It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Founding of Freemasonry

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light
I agree. Hall did not invent the Bacon-Shakespeare myth, but was taken in by it, as other non-elitists have been (same as many poor folks buy into capitalism and anti-socialism).




Well I don't think he would have been so easily taken in, if there were no very-good reasons for believing the "myth".




And now that you mention it, I want to say something in reference to past posts where I've spoken against Marxism and communism:

People are taken in by capitalism and Marxism, not knowing that free-enterprise would be completely different than our modern capitalism(where the few rule); and they also get taken in by Marxism not knowing that socialism would be different than what we now call Marxism and communism(where again, the few rule).

I realize that Marxism is not exactly the same as modern communism, however both are still very far from being positive applications of socialism, even if Marx' philosophy-applied would be the lesser of the two evils of Marxism and modern-communism.


This is interesting:



www.britannica.com



...the English philosopher Bertrand Russell noted, ironically, that Marx adapted the Jewish messianic pattern of history to socialism...





We need to be much more worried about Karl Marx than we do Francis Bacon:





Klipoth 7: Saturn


...A theory that destroys Divinity is a crime against nature. Marx did that consciously because he is awakened; he is a Black Master, of the Black Lodge. He knew what he was making, even though he didn't believe in it. In the first congress that they had, Karl Marx stood up and said: "I am not Marxist." Everyone complained, asking why he was saying this if he was the creator of Marxism, and he said, "I am not Marxist, I am not Marxist." Three times in all.

And from that gathering that they had, Marxism split into many sects, Bolshevism etc. and many other sects of communism.

But he didn't believe in it, because he knew that it was just gibberish that he created. Karl Marx is just a disciple of the Black Lodge that is fighting in order to conquer the world.

The dialectic of Marxism is just plagiarism - the real dialectic was created by Hegel. Marx took that dialectic, and anything that was too spiritual he took it out, and made his dialectic. It does not resist a deep analysis, but a lot of people think it is the way.

Lenin is asleep.

Marx was a Rabbi - some Black Magicians who follow the Demon Javhe want to establish the religion of Moses by force, and support anybody who criticizes, is violent against, other religions. There are many fanatics who talk against other religions.




(*Note: Javhe is basically the anti-thesis of Jehovah. So Zionism is basically the Religion of Moses inverted, or an inverted-Judaism; meaning that Zionism is actually anti-Jehovah*)




Perhaps Hegel's philosophy might contain positive applications of socialism?


As I've said before, the best Utopian system, IMO, would be a land ruled by a Theocratic Monarch(like King Solomon, H.H. the Dalai Lama, or the Pharaohs of Ancient times) with elements of Republicanism, socialism and free-enterprise.






There is no legitimate evidence that Bacon wrote any Shakespeare plays for him. In reality, it would have been impossible. Shakespeare's work required a full-time writer, and quite simply, there's no way Bacon would have the time even if he had wanted to. Also, Bacon's writings lack the pure pure poetic genius needed. Simply put, Bacon was interesting writer, but he was no Shakespeare.




You certainly make some valid points, however M.P. Hall made points just as, if not more, valid.

There are many, many, factors involved; so perhaps the only way to solve the riddle once and for all, would be to find these authors in the Internal-Planes and ask them face to face.







Regards




[edit on 12-2-2007 by Tamahu]




posted on Feb, 11 2007 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by buddhaLight
one word.. Confusion!



Two words:

Why "Confusion"?



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tamahu




Well I don't think he would have been so easily taken in, if there were no very-good reasons for believing the "myth".


Well, Brother Hall, and the Theosophists in general, had a long history of believing myths. Their group was certainly not on the Least Gullible List.






We need to be much more worried about Karl Marx than we do Francis Bacon:


I disagree, unless Marx was actually correct, in which case at least the capitalists should be more worried.





But he didn't believe in it, because he knew that it was just gibberish that he created.



That isn't correct. To begin with, Marxian formula certainly isn't gibberish. It is a unified scientific theory of economics.




The dialectic of Marxism is just plagiarism - the real dialectic was created by Hegel. Marx took that dialectic, and anything that was too spiritual he took it out, and made his dialectic. It does not resist a deep analysis, but a lot of people think it is the way.


It isn't plagiarism for a philosopher to expand upon the work of a predecessor. After all, Marx had been a member of the Young Hegelians. His influence was obvious.




Marx was a Rabbi -.


Marx was not a "rabbi". He was raised in a Christian household, but eventually rejected all organized religion as an attempt by the ruling class to control the masses.



Perhaps Hegel's philosophy might contain positive applications of socialism?


Possibly. But personally, I think Plato had the right idea, at least if you actually want a perfectly "just" society.



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 03:27 PM
link   
I think we should be concerned with both the "New Atlantis" and Marxism. The Hospitalers were not of the same ritual bent as the Templars, were they? Therefore to me it makes sense that speculative Masonry was based on the original model of Templar iniation



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 05:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light
That isn't correct. To begin with, Marxian formula certainly isn't gibberish. It is a unified scientific theory of economics.




It is "gibberish" in the sense that it is not useful for the positive developement of Humanity.

It appears to be positive(because it does contain some positive aspects of socialism); but in the end, it is just another scheme to put power into the hands of the few, while appearing to be beneficial for the whole.

The "Illuminati of the Black Lodge" if you will.

Where is the "socialism" in the brutal, oppressive, tyrannical communist dictatorships?


Atheistic "Humanism" is absolutely worthless; because without INRI, Nous, the Divinity, we are nothing more than "Empty Shells".

The doctrine of Emptiness of Buddhism is Spiritual-Fullness, while the materialistic-"fullness" is empty of any Divine Attributes.

Spiritual Humanism on the other hand(which recognizes the Divinity within Man, as opposed to some despotic anthropomorphic spook in the sky), is certainly a worthy cause:





Gnosis: The Science of Mysticism




"There is an incontrovertible mass of evidence indicating the existence of initiated philosophers possessing a superior knowledge of divine and natural laws. There is also sufficient proof that these initiates were the agents of a World Fraternity or Brotherhood of Adepts that has existed from the most remote time. This overfraternity has been called the Philosophic Empire, the Great School, the College of the Holy Spirit, and the Invisible Government of the World. References to this sovereign body of "the ancient ones of the earth" occur in the sacred writings, the philosophical literature, and the mystical traditions of all races and nations of mankind.






"…[we] have referred to the stream of the secret doctrine as Humanism.

The term is not used in its popular sense, but to describe the grand program of the Mystery Schools for the emancipation of man from bondage to ignorance, superstition, and Fear.







The theories of Carl Marx, Mao Tse-Tung, and all the other materialistic, cynical, skeptical "scoundrels of the intellect" are the anti-thesis of this.


As I mentioned earlier, socialism and Marxism/communism are not necessarily the same thing.

Just as greed-driven capitalism, which puts wealth in the hands of the few, is not the same thing as free-enterprise.







But personally, I think Plato had the right idea, at least if you actually want a perfectly "just" society.




Yes, Plato is an excellent example of a Spiritual Humanist of the College of the Holy Spirit, or Illuminati of the White Lodge.


Regards



posted on Feb, 12 2007 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tamahu




It is "gibberish" in the sense that it is not useful for the positive developement of Humanity.


I'm still not convinced either way. Marx's idea was that communism would come about naturally as a result of the collapse of capitalism. Marx's requirements for this have not yet been met, but it's getting a lot closer. If (and that's a big IF) Marx was correct in his theory, this transition will be seen during the lifetime of many members of this forum.


It appears to be positive(because it does contain some positive aspects of socialism); but in the end, it is just another scheme to put power into the hands of the few, while appearing to be beneficial for the whole.


How so? In classical Marxism, I just don't see it. Marx theorized that power itself is the result of market economics. Once those are gone, the hunger for any type of power must of necessity disappear because it would no longer exist.



Where is the "socialism" in the brutal, oppressive, tyrannical communist dictatorships?


It cannot be found. However, none of those "communist" states were "Marxist" in the least. For example, in Marxian philosopher, there is no actual government. All decisions are made by worker cooperatives. Secondly, Marxed stress many times that communism could only function once international capitalism had collapsed, and a surplus of goods were on hand. This has obviously not happened.



Atheistic "Humanism" is absolutely worthless; because without INRI, Nous, the Divinity, we are nothing more than "Empty Shells".


Marx, of course, would have strongly disagreed. Nevertheless, Marxian theory concerns economics, not religion. Marx seemed to believe that religion would wither away naturally along with capitalism. I'm inclined not to believe him here...toi be honest, I doubt he believed that part either, but more than likely considered it wishful thinking.



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 11:45 AM
link   
sir, i am trying to find the truth. my grandfather was a mason but he moved from tennesse and lost touch, which i believe, he told me about things. that just made me more intrigued. please if there is a way for me to know the truth moer contact me at thomas_michael50@yahoo.com



posted on Feb, 16 2007 @ 11:55 AM
link   
What exactly is it that you're looking for? Are you looking to join a Lodge, or something different?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join