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.

 

In Defence of Adam Weishaupt and the Illuminati.

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by stephinrazin
This is a good thread to help flush out the truth. I read some of the archive link you posted, and the writings do seem to be rather benign. I still have yet to find a full translated body of work from Weishaupt. It is unfair to make an intellectual case without reading the works in entirety. I do appreciate the importance of dissecting the assumption that the illuminati are an evil organization bent on world conquest.



I think there is sufficient evidence from both the writings of the Illuminati on www.bavarian-illuminati.info... and from polemics attacking Illuminism, such as John's Robison's 18th century text and from various modern "scholarly" analyses to reach the conclusions of the OP.

John Robison's "attack" on Illuminism appears to be essentially correct, the IIluminists were essentially promoting the overthrowal of European monarchies, Jacobin (Republican) revolution, the eradication of Christianity, Deism (natural religion, derived at through human reason and intuition, as opposed to "revelation.") and the ultimate overthrowal of all governments. These "accusations" appear to essentially true, but they are all considered to be progressive ideals by Anarchists, Republicans and anti-Christians,

The problem with the modern conspiracy theory about the "Illumnati" promoted by conspiracy theorists such as David Icke, Alex Jones and Henry Makow, is that this theory is a total fabrication which not based on either the writings of the Illuminists nor of their 18th century critics; the idea of imposing a "One World Dictatorship" or "One World Government" and a global Capitalist police state has nothing to do with 18th century Illuminism; in fact it is entirely antithetical to Illuminism; thus it is merely a classic "Straw Man" fallacy; it is just sensationalistic journalism at it's worst where a "sensationalistic" conspiracy theory has been fabricated..


But before then the Illuminists had already attempted to export Jacobin-style revolution to the infant United States. The U.S. was established as a constitutional republic in 1789, the same year the Illuminati’s devastation of France began. Shortly thereafter, agents of the Illuminati, such as French agitator Edward Genet, began organizing insurrectionary and secessionist movements to destroy the American Republic. Their efforts were delayed by widespread public exposure, thanks in no small measure to George Washington, who condemned “the nefarious, and dangerous plan, and doctrines of the Illuminati....” Another memorable warning was offered in a July 4, 1799 address by Timothy Dwight, president of Yale College.

By 1815, Weishaupt’s ambassadors had begun to extend their influence into many parts of the world beyond Bavaria and France. Among the personages and organizations responsible for extending the Illuminati’s infiltration and power throughout Europe were Filippo Michele Buonarroti and his Sublimes Maitres Parfaits (Sublime Perfect Masters), and Louis Auguste Blanqui and the Société des Saisons (Society of the Seasons). Those two branches of the Illuminati formed the source of the League of the Just, which commissioned Karl Marx to write the Communist Manifesto in 1848. Following publication of the Manifesto, the League of the Just changed its name to the Communist League. The Illuminists provided the unseen hand behind the staged communist revolts of 1848, which convulsed France, Austria-Hungary, and Russia. This inaugurated the era of communist subversion, infiltration, and control of governments across the globe — an era which has not ended, contrary to “polite” opinion.

As James H. Billington, a respected scholar who is now the Librarian of Congress, illustrates in his exhaustively documented 1980 study Fire in the Minds of Men: The Origins of the Revolutionary Faith, it is from “Bavarian Illuminism” that “the modern revolutionary tradition” descends. Among the subversive and revolutionary 19th- and early 20th-century movements created by the Illuminati (primarily through European Grand Orient freemasonry, not British and American freemasonry) were the Marxian and “utopian” socialist movements; anarchism; syndicalism; Pan Slavism; Irish, Italian and German “nationalism”; German Imperialism; the Paris Commune; British “New Imperialism”; Fabian Socialism; and Leninist Bolshevism.

www.thenewamerican.com...


There is simply no evidence that the Marxist, Anarchist, Boshevik, Socialist and Fabian movements were "created" by the Illumnati, as stated in the above text, and there is simply no evidence of that, but most certainly the Illuminist ideals were represented to a degree in such movements, and in the 21st cetnury Illumnism is a "philosophical" movement of the radical and deversified political left, rather than a singular organisation.


I have a few points to the OP. I am not attacking, but making some observations. You seem to have a dog in this fight so to speak. It clear to many that institutionalized religion is tyrannical in many ways. That does not mean that one should attack members of a faith as if they are intentionally responsible.

The points you make that challenge theocratic hypocrisy, and biblical inconsistencies are valid. I fear though that the tone, and pointed wording you use prevents many from addressing the contents of your points. Christians that become angry when faced with challenging ideas are responsible for their own emotional reaction. It is not your fault they cannot handle these ideas. That acknowledged, if you wish to encourage a new way of thinking it is not best to attack something so important to many people.


The proponents of religious fascism are often just merely "victims" of religious hypnosis and indoctrination, who have been psychologically conditioned since childhood, just as the children of the Hitler youth were "victims" of political mass hypnosis and indoctrination; never the less there are 100's of millions of Christans and it is no more appropriate to shield them from criticism as it would be to shield Nazis from criticism and just "respect" their genocidal faith. One might as well ask the Christian to refrain from any form of criticism, and I doubt if they could speak and sermonise without doing that.


Whether lucifer is an archetype, or a symbol does not help the case either. It immediately causes a negative reaction from many, and an assumption that you are a bad guy. That is THEIR assumption, but will prevent many from genuine attention to the points you present. I am unconcerned by it, but I can see how it would cloud the judgments of others.


Luciferianism "is" most certainly anti-thetical to organised religion and I have no intention of being diplomatic or vague.



Finally, I am a political anarchist. I think the state is based on violence, and must be removed.


Yes certainly but there would have to be society of Anarchists in order to do that; to simply remove the current nation states would not lead to "political Anarchism" but to the Anarchy by it's most horrific definition; that of total chaos and the breakdown of civilisation; the conditions for Anarchist revolution have yet to be created.


I do not believe that a destruction of property, religion, and personal institutions is a requisite.


"Religious Archons" are Archons which would have to be eradicated and the ultimate Archon in the Western world is the Christian defintion of a deity. With regards to the destruction of property, that is not part of the agenda of Anarchist political philosophers. An advanced technological society where property and resources were shared by the members of a collective would have to produce labour products, not destroy them.


Personally, I find institutionalized religion as a negative restrictive force. I cannot abdicate their removal because then I have become what I oppose. If you try to destroy these things you must form an institution with the underlying threat of violence. This means you have only replaced the state as an immoral force just as dangerous to liberty.


Pacifism is not an appropriate response to the devotees of the war gods of Islam and Christianity. To allow vulnerable adults and children to be continued to be indoctrinated and hypnotised by the Biblical and Islamic legalists and religious charlatans would simply be an intolerable situation. Ultimately the defence against religious hypnosis and indoctrination is education, however since the two major religons of the world (Islam and Christianity) are entirely militant and potentially genocidal faiths, I don't consider just "turning the other cheek" to be appropriate.

Lux




posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucifer777
John Robison's "attack" on Illuminism appears to be essentially correct, the IIluminists were essentially promoting the overthrowal of European monarchies, Jacobin (Republican) revolution, the eradication of Christianity, Deism (natural religion, derived at through human reason and intuition, as opposed to "revelation.") and the ultimate overthrowal of all governments. These "accusations" appear to essentially true, but they are all considered to be progressive ideals by Anarchists, Republicans and anti-Christians,
While I mostly agree, I think you may have oversimplified a bit. They were certainly against organized religion and the church structures as they existed in the 1700s, but I don't think they were explicitly against Deism, that not being an organized religion, so much as a personal belief system.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucifer777
 


Ok, I suppose I have to address your claims against my religion for the benefit of the people who might think you have even a basic understanding of Judeo-Christian theology, which you don't.

First, let me address Mosaic law. First, you must understand that Mosaic law is for Jews. The law was God's expectation of his chosen people to set them above all other people. This wasn't just arbitrary commands, the purpose was to make a people pure enough to produce the Messiah, who would deliver the world from sin. Mosaic law is very very harsh, I do not deny this, but only Jews were bound by the law. Shari'a law and Mosaic law are not the same thing. Their structure is similar, but how they are implemented is not. Muslims are required to spread Shari'a law, Jews are not commanded to spread Mosaic law except to willing converts. Judaism also has no open commands of genocide, unlike Islam which calls for non-believers and heretics to be killed. Judaism's calls for genocide are against specific groups of people such as the Canaanites and Amalekites. You will notice that these commands of utter destruction apply to specific groups of people that the Jews were at war with, but not all of them. There is no command to destroy the Syrians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Egyptians, Persians, Medes, or even the Babylonians, so what makes those groups special? If you study the texts you will notice giants among the groups of people that God commanded the Israelites exterminate, that is because they were the descendant's of the Nephilim in Genesis (the offspring of Fallen Angels and human women). The Nephilim as well as their Canaanite descendents were evil. They sacrificed their children, had no morals, and were trying their hardest to exterminate the Israelites (and prevent the birth of the Messiah). Also, the death penalties for breaking Mosaic law were rarely carried out and were practically abandoned by the Second Temple period.

Now for the meaning of Mosaic Law in Christianity. As I said, Mosaic law was given to God's chosen people so they could produce the Messiah. When the Messiah, Ya'hshuah, came and was crucified, he became the final sacrifice, the eternal Paschal (passover) lamb to save us from sin and allow us to return to God (theosis). Lucy seems to only have been exposed to Seventh Day Adventist that don't understand that Ya'hshuah fulfilled the law. When Ya'hshuah said "I have not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it" he didn't mean that the law was to be continued, he meant that he was the fulfillment of the law and he gave us a new covenant the commandments of which are found in the Sermon on the Mount.

I resent your belligerent attacks on millions of perfectly rational Christians who follow the commandments of our Messiah. Violence and the teachings of Christianity are incompatible. The people who have committed violence in the name of Christianity have not understood the teachings of Christ, and shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven (if they have any part in it). We are called to turn the other cheek, and when our way is presented and refused to shake the dust off of our feet and leave, and this is what I will do. You are obviously too far gone for anything I have to say to reach you and I will not impose myself where I am not wanted. Perhaps if you read and understood the scriptures instead relying on biased quotes with no context, you will see the wisdom of the living God. Until then, I bid you adieu.



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by JoshNorton

Originally posted by Lucifer777
John Robison's "attack" on Illuminism appears to be essentially correct, the IIluminists were essentially promoting the overthrowal of European monarchies, Jacobin (Republican) revolution, the eradication of Christianity, Deism (natural religion, derived at through human reason and intuition, as opposed to "revelation.") and the ultimate overthrowal of all governments. These "accusations" appear to essentially true, but they are all considered to be progressive ideals by Anarchists, Republicans and anti-Christians,


While I mostly agree, I think you may have oversimplified a bit. They were certainly against organized religion and the church structures as they existed in the 1700s, but I don't think they were explicitly against Deism, that not being an organized religion, so much as a personal belief system.


I probably could have constructed the sentence better; by "Deism (natural religion, derived at through human reason and intuition, as opposed to "revelation.") " I did not mean to suggest that Adam Weishaupt was opposed to Deism; on the contrary, Weishaupt "was" a Deist.

In my view Adam Weishaupt had far too much reverence for the primitve religious fanatic, the Jesus of the Gospels, but frankly the memetic virus of Christianity wa far more widespread in that era and even affected the intellectuals and philosophers; many of the academic institutions of that era were anyway under the authority of the Church.

Lux


"The Ancien Régime (The French Monarchy) is a Satanic Order. The Illuminati's noble and historic mission is to release man's higher self by destroying the archons - the princes of the world - who prosecute Satan's will and hold mankind in their thrall. Their corruption has reached its zenith in France. That diabolical tyranny is ripe for destruction. All that is required is a spark. We are the spark."
Adam Weishaupt 1789
armageddonconspiracy.co.uk...
.


edit on 15-2-2011 by Lucifer777 because: Formatting



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by kallisti36
reply to post by Lucifer777
 


Ok, I suppose I have to address your claims against my religion for the benefit of the people who might think you have even a basic understanding of Judeo-Christian theology, which you don't.

First, let me address Mosaic law. First, you must understand that Mosaic law is for Jews.


This is good example of religious doublespeak and how a Biblical faithist can hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time, that they claim to follow the religion and teachings of Jesus and at the same time they reject such teachings, and are openly hostile to them. What Christians believe, is essentially no more than their own selective "cherry picking" and "quote mining" of texts which accord with their own personal beliefs, misinterpretations and prejudices.

Consider:


Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Mt 5.


It is quite clear that the stated religion of the Jesus of the Gospels was not Christianity but Judaism, and that he promoted a fundamentalist adherene to the Mosaic Law (the 613 Laws of Moses) and the Prophets (thought to be the "oral law" which was later written down as the Talmud.)

Christians merely pick and choose which texts to follow when it is convenient for them and which texts to reject if inconvenient.


I resent your belligerent attacks on millions of perfectly rational Christians who follow the commandments of our Messiah.


Again here is another example of a religionist being able to hold two contradictory views at the same time, that they "follow" the teachings of Jesus and also that they reject the teachings of Jesus, since "all" Christians reject the teachings of Jesus to some degree or another.

A person who followed the stated teachings of Jesus would be a homeless, penniless, shoeless, primitive religious fanatic promoting strict adherence to the Mosaic Law and carrying out exorcisms, fake healings, fake miracles and preying on the sick, the disabled and the vulnerable.

[edit]Violence and the teachings of Christianity are incompatible.

The Biblical deity is a war god and the awaited Second Coming is a genocidal monarchist, a king of kings (a global dictator) who rules with a rod of iron, wages war against his enemies, carries out the separation of the wheat from the chaff (the Judgement Day global genocide of non believers) and imposes Biblical Law. Further Christians are commanded to sell their only robe (they are only allowed to have one robe) and buy a sword if they do not have one.

It does seem that the Biblical fanatics have a habit of trying to turn every thread into an excuse for their sermonsing and ramblings.

So far no Christian has anyway been able to establish the 7 Signs; the Religious charlatans of the multi billion dollar Jesus business simply make unsubstantiated claims. If any Christian can establish the 7 Signs, the James Randi Institute will reward them with a million dollars for proof of a miracle.

The Seven Signs.


"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. Mt 16


The 7 Signs of those who are not "condemned"

1: You must beleive.
2: you must be baptised.
3: You must be able to perform exorcisms.
4: You must be able to speak in New Tongues.
5: You must be able to pick up serpents.
6: You must be able to safely drink any deadly poison.
7: You must be able to lay hands on the sick and miraculously cure them.


If you do not have the 7 signs, you are condemned.

It was also stated by the Jesus of the Gospels that you would do even "greater things than he."

We know that Christians cannot safely drink poison or miraculously cure leprosy and blindness, and since the professional Christian hypnotists know this also, they have just developed a much easier "belief only" theology, where you just become a rambling religious fanatic, talk incessantly about the teachings of Jesus, and yet reject the teachings and stated religion of Jesus, apart from a few ethical maxims about love and so forth, which were common to that era; it is really just all about "believing" and about acting like a total hypocrite and being eternally rewarded for that by a solar deity who rewards fake healers, exorcists and religious chalatans with eternal heaven.

Christians are simply charlatans who prey on the sick, the disabled, the mentally ill, the uneducated and the unintelligent in order to infect them with their memetic virus and turn them into deluded religious fanatics.

Lux


edit on 15-2-2011 by Lucifer777 because: Formatting


edit on 15-2-2011 by Lucifer777 because: addition to text



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 10:20 PM
link   
I was planning on bowing out, but I realized there were major mistakes of yours that I hadn't addressed.

Originally posted by Lucifer777


Consider:


Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Mt 5.


It is quite clear that the stated religion of the Jesus of the Gospels was not Christianity but Judaism, and that he promoted a fundamentalist adherene to the Mosaic Law (the 613 Laws of Moses) and the Prophets (thought to be the "oral law" which was later written down as the Talmud.)

Oh man, there is so much that is wrong with what you just said. However, to the Biblically literate, you have just proven 1. you take quotes out of context instead of actually reading the Bible and 2. just as I said, you don't even know entry level Judeo-Christian Theology.

The quote you took from Matthew 5 is near the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount and is just before Ya'hshuah gives the laws of the New Covenant (Do not hate, turn the other cheek, give what is asked of you, etc). So, when he says, "these commandments" he is referring to the commandments he is about to give.The law is fulfilled when Ya'hshuah died on the cross and freed us from sin and death.

Then there is the issue of your blatant ignorance of the difference between the Talmud and Tanakh. The books of the prophets are the Nevi'im which along with the Torah and Ketuvim, make up the Tanakh or Old Testament. The "Oral Torah" or Talmud is a voluminous collection of Rabbinic discourses, debates, anecdotes, and sermons compiled over the course of the last 2,300 (or so) years. Ya'hshuah was very against the "Oral Torah", which is an uninspired machination of men that dilutes the word of God into useless discourse and tradition Matthew 15:9 "In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrine the commandments of men", here he is specifically talking to the Pharisees who created the Talmud and subsequent Rabbinic Judaism.

So yes, Ya'hshuah was a Jew, as were his disciples, but he was not a Rabbinic Jew. Ya'hshuah, if you had to attach a sect to him, would have been a Karaite Jew (those who reject the Talmud).



Christians merely pick and choose which texts to follow when it is convenient for them and which texts to reject if inconvenient.

The same can be said of those who take passages out of context to demonize the whole work.



A person who followed the stated teachings of Jesus would be a homeless, penniless, shoeless, primitive religious fanatic promoting strict adherence to the Mosaic Law and carrying out exorcisms, fake healings, fake miracles and preying on the sick, the disabled and the vulnerable.

I agree with that up until "primitive". Ya'hshuah taught an anti-materialist philosophy, "what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world, but loses his soul?". If you have such a problem with the brutality of life in the Old Testament in which the Jews had to be violent to survive in a hostile environment, then you should be delighted to know that the Messiah came so that we would have the luxury of being pacifists even unto death. We also have the luxury of a perfect law as given in the new covenant that we may disobey (with our free will) at the peril of our souls. "[Ya'hshuah's] yoke is easy and [his] burden is light", we are no longer under the law of sin and death.



The Biblical deity is a war god and the awaited Second Coming is a genocidal monarchist, a king of kings (a global dictator) who rules with a rod of iron, wages war against his enemies, carries out the separation of the wheat from the chaff (the Judgement Day global genocide of non believers) and imposes Biblical Law. Further Christians are commanded to sell their only robe (they are only allowed to have one robe) and buy a sword if they do not have one.

God punishes the wicked and those who would lead others astray from eternal life. Armageddon is not such a terrible thing when you consider the chance it will give non-believers to repent and become one with God. Armageddon is a drawn out event and you will know it when you see it, so you are left with two choices, you are with God or against him. Pro-tip: pick the wrong side and you will see this "war God", but in the end that will be your choice and you won't be able to say you weren't warned.


42Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?

43Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

44And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

If you stand stiff necked and rebellious before your creator, you will be ground to powder, but if you fall on him you will be broken, your pride cast down, but you will be saved.





"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. Mt 16


The 7 Signs of those who are not "condemned"

1: You must beleive.
2: you must be baptised.
3: You must be able to perform exorcisms.
4: You must be able to speak in New Tongues.
5: You must be able to pick up serpents.
6: You must be able to safely drink any deadly poison.
7: You must be able to lay hands on the sick and miraculously cure them.


If you do not have the 7 signs, you are condemned.

It was also stated by the Jesus of the Gospels that you would do even "greater things than he."

We know that Christians cannot safely drink poison or miraculously cure leprosy and blindness, and since the professional Christian hypnotists know this also, they have just developed a much easier "belief only" theology, where you just become a rambling religious fanatic, talk incessantly about the teachings of Jesus, and yet reject the teachings and stated religion of Jesus, apart from a few ethical maxims about love and so forth, which were common to that era; it is really just all about "believing" and about acting like a total hypocrite and being eternally rewarded for that by a solar deity who rewards fake healers, exorcists and religious chalatans with eternal heaven.

Christians are simply charlatans who prey on the sick, the disabled, the mentally ill, the uneducated and the unintelligent in order to infect them with their memetic virus and turn them into deluded religious fanatics.

Lux

Ya'hshuah is speaking to the apostles who were able to spread Christianity, because they could do these things (as chronicled in Acts). He is not speaking of all believers, "them that believe" were the founders of the Church. That is not to say that miracles do not happen today. There happens to be a sect of Christians in the Appalachian mountains who do handle snakes, though, admittedly their immunity to snake bites is likely a result of Mithriditism. It may also be allegory, because none of these things can damage the soul or bring a Christian to see death, because Christians bypass Sheol.

I would like a source on where Ya'hshuah said believers "will do greater things than he".

There are many hypocritical Christians "Not all who say to me 'Lord, Lord' shall enter the kingdom of Heaven", but there are those who practice what they preach, and I try my hardest.

You have a peculiar way of referring to the God of Abraham, you don't treat him as a non-entity, a creation of tribal goat herders. You speak of him as if you believe in him and hate him. An atheist should see you as delusional (hatred of a non-existent entity), but I see something much darker.

I'm leaving for good this time. I have faith that most of my fellow ATSers, including the atheists, shall not be swayed by your philosophies.

Peace be unto you

edit on 15-2-2011 by Lucifer777 because: Formatting


edit on 15-2-2011 by Lucifer777 because: addition to text

edit on 15-2-2011 by kallisti36 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-2-2011 by kallisti36 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-2-2011 by kallisti36 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 15 2011 @ 11:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by kallisti36
I was planning on bowing out, but I realized there were major mistakes of yours that I hadn't addressed.

Originally posted by Lucifer777

Consider:


Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
Mt 5.


It is quite clear that the stated religion of the Jesus of the Gospels was not Christianity but Judaism, and that he promoted a fundamentalist adherene to the Mosaic Law (the 613 Laws of Moses) and the Prophets (thought to be the "oral law" which was later written down as the Talmud.)



Oh man, there is so much that is wrong with what you just said. However, to the Biblically literate, you have just proven 1. you take quotes out of context instead of actually reading the Bible and 2. just as I said, you don't even know entry level Judeo-Christian Theology.

The quote you took from Matthew 5 is near the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount and is just before Ya'hshuah gives the laws of the New Covenant (Do not hate, turn the other cheek, give what is asked of you, etc). So, when he says, "these commandments" he is referring to the commandments he is about to give.


Firstly I would like to point out that a common strategy of the Christians on many popular disucssion forums appears to be that, whatever the subject matter of a thread, they attempt to hijack the thread and use it as an an excuse for inane (irrelevant, stupid) religious ramblings.

Secondly the statement "these commandments" is preceded by the statement "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments....."; thus it seems rather obvious that the text is referring to the "Law and the Prophets," however since Christians simply "cherry pick" the Old Testament Laws according to their own personal beliefs, misinterpretations and prejudices, rejecting some laws and embracing others, it is quite clear that they "do" teach others to reject such commandments.

The above statement by kallisti36 is simply a special pleading to support his selective cherry picking of the Biblical Laws, and this is entirely common among those suffering from religious psychosis, and who cannot admit to themselves and others that they simply cherry pick the teachings of Jesus, rejecting his religion and many of his commandments.


Then there is the issue of your blatant ignorance of the difference between the Talmud and Tanakh.


In the phrase "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets" the Law is most certainly the Mosaic Law (the 613 Laws of Moses) and "the Prophets;" the Prophets most likely referred to th Talmud (the oral law) and the remainder of the texts of the Tanakh (the Old Testament), the latter of which existed in written form at that time. Of course since Christians are guilty of "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments....."; thus they go into mental gymnastics and contortions to deny the edicts of Jesus in order to justify their own personal misinterpretations.

referring to the "Law and the Prophets," however since Christians




The Biblical deity is a war god and the awaited Second Coming is a genocidal monarchist, a king of kings (a global dictator) who rules with a rod of iron, wages war against his enemies, carries out the separation of the wheat from the chaff (the Judgement Day global genocide of non believers) and imposes Biblical Law. Further Christians are commanded to sell their only robe (they are only allowed to have one robe) and buy a sword if they do not have one.

God punishes the wicked and those who would lead others astray from eternal life. Armageddon is not such a terrible thing


This simply establishes my often stated argument that Biblical fanatics are likely to be willing to justify genocide if it is in the name of their god.

Biblical Armageddon is described as a genocidal apocalyptic war, which conjures up visions in the modern mind of a global nuclear war. Even during just one part of this war, the text predicts that "a third of mankind was killed by the three plagues of fire, smoke and sulfur.(Rev 9.18)" which in today's world would be over 2 billion people.


If you stand stiff necked and rebellious before your creator, you will be ground to powder, but if you fall on him you will be broken, your pride cast down, but you will be saved.


As was the cry of the eminent saint and martyr Prometheus as the gods tortured him, "I will not worship an unworthy god," I have to express a similar revulsion for your ancient tribal deity.

You don't seem to be too fussy about what kind of savage, sadistic, deity you worship; your statement above is simply indicative that your religious fanaticism has reduced you to the level of a psychopath.





"He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. Mt 16


The 7 Signs of those who are not "condemned"

1: You must beleive.
2: you must be baptised.
3: You must be able to perform exorcisms.
4: You must be able to speak in New Tongues.
5: You must be able to pick up serpents.
6: You must be able to safely drink any deadly poison.
7: You must be able to lay hands on the sick and miraculously cure them.


If you do not have the 7 signs, you are condemned.

It was also stated by the Jesus of the Gospels that you would do even "greater things than he."

We know that Christians cannot safely drink poison or miraculously cure leprosy and blindness, and since the professional Christian hypnotists know this also, they have just developed a much easier "belief only" theology, where you just become a rambling religious fanatic, talk incessantly about the teachings of Jesus, and yet reject the teachings and stated religion of Jesus, apart from a few ethical maxims about love and so forth, which were common to that era; it is really just all about "believing" and about acting like a total hypocrite and being eternally rewarded for that by a solar deity who rewards fake healers, exorcists and religious chalatans with eternal heaven.

Christians are simply charlatans who prey on the sick, the disabled, the mentally ill, the uneducated and the unintelligent in order to infect them with their memetic virus and turn them into deluded religious fanatics.

Lux

Ya'hshuah is speaking to the apostles who were able to spread Christianity, because they could do these things (as chronicled in Acts). He is not speaking of all believers,


The Christian "Dialogue Fallacy"

This is just the same old "Dialogue fallacy" which Christians use time and time again. Allegedly the teachings of Jesus are the teachings of the allegedly infallible, unchanging God, but as soon as something is quoted which the Biblical fanatics are uncomfortable with they change their position and use the "dialogue fallacy." Why is the "dialogue fallacy" a fallacy? It is because every single statement in the Gospels which is the alleged words of Jesus were "dialogues" with an audience, apart from a few sentences where he is obviously talking to himself (i.e., to God) , but if there is anything the Christians wish to reject, they simply argue that this was a dialogue with specific persons and not the unchanging, infallible words of God; thus can they hold two contradictory positions at the same time; that Jesus teachings are unchanging and infallible and will last until the end of time, but only the specific teachings that they choose to "quote mine."


I would like a source on where Ya'hshuah said believers "will do greater things than he".



Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father. John 14:12


Let me make it easier for you, rather than doing "greater" things than your dead god, why not just establish that you can cure leprosy. cure blindness, raise the dead and cure mental illness (i.e., your own) by exorcism. You would be the only Christian in the world to establish this if you could, and it would prove to the world that you are not a bunch of charlatans who simply prey on the sick, the disabled and the vulnerable.


There are many hypocritical Christians "Not all who say to me 'Lord, Lord' shall enter the kingdom of Heaven", but there are those who practice what they preach, and I try my hardest.



You have a peculiar way of referring to the God of Abraham, you don't treat him as a non-entity, a creation of tribal goat herders. You speak of him as if you believe in him and hate him. An atheist should see you as delusional (hatred of a non-existent entity), but I see something much darker.


Yes your suspicions are entirely correct, I am not a materialist; I consider it possible that such a psychopathic, genocidal and malevolently human hating intelligence may well exist in another dimension.


I'm leaving for good this time. I have faith that most of my fellow ATSers, including the atheists, shall not be swayed by your philosophies.


Well please don't forget to return with your evidence that you can cure blindness, leprosy and raise the dead, then there would be no way that the atheists and ATS-ers would doubt you. I suggest that you make an application to the James Randi Institute as they have a million dollar reward for anyone who can prove that they have such miraculous powers.


Peace be unto you


Peace? More evidence of the doublespeak employed by those suffering the symptoms of religoius schizophrenia. For a person who has just justified the genocide of billions of people in an apocalyptic war in the name of his war-god, I doubt if most sane people would accept your definition of "peace."


"Doublespeak is language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words... It may also be deployed as intentional ambiguity, or reversal of meaning, for example, naming a state of war "peace."
en.wikipedia.org...


Lux

"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?"
—Nietzsche



edit on 16-2-2011 by Lucifer777 because: Formatting


edit on 16-2-2011 by Lucifer777 because: mis-spelling-itis



posted on Feb, 16 2011 @ 05:05 AM
link   
Great post! Your philosophy is a great inspiration for me. By the way Ron Paul has similar opinion on how we can create better society. If someone wants to watch it you may do it here above top secret

Peace



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Wow, I am blown away as you tore those pro-mornachs/dictators with your impressive dialogue. I am pleased to say that someone else has come along and defended Dr AW and the Illuminati. S and F for you.


-Naeem



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by AssassinsCreed
Great post! Your philosophy is a great inspiration for me. By the way Ron Paul has similar opinion on how we can create better society. If someone wants to watch it you may do it here above top secret

Peace



Originally posted by kallisti36

I happen to be Libertarian and a Christian.....
You see, Libertarianism and Anarcho-Capitalism can actually work,



On Libertarianism, Ross Perot, Anarcho-Capitalism and Fabianism

While the Marxist, Socialist and Fabian Left of Europe are certainly the inheritors of Illuminist philosophyy, to describe such movements as a consequence of the agents of Adam Weishaupt and the Illuminati seems to me top be just a conspiracy theory; the "Enlightenment (The Age of Reason)" since the end of the 17th century was and is really a widespread philosophical movement which which has bore fruit in numerous progressive movements.

I don't really consider the Libertarians and Anarcho-Capitalists to be progressives overall, though certainly they have many progressive ideas which also also part of the ideals of the political "Left," however these are essentially two different forms of "laissez faire (anything goes)" Capitalism.

"Freedom" can be defined as a the freedom of a slave master to enslave others, or the freedom of a Capitalist to exploit others. The kind of "anything goes" freedom of the Anarcho-Capitalists and Libertarianists would produce a society of gangster Capitalism. "All" members of organised crime syndicates, for example, are by default Anarcho-Capitalists or Libertarians, since they do not wish there to be a government to interfere with their businesses, or they wish to "infiltrate and control" a limited government, usually through bribery and corruption.

Societies like the Congo and Sudan are essentially Anarcho Capitalist societies in many regions, where in place of a government, there are simply organised crime syndicates with their own private armies and slave workers. It is really hell on earth.

The Fabian Alternative.

The Fabian agenda is really "evolutionary socialism" rather than revolutionary socialism; it is about the slow gradual implementation of the Socialist agenda, through the infiltration and control of governments. Hopefully the next British prime minister, Ed Miliband, who is a Jewish Neo-Marxist and an atheist, is an example of this progressive ideology, albeit a somewhat less radicalised version which has been influenced by "New Labour" convervatism and alliances with the Capitalist establishment (see Ed MIliband's recent speech to the Fabian society on: www.fabians.org.uk... .

In Europe, we have a free universal healthcare system and a welfare state which ensures that even the unemployed or unemployable have social housing and basic requirements to sustain life. I am not personally in a position where I need government benenfts and I am fortunate enough to be able to afford medical insurance, if I had to, however European Socialism is not about the society which suits me best personally, it is about a society which attempts to provide the best system for "everyone," and the majority of people in our modern Capitalist societies are "not" part of the labour force.

In a libertarian or Anarcho-Capitalist society, schools and hospitals would either be profit making businesses or charities, and if there was insufficient Capital available from donations, such charitable institutions simply would not exist and such services would only be available to those who could afford them; it would create much more of a two tier society of haves and have nots than even the current situation in America

If the proponents of the political ideals of Illuminism and the Enlightenment politics of the Left have infiltrated governments, while this may be apparent in Europe, it is most certainly not the case in America, which is a nation where three quarters of the population claim to be Christians and 40% of them are awaiting for Jesus to come back and save them. American is still predominately a nation of Neo-McCarthyist religious fanatics where Socialism and Communism are equated with "Satanism."

I have travelled widely throughout the world and it seems to me that it is the "absence" of socialism which creates economic hell on earth, not the prevalence of socialism, and that the American political Right, including the Libertarians and Anarcho-Capitalists seek the regression of society back into a more "pure Capitalism" stage. What is even more disturbing is that such regressionists consider themselves to be "good" and to be progressive.


Originally posted by kallisti36
reply to post by Lucifer777
 


Oh, I see, so these Socialist countries just have to "progress" towards statelessness. I suppose that once they implement perfect socialism (through an immense bureaucratic behemoth centralized state) they will tear down all of the bureaucracy, useless posts, petty power positions, and regulatory commissions and just leave the people to live in their beautiful socialist paradise?


The Anarcho-Communist model model of an advanced syndicalist, stateless technocracy has become more popular recently in the American subculture with utopian visions such as the "Venus Project," however that is only an idealistic vision of a future world, while the Israeli collectivists (the Kibbutzists) have, for the past 100 years been developing a practical syndicalist system, albeit in the midst of a Capitalist environment; that is much more of a practical model for the future collectivist world.

The conditions for revolution cannot occur properly unless the majority of the people desire such revolution, and such a population would ideally be a rational, ethical modern, educated, scientific people, otherwise the consequence would just be the most negative type of anarchy (chaos and disorder), which is no the objective of Anarcho-Communists, which is an advanced collectivist society on the model of the Israeli Kibbutzim. Such a society cannot be created overnight; the collectivisation of humankind will probably take many generations, and the process has not even begun, as the political will does not exist. Unfortunately in the current stage of the transition from Capitalism to Socialism, there are simply far too many problems which exist, and which demand the existence of a militarised police state, such as the problem of militant Islam, the threat of nuclear war, over population etc.

The new "American" revolutionaries of the anti-NWO movement who are critics of the government tend to mostly be revolutionaries of the political Right who seek to regress society back into a Capitalist stage; I simply cannot ever forsee the conditions for progressive political revolution in a society of Christian religious fanatics and assorted anti-Communists / anti-Socialists.


What about the people who still want private property and free trade? Who will make them stick to socialism?


It is generally argued that it would not be possible to have a Communist world if there were even one single region which was Capitalist. You have to also bear in mind that Capitalism is a "militant," expansionist and imperialistic ideology which uses the power of the police state to enforce Capitalism; thus anti-Capitalists are also required to be entirely militant.

Many of the older generation of Italians still have fond memories of Mussolini because he was entirely intolerant of the Italian organised crime syndicates and he initiated a rather brutal campaign to get rid of the Mafia; similarly with Castro in Cuba; he simply closed the Casinos and brothels and private banks, and waged war on the gangsters; one simply cannot respond to armed gangs of organised criminals (i.e., "laissez faire Capitalists) with pacifism and tolerance.


How will everyone get their universal healthcare if there is no state to pay for and regulate it? How can you assure everyone has housing, a job, health care, and a comfortable retirement plan?


In socialist Europe, the vast majority of hospitals are not run by Capitalists as businesses; they are simply public services; this is much the same as it was in the Soviet Union and in modern day Cuba. I don't believe that we have even remotely reached a stage of political evolution where the idea of statelessness can be considered; it is an idea for the future world and it will take time to implement.

With regards to providing "jobs," just as it is in the Israeli Kibbutzim; there would be no such a thing as unemployment and the young, the sick, the disabled and the elderly are all well cared for in a crime free society of shared abundance; though certainly there have been Capitalist reforms of the Kibbutzim recently which have been resisted by the Israeli Left, and which are not at all progressive.


Oh, and who's to stop some demagogue from coming along and establishing a feudal society? This is why you will never see stateless communism/socialism. It doesn't exist, the very term is an oxymoron. The concept has more holes than a sponge.


Well since you are a Christian and the political philosophy of the Bible is theocratic (god government) monarchy, and Christians are waiting for a genocidal global military dictator (the "king of kings") to appear, we could also ask the question of "who" would oppose such a Christian tyrant, and to be frank there are hundreds of millions of heavily armed Republicans and Socialists and there are major armies of the world who would resist the Christians. The same argument could be made against any form of monarchy / dictatorship.


I happen to be Libertarian and a Christian.


A libertarian Christian would appear to be an oxymoron (a contradiction of terms); the consequence of imposing the primitive and savage Biblical Law and having a genocidal Messianic tyrant is hardly libertarian; further the Biblical Laws came out of an ancient society who were simply a gang of sheep herding, desert wandering, primitive savages; hardly progressive.


I believe that everyone has the free will to do whatever they wish lest it infringe on another person's rights. Personal iniquities are between God and the individual.


What you are describing is not a society governed by Biblical Law, but by Thelemic Law of the future world, which I believe will be the moral philosophy of the future world; this is just further evidence that Christians can hold two contradictory beliefs at the same time. Might I suggest that you just abandon Christianity and simply speak for yourself and promote your own personal beliefs, rather than claiming to represent the primitive Biblical faith; that would at least be honest.



You see, Libertarianism and Anarcho-Capitalism can actually work, because the trading of goods and services has been an integral part of human society for thousands of years and you don't need a government to do it. Forced equality does not work, it is unnatural. You can pool resources and give "to each according to his needs", which is actually how the apostles lived, but this will never work beyond a small community.


Might I suggest then that you consider emigrating to the Congo or the Sudan, which are already primitive societies ruled by gangs of heavily armed organised criminals where there is hardly any government to interfere with their activities.


Oh, and while on the subject of sociologists like Marx and Engels, let me just say that I hate sociology and psychology


Yes well I can understand why an "education" and "progress" would be a bad thing for a a Biblical faithist.


The world would be so much better if people learned to observe the human condition without spewing the bland porridge philosophies of ancient men who observed life from their armchairs.


Thus says the "Christian" armchair warrior who reveres the ramblings of ancient, primitive and savage religious fanatics.


Lux

In fact, if Christ himself stood in my way, I, like Nietzsche, would not hesitate to squish him like a worm” Che Guevara




Noam Chomsky on Anarcho Capitalism.

Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever
implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few
counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that
its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would
quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea of "free
contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke,
perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the consequences
of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else.

I should add, however, that I find myself in substantial agreement with
people who consider themselves anarcho-capitalists on a whole range of
issues; and for some years, was able to write only in their journals. And I
also admire their commitment to rationality -- which is rare -- though I do
not think they see the consequences of the doctrines they espouse, or their
profound moral failings.



edit on 17-2-2011 by Lucifer777 because: Formatting



posted on Feb, 21 2011 @ 11:21 PM
link   
I disagreed with Lux on his thread attacking Shriners butt he is obviously a man of intelligence and wisdom. Adam Weishaupt was a thoroughly mis-understood individual. Still is. And "Illuminati" is a much over-used and misinterpreted word.



posted on Mar, 5 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Great post. I agree with most of your philosophy, yet I cannot find a form of government that I believe wouldn't lead to all out tyranny. As far as christianity / islam is concerned, I believe in fighting fire with fire. I've read many of the same things you have touched upon with many of the same conclusions. I have found that history repeats itself whether we like it or not. Too bad the crusades have destroyed so much info that would have most definitely allowed the human race to achieve a better balance spiritually and socially. As for these "jesus trolls", I'm fighting also.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. Love is the law. Love under will.
^A^



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by AnimositisominA
Great post. I agree with most of your philosophy, yet I cannot find a form of government that I believe wouldn't lead to all out tyranny. As far as christianity / islam is concerned, I believe in fighting fire with fire. I've read many of the same things you have touched upon with many of the same conclusions. I have found that history repeats itself whether we like it or not. Too bad the crusades have destroyed so much info that would have most definitely allowed the human race to achieve a better balance spiritually and socially. As for these "jesus trolls", I'm fighting also.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law. Love is the law. Love under will.
^A^


It is often useful to separate Thelemic moral philosophy from Croweyanity and esotericism, just to examine it's wider impact on society.

Since the 1960's in particular, and in America and Europe particularly, we have been undergoing a Thelemic revolution. There have been conservative human forces resisting this, and progressive human forces promoting it; the progress of Thelemic revolution has not been miraculous and is a product of the triumph of human will, of the civil rights movement in the US, of gay rights activists, feminists, trade unionists, socialists, Marxists, Anarchists, the anti-war movement and a myriad of assorted progressive political activists.

Thelema is enshrined into Law in most European states and is probably best expressed in the modern term "political correctness," which represents modern ethics (how we should treat each other), such as "don't discriminate on against persons because of their race, gender, sexuality, age, etc."

Probably the only major flaw in political correctness is "respect other people's religious beliefs;" which of course is utterly ridiculous, since religion is the major source of "slave morality." All the three great religions of the world (Christianity, Islam and Hinduism) have texts which were derived from paternalistic, polygamous slave societies and simply represent the laws of a slave master.

With regards to all forms of government leading to "all-out tyranny," since the proletariat are always in the majority, the modern European and American type parliaments seem to restrict tyranny to a degree, since politicians must be populists and appeal to the masses; nevertheless we do still live in an absolute economic dictatorship; this is unlikely to change unless there is mass awareness of this, and the proletariat have the political will to change this.

The dictatorship of Capitalism in it's present form is unlikely to be permanent; we (homo sapiens) have been on earth for around probably as long as 300,000 years and we are just emerging from primitive slave societies (including feudalism) which have transformed into Capitalism and into a mixture of Capitalism and Socialism; the transition to Marxist style Socialism, to Communism, to Anarchism is likely to be a long and drawn out affair; nevertheless it seems to me that the more educated, literate, scientific and rational we become, the more likely this process is to occur. In the world of academia, for example, those who are not broadly speaking, socialists, are in the minority. Humankind is still in the process of transforming themselves from primitive religious savages to modern ethical, scientific, rational creatures, and whose "spirituality (in all it's myriad forms)" is personal and does not violate the will of anyone else.

The ideas of different forms of "New World Order" are entwined into almost every political philosophy and into every major brand name of religious fanaticism. Obviously our world of 7 billion people is far from economic heaven on earth.

Though the beneficiaries of our Capitalist dictatorship certainly live in economic heaven, it is not a universally expandable model, just as the lifestyle of the slave master cannot ever extend to the slaves; for without the slaves, the economic slave masterer cannot prosper; however Socialism corrects this, but not modern European socialism, which is only a compromise with the Neofascists of Capitalist dictatorship; thus almost all radical proponents of the current economic dictatorship seek to implement a mandate of Marx and Engels' Communist Manifesto, which is the nationalisation of the money supply and of banking in general.

Since this is the "secret societies" sub-forum, and the major topic is Masonry, it is my judgement that this is an apocalyptic Messianic cult which is at the very heart of the International Dictatorship of Capitalism; the agenda of their "Great Work of the Ages" appears not to be Communism and Anarchism, but an esoteric dictatorship, and the prevalence of the tyranny of private Capitalism "by all means necessary." This of course is not the general Illuminist / Luciferian agenda nor the agenda of Adam Weishaupt and the 18th century Illuminati, though the Capitalist establishment have attempted to claim that they represent such idealism.

"When man lives under government, he is fallen, his worth is gone, and his nature tarnished." Adam Weishaupt

"To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality."
-- P. J. Proudhon, General Idea of Revolution in the Nineteenth Century

Of course, one cannot have an Anarchist syndicalist world without modern, scientific, sacrilegious, rational creatures.

I can point to the model of the Israeli Communist syndicates (i.e., the Kibbutzim) and their "crime free" economic heaven on earth, but most of the Kibbuztniks grew up in that environment and were totally indoctrinated by socialist ethics (which is an entirely good idea); we cannot simply expect those who have been conditioned by the "dog eat dog" gangster culture of Capitalism, to appear on an agricultural or technological collective and expect a culture of Heaven to appear miraculously. The Ubermensch (the superior man, and woman) does not appear miraculously, nor can he be bred; he is a product of education, science, human reason and intuition; he can only be "created" in a certain social and educational environment.

The collectivisation of humankind and the eradication of Capitalism is a process which has barely begun, and many of the 20th century experiments in this bear witness to fatal errors; the New Heaven and New Earth may take centuries to create. There may be revolution in all the world, on a day and a hour, and Capitalism may fall like a house of cards, but it will only be the beginning of a long drawn out process. The end is only new beginning.

On "use value" and the myth of "private property"

"The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property."
Karl Marx

"Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff."
Frank Zappa

This is one of the great misconceptions of Communism. The misconception of the definition of property. The Internet will eventually dispense with the antiquated and previously revolutionary , yet wasteful system of the public library; in the digital world we can read a book, essay or news' article without owning it as our private property or cutting down trees.

I must have around 10,000 books, but I rarely ever read them, since most of my research resources are now on the human history's greatest ever research library, the World Wide Web.

I have an automobile, but I only use it a few hours a week, and the rest of the time it sits there redundant. In the Kibbutz system every person has the use of a car; they collectively "own" the car, but they have to negotiate it's use; if there are too many cars, and cars always sit around unused, they consider that to be wasteful, and if there are not enough cars to share, they provide more; the "use value" of the car has nothing to do with the question of private ownership; just as when I read an Internet essay, the educational "use value" of the essay has nothing to do with whether I print out the essay and own the paper that it is printed on.

I have a collection of musical instruments, which at this point in my life I do not "use." I have spent years of my life sitting in recording studios, and there will always be those people who are obsessed with making music; but when one listens to what they produce, the value of the music has nothing to do with ownership or private property; I do not need to own a piece of music to listen to it; my ownership of music only has a value in the capitalist marketplace which nobody else cares about.

'There shall be no property in human flesh. ... A.C. Book of the Law

I admit to certain archetypal Luciferian qualities with regards to erotic relationships. I have never purchased human flesh; though I bear the Prophet no animosity for this habit, as was common in his age. If I cannot seduce a woman, I consider it to be no insult to me, but the woman's loss; she is not worthy. I do not seduce men; but if a man cannot seduce me, I consider it to be his loss; he is not worthy.

One cannot purchase neither lust nor love; one can only feign affection or purchase affection; and often the feigning of affection requires the overcoming of disgust and contempt. There are obese men who do not conform to the archetypal Greek Adonis, and there are obese women who do not conform to the archetypal Venus, and so they are perfect for each other and can still lust after each other and love each other; but Capitalism interferes with this process.

Capitalism is essentially about the ownership of slaves; of property in human flesh, and of the products of human flesh; it is a despicable system, which we in the First World have inherited.

The church bells of Sunday morning are ringing in my ears, so I must go an place many eternal curses on this slave religion, and will perhaps return later for further expressions of diabolical blasphemy and heresy

Lux


edit on 6-3-2011 by Lucifer777 because: mis-spelling-itis



posted on Mar, 6 2011 @ 11:19 AM
link   
For all the meadering words, political mish mashed labels and high sounding convoluted philosphical debates.

To put it much simpler, so that more may comprehend,

Adam was a practical man, with practical ideas on how mankind can be governed through intelligent discussions and debates. That was the ends that he sought to achieve, during the great age of enlightenment when free man began to discover they were no longer slaves or serfs but an equal to anyone else, with common aspirations be him a Hindoo or a Christian.

Those comman aims man sought for, for centuries, were peace, prosperity, justice, equality, freedom and progress.

And that was what Adam and his group tried to convince the elites - rulers or close aquitances to the rulers, on what mankind wanted, for change is within those rulers hand for a better humanity and evolution.

As to how to achieve the end results, he had well conceived perceptions, but unfortunately, it was not a time where change was acceptable, more so for monarchs during that era. The ideas were intelligent enough, but were proposing untried systems of administrations that many were not prepared to listen, but instead, view them as dangerous.

Most rejected theocracy, for it is only a monarchy in disguise, and worse, based on the 15th century attitude on science by the clergy, it stifled progress, prolonged domination by the little educated hypocrites, enrich only those in charge and often justice is harsh on the poor but not the rich..

Some proposed Communism, but as we this generation found out, it only turned into dictatorship of even worse domination of mankind than slavery could wreak upon humanity.

Some proposed Capitalism, but it is doomed to failure and short lived, for its success lays in its weakness - competition. No company can exist with competition, and will have to eliminate it, by hook or by crook - creating products at the lowest price using the lowest costs, then, either starve them out or gobble them up into a bigger entity.

Some proposed Facism, based upon the needs of the economy with industrialists and bankers in collusion with governments to best achieve common aims, but it ended up only linning the wallets of the 3 entities.

Some proposed Anarchy, but unfortunately, the nature and flaws of men will never allow such a system to thrive that will achieve mankind's common aims.

The closest to Anarchy, strangely enough, was the theocracy of Sunni Islam, where there are no heirachies between man and the Almighty, each to take care of one another as taught from young. It never really took off, for after the good prophet Muhammad, blessed be his name, passed on, leaders took on heirachial roles, and the subjugation returned.

Some proposed Democracy and Socialism, and these are the 2 means left with yet to see results that it may achieve the ends Adam envisioned, who started the ball rolling back then. Without him and his group, we may had been living in a far different world. For one USA would not have existed.



posted on Mar, 7 2011 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucifer777
 


With all due respect Eye am not Christian. You might say Eye am not religious at all. Eye undoubtedly have more similarities to thee than they. However, the best thing about the past, is the future... of which Eye migrate to and fro. The age of enlightenment was truly the age of misconception. Sacred Geometry is as well a falsified delusion that is easily "debunked" at the first sight of each and all random (for lack of better words) intricacies ever flowing and ever changing that nay halt for even an observable zillasecond (yes Eye made that word up).

Ritual is a waste of time. To be put simply and of course, not waste more time and to be blatantly blunt. : )

Consider for me, the history of mans accomplishments. Then consider their destruction in but a zillasecond by any means you wish.

All of what you stand upon is easily destroyed at the whim of Momentum. Lost forever.

The "illuminati" and all other vast arrays of goats in crowds are but a delusion. A bubble not unlike the tulip bulb. floating in the wind in unison as flying midgets(no offense)...

Hera, Thor, isis, osiris, jupiter, hathor, nike athena, HAHA ceasar, you name it...gone. Eye am here. Alive.

You shan't see Eye at lodge no sir. My life's "freedom"?? shall never involve obliging myself to.. another.

Because Eye am not obliged. Eye don't have to believe yours nor their forged historical accounts. Nor do Eye have to take more time and explain ideas that have yet been thought to those who are still pondering what has past its expiration date.


p.s. Some of my simplest prose had me the target of being recruited by illustrious elites at an age of which your mom was concocting your peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. "They" broke all their own by laws by contacting me at all.

My oath is to me.

Forgive me for mixing these many types of linguistics. It's quite funny how you can rouse the "enlightened''.
It took many thousands of years to create these delusions. Eye have employed what is needed to eliminate them many years into the future...which will no doubt be the "new history". Have fun.

sincerely,
the not so silent messenger lol



posted on Mar, 8 2011 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101

.....closest to Anarchy, strangely enough, was the theocracy of Sunni Islam, where there are no heirachies between man and the Almighty, each to take care of one another as taught from young. It never really took off, for after the good prophet Muhammad, blessed be his name, passed on, leaders took on heirachial roles, and the subjugation returned.



I have never heard of Islam being described as being similar to the political philosophy of Anarchism before. The " good prophet Mohammad(eternally cursed be his name)" was an illiterate, savage 7th century slave trader and a military dictator. Sharia Law is a system of theocratic dictatorship which would legalise slavery (through the purchase of slaves, and the capture of slaves as the spoils of Islamic warfare), which would reduce all women to slaves (irrespective of their age; prepubecent or otherwise); legalise genital mutilation of both genders, and impose harsh sentences for what we modern Europeans would consider to be perfectly normal and natural forms of erotic behaviour; it would also demand genocidal Holy War against all non believers (non Muslims).


"About sixty-one percent of the contents of the Koran are found to speak ill of the unbelievers or call for their violent conquest; at best only 2.6 percent of the verses of the Koran are noted to show goodwill toward humanity. About seventy-five percent of Muhammad's biography (Sira) consists of jihad waged on unbelievers."

Dr. Moorthy Muthuswamy

More, including numerous quotations from the "Evil Koran" on: www.truthbeknown.com...






Women Against Shariah
www.womenagainstshariah.com

Dead Yemeni Child Bride Tied Up, Raped, Says Mom

Posted by Women Against Shariah on Monday, April 12, 2010

Labels: Child Abuse, Child Marriage, Child Rape, Islam, Women in Islam, Yemen From Fox News:

A 13-year-old Yemeni child bride who bled to death shortly after marriage was tied down and forced to have sex by her husband, according to interviews with the child's mother, police and medical reports.

The girl's mother, Nijma Ahmed, 50, told the Associated Press that before her daughter lost consciousness, she said that her husband had tied her up and forced himself on her. "She looked like she was butchered," she said about her daughter's injuries.

Elham Assi, 13, bled to death hours after she spoke to her mother and just days after she was married to a 23-year-old man. She died on April 2 in the deeply poor Yemeni village of Shueba, some 200 kilometers northwest of the capital. Her husband, Abed al-Hikmi, is in police custody... Traditional families prefer young brides because they are seen as more obedient and are expected to have more children.....The girl — one of eight siblings — was pushed into marriage after an agreement between her brother and her future-husband to marry each other's sisters to avoid having to pay expensive bride-prices — a common arrangement in Yemen, the poorest country in the Middle East.

According to police notes from the interrogation of the husband, he was upset because he could not consummate their relationship and felt under pressure to prove his manhood. Assi's mother said she also tried to persuade her daughter to have sex with her husband so as not to shame the family.Al-Hikmi took his young bride to a nearby medical clinic, asking a doctor there to administer her tranquilizers so she would not resist his advances. The clinic said it refused. Al-Hikmi then obtained performance enhancing pills, according to the police interrogation, and that night completed the act while she screamed. The next day, he returned to the same medical clinic carrying Assi because she could not walk. "I told him not to go near her for at least ten days," said Dr. Fathiya Haidar. She said Assi's vaginal canal was ripped.

A forensic report obtained by the AP showed that Assi's injuries were much more extensive, including extensive tearing around the vagina and rectum, suggesting that there might have been additional intercourse after the clinic visit.
Her mother said she visited Assi later that day, where she found her daughter fading in and out of consciousness.
"She whispered in my ear that he had tied her up and had sex with her violently," she said. "I said to her husband, what have you done, you criminal?" She said al-Hikmi told her that the young bride was just possessed by spirits and said he would take her to a folk healer to cast them out. Hours later, Assi was dead.

womenagainstshariah.blogspot.com...



"It is better for a girl to marry in such a time when she would begin menstruation at her husband's house rather than her father's home. Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven."

Ayatollah Khomeini

www.truthbeknown.com...




Sharia Law practically means: stoning of women for "honor" offences including for the "crime" of having been raped; beheadings for apostasy or blasphemy hand/foot amputations for "lesser" offences; public hanging of homosexuals and outspoken women; incessant war against infidels and especially Jews; black slavery; female sexual slavery; FGM [female genital mutiliation]; no democracy; no human rights; everyone down on their knees; Mullahs as Gods; non-Muslims as dhimmis; no music except for drums (ask "Cat Stevens"); no dancing; public floggings for "sexual crimes" such as flirting or speaking with an unrelated person of the opposite sex; all women under the veil; prison rape-brothels run by the Mullahs; and so forth. It is perhaps the most cruel and violent system of human life and social organization which has so far been invented, and it came to the world from those populations once only living in the desert "dead heart of Arabia", but now lording over gigantic sums of oil-wealth, and spreading their vile doctrines all around the world.

www.truthbeknown.com...

James DeMeo


Lux




top topics



 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join