Saying NO to the governments systems of control and spreading TRUTH about our status quo Ξ√ΩLUT↑☼N anyone??

Illuminati

The Money Changers Then And Now

This next vid is a little education about money and how we ended up where we are now, at this point I would like you all to consider that everything that is and has happened to us was planned, it`s called PROBLEM REACTION SOLUTION, so let me explain it to you;

The PTB created certain conditions to profit from and reduce the populations of those useless eater`s, they did this by creating a boom time where everybody had plenty to go round, and everybody was quite happy, but this was all part of their plan, at that stage they were already moving their wealth about and betting on a global depression, I say global because un-like us these fuckers can go where they want any time they like.

The next stage of their plan is the actual near crash of the , market`s, they own everything, any way so that part was easy especially seeing`s the sheep would end up paying in the name of saving the economy, add into that growing oppression and blatant in your face stupid decisions designed to anger you, all of that and more is in part the PROBLEM.

Now things get interesting, global discontent is now filtering across to include the middle classes and the separation of the elites and the rest of us is evident to most of the population, peaceful protest is and will eventually turn to rioting and civil war, no country will be immune from this, but of course that is exactly what the PTB want, that is the REACTION part of the plan.

WWIII may also be part of the plan, when enough people have died and humans are in a deep state of despair, the uncommonly silent PTB will now start to voice solutions beneficial to themselves and we will also believe that their ideas may be beneficial to us to, that will be the SOLUTION part.

ITS ALL A GAME, THEIR GAME, AND WE ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO WIN, but a change in consciousness is now starting to filter in to the global population and if enough people can educate them-selves into the truth we may just stand a chance.


Food For Thought (1 of 8) (George Carlin RIP Special)

Big thanks to Bill for this post, and http://www.youtube.com/user/IAMHEMP420 of course.

George Carlin On Drugs And Marijuana


Comprehend This !!

Bellow you will find a small eye watering snippet from the Federal Reserve, all amounts are in TRILLIONS & BILLIONS, try to understand the implications of those amounts, try to understand that YOU will be paying for them, in the case of the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) we tax payers are meant to be the ones who bailed them out? we are certainly responsible for its debts I recommend you download the full pdf (found at the end of this post), go to page 131 and take it all in, 16 trillion dollars is more than the GDP of America, hell its more than the total GDP America has made in over 200+ years.

A huge read can be found >>>> here <<<< which will explain some hard-hitting TRUTHS to you, everything you thought you knew is a lie, read it or ignore it, it’s up to you, this truth will scare the crap out of you, but know this, it’s all about to end this information has been kept from you to protect a system that sucks money straight from you its theft on a global scale.

You wont find any of this mentioned in the press, this is the biggest thing you will read so far this year, I strongly suggest you follow the link above and research this, you wont be disappointed, actual documents can be found here >>>>PROOF<<<<

These bailouts date from 2007 onwards to now.

Citigroup: $2.5 trillion ($2,500,000,000,000)

Morgan Stanley: $2.04 trillion ($2,040,000,000,000)

Merrill Lynch: $1.949 trillion ($1,949,000,000,000)

Bank of America: $1.344 trillion ($1,344,000,000,000)

Barclay’s PLC (United Kingdom): $868 billion ($868,000,000,000) Fuck me that’s huge!!

Bear Sterns: $853 billion ($853,000,000,000)

Goldman Sachs: $814 billion ($814,000,000,000)

Royal Bank of Scotland (UK): $541 billion ($541,000,000,000) “OMG”

JP Morgan Chase: $391 billion ($391,000,000,000)

Deutsche Bank (Germany): $354 billion ($354,000,000,000)

UBS (Switzerland): $287 billion ($287,000,000,000) Credit Suisse

(Switzerland): $262 billion ($262,000,000,000)

Lehman Brothers: $183 billion ($183,000,000,000)

Bank of Scotland (United Kingdom): $181 billion ($181,000,000,000) “I feel faint”

BNP Paribas (France): $175 billion ($175,000,000,000)

FULL PDF on GAO server: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11696.pdf

Page 131


Anonymous- MESSAGE TO THE ILLUMINATI

Sorry folks the vid is no longer here, taken down, hmm I smell a rat.


Don’t Watch this Film

Some of this I agree with and some I keep an open mind on, can you keep an open mind?

Can you prove any of it wrong?

Can you prove any of it to be true?


We Are The 99 And We Do Not Forgive

For those who do not yet know, the 99 refers to the 99% of the population who are controlled by just 1% at the top.

Chilling words here from ? to them.


BILL COOPER EXPLAINS IT ALL – WAKE UP SHEEPLE!

Sheeple

Image by Adam Crowe via Flickr

Your ignorance will be the end of us all, Bill here is talking about you and asks questions that you really should have addressed long ago, what are you eh? some sort of consuming, climbing, greedy self policing, gullible, liver of lies?


‘UN Go Home’: Israel planning for worst, calling for war?

Its all set to kick off big style over in the UK/USA daughter project.


An Orkney truth?

orkney from caithness

Image by niznoz via Flickr

Good luck with this Orkney folk, see if it matches up with the history that you were told, read those words with care and you may see where you lost your freedom to religion and force.

A.D. 1069—1093

 NORWEGIAN KINGDOM OF ORKNEY—MARGARET REVOLUTIONISES SCOTLAND—DEATH OF MALCOLM AND MARGARET—ESTIMATE OF MARGARET’S CHARACTER AND SERVICES.

 We come back to the battles of the sword. Before, however, returning to the church reforms of Queen Margaret, and the war ventures of Malcolm the “Bighead,” it may be well to run our eye over the outlying parts of Scotland on the north, and take note of the little bye-drama being transacted there.

 Orkney and Zetland and the adjacent coasts had for some centuries a history of their own. A variety of causes contributed to separate their fate, for a while, from that of the mainland. In the first place, they lay remote from the center of government, and only at times were they careful to give obedience to the commands which issued from the royal palace of Scone, or of Dunfermline. In the second place, they lay on the highway of the Vikings.

 When these sea robbers came forth to load their vessels with a miscellaneous booty, consisting of stolen goods and miserable captives, Orkney and Zetland were the first to feel the heavy hand of the plunderers. These islands, moreover, were placed between two hostile powers, who struggled for the possession and mastery of them.

 They had Alban on the one side and Norway on the other, and they accounted it good policy to submit to the master, whether Scot or Dane, who should prove himself for the time the stronger. The Scottish King was the nearer to them. They were parted from Alban by only the narrow Pentland, whereas Norway was removed from them by the whole breadth of the German Sea. But before the King of the Scots could transport his army by slow and laborious marches over land to the northern extremities of his kingdom, a powerful fleet, manned by fierce warriors, would sweep across from the distant Norway, and the islanders had no alternative except to wage hopeless battle or accept the Norwegian or Danish rule. Thus their allegiance kept oscillating from side to side of the German Ocean.

They hung suspended between Alban and Norway, and their existence for two or three centuries was full of vicissitudes and calamities. Even Alban was not at all times equally near to them.

 When the Scottish sceptre was weak, Alban would fall back to the Spey, and the Norwegian jarl was master in the intervening lands of Caithness and Sutherland. And when that sceptre again gathered strength, Alban would stretch itself northward to where the great headlands of Caithness look across the waters of the Frith to the bold precipices and cliffs that line the coast of Orkney.

 The inhabitants of Orkney and Zetland belonged to the same race with those on the mainland. They were members of the great Caledonian or Pictish family. Their early religion was Druidism, that is, the worship of the sun or Baal. This, which was the universal worship of primeval times, would seem to have spread wider than any other religion since, if we may judge from the fact that it has left its imprints in every land. In the course of its progress it reaches these islands in the northern sea. Their secure situation, their equable climate, and the tractable dispositions of the natives recommended them to the Druid as a suitable centre where he might establish his worship and develop his system. Here he could celebrate his horrid rites and exercise his tyrannical sway without molestation.

 In this secure retreat, with the tides of the stormy Pentland as a rampart, he could exact his dues and offerings, celebrate his festivals with becoming pomp, and drag as many victims to his bloodstained altars as he chose to immolate or his god demanded. The rude but massy remains of the structures in which the priests of this cruel superstition practised their rites, remain to our day, and attest the strength and splendour in which Druidism flourished in Orkney at an early age.

 But light at last broke in, and the cloud which had so long hung above that region was dispelled. The emancipation of these islands from this terrible yoke was one of the first fruits of Columba’s labours. When the great missionary visited Brude, king of the northern Picts, in his palace at Inverness, he solicited and obtained from him a promise that he would use his power for the protection of any missionaries from Iona that might visit the Orkneys on a tour of evangelisation. In due time the missionaries were sent, and the result was that the Druid fell before the preaching of the Cross, and the islands became Christian.

 Their conversion is recorded in the Scandinavian chronicles, and attested by the traditions and memorials which still linger in these parts of this early visit from the fathers of Iona. The missionary zeal of that famous community was then just opening out into the first vigour of its enthusiasm. Enterprises were being planned to countries more remote, and involving greater perils to those who undertook them, than this expedition to the Orkneys, and it would have been strange, if, while the darkness was being rolled aside from France and Germany, the night should be left to brood over a territory lying only a few days’ sail from Iona. The first missionary to visit the Orkneys was Cormac, a companion of Columba. His visit was made about the year 565.

 Christian Orkney had risen with Iona and it fell with Iona. Across the sea came the Viking, and the condition of these dwellers in the northern isles was speedily changed for the worse. In his first visits all that the Norseman sought was plunder. In his subsequent ones he aimed at making conquests. Having at last established his dominion on this side the German Sea, the heathen population of the Norwegian and Danish kingdoms flocked across to settle in Orkney and Caithness, and with this mongrel multitude returned the old darkness. It thickened in proportion as the number of the pagan immigrants increased, till at last the Orkneys and the adjoining coasts on the mainland were nearly as much in need of light from Iona as when the first missionaries of Columba visited them.

 The Norsemen opened their invasions at the beginning of the ninth century in the spoiling of Iona, and they closed them in the middle of the thirteenth at the battle of Largs, where they sustained so decisive a defeat that their power in Scotland was finally broken. After a century of raids, in which much blood had been shed, and vast numbers of wretched captives carried across the sea, Harold Harfager, King of Norway, at the beginning of the tenth century, appeared with his fleet in the Scottish seas. It was evident that something more than plunder was now meditated. The Norwegian monarch made himself master of the Orkneys.

 The subjection of the Hebrides followed. Harold Harfager committed his new conquests to the care of his earls, whom he appointed to govern in his name. Remote from the centre of the Norwegian authority, these governors forgot sometimes that they were deputies and vassals, and exercised as despotic a command as if they had been kings. They and their descendants governed the earldom of Orkney for some centuries. Not content with exercising sway over the northern and western isles, they became solicitous of extending their master’s possessions or their own, for it was often difficult to say who was the real king, the monarch or the vassal earl. With this in view they crossed the Pentland Firth, and annexed Caithness and Sutherland to their island earldoms. The Scandinavian sagas say that at one time they extended their sway as far south as the shores of the Moray Firth. But nothing in the Scottish chroniclers gives countenance to this, and we regard it as a fictitious apotheosis of Scandinavian heroes and heroism rather than an accomplished fact to have a place given it in history.

 It fared ill with Christianity in northern Scotland during these centuries. The invaders, when they entered the country, and for some time after, were still pagans. Accordingly, the first brunt of their fury fell upon the Christian establishments, which their religion, cruel alike in it instincts and in its policy, taught them to destroy. The Columban churches were razed, the schools connected, with them rooted out, and all that had been won slowly and with labour during the three centuries that had elapsed since Columba’s visit to King Brude, in which their conversion had its rise, was in danger of being swept away by this torrent of heathen invasion. Here was a fine opportunity offered the Culdees of proving that they were sprung of the old stock, and still retained something of the zeal and courage which had faced hordes as barbarous, and carried the light into lands yet darker. And they were not wholly wanting to the occasion.

 While the Norsemen were crossing the Pentland Firth, southward, sword in hand, to slay, the Culdees were on their way northward to cast in the salt of Christianity and heal these waters of desolation at their source. The second evangelisation, however, proceeded slowly as compared with the first, and the Culdee missionaries with great toil would have reaped little fruit if it had not been for an important event which came at this time to second their efforts. This was the conversion of Norway itself to the Christian faith under King Olave Tryggvosson. In the opinion of the Norwegian colonists the fact that their king and nation had embraced Christianity greatly strengthened the argument for its truth, and disposed them to give more heed to the instructions of those who were seeking to win them to what was now the religion of their countrymen on the other side of the German Sea. Moreover, King Olave Tryggvosson sought to spread the Christian faith among his subjects in Orkney and the Hebrides as a means of safeguarding his home dominions.

 The Norwegian colonists retained in their new country their old habit of roving and their love of plunder, and would at times cross the sea on a predatory expedition to the mother country. Olave Tryggtvosson wisely judged that if he could make them Christians, he would put an end to these unpleasant visits. He sent missionaries from Norway to take part with the Culdees in their good work in the Orkney Islands, and the work of evangelisation now went more rapidly onwards. By his influence, too, Sigurd the “Stout,” one of the more notable of the earls who governed in his name in Orkney, was led to accept Christianity, and, as the result of all these concurring agencies, by the Norwegian settlers in Orkney and the North of Scotland by the end of the ninth and beginning of the tenth century were nominal adherents of the Christian Church.

 The spiritual change effected on these converts might not go far down, but it would draw after it doubtless many political and social ameliorations, and contribute to mix and finally amalgamate the two peoples.

It were needless to pursue minutely events which were transacted on a provincial stage, and the influence of which was not sensibly felt beyond the narrow limits within which they were done. Sigurd the Stout, whose conversion has just been mentioned, is said by the Scandinavian Sagas to have married a daughter of Malcolm II., King of Scotland. There was born to him, as has been recorded in a former chapter a son, whom he named Thorfin. Sigurd fell in the great battle of Clontarf in Ireland, in 1014. From the death of Sigurd dates the decline and fall of the Norwegian power in Scotland. The province of Caithness was taken possession of by the Scottish crown.

 The shadowy authority the Norwegians had exercised over Moray and Ross vanished, and the Scottish sceptre was stretched to the Pentland Firth. Caithness was erected into an earldom by Malcolm II., and given to his grandson, Thorfin, who was the founder of the church of Birsay in Orkney. About this time an event took place which probably attracted little notice at the time, but which had graver issues than have resulted from some great battles. This was the marriage of the eldest daughter of Malcolm II. to Crinan, Abbot of Dunkeld. From this marriage sprang a race of kings destined not indeed to extinguish, but to displace or supersede the ancient Church of Scotland for some centuries by the importation of a foreign priesthood, with their rites, ceremonies, and doctrines of foreign origin. Crinan, to whom we see the Scottish King giving his daughter in marriage, was the prince-abbot of Scotland, as his great predecessor Columba had been the presbyter-abbot of the same land. There was this difference between them however: the duties of the Abbot of Iona lay in the spiritual sphere, those of his successor, the Abbot of Dunkeld, in the military domain.

 He had taken the sword, and in verification of the warning of the old book, he perished by the sword: for like his predecessor in the chair of Dunkeld, Crinan fell in battle in 1045. He was one of the wealthiest temporal lords in the kingdom. The lands pertaining to the Abbacy of Dunkeld were extensive and fertile, and their value was further enhanced by their position in the centre of the kingdom. To this rich heritage the lay-abbot of Dunkeld had annexed the property of the monastery of Dull, in the districts of Atholl and Argyle.

 From this marriage sprung Duncan, who was afterwards King of Scotland. From Duncan sprang Malcolm III., the “Big head,” who came to the throne after the usurpation of Macbeth. From the marriage of Malcolm Canmore with Margaret of England sprang those kings who gave the finishing touch to the transformation of the Scottish Church, which Malcolm and Margaret had inaugurated, changing it from the Culdee to the Roman type, and transferring its government from the Columban abbots to the chair of the pontiffs.

 We return to Malcolm and Margaret. The conference with the Columban pastors in the palace of Dunfermline has ended, and Turgot claims the victory for Margaret. Her reasoning were so convincing, Turgot tells us, and so strongly supported by the testimonies of Scripture and of the fathers, “that no one on the opposite side could say one word against them.” 1 That the Columban disputants were silenced we may grant. The odds were sorely against them. These simple men had to bear up against royal rank, trained dialectic skill, and the reputation of saintly character, and their answers may have been less ready and their bearing less courageous than would have been the case had the two sides been more equally matched. But to be silenced is not to be convinced. This undoubtedly they were not.

 Nor is it true what Turgot affirms, that “giving up their obstinacy and yielding to reason, they willingly consented to adopt all that Margaret recommended.” 2 This we know to be the opposite of the fact. The Columban pastors we find long after celebrating their worship as their fathers had done, and clinging as tenaciously as ever to those “rites” which Turgot denounces as “barbarous,” and which he tells us the Columbites now renounced. We find, moreover, David I. fighting the same battle which the bishop says his mother had already won, and which had conclusively settled the matter for all coming time. 3 In truth, so far as we can gather, the conference appears to have yielded little or no immediate fruit. No great measures were adopted in pursuance of it. The introduction of a foreign hierarchy, and the partitioning of the kingdom into dioceses was the work of a subsequent reign. The conference was the turning of the tide, however; it brought great changes ultimately with it, but these came slowly, and after some considerable time.

 Finding the Columban pastors obdurate, and their flocks bent on following the perverse ways into which Columba had let them, Margaret changed her tactics. She saw that little was to be gained by holding barren debates with the Columban clergy, and that a more likely means of compassing her end was to show the Scots the beauty and pomp of the Roman worship, assured that they could not possibly resist its fascination. By the advice of Turgot, her confessor, she built a superb church at Dunfermline. 4 Previous to her arrival in Scotland, the churches north of the Forth were constructed of wood or wattles, roofed with reeds.

 Such sanctuaries in Margaret’s eyes were fit for nothing but the “barbarous” rites of the Columbites. A temple of stone did she rear “for an eternal memorial of her name and devotion in the place where her nuptials had been held,” says Turgot. “This church,” he continues, “she beautified with rich gifts of various kinds, among which, as is well know, were many vessels of pure and solid gold, for the sacred service of the altar. . . She also placed there a cross of priceless value, bearing the figure of the Saviour, which she had caused to be covered with the purest gold and silver studded with gems, a token, even to the present day, of the earnestness of her faith. . . .Her chamber was never without such objects, those I mean which appertained to the dignity of the divine service.

 It was, so to say, a workshop of sacred art; copes for the cantors, chasubles, stoles, altar cloths, and other priestly vestments and church ornaments, were always to be seen, either already made of an admirable beauty, or in course of preparation.” In this passage Bishop Turgot unconsciously take stock of Margaret’s piety. It worked by Art, and it brought forth the good fruits of “copes, chasubles, stoles, and altar cloths.” He also painted her ideal of worship taken at the highest. Her “ideal” as not borrowed from that book, which, seeing it has the Deity for its author, alone contains the authoritative definition of worship. It is there shown to be severely simple and exclusively spiritual.

 Worship is not gold and silver in however large a sum. Nor is it art, however skilful and beautiful; nor is it a temple, however superb; nor is it a priest, however gorgeously attired. Worship is the communion of the soul with God, direct, immediate, and without the intervention of earthly priest. And religion is that principle in the heart from which this communion springs. So does the book to which we have referred define worship. This gives it a sublimity that soars far above temple however grand, and priest however mystically robed.

 To this true and grand conception of worship Queen Margaret had not lifted her mind. She needed a crucifix formed of the wood of the true cross that her faith might lay hold on the Crucified, and an altar of marble, with priests in splendid vestments ministering before it, that her piety might burn and her devotion soar. The patriarchs of an early day worshipped without these accessories; their altar of unhewen stone on the open Palestine plain had little of show, yet the devotions performed there lacked neither faith nor fire. It was not amid magnificent fanes that the zeal was kindled which bore Columban and his disciples over so large a portion of Europe in the execution of their great mission.Queen Margaret had seen the Culdee pastors, in their wattle-built and rush-thatched cells, celebrating their supper at wooden tables; this, said she, is not worship, it is barbarism; she would show them a better way.

 Summoning her masons, a superb church arose; calling her craftsmen, curiously fashioned vessels of gold and silver were forthcoming; assembling her ladies, it was marvellous in how short a time stores of richly embroidered vestments, meet for priestly shoulders, were fabricated; a staff of priests completed Margaret’s preparations for banishing the “barbarous” customs of the Culdees, and replacing them with the elegant services of a church in which it was her wish to fold the Scots. It is a universal law that when the vital principle in an organism grows weak and begins to decay, the body transfers its vitalities to the surface, and covers itself with new growths. This is an effort to stave off approaching dissolution.

 The forest tree, when its root is old and its trunk begins to be rotten, unwilling to yield up its place and disappear from the forest, sends forth with a sudden effort young shoots and branches to hide the rottenness of its stem, or it woos some parasitic plant which clothes it with a greenness not its own. Instead of death, the tree seems to be renewing its youth. The expiring lamp will unexpectedly blaze up, and fill the chamber it is about to leave in darkness with a sudden gleam of light. In obedience to the same law, worn out races, with the sentence of extinction hanging over them, will suddenly burst into an unexpected prolificness, and multiply their numbers in proportion as the constituents of their corporate existence die out.

 This, too, is an effort of nature to ward off death. The same law holds good in bodies ecclesiastical. When the inner and vital principle of religion in churches is stricken with incipient decay, there is sure to come an outward efflorescence of ceremonies and rites. This fungus growth, which is so apt to overrun churches which have sunk into spiritual decay, and to give to their withered age the aspect of efflorescent youth, is analogous to the herbage and moss that convert the rotten trunk into a seeming garland, and deceive the eye with an appearance of health while deadly disease is preying upon the plant. A church, vigorous and strong at the core, conscious of inward health and power, is content to abide in the calm path of prescribed duty, and to feed its piety and zeal by the appointed acts of spiritual worship. It eschews spasmodic effort and ostentatious profession.

 They are felt not to be needed, and therefore are not sought. But when inward decay sets in, then it is that exterior helps and supports are had recourse to. The quiet that is indicative of peace is exchanged for outward bustle and parade. The acceptability of worship to the Deity is believed to be in the ratio of the grandeur of the temple in which it is performed, and the worshippers, unable to transact directly with the skies, are fain to employ the mediation of consecrated altars, apostolically descended priests, and rites of mystic virtue and aesthetic beauty. “The age,” say the onlookers, “how pious it is! The Church, how her activity and zeal are awakening!” It is a mistake.

 What appears a marvellous outburst of religious life is only the vitalities smitten at the heart rushing to the extremities, dying piety concealing its decay under the guise of a fictitious energy. The sun has gone below the horizon, and there comes the afterglow on the mountains which is the harbinger of the coming darkness. The last years of Malcolm III. and Queen Margaret were clouded with calamity. We have already traced the story of the terrible wars waged between England and Scotland in the early part of Malcolm’s reign. At length a peace was established between the two kingdoms, of which the public signatory was the stone cross on Stanmoor common.

 That peace remained unbroken while Malcolm was occupied with the ecclesiastical reforms of which his queen had taught him to be enamoured. Meanwhile a great change had taken place in England. William the Conqueror had gone to the grave. He was succeeded on the throne by his son, William Rufus. The new English king had different tastes and pursuits from those of his royal father, and also from those of his brother monarch of Scotland. There is the less likelihood on that account, one should think, of the two sovereigns coming into collision. But no; the master passions of the age, ambition and war, once more assert themselves, and compel the sword to leave its scabbard. The cause of quarrel is obscure. The two border provinces of Cumbria and Lothian were fruitful in misunderstandings; and the pretensions of Edgar Aetheling, Queen Margaret’s brother, to the English throne, strained at times the relations between the two kings.

 Whether the strife grew out of these matters or had its rise in another cause will now never be know. Let it suffice that in the old doomed borderland we find the Scotch and English armies again confronting one another. King Malcolm, with his two sons, Edward and Eadgar, had penetrated into England, and were besieging the Castle of Alnwick. Robert de Mowbray and his men-at-arms rushed suddenly out upon them, and in the onset King Malcolm and his elder son Edward were slain. 6 The Scottish army, dispirited by the fall of the King, broke up in disorder, many falling by the sword, while numbers were drowned in the River Alne, then swollen by the winter rains.

 Next day the body of Malcolm was found among the slain by two peasants who had visited the field. Placing the royal corpse in a cart, they conveyed it to Tynemouth, and there buried it. It was afterwards disinterred by his son Alexander, and laid beside that of his queen at Dunfermline. Malcolm did not receive sepulture in Iona; as in life, so in death, he was separate from the Church of Columba. He died on the 19th November 1093, having reigned thirty-five years.

 Escaping from the battlefield, Eadgar carried to his mother the tidings of the death of her husband and son. Queen Margaret now lay dying in the Castle of Edinburgh. Turgot gives us a very touching account of her last days, as reported to him by the priest whom he had left to minister to her on her deathbed. Margaret, in our judgment, appears at her best when she comes to die. She has now done with fastings and feetwashings, and, as a penitent, turns her eye to the cross, which, let us hope, she saw despite the many obstructions—helps she deemed them—which she had industriously piled upon between her soul and the Saviour.

 Her earnest simple utterances, her tears, the psalms now so sweet to her, and the promises of Holy Scripture turned by her into prayers, give us a higher idea of her piety, and pourtray more truly her character, we are persuaded, than the high-wrought encomiums of Turgot, in which he claims for Queen Margaret an all but perfect holiness. Margaret had been ailing for half a year. And now in her sick chamber on the Castle rock, lonely and anxious, she could not help following in imagination her husband and sons to the fateful fields of Northumbria, and picturing to herself what was destined to be but too literally realized. On the fourth day before that on which there came news from the battlefield—the very day on which the king fell—Margaret’s forebodings of some near calamity were so strong that she could not refrain from communicating them to her attendants.

 “Perhaps,” she said, “on this very day such a heavy calamity may befall the realm of Scotland as has not been for many ages past.” “The disease gained ground, and death was imminent,” says Turgot’s informer. “Her face had already grown pallid in death, when she directed that I, and the other ministers of the sacred altar along with me, should stand near her and commend her soul to Christ by our psalms. Moreover, she asked that there should be brought to her a cross, called the ‘Black Cross,’ which she always held in the greatest veneration. . . .When at last it was got out of the chest and brought to her, she received it with reverence, and did her best to embrace it and kiss it. And several times she signed herself with it. Although every part of her body was now growing cold, still as long as the warmth of life throbbed at her heart she continued steadfast in prayer. She repeated the whole of the fiftieth psalm, 7 and placing the cross before her eyes, she held it there with both her hands.”

 It was at this moment that Eadgar, just arrived from the battle, entered her bedroom. The shock of his message was more, he saw, than the emaciated frame before him could sustain. He forbore to speak it. But Margaret read it in her son’s face. “I know it, my boy,” she said, with a deep sigh, “I know it.” She at once began the prayer in the liturgy of the mass, saying, “Lord Jesus Christ, who, according to the will of the father, through the cooperation of the Holy Ghost, hast by Thy death given life to the world, deliver me,” “As she was saying the words ‘deliver me,’ says the narrator, “her soul was freed from the chains of the body, and departed to Christ, the author of true liberty.” 8 She breathed her last on the 16th November 1093, just four days after her husband had fallen in battle on the banks of the Alne, Northumbria. 9 The morning and the evening of Margaret’s life were alike darkened by heavy clouds, between which there shone forth a noon of singular brilliancy.

 She exhibited amid the strong lights and shadows of her career an admirable equanimity of soul and great stability of character. She was large of heart, capacious of intellect, more studious of the happiness of others than of her own, and wholly devoted to a country on the shore of which she had stepped as a fugitive and exile, when a chivalrous prince took her by the hand, and let her to a seat beside himself on the throne of his realm. She repaid his generous love by her wise counsels, and her efforts to refine and elevate the manners of his court, and improve the dress, and the dwellings, and the trading relations of his subjects. But if we would form a just estimate of the influence of Margaret for good or for evil on Scotland, we must enlarge our view, and take other considerations into account besides her personal virtues and the ephemeral benefits which sprang out of them. These are “the good,” which the poet tells us, is interred with the men’s bones, but they may be conjoined with the “evil” that lives after them.

 The course of a nation may be fatally, although imperceptibly, altered, and only after the lapse of centuries can the nature of the revolution it has undergone be rightly understood, and its disastrous issued duly measured. Margaret and Scotland are an exemplification of this. Had Margaret brought with her a love for the Scriptural Faith and simple worship of the Scots, the nation to its latest age would have called the day blessed on which she set foot on its soil. Unhappily she cherished a deep-seated prejudice against the Scottish religion, and, believing that she was doing an acceptable service, she strove to supplant it. The revolution she inaugurated was at war with the traditions of the nation, was opposed to the genius of the people, and while it did not make the Scots good Catholics, it made them bad Christians.

 The system of irrational beliefs which Queen Margaret introduced destroyed intelligence and fettered conscience, and so paved the way for the entrance of feudal slavery by which it was followed, and which flourished in Scotland along with it. It is noteworthy that Roman Catholicism and the feudal system came together. The fundamental principles of the Roman Church, it has been remarked by the historian Robertson, “prepare and break the mind for political servitude, which is the firmest foundation of civil tyranny.” 10 No finer spectacles can we wish to contemplate than Queen Margaret, if we restrict our view to her shining virtues and her heroic austerities. She is seen moving like a being from another sphere in Malcolm’s court, meek, gracious, loving and maintaining her steadfast mind alike amid the storms that raged around her in her youth, the splendours that shone upon her in her midday, and the deep, dark shadows that again gathered about her at the close.

But we must not sacrifice our judgment at the shrine of sentiment, nor so fix our gaze upon the passing glory of a moment as not to see what comes after. When we turn from Margaret the woman to Margaret the Queen, and trace the working of her policy beyond the brief period of her life onward into the subsequent centuries, we forget the radiant vision in the darkness of the picture that now rises to our view. It is the spectacle of a land overspread by ignorance, of a priesthood wealthy, profligate, and dominant, and a people sunk in the degrading worship of fetishes. Such issue had the changes which were initiated in Scotland by Queen Margaret.

 Margaret had added a kingdom to the empire of the Papacy, but an hundred and fifty years passed away before Rome acknowledged the gift. We do not blame her for being so tardy in bestowing her honours where they were so well deserved; we rather view the fact as corroborative in part of what we have ventured to suggest, even, that the changes effected by Margaret were not very perceptible or marked in her own day, and that it was not till a century and a half that Rome was able to estimate the magnitude of the service rendered by the Scottish Queen. At length in the year 1250, under Pope Innocent IV., Queen Margaret received the honour of canonization. It is for services, not graces, that Rome reserves her highest rewards. Margaret might have been as fair as Helen, or as learned as Hypatia or Olympia Morata; she might have been as pious as the mother of Augustine, or as virtuous as the wife of the Roman Poetus; but unless she had enlarged the bounds of the Papal sway by the addition of a great kingdom, a place among “those who reign in heaven” would never have been assigned her by those whose prerogative it is to say who shall sit on the thrones of the Papal Valhalla.


Canada – False Royal Oaths – Royal Navy and Royal Air Force – Ireland under UK control

Well I have listened to Pat in this vid and feel that this could require more attention, I have no clue at the moment to how true this can be, but if it is true the good folks of Ireland wont be happy at all, now over to the vid for the gory details with you.


The Murdoch truth.

Hmm this if true is of no suprise to me at all, so if it is true we need to ask why they are taking him down now.

Perhaps this is the Jew World Order, dont even think about getting all shity over that comment, I read it, used it, and chuckled over it, its a pun get over it.


ABSOLOUTE GENIUS!!AMAZING MICHAEL TSARION TRUTH TELLER!!

Words of wisdom here by michael tsarion, did you buy into the lie?


Most powerful company! …you never heard of!

Hmmm can’t say I am to happy about this, time to dig deeper on these greedy controlling bastards.

 


George Carlin

Back to this one again just incase you have been living in a cave or something, here is the wonderful George Carlin with the American dream, but some how it’s really relevent to us here in the UK especially when we consider recent events over pensions.


The Elite’s Plan for Global Extermination(Depopulation Eugenics) Exposed by Webster Tarpley

Its American and as per usual affects us to.

1.

2.

3.

4.


The Government Has Got To Go

Sign of the times I suppose.


Its Not Your Fault (really?)

Barbed tape at a prison

Image via Wikipedia

The Prison of the Mind

People securely in prison pose no threat to those outside the prison walls. Imagine you could construct a prison – a prison of the mind – from which those inside can never threaten your power and control.

What are some of the things a psychologist of mass control might come up with?

1) “Turn the other cheek”. If I’m relentlessly hurting you, stealing from you, abusing you, the ideal scenario for me would be for you not to fight back, for you to turn the other cheek and let me keep doing it. Cui bono? The abusers or the abused?

2) “Wait for the kingdom of heaven to enjoy the rewards of your earthly struggle.” If I’m enjoying the pleasures of the world, I don’t wish others to take those pleasures from me. How do I ensure they don’t? I say to them that they shouldn’t trouble themselves with enjoying themselves here and now, on this earth during these lives of theirs. They should keep rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s i.e. they should let the rich keep taking from them. They should have their eyes pointed at some future state (heaven) rather than the state of things right now. Cui bono? Those who already have, or those who don’t have?

3) The American dream. If you work hard, you will get your rewards. If you’re not getting your rewards ipso facto you’re not working hard enough. So, the tens of millions of Americans who work incredibly hard but come home with scarcely a cent in their pockets are at fault, whereas the lazy, inept, privileged investment bankers who walk off into the sunset with tens of millions of dollars obviously fully deserve it for all of their “hard work”. (Consider the economic meltdown – who caused it? Not you. Who’s paying for it? You, of course. When will you wise up?) Cui bono? Those who are already rich, or those who dream of being rich?

4) In the UK, the national lottery uses a slogan, “It could be you.” Yes, it could be, but the odds are 14 million to one against so it almost certainly won’t be. The American Dream is the same. You could be one of the handful that comes from nowhere to enjoy spectacular riches. But if the odds are millions to one against, the American Dream is as accessible to you as a lottery win. Stop dreaming. The psychologists of control – those who already have all they wish – are the creators of the American Dream. It is one of their finest levers of control. The American reality is that two mediocre individuals who are no exemplars of hard work – George Bush, senior and junior – became Presidents. How did they manage it? Did they follow the American Dream, or did they happen to be born into an extremely rich and influential family? The American Dream is a fantasy – and a fantastic means of controlling the desperate masses. Only an idiot worships a fantasy.

Are you beginning to see what you’re up against?

The psychologists of mass mind control need no concentration camps when people will believe whatever self-serving line they sell them.

Welcome to the Old World Order.

What is the Old World Order’s favourite slogan?

“There’s a sucker born every
minute.”

Isn’t it time to stop being a sucker?


The Old World Order

Does any of this ring any bells with any of you? Who wrote this, go on have a guess.

“We resist two groups – the Old World Order and the group that stands behind them. For the time being, we shall say nothing more about the organisation that hides behind the curtain. The Old World Order are dupes, but they are unaware of it. Their game is the oldest one of all – power. How to get it and how to maintain it. These are the key points about the OWO:

1) The OWO is a global network of dynastic families.

2) Their mission is to maintain the power and wealth of their dynasties in perpetuity.

3) Others are admitted to the charmed circle only if they can assist the interests of the OWO.

4) The OWO do not care about the welfare of ordinary citizens. Ordinary people simply do not show up on their radar as long as they go about their humdrum lives in the expected way.

5) The OWO have no plans to build concentration camps, or slave encampments or anything else. Such measures would consume vast resources, create unnecessary trouble and serve no useful function. The OWO can sedate the people by use of TV, Hollywood, computer games, porn, music, alcohol, recreational drugs, sport etc. All of these diversions ensure that the people will never rise up. While mindless mass entertainment exists, the OWO need no concentration camps to control the people.

6) The Bush family is the quintessence of the OWO. Father and son belonged to Yale’s Skull and Bones secret society and both became presidents. Another son is a former Governor of Florida and a potential future president. How can one family in a so-called democracy have achieved this degree of power?

7) The Bush family illustrates the workings of the OWO perfectly: very rich, very powerful, very connected, and likely to bestride the American political scene for generations.

8) The OWO do not obsessively control every aspect of life. What they do is take active steps to massively increase the likelihood that they and theirs will have vastly better chances in life than anyone else. George Bush, with his limited abilities, would have achieved nothing significant in life were his name not Bush. Yet because that is his name, he was an American president. The OWO always put family above talent. This is practically enshrined as an American principle, and enjoys huge popular support, yet its inevitable consequence is that it creates un-meritocratic family dynasties that endure for millennia – you can be certain the Bush family will be such a dynasty.

9) Most people are familiar with America’s great dynastic families: they are associated with oil, banking, entertainment, media, military, the intelligence services and politics.

10) The OWO are international. American dynastic patriarchs have much more in common with Russian oligarchs than they do with ordinary Americans.

11) The Old World Order’s models are the Roman Empire at the time of Augustus Caesar, and the English monarchy at the time of Henry VIII.

12) The OWO are advocates of dynastic rule. Look at America: George Bush, father and son – both American presidents; the Kennedy’s – could have been in power for decades had they not broken the rules of the OWO and paid the price; the Clinton’s – husband was president and wife still could be. Daughter might be in the future. Dynastic presidencies have become de rigueur in modern America. How did this come about? By accident or design?

13) The Roman Emperors advocated “Panem et circenses” – bread and circuses. As long as citizens have fast food and cheap entertainment to pacify them, they will not cause serious trouble. Revolutions occur when the ordinary people are starving and have nothing to distract them from their suffering. Can a revolution be launched in the absence of these factors?

14) The Romans had a patrician class (the wealthy and powerful) and a plebeian class (the ordinary people). Isn’t it the same in America? The super rich, the Ivy League brigade, spoiled heiresses, the political, media, military, business, banking and legal elites. They are the American patrician class. Everyone else is a plebeian.

15) Roman gladiators were worshipped by the plebeians. What do the Americans have? – super-celebrities from Hollywood, TV, rock ‘n’ roll and sport, worshipped by legions of American plebeians.

16) In Ancient Rome, artists and intellectuals were a joke. They were usually Greek slaves. Look at artists and intellectuals in America. They are not at the forefront of the national consciousness. The OWO despise intelligence amongst plebeians and do their utmost to ensure that plebeians are poorly educated. They advocate and encourage ‘dumbing down’.

17) The Roman Empire was founded on slavery. So was America. The ordinary American people are still slaves. The only difference is that the oppression they suffer is not overt.

18) Look at the British Royal family. The Queen refers to the British people as her ‘subjects’. She can’t be removed as head of state. Her crown, her status, her wealth and power will be transmitted to her son. No one else is eligible. Merit in Britain is effectively illegal since the head of state is never at any stage subjected to any meritocratic criterion. Britain remains one of the most class divided societies in the world.

19) Look at British politicians. Tony Blair, from a highly privileged background, was a recent prime minister, and now his children are being groomed to follow in his footsteps. The leader of the British Conservative Party is one of the richest men in the nation. He is an old Etonian and was a member of the super elite Bullingdon Club at Oxford University. His closest colleagues all come from similarly privileged backgrounds. The Mayor of London and the shadow Chancellor both attended the Bullingdon Club with Cameron.

20) As of October 2008, America has had forty-three presidents and two of them have been the father and son team of the Bush’s. What are the odds?

21) Three of the forty-three presidents have been members of the tiny, elite secret society Skull and Bones. What are the odds? John Kerry, the Democratic candidate in 2004, was a member of Skull and Bones. In other words, no matter if you voted Democrat or Republican in 2004, you would still get a Skull and Bones man in the White House. And you think you have a choice? Choice is an illusion in so-called democracies. Democracy is an instrument used to control the people and make them vote for their OWO oppressors. You are much less likely to oppose someone for whom you have voted. You have bought into their mind control system. What good is a vote if you can only vote for the two people they decide to put in front of you? In order for them to be permanently in charge, they simply need to ensure that they control the process by which the presidential candidates are chosen. Then, when you vote, you are invariably voting for one of their people, not one of yours.

22) No doubt there are more Bush’s, more Kennedy’s, more Skull and Bones members being lined up for future high political office.

23) If you’re not one of the patricians, you’re a nobody. People could choose to stand up and do something about it but they don’t because they have been stupefied by the rhetoric and propaganda of the patrician class, they have got their bread and circuses that keep them endlessly distracted, they have their gladiator heroes to worship, their army of imperial conquest to support, their conspiracy theorists to mock, and their ‘freedom and democracy’ to trumpet.

24) The symbolic head of the Old World Order is the Queen of England. When she parades through the streets, legions of people wave flags and cheer. They are ecstatic about being her subjects – her acknowledged inferiors in every way. That shows you the power of the tyrants. Now imagine a hereditary monarchy with executive power. That’s what the Old World Order seek. They dream of dynastic marriages. Imagine a future where the Prince of America marries the Princess of China. That’s what’s coming if the Old World Order achieves its full ambition.

The Old World Order is all about establishing a permanent patrician class. It looks to the mediaeval concept of the monarch appointed by ‘divine right’ and able to pass the crown down the family line forever.

The Old World Order has in fact already achieved about 90% of its agenda. Ordinary people don’t get a look in when it comes to genuine power and the best jobs. They’re not in the game. They’re plebeians. What’s worse, they deserve to be. They have it within our power to overthrow the patricians at any time. Instead they let them rule. There are no excuses.

The movie The Matrix is an excellent metaphor for the workings of the OWO. The controllers of the Matrix are the OWO. Most people are oblivious to the truth. Only a handful care, and only they see ‘reality’. Mr Smith and his fellow super agents are the OWO’s enforcers who will deal with anyone showing any signs of resistance. But they don’t need to intervene too much because hardly anyone causes any trouble. Even some who have tasted the truth (like ‘Cypher’) decide that they would prefer to go back to the world of enslavement (made delightful by the power of fantasy – the taste of ‘real’ steak).

Are you happy to be a compliant citizen of the Matrix, or are you prepared to join the resistance? Wake up. Stop voting for the OWO. Stop supporting them. Stop making their lives easy. Stop bowing down to them simply because they are wealthy. Their wealth was gained through manipulation, not merit. If you are a slave to money then you are a pawn of the OWO. They control wealth and hence they control all those who buy into the wealth system.

Dick Fuld, former chief executive officer of the failed Lehman Brothers investment bank, made $500 million dollars while he was at the helm. A half a billion dollars for the man who presided over one of history’s greatest financial catastrophes! The bank no longer exists. Fuld is not in jail, is not being prosecuted, is not being pursued by state agencies to surrender his earnings that are now seen to be the profits of breathtaking speculation and incompetence that destroyed the bank.

Many people have paid the price of the collapse of Lehman Brothers. One person who did not was the man most responsible. That is the way the Old World Order operates. Everyone suffers except them. Isn’t it time to wake up and smell the coffee? There are still enough truth seekers in the world to make a difference. The flame of resistance has not yet been extinguished. And never forget – behind the Old World Order stands something much worse.”


The Jesus Myth

My efforts for truth take me to many places and for the first time in my life I actually agree with the Illuminati, take from that what you will. If you want truth you must be able to accept that you might have been wrong at some point.

Jesus Christ was the central figure in one of the most audacious plots in history. Much of the astonishing story is hinted at in the four Gospels, and yet is consistently ignored or misinterpreted. Yet even though the truth of Christ can be laid out for all to see, the vast majority of Christians will never accept it. Why? Because they have “faith”.

It’s useful to contrast faith with science (knowledge). One definition of a scientific theory is that it must be capable of being falsified i.e. it must make predictions that, if not borne out, will cause it to be judged false. If the predictions of Einstein’s various theories had not been experimentally verified then no scientist would have accepted them. All scientific theories are provisional because, at any time, new experimental data can refute them. Newtonian physics, which had been successful for centuries (and remains successful in most situations encountered in everyday life), was eventually overthrown by Einsteinian physics because in specific situations where the two theories predicted different outcomes, the experimental data vindicated Einstein and refuted Newton. Towards the end of the 19th century virtually no scientist would have anticipated that Newtonian physics was about to be replaced; nevertheless, it happened. This is one of the greatest strengths of science: the most cherished of theories can be discarded if the facts demand it. So why have Christianity, Islam and Judaism not gone the same way as disproved scientific theories? It’s because they rely on faith, the enemy of reason. If Newtonian physics were a faith-based religion, we would no doubt still have “Newtonians” stomping around condemning the “Einsteinians” as dangerous heretics who should be exterminated and cast into hell. No matter what the Einsteinians said, no matter how much proof they offered, the Newtonians would never change their minds. Science spares us that tragedy. Religion, on the whole, does not.

Are people like Osama bin Laden, the Pope, and the Chief Rabbi capable of holding different opinions from those they currently espouse? Is there anything they would accept as evidence that they are wrong? If not, aren’t they just brainwashed automatons, or mindless extremists with a fanatical and irrational adherence to the position they have adopted? One thing’s for sure: these people can’t all be right since they believe in entirely different things.

There are thousands of religions, all making radically different claims. Here’s a question for everyone following any of these different belief systems. Is there anything that would stop you believing? That is, would you accept any kind of “falsification principle” being applied to your religion? Is there any “fact” that you would accept as a refutation of your chosen religion? If you cannot formulate such a possibility then doesn’t it mean that you believe blindly? If you proudly state that your faith is “unshakable” then you are not prepared to accept anything as evidence against your beliefs. Therefore, your beliefs constitute an irrational fanaticism, completely divorced from reality. The difference between you and an insane person is merely a matter of degree or opinion since a madman also adheres to unreasonable, unverifiable beliefs that he will never abandon under any circumstances. Scientists actively look for anomalies and inconsistencies. They seek data that doesn’t conform with the expected results. That’s where Quantum Mechanics came from. Classical physics couldn’t account for a number of observed phenomena so had to be discarded, no matter how painful. Do religious believers look for anomalies, for reasons not to believe? And, if they don’t, aren’t their beliefs worthless? They could literally believe anything if they are never willing to challenge their beliefs. Every religious person ought to be skeptical because why would the True God want to associate with fools and blind believers?

Virtually all religions are designed to brainwash people into a state where they become “mad” i.e. they will buy into the particular religion hook, line and sinker and nothing will ever dent their faith. Look at the millions of Muslims participating in the annual pilgrimage to Mecca. Do they ever give the impression that they are thoughtful, independently-minded individuals who are open to criticism of their religion and who are capable of questioning their beliefs? Or do they resemble a mind-controlled horde who will tear to shreds anyone who rejects their beliefs? Islam, more than any other religion, is the angry scream of the lynch mob. Muslims went berserk because of a cartoon in a Danish magazine depicting Mohammed as a terrorist. People were killed. Danish products were boycotted. Imams spoke out against the evils of free speech. Someone tried to murder the cartoonist. Is this behaviour sane? Is faith sane? Or is it another word for madness? The search for gnosis – the highest knowledge – is the opposite of faith.

Since Christianity is the world’s dominant religion, we particularly challenge all Christians to consider what facts they might accept as refutation of their religion. Are there any? Every aspect of Christianity has been put under a microscope and found wanting. Nothing other than blind, defiant belief has survived the forensic analysis of Christianity.

The question becomes not whether Christianity (or any of the other main religions for that matter) is true but why so many people continue to believe in a religion that is illogical, incoherent, contradictory, incredible, ludicrous and whose myriad failings have been highlighted in endless books. The answer is simple. People will believe anything if it gives them a “system” with which they feel comfortable. Christianity provides people with a moral framework, a history, a community, a worldwide family, a hope of eternal life, a hope of paradise. Above all, it gives them an identity. The fact that the religion is unbelievable and manifestly false is neither here nor there as far as they are concerned. To abandon Christianity is a step so terrifying to Christians that the vast majority will never take it. Those who do lapse from Christianity are those who never fully engaged with it in the first place, hence their identity was not defined by it. Once your identity is exclusively defined by a religion you’re in real trouble because to abandon your religion is to lose your identity. A few months ago, a Jehovah’s Witness wrote to us to say how disgusted he was with his religion and how he now wanted to worship Lucifer, the god of light. He poured out his revulsion for the Jehovah’s Witnesses. A few months later, he said he had become “terrified” and had now begged to be allowed back into the Jehovah’s Witnesses. We were not surprised in the slightest. Many people are the victims of this horrendous mind control that will never let them go.

Jews endured millennia of horrific persecutions and expulsions, culminating in the Holocaust. How could anyone continue to believe in Yahweh after he failed to lift a finger to prevent any of this? Can there be any rational basis for belief in Yahweh as a “good”, trustworthy, honourable God who has entered into the holiest, most solemn covenant with his “chosen people”?

This is demonstrably the worst contract in the history of the world; all the more surprising since so many Jews are lawyers. No sane person would continue to abide by it. It was rescinded long ago by the complete failure of one of the parties to honour the agreement. Faithful Jews only believe in Yahweh now as an act of hateful protest against the rest of the world. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion are known to be fakes, but that doesn’t mean the plan doesn’t exist. Some Jews, their elite, will never be satisfied until they have fully avenged themselves against the world. Mammon has replaced Yahweh as their true God. Banks are the synagogues of Mammon. Wall Street is the Third Temple. Money is their new Ark of the Covenant. This isn’t true of all Jews, of course: just the ones who want to dominate the rest of us. The others are entirely innocent.

The early Church leader Tertullian said of Christianity: “It is true because it is absurd. I believe because it is impossible.” That is still the basis of Christianity. Insanity.

People are Christians because they are scared not to be. Imagine having to understand the meaning of life without having Christianity to fall back on, without all of that comforting brainwashing, so deeply ingrained as to become second nature. The Christians are not alone, of course. All of the mainstream religions play the same game. It’s not the “truth value” of these religions that anyone cares about, but the rituals, the comfort, the consolation, the hope and the simplistic means for understanding life that such religions offer i.e. these religions are psychological rather than philosophical. And precisely because of that, they cannot be shaken by “facts”. They are immune to challenge. An atheist such as Richard Dawkins wastes his time trying to debate with them. He has failed to understand that he is attacking their identity and psychology but not offering to replace religion with anything that has any of the same psychological benefit.

Anyone who seeks to topple the false gods must offer better gods. Those who offer the sterile vacuum of atheism can’t succeed. Few people are psychologically capable of maintaining an atheistic mindset. Even the fierce atheist Voltaire supposedly converted to Catholicism on his deathbed.

Illumination, the religion of the Illuminati, is concerned with both the truth and with psychological well-being. The aspect of Illumination that deals with the truth is highly scientific and philosophical, and we shall be outlining it in the coming weeks. This aspect has a specific form. However, the psychological aspect can have whatever form is suitable to prepare the initiate for the more complex aspect. The members of the Illuminati can choose any form of religious devotion they like, and many choose to focus on the ancient gods and rituals of the Greeks, Romans, Celts, Egyptians, Norse, Persians, Babylonians etc. Particularly favoured gods and goddesses are Mithras, Apollo, Aphrodite, Dionysus, Demeter, Ra, Lucifer, Minerva and Janus. None of these is regarded as the “True God” (who is named Abraxas by the Illuminati) but they are all psychologically valuable. No Illuminatus follows any of the gods of the mainstream religions, all of which are children of the Demiurge, psychotic and profoundly damaging psychologically.

While it is vital for any credible religion to be concerned with truth, it is just as important for the psychological aspects of religion to be healthy and inspiring. In this respect, everyone should be free to choose their own gods and rituals. Religions such as the Abrahamic ones that impose rigid, exclusive ways of worship on their followers are obnoxious, oppressive, tyrannical and repellent and ought to be opposed by all decent, thinking people. The Hindus, with their mixture of polytheism for everyday religious devotion and monotheism for their abstract, philosophical thinking, have a far healthier model of religion.

The “Christianity” of Jesus Christ bears no resemblance to the Christianity of Catholicism and Protestantism. Isn’t it time people listened to the truth about Christ? Yet there are many “truths” to be explored. You can have Christ the woman, Christ the gay man, Christ the married man, Christ the pagan, Christ the Jew, Christ the anti-Semite, Christ the man, Christ the god, Christ the man-god, Christ the king, Christ the humble man, Christ the freedom fighter, Christ the magician, Christ the fraud, Christ the whatever you desire him to be. Take your pick.