I have gone out on a limb for this latest show, which covers the whole gamut of subjects, centering around the tendency of parapolitical/occult researchers to use little-understood (& ill-defined) terms like "Illuminati" and "Luciferian" and thereby get sucked into paranoid mythic narratives designed to hijack our imaginations as fuel for the Masonic Sorcerers. Question raised: is the real secret society (the autist-shaman "elixir") secret even from its own members, and if so, how do we cop to our membership? Was Hitler a patsy of the M.S's and was the '60s one great big psi-op?
I'd also like to extend an invitation to listeners to contact me via Skype; look for Aeolus Kephas, Afghanistan, and let me know why you are calling (to chat on SW), and I'll answer any questions you have, put them on the show (or not, depending on how it goes)...
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Jason: i'm not sure you heard that Hitler bit right..(?)
Aeolus: I did not know you well enough to see we share a strong opinion. I too agree on not calling them Illuminated or in anyway bolstering their claim. Any attempt by them to control shows clearly that they do not understand what they are doing. Life is not to be controlled but to be in awe and amazement of. The fact they can not see bliss in life and that they attempt to build perfection shows that they are locked in illusion. By their being locked in illusion they try to suck as many people into that illusion as possible to bolster their belief.
We, with no boundaries are true power, power that you do not wield, but will protect in a way only understood when grocked.
..sorry i couldn't think of a better word than grock.
Your outro was spot on too. We are it. There is nothing above us (yet we are above nothing) We are it, the fractal, the universe the space between 1 and 0. And we can not know the ultimate truth. We can know anything as truth. Just be and that is truth.
Hi Tao
thanks for your feedback, always happy to see new "faces" at the blog.
Jake - point taken. The podcasts, tho not live, are very spontaneous affairs and I often don't think ideas all the way through before spouting them, which can get me into trouble, but is also what makes these podcast genuine, organic explorations.
The reference to Hitler as an independent agent could have been better qualified, certainly. I guess what i meant was that Hitler may have *believed* himself to be more independent than he actually was, i.e., to be calling the shots when really he was being manipulated by the very forces he was set upon overthrowing. Or perhaps he played along with his Thulean backers with the full intent of betraying them (a la JFK?), but underestimated the degree to which his own party had been infiltrated, or the consequences once he began to go against his backers' plans.
Not that Hitler trying to overthrow the global elite makes him a revolutionary, much less a misunderstood hero... But I do think he may have been unaware of much that was being perpetrated in his name and that history has since damned him for. There appears to be *something*, in any case, of major significance about the period which we aren't being told, because the subject has been effectively cordoned off to the extent that open discussion of it is wholly prohibited. We can't even question the official story without running the risk of being prosecuted - or at best, labeled an anti-Semite or a neo-Nazi.
If a subject is designated wholly off-limits - if researchers are being reviled and discredited simply for asking questions, and even thrown into jail - it seems probable that *something* is being suppressed.
Count Chocula is pleased to introduce this comment.
A vortex and a hexagram. Druids and the Levites, secret brothers. Blood for the Corn God, blood for Moloch. All this confusion, simply because the labels don't match the fruit. Priests and Rabbis preside over the terrible white race. Hard to catch that one when it splits itself into two. Abusive father, ye shall know him by his fruit, and you should know that your father is Yacub. Yacub enjoys the blood and suffering of his own damned creation the most.
That is definitely true.
To Jason (Jake): Dave McGowen's articles are wonderful, especially the lastest series on the 60's cultural scene. If you'd like to read something that will really stand your hair on end, though, avail yourself of a copy of his "Programed to Kill: the Politics of Serial Murder". Its one those can't-put-it-down, read-it-many-times kind of books (like aeolus's "Lucid View") that every aspiring sorcerer needs on their bookshelf.
p.s. no afiliation with McGowen or his publisher, just a fan.
To Tao: I agree 100% with your statement that life is to be in awe and amazement of and not to be controlled. That is why I find the denegration of the body and emotions so irritating (I'm not saying that I think that's what you mean, just that that is what your statement means to me). To me, life in all its manifestations is sacred and holy. It exists for its own sake and has its own reasons for being the way it is that we know nothing of. It seems to me the height of hubris to think that we can fathom the purposes of life with our puny intellects (especially with our western-trained analytical intellects). Sometimes to understand life it must be FELT, not thought about. Afterwards one can reflect upon what feeling has revealed, but the information revealed by feeling cannot be initially accessed by thought on it's own. I feel, therefor I am. Anyway, thats some of what your statement triggered in me.
No where in Tao's post did he denigrate the body and emotions...
Can you please quit reading things in peoples' posts that aren't there? It's getting very tiring and your continuous combative attitude is not constructive for debates.
You misunderstand me. I meant society's denegration of the body in general. Clearly Tao is not denegrating the body, that's why I agree with his statement.
p.s. I am amazed that you would find my post to Tao "combative" because it is nothing of the sort. My attitude toward life (by which I mean life-forms of all kinds) is one of awe and reverence and my post is one of complete harmony with his. I even went so far as to state that I am not making assumptions about the meaning of his statement, but merely commenting on the resonances his post caused me to have.
It seems just the opposite to me. Western society in fact pushes the worship of the body through modeling, magazines, ads, and make-up products.
I'm not suggesting the body isn't sacred and holy, it is, but it seems to me that Masonic Sorcerers are engineering reality and society into obsessing over the body and you may have fallen into their trap.
Hi Bridget. OK, now we're getting somewhere. Worship means "to honor or reverence as a divine being or supernatural power; to regard with great even extravagent respect, honor or devotion. So the problem seems to be the corruption of the word "worship". Western Society does not in fact WORSHIP the body, i.e. treat it as a living being, with respect and honor. Western society in fact denegrates the body by treating it as a THING, an inanimate OBJECT to be exploited for personal gain. I reverence life and the life force and the beings that carry the life force. They (all of them, no matter how small) have their own reasons for being and living that we cannot know because we are not one of them; they exist in their own right, they are sovereign. Even the cells of our own bodies are sovereign, have lifes of their own and a right to their own existance. I do agree with you, 100%, that those who I call the Sorcererz, with a "z", have inculcated an obsession with the body, but that is not my atttude, because obsession is not worship. My attitude is one of awe, it is a religious attitude. What makes this or that creature live? No one knows, and yet there they are.
"all the secrets of sorcery are contained in the human body itself."
(don Juan Matus)
to worship something is to put it above one and thereby emphasize its separateness from us. This can be appropriate - to worship a lover, i.e., to sexually adore them - emphasizes our separateness and can be empowering, inspiring, and sexy. As can debasing a lover ; )
what we worship we debase, and vice versa - because the Shadow is always present, FOREVER complementing our conscious intentions.
We do not own a body; we can't speak of *our* body, only *the* body. The body is "I" and I is the Body; it is what Nietzsche called "a great intelligence."
(Not has intelligence, IS intelligence.)
The cells of the body are conscious individuals exactly as we are. (For all we know they may even have names!?)
Our culture encourages obsession with body IMAGE, very different from body consciousness. It is the difference, seemingly subtle but in fact enormous, between self-consciousness and self-awareness.
Experiencing the body from the outside, as a form of vanity, is the precise inverse of allowing the body to experience itself, from within. This entails letting the mind "drop" into the body, to sub-molecular levels of awareness, to experience the subtler, deeper consciousness of the Body, as primal energy, creative life force, the essence of the divine. DNA.
All the secrets of sorcery are within the human body itself.
Mind and "self" is simply a witness. It says "my, me, mine," where the Body acts "I".
"All the evil in the world, and all the unhappiness, comes from the I-concept." - wei wu wei
Any time we split; say mind/body, this/that, then we are acting and can not know truth. One is, until it splits to this and that, and then it leads to confusion. Unfortunately our language always has 'A This' doing 'A That', so explanations are trapped by language. Until we evolve a new language we must drop the this and that and have the "thising". Words with 'ing on the end and no dooer.
The universe is Iing but it forgets as I that it is the universing.
Insightful and entertaining show as always, even if you did do it at the last minute. In fact, I sometimes find these types of shows more interesting than when you have a guest on to interview. Who creates the images for your podcasts? This week's image was particularly interesting.
The correct term to use in referring to the Masonic Sorcerers does present quite a problem. The problem is inherent in the fact that there exists a very wide range of opinions on who exactly the members are and a wide range of opinions on their purposes, goals, plans, methods, and means. These opinions usually correspond to different levels of understanding that seekers theoretically progress through (though sometimes they get stuck on one level with a belief they refuse to re-evaluate). As your consciousness expands during your journey it allows you to understand the issue with more and more clarity and from a deeper more cosmic perspective.
I'm hoping I'm not coming off as elitist in any way with my description above. I know all of these varying levels are true depending on your perspective. The trick is to look at the subject with the most holistic and deepest perspective you can with your level of consciousness until you arrive at the ultimate truth.
Due to this I frequently use varying terms when referring to the Masonic Sorcerers. What term do you use when speaking to someone who doesn't follow parapolitical/occult circles at all? What term do you use when speaking with someone obsessed with elite bankers? Or Zionists? Before choosing a term I usually consider my target audience and their level of understanding so as to not close their minds completely to the information I wish to convey. If I know they're digesting the information then I will attempt to redefine and present a new term for them to contemplate and hopefully their understanding will increase. It's like planting seeds and hoping one of them grows.
My question to you and your audience is: Do you think this is a mistake?
On the topic of psi-ops and the Sorcerers' hijacking of the Uranus-Pluto element of change, I think it goes without saying that Obama is the latest materialization of this sort of "reality hijacking". I have never seen so many young people involved in politics and with a real desire to change course, but unfortunately most fell for the Sorcerers' trap and their energy and power was siphoned off into a candidate chosen and funded by the Sorcerers.
I could go on for pages and pages about WW2 and Hitler but I'll just take the lazy route and use the ever popular cliché that history is written by the victors. Any serious WW2 researcher knows the truth of what happened and the motives are not the same as what we are taught and led to believe. One only has to observe the many discrepancies concerning the holocaust and the fact that holocaust researchers are jailed for even raising questions to know that there was some manipulation of the truth and that the truth is still being manipulated.
In regards to combating the Masonic Sorcerers, a topic I know Eric Dubay is interested in, what better way than weaving your own mythic narrative and using the Sorcerers' own imagination against themselves? I believe this is what Benjamin Fulford is attempting to do by insinuating knowledge of a secret Asian society fed-up with the "Illuminati" (as he identifies them) and that this Asian society presents a real and deadly threat to their power. Just as the Freemasons invented their own history by tying themselves to the Templars and then the Ancient Mystery Schools we too can weave imagination with history to create a mythic narrative.
In a conversation I had with Cary McCoy he suggested planting clues and little nuggets of information on various message boards, in various news articles, and various websites that an attentive and curious researcher might pick up on and investigate. Of course the researcher will find exactly the clues we want him to find and come to the conclusion we want which could be anything of our choice. We could modify the Masonic Sorcerers' narrative or even invent a completely new one to replace theirs. This would be extremely easy to do in the digital information age. The aim would be to modify the common perception. If this is attempted, however; we must be careful not to fall into the trap of believing our own narrative and of developing a self-inflated sense of self/ego.
You were spot on with your ending message. Despite my greatest efforts I sometimes fall into the trap of taking my ideas too seriously. Any time I think I'm in danger of doing so I'll revisit Robert Anton Wilson's message of consciously entering as many different reality tunnels as possible and examining my beliefs from multiple viewpoints. Overly rigid belief systems (and even simple ones) should be shed as a snake sheds it's skin until there are no beliefs left.
To Tao: Thanks for your sharing your comments and insights, I wholeheartedly agree with them.
Hi aeolus. The quote from don Juan Matus is exactly what I was trying to say. I have no one to talk to about these matters and so many of my concepts need refining, but I think my instincts are basically correct. By "worship" I did not mean that the body (any creature's body, not just humans) is "better than" or "perfect" (again, struggling for words here) and so ought to be put on a pedestal, just that it contains a wisdom that our conciousness seem to lack and which I stand in awe of. Not trying to be personal, but childbirth is a good example. The female body, in its ancient wordless wisdom, knows far better how to take care of matters than the woman herself, especially a first-time mother. Just watch any animal give birth and you will see what I mean. And that the individual cells are concious is exactly what I meant when I said that they are sovereign, so that when someone commits suicide, they actually commit murder. But if to worship is to debase, then I really do need a better word. Maybe you could do a show (if you have already, please tell me which one) about how we can go about changing our reality by changing our word choices. Since words seem to silently imply their opposites (e.g. to worship is to debase) how can we get around this conundrum, since for better or worse we all have to use language to talk to each other (especially if we are writing!)
Hello Lance. I am commenting on the last paragraph of your very good post. Don't we have to take our ideas seriously if they are to "work" for us, in the sense that aeolus means in The Lucid View? I mean, if I don't take myself seriously, who will, knowing all the time that what I am doing is conducting an exercise in concentrating my will (or something like that...these thing are very hard to put into words correctly on the first try). For instance,if the Vietnam War Protesters hadn't taken themselves seriously, would they have had the nerve to burn their draft cards? Or the workers that recently occupied that company till they were paid what they were owed. They must have been taking themselves seriously, too (just as some examples). Isn't it one of perks of authority that one doesn't have to take "underlings" seriously, like our government doesn't take the good of the people seriously (by the way, I am not trying to be provocative, these are just some questions your post raised in my mind). How are we to challenge what I call the "Sorcererz", with a "z" if we don't let work our magic on ourselves as well as on them? Mustn't the magic we are trying to weave HAVE TO work on ourselves first to be effective? I watched what went on with the recent election of Obama with a dreadful sinking feeling. I, too, saw the the cynical manipulation and exploitation of the young people's desire for a good father figure. All I can say is that we still haven't gotten over the death of JFK and are looking for a reincarnation of him. And finally, refering to an earlier post of yours, I, too, wish we could communicate not just images but in feelings, because the feeling tone of whatever information one is trying to impart is very important.
the trick would seem to be to take what we do seriously without taking *ourselves* seriously - i.e., without investing the personal self in what one is doing. An artist who doesn't take his or her art seriously is merely a dilettante; but one who takes himself seriously as an "artist" is invariably a bore.
Sorcerers, I mean the real kind, never act for personal gain - from a personal POV whatever they do is simply "for the sheer hell of it."
The fact that they find personal joy in serving the spirit is not considered a motive, merely a side effect.
More later, working on SW now.
Aeolus' clarification is exactly what I meant in my post but didn't explain well enough, thanks. Approaching life and your actions in a playful manner will help you avoid taking yourself seriously.
I think the title of this podcast is true on two levels (and probably many more that I'm unaware of). One in the sense that the "Illuminati" are in no way illuminated and that we fit the definition better, and two in the sense that the "Illuminati" is a manifestation of the disowned shadow of our collective consciousness and is thus it is us.
Post a Comment