I dont know what to believe anymore

[elsbet]

It's worth pointing out that Stalin identified anti-Semitism "as a phenomenon deeply hostile to the Soviet system". I don't think the Protocols are purely a fabrication. Just got to keep in mind that the translator, Sergei Nilus, was predisposed to mysticism.

"Even as a boy, Jung found himself drawn to the occult. This would become the root of his break with Freud." Tempted by demons or was he already familiar with it in some past life? I find the latter more plausible...

If I recall, Jung's mother was pretty obsessed with the occult.

 

[Illuminized]

Thank you all for your replies. english is not my first language, so sorry for any mistake. Someone asked what confuses me about the fact those guys were freemasons. I'm just gonna get 2 examples. I always believed that sex is not a sin or a bad thing. It is something that makes part of human nature. But then I opened up my eyes and started to see that everything in world media, from movies scenes to music stars, is all about sex. I know, sex sells. But there is a oversexualixation that is pretty weird. Since I believe that the world is ruled by you-know-who, I started to question my belief and if all this lets have sex all the time ideia it is right. The 20 century it is known for the sex revolution. And those ideas were basead in Freud's new discovery about human mind ande behavior. So were they using Freud 's knowlegde to persuate people to be more sexualy free? And if so, with what purpose?

Overpopulation, so the churches and other exploiters have more customers. It's no coincidence that "sin" is generally tolerated in Catholic circles. The Vatican scandals furnish the best proof of this. Illegitimate births are encouraged while abortion is despised.

Sex isn't the only thing life revolves around of. Sex and money are inseparable concepts.

 

[Illuminized]

I forgot about his Übermensch thing. The superman.

It's true that this concept eventually led to a general disorientation of humanity, but one should not forget that Nietzsche had been a professor of Greek, which is reflected in his early works. By this concept, he was pointing to the Greek heroes and myths.

It's also no coincidence that Nietzsche went insane, a logical consequence of maintaining certain absurdities. The gods first drive insane those whom they wish to destroy. Kant, who even Nazis placed on a pedestal next to Plato and Goethe, does not deserve to be reckoned with the two. His declining health was also the consequence of spreading disorientating ideas. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(97)03202-9/fulltext?version=printerFriendly

 

[Etagloc]

What should I believe in?

 

[Helioform]

By the way, Einstein was also another freemason (unsurprisingly).

Here he is doing the masonic handshake:

 

[Etagloc]

It's true that this concept eventually led to a general disorientation of humanity, but one should not forget that Nietzsche had been a professor of Greek, which is reflected in his early works. By this concept, he was pointing to the Greek heroes and myths.

It's also no coincidence that Nietzsche went insane, a logical consequence of maintaining certain absurdities. The gods first drive insane those whom they wish to destroy. Kant, who even Nazis placed on a pedestal next to Plato and Goethe, does not deserve to be reckoned with the two. His declining health was also the consequence of spreading disorientating ideas. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(97)03202-9/fulltext?version=printerFriendly

Do you even philosophy bro?

Kant is one of the architects of modern philosophy and a great philosopher and a genius. I'm just saying.... read the Critique of Pure Reason. It's real easy to try to talk bad about Kant.... until you open the Critique of Pure Reason and your brain explodes. No one can even claim to know anything about Kant or understand Kant if they haven't read the Critique of Pure Reason.

With Kant, you have to read Critique of Pure Reason, with Hegel it's Phenomenology of Spirit. You can't really talk about them unless you've actually read their work. I don't think anyone here is qualified to talk about them- including me. I know they were geniuses but I don't even claim to understand them.

Before you so casually dismiss Kant- can you really explain Kantian philosophy? Have you actually read the Critique of Pure Reason? I don't think anyone whose read that will so casually just dismiss Kant. His genius is unquestionable. I'm not saying he was right but that he was a genius is seriously unquestionable. I am serious- I use the internet sure but.... internet is the research equivalent of fast food. You cannot seriously talk about Kant unless you've read the Critique of Pure Reason. You can't form conclusions about people like Kant, Hegel, Plato based off the internet.

 

[Lady]

@Helioform
Thanks for providing the images of the variety of handshakes.
The split-fingered one was given to me about 2 years ago at a wedding.
It was extremely strange, as well as painful, because the one going in for the Freemason shake had long, sharp nails (male, btw) which jabbed my hand as I was not prepared for the unusual hand configuration.

 

[Etagloc]

For religious fundamentalist types, it is very easy to assume all the masons must be evil. (not a shot at you, Lady..... I already wrote that before you posted- I don't see you as a fundamentalist)

You can prove such-and-such person was a mason but that doesn't necessarily discredit them. The freemason stuff is complicated.

Do they have super secret ultimate knowledge? I doubt it. Their beliefs are probably not that different than New Age stuff except maybe a fancier.

It is like a club but.... i don't even think they're a single club. I think there are lodges and such.... which are independent of each other.

In any case, I don't think all the masons are necessarily on the same side. If you study masons and history.... I think different masons fought sincerely for totally different sides. I think there are- or at least have been- different sides and factions within these mason groups. Not all the masons were evil.

Plus I don't even think masonry and the secret societies were even originally evil. Look at what happened to Socrates. If you tell the masses too much.... they very likely will kill you and you'll be targeted by the power structure. So if you are Plato or you are like Plato and Socrates..... it would be perfectly logical to form secret societies where you can discuss things without being targeted by elites and masses. I think that was the original purpose of the secret societies- a way to preserve knowledge. They were supposed to be like guardians protecting to society- as Plato described in the Republic. I think Plato and Socrates.... they probably had to do with that stuff but.... I seriously do not believe they were evil. They were trying to preserve knowledge and philosophy.

 

[Lady]

@Etagloc
"I don't think all the masons are necessarily on the same side. If you study masons and history.... I think different masons fought sincerely for totally different sides. I think there are- or at least have been- different sides and factions within these mason groups. Not all the masons were evil."

From what I have read, you are correct in this statement. I think these societies have been hijacked and infiltrated long ago by those with nefarious motives. Who even knows if originally the 33 levels (some say only 32) were part of the structure...

 

[SkepticCat]

@Etagloc
"I don't think all the masons are necessarily on the same side. If you study masons and history.... I think different masons fought sincerely for totally different sides. I think there are- or at least have been- different sides and factions within these mason groups. Not all the masons were evil."

From what I have read, you are correct in this statement. I think these societies have been hijacked and infiltrated long ago by those with nefarious motives. Who even knows if originally the 33 levels (some say only 32) were part of the structure...

I instinctively distrust any sort of 'secret' society. Sure, people can organize however they want - but why? I can see the value in and necessity of secrecy in a time of persecution of free thinkers (inquisition) but in a modern day society surely anybody wishing to 'do well' can - and I daresay even should - do it in the open. The entire tradition of Western thinkers is - said to be, at least - based on laying everything out in the open.

JFK said it verbatim:

I honestly don't get [low-level] Masons... they [naively] join this 'special' club and presumably develop various bizarre traditions, handshakes, greetings etc. It all seems quite childish to me. Does any of these things make any sense if one wants to act as a responsible adult and do good for other people? Why are all these man-made traditions required, and why does everything have to be kept 'secret'? Apparently, belief in 'God' is a requirement for membership of the Masonic orders... but throughout the Western world, at least, this will typically be synonymous with Christianity. Jesus Christ wasn't about secrecy or concealment, but openness - no further than to teach through parables, anyway.

Furthermore, information on the dubious nature of modern Masonry is freely available on the net but apparently goes completely ignored by most Masons... they don't seem to have their wits about them too much and seem to just end up being exploited by these nefarious forces because of that.

I talked to local Masons, these were around 10th degrees in rank... very clear it is just a coffee club to these people, they had no idea about the 'conspiracy theories' surrounding their organisation. I was left with the clear impression there's a complete disconnect between the lower ranks and the higher, just as most here presume.

If your beef is with the education system I totally get that. But I don't get this narrative of blaming a few people and forgetting these things happen everywhere. It's called politics. The Bible is full of it, and the history of your religions are full of it. People want power, they develop bias. It's not always a conspiracy to counter your spirituality. And it doesn't mean Satan was whispering in their ears. Well maybe he was, but I doubt it. Anyway I've seen nothing to convince me that survival of the fittest is wrong.

... and what attitude does the Bible hold towards those seeking 'power' and control over others? It's not positive! Those same power-mongers typically end up facing the wrath of the Almighty. Also, if 'survival of the fittest' is perfectly fine surely then the members of the 'Elite' which have proven themselves highly successful businessmen etc are essentially entitled to keep exploiting the weak - the weak could just stop being so weak, couldn't they? Either I'm misreading you or the logical conclusion to what you are essentially saying here is the 'Elite' isn't really doing anything wrong. If 'survival of the fittest' becomes the rule and the motto, this entire world turns into a gigantic free-for-all every-man-for-himself jungle. That's essentially satanism.

Jung's theories.

Jung was a great admirer of Hitler. Just to point out, again, the dubious nature of the 'Great Wise Men' people are taught about today.

 

[Etagloc]

In any case......

We have to separate two things. I wish I still had The Varieties of Religious Experience by William James.

In any case.... Lenin.

First off the super rabid anti-communists are the modern day descendants of the people who sentenced Socrates to death.

I am totally serious. Look at Salvador Allende. Salvador Allende was a great man and he wanted to free Chile from neocolonialism and advance Chile and Latin America and promote freedom and independence for Latin America. He also was a socialist. He believed in helping the poor and did not believe that capitalism is the answer to everything.

So then the CIA kills him (yes they killed him- I seriously doubt Allende killed himself).

The history of Latin America since the 1800's (since the Monroe Doctrine to be more specific) is.... if a Latin American government refuses to be a US puppet, the US has that government overthrown, has the leader killed and has dissidents murdered and/or tortured.

That is what Venezuela is about. Venezuela is a sovereign, independent nation and the US government has zero respect for the sovereignty of Latin American countries.

Now basically what happened in the case of Allende and others who refused to be US puppets? "Communism!"

Basically if you were a leader of a Latin American country and you refused to be a US puppet.... "Communism!"... then they kill you.

If Socrates and Jesus had lived during the cold war they woukd have been killed for being "communists". That is basically what the rabid anti-communism thing is about.... you threaten the established system.... "communism!".

Okay but what does all this have to do with William James and Lenin?

I will move to Lenin. THIS is an awesome and true book:

Basically the point of this book is independence for third world countries and minorities. That is the bottom line of what he was talking about in the book. Self-determination for minorities.

And then they turn all these causes into boogeymen, into scary monsters. But actually read and study the stuff.... you'll get a very different and much more complicated picture than the right-wing distortion.

For example, all this weird blurring-gender stuff. Right-wingers call it "cultural Marxism". More accurately, maybe it should be called "cultural capitalism". Otherwise- why is it that gay marriage is legal in US but not China or Cuba? Apparently everyone got the memo about "cultural Marxism"... except the actual Marxists.

And why is it that Marxists are generally pro-Palestine? If Marxism is a Jewish conspiracy then shouldn't they be for Israel?

They paint Venezuela as communist.... if Chávez was working for an international Jewish conspiracy, why was he anti-Israel??? He defended Palestine and I can post the footage of him denouncing Israel for it treatment of Palestinians.

The core of what Lenin was talking about was autonomy and self-determination for the "colored races" or whatever they/we are being called these days. That's why Lenin was so influential in the third world and why I consider myself a Leninist. It's not about ended Western hegemony to establish a new hegemony- it's about establishing a multipolar world. And my type of thinking is a threat to people who want to perpetuate hegemony and imperialism. That's what Lenin was about- he gave a whole theoretical system for anti-imperialism and for self-determination. But you'll never hear about that.

Cuba, Venezuela, Vietnam- if you watch Fox I'm sure it will just say "COMMUNISM"..... but if you actually study Ho Chi Minh, Castro, Chávez and listen to their side- they are talking about being anti-colonialism- anti-imperialism- independence for their peoples. Sovereignty. Self-determination.

The book of Exodus.... actually a lot of the Old Testament.... a lot of the OT could be interpreted from a Marxist-Leninist perspective. If Moses had lived during the Cold War, he would have likely been killed for being a Marxist-Leninist.

Another thing is that support for the Palestinians flows logically from a Marxist-Leninist perspective. Lenin was a theorist of anti-imperialism. If you are against imperialism.... you are basically aligned with the boogeyman of Marxism-Leninism quite possibly without even realizing it. That is why you denounce imperialism and advocate self-determination- which is what Lenin was advocating..... read the book for yourself if you don't believe me...... but just don't mention Lenin, though. People have been Pavlovianly-conditioned to have an automatic reaction to "communism". But no one in their right mind supports imperialism or colonialism.

Anyways, I am talking about Lenin because yes I am talking about him because I am interested in his theories of anti-imperialism and self-determination..... but none of this is actually about Lenin or about what this post seems to be about. I am only using all this as a way to illustrate something else.

William James explained in his book I mentioned.... You have two ways of approaching, let's say Kant.

Okay. So you can explain the historical context of Kant's life and the historical aspects. Then there are the ideas. The ideas stand alone.

My point is this..... was Lenin an evil person who worked for an international Jewish conspiracy (by the way this theory was an integral part of Nazi ideology)???

The Jewish conspiracy part I doubt. Was he unnecessarily violent? I have no idea what his personality was like. Revolution is not peaceful... George Washington killed people..... so was Lenin.... blah blah blah. I don't really know the historical stuff about Lenin and I never met him. I have no idea.

But my point is..... all the historical stuff is one aspect and ideas themselves are another aspect.

People who have zero imagination are goinng to think this is all about Lenin- a particular philosopher. This is not about a particular philosopher. I am explaining the method of interpreting philosophy and philosophers.

If we say Jung, Freud, whoever thinker philosopher whoever. Say you just bought a book by Jung and you are reading it.

Your friend says "you idiot! don't you know Jung secretly was an evil guy who worked with the Illuminati" or something. Look......

I am into philosophy. I don't really care to be honest if Jung worked for the Illuminati or for Disney or for Whataburger. That is a historical question. The question for philosophy is.... were his ideas true?

That is the bottom line. Did such and such philosopher work for the Illuminati, blah blah blah........ all that is interesting but that is history. That is not the domain of philosophy. The domain of philosophy is "were their ideas true or not?"- period.

The ideas have a life of their own and no one can really control ideas.

Instead of obsessing over biographies of philosophers- obsess over their ideas. Spoiler alert- philosophers are flawed people. But it's not about the philosopher and their personal life- it's about their ideas.

It doesn't matter- as far as philosophy is concerned- whether Jung was working with the Illuminati. Look.... if I pick up a book by Jung, I don't really care- that's a totally different issue. That's not the point- at least not as far as philosophy is concerned. Focus on the ideas and weigh the ideas on their own merit. That is the only sane approach, in my opinion. You don't judge an idea by the person who says it. Weigh the ideas for themselves. Focus on the ideas, not the person. The ideas stand or fall on their own merit, independently of the person.

 

[Etagloc]

I instinctively distrust any sort of 'secret' society. Sure, people can organize however they want - but why? I can see the value in and necessity of secrecy in a time of persecution of free thinkers (inquisition) but in a modern day society surely anybody wishing to 'do well' can - and I daresay even should - do it in the open. The entire tradition of Western thinkers is - said to be, at least - based on laying everything out in the open.

JFK said it verbatim:

I honestly don't get [low-level] Masons... they [naively] join this 'special' club and presumably develop various bizarre traditions, handshakes, greetings etc. It all seems quite childish to me. Does any of these things make any sense if one wants to act as a responsible adult and do good for other people? Why are all these man-made traditions required, and why does everything have to be kept 'secret'? Apparently, belief in 'God' is a requirement for membership of the Masonic orders... but throughout the Western world, at least, this will typically be synonymous with Christianity. Jesus Christ wasn't about secrecy or concealment, but openness - no further than to teach through parables, anyway.

Furthermore, information on the dubious nature of modern Masonry is freely available on the net but apparently goes completely ignored by most Masons... they don't seem to have their wits about them too much and seem to just end up being exploited by these nefarious forces because of that.

I talked to local Masons, these were around 10th degrees in rank... very clear it is just a coffee club to these people, they had no idea about the 'conspiracy theories' surrounding their organisation. I was left with the clear impression there's a complete disconnect between the lower ranks and the higher, just as most here presume.



... and what attitude does the Bible hold towards those seeking 'power' and control over others? It's not positive! Those same power-mongers typically end up facing the wrath of the Almighty. Also, if 'survival of the fittest' is perfectly fine surely then the members of the 'Elite' which have proven themselves highly successful businessmen etc are essentially entitled to keep exploiting the weak - the weak could just stop being so weak, couldn't they? Either I'm misreading you or the logical conclusion to what you are essentially saying here is the 'Elite' isn't really doing anything wrong. If 'survival of the fittest' becomes the rule and the motto, this entire world turns into a gigantic free-for-all every-man-for-himself jungle. That's essentially satanism.



Jung was a great admirer of Hitler. Just to point out, again, the dubious nature of the 'Great Wise Men' people are taught about today.

Look to be honest, I don't care if Jung admired Hitler. I don't care if Heidegger admired Hitler.

I have Being and Time by Heidegger. I care about "are the ideas true or not?". His personal life is not what interests me. If Jung admired Hitler.... I don't care. Were his ideas true or not? That is the bottom line as far as philosophy is concerned. Whether he liked Hitler, disliked chocolate, preferred silent films or talkies..... that is biographical information. I am interested in his ideas, not his biography. The only reason his biography matters at all to me is insofar as it is a way of understanding his ideas. His theories about the collective unconscious or not rendered valid or invalid by his feelings regarding Hitler, chocolate, silent films, etc.

I have not said anything in any of my posts here saying "elite are not doing anything wrong". I have zero idea how you would get that.

My point is historically there have been people who were freemasons who were not evil.

Wasn't George Washington a freemason? Was he necessarily evil becaue he was a freemason?

I am not telling people run out and join the freemasons. But if you study history, the role they have played in history is not as black-and-white as some would portray. There have been masons who fought against the elite. Not every mason is necessarily working for the elite.

A whole lot of historical figures were freemasons. It doesn't necessarily mean they were evil or secretly working for the elite. I think the real story is way more complicated and not black-and-white.

Me saying we should maybe hold a more nuanced view of the masons as people is not me saying I'm for the elite. I'm just saying we shouldn't see everything as black-and-white and not every historical mason was necessarily evil or an elite pawn. History is more complicated than that.

In any case, how you instinctively feel about secrecy.... that is something subjective and does not weigh on objective reality. You post a JFK quote. JFK was not a saint and in reality he was an imperialist. He worked for an evil system. He was killed but he wasn't a saint.

If people want to get together and have secret groups.... that's their business. It's nothing good or bad in itself. And the masses are still lost and misguided and so it still makes sense for people to discuss some things privately. All that JFK rhetoric about "open society"..... maybe he was sincere about that, maybe not, I have no idea.... but JFK values are not universal values. He worked for an evil system and he himself was not a saint and him saying something doesn't make it a universal value. Revealing too much is not necessarily a good thing.

Those who talk don't know
Those who know don't talk

-Lao Tzu

 

[SkepticCat]

Well, Etagloc... Jung was thrilled to see Hitler 'possessed' and 'channeling the repressed teutonic force of Wotan'... How did all of this 'channeling' turn out, was that something worth repeating, you think?

Also, I have the lowest regard for Communism. It is oppressive, inefficient, tyrannical. Communism is NWO-light. The answer to how society should be ruled has always been, and will always be

it has been the exact same problem plaguing every single system of government right since the beginning: the lack of respect and love for the fellow man. So long as Man behaves generally like an animal and doesn't follow this simple rule he essentially invites in the need for government - and thereby, inevitably, oppression. We would not need nukes, aircraft carriers, policemen, prisons, CCTVs, border patrols - and, quite likely, none of the demented psychiatrists and psych-wards, either - all of this complete, utter insanity we've built up around us - if Men were to follow this rule. It is very simple. We were told this ~2,000 years ago, it still hasn't sunk in.

Don't give me your 'great thinkers', whether they be of this school or that, left wing or right wing. Every single one of them, at the end of the day, is just repackaged BS. History has provided evidence that every single system Man builds will fail in one way or another. Just have people start behaving properly - with a little more compassion, a little more understanding, a little more patience and a little more gratitude and willingness to work for what we have been given - and everything will work out all on its own, guaranteed. We will all get there.

I have not said anything in any of my posts here saying "elite are not doing anything wrong". I have zero idea how you would get that.

That was a reply to what Aero wrote.

 

[Etagloc]

Well, Etagloc... Jung was thrilled to see Hitler 'possessed' and 'channeling the repressed teutonic force of Wotan'... How did all of this 'channeling' turn out, was that something worth repeating, you think?

Also, I have the lowest regard for Communism. It is oppressive, inefficient, tyrannical. Communism is NWO-light. The answer to how society should be ruled has always been, and will always be

it has been the exact same problem plaguing every single system of government right since the beginning: the lack of respect and love for the fellow man. So long as Man behaves generally like an animal and doesn't follow this simple rule he essentially invites in the need for government - and thereby, inevitably, oppression. We would not need nukes, aircraft carriers, policemen, prisons, CCTVs, border patrols - and, quite likely, none of the demented psychiatrists and psych-wards, either - all of this complete, utter insanity we've built up around us - if Men were to follow this rule. It is very simple. We were told this ~2,000 years ago, it still hasn't sunk in.

Don't give me your 'great thinkers', whether they be of this school or that, left wing or right wing. Every single one of them, at the end of the day, is just repacked BS. Just have people start behaving properly and everything will work out all on its own, guaranteed.



That was a reply to what Aero wrote.

Such straw-man argument here lol.

If I criticize imperialism in Palestine, "woo yeah, right on!". If I mention Lenin's critique of imperialism, "COMMUNISM!".

I mean forget about actually studying these ideas. Forget about actually listening to what people have to say. Let's just find ways to totally dismiss ideas without actually studying them.

I just think it's laziness. It's a whole bunch of reasoning to justify why you can just dismiss people out of hand without actual studying their ideas.

Someone mentions Jung's theories about the collective unconscious- "Jung was a Nazi!!!".....

again, it doesn't really matter insofar as ideas are concerned. Were his ideas true or not?

I am sorry but saying "screw Jung- he was a Nazi!!!" is not virtue- it's just laziness. If you don't want to do the actual difficult work of studying philosophy, fine. If you don't want to actually read books and study philosophers and you just want to go off the internet, fine. But don't try to mask laziness as virtue lol.

With someone like Jung, its not about Jung- its about his ideas. If you don't want to do the difficult work of actually reading and studying Jung and weighing his ideas on their own merits, I mean that's fine. But just because you don't want to do the hard work of actually studying Jung and grappling with his ideas, doesn't mean you can just dismiss his ideas out of hand. You more than likely haven't read a single book by Jung. You probably don't even understand his ideas. Don't criticize what you don't understand. If you want to criticize Jung- fine but actually study his work and understand his ideas first.

 

[Etagloc]

@the OP

There are basically two approaches to philosophy. The hard approach and the easy approach.

You want to have knowledge and understanding?

Then actually sit down and read Plato. Sit down and tackle Spinoza. Aristotle. Hegel. Francis Bacon. Kant, etc.

That is the hard approach. It is hard because it is super insanely difficult.

And then you have the other approach.

That's really what it boils down to. It's the same as with exercise. You can take the easy approach and search for a magic pill that will give you overnight results without diet and exercise. Or you can take the hard approach.

So the question for each person is whether they want to take the easy approach or the hard approach. That's really what it boils down to.

 

[Etagloc]

As far as what ultimately to believe..... the spiritual questions and all that....

people these days have time to watch TV yet claim they have no time to read books. It is a matter of laziness.

this book explains the origins of the various religions and such and explains all the religious stuff and gives a framework for understanding the religious stuff and will lead you to how to interpret the scriptures. The book is way too complicated for me to explain on here but it is an easy read and it breaks stuff down into easy pieces so you can put all the pieces together and you can see how it all fits together and you can also see the evidence and how it all fits in with the evidence.

So as far as spiritual questions, I would advise this book. I don't expect anyone to read it but.... for a person who is a spiritually seeking I think it will be deeply satisfying and it gives a great explanation of all the religious stuff and gives you a self-evident framework of how to understand the religious stuff.

https://www.amazon.com/Extra-Dimensional-Universe-Paranormal-Becomes-Normal/dp/1571744460

 

[Helioform]

Pure Communism or Socialism are oppressive and faulty. Socialism leads to Communism and both have the same flaws of showing a benevolent facade while hiding their true side, which is oppression and subjugation.

This was the logo of the Fabian Society, a known socialist organization.

Need I say more? This is a wolf in sheep's clothing for those who cannot see.

It's no wonder that freemasons were and are the originators of the majority of Communist/Socialist movements.

And yes not all masons are evil, of course. The point is not the individual masons, but the structure of their organization which purposely deceives those on the lower levels with a kind of elitist/secretive attitude that is totally despicable. The excuse that they would be persecuted if their true beliefs were exposed is not a valid one. Having read books on Hermeticism, especially the Hermetic principles and their relation with known physical laws, I can say that they are not that controversial. It is only the normal tendency of humans to ignore or attack what is seen as new or different. But no one would be killed for believing these things. We are not in the Middle Ages anymore.

 

[rainerann]

I think we have to embrace truth and it is true that there is evil in the world. We have to be able to embrace it without fear that it can overcome us. In reality, if evil were capable of gaining dominion, people wouldn't have to hide the evil things they did.

 

[rainerann]

Thank you all for your replies. english is not my first language, so sorry for any mistake. Someone asked what confuses me about the fact those guys were freemasons. I'm just gonna get 2 examples. I always believed that sex is not a sin or a bad thing. It is something that makes part of human nature. But then I opened up my eyes and started to see that everything in world media, from movies scenes to music stars, is all about sex. I know, sex sells. But there is a oversexualixation that is pretty weird. Since I believe that the world is ruled by you-know-who, I started to question my belief and if all this lets have sex all the time ideia it is right. The 20 century it is known for the sex revolution. And those ideas were basead in Freud's new discovery about human mind ande behavior. So were they using Freud 's knowlegde to persuate people to be more sexualy free? And if so, with what purpose?

I honestly don't consider Freud to be much of a threat. He had some good ideas, but many of his ideas have been challenged since and replaced with a modern counterpart. Therefore, I would Freud is a rather interesting historical figure that does provide some interesting insight.

Freud practiced during a time when a French neurologist named Charcot was studying hysteria. I think it is possible that Charcot's method of experimentation would probably not go over well. In some cases, his subjects seemed to be treated more like lab rats than humans.

Freud actually found that hysteria was likely caused by premature sexual experiences according to the research of Judith Herman in a book titled Trauma and Recovery. She says that he was pressured to change his conclusion, so I wonder whether Freud was really any kind of real threat as far as the quest for power goes. There were possible some more unrecognized characters throughout history that were greater threats to humanity and the quest for power. However, someone can have evil intentions or be careless in their treatment of other people and have nothing to do with the Illuminati whatsoever.

So it is good to know someone like Freud because it often helps serve as a basis for comparison with other figures that don't get as much attention.

Personally, I think Kinsey was way more offensive and more than likely connected to a larger power structure than Freud was. It is said that Kinsey hired pedophiles and gave them surveys to fill out while they were molesting children. He had them determine the response of the child. This conclusion led to lie that when premature sexual experiences take place, that they don't have a harmful effect because apparently, the pedophiles didn't think the child "looked" traumatized after they were molested. Completely sick.

Overall, it is worth pursuing an understanding of these people because it can help increase discerning who can be trusted. Finding people that can be trusted is something that is very beneficial in this day and age.

 

[Devine]

I've been reading about Illuminati since 2011. But Just now I've realized that most of the philosophers and pretty much all the thinkers from the 18 and 19 century were freemasons. Or some of them were inside ocultism like Jung. Name any thinker from Europe, from Rousseau to Freud. What should I believe in? Can we trust those guys? Were they working with Illuminati project to destroy human civilization and makes all confused? Or am I Just Being nuts?

don't trust em. screw em. you can be your own philosopher your own thoughts are just as good as theirs