Alan Watt - Blurb - Religion, Rosy Cross, Reformation, Revolution and World Republic

ALAN WATT BLURB
"RELIGION, ROSY CROSS, REFORMATION,
REVOLUTION AND WORLD REPUBLIC
(CAPITALIZING COMMUNISM
"FOR THE THIRD WAY")"
March 7, 2007

Dialogue Copyrighted Alan Watt – March 7, 2007 (Exempting Music and Literary Quotes)

Hi, folks. I'm Alan Watt at cuttingthroughthematrix.com. Today is Wednesday the 7th of March 2007.

I've had more snow in the last week and a half than I've had all winter and I think they've probably changed their formulas—the alchemists in the sky, the great Disneyland that's above our heads now, so they've combined different mixtures to give us some snow, which I'm not complaining about because in this region everything's adapted to a fair bit of snow, all the plant life and trees and so on, and they'll need that in the summer and unfortunately too so will the mosquitoes, because the more moisture there is in spring in the ground the more they will thrive. Who invented all this stuff, the mosquitoes in this paradise, eh? Strange sense of humor.

Tonight, I was thinking about talking a little bit about how religion and the state not only have always been one, but how once one part of it has served its purpose it transforms into what appears to be something new but really isn't at all. It's perhaps more efficient in controlling peoples minds.

We must remember that not so long ago—the world is so old and humanity has been around for a long, long time that it's difficult for most people to get outside that little box, which is their own life, their personal journey, and understand how people lived not so long ago, partly because we are so separated with the generations now intentionally. It's much easier to control people if you can separate great-grandma and pa (granny and grandpa) and even today, mother and father from the child. This was not only discussed at huge meetings over 100 years ago, well over 100 years ago, but it's been implemented. It's been made to be, not by happenstance.

However, not so long ago, really, before the revolutions begun with the new Rosicrucian Kabbalistic Masonic societies which openly came out in the 1500's, before that, theocracy ruled by religion was the norm. The Vatican had a monopoly over a massive part of the wor. They appointed kings. They allowed kings to continue as long as they behaved themselves and gave obedience to the religion itself. They had to follow a certain amount of orders. Once in a while, a king would turn against the Vatican and they'd have their tiff and they'd be excommunicated and the king couldn't get to heaven. Those kings generally didn't care so much and sometimes were forgiven and brought back into the fold with a little bit of repentance.

Nothing new in the science of how to control. In a world where people were allowed to find out everything for themselves, and really when you think about it, if you're born and not owned by anyone, the state or otherwise, you could be allowed, you could learn everything that you wanted to learn for yourself and be so vastly different from the people we see around us, including yourselves, to find out everything that we wanted to know, by ourselves, by institution, by following. Our opinions would be vastly, vastly different from the indoctrinated, accepted, authorized opinions and theories and so on that we’ve all swallowed.

Therefore, the church was always very important. At one time it was predominate over kings and queens. For a while around the 1500's the kings were almost on an equal par basis with power and then of course we had what was called the Lutheran Revolution. Revolutions are very important—the turning, the going around—planned of course, because no system or structure can stand on its own forever. Therefore, it must transform or have an enemy or something to oppose it. When a state religion just like a country is opposed, those within the country, even if they're abused or within the religion, will cling closer to those in authority over them. Therefore, war, threats of war and all that are very important for maintaining control over people.

Carl Gustav Jung came on the scene at the same time as Freud when this really relatively early exoteric form of psychiatry and psychology were announced to the world and Carl Gustav Jung differed with Freud in many, many aspects. Freud's job was basically to attempt to have us individually give up any thought that human life in a sense was sacred. We're just a form of animal, higher animal, which can be reshaped. We're just conditioned reflexes and responses and all that kind of stuff to things that happened in our childhood and our family arrangement, that we adopted all the good parts and all the bad parts. We copied behavior. We're products of our environment; and there was nothing more to it and therefore if you were not sacred in a sense you were like plastic or plasticine. You were just a building material, where professionals like Freud himself would come in and experiment on you to alter you into something which he would want to create, more perfect in his eyes.

I'm going to read a little bit from Jung who opposed, because of his own experiences; he opposed the completely atheistic mundane view of Freud. He knew there was more to the human psyche than just conditioned responses and a bunch of neurons in the brain. That doesn't make you you and no matter how many degrees you string together in the pseudo sciences and various pseudo sciences all combining together and behaviorism and how you respond to psychology and study, doesn't alter reality, although they'd like to. They certainly would like to. It might sound very impressive, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's true.

You'll always find that down through history you find dominant groups rising and falling as new ones come up and their first thing to do is to take over the power over the people because the only ones who produce anything to keep everybody at the top in comfort are the masses at the bottom. That's just the history of the world. It's a form of slavery, pure and simple. You can keep changing the terms and call societies by different names, but if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's a duck you see.

This little bit is from Carl Jung talking about religion as the counter-balance to mass mindedness. When he wrote this the Cold War was supposedly on and the Soviet system and he wasn't in on the big overall plan, I know that, and to him the Cold War was very real. However, he did describe the Soviet system very well. Now we know the Soviet system is now combined with the capitalist system to make the third way, where they combine the bureaucracies of the Soviet style government and with the fascism of an ultra-dominant elite, very rich at the top, and it's to get much, much worse. It's getting worse all the time. Let’s be honest.

"In order to free the fiction of the sovereign state -- in other words, the whims of those who manipulate it -- from every wholesome restriction, all socio-political movements tending in this direction invariably try to cut the ground from under the religions. For, in order to turn the individual into a function of the State, his dependence on anything beside the State must be taken from him. But religion means dependence on and submission to the irrational facts of experience. These do not refer directly to social and physical conditions; they concern far more the individual psychic attitude."

Alan: By psychic he's talking about the wholesome, the complete you, the total you, your mind, personality, everything.

"But it is possible to have an attitude to the external conditions of life only when there is a point of reference outside them. The religions give, or claim to give, such a standpoint, thereby enabling the individual to exercise his judgment and his power of decision. They build up reserve, as it were, against the obvious and the inevitable force of circumstances to which everyone is exposed who lives only in the outer world and has no other ground under his feet except the pavement. If statistical reality is the only reality, then it is the sole authority."

Alan: Now that's a very important statement that's been echoed by others since. "If statistical reality is the only reality, then it is the sole authority." Statistics and the game of statistics is a trick learned from religion, only upgraded to a better version. We can say, well there's lies, then there's damn lies (meaning more intricate lies) and then there are statistics. Well, statistics pretend to hide behind the guise of science and we're trained and conditioned that science is the new priesthood and whatever they say must be true and they use statistics to convince us.

The longer you live the more you will see little bits coming out in newspapers and over the media where scientific institutions come out with new theories all the time, often contradicting the last theory that was held as the gospel truth the last 10, 20 years, and they never notice—they never mention or make a deal like "we're taking the opposite view now and this is now the gospel truth," and they always use statistics to verify every version they give you. Statistics are very useful in conditioning people, especially the mass man who doesn't want to stand out like a sore thumb from everyone else.

"There is then only one condition and since no contrary condition exists, judgment and decision are not only superfluous but impossible. Then the individual is bound to be a function of statistics and hence a function of the State or whatever the abstract principle of order may be called."

"The religions, however, teach another authority opposed to that of the "world." The doctrine of the individual's dependence on God makes just as high a claim upon him as the world does. It may even happen with the absoluteness of this claim estranges him from the world in the same way he is estranged from himself when he succumbs to the collective mentality. He can forfeit his judgment and power of decision in the former case (for the sake of religious doctrine) quite as much as in the latter. This is the goal the religions openly aspire to unless they compromise with the State. When they do, I prefer to call them not "religions" but "creeds."

"A creed gives expression to a definite collective belief, whereas the word religion expresses a subjective relationship to certain metaphysical extramundane factors. A creed is a confession of faith intended chiefly for the world at large and is thus an intramundane affair, while the meaning and purpose of religion lie in the relationship of the individual to God"

"(Christianity, Judaism, Islam) or to the path of salvation and liberation such as in Buddhism. From this basic fact, all ethics is derived which without the individual's responsibility before God can be called nothing more than conventional morality."

Alan: So a creed is something you're born into, it's an accepted form of collective rituals that have built up over a long, long period of time. It becomes custom and tradition, mainly tradition, and the initial fire that is instilled is doused—it is gone under ritualism, custom and social doctrine which comes into it.

The liberating factor is gone and those people conform to the State system because their churches are registered and authorized by the State. They also have a lot of rules to follow. They can't talk about certain subjects AND a list is given to them by the State if they are tax-exempt. Nothing is free in this world, nothing in this system.

"From this basic fact, all ethics is derived which without the individual's responsibility before God can be called nothing more than conventional reality."

Alan: See, that's what the creeds end up doing. You have conventional morality custom et cetera.

"Since they are compromises with mundane reality, the creeds have accordingly seen themselves obliged to undertake a progressive codification of their views, doctrines and customs and in so doing have externalized themselves to such an extent that the authentic religious element in them--the living relationship to and direct confrontation with their extramundane point of reference has been thrust into the background. The denominational standpoint measures the worth and importance of the subjective religious relationship by the yardstick of traditional doctrine, and where this is not so frequent as in Protestantism, one immediately hears talk of pietism, sectarianism, eccentricity, and so forth, as soon as anyone claims to be guided by God's will. A creed coincides with the established church, or at any rate, forms a public institution whose members include not only true believers but vast numbers of people who can only be described as "indifferent" in matters of religion and who belong to it simply by force of habit. Here the difference between a creed and a religion become palpable.

To the adherent of a creed, therefore, is not always a religious matter but more often a social one and, as such, does nothing to give the individual a foundation. For support, he has to depend exclusively on his relation to an authority which is not of this world. The criterion here is not lip service to a creed but the psychological fact that the life of the individual is not determined solely by the ego and its opinions or by social factors, but quite as much, if not more by a transcendent authority. It is not ethical principles, however, lofty or creeds, however orthodox, that lay the foundations for the freedom and anatomy of the individual but simply and solely the empirical awareness, the incontrovertible experience of intensely personal, reciprocal relationship between man and an extramundane authority which acts as a counterpoise to the "world" and its "reason.

This formulation will not please either the mass man or the collective believer. For the former the policy of the State is the supreme principle of thought and action. Indeed, this was the purpose for which he was enlightened, and accordingly the mass man grants the individual a right to exist only in so far as the individual is a function of the State. The believer, on the other hand, while admitting that the State has a moral and factual claim, confesses to the belief that not only man but the State that rules his is subject to the overlordship of "God" and that, in case of doubt, the supreme decision will be made by God and not by the State. Since I do not presume to metaphysical judgment, I must leave it an open question where the world," i.e., that is the phenomenal world of man and hence nature in general is the "opposite" of God or not. I can only point to the fact that the psychological opposition between these two realms of experience is not only vouched for in the New Testament but is still exemplified very plainly today in the negative attitude of the dictator states to religion and of the church to atheism and materialism."

Alan: He's showing you the dialectic between science which is the new religion and like all religions to be supreme they must be absolute and they demand absolute obeisance. We see that with inoculations trying to get forced through from what were recently and some are still called "health services."

Well, since when does a service dictate to you? And I'll tell you when it dictates to you, is when it's had a period where we have never stopped and told them to get off our backs, because the longer we allow things the more dictatorial they become. That's the nature of the bully and there is no satisfying the bully; no matter how much you grovel, there's no satisfying them. They demand more and more. That's what power is all about.

"Just as man, as a social being, cannot in the long run exist without a tie to the community--"

"So the individual will never find the real justification for his existence, and his own spiritual and moral autonomy, anywhere except in the extramundane principle capable of relativizing the overpowering influence of external factors. The individual who is not anchored in God can offer no resistance on his own resources to the physical and moral blandishments of the world. For this he needs the evidence of inner transcendent experience which alone can protect him from the otherwise inevitable submersion in the mass. Merely intellectual or even moral insight into the stultification and moral irresponsibility of the mass man is a negative recognition only and amounts to not much more than a wavering on the road to the atomization of the individual. It lacks the driving force of religious conviction since it is merely rational. The dictator State has one great advantage over bourgeois reason."

Alan: Now, bourgeois is the old term for "middle class" that they used to use in the communist sector, so this is the great advantage it has over the middle class reason.

"Along with the individual it swallows up his religious forces. The State has taken the place of God; that is why seen from this angle, the socialist dictatorships are religions and State slavery is a form of worship. But the religious function cannot be dislocated and falsified in this way without giving rise to secret doubts, which are immediately repressed so as to avoid conflict with the prevailing trend towards mass-mindedness."

Alan: That's what we see in George Orwell's "1984," we see the conflicts that Winston goes through and that they all go through. It's almost like being in a computer program where you're always being updated with new data and you're supposed to just go along with it and change direction at the whim of the State.

"The result, as always in such cases, is overcompensation in the form of fanaticism, which in its turn is used as a weapon for stamping out the least flicker of opposition."

Alan: He's talking here about when the State becomes God. Now remember, in the completely mundane, the worldly, the scientific system which has its own religion. It is a religion, on evolution on all this kind of stuff that's never been proven either. You take an awful lot of faith to believe in evolution. He's telling you that if you believe in nothing more than a collection of cells with conditioned responses that can be altered through behavioral psychology and repetition and all of that, then the State can do with you as they see fit; because if they claim you're abnormal, they then have the right to normalize you according to the dictates of the State. And like all gods, you see, the State when it becomes God can have no other gods before it, so they will not stand for any other point of view or rationale as to who you are and what your duties to the State are. They will not stand for any opposition.

In fact, it's worse than religion. Religion, for all of its horrors, and they had plenty built into it, at least showed you the hypocrisy because they didn't even follow their own dictates of the books that they supposedly followed. There was no compassion in the horror shows that they brought on, but least the writings were still contained for the few to say, "wait a minute here. Why are they going around burning and slaughtering people?" Whereas with the State, there will be no literature given out to oppose what they're doing.

"Free opinion in the mass State is stifled and moral decision ruthlessly suppressed on the plea that the end justifies the means, even the vilest. The policy of the State is exalted to a creed. The leader or party boss becomes a demigod beyond good and evil and his votaries are honored as heroes, martyrs, apostles, missionaries. There is only one truth and beside it no other. It is sacrosanct and above criticism. Anyone who thinks differently is a heretic, who, as we know from history is threatened with all manner of unpleasant things. Only the party boss whole holds the political power in his hands can interpret the State doctrine authentically and he does so just as suits him."

Alan: This should be ringing little alarm bells in people's minds when they see what we're going through today and they remember the laws and so on being imposed, all very ominous to something to come.

"When, through mass rule, the individual becomes social unit number so-and-so."

"and the State is elevated to the supreme principle, it is only to be expected that the religious function too will be sucked into the maelstrom. Religion, as the careful observation and taking account of certain invisible and uncontrollable factors, is an instinctive attitude, peculiar to man and its manifestations can be followed all through human history. Its evident purpose is to maintain the psychic balance, for the natural man has an equally natural "knowledge" of the fact that his conscious functions may at anytime be thwarted by