The Thirteenth Tribe

[HCW]

Yo Oldie;

You crack me up.

Not only that. My MOM was black too.

I once said that to someone (a caucasian friend) who still had some residual racism, not yet flushed out. When I said, "My MOM was..." their eyes bugged out like, "She WAS, Oh mY!"

I just looked at 'em. We had a "moment." I think that flushed that last bit (or maybe MOST of it) out.

What up y'all.

[Sunesis]

Yes, HCW, I remember how he talked about how he hated blacks because one had killed his brother (hit and run I think?). He talked about how it was Claudette who changed his attitude.

Exie, I think it was both - birds of a feather flock together. LCM may have been leader but CG was probably VP's best friend - I almost think moreso than HA, CG took HA's place, they were "peas in a pod." I think they both had this interest, discovered it and went on from there.

[Hope R.]

CAUTION: De-railment about to occur....

Abi - you've got to read "The Plot Against America" by Phillip Roth. I'm not finished with it yet - but it's a fascinating tale so far. The premise is that FDR didn't win re-election in 1940 - instead, Charles Lindbergh, who was said to be a Nazi sympathizer and and anti-semite, was elected president.

---

Yana wrote:

quote:

---

He would endorse some half baked conspiracy theories from books he never read and then dismiss any concern for proof with an arrogant wave of the hand.

---

I always felt that his claim to reading thousands of books was either an exaggeration or an out and out lie. Remember, the ones he burned once Gawd told him he'd teach him the word and yada yada yada???

I believe he was highly influenced by the more educated young people who flattered and pandered to him.

---

Sunesis - Didn't the Hayes G. have something to do with some of that conspiracy/new constitution stuff, too?

---

Roses are redish, violets are bluish, if it wasn't for Jesus, you too would be JEWISH!

---

[excathedra]

thanks sunesis hugs

[Abigail]

Hope, it is good to see you! Been a long time. I will see if I can find a copy of the book, thanks. :)-->

[markomalley]

One thing that should be pointed out about these far, far right wingnuts whose positions are characterized by the "Spotlight" magazine etc....they are not a homogenous group of automatons. (Automatons, maybe...homogenous, no) There are a number of groups within that segment of society, not all of them share the same beliefs on all issues. Some are white supremecist. Some are white separatist. Some are neo-Nazi. Some are fascist. The thing that characterizes most all of them, though, is the following:

- Almost all of them believe that there is a secret government that operates in the shadows, beneath the surface. This government is a world government that is totally out of the control of the people.

- Almost all of them are anti-Catholic, anti-Semite, anti-Masonic. They believe that those groups (singularly or in combination) are in control and pull the puppet strings behind the scenes.

- Almost all of them believe that there is a catastrophe that is coming in the next several years and that civilization, as we know it, will cease to exist, reducing us to a primative anarchy.

So, Sunesis' statements talking about VPW being a subscriber to Spotlight Magazine and OM's/ HCW's statements that lead one to believe that accusations of white supremist beliefs might, actually, be totally congruous.

Here's the interesting thing, though (again, for me). Sunesis stated that she saw this Spotlight mag floating around HQ as early as 1971. What if he got involved in that earlier (say the 60s)? Could it be that the origins of the Way Corps had something to do with that involvement? Could it have been a ripoff of the survivalist movement of the 60s and 70s, that pre-dated the militia movement?

Here's another thing: If VPW's involvement with this stuff was early enough, could it have, in fact, influenced his theology?

quote:

---

The next concept that we are faced with is expressed in the question, Is an Adamic person saved when they believe the Spirit of Truth or believe the teachings of Christ or are they saved only when they participate in some mode of physical, water baptism? The answer to this question, or rather how men answer this question, explains a great amount of the division that exists among professing Christians. In fact, entire denominations are built and predicated upon how they decide when the Bible teaches the moment of regeneration to be. Those who interpret the Bible to be in reference to physical baptism are in truth teaching water baptismal regeneration. They reason that believing is simply not enough to make one a child of the Living God. To those who make physical baptism the moment of regeneration, they reason that if a person is a true believer, then he will go on to participate in the ritual of water baptism in compliance with what they believe to be the commands of the Scripture. The question arises, What if a man believes on Sunday but is unable to be baptized until the next Sunday? And what if that man is killed on Monday? Does he still inherit eternal life, meaning both racial and spiritual? This simple question shows the hypocrisy of the ritual Baptists' position. Some of the more hard-core ritual Baptists would tell you that the man who missed his water baptism did not inherit eternal life, but most would contradict their own teachings and tell you that, Yes, the man inherited eternal life because he was a believer and that God would make allowances for his missed opportunity of physical baptism.

---

extract from, Ritual Baptists, Emotional Baptists

quote:

---

For example, many Church Fathers give alternate readings of a passage that they were aware of at the time of their writing. Also, depending upon who quoted a particular interpolation and when he quoted it, we can pinpoint whether an interpolation was of a Western or Byzantine nature, and when it had crept into the texts. For example, at the time of the Arian controversy, there were many ancient Church Fathers who wrote regarding the controversy and took sides on the issue. However, none of these early Church Fathers, on either side of the issue, say anything about I John 5:7, the famous trinity verse. If this interpolation had then existed in any manuscripts, it is almost certain that one side or the other of the controversy would have made use of the verse. But neither does. This allows us to state as a certainty that no version of the early Scriptures contained this verse at the time of Arius.

---

extract from, Other Witnesses

Both of these extracts came from the "Christian Separatist" site: http://www.christianseparatist.org

Coincidental? Yeah, in all likelihood it is. But it is still interesting.

Oh, and one other thing: the funniest part of this is that the majority of the conspiracies that the left have espoused regarding Bush the younger are not new -- almost all of them were originated by these right-wing nutjobs a long time ago.

[socks]

quote:

---

There are a number of groups within that segment of society, not all of them share the same beliefs on all issues. Some are white supremecist. Some are white separatist. Some are neo-Nazi. Some are fascist. The thing that characterizes most all of them, though, is the following:

- Almost all of them believe that there is a secret government that operates in the shadows, beneath the surface. This government is a world government that is totally out of the control of the people.

---

Mark, I was thinking along those lines myself as I read through here. White supremacists believe, by definition, in the exaltation and supremacy of a "white" pure race and the inferiority of other races. It would be a stretch IMO to state that VPW followed that belief. Not that he may or may not have battled with personal prejudices but rather that WS would have been a secret agenda driving his efforts.

But - the concept of a spiritual realm influencing human activities - yes. People acting as dupes and stooges getting bounced around in trade for their own personal gain, as well as people in a hyperactive state of cooperation with that realm - yes, he certainly held to that. So he was more than suspicious, you might say he was actively trying to develop an alternate reality through the "believing action" of instructed people who would be both immune to it's influence and instrumental in defeating the forces of darkness, as it were. The Devil.

I've done some poking around trying to get a better grip on the foundations for the "law of believing" as it's so often articulated in religious teaching. One of the most striking examples I found was the belief in Xeper ("Khefer"), or "coming in to being", going back to Eqyptian religious "cult" beliefs. The ritualistic approach to perparing a physical and mental place for the future you want to "bring in to being" struck me as being very similar to the rituals many Christians will set up to build an alternate reality to the one they perceive - one they're "believing" to come into being. Those who pursue Xeper as a philosphy often view "the prince of darkness" as a ruling power of this universe whose image was confiscated by Christian religions and turned in to the Devil. So for them, it's a matter of perspective.

[Sunesis]

You're right, Mark, maybe "white supremist" was too strong a term. Liberty Lobby has a whole hodgepodge of groups unders its umbrella. I tend to think it was the conspiracy theories VP was really interested.

Nice post and concepts socks!

Hope R - I've read about that book, I must read it.

[oldiesman]

quote:

---

OM, are you saying the connection to Babylon is the only thing he repudiates? I haven't read the book, but it seems as though there would be more to rescind given it took a whole book to do it. *shrug*

---

Belle, I will try to summarize a serious answer for you.

I think Woodrow's second book "The Babylon Connection?" refutes many surmisings of Hislop, chiefly Hislops belief that the doctrines of the R.C. church "in all essential respects, have been derived from Babylon". Here's the last paragraph of the introduction, which pretty much summarizes the book:

quote:

---

In the following pages, though we will challenge some of Hislop's claims, this is not intended as an attack against him personally. In addition to being a writer, he served as the pastor of the East Free Church, Arbroath, Scotland. As far as we know, he was a dedicated Christian, a brother in Christ. When we will repeatedly refer to him simply as "Hislop," rather than Rev. Hislop or Mr. Hislop, no lack of respect is intended. Nor is it our goal in writing this book to merely discredit another book. Instead, it is our desire that this effort will help us understand "the way of God more perfectly" (cf. Acts 18:26), find a Biblical balance, and glorify Him who said: "I am the Way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me" (John 14:6)

---

Some of the things he said in Babylon Mystery Religion that he challenges in the second book are the following:

• assumptions about Nimrod and Semiramis in their connection to the R.C. church

• mixing biblical stories with mythology

• mixing the Babylonian religion with Roman Catholicism

• obelisks vs. godly monuments

• that Mary Worship is really Semiramis Worship

• pagan titles applied to Mary

• that celebacy of priests has Babylon origin

• assumptions about Tammuz and his relation to R.C. church

• that the cross is about honoring Tammuz not Jesus

• the round communion wafer has pagan origins

• round R.C. symbols have pagan origins

• lighting of candles has pagan origins

• use of oil has pagan origins

• use of I.H.S. came from paganism

• use of fish symbol came from paganism

• papal mitre honors fish-god Dagon

• black garments have pagan origin

• papal procession comes from paganism

• papal scepter comes from paganism

• use of relics really honor Nimrod

• use of Christmas tree as pagan worship

• use of Easter eggs as pagan worship

He makes the sound conclusion that just because a custom or symbol used today might be similar to that which was used in paganism, doesn't mean it's identical or representative of paganism. He rightly concludes simply:

quote:

---

Finding pagan similarities has caused some to condemn innocent things ...

---

Now having said all that, there are plenty of R.C. practices and customs and relevant points in Babylon Mystery Religion that he DOES NOT address, or condemn, in the second book and doesn't offer any biblical evidence to the contrary. I have to assume then that he agrees with his first book, on these points, some of which are the following:

• Mary worship

• praying to saints

• use of indulgences

• paying for prayers

• was Peter the first Pope?

• papal immorality

• are Popes infallible?

• the Inhuman Inquisition

• Lord's Over God's Heritage

• An Unmarried Priesthood

• The Mass

• Three Days and Three Nights

[Tom Strange]

Do you mean it's OK to get a christmas tree now? ...and not think of a p*nis every time I see one (a christmas tree)?

[oldiesman]

Yes you may :)-->

[Belle]

Thank you for such a comprehensive summary of the book. :)--> It makes sense now. Did you enjoy the book and would you recommend it?

This pulls the carpet out from under many things TWI condemns and refers people to in the original book, doesn't it? ;)--> They still push and recommend "Babylon Mystery Religion" to people and somehow neglect to mention the "The Babylon Connection?"

quote:

---

He makes the sound conclusion that just because a custom or symbol used today might be similar to that which was used in paganism, doesn't mean it's identical or representative of paganism. He rightly concludes simply:

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finding pagan similarities has caused some to condemn innocent things ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

This is the way I have always felt but couldn't voice in TWI because of their staunch legalism.

Thanks so much!

Tom, the Christmas tree has been allowed, but you can't call it a Christmas tree and you can't have angels on it and you can't have Santa Claus figures on it and you can't..... you get the idea. You DO still think of a p*nis every time you see it because they have not changed that part of the TWIt law. Snowcones are allowed, though. :)-->

[oldiesman]

Belle, yes I enjoyed it..I like both books, but must also recommend the second book to folks who think the first book is gospel. He did a good job of challenging false assumptions.

[WordWolf]

I agree with Oldies' rundown of the contents of the books.

I also agree with recommending unreservedly the SECOND book,

"the Babylon Connection?"

Woodrow spent so long repudiating things in his first book,

however,

that I felt his omission of what he had CORRECT was a lapse

of judgement on his part.

He did say that there were legitimate reasons to object to

immorality and corruption, so claiming a connection to

Babylonian worship was dishonest and unnecessary.

However, that's the closest he came to saying that his previous

comments-like one pope bringing his (DEAD) predecessor into court

and putting him on trial being monstrous- were correct.

Further, the claim Hislop MEANT to talk over the heads of his

readers was incorrect, since EVERYBODY who wrote at the time wrote

just like that. (Bullinger did-I have works by one or two others.)

=======

I think the condemnation of the RCC-one of the biggest fish

in Christianity (no pun intended)

and the claims of conspiracy in "Babylon Mystery Religion"-

not to mention its low price and easy-reading style-

made it a perennial favourite for twi.

It shouldn't be THAT big a surprise that some people who discover

that its writer repudiated it as a whole,

STILL cling to the earlier book,

in twi and in some of the splinters.

[markomalley]

Thanks for the compliment Sunesis and, again, thanks for bringing that little tidbit of info to light.

[socks]

Thanks Sunesis. I stopped short with my example. The only person I've talked to about this idea of "Xeper" led me to investigate it a little more and I saw so many similarities to some "Christian" thinking, but from a very different perspective. One was that a "master" race of enlightened people was inevitable, it was just a matter of how organized they were towards their goals that would determine their impact. Impact socially, intellectually, artistically, etc. was expected and desired. Equality was embraced but with the understanding that not everyone was going to be enlightened.

There wasn't an aggression towards those who wouldn't be but an understanding that those who did would achieve true levels of personal growth and would "tap" in to higher levels of power. Domination of lesser minded people would be the progression by natural process. In fact, understanding that would allow a person to not get hung up in all of the world's problems that aren't going to be solved for some people no matter what. They could be solved by intellectually and spiritually evolved people but ultimately everyone could opt in at some level. If it was simply to get the benefits that part of the population would be ruled by those who have the solutions.

Where this differs from standard capitalism is that the real goal isn't greed, personal gain for it's own reward and at other's expense. Rather it's for the purpose of acheiving one's own "real" purpose in life, being who they are truly destined to be by being free of the restrictions of accepted moral thought and following their god. This follower of Xeper assumed they would be superior by virtue of the fact that they weren't bound personally by the limitations of religion, politics, etc. The morals that result from this and from following their god -the prince of darkness- would be the "right ones" but may be very different from standard Golden Rule stuff. Alternative pursuits and experience could and would lead a person into enlightenment, extreme stuff like pain, or it might be academic pursuits. The possibilities are endless.

So with ths you'll dominate as a natural result and there will be those who follow, serve and support the superior individual. "It's as it should be" is how it would be viewed.

A merciful God who loves everyone, forgives, gives altruistically doesn't figure in the same way. "Mercy" isn't really a factor. People get what they achieve, period. If the result of that is one's the master, the other the slave, that's what they've achieved for themselves. It's an interesting view and not completely foreign when I look at some of the Ways' specific teachings on believing, rewards, giving and receiving.

By emphasizing the individual out of context with the "body" you can end up in a similar mindset, an enlightened group of "discplined" ones who "really" run the world. Who are "advancing" and have the "advantage" in life. Who accept that people are to be treated differently because some aren't as good as they are.

Then, by emphasizing that the individual is nothing without the "household" you end up with a captive congregation. People have to stay to survive by that logic, even if it's at a subjugated level of participation. Better to stay and get beat up on than leave and "die". Without all of the rest of the teaching of Jesus and the N.T. balancing it constantly it will get pretty weird, as we've seen in the Way over the years.