Schwaller De Lubicz and the Fourth Reich Laura Knight-Jadczyk
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Schwaller de Lubicz and the Fourth Reich Laura Knight-Jadczyk Many readers have written to me asking about the work of Rene Schwaller de Lubicz, and why I have suggested that work based on his ideas is misleading. I have before me the lovely boxed set of his magnum opus, The Temple of Man, in which Schwaller makes all kinds of claims about the "pharaonic intelligence" and thought, which we must take as true simply because he says so. Oh, indeed, he does attempt to dazzle the ignorant and easy believer with his mathematical and "symbolique" feats of cerebral derring-do, but when his sentences are examined carefully for content, one makes the most distressing discovery that the word density of Schwaller is quite low. And he helpfully informs us at the beginning, in case we don't get it, that if we don't get it, it's going to be our fault because we aren't bright enough to get it. Schwaller de Lubicz settled in Egypt in 1938 and for the next 15 years studied the symbolism of the temples, particularly Luxor, finding what he considered to be proof that the ancient Egyptians were the ultimate examples of Synarchy, because the were ruled by a group of elite initiates. He failed to point out that the Egyptian civilization was static and limited. What's more, it caved in on itself, and never managed to produce any significant work of benefit for humanity, as mathematician Otto Neugebauer showed. In fact, Neugebauer made it clear that the Egyptian civilization was a hindrance to the development of mankind. The Pharaonic lifestyle was that of a small group of the "elite," served and worshipped by everyone else - and that all others were, essentially, expendable. But let's back up a bit and review some history. Clement of Alexandria established the idea that the "true philosophy" was Hebrew, and that it was preserved most closely in the Egyptian "Mystery Schools." I would like for the reader who has not done so, to stop right now and read my series of article entitle Who Wrote the Bible? for a better understanding of why this single point is so important. The Ten Commandments declares from the start: "I am the Lord Your God." But that's only half the story. A reading of the full verse shows how belief in the God of Torah is predicated on the Exodus experience: "I am the Lord Your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt from the house of slavery." The Jewish people have survived for thousands of years, against all odds, because, as they say, "we knew clearly the truth of Torah." When the Jews who lived during the times of the Crusades chose to be burned at the stake rather than convert, they were certain that they were not dying for a god and a religion that was based on lies. Many Jews nowadays, in reaction to "biblical revisionism," claim that to suggest otherwise is to insult the millions of Jews who have died for their beliefs. If Torah isn't true, what were they dying for? And if Torah wasn't true, on what is the "New Covenant of Christ based? What is more, to say that the Bible is composed from four different texts, and that we have an idea of how it was "invented" or from what other traditions the stories may have been borrowed with a greater or lesser degree of distortion, does not deal with the central issue. When we have taken the whole thing apart and have ascertained, as much as possible, the approximate legitimacy of each element, there still remains another question that actually constitutes the essence of the matter: What are the main trends of the whole? What are the lines of force running through the ideological field in which the details are placed? Well, that started to bug me. I thought about the fact that the Jews are not the only ones who die for their beliefs, or who are dying right now for their beliefs, including many Palestinians. I would also like to point out that, because of the beliefs of the Jews, and the consequences of those beliefs, including the creation of Christianity, which was founded on the platform of Judaism, many multiplied millions of human beings have died. Out of the deaths that were the result of World War II, the deaths of Jews constitute only one tenth of the total. It could be then said that 55 million other human beings - most of them Christian - died for the sake of the beliefs of the Jews. It struck me forcibly that something was wrong with this picture. I then further considered the matter: as a result of Christianity, which evolved out of Judaism, we could begin to count the numbers of Native Americans, Hawaiians, Africans, South Americans, and a host of other peoples of a dozen or more other faiths that have given up their lives to the depredations of monotheism. The saying of Jesus, when he was accused of casting out demons by the power of Satan kept sneaking back into my head and whispering: "By their fruits you shall know them." And it was pretty evident that this idea that any one group had the hotline to God was a tree that bore very bitter fruit. It then struck me as strange that, automatically, I was using a saying of Jesus as a yardstick of reality in which I was trying to determine the reality of Jesus and all that went before. I realized how deeply this system pervades the psyche of the Western mind, and how nearly impossible it is to even formulate a coherent thought without it. Nevertheless, as a yardstick, the "fruits agenda" seemed to be useful. It suggested an empirically observable way in which we might evaluate our reality. We know, for example, that very often a beautiful plant, with succulent appearing fruit, can be deadly poison. Contrariwise, some plants that are really ordinary in appearance, with unattractive fruit, are quite tasty and beneficial. So, I decided that the "fruits agenda" could safely be employed as an evaluation criterion. I tried to imagine a situation in which monotheism - the idea of one, and only one, universal god with a "chosen group" of followers and priests - was not the arbiter of our reality. I tried to imagine a world where religion was not the reason people would consider themselves more special or "chosen" than other people, or more "right" or having a monopoly on the "real" Universal God, in the "right" context, and with the "right" rituals and modes of worship. I tried to imagine a world where "saving" others from their errors was not a priority, and I suddenly realized that such a world, where everyone accepted everyone else's view of god, or gods, or worship as being right for them, would be a far more pleasant world. And suddenly, I realized that Judaism is the trunk of the tree that bears bitter fruit, and monotheism is at the root of all the religions that dominate the Western world today. During Passover and on Good Friday of this year (2001), the Los Angeles Times published an article entitled Doubting the Story of Exodus. A number of Jewish commentators wrote scathingly that the "the timing was typical of the insensitivity often shown in mainstream media to religious Jews and Christians." This insensitivity was compared to publishing an article on Martin Luther King’s extramarital affairs on Martin Luther King Day. I had to wonder when I read that remark if the writer was even conscious of the comparison he was drawing: that there are "dirty secrets" behind Yahweh's claim to be a liberator and a "good guy?" And what is so "insensitive" about TRUTH? The main complaint of the Jews regarding the findings of the scholars (in this case, archaeologists in particular) that the Exodus never happened, is that their whole religion and claim to Palestine is based on Exodus. If the Exodus never happened, then there is nothing to Judaism. And, they have a point. But that is what the evidence shows: that the story of Exodus, as told by the Bible, simply never happened. Every effort and attempt to juggle the times, or suggest real historical explanations that might fit, end in failure. And believe me, I have read a lot of them looking for the one that might really fit myself! I admit that I have been as desperate as anyone to discover the "truth" of the Bible. One of my favorite arguments, for a rather long time, was to denigrate science as being full of anti-religious bias to begin with, and then I would point out all the accounts of scientific theories that have been proven wrong in order to support my argument. I would sneeringly remark that, since scientists can't make up their mind about anything, or since they often change their theories based on new data, that we ought not to believe any of them about anything until they finally give us the final and complete answer. Meanwhile, we are better off believing Yahweh and/or Jesus since they do claim to have the final answer! I would then point out how the Big Bang proved that God created the universe, and that scientists didn't like this theory because of that very reason. The fact of the matter is that now I have studied the Big Bang theory in some detail, and I realize that a more materialistic theory of the origins of the universe has never been invented, and it is actually not a very good one.