Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
geogeo wrote: And yes, organized speculative Freemasonry did serve as the haven or breeding ground for the plans and projects that set us on our recent track of development, which picked up in the mid-1700s.And they were influenced by theurgy -- i.e. 'deities' were telling them what to do, a la the Elus Cohens -- just like had always happened. Indeed, the occultists we so often read about were generally the 'enlightened' ones; the courts and dioceses of Europe were saturated with prophets, seers, saints, and the like in whom the holy 'appointed' leaders would place their faith. It is a credit to Agrippa that his enlightened system was largely ignored (though not for lack of his trying) as was Paracelsus; Dee was taken a little more seriously, for a time (enough time to provide the evidence from the astral plane that England needed an Empire).
Nothing's changed, except that we proles tend to think that this whole 'relgion' thing for people like Bush is vague and has nothing to do with theurgy--in other words, it's the same sort of praying that run-of-the-mill Christians do (or like Ma Theresa did) which got no direct answer.
We've been summoning our own subconscious, talking to our hive mind, because through history we always get the same answer -- Unite, You are all One, I am You... What else would we say? Not too long ago, we were all one. The big secret...the hive mind recycles its memories through human bodies, perhaps--hence the belief that the high priest of mysticism Louis Claude de Saint-Martin was Saint Martin of Tours reincarnated (a carefully kept secret in synarchic Martinism); hence the importance of 11 and 11-11.
8bitagent wrote:Perhaps...the undeniable UFO phenomenon, and widespread child sex kidnapping and abuse is all magickally tied into all this?
8bitagent wrote:Why the choosing of 9/11, why the choosing of the Pentagon and Twin Towers, and why the numbers of the planes? That is the question...and its funny, this thread began as my attempt to piece together the exoteric portion of 9/11...not the esoteric.
nathan28 wrote:
That said, the thing about the 9/11-as-ritual thesis that bothers me the most is the rank materialism in it. It might very well be possible that these morons are trying to open a real-life, physical stargate that we can just walk through and become immortal. Or maybe like geo's hypothesis, it's an attempt to co-opt a ritual as part a a big, lethal in-joke among an NWO campaign. Either way, the lack of subtlety indicates to me that they are going for something very un-complex and unrefined.
Strangely, while William was on the 33rd floor he heard lots of very loud noise as if someone was moving heavy equipment and furniture around on the 34th floor. The reason this is interesting is that the 34th floor was completely empty. Elevators did not stop at the 34th floor. It was off limits due to a construction project. He said that this was the first time that he felt fear.
nathan28 wrote:What caught me on it was when I saw that picture of the spinal column in cross-section then saw the planned Freedom Tower. 2=0=1 indeed. Your average initiate interprets 2=0 as Crowley's shorthand formulation for ritual application of the truth of Emptiness or No-Self. But the =1 part, which was not his formula, strikes me as a desparate bid for immortality. No Self and Emptiness both, if see clearly, mean that immortality as we like to think of it: i.e., "you" fly off into the sky forever and ever, show this sentiment to be hopelessly naive.
nathan28 wrote: Likewise, a variant, like "You go back to Sirius to kick it with Jahbulon" or "the DMT molecules release and you fly off into hyperspace fractal dimensions with the space aliens and the praying mantises" are just modern renditions of the heaven myth with a little helping of the psychic powers thrown in, but since people can and do attain the powers even today in their physical bodies they're born into, this seems silly..
nathan28 wrote:So what it really seems like they are doing: knocking down the 2 towers and replacing it with 1, is in the grossest, most depraved way, attempting to unify disparate forces in order to attain immortality. Oddly enough, the knocking down of towers is also a causus belli, or reason to "conquer by force and fire", just like Horus in his wrathful form in the Book of the Law. Funny how that works out. And again, funny how the immediate geopolitical goal behind that is the so depraved, so gross, so immediate: Pax Americana via Mass Murder and War without End.
nathan28 wrote:Quickly, what all this indicates to me is a totally satanic goal: Mastery over matter, here via the ability to wage endless war, to project force across the globe. Look at what OP ED's written--an esoteric teaching about the joining and balancing of forces as a means to actualize one's experience of absolute reality--and compare it to this depraved process--the "joining" of disparate forces (the two towers) via their destruction (force and fire, crushing the weak as "the joy of Kings) and then "balancing" them by erecting a single, unified "column of equilibrium" in their place--in order to master control of the world (with the added possibility of somehow opening a stargate). It's the rankest degeneracy, founded on human sacrifice.
more later
nathan28 wrote:
I tend to think that, *if* there is a body behind the 9/11 thing symbolically, then, yes, absolutely. Because they attempt to use spiritual practice for strictly material means--i.e., they actually seem to think that they can a. open a stargate and master the material world (either way, an immortality bid, an attempt to enshrine the ego)--they block themselves off from any hope of understanding transcendant and immanent absolute reality.
nathan28 wrote:
But the bricks to build that wall don't come from nowhere. The more you deny immanence and transcendence and even far grosser phenomena like the psychic powers, the more you cut yourself off from that. But to do that, you take the bricks from the wall between yourself and the "inferior" world. You enshrine your animal urges. You advocate "killer-ape" theories of human origins. You start to believe that the best human is the one on top of the heap, the one who is literally the master of animals, the perfect beast. As an aside I think Crowley recognized this and tried to rehabilitate it ahead of time. Regardless, you start to get elites who see their status as a proof of and injunction to predator-behavior.
nathan28 wrote:
But when you do this, you don't just check out. Something else notices. Something else checks in. And since you've already excluded the possibility of "higher" intervention, you end up with something much darker. people don't get spirited away by fairies fornicating in flowers anymore, they get abducted, surgically examined and anal-probed by little grey aliens. We don't have angelic visitations, we have "men in black" show up. The guys who seem to be neutral or serve a positive purpose, like providing a warning, start to take a frightful aspect: Not an angel with a flaming sword, but Mothman trying to flip over your car and Ingrid Cole making prank calls.
8bitagent wrote:
Now you clearly nailed it: 9/11 was very crude, unrefined and not very subtle . . .
kelley wrote:8bitagent wrote:
Now you clearly nailed it: 9/11 was very crude, unrefined and not very subtle . . .
crude, unrefined, and not very subtle. much like the towers themselves. those structures were clearly erected with the purpose of 'framing' ritual, the actuality being they were both inside and outside events on the morning of 9/11, as they served to form a picture of the spectacle at its periphery, while simultaneously residing at its center.
taking a relatively long view . . . if we look at the time in which they were built, examine exactly where we find specific members of the proto-plan B crew at that particular moment, and determine what those men were involved with in the early to mid-'70s as the towers went up, and link them to current geostrategic interests held in common by various transnational elites, we may begin to form a clearer picture of the true function of the architecture, regardless of the esoteric nature of its iconography. whether they were built to be demolished will likely remain speculation, but that's my relatively speculative take.
. . .
does anyone know of roland barthes description of the towers? he plainly saw them as a massive set, but from what i can recall i'm simplifying greatly. anyhow, i can't seem to track this info down.
We all know the basic reasons why Osama Bin Laden chose to attack the World Trade Center, out of all the buildings in New York. Its towers were the two tallest in the city, synonymous with its skyline. They were richly stocked with potential victims. And as the complex's name declared, it was designed to be a center of American and global commerce. But Bin Laden may have had another, more personal motivation. The World Trade Center's architect, Minoru Yamasaki, was a favorite designer of the Binladin family's patrons—the Saudi royal family—and a leading practitioner of an architectural style that merged modernism with Islamic influences.
8bitagent wrote:kelley wrote:8bitagent wrote:
Now you clearly nailed it: 9/11 was very crude, unrefined and not very subtle . . .
crude, unrefined, and not very subtle. much like the towers themselves. those structures were clearly erected with the purpose of 'framing' ritual, the actuality being they were both inside and outside events on the morning of 9/11, as they served to form a picture of the spectacle at its periphery, while simultaneously residing at its center.
taking a relatively long view . . . if we look at the time in which they were built, examine exactly where we find specific members of the proto-plan B crew at that particular moment, and determine what those men were involved with in the early to mid-'70s as the towers went up, and link them to current geostrategic interests held in common by various transnational elites, we may begin to form a clearer picture of the true function of the architecture, regardless of the esoteric nature of its iconography. whether they were built to be demolished will likely remain speculation, but that's my relatively speculative take.
. . .
does anyone know of roland barthes description of the towers? he plainly saw them as a massive set, but from what i can recall i'm simplifying greatly. anyhow, i can't seem to track this info down.
Well we know the World Trade Center was the brainchild of David Rockefeller. Everyone agrees on that. David Rockefeller is of course,
literally one of the top globalists in the world(head of the CFR, Bilderberg, Trilateral Commission, and on and on...even Kissinger is merely *his* puppet)
So who designed the WTC? Why, the Saudi Bin Laden Group's main star architect, Minoru Yamasaki:
http://www.slate.com/?id=2060207We all know the basic reasons why Osama Bin Laden chose to attack the World Trade Center, out of all the buildings in New York. Its towers were the two tallest in the city, synonymous with its skyline. They were richly stocked with potential victims. And as the complex's name declared, it was designed to be a center of American and global commerce. But Bin Laden may have had another, more personal motivation. The World Trade Center's architect, Minoru Yamasaki, was a favorite designer of the Binladin family's patrons—the Saudi royal family—and a leading practitioner of an architectural style that merged modernism with Islamic influences.
The article is fascinating, going on about how Yamasaki truly was the bin Laden's favorite architect, using him on a number of projects.
Ironic isnt it? David Rockefeller and the Bin Laden's, forever tied to the creation of the World Trade Center.
geogeo wrote:I don't know. I just can't help thinking that it's US we're afraid of and that it's US that we channel, we talk to, we see -- the emergent (self-organizinf) effects of concentrated will, memory, trauma--at a certain stage recognized as the collective subsconscious. Either that, or WE were created/mastered by a being popularly referred to as 'God' as a tool for it to probe and experience the material universe (Jacob Boehme). Perhaps it's the same thing.
And if we go back to even the 11th century Nizari assassin cults, we see heavy parables to "al Qaeda".
I suspect Crowley's job was being Crowley.
I think Crowley was a tool--
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 175 guests