Tuesday, 28 February 2017

The Witchcraft of Grammar

The Witchcraft of Grammar

          Although you may be a skeptic concerning the occult, the history of grammar offers a clue to the very real power of magical symbols and words. The word ‘grammar’ has its roots in the Latin words ‘grammatica’ and ‘gramma’ which mean a written mark or letter. When the word arrived in English in the14th century, a new word emerged alongside it: ‘grammary’, meaning occult learning and necromancy. This led to the word ‘glamour’ which originally meant ‘enchantment’ or ‘spell’. Devils and wizards were said to ‘cast the glamour’. In medieval Europe, the word ‘grammar’ was often used to talk about the study of the occult. This history acknowledges the very real power that words and marks have to alter the world. What is the nature of this magical power?
          In medieval Europe, the power of words and symbols was much more evident than it is today. This was not just the power to express authority and demand allegiance. People who could read and write were an elite group who had a unique ability to make sense of the world and to make reality appear, literally, in new and unique ways. Because our world is now saturated with symbols, words, and language, it is difficult to imagine the power that words had to make things appear. But in an undereducated world without a formalized language, the introduction of new words, and the new concepts they conveyed, had the power to change how one perceived the world. Like a Gestalt-image suddenly becoming visible, a new word or concept crystallizes the world in a new way and creates a new reality.
Although a new word can crystallize a new reality quite suddenly, words can also have a slower, sometimes insidious ‘effect of truth’ in the sense that people will so consistently act on an idea conveyed by a word that it becomes true over time. For example, a child is born with a sign or mark upon its body and is rumored by a superstitious community to be possessed by a demon. The child is shunned, disrespected, unloved and thereby becomes demonized over time. Because of the expectations created by the mark, she comes to be possessed. The mark or ‘gramma’ creates its own reality. Today we still see this power at work when child is labeled, now with a word rather than a mark, is subtly ostracized, and is then gradually criminalized or psychiatrized. The label creates its own reality.
          This is the magical power of symbols and words. Words simplify and reify a complex, ambiguous reality. The left-brain latches on to words and word-patterns as conceptual short cuts and the right-brain then navigates the world via these labels and short cuts. Words create a reality through a habitual pattern of labeling and conceptualizing.
We have been able to recognize and mitigate this power, simply by becoming aware of the potentially insidious power of words and labels. However, we have not yet noticed the insidious spell that grammar – the structure of language -- has cast over our lives. Grammar has created a reality for us, not by labeling, but by schematizing reality in terms of the subject-verb-object structure through which we communicate. We perceive and navigate reality through this self-isolating, subject-object grammar. The holism of existence has crystallized, Gestalt-like, into disconnected subjects and objects acting upon one another. Reality is now experienced as discrete subjects and objects that are only contingently and causally related to one another.
This grammar of isolated subjects has cast a very specific ‘glamour’ over reality. Our sense of self was once very different than it is today. Language originally reinforced a holistic sense of community, binding us together. We understood our place in the world first and foremost in terms of our community, our home, our family, and our Gods. That was, literally, who we were. Only secondarily, and only as part of a greater whole, did we think of ourselves as individuals. Now, thanks to the ‘glamour’ of grammar, we have become independent, isolated subjects navigating a world of disconnected things. The grammar of separation and analysis has created a world of isolation. We have lost sight of the Divine interconnectedness of reality. It is the spell of grammar that we must break if we are to see reality as it -- as one.

Tuesday, 25 October 2016

22 Fully Verifiable Facts that Indicate Mary Magdalene was buried at Rennes-le-Château’s ‘Point X’

Fact 1. There is an exact circle of churches that includes the church of Rennes-le-Château. The circle comprises the following churches: Rennes-le-Chateau, Coustaussa, Bugarach, St Just-et-le-Bezu, as well as the Chateau of Serres. The church in the village of Cassaignes lies just off this circle. This often ignored fact is fully documented by Henry Lincoln in 'The Holy Place'.

Fact 2. This circle of churches is part of an interlocking pattern of circles comprised of churches, structures, and significant points in the landscape. Remarkably, each of these circles is almost exactly the same size. Measurements for these circles are documented on the ‘Cromleck de Rennes’ website maintained by Eric Tull (http://www.cromleck-de-rennes.com/landscape_geometry.htm)

Fact 3. In order to create a circle of this magnitude without modern mapping and surveying there is only one possible method: Measure an equal distance out from a central point.

Fact 4. It is unlikely that anyone would go to the trouble of measuring out from a random, insignificant point in the landscape to make this circle. The center point must have been significant in some way. Perhaps it marked a tomb. The landscape geometry set out around it would then have served to venerate the tomb while rendering it undetectable to the un-illuminated visitor.

Fact 5. Henry Lincoln labeled this center point, 'point x'. Here's what he says about it: "What, then, is the significance of Point X? Incredibly, it is exactly equidistant from the churches of the villages of Rennes-le-Chateau, Coustaussa, Bugarach and St Just-et-le-Bezu and from the Chateau of Serres. It is also very close to the same distance from the church in the village of Cassaignes. One must accept either that this is the most unlikely of all coincidences - or that those structures were deliberately placed in exact relationship to Point X! X is the geometric centre of a circle of major buildings some six miles in diameter!" (The Holy Place, p 76)

Fact 6. David Wood (in GenIsis) originally derived the location of 'point x': “In 1982 Wood and a couple of chums visited the church of St Mary Magdalene at RLC. Through his calculations, he found that if he drew a line representing sunrise from the Church of St Mary Magdalene to the watchtower at Blanchefort on that saint's feast day (22nd July), if extended it passed through the church at Arques. Further to this where the sunrise line passed through the Paris meridian it intersected a line drawn from the Pontils knoll ('Poussin tomb') to the church at Rennes les Bains. Also a line drawn from the Blanchefort tower to the said church at RLB passes through the Roque Negre.”

Fact 7. Here is how David Wood describes using ‘point x’ to find the circle of churches: "I set the radius to the church of Rennes-le-Chateau. I will never forget my surprise -- even disbelief -- as the compasses traced the circumference. Rennes-le-Chateau -- the church of Coustaussa precisely -- Cassaignes a near miss -- Chateau Serres -- the church of Serres precisely -- the strange rock feature on the side of La Berco Grando which resembled a female head -- the church of Bugarach precisely -- the church of Saint Just-et-le-Bezu precisely." (pg. 56, Genisis)

Fact 8. In ‘GenIsis’, David Wood bestows upon 'point x' the name, ‘The Holy of Holies’ (p. 171) indicating the crucial and sacred role this point plays in his landscape geometry. GenIsis is filled with landscape geometry and EVERY piece of geometry is centered on this ‘Holy of Holies’. In other words, his entire geometric pattern is based upon 'point x'!. Yet, amazingly, he never once tells us what is on the ground at this point. Are we to believe that this master surveyor never visited his ‘Holy of Holies’?

Fact 9. Lincoln’s ‘point x’ and the circle of churches it makes possible are part of a geometric pattern that is grounded by a pentagon of mountains. The mountaintops of this pentagon include Rennes-le-Château. “Here are five natural mountain peaks lying in perfect pentagonal symmetry to one another … The Rennes-le-Château Pentacle of Mountains undeniably exists”. ‘Key to the Sacred Pattern’ (pg. 122-123).

Fact 10. According to Christopher Cornford of the Royal College of Art, Nicolas Poussin’s painting, Shepherds of Arcadia, is based upon a pentagonal geometry. "If Poussin is saying anything… he seems to be saying that pentagons and pentagrams and their constituent angles are very much involved." (Cornford, as quoted by HL in The Holy Place) The eye of the shepherdess, for example, is fixed by the geometry of the pentagram – her eye is the center point.

Fact 11. This painting depicts a landscape and tomb remarkably similar to a tomb (now gone) and landscape (including Blanchefort and Rennes-le-Château) near to Rennes-le-Château. "If one stands before the sepulchre the vista is virtually indistinguishable from that in the painting." (HBHG)

Fact 12. According to a letter written by the Abbe Louis Fouquet, "Poussin had "advantages which even kings would have great pains to draw from him, and which, according to him, it is possible that nobody else will ever rediscover in the centuries to come...."

Fact 13. When the Poussin painting is overlaid upon a map so that the Poussin pentagon is lined up with the pentacle of mountains, something incredible becomes evident: The shepherds point to 'point x'! The Poussin painting would appear to be map indicating 'point x'.

Fact 14. 'Point x' lies on a meridian of significant points. These points include 'l'Homme Mort, coume sourde, source du pointet, the 3-way junction at Combe Loubiere, Borde Pujols, ruins at Borde de Picou, a Calvaire just west of Peyrolles, and Blanchefort.

Fact 15. 'Point x' lies on the circumference of another circle of churches centred on Coustassa. This circle includes Antugnac, Montferrand, and the 3-way track at Combe Loubiere.

Fact 16. 'Point x' is on an alignment that runs through Rennes-les-Bains and the Pontils tomb. This alignment interesects David Woods 'Sunrise Line' and the circle of churches exactly on at the Meridian.

Fact 17. Pierre Plantard purchased a tract of land very near to 'point x'.

Fact 18. Having named this significant landscape feature ‘point x’ in ‘The Holy Place’, Lincoln confuses the matter in his next book (The Key to the Pattern) by labeling a different point ‘X’ and completely ignoring the significance of his original ‘point x’. Like David Wood before him, Lincoln makes evident the significance of this landscape feature and then totally avoids telling us what is on the ground at this point.

Fact 19. It has been suggested that Henry Lincoln is not disclosing all that he knows about the mystery of Rennes-le-Château. (https://vimeo.com/137550835)

Fact 20. In 1994, an article appeared in ‘Le Reflet’ suggesting that Henry Lincoln had not disclosed all that the information that was available about this ‘point x’. The author of the article was the pseudonymous ‘Cam Clayton’, a name that allegedly has been used by the Priory of Sion to disseminate misinformation through social media.

Fact 21. ‘Point x’ has been rumored to be the secret site of the tomb found by Ben Hammott and documented in the movie ‘The Bloodline’ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcfDLKfWi34). The Priory of Sion has confirmed that there are tombs in the area, knowledge of which they have been carefully guarding (http://dailygrail.com/news/the-bloodline-tomb).

Fact. 22. The sacred number of Mary Magdalene is ‘22’. There are 22 fully verifiable facts listed in this article. This suggests a truthful consonance between this article and the mystic energy of Mary Magdalene.

Saturday, 8 October 2016

What is the Divine Feminine?

This question cannot be answered directly as if the Divine Feminine were simply a piece of information. But neither can it be answered with allusions to personal experiences and ‘intuitions’ backed up by the unassailable but unconvincing ‘if you haven’t experienced it then you can’t understand’. I am going to present, in a series of 4 propositions, what I have learned about the Divine Feminine from the Priory of Sion. These propositions suggest a method whereby we might comprehend the Divine Feminine and begin the process of transforming ourselves in order to return to the Divine Feminine.

Consider the famous rabbit/duck Gestalt illusion. When we look at the image we see either the rabbit or the duck. We lock into one or the other. The remarkable thing is that we never see neither. We don’t see the neutral marks or gradations of color without seeing them as something. Even when we attempt to neutralize those images and look at their constitutive lines and shapes we still see those lines and shapes as lines and shapes, lines going in this direction or that, shapes standing out against a background. There is always some basic structuring that determines that we see the image or its constituent parts as something. We never experience the brute, meaningless reality beneath the image except as an abstraction from immediate experience.
            All of our experience is informed by this sort of Gestalt structuring. This pre-cognitive structuring locks experience into certain expectations and patterns. The most basic of these is the foreground/background structure in which certain elements are highlighted and others obscured. The hypothesis that I have been led to in my dealings with the Priory of Sion is this: A ‘masculine’, left-brain epistemology pre-structures our experience in such a way that the underlying reality -- the Divine Feminine --  is obscured.
            Note carefully how I am developing this hypothesis. This is a point that has been strongly emphasized by my teachers: I am not starting with a metaphysical claim about how the world really is. That would be a breach of ‘Ockham’s Razor’ and I leave this sort of speculative gerrymandering to those ‘spiritualists’, dogmatists, and new-age religionists who already have the metaphysical answer that they are looking for. Rather, I am making a series of claims that are grounded in empirical fact. These claims lead us to the Divine Feminine.
            Claim # 1. As above, all of our experience is pre-structured to some extent. We don’t experience unvarnished, raw, neutral reality. Instead, we always experience that reality as something or in terms of some schema. This is a familiar and uncontroversial claim in philosophic circles. In fact, it’s kind of obvious. The secondary qualities that we experience such as color, taste, etc. do not inhere in an underlying reality. Rather, they arise out of interactions with our senses and brains. What remains open to perennial philosophic debate is, 1. the extent to which our sensory/cognitive systems alter, falsify, obscure, or completely fail to apprehend metaphysical reality, and 2. the extent to which reflective thought can neutralize this structuring and grasp reality accurately. There is, of course, a vast range of philosophic positions that can be taken within this basic claim.
            Claim # 2. This experiential pre-structuring is made on the basis of specific cognitive biases imposed upon the world by our left-brain. These biases schematize the world in terms of discrete, disconnected, spatio-temporal objects and positions that act upon each other in that strictly one-after-the-other causality through which science knows the world. This is the world of instrumental reason created by a left-brain, ‘masculine’ epistemology. These ideas are developed further by Iain McGilchrist (The Master and his Emissary) and Leonard Shlain (The Alphabet Versus The Goddess).
            Claim # 3. We can get an idea of metaphysical reality by identifying the pervasive structuring features of this masculine epistemology and then, as a thought experiment, stripping away these structuring biases. What we would be left with is the interconnected, non-egoistic reality of the Divine Feminine. Here we rely on the methodology of phenomenological ‘bracketing’ and on Buddhist philosophy. In both cases, there is a rigorous methodology that is followed.
            Claim # 4. We can actually experience and live this de-masculinized reality to the extent that these left-brain forestructures are re-wired. Whereas claim # 3 is a thought experiment, claim # 4 is a life experiment. This has been the point, to various degrees at least, of Goddess worship and the hermetic and alchemical transubstantiation of consciousness that has been the message of the Priory of Sion. By way of certain spiritual practices and disciplines, one attempts to dismantle the cognitive fore-structures that lock us in a ‘masculine’ left-brain world. From evolutionary times, these fore-structuring biases have been part of our culture and have been wired into our brains. The Priory of Sion has undertaken a long-term, multi-generational project of disrupting that cultural hegemony and returning us to the Goddess. One may be disappointed to learn that the target of the Priory of Sion’s alchemical project is not you or me. That important work is left to gurus, spiritualists, and self-help mongers. The Priory of Sion’s alchemical target is the cultural environment in which our children’s brains develop and become programmed.
            Much more can be said about each of these claims. Each claim is more contentious and problematic than the one preceding. However, what makes them unique and rigorous is that they are based upon empirical experience. They do not begin with a metaphysics of ‘spiritual energy’ or ‘God’ or ‘Karma’ or ‘Souls’. There is no wishful thinking, no dogmatism, no leap of faith from subjective experience to metaphysical claims. Rather, metaphysical reality is arrived at by removing left-brain, ‘masculine’ biases to arrive at a ‘feminine’ reality.
Nonetheless, those metaphysical possibilities are not discounted. There is truth, no doubt, in the various ‘spiritual’ claims that are floating around our current new-age Weltanschauung. However, only at the end of claim # 3 -- that is, only after rigorous critical thought -- can we make tentative claims about metaphysical reality. And only after claim # 4 -- that is, only after a successful ‘transubstantiation of consciousness’ -- can we have a comprehending and confirming experience of that metaphysical reality. Furthermore, claims # 1 through # 3 are necessary in order to check the experiential claims of # 4. Without the first three steps in this project, we will continue to be mired in our current state of spiritual affairs in which anyone and everyone can make a ‘spiritual’ claim without any way to confirm or deny, to verify or falsify. It is the hope of the Priory of Sion that we can now begin to make rigorous and objective claims about ‘spiritualism’, ‘alchemy’, and consciousness in order that we may facilitate a return to the Divine Feminine.

Friday, 30 September 2016

Welcome to my Blog.

Peace and Love!
I am Gus Stiver. Yes, Gus Stiver is a pseudonym. As Gus Stiver, I administered a popular Facebook discussion group about Rennes-le-Château and I published a book entitled The Truth Behind the Ben Hammott Confession Hoax. (You can buy it here: https://www.amazon.com/Behind-Hammott-Confession-Hoax-Rennes---Chateau/dp/0992095018/ or here: https://www.createspace.com/4405311). For several decades, I had been a lurking observer of the Rennes-le-Château mystery. In the aftermath of the Ben Hammott debacle, I decided to speak up by pointing out inconsistencies in Hammott’s confession narrative. To do so, I sought out Rennies on Facebook and formed a discussion group in which Rennies and Magheads of all varieties came together to share their ideas, stories, theories, and delusions. Alternative viewpoints and audacious claims were encouraged and enjoyed by all. Rennie businesses and publications were promoted. The discussions were sometimes funny, sometimes informative, sometimes crazy, sometimes confrontational, but always compelling. We argued, laughed, made connections, exchanged ideas, and even fell in love. As the group grew, however, the culture of the group changed and eventually disintegrated. It was a brief and notorious moment in Rennes-le-Château research history.
            Two remarkable and related things happened to me during that time. First, my own perspective on the mystery began to unravel. My own approach during that time was to be sometimes flippant, sometimes ironic, and sometimes serious. I often argued from different points of view, often contrary to positions and people with whom I actually agreed. That is to say, I would inhabit and argue from points of view radically divergent from my own Weltanschauung. But a weird thing happened. My satirical versions of oddball theories began to seem just as valid as what I thought were the facts. How an idea resonated with me began to seem just as important as whether that idea was supported by verifiable, documentary evidence. As a result, my own understanding of reality was undermined, my worldview disrupted. I was no longer certain what I believed. With this uncertainty came insecurity and self-doubt. I became intellectually and emotionally confused. I lashed out. I misbehaved. But eventually I realized that some deeper Truth was acting upon me subliminally and so I left Facebook and retreated into a program of meditation, self-reflection, and self-transcendence. I had not expected a spiritual awakening to be the result of my involvement with the Rennes-le-Château mystery, but that is exactly what happened!
            The second unexpected and remarkable thing that happened was this: The Priory of Sion contacted me. Throughout this entire online episode, certain individuals would feed me ideas, claiming to be representatives of the Priory of Sion. They would send me unconnected facts, pseudo-facts, assertions, theories, gossip, and even outright nonsense that I would then present as my own, in my own way. I don’t know if these people were actually representatives of the Priory of Sion. I have never met them. I don’t know whether anything they told me is true. Much of it seemed to be disinformation or some sort of joke. The fact is, they seem to have been attracted to the online mayhem and silliness that I created as Gus Stiver. They didn't mind that I took their ideas and adapted them as my own. When I did this, these ideas immediately became suspect and were discredited simply because they came from Gus Stiver. But this seemed to be exactly what they wanted -- a discredited stooge through which to float certain ideas and ‘facts’. Some of these ideas and facts resonated with certain members of the Rennie community. Most people scoffed.
            It is to this role and to these disparate ideas and unconnected pseudo-facts that I now return. I will be presenting and enlarging upon some of these ideas in this blog. But I warn you, I cannot and do not claim that anything I say in this blog is real or true. I am merely the editor, collator, stylist, and online expounder of ideas fed to me by individuals who may or may not be Priory of Sion and who may or may not be winding me up.
Why would the Priory of Sion play this sort of game? For a possible answer, I quote two related passages from The Templar Legacy by Picknett and Prince. Before you dismiss me and my writings as more Rennie obfuscation, I urge you to consider carefully these words from two respected researchers:

“Our experience of the Priory of Sion and its modus operandi is that it glories in quite deliberate and detailed misinformation. Behind this smokescreen of full-scale nonsense, prevarication, and obfuscation, there lies a very serious, very single-minded intent.” (p. 44)

“There are, however, reasons to make use of paradoxes -- even blatant absurdities. We tend to remember the absurd, and, furthermore, illogicalities that are deliberately presented as scrupulously argued facts have a curiously powerful effect on our unconscious minds. After all, it is this part of ourselves that creates our dreams, which operate with their own kind of paradox and non-logic. And it is the unconscious mind that is the motivator, the creator, which, once it has been ‘hooked’, will continue to work even on the most subliminal message for years, extracting every last bit of symbolic meaning from a tiny scrap of apparent gobbledygook.” (p. 46)

Apparently, I am ‘hooked’. The absurdities and illogicalities of Rennes-le-Château and the Priory of Sion have had a curiously powerful effect on my unconscious mind. Open your mind and let me share some of those absurdities with you.

Gus Stiver.