Mark Passio - Well Worth The Time

Natural Law as the teaching of "Luciferianism" i.e., Enlightenment.  


Despite this fellow's attack on "all religions as false and evil" the greater portion of what he says about natural law is "correct." However, taken outside the understanding of the Holy Trinity Passio's exercise, to "free humanity from the hypnosis of the dark occultists," he merely teaches the "religion" of Anarchy. And yes, Anarchy is a religion as taught by Passio, we could further say, using his definition and how he teaches Anarchy, that he has "occulted it", and not in a good way. (more on this later)

However, even Passio's teaching of "Natural Law" is "theologizing" even though he calls it "a science, and not religion at all, not at all."

I explain in my article written many years ago, "The Three Paths of Theology/Spirituality" "one is a theologian whether one intends to theologize or not."  Passio is an excellent "second path" theologian.

(LINK: The Three Paths of Theology/Spirituality) 

That Passio is "theologizing" and teaching a "religion" is self-evident if we look at some of the historic definitions of the concept of religion. We will discover that Passio's "philosophy of Natural Law" and his faulty conclusion of "Anarchy" actually fits three different definitions of religion.

In "Human Personality" (London 1903) Dr Leuba defines "religion" as, "The sane and normal response of the human spirit to all that we know of cosmic law." I think Passio would love this definition and accept it as true, and would see it even more true if we altered the phrase "normal response" with "natural response" or "desired response."  He would claim however that Christianity does not provide this and does not teach it. He is wrong at least as it applies to ancient and Orthodox Christianity.

Frazer in, "The Golden Bough," a book I'm sure Passio is MORE than familiar with, defines religion saying, "By religion, then, I understand a propitiation or conciliation of powers superior to man which are believed to direct and control the course of Nature and of human life." Again, Passio explains in detail why the Quality of human life is controlled by coming into "harmony" with the "powers superior to man" as exhibited in the "laws of nature."

James Martineau, in his "A Study of Religion" states that religion is "the belief in an everliving (sic) God, that is, in a Divine Mind and Will ruling the Universe and holding moral relations with mankind."
Passio certainly teaches this in his very narrow but very true definition of the morality demanded by Natural Law and "the Creator of the Universe."

Dr. McTaggart defined religion in his "Some Dogmas of Religion" as, "Religion is clearly a state of mind . . . It seems to me that it may best be described as an emotion resting on a conviction of harmony between ourselves and the universe at large."

Passio also explained in his own "testimony" how he views this as the central theme and reality he had achieved = i.e. his own "balance" between the left and right half functions of his brain, placing him in harmony with the Universe.

Passio's very well thought out presentation so then, describes his religion as (1) a mode of behavior, (2) an intellectual belief or opinion (learning to balance the right and left half of the brain, etc) and (3) a system of feelings - "learning to care."

So far so good. However then Passio goes off the rails promulgating his "occult" which is, a lower religion of Anarchy. (Third Video in the series). He begins by first giving a totally false etymology for the word Anarchy. He defines it etymologically as an-arkon - that is without ruler.  How very convenient for him, but it takes some verbal gymnastics and inNORance of facts to come to his conclusion. 

Actually Anarchy is simply an-archy, = without principle. The very first words of Genesis in the earliest Greek bible, extant copies hundreds of years older than extant copies of the Hebrew scripture, are, Ἐν ἀρχῇ - en-archy - it means "in the first principle", God Created. It is usually translated "in the beginning", however its primary meaning is "in the first principle." This interpretation is confirmed when the Greek was translated into Latin as "in principio". Both archy and principio can be used to have meaning as an "analogy of time." The Hebrew also conveys the meaning of "principle" in the word used, ראשׁית = ray-sheeth, which holds the meaning of the first, in time, in order or rank, first and principle.

Greek "AN" meaning "without," combined with "archy" as in anarchy clearly means WITHOUT PRINCIPLE, NOT WITHOUT RULER as Passio suggests.

So the masterful teaching of natural law, by Passio is the preamble for his "occulted religion" where he HIDES the meaning of Anarchy, while suggesting that Natural Law "suggests it" in fact demands it as the only form of LIBERTY and Freedom. He hides the meaning of Anarchy - without principle, and offers that it really means, "the moral adherence to natural law" having defined that "moral adherence" simply in New Age terms or better in terms of Theosophy. What he then takes great effort to teach is ultimately rejection of the Laws of God (Natural Law and Moral Law) and a rejections of ALL principle, except in this case of the principles as held and understood by the so-called "ancient pagans of Light" i.e., the good "Luciferians" for whom Passio is their evangelist.

While I'm sure that Passio could give many examples of abuses at the hands of every system of Government, I'm sure that he would reject the idea that there could be "just governance."  In truth there is no "just governance" so long as man is evil, governance will remain, only in degrees, more just or less just.  This is the story of all history. Even the pre-king "families" where mere judges adjudicated disputes, there were "un-just judges." And prior to the extended families called tribes, there were Patriarchs, who "ruled" families, and justice was as variable in quality as his heart was mutable.

What Passio has not offered is a single instance, a single situation where Anarchy was NOT chaos and death.  Even though he argues passionately that it is not. But history records, The Jacobin Anarchists, the Japanese Anarchists in China, the killing fields of Anarchy in Cambodia.  This is the history and I would challenge him to present a positive example.  He will be left to give examples of people in dire circumstances, who because of isolated location are forced to depend upon one another, and cooperate, etc.  This is not anarchy, because they did not arrive in the situation from a vacuum without principles.  Even the most isolated and primitive indigenous peoples, subsisting in "tribes" have strong principles and penalties for infractions. There are no primitive anarchist tribes, they all have a system of governance.

Let me suggest that were every people on earth conversant with natural law, and not prone to sin, man would need no further governance.  But the second that mankind bought the first lie, "today you will be as God" governance has been necessary, for the survival of the human species.

However, at present we are in the control, endangered by insane and genocidal governance, and the reason I suggest that ANYONE and EVERYONE view Mr Passio's lecture on Natural Law, is because he gives a very clear and reasonable presentation of "unalienable rights."  Americans talk about "unalienable rights" and immediately start talking about Constitutional Nostalgia, NOT realizing that these unalienable natural rights have NOTHING to do with paper and ink, are immutable and unalterable by any body of men, nor may they be protected, except by the muscular exercise of the same.  Just as a man's heart can fail him, and his muscles atrophy from disuse, so may a man's natural rights be surrendered to evil, decimated by his own IN ACTION.

It is a great insight that Passio shares, that RIGHTS are not concepts, but actions. And that is true, except he argues himself against it being "absolutely true." Since he argues rightly, that no action can occur without first being formed as a thought, so also no RIGHT ACTION can be initiated without conscious or unconscious knowledge of the same. Knowing ones unalienable rights and acting upon them cannot be separate events, since one informs the other. 

If you read my comments above, you will have a clear idea why this following debate was silly from the start.  God help the man who had this lawyer to defend him. This is a debate on the "viability" of Anarchy and it is clearly a "setup" to make Anarchy seem, reasoned and reasonable.