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 193 of 253 · 20 per page

• 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.

• From Deceptions and Myths of the Bible (1975)

  In the Zodiacal Day it will be changed and sublimated into wisdom, and as the twilight comes again, handed down to a wisdom lacking humanity that will again misinterpret it. Today, we think of this wisdom-knowledge in terms of religion—”revealed,” or mystically intuited rather than rationally discerned. It is not so; the ancient knowledge of Reality was as rationalistic as our own science, and far more extensive, cosmically. It was the result of preceding millennia of scientific study philosophically examined. To paraphrase a recent comment, it was scientific experience contemplated in tranquillity—the Zodiacal Day. Thus there was nothing mystic or mysterious about it. It was the period in between that mystified it, the age of religion. And as this gave us no knowledge whatever, we think, like Panodorus, that it was “revealed” to “holy men” by “divine beings.” This false idea has filled the world with nonsense—Gods and Devils, Angels and Archangels, Lipikas and Builders, Lords of Wisdom and Sons of Light. Even Madame Blavatsky, who should have known better, writes in this fashion. “The question will surely be asked: Do the occultists believe in all these ‘Builders,’ ‘Lipikas,’ and ‘Sons of Light,’ as Entities, or are they merely imaginary? To this the answer is given as plainly: After due allowance for the imagery of personified Powers, we must admit the existence of these Entities, if we would not reject the existence of spiritual Humanity within physical mankind. For the hosts of these Sons of Light, the mind born sons of the manifested Ray of the Unknown All, are the very root of spiritual man.” 1 Thus belief in these beings depends on a delusion, namely, that this “Ray of the Unknown All” constitutes the spiritual part of evolved humanity. It does not; this “Ray” is only the Life Principle, the morally unqualified genetic; the spirituality of evolved humanity is epigenetic and of man’s own creating. There is simply no end to the delusions this false doctrine has wrought. It molds the mind of the theologian, it bedevils the philosopher, the statesman, and even the nation. In the Germans and Japanese we see the consequence of this. The latter took literally their myth about divine beings descending upon their islands and establishing their race and culture—then fought like devils to force them upon the world. And only after bitter defeat did they humanize their “divine” Emperor. The statement that their founder was fifth in line from the Sun Goddess has no racial meaning whatever. It means only that they, mankind, are fifth in line cyclically from the sun period— sun, earth, plant, animal, man. A similar idea underlies the Germans’ politicomysticism, ending in militarism—and two defeats. It too derives from mythology, its unscrupulous gods and violent means—Thor, the thunderer, Wotan, the pact-breaker, Loki, the cunning schemer, and so on. The result is Der Tag, Blitzkrieg, Deutsche Donner and dāmmerung , all due to ignorance of the ruthless nature of Causation and man’s corrective purpose.

• From Deceptions and Myths of the Bible (1975)

  This they called “the heresy of Antioch,” see Acts, and after the Gentiles took over and the Jews withdrew it became a heresy to Rome—no hierarchy, no empire could be built upon it. That is why the Petrine doctrine prevailed and the Pauline was made to conform to it. Thus the Chrestos Logia , “which certain impostors in the Church of Rome propagated concerning Christ,” became the Christine doctrine.2 This Gnostic and pagan doctrine was the source of Pauline Christianity. In it lies the true esoteric basis, a universal principle available to all, and such also is that of the two Johns. This the Jewish priests rejected for the narrow, literalized and personalized Christ of the synoptic gospels. This was strictly for them, and their attitude towards others is well expressed where Cornelius, a Gentile, sought to join them. Peter speaking, Acts 10:28: “Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come in unto one of another nation.” And Peter having done this, they accused him “saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.” How horrible! It took a miraculous dream to convince them they were wrong. Without this they might have killed Paul had he not fled. This is not likely history but it illustrates the conflict between the two systems. At any rate Christianity began not in Rome nor yet in Jerusalem, but in Antioch in Syria—and it was operative before the time of Christ. It took three hundred years to blend its two components, and now we live by a synthetic faith whose name and purpose derive from the Greeks and whose theology and psychology derive from the Hebrews. Its morality derives from neither exclusively but from humanity in general, and this is the one good apple in the whole rotten barrel. Paul preached neither Jesus nor Christ but Christhood, that deified consciousness developed within the individual rather than from a Christ without. This was the method of the schools of the Mysteries, their long, arduous and dedicated work of initiation resulted in a spirituality that can never be achieved vicariously. Rightly understood, this is the heart of all religions but the literalists destroyed it. Elsewhere we said that the Church during two thousand years had failed to spiritualize the race. Here we see the reason. We said also that the purpose of Creation was the development of qualities, and Christianity sidetracked it. It has been said that Paul was the real founder of Christianity, but not the Christianity that came down to us. His was Gnostic Christianity, the other but a priestly perversion of this. Paul, however, was a combination of both: priestly zeal, and knowledge he could not absorb because of his racial heritage. He too was a victim of Jewry, and therefore burdened with its false theology and conviction of sin. Thus he was a man torn between two philosophies.

• From Deceptions and Myths of the Bible (1975)

  Later we will read about God killing Onan for not doing with it what his conscience forbade him to do. Such things are not in the Bible as historical facts, but that we may see the genetic and nonmoral nature of Causation. The story of Lot is but another Creation myth, part of which got interwoven with the Abram myth. In this one Lot is the Creator, and so it is his seed that must be preserved. At any rate the parallel is obvious. Like Adam and Cain, he “journied east” to the city of Sodom, which is Enoch, the city of Cain, and the Garden of Adam. Like Noah, he got drunk, and like Noah, Adam, and Abram, he fell asleep, and while he slept his daughters, like Noah’s sons, took advantage of him. Since both Lot and Abram are involutionary symbols, we see where and what these wicked cities Sodom and Gomorrah were. Their royal wars, “four kings with five,” are but the wars of the Titans, and the slime pits into which they fell are the same slime pits as those of Babel. Their sins and destruction are the same as those in Noah’s day. That they were destroyed is but a mythologist’s way of saying, as we said, that the higher planes in Involution are wiped out when the lower ones are formed. And so are their gods: Abram dies and gives way to Isaac; Isaac dies and gives way to Jacob. These are the Trinity of this myth, and all three disappear that Joseph, the fourth, may carry on. This is the creative process; the sad lot of Lot’s wife is a hint of what happens to those who refuse to cooperate. Once started, life cannot turn back; it must go on or perish. Lot’s wife looking back at her city is but the Hebrew parallel of the Greek myth of Orpheus looking back at Eurydice. And let us not forget the Roman god, Ridiculus, “he who turns or causes to turn back”; that’s ridiculous. So were the angels who refused to go on and create, and so got punished. And Jesus declared, “No man, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God” (Luke 9:62). These lessons in Evolution have been wholly lost on us, particularly our reactionaries, fundamentalists, etc. These are the children of Lot’s wife and there are lots and lots of them. They too look to the past and so become pillars of unproductiveness. They cry out against war and blame the progressives for it, but they are the real cause of war—inertia, inaction, inadequacy.

• From Deceptions and Myths of the Bible (1975)

  Through the witch Samuel tells Saul that he will lose his kingdom and also his life. This is indeed occult cosmology, for the woman is matter, and through this the Creator tells Sol, the sun, that it must die and be succeeded by David, king of Jerusalem, which is earth. And now to illustrate the influence of literal scripture upon the human mind, and history, let us quote the eminent legal authority, William Blackstone, who in 1765 said: “To deny the possibility, nay actual existence of witchcraft and sorcery, is at once flatly to contradict the revealed word of God in various passages both of the Old and New Testament.” Thus on the authority of “the word of God” this eminent jurist poured legal oil on the fires of religious fanaticism. On the same authority, Pope Innocent VII in 1484 issued his famous “Witch Bull,” authorizing women, who should have been sent to psychiatrists, to be burned at the stake. In two years, 1515 and 1516, the Catholic Church burned over five hundred Protestant witches. A thing of the past, you say, so why recall it? Yes, witch-burning is past, but not the witch-burning mentality. There are still with us priests who would burn in boiling oil the dissident Protestants—modern Torquemadas without an Inquisition. Though of the atomic age, they still believe in witches, pacts with the devil, and the literal “word of God.” The Catholic Encyclopedia still offers this on witchcraft: “In the face of the Holy Scriptures and the teachings of the Fathers and theologians, the abstract possibility of a pact with the Devil and of diabolical interference in human affairs can hardly be denied.” Such people should know; they’ve been in a pact with the Devil for five thousand years, and their “diabolical interference in human affairs” is the proof thereof. Today it’s contraception and abortion. It was, again, the literal word without understanding that caused the witch burning of the Christian era. It is also the cause of our students’ difficulty with the books of Samuel. Added to this is another, the redactor’s method. He had at least three versions, and wishing to conserve significant points in each, he juxtaposed excerpts from them all; the result is not only confusion, but seeming contradiction as well. Chapter 16, for instance, tells us that David came to Saul as his armor-bearer and court musician. As such, the king would know him well, yet presumedly later, in chapter 17, Saul does not know David even when he sees him, nor does Abner, his general. Here David is introduced to Saul as the hero who was about to kill Goliath— the Philistine Samson and scriptural Titan. “And when Saul saw David go forth against the Philistine, he said unto Abner, the captain of the (monadic) host, Abner, whose son is this youth? And Abner said, As thy soul liveth, O king, I cannot tell. . . . And the King said, Inquire thou whose son the stripling is” (17:55-56).

• From Deceptions and Myths of the Bible (1975)

  That Daniel is Joseph, Nebuchadnezzar is Pharaoh, and Babylon is Egypt is obvious from the parallel. Like Joseph, Daniel is an interpreter of dreams; like Joseph he interprets the king’s dream, for which, like Joseph, he is made ruler over the kingdom. And like Joseph, his power to interpret the king’s dream is due to the fact that he dreamed the same dream, namely the dream of life. Thus he and the king are one, the only distinction being, as with Joseph, that of the two principles, ideative consciousness and mindless matter. The latter is king on the lower planes, but its meaning and purpose must be interpreted by the former. And so we have Nebuchadnezzar, like Pharaoh, dreaming a dream of his own future but ignorant of its meaning. And just as Pharaoh changed Joseph’s name to Zaphnathpaaneah, so Nebuchadnezzar changed Daniel’s to Belteshazzar—and Belteshazzar was the name of Nebuchadnezzar’s God. Thus Daniel became a God unto Nebuchadnezzar as did Joseph and Moses to the Pharaohs. He also became chief of the magicians of Babylon, as did Moses among those of Egypt. And the miracles of these magicians are the miracles of life. These things understood, the apocalyptic book of Daniel becomes “an open book,” a book of cosmology, not history. Better it be considered such for otherwise it brands the author as wholly ignorant of Evolution and its construct, the human psyche. To him a revelatory dream was not from this but from, as he thought, the God of the universe. Elsewhere these authors speak of a God “who seeth in secret and rewards openly.” The only thing that “seeth in secret and rewards openly” is our own subjectivity, but this too is attributed to an external Infinite. So these authors are neither cosmologically nor psychologically knowledgeable. In the first part of his dream, the “image” Nebuchadnezzar sees is that of Involution, later shifting to Evolution. Therefore we must think here of the whole earth entity. 31. Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible (Daniel, Chap. 2). And we too said it was terrible, and so did Jacob, and John the Revelator. 32. This image’s head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass, 33. His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay (Chap. 2). These are symbols of the Creator in Involution: the fine gold represents the pure, primordial spirit, the rest its coarsening sequence down to clay, the earth—the gold, silver, bronze and iron ages of mythology later applied to man. 37. Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory. This bright “king of kings,” like Solomon before him, is the sun. As the sun is solar fire, even the name of this king is appropriate.

• From The Argonauts (2015)

  I liked that Gallop was onto something and letting us in on it before she fully understood it. She was hanging her shit out to dry: a start. She was droopy-eyed and louche in a way that I liked, and had that bad but endearing style that so many academics have—kind of stuck in the ’80s, feather earrings, and so on. She even talked about how much she liked a shirt she was wearing in one of the slides—a black button-down with white bubbly scribbles all over it. I find it irresistibly interesting when people are cathected onto their bad style rather than simply oblivious to it (a description that may apply to us all; I sense the risk increases with age). The slides were over, the talk was over, it was Krauss’s turn. She scooted her chair up to the table and shuffled her papers. She was Gallop’s inverse—sharp face, classy in a silk scarf, Ivy League, Upper East Side way. Feline, groomed, her thin dark hair in a bob. Kind of like the Janet Malcolm of art history. She started by saying how important Gallop’s daring and thorough work on Lacan had been. This praise went on for some time. Then, theatrically, she swerved. The importance of this early work is why it is so deeply disturbing to behold the mediocrity, naïveté, and soft-mindedness of the work Gallop has presented to us today. The color drained out of Gallop’s face. Krauss ignored her, and went in for the kill. The room thickened with the sound of one keenly intelligent woman taking another down. Dismembering her, really. Krauss excoriated Gallop for taking her own personal situation as subject matter, accused her of having an almost willful blindness to photography’s long history. She alleged—or so I recall her alleging—that Gallop had misused Barthes, had failed to place her investigation in relation to any lineage of family photography, had punted on the most basic aesthetic concepts in art history, and so on. But the tacit undercurrent of her argument, as I felt it, was that Gallop’s maternity had rotted her mind—besotted it with the narcissism that makes one think that an utterly ordinary experience shared by countless others is somehow unique, or uniquely interesting.

• From Deceptions and Myths of the Bible (1975)

  Then the king made Daniel a great man, and gave him many great gifts, and made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon, and chief of the governors over all the wise men of Babylon (Chap. 2). (“And Pharaoh said unto Joseph, See, I have set thee over all the land of Egypt,” Gen. 41:41.) Thus these two are one and both are cosmological symbols. This is a scriptural formula, still in use: the Jew is always the cleverest, the wisest—Joseph, Moses, Daniel, Mordecai, etc. Indeed, Daniel was “ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers that were in all his realm” (1:20). Thus did they pervert cosmology to glorify themselves and deceive the Gentiles. This realized, it’s rather difficult to believe the rest of Daniel: Nebuchadnezzar eating grass, the golden image he commanded all to worship, his putting Daniel in a lion’s den, three others in a fiery furnace, the handwriting on the wall, etc. The libelous degradation of Nebuchadnezzar was but the mighty spirit of the sun brought low in matter. The golden image that the brave Daniel refused to worship is but the “golden calf” of Exodus and the first “beast” of Revelation. It too represents matter, and the Life Principle, now free, must not return to it. This is the brave Daniel’s courage, likewise that of his race. Daniel in the lion’s den is this Principle in Leo, the sun; it is also “the fiery furnace” or crucible in space referred to earlier. The three men, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, are the three prephysical elements of which the sun is made; the fourth whom Nebuchadnezzar saw walking in their midst is element number four and one with the stone that slowly appeared in the image, namely, physical matter. Chapter 3, verse 25, should therefore read thus: “Lo, I see four men (elements) loose (not yet condensed) walking in the midst of the (solar) fire, and they have no hurt (are not destroyed), and the form of the fourth is like the Son (Sun) of God.” This God saved three men in a fiery furnace but not three million in the gas chamber. And such is God’s special care of the Jews. Nebuchadnezzar, the sun, or first “beast” (little wonder he ate grass), was, according to the scriptures, succeeded by Belshazzar. This is not according to history; Belshazzar was never king but only regent. He was not the son of Nebuchadnezzar (5:2); it was not Nebuchadnezzar who became ill but Nabonidas, the last of the Neo-Babylonian dynasty. To regain his health he lived for eight years at Tiema, in northern Arabia. It was during this period that Belshazzar served as regent only. The Hebrew mythologist applied the facts about Nabonidas to the character he was using for his occult cosmology. In this, Belshazzar is the second “beast,” namely, the earth, and the handwriting he saw on the wall was that of the planetary law.

• From Deceptions and Myths of the Bible (1975)

  The story is told of a Christian bishop who said to a Parsee: “So you are one of those peculiar fellows who worship the sun.” “Yes,” said the Parsee, “and so would you if you had ever seen it.” No, the bishop had never seen the sun mentally and so he worshiped a mythical Creator instead of the real one. And I’m sure he thought his form of worship vastly superior to the peculiar fellow’s. And now if this first chapter is false, what of the rest of the book? It is of like nature, a priestly hoax intended to deceive us. And nowhere has it succeeded more than in the first four chapters of Genesis. Eden, the Garden of Eden, Paradise, etc .Now to understand these chapters we must know where and what their Eden was, how it differs from the Garden of Eden, what Paradise was and what took place therein. We generally think of Eden and the Garden of Eden as one, but the Bible says the Garden was planted “eastward in Eden.” Eden then is something bigger than the Garden: it is, in fact, the planetary entity in its prephysical state, i.e., prior to matter, the mythic source of evil. Eastward, that is, forward in this, was planted a Garden. Now in cosmogony what other Garden is there save a life-bearing planet, in this case, the earth? The Garden of Eden is the earth itself, planted eastward, that is, forward in the creative process. The Hebrew word Eden comes from an old Babylonian name for Mesopotamia, Gan-Eden , the garden of the Middle East. The word Mesopotamia also means middle land , so also the Norse Midgard, home of the gods. Throughout mythology, which includes scripture, the “middle land” is that middle ground between Involution and Evolution, namely, the earth. How absurd then to think the Garden of Eden was somewhere in our Mesopotamia. How absurd also to call a primeval world a garden. This is some more priestly concealment of the truth. Now, billions of years later, it is something of a garden but Adam is still “raising Cain” in it, and not because he ate an apple, but because of the nature of Being. [image "image" file=Image00004.jpg] EARTH The “East” in Involution becomes the “West” in Evolution; thus “the happy lands” are always in the “West.” Fair Eden is one with all the happy lands always in the west— the Hesperides, Elysian Fields, Fortunate Isles, Isles of the Blest, and brave Valhalla, whose passing is Gotterdammerung , the twilight of the gods. Prior to this all was well with them; there was no matter, the source of evil, and their food was nectar and ambrosia, symbols of the etheric, astral and mental elements. This was the Paradise mythological man lost. We need not mourn for it, however, for it was not only well lost but meant to be lost, the process must go on. So eastward in this was planted a garden.

• From Deceptions and Myths of the Bible (1975)

  This story of Sheba, by the way, was taken from the Mahabharata , a book of Hindu poetry dating from about 500 B.C. If proof is needed that this part of the Bible is neither ancient, historical nor original, it is here. It proves that 1 and 2 Kings were not written during the alleged time of Solomon, nor were his proverbs. One wife, however, was not enough for this wise man. He had hundreds. Now what does this mean? Abraham, Isaac and Jacob had but one or two, but as we said, from the third plane down primordial matter became infinitely discrete or divided— the “monadic host,” as others called it. So here again a son of God saw the daughters of men and took them to wife. 1. But King Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites; 3. And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart (Chap. 11). Thus did the Jews libel all women—not that it has no biologic basis, but why make them the entire cause? It takes two to make a concubine. It’s all right in mythologized cosmology, however; the holy Krishna of India had more than twice that number. Women in creation myths always represent matter or the material elements; Solomon’s many women then were but the many material elements the genetic principle united with to form a physical world, the seven hundred being symbolic of the seven planes. This it was that turned away Solomon’s heart, from the spiritual to the material—Demon est Deus inversus again. The implication is that from here on Solomon became evil, and so we learn now that, like all Old Testament personifications of God, Solomon was a murderer, killing even his own brother, Adonijah. Thus Solomon is the Cain of this story. Nevertheless, “the Lord loved him,” and commissioned him to build His “holy temple.” For this, Solomon sent his ships to the ends of the then-known world for materials, but elsewhere we were told that David assembled these. This is not a contradiction, just an overlap of two sun myths. This “holy temple” has gone down in history as one of the greatest of all buildings, yet according to specifications it was small indeed, only about 40 by 125 feet, and the chancels built around it were so puny as to be meaningless. Compared to other ancient temples, this one was insignificant. Consider Nagkon-Wat in Cambodia, for instance. It is 769 by 588 by 250 feet, elaborately carved and columned. In the stonework there are approximately 100,000 figures, one picture occupying 240 feet. Solomon’s temple, like Solomon himself, never existed on this earth, for the simple reason, it is the earth—that “temple not made with hands, eternal in the heavens,” that same temple the Great Pyramid symbolizes. Thus Solomon is one with Philithion, its alleged builder, not actual but mythical.

• From Deceptions and Myths of the Bible (1975)

  5:2).” This is a modern literalist wrestling with ancient occultism, and no more knowledgeable than those at Ezimgeber and Ararat. Solomon’s temple is the sun; the city of David is the earth. Pharaoh’s daughter is its matter, which later went up from the earth to form the evolutionary part of the temple. Thus these three buildings—the temple, the king’s palace, and the queen’s house—are occultly identical with the Sphinx—Leo, Libra, and Virgo. It is also one with the Phoenix but alas, there’s been no Oedipus to solve its riddle. The scriptures also make much of ancient Israel’s military power, but this we suspect was as mythical as its naval power. Wherever the military accounts of other nations speak of the Jews at all, it is to record a complete triumph over them. Their scriptural triumphs, therefore, were but literary compensation for their lack of military and political power. As Spengler aptly put it: “For the Chaldeans and Persians there was no need to trouble here about proof—they had by their God conquered the world. But the Jews had only their literature to cling to, and this accordingly turned to theoretical proof in the absence of positive. In the last analysis, this unique national treasure owes its origin to the constant need of reacting against self-depreciation.” To this end they perverted other races’ history to glorify themselves. As recorded by them, Hezekiah, with the help of their God, completely and miraculously destroyed Sennacherib’s army at the gates of Jerusalem, whereas in fact, this calamity did not happen at Jerusalem at all. It happened at Pelusium near the border of Egypt, and it wasn’t miraculous. Thus the Jews and their God had nothing to do with it. They merely used another’s misfortune to fake a glorious history. When no such factual event served this purpose, they invented one—the cruelty of a Pharaoh, the weakness of the Syrians, etc. Chapter 20 of 1 Kings, for instance, tells about 7,000 Jews killing 100,000 Syrians in one day, but the symbolic language and literal absurdities should make us suspect its mythological nature. 29. And they pitched one over against the other seven days. And so it was, that in the seventh day the battle was joined: and the children of Israel slew of the Syrians an hundred thousand footmen in one day. 30. But the rest fled to Aphek, into the city; and there a wall fell upon twenty and seven thousand of the men that were left. . . . That must have been a big wall, so big indeed it killed the fact as well as the footmen. Had we read it in some ancient pagan book we would dismiss it as mythology. Well, it is Hebrew mythology, and this is why so many events in Jewish history take place on the seventh day or year and require forty days or years to complete them: “And the seventh year Jehoiada sent and fetched the rulers over hundreds” 2 Kings 11:4.

• From The Erotic Engine (2011)

  It happens that consumers of pornography are an excellent test market for a product that could have ramifications for hundreds of millions of people around the world. Antoine Metivier refers to his company’s client base as “the digitally nervous, and the digitally excluded.” Metivier, a transplanted Frenchman now living in London, is the head of European sales for a company called uKash. His is one of two companies pioneering the use of cash transactions on the Internet. For suppliers, cash transactions have the benefit of zero risk for chargebacks. In turn, customers can be sure that their payments are untraceable and that there is no danger of unauthorized debits from their credit cards or bank accounts. As with so many other technologies, cash-based Internet transactions did not begin in the adult world, but the adult world is the proving ground where the system is prepared for mainstream use. The gambling industry was the first to implement the system—online gamblers liked how nobody knew how much they were spending, and nobody knew how much they were winning. Spouses, tax collectors, creditors and anybody else who might lay claim to the spoils of a lucky wager had no way to follow the money. Gambling and pornography are often lumped together as “vice industries” by people who are involved with neither. Within these two sectors, though, not all vices are equal. The gambling industry does not care to have its reputation sullied by an association with porn, and many in the porn world view gambling in the same light. “I used to work for a company that was specializing in the gambling industry,” Metivier told me, “and the first thing I told them was, ‘Why don’t we do adult?’” But the company was reluctant to tarnish itself by allying with purveyors of pornography. (Those in the porn business see their own industry as the morally superior of the two. “If you’re addicted to gambling, you can lose your house,” one adult webmaster told me. “Even if you’re addicted to pornography, that’s not going to happen.”) Metivier’s company’s gambling clientele was largely based in the Middle East and South Asia, where gambling was better tolerated than pornography. It took an economic downturn and some changes in leadership before the company was willing to explore the pornographic markets for online cash. Once it made the move, it found that anti-pornographic sentiment actually worked to its advantage. Many countries limit the scope of the pornography industry through financial regulations that affect the use of credit cards and bank accounts. Cash is much more difficult for a government to control, and is therefore much more appealing to customers. Metivier sees client comfort level as the most important value point of his company’s system.

• From Deceptions and Myths of the Bible (1975)

  These tablets speak of the Habiri, and our apologists assume these were Hebrews. There is no proof of this nor would they be construed as such but for the priestly necessity. The Tell-el-Amarna tablets contain a political correspondence between Ikhnaton (Amenhotep IV) of Egypt and Barrburyash II, king of Assyria 1375 B.C., and at that time the Hebrews as a distinct sect did not exist, the Bible to the contrary. Only as the sequel to the allegorical Genesis does this scriptural Exodus become intelligible. As such it tells the same shocking story—the nonmoral and murderous nature of Causation; that is, the Jhwhist part does; the others try to conceal it. The first chapter, and the second down to the tenth verse, is from the Elohist and Priestly accounts, and here as elsewhere they extol the virtues of God and his “chosen people,” then the Jhwhist steps in and tells us the truth—Moses is a murderer. 11. And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brethren. 12. And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand (Chap. 2). Thus does life begin. Why have we overlooked this beginning in every Bible myth? Because it was subsequently covered over with sanctity, divinity and poetry, the harlotry of scriptural mythology. In this account we have a good example of that whitewashing referred to in our Preface. Neither the Priestly nor Elohist account mentions this murder, yet if their God was opposed to murder why did he pick this murderer, Moses? Because a murderer was just the man he needed. Life itself is murderous and the Jhwhist knew it. Being nearest to the Zodiacal Day, he was, like the Greek mythologists, an Initiate in the Mysteries and knew the cosmic facts. Then came the darkness and the priests, knowing nothing. These destroyed the mythic legacy. Midway between the two was the Elohist, and there you have the three, not four, sources of the Bible. That both priest and prophet used the same formula “And God said” implies one source, and one concern—sin, not truth. If those parts of the Bible attributed to prophets were not written by professional priests, then they were written by priestly minded nonprofessionals. After this crime, Moses fled to Midia, and the “sons of the snake.” There he meets Zipporah, watering her father’s flock, as did Rebekah and Rachel. And Moses marries her, as did Isaac and Jacob. But according to Josephus, he had a wife already, Tharbis, daughter of the king of Ethiopia, that same Aethiopia of Genesis. This is no scandal in Moses’ life, however, for in mythology Egypt and Ethiopia are one, and also one with Midia, the middle point in Creation, namely, earth.

• From Deceptions and Myths of the Bible (1975)

  Pope Leo the V was deposed by another Christopher, who was in turn deposed and succeeded by the aforesaid criminal Sergius III, who murdered his predecessors. At this time it was not the Holy Ghost that selected the popes but what Cardinal Baronius called scortas , whores. This was the “rule of the courtesans,” sometimes called the Pornocracy, or reign of the whores. Among them was one Baronius called the “shameless whore,” Theodora, and her equally shameless daughter Marozia. Both had sons by Sergius III, and both put their illegitimates on the papal throne—John XI and John XII. The first was imprisoned, the second “turned the Lateran Palace into a brothel.” There was no crime he didn’t commit—murder, perjury, adultery, incest with his two sisters, bleeding and castrating his enemies, etc. He died, we are told, at the hands of an outraged husband. According to the record, Cardinal Francone had Benedict VI strangled, after which he became Boniface VII, “a horrid monster surpassing all other mortals in wickedness,” according to Gerbert. He was no worse however than Boniface VIII—”a strong and courageous Pope.” Yes indeed! To gain his tiara he had the halfwit Celestine V disposed of. He did not long enjoy his victory for soon he was driven out by the Romans. Under a successor, Clement V, he was tried posthumously and found guilty of every crime including pederasty and murder. And when Clement died, his successor, John XXII, revealed that Clement had been so very clement he had given his nephew the equivalent of five million dollars of papal money. It was at this time the papal court was moved to Avignon, and now St. Peter had two successors, one at Avignon and one at Rome. But even this was not enough; there were at one time three—Gregory XII, Alexander V, and John XXIII.9 So corrupt was the latter, Sigmund of Hungary called a council to investigate him. The result was fifty-four articles describing him as “wicked, irreverent, unchaste, a liar, disobedient and infected with many vices.” As a cardinal he had been “inhuman, unjust and cruel.” As Pope he was “an oppressor of the poor, persecutor of justice, pillar of the wicked, statue of the simoniacs, addicted to magic, the dregs of vice . . . wholly given to sleep and carnal desires, a mirror of infamy, a profound inventor of wickedness.” He secured the Papacy by “violence and fraud and sold indulgences, benefices, sacraments and bulls.” He practiced “sacrilege, adultery, murder, rape and theft.” And now we can understand Petrarch’s remark—”a sink of iniquity.” Some of these popes so outraged decency they were exiled. At least two of them had their eyes and tongues cut out, then were dragged through the streets tied to the tail of an ass. Still others were so despised their corpses were exhumed and thrown into the Tiber.

• From Deceptions and Myths of the Bible (1975)

  S. Mead, in Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.? The answer to his query is, Yes, mythologically. This was the Jesus of the pre-Christian Nazarites. More recently Tillich concluded: “Historical research has made it obvious that there is no way to get at the historical events which have produced the Biblical picture of Jesus who is called the Christ with more than a degree of probability.” And Dr. Schweitzer came to the same conclusion. In trying to explain away this silent century, the excuse is made that Judea was isolated and that there was no “news service” in those days; therefore these men did not know about Christ. No, but they did know about the new religion: Jerome refers to Seneca as “our own Seneca,” therefore Seneca knew; Theodoret, writing of Plutarch, said, “he had heard of our holy Gospel and inserted many of our sacred mysteries in his works.” Yes, he had heard of the “sacred mysteries” (and who hadn’t in those days?) but not of Christ, and the reason is that the Christ of religion did not then exist. “We find nothing like divinity ascribed to Christ before Justin Martyr (141 A.D.) who from being a philosopher became a Christian.” Dr. Priestly. Not much of a philosopher, we suspect, for he became convinced of a historical Christ by reading the Old Testament prophecies of a Messiah—and they are not prophecies. We should not, in passing, miss the significance of this: if the philosophers of the time could not distinguish myth from history, what of the ignorant masses? This too will be dealt with later. Those who accepted Christianity were unquestionably ignorant, but our modern apologists cannot charge the aforesaid pagans with it; they were all men of exceptional intelligence. Some of them held high office and therefore knew their world. Pliny the Elder was procurator in Spain; Pliny the Younger was governor of Bithynia; Josephus was governor of Galilee; Seneca was the brother of Gallio, proconsul of Achaia at precisely the time Paul is said to have preached there. While he wrote of many lesser things, no mention is made of Paul or the wonder-working Christ. Yet surely the latter’s miracles, virgin birth, and so on, would have interested him. They would have made excellent material for his Questionum Naturalium . Just here we could explain another mystery: Why did none of these world Saviors write a book? The reason should now be obvious—world Saviors do not make books; books make them. They are the creations of mythologists, not historians, of occultists, not literalists. Coming down to the aforesaid Justin Martyr, we have, perhaps, the strongest refutation of all. This particular phantast sought to convert the rejecting Jews to Christianity, and in his writings he tells us of his encounter with one named Trypho.

• From Deceptions and Myths of the Bible (1975)

  As Moses was told to go to Sinai to receive power and do great works, so Paul was told to go to Damascus for like reasons. Moses built a tabernacle, Paul a church. Moses preached biologic Tightness, Paul, moral righteousness. Moses fought against Pharaoh for the release of the Life Principle, and Paul fought against Peter, the rock, for the same purpose. As the Israelites were imprisoned, so were the apostles, and both were released by miraculous powers. The cue to this parallel is given in Acts, which gives Paul’s history. Chapter 7 recounts the whole story of Moses that we may see the connection. The account of Moses is very convincing, and so is that of Paul, but the conviction lies not in historical fact but in the art of literature. The Jewish literati instead of divinifying man, so divinified falsehood that it looks like truth. As the founding of a new priesthood was their purpose, they falsified even the Pauline doctrine. The crux of this lies in a fact wholly unknown to the Christian masses, namely, the distinction between the words Christ and Chrest By the time the Christians got done with it, second and third century, the title given to Jesus was everywhere spelled Christ, but prior to this it was Chrest, possibly from the Greek word chre , which meant kind, gracious, etc., or the Egyptian karast , meaning fleshed—the word made flesh. In his Apology , Justin Martyr calls his coreligionists Chrestians. And so it was for three centuries. To quote from Massey: “In Bockh’s1 Christian Inscriptions, numbering 1,287, there is not a single instance of an earlier date than the third century wherein the name is not written Chrest or Chreist.” This was changed by those “who added or removed what seemed good to them in the work of correction,” as Origen said. It was this pre-Christian Gnostic symbol of spiritual being that Paul preached, and so came into conflict with the priests and their prerequisite. This conflict, presented as between Paul and Peter, is not understood today, even by the most learned theologians. They assume it was some internal dispute about the teachings of the gospel Christ. It was, on the contrary, the conflict between the supporters of this gospel Christ and the pregospel Greek Chrestos, the universal Logos, as of John. The adherents of this more esoteric doctrine called themselves Chrestianoi. Their headquarters was in Antioch, in Asia Minor, and it was there, not Jerusalem, that the sect first became known as Chrestians, as set forth in Acts but now written Christians. The Judean sect was not even known as Christians, though later this was applied to them derisively; they called themselves Nazarenes, Galileans, and Brethren. These were priestly minded and bent on founding a religion on a personal Christ; naturally then they were shocked and annoyed to learn of an antecedent and rival sect appropriating the name Chrestians without reference to their Christ.