The Names We Do Not Speak: The FEMALE Illuminati!

reply to post by NoRegretsEver


You're thoroughly confused.

women aren't brought down because of the power they hold. That's entirely illogical. Women are brought down by the culture that is perpetuated by the myths originated from a ruling class that existed long ago. These dimwitted males subjugated the females out of sheer power for pleasure.

Your posts reek of sexism.

Originally posted by Serdgiam

Originally posted by NoRegretsEver
reply to post by Serdgiam

 

Anytime, but be sure to stick around its not over just yet

Peace, NRE.

I most certainly will!

I still have so many unanswered questions about it, but Ill sit back and observe for a while. Just one question though, are you suggesting that the concept "if women ruled the world there would be no problems whatsoever for eternity" (literal quote from a family member, btw), is actually a hidden and cohesive idealogy?

IMHO no, I dont believe that, but I do believe that the stigma of women being "evil" is horrifically wrong. That the set agenda to make women seem this way is to hide the true nature of women to begin with.

Many cultures still worship women, and goddess', but amazingly not so many out in the open. I think in order for that to be pliable, as I have heard that before as well, is to first look into the initial reasons they are there in the first place.

As I said in an earlier post. With all the things that have happened in history, the story of women, and the stigma that surrounds them has yet to be uncovered. I am hoping to get some of that discussed here.

I see it this way in order to make an omelet you have to crack a few eggs.

Peace, NRE.

All I know is that whether we you have a penis or a vagina, we are humans. We bleed red and we have an expiry date. Humans have a rational mind and a emotional one. Humans are capable of evil and good. The choice is and will be yours to make.

Is it really that difficult to make certain points about women, there are a few examples in this thread where treading in this area are perfect examples of what I am talking about. The truths of women cannot be truly discussed unless they can all be looked into, whether pretty or not.

If we can discuss everything else why not this, with an open mind.



Here are a few possible examples on why women are seen the way they are till this day.

However, she lurks as a powerful unidentified presence, an unspoken name, in the minds of biblical commentators for whom Eve and Lilith become inextricably intertwined and blended into one person. Importantly, it is this Eve/Lilith amalgam which is used to identify women as the true source of evil in the world.

In the Apocryphal Testament of Reuben (one of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, ostensibly the twelve sons of Jacob), for example, it is explained that:

Women are evil, my children: because they have no power or strength to stand up against man, they use wiles and try to ensnare him by their charms; and man, whom woman cannot subdue by strength, she subdues by guile.
(Testament of Reuben: V, 1-2, 5)

witcombe.sbc.edu...

For the past two thousand years or so the story of Adam and Eve has communicated social and religious values to Western civilization. Whether you regard the story as an innocuous folk tale or as an invidious, misogynistic tract, it has successfully presented its "truths" about women in particular as God-ordained and universally valid.

Throughout the Christian period, the story of Eve has provided men with the reason why they should restrain and restrict the social, sexual, religious, political, and economic freedom of women. It has also given men the justification to hold women responsible for all the misfortunes suffered by mankind.

All women are like Eve, and their only chance of redemption is to become like the Virgin Mary, another patriarchal fantasy, who represents absolute obedience and purity. The story of Eve and its many misogynistic interpretations have over the centuries defined the image of woman in Western civilization.

witcombe.sbc.edu...

Peace, NRE.

Originally posted by NoRegretsEver
IMHO no, I dont believe that, but I do believe that the stigma of women being "evil" is horrifically wrong. That the set agenda to make women seem this way is to hide the true nature of women to begin with.

Oh, ok..

I havent seen this stigma anywhere, to be honest. I see that in some cultures, they are considered greatly inferior, but not so much "evil." The idea exists, certainly, but I just dont see it as a generally held stigma.

In fact, like I said, most women I know hold the exact opposite opinion (that if they ran things, there would be peace and harmony forever) and most men I know just accept that while women do not have overt control, they pretty much "run things."

Even in popular TV shows and media, females are consistently portrayed as superior. Maybe this is a difference in culture from your surroundings though.

It sounds a bit like an attempt to glorify women over men, to be honest.

reply to post by Serdgiam

It sounds a bit like an attempt to glorify women over men, to be honest.

And how is that exactly. Most people seem to think that I am being sexist towards women and the other towards men, what many are failing to see, is that there is a much needed intellectual discussion concerning women, their roles, and the parts that they play in society.


I dont mean in television/music/movies, personally I think that those things have their own agenda. I am talking about women, something that unless was a thread debating the evil, money hungry, gold digging, male hating threads of the past, this one has been in detail about women throughout history, including many of the false myths about women.

I hope you dont take this the wrong way, I mean this as a generalization about the overall thread, with of course a statement, for your statement.

Peace, NRE.

Oops...wrong post!

reply to post by MRuss


I think you meant that post for another thread... and if not, ah never mind you meant that for another thread, just giving you a heads up, so you can repost it

Peace, NRE.

Originally posted by NoRegretsEver
One of the most notable woman rulers, with very sinister backgrounds was Elizabeth the I. Here is a painting that was recently discovered to have been painted over, covering its original pose.

The Original, beginning to fade.

Notice the cross and 5 petaled flower held to her breast.

As I stated earlier the 5 pointed star is Venus and the "illumination" aka the imparting of knowledge which in this case is mathematics. Geometry was used to measure the passage of the stars which was brought to Greece by the Egyptian Mystery Cult (or School) initiate Pythagoras.

By studying the dimensions of Venus the 5 pointed star mankind was able to gain the "knowledge of the ages" (the Sun's procession through the zodiac and foreknowledge of the seasons).

The cross is a solar symbol.

Elizabeth here is stating that she is an initiate of the mysteries and their knowledge.

Elizabeth also funded John Dee, the original 007 (how he signed his messages to Elizabeth, 007= 2 ball cain of masonry) and founder of modern British "intelligence." (get it intelligence aka illumination aka enlightenment).

General info on John Dee (007)


PS
I warned you about saying anything remotely negative about women didn't I?


The above being an example of why things wouldn't be perfect if women ruled the world. No one would be allowed to dissent unless it blamed everyone otherwise the whole world would go deaf from all the squawking . . . . which might actually solve a lot of problems in itself.

reply to post by NoRegretsEver


Okay, you want to have an intelligent discussion about the role women play, and the myths that surround them? Let's have it.

I think in order to get through all the myths surrounding the sexes, we have to look at the biological differences between the two in order to find objective, natural roles.

Men have more muscle, women have more fat. This is genetic in nature from the womb. Many genes cause pro-testosterone outcomes. Once a threshold is breached,viola, you have a male. Excessive testosterone in the womb sexualizes the embryo, forming a penis where in it's absence there would remain a vagina.

You say women are equally capable of performing the social roles that males perform. To this, I say you're incorrect. It's not absolute. Sure, a woman can be a doctor, or an engineer, a senator, or an astronaut, but physically are incapable of performing on the level of the average male when it comes to certain physical feats. That's a scientifically backed fact.

You can turn this around and say that a male can't perform certain things as well as a woman, and this statement is equally valid. The most obvious is getting a male to pop out a child. Not going to happen Less obvious would include the ability to multitask, on average, as well as females. This is due to an enlarged corpus callosum. Nothing cultural, or mythic about this. Scientifically sound.

So from these biological differences, we can begin to infer that different strategies work for each sex, with the overall benefit affording a more fit species. The strategies are not set in stone, but instinct, or rather genetic predisposition towards unconscious strategies for fitness, is quite difficult to overcome by mere cultural influences. The inclinations can be channeled in different outlets, but their roots will remain the same, and different between the two sexes.

Patriarchy is the rule of men within a society, and the ongoing cultural myths which perpetuate the cycle. Matriarchy is the rule of women within a society, and the ongoing cultural myths which perpetuate the cycle.

In modern western civilization, we have a mix of Patriarchy, and Matriarchy which seems to be swaying more towards Ma as the males continue to loose their jujuice due to chemical castration, aka synthetic chemicals: endocrine disruptors. It seems there is an increase in women losing their normal levels of estrogen in modern times as well, which seems to correlate with the epidemic of PCOS in recent decades. Overall, it seems the female is more resilient to the onslaught of environmental catastrophe in which life on this planet is facing.

As for the illuminati nonsense, I have nothing much to add. They existed a long time ago, and mathematics is no longer for the privileged class.

reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli


Yeah, yeah I know

But its ok, at least some people understood where I was going with this. But it also proves my point, and its a shame that this cant really be discussed rationally without the dissent.


The same kind of complaints are the ones that keep this kind of thinking going generation to generation. But it will NOT stop me, not in the least.

So a personal thanks to those that read the thread and took no offenese by it.

Peace, NRE.

reply to post by wehavenoclue


LOL I bet you made an account just to vent your rage at the "misogyny" in this thread.

It is not only mathematics which was developed and refined by the priests and ruling classes.

Plato was also an initiate of the Egyptian Mystery Cults. There is a belief among the mysteries of spirit descending into matter and for those classically (aka mystery cults) trained have come in contact with this concept via the "allegory of the cave" or more recently through Kabbalah and other eastern mystic cults.

Allegory of the Cave
en.wikipedia.org...

Plato has Socrates describe a group of people who have lived chained to the wall of a cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall. The people watch shadows projected on the wall by things passing in front of a fire behind them, and begin to ascribe forms to these shadows. According to Plato's Socrates, the shadows are as close as the prisoners get to viewing reality. He then explains how the philosopher is like a prisoner who is freed from the cave and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall do not make up reality at all, as he can perceive the true form of reality rather than the mere shadows seen by the prisoners.

In the above case the cave is the human skull and those who undergo "illumination" (ie OBEs) recognize this.

This is why you have the Djed (spinal column of 33 vertebrae before the skull) as a number of "enlightenment."

Eastern schools often taught this as the kundalini serpent rising before activating the crown chakra of the 3rd eye.

The 3rd eye being physically the pineal gland but symbolically (as far as you are concerned) opening one's eyes to the true reality of spirit.

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli
reply to post by wehavenoclue

 

LOL I bet you made an account just to vent your rage at the "misogyny" in this thread.

That was the agenda for the time being, though I will certainly travel on to more interesting threads in the near future.

Thanks for pointing out the obvious.

It is not only mathematics which was developed and refined by the priests and ruling classes.

True. A lot of nonsense which we now (well the most enlightened among us, at least ) know better than to believe came from these individuals as well.

If you hold a cat on it's back long enough, the blood will pool to the back of the brain, causing it to fall asleep.

I've had numerous OOBE's, as the irrational like to call them. They only seem to happen after I'm exceptionally stressed, and for some odd reason decide to sleep on my back instead of on my side as usual. Though it doesn't seem to be to the same degree, I think some people have blood rush to the back of their head causing seizures in some of the more frontal regions of the brain.

I think OOBE's are a misfiring of the brain, notably in the temporal lobes. Our minds seek consistency of space/time. In the absence of centers which can provide this, but while slipping into deeper states of consciousness unexpectedly (perhaps in my case due to the extreme stress), the mind may default back to the last known co-ordinance. The experience being that I seem to be floating above my body.

It makes quite a bit more sense than believing, for no good reason, that I'm actually doing so.

Originally posted by wehavenoclue
If you hold a cat on it's back long enough, the blood will pool to the back of the brain, causing it to fall asleep.

I've had numerous OOBE's, as the irrational like to call them. They only seem to happen after I'm exceptionally stressed, and for some odd reason decide to sleep on my back instead of on my side as usual. Though it doesn't seem to be to the same degree, I think some people have blood rush to the back of their head causing seizures in some of the more frontal regions of the brain.

I think OOBE's are a misfiring of the brain, notably in the temporal lobes. Our minds seek consistency of space/time. In the absence of centers which can provide this, but while slipping into deeper states of consciousness unexpectedly (perhaps in my case due to the extreme stress), the mind may default back to the last known co-ordinance. The experience being that I seem to be floating above my body.

It makes quite a bit more sense than believing, for no good reason, that I'm actually doing so.

edit on 18-6-2013 by wehavenoclue because: (no reason given)

No this goes deeper than that and has no explanation via the scientific method as of yet. It is called the "hard problem of consciousness." It stems from the complexity of 'experience.'

Hard problem of consciousness
en.wikipedia.org...

Several questions about consciousness must be resolved in order to acquire a full understanding of it. These questions include, but are not limited to, whether being conscious could be wholly described in physical terms, such as the aggregation of neural processes in the brain. It follows that if consciousness cannot be explained exclusively by physical events in the brain, it must transcend the capabilities of physical systems and require an explanation of nonphysical means. For philosophers who assert that consciousness is nonphysical in nature, there remains a question about what outside of physical theory is required to explain consciousness.

Don't believe me? See "Binding Problem";
Binding problem
en.wikipedia.org...

The binding problem is a term used at the interface between neuroscience, cognitive science and philosophy of mind that has multiple meanings.

Firstly, there is the segregation problem: a practical computational problem of how brains segregate elements in complex patterns of sensory input so that they are allocated to discrete 'objects'. In other words, when looking at a blue square and a yellow circle, what neural mechanisms ensure that the square is perceived as blue and the circle as yellow, and not vice versa? The segregation problem is sometimes called BP1.

Secondly, there is the combination problem: the problem of how objects, background and abstract or emotional features are combined into a single experience.[1] The combination problem is sometimes called BP2.

However, the difference between these two problems is not always clear. Moreover, the historical literature is often ambiguous as to whether it is addressing the segregation or the combination problem.

However you clearly fail to recognize, or perhaps acknowledge, that the principle of luciferianism as associated with the "illuminati" is based upon the notion that with enough knowledge mankind will conquer death and become gods.

The laughable notion that you think the "smart" people agree with you is based on a grand delusion or failure to engage in any real research of the great thinkers of science throughout the ages.

Pythagoras --> Egyptian Mystery initiate
Also see mathematical problems posed by Apollonian priests such as;
-Doubling the volume of a cube
-Squaring the circle

Galileo ---> Funded by Medici who translated the Hermeticum and espoused its beliefs.
Hermiticism is essentially gnosticism which holds the belief that knowledge shall set man free.

John Dee--> Invented Enochian Magic
Was genius mathematician and toured around giving lectures at universities at the age of 21.

Newton ---> Alchemist by night
Alchemy is essentially gnosticism (see above)
The apple that hit him in the HEAD (skull / cave/ 33/ etc) which gave him the idea of gravity. Cut an apple in half and you find a 5 pointed star (aka Venus)

Jack Parsons ---> NASA rocket scientist and Ordo Templi Orietalis friend of L Ron Hubbard (Scientology) and Alistair Crowley
Performed rituals with L Ron Hubbard to summon the "Whore of Babylon."
Sex and Rockets: The Occult World of Jack Parsons by John Carter
www.amazon.com...

The list goes on and on but is especially relevant once you look into the power brokers of the world.

But you already knew that didn't you because you are a "smarty."

EDIT
I should probably provide some articles to support Newton as an alchemist.

Isaac Newton, World's Most Famous Alchemist
discovermagazine.com...

Isaac Newton's occult studies
en.wikipedia.org...

No this goes deeper than that and has no explanation via the scientific method as of yet. It is called the "hard problem of consciousness." It stems from the complexity of 'experience.'

I offered one. You choose not to address it.

However you clearly fail to recognize, or perhaps acknowledge, that the principle of luciferianism as associated with the "illuminati" is based upon the notion that with enough knowledge mankind will conquer death and become gods.

Hubris. I think this type of foolishness will cause our demise.

The laughable notion that you think the "smart" people agree with you is based on a grand delusion or failure to engage in any real research of the great thinkers of science throughout the ages.

You keep quoting words that I don't use while making assumptions not evidenced. Interesting.

Anyhoo, I can see you're well into your own delusions, and there's no reasoning with you.

I'll be off to those more interesting threads now.

Originally posted by FriedBabelBroccoli

Originally posted by RothchildRancor
From reading the OP it seems like a Satanist woman is just my type.

I am not a satanist, I am a nihilist.

Well the quote was taken from this site ( www.churchofsatan.com... )

So maybe you would be interested in this one;

Marylin Monroe (actress) was a stripper before she hit it big and supposedly had ties to LaVey

Jane Mansfield (actress) was a pledged member of LaVey's church of satan.
( en.wikipedia.org... )

Tina Louis ( actress) was very into "occultism" and the church of satan.
( en.wikipedia.org... )

These are a few VERY influential women as far as culture is concerned.

EDIT
Personally I am not a fan of knowing that scoring with them would mean filthy sloppy seconds dipped in herpes

Enjoy them and try to ignore the itch

edit on 18-6-2013 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101

What evidence do you have that venereal disease is rampant in female Satanist cults?

Originally posted by RothchildRancor
What evidence do you have that venereal disease is rampant in female Satanist cults?

Have you ever read the Satanic Bible? Many of the core rituals are sex magic based upon the principle of duality and unification of energies to enhance efficacy of the intent.

en.wikipedia.org...

The Book of Belial

LaVey explains that, in order to control a person, one must first attract his or her attention. He gives three qualities that can be employed for this purpose: sex appeal, sentiment (cuteness or innocence), and wonder. He also advocates the use of odor.[63] In the Book of Belial, he discusses three types of rituals: those for sex, compassion, and destruction. Sex rituals work to entice another person; compassion rituals work to improve health, intelligence, success, and so on; destruction rituals work to destroy another person.[64] LaVey advocates finding others with whom to practice Satanic rituals in order to reaffirm one's faith and avoid antisocial behavior. He particularly advocates group participation for destruction rituals, as compassion and sex rituals are more private in nature.[65] LaVey goes on to list the key components to successful ritual: desire, timing, imagery, direction, and "The Balance Factor" (awareness of one's own limitations).

The Book of Lucifer deals with satanism's view on sexuality and makes it clear that participation in orgies is NOT a requirement but the more sexual energy the greater the effect of the ritual.

So you can take a gander at what those inclined towards this path might be willing to do.

Here is an old study from 2001 which clearly demonstrates promiscuity with increased cases of STD's.
[Sexually transmitted diseases (STD) and their relationship with sexual behaviour and condom use, in a cohort of teenagers referring to a STD centre. A nine-year, prospective study].
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

EDIT


^ doesn't mean this song is terrible.

^^But the first one I posted was

Venus=Lucifer=Feminists=Satanists. Dude, when did they let you out of the nut-house?

Originally posted by NoRegretsEver
When you think about it, most men that have this animosity towards women, was due to the amount of control that women had in the first place.

You're wandering all over the place with this topic, which is understandable, it is complex and we're not really looking at one single issue here, but it makes it very difficult to respond to your posts...so I am just going to take the above comment and work from there.

Control, in the context that you are expressing, is subjective. Not all women had control of the domestic sphere (which is what I assume that you are talking about), and it varies greatly through history, both in time and place. If you take Ancient Greece, particularly Hellenised Greece since it was the first, in the Western cultures (of which you and I both belong) to impose restrictions on women and their movements, and it was those practices that gained popularity in the Roman world, which prior to Hellenisation, women enjoyed the same level of freedom that many of women do now. So Ancient Greece...the switch over occurred due to the rise in conflict, the need to defend it's territories and holdings led to a dramatic fall in the male population, and a need to replenish the armies. This first led to compulsory marriage, women were compelled by law to be married if they were of child bearing age, and men too had to marry. If a woman lost her husband, she had to marry again almost immediately, and commence bearing children.

Now just as later in Rome, these laws only applied to 'citizens'...slaves and foreigners were exempt, and could pretty much carry on as they wished...but, both female, and on rare occasions, male, slaves could attain citizenship through marriage to a citizen and/or by successfully bearing children to citizens. But even so, you are already here seeing how competition is being created between the classes of women. This is further expounded when laws begin to be introduced that restrict the movement of women, again, only citizens. They are not allowed to appear in public, they are not allowed to partake in political and social affairs, they can't even go to the shops on their own, they become entirely confined to the home, which yes, they rule. Slaves, and foreign workers have much greater freedom, many women are engaged in occupations, particularly the service industries and manufacture, so by necessity they have freedom of movement. Women citizens are subjected to arranged marriages, they are passed from the care of their father, to their husbands, and live in a closed world once married, often even excluded from the company of other women. On the death of their husbands, they are legally returned to their closest male relative's care...this was often even their own son. They are not permitted to have control of their own wealth or decision making.

None citizen women have greater social freedom, but no status. Status can only be achieved through citizenship, and because of their freedom they are enabled the opportunity to seek out husbands or lovers, that can give them that upward mobility. At certain times, given the need to replenish the barracks, even the children of mistresses, including the children had with slaves, were given citizenship, so that those children would qualify for the military. Ensuring that your children have a 'better' life than you do, has always been a driving force for parents. So you can see where competition within the gender, overcoming class barriers led to a breaking down of the unity of sex and how control as well as freedom is subjective.

By breaking down the communication between women of the established or elite classes, you remove the means by which bonds are formed and maintained, and you interrupt the very basis of social cohesion, the rites of passage and the accompanying rituals and education in self. These continued for men for many centuries afterwards aiding their collective strength, while diminishing that of women. For women the familial unit became everything and their sole focus, rather than the wider social group that it had been previously, they were, effectively severed from their roots, and their sphere of influence restricted to the extent that they became disenfranchised from their humanity.

As I have said, it is a very complex issue, or set of issues, that culminated in what you are attempting to present here in this thread, and I admire you for attempting to address it.

The long and the short of the control aspect though is that it was not a matter of men taking control from women because they had disabused their power, but because external forces combined with societal constraints, led to the need to increase reproduction, men can spread their seed to many, but it still takes 280 days for each woman to produce a child.