Did they support more tyranny, different tyranny, or no tyranny compared to the monarchy and aristocracy?
Did it change France for the better? If so, in what ways?
What are some good writings on it?
The French Revolution was one of the biggest catastrophe's in modern history behind only WWI/ The Russian Revolution.
All the Mao, WWII, Euro Unions, and crazy nationalisms and "activism" is merely the after effects of such things.
For polemical writings against the revolution read Burke's "Reflections", or even de Maistre for some interesting views.
If you want more unbiased and scholarly history specify what you want. A typical College level 2 volume History of W. European Textbook would probably be a good starting point. No need to go the extra mile or for "tunnel vision" or "hetrodox" perspectives if you know next to nothing about the subject
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
The French Revolution undoubtedly unleashed a tyranny unknown before it. It was essentially the culmination of collectivist ideas and served to cement these collectivist ideas in French society. The revolutionaries attempted to create an absurd utopia, with predictably terrible and ridiculous results (see Edmund Burke). The combination of the collectivist ideas and the dictatorship of Napoleon set the stage for the conscription of the general populace to spread across Europe - the levee en masse which changed warfare and its relation to society ever since. From then on wars were not disputes between kings, but between whole peoples. This collectivist recasting of war, and the arms-race that resulted from France's mobilisation of the general populace, led directly to the total wars of the 20th century and the identarian politics that continue to this day.
Remember that the monarchy returned in 1815, but by then the ideological damage had already been done. From then on France would be a collectivist society. The French Revolution is essentially the beginning of the modern age of barbarism.
NB - only 8% of those killed by the guillotine were aristocrats - in contrast 32% of those killed were peasants.
A good rule of thumb for modern history:
If it has the name "Revolution" attached to an event think of it as an intellectual class coup / fashion parade gone awry to rabble rouse to put the intellectual class on top and self aggrandize and congratulate itself with the media it already owned anyway.
"NB - only 8% of those killed by the guillotine were aristocrats - in contrast 32% of those killed were peasants."
Who were the other 60%?
Practice.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
Clergy, bourgeoisie, deserting soldiers, and other workers (by peasant I meant agricultural workers).
Did they support more tyranny, different tyranny, or no tyranny compared to the monarchy and aristocracy? Did it change France for the better? If so, in what ways? What are some good writings on it?
I agree with what others have already posted: namely, that the signficance of the French Revolution was that it actualized and unleashed collectivist tendencies that have led directly to the totalitarian statism of the modern age.
I think of the American Revolution and the French Revolution as near-perfect expressions of the two competing political philosophies of the modern age, liberalism and socialism respectively. For those of you who adhere to the conspiratorial interpretation of history, you might consider the French Revolution as an orchestrated response to the American Revolution: a counter-revolution against liberalism. The influence of the Bavarian Illuminati in the Jacobin phase of the French Revolution is well documented, and of course there's good reason to believe that that same cabal of power elites are in operation today. I think of the entire movement toward socialism (from the French Revolution, to the collapse of the conservative order established at Vienna, to the Great War and the Bolshevik Revolution, to what is still in motion today which the interwar intellectuals called the "New World Order" and the "scientific dictatorship") as a single more or less orchestrated and planned reaction against liberalism - i.e. a reaction by the power elite to stop liberalization and build a new and more secure basis for their most illiberal rule.
End Rant.
P.S. a good book on the French Revolution is "Citizens" by Simon Schama.
The French Revolution abolished serfdom in France, that's a pretty significant change for the better. It involved both positive and negative aspects. Was it on the whole a change for the better or worse is largely a matter of subjective preference. Does one assign more value to the freedoms gained in it, or to the freedoms lost to it? There can not be a universal libertarian answer, only an individual one. The important thing as a libertarian is not to reject, or to accept the French Revolution, but to do it for the right reasons. If rejected it should be so for the freedoms lost, and if accepted it should be for the freedoms won. Most of the time the French Revolution was (or is) opposed and clung to (by non-libertarians) for all the wrong reasons. Cherished for many of its negative aspects, and rejected for many of its positive ones. Ultimately the main problem with the French Revolution has never been so much its own negative aspects (the effects of which were after all confined to a small time and place), but more so the celebration of its worst aspects as positive values by huge number of movements and intellectualls afterwards. This has been far more consequential on a global scale.
Remember that the monarchy returned in 1815, but by then the ideological damage had already been done. From then on France would be a collectivist society.
And before that it was what, individualist society??
The French Revolution is essentially the beginning of the modern age of barbarism.
As opposed to what, the pre-modern age of barbarism?
The traditional interpretation of the French Revolution, that it was a struggle by the rising capitalist bourgeoisie against the feudal aristocracy of the old regime, is Marxist nonsense. France was already on a path to liberalization before 1789; think Turgot et al. The high aristocracy had adopted liberalism and the first phase of the revolution was led by those liberal aristocrats and was liberal in character, much like the American revolution - it was an extension of what was already underway before 1789. But the second phase of the revolution, where new leadership takes over and moves in a decidedly illiberal direction, can be seen as a counter-revolution, fueled by mass-opposition to economic liberalization. The ranks of the Jacobins were filled with small-time craftsmen and others who would lose in the transition to economic liberalism. This popular resistance to liberalism wasn't anything new, it had limited the efforts by folks like Turgot pre-1789. For example, when they attempted (on several different occasions) to liberalize the grain market, there were riots and attacks on "speculators" who sold bread above whatever the masses thought was a "just price."
So the French revolution was really two revolutions I would say. First an American-style revolution led by liberal-minded aristocrats, and secondly a counter-revolution led by demagogues who exploited the popular antipathy toward liberalization. Libertarians should abhor the second revolution, because it did unleash the modern State, and we should regret that the first revolution didn't succeed. The French Revolution is also a case study in how democratic and liberal tendencies do not generally make good bedfellows. As soon as the revolution became "popular" it lost its liberal character and heads started dropping into buckets.
Who were the other 60%? Practice. "The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." - Sir Humphrey Appleby | Post Points: 5
I think the crux of the matter is that, taken as a whole, the French Revolution lacked a significant anti-state component, something noted by Tocqueville, who once commented that, through all the changes witnessed from 1789, the one institution that remained, and in fact grew stronger, was the state and its administrative bureacracy.
The premise underlying the revolution was for "republicans" to grab ahold of the state which was created by the monarchs and their ministers such as Richelieu, Mazarin, and Colbert and attempt to use it for liberal purposes. This will always fail and is the reason 19th century Europe witnessed increasing centralization even as liberal ideas became more popular. The American radicals generally understood the state as the greatest obstacle to liberty, not as its source.
The state's proclivity to grow and engage in war was seen in full form during the Napoleonic era, and spurred centralization in Germany, where it gave further fuel to the state's takeover of educational systems, which is a major reason why, by the turn of the twentieth century, liberalism was all but dead there, something Mises lamented in Omnipotent Government.
The state is Tolkien's ring. It cannot be used for good.
Thanks for the replies everyone: ) I think that the intentions of the french revolutionaries were probably about the same as Louis XVI regarding the power of the state.
Once agian, I suggest you get a decent 2 volume college text on "History of modern W Europe" to start. These books will show plenty of primary sources from all sides of the debate, and will be the best springboard you can ask for, if you choose to get more in depth in your search.
I suggested Burke and de Maistre as primary reactionary views because I think they are the best and most important of the opposition writing during the time of the revolution.
I can't resist, I have to jump in.
Disclaimer: I am known to have a bent towards the conspiracy theoretic...
1) I do not believe that revolutions "just happen." In the past, a revolution was always some kind of coup, led by a powerful Lord who was able to rally enough backing from the nobility to mount what can be thought of as a mutiny against the King, if you will. If you read Machiavelli's The Prince, you will see that in some cases, the King has the people on his side and is fighting against the nobility. In other cases, the rebel Lord has the people on his side and is fighting against the King and the more well-established nobility. Either way, there's always a clear answer to the question, cui bono?
2) The French Revolution was actually the second revolution which is cast as a kind of "people's revolt" or "leaderless revolution" by historians. The first? The American Secession, aka the American Revolution.
3) I take it as an operating axiom that Freemasonry - particularly since the mid-18th century - is an outsourced proxy of the Jesuit order - except, perhaps, in England where the Anglican church/British crown probably uses them in a similar way.
4) There can be no doubt about the influence of Freemasonry among the American colonists - our first President was a Freemason.
5) John Robison put forward the case that the Bavarian Illuminati created under the Jesuit Adam Weishaupt, had infiltrated the Freemasons and had it as their stated objective to topple the governments of Europe, the very reason that the Bavarian government outlawed the Illuminati. Robison further argued that it was the Illuminati who were behind the French Revolution.
6) If Robison is right, this gives us the answer to our question: The Pope in Rome. Because it is the Pope's operational arm (the Jesuits) who have their fingerprints all over the Bavarian Illuminati and Freemasonry (at least on the continent and in the US).
7) This leads directly to a more disturbing observation about the genuineness of the American secession. Was it, in fact, a "people's revolution" a "leaderless revolution" as it is billed out or, instead, was it a practice run for the Jesuits before they pulled the pin on the grenade they had laid in France?
8) Going further, there is a definite pattern to the march to world government - incessant, cosmically bloody wars billed out as driven by ideology or xenophobia or nationalism or anti-semitism or racism or any other of a million -isms... but all with one common attribute: these are "people's wars" and they are fought not with the primary aim to gain territory for a King or nobility, but as an inevitable expression of the over-zealousness of the mad masses divided by "anarchic" national borders that are not subject to a "rational" world government.
The rhetoric surrounding both the lead-up and the aftermath World War I is the most obvious example. Even before the Great War, we had innumerable "sage men" warning that if we didn't get a world government, we were going to have a terrible, global conflagration as the result of rampant nationalism and xenophobia. And, sure enough, we had a war. During the war, they kept selling it as "the war to end all wars." How was it going to end all wars? Well, we found out after the War... we were to have a "League of Nations" which would tie all nations together into a single, maniacal compact.
But the Great War failed. It wasn't bloody enough, it didn't leave a deep enough scar on the popular imagination. So, we needed a second World War, even bigger than the first. And so we had it. And out of that we got the United Nations. Do you know how many segments the globe in the UN logo is divided into? That's right, the same number as the flames surrounding the Jesuit solar emblem which also happens to be the same as the number of degrees in Freemasonry. Go figure.
9) The most vicious Jesuit revolution, however, was undoubtedly the Bolshevik Revolution. This was the culmination of a millenium-old dispute between the Eastern and Western churches going back to the filioque. The Bolshevik Revolution was payback for 1,000 years of obstinacy and "schism" within the Church, made possible only by the constant harassment of the Muslims on the doorsteps of Spain and Turkey for most of that duration. The Eastern (Russian/Greek) Orthodox Church had it coming.
The demolition of the beautiful Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow in order to make way for the laughable Palace of the Soviets monolith is symbolic of the true nature of the Russian Revolution.
10) This is not to suggest that the national powers have been hapless victims of supermen in Rome. The national powers have gained considerably from their own participation in these revolutions and wars. Every nation in Europe besides France had an interest in fanning the flames of revolution within France. But what I think happened in France that was a true "inflection point" of history was the propagandization of this new idea of "leaderless revolutions", "democratic decision-making" and "people's wars." The French Revolution piloted revolutions, wars and governments for which absolutely nobody can be held responsible. After all, they are just a reflection of the "General Will".
In part, this is a result of a fundamental yet common misunderstanding of the nature of European royal families - they are not and never have been tied to a single territory. Thrones were gained, lost, married in and out and revolved from hand to hand according to the vagaries of battle and family alliances.
11) The monarchs who "got it" morphed themselves like Rome had done long before - the monarchy suddenly become a "quaint relic" of a "bygone era" and was nothing more than a "ceremonial museum piece" whose continued existence was merely formal, as a matter of national history and pride. These are the monarchies that exist today, such as Britain, Norway, Sweden, Denmark (and, yes, even Spain).
12) I believe the best way to think about all these revolutions and wars since the late 18th century is that those who instigate and perpetrate them are a kind of club or clique and you're either in that club or you're fodder for their wars, doesn't matter who you are (royalty, nobility, wealthy industrialist in your country of origin, whatever). The roles of secret societies is vastly exaggerated... to the extent they are involved merely by virtue of their membership they are, at most, foot-soldiers. The term "Illuminati" is laughable and doubtless was used only for its suitabability to attracting the kind of people Weishaupt was trying to recruit at that time and place.
Underneath all the layers of disinformation and bullshit is the simplest truth of all: nothing ever changes. Wars are fought by those in power both to scare the shit out of their subjects (keep them loyal) and - to the extent they are able - to maneuver for more territorial power vis-a-vis their true rivals. In other words, just because somebody has the label "King" or "President" doesn't mean they hold real power. They may just be a figurehead or placeholder for someone pulling the strings behind the scenes (as famously stated by Prime Minister D'Israeli).
So, when you see a propaganda photo of Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin and another of Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito, you can be sure that these are just the poster-boys. They're the team captains, the guys we're supposed to be rooting for or against. This is "history for the masses", history reduced to a series of Red versus Blue football matches fought with guns, tanks and bombs.
Membership in "the Club" is not even determined by your family lineage, it is determined by what Machiavelli called virtu - roughly translatable as power. Those in the Club are privy to the Big Lies. Every nation has its own Big Lies, its revisions of its own history. But the Big Lies concerning all these revolutions and wars are held in common between different nations, between different power groups. To a large extent, their power is rooted in the Big Lies. This is why membership is so coveted. Once you're in the club, you have the keys to the kingdom; you know which threats are real and which are not. Back in the middle ages, the commoner may have feared God's wrath and eternal punishment in Hell but the King did not because he knew the Pope was full of shit. That's a pretty big advantage, don't you think?
This is what all the crap about the New World Order / CFR / Bilderberg / etc. is really all about. All these buzzwords like "New World Order" are thrown out there to keep people busy worrying about non-threats... like a New World Order. In an era where the US President can securely teleconference with his Generals regarding nuclear war over a remote, encrypted video-link, do you really think the psychopaths that attend Bilderberg need to physically meet in one location? Of course not. The meeting may have served a real purpose while they were planning the Euro, but that has long gone - today, the purpose of the meeting is to keep people who are looking for a conspiracy talking about something other than the real conspiracy.
OK, I had no intention of writing all this when I started. </incoherent rambling>
Clayton -
Do you know how many segments the globe in the UN logo is divided into? That's right, the same number as the flames surrounding the Jesuit solar emblem.
The U.N. logo was designed by its founder, Alger Hiss, who based it on the Soviet coat of arms which says "Workers of the world unite". I don't know what emblem you are talking about. I didn't find anything that looks like that in google for "jesuit solar emblem". It's just the Soviet emblem without the Russian themes.
The Illuminati was a short lived secret society with the goal of overthrowing the European governments and the Church. A. Weishaupt combined the Oath of Loyalty of the Jesuits with the heirarchical order of Masonry. The addition was the information that was retained at the top and not known at the bottom.
The Jacobins took Weishaupt's model and added the sexual twist (think de Sade) of intimating one's secrets upon entry that way you will follow what the upper class says or they will exploit what they know about you.
Masonic lodges have always been a hub for mafia's, intelligence agencies, diplomats, etc. They also carry down the symbolic philosophy of antiquity. Much of masonry is a combination of Graeco-Egyptian-Druidic-Roman symbolic philosophy. The Rosicrucians are similar with Early Judaism/Kabbalism/Gnostic Christianity, they are likely the group of people that wrote the Shakespearean works. They thought of Francis Bacon as "neo-Prometheus'. R.C. Christian is the name given by the donor of the Georgia Guidestones; a likely reference to the mythical inspiration of Christian Rosenkreuz. This points to them (or a homage to the thought of them) as being the hidden hand behind population control and environmental integrity.
Masons have been very very influential. Lodges are power hubs. The tease about alchemy, enlightenment, but they do not teach anything specific. Symbolic philosophy is basically a constant Rorschach test; tarot, cabbalah, etc. are examples of this. 'Deus ex machina; ut supra sic ut infra' is the only real tenet I've been able to pickup. Masonry preserves these traditions. However, the obvious psychological manipulation that can take place does, in fact, take place.
Some people are adepts and keen on the "game" while others are pawns placed and culled when necessary.
Masonic lodges played roles in both the American and French revolutions, the lead up to WWI, and Op Gladio. All intelligence/mafia related. It is where top elements go for "gentlemen's agreements."
Phrases like 'NWO, illuminati, TPTB, the Establishment, Miitary/Industrial Complex, etc.' all euphemise the ruling class. But, like words often do, the terms divide perspective. And that is why they are used.
Libido Dominandi
The Secret Teachings of All Ages
NATOs Secret Armies
The Use of Force
Intended Consequences
I'm currently reading The Secret Teachings of All Ages. Every now and then, I feel like he goes all Dungeons-n-Dragons occult-nerd but there's a lot of good stuff in there, particularly regarding the breakdown of the old "schools of thought" and its discoordinating effects on modern thinking (I wrote a post on my Blavatsky thread inspired, in part, by this).
Longer than lifespan conspiracies seem highly unlikely due to the lack of return on investment for the people that begin them. I can see the huge volume of communist agents creating World War 2, UN and IMF for ideological reasons. I'm sure they served as useful idiots for some war profiteers. But, I can't see one world government being based on any kind of financial motive. It just takes too long.
While I really don't go into "conspiracy" thinking, nor do I really care about the results of such things; there is one thing I do find interesting.
In general if a left wing intellectual does something similar- he is doing a "geneology" and is considred a philosopher
if a "right wing" type does this he is a conspiracy nut
I know there are differences, but they're subtle enough not to make a big deal over. The end result is the left wing "geneologist" is "correct", because his views are more accepted for whatever reason. If a subjective taste or perspective on history / narrative is not fashionable in talking about to "the culture" as a whole it is "wrong" to care about because the product is no longr in demand by the relevant powers it wishes to assess or the demographics on which it wishes to rabble rouse.
The left wing intellectual class had this figured out long ago (all history is to be used for politics, etc) - they will call such techniques subversion, deconstruction, and genologies. Fortunately we figured out the same thing and have the better "picture" of how it works and what the consequences are we just call it "market economics" - and it defines and trumps everything the left is trying and succeding at doing.
By their own damn philosophies - their artists, morals, and systems are nothing more than mere products to be consumed. By their own lips i find they condemn themselves to being "crass" entrepeneurs, speculators and ad execs that they loath so much. And like many of the corporations they hate so much or the aristocrats they overthrew, they are a subsidized class. How's that for irony. Socialism is indeed a grammatical error.
As far as Masons preserving traditions, not as much anymore. I doubt a lot of Masons have interests in understanding of in depth philosophy and occult matters and they've probably lowered their standards on who can be involved in the lodge. Stephen Flowers who teaches mythology at a Texas college and has written and translated uncountable books on occultism and mysticism was kicked out of a lodge because they were uncomfortable him being there after he showed them some books he wrote. If Masons had interests in such things that wouldn't be the case, I think it's merely shifted interests. Instead of "enlightenment" it's down to positions in power, moving people up in a corporate setting.
Socialism is indeed a grammatical error.
I may have to use this in the future.
If Masons had interests in such things that wouldn't be the case, I think it's merely shifted interests. Instead of "enlightenment" it's down to positions in power, moving people up in a corporate setting.
This is more than likely true. Today, Masonry has devolved into backroom circle jerks for the elites. (Even though Dionysian parties are that).
I happen to think that introspective "religion" is more useful than one that is extraverted. Graeco/Egyptian Hermeticism is more usefull than the three major religions today. Hermes doesn't tell me to kill anyone so that they understand him. He lets me know I can only understand me.
Also, these might be useful:
Templars and the Assassins - Yes, the game is loosely based on this history. Templars/Masons = fine line
Promethea - Hermeticism for the layman. Questions of psychological occultism are entertained here.
Heavens' Fractal Net
Hermes doesn't tell me to kill anyone.
He wouldn't be much of a god of commerce if he did.
Was American Masonry different to European Masonry in the late 1700's? The American Revolution happened in the same period as the French, and many prominent American revolutionary figures were Freemasons, but the American Revolution turned out completely differently to the French, as if there were a completely different ideological impetus behind it.
Didn't George Washington write paranoid rants about "black lodges" from Bavaria infecting Masonry, or is that just hearsay?
He is the Greek/Egyptian god of the intellect, not of commerce. The secular Romans saw Mercury (basically the Roman Hermes) as a God of commerce.
Here is something interesting from the wiki:
"The Hermetic literature added to the Egyptian concerns with conjuring spirits and animating statues that inform the oldest texts, Hellenistic writings of Greco-Babylonian astrology and the newly developed practice of alchemy (Fowden 1993: pp65–68). In a parallel tradition, Hermetic philosophy rationalized and systematized religious cult practices and offered the adept a method of personal ascension from the constraints of physical being, which has led to confusion of Hermeticism with Gnosticism, which was developing contemporaneously.[9]
As a divine source of wisdom, Hermes Trismegistus was credited with tens of thousands of writings of high standing, reputed to be of immense antiquity. Plato's Timaeus and Critias state that in the temple of Neith at Sais, there were secret halls containing historical records which had been kept for 9,000 years. Clement of Alexandria was under the impression that the Egyptians had forty-two sacred writings by Hermes, encapsulating all the training of Egyptian priests. Siegfried Morenz has suggested (Egyptian Religion) "The reference to Thoth's authorship...is based on ancient tradition; the figure forty-two probably stems from the number of Egyptian nomes, and thus conveys the notion of completeness." The Neo-Platonic writers took up Clement's "forty-two essential texts".
The Hermetica, is a category of papyri containing spells and initiatory induction procedures. In the dialogue called the Asclepius (after the Greek god of healing) the art of imprisoning the souls of demons or of angels in statues with the help of herbs, gems and odors, is described, such that the statue could speak and engage in prophecy. In other papyri, there are recipes for constructing such images and animating them, such as when images are to be fashioned hollow so as to enclose a magic name inscribed on gold leaf."
I'm not sure that some of the same elements were not involved, but Jefferson and Washington wrote about how they despised the Jacobins, but liked the concept of Weishaupt's Illuminati (which was to overthrow the continental governments and the church; things we'd all agree with here). As far as I know they only mentioned Masonry a few times. Washington, when he was President said something like, "I haven't been in a lodge for thirty years or more..." I hear people say Jefferson was (obviously Franklin was) a Mason, but have found nothing corroborating it. He was just interested in the same things.
E Michael Jones has done a lot of research into the French Masons and the Revolution. Be careful where you cite him and make sure you can understand and/or explain his religious beliefs to yourself. He can be too much for some people. He is an "Augustine Catholic."
@Aristophanes: I'm highly interested in rationalist re-interpretations of past mystical/spiritual teachings. Consider telekinesis, for example - all human action can be thought of as a form of telekinesis. Whenever you lift your arm, you have altered the physical world merely by the power of your mind, have you not? Do you think there is a rationalist interpretation of these practices? In other words, can we think of magic as a ritualization of the bringing about of desired states of affairs?
I don't mean to be deflationary; the metaphor cuts both ways. We may as well think of human action as telekinesis as vice-versa because, at root, we really don't understand how it all works. Respect for the metaphor is motivated by the humility of acknowledging that there is a lot more that we don't understand about the world than we do. Perhaps we can speak of all human action as a form of magic? Is not persuading people to do things on your behalf a form of casting a spell on them?
In other words, can we think of magic as a ritualization of the bringing about of desired states of affairs?
!!!! The word. Magic!
Grimoire (book of spells) = grammar
casting a spell = spelling a word
cursing something/one = writing in cursive.
witch = etymology; 'wit' (according to Freud, wit is 'clever word play')
I think the concept is that man is god because we can perceive time (a supposed dimension animals are unaware of) and we can manipulate the world around us.
The telekinesis thing is a little different. I think our brians might be capable of som serious electromagnetic energy. If we could direct it, it might be strong enough to move physical objects?
Is not persuading people to do things on your behalf a form of casting a spell on them?
Yes, exactly. Look at Socrates in Plato's Apologia. The people thought him to be speaking the words of demons for convincing them beyond their own understanding of what he taught. He taught people to think. He convinced them and they thoughht he was tricking them, so they put him to death. Just like a witch.
Plutarch quotes a letter from Alexander to Aristotle in his Life of Alexander that says something like 'Why did you pubish Rhetoric? Now anyone who has been trained to read as we have will understand the extent of my dominion. I'd rather tell them what is good then them to figure it out for themselves.' Alexander, upset because people will see through his manipulative words.
Logos in the greek bible is 'word' in Greek, but gets translated as 'god' or the 'with god'.
Whenever you lift your arm, you have altered the physical world merely by the power of your mind, have you not?
Do you think the mind (or soul/conciouness w/e) is its own entity locked in a physical body?
Hugo - Fiat Lux
"1 1 2 3 5 Let It Reign"
Alan Moore - Art is Magic (he calls it the science of words; manipulating symbols to achieve changes in consiousness)
Yea, my freaking videos didn't embed. THEY NEVER DO!