Many people have a hard time imagining the possibility that somebody could be on their side with manipulative intentions. Most people still don't understand the Fabian Society.
Thanks, Mathew. That's why I really liked the meme I posted in one, "Everybody who fights you is not your enemy, and everybody who helps you is not your friend."
It's my suspicion that it's the same bloodline behind the Jews and the Vatican, manipulating both. It's a strategy that's been at work for thousands of years, successfully.
Not to mention the 'Crown Temple' as well as the 'Holy Sea'. So many names for likely the same group of TPTB. Crown Temple (City of London) established in the 13th Century. We all know when the Holy Sea (Vatican) began. Lots of 'links' between the two.
As an aside, and Librarian mentions this as well in his writings, the Khazarian (silk road) empire/era ran from 'approximately' 200 AD to 1300 AD (Librarian stated in one post that the silk road ran for a 1,000 years: "They brought in Russian mercenaries if they had to fight with Islamic people. The world was a 1,000 years of closed society and zero opportunity. To be a mercenary was the only way out. After each successful battle the soldiers were give a few days to plunder and raze the city, they could kill anyone, and rape any girl they could catch. I'll point you to the Khazaria record:
Interesting to me is the link (in timelines) of the end of Khazaria and the beginning of the City of London. Librarian mentioned that there were roughly 4,000 families that controlled the entire silk road and all its accumulated wealth (eventually spanning from China all the way to Spain, northward to Nordic Countries and southward into the Middle East).
Interesting comment from Matthew Ehret in his Oct 23 article of Khazaria and (???) Capitalism.
It's multi-leveled. From a top down standpoint, if I'm going to be as honest as possible: The principal motive was to prevent the emergence of the City of God (ie: Age of Justice) on earth, which can best be understood as a maturation of human civilization out of the infantile epoch of oligarchical systems and associated identities, laws, habits, customs etc. The jews have been the earliest thorns in the sides of the pagan cult structures that controlled civilization for most of our ancient history and the emphasis on a Monotheistic, reasonable moral creator has been the bane of the oligarchy's existence ever since. So there is that rageful hate of judaism, and the best vengence is to twist the object of your hate into a perversion of itself, use it for your advantage and then dispose of it when convenient. So more vindictive yes. The mechanical usefulness of divide-to-conquer tactics, and using corrupt jews to act as instruments of destruction are secondary/tertiary considerations for the oligarchy.
I’ve only just discovered your Substack and I’m really enjoying your writing and thought processes. You first caught my attention with your post on Russel Brand and my experience of him, including the timeline you mention, was more or less the same. I’m not sure what has happened to him but I don’t think he is being true to himself, possibly blackmail. When you look at how the PTB are set against Trump then you realise just how powerful and strong one has to be to withstand that and quite probably have to be an extreme character (for good or ill). I question everything now, on every side and my guidance comes from the underlying principles of A Course in Miracles but I forget many times over and fall into a despair and fear. That is the most dangerous aspect of all of this, that humanity loses the joy and wonder in life and I see that in our so called “developed” world.
Thank you so much, Susie! That's a good way to say it, "I don't think he is being true to himself." You give him the benefit of the doubt that he wants to be the person of integrity we've loved before.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is a theory in psychology proposed by Abraham Maslow that suggests that human beings have different levels of needs, which must be fulfilled in a particular order for a person to reach their full potential. The hierarchy is often depicted as a pyramid, with the most basic needs at the base and the most complex needs at the top.
The Five Levels of Needs:
Physiological Needs: These are the most basic needs that are necessary for human survival, such as:
Food
Water
Shelter
Sleep
Sex
Health
Safety Needs: Once physiological needs are met, the next level of needs is safety and security, including:
Protection from physical harm
Financial security
Law and order
Stability and predictability
Love and Belonging Needs: The third level of needs is related to social connections and relationships, including:
Friendship
Intimacy
Trust
Acceptance
Feeling loved and valued
Esteem Needs: The fourth level of needs is related to self-esteem and recognition, including:
Self-respect
Recognition from others
Achievement and accomplishment
Independence
Self-Actualization Needs: The highest level of needs is self-actualization, which is the realization of one’s full potential, including:
Personal growth and development
Creativity and innovation
Fulfillment and satisfaction
Self-actualization and realization
Key Points:
The hierarchy is not a linear progression, and individuals may move back and forth between levels.
The needs at each level are not mutually exclusive, and individuals may experience multiple needs simultaneously.
The hierarchy is not a fixed or absolute concept, and different people may prioritize different needs at different times.
The theory suggests that people are motivated to fulfill their needs in a hierarchical order, with the most basic needs taking priority over the more complex needs.
You mention logic, intuition and authority, with logic winning the day.
One might suggest that these 'needs' categorically fall into:
Logic: I conjecture this may be an 'Esteem' Need. Logic needs to be tested and validated, therefore providing self esteem.
Intuition: This is a 'Safety' Need. Without it, life can become unsafe.
Authority: Back to a 'Safety' Need, hopefully providing Law and Order.
What's not been mentioned is your interesting comment about women's sexual attraction to Russell and therefore placing a 'higher' value in his comments/beliefs/doubts/reserved nature. Qualities were assigned to these values since there was a linked attraction.
If Ross Perot had been the one stating all of Russell's views, etc. I'm not certain there would not have been equal uptake, ie: likely due to minimal sexual attraction.
Therefore, Maslow's 'Physiological Needs' needs to also be considered in the falling into favor with RB. Did things get so egregious with his diatribes (did the Trump interview comments finally cause an emotional crisis??) that one had to look beyond the bright eyes, accent and hairy chest to see the 'new RB'??
Yes, Men & Women are different. No one disputes that. Are we able to get 'closer' to the other??
I conjecture/postulate that nature and nurture contribute.
If one in 7 are mentally ill in our population, then we can run some numbers from there.
If we conclude that 1/2 of the 14% have psycopathic/sociopathic tendencies (7%) then sensitivities of/feelings for other (forget the gender thing for a minute) gets seriously challenged. These are the ones that possess the capability to dismiss/disregard/hurt/traumatize/kill/maim/etc. others without conscious/moral/ethical concern. They're happy to kick others down as they raise themselves up, again, without conscious as to their actions. All they know is I'm superior and everyone else is inferior.
These behaviors come from nature (psycopaths) and nurture (sociopaths).
Back to Women and Men and a merging of mental selves, in times of war/conflict (real or perceived) Mostly men tend to get psyops'd into believing everything is life and death and to follow authority (especially at impressionable ages). Women tend to adjust to bring balance (ying/yang as Nef states) and are trained to bring emotion/intuition. Logic suffers on both sides as a result. During peaceful times, integrating gender mental/emotional ideals is able to expand (possibly flourish). No?
Lastly, where does ego kick in here? Most humans have ego and hormones that ultimately drive the day, until which time secondary thoughts/feelings/events/history/emotions/education(s)/enlightenments/etc. kick in. Is that where we finally get to 'self-actualization and enlightenment/realization?
But that takes time, effort, energy, willingness to look around and assess surroundings and self. For many it may never happen due to circumstances beyond their control.
Your thoughts?????
PS: All offered with care and compassion to all of us growing from the discussion.
Lots to respond to, Greg. On Maslow, I often argue against him. I think his hierarchy is elitist and says that someone who doesn't have food and shelter can't be self-actualized. If anything, my experience has shown the opposite. Kids who get no recognition and self-esteem can be the most creative and driven to actualize their potential.
I don't find your statement that logic provides self-esteem to be logical. Logic extracts meaning from contradictions, and meaning is the goal. It has nothing to do with the ego.
And I said that it wasn't sex appeal that made women respond to Russell. It was that he provided meaning, same as he did for men. Russell looked the same, although wilder, 20 yrs ago and I had zero interest in what he had to say. If he looked like Ross Perot, I'd be just as interested. But hopefully he would be funnier than Ross.
Whew. Finally we've found a point of difference to create growth.
Regarding your comment to my comment: "I don't find your statement that logic provides self-esteem to be logical."
For starters, I have no skin in the game of which box it belongs in, so I'll gladly accept your perspective.
But, just for grins I looked up where Maslow would likely assign 'Logic' (even though it might be elitist as you say).
Here's what came back (via AI):
Where does logic fit into Maslow's laws of order?
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is a theory that proposes that human beings have different levels of needs, ranging from basic physiological needs to self-actualization. While logic is not explicitly mentioned in Maslow’s original theory, it can be argued that logic plays a role in the higher levels of the hierarchy.
Deficiency Needs
In the lower levels of the hierarchy, such as physiological and safety needs, logic is not a primary motivator. These needs are driven by instinct and basic survival instincts, rather than logical reasoning.
Growth Needs
In the higher levels of the hierarchy, such as love and belonging, esteem, and self-actualization, logic becomes more relevant. These needs involve complex social and emotional interactions, and individuals may use logical reasoning to navigate these relationships and achieve their goals.
Self-Actualization
In the highest level of the hierarchy, self-actualization, logic is crucial. Self-actualization involves realizing one’s full potential and pursuing personal growth and development. This requires critical thinking, problem-solving, and logical reasoning to overcome obstacles and make informed decisions.
Conclusion
While logic is not explicitly mentioned in Maslow’s original theory, it can be argued that it plays a role in the higher levels of the hierarchy, particularly in the pursuit of self-actualization. As individuals strive to meet their higher-level needs, they may use logical reasoning to navigate complex situations and achieve their goals.
In re-reading what my original comment stated, I've come to a glaring realization that I completely missed the point of your article, and that is, "Boys, it sure would be nice for us women to see you sharing/offering more emotion".
As you stated: "Love the person, challenge the ideas.
Women are good at the first part, but not the second. Men are good at the second but not the first. If we’re going to get out of this rat race, we need to be doing both. I’m on a mission to make women more argumentative and claim logic as their friend. And perhaps a mission to make men less judgmental, which is to say more loving."
I'm sensing that I might be missing something. If so, please let me know.
Good memory, Greg, on disagreement being the learning tip of growth. Let me look closer at our exchange. You responded to my resonance with Susie that Russell had changed and was no longer being true to himself. In answer to this, you posted Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which didn't seem relevant until you clarified with:
"Therefore, Maslow's 'Physiological Needs' needs to also be considered in the falling into favor with RB. Did things get so egregious with his diatribes (did the Trump interview comments finally cause an emotional crisis??) that one had to look beyond the bright eyes, accent and hairy chest to see the 'new RB'??"
So what you're saying is that women's physiological need for sex, according to Maslow, took precedence over their need for meaning, aka self-actualization. Is that correct? There are several men, on the YT and Substack thread, who also listened to him, some of whom felt he had changed and others who don't agree with everything but still listen. Are they also secretly gay and listened to him because of sexual attraction?
You paraphrase me as "What's not been mentioned is your interesting comment about women's sexual attraction to Russell and therefore placing a 'higher' value in his comments/beliefs/doubts/reserved nature."
What I actually said was, "with 100% certainty, the women on my threads who loved Russell loved him for the same reasons as the men—because he was speaking an outer truth that resonated with an inner truth. It demeans us, not Russell, to make us naive and falling for his sex appeal."
So you did exactly what I said that men did that was demeaning. You cited me as saying that women valued Russell because of sex appeal, after I had just pointed out how insulting that was, not to Russell, but to women.
You also write, "Logic: I conjecture this may be an 'Esteem' Need. Logic needs to be tested and validated, therefore providing self esteem." This states that people engage in logic because of their need for self-esteem; we are driven by our needs, not by inherent purpose and meaning. And women, as I said, most often receive disapproval and lower outside validation when they use logic to point out someone else's contradictions because women are supposed to be agreeable.
When I say "Love the person, challenge the ideas." I define what I mean by love: "And perhaps a mission to make men less judgmental, which is to say more loving." I don't need to have warm, fuzzy feelings about anyone, nor do I need to have anyone have those feelings about me.
I don't think feelings have anything to do with a discussion of ideas--I think emotions interfere whether they're negative or positive. So no, I'm definitely not saying, "Boys, it sure would be nice for us women to see you sharing/offering more emotion." To me, that also demeans women and their rational capabilities.
Love is seeing others as equals, and not attribute character traits to them or making judgments that they wouldn't see in themselves. If you write, "Most humans have ego and hormones that ultimately drive the day" but wouldn't write, "My ego and hormones ultimately drive my day," then you're making a judgment based on superiority.
The only reason you should read my blog is if it teaches you something new that helps you make sense of the world. Otherwise, it's a waste of your time. I'm glad to have you contributing your knowledge and insights, Greg. But it's my role to point out where judgments are being made, about me, about women, and about other people, and challenge them.
Thanks for your thoughts, patience and persistence in trying to get me to figure this all out.
I must admit, this one sentence caught me the wrong way originally, as it seemed not to fit the direction my brain was heading:
"But with 100% certainty, the women on my threads who loved Russell loved him for the same reasons as the men—because he was speaking an outer truth that resonated with an inner truth. It demeans us, not Russell, to make us naive and falling for his sex appeal."
And from that point on, I fell into my own trap of misunderstanding the direction of the article from that point on, including my comments.
Rather than continue digging my own grave, I'm going to admit I simply misunderstood the Russell comment, so I apologize for my confusing comments.
You make a good point, Philip. My statement would be more nuanced to say, "among those they perceive to be available to them." Part of the task of reducing the hatred (judgment, superiority, anger, violence) in the world is creating better choices. But it's also changing the perception of choices. I think that's where your consciousness evolution comes in--it's a spiritual change.
I actually like Russell and watched a fair number of his videos a couple of years ago. But it did seem he was playing it safe, and I understood why. Obviously, he was skating close to the edge of the Censorship Abyss and was trying not to fall in. But I think he also might have been trying to challenge people's ideas gently, and with humor, without saying "you're wrong, and here's why". I haven't watched him lately, though, so I don't directly know what his recent approach has been like.
Hello, Mark! Yes, that's when I was watching Russell too and I certainly didn't mind him steering clear of the censors. And yes, I think that style was very effective. If you do watch him now, I'd be curious if you think he's changed.
I'm assuming this reference is for Librarian. Very important that Judea was taking aggressive action to cause WWII. But their word, Judea, is misleading. Maybe Zionists?
Well, the headline in the Daily Express (London - March 24, 1933), definitely reads ‘JUDEA’, and with subheading “Jews Of All the World Unite [In Action]” – probably slight variation in different editions.
Article with expanded text here – I could not find any mention of the world “Zionism”:
First Intermediate Period of Egypt (2181-2040 BCE)
Middle Kingdom (2040-1782 BCE) periods of Egyptian history. The name was given to the era by 19th-century CE Egyptologists, not by the ancient Egyptians.
Hyksos or Habiru may have begun showing up some time as early as the end of the First Intermediate Period.
**Second Intermediate Period according to World History: Note that the full article discredits the second intermediate period as being chaotic, it states the Hyksos / Habiru were nice people. Use your own best judgement.
***Hyksos rule: (1630–1523 BCE) There were overlapping kingdoms for a time
New Kingdom (1570-1069 BCE).
Regarding some of the items you were asking about; the name "Jew" is a more recent development approx 1800's Google says the following:
[The English term Jew is originally derived from the Hebrew term Yehudi ( lit. 'of Judah'), which passed into Greek as Ioudaios and into Latin as Iudaeus, in turn evolving into the Old French term giu after the letter "d" was dropped.] I am not sure when the "d" was dropped. There are many sources that state the name Jew is more recent.
The dates from the Librarian's Stack:
The primary sources for the entries are likely to be biased, even if there may be some truth in some entries, that truth is smothered with inverted stories.
**The Khazarian Empire, this is verifiable from multiple sources:
For three centuries (c. 650–965) the Khazars conquered the area from the Volga-Don steppes to Crimea and the Caucasus. Khazaria was between the Byzantine Empire, the steppe nomads, and the Umayyad Caliphate.
The Khazars' conversion to Judaism can be dated ca 861. Cited by -- 167 by C Zuckerman · 1995 ·
Khazaria was destroyed by an alliance between Russia and Persia in 965 AD, there is no mention of the collapse of Khazaria in the List of Expulsions.
Thanks for those details, Nef, there's an important clue in those. For instance, what does it mean that the Khazarians converted? Who instigated that and possibly ordered that, since a whole tribe doesn't have a sudden spiritual revelation. Have different peoples been 'chosen' by the LORD (in the warlord sense) to be his army of infiltrators?
Here's what I'm wondering--did a family of warLORDs look for tribes of malcontents and foreigners, in order to convert them and use them by playing to their resentment? That could have been the Hyksos, the 'lepers' of Egypt, the Khazarians, the Ashkenazi (are those two the same?) The masterminds are the ones in charge, who know how to play people off of each other as victims and perps.
And I'm trying to remember what the Bible claims as the land from which the people originate. Certainly not Canaan, since it was inhabited before the Hapiru or Hebrews of Abram got there. Even the story of Noah is one of migration--he doesn't land where he started. So it doesn't seem like there is a single homeland and maybe not a single people.
It's said that Khazarian Elites were the primary individuals who actually did the converting. They may have been one and the same people the Habiru lead by the Heka Khasut. There were different war lords, but I currently only have the name; King Bulan. The reason for the conversion that everyone thinks is that the Kevan Russ of Russia put pressure on king Bulan to stop all the road banditry, kidnapping of children from villages and pilfering the traveling merchants.
The idea was, if they adopted an Abrahamic Religion that the criminal behavior would stop, but it didn't, it got worse.
Your idea of a warlord looking for malcontents is very much accurate.
There's been a lot of controversy whether or not the Ashkenazi are the same people as the Khazarians. Ashkenazi is a term used later in Germany as in Ashkenazishe Yidn or Yidn for short. The citation for this is CollinsDictionary.com. Also, the language is actually Yiddish which fits perfectly with context with gidu from French.
The evidence of actual origin for the Habiru is very scanty due to the fact that they may have been wanderers since the Black Sea Flood approx 6,500 BC. The story of Noah is likely recounting the ordeal of escaping the valley of the fresh water Black Sea, the Ark may have been a series of flotillas that eventually landed around or near the area of Ararat.
There is a book called the "Codex Oralinda" that has some accounts of the Khazars.
Questions that have been on my mind: if it states in the Bible/Torah that God banished Jews from Israel due to their despicable/unholy behavior, might it all actually be a lie? Why were they 'invited' back by the British/Allied Forces? Where was God in that decision. They obviously felt no need to 'return' until they already owned the world-wide banking/financing/lending/interest rate system of capture.
Did the Jews actually leave to take over the world? Once they had their 'playbook' of capturing and controlling wealth, why stay in one small country playing the same game with their own when the entire world was available to rule over??
This centers around the No Annexation Principle, a way to lash all the countries of the world into a Franchise network of Corporations, controlled centrally. They still are actually a widely spread "culture."
I'll add that the British and Allied forces were and are controlled by the same Black Nobility and Sabbatean cult that Infiltrates all major Religions.
Back to Tereza's thoughts on Logic, intuition and authority, here's an example where authority wins the day, without further discussion..................unless they choose to change things up...............for their benefit first and foremost.
'Logic' and 'Intuition', welcome to 'coach'. Authority just jumped the shark right into 'first class'.
"The Inns of Court to the Crown Temple use the banking and judicial system of the City of London which is a sovereign and independent territory, the City is not a part of Great Britain. The same is true in relation to the Vatican, which is an instrument of the Holy See, to Washington D.C. which is also not a part of the North American State, nor is it a state itself.[1] They operate within the laws of nation.
It can be said that the last monarch that operated under the canon law was King John, who lost this position when the Templar barons forced him to sign the Magna Carta in 1215. From this event all sovereignty of the British Crown under Christendom shifted to the Templar Crown Temple in the Chancery. The first Chancel was built by the Knights Templar as the Temple Church. The Round Church was consecrated in 1185 and modeled after the circular Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. The Chancel was built in 1240.
The Chancel, or Chancery, of the Crown Inner Temple Court[2] was the place in which King John was forced to confirm the rights (Rite) enshrined in the Magna Carta from which the Jewish Templars demanded liberty and the rite to their own fraternity (Usurers and Sodomites) that could act without any recourse from the law of the land in Great Britain. From this charter governance within law would be replaced with rule under Commerce administered by the Crown Temple through its priesthood of bankers and attorneys, they would call the new format Code.
The bankers and lawyers operate in the jurisdiction of Maritime and Admiralty Law which is administered through by the Templar Phaoronic bloodlines that control the Holy See and are based in the Alps upon 7 mountains. They administer the title evidenced in the Birth Certificate which takes your family name and creates a surety they call a Surname. This creates a debt account to Rome.
The bankers operate under the Swiss Crown, which is the Templar aristocratic nest created in 1291, it is the centre for all mercenary forces that have been hired out and used by Commercial monarchs to defend and invade other nations. From this format the Templar elite have been able to enter all nations and set up the secret society networks to undermine the land law administered by the Vatican. Through its control of the Vatican, the Holy See has acted contrary to the canon law from the shadows, slowly yoking the Vatican to the law of the sea, or piracy and its Legal system.
That which controls your idea of God, the gold, land and language, controls all.
The Templar Crown Temple controls the Legal system which is a monopoly of trade through the introduction of a parasitic platform called commerce, which operates on a system of thievery by equity (chancery) contracts. It is a platform based in the written word."
Yes, and those who control this system are who I refer to as the Black Nobility. They are the same people who are Private Equity Owners. They went to a lot of trouble to create all that structure; mostly based on Trusts and their Legal System, thinking we would never find out and Nullify the whole thing. I suppose they have a lot a "Trust" in this system of Systems.
Tereza, this is such a treat, I think it’s more epic than mine was, but mine was shorter.
An awesome quote:
“Love the person, challenge the ideas. Women are good at the first part, but not the second. Men are good at the second but not the first. If we’re going to get out of this rat race, we need to be doing both. I’m on a mission to make women more argumentative and claim logic as their friend. And perhaps a mission to make men less judgmental, which is to say more loving.”
— I think you are succeeding in that mission, I know that I’m feeling more loving.
Your quote above also reminds me of what I was saying in my Energy Frequency and Vibration post near the section on my discussion with my daughter:
“Another way to view the Male and Female frequency is think of a sine wave form; where the Crest is the Female and the Trough is the Male. If you swing the crest directly over the trough, you get a circle, remember what the Yin and Yang symbol looks like. Throughout existence; there is nothing inordinate, all is entangled together with no actual separations, the circle shows all is One, continuously whole, continuously One Energy.”
— I would add that Male is an inward facing force or “Shakti” called Purusha and the Female force is an outward facing force Shakti called Prakriti. The Feminine is the bringer of life, the preserver and observer of knowledge, she is protector of life, as result she is also the destroyer; four powers of the Divine Mother.
In human terms, of course there are many ways to see the differences in Mental tendencies between the Feminine and the Masculine. These are characteristics of personality as well as mental process; some people are more emotionally centered and some are more intellectually focused.
I'll try to get into the timeline of the expulsions, looks like there are some areas where it may need to be scrutinized. The actual ancient history of the Habiru where it is referenced from archeological sources is likely the most accurate such as what I had on the post "First Holocaust."
You and your wife, Nef, seem like balances of that male-female energy, from the little I know. You're both engaged in practical pursuits that care for people and places. And she gives you space (literally) for home-brewing and mead-making to Viking music. I'm sure there are ways you give her space too, for other pursuits.
You've never seemed judgmental in the time I've known you, but I'll take credit for bringing that out. But here's the important question--does your wife need me to teach her to be more argumentative or does your daughter get it from both sides? And I of course mean argumentative as a good thing ;-)
She is actually really hard on me, she is a caring and balanced person, but the skill to argue is definitely well established in her. My daughter has taken to getting onto me about everything. My peaceful demeanor is something I consciously work on; though my wife makes that a challenge. I always give her space, and yes, I am always open to learning more from you as you know already, she might be as well. I'm sure if there could be a way to introduce you to her, you could make fast friends ;-)
I'll send you my welcome introduction to my family on email. I can just imagine the conversations we could have. I'll ask her what thinks of that.
I had a feeling your wife would need no lessons from me in arguing ;-) And with a fierce daughter, you are sadly outnumbered, my friend. Take solace in the Viking music and mead.
If I can add your lovely balanced input into the mix, once in a while, maybe I will not be outnumbered 😁😄
Peace is most sweet when shared 🙏
My son is not very responsive in conversations, we are trying to keep him in social clubs so he can become more used to talking with people. There's just the four of us, I'll send you some pictures 😎
Just think, these discussions are like a long distance dinner table discussion in a Viking Long House; there can be some intensity to voices sometimes, there can be Mead and Gruit and then there can also be deep listening and realizations.
hola, tereza. this was a fun read. in particular i enjoyed the star-crossed words you had with winston smith. so much there to chew on that, for now, i'll allow them to remain a side-dish for another day — that with states of busy-ness may not come soon.
i still have my intellectual, emotional, psychological and somatic reservation of your use of dogma as a good. and, as you know, with your help, i've recently explored the superstitious nature of rationality and from that the pernicious nature of all moral structures. it is morality that allows and even wants seeks and foments genocides of protestants, moslems, heretical christians, pre-christian christians, witches, women, children, jews, chinese, poles, italians, japanese, etc. all who have been moralistically killed and at other times have moralistically killed — well, maybe the pre-traumatised hence pre-moralistic children haven't done too much morally justified killings of the undeserving other because they haven't been brainwashed into that delusion.
a problem i have with your idea here, which won't be a new argument to you who have been reading my stuff for a while, is that your approach disregards the fundamental expansion, or even creation of, the ideology and/or psychological challenge of hierarchal tendencies that are easily morphed into manufacture of moralistic deservedness. as soon as we created deservedness the energy demands the creation of the equivalent of undeserving. that duality, with a little stress, puts those undeserving into being the butt of scapegoating and death. as un uninjected 'group' we were tossed into those undeserving of respect, work, freedom of movement, and access to society that included family.
your work on the underpinnings that undermine the fundamental 'morality' of the biblically chosen is really about recovering from delusion the belief in an undeserving/deserving dyad.
again, i have enjoyed how your cogent and articulated arguments are stimulating my own understanding, perhaps, of the why of things. all great stuff!
imo i suggest that societally we remove the concept of undeserving, stop manufacturing it with traumatising social practices, and act on the deepest meaning of dependence co-arising, which is the 2500 year precedent that in quantum physics has been described as the thorny problem of quantum entanglement.
Thanks, Guy, for reading and responding when I can tell you've been very busy. I wanted to rejoin with the following, not to persuade, but to clarify so at least we know where we differ:
I'm not necessarily saying dogma is good, I'm saying everyone has at least one and that you should choose them consciously as beliefs you refuse to raise to question. Otherwise you will see those beliefs as reality, simply the way things are, as any sensible (and that's a significant word) person would.
By naming my dogma as the moral equality of all people, I'm willing to raise to question the existence of the world, myself as a separate body, the existence of God and meaning, and much more any fixed idea of what that God is like. It's rare to find another person with as few dogmas as I have, they just don't see them as dogmas--which, imo, stunts the imagination (or conversation) of what's possible.
In the same way, making a moral code explicit rather than implicit would curtail the abuses of power because the first rule of any moral statement is that it can contain no proper nouns. Otherwise it puts 'who' above 'what'.
You start with the premise that anything that doesn't hurt others should not be legally mandated, whether that's at the level of individuals, families, communities or commonwealths (within my nomenclature). I think it would have been hard to get to a place of mandatory vaccines without a system of control that leapfrogged from the global to the individual, skipping over communities and families. But we're also starting with corporations being the distribution point of money they create as bankers. So as long as they control the money, I think we are giving up control of our lives and labor. That's why it's my focus of change.
I agree with you about deserving and undeserving. Those aren't consciously part of my vocabulary. Thanks again, Guy.
that deserving / undeserving isn't part of the vocabulary of many is why it is perhaps the single most powerful force of suffering: the shadow of it is so alive that it is invisible.
I'm not sure that i said this "You start with the premise that anything that doesn't hurt others should not be legally mandated, whether that's at the level of individuals, families, communities or commonwealths (within my nomenclature)." For sure i didn't use 'should' because should is one of the undeserving spell words to disempower us and keep us in a victim state of blame and guilt.
and we will continue to disagree about morals, of course. you see them having value when they are mindfully done and if not mindfully done, then they are become hidden and so dangerous. i see the mind as the weakest of our human attributes and the most easily fooled. convid made that very clear and i'm not the first to say that. any moral keeps us stuck in the mind and the one or one's we mindfully choose even more so. once stuck in the mind we are stuck.
and i may be reading between the lines, you are saying that your dogma is, at the very least good for you and by inference would be good for others.
i continue to enjoy exercising my faculties as a human with you. your strong sense and power of mind is a great exercise for mine and then how to see how my own mind has severe limits. you are the great yoga teacher of the mind for me, as i expand beyond those limits. continue all the best with what is changing! the mind is too unstable to not be changing and so adds to the fun.
Can you give an example, Guy, of where I've indicated that people are either deserving or undeserving? That seems like it would be contradictory to my dogma.
I was aware when I posted that you don't use the word 'should'. And I think we've run into this before--where I believe all people are morally equal, you believe all behaviors and ideas are morally equal. Therefore, no moral codes or hierarchies or shoulds or should-nots. Would you also have no laws and no consequences of behaviors?
Let me phrase the inverse to my dogma: a belief that some people are morally superior to others, not their actions or ideas but by their nature, will always be bad for those who are considered morally inferior and therefore subjected to rules and conditions that require defining 'who' before the 'what' can be defined as good or bad, permitted or not permitted. It will be good for those in the morally superior category. A belief in moral equality, and rules consistent with that, will be good for those who had been considered morally inferior under the law and bad for those who had been favored by the law.
you haven't used the *words* deserving/undeserving. rather you have been resting on the energy of that those words create and embody. the effect of the elevation of a dogma (a kind of different spelling of 'moral' or perhaps 'morality') is that it creates the deserving/undeserving split. even the non-dogma dogma of equality of all creates the splits. and that doesn't include the split you explicitly state between the ideas and the person/action. your don't use the words deserving/undeserving for that separation, between the ideas and intelligence and the person and yet underpinning that split is the very quiet perniciousness of the ideas being deserving of more respect than the person, and that actions motivated without respect for the ideas is undeserving of your respect.
as i've written elsewhere, this dyad is the very argument that those to whom we have abdicated our power to use to justify their morality, their moral superiority of doing the right thing: those of us who are sheep don't deserve to be alive. it is a rationalised morality, like all morality because that is the core of any moral argument: it is something that the superstitious mind, that can only use rationality, uses to attach itself to an ordering principle in order to calm itself into thinking it has control over something. morals and morality are the tools the mind uses to rationalise behaviour. and that process of rationalisation disconnects us from the joy and energy that is life because, like life (and shown in quantum effects of entanglement) life lives much better in joy than it does in rules, aka morality. why? morality needs to remove joy because the energy of joy is uncontainable, uncontrollable.
a rather subtle argument that i hope challenges your mind's idea that the problems created at the level of the mind can be fixed by the mind.
Many people have a hard time imagining the possibility that somebody could be on their side with manipulative intentions. Most people still don't understand the Fabian Society.
Thanks, Mathew. That's why I really liked the meme I posted in one, "Everybody who fights you is not your enemy, and everybody who helps you is not your friend."
It's my suspicion that it's the same bloodline behind the Jews and the Vatican, manipulating both. It's a strategy that's been at work for thousands of years, successfully.
Not to mention the 'Crown Temple' as well as the 'Holy Sea'. So many names for likely the same group of TPTB. Crown Temple (City of London) established in the 13th Century. We all know when the Holy Sea (Vatican) began. Lots of 'links' between the two.
As an aside, and Librarian mentions this as well in his writings, the Khazarian (silk road) empire/era ran from 'approximately' 200 AD to 1300 AD (Librarian stated in one post that the silk road ran for a 1,000 years: "They brought in Russian mercenaries if they had to fight with Islamic people. The world was a 1,000 years of closed society and zero opportunity. To be a mercenary was the only way out. After each successful battle the soldiers were give a few days to plunder and raze the city, they could kill anyone, and rape any girl they could catch. I'll point you to the Khazaria record:
https://library4conciliation.substack.com/p/preview-gumilev-the-discovery-of.
Interesting to me is the link (in timelines) of the end of Khazaria and the beginning of the City of London. Librarian mentioned that there were roughly 4,000 families that controlled the entire silk road and all its accumulated wealth (eventually spanning from China all the way to Spain, northward to Nordic Countries and southward into the Middle East).
Interesting comment from Matthew Ehret in his Oct 23 article of Khazaria and (???) Capitalism.
It's multi-leveled. From a top down standpoint, if I'm going to be as honest as possible: The principal motive was to prevent the emergence of the City of God (ie: Age of Justice) on earth, which can best be understood as a maturation of human civilization out of the infantile epoch of oligarchical systems and associated identities, laws, habits, customs etc. The jews have been the earliest thorns in the sides of the pagan cult structures that controlled civilization for most of our ancient history and the emphasis on a Monotheistic, reasonable moral creator has been the bane of the oligarchy's existence ever since. So there is that rageful hate of judaism, and the best vengence is to twist the object of your hate into a perversion of itself, use it for your advantage and then dispose of it when convenient. So more vindictive yes. The mechanical usefulness of divide-to-conquer tactics, and using corrupt jews to act as instruments of destruction are secondary/tertiary considerations for the oligarchy.
Interesting thesis on the Jews, especially if we translate the word as Judeans, followers of Judas the zealot, thorn in the side of the Roman empire.
Many people don't know about the Pilgrim Society either. Owners of the Media organizations worldwide.
😎
I’ve only just discovered your Substack and I’m really enjoying your writing and thought processes. You first caught my attention with your post on Russel Brand and my experience of him, including the timeline you mention, was more or less the same. I’m not sure what has happened to him but I don’t think he is being true to himself, possibly blackmail. When you look at how the PTB are set against Trump then you realise just how powerful and strong one has to be to withstand that and quite probably have to be an extreme character (for good or ill). I question everything now, on every side and my guidance comes from the underlying principles of A Course in Miracles but I forget many times over and fall into a despair and fear. That is the most dangerous aspect of all of this, that humanity loses the joy and wonder in life and I see that in our so called “developed” world.
Thank you so much, Susie! That's a good way to say it, "I don't think he is being true to himself." You give him the benefit of the doubt that he wants to be the person of integrity we've loved before.
And since you're new, I don't know if you've seen my posts on the Course. It's been my study and practice for 20 yrs. Here's one of them: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/forgiveness-is-the-shortcut. Thanks for reading!
Maslow's order of laws offers us this:
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is a theory in psychology proposed by Abraham Maslow that suggests that human beings have different levels of needs, which must be fulfilled in a particular order for a person to reach their full potential. The hierarchy is often depicted as a pyramid, with the most basic needs at the base and the most complex needs at the top.
The Five Levels of Needs:
Physiological Needs: These are the most basic needs that are necessary for human survival, such as:
Food
Water
Shelter
Sleep
Sex
Health
Safety Needs: Once physiological needs are met, the next level of needs is safety and security, including:
Protection from physical harm
Financial security
Law and order
Stability and predictability
Love and Belonging Needs: The third level of needs is related to social connections and relationships, including:
Friendship
Intimacy
Trust
Acceptance
Feeling loved and valued
Esteem Needs: The fourth level of needs is related to self-esteem and recognition, including:
Self-respect
Recognition from others
Achievement and accomplishment
Independence
Self-Actualization Needs: The highest level of needs is self-actualization, which is the realization of one’s full potential, including:
Personal growth and development
Creativity and innovation
Fulfillment and satisfaction
Self-actualization and realization
Key Points:
The hierarchy is not a linear progression, and individuals may move back and forth between levels.
The needs at each level are not mutually exclusive, and individuals may experience multiple needs simultaneously.
The hierarchy is not a fixed or absolute concept, and different people may prioritize different needs at different times.
The theory suggests that people are motivated to fulfill their needs in a hierarchical order, with the most basic needs taking priority over the more complex needs.
You mention logic, intuition and authority, with logic winning the day.
One might suggest that these 'needs' categorically fall into:
Logic: I conjecture this may be an 'Esteem' Need. Logic needs to be tested and validated, therefore providing self esteem.
Intuition: This is a 'Safety' Need. Without it, life can become unsafe.
Authority: Back to a 'Safety' Need, hopefully providing Law and Order.
What's not been mentioned is your interesting comment about women's sexual attraction to Russell and therefore placing a 'higher' value in his comments/beliefs/doubts/reserved nature. Qualities were assigned to these values since there was a linked attraction.
If Ross Perot had been the one stating all of Russell's views, etc. I'm not certain there would not have been equal uptake, ie: likely due to minimal sexual attraction.
Therefore, Maslow's 'Physiological Needs' needs to also be considered in the falling into favor with RB. Did things get so egregious with his diatribes (did the Trump interview comments finally cause an emotional crisis??) that one had to look beyond the bright eyes, accent and hairy chest to see the 'new RB'??
Yes, Men & Women are different. No one disputes that. Are we able to get 'closer' to the other??
I conjecture/postulate that nature and nurture contribute.
If one in 7 are mentally ill in our population, then we can run some numbers from there.
If we conclude that 1/2 of the 14% have psycopathic/sociopathic tendencies (7%) then sensitivities of/feelings for other (forget the gender thing for a minute) gets seriously challenged. These are the ones that possess the capability to dismiss/disregard/hurt/traumatize/kill/maim/etc. others without conscious/moral/ethical concern. They're happy to kick others down as they raise themselves up, again, without conscious as to their actions. All they know is I'm superior and everyone else is inferior.
These behaviors come from nature (psycopaths) and nurture (sociopaths).
Back to Women and Men and a merging of mental selves, in times of war/conflict (real or perceived) Mostly men tend to get psyops'd into believing everything is life and death and to follow authority (especially at impressionable ages). Women tend to adjust to bring balance (ying/yang as Nef states) and are trained to bring emotion/intuition. Logic suffers on both sides as a result. During peaceful times, integrating gender mental/emotional ideals is able to expand (possibly flourish). No?
Lastly, where does ego kick in here? Most humans have ego and hormones that ultimately drive the day, until which time secondary thoughts/feelings/events/history/emotions/education(s)/enlightenments/etc. kick in. Is that where we finally get to 'self-actualization and enlightenment/realization?
But that takes time, effort, energy, willingness to look around and assess surroundings and self. For many it may never happen due to circumstances beyond their control.
Your thoughts?????
PS: All offered with care and compassion to all of us growing from the discussion.
Lots to respond to, Greg. On Maslow, I often argue against him. I think his hierarchy is elitist and says that someone who doesn't have food and shelter can't be self-actualized. If anything, my experience has shown the opposite. Kids who get no recognition and self-esteem can be the most creative and driven to actualize their potential.
I don't find your statement that logic provides self-esteem to be logical. Logic extracts meaning from contradictions, and meaning is the goal. It has nothing to do with the ego.
And I said that it wasn't sex appeal that made women respond to Russell. It was that he provided meaning, same as he did for men. Russell looked the same, although wilder, 20 yrs ago and I had zero interest in what he had to say. If he looked like Ross Perot, I'd be just as interested. But hopefully he would be funnier than Ross.
Whew. Finally we've found a point of difference to create growth.
Regarding your comment to my comment: "I don't find your statement that logic provides self-esteem to be logical."
For starters, I have no skin in the game of which box it belongs in, so I'll gladly accept your perspective.
But, just for grins I looked up where Maslow would likely assign 'Logic' (even though it might be elitist as you say).
Here's what came back (via AI):
Where does logic fit into Maslow's laws of order?
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is a theory that proposes that human beings have different levels of needs, ranging from basic physiological needs to self-actualization. While logic is not explicitly mentioned in Maslow’s original theory, it can be argued that logic plays a role in the higher levels of the hierarchy.
Deficiency Needs
In the lower levels of the hierarchy, such as physiological and safety needs, logic is not a primary motivator. These needs are driven by instinct and basic survival instincts, rather than logical reasoning.
Growth Needs
In the higher levels of the hierarchy, such as love and belonging, esteem, and self-actualization, logic becomes more relevant. These needs involve complex social and emotional interactions, and individuals may use logical reasoning to navigate these relationships and achieve their goals.
Self-Actualization
In the highest level of the hierarchy, self-actualization, logic is crucial. Self-actualization involves realizing one’s full potential and pursuing personal growth and development. This requires critical thinking, problem-solving, and logical reasoning to overcome obstacles and make informed decisions.
Conclusion
While logic is not explicitly mentioned in Maslow’s original theory, it can be argued that it plays a role in the higher levels of the hierarchy, particularly in the pursuit of self-actualization. As individuals strive to meet their higher-level needs, they may use logical reasoning to navigate complex situations and achieve their goals.
In re-reading what my original comment stated, I've come to a glaring realization that I completely missed the point of your article, and that is, "Boys, it sure would be nice for us women to see you sharing/offering more emotion".
As you stated: "Love the person, challenge the ideas.
Women are good at the first part, but not the second. Men are good at the second but not the first. If we’re going to get out of this rat race, we need to be doing both. I’m on a mission to make women more argumentative and claim logic as their friend. And perhaps a mission to make men less judgmental, which is to say more loving."
I'm sensing that I might be missing something. If so, please let me know.
It's a start. Your turn.
Good memory, Greg, on disagreement being the learning tip of growth. Let me look closer at our exchange. You responded to my resonance with Susie that Russell had changed and was no longer being true to himself. In answer to this, you posted Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which didn't seem relevant until you clarified with:
"Therefore, Maslow's 'Physiological Needs' needs to also be considered in the falling into favor with RB. Did things get so egregious with his diatribes (did the Trump interview comments finally cause an emotional crisis??) that one had to look beyond the bright eyes, accent and hairy chest to see the 'new RB'??"
So what you're saying is that women's physiological need for sex, according to Maslow, took precedence over their need for meaning, aka self-actualization. Is that correct? There are several men, on the YT and Substack thread, who also listened to him, some of whom felt he had changed and others who don't agree with everything but still listen. Are they also secretly gay and listened to him because of sexual attraction?
You paraphrase me as "What's not been mentioned is your interesting comment about women's sexual attraction to Russell and therefore placing a 'higher' value in his comments/beliefs/doubts/reserved nature."
What I actually said was, "with 100% certainty, the women on my threads who loved Russell loved him for the same reasons as the men—because he was speaking an outer truth that resonated with an inner truth. It demeans us, not Russell, to make us naive and falling for his sex appeal."
So you did exactly what I said that men did that was demeaning. You cited me as saying that women valued Russell because of sex appeal, after I had just pointed out how insulting that was, not to Russell, but to women.
You also write, "Logic: I conjecture this may be an 'Esteem' Need. Logic needs to be tested and validated, therefore providing self esteem." This states that people engage in logic because of their need for self-esteem; we are driven by our needs, not by inherent purpose and meaning. And women, as I said, most often receive disapproval and lower outside validation when they use logic to point out someone else's contradictions because women are supposed to be agreeable.
When I say "Love the person, challenge the ideas." I define what I mean by love: "And perhaps a mission to make men less judgmental, which is to say more loving." I don't need to have warm, fuzzy feelings about anyone, nor do I need to have anyone have those feelings about me.
I don't think feelings have anything to do with a discussion of ideas--I think emotions interfere whether they're negative or positive. So no, I'm definitely not saying, "Boys, it sure would be nice for us women to see you sharing/offering more emotion." To me, that also demeans women and their rational capabilities.
Love is seeing others as equals, and not attribute character traits to them or making judgments that they wouldn't see in themselves. If you write, "Most humans have ego and hormones that ultimately drive the day" but wouldn't write, "My ego and hormones ultimately drive my day," then you're making a judgment based on superiority.
The only reason you should read my blog is if it teaches you something new that helps you make sense of the world. Otherwise, it's a waste of your time. I'm glad to have you contributing your knowledge and insights, Greg. But it's my role to point out where judgments are being made, about me, about women, and about other people, and challenge them.
Tereza,
Thanks for your thoughts, patience and persistence in trying to get me to figure this all out.
I must admit, this one sentence caught me the wrong way originally, as it seemed not to fit the direction my brain was heading:
"But with 100% certainty, the women on my threads who loved Russell loved him for the same reasons as the men—because he was speaking an outer truth that resonated with an inner truth. It demeans us, not Russell, to make us naive and falling for his sex appeal."
And from that point on, I fell into my own trap of misunderstanding the direction of the article from that point on, including my comments.
Rather than continue digging my own grave, I'm going to admit I simply misunderstood the Russell comment, so I apologize for my confusing comments.
"That all people are inherently and equally good—born good, with an equal capacity to make good decisions, among those that are available to them."
I agree wholeheartedly.
Anger is always brought about by a perceived lack of choices.
Violence is an extreme expression of anger.
"Evil" is a choice, not a thing.
You make a good point, Philip. My statement would be more nuanced to say, "among those they perceive to be available to them." Part of the task of reducing the hatred (judgment, superiority, anger, violence) in the world is creating better choices. But it's also changing the perception of choices. I think that's where your consciousness evolution comes in--it's a spiritual change.
I actually like Russell and watched a fair number of his videos a couple of years ago. But it did seem he was playing it safe, and I understood why. Obviously, he was skating close to the edge of the Censorship Abyss and was trying not to fall in. But I think he also might have been trying to challenge people's ideas gently, and with humor, without saying "you're wrong, and here's why". I haven't watched him lately, though, so I don't directly know what his recent approach has been like.
Hello, Mark! Yes, that's when I was watching Russell too and I certainly didn't mind him steering clear of the censors. And yes, I think that style was very effective. If you do watch him now, I'd be curious if you think he's changed.
At some point I will try that, once the serious nesting slows down.
Europa: The Last Battle
Episode 4 Judea Declares War on Germany
https://www.bitchute.com/video/5IA2Vu5HyZwl/
I'm assuming this reference is for Librarian. Very important that Judea was taking aggressive action to cause WWII. But their word, Judea, is misleading. Maybe Zionists?
Well, the headline in the Daily Express (London - March 24, 1933), definitely reads ‘JUDEA’, and with subheading “Jews Of All the World Unite [In Action]” – probably slight variation in different editions.
Article with expanded text here – I could not find any mention of the world “Zionism”:
https://www.nationalists.org/library/hitler/daily-express/judea-declares-war-on-germany.html
And Bernard Lacache (featured in Europa Episode 4 and in the video below) was “President of the World Jewish League”.
• International Jewry Declares War On Germany
https://www.bitchute.com/video/H46Etf7HYwDX/
Oh yes, I wasn't saying that you were mistaken. I'm just saying that they change their names to protect the guilty, over and over again.
Ancient Historic Timeline for the Habiru Infiltration into Egypt based on Archeology:
**First Intermediate Period in Ancient Egypt according to World History:
https://www.worldhistory.org/First_Intermediate_Period_of_Egypt/
The Old Kingdom (c. 2613-2181 BCE)
First Intermediate Period of Egypt (2181-2040 BCE)
Middle Kingdom (2040-1782 BCE) periods of Egyptian history. The name was given to the era by 19th-century CE Egyptologists, not by the ancient Egyptians.
Hyksos or Habiru may have begun showing up some time as early as the end of the First Intermediate Period.
**Second Intermediate Period according to World History: Note that the full article discredits the second intermediate period as being chaotic, it states the Hyksos / Habiru were nice people. Use your own best judgement.
https://www.worldhistory.org/Second_Intermediate_Period_of_Egypt/
The Middle Kingdom of Egypt (2040-1782 BCE)
Second Intermediate Period (c.1782 - c.1570 BCE)
***Hyksos rule: (1630–1523 BCE) There were overlapping kingdoms for a time
New Kingdom (1570-1069 BCE).
Regarding some of the items you were asking about; the name "Jew" is a more recent development approx 1800's Google says the following:
[The English term Jew is originally derived from the Hebrew term Yehudi ( lit. 'of Judah'), which passed into Greek as Ioudaios and into Latin as Iudaeus, in turn evolving into the Old French term giu after the letter "d" was dropped.] I am not sure when the "d" was dropped. There are many sources that state the name Jew is more recent.
The dates from the Librarian's Stack:
The primary sources for the entries are likely to be biased, even if there may be some truth in some entries, that truth is smothered with inverted stories.
**The Khazarian Empire, this is verifiable from multiple sources:
For three centuries (c. 650–965) the Khazars conquered the area from the Volga-Don steppes to Crimea and the Caucasus. Khazaria was between the Byzantine Empire, the steppe nomads, and the Umayyad Caliphate.
The Khazars' conversion to Judaism can be dated ca 861. Cited by -- 167 by C Zuckerman · 1995 ·
Khazaria was destroyed by an alliance between Russia and Persia in 965 AD, there is no mention of the collapse of Khazaria in the List of Expulsions.
Thanks for those details, Nef, there's an important clue in those. For instance, what does it mean that the Khazarians converted? Who instigated that and possibly ordered that, since a whole tribe doesn't have a sudden spiritual revelation. Have different peoples been 'chosen' by the LORD (in the warlord sense) to be his army of infiltrators?
Here's what I'm wondering--did a family of warLORDs look for tribes of malcontents and foreigners, in order to convert them and use them by playing to their resentment? That could have been the Hyksos, the 'lepers' of Egypt, the Khazarians, the Ashkenazi (are those two the same?) The masterminds are the ones in charge, who know how to play people off of each other as victims and perps.
And I'm trying to remember what the Bible claims as the land from which the people originate. Certainly not Canaan, since it was inhabited before the Hapiru or Hebrews of Abram got there. Even the story of Noah is one of migration--he doesn't land where he started. So it doesn't seem like there is a single homeland and maybe not a single people.
Those are excellent questions.
It's said that Khazarian Elites were the primary individuals who actually did the converting. They may have been one and the same people the Habiru lead by the Heka Khasut. There were different war lords, but I currently only have the name; King Bulan. The reason for the conversion that everyone thinks is that the Kevan Russ of Russia put pressure on king Bulan to stop all the road banditry, kidnapping of children from villages and pilfering the traveling merchants.
The idea was, if they adopted an Abrahamic Religion that the criminal behavior would stop, but it didn't, it got worse.
Your idea of a warlord looking for malcontents is very much accurate.
There's been a lot of controversy whether or not the Ashkenazi are the same people as the Khazarians. Ashkenazi is a term used later in Germany as in Ashkenazishe Yidn or Yidn for short. The citation for this is CollinsDictionary.com. Also, the language is actually Yiddish which fits perfectly with context with gidu from French.
The evidence of actual origin for the Habiru is very scanty due to the fact that they may have been wanderers since the Black Sea Flood approx 6,500 BC. The story of Noah is likely recounting the ordeal of escaping the valley of the fresh water Black Sea, the Ark may have been a series of flotillas that eventually landed around or near the area of Ararat.
There is a book called the "Codex Oralinda" that has some accounts of the Khazars.
Questions that have been on my mind: if it states in the Bible/Torah that God banished Jews from Israel due to their despicable/unholy behavior, might it all actually be a lie? Why were they 'invited' back by the British/Allied Forces? Where was God in that decision. They obviously felt no need to 'return' until they already owned the world-wide banking/financing/lending/interest rate system of capture.
Did the Jews actually leave to take over the world? Once they had their 'playbook' of capturing and controlling wealth, why stay in one small country playing the same game with their own when the entire world was available to rule over??
Your thoughts?
This centers around the No Annexation Principle, a way to lash all the countries of the world into a Franchise network of Corporations, controlled centrally. They still are actually a widely spread "culture."
I'll add that the British and Allied forces were and are controlled by the same Black Nobility and Sabbatean cult that Infiltrates all major Religions.
Allies = All-lies. ;-)
Nef, et al, I continue reading and learning.
Just in:
https://thebridgelifeinthemix.info/british-law/crown-temple/
Back to Tereza's thoughts on Logic, intuition and authority, here's an example where authority wins the day, without further discussion..................unless they choose to change things up...............for their benefit first and foremost.
'Logic' and 'Intuition', welcome to 'coach'. Authority just jumped the shark right into 'first class'.
"The Inns of Court to the Crown Temple use the banking and judicial system of the City of London which is a sovereign and independent territory, the City is not a part of Great Britain. The same is true in relation to the Vatican, which is an instrument of the Holy See, to Washington D.C. which is also not a part of the North American State, nor is it a state itself.[1] They operate within the laws of nation.
It can be said that the last monarch that operated under the canon law was King John, who lost this position when the Templar barons forced him to sign the Magna Carta in 1215. From this event all sovereignty of the British Crown under Christendom shifted to the Templar Crown Temple in the Chancery. The first Chancel was built by the Knights Templar as the Temple Church. The Round Church was consecrated in 1185 and modeled after the circular Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. The Chancel was built in 1240.
The Chancel, or Chancery, of the Crown Inner Temple Court[2] was the place in which King John was forced to confirm the rights (Rite) enshrined in the Magna Carta from which the Jewish Templars demanded liberty and the rite to their own fraternity (Usurers and Sodomites) that could act without any recourse from the law of the land in Great Britain. From this charter governance within law would be replaced with rule under Commerce administered by the Crown Temple through its priesthood of bankers and attorneys, they would call the new format Code.
The bankers and lawyers operate in the jurisdiction of Maritime and Admiralty Law which is administered through by the Templar Phaoronic bloodlines that control the Holy See and are based in the Alps upon 7 mountains. They administer the title evidenced in the Birth Certificate which takes your family name and creates a surety they call a Surname. This creates a debt account to Rome.
The bankers operate under the Swiss Crown, which is the Templar aristocratic nest created in 1291, it is the centre for all mercenary forces that have been hired out and used by Commercial monarchs to defend and invade other nations. From this format the Templar elite have been able to enter all nations and set up the secret society networks to undermine the land law administered by the Vatican. Through its control of the Vatican, the Holy See has acted contrary to the canon law from the shadows, slowly yoking the Vatican to the law of the sea, or piracy and its Legal system.
That which controls your idea of God, the gold, land and language, controls all.
The Templar Crown Temple controls the Legal system which is a monopoly of trade through the introduction of a parasitic platform called commerce, which operates on a system of thievery by equity (chancery) contracts. It is a platform based in the written word."
Yes, and those who control this system are who I refer to as the Black Nobility. They are the same people who are Private Equity Owners. They went to a lot of trouble to create all that structure; mostly based on Trusts and their Legal System, thinking we would never find out and Nullify the whole thing. I suppose they have a lot a "Trust" in this system of Systems.
Tereza, this is such a treat, I think it’s more epic than mine was, but mine was shorter.
An awesome quote:
“Love the person, challenge the ideas. Women are good at the first part, but not the second. Men are good at the second but not the first. If we’re going to get out of this rat race, we need to be doing both. I’m on a mission to make women more argumentative and claim logic as their friend. And perhaps a mission to make men less judgmental, which is to say more loving.”
— I think you are succeeding in that mission, I know that I’m feeling more loving.
Your quote above also reminds me of what I was saying in my Energy Frequency and Vibration post near the section on my discussion with my daughter:
“Another way to view the Male and Female frequency is think of a sine wave form; where the Crest is the Female and the Trough is the Male. If you swing the crest directly over the trough, you get a circle, remember what the Yin and Yang symbol looks like. Throughout existence; there is nothing inordinate, all is entangled together with no actual separations, the circle shows all is One, continuously whole, continuously One Energy.”
— I would add that Male is an inward facing force or “Shakti” called Purusha and the Female force is an outward facing force Shakti called Prakriti. The Feminine is the bringer of life, the preserver and observer of knowledge, she is protector of life, as result she is also the destroyer; four powers of the Divine Mother.
In human terms, of course there are many ways to see the differences in Mental tendencies between the Feminine and the Masculine. These are characteristics of personality as well as mental process; some people are more emotionally centered and some are more intellectually focused.
I'll try to get into the timeline of the expulsions, looks like there are some areas where it may need to be scrutinized. The actual ancient history of the Habiru where it is referenced from archeological sources is likely the most accurate such as what I had on the post "First Holocaust."
You and your wife, Nef, seem like balances of that male-female energy, from the little I know. You're both engaged in practical pursuits that care for people and places. And she gives you space (literally) for home-brewing and mead-making to Viking music. I'm sure there are ways you give her space too, for other pursuits.
You've never seemed judgmental in the time I've known you, but I'll take credit for bringing that out. But here's the important question--does your wife need me to teach her to be more argumentative or does your daughter get it from both sides? And I of course mean argumentative as a good thing ;-)
She is actually really hard on me, she is a caring and balanced person, but the skill to argue is definitely well established in her. My daughter has taken to getting onto me about everything. My peaceful demeanor is something I consciously work on; though my wife makes that a challenge. I always give her space, and yes, I am always open to learning more from you as you know already, she might be as well. I'm sure if there could be a way to introduce you to her, you could make fast friends ;-)
I'll send you my welcome introduction to my family on email. I can just imagine the conversations we could have. I'll ask her what thinks of that.
I had a feeling your wife would need no lessons from me in arguing ;-) And with a fierce daughter, you are sadly outnumbered, my friend. Take solace in the Viking music and mead.
If I can add your lovely balanced input into the mix, once in a while, maybe I will not be outnumbered 😁😄
Peace is most sweet when shared 🙏
My son is not very responsive in conversations, we are trying to keep him in social clubs so he can become more used to talking with people. There's just the four of us, I'll send you some pictures 😎
Poor Nef. With you, his wife and his daughter all over him like lint on a dryer trap, I'd think there is a serious estrogen imbalance. LOL
Thank goodness he ended up with Viking music and Mead hobbies as well as a son. Long journey, so it will all balance out over time I suspect.
Balance always finds center.
Lol .... Balance is Beautiful.
Just think, these discussions are like a long distance dinner table discussion in a Viking Long House; there can be some intensity to voices sometimes, there can be Mead and Gruit and then there can also be deep listening and realizations.
Gotta run but I'll get back to responding to this soon!
hola, tereza. this was a fun read. in particular i enjoyed the star-crossed words you had with winston smith. so much there to chew on that, for now, i'll allow them to remain a side-dish for another day — that with states of busy-ness may not come soon.
i still have my intellectual, emotional, psychological and somatic reservation of your use of dogma as a good. and, as you know, with your help, i've recently explored the superstitious nature of rationality and from that the pernicious nature of all moral structures. it is morality that allows and even wants seeks and foments genocides of protestants, moslems, heretical christians, pre-christian christians, witches, women, children, jews, chinese, poles, italians, japanese, etc. all who have been moralistically killed and at other times have moralistically killed — well, maybe the pre-traumatised hence pre-moralistic children haven't done too much morally justified killings of the undeserving other because they haven't been brainwashed into that delusion.
a problem i have with your idea here, which won't be a new argument to you who have been reading my stuff for a while, is that your approach disregards the fundamental expansion, or even creation of, the ideology and/or psychological challenge of hierarchal tendencies that are easily morphed into manufacture of moralistic deservedness. as soon as we created deservedness the energy demands the creation of the equivalent of undeserving. that duality, with a little stress, puts those undeserving into being the butt of scapegoating and death. as un uninjected 'group' we were tossed into those undeserving of respect, work, freedom of movement, and access to society that included family.
your work on the underpinnings that undermine the fundamental 'morality' of the biblically chosen is really about recovering from delusion the belief in an undeserving/deserving dyad.
again, i have enjoyed how your cogent and articulated arguments are stimulating my own understanding, perhaps, of the why of things. all great stuff!
imo i suggest that societally we remove the concept of undeserving, stop manufacturing it with traumatising social practices, and act on the deepest meaning of dependence co-arising, which is the 2500 year precedent that in quantum physics has been described as the thorny problem of quantum entanglement.
good night.
Thanks, Guy, for reading and responding when I can tell you've been very busy. I wanted to rejoin with the following, not to persuade, but to clarify so at least we know where we differ:
I'm not necessarily saying dogma is good, I'm saying everyone has at least one and that you should choose them consciously as beliefs you refuse to raise to question. Otherwise you will see those beliefs as reality, simply the way things are, as any sensible (and that's a significant word) person would.
By naming my dogma as the moral equality of all people, I'm willing to raise to question the existence of the world, myself as a separate body, the existence of God and meaning, and much more any fixed idea of what that God is like. It's rare to find another person with as few dogmas as I have, they just don't see them as dogmas--which, imo, stunts the imagination (or conversation) of what's possible.
In the same way, making a moral code explicit rather than implicit would curtail the abuses of power because the first rule of any moral statement is that it can contain no proper nouns. Otherwise it puts 'who' above 'what'.
You start with the premise that anything that doesn't hurt others should not be legally mandated, whether that's at the level of individuals, families, communities or commonwealths (within my nomenclature). I think it would have been hard to get to a place of mandatory vaccines without a system of control that leapfrogged from the global to the individual, skipping over communities and families. But we're also starting with corporations being the distribution point of money they create as bankers. So as long as they control the money, I think we are giving up control of our lives and labor. That's why it's my focus of change.
I agree with you about deserving and undeserving. Those aren't consciously part of my vocabulary. Thanks again, Guy.
hola.
that deserving / undeserving isn't part of the vocabulary of many is why it is perhaps the single most powerful force of suffering: the shadow of it is so alive that it is invisible.
I'm not sure that i said this "You start with the premise that anything that doesn't hurt others should not be legally mandated, whether that's at the level of individuals, families, communities or commonwealths (within my nomenclature)." For sure i didn't use 'should' because should is one of the undeserving spell words to disempower us and keep us in a victim state of blame and guilt.
and we will continue to disagree about morals, of course. you see them having value when they are mindfully done and if not mindfully done, then they are become hidden and so dangerous. i see the mind as the weakest of our human attributes and the most easily fooled. convid made that very clear and i'm not the first to say that. any moral keeps us stuck in the mind and the one or one's we mindfully choose even more so. once stuck in the mind we are stuck.
and i may be reading between the lines, you are saying that your dogma is, at the very least good for you and by inference would be good for others.
i continue to enjoy exercising my faculties as a human with you. your strong sense and power of mind is a great exercise for mine and then how to see how my own mind has severe limits. you are the great yoga teacher of the mind for me, as i expand beyond those limits. continue all the best with what is changing! the mind is too unstable to not be changing and so adds to the fun.
Can you give an example, Guy, of where I've indicated that people are either deserving or undeserving? That seems like it would be contradictory to my dogma.
I was aware when I posted that you don't use the word 'should'. And I think we've run into this before--where I believe all people are morally equal, you believe all behaviors and ideas are morally equal. Therefore, no moral codes or hierarchies or shoulds or should-nots. Would you also have no laws and no consequences of behaviors?
Let me phrase the inverse to my dogma: a belief that some people are morally superior to others, not their actions or ideas but by their nature, will always be bad for those who are considered morally inferior and therefore subjected to rules and conditions that require defining 'who' before the 'what' can be defined as good or bad, permitted or not permitted. It will be good for those in the morally superior category. A belief in moral equality, and rules consistent with that, will be good for those who had been considered morally inferior under the law and bad for those who had been favored by the law.
you haven't used the *words* deserving/undeserving. rather you have been resting on the energy of that those words create and embody. the effect of the elevation of a dogma (a kind of different spelling of 'moral' or perhaps 'morality') is that it creates the deserving/undeserving split. even the non-dogma dogma of equality of all creates the splits. and that doesn't include the split you explicitly state between the ideas and the person/action. your don't use the words deserving/undeserving for that separation, between the ideas and intelligence and the person and yet underpinning that split is the very quiet perniciousness of the ideas being deserving of more respect than the person, and that actions motivated without respect for the ideas is undeserving of your respect.
as i've written elsewhere, this dyad is the very argument that those to whom we have abdicated our power to use to justify their morality, their moral superiority of doing the right thing: those of us who are sheep don't deserve to be alive. it is a rationalised morality, like all morality because that is the core of any moral argument: it is something that the superstitious mind, that can only use rationality, uses to attach itself to an ordering principle in order to calm itself into thinking it has control over something. morals and morality are the tools the mind uses to rationalise behaviour. and that process of rationalisation disconnects us from the joy and energy that is life because, like life (and shown in quantum effects of entanglement) life lives much better in joy than it does in rules, aka morality. why? morality needs to remove joy because the energy of joy is uncontainable, uncontrollable.
a rather subtle argument that i hope challenges your mind's idea that the problems created at the level of the mind can be fixed by the mind.
And thank you, Guy, for those kind words. My mind did a little sun salutation reading them ;-)