Saturday, June 13, 2009

Pyramid Spotting

A little something to illustrate a comment underneath an earlier post...

University College London Hospital. Hmmm, pointy...


If the City of London is the centre of the financial power of the British oligarchical elite,
the area around University College is the heart of its psychological and pharmaceutical power.

The City is about fucking with your wallet. Bloombsury is about fucking with your brain and your body

Bloomsbury is home to a delightful mix of state run academia, big pharma and benevolent (sic.)
charitable foundations, all fused into one big yummy, indistinguishable mass; which some people would describe as fascistic but I think is just plain scary

The local architecture is a bit of a
give-away

And one thing that continues to baffle me is, how when some of us point out that the oligarchical elite has a demonstrable fondness for fruity little clubs, rituals, symbolism and architecture, the sheer lunacy of the fruity little clubs, rituals, symbolism, and architecture is somehow laid at the door of the people doing the pointing out, not the people responsible for it all

Did I mention that the Tavistock Institute was founded in Bloomsbury?
.

31 comments:

Ob1Kn00b said...

As far as I can see there are two interpretations of this.

1) It has no significance, architects like to play with the new number crunching tools and balance loads in interesting ways, in which case, check your quote of the month.

2) It has a symbolic significance, it is a projection of power and a signpost for those in the loop.

This information does nothing on its own, has no useful application and the case to make it comprehensible is so broad, loose-knit and error prone it's best left alone.

Besides, it's not a pyramid, it's a triangle, and it's useless to point out the symbol unless the meaning is widely accepted, and it's not. It's like coming up with new fnords fnordently.

The meaning used in conspiracy circles appears to be that human organisational structures tend to coalesce in a particular way, with a leader capable of perceiving, by mediation with ever wider circles, all relevant facts about the system, and, by inference, have control of it.

That's a clear unambiguous statement about a symbolic meaning of a pyramid, to which there are two questions:

1) Do some people believe it?

Fruity clubs etc... check.

2) Is it true?

The narrative arc of the fortunes of the families of the top echelons often being measured in centuries (and everything that this implies), it would appear that it describes something tangible, but to what effect?

It's just a filter, a way of organising experience and ideas into coherent categories, You could probably do the same with tarot cards, and some do, or the bible, or gq magazine.

That said, perceptual filters are commonly unconscious behaviours, so there is little good to pointing them out consciously. The ties and Tesco metro and all that is an example of manipulating unconscious meaning, but there is no guarantee that a person who manipulates unconscious meaning has any conscious representation of it at all.

Stef said...

absolutely, which is why I always include a Apophenia tag in any pyramid-spotting posts

though I'm a little more confident of some spots than others

Stef said...

ps - the triangle outside UCLH isn't load bearing and wasn't included in the original architect's model of the building which currently sits in the foyer (sad to say, but I did check)

Anti_NWO said...

No surprises there then. Can't say I bother looking at these up close, I only go into the 'city' proper for business\work-related stuff.

Stef said...

on the subject of people acting as unconscious repeaters (if I get your gist properly) yes, definitely, they do

but I also suggest that sometimes they act as conscious repeaters and consciously include symbolism in their creations which they know will be recognized and resonate with people who are members of the same fruity little clubs as they are

the motivation could be something as simple as 'tagging' territory

taking freemasonry as nice, easy example, references to twin pillars, checkerboard patterns, five pointed stars, obelisks, squares and compasses, goddesses of reason, etc, abound in our culture and with a little research can very often be tied into practicing freemasons

taking a slightly less easy example, the dimensions of various landmarks can be tied into all sorts of hermetic beliefs, but that gets a little more involved

and, just to be clear here, I'm not one of those guys who spends his time trying to find meaning in the dimensions of the Great Pyramid or Stonehenge, I'm suggesting that landmarks such as the House of Commons or St Pauls were designed by the kind of people who spent *their* time trying to find meaning in the dimensions of the Gt Pyramid or Stonehenge

Ob1Kn00b said...

On a not entirely unrelated note, my favourite heresy right now is Fomenko, which makes the "deciphering of ancient Egyptian symbols" look a little silly. I've been promising myself for ages to read Timeline of Egypt Cut In Stone, but I'm afraid that it'll cave my head in completely.

Stef said...

and on another not entirely unrelated note I strongly recommend (not that I've been able to find a copy) Dan Cruickshank's documentary on the layout of the City of Bath = absolute Loon heaven.

The entire city streetplan is a Freemasonic wet dream - and Dan delivers so many knowing winks and smiles I was afraid he was going to go blind

He does a similar number in the same series on Pugin's design for Westminster Palace

and don't get me started on Christopher Wren...

Ob1Kn00b said...

Acknowledged. I've heard Byzantine used as a synonym for labyrinth, but I suspect that the modern era is top trumps for pure head-fuckery. The Modernist Empire? How long will it be before that map is in print?

Tom said...

I know Mr Flamenco was featured on the Loonportal with some of his videos, but I can't seem to find the link now. I was greatly taken with their reinterpretation of biblical history happening in the Middle Ages.

I must get a Fomenko book, if only to avoid the Stephen-Hawking style narration of his youtube clips.

Stef said...

His books aren't particularly cheap

but what a guy!

Stef said...

...as one awe-struck reviewer says, Fomenko makes the works of Cremo and Thompson or Graham Hancock look like nursery school stuff

Historical Conspiraloonery of the hightest order

Stef said...

Personally speaking, I thoroughly approve of the existence of barking loons, obsessive enough to expend their entire life's efforts on Quixotic assaults on mainstream orthodoxy

The fact that they are all almost certainly at least as wrong as the flawed orthodoxies they attack doesn't detract from their efforts one iota

If I could have one of those 'Laws' that litter Wikipedia named after me, Stef's Law would read something like...

'As soon as you are certain of something you've fucked up'

Tom said...

re: Stef's law - that's about right (probably)

We know that documentary history is mostly "copies" so why should we rely on it? But maths has its limits too, no matter how hard you study it.

The implication that Christ was Russian is just the icing on the cake

Stef said...

"(probably)"

lol

Ob1Kn00b said...

I don't think you should have to assault mainstream orthodoxies, what a waste of energy. I think it's sufficient to ignore it, and the chutzpah to 'have' your own interpretation of events in the face of the media is difficult enough.

I like that Fomenko is doing it by the book, though.

He has a point in that most intellectual disciplines have been revolutionised over the last three centuries, many in the last, why should history be any different? And he appears to be attempting create a field of enquiry, with it's own means of investigation, framework of interpretation etc. (Didn't know about the Russian Christ thing, although Newton et al believed some pretty barmy things). ("and did those feet in ancient times...")

The megalomaniacal self assurance is practically a prerequisite to that kind of endeavour. That said, google: fomenco art.

Tom said...

The Fomenko art is pretty impressive.

Those feet indeed, they must have done some travelling. From Cumbria to Chechnya, bestriding mountains like a colossus.

brenda said...

Visited a masonic temple yesterday, with a view to them having some photos on their walls. It was suggested I might join. Apprently they have a whole 'ladies' order.

Seriously considering it.

Hope things are looking up.

Stef said...

One suspects that if you became a member you would be inititiated into ancient and secret revelations about the true nature of cutting sandwiches and doing the washing up. Or, as the Eraserpedia entry on "Women and Freemasonry" says...

"The subject of women and Freemasonry is complex and without an easy explanation..."

on the bright side, the chances of actually meeting David Rockefeller or the Duke of Kent would be slight

Don't forget to keep yourself a spare set of piccies

It goes better, thank you

lwtc247 said...

Does Stef's law have an exclusion clause pertaining to Banksters cum Rottenchilds (in the purely financial sense of course)?

Stef said...

The original version of Stef's Law made claim to being a Universal Truth for about 7 minutes

The revised version now reads

'As soon as you are certain of something you've fucked up (probably)'

As for the question of the Rothschilds and all the other lesser, though still massively unpleasant, banking dynasties, yes, I am pretty certain that they are parasitical bastards responsible for a hell of a lot of the world's current ills

probably

Stef said...

Sticking with the subject of certainty and the Barons there does seem to be a heck of a lot of certainty on the Interweb about them being responsible for pretty much *all* the world's ills

...Kind of Like the character in 'Goodness Gracious Me' who claims that all of history's great thinkers and artists were 'Indian', but with all of history's great bastards being Zionists

As I've said before, I don't dispute that bastard Zionists are responsible for a lot of bad things, but all of them?

That level of certainty leaves me perplexed.

I've poured over the material which supposedly proves the totality of the Great Zionist Conspiracy and I couldn't even start to be that certain of its all-embracing power to dominate all of space and time

I could take much of that same material and weave a narrative that has another one of history's great crime gangs, the British ruling class, settting up and promoting Zionism to suit its own ends. The British Israelism referred to a few comments above goes back a looooong way before Herzl, or even Daddy Rothschild, and the British only started to put serious weight behind the Zionist entity when oil started to become an essential commodity for the British. So who's really calling the shots?

At the end of the day I'm pretty certain (probably) that there are lots of potential evil oligarchical bastards out there and even if every wicked Zionist on the planet magically disappeared right now, without constant vigilance, they'd be replaced by a new set of evil, oligarchical bastards in the blink of an eye

Stef said...

@lwtc247

a relevant example of certainty which leaves me perplexed is the supposedly strong evidence which links Israel to the 7/7 bombings, whcih we have discussed before

That evidence comprises

1. The fact that an Israel company is responsible for the CCTV on the London Undergound

2. Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly received advance warning of the bombings earlier that same morning

#1 'proves' absolutely fuck all - unless someone really believes that Israel is undoubtedly responsible for every crime committed in front of a LU CCTV camera

#2 might prove something but it's worth remembering that the Netanyahu story was reported in an *Israeli* newspaper

The Israels are blessed with allegedly the most awesome and ruthless intelligence network in the world and their own newspapers are announcing their nation's culpability in a covert act of terror?

Not much scope for certainty there imho

afaic anyone promoting this material as being certain proof of Israeli involvement in 7/7 is either so emotional about the issue their objectivity has gone into the toilet, or they're a shill

Stef said...

PS British Lion = Lion of Judah

caught by the Gules said...

In 1978 a St Albans linen merchant, Denis Pamphilon, was fined £100 daily for usurpation of the standard on decorative bedspreads until he desisted, and both Rangers F.C. and the Scottish National Party have been admonished by the Lyon for its improper use.[6]

Antipholus Papps said...

'As soon as you are certain of something you've fucked up'

Or as the Discordians would put it: convictions make convicts.

I worked next to Senate House for three years - apparently Uncle Adolf wanted it for his headquarters if the Battle of Britain had gone the other way. I can't imagine why!

lwtc247 said...

'As soon as you are certain of something you've fucked up (probably)'

LOL :D


You're not the mind behind the Carlsberg adverts are you
:p

lwtc247 said...

@ Stef 21:33.
The problem (as I see) it with your discussions on 'the Israyhell issue' is that you are treat it in a different fashion than what you do to the non-Israyhell side.

You portray the non-Israyhell as being fundamentally good people dominated by an elite, but the Israyhell element as a homogeneous mass. It isn't. The same elite and manipulations carried out by a hierarchy is present in the Jewish side too. Good Jews are dominated by a Hierarchy (by various appeals to their humanisms) which leans by differing degrees towards Zionism. If you researched oppression of Anti-Zionist Jews in occupied Palestine you would have seen that.

The difference is the non-Israyhell side, having on the whole become wish-washy about its religious tradition, is dominated chiefly by financial means. The Israyhelli side is perverted-religion (God endorsed supremacy){astagfirullahenhazeem} and financial. And there is naturally cross-over between them.

So, the more independent Jewish contingent that isn't so restricted, and at times exposes the rot of the Zionist supremacist elitist (e.g. Prof Richard Falk, Chomsky(grates teeth), Finklestein, Illan Pappe, Dr. Dahlia Wasfi, David Cole, David Wwiss, Chaim Lefkowitz...) should not be falsely used to say deliver a dismissal of the significance of anything Israyhelli (read Zionist).

It appears that many people put a self erected mental barrier in front of them when such matters arise, whose default setting is "auto-dismiss" mode, which from my observations is largely due in part to and inability (for whatever reason) to resolve Judaism from Zionism.

I suspect one day I will end up having to listing all "factors Israyhell" in regard to 7-7 and so on to readdress any imbalance or rather silly dismissals, but it is a daunting task, one that will involve a LOT of work. For example: Professor Ehud Keinan, who has the privilege of never been mentioned, or Israyhelli dual-loyalists in the SIS, MOD, Parliamentary parties, Fund 'raisers' blah blah blah.

There is "certain proof of Israeli involvement in 7/7" which as you will know is very different from saying "Israyhell dunnit"

Stef said...

"You portray the non-Israyhell as being fundamentally good people dominated by an elite, but the Israyhell element as a homogeneous mass"

If I have done so, it wasn't intentional

and I for one haven't the faintest idea who was responsible for 7/7

it might even have been four pissed off muslims

though I doubt it

Stef said...

@lwtc247

if you haven't seen it already I suggest a view of Open Complicity - Anatomy of the 9/11 Cover Up

though that's not a personal endorsement of everything in the film btw

lwtc247 said...

Cheers for that Stef.
I am confident we are discussing this in an adult, rational and friendly way, for the purposes of helping each other leave no stone unturned.

You are right. It could have been 4 Muslims. 9-11 could have been OBL. There may be a number of so called Islamic terrorists intent to destroy the infidel. Each of those possibilities could more or less be in tune with the official narratives. As you doubt 7-7 bit (and pissibly others), I doubt all three and many like them.

If say somnething, that could be herelded as approacing that most elusive of things called proof, was to come my way in support of the nattative, which totally exhonerates the thieves of Palastine, then that's one crime I will not accuse them of.

But I feel the liberty to let my perception of circumstantial evidence keep my gaze focuse in that direction, and I do so fully are of my biases, but they are not without historical foundation.

I'll stop there as there as I've nothing else new to say at this point, other than to ask about those Georgia standing stones in 'piggies' - do you think someone is having a laugh?

Stef said...

most definitely

be well

S.