‘Human sacrifice’ staged at CERN's Shiva Statue

[brekin]

.....if you perform a "fake" ritual but ensure it is disseminated out to a sufficiently large number of people such that there is implanted consciouly and / or subconsciously the idea of a sacrifice being performed does this generate any worthwhile magickal ripples in the ether...?

The magickal ripples emanating from this act are so weak as to effect only the naïve, weak-willed and corrupt.
We ritually sacrifice our soldiers, our incarcerated-some innocent, our food, our time and our will so mindlessly,
that to empower this act with our attention is a betrayal to our very souls.

I can only bow to this in awe of its sharp brevity and deep insight, sublime.

Lay off on the unction a bit, will ya? It's dripping all over the floor.
I disagree vehemently that Burnt Hill's solemn-silly dictum is in any way sharper, deeper, more insightful, wiser or truer than Barbara Bush's:


Thank God for Mac; for reason still is somehow not quite dead here.

The magickal ripples emanating from this act are so weak as to effect [sic] only the naïve, weak-willed and corrupt.

You speak, as usual, like an expert. But I do not believe that you are any more of an expert in magic(k) than in the inner workings of the Orlando Police Dept. I do not believe that you are especially qualified to tell us anything at all about the effects of "magickal ripples", real or fictional. Are you? If so, how, exactly? - For the time being and for the sake of argument, let's grant you your premise.

So we should just ignore whatever happened at CERN? Or we should empower with our attention only the corporate media's docile stenography of CERN's belated, reluctant, perfunctory, evasive and (in short) insultingly poor "explanation"? We should accept the hacks' immediate and unanimous reassurance that there's nothing to see here and just obediently move on? We should bestow our attention only on HuffPo's, VICE's and The Guardian's predictably vacuous accounts, nod our heads sagely, snigger along with them, fall into lockstep, and ask no further questions?

I don't think so. I'd say we "betray our souls" far more whenever we do just that. Because we make ourselves progressively more weak-willed and corrupt every time we do so. And faux-naivety is much worse than naivety, because it's a pretence. (Infants are charming. Infantile adults are not.)

We ritually sacrifice our soldiers, our incarcerated-some innocent, our food, our time and our will so mindlessly,
that to empower this act with our attention is a betrayal to our very souls

1. That is a complete non-sequitur!

2. The sacrifice of soldiers, prisoners, food, time and will is ongoing and shows no signs of ceasing or even slowing down. It's taking place in a world (and especially: a nation) ruled and populated by people who have been following Burnt Hill's prescription (and his example) for decades of adulthood, if not all their lives. We do nothing to alter and improve that state of affairs by accepting a piss-poor explanation of anything, by CERN or by any other powerful institution. On the contrary.

And we do not "empower this act with our attention" (!) any more than Mandela or Steve Biko empowered apartheid by paying very close and sustained attention to it (in order to oppose it), rather than merely ignoring it and hoping it would go away. Or any more than Ignaz Semmelweis empowered puerperal fever by paying very close and sustained attention to it (in order to discover its actual cause [i.e., dirty doctors' hands]), rather than accepting the lazy and self-serving conventional wisdom of the medical establishment of his time and place.

Or any more than Jeff Wells empowered ritual abuse by paying close and sustained attention to survivors' accounts, rather than just dismissing them instantly as ridiculous and obviously fake.

Thank Mac that reason somehow still doth prevail, even here, lord, in this endless dark.

Oh geez, this is too funny. Mac and his guruilla threatened by a pity statement and I accused of extreme unction.

I just wish there were the RI funds to outfit our two occult sleuths to do some on the ground reporting from CERN.

Breaking LIVE from CERN:



Beaker:

Meep! Meep! Meep! Meep!

Dr. Bunsen HoneyDew:

Yes, Beaker, Re, Crowley & animal sacrifice: leaving moralism aside (I am not a moralist), there is an energetic equivalence, or at least a continuum, between animal and human sacrifice; so if AC understood sacrifice as a means to release and direct the energy of the victim, and if he states clearly that human sacrifice is the best kind, then surely the fact he is known to have practiced animal sacrifice on occasion has to have some bearing on the question of whether he might also have performed the human sort? The main objection to this possibility is usually, or always, an implicitly moral one, i.e., he wouldn’t have done something like that because he wasn’t that bad (and he wasn’t that bad because he didn’t do that sort of thing). It’s a non-argument based on a predilection.

Beaker:

Meep! Meep! Meep! Meep!

Dr. Bunsen HoneyDew:

Indeed, Beaker! Regarding the OTO’s secrets: are you suggesting the OTO would sell their secrets about ritual abuse and/or sacrifice if they had any? To who exactly?Unlike many occultists or reformed occultists at this site, I no longer recognize any clear distinction between occult fraternities and intelligence organizations; the latter are proven to participate in organized abuse and to have affiliations with at least some of the known fraternities. Whether it’s a question of infiltration or of creating occult fraternities from scratch (or simply of having two different names for the same thing), I don’t know and it seems almost an academic question at this point. But then I have never belonged to any of these groups so I am not invested in that question. It’s enough for me to know that there is an overlap.

[Agent Orange Cooper]

just a tremendous shitpost brekin. you do one thing but you do it well

[brekin]

just a tremendous shitpost brekin. you do one thing but you do it well

Ha, well then I do everything well. And never forget: I take shitposts bigger than your regular posts.

[MacCruiskeen]

^^This is the New American Century, and this is The New RI. As above, so below. Kakistocracy and idiocracy. Fratboys shitting on the planet, fratboys shitting on the board.

Why? 1) Because it's all they can do, and 2) because they know they can get away it.

Enjoy the New RI! :

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

'Bye.

[Wombaticus Rex]

just a tremendous shitpost brekin. you do one thing but you do it well

2 weeks, bud.

[Wombaticus Rex]

[quote="

Ha, well then I do everything well. And never forget: I take shitposts bigger than your regular posts.

Same sentence, bud.

[guruilla]

What just happened?

[Burnt Hill]

What just happened?

AOC and brekin carried animosity -and vulgarity- across threads.
They had been warned.

[guruilla]

(What is the target audience for the daily mail? How many times can you use the term "bisexual" in one article?) (I'm rarely if ever shocked anymore by the depths of human potential for psychosis, but guilt by association is bad logic)

The Daily Mail aka the Daily hate - is aimed at middle class right wingers who are zenophobic, homophobic, and most of the others ...'phobics or 'ists, racist,sexist etc etc. Its a vile rag that's only use is to wipe ones arse if the tissue runs out (tho' that would mean one having a copy in the house....for 'research' no doubt : )

This is an example of why I talk about the neoliberal consensus at RI, which, as D & C pointed out, & like any good dominant ideology, works by possessing its hosts unobserved. Because The Daily Mail doesn't adhere to the correct ideological principles it is a Hate rag, ergo, there is no need to pay attention to anything it reports, or in this present case, to examine the evidence of how Crowley's writings may have inspired ritual crimes and other forms of madness. Instead, it's enough to derogate the source and move on.

As for "guilt by association," first off, this isn't an example of guilt by association but guilt by inspiration/influence, roughly the same principle on which Manson was convicted of murder, or, to lean more towards the "liberal" POV, Nietzsche, tsk tsk, look at what you made the Nazis go and do. The question of accountability in these sorts of cases is very far from cut & dried, but, when a self-proclaimed Holy Book says "the best blood is that of a child" & there's no footnote saying "THIS IS MEANT IN STRICTLY METAPHORICAL TERMS," I'd say the accountability of the author/text is, well, let's just say not inconsequential.

Secondly, guilt by association is a reasonable line of inquiry when we are talking about associations of people that are guilty of crimes. If said "suspect" writes tracts on the efficacy of child murder, channels a holy book that prescribes the same, has children dying around him left & right (following rituals), and associates with known networks of child trafficking, then yeah, I'd say he starts to look a just a little bit bit guilty by association; & honestly, anyone who "argues" otherwise by crying "witch hunt" starts to look pretty fishy to me also.

Bearing in mind always: this isn't a legal inquiry intended to bring about convictions, but an attempt to map cultural influences.

Bringing it back to the accusation of me being on a "witch hunt," I have to cry BS, again, on this one, not least because the whole notion of witch hunts, when it comes to child traffickers and ritual abuse, is mostly or entirely BS. Unless you're going to go all the way back to Salem or the Inquisition, or talk about communists, there haven't been any witch hunts, & certainly not around organized pedophilia, but the exact reverse, a massive cover-up spanning decades and absolving dozens of individuals of crimes, partly or largely via the manufacturing of a false narrative about witch-hunts. (See Ross Cheit's The Witch-Hunt Narrative, please, before citing any "examples." Daily Beast article on it here.)

So far as occultism being unfairly stigmatized by all this, I am still somewhat on the fence about that. It's seems fair to say that there must be large numbers of individuals, including whole groups, lodges, etc, that are entirely innocent of any of these kinds of crimes including knowledge of them. It's also a, I think inescapable, fact that some occult groups (The Process comes to mind, & Scientology) that were established by, for, and as intelligence orgs for their own ends which may have included trafficking of children. The same must be true of individuals in those worlds (name your suspect). I would suggest Crowley could be in this later category and if so, that would suggest the OTO is closer to an intelligence front than not. I may well be wrong about this, & I haven't done any research into the OTO directly, so this is only a maybe & not meant to shake anyone's cage. All I can say with confidence is that they, the OTO, crop up repeatedly in survivor testimonies and that, like The Process, they seem to be linked in so many different ways & to so many of the more historically verified perpetrator groups and individuals that, at the very least, any well-intentioned OTO member must surely at the very least be curious about how this sad state of affairs came to pass. If it is all the result of an intelligence agenda to blacken the name of true occult fraternities, OK: I would be open to hearing the how, why, and when of this. But it will require a lot more than "I've been to meetings & I didn't see anything funny going on."

Lastly, the comment about soldiers being sacrificed on the field (those burnt hills!) as a counterpoint to the gravity of ritual sacrifice practiced by occult fraternities. This echoes almost exactly OP-ED's juxtapositioning of ritual sacrifice and the meat industry, and I think it's equally misleading. That a definition of ritual murder might, or should, include officially sanctioned forms of industrialized death-dealing I wouldn't have any problem with. But as an argument for the trivial or secondary nature of occult-based ritual murder, it just doesn't add up. OP ED (& burnt hill) seem to be saying, "Why get so upset about Crowley advocating ritual killing or CERN scientists mock-acting one out when this other stuff is part of our world & we never question?" (First off, who says we don't?) This is a compartmentalizing of data according to moral precepts and a personal sense of priorities: one is supposed to be serious, agreed on, and worthy of concern; the other trivial, spurious, and a waste of our time. So it's more like a circular argument based on a false dichotomy than a meaningful contrast. Why not see all these things as manifestations of the same cultural pathology? I would. I was especially surprised to see Project Willow jump on that burning band wagon, but perhaps it's based on the belief that the occult trappings of ritual abuse & murder are there only to distract our attention from the real nature of the crimes? But even if that were true (I really don't think it is), it wouldn't automatically follow that all occult manifestations are irrelevant attention distractors; on the contrary, they would then become signifiers of something occurring behind those blinds.

Those who sincerely want to keep their attachments to the occult intact by insisting that occultism only ever relates to ritual abuse and murder when it's a cynical cloak for it, or at best a misguided rationalization of it, but never a real foundation for it, I would have thought have more reason than anyone to look closely at the many guilt-implying associations. Crying "witch hunt" is the very worst thing they can do, IMO, because a) it invalidates without examination the testimonies of the abused, which is just what the perpetrators want us to do; and b) recent history has shown that it's the guilty who are the first to cry: "witch hunt."

[guruilla]

Just as a follow-up post: I received an email today from someone following this thread who hasn't registered here & who preferred to share their thoughts privately with me. (BTW I know of people who have tried to register at RI but haven't ever made it "in.") Since some of what he wrote dovetailed closely with arguments I wanted to make, I asked him I could quote him & save myself some time. He said OK. This person is an ex-Freemason, who recently left the lodge.

I would argue that you can learn a lot about a religion, a philosophy, an organization by simply referring to its foundational texts. Whatever freemasons, individually or as lodges or even as grand lodges have gotten themselves up to over the centuries, their core texts are benign and their prescriptions for member's conduct are as well. That is to say, if every freemason were to vanish off the face of the earth today, and some future generation were to try and reconstitute the fraternity based on those core (blue lodge) texts, the result would be, again, benign as well.

Compare that with the core text of thelema. Its a religion with a pantheon of re-imagined egyptian gods. The scriptures are, to me at least, a prescription for transgression and evil deeds. When I have challenged Christians about some of the evil aspects of scripture, like capital punishment for unruly children and such, ("No, I am not a Christian, I think its wrong to even hit kids, much less kill them, sorry guys"), I have heard some of the more "learned" tell me things like "well there are four levels at which scripture is to be interpreted. If you read some of that old testament scripture too literally, you are missing the deeper interpretation." And...I say that is all bullshit. If you have to engage in this sort of mental gymnastics to get away from the dire, literal interpretation, then something is wrong with your scripture. I have heard thelemites, many years ago when I cared enough to talk about it, give them same crap answer when I asked them about the book of the law: "you are not reading it right."

So, you linked to an article in the daily mail about some really awful people doing really awful things to innocent people while reading/taking their cues from this "holy book" of crowley. Are we to say those people also "read it wrong?" I don't think so. A lot of that evil behavior is prescribed...right there in the "scripture." Again, if the world ends and some group of people 500 years from now find the botl and decide to build a religion out of it, they are going to get up to the same sorts of sinister crap because their new bible "tells them so."

It is the same with the Abramic religions: although modern christians pat themselves on the back because they claim to have left the old testament (and new!) barbarity behind, they still revere this holy text and the text still has prescribes all that nasty behaviour. Under the right circumstances, the dark side of biblical law can still make a comeback, next week or 500 years hence.

So, whether or not crowley himself engaged in human sacrifice, you linked to a disturbing example of how, even if we just call it a religious version of "stochastic terrorism," his ideas nonetheless retain the power to give bad people bad ideas. So in that sense, I would say the "prophet" is guilty of it even if never engaged in it himself.

[OP ED]

Fortunately my attention span doesn't allow for that kind of multiple fronts type attacking.

(I also really do try to be polite nowadays, difficult as it can sometimes be)

[Burnt Hill]

guruilla-
First off, your welcome, happy to clarify that for you.

Disregarding your false narratives and complete misunderstanding of my posts,
you seem to forget there is absolutely no proof of a ritual sacrifice at CERN.
But lets grant you the double reverse logic of it not mattering whether or not it was "real".
It is still so weak as to hold no power over human beings, unless that human being allows it to, which is what seems to be happening to you.
This small non-event appears to matter a great deal to you, and that says a lot about you, not the event. And that is fine.
Some of what you are saying is sensible, just not in the context of the op.
You could maybe stop disparaging your fellow contributors and listen, you don't have to agree.
Considering you have been aligning yourself with one of the most narcissistic (and least empathetic) of cohorts, am I asking too much?

[guruilla]

Thanks for the clarification, it crossed my own post.

As for the rest, urm, the above "appeal" is insidious with innuendos in so many ways that I'd rather not linger on it, at all.

I notice, not for the first time, that those who invoke empathy or the lack thereof tend to be the least practicing of it.

So the short answer to "Is it too much to ask?" is Yes, it is.

But, I mean you no harm by these observations.

[Burnt Hill]

Thanks for the clarification, it crossed my own post.

As for the rest, urm, the above "appeal" is insidious with innuendos in so many ways that I'd rather not linger on it, at all.

I notice, not for the first time, that those who invoke empathy or the lack thereof tend to be the least practicing of it.

So the short answer to "Is it too much to ask?" is Yes, it is.

But, I mean you no harm by these observations.

Fair enough! A bit of consensus.
The empathy part though, yes, no.
We can all do better in that part.
Also- long answer, No its not.
Don't worry, you cant harm me!

[dada]

Hm.

I don't see Crowley as a prophet. The Bible isn't my scripture. Neither the corpus of Hindu texts. And so on. As I'm not bound by any religious, mystical auras, I feel free to read any and all 'holy books' however I like. Since I'm a writer I tend to treat them all poetically. I'm not claiming my view is correct. Heretical, maybe.

I'm also not claiming that a literal reading of these texts is the wrong way, not how they were intended to be read. Though I don't see people reading holy books as poetry, and then going out and killing people.

Now, let's say Crowley was advocating ritual sacrifice. This means I'm wrong for treating his work to an ironic and poetic critical reading. Or maybe not wrong, but even worse, a dang fool. Simply irrational. So I'm a heretic to the religious dogma of reasonism to boot. I guess I'm just a heretic's heretic.

That chapter 12 bit, about blood sacrifice, does close out by saying this:

"You are also likely to get into trouble over this chapter unless you truly comprehend its meaning."

And the footnote begins:

"There is a traditional saying that whenever an Adept seems to have made a straightforward, comprehensible statement, then is it most certain that He means something entirely different."

Is Crowley hinting at something there? Who really knows. It could be nothing, I suppose. He certainly didn't come right out and say 'THIS IS MEANT IN STRICTLY METAPHORICAL TERMS' Then again, where would the fun in that be. So irresponsible.

Crowley doesn't make it easy for those who would want to defend him. And I'm glad I'm not one of those people. What a pain in the ass that would be.

Now I'll shock you by making a definitive statement.

Crowley liked to claim his 'holy book' was written in the great pyramid while he was on his honeymoon. I'm convinced that he wrote it in the hotel room. Would you spend your honeymoon sitting in the great pyramid? I know I wouldn't.

Then again, some people will believe anything.