Originally posted by pepsi78
reply to post by Lucifer777
Tho we may not agree on god and other things,
There are probably as many definitions of the "Creator" or "Creators" as there are human beings who believe in a Creator or Creators. However once one
chooses the Biblical definition of a deity, one automatically accepts a barbaric, primitive, genocidal, human-nature hating definition of absolute
goodness, and that affects one's behaviour. It is one thing entirely to have a harmless belief, such as that "God is a Lesbian" or whatever, but the
two major memetic religious viruses in the world are based on the definition of the deity of the Koran and the Bible, and these are incredibly evil
definitions of a deity, and of "goodness," by any modern humanist definition.
I have no idea who the Creator or Creators of the universe are; thus I have only my own human reason and human intuition to depend upon in discerning
good and evil. The idea of a being who can read every thought of all 7 billion persons seems more like a computer program than a person to me; and
indeed I suppose that is essentially "what I believe;" that consciousness is a "program" which experiences the virtual reality environment of the
universe; this is almost certainly a conclusion of the "holographic universe" theory of physics; however I have no idea who programmed this programme,
and since it is a "scientific question," neither does anyone else know the answer to this question or all scientists would be in accord on the issue.
As far as I am concerned the only gods and goddesses here whose existence I can be certain of are my 7 billion brothers and sisters. The psychiatric
institutions are full of persons who claim that "God" speaks to them, as is the Internet full of persons who are suffering from the effects of
religious schizophrenia and religious hypnosis and indoctrination, and those are the persons whom I am unable to communicate with perfectly, as they
are too immersed in their own subjective private world where they consider the "truth" to be their own personal fantasies, definitions and projections
of "God," or the "gods."
Unfortunately, apart from the Deists, and some of the Neopagans, in general, "God" is usually a human-nature hating bigot, simply because human beings
have come to think that way, and since this is the "secret societies" forum and the main topic appears to be Freemasonry, the Masonic God seems to be
a militant genocidal state terrorist, narco-terrorist collaborater and an ideological Capitalist, paternalist and imperialist whose "holy sacraments"
inlcude a great many rather silly and inane rituals, the dressing up in fancy dress costumes, the application of electric shocks to the genitals,
(etc., etc., ) and the expenditure of charity funds on Masonic events involving prostitues, strippers and kidnapped sex slaves. This is simply an
anthropomorphic projection of the Masonic cultists themselves, just as the god of the Koran and the Bible was an anthropomorphic projection of the God
of the authors of those texts.
I have always stated that masonry in general starts with the royality of scums across Europe, and with the crusades that killed many many
Well the Masons on one hand generally tend to take the position that their cult is "not" descended from the medievial Knight's Templars and that it is
a New Religious Movement of the 18th century, and on the other hand many of them are obsessed with the Knight's Templars; they dress up in Templar
fancy dress, refer to themselves as the Templars, and there are numerous works by Masonic authors which focus on the history of Scotland, where the
French Templars fled to, and which argue that they continued their legacy in secret in Scotland since the 14th century.
The Scottish Freemasons (and I refer to the Freemasons in Scotland, not to the Scottish Rite in the USA) generally all seem to believe that they are
"Knight's Templars;" indeed their full title appears to be "The United, Religious and Military Orders of the Temple and the Order of St. John of
Jerusalem, Palestine, Rhodes and Malta
)." In America however, the Masons don't appear to
universally adopt this identity, and the American Masons seem to be generally considered to be a bunch of circus clowns by the Masons of Scotland;
never the less it is still a major Messianic religious cult and Capitalist gang in America.
I think it to be quite obvious why many Masons would rever a cult of militant, imperialistic, genocidal medieval loan sharks, since loan sharking and
the military are very much a favoured profession among British Masons, though I am much less sure of the connection between Masonry and the US banks
and the military and just how much influence they have in the US, however they are clearly a major Capitalist gang, just like the Italian Mafia or the
They have a lot of monkeys at their disposal, people that are willing to become a monkey for something in return. It is how it works, this
organisation is just among others, I call it the control mechanism, control with religion, enslavement, making the human weak and obidiant to top it
off with practice and knowlege of the occult.
Masonry is certainly a Messianic religous cult and a Capitalist gang, but with regards to practicing "occult" rituals, a common comment made about
Masonic rituals is along the lines of them being boring, tedious repetitive nonsense; however personally I find this always to be the case in
organised religions; one person may be able to watch a Hindu or Christian ritual or a Masonic ritual reniactment with tears in their eyes, full of
emotion, whereas for those of us who appear to be immune to the effects of religious hypnosis and indoctrination, the study of religious rituals is
purely an academic study and it can seem incredibly inane (stupid, irrelevant) and ridiculous.
People like them invented Christianity, not that I have something against Jesus, I don't his teachings were good.
One starts to wonder if they did not add to the bible, aditional words to control even better, they put the books they saw fit and made the bible, who
knows what else they added in there.
They saw this as an oportunity to control the population and they used it as such, to always control the little guy, to always tax him and use fear to
intimidate by the sword. This was main stream religion.
I have to add that they are part of Roman descent, and the Roman empire, this was done by the Roman empire, to control people, I have to say you felt
for it, Jesus has nothing to do with it, has no fault.
They killed him then they made a religion out of it it's the same roman empire, same people, you think they give two cents about Jesus ? they
The New Testament is certainly a 4th century fabrication contrived at the time of Constantine. It would be unsurprising if there were an actual person
whom the texts are based upon, since first century Judea was full of anti-Roman Messianic religious fanatics, who were often fighting each other as
well as the Romans.
Monty Python's "Life of Brian" is probably quite an accurate assessment of this kind of primitive Messianic religious fanaticism, however the "Quest
for the Historical Jesus" which was an academic aquest begun in the 19th century has reached a dead end; frankly we can only speculate about the
existence of an historical Jesus, and I think it to be rather useless to do so; other than to combat the disease of Christianity. Christians anyway do
not revere the teachings of this alleged Judaic religious fanatic; they anyway reject his teachings and promote their own nonsense.
The Masonic "conspiracy theory" promoted by the pseudo-historian and editor of "Freemasonry Today" Michael Baigent, who is widely ridiculed in
academic circles that within Freemasonry, is that the "Bloodline of Jesus" is similarly an ahistorical fiction which the British Israel movement is
based upon. If the Freemasons were really the inheritors of the legacy and lineage of this first century religious fanatic, they would be of Semetic
(i.e., Arabic) appearance and they would be promoting fundamentalist Judaic religious fanaticism; this is not the case; they would be more likely to
drop depleted uranium on the Arabic population and turn them into debt slaves, labour slaves and sex slaves; their idea of "economic freedom" would
probably be more along the lines of turning the Grand Mosque in Mecca into a brothel, a casino and a wine bar with a golf course (that might be an
Today it's not working, they wanted to bring a new religion based on Gaia, Budism and new age. Mix it and make one religion out of it, while
today they are exposed, there is little before anything can be done, the implementation of one world order.
Many of the New Agers are at least honest enough to admit that their beliefs are syncretic (derived from many sources) and that they have just made up
thier beliefs as they go along; that is how all religions begin anyway; it is one thing entirely to have an eclectic mixture of harmless New Age
beliefs, but it is quite another to start a Capitalist religious cult and claim to be a religious Archon (Master, or authority figure); the only real
"authorities" on religion are the persons who study religion and psychology of religion (the study of religious hypnosis and indoctrination) from an
academic, historical and psychological perspective, and such knowledge is accessible to all persons and the World Wide Web is a vast research library
on this religious studies. One cannot be an authority on God and the gods themsvles, for they do not lend themselves to empirical observation; thus
all we are left with is the ramblings of religious fanatics, which are essentially anthropomorphic projections, and that is "Theology (the study of
God) in all it's worthlessness; it is essentially the study of the ramblings of religious schizophrenics and it is epistemologically redundant.
You are right, the donation or charity is to show a nice face, it's at the surface, superficial to put up a nice face, while behind the scenes they
use the money for prostitution or who knows what.
They can't stand it when you talk bad about them, on no our "stainless organisation" masonry the most respected blah blah blah.
Charity in the Capitalist world is just a multi-billion dollar business; it is just a scam. We have around 150,000 charities in the UK alone, many of
them religious charities. There would simply be no need for "charity" in a Socialist world. If the world was organised differently, all persons would
have access to food, shelter, healthcare, education, technology, security and personal freedom. Capitalism is just a means for a small minority of the
world's population to accumulate vast wealth at the expense of the impoverished masses, and charity allows them to feel self righteous when they throw
their scraps to the those whom they have impoverished.
Freemasonry is just one of many Capitalist gangs, albeit probably the most economically powerful in the Capitalist system; it is not matter of
eradicating Freemasonry; their silly pantomime rituals and their fancy dress costumes are not the "problem;" the problem is Capitalism and the
existence of Capitalist gangs, amny of whom operate like Messianic religious cults, and in fact many of them "are" messianic religious cults.
The objective of Anarchist revolution is ultimately the eradication of the three pillars of human evil, Capitalism, tyranny (government) and organised
religion, and in the meantime relentless criticism against the vile economic, political and religious Archons of our world. To hell with them. A
multitide of terrible and dreadful and wrathful eternal curses upon them.
“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.”
Originally posted by Extant Taxon
reply to post by Lucifer777
Yes, there is much literature on the subject area you mention, which I suppose is the modern Anglo-American form of Imperialism. But as I said, and
I'll stand by it, referencing Coleman's "research" is not the best way to go. It's not a way to go at all as far as I'm concerned.
You may have heard of this historian yourself, but I'll include a link to his Wiki page and website for others on ATS to look into. I just have
to include some real investigative work here to balance out the mere mention of Coleman and his crud:
I find Curtis' work excellent.
I do fully concede the point that perhaps "Coleman" is not the best person to point to regarding state terrorism, narco-terrorism and the analysis of
the "International Dictatorship of Capitalism;" he is too much of a Christian religious fanatic and finds "Satanism" in everything from the Beatles to
the feminist movement.
Although there are numerous Americans who are ex-military, ex-CIA, ex-DEA who have been outspoken about US narco-terrorism, and admitted their roles
in this, unfortunately in the UK, Coleman is one of the very few ex-MI6 agents to turn apostate against his former masters and to reveal so much. I
suppose it is a testimony to the courageousness of many Americans and the cowardice of the British state terrorist / narco-terrorist collaborators It
may also have something to do with the fact that we have a draconian "official secrets act" which prevents ex intelligence agents from speaking about
"anything" to do with their work, including acts of state terrorism, narco-terrorism etc..
edit on 16-4-2011 by Lucifer777 because: The text was not diabolical enough. I seem not to be in a diabolical enough mood today. Not enough
Christian Flesh and Blood to devour.