You're exploring the rabbit hole, huh? My feminine instinct is that the smoke in mirrors does not stop with the gospel of Judas. Like all co-opted stuff, it has truth that is revelatory, inflammatory! Just like the ring wing! But it also his hijacked, corrupt, leading us astray. I think you would really enjoy the Grandmother Anna Books. Hers and The Sophia Code are the only texts I can read along these lines without a strong intuitive aversion or sick feeling. You may be interested to explore the links between Jung and the dark cults and the gnostics, but those I know of who reveal that I also sense come from distortion.
I translated a book on Mary Magdelene that discussed the Albigenses among other related things. In the process, I read other related books.
But in the end, I feel very ambvalent about it all. Gnosticism does seem to have a very dark side to it, though I do not understand it all or exactly how that came to be. But it does not seem to be a matter of gnosticism good, Catholic evil. It's more complex than that.
I think perhaps its more relevant to discuss the mechanisms of control.
It appears that througout the Middle ages there were at least two competing factions in Europe: Catholocism and somethig else, somethig more hidden that was likewise sinister in its ultimate aims. Today what we have is not directly or wholy descended from Christainity. There were forces that broke apart the Roman Catholic hegemony, and I daresay those forces were not themselves benevolent or well meaning. The "enlightenment" eventually led to nihilism, materialism, the result of which is meaninglessness and empty consumerism. Consumerism is the ultimate trap.
These are my gropings at trying to describe something I vaguely perceive but cannot yet fully put my finger on.
You are exactly right. I understand the Cathars were somewhat related to the Magdalenes, and certainly more egalitarian than typical Catholics. Many Catholic sects are involved in dark things, and the same is true with Gnostics. How many times has Isis been twisted, whether by the Catholic Church or by the military, for example? How many times has Mary Magdalene been distorted, whether accused of being a whore, or attributed to dark versions of gnosticism that then get used to write her off AGAIN?
Here's one of my big beefs with Gnosticism: the doctrine teaches that matter is evil and spirit good. (This is the ultimate dualism, probably inherited from Manichaeism/Zoroastrianism.) The result seems to be a disconnectedness from earth. While they may speak of a Mother Goddess, do they really see the earth as mother, or just part of evil creation?
Earth-based spirituality, on the other hand, invokes a deep connection with the earth... not an eagerness to escape it and never return. It calls for interrelatedness with "All Our Relations." That means here on earth, as well as our spiritual relations beyond.
As you know, with most of these things I have a "sense" and I later back it up with facts. But often I can't read all the way through the sources because those who share an element of truth, mix it n with distortion so that I literally can't read it.
I first learned about gnosticism as at a Christian college, and that was exactly the argument they made against gnosticism and platonic dualism. In reality I agree that gnosis/knowledge in the sense of direct knowing is indeed how I can tell, at least often, when there is distortion in views that I might otherwise be favorable toward because of some of those components. Likewise, platonic dualism has elements of truth that I resonate with, but when used to denigrate the body or the embodied aspects of Christ - whether in Yeshua or in us - it is sad and if I would argue, heretical if such only means "off the mark" of truth/Truth as I understand it. You also raise an excellent point about how exactly the Divine Feminine is viewed - as a source of power/evil or as the Actual Divine Mother. Even sources that do see her that way can often be corrupted and hijacked for cult purposes, then the cult version gets exposed and then you get to write off the original sacred thing along with the cult and there you another controlled psyops op. Have you read Matt Eheret's piece on Jung and the dark stuff? Or Whitney Webb's piece on synthetic spirituality and Barbara Marx Hubbard, who was a transhumanist/eugenicist?
Yes, the Bonne Hommes (and femmes) of 13th century Aquitainne were not hierarchal to my knowledge, allowing for diversity and perhaps making them difficult to define as a group.
I think it is more sure to rely on our own inner "gnosis", inner sense, than on texts, "revelations" or doctrines that tend to distort things.
Many of the teachings of Jesus in the cannononical gospels are "on the mark" but perhaps are best understood within the context of axial age grapplings with what David Graeber refers to as the military.coinage-slavery complex. (Debt: The First 5000 Years). Later, the Roman Imperial project co-opted the movement that appeared to be in counterposition to it, but failed to totally annihilate undercurrents that questioned its authority.
A similar thing couldt be seen in the early Franciscan movement: most of the movement was subsumed into a Roman Catholic order, but some of them with a purer vision splintered off.
I havent read the Eheret or Webb article you mention, but I did read something about Hubbard that made me think twice. Can you share any links?
With you on trusting the inner gnosis over texts or what others tell you. The other one look up on Last American Vagabond. Whitney's energy works for me - I don't want to say anything about anyone, but the other article has a lot of great content and I felt something "off" and I felt uncomfortable reading it - Also somewhere in my notes are my concerns are Graeber. Don't trust that one.
Thanks for the history to present lesson! The severings from Earth consciousness and the efforts to stop the actual practices of the Natives is one highlight, and the overall "goal was to weave a network of secrecy, suspicion, and terror..." Sound familiar?!
The blurb about a book i've only read bits of, "A.D. 381: Heretics, Pagans and the Dawn of the Monotheistic State" by Charles Freeman, states: "In AD 381, Theodosius, emperor of the eastern Roman empire, issued a decree in which all his subjects were required to subscribe to a belief in the Trinity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This edict defined Christian orthodoxy and brought to an end a lively and wide-ranging debate about the nature of God; all other interpretations were now declared heretical."
Also, with non-religious Kaballah, which is the core of my path, gnosis is one's personal way of knowing and it must serve the whole. Thus, "Nobody can "define" another person's Gnosis.. for it is uniquely one's own. Scholars finding (perhaps many centuries later) the writings of a Gnostic, may think they have found something UNIVERSAL, but they have NOT; rather, they have merely found a SPECIFIC written by one person who has met the Universal."
Splendid, well-documented and organized, compelling presentation of thorough research into the irrefutable thesis that "freedom of thought and speech were anathema to the builders of Christian domination." It has long been a conclusion of mine that "organized religion is undoubtedly the most spectacularly successful con in history" - and there is a wealth of information and research (including yours) to validate this fact. Thank you, Peter, for this profoundly important and valuable post.
I've recently been introduced to this website that provides a meta-analysis (or meta-narative) of the foundations of Western (including Middle Eastern) culture:
Outstanding Peter! Thanks for shedding a great deal of light on a very dark phenomenon: the suppression of free flowing and creative human thought, which you demonstrate so exceedingly well.
That is a fascinating window on some of the earlier information wars to monopolize and control Christian orthodoxy, and the collateral wealth and power.
It seems that human societies are very predisposed to being conned, manipulated and abused by their own created institutions. We die for our institutions, or get rubbed out by them. Churches, nation states, partisan ideologies, justice systems; it matter not what the specific content or framework is.
Great ideas or inspiration sometimes seed "successful" institutions which then glorify and perpetuate the institution rather than the original inspiration or wisdom.
Becoming institutionalized seems to be unhealthy for both ideas and for societies.
“Society can be destroyed when further growth of mass production renders the milieu hostile, when it extinguishes the free use of the natural abilities of society’s members, when it isolates people from each other and locks them into a man-made shell, when it undermines the texture of community by promoting extreme social polarization and splintering specialization, or when cancerous acceleration enforces social change at a rate that rules out legal, cultural, and political precedents as formal guidelines to present behaviour.” - Ivan Illich (1973)
You're exploring the rabbit hole, huh? My feminine instinct is that the smoke in mirrors does not stop with the gospel of Judas. Like all co-opted stuff, it has truth that is revelatory, inflammatory! Just like the ring wing! But it also his hijacked, corrupt, leading us astray. I think you would really enjoy the Grandmother Anna Books. Hers and The Sophia Code are the only texts I can read along these lines without a strong intuitive aversion or sick feeling. You may be interested to explore the links between Jung and the dark cults and the gnostics, but those I know of who reveal that I also sense come from distortion.
I translated a book on Mary Magdelene that discussed the Albigenses among other related things. In the process, I read other related books.
But in the end, I feel very ambvalent about it all. Gnosticism does seem to have a very dark side to it, though I do not understand it all or exactly how that came to be. But it does not seem to be a matter of gnosticism good, Catholic evil. It's more complex than that.
I think perhaps its more relevant to discuss the mechanisms of control.
It appears that througout the Middle ages there were at least two competing factions in Europe: Catholocism and somethig else, somethig more hidden that was likewise sinister in its ultimate aims. Today what we have is not directly or wholy descended from Christainity. There were forces that broke apart the Roman Catholic hegemony, and I daresay those forces were not themselves benevolent or well meaning. The "enlightenment" eventually led to nihilism, materialism, the result of which is meaninglessness and empty consumerism. Consumerism is the ultimate trap.
These are my gropings at trying to describe something I vaguely perceive but cannot yet fully put my finger on.
You are exactly right. I understand the Cathars were somewhat related to the Magdalenes, and certainly more egalitarian than typical Catholics. Many Catholic sects are involved in dark things, and the same is true with Gnostics. How many times has Isis been twisted, whether by the Catholic Church or by the military, for example? How many times has Mary Magdalene been distorted, whether accused of being a whore, or attributed to dark versions of gnosticism that then get used to write her off AGAIN?
Here's one of my big beefs with Gnosticism: the doctrine teaches that matter is evil and spirit good. (This is the ultimate dualism, probably inherited from Manichaeism/Zoroastrianism.) The result seems to be a disconnectedness from earth. While they may speak of a Mother Goddess, do they really see the earth as mother, or just part of evil creation?
Earth-based spirituality, on the other hand, invokes a deep connection with the earth... not an eagerness to escape it and never return. It calls for interrelatedness with "All Our Relations." That means here on earth, as well as our spiritual relations beyond.
As you know, with most of these things I have a "sense" and I later back it up with facts. But often I can't read all the way through the sources because those who share an element of truth, mix it n with distortion so that I literally can't read it.
I first learned about gnosticism as at a Christian college, and that was exactly the argument they made against gnosticism and platonic dualism. In reality I agree that gnosis/knowledge in the sense of direct knowing is indeed how I can tell, at least often, when there is distortion in views that I might otherwise be favorable toward because of some of those components. Likewise, platonic dualism has elements of truth that I resonate with, but when used to denigrate the body or the embodied aspects of Christ - whether in Yeshua or in us - it is sad and if I would argue, heretical if such only means "off the mark" of truth/Truth as I understand it. You also raise an excellent point about how exactly the Divine Feminine is viewed - as a source of power/evil or as the Actual Divine Mother. Even sources that do see her that way can often be corrupted and hijacked for cult purposes, then the cult version gets exposed and then you get to write off the original sacred thing along with the cult and there you another controlled psyops op. Have you read Matt Eheret's piece on Jung and the dark stuff? Or Whitney Webb's piece on synthetic spirituality and Barbara Marx Hubbard, who was a transhumanist/eugenicist?
Yes, the Bonne Hommes (and femmes) of 13th century Aquitainne were not hierarchal to my knowledge, allowing for diversity and perhaps making them difficult to define as a group.
I think it is more sure to rely on our own inner "gnosis", inner sense, than on texts, "revelations" or doctrines that tend to distort things.
Many of the teachings of Jesus in the cannononical gospels are "on the mark" but perhaps are best understood within the context of axial age grapplings with what David Graeber refers to as the military.coinage-slavery complex. (Debt: The First 5000 Years). Later, the Roman Imperial project co-opted the movement that appeared to be in counterposition to it, but failed to totally annihilate undercurrents that questioned its authority.
A similar thing couldt be seen in the early Franciscan movement: most of the movement was subsumed into a Roman Catholic order, but some of them with a purer vision splintered off.
I havent read the Eheret or Webb article you mention, but I did read something about Hubbard that made me think twice. Can you share any links?
With you on trusting the inner gnosis over texts or what others tell you. The other one look up on Last American Vagabond. Whitney's energy works for me - I don't want to say anything about anyone, but the other article has a lot of great content and I felt something "off" and I felt uncomfortable reading it - Also somewhere in my notes are my concerns are Graeber. Don't trust that one.
https://unlimitedhangout.com/2022/05/investigative-reports/barbara-marx-hubbard-godmother-of-transhumanism-and-synthetic-spirituality/
Yeah, Hubbard is definitely part of that new-agey transhumanist fad cult. Pretty concerning, as I know many have been influenced.
https://aliciakwon.substack.com/p/warrior-energy-kindness-and-divine
It’s rich for a solar cult like Christianity to condemn the sun-dance.
A wonderful, important article!
Thanks for the history to present lesson! The severings from Earth consciousness and the efforts to stop the actual practices of the Natives is one highlight, and the overall "goal was to weave a network of secrecy, suspicion, and terror..." Sound familiar?!
The blurb about a book i've only read bits of, "A.D. 381: Heretics, Pagans and the Dawn of the Monotheistic State" by Charles Freeman, states: "In AD 381, Theodosius, emperor of the eastern Roman empire, issued a decree in which all his subjects were required to subscribe to a belief in the Trinity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This edict defined Christian orthodoxy and brought to an end a lively and wide-ranging debate about the nature of God; all other interpretations were now declared heretical."
Also, with non-religious Kaballah, which is the core of my path, gnosis is one's personal way of knowing and it must serve the whole. Thus, "Nobody can "define" another person's Gnosis.. for it is uniquely one's own. Scholars finding (perhaps many centuries later) the writings of a Gnostic, may think they have found something UNIVERSAL, but they have NOT; rather, they have merely found a SPECIFIC written by one person who has met the Universal."
https://spirit-alembic.com/gnosticism.html
Splendid, well-documented and organized, compelling presentation of thorough research into the irrefutable thesis that "freedom of thought and speech were anathema to the builders of Christian domination." It has long been a conclusion of mine that "organized religion is undoubtedly the most spectacularly successful con in history" - and there is a wealth of information and research (including yours) to validate this fact. Thank you, Peter, for this profoundly important and valuable post.
I've recently been introduced to this website that provides a meta-analysis (or meta-narative) of the foundations of Western (including Middle Eastern) culture:
https://postflaviana.org/peoples-flavian-book/
Yes. The middle eastern roots are especially intriguing. They exist for western music also. You can sense them in Dvořák for example
Outstanding Peter! Thanks for shedding a great deal of light on a very dark phenomenon: the suppression of free flowing and creative human thought, which you demonstrate so exceedingly well.
Thank you Peter.
That is a fascinating window on some of the earlier information wars to monopolize and control Christian orthodoxy, and the collateral wealth and power.
It seems that human societies are very predisposed to being conned, manipulated and abused by their own created institutions. We die for our institutions, or get rubbed out by them. Churches, nation states, partisan ideologies, justice systems; it matter not what the specific content or framework is.
Great ideas or inspiration sometimes seed "successful" institutions which then glorify and perpetuate the institution rather than the original inspiration or wisdom.
Becoming institutionalized seems to be unhealthy for both ideas and for societies.
see this:
https://strangerworlds.substack.com/p/escaping-the-ruins-of-society?r=1hp10e&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true
“Society can be destroyed when further growth of mass production renders the milieu hostile, when it extinguishes the free use of the natural abilities of society’s members, when it isolates people from each other and locks them into a man-made shell, when it undermines the texture of community by promoting extreme social polarization and splintering specialization, or when cancerous acceleration enforces social change at a rate that rules out legal, cultural, and political precedents as formal guidelines to present behaviour.” - Ivan Illich (1973)
A really important commentary--thanks!