Locomotive Runs Off The Track

Imagine Humphrey Bogart as hard-bitten detective Philip Marlowe, saying to Lauren Bacall, “Newspapers are owned and published by rich men.” Hard to imagine? Yet that is exactly what a newspaperman explains to Philip Marlowe in Raymond Chandler’s novel, The Long Goodbye.

The Long Goodbye was first published in 1953, which means Marlowe was hearing this cynical explanation of newsfakers over 60 years ago!

In The Long Goodbye, Marlowe asks, “What about the press?”, to which the newspaperman responds with an amused glance before he explains:

Newspapers are owned and published by rich men. Rich men all belong to the same club. Sure, there’s competition – hard tough competition for circulation, for newsbeats, for exclusive stories. Just so long as it doesn’t damage the prestige and privilege and position of the owners. If it does, down comes the lid.

What would the newspaperman’s explanation be today, when competition between newspapers is much less than it was in 1953?

The rich men’s newspapers are a powerful locomotive, and lately the locomotive has gone off the track. It is still close to Superman (“more powerful than a locomotive”) yet now it proceeds like a Frankenstein with a will of its own. Just look at the constant dreariness as it belches smoke across the land. Dreariness of wildfires. Dreariness of election recounts.

The locomotive has gone off the track due to the joylessness of its engineers. They all belong to the association, Puritans 2.0. The original Puritans still believed in God, but Puritans 2.0 have been enveloped by Political Correctness preaching only. They, like their forebears, are a grim lot. Hence the constant dreariness of their reports.

But do not mistake the belching smoke of their dreariness for actual reality. Really, the Sun is still shining. It is just being hidden by Puritanism 2.0.

French author Thierry Meyssan perceives, in his latest report, that the true split now in American politics is not between Democrats and Republicans, but between descendants of the Puritans and descendants of Lutherans and Catholics. My own framework is along the lines of A-Albionic‘s primary thesis: London (Puritans) and Rome (Catholics) are locked in mortal combat for control of the world.

 

Strange Things In Albion

In the Spear Shaker play, Henry V, the king walks and talks, in disguise, among his soldiers. Philosophical subjects are discussed, including that of kings and ceremonies:

KING HENRY V: … For, though I speak it to you, I think the king is but a man, as I am… His ceremonies laid by, in his nakedness he appears but a man… (Act IV, Scene 1)

Without pomp and ceremony, what is a king? A similar idea was expressed by Francis Bacon, who wrote that “Not to use ceremonies at all, is to teach others not to use them again; and so diminisheth respect to himself.” [1]

Ceremonies fortify imagination, wrote Bacon, and “they propound those noble effects, which God hath set forth unto man to be bought at the price of labour, to be attained by a few easy and slothful observances.” [2]

Both in the Spear Shaker play and in the writings of Francis Bacon we find similar comments on ceremonies.

Another oddity is the omission of King Henry VII from the list of Spear Shaker plays. We find three plays devoted to King Henry VI, two plays devoted to Henry IV, a Henry V play, and a Henry VIII play. But where is Henry VII?

Where is Henry VII? Henry VII is found in a book by Francis Bacon, History of the Reign of King Henry VII! [3]

This is “passing strange”, that the Henrys IV, V, VI, and VIII are in the list of Spear Shaker plays, and the missing Henry VII is found in a Francis Bacon book.

Similar philosophies on ceremonies and kings… the missing Henry VII found in a Francis Bacon book – these are some strange things in Albion.

——- Sources ——-
[1] “Of Ceremonies and Respects”, by Francis Bacon. http://www.authorama.com/essays-of-francis-bacon-52.html
[2] The Advancement Of Learning, by Francis Bacon. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/5500/5500-h/5500-h.htm
[3] “History of the Reign of King Henry VII”, Wikipedia. Accessed November 12, 2018. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Reign_of_King_Henry_VII

 

Armistice Day Horror

Today, November 11, 2018, marks 100 years since Armistice Day. On November 11, 1918, at 11 a.m., the guns fell silent on the Western Front. Yet even on that very day, between dawn and 11 a.m., there was Armistice Day horror.

The signing of the armistice agreement was announced at 5:45 a.m. on November 11th. Commanding officers on both sides were immediately informed. Even so, in “the ensuing five hours and fifteen minutes, the two sides suffered a combined 10,944 casualties, including 2,738 dead…” [1]

Putting this in perspective, suppose that today, before 11 a.m., we suffered a terrorist attack in which 2,738 people died.

Why did the two sides continue fighting, even when they knew an armistice had been signed? It was to get revenge, to use up leftover ammunition, and to teach the enemy a lesson. [1]

The “lesson” learned from the subsequent Versailles treaty helped launch the career of Adolph Hitler.

Another “lesson” we can learn from the “Great War” is about how a cure for diabetes was delayed by it. Diabetes at that time was a fatal condition, affecting children, for which little could be done. Between the time of the First World War and when an insulin treatment was announced in 1922, thousands of children died. They might have lived, except for the intervention of “The War to End All Wars.” [2]

Sure, remember the brave soldiers who died. But remember also that they died needlessly. The “Great War” ended nothing, and even accelerated the second “Great War.”

——- Sources ——-
[1] “Easy Chair: The Ghosts of Versailles”, by Kevin Baker. Harper’s magazine, November 2018.
[2] “Discovery Interrupted”, by Jeffrey Friedman. Harper’s magazine, November 2018.

 

Chess Game Resumes

The barking dogs had interrupted the ongoing chess game of deep politics. It was a weary time. But now, “coincident” to the New Moon which arrived this morning, the subtle maneuvering has resumed.

The latest breaking maneuver is the firing of Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Sessions had recused himself from the Russiagate probe for paltry reasons and FBI Assistant Director Rod Rosenstein wound up overseeing the Special Persecutor Robert Mueller. Now, though, with Sessions out, the way is clear for the new Acting Attorney General, Matt Whitaker, to take over from Rosenstein. At this point it looks like Whitaker will be Mueller’s new boss.

This substantially de-fangs Mueller, unless somehow Whitaker is compromised. Watch for what the newsfakers have to say about Whitaker. If the newsfakers like Whitaker, that is a bad sign. On the other hand, if the newsfakers begin yapping in chorus against Whitaker, paradoxically it is a good sign, meaning Whitaker is not another swamp creature.

It is a relief to have emerged from the latest barking dogs election season. There was nothing meaningful to notice, just loud-mouths exercising their lungs. Now though Master player Donald Trump has resumed his intricate game, causing renewed interest among the chess fans.

 

A Weary Time

There passed a weary time. Each throat
Was parched, and glazed each eye, –
A weary time! a weary time!
— (Coleridge, Rime Of the Ancient Mariner)

‘Tis a weary time between now and the midterm elections on November 6th. The truth is reduced to barking dogs on both sides. How can Ersjdamoo defend against the barrage of lies when they are uttered only by barking dogs?

I call these 2018 midterms, “The Barking Dog Elections.”

Antagonisms are rife on both sides, similar to antagonisms surrounding the Winter King and Queen of Bohemia in 1620. Back then the antagonisms were religious, between Protestants and Catholics. Yet who is to say the antagonisms surrounding the Barking Dog Elections are not somewhat religious, since they are so deeply felt as in 1620?

And so it is a weary time. Both semi-religions of Democrat and Republican seek the attention of the least common denominator: the mobile vulgus. As dogs hear at a different pitch, so too the mobile vulgus hears only the low-level sounds. If you were to attempt to explain to them, say, the mysteries surrounding Francis Bacon, you would only get a puzzled look, such as your dog gives you when he doesn’t understand. That is no way to mobilize the voters, my friend! You have got to simplify the message!

For the rest of us though, these gross simplifications are wearisome and depressing. What ever happened to, “When they go low, you go high”? First Lady Michele Obama said that during the previous presidency, and she now looks like the strongest possible Democrat Party presidential nominee for 2020.

For now, during this Barking Dog season, the object is to lower the pitch for the ears of the least common denominator. Intelligence be damned! We have got to reach the most voters possible! Along these lines of pressuring high voter turnout, I have been receiving daily snail mails from something called, “Center For Voter Information” (Wacker Drive, Chicago). They keep informing me that they have been checking the public voting records and will be monitoring me to see if I vote this year. The implication is that I will be in some sort of trouble if I don’t vote (even though no law says I have to).

Why wouldn’t I vote? Maybe it’s because I am weary and close to barfing at what I have been hearing from both sides.

It is a weary time, but even the Ancient Mariner did not undergo it forever. A New Moon arrives on November 7th.

 

 

The Tragedy Of Bacon (Part 7)

“Who will say positively, and prove, when, and where either Anthony or Francis [Bacon] died, and where they were buried? Three different authorities give each a different account of the death of Lord Verulam [Francis Bacon].” Since the authorities differ, “[w]e may therefore doubt all three.” [1]

In James Spedding’s Letters and Life and Works of Bacon the “index is so contrived as to hinder the ordinary reader from observing any hint of ‘devices,’ ‘masques,’ ‘interludes,’ ‘plays,’ and many other things…” Certain catalogues are found to have distinct omissions regarding important references to Francis Bacon. “Why was the Promus left out of the printed catalogue of the Harleian Collection of MSS [Manuscripts]?” Why are certain jottings found amongst the Northumberland papers totally ignored? Included in the jottings are “speeches for my lord of Leicester,” and for the Gray’s Inn Revels “showing plainly how Francis Bacon was in the habit of writing for, and putting speeches into the mouths of the great men of the time… There, too, are the names of several plays, including Richard II and Richard III, with others not now extant. These plays have been carefully cut out from the centre of the paper book. Why?” [1]

Why? “Let me say what I think to be the reason. FRANCIS BACON was practically the founder or head-centre of Rosicrucianism or Modern Freemasonry, the capital or central secret being this, that He alone filled up all numbers. He alone wrote the whole of the great original work published during the Rosicrucian 100 years – that is, between the years 1580 and 1680.” [1]

The Modern Masonry is distinct from the Antient and Accepted Rite of Freemasonry. The history of the latter extends far back in time, at least to the building of Solomon’s Temple. The “Rosicrucian 100 years” marks the time indicated by the Fama Fraternitatis, the first of the Rosicrucian documents: the “… dark and hidden words and speeches of the hundred years…” Interesting to note is that the founder of the secret society, Brother R.C., lies buried in an unknown location and where or when he died is unknown. (See above, where three different authorities give each a different account of the death of Francis Bacon.) The actual grave of Francis Bacon may fit the description in the Fama Fraternitatis: a vault having a “great nail” stuck into a brass memorial table. When the nail is drawn out it takes with it “an indifferent big stone out of the thin wall or plaistering of the hidden door,” which door being opened, shall be found written in great letters, Post CXX Annos Patebo. [2]

Dame Frances Yates perceived that the Rosicrucians may have been set up as an alternative to the Jesuits. [3] Rome and London were engaged in a fierce struggle and the Jesuits were the Pope’s espionage specialists. It would have made sense for London to establish a counter-espionage unit, with perhaps a “special branch” hidden within a secret society. (According to the primary thesis of A-Albionic, Rome and London are still engaged in a fierce battle for control of the world.)

——- Sources ——-
[1] “A Prospective Review” (April 1895). Baconiana (Vol. III). Edited by a sub-committee of The Bacon Society. London: Robert Banks & Son
[2] Fama Fraternitatis. From The Real History of the Rosicrucians, by Arthur Edward Waite. London: George Redway, 1887. Reprint by Elibron Classics.
[3] The Rosicrucian Enlightenment, by Frances A. Yates. New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 1996. Originally published 1972.

 

The Tragedy Of Bacon (Part 6)

Francis “Bacon was trying to re-unite the opposed ends of Christendom, rent apart by the theological controversies and animosities of zealots to whom toleration was intolerable…” Because of the fierce passions involved, there was an utmost need for secrecy. Hence, at every stage of initiation into deeper levels of his secret society, “new and appalling oaths were administered under circumstances designed to work upon the nerves as well as the consciences of candidates.” [1]

“But this secrecy was not to be interminable. The Rosicrucian Fraternity was ordained to exist for 100 years – that is, to about 1680.” (Recall from Part 4 of this series how Francis Bacon had left Cambridge at the age of 15 and that in the Fama Fraternitatis the Rosicrucians refer to their founder as being “but of the age of sixteen years when he came thither.” This would have been around 1577.) By 1680, roughly 100 years after Bacon founded the Rosicrucians, his “cabinet and presses full of MSS [Manuscripts] should have been, by the agency of the brotherhood, perused, revised, perchance translated, and finally published.” [1]

But things did not go according to the plan. What interfered? Manly P. Hall detected that “[f]or some reason not apparent to the uninitiated there has been a continued and consistent effort to prevent the unraveling of the Baconian skein. Whatever the power may be which continually blocks the efforts of investigators, it is as unremitting now as it was immediately following Bacon’s death, and those attempting to solve the enigma still feel the weight of its resentment.” [2]

…a continued and consistent effort to prevent the unraveling of the Baconian skein…

“The name of FRANCIS BACON has been studiously kept in the background, or until recently mentioned but with a slur. In histories where he should play an important part he remains behind the curtain.” [1]

Remaining behind the curtain at a “Masque” staged at Whitehall on February 20, 1613 was Francis Bacon, who produced the performance, The Masque of the Inner Temple and Grayes Inn… or The Marriage of the Thames and the Rhine. (Background: The Tragedy Of Bacon (Part 5)) This masque (or play) was to celebrate the alchemical wedding between Princess Elizabeth and the Elector Frederick V, destined to become the Winter Queen and King of Bohemia. Frederick was the Elector Palatine of the Duchy of Württemberg, the same region where dwelled the author of The Chemical Wedding of Christian Rosencreutz (published 1616), Johann Valentin Andreae. Rosicrucian publications belong in part to movements surrounding the Elector Palatine and the Bohemian adventure. And that adventure was the outward expression of a religious movement fostered by secret influences promoting a solution of religious antagonisms along mystical lines suggested by Hermetic and Cabalist influences. [3]

——- Sources ——-
[1] “A Prospective Review” (April 1895). Baconiana (Vol. III). Edited by a sub-committee of The Bacon Society. London: Robert Banks & Son
[2] “Bacon, Shakspere, and the Rosicrucians”. From An Encyclopedic Outline of Masonic, Hermetic, Qabbalistic and Rosicrucian Symbolical Philosophy, by Manly P. Hall. Los Angeles: Philosophical Research Society, 1977.
[3] The Rosicrucian Enlightenment, by Frances A. Yates. New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 1996. Originally published 1972.