Thanks, Tereza. Appreciate your pointing out the use of religious texts to commit and justify horrific actions. Can we please get over all that now?
It's inevitable - as we collectively see through this version of reality - that we'd get to the deeper 'givens' and assumptions; those fundamental contexts of control and surely religion is one of them.
RE: "It’s a tricky thing to commit horrific violence while maintaining the other to be bereft of morals and decency. Projection is your friend! Take anything you’re doing and reverse that as what they’re trying to do."
Yes, tricky! Projection though is built-in to a house of mirrors world, isn't it?
As I noted in another post - I started reading The Naked Bible, which, well, reorients everything.
A summary taken from Good Reads:
Undressing the in Hebrew, the Old Testament speaks for itself, explicitly and transparently. It tells of mysterious beings, special and powerful ones, that appeared on Earth. Aliens?Former earthlings?Superior civilizations, that have always been present on our planet?Creators, manipulators, geneticists. Aviators, warriors, despotic rulers. And scientists, possessing very advanced knowledge, special weapons and science-fiction-like technologies.Once naked, the Bible is very different from how it has always been told to it does not contain any spiritual, omnipotent and omniscient God, no eternity. No apples and no creeping, tempting, serpents. No winged angels. Not even the Red the people of the Exodus just wade through a simple reed bed. Writer and journalist Giorgio Cattaneo sits down with Italy's most renowned biblical translator for his first long interview about his life's work for the English audience. A decade long official Bible translator for the Church and lifelong researcher of ancient myths and tales, Mauro Bilglino is a unicum in his field of expertise and research. A fine connoisseur of dead languages, from ancient Greek to Hebrew and medieval Latin, he focused his attention and efforts on the accurate translating of the bible.The encounter with Mauro Biglino and his work - the journalist writes - is profoundly healthy, stimulating and inevitably it forces us to reconsider the solidity of the awareness that nourishes many of our common beliefs. And it is a testament to the courage that is needed, today more than ever, to claim the full dignity of free research.
While this is not specific to what you are addressing Tereza, for me it's indicative of where we inevitably must go as this manufactured world unwinds. How perfect is it that one of the mainstays of control - the Bible - turns out to be an account, not of God but of "the appearance of superior non-human beings, who genetically "manufactured" Homo Sapiens. And that they were many and technologically advanced."
For me, perfect. And Yahweh - described as a male warrior - who was not interested in humanity but a select group from the Jacob-Israel line; this is who he makes promises to about 'their' land.
The Naked Bible (published 2010) couldn't have arrived at a better time. Important to note the author is not suggesting God doesn't exist, he is only reporting as a translator of ancient texts, that God isn't in the Old Testament and that instead it appears to read as an origin story and includes beings from somewhere else.
Thanks Kathleen. Did you link this interview in your last comment? If so I watched a third of it and still have it open (somewhere) to watch the rest.
There's a draft I have of an episode called "Every Time a Reptile's Blamed, an Oligarch Gets His Wings." That could substitute in alien or otherworldly being. From all the evidence I'm gathering, the Hebrew Bible is a very clever formula of secrecy within and deception without. It's worked so well that 2100 yrs ago Cicero was afraid to criticize the Jews. It's empowered a secret ruling class behind the visible rulers. And the gospels were written by the master of deception, Josephus.
If the Naked Bible interpretation is true, it doesn't really change anything. There's nothing to do about it, although I'd be interested in your thoughts. If what I'm pursuing is true, I think it changes everything. It reveals that empire has written these scriptures and frees us from their psyops. And that enables us to ask the big questions within the framework of sovereignty. I suspect that what the zealots were doing and it enabled them to walk away from the empire without fear. Just my suspicion.
Yes, believe I did - if it's the one with Graham Hancock.
Re your comment on if TNB is true it doesn't change anything I'd say in some ways no, it doesn't - we're still dealing with the psyop and those who create these controlling narratives. What you're pursuing - keeping the context of controllers as human - is more relatable and so powerful in that regard. For me, the value in this non-human piece is in the pushing out of our world to include a cosmic scale and so, a much bigger and richer history, that humans are fully apart of. (Many religious and spiritual people have referenced them as Icke talks about.)
They operate, now, largely through humans via a kind of hijacking of their bio fields and thoughts. Including this, just this, reorients us into our own multi-dimensional selves and the subsequent realization that our fields can be infiltrated. (Very much in line with what Sabrina Wallace talks about, though she doesn't include non-humans.) At this juncture, in terms of the how-they-do-it, it doesn't matter, since it's been integrated in many humans.
I suspect most of the psychopaths who have been behind - or carry out - the clearly anti-human agendas are being manipulated by this force. Most wouldn't know. Those at the very top likely do know.
Important to note too, that given they operate within a certain range of frequency, keeping ours above that range renders them ineffective. So key. It's why, as frequencies go up on the planet, they are losing their ability to control us. We could say it's thinning the veil.
They are very limited - AI like - in what they can do. War frequencies bring everyone energy down, fear, plague, etc. making us all more susceptible. Obviously kindness, laughter, generosity, sharing does the opposite - which is why they can't have any of that!
Whatever we do to chip away at the controlling narratives is good. Appreciate what you manage to shred, in your unique way, which is very persuasive. Best.
This is an excellent post, Tereza. You hit the nail so hard, you drove it right through the board.
It seems that at every turn, the Jewish community has been put up to being a patsy so as to divert average public attention away from the leaders and other decision makers, both from inside and outside their social system.
It shows that there is an assigned plan that was clearly followed. The Rothschilds were installed to make it "look" like they are the ones calling the shots.
When I found out that Hitler was meeting with the Order of the Garter, then I knew he was really working for the creatures of the City of London.
There is a principle of "No Annexation" mentioned that points to the true definition of the "Globalism." There was a replacement of annexation of land in war related conflict in exchange for a system of contract law that effectively provided control over the spoils without any ownership. This points to the Trust System, this is the globalist control mechanism that effectively makes all the governments into Franchises to one control point: London.
I'll check out more of Ron Unz he seems to have a lot of good info and insight.
What astonishing sources you've linked here, Nefahotep. That this formula would be documented in 1940 and the author go to prison for it, amazing. And it's such an important point you're making. In order for the victim narrative to work, the Jewish people ARE the ritual sacrifice that gives power and impunity to the rulers who think themselves gods.
It was shocking for me to realize that in the first century BCE, Cicero, a Statesman in the Roman Empire was afraid to criticize the Jews because of their political power. While Rome was the muscle, I've thought Greece was the brain behind the imperial method of control. But maybe the Hebrew dynasty was the corruption of the soul or morality.
I see what you mean about the Rothschilds being a red herring (pun intended). And I was just thinking that about annexation. In the Torah stories, it's never about ruling over a Hebrew state. It's always an itinerant in someone else's land who comes to be honored by the ruler or superior to the ruler. It's always indirect. The goal has always been global from the origin stories on. Glad to have you to compare notes with and yes, I think you'd like Ron Unz. He's very hard to summarize because there's nothing he says that I want to leave out. So I'm really quoting him as a teaser. Happy it worked.
That's excellent, I have been encouraging people to do exactly that with all primary historical documents and digitize those copies offline. Print them out, teach the material to young people who are willing to listen. If enough counter narrative information gets out and is openly discussed, it ends the Criminal Cabal psychological manipulation en mass.
Since I woke up to learn that 9/11 was an inside job in the fall of 2006 I think I have succeeded in convincing three people of that fact. It is still worthwhile, and with knowledge comes responsibility. I feel I don't have a choice in the matter.
"It seems that at every turn, the Jewish community has been put up to being a patsy so as to divert average public attention away from the leaders and other decision makers, both from inside and outside their social system."
NATO's secretary general in 1957 said, "NATO has three objectives: to keep America in, Russia out and Germany down."
That makes the destruction of Nordstream a trifecta.
Also seee my other comment here regarding Judea's declaration of war on Germany 3/24/1933.
To clarify, what I mean by the Jews being put into the position of "patsy;" the average Jewish people are generally clueless about how this works, because they perceive their "leaders" and other Internationalist Globalists as their own. They tend to buy into the idea of a monolithic "Jewish Identity."
The real truth is, the leaders and potentates are of an entirely "Different" Culture. I have often referred to them as Sabbatean / Frankists. These Sabbateans are also not the very top of their pecking order either. As it turns out, the Black Nobility of the City of London are likely to be the highest controllers.
As another example, the text known as the "Learned Elders of Zion" was designed to make an accurate description of exactly "what" is happening and "how," but it was presented in a manner that makes the Rothschilds "look" like they are in charge of all of it.
You will notice that there was a very high degree of premeditation involved in the world wars. The Jewish communities, for some reason were always a primary target of the real controllers, especially the case with the events of world war 2; the goal being to use fear of death to drive them out of Europe and towards Palestine. The whole Havvara Agreement was built around this.
Yes, only fools believe that "the war to end all wars" started because an arch duke was shot in Sarajevo.
There were two objectives to that war in addition to what you mention: The canceling of the Ottoman Empire (to aquire Palestine), and the canceling of German industry (elimination of a competitor to Britan). They knew that they would never be able to get the Jewish diaspora to move to Palestine of their own free will, so they used fear.
Tereza, you are thorough and brilliant. In all of your excellent analysis, this simple question stands out to me: "Can there be any crime against humanity greater than deceiving nations into wars?" It boils it all down, implicating all religions, governments, and ideologies. It prompts two questions of my own: When will humanity see through the deception? Could it be that we're on the verge of that now?
Yes! That is exactly my feeling. I think that events are conspiring against the conspiracy ;-) To conspire, of course, means to breathe with, to be together with spirit. Spirit, imo, has brought things like hatred into their most visible, hot form, because we're ready to see through them. We are, I believe, on that verge.
I would caution, per my Empire & Religion essay, not to conflate means with ends. We're living with religions, governments and ideologies of empire. All of those means could serve sovereignty within my four cornerstones of belief.
Nov 15, 2023·edited Nov 15, 2023Liked by Tereza Coraggio
Well done Tereza. Interesting distinctions between hot and cold hatred. I'm going to read this more carefully, but after a quick zip through I have 2 suggestions.
In the interest of historical reliability, it's a good idea to get as close to primary sources as one can.
So rather than cite Max Igan (or rather in addition to) the info. from him seems to be from Benjamin Freedman's 1961 speech. You'll find transcripts and recordings of the whole speech online, as well as other speeches and letters. Get in touch if that proves difficult. Freedman was Jewish, and also a participant in the discussions at Versaille, leading up to the Treaty of ... He knew what he was talking about.
And in addition to Unz - a lot of what he said seems to be from Solzhenitsyn's "200 Years Together" which you can now find online in English, although it was officially only translated into two other languages. Again, you can find the text online.
Thanks Jonathan. As an ordinary housewife trying to put this puzzle together for my own benefit, I rely on people like you and others here to point to the deep sources. And yes, that same Unz article cites Solzhenitsyn's 200 Years Together. So I hope readers will go to him to find the next layer of primary sources. Once I solve a puzzle piece to my own satisfaction, I move on to the next piece. But I'm really glad to know about the Benjamin Freedman talk because Igan was speaking colloquially and that's sure to be challenged. Thanks for that reference!
Comparing Israelis of today with Germans of 1945 is correct with one exception. The Israelis are actually committing genocide. The German people is still paying for what the Nazis didn't do to this day. Israel, as a country, has forfeited its right to exist, the way I see it.
You have a lot of good info here, Tereza. Here is some more on the same subject. Not to many people are aware of Judea's declaration of war against Germany 3/24/1933 (Long before Chrystallnacht).
Good article, worth reading again. I was just looking for a source on the amount of German wealth owned by the 1% of Germans who were Jews in post-WWI Germany. Do you have that? In looking for the population of Germany in 1939, I came up with 79M so 1% would be around 800,000. And the Haavara Agreement transferred 50,000 to Palestine. How is the 6M number reached?
And this was interesting to find:
Ninety-seven (97) percent of males born in Germany in 1923 were killed, the largest single birth year death rate. It was (perversely) the “sweet spot” for conscription in WWII. They were 18 in 1941, 20 in 1943, and 22 in 1945. They never stood a chance. By the end of the war, the Wehrmacht was down to using old men and young boys.
That was the year my dad was born, a German in the US.
Thank you, Tereza. No, I don't have that. I don't know where to find things like that.
"Ninety-seven (97) percent of males born in Germany in 1923 were killed, the largest single birth year death rate. It was (perversely) the “sweet spot” for conscription in WWII. They were 18 in 1941, 20 in 1943, and 22 in 1945. They never stood a chance. By the end of the war, the Wehrmacht was down to using old men and young boys."
Sounds a lot like what no longer can be called "the bread basket of Europe".
I remember a conversation on the radio in the early sixties where they debated that number. This was in Norway, and I was six years old. The number was 24 M. Yes, twenty four million. There was a guy who said that a more reasonable number would be twelve (million). This same debate came up in the late sixties, and they reduced it to six where it has remained ever since.
Of course this was not decided on in a Norwegian radio studio. This was a debate that was had all over the world so that we would all be on the same page. Social engineering.
Wow! I remember seeing the newspaper clippings that predate Jewish immigration to Germany with headlines of 6M Jews dead. I think they must have been talking about Russia but now that's a question to me. I've read that 6M has significance in numerology in the Torah and may be entirely arbitrary. But that's interesting to know it's been revised down to perhaps the highest number that wouldn't strain credulity.
"But that's interesting to know it's been revised down to perhaps the highest number that wouldn't strain credulity."
That was one of the things stated that I remember from the debaes on the subject both in the early and the late sixties. Six million is incredible. Literaly. A higher number even more so.
As for Russia.... Are you familiar with this Alexandr Solhzenitsyn quote?
"You must understand, the leading Bolsheviks who took over Russia were not Russians. They hated Russians. They hated Christians. Driven by ethnic hatred they tortured and slaughtered millions of Russians without a shred of remorse. It cannot be overstated. Bolshevism created the greatest human slaughter of all time. The fact that most of the world is ignorant and uncaring about this crime is proof that the global media is in the hands of the perpetrator."
You know who he was talking about, right? He gives a little hint in the last sentence.
Nov 17, 2023·edited Nov 17, 2023Liked by Tereza Coraggio
Yes, it is. No wonder they hated him. He didn't get much publicity after receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, which is understandable because there were powerful banksters on both sides of the iron curtain.
"The more I learn, the less I realize I know."
I have said that a few times in my life too. Fools are the only ones who think they know everything. ;-)
I agree with many things here, and disagree wit a few other things.
For instance, I believe that Judaism is a religion and not a race. But I also don't believe in races. Or, rather, my opinion is that race is an anti-concept: an idea designed to obscure reality.
Against your opinion, I don't hold that all people are inherently good. I consider myself a Christian, and my view on this is that people are free to choose the course of their actions. –This would get us in the conundrum of coercion from a system, and how much a given person is supposed to go along to survive violence or how much should they oppose and how. Let's not go there today.
But then you also say systems are to blame when people behave badly, and that systems can be changed. I disagree on both. This strikes me too much of hive mentality, I have difficulties with that. And all systems are man made, and seemingly all man made things tend to degrade faster than natural things. Then they either implode and disappear, or they change to survive. In the process, the maladapted people to the previous system may find themselves to be "excellent" for the new system, and the good people of before are now pariah because they don't adapt to the change.
This leads me to a Biblical issue that you don't touch, because it's not relevant, but I think it is tangentially important. As everyone knows, in Christianity we have the Old Testament and the New Testament. Implicit in this scheme is the idea that today is eschewed because of the Christian Zionist movement, which is the traditional notion of "supersessionism" or "replacement theology." I find it fascinating that one of the core beliefs of Christianity until the 19th century was simply put away in the 20th century. The idea, for those who don't know, is that the old Jews do not exist anymore, and the new Jews are the Christians. This is because the Messiah came, most of the chosen people rejected him, and then God destroyed them, as he had destroyed the enemies of the chosen people before. But at the same time, a new chosen people is created, this time by faith (a gift from God) and not by bloodline. This is one of the unstated reasons why Christians and Jews have been fighting each-other over centuries. And it's not that theologically, the Pauline theology forces Christians to be belligerant against "Jews" or the infidels who reject Christ in general. The violence is more political and economical than theological in origin, in my opinion.
A related topic about this is the problem of the books in the Bible. As everyone who has studied a little of the bible knows, there are books called Deuterocanonical or Apocryphal books. The first word is used by the Orthodox and the Catholics. The second word is used by the Protestants. These are books and parts of books of the old testament that were thought to be Sacred Scripture at some point, but that, since they do not appear in the Rabbinical list of books, they came to be considered of lesser importance or even not legitimate.
Here we see a change in the system.
The Protestant Reformation of 500 years ago was not the first crisis of Christianity. It has a long and winding history. Some people argue that real Christianity should have never become intertwined with the Roman Empire, that it should not be a religious system to organize society at large, but that the apostolic way of life was the original Christianity and it requires small and self-regulated communities. Nothing like an Empire of any sort.
So, was Christianity corrupted and absorbed by the Empire, or was the Empire corrupted by Christianity? The former lead us (those who want peace and prosperity for all) to reject some or all of the Roman heritage in our culture. The latter is the view of the Enlightenment period, and the view of many atheists. Sometimes known as Republicanism, which is only Imperialism by another name. In this view: Christianity is the problem. The idea of Salvation is the problem.
This second view is often split in two factions: materialism and naturalism. The former has produced democide everywhere in the world. Hundreds of millions of murdered people, most of whom were innocent. Materialism takes the worst things that Christianity is routinely accused of, and makes them into a system that aspires to global political domination, by coercion and ritualistic psychological abuse, for instance, the struggle sessions of revolutionary Marxists, or the self-destructive economic socialism of all Fascisms.
But naturalism is kind of a wishy-washy ideology. Some naturalists claim that God is equal to Nature, which is ill-defined. By way of negation, Nature is anything that is not man-made. And here we find the hatred of humans against themselves again, which circles back to annihilationism or exterminationism of all humans. Other naturalists speak of God as the Universe, which is a very big place. What is the Universe telling us to do? What would the Universe have any opinion on what we should do?
I like the idea of the universe always existing and never having had a beginning much rather than the Big-Bang view.
But, going back to your theme of violence and rejecting systems of violence, Naturalism seems to not do much to stop violence. It seems to nullify a lot of it, simply by rejecting the obsessions of past generations, and the parts of intellectualism that are poisonous and create violence. But I fail to see Naturalism, in any variant, as an ideology that has positive norms or a system of non-violence built into it.
Naturalism seems to be, paradoxically, too young, too underdeveloped. Just like Jesus tells his disciples to not care about mundane things and have full confidence in the Heavenly Father, who knows what they need and provides them with everything, the Naturalists seem to be saying that people should just have full confidence in Nothingness and not care about the past or the future, but to live like an animal, rejecting their own cognition. But no one really wants to give up their own consciousness, right?
Is there anything more violent than rejecting your own humanity?
It's obvious, at least for me, that any form of long-lasting peace is bad for "business." At least, it seems clear that those who worship money need to create war, which is the most risky and most profitable form of slavery.
So, the prosperity of non-violence, of self-regulated communities of people who choose to behave well, or a system that makes bad behavior very difficult, is not the same prosperity as the idea super-wealth, which requires the pyramid.
One crucial question that all people should try to answer for themselves. Are the Hararis, the Soroses or the Kissingers really Jews?
Or, What if the problem has nothing to do with what the "Jews" do, but with the shameful lack of a viable alternative from the anti-semites, which is only the result of a insufficient knowledge of themselves?
What if "the enemy" is simply winning by making sure that "ignorance of the self" is the reigning principle of the World, and the anti-semites are necessary puppets to sustain this global confusion?
To end with a joke, would I be anti-semitic if I would claim that most advertisement is evil and designed to confuse people, and to make them morally weak and depressed, incapable of managing their lives, and any self-respecting society would ban most forms of advertisement, regardless of any ideological consideration or economic ideology?
Okay, ready to dive in! To start, we agree that Judaism is a system/ religion, not a race. Sorry if I didn't say that clearly in the article. However, the central tenet of the religion is racial purity. I'll be giving more examples but to YHWH, that's the unforgivable sin--intermingling.
To define terms, a belief or dogma is something that you won't raise to question. It's a measuring stick by which every other belief can be measured. I choose as my only dogma that I'm no better than anyone else, we're all born morally equal with equal capacity to choose good or bad behaviors. Therefore, logically, which we choose is the result of our circumstances. 'Free will' is a belief in innate moral superiority because, otherwise, what gives you the ability to make better choices than someone else if born into their circumstances?
It's redundant to tell me you're Christian and that you don't believe people are inherently good. The foundation of Christianity is a belief in evil. The first story of the Bible is that women are more corruptible by evil and a corrupting influence on men, so God decreed women subservient and obedient to men, aka slaves.
In the 2000 yrs of Christianity, this is the first century in which I can write those words and be taken seriously as capable of reason. It's the first time that a man, who 'owned' me, wouldn't be able to stop me from saying that. So based on my dogma that we're morally equal, I have to reject the Bible at the get-go when it says men are moral authorities over women.
What you choose as your belief system or measuring stick is Christianity, and you judge other ideas and beliefs by it. There's no moral code that supersedes it, where you would reject Christianity if it violated that. For all behaviors--rape, incest, lying, cheating, theft, murder, genocide--you need to know who did it before you can decide if it's right or wrong. So you accept the Bible's word that other people deserve what Hebrews did to them, judging them guilty by the authority of the Bible rather than judging the Bible immoral by an ethical code of behavior applied equally to all.
For instance, no matter what the Amelikes did, we know they didn't commit genocide on the Hebrews. So the retribution is greater than the offense. And we know that the Hebrews were not poor if they can hire 200K footmen in addition to their own 10K men from Judea.
I'm thinking that Jesus as a historical person rather than literary invention is dogma for you, but correct me if I'm wrong. I'll be writing more about why the Jesus story is a controlled opposition psyop, telling the colonies their reward is in heaven, obey their masters, submit to Caesar. If the authorship of the gospels is something you're willing to question, I think you'll find it interesting.
I think your chosen dogma is wrong: you are morally better than some other people. Or so it looks to me, by the little I know of you. You are probably morally worse than some other people. At least by the understanding of morality as the attempt to practice correct judgment and correct action and inaction. I have no problem if you are not willing to question your dogma. We thinkers sometimes become stuck in our own devices.
Because of my skepticism, I question my beliefs. I always end up back to the Jesus presented in Gospel. Over the years, I've read/listened a few arguments against the historicity of Jesus, and I will be glad to read yours also.
Is it an unquestionable dogma of the atheists the opinion that Jesus Christ never existed?
In the Old Testament we see many horrors falling over the Jews, caused by God as retribution on their sin. Theologians argue that God uses other peoples to punish the Jews. The last of these "Nations" that punish the Jews are the Romans.
The idea of "two eyes for an eye and two teeth for a tooth" comes up often. I don't know if it's fair or not because I don't know much, but if God says it is fair, then it is fair. The problem, from my point of view of a 21st century man, is that we don't know who controls what God says it's fair: is it Pfizer? Maybe an insurance company?
From the classical liberal point of view and the general idea of reducing violence among humans, we see that people invented a new god, called Democracy, and a new caste of prophets, who led all peoples into huge disasters. The old thing (Christianity) was seen as a dysfunctional and unworkable system of power to pacify the world, so they decided to invent a new system, and it blew up in their hands. There was a quote by somebody: "Don't ever take a fence down if you don't know the reason why it was put up."
With respect to the idea of men being moral authorities over women, this is a traditionalist view I don't hold. Most women are too stupid to be moral authorities over themselves, and then they make the mistake of seeking men's protection without authority, which is contradictory. Most men are equally incapable of governing themselves morally. Thus, the majority of men and women are enslaved by those who work to keep them ignorant.
Atheists deny all God's decrees, so this one should be obvious. But, in practice, the few women (perhaps 1 per thousand of all women?) who develop moral autonomy have the same problem as men who develop moral autonomy: they are presumed to be no better than the rest of the morlocks. This institutionalized prejudice and subsequent violence is not created by men who believe in God's decrees. Rather, it is created by people who desire to enslave all humanity and have no opposition. Feminism fails to teach that the problem is not men or God.
Have you noticed the subtle insult of the expression "the feminization of men"? It refers to this: women are more corruptible than men and much dumber, and by feminizing men, Society or Culture is now composed of men who are as corruptible and dumb as women. I don't think most of the people who use that phrase to criticize the West realize the insult, but it's there, and it's not an insult against feminized men. The phrase the "feminization of men" assumes the moral inferiority of each woman respect to each men, which is impossible. The truth is that some women are better than some men. Prove me wrong, please.
I would really prefer that each person would develop moral autonomy and live according to logic, rather than wrong and evil-intended ideas of the modern time, or of older times. But I admit that I see that many women prefer to submit to morally strong men who have proven their development. Many women do not want to be equal to men morally. They want less responsibility and more security.
There is also the problem that most men are so confused that they become like a subservient woman to their Company, to their wives, or to their country. And I don't think it's true that that way of life is easier, historically or in the present. Being a good man is difficult, being a servant wife is difficult, mainly because of the fragility of the situation: once the protector is gone, the person acting as a servant is lost and has no moral resources to live in society.
Serfdom is a bad system, but difficult to change, as you well know.
But the system changed. Many Christians worship Mary. Mary's faith was great, and she's seen as inferior only to God, who is above all. That's the teaching. Christian men must believe that some women can be good, too. It's quite paradoxical if one believes that the history of the last 2000 years of European Wars are caused by Christians who actually practiced their religious beliefs consistently. But the Empire corrupted Christianity, in my opinion. That's a better explanation of history.
Thank you, Roger, for the compliment on my morality. Some think I'm being humble when I say I'm no better than anyone else. But in fact, it's the opposite. I have a ridiculously high opinion of myself ... and I extend it to everyone else. I'm amazed at the beauty people are able to bring out of some very broken and dismal circumstances. In their shoes, I don't know if I could have done the same.
To my knowledge, the divinity of Jesus is wildly debated but hardly anyone but me and Joe Atwill have researched the historicity of the person. Whose arguments have you heard before? I'm curious.
I'd never call myself an atheist. I think the purpose of the story of Jesus was to replace the concept of a God who loved everyone equally with a God who loved one above all, whose sacrifice he demanded to make everyone else guilty because he had to die for our sins.
What's one of God's decrees that wouldn't be common sense morality under the Golden Rule?
Thanks for your answer. When I read your posts I think I should practice my humility more, but then I realized it's hard to be humble.
Besides the old classic of the organist Albert Schweitzer (who was a Nobel Prize laureate, but I won't use that fault against him) I have some familiarity with Ralph Ellis' opinions on this subject (https://www.ancient-origins.net/author-profiles/ralph-ellis-001786) and also the opinions of some Spanish "paranormal researchers" whose names I prefer to not mention because I truly abhor and loathe communists and how they ravage countries and sink culture into superstition and violence.
I have also researched the surface of the 19th century American religious movements, most of which fall under my definition of atheism. Some if not all of these movements question the divinity of Jesus.
With respect to your second question, the common argument of many atheists is that the Old Testament God is a genocidal maniac who decrees that the chosen people must go an slay these set of people or that set of people, and that goes against the New Testament version of the Golden Rule. I don't see that many atheists interested in peace or in avoiding genocides either. In fact, many atheists seem to like the idea of racially targeted mass murder, so their problem is that they desire to become the Old Testament God as they see him, instead of the New Testament God, as they see him, which to them is weak and feminine and immoral and useless.
There are atheists who are not that crazy about killing people, and who spare themselves the trouble of speaking against any religion. It's a silly business to want to make money by provoking people with insults to their religion. I think these are the best atheists, the most coherent, the most Epicurean.
The funny thing is that recently I've seen very proud atheists who are, more or less, pro-peace (at least anti-war) who are in favor of exterminating muslims, the Gazans in particular, and then, perhaps, to continue with the neighbouring countries. Two-eyes for an eye is not an idea that was invented by God (if the atheists are correct,) and it's not an idea that is rejected by all atheists. Surprisingly, these people still believe in vaccines, and promote them with the spurious argument of "saving lives" and "controlling disease." I can put two and two together: it's self-refuting to hold the golden rule or even the silver rule on one hand, and then argue in favor of medical coercion of any kind with the other hand. Unless the person speaking is a deranged Masochist.
The Golden Rule preceded Christianity in several religions and cultures, so it's not actually a morality particular to it. I'd say it's the formula for common sense morality.
I checked out the Ralph Ellis. He's talking about the divinity aspect. I look at all the reasons why the simple biographical details are contradicted by history, archeology, geography, linguistics. And according to Bible scholars who present in-depth research on one passage and then vote on its veracity, 85% of the things that are quoted from Jesus are unlikely--because they were already said by someone else, they don't make sense in Aramaic, they throw in details that are post-dated, etc.
The importance of this is that, if the story of Jesus is a literary fiction, why? Who wrote it? The evidence points to Josephus based on word order analysis and characteristic style techniques. One of these was his tendency to start a story, interject something else, then go back and finish. This same style is called a Markan sandwich by gospel scholars (who don't make the connection.) So it's not whether the empire corrupted Christianity, it's whether the empire wrote it.
– the masons and their weird Egyptian death cult and creepy rituals
– the technologists who want immortality
– the money-worshippers who just want a passtime between their financial heists
– the sex-addicts, who are usually "friends" with politicians
– those who manage a full-blown cult Jones-style
– the political ideologues who want to save the world or destroy it, either way is fine with them
– the edgy, smart kids who want a way out of their family and their environment
– and the globalists
There are probably more categories of people who argue in a similar way. They don't enter in debates with seasoned apologists of Christianity. They prefer to attack the low hanging fruit. They're kinda lazy, aren't they?
But the second part of your response includes the argument, which maybe it's originally yours, that the Empire wrote the fiction of Christianity. But if so, the Empire can also unwrite it, right? It can force people to believe anything.
For example, they could invent a new religion based on a modern myth, such as psychoanalysis. They can write a salvation-by-obedience political scheme around the bizarre idea that men hate women or that women hate men, maybe both. They invent a personage, a few miracles, and then start some small groups of neophytes, where theology is developed slowly, making sure it checks all the boxes of people. Then start a subscription model, a weekly session of ritualistic confession of thoughts and doubts, accompanied by admonitions and maybe some form of punishment. Then add some legislation. Give perks to the acolytes in good standing to help this new psyop religion grow. Segregate society according to reputation. Special taxes, etc. But there has to be a promise of salvation somewhere, how else would they keep people going? This is a system of abuse that supports the Empire.
But, in the case of Christianity, people insist that it destroyed the Empire. It made them weak. They tried to overcome corruption with stoic philosophy but it wasn't enough, so they decided to use that exotic and small thing that was growing to save the Empire from devouring itself. And then, after much struggle, Christianity grew and took over, and then they lost power for a while, and then they came back to power. But the Empire was dead, and it was invaded and destroyed. Because Christianity made them "feminine" and they couldn't resist the Goths. This atheistic and misogynistic account of the first centuries of the Christian era is incompatible with the idea that the Empire invented Christianity from the start, because it didn't serve the Empire, it destroyed it. One way to save this hypothesis could be to argue that Christianity is like a flytrap: it catches the enemies of the Empire and digests them. The empire can only survive by morphing constantly: language, the place of the capital city, currency, laws, manufacturing and construction, science, traditions, and everything else has to be changed as the Empire changes. We would be during a molting phase. Who is going to get conquered next? Who will get Christianized next and become the new Capital of the Empire? And that's why the Christian era will never end, which is a very sarcastic phrase depending on which angle one looks at it.
But why do I have to hear the opinion of those with a preconceived notion, who try to destroy my faith? Why would I change a gift from the Creator for the whims of scholars who bring nothing to the table? Atheism is disastrous.
I prefer simplicity: God is love, there is salvation, it's open for everyone and everything has been fulfilled. The rest is just ornamental distractions. Spiritually, everything has been done already. One simply has to join or not join. That's part of the divine freedom of Man. (I know this is too simple for many believers, but I don't care about their need for an endless psychodrama with the Devil)
Materially, we already have everything we need to end the nonsense. We always did, really. But we don't want to. I don't know why. I think it's because Man really wants impossible things: to kill God and to become God. These desires force Man to reject the ultimate reality. When an individual removes those desires, life becomes more bearable. And I understand that people reach this conclusion or a similar one starting from a different point than Christianity. The Salvation aspect is spiritual, and has little to do with the world of flesh.
I don't know how I ended up writing so much about this topic. I let myself go a bit much. Sorry. You are a really exciting writer, Tereza.
I'm replying here, instead of YT, b/c it isn't working there. Probably b/c the word "vaccine" is used. So, here is my copy and pasted answer to your last comment over there:
In regard to autism, before the Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, the autism rates were around 1 in 10,000 (there were vaccine injuries prior, as well), but today are about 1 in 34, with boys more prone. This act shields the pharmaceutical companies of almost all liability, except fraud, and includes all vaccines on the childhood schedule. That’s why they needed the Covid jabs on the childhood schedule, as well. Children 18 and under receive 72 different injected poisons, with many different adjuvants added to the contents, like aluminum, polysorbate 80, monosodium glutamate, formaldehyde, etc. It’s one thing to consume these ingredients by mouth but injecting them is another beast. It’s also fine to eat a grilled cheese sandwich, but would one inject the liquified contents of it? Further, there are way too many parents that have come forward and spoken out about their children being perfectly normal, and then the child completely changing right after vaccines, with many losing all communications and no longer smiling or interacting with their parents. Many scream-out in pain, since not only does it cause inflammation of the brain, referred to as encephalopathy, but can also inflame the gut, which is where the enteric nervous system resides. Autism used to be listed as a side effect on one of the vaccines (I think it was the MMR) but has since been removed. Some still list encephalopathy, however.
Now consider this. Reading between the li(n)es, at the allegorical Garden of Eden story of Genesis 3, it was about the most subtle beast of the field, the serpent, enticing Eve to partake of something that Eve knew within her godly self wasn’t good, but she did it anyway, as did Adam. They then bore Cain, who turned out to be a murderer and a liar otherwise known as a genetic psychopath, because he also showed no empathy for his brother by basically saying that he wasn’t his brother’s keeper. It’s hard to say what Abel would have turned out to be, but their third son, Seth, was also a murderer and liar, as shown throughout the rest of their Bible. That serpent in the Eden story represents a superficially charming, snake-oil-salesmen, drug-peddling, psychopath of today. As the story goes, Cain and Seth weren’t conditioned by anything they were taught over time, either. Now, fast forward to today and take note of the medical symbol called the Rod of Asclepius. It’s a snake that is shown either wrapped around a branch (from a tree like in Eden), or a spicule, like a needle. Further, take the sorcerer’s spell off the word, “Asclepius,” and it also spells “As Spicule,” which some doctors refer to needles as such. And while I’m at it, take the spell off the word “Pharmaceutical” and it also spells “Cephalic Trauma.” Cephalic means of or pertaining to the head or brain. Lastly, the word “virus” derives from Latin to mean poison or poisonous substance. Virus is really their code-talk for poison. Like I implied before, psychopaths love to do sick things for the fun of it, and they’ve left signs all along the way. Anyway, when we can open our mind’s eyes to our inner knowing, then we can truly see. “Real Eyes Realize Real Lies.” I hope this helped you in some small way:)
Thanks for this, Wildrhody. Some of it's familiar to me but some is new. Very interesting theory on the Garden of Eden. I don't know if you saw my episode on that: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/in-the-blood-of-eden. You give me lots to think about!
Thank you for guiding me to your article. I both watched and read it. You definitely have interesting and eloquent ways of presenting thoughts, and I very much appreciate them, even though I may not be near as well-read as you. I'm certainly learning, however:) It's all I can do to keep up with what I'm trying to accomplish, along with staying tuned to world happenings.
Anyway, you mentioned the different creation stories, but did you notice how the Gen. 1 Creator was written as "God," and then Gen. 2:4 changes to the legal entity, all caps, "LORD GOD." That's the fake/fictional one. Here's a link to why the gov't. uses all caps. Also, take note that gold's location is given in Gen. 2, before Eve is created. Further, there was already food on this planet for man, animals, fish, etc. to eat. The legal entity "LORD GOD" is just taking ownership over this domain, pretending it was created by him or it. http://articleatlas.com/given-name-syntax.html
In Gen. 3, The serpent, Adam, and Eve do bring up "God" again, which is a bit confusing, but they are definitely known to gaslight and confuse us. The thing is that Satan/serpent is more than likely the LORD GOD'S alter/altar ego, seeing as Satan is first mentioned in 1 Chron. 21:1, as provoking David to number Israel, and then in 2 Samuel 24:1, it states that "AGAIN" the LORD was angered to move David to number Israel.
In Job 1, the similar situation is shown, where the LORD is talking with Satan, and it states, "8 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?" Why didn't this LORD say, "one that feareth me?" That's suspect to me, but then I'm a very literal person.
Bottom line for me is that I think the Bible is their coded military strategy guide, but they use good parts to lure us in. They also used their priestly class, rabbi Jesus story to make people docile and turn the other cheek against these murderous psychopaths.
I want to close out by letting you know that you seem to be seeking the truth on a much higher enlightened plane than me, and I don't want to bring you down to where my mind is. I'm in a very combative level right now, trying to formulate the information to prove the Bible is one big lie! I mean, even the word "Bible" has the word "Lie" concealed within its name. With that said, I've been strongly guided on this path, for some reason, which is why I'm so passionate about it. It has become my life's work, through my dad always quizzing me on words, to after my very religious mom dying, and then leading me to information about the Scarab beetle. It's been a crazy but interesting ride:) Take good care, and thank you for the reply, and for all you teach us!
Reading is a vice for me, not a virtue. Just ask my ex or my very religious dearly deceased mom. I am certainly learning as much from you as you are from me, and I'm so happy to not be living in an echo chamber, but one that sends back new things for me to think about. I was just thinking that there's a whole group doing that on the world wars front, and another who take an avid interest in the spirituality front, but my Bible critique didn't seem to have takers. And then here you are! "Coded military strategy guide," wow! That's more succinctly put than I'd dreamed of. And yes, the whole psyop starts with Genesis, although I suspect it was written after the Noahite land-and-slave grant, to retrodate the anti-Canaanite polemic to Cain. The Hebrew scholar Yehoishophat says they're pronounced differently but I dunno.
REALLY interesting (let's incorporate Reality) that God is not all caps in Gen 1. I've written somewhere, pre-Substack, about that Creation Redux. Did you mean God's location or gold's? I never noticed the similarity of the two but it's telling, isn't it? As is the similarity of jewels and Jews, which was pointed out in The 13 Sugar Colonies as what or who REALLY funded Columbus' journey.
I think we totally forget that LORD meant a human claiming ownership of land and lives, backed by violence and the law. That word has been 'sublimated' or turned into a subliminal trigger that gives the same ownership while getting people to sing their praises instead of curses. I clearly need to do another episode on the Creation stories incorporating (smile) your wise and insightful comments.
I don't mind that we're all corporate entities to the Federal gov't. I plan to use that loophole in my economic system ;-)
The only way that maybe what I'm seeking is more 'enlightened' is that I think there's a truth that the lying Bible was written to subvert and pervert (maybe the opposite order). At one point, I would have considered proving the Bible a lie my life's work too. And it's absolutely necessary. But the 'good parts' aren't just good, they're hints to 'the truth that would set us free.' I'm sure of it. Like any propaganda, it interweaves the truth with lies into a 'seamless garment.' The reason it has such staying power over good people is that weft of truth. The reason it gives so much power to the dark forces is that warp of lies. We're definitely going in the same direction and I appreciate your company on the journey!
What a great article, Kate, thanks for linking it. I had no idea that Rothschild was the one who accused Dreyfus. With the financial scandal that preceded it, where a group of Jews swindled many out of their life savings and went scot-free, what are the odds that Rothschild was involved? I'm seeing a pattern here: like in Germany post WWI, massive transfer of wealth to some group of Jews, false flag attack on others that diverts attention and arouses sympathy, exoneration and immunity for perpetrators of financial heist.
Interesting that Makow uses 'human shield.' I've thought of it as the 'victim shield.'
And curious that Zola is who popularized the phrase 'J'accuse!' I don't know if you were reading during my Robert Malone series but he used that to bellyache that he was wrongfully accused of being controlled opposition. Was Zola defending Dreyfus, do you know?
Your 'spidey-senses' were on alert. That particular interview has been a rich vein of analysis among some of us Malone-watchers. Here's the episode where I linked all of the previous 16 so you can scan the summaries in one place: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/truth-is-like-a-chamelion.
Thank you for that lovely compliment, Kate. And yes, whatever 'this' is ;-)
Interesting catch on the Salk's temple. Certainly vaccination, from the get-go, has been in the master plan. And I think your implication is correct, not 'merely' population reduction and not 'merely' obscene profits. I've wondered if autism is a feature, not a bug, particularly in how it targets men. If you want men to code all day and watch porn all night, making them asocial and irritated by even pleasant stimuli is a good start. And then if you want them to serve your nefarious agenda, giving them no empathy or ability to relate to people's feelings is a strong advantage.
Great research and analysis, Kate! May I quote you on this? It's such a key point that the Catholic Church and 'the Church of Freemasonry' both 'aimed universal sovereignty' with a net thrown over nations as well as religions, as you aptly say. Were Jews allowed in the Freemasons?
It certainly fits the formula of secrecy within and deception without. And how better to ensure secrecy than pedo-sadist rites where children are raped, tortured and killed? That's a powerful secret to keep hidden, and a reason to hide anything else. I don't know that this is true of the Freemasons 33rd order but it's certainly true of some secret society or a network of them.
Yes! That was exactly the similarity that occurred to me. As I said to Nefahotep: In order for the victim narrative to work, the Jewish people ARE the ritual sacrifice that gives power and impunity to the rulers who think themselves gods. There's no doubt in my mind that the same PTB and shouldn't be, are at work in both. If you go back to my episode on Lahaina and the police supervisor and his former role in the Las Vegas shooting, I think that's clear. Which brings the third Abrahamic religion in also: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/maui-and-the-oligarchs.
Thanks, Tereza. Appreciate your pointing out the use of religious texts to commit and justify horrific actions. Can we please get over all that now?
It's inevitable - as we collectively see through this version of reality - that we'd get to the deeper 'givens' and assumptions; those fundamental contexts of control and surely religion is one of them.
RE: "It’s a tricky thing to commit horrific violence while maintaining the other to be bereft of morals and decency. Projection is your friend! Take anything you’re doing and reverse that as what they’re trying to do."
Yes, tricky! Projection though is built-in to a house of mirrors world, isn't it?
As I noted in another post - I started reading The Naked Bible, which, well, reorients everything.
A summary taken from Good Reads:
Undressing the in Hebrew, the Old Testament speaks for itself, explicitly and transparently. It tells of mysterious beings, special and powerful ones, that appeared on Earth. Aliens?Former earthlings?Superior civilizations, that have always been present on our planet?Creators, manipulators, geneticists. Aviators, warriors, despotic rulers. And scientists, possessing very advanced knowledge, special weapons and science-fiction-like technologies.Once naked, the Bible is very different from how it has always been told to it does not contain any spiritual, omnipotent and omniscient God, no eternity. No apples and no creeping, tempting, serpents. No winged angels. Not even the Red the people of the Exodus just wade through a simple reed bed. Writer and journalist Giorgio Cattaneo sits down with Italy's most renowned biblical translator for his first long interview about his life's work for the English audience. A decade long official Bible translator for the Church and lifelong researcher of ancient myths and tales, Mauro Bilglino is a unicum in his field of expertise and research. A fine connoisseur of dead languages, from ancient Greek to Hebrew and medieval Latin, he focused his attention and efforts on the accurate translating of the bible.The encounter with Mauro Biglino and his work - the journalist writes - is profoundly healthy, stimulating and inevitably it forces us to reconsider the solidity of the awareness that nourishes many of our common beliefs. And it is a testament to the courage that is needed, today more than ever, to claim the full dignity of free research.
While this is not specific to what you are addressing Tereza, for me it's indicative of where we inevitably must go as this manufactured world unwinds. How perfect is it that one of the mainstays of control - the Bible - turns out to be an account, not of God but of "the appearance of superior non-human beings, who genetically "manufactured" Homo Sapiens. And that they were many and technologically advanced."
For me, perfect. And Yahweh - described as a male warrior - who was not interested in humanity but a select group from the Jacob-Israel line; this is who he makes promises to about 'their' land.
The Naked Bible (published 2010) couldn't have arrived at a better time. Important to note the author is not suggesting God doesn't exist, he is only reporting as a translator of ancient texts, that God isn't in the Old Testament and that instead it appears to read as an origin story and includes beings from somewhere else.
Best.
Thanks Kathleen. Did you link this interview in your last comment? If so I watched a third of it and still have it open (somewhere) to watch the rest.
There's a draft I have of an episode called "Every Time a Reptile's Blamed, an Oligarch Gets His Wings." That could substitute in alien or otherworldly being. From all the evidence I'm gathering, the Hebrew Bible is a very clever formula of secrecy within and deception without. It's worked so well that 2100 yrs ago Cicero was afraid to criticize the Jews. It's empowered a secret ruling class behind the visible rulers. And the gospels were written by the master of deception, Josephus.
If the Naked Bible interpretation is true, it doesn't really change anything. There's nothing to do about it, although I'd be interested in your thoughts. If what I'm pursuing is true, I think it changes everything. It reveals that empire has written these scriptures and frees us from their psyops. And that enables us to ask the big questions within the framework of sovereignty. I suspect that what the zealots were doing and it enabled them to walk away from the empire without fear. Just my suspicion.
Yes, believe I did - if it's the one with Graham Hancock.
Re your comment on if TNB is true it doesn't change anything I'd say in some ways no, it doesn't - we're still dealing with the psyop and those who create these controlling narratives. What you're pursuing - keeping the context of controllers as human - is more relatable and so powerful in that regard. For me, the value in this non-human piece is in the pushing out of our world to include a cosmic scale and so, a much bigger and richer history, that humans are fully apart of. (Many religious and spiritual people have referenced them as Icke talks about.)
They operate, now, largely through humans via a kind of hijacking of their bio fields and thoughts. Including this, just this, reorients us into our own multi-dimensional selves and the subsequent realization that our fields can be infiltrated. (Very much in line with what Sabrina Wallace talks about, though she doesn't include non-humans.) At this juncture, in terms of the how-they-do-it, it doesn't matter, since it's been integrated in many humans.
I suspect most of the psychopaths who have been behind - or carry out - the clearly anti-human agendas are being manipulated by this force. Most wouldn't know. Those at the very top likely do know.
Important to note too, that given they operate within a certain range of frequency, keeping ours above that range renders them ineffective. So key. It's why, as frequencies go up on the planet, they are losing their ability to control us. We could say it's thinning the veil.
They are very limited - AI like - in what they can do. War frequencies bring everyone energy down, fear, plague, etc. making us all more susceptible. Obviously kindness, laughter, generosity, sharing does the opposite - which is why they can't have any of that!
Whatever we do to chip away at the controlling narratives is good. Appreciate what you manage to shred, in your unique way, which is very persuasive. Best.
This is an excellent post, Tereza. You hit the nail so hard, you drove it right through the board.
It seems that at every turn, the Jewish community has been put up to being a patsy so as to divert average public attention away from the leaders and other decision makers, both from inside and outside their social system.
Have a look at this:
https://www.jrbooksonline.com/HTML-docs/The_Rothschilds_Leese.htm
It shows that there is an assigned plan that was clearly followed. The Rothschilds were installed to make it "look" like they are the ones calling the shots.
When I found out that Hitler was meeting with the Order of the Garter, then I knew he was really working for the creatures of the City of London.
https://www.jrbooksonline.com/Intl_Jew_full_version/ij14.htm
There is a principle of "No Annexation" mentioned that points to the true definition of the "Globalism." There was a replacement of annexation of land in war related conflict in exchange for a system of contract law that effectively provided control over the spoils without any ownership. This points to the Trust System, this is the globalist control mechanism that effectively makes all the governments into Franchises to one control point: London.
I'll check out more of Ron Unz he seems to have a lot of good info and insight.
What astonishing sources you've linked here, Nefahotep. That this formula would be documented in 1940 and the author go to prison for it, amazing. And it's such an important point you're making. In order for the victim narrative to work, the Jewish people ARE the ritual sacrifice that gives power and impunity to the rulers who think themselves gods.
It was shocking for me to realize that in the first century BCE, Cicero, a Statesman in the Roman Empire was afraid to criticize the Jews because of their political power. While Rome was the muscle, I've thought Greece was the brain behind the imperial method of control. But maybe the Hebrew dynasty was the corruption of the soul or morality.
I see what you mean about the Rothschilds being a red herring (pun intended). And I was just thinking that about annexation. In the Torah stories, it's never about ruling over a Hebrew state. It's always an itinerant in someone else's land who comes to be honored by the ruler or superior to the ruler. It's always indirect. The goal has always been global from the origin stories on. Glad to have you to compare notes with and yes, I think you'd like Ron Unz. He's very hard to summarize because there's nothing he says that I want to leave out. So I'm really quoting him as a teaser. Happy it worked.
Thank you for the book links, Nefahotep.
I have even copied the Leese book and pasted it into a text document for safe keeping. You never know when stuff like that is disappeared.
That's excellent, I have been encouraging people to do exactly that with all primary historical documents and digitize those copies offline. Print them out, teach the material to young people who are willing to listen. If enough counter narrative information gets out and is openly discussed, it ends the Criminal Cabal psychological manipulation en mass.
This is time consuming but worthwhile.
"This is time consuming but worthwhile. "
Since I woke up to learn that 9/11 was an inside job in the fall of 2006 I think I have succeeded in convincing three people of that fact. It is still worthwhile, and with knowledge comes responsibility. I feel I don't have a choice in the matter.
My own family, kids and grand kids are very involved in the red pill efforts. Teachers of my grandchildren are having a perpetual headache.
School system doesn't want people to use nuances and careful details to learn history, it wrecks narrative control.
"It seems that at every turn, the Jewish community has been put up to being a patsy so as to divert average public attention away from the leaders and other decision makers, both from inside and outside their social system."
NATO's secretary general in 1957 said, "NATO has three objectives: to keep America in, Russia out and Germany down."
That makes the destruction of Nordstream a trifecta.
Also seee my other comment here regarding Judea's declaration of war on Germany 3/24/1933.
To clarify, what I mean by the Jews being put into the position of "patsy;" the average Jewish people are generally clueless about how this works, because they perceive their "leaders" and other Internationalist Globalists as their own. They tend to buy into the idea of a monolithic "Jewish Identity."
The real truth is, the leaders and potentates are of an entirely "Different" Culture. I have often referred to them as Sabbatean / Frankists. These Sabbateans are also not the very top of their pecking order either. As it turns out, the Black Nobility of the City of London are likely to be the highest controllers.
As another example, the text known as the "Learned Elders of Zion" was designed to make an accurate description of exactly "what" is happening and "how," but it was presented in a manner that makes the Rothschilds "look" like they are in charge of all of it.
If you read Gentile Folly: the Rothschilds by
ARNOLD LEESE https://www.jrbooksonline.com/HTML-docs/The_Rothschilds_Leese.htm
You will notice that there was a very high degree of premeditation involved in the world wars. The Jewish communities, for some reason were always a primary target of the real controllers, especially the case with the events of world war 2; the goal being to use fear of death to drive them out of Europe and towards Palestine. The whole Havvara Agreement was built around this.
Yes, only fools believe that "the war to end all wars" started because an arch duke was shot in Sarajevo.
There were two objectives to that war in addition to what you mention: The canceling of the Ottoman Empire (to aquire Palestine), and the canceling of German industry (elimination of a competitor to Britan). They knew that they would never be able to get the Jewish diaspora to move to Palestine of their own free will, so they used fear.
Tereza, you are thorough and brilliant. In all of your excellent analysis, this simple question stands out to me: "Can there be any crime against humanity greater than deceiving nations into wars?" It boils it all down, implicating all religions, governments, and ideologies. It prompts two questions of my own: When will humanity see through the deception? Could it be that we're on the verge of that now?
Yes! That is exactly my feeling. I think that events are conspiring against the conspiracy ;-) To conspire, of course, means to breathe with, to be together with spirit. Spirit, imo, has brought things like hatred into their most visible, hot form, because we're ready to see through them. We are, I believe, on that verge.
I would caution, per my Empire & Religion essay, not to conflate means with ends. We're living with religions, governments and ideologies of empire. All of those means could serve sovereignty within my four cornerstones of belief.
I totally agree. And I'll take a look at the Empire & Religion essay -- I'm intrigued by your statement about your four cornerstones of belief!
Well done Tereza. Interesting distinctions between hot and cold hatred. I'm going to read this more carefully, but after a quick zip through I have 2 suggestions.
In the interest of historical reliability, it's a good idea to get as close to primary sources as one can.
So rather than cite Max Igan (or rather in addition to) the info. from him seems to be from Benjamin Freedman's 1961 speech. You'll find transcripts and recordings of the whole speech online, as well as other speeches and letters. Get in touch if that proves difficult. Freedman was Jewish, and also a participant in the discussions at Versaille, leading up to the Treaty of ... He knew what he was talking about.
And in addition to Unz - a lot of what he said seems to be from Solzhenitsyn's "200 Years Together" which you can now find online in English, although it was officially only translated into two other languages. Again, you can find the text online.
Thanks Jonathan. As an ordinary housewife trying to put this puzzle together for my own benefit, I rely on people like you and others here to point to the deep sources. And yes, that same Unz article cites Solzhenitsyn's 200 Years Together. So I hope readers will go to him to find the next layer of primary sources. Once I solve a puzzle piece to my own satisfaction, I move on to the next piece. But I'm really glad to know about the Benjamin Freedman talk because Igan was speaking colloquially and that's sure to be challenged. Thanks for that reference!
An extraordinary housewife, for sure!😀
Comparing Israelis of today with Germans of 1945 is correct with one exception. The Israelis are actually committing genocide. The German people is still paying for what the Nazis didn't do to this day. Israel, as a country, has forfeited its right to exist, the way I see it.
I would make one exception to your statement. I don't think Israel had a right to exist to forfeit.
You are correct, Tereza. I was being a little too kind.
You have a lot of good info here, Tereza. Here is some more on the same subject. Not to many people are aware of Judea's declaration of war against Germany 3/24/1933 (Long before Chrystallnacht).
https://greaterisrahell.substack.com/p/who-started-it
Good article, worth reading again. I was just looking for a source on the amount of German wealth owned by the 1% of Germans who were Jews in post-WWI Germany. Do you have that? In looking for the population of Germany in 1939, I came up with 79M so 1% would be around 800,000. And the Haavara Agreement transferred 50,000 to Palestine. How is the 6M number reached?
And this was interesting to find:
Ninety-seven (97) percent of males born in Germany in 1923 were killed, the largest single birth year death rate. It was (perversely) the “sweet spot” for conscription in WWII. They were 18 in 1941, 20 in 1943, and 22 in 1945. They never stood a chance. By the end of the war, the Wehrmacht was down to using old men and young boys.
That was the year my dad was born, a German in the US.
https://www.quora.com/What-was-the-German-population-based-on-the-last-censuses-before-and-after-WW2
Thank you, Tereza. No, I don't have that. I don't know where to find things like that.
"Ninety-seven (97) percent of males born in Germany in 1923 were killed, the largest single birth year death rate. It was (perversely) the “sweet spot” for conscription in WWII. They were 18 in 1941, 20 in 1943, and 22 in 1945. They never stood a chance. By the end of the war, the Wehrmacht was down to using old men and young boys."
Sounds a lot like what no longer can be called "the bread basket of Europe".
"How is the 6M number reached?"
I remember a conversation on the radio in the early sixties where they debated that number. This was in Norway, and I was six years old. The number was 24 M. Yes, twenty four million. There was a guy who said that a more reasonable number would be twelve (million). This same debate came up in the late sixties, and they reduced it to six where it has remained ever since.
Of course this was not decided on in a Norwegian radio studio. This was a debate that was had all over the world so that we would all be on the same page. Social engineering.
Wow! I remember seeing the newspaper clippings that predate Jewish immigration to Germany with headlines of 6M Jews dead. I think they must have been talking about Russia but now that's a question to me. I've read that 6M has significance in numerology in the Torah and may be entirely arbitrary. But that's interesting to know it's been revised down to perhaps the highest number that wouldn't strain credulity.
"But that's interesting to know it's been revised down to perhaps the highest number that wouldn't strain credulity."
That was one of the things stated that I remember from the debaes on the subject both in the early and the late sixties. Six million is incredible. Literaly. A higher number even more so.
As for Russia.... Are you familiar with this Alexandr Solhzenitsyn quote?
"You must understand, the leading Bolsheviks who took over Russia were not Russians. They hated Russians. They hated Christians. Driven by ethnic hatred they tortured and slaughtered millions of Russians without a shred of remorse. It cannot be overstated. Bolshevism created the greatest human slaughter of all time. The fact that most of the world is ignorant and uncaring about this crime is proof that the global media is in the hands of the perpetrator."
You know who he was talking about, right? He gives a little hint in the last sentence.
Woah! I have never read that quote but it's mind-blowing. The more I learn, the less I realize I know.
Yes, it is. No wonder they hated him. He didn't get much publicity after receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, which is understandable because there were powerful banksters on both sides of the iron curtain.
"The more I learn, the less I realize I know."
I have said that a few times in my life too. Fools are the only ones who think they know everything. ;-)
You do know that getting caught with a copy of the protocols in your posession in the USSR was a capitol offense(?)
Only had time to scan, but this article appears to be another excellent one. Nice work there!
I agree with many things here, and disagree wit a few other things.
For instance, I believe that Judaism is a religion and not a race. But I also don't believe in races. Or, rather, my opinion is that race is an anti-concept: an idea designed to obscure reality.
Against your opinion, I don't hold that all people are inherently good. I consider myself a Christian, and my view on this is that people are free to choose the course of their actions. –This would get us in the conundrum of coercion from a system, and how much a given person is supposed to go along to survive violence or how much should they oppose and how. Let's not go there today.
But then you also say systems are to blame when people behave badly, and that systems can be changed. I disagree on both. This strikes me too much of hive mentality, I have difficulties with that. And all systems are man made, and seemingly all man made things tend to degrade faster than natural things. Then they either implode and disappear, or they change to survive. In the process, the maladapted people to the previous system may find themselves to be "excellent" for the new system, and the good people of before are now pariah because they don't adapt to the change.
This leads me to a Biblical issue that you don't touch, because it's not relevant, but I think it is tangentially important. As everyone knows, in Christianity we have the Old Testament and the New Testament. Implicit in this scheme is the idea that today is eschewed because of the Christian Zionist movement, which is the traditional notion of "supersessionism" or "replacement theology." I find it fascinating that one of the core beliefs of Christianity until the 19th century was simply put away in the 20th century. The idea, for those who don't know, is that the old Jews do not exist anymore, and the new Jews are the Christians. This is because the Messiah came, most of the chosen people rejected him, and then God destroyed them, as he had destroyed the enemies of the chosen people before. But at the same time, a new chosen people is created, this time by faith (a gift from God) and not by bloodline. This is one of the unstated reasons why Christians and Jews have been fighting each-other over centuries. And it's not that theologically, the Pauline theology forces Christians to be belligerant against "Jews" or the infidels who reject Christ in general. The violence is more political and economical than theological in origin, in my opinion.
A related topic about this is the problem of the books in the Bible. As everyone who has studied a little of the bible knows, there are books called Deuterocanonical or Apocryphal books. The first word is used by the Orthodox and the Catholics. The second word is used by the Protestants. These are books and parts of books of the old testament that were thought to be Sacred Scripture at some point, but that, since they do not appear in the Rabbinical list of books, they came to be considered of lesser importance or even not legitimate.
Here we see a change in the system.
The Protestant Reformation of 500 years ago was not the first crisis of Christianity. It has a long and winding history. Some people argue that real Christianity should have never become intertwined with the Roman Empire, that it should not be a religious system to organize society at large, but that the apostolic way of life was the original Christianity and it requires small and self-regulated communities. Nothing like an Empire of any sort.
So, was Christianity corrupted and absorbed by the Empire, or was the Empire corrupted by Christianity? The former lead us (those who want peace and prosperity for all) to reject some or all of the Roman heritage in our culture. The latter is the view of the Enlightenment period, and the view of many atheists. Sometimes known as Republicanism, which is only Imperialism by another name. In this view: Christianity is the problem. The idea of Salvation is the problem.
This second view is often split in two factions: materialism and naturalism. The former has produced democide everywhere in the world. Hundreds of millions of murdered people, most of whom were innocent. Materialism takes the worst things that Christianity is routinely accused of, and makes them into a system that aspires to global political domination, by coercion and ritualistic psychological abuse, for instance, the struggle sessions of revolutionary Marxists, or the self-destructive economic socialism of all Fascisms.
But naturalism is kind of a wishy-washy ideology. Some naturalists claim that God is equal to Nature, which is ill-defined. By way of negation, Nature is anything that is not man-made. And here we find the hatred of humans against themselves again, which circles back to annihilationism or exterminationism of all humans. Other naturalists speak of God as the Universe, which is a very big place. What is the Universe telling us to do? What would the Universe have any opinion on what we should do?
I like the idea of the universe always existing and never having had a beginning much rather than the Big-Bang view.
But, going back to your theme of violence and rejecting systems of violence, Naturalism seems to not do much to stop violence. It seems to nullify a lot of it, simply by rejecting the obsessions of past generations, and the parts of intellectualism that are poisonous and create violence. But I fail to see Naturalism, in any variant, as an ideology that has positive norms or a system of non-violence built into it.
Naturalism seems to be, paradoxically, too young, too underdeveloped. Just like Jesus tells his disciples to not care about mundane things and have full confidence in the Heavenly Father, who knows what they need and provides them with everything, the Naturalists seem to be saying that people should just have full confidence in Nothingness and not care about the past or the future, but to live like an animal, rejecting their own cognition. But no one really wants to give up their own consciousness, right?
Is there anything more violent than rejecting your own humanity?
It's obvious, at least for me, that any form of long-lasting peace is bad for "business." At least, it seems clear that those who worship money need to create war, which is the most risky and most profitable form of slavery.
So, the prosperity of non-violence, of self-regulated communities of people who choose to behave well, or a system that makes bad behavior very difficult, is not the same prosperity as the idea super-wealth, which requires the pyramid.
One crucial question that all people should try to answer for themselves. Are the Hararis, the Soroses or the Kissingers really Jews?
Or, What if the problem has nothing to do with what the "Jews" do, but with the shameful lack of a viable alternative from the anti-semites, which is only the result of a insufficient knowledge of themselves?
What if "the enemy" is simply winning by making sure that "ignorance of the self" is the reigning principle of the World, and the anti-semites are necessary puppets to sustain this global confusion?
To end with a joke, would I be anti-semitic if I would claim that most advertisement is evil and designed to confuse people, and to make them morally weak and depressed, incapable of managing their lives, and any self-respecting society would ban most forms of advertisement, regardless of any ideological consideration or economic ideology?
Sorry for the long comment!
Okay, ready to dive in! To start, we agree that Judaism is a system/ religion, not a race. Sorry if I didn't say that clearly in the article. However, the central tenet of the religion is racial purity. I'll be giving more examples but to YHWH, that's the unforgivable sin--intermingling.
To define terms, a belief or dogma is something that you won't raise to question. It's a measuring stick by which every other belief can be measured. I choose as my only dogma that I'm no better than anyone else, we're all born morally equal with equal capacity to choose good or bad behaviors. Therefore, logically, which we choose is the result of our circumstances. 'Free will' is a belief in innate moral superiority because, otherwise, what gives you the ability to make better choices than someone else if born into their circumstances?
It's redundant to tell me you're Christian and that you don't believe people are inherently good. The foundation of Christianity is a belief in evil. The first story of the Bible is that women are more corruptible by evil and a corrupting influence on men, so God decreed women subservient and obedient to men, aka slaves.
In the 2000 yrs of Christianity, this is the first century in which I can write those words and be taken seriously as capable of reason. It's the first time that a man, who 'owned' me, wouldn't be able to stop me from saying that. So based on my dogma that we're morally equal, I have to reject the Bible at the get-go when it says men are moral authorities over women.
What you choose as your belief system or measuring stick is Christianity, and you judge other ideas and beliefs by it. There's no moral code that supersedes it, where you would reject Christianity if it violated that. For all behaviors--rape, incest, lying, cheating, theft, murder, genocide--you need to know who did it before you can decide if it's right or wrong. So you accept the Bible's word that other people deserve what Hebrews did to them, judging them guilty by the authority of the Bible rather than judging the Bible immoral by an ethical code of behavior applied equally to all.
For instance, no matter what the Amelikes did, we know they didn't commit genocide on the Hebrews. So the retribution is greater than the offense. And we know that the Hebrews were not poor if they can hire 200K footmen in addition to their own 10K men from Judea.
I'm thinking that Jesus as a historical person rather than literary invention is dogma for you, but correct me if I'm wrong. I'll be writing more about why the Jesus story is a controlled opposition psyop, telling the colonies their reward is in heaven, obey their masters, submit to Caesar. If the authorship of the gospels is something you're willing to question, I think you'll find it interesting.
I think your chosen dogma is wrong: you are morally better than some other people. Or so it looks to me, by the little I know of you. You are probably morally worse than some other people. At least by the understanding of morality as the attempt to practice correct judgment and correct action and inaction. I have no problem if you are not willing to question your dogma. We thinkers sometimes become stuck in our own devices.
Because of my skepticism, I question my beliefs. I always end up back to the Jesus presented in Gospel. Over the years, I've read/listened a few arguments against the historicity of Jesus, and I will be glad to read yours also.
Is it an unquestionable dogma of the atheists the opinion that Jesus Christ never existed?
In the Old Testament we see many horrors falling over the Jews, caused by God as retribution on their sin. Theologians argue that God uses other peoples to punish the Jews. The last of these "Nations" that punish the Jews are the Romans.
The idea of "two eyes for an eye and two teeth for a tooth" comes up often. I don't know if it's fair or not because I don't know much, but if God says it is fair, then it is fair. The problem, from my point of view of a 21st century man, is that we don't know who controls what God says it's fair: is it Pfizer? Maybe an insurance company?
From the classical liberal point of view and the general idea of reducing violence among humans, we see that people invented a new god, called Democracy, and a new caste of prophets, who led all peoples into huge disasters. The old thing (Christianity) was seen as a dysfunctional and unworkable system of power to pacify the world, so they decided to invent a new system, and it blew up in their hands. There was a quote by somebody: "Don't ever take a fence down if you don't know the reason why it was put up."
With respect to the idea of men being moral authorities over women, this is a traditionalist view I don't hold. Most women are too stupid to be moral authorities over themselves, and then they make the mistake of seeking men's protection without authority, which is contradictory. Most men are equally incapable of governing themselves morally. Thus, the majority of men and women are enslaved by those who work to keep them ignorant.
Atheists deny all God's decrees, so this one should be obvious. But, in practice, the few women (perhaps 1 per thousand of all women?) who develop moral autonomy have the same problem as men who develop moral autonomy: they are presumed to be no better than the rest of the morlocks. This institutionalized prejudice and subsequent violence is not created by men who believe in God's decrees. Rather, it is created by people who desire to enslave all humanity and have no opposition. Feminism fails to teach that the problem is not men or God.
Have you noticed the subtle insult of the expression "the feminization of men"? It refers to this: women are more corruptible than men and much dumber, and by feminizing men, Society or Culture is now composed of men who are as corruptible and dumb as women. I don't think most of the people who use that phrase to criticize the West realize the insult, but it's there, and it's not an insult against feminized men. The phrase the "feminization of men" assumes the moral inferiority of each woman respect to each men, which is impossible. The truth is that some women are better than some men. Prove me wrong, please.
I would really prefer that each person would develop moral autonomy and live according to logic, rather than wrong and evil-intended ideas of the modern time, or of older times. But I admit that I see that many women prefer to submit to morally strong men who have proven their development. Many women do not want to be equal to men morally. They want less responsibility and more security.
There is also the problem that most men are so confused that they become like a subservient woman to their Company, to their wives, or to their country. And I don't think it's true that that way of life is easier, historically or in the present. Being a good man is difficult, being a servant wife is difficult, mainly because of the fragility of the situation: once the protector is gone, the person acting as a servant is lost and has no moral resources to live in society.
Serfdom is a bad system, but difficult to change, as you well know.
But the system changed. Many Christians worship Mary. Mary's faith was great, and she's seen as inferior only to God, who is above all. That's the teaching. Christian men must believe that some women can be good, too. It's quite paradoxical if one believes that the history of the last 2000 years of European Wars are caused by Christians who actually practiced their religious beliefs consistently. But the Empire corrupted Christianity, in my opinion. That's a better explanation of history.
Thank you, Roger, for the compliment on my morality. Some think I'm being humble when I say I'm no better than anyone else. But in fact, it's the opposite. I have a ridiculously high opinion of myself ... and I extend it to everyone else. I'm amazed at the beauty people are able to bring out of some very broken and dismal circumstances. In their shoes, I don't know if I could have done the same.
To my knowledge, the divinity of Jesus is wildly debated but hardly anyone but me and Joe Atwill have researched the historicity of the person. Whose arguments have you heard before? I'm curious.
I'd never call myself an atheist. I think the purpose of the story of Jesus was to replace the concept of a God who loved everyone equally with a God who loved one above all, whose sacrifice he demanded to make everyone else guilty because he had to die for our sins.
What's one of God's decrees that wouldn't be common sense morality under the Golden Rule?
Thanks for your answer. When I read your posts I think I should practice my humility more, but then I realized it's hard to be humble.
Besides the old classic of the organist Albert Schweitzer (who was a Nobel Prize laureate, but I won't use that fault against him) I have some familiarity with Ralph Ellis' opinions on this subject (https://www.ancient-origins.net/author-profiles/ralph-ellis-001786) and also the opinions of some Spanish "paranormal researchers" whose names I prefer to not mention because I truly abhor and loathe communists and how they ravage countries and sink culture into superstition and violence.
I have also researched the surface of the 19th century American religious movements, most of which fall under my definition of atheism. Some if not all of these movements question the divinity of Jesus.
With respect to your second question, the common argument of many atheists is that the Old Testament God is a genocidal maniac who decrees that the chosen people must go an slay these set of people or that set of people, and that goes against the New Testament version of the Golden Rule. I don't see that many atheists interested in peace or in avoiding genocides either. In fact, many atheists seem to like the idea of racially targeted mass murder, so their problem is that they desire to become the Old Testament God as they see him, instead of the New Testament God, as they see him, which to them is weak and feminine and immoral and useless.
There are atheists who are not that crazy about killing people, and who spare themselves the trouble of speaking against any religion. It's a silly business to want to make money by provoking people with insults to their religion. I think these are the best atheists, the most coherent, the most Epicurean.
The funny thing is that recently I've seen very proud atheists who are, more or less, pro-peace (at least anti-war) who are in favor of exterminating muslims, the Gazans in particular, and then, perhaps, to continue with the neighbouring countries. Two-eyes for an eye is not an idea that was invented by God (if the atheists are correct,) and it's not an idea that is rejected by all atheists. Surprisingly, these people still believe in vaccines, and promote them with the spurious argument of "saving lives" and "controlling disease." I can put two and two together: it's self-refuting to hold the golden rule or even the silver rule on one hand, and then argue in favor of medical coercion of any kind with the other hand. Unless the person speaking is a deranged Masochist.
The Golden Rule preceded Christianity in several religions and cultures, so it's not actually a morality particular to it. I'd say it's the formula for common sense morality.
I checked out the Ralph Ellis. He's talking about the divinity aspect. I look at all the reasons why the simple biographical details are contradicted by history, archeology, geography, linguistics. And according to Bible scholars who present in-depth research on one passage and then vote on its veracity, 85% of the things that are quoted from Jesus are unlikely--because they were already said by someone else, they don't make sense in Aramaic, they throw in details that are post-dated, etc.
The importance of this is that, if the story of Jesus is a literary fiction, why? Who wrote it? The evidence points to Josephus based on word order analysis and characteristic style techniques. One of these was his tendency to start a story, interject something else, then go back and finish. This same style is called a Markan sandwich by gospel scholars (who don't make the connection.) So it's not whether the empire corrupted Christianity, it's whether the empire wrote it.
Yes, that's what atheists believe.
And then they branch in different directions:
– the masons and their weird Egyptian death cult and creepy rituals
– the technologists who want immortality
– the money-worshippers who just want a passtime between their financial heists
– the sex-addicts, who are usually "friends" with politicians
– those who manage a full-blown cult Jones-style
– the political ideologues who want to save the world or destroy it, either way is fine with them
– the edgy, smart kids who want a way out of their family and their environment
– and the globalists
There are probably more categories of people who argue in a similar way. They don't enter in debates with seasoned apologists of Christianity. They prefer to attack the low hanging fruit. They're kinda lazy, aren't they?
But the second part of your response includes the argument, which maybe it's originally yours, that the Empire wrote the fiction of Christianity. But if so, the Empire can also unwrite it, right? It can force people to believe anything.
For example, they could invent a new religion based on a modern myth, such as psychoanalysis. They can write a salvation-by-obedience political scheme around the bizarre idea that men hate women or that women hate men, maybe both. They invent a personage, a few miracles, and then start some small groups of neophytes, where theology is developed slowly, making sure it checks all the boxes of people. Then start a subscription model, a weekly session of ritualistic confession of thoughts and doubts, accompanied by admonitions and maybe some form of punishment. Then add some legislation. Give perks to the acolytes in good standing to help this new psyop religion grow. Segregate society according to reputation. Special taxes, etc. But there has to be a promise of salvation somewhere, how else would they keep people going? This is a system of abuse that supports the Empire.
But, in the case of Christianity, people insist that it destroyed the Empire. It made them weak. They tried to overcome corruption with stoic philosophy but it wasn't enough, so they decided to use that exotic and small thing that was growing to save the Empire from devouring itself. And then, after much struggle, Christianity grew and took over, and then they lost power for a while, and then they came back to power. But the Empire was dead, and it was invaded and destroyed. Because Christianity made them "feminine" and they couldn't resist the Goths. This atheistic and misogynistic account of the first centuries of the Christian era is incompatible with the idea that the Empire invented Christianity from the start, because it didn't serve the Empire, it destroyed it. One way to save this hypothesis could be to argue that Christianity is like a flytrap: it catches the enemies of the Empire and digests them. The empire can only survive by morphing constantly: language, the place of the capital city, currency, laws, manufacturing and construction, science, traditions, and everything else has to be changed as the Empire changes. We would be during a molting phase. Who is going to get conquered next? Who will get Christianized next and become the new Capital of the Empire? And that's why the Christian era will never end, which is a very sarcastic phrase depending on which angle one looks at it.
But why do I have to hear the opinion of those with a preconceived notion, who try to destroy my faith? Why would I change a gift from the Creator for the whims of scholars who bring nothing to the table? Atheism is disastrous.
I prefer simplicity: God is love, there is salvation, it's open for everyone and everything has been fulfilled. The rest is just ornamental distractions. Spiritually, everything has been done already. One simply has to join or not join. That's part of the divine freedom of Man. (I know this is too simple for many believers, but I don't care about their need for an endless psychodrama with the Devil)
Materially, we already have everything we need to end the nonsense. We always did, really. But we don't want to. I don't know why. I think it's because Man really wants impossible things: to kill God and to become God. These desires force Man to reject the ultimate reality. When an individual removes those desires, life becomes more bearable. And I understand that people reach this conclusion or a similar one starting from a different point than Christianity. The Salvation aspect is spiritual, and has little to do with the world of flesh.
I don't know how I ended up writing so much about this topic. I let myself go a bit much. Sorry. You are a really exciting writer, Tereza.
Thanks for that long comment, Roger! I'll enjoy digging in and answering after my dance class.
I'm replying here, instead of YT, b/c it isn't working there. Probably b/c the word "vaccine" is used. So, here is my copy and pasted answer to your last comment over there:
In regard to autism, before the Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, the autism rates were around 1 in 10,000 (there were vaccine injuries prior, as well), but today are about 1 in 34, with boys more prone. This act shields the pharmaceutical companies of almost all liability, except fraud, and includes all vaccines on the childhood schedule. That’s why they needed the Covid jabs on the childhood schedule, as well. Children 18 and under receive 72 different injected poisons, with many different adjuvants added to the contents, like aluminum, polysorbate 80, monosodium glutamate, formaldehyde, etc. It’s one thing to consume these ingredients by mouth but injecting them is another beast. It’s also fine to eat a grilled cheese sandwich, but would one inject the liquified contents of it? Further, there are way too many parents that have come forward and spoken out about their children being perfectly normal, and then the child completely changing right after vaccines, with many losing all communications and no longer smiling or interacting with their parents. Many scream-out in pain, since not only does it cause inflammation of the brain, referred to as encephalopathy, but can also inflame the gut, which is where the enteric nervous system resides. Autism used to be listed as a side effect on one of the vaccines (I think it was the MMR) but has since been removed. Some still list encephalopathy, however.
Now consider this. Reading between the li(n)es, at the allegorical Garden of Eden story of Genesis 3, it was about the most subtle beast of the field, the serpent, enticing Eve to partake of something that Eve knew within her godly self wasn’t good, but she did it anyway, as did Adam. They then bore Cain, who turned out to be a murderer and a liar otherwise known as a genetic psychopath, because he also showed no empathy for his brother by basically saying that he wasn’t his brother’s keeper. It’s hard to say what Abel would have turned out to be, but their third son, Seth, was also a murderer and liar, as shown throughout the rest of their Bible. That serpent in the Eden story represents a superficially charming, snake-oil-salesmen, drug-peddling, psychopath of today. As the story goes, Cain and Seth weren’t conditioned by anything they were taught over time, either. Now, fast forward to today and take note of the medical symbol called the Rod of Asclepius. It’s a snake that is shown either wrapped around a branch (from a tree like in Eden), or a spicule, like a needle. Further, take the sorcerer’s spell off the word, “Asclepius,” and it also spells “As Spicule,” which some doctors refer to needles as such. And while I’m at it, take the spell off the word “Pharmaceutical” and it also spells “Cephalic Trauma.” Cephalic means of or pertaining to the head or brain. Lastly, the word “virus” derives from Latin to mean poison or poisonous substance. Virus is really their code-talk for poison. Like I implied before, psychopaths love to do sick things for the fun of it, and they’ve left signs all along the way. Anyway, when we can open our mind’s eyes to our inner knowing, then we can truly see. “Real Eyes Realize Real Lies.” I hope this helped you in some small way:)
Thanks for this, Wildrhody. Some of it's familiar to me but some is new. Very interesting theory on the Garden of Eden. I don't know if you saw my episode on that: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/in-the-blood-of-eden. You give me lots to think about!
Thank you for guiding me to your article. I both watched and read it. You definitely have interesting and eloquent ways of presenting thoughts, and I very much appreciate them, even though I may not be near as well-read as you. I'm certainly learning, however:) It's all I can do to keep up with what I'm trying to accomplish, along with staying tuned to world happenings.
Anyway, you mentioned the different creation stories, but did you notice how the Gen. 1 Creator was written as "God," and then Gen. 2:4 changes to the legal entity, all caps, "LORD GOD." That's the fake/fictional one. Here's a link to why the gov't. uses all caps. Also, take note that gold's location is given in Gen. 2, before Eve is created. Further, there was already food on this planet for man, animals, fish, etc. to eat. The legal entity "LORD GOD" is just taking ownership over this domain, pretending it was created by him or it. http://articleatlas.com/given-name-syntax.html
In Gen. 3, The serpent, Adam, and Eve do bring up "God" again, which is a bit confusing, but they are definitely known to gaslight and confuse us. The thing is that Satan/serpent is more than likely the LORD GOD'S alter/altar ego, seeing as Satan is first mentioned in 1 Chron. 21:1, as provoking David to number Israel, and then in 2 Samuel 24:1, it states that "AGAIN" the LORD was angered to move David to number Israel.
In Job 1, the similar situation is shown, where the LORD is talking with Satan, and it states, "8 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?" Why didn't this LORD say, "one that feareth me?" That's suspect to me, but then I'm a very literal person.
Bottom line for me is that I think the Bible is their coded military strategy guide, but they use good parts to lure us in. They also used their priestly class, rabbi Jesus story to make people docile and turn the other cheek against these murderous psychopaths.
I want to close out by letting you know that you seem to be seeking the truth on a much higher enlightened plane than me, and I don't want to bring you down to where my mind is. I'm in a very combative level right now, trying to formulate the information to prove the Bible is one big lie! I mean, even the word "Bible" has the word "Lie" concealed within its name. With that said, I've been strongly guided on this path, for some reason, which is why I'm so passionate about it. It has become my life's work, through my dad always quizzing me on words, to after my very religious mom dying, and then leading me to information about the Scarab beetle. It's been a crazy but interesting ride:) Take good care, and thank you for the reply, and for all you teach us!
Reading is a vice for me, not a virtue. Just ask my ex or my very religious dearly deceased mom. I am certainly learning as much from you as you are from me, and I'm so happy to not be living in an echo chamber, but one that sends back new things for me to think about. I was just thinking that there's a whole group doing that on the world wars front, and another who take an avid interest in the spirituality front, but my Bible critique didn't seem to have takers. And then here you are! "Coded military strategy guide," wow! That's more succinctly put than I'd dreamed of. And yes, the whole psyop starts with Genesis, although I suspect it was written after the Noahite land-and-slave grant, to retrodate the anti-Canaanite polemic to Cain. The Hebrew scholar Yehoishophat says they're pronounced differently but I dunno.
REALLY interesting (let's incorporate Reality) that God is not all caps in Gen 1. I've written somewhere, pre-Substack, about that Creation Redux. Did you mean God's location or gold's? I never noticed the similarity of the two but it's telling, isn't it? As is the similarity of jewels and Jews, which was pointed out in The 13 Sugar Colonies as what or who REALLY funded Columbus' journey.
I think we totally forget that LORD meant a human claiming ownership of land and lives, backed by violence and the law. That word has been 'sublimated' or turned into a subliminal trigger that gives the same ownership while getting people to sing their praises instead of curses. I clearly need to do another episode on the Creation stories incorporating (smile) your wise and insightful comments.
I don't mind that we're all corporate entities to the Federal gov't. I plan to use that loophole in my economic system ;-)
The only way that maybe what I'm seeking is more 'enlightened' is that I think there's a truth that the lying Bible was written to subvert and pervert (maybe the opposite order). At one point, I would have considered proving the Bible a lie my life's work too. And it's absolutely necessary. But the 'good parts' aren't just good, they're hints to 'the truth that would set us free.' I'm sure of it. Like any propaganda, it interweaves the truth with lies into a 'seamless garment.' The reason it has such staying power over good people is that weft of truth. The reason it gives so much power to the dark forces is that warp of lies. We're definitely going in the same direction and I appreciate your company on the journey!
I forget what you've already seen, but it includes these two, yes? https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/empire-and-religion and https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/talmud-tricks-and-torah-curses.
What a great article, Kate, thanks for linking it. I had no idea that Rothschild was the one who accused Dreyfus. With the financial scandal that preceded it, where a group of Jews swindled many out of their life savings and went scot-free, what are the odds that Rothschild was involved? I'm seeing a pattern here: like in Germany post WWI, massive transfer of wealth to some group of Jews, false flag attack on others that diverts attention and arouses sympathy, exoneration and immunity for perpetrators of financial heist.
Interesting that Makow uses 'human shield.' I've thought of it as the 'victim shield.'
And curious that Zola is who popularized the phrase 'J'accuse!' I don't know if you were reading during my Robert Malone series but he used that to bellyache that he was wrongfully accused of being controlled opposition. Was Zola defending Dreyfus, do you know?
Your 'spidey-senses' were on alert. That particular interview has been a rich vein of analysis among some of us Malone-watchers. Here's the episode where I linked all of the previous 16 so you can scan the summaries in one place: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/truth-is-like-a-chamelion.
Thank you for that lovely compliment, Kate. And yes, whatever 'this' is ;-)
Interesting catch on the Salk's temple. Certainly vaccination, from the get-go, has been in the master plan. And I think your implication is correct, not 'merely' population reduction and not 'merely' obscene profits. I've wondered if autism is a feature, not a bug, particularly in how it targets men. If you want men to code all day and watch porn all night, making them asocial and irritated by even pleasant stimuli is a good start. And then if you want them to serve your nefarious agenda, giving them no empathy or ability to relate to people's feelings is a strong advantage.
Great research and analysis, Kate! May I quote you on this? It's such a key point that the Catholic Church and 'the Church of Freemasonry' both 'aimed universal sovereignty' with a net thrown over nations as well as religions, as you aptly say. Were Jews allowed in the Freemasons?
It certainly fits the formula of secrecy within and deception without. And how better to ensure secrecy than pedo-sadist rites where children are raped, tortured and killed? That's a powerful secret to keep hidden, and a reason to hide anything else. I don't know that this is true of the Freemasons 33rd order but it's certainly true of some secret society or a network of them.
Yes! That was exactly the similarity that occurred to me. As I said to Nefahotep: In order for the victim narrative to work, the Jewish people ARE the ritual sacrifice that gives power and impunity to the rulers who think themselves gods. There's no doubt in my mind that the same PTB and shouldn't be, are at work in both. If you go back to my episode on Lahaina and the police supervisor and his former role in the Las Vegas shooting, I think that's clear. Which brings the third Abrahamic religion in also: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/maui-and-the-oligarchs.