New Age = social control???

by **marykmusic** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 3:48 am

This is what stood out to me:<blockquote>Quote:<hr>By luring the motivated and ambitious down ineffective-if-not-blatantly-false paths for self-improvement -- and by tarring the effective paths by association and dilution -- the populace is effectively kept from strengthening themselves, and as a consequence becoming less governable.<hr></blockquote> Divide and conquer. It's done within the UFO movement, if that's the right word. Cause infighting and disagreements. Get everyone to make reports, write letters, demand "disclosure." Be sure nobody actually accomplishes anything; encourage each to think that their view is the "right" one (which makes others' views "wrong.") It becomes a gaggle of competing dogmas. And I'm so sorry, my Karma just ran over your Dogma... The Unity Church, of which I was not only a member but the music director for several years (in Show Low, AZ, while the congregation was very small), is based on the teaching of a husband and wife who studied under a particular doctor, along with Mary Baker Eddy (of Christian Science fame) and several others who went on to found the other "New Thought" churches, including Unitarian. Sorry I don't remember all the names, but the history is out there. Now, the basic premise of Unity is that there is no Devil/Satan, there is no such thing as sin, and it's all good. We should be happy all the time and totally nice to each other, and love everyone. Hugs all around! Is that newage, or what? Now, I say, Humph! I have personally battled demons and such, on many etheric planes and outer dimensions. I have SEEN the Devil, and those who don't, are his easiest victims. It's NOT all good. It's a battle of the magicians. I'll say it again. It's a battle of the magicians, and to deny that there's a Dark Side is to lose by default. It's like going to a basketball game and pretending the other team is simply not there. No explanation for how the ball gets not only on the other court, but into the other basket as well. Cheering for one side without acknowledging the other team's existence, will assure losing the game. Now the potentially ambitious, the real intelligent, creative, standout folks, are either lured over to the Dark Side ("I am your father, Luke") or are kept in ignorance of the nature of the battle. High probability is that they will be distracted by drugs, by women/sex/whatever-feels-nice, by money, by adherence to the idea that it's All Good. Or all the above. I was certainly distracted for years... by all of the above. I quit every kind of drug-- boom, like that, no believing in the bullshit about not being able to quit because "it's an addiction." You just make the decision and do it. Boom. Now I am a warrior, and shaman (whatever the female version is called-- sha-woman?) I had my dance with Death in numerous modalities, including Amanita. I am recognized by those precious few who are my allies, as well as my numerous enemies. Luckily, those latter are so ego-bound that they don't believe anyone is as omnipotent as they, as smart, as aware. That lowers their ability to fight creatively. We're being distracted from what we're truly supposed to be learning... Not just self-improvement (that's a trap for the intrinsically selfish), but self-empowerment is what our new paradigm calls for. We are all learning that there's a service required of each of us, in order to move our reality beyond the selfish, small-minded rhetoric imprinted upon us... it's about Service to Others, not Service to Self. By sending our power out toward improving our families, our friends, our envirionment, we regain our true power. And we get our world back. --MaryK

by **Homeless Halo** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 8:28 am

The thrust of my point being that there is a false dichotomy being exploited between "new age occultism" and "traditional" religion (Christ was educated by pre-Sufi Occultists according to the Bible). I think in asking if the NAM is a system of social control we might miss the more obvious point: What DOESN'T the "NWO" (or whomever) use as a system of social control? Seriously, name something.

by **Dreams End** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 1:13 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Christ was educated by pre-Sufi Occultists according to the Bible<hr></blockquote> Love to see that reference. Anyway this is for Avalon. Your concerns are valid but I think only because I'm not yet able to express my thoughts on this clearly. First off, proldic is simply an atheist and if you read his post carefully, his take on Christianity is that it simply is what is dominant and what we have to "work with". so he's not really saying it's inherently better, I think. I'm not intersted in condemning paganism. I'm interested in the use of pagan mythologies to support a fascist ideology. I assume it is known within the pagan communities that this is done and that there are discussions like this happening from within. I'm pretty sure I've seen some. Obviously, the actual pagan religions from which they borrow precede Naziism by thousands of years. And there are surely many, many pagan traditions that are simply not even related to this discussion at all. Then there is my vaguely defined "new age" concerns. That goes even beyond the spiritual to things like UFO's, etc. I made it quite clear that I think UFO's are a valid object of study, but it has been clear to me for quite some time that that whole field is contaminated by and victim of various intelligence games the purpose of which I think is becoming clear to me. And the whole "Maurice Strong" deal is also becoming clear to me. I think there is a concerted effort to get ideas out there which serve an agenda. This is irrespective of whether those ideas were part of legitimate religious traditions or not. In fact, the thing that ALWAYS used to bother me about so-called New Age thought was that it was a kind of cultural imperialism. They simply take a little of this and a little of that, rip them from their contexts and use them to support this spirituality of selfishness. Surely, Avalon, (and I realize you were talking about the pagan side not the general new age side) you will admit to such? I think you are a pretty discerning person, so, for example, recognize Lyn Andrews as someone not supporting Native American culture but ripping it off. I mean, she used to live in Beverly Hills. So by ripping on Andrews, which is too easy and therefore not even worth it, I'm not condemning Native Americans. However, I realize that in my groping through this topic, I'm going to be crossing that line at times. I am aware that there are a lot of folks like my wife who love nature and yearn for some kind of spirituality. And she is part of no group, so there's really no pressure to believe anything one way or another. She truly just takes what feels right. But I'm afraid that I have to stand by my general understanding that there are some very disturbing agendas at work within both of these strains of thought. But it's a big and complex muddle and impossible to know what might have emerged on its own and what got some "help". Finally, let me say that Christianity is surely a victim of this too. From the christian identity movement on the one hand to the church of self-improvement, neo-calvinist "right belief will make you rich" school of thought. I'm not looking into that at the moment, but I'm aware it's there and I bet if we look hard enough we can find intel operations at work there too. Come on, Pat Robertson? Surely he is involved. And really dark stuff about Rev. Moon making inroads into the Black churches around the country. VERY IMPORTANT...just not the topic at hand. I go even further. It has occurred to me, maybe only slightly tongue in cheek that a revolutionary movement...Christianity...suddenly got "taken over" by Paul. I think it's not completely ridiculous to see Paul as a sort of "Roman agent" tasked with moving Christianity in a contemplative and individualistic direction. AFter all, if you read the book of Acts...the early Christians were communists (small c as in sharing all private property). No way around it. Keep criticizing Avalon. It will help this process and keep us honest.

by **Homeless Halo** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 1:57 pm

Matt 2 1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, 2 Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him... Wise men is transliterated as "magi" from which we derive the term "magician" and Hebrew Ch 5 4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. 5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee. 6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. 7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; 8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; 9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;10 Called of God an high priest after the order of Melchisedec. 11 Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. mentioned again in Ch 6:20 Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisadec. And later in the same "book" (Hebrews 7:11-28 11 If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron? 12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. 13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar. 14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. 15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, 16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. 17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. 18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. 19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God. 20 And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest: 21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)"> 22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.) ------ The order of melchizadek was formalized as a sufi sect after the time of mohammed. In Genesis, "melchizadek" is credited with worshipping the monotheistic god, and in tradition he may be credited with beginning the "bread and wine" supper celebrated by Hebrews and Christians, which itself is much older than Abraham, dating back to the Sumer Kings, of whom Abram was descended. He is also specified to be the "king of Salem". Genesis 14 "18 And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God. 19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: 20 And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all. " Melchizadek is a not a name, but rather like the term "pharoh" in the book of Exodus, it is a title. "Melchizadek" was Sumerian, like Abraham himself (from UR) as are many of the terminiologies of the Hebrew religion, itself a corrupton of/addition to Caananite myth and Sumerian epic. (See the word EDEN, which isn't even slightly a Hebew word) There is even the verse in Psalms, that the writer of Hebrews was quoting: Psalms 110: 1 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. 2 The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies. 3 Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth. 4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. 5 The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath. 6 He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill the places with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries. 7 He shall drink of the brook in the way: therefore shall he lift up the head. ------- Of course, I get that Jesus made a number of references that could be interpreted via Sumerian or Egyptian "occult" puns. ("Be ye wise as Serpents and Harmless as doves" might be one) And that he didn't see himself as unique in his unity with God, that, as Melchizedek's order teaches, God is in ALL things, such that we are ALL God. See: John Ch 10 28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. 29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand. 30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? --- Christ was referencing Psalm 82. 1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. 2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah. 3 Defend F254 the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. 4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked. 5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. 6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. 7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. 8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations. ----- The verses are even more obvious in Hebrew, btw. ------ Most Christians and Jews are unfamiliar with the fact that the OT is merely a rearrangement of Sumerian mythos with some fabricated History besides. Strangely, this was established long ago, but has yet to impact the more obvious parts of our realities. Such as our historic dating system for cities and artifacts of antiquity which are judged, based on culture, on the JudeoChristian dating system, even though this system was long ago discredited. Cui Bono? ----- Early Christians were "communists" but more in the Solidarist fashion than how we'd think of it, as they worked in the capitalist society, merely sharing their own possessions, bought in the usual manner, with Roman coins. ----- Hope that helps a little bit. Cheers. SHCR

by **glubglubglub** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 2:41 pm

how do you know that the Sufis were, in fact, a formalization/incorporation under/into the Islamic world of this millennia-old Melchizadekian order? If modern day upstarts can fool most of the people, most of the time, by claiming that spiritual ancestry, where is the Sufis' proof of their link?

by **starroute** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:24 pm

biaothanatoi said: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Before the Wiccans start screaming about the “Burning Times” again, maybe they should stop and think about the fact that “the individual” is the ONLY thing that counts in their religion. Wicca has no vision of what do to about poverty or inequality or injustice. It’s about “ME” and “MY choices” and “MY rights” and “MY path” to self-realisation. Just like every right-wing ideology that has ever been written.<hr></blockquote> Well, no, actually it's not at all like every right-wing ideology that has ever been written. The fascists were fanatical about the subordination of the individual to the state. Even less extreme traditionalist rightists tend to see the purpose of the individual as being devoted to fulfilling his or her role in a highly-structured society. It's only our latter-day libertarian rightists who are all about ME, and in that, they're no different from our latter-day leftists. American society since the 60's has been based on nothing but the individual -- and I'm prepared to argue that this was the result of a deliberate campaign by the elite to wipe out not only anything that resembled communism, but also any form of collective action that could give ordinary individuals the clout to go up against the corporations. (My guess is that a fair amount of the CIA/Mockingbird agenda in the 50's was directed toward this end of promoting the hyper-individualism that flowered in succeeding decades.) The Wiccans may be the victims of this right-wing agenda of disempowering what used to be called the masses back when they still were a mass. But they're not the originators or primary agents of it.

by **RollickHooper** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:40 pm

I actually read this thread from start to finish, and I finally feel like I know where proldic is coming from. I agree with monster that matters of the spirit should always be a personal journey; the one thing I believe most strongly in is that the earth is laid out as a teaching tool--it reaches us through the senses and says Look! Listen! Learn! So I personally see nothing wrong with borrowing this and that from human culture, if it resonates within you. I agree with proldic-via-Dreams End that Christianity is in our bones, whether we like it or not; and I suspect it's true that the PTB has its nose in everything, like it or not. But I think it's wrong to lump us all together, proldic, if we're not on your side then we must be racists and fascists. After reading what you've written here, I know you're better than that. When you start coalition-building in the name of Community you create an entity with an agenda--for good or ill--that accurately represents no one within the group, it takes on a life of its own. Whether you want to help others or hurt them, do it in your own name and not hiding behind the flags of race or religion or nationality. Be accountable, take responsibilty for yourself. Mind control is effective only on the suggestible, and suggestibility is within your power to control. You can talk about the things that are beyond your control all the live-long day but at the end of the day it's just you and your own skin. Live well, because one of these days you're gonna die.

by **john darmy** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 9:00 pm

This subject is covered extensively at www.cassiopaea.org . The author calls it "Cosmic COINTELPRO."

by **Homeless Halo** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 9:08 pm

Because several branches of the "authentic" groups have been housed in the same BUILDING(s) in a continuous line through and since the time of Mohammed. One such group is called today "sarmong" brotherhood. They've been based in Iraq for about 5000 years or so, in almost the same place, except the for occassional gap (like right now) where they leave, normally for Egypt (where they also have "temples" in Heliopolis), when foreigners invade. As a general introduction to this topic, I should suggest the first book I read on this subject exclusively. "Magi" by Adrian Gilbert, in the Hancockesque "speculation" vein. However, distinct records of their existence through modern times are scattered here and there, some of these are in this book, some are better corroborated elsewhere. I shouldn't think that an organization that survived from before Abraham, until Christ (as recorded in several histories, I just used the bible as I was requested to provide my reference), would have any amount of trouble making it another couple thousand years. Hell, Iraq(URUK) did. They can trace their lineage to Babylon with supreme aim, but the same can be said of any number of European aristocratic families, so it shouldn't seem all that odd, in context. Our race is old, some organizations are old too. Etymologists have suggest the Hebrew word "Zadok" originated from this order's term for their leader. This was the name used to refer to the clan descended from David, the royal line of Israel. Note: David's line is descended from Joshua and Rahab, a "Scarlet woman" from Jericho (which only had ONE kind of prostitute, the SACRED kind). These whores were supposedly themselves descended from the Sumerian Dragon-Line Matriarch known now as the goddess "Ishtar". Such that Christ himself is descended from a woman who became a goddess, who became a Demon and infused with a Caananite fire-Devil, then fused with a variety of Greek Demiurgic figures, who is now worshipped by the Bohemian Grovers in California. The world is stranger than we will ever know.

by **glubglubglub** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 9:12 pm

but I'll get back to you after I spin through that book

by **Homeless Halo** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 9:40 pm

I might add, that the organization is credited with the teaching of both Abram and Christ, but not only those, with various occultists who have studied with them maintaining that they are responsible for a number of other "messengers" of world religions. There is less evidence to corroborate these statements, except for the "degrees of seperation" arguments common among conspiracy theory. It could be said that, it is as likely that this is true, as it is likely that the CIA killed Kennedy, etc. For these accounts, there is generally only circumstantial evidence, which might be entirely coincidental. I took to studying them, because the "wise men" from the Christmas narrative always fascinated me, as did the mysterious and elusive "melchisadec" who had no mother or father, as the sciptures sayeth. This group I sometimes refer to as "the boat cult". That is, the Order itself, claims, and has claimed for thousands of years, to have carried its traditions from "Atlantis" (they don't call it that), and that their founder was the Sumerian Patriarcal figure Oannes, on whom the biblical Noah, among others, is based. They also trace human historical civilization as being 140000 years old, with their "mythology" including GOD, gods, space aliens, extradimensionals, AND common descent from primates. Which is very fascinating. There are many books available on Sumer, with our current knowledge of the "area" being much greater than that of classical Greece or even the European middle ages, as the "Sumerians" kept remarkable records, which were preserved until discoveries, mostly after the 1940s, but continuing to this day. Almost every month, they announce a new site, and push back the "beginning" date for civilization an average of 100 years, every two years of archaeological study. At this rate, we will eventually dig deep enough to establish the veracity(or falsehood) of their claims in, well, still a long time... This "subject" (subjects) is probably my primary hobby, and was the lead-in to my "career" as a practicing occultist.

by **Dreams End** » Wed Nov 09, 2005 11:38 pm

Just now looking at www.cassiopaea.org, john d'army. I will definitely give points that, in the one essay I've read so far, nails Richard Hoagland AND Val Valerian! He also says that their sources are the same, and that it is disinformation. I don't know what his and his wife's thesis is, yet, but thanks for the link. Homeless, you're stuff is fascinating as always. I don't know about too much of this but at one point I had some decent knowledge of Biblical (particularly New Testament) texts and one thing I learned is that treating specifics such as lines of descent was not a good idea. For example, if you look at the alleged bloodlines of Jesus..they are mentioned twice, and the two accounts are different. In fact, one of them adds another forty generations or something like that. (One goes back further than the other but you can compare the portions that are the same.) I think biblical scholarship is way ahead of what you hear in the pulpits. Typically, I would treat such lines of descent as simply signalling the importance of the person to the writer. In the particular case of Jesus, the whole thing is silly anyway as, according to the story, Joseph wasn't even Jesus' father in the first place, so his line of descent is irrelevant. And, it goes without saying, that if you take all the bloodline stuff in the bible seriously, the earth is only about 10,000 years old since Adam. Not a belief that most here would conform to. The virgin birth would be another example of adding a detail to conform to scriptural prophecies (though I think in this case it was a misunderstanding of a verse suggesting more "maiden" than virgin.) Anyway, we will put HH in the, "I think that there is actual occult significance to the stories underlying much of this, even though they've often been co-opted or misused" camp in this discussion. I'm ignoring (just for now) this particular angle as I want to figure out who all the earthly players are first. And, to sort of tease us back toward the topic of my interest here, I'm particularly interested in evidence of deliberate introduction or manipulation of belief systems to serve the power structure's ends. Here would be an interesting case study. While we know "end times" thought has always been with us...there sure seems to be a lot of it coming at us from both secular and "spiritual" directions these days. We have Christians preaching it, cults living it, Peak Oilers warning it, New Agers embracing it and aliens teaching it. So it occurs to me that either the end times are approaching (even though the mechanism is different in each "school of thought"), or the times are so perilous most of us just respond to this theme or...and this is the real prize if we could sort it out...there are folks in the background who want us to think the world is about to end for some reason. Maybe so they can do bad stuff. Maybe just for the feelings of hopelessness and confusion such stories produce. I don't know. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=dreamsend@rigorousintuition>Dreams End</A> at: 11/9/05 10:31 pm

by **Homeless Halo** » Thu Nov 10, 2005 12:33 am

Re: Bloodlines. Indeed. Not taken for granted. MY assertion was only based on the idea that Jesus was of "the house of David" and would only be true, if this is true, assertions which cannot be "proven", as you say. Coincidentally, Jesus' lines are traced, giving Davidic relations to both Mary and Joseph, and regardless of the issue of Jesu's "father", his brother James was most probably Davidic, hence the nickname "the just" (tzedeq or zadok, likely misunderstood by Greek Christians as a nickname and not an aristocratic title). The bible is fascinating. "The Hiram Key" touches on some of this, but while its conclusions, in general, are probably on target, I have some issues with the theoretical aspects of their study. ------- I know, on your mainline topic, that Al Gore, for example, follows the teachings of new age guru Deepak Chopra (as does Oprah). Chopra himself, acknowledges Ken Wilber as his "teacher", Wilber being a general transcendentalist/perrenial philosopher. Clinton had a new age guru too, who even wrote conspiracy theory books.

by **Dreams End** » Thu Nov 10, 2005 1:30 am

Yes, I meant to say that "Joseph" was not Jesus' father...obviously David wasn't. I think I'll go edit so I don't feel quite so dumb.

by **starroute** » Thu Nov 10, 2005 2:04 am

Dreams End said, "While we know "end times" thought has always been with us...there sure seems to be a lot of it coming at us from both secular and "spiritual" directions these days." Only, it hasn't always been with us. It only goes back to the Zoroastrians, who made a great deal of the distinction between time and eternity and were the first to perceive time as something large but finite. Before that, the Greeks and such believed in endlessly repeating cycles, an idea derived from tracking the motions of the planets and recognizing that certain conjunctions repeat every so many years, or centuries, or millennia. And before the recognition of planetary cycles, people don't seem to have thought about the future at all. There was the Dreamtime and there was now-plus-the-recent-past, and that was it. The idea of the end-times seems to have arisen around the same time as the idea of history itself. The ancient calendars typically have starting points no earlier than the 8th century BC (Greek Olympics, founding of Rome) -- and even those dates may have been back-calculated a few centuries later. (As was certainly the case with the much more ancient starting-point of the Hebrew calendar.) Before that, people designated time as year so-and-so of the reign of king such-and-such, and they might keep chronological lists of kings, but they were very far from seeing history as a linear sequence of events the way we do. Even more recent is the idea of progress -- of a historical sequence in which things not only change but get ever more complex and sophisticated, with no apparent limit and possibly tending towards some unknown destiny. Progress in one form or another has been the basis of all the radical and revolutionary movements of the last 250 years -- the foundation of science and democracy -- the core concept of the theory of evolution. At its very start, progress was associated with overturning the old aristocratic order. Faith in progress taught people to despise slavery and torture and segregation. The idea of progress remains the greatest threat to all would-be despots today. The fundamentalists deny historical change altogether, which is obviously the most supportive basis for aristocracy -- a static world, without evolution, in which nothing changes and nothing ever will change, and where the future is no different from the past. Almost as suited to the purpose is the world of the Social Darwinists, a dog-eat-dog world where might makes right and power goes to the most ruthless, and where there is no actual progress in any sense of greater enlightenment or morality or even higher-order synergetic combinations. End-time thought is the culmination of both these philosophies -- whether the literal Christianoid version in which the world gets snuffed out in the not-too-distant future, or the eco-fascist version where civilization goes bust, leaving everyone back in a raw state of nature. Believing not only that there will be a future, but that it will be in some very real sense superior to the past, is essential to standing strong against both of them.

New Age = social control???

My experience with Newage-rhymes-with-sewage

again

Re: again

MAGI

the one loophole, though:

Wiccans and the right

Hello

Cosmic COINTELPRO

glubglubglub:

continuous occupancy != same occupants in general

I should note

Re: I should note

well

Re: well

End-times thinking is the denial of progress

Who is online