Unraveling the mystery of the talking snake is rather easy: a humanoid priest or representative of the Cult of Snake Worshipers. If the serpent represents a carnal mind then it can easily be equated with a totally-carnal involved in serpent worship (i.e. the other man's carnal mind and carnal nervous system being the Serpent--devoid of the higher mind). The serpent worshiping occultist 'eats of the dust' the false doctrines quench not thirst. Coincidentally, it comes to mind that mirages are associated with dry desert places.
Regarding Harvard
Kaballists infiltrated the English/British royal courts (~1500) via John Dee. Calvin infiltrated the Protestant movement (i.e. a widespread realization that encouraged the saints of Western Europe to return to original, non-Roman doctrinal roots) bringing usury into Western Europe. Some say it went downhill (in Britain) from there. The American Colonists probably thanks to George III (who was committed to a mental institution probably because he disagreed with the occultists) escaped. Eventually the same occultists would lay siege against the United States and would infiltrate U.S. Government more solidly by the late 1800s.
Re: Eve's Discourse With the Serpent
See above re: attacking meaning. The Gay Agenda is 100% a religious movement--even the blatant use of Sigil Magic is obvious in many Gay Agenda logos. If A is in the original estate and B wants to remove A to B's diminished estate, one trick might be to get A to adopt the meanings and language of the diminished estate. This is exactly what the Gay Agenda proponents are doing. The Gay Agenda is an arm of a religious movement--even if the 'average Joe' gay guy doesn't realize such the truth remains. They are attacking the First Estate using spiritual/mental methods: the attack is on meaning and is a subtle form of subversion. (See also: militant atheism.)
Gay Agenda, Magickal Rites & Political Control
Now there are those who want to run to defend the Gay Agenda but it has nothing to do with effeminate men wanting to get along with everyone. Buggery has been tolerated for a long time in the USA and Europe. The Gay Agenda is a subordinate, satellite movement to a subtle religious agenda. Their objective is to destroy the original estate. The Gay Agenda is in part about attempts to redefined to say 'sodomization of one man by another' to the extent that it is regarded to be the same as solemnization of marriage on the same level as male-female copulation. To push the adoption of the Magickal Rite of Sodomy by the 50 States and to displace the original Roman, Christian or Universal ideals of marriage.
The outward show of the Gay Agenda and the MSM hides the subtle maneuvering aimed at opening the door to institutionalize the ownership of men by men (i.e. sexual and chattel slavery) and to make the act of sodomy into a governmentally institutionalized rite of ownership. Consider a Muslim once told me that it was OK for them to have sex with their slaves wives. So it makes you wonder about slavery in America? Was it Christians? Or was it Islamists all along disguised as Christians? So the idea if you don't get it folks: there are those who claim to own everyone as slaves, and they believe that they have the right to sodomize their male slaves, to sodomize their female slaves, to have sex with their slaves' wives (why do you think they attack marriage and promote divorce?) Of course, since it all about power and control, their ideal is to control and desecrate men (as their crown prize of ownership) through slavery "sealed with the kiss" of sodomy. And ritually they aim to infuse their spirits into the man they sodomize and lay control of him--to make him more susceptible to their 'magnetic influence' (See mesermism). Of course, they aren't going to say this outright in the MSM--but their objective has been made clear by their own confessions and not only that it is easily discernible from a study of the historical record as well as their own texts.
The Hate Is From Them
Those who want to distract from the point will try to massage this into a "message of hate". Believe me, they hate anyone who isn't interested in their Gay Agenda. The hate is toward the innocent or those disinterested in their sex worship and political sodomy agenda. They want to hide the truth that it really isn't about expanding rights in the good sense, its about making a mockery of the rights of others. I have never any more hateful, disgusting and obsessed than gay men who having set their sights upon a man who is politely disinterested in their sexual fetishes, cannot tolerate his disinterest and will use drugs an all kinds of nefarious antics to destroy his life--even relationships with women (even to destroy those women) to get their "dreams". In all fairness, there are plenty of gay men who will leave well enough alone--but there are those who are obsessed and capable of becoming destructively and criminally obsessed with sodomizing their targets. In 15 years of observation, less than 85% of the gay males are interested in leaving others alone. Disinterest is 'hate' for them. What that means when they cry 'hate' is that they hate those who don't agree with them, so they imagine the other to hate them in order to reconcile or justify the hatred they already feel. (See: projection.)
I used to see things a lot more neutrally, but I realize there are some very dangerous people. As a matter of fact, among one Pentecostal congregation's members there were warnings about casual ministering to gay males because they would become very violent should anyone disagree with them. The general idea was to pray for the well-being of others but some you might avoid ministering to them. And that was from back in the mid 90s. Men loving men is natural and normal. However, one a man can love a man or woman without any sexual contact whatsoever being involved.
A gay male took over a coffee shop chain in the South (Caribou Coffee) and made a point to fire any male employees who would not allow themselves to be sodomized. But aren't these supposed to be reasonable, modern men who are for choice and liberty? Not at all. That is hate. If you didn't allow them to sodomize you, you were fired. Workers at the coffee shop said it was like a religion: if you didn't convert you were forced out of a job. And this was the mid to late 90s. But the MSM doesn't tell you this. Even back then, innocent, harmless men would become target of gay men who would stalk them to look for opportunities to spike their drinks or food. If their victim took revenge and beat them, they would call it "gay bashing".
***
The Gay Agenda is mentioned because it is a glaring and obvious example of a movement that is being used as part of another movement to attack and undermine: meaning, purpose and intent. To attack meaning and intent is to attack purpose. If the original directive is to go from point A to B, if they can deceive you into accepting their new definition of B---well you get the idea. I was once taught that although Satan has no formidable, true power, he still has the 'power of the lie'. Redefining meaning is a tactic to get someone to believe a lie.
There is this thing called a double bind:Originally Posted by BLBereans
Introduction of a 'student' to two conflicting ideas as a subtil technique to introduce a third maxim typically done secretly (the real objective of some teachers is to introduce someone to something new for the purpose of blanking the mind of the student in order to clear the way for the real implant). The period that the student holds the conflicting ideas is a period of cognitive dissonance. The double bind technique is designed to destroy first two systems to which the conflict pertain while all along the teacher's hidden intent was to establish a third maxim, belief or the like. (As in, the first injection is purposed create a conflict which leaves a hole for the third.) I'm not suggesting MJ to be actively creating double binds but, that kind of back-and-forth brings the double bind and things related to such to mind. Those going back and forth might also be in a period of struggling with inner conflict.A double bind is an emotionally distressing dilemma in communication in which an individual (or group) receives two or more conflicting messages, and one message negates the other. This creates a situation in which a successful response to one message results in a failed response to the other (and vice versa), so that the person will automatically be wrong regardless of response. The double bind occurs when the person cannot confront the inherent dilemma, and therefore can neither resolve it nor opt out of the situation.
Double bind theory was first described by Gregory Bateson and his colleagues in the 1950s.[1]
Double binds are often utilized as a form of control without open coercion—the use of confusion makes them both difficult to respond to as well as to resist.[2]
A double bind generally includes different levels of abstraction in the order of messages and these messages can either be stated explicitly or implicitly within the context of the situation, or they can be conveyed by tone of voice or body language. Further complications arise when frequent double binds are part of an ongoing relationship to which the person or group is committed.[3][4]
Related:
This is hate: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...to_prop_8.html
Reply With Quote