Dossier: élite human sacrifices

Plato (Augustine) and Aristotle (Thomas Aquinas) come to symbolize the dichotomy that pervades the heterodox world.

Human sacrifice: why? Ritual human killing including cannibalism is usually practiced by tribes (like the Thugs of Kali) but occasionally by a particularly perverse empire-ruling nation. This was certainly the case with the Aztec Empire. But there have been nations with lighter skin tones that existed on the fringes of Europe. My research indicates that human sacrifice is a ritual aspect of the dark or material side of Paganism, known alternately as Mother, Earth, Goddess or even Satan worship. Modern men are blind to this mostly because they deem religion in general to be obsolete, that due to technological progress the earth is become man’s slave (when it is really man that is become the machine’s slave) and that we therefore have need neither of God nor of anything spiritual. Of course in their belief that only matter is relevant they unwittingly make themselves the outer circle enablers of this Deep Ecology, outranked respectively by environmentalists, witches, wizards, ascended masters, fallen seraphs and finally politicians (Demoncrats).

What blocks people from researching this? But seriously, the fashionable superstition of positivism/materialism/modernism/cynicism, spawned as it was by Masonic elements like Newton and Hume, far from ending man’s participation in fairyland, binds him rather to its dark underbelly, to Black Magic. Also incapacitating modern(ist) Man from cracking the proverbial case here is his refusal to unite ideas believing unity to be an Eastern and hence evil concept, never minding that the Gospel is Eastern. One of the watchwords of Modern/Western/Enlightenment/Occult world is division/categorization/dissection.

How the modern West lost track of the Gospel. “He who destroys a thing to learn its nature has departed from the Path of Wisdom.” No, the answer is not modernism/materialism/positivism. Predating these is rationalism/scholasticism/Thomism (as in Thomas Aquinas). The Roman Catholic Church, having departed from Orthodoxy by means of the filioque, the Crusades and ultimately the Enlightenment, found its own heterodox rebranding of Christianity in Thomism, which is predicated on the idea that theology (i.e. the Faith) can be expressed in rational terms, that reason can do all that faith can, which implies that man can do all that God can since while faith is a gift reason is an acquisition. So rather than pursue Christianity in the ancient, Eastern and orthodox way, the Roman Catholic (soon to include Protestant) Christian West charted a new course with its own reinvention of theology in the West’s psychopatriarcal image and likeness, enter rationalism. Any objective observer will note how this was bound to end in modernism (the denial of the supernatural) from the start: those who giddily downplay the intuitive, the feminine and the spiritual tend to flock together. But such is the blindness of empire. Though the medieval West was of one spirit with the East prior to the Schism–both initially had an ascending, paradoxical, nonlinear theological outlook–the modern West moved toward something more evolutionary, fragmentary and mechanical. To compensate for its theological obtuseness, Roman Catholic culture would latch ever more staunchly on to their Pope with each successive age. Then substitute “Protestant” for “Catholic” and “Bible” for “Roman Papacy,” and you have a good idea of what happened in Northern Europe excepting Ireland. The Roman Catholic Church created a theology not of ascension but of descension, of two parallel ways, faith and reason, neither explicitly subject to the other. This sign-countersign paradigm doubtless reflected the life of the Church which tolerated and came to be defined by such Occult societies as the Knights of Malta. Though the Roman/Western Papacy lost much of its visible temporal power, this paradigm controlled Western Europe’s religious imagination from that day to this.

Where does Christianity come in? Paganism’s emblem is the pentacle (pointing upward resembling the human form); Satanism’s emblem is the inverted pentacle (pointing downward resembling a goat’s head). This strict up/down, spirit/matter, heavens/earth, divinity/humanity, masculine/feminine, Yin/Yang dichotomy is the home base of all Occultism because it lacks (or in the case of “Neo-Paganism,” largely spurns) the central teaching of Christianity, the Incarnation (which is what defines the Pauline and subsequently Conciliar understanding of Jesus of Nazareth in Galilee, the Messiah or Christ (of both Jew and Gentile) and also the God-Man. So there are two paradigms of Light and two of Darkness. The Devil is named by devotee and detractor alike as Lucifer (Light-Bearer) and as the Prince of Darkness. What Jesus does as He is orthodoxly understood (see above) is to reacquaint the spirit with flesh, God with Man, heaven with earth, and He sets up the former as sovereign over the latter. All heretics can be known because they deny this to some extent or another; all Orthodox Christians affirm this with extreme prejudice. Jesus’ sacrifice definitively removed any need for human sacrifice, fulfilling God’s promise to Abraham and his descendants, the Hebrews. Pagaism and Satanism are completely against the Orthodox Christian understanding of Jesus because it is very bad for their business (namely of pitting flesh against spirit and vice-versa). The Christian teaches that only the Blood of Christ need be drunk for Man to attain to divinity. The Christian champions an Incarnational Ascension rather than an esoteric one. The Orthodox Judeo-Christian Man was created in God’s image and likeness, lost some of God’s likeness and beseeches restoration.

Egypt, Canaan and Khazaria. We are taught to think of them as dead civilizations, particularly Khazaria as the most recent. Academe makes it their mission to make these fascinating and open-ended portions of history sound as irrelevant and dull as they are able. For example, Wikipedia in an attempt to be both accurate and misleading, cryptically says of Khazaria: “The Khazars were semi-nomadic Turkic people who established one of the largest polities of medieval Eurasia…” What they are trying to say in such a way that the non-élite will not understand is that Khazaria was one of the major empires in the whole combined history of Europe and Asia. (!) Yet in the present-day regions of ancient/medieval Egypt, Canaan and Khazaria, any commoner on the street knows the ruling bloodlines are alive and well, thought more discreet in their control style than in aeons past.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s