Letter of July 21, 2009 to Devvy Kidd
on "THE QUESTION OF FREEMASONRY"
E-mail from Bobby Garner to subscriber list
August 5, 2009
I didn't send the actual letter to the recipients list, but a notice of this posting was sent.
I sent the following letter via E-mail to Devvy Kidd on the 21st of July, 2009. Now on the 5th of August (over two weeks), I have not yet received a reply. Because of the nature of the subject, and the large volume of available evidence which I invited her to consider, I believe she owes us some answers.
The E-mail was in response to Devvy's article pub lished at NewsWithViews.com on June 8, 2009: "THE QUESTION OF FREEMASONRY". Reading that article, you will see that she essentially denies any knowledge of evidence of connections between Freemasonry and the New Age Movement. She is willing to consider them separately, and indeed acknowledges that she researched them as two different matters. This reply is a challenge to her separate treatment of those subjects not to mention the obvious bias in the manner of her research and continuing to insist that they are separate issues, apparently even after receiving this letter.
Ms. Kidd, I believe you owe us at least an acknowledgment, and hopefully some explanation.
[Dear] Devvy,
I have read where you said you researched freemasonry just as
you had researched the New Age as if you believe there is little or no
connection between them. I wonder whether you really believe that, or
maybe you never found anything specifically connecting them?
My reading of Alice Bailey strongly suggests that she mainly addressed
freemasonry as the primary organization to carry out "The Plan" (as she
called it) for the "New Age". She didn't say that participation
required membership in freemasonry. In fact she implied very little
criteria for those accepting her challenge. She thereby provided
plausible deniability for Freemasonry as an organization, as well as
individual members as you have observed. The denials are not credible
therefore. She indicated that each one who chose to accept "the
calling" would act under his own cognizance and initiative using his
own resources, and doing everything in his power to acquire more money
and other resources to be used in the effort. She also said they would
be above reproach, again just as you have noted..
All of the evidence of my research tells me that those who follow her
advice end up in the highest positions of freemasonry, but also in
positions of great power and considerable authority in government and
private institutions.She called such ones "World Servers" implying that
their influence reaches well beyond all national boundaries. There are
all the implications of globalism and one world government of course.
In this we can see that power and control are among the resources
Bailey advised them to pursue. They are not necessarily therefore, the
end objectives. They are rather, the means to the end. Following this
logic then, the end is not world government. One World Government is
the total power and control tool which will finally lock in the
objective.
The objective I believe, is the same as that expressed by Karl Marx.
Marx believed that a socialist dictatorship of the proletariat would
demand:
(1) The elimination of all right to private property;
(2) The dissolution of the family unit; and
(3) Destruction of religion, the "opiate of the people".
He believed that after these things had been accomplished globally the
all powerful state would miraculously wither away and we would have
Communism. Communism by this definition is not a repetition of bloody
revolutions as we had in Russia and China, but a Utopia which all the
New Age believes so strongly in. A "Brave New World" as Aldus Huxley
described it, or in Kennedy's words, "General and
Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World". Bailey herself literally
said it was "The
kingdom of God", "Our Immediate Goal".
We know that Communism was declared dead following the collapse of the
Soviet Union. What they meant was the end of the iron fisted bloody
revolutions associated with it. Immediately, they met in Rio and agreed
upon the terms and conditions (Agenda 21) which would soon introduce
Communitarianism as the method of implementing Sustainable Development,
the core feature of Agenda 21. Communitarianism therefore appears to be
the new label for their ideas of Utopia, replacing Communism according
to Marx. Of course, I believe Utopia is an impossible dream, and that
something really nasty will follow its failure.
I recently posted more on this line of reasoning in comments
on Niki Raapana's Blog. You interviewed her recently and I have the MP3
on congregator.net.
I wonder what might be your thoughts on this. Thank you in advance for
your kind reply.
Sincerely,
Bobby Garner
< Previous — E-mail Index — Next >
none
|