A tale of two Simons

REHABILITATING THE MAGICIAN

‘And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations’ (Luke 16:9).

Simony is a term that refers to the sale of things that are deemed sacred. It is one of the most sacrosanct Church traditions, indeed a founding principle, that a priest or other minister must not require money for a sacrament(al), an amulet or any product or service thought to possess mystical power, and the breach of said tradition is one of the best-known catalysts of the Protestant Reformation. So an act of simony is associated with a considerable degree of evil (even more than its sound-alike sodomy unless you’re a Baptist), namely that of the money changers outside Solomon’s temple who alone incurred the violent wrath of Jesus (if the Canonical Gospels are taken as truthful and comprehensive). If you picture someone setting up a tollbooth on the road to heaven, you’ll have some idea of what simony is. It inhibits people from entering heaven, and the person doing it doesn’t enter heaven anyway but has chosen a worldly position instead. These are all themes of Jesus’s rants in the Canonical Gospels of the Christian Scriptures. (Muhammad is said to have been possessed of a similar rage in Mecca, whence Islam [and toothbrushes]!)

As for Simon Magus, as he’s called, he stands apart from the Jerusalem temple establishment in that he is simply never known to have committed simony by that definition. What he did, even by Christendom’s accounts, was the reverse, and it was something Jesus (in his least popular parable) enjoins all to do.

In chapter 8 of Acts Simon Magus is portrayed as someone particularly interested in manifestations (signs), which really fits the common idea of the magus or magician. (He is perhaps the historical model for the Wizard of Oz, much as Babylon is the model for Atlantis.) It seems that the Gift of the Holy Spirit gives people the ability to command the spirit-world but that the ability to bestow said gift was a secret kept among Jesus’s closest apostles, Simon Peter and John. Simon Magus, adept and man of means that he was, apparently thought it couldn’t hurt to offer to buy the trade secret off of Simon Peter and John. But Simon Magus, in his aristocratic ways, probably came on a little strong, Simon Peter and John really thought highly of themselves, and Simon Magus apologized and managed to diffuse the drama manifesting pomp, which more than likely was not the kind of manifestation Simon the Mage had been hoping for.

Now had Simon Peter and John offered to sell their recipe to Simon Magus, the pair would have been guilty of what (by now I think you know) we mistakenly call ‘simony’. As for Simon Magus, he had merely attempted to make to himself friends of the mammon of unrighteousness; that, when he should fail, they might receive him into everlasting habitations, exactly as Jesus had counseled his Apostles, Simon Peter and John included. Can it be that Simon Peter and John perceived that power had gone to their heads and they were beginning to stray from the pure wisdom of Jesus with all their admittedly characteristic Hebrew preoccupation with signs and with being viewed as the only ones worthy to wield them?

Either way, the real tragedy is that Simon Magus is seen even not as a symbol of simony so much as gnosticism. But I’m going to just say that simony is the real evil, simony and the sin against the spirit that is the gravest blasphemy and modernism. Like its co-founders, the Church has taken its eye off the ball by preferring system to spirit and allowed modernism to worm its way in.

We need to get back to Simon’s self-effacing way. Perhaps that at least is Francis’s gift (whether sincere or not).

‘Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee’ (Matthew 17:27).

eaf7fbfa4db135dab66ce1d470f5ee6c--simon-magus-levitate

Advertisements

Will the real Lucifer please stand up

Lucy

Apologies for the humorous depictions, intended as comic relief to precede my correction of a serious error that has ensnared virtually the whole Body of Believers.

“And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book” (Revelation 22:19).

The Latin Vulgate’s LVCIFER (English: ‘LIGHT-BEARER’) was apparently taken to be a translation of the Greek Septuagint’s ΕΩΣΦΌΡΟΣ (HEOSPHÓROS, English: ‘DAWN-BEARER’*), in turn apparently a translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls Hebrew הֵילֵ֣ל (HELÉL, English: ‘MORNING STAR’).

Thus is the Italian saying tradurre è tradire (‘translation is betrayal’) proved horrifyingly true, for we can clearly see how the original meaning was hacked away little by little through a succession of mistranslations by men who to my knowledge no one considers ‘prophetic’ or in any sense ‘inspired’. It’s every Bible student’s worst nightmare come true: an elaborate ‘modern folk-theology’, based on apparently source-blind translations, that started haunting the Christian West around 1830.

The equating of Lucifer to Devil and Satan (the latter two only being linked in the highly abstract Book of Revelation) seems to have begun not with Jesus, his disciples, any Church Father or anywhere in Eurasia, but rather in the nineteenth-century United States of America with Seventh-day Adventists (sic) and other King James enthusiasts (e.g., KJVO). It was then solidified by such pro-Lucifer esotericists as Albert Pike and Helen Blavatsky. (This was around the same time the Star of David [that wasn’t] emerged from esoteric circles in Prague into nationalist circles in Germany among Ashkenazi Jews).

It seems that the Hebrew scrolls contain the term that was originally used in Isaiah 14:12 (the only Biblical use of the term) as A KINGLY TITLE OF NEBUCHADNEZZAR II OF BABYLON (and no euphemism for any incorporeal being such as an angel), as all scholars (religious affiliation notwithstanding) agree.**

To be clear, then, nowhere does the Bible, in any manuscript or translation that I know of, say or imply that Lucifer refers to an ‘angel’ (fallen or otherwise), but rather a formerly successful king ‘who once laid low the nations’. Lucifer is nowhere mentioned by Jesus or by anyone in the New Testament (though there is the Apocalyptic Morning Star, which is the original thing Lucifer is a double-mistranslation of*). Even the Church Fathers (i.e. ‘Patristics’) nowhere mention Lucifer. Essentially, everything you know about Lucifer is pseudo-Christian folklore obsessing on a horrendously mistranslated nickname for Babylon’s King Nebuchadnezzar II.

Now having said all this, let’s just point out that Biblically Babylon has a lot of serious evil attached to it, culminating in the Apocalyptic Whore of Babylon***. And in medieval/modern Judaism, just look at all the brazen abominations contained in the Babylonian Talmud, the standard reference of most Ashkenazi Jews, even the underlying inspiration for such modern philosophies as Marxism and Zionism, which have jointly caused more senseless human death—not to mention irreligion (or rather statism as religion) and slave-class immorality—than anything before or since.

But going back to Scriptural trends, it is worth noting that the Latin Lvcifer is also imported (i.e. not translated into Ebut apparently treated like a proper name) into King James English, which helps explain why the English-speaking world is actually the most emphatic that Lucifer be thought of as a purely and spiritually evil term, apparently clueless as to the precise nature of its original and Biblical use.

All told, it may be that there is some wisdom to the Christian oral tradition on this matter, and cultural Christianity may have unveiled a covert meaning that is crucial for our times. I would say that perhaps this notion of Lucifer as a twisted and evil angel, that has hijacked our biblical comprehension these couple millennia, may now retain some place in the savvy Biblical commentary of the future.∎

Jerome

________
* ΕΩΣΦΌΡΟΣ (HEOSPHÓROS, English: ‘DAWN-BEARER’) is just one Greek letter off from ΦΩΣΦΌΡΟΣ (PHOSPHÓROS, English: ‘LIGHT-BEARER’), a simple likeness of letters from which one typo by an overly abstract-minded scribe could be responsible for a massive degree of Biblical confusion! In conclusion, it should have be rendered AURÓRAFER or rather STÉLLA MATUTÍNA (which is a reference in Revelation 2:28, commonly thought to refer to Jesus [the ultimate Bible twist?] and a title of Mary in the Litany of Loreto; for other references see Order of the Golden Dawnand not LUCIFER at all!
** As to the likely origin and context of the kingly title that the Hebrew renders הֵילֵ֣ל (HELEL), you had is the Babylonian cult for the Planet Venus (but only when this appears in the morning), whom the ancient Babylonians associated with the Babylonian Cuneiform B153ellst (ISHTAR [whence ‘EASTER’, English: ‘TO IRRIGATE’], a Mesopotamian goddess of love, beauty, sex, desire, fertility, war, combat, and political power, similar to ἈΦΡΟΔΊΤΗ [APHRODÍTE]).
*** Early Reformation Christians assumed Whore of Babylon referred to the Vatican City ‘of seven hills’, another instance of this persistent pattern of totally ignoring what the Bible is saying about Mystery Babylon generally and King Nebuchadnezzar II in particular! although I would add that Babylon and Italy are both historically notorious for their usury [or as we’re taught to call it ‘interest rates’], hence the popular Babylon-Rome parallel seems justified in terms of cultural morals.

The Legion of Muhammad?

Image may contain: 2 people, hat and text

INTRODUCTION. In vain do these (of course highly paid) ‘Legion shills’ pretend to compartmentalize LC devotions to God, LC devotion to Maciel, LC hierarchy, LC secrecy, and LC abuse—defending one while condemning the other. The issue really is that any ‘meekness and humility’ that is selectively directed toward the rich and powerful is obviously worldly, carnal, egoistical and diabolical—not Christological. With good reason is she given the archdiabolical title of ‘Legion’: she offers nothing of reform to the Holy Mother Church of Rome. At best, she claims to oppose ‘Communism’ and ‘Freemasonry’ but refuses to oppose their quadruplet evils Zionism and Modernism.* On this point the Legion identifies herself as the true daughter and heiress of the Nazi Party. She admittedly offers no new ‘Spirituality’ (i.e. ‘Subpath within Roman Catholicism’), ‘Charism’ (‘Spiritual Gift’) nor ‘Apostolate’ (‘Ministry’).

CASE IN POINT 1. LEGIONARY ‘SPIRITUALITY’. She claims her ‘Spirituality’ is ‘strictly Christocentric’ (her attempt at slighting all foregoing Orders, Congregations and Charisms, which she also blatantly misrepresents to boot, though her technique [like her apologetics, Q.E.D.] is fanatically ‘Macielian’ [an intentional play on ‘Machiavellian’] and light-years away from anything remotely Christlike. [We could start off with the ‘sensus legionis’ os such Christian building blocks as ‘Love’ and ‘Charity’, but I’ve already done a video on that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMVFvxuFcIg ])

N.B.: For comparison on this last point (i.e. lofty rhetoric belying base methodological [heck, even ideological] exemplars), see not only Nazism (Google ‘Transfer Agreement’) but also Islam. Moreover, the Guadalupe narrative also borrows some of its most emotionally moving plot points from Islamic teachings, specifically the apparition to Juan when he attempts to avoid apparition, which also happens to Muhammad in the Islamic tradition. And to top it all off, you have the heady Islamic influences on the chief figures of the original Counter-Reformation movement, upon which we know the Legion bases much of her appeal.

CASE IN POINT 2. LEGIONARY ‘APOSTOLATE’. Also tellingly, the Legion claims her ‘Apostolate’ is ‘nonspecific’ (in the sense of ‘unlimited’), but what they do in practice is to ‘lawyer up’ to prey on budding apostolates like FAMILIA (in much the same way they like to prey on ‘budding apostolics’, Q.E.D.!). Her only sincere concern, God forbid, is amassing money and power.

CONCLUSION. FAITHFUL (‘ORTHODOX’) CATHOLICS ARE SITTING DUCKS because Legionspeak™ and Legionkultur™ are fine-tuned with the goal of snowing them with void impressions and shameless flattery. The Legion DEMONSTRATES EVERY INTENTION NOT OF REFORMING JACK SQUAT (whether within herself nor much less within the Church) BUT RATHER OF BEING PART OF THE PROBLEM by creating networks for the ‘leaders’ (i.e. the élite inhumanitarian and criminal class) by slapping a Christian crucifix on the most sordid of enterprises, with her own institute being a mere sampling of these.

________
* On November 2, 1917, the Balfour Declaration was signed, granting swaths of the British Mandate of Palestine to the Zionist Kibbutzim. Five days later the Bolshevik Revolution broke out. In 1948, the USSR was the first power to ‘de jure’ recognize the State of Israel on May 17, 1948. They say blood is thicker than water. Can it be that atheistical socialist Jews work together regardless of whether they advertise themselves as ‘nationalist’ or ‘globalist’? DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS.

Magic is…

I used to think of ‘magic’ as ‘mind over matter’, as in the somewhat blithely misrepresented ‘observer effect’ (which, it turns out, works with such simple mechanical ‘observers’ as cameras) and the uncertainty principle (cat and all—so social media friendly, yet ostensibly purely theoretical).

Consider that all magic begins with natural magic; with crazy, chaos magic; with the messy, mad methods of the shaman.

Consider that Western magic’s most common tongue and script are not those of medieval Latin but of Hebrew!

Magic, then, is ‘the social outsider’s eccentric plugging in to nature’, and I say ‘nature’ not ‘matter’ to awaken the atmosphere of wonder, without which you may have ‘knowledge’ but not ‘consciousness’, since deprived of the sacred tie that binds all into one (call it ‘the Higgs field’, ‘the Matrix’, ‘the Mother’, ‘the Goddess of Infinity’ or ‘Fairy Godmother’) you remain only male, only right-brained, only quantitative, only half-real.

Ironically, then, while this lets you be an ‘insider’ to the heavily drugged middle class, it simultaneously obliges you to be a ‘stranger’ to the cosmos and to your self, which is no way to live and no way to die.

As Hildegard of Bingen said, “An interpreted world is not a home”. Never make the mistake of equating ‘orthodoxy’ with ‘truth’.

Blood God or Breath God?

It seems like, if the ostensibly lazy-minded mainline Christian mythos is to be taken for truth, we’re meant to believe that the God who created everything (well, except Godself) had, earlier in human history, this fixation on blood (both bloodlines and bloodshed) but that God at one point had an enlightenment and became all about breath (both soul and spirit). Does God then evolve or manifest differently as we evolve? But if (as the mainline Christian mythos also insists) God is infinite and absolute (which makes God impersonal and unrelatable which we’re told necessitated the Incarnation), then:

(a) it wouldn’t seem that God could evolve,
(b) it wouldn’t seem to make a difference how far we progress since mathematically speaking we’ll never get any closer to infinity
(“Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity” [Ecclesiastes 1:2]), and
(c) it wouldn’t seem that anything (not even neurotic little me) could be excluded from deity or divinity
(“Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?” [Psalm 139:7]).

Such are the questions mystics ask but sheep are too intimidated to raise. (“Audentes Fortuna iuvat” / “Fortuna favors the bold” [a Latin proverb]). Too much order or too much chaos make our world a hell. We’re forever adjusting but also trying to find an intellectually satisfying synthesis. And this I think is what we call God.

God’s anatomy

No, this isn’t about the Lurianic Qabbalah, so settle down. This is more abstract still. What I’ve noticed in mainline religion (and this may well be reflective of its inner-circle/outer-circle dynamic) is that there are two main ways to mean the term God (see also ‘theology’), and it’s because they’re conflated rather than distinguished that religion is such a cacophony of the braying of overly-suggestible sheep:

  1. Deity (Old Testament, often regarded as primitive and warlike, carnal, obsessive, jealous, exclusive, exceptionalistic, nationalistic, etc.):
    1. “Any force of nature, to include a hypothetical creator/sustainer/emanator”; see also magic.
    2. “Any archetype of the subconscious, with varying degrees of wholesomeness.”
    3. “Possible actual monsters such as humanoid giants, dinosaurs,
  2. Divinity (New Testament, often regarded as “New Age”, psychospiritual [after all, all warfare is psychological {even spiritual} warfare])
    1. “A bigger version of me.”
    2. “A substitute/replacement for my inadequate dad.”
    3. “A device of political rhetoric and pseudo-academia disguised as theology.”

Is it Muslims who have a different god?

Try wrapping your head around the fact (again, fact) that the ‘Jewish’ Babylonian Talmud, beyond providing for the sexual abuse of infant Jewish girls (and believe me, you don’t want to know what it has in store for non-Jews—and, oh my, especially Christians!), reads like a document of deeply twisted, vindictive and paranoid opposition not only to the Christian Gospel (1) but to the Mosaic Torah in its stride.

In thus tossing out the baby with the well water, the Talmud sells out the I AM (2), the God of Moses and Jesus (both of whom, you’ll recall, predate it), in exchange for the survival of its, please note, unthinkably underhanded Pharisaical-Rabbinical system, which was the basis for Bolshivik Communism known to be the top killer of humans, and none of which the Holy Torah anywhere ordains, nor is a word like ‘synagog’ for example anywhere to be found on any one of the Torah’s scrolls!

The Talmud acquiesces to notorious ‘urban’ and ‘ghetto’ (all profoundly Babylonian) values, giving the green light to the Jets/Sharks mindset, racial supremacy, nationalist ideology, male chauvinism (the real and profound kind), breeding in schizophrenia and a truly horrifying blood obsession already present within the northern Diaspora Judaism of late antiquity as it melds with Babylonian and Khazarian peoples, ways and…rituals. (3)

Hence, as much someone might hold say Islam in disdain, we can never say of Sharia Law what we can of the Babylonian ‘Jewish’ Talmud, as the Qur’an and Sharia (however byzantine and even backhanded) constitute a reaction against novelty and an (at any rate stoutly attempted) reversion to Torah. (4) Now on the one hand the ‘Muslim God’ may differ on certain points of theology from the ‘authentically Judeo-Christian God’, such as one might say being less polytheistic and less cannibalistic, but it is only the ‘Talmudic god’ that we can see being inherently inimical and openly hostile toward the Judeo-Christian God, that is, to the God of Moses and of Jesus, and in a general sense hostile toward innocence and purity.

It is therefore supremely ironic that the ‘Judeo-Christian’ West, which by now has gone full Babylon and all revolves around usury anyway, would obstinately deceive itself on this crucial topic of Who are the true People of God—and who are the diabolical antisemites who under a false identity manage the whole filthy, rotten system, this veritable ‘Iron Dome of Unthinkable Dishonesty and Incalculable Mass-Murder’?

Stay ‘up-to-data’ on this issue: http://ifamericansknew.org/

Incidentally, FFS, no Islam is not the Religion of Peace. That’d be Jainism.
Subscribe today for more bubble bursting!
________
(1) The Babylonian Talmud claims that Jesus currently burns in ‘excrement’.
(2) YHWH name that, though ‘ethereal-sounding’, makes a humanoidal figure when written in Hebrew letters vertically.
(3) Note: The Talmud actually works quite similarly to the way the works of Plotinus overreacted to the southern Mediterranean Christian movement’s often Gnostic interpretation of Plato.
(4) It is after all Islam’s perceived ‘primevality’, never its novelty (whether it’s the whole story or not), that sets the tone for the Western media’s ‘Muslim-friendly’ narrative!