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

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.

Please spear us, they are all chips from the same bag. It's not like the military has to control them, they all get their orders from an upper level "military and CIA included"

Originally posted by pepsi78
Please spear us...

With pleasure.

Originally posted by AugustusMasonicus

Originally posted by pepsi78
Please spear us...

With pleasure.

Well this thread got derailed, we were talking about kabalah and it turned into something else.
You know this is how things get derailed.

Originally posted by pepsi78
Well this thread got derailed, we were talking about kabalah and it turned into something else.
You know this is how things get derailed.

Since Masonry is a pseudo-Kabbalistic cult, and since there are numerous Masonic lodges which seek to recruit members of the military, and they mostly all seem to support the world's leading terrorist organisation and narcotics trafficker (i.e., the US military), I consider the discussion of Anglo-American state terrorism, narco-terrorism, Imperialism, etc., to be relevant to the subject of Masonry; however I have posted a new thread on this specific subject, "Freemasonry: a Cult of Neofascist, Militant, Genocidal, Capitalists and anti-Communists. An Anti-Capitalist Perspective" on www.abovetopsecret.com...

Lucifer

Originally posted by KSigMason
reply to post by Lucifer777

 

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.

The CIA is not part of the US military? I suppose that terrorist mercenaries such as "Halliburton," "Blackwater," "CACI," "ADS" and "Titan," "DynCorp," are not part of the US military either and that they are all civillians also.

Employees of private military company CACI and Titan Corp. were involved in the Iraq Abu Ghraib prison scandal in 2003, and 2004. The U.S. Army "found that contractors were involved in 36 percent of the [Abu Ghraib] proven incidents and identified 6 employees as individually culpable",[19] although none have faced prosecution unlike US military personnel.

On October 27, 2005, a "trophy" video, complete with post-production Elvis Presley music, appearing to show private military contractors in Baghdad shooting Iraqi civilians sparked two investigations after it was posted on the Internet. The video has been linked unofficially to Aegis Defence Services.

..On September 17, 2007, the Iraqi government announced that it was revoking the license of the American security firm Blackwater USA over the firm's involvement in the deaths of eight civilians in a firefight that followed a car bomb explosion near a State Department motorcade.

In 1999, an incident involving DynCorp in Bosnia was followed by a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) lawsuit being filed against DynCorp employees stationed in Bosnia. It alleged that: "employees and supervisors from DynCorp were engaging in perverse, illegal and inhumane behavior and were illegally purchasing women, weapons, forged passports and participating in other immoral acts."


en.wikipedia.org...

Thank goodness the CIA are just a civillian organisation and not a US military organisation or they might be carrying out the usual narco-terrorism torture, murder rape, genocide, assassinations, black operations, false flag operations and assorted mayhem that the world has come to love about US military imperialism,

The Hidden History of CIA Torture: America's Road to Abu Ghraib
By Alfred W. McCoy

www.globalresearch.ca...

From ancient Rome's red-hot irons and lacerating hooks to medieval Europe's thumbscrews, rack, and wheel, for over 2,000 years anyone interrogated in a court of law could expect to suffer unspeakable tortures. For the last 200 years, humanist intellectuals from Voltaire to members of Amnesty International have led a sustained campaign against the horrors of state-sponsored cruelty, culminating in the United Nation's 1985 Convention Against Torture, ratified by the Clinton administration in 1994.

Then came 9/11. When the Twin Towers collapsed killing thousands, influential "pro-pain pundits" promptly repudiated those Enlightenment ideals and began publicly discussing whether torture might be an appropriate, even necessary weapon in George Bush's war on terror. The most persuasive among them, Harvard academic Alan M. Dershowitz, advocated giving courts the right to issue "torture warrants," ensuring that needed information could be prized from unwilling Arab subjects with steel needles.

Despite torture's appeal as a "lesser evil," a necessary expedient in dangerous times, those who favor it ignore its recent, problematic history in America. They also seem ignorant of a perverse pathology that allows the practice of torture, once begun, to spread uncontrollably in crisis situations, destroying the legitimacy of the perpetrator nation. As past perpetrators could have told today's pundits, torture plumbs the recesses of human consciousness, unleashing an unfathomable capacity for cruelty as well as seductive illusions of potency. Even as pundits and professors fantasized about "limited, surgical torture," the Bush administration, following the President's orders to "kick some ass," was testing and disproving their theories by secretly sanctioning brutal interrogation that spread quickly from use against a few "high target value" Al Qaeda suspects to scores of ordinary Afghans and then hundreds of innocent Iraqis.

As we learned from France's battle for Algiers in the 1950s, Argentina's dirty war in the 1970s, and Britain's Northern Ireland conflict in the 1970s, a nation that harbors torture in defiance of its democratic principles pays a terrible price. Its officials must spin an ever more complex web of lies that, in the end, weakens the bonds of trust that are the sine qua non of any modern society. Most surprisingly, our own pro-pain pundits seemed, in those heady early days of the war on terror, unaware of a fifty-year history of torture by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), nor were they aware that their enthusiastic proposals gave cover to those in the Bush Administration intent on reactivating a ruthless apparatus.

Torture's Perverse Pathology

In April 2004, the American public was stunned by televised photographs from Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison showing hooded Iraqis stripped naked, posed in contorted positions, and visibly suffering humiliating abuse while U.S. soldiers stood by smiling. As the scandal grabbed headlines around the globe, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld quickly assured Congress that the abuses were "perpetrated by a small number of U.S. military," whom New York Times columnist William Safire soon branded "creeps."

These photos, however, are snapshots not of simple brutality or even evidence of a breakdown in "military discipline." What they record are CIA torture techniques that have metastasized like an undetected cancer inside the U.S. intelligence community over the past half century. A survey of this history shows that the CIA was, in fact, the lead agency at Abu Ghraib, enlisting Army intelligence to support its mission. These photographs from Iraq also illustrate standard interrogation procedures inside the gulag of secret CIA prisons that have operated globally, on executive authority, since the start of the President's war on terror.

Looked at historically, the Abu Ghraib scandal is the product of a deeply contradictory U.S. policy toward torture since the start of the Cold War. At the UN and other international forums, Washington has long officially opposed torture and advocated a universal standard for human rights. Simultaneously, the CIA has propagated ingenious new torture techniques in contravention of these same international conventions, a number of which the U.S has ratified. In battling communism, the United States adopted some of its most objectionable practices -- subversion abroad, repression at home, and most significantly torture itself.

From 1950 to 1962, the CIA conducted massive, secret research into coercion and the malleability of human consciousness which, by the late fifties, was costing a billion dollars a year. Many Americans have heard about the most outlandish and least successful aspect of this research -- the testing of '___' on unsuspecting subjects. While these CIA drug experiments led nowhere and the testing of electric shock as a technique led only to lawsuits, research into sensory deprivation proved fruitful indeed. In fact, this research produced a new psychological rather than physical method of torture, perhaps best described as "no-touch" torture.

The Agency's discovery was a counterintuitive breakthrough, the first real revolution in this cruel science since the seventeenth century -- and thanks to recent revelations from Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, we are now all too familiar with these methods, even if many Americans still have no idea of their history. Upon careful examination, those photographs of nude bodies expose the CIA's most basic torture techniques -- stress positions, sensory deprivation, and sexual humiliation.

For over 2,000 years, from ancient Athens through the Inquisition, interrogators found that the infliction of physical pain often produced heightened resistance or unreliable information -- the strong defied pain while the weak blurted out whatever was necessary to stop it. By contrast, the CIA's psychological torture paradigm used two new methods, sensory disorientation and "self-inflicted pain," both of which were aimed at causing victims to feel responsible for their own suffering and so to capitulate more readily to their torturers. A week after the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, General Geoffrey Miller, U.S. prison commander in Iraq (and formerly in Guantanamo), offered an unwitting summary of this two-phase torture. "We will no longer, in any circumstances, hood any of the detainees," the general said. "We will no longer use stress positions in any of our interrogations. And we will no longer use sleep deprivation in any of our interrogations."

Under field conditions since the start of the Afghan War, Agency and allied interrogators have often added to their no-touch repertoire physical methods reminiscent of the Inquisition's trademark tortures -- strappado, question de l'eau, "crippling stork," and "masks of mockery." At the CIA's center near Kabul in 2002, for instance, American interrogators forced prisoners "to stand with their hands chained to the ceiling and their feet shackled," an effect similar to the strappado. Instead of the Inquisition's iron-framed "crippling stork" to contort the victim's body, CIA interrogators made their victims assume similar "stress positions" without any external mechanism, aiming again for the psychological effect of self-induced pain

Although seemingly less brutal than physical methods, the CIA's "no touch" torture actually leaves deep, searing psychological scars on both victims and -- something seldom noted -- their interrogators. Victims often need long treatment to recover from a trauma many experts consider more crippling than physical pain. Perpetrators can suffer a dangerous expansion of ego, leading to escalating acts of cruelty and lasting emotional disorders. When applied in actual operations, the CIA's psychological procedures have frequently led to unimaginable cruelties, physical and sexual, by individual perpetrators whose improvisations are often horrific and only occasionally effective.

Just as interrogators are often seduced by a dark, empowering sense of dominance over victims, so their superiors, even at the highest level, can succumb to fantasies of torture as an all-powerful weapon. Our contemporary view of torture as aberrant and its perpetrators as abhorrent ignores both its pervasiveness as a Western practice for two millennia and its perverse appeal. Once torture begins, its perpetrators, plunging into uncharted recesses of consciousness, are often swept away by dark reveries, by frenzies of power and potency, mastery and control -- particularly in times of crisis. "When feelings of insecurity develop within those holding power," reads one CIA analysis of the Soviet state applicable to post-9/11 America, "they become increasingly suspicious and put great pressures on the secret police to obtain arrests and confessions. At such times police officials are inclined to condone anything which produces a speedy 'confession' and brutality may become widespread."

Enraptured by this illusory power, modern states that sanction torture usually allow it to spread uncontrollably. By 1967, just four years after compiling a torture manual for use against a few top Soviet targets, the CIA was operating forty interrogation centers in South Vietnam as part of its Phoenix Program that killed over 20,000 Viet Cong suspects. In the centers themselves, countless thousands were tortured for information that led to these assassinations. Similarly, just a few months after CIA interrogators first tortured top Al Qaeda suspects at Kabul in 2002, its agents were involved in the brutal interrogation of hundreds of Iraqi prisoners. As its most troubling legacy, the CIA's psychological method, with its legitimating scientific patina and its avoidance of obvious physical brutality, has provided a pretext for the preservation of torture as an acceptable practice within the U.S. intelligence community.

Once adopted, torture offers such a powerful illusion of efficient information extraction that its perpetrators, high and low, remain wedded to its use. They regularly refuse to recognize its limited utility and high political cost. At least twice during the Cold War, the CIA's torture training contributed to the destabilization of two key American allies, Iran's Shah and the Philippines' Ferdinand Marcos. Yet even after their spectacular falls, the Agency remained blind to the way its torture training was destroying the allies it was designed to defend.

CIA Torture Research

The CIA's torture experimentation of the 1950s and early 1960s was codified in 1963 in a succinct, secret instructional booklet on torture -- the "KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation" manual, which would become the basis for a new method of torture disseminated globally over the next three decades. These techniques were first spread through the U.S. Agency for International Development's Public Safety program to train police forces in Asia and Latin America as the front line of defense against communists and other revolutionaries. After an angry Congress abolished the Public Safety program in 1975, the CIA worked through U.S. Army Mobile Training Teams to instruct military interrogators, mainly in Central America.

At the Cold War's end, Washington resumed its advocacy of universal principles, denouncing regimes for torture, participating in the World Conference on Human Rights at Vienna in 1993 and, a year later, ratifying the UN Convention Against Torture. On the surface, the United States had resolved the tension between its anti-torture principles and its torture practices. Yet even when Congress finally ratified this UN convention it did so with intricately-constructed reservations that cleverly exempted the CIA's psychological torture method. While other covert agencies synonymous with Cold War repression such as Romania's Securitate, East Germany's Stasi, and the Soviet Union's KGB have disappeared, the CIA survives -- its archives sealed, its officers decorated, and its Cold War crimes forgotten. By failing to repudiate the Agency's propagation of torture, while adopting a UN convention that condemned its practice, the United States left this contradiction buried like a political land mine ready to detonate with such phenomenal force in the Abu Ghraib scandal.

Memory and Forgetting

Today the American public has only a vague understanding of these CIA excesses and the scale of its massive mind-control project. Yet almost every adult American carries fragmentary memories of this past -- of '___' experiments, the CIA's Phoenix program in Vietnam, the murder of a kidnapped American police adviser in Montevideo who was teaching CIA techniques to the Uruguayan police, and of course the Abu Ghraib photographs. But few are able to fit these fragments together and so grasp the larger picture. There is, in sum, an ignorance, a studied avoidance of a deeply troubling topic, akin to that which shrouds this subject in post-authoritarian societies.

With the controversy over Abu Ghraib, incidents that once seemed but fragments should now be coming together to form a mosaic of a clandestine agency manipulating its government and deceiving its citizens to probe the cruel underside of human consciousness, and then propagating its discoveries throughout the Third World.

Strong democracies have difficulty dealing with torture. In the months following the release of the Abu Ghraib photos, the United States moved quickly through the same stages (as defined by author John Conroy) that the United Kingdom experienced after revelations of British army torture in Northern Ireland in the early 1970s -- first, minimizing the torture with euphemisms such as "interrogation in depth"; next, justifying it on grounds that it was necessary or effective; and finally, attempting to bury the issue by blaming "a few bad apples."

Indeed, since last April, the Bush administration and much of the media have studiously avoided the word "torture" and instead blamed our own bad apples, those seven Military Police. In July, the Army's Inspector General Paul T. Mikolashek delivered his report blaming 94 incidents of "abuse" on "an individual failure to uphold Army Values." Although the New York Times called his conclusions "comical," the general's views seem to resonate with an emerging conservative consensus. "Interrogation is not a Sunday-school class," said Republican Senator Trent Lott. "You don't get information that will save American lives by withholding pancakes." In June, an ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 35% of Americans felt torture was acceptable in some circumstances.

In August, Major General George R. Fay released his report on the role of Military Intelligence at Abu Ghraib. Its stunning revelations about the reasons for this torture were, however, obscured in opaque military prose. After interviewing 170 personnel and reviewing 9,000 documents, the general intimated that this abuse was the product of an interrogation policy shaped, in both design and application, by the CIA.

Significantly, General Fay blamed not the "seven bad apples," but the Abu Ghraib interrogation procedures themselves. Of the 44 verifiable incidents of abuse, one-third occurred during actual interrogation. Moreover, these "routine" interrogation procedures "contributed to an escalating 'de-humanization' of the detainees and set the stage for additional and severe abuses to occur."

After finding standard Army interrogation doctrine sound, General Fay was forced to confront a single, central, uncomfortable question: what was the source of the aberrant, "non-doctrinal" practices that led to torture during interrogation at Abu Ghraib? Scattered throughout his report are the dots, politely unconnected, that lead from the White House to the Iraqi prison cell block: President Bush gave his defense secretary broad powers over prisoners in November 2001; Secretary Rumsfeld authorized harsh "Counter-Resistance Techniques" for Afghanistan and Guantanamo in December 2002; hardened Military Intelligence units brought these methods to Iraq in July 2003; and General Ricardo Sanchez in Baghdad authorized these extreme measures for Abu Ghraib in September 2003.

In its short answer to this uncomfortable question, General Fay's report, when read closely, traced the source of these harsh "non-doctrinal methods" at Abu Ghraib to the CIA. He charged that a flouting of military procedures by CIA interrogators "eroded the necessity in the minds of soldiers and civilians for them to follow Army rules." Specifically, the Army "allowed CIA to house 'Ghost Detainees' who were unidentified and unaccounted for in Abu Ghraib," thus encouraging violations of "reporting requirements under the Geneva Conventions." Moreover, the interrogation of CIA detainees "occurred under different practices and procedures which were absent any DoD visibility, control, or oversight and created a perception that OGA [CIA] techniques and practices were suitable and authorized for DoD operations." With their exemption from military regulations, CIA interrogators moved about Abu Ghraib with a corrupting "mystique" and extreme methods that "fascinated" some Army interrogators. In sum, General Fay seems to say that the CIA has compromised the integrity and effectiveness of the U.S. military.

Had he gone further, General Fay might have mentioned that the 519th Military Intelligence, the Army unit that set interrogation guidelines for Abu Ghraib, had just come from Kabul where it worked closely with the CIA, learning torture techniques that left at least one Afghani prisoner dead. Had he gone further still, the general could have added that the sensory deprivation techniques, stress positions, and cultural shock of dogs and nudity that we saw in those photos from Abu Ghraib were plucked from the pages of past CIA torture manuals.

American Prestige

This is not, of course, the first American debate over torture in recent memory. From 1970 to 1988, the Congress tried unsuccessfully, in four major investigations, to expose elements of this CIA torture paradigm. But on each occasion the public showed little concern, and the practice, never fully acknowledged, persisted inside the intelligence community.

Now, in these photographs from Abu Ghraib, ordinary Americans have seen the reality and the results of interrogation techniques the CIA has propagated and practiced for nearly half a century. The American public can join the international community in repudiating a practice that, more than any other, represents a denial of democracy; or in its desperate search for security, the United States can continue its clandestine torture of terror suspects in the hope of gaining good intelligence without negative publicity.

In the likely event that Washington adopts the latter strategy, it will be a decision posited on two false assumptions: that torturers can be controlled and that news of their work can be contained. Once torture begins, its use seems to spread uncontrollably in a downward spiral of fear and empowerment. With the proliferation of digital imaging we can anticipate, in five or ten years, yet more chilling images and devastating blows to America's international standing. Next time, however, the American public's moral concern and Washington's apologies will ring even more hollowly, producing even greater damage to U.S. prestige.

Alfred W. McCoy is professor of History at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He is the author of The Politics of Heroin, CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade, an examination of the CIA's alliances with drug lords, and Closer Than Brothers, a study of the impact of the CIA's psychological torture method upon the Philippine military. He will publish a fuller version of this essay in The New England Journal of Public Policy (Volume 19, No. 2, 2004).

edit on 19-4-2011 by Lucifer777 because: Formatting

reply to post by Lucifer777

I could say nice findings but you derailed your own thread OP, this was about Kabalah and other such things.

Originally posted by pepsi78
reply to post by Lucifer777

 

I could say nice findings but you derailed your own thread OP, this was about Kabalah and other such things.

Well among the "other such things" which I address in the OP is Freemasonry, which I consider to be one of numerous pseudo-Kabbalistic scams of the multi-billion dollar religion business; the Freemasons are a "military and religious order" which also act as a major Capitalist gang; probably they are "the" major gang in Capitalism, as they tend to be dominant in the world of banking and have their own financial city (The City of London) with it's own police, government and it's own laws. They appear to predominate in British banking in the same way that the Russian Mafia predominate in Russian banking.

Since there are around 50 military lodges in the UK (I have no idea about military lodges in the US) and they are entirely entwined with Anglo-American state terrorism, narco-terrorism, and economic and military imperialism, I consider the subject of Anglo-American state terrorism / narco-terrorism to be entirely relevant to the subject, particularly as we have a totally indoctrinated Masonic member of the US military here (Ksigmason) who admits his collaboration with US state terrorists and is a total apologist for the world's leading genocidal terrorist organisation and narcotics trafficker (i.e., the US miltiary).

More on this subject on: "Freemasonry: a Cult of Neofascist, Militant, Genocidal, Capitalists and anti-Communists," on: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Unfortunately a great many Christian conspiracy theorists have swallowed the bizarre "Henry Makow" propaganda which entwines the belief that the Freemasons are part of the proto-Anarchist Illuminist agenda, and I seek to redress this; the Freemasons are, in general, neither Illuminists nor Anarchists, though I would plead guilty on both counts; in general the central tenets of the Freemasons seems to be the accumulation of Capital and Anglo-American state terrorist, narco-terrorist collaboration; their economic agenda appears to be no different to any major Capitalist gang and many of their cultists appear to play a major role in the "International Dictatorship of Capitalism," and thus from an anti-Capitalist perspective, they are essentially a major malevolent terrorist organisation and the definition of "Capitalist Devils."

"Words are Weapons Propaganda is the first stage of war".

Lux

i had noticed something that might be of interest to some, the positions in a regular blue lodge are somewhat like the tree of life, not in respect to the hierarchy but simply with the location of the officers. i know its not exact but can some one please enlighten me on this?

reply to post by lucysadvocate


Forgive me, but I really don't see the resemblance, myself. Do you have any explanations concerning mapping what to what between the two?

Lodge room:
dcsymbols.com...
(WM in the East, which I'm guessing would map to "up" in the Tree of Life, so we'd have to rotate that pic 90° counterclockwise for a one-to-one...)

Tree of Life:
www.astradome.com...

(or would the WM be at the bottom of the Tree? I'm not a kabbalist, so I've never spent any time trying to read the tree...)

Originally posted by JoshNorton
reply to post by lucysadvocate

 

Forgive me, but I really don't see the resemblance, myself. Do you have any explanations concerning mapping what to what between the two?

Lodge room:
dcsymbols.com...
(WM in the East, which I'm guessing would map to "up" in the Tree of Life, so we'd have to rotate that pic 90° counterclockwise for a one-to-one...)

Tree of Life:
www.astradome.com...

(or would the WM be at the bottom of the Tree? I'm not a kabbalist, so I've never spent any time trying to read the tree...)

There are numerous cults of the multi-billion dollar religious business which have a Kabbalistic basis, including Neognostic cults, Masonic cults and New Age cults such as the Kabbalah Centre, run by a multi-millionaire rabbi and whose teachings are drived from the Kabbalah, and "some" of these cults present such teachings as "secrets."

I live just near to Glastonbury which is certainly one of the world's capitals of the New Age movement, and frankly the New Age bookshops of Glastonbury are bursting to the brim with Kabbalstic works, and such teachings / philosophy are no longer secrets and the World Wide Web is filled with a plethora of Internet sites which explain various interpretations of Kabbalistic philosophy.

It seems to be that most Freemasons, in common with the Masonic cultist "Joshnorton," do not define themselves as Kabbalists and may be entirely unaware of the Kabbalistic basis of their cult and of their degree system. Similarly prior to the introduction of the Internet and the rise of Internet anti-cultist activism, I am quite sure that many Scientologists were unaware that L. Ron Hubbard is considered the Messiah, the Maitraya (the reincarnation of Buddha), etc., or of his "Operating Thetan" teachings which were reseved for the higher initiates; such a technique of only revealing certain teachings to those who have spent time and money in a cult is not uncommon.


Above: cult leader of British Masonry: the Duke of Kent.

The "good" Mason

Just as it is quite fair to judge a Scientologist by the behaviour and philosophy of L.Ron Hubbard, just as we can judge a Moon cultist by the behaviour and philosophy of their Korean Messiah, Sun Myung Moon, just as we can judge a cult member of the Westboro Baptist Church by the behaviour and philosophy of Fred Phelps, so too we can judge the Masons in general by their celebrity cult leaders, such as the Duke of Kent.

Clearly the Duke of Kent is a state terrorist, narco-terrorist collaborating, anti-Communist aristocrat and monarchst, who hold the highest rank in the British army, apart from that of his cousin, the current head of state, Elizabeth Windsor, who has no official rank in the military herself, but who is the "head" of the state terrorist, Imperialist army in the UK; all officers serving under her and receiving a "Queen's commission."
.
Clearly we may discern what is the definition of "good" by examining and judging various cult leaders who serve as an example of what is "good" to their members. Understanding the Kabbalistic basis of numerous religious cults in the world, is merely part of the course of understanding religious philosophies, however there is simply no "magical" belief, that one accepted will transform a Capitalist Devil into a saint; and with regards to Masonry, it would appear to me that Masonry simply recruits Capitalist devils into their Masonic gang and has the power to transform them into even greater Capitalist Devils than they once were, and can assist them in what appears to be the central object of their faith in the god of Capitalism; i.e., the accumulation of Capital, my all means necessary. Thus it is my judgement that Masonry is essentially a "Capitalist gang" and that their pseudo-kabbalistic religion is merely a secondary aspect of that.

Lucifer
Blasphemy, Heresy, War, Revolution, etc.

reply to post by Lucifer777

Not all Masons study Kabbalah, but to each his own.

So I'm guessing you're not going to attend the Royal Wedding?

Originally posted by KSigMason
reply to post by Lucifer777

 

Not all Masons study Kabbalah, but to each his own.

Similarly not all Masons have the sacred and Holy Hula Hula Bull dance revealed to them or the sacred application of whipped cream, ice cream and strawberries to the genitals; they really have to purchase a lot of Masonic degrees before such sacred initiations are revealed.

So I'm guessing you're not going to attend the Royal Wedding?

For some reason Her Majesty did not send me an inviation; perhaps she just forgot? I feel most hurt offended and have been crying myself to sleep; however none of my Anarchist comrades got invitations either; it may have had something to do with the fact that on her Golden Jubilee, the London Anarchists demonstrated with a giant guillotine calling for her execution. Perhaps you could put a word in with Her Majesty for me and ask her why she forgot to mail my invitation? She is after all the head of the Christian (Anglican) church and Jesus' representative on earth; I think that she should show a little love and compassion to evangelical anti-Christians and anti-monarchists.

His Supreme Majesty
Lucifer.

While as a Christian I disagree with many of the beliefs, I wish to applaud you on giving an excellent summary of them that I do believe people will be able to understand. I would also agree with you that most of the people involved or claiming to know the esoteric really don't have a depth of understanding of it (I would say the same thing about most people who claim to be Christian or any other religion). I have no intention of discussing my faith versus your faith on this thread.

I also want to applaud you on providing people links to source documents so that they can read and determine for themselves what they believe. Personally, I find that it is easier to talk to a true Luciferian or Gnostic about these matters than to people who kinda believe something and cannot really defend it. While many, like Bohemian Grovers" are really just playing at ritual, the average person becomes aware of it and thinks that they are truly "Luciferian" when they are not. I think anyone who does believe in the tenents of Luciferianism is better off teaching themselves, rather than joining some group that just wants to control them. I know a businessman who is very wealthy and a 33 degree Mason, he couldn't tell you what they believed if he had to, it was purely a purchased recognition.

Originally posted by AQuestion
While as a Christian I disagree with many of the beliefs, I wish to applaud you on giving an excellent summary of them that I do believe people will be able to understand. I would also agree with you that most of the people involved or claiming to know the esoteric really don't have a depth of understanding of it (I would say the same thing about most people who claim to be Christian or any other religion). I have no intention of discussing my faith versus your faith on this thread.

I also want to applaud you on providing people links to source documents so that they can read and determine for themselves what they believe. Personally, I find that it is easier to talk to a true Luciferian or Gnostic about these matters than to people who kinda believe something and cannot really defend it. While many, like Bohemian Grovers" are really just playing at ritual, the average person becomes aware of it and thinks that they are truly "Luciferian" when they are not. I think anyone who does believe in the tenents of Luciferianism is better off teaching themselves, rather than joining some group that just wants to control them. I know a businessman who is very wealthy and a 33 degree Mason, he couldn't tell you what they believed if he had to, it was purely a purchased recognition.

Luciferianism and Satanism (which are entwined in the minds of the Biblical fanatics) are not unified, dogmatic philosophies, however they are evangelically anti-Christian philosophies.

As far as I am concerned, Masonry is a Christian sect (section; one of many groups) whose cultists consider the Christan deity to be "good." As a humanist and an evangelical Antichristian, I share the opinion of Richard Dawkins that the Biblical deity is "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." (— Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion)

Thus I do not wish to associate myself, and my opposition to religious cultism and organised religion in general, with Christian religious fanatics and Christian conspiracy theorists who merely consider the Masons to be "evil" because they promote a competing form of religious cultism in the multi-billion dollar marketplace of the "Jesus business."

I consider the fictional and fabricated "Jesus of the Gospels" to be a description of a primitive religious fanatic, religious schizophrenic, fake healer, fake miracle worker, exorcist, tribalist and general religious bigot. Were he alive today, I would recommend either the firing sqaud (since he proposed a fundamentalist adherence ot the genocidal biblical law) or that he be institutionalised as a genocidal religious schizophrenic.



His imperial Satanic Majesty

Lucifer

reply to post by Lucifer777


I will stand by what I wrote and leave you to yourself.

Originally posted by Lucifer777
As far as I am concerned, Masonry is a Christian sect

And you would be wrong.

Originally posted by KSigMason

Originally posted by Lucifer777
As far as I am concerned, Masonry is a Christian sect

And you would be wrong.

They ultimately appear to consider themselves to be the "Christian Knight's Templars." Of course I am only referring to the "regular" Masonic cult franchises and to Christian religious religious cultists such as yourself; not to competing Masonic franchises in the Masonic cult business such as the French "Grand Orient," etc.

Certainly there may be "lower level"cultists who are not Christians; however it seems to me that the ultimate objective is to transform a person into a mind controlled Christian gang member

Lux

__________________

Originally posted by King Seesar
Looks to me if you wanna become a mason that the Shriners and the Jesters are the groups to avoid from crazy rituals to inappropriate parties to say the least, seems they don't have such a great reputation...

I do however disagree that this is only happening in the American lodges we all know that the European's are kinkier lol....

It seems to me that if the Masons would probably attract more cultists if they were more open about the most sacred and holy rites such as the holy and sacred "application of whipped cream and strawberries to the genitals," the holy and sacred "dog urination ritual (simulated only)" where the candidate is also allegedly stripped, blindfolded, made to perform simulated oral sex on a hot dog and prodded in the ass with a sharp object and other holy and sacred rituals reported include caging and golden shower simulation (with a plastic penis and water), the application of electric shocks to the feet, genitals and posterior, etc., and then there are the drunken prostitute and stripper parties and half million dollar weekend parties with underage prostitutes paid for with charity funds and other similar behaviour which is quite unsurprising for good Christian cultists.

Really the Masonic gang and the assorted Masonic apologists on this forum are a rather ungrateful lot; they should be thanking me for all the free publicity I am giving them; I should really invoice them for "public relations," but I am far too generous with my time. I am only too happy to continue to promote their cult on a voluntary basis in the interests of creating animosity between competing brands of religious cult fanaticism.

Lux

Originally posted by KSigMason
reply to post by Lucifer777

 

Not all Masons study Kabbalah, but to each his own.

Masonry is full of the occult, not all masons study it, but the majority do
The British crown is also full of the occult, just like masonry.

reply to post by Lucifer777

Not all consider themselves to be Knights Templar. Not all are a part of that organization. Your mixing up your terms and labels. Not all who are Masons are Christian and even if they are Christian they may not necessarily be members of the Templar Order. All regular Masons are naturally members of the Blue Lodge, but not all Masons are a part of the appendant bodies. It's illogical to say otherwise.

Freemasonry never seeks to convert anyone from the faith they choose to follow.

reply to post by pepsi78

And you know this how? Can you really speak for us?

And you know this how? Can you really speak for us?

It's my opinion about the masonic organisation, I don't speak for you but for my personal opinion.