Author Topic: THE EARTHMOVERS (Read 103934 times)

cantatedomino · « **Reply #240 on:** March 09, 2014, 08:39:22 AM »

Quote from: McFiggly

cantatedomino, a question I'd like to ask is this: scientists often say that stars are billions of years old and that when we look at a star we are seeing what it looked like so many millions of years ago; so how do they arrive at these false conclusions? Is it that the speed of light is a lot faster than they think it is? Is it that the stars are closer than they think they are? What calculations are they using to arrive at these fanciful conclusions and what is the truth about the stars in the night sky (do we seem them as they are currently)?

Thank you for this thread, I'm enjoying it a lot. God bless you.

Hello Good McFiggly,

I think the answer lies in this: They begin with anti-christian, dogmatic presuppositions (first principles) into which they pour all their data. In fact we might say that these anti-dogmas are applied to the beginning, the middle, and the end of all of their self-proclaimed objective, unbiased, and empirical endeavors.

We can use the prayer for St. Thomas as a comparison. He prays to the Almighty and Omnipotent God, before he begins any intellectual endeavor:

Ingréssum ínstruas, progréssum dírigas, egréssum cómpleas: Order the beginning, direct the progress, and perfect the achievement of my work.

ORDER THE BEGINNING: The beginning of any true scientific work is that it be ordered to perfectly accord with the certain truths of both the natural and supernatural orders - the Orders of Nature and Grace. To order the beginning is to make oneself subject to Truth, Who is a Person, the Incarnate Word of the Eternal Father, the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity, hypostatically united to the human nature of Jesus Christ.

It is to make oneself subject to Divine Revelation, as interpreted by Holy Mother Church in Her ordinary and extraordinary Magisterium, in Her Deposit of Faith, which includes most especially the Patristic Deposit of authentic, Catholic scriptural exegesis given during the very beginning Ages of the Church.

It is to make oneself subject to the certain truths of the natural order - the Order of Reason - the first principles of knowledge, and the Metaphysics/Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas, in effect canonized by the Council of Trent, and subsequent papal encyclicals. (See Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith - Vatican Council I; Aeterni Patris - Leo XIII; and Doctoris Angelici - St. Pius X)

Now to begin one's work in subjection to Truth - both natural and divinely revealed - is not to destroy the objectivity of observational and experimental research. Rather it is to protect it from the ravages of the caprices of the fallen and limited powers of human intellection.

What shall we say, then, of men who call themselves unbiased scientists, and who yet begin their work, not only by refusing to place themselves in subjection to Truth, but also by intentionally subjecting themselves to false ontological, philosophical, cosmogonical, cosmological, and theological principles?

What will the middle and the end - the ultimate conclusions of such men - look like, even if they possess good observational data? For the middle is nothing more than the application of the dogmatic presuppositions to the available observational facts. Start out with erroneous principles and you necessarily end with erroneous conclusions.

Case in point: The Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment, which will be dealt with in upcoming chapters of the Earthmovers.

I hope this suffices by way of answer.

So glad you are enjoying the thread, BTW. I was vacillating on whether or not to stop posting in Lent, but I have come to the conclusion that publishing this information is a good work, so why stop?

God bless you!

cantatedomino · « **Reply #241 on:** March 09, 2014, 08:42:38 AM »

THE EARTHMOVERS:

On the 22nd Jan. 1561, there was born in London the world’s greatest genius – born not for an age but for all time. He is known to history as Francis Bacon. He is the Supreme Enigma of the human race. Mystery surrounds his birth, his life, and his death. He is the unsolved Riddle of the Schoolmen. He is the Sphinx of the Elizabethan Age, the Age which links the modern world to Medievalism. He crouches still beneath the Pyramid of Knowledge that he created. His eyes still look questioningly at the generations of men who pass to the Eternities along the road of dusty death; and around his lips there still hovers a strange smile which mockingly seems to challenge each passer-by. (Alfred Dodd: Francis Bacon’s Personal Life-Story, Rider & Co., 1949, p.23.)

Bacon, even though ‘a colossus, the greatest genius ever born to the human race,’ remains a fascinating enigma. Martin Gwynne, writing in Baconiana says there is evidence that he was the son of Queen Elizabeth, ‘The Virgin Queen,’ and the Earl of Leicester, Sir Robert Dudley. Bacon was thus a grandson of King Henry VIII. Gwynne makes the point that this would make him the product of an ancestry which was one of the most brilliant, influential and effective promoters of all time of revolution against true religion and ordered society. (Martin Gwynne: Baconiana; The Francis Bacon Society Inc., December 1992.)

As a boy Bacon was known as ‘Baby Solomon,’ an apt name for those familiar with the allegorical and esoteric meaning of the term. ‘At twelve his industry was above the capacity and his mind beyond the reach of his contemporaries. At fifteen he came to the conclusion that the scholastic school or method and the seminaries were stagnant pools; they were opposed to the advancement of knowledge; a degree therefore meant to him a label, identifying him with a system he despised. Later he said of them: ‘‘in the universities they learn nothing but to believe.’’ He saw ‘‘a world plunged in gross darkness as regards first principles, a darkness that could only be dispersed by the light of knowledge, an informed method of study that would ultimately bring about a universal reformation in art, science, philosophy and religion.’’

His works demonstrate that he consecrated himself to the task in the most devout frame of mind. Later on he was to avow that he regarded himself ‘‘as a servant to posterity,’’ as a channel for the outflow of the divine mind. From boyhood he held to this idea that his work was impressed with divine seal.’ Dodd then elaborates extensively on the fact that Francis Bacon:

(1) Sought to be an educational and an ethical teacher with a secret school of disciples after the manner of Pythagoras and other teachers of ancient wisdom whose precepts were handed down the ages orally by a succession of sons.

(2) Was the man of mystery, who had laid in secret the foundation stones of the modern world in science, ethics, literature and philosophy, and sought the universal reformation of the whole wide world.

(3) Created the thirty-three rituals of modern Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ and the many rituals of the Rosicrucian College and founded the secret orders and fraternities that arose in the Elizabethan era.

(4) Gave rise to a natural system of religion open to all ‘‘good men irrespective of creed.’’

(5) Saw to it that the right seeds were sown, and devoted husbandmen secretly enlisted to carry on the good work down the ages by a succession of hands, so that plans and schemes for the cure of men’s bodies and souls might be established in secret, and which later, could be prepared as temples of learning and love before the eyes of men, when humanity had become more liberal minded.

(6) Went about the spreading of knowledge and the inauguration of ethics couched in allegory and illustrated by symbol. The word constantly on his lips was ‘‘light . . . more light.’’ (A. Dodd: Francis Bacon’s Personal Life-Story, p.14.)

cantatedomino · « **Reply #242 on:** March 09, 2014, 08:52:26 AM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: But whose light? To answer this question we must turn to Bacon’s ‘epoch-making’ book, the Advancement of Learning, written in 1605. This book reeks with Rosicrucian nuances and refers to God as ‘the Father of Light,’ a metaphor of St James’s but twisted to comply with Hermetic, Gnostic and cabalistic tradition.

It was out of the Hermetic tradition that Bacon emerged, out of the Magic and Cabala of the Renaissance as it had reached him via the natural magicians . . . Bacon’s science is still, in part, occult science. (Francis Yates: The Rosecrucian Enlightenment, p.119.)

Dodd then reveals that Bacon was without doubt the real father of English literature, not only with his own writings but including those he compiled under the name of Shakespeare, containing as they do a multitude of styles ‘depending on whether he was addressing a king, a great nobleman, a philosopher or a friend, composing a state paper, extolling truth or discussing studies.’ A point well worth pondering on is here alluded to by Dodd, the fact that there was never a Shakespeare in the making.

For did not Shakes-Speare spring into being fully armed at all points as a play write in the world arena, as though he had never served a laborious apprenticeship to the craft of the quill? (A. Dodd: Francis Bacon’s Personal Life-Story, p.433.)

Lookalikes: Bacon and Shakespeare

It was Francis Bacon, who in 1611 edited the Bible of the Protestant King James I (an initiated Freemason) whom he knew personally:

That he did revise the manuscript before publication is certain . . . He returned the manuscripts for printing twelve months later (1610) steeped throughout in that ineffable beauty of style which neither king nor divines could have created – only the hand of Shakes-Speare, the supreme master of English prose. (p.433).

Thereafter Dodd explains the reason for Bacon’s anonymous authorship of both Shakespeare’s works and the James I Bible:

The Reformation did nothing to aid free thought . . . Puritans and Romanists alike were united in their persecution of philosophy and their hatred of secular knowledge for the common people . . .

Ever since Italy had been darkened by the shadow of the Inquisition, men had begun to devise means to communicate with each other, and with their public, in a style which should be intelligible to themselves without giving offence to Rome. Open revolt was impossible. They matched their wits against their persecutors and were able to say pretty nearly what they liked by a system of disguised writing. The use of double writing in serious literature was the only method of free expression open to men of letters . . . to write in such a manner that the authorities might assume their doctrines to be orthodox while the public for whom it was designed might readily perceive its real drift. Except by resort to this old and time-honoured device, the spirit of independent thought would have perished altogether. (Gertrude Leigh: Passing of Beatrice, p.X, quoted by Dodd, op. cit., p.27.)

Why have the Gentiles raged, and the people devised vain things? The kings of the earth stood up, and the princes met together, against the Lord and against his Christ. Let us break their bonds asunder: and let us cast away their yoke from us. He that dwelleth in heaven shall laugh at them: and the Lord shall deride them. Then shall he speak to them in his anger, and trouble them in his rage.

But I am appointed king by him over Sion his holy mountain, preaching his commandment. The Lord hath said to me: Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I will give thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt rule them with a rod of iron, and shalt break them in pieces like a potter's vessel.

And now, O ye kings, understand: receive instruction, you that judge the earth. Serve ye the Lord with fear: and rejoice unto him with trembling. Embrace discipline, lest at any time the Lord be angry, and you perish from the just way. When his wrath shall be kindled in a short time, blessed are all they that trust in him. (Psalm 2)

cantatedomino · « **Reply #243 on:** March 09, 2014, 08:55:58 AM »

THE EARTHMOVERS:

[With regard to the works of Shakespeare]

[There is] the surface meaning and also a hidden one. A Masonic phrase which shows that he was saturated in the Masonic Ritual. This may well pass by the uninitiated but will be noted with interest by the Craft. This use of double phraseology has hitherto passed apparently unnoticed. The reader therefore is enjoined to note, to weigh, and consider the underlying interpretation . . . (A. Dodd: author’s note.)

William Shaksper of Stratford, Dodd reveals, was an illiterate groom who went to London to seek his fortune. There he set up a trade in holding the horses for the gentry as they attended the Globe Playhouse. Bacon, who had contacts with the theatre’s owner, and who often attended plays held there, met and made it his business to know Bill Shaksper, for his name appealed to the esoterically minded Bacon. With a little adjustment he saw that this name could be tailored into the title for an author who would ‘shake the sphere (world)’ or the ‘spear-shaker,’ a reference to the tradition of the woman depicted with the helmet in a martial stance and shaking the spear of wisdom at the serpent of ignorance.

This same woman was known to the Greeks as Pallas Athene and to the Romans as Minerva, a statue of which can be found even in the Vatican itself. This is the Gnostic Freemasonic profaning of Genesis 3:15, the ‘woman’ of Genesis, that divine promise revealed to man in the Scriptures in the wake of the fall and which became manifested as the Virgin Mary standing on the earth with her foot on the serpent’s head. This reversion to restrained paganism and anti-Catholic ethos in contemporary writings, Gwynne concludes, is to be found widespread throughout the works of Shakespeare. (M. Gwynne: Baconiana; The Francis Bacon Society Inc., December 1992.)

The hard fact is that there is no evidence at all to show that the peasant born William Shaksper that is now accredited with the works named after him is in fact their author. If one believes that commoner Shaksper alone, without any inspiration from high or low, was capable of such a feat as depicted in the all-embracing worlds of Shakespeare, then one will believe anything. Of all the supposed writers of Shakespeare, only Bacon fits this mould, for he was of royal blood, had the intellect, the esoteric Hermetic background, the understanding, the education and experience, the talent, the wealth, the occupation and authority to access the information, travelled a lot, and above all, had the motive and means to pen the vast and ingenious works of Shakespeare. Shakespeare’s (Bacon’s) knowledge of Hermetic, neo-Platonic and cabbalistic teaching appears by way of certain Rosicrucian themes found in As You Like It; Love’s Labour Lost; Venus and Adonis; and the Sonnets.

In Bacon’s New Atlantis we have a vision of a science ruled by sages of Solomon’s House (Magi) and the Father of Solomon’s house rides in a chariot surmounted by a golden sun. It is possible that the character of Berowne in Shakespeare’s Love’s Labour Lost is based on Bruno perhaps also the two pedants, Don Armado and Holofernes, who are the foils of the lovers. Some of the rituals connected with Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ may be derived from the Hermetic writings, and Mozart’s Magic Flute, which is concerned with Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, has a temple of Osiris and Egyptian priests. (J. Trusted: Physics and Metaphysics: Routledge, 1991, p.40.)

Shakespeare is also awash in Freemasonic propaganda, symbols, allegory, coded messages and innuendos. In the Comedy of Errors:

DUKE: One of these men is Genius to the other;
And so of these: which is the natural man,
And which is the spirit? Who deciphers them? (Act V, sc,I)

The ‘genius’ is, of course, Bacon himself, and he teases the world by asking who is the natural son and who is the spiritual Son, profaning Jesus when He asked the Pharisees: What do you think of the Christ? Whose son is He? (Matt.22:42)

Jesus was trying to draw out of them a recognition of that Spiritual Sonship by which He is introduced in the opening sentence of the New Testament, where in the Melchisedech sense of Psalm 109 He is termed a Son of David, in contra-distinction to David’s natural son and successor Solomon in whose name the rival ‘Allegorical Temple’ was/is being built - a distinction of such grave import that the very reality of the two Kinds of sonship forms the martial backdrop to the allegory key that the former Pharisee-Adept Saul would later as Paul give to the Galatians (4:24).

cantatedomino · « **Reply #244 on:** March 09, 2014, 08:57:38 AM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: This affront is repeated in the inscription on the Shakespeare Monument at Stratford that anyone can go and see today:

Why goest thou by so fast? Read, if thou canst, WHOM envious Death hath plast within this Monument.

In other words, “WHOM DO MEN SAY THAT I AM?” (A. Dodd: Francis Bacon’s Personal Life-Story p.23.)

Now why the need for a riddle if Shaksper from Stratford is indeed the great author? No, for what we are dealing with here is a man who would even mimic Christ all the while remaining invisible so as to be able to operate unhindered by criticism or impediment, thus demonstrating his occult loyalty to the esotericism of Hermetic Socinianism and Rosicrucianism.

Recall: Masonry must be felt everywhere, but must be found nowhere.

Since it was first disclosed by Dodd and others that Francis Bacon was that wholly accomplished writer Shakespeare, many ‘experts’ have dismissed the notion as nonsense, and no doubt, will continue to do so. Such critiques may well succeed on the mundane level where it makes no difference who really wrote the Shakespearian works. On an esoteric level however, the level at which the earthmoving heresy was/is being enacted, Dodd wrote with understanding and authority, that which is reflected only in the higher initiates.

From our own studies we believe Shakespeare himself gives the game away when he acts totally out of character by his vicious attack on the integrity of (St) Joan of Arc in his play Henry VI, treating the English as having ‘God as our fortress’ and the French as being one with the ‘witches and the help of hell.’ (Pt.I, Act.II, Sc.1). The likes of Bacon would be very well aware that Joan la Pucelle was used by God in this war of Principalities and Powers.

Consequently, whereas he was a man able to engage and parry as equal with anyone from King to the most lowly wretch, all of whom are manifested in the writings of Shakespeare, he could not contain himself when making reference to a superior on the Melchisedech field of combat, Joan of Arc, now a saint, whom Diana Vaughan was pleased to invoke in her war against her former colleagues in Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.

In the first part of Henry the Sixth Jeanne d’Arc addresses the Duke of Burgundy in a speech of thirty-three lines. This speech is an absolutely faithful version of a letter in France written by the Maid of Orleans to the then Duke of Burgundy and dated July 17th, 1429. There is no historical authority for this letter which never saw the light of print till discovered by the Historian of the house of Burgundy in 1780. Bacon in his travels might easily have seen this letter: in fact the author of this play must have done so. Shakespeare [Bill Shaksper] was never within miles of it. (Walter Ellis’s The Shakespeare Myth)

cantatedomino · « **Reply #245 on:** March 09, 2014, 09:00:02 AM »

THE EARTHMOVERS:

Bacon’s Shakespeare and the ‘Holy Grail’

To be, or not to be, that is the question - - - Hamlet Act III, Sc. I.

Thus goes the most quoted allegory in the history of literature, written of course by the Hermetic occult philosopher and proto-Mason Francis Bacon under his pseudonym of Shakespeare. Esoterically, it asks the simplest but most important question about God that can occur to man: To be (is He) distinct from the cosmos or not to be (or not) distinct from the cosmos? Is God a person or a principle? That is the question.

Shakespeare, or rather Francis Bacon, is spelling out the battle on hand, the ‘Holy Grail’ of all secret societies, the secret behind heliocentrism - to destroy belief in God as distinct from the universe, replacing Him with a ‘god as force,’ with Pantheism, a concept of a god indistinct from the universe and all that is in it.

Perhaps the greatest exponents of these two mutually exclusive worldviews of the Melchisedech order, God as distinct and God as not distinct, are St Thomas Aquinas and Francis Bacon respectively. As God raises great intellectual saints to combat heresies in the world, so too must Lucifer recruit and illuminate men of exceptional but prideful intelligence to do his work for him. Now it matters not one iota to him whether his work is done by willing men or unwitting men, by men conscious of what they do or men deceived into doing what they do. The net result will be the same - the advancement of Naturalism at the expense of Catholicism.

Satan, we repeat, as Jesus told us, was a liar from the beginning, but men cannot perceive just how good a liar Satan is. Accordingly, the human intellect had better know how to retain a proper grace-assisted discernment as to how one’s intellectual asset is to be deployed and developed - either as the Creator intended, or as finding oneself entrenched in Satan’s lies.

Now whereas the battle for human minds, and thus our eternal souls, began in the Garden of Eden, this quest accelerated during the Renaissance, or more specifically, with the resurgence of Hermetic Rosicrucian Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ. To influence and control society, apart from a complete monopoly of the world’s monetary and commercial institutions, one must also dominate human knowledge on earth. The information industry must be commandeered and then regulated to serve their ends. Thus universities, academies, colleges, are seen as places of influence, as well as newspapers, television, publishing houses, the distribution business etc. - all these are targeted by Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.

As to how successful the proto-mason Bacon has been, note it is the works of Shakespeare, not the Bible, that are on the curriculum of every student learning literature in the world today. [On 20th March, 2006, Time Magazine featured Shakespeare on its cover and ran an article on what it describes as the most successful literature in history.]

Amid claims by Catholics that Shakespeare writings are most Catholic, we see that Shakespeare has become more popular than the Bible, and is certainly quoted more often these days. The works of Shakespeare have precluded any Catholic author or work from attaining such a status in English literature. If Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ set out to dominate all the instruments of knowledge, this cannot be better demonstrated than through the genius of the words supposedly written by that uneducated illiterate groom from sixteenth century England.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #246 on:** March 09, 2014, 09:02:21 AM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: Scholars have shown us that Francis Bacon was also one of the first naturalists, rationalists, socialists, liberals, communists, call them whatever you like. This would pit him in opposition to hierarchy, the Melchisedech government in the Christian world. We mention this only to confirm Francis Bacon was the complete ‘secret antichrist,’ opposed to Christian philosophy, priests and kings.

When Bacon was a youth of fifteen or so, he conceived the idea of The Universal Reformation of the Whole Wide World. His ultimate goal was to totally eliminate the dominance of scholastic theology [through] the scientific method. He sought to purge the human mind of what he called ‘idols’ or ‘tendencies to error.’ He too wanted to give the world a new complete vision, laying out his Hermetic ideas for the restoration of man’s mastery over nature.

It became the passion of his life. He laboured for it openly and secretly. It was a consuming flame. His plans did not concern England alone but took in all the countries of the then civilised world. Through all his multifarious activities he sought “to lay deep basis for eternity” in ways he dared not do openly. While he lamented in his writings, over and over again, “the ignorance, incapacity and miseries of the age” in which he lived, he also believed with [his] Hamlet that he “was born to set it right.” ["There is something rotten in the state . . . Oh, cursed spite that ever I was born to set it right."]

He said of himself, “I AM A SERVANT TO POSTERITY.” (A. Dodd: Francis Bacon’s Personal Life-Story, p.34.)

Within six years of his being knighted in 1603 by ‘proto-Mason’ James I of England, Bacon was appointed Solicitor General. Very quickly he advanced to the position of Attorney General, Lord Keeper of the Great Seal and was made Lord Chancellor in 1618 taking the title Baron Verulam. Dodd then gives ample evidence of his occult connections and shows he also helped found the Rosicrucians in England and the 18th degree of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ whose purpose is to exercise occult control and direction over worldwide Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.

Bacon also authored the King James I charter that granted the Virginia Company almost absolute power in the newly colonised North American lands of Virginia. He played a part in the founding of modern America, overthrowing the substantial Catholic influence there, while sowing elements that would lead to the USA being run on Masonic lines. Not once is God mentioned in the constitution of the United States of America. It is a totally secular constitution, evidence of the seeds sown by the likes of Francis Bacon.

The same man also ensured that English, a language he built up into 20,000 words, all of which he incorporated into his Shakespeare, became the official language of the United States and world business, while at the same time eliminating Latin, the language of the Catholic Church, as the main language, written and oral, of communication globally.

That took a little longer, having to wait until after Vatican II, when the Latin Mass was jettisoned for the ‘New Order’ using the vernacular, and all the re-interpretations that go with such a change.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #247 on:** March 09, 2014, 09:03:49 AM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: In Novum Organum, Bacon wrote that the earth’s proposed movement could not be ‘conceded.’ But as a Rosicrucian, he had rules to keep. [Their] motto was a rule of conduct for the members of the Rose Cross and ran thus . . . “Do as you please privately, but publicly do as others do. Let us deceive our acquaintances by pretending to agree with the prevailing ideas of the time, but privately let us think and act as we like.”

We could ask, is such a man likely to reject the heliocentism of his hermetic beliefs? We know Bacon was a transformist evolutionist, one of the first to suggest the unscientific and absurd idea that kinds transmuted into other kinds [sponges to elephants] as a result of an accuмulation of variations. (See Fr J. A. Zahm: Evolution and Dogma, McBride & Co., 1896.)

In his Novum Organon, he declares that the "corruption of philosophy from superstition and theology introduced the greatest amount of evil both into whole systems of philosophy and into their parts." He denounces those who have "endeavoured to find a natural philosophy on the books of Genesis and Job and other sacred Scriptures," as ‘seeking the living among the dead.’

When the Fathers at Vatican II (1965) belittled the Church of 1616 and 1633, Bacon must have laughed in his grave. When Pope John Paul II in 1992 quoted Cardinal Baronius uttering the same sentiments, Bacon had a second snigger in his grave.

Bacon then speaks of scholasticism as ‘an unwholesome mixture of things human and divine: not merely fantastic philosophy, but heretical religion.’ So, was Francis Bacon really a geocentrist as recorded by historians, and if not, where did he hide his pagan heliocentrism? In his secret Shakespearean poetry of course, in the double meaning writings used in serious literature, the only method of free expression open to men of letters to avoid the wrath of the ‘Puritans and Romanists.’

There is abundance of evidence that Bacon was a great poet. He says himself that poetry is the safe and efficacious method for conveying and concealing all kinds of wisdom, according as the true philosopher wishes to illuminate the minds of men without enraging them, or to hand on new truths for which men in general are not yet sufficiently prepared. He says that his special method cannot be revealed to his own age, but that he appeals to future ages, and has adopted the best plan for communicating his wisdom to the world, wisdom whose special object is to free men’s minds from “idols” or false principles of all kinds, and to plant in them the seeds and products of all truth . . .

It is very common to suppose that Bacon as a philosopher concerned himself altogether with physical science, and this supposition is one of the chief impediments to the acceptance of the Shakespearean dramas being the crown and completion of the Insauratio Magna . . .

Then it must be shown that Bacon’s idea of poetry involved as an essential feature that its chief and most important function was to convey the lessons of history and philosophy into men’s minds, darkened and corrupted with false principles and notions of every kind, in a manner the most penetrating and efficacious, without provoking and encouraging opposition and contradiction, as avowed reformers do, when they come forward openly as leaders in a campaign against ignorance, folly and vice. (Rev Fr William Sutton S.J: Bacon’s Great Secret; The New Ireland Review, August, 1903, pp.347-356.)

cantatedomino · « **Reply #248 on:** March 09, 2014, 09:07:05 AM »

THE EARTHMOVERS: Surely it can be no surprise then to find that in Shakespeare’s allegories the heliocentrism of Hermēs Trismegistus is tucked safely away:

The order of the universe, previously known only to God, came within men’s grasp. In London’s Globe theatre, the audience heard that order displayed in Shakespeare’s wondrous verse in Troilus and Cressida (1602):

“ULYSSES: The heavens themselves, the planets and this centre. Observe degree, priority and place, insisture [fixedness], course, proportion, season, form, office, and custom, on all line of order.”

Now they would be told that this order was not imposed by the mysterious hand of the Devine, but by laws intelligible to the human mind. (A. Coleman: MM Millennium, Transworld Publishing, London, 1999, p.175.)

Scholars also believe there could be an allegory on the New Astronomy - or should it be the ancient Hermetic astronomy - as a sub-text in Hamlet.

This novel interpretation establishes the relationship of the entire play to the scientific advances of the sixteenth century. Using multiple and previously unexplained conceits, Shakespeare describes properties of the sun, moon, planets and stars that he could not have known without telescopic aid. Yet the date of the writing of Hamlet in about 1601 predates the normally accepted date of the first known astronomical telescopic observations by at least nine years. (James Usher: Shakespeare and the Dawn of Modern Science, p. xxi. )

For further revelations about the supposed ‘geocentrism’ of Francis Bacon we go to The Hiram Key by C. Knight & R. Lomas:

It is highly likely that Brother Bacon was the driving force behind the styling of the new second degree of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ introduced by his close colleague William Schaw. No one in the King’s group of Freemasons had more passion than Bacon for the advancement of science and the opening up of thinking about nature . . . The Second or ‘Fellow-Craft’ Degree of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ gives very little knowledge to the candidate but it does introduce the idea of ‘‘hidden mysteries of nature and science’’ and makes a clear reference to what is called the ‘‘Galilean Heresy.” Whilst we are certain that the central subject of this degree is as ancient as any in Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, it nonetheless is evidently of much more recent construction due largely to Francis Bacon. (Bacon’s Essays and Historical Works, Bohn’s Standard Library, quoted in C. Knight & R. Lomas: The Hiram Key, Century, 1996.)

What then was the ritual for Bacon’s Second or ‘Fellow-Craft’ Degree of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ? Among other things there is a required session of prepared questions and answers:

Q. “Where were you made a Mason?”

A. “In the body of a Lodge, just perfect and regular.”

Q. “And when?”

A. “When the sun was at its meridian.”

Q. “As in this country Freemasons’ Lodges are usually held and candidates initiated at night, how do you reconcile that which at first sight appears a paradox?”

A. “The sun being a fixed body and the earth continually revolving about the same on its own axis, and Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ being a universal science, diffused throughout the whole of the inhabited globe, it necessarily follows that the sun must always be at its meridian with respect to Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ.”

Q. What is Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ?

A. A peculiar system of morality, veiled in allegory, illustrated by symbols.

This reference is unlikely to have been inserted before 1610, the date when Galileo publicly announced his conviction that Copernicus was indeed correct in thinking that the earth revolved around the sun. Francis Bacon, we believe, immediately set about incorporating this new truth of nature into his recently created Second Degree. (Knight & Lomas: The Hiram Key, P.332.)

And here is another comment on the Second Degree:

Although the Copernican Solar principle in lodge ritual may initially have appeared obsolete, it now seems that its inclusion is indeed significant. Far from denoting a limited extent of scientific knowledge, it is symbolic of the fact that, in the early days of the Invisible College, embryonic Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ supported the science of Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) when it was deemed outrageous and heretical, it was introduced as a statement of principle – a stance against nonsensical dogma – and this could remain the same today. (Laurence Gardner: The Shadow of Solomon, p.250.)

In 1584, under the name of Robert Greene, Francis Bacon published a serious treatise on astronomy called Planetomachia that gave this second degree the appearance of advancing science and opening up thinking about nature. (Parker Woodward: Sir Francis Bacon, London, 1920.)

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #249 on:** April 15, 2014, 08:49:05 PM »

.

I just posted the following on another thread:

Quote from: I

.

Forgive me for not keeping up, cantatedomino, but I just realized that you stopped posting installments to THE EARTHMOVERS and then jumped over here to this thread on March 9th. Since then, you have made no more EARTHMOVERS posts.

How much more material (posts) would there be, left to go in THE EARTHMOVERS?

I'll post this question on the other thread, as well.

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #250 on:** April 15, 2014, 09:05:46 PM »

.

Yesterday there was a total eclipse of the moon at about 3:45 am EDT. I made a few posts in its regard as it was going on, here.

There have been no replies.

The running commentary was streamed live from the Griffith Park Observatory, which had some 200 visitors mulling about in the middle of the night. It is within a half-hour's drive for me to get there and so I could have been physically present at the site instead of being online here, but I thought that maybe some CI members would like to know what's happening. So I stayed home.

Anyway, after reading a lot of your posts, cantatedomino, I have a much better understanding of what's been going on since Galileo and these intervening centuries. In light of all that, hearing the megamouths jabbering away at the Observatory is most entertaining, because they seem to be in a constant state of making war against something, using the same mockery and would-be wisecrack style that Galileo employed. I have to wonder if perhaps they are not possessed.

Anyway, thanks for your many posts.

.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #251 on:** April 16, 2014, 05:14:22 AM »

Thank you so much for your continued patronage of this thread.

I stopped posting during Lent and will resume after Easter.

May God grant you many blessings during Holy Week and many graces for Easter.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #252 on:** April 16, 2014, 05:16:53 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

.

I just posted the following on another thread:

Quote from: I
.

Forgive me for not keeping up, cantatedomino, but I just realized that you stopped posting installments to THE EARTHMOVERS and then jumped over here to this thread on March 9th. Since then, you have made no more EARTHMOVERS posts.

How much more material (posts) would there be, left to go in THE EARTHMOVERS?

I'll post this question on the other thread, as well.

.

There's plenty, plenty more Earthmovers in store for you, Neil.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #253 on:** April 16, 2014, 06:03:49 PM »

.

Quote from: cantatedomino

There's plenty, plenty more Earthmovers in store for you, Neil.

:rahrah: :rahrah:

YAAAAAAYYY!!!

:rahrah: :rahrah:

Quote

May God grant you many blessings during Holy Week and many graces for Easter.

U 2 !

.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #254 on:** April 16, 2014, 06:13:24 PM »

Just a few more days, old chap!