and end up is fools is turning the system on it's head. The the Fool inversed is minus zero (metaphorically speaking) and the wise person is 21 or 22, and understands the "universe," or in some systems, the "world,." within the realm of what is knowable of course.

I do understand your fascinaton with the system, however your guru (Samael Aun Weor) was a human-nature-hating, misogynistic, paternalistic, homophobic, polygamist demon, so it is unsurprising that he would turn the system on it's head and use the doublespeak of "love" for a hatred of humankind.

Free your mind; think for yourself; follow you natural will, deny ignorance and speak to me please without quoting the demon Weor.

Regards.

Lux

Originally posted by "Lucifer777"
All chidren begin the path as fools; and hopefuly we end up as wise men and women, but the idea that we are born wise and end up is fools is turning the system on it's head. The the Fool inversed is minus zero (metaphorically speaking) and the wise person is 21 or 22, and understands the "universe," or in some systems, the "world,." within the realm of what is knowable of course.

Well it seems to me that part of the reason for Arcanum 21 being the Fool is that after Resurrection related to Arcanum 20, but before Ascension or Return (to the Light) related to Arcanum 22, there is still the danger of falling. And "the Fool" is not a negative Arcanum in and of itself; because when we look at it, we can see that there is a transcendent symbolism there as well. Nonetheless, we are the Fool all along, as long as we have ego, and as long as we are not Self-Realized.

Anyhow, when we observe a newborn baby, we can see that It is very pure; that baby is pure Buddha Nature. A baby's physical body may not express the Wisdom of the pure Essence or Buddha-Nature of the baby with words or actions; but the baby is nevertheless not yet contaminated by the ego, because the ego cannot express itself without the personality. A newborn baby does not yet have personality. However as the baby gets older, his or her personality is gradually getting formed, and then the egos which have resulted from the actions (karma) of past lives are then able to reincorporate little by little; because as I've said, the egos need personality in order to express themselves (see: Genotype, Phenotype, and Paratype in the context of Reincarnation and transmigration).

It is said that the personality becomes built up at around the age of seven. And we can see that there are many kids of the ages of 6, 7, or 8 years old who are very bratty, even to the point of existing as what we might call "evil". Then what happens is that as the said bratty kid gets a little older, he or she sees that in order to get by in society, they have to learn how to "manage" their ego to some degree. In other words, society (our parents, teachers, classmates, bosses, etc.) teaches us how to suppress our egos and how to have "good manners"; but suppression does not signify comprehension and elimination of the ego. This is why the society in which we live is mostly false, because it only deals with the two extremes of suppression and indulgence. And this is why we never learn about Transmutation and the Consciousness in the schools, churches, and workforces. Only with the Consciousness and with Transmutation, can we transcend the painful pendulum swing of suppression and indulgence. In a society of authentic Human Beings, we would be taught about these things. Although in this current society, we are unfortunately not taught about what we need to learn.

The Sensual Mind

While the child is growing, his sensual mind is opening little by little. This sensual mind in itself and by itself gives the child information through external sensorial perceptions and it is precisely with the information granted through such perceptions that the sensual mind always elaborates the contents of its concepts; because of this, our present mind can never know anything about reality. Its reasoning processes are subjective; they move within a vicious circle: the circle of external sensorial perceptions; this is obvious.

Now you will comprehend for yourselves, maybe a little more clearly, what subjective reasoning is in itself, but a complete differentiation between subjective reasoning and objective reasoning must be made.

It is obvious that the child has to go through all the educational processes: kindergarten, elementary, high school, and university. The subjective reasoning is nourished with all the data that these distinct scholastic institutions grant unto it. But truly no educational institute can give to a child, youth, or teenager existing data about that which is not of time, about that which is Reality.

Truly, the speculations of subjective reasoning always arrive at intellectualism, at the absurd field of utopianism or, in the best cases, towards simple opinions of a subjective type, but never to the experience of the truth, never to experience that which is not from time.

On the other hand, objective reasoning, that disgracefully does not receive any instruction because there is no school that teaches it, remains abandoned. Undoubtedly, objective reasoning processes obviously conduct us towards exact and perfect postulates.

The child is always subjectively educated from place to place; for him, no form of superior instruction exists. All data, all scholastic matters, all family matters, etc. that the senses grant to the subjective mind of the teenager, are merely empirical and subjective, and this is pitiful.

Towards the beginning, the child has still not lost the capacity of astonishment. Obviously the child looks in wonder on any phenomena: a beautiful toy awakens in him this astonishment, and with this toy the child plays. This capacity of wonder disappears as the child grows, as his sensual mind receives data from school and collage. Finally, the instant in which the child becomes a youth arrives and complete loss of this capacity of astonishment.

Unfortunately, the data that one receives in collages, schools, and educational centers only serves to nourish the sensual mind, and nothing else. In this way, with these educational systems of schools, academies, and universities, the only thing that we can really achieve is to make for ourselves an artificial personality.

To give an account of this, in reality, truly, the knowledge that is studied in Humanities will never serve to form the Psychological Human Being. In the name of truth, we have to say clearly that the topics that are currently studied in educational institutes do not have any real relationship with the distinct parts of our Being. Therefore, these topics serve only to:

First: Falsify the knowledge of the five cylinders of the organic machine.

Second: Take the capacity of astonishment away from us.

Third: Develop the sensual mind.

Fourth: Form a false personality within us.

Therefore, it should be clearly understood that the sensual mind cannot produce any radical transformation in any way within ourselves. It is very convenient to understand that the sensual mind can never take us from the autonomism and mechanicity, in which we find the people of all the world, even if they appear to be people of a very cultured mind.

It is one thing to be an animalistic human being, an intellectual animal, while it is certainly quite another thing to be a true Psychological Man. Naturally, when I use the word “Man,” I also mean Woman. But this must be clearly understood.

The slavery of monopoly capitalism (which is based on desire and greed) is a result of the pendulum swing between indulgence and suppression. And the promotion of Marxist-Communism is, at best, nothing more than trying to put a band-aid over an enormous gaping wound. We need to comprehend and eliminate the egos of desire and greed, if what we want is to transcend the two foolish and oppressive systems of slavery known as monopoly-capitalism and Marxist-Communism.


As for your foundation-less remarks about Samael Aun Weor, let's address them.

"Human-nature-hating"?

No. Samael Aun Weor teaches us how transmute our bestial nature so that we can better express our Hu-Man Nature, through the Intelligent expression of Sacred Sexuality. Therefore he is pro-Human-Nature.

"Misogynistic"?

Show us even a single example.

"Paternalistic"?

Perhaps to some degree. But I think that this would be more of a reflection of adapting to Cosmic Cycles rather than an inherent paternalism. Samael Aun Weor wrote a little about the Cosmic Cycles of which the Masculine and Feminine forces alternate in their periods of influence. He wrote that there are cycles of 42 feminine years and 42 masculine years (84 total) related to the Planet Uranus. Although it seems that there also are bigger cycles of masculine/feminine alternating periods of influence, and cycles within cycles as well.

"Homophobic"?

I've seen nothing of him which would indicate any fear of homosexuality.

"Demon"?

Says you, who promotes the demonic teachings of Aleister Crowley.

"Polygamist"?

No. He never was married to more than one wife at one time. And if he did have more than one sexual relationship (again, not at the same time), it is said that it is because he did so in accordance with the the Law of Karma as understood in the Superior Worlds (see again the threads that I posted links to earlier).


See also:

Judging Adulterers

"Even though adultery is a grave action, the truth of whether it has been committed or not is only known to the Divine. Even extrasensory perceptions can be mistaken. Thus, we have no reliable way to accurate judge whether someone else is an adulterer or not. Judging others based on gossip or observation of physical circumstances is insufficient, because we do not know all the facts, especially the will of the Innermost of the person we are observing. If God approves of their actions, who are we to judge? And if God approves, then God will account for it. A good example of this is in the Bible. If we were to apply merely the written law to David, the King of Israel, who not only coveted another man's wife, but arranged for him to die so he could have her himself, we would have to judge him as guilty of numerous faults. Yet, God did not condemn him in accordance with the written law. Why?

"King David, after what happened to him with Batsheva, was very fearful. Because at that time, Dumah ascended to the Holy One, blessed be He, stood before Him, and said, O Master of the universe, in the Torah it says of "the man that commits adultery with another man's wife [that]...the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death" (Vayikra 20:10). Furthermore, it is written, "Moreover, you shall not lie carnally with your neighbor's wife to defile yourself with her" (Ibid.18:20). So what is to become of David, who has profaned the Holy Covenant by desecrating his Brit (genital organ) by committing sexual misconduct? The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, "David is righteous! And the Holy Covenant remains intact, because it is known to Me that Bat-Sheva was assigned to him since the day the world was created." - Zohar 1 Prologue:14

"Furthermore, what can we say of Jakob, who by the command of God, had four successive wives, Leah, Rachel, Bilhah, and Zilpah? Or Muhammed, with his many wives? Or Padmasambhava, a key founder of Tibetan Buddhism, who had innumerable sexual partners? Or Samael Aun Weor, who also took a consort near the end of his last life? To understand these examples and avoid falling into the mistake of judging or condemning what we do not know, it is important that we understand that there are two laws:

"The First Law: the instructions given directly to the Human Soul by the Innermost or Inner Buddha

"The Second Law: the written law, the vows, commandments, and other guidelines in religions (the commandments are given in Deuteronomy, which comes from deutero, second)

"To modify our own destiny is possible because, “when an inferior law is transcended by a superior law, the superior law washes away the inferior law.” - Samael Aun Weor

"The instructions given by God transcend the written law. The physical senses are not a reliable tool to measure the superior, first law. Thus, we cannot judge others based upon what we hear, are told, or even by what we see with our eyes. It is not our place to judge, but only to love others and have compassion for them."

So in order to act according to the First Law we have to Meditate, and not base our actions on intellect or desire. The Second Law is what we follow at first, so that we stop creating karma for ourselves. Although it is taught that once we become Adept in the Science of Meditation, we start Receiving the Commandments of the First Law.


Pepsi and "Lucifer777"

Regarding Prometheus-Lucifer, the following link has within it dozens of lectures that clearly explain Prometheus and the symbolism in relation to how he steals fire from the gods, in order to give it to humans:

Lucifer-Prometheus

Originally posted by Tamahu

Unfortunately, the data that one receives in collages, schools, and educational centers only serves to nourish the sensual mind, and nothing else. In this way, with these educational systems of schools, academies, and universities, the only thing that we can really achieve is to make for ourselves an artificial personality.

To give an account of this, in reality, truly, the knowledge that is studied in Humanities will never serve to form the Psychological Human Being. In the name of truth, we have to say clearly that the topics that are currently studied in educational institutes do not have any real relationship with the distinct parts of our Being.

I take quite the opposite position which is that a modern, secular, scientific education which develops the human intellect and the human rational faculties is progressive and assists in the process of removing the effects of the kind of human-nature-hating religious hypnosis and indoctrination which you and other religious fanatics seem to be suffering from. I think that almost any person whose critical faculties are operational, who reads the "revelations" of Samael Aun Weor would find them to be rather ridiculous religious sophistry and inane ramblings.

Therefore, it should be clearly understood that the sensual mind cannot produce any radical transformation in any way within ourselves. It is very convenient to understand that the sensual mind can never take us from the autonomism and mechanicity, in which we find the people of all the world, even if they appear to be people of a very cultured mind.

I take the view that human beings are fundamentally erotic creatures; however this is not just an opinion which I have pulled out of thin air, but which I have arrived at through a study of human sexual psychology and behaviour.

If human beings are fundamentally (though not exclusively) erotic creatures, for whom erotic union is the "ultimate" experience which we desire with those whom we are attracted to, then it would seem to me that it is because we are created that way, and that it is quite natural and part of our "true will;" the pursuit of our "true will" is the Chrstian or Gnostic equivalent of "God's will" since to the Thelemite there is "no god but man (and woman)."

On the other hand the kind of Gnosticism integrated into Catholicism and into the revised Neo-gnosticism of Samael's rambling sophistry is very much a human-nature-hating idea which is contrary to Thelemic and humanist principles in general. There are many New Age gurus and Messiahs who are attempting to offer modernised reformed versions of the slave morality of the ancient slave religions of the world and Samael is just one of many.

It is one thing to be an animalistic human being, an intellectual animal, while it is certainly quite another thing to be a true Psychological Man.

Well that requires an understanding of human psychology and sexual psychology, which is a main subject in the modern academic sylabusses, and the consequence of this would be a person who is quite different to the hypnotised and indoctrinated religious sophists such as the cultists of the modern Gnostic movement.

As for your foundation-less remarks about Samael Aun Weor, let's address them.

"Human-nature-hating"?

No. Samael Aun Weor teaches us how transmute our bestial nature so that we can better express our Hu-Man Nature, through the Intelligent expression of Sacred Sexuality. Therefore he is pro-Human-Nature.

Well he seems to consider homosexuality, masturbation, ejaculation, adultery and human erotic freedom all to be degenerate, whereas I consider human erotic freedom and experimentation to be perfectly natural and essential for the progression towards "Heaven on Earth," which would have to be a world of total erotic freedom and ultimately "polyamoristic" rather than polygamous.

Although I am not longer entwined with the OSHO cult, I still adhere very much to SOHO's sexual philosophy, and I consider the OSHO cultists to be practitioners of "white tantra" and Samael to be a promoter of "black tantra" which combines tantra with numerous sins of restriction, shame guilt, fear etc., and is just a revised modernised form of the Catholic views with associate sexual freedom with "sin," whereas erotic freedom and experimentation is entirely natural and in my judgement leads to the manifestation of a much more highly evolved and sexually liberated person.

Further I doubt if you could find many modern psychologists who consider masturbation and homosexuality to be unnatural, unless they are indoctrinated religious fantics themselves.

"Misogynistic"?

Show us even a single example.

Samael considered women to be the exclusive sex slave of a single male, and all else was sin and adultery; this is just more of the same sexually oppressed slave morality which has kept women enslaved for aeons.

"Paternalistic"?

Perhaps to some degree. But I think that this would be more of a reflection of adapting to Cosmic Cycles rather than an inherent paternalism. Samael Aun Weor wrote a little about the Cosmic Cycles of which the Masculine and Feminine forces alternate in their periods of influence. He wrote that there are cycles of 42 feminine years and 42 masculine years (84 total) related to the Planet Uranus. Although it seems that there also are bigger cycles of masculine/feminine alternating periods of influence, and cycles within cycles as well.

Well one could also define Crowley as paternalistic in his behaviour and attitudes also, however I refer you to the OP in this thread which is partly an argument against paternalism. Paternalism (male supremacism) is not just an attitude and belief, it is a lifestyle and behavioural; it primarily manifests in the male who wishes to exclusively possess the body and soul of a woman and keep them as their exclusive sex slave and domestic servant, and is a major aspect of "slave morality;" it is essentally demonic possession.

"Homophobic"?

I've seen nothing of him which would indicate any fear of homosexuality.

Clearly, male and female homosexuality were considered degenerate by Samael.

Also since he clearly opposed contraception, it seems to me that his sexual morality was almost identical to the slave morality of the Catholics.

There are almost 130 posts on Samael's movement, and it's offshoots on forum.rickross.com...,9333 which is a thread on Rick Ross' anti-cult forum; some of them written by ex-cultists of his movement; perhaps this may be of some interest to you. The Internet is also full of tales by ex-members of Belzebuub's (Mark Pritchard) Gnostic movement which appears to be one of the main inheritors of Samael's nonsense (see www.movementsofgnostics.com... ) however there appear to be numerous Gnostic cults which have originated in Samael's ramblings .

"Demon"?

Says you, who promotes the demonic teachings of Aleister Crowley.

Well obviously your definition of good and evil is quite similar to a Catholic's or to the numerous proponents of erotic repression and slave morality, so much of what is "good" to you would be defined as "evil" by me, and vice versa.

"Polygamist"?

No. He never was married to more than one wife at one time. And if he did have more than one sexual relationship (again, not at the same time), it is said that it is because he did so in accordance with the the Law of Karma as understood in the Superior Worlds.

Well the Biblical teachings essentially promote polygamy (a male with many sex slaves / wives / concubines), and whether polygamy or monogamy these are just concepts which result in the enslavement of women; relationships which did not involve the enslavement of a women appear to be defined by Samael as fornication and adultery.

Essentially I find the "revelations" of Samael to be simply metaphysical sophistry and inane ramblings. There is nothing very "new" about religionists incessantly rambling in "spiritual-babble" and attempting to instill fear, guilt, shame and self loathing, and associating this with what is "godly," "spiritual," "holy, etc. It is the same old Catholic trick which has been promoted for centuries and which does not lead to human freedom or heaven on earth; it merely produces a sexually repressed human-nature-hating slave.

The over-arching feature of their doctrine is the sexual aspect of it. They teach a version of "chasity" that is pretty interesting, although not unheard of in certain new-age and eastern traditions. They insist that people should never have an orgasm, and that a man should never "spill" any semen. Ever. They promote practices of "alchemy" where a man and a woman have sex without, for lack of a better term, finishing in the way most people would. I know that this is similar to something gnosticweb (mysticweb when i was familiar with them) promotes. I never saw anybody do this, they said it was for a committed couple to do in private, but the practice they describe involves saying mantras and visualizing their sexual energy "transmuting," and other such things. I was single throughout the time of my involvement, so i do not know the impact this practice would have, nor do i know if there is any private instruction that they offer a couple who is interested. It would be interesting to hear from somebody who had engaged in this for a few years and then quit, to describe what effect it had on their sexual functions, not to mention their psychology. As a single person i had been simply chaste, which has effects of its own, but that is not as strange, as there are many religious people who refrain from any sexual acts or stimulation while they are unmarried. To begin having sex without finishing it must take extreme discipline and dedication to an ideal, perhaps that is what this group wants in people.
This practice is so central to their doctrine that it is repeated almost constantly in their lectures and in the books written by Samael. They also contend that single people will not make progress in "the work" until they find a spouse to take up this practice with, and they insist that homosexuals are completely lost causes. I cannot overemphasize how obsessed they are with sexual issues. It really is their one answer to all the universe's problems. I can only hope that my own psychology has recovered from this warped doctrine, and hope that others who have taken it seriously can be normal again.

Is it possible that their leader gains sexual access to women in the group by promoting this stuff? Possibly offering to teach them the methods? I have no idea, and it would be hard to make such an accusation since all the instructors were married and promoted monogamy. Again, what went on in deeper levels is known only to them. It is interesting to note that Victor Gomez, aka Samael Aun Weor, the founder of their movement, had quite a few children for someone who never spilled semen, some with women other than his wife. They have an explanation for that of course, which is a little tedious to explain. It is also interesting to note that many cults have strict guidelines on sex, often teaching some kind of chastity, while the leader/guru/whatever seems to gain sexual access to the female members. Just a pattern i've noticed. Whether or not anything like that happens in these gnostic groups is hard to say. They could simply be hung up on sexual issues for whatever reason, and whether or not their leaders are themselves chaste may vary from group to group.
As i mentioned, attendance at their lectures is sparse, as one would imagine for a group that promotes such an unpopular idea. The key may be that the few people you can convince of this doctrine would necessarily be troubled individuals ready to believe almost anything.
forum.rickross.com...,9333,page=14

With regards to cults and teachings which promote sexual repression, this is quite the "opposite" of Thelemic philosophy and I refer you to the quotation by OSHO in the OP here on the techniques used by the priesthood to enslave the human mind.

It seems to me that Samael simply threw together a mixed bag of fashionable ideas derived from as socialism, tantra, theosophy, thelema, Catholicism etc., and this is a very common strategy among New Age cultists. The result is generally a sexually repressed, mind controlled cultist who somehow thinks themselves to be more "spiritual" or "holy" than others, much like the Catholic priesthood, or indeed almost all of the priesthood / clergy.

Part of the problem with people such as yourself who are victims of religious hypnosis and indoctrination is that they seek to replicate their disease in others and attempt to spread their memetic virus far and wide, and the Internet is the ideal platform for this, just as it is for the anti-cult, anti-religious and humanist movement. Fortunately I doubt that a philosophy which teaches that orgasm is to be avoided is likely to have mass appeal in the 21st century.

Lucifer

The teachings of Mark Pritchard ("Belzebuub") do not in any way represent the teachings of the Gnostic Movement of Samael Aun Weor. This is partly explained in this post.

Anyhow, Samael Aun Weor wrote that the intellect is indeed a valuable thing when it is in service of the Spirit through Meditation; and that the Gnostic should study art, music, science, mathematics, etc. It is also taught that Meditation combined with Transmutation, is the Way that the Thelemite Does What They Will (related to the First Law that was mentioned in my previous post). How can we do the Will of our Being, if we are not able to shut off (so to speak) our noisy minds in order to hear The Voice of the Silence?

You keep comparing Gnosis to conventional contemporary exoteric Christianity and Roman Catholicism; yet the thing is, is that these latter groups–which are in many ways very suppressive and oppressive–do not teach Transmutation, so they are therefore about as far from Gnosis as one can get. You may not believe in Transmutation, which is fine (Transmutation is beyond beliefs anyway); but the fact is, that Transmutation is a Practical Science which was taught by the original Christians (Gnostics), and was also taught by all of the World's Religions, and is most notably taught within the disciplines of Yoga and Tantra. The Science of Transmutation is beyond intellect and beliefs, and must actually be experienced.

Originally posted by Tamahu

The teachings of Mark Pritchard ("Belzebuub") do not in any way represent the teachings of the Gnostic Movement of Samael Aun Weor. This is partly explained in this post.

Mark Pritchard's cult is not the only cult which has been derived from Samael Aun Woer, and it is unsurprising that there should be numerous Gnostic cults which are offshoots of the his movement.

Anyhow, Samael Aun Weor wrote that the intellect is indeed a valuable thing when it is in service of the Spirit through Meditation; and that the Gnostic should study art, music, science, mathematics, etc. It is also taught that Meditation is the Way that the Thelemite Does What They Wilt (this is related to the First Law that was mentioned in my previous post). How can we do the Will of our Being, if we are not able to shut off (so to speak) our noisy minds in order to hear The Voice of the Silence?

Thelemic philosophy is very simple to understand; in terms of human ethics (which is essentially moral philosophy; i.e., the question of "What is good and what is evil?" and "How should be treat each other"), it is really no different at all to humanist ethics, and is simply an extension of Nietzsche's ethics, which involves the abandonment of "slave morality" and the sins of restriction. For Weor to claim to be a Thelemite is no different to "St. Augustine's proclamation of "Love, and do what thou wilt;” it is simply doublespeak since, in common with the Catholics, he promoted numerous "sins of restriction" which are essentially restrictions on human behaviour. With regards to "erotic" behaviour there is simply no restriction on erotic behaviours in Thelemic philosophy which involve consensual relationships; the violation of the free will of another being the only real restriction, however Weor's "sexual morality" is essentially no different to Catholic sexual morality.

You keep comparing Gnosis to conventional contemporary exoteric Christianity and Roman Catholicism; yet the thing is, is that these latter groups–which are suppressive and oppressive–do not teach Transmutation, so they are therefore about as far from Gnosis as one can get. You may not believe in Transmutation, which is fine (Transmutation is beyond beliefs anyway); but the fact is, that Transmutation is a Practical Science which was taught by the original Christians (Gnostics), and was also taught by all of the World's Religions, and is most notably taught within the disciplines of Yoga and Tantra. The Science of Transmutation is beyond intellect and beliefs, and must actually be experienced.

The idea of "Transmutation" is central to religious hypnosis and indoctrination; it implies the transformation of a human being into a divine (godlike, or human-nature-hating / demonic) being and often also implies "oneness" with a transcendental human-nature-hating deity (i.e., a demon) through practising various sins of restriction.

Thelemic philosophy can of course "transform" a hypnotised and indoctrinated human-nature-hating religious fanatic into a totally free human being, which is the natural state; however this is entirely the antithesis (opposite idea) of Weor's philosophy.

There is a vast range of studies on the varieties of religious or mystical experience and religious schizophrenia. It is still theoretical at the moment, but it may well be the case that religious schizophrenics (who commonly claim to be in communication with gods or demons) have a physiology which naturally produces more '___' than other human beings; I am not one of those persons, and meditation, yoga etc., does not produce "mystical experiences" for me; I suspect that my physiology perhaps under produces '___', and I am only able to have such experiences through methods prescribed by Crowley, Timothy Leary, Aldous Huxley and others

Such experiences commonly produce a state described in various ways such as:

Experiences include total loss of visual connection with reality, the sense of not being human or having a body, and the feeling of being in many places at the same time. The loss of reality is so extreme that it becomes ineffable. People have been reported seeing themselves in entirely different settings than their original setting, and many people experience the feeling of being in a simulated reality; often computer simulated. Religious phenomenon is reported at this level; often mentioned is a connection to an "all-knowing presence" or a "universal knowledge", which many equate with extra-terrestrials, artificial intelligence, God, love, or "enlightenment". This level is most often experienced by users of '___'. Users commonly report:

From: en.wikipedia.org...

1.Being clearly thrust into outer-space at extreme speed.
2.Being thrust into an expansive void-like alternate dimension consisting of bright colorful fast moving kaleidoscopic environments, dynamic pulsating colored beams, as well as complex three dimensional geometric, mathematical, and linguistic patterns made of light.
3.Continually traveling at great speeds, while watching patterns fly by morph, open, and reveal more complex patterns within.
4.Encountering different types of living beings and superintelligent body-less entities at the same time as 1, 2, and 3. These reports include contact with free-floating entities made of light resembling giant spheres, humanoids, multiple types of unrecognizable insects, human-sized praying mantises, elves, cephalopods, complex robotic machines, and plants.
5.Intelligent beings attempting to communicate with users via visual linguistics, mathematics, morphing colored diamonds of different textures (flesh, gold, liquid metal, colored light). People report beings/entities manipulating what the user can see and view, propelling the user in different directions at disorienting speeds, forcing the user to view both macro and microscopic scale objects including: planetary systems, galaxies, quasars, natural environments, space habitats, technological utopias, neurons, DNA, mitochondria, trilobites, cephalopods, bryozoa and artificial self-replicating machines.

Such experiences quite commonplace and not at all "special," as a glance through the large library of mystical experiences on www.erowid.com... will establish.

While for most people such experiences are temporal, studies of religious schizophrenics seem to indicate that they report similar such experiences without ingesting shamanic psychoactives, so I have no doubt that such experiences can be induced naturally, or are even the "natural state" for some persons, however this is certainly not the case for myself and many others.

Unfortunately the Christian who has shamanic or visionary experiences will often have visions of Jesus, and it will solidify their religious fanaticism, just as the Sadhu may have dreams and waking visions of Shiva, and his Hindu fanaticism will be intensified, similarly with the Gnostic and similarly with the New Ager who does not really have a religion, apart from their own eclectic and highly personalised beliefs.

Such experiences are not really "proof" of anything other than the relationship between brain chemistry and the production of dreams and waking visions in the consciousness; all such experiences are subjective and happen "within" the consciousness, even if one has the perception of audio and visual hallucinations and the perception of communication with beings external to one's consciousness.

The comparison between Weor's Gnostic morality and Catholic morality is quite clear; both involve a human-nature-hating morality and promote similar "sins of restriction," teaching against homosexuality, contraception, abortion and human erotic freedom and promoting the sexual enslavement of the female in order to allegedly become more divine (godlike), however since the Catholic definition of a deity is one that despises human nature and human erotic freedom, from a Thelemic perspective this concept of "divine" is simply doublespeak, since it produces a person who emulates such human-nature-hating qualities, and who often considers themselves "superior" to those who live according to their natural will; it produces an arrogant and demonic priest essentially.

In Thelemic terms where there "No god but man (and woman)," the Catholic view and Samael's view of "divine" includes an intense hatred of human nature and is "anti-natural" and thus "ungodly" from a Thelemic perspective; it simply produces a hypnotised, indoctrinated slave who has a fear and loathing regarding human nature.

As far as I am concerned, there is no transcendental being to become "one" with or to "love;" there are only the gods and goddesses (i.e., human beings) to love and to be loved by.

The religious fanatics are all ultimately subject to "my" judgement and to human judgement, not the judgement of an imaginary transcendental (up above) being; there is no-thing above us but the sky and the universe; it is "I" who am the judge of this imaginary transcendental being who is nothing more than an anthropomorphic projection of human consciousness; and thus the judgement upon God is ultimately a judgement upon the "men of God" and the fanatics of religion.

Lucifer

"The foundation of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man.

Religion is indeed the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man, state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is therefore indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion.

Religious suffering is at one and the same time the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people." Karl Marx, "Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. "

reply to post by Lucifer777

You're entitled to your misaligned thoughts, but don't expect to ever completely eradicate us and as well as a fight. You can't eradicate a belief or an ideology. As for stupid things such as "public registries", I can't speak for all Masons, but for me, I'd rather take my ring off and will refuse to take part in the registry. In your endeavors to expose us for nothing more than paranoia, you'll drive us away.

I am a strict Constitutionalists and as such belief in freedom of the people to govern themselves, but like I said, man will always find a way to commit atrocities. Religion is an excuse, not the actual reason (most of the time). Resources is usually the reason.

Economic freedom for me is freedom of choice. I don't favor monopolies

So you don't know my role, but still assume that because I'm in the military I must support genocide? Well, you shouldn't assume anything, but then again, that's what you do.

The Muslims and the US state terrorists have long been the traditional enemies of the Communists, and if you want to kill each other off, the Machievellian style mantra of "[i[Why fight your enemies if you can incite them to fight each other?" applies.

So maybe the true conspiracy lies with people (commies) like you. Maybe the wars of today can be tied to your ideology and its manipulations?

The Duke of Kent is the most well known Mason in England, not the entire world.

I've been on inspection teams and have never seen narcotics hidden away. I know some soldiers have been caught using drugs, but never teams or units ordered to traffick.

Plus, the CIA is not the same as the military. I cannot speak for the CIA and their covert operations.

Again, not here to discuss your hatred of my country.

Originally posted by KSigMason
reply to post by Lucifer777

 

You're entitled to your misaligned thoughts, but don't expect to ever completely eradicate us and as well as a fight. You can't eradicate a belief or an ideology.

Beliefs and ideologies most certainly can die out through a process of education, just as very few Mexicans still believe in the religion of the ancient Aztecs, and very few educated Westerners still believe that leprosy and blindness can be cured by "casting out evil spirits." Similarly it is unlikely that human beings in the future will look back at the activities of a gang of organised Capitalists and state terrorist collaborators such as the Freemasons and consider them to be "good" or "godly;" such a judgement is only likely to be made by an indoctrinated person who believes that God (assuming that She even exists) is an anti-Communist, an evangelical, imperialistic, genocidal Capitalist and Anglo-American state terrorist, narco-terrorist collaborator

With regards to the beliefs and ideology of the Masonic cultists, since they appear to be generally ideological anti-Communists and Anglo-American state terrorist, narco-terrorist, Imperialist collaborators who support the International Dictatorship of Capitalism, and who operate as a gang of organised Capitalists, I do concede that such Capitalist gangs are unlikely to be eradicated unless Capitalism itself is eradicated, and of course this will take time, and it is not merely an ideological matter but a military matter. Since the Capitalists are militant, genocidal and armed with weapons of mass destruction, their eradication will require a militant solution. However I should point out that I have no objection to the tiny minority of Freemasons who are ideologically Communist, anti-Capitalist or Anarchist.

As for stupid things such as "public registries", I can't speak for all Masons, but for me, I'd rather take my ring off and will refuse to take part in the registry. In your endeavors to expose us for nothing more than paranoia, you'll drive us away.

This is entirely a straw man argument. I have never suggested such a thing. Your Christian opponents who suggest such a thing are quite likely to be the same people who would suggest a "public registry" of Jews, gays, gypsies and Communists. Falsely attributing arguments to opponents is usually often one of the last cries of the desperate in debate.

I am a strict Constitutionalists and as such belief in freedom of the people to govern themselves, but like I said, man will always find a way to commit atrocities. Religion is an excuse, not the actual reason (most of the time). Resources is usually the reason.

The causes of war are almost always economic. Religion is simply a justification which political leaders such as George "God told me to invade Iraq" Bush use to hypnotise the religious fanatics among the masses into supporting state terrorism and imperialism. I am sure that there are numerous religious schizophrenics in the US military, such as their chaplaincy, which use "God" as a justification for war, and offer "heaven" in eternity as a reward for US state terrorist collaboration, but in all probability I think that most of the US mercenaries know that they fight primarily for Capitalist coin, and to fulfilthe will of their economic masters, and that they are little more than, in the words of Henry Kissinger, ("Military men are") “dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy."

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful"....Seneca

Economic freedom for me is freedom of choice. I don't favor monopolies.

The current "International Dictatorship of Capitalism" is essentially a banking monopoly, and the "economic freedom" of modern Neoliberalism "is" essentially the freedom of Capitalist cartels of the First World to literally buy up the utility companies, banks and corporations of the Third World. The privatisation of Iraq's state owned enterprises and utilities ( www.guardian.co.uk... ), and the purchase of them by foreign corporations was one of the first mandates of the US imperialists, and war is major part of the US economy; it is little more than a business.

Ian Traynor, The Privatization of War. $30 Billion Goes to Private Military; Fears Over 'Hired Guns' Policy, Guardian/UK, December 10, 2003: "Private corporations have penetrated western warfare so deeply that they are now the second biggest contributor to coalition forces in Iraq after the Pentagon, a Guardian investigation has established. ... While the official coalition figures list the British as the second largest contingent with around 9,900 troops, they are narrowly outnumbered by the 10,000 private military contractors now on the ground. ... The investigation has also discovered that the proportion of contracted security personnel in the firing line is 10 times greater than during the first Gulf war. In 1991, for every private contractor, there were about 100 servicemen and women; now there are 10. ... The private sector is so firmly embedded in combat, occupation and peacekeeping duties that the phenomenon may have reached the point of no return: the US military would struggle to wage war without it. ... While reliable figures are difficult to come by and governmental accounting and monitoring of the contracts are notoriously shoddy, the US army estimates that of the $87bn (£50.2bn) earmarked this year for the broader Iraqi campaign, including central Asia and Afghanistan, one third of that, nearly $30bn, will be spent on contracts to private companies. ... It is a trend that has been growing worldwide since the end of the cold war, a booming business which entails replacing soldiers wherever possible with highly paid civilians and hired guns not subject to standard military disciplinary procedures."

www.sourcewatch.org...

So you don't know my role, but still assume that because I'm in the military I must support genocide? Well, you shouldn't assume anything, but then again, that's what you do.

"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy." Henry Kissinger.

Well, to restate, since "military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy," your duty is to follow orders and your personal opinions are irrelevant to US foreign policy. If a person is a member of the CIA created Al Queda, it matters not to the US state terrorists what their "role" is; similarly with the US state terrorist / narco-terrorist collaborators and sympathisers themselves; their specific "role," is irrelevant to the fact that they are collaborators with the world's major terrorist / narco-terrorist organisation. Whether you personally support every specific action of US state terrorism / narco-terrorism / Imperialism / genocide, etc., or not, you are still a terrorist collaborator and part of the problem, not part of the solution or opposition / resistance.

The Muslims and the US state terrorists have long been the traditional enemies of the Communists, and if you want to kill each other off, the Machiavellian style mantra of "[i[Why fight your enemies if you can incite them to fight each other?" applies.

So maybe the true conspiracy lies with people (commies) like you. Maybe the wars of today can be tied to your ideology and its manipulations?

So the Communists are responsible for US imperialism, state terrorism, narco-terrorism and numerous US backed regimes and coups of the far political right? It sounds to me like you may have been reading too much Henry Makow.

The Duke of Kent is the most well known Mason in England, not the entire world.

To restate, since the aristocratic Field Marshall, the Duke of Kent is clearly the most well known Masonic Grand Master in the world and an anti-Capitalist's definition of the personification of human evil, I doubt that anyone joining Masonry is unaware that such such a Capitalist devil is one of the major overt leaders of Masonry. If you believe that there is a better known current Masonic Grand Master, then perhaps you could state who that is?

I've been on inspection teams and have never seen narcotics hidden away. I know some soldiers have been caught using drugs, but never teams or units ordered to traffick.

This is simply an "argumentum ad ignorantiam" or the "appeal to ignorance;" it is as if one were to state "I have never seen the Italian Mafia selling drugs, so therefore they do not sell drugs, or "I have never been to California, therefore California does not exist." This is much the same argument which has been presented by Masons on the thread "On Masonic Charity. The world's largest non religious charity scam. On the Shriners and Jesters," on www.abovetopsecret.com... regarding institutional and endemic corruption in American Freemasonry which states "I have never used charity funds to finance prostitution parties, so therefore such activities do not occur." These are not arguments which deal with the allegations.

Originally posted by Lucifer777
..... It is no coincidence that when the US military were fighting in Vietnam that most of the world's heroin supply came from the Golden Triangle and that now they are in Afghanistan, most of the world's heroin supply now comes from there where the Anglo-American narco-terrorists prop up a narco-state whose president and his brother are probably the world's major suppliers of heroin ( en.wikipedia.org... ).

According to the UN, under the Taliban, who were trying to stop opium production, back in 2001 Afghanistan was only producing less than 200 tons of heroin per annum and it is now around 6000 tons ( www.time.com... ) under the regime of the US allies who are essentially the same drug dealers whom the Taliban overthrew. That is what the Anglo-American mercenaries have been dying for, though in line with the "Give me one, two...many Vietnams." mantra, I suppose that it is good for generating militant hatred against the Anglo-American narco-terrorists.

"In my 30-year history in the Drug Enforcement Administration and related agencies, the major targets of my investigations almost invariably turned out to be working for the CIA." --Dennis Dayle, former chief of an elite DEA enforcement unit.

"For decades, the CIA, the Pentagon, and secret organizations like Oliver North's Enterprise have been supporting and protecting the world's biggest drug dealers.... The Contras and some of their Central American allies ... have been documented by DEA as supplying ... at least 50 percent of our national coc aine consumption. They were the main conduit to the United States for Colombian coc aine during the 1980's. The rest of the drug supply ... came from other CIA-supported groups, such as DFS (the Mexican CIA) ... [and] other groups and/or individuals like Manual Noriega." (Ex-DEA agent Michael Levine: The Big White Lie: The CIA and the Cocaine/Crack Epidemic)

ciadrugs.homestead.com...

More on: www.ciadrugs.com... (50 Years of CIA drug trafficking).

Google Video Link

Above: Michael Ruppert - CIA and Drug Running

Google Video Link

Above: The Secret History: CIA Drug Ops Conspiracy (unaired documentary)

www.youtube.com...
.....
More on CIA drugs trafficking:
The CIA: America's Premier International Terrorist Organization www.serendipity.li...
A timeline of CIA atrocities: www.serendipity.li...
CIA support for death squads www.serendipity.li...

......

CIA Report Exposes Drug Smuggling Scandal

By GARY WEBB

The sale of missiles to the Ayatollah Khomeini, it seems, wasn't the
real scandal of the Iran-contra affair. It was the sale of coc aine to
American citizens.

This we know thanks to a recently declassified CIA inspector
general's report.

Though hacked and shredded to about half its original length for
alleged national security reasons, the 361-page CIA report paints a
damning picture of official malfeasance.

Had these secret cables surfaced during the firestorm of controversy
then raging over Iran-contra, it is likely neither the CIA nor the
Reagan administration would have survived the conflagration.

By 1987, the CIA report shows, the agency was sitting on six years'
worth of reports from field agents, station chiefs, informants,
private citizens and some of the contras themselves, all indicating
that Ronald Reagan's "freedom fighters'' were shipping planeloads of
coc aine and marijuana into the U.S.

The justice department's files likewise bulged with evidence of
contra drug-running, including eyewitness testimony from inside
informants. Ditto for the state department. The CIA had briefed
vice-president George Bush personally.

"Allegations of drug trafficking continue to plague our operations,''
CIA headquarters grumbled in a July 1986 cable to its agents in Costa
Rica.

Prime example

A prime example was international drug kingpin Norwin Meneses, a
California-based contra who supplied the South-Central L.A. crack
market with coc aine powder during the 80s and early 90s.

A 1988 FBI cable shows that the bureau knew Meneses was working for
the drug enforcement agency (DEA) and believed he "was, and may still
be, an informant for the Central Intelligence Agency.'' At the time,
the FBI was unsuccessfully seeking his indictment on federal
coc aine-trafficking charges.

According to the report, the CIA not only failed to act against the
contra traffickers, but also, deliberately or otherwise, misled
others who were investigating them.

The agency repeatedly sent false reports to U.S. attorneys, U.S.
customs and other federal agencies assuring them that the CIA had no
record of men and companies who were plainly listed in CIA files as
being involved with drugs.

Most important, the declassified cables show that the CIA knew
exactly what it was doing and was fully aware of how the American
public would react if word of its shenanigans ever surfaced.

"There is a very real risk that news of our relationship with (Alan
Hyde), whose reputation as an alleged drug trafficker is widely known
to various agencies, will hit the public domain -- something that
could bring our program to a full stop,'' CIA headquarters nervously
cabled its agents in Honduras in July 1987.

Six years later, the CIA report says, the agency was still protecting
Honduran trafficker Hyde in an effort to keep the CIA's relationship
with drug dealers during the contra war under wraps.

A March 11, 1993, cable discouraged counter-narcotics efforts against
Hyde because "his connection to the CIA is well documented and could
prove difficult in the prosecution stage,'' says the report, which
was posted on the CIA's Web site in early October.

The CIA knew from the very beginning of the war that the men it had
hired to run its main contra army were narco-terrorists, but it
continued to finance and protect them.

Contra army

In September 1981 -- to take just one example -- as the CIA was
becoming formally involved with the contras, the agency learned that
a faction called the Legion of September 15 "had made a decision to
engage in drug smuggling to the United States in order to finance its
anti-Sandinista operations.''

A few months after discovering the Legion's involvement with drugs,
the CIA put the group's senior commanders in charge of the agency's
newly formed contra organization, the Nicaraguan Democratic Force
(FDN).

According to the testimony of former L.A. drug kingpin Danilo
Blandon, the contra middleman who sold Meneses' coc aine to
South-Central's crack dealers, it was the Legion's commander in
chief, Enrique Bermudez, who recruited him and Meneses in late 1981
to raise money for the contras in California.

As part of their fundraising efforts, they began selling coc aine to
the street gangs of South-Central and, in the process, helped touch
off the crack-coc aine explosion there.

The inspector general's report should put to rest the long-simmering
historical debate over what the CIA as an institution knew about the
contras' drug trafficking. The answer? It knew everything, despite
its best efforts to remain ignorant.

So where was the watchdog press while the Reagan administration,
Congress and the CIA were scrambling to keep a lid on the contra drug
connection? Dishing out the official story as fast as possible.

Only now -- nearly 12 years later -- can we fully appreciate what an
astounding lie that was and how eagerly it was swallowed by a
gullible Washington, DC, press corps.

While the press was dismissing the issue as the combined fantasies of
dopers and contra-haters, the DEA was sitting on information from
several reliable informants -- eyewitnesses on the U.S. government's
payroll -- who reported that the contras were selling drugs in Los
Angeles and San Francisco with the CIA's connivance.


DEA operative

In one case, Ivan Torres, a contra official who was part of Blandon's
South Central drug ring, told an undercover DEA operative that "CIA
representatives are aware of his drug-related activities and that
they don't mind. He said they have gone so far as to as to encourage
coc aine trafficking by members of the contras because they know it is
a good source of income.''

That 1987 DEA report corroborated information the drug agency had
received two years earlier from Renato Pena, another member of the
Blandon/Meneses coc aine ring and the FDN's military representative in
San Francisco.

In 1985, Pena told the DEA that "the CIA was allowing the contras to
fly drugs into the United States, sell them and keep the proceeds.''
Pena told CIA inspectors that "Norwin Meneses and Danilo Blandon told
him they were raising money for the contras through drug-dealing and
that Blandon stated that the contras would not have been able to
operate without drug proceeds."

Ironically, these recently declassified reports are still secret to
most Americans.

ciadrugs.homestead.com...

More on THE CIA: "COCAINE IMPORTING AGENCY"
on: www.angelfire.com...

The entirety of Rodney Stiche's exhaustive work of Biblical proportions "Defrauding America" can be read on: www.copi.com...

See also: ciadrugs.homestead.com...

Plus, the CIA is not the same as the military. I cannot speak for the CIA and their covert operations.

So now the CIA is not part of the US military. I think that this is just further evidence of the correctness of Henry Kissinger's statement that "military men are dumb, stupid animals..."

Again, not here to discuss your hatred of my country.

You are obviously here as a propagandist and apologist for US state terrorism / narco-terrorism / imperialism, however if you are an indication of the intellectual and moral qualities of the apologists of US state terrorism, then frankly you are more of an advert for your opponents. Further I have no hatred of "America" nor the American people in general; not all Americans are terrorist collaborators such as yourself; on the contrary.

Lucifer

reply to post by Lucifer777

Ah yes, "education" (indoctrination). I did laugh just at this first sentence because I was reminded of a South Park episode where the kids are forced into a "tolerance" camp, "where intolerance was not tolerated".

Freemasonry is not some capitalist gang and those who are rational will look with favor on Freemasonry, just as it is today and always has been.

Well, you'll have a fight on your hands so start mustering. I'm sure you'd be willing to be at the head of the battle charge.

I should have stated that you didn't suggest it, but you align yourself with those who do such vinay86.

Religion is simply a justification which political leaders such as George "God told me to invade Iraq" Bush use to hypnotise the religious fanatics among the masses into supporting state terrorism and imperialism.

By this omission you even agree that religion isn't the problem, but men who want power. Religion shouldn't be condemned as men of evil come from everywhere, both the faithful and the faithless. Evil should be condemned.

You keep posting this quote and I don't give a # what Kissinger said to some Air Force General in Viet Nam. There have been changes to the military to include technological ones and there are certain requirements for certain jobs that only a smart percentage get and able to advance through. Actually in my job, I am in command and I have a much stronger control over my equipment than most others do. Plus, no good soldier follows blindly and says "I was just following orders".

None of us know our end, really, or what hand will guide us there. A king may move a man, a father may claim a son, but that man can also move himself, and only then does that man truly begin his own game. Remember that howsoever you are played or by whom, your soul is in your keeping alone, even though those who presume to play you be kings or men of power. When you stand before God, you cannot say, "But I was told by others to do thus," or that virtue was not convenient at the time. This will not suffice. Remember that.

So the Communists are responsible for US imperialism, state terrorism, narco-terrorism and numerous US backed regimes and coups of the far political right? It sounds to me like you may have been reading too much Henry Makow.

You never know, plus you brought it up.

I actually didn't know the Duke of Kent was a Mason until I was thinking about visiting England and thought about visiting the Lodge and needed to contact the Grand Lodge there. It was then when I visited the site that I found out, then some months later when I watched a few documentaries on Freemasonry that the Discovery Channel was doing

You're also known to condemn 99% of a group for what less than 1% did.

The CIA is not a part of the military. It is a civilian intelligence agency who may work with, but is not a part of. There is a difference. They do not fall under military command. The Director doesn't report to anyone in the military.