Daniel! I get more subs who are referred from your stack than any other. And with the similarity of our approaches and our emphasis on applying logic, that's no surprise. In my article on Sasha, I quote your 'discrepancy analysis,' a concept that comes in handy again and again. It's that little anomaly that tips me off that something's not consistent.
And I agree with you 100% that we need to take a good look at the OT. There's no evidence of the OT ever being written in Aramaic, however, only the 'elite' language of Hebrew or the Habiru, nomads who were used to enact ruthless acts of conquest by (perhaps) the Hyksos or foreign rulers. So it's written with that 'discrepancy' that it needs to justify what was inherently evident as wrong to all settled peoples. The links I put in my reply to David show more agreement and examples of your point.
I don't have your experience of psychopaths so I can't offer 'proof' that they're made, not born. I have seen good parents unwittingly foster sociopathic behaviors in their children, but we agree on the systems and stories as allowing that, no matter where it comes from.
I noticed that the Breggins were the 'like' before mine on your article. Ginger is one of the people who hasn't responded to my email asking her response to the Sasha article. And I don't know if you saw my article challenging them on the morality of the OT: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/the-breggins-and-semitism. There's no one I see as better people than the Breggins but it illustrates my point that they don't question the moral codes of those they see 'on the same side,' whether Yahweh or Sasha.
Great post, Tereza!!! I'm onboard with reciprocity, for sure.
And thanks for including your past stacks...some of us have had two power outages and a hurricane to crawl out of...I'll never catch up...so thanks for the reposts...!
I saw some of the Sasha/daughter fiasco - quite shocking - luckily I did not have time to stick my foot into that quicksand. I remember saying at the time, as I have often said, I'm so glad I didn't have children! I'm sure that my lunatic gene would have been passed down and I would be in jail right now.
But thanks for all your amazing work...always insightful...and inciteful is okay with me too, when called for.
Most excellent - courageous analyses and musings....always TY
As close as I can get to any so-called religion is my interest in Gnosticism, possibly the result of some extraordinary experiences, this is the closest I can get to possibly buying in. We all have highly personal foundations for our belief systems.
Just thought I'd throw this in here...if you want to take a wild ride...in the spirit of Jesusism?
I like to look at everything. I think it's possible to entertain all ideas without making them your own.
And I found this individual quite fascinating...paradigm shattering for the jesusists? Great...I'm making up words now...but, as I said, if you wanna take a wild ride...warning: it's not for sissies...
Pasheen, the only reason I'm glad you didn't have children is they would have distracted you from passing on your lunatic gene to all of us. But I would have loved to see Pasheen 2.0. The way you take in the maddest of felines and love them as they are is an excellent predictor of how you would have been as a mom, fostering the wildness and keeping a fierce heart. In the next life, k? The world needs some Diva Droplets. Deal?
'Inciteful,' hah! Your poet penchant is definitely a part of why I love you. And from your article--ewwwTube. Haha! But another part of why I love you is that stunning intelligence. Wow! I can't wait to listen to this interview. He sounds fascinating.
I'll need to put it together with my research, though, that Jesus is a fictional character who represents someone else. I thought it was Josephus until Frances Leader showed me the researcher who shows Josephus is fictional too. Now that I'm entertaining the possibility the NT was written around 700-900 CE, it changes the possible plot lines.
And you helped Acharya S. research her book? Mind blown. I have a draft in which I was transcribing one of her interviews from the maddening ewwwtube tool where it breaks every three words. But I'm very interested in her.
I've thought that the term Gnostic is too general, it's like lumping heretics together as all one thing rather than looking at their specific writings, and what schools they fall into. I did a lot of research on the gnostic gospel of Philip for my book in process called Revolutionary Mystics and How to Become One. Here are the first couple posts I did on it:
As for the gnostics...I simply resonate with the archons/demiurge...the overlords of this realm kind of thing. The predatory nature of this reality - the pain, blood lust, suffering, et al., I found it all insanely horrifying - ever since I was very young. That hasn't changed.
You spent a lot of time in the catholic tradition - so you can only imagine what a pain I was for the nuns in my catholic grade school....I challenged everything they tried to sell me. I was a rabid debater on the topic - even insinuating that "their" God was a sadistic abuser and a narcissist. I wasn't very popular in grade school and I didn't play well with others? And I never backed down from the insanity of that dogma, regardless of how many times they cracked my knuckles...ha! Luckily my mother backed me up, always...but eventually took me out of the catholic school system, for everyone's sanity. The nuns must have had multiple organsms, celebrating my departure...the demon seed of Satan had left the building. I remain defiant to this day.
why is it that you always inspire me to spill my guts...?
Thanks for the memories? LOL Holy schism, batgirl.
Okay, we have some bigger fish to fry and get ahead of...they are coming for us, fast and hard...forced vaxxes starts in NZ, but we are set up for the same...we best be on guard...
Thx for the links...I'll try to find time to dig in and report back? LY madly! 💖
Echo: You helped Acharya S. [R.I.P.] research her book?? WHAAAAT? Mind blown. Now that’s what a call a Diva Drop! Somebody [I] should Mention her book(s). I am a good way through “Did Moses Exist?”.
Acharya S (Dorothy Milne Murdock) took me down such deep rabbit holes. Now SHE was a genius(!), and not necessarily haunted. For others:
• Awake in our Mythology, The Christ Conspiracy Part 1 - Shadow Walker
Daniel Kristos (Ba’al Busters] has been featuring the series of interviews and talks with Ammon Hillman. I still don’t know what to think. For example, what did ‘Lestes” really mean – thief, robber, revolutionary, predator, child molester … ??? I have been walking around contemplating that I need to see a whole contiguous passage, not just selected ‘verses’.
I have also been pondering what Acharya S would make of Ammon Hillman(?)
I hope you know I'm a great admirer of your work, not least the sheer volume you produce! But in this case are you not splitting hairs a little? 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' could just as easily be inverted without losing its meaning as 'Don't do unto others what you wouldn't want then to do to you.' Which is the same as your law of reciprocity isn't it? I only mention this because I have always thought of this as profound guidance and have used it as a yardstick in my life. Much as 'Love thy neighbour as thyself'. Aye, there's the rub: for that phrase is often completely misunderstood and/or misapplied. My mother, who claimed to be a sound, church going Christian (I'm not) could never get this when I used to quote it to her because, like many, she did not love herself, which is pretty epidemic in Western cultures. In fact when I was coming to puberty in the 1960s it was considered anathema to have a high regard for one's self. Absolute indulgent ego-stricken nonsense. The phrase 'Oh he/she loves himself/herself too much' was a huge put down. It took me sometime to get over that self-criticism and see the value in the maxim. My mother never did really, she was pretty big on low self regard so pretty much never loved her neighbour either. I used to implore her to have higher regard for herself but I never really got through, even as I am quoting that (allegedly) Christian maxim at her. It's.a hard one to actually put into practice because even if you do love yourself why would you want to love your neighbour who wants to make war on you? Because darkness is the absence of light and to love your neighbour (i.e. send them light) is more likely to bring peace than hatred. Brings to mind MLK and 'Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.' It's bloody hard. As is 'Do unto others etc' which I still find a moral absolute and not that distinguishable from your law/rule of reciprocity. Thanks for stimulating my brain cells on this hot Saturday in UK. Blessings.
You make an excellent point, Tommy. I was thinking about that this morning, that loving yourself is part of 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' I define love as giving someone the benefit of the doubt that what they do is for a reason, that makes sense to them, and you would do no better in their circumstances. That's also how I define forgiveness. A central teaching of the Course is that you only forgive yourself by forgiving others (which includes taking away the ability to do harm) so everything you do for others is really for yourself. The most important step in changing, I feel, is first loving yourself and seeing that you've done the best you could in the circumstances you were given. Guilt makes people behave badly, imo.
And that said, we live in a culture of bad behavior. The financial control comes from your City of London, the military control comes from my DC and the religious control comes from the Vatican, three autonomous and interconnected regions, as Frances Leader has pointed out. There are only two possibilities--either human nature is inherently greedy and ruthless or our innate sense of right and wrong has been impaired. I'm exploring the latter because there's nothing I can do about the first other than despair, if it's true.
It's inarguable that the holy Roman Empire committed atrocities unimpeded by the moral code of its founding scripture. While you can interpret the Golden Rule as including its inverse, they were able to interpret it as justifying those things I detailed in my response to Aimee. When 'Jesus' says that even the Devil can quote scripture for his purpose, it's an admission that it's utterly ambiguous and useless as a moral code. The Rule of Reciprocity, clearly stated, would have given a clear refutation of the immoral actions of Christians, Crusaders, clergy & popes.
Something I forgot to put in was that David Graeber, my key reference for my book, writes in Debt how the religions of altruism were founded at the same time as money and debt as a moral obligation that overrode all others. Before coinage and taxation created feudalism, people had economic systems of reciprocity that were nuanced gift economies. It wasn't 'charity' but people took care of each other. When coinage made them complicit in conquest and enslavement of their neighbors, the idea that morality was acts of charity (requiring you to have money to give away) sprung up in tandem. I've seen this explicitly stated by rabbis for why God wants his chosen people to be rich, and even requires it.
And the same thinking is what confuses us politically today. We are responsible to care for the homeless, the immigrant, the poor, the sick, the refugee. We're not to question how the ability of their communities to take responsibility for themselves was taken away. So instead of going to the cause, we treat the symptoms--which helps out those profiting from their exploitation.
Thanks for stimulating my brain cells while watching the crows stalk my yard ;-)
I am looking into David Graeber. As someone who was myself duped for a time by Noam Chomsky (worked loosely with him at one time) and Howard Zinn (fell for his "the California missions were death camps" propaganda at one point), I am now cautious to learn history from people who have not overcome their indoctrination into Jewish supremacy. Everyone associated with the "anarchist autonomous zone" in Syria like Graeber, for example, has judgement that is highly suspect to me. People who use "fascist" as the definition of evil without having similar disregard for the genocidal effects of communist totalitarian regimes also may not be reliable sources. This tends to be a hallmark of valuing Jewish lives more than Catholic ones. Nevertheless, Graeber may have many valid points. If you have not had occasion to read "Homage to Catalonia" by George Orwell, I think it might shed light on the Jewish supremacist bias of the anarchist and communist movements in The West. Having worked with many in "the left" over the years, I can attest to these movements of communism, socialism and anarchism being characterized by anti-Catholic bigotry. I was at a leftist Palestine encampment at a university in Europe recently. The "rules" of the "space" forbade "misgendering" anyone. Yet the well known invited speaker was not discouraged at all from evidence free slandering of The Catholic Church for viewing non-Europeans as less than human. That is an easily disproved lie. He said he would discuss it with me offline since, of course, being "white" and Catholic, my perspective and "narrative" was NOT to be "centered" in the space. Yet I can assure you, there are way more Catholic Palestinians, the people the encampment claimed to be in solidarity with, than trans ones. Never heard back from that prominent "Marxist" Palestinian. Does he even know he has internalized a degree of Jewish supremacy as a result of his adopted "leftist" ideology as he parrots dishonest versions of history fed to him by Jewish supremacists? Likely not. Let his example be a caution to each one of us to examine our own degree of internalized Jewish supremacy from mainstream media, leftist communities and leftist dominated university education (even in most Catholic colleges and high schools, I might add.) If you are of European heritage, do not learn about your forebears from people who hate them and have no concern for the truth.
If I may, let me apply the principles of my article to this discussion, Aimee. People are not good or bad; behaviors and ideologies are good or bad.
If supremacy as a behavior and ideology is bad--and I would say it's the source of all evil--then Jewish supremacy can't be bad but Catholic or European supremacy good. So then we need to define supremacy by the specific actions: military domination, invasion of other people's countries, torture, imprisonment, two-tiered legal systems, control of the land, labor and monetary system.
I'm against all of these actions no matter who's doing it. Perhaps you're saying that Catholicism isn't a system of supremacy. That seems like a hard argument to make, as the largest landowner in the world, with popes having the power to designate emperors, and empire being in its title. But I'm open if that's your argument.
The principle behind Howard Zinn and the school of history that he launched is that history is written by the winners so, to know the truth, you need to listen to the losers. I live near a mission and was surprised that a docent, on a school tour where I was a chaperone, told the real story. I knew that story but didn't think they'd tell it.
How do you decide what the truth is? I have my own formulas for separating fact from fiction but I'm curious about yours. I think that to have a conversation about principles we can't use labels--as I say, any statement of ethics can contain no proper nouns. What do you think?
Thanks for being willing to discuss and consider. I really appreciate your time and your courage and work more generally.
Here are my thoughts. Supremacy of one type of individual over another type is wrong in both my view and Catholic teaching. Every human being has the same worth in the eyes of God, the creator, and I have no right to value any other individual as worth less (or more) than myself. All of us are “fallen” which means cannot be perfect and will sin. Sin is to do something that God does not want. God wants us to be moral. Human beings must simultaneously recognize the sacredness in being created in the image of God, but, at the very same time, remain eternally humble due to our vulnerability to sin. Some ideologies are more moral than others (Catholicism vs. Hedonism for example) and some human collectives (clans, social groupings,sub-cultures, cultures, countries, regions) adhere more to the moral law than others. E Michael Jones uses the Greek term “logos” which means logic, order, beauty, truth and more. Christ was the logos incarnate. Logos means the way of being that is trying to be in keeping with what at least Catholics believe God wants us to do. Some societies have a higher degree of logos than others. But every social grouping does have some degree of logos. Th ancient Greeks had a dp appreciate for logos.
If I say that I believe Catholicism is the best way to protect ones soul and live a moral life and that to live a moral life is the best life, that is my view, it is not “supremacy.” I may try to persuade you to adopt my view. No one can be forced to convert to Catholicism. Only sincere conversion with free will is valid. If you think hedonism or Gnosticism or Talmudic Judaism or Paganism is better, you are free to think it and to follow its teachings. That is your view. It doesn't make you a supremacist to vote with your feet and live by the beliefs you think are best and to tell people what you think is the best belief system to have. It is just being honest.
Now please tell me the “real story” about the mission. Did you know Howard Zinn was a Jewish Communist whose supposed “People's History of the United States” has many important factual errors and seems to have a bias against Catholics? W hen I moved to a place near a mission, I looked into the history and found out his take was not supported by the documentary record. But if you are a Jewish communist, who needs evidence to accuse Catholics of atrocities. Just don't notice any real Jewish atrocities like the disproportionate role of Jews in the slave trade or the good side of populism exemplified by Andrew Jackson standing up to the bankers.
I could go on and on and it has been a long journey of unlearning the teachings of propagandists and frauds like Zinn and Chomsky who I originally thought were just trying to bring more honesty and truth to improve the country out of loyalty to the United States. But given hat they leave out and hat they ere not correct about and other things like Chomsky being friends with Epstein and dining with Ehud Barak, I see it differently now.
Nice particularly when living in absolutely immoral times... suffice to be aware of what is happening in Palestine, and then watching the black comedies in Congress and the opening of the Olympics in Paris.
Thank you, Fadi. With what we know of history, these times don't contain more immoral acts of violence than the past millennium of slavery, torture and colonization. What I find really hopeful is that we see these things as immoral. 200 yrs ago people argued that slavery was ordained by God and it was certainly sanctioned by society. Now, it hasn't disappeared, but it's had to change form because people see it as wrong.
Israelis have to be breaking under the pressure of all this cognitive dissonance. The facade of being good people is tissue thin. I think things are changing fast, no matter how dark they seem.
On point as ALL WAYS Tereza. As they say regarding reciprocity, 'IF THE FOO SHITS, WEAR IT!' Or, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, etc. Further, as Frank Zappa of the Mothers of Invention said in 'Suzy Cream Cheese'... 'IT CAN'T HAPPEN HERE, IT CAN'T HAPPEN HERE... I'M TELLING YOU MY DEAR, IT CAN'T HAPPEN HERE' Of course we all know that IT can happen in Kansas and Minnesota and will happen too in lotsa other places too... like Tel Aviv. There is a cosmic balance in life whether people realize it or care about it or not. Listen to Judge Napolitano's program Judging Freedom on Youtube, with colonels like Lawrence Wilkerson and military experts like Scott Ritter and and ex-CIA analysts along the lines of Ray McGovern and professors like Jeffrey Sachs and John Mearsheimer and you might get a picture of what's coming in Ukraine and Israel and the Middle East. And it ain't pretty and is not going to work out the way the masters of the universe think it will! Life is a wheelbarrow... you are either in it being pushed by someone else, or you are pushing someone else.
I have to come to feel about Napolitana, Scott Ritter, Douglas Macgregor, George Galloway et al that they are positively gagging for WWIII. I used to like Ritter a lot but I'm now mistrusting pretty much everyone including him. (I seem to recall Tucker Carlson predicting WWIII in February 2023. as well, as if some kind of wish fulfilment.) It reminds me of Tereza's post about Latypova which I commented upon. Just because someone appears to 'be on your side' doesn't automatically make them an ally. The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend anymore Everyone seems to be carrying agendas (not least the so-called radical journalists on programmes like Redacted) which drives me crazy. Perhaps we should be paying more attention to (and applying) the maxims Tereza is addressing in this post.
What is your evidence that these people want WWIII? I think it is unfair and unwise to speculate about people's motives, especially when it contradicts what they have said many times. Do I think all of these men have blind spots and areas where I don't agree? Yes. Does that make them intentional agents for WWIII? Certainly not. But maybe I missed something. On what do you base your claim that any of these men are "gagging for WWIII." Many people do want Israel to be stopped by some power from their genocidal occupation and escalatory actions, but that does not necessarily mean any of those people would like to see WWIII come to pass.
I didn't suggest they wanted it Only psychopaths (and not all of them) want that. Please see my reply above for clarity. Perhaps the use of the word 'gagging' was inappropriate but since it is vernacular it may mean different things to different cultures. I withdraw it to avoid misunderstanding. Peace.
1- In December 2013 Obama gave Victoria Nuland $5 BBBillion to start the Maidan Revolution, install CIA puppets Poroshenko and Zelenskyy and remove Ukraine's duly elected President from power, Viktor Yakunovych.
2- The Obama - Biden Administration immediately turned Ukraine into a CIA outpost with BioWarfare Labs.
3- President Trump refused to provoke Russia into attacking Ukraine reason the Politiburo instituted 2 fake impeachments, stole the 11/2020 election , subjected him to 4 fake indictments and an assassination attempt
4- Meanwhile the Politburo has provided Ukraine F16s and missiles capable of reaching Moscow.
I just listen to what Napolitano and company say about what the US and Israel are doing to innocents in Ukraine and Gaza and the West Bank. I don't care what their past politics is. Scott Ritter broke down this past week talking about people being killed. Jeffrey Sachs can hardly be characterized as a war monger. He detests Netanyahu and believes that the Israelis want elimination of the Palestinians in Israel and war with Iran (and everybody else!). When you kill the negotiator on the other side, something is deranged upstairs and the only conclusion one can draw is that someone has TOTAL elimination of the population of their opponents in mind.
>>>>>>I have to come to feel about Napolitana, Scott Ritter, Douglas Macgregor, George Galloway et al that they are positively gagging for WWIII.<<<<<<
WTF?
Acknowledging the historical facts and making reasonable predictions thereof is not gagging for a nuclear WW3.
Speciallly when the Mockingbird Media loves to portray Putin as a madman. If he is WHY then are we poking the russian bear when it is a NUCLEAR POWER ?!?!?!?!?!?
Thanks for starting this spirited debate, Tommy! I resonate with what Aimee says, "Do I think all of these men have blind spots and areas where I don't agree? Yes. Does that make them intentional agents for WWIII? Certainly not."
There are SO many people I've cited and later done exposes on--Malone, Kennedy, Eisenstein, Chomsky, Caitlin Johnstone, and lately Sasha--that I understand the temptation to mistrust pretty much everyone. And in fact, I encourage it! Trust has no place in deciding our facts and logic, which should always be a work in progress based on no one's authority other than our own.
So I'd first ask your definition of WWIII and then, like Aimee, what evidence leads you to conclude that. The killing of the Hamas negotiator while he was in Iran seemed like it served two purposes--to make sure there was no ceasefire and to involve Iran. Other articles look at the likely false flag attack that killed 12 Druze youth on a playground in the Golan Heights, which Israel blamed on Hezbollah. That's another provocation.
Israel is hell-bent on starting an all-out war in the ME that pulls in the US, not just with money and weapons but with troops. None of those commentators have any power to start a war. I think a likely scenario is that this will end, not with a bang, but with an economic whimper. After Ukraine, the US is running out of weapons and ammunition. We're dependent for fuel on the ME and Venezuela, who we've alienated. All our components come from China. The demolition of the petrodollar by the BRICS means we can't dictate the economic terms to our resource vassal states.
I respect what everyone says here even when they vehemently disagree with me. So let me try and define what I mean by WWIII (as I think Galloway does). I mean total annihilation with old fashioned WMD, I was not suggesting that any of the people I cited were warmongers. In fact all of them have garnered my admiration at one time or another, I’lll focus on Galloway since he is of my generation, British and I have respected his maverick -and consistent - attitude for years. But my point was on the psychology of fear and WWIII and I’ll centre on Galloway because he knows, as I do, that a whole generation in the sixties was scarred by the fear of WWIII. It was always on the cards - Duck and Cover in US parlance. Since fear is our biggest enemy and hope and optimism a better ally (though not always) getting people to live in a constant state of fear is, as we all know, a fundamental tool of control. I remember thinking I wasn’t going to wake up the day after Kennedy was assassinated - I was eleven - because , as we were told then, it was going to be all out war with Russia and no-one would survive. Galloway would have experienced much the same thing. And then constantly until I was about 30 the spectre of WWWIII hung over us before it started to fade in the mid eighties I believe. People create fear all the time, unconsciously for the most part: kids telling ghost stories in the dorm to frighten their peers, covert threats in the work place, (unhealthy) relationships where one partner is always threatening to leave the other. And on and on. I’ll just say the word Covid which was maybe the biggest fear op of all time. Fear compromises the immune system, we all know that. Fear makes you ill. Fear paralyses you. I think I counted ten successive Galloway MOAT podcasts where he harped on about WWIII. For all the respect I have had for him I know he likes to be in control and he doesn’t really brook opposition and he is articulate enough with a vocabulary of obscure words (which he uses time and time again) to demonstrate his erudition. (Adumbrate is one of his favourites. He’s never failed to use in any of his shows I’ve watched. I’ve never heard anyone else ever employ that word.) It was never my intention to suggest any of those I cited were warmongers. A lot of this is largely unconscious. I was just suggesting in my own inept, Saturday, hungover way (was it Saturday?) that the constant spectre of WWIII hanging over us should have had its day and is not useful. Peace.
Excellent comment and point, Tommy, I'm glad you were goaded into clarifying this. Although the word 'gagging' threw me, I don't think you couldn't have explained this in a soundbite and it's certainly worth the explanation.
I'm also glad you used Galloway as your example. I used to listen to something called The Shortwave Report that compiled news from around the world, not available in the US, and Galloway was one of my favorites along with Afshin Rattansi. So my thought when you mentioned him was 'Say it ain't so!'
You're five years older than me, by my calculations. I was six and in first grade when Kennedy was killed, and it's the only time I remember the nun taking us to the convent where they had a TV to watch the footage. Definitely an impression!
That's funny about Galloway's vocab. I've counted the times Russell Brand used 'deracinate' after he first learned it. But I've never heard of adumbrate.
My daughter says the mother in Dune always reminds her of me when she says Fear is the Mindkiller. The Course says there's only fear and love--whatever isn't love comes from fear. And I suspect all 'covid' symptoms could have been caused by our fear. I can think of a very dramatic example that was one of the first I read in Sun magazine (the literary one, not the tabloid). Someone coughed in aisle four and how could she have forgotten to wash her hair? That particular author (who I like) has face blindness, illustrating the power of her mind, yet was utterly debilitated from covid, and added greatly to the fear.
I have stopped listening to Scott Ritter because I feel his fearmongering is inflationary. And I can't stomach Chris Hedges, the Eeyore of sanctimonious doom and gloom. It strikes me that these are all liberal icons who were also part of the climate catastrophe crowd, another psyop.
If you've made your reputation predicting annihilation to scare people into paying attention to you, some part of you is going to want to be vindicated. So 'gagging for it' may be appropriate after all. Certainly you're going to resist anyone saying this is actually going to turn out for the best. I see your point.
Actually I was 12 when Kennedy was shot. Forgot when I was born!! I've tripped up on The Course so many times over the last thirty five years since I fell over it in a library. I now have it beside my armchair tempting me to pounce at any time and at least try to do a daily reading but before you know it it's become beer o clock and then that 'manana' feeling gets to me. (I lived in Spain once, kinda like the culture.)
Ernest! So glad you've finally joined the conversation after--how long? 15 yrs? Longer?--of grimacing at your puns on my own ;-) Happy to share the wealth.
As you can see, I make very clear distinctions between attacking people and challenging ideas, allowing any and all of the latter and none of the former. So don't worry about a spirited debate. It's not that we're all friends here--it's better than that. We're all in agreement about how people should be treated whether they're friends or not. And those not in agreement don't last long. Welcome to my world!
Tereza, everyone says that puns are the lowest form of humor. That's shows THEIR lack of knowledge and not having read Freud in the original and his books on Leonardo and the Moses of Michelangelo etc. Freud (who was no dumboso... despite his beliefs about everything starting in the womb... or wombat!... and determining one's thinking for the rest of one's life!), believed that PUNS ARE THE HIGHEST FORM OF HUMOR... because they compress language into multiple meanings simultaneously... which of course requires one to be of 'higher intelligence' to understand. In other words, you have to be an ID-iot with a Super Ego to not understand someone like James Joyce or a joke like the stewardess saying to a vulture carrying two dead raccoons onto an airplane: 'I'm sorry sir! We only allow carrion per customer'. Carry On Tereza! Carry On! O pun for further discussion!
A highly relevant and articulate rant, Tereza. I am intending to post the following when I have finished and indexed the guest speaker segments. This is a heads up featuring Ayo Kimathi – I have his book from Money Tree Publishing. The whole conference is over eight hours – comfortably four at speed x2 as always). Some sensational inspirational, motivational speakers. I will be exploring more from the event convenor, Khanverse.
Ayo Kimathi starts at 4:51:15 – he starts talking about men being responsible to look after women and children
I always thought the golden rule might be flawed a bit even though it exists in one form or another in many religions. And the reason I find it flawed is because the “treat others like you would treat yourself” doesn’t have to be a good thing. I know plenty of folk who treat themselves like shit. No respect for oneself also means no respect for others.
Tommy P makes that point too, which is a good one.
I might treat myself to 12 hrs of dance and aerial a week but I would NEVER subject anyone else to it ;-) Good thing I don't otherwise have a life, other than daughters and stackers o'course. And Pauline made that point about the other religions but I think it only exists there in its negative form. Which makes sense--rules should be about what you can't do, not about what you must do. That should be up to you and seen as generosity, not obligation.
Ah but that's where I think the negative version is genius, even or especially for the contrarian. You don't like being manipulated? Don't manipulate others. You don't like people telling you what to do? Don't tell them what to do. You don't like being controlled? Don't control them.
It's really the basis for a system of anarchy. Whatever doesn't hurt anyone else is your own beezwax.
Perhaps it lost something in the translation from Aramaic (or Hebrew?) I think the key word is 'would'. You might treat yourself like shit (who hasn't done a bit of self-abuse - my hangovers are legendary) but rather wish you wouldn't. I think people treat themselves like shit (and others) because it is a cry for help. Apart from psychopaths (who I can't vouch for) most people would rather be nice to each other than otherwise. There's just a lot of complicated psychological factors that come into play.
I just so appreciate how you can take deep assumptions and show the flip side. What we've agreed to without realizing it. Who doesn't think the Golden Rule is awesome? Enter Tereza.
Wonderful reflection here. Thank you for expanding minds and conversations, as always.
I love that you recognize and appreciate that. Yes, it's like taking a teddy bear and saying, 'Do you know this represents the reason we have the Federal Reserve?' Or the child-friendly story of Noah's Ark and saying, 'Here's how slavery has been justified.' And both of those would be true ;-)
Thanks Terza! I'm enjoying your posts. I don't always agree. But who cares? What matters is that we're all writing and posting things that direct attention to something worth thinking about and discussing together. For me, to hope to be "right" in such mattres is a fool's errand.
Be that as it may, I like this quote from your essay, "Jesus said, “Give away all your possessions and follow me.”" Though I have no problem with JC, I prefer Nietzsche's take when he wrote, "Go away from me and resist Zarathustra. And even better, be ashamed of him. Maybe he deceived you."
In any event, I don't think ideas should be believed, I think they should be tested and used. If they turn out to be wrong, so what? There's no shame in that. Just an opportunity to learn, change, and grow.
Thanks, Paul. I agree about not believing ideas. I'm trying to break the habit of saying 'I believe' and replace it with 'I suspect.' In either case, I mean it to be a temporary statement of 'to the best of my current knowledge, this is my transitory conclusion.'
To believe is to make up your mind ahead of the facts and your experience. To believe really implies its opposite--you don't know and you're so afraid that reality would contradict you that you can't let it in. So I only have one dogma, that I'm no better than anyone else, and everything else is up for grabs. But I do have many suspicions!
Really good one, Tereza. For some connected or disconnected reason, the rule of reciprocity and the double-edged word and sword set off a thought about mutually assured destruction playing a POSITIVE role during the Cold War. Because, unlike now, both (all) sides basically played by and respected the "rules." When a "rules based order" -- post Cold War -- had to be proclaimed (manufactured), you had to smell a rat. (Maybe like the 10 Commandments). Watched a good You Tube documentary on Olga Korbut tonight, courtesy of Celia Farber. The greater degree of bottom-line respect for the "other" power's people during the "Cold War" compared to today was obvious. I'm old enough to remember going to the Melrose Track and Field games as a kid and seeing the classic one-on-one high jump competition between America's star, 6'5" John Thomas (black, from Massachusetts, you don't hear much about him in black history month, do you) and Russian (from Siberia) Valeriy Brumel, who won the night I went and also beat Thomas in the '64 Olympics. The memories are precious; I don't recall hearing ANY of the repulsive denigration or "cancelling" (from New Yorkers in Madison Square Garden) that is the norm today. Brumel got a standing ovation.
Great points, Howard. There's so much desire to just enjoy and appreciate other people, so much admiration of physical capabilities. In my aerial conditioning class, we've been watching Russian boys who are training on floor moves that seem like break-dancing. We keep trying to see if we can do them and joking that we need to find a country where there's no competition and become citizens, so we can get into the Olympics as their break dancing team ;-)
With all that natural goodwill, imagine how much propaganda it takes to keep us from liking each other. Imagine what it will be like when that propaganda's gone!
Darn, I did a search using this link and lost the long reply I'd composed. Here goes again:
If I might, I'd like to use this as an example of my principle to 'Love the person, challenge the ideas.' My dogma is that all people are born equally capable of making moral decisions, and the difference in what they do is the result of their circumstances--the stories and systems they're subject to. When an entire people like the Ashkenazis are enacting the most immoral, repugnant and revolting atrocities possible (with which I agree), the question is why?
They weren't born that way. So what are the stories and systems that have made it possible for them to override their innate morality? I know you've already seen these, but that's why I focus on the immorality of the Torah and Talmud (I'll try not to hit the search on this page):
For Kennedy, the only question is whether he's naive, complicit or controlled. We both eliminate naive. Mossad killed his uncle and father, and I think he knows that. He's friends with Woody Harrelson and his father may have pulled the trigger on the bullet that killed JFK. You think complicit, and you may be right, but I tend towards controlled. I think they have blackmail on him from his younger days that's so incriminating that he would be ruined if they released it, and that would have to mean children. Drugs that make someone unaware of what they're doing and a blackmail network of groomed children is the ultimate control.
every candidate for president has a lot against them, the 3 most knows are Zionists, and the other 3 just won't make it, because only a handful of people know they exist. I just got a message from Emanuel Pasteich, who will declare his aim at presidency from Tokyo.
Indeed, the ASS-K-NAZIS were directly responsible for 09/11
In Re Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
Cease and desist the Holier than thou BULLSHIT
Let Cindy Sheehan educate you :
“Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full well that my son, my family, this nation and this world were betrayed by George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agendas after 9/11. We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedoms and democracy … not for the real reason, because the Arab Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy.”
I agree that Mossad was responsible for 9/11 but it doesn't seem like Cindy Sheehan does. At first I thought like she does (or did in 2005), that it was retaliation for ME policy. Then I thought for many years, when I was exposed to groups like Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth, it was the US Deep State. I've now come to realize that's another word for those who also control Mossad, and that the CIA was the next circle of psyop to catch those who saw through the first.
I believe that Retaliation against the US is plausible because
1- It was the US >>>>Harry S Truman - who in 1948 in exchangee for $2 million and the ZIonist vote stole Palestine away from 1.5 million Palestinians who overnight became foreigners on their own Land .
2- Subsequent administrations have granted Israel $3 BBBillion per year which was increased to $4.5 BBBBillion by Obama. Monies which are used for the Palestinian Genocide,
My bad, I failed to explain that the Fox News report intended to show that Israel had advanced knowledge but refused to share the intel.
The Israelites did celebrate after we were hit but maintain that they just wanted us to experience the "terrorism" which they are allegedly subjected to on a daily basis.
From my standpoint their silence makes them complicit.
I would go further that they are the ones who planted the demolition devices. It also explains the common objection that 'two people can keep a secret if one of them is dead.' Mossad agents posing as an elevator repair crew can definitely keep a secret.
The only people involved from the ME, I think, was the Bin Laden family that met with Bush and were ushered out of the country on 911. I have the Steve Coll book on my shelf, The Bin Ladens, thanks to Ernest. Also the House of Saud.
The basis of our civilization is Catholicism. Morality has been carefully considered and interpreted from scripture and put into Catholic teaching. It might be wise to learn more about it, for the least to better understand the foundations of our civilization. But further, I would argue there is genius in it that is not of this world, and I believe that is because Christ was actually who He said he was. Good English language authors who can better help non-Christians appreciate the implications of Christian teaching are G. K. Chesterton and C. S. Lewis. Many of these short books are in audio form for free online such as "The Everlasting Man", "Orthodoxy", and "Mere Christianity." I 100% agree with you that morality needs to be our priority because I believe we are in a spiritual war. If we learn how to follow God's commandments, we will be protected from the demonic. I would not be so quick to dismiss the wisdom of your civilization and forebears if I were you. All the best.
I should add, the books and interviews of E Michael Jones are very relevant and topical presentations of Catholic teaching and morality. His magazine is called "Culture Wars" and some articles and many videos can be found at his website http://www.culturewars.com .
Aimee, by coincidence Julius had recommended this JP conference that he'll be posting about: https://www.bitchute.com/video/HDBUvxMxx6jx. He was particularly struck by Ayo Kimathi but it also includes E. Michael Jones and Cynthia McKinney. So I was able to form some impression of him first hand. I haven't gotten to his talk in the 8 hr conference but they asked the panel for their solutions, so I heard some of each.
He started by saying that we needed to recognize that we're not alone in this, that God is with us--and I agree completely with that and got excited. Then he went into sin and evil--concepts I've written much about as the original way that we were divided by the Yahweh story from the Garden of Eden and the tree of judgment: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/in-the-blood-of-eden.
He ends by saying that God will get us out of this just like he did Joseph from Egypt. That's another story, of course, that I analyze as the start of Hebrew usury, turning all the free farmers of Egypt into feudal slaves through his taxation scheme: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/the-genesis-of-the-dysfunctional.
I would have to say that he confirms my point--Yahwism is the foundation on which the Jesus narrative is built. Even in a conference on the Jewish problem, he's quoting Jewish scriptures.
I really don’t mind E Michael Jones (EMJ) – I have learned a lot from him - but he raises the eyebrows on occasions. I was watching a podcast – can’t remember if it was Zach (LogosRevealed), Daniel Kristos (Ba’al Busters) or Giuseppe (G-Man – Rising Tide Media) - and they did a promo for Money Tree Publishing (MTP) and showed a screen which featured two **NEW** books by EMJ – “Libido Dominandi” and “The Holocaust Narrative”. I am keen to read the former (PDF) and have started the latter (hard copy from EMJ).
What is interesting is that those two books are no longer featured on MTP. Maybe they just didn’t fit the exclusive criteria for that site. Maybe the tension evident at the JP Conference had something to do with it.
I am actually reading E Michael Jones’ “The Holocaust Narrative”. Excellent opening where he thoroughly eviscerates and exposes the lies of Blinken and his father-in-law but he needs to be educated on the Babi Yar atrocity propaganda narrative.
• The Alleged Babi Yar Massacre Of 33,771 Jews In 2 Days & The Mass Cremation Operation 2 Years Later To Hide It
I'm watching Zach in the one you recommended with Khanverse. I'm at his recommendation that all the 50 states should divide along racial lines, including the European countries that white people have come from. I'm figuring out how I'll divide myself in two so I can be part of the German state and Irish state, and whether my daughters will live elsewhere in the Italian state and Slavic state and need to divorce the husband whose ancestors come from elsewhere.
My suspicions when he only showed slim women with long blond hair as representing the ideal women have been confirmed. So you agree with him on this, Julius?
Ali is a funny and charming guy, and I fully believe that he had every right to do what he wanted and marry a black women and have black children that looked like him. But this goes back to the principles of anarchy. Do you have the right to tell someone else what they must do or can't do, if it affects no one but themselves? And if some have that right over others, what gives them that right and takes it away from the rest? Michael Parkinson was entirely right when he said Ali's was a philosophy of despair--his sense that things would always be difficult for people of mixed marriages and that they wouldn't be proud of their mixed race kids is 100% false where I live, whether CA or Appalachia.
If Zach wants to live surrounded by people who are just like him, I wouldn't stop him. But why should he stop others who don't want that? And what does it have to do with the genocide in Gaza or the control over the US political system or the war that Bibi's doing his best to inflame in the ME with no concern for whether it goes nuclear? There are so many real issues regarding the Jews or those who control them that this seems like sending us down a dead end. Just my 3 cents (as Tonika says, inflation ;-)
I'll reply to Aimee here so it goes to both you and Pauline. To say, "I consider E Michael Jones a gatekeeper" is an opinion, stated as an opinion. You consider him to have "very relevant and topical presentations of Catholic teaching and morality," also an opinion.
There's a difference between finding someone's analysis wrong, which it seems Pauline also does based on the Fascio link that's behind the paywall, and considering someone to be a gatekeeper. I'm curious as to Pauline's reasons for thinking he's a gatekeeper but it's certainly not a personal attack. Jones is a public figure whose influence extends to hundreds of thousands of people, I'm guessing. As such, his motives should be up for public debate. If all public figures had to be accepted at face value without it being seen as a personal attack, there would be no journalism. And it doesn't seem like Jones would follow that rule, from a glance at his own writing. He certainly questions the motives of public figures.
There are two questions--does Jones ask to be addressed as Dr? and if he does or not, is this a nasty, unsubstantiated attack? On the Culture Wars homepage, I notice that a decision was made to put Dr. in front of 3 out of 8 speakers. That might be at his or another's request. Again, I'd be curious as to what led Pauline to state that but it seems a stretch to say it's a nasty attack.
The other question is whether it's wrong to be 'keen to be addressed as Dr.' You make a valid argument for why someone might, in order to bolster their legitimacy to critics, as you've done. I've been personally breaking my habit of addressing anyone as Dr. because it conveys authority on someone based on their academic credentials. I have an abd PhD, and I think that except for a handful of teachers and books, everything that's shaped how I think I learned outside of school. As part of my dogma that no one is an authority over anyone else, I've made a conscious effort to not use titles in my writing. But I don't hold it against anyone who refers to themselves that way, I just don't use it when referring to them.
My point is that seems very mild, and I don't think Pauline is going to "come at [you] for telling the truth about [your] background to counter certain dismissive behavior." I don't think she's criticizing you at all, just giving her impression of Jones. Which is really who the discussion is about.
Going to be brief. Initially I found him refreshing. Kevin Barrett has regularly interviewed him. He's bright, funny, knowledgeable. I'd say that's closer to fact than opinion.
Then via X I gradually noticed an absence of criticising the role of the Pontiff/Holy See (I view this org as corrupt/captured) re this ongoing genocide.
Now I was fairly new and haven't read his books or checked X post history but id shocked if he had bitterly rebuked the Church for her role in the plandemic, esp re to the gene therapy jabs. Has he called the imposter pontiff out on his propaganda re the climate data/modelling fraud or encouragement to lovingly accept ongoing mass immigration?
His X response to Abp Carlo Vigano for correctly assessing the current state of the church was the last straw.
I find him to be rather lofty, arrogant also.
Now I don't know if he has discerned the holocaust hoax yet (neither curious at this point and as mentioned not read his book). Quite possibly since he's friendly with K Barrett...but if a researcher like himself has not yet got a thoroughly good sense of WW2, Hitler, National Socialism esp re the Church I become sceptical.
It remains my view that he is a gatekeeper for the institution of the (Zionist/Mason-infiltrated) Church.
I appreciate that background. And the feel for him, which does matter to me. I think it's possible that I can forgive anything but arrogance.
As an aside, I think you'd be amused by my convo with Kevin over his objection to Kamala as 'post-menopausal'. Especially one responder who is outrageously arrogant in telling women they're better off when men no longer want their wrinkly skin and saggy flesh, and they have no libido. Then they can actually think without the interference of hormones!
I have never seen him "keen to be addressed as a Dr" and I have listened to hours of his interviews and asked him several questions on his live chats. This sounds like a nasty, unsubstantiated personal attack. If he does wish to be called "Dr." it may be to give his scholarship more weight since he is working outside of any particular university. I do that myself when I am critiquing technology policy to people who have no technical background because they often try to tar me as "anti-science" for speaking out against vaccine mandates. I have a PhD from MIT and my undergrad was at Caltech, so not likely. If you want to come at me for telling the truth about my background to counter certain dismissive behavior, have at it, but is that really a wrong to be corrected? Or just a baseless way to imply haughtiness or pride in someone you don't actually know the motives of?
As for the claim he is a gate-keeper, this is also a personal attack. Why not just say here you find his analysis wrong and hat you think is correct? Why not go for inning people over with your better ideas rather than resorting to ad hominem? I am sure he like any human being is incorrect or incomplete about many things and it may be due to bias or negative intent, but it could also be due to a different perspective or blind spots. Why not articulate your case and see if it adds to an improved understanding? See if it stands up to scrutiny? Why not try to promote a discourse that seeks to get at truth rather than defame those you disagree with, particularly when those people are already deplatformed and subject to censorship and slander by powerful forces in our society? Just a suggestion.
Thanks for replying, Aimee. I would NEVER dismiss the religion at the basis of our civilization. If we want to understand how we got here, we need to scrutinize and discuss exactly that. I went to Catholic grade school, HS and college, entering as a religion major. I attended the int'l conference of Bible scholars, the Jesus Seminars, for a decade when I researched 'Christianity'. There's nothing in that level of attention that is dismissive.
Under the Rule of Reciprocity, empire is inherently immoral. It's foreigners who rule over, not only their own country, but other countries. Would British citizens say that it would be wrong if they were ruled by Ghana? Yes, of course. So a religion had to replace the moral code that had been used by indigenous communities who stayed in one place, and needed to get along with their neighbors.
So my question for you is whether the acts of the holy Roman Empire fit your morality? These of course include colonization, conquest, torture, murder, subjugation of women and indigenous, slavery and land theft. None of those would have been seen as moral without the confusion that put religion (and debt) above every person's instinctual recognition of right and wrong.
I don't think those who enacted these atrocities were immoral. I think they had been trapped by the domination of two immoral systems--money and religion. And I think the same is true for those enacting atrocities in Gaza today. Only by questioning the basis of our 'civilization' can we release them. That's my thought but I'm open to having my mind changed.
My take, even though I am no expert: Catholic teaching agrees that we are all born with the moral law written on our hearts by God, our creator, and are all endowed with free will. (God could have created us to be obedient robots, but he wanted us to be able to love Him in a way that has meaning. Compelled love has no meaning.) But we are also all fallen. We are susceptible to temptation. So, we each are born with free will and the moral law (a conscience), but we also each have our own unique set of gifts and weaknesses and familial, cultural, political, social settings to navigate. Sin darkens the mind and keeps us from choosing what is most moral, but working to be close to God especially through the sacraments of the Eucharist and confession, can help us be protected from the wounding and wisdom reducing effects of temptation and sin. All human beings are created in the image and likeness of God. All human beings have the same worth, regardless of belief system or religion. Catholicism is universal in the sense that it respects the inherent worth of every human being. So how does this belief system align with the track record of the Catholic Church in history? Well, for starters, have we been taught accurate history? I would argue that for English speakers, it is difficult due to the Black Legend and the legacy of the English brutal bloody war against Catholicism to get to the bottom of many distortions. There is a WASP bias against Catholicism that must be overcome if we hope to seek truth. But there is also a Jewish bias against Christianity in general and we have seen that Talmudic values put tribal interests over abstract values like truth, so that ancestral hatred also has to be considered when we trust a source like Howard Zinn or David Graeber. It is very important to not learn Catholic history from people who hate Catholics. It is wise to be cautious about Catholic historians who may engage in hagiography. A great place to start is the work of WASP agnostic scholar who claims to be seeking truth for the sake of history as opposed to any "team" called Rodney Stark. I have read his books "Bearing False Witness: Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History" and "God's Battalions: The Case for the Crusades." E Michael Jones is Catholic, but still, his work is worth reading and considering. If you are a truth seeker, then you will use critical thinking as you research. He has many books, but you might start with "Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control" and "The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit." But in summary, while Catholics have been responsible for many sins and even crimes, it is wise to examine the evidence about any particular claim or charge on a case by case basis and consider all perspectives. while I think it is fair to say that Catholic society as paternalistic, I do not think that can be equated in any way with racism or conquest or dehumanization. Th movie "The Mission" contrasts Catholic colonization with exploitative colonization, for example. That is just a fictional movie, but contains truth about the differences in approach that took place. I know many Catholics with indigenous heritage who are very grateful for being brought into The Catholic Church. You can say they are all brainwashed, but not without being paternalistic yourself. I have heard that The Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe is the most visited of all Catholic shrines.
I think what is called the golden rule has existed way longer than Jesus' time. There are quite similar formulations in other countries, other religions and other settings.
Yes but it existed as the inverse, that it is immoral to do to others what would be wrong for them to do to you. In its original form, it's completely incompatible with empire. Laws should be written to protect people from one another, so they should always be worded in the negative with everything else permitted. They shouldn't tell people what they must do, or force them, as everyone in this thread would likely agree.
The negatively-worded Golden Rule is the perfect moral basis for laws that give people the maximum freedom to do whatever they want that doesn't hurt anyone else. The Golden Rule provides no such litmus test. Instead it creates welfare states: "If you were homeless, wouldn't you want someone to take you in?" And at the same time, it makes us complicit in immoral acts because we don't have a Rule of Reciprocity to fall back on. So we're made to feel guilty for not fixing the symptoms of the problems they cause, while we're all teetering on the brink.
If you want to talk morality, you have to take a good look at the old testament and what type of person actually wrote it.
https://danielnagase.substack.com/p/wwiii
Daniel! I get more subs who are referred from your stack than any other. And with the similarity of our approaches and our emphasis on applying logic, that's no surprise. In my article on Sasha, I quote your 'discrepancy analysis,' a concept that comes in handy again and again. It's that little anomaly that tips me off that something's not consistent.
And I agree with you 100% that we need to take a good look at the OT. There's no evidence of the OT ever being written in Aramaic, however, only the 'elite' language of Hebrew or the Habiru, nomads who were used to enact ruthless acts of conquest by (perhaps) the Hyksos or foreign rulers. So it's written with that 'discrepancy' that it needs to justify what was inherently evident as wrong to all settled peoples. The links I put in my reply to David show more agreement and examples of your point.
I don't have your experience of psychopaths so I can't offer 'proof' that they're made, not born. I have seen good parents unwittingly foster sociopathic behaviors in their children, but we agree on the systems and stories as allowing that, no matter where it comes from.
I noticed that the Breggins were the 'like' before mine on your article. Ginger is one of the people who hasn't responded to my email asking her response to the Sasha article. And I don't know if you saw my article challenging them on the morality of the OT: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/the-breggins-and-semitism. There's no one I see as better people than the Breggins but it illustrates my point that they don't question the moral codes of those they see 'on the same side,' whether Yahweh or Sasha.
Thanks for responding.
Great post, Tereza!!! I'm onboard with reciprocity, for sure.
And thanks for including your past stacks...some of us have had two power outages and a hurricane to crawl out of...I'll never catch up...so thanks for the reposts...!
I saw some of the Sasha/daughter fiasco - quite shocking - luckily I did not have time to stick my foot into that quicksand. I remember saying at the time, as I have often said, I'm so glad I didn't have children! I'm sure that my lunatic gene would have been passed down and I would be in jail right now.
But thanks for all your amazing work...always insightful...and inciteful is okay with me too, when called for.
Most excellent - courageous analyses and musings....always TY
As close as I can get to any so-called religion is my interest in Gnosticism, possibly the result of some extraordinary experiences, this is the closest I can get to possibly buying in. We all have highly personal foundations for our belief systems.
Just thought I'd throw this in here...if you want to take a wild ride...in the spirit of Jesusism?
I like to look at everything. I think it's possible to entertain all ideas without making them your own.
And I found this individual quite fascinating...paradigm shattering for the jesusists? Great...I'm making up words now...but, as I said, if you wanna take a wild ride...warning: it's not for sissies...
https://open.substack.com/pub/divadrops/p/ammon-hillman-haunted-genius?r=98z5b&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Pasheen, the only reason I'm glad you didn't have children is they would have distracted you from passing on your lunatic gene to all of us. But I would have loved to see Pasheen 2.0. The way you take in the maddest of felines and love them as they are is an excellent predictor of how you would have been as a mom, fostering the wildness and keeping a fierce heart. In the next life, k? The world needs some Diva Droplets. Deal?
'Inciteful,' hah! Your poet penchant is definitely a part of why I love you. And from your article--ewwwTube. Haha! But another part of why I love you is that stunning intelligence. Wow! I can't wait to listen to this interview. He sounds fascinating.
I'll need to put it together with my research, though, that Jesus is a fictional character who represents someone else. I thought it was Josephus until Frances Leader showed me the researcher who shows Josephus is fictional too. Now that I'm entertaining the possibility the NT was written around 700-900 CE, it changes the possible plot lines.
And you helped Acharya S. research her book? Mind blown. I have a draft in which I was transcribing one of her interviews from the maddening ewwwtube tool where it breaks every three words. But I'm very interested in her.
I've thought that the term Gnostic is too general, it's like lumping heretics together as all one thing rather than looking at their specific writings, and what schools they fall into. I did a lot of research on the gnostic gospel of Philip for my book in process called Revolutionary Mystics and How to Become One. Here are the first couple posts I did on it:
https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/revolutionary-mystics-and-how-to
https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/the-genesis-of-the-dysfunctional
Always good to hear from you, my friend!
TY so much for the props...you're so kind.
As for the gnostics...I simply resonate with the archons/demiurge...the overlords of this realm kind of thing. The predatory nature of this reality - the pain, blood lust, suffering, et al., I found it all insanely horrifying - ever since I was very young. That hasn't changed.
You spent a lot of time in the catholic tradition - so you can only imagine what a pain I was for the nuns in my catholic grade school....I challenged everything they tried to sell me. I was a rabid debater on the topic - even insinuating that "their" God was a sadistic abuser and a narcissist. I wasn't very popular in grade school and I didn't play well with others? And I never backed down from the insanity of that dogma, regardless of how many times they cracked my knuckles...ha! Luckily my mother backed me up, always...but eventually took me out of the catholic school system, for everyone's sanity. The nuns must have had multiple organsms, celebrating my departure...the demon seed of Satan had left the building. I remain defiant to this day.
why is it that you always inspire me to spill my guts...?
Thanks for the memories? LOL Holy schism, batgirl.
Okay, we have some bigger fish to fry and get ahead of...they are coming for us, fast and hard...forced vaxxes starts in NZ, but we are set up for the same...we best be on guard...
Thx for the links...I'll try to find time to dig in and report back? LY madly! 💖
Let me know if she looks and responds. As I said, I find his work really interesting.
Echo: You helped Acharya S. [R.I.P.] research her book?? WHAAAAT? Mind blown. Now that’s what a call a Diva Drop! Somebody [I] should Mention her book(s). I am a good way through “Did Moses Exist?”.
Acharya S (Dorothy Milne Murdock) took me down such deep rabbit holes. Now SHE was a genius(!), and not necessarily haunted. For others:
• Awake in our Mythology, The Christ Conspiracy Part 1 - Shadow Walker
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOAZ1L-0hgs
• Awake in our Mythology, The Christ Conspiracy Part 2 - Shadow Walker
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrBFwhBMgz8
Daniel Kristos (Ba’al Busters] has been featuring the series of interviews and talks with Ammon Hillman. I still don’t know what to think. For example, what did ‘Lestes” really mean – thief, robber, revolutionary, predator, child molester … ??? I have been walking around contemplating that I need to see a whole contiguous passage, not just selected ‘verses’.
I have also been pondering what Acharya S would make of Ammon Hillman(?)
I hope you know I'm a great admirer of your work, not least the sheer volume you produce! But in this case are you not splitting hairs a little? 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you' could just as easily be inverted without losing its meaning as 'Don't do unto others what you wouldn't want then to do to you.' Which is the same as your law of reciprocity isn't it? I only mention this because I have always thought of this as profound guidance and have used it as a yardstick in my life. Much as 'Love thy neighbour as thyself'. Aye, there's the rub: for that phrase is often completely misunderstood and/or misapplied. My mother, who claimed to be a sound, church going Christian (I'm not) could never get this when I used to quote it to her because, like many, she did not love herself, which is pretty epidemic in Western cultures. In fact when I was coming to puberty in the 1960s it was considered anathema to have a high regard for one's self. Absolute indulgent ego-stricken nonsense. The phrase 'Oh he/she loves himself/herself too much' was a huge put down. It took me sometime to get over that self-criticism and see the value in the maxim. My mother never did really, she was pretty big on low self regard so pretty much never loved her neighbour either. I used to implore her to have higher regard for herself but I never really got through, even as I am quoting that (allegedly) Christian maxim at her. It's.a hard one to actually put into practice because even if you do love yourself why would you want to love your neighbour who wants to make war on you? Because darkness is the absence of light and to love your neighbour (i.e. send them light) is more likely to bring peace than hatred. Brings to mind MLK and 'Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate, only love can do that.' It's bloody hard. As is 'Do unto others etc' which I still find a moral absolute and not that distinguishable from your law/rule of reciprocity. Thanks for stimulating my brain cells on this hot Saturday in UK. Blessings.
You make an excellent point, Tommy. I was thinking about that this morning, that loving yourself is part of 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' I define love as giving someone the benefit of the doubt that what they do is for a reason, that makes sense to them, and you would do no better in their circumstances. That's also how I define forgiveness. A central teaching of the Course is that you only forgive yourself by forgiving others (which includes taking away the ability to do harm) so everything you do for others is really for yourself. The most important step in changing, I feel, is first loving yourself and seeing that you've done the best you could in the circumstances you were given. Guilt makes people behave badly, imo.
And that said, we live in a culture of bad behavior. The financial control comes from your City of London, the military control comes from my DC and the religious control comes from the Vatican, three autonomous and interconnected regions, as Frances Leader has pointed out. There are only two possibilities--either human nature is inherently greedy and ruthless or our innate sense of right and wrong has been impaired. I'm exploring the latter because there's nothing I can do about the first other than despair, if it's true.
It's inarguable that the holy Roman Empire committed atrocities unimpeded by the moral code of its founding scripture. While you can interpret the Golden Rule as including its inverse, they were able to interpret it as justifying those things I detailed in my response to Aimee. When 'Jesus' says that even the Devil can quote scripture for his purpose, it's an admission that it's utterly ambiguous and useless as a moral code. The Rule of Reciprocity, clearly stated, would have given a clear refutation of the immoral actions of Christians, Crusaders, clergy & popes.
Something I forgot to put in was that David Graeber, my key reference for my book, writes in Debt how the religions of altruism were founded at the same time as money and debt as a moral obligation that overrode all others. Before coinage and taxation created feudalism, people had economic systems of reciprocity that were nuanced gift economies. It wasn't 'charity' but people took care of each other. When coinage made them complicit in conquest and enslavement of their neighbors, the idea that morality was acts of charity (requiring you to have money to give away) sprung up in tandem. I've seen this explicitly stated by rabbis for why God wants his chosen people to be rich, and even requires it.
And the same thinking is what confuses us politically today. We are responsible to care for the homeless, the immigrant, the poor, the sick, the refugee. We're not to question how the ability of their communities to take responsibility for themselves was taken away. So instead of going to the cause, we treat the symptoms--which helps out those profiting from their exploitation.
Thanks for stimulating my brain cells while watching the crows stalk my yard ;-)
I am looking into David Graeber. As someone who was myself duped for a time by Noam Chomsky (worked loosely with him at one time) and Howard Zinn (fell for his "the California missions were death camps" propaganda at one point), I am now cautious to learn history from people who have not overcome their indoctrination into Jewish supremacy. Everyone associated with the "anarchist autonomous zone" in Syria like Graeber, for example, has judgement that is highly suspect to me. People who use "fascist" as the definition of evil without having similar disregard for the genocidal effects of communist totalitarian regimes also may not be reliable sources. This tends to be a hallmark of valuing Jewish lives more than Catholic ones. Nevertheless, Graeber may have many valid points. If you have not had occasion to read "Homage to Catalonia" by George Orwell, I think it might shed light on the Jewish supremacist bias of the anarchist and communist movements in The West. Having worked with many in "the left" over the years, I can attest to these movements of communism, socialism and anarchism being characterized by anti-Catholic bigotry. I was at a leftist Palestine encampment at a university in Europe recently. The "rules" of the "space" forbade "misgendering" anyone. Yet the well known invited speaker was not discouraged at all from evidence free slandering of The Catholic Church for viewing non-Europeans as less than human. That is an easily disproved lie. He said he would discuss it with me offline since, of course, being "white" and Catholic, my perspective and "narrative" was NOT to be "centered" in the space. Yet I can assure you, there are way more Catholic Palestinians, the people the encampment claimed to be in solidarity with, than trans ones. Never heard back from that prominent "Marxist" Palestinian. Does he even know he has internalized a degree of Jewish supremacy as a result of his adopted "leftist" ideology as he parrots dishonest versions of history fed to him by Jewish supremacists? Likely not. Let his example be a caution to each one of us to examine our own degree of internalized Jewish supremacy from mainstream media, leftist communities and leftist dominated university education (even in most Catholic colleges and high schools, I might add.) If you are of European heritage, do not learn about your forebears from people who hate them and have no concern for the truth.
If I may, let me apply the principles of my article to this discussion, Aimee. People are not good or bad; behaviors and ideologies are good or bad.
If supremacy as a behavior and ideology is bad--and I would say it's the source of all evil--then Jewish supremacy can't be bad but Catholic or European supremacy good. So then we need to define supremacy by the specific actions: military domination, invasion of other people's countries, torture, imprisonment, two-tiered legal systems, control of the land, labor and monetary system.
I'm against all of these actions no matter who's doing it. Perhaps you're saying that Catholicism isn't a system of supremacy. That seems like a hard argument to make, as the largest landowner in the world, with popes having the power to designate emperors, and empire being in its title. But I'm open if that's your argument.
The principle behind Howard Zinn and the school of history that he launched is that history is written by the winners so, to know the truth, you need to listen to the losers. I live near a mission and was surprised that a docent, on a school tour where I was a chaperone, told the real story. I knew that story but didn't think they'd tell it.
How do you decide what the truth is? I have my own formulas for separating fact from fiction but I'm curious about yours. I think that to have a conversation about principles we can't use labels--as I say, any statement of ethics can contain no proper nouns. What do you think?
Thanks for being willing to discuss and consider. I really appreciate your time and your courage and work more generally.
Here are my thoughts. Supremacy of one type of individual over another type is wrong in both my view and Catholic teaching. Every human being has the same worth in the eyes of God, the creator, and I have no right to value any other individual as worth less (or more) than myself. All of us are “fallen” which means cannot be perfect and will sin. Sin is to do something that God does not want. God wants us to be moral. Human beings must simultaneously recognize the sacredness in being created in the image of God, but, at the very same time, remain eternally humble due to our vulnerability to sin. Some ideologies are more moral than others (Catholicism vs. Hedonism for example) and some human collectives (clans, social groupings,sub-cultures, cultures, countries, regions) adhere more to the moral law than others. E Michael Jones uses the Greek term “logos” which means logic, order, beauty, truth and more. Christ was the logos incarnate. Logos means the way of being that is trying to be in keeping with what at least Catholics believe God wants us to do. Some societies have a higher degree of logos than others. But every social grouping does have some degree of logos. Th ancient Greeks had a dp appreciate for logos.
If I say that I believe Catholicism is the best way to protect ones soul and live a moral life and that to live a moral life is the best life, that is my view, it is not “supremacy.” I may try to persuade you to adopt my view. No one can be forced to convert to Catholicism. Only sincere conversion with free will is valid. If you think hedonism or Gnosticism or Talmudic Judaism or Paganism is better, you are free to think it and to follow its teachings. That is your view. It doesn't make you a supremacist to vote with your feet and live by the beliefs you think are best and to tell people what you think is the best belief system to have. It is just being honest.
Now please tell me the “real story” about the mission. Did you know Howard Zinn was a Jewish Communist whose supposed “People's History of the United States” has many important factual errors and seems to have a bias against Catholics? W hen I moved to a place near a mission, I looked into the history and found out his take was not supported by the documentary record. But if you are a Jewish communist, who needs evidence to accuse Catholics of atrocities. Just don't notice any real Jewish atrocities like the disproportionate role of Jews in the slave trade or the good side of populism exemplified by Andrew Jackson standing up to the bankers.
I could go on and on and it has been a long journey of unlearning the teachings of propagandists and frauds like Zinn and Chomsky who I originally thought were just trying to bring more honesty and truth to improve the country out of loyalty to the United States. But given hat they leave out and hat they ere not correct about and other things like Chomsky being friends with Epstein and dining with Ehud Barak, I see it differently now.
Nice particularly when living in absolutely immoral times... suffice to be aware of what is happening in Palestine, and then watching the black comedies in Congress and the opening of the Olympics in Paris.
Thank you, Fadi. With what we know of history, these times don't contain more immoral acts of violence than the past millennium of slavery, torture and colonization. What I find really hopeful is that we see these things as immoral. 200 yrs ago people argued that slavery was ordained by God and it was certainly sanctioned by society. Now, it hasn't disappeared, but it's had to change form because people see it as wrong.
Israelis have to be breaking under the pressure of all this cognitive dissonance. The facade of being good people is tissue thin. I think things are changing fast, no matter how dark they seem.
Possibly faster then you think. Something novel and major is expected within the next few days.
On point as ALL WAYS Tereza. As they say regarding reciprocity, 'IF THE FOO SHITS, WEAR IT!' Or, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, etc. Further, as Frank Zappa of the Mothers of Invention said in 'Suzy Cream Cheese'... 'IT CAN'T HAPPEN HERE, IT CAN'T HAPPEN HERE... I'M TELLING YOU MY DEAR, IT CAN'T HAPPEN HERE' Of course we all know that IT can happen in Kansas and Minnesota and will happen too in lotsa other places too... like Tel Aviv. There is a cosmic balance in life whether people realize it or care about it or not. Listen to Judge Napolitano's program Judging Freedom on Youtube, with colonels like Lawrence Wilkerson and military experts like Scott Ritter and and ex-CIA analysts along the lines of Ray McGovern and professors like Jeffrey Sachs and John Mearsheimer and you might get a picture of what's coming in Ukraine and Israel and the Middle East. And it ain't pretty and is not going to work out the way the masters of the universe think it will! Life is a wheelbarrow... you are either in it being pushed by someone else, or you are pushing someone else.
I have to come to feel about Napolitana, Scott Ritter, Douglas Macgregor, George Galloway et al that they are positively gagging for WWIII. I used to like Ritter a lot but I'm now mistrusting pretty much everyone including him. (I seem to recall Tucker Carlson predicting WWIII in February 2023. as well, as if some kind of wish fulfilment.) It reminds me of Tereza's post about Latypova which I commented upon. Just because someone appears to 'be on your side' doesn't automatically make them an ally. The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend anymore Everyone seems to be carrying agendas (not least the so-called radical journalists on programmes like Redacted) which drives me crazy. Perhaps we should be paying more attention to (and applying) the maxims Tereza is addressing in this post.
What is your evidence that these people want WWIII? I think it is unfair and unwise to speculate about people's motives, especially when it contradicts what they have said many times. Do I think all of these men have blind spots and areas where I don't agree? Yes. Does that make them intentional agents for WWIII? Certainly not. But maybe I missed something. On what do you base your claim that any of these men are "gagging for WWIII." Many people do want Israel to be stopped by some power from their genocidal occupation and escalatory actions, but that does not necessarily mean any of those people would like to see WWIII come to pass.
I didn't suggest they wanted it Only psychopaths (and not all of them) want that. Please see my reply above for clarity. Perhaps the use of the word 'gagging' was inappropriate but since it is vernacular it may mean different things to different cultures. I withdraw it to avoid misunderstanding. Peace.
EXACTLY.
Historical Facts
1- In December 2013 Obama gave Victoria Nuland $5 BBBillion to start the Maidan Revolution, install CIA puppets Poroshenko and Zelenskyy and remove Ukraine's duly elected President from power, Viktor Yakunovych.
2- The Obama - Biden Administration immediately turned Ukraine into a CIA outpost with BioWarfare Labs.
3- President Trump refused to provoke Russia into attacking Ukraine reason the Politiburo instituted 2 fake impeachments, stole the 11/2020 election , subjected him to 4 fake indictments and an assassination attempt
4- Meanwhile the Politburo has provided Ukraine F16s and missiles capable of reaching Moscow.
Ain't that enough ?!?!?!?!?!?!?
I just listen to what Napolitano and company say about what the US and Israel are doing to innocents in Ukraine and Gaza and the West Bank. I don't care what their past politics is. Scott Ritter broke down this past week talking about people being killed. Jeffrey Sachs can hardly be characterized as a war monger. He detests Netanyahu and believes that the Israelis want elimination of the Palestinians in Israel and war with Iran (and everybody else!). When you kill the negotiator on the other side, something is deranged upstairs and the only conclusion one can draw is that someone has TOTAL elimination of the population of their opponents in mind.
>>>>>>I have to come to feel about Napolitana, Scott Ritter, Douglas Macgregor, George Galloway et al that they are positively gagging for WWIII.<<<<<<
WTF?
Acknowledging the historical facts and making reasonable predictions thereof is not gagging for a nuclear WW3.
Speciallly when the Mockingbird Media loves to portray Putin as a madman. If he is WHY then are we poking the russian bear when it is a NUCLEAR POWER ?!?!?!?!?!?
.
Thanks for starting this spirited debate, Tommy! I resonate with what Aimee says, "Do I think all of these men have blind spots and areas where I don't agree? Yes. Does that make them intentional agents for WWIII? Certainly not."
There are SO many people I've cited and later done exposes on--Malone, Kennedy, Eisenstein, Chomsky, Caitlin Johnstone, and lately Sasha--that I understand the temptation to mistrust pretty much everyone. And in fact, I encourage it! Trust has no place in deciding our facts and logic, which should always be a work in progress based on no one's authority other than our own.
So I'd first ask your definition of WWIII and then, like Aimee, what evidence leads you to conclude that. The killing of the Hamas negotiator while he was in Iran seemed like it served two purposes--to make sure there was no ceasefire and to involve Iran. Other articles look at the likely false flag attack that killed 12 Druze youth on a playground in the Golan Heights, which Israel blamed on Hezbollah. That's another provocation.
Israel is hell-bent on starting an all-out war in the ME that pulls in the US, not just with money and weapons but with troops. None of those commentators have any power to start a war. I think a likely scenario is that this will end, not with a bang, but with an economic whimper. After Ukraine, the US is running out of weapons and ammunition. We're dependent for fuel on the ME and Venezuela, who we've alienated. All our components come from China. The demolition of the petrodollar by the BRICS means we can't dictate the economic terms to our resource vassal states.
I think it was over for Israel from when this began. Here's my first post on after Oct 7: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/the-beginning-of-the-end-for-israel.
I respect what everyone says here even when they vehemently disagree with me. So let me try and define what I mean by WWIII (as I think Galloway does). I mean total annihilation with old fashioned WMD, I was not suggesting that any of the people I cited were warmongers. In fact all of them have garnered my admiration at one time or another, I’lll focus on Galloway since he is of my generation, British and I have respected his maverick -and consistent - attitude for years. But my point was on the psychology of fear and WWIII and I’ll centre on Galloway because he knows, as I do, that a whole generation in the sixties was scarred by the fear of WWIII. It was always on the cards - Duck and Cover in US parlance. Since fear is our biggest enemy and hope and optimism a better ally (though not always) getting people to live in a constant state of fear is, as we all know, a fundamental tool of control. I remember thinking I wasn’t going to wake up the day after Kennedy was assassinated - I was eleven - because , as we were told then, it was going to be all out war with Russia and no-one would survive. Galloway would have experienced much the same thing. And then constantly until I was about 30 the spectre of WWWIII hung over us before it started to fade in the mid eighties I believe. People create fear all the time, unconsciously for the most part: kids telling ghost stories in the dorm to frighten their peers, covert threats in the work place, (unhealthy) relationships where one partner is always threatening to leave the other. And on and on. I’ll just say the word Covid which was maybe the biggest fear op of all time. Fear compromises the immune system, we all know that. Fear makes you ill. Fear paralyses you. I think I counted ten successive Galloway MOAT podcasts where he harped on about WWIII. For all the respect I have had for him I know he likes to be in control and he doesn’t really brook opposition and he is articulate enough with a vocabulary of obscure words (which he uses time and time again) to demonstrate his erudition. (Adumbrate is one of his favourites. He’s never failed to use in any of his shows I’ve watched. I’ve never heard anyone else ever employ that word.) It was never my intention to suggest any of those I cited were warmongers. A lot of this is largely unconscious. I was just suggesting in my own inept, Saturday, hungover way (was it Saturday?) that the constant spectre of WWIII hanging over us should have had its day and is not useful. Peace.
Excellent comment and point, Tommy, I'm glad you were goaded into clarifying this. Although the word 'gagging' threw me, I don't think you couldn't have explained this in a soundbite and it's certainly worth the explanation.
I'm also glad you used Galloway as your example. I used to listen to something called The Shortwave Report that compiled news from around the world, not available in the US, and Galloway was one of my favorites along with Afshin Rattansi. So my thought when you mentioned him was 'Say it ain't so!'
You're five years older than me, by my calculations. I was six and in first grade when Kennedy was killed, and it's the only time I remember the nun taking us to the convent where they had a TV to watch the footage. Definitely an impression!
That's funny about Galloway's vocab. I've counted the times Russell Brand used 'deracinate' after he first learned it. But I've never heard of adumbrate.
My daughter says the mother in Dune always reminds her of me when she says Fear is the Mindkiller. The Course says there's only fear and love--whatever isn't love comes from fear. And I suspect all 'covid' symptoms could have been caused by our fear. I can think of a very dramatic example that was one of the first I read in Sun magazine (the literary one, not the tabloid). Someone coughed in aisle four and how could she have forgotten to wash her hair? That particular author (who I like) has face blindness, illustrating the power of her mind, yet was utterly debilitated from covid, and added greatly to the fear.
I have stopped listening to Scott Ritter because I feel his fearmongering is inflationary. And I can't stomach Chris Hedges, the Eeyore of sanctimonious doom and gloom. It strikes me that these are all liberal icons who were also part of the climate catastrophe crowd, another psyop.
If you've made your reputation predicting annihilation to scare people into paying attention to you, some part of you is going to want to be vindicated. So 'gagging for it' may be appropriate after all. Certainly you're going to resist anyone saying this is actually going to turn out for the best. I see your point.
Actually I was 12 when Kennedy was shot. Forgot when I was born!! I've tripped up on The Course so many times over the last thirty five years since I fell over it in a library. I now have it beside my armchair tempting me to pounce at any time and at least try to do a daily reading but before you know it it's become beer o clock and then that 'manana' feeling gets to me. (I lived in Spain once, kinda like the culture.)
BTW I deleted the comment below because I duplicated the above. Apologies.
Ernest! So glad you've finally joined the conversation after--how long? 15 yrs? Longer?--of grimacing at your puns on my own ;-) Happy to share the wealth.
As you can see, I make very clear distinctions between attacking people and challenging ideas, allowing any and all of the latter and none of the former. So don't worry about a spirited debate. It's not that we're all friends here--it's better than that. We're all in agreement about how people should be treated whether they're friends or not. And those not in agreement don't last long. Welcome to my world!
Tereza, everyone says that puns are the lowest form of humor. That's shows THEIR lack of knowledge and not having read Freud in the original and his books on Leonardo and the Moses of Michelangelo etc. Freud (who was no dumboso... despite his beliefs about everything starting in the womb... or wombat!... and determining one's thinking for the rest of one's life!), believed that PUNS ARE THE HIGHEST FORM OF HUMOR... because they compress language into multiple meanings simultaneously... which of course requires one to be of 'higher intelligence' to understand. In other words, you have to be an ID-iot with a Super Ego to not understand someone like James Joyce or a joke like the stewardess saying to a vulture carrying two dead raccoons onto an airplane: 'I'm sorry sir! We only allow carrion per customer'. Carry On Tereza! Carry On! O pun for further discussion!
See! See why I wanted to share the wealth? I need company in groaning at these. Happy you're staying in the debate.
A highly relevant and articulate rant, Tereza. I am intending to post the following when I have finished and indexed the guest speaker segments. This is a heads up featuring Ayo Kimathi – I have his book from Money Tree Publishing. The whole conference is over eight hours – comfortably four at speed x2 as always). Some sensational inspirational, motivational speakers. I will be exploring more from the event convenor, Khanverse.
Ayo Kimathi starts at 4:51:15 – he starts talking about men being responsible to look after women and children
• JP Conference - June 30 2024 (Full Conference) - ittabena
https://www.bitchute.com/video/HDBUvxMxx6jx
(I featured Ayo with Dave Gahary here … https://juliusskoolafish.substack.com/p/podcast-discussion-series-in-black.)
Thanks for appreciating my rants, Julius. What's the name of Ayo Kimathi's book? I've been very impressed by Money Tree Publishing and their authors.
Ayo's book is titled
• “Jews Are The Problem”
https://www.moneytreepublishing.com/shop/jews-are-the-problem
He covers the following topics:
1) COVID-19 pandemic
2) International lockdowns and business closures
3) Skyrocketing gas prices
4) Massive unemployment
5) Mask mandates
6) Injection mandates (called vaccine mandates)
7) Crashing of the dollar
8) Food shortages
9) World War III (WWIII) pending w/Russia defending itself against NATO
10) Homophilia (homosexuality and pedophilia) promoted everywhere
11) Media censorship
12) Child sex-trafficking
13) Organ trafficking
14) Election corruption
15) Overthrow of the Republic
16) Corporate hoarding of residential property
17) Racial tension and conflict
18) Feminism & misogyny
I always thought the golden rule might be flawed a bit even though it exists in one form or another in many religions. And the reason I find it flawed is because the “treat others like you would treat yourself” doesn’t have to be a good thing. I know plenty of folk who treat themselves like shit. No respect for oneself also means no respect for others.
Tommy P makes that point too, which is a good one.
I might treat myself to 12 hrs of dance and aerial a week but I would NEVER subject anyone else to it ;-) Good thing I don't otherwise have a life, other than daughters and stackers o'course. And Pauline made that point about the other religions but I think it only exists there in its negative form. Which makes sense--rules should be about what you can't do, not about what you must do. That should be up to you and seen as generosity, not obligation.
But don’t we all have aversion to much out there that falls under “rule,” whether positive or negative? 😂 is it the rebel in us?
Ah but that's where I think the negative version is genius, even or especially for the contrarian. You don't like being manipulated? Don't manipulate others. You don't like people telling you what to do? Don't tell them what to do. You don't like being controlled? Don't control them.
It's really the basis for a system of anarchy. Whatever doesn't hurt anyone else is your own beezwax.
I see your point. Aha. Ok.
Perhaps it lost something in the translation from Aramaic (or Hebrew?) I think the key word is 'would'. You might treat yourself like shit (who hasn't done a bit of self-abuse - my hangovers are legendary) but rather wish you wouldn't. I think people treat themselves like shit (and others) because it is a cry for help. Apart from psychopaths (who I can't vouch for) most people would rather be nice to each other than otherwise. There's just a lot of complicated psychological factors that come into play.
I just so appreciate how you can take deep assumptions and show the flip side. What we've agreed to without realizing it. Who doesn't think the Golden Rule is awesome? Enter Tereza.
Wonderful reflection here. Thank you for expanding minds and conversations, as always.
I love that you recognize and appreciate that. Yes, it's like taking a teddy bear and saying, 'Do you know this represents the reason we have the Federal Reserve?' Or the child-friendly story of Noah's Ark and saying, 'Here's how slavery has been justified.' And both of those would be true ;-)
Thanks Terza! I'm enjoying your posts. I don't always agree. But who cares? What matters is that we're all writing and posting things that direct attention to something worth thinking about and discussing together. For me, to hope to be "right" in such mattres is a fool's errand.
Be that as it may, I like this quote from your essay, "Jesus said, “Give away all your possessions and follow me.”" Though I have no problem with JC, I prefer Nietzsche's take when he wrote, "Go away from me and resist Zarathustra. And even better, be ashamed of him. Maybe he deceived you."
In any event, I don't think ideas should be believed, I think they should be tested and used. If they turn out to be wrong, so what? There's no shame in that. Just an opportunity to learn, change, and grow.
Thanks, Paul. I agree about not believing ideas. I'm trying to break the habit of saying 'I believe' and replace it with 'I suspect.' In either case, I mean it to be a temporary statement of 'to the best of my current knowledge, this is my transitory conclusion.'
To believe is to make up your mind ahead of the facts and your experience. To believe really implies its opposite--you don't know and you're so afraid that reality would contradict you that you can't let it in. So I only have one dogma, that I'm no better than anyone else, and everything else is up for grabs. But I do have many suspicions!
Really good one, Tereza. For some connected or disconnected reason, the rule of reciprocity and the double-edged word and sword set off a thought about mutually assured destruction playing a POSITIVE role during the Cold War. Because, unlike now, both (all) sides basically played by and respected the "rules." When a "rules based order" -- post Cold War -- had to be proclaimed (manufactured), you had to smell a rat. (Maybe like the 10 Commandments). Watched a good You Tube documentary on Olga Korbut tonight, courtesy of Celia Farber. The greater degree of bottom-line respect for the "other" power's people during the "Cold War" compared to today was obvious. I'm old enough to remember going to the Melrose Track and Field games as a kid and seeing the classic one-on-one high jump competition between America's star, 6'5" John Thomas (black, from Massachusetts, you don't hear much about him in black history month, do you) and Russian (from Siberia) Valeriy Brumel, who won the night I went and also beat Thomas in the '64 Olympics. The memories are precious; I don't recall hearing ANY of the repulsive denigration or "cancelling" (from New Yorkers in Madison Square Garden) that is the norm today. Brumel got a standing ovation.
Great points, Howard. There's so much desire to just enjoy and appreciate other people, so much admiration of physical capabilities. In my aerial conditioning class, we've been watching Russian boys who are training on floor moves that seem like break-dancing. We keep trying to see if we can do them and joking that we need to find a country where there's no competition and become citizens, so we can get into the Olympics as their break dancing team ;-)
With all that natural goodwill, imagine how much propaganda it takes to keep us from liking each other. Imagine what it will be like when that propaganda's gone!
As I was reading this, I was thinking about the Asian version of the "Golden" Rule, and see, in essence, You covered it:
Do not do unto Others that which You would not have done unto You.
Good read!
Thanks for letting me know about that! It seems so logical, there needed to be a precedent.
💯 Most welcome!
Thank you for once again shaking up my belief systems.
What I think of the Ashkenazis is unprintable and I would be accused of all sorts of biases and prejudices and they would be right.
As for Kennedy, I think he has sold his soul to the devil.
Darn, I did a search using this link and lost the long reply I'd composed. Here goes again:
If I might, I'd like to use this as an example of my principle to 'Love the person, challenge the ideas.' My dogma is that all people are born equally capable of making moral decisions, and the difference in what they do is the result of their circumstances--the stories and systems they're subject to. When an entire people like the Ashkenazis are enacting the most immoral, repugnant and revolting atrocities possible (with which I agree), the question is why?
They weren't born that way. So what are the stories and systems that have made it possible for them to override their innate morality? I know you've already seen these, but that's why I focus on the immorality of the Torah and Talmud (I'll try not to hit the search on this page):
https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/lies-that-kill-the-words-of-god
https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/the-hatest-story-ever-told
https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/lies-that-kill-the-words-of-god
https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/hot-and-cold-hatred
For Kennedy, the only question is whether he's naive, complicit or controlled. We both eliminate naive. Mossad killed his uncle and father, and I think he knows that. He's friends with Woody Harrelson and his father may have pulled the trigger on the bullet that killed JFK. You think complicit, and you may be right, but I tend towards controlled. I think they have blackmail on him from his younger days that's so incriminating that he would be ruined if they released it, and that would have to mean children. Drugs that make someone unaware of what they're doing and a blackmail network of groomed children is the ultimate control.
every candidate for president has a lot against them, the 3 most knows are Zionists, and the other 3 just won't make it, because only a handful of people know they exist. I just got a message from Emanuel Pasteich, who will declare his aim at presidency from Tokyo.
Indeed, the ASS-K-NAZIS were directly responsible for 09/11
In Re Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
Cease and desist the Holier than thou BULLSHIT
Let Cindy Sheehan educate you :
“Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full well that my son, my family, this nation and this world were betrayed by George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agendas after 9/11. We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedoms and democracy … not for the real reason, because the Arab Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy.”
https://original.antiwar.com/justin/2005/08/17/in-defense-of-cindy-sheehan/
.
I agree that Mossad was responsible for 9/11 but it doesn't seem like Cindy Sheehan does. At first I thought like she does (or did in 2005), that it was retaliation for ME policy. Then I thought for many years, when I was exposed to groups like Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth, it was the US Deep State. I've now come to realize that's another word for those who also control Mossad, and that the CIA was the next circle of psyop to catch those who saw through the first.
I believe it was a combination thereof :
It is true that In December 2001 , Fox News Carl Cameron announced a 4 part series showing the Israel-09/11 Connection.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh04uu1EkIU
Guess, what ?
Afther the First Episode the State Department ordered Fox News to cancel the series !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But the , the 09/11 Commission FALSIFIED THE CAUSATION REPORT and intentionally kept out the FBI's Testimony
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1bm2GPoFfg
I believe that Retaliation against the US is plausible because
1- It was the US >>>>Harry S Truman - who in 1948 in exchangee for $2 million and the ZIonist vote stole Palestine away from 1.5 million Palestinians who overnight became foreigners on their own Land .
https://ihr.org/other/trumandecision_curtiss.html
2- Subsequent administrations have granted Israel $3 BBBillion per year which was increased to $4.5 BBBBillion by Obama. Monies which are used for the Palestinian Genocide,
Respectfully, you have two contradictory premises that can't be in combination:
1) 911 was committed by Israel to get the US to serve its military interests against Iraq, etc.
2) 911 was committed by Muslims in retaliation for actions serving Israel.
It can only have been done by one or the other, even if the motivation's there for both.
My bad, I failed to explain that the Fox News report intended to show that Israel had advanced knowledge but refused to share the intel.
The Israelites did celebrate after we were hit but maintain that they just wanted us to experience the "terrorism" which they are allegedly subjected to on a daily basis.
From my standpoint their silence makes them complicit.
I would go further that they are the ones who planted the demolition devices. It also explains the common objection that 'two people can keep a secret if one of them is dead.' Mossad agents posing as an elevator repair crew can definitely keep a secret.
The only people involved from the ME, I think, was the Bin Laden family that met with Bush and were ushered out of the country on 911. I have the Steve Coll book on my shelf, The Bin Ladens, thanks to Ernest. Also the House of Saud.
The basis of our civilization is Catholicism. Morality has been carefully considered and interpreted from scripture and put into Catholic teaching. It might be wise to learn more about it, for the least to better understand the foundations of our civilization. But further, I would argue there is genius in it that is not of this world, and I believe that is because Christ was actually who He said he was. Good English language authors who can better help non-Christians appreciate the implications of Christian teaching are G. K. Chesterton and C. S. Lewis. Many of these short books are in audio form for free online such as "The Everlasting Man", "Orthodoxy", and "Mere Christianity." I 100% agree with you that morality needs to be our priority because I believe we are in a spiritual war. If we learn how to follow God's commandments, we will be protected from the demonic. I would not be so quick to dismiss the wisdom of your civilization and forebears if I were you. All the best.
I should add, the books and interviews of E Michael Jones are very relevant and topical presentations of Catholic teaching and morality. His magazine is called "Culture Wars" and some articles and many videos can be found at his website http://www.culturewars.com .
Aimee, by coincidence Julius had recommended this JP conference that he'll be posting about: https://www.bitchute.com/video/HDBUvxMxx6jx. He was particularly struck by Ayo Kimathi but it also includes E. Michael Jones and Cynthia McKinney. So I was able to form some impression of him first hand. I haven't gotten to his talk in the 8 hr conference but they asked the panel for their solutions, so I heard some of each.
He started by saying that we needed to recognize that we're not alone in this, that God is with us--and I agree completely with that and got excited. Then he went into sin and evil--concepts I've written much about as the original way that we were divided by the Yahweh story from the Garden of Eden and the tree of judgment: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/in-the-blood-of-eden.
He ends by saying that God will get us out of this just like he did Joseph from Egypt. That's another story, of course, that I analyze as the start of Hebrew usury, turning all the free farmers of Egypt into feudal slaves through his taxation scheme: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/the-genesis-of-the-dysfunctional.
I would have to say that he confirms my point--Yahwism is the foundation on which the Jesus narrative is built. Even in a conference on the Jewish problem, he's quoting Jewish scriptures.
I hope you are watching at speed x2. I almost didn't watch it - who has that time?
Interesting anecdote ...
I really don’t mind E Michael Jones (EMJ) – I have learned a lot from him - but he raises the eyebrows on occasions. I was watching a podcast – can’t remember if it was Zach (LogosRevealed), Daniel Kristos (Ba’al Busters) or Giuseppe (G-Man – Rising Tide Media) - and they did a promo for Money Tree Publishing (MTP) and showed a screen which featured two **NEW** books by EMJ – “Libido Dominandi” and “The Holocaust Narrative”. I am keen to read the former (PDF) and have started the latter (hard copy from EMJ).
What is interesting is that those two books are no longer featured on MTP. Maybe they just didn’t fit the exclusive criteria for that site. Maybe the tension evident at the JP Conference had something to do with it.
I am actually reading E Michael Jones’ “The Holocaust Narrative”. Excellent opening where he thoroughly eviscerates and exposes the lies of Blinken and his father-in-law but he needs to be educated on the Babi Yar atrocity propaganda narrative.
• The Alleged Babi Yar Massacre Of 33,771 Jews In 2 Days & The Mass Cremation Operation 2 Years Later To Hide It
http://www.wearswar.com/2018/07/30/historical-evidence-on-trial-the-alleged-babi-yar-massacre-of-33771-jews-in-2-days-the-mass-cremation-operation-2-years-later-to-hide-it/
I'm watching Zach in the one you recommended with Khanverse. I'm at his recommendation that all the 50 states should divide along racial lines, including the European countries that white people have come from. I'm figuring out how I'll divide myself in two so I can be part of the German state and Irish state, and whether my daughters will live elsewhere in the Italian state and Slavic state and need to divorce the husband whose ancestors come from elsewhere.
My suspicions when he only showed slim women with long blond hair as representing the ideal women have been confirmed. So you agree with him on this, Julius?
This is going to take an article to respond so I will pre-empt with a few of anecdotal clips …
• Muhammad Ali
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thesmackdownhotel.com%2Fwrestlers%2Fmuhammad-ali&psig=AOvVaw3t3KEi_kjHZ6GyOWrYvJtv&ust=1723595476376000&source=images&cd=vfe&opi=89978449&ved=0CBAQjRxqFwoTCNjQjtXb8IcDFQAAAAAdAAAAABAE
• Muhammad Ali with Michael Parkinson on - Racial Integration - guyjohn59
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqiWFLsgVi4
• Asha Logos - In Pursuit of Clarity, Episode #20: Race, Racism, and Language Abuse
https://ashalogos.com/podcasts/20
• Asha Logos - In Pursuit of Clarity, Episode #17: The Fact Delusion
https://ashalogos.com/podcasts/17
(I was actually looking for another particular episode of Asha Logos' series - will share when I find)
… to be continued
Ali is a funny and charming guy, and I fully believe that he had every right to do what he wanted and marry a black women and have black children that looked like him. But this goes back to the principles of anarchy. Do you have the right to tell someone else what they must do or can't do, if it affects no one but themselves? And if some have that right over others, what gives them that right and takes it away from the rest? Michael Parkinson was entirely right when he said Ali's was a philosophy of despair--his sense that things would always be difficult for people of mixed marriages and that they wouldn't be proud of their mixed race kids is 100% false where I live, whether CA or Appalachia.
If Zach wants to live surrounded by people who are just like him, I wouldn't stop him. But why should he stop others who don't want that? And what does it have to do with the genocide in Gaza or the control over the US political system or the war that Bibi's doing his best to inflame in the ME with no concern for whether it goes nuclear? There are so many real issues regarding the Jews or those who control them that this seems like sending us down a dead end. Just my 3 cents (as Tonika says, inflation ;-)
I consider E Michael Jones a gatekeeper...forever keen to be addressed as Dr 🙄
The Fascio Newsletter also debunked his "Catholic Holocaust" 'tale' (for paid subs otherwise I'd post)
I'll reply to Aimee here so it goes to both you and Pauline. To say, "I consider E Michael Jones a gatekeeper" is an opinion, stated as an opinion. You consider him to have "very relevant and topical presentations of Catholic teaching and morality," also an opinion.
There's a difference between finding someone's analysis wrong, which it seems Pauline also does based on the Fascio link that's behind the paywall, and considering someone to be a gatekeeper. I'm curious as to Pauline's reasons for thinking he's a gatekeeper but it's certainly not a personal attack. Jones is a public figure whose influence extends to hundreds of thousands of people, I'm guessing. As such, his motives should be up for public debate. If all public figures had to be accepted at face value without it being seen as a personal attack, there would be no journalism. And it doesn't seem like Jones would follow that rule, from a glance at his own writing. He certainly questions the motives of public figures.
There are two questions--does Jones ask to be addressed as Dr? and if he does or not, is this a nasty, unsubstantiated attack? On the Culture Wars homepage, I notice that a decision was made to put Dr. in front of 3 out of 8 speakers. That might be at his or another's request. Again, I'd be curious as to what led Pauline to state that but it seems a stretch to say it's a nasty attack.
The other question is whether it's wrong to be 'keen to be addressed as Dr.' You make a valid argument for why someone might, in order to bolster their legitimacy to critics, as you've done. I've been personally breaking my habit of addressing anyone as Dr. because it conveys authority on someone based on their academic credentials. I have an abd PhD, and I think that except for a handful of teachers and books, everything that's shaped how I think I learned outside of school. As part of my dogma that no one is an authority over anyone else, I've made a conscious effort to not use titles in my writing. But I don't hold it against anyone who refers to themselves that way, I just don't use it when referring to them.
My point is that seems very mild, and I don't think Pauline is going to "come at [you] for telling the truth about [your] background to counter certain dismissive behavior." I don't think she's criticizing you at all, just giving her impression of Jones. Which is really who the discussion is about.
Arrgghh, was not at inclined to reply Tereza tbh.
I'm also Catholic (convent school educated).
Going to be brief. Initially I found him refreshing. Kevin Barrett has regularly interviewed him. He's bright, funny, knowledgeable. I'd say that's closer to fact than opinion.
Then via X I gradually noticed an absence of criticising the role of the Pontiff/Holy See (I view this org as corrupt/captured) re this ongoing genocide.
Now I was fairly new and haven't read his books or checked X post history but id shocked if he had bitterly rebuked the Church for her role in the plandemic, esp re to the gene therapy jabs. Has he called the imposter pontiff out on his propaganda re the climate data/modelling fraud or encouragement to lovingly accept ongoing mass immigration?
His X response to Abp Carlo Vigano for correctly assessing the current state of the church was the last straw.
I find him to be rather lofty, arrogant also.
Now I don't know if he has discerned the holocaust hoax yet (neither curious at this point and as mentioned not read his book). Quite possibly since he's friendly with K Barrett...but if a researcher like himself has not yet got a thoroughly good sense of WW2, Hitler, National Socialism esp re the Church I become sceptical.
It remains my view that he is a gatekeeper for the institution of the (Zionist/Mason-infiltrated) Church.
Gosh, I did say brief?! :-)
I appreciate that background. And the feel for him, which does matter to me. I think it's possible that I can forgive anything but arrogance.
As an aside, I think you'd be amused by my convo with Kevin over his objection to Kamala as 'post-menopausal'. Especially one responder who is outrageously arrogant in telling women they're better off when men no longer want their wrinkly skin and saggy flesh, and they have no libido. Then they can actually think without the interference of hormones!
Kevin did graciously apologize, so I haven't called him on his reversal being just as sexist--that post-menopausal women are actually better fit for office than ones who are subject to their hormones. See what you think: https://kevinbarrett.substack.com/p/geriatric-empires-big-july-one-old/comment/64069685.
Loved it! You're rather special T. x
:-)
Shall read later T. 3am here. Night n God bless u.
I have never seen him "keen to be addressed as a Dr" and I have listened to hours of his interviews and asked him several questions on his live chats. This sounds like a nasty, unsubstantiated personal attack. If he does wish to be called "Dr." it may be to give his scholarship more weight since he is working outside of any particular university. I do that myself when I am critiquing technology policy to people who have no technical background because they often try to tar me as "anti-science" for speaking out against vaccine mandates. I have a PhD from MIT and my undergrad was at Caltech, so not likely. If you want to come at me for telling the truth about my background to counter certain dismissive behavior, have at it, but is that really a wrong to be corrected? Or just a baseless way to imply haughtiness or pride in someone you don't actually know the motives of?
As for the claim he is a gate-keeper, this is also a personal attack. Why not just say here you find his analysis wrong and hat you think is correct? Why not go for inning people over with your better ideas rather than resorting to ad hominem? I am sure he like any human being is incorrect or incomplete about many things and it may be due to bias or negative intent, but it could also be due to a different perspective or blind spots. Why not articulate your case and see if it adds to an improved understanding? See if it stands up to scrutiny? Why not try to promote a discourse that seeks to get at truth rather than defame those you disagree with, particularly when those people are already deplatformed and subject to censorship and slander by powerful forces in our society? Just a suggestion.
Thanks for replying, Aimee. I would NEVER dismiss the religion at the basis of our civilization. If we want to understand how we got here, we need to scrutinize and discuss exactly that. I went to Catholic grade school, HS and college, entering as a religion major. I attended the int'l conference of Bible scholars, the Jesus Seminars, for a decade when I researched 'Christianity'. There's nothing in that level of attention that is dismissive.
Under the Rule of Reciprocity, empire is inherently immoral. It's foreigners who rule over, not only their own country, but other countries. Would British citizens say that it would be wrong if they were ruled by Ghana? Yes, of course. So a religion had to replace the moral code that had been used by indigenous communities who stayed in one place, and needed to get along with their neighbors.
So my question for you is whether the acts of the holy Roman Empire fit your morality? These of course include colonization, conquest, torture, murder, subjugation of women and indigenous, slavery and land theft. None of those would have been seen as moral without the confusion that put religion (and debt) above every person's instinctual recognition of right and wrong.
I don't think those who enacted these atrocities were immoral. I think they had been trapped by the domination of two immoral systems--money and religion. And I think the same is true for those enacting atrocities in Gaza today. Only by questioning the basis of our 'civilization' can we release them. That's my thought but I'm open to having my mind changed.
My take, even though I am no expert: Catholic teaching agrees that we are all born with the moral law written on our hearts by God, our creator, and are all endowed with free will. (God could have created us to be obedient robots, but he wanted us to be able to love Him in a way that has meaning. Compelled love has no meaning.) But we are also all fallen. We are susceptible to temptation. So, we each are born with free will and the moral law (a conscience), but we also each have our own unique set of gifts and weaknesses and familial, cultural, political, social settings to navigate. Sin darkens the mind and keeps us from choosing what is most moral, but working to be close to God especially through the sacraments of the Eucharist and confession, can help us be protected from the wounding and wisdom reducing effects of temptation and sin. All human beings are created in the image and likeness of God. All human beings have the same worth, regardless of belief system or religion. Catholicism is universal in the sense that it respects the inherent worth of every human being. So how does this belief system align with the track record of the Catholic Church in history? Well, for starters, have we been taught accurate history? I would argue that for English speakers, it is difficult due to the Black Legend and the legacy of the English brutal bloody war against Catholicism to get to the bottom of many distortions. There is a WASP bias against Catholicism that must be overcome if we hope to seek truth. But there is also a Jewish bias against Christianity in general and we have seen that Talmudic values put tribal interests over abstract values like truth, so that ancestral hatred also has to be considered when we trust a source like Howard Zinn or David Graeber. It is very important to not learn Catholic history from people who hate Catholics. It is wise to be cautious about Catholic historians who may engage in hagiography. A great place to start is the work of WASP agnostic scholar who claims to be seeking truth for the sake of history as opposed to any "team" called Rodney Stark. I have read his books "Bearing False Witness: Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History" and "God's Battalions: The Case for the Crusades." E Michael Jones is Catholic, but still, his work is worth reading and considering. If you are a truth seeker, then you will use critical thinking as you research. He has many books, but you might start with "Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control" and "The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit." But in summary, while Catholics have been responsible for many sins and even crimes, it is wise to examine the evidence about any particular claim or charge on a case by case basis and consider all perspectives. while I think it is fair to say that Catholic society as paternalistic, I do not think that can be equated in any way with racism or conquest or dehumanization. Th movie "The Mission" contrasts Catholic colonization with exploitative colonization, for example. That is just a fictional movie, but contains truth about the differences in approach that took place. I know many Catholics with indigenous heritage who are very grateful for being brought into The Catholic Church. You can say they are all brainwashed, but not without being paternalistic yourself. I have heard that The Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe is the most visited of all Catholic shrines.
Millions? of sheeple sit in their living rooms and watch men beat the snot out of women in the Satanic Olympic Games and celebrate it. How sick.
I think what is called the golden rule has existed way longer than Jesus' time. There are quite similar formulations in other countries, other religions and other settings.
Yes but it existed as the inverse, that it is immoral to do to others what would be wrong for them to do to you. In its original form, it's completely incompatible with empire. Laws should be written to protect people from one another, so they should always be worded in the negative with everything else permitted. They shouldn't tell people what they must do, or force them, as everyone in this thread would likely agree.
The negatively-worded Golden Rule is the perfect moral basis for laws that give people the maximum freedom to do whatever they want that doesn't hurt anyone else. The Golden Rule provides no such litmus test. Instead it creates welfare states: "If you were homeless, wouldn't you want someone to take you in?" And at the same time, it makes us complicit in immoral acts because we don't have a Rule of Reciprocity to fall back on. So we're made to feel guilty for not fixing the symptoms of the problems they cause, while we're all teetering on the brink.