I LOVE Laurent's books. He's the author I've learned the most from in this decade. He did respond to my last comment on his thread, writing:
"1. Atwill's theory is of a Roman conspiracy to deceive the Jews with a fictitious Messiah. How is that not "a Roman conspiracy against the Jews"?
"2. Joe's theory is simple: he can state it in one sentence. It's his arguments that are convoluted.
"I hate to disagree with you, Tereza, one of my first subscribers, and I'm sorry to criticize your friend, but he has plenty of admirers worldwide, so I don't think he worries about it."
I'll respond in a bit and draw his attention here. And I subbed him just after he'd offered 'The Donation of Constantine' to new subs, I'll have to ask if I can still get in on that! Or buy it, which has always been absolutely worthwhile. Thanks for this, Mary!
Tereza! I saved this post so I can go back and read it, but I'm also going to be watching that YT video! I've had the pleasure of following @michellegibson work for YEARS now—and had the pleasure of meeting her in person :)
Franklin! I'm so happy to hear from you and thrilled that we're asking the same questions. And so excited that you know the third deep researcher I cited in this article--Michelle Gibson! I posted her video as a footnote because 'the true tribe of Judah as dark-skinned matrilineal Moors' is a rabbit hole I didn't want to divert to in this warren of rabbit holes. But also to bookmark it to watch again while taking notes, so I can fully dive into it later.
In The Two Gods of the Bible, if I'm understanding correctly, you look at Yahweh of the OT as being different in character than the God who is the divine father of 'Jesus', who you put in quotes to question his literal historicity. Is that right?
And you see Yahweh as deriving from the Greek / Roman mythologies. And you mention the OT ending with the Israelites in Persia--which is fascinating and something I need to look into more!--and the bible picking back up in the NT 400 yrs later when they're ruled by Romans. You also compare Gaia as the creator goddess who birthed and was replaced by the Titans to Sophia who births the demiurge in gnosticism. Correct?
What my article, when you get to it, will add to your exploration is that the myth of Yahweh was written by the same people as the Greek Roman pantheon--the Aryans/ heir-ones/ sky gods. They saw their lineage as coming from Pitr Dyeus, who becomes both Zeus and Ju-Pitr. All the proto-Indo-European languages are written by them. They wrote the Rig Vedas in Sanskit--language of the gods, which might have been their original language. They devised the hieroglyphs, named for the etymology of their name as heiros. Eros certainly comes from that, and Ares, god of war. And Iran means land of the Aryans. So all of these Pitr-/ patri-archy theologies have the same source. Theo- comes from Deo/ Dyeus, meaning God.
And certainly the 'heiros' of fairy tales come from the Aryans. They glorify royalty and nobles, and slay serpents, dragons and snakes--all symbols of Goddess. You mention 'heirloom' but I was just looking at that word as a way for the heir to weave a net around those he rules.
The Canaanites were a Goddess society, like all settled peoples. The Aryans were invaders. The Canaanite deity was Ashtoreth and her consort Ba'al, neither of whom wanted blood sacrifice. The Goddess religions have been inverted and overwritten, which is how we get Isis-Ra-El claiming the legacy of three deities, and the Moorish tribe of Judah belonging to Yahweh.
It's also how we get Jesus, minus the nonexistent Hebrew J and vowels, as an inversion of Isis. Jesus says the Canaanite woman is a dog but that even dogs can eat the crumbs that fall from the table of the heirs. He says, 'You are Pitr and upon this mountain I will build my temple.' He says, 'Go out and subdue the nations.' It's the same patriarchal Aryan invader heir-archy endorsed by Dyeus the eye-of-God Sky Father.
I'm going to be posting an episode about the Sethian gnostics and Sophia soon. I think this is another way to slander the Goddess by making her the mother of all Eve-ill. Glad to be sharing our research!
“Just as they intended, the obfuscation of words has led to those closest to figuring out the ruse instead attacking their own side. Sigh.”
Such a common pattern these days it has moved beyond tiresome.
Atwill is one of those dudes who I haven’t properly listened to because I assume I’m already very much on the same page — hence why I only got through about half an hour of his recent Alfa Vedic interview before I switched back to astrology. Hopefully you aren’t far away from getting a foot in to those circles.
I just posted this response to Laurent on his stack and it particularly fit in response to your comment, Isaac. I'm inserting my foot in that door ;-) :
Thanks for the reply, Laurent, and I'm honored to be one of only 20 people you sub. So you may have already seen that I posted this: thirdparadigm.substack.….
I'm very happy to have you disagree with me. My first rule is to only argue with people you like. Otherwise, what's the point? It's the character attacks that are a cowardly substitute for countering ideas, as Theophrastus uses.
He left you only a choice between character attacks in his question, "Is Atwill controlled opposition or a useful idiot?" The real question is whether you two disagree at the root, branch, twig or growing tip.
The point of my article is that I think you two disagree at a level that few other people in the world have reached. At the root, you both believe in the sovereignty of all people, not a hierarchy of imperialism. The cult of superiority is what seduces believers in religions. You're both immune to that.
The smallest branch on that tree are those who analyze scriptures without believing in them. Everyone else says it's all a lie and doesn't matter. You and Joe see it as propaganda, an interweaving of truth and lies. So you're both picking it apart thread by thread, to see how they're deceiving us. So rare.
You see the names in the OT as fictional characters, metaphors, symbols, not historical figures. Joe sees the names in the NT the same way, including 'Jesus.' I can't tell if you agree at that level or if that's the point where you diverge. Are you saying that Jesus was a real person, under a different name, or that he was fictional but not invented by the Flavians?
According to Josephus, by 70 CE all Judeans had been killed, enslaved or exiled. Like you, Atwill uses the terms Jews and Judeans interchangeably for the indigenous populations under Hellenic invasion. But you both also use them for the Hellenists. That's where I think the mistranslation is coming in.
The leaders of the religious militants that made up the messianic movement were the teachers Judas and Zadok, according to Josephus. If the word Ἰουδαϊσμός is translated as 'Judasites' or followers of Judas, it becomes a conspiracy against indigenous populations who don't like being ruled by invaders.
The divine right to rule by conferred by the women interbreeding with local rulers. So it makes total sense that Poppea and women of the ruling class would be 'sympathetic' to what you call Judaism. They're certainly not Judasites who believe in the right of indigenous people to rule themselves. They're part of the invading Aryan heir-archy from the priestly caste of Luvians/ Levites. And Luvian and Flavian have a lot of similarity.
I think that you and Joe have more where you agree than disagree, and it would be a fruitful dialogue if you cross-pollinated ;-)
It is interesting that a Divine Speaker feels that asking questions about his statements is a personal attack. Maybe that makes sense, if the Divine is an omniscient entity that cannot be questioned.
You said that this is a male characteristic. You have more experience with this dynamic than I do, but I do wonder if it's a strictly male thing. I'm thinking of a popular female Substacker with a Ukranian name who regularly calls anybody who questions her conclusions as idiots or worse.
Hahaha! Yes, I've said before that Ukrainian woman has more toxic traits than a toxic man. And you know that I define toxic as superiority. What I was just writing in my OMGdess book is that the true function of men is to be the womb-in-the-world for the mothers, who then prioritize the children. You've served both functions in your life, as a true tonic male.
Thanks for sending that, fresh off the press. I'm hoping to see Joe in March, when I'll be driving past his town. That AI voice is hard to listen to, though. Joe's voice is much more nuanced.
Thanks. I picked a senior British voice for Atwill because it's more 'authoritative' (also, I'm in Europe) and I gave Laurent an Italian accented voice representing the objecting Roman, heh. I plan to occasionally upload voiced editions of Atwill's articles, he's great and I love his style of analysis. If you have access to Laurent Guyénot, please pass this on to him. Perhaps Guyénot can use it while he writes his rebuttal.
Tereza, I tried uploading this but got copyright issues on YouTube. So, instead it's on Imgur. If you want to watch it (it's less than a minute), see this:
Funny to watch those hokey old films. I remember those Biblical epics from my childhood, we used to watch them every Easter.
Do you know the research that says Josephus is yet another pseudonym for a Roman archon? Layers within layers of deception. Guyenot is one who writes about it in Anno Domini.
I hear that Joe is planning to write an article decoding the Coen Brothers' 'Hail, Caesar!' (2016). So, I decided to watch it myself and try decoding some of it on my own. I'm still a newbie at this, so I didn't get very far, but even I could spot the Masonic symbolism and inverse Flavian typology scattered throughout the film. Here's an example: https://imgur.com/a/4ofxe1f
It's an entertaining movie, especially if you understand Flavian typology (in a twisted way). Tereza, perhaps it's worth a watch or a rewatch and try to note down what you notice and see how much you catch compared to Joe Atwill who will publish his decode soon (within a month I hear).
Oh I just read down to the Q&A and see what you mean. He does go into the etymology and that 'Jesus' was from Judea but not from the religion of the Torah, and there was no Judaism. I remember reading that before but had forgotten. Thanks for that!
I even wonder if the Holocaust narrative was in response to Freedman's speech, since that word wasn't used until the '60's, when it became a media blitzkrieg. I also quote Alison Weir there and notice that Stephen Heiner just put out a review on her: https://palestinebookshelf.substack.com/p/against-our-better-judgment-the-hidden.
I went to Julius Skoolafish and downloaded the full transcript of Freedman's speech to make sure I had all the details right on his etymology of 'Jew'. I agree, of course, that the phrase should be 'self-described Jew' and that most of those are AshkeNazi/ Khazarian. But Freedman believes that Jesus was a Jew, meaning in the Israeli tribe of Judah, answering to the Sanhedrin and part of the hierarchy (Aryan archons) of the Torah. It isn't logical that Judah, Jew, Jerusalem, Joseph and Jesus would be the Hebrew names in a language with no J. Rhonda (wildrhody) has been deciphering the tells and J always signifies a hex-word that's been inverted, but also H. We were just looking at Sarai/ Sarah, Abraham's wife, as representing Syria.
If Y is a substitute for J, there are no vowels in Hebrew, and the H is a tell, then Yahweh translates to Jew way or just Jew itself. The Torah describes the racial superiority of Yahweh's chosen people, or the YahChoPeeps as I call them, and their divine right to govern for the LORD God. The Judeans, translated as Jew in the bible, are the opposite of the YahChoPeeps. They were fighting for indigenous independence against the invading Habiru/ Hebrew rulers. So I think Freedman is right, but doesn't go far enough.
Thanks for inviting me into this dive into Freedman. I'd call him a hero of mine, but then I'd be falling for the hex-word taken from the etymology of Aryan as hiero.
Hi, Tereza. It’s been awhile since I checked in here, but I saw your comments on the Atwill article at Unz.com. You introduced me to Atwill and perhaps Guyenot, too, for which I am very grateful. I find both of them to have arresting ideas, even though they don’t completely overlap. Rather than finding one or the other wrong about their differences, I just find them both still incomplete, which is a failing of us all. Mainly, I wonder if Atwill’s and Guyenot’s analyses leave out one of the obvious critical players in the classical Mediterranean game of thrones: namely, the Phoenicians. (It’s been awhile since I read Atwill, and I haven’t read all of Guyenot, so I may be wrong about this. But I’ll proceed as if correct.) It is my take that Phoenician history is now virtually suppressed, perhaps because archaeological evidence suggests the Canaanites—shocker!—likely practiced unrivaled amounts of child sacrifice.
Aside: Just wondering if you follow fellow Substacker, The Phoenician Hunter? If not, I think you’d find that many of your ideas harmonize with his.
Obviously, Atwill’s work creates as many or more problems for Christians as for Jews. Regarding Guyenot, I have heard him say he is Christian, no doubt of some non-Zionist flavor, probably Catholic. That must figure in to his reluctance to accept Atwill’s thesis. I also see a similar reluctance in “six-time New York Times bestselling author” and New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman when he was asked the question about Roman imperial involvement in constructing The Jesus Narrative: he was dismissive and short with his answer, claiming Roman interference was unsupported by any records. Ehrman, who still trumpets the existence of the historical "Jesus" is now an agnostic, but he was once an Evangelical—I assume Zionist. My hunch is that while he is no longer a Christian, he is still a Zionist. So Atwill’s thesis rankles Zionists, including agnostics, atheists, secular Jews (like NetanYahu), but also non-Zionist Christians, too.
(Aside: You probably already know that Netanyahu is a theophoric. His father’s name was Mileikowsky. Netanyahu translates roughly as “given by Yahu”. “Yahu” is the Aramaic variant of “Yahweh”. )
Lastly, Imperial Aramaic and Phoenician are sister branches of Northwest Semitic. Our own modern “Roman” alphabet comes down to us from that branch. As you allude to, in English the letter J was created after the printing press to help distinguish between the I and Y, which share phonetic (from “Phoenician”) sounds. The J probably migrated to English from the dzh sound in French. Guyenot is a native French speaker in which Juif = Jew, which goes back to at least the 12th C and even earlier to 10th C Old French words like ju, juieu, and jueu. So this detail about the letter J may not seem as important, obvious, or even relevant to him. Also, the English Aristocracy spoke Old Norman French after 1066, so the literate English elites used the J prior to the printing press. It's complicated.
I will continue to be riveted by anything Atwill and Guyenot publish, and I will hope they eventually meet somewhere on this, perhaps in a place where, after the fall of Carthage in 146 BC, the wealthy remnant of the Phoenician/Canaanite merchants (ten percent of all Roman citizens) orchestrated the exclusive monotheistic worship of their Canaanite storm god, Yahweh, across their "Roman" Empire and across time and space down to our own monotheistic child-sacrificing Empire.
Jack, I'm so pleased to hear from you and also that you found Joe and perhaps Laurent through me! I am likewise riveted by anything that either of them publish. Joe told me that he's invited Laurent to a debate (I'd prefer a dialogue) but has never heard back.
What makes identification difficult is that the names are continually changed. And names from the indigenous populations are usurped, like IsisRaEl and Judah. And there are different roles played by the invaders, by bands of men they've picked up in their conquests. So it's somewhat arbitrary to decide what names to use.
The name I use for the OG invaders, the master minds and schemers, is Aryans. This was vindicated by finding that the etymology of the word is heiro as sons of the Sky Father Dyeus and divinely appointed ruler over rulers. The PIE languages were called Aryan before WW2, when the meaning of that word was twisted. They were abnormally tall, with almost translucent skin (bluebloods) and red hair.
In Anatolia, maybe Kizzuwatna, they picked up their linguists and metalsmiths, making weapons from the ore of a meteor--maybe the one that broke the membrane above earth's atmosphere, causing the waters to fall from the sky into the seas and drowning Atlantis. They went from there to Egypt and became the Seti Pharaohs, displacing the high priestess. The Habiru/ Hebrews were their terrorist thugs, not the charioteers or Luvians/ Levites who were the priestly class.
They're kicked out of Egypt by Ahmoses I and invade Iran, land of the Aryans, India, writing the Rig Vedas, and Greece. Somewhere they become Scythians/ Sethians. And yes, they most certainly become Phoenicians/ Venetians. My Lyft driver tonight has written a book I just ordered called Linguistic Formula Mexico that says they took the alphabet from the Aztecs. I'll be reporting more on that.
We need to have some name for the people who were indigenous to the land we now call Palestine before they were invaded by the Aryan/ Scythian (Constantine being a Royal Scyth)/ Habiru/ Phoenicians. I don't know of an earlier name for this land than Canaan. The Goddess culture of Canaan had Astarte as their deity and her consort Ba'al. Astarte mourns the killing of Ba'al and somewhere he becomes the calf. The blood sacrifices are a projection and belong to the Yahwists/ Aryan/ Habiru/ Scythian/ Phoenicians. They had the storm god / volcano god--Levite and Luvian may be related to lava.
In the bible, no one is more demeaned than the Canaanites. Canaan is the lowest of slaves to the slaves. I think Canaan represents women, as the original Goddess culture that rejected the Sky Father Dyeus. It wouldn't make sense for the Canaanites to be wealthy Yahwists when they're portrayed as the lowest of slaves. But Yahweh demands that the one that opens the womb be dedicated to him--meaning sacrificed. The meta-story repeated again and again in Genesis is a younger son stealing the in-Ayr-itance from the oldest. So it makes sense that Canaan would have archeological evidence--but from the invaders, not the Canaanites.
I have not read any of Atwill's work, nor have I yet read the Unz article, but will later, as I'm intrigued. I will point out a few things, however, that immediately came to mind.
When Jesus cried out in the 9th hour, he said:
"Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani = I Satan, Heil Michael Baal OR I Hail Michael Satan Abel.
The names can be arranged in any way.
Jesus Satan = Seats Janus. (Janus was the two-faced ancient Roman god of beginnings, gates, transitions, time, duality, doorways, passages, frames, and endings).
Thessalonians = Holiness Satan.
(Btw, the Sun is Satan, but that's another post I've been working on, therefore the Sun could be considered two-faced, like night and day).
Angel = Angle. (Angle can mean the angle and measure of the Sun, the way of looking at something, or a hook that fishermen use, which the latter I equate to the letter "J" b/c of its hooked shape and implication of being a hook of diversion. You know the saying, "By hook or by crook" or "in any way possible").
Jesus told his disciples he would make them "Fishers of men." Who fishes for men?
Fishers = His Serf.
Now that makes sense, to make man his serf. (Not Jesus but who's behind the story).
Off the top of my head, it would appear that any biblically related and historical pronoun, now beginning with the letter "J" is an Angle, their Hook.
Lastly...
Jesus Christ = Jurist Chess.
Jerusalem = Jure Males.
Jure is Jurisdiction (Latin means law, right court of law)
So, perhaps one King is trying to Checkmate the other.
Something else of interest is that it's stated Jesus was from the Judah tribe, but didn't Mary allegedly have an immaculate conception, therefore Joseph wasn't Jesus's father. Further, Mary was cousins with Elisabeth, and the latter was from the line of Aaron, a Levite. Luke 1:34-36).
I think that I got that from you, Rhonda, that the J is a hook, to be the tell for a hex word. I used it in my What is a Jew? episode: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/what-is-a-jew? And you'll really like Atwill on the fishers of men. It gets very sinister when compared to the conquest of Titus. And I've been thinking about that phrase, 'Leave your father, your family and follow me.' The Aryans abandoned their families and became invaders of other nations. They were the warlords and the followers the mercenaries, to be paid in rape.
Was the original translation, 'Father, Father, why have you deserted me?' SO very interesting your unscrambling of that. Yes, the original Yahweh was Set/h so Satan is hidden all over for those with eyes to see. Certainly like you!
And the hook or crook refers to the shepherd's crook, that I think was also the Scythe used to decapitate victims from horseback. All the Aryans say they're shepherds when they're really the grim reapers.
Before I forget, Tereza, a funny thought came to mind that I wanted to share, regarding Eve's creation from the rib of Adam. Do you suppose this LORD God had to take a rib from every other creature on this planet to make its female counterpart? Just wondering:)
And I love Spy-chopaths! Does 'Greater Israel' unscramble?
Esau also seems close to Isis without all the excess vowels. And interesting that it's Isis/ Isaac who saw not and takes away the birthright from Isis/ Esau who didn't see the trick. And Jacob the trickster becomes IsisRaEl.
The last one, "Starrier Eagle" reminds me of the back of the dollar bill, with the pyramid and the Star of Jacob above the Eagle. Below the pyramid it states, "The Great Seal = The Eagle Star," which is drawing symbolic attention to Jacob's star above the Eagle, but also under the Eagle is "Of the United States = Of the Situated Nest or Nets;" the Situated Nest of their Eagle symbolizing where their young eagles are born and grown, now in Starrier Eagle = Greater Israel, and/or their Nets meaning Traps, perhaps like those Fishers of Men net-traps, to become Fishers = His Serf.
I'm unsure about the Isis / Esau connection, b/c women were never given status, unless they were used as sex objects for ulterior motives. These priest/rabbinical type caste of men, who are inbred psychopaths, use children or women as objects of masturbation. They have NO love within them! Everything must serve a Use, like Esau = A Use. His use will have to do with the Demo of the Dome, since he was from Edom (Mode/Demo/Dome/Edom), and was fed Pottage = Pet Goat, their scapegoat.
Such an interesting Isaiah read! I looked up where King David lived and found he was born in Bethlehem (house of meat from a Greek article I have in draft), then lived in Hebron, Judah, and then Jerusalem. So Greater Israel would certainly correspond to Regret as Ariel.
Quick thinking! I knew you'd take it and run, even if you hadn't looked at it before.
Yes, definitely women are beneath mention--even when their lands are being stolen. It's my theory that Goddess societies can't be mentioned by their true names, or we'd remember they who've been dismembered. They're represented symbolically through the name of a man who supposedly owned them and traded them for pottage.
You're definitely correct about them not mentioning anything to do with Goddesses, so it's highly likely they're hidden within names of their biblical texts, as that represents killing them off, as well. And interesting take on them being owned and traded for pottage. I hadn't thought about it in that way. In the case of Sarai/Sarah, Abraham's wife, he sure used her for his benefit of acquiring wealth.
I'm still reading the previous Atwill's UNZ article replies, as there are many of them, but am anxious to read the one you linked above. One unrelated issue with me is about Jesus from the tribe of Judah, through the lineage of Joseph, yet he was not his father by blood, or so we're told. However, Mary, his mother, was of the Levite Tribe, as her cousin was Elisabeth, the mother of John the Baptist. Luke 1:5 and Luke 1:36. So this is perplexing to me that his Levite heritage is hardly if ever mentioned.
Satan is their diversion or Scapegoat = Space Goat.
Esau = A Use, was similar with the Pottage = Pet Goat fed him by Jacob, and it was Jacob, aka Israel, who had goat hair on him to fool his elderly sightless father, Isaac, into thinking he was Esau and giving him the birthright.
The word you used, "deserted" was "forsaken," (same meaning) which is interesting. Forsaken = For Sneak/Snake = Of Sneaks/Snakes = Ranks Foe = Faker/Freak Son.
Rank is interesting, as well, as it can mean (n.) a hierarchical level in an organization and (v.) to classify, but in the case of Jesus Christ = Jurist Chess, Rank can also mean one of the eight horizontal lines of squares on a chessboard or a row of people or things organized in a grid pattern. There's definitely a competition of sorts going on - one head psychopath vs. another head psychopath. That's why they need to cheat and become Spy-chopaths:)
I need to re-read your fascinating article and then go back and catch up on your previous posts, including reading the UNZ article. And my husband keeps bugging me...
I think man, then he answers back i think woman. Mirror opponent miss on originality thats a minus for him. I begin to know you amazon godess, its your habit. He should know.
Been a couple months i am On the piso roman etc conspiracy stuff. I stoped video halfway and tought to myself: dang if i didnt have the basic of it in mind i wouldnt understand the least of this argument.
But since i do, i can tell you that what you tried to show them. The unity in their argument instead of the opposite. Is something great! He is stuck on his position of defending by attacking that he misses the whole point.
Gosh, TC...lotsa history & language work...I did read it all, but maths 'n' music's more my game, so please accept these OT gems as sonic palace cleaners in between sessions of either constructing or demolishing Imperial Towers:
Death cults all around....Get right in your head about abortion, set the emotions aside and let me explain some hard truths here, in my on topic podcast episode, it could save a life:
Isn't the view that a woman must carry for nine months and birth a man's precious seed an imperial and hierarchical position? Doesn't it take away a woman's sovereignty over her body and force her to be a vessel for a man? It denies her ownership of the child, after it's born, and ownership of her body before when it couldn't exist without her.
I can tell that you're a Jesusite Christian by that patriarchal position, and not a Judasite Christian, who would believe in equal sovereignty between men and women, and that all people have control over their own lives and bodies--not just the pre-born who are pre-owned by men.
There's no teamwork involved in forcing a woman to turn one cell of a man's sperm into a baby. A man ejaculates into a woman. Is that what you call work? The rest of the work to create life is ALL done by the woman.
'Precious' is a word that applies to something you own, like 'precious metals.' The definition is 'costly, valuable.' Women and children can't be bought and aren't precious. A woman belongs to herself and so do any children she chooses to bring into the world.
If you believe that other people should have the right to control your body, go ahead and give them that power over you. As I've said, the belief that some should have power over others is consistent with Jesusism and Yahwism, which are one and the same.
I'm a sovereigntist who believes all people should have power over themselves, consistent with the messianic religion of Judas the Nazarene. Your religion, as both Laurent and Joe Atwill have shown, was written by the Roman Empire for the purpose of usurping power over them. I can't respect that religion without disrespecting all the people subjugated by it, with women foremost.
Everybody, please reach for your wallet. Take out $15.00 and buy Laurent Guyenot's new book "The Pope's Curse."
It is overwhelming in its understanding, "The Donation of Constantine" being a key event.
I LOVE Laurent's books. He's the author I've learned the most from in this decade. He did respond to my last comment on his thread, writing:
"1. Atwill's theory is of a Roman conspiracy to deceive the Jews with a fictitious Messiah. How is that not "a Roman conspiracy against the Jews"?
"2. Joe's theory is simple: he can state it in one sentence. It's his arguments that are convoluted.
"I hate to disagree with you, Tereza, one of my first subscribers, and I'm sorry to criticize your friend, but he has plenty of admirers worldwide, so I don't think he worries about it."
I'll respond in a bit and draw his attention here. And I subbed him just after he'd offered 'The Donation of Constantine' to new subs, I'll have to ask if I can still get in on that! Or buy it, which has always been absolutely worthwhile. Thanks for this, Mary!
Thanks for the tip.
Very happy to find your work, I think you're right on the money.
Tereza! I saved this post so I can go back and read it, but I'm also going to be watching that YT video! I've had the pleasure of following @michellegibson work for YEARS now—and had the pleasure of meeting her in person :)
Thanks for diving into this and this resonates with the work I wrote on how the Bible is nothing but Jewish mythologies and how we're worshiping the Canaanite Pantheon: https://unorthodoxy.substack.com/p/the-mythology-of-the-bible-and-the
Franklin! I'm so happy to hear from you and thrilled that we're asking the same questions. And so excited that you know the third deep researcher I cited in this article--Michelle Gibson! I posted her video as a footnote because 'the true tribe of Judah as dark-skinned matrilineal Moors' is a rabbit hole I didn't want to divert to in this warren of rabbit holes. But also to bookmark it to watch again while taking notes, so I can fully dive into it later.
In The Two Gods of the Bible, if I'm understanding correctly, you look at Yahweh of the OT as being different in character than the God who is the divine father of 'Jesus', who you put in quotes to question his literal historicity. Is that right?
And you see Yahweh as deriving from the Greek / Roman mythologies. And you mention the OT ending with the Israelites in Persia--which is fascinating and something I need to look into more!--and the bible picking back up in the NT 400 yrs later when they're ruled by Romans. You also compare Gaia as the creator goddess who birthed and was replaced by the Titans to Sophia who births the demiurge in gnosticism. Correct?
What my article, when you get to it, will add to your exploration is that the myth of Yahweh was written by the same people as the Greek Roman pantheon--the Aryans/ heir-ones/ sky gods. They saw their lineage as coming from Pitr Dyeus, who becomes both Zeus and Ju-Pitr. All the proto-Indo-European languages are written by them. They wrote the Rig Vedas in Sanskit--language of the gods, which might have been their original language. They devised the hieroglyphs, named for the etymology of their name as heiros. Eros certainly comes from that, and Ares, god of war. And Iran means land of the Aryans. So all of these Pitr-/ patri-archy theologies have the same source. Theo- comes from Deo/ Dyeus, meaning God.
And certainly the 'heiros' of fairy tales come from the Aryans. They glorify royalty and nobles, and slay serpents, dragons and snakes--all symbols of Goddess. You mention 'heirloom' but I was just looking at that word as a way for the heir to weave a net around those he rules.
The Canaanites were a Goddess society, like all settled peoples. The Aryans were invaders. The Canaanite deity was Ashtoreth and her consort Ba'al, neither of whom wanted blood sacrifice. The Goddess religions have been inverted and overwritten, which is how we get Isis-Ra-El claiming the legacy of three deities, and the Moorish tribe of Judah belonging to Yahweh.
It's also how we get Jesus, minus the nonexistent Hebrew J and vowels, as an inversion of Isis. Jesus says the Canaanite woman is a dog but that even dogs can eat the crumbs that fall from the table of the heirs. He says, 'You are Pitr and upon this mountain I will build my temple.' He says, 'Go out and subdue the nations.' It's the same patriarchal Aryan invader heir-archy endorsed by Dyeus the eye-of-God Sky Father.
I'm going to be posting an episode about the Sethian gnostics and Sophia soon. I think this is another way to slander the Goddess by making her the mother of all Eve-ill. Glad to be sharing our research!
“Just as they intended, the obfuscation of words has led to those closest to figuring out the ruse instead attacking their own side. Sigh.”
Such a common pattern these days it has moved beyond tiresome.
Atwill is one of those dudes who I haven’t properly listened to because I assume I’m already very much on the same page — hence why I only got through about half an hour of his recent Alfa Vedic interview before I switched back to astrology. Hopefully you aren’t far away from getting a foot in to those circles.
I just posted this response to Laurent on his stack and it particularly fit in response to your comment, Isaac. I'm inserting my foot in that door ;-) :
Thanks for the reply, Laurent, and I'm honored to be one of only 20 people you sub. So you may have already seen that I posted this: thirdparadigm.substack.….
I'm very happy to have you disagree with me. My first rule is to only argue with people you like. Otherwise, what's the point? It's the character attacks that are a cowardly substitute for countering ideas, as Theophrastus uses.
He left you only a choice between character attacks in his question, "Is Atwill controlled opposition or a useful idiot?" The real question is whether you two disagree at the root, branch, twig or growing tip.
The point of my article is that I think you two disagree at a level that few other people in the world have reached. At the root, you both believe in the sovereignty of all people, not a hierarchy of imperialism. The cult of superiority is what seduces believers in religions. You're both immune to that.
The smallest branch on that tree are those who analyze scriptures without believing in them. Everyone else says it's all a lie and doesn't matter. You and Joe see it as propaganda, an interweaving of truth and lies. So you're both picking it apart thread by thread, to see how they're deceiving us. So rare.
You see the names in the OT as fictional characters, metaphors, symbols, not historical figures. Joe sees the names in the NT the same way, including 'Jesus.' I can't tell if you agree at that level or if that's the point where you diverge. Are you saying that Jesus was a real person, under a different name, or that he was fictional but not invented by the Flavians?
According to Josephus, by 70 CE all Judeans had been killed, enslaved or exiled. Like you, Atwill uses the terms Jews and Judeans interchangeably for the indigenous populations under Hellenic invasion. But you both also use them for the Hellenists. That's where I think the mistranslation is coming in.
The leaders of the religious militants that made up the messianic movement were the teachers Judas and Zadok, according to Josephus. If the word Ἰουδαϊσμός is translated as 'Judasites' or followers of Judas, it becomes a conspiracy against indigenous populations who don't like being ruled by invaders.
The divine right to rule by conferred by the women interbreeding with local rulers. So it makes total sense that Poppea and women of the ruling class would be 'sympathetic' to what you call Judaism. They're certainly not Judasites who believe in the right of indigenous people to rule themselves. They're part of the invading Aryan heir-archy from the priestly caste of Luvians/ Levites. And Luvian and Flavian have a lot of similarity.
I think that you and Joe have more where you agree than disagree, and it would be a fruitful dialogue if you cross-pollinated ;-)
It is interesting that a Divine Speaker feels that asking questions about his statements is a personal attack. Maybe that makes sense, if the Divine is an omniscient entity that cannot be questioned.
You said that this is a male characteristic. You have more experience with this dynamic than I do, but I do wonder if it's a strictly male thing. I'm thinking of a popular female Substacker with a Ukranian name who regularly calls anybody who questions her conclusions as idiots or worse.
Hahaha! Yes, I've said before that Ukrainian woman has more toxic traits than a toxic man. And you know that I define toxic as superiority. What I was just writing in my OMGdess book is that the true function of men is to be the womb-in-the-world for the mothers, who then prioritize the children. You've served both functions in your life, as a true tonic male.
“Saving Guyenot, But Not Jesus” — by Joe Atwill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Gt8NITQaTw
Thanks for sending that, fresh off the press. I'm hoping to see Joe in March, when I'll be driving past his town. That AI voice is hard to listen to, though. Joe's voice is much more nuanced.
Thanks. I picked a senior British voice for Atwill because it's more 'authoritative' (also, I'm in Europe) and I gave Laurent an Italian accented voice representing the objecting Roman, heh. I plan to occasionally upload voiced editions of Atwill's articles, he's great and I love his style of analysis. If you have access to Laurent Guyénot, please pass this on to him. Perhaps Guyénot can use it while he writes his rebuttal.
Tereza, I tried uploading this but got copyright issues on YouTube. So, instead it's on Imgur. If you want to watch it (it's less than a minute), see this:
https://imgur.com/josephus-god-chose-rome-sH72tsJ
Funny to watch those hokey old films. I remember those Biblical epics from my childhood, we used to watch them every Easter.
Do you know the research that says Josephus is yet another pseudonym for a Roman archon? Layers within layers of deception. Guyenot is one who writes about it in Anno Domini.
I hear that Joe is planning to write an article decoding the Coen Brothers' 'Hail, Caesar!' (2016). So, I decided to watch it myself and try decoding some of it on my own. I'm still a newbie at this, so I didn't get very far, but even I could spot the Masonic symbolism and inverse Flavian typology scattered throughout the film. Here's an example: https://imgur.com/a/4ofxe1f
It's an entertaining movie, especially if you understand Flavian typology (in a twisted way). Tereza, perhaps it's worth a watch or a rewatch and try to note down what you notice and see how much you catch compared to Joe Atwill who will publish his decode soon (within a month I hear).
Oh I'll look forward to that decode! I thought Joe's analysis of Catcher in the Rye was brilliant.
Benjamin Freedman convincingly explained etymology of the word 'Jew' and all its variants in his famous 1961 speech.
https://archive.org/details/benjamin-h.-freedman-speech-unedited-version-1961
Oh I just read down to the Q&A and see what you mean. He does go into the etymology and that 'Jesus' was from Judea but not from the religion of the Torah, and there was no Judaism. I remember reading that before but had forgotten. Thanks for that!
Whenever someone wants a short primer on WW2ruth, I point them to Freedman's speech as a starting point. I've cited it many times, beginning here: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/kissinger-and-the-balfour-declaration.
I even wonder if the Holocaust narrative was in response to Freedman's speech, since that word wasn't used until the '60's, when it became a media blitzkrieg. I also quote Alison Weir there and notice that Stephen Heiner just put out a review on her: https://palestinebookshelf.substack.com/p/against-our-better-judgment-the-hidden.
And I think you'd like this one, if you haven't read it, that looks at the Khazars in Russia: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/fiddler-on-the-truth.
I went to Julius Skoolafish and downloaded the full transcript of Freedman's speech to make sure I had all the details right on his etymology of 'Jew'. I agree, of course, that the phrase should be 'self-described Jew' and that most of those are AshkeNazi/ Khazarian. But Freedman believes that Jesus was a Jew, meaning in the Israeli tribe of Judah, answering to the Sanhedrin and part of the hierarchy (Aryan archons) of the Torah. It isn't logical that Judah, Jew, Jerusalem, Joseph and Jesus would be the Hebrew names in a language with no J. Rhonda (wildrhody) has been deciphering the tells and J always signifies a hex-word that's been inverted, but also H. We were just looking at Sarai/ Sarah, Abraham's wife, as representing Syria.
If Y is a substitute for J, there are no vowels in Hebrew, and the H is a tell, then Yahweh translates to Jew way or just Jew itself. The Torah describes the racial superiority of Yahweh's chosen people, or the YahChoPeeps as I call them, and their divine right to govern for the LORD God. The Judeans, translated as Jew in the bible, are the opposite of the YahChoPeeps. They were fighting for indigenous independence against the invading Habiru/ Hebrew rulers. So I think Freedman is right, but doesn't go far enough.
Thanks for inviting me into this dive into Freedman. I'd call him a hero of mine, but then I'd be falling for the hex-word taken from the etymology of Aryan as hiero.
Hi, Tereza. It’s been awhile since I checked in here, but I saw your comments on the Atwill article at Unz.com. You introduced me to Atwill and perhaps Guyenot, too, for which I am very grateful. I find both of them to have arresting ideas, even though they don’t completely overlap. Rather than finding one or the other wrong about their differences, I just find them both still incomplete, which is a failing of us all. Mainly, I wonder if Atwill’s and Guyenot’s analyses leave out one of the obvious critical players in the classical Mediterranean game of thrones: namely, the Phoenicians. (It’s been awhile since I read Atwill, and I haven’t read all of Guyenot, so I may be wrong about this. But I’ll proceed as if correct.) It is my take that Phoenician history is now virtually suppressed, perhaps because archaeological evidence suggests the Canaanites—shocker!—likely practiced unrivaled amounts of child sacrifice.
Aside: Just wondering if you follow fellow Substacker, The Phoenician Hunter? If not, I think you’d find that many of your ideas harmonize with his.
Obviously, Atwill’s work creates as many or more problems for Christians as for Jews. Regarding Guyenot, I have heard him say he is Christian, no doubt of some non-Zionist flavor, probably Catholic. That must figure in to his reluctance to accept Atwill’s thesis. I also see a similar reluctance in “six-time New York Times bestselling author” and New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman when he was asked the question about Roman imperial involvement in constructing The Jesus Narrative: he was dismissive and short with his answer, claiming Roman interference was unsupported by any records. Ehrman, who still trumpets the existence of the historical "Jesus" is now an agnostic, but he was once an Evangelical—I assume Zionist. My hunch is that while he is no longer a Christian, he is still a Zionist. So Atwill’s thesis rankles Zionists, including agnostics, atheists, secular Jews (like NetanYahu), but also non-Zionist Christians, too.
(Aside: You probably already know that Netanyahu is a theophoric. His father’s name was Mileikowsky. Netanyahu translates roughly as “given by Yahu”. “Yahu” is the Aramaic variant of “Yahweh”. )
Lastly, Imperial Aramaic and Phoenician are sister branches of Northwest Semitic. Our own modern “Roman” alphabet comes down to us from that branch. As you allude to, in English the letter J was created after the printing press to help distinguish between the I and Y, which share phonetic (from “Phoenician”) sounds. The J probably migrated to English from the dzh sound in French. Guyenot is a native French speaker in which Juif = Jew, which goes back to at least the 12th C and even earlier to 10th C Old French words like ju, juieu, and jueu. So this detail about the letter J may not seem as important, obvious, or even relevant to him. Also, the English Aristocracy spoke Old Norman French after 1066, so the literate English elites used the J prior to the printing press. It's complicated.
I will continue to be riveted by anything Atwill and Guyenot publish, and I will hope they eventually meet somewhere on this, perhaps in a place where, after the fall of Carthage in 146 BC, the wealthy remnant of the Phoenician/Canaanite merchants (ten percent of all Roman citizens) orchestrated the exclusive monotheistic worship of their Canaanite storm god, Yahweh, across their "Roman" Empire and across time and space down to our own monotheistic child-sacrificing Empire.
Jack, I'm so pleased to hear from you and also that you found Joe and perhaps Laurent through me! I am likewise riveted by anything that either of them publish. Joe told me that he's invited Laurent to a debate (I'd prefer a dialogue) but has never heard back.
What makes identification difficult is that the names are continually changed. And names from the indigenous populations are usurped, like IsisRaEl and Judah. And there are different roles played by the invaders, by bands of men they've picked up in their conquests. So it's somewhat arbitrary to decide what names to use.
The name I use for the OG invaders, the master minds and schemers, is Aryans. This was vindicated by finding that the etymology of the word is heiro as sons of the Sky Father Dyeus and divinely appointed ruler over rulers. The PIE languages were called Aryan before WW2, when the meaning of that word was twisted. They were abnormally tall, with almost translucent skin (bluebloods) and red hair.
In Anatolia, maybe Kizzuwatna, they picked up their linguists and metalsmiths, making weapons from the ore of a meteor--maybe the one that broke the membrane above earth's atmosphere, causing the waters to fall from the sky into the seas and drowning Atlantis. They went from there to Egypt and became the Seti Pharaohs, displacing the high priestess. The Habiru/ Hebrews were their terrorist thugs, not the charioteers or Luvians/ Levites who were the priestly class.
They're kicked out of Egypt by Ahmoses I and invade Iran, land of the Aryans, India, writing the Rig Vedas, and Greece. Somewhere they become Scythians/ Sethians. And yes, they most certainly become Phoenicians/ Venetians. My Lyft driver tonight has written a book I just ordered called Linguistic Formula Mexico that says they took the alphabet from the Aztecs. I'll be reporting more on that.
We need to have some name for the people who were indigenous to the land we now call Palestine before they were invaded by the Aryan/ Scythian (Constantine being a Royal Scyth)/ Habiru/ Phoenicians. I don't know of an earlier name for this land than Canaan. The Goddess culture of Canaan had Astarte as their deity and her consort Ba'al. Astarte mourns the killing of Ba'al and somewhere he becomes the calf. The blood sacrifices are a projection and belong to the Yahwists/ Aryan/ Habiru/ Scythian/ Phoenicians. They had the storm god / volcano god--Levite and Luvian may be related to lava.
In the bible, no one is more demeaned than the Canaanites. Canaan is the lowest of slaves to the slaves. I think Canaan represents women, as the original Goddess culture that rejected the Sky Father Dyeus. It wouldn't make sense for the Canaanites to be wealthy Yahwists when they're portrayed as the lowest of slaves. But Yahweh demands that the one that opens the womb be dedicated to him--meaning sacrificed. The meta-story repeated again and again in Genesis is a younger son stealing the in-Ayr-itance from the oldest. So it makes sense that Canaan would have archeological evidence--but from the invaders, not the Canaanites.
What say you, my well read friend?
I have not read any of Atwill's work, nor have I yet read the Unz article, but will later, as I'm intrigued. I will point out a few things, however, that immediately came to mind.
When Jesus cried out in the 9th hour, he said:
"Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani = I Satan, Heil Michael Baal OR I Hail Michael Satan Abel.
The names can be arranged in any way.
Jesus Satan = Seats Janus. (Janus was the two-faced ancient Roman god of beginnings, gates, transitions, time, duality, doorways, passages, frames, and endings).
Thessalonians = Holiness Satan.
(Btw, the Sun is Satan, but that's another post I've been working on, therefore the Sun could be considered two-faced, like night and day).
Angel = Angle. (Angle can mean the angle and measure of the Sun, the way of looking at something, or a hook that fishermen use, which the latter I equate to the letter "J" b/c of its hooked shape and implication of being a hook of diversion. You know the saying, "By hook or by crook" or "in any way possible").
Jesus told his disciples he would make them "Fishers of men." Who fishes for men?
Fishers = His Serf.
Now that makes sense, to make man his serf. (Not Jesus but who's behind the story).
Off the top of my head, it would appear that any biblically related and historical pronoun, now beginning with the letter "J" is an Angle, their Hook.
Lastly...
Jesus Christ = Jurist Chess.
Jerusalem = Jure Males.
Jure is Jurisdiction (Latin means law, right court of law)
Jurist means an expert of law).
https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0063:entry=jure-cn
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/jurist
So, perhaps one King is trying to Checkmate the other.
Something else of interest is that it's stated Jesus was from the Judah tribe, but didn't Mary allegedly have an immaculate conception, therefore Joseph wasn't Jesus's father. Further, Mary was cousins with Elisabeth, and the latter was from the line of Aaron, a Levite. Luke 1:34-36).
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%201&version=KJV
I think that I got that from you, Rhonda, that the J is a hook, to be the tell for a hex word. I used it in my What is a Jew? episode: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/what-is-a-jew? And you'll really like Atwill on the fishers of men. It gets very sinister when compared to the conquest of Titus. And I've been thinking about that phrase, 'Leave your father, your family and follow me.' The Aryans abandoned their families and became invaders of other nations. They were the warlords and the followers the mercenaries, to be paid in rape.
Was the original translation, 'Father, Father, why have you deserted me?' SO very interesting your unscrambling of that. Yes, the original Yahweh was Set/h so Satan is hidden all over for those with eyes to see. Certainly like you!
And the hook or crook refers to the shepherd's crook, that I think was also the Scythe used to decapitate victims from horseback. All the Aryans say they're shepherds when they're really the grim reapers.
Before I forget, Tereza, a funny thought came to mind that I wanted to share, regarding Eve's creation from the rib of Adam. Do you suppose this LORD God had to take a rib from every other creature on this planet to make its female counterpart? Just wondering:)
And I love Spy-chopaths! Does 'Greater Israel' unscramble?
Esau also seems close to Isis without all the excess vowels. And interesting that it's Isis/ Isaac who saw not and takes away the birthright from Isis/ Esau who didn't see the trick. And Jacob the trickster becomes IsisRaEl.
I hadn't done "Greater Israel =," but with a quick look I found these:
= Regret As Ariel (Isaiah 29 - interesting read:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2029&version=KJV
= Great Ra El Ires.
= Rise Great Ra El.
= Is Greater Ra El.
= Ra El Rage Rites.
= Starrier Eagle.
The last one, "Starrier Eagle" reminds me of the back of the dollar bill, with the pyramid and the Star of Jacob above the Eagle. Below the pyramid it states, "The Great Seal = The Eagle Star," which is drawing symbolic attention to Jacob's star above the Eagle, but also under the Eagle is "Of the United States = Of the Situated Nest or Nets;" the Situated Nest of their Eagle symbolizing where their young eagles are born and grown, now in Starrier Eagle = Greater Israel, and/or their Nets meaning Traps, perhaps like those Fishers of Men net-traps, to become Fishers = His Serf.
I'm unsure about the Isis / Esau connection, b/c women were never given status, unless they were used as sex objects for ulterior motives. These priest/rabbinical type caste of men, who are inbred psychopaths, use children or women as objects of masturbation. They have NO love within them! Everything must serve a Use, like Esau = A Use. His use will have to do with the Demo of the Dome, since he was from Edom (Mode/Demo/Dome/Edom), and was fed Pottage = Pet Goat, their scapegoat.
Such an interesting Isaiah read! I looked up where King David lived and found he was born in Bethlehem (house of meat from a Greek article I have in draft), then lived in Hebron, Judah, and then Jerusalem. So Greater Israel would certainly correspond to Regret as Ariel.
Quick thinking! I knew you'd take it and run, even if you hadn't looked at it before.
Yes, definitely women are beneath mention--even when their lands are being stolen. It's my theory that Goddess societies can't be mentioned by their true names, or we'd remember they who've been dismembered. They're represented symbolically through the name of a man who supposedly owned them and traded them for pottage.
I was just responding to someone who naively takes this at face value in Unz: https://www.unz.com/article/the-mechanics-of-the-anti-semitic-cycle.
You're definitely correct about them not mentioning anything to do with Goddesses, so it's highly likely they're hidden within names of their biblical texts, as that represents killing them off, as well. And interesting take on them being owned and traded for pottage. I hadn't thought about it in that way. In the case of Sarai/Sarah, Abraham's wife, he sure used her for his benefit of acquiring wealth.
I'm still reading the previous Atwill's UNZ article replies, as there are many of them, but am anxious to read the one you linked above. One unrelated issue with me is about Jesus from the tribe of Judah, through the lineage of Joseph, yet he was not his father by blood, or so we're told. However, Mary, his mother, was of the Levite Tribe, as her cousin was Elisabeth, the mother of John the Baptist. Luke 1:5 and Luke 1:36. So this is perplexing to me that his Levite heritage is hardly if ever mentioned.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%201&version=KJV
Btw, Ariel sounds feminine to me.
Very funny!
Satan is their diversion or Scapegoat = Space Goat.
Esau = A Use, was similar with the Pottage = Pet Goat fed him by Jacob, and it was Jacob, aka Israel, who had goat hair on him to fool his elderly sightless father, Isaac, into thinking he was Esau and giving him the birthright.
The word you used, "deserted" was "forsaken," (same meaning) which is interesting. Forsaken = For Sneak/Snake = Of Sneaks/Snakes = Ranks Foe = Faker/Freak Son.
Rank is interesting, as well, as it can mean (n.) a hierarchical level in an organization and (v.) to classify, but in the case of Jesus Christ = Jurist Chess, Rank can also mean one of the eight horizontal lines of squares on a chessboard or a row of people or things organized in a grid pattern. There's definitely a competition of sorts going on - one head psychopath vs. another head psychopath. That's why they need to cheat and become Spy-chopaths:)
I need to re-read your fascinating article and then go back and catch up on your previous posts, including reading the UNZ article. And my husband keeps bugging me...
Hooo lol! I loved that part when you both go:
I think man, then he answers back i think woman. Mirror opponent miss on originality thats a minus for him. I begin to know you amazon godess, its your habit. He should know.
Been a couple months i am On the piso roman etc conspiracy stuff. I stoped video halfway and tought to myself: dang if i didnt have the basic of it in mind i wouldnt understand the least of this argument.
But since i do, i can tell you that what you tried to show them. The unity in their argument instead of the opposite. Is something great! He is stuck on his position of defending by attacking that he misses the whole point.
Gosh, TC...lotsa history & language work...I did read it all, but maths 'n' music's more my game, so please accept these OT gems as sonic palace cleaners in between sessions of either constructing or demolishing Imperial Towers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S04O-VCc1mE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pbvR2qQqJo
Death cults all around....Get right in your head about abortion, set the emotions aside and let me explain some hard truths here, in my on topic podcast episode, it could save a life:
https://open.substack.com/pub/soberchristiangentlemanpodcast/p/s2-ep-83-abortion-truth-my-take-on?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=31s3eo
Isn't the view that a woman must carry for nine months and birth a man's precious seed an imperial and hierarchical position? Doesn't it take away a woman's sovereignty over her body and force her to be a vessel for a man? It denies her ownership of the child, after it's born, and ownership of her body before when it couldn't exist without her.
I can tell that you're a Jesusite Christian by that patriarchal position, and not a Judasite Christian, who would believe in equal sovereignty between men and women, and that all people have control over their own lives and bodies--not just the pre-born who are pre-owned by men.
Women are precious, and so are babies. We work together to create life, and it takes a team to produce a competent, useful adult. Teamwork.
There's no teamwork involved in forcing a woman to turn one cell of a man's sperm into a baby. A man ejaculates into a woman. Is that what you call work? The rest of the work to create life is ALL done by the woman.
'Precious' is a word that applies to something you own, like 'precious metals.' The definition is 'costly, valuable.' Women and children can't be bought and aren't precious. A woman belongs to herself and so do any children she chooses to bring into the world.
If you believe that other people should have the right to control your body, go ahead and give them that power over you. As I've said, the belief that some should have power over others is consistent with Jesusism and Yahwism, which are one and the same.
I'm a sovereigntist who believes all people should have power over themselves, consistent with the messianic religion of Judas the Nazarene. Your religion, as both Laurent and Joe Atwill have shown, was written by the Roman Empire for the purpose of usurping power over them. I can't respect that religion without disrespecting all the people subjugated by it, with women foremost.