Evil Academy

Full Version: US Librarian of Congress on why studying the occult is not a hobby
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Quote:The origins of revolutionary words and symbols is of more than antiquarian interest; for, in the contemporary world where constitutions and free elections are vanishing almost as rapidly as monarchs, revolutionary rhetoric provides the formal legitimation of most political authority.
Quote:In the early days of the revolution, Masonry provided much of the
key symbolism and ritual
-beginning with the Masonic welcome under
a "vault of swords" of the king at the Hotel de Ville three days after
the fall of the Bastille.36 To be sure, most French Masons prior to the
revolution had been "not revolutionaries, not even reformers, nor even
discontent" ; 37 and, even during the revolution, Masonry as such remained
politically polymorphous : "Each social element and each political
tendency could 'go masonic' as it wished." ss But Masonry provided
a rich and relatively nontraditional foraging ground for new
national symbols ( coins, songs, banners, seals ) , new forms of address

( tu, frere, vivat! ) , and new models for civic organizations, particularly
outside Paris.
even Vladamir Putin is a fan of our Librarian of Congress

Quote:Putin praises James Billington’s role in boosting Russia-US ties
Photo: RIA Novosti
On Tuesday, Russian Ambassador to the US Sergey Kislyak delivered Russian President Vladimir Putin’s thank-you letter to Librarian of the US Congress James Billington.
The delivery took place during a ceremony in Washington to mark the 25th anniversary of Billington holding his current post.
The letter praised Billington’s considerable contribution to expanding cultural and humanitarian cooperation between Russia and the US.
A specialist in Russian history and culture, Billington added to the creation of the St.Petersburg-based Presidential Library named after Boris Yeltsin.
Modern western diplomats/politicians speak in code. It's very obvious.

The MSM also does this. You will understand what they say and mean if you look into this. It's very easy.

Their schtick is VERY SIMPLE.. they rely on the same few concepts
^Reminds me of a Jordan Maxwell speech talking about how often the phrase "Now is the time" has been used by politicians over the centuries, and it had a Masonic connection IIRC.
yeah Jordan highly recommends this book as well..

however he uses this stuff selectively. Jordan is definitely promoting the mysteries.
This guy runs this entire venue

[Image: Library-of-Congress.jpg]
[Image: Main-Reading-Room.jpg]
(03-25-2013 05:33 AM)EVILYOSHIDA Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:The origins of revolutionary words and symbols is of more than antiquarian interest; for, in the contemporary world where constitutions and free elections are vanishing almost as rapidly as monarchs, revolutionary rhetoric provides the formal legitimation of most political authority.

Charles Galton Darwin has a chapter about this in The Next Million years. The chapter is all abour Creeds.

Creeds often arouse the most fanatical devotion. It is
enthusiasm for his creed that has created the martyr, and,
if we happen to share his creed, the martyr is regarded as
one of the noblest of humanity. But the matter is not as
simple as that, for this judgment has usually been prejudiced
by the fact that we do sympathize with the
martyr's creed, and it is necessary to look at the subject
without this prejudice. The martyr is driven to make the
ultimate sacrifice by his enthusiasm for his creed, but
this endiusiasm has usually been evoked by the counterenthusiasm
of his persecutors, the majority in power,
who hold an opposite creed with equal fervour. For
every man who is willing to die for his faith there will
be ten men who are willing to kill for their faith.
[/i]
^ interesting quote.
This is something I am going to post on the og later. I'll post it here first. The first big paragraph is from another write up, but it fit perfectly. The rest is new content.


I'll start with Pavlov then talk about Charles Galton Darwin's chapter on Creeds. I'll tie that in with James Billington, who has some examples of creeds (or as he calls it, revolutionary rhetoric) being used for great change.

Ivan Pavlov studied dogs. More importantly, he studied the production of saliva in dogs. By applying the scientific method to this one aspect, he was able to discern laws governing the behavior of not only dogs and other animals, but human beings. These laws stem from unconditioned reflexes. These are reflexes that occur without the need for any training or experience what so ever. Examples of unconditioned reflexes are an infant sucking to drink from its mother's breast, sneezing, coughing, yawning, and stretching. When food enters one's mouth, their body automatically produces extra saliva in order to assist with chewing, swallowing, and digestion. Eventually, the smell or sight of food might cause one's mouth to water. This is a conditioned reflex, rather than an unconditioned reflex. This conditioned reflex is created through experience. Pavlov studied the effect of experience in the salivary reflexes of dogs. In lower animals, the effect of experience is very minimal. For example, a moth will continue flying into light or fire, even after it has been burnt. Higher animals however, have the ability to learn from experience. This allows experience to greatly alter the reflexes of higher animals. Intelligence and memory are the factors here, which makes it likely that humans have the greatest ability to learn from experience, and therefore the greatest potential to be conditioned.

Darwin begins his chapter about creeds with examples of conditioned reflexes and their potential consequences.

"Man shares with the higher animals the capacity for learning, though to an immensely superior degree. The question of how animals learn is much simpler; it has been objectively studied in various ways, in partic ular by the method of "conditioned reflexes", that is to say, by the study of how by practice (which must always be associated with rewards for success) an animal acquired skill in the performance of tasks which have been set to it....."

The reality is, man is much closer to animals than most people imagine. So close in fact, that ideas about training and conditioning dogs can actually be applied to humans beings. This is through repetition and reward. With knowledge of conditioned reflexes, it should be easy to see the inevitable result of promoting promiscuity, drug use, and other forms of self indulgence. The repetition and immediate gratification meet both requirements for a conditioned reflex, repetition plus reward. The conditioned reflex is to give in to your urges. Even if there are inevitable consequences for these decisions down the road, the conditioned reflexes will win out often enough because they are programmed, rather than a well thought out decision. Of course people can over power this conditioning, but just because they can doesn't mean that they do.

"This is presumably an inherent quality of the individual, but learning is not always a matter of acquiring skills by individual effort, for it often implies definite teaching. This holds particularly in the case of man, but among animals also teaching plays some part. For example, the catching of mice is one of the important things a kitten must learn in order to fit it for the struggle for life, and a cat teaches her kittens how to do it. It may be that sometimes the whole future of a litter of kittens will be prejudiced through their having been taught a bad style of catching mice by their mother . So even among animals survival may depend on having been taught the right doctrines.....The question of the inheritance of intellectual qualities is matched by the inheritance of moral qualities, which have to be taught to the growing child in much the same manner, by precept and example."

Darwin is describing an evolutionary look into the power and necessity of these reflexes. The ability to create responses through conditioned reflexes is potentially necessary for survival. This is why even on humans, conditioning and training can be fairly effective. The ability to create these conditioned reflexes is an example of mankind's ability to adapt, which is certainly one of the biggest reasons why man has been so successful. One of man's greatest strengths is also one of his greatest weaknesses because I believe the ability to adapt and learn from experience is being used against massive numbers of people, mostly without their knowledge.

"Turning now away from these narrower questions of biological heredity, consider the larger question of how education, in the widest sense, has affected and will affect history. Every man builds up a world of thought, directing his conduct, which is partly formed from his own experience, but even more of it is acquired from his teachers, and in later life from friends and acquaintances, or from books."


Notice the main influence he notes: teachers, friends and acquaintances, or books. If he were alive today I bet he would add television, movies, and video games to that list. Notice that parents are not on the list. First he talks about how potentially importance that learning the "proper" doctrines. Then he quite clearly insinuates that in humans, parents are not the ones having the most influence on the creation of these doctrines. In his opinion, they don't even have noteworthy influence. I'm sure milage varies on that aspect. Either way, over the past 100 or so years, parents in the US have had less impact on their children than in previous generations. It should be easy to see the potential implications of a person's survival: conditioned reflexes serve the evolutionary purpose of allowing animals, even intelligent ones such as humans, to be taught what they need to survive by their parents and from life experience and learn. It should be easy to see that the potential exists to abuse these reflexes and associated responses in people.

"I shall use the word creed to denote a set of tenets acquired in this general manner. I mean the word in an entirely colourless sense, with no question arising of whether the creed is true or untrue, moral or immoral. It is merely a body of philosophical thought— whether it is reasonable or unreasonable philosophy — which is strongly held and used as a main guide to conduct. There are of course creeds held by single individuals, but naturally the important ones are those held by large communities. Such creeds have produced, and will again produce, enormous effects on human history, and their influence must be considered. A man is rather likely to hold the same creeds as his parents and relations, but no more than he is those of his teachers and his friends, whereas he has received his instincts and his inherent qualities from his ancestors and will share them with his blood relations; it will be pure accident if they happen to coincide with those of his friends. In this respect a parallel can be drawn between creeds and languages, for a man is likely to speak the language of his parents, but he is quite as likely to speak that of his unrelated friends."


If people are get their doctrines from school, friends, and media more so than their parents (at least on average), as the mother cat teaches her kittens how to catch mice, who is teaching children the knowledge that is necessary for their survival and the survival of their descendants? Huge segements of what is promoted by media is very unlikely to coincide with the doctines of one's parents. There is school, which all objective measures show has been dumbed down an incredible amount in the past 100+ years. School and media cromprise part of the influence of friends, because their friends are exposed to the same schooling and the same media as them. Its impossible to say how much influence the parents have, only that the influence is singnificantly less than it was before mothers and children were seperated for 8 hours day, 5 days a week.

Darwin then goes of examples of creeds in food such as Europeans and Muslims refusing to eat dog but certain asians enjoying it. He then goes on to say

"Creeds about more important things naturally have a very much greater compulsion. Those we hold firmly appear to us to have the inevitability of the propositions of formal logic. Anyone who does not happen to share our creeds is at the least regarded as an illogical fool, but more frequently as a perversely wicked person. It is this that has led to most of the terrible series of persecutions that have blackened the records of history."

This is the way that people view one another when they have different fundamental views, or as he refers to them, dotrines and creeds. Between the writings of Darwin and Billington (in addition to Pavlov, Bertrand Russell, and I can only imagine how many others), it is very clear that much time has been spent on the research and consideration of how to control people. Mankind is quite clearly the most studied animal in the world. It is also clear that a great many influential people understand what makes man tick. It is also clear that most of mankind does not have this same understanding of what makes man tick. This potentially gives a huge amount of power to those in the know. This potential for power is only magnified when you have vast amounts of wealth. This is why examination of sources is so important. When you read one book, some claims still look outrageous. In the case of creeds/doctrines/revolutionary rhetoric, This one topic covers the writings of at least 4 different authors, so to properly have the perspective to understand this small point takes readings from 4 different books to accomplish.

"Creeds often arouse the most fanatical devotion. It is enthusiasm for his creed that has created the martyr, and, if we happen to share his creed, the martyr is regarded as one of the noblest of humanity. But the matter is not as simple as that, for this judgment has usually been prejudiced by the fact that we do sympathize with the martyr's creed, and it is necessary to look at the subject without this prejudice. The martyr is driven to make the ultimate sacrifice by his enthusiasm for his creed, but this endiusiasm has usually been evoked by the counter- enthusiasm of his persecutors, the majority in power, who hold an opposite creed with equal fervour. For every man who is willing to die for his faith there will be ten men who are willing to kill for their faith. The ten feel that they are actuated by the same motive, the pure hatred of evil, as that of the martyr, and the main difference is only that for weak human nature the role of the persecutor is easier than the role of the persecuted."

This is basically the idea that one man's hero is another man's terrorist. We should all be able to see what he is talking about in our own lives. All of us have seen a person with a non popular view become more and more extreme in that view as they receive resistance to it. Of course that can have a spiral effect because as their view becomes more extreme due to resistance, the resistance only increases. I believe his rough estimate about those willing to die compared to those willing to kill over the doctrines they have been conditioned to believe, is fairly accurate. Suffice to say that far more people are willing to kill over their fundamental views than are willing to die for their views. Most people that are so against religion, are against it due to the conditioning that takes place, which naturally open up the potential for some very extreme views. What they must realize, is that religion is not the only system that attempts to condition people to hold certain doctrines, or creeds. What they actually are against, is the systematic conditioning of people, which I believe is something we should all be against. I think I've made my point about creeds. That they exist in all people in some form, and that they can become very extreme. I've also demonstrated that research into the creation of creeds has allowed people to become well enough informed about the nature of creeds that the potential for abuse exists. I can certainly write a lot more and provide further examples of Darwin's reasoning on the subject.

Darwin includes the following quote in the chapter.

"I have neither the psychological nor the historical knowledge to study the natural history of creeds in detail, and I shall therefore be content with giving a few examples of what I am trying to express."


Fortunately, Librarian of Congress James Billington does have the historical knowledge to study the history of creeds in detail. Billington focuses on the more extreme examples of creeds in action, and he refers to them as revolutionary rhetoric. The rhetoric is the doctrines that people have accepted as truth, regardless of whether their creeds are right or wrong.

"We shall deal repeatedly with the linguistic creativity of revolution­aries, who used old words (democracy, nation, revolution, and liberal) in new ways and invented altogether new words like socialist and com­munist. Their appealing new vocabulary was taken over for nonrev­olutionary usages in the adoption of republican and democrat for competing political parties in pos trevolutionary America, or in the con­servative cooptation of nation, liberal, and even radical in late nineteenth century Europe."

Linguistic creativity and repetition are what lead people to hold their doctrines. If something is repeated often enough, a person is likely to accept it. If many things are repeated equally, a person is likely to accept what makes most sense to them. It should be clear that doctrines are not necessarily revolutionary or extreme.

"The origins of revolutionary words and symbols is of more than anti­quarian interest; for, in the contemporary world where constitutions and free elections are vanishing almost as rapidly as monarchs, revolutionary rhetoric provides the formal legitimation of most political authority..."

Here he is talking about what Darwin referred to as Creeds. He is also stating that such creeds have the potential to make political authority legitimate, he even goes so far as to claim that most political authority is legitimized by different creeds. By revolutionaries, he means people who bring about great change. Can you see the similarities between a revolutionary and a progressive? Through the creation of revolutionary rhetoric or creeds, you can potentially alter what people believe legitimizes political authority. This has the potential to be tremendously powerful.

"The revolutionary faith was built more by ideological innovators than by political leaders . He who held actual power during the original French Revolution was generally "a provisional being ... a creature of exceptional circumstance ... not a professional of the Revolution." 8 Professionalism began later with a different kind of man: an intellec­tual who lacked political experience, but saw in revolution an object of faith and a source of vocation , a channel for sublimated emotion and sublime ambition . If traditional religion is to be described as "the opium of the people," the new revolutionary faith might well be called the am­phetamine of the intellectuals."

As with religion, many creeds and doctrines are based primarily on faith. Pavlov, Darwin, and Russell show how well these ideas and techniques are understood, Billington gives you examples of people actually using that knowledge to create extreme change. Of course his first example is the French Revolution. He then speaks of professional revolutionaries, but we'll get into that later.

"The youthful intellectuals who were the prophets and priests of this new secular religion were largely crying in the wilderness throughout the nineteenth century, struggling against overwhelming odds for revolutions that they saw coming mainly with the eyes of faith."

Billington actually refers to these doctrines as a religion, going so far as to use the words prophets and priests. Again Billington mentions faith. Others, as well as I, have referred to some of the more militant followers of new age creeds as members of a religion. Billington would seem to agree with this assessment.

"At a deep and often subconscious level, the revolutionary faith was shaped by the Christian faith it attempted to replace. Most revolutionaries viewed history prophetically as a kind of unfolding morality play. The present was hell, and revolution a col­lective purgatory leading to a future earthly paradise. The French Rev­olution was the Incarnation of hope, but was betrayed by Judases within the revolutionary camp and crucified by the Pilates in power. The future revolution would be a kind of Second Coming in which the Just would be vindicated. History itself would provide the final judg­ment; and a new community beyond all kingdoms would come on ea rth as it never could in heaven."


He desrcibes their views in religious terms. Creeds, doctrines, revolutionary rhetoric; whatever you want to call it, he is stating that in extreme cases, they can create views and beliefs just as fanatical and faith based as religions. Darwin and Russell certainly agree with this view.

"Particularly after the revolution turned to terror in 1793 and to retreat in 1794, many realized that the revolutionary process would not auto­ mat ically bring deliverance and social harmony. A new species of man, the professional revolutionary, emerged during the "Thermidorean re­action" to keep the dream alive. He argued that the French Revolution was incomplete, and that history required a second, final revolution and a new type of man dedicated to serving it. The full-time revolu­tionary profession began not with the ruling politicians but with the intellectual activists in Babeuf's "Conspiracy of the Equals," who had little in common with earlier revolutionaries "except in the imagination of the police."

The first professional revolutionaries. These were the first people who really understood how powerful fanatical devotion to certain doctrines could be. Since then, the understanding of the psychology and techniques have only grown exponentially. So before the end of the French revolution, you have professional revolutionaries who are creating doctrines so powerful and extreme that Billington is comparing them, with strong language, directly to religions. The professional creation of views easily comparable to those of a religion, in both fanaticism in faith. This leaves us with the following reality:

1. Extremely wealthy, educated, and influential people understand ways that creeds and rhetoric can be used to create views on the same level of religion and this is not something that the average person understands.

2. Such creeds and rhetoric have been used to influence extreme change.

3. This became a professional career on an intellectual level in the late 1700's.

4. This is not information we learn in public school, although it may be something you learn at an expensive private school, or an ivy league university.

I believe techniques are still in use and that through technology, they are significantly more effective. I think these techniques are something everybody should know, although I am sure others disagree.
+2 vote ups!
Quote:"At a deep and often subconscious level, the revolutionary faith was shaped by the Christian faith it attempted to replace.

Black mass gets into this as well. the Occult is in many ways the red headed step child of Christianity.

It is a subset and can never usurp it's master.

Christianity follows the Way.
Quote:Ivan Pavlov studied dogs. More importantly, he studied the production of saliva in dogs. By applying the scientific method to this one aspect, he was able to discern laws governing the behavior of not only dogs and other animals, but human beings. These laws stem from unconditioned reflexes. These are reflexes that occur without the need for any training or experience what so ever. Examples of unconditioned reflexes are an infant sucking to drink from its mother's breast, sneezing, coughing, yawning, and stretching. When food enters one's mouth, their body automatically produces extra saliva in order to assist with chewing, swallowing, and digestion. Eventually, the smell or sight of food might cause one's mouth to water

this is how the symbolism works on the avg. dupe. This stuff has an effect on your life.

this is how they get you to adopt their intelligent system. I have no problem with adopting someone else's good intelligent system, but theirs is not good.
Excatly. This goes right into the symbolism that Billington speaks about, which assists in the creation of doctrines. I was going to bring that up but I figured I had written enough about the topic for now. Hopefully people check out the chapter on creeds.
Pages: 1 2
Reference URL's