Foggy New Age (#8 Satanism)

Foggy New Age (#8 Satanism)

Foggy New Age (#8 Satanism)

If Springmeier had taken the time to understand this explanation from Crowley he could have seen that it merely stated the basic metaphysical truth, that our decisions (a disciple who claimed to be “heir” of Crowley spoke of “postulates”) may manifest in the physical world, which is nothing satanic, since it follows immediately from the fact that man was created “in the image of God”, whose  first “postulate” we know: “fiat lux !” It is likely that when Springmeier decides to write a book, he also uses Magick since the book actually exists! It would be much more interesting to deal with Crowley’s motto (cited twice), “Do what you will is to be the whole of the Law!” To understand the satanic drift, Springmeier should have known much more on metaphysics (since he ignores it and calls it Gnosticism…) because this “law” is much like the description of the same metaphysical purpose called “Transcendent Man” for Taoism, “Deliverance”, Moksha for Hindus, “Divinisation” for Eastern Christians, “Perfection” for former Western Christians and Chinese Taoists, and the “Supreme Identification” for Muslims. But this time, the satanic distortion is visible as Crowley believes that it is as a man that he can be “all powerful”, i.e. he hopes to become God without ceasing to be a man, while metaphysics does not commit this error. To resume the Muslim expression, arrived at the Supreme Identification, man and Allah are the same, i.e. the man has disappeared as such. Here the emphasis is on omniscience, not omnipotence. It is also not uncommon, during his spiritual journey that we find ourselves endowed with extraordinary possibilities for action, but the Doctrine talks much about the fact that when focusing on these “powers”, you lose all hopes of occurrence of spiritual evolution, which is exactly a condemnation of Crowley’s techniques to successfully achieve the seemingly impossible. Because of course, the final word on Crowley does not concern eating a sandwich or making a phone call, but to extrapolate the elementary observation that a man realizes his life by postulates and seek that these postulates work in all cases, i.e. to ensure avoiding failures.

In summary, it turns out that Crowley is absolutely right in the given quote, and that there is nothing specifically satanic in there, in the same way that the use of various symbols like the swastika or the star of David does not prove the membership in Satanism of those who invoke or use them. Texe Marrs, already mentioned, pushes it even further, since for him it is the geometry that is satanic, and arithmetic for that matter, as if these two areas were not created from eternity by the Author of the universe itself and even “before” this universe was made! A symbol is simply something that is manifested as a beetle or a star, and it by itself has no dedication of holiness (spiritual) or Satanism. It is the intention of its use which gives it its “color”. As the symbol is considered in its “symbolic” relation with its principle, and as an expression of this principle, it is considered in its relation to “God” as the Word itself which is its prototype. However, if it is considered by itself, so in a “dia-bolic” way, that is to say, regardless of its principle, like Lucifer after his revolt, then it is “satanic”! In other words what was satanic in Crowley’s prose is the context that is not expressed here: the only thing that we succeed in making the “Magick” work is thanks to God’s will that He expresses as His agreement to achieve what we desire, and because “without Him we can do nothing” at all, not even eat sandwiches or phone friends… !

Technically Magick becomes such if invocations are used to make our dreams come true, and it is in this alone that Satanism or luciferianism themselves reside. Lots of people have abilities that make believe in magic or witchcraft, but these are only gifts they have received in their essence and they do not need to invoke any power to achieve their telepathic or psychokinetic feats, such as “healers” who heal remotely. All these things are just part of human capabilities, some people show them spontaneously, and they are often those who attribute their capabilities directly to God Himself, for example by refusing to get paid for their gifts, while “graduate” magicians or sorcerers have the illusion that it is their “technology” (their “art”) which gives them their personal power. In any case, as I said, Springmeier does only notice the spectacular aspects of satanic ceremonies and has no concept of what is really at stake, which makes him see Satanists everywhere. It is obviously easier, as soon as a little symbol has been used by some devilishly Satanist group. Especially as Satanists take delight to demonize symbols of authentic traditions… And I am very surprised that there is no mention in his book of Rock’n Roll, whose records and concerts are truly satanic rituals, which drive their participants unconsciously on a “programming” of the same kind as those he talks about all the time. As for Marrs whom I quote without examining his works, because he is so off the mark that we would not learn anything useful. It is the first error, the original error, causing the others; once the process has started, the examination of the chain serves only to write books with hundreds of pages without risking missing material.

We get a direct indication about Springmeier´s confusion when he attributes the epithet spiritual to Hitler´s fanciful mythology! He really has no idea of what he is talking about and spirituality may escape him until the end of his days, so let him play with his psychic sludge… Anyway, someone who can seriously talk about Lucifer as the brother of Christ has a lot to clean up in his mind, though if he does not believe having been himself programmed by Satanists…

In 1960 Jacques Bergier and Louis Pauwels in their “Dawn of the Magicians” had already mentioned the curious coincidences between the ideology of the Nazis and mystical metaphysics they had known through René Guénon. But they at least did not do the amalgam. In 1990, Alexandre de Danaan studied the “Memory of Blood”, published by Archè, where he reviewed the technical aspects of the same “lines” as Springmeier, which makes his book much more interesting and informative (and much shorter) than our American´s paving blocks.

In any case there is little difference between witchcraft (Satanists or Luciferians) and metaphysics since they both relate all manifestations to both psychic and physical, which is much better than what is reported desperately by modern science. In fact, there is only one difference, but it is both gigantic and perfectly invisible: to metaphysicians all is related to a principle (Infinity) while witches all relate to a “finished” principle, i.e. ultimately, Lucifer! Since nobody (except you now!) does know of this shade, it may explain why everyone is wrong, but the difference of behavior between wizards and “religious” (which are rarely metaphysicians), is the first we talked about, i.e. the first ones know from experience and do not make too much publicity whereas the latter speak only of what they believe and truly understand nothing, yet strive to widely broadcast it. But let’s leave our dear author who has not had the luck to be translated in English and let’s get back to our Anglo-Saxons!

During a police investigation, when several witnesses tell exactly the same story with the same words, the police know that they agreed among themselves, as when people witness the same scene, they see it from a different point of view, the “point of view” being here as well the physical location of the observation as the cultural base individually used by each witness to interpret his perceptions. So evidence must be consistent but not identical!

Neale’s pseudo-metaphysics use the same sentences with the same words as Icke’s absence of metaphysics, suggesting a common origin. For people proud to be free to believe their own thoughts it is hardly convincing! In particular Icke should have read the Conversations of Neale, to learn the truth that we quoted earlier, namely that by avoiding or believing to avoid, or trying to avoid anything, one creates something similar. And Icke provides two demonstrations of that.

In opposition to what he believes religions are, he makes his own, largely as ridiculous as what he critics, based on ancient “gods” recovered everywhere and based on “the clear authority” of South African shamans (as his Credo Mutwa, THE great Zulu shaman, with a well chosen first name, which has no disciples… outside Icke, probably), or medicine men met by chance. (Castaneda had aptly his Yaqui sorcerer!)

By opposing the scientific paradigm, he creates a new equally grotesque based on “vibrations” in a “non-space” and “non-time”, which is unfortunately the same space-time to which we are accustomed: The same inversion than confusion number 2 we noted in Neale. Which does not prevent this “eternal and holographic world” to spend its “time” to “tune in”!

However, Icke’s contradictions are in much greater number than Neale’s! As he is convinced of the reality of his “infinite Perception”, he never speaks of the Spirit, which is both much less and much more. Much less because It is not “as infinite” as his perceptions, but rather more because It is characterized by at least awareness and opportunities for active decisions, i.e. actions. A microphone “perceives” sounds, a camera collects images, a wind turbine collects the wind, but none of these collectors has any conscience and any possibility of independent action.

The Neales also want their “soul” to be infinite and remember that Icke has written a book in praise of “Infinite Love” (“The Infinite Love, only Truth – everything else is an illusion!”) and the Neales surely also agree…

Obviously it cannot be related to the fact that “God is Love”, since it is only a manipulation from religious ignorant… But if, in this age of neurotic and pervasive sexuality, we constantly hear talking about love, where only sex is meant, which is somewhat simplistic and has often no feature to talk about true Love. The famous episode of “Peter do you love me?” is a good illustration, as well as the injunction “Love one – another as I have loved you” which we rather take now as an incentive to a World orgy. Did not Bishop Gaillot say that “homosexuals (and whores…) will precede us into the Kingdom because they live only from Love!”? But it seems that whores are a “race” universally despised, even by those who trade (love) with them.

Les commentaires sont clos.