RIDDLES IN STONE: THE SECRET ARCHITECTURE OF WASHINGTON D.C.

it is time to start paying attention to what these symbols mean. it explains a hidden history we are only just beginning to unravel. the people who put these things into place believe that they are influencing us on a subliminal level. that is why they are in plain sight. the only remedy is to become conscious, to learn their language, and to create our own symbols that empower *every* human being, rather than some platonic elite. for more, see jordan maxwell's lecture on "the occult world of commerce" and his "basic slideshow presentation" on the origins of the symbols on the dollar bill (refer to my blog post archive). this is not the stuff of conspiracy theory. it is a matter of historical reference, and all the source documents have been made fully available. again, watch with an open mind.

the film also raises questions as to the true nature of the influence of the bavarian illuminati/jacobins on the french and american revolutions. it seems that those responsible for instilling "fire in the minds of men" did indeed have noble intentions--freeing us from tyrannical theocracies and monarchs and establishing a "new secular order"--but their chief flaw--and the chief flaw of all violent uprisings, be they Marxist or "democratic," which in the end are the same in achieving a "dictatorship of the proletariat" (read "u.s.a republic, the house that no one lives in" in my blog archive)--is the utilitarian/machiavellian belief that the ends justify the means, or the supreme good is the happiness of the many, even if it means the sacrifice of the few.

so, in other words, it is quite alright to cut the heads of priests and monarchists--or to kill millions of people while spreading "democracy" around the world--just as long as it is in the service of "liberty" or "social justice" or some such high ideal. i mean, neo-conservatives, who are carrying on that same revolutionary project, openly discuss their agenda as machiavellian.

but the real concern/question that comes up for me is this: was the founding of our republic done in the tradition of plato's republic, to restore some baconian sense of a lost atlantis (america, i believe, has something to do with "water" as in mer-chant or mer-maid, and as such has something to do with maritime/admiralty law, or the law of the high seas/commerce), that is to say with an "illuminated" or "enlightened" elite pulling the strings and levers of the body-politic to reform man and make him ready for a pure democracy (state socialism, in other words, where the state "molds" man in its image then "withers" away); or, as the traditional republicans and libertarians would have us believe, was the republic founded on the notion that government exists only to preserve the inherent "natural rights" of the people against both the tyranny of the majority (i.e. a "democracy") and the intrigues of the minority (i.e. an oligarchy) in the belief that humanity can only achieve its true excellence and potential when it is left to its own genius devices, when it can try every avenue and employ every artifice until it hits upon the "right way" with the law of averages and/or the passage of time. in other words, it is the perennial debate of the wisdom of the elite vs. the wisdom of the crowd.

it seems that there are two opposing conceptions of the "hidden destiny" of our republic. and the fight, strangely enough, seems to be reflected in the struggle between the predominantly right-wing Christian anti-masonic "patriot" movement and the occult traditions which founded the first "democratic" conventions in our country (the film discusses the role of the jacobins in this regard) and which eventually led to fellow master mason and socialist-democrat FDR's "new deal" (i.e. "new order") proposals and the resulting history of the expansion of federal power on all fronts (FDR seemed to keep masonic philosopher Manley P. Hall especially close to him during these times, who was responsible for not a few volumes on the "secret destiny of america").

is there something inherently Christian about the concept of "natural rights" endowed by the Creator? or, more precisely, perhaps it is the the Protestant belief that man needs no intermediary between himself and God and he can know the truth directly only of his own free-will and faith--perhaps it goes back to the example of Christ driving out the money-changers from the temple, his disdain for false idols and Roman/Pagan/Jewish "authorities"--as opposed to those esoteric traditions which seem to teach, as their starting point, that man only develops rights when he achieves a certain level of knowledge and is initiated into the proper degrees/circles by his "masters". or perhaps it goes back even further to the debate on fundamentals between the Platonists and the Aristotelians. it seems an important question to ask, and an even more important debate to resolve if we are to decide the fate of our republic.

there also seems to be two opposing, or perhaps complementary, strains of spiritual thought as well, often referred to as the "left hand" and "right hand" paths: those traditions which teach the perfection or strengthening of the individual will and ego (i.e. theosophy/masonry/the fourth way/etc.) and those traditions which emphasize enlightenment through the abolition or cessation of the individual will and ego (i.e. taoism/zen/vedanta/gnosticism) and the realization of the Universal/Transcendental Self or "dying to the flesh" and being "reborn" in the Holy Spirit. simply put, creating something out of nothing--molding the raw materials, as it were--or the unearthing of the precious stone that has always been there just beneath the charcoal surface.

it seems only inevitable that two very different approaches to political organization should come out of these two very different approaches to reforming the human spirit: one in which implosive pressure is applied from the top-down or the outside-in, and one in which explosive pressure is released from the bottom-up or the inside-out. to put fetters on, or to take them off--THAT is the question.

which side are *you* on?