Following Hadrian: A Second-Century Journey Through the Roman Empire
by Elizabeth Speller

Fantastic book; NeoNietzsche and I are enjoying it tremendously -- and we thought you'd like this (partial) paragraph very much too:

... for religion was entwined with status. Leaving aside what, to modern eyes, seems their lack of theological substance and their almost exclusive concern with outward observation, the second-century pagan religions were by no means democratically inclusive. Religion was for the ruling class; religious and political authority were synonymous. The emperor was the chief priest of Rome, initiation into rites abroad was an honour and a mark of respect. Celebrants were invariably aristocratic and inclusion was a matter of bonding; the ceremonies were secret - so secret, indeed, that the details of rituals are still not entirely clear, though it is evident that their performance was also an impressive way of proclaiming authority. To be a religious man in the second century was to be a man of power, not of self- denial and a democratic spirit. (Hence, in part, the eventually perceived threat of the cult of Christ - and to others, of course, its attraction.)

So, you seem to like esoteric, elitist religiosity.

I guess then you don't mind about Freemasonry either.


Petr

I don't "mind" about it? Not sure what you mean, how should I mind or not mind about Freemasons?

I've read some fascinating books that tie Masonry all the way back to Egyptian pharoahs; starting with Holy Blood Holy Grail -- which has been pretty much replaced by ones I find more persuasive such as Templar Revolution and The Hiram Code... I sure prefer that idea to them being part of the jew-take-over-the-world theories!

And I FER SHURE prefer the idea of religion confirming a man in his manhood, instead of making him a sniveling weak "sinner" who needs some big daddy to come "fix" him!! I want a STRONG man who is proud of his strength!

You don't believe that (higher level) Masons are not a sinister element, having a nefarious influence on the Western Civilization? Look who's naive now.

Check out Michael Hoffman II's "Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare 2001" to educate yourself on the subject:

http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/0970378416/ilectricinfop-20/702-5796493-2182469


Hint: among WN circles, when activists complain about "rich White traitors", they are very often, if not in most cases, referring to Masons, or some other elitist cultists.

Alex Curtis once wrote:

"You can prattle on as long as you want about "******s", and even about this nebulous concept of "Jews", but for some reason rich White traitors are considered to be off-limits."


And if you think that I mind about that kind of childish manipulation against my masculinity - think again.


Petr

And if you think that I mind about that kind of childish manipulation against my masculinity - think again. Oh Petr, I was NOT commenting on, speculating about, or insulting YOU! -- I was providing my off-the-cuff response to the QUOTE I posted!

To be a religious man in the second century was to be a man of power, not of self-denial and a democratic spirit. RIGHT ON! This to me is a call-to-arms for white men; Xianity with its "oh poor weak BAD me; help me jesus because I am unable to help myself" offends me! I might be more welcoming to jesus-the-war-leader :rolleyes: except that is now deprecated as a badevilterrible misuse of jesus -- who was (they would have you believe) a weak and meek little lambie...

(Yes I'm exaggerating, but I'm SO tired of all this "meek/weak/turn the other cheek" CRAP! If you want to destroy a race, a culture, a civilization: teach them to be defeatist and helpless no matter the provocation! Teach them to not merely not fight against their destruction, but welcome it and help it along.) (And then to react with wounded pride when someone calls them on it!)

Believe what you will; follow "the god" you wish -- *I* want a strong man who is dedicated to the preservation of his race, my race; who is proud of his strength; and not wringing his hands because he's not "humble" enough. Screw humble -- as NeoNietzsche says, "it ain't bragging if it's true!"

You find "Hiram Code" et al persuasive?

You should know that EVERYTHING that secret societies like Masons reveal about themselves in these kind of works - i.e. those available to wide audiences - are purely whitewashed, exoteric pabulum - even if they would get their facts right.


Petr

{shrug} It wouldn't surprise me if it were merely more propaganda -- however I find it MUCH preferable to tie the Templars and the Masons back to a misremembered Egyptian ritual/murder than to the Templars as jews who wanted to recreate judaism as the way to go!! {shudder}

I've been disturbed by the idea that a group I think well of (Templars) and a group I don't often think of (Masons; albeit I've had some family friends who were active Masons) as being dedicated (however unknowingly) to the furtherance of jewish aims! The Templar Revelation et. al gives me a way to look at it-all differently. (Nowadays, I believe, the Masons have been co-opted by the jews, just as, seemingly, EVERY group or organization has -- how common for our white organizations to be co-opted: must be a flaw in whites!!)

So, no I don't think I find them "persuasive" so much as a preferable possible idea... But, you'll be unhappy to hear :D (or you may already know) I don't find the "christian bible to be persuasive... And I prefer a possible idea that does NOT have it roots in jewish ideas!

You don't believe that (higher level) Masons are not a sinister element, having a nefarious influence on the Western Civilization? Look who's naive now.

If high level masons were nefarious then modern politicians are less nefarious evil etc then America's founders, not something im willing to accept( even though I would have been a pretty fanatical Tory if I lived at the time).