Media coverage of his death was minimal, as he died on 22 November 1963 – the same day that U.S. President John F. Kennedy was assassinated, and the same day another famous author, Aldous Huxley, died. ... On 22 November 1963 Lewis collapsed in his bedroom at 5:30 pm and died a few minutes later, one week before his 65th birthday.
5:30 pm Greenwich timezone=Central Time 11:30 am*
12:30 pm Central Time=Greewich Timezone
On his deathbed, unable to speak, Huxley made a written request to his wife Laura for "LSD, 100 µg, intramuscular". According to her account of his death in This Timeless Moment, she obliged with an injection at 11:45 am and another a couple of hours later. He died, aged 69, at 5:20 pm on 22 November 1963, several hours after the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
After? What timezone was that? LA, yes, that figures.
Shooting Kennedy cannot have been done to distract media coverage from Huxleys death, he died after Kennedy. But shooting Kennedy can have been done to distract media coverage from C. S. Lewis' death. Why would anyone do that? C S L's murderer? But, to all and any probability he was not murdered. Kennedy was. The effect - or one of them - of Kennedy's murder was to make media not cover C. S. L's death. Can it have been the intended one?
An Illuminati drop out or self claimed such claimed C. S. L. was bought by them, he had been making paychecks himself. So, what if they gave him gifts - he did toast to American benefactors - in order to make anyone inolved with them or knowing them well enough to do so despair about C. S. L. and by extention his positions, dangerous enough for them? Or what if they failed to do so and revenge themselves by either faking a drop out or blackmailing him to spread a lie?
For one thing, C. S. L. claimed that not burning witches is only a progress if one does not believe in witchcraft. I e, if there is real witchcraft, they deserve execution. For another thing, he believed, possibly that witchcraft was at least thinkable. For a third, he energically encouraged a retour** to Christianity as understood by Centuries that would have nothing to do with Luciferanism and similar ideologies. And if he did not himself encourage Inquisition - see Reply to Professor Haldane - some of the earlier Christian men he looked back to did.
Now, the maybe best known*** case against both Inquisition and Catholicism, by extension Traditional Christianity as such, was the Galileo case. What if heliocentrism, what he was put in house arrest for, with gentle treatment, simply is not true? C. S. L. thought it true, as can be seen from Out of a Silent Planet (though that is fiction). But he also thought a principle true which if applied to the opposite, geocentrism, is not very good for heliocentrism. I cite Peter Kreeft, who has written a whole novel about the fact that C. S. L. died a little earlier than J. F. Kennedy and Aldous Huxley.
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9446
The term "chronological snobbery" comes from C.S. Lewis (to my mind the clearest and most useful Christian writer since Thomas Aquinas) in his autobiography Surprised by Joy, where he gives his friend Owen Barfield credit for inventing it.
Lewis defines and refutes it at once as
the uncritical assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that account discredited. You must find out why it went out of date. Was it ever refuted (and if so by whom, where, and how conclusively) or did it merely die away as fashions do? If the latter, this tells us nothing about its truth or falsehood.
.... (Surprised by Joy, pp. 207-208).
Someone who wants us to believe Galileo was right and witches good physicians and Inquisitors super bastards would not be quite happy to see this applied to Geocentrism. Any more than he would like the presuppositions - anti-supranaturalist - that exclude witchcraft from being a fake accusation to be put into doubt.
So, yes, I think they counted C. S. Lewis as dangerous, that "paying him" - he was from his p o v not being paid but receivig gifts, with gratitude, a Christian thing / or it was simply a lie - was part of their strategy, that killing off media coverage was part of their strategy too, and that killing Kennedy was part of that part of their strategy. Paranoid enough to write detective novels? Maybe so, I was just thinking about that story of Chesterton, The Broken Sword. "To make a forest to hide a leaf is a heinous sin" ... I will not name (I have in fact forgotten his name which was probably fictional anyway) the officer in that story who deliberately gets slowly defeated so the corpses around him hide the corpse he made. But in some cases there can be other motives than making a certain corpse to hide it behind other corpses, if not a forest at least a President and a Colleague. C. S. L. had been so cultified already, if I may coin a word which is ugly but expresses their Screwtapish p o v to perfection. Their=that of Illuminati.
Now, as with a murder just before Midsummer, I am not at all equipped to lead an investigation on whether it was really Illuminati (in that case a kind of sacrifice***) or not. I can just "blow the whistle" by writing this. Hoping someone in some police department in France was honest last summer and someone else was honest ad observant in the JFK investigation.Hans-Georg Lundahl
Paris, Bibliothèque Delbo
23 XI 2011
*London (United Kingdom - England) mardi 22 novembre 2011, 17 h 30 m 00 GMT UTC Dallas
No comments:
Post a Comment