Friday, November 21, 2014

Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare

Michael Hoffman analyses both how shadow governments use psychological warfare and why it works on late American man. Along the way we get a brilliant analysis of occult symbolism. Hoffman suggests that moden American man suffers from three things: amnesia, abulia, and apathy (Hoffman 9). This is important for his next thesis: the shadow government (or Cryptocracy or Regime or New World Order, call it what you will) can “pull these stunts” largely because a) the people are apathetic and so b) won’t resist.

Hermeticism and Alchemy

Alchemy is not simply transmuting lead into gold. It is transmuting society as well. It is turn to lead (traditional Christian man) into gold (Enlightenment project). Fabled alchemy had at least three goals to accomplish before the total decay of matter, the total breakdown we are witnessing all around us today, was fulfilled--at least for American culture-- and these are:

1.The Creation and Destruction of Primordial Matter (the atom was split at Trinity Site, NM, which runs along the 33rd degree north latitude)

2. The Killing of the Divine King. (JFK was killed at the 33rd degree of north parallel latitude between the Trinity River and the Triple Underpass at Dealey Plaza in Dallas, Texas. Dealey Plaza was the site of the first masonic temple in Dallas. This was also a televised slaughter in a sense). And for the record, the above analysis stands no matter one’s views on the Official Government Story of Spanky the Magic Bullet. For the record, I believe in the Magic Bullet. The above argument hinges on topography and synchronicity, not on who the shooter was.

3.The Bringing of Prima Materia to Prima Terra (91).

a.The "Phoenix" lunar landing module, after its return to the orbiting mother ship piloted by Michael Collins, was jettisoned directly into the sun in fulfillment of one of the most persistent themes of alchemical lore and Rosicrucian poetry: the "sexual marriage" of the sun and the moon (98).

These alchemical goals have been accomplished. The question remains: what is the affect/effect upon modern society? Hoffman notes,

“We are mocked, disoriented and demoralized. Occult prestige and potency is heightened. This is what simplistic researchers miss: the function of macabre arrogance thumbing its nose at us while we do nothing except spread the tale of their immunity and invincibility further. That is the game plan operant here” (89).


The message is subtler than that. By common law and moral law those who are aware of crimes are also guilty. The Regime’s after-the-fact revelations is designed to further our guilt, knowing we won’t do anything about it. It is social engineering at its finest. Hoffman continues,

“As I've pointed out, secrets like this were rarely revealed in the past because traditional people had not yet completed the alchemical processing. To make such perverse, modern revelations to an unprocessed, healthy and vigorous population possessed of will, memory, adherence to their deepest inner intuition and intense interest in their own salvation, would not have been a good thing for the cryptocracy. It would have proved fatal to them.

But to reveal these after-the-act secrets in our modern time, to a people who have no memory, no will-power and no interest in their own fate except in so far as it may serve as momentary
titillation and entertainment actually strengthens the enslavement of such a people (89)”.


Analysis

The book’s weakness is its brevity. Too many explosive issues were only barely touched upon. One wishes that he would have better documented some Freemasonic references. I understand his interest in the Son of Sam murders, but it appears he overdeveloped that point. Aside from these criticisms, the book is pure gold.

18 comments:

  1. I find several weaknesses in this book. One of the biggest is it's almost complete lack of footnotes, as you mention toward the end of the review. For someone that touts themselves as a lay scholar (Indeed, his dismissal of "simplistic researchers" is but one example of how he promotes himself) this work is remarkably devoid of documentation of things presented as fact, and this goes beyond his freemasonic references. This causes me to have significant doubts about his research and his presentation of the subject matter. If he is not telling the reader from where this information was gleaned, then he may be playing fast & loose with the facts, or taking them out of context.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sorry I didn't see your comment earlier. Yeah, the lack of footnotes is a problem. He documents a few masonic references, but even then he doesn't develop the thought (the section on Killing of the King should have been about 5 pages, instead of two paragraphs).

    ReplyDelete
  3. I suspect in the end this work will be found to have about as much truth and substance as Dan Brown's fiction, The DaVinci Code. Engaging this kind of occult assertion/speculation strikes me as little more than a colossal distraction from the "one thing needful" to which all Christians are called (Luke 10:42). I can tell you from my own experience that imbibing enough of this stuff will make you feel like you have inside knowledge and like you are on the brink of discovering the final answer to all questions about what's "really going on" in the world, but in reality it will be blinding you to the only things really worth knowing and taking you down a rabbit hole to insanity instead.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes and no. I've seen people go down dangerous paths on this, yet Paul did mention exposing the works of darkness.

      The difference between this and the Da Vinci code is that this author's documentations are in fact accurate. The problem is that there are two few.

      Delete
    2. My experience is with things like 9/11 Truthers, JFK (the 1991 film), Bush Dynasty biography, etc.. Even where there is truth to such things (and I was very persuaded by Jim Garrison's arguments in JFK and found the Bush family closet skeletons plausibly disturbing), there is really ultimately nothing new under the sun. My point was if we take seriously the commandments of Christ, exposing these things doesn't really change anything we would be doing already anyway (and can distract us from what is really important and what IS within our purview--those things for which Christ will hold us personally accountable for on Judgment Day--see Matthew 25). Researching this stuff alone can eat up hours, days and months of time we will never get back--and to what end? This also flies in the face of commandments like that found in Philippians 4:8.

      The commandment given by the Apostle Paul to which you refer is very different in the Ephesians 5 context than the boxing with shadows that goes on in a lot of the more speculative doomsday religious circles today. It has to do with our own purification from sin and living in the light of Christ and not being partakers with works of darkness (i.e., the sins in which we formerly lived listed in the previous few verses). It has nothing to do in its own context with making sure we are (supposedly) in the know about the doings of occult groups.

      In the face of these latter things, the average believer is pretty much impotent--we have no control over "shadow gov'ts" and even less direct knowledge about them. As far as I can see, after a certain point it profits us little to try to delve into such things and may do (and in many cases has done) much harm. Best leave dealing with satan and his minions and shadow governors to our all-knowing, all-powerful Lord, and for ourselves rather heed the details of St. Paul's advice in Ephesians 5 about walking in wisdom.

      Delete
    3. ***It has nothing to do in its own context with making sure we are (supposedly) in the know about the doings of occult groups.***

      I disagree and your above example is not contradictory to my point. Having a good quiet time and purifying myself from sin is not contrary to "being as wise as serpents," as Jesus said. You imply it is but you haven't given any argument.

      Paul says we wrestle against spiritual powers in high places. The men of Issachar discerned the signs of the times.

      *** Best leave dealing with satan and his minions and shadow governors to our all-knowing, all-powerful Lord, and for ourselves rather heed the details of St. Paul's advice in Ephesians 5 about walking in wisdom. ***

      Then why bother about the Christian life at all if we can just "leave everything to the Lord"? You also imply that walking in wisdom is contrary to what I am suggesting, but you give no argument. I am not saying that we should spend hours researching this stuff. I certainly don't. But I won't stick my head in the sand, either.

      Delete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Paul also teaches in that same passage about spiritual warfare that the weapons of the Apostles' warfare are "not carnal, but mighty in God" with the purpose of "bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ." How does modern speculation or research about human occultists' (real or imagined) conspiratorial political activity throughout the ages accomplish this? Can you give some concrete examples of how this has furthered the work of Christ in your life or someone else's?

    I'm not advocating putting one's head in the sand. What I object to is specious speculative argument. What I have found is that theories that attempt to connect modern Freemasonic occultism (which I would certainly not deny) with Freemasonry of the past, the "Illuminati" in Germany, the Knights Templar, and ancient near-Eastern cults, etc., is being fed more by modern occult propaganda (encouraged by modern Freemasons), than truly sound and well-supported historical research and analysis.

    I would certainly not oppose a heathy practice of the spiritual disciplines to becoming "wise as serpents" (quite the reverse), but am advocating not putting the cart before the horse here, so to speak. The grace of God (i.e., the presence of the Light of Christ) which the spiritual disciplines prepare us to receive (i.e., insofar as these disciplines help us to grow in our capacity to embrace Christ in ever-greater fullness) is the foundation for the establishment of a capacity for true discernment.

    Neither did I intend to suggest "leaving dealing with satan and his minions" (human or otherwise) "to the Lord", is exclusive of doing what we can where we have influence or control to uphold truth and righteousness in our words and conduct. In context, my statement had to do specifically with what is out of our personal influence and control, such as (for most of us) bringing down corrupt governments or rulers and effectively exposing "cryptocracies" before the world. As I see it, excepting a few modern-day Josephs, Daniels or Esthers, who may find themselves in critical political positions, the most we will be able to do in the face of such things is to be willing to confess Christ even at the cost of our livelihood and our lives, if necessary, as is taking place even now in the Middle-East and in places like North Korea for many believers. And preparing my heart for that is more than enough demand for my energies and focus. It is only Christ's blessed appearing that will ultimately expel evil from its reign here on earth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ***Paul also teaches in that same passage about spiritual warfare that the weapons of the Apostles' warfare are "not carnal, but mighty in God" with the purpose of "bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ." How does modern speculation or research about human occultists' (real or imagined) conspiratorial political activity throughout the ages accomplish this? Can you give some concrete examples of how this has furthered the work of Christ in your life or someone else's?***

      For one, I don't see myself as speculating, since most everything I am saying can be documented. For two, Paul is saying carnal weapons are probably swords, not arguments.

      For the rest of your comment, I think we are talking past each other. I am not saying we should do x, y, and z (don't remember saying we should do anything). And I know we can't "do" much to change it. That's one of the reasons I am a monarchist, and not a Republo-Democrat.

      Delete
  6. You are probably right we are talking past each other.

    Are you familiar with Hislop's The Two Babylons? If so, what is your opinion of that work? It's an extremely copiously footnoted work--some might say well-documented--but that doesn't mean that the reasoning connecting that documentation is sound, and more learned folks than me have, upon deeper examination, discovered that even some of what is "documented" was actually fabricated by its author (not quite as extreme as Zeitgeist, but equally misleading).

    To be frank, had I looked into the credentials and bio. of the author whose work you cite here before I engaged you in comments, I would not have bothered discussing anything with you. My bad. I won't be repeating that mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I have heard of Hislop's work but I haven't read it. It's hard to get excited about reading e-books and pdf files.

    Here is an example of what I am talking about. A lot of Eastern Orthodox are getting excited about Aleksandr Dugin's Eurasianism. I, too, thought it was interesting, but I also noticed that the symbol of his movement is the exact symbol of ancient Chaos Magik. Even more interesting, Dugin propounds the very theses (under Orthodox garb) of Chaos Magik. Therefore, I avoided Dugin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've never heard of Dugin and I don't know any Orthodox who would find what you describe here remotely interesting. Care to link to an "excited" Orthodox review of Dugin? I'm opposed to connecting symbols (used in different contexts) in their meaning just because they are the same or similar. Language and other humanly-created symbolisms simply do not work that way. Even symbols with common meanings connected to universal experience within the created world can mean very different things depending on the situation or context. Consider that even in biblical terms water symbolizes simultaneously both life (because it sustains us) and death (because we can drown in it). What it means in any given context is determined by that context. Just about any other symbol related to the creation can function in similar ways. It's Hislop's failure to recognize this which is the biggest failure of his thesis. Connecting things just because there is a superficial resemblance or identity (without recognizing the new context in which they actually come to mean quite different things) is a classic description of "magical" thinking or superstition. I don't buy into that. Apparently, you do, but the truth is both words (which are also symbols) and pictorial symbols or images may change in their meaning with changing contexts over time. If we fail to recognize the real nature of the context in which a word or symbol is being used, we will err in our interpretation (by anachronistically superimposing an earlier or later meaning upon all uses of the term or symbol).

      Delete
  8. Having now looked at Dugin's bio, I read nothing "Orthodox" about him. He's a fascist, so, by definition, is not Orthodox. Fascists (quite understandably) are a "marginalized minority" in Russia (according to that bio.). Orthodox (in faith, not just in cultural heritage) are apostolic biblical Christians.

    Jacob, I cannot read you as anything but one very confused young man. Forgive me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm sorry that's how you read me. I really don't know how I was "confusing," but so be it.

      ***Connecting things just because there is a superficial resemblance or identity (without recognizing the new context in which they actually come to mean quite different things) is a classic description of "magical" thinking or superstition. I don't buy into that. Apparently, you do***

      That's news to me

      Delete
  9. As to Dugin, he has advised Putin on a number of issues (though Putin has distanced himself somewhat lately).

    ReplyDelete
  10. Pray tell, how am I confused? I've always used logical arguments, even formal syllogisms at times. I've documented all my assertions (unless space prevented it). That doesn't mean I am right, but it does allow for verification or falsification.

    You have said here and elsewhere (you are Karen from Orthodox Bridge, I may presume) that I am x,y, and z, but you have never demonstrated how. A few weeks ago I went out of my way to apologize to a number of Orthodox people, even stopping my old blog, but some of you guts keep up with the assertions. I don't know what else to say. If I am "confused," please provide a logical and factual argument, premises and conclusions, showing it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I'm Karen, and we've interacted some on OB as well. When it comes to the spiritual reality/truth, which is inherently personal (from my Orthodox perspective), mere logical syllogisms don't seem to quite cut it in the pursuit of discernment. (Some thoughts which may help clarify my perspective on that here: https://eugenicus.wordpress.com/2014/11/02/more-on-christian-epistemology-church/ )

      In any event, as I'm sure you recognize I'm no trained debater in that respect. I'm just a person with some 50-odd years of experience as a Christian, nearly eight of those as Orthodox, calling things as they appear to me when it seems important to my own sense of integrity do so. I didn't say I found you confusing (though sometimes, as I've admitted, I don't understand what you are writing about), but rather confused. There is an important distinction there. I'm not sure what else to call someone who seems a bit obsessed with correctness of Christian faith and practice, who surely knows what the Scriptures teach about what kind of influences believers are called to allow (or not) into their lives, yet believes that an author who works with Neo-Nazis and has been characterized as "overtly racist", who engages in anti-Semitism and who makes his living as a professional conspiracy theorist has somehow managed to produce material that is "pure gold," even while he admits that there is nothing he can actually "do" with that "golden" information that furthers the purposes of Christ in his own or others' lives. What I'm referring to by "confused" is what seems to me to be a confusion of values on your part.

      I am obviously no clairvoyant. Hopefully, I've just misjudged you. As I noted in my comment under your intro. post, I do appreciate your more recent irenic overtures to those of us in other camps philosophically or theologically. I hope you will also understand it is not my intent to be unkind. The m.o. you have shown over time (argumentative "bulldog" plus rapidly cameleon-like shifting blogs/monikers--reflecting similar rapid shifts in theological opinions--instability?) and especially some of what you choose to engage in commentary about (this post being a case in point) do occasionally create for me a bit of friendly concern for your spiritual welfare (whether well-placed or not, I can't fully judge, since I recognize it's also coming from my own experience, which won't exactly match your situation). So I have taken the liberty to comment occasionally to give you an opportunity to reflect a bit more deeply about what you believe and what you are doing and why you are doing it in the hopes that, if my perceptions have some basis in reality, this might at some point be helpful to you. Undoubtedly, in so doing I've also presumed on your good graces.

      As it happens, I've also exhausted my own limited resources in this regard.

      I wish you well.

      Delete
  11. Not interested in the sidetrack jib-jab above, but did want to follow up on the responder's point about the book author's fascist leanings.

    I've followed this author for quite some time and the more I've learned in regard to his sympathy for fascism, the more I've come to completely toss out what I once thought was good information. While he's made public statements about not being a nazi sympathizer, the body of his work doesn't exactly testify to that reality (much like Eustace Mullins who denied being an anti-Semite to his dying day). This author's proto-fascism taints all of his work for me now. He may condemn the John Birch Society publically (and only because he accuses them of being under Zionist influence...hmmmm), but he essentially touts their same theories with a different gloss. That's fine if you're a right-wing populist who hearkens the return of a supposed legendary Golden Age (proto-fascism definition, btw), but in the end it's only confirmation bias to believe what this author is claiming with his non-sourced material (just like Mullins, again). Sorry, my two cents on him so take it for what it's worth.

    ReplyDelete