Jim,

Crowley was a character, to be sure. He was philosophically well-read, and in
fact just plain well-read, and his odd view on epistemology and ontology, which
he called Magick, has more depth than is usually granted it, but it is
ultimately more show than substance. Everyone has his or her own method of
interpreting Crowley; I see him as a materialistic atheist who tried to maintain
a vision of transcendence by the manipulation of one's own subjectivity.

SAMSON (The Book of Lies)
The Universe is in equilibrium; therefore He that is
without it, though his force be but a feather, can
overturn the Universe.

My favorite texts are Magick in Theory and Practice; Magic Without Tears; The
Confessions; The Book of Lies; and The Vision and the Voice. There is a nice
compendium, reissued and updated last year, called "Portable Darkness". There
are many bios out. Each one says more about the author than it does about
Crowley, in my opinion. I recently read, "Do What Thou Wilt: A Life of Aleister
Crowley", by Lawrence Sutin. Awful book. Skip it. My appreciation of Crowley
comes down to my admiration for those who become a real scandal to Society. A
dying breed.

Wil







-----Original Message-----
From: jimstuart51 <jjimstuart1@...>
To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 10:03 am
Subject: [existlist] Re: Against bad manners

























Wil,



I haven't read any G. K. Chesterton or any Aleister Crowley,

although I do know a bit about Crowley.



I think if we can somehow gain a sense of awe and wonder, then that

it a good thing. The fact that I am currently alive and living on a

complex planet which has both natural features and the imprint of

human beings is a strange fact indeed, and not something to be taken

for granted in a matter-of-fact way. No doubt Bill will think of such

talk as more sentimental nonsense from Jesus Boy, however, I don't

think that re-gaining a sense of awe and wonder has any necessary

connection with theism or the religious.



Crowley is an intriguing and charismatic figure, but also a dangerous

person to take as a role model, in my view. It is good to examine

life, and explore areas away from the mainstream. However, I gather a

number of Crowley's followers ended up in a mess, and Crowley wasn't

particularly sensitive to the well-being of others.



Jim






















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Jim,

I have heard in recent years the distinction being made between religious and
spiritual. Religous implies the acceptance of dogma and membership in a
particular church, whereas spiritual implies the experience of syncronicities,
near death experiences, and other things that cast some doubt on the
materialistic, reductionist, aetheistic paradigms. The fact that historically
religions have been so entwined with various political and economic powers,
tends to make a person dubious of their validity. On the other hand, of all the
creation myths I find the materialistic, aetheistic idea of the cosmos and
ecosystems evolving as they did being the result of randomness the most
improbable. Crowley was strongly anti Christian. He had been raised in a very
strict Christian atmosphere. However, Crowley was far from a reductionist,
materialist aetheist.

Tom
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: jimstuart51
   To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 10:03 AM
   Subject: [existlist] Re: Against bad manners


   Wil,

   I haven't read any G. K. Chesterton or any Aleister Crowley,
   although I do know a bit about Crowley.

   I think if we can somehow gain a sense of awe and wonder, then that
   it a good thing. The fact that I am currently alive and living on a
   complex planet which has both natural features and the imprint of
   human beings is a strange fact indeed, and not something to be taken
   for granted in a matter-of-fact way. No doubt Bill will think of such
   talk as more sentimental nonsense from Jesus Boy, however, I don't
   think that re-gaining a sense of awe and wonder has any necessary
   connection with theism or the religious.

   Crowley is an intriguing and charismatic figure, but also a dangerous
   person to take as a role model, in my view. It is good to examine
   life, and explore areas away from the mainstream. However, I gather a
   number of Crowley's followers ended up in a mess, and Crowley wasn't
   particularly sensitive to the well-being of others.

   Jim





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I havn`t read  those guys and from what you guys say I won`t. Magic,
just does not ring my bell.
  As to James, I liked some of what you wrote but your anticipation of
my reaction was keen. For me metaphysics is a no no. I really try to
stay away from it. Then again I am pretty much awed and agape-ed out.I
lost interest when it was beaten into my head  from some vatican 2
revisionism. They revised me right out of their church. James, you have
that  canonical perspective and  it puts me in  a IRA mindset. Being
told  what I must think,even believe really gets  negative attention
from me. It sounds like if I am to agree with Obama I am going to have
to  get rid of the war talk about the Arabs. It is the imperial
conditioning that must be  reformed. How can there be  anything but  a
war on terror/ I will need let alone a great number of really biting
stereotypes. I am sure the guys from Black-water will keep vigil. I do
not plan much time with my butt in the  air to any deity and I hope
Obama can remain vertical, at least in public. Change is gonna be
strange. Bill

Bill,
I think that Obama is hoping to remove to a large extent the factors that
motivate people to kill themselves in order to kill Americans. The only other
solution would be to committ genocide on a billion people. If Obama continues to
display kindly attitudes toward Islamic people, the number of potential
terrorists will dwindle. Bush's policies have pushed Arabs that were previously
moderate into extremist modes. I'd guess that with the new direction, more
moderate types might very well go after extremists themselves rather than see
Obama's moderation fail, and be faced with another Neocon in 4 years. Ron Paul
said during one of the presidential debates that 911 was blowback for 50 years
of US policy in mideast. He also asked how wed like it if China was building
huge numbers of bases in Panama? If u r stepping on people's toes, dont be
suprised if they take a punch at u. I think Obama is going to make an effort to
get off their toes, and hope for the best. If that fails, he might have to get
tough. But like the good guy in the movie, he turns cheeks and tries to be
peaceful before kicking bad guy's ass.
Tom
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: bhvwd
   To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 2:42 PM
   Subject: [existlist] I dunno


   I havn`t read those guys and from what you guys say I won`t. Magic,
   just does not ring my bell.
   As to James, I liked some of what you wrote but your anticipation of
   my reaction was keen. For me metaphysics is a no no. I really try to
   stay away from it. Then again I am pretty much awed and agape-ed out.I
   lost interest when it was beaten into my head from some vatican 2
   revisionism. They revised me right out of their church. James, you have
   that canonical perspective and it puts me in a IRA mindset. Being
   told what I must think,even believe really gets negative attention
   from me. It sounds like if I am to agree with Obama I am going to have
   to get rid of the war talk about the Arabs. It is the imperial
   conditioning that must be reformed. How can there be anything but a
   war on terror/ I will need let alone a great number of really biting
   stereotypes. I am sure the guys from Black-water will keep vigil. I do
   not plan much time with my butt in the air to any deity and I hope
   Obama can remain vertical, at least in public. Change is gonna be
   strange. Bill





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

So  far   Obama  is  winning  with  these early, scripted moves. His
handling of congress is  remarkable. Can you spell obstructionist? I do
not think it wise politically to  wear that  monicker. There is  really
no nuclear answer to the middle east. Spread from Indonesia to Africa
it takes too many megatons to  eradicate that huge a population base.
Nuclear winter and rapid global warming will wipe out  all of us  if we
are stupid enough to  try   genocide. Afghanistan is a different set of
problems and I am sure Obama has opened  back door  channels  as far as
he can get inside terrorist networks. From  their side  living might
have some value if they could make a deal with  people  they could
respect. How badly do we want Bin Laden  killed, bad enough to give up
Mideast peace to accomplish his demise. Then again he may not have all
that long to live and may have dreams of  a glorious legacy. What
turns  his attitudes may be most foreign but attainable. Obama needs to
know  such things and  communication with  subordinates could give
answers. I doubt they be available  with Gitmo still calling. I am most
interested and see new possibilities. Bill

Dear Grand Inquisitor,

I love my freedom of thought.

If you tell me what to believe I get upset.

This is not about my feelings.

It is about my country.

Jesus Country [aka Palestine]

Louise,

By definition, getting up set is about our feelings. I love freedom of thought
also, and I am not saying u shouldn't get upset. But getting upset does refer to
becoming angered, and anger is a feeling. There are many psychological schools
of thought that encourage people to take responsibility for their feelings
instead of passively assigning the cause to others. From that point of view it
would not be that x saying something made me angry, rather that I take
responsibility for choosing to become angry at whatever x might have said.
Tom
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: louise
   To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 10:01 PM
   Subject: [existlist] Who needs dogma


   Dear Grand Inquisitor,

   I love my freedom of thought.

   If you tell me what to believe I get upset.

   This is not about my feelings.

   It is about my country.

   Jesus Country [aka Palestine]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Tom,

I agree, and I am not angry.  If you consider psychosis to be an
illness and not a prophetic gift, your interpretation will be informed
by this, your own free assumption.  Philosophy is not a combative art.
  I do not wish to argue.  Permission to be upset seems not a great
deal to ask.  I happen to think that violence flourishes by the
suppression of feeling.  To write poetry is an act of free speech.  It
is not a criminal offence.  Thank God for democracy.

Louise

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
>
> Louise,
>
> By definition, getting up set is about our feelings. I love freedom
of thought also, and I am not saying u shouldn't get upset. But
getting upset does refer to becoming angered, and anger is a feeling.
There are many psychological schools of thought that encourage people
to take responsibility for their feelings instead of passively
assigning the cause to others. From that point of view it would not be
that x saying something made me angry, rather that I take
responsibility for choosing to become angry at whatever x might have said.
> Tom
>   ----- Original Message -----
>   From: louise
>   To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
>   Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 10:01 PM
>   Subject: [existlist] Who needs dogma
>
>
>   Dear Grand Inquisitor,
>
>   I love my freedom of thought.
>
>   If you tell me what to believe I get upset.
>
>   This is not about my feelings.
>
>   It is about my country.
>
>   Jesus Country [aka Palestine]
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Bill,
I wasn't at all suggesting genocide as a solution to the mideast problems. I was
saying that unless the US were willing to get that extreme, it might be wise to
cease and desist many of the actions that anger them. Bin Laden said in one of
his statements that if we had attacked u for your freedom, why didnt we attack
Sweeden. If u have a guy down the road u r having difficulty getting along with,
a first step might be to get out of his yard. They dont like US bases in their
holy lands. They dont like the fact that the CIA and various other US 
government agencies have been involved in cous and propping up dictatorships in
the mideast for many years. In recent years, Bush had a more negative world
opinion than Bin Laden. Obama is very bright, clever, and charming; and tends to
be a unifier whither in regard to Hilary, Mccain, George Will or Islamists. Lets
hope the US and the world can get back on the track of peace and a reduction of
military spending that charecterized the 90s. Obama has said he favors major
reductions in plans for more missiles etc, and hopes to eventually move toward
ending nuclear weapons. Many of the top scientists in the Manhattan Project
began to regret their participation in making the bomb before it was ever used,
and only got involved because they had heard Hitler was working on one. Many of
these guys became the first of the people against nuclear weapons. Einstein said
his signing that letter to FDR was the biggest mistake of his life.. As I write
this, I sit with my Obama tshirt on. I originally supported Ron Paul, but after
Paul was out of it, my vote went to Obama. My biggest agenda is dislike and fear
of a growing military industrial establishment and police state prison
industrial complex. Orwell said if u want to visualize the future of mankind,
imagine a boot crushing a human face for all eternity.

NO FRIEND OF BIN LADEN

I'm no friend of Bin Laden.
I think he's psycho and rotten.
But in my own psyche, the assholes running things over here
create a hell of a lot more hatred and fear.

Tom
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: bhvwd
   To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 9:57 PM
   Subject: [existlist] I dunno


   So far Obama is winning with these early, scripted moves. His
   handling of congress is remarkable. Can you spell obstructionist? I do
   not think it wise politically to wear that monicker. There is really
   no nuclear answer to the middle east. Spread from Indonesia to Africa
   it takes too many megatons to eradicate that huge a population base.
   Nuclear winter and rapid global warming will wipe out all of us if we
   are stupid enough to try genocide. Afghanistan is a different set of
   problems and I am sure Obama has opened back door channels as far as
   he can get inside terrorist networks. From their side living might
   have some value if they could make a deal with people they could
   respect. How badly do we want Bin Laden killed, bad enough to give up
   Mideast peace to accomplish his demise. Then again he may not have all
   that long to live and may have dreams of a glorious legacy. What
   turns his attitudes may be most foreign but attainable. Obama needs to
   know such things and communication with subordinates could give
   answers. I doubt they be available with Gitmo still calling. I am most
   interested and see new possibilities. Bill





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

These burnings are not real.  The fires of Moloch are extinguished.
Spiritual ignorance reigns in Albion.  Where there is neither fear and
trembling, nor childlike innocence, crime will flourish.

Louise
... for whom the faith means forgiveness

Louise,
I agree that the more we can move from a 'gotcha' attitude to one of seeing
other people's posts as expressions of ideas that certain people believe, the
more we can grow in depth. If nothing else, we can see ideas that appear shallow
and destructive as symptoms of various psychological, political, social and
economic forces that exist in the world we inhabit. Of course, our own
viewpoints might also be influenced by such symptoms.

I am a poet also Louise, and here is one of mine.




       Being a Poet is the Booby Prize

        Being a poet is the booby prize.

       Being a poet is being a man with a broken heart, trying to get wise.

       Being a poet is being a man with a will toward love and truth,
       living in a world ruled by lies.

       Groovy man

       by the Cool Cat

       www.thecoolcat.net



   ----- Original Message -----
   From: louise
   To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 10:56 PM
   Subject: [existlist] Re: Who needs dogma


   Tom,

   I agree, and I am not angry. If you consider psychosis to be an
   illness and not a prophetic gift, your interpretation will be informed
   by this, your own free assumption. Philosophy is not a combative art.
   I do not wish to argue. Permission to be upset seems not a great
   deal to ask. I happen to think that violence flourishes by the
   suppression of feeling. To write poetry is an act of free speech. It
   is not a criminal offence. Thank God for democracy.

   Louise

   --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
   >
   > Louise,
   >
   > By definition, getting up set is about our feelings. I love freedom
   of thought also, and I am not saying u shouldn't get upset. But
   getting upset does refer to becoming angered, and anger is a feeling.
   There are many psychological schools of thought that encourage people
   to take responsibility for their feelings instead of passively
   assigning the cause to others. From that point of view it would not be
   that x saying something made me angry, rather that I take
   responsibility for choosing to become angry at whatever x might have said.
   > Tom
   > ----- Original Message -----
   > From: louise
   > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
   > Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2009 10:01 PM
   > Subject: [existlist] Who needs dogma
   >
   >
   > Dear Grand Inquisitor,
   >
   > I love my freedom of thought.
   >
   > If you tell me what to believe I get upset.
   >
   > This is not about my feelings.
   >
   > It is about my country.
   >
   > Jesus Country [aka Palestine]
   >
   >
   >
   >
   >
   > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
   >





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

~ [Adam] Weishaupt's original idea was to make Fire Worship the
religion of Illuminism.  This was unlikely ever to bring recruits from
the ranks of the clergy, and he hit on a better idea, which brought
them in numbers.  He averred that Jesus had "a secret doctrine", never
openly revealed, which could be found by the diligent between the
lines of the Gospels.  This secret doctrine was to abolish religion
and establish reason in its place: "when at last Reason becomes the
religion of man so will the problem be solved."  The idea of joining a
secret society of which Jesus had been the true founder, and of
following an example set by Jesus in using words to disguise meaning,
proved irresistible to the many clerics who then passed through the
door thus opened to them.  They were figures of a new kind in their
day; in ours the Communist cleric has become familiar.

-------------

Through this success in persuading clerics that irreligion was the
true faith and antichrist the true Christianity Weishaupt made great
strides in Bavaria.  He recorded that all non-Illuminist professors
had been driven from Ingolstadt University, that the society had
provided its clerical members with "good benefices, parishes, posts at
court", that the schools were Illuminist-controlled, and that the
seminary for young priests would soon be captured, whereon "we shall
soon be able to provide the whole of Bavaria with proper priests".

Weishaupt's attack on religion was the most distinctive feature of his
doctrine.  His ideas about "the god of Reason" and "the god of Nature"
bring his thought very close to Judaic thought, in its relation to the
Gentiles, and as Illuminism became Communism, and Communism came under
Jewish leadership, this might be significant.  The Judaic Law also
lays down that the Gentiles (who as such are excluded from the world
to come) are entitled only to the religion of nature and of reason
which Weishaupt taught.

--------------

Weishaupt's papers included a diagram illustrating the way in which he
exercised control over his organization.  It shows what might be a
section of chain-mail, or of honeycomb, and is identical with the
celebrated "cell" system on which Communism is built today. It is the
product of an intelligence of the highest kind (and, obviously, of
centuries of experience: methods of this sort csnnot be devised by
trial and error).  The secret is that damage to such a structure
cannot be more than local, the main fabric remaining always unimpaired
and capable of repair.  If a few links, or cells, are destroyed these
can be made good in due time, and meanwhile the organization
continues, substantially unharmed.

At the centre of this web sat Weishaupt, and held all threads in his
hands.  "One must show how easy it would be for one clever head to
direct hundreds and thousands of men", he wrote above the diagram, and
below it he added, "I have two immediately below me into whom I
breathe my whole spirit, and each of these two has again two others,
and so on.  In this way I can set a thousand men in motion and on fire
in the simplest manner, and in this way one must impart orders and
operate on politics."

When the Illuminist papers were published most of its members first
learned that Weishaupt was its head, for he was known only to his
close associates.  The mass knew only that, somewhere above them, was
a "beloved leader" or "big brother", a Being all-wise, kindly but
stern, who throgh them would shape the world.  Weishaupt had in fact
achieved the "extraordinary result" ascribed to Abdulla ibn Maymun in
Islam: under him "a multitude of men of divers beliefs were all
working together for an object known only to a few of them".

The fact that each dupe knew only his two neighbour dupes would not
alone have been enough to bring about that result.  How were the
Illuminates kept* together?  The answer is that Weishaupt discovered,
or received from some higher intelligence the secret on which the
cohesive strength of the world-revolution rests today, under
Communism: terror!

All Illuminates took "illuminated" names, which they used in their
dealings with each other, and in all correspondence.  This practice of
the alias or "cover name", has been continued to the present-day.  The
members of the Communist governments which usurped power in Russia in
1917 were known to the world, for the first time in history, by
aliases (and are so known to posterity also).  The exposures of
1945-1955 in America, England, Canada and Australia showed that the
men who worked as Communist agents in the governments of these
countries used "cover-names", in the way begun by Weishaupt.

Weishaupt organized his society in grades, or circles, the outer rings
of which contained the new recruits and lesser dupes.  Advancement
through the grades was supposed to bring initiation into further
chapters of the central mystery.  Weishaupt preferred the enrolment of
young men at their most impressionable ages, between 15 and 30.  (This
practice also was continued into our day; Messrs. Alger Hiss, Harry
Dexter White, Whittaker Chambers, Donald MacLean, Guy Burgess and
others were all "netted" at their American or English universities).

------------------

The young Illuminate was made to feel that he would never know how
many eyes of unknown superiors might be on him (he only knew* his
immediate superiors); he was taught to inform on those around him and
inferred that they informed on him.  This is the basic principle of
terror, which can never be completely established merely by killing,
torture or imprisonment; only the knowledge that he can trust no man,
not his own son or father or friend, reduces the human victim to utter
submission.  Since Weishaupt's day this secret terror has been
resident in the West.  Those who have no personal experience of it may
gain understanding of the power it wields  in our day, even thousands
of miles from its central headquarters, by reading Mr. Whittaker
Chamber's description of his flight into concealment after he resolved
to break with his Communist masters.

As to the membership of the Illuminati, the papers discovered showed
that, after ten years of existence, it had several thousand members,
many of them in important civil positions where they could exert
influence on the acts of rulers and governments.  They even included*
rulers: the contemporary Marquis de Luchet relates that some thirty
reigning and non-reigning princes had guilelessly joined an order, the
masters of which were designed to destroy them!  It included the Dukes
of Brunswick, Gotha and Saxe-Weimar, princes of Hesse and Saxe-Gotha,
and the Elector of Mainz; Metternich, Pestalozzi the educationist,
ambassadors and politicans and professors.

Above all others, it included the man who, twenty years later, was to
write the most famous masterpiece on the theme of the youth who sold
his soul to the devil.  The inference that *Faust* was in truth the
story of Goethe and Illuminism is hard to resist; its theme is
essentially the same as that of *Witness* and other works which, in
our day, have been written by men who escaped from Communism. ~

-------------

From 'The Design', Chapter 20,
"The Controversy of Zion", by Douglas Reed.

In obeying the dictates of my daimon, I hope to provide a little more
context for understanding recent history than is available from the
bookstores.

Louise

Louise,
You say here Weishaupt's attack on religion was the most distinctive feature of
his
doctrine. His ideas about "the god of Reason" and "the god of Nature"
bring his thought very close to Judaic thought, in its relation to the
Gentiles, and as Illuminism became Communism, and Communism came under
Jewish leadership, this might be significant. The Judaic Law also
lays down that the Gentiles (who as such are excluded from the world
to come) are entitled only to the religion of nature and of reason
which Weishaupt taught.

The idea of the God of Nature  also very much influenced the founding of the US.

In the "Declaration of Independence," the founding document of what would become
the United States, Thomas Jefferson mentions "nature's God." Unfortunately, this
phrase is unclear. The religious beliefs of Jefferson were much debated in his
time and still are over two centuries later. Through the letters and other
writings of Jefferson, it is possible to construct an outline of his beliefs.
Although he supported the moral teachings of Jesus, Jefferson believed in a
creator similar to the God of deism. In the tradition of deism, Jefferson based
his God on reason and rejected revealed religion.

Jefferson based his belief in God on reason. In a letter to John Adams,
Jefferson wrote that he believed in God because of the argument from design:

   I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the
Universe, in it's [sic] parts general or particular, it is impossible for the
human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill,
and indefinite power in every atom of it's [sic] composition. . . it is
impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is . . . a
fabricator of all things.[13]
After applying his faculty of reason, in which he placed much faith, Jefferson
found that he had to believe in a creator.



Einstein also expressed similar ideas.

Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of
the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source . . . They are
creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres. (The Expanded Quotable
Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p. 214)

In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind,
am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what
makes me really angry is that they quote me for support for such views. (The
Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, p. 214)

What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility
toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos. (Albert Einstein
to Joseph Lewis, Apr. 18, 1953)



I believe the idea of nature's God is based on the study of the harmony of the
cosmos and ecosphere suggesting a vastly superior intelligance must have
designed it. To me the idea that that creation id a result of random
probabilities is the most unlikely of all creation myths. I think Jefferson and
many like thinkers saw religious dogma as inherently entwined with the power
motivations of rulers; whereas Nature's God is the contemplation of the mystery
of creation, and is humble in its knlowledge of how little it knows.



In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is
always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection
to his own.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

Tom






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Louise,

Utter nonsense! And from another famous anti-Semite. You might as well quote
from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion!

Let's keep to philosophy and leave aside this sort vulgarity.

Wil

In a message dated 1/28/09 12:32:22 AM, hecubatoher@... writes:

> ~ [Adam] Weishaupt's original idea was to make Fire Worship the
> religion of Illuminism. This was unlikely ever to bring recruits from
> the ranks of the clergy, and he hit on a better idea, which brought
> them in numbers. He averred that Jesus had "a secret doctrine", never
> openly revealed, which could be found by the diligent between the
> lines of the Gospels. This secret doctrine was to abolish religion
> and establish reason in its place: "when at last Reason becomes the
> religion of man so will the problem be solved." The idea of joining a
> secret society of which Jesus had been the true founder, and of
> following an example set by Jesus in using words to disguise meaning,
> proved irresistible to the many clerics who then passed through the
> door thus opened to them. They were figures of a new kind in their
> day; in ours the Communist cleric has become familiar.
>
> ------------
>
> Through this success in persuading clerics that irreligion was the
> true faith and antichrist the true Christianity Weishaupt made great
> strides in Bavaria. He recorded that all non-Illuminist professors
> had been driven from Ingolstadt University, that the society had
> provided its clerical members with "good benefices, parishes, posts at
> court", that the schools were Illuminist-controll court", that th
> seminary for young priests would soon be captured, whereon "we shall
> soon be able to provide the whole of Bavaria with proper priests".
>
> Weishaupt's attack on religion was the most distinctive feature of his
> doctrine. His ideas about "the god of Reason" and "the god of Nature"
> bring his thought very close to Judaic thought, in its relation to the
> Gentiles, and as Illuminism became Communism, and Communism came under
> Jewish leadership, this might be significant. The Judaic Law also
> lays down that the Gentiles (who as such are excluded from the world
> to come) are entitled only to the religion of nature and of reason
> which Weishaupt taught.
>
> ------------ -
>
> Weishaupt's papers included a diagram illustrating the way in which he
> exercised control over his organization. It shows what might be a
> section of chain-mail, or of honeycomb, and is identical with the
> celebrated "cell" system on which Communism is built today. It is the
> product of an intelligence of the highest kind (and, obviously, of
> centuries of experience: methods of this sort csnnot be devised by
> trial and error). The secret is that damage to such a structure
> cannot be more than local, the main fabric remaining always unimpaired
> and capable of repair. If a few links, or cells, are destroyed these
> can be made good in due time, and meanwhile the organization
> continues, substantially unharmed.
>
> At the centre of this web sat Weishaupt, and held all threads in his
> hands. "One must show how easy it would be for one clever head to
> direct hundreds and thousands of men", he wrote above the diagram, and
> below it he added, "I have two immediately below me into whom I
> breathe my whole spirit, and each of these two has again two others,
> and so on. In this way I can set a thousand men in motion and on fire
> in the simplest manner, and in this way one must impart orders and
> operate on politics."
>
> When the Illuminist papers were published most of its members first
> learned that Weishaupt was its head, for he was known only to his
> close associates. The mass knew only that, somewhere above them, was
> a "beloved leader" or "big brother", a Being all-wise, kindly but
> stern, who throgh them would shape the world. Weishaupt had in fact
> achieved the "extraordinary result" ascribed to Abdulla ibn Maymun in
> Islam: under him "a multitude of men of divers beliefs were all
> working together for an object known only to a few of them".
>
> The fact that each dupe knew only his two neighbour dupes would not
> alone have been enough to bring about that result. How were the
> Illuminates kept* together? The answer is that Weishaupt discovered,
> or received from some higher intelligence the secret on which the
> cohesive strength of the world-revolution rests today, under
> Communism: terror!
>
> All Illuminates took "illuminated" names, which they used in their
> dealings with each other, and in all correspondence. This practice of
> the alias or "cover name", has been continued to the present-day. The
> members of the Communist governments which usurped power in Russia in
> 1917 were known to the world, for the first time in history, by
> aliases (and are so known to posterity also). The exposures of
> 1945-1955 in America, England, Canada and Australia showed that the
> men who worked as Communist agents in the governments of these
> countries used "cover-names" countries used "cover-names"<wb
>
> Weishaupt organized his society in grades, or circles, the outer rings
> of which contained the new recruits and lesser dupes. Advancement
> through the grades was supposed to bring initiation into further
> chapters of the central mystery. Weishaupt preferred the enrolment of
> young men at their most impressionable ages, between 15 and 30. (This
> practice also was continued into our day; Messrs. Alger Hiss, Harry
> Dexter White, Whittaker Chambers, Donald MacLean, Guy Burgess and
> others were all "netted" at their American or English universities)
>
> ------------ -----
>
> The young Illuminate was made to feel that he would never know how
> many eyes of unknown superiors might be on him (he only knew* his
> immediate superiors); he was taught to inform on those around him and
> inferred that they informed on him. This is the basic principle of
> terror, which can never be completely established merely by killing,
> torture or imprisonment; only the knowledge that he can trust no man,
> not his own son or father or friend, reduces the human victim to utter
> submission. Since Weishaupt's day this secret terror has been
> resident in the West. Those who have no personal experience of it may
> gain understanding of the power it wields in our day, even thousands
> of miles from its central headquarters, by reading Mr. Whittaker
> Chamber's description of his flight into concealment after he resolved
> to break with his Communist masters.
>
> As to the membership of the Illuminati, the papers discovered showed
> that, after ten years of existence, it had several thousand members,
> many of them in important civil positions where they could exert
> influence on the acts of rulers and governments. They even included*
> rulers: the contemporary Marquis de Luchet relates that some thirty
> reigning and non-reigning princes had guilelessly joined an order, the
> masters of which were designed to destroy them! It included the Dukes
> of Brunswick, Gotha and Saxe-Weimar, princes of Hesse and Saxe-Gotha,
> and the Elector of Mainz; Metternich, Pestalozzi the educationist,
> ambassadors and politicans and professors.
>
> Above all others, it included the man who, twenty years later, was to
> write the most famous masterpiece on the theme of the youth who sold
> his soul to the devil. The inference that *Faust* was in truth the
> story of Goethe and Illuminism is hard to resist; its theme is
> essentially the same as that of *Witness* and other works which, in
> our day, have been written by men who escaped from Communism. ~
>
> ------------
>
> From 'The Design', Chapter 20,
> "The Controversy of Zion", by Douglas Reed.
>
> In obeying the dictates of my daimon, I hope to provide a little more
> context for understanding recent history than is available from the
> bookstores.
>
> Louise
>
>
>




**************
Know Your Numbers: Get tips and tools to help you improve your
credit score.
(http://www.walletpop.com/credit/credit-reports?ncid=emlcntuswall00000002)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Tom,

Thank you for this thoughtful post, which is helpful at a time when a
careful reappraisal of my own sense of the sacred, of reason and of
revealed religion, is in process.  Nothing new there, except that a
greater equilibrium of mental forces, which include feelings, promises
a steadier outcome than recent years have seen.  I find the process of
struggle with the realities of faith to be continuing, lifelong,
interrupted only by sleep, though it is not infrequent that both rest
and dreams are themselves productive of further discoveries ... or
difficulties.  Your short poem, by the way, that ended post 46777, I
thought was tender and realistic.  To keep writing, especially about
what disturbs and repels, is important for me, even though it may be
entirely private.  Serious engagement with religion and politics
throws up many phenomena that turn my stomach.

Louise


--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "tom" <tsmith17_midsouth1@...> wrote:
>
> Louise,
> You say here Weishaupt's attack on religion was the most distinctive
feature of his
> doctrine. His ideas about "the god of Reason" and "the god of Nature"
> bring his thought very close to Judaic thought, in its relation to the
> Gentiles, and as Illuminism became Communism, and Communism came under
> Jewish leadership, this might be significant. The Judaic Law also
> lays down that the Gentiles (who as such are excluded from the world
> to come) are entitled only to the religion of nature and of reason
> which Weishaupt taught.
>
> The idea of the God of Nature  also very much influenced the
founding of the US.
>
> In the "Declaration of Independence," the founding document of what
would become the United States, Thomas Jefferson mentions "nature's
God." Unfortunately, this phrase is unclear. The religious beliefs of
Jefferson were much debated in his time and still are over two
centuries later. Through the letters and other writings of Jefferson,
it is possible to construct an outline of his beliefs. Although he
supported the moral teachings of Jesus, Jefferson believed in a
creator similar to the God of deism. In the tradition of deism,
Jefferson based his God on reason and rejected revealed religion.
>
> Jefferson based his belief in God on reason. In a letter to John
Adams, Jefferson wrote that he believed in God because of the argument
from design:
>
>   I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of
the Universe, in it's [sic] parts general or particular, it is
impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of
design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of it's
[sic] composition. . . it is impossible, I say, for the human mind not
to believe that there is . . . a fabricator of all things.[13]
> After applying his faculty of reason, in which he placed much faith,
Jefferson found that he had to believe in a creator.
>
>
>
> Einstein also expressed similar ideas.
>
> Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same
as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source
. . . They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres. (The
Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p. 214)
>
> In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited
human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there
is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for
support for such views. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton
University Press, p. 214)
>
> What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter
humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos.
(Albert Einstein to Joseph Lewis, Apr. 18, 1953)
>
>
>
> I believe the idea of nature's God is based on the study of the
harmony of the cosmos and ecosphere suggesting a vastly superior
intelligance must have designed it. To me the idea that that creation
id a result of random probabilities is the most unlikely of all
creation myths. I think Jefferson and many like thinkers saw religious
dogma as inherently entwined with the power motivations of rulers;
whereas Nature's God is the contemplation of the mystery of creation,
and is humble in its knlowledge of how little it knows.
>
>
>
> In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to
liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses
in return for protection to his own.
>
> -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814
>
> Tom
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Wil,

I think it is reasonable to assume that you are generally unfamiliar
with this kind of material, and as you seem quite uninterested in a
questioning and philosophical approach to the detailed research
involved in this book, there is nothing more to say about your pithy
dismissal, except that I am unable to take it as a serious response.

As to the term 'anti-Semitic', that is well worth exploring.  I have
read many books by Douglas Reed, who was a highly accomplished
journalist and author, whose books have been read by large numbers of
my countrymen, of older generations, especially.  I find his
sensibility pretty much quintessentially British in his typical
limitations and strengths.  In fact, this is why he can make somewhat
painful reading, at times.  The lack of intuitive feeling or thorough
intellectual scepticism (towards one's own valuations) is most
evident in his narrated encounters with various folk of different
ethnicity from himself.  I never have felt, though, that he is in any
way hostile to Jews, for instance, and his conversations with people
from many different European countries in the period before and
during the Second World War, are illuminating.  He has a very
straight manner, and is never a fool.  It may make sense for Jewish
intellectual leaders to use a term like 'anti-Semitism' to bolster
group solidarity, but I don't find the term has any philosophical
coherence, and is usually nothing more than an appeal to mass
emotions of insecurity and aggression.  As someone who is not a
political activist, I must treat the expression as I would any other
at a forum where a rational critique is to be expected.

Vulgarity is distasteful, and may be much worse.  I have found it
hard to detect, or to believe, when my thinking faculties have been
depressed.  In more normal times, I would not be so blunted in regard
to the prolific use of ripe language on the streets.  Although I do
not really feel that I am a poet with the booby prize, to borrow
Tom's image, there is a sense of exile, which is commonplace for many
an outsider who writes because it is what one must, absolutely, do.
Not that I was ever able to believe such creativity might leave the
class of poets their status as unacknowledged legislators.  I am just
not that left-leaning, when it comes down to it.

Louise


--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
>
> Louise,
>
> Utter nonsense! And from another famous anti-Semite. You might as
well quote
> from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion!
>
> Let's keep to philosophy and leave aside this sort vulgarity.
>
> Wil
>
> In a message dated 1/28/09 12:32:22 AM, hecubatoher@... writes:
>
> > ~ [Adam] Weishaupt's original idea was to make Fire Worship the
> > religion of Illuminism. This was unlikely ever to bring recruits
from
> > the ranks of the clergy, and he hit on a better idea, which
brought
> > them in numbers. He averred that Jesus had "a secret doctrine",
never
> > openly revealed, which could be found by the diligent between the
> > lines of the Gospels. This secret doctrine was to abolish religion
> > and establish reason in its place: "when at last Reason becomes
the
> > religion of man so will the problem be solved." The idea of
joining a
> > secret society of which Jesus had been the true founder, and of
> > following an example set by Jesus in using words to disguise
meaning,
> > proved irresistible to the many clerics who then passed through
the
> > door thus opened to them. They were figures of a new kind in their
> > day; in ours the Communist cleric has become familiar.
> >
> > ------------
> >
> > Through this success in persuading clerics that irreligion was the
> > true faith and antichrist the true Christianity Weishaupt made
great
> > strides in Bavaria. He recorded that all non-Illuminist professors
> > had been driven from Ingolstadt University, that the society had
> > provided its clerical members with "good benefices, parishes,
posts at
> > court", that the schools were Illuminist-controll court", that th
> > seminary for young priests would soon be captured, whereon "we
shall
> > soon be able to provide the whole of Bavaria with proper priests".
> >
> > Weishaupt's attack on religion was the most distinctive feature
of his
> > doctrine. His ideas about "the god of Reason" and "the god of
Nature"
> > bring his thought very close to Judaic thought, in its relation
to the
> > Gentiles, and as Illuminism became Communism, and Communism came
under
> > Jewish leadership, this might be significant. The Judaic Law also
> > lays down that the Gentiles (who as such are excluded from the
world
> > to come) are entitled only to the religion of nature and of reason
> > which Weishaupt taught.
> >
> > ------------ -
> >
> > Weishaupt's papers included a diagram illustrating the way in
which he
> > exercised control over his organization. It shows what might be a
> > section of chain-mail, or of honeycomb, and is identical with the
> > celebrated "cell" system on which Communism is built today. It is
the
> > product of an intelligence of the highest kind (and, obviously, of
> > centuries of experience: methods of this sort csnnot be devised by
> > trial and error). The secret is that damage to such a structure
> > cannot be more than local, the main fabric remaining always
unimpaired
> > and capable of repair. If a few links, or cells, are destroyed
these
> > can be made good in due time, and meanwhile the organization
> > continues, substantially unharmed.
> >
> > At the centre of this web sat Weishaupt, and held all threads in
his
> > hands. "One must show how easy it would be for one clever head to
> > direct hundreds and thousands of men", he wrote above the
diagram, and
> > below it he added, "I have two immediately below me into whom I
> > breathe my whole spirit, and each of these two has again two
others,
> > and so on. In this way I can set a thousand men in motion and on
fire
> > in the simplest manner, and in this way one must impart orders and
> > operate on politics."
> >
> > When the Illuminist papers were published most of its members
first
> > learned that Weishaupt was its head, for he was known only to his
> > close associates. The mass knew only that, somewhere above them,
was
> > a "beloved leader" or "big brother", a Being all-wise, kindly but
> > stern, who throgh them would shape the world. Weishaupt had in
fact
> > achieved the "extraordinary result" ascribed to Abdulla ibn
Maymun in
> > Islam: under him "a multitude of men of divers beliefs were all
> > working together for an object known only to a few of them".
> >
> > The fact that each dupe knew only his two neighbour dupes would
not
> > alone have been enough to bring about that result. How were the
> > Illuminates kept* together? The answer is that Weishaupt
discovered,
> > or received from some higher intelligence the secret on which the
> > cohesive strength of the world-revolution rests today, under
> > Communism: terror!
> >
> > All Illuminates took "illuminated" names, which they used in their
> > dealings with each other, and in all correspondence. This
practice of
> > the alias or "cover name", has been continued to the present-day.
The
> > members of the Communist governments which usurped power in
Russia in
> > 1917 were known to the world, for the first time in history, by
> > aliases (and are so known to posterity also). The exposures of
> > 1945-1955 in America, England, Canada and Australia showed that
the
> > men who worked as Communist agents in the governments of these
> > countries used "cover-names" countries used "cover-names"<wb
> >
> > Weishaupt organized his society in grades, or circles, the outer
rings
> > of which contained the new recruits and lesser dupes. Advancement
> > through the grades was supposed to bring initiation into further
> > chapters of the central mystery. Weishaupt preferred the
enrolment of
> > young men at their most impressionable ages, between 15 and 30.
(This
> > practice also was continued into our day; Messrs. Alger Hiss,
Harry
> > Dexter White, Whittaker Chambers, Donald MacLean, Guy Burgess and
> > others were all "netted" at their American or English
universities)
> >
> > ------------ -----
> >
> > The young Illuminate was made to feel that he would never know how
> > many eyes of unknown superiors might be on him (he only knew* his
> > immediate superiors); he was taught to inform on those around him
and
> > inferred that they informed on him. This is the basic principle of
> > terror, which can never be completely established merely by
killing,
> > torture or imprisonment; only the knowledge that he can trust no
man,
> > not his own son or father or friend, reduces the human victim to
utter
> > submission. Since Weishaupt's day this secret terror has been
> > resident in the West. Those who have no personal experience of it
may
> > gain understanding of the power it wields in our day, even
thousands
> > of miles from its central headquarters, by reading Mr. Whittaker
> > Chamber's description of his flight into concealment after he
resolved
> > to break with his Communist masters.
> >
> > As to the membership of the Illuminati, the papers discovered
showed
> > that, after ten years of existence, it had several thousand
members,
> > many of them in important civil positions where they could exert
> > influence on the acts of rulers and governments. They even
included*
> > rulers: the contemporary Marquis de Luchet relates that some
thirty
> > reigning and non-reigning princes had guilelessly joined an
order, the
> > masters of which were designed to destroy them! It included the
Dukes
> > of Brunswick, Gotha and Saxe-Weimar, princes of Hesse and Saxe-
Gotha,
> > and the Elector of Mainz; Metternich, Pestalozzi the educationist,
> > ambassadors and politicans and professors.
> >
> > Above all others, it included the man who, twenty years later,
was to
> > write the most famous masterpiece on the theme of the youth who
sold
> > his soul to the devil. The inference that *Faust* was in truth the
> > story of Goethe and Illuminism is hard to resist; its theme is
> > essentially the same as that of *Witness* and other works which,
in
> > our day, have been written by men who escaped from Communism. ~
> >
> > ------------
> >
> > From 'The Design', Chapter 20,
> > "The Controversy of Zion", by Douglas Reed.
> >
> > In obeying the dictates of my daimon, I hope to provide a little
more
> > context for understanding recent history than is available from
the
> > bookstores.
> >
> > Louise
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> **************
> Know Your Numbers: Get tips and tools to help you improve your
> credit score.
> (http://www.walletpop.com/credit/credit-reports?
ncid=emlcntuswall00000002)
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

They are the seam of  unknown strength and they will be sorely tested
in the coming economic events. I think most of them know their trades
and will produce good products. They are not lawyers and they are not
accountants and if they are to do what amounts to big business they
need business assistance as part of initial contracts. Before they do
indictable errors, start them off right with clean accounting and
reliable legal and administrative assistance. Working with the unions
will help, the unions have good legal  talent and accounting and
banking ties.
  It is going to get busy and people who have only marginal experience
are  going to become responsible for major projects. Those who  get
major contracts accept and reject  them on conservative projections
since it will be your gut lining and heart muscle that are to be
stressed. Obama is meeting with the generals as I write. It is being
held in the bunker ,a council of warriors. I see Somalia on their
minds. Bill

Louise,

I am reasonably 'aware' of "this kind of material", I assure you. Maybe you
should read David Duke's autobiography, as it dovetails perfectly with Reed and
his "Controversy of Zion". Reed was a NOTORIOUS anti-Semite who warned of the
global threat of International Judaism. He was a holocaust denier and an
exemplar conspiracy nut. But I am not surprised by your endorsement of the
fellow, it being in keeping with your other 'influences'. Personally, I do not
care what cr*p you believe. You have already shown yourself to be an unabashed
racsist and reactionary. Still, I will not allow you to pollute the list without
comment.

Wil







-----Original Message-----
From: louise <hecubatoher@...>
To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 3:08 pm
Subject: [existlist] Re: Conspiracy and the French revolution

























Wil,



I think it is reasonable to assume that you are generally unfamiliar

with this kind of material, and as you seem quite uninterested in a

questioning and philosophical approach to the detailed research

involved in this book, there is nothing more to say about your pithy

dismissal, except that I am unable to take it as a serious response.



As to the term 'anti-Semitic', that is well worth exploring.  I have

read many books by Douglas Reed, who was a highly accomplished

journalist and author, whose books have been read by large numbers of

my countrymen, of older generations, especially.  I find his

sensibility pretty much quintessentially British in his typical

limitations and strengths.  In fact, this is why he can make somewhat

painful reading, at times.  The lack of intuitive feeling or thorough

intellectual scepticism (towards one's own valuations) is most

evident in his narrated encounters with various folk of different

ethnicity from himself.  I never have felt, though, that he is in any

way hostile to Jews, for instance, and his conversations with people

from many different European countries in the period before and

during the Second World War, are illuminating.  He has a very

straight manner, and is never a fool.  It may make sense for Jewish

intellectual leaders to use a term like 'anti-Semitism' to bolster

group solidarity, but I don't find the term has any philosophical

coherence, and is usually nothing more than an appeal to mass

emotions of insecurity and aggression.  As someone who is not a

political activist, I must treat the expression as I would any other

at a forum where a rational critique is to be expected.



Vulgarity is distasteful, and may be much worse.  I have found it

hard to detect, or to believe, when my thinking faculties have been

depressed.  In more normal times, I would not be so blunted in regard

to the prolific use of ripe language on the streets.  Although I do

not really feel that I am a poet with the booby prize, to borrow

Tom's image, there is a sense of exile, which is commonplace for many

an outsider who writes because it is what one must, absolutely, do.

Not that I was ever able to believe such creativity might leave the

class of poets their status as unacknowledged legislators.  I am just

not that left-leaning, when it comes down to it.



Louise



--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:

>

> Louise,

>

> Utter nonsense! And from another famous anti-Semite. You might as

well quote

> from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion!

>

> Let's keep to philosophy and leave aside this sort vulgarity.

>

> Wil

>

> In a message dated 1/28/09 12:32:22 AM, hecubatoher@... writes:

>

> > ~ [Adam] Weishaupt's original idea was to make Fire Worship the

> > religion of Illuminism. This was unlikely ever to bring recruits

from

> > the ranks of the clergy, and he hit on a better idea, which

brought

> > them in numbers. He averred that Jesus had "a secret doctrine",

never

> > openly revealed, which could be found by the diligent between the

> > lines of the Gospels. This secret doctrine was to abolish religion

> > and establish reason in its place: "when at last Reason becomes

the

> > religion of man so will the problem be solved." The idea of

joining a

> > secret society of which Jesus had been the true founder, and of

> > following an example set by Jesus in using words to disguise

meaning,

> > proved irresistible to the many clerics who then passed through

the

> > door thus opened to them. They were figures of a new kind in their

> > day; in ours the Communist cleric has become familiar.

> >

> > ------------

> >

> > Through this success in persuading clerics that irreligion was the

> > true faith and antichrist the true Christianity Weishaupt made

great

> > strides in Bavaria. He recorded that all non-Illuminist professors

> > had been driven from Ingolstadt University, that the society had

> > provided its clerical members with "good benefices, parishes,

posts at

> > court", that the schools were Illuminist-controll court", that th

> > seminary for young priests would soon be captured, whereon "we

shall

> > soon be able to provide the whole of Bavaria with proper priests".

> >

> > Weishaupt's attack on religion was the most distinctive feature

of his

> > doctrine. His ideas about "the god of Reason" and "the god of

Nature"

> > bring his thought very close to Judaic thought, in its relation

to the

> > Gentiles, and as Illuminism became Communism, and Communism came

under

> > Jewish leadership, this might be significant. The Judaic Law also

> > lays down that the Gentiles (who as such are excluded from the

world

> > to come) are entitled only to the religion of nature and of reason

> > which Weishaupt taught.

> >

> > ------------ -

> >

> > Weishaupt's papers included a diagram illustrating the way in

which he

> > exercised control over his organization. It shows what might be a

> > section of chain-mail, or of honeycomb, and is identical with the

> > celebrated "cell" system on which Communism is built today. It is

the

> > product of an intelligence of the highest kind (and, obviously, of

> > centuries of experience: methods of this sort csnnot be devised by

> > trial and error). The secret is that damage to such a structure

> > cannot be more than local, the main fabric remaining always

unimpaired

> > and capable of repair. If a few links, or cells, are destroyed

these

> > can be made good in due time, and meanwhile the organization

> > continues, substantially unharmed.

> >

> > At the centre of this web sat Weishaupt, and held all threads in

his

> > hands. "One must show how easy it would be for one clever head to

> > direct hundreds and thousands of men", he wrote above the

diagram, and

> > below it he added, "I have two immediately below me into whom I

> > breathe my whole spirit, and each of these two has again two

others,

> > and so on. In this way I can set a thousand men in motion and on

fire

> > in the simplest manner, and in this way one must impart orders and

> > operate on politics."

> >

> > When the Illuminist papers were published most of its members

first

> > learned that Weishaupt was its head, for he was known only to his

> > close associates. The mass knew only that, somewhere above them,

was

> > a "beloved leader" or "big brother", a Being all-wise, kindly but

> > stern, who throgh them would shape the world. Weishaupt had in

fact

> > achieved the "extraordinary result" ascribed to Abdulla ibn

Maymun in

> > Islam: under him "a multitude of men of divers beliefs were all

> > working together for an object known only to a few of them".

> >

> > The fact that each dupe knew only his two neighbour dupes would

not

> > alone have been enough to bring about that result. How were the

> > Illuminates kept* together? The answer is that Weishaupt

discovered,

> > or received from some higher intelligence the secret on which the

> > cohesive strength of the world-revolution rests today, under

> > Communism: terror!

> >

> > All Illuminates took "illuminated" names, which they used in their

> > dealings with each other, and in all correspondence. This

practice of

> > the alias or "cover name", has been continued to the present-day.

The

> > members of the Communist governments which usurped power in

Russia in

> > 1917 were known to the world, for the first time in history, by

> > aliases (and are so known to posterity also). The exposures of

> > 1945-1955 in America, England, Canada and Australia showed that

the

> > men who worked as Communist agents in the governments of these

> > countries used "cover-names" countries used "cover-names"<wb

> >

> > Weishaupt organized his society in grades, or circles, the outer

rings

> > of which contained the new recruits and lesser dupes. Advancement

> > through the grades was supposed to bring initiation into further

> > chapters of the central mystery. Weishaupt preferred the

enrolment of

> > young men at their most impressionable ages, between 15 and 30.

(This

> > practice also was continued into our day; Messrs. Alger Hiss,

Harry

> > Dexter White, Whittaker Chambers, Donald MacLean, Guy Burgess and

> > others were all "netted" at their American or English

universities)

> >

> > ------------ -----

> >

> > The young Illuminate was made to feel that he would never know how

> > many eyes of unknown superiors might be on him (he only knew* his

> > immediate superiors); he was taught to inform on those around him

and

> > inferred that they informed on him. This is the basic principle of

> > terror, which can never be completely established merely by

killing,

> > torture or imprisonment; only the knowledge that he can trust no

man,

> > not his own son or father or friend, reduces the human victim to

utter

> > submission. Since Weishaupt's day this secret terror has been

> > resident in the West. Those who have no personal experience of it

may

> > gain understanding of the power it wields in our day, even

thousands

> > of miles from its central headquarters, by reading Mr. Whittaker

> > Chamber's description of his flight into concealment after he

resolved

> > to break with his Communist masters.

> >

> > As to the membership of the Illuminati, the papers discovered

showed

> > that, after ten years of existence, it had several thousand

members,

> > many of them in important civil positions where they could exert

> > influence on the acts of rulers and governments. They even

included*

> > rulers: the contemporary Marquis de Luchet relates that some

thirty

> > reigning and non-reigning princes had guilelessly joined an

order, the

> > masters of which were designed to destroy them! It included the

Dukes

> > of Brunswick, Gotha and Saxe-Weimar, princes of Hesse and Saxe-

Gotha,

> > and the Elector of Mainz; Metternich, Pestalozzi the educationist,

> > ambassadors and politicans and professors.

> >

> > Above all others, it included the man who, twenty years later,

was to

> > write the most famous masterpiece on the theme of the youth who

sold

> > his soul to the devil. The inference that *Faust* was in truth the

> > story of Goethe and Illuminism is hard to resist; its theme is

> > essentially the same as that of *Witness* and other works which,

in

> > our day, have been written by men who escaped from Communism. ~

> >

> > ------------

> >

> > From 'The Design', Chapter 20,

> > "The Controversy of Zion", by Douglas Reed.

> >

> > In obeying the dictates of my daimon, I hope to provide a little

more

> > context for understanding recent history than is available from

the

> > bookstores.

> >

> > Louise

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

> **************

> Know Your Numbers: Get tips and tools to help you improve your

> credit score.

> (http://www.walletpop.com/credit/credit-reports?

ncid=emlcntuswall00000002)

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>






















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Wil,

I am glad that you are not after all ignoring my posts.  There seems
little point in adding to what I have already written.  I do not
accept that I am polluting the list.  Your uncritical acceptance of
current psychological or psychiatric theories completely escapes your
attention. Make what comments you wish, and I will always consider
your remarks on their merits.  I like to debate with you, if my
health is sufficiently robust.  The main point, however, that I would
like to emphasise is how careless and unphilosophical is your
language, when faced with what you already believe you know.  The
personal element to all this I still find totally unacceptable, but
it was not your doing to start it all.  A dispute began, in the
context of my everyday life, on the subject of slander, long before I
gained access to a computer.  The fact is that this has all been
transferred to a context where I did not foresee it would arise.
Before I close, if it be possible, once and for all, this distressing
chapter about perception, morality and judgment, I would like to
state, simply as a fact, an honest subjective perception; that is, my
own history leaves me vulnerable to certain imputations, and
potentially endangers the reputations of others who come to my aid,
something which as a matter of faith I trusted would have a good
outcome.  The reason which bolsters such faith - and I state the
perception as I would describe a tree or a building (or as the
characters of Homer gaze, one on another) - is that the individuals
concerned are all, like yourself, characterised by an integrity of
motive (though I might disagree strongly with your founding
premises), and a personal purity and chastity.  I cannot sufficently
emphasise how significant I believe this to be.  Slander is something
which I have proved myself quite unable to counter in daily
existence, and I must pay the price for that.  Others suffer too, and
this awareness goes with me on my journey.  I share your sense that
feelings are essentially private, but in a cultural climate such as
prevails in the modern world, a person of my sensibilities easily
loses the capacity to believe her own eyes and ears.  Do please
remember, though, that I am, truly, a primitive, and say it without
any sense of shame or embarrassment.  I wonder what you perceive when
you see a dog, for instance?  Or a cat, or a goldfish, or a dolphin.
You see, I believe in schizophrenia.  I do not believe it is an
illness.  I am not a materialist.

Louise

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
>
>
>  Louise,
>
> I am reasonably 'aware' of "this kind of material", I assure you.
Maybe you should read David Duke's autobiography, as it dovetails
perfectly with Reed and his "Controversy of Zion". Reed was a
NOTORIOUS anti-Semite who warned of the global threat of
International Judaism. He was a holocaust denier and an exemplar
conspiracy nut. But I am not surprised by your endorsement of the
fellow, it being in keeping with your other 'influences'. Personally,
I do not care what cr*p you believe. You have already shown yourself
to be an unabashed racsist and reactionary. Still, I will not allow
you to pollute the list without comment.
>
> Wil
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: louise <hecubatoher@...>
> To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 3:08 pm
> Subject: [existlist] Re: Conspiracy and the French revolution
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Wil,
>
>
>
> I think it is reasonable to assume that you are generally
unfamiliar
>
> with this kind of material, and as you seem quite uninterested in a
>
> questioning and philosophical approach to the detailed research
>
> involved in this book, there is nothing more to say about your
pithy
>
> dismissal, except that I am unable to take it as a serious response.
>
>
>
> As to the term 'anti-Semitic', that is well worth exploring.  I
have
>
> read many books by Douglas Reed, who was a highly accomplished
>
> journalist and author, whose books have been read by large numbers
of
>
> my countrymen, of older generations, especially.  I find his
>
> sensibility pretty much quintessentially British in his typical
>
> limitations and strengths.  In fact, this is why he can make
somewhat
>
> painful reading, at times.  The lack of intuitive feeling or
thorough
>
> intellectual scepticism (towards one's own valuations) is most
>
> evident in his narrated encounters with various folk of different
>
> ethnicity from himself.  I never have felt, though, that he is in
any
>
> way hostile to Jews, for instance, and his conversations with
people
>
> from many different European countries in the period before and
>
> during the Second World War, are illuminating.  He has a very
>
> straight manner, and is never a fool.  It may make sense for Jewish
>
> intellectual leaders to use a term like 'anti-Semitism' to bolster
>
> group solidarity, but I don't find the term has any philosophical
>
> coherence, and is usually nothing more than an appeal to mass
>
> emotions of insecurity and aggression.  As someone who is not a
>
> political activist, I must treat the expression as I would any
other
>
> at a forum where a rational critique is to be expected.
>
>
>
> Vulgarity is distasteful, and may be much worse.  I have found it
>
> hard to detect, or to believe, when my thinking faculties have been
>
> depressed.  In more normal times, I would not be so blunted in
regard
>
> to the prolific use of ripe language on the streets.  Although I do
>
> not really feel that I am a poet with the booby prize, to borrow
>
> Tom's image, there is a sense of exile, which is commonplace for
many
>
> an outsider who writes because it is what one must, absolutely,
do.
>
> Not that I was ever able to believe such creativity might leave the
>
> class of poets their status as unacknowledged legislators.  I am
just
>
> not that left-leaning, when it comes down to it.
>
>
>
> Louise
>
>
>
> --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Louise,
>
> >
>
> > Utter nonsense! And from another famous anti-Semite. You might as
>
> well quote
>
> > from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion!
>
> >
>
> > Let's keep to philosophy and leave aside this sort vulgarity.
>
> >
>
> > Wil
>
> >
>
> > In a message dated 1/28/09 12:32:22 AM, hecubatoher@ writes:
>
> >
>
> > > ~ [Adam] Weishaupt's original idea was to make Fire Worship the
>
> > > religion of Illuminism. This was unlikely ever to bring
recruits
>
> from
>
> > > the ranks of the clergy, and he hit on a better idea, which
>
> brought
>
> > > them in numbers. He averred that Jesus had "a secret doctrine",
>
> never
>
> > > openly revealed, which could be found by the diligent between
the
>
> > > lines of the Gospels. This secret doctrine was to abolish
religion
>
> > > and establish reason in its place: "when at last Reason becomes
>
> the
>
> > > religion of man so will the problem be solved." The idea of
>
> joining a
>
> > > secret society of which Jesus had been the true founder, and of
>
> > > following an example set by Jesus in using words to disguise
>
> meaning,
>
> > > proved irresistible to the many clerics who then passed through
>
> the
>
> > > door thus opened to them. They were figures of a new kind in
their
>
> > > day; in ours the Communist cleric has become familiar.
>
> > >
>
> > > ------------
>
> > >
>
> > > Through this success in persuading clerics that irreligion was
the
>
> > > true faith and antichrist the true Christianity Weishaupt made
>
> great
>
> > > strides in Bavaria. He recorded that all non-Illuminist
professors
>
> > > had been driven from Ingolstadt University, that the society had
>
> > > provided its clerical members with "good benefices, parishes,
>
> posts at
>
> > > court", that the schools were Illuminist-controll court", that
th
>
> > > seminary for young priests would soon be captured, whereon "we
>
> shall
>
> > > soon be able to provide the whole of Bavaria with proper
priests".
>
> > >
>
> > > Weishaupt's attack on religion was the most distinctive feature
>
> of his
>
> > > doctrine. His ideas about "the god of Reason" and "the god of
>
> Nature"
>
> > > bring his thought very close to Judaic thought, in its relation
>
> to the
>
> > > Gentiles, and as Illuminism became Communism, and Communism
came
>
> under
>
> > > Jewish leadership, this might be significant. The Judaic Law
also
>
> > > lays down that the Gentiles (who as such are excluded from the
>
> world
>
> > > to come) are entitled only to the religion of nature and of
reason
>
> > > which Weishaupt taught.
>
> > >
>
> > > ------------ -
>
> > >
>
> > > Weishaupt's papers included a diagram illustrating the way in
>
> which he
>
> > > exercised control over his organization. It shows what might be
a
>
> > > section of chain-mail, or of honeycomb, and is identical with
the
>
> > > celebrated "cell" system on which Communism is built today. It
is
>
> the
>
> > > product of an intelligence of the highest kind (and, obviously,
of
>
> > > centuries of experience: methods of this sort csnnot be devised
by
>
> > > trial and error). The secret is that damage to such a structure
>
> > > cannot be more than local, the main fabric remaining always
>
> unimpaired
>
> > > and capable of repair. If a few links, or cells, are destroyed
>
> these
>
> > > can be made good in due time, and meanwhile the organization
>
> > > continues, substantially unharmed.
>
> > >
>
> > > At the centre of this web sat Weishaupt, and held all threads
in
>
> his
>
> > > hands. "One must show how easy it would be for one clever head
to
>
> > > direct hundreds and thousands of men", he wrote above the
>
> diagram, and
>
> > > below it he added, "I have two immediately below me into whom I
>
> > > breathe my whole spirit, and each of these two has again two
>
> others,
>
> > > and so on. In this way I can set a thousand men in motion and
on
>
> fire
>
> > > in the simplest manner, and in this way one must impart orders
and
>
> > > operate on politics."
>
> > >
>
> > > When the Illuminist papers were published most of its members
>
> first
>
> > > learned that Weishaupt was its head, for he was known only to
his
>
> > > close associates. The mass knew only that, somewhere above
them,
>
> was
>
> > > a "beloved leader" or "big brother", a Being all-wise, kindly
but
>
> > > stern, who throgh them would shape the world. Weishaupt had in
>
> fact
>
> > > achieved the "extraordinary result" ascribed to Abdulla ibn
>
> Maymun in
>
> > > Islam: under him "a multitude of men of divers beliefs were all
>
> > > working together for an object known only to a few of them".
>
> > >
>
> > > The fact that each dupe knew only his two neighbour dupes would
>
> not
>
> > > alone have been enough to bring about that result. How were the
>
> > > Illuminates kept* together? The answer is that Weishaupt
>
> discovered,
>
> > > or received from some higher intelligence the secret on which
the
>
> > > cohesive strength of the world-revolution rests today, under
>
> > > Communism: terror!
>
> > >
>
> > > All Illuminates took "illuminated" names, which they used in
their
>
> > > dealings with each other, and in all correspondence. This
>
> practice of
>
> > > the alias or "cover name", has been continued to the present-
day.
>
> The
>
> > > members of the Communist governments which usurped power in
>
> Russia in
>
> > > 1917 were known to the world, for the first time in history, by
>
> > > aliases (and are so known to posterity also). The exposures of
>
> > > 1945-1955 in America, England, Canada and Australia showed that
>
> the
>
> > > men who worked as Communist agents in the governments of these
>
> > > countries used "cover-names" countries used "cover-names"<wb
>
> > >
>
> > > Weishaupt organized his society in grades, or circles, the
outer
>
> rings
>
> > > of which contained the new recruits and lesser dupes.
Advancement
>
> > > through the grades was supposed to bring initiation into further
>
> > > chapters of the central mystery. Weishaupt preferred the
>
> enrolment of
>
> > > young men at their most impressionable ages, between 15 and 30.
>
> (This
>
> > > practice also was continued into our day; Messrs. Alger Hiss,
>
> Harry
>
> > > Dexter White, Whittaker Chambers, Donald MacLean, Guy Burgess
and
>
> > > others were all "netted" at their American or English
>
> universities)
>
> > >
>
> > > ------------ -----
>
> > >
>
> > > The young Illuminate was made to feel that he would never know
how
>
> > > many eyes of unknown superiors might be on him (he only knew*
his
>
> > > immediate superiors); he was taught to inform on those around
him
>
> and
>
> > > inferred that they informed on him. This is the basic principle
of
>
> > > terror, which can never be completely established merely by
>
> killing,
>
> > > torture or imprisonment; only the knowledge that he can trust
no
>
> man,
>
> > > not his own son or father or friend, reduces the human victim
to
>
> utter
>
> > > submission. Since Weishaupt's day this secret terror has been
>
> > > resident in the West. Those who have no personal experience of
it
>
> may
>
> > > gain understanding of the power it wields in our day, even
>
> thousands
>
> > > of miles from its central headquarters, by reading Mr. Whittaker
>
> > > Chamber's description of his flight into concealment after he
>
> resolved
>
> > > to break with his Communist masters.
>
> > >
>
> > > As to the membership of the Illuminati, the papers discovered
>
> showed
>
> > > that, after ten years of existence, it had several thousand
>
> members,
>
> > > many of them in important civil positions where they could exert
>
> > > influence on the acts of rulers and governments. They even
>
> included*
>
> > > rulers: the contemporary Marquis de Luchet relates that some
>
> thirty
>
> > > reigning and non-reigning princes had guilelessly joined an
>
> order, the
>
> > > masters of which were designed to destroy them! It included the
>
> Dukes
>
> > > of Brunswick, Gotha and Saxe-Weimar, princes of Hesse and Saxe-
>
> Gotha,
>
> > > and the Elector of Mainz; Metternich, Pestalozzi the
educationist,
>
> > > ambassadors and politicans and professors.
>
> > >
>
> > > Above all others, it included the man who, twenty years later,
>
> was to
>
> > > write the most famous masterpiece on the theme of the youth who
>
> sold
>
> > > his soul to the devil. The inference that *Faust* was in truth
the
>
> > > story of Goethe and Illuminism is hard to resist; its theme is
>
> > > essentially the same as that of *Witness* and other works
which,
>
> in
>
> > > our day, have been written by men who escaped from Communism. ~
>
> > >
>
> > > ------------
>
> > >
>
> > > From 'The Design', Chapter 20,
>
> > > "The Controversy of Zion", by Douglas Reed.
>
> > >
>
> > > In obeying the dictates of my daimon, I hope to provide a
little
>
> more
>
> > > context for understanding recent history than is available from
>
> the
>
> > > bookstores.
>
> > >
>
> > > Louise
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > **************
>
> > Know Your Numbers: Get tips and tools to help you improve your
>
> > credit score.
>
> > (http://www.walletpop.com/credit/credit-reports?
>
> ncid=emlcntuswall00000002)
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Louise,

"... You see, I believe in schizophrenia. I do not believe it is an illness.
I am not a materialist."

Response; Then I have nothing further to say to you.

Wil


In a message dated 1/28/09 5:52:12 PM, hecubatoher@... writes:


> Wil,
>
> I am glad that you are not after all ignoring my posts. There seems
> little point in adding to what I have already written. I do not
> accept that I am polluting the list. Your uncritical acceptance of
> current psychological or psychiatric theories completely escapes your
> attention. Make what comments you wish, and I will always consider
> your remarks on their merits. I like to debate with you, if my
> health is sufficiently robust. The main point, however, that I would
> like to emphasise is how careless and unphilosophical is your
> language, when faced with what you already believe you know. The
> personal element to all this I still find totally unacceptable, but
> it was not your doing to start it all. A dispute began, in the
> context of my everyday life, on the subject of slander, long before I
> gained access to a computer. The fact is that this has all been
> transferred to a context where I did not foresee it would arise.
> Before I close, if it be possible, once and for all, this distressing
> chapter about perception, morality and judgment, I would like to
> state, simply as a fact, an honest subjective perception; that is, my
> own history leaves me vulnerable to certain imputations, and
> potentially endangers the reputations of others who come to my aid,
> something which as a matter of faith I trusted would have a good
> outcome. The reason which bolsters such faith - and I state the
> perception as I would describe a tree or a building (or as the
> characters of Homer gaze, one on another) - is that the individuals
> concerned are all, like yourself, characterised by an integrity of
> motive (though I might disagree strongly with your founding
> premises), and a personal purity and chastity. I cannot sufficently
> emphasise how significant I believe this to be. Slander is something
> which I have proved myself quite unable to counter in daily
> existence, and I must pay the price for that. Others suffer too, and
> this awareness goes with me on my journey. I share your sense that
> feelings are essentially private, but in a cultural climate such as
> prevails in the modern world, a person of my sensibilities easily
> loses the capacity to believe her own eyes and ears. Do please
> remember, though, that I am, truly, a primitive, and say it without
> any sense of shame or embarrassment. I wonder what you perceive when
> you see a dog, for instance? Or a cat, or a goldfish, or a dolphin.
> You see, I believe in schizophrenia. I do not believe it is an
> illness. I am not a materialist.
>
> Louise
>
>
>




**************
Know Your Numbers: Get tips and tools to help you improve your
credit score.
(http://www.walletpop.com/credit/credit-reports?ncid=emlcntuswall00000002)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Wil,

Please forgive me if I believe that when you prove it.  By not
engaging any more with what I write.  Either way, I am content.

Louise

--- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:
>
> Louise,
>
> "... You see, I believe in schizophrenia. I do not believe it is an
illness.
> I am not a materialist."
>
> Response; Then I have nothing further to say to you.
>
> Wil
>
>
> In a message dated 1/28/09 5:52:12 PM, hecubatoher@... writes:
>
>
> > Wil,
> >
> > I am glad that you are not after all ignoring my posts. There
seems
> > little point in adding to what I have already written. I do not
> > accept that I am polluting the list. Your uncritical acceptance of
> > current psychological or psychiatric theories completely escapes
your
> > attention. Make what comments you wish, and I will always consider
> > your remarks on their merits. I like to debate with you, if my
> > health is sufficiently robust. The main point, however, that I
would
> > like to emphasise is how careless and unphilosophical is your
> > language, when faced with what you already believe you know. The
> > personal element to all this I still find totally unacceptable,
but
> > it was not your doing to start it all. A dispute began, in the
> > context of my everyday life, on the subject of slander, long
before I
> > gained access to a computer. The fact is that this has all been
> > transferred to a context where I did not foresee it would arise.
> > Before I close, if it be possible, once and for all, this
distressing
> > chapter about perception, morality and judgment, I would like to
> > state, simply as a fact, an honest subjective perception; that
is, my
> > own history leaves me vulnerable to certain imputations, and
> > potentially endangers the reputations of others who come to my
aid,
> > something which as a matter of faith I trusted would have a good
> > outcome. The reason which bolsters such faith - and I state the
> > perception as I would describe a tree or a building (or as the
> > characters of Homer gaze, one on another) - is that the
individuals
> > concerned are all, like yourself, characterised by an integrity of
> > motive (though I might disagree strongly with your founding
> > premises), and a personal purity and chastity. I cannot
sufficently
> > emphasise how significant I believe this to be. Slander is
something
> > which I have proved myself quite unable to counter in daily
> > existence, and I must pay the price for that. Others suffer too,
and
> > this awareness goes with me on my journey. I share your sense that
> > feelings are essentially private, but in a cultural climate such
as
> > prevails in the modern world, a person of my sensibilities easily
> > loses the capacity to believe her own eyes and ears. Do please
> > remember, though, that I am, truly, a primitive, and say it
without
> > any sense of shame or embarrassment. I wonder what you perceive
when
> > you see a dog, for instance? Or a cat, or a goldfish, or a
dolphin.
> > You see, I believe in schizophrenia. I do not believe it is an
> > illness. I am not a materialist.
> >
> > Louise
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> **************
> Know Your Numbers: Get tips and tools to help you improve your
> credit score.
> (http://www.walletpop.com/credit/credit-reports?
ncid=emlcntuswall00000002)
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Since schizophrenia is a name for an actually-existing condition, the
only way to argue for its reappraisal at a forum for discussion is by
being true to one's own humanity, and in so doing, to respect the
humanity of all other participants.  I have not found a way to surmount
the consequences of a culture unfamiliar to me - secret social
contempt.  So I seem at present unfit to continue the struggle.

On this occasion I do not wish to apologise to Wil, since I believe
that we are equally to blame for what happened.

So am taking a break from the internet, for two or three weeks, to
assess whether there is any point in continuing.

It would not be true to say that I distrust the Spanish, only that
there is an associative ambience, that makes me nervous.

Adios,
Louise

So, then, what is the difference between a philosophical outlook and any
other? I am not asking "what is philosophy?", but 'what is required at the
minimum
to be considered philosophical in the first place?'

Outsiders to the question think that philosophy is merely the layer of
opinion that can be added to a subject, as in "The Philosophy of Nascar" or "my
personal philosophy is so-and-so". Others think that philosophy is whatever is
left over after what we 'really know'. These, I hope, we know to be grossly
incorrect renditions.

Philosophy has always used such things as logic and self-criticism in its
search for truth(s). Why? Because it knew from the start that it could not trust
its host to be honest, and so employed an apparatus to force the host to
conform to the dictates of necessity; and then it turned its eye again on its
work
to see if, even in its rationalizing, it had constructed a veil of reductions
and facile deceptions rather than uncovering the warps and woofs of life and
knowledge. So the first principle of philosophical thinking, the first and
usually unspoken axiom par excellence, is that one must pursue the true, but
also
that one proceed with the wisdom that human nature is a liar, and one that
lies most to itself.

Without this radical understanding, there is nothing but opinion, or worse.

Wil



**************
Know Your Numbers: Get tips and tools to help you improve your
credit score.
(http://www.walletpop.com/credit/credit-reports?ncid=emlcntuswall00000002)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I can  just glimpse what you are getting at. I of course worry about
something that makes appearance as a sense. That is too magical for
me. Too many motives can be attached to  a feeling and  it  snowballs
perhaps into something sensed.
  I  need process a good deal of  real time material and therefore
tend to think in current terms. It is not a moral judgement for me,
it is a habit that I dare not replace.
  Wil prefers a more scholarly approach and he teaches me a great
deal. He knows this shit and it is great  to  have  cold authority
behind the  black door. I have said I think existentialism can be
dangerous , something for  the more bold, more individual. I hope Wil
can guide us  through the most modern Sartre and Camus. CVW has a
good background  in the tough guys of existential philosophy.I have a
tendency to cower in face of those mind monsters. I have a progress
rate more  attuned  to Doestoevski then JPS. He did some great
work,in public, smashed on wine. If any my contribution would  likely
be of the wine soaked Sartre than the  those more Ex  Libra.
  Louise may not wish to go there and I may duck out if it gets too
close. I remember going to  a Camus play and  being  able to keep up
I began to process it on a empirical level. It came out the same, in
reds and raw sound as what I read of the play years later. If that is
like the sense you speak of  I would like to pursue it. I see no
obvious down side. Bill

Wil,

You ask some good questions, and I think I am close to agreement with
you in your answers. Let me respond particularly to this section of
your post:

Wil: Philosophy has always used such things as logic and self-
criticism in its search for truth(s).  … So the first principle of
philosophical thinking, the first and usually unspoken axiom par
excellence, is that one must pursue the true, but also that one
proceed with the wisdom that human nature is a liar, and one that
lies most to itself. Without this radical understanding, there is
nothing but opinion, or worse.

Response: I agree that philosophy is about pursuing the true and that
the method for doing this must involve respecting objective standards
of logical reasoning and consistency.

I agree with you that human nature is not to be trusted, and human
beings seem to have a predisposition to self-deception which the
philosopher must always be alert to.

However, I wonder if your claim to build the view that "human nature
is a liar" into the very definition of what is "philosophical
thinking" is a bit too strong.

What do we say about a thinker who has a more optimistic view of
human nature? Are we to say, that, almost by definition, he cannot
count as a philosopher? This sounds too restrictive to me.

Certainly the philosopher ought to be self-critical. He should
examine his premises and his logical inferences for falsity and
invalidity. But the sort of suspicious distrust and negative
assessment of his own human nature need not be built into his
worldview at the start, in my opinion.

I agree with you, however, that we, as philosophers, do have good
reason to mistrust our own motives, but I think that this is an
empirical truth that I have discovered over time, and not
necessarily, the first axiom I assumed at the start of my thinking
about thinking.

Jim

Jim,

I find your post quite on target. I agree that the fewer axioms that are built
into our assumptions from the outset,so much the better. I suppose preexisting
axioms are the essence of dogma. Once a premise is assumed, conclusions are
assured.
Tom
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: jimstuart51
   To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2009 6:57 AM
   Subject: [existlist] Re: Truth and Lie in an extra-moral sense


   Wil,

   You ask some good questions, and I think I am close to agreement with
   you in your answers. Let me respond particularly to this section of
   your post:

   Wil: Philosophy has always used such things as logic and self-
   criticism in its search for truth(s). . So the first principle of
   philosophical thinking, the first and usually unspoken axiom par
   excellence, is that one must pursue the true, but also that one
   proceed with the wisdom that human nature is a liar, and one that
   lies most to itself. Without this radical understanding, there is
   nothing but opinion, or worse.

   Response: I agree that philosophy is about pursuing the true and that
   the method for doing this must involve respecting objective standards
   of logical reasoning and consistency.

   I agree with you that human nature is not to be trusted, and human
   beings seem to have a predisposition to self-deception which the
   philosopher must always be alert to.

   However, I wonder if your claim to build the view that "human nature
   is a liar" into the very definition of what is "philosophical
   thinking" is a bit too strong.

   What do we say about a thinker who has a more optimistic view of
   human nature? Are we to say, that, almost by definition, he cannot
   count as a philosopher? This sounds too restrictive to me.

   Certainly the philosopher ought to be self-critical. He should
   examine his premises and his logical inferences for falsity and
   invalidity. But the sort of suspicious distrust and negative
   assessment of his own human nature need not be built into his
   worldview at the start, in my opinion.

   I agree with you, however, that we, as philosophers, do have good
   reason to mistrust our own motives, but I think that this is an
   empirical truth that I have discovered over time, and not
   necessarily, the first axiom I assumed at the start of my thinking
   about thinking.

   Jim





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Jim,

"However, I wonder if your claim to build the view that "human nature is a
liar" into the very definition of what is "philosophical thinking" is a bit too
strong."

Response: As particularly Nietzsche has shown (which is why I chose the title
for the post), the main problems of philosophy (et al.) have not been
'error', but deception. The example par excellence is the epoch of repressive
dogmas
of the last almost two millennia in the West. This repression was fostered not
only by a militaristic Church (which executed persons for doubting that the
Sun revolved around the Earth for fear that Man would lose his value), but also
by the simplistic nature of the Christian phantasm itself that preached a
gospel of false security by means of that pseudo-ontology. The 'mind', if you
will, cannot help but to interpret the world with its own sense of importance,
or
even pleasure, as paramount.
---
"What do we say about a thinker who has a more optimistic view of human
nature? Are we to say, that, almost by definition, he cannot count as a
philosopher? This sounds too restrictive to me."

Response: It would depend on what he or she says. For Kant, who holds my
view, more or less, it is a trick of Reason itself that makes necessary the
motion
toward world peace. Even Jesus uses such a trick in the golden rule, so that
one curtails what would otherwise be a selfish act when one sees the other as
oneself. This 'trick' is akin to logic, which is a transcendent (in the
technical, not metaphysical, sense) check on the false privilege of privacy and
self-willed designs.
---
"Certainly the philosopher ought to be self-critical. He should examine his
premises and his logical inferences for falsity and invalidity. But the sort of
suspicious distrust and negative assessment of his own human nature need not
be built into his worldview at the start, in my opinion."

Response: You have lived a charmed life, then. I see such duplicity all
around me. But my point is not tantamount to pessimism regarding human
discourse,
as you seem to be interpreting it. It is rather a clarion call to ever more
degrees of self-criticism, even to the point of examining the clarion call to
self-criticism itself as being in some way 'false', as Nietzsche, again,
demonstrates.
---
"I agree with you, however, that we, as philosophers, do have good reason to
mistrust our own motives,..."

Response: A motive is always suspicious.
---
"... but I think that this is an empirical truth that I have discovered over
time, and not necessarily, the first axiom I assumed at the start of my
thinking about thinking."

Response: This hidden first axiom, the one unstated and just presumed, so
much so that it is sometimes overlooked and abused, is not that humans are
lairs,
according my last post. That is not what I said, or meant to say, at any
rate. The 'meta-axiom' that I was pointing to is the presumption that there is
something about the questions of philosophy about which one has to be honest,
and
that we may, even in our honesty, be insufficient to overcome our own
limitations towards truth, including being insane. That should give us all
pause, and
if it does not, one is likely motivated ... otherwise.

But the view that no truth is final, that there is always a perspectival
aspect to it that can be seen much later on as having been compromised by time,
place or desire, etc., is something that I hold as axiomatic as well. Again, I
am with Nietzsche here.

As to Tom's objection in another response to this question, I think that he
uses that worn out notion of dogma in a much too mechanical way, and misses the
point altogether. If he put any time into the question, he would see that I
am, in fact, arguing against dogmas.

Wil



**************
Know Your Numbers: Get tips and tools to help you improve your
credit score.
(http://www.walletpop.com/credit/credit-reports?ncid=emlcntuswall00000002)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Maybe the term "dogma" wsn't the best word to use, but my meaning was that any
assumptions that are built into the premise tend to bias the conclusion. As a
child growing up in Catholic schools, I thought of that at the time as I heard
their alleged rational arguments to suport their positions.The other comment I'd
like to offer is that even though one side of human nature is a liar, obviously
there is another side of human nature that is a truth seeker, or else there
would not be the emphasis on eliminating or at least reducing the lies. I recall
somewhere a quote from Nietzche that the will to power is the dominant motive of
human thought, and not the will to truth; and that the will to truth was not
even particularly truthful.
Tom
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: eupraxis@...
   To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2009 10:11 AM
   Subject: Re: [existlist] Re: Truth and Lie in an extra-moral sense


   Jim,

   "However, I wonder if your claim to build the view that "human nature is a
   liar" into the very definition of what is "philosophical thinking" is a bit
too
   strong."

   Response: As particularly Nietzsche has shown (which is why I chose the title
   for the post), the main problems of philosophy (et al.) have not been
   'error', but deception. The example par excellence is the epoch of repressive
dogmas
   of the last almost two millennia in the West. This repression was fostered not
   only by a militaristic Church (which executed persons for doubting that the
   Sun revolved around the Earth for fear that Man would lose his value), but
also
   by the simplistic nature of the Christian phantasm itself that preached a
   gospel of false security by means of that pseudo-ontology. The 'mind', if you
   will, cannot help but to interpret the world with its own sense of importance,
or
   even pleasure, as paramount.
   ---
   "What do we say about a thinker who has a more optimistic view of human
   nature? Are we to say, that, almost by definition, he cannot count as a
   philosopher? This sounds too restrictive to me."

   Response: It would depend on what he or she says. For Kant, who holds my
   view, more or less, it is a trick of Reason itself that makes necessary the
motion
   toward world peace. Even Jesus uses such a trick in the golden rule, so that
   one curtails what would otherwise be a selfish act when one sees the other as
   oneself. This 'trick' is akin to logic, which is a transcendent (in the
   technical, not metaphysical, sense) check on the false privilege of privacy
and
   self-willed designs.
   ---
   "Certainly the philosopher ought to be self-critical. He should examine his
   premises and his logical inferences for falsity and invalidity. But the sort
of
   suspicious distrust and negative assessment of his own human nature need not
   be built into his worldview at the start, in my opinion."

   Response: You have lived a charmed life, then. I see such duplicity all
   around me. But my point is not tantamount to pessimism regarding human
discourse,
   as you seem to be interpreting it. It is rather a clarion call to ever more
   degrees of self-criticism, even to the point of examining the clarion call to
   self-criticism itself as being in some way 'false', as Nietzsche, again,
   demonstrates.
   ---
   "I agree with you, however, that we, as philosophers, do have good reason to
   mistrust our own motives,..."

   Response: A motive is always suspicious.
   ---
   "... but I think that this is an empirical truth that I have discovered over
   time, and not necessarily, the first axiom I assumed at the start of my
   thinking about thinking."

   Response: This hidden first axiom, the one unstated and just presumed, so
   much so that it is sometimes overlooked and abused, is not that humans are
lairs,
   according my last post. That is not what I said, or meant to say, at any
   rate. The 'meta-axiom' that I was pointing to is the presumption that there is
   something about the questions of philosophy about which one has to be honest,
and
   that we may, even in our honesty, be insufficient to overcome our own
   limitations towards truth, including being insane. That should give us all
pause, and
   if it does not, one is likely motivated ... otherwise.

   But the view that no truth is final, that there is always a perspectival
   aspect to it that can be seen much later on as having been compromised by
time,
   place or desire, etc., is something that I hold as axiomatic as well. Again, I
   am with Nietzsche here.

   As to Tom's objection in another response to this question, I think that he
   uses that worn out notion of dogma in a much too mechanical way, and misses
the
   point altogether. If he put any time into the question, he would see that I
   am, in fact, arguing against dogmas.

   Wil

   **************
   Know Your Numbers: Get tips and tools to help you improve your
   credit score.
   (http://www.walletpop.com/credit/credit-reports?ncid=emlcntuswall00000002)

   [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

When I first heard the song it got me at a level  unsuspected. They
were talking about the mob. You didn`t talk about the fuckin mob, not
if you liked breathing. Criminal  activity was the theme and whoever
wrote that ditty had seen  the mob in action.
  Now you stupid pricks go google the song title and get the official
word on  what goes down. All and nice and sanitized all cleaned up with
no bloated bodies in the air port  trunk.
"He musta died of  a heart attack" says the pig as he pukes opening the
trunk with a crowbar. Reality TV has made us cool has  made us wise
guys. Sorry you pussy fuckers it
ain`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
````````````````````````````````````````````t that easy.
Ask Louise about the battle of the apostrophees. Linguistics war, happy
land for the Post modernists. Just a waste of time a divergence to
stolen leisure. Hold forth o siren of Britannia. We wait with fetid
breath. Bill

Bill,

I've been staring at this post for a about five minutes. Gotta give me a hint
this time.

Wil

In a message dated 1/31/09 1:09:47 PM, v.valleywestdental@... writes:


>
>
>
> When I first heard the song it got me at a level unsuspected. They
> were talking about the mob. You didn`t talk about the fuckin mob, not
> if you liked breathing. Criminal activity was the theme and whoever
> wrote that ditty had seen the mob in action.
> Now you stupid pricks go google the song title and get the official
> word on what goes down. All and nice and sanitized all cleaned up with
> no bloated bodies in the air port trunk.
> "He musta died of a heart attack" says the pig as he pukes opening the
> trunk with a crowbar. Reality TV has made us cool has made us wise
> guys. Sorry you pussy fuckers it
> ain````````` ain````` ain````` ain````` ain````` ain````` ain````` ain``
> ```````````` ```````` ```````` ```````` ````````````<wbr>
> Ask Louise about the battle of the apostrophees. Linguistics war, happy
> land for the Post modernists. Just a waste of time a divergence to
> stolen leisure. Hold forth o siren of Britannia. We wait with fetid
> breath. Bill
>
>
>




**************
Know Your Numbers: Get tips and tools to help you improve your
credit score.
(http://www.walletpop.com/credit/credit-reports?ncid=emlcntuswall00000002)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]