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:

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!

God is spirit (not matter)!

or God is a mystical not a scientific term

Call me Irish-minded all you want. But in all practicality there are at least five terminal reasons why the existence of God will never be proved (or disproved!) following the rules* that are currently in force among the corporate state-sponsored ‘scientific community’**, ensuring that this formally unanswerable (and for at least this reason fundamentally pointless) riddle will be forever trolled about long after we’re all (mercifully) deceased:

  1. No one knows what would constitute proof of ‘God’, probably because
  2. ‘God’ cannot be defined (which alone is problem enough!),
  3. ‘God’ cannot be sensed (which alone is problem enough!), and
  4. ‘God’ cannot be conceptualized (which alone is problem enough!)—and
  5. Technically in most monotheistic theologies ‘God’ does not ex-sist (which means ‘to emerge’) but rather sub-sists (or simply put is in and of ‘Godself’ and independent of any relationship, though often described as present in all beings, comparable then to the Brahman or Spirit Supreme of the Vedas and the Upanishads).

So it seems to be God’s élitism—God’s ‘gnostic-ness’—more than God’s improbability that so offends the crypto-clerics of scientism, most of whom are still stuck on the very dead Newton, Darwin and Einstein who indulge their own sensibilities, or rather whom they interpret in such a way that does (much the way Christians interpret the Bible in a way that seems suspiciously well tailored to their own ego and the political ambitions thereof).

Nonetheless, there are plenty of mysteries that go unexplained (and often seem unexplainable, again always assuming we’re working within the rules* that are currently in force among the corporate state-sponsored ‘scientific community’**), and whether you want to term all those gaps God, magic, aliens or the Jack of Diamonds makes no difference whatsoever in the final outcome.

Where scientists screw themselves the worst is where they refuse to acknowledge findings that don’t fit their narrative and even seem to give the Bible a leg up, such as massive giant bones (whether in Ohio or Peru, take your pick)! In this sense, scientists must take the blame for the Christian fundamentalist fanaticism, because the governments who pay them to keep it zipped won’t be around tomorrow to pick up the pieces of a radicalized humanity.

Conclusion: Just tell the truth for a change, and end these insipid authority games.

Afterthought: It does no good positing God as that which created/emanated/sustains the visible (and invisible) world(s) without describing, at least to the satisfaction of one’s contemporaries, how God created/emanated/sustains ‘it all’…and no fair just dumping on our laps the need to experience this inwardly, since even though I know that to be the case, if you’re not going to endeavor to lead others thither, better by far to keep silence!

* Not to criticize said rules, but let’s just state the obvious that they are soundly outmoded and probably based on a bias toward democratic, horizontal and heaven knows Judeo-Masonic ideologies in the first place.
** At least the side of the ‘scientific community’ that you see in school and the media, that is.

“My eerie fundie kinks list”

So the saying goes that we become our enemy, and perhaps nowhere is this displayed quite as dazzlingly as in this disingenuous “anathema” between traditional Muslims and your more fundamentalist or hard-line post-Reformation Christian sects, such as Baptists. So without further ado, here is a comprehensive snapshot of the rather disquieting similarities I witness daily yet I never hear anyone talk about:

  1. Sex-obsessed. Celibacy is frowned upon, probably because of homosexual connotations.
    (In denial about Jesus, who lived his entire life celibate and explained in painstaking detail the nature of eunuchism in Matthew’s Gospel).
  2. Prohibitionists. Alcohol and many other psychoactives are proscribed.
    (In denial about Jesus, whose first miracle was the production of wine and the other prophets who clearly used fasting, liturgy and other psychoactives such as the much-discussed kaneh bosm or cannabis and likely mushrooms to boot).
  3. Chauvinists. Women are elaborately segregated and subordinated. An infantilizing degree of repression is common. Paired with their patriarchy, there is a twin-tendency toward a quite militant patriotism.
  4. “Gleeful pessimists”. Our dearly beloved Fundie brethren tend to use the bulk of their “air time” (or “pulpit time”, of which they receive way too much) in discussing devils, apocalypses, their favorite sins, and what’s allegedly fatally erroneous with other groups and approaches—rather than say the actual Gospel, God’s love and those more freeing and wisdom-inducing passages within the Scriptures they thump. Whether traditional Muslim or fundamentalist Baptist, they teach humanity’s total separation from God (which almost rings true, in that it would handily explain why God would allow Fundies to exist and to troll people, but which also seems to fly in the face of their other teachings, such as the teaching that God is omnipresent—a mystery?). The upshot of their message seems to be to frighten, repress and shelter people—more than to edify, inform or save them.
  5. Literalists. They seem to be markedly obsessed with Genesis—or rather with a distinctly literal (concretely, Augustinian) interpretation of it, despite the poetic and mythical style of the original text and the lack of any teaching on Original Sin, Total Corruption, or anything indicating a stark and total corruption or separation from God in all of historic Judaism. Often their interpretations will differ, but each person’s opinion is always forced (and upon closer inspection opportunistic. “If the light that is in you is darkness…”) Unsurprisingly, loving their inbred thought patterns as they do, our dear Fundie brothers and sisters never have very much to say on subjects of cultural, intellectual and scientific pursuits and advances.
  6. Community autonomy. Local groups tend to operate independently and cling to no central authority. (Hey, who said it was all bad news?)
  7. Iconoclasm. They prohibit—or tell us that “God” prohibits—not only statues but all artistic realism, especially the anthropomorphic, especially their sacred male figures, whether Jesus or Muhammad. (Like icons, the occult is as prohibited as it is misunderstood.)
  8. Rent in twain. Both groups have two large subgroups. Muslims have “Sunnis” and “Shiites”; Baptists have “Southern Baptists” and “Baptists”.
  9. Ubiquity. Both groups’ presence is global and their claims are universal. According to them, they have the truest, purest form of what their hyper-masculine God had initially intended for the world, which they have salvaged from the wreckage of “Babylonian backsliding”. They really, really, really want you on their team (or out of their way).

Notable differences between the groups discussed include:

  1. I versus we. Baptists tend to be more individualistic (“Jesus, my Bible and me”), whilst Islam tends to be more communistic, as it were.
  2. Light hazing. Baptists have baptism (i.e. aquatic immersion), whereas Muslim initiation involves only a verbal profession before the community.
  3. Political Zionism (not to be confused with religious Zionism). Last but not least, Baptists seem far more prone to agree with (or acquiesce to) Jews’ sort of Master Race claims and consequent colonialism (e.g., the allegedly Jewish State of Israel).

(It’s clear from 1 and 3 how a certain uber-rich ethnicity have conspired to play this and many “Christian” sects like a violin, to be frank.)

Join us next week for Mormons: White Muslims?

Jesus, Women and Race



Jesus told the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s Well (a mile on foot from her home city of Sychar) that Salvation is from the Jews. The reason why this is unwieldy for someone who has bothered to read the whole Gospel is because, for one thing, the inspired (i.e. spirited or breathed) New Testament preaches an incorruptible God who is no respecter of persons, which is why Jesus continues: the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father, since spirit and truth have nothing in common with nations or flesh-and-bloodlines. This radical idea that the true God isn’t given to racism or any other partisanship–that there is no Chosen People or destined Master Race–really gives the Golden Rule theological legs, but tragically it is normally the property of what I would call the faith of the mystics, as opposed to the religionists. But this won’t be the last time Moses is indirectly demonized in Christian circles. Consider, for example, the standard credal Christian’s notions about God’s arch-enemy Satan (not to be confused with the real Satan which the Hebrew scriptures characterize as God’s designated Prosecutor):
– Refused to serve his King (see Romans 13)
– Stirred up a rebellion
– Pulled dirty tricks
– Made his own rules
– Never invented anything, just appropriated from his kingdom of origin
– Caused untold bloodshed in his stride
– Ultimately lowered his following’s quality of life
– Had horns
– Healed using a bronze serpent of all things


So then why does Jesus say “Salvation is from the Jews”—the same Jesus who’d told the parables of the Good Samaritan, the Justified Publican and others—even as he’s gearing up to ring in the destruction of the Second Temple and all it stands for, especially legalism? Consider that:
(a) he is talking to a Samaritan woman,
(b) in another passage he casually refers to a Canaanite woman as a “dog” (i.e. “the b-word”),
(c) his own mother he addresses as “woman” (“madam”?).

Today it’s trendy to say Jesus raised the status of women (and that Paul [or rather the author of Timothy] brought the Gospel back down to “practical reality” where “men know best”), yet Jesus is quite the Jewish man in this regard, and the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas hasn’t helped matters either!


But here’s another wrinkle: like many an esotericist, Jesus seems fascinated by generlessness, as his exaltation of children and his elaborate discourse on adult celibacy (doubtless attributable to his Essene background), which he’s careful to clarify is only meant for real adepts not your average “José Six” but that those who can accept the way of the eunuch certainly should do so in the interest of maximizing spiritual productivity, a point the real Paul reinforces even as he seems to repeat the underlying importance of being Zen or indifferent toward one’s carnal state wither married or celibate. This may be why the real Paul ends up saying there are no distinctions of gender, race or status but only a great unity in “Christ Jesus”.

The Kabbalah had an inestimable influence on Christianity’s foundations and those of Western society, and we see later in Europe those who are persecuted for practicing Kabbalah “witchcraft” as modeling purposeful diversity or integration of classes in the Middle Ages, much as Paul’s communities had done in Antiquity.

For the record, I do not assert that the Old Testament is mystically bankrupt. A wild goose chase I’ll grant you. But while the true God, being pure Breath and pure Consciousness, is essentially no respecter of persons, I can see God putting God’s energies into defending the oppressed against the oppressor (so much so that I’m not at all certain Christianity hasn’t called God “Satan”)—it’s just that as soon as the oppressed become oppressors the deal is very much off.