Enough is Enough

When is Humanity Going to Get That We’re All in This Together?

The Final Battle

Posted by majutsu on May 8, 2010

There has been a battle, since the beginning of recorded history, between those who would live in peace, comfortably enjoying their natural talents, their friends and families, and their food and leisure, and those who would live in war, defending hierarchies, control over the actions and thoughts of others.

The pitch of this battle, as Marx rather eloquently predicted long ago, has reached an apex demanding resolution.

There are three tentacles to this battle, grabbing nearly every personal, political or intellectual act, and assigning it a place somewhere on the stage of this battle. The difficulty is that the three tentacles are friend, foe or subterfuge. It is the third tentacle that is the most confusing, as the side of war, as long as the objectives of hierarchy and control are achieved, is often quite comfortable using ambiguous or expedient symbols or political movements to further its ends in a duplicitous manner.

The friends of fascism are large corporations, imperialism, capitalism, racism, sexism and naked exploitation and oppression of any stripe. The ultimate aim of the war-mongers is to establish a comprehensive master-slave dialect. The corporate-military complex would have complete control over the slave race, robotized to thoughtlessness, devoid of resistance, whose blood is squeezed out in drops by the system like oranges for orange juice.

The enemies of fascism are socialism, human rights, gender equality, anti-hierarchy, and most characteristically, empathy – unifying the human race into one breathing body, and the earth into one symbiotic being of the earth-mother and all her creatures. People would decide on what’s best for the all, democratically, non-autocratically, leaving each person free to worship, love, live in peace, free from fear, control, or war.

The third tentacle is the most complicated. The side of war really wants control – since that has not been achieved, and some ancient hierarchical institutions prevent further, newer control by being burned in by time and custom, it becomes expedient to use forces of good in a masqueraded way as forces of darkness, or vice versa.

One example is Freemasonry. While the Freemasons advocate all races and creeds standing shoulder to shoulder in a new ritual, seemingly a move toward peace, it actually is the ritualized worship of evil, the annihilation of man’s humanity. Freemasonry began in the time of the Roman collegia. Originally, the collegia were centered around goddess worship and peaceful harmonious existence. Several times around year zero, several collegia led successful revolts against male-dominated hierarchy and the war machine of Rome. The result was the criminalization of the collegia, until about the time of Trojan, Nero, etc. Then the collegia were reformed as a microcog of the war-state. The most important collegiums of Rome, as Cicero points out, was that of architects and masons. This collegium is both the embodiment and the symbol of building the war-machine. The first step was banishing the goddess, by making the collegia fraternal only, obliterating women’s rights, inheritance, or even care or supervision of their own children. However, as nationalism and human natural sympathies, such as a son for his mother, a husband for his wife, stand in the way of congealed control, it is necessary for freemasonry to appear tolerant or even encouraging of religious tolerance, sexual freedom, political revolt, etc., only to loosen the old, natural bonds enough to establish a greater, more grandiose control.

Another example is religion. Jesus was caring, empathetic, and encouraged the issuing of the millennium of peace, which will one day be established, as evil ultimately has no real power over good. The early church with its female priests led by Mary Magdalene spread socialism, equality and caring; Rome was in its catacombs, on its streets, and its temples and houses of politics being over-run by Christianity, bringing their Celtic web-like natural human existence and oneness of the body of Christ. The Roman Empire of course saw fit to become the Catholic Church and to co-opt the symbols of Christianity in a false church, an empire in disguise. Women were subjugated, their influence obliterated, and their freedoms curtailed into slavery. “Just war” replaced the Christian dedication to peace. Ironically, the Catholic Church is now dedicated to destroying masonry, only because the Roman masters moved on to Masonic and political domination, leaving the tattered and used false church behind, since it now serves only as an obstacle to the more complete domination in store, though they spring from the same hateful source.

The Mormons, who sprang from freemasonry, and successfully masquerade as Christians despite being a Judaic religion with Masonic symbolism, right down to the fabricated tablets of law, are now the new religious arm of the hate machine. But while the divisiveness and hate is supported by the powers of war, the persistence of theism stands opposed to the annihilation of man’s dignity that complete fascism requires, leading to religions as diverse as Mormonism and Islam opposing socialism, masonry, women’s rights, war or peace in a confusing hodge-podge of goals. The same may be said of gay rights, the environmental movement, even socialism itself (when autocratic fascism as in Russia or China is masqueraded as “socialism”) when each of these movements may be utilized by the would-be saboteur to distract, divide and, most importantly, obscure the control and hierarchy that is simply, nakedly the aim of the war movement.

Zionism is at the root of the war movement – not Zionism as in Jewish, since there were no Jews. There were never slaves of Hebrews in Egypt, and with the records kept by the Egyptians, we know there was no Exodus of millions of Hebrews through the desert ever. There was no kingdom of Israel – no David, no Moses, and Solomon was a Babylonian king whose reign and artifacts are well-known. The Exodus that never happened left no ring, no coin, no bones, not one petrified turd in perfectly preserving sand. The Old Testament was made up at the time of the diaspora to convince the Jews to believe in a great kingdom and their natural rule over mankind to preserve them through hardship. Certainly the white Ashkenazi Jews placed in Palestine in the 40s were never even Semitic, displacing people there since 6000 BC with extreme violence to men, women and children indiscriminately. Zionism is a lie – the belief that some are destined by a terrestrial, war-like god (a devil really) to enslave the human race for their own comfort and benefit. Jesus was bringing the message of peace and truth, and this is why he had to be executed by the Zionist Jews, as his beliefs and practices hearkened back to the path of the goddess, to peace and harmony. Islam too, I believe, had tried to establish truth, but I believe it too was corrupted by Masonic forces of war and divisiveness, leaving only woman-hating and violence as debris.

The truth is love. The triumph is love. But the final battle, the last fingertips of the fading grasp of control remain, and the last convulsion, its death-gasp, will be fierce indeed.

Advertisements

6 Responses to “The Final Battle”

  1. John Merryman said

    I don’t know that I’d take it all that seriously. Without disequilibrium, we wouldn’t exist. The happy medium is still a flatline on the big heart monitor.

    This is something I wrote elsewhere, but it encapsulates some of my thoughts on the situation;

    Theology is backward. A spiritual absolute would be the essence from which we rise, not an ideal from which we fell. Good and bad are not a metaphysical duel between the forces of light and darkness, but the basic biological binary code, the attraction of the beneficial and repulsion of the detrimental. This elemental relationship is a polarity out of which exponentially complex relationships develop. What is good for the fox, is bad for the chicken, yet there is no clear line where the chicken ends and the fox ends. Life is a process of creation and consumption as it bootstraps itself upward. We may all be branches of the same tree, but the result is we all point in different directions. Morality is a complex code, similar to language, by which groups of people develop in order to coexist and obviously differ in detail from one group to another, but serve the same purpose. Emotions are preloaded programs that run faster than the rational mind, leaving it to clarify any inconsistencies. Between black and white are not just shades of grey, but all the colors of the spectrum.

    The concept of god originated as a plural. Polytheistic deities were what we would currently describe as memes. Basic concepts which the larger group accepted, such as the singularity and status of the group. Geographic and astronomical features. Seasons of the year. Social and civil activities, such as celebrations, war, death, sex, sleep, illness, etc. All the myriad connections between these concepts naturally lead to a pantheistic network with a mythology of allegorical relationships. This pantheistic unity was difficult to describe conceptually, so it was natural to have this state defined as a unit and then to give it some form, the adult human male being the logical default option.

    As we understand today, unity and unit are two profoundly different concepts. Unity is a state of connectedness, while a unit is a set. Effectively it is the difference between zero and one. While we think of zero as nothing, as an equilibrium state, the absolute, it is also everything. The problem is that human knowledge originates from the focal point of the individual and after attempting to peel away all the details and complexities of life, we have settled on this idealized conscious knowledge as our God and in a fit of megalomania, projected it onto the entire universe. To the extent there is a spiritual absolute, no matter how far into the abyss it extends, it is this raw beingness to which we give form.

  2. majutsu said

    Interesting ideas. Some find communicating on this little blog frustrating, for not only are there multiple authors (which is not always noticed in the fine print), but none of the personalities involved is very stable or attached to any fixed belief. There is a pro-Masonic/Rosicrucian rant to go right along side of this Catholic churchy anti-Masonic rant within a few posts. You’ll see physical materialist ideas of Dawkins/Harris tone right next to rampant Eastern mysticism. You’ll see anti-Islam rants holding hands with readings from the Hadith (Sleepers of Epheseus being one of my favorites) – pro-Baha’i stuff right next to stinging criticisms of Baha-u-‘llah the man. I appreciate your ideas and they seem very reasonable – I like them. Don’t expect an argument of any kind though, as it would be like punching a lake. Expect only a thoughtful consideration of good ideas. I’m afraid I’m a particularly middle-class American, which in this time means particularly broke, so no philosophy is as of much concern to me as where my next rent or dinner for my kids is coming from. I am attached probably mostly to social justice therefore. I hope there are non-material contributions to our existence, as perhaps that social justice might be inevitable, but for the 2-day time frame of my life – a resurrection day, a cosmic cycle, or even the perpetuity of consciousness matter rather little. Please contribute any time. I was reading yesterday about the gods before Menes, as recorded by Herodotus, and your ideas are very similar, although you add a spirit of megalomania to the act – I can see the Egyptians thinking this way, but not the Greeks or Sivaites. lol

  3. John Merryman said

    Majutsu,

    Those desert tribes like to keep it simple.

    I guess the ideas seem megalomaniacal, but mostly I just channel them. On a personal level, I’m something of a cipher, as my interests seem so divergent from most of the people I know. A girl I knew once said she was a tiger, having to play a pussycat. (Not totally true, as her boyfriend had just taken her AR-15.) I replied I was an alien, trying to act human.

    I grew up in east coast horseracing and am currently exercise riding for my sister. Doesn’t pay much, but it beats having to get a real job. Since I turned 50 this year, it’s not much of a record to go on, so any megalomania isn’t expressed. I do have a daughter and she is much more focused on her life, so I’m hoping it’s a better world, but getting there is going to be interesting.

    Since the economic mess is getting rather shaky, here is my take on it:

    The real problem is the debt based currency. Three hundred years ago, it was a pretty smart idea, since there were few economic measures to determine how much money was necessary and debt grows at roughly the same rate as productivity. It does create a problem in that productivity must constantly increase to service this debt, which goes a long way to explaining the inherent voraciousness of capitalism. The situation now is that the financial system has been allowed and encouraged to turn the entire economy into a debt production machine to create the illusion of wealth far exceeding the productive capacity of the economy and often subverting actual production in the process. Which is to say that it was not deregulation that caused our current mess, so much as that deregulation was the presumed solution to the flaws inherent in this archaic system. A lot of the money has been borrowed into existence for the purpose of speculation and the powers that be are more concerned with maintaining its value, at the expense of society, the productive economy and the environment.

    Since money is drawing rights to productivity, the question is how to formulate a viable and healthy production based currency system.

    Money serves as a store of value and a medium of exchange. As a store of value, it is private property, but as a medium of exchange, it is a public utility. As property, there is the desire to accumulate as much as possible, but as a medium of exchange, more money than productivity eventually destroys the value of the money. Money should only be treated as a public utility. In that way, it would be similar to a road system. You own your car, house, business, etc. but not the roads connecting them and no one seriously cries socialism over that. The fact is that money already is a government owned public utility. Just try printing some, if you think otherwise. Render unto Caesar.

    The reason banks and government like us to think of money as property is because it encourages us to use it in all economic transactions, which makes them potentially taxable. Treating money as form of public commons would make people very careful what value they would take from social relations and environmental resources to convert into currency in the first place. This would be healthy for society, the environment and the monetary system. Of course, it would create a slower, but more sustainable economy. We all like having roads, but there is little inclination to pave more than we need. If we applied the same principle to money, life would be in better shape. Instead of valuing ourselves by how big our bank accounts are, our sense of worth would be on how strong our community is and how healthy our environment is. A much smaller money supply would go a long way to limiting the size of the government and the banking system.

    The function of the central bank is to make maintaining the value of the currency a public responsibility, while leaving private banks to profit from managing it. This is their error. Political power also started as private enterprise and eventually became monarchy. When monarchs lost sight of the fact that their purpose was to guide their people, as opposed to simply exploiting them, they tended to be overthrown and eventually the whole system of hierarchal power was replaced by political power as a public trust. Democracy works by pushing power down to the level it is responsive. If we were to make banking a public function, it would also be bottom up. Local credit unions would use local deposits to loan to local enterprises and use the profits to fund local needs. They would then form regional banks for broader investments.

    With a debt based currency, there is an overwhelming need to create debt. A good example is government spending. The current system is designed to overspend by buying votes for enormous bills that can only be passed or vetoed. This serves to create debt in order to store capital, as government debt is the primary investment vehicle. In the spirit of actual budgeting, a possible solution would be to break the spending bills down to their constituent items and have every legislator assign a percentage value to each item and then re-assemble them in order of preference. The president would draw the line at what would be funded. This would divide responsibility, allowing the legislature to prioritize, while giving the president final authority over total spending. Since making the cut would be graded on a curve, there would be much less incentive to trade favors and the percentage system would allow legislators to fine tune their granting of favors to other legislators and lobbyists. Since this would likely reduce funding for local projects, a system of local public banks would fill this need.

    Another issue would be the variability of needs by different communities from their currencies, so possibly a system of various currencies could be developed, of different exchanges rates, inflationary expectations, etc. Then countries/banking collectives could join what most suits their needs and if necessary, switch from one to another, or start new ones. Obviously somewhat chaotic, but it would be an evolving system and would engender a deeper understanding of economics among the larger population, thus making them less vulnerable to financial predation.

    Rather than borrowing it into existence, there are other possibilities of managing the money supply. For one thing, the current method requires ever accelerating productivity to pay down the debt incurred and this in itself is running up against serious consequences. Not to mention that rent seeking from others productivity can be just as economically destructive to actual productivity, as authoritarian allocation of rewards, irrespective of productivity, can be.

    For one thing a viable system needs to recognize excess money is inflationary and even by the Fed’s logic of selling bonds to reduce the money supply, excess currency is in the hands of those with an excess of wealth. So, since the stability of the currency is a public responsibility, it should be taxed, not borrowed. If we tax out excess currency to contain inflation, then how about tax credits to introduce money into the system, when prices seem to be deflating? That’s what they are doing now, with all these rebates and it does serve to support productivity. Another method is for the government to spend it into the economy. This has been tried with various levels of success over the ages, but needs prudential management to not get out of hand.

    Obviously the old model is going to have to collapse, before anything like this would be broadly considered, but that is just what is happening. Ellen Brown is one voice promoting similar ideas. She’s been published most prominently in The Huffington Post and has a book, Web of Debt. Douglas Rushcoff and Michael Hudson also have some good ideas.

    I think that on a metabiological scale, humanity is a nascent central nervous system for the planetary organism, but we are still at a fairly juvenile stage.

    • honestpoet said

      I have to agree there. Sometimes I see us as a lifeform that’s experiencing a breach birth, destroying our mother before we’re even out into the air.

      I have to disagree with this, though: “…so it was natural to have this state defined as a unit and then to give it some form, the adult human male being the logical default option.” I see nothing logical about assigning gender to God. I see it as useful to maintaining androcracy, but not logical from a theological point of view, unless the actual utility of theology is limited to maintaining exploitative political systems.

      • John Merryman said

        Have you ever seen any depictions of the monotheistic god as female?
        Now you see the problem with a monopole theology. Yin without the yang. Normally a singular entity recognizes that it exists in a larger context, but that it needs some differentiation from that outside in order to exist. Limits define us and definitions limit us. The problem is that when we confuse unity, those connections crossing boundaries, with unit, a singular entity, major cognitive dissonance ensues. At the extreme, there is the presumption nothing exists outside the unit. This results in extreme paranoia, at the group or individual level. Philosophically it is the basis for an absolutist idealism, that everything is just a pale imitation of this greater perfection. We all tend to variations of trying to understand others in our own terms, but monotheistic belief systems have a long history of not playing nice in the world playground. If we are to function as the cognitive organ to a planetary organism, it has to be from a fundamentally bottom up perspective, where the spiritual source is the essence from which life rises, not an ideal, represented by us, of course, from which life has fallen. Life does need some form of unitary structure, or it would have never risen from the single celled stage, if it could have attained that, but these units are just nodes in ever larger networks and composed of internal networks and nodes. There is a lot of conceptual baggage which has been useful in getting us to this stage of development, but needs to be re-evaluated if we are to continue growing. Now it’s pretty much a waiting game, as the current currencies of social and economic exchange lose trust and value at an equal rate.

      • honestpoet said

        Yes, actually, I have seen some depictions of the monotheistic god as female, in the book She Who Is: The Mystery of God in Feminist Theological Discourse, which I’m currently reading. A premise of the book is that “The symbol of God functions.” While what you say may be true, you’re dealing on a fairly elevated philosophical level which most aren’t ready to grasp. On the ground, dealing with actual people who are not yet ready to eschew monotheism, providing equivalent metaphors for the divine in female terms serves to elevate a woman’s perception of self as powerful and worthy. In other words, both men and women need to see themselves reflected in imago dei.

        Part of the continued advancement you talk of involves the oppressed half of humanity being elevated to partnership with the other. It’s the only way we’ll survive as a species, recognizing that we are, in fact, one species, both halves equally valid and necessary, in a mutually enhancing rather than exploitative relationship. Have you ever read Riane Eisler’s The Chalice and The Blade? It deals with the theory of cultural transformation, framing an ongoing historical struggle between the forces of androcracy and gylany, or dominator culture vs. partnership culture, illustrating how myth going back to the fall of Anatolia at the end of the Neolithic has been used to justify the dominance of men over women and other, less aggressive men. The Church carried on that tradition by ignoring early Christianity’s gylanic tendencies and creating an idolatrous image of God as Patriarch, or Ruling Man, which obscures the reality of the living god, that cognitive organ of the living planet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: