the master race

[mothandrust]

this is the continuation of a discussion from soul real's thread in secret societies, so as not to divert...

standvast (from free masons do not worship lucifer) Wrote:...the view of inherent hierarchy in Nature is not my personal view,
it is something i have come across more than once when reading about the mysteries , or books from freemasonic authors,
what interests me is that it is to me like a logical "rational" version of the biblical races and species (man/animal) classifications, or say a caste system.
and it's also close to base ideas of social darwinism / eugenics,. as it serves as an argument for the "enlightened" guiding "the lesser",
A central theme to utopian thinking could be considered that the most "rational" and capable is the naturally ordained ruler,
If nature is considered divine than the fittest and wittiest survivalist would be the "naturally/divinely appointed" top dog of the heirarchy,.. by that rationale,...
If "god" used to be a term or descriptive for the mystic essence of all nature, which i think it is,
and the archetypical magician or the philosopher king was oppointed through his Naturally (god given ) capabillity and attained merits,
then to me the new interpretation of "nature's rule" (dogmatic scientism) (solely survival of the fittest and wittiest)
seems like a mere modern version of divine appointment,..catch my drift ?

response as (half) promised. guess i've not answered all your points exactly, but it's the best i can come up with for now


Taking a logical, rational, scientific perspective we can see the evolution of structured society, from family/tribe to community and on to city state, where hierarchy takes over from personal knowledge and interaction. Complexities come into being which are too confusing or difficult for most to comprehend. At this point most are willing to surrender their freedom for the security offered by someone or some group who says/demonstrates their grasp of these complexities (or of course, through violence).

Once, not so long back, this was all I thought. It didn't seem too contentious, it largely fitted with my understanding of humanity's development, and also allowed for the (theoretical) transfer of power from the priests and princes to the population, in the form of democracy. OK, we know that's a sham, power remains where it always did, with the money, and we get to vote for the colour of someone's tie, but, nevertheless, theoretically power has been distributed.

In reality, power is more concentrated than ever, more unaccountable and invisible than ever. Where's that power? Bilderbergs, Illuminati, royal families, Catholic church, Masons, Zionists, Bankers, IMF, WTO... to be sure I don't know, nor where one group stops and another starts, perhaps one can be a member of all of them??? or none of them???

I suppose what we are asking is whether these groups, cliques, bodies have any validation in their claims of higher wisdom and therefore control – yes? (hope so, 'cos that's what i'm going to consider now... sort of...)

have to say standvast, you more than anyone (or at least the directions I picked up from your posts) influenced my recent research, undermining my previously held tenets. OK, not all of them but in relation to the wisdom of the ancients, really I had a spanner put in the works. This is way too complicated and confusing for me to attempt a thorough explanation but let me at least talk over a couple of revelations/mysteries/not quite sure of the right word.

I read the 'Emerald tablets of Thoth', fascinating, intriguing was it possible pre history that two species existed? Children of God and children of men (or however one wishes to frame it). Personally I thought Thoth was great, it seems to contain enormous amounts of wisdom (although of course i'm not denying that it maybe a forgery from the middle ages, or whenever).

The second thing that got me, and absolutely cannot be argued away is the extraordinary wisdom, knowledge of geometry and mathematics, cast in stone, in Ancient Egypt, and the effects that said wisdom had upon the founders of our modern world, for example Pythagoras.

So where am I leading? This is of course just guesswork, little more than idea, but if, once, there had been such a demarcation and Pharaohs had been the offspring/heirs of this higher man, and I guess, the priests in the temple, we see how very quickly (in evolutionary terms) this system degenerated, falling prey to abuse of power. From what I understand of humans, and their behaviour through history this is inevitable. I cannot find one example to disprove it.

As generations came and went, even if we had a concentration of just one or two higher beings at the birth of humanity as it is generally accepted, this core seed would disperse almost immediately, from the next generation onwards, spreading out amongst servants and slaves, illicit affairs, the priesthood who are always insatiable in these areas, until a millennia or so down the line when it would be completely impossible to tell master from slave through their fragmented bloodlines.

As an example, look at the British royal family. Ignorant and selfish as they are always so keen to demonstrate: Harry and Philip are absolute masters. You hear them interviewed and it is quite obvious, beyond their extraordinary arrogance, they are no brighter than your average Jo(e). And if they are any more ruthless and cruel than your average Jo(e), I suspect it's to do with the way they've been brought up and generational abuse of power.

In effect, this is the opposite to social darwinism as I understand it, a higher race is completely impossible, a fallacy. No more than an excuse to pursue one's personal aims and prejudices.

It is of course the people at the top who always preach things like eugenics, you never hear it from poor or oppressed or people just trying to make a living (unless they've been programmed, e.g. Nazis). “More for me” is what they really mean.

Hierarchy is a value judgement, that one thing is more important or stands above another. Perhaps the food chain is a good example, but I see that more as a cycle, the biggest, most powerful creatures being eaten by the smallest as they rot, decompose. Is it man or bacteria at the top of the hierarchy?

As I understand it, there is no hierarchy there is balance, exchange, the whims of God/Nature, life's rich pattern... and power. Power is the only legitimation of hierarchy.
My point is, there can be no genetic validation for hierarchy, through family line. Accepted, stupid parents produce stupid kids for the most part, passing traits from one generation to another, but their can be 'throw-backs' and genetic combinations which belie this on occasions. The complexities of this are completely beyond man's ingenuity to grasp, unfathomable and therefore quite impossible to pass judgement upon.

Truth is, it is no one's position to judge, no one ever has enough information to judge another, their genes, their past, their society, their circumstances, their pressures, their fears... beyond comprehension. The best that anyone can ever do is question themselves.

anon Wrote:There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow men - true nobility is being superior to your former self.

[standvast]

M&#39 Wrote:I suppose what we are asking is whether these groups, cliques, bodies have any validation in their claims of higher wisdom and therefore control – yes?

In a sense. yes,
I think they believe or at least outwardly pretend to believe that their power/supremacy, are devinely and / or naturally ordained.
By claiming that this is so , and seeking validation or argumentation to why this is so, they also influence the people to consider it as such.
The Idea only works if people believe it to be so, meaning, there would not be a priest-king if he can not make
himself to be viewed and accepted as just that. IOW , i think the argumentation is to be understood by the average people,
for it is they who grant the status and authority to the priest-king, by subdueing their own authority to his Rule.

M&#39 Wrote:Complexities come into being which are too confusing or difficult for most to comprehend. At this point most are willing to surrender their freedom for the security offered by someone or some group who says/demonstrates their grasp of these complexities (or of course, through violence).

One could say the priestly class, or the authority of scribes , who have the respect or are feared by the rest of the people,
have to be the ones to primarilly acknowledge the validity of a priest-king's divine appointment, or at least decide to pretend it's real,
since if they do not accept the idea as valid, the average people who look to them for answers will not either.
Would they do so (accept the Idea_) if there was no military force , or logical /explainable rationale behind the Idea of the exhaulted appointed leader > ?

M&#39 Wrote:Once, not so long back, this was all I thought. It didn't seem too contentious, it largely fitted with my understanding of humanity's development, and also allowed for the (theoretical) transfer of power from the priests and princes to the population, in the form of democracy. OK, we know that's a sham, power remains where it always did, with the money, and we get to vote for the colour of someone's tie, but, nevertheless, theoretically power has been distributed.

Theoretically, the shaman , priest king or class of scribes would have to acquire acknowledgement of their wisdom / power,
IOW , they would in some way, by some demonstrable or communicable explanation, have to make people
recognize their authority (whether spiritual, mental , political ) over their own, and thus "give them their (validated) power/ authority" .
If at one point the Idea of divinity through bloodline became an accepted notion, this feat became a lot easier,
because not every new generation or succesive throneholder would have to re-demonstrate their supremacy.

If the magician or priest king actually held anything ("power/authority") over the average people,.
this would have to be either Physical or Mental power,..
(A power must be made witnessable / observable ,
there is no way to prove / examplify a power existing in some mystical unaccesible realm, with no phenomenal reality to it )
Physical and Mental supremacy are not in any way self evident unless displayed / made known and respected as such...
neither claims of physical or mental supremacy can remain untested ,
so at one point or the other, validation of this presumed power would be required.

You (or I ) can talk all you want about swordsmanship , even weild a gilded sabre, to which you attribute unseen powers,
but when this power is never made apparant to those you wish to convince of your mastery, they will doubt you and test you.
This goes for Mind also, If one is to claim a supreme rationality , or a capacity of mind superceeding the average,
the average people would demand to be shown this power, for it is not a power/authority if the people don't validate it as such.
(One can in this example equate a higher capacity of understanding or physical force to "spiritual supremacy" ,
because the physical and mental manifestations are the only demonstrable phenomena which this supposed "Greater spirituality" underlies. )
Concluding ; whether deemed 'spiritual" or not , power requires demonstrations by which the average folks
can be effected by it, witness it and thus accept it / validate the existence of the power.
In this sense, physics, nature sciences, observance of the phenomenal world, and principally all psychology / philosophy
has always had a direct connection to "the devine" , for they are methods / rituals either meant to connect to the divine through,
or examplify the already present divinity discovered in man and the world.

Realizing the above, i came to the notion that "God" or presumed divinity in man, (and thus also divine right of kingship)
is only accesible / testable through phenomena which occur in the realm of "reality" shared by everyone.
If the average folks were to understand and validate their king or shaman's divinity.,
this divinity or the phenomenal evidence thereof would have to be approachable /
made visible within the realm of nature,... within ones experience of the natural world.

Quote:The second thing that got me, and absolutely cannot be argued away is the extraordinary wisdom, knowledge of geometry and mathematics, cast in stone, in Ancient Egypt, and the effects that said wisdom had upon the founders of our modern world, for example Pythagoras

The above, geometry and mathematics, are to me examples of elemental approaches to "test divinity" by examining the natural order,
being that these methods are ancient and were always entwined with notions of the devine, go to illustrate my point
of the scribes or the ruler-class having to link divinity to witnessable phenomena , observable (with)in nature.
The exhibitions and implementations of knowledge applied ( be they an alphabet, pyramid, or mathematical formula)
served as phenomenal "validation" of the knowledge / power... they were the rituals / mediums through which man
could connect to God's or divinity's presence in the Natural World (and thus man) and attain a greater understanding thereof.

Quote:As generations came and went, even if we had a concentration of just one or two higher beings at the birth of humanity as it is generally accepted, this core seed would disperse almost immediately, from the next generation onwards, spreading out amongst servants and slaves, illicit affairs, the priesthood who are always insatiable in these areas, until a millennia or so down the line when it would be completely impossible to tell master from slave through their fragmented bloodlines.

If i were to entertain the notion that there ever were "higher beings" , whether created as such or naturally empowered,
then this distinction would have to be made going by observed phenomena,. for there is no way to check/measure ones spiritual instillment
without challenging this, testing this ,.. and all tests / challenges apply to the natural world.
Whether one attemps to prove spiritual supremacy by pointing out ones connection/relation to earlier rulers whom
people respected as authorities (such as with bloodline / lineage ) or if one attemps to prove ones spiritual supremacy through
demonstrating a higher understanding of nature, connection To nature, (which is God's Nature), or even Control over Nature,
one has to make the average people, or at least ones fellow scribes, understand, recognize and validate this power/knowledge.

continued below.

[standvast]

Now for the thread title you picked.. :)"the master race",
i propose an alternative, namely ; "the race to mastery"
As i do not believe in either a master race or "higher beings" ,
and view God / Divinity as inseperable from the nature of god, or from the nature of anything within creation;
i think all that can make one higher in being (physically, mentally ;spiritually_) is ones (presumed or proven) mastery,..
and thus it has, from time immemorial, been a race to master (the elements of ) nature e.a. God,
and subsequent exhibition of said mastery through works / crafts / acts / conceptualisations.
"where there is mastery , there is no mystery" ~Noah23

M&#39 Wrote:look at the British royal family. Ignorant and selfish as they are always so keen to demonstrate: Harry and Philip are absolute masters. You hear them interviewed and it is quite obvious, beyond their extraordinary arrogance, they are no brighter than your average Jo(e).

Much agreed, they do not actually have any higher mastery /power to demonstrate,
and are thus in comparison to the average people , not any brighter , higher, let alone more spiritual.
Sure, theoretically, through heritage, they have a fortune and an army to demonstrate power,
but nothing to point at them being beings of a higher integral spirituality than anyone else, same goes for the pope.
All they have to show for in authority or power is based on possession, possesion of money or sway over other people through money,
there is no core of "higher understanding" of the natural world / god that they hold or can demonstrate.
Their "priestly class" (the Royal society, State Universities, Historians, etc ) are still actively at the forefront
of validating their position, validating their, and thus their leaders superiority through demonstration of a "higher understanding" of the natural world / god.

M&#39 Wrote:In effect, this is the opposite to social darwinism as I understand it, a higher race is completely impossible, a fallacy.
No more than an excuse to pursue one's personal aims and prejudices.

:) There is but one Race, ....in a race, everyone is out to hold pole position, or if that proves impossible, it least claim it "at the finish".;)
The idea of a devine bloodline can quickly be disposed of when the grandson is demonstrably a less skilled long distance runner than grandpa,.
or any average runner on a good day.
A simple test of the claim could disprove the idea of there being power devinely bestowed upon Some, (rather than upon all / the whole) time after time...
the problem is often, that the claims remain untested.
If the survival of the fittest, wittiest and fastest is to be seen as what displays a natural (godly) devinely appointed heirarchy,
than these people, be they Prince William or the pope, are obviously merely average, and not any "higher" than the next man.
So i agree, there is no logic to these people being any higher (up "in the heirarchy") than anyone, going by the tenets of social darwinism,..
there is (to me) no logic or basis for the average man validating these people having any higher power or authority then themselves,.
...often if not allways those up in the heirarchy produce nothing of themselves, offer no service but lip, and shine only by the sacrifices of others they deem lesser/.

M&#39 Wrote:Hierarchy is a value judgement, that one thing is more important or stands above another. Perhaps the food chain is a good example, but I see that more as a cycle, the biggest, most powerful creatures being eaten by the smallest as they rot, decompose. Is it man or bacteria at the top of the hierarchy?

M&#39 Wrote:Power is the only legitimation of hierarchy.

Very good point,
Is the power really with the pharaoh , or with those who attribute it to him ?
Is the power a static fact, or does it rest between those "giving it up" and the person / artifact it is "given" to ?

To view nature (or god's creation) heirarchically, one has to assume humans as the only creatures possible of making out this heirarchy,
which leads to humans placing humans (most likely themselves or their respective group) at the top of the pyramid by default,..
for there is no outside force to challenge or test that contention.
To maintain the idea of devine rulers kingship being granted to the top of the pyramid,
one would have to subclassify humanity , and thus appoint the "lesser" for there to be a "higher",..
not only that, but one would have to make the heirarchy apparent to all, and make them accept it,
this (the structure of presumed heirarchy_) is indeed all about perspective and goes to serve the interests of those doing the classifying.

M&#39 Wrote:Truth is, it is no one's position to judge, no one ever has enough information to judge another, their genes, their past, their society, their circumstances, their pressures, their fears... beyond comprehension. The best that anyone can ever do is question themselves.

fromout our (shared) perspective, i agree with that statement fully. B)
But,.. in order to make any orientation (in the natural world) one has to classify, be it heirarchically or not,..
the real problem is , i think , that one often combines to those distinctions made in orientation , ones personal (ego-bound) judgements of (another's) intrinsic value,
...this is what i think gives shape to the heirarchy, creates the substrata, assigns humans to the perceived "lower" (levels [of the pyramid]).

-----------------------

M&#39 Wrote:have to say standvast, you more than anyone (or at least the directions I picked up from your posts) influenced my recent research, undermining my previously held tenets. OK, not all of them but in relation to the wisdom of the ancients, really I had a spanner put in the works.

i hesitate not to say that the conversations we have shared have similar effects on me, and i am grateful...
I allow myself to be influenced, as do you, so i would argue that the reorientation you went through is primarilly yours,
and that our respective words only serve as an impetus to have a second or third look,.. coersion or assumed autthority wanted nor required.
Glad i could add to the spectrum, and thankful for your reflections.

namaste'
peace'

[mothandrust]

hey man, thanks for your comments. i think to the large part we are agreed, a few slight differences in word use and perspective, but nothing to fight over. i think neither of us need to prove our supremacy or find walls or dogma to hide behind. a great value in discussion, where people are prepared to say "i don't know", "i prefer to remain openminded, uncommitted, without solid evidence, hard facts" - of which, given the timescales, distortions by authority/ignorance there can be precious little, or none at all.

my workload is a mountain, my motivation shackled by depression, i feel overwhelmed by commitments i make and my inability to fulfil them, so please excuse the brevity of my response. but just wanted to postulate on a couple of thoughts/suppositions your response brought to light.

i too find it difficult to accept the idea of two races, it goes against so many of my ideas. but, i also think in actuality, functionality in today's world it is irrelevant (as stated above), it matters not one jot, because today we are one.

thinking back to earliest times (taking the standard evolutionary model), humanity would have been small social groups (obviously successful, because look how they spread) making the most of nature's gifts and gaining expertise in their application/management.

Now it seems to me that in this environment various skills would be required (certainly ones for maintaining the group, although because the group is effectively set, I suspect they would be considered of least value, perhaps even invisible) but, more to the point, the best hunters would be highly regarded, as would those who looked further, to the seasonal, annual requirements of the group. i suspect it is unlikely they would be one and the same person. For example, someone with physical strength, good at throwing, running, with stamina is less likely to turn their attention towards more long term or intricate questions - the best hunter is probably the least likely discoverer of the means of creating fire, weaving, weapon/house construction... seems like quite a complex interplay but my feeling would be brain power would be of far greater value than hunting skills for coherent development of society.

I guess there can be not absolute here, this is a simplistic picture and interbreeding would muddy the waters still further, but nevertheless by the time we arrive as structured society I guess there would be elites proposing their version of truth (with the muscle to support it) which would eventually win out, perhaps creating master/slave shepherd/sheep societies. Divisions with perhaps a grain of truth historically but foundationally corrupted through wealth, power and indiscretion.

Not a jot of difference to the higher race theory, no more than quibbling over aesthetics. In fact, it reminds me very much of the supposed differences between religions, the more eastern ones thinking in terms of God as the whole, all of creation, with the more western alternative, of God as somehow outside, looking down upon all its creation. Sounds like a fundamental difference, until one comes to appreciate, whatever version, we are still all God's creation.

namaste,

edit: or it could be race from mastery:D

[mothandrust]

... just had some fragmented thoughts on 'the mysteries' - thought i'd just bash them in before i forget:

once, everything was a mystery, night and day, seasons... until someone put forward a 'valid' explanation. then, assuming it is accepted by the majority, it no longer appeared as a mystery (i suspect i may have already said this in SR's thread). i guess we can see that those who had apparent mastery of the mysteries would become elevated: Ancient Egypt, for example. perhaps they created their own myths, one cannot know, but what we can know it that somewhere back in time, prior to the construction of the pyramids, from somewhere, came an extraordinary knowledge, understanding of geometry.

i wondered about this, from where? maybe from Thoth, or maybe Thoth is a representation of something... thinking on the fly here... perhaps man's connection primordial connection with creation, nature, the universe and as man increasingly saw himself as observer, the harmonies apparent in nature, geometry, the relationship between numbers, the Fibonacci spiral... being intrinsic to life were absorbed as natural, foundational truth. there would be no second thought about it, a visible truth wherever one looked. logical therefore to build temples to, and displaying the truth as both homage and signposts for generations to come, whose primordial connection would be increasingly distanced.

again, thinking on the fly... these vast structures would be available for all to see. enormous symbols of Truth, the most simple basic and indisputable truth, geometry: the laws of life. perhaps these mysteries only became secrets as man inevitably lost his connection, became corrupted, and power and protecting it became increasingly important. it seems to me the mysteries are in life itself, for all to see, a flower, crystal, shell... one only has to open ones eyes. also, have the capacity to open ones eyes. these things are not secrets, they are beauty incarnate, they fill our world, yet, beyond mathematics, they are still a wonderful mystery.

making them secrets infuses them with power. well, it takes the power from all who have the potential to open their eyes and places it in the hands of the designate few. the designate few, who, through time, arrogance and corruption will inflate their power immeasurably, whilst at the same time completely losing sight of origins and Truth.

i do not believe in the validity of secret or hidden teachings. either one has the capacity to grasp or one does not. to those who would be sheep the mysteries are both beyond understanding and of little interest. there is no danger or threat in Truth - except for those who would profit from its obscurity.

... now i really must get back to my project (not of course that this can be separate, but i'm sure you know what i mean).

j

[---]

3 + 7 = 10 ><1 ;):huh::) 11 :yuck:

Too much blue and yellow in logos :fool:

I heard from one potentially corrupt or veritable commenter that the arc of the covenant was the deal made between the priests and the sun(god) that it would return anew each and every morning - thus elevating them to the position of rulers by the multitude fearful of eternal darnkess.. the bringers of light?? lol

fuck them and their secretive hooey - it's just about how to keep control


The maths is interesting for sure but then so is the coral castle!!!!!!!!!!!!!