What do you think of the newly elected Pope Francis I

Post Reply New Topic

It was hard work to get ANY meaning out of what you said.

I had to reread your statement a couple times. Then I concluded that (a) you wanted the church fathers to be shot with hollow points, and (b) the crime they commited was coming up with an inauspicious date to pick a new a Pope, and (c) it was SO inauspicious that it was criminally negligent (ergo they needed to be shot with hollow points the US government has stockpiled). And (d) that date was bad because it was bad luck as a number- or something ( ie if they had thought of numerology they would not have picked it). Therefore you're beef was that they 'ignored numerology' ( ie the symbolism of the date).

So if that isnt what you said-then what ARE you saying?

Obviously, if I can't come to the same conclusions and don't apply the same broad-based heuristic guesses by feel than yes - I can't possibly see what you're saying.


No, there's one month of Mars per year. The value of Mars is not random. Its tied to foundational stories going back to antiquity including Romulus and Remus of Rome. It relates to war, domination, and all things 'martial'. If you want to go on pointing out how every month has that and I would be saying 'Oh its the month of Venus' or 'Oh, its the month of Janis', no, Mars specifically has more bearing on this point.



Selective observation once again. 12 can be a magic number as well. 12 months in a year, 12 tribes of ancient Israel, 12 original Apostles of Jesus, 12 signs of the Zodiac, twelve Olympian gods and goddesses, twelve Titans, 12 hours in half a day, and so on.[/quote]
12 isn't 13. Seems your trying to imply that they could have pulled any number out of the bag for the same effect. They could, it would be odd, but not as odd or methodically canned as 13's.


The evidence you're looking for I believe is called broad-based media consent; ie. you'll believe it when every major news source starts talking about it and popular opinion endorses it as valid. That's fine for topics that you've done no research on and have no interest in, once you figure out more for yourself taking the conformist road for facts quite often doesn't fit the world as it is - ie. its deliberatlely insular and for as much confirmation bias as you'll find out there you'll find just as much insular/normalcy bias where people make every attempt to shield themselves from things they'd rather not think about.

You haven't really proved anything with your post aside from clarifying that you're in a different camp and that you 'feel' differently about it. I'm not really sure what to say on that aside from thanks for clarifying your position if you felt it was needed.

Its not about inauspiciousness.

When you work that hard to press occult magick into time stamps you're trying incredibly hard to man-handle an outcome by supernatural means. It suggests that what you want to do will be jeopardized or in trouble if you actually let your plans sink or swim by their own merits. Its like loading the dice at a casino. A lot of Hitler's success came from his knowledge of occult from the Thule Society. Whether occult magick is strictly about psychological archetypes or drilling into and controlling the neurological construct of the mind by rather natural than supernatural means is somewhat beyond the point - leadership all over the globe firmly believes in its results. These people firmly believe it works and when they need to go to such lengths to assure outcomes as to go to Pythagorean/Platonic ends says a lot.

I offered that I'll be relieved when this whole thing blows over because again, I don't have a particularly high opinion of people in world leadership who are so obsessed with winning at all costs and so obsessed with their own power that they come up with insanely contorted dimensions for buildings, find the need to put hermetic symbolism all over streets (and yes, Washington DC as guilty as sin of this), and really all to load the dice by what they believe to be supernatural means.

In short - its not about thoughtlessness, its about a very deliberate and rubbish mindset and psychology that I have little respect for.

Not to get off subject, but while Hitler had some associations with the Thule Society, he was not actually a member (while Rudolph Hess was). Hitler himself was not a real believer in anything - unlike, again, Hess, as well as Heinrich Himmler. British intelligence overestimated the occult's influence on him. But Hitler understood people could be reeled in and used by the beliefs they had, and so allowed that angle to be played up, even though he was actually quite embarrassed by it personally.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

tech, my bias isn't media-based. I'm biased for the simplest explanation (in this case, an interesting coincidence that was possible to happen probability-wise), and I feel you're misusing Occam's tool and still not getting that random things can match up with things that you (and many others) happen to find interesting. The probability isn't zero just as the probability of you ending up winning 5 million dollars this year isn't zero.

The problem we get into - if what's being suggested is against one's beliefs it seems evidence becomes irrelevant. I knew that problem existed with the theism/atheism or spirit/materialism line, wasn't sure if it operated with quite the same severity with regard to analysis of human behavior but it seems the same general rule applies.

Gawd!
you're getting more, rather than less, opaque.

Ok...they pick a pope- and they happened to pick him on 3-13-2013.
I thought that you meant that was a bad date- for magical reasons. And that they should have picked a more numerologically good date- and that was what you were upset about.

But what you meant was that that was a GOOD date-if one believes in numerology- but that you DONT believe in it yourself. And that your beef is that they shouldnt let whacky stuff like numerology dictate important stuff-like archetecture- and picking a new CEO.

Therefore...the fact that they picked the pope on that date proves that the cardinals believe in numerology- and the fact that they believe in numerology - is what upsets you.

Is THAT your point?

If it IS-then did it ever occur to you that the fact they picked the Pope on that date might be just a dumb coincidence? That it has nothing to with either numerology itsself, nor with the powers at be believing in numerology? Maybe they just happen to arrive at a decision on that date.

Perhaps to your mind. I'll see if I can put this in a blender and spoon-feed it.


Closer but you're still not fully there. I do believe it has an effect and I'm not wild about its use. I could explain more on the physics of why it would work but we're already having enough communication difficulties - perhaps better to keep it one issue at a time.

This stuff represents a segment of society that's in everywhere and in everything - whether religion, politics, commercial enterprise, law, entertainment - you name it, and accordingly its nothing shocking that they'd have RCC reps. I have no idea whether Francis will be a good pope or an antipope. He may have had nothing to do with any of the symbolism that the college of cardinals was playing with. Regardless its as cynical a move as any other time they do such things.


Generally, often, when it comes to conspiracy theories I do see conformation bias and a lot of caffein, OTOH there are times where the cuke explanation becomes unconvincing. This is particularly so when the described behavior follows a precedent theme regarding the size and shape of certain governmental buildings, monuments, city planning art (making symbols with streets), ie. it fits a mode of operation that's not remotely new. Its because it fits a previously established modus operandi and serves an agenda in a positive manner, the answer that it was deliberate within that behavioral schema becomes much more plausible than declaring that it was random chance.

Were they worried about the Prophecy of Malachi and wanted to give Francis some kind of extra Platonic blessing? ROFL - they're clergy - PRAY for him! Do what you do at work every day! Resorting to occult magick for such things shows both belief in non-materialism and lack of faith simultaneously which is all the more depressing and ironic when, again, its the top brass of Catholic clergy (which insenses me more because I *am* Catholic) acting like this.

Hmmmm....

Well- its 'conFIRMation bias' ( being biased towards what confirms your beliefs).

Not 'conFORMation bias'.

But, yes, you should consider the possiblility that maybe you're guilty of falling for confirmation bias.

(though maybe there SHOULD be a term 'conformation bias' for something else. That something else being - 'being biased towards conforming to what most folks think'. But thats a whole another subject. You may have unwittingly coined a phrase)

On one hand people do often do odd things for symbolic reasons. The allies dragged their feet negotiating with the ready-to-admit-defeat Germans in late 1918 because the allies wanted the war to end on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month- just cause (wasn even tied to any nurmerological hocus pocus).

On the other hand - when you impose a radial pattern of streets upon a square grid pattern (the way DC is designed) you're going to get pentagram patterns whether you intend to or not. So I would not be so rash about buying into that "there are satanic symbols deliberately built into the city of washington'" theory.

Forgiveness, my thoughts occasionally get ahead of my internal spell-check and when I'm on a roll I'm on a roll.


My answer this would be best tacked into the following:



Well, DC is a little more interesting than a pentagram:

You also have the obelisk of the Washington monument inside a vesica pisces (look up the height of that building some time). Comparing the triangle to the pyramid on the one dollar bill also gives you the eye of providence, and what rests inside the pupil of the Eye of Providence/Horus is a location owned by of course one of the most classic usual suspects you can imagine.

The other thing, you use a term above - 'satanic'. I think the image of Satan and his minions the way we have things cartooned and caricatured today is one of the most dangerous things our culture has ever done in terms of hampering its own understanding or losing track of things. There's really no one who worhips the red guy with horns or reptilian gargoyles, the closest thing you'd really find to that - Gnosticism - looks incredibly different and has a completely different weighting to its beliefs that it was ignorant and by hapenstance 'evil' beings that created man, woman, the garden, and that it was Jesus and Sophia who broke them out of it by posing as a serpent and a dove; thus they invert the story and make Christ the strategic enemy of YHVH and posit YHVH's entities (arcons) over the astrological signs and such. So where all this gets really crazy, Gnostic Luciferians can call themselves 'Christians' in their parlance because they believe in Jesus the redeemer, they just have a very different (and might I bluntly add utterly non-biblical) belief about his identity.

To add to that, if a fiery Madison Avenued Evangelical were to be in a sports bar somewhere, find out that Anton Lavey (Satanic Church) was down at the end of the bar, and decided to call him out on who he is and what he does - if he embibed the common cultural ignorance of what it all is, he'd be in for the most confusing five minutes of his life. Why? There's really no 'satanism' as such. What you have in terms of counter-offers to Christianity and the other 'knowns' of major world religions are Hermetics, by extension Kabbalah and Pythagorean/Platonic thought (ie. people know the pentagram is supposed to be 'really really evil man' but they don't know its Pythagoras), and you also have Gnosticism floating out there. It seems like most of the occult or mystery religions are some blend of the above, the Laveyan Satanic church being that as much as anything. Another interesting factoid - the church of the seven in the book of Revelations that was told that it lived in the heart of the devil's territory - that city was under the shadow of the temple of Zeus! That's what was being discussed there.

So this is where it all gets more than a little confusing - it bares no resemblance whatsoever to the traditional outlook Christians (or at least today's pop Christians) believe that the good guys where white hats and the bad guys wear black. Lol, there's no Geneva convention in spiritual warfare as evidenced by Theosophy, New Age, and possibly one of the meanest echatological hoaxes ever - apparitions of Mary (perhaps even by the same female lower-case god that brought us Isis, Ateroth, Aphrodite, etc. although I can't prove that as more than speculation - just that I know for certain the apparitions are counter-biblical, that is unless your Gnostic and believe in Sophia).

Utilitarian morality (ie. what we get by on these days) often has no specific bearing for eschatological morality unless its an area where the two happen to coincide. Where they don't coincide you have all kinds of eschatological rubrics of what's good, what's evil, and so many things that utilitarian morality can't make any sort of rational call on because eschatology bears or claims to bear witness to things that we can verify (scientifically) in the most oblique manners at best. Its because of that we all feel like we're rolling in so much smoke that we can't tell up from down. Utilitarian morality is also highly malleable to eschatological morality - hence you could have a whole bunch of communists killing in the name of collectivism as under Stalin.

The point I'm trying to make - looking at the issue of the occult through the lens of 'satanic' the way most people intend it just occults (verb) and obfuscates understandings of what that means further. Strange truths be told - not only did Thomas Aquinas Platonize Christian teaching, the guy was an alchemist! He wasn't alone either in doing a little bit of everything.

Indeed when you really start trying to untangle the knots of largely unexamined religious history and peeling the onion you find that the rabbit hole on the topic of different goods, evils, and narratives, goes incredibly deep. Jammed into a pre-kindergarten level of understanding such as guy on throne in clouds vs South Park's big red - it'll never make any sense.

This is a relatively simple vocal message for me which i dont have to amplify or necessarily think much about.
new pope has my support at this moment and old pope did not, needless to say its point scoring all over, if someone tries to compare in more ways by simply waving a hand at what we deem misconduct. it is hardly a case here is it, considering nothing is too small or big to serve a monogamous thinking crowd.
lord be praised. let treason corrupt the ranks and trial liberate freedom on all.
Its only in this moral succession that we haven't seen a public vote on newly elected popes so we must be in for a new governing act.

Heres old past pope news in this post-

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postxf138836-0-30.html