The Hatest Story Ever Told

biblical analysis with Rurik Skywalker and Laurent Guyenot

As soon as I formulate a question, it’s like tugging on a twig and having a dozen apples fall in answer at my feet. In this case, the question is ‘What is the Bible?, asked among those who know it isn’t history or theology or a benevolent mythology. Who wrote it and for what purpose? Who do the characters and the stories represent? Are these earthly rulers or extraterrestrial beings, geopolitics or supernatural events?

Rhonda first drew my attention to the book From Yahweh to Zion by Laurent Guyenot. In a separate thread, I mentioned a very intriguing interview by Jason Horsley of Rurik Skywalker, also known as Rolo Slavsky, who writes The Slavland Chronicles. Then Julius Skoolafish said I must be talking about his series on The Metaphysics Conspiracy, and linked Part 1 and 2. I replied, “Rurik Skywalker, where have you been all my life?”

Then in his blog, Julius linked three interviews of Laurent Guyenot by Rurik Skywalker, along with some other videos by Asha Logos on the subverted history of the Germanic peoples:

"Our Subverted History - The Germanic Peoples" - by Asha Logos

This brought it full circle. Rurik does lively interviews in which I realized we’re asking many of the same questions, unearthing the same clues and reaching some of the same conclusions. I subbed Rurik, whose thinking is very intriguing.

---

The first post I received read:

I am still mad as all hell that my swine-like casual readers didn’t answer my calls to support the blog. I even provided a pretty decent in-depth dive into who and what Gorbachev really was to sweeten the deal. But no, nothing. They’d rather root around in info-filth, gorging themselves on propaganda designed to fatten them up for the slaughter.

OH WELL.

To all the newcomers casual readers who have joined the blog since last month, and didn’t sign up as Stalkers [paid subs], allow me to extend a heartfelt *oink* *oink* in your direction.

I sincerely hope you all choke on a sugar-glazed donut and die.

Unsubscribe from my blog and go burn in a fat pyre.

*TFU*

I spit on you.

And I’ll have plenty more abuse to send your way, freeloaders, in the days to come, don’t you worry.

I did the first half of his instructions and unsubbed immediately, and I’m now looking for a fat pyre on which to immolate myself. In the meantime, Rhonda listened to his interview and replied:

I didn't want to be negative when commenting to you about his interviews, but in listening to them, particularly this last linked one, I intuitively felt he was trying to discredit Guyenot by leading him into questions he didn't have answers to. Why not inquire more into his knowledge, which is vast. I now smell a devious rat with Rurik. … I didn't subscribe to him b/c of my intuition, but then I've read two of Guyenot's books. If and when you do, you will see, too.

And then a Greek reader of Nefahotep’s, who goes by Cassandra Farts Back, listened to the interview from my recommendation. She cited a comment exchange she had with Rurik in which he starts by calling her a Nazi, then says her definition is retarded, next calls her a Christian, then says she argues like a homosexual. His final retort is “You should calm down and type less. This all started because you called me racist and worse, wrong.”

In fairness, I asked CFT why she’d called his note racist that “William Blake understood that Christianity was a psyop against the European people.” She answered, “like north Africa and parts of Asia weren't also initially affected, before much of the world as well.” To say this is racist seems like splitting Cassandra hairs. In context, Rurik answered with a string of random slurs that were unrelated to what she said, the same as he felt she had.

And I did refer Rhonda to the fourth interview Rurik did with Laurent, after they’d spent three exploring things that were part of his knowledge base. A conversation between two people asking the same questions can and should go beyond an interview on the book material, imo. And many a blog begins or ends with a nudge to pay up, although none as colorfully as Rurik.

I’ve just gotten Laurent’s books so I can read them and report back directly. In the meantime, here are some of my thoughts prompted by Rurik’s thoughts and research.

---

In the decision tree of good and bad ideas rather than the Judgment Tree of Good and Evil people, the first choice is whether the Bible tells the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Rurik, Laurent and myself all come unequivocally to ‘no.’

The second parting of the ways is whether this is a harmless mythology of natural or supernatural events. We agree that there are mythologies that have been usurped.

Were they usurped to impose a moral code to make people behave nicely? Or is the moral code malevolent? In I. The Great Metaphysics Conspiracy, Rurik writes:

… things are bad now because someone is deliberately engineering them to be so. Bad ideas build up on one another and we can trace the development of an ideological conspiracy from today’s world-order trajectory to Athens, then Alexandria, and also, to Jerusalem. People capable of reading were able to inherit the conspiracy of their ideological forefathers and continue it over the centuries. All you have to do is have access to the same books or be educated by the same institutions to continue the work of a previous generation. Universities, churches and yes, secret societies continue their founding missions across centuries and generations. As the marks of a very long con, we need to understand the nature of the plot arraigned against us if we are to oppose it in any meaningful way.

I. The Great Metaphysics Conspiracy

He provides evidence that Genesis is the last book written in the Septuagint, rather than the first, and was patterned after Plato’s intent to establish a “synarchy”, a society ruled by priests that “was virulently anti-pagan.” Plato’s ideal was Sparta, where women were considered breeding stock with unmarried women required to shave their heads like men. Yet somehow they were also in charge. Rurik writes:

The state also relied on female bullying of the males to keep them in line from its very inception. It doesn’t ever get said, but anyone with any experience studying the structure of dystopias is forced to conclude that Sparta was built on the iron rule of the brutal enforcer-women because that is a perennial quality of totalitarianism anywhere it appears.

And this trend only got worse as time went on.

By the Roman period, they had adopted many elements of a chthonic matriarchy. Young boys were flogged for their blood on religious alters dedicated to Artemis as priestesses looked on in approval. No patriarchy would ever tolerate such sadistic ritualized abuse of its sons for the approval of a female deity. Furthermore, it is a simply observable fact in our own time, that whenever women gain political power, they like to make the men bleed. On some Freudian level, women probably blame men for their periods like they blame men for everything else. Bleeding out the boys for the goddess’ pleasure was considered an honor, of course, but it is hard to believe that the parents summoned to watch their boys’ backs be ripped to shreds would feel much more than revulsion at the scene. It is likewise hard to interpret the ceremony as being anything more than your typical priest-led psychological terror operation being waged on the population. …

Before that though, the Spartan system gave women property rights, which ensured the handover of power eventually. As the men died in the wars, the capital started accumulating in the hands of the wives, thereby dooming the city-state.

I suspect that our modern day Cassandra might have something to fart back at that.

---

In II. The Great Metaphysics Conspiracy, Rurik states his thesis:

Thesis: Our theological betters want to subject us to complete and total dhimmitude. To do this, they first needed to infect us with some very bad ideas and thereby to make us mental slaves who will accept other kinds of slavery as a result of our conditioning. A bad metaphysical or ideological understanding of the world affects everything else like say a deadly poison infection spreading from an incision point at the exposed and vulnerable heel.

II. The Great Metaphysics Conspiracy

He gives a history of its creation:

The Septuagint, according to the official religious narrative, was translated into Greek by the mythical 70/72 (an astrological celestial degree constant) rabbis summoned to Alexandria by the Ptolomaic (Greek) dynasty. These rabbis were then isolated into groups and asked to write down their religion and all of them came up with the exact version of the Bible that we have today, at the same time, which is proof of the claims of their religion and proof that God loves them more, you see.

But let’s focus on fairytales of a different sort in our analysis today.

There is now a debate over whether or not the Greek Septuagint actually predated the Hebrew Old Testament. In other words, did the Masoretic Bible come later than the Septuagint, which was the first written codification of Judaism? Is this even possible?

This is particularly interesting. Bible scholars of The Jesus Seminars have presented evidence there is no Aramaic version of the gospels: not a hypothetical Q text, not in verbal form, and not in the direct quotes of ‘Jesus,’ which use Greek tropes with plays on words that don’t make sense in Aramaic. So perhaps the old and new testaments both originated in Greek in the Anno Domini modern era.

I’ve been known to shamelessly waylay women rabbis at The Jesus Seminars and try to pin down the earliest carbon-dated texts of the Torah. I don’t know if they were evasive or just needed to get to the bathroom. Either way, I’ve come up empty-handed. But Russell Gmirkin, cited by Rurik, theorizes “the Hebrew canon’s primary composition took place in the Hellenistic Egyptian milieu of the 270’s…”

In fact, the Greek word Ioudaios (Ancient Greek: Ἰουδαῖος) that’s translated as Judean means anti-Hellenite, according to Wikipedia:

The Ancient Greek term Ioudaismos (Ἰουδαϊσμός; from ἰουδαΐζειν, "to side with or imitate the Ioudaios") often translated as "Judaism" or "Judeanism" first appears in 2 Maccabees in the 2nd century BC. In the context of the age and period it held the meaning of seeking or forming part of a cultural entity and resembles its antonym Hellenismos, meaning acceptance of Hellenic (Greek) cultural norms (the conflict between Ioudaismos and Hellenismos lay behind the Maccabean revolt and hence the invention of the term Ioudaismos).

If the timing of Maccabees is AD, they were also the zealots, the rebels, the insurgents against the Roman Empire.

---

Rurik elaborates the theory I’ve proposed of how Joseph the Multi-colored Turncoat became the Monsanto of ancient Egypt, leading to the Exodus:

Furthermore, other minimalist scholars allege that Exodus was written as a direct response to Greek-Egyptian accounts of the expulsion of God’s Loan-Sharks from Egypt. Again, the standard Judeo-Christian narrative for centuries has been that writers like Manetho were simply irrational anti-semites who were writing after the account of Exodus in a vain attempt to defy and discredit God’s word. However, if we consider the possibility that Josephus may have been lying to us in his texts justifying his people’s religion and their history and Manetho telling us the truth, then Exodus becomes a kind of DNC press-release Setting the Record Straight (tm) about what really happened in Egypt published after Manetho’s lurid account of what amounted to a Bolshevik takeover of Egyptian society and their subsequent expulsion by a hero-populist pharaoh who would then be immortalized in the Bible as the first Hitler/Amalek that God had to smite.

As the story stands now, yes, the Hebrews were using predatory lending practices to squeeze out Egyptian farmers and take over their land, but they were only doing it because G-d told them to do so, which makes it OK and holy actually, as any priest or rabbi or imam will tell you.

Rurik confirms what I’ve come to, that Set was the deity of the Hebrews. He doesn’t make the connection, at least in this article, to Seth who steals the inheritance from Cain (Canaan) by smearing him with the accusation of killing his brother—as Set did to Osiris. He also doesn’t make the connection of Abram to Abdi Ashirta, the mercenary warlord depicted as a jackal in the Amarna Letters. But he shows Jesus depicted with a donkey head as Set:

He states, “Jesus … is clearly a combination and a concoction created by talented engineers, but I won’t say the same about the Christ concept, which strikes me as a genuine mystical phenomenon that was anthropomorphized and semitized later on for political reasons.” We agree on this.

---

In closing I’ll circle back to my title and my thesis. I see the Bible as turning history upside down and inside out, making the villains into heroes, the heroes into villains, the victims into aggressors and the aggressors into victims. It also turns metaphysics on its head and turns love into hate and hate into love, the Oneness of the Christ into the specialness of Jesus.

‘Jesus’ died for your sins, passing on the guilt from generation to generation. The zealots, who were depicted as Satan and his demons, died for your freedom. Which would you prefer?

The Bible sacralizes hatred, turns it into a sacrifice, a sacrament. Like all hierarchies, in return for subservience to those above, it gives superiority to those below. The Tree of Judgment slashes humanity in half with men over women as its first act. Hatred served cold is superiority, it only turns hot when challenged.

The Bible isn’t about God at all, it’s about evil. To love God is to hate who he hates. And God hates anyone who rebels against the empire. The empire will always win because God’s on its side. People are shit. You might as well give up now.

I agree with Rurik that people who don’t think they believe in the Bible have still absorbed its belief system. I think that belief is in their own superiority.

---