The Truth Movement

I have a bit of trouble understanding why those currently going through, 'naive enlightenment' can't help but be judgemental of others constantly. Yes it is a phase we all have to go through, and I realise how angry you are that you didn't always know about all the things you now know. But before you start accusing everyone of being a child murdering member of the elite, and hating on them. And before you start accusing others of being evil because they happen to have a different view than you about something... Just try to remember that most people are just here trying to get on with their life, trying to do what they feel is right. Yes there are a lot of people who get tired of battling on and on, in what seems like a pointless fight against the corruption in the world and decide to 'sell out' and become yet another corporate or media whore. But you have no right to judge them on their decision, who do you think you are? We are all each responsible for our own life and our own decisions. No one else is forced to believe the things you believe, or even have the same values you do. So long as they are not hurting you, why are you worried what their choices are?

The truth movement has been mass mind controlled to a very deep level, and they are stuck too far into their 'naive enlightenment' for them to notice.

Here are a few pointers to help you see the signs of manipulation in the truth movement.

Is there one thing, that no matter what other things someone talks about, they all agree on?

1, What is this thing they all agree on?
2, What solution do they give for beating this problem?
3, Do they all give the same solution?

And some examples:

1, There is a elite organisation in control of the world, who run everything and own more of less everything.

2, The love and light crew says we should all meditate and think lovely thoughts, but do nothing. The angry hater crew all think we should riot, or call people names, or protest. or just send out bad energy to them. But ultimately this makes no difference, so it is the same as doing nothing. Or it will lead to more of our freedoms being removed if they start attacking people and looting etc.

3, Yes, it amounts to the same, they are constantly told that we are all individuals, and to beat this massive worldwide organisation, we should all remain alone and independent. We should under no circumstances think about joining together to build our own organisation which would work against them. Where is the logic that? There isn't any, because this is the thing they all - like programmed little drones - are told to think, over and over again by their gurus and preachers.

They (those who run the show) know that so long as we are all fighting amongst ourselves and blaming each other for things, and telling other people they are wrong about this and that. Arguing over whose dogma is right, who has the best religion, who is the most spiritual, who is the best at this, or the best at that..... We are not a problem to them. We are just a bunch of little people, all shouting and crying about those naughty evil elite who have taken all our rights, yet not joining together to do anything about it.

If you have had enough and want to become part of a real solution, and join a group of people who all have minds and ideas of their own, but all agree on one point "I believe that everyone should have the freedom to: Do whatever they want, worship whatever they want, believe anything they want, so long as it hurts no one else and they don't force their views on anyone else."

Then come along and make your voice heard and be part of the solution, what are you waiting for? No one else is going to come along and save you, we have to be the ones who make changes.

http://www.templeoftheola.org/be-the-solution.html

Wikipedia - Truth for the intellectually challenged.

I am sure we all know someone who likes to prove a point by posting up a Wiki link, then sitting back all smug and conceited like they have proved you wrong about something, because it says so on Wiki, so it must be true. Or is it?

Don't they realise that anyone can add anything they want to that site? That anyone can then come along and edit it? And at the end of the day it is just the opinions of who ever edits. People don't even check the sources of the information, and if they do they don't find the source of that source. Any good researcher must research the source of the source until they get to the bottom of where some information or misinformation has come from. Otherwise you are just passing on someone else's opinion.

Wikipedia can be a useful tool and starting point for any kind of research, but it is not the end point, or the proof. Wikipedia is used as a source of proof by the intellectually challenged.

My point is, don't believe everything you read on Wiki, just as much as you shouldn't believe everything you read in the papers or see on the TV.

There are people out there who want to keep you in the dark, I am not one of them.

I am tactless, Sorry!

Some people say I am tactless for just speaking my mind. They don't realise my intention isn't to upset people. I say good positive things, and I also say something about things I disagree with, or don't like sometimes. Saying good things is fine, it is giving those who need it, narcissistic supply. But when I make a comment about something I disagree with or don't like, the person often gets very defensive and usually just attacks me.

I am the way I am because I prefer honesty to lies, I speak my mind and give my true opinion.

On Facebook I guess it isn't directly asked for, but then why do people add me to their contact list if they never want to hear my opinion about things?

Did they only join FB to be surrounded by people who will constantly tell them how wonderful they are and always agree with them?

I guess they must.

I think this is the difference between me and them. When I ask someone's opinion about something, I don't do it to get compliments and be told how wonderful everything is. I ask them so I can get their opinions and then I can either see what they mean and make changes and improve it, or say I don't agree and just stick to how it is, but at least they were honest with me.

If I post something on my FB wall and someone comments under it that they don't agree, I will discuss it with them and find out why they think that, and why I don't. I will look at their side and if needs be just accept we are never going to see eye to eye on that point. But I won't instantly hate that person and attack them and call them names because they don't agree with my opinion about something.

Please try to change your perception of 'tactless' people, as they are just telling you like it is. They are being genuine. They haven't spent hours thinking up what to say, they just say it and they have no ulterior motive.

A troll will just call someone names for no reason, that is completely different. When someone doesn't agree with something, it does NOT mean they are a troll.

Illuminati

I am getting a little tired of people assuming Adam Weishaup invented the word 'Illuminati' or 'Illumination' in 1776, and that even though his organisation later became known as the Freemasons, that they are the only ones who use that word and some how own it.

When someone is illuminated it means they know the truth. It does not mean they are evil, knowing the truth does not make someone evil. What the person chooses to do with their knowledge could though be seen as either good or evil.

Long before Adam Weishaup there were - The Alumbrados (Illuminated) which was a term used to describe practitioners of a mystical form of Gnosticism in Spain during the 15th-16th centuries. The Alumbrados held views that were clearly heretical. Consequently, they were firmly repressed and became some of the early victims of the Spanish Inquisition.

However where did they get their Gnostic teachings from? The Serpent Bloodline Mystery Schools of course. The Alumbrados were those who had tried to infiltrate Christianity and the Jesuits to bring the true teachings of the Serpent Bloodline. But when they were found out they were burnt at the stake. Sound familiar? Yes, it also happened to the Cathars in France and the 'true' Templars, who were Gnostics NOT Christians.

So quit throwing the word 'Illuminati' around like you know what it means, when you clearly don't.

Is being homosexual an obstacle?

I get asked a lot of questions all the time through email, and when I answer I am answering only one person at a time. So now I will post questions and give my answers here.

Question: Do you think being homosexual is an obstacle for spiritual growth?

Answer: One could argue that any kind of 'sexual' is an obstacle, as lust is one of the things a spiritually aware person conquers and so can not be controlled by it.

If you are happy alone and feel complete alone, you are balanced. If you do not feel complete without this lust, then it will stop you progressing past the material world. People can use this against you, it can become an addiction and can stop you spiritually 'growing up'.

Of course a gay male will struggle more reaching illumination as he would not like to perform the Great Rite with a female, and unlike the assumptions of Aleister Crowley a gay male sexual act can not achieve illumination.

So therefore the male homosexual must find a path to enlightenment alone and in solitude and this is the origins of the gay celibate Priesthood. Only not all those who go into the Priesthood are ready to conquer their lust, and it has led to the abuse of children.

If you can not conquer your lust, this is the obstacle to spiritual growth for all, not just homosexuals.

Grimoire

The Occult word "grimoire" or book of spells means "grammar" which also tells us that "spells" are to do with putting letters together for "spelling" words or forming conceptual ideas for the purpose of raising another person's conscious awareness.

Also see http://www.templeoftheola.org/sigilisation.html

Satanic Psychopaths?

So many complete ignorant fools throw the word 'satanic' about, without even knowing what it means and why it was demonised by patriarchy. Like mind controlled minions they just listen to the perverted preachers at Church and continue to spread their lies. Calling anyone who is a psychopath 'satanic' because of the fact that they are stupid enough to believe Satan is some kind of beast with a forked tail that psychopaths worship and sacrifice babies to. The masses need to grow up and quit being so deluded.

Psychopaths are psychopaths because of issues with how their brain works, not because they worship some imaginary devil. We are not in the dark ages now. Some people are just bad through and through, they don't care about anyone but themselves. Deal with this fact instead of trying to imagine it is something humans are not capable of. 666 is the number of the Beast, the beast is man, this is why Aleister Crowley called himself the beast, he knew this.

To find out more about Satan & Lucifer see http://www.templeoftheola.org/satan--lucifer.html