Soviet Cold War Subversion, Illuminism and Psy Ops

Modern EU poster: Soviet star with Soviet symbol.

Modern EU poster: Soviet star with Soviet symbol.

By: Jay

“I will force the enemy to take our strength for weakness, and our weakness for strength, and thus will turn his strength into weakness.” Sun Tzu

Ours is an era of integration, unification and conglomeration.  Arising from that trend came the Cold War: a fascinating phenomenon of two superpowers that supposedly waged a planetary battle of western “freedom” versus eastern “communism” for control of the world.  The reality is that this battle was both engineered and real.  Insofar as Mao was concerned, we know David Rockefeller praised Mao’s “revolution” in his famous 1979 editorial.  Upon visiting China, Rockefeller mentions Deng Xiaoping’s “capitalist” reforms, which led to the modern third way experience in China today.  Rockefeller also mentions this at length in his autobiography, Memoirs.

In this way, a top western elite provides a great example of how, at times, the Cold War was furthered and aided by western finance.  One can see this as well in examples of western aid to build up Soviet power under Roosevelt, an obvious communist.  Under FDR, countless Soviet and communist agents of change and outright spies were allowed to enter the U.S.  Truman and McCarthy attempted to reverse this trend by taking action to discover the Soviet spies allegedly existing at all levels of western power. Recent release of Soviet archives shows these allegations to be correct: there were hundreds of Soviet spies at all levels of government, as the Philby affair shows for the United Kingdom.

This trend continued into the 1980s, with the Cold War purportedly reviving under Reagan and the attempt to stop the “evil empire” and Gorbachev from destroying the last bastion of freedom.  Kruschev had previously threatened at the United Nations that he would infiltrate and destroy the West from within, and the Cold War continued supposedly until the fall of the wall. Pope John Paul II also took credit with Reagan in this facade of ending the battle, with perestroika, an openness to the West, as the sign of victory.  During this time, important Central Intelligence and MI6 analysts were saying otherwise.

Based on the revelations of defectors like Masterspy Oleg Penkovsky, Anatoliy Golitsyn, and Soviet psychological warfare expert, Yuri Bezmenov, western intelligence agents like Maurice Oldfield and James Jesus Angleton thought otherwise:  it looked as if the long-term Soviet strategy was precisely one of a feigned defenselessness.  What if communist subversion meant the incremental, gradual plan of decades-long infiltration, subversion, and psychological warfare, that was meant to take down the West through covert means, as opposed to nuclear means?  What if the Soviet plan had not ended with the fall of some wall in Germany?

Soviet film poster with pyramid and all seeing eye.

Soviet film poster with pyramid and all seeing eye.

There is plenty of evidence to back up this conclusion.  This does not mean, however, that certain Western elites never aided communism, nor that the Cold War was all a facade. While at the top of the pyramid the elites are international (as can be seen from Rockefeller’s Memoirs), the government classes of both East and West waged a real war.  The reality is the communists/Soviets won World War II, and from thenceforth have won the culture war.  Western elites have retained their capitalist beliefs in theory, yet the present globo-capital corporatocracy is much closer to a fascist/socialist internationalism of the left than any older model of the free market. Read more of this post

Alchemy in John Donne and Ben Johnson

Alchemist in his lab

By: Jay 

Copyrighted.  All rights reserved.

     Next to William Shakespeare, John Donne (1572-1631) and Ben Johnson (1572-1637) represent the English Renaissance’s top literary luminaries.  While notable for its broad and renowned corpus from such divines, this era is also known for being the transitional period from the older, hermetic view of a unified totality worldview to a newer, demythologized cosmos, beginning with figures like Sir Frances Bacon.[1] In the ancient and medieval western mind considered generally, the world was governed by a series of celestial spheres, rising in gradations to the highest, purest sphere of heaven itself, where the source of being, God, subsisted.

     This chain of being was a common feature of the older Platonic, Aristotelian and Ptolemaic systems, which over time accrued aspects of Christian mysticism, Jewish cabala and ancient gnosticism, consequently blending with Arabic ideas of “Al-Chemi,” coalescing in the western mind in thought of Renaissance theologians like Giovanni Pico Della Mirandola, Marsilio Ficino, Paracelsus and Cornelius Agrippa. These thinkers in turn influenced the literary works of Donne and Johnson in a profound way, which are on the cusp of the Baconian Revolution, yet still retain the older cosmological and hermetic views.[2] In this paper, I will analyze and compare Donne’s “Love’s Alchemy” and Johnson’s “XI: Epode,” considering the occult and alchemical usage in each. 

     Donne’s “Love’s Alchemy” is one of his most well-known, yet without an understanding of the alchemical theories of the time, the poem would be difficult to decipher. The poem will present the alchemist’s desire to produce the “philosopher’s stone,” the ever-elusive “elixir of life” or “quintessence.”[3] Before analyzing the poem, it is important to see that Donne was most certainly familiar with alchemy in its mystical form, and references figures such as Paracelsus. Donne references Paracelsus in his Letters as well as in the Sermons.[4] Donne writes as follows: “…And after, (not much before our time) men perceiving that all effects in Physick could not be derived from these beggerly properties of the Elements, and that therefore they were driven often to that miserable refuge of specifique form, and of antipathy and sympathy, we see the world hath been turned upon new principles where were attributed to Paracels, but (indeed) too much to his honor.”[5]  Later, Simpson quotes him as writing in his sermons: “…we embrace the Rule Medicorum theoria expeientia est [in margin, ‘Paracels’].[6] Simpson also qualifies this by considering the somewhat satirical views Donne had toward Paracelsus in Ignatius and His Conclave.  Be that as it may, the theories presented by Paracelsus regarding the main themes of alchemical theory and the refining and transmutation process.

     “Love’s Alchemy” was published in 1633 in Poems, and makes direct reference to the alchemical art.[7] Donne’s poem begins:

Some that have digged deeper love’s mine than I,
Say, where his centric happiness doth lie.
        I have loved, and got, and told,
But should I love, get, tell, till I were old,
I should not find that hidden mystery. Read more of this post

Taking the Law and Prophets Seriously: Judgments

The Prophet Samuel Hacks Up King Agag

By: Jay

I am sick and tired of the Law and the Prophets being a joke. This past year I’ve seen several Orthodox priests/prelates openly say they do not accept the “God” as presented in the Old Testament, as well as not a few Roman Catholics. Textual liberalism and rejecting “that kind of God” often go hand in hand, or are at least kissing cousins. One need only look at the history of Luther’s “reformation” and the explosion of textual liberalism that followed a few hundred years later in German higher criticism to see where these views lead.

Higher criticism and modern rejections of Moses may not have the same motivations, but they arrive at the same endpoint – the rejection of “that kind of God.” By that, what is meant is the God who condones exterminations of cities, is providential within all historical events, and punishes (even if remedially) descendants based on the actions of fathers and forebears. The simple question that arises is this – how do these people expect anyone to take them seriously as proponents of a religion which comes from the Law and the Prophets? Seriously? I am supposed to accept that you have the truth, and you tell me all these instances are “allegory” or at least not historical. Anyone with basic logic and an elementary knowledge of the Bible need only think for about 5 minutes about how implausible this is. Were I a serious Jew, I would not accept such ridiculous claims, and justly so. You prelates have told me that the very Book you accept is a-historical in crucial events, when all along it’s been viewed as historical – even amongst the various Christian groups, prior to higher criticism. In fact, in places where the New Testament views incidents in the Law and Prophets as historical, I have been told they are not – and that the New Testament writers are in error. What arrogance. 

I am always bitched at for “not being practical.” Well, ok, here we go – let’s be practical. Let me examine the stories I was told emulate in Sunday School as a young boy – arguably the most simplistic and practial stories imaginable, and let’s see if these religionists persuade me to be practical according to their conceptions. Read more of this post

Mainstream Historian on the Revolutionary Carbonari Conspiracy

By: Jay

As with my article on the prevalence of the masonic-Illuminati in top, mainstream historians’ works, the truth is often uncovered even in scholarship opposed to the principle of “secret cabals” influencing history.  Cambridge historian David Thomson writes on the back cover of his Penguin Europe Since Napoleon that “The pattern of European development since 1789 can be understood only by study of those all-embracing forces that have affected the whole continent, from Britain to the Balkans.” [emphasis mine]

One of these dark forces was the Carbonari.  Thomson writes:

“The ultimate models for most secret societies were the Lodges of eighteenth century Freemasonry and from them was derived much of the ritual, ceremonies of initiation, secret signs, and passwords.  The more immediate models were the secret societies formed in Italy and Germany to resist the rule of Napoleon: especially the Tugenbund (League of Virtue) in Germany and the Carbonari (the charcoal burners) of Italy, both founded by 1810.  But a rich variety of similar organizations appeared throughout Europe: the Federati of Piedmont and the Adelphi in Lombardy, the Spanish liberal societies after 1815, the Philomathians of Poland modelled on the German students’ Bursenschaften, the Russian Union of Salvation of 1816 and the Republican Society of the South.” (pg. 140) Read more of this post

Recommended Articles

This week I read some really good articles I want to pass on.

“Temple of Man: Freemasonry, Civil Religion and Education” by: Terry Melanson

“The Church Impotent: The Feminization of Christianity” by: Leon J. Podles

Response to Turretinfan on the Crucifixion

Part 7 from our old interaction

By: Jay
Turretinfan responded to the accusation that the strict legal imputation view must necessitate a damning, forsaking, cutting-off, or separation (choose whichever term you wish) of the Son from the Father. He writes:
“The Father that spared not his own Son but delivered him up for us all, shall also freely give us all things (Romans 8:32). This was no pagan sacrifice, but a fulfilment of the pious type (“type” in the sense of “shadow”) that Abraham provided by offering up Isaac his son (Hebrews 11:17-19). Jesus was stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted (Isaiah 53:4) and it pleased the LORD to bruise him, to put him to grief, and to make him an offering for sin (Isaiah 53:10). Nevertheless, God did not utterly forsake him, but raised him up on the third day when the work to obtain our justification was complete (Romans 4:25).”

Read more of this post

Lenin’s False Flag Terrorism and Philosophy Echo Hitler & US

By: Jay

I was awestruck while reading a biography on V.I. Lenin recently.  The strange synchronicities concern his creation of a massively extended police state-the “Cheka,” compared with the actions of Hitler and our modern U.S. are prodigious, to say the least.  One might be tempted to think that, since Lenin was a Communist and of Jewish origin, there would be no similarity between his philosophy and Hitler’s.  However, the facts speak otherwise.  Hitler was a  racist and an occultist to be sure, but it is not often mentioned that Lenin was, as well.  The explanation for this is that the real power behind these statist regimes in the false dialectic of communist and fascist is the banking power.

Despite his appearance of being a sophisticated, modern atheist, Vladimir Lenin appears to have had an affinity for the Satanic (as did Marx). According to researcher Juri Lina and the Modern History Project, was inducted into the Masonic Lodge of the Nine Sisters.  Lenin’s philosophy was, in fact, highly racial: a key point missed and ignored by many researchers.  In fact, Lenin, like many of the elites (such as Hitler), was obsessed with bloodlines and racial purity.  Lenin Biographer Dmitri Volkogonov writes:

“Paradoxically, for a Marxist who believed in the primacy of the environmental over inherited factors, she [Lenin's sister] also asserted the dubious proposition that Lenin’s Jewish origins are further confirmation of the exceptional abilities of the Semitic tribe, [confirmation] always shared by [Vladimir] Ilyich Lenin…Lenin always valued Jews highly.’  Anna’s claim explains, for instance, why Lenin frequently recommended giving foreigners, especially Jews, intellectually demanding tasks, and leaving the elementary work to the ‘Russian fools.’ [Anna continuing] ‘…in the Lenin Institute, as well as in the Institute of the Brain…they have long recognized the great gifts of this [Jewish] nation and the extremely beneficial effects of its blood on the progeny of mixed marriages.  Ilyich himself rated their revolutionary qualities highly, their ‘tenacity’ in the struggle, as he put it, contrasting it with the more sluggish and unstable character of the Russians.  He often pointed out that the great attributes of organization and the strength of the revolutionary bodies in the south and west of Russia arose precisely from the fact that 50% of their members were of that nationality.”[i]           Read more of this post

Problems in Thomistic Epistemology

By: Jay

Plato, Philo, Plotinus, Dionysius, Augustine, Basil, John of Damascus, Maximus the Confessor, Isaac the Syrian, John Scotus, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure and many others all profess a doctrine of divine exemplarism.  This is Plato’s forms or universals or logoi as located in the divine mind or essence (depending on whether it’s Eastern or Western). The problem will be, however, whether this can work as an epistemic foundation in Thomism.

It should go without saying that both Aristotle and Aquinas’ epistemology is basically an empirical method. A certain Thomist fussed to me about this, since “epistemology” and “empiricism” are anachronisms. As if we cannot use modern terms that accurately describe an ancient belief or system.  No one says we cannot say “Post-Apostolic theology” because that term wasn’t used in the Post-Apostolic era.  But it’s quite simple to show Aristotle and Thomas’ method is empirical. 

Aristotle says in De Anima 12:8:

“Since according to common agreement there is nothing outside and separate in existence from sensible spatial magnitudes, the objects of thought are in the sensible forms, viz. both the abstract objects and all the states and affections of sensible things. Hence (1) no one can learn or understand anything in the absence of sense, and (when the mind is actively aware of anything it is necessarily aware of it along with an image; for images are like sensuous contents except in that they contain no matter.

Aquinas writes in De Veritate, Article III:

“19. Nothing is in the intellect that was not previously in sense. But in God there is no sensitive cognition, because this is material. Therefore, He does not know created things, since they were not previously in His sense. Read more of this post

Monergism = one energy = monothelitism

Response to Turretinfan’s Monothelitism Post
Turretinfan, just as with the single subject issue, doesn’t understand the argument.

A fully human will, with its own natural energy, is part and parcel with orthodox Christology, if one accepts Chalcedon and councils 5 and 6. Will is a property of nature, and hence there are two wills in Christ as the Calvinists will admit, and one will in the Godhead. If they admit a human will in Christ, then absurdquestions arise: will they admit that is raised/deified? Nope. If not, then our wills are not healed/raised/deified. If we no longer have a natural will, then Christ is not consubstantial with us, even if he had two. St. Gregory of Nazianzus stated it perfectly when he said, “what is not assumed [by the Logos], is not deified.”

The Calvinists can’t grasp that they have a faulty anthropology and view of pre-lapsarian man, which inevitably screws up their Christology. They don’t understand that theology begins with Christology, not soteriology. God hammered it out that way in the councils. Every Calvinist who does grasp this has left that heresy (and I know several). Once they stop confusing nature and grace as well as nature and person, they see they light. Read more of this post

The Decree of Pope St. Gelasius – The Liturgical Joke of the Federal Vision

By: Jay Dyer

Protestants are generally clueless when it comes to the canon of Scripture. Even the best of them act as if the Bible dropped out of heaven into their academic circles, as God, of course, needs their rigorous scientific exegesis. But what’s the real problem with this? The problem is that the Protestants have taken the Bible out of its proper context – that of the Liturgy. And, for all you Federal Visionaries, the Church already has apostolic liturgies – we don’t need you inventing and fabricating your own. But at least the FV guys are moving in the right direction.

As I’ve stated many times in debates and discussions, the formation of the canon, whether new or old Testament, cannot be separated from the context that gave those books meaning – public liturgy. The only way we know the authorship of the texts is from Apostolic Tradition, as I’ve demonstrated many times, and the milieu of that Tradition was the public readings at the local liturgy. Scholars across various denominations have known this for years. This growth in the knowledge of God via liturgy and sacraments is called “mystagogy.” Eastern Orthodox theologian, Metropolitan Isaiah of Denver, explains:

“Strictly speaking, there never was a Bible in the Orthodox Church, at least not as we commonly think of the Bible as a single volume book we can hold in our hand. Since the beginning of the Church, from the start of our liturgical tradition, there has never been a single book in an Orthodox church we could point to as the Bible. Instead, the various books of the Bible are found scattered throughout several service books located either on the Holy Altar itself, or at the chanter’s stand. The Gospels (or their pericopes) are complied into a single volume — usually bound in precious metal and richly decorated — placed on the Holy Altar.” Read more of this post

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 155 other followers