When North Gets it Right

I’m tough on Reconstructionists, but I will give credit where credit is due.   North nails it:

 

Again and again in my writings, I return to this theme. The essence of biblical religion is ethics. The ethical self-government of the redeemed man is the foundation of society. God’s law, not the autonomous laws of the universe, or the mind of man, or the dreams of men, is the basis of all order, including social order. 117 It is from ethics that we proceed to dominion.

This world view is future-oriented and confident. It sees man’s primary struggles as ethical, not metaphysical. We struggle against powerful forces, but we use biblical law as our guide, and call upon God’s Holy Spirit to enable us to apply that law successfully in our lives and institutions. Progress is ethical, intellectual, and also cultural and external. Progress is real, but it is necessarily progress in terms of a permanent standard: biblical law. 118 Self-discipline is of greater importance than precise ritual.

The world of the sorcerer is the mirror image of the dominion religion’s conception of God’s world. It is a world inhabited by powers. These powers battle against man in terms of ritual; any ritual error on man’s part, or any flinching, leads to disaster. Men try to harness these powers: by ritual, by subservience, or by calling even strongerpowers against them. Ethics is irrelevant.

Unholy Spirits, 158.

Why is this important?  North simply puts into practice what I have been saying, too.  Metaphysical religion/chain-of-being religion = magic.    Ethical religion (and corollary: salvation) = dominion by the godly, regenerate man.

Demiurgos, Arianism, Freemasonry

Plato is clear that the Demiourgos does not create ex nihilo, but out of pre-existent matter. Magic, for the post-Renaissance philosophers, was the manipulation of dead matter. Upon closer inspection, this turns out to be exactly the god of Freemasonry.  Let’s not leave the argument, yet. Plato places the Demiourgos within an ancient Egyptian narrative. Thus, Egyptian magic = Demiourgos = Freemasonry .  Reminds me of a funny scene in one of Robert Howard’s Conan stories.  Conan had infiltrated what was clearly a reference to an Egyptian temple whose acolytes would wait patiently while the snake god Set ate them whenever he willed, and Howards add “this was the will of Set.  Ah, but such was not the will of Conan,” and then Conan killed the snake or something.

Where I’m still appreciative of some Ortho guys, again

Many of my posts have been critical to claims made by Orthodox apologists, and one apologist told me “I do protest too much” (though no one bothers to tell the guys at OrthodoxBridge the same thing.  Most of their posts are about how wrong Protestants are.  What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander).  I don’t want to sound like one always harping on the same thing, so I decided to say something nice.  (Unfortunately, I realize some of the people I mention are associated with groups that will embarrass mainline Orthodoxy.  Too bad for mainline then.  It’s hard to see Tsar Lazar or anyone predating the Nikonian Revolution–and it, along with the later “reforms” by Masonic Satanist Peter the Great was a Revolution as thorough as the Bolsheviks’–would be appreciated by World Orthodoxy.  See if you can dig up Fr Raphael Johnson’s essay on the Serbian leadership’s de facto, but not de jure, recognition of Kosovo)

  1. Joseph P Farrell:  I know Farrell is no longer Orthodox, but still.  One can only stand in awe of his research.  He is a remarkably clear thinker and he teaches you to reason your way through a topic.
  2. Orthodox Nationalist:  I listened to Fr Matt Johnson every week for three years.  He does a good job summarizing different aims of the New World Order and he is remarkably good on exposing the occult and freemasonry.  I bring up on Orthodox boards how different mainline Orthodox (former SCOBA and the non-American equivalents) groups are openly affiliated with Freemasony and Ecumenism and no one will touch that issue.
  3. Sergius Bulgakov:  Bulgakov’s Sophiology is dangerously close to Gnosticism and I understand why Maximovitch’s group condemned him.  The problem is that few people in today’s Orthodoxy can say why Bulgakov is wrong (which is probably why yet another Russian Church council exonerated him–so who’s right?  Don’t answer that).  He is valuable in giving us an honest reading of the Fathers.  A lot of times you will meet the claim that the Fathers are united in saying x.  Bulgakov takes the Fathers on the development of Christology and Pneumatology and completely blows that claim out of the water.  And that’s what I love about Bulgakov–he thinks through the tradition.  I had a discussion with some Orthodox apologists I brought up tensions within Cyril’s Christology, and they responded, “Well, Cyril is part of the inspired tradition.”  Maybe he is, but simply asserting that doesn’t make the problems go away.
  4. Fr Seraphim Rose:  His biography is awe-inspiring, yet he is an embarrassment to World Orthodoxy.  At a time when Orthodox thinkers wanted to show how relevant Orthodoxy was to the modern world, Fr Seraphim moved to the wilderness, resurrected Holy Russia on American soil, and loudly proclaimed a few key distinctives: six-day creationism and toll-houses!   It was great.   He then added insult to injury, albeit in a generous manner:  he documented how the fathers believed in these topics.  This unspoken inference is silent but deafening:  any Orthodox thinker who disagreed with him on this points was specifically out of line from what the Fathers taught.   Inference number two:  if you find Fathers who disagree with Rose then you must also posit a division in the patrum consensus.  I don’t agree with him on toll-houses (though CS Lewis taught something similar in The Screwtape Letters) and I am not as pro-Russia as I used to be, but it is interesting to watch the bourgeoisie hem and haw.

An Op within an Op within an Op

Per request, I am expanding my thoughts on the previous post.   I am not a “9-11 truther.”  Of course, it goes without saying that their case is exponentially stronger than the non-arguments given by the court prophets government media.  I think to say that 9-11 was an “inside job” is a bit much.  Was the government aware of it?  Probably.   Did it further the State’s agenda in the middle east?  Certainly*

But there is one major flaw in this argument:  The Federal Government is the most incompetent bureaucratic apparatus in the world.    9-11 was an intricate plan.  Could the government have pulled that off?  I doubt it.  Israel’s Mossad certainly could have, and the Talmud’s nihilistic teaching makes plain its clear hatred of humanity, but I don’t think Israel did it, either.

So what do I mean by an “op within an op within an op?”  I am fleshing out something Farrell said.  I am only offering conclusions, nor do I think this is necessarily correct.  It explains a lot of data and explains it better than other alternatives.

Point 1:  It is true that a bunch of Muslims flew airplanes into the buildings.

Point 2:  I think the US was aware of their intentions and implicitly furthered it so the US could have an excuse to invade the Middle East.  However, and here is where I differ with the “truthers,” I don’t think the US expected the towers to fall, and with good reason.   One of the strengths that of the “truther” case is that the govt story defies physics laws.   But the towers did fall.

Point 3:  There was another group at play, and this group had access to weapons representing an advanced physics technology that brought the towers down.   While speculation, it addresses a problem with the truther argument:  do you realize how much C-4 you would have to pack into the buildings to pull this off?  Wouldn’t someone have noticed?

Farrell suggests that this group represents one of the ancient groups that have been at war since long ago.   We’ll call them The Nazi International for short.  (again, I am just advancing speculative conclusions at the moment).  This group would have been opposed to the equally evil Anglo-American banking cabal.  Therefore, this attack on the twin towers was not only an attack on the Anglo-American economy, it was an attack on the religion and symbolism behind it:  occultic freemasony.  (Again, we must stress that the true evil is that many innocents died as a result).

Conclusion

Far-fetched?  Yes, but consider: it has the strengths of all the theories that reject the discredited government account.  It avoids the pit-falls of the “truther” movement.   It takes into account the occultic symbolism at play.  It also takes into account the compounding advancement of technology and physics in the last fifty years.

The only problem, or at least unanswered question I see, is that the Nazi movement, too, drew off the same occultic roots as the Anglo movement, with some exceptions (the Anglos went more to freemasonry and the Nazis to the Thule and Illuminati ala Joseph Weishaupt).  Therefore, it seems that attacking the occultic symbolism behind the towers might have been counter-productive in the long run.

*9-11 was a wet dream for neocons and neolibs around the world.   The existence of the Soviet Union gave the US a justifiable excuse to have a large military in other parts of the world.  With the fall of the USSR, the US no longer had an excuse.  You can imagine what 9-11 and the “war on terror” did.

Bin Laden versus Jachin and Boaz

I am not going to belabor the point that “bin Laden” was a bad guy.   No doubt he will soon surpass Hitler as the “worse than __________” argument goes.    Among theological blogs the argument is whether it is right to rejoice in his death.  And as usual, the Protestants go “bible verse shopping” to marshal their arguments.

As to rejoicing over his death, I don’t really care either way.   As to the legality of the American mission in Pakistan, it’s a moot point.  Very few things our government has done have ever been legal.

Before I advance the following consideration, I need to make clear that what happened on 9-11 was a deep tragedy.   That is the context for the following remarks.  And while I do not believe the “official guvmint story” on 9-11–I mean, everything the government tells us is a lie and we already know that–I am not so sure that the US government pulled it off.  Were they aware of it?  Probably.

Joseph Farrell has suggested that 9-11 was an “op within an op within an op.”   More on what that could mean later.   Contrary to the rednecks and neocons, I doubt bin Laden attacked us “because he hate our freedoms.”  If you think about it, that is probably the stupidest line I have ever heard.  I think he, or more likely the Nazi international elite, attacked us–or more precisely attacked the symbolism–of American power.    Consider the “Twin Towers.”   Given that the American system is deeply Masonic and deist at core, and that its current economic foundation rests on the manipulation of raw matter, whoever attacked us knew the symbolism.

In short, this “op within an op within an op” was an attack on the religious foundations of the Anglo-American occultic elite.  The true evil is that innocents died in it.

The Philosopher’s Stone: The Search for Secret Matter

It is difficult to pinpoint his thesis.   It is easier to examine the argument and narrative as they unfold.   Strictly speaking, the question deals with the nature of the philosopher’s stone—the alchemical device allegedly used to transform base metals into gold.  Farrell looks at it from a different angle—the philosopher’s stone is the physical medium itself.    Transforming one element into another is simply putting stress on that medium.

http://www.amazon.com/Philosophers-Stone-Alchemy-Research-ebook/dp/B00398B2HK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=digital-text&qid=1299378144&sr=1-1

From that thesis Farrell brings in his discussion of the occult, high physics, and Nazi technology.   First, alchemy’s occultic roots.  Farrell picks up where his Giza Death Star Destroyed left off.  Before we discuss that we should note a little background information and some of Farrell’s presuppositions.  Farrell assumes (and I think I hold to something similar) there was an ancient “high” civilization with an ancient technology.   Either this civilization experienced a civil war or fought (and lost) a war from the outside.  In either case the losing side “went underground” for much of what would later become ancient and Western history.[i] Much knowledge was lost and alchemical research is perhaps a search for that knowledge.

Farrell notes that the ancient neo-Platonic magicians spoke in alchemical concepts (and probably studied alchemy).   When St. Constantine converted the Roman Empire, alchemy and many of the schools of magic disappeared.[ii] With the rise of the Templars almost 1,000 years later, alchemy and “magic” revived in full form.  Farrell asks the very interesting question, “How did it appear without ‘missing a beat’ when most movements take decades to fully develop?”   The reasonable explanation is an underground alchemical movement.

Farrell takes this reasoning a step further.  Many alchemists were able to disguise alchemical research via Filioquist terminology.  Indeed, if one studies the hermetic and neo-platonic texts of this period, they use almost the same language and concepts of the Augustinian Filioque and doctrine of Absolute Divine Simplicity.

Farrell’s book then becomes an extended discussion in theoretical physics and will probably lose most readers.  Granted, the Nazi connections are intriguing and explain the evidence better than any other model offered by “academics,” but only the most committed reader can progress beyond this phase.

There was a very good discussion on Nikolai Kozyrev and St Maximus the Confessor.  Farrell (likely borrowing from God, History, and Dialectic) shows how Maximus’ worldview on “being and becoming” is very similar to what Kozyrev said on the nature of time.[iii]

CONS OF THE BOOK

It was really hard to follow at times.   I’ve followed Farrell’s works and have read some of his books, but many of his discussions seemed to belabor the point.

PROS OF THE BOOK

While his discussions belabored the point, they also seemed to prove the point.  His arguments are most thorough.

Further, his rhetorical skill has few equals.  He can draw out the implications of a concept or line of argument better than most.  While his discussions on theoretical physics are dizzying because most people aren’t familiar with post-Einsteinian physics, he does a good job of explaining the points.


[i] An alternative reading of this situation is that the losing side was completely destroyed and the victors were too weak to press the advantage.   Further, one could surmise that most of the knowledge was lost and only a small segment was passed down through certain “cliques.”

[ii] While it is doubtful that David Bradshaw entertains this thesis, his book Aristotle East and West suggests something similar.   He notes that many of these ancient sources went mysteriously untranslated.

[iii] Thomas Torrance said the ancient Greek scientist John Philoponos translated the concepts of St Athanasius and St Cyril of Alexandria into “physical concepts” and anticipated something like modern physics.

Did Black Magic Destroy Serbia?

No, I don’t think Merlin cast a spell to that affect. (While it’s fairly certain that Merlin is a real character, I doubt he would do black magic against Christians).   For a year I’ve been reading and thinking about Joseph Farrell’s corpus.  I’m not entirely sure how much I buy his whole “cosmic war” theory, and whether he is right or wrong about “deep physics,” I do not have the intelligence to judge that situation.

I do know something about economics, though, being schooled (though firmly rejecting) in the Misesian tradition.  I’m currently reading Babylon’s Banksters.  Any reservations I have about the book deal with the chapters on deep physics.  Farrell’s reading of the economic situation, while innovative, appears to be sound.

Farrell summarizes his earlier books in a few pages in this book.  While my problems with the “cosmic war” thesis deal with my inability to harmonize it with the biblical narrative on early man (sorry, I won’t budge on this issue), I do accept that Farrell is on to something very important.

He makes the argument that an international banking cartel has existed for hundreds (perhaps thousands) of years.  There is a religious dimension to this cartel, though there endgame is primarily money and power.  The Federal Reserve is only the most recent manifestation of this cartel.

In some circles I’m known as an ardent defender of Serbia, and that’s true enough.   I do grant that Arkan and Milosevic are guilty of war crimes (same as NATO); nor was Serbia as “holy” as many made her out to be.  That said, one can often identify oneself accurately enough by one’s enemies.  While ultimately I ascribe spiritual and theological causes to major events in history, I do realize that the saying “follow the money” is accurate on one level.  What did the Anglo-American establishment stand to gain on removing the social nationalist government of Serbia?

Fr Raphael has given a good summary of the goals of the New World Order on Serbia.  The West knew if it could get a pipeline running from central asia into Europe, it could bypass Russia and be set for its energy needs.  Serbia, sitting in a natural transit route, seemed the best location.  Problem being, Serbia was a Social Nationalist state and for all of Milosevic’s evils, he opposed global capitalism and the New World Order.   Therefore, the NWO had to do several things:  1) secure the oil transit, 2) destroy a strong Social Nationalism regime, and 3) prove to the world that it could bypass international law and depose leaders at will.

While I say that Black Magic destroyed Serbia, I don’t want to overmystify the reality.  Black magic is tied to fiat money, reserve banking, and the creation of wealth from nothing.  I do believe there are sinister religious dimensions to the New World Order; I just don’t want to use that as a hypothesis yet.