The Freemasons aren't gnostics. Their theology is a rehashing of Gnosticism, which had as its basis the theology of Marcion of Sinope, which was itself a radical reading of Pauline theology (as an aside, mainstream Christianity is also based principally on Pauline theology, not the theology expressed by Jesus in the Gospels).
But whereas Gnosticism did not celebrate the rebel angels in their defiance of the demiurge, and did celebrate Jesus Christ as the son of the Highest, atemporal, infinite God, Freemasons celebrate Lucifer (and his company), see him as a liberator, and see Jesus Christ as the insidious redeemer of the oppressive, tyrannous morality of the demiurge (i.e. Yahweh).
These are crucial differences. While Gnosticism was a misguided, grassroots religion based on the demonic gospel, theology and ontology of Paul, it was not anti-moral the way high-level Freemasonry is. Whereas high level Masons practice an Satanic mystery cult which uses its temples and "fraternity" as a filter and proving ground for psychopathy, and weaponizes its iteration of the noble lie to betray the trust of lower level masons and prey upon and manipulate humanity at large. I don't doubt that Bacon helped to create this kind of cult. He seemed obsessed with power and control, and into homosexuality which is rampant in such cults.
Also, William Shakespeare wrote the plays attributed to him. And I don't disagree with the fact Bacon was a major conspirator and all-around son of a bitch, but he didn't write the plays of Shakespeare. I would happily debate anyone on this topic any day of the week.
I could literally write a book on the subject if the Baconian conspiracy argument was worth addressing at this point, but I do have to point out some of the more blatant inaccuracies made in your arguments:
Scholars are virtually all in agreement that because his father, John Shakespeare, was town bailiff, Shakespeare would've attended the King's New School, a local "grammar" school that had a seven year program, where boys attended the school twelve hours per day, six days per week, and only had several days of religious holidays per year. Furthermore, their main subject of study, and the only primary lens through which they learned other subjects, was Latin.
So, we're talking well over 30,000 hours of Latin instruction for this "nobody" Shakespeare whom you claim to be illiterate - or 3x the time it takes even average people to gain mastery over a discipline. To put this in perspective, I graduated with highest honors in English Literature (and Rhetoric) form UC Berkeley back when that joke of an institution supposedly had the highest-ranked English department in the country, but my education in letters was a literal joke compared to the one Shakespeare received. A pathetic joke.
Furthermore, your claim that the first time Shakespeare was introduced to the world was in the posthumous publication of his folios is false: His first published works were his sonnets, published in 1609, during his lifetime, when he was already widely regarded by commentators as one of the most gifted writers of his generation. You make the argument that the "play is powerful" - so powerful, somehow, that it was a necessary component of English empire. Well, I'll refrain from going into the fact that Shakespeare's plays are often critical of empire and acquisitiveness in general, and simply ask: Why was it seen as critical by these Baconian conspirators to feed Shakespeare 151 sonnets during a time when he couldn't work with his actors on productions? Strange that they wouldn't have written things more political for him during that period - rather than love poems and vignettes on death, lol.
Again, these are just tiny scraps of my overall reasoning, and I'm only articulating them to rebut inaccurate statements you've stressed repeatedly. That said, I'll gladly debate you or anyone on this topic, or better yet, have a 2 v. 2 debate on the topic with a friend of mine and any Baconian conspiracy expert you can muster.
There's only one extant manuscript containing Marlowe's handwriting - the will of Katherine Benchkin. I guess this means his authorship is also a fabrication. Shakespeare's plays are clearly critical of English imperialism and the idea of divine right in general, so if his plays were meant to be a magnum opus of imperial propaganda, they were curiously composed. Bacon's published writings lack any poetic imagination and are the work of a proto-technocrat. Raleigh's are at least more imaginative, but the idea that these sorts of thinkers could somehow brainstorm works immeasurably more imaginative, insightful, complex and nuanced that arrive at conclusions that run contrary to their author's beliefs is frankly laughable.
The New Atlantis is not in favor of the Divine Right.
And we don't have any evidence that Marlowe was a playwright and that his name Marley or Marlowe was another pen name.
The Poet Shelley said that Bacon was poetical. In the 32 eulogies by Bacon's peers, "Manes Verulamani," Bacon was praised as both a poet and philosopher. Bacon referred to himself as a "concealed poet."
This comment of yours is preposterous. “Shakespeare's plays are clearly critical of English imperialism and the idea of divine right in general,”. Shakespeare plays are the opposite, they support divine right continuously. All Shakespeare scholars agree. Hello. “We band of brothers” speech made on foreign soul?
There is NO EVIDENCE Stratford Will ever went to school. Even if so, Latin alone would not have pulled off the plays. He owned no books. He never wrote a letter. No one wrote him a letter. He was never paid for a play. He spent all his time on other activities. He wrote about things he could in no way have any knowledge of. His kids were illiterate.
As for Bacon the evidence is astonishingly overwhelming. Essay on that coming today.
I’m just telling people what I have learned. These are all verifiable facts about Shakespeare authorship and thousands of books about it have been written.
I’m taking it a step further, statung that it was an intelligence operation, because Bacon was in intelligence his whole life. I’m learning new facts about it everyday. Mind continually blown. Bacon definitely wrote the plays beyond a shadow of a doubt. Who helped him? That’s the remaining question.
I appreciated reading the detailed response you gave here.
I’m fairly new to the Shakespeare conspiracy theories.
I have a masters in humanities, and was (am?) an avid adorer of WS work. But, since learning a bit more from Robert Frederick and others that the man we were taught to believe is not the actual man, my passion has been stifled a little for Shakespeare. I don’t read him in the same way; formerly as an egregiously God given talent the world has never known, but now as an extremely gifted and intelligent pazi who was seeking to prop up empire and masonry.
You provided some balance. I’m open to more reading from you if you could provide any.
Great to hear from you. I want you to know that I listened to your latest podcast on the Delingpole all afternoon at work.
I was captivated. I’m very glad to have discovered you. You’re opening up more of the world I feel like the Lord has been showing me about the world truly functions.
I will gladly read your latest article, and will share thoughts in the comments upon the completion.
The 2015 GQ article is heavily paywalled, but Google offers a snippet: “On most Mondays, Elon Musk reads his original 1627 edition of Francis Bacon's New Atlantis…” Why am I not reassured?
“On most Mondays, Elon Musk reads his original 1627 edition of Francis Bacon's New Atlantis…” Where can you find the context of that quote and or the rest of the article?
Hello, I am a rabid follower of conspiracies - especially those which touch spiritual subjects
One of the source which always proved to be valuable often states that some entities of interest are actually group efforts - something that never crosses my mind
Shakespeare <> Group of writers (vs "Francis Bacon")
It would make sense in the context you state (freemasonry etc). Shakespeare would be akin to a sum up of some spiritual stuffs, intended to be convincing - or else.
Yeah. Once ya see it it’s very clear. But he was a master sorcerer, and he could stand right in front of entire theaters and convince everyone he wasn’t there.
Just wait and see what they've got planned for so called AI(Artificial Intelligence) 😏
The Freemasons aren't gnostics. Their theology is a rehashing of Gnosticism, which had as its basis the theology of Marcion of Sinope, which was itself a radical reading of Pauline theology (as an aside, mainstream Christianity is also based principally on Pauline theology, not the theology expressed by Jesus in the Gospels).
But whereas Gnosticism did not celebrate the rebel angels in their defiance of the demiurge, and did celebrate Jesus Christ as the son of the Highest, atemporal, infinite God, Freemasons celebrate Lucifer (and his company), see him as a liberator, and see Jesus Christ as the insidious redeemer of the oppressive, tyrannous morality of the demiurge (i.e. Yahweh).
These are crucial differences. While Gnosticism was a misguided, grassroots religion based on the demonic gospel, theology and ontology of Paul, it was not anti-moral the way high-level Freemasonry is. Whereas high level Masons practice an Satanic mystery cult which uses its temples and "fraternity" as a filter and proving ground for psychopathy, and weaponizes its iteration of the noble lie to betray the trust of lower level masons and prey upon and manipulate humanity at large. I don't doubt that Bacon helped to create this kind of cult. He seemed obsessed with power and control, and into homosexuality which is rampant in such cults.
Also, William Shakespeare wrote the plays attributed to him. And I don't disagree with the fact Bacon was a major conspirator and all-around son of a bitch, but he didn't write the plays of Shakespeare. I would happily debate anyone on this topic any day of the week.
I could literally write a book on the subject if the Baconian conspiracy argument was worth addressing at this point, but I do have to point out some of the more blatant inaccuracies made in your arguments:
Scholars are virtually all in agreement that because his father, John Shakespeare, was town bailiff, Shakespeare would've attended the King's New School, a local "grammar" school that had a seven year program, where boys attended the school twelve hours per day, six days per week, and only had several days of religious holidays per year. Furthermore, their main subject of study, and the only primary lens through which they learned other subjects, was Latin.
So, we're talking well over 30,000 hours of Latin instruction for this "nobody" Shakespeare whom you claim to be illiterate - or 3x the time it takes even average people to gain mastery over a discipline. To put this in perspective, I graduated with highest honors in English Literature (and Rhetoric) form UC Berkeley back when that joke of an institution supposedly had the highest-ranked English department in the country, but my education in letters was a literal joke compared to the one Shakespeare received. A pathetic joke.
Furthermore, your claim that the first time Shakespeare was introduced to the world was in the posthumous publication of his folios is false: His first published works were his sonnets, published in 1609, during his lifetime, when he was already widely regarded by commentators as one of the most gifted writers of his generation. You make the argument that the "play is powerful" - so powerful, somehow, that it was a necessary component of English empire. Well, I'll refrain from going into the fact that Shakespeare's plays are often critical of empire and acquisitiveness in general, and simply ask: Why was it seen as critical by these Baconian conspirators to feed Shakespeare 151 sonnets during a time when he couldn't work with his actors on productions? Strange that they wouldn't have written things more political for him during that period - rather than love poems and vignettes on death, lol.
Again, these are just tiny scraps of my overall reasoning, and I'm only articulating them to rebut inaccurate statements you've stressed repeatedly. That said, I'll gladly debate you or anyone on this topic, or better yet, have a 2 v. 2 debate on the topic with a friend of mine and any Baconian conspiracy expert you can muster.
has anyone ever produced a letter from the Stratford man? His legacy is illiterate.
There's only one extant manuscript containing Marlowe's handwriting - the will of Katherine Benchkin. I guess this means his authorship is also a fabrication. Shakespeare's plays are clearly critical of English imperialism and the idea of divine right in general, so if his plays were meant to be a magnum opus of imperial propaganda, they were curiously composed. Bacon's published writings lack any poetic imagination and are the work of a proto-technocrat. Raleigh's are at least more imaginative, but the idea that these sorts of thinkers could somehow brainstorm works immeasurably more imaginative, insightful, complex and nuanced that arrive at conclusions that run contrary to their author's beliefs is frankly laughable.
The New Atlantis is not in favor of the Divine Right.
And we don't have any evidence that Marlowe was a playwright and that his name Marley or Marlowe was another pen name.
The Poet Shelley said that Bacon was poetical. In the 32 eulogies by Bacon's peers, "Manes Verulamani," Bacon was praised as both a poet and philosopher. Bacon referred to himself as a "concealed poet."
This comment of yours is preposterous. “Shakespeare's plays are clearly critical of English imperialism and the idea of divine right in general,”. Shakespeare plays are the opposite, they support divine right continuously. All Shakespeare scholars agree. Hello. “We band of brothers” speech made on foreign soul?
There is NO EVIDENCE Stratford Will ever went to school. Even if so, Latin alone would not have pulled off the plays. He owned no books. He never wrote a letter. No one wrote him a letter. He was never paid for a play. He spent all his time on other activities. He wrote about things he could in no way have any knowledge of. His kids were illiterate.
As for Bacon the evidence is astonishingly overwhelming. Essay on that coming today.
Where and when and how do we debate? Let’s go!
Is your interest to be right or to learn?
I’m just telling people what I have learned. These are all verifiable facts about Shakespeare authorship and thousands of books about it have been written.
I’m taking it a step further, statung that it was an intelligence operation, because Bacon was in intelligence his whole life. I’m learning new facts about it everyday. Mind continually blown. Bacon definitely wrote the plays beyond a shadow of a doubt. Who helped him? That’s the remaining question.
My latest essay- coming to Substack soon.
The Overwhelming Proof: Bacon Wrote The Plays
https://www.patreon.com/posts/130344949?utm_campaign=postshare_creator
Hey Rabbit.
I appreciated reading the detailed response you gave here.
I’m fairly new to the Shakespeare conspiracy theories.
I have a masters in humanities, and was (am?) an avid adorer of WS work. But, since learning a bit more from Robert Frederick and others that the man we were taught to believe is not the actual man, my passion has been stifled a little for Shakespeare. I don’t read him in the same way; formerly as an egregiously God given talent the world has never known, but now as an extremely gifted and intelligent pazi who was seeking to prop up empire and masonry.
You provided some balance. I’m open to more reading from you if you could provide any.
Thanks PJ. The level of his genius only goes up with what I am saying. But it’s an intensely diabolical genius. Try this one for instance: https://robertfrederick.substack.com/p/the-occult-shakespeare-the-hidden.
Also: A new piece dropping today: “On The Impossibility Of Shakespeare Having Written The Plays: The Tooth Fairy Fallacy”
Rob,
Great to hear from you. I want you to know that I listened to your latest podcast on the Delingpole all afternoon at work.
I was captivated. I’m very glad to have discovered you. You’re opening up more of the world I feel like the Lord has been showing me about the world truly functions.
I will gladly read your latest article, and will share thoughts in the comments upon the completion.
The 2015 GQ article is heavily paywalled, but Google offers a snippet: “On most Mondays, Elon Musk reads his original 1627 edition of Francis Bacon's New Atlantis…” Why am I not reassured?
“On most Mondays, Elon Musk reads his original 1627 edition of Francis Bacon's New Atlantis…” Where can you find the context of that quote and or the rest of the article?
Disturbing. I’ve heard similar things about Peter Thiel. They want to be as gods.
The ketamine abuse may fit in here.
Hello, I am a rabid follower of conspiracies - especially those which touch spiritual subjects
One of the source which always proved to be valuable often states that some entities of interest are actually group efforts - something that never crosses my mind
Shakespeare <> Group of writers (vs "Francis Bacon")
It would make sense in the context you state (freemasonry etc). Shakespeare would be akin to a sum up of some spiritual stuffs, intended to be convincing - or else.
Yeah. Once ya see it it’s very clear. But he was a master sorcerer, and he could stand right in front of entire theaters and convince everyone he wasn’t there.