The Essential Conspiracy - Non-Conditionality of Being

The real conspiracy going on is ultimately rooted in this idea: that the world should reflect the esoteric concept of non-conditionality of being.

Non-conditionality of being essentially means an existence which is not conditioned by any formal states, which is to say, a state of consciousness unfettered by emotions.

Emotions represent a state of differentiation within the inner being. In certain esoteric doctrines - Hermeticism/Gnosticism/Shaivism/Sufism/Buddhism in particular - the ultimate goal is to exist not in this lower plane of consciousness, what the Gnostics called the demiurgical state, the Hindus call "maya", the Hermeticists call lead, or stone (the sword in the stone legend intimates this same doctrine) but in a state beyond all formal conditioning, which means, a state of pure undiluted consciousness, detached from any state, whether it be a good or evil one (good and evil are both regarded as 'illusory' states).

There are three different levels in society where this doctrine is being subtly and clandestinely implemented without anyone's conscious awareness.

First: The family. This is first and foremost the fundamental layer or substratum to be affected in order to implement the change at the higher levels.

Here, what's being emphasized is the relativistic doctrine of individualism: paradoxically, individualism, and universalism, are two sides of the same coin; no longer is it important to support or encourage gender distinctions, since gender distinctions are simply a symptom of the more fundamental esoteric doctrine of the 'demiurge' or 'maya': to insist that nature designed man to perform a certain and for a woman to perform certain roles, since these roles seem implied by the natural dynamics within natures functioning, is to justify the "illusion" of Maya - and this is a big no no to the gnostics who want to completely erase all distinctions.

So, how have they gone about this? By far their biggest agenda, after women liberation - from the yoke of womanhood (i.e. from those things which a woman naturally desires) - is the Gay agenda: Here, what's being argued, and essentially stuffed down everyone's throats, is the idea that homosexuality is to be accepted and treated as fundamentally normal. Now, Of course, if Homosexuality couldn't be countered through therapy, they would have a reasonable argument for at least showing a tolerance and respect of the person of homosexuals - however, as the initiates of esoteric doctrines know full well - consciousness is entirely pliable - no state is incontrovertibly 'anchored' within the individuals self, and indeed, ANY person, straight or not - could summon states of consciousness by simply willing it: this merely presupposes a knowledge of the various 'elements' (this being an alchemical process) that bring about an inner change.

Therefore, homosexuality isn't fundamental to anyone's essential being: it is simply an emotion extended into the sexual domain (which in the Kabbalah, is called Yesod - the accumulative energy of the upper emotional sephiroth pass through Yesod into the body) and from here, the 'tension' of the emotion, which is the consequence of the tension between fantasy and reality, becomes libido. In the case of the homosexual, his deep rooted gender confusion i.e. his own insecurity with his sexual orientation, provides the tension i.e. the emotional energy, to generate sexual feelings for the very thing he seeks to suppress i.e. homosexual feelings. Anyone who's had any emotional problem knows trying to suppress the problem only strengthens it - hence, the 'art' - implied by the system of alchemy, in which one state is artfully and delicately transmuted into another - the conscious mind must merely act through suggestion, and not forceful repression.

So, we have a society which propagates a false doctrine all for - surprise surprise - a larger political agenda: to erase distinctions between the sexes, means, to give equal credence to same sex couples, and even same sex couples who seek the same legal rights as all other peoples. Erasing the distinctions between the sexes, which womans lib and homosexual rights seek to accomplish, will in turn instigate a further transformation:

Second: Erasing distinctions between country and country. This has been affected primarily through globalization, but changing society is more fundamental to changing peoples relationship to the concept of nationality.

Just as a metaphorical "war" i.e. campaign, is needed to bring about a shift in peoples attitudes towards gender distinctions and sexual orientation (which in essence is a war on the Jews in the most fundamental sense: the Jews brought the concept of distinction to the forefront, which Christianity perpetuated) so to is a REAL WAR needed to bring about the utter destruction of national distinctions. Eventually, a world government will arise, and, through artful manipulation, nationality - individual cultures, languages - will be eliminated.

Third: This is the deepest and perhaps the hardest one to change: religion.

Imagine there's no heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people living life in peace

You, you may say I'm a dreamer,
but I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
sharing all the world

You, you may say I'm a dreamer,
but I'm not the only one
I hope some day you'll join us
And the world will live as one

John Lennon was Obviously all about this - he has the world singing the anthem of this concept. No distinctions, no heaven - nothing to hope for - no hell, nothing to fear. Only now.

No Countries, and NO RELIGION?

Sounds like an awesome world to some people, but to me, it sounds like a total and utter nightmare! No distinctions? No Italian food? No chinese food? No exploring other peoples cultures and sharing my own with them? Holy CRAP!

Has anyone read Brave New World. It's hard to see how John Lennons "imagine" is really different from what Huxley imagined; Who wants to line in a world without distinctions? Without Love - PREFERENTIAL LOVE - for children, over someone else children?

If you like this above concept, then logically, you must then endorse Plato's suggestion that the elimination of the family would be the only way to give unlimited force and emphasis to the concept of the universal: because the family - like other judeo-christian concepts - interferes with the universalist agenda.

At first glance my reaction was simply: WTF?? But I made it through and I at least think I know what you want to say, though I could be proven wrong. I actually don't disagree with many of your points, but the main one of what constitutes "family" is probelamtical.

"Family" does not exclusively mean western culture's "family" optimized for industrialized urban living. "Family" does not mean just "nuclear family made up of father, mother, and children." Not only was the extended family more prevalent in the Western world before industrialization, there are lots of types of families in the world.

Probably the most prevalent outside the nuclear family is the matrilineal family. In the case of the "Nuer," for example, which was a warrior caste in India, the woman "married" an official husband, and her only other duty to him was to attend his funeral. She lived her life within the matrlineal framework, having children via other men, which was actually ruled by mother's brother: Uncle. The entire lineage structure revolved around this kind of extended family where men were secondary in other familiies, and primary only in their own, where they served as "uncle."

In still other cultures the bridegroom moves in with the bride's family, takes up residence there where the matriarch is the oldest and most revered female, and Uncle is still in charge. In other words, it is a rare culture that is matriarchical, but many many are matrilineal.

If you could revise your theory in light of what most of the world has historically done with regards to what constitutes "family," it might be a stronger argument.