HERE[/url] cantatedomino]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.
This same technique is used by +Fellay and his cronies, to tailor their words to suit the ears of their audience -- in order to create in their mind some desired effect more than any normal communication going on from one mind to another. As
TheRecusant has said recently (Issue #11, p. 2):
Bishop Fellay is pro- or anti-modernist Rome, rather that he is capable of being both or either, of changing his position without hesitation and with never so much as a blush, according to whatever his own short-sighted goals require. Take heed. Once again, as if it were needed, he has provided us with startling evidence of how his own words are as good as useless in indicating what he will do or say next.
When he talks, he does so in order to create an impression in the mind of the listener, not to communicate something objective from one mind to another, much less to lay out or establish anything for which he will feel bound to give an account in the future should someone remind him of his own words. His dictum that nobody can criticise the April 2012 Doctrinal Declaration because they don’t necessarily understand what he himself meant by it, and his complaint that we “are not in [his] head!” ought to be truly frightening to anyone with a basic understanding of philosophy. It amounts in practice to
a denial that words have any objective meaning or that statements or sentences can be understood by a third party without reference to their author. If that is not the very last word in modernist thinking, then I don’t know what is.
Consider the implications for one moment:
if that were true, then nobody could ever know the teaching of the Church. There could be no Catholic teaching, since any writing from the more recent Popes down to the Church Fathers and even Scripture itself would depend upon “being inside the head” of the author. If, on the other hand, words do have objective meaning, a meaning which stands alone and is not dependent on any intellectual caprice of their author, then what Bishop Fellay wrote and offered to bind himself to last year cannot be defended by any Traditional Catholic worthy of the name.
A further drop in the bucket is found in the scandalous words of Fr. Themann (who certain members here cringe at the thought that he might be neo-Modernist!) when he said, wrote, decreed and pronounced that
"Truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which the words stand." I leave the import of the implications to settle in where you can think it over, if you dare.
As for the following, yes, it is a matter of historical record that the so-called William Shakespeare 'miraculously' emerged out of nowhere, with no schooling, no history, no pedigree, no past --- hey, sounds a lot like Barack Obama, don't it!?!?
{Yes, it's "playwright" not "play write." Likewise, millwright · plowwright · ploughwright · shipwright · wainwright · wheelwright, &c.-wright.}
For did not Shakes-Speare spring into being fully armed at all points as a [playwright] 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.)

Come on! This is child's play! Leaving the nose intact, the forehead, the eyes, the ears, the cheekbones, the fatty drag lines above the mouth, and the skin, but iron this guy's hair out straight, add in a receding hairline, pluck his eyebrows and eyelids, shave most of his goatee off, change the get-up to another outfit, and flip the photo left to right a.k.a. mirror image, and you get the following portrait, no question*:
{Note: in those days, the painter could have been given the instructions to set up a MIRROR into which he would look at the original painting, and THAT would be what he paints; see every detail in the bags under the eyes and the expression in the smirk. Francis Bacon SMIRKS at us, from 400 years ago!!}

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 [great] 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.)
It seems to me that a serious use of double writing is going on in the halls of the Menzingen-denizens as we speak. Only those who show themselves both able and willing to undertake this task, clandestinely, are allowed to advance within the ranks of the Society, and those who perhaps had reached a degree of seniority before the Revolution took full control in 1994 with +F's election, such as +W, obviously, are sidelined (Bishop Tissier), transferred (Fr. Scott), marginalized (Fr. Girouard, Fr. Pfeiffer), sanctioned (Fr. Chazal, Fr. Altamira), muzzled (Fr. Arizaga, Fr. Cardozo), suspended (Fr. Pivert) and ultimately expelled (&c., &c.).
We ought to be glad (so far!) that they haven't been
killed. Although, in the case of some, the Leaders simply wait for them to die off, such as Fr. Hector Bolduc and Fr. John Peek, God rest their souls.
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)
*Where are the critics? Bring 'em on!
.