SYMBOLISM - Witchcraft, Mind Control, Masons, Illuminati

page: 31
130
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


I actually dont think mistaking hexagon and gram discredit you at all. I feel it is a common mistake and Im sure I ve made it before.


BUT I do feel outright claiming a person was a founding member of an organization who didnt even LIVE in the same century shows dishonesty or absolute no knowledge of the subject.




posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by CIAGypsy
It has been pointed out by several posters that the OP *is* just regurgitating information she has read elsewhere and which has been provided in many other places on ATS without adding any additional information or new insight of her own. Just because she has quoted something she read elsewhere does NOT mean she (or the person she quoted) isn't "making some reaching speculation." Quoting someone else doesn't mean the original quote is golden and without contestation....

First of all, who ever argued that the "occult" doesn't use symbolism? Our entire language and communication structure is based upon symbolism. But that doesn't make any particular symbol something evil or intended to enslave the masses. There are many symbols in existence which can represent many different things to different cultures based upon where and how they are displayed.

Secondly, AO Spare is far from an authority on sigils or the occult. He was an artist who dabbled in chaos magick. You'd have been better to quote someone like Peter Carroll or Kenneth Grant whom was a primary influence for Spare. And unless you are making the claim that the alleged "illuminati" is operating strictly based upon chaos magick, then the previous posters argument still holds that the claim doesn't follow your suggested pattern. Chaos magick is only one stream of "occult" philosophy and not even what I would consider a mainstream one at that....




First of all, I was saying nothing of the OP's claims, but rather addressing someone who I felt was attempting to "debunk" every little thing, in this case using rather poor logic, and pointing out why I felt that was poor logic and based in ignorance of the occult. If I had been commenting on some of the other stuff, I might have mentioned that I have read a lot of speculation and more than a few assertions that the $ symbol is based on The Caduceus.

Second, you are correct, of course, that quoting someone does not mean the original quote is without error. However, quoting the assertion of someone else, which you take on good faith or authority to be true, is certainly not the same thing as speculating.

Third, I'm not even sure what you're attempting to address with "...who ever argued that the "occult" doesn't use symbolism?." I never said anything like that at all.

Fourth-- you are correct that Spare was associated with "Chaos Magick" and that chaos magick is not representative of the mainstream. You are incorrect on quite a number of other points though. Spare did not "dabble" in chaos magick-- he was one of the most influential members. I'm sure you'll complain about referencing wikipedia, but just so you don't think this is my personal opinion, and for lack of a better source, I'll give you this:


Visionary artist and mystic Austin Osman Spare, who was briefly a member of Aleister Crowley's A∴A∴ but later broke with them to work independently, is largely the source of chaos magical theory and practice. Specifically, Spare developed the use of sigils and the use of gnosis to empower these. Most basic sigil work recapitulates Spare's technique, including the construction of a phrase detailing the magical intent, the elimination of duplicate letters, and the artistic recombination of the remaining letters to form the sigil. Although Spare died before chaos magic emerged, many consider him to be the father of chaos magic because of his repudiation of traditional magical systems in favor of a technique based on gnosis.


Source: Wikipedia Chaos Magick Influences

Emphasis added.


As such, to say that Spare did not have a major influence on modern occultism is completely fallacious. And while chaos magick itself, as a "system" (if it can be called that) lies outside the realm of the "mainstream occult" (if there is such a thing) some of the techniques of chaos magick, and particularly the techniques of Spare absolutely have become widespread in modern western occultism.

I can direct you toward quite a number of books (print) and websites which have nothing to do with, or to say about "chaos magick" specifically, and yet detail some of Spare's techniques, such as his sigil technique (arguably the most popular and widespread) and the "Earthenware Virgin," to name another of the most popular ones.

Further, "Chaos Magick," while not itself mainstream, is not an organized system of magic, but rather a collection of techniques and concepts which can be applied to other "schools" of occult theory or practice, and in my nearly 20 years of serious study I have seen its influence quite extensively-- especially in sigil magick.

edit on 2-1-2013 by iwilliam because: (no reason given)
edit on 2-1-2013 by iwilliam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by CIAGypsy
 



Last, I will point out that I think you're nit-picking at a false point just like the member I was addressing with my last post. My pointing out that the aforementioned member was using poor logic for a pointless argument does not hinge on this sigil (which I've made no claims about, myself) being related to chaos magick in any way. I was merely pointing out that similar techniques are known to be used in occult symbolism-- a fact which in and of itself makes the aforementioned poster's argument about "only one s" completely invalid.

Likewise, his argument was also dashed by the fact that it was not her personal speculation. If I remember correctly, the aforementioned book purports the information regarding the meaning / origin of this sigil was from The Smithsonian-- so I guess take it up with the author of that book, or assuming he was truthful, with The Smithsonian.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Back to on topic discussion:

Walt Disney was not a freemason, he was a member of the DeMolay Order which is a masonically sponsored organization.

Order of DeMolay
en.wikipedia.org...


Founded by Frank S. Land, a Freemason, DeMolay is modeled after Freemasonry. With the sponsorship of a Masonic body, a DeMolay chapter often meets in a lodge room or, if not in a lodge room, then some other appropriate room in the same building. Although none of the youth groups are "masonic organizations" as such, DeMolay is considered to be part of the general "family" of Masonic and associated organizations, along with other youth groups such as Job's Daughters and Rainbow. As with Rainbow, a young man does not need to have family connection to Masonry in order to join DeMolay.


Also of note is the double cross used in its coat of arms which I outlined earlier as the cross of Malta and the Swastika/Bhavacakra. It is the four corners of the Earth (N/S/E/W) and cross drawn across the celestial zodiac and represents union of the two (illumination/enlightenment).

This is symbolic of experience of spiritual realm. Those who have experienced it are often called enlightened/illuminated which is where the term comes from.

Those individuals are often represented as Solar men or placed at the center of a Zodiac which can easily be found of Disney. Lets not forget that when one adds up all the squares on a magic square they add up to 666 which is a solar/enlightened number.

Now the process of illumination involves the release of '___' from the pineal gland which is one of the areas where the hexagram and pentagram come into play in the process.

Note the physical shape of '___' is a carbon chain of a hexagon attached to a pentagon with an amine tail attached:
en.wikipedia.org...

This is were the 33 comes into play. It represents illumination as there are 33 vertebrae in the spine before the skull which holds the pineal gland. This is also what is represented by kundalini serpent energy and activation of the chakras.

Edit:
The disney 666 has not only one but two sets of 666 in its castle logo.
edit on 2-1-2013 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101


One more point to make is that the all seeing eye is a being with an active pineal gland aka aware of the spiritual influences around them. It is the crown chakra (corona aka solar).

This why enlightenment art often represents people as plants as it represents them as solar powered or living off the light which is illumination. (see Secret History of the Word for many representations of this theme in art of those involved in the activity).
edit on 2-1-2013 by FriedBabelBroccoli because: 101



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Ladyk74
 


Hello OP. Thank you for putting this thread together. Looks like you put a lot of thought and work into it. Very interesting stuff indeed.


Just a couple of things I would like to express however. For your post about Jessica Rabbit, I never really cared for that character (always made me feel uncomfortable to be honest), but I was always under the impression that that movie was for adults and not children anyway. I admit my dad would let my brother and I watch all sorts of stuff when we were really young, much to the chagrin of my mum of course. So my point there is that, in this instance, it is the parents responsibility to monitor what their children can or can not watch.

Also, as to your post about the show Flapjack, I love that show, lol. I always thought it was hilarious. Same for other shows like Chowder, Invader Zim, Adventure Time, etc. Even the originals like Ren & Stimpy, Dexter's Lab, Powerpuff Girls, etc.
So even at my age, I still like some cartoons. I love the creativity and humour in it. Sure there are some stupid ones out there, but I still enjoy them nonetheless.

I turned out fine. My kids are fine. I am more strict with my kids though with what they watch than how my dad was with my brother and I. No Aliens or Chuckie movies for them, not even Disney movies. Too late for my first though. I had no idea at the time. I had all the old classic Disney movies from when I was a kid myself, so I let her watch. I still have the original VHS video and case of The Little Mermaid with the phallic object. I also have the original VHS of the Rescuer's Down Under with the small image of a woman's breasts in a background poster in
one of the scenes.

All in all, thanks for the info and your own perspectice on this subject.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cherry0
reply to post by Ladyk74
 


Hello OP. Thank you for putting this thread together. Looks like you put a lot of thought and work into it. Very interesting stuff indeed.


Just a couple of things I would like to express however. For your post about Jessica Rabbit, I never really cared for that character (always made me feel uncomfortable to be honest), but I was always under the impression that that movie was for adults and not children anyway. I admit my dad would let my brother and I watch all sorts of stuff when we were really young, much to the chagrin of my mum of course. So my point there is that, in this instance, it is the parents responsibility to monitor what their children can or can not watch.


Hi, thanks for your reply. "Who framed Roger Rabbit" is rated PG. Of course parents need to supervise their children. It is the subliminal part I worry about.




Also, as to your post about the show Flapjack, I love that show, lol. I always thought it was hilarious. Same for other shows like Chowder, Invader Zim, Adventure Time, etc. Even the originals like Ren & Stimpy, Dexter's Lab, Powerpuff Girls, etc.
So even at my age, I still like some cartoons. I love the creativity and humour in it. Sure there are some stupid ones out there, but I still enjoy them nonetheless.


I blocked Flap Jack from my 4 year old who was pretty confused and scared after watching this. Of course it is not disturbing to adults, but for a child I believe it is. I grew up on Disney and my children watched them as well. Back then I had no idea about the subliminal part or the history of Walt Disney and what family values it actually teaches young girls.

I turned out fine. My kids are fine. I am more strict with my kids though with what they watch than how my dad was with my brother and I. No Aliens or Chuckie movies for them, not even Disney movies. Too late for my first though. I had no idea at the time. I had all the old classic Disney movies from when I was a kid myself, so I let her watch. I still have the original VHS video and case of The Little Mermaid with the phallic object. I also have the original VHS of the Rescuer's Down Under with the small image of a woman's breasts in a background poster in
one of the scenes.

I believe I turned out well too, though a couple members in this thread would argue this statement..lol. If you teach your children good values and don't subject them to this constantly, I believe they will be fine. However I'm actually pretty upset about the subliminal part and I'm very cautious on what my kids see on tv. I think it's about awareness,this was why I started this thread.

All in all, thanks for the info and your own perspectice on this subject.


You're welcome!





posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Ladyk74
 


I completely agree with you. Thanks for the reply. I'm also wary of what my children are exposed to now. I can see how your four year old would be freightened of that show and why you'd block it. It can be weird, but I guess that's why I like it.

I also see these symbols here and there but I tend to see them mostly with Disney, music stations, and a few other pop culture type stations. I try to steer clear of that stuff concerning my kids. But I'm sure it's in more places than I have noticed. After all, it is supposed to be hidden.

I completely respect your decision to monitor what your children watch, I mean, that's part of taking responsibility as a parent afterall. There are those who want to blame t.v and the makers of the shows on how kids behave or talk. I think that's just trying to point the blame away from themselves. All they got to do is turn it off.

The only thing we can do is get the info out there, just as you did, in order for people to make informed decisions.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 02:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Ladyk74
 


Accidents happen, it's immature to claim that people are ignorant for a mistake such as not noticing the "r" was missing.

Lighten up, would you?


/E: See, I had to edit, because the "f" on my "for" was missing. Does that mean I didn't know how to spell it or that I'm ignorant?
edit on 3-1-2013 by VeritasAequitas because: Forgot the "F" on "FOR"



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 





Or we can get into the prayer to the Greek god Zeus found on the seal among other things which evidence the strong influence of the mysteries on the development of the great seal.


But you don't see anything wrong with "Christians" concluding prayers to God, with the name of a pagan, Egyptian Sun God? Where is the logic in that Babel?



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Ladyk74
 





"In 1934 Mr. Hall founded the Philosophical Research Society, dedicating it to the ensoulment of all arts, sciences, and crafts, and devoted to the one basic purpose of advancing the brotherhood of all that lives, to meet all lovers of wisdom on a common ground."


The Philosophical Research Society has nothing to do with Freemasonry...But by all means keep trying to connect invisible dots >.>



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Ladyk74
 


You realize none of those other lodges matter right? The 3° of the Blue Lodge, is the highest degree in Masonry. The Scottish and York rites confer additional degrees, but not higher ones.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Ladyk74
 


By the way, the artificiality of that letter is over 9000....



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 02:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Ladyk74
 


Have you ever looked in a dictionary for the definition of allegory and metaphor?



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by FriedBabelBroccoli
 


What would it matter even if he was DeMolay? The actions of one person doesn't define a whole organization or collective group...

Once again since this question was skirted before...

"If I'm a mass murderer and I tattoo a Christian Cross on my face, does that henceforth make Christianity or the Cross evil?"

Short answer: No.

So stop holding a few people responsible for the reputation of the collective...



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 03:08 AM
link   
You guys can pat yourselves on the back on you want. It doesnt take away from the fact that the OP lied about a source and its meaning. And you cant even call me a troll or a shill. I HELPED in her sandy hook thread. I took the time to call SAG for her, following a lead. She and I messaged each other multiple times getting to know each other.

But the fact remains she lied about her source.



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by VeritasAequitas
 


Also by this logic, since I would guesstimate that at least 30-40% of the world, if not more follow Christianity. With about 7 billion people, that would average to around 2 billion+ or so.



"Although Christianity began as a cult, Christianity's 2 billion+ followers make it now the most widespread of the worlds religions." Reference: Society the Basics 11th edition 2011, John J. Macionis, Chp 13 pg 386


So, again, following this logic, just about every crime imaginable has at least been committed by someone professing to be a Christian. So tell me why we aren't treating them the same way you treat Masons?



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 03:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Ladyk74
 




Just wow...

I would also regretfully, but sincerely like to point out that Lucifer is not satan. It's Latin for light-bearer and referred to Venus, the morning star; just like Jesus is...
edit on 3-1-2013 by VeritasAequitas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 04:00 AM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


In other words; is this a hexagram Ladyk?




posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32

Originally posted by Ladyk74
reply to post by iwilliam
 


Not sure were you have the impression from that I stated sex is evil? However, how do you justify placing sexual content hidden and in plain sight in Disney movies such as an erect Penis, or the obvious erection in the mermaid movie (which was later removed)?

It has no place of being in there and has nothing to do with sex being evil. Sex is for adults, not children. It goes back to going over the family values Disney teaches our children, especially girls.


A little research goes a long way. I admire you for all the work youve done. But the number one rule in researching is to first try and discredit yourself. Try and find out the counter arguments and see if you are just purporting myth.

I proved you were doing just that, purporting myth when it came to the $ symbol. And now I do the same with The Little Mermaid phallic symbol.

I give you this:
Little Mermaid myth









The Palace with the Phallus Claim: One of the castle spires on the cover of Disney's The Little Mermaid home video was deliberately drawn as a phallus by a disgruntled artist. Status: False. Origins: One of the castle spires in the Artwork in question background of The Little Mermaid promotional artwork bears an unmistakable resemblance to a penis, so much so that many people are unwilling to dismiss the drawing as mere accident or coincidence. Rumors started circulating shortly after the release of the videocassette edition of The Little Mermaid that the phallic object had been deliberately drawn as a last act of defiance by a disgruntled Disney artist who was miffed at being notified that he would be laid off at the conclusion of the project. The plain truth is that the resemblance between the castle spire and a penis was purely accidental, and it was drawn by an artist who was neither disgruntled nor about to be dismissed.

First of all, the artist who created the video cover art did not work for Disney itself, thus he was neither "disgruntled with Disney" nor "about to be fired." We questioned the artist, who also drew artwork for Little Mermaid theatrical advertising, pop-ups, greeting cards, Happy Meal boxes, and CDs. The theatrical posters were done before the original release of the film, but the video cover art was not created until a few months before the home video version hit the market. Rushed to complete the video artwork (featuring towers that were rather phallic to begin with), the artist hurried through the background detail (at "about four in the morning") and inadvertently drew one spire that bore a rather close resemblance to a penis. The artist himself didn't notice the resemblance until a member of his youth church group heard about the controversy on talk radio and called him at his studio with the news. The later laserdisc release of the film was issued with a cover containing an altered version of the infamous spire. Contrary to common belief, the phallic-like spire did not make its first appearance with the cover to the home video version. The same background drawing of the castle, with the same spires, appeared in promotional material and posters that accompanied the film's original theatrical release. The video cover does differ slightly from the original version, but the castle shown in the background is the same in both versions. (Later versions of the laserdisc cover were altered to remove the offending spire.)





You say the op lied about a source, you claimed this source of yours debunks the little mermaid issue when clearly it does not, it contradicts itself..... Did you even read it before posting? Were you honestly mistaken, or could it be called a lie?

Again this seems to be trivial but I'm using the same concept you used to call out the op, except I'm not accusing you of being a liar, Im asking for your opinion as it would be jumping the gun to say you outright lied about your source.

Maybe instead of us all trying to discredit each other we should move on with the topic, what you say?
edit on 3-1-2013 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2013 @ 06:00 AM
link   
Her lying about a source being a founding member of the Freemasons vs at article you are picking and choosing words from snopes is different. And if you can't see that I'm sorry.

And validating the credibility of a source and the OP who is presenting it as fact (despite the fox news tactic of you decide) is absolutely on topic.





top topics
 
130
<< 28  29  30    32  33  34 >>

log in

join