80 replies to this topic

[theadmiral]

I feel that I should point out that "anarchy" like in Somalia, is not a theoretical system that people advocate. You're thinking of anarchism which has nothing whatsoever to do with chaos, it's just another form of social organisation, one that doesn't involve hierarchy. 

You are correct, but he said anarchy, and I attempted to get him to elaborate about a dozen times and he refused to provide anything other than "If we had anarchy more countries would like us because we wouldn't invade them"

 

Unless you are talking to him, not me. I was responding to the points as they were presented. I'd be happy to debate anarchism with him as well if he can take the time to provide examples of how he feels we would be better off with that system.

[dtsmucker]

 

I feel that I should point out that "anarchy" like in Somalia, is not a theoretical system that people advocate. You're thinking of anarchism which has nothing whatsoever to do with chaos, it's just another form of social organisation, one that doesn't involve hierarchy. 

You are correct, but he said anarchy, and I attempted to get him to elaborate about a dozen times and he refused to provide anything other than "If we had anarchy more countries would like us because we wouldn't invade them"

 

Unless you are talking to him, not me. I was responding to the points as they were presented. I'd be happy to debate anarchism with him as well if he can take the time to provide examples of how he feels we would be better off with that system.

 

This is why an understanding of grammar is important.  

[DeafMetal]

Because people are stupid.

[Mr. House]

 

 

 

If you're basing the idea of Anarchism on the situation in Somalia, then you probably have a limited scope on the subject.

 

If you read an earlier post, I said it was not a total anarchy, but the closest real example we have right now.

 

Except it's not. My point is that it doesn't even resemble anything that can be described as anarchism in the slightest. Somalia is classed by some as a failed state and has a variety of oganisations vying for power. There are many organised regions, each with differing ways of functioning. Hell, I'm even willing to bet that there are groups which identify and function as anarchists, but Somalia as a whole can't be described as an example of anarchism.

[GrandMaster Smith]

Don't start this, he'll go on about Baphomet for ages, utterly ignorant to the fact Baphomet was a creation of the Christian church to justify subjugation of the Pagans and then the Knight's Templar during the 14th Century. He's ignorant of history and doesn't, as anyone whose ever studied Dark Ages history or religious philosophy should know, understand that it's a fictitious deity. 

 

Well you're an atheist so of course you're going to say that, you believe all deities are fictitious.. lol

 

Do you have any proof that the Christian church created Baphomet as a justification to subjugate the pagans and knight templar?

[Mr. House]

 

Don't start this, he'll go on about Baphomet for ages, utterly ignorant to the fact Baphomet was a creation of the Christian church to justify subjugation of the Pagans and then the Knight's Templar during the 14th Century. He's ignorant of history and doesn't, as anyone whose ever studied Dark Ages history or religious philosophy should know, understand that it's a fictitious deity. 

 

Well you're an atheist so of course you're going to say that, you believe all deities are fictitious.. lol

 

Do you have any proof that the Christian church created Baphomet as a justification to subjugate the pagans and knight templar?

 

No no no, he doesn't 'believe' anything. In fact, that's the point.

 

As for the second part, read a book f*cking hell.

[sivispacem]

Do you have any proof that the Christian church created Baphomet as a justification to subjugate the pagans and knight templar?

 
Yes.

The History of the Crusades, Volume 3 discusses it extensively in historical context. I'm struggling to find any of the seminal works on the Knight's Templar on Google Books where you can actually peruse them, but The Templars- History and Myth by Michael Haag and A New Knighthood: A History of the Order of the Temple by Malcolm Barber both discuss it at length. Both the books are cheap and easily accessible, not to mention interesting. It would probably do you some good to get a proper academic perspective on the subject, my referred of the two is Barber's book. 

Plus Webster's English Dictionary defines the genus of the word:
 

Baphomet

Baph"o*met\, n. [A corruption of Mahomet or Mohammed, the Arabian prophet: cf. Pr. Bafomet, OSp. Mafomat, OPg. Mafameda.] An idol or symbolical figure which the Templars were accused of using in their mysterious rites.

 
Brief history lesson- much of Southern Europe had been held by the Umayyad Caliphate under Muhammed (late 8th to mid 9th century) and it wasn't until the fall of the caliphate that it was restored to Christianity. The term was first recorded in the 1090s during the First Crusades- It's derived from an early Crusades term for "mosque"- Bafumarias, which in itself is believed to be a corruption either of a literal spelling of Muhammed (Mahomet) of the Sufi word abufihamat- the heathen/pagan implications of it are much later but are pretty clear from the context, certainly in the case of the former. It didn't really rise to prominence until the reign of Philip the Fair in the early 14th Century, but interestingly despite the term existing for over 300 years before this point there's no recorded evidence to suggest that it was used in relation to any deity. In fact, the use of Baphomet as a deity was fabricated pretty much solely by Phillip the Fair, who used a combination of historical European Pagan influences combined with customs and practices that the Templars had picked up fighting in the East to cast them as heathens and have them destroyed. Why? Because he was a paranoid, borderline-genocidal, anti-Semitic lunatic with a God complex. It's worth noting that the Templars didn't come to an end, however- they were given passage to Portugal and became the Order of Christ. Now, I'm pretty familiar with some of their buildings in central Portugal having been there a few months ago, and am also fairly familiar with the history of them as my partner's mother is a dark ages/pre-Renaissance European history lecturer at a university, and I'm fairly sure I'm right in saying that throughout the 470-odd years through which the Order of Christ existed in Portugal, not once was there ever reference to the worship of a deity called Baphomet, bearing any similarity to the historic or "common" interpretations of Baphomet (which aren't the same thing, by the way, the "Baphomet referred to during the Templar trials is very different to that present in Crowley's much later work), any remotely similar deity or any remotely similar term.

The modern incarnation that you see represented in the Bohemia Grove conspiracy theories is based almost solely on the works of Aleister Crowley and by proxy Thelema. It's effectively a fictitious invention by a slightly deranged magician and occultist, that's loosely based on another fictitious deity, which in turn is based on a corruption of the name of the Patron of Islam or a Sufi term for the spirit of God.

[theadmiral]

 

 

 

 

If you're basing the idea of Anarchism on the situation in Somalia, then you probably have a limited scope on the subject.

 

If you read an earlier post, I said it was not a total anarchy, but the closest real example we have right now.

 

Except it's not. My point is that it doesn't even resemble anything that can be described as anarchism in the slightest. Somalia is classed by some as a failed state and has a variety of oganisations vying for power. There are many organised regions, each with differing ways of functioning. Hell, I'm even willing to bet that there are groups which identify and function as anarchists, but Somalia as a whole can't be described as an example of anarchism.

 

What part of "closest real example we have right now" do you not understand? Also, I said anarchy, not anarchism. If you feel this is inaccurate, please provide a better real world example. Otherwise, you are trying to disagree with something I never said.

[GrandMaster Smith]

 

Do you have any proof that the Christian church created Baphomet as a justification to subjugate the pagans and knight templar?

 
Yes.

The History of the Crusades, Volume 3 discusses it extensively in historical context. I'm struggling to find any of the seminal works on the Knight's Templar on Google Books where you can actually peruse them, but The Templars- History and Myth by Michael Haag and A New Knighthood: A History of the Order of the Temple by Malcolm Barber both discuss it at length. Both the books are cheap and easily accessible, not to mention interesting. It would probably do you some good to get a proper academic perspective on the subject, my referred of the two is Barber's book. 

Plus Webster's English Dictionary defines the genus of the word:
 

Baphomet

Baph"o*met\, n. [A corruption of Mahomet or Mohammed, the Arabian prophet: cf. Pr. Bafomet, OSp. Mafomat, OPg. Mafameda.] An idol or symbolical figure which the Templars were accused of using in their mysterious rites.

 
Brief history lesson- much of Southern Europe had been held by the Umayyad Caliphate under Muhammed (late 8th to mid 9th century) and it wasn't until the fall of the caliphate that it was restored to Christianity. The term was first recorded in the 1090s during the First Crusades- It's derived from an early Crusades term for "mosque"- Bafumarias, which in itself is believed to be a corruption either of a literal spelling of Muhammed (Mahomet) of the Sufi word abufihamat- the heathen/pagan implications of it are much later but are pretty clear from the context, certainly in the case of the former. It didn't really rise to prominence until the reign of Philip the Fair in the early 14th Century, but interestingly despite the term existing for over 300 years before this point there's no recorded evidence to suggest that it was used in relation to any deity. In fact, the use of Baphomet as a deity was fabricated pretty much solely by Phillip the Fair, who used a combination of historical European Pagan influences combined with customs and practices that the Templars had picked up fighting in the East to cast them as heathens and have them destroyed. Why? Because he was a paranoid, borderline-genocidal, anti-Semitic lunatic with a God complex. It's worth noting that the Templars didn't come to an end, however- they were given passage to Portugal and became the Order of Christ. Now, I'm pretty familiar with some of their buildings in central Portugal having been there a few months ago, and am also fairly familiar with the history of them as my partner's mother is a dark ages/pre-Renaissance European history lecturer at a university, and I'm fairly sure I'm right in saying that throughout the 470-odd years through which the Order of Christ existed in Portugal, not once was there ever reference to the worship of a deity called Baphomet, bearing any similarity to the historic or "common" interpretations of Baphomet (which aren't the same thing, by the way, the "Baphomet referred to during the Templar trials is very different to that present in Crowley's much later work), any remotely similar deity or any remotely similar term.

The modern incarnation that you see represented in the Bohemia Grove conspiracy theories is based almost solely on the works of Aleister Crowley and by proxy Thelema. It's effectively a fictitious invention by a slightly deranged magician and occultist, that's loosely based on another fictitious deity, which in turn is based on a corruption of the name of the Patron of Islam or a Sufi term for the spirit of God.

 

 

 

There are numerous works referring to baphomet as a worshipped entity. The name first recorded appearance was in 1098 in a letter written by Anselm of Ribemont

 

Sequenti die aurora apparente, altis vocibus Baphometh invocaverunt; et nos Deum nostrum in cordibus nostris deprecantes, impetum facientes in eos, de muris civitatis omnes expulimus.

 

 

 

 

As the next day dawned they called loudly upon Baphometh while we prayed silently in our hearts to God; then we attacked and forced all of them outside the city walls ...

 

There a many others including a poem written around 1200 by Gavaudan:

 

 

 

-Profeta sera.n Gavaudas qu.el dig er faitz, e mortz als cas! e Dieus er honratz e servitz on Bafometz era grazitz.

 

-Gavaudan shall be a prophet for his words shall become a fact. Death to those dogs! God shall be honoured and worshipped where Baphomet is now served.    

[sivispacem]

There are numerous works referring to baphomet as a worshipped entity. The name first recorded appearance was in 1098 in a letter written by Anselm of Ribemont
 
Sequenti die aurora apparente, altis vocibus Baphometh invocaverunt; et nos Deum nostrum in cordibus nostris deprecantes, impetum facientes in eos, de muris civitatis omnes expulimus.

 

That's taken directly from "A New Knighthood" and could probably do with some contextual analysis on your part, as your conclusion on the meaning of this translation is quite distinct from Barber's. It makes no logical sense in context of Islam, as the worship of deities is apostasy punishable by death. You clearly missed the fairly sizeable section of my response where I explained that the commonly accepted genus for the word "Baphomet" is a Europeanisation of "Mahomet", or Mohammed. Baphomet and Mahomet refer to the same thing- the religious and political leader who united the Arabic world during the Caliphate. The Crusades were seen as a defence of the caliphates.

Raymond D'Aguilers, a chronicler of the First Crusade (pre-dating your 1098 reference, his writings date from 1095-6) referred to Mosques as "Bafumarias" which qualifies this further. Same lingustic base as derived from the same bastardisation of the same Arabic word, as Barber, Partner and other scholars tend to conclude on the subject. It's far more valid to conclude that this is referring to the loud adhān, or call to prayer, to which the armies of the Seljuq Empire would have rallied as if from the mouth of the prophet himself?
 

There a many others including a poem written around 1200 by Gavaudan:
 
-Profeta sera.n Gavaudas qu.el dig er faitz, e mortz als cas! e Dieus er honratz e servitz on Bafometz era grazitz.
 
-Gavaudan shall be a prophet for his words shall become a fact. Death to those dogs! God shall be honoured and worshipped where Baphomet is now served.

Again, given he was discussing the conflict with Islam, the use of "Mahomet" would make more sense. In fact, if you look at L. E Kastner's analysis of Gavaudan's Crusade Song (The Modern Lanaugae Review, Vol. 26, No. 2, Apr., 1931- paywalled so unless you have access to JSTOR you'll only be stuck with the first page), his direct translation of "Bafometz" is "Mahomet".

 

 

 

So tell me, is there any legitimate reason to think "Baphomet" is anything more than a distortion of the word "Mohammed"? The academic community thinks not, why do you?

[GrandMaster Smith]

 

There are numerous works referring to baphomet as a worshipped entity. The name first recorded appearance was in 1098 in a letter written by Anselm of Ribemont
 
Sequenti die aurora apparente, altis vocibus Baphometh invocaverunt; et nos Deum nostrum in cordibus nostris deprecantes, impetum facientes in eos, de muris civitatis omnes expulimus.

 

That's taken directly from "A New Knighthood" and could probably do with some contextual analysis on your part, as your conclusion on the meaning of this translation is quite distinct from Barber's. It makes no logical sense in context of Islam, as the worship of deities is apostasy punishable by death. You clearly missed the fairly sizeable section of my response where I explained that the commonly accepted genus for the word "Baphomet" is a Europeanisation of "Mahomet", or Mohammed. Baphomet and Mahomet refer to the same thing- the religious and political leader who united the Arabic world during the Caliphate. The Crusades were seen as a defence of the caliphates.

Raymond D'Aguilers, a chronicler of the First Crusade (pre-dating your 1098 reference, his writings date from 1095-6) referred to Mosques as "Bafumarias" which qualifies this further. Same lingustic base as derived from the same bastardisation of the same Arabic word, as Barber, Partner and other scholars tend to conclude on the subject. It's far more valid to conclude that this is referring to the loud adhān, or call to prayer, to which the armies of the Seljuq Empire would have rallied as if from the mouth of the prophet himself?
 

There a many others including a poem written around 1200 by Gavaudan:
 
-Profeta sera.n Gavaudas qu.el dig er faitz, e mortz als cas! e Dieus er honratz e servitz on Bafometz era grazitz.
 
-Gavaudan shall be a prophet for his words shall become a fact. Death to those dogs! God shall be honoured and worshipped where Baphomet is now served.

Again, given he was discussing the conflict with Islam, the use of "Mahomet" would make more sense. In fact, if you look at L. E Kastner's analysis of Gavaudan's Crusade Song (The Modern Lanaugae Review, Vol. 26, No. 2, Apr., 1931- paywalled so unless you have access to JSTOR you'll only be stuck with the first page), his direct translation of "Bafometz" is "Mahomet".

 

 

 

So tell me, is there any legitimate reason to think "Baphomet" is anything more than a distortion of the word "Mohammed"? The academic community thinks not, why do you?

 

 

 

Just because mosques were called bafumaris doesn't mean that's the origin of the word baphomet since they're similar. 

 

Many believe Bufihimat to be the origin of the name Baphomet, which meant "Father of Wisdom."

[Frank Brown]

Can I ask how we went from a nutjob talk show host to Christian subjugation of pagans in the 1300s?

[TheFoxRiverFugitive]

Can I ask how we went from a nutjob talk show host to Christian subjugation of pagans in the 1300s?

I didn't expect it to turn out this way. I was expecting discussion on how and why people can legitimately believe anything coming out of Jones' mouth.

 

It really is mind-boggling how people follow behind him like lost puppies.

[Raavi]

 

Can I ask how we went from a nutjob talk show host to Christian subjugation of pagans in the 1300s?

I didn't expect it to turn out this way. I was expecting discussion on how and why people can legitimately believe anything coming out of Jones' mouth.

 

It really is mind-boggling how people follow behind him like lost puppies.

 

 

In a society plagued by ignorance it isn't really that surprising.

[sivispacem]

Just because mosques were called bafumaris doesn't mean that's the origin of the word baphomet since they're similar.

 

No, but the accepted genus of the word "Baphomet" is a distortion of "Mahomet", which I've said about a dozen times and referenced twice.
 

Many believe Bufihimat to be the origin of the name Baphomet, which meant "Father of Wisdom."

 

Which I already covered by talking about Abufihamet (Bufihimat is the same word in Moorish Spanish as opposed to Arabic)- by "many" I presume you're referring to the Sufi scholar Idries Shah whose the main proponent of this theory? He believed, based on study of the scriptures, that the term was evidence that the Templars had adopted rituals associated with Sufism and therefore Islam (as a corruption of the term Abufihamet) and that this formed part of the justification for their destruction (covered here). Conceptually, the "father of wisdom" in Sufism refers to one's internal connection with Allah, all of which is logical given the fact that many of the Templar fighters who were involved in the crusades also fought in Moorish Spain and North Africa, where Sufism was centred during and post the Umayyad Caliphate.

 

 

Can I ask how we went from a nutjob talk show host to Christian subjugation of pagans in the 1300s?

 

Quite simply because Grandmaster Smith seems unable to accept the fact that Baphomet, in the form apparently worshipped by members of the NWO, is a fictitious invention linguistically derived from either a corruption of the prophet of Islam, or from Sufist influences in Southern Europe. 

[GrandMaster Smith]

 

Just because mosques were called bafumaris doesn't mean that's the origin of the word baphomet since they're similar.

 

No, but the accepted genus of the word "Baphomet" is a distortion of "Mahomet", which I've said about a dozen times and referenced twice.
 

Many believe Bufihimat to be the origin of the name Baphomet, which meant "Father of Wisdom."

 

Which I already covered by talking about Abufihamet (Bufihimat is the same word in Moorish Spanish as opposed to Arabic)- by "many" I presume you're referring to the Sufi scholar Idries Shah whose the main proponent of this theory? He believed, based on study of the scriptures, that the term was evidence that the Templars had adopted rituals associated with Sufism and therefore Islam (as a corruption of the term Abufihamet) and that this formed part of the justification for their destruction (covered here). Conceptually, the "father of wisdom" in Sufism refers to one's internal connection with Allah, all of which is logical given the fact that many of the Templar fighters who were involved in the crusades also fought in Moorish Spain and North Africa, where Sufism was centred during and post the Umayyad Caliphate.

 

 

Can I ask how we went from a nutjob talk show host to Christian subjugation of pagans in the 1300s?

 

Quite simply because Grandmaster Smith seems unable to accept the fact that Baphomet, in the form apparently worshipped by members of the NWO, is a fictitious invention linguistically derived from either a corruption of the prophet of Islam, or from Sufist influences in Southern Europe. 

 

 

Can you explain how the origin of the word would even disprove that there was no entity they believed they were worshipping?

My name (funnily enough) means the gift of God, now I'm nowhere near anyone special or any kind of saint but does that do anything in proving/disproving my own actual existence? The origin of words could be anything but it doesn't disprove the existence of what ones' might've called the entity they believed in.

 

And also aren't you atheist? You believe all deities are fictitious in the first place so no matter whether people really believed they were worshipping a deity you're still going to call it fictitious.. lol

[sivispacem]

Can you explain how the origin of the word would even disprove that there was no entity they believed they were worshipping?

 

And now we're back to a negative proof fallacy. I can't prove that they weren't worshiping this entity by name, the same way that I can't prove that, to paraphrase two demonstrations of the fallacy, there aren't invisible pink teapots orbiting the earth. What I can say is that there's no actual evidence that they were worshiping an entity called Baphomet, given the great deal of academic and contextual discussion around the issue and the suspect absence of any worshiped entity called Baphomet actually being recorded to have existed, and I can say with complete conviction that such an entity, if it existed, which there is no proof that it did or ever has, would not have borne any physical or spiritual similarity to the "Baphomet" you see referenced in discussion of the NWO conspiracy theory and Bohemia Grove, which is a combination of Eliphas Lévi's Sabbatic Goat and Aleister Crowley's mystical spiritualism, both of which came some 700 years after the initial use of the word.
 

The origin of words could be anything but it doesn't disprove the existence of what ones' might've called the entity they believed in.

 

Please employ Occam's razor for once in your life, and stop trying to rely on a negative proof fallacy to support the tattered remains of your argument. If you prefer to put your faith in a completely valueless assertion with no evidence to back it up despite the existence of perfectly valid, rational hypotheses presented by subject matter experts, then be my guest, but trying to use fallacious logic to question the conclusions of people far more familiar with the subject than yourself and effectively claiming that you're right purely because no-one has definitively proved you wrong strikes me as a bit silly. And by "a bit", I really mean "exceptionally". We go back to the pink teapots example. I don't have to disprove anything; the onus is on you to provide proof that such a deity may have existed- and by proof, I mean something actually academic, properly referenced and sourced from an individual with a clear authority to speak on the subject, and to be honest something which isn't contradicted by all accepted understanding would be good too.

 

And also aren't you atheist? You believe all deities are fictitious in the first place so no matter whether people really believed they were worshipping a deity you're still going to call it fictitious.. lol

 

No, because unlike you I'm capable of discerning between recorded belief systems and pure invention for political purposes. Whether I believe in the deity in question is immaterial; Odin and Thor don't cease to have existed in recorded religious history just because I don't believe they existed in real life, do they? Of course they don't, that would be absurd.

[theadmiral]

Some guy called into a morning radio show here and went on the full Alex Jones conspiracy theory tirade, including a bit about how if you go to Illuminati spelled backwards (Itanimulli.com) it apparently takes you to NSA.gov. I'm obviously not trying it.  I was laughing so hard I spit my coffee out while driving. Reminded me of this thread.

[Mr. House]

Some guy called into a morning radio show here and went on the full Alex Jones conspiracy theory tirade, including a bit about how if you go to Illuminati spelled backwards (Itanimulli.com) it apparently takes you to NSA.gov. I'm obviously not trying it.  I was laughing so hard I spit my coffee out while driving. Reminded me of this thread.

It does. Doesn't mean anything though, obviously some joker registered the site and made the site name auto divert to the NSA website. Out of all the laughable things to do with this sort of conspiracy, the idea that an elite shadow government leaves obvious clues lying around like a second rate Scooby Doo villain is the biggest joke.

[TheFoxRiverFugitive]

 

Some guy called into a morning radio show here and went on the full Alex Jones conspiracy theory tirade, including a bit about how if you go to Illuminati spelled backwards (Itanimulli.com) it apparently takes you to NSA.gov. I'm obviously not trying it.  I was laughing so hard I spit my coffee out while driving. Reminded me of this thread.

It does. Doesn't mean anything though, obviously some joker registered the site and made the site name auto divert to the NSA website. Out of all the laughable things to do with this sort of conspiracy, the idea that an elite shadow government leaves obvious clues lying around like a second rate Scooby Doo villain is the biggest joke.

 

Hey don't make fun of the Scooby Doo villains...

 

[dtsmucker]

 

 

Some guy called into a morning radio show here and went on the full Alex Jones conspiracy theory tirade, including a bit about how if you go to Illuminati spelled backwards (Itanimulli.com) it apparently takes you to NSA.gov. I'm obviously not trying it.  I was laughing so hard I spit my coffee out while driving. Reminded me of this thread.

It does. Doesn't mean anything though, obviously some joker registered the site and made the site name auto divert to the NSA website. Out of all the laughable things to do with this sort of conspiracy, the idea that an elite shadow government leaves obvious clues lying around like a second rate Scooby Doo villain is the biggest joke.

 

Hey don't make fun of the Scooby Doo villains...

 

 

What frightens me is so many idiots have access to broadband.Oh wait....Trailer park twats are just as vocal as the rest...The Human race is just a noisy sh*t stain.