Contempt

Passages

Every passage tagged with this emotion in the Vela corpus. Search the body text, narrow by source or register, click through to a book’s profile to see how the passage sits with the rest of the work.

Page 189 of 253 · 20 per page

• From Deceptions and Myths of the Bible (1975)

  And when they (the wise men) were departed, behold, the angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dream, saying, Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and flee into Egypt, and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him (Chap. 2). If Jesus’ omnipotent Father could save all Israel at the Red Sea, could he not have saved one little infant without sending him all the way to Egypt? And if this infant was destined to come, could any human agent have prevented it? It sounds too much like mythic formula to be anything else. Every Creation myth has its opposive matter trying to destroy the spirit principle. In Judea it was Herod seeking to destroy Jesus, and in Egypt it was Herut seeking to destroy Horus, and the latter is the source of the former. In the Old Testament, even God tried to kill Moses, in the inn, the same inn we now find Jesus in, namely, Involution. Saul sought to kill David, and Pharaoh the infant Moses. And like Pharaoh, Herod slew the innocents when he failed to find this Moses of the New Testament. He did not slay all the “innocents,” however; he missed the future Christians. In Revelation it is the great Dragon, matter, that would destroy the child of the woman “clothed with the sun.” In Greece it was Python, the serpent, who threatened Apollo, and in India, Kansa, who sought to destroy Krishna. In the latter country, all savior destroyers are called “the devourer of the young in the egg”—the “mundane egg,” or world seed. This is natural generation and fact, and “the Queen of Sciences” destroyed it. But the authors secretly using its process had to get Jesus down to Egypt, earth, and so we read: 14. When he arose, he took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt (Chap. 2). No doubt you’ve seen pictures of these three on their way— and it’s a long way from Bethlehem to Egypt. Would Mary be capable of such a journey so soon? Joseph walked hundreds of miles but she rode on an ass. And no doubt she came to Bethlehem the same way. Would any sane man subject his wife, so near delivery, to the jolting back of an ass? No, this is just part of the asinine story. Curious is it not, how much Jewish history (?) is bound up with Egypt? The Old Testament tells us that Jacob begat a Joseph who went down into Egypt, and the New tells us of another Jacob who begat another Joseph who also went down to Egypt.

• From Another Country (1962)

  Cass turned again toward the dance floor, watching Ida and Ellis. The light was still as bright, the floor somewhat more crowded; the juke box blared. There was a vast amount of cunning, conscious or not, in Ida’s choice of a costume for the place. She wore a very simple pale orange dress, and flat shoes, and very little make-up; and her hair, which was usually piled high, was pulled back tonight and held tightly in a severe, old-maidish bun. Therefore, she looked even younger than she was, almost like a very young girl; and the effect of this was to make Ellis, who was so much shorter than she, look older than he was, and more corrupt. They became an odd and unprecedented beauty and the beast up there; and, for the first time consciously, Cass wondered about their real relationship to one another. Ida had said that she did not want Vivaldo “bugged” by any of the musicians; but she had not come to meet any musicians. She had come to meet Ellis. And she had brought Cass along as a kind of smoke screen—and she and Ellis could not have met often in public before. In private then? And she wondered about this as she watched them. Their dance, which was slow and should have been fluid, was awkward and dry and full of hesitations. She was holding him at bay, he could not lead her; yet, she was holding him fast. “I wonder if his wife knows where he is.” Mrs. Nash again, sotto voce, to her husband, with a small, smug smile. Cass thought of Vivaldo, then thought of Richard, and immediately hated Mrs. Nash. You evil-minded whore, she thought, and broke the table’s uneasy silence by saying, “Mrs. Ellis and Miss Scott have known each other for quite a long time, long before Mrs. Ellis’s marriage.” Why did I say that? she wondered. She can easily find out if I’m lying. She looked steadily at Mrs. Nash, making no attempt to hide her dislike. She won’t, though. She hasn’t got the wit or the guts. Mrs. Nash looked at Cass with that absolutely infuriating superciliousness achieved only by chambermaids who have lately become great ladies. “How strange that is,” she murmured. “Not at all,” Cass said, recklessly, “they both worked in the same factory.” Mrs. Nash watched her, the faintest tremor occurring somewhere around her upper lip. Cass smiled and looked briefly at Mr. Nash. “Did you and your wife meet in Belfast?” “No,” said Mr. Nash, smiling—and Cass felt, with a surge of amusement and horror, how much his wife despised him at that moment—“we met in Dublin, while I was there on a business trip.” He took his wife’s limp hand. Her pale eyes did not move, her pale face did not change. “The most important trip I ever made.”

• From Deceptions and Myths of the Bible (1975)

  The Septuagint renders it thus: “For I know that he is eternal who is about to deliver me on earth: to restore this skin of mine which endureth these things.” Job, a personification of life afflicted with materiality, was speaking only of the evolutionary process that would someday lift him up and make him whole again. Thus he says: 19. He shall deliver thee in six troubles (planes): yea, in seven there shall no evil touch thee (end of Evolution; Chap. 5). This is salvation of the whole, not the part. He who is a man will accept it and make the best of it. He will see life as an inexorable necessity, the genetic cause of which sees not the epigenetic’s pains and sufferings, hopes and aspirations. He will see also that there is no short cut to salvation through supernatural gods and saviors, but that Evolution alone can compensate for what Involution has done. Involution and Evolution—this is the entire esoteric content of the Old Testament, concealed and yet immortalized by mythology, the wisdom-knowledge of the entire ancient world, subsequently theologized for priestly purpose. And so we will leave this book of borrowed mythology with this expression of Western man’s ignorance of it, and also of God. “In order to understand mythology we must imagine a race of people who had no divine revelation as to the origin of mankind, animals, earth, sun, moon and stars. The Israelites were the only race to whom this knowledge was given, consequently they are the only people who have no myths.” A. Holman, in The Zodiac . They had nothing else, and, what is more, their myths were not their own; they were but plagiarized versions of older races’ knowledge of Causation and Creation. This, through substitution of their own false God-concept, they perverted and destroyed. They had no prophets inspired by God to foretell the future, including a Savior; they had only priests garbling events some billions of years in the past, namely, Creation and its inevitable sequel Evolution. We do not claim to be prophets, but we can do better than that; we can prophesy before the event, not after. We can prophesy that within the next few decades the entire Bible, Old and New, will be exposed for the priestly fraud that it is. We can prophesy that the race will realize that the Jews, instead of being the most spiritually enlightened of all the ancient races, were the most fanatically wrong; that in their ignorance of Causation, they gave to a ruthless principle an awesome majesty and thereby set benighted Western man to worshiping it instead of using this time to conquer the awesome deviltry of this principle within himself. This alone explains man’s evil, not “original sin” but original source. The mistake the subsequent Jews made was that of believing their mythology, literally. The Greeks were not so gullible. So let us see the difference between the Hebrew mythologists and the pagan ones.

• From Deceptions and Myths of the Bible (1975)

  This we say is a myth but Elijah’s story is “the word of God.” Do you not see how the art of “sacred literature” has deceived us? In both cases the fire is but the fire of life, brought down in Involution and carried up again in Evolution. Why then is one profane myth and the other “sacred literature”? The tragedy of the Piscean Age lies in our ignorance of the former and our faith in the latter. While he lived, this God of fire destroyed besides all the priests of Baal, two companies of fifty innocent messengers sent him by King Ahaziah. Addressed as “thou man of God,” he answered them thus: “If I be a man of God, then let fire come down from heaven, and consume him and his fifty” (2 Kings 1:10). And again some five hundred million of us believe this Elijah was a just and holy man. Not even John Neanderthal would be so monstrously cruel as Elijah—or so credulous as we. We can’t even see what “a man of God” is like, or draw the conclusion that God is like his man. To Satan we attribute every cruelty, crime and evil, but nowhere do we find a Satan as satanic as the God of the Old Testament. Where then is its God of love and mercy? We have examined some ten or twelve of its books and nowhere have we found a trace of him. The reason is because he exists only where there is ignorance of Reality. All down the ages man has been telling man what kind of a God, God is, and yet with all his endless theories no word has come from that vast silence to tell him which is right. To me that silence has a meaning, and that meaning is just this—there’s nothing there to answer. All that could or would answer is man-made and evolutionary. ElishaElisha is the evolutionary aspect of the involutionary Elijah; he is therefore one with Moses and Joshua, and as such repeats their miracles. 14. And he took the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and smote the waters, and said, Where is the Lord God of Elijah? and when he also had smitten the waters, they parted hither and thither: and Elisha went over (2 Kings, Chap. 2). Only the spiritually blind can believe this literally; only the metaphysically ignorant can miss its cosmological meaning. 23. And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. 24. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and ate forty and two children of them (Chap. 2). What tolerant people these men of God were!

• From Deceptions and Myths of the Bible (1975)

  These are creations of the third and fourth centuries, and what they subsequently became was but what their founders made out of their pagan source material. That what they made was all based on ignorance of that material’s occult meaning is a reflection on their intelligence. The question then arises, How did it happen that so soon after the pre-Christian age of enlightenment, the mental level sank so low that this purely mythical Christ could be accepted as a historical person and a basis for a new religion? By the third century all the science, philosophy and mythology of Greece had disappeared, mostly in flames. Rome was now the dominant power, but the Romans were not like the Greeks. They lacked the Hellenic love of learning; they had no use for philosophy; in fact they drove out the philosophers. Power was their god and conquest their vocation. And so when the Empire declined and finally fell, they had no inner light to guide them, no inner strength to sustain them. While a few intellectuals remained, the masses were sunk in abysmal ignorance, poverty and want. So they too “fell”—for the priestly hoax. In this lies another contributing factor, not fully realized today—the economic one. All mass movements are security inspired, and make no mistake this played its part in Christianity. The masses are always more interested in bread than philosophy, especially masses that have never known philosophy. So, as Roman prosperity vanished the masses found themselves in desperate straits; they were, like us after the Depression, ripe for a “New Deal.” Christianity offered it; the hungry masses accepted it. Christianity was the Communism of that day, and the Christians were its “subversives.” Today, the inquisitor’s query is, “Are you or were you ever a Communist?” In those days, it was, as Pliny tells us, “Are you or were you ever a Christian?” Until then the Romans scoffed at all religions, but when religious fanaticism was added to material need, the “subversives” became defiant, rebellious and even incendiary. Naturally they “were punished, not for their incendiarism but because they brought down upon themselves the hatred of mankind.” And these were the noble martyrs we’ve been hearing about ever since. This is the social and economic context of Christianity, and all unbiased commentators recognize it, but there is still another none of them recognize because Christianity robbed them of all such knowledge. This is the cosmic context. The first century or thereabouts was the beginning of the so-called Piscean Age, whose nether opposite, Libra, as we made it, is the nadir of the Zodiacal Night. Its influence is materialistic and its product, spiritual blindness. To this must be added Western man’s incapacity for abstract thought, still with us. It was the coincidence of these three factors mentioned here that furnished the mental soil for Christianity, see last chapter also. Only the spiritual ignorance they jointly produced can account for the acceptance of a mythic symbol as a divine epiphany.

• From Deceptions and Myths of the Bible (1975)

  It is the life-energy and thus the life and light of all things. And if you would know its pre-Christian name and nature, it is Lucifer. This light shone in that darkness we called the Absolute; this, John tells us but being theistically misinformed he does not tell us that this “light” did not comprehend itself—and therein hangs the whole fallacy of religion. He makes it appear, or so we have interpreted it, that the human mind is the incom-prehending darkness, incapable of recognizing the divine nature of Christ. Being, in plain words, ignorant of the human source of divine qualities, he attributes them wholly to God and Christ, thus denying man the credit for them. And such is Christian teaching today. John’s first words are about the Creative Principle, and to what else can his last words apply? “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written” (21:25). Said of a man whçse works covered but three years, this is sheer nonsense, but said of the Creative Principle, it is “gospel truth,” for all the books that are and were and ever shall be, are of its works. If then John’s first and last words are of the Creative Principle, why not those in between? It is the devilish perversion of this that we condemn, not the moral teaching. All religions have good moral teachings, but religion is a duality—a morality to live by and a philosophy to think by. Today most people know that the philosophy of Christianity is false and so have thrown out the morality with it. This is because the philosophy is incapable of enlightening them sufficiently to distinguish the good from the bad. These two must be separated that the good may survive. But what shall we put in the place of the bad? The legitimate partner of morality is that which the false philosophy destroyed, namely, the wisdom-knowledge of Reality, as taught in the Schools of the Mysteries— destroyed by the Christians. With this we would be so enlightened we could practice the morality. This would not be religion but ethics, morality practiced instead of preached. Esoterically, the Gospels are this knowledge then known as the Gnosis, but so ignorant of the latter’s nature are our theologians, they write of it thus: “The great menace, in fact of Gnosticism, was its refusal to remain outside of Christianity. It fastened itself as a parasite upon the Christian faith, drawing substance from it and at the same time robbing it of its individual character and vitality.” This is a sample of the later inversion and perversion of facts: Christianity was the parasite drawing its substance from Gnosticism, not vice versa. And instead of refusing to remain outside of Christianity, Gnosticism refused to remain in it, after its perversion.

• From Deceptions and Myths of the Bible (1975)

  Morally and socially the New differs from the Old and the reason lies in the change that had taken place in its authors. Prior to their contact with pagan philosophy the Jews were a race of bigots: no one could live in their midst who did not adhere to their narrow creed; no one not a Jew was considered worthy of Jehovah’s interest. Contact with cosmopolitan minds changed them. They saw now the social inadequacy of their narrow, sectarian creed; they drew the logical conclusion from Zion’s fall and Israel’s flight—they were not the one and only concern of the Almighty. Jehovah was still their God but He was now the God of all mankind; Messiah was still their hope and now they would present him to the world, not just Israel. And so the religious genius of the race set to work again, and with the aid of the new social consciousness it gave to the world its noblest code of ethics. But alas, alas, Satan came also—the false theology of the race. This is the Jewish “shibboleth” and now it catches them again, for though the wisdom of their work is wondrous, it is not that of a Christ, but only that of man with a touch of Christ consciousness. And lacking this more fully, it created a Christ with all its own false concepts—divine source, moral perfection, and in spite of this, a Son thereof who did not know the genesis of the world or of man’s moral and ethical qualities. Many antireligionists have tried to demolish this exalted being but none have brought the charge of ignorance against him, and for an obvious reason—they lacked the knowledge to discern his errors. Yet this is the only effective approach, and only when the race acquires knowledge superior to his, will it escape enslavement to a superstition. Semienlightened Gnostic Jews created the Christ of the Gospels, but they did not intend their Christ to be taken literally, not at least by the initiated. They were presenting an ideal, a model to be copied, but they did not reckon with the ignorant Gentile literalists who were to follow them. These seized upon the Gnostics’ symbolic writings and reduced them to a literal and historic basis—the greatest error of the Piscean age. With this humanization of their ideal, the Jews would have naught to do, hence their rejection of a historical Christ. This occurred years subsequent, the rejection in the Gospels being but part of the symbolic story. In other words, the Jews did not reject the scriptural Christ, but only the Christ of the Gentile Church. In this they acted wisely and right; Christs belong to mythology and the wiser Jews knew it. Then let’s hear no more the cry of “Christ-killers”; the Jews did not kill Christ; they created him. The Gentiles were the ones who killed the Jewish Christ—an occult symbol. This required a state of spiritual ignorance unparalleled in human history.

• From Deceptions and Myths of the Bible (1975)

  It is not likely the Jews of that time ever had a ship larger than a coastal fishing smack, and it is less likely they ever had a great kingdom, king or temple. They were a small, weak pastoral people; even their country’s name derives from this fact: Palestine, from pali , shepherd, and s’tban , land. And it wasn’t even theirs; according to Winston, already quoted, their part consisted “only of Jerusalem and the country immediately around its walls.” From this he concluded “there was no room for a Jewish king, and the leadership of the people devolved on its religious head, the hereditary high priest.” This was their king and his rulership the purpose of the priestly hoax. Just as their priests reduced the world to a little Judean temple, so they reduced the sublime story of Creation to a racial epic, and all to glorify themselves. The ingenuity with which they accomplished this is nothing short of diabolical. If you require proof of the devil’s existence, it is here. But have no fear of him; he is only a priest. But a priest with a deadly purpose—to cripple reason and reduce the race to priestly servitude. And how wonderfully he succeeded! Not even our empirical scientists are immune to it. An eminent archeologist begins his examination of the evidence for these scriptural buildings thus: “Concerning the building of Solomon’s palace and the temple there can be no doubt, for the Bible contains accounts of these.” Precisely, the Bible says thus and so; therefore it must be true. This is using the false to prove the false is true. But to continue from the same source: “We shall take as evidence of the plan and situation of the buildings the Biblical writers who had seen them.” Even so, he has to admit that “we are at the start confronted, however, with a difficulty, since no Bible writer has given us an exact statement as to what part of the hill Solomon’s temple occupied.” No indeed; they were too clever for that. And so our scholars have argued for centuries over the precise spot, some asserting it was on the east side of Jerusalem, some on the west. To quote again: “A few modern writers still insist that the ‘city of David’ was on the western hill, which since 333 A.D. has been called Zion. This, as most scholars have seen, is an impossible view. Solomon built a palace for Pharaoh’s daughter near his own on the temple hill, and when she moved into it, she went up out of the city of David (1 Kings 9:24). As the western hill is higher than the eastern, she must have gone from a point on the eastern hill lower than the temple. When the temple was completed, Solomon brought the ark up from the city of David to the holy of holies in the new temple (2 Chron.

• From Talk Dirty to Me: An Intimate Philosophy of Sex (1994)

  As for men, the same author blames drugs and alcohol: “Narcotics, such as opium, mescaline, heroin and other dangerous drugs will arouse a man sexually far beyond his normal needs.” He recommends sports, travel, and sedatives, and cautions against masturbation. “No autoerotic indulgence is entirely normal. It is best that they all be avoided. A more practical solution is for an oversexed man to marry an oversexed woman, but this is much easier said than done.” Prudery is essentially contempt. The prudish view is one of the human as permanently immature, of all people as children, or, more precisely, morons—malleable, easily led, unreliable. If it’s not sex, then it will be alcohol or gambling or other temptations that will lead us astray from our proper course. The life we should lead is never seen as a temptation; the desire to do right, make a family, have a career, or serve others is never tempting enough to hold us in the face of other, more immediately satisfying pleasures. Sex and its expressions, like pornography, are drugs. One taste leads to the next; soft-core leads to hard. And think what hard-core leads to. Watching my first adult movie, watching, for the first time, a man penetrate another woman, was like leaving my body all at once. I was outside my body, watching, because she on the screen above me was me; and then I was back in my body very much indeed. My lust was aroused as surely and uncontrollably by the sight of sex as hunger can be roused by the smell of food. I know how naive this sounds now, but I had never quite believed, until I saw it, that the sex in such films was real, that people fucked in front of cameras, eyes open. I found it a great shock because it told me how many different things sex could mean to other people than it had yet meant to me. Suddenly I had to see sex as both bigger and smaller than I had before. I didn’t, contrary to certain predictions, then leave home and hearth for a life of degradation. I probably didn’t even have sex that night; the experience was too confusing to be that simply solved. Desire isn’t necessarily pleasant at all, and rarely pure.

• From Talk Dirty to Me: An Intimate Philosophy of Sex (1994)

  Ancient phallic symbols are the ultimate father figure, God as Penis. But even mighty symbols fall. In Japanese porn, women give blowjobs to vibrators and dildos while a commanding male watches. His own erection is banned from the screen. The penis may sometimes be a phallus, but a phallus is certainly not always a penis. Masters and Johnson used dildos in their research, but they called them “penises,” without a wink. A man whose lover keeps a dildo under the bed can feel at least two ways about the thing: pleased she wants what seems to be a version of himself around all the time, or disturbed that of all things, his penis can be so casually detached. The phallus counts because no one has one. (At least, not one big enough. Phalluses can never be too big.) All that is worst in society is due to the penis envy of men and their penchant for building bigger and better pricks, long things that go fast and then blow up. The scorn of women doesn’t help, I suppose, but it’s hard to resist in the face of a few eons of male violence. A friend tells me a joke: “What’s that ugly piece of flesh at the end of the penis called?” “A man.” I tell the joke to every man I know, and, funny enough, none of them laugh half so hard as I do. Penis envy isn’t about pricks; sometimes I wonder if men understand this as well as women do. Penis envy is about something bigger, darker, more amorphous, more instructive than the body alone. We dress up in various symbolic ways to confuse and confound others into thinking we do have one after all, a real phallus—that is, power over others, potent and permanently erect. The penis can be cute, it can be arousing, it can be of great use, but it’s not a wildly dangerous-looking thing; it’s not a locomotive or submarine or rocket. It’s not as dangerous looking as a vagina, the moist, dark cave out of which new people come, into which goes appetite, appetite almost ceaseless. Now that’s a phallus for you, one little symbolized, and always desired. According to the Navahos, First Man brought many kinds of good food to First Woman, until she was happy and very fat. One night after the meal, First Woman touched herself between her legs and said, “Thanks, my vagina.” This made First Man angry. After all, he had killed the buck. Shouldn’t he get the thanks? First Woman agreed he’d done the work—but, she pointed out, the only reason he’d gone to all that trouble in the first place was because he wanted her to let him use her vagina.

• From Deceptions and Myths of the Bible (1975)

  O what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive. WALTER SCOTT 8. And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. 9. And lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid (Luke, Chap. 2). They must have been very cold also in late December. And why should sheep be out in the fields at that time? It snows in Palestine. 13. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, 14. Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men (Chap. 2). To the Christian masses this celestial demonstration occurred only at the birth of Christ, yet when Confucius was born “his mother heard celestial music and a voice of benediction from the sky. The child was saluted as a throneless king.” Atkins.1 And of Buddha, historical or not, it was said, “His mother (Maia) foresaw his conception in a dream, and at the moment of its occurrence the universe blossomed like a garden, the dumb spoke and heavenly music filled the air. His mother’s side became as crystal through which the divine babe could be always seen while all the hosts of heaven guarded her city and her palace. Celestial spirits attended her delivery, the trees of an enchanted garden bent down their branches to shelter her. . .” Again, Atkins.2 Such stories were also told of Noah and Moses, and even today they are repeated for each Dalai Lama of Tibet. “Whenever he is born trees and plants put forth green leaves; at his bidding flowers bloom and springs of water rise and his presence diffuses heavenly blessings.” Frazer. This is the language of mythology, in other words, Creation allegorized. So is the story of the Magi, their “gold, frankincense and myrrh.” This too is assumed to be unique, yet when Socrates was born, 469 B.C., “Magi came from the east to offer gifts at Socrates’ birth, also bringing gold, frankincense and myrrh” (The Anacalypsis) . At the birth of Krishna, 1200 B.C., “angels, shepherds and the prophets attended, gold, frankincense and myrrh were brought to him.” And when Confucius was born in 598 B.C., “Five wise men from a distance came to the house, celestial music was heard in the skies and angels attended the scene” (The Five Volumes) . Magi also attended the birth of Mithra, Zoroaster, and Osiris. Thus Magi, gold, frankincense, and myrrh are standard mythic equipment, so also angels, shepherds, and celestial music. Yet mythology contains deep and profound meanings for those who can see them. It also explains mysteries, and here it explains one no saint or savant has ever solved. 9.

• From Deceptions and Myths of the Bible (1975)

  This is the key to the kingdom forms but what, you ask, has it to do with understanding the Bible? For want of such knowledge an entire section of this book has been misunderstood for two thousand years and today we’re making fools of ourselves over it. Cosmic FormsIn spite of our so-called enlightenment millions still believe God controls the weather, when actually it is the sun. Even climate is due solely to the relationship of the sun and earth. In like manner, millions believe God created the world, when again it was a sun, but not our sun nor as science presents it. A sun is a transmuter of cosmic energy into chemical matter— that aforesaid congealed energy. Up to this point the creative process is an invisible one and so quite unknown and unrecognized today; from here on there is another, a visible and obvious one, as little known and recognized as its antecedent, namely sun, planet, moon, asteroid, etc. These various cosmic bodies, wholly dissociate in our minds, are not different species in a divine economy, but only different stages in the one purposive process—the making of a life-bearing planet. This is the goal of all cosmic bodies, and every one of them is either this, a priori or subsequent to. In this a sun constitutes the higher subdivision of the seventh plane, and its work is that of transforming the primal gas into the many, and finally their mineral compounds—the homogeneous into the heterogeneous as in the beginning. In this way the sun is laying down within itself the physical basis of a future planet. The process is that of fusion and by means of it the elements in the atomic table are created. These contain the life-force and the life-bearing period of a planet is one with the time it takes for them to radiate themselves away. When released they become the planetary aura, the energy substantive of biologic forms, and as their vibration rises, so does life. By the end of Evolution they stand in inverse order identical with those in Involution. And as the three highest there were spirit, so we must assume the three highest in Evolution will be likewise. Here man will be a spirit being with all the knowledge, wisdom and power that evolution affords. Thus does he, himself, create what he imagined his Creator to be—Omega not Alpha, and the scriptural error is as vast as the invo-evolutionary process. [image "image" file=Image00002.jpg] A sun is a cosmic crucible in which that cross called matter is made, in other words, a transmuter of cosmic energy—a fact known thousands of years ago and also reduced to a myth: “Prometheus was the first to transmute atoms fit for human clay.” Horace. And Prometheus, who stole fire from heaven and brought it down to earth, is but solar fire personified. Here that fire is imprisoned in matter.

• From Deceptions and Myths of the Bible (1975)

  And what about these gods that Laban thought so much of? We thought the Jews were monotheists from Abraham on. All this, however, is but Jacob’s voice; let us see what is in Esau’s hand. These people represent the Creative Principle, therefore the images that Rachel took were those of the Creator, namely, the archetypal forms. These, as symbolized by her act, were carried downward, hidden in the carrier’s furniture, the planetary genes. This is why Laban did nothing to the culprits; on the contrary, he said, “I have learned by experience that the Lord hath blessed me for thy sake.” And did we not say that the Creator had to learn by experience? We did, and so did the Greeks—Prometheus, pre, or involutionary, learning. And in Evolution he’s been learning for billions of years, and he doesn’t know yet how to make a perfect being. We’ve been long in getting around to this “divine authority” for our statement, but here it is. So with our other statements; they are all here in “God’s word,” but you have to know them before you can see them . And now we find that Jacob is a coward also. On learning that Esau is coming against him, he divides his flock and also his family and servants. The latter, he puts in front as a shield, his wives and children next, while he stays behind to pray for safety. And this is the man whom God chose to father his “chosen people.” Not in all pagan mythology can you find so despicable a character; only Joshua’s God outdoes him. Yet the Jhwhist is right and the rest are wrong. It is he who gives us the true nature of the Creative Principle, and we here repeat, sinful Adam, murderous Cain, drunken Noah, and thieving Jacob—in other words, non-moral nature; the rest is priestly deception. Antedating the priests by centuries, the Jhwhist accords with the prehistoric Greeks, and just as mythology recedes from their time does it become “crooked and deceitful from the bottom.” In due time, A.D. and the New Testament, it doesn’t make sense at all. Chapter 34 carries on the murderous process. Hamor the Hivite and his sons invite Jacob and his tribe to live with them. This they will do only if the Hivites are circumcised like them. In spite of the racial insolence and the covenant being only with Abraham and his descendants, the host agrees, and while they are sore, Simeon and Levi, Jacob’s sons, murder them and take their possessions. The cause of it all was Hamor’s son Shechem, who we later learn is a country. This was not just murder; it was war. Though not the first, one would think that a moral God would have punished the whole vicious lot of them; but no, He immediately appears to Jacob, blesses him again and promises him the world. A strange kind of God this! A blesser of murderers, a supporter of thieves.

• From Deceptions and Myths of the Bible (1975)

  And his disciples came to him, and awoke him, saying, Lord, save us: we perish. 26. And he said unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm. The rest is found in chapter 14, probably the same story by a different author, which proves the book is not all Matthew’s. 25. And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea. 26. And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear. 27. But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid. 28. And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water. 29. And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus. It takes a lot of ignorance to believe this literally, yet, literally, millions do. And then we wonder what’s wrong with our world. What better world would you expect of such ignorance? We will not say that man cannot and never will walk on water; he has powers and possibilities as yet undreamed of, but if this feat is ever accomplished it will be by powers he himself develops in Evolution, and not by powers given him by gods and saviors. The latter is but personification—a factor that has done more harm to truth than all the sinners in history. It is but Noah and the ark, Jonah and the whale all over again. “But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be” (Matt. 24:37). “For as Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation” (Luke 11:30). “For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly,” etc. The tempest is the Deluge, and the ship, the ark; the water-walking Jesus and Peter, creative consciousness and energy. What an outrage then to hold up to us the idea that with faith enough we too can walk on water, remove mountains, and so on. The faith implied here is not human faith at all; it is the Cosmo-creator’s. Yet because of these scriptural deceptions, we repeat, fools refuse medical aid and even let serpents bite them. Here out of ignorance we misapply the moral. Jesus walking on the water is but “the spirit of God” moving “upon the face of the waters,” the Old Testament precedent. You will recall our reference to another Creator who tried to make a world out of the turbulentos , turbulent elements. Here in this “fourth watch” of the involutionary “night” they are indeed turbulent, and only the Creator can control them.

• From Deceptions and Myths of the Bible (1975)

  We don’t because we have been taught one is pagan myth, the other “the word of God.” Such is the power of priestly diabolism. It has blinded us all, including the clergy. These tell us “the revealed truth” of the Bible is all the spiritual literature we need, yet without the literature of other races we cannot understand the Bible. So, we here repeat, our great need is to have this “revealed truth” revealed. Because of this “revealed truth” millions believe that Moses divided the Red Sea and led all Israel through it dry-shod. The rationalists doubt but do not deny and so, like Strabo, they try to explain it on natural grounds. The name is wrong, they say; it should be the Reed Sea, a shallow, swampy place much farther north. This makes a physical crossing possible and so literalism is satisfied. It does not make sense, however, either mythologically or cosmologically, whereas Red Sea does: it is the red earth through which the Life Principle passed. The Red Sea is one with Adam, red earth. The wilderness beyond is the savage lower planes in Evolution, through which this life force must struggle to reach the Promised Land, the higher, and someday spiritualized, planes. This is our Promised Land, and we will spiritualize it. The forty years, the four material cycles, is the time given us to reach this man-made heaven. These forty correspond with the forty days of the Deluge and together constitute those antiscians , or shadowy opposites. This is Exodus, a wholly uncomprehended book. In proof thereof let us quote from one of our professors of “Biblical Literature and Religion.” “The culminating incident of the Exodus was the crossing of the Red Sea. That this was accomplished miraculously, is a matter of clear history.” And what is this “clear history”? The Bible, of course, three times over. “The record furnishes us with the facts in triplicate narrative.” Therefore it must be true. But to continue: “True there is the admission that, up to the present time no direct reference to the Exodus has been found among the Egyptian inscriptions.” And then follows the credulous reason: “Such silence causes no surprise; it is the expected silence of a proud and contemptuous people regarding an event of humiliating circumstances.” This represents modern enlightenment concerning Causation, Truth and Reality, and then we wonder what’s wrong with us morally. Morals, like faith, are the evidence of things not seen, namely, consciousness, enlightenment, wisdom. These our spiritual leaders cannot give us, because they haven’t them to give. Our rabbis, priests and ministers are but “innocents abroad” in an occult world. The scriptures are to them as the Egyptian hieroglyphics before the Rosetta Stone. There is no end to the explanations these apologists find to prove the historicity of Hebrew mythology; they must prove it lest their own house of cards come tumbling down. In this extremity they sometimes refer to the Tell-el-Amarna tablets, dating from the alleged captivity period.

• From Talk Dirty to Me: An Intimate Philosophy of Sex (1994)

  [image file=image_rsrc10D.jpg] The working reality of prostitution is far outside the stereotypes most people have, except for this one: Most prostitutes are in the business for the money, which is often quite good and sometimes shockingly so. Otherwise, nothing is as might be expected. COYOTE’s statistics seem to indicate that most women begin doing sex work in their twenties and thirties rather than their teens, as many people assume. (Criminalization of prostitution and the stigma attached certainly makes it much harder to identify and protect teens who are in sex work and divert them into education and other kinds of help.) Many women in the business say that about half of working women are lesbians or bisexual. Everyone has a pet theory for this, or else no theory at all. Perhaps heterosexual sex is a detached experience for many lesbians, and concern with emotional relationships undistracting; perhaps the community of women within which prostitutes can work is emotionally attractive. A number of gay prostitutes talk about their clear-eyed understanding at a young age of how they could use sex with men without getting lost in it. There are drugs in prostitution, more drugs in street prostitution than in “out-call” prostitution. But there are drugs everywhere and addicts in every profession, and people doing all kinds of things to get drugs, even selling stocks. The degree of drug use associated with prostitution—which is not necessarily drug use by prostitutes—has more to do with its shadowy illegal position in society than any characteristic of selling sex for money. A successful prostitute with regular clients is no more likely to be a helpless addict than a successful lawyer or physician; it’s possible to be a successful drug addict, but not over the long haul. There is also violence, fraud, and theft in prostitution, most of it directed at the working women; much of it is never investigated or prosecuted because a prostitute is seen to be a victim by her nature. She has, more than any other woman, asked for it.

• From Deceptions and Myths of the Bible (1975)

  Whenever a people associate themselves with God or the gods and boast of their racial superiority, they are but exposing an inferiority complex. Due to a sense of inadequacy they create a divinity to supplement their own deficiency. In this we should not forget the Jews, with their claim to divine origin and selection. The resulting pride and prejudice is a good example of what happens when the wisdom-knowledge is lost and only the deceptive letter remains. But before we pluck the mote from others’ eyes, let’s get the beam out of our own. We too believe their silly claims and help them steal a country. We too believe we’re essentially divine; we too believe Causation is divine; for ages we believed in “the divine right of kings,” and still believe in the divine authority of the Church. Indeed, in these things we’re all so ignorant “it ill behooves the best of us to talk about the rest of us.” 1 The Secret Doctrine , vol. I, p. 131. 7The Tower of BabelGenesis: Eleventh Chapter1. And the whole earth was one language, and of one speech. (Naturally, since the language here was the language of nature.) 2. And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. W e should not look upon this chapter as even chronological. Its “they” are not the people of the preceding chapter, Noah’s sons and their descendants; that is taken up again in verse 10. The “they” are the creative forces in Involution, and the Babel story just another Creation myth. It appears here only because the Editor deemed it worthy of a place with the others. Worthy it may be but not original. Even the name Babel (Gate of God) came from the Akkadian-Sumerian Babili , about 3900 B.C., and means Gateway of God, one with the Greek “Gateway of the gods.” “Shinar,” the Hebrew form of the native name Sumir, is of similar origin. 3. And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar. Bricks are a building material and here symbolize the atomic units out of which “they” built a chemical world; and the place they burned them thoroughly was in the sun. When later they made biologic bricks (cells), they did not merely use slime; they were slime. The city they built is earth, and its lofty tower the aura that rises heavenward from it. The “name” is that planetary index, the aura’s colors. The author does not tell us the real reason for this project but Josephus does. His account, however, is rather mystifying. When the waters departed, he says the sons of Noah came down to the plain and tried their best to persuade others to follow them. Now who were these “others”?

• From Deceptions and Myths of the Bible (1975)

  But think not it is gratuitous; like every other child, a “brain child” is conceived in pleasure but delivered in pain. When nature finds someone with something to give the world she proceeds to torture it out of him, and no kind, merciful God makes straight the way. On the contrary, he is beset by every impediment, that the essential pain and suffering be assured. All cosmic knowledge comes of wisdom stored In minds made luminous by suffering.2 This is true, but needs a commentary. It is true only of the personal increment; wisdom in general is a race construct, and can be manifested by the individual without personal experience. A more significant statment would read thus: All cosmic wisdom comes of knowledge stored in minds made luminous by suffering. Wisdom, we repeat, is knowledge funded by death and withdrawn by life, the living organism from the group— soul. These things the scriptural authors did not know. Wholly ignorant of the evolutionary genesis of qualities, they attributed them to a God who, lacking them, created man to produce them. Unaware of this their misguided converts still deny Evolution, yet if there is no such thing, even materially, why didn’t Solomon have an automobile and the Queen of Sheba an airplane? These are products of our technological evolution and if there is technological evolution there is also psychological evolution, in fact, the last must come first. What then of Solomon’s wisdom? Was it from God or man? To answer this we must know there are two wisdoms, one cosmic and creative, the other human and rational, our genetic and epigenetic. It is the former that is presented in Proverbs, Chapter 8: 23. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. 24. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. 29. When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: 30. Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; Are we to assume that Solomon, the man, was with the Creator before “the foundations of the earth”? What ignorance and conceit! This is the genetic or creative wisdom, of which the epigenetic is no part. The Bible, however, makes no distinctions, sets up no categories. This shows no knowledge of Causation, Creation or the evolutionary construct. By the time these words were written the epigonous descendants of the Hebrew Homer attributed everything to a personal Deity, including man’s qualities, and the latter’s wisdom consisted mainly of fearing this awful Being. Thus we read: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.” It is not; it is the beginning of spiritual ignorance and it began at the close of the mythopoeic age and the dawn of the religious era, some six thousand years ago.

• From Deceptions and Myths of the Bible (1975)

  [image "image" file=Image00010.jpg] What then of the statement “the heavens opened and I saw visions of God”? The only heavens that opened for Ezekiel were the Creation lore and symbolism of Babylon and Assyria. This, some priest, alias Ezekiel, dressed up in awe-inspiring words to give his diatribes on sin divine authority. And such is the nature of all “divine revelation”—ancient cosmology lost in the dusk of the Zodiacal Night, rediscovered and perverted by priestly plagiarists. In our Preface we said the Bible’s creators were plagiarists and that they got their knowledge from older races. The above quotations are but the first of many proofs thereof. As for proofs of our own theory, there are still many more: the Cabala, the Tetragrammaton, the Gnostics, philosophers, and others, but save for one quotation we will leave these to the reader. The quote is from Dionysius the Areopagite. According to him, “The cause of all things is neither soul nor intellect; nor has it imagination, opinion or reason, or intelligence; nor is it reason or intelligence; nor is it spoken or thought. . . . Even intellectual contact does not belong to it. It is neither science nor truth. It is not even royalty or wisdom; not one, not unity; not divinity or goodness, nor even spirit as we know it.” This is truer theology than anything the Hebrews ever wrote. It is our creative principle, neither divine, moral nor even self-conscious. 1 Ancient Pagan Symbols , p. 94. 16DanielDare to be a Daniel, Dare to stand alone; Dare to have a purpose firm, And dare to make it known. OLD HYMN W ell, let us see what Daniel’s “derring-do” consisted of. Was it personal or mythical? factual or fictional? To the occultist it is but some more cosmology used to glorify a race. Our “Bible students” classify Daniel as an apocalyptist rather than a prophet, but it matters little since his book is but priestly perversion of mythology, and like all Hebrew literature, not original. The story of Daniel was taken from a north Syrian poem written before 1500 B.C. The hero, Daniel by name, was a son of El or God—the source of the Hebrew El. He was a mighty judge and lawgiver, also a provider for his people. This poem about him became so widely known that many races used its hero as a model for their own. It is this Daniel that Ezekiel refers to; it is this Daniel the Hebrews remodeled and placed in Nebuchadnezzar’s time. It is also this Daniel that the story of Joseph in Egypt is based on; the latter married Asenath and the woman in the Syrian poem is Anath. As the Jews used the word Daniel, it means “God is my judge,” but the occult meaning is “the judgment of God,” the inexorable decrees of nature. This is the judgment of Daniel even in the Old Testament.

• From Deceptions and Myths of the Bible (1975)

  Here we would ask the Christian world why it respects this book, its people and its God? To extricate itself from its dilemma it tells us this was but the primitive concept of a primitive people, later corrected. I say it is the very opposite. This is prereligious knowledge of natural Causation, later perverted by those who sought to establish a divine and holy basis for a power-hungry priesthood. In our concept of a nonmoral principle we get back beyond this to the truth. And now this morally impossible God appears again and, as with Abram, changes Jacob’s name. “. . . thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name. . .” (35:10). Jacob becomes Israel at exactly the same point in the Hebrew myth that Uranus became Cronos in the Greek. And there is apparently some connection here, for Movers tells us, “Kronus Saturn was called by the Phoenicians, Israel.” And Philo makes the same statement. Jacob or Yakub, from the root word yak , means one, unity, but Israel is plural, collective and multiple. And so from here on, the homogeneous one becomes the heterogeneous many, as in Herbert Spencer. As we put it, primordial substance became discrete, resulting in the “monadic host.” And this is Israel, the many, here personified as twelve sons. These twelve appear in this myth at exactly the same time and place in the creative process as the twelve Titans in the Greek myth. These titanic twelve create the world and man, and the Hebrew twelve create the human race, or so says Israel. These are the Elohim of the Elohist’s account, and the chief Eloah said to the rest, “Let us make man in our image”—a complete contradiction of subsequent monotheism. So now begins the history of Jacob’s sons. All of them were born in or near Beth-el, the house of God, later changed to Beth-el-hem and finally to Bethlehem, where another “son of God” was born. The word means house of bread , but not earthly bread, cosmic bread, the substance of the earth. This Rachel was, and now this provided, she dies, and Jacob sets up a pillar “that is the pillar of Rachel’s grave unto this day”—and ours. A tomb now adorns the spot and credulous pilgrims believe that it is Rachel’s grave, when all the while the “pillar” but marks the end of the spiritual planes and the beginning of the material. Proof of this is also here but again you must know it to see it. The youngest of Jacob’s children was Benjamin, which means, “son of the right hand.” Here we should ask, The right hand of what? In mythology and cosmology, it means the right hand of Being, namely Evolution. This is the “right hand of God,” the left being Involution, personified by Joseph. 3.