I happened upon this post over the weekend, and although believable enough, I haven't yet checked on this myself. However, history doesn't repeat itself but it does rhyme... so this is believable enough.
From my understanding of Roman history (and human history) this sounds accurate, although I haven't verified it myself.
Those who go about extolling the virtue of Julius Caesar murdered March 15, 44 BC, neglect his role in Civil Wars and the destruction of the Roman Republic, that he was a Judophile who committed depredations on behalf of Jew slave traders, and the brutal killing of his former son in law the Great Roman hero Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus.
My understanding is Caesar waged war on Rome .. not withstanding the Egyptian Campaign which had its ups and downs anyway, the British Campaign which was mostly for show, and the Conquest of Gaul [France] a land that was ostensibly on friendly terms with Rome.
His campaign in Spain which had similarly been a Roman governed province since the time of Scipio, no less than his 49 BC Crossing the Rubicon, the destruction of Pompey and his army then the wicked campaign against the Roman garrison in Libya .. all of Caesar's most notable wars and battles were against Roman armies.
Rome was so lousy with Kikes in 179 BC that the urban praetor Cn. Cornelius Scipio Hispalus tried to expel them, though we may be sure that for every one he threw out of the front door two crawled in over the back fence. After his year of office their money and intrigues obtained effective revocation of his decree, as everyone who reads Cicero knows the predatory aliens had obtained such economic power in the Republic..
They could cause financial panics by cornering gold and supposedly exporting it to Jerusalem under the pretext their religion required it. When Caesar was assassinated in 44 BC the Jewish swarm howled and rioted, not because they had any liking for Caesar but because they always profit from political upheavals, which give them opportunities to plunder all factions.#
Julius Caesar Prisoner of the Jewish Lobby - "From the Learning Diary of an Israeli Water Engineer. Gaius Julius Caesar would have been slandered to suicide if he lived today .. he received large loans from local Roman Jewish bankers, and much assistance from the Judean high priests Hyrcanus.
Caesar was always in pressing need of money to finance the political machine he maintained in Rome while he was campaigning in Germany, his decrees are amazingly pro Jewish to a point that would be unimaginable today.
"The Jews shall possess Jerusalem and may encompass that city with walls, Hyrcanus the son of Alexander the high priest and ethnarch of the Jews, rule it in the manner he himself pleases, and the Jews be allowed to deduct out of their tribute a corus," the next decree establishes that the Jews of the Empire pay a tribute to the city of Jerusalem.
This decree provides for an annual tribute to Hyrcanus and his sons, it ordains that the original ordinances in regard to the high priests of the Jews shall remain in force, and that Hyrcanus and the Jews retain those places and countries which belonged to the kings of Syria and Phoenicia."
It is known that Caesar was a friend of the Jews the details are amazing .. Caesar the ruler of the World largest Empire did care a lot about the Jews and granted not only the City of Jerusalem to the Jews, but also the countries of Syria and Phoenicia (Lebanon) .. Jewish subjects paid less taxes than others and part of it was paid to the Jerusalem Government.#
Despite his military prowess Caesar was a plunderer and a butcher, who relied on Khazar horse breeders to provide remounts for his cavalry units .. during the Conquest of Gaul Caesar laid siege to a city located near Grenoble in present day France, that was filled with refugees who had fled the depredations his legions wrought in the countryside.
Where after the City's surrender he kept who he wanted for himself, then sold the remainder of the entire population to a Jewish slave trader for fifteen million sesterces the Roman unit of currency .. he was an aficionado of gladiatorial combat and kept a stable of gladiators.
Many historians make much of Caesar "pardoning" Cicero in the wake of the defeat of his former son in law the great Roman General and Statesman Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus, who had commanded Republican forces at the Battle of Pharsalus in Greece, August 9, 48 BC.
Thus in January 49 BC Caesar had brought his Gallic legions into Italy across the Rubicon a tract of swampy channelled land that defined the country's north east boundary, in defiance of a Roman law that forbade regular troops from exercising on the mainland which precipitated civil war. Caesar Crosses the Rubicon.
Where after Caesar became Roman Dictator and had Pompey and his sons who had survived the battle hunted down and killed, the remainder of Pompey's Republican forces who survived were summarily court martialed and executed on the dock at Brindisium on their return to Italy, on the capital charge of bearing arms against Caesar.
Cicero who had been entrusted with the role of leading negotiations with Caesar by the Senate had joined Pompey in Greece, however he had declined to take the field on the day of battle and was spared because he had not in fact "borne arms." A fact which earned him the unbridled scorn of Pompey's son Sextus, who said he should have agreed to Caesar's terms from the outset to avert civil war.
Julius Caesar was assassinated March 15, 44 BC there were twenty three stab wounds on his body, he was attacked by fellow Roman Senators at the Theater of Pompey in Rome, before the statue of the theater's founder. The Assassination of Julius Caesar.
After Caesar's murder in 44 BC plotted by his arch nemesis Marcus Tullius Cicero who he had twice pardoned on capital charges, who was in the thrall of his alleged homosexual paramour one Atticus a wealthy publisher and industrialist, who was despite his Greek name a Jew!
Marc Antony as Caesar's Master of Horse and thus Second in Command of his legions, levied brutal retaliation against C's killers including Cicero, where after another round of conquest and civil war he committed suicide .. Jews were in command.
The other time Cicero got off the hook was in 45 BC after he was called before Caesar to explain his relationship with one King Deiotarus, who had on the testimony of a slave plotted to murder Caesar, if Caesar had rejected Cicero's defense he and the King would have been put to the sword. Cicero's Speech on Behalf of Deiotarus, King of Galatia pdf. Edit.
Anyone saying today's jews are not the jews of 2000+ years ago from the old testament needs to read this shit. People back then were calling the jews out for the same shit we're calling them out for now. This also makes Atwill's theory that jesus christ is an allegory for Julius Caesar turned into a religion even more interesting. If Caesar was working for the jews and helped them to subvert Rome, it makes sense why they'd work his allegory in to tie the king of the jews to the ruler of Rome. @CHIRO would love this shit.
It's a very interesting theory. I haven't read any of his published works. His reputation precedes him, though. Unfortunately, it's mostly negative. To my knowledge, there's hardly anybody who thinks he is right. That doesn't make him wrong. I agree this was a good post.
EDIT: I just wanted to add a note on my thoughts about Atwill's theory. Now, I'm not a historian by any means. I approach things from the philosphical/theological standpoint mainly. My biggest worry about his theory is that it requires a LOT of assumptions about the history of the development of Christianity that don't seem well-evidenced. One such assumption has to do with the velocity of the growth of the Jesus movement. The common (mistaken) view is that Christianity took right off in the first century A.D. The truth is that it didn't. Consider that Pliny the Younger seemed to have no knowledge of Christianity in the late 1st century. If we superimpose Atwill's theory onto a more historically accurate picture for the growth of Christianity, the result is a conspiracy four centuries in the making. This leads to another assumption we should be hesitant to accept, i.e., the hyper-competence of the conspirators, and not just the originators, but the progenitors decade after decade. It's a level of competence that strains credibility.
If true, it is by far the most extensive and successful propaganda campaign in the history of the world. If you consider the time period in question, the tools available, the difficulty of networking and disseminating information, and the sheer costs of making manuscripts, it looks like if there had been a conspiracy, it would have possibly been successful among a very educated elite, not the peasant, agricultural classes that actually constituted the movement. It's pretty clear that the elites had their own mystery schools and secret societies going at this time, and it isn't until Constantine that Rome really picks Christianity up (which is not to say that Constantine is responsible for Christianity), and the reasons he would have for doing this support the claim that it was a lower-class phenomenon, not something emanating from the upper echelons of society. Creating authentic grass-roots movements is profoundly hard to do; had they wanted to undermine Rome by promoting broad acceptance of the Jewish messiah, we probably could have expected some sprawling, top-down measure to have appeared in history long before Constantine.
Given the relationship between Christianity and Judaism from the late 1st century through today, I think there is a much simpler explanation. I don't think Alexandrian Jews or their patsies in Rome invented Christianity. Christians were much too hostile toward the Jews by the turn of the 2nd century for this to have been an effective means of orchestrating the downfall of Rome in such a way as to increase the position of Jewry.
Not only that, but we would also have to assume one of the best-kept secrets in world history. I have no trust at all that, had a Jewish conspiracy to launch Christianity been successful, they would have avoided leaving a historical trace. I'm thinking of Hoffman's character in Wag the Dog, who wants nothing more than to reveal the success of their campaign to everyone. The depth of Jewish ethnic resentment is too great for me to think no such trace exists, if something this cunning had been plotted and actually worked.
It's evidence of 9/11 having been planned a decade and a half ahead of time, advertised to the general public in a way that's hidden if you don't know what to look for but clear as day if you do, and then referenced again leaving a clear trail of clues that tells you how to notice all the symbolism. It does this alongside esoteric/religious symbolism and predicts Trump's rise to power starting in 2015, the year he declared his candidacy.
There are many other examples of major world events having been predicted ahead of time, but this is one of the clearest and most undeniable. It references all the key points of 9/11 in a story about predicting when a tower will be struck and warning about a future islamic terror attack alongside multiple numerical references to 9/11. Much of the same symbolism (including the esoteric/religious symbolism) is also present in Lord of the Rings which is about two towers and a war between the free men of the west and dark hordes of the east and written 50 years before 9/11, alongside esoteric symbolism about the god of time Saturn/Cronos.
The more I see, the more I realize that major world events have been scripted out and prophetically placed before us decades in advance. You find it unbelievable that a religious conspiracy on the magnitude of christianity and islam being created to control and mislead the masses, but I notice the same tribe who was involved in creating both those religions also created communism and gave us ayn rand to lead people into abandoning spirituality.
Crazy how over 80% of the world follows a belief system created by the same tribe of people (3 billion christians, 2 billion muslims, 1.5 billion communists, plus however many libertarians, progressives, etc. aren't already included in there). Is such a feat really possible without a conspiracy? Are they just such good spinners of stories that they can't help but convert people to following their allegories and archetypes over our own?
I think a spiritual conspiracy is more likely to be true, considering the evidence that the kabbalistic elites tell us what they're going to do to us decades in advance alongside allegories of Saturn, the golem, and the chosen one, the evidence of biblical parallels between Jesus Christ and Julius Caesar (JC & JC, see John Connor in Terminator and JC Denton in Deus Ex, both of which had golem and chosen one narratives), and the fact that one particular tribe that's obsessed with religion and occultism has taken over the minds of the vast majority of humanity. That last one is one of those things you know but don't realize you know and understand the full gravity of until it fucking hits you. Like, everyone knows that the two biggest religions on earth came from judaism and converted a majority of the world's population to worshiping jews, but they still have the chutzpah to tell you they're innocent victims and their own creations persecute them (see the golem narrative).
I wonder what the world would be like if billions of people worshiped white Gods instead of the jewish god.
"I have come to bring him back with me The whole world mourns his death Please set Balder free Give him back his breath" "If it's true, what you say to me That the whole world mourns his death If the whole world will weep I will give him back his breath"
One day when the whole world knows the truth and weeps for the fall of the white race, our spiritual rebirth will begin, and with it our people will rise again.
I don't recall you sharing that link before. I don't have time to watch it right this minute, but I will sit down to watch it later this evening. To preface the things you said about its overall proposition (basically, that a film predicts 9/11 and the rise of Donald Trump), I do approach these sorts of claims with skepticism, which I take to be a virtual necessity in this day and age. I realize that skepticism is very annoying, but these kinds of arguments are too common and usually so poor so that I perceive a really high bar for their success. It's like, they're either really good or they're dog shit. Anybody with experience on the internet in the past decade or two can testify to the deep sea of shit that one has to wade through, especially in this region of making claims that amount to 'hidden in plain sight', to find anything worthwhile. A lot of it will come down to theory comparison, e.g., did the writer's of a modern film copy an ancient mythological trope because that's easier (and genuine creativity is hard) or because they needed to encode future events into the movie?
That said, I'm not a skeptic concerning possibilities. For example, while I don't think flat-earth theories are good, I don't think the core proposition is implausible. Neither do I think predictive programming is implausible, and I've seen instances where I believe it is genuinely taking place (a caveat: this discussion needs a lot more depth than I'm going to treat it with here). For me, it's about the theory and the evidence. So, (i) tell me how you think about evidence (what counts as evidence, how does evidence work in your theory of knowledge, what sorts of inferences are valid to make), then (ii) tell me what proposal you want me to believe, and finally (iii) tell me what your evidence is. Most of the time, I find arguments about predictive programming to simply be far too loose. Another hurdle is that, often, the people who create this sort of content have various incentives (including their own interests/desires) to continue making that sort of content, so they become hammers seeking nails. I think you will agree that, if a person really wants to, symbolic undercurrents can be conjured from just about any narrative, especially if the narrative substrate involves a good story. This could have something to do with the properties shared by all good stories. Enough rambling about that. . .I won't say anything else about the linked video until I've watched it.
The more I see, the more I realize that major world events have been scripted out and prophetically placed before us decades in advance.
I don't disagree, but I do think the extent to which there is an intelligible link between the "plan" and the reality is heavily conditioned by the historical context, i.e., the predominant information technologies of the time, the predominant social order, the political and economic situation of the conspirators, etc. Consider this claim: "9/11 was planned ahead of time." Probably, nobody would disagree with you if you said that. The questions are really the Five W's (plus an H): who? what? when? where? why? how? The uniqueness of the claim here is not that a conspiracy has taken place, in so far as any secretive planning could technically be called a conspiracy, but rather that the answer to the Five W's in the case of things like 9/11 make it meaningfully different as a conspiracy than, say, the plan to rob a bank. In the case of 9/11, for example, we might think a major difference is that the conspirators have a more godlike relationship to the victims of the conspiracy, manipulating things in a different way, using different powers, and with a much bigger scope in mind. But you see, if you let that go too far, then you really are headed toward (even if you aren't there yet) supernatural territory.
You find it unbelievable that a religious conspiracy on the magnitude of christianity and islam being created to control and mislead the masses, but I notice the same tribe who was involved in creating both those religions also created communism and gave us ayn rand to lead people into abandoning spirituality.
I just don't want us to beg the question. You say "create", but is that the appropriate term to use? Does a person who uses some picture, call it Image A, "create a meme" if some others create pictures a lot like Image A? Or if A takes off and starts going viral? I'm not convinced that Jews "created" Christianity or Islam. That doesn't mean Judaism per se didn't play a causal role in the development of those offshoots, but mimickry and relations of similarity and borrowing aren't the same as conscious choices to invent these things. Keep in mind, this is also predicated on my beliefs about genuine creativity, which I think is extremely rare - that means a lot of so-called creativity really just is borrowing, re-working, copying motifs, etc.
Crazy how over 80% of the world follows a belief system created by the same tribe of people (3 billion christians, 2 billion muslims, 1.5 billion communists, plus however many libertarians, progressives, etc. aren't already included in there). Is such a feat really possible without a conspiracy?
Yes, it is crazy. That's our shared intuition. We just have to be careful about how we explain it. For analogy, pretend you have two teams in a gymnasium over many years. Team 1 doesn't cheat, on average. Team 2 almost always cheats, on average. Now, suppose that cheating results in some kind of benefit over time, in the environment of the gym, just in case Team 1 doesn't find ways to adapt their play against Team 2's cheating.
Expand this scenario so that there are 10 or 20 teams. Still, let only one team be committed cheaters. You might not be surprised to find, over time, that the cheating strategies turn up formally in the strategies of other teams, so that you will also note some kind of convergence in strategic patterns across time. Why does Islam emerge in a formerly Jewish milieu? Well, no matter what we say about that, we have to acknowledge that Islam must at least in part define itself against Judaism, but any time we try to define ourselves against something, that thing is still defining us. When you compete against the Jew, you become more Jewish. So, the extent to which strategic patterns, say, in politics or religion around the globe, have begun to mirror features of Judaism could very well be a function of Jewish success, together with our own (the non-Jewish population) failure to morally impugn these strategies. Instead, the White world saw the wealth of usury and over time sold their souls for a ticket to ride that train.
Are they just such good spinners of stories that they can't help but convert people to following their allegories and archetypes over our own?
Hardly. In fact, I think most if not all of the "Jewish lore" (e.g., the Old Testament) involves stories taken from neighboring, more well-established civilizations, esp. the Greco-Roman tradition. One observation I have made is that the Jews seem to have a knack for marketing ideas in ways that have broader mass appeal. So often in history, the Jew steals an invention from a non-Jew and manages to make himself known as the inventor, and this is because the Jew controls public perception in a more cunning way. Take for example the notion that Jews are the creative force in entertainment. Not even close. They just find structural ways to exploit the creative work of others so that their (the Jews) names are the ones credited.
I think a spiritual conspiracy is more likely to be true, considering the evidence that the kabbalistic elites tell us what they're going to do to us decades in advance alongside allegories of Saturn, the golem, and the chosen one, the evidence of biblical parallels between Jesus Christ and Julius Caesar (JC & JC, see John Connor in Terminator and JC Denton in Deus Ex, both of which had golem and chosen one narratives), and the fact that one particular tribe that's obsessed with religion and occultism has taken over the minds of the vast majority of humanity.
Here is an example of where I might suggest you have the causal story wrong. The way you are viewing things tends to misconstrue where the creativity really lies. It's not that the Jews are obsessed with the occult, it's that everyone is. Again, the origin of the very stories that act as the medium for Jewish occultism is not in Judaism, but in Mesopotamia, and Babylon, and Egypt, and Rome. The Jews simply borrow and steal, for they lack an inherent identity, so they have always had the habit, through their entire recorded history, of understanding themselves through (via) the more powerful people groups who subjugated them. This leaves the Jew in a really tense, dissonant relationship with himself and his neighbor, for at one and the same time, the Jew depends upon that neighbor while harboring a burning hatred of him.
Kabbalah, for instance, is just repackaged Neoplatonism. That's all it is, perhaps with stronger emphasis on magic, on theurgical manipulation of the divine power, all blended together in a Gnostic soup where God is conceived to have "fucked up" and needs to be corrected.
Let me float something to you quickly. Chew on it. You might decide to spit it out. Consider the general form of the gospel narrative. God incarnates. God is captured. God is killed. God goes to hell. God resurrects clothed in radiance and perfection to consummate the finished work of redemption in the world.
Now, I would suggest that you could map this (metaphorically of course) onto the history of religion itself (or rather to our conception of God's immanence). Let the Greco-Roman tradition be the incarnate "God". Suppose it is captured, so to speak, by the Jew. In the hands of Jews, God dies. God becomes the devil, in one sense. Just to be resurrected in Christianity. This mirrors Jesus's rebuke of the Pharisees. In a manner of speaking, they had killed God, and Jesus had come to inaugurate a new covenant, no less than the restablishment of a connection between the people and the living God. So here we find a parallel between the figure of Jesus and man's very relationship to the divine. In the hands of the Jews, that relationship is destroyed, but from the death (rising up like the Phoenix from the ashes) follows the resurrection of something universal, which just is Christianity's claim. The key for us is to realize how our conception of and relationship with God died in its Jewish inheritance, but from this trial was reborn the Mystery and the Savior that had been conceived, not by the Jews, but by others. If you wanted to view that in terms of divine providence, it could be that the Jewish tendency for popularizing and drawing-attention-to was something used instrumentally by God to "make the whole world look at him", not just this or that nation (which can only turn toward their local deity), but the whole world.
I'm at the point where we can detach Christinaity from Judaism, and I think this must be done. I think it can be done, and the categorical imperative to do this separating is already implicit in a proper understanding of Christ. Jesus is not a Jewish God, for after the incarnation and resurrection, to be a Jew can only mean the rejection of Christ. It, therefore, does not make sense to conceive of Jesus as a Jewish God. To kneel before the Lord Christ is to necessarily discard being a Jew. We really just need to express this soul of Christianity to the White world and dispel all of the shenanigans that have caused Western Christians to think they must be beholden to Isreal. All of this is the result of misunderstanding and obfuscation introduced by the revolutionary Jew through the centuries.
I wonder what the world would be like if billions of people worshiped white Gods instead of the jewish god.
For me, it isn't as simple as inventing God or even independently deciding what you're going to worship. Don't get me wrong, there is a major element of choice (faith), but it isn't something you can do authentically on your own. God is to be encountered. I don't believe that any people pick their gods as if selecting them from a menagerie, and if that is the case for a given society, then God is dead for that society, who selects fashionable gods as though they were instruments to be pulled from a line-up.
Take your time with it, and if you like it, check out the golem video on that same channel.
In response to your concerns about the validity of various predictions, that first video on BttF is one of the clearest examples of predictive programming (though that term doesn't fully capture the essence of what's going on). But I'll use the Simpsons as an example since most people are familiar with those predictions by now. The Simpsons' 9/11 prediction is shit - it's a flyer with the number 9, the twin towers making an 11, and I think a plane or something similar on it. By itself, that prediction looks like garbage. But then you see the same show predicting Trump becoming President with far more clarity. Not only did they predict his campaign, but the Trump campaign went out of their way to reproduce shots from the show by doing a campaign event at a mall where they took photos of Trump and his staff in the same poses from the show. Now look at their predictions of things like the Queen's funeral or the Balenciaga show, where they predicted what people would wear and where they would sit and then people went out of their way to act that out in the real world. Predicting that the queen would die is no impressive feat, but predicting what people would wear to her funeral and where they would be sitting in the photos released to the press? Far more impressive.
Can that be explained by mundane means? Sure, there could be a conspiracy to reproduce Simpsons episodes in real life, and lots of rich and powerful people are in on it for the joke, coordinating outfits and events and photo ops and such to pull it off. But when the people doing this are kabbalists and occultists, I won't discount the possibility of something supernatural (or something natural that science can't yet explain fully, like orgone/vril/chi) being part of the process.
I disagree somewhat on the idea that you can pull any symbolic narrative from anything. Many symbolic narratives overlap because they were created that way for a reason. The golem narrative is a good example, and one that comes directly from jewish folklore. It's not just that the allegory shows up everywhere allegorically, it's that many of those allegories reference the golem directly to make sure you can tell it's a golem narrative. After being clued in to the golem narrative in Star Wars (which is loaded with symbolism pointing to the sith being jews) and Lord of the Rings (where Gollum/Smeagol gets his names from the word golem), I noticed that Terminator 2 ends in the same way as SW and LotR with the golem figure throwing his creator (the shapeshifter who was the last remnant of Skynet) into the pit and descending in to die with him. I ended up watching the Sarah Connor Chronicles after that, and in one episode Sarah literally monologues about the golem for like 5+ minutes - just to make sure you didn't miss the fact that the whole franchise is a golem allegory. In Bioshock, where you play a man with artificial memories (artificial man/golem) and overthrow your creators (your father and the man who gave you the memories), one of the jewish characters refers to the big daddies as golems and talks about the golem myth a bit. This isn't just a few mythic elements propagating naturally, where you would expect people to lift tropes from other works - if that was all it was, you wouldn't see so many of those works going out of their way to tell you that yes this is indeed a golem allegory and yes it is explicitly about jewish power and jewish control schemes. The difference between "oh it's just a narrative pattern that anyone can borrow and turn into their own thing" and "we're specifically repeating to you over and over again that this particular narrative pattern means this specific thing" is pretty big.
While jewish kabbala did take pieces of Greco-Roman mysticism, I think calling it repackaged neoplatonism is an incredible oversimplification. But I'm not an expert on kabbala as I've spent a lot more time researching our own people's spirituality rather than theirs, so I won't get too into it.
The metaphor of divine death and rebirth is admittedly not tied strictly to christianity - there are older myths like Tammuz that follow a similar narrative, Balder who I referenced in my last post does as well from thousands of miles away. But the jesus version of that myth is very specifically jewish. The christian version of myth involves a man born in judea to the tribe of judah whose followers were all hebrews and worshiped from the torah. Claiming that the religion separated itself from judaism upon its birth is like saying that you're not your mom and dad, you're your own person - but it doesn't negate that you came from your mom and dad, and that you're still tied to them in many ways. Even if the jews didn't come up with the narrative about death and rebirth entirely on their own (neither did anyone else unless you're going back at least 5000+ years), they still made the christian version of that myth their own and left an undeniably jewish imprint on the story.
Because of this, you have to consider christianity within the context of its jewish creators. In the torah, abraham is given the blessing that his descendants will rule many nations. His grandchildren jacob and esau then compete to inherit his blessing, with esau representing the warrior who would conquer many nations and jacob representing the trickster who would manipulate many nations - jacob wins. At the end of genesis, joseph becomes the de facto ruler of Egypt, becoming the Pharaoh's top advisor (similar to Sidney Rittenberg being Mao's top advisor and ruling China by proxy), allowing him to invite his entire tribe in to "feed off the fat of the land". After the Egyptians rebel and the hebrews are driven out, moses repeats the blessing that the hebrews will one day rule many nations, and in that verse (deuter 15:6) it is much more clear that this means not just that there will be many nations descended from abraham, but that the hebrews will rule non-hebrew nations. That same verse says that they will loan to many nations to put them in debt (usury) but never accept such loans from other nations.
Thus, the narrative of the torah is that the hebrews descended from abraham will take over many nations through trickery and usury rather than by force. Once you understand that their own mythical allegory which drives their people's behavior is based on the idea that they will rule other nations by proxy through trickery and debt slavery. The entire jewish behavior pattern was codified in their own holy book through allegory as much as direct commandment.
But the jews then spent 1000 years failing to figure this out, trying to conquer by force only to be conquered and subjugated themselves. Each time they would use trickery to subvert their conquerors, collapsing empires from within that they could not conquer from without. They asked why their chosen race continued to be conquered by empire after empire if they were destined to rule, and they were told that one day a messiah would come to fulfill the prophecy that they would rule many nations. When that messiah came (whether it was jesus or whether the jesus story was the result of that messiah's work), they once again took over the empire that had conquered them and destroyed their temple - but this time, they did not merely collapse the empire from within. This time they permanently changed the spiritual landscape of Europe, spreading a religion that gave their own people a special place as the chosen people of the one true god through whom the messiah was born, a religion that taught people to worship the king of the jews. The fact that they themselves rejected their own messiah in no way negates this - they are, after all, tricksters, and thus they would know that the religion they were spreading to the masses contained falsehoods to fool the masses into worshiping them, falsehoods that they themselves did not need to believe even as they converted others into believing them.
In response to your last bit on deciding who and what to worship, you are taking the view (pushed by christianity and islam more so than by judaism itself) that there is one singular true god who created us all and who is separate from us. Consider the possibility that there is a divine spark in all of us, that divinity is not a singular outside force that sits above us looking down on our universe, but that it is a force within our universe that is present in all things, including you. In this model of reality, you are not a subject of a separate divine entity, but a small piece of the divine interacting with many other small pieces of the divine, but nonetheless with divine power within you. For most people, that divine/spiritual energy lies dormant in their subconscious, and they are largely unaware of it, but it's still there and can still act upon the world. For example, the placebo effect works simply by believing that something will work - strong enough belief can manifest itself into a change in your condition, provided your belief is strong enough to overcome the difficulty involved in making that change. By imposing beliefs onto people, having them act things out through ritual, etc. you can affect the way people's spiritual energy interacts with the world around them. Mystics and occultists who spend a lot of time and effort learning to harness their own spiritual energy can manifest it in more significant ways, and by creating mystic media that influences the minds of others, they can amplify the effects and propagate them through the masses.
In that model of reality, five billion people worshiping a jewish god will manifest jewish rule through trickery because it is what they believe and pour their spiritual energy into. In that model, neither the jewish god nor our own Gods are separate from us, but rather an effect we produce that is powerful enough to change the world around us and shape the flow of events. Far from being dead, this means the Gods live through us, rather than living separately outside our universe looking down at us lesser beings with contempt as the jews would have you believe.
Hey, I still haven't been able to sit down to watch that video yet. Things became very busy. I will try to tonight.
I just read your response.
I have a somewhat robust knowledge of Kabbalah. I was obsessed with studying it for quite a long time, but there are limits to what you can learn without (i) knowing Hebrew and (ii) being grafted into a particular teaching tradition. Since the twentieth century, there has been a narrative promulgated, mostly as a result of Isaac Luria's teachings, that Kabbalah was opened up to the general public due to the immanence of the time of the messiah. Is there some truth in this? Perhaps. Yet, it is misleading. Luria's system is mostly an eschatological metaphysics, but some of its adherents say things that allow you to glean important points about the mystical Jewish mentality. That said, most of this publicization of Kabbalah has amounted to an opportunistic commercialization of something that obfuscates Kabbalah rather than democratizes it. Once I realized that the reason for the centuries of secrecy was that Kabbalah was lifting most of its principles from neoplatonism and using it to advance a deeper magical tradition, I began to lose interest. I'd rather get it from the horse's mouth, and at the end of the day, practical Kabbalah is just that: practical. The concepts and images that are used are less important than the underlying metaphysical universality - something like what it is to conceive of the process by which God's energies disseminate into creation and how these can be aligned with and/or exploited/utilized - of God's relation to the world; it has a lot more to do with ritual, belief, and discipline.
Anyway, I won't say much about the predictive programming stuff here and now. I think the example you gave of the golem is useful, and I don't deny that it is allegorically extremely significant. As I said in my previous comment, for me it has more to do with the particular claim made and the evidence adduced to support it. Like, if someone is making a specific claim about this golem theme, and they show me the right kind of evidence, I'm open to hearing what they have to say. Too often, the sorts of people who spend a signficant amount of time producing occult content aren't very systematic in how they analyze things or set up their cases, e.g., for establishing that such and such is an intentional bit of programming. Probably, some of that has to do with the presence of bad actors in these spaces, like controlled oppo, or at the very least idiots who are welcomed and permitted to flourish in their activities of muddying the water.
At the end of the day, no matter what tradition we're talking about, there is a rubric of the same elements for analyzing them. Each tradition that is long-lived is going to involve a history of various tradents doing exegesis of texts in their own way. It's less about objective truth about more about being part of the tradition per se. Like, if you aren't an orthodox Jew, it can be asked what real utility there is in your pursuing Kabbalah. I'm in agreement with you that a tradition needs to be "yours" to bear fruit, and part of what makes it yours is its exclusivity to your race, to your people group. What Kabbalah is doing for Jews is possible for a different tradition to achieve for a different race. That said, the way this is going to align or disalign you with the divinity will depend on some of those criteria for analysis I was talking about at the start of this paragraph. Consider that Christian eschatology, as an example, is very different from the eschatology of the Kabbalists. Now ask yourself: do you believe that God was broken by creation and requires fixing, or was everything related to God's act of creating a logical necessity and was it good? You get two entirely different axiologies as a consequence of how you come down on that question.
At this point I want to ask you a question. I read your commentary on the Jewish relationship to Christianity. It's interesting, and you make a rational case, to be sure. One difficulty is that these types of theories are often very rationalistic, at the expense of having much in the way of empirical evidence. When that's the case, you wind up with competing theories that might both look like they explain the evidence equally well, or at least on a par with one another, such that it becomes prohibitively hard to tell the other guy, "No, you really aren't justified in saying that." How the fuck do I know, right?
I'm curious about adoption, given that we both seem to agree about race/nationality being an important aspect of the utility of a faith system. But let me say just a couple of things before I ask that question.
Thus, the narrative of the torah is that the hebrews descended from abraham will take over many nations through trickery and usury rather than by force. Once you understand that their own mythical allegory which drives their people's behavior is based on the idea that they will rule other nations by proxy through trickery and debt slavery. The entire jewish behavior pattern was codified in their own holy book through allegory as much as direct commandment.
I don't think this is true. I think Jews wanted to exert power over other races in the same exact way they experienced the latter's power exerted over them. They never could, but this is the reason for seeing more powerful groups as a principle of evil. I think that the deep desire of Jews was to be more like those other races and to build the sorts of empires that they did, but they were only looking at outcomes, at present states of things, rather than gaining an adequate understanding of nature so as to learn why those other powers were able to ascend according to their own philosophies of nature. The turn to financial manipulation and control as a means to power is not so much a per se element of their theology as it was an ad hoc way of achieving the outcome they believed God had destined them for, i.e., a turning of the tables of power. The financial thing is just a means, but I believe Jews resent it. They desire the sort of "divine goodness", the sacrifice of Abel that is favored by God, that resulted in the "natural" dominance had by, say, the Assyrians and the Romans. They want that. The financial stuff is just a means to that end, and this is a primary reason why Jews rejected Christ as the messiah. It wasn't the eschatological answer they wanted. Thinking that the divine, eternal supper table has a seat for your enemy at it is a remarkably hard pill to swallow.
But the jews then spent 1000 years failing to figure this out, trying to conquer by force only to be conquered and subjugated themselves. Each time they would use trickery to subvert their conquerors, collapsing empires from within that they could not conquer from without. They asked why their chosen race continued to be conquered by empire after empire if they were destined to rule, and they were told that one day a messiah would come to fulfill the prophecy that they would rule many nations.
I agree with you here.
But the "political covenant", if you will, is distinct from the "spiritual covenant." You can think of these as conceptions of man's relation to God. You're right in saying that the Jews had an imperial understanding of God's promise. That is, again, a key reason why they rejected Christ. Christ wasn't telling them to militarily overthrow Rome, but that sort of thing is what they had in mind. This is the weird, sort of Freudian thing going on. On the one hand, you've got to say that Rome is the embodiment of wickedness. On the other hand, God is promising that you'll be what they are in the end? This is confusion. In the Old Covenant, there was confusion. The right conception of divine reality had not yet been achieved. But when it became possible to have, no Jew wanted it who remained a Jew after the revelation of the Christ.
When that messiah came (whether it was jesus or whether the jesus story was the result of that messiah's work), they once again took over the empire that had conquered them and destroyed their temple - but this time, they did not merely collapse the empire from within. This time they permanently changed the spiritual landscape of Europe, spreading a religion that gave their own people a special place as the chosen people of the one true god through whom the messiah was born, a religion that taught people to worship the king of the jews.
This is where things in your view go wrong, by my lights. On the one hand, they have to hate Jesus. On the other hand, Jesus has to actually be their messiah (objectively) because Jesus fulfills the imperial aspect of the original covenant, spreading them over the planet. It seems like this is going to entail one of two things:
Either:
(i) Jesus was objectively the messiah, but no Jew believed he was, so they killed him, but this actually satisfied God's plan anyway, because Jesus became their messiah IN SPITE OF their disbelief; this would mean that from the beginning of the Christian movement per se, Christians have been utterly, utterly wrong about who Jesus was and what Jesus said
(ii) Jews consciously promulgated beliefs about Jesus, including the belief that Jews rejected/hated him, even though they didn't, but rather because they recognized that, by appearing to hate Jesus, it would increase the likelihood that other non-Jewish groups would accept the Jesus movement
If you accept (i), then it is going to be difficult to argue that Christianity was a Jewish plot. It turns Jesus into a deceiver of everybody, and all of the things in the Biblical corpus that involve Jesus rebuking the Jews are literally just methods of deceit, that is, to deceive non-Jews into think he was their guy while Jesus was secretly being the Jewish messiah (even as the Jews themselves wanted him dead). I think there are a host of problems with this view.
If you accept (ii), you have to explain why Jews believed anyone would accept givng up their own ethno-national divinities to accept a failed messiah/prophet, even as the Jews are themselves claiming Jesus was not divine. Why would the Romans for example have ever begun believing Jesus was what Christians now claim him to be? This is the adoption question. The promulgators of the conspiracy so-called, rejected their own claims about Jesus's divinity, yet in doing this rejecting, they caused a bunch of other non-Jews to give up their powerful, successful deities for a mere Jewish guy?
It just doesn't add up. You might think that Jews knew they were creating an enemy here, right. Maybe they send Paul out to evangelize, like, "Have you not heard of the incarnate God who was killed by the Jews but proved himself by rising on the third day!?" As if this is supposed to somehow be a novel premise. The trouble is that dying and rising personal, savior gods weren't a foreign thing at this time - a fact that is often picked up by Jesus mythicists. So, now you might say, "Exactly. So the Jews recognized a popular trope in the surrounding lands at that time, and they crafted a "golem" faith that would simultaneously seem opposed to them and would also be attractive to foreigners for that very reason." That is, in its formal opposition to Jews, it would dialectically unite their enemies to them through the lineal aspect of Jesus's authority or whatever.
To me, that just looks silly. Picture two guys who race cars, guy A and guy B. This is like saying that A can't build himself a car that will beat B's. But A can build a car for B that will beat any car that A can make for himself. In other words, guy A can't win by making a fast car, but he can win by making a fast car for another guy.
The Jews would have ensured that their "victory" was truly a victory had by their enemy, since Christianity was deeply opposed to Judaism, and Christianity became a literal obstacle to Judaism in Europe for centuries.
Granted, it would be possible to subvert Christianity from within, to cause some Christians to begin to misunderstand their own faith, say, in a way that would cause them to adopt Zionist beliefs in later centuries.
THAT looks like a much simpler and better explanation than the theory that Jews just invented Christianity for their own purposes. Furthermore, it seems much simpler and more coherent to understand the Golem as a Jewish reaction to Christianity, that is, as a Jewish attempt to bring about magically what Christianity contained theologically in the Resurrection concept. Remember what was said at the beginning about Jewish resentment of those around them and the counterfeit ways they try to achieve what their enemies do. Cain and Abel. The Jew: "Why is Abel's sacrifice favored?" They don't get it. Submission. Instead, the Jew qua Cain tries to counterfeit the system. In the same way, the Golem is a counterfeit Resurrection. Simply, the Jews are attracted to being God, not submitting to God.
So with these two competing claims: (a) Jews invented Christianity or (b) Jews subverted Christianity from within, we can ask which one the has the stronger support.
But I do look forward to hearing what you think about this.
I'm mainly gonna respond to the last part by throwing option (iii) out there.
In option (iii), there was a subset of the jewish elite, the rabbinical class, who understood that their god had promised they'd rule by subversion and debt slavery rather than by force. 2000 years ago, jews were already inflicting usury throughout the Roman empire, a practice attested to by numerous Romans who made very similar complaints about the jews of 2000 years ago. However, the Romans allowed non-jews to engage in usury, and extracted significant taxes and tributes from the jews, as well as expecting the jews to venerate the Roman empire alongside their god. The rabbinical class wanted a way to change that and place jews in the position of being the only race with the power of usury and end the practice of venerating Rome in their temples. To do this, they intentionally created a religion that was designed not for them to follow, but for others to follow.
Their religion had already given the power to subvert from within, something they had demonstrated multiple times in the history of repeated conquest of their people, and something they were demonstrating in Rome at the time already. Their religion wasn't weak, it just wasn't strong in the way the simpler minded members of their tribe wanted it to be, but the rabbinical class and merchant class recognized its strength even if the rest of the jews didn't. Your analogy about cars implies that christianity made Europe great - I'd disagree and say that Europe was already pretty great under Rome, and white people continued to make Europe great in spite of christianity, which was more like a saddle on our backs than a car we were driving.
Under christianity, non-jews were forbidden from lending money at interest - a practice that was also included in islam and communism. However, jews were still allowed to lend money at interest - a practice that also happened under islam while under communism jews controlled the economy to an extent that they didn't even require usury for economic exploitation. This allowed them to use usury as a tool while taking that tool away from everyone else - see deuteronomy 15:6 and 23:20, which explicitly command the jews to loan to non-jews at interest in order to control them while forbidding jews from taking loans at interest. For the jewish elite, this was the point of the religion, to give them a unique tool for control that was forbidden to all others. The hard part from there was convincing people to accept a religion that took away their power and handed jews exclusive control over finance.
To do that, they had to include spiritual allegories that spoke to the Romans and other peoples of the Roman empire. Thus the parallels between Julius Caesar and jesus christ the king of the jews. Thus the parallels with multiple mystery cults. For a portion of the jewish elite, the payoff didn't take that long - josephus was able to swindle the Flavians into giving him a paid position from which he was able to spread christianity. They even helped him spread it, having been tricked into thinking he would use the religion to pacify the jews.
The plan required two groups of jews. The bulk of the jewish population would remain jewish and reject the new false religion. A minority would adopt the new religion and spread it throughout the non-jewish world, acting as puppeteers to enable the rest of the jews to enslave the converts through usury in exchange for financial support from the jews who did not convert. In order to convince the non-jews of the sincerity of the jewish converts, they had to appear to be critics of the jews on the surface while working with them behind the scenes, which there are countless examples of throughout history (more recently you can see this with jews converting to "atheistic" communism, only to get funded by jewish bankers and impose laws against anti-semitism once they took power).
The point was always for christianity to be a puppet separate from judaism but still undeniably attached to it. Thus the idea that jews were subverting christianity is a reversal of the truth - Europeans occasionally took back control of the religion jews inflicted on them, temporarily using it to kick jews out of power, only for jewish converts to slip in and regain control once things calmed down a bit and invite their people back in to feed off the fat of the land.
Your explanations may seem simpler, but in that simplicity you also fail to explain why the exact same pattern was repeated two more times through islam and communism with basically the same results. If it was just christianity, your argument would be a lot more valid, but we see not one but three separate massive social control schemes whose origins are just as undeniably jewish as those of christianity. Just as the jews use the evangelicals to support all their wars, the mainline protestants to push globohomo, and the catholics to help them control the banks, we also see the leaders of wahhabi islam are all ethnically jewish and converted to islam just a few centuries ago. We see isis and hamas and al qaida and all these other islamic fundamentalist/terrorist groups who received training and funding from israel and who do israel's bidding, even while pretending to be anti-israel. We see ethnically jewish "atheists" running communist takeovers of both Russia and China, disguising their religion just like the wahhabi jews disguise their religion and pretend to be muslim.
Do you think that islam and communism were also legitimate movements that broke away from judaism and just happen to be tangentially related? Or were they both social control schemes created by jews to oppose the west? Or perhaps you can see communism as a jewish control scheme because its origins are more recent and thus less obscured by the fog of history, but it's harder to see the origins of islam and christianity, and thus easier to assume they spread on their own without jewish help. If you see christianity differently from islam and communism, what makes its origins different?
If we were just dealing with christianity I think your argument would be more compelling, but we're dealing with an established pattern of behavior by jews that we can see very clearly in communism. After looking at how jews pretended to be atheists in order to spread communism and take over multiple major nations with it, looking at christianity through that lens, it's much easier to see how the jews could have done the same thing 2000 years ago. Marx was dead by the time communism was implemented, but to a spiritualist who believes they are following their god and doing what is right for the future of their people, that's irrelevant. The jews who created christianity may have been dead by the time it fully conquered Rome, but if they too were spiritual and believed they were doing what was best for their people, that too is irrelevant.
In Paganism, we tend not to see ourselves as submitting to our Gods, but as being in a partnership with them that allows them to act through us. If jews see their god the same way, it makes sense that they would try to act out the will of their god, rather than submitting to god. But, if they see you as an inferior who their god promised they would rule over, it makes sense that they would create a religion that tells you that you must submit to their god, even as they stand next to him.
Do you think that islam and communism were also legitimate movements that broke away from judaism and just happen to be tangentially related?
So, I'm not well-studied on the history of Islam. If I had to say, I wager it resulted from a Judaizing tendency in a Judeo-Christian world, in which an arab version of Luther spawned a new "protestant" form of religion still claiming to have the "one, true" pedigree. There is an organic metaphor we could use to understand these types of developments. Movements happen, revolutions happen, people think they know better and that they shoud lead, etc. etc. More on this in a second.
As for Communism, I don't have to deny that it is a Jewish movement in so far as it was a political movement promulgated by Jews. I think it can be explained by Jewish history and religion, but I don't see it as numerically identical with the phenomenon of Judaism. Certainly, Jewish eschatology and Marxist materialist dialecticism are mingling here, which I also see as related, since Judaism has always been a kind of "immanentizing" religion, which being magically oriented, seeks to make God material (consider the Temple concept and the Shekinah, or the ark of the covenant). For Jews, God has a major political significance, whereas for Christianity, God and the salvific economy are something more transcendental - to be sure, this dualism in Christianity has resulted in developments within modernity, like the American project for example, that thought you could separate church and state. Clearly, that was a failed experiment, and we can probably point at their substance dualism as a contributing factor. My point is, for Judaism to become a political movement is easier to understand, given their materialism.
Returning to the point about Islam, I would also say that Protestantism is a the result of the same Judaizing tendency that explains Islam. Consider how Islam and Protestantism relate to their respective holy texts. Only the Catholics really separated their worship and their rules of faith from the text per se, relying on the Tradition as a whole rather than on just the book. The Protestant view of the Bible is far closer to the letterism and alaphabet-worship of the Jews with their gematria. The goes for the Koran. Much is made of it by Muslims in terms of validating their entire religious edifice.
But, if they see you as an inferior who their god promised they would rule over, it makes sense that they would create a religion that tells you that you must submit to their god, even as they stand next to him.
One problem I'm having here is that I'm not standing outside of the river, so to speak, analyzing these things as if from afar, or from a bird's eye perspective. Being in the river, I'm inclined to think that the Jews misunderstood God and his relation to man. God was something more like a political explanatory principle and some kind of eschatological guarantee. Sure, if they continued to believe this, then it would make sense why post-Christian Jews wanted to take over the world, yada yada.
But your view seems to entail that the major Western religious phenomena dominating the world today (specifically Christianity and Islam) are the products of a Jewish conspiracy. I think we need to reflect on what that means. It means Jews have succeeded in a 2000-yr project to ensare the world, in spite of all the historical contingencies of being razed by their political rivals and dispersed all over the globe. Who could do this? The powers that be have struggled to make a Covid narrative work for more than a handful of years, and they had the benefit of complex information systems, practically endless supplies of resources, and the cooperation of all of the leaders of the developed world. But Jews have succeeded in hoodwinking the entire planet using a multi-millennial plan hatched in antiquity?
You're positing something that strikes me as having almost supernatural significance. Someone might be inclined to think: "Man, if you're right, I should probably be worshipping whatever they worship, because. . .damn." And if you want to turn around and say, "Well, they are evil," then what? What is the good anti-thesis of their evil? Pagan polytheism that has mostly been defunct for the last millennium?
This really forces us to ask a philosophical question. Are we realists or nominalists when it comes to God and religion? Are you talking about these theological concepts, including our concept of God, as if they are mere useful mental fictions, instruments for engineering a culture ala the noble lie, or are you committed to the reality of God? If you are a realist about these things, then the story of man, including the preeminence of Jews in shaping this history, what with their conniving global takeover, has to be understood from within the light of our religious tradition. Christianity, taken as TRUE, can make a lot more sense of the Jew in history than pagan religion can. That's worth considering.
On the whole, I still want to say that your theory (possible and coherent as it is) is simultaneously too complicated and too simple. It is too complicated in the sense that the theory you're providing to explain the religious facts about the world today relies on a centuries-long conspiracy, as opposed to simpler explanations for the emergence of things like Islam, which I gave above. It is also soo simple in terms of reducing the causal story to one group, effectively making the last 2,000 years of human history into a story about Jews and their human sock puppets.
What I said seems like it might be paradoxical, but I don't think so. Your theory simplifies western religion down to the activities of a single group across huge swaths of time. That's too simple. At the same time, the story it requires you to tell about how the Jews did this is way too complicated. I'm willing to tolerate that the Jews play a long, patient game, and that ability has grown with time. For example, I'm willing to tolerate the proposition that revolutionary Jews in the late 19th and early 20th centuries had a broad plan for the west that covered most of the history of the 20th century. I'm less willing to accept that in the 1st century A.D., Jews were hatching a plan against Rome that required a continuous stream of intentional activity to go on unbroken for four or five centuries to literally engineer Christianity.
I know we aren't going to radically change each other's minds in the space of one conversation.
Whatever you want to say about the Jewish Question, I think that Christianity being TRUE makes it easier to explain this situation. I hope that's what I'm making clear. If Christianity is not true, then it is harder to explain this situation, as it still leaves the Jews as a super-competent (to the extent of being inhuman) race of world-dominators, and even more so, given that Christianity is just another thing they fabricated as part of their cosmically successful plot.
Amid all of this, you're wanting to tell me that the answer is going back to the pagan gods. I just don't think that makes sense of the facts. There's a reason the pagan gods are gone, and I don't think it's that they are lying in wait. Importantly, I'm operating from a realist position here, not a nominalist one.
I think my biggest issue with the first part of your response is the idea of communism having to be identical to judaism in order to be an intentionally jewish phenomenon. You notice how jews in the US control both the democrat and republican parties? There's even some symbolism hidden in our political speech - GOP could stand for both grand old party and golem of Prague, and the biggest movement on the left is the progressive or Prague-ressive movement. The jews do not merely create movements that are designed to agree with them on things. They create social control schemes that are designed to be pitted against each other in direct competition so we're too busy fighting each other to look upward at the jews controlling us. Communism can be 100% ideologically opposed to banker capitalism, and yet both banker capitalism and communism can be jewish creations used to control us. The same jews who control the wahhabi and other muslim misogynists and homophobes can also give us feminism and gay rights in the west. When christianity started running low on Pagans to fight, islam was created. When islam fell behind enough that they could no longer invade Europe and we started running out of natives to colonize, communism was created.
For an example of this in media, see the Star Wars prequel trilogy, where a tiny religious cult whose symbolism is all jewish (hebrew writing on Vader's chestplate, the imperial six pointed sun/star, the separatist six triangles in a hex shape) creates a political/economic resistance movement to the main governmental body despite that body being under the control of their cult. The same little cult controls both sides of the war, but they don't really support either side - rather, they support the conflict itself, and they use both sides to create and expand the conflict.
In regards to protestantism, have you read Luther's writings on the jews? I haven't read them directly but have read some summaries of how his views changed over time. In his early years, he was very fond of the jews, who encouraged him to stand up to the corruption in the church and translate the bible into German. However, over time, he realized that the jews had used him and lied to him, that they didn't care about corruption in the church so much as dividing Europe against itself. He also went into detail about how the christian world had protected the jews, allowing jews to live among them while discouraging church leaders from trying to convert jews to christianity, and giving them power over the banking industry by allowing usury by jews but not by christians.
Why would the jews continue to undermine the church if the church allowed them to maintain their separate status while giving them special privileges? From a rational standpoint that rejects my thesis, it's hard to explain - christianity is their tool and it was doing its job, so why would the jews try so hard to undermine it? But when you understand the golem allegory, and you understand the true nature of jewish control schemes, it makes far more sense. The jews can only maintain their hold over their golems as long as their golems have some other enemy to turn their attention to. Once it's just the golem and the jew, the golem realizes the jew is parasitically feeding on the golem, and thus the golem starts trying to overthrow the jews. Thus, the jew needs to either constantly seek out new outside enemies for their golem to fight, or, if no more can be found, they must create new golems to pit against their old golems. This has led to the continuous proliferation of new jewish control schemes, from islam and protestantism and communism to feminism and ayn rand and neoconservatism and satanism and new age.
If you haven't yet watched the video I linked, then I won't bother to comment too much more on your objections to the jews conspiring to create christianity. They have already pulled off far bigger and more successful psyops - see 9/11, the holohoax, etc. The fact that not every hoax is equally successful (covid accomplished its purpose, though) doesn't negate the fact that they have succeeded at numerous psyops on a massive scale, many of which were planned out at least decades in advance. However, nothing about the creation of christianity required them to be looking 2000 years into the future - perhaps 200 years, but not 2000. Once the conspiracy succeeded in establishing and spreading a religious tool, they simply had to maintain that tool. Whatever difficulties there were in maintaining control over christianity, they were not fundamentally different from the difficulties of maintaining control over two opposing political parties in the US, two opposing political ideologies of western capitalism and eastern communism, lying about the slave trade, manupulating us into two world wars, lying about the holocaust, ripping us off through the Fed, etc. And like today, they sometimes failed and got driven out of countries they'd fed on too heavily, only to worm their way back into power decades later with the help of hidden subversives who faked religious conversion to maintain their place in society (see Marx' dad for a recent example).
I'm definitely arguing that there is real religious/spiritual significance to what the jews have done, but also that jews do not have a monopoly on the power they wield. As you yourself pointed out, kabbala was largely pioneered by Greco-Roman thinkers. Freemasonry takes pieces of multiple different spiritual traditions but merges them into a fundamentally jew-centric tool. The various spiritual systems that high level jewish mystics use are tailored to jews but not exclusive to jews.
Now look at the Thule and Vril societies in Germany which helped spawn the NSDAP. They were mystical secret societies practicing meditation, divination, astral projection, etc. See how Himmler and the SS considered themselves mystic knights and were very sympathetic towards Paganism. See Julius Evola and his associates putting magic into practice to support the growth of fascism. This is not a mere fluke or happenstance, it was a fundamentally necessary step in putting up real opposition to the jews. They needed a core group of mystics who rejected abrahamic spiritual tradition and explored spirituality outside the book in order to support a broader resistance against the jews. They put up the greatest act of resistance against jewish rule in centuries, all on the shoulders of a few dozen pro-European mystic spiritualists. What could we do with a few hundred?
When you've watched the video I linked, you'll also have a pretty good rebuttal to the idea that it's too complicated and difficult for one group to have coordinated so well across vast spans of time.
(Gaul), a land that was ostensibly on friendly terms with Rome.
The Gauls had a long history of threatening Rome by the time Caesar began his invasion, and Caesar initially marched into Gaul to the aid of Roman allies fighting off Germanic invasions. His mission morphed into the subjugation of Gaul once he realized it was possible and profitable, and one of the results of this was a defensive border against Germania along the Rhine, that would go on to endure for centuries, thereby greatly strengthening Roman Civilization.
the brutal killing of his former son in law... Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus.
Caesar was not responsible for the killing of Pompey, which was carried out by Lucius Septimius, a man who once served under Pompey. This assassination was ordered by the government of Ptolemy XIII of Egypt, a move which they hoped would endear them to Caesar. The killing of Pompey was one of the main reasons that Caesar opposed the Ptolemy XIII government and instead backed Cleopatra's claim to the throne. Whether staged for political gain or a display of true emotion, Caesar publicly grieved over the death of his old friend.
(Caesar) was a Judophile who committed depredations on behalf of Jew slave traders,
Is there any proof? Caesar was an opportunist who sought allies wherever he could find them, but he cared first about the crown he desired for himself, and perhaps a distant second the Roman people.
the destruction of the Roman Republic
The Roman Republic at the time of Caesar needed to be destroyed. It was a corrupt oligarchy that suppressed the Roman people. Caesar crafted legislation designed to help the Roman populace, and though this was a political move designed to weaken his enemies (i.e., the elite), it was a great deal more for the Roman people than the oligarchic Republic ever did.
all of Caesar's most notable wars and battles were against Roman armies.
Roman armies which, knowingly or unknowingly, supported an oligarchic elite class that suppressed the Roman people.
after Caesar became Roman Dictator and had Pompey and his sons who had survived the battle hunted down and killed,
Caesar did not engage in proscriptions, he pardoned his former enemies from the Civil War, many of which would go on to participate in his assassination. It was the Second Triumvirate which proscribed Caesar's and their own enemies, and after what happened to Caesar for daring to show clemency, one can hardly blame them.
I. A group gains power over the populace through force or deception, becoming elite.
II. Said group extorts the population under them, widening the gap in power between themselves and the populace until they achieve an oligarchy.
III. Elites do everything in their power to maintain the system that keeps them in power, regardless of the suffering of the populace; if their populace dies, they simply replace the populace.
IV. A movement against the elites forms, headed by a group or a great man of the populace.
V. The elites react to the movement, beginning with ridiculing it and culminating in an open declaration of war on the movement.
At this point in the tale, there are three paths that history can take:
1. The elites crush the movement, and it is remembered as evil in the history they write.
2. The movement deposes the elites, then goes on the perpetuate the same kind of tyranny right after or generations later.
3. The movement deposes the elites, and finally brings prosperity to the populace.
The 1st and 2nd paths are the most common paths that history takes, and there are only glimmers of the 3rd path that occur in rare moments in time.
Was he really anti-immigration or just controlled opposition like Trump? Was he really going to deport the slaves like Lincoln and that's why both were killed? Hard to say at this point.
I really couldn't tell you whether or not he was controlled opposition. Surely there were several powerful parties that had a lot to gain from his assassination and a lot to lose if his reign lasted any longer.
[ + ] TankTinker
[ - ] TankTinker 3 points 11 monthsMay 27, 2024 22:57:51 ago (+3/-0)*
Caesar in Britain.
Julius Caesar, The African War.
Caesar's North African Campaign.
Caesar Destroys the Allies of Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus.
My understanding is Caesar waged war on Rome .. not withstanding the Egyptian Campaign which had its ups and downs anyway, the British Campaign which was mostly for show, and the Conquest of Gaul [France] a land that was ostensibly on friendly terms with Rome.
His campaign in Spain which had similarly been a Roman governed province since the time of Scipio, no less than his 49 BC Crossing the Rubicon, the destruction of Pompey and his army then the wicked campaign against the Roman garrison in Libya .. all of Caesar's most notable wars and battles were against Roman armies.
Rome was so lousy with Kikes in 179 BC that the urban praetor Cn. Cornelius Scipio Hispalus tried to expel them, though we may be sure that for every one he threw out of the front door two crawled in over the back fence. After his year of office their money and intrigues obtained effective revocation of his decree, as everyone who reads Cicero knows the predatory aliens had obtained such economic power in the Republic..
They could cause financial panics by cornering gold and supposedly exporting it to Jerusalem under the pretext their religion required it. When Caesar was assassinated in 44 BC the Jewish swarm howled and rioted, not because they had any liking for Caesar but because they always profit from political upheavals, which give them opportunities to plunder all factions.#
Caesar was always in pressing need of money to finance the political machine he maintained in Rome while he was campaigning in Germany, his decrees are amazingly pro Jewish to a point that would be unimaginable today.
"The Jews shall possess Jerusalem and may encompass that city with walls, Hyrcanus the son of Alexander the high priest and ethnarch of the Jews, rule it in the manner he himself pleases, and the Jews be allowed to deduct out of their tribute a corus," the next decree establishes that the Jews of the Empire pay a tribute to the city of Jerusalem.
This decree provides for an annual tribute to Hyrcanus and his sons, it ordains that the original ordinances in regard to the high priests of the Jews shall remain in force, and that Hyrcanus and the Jews retain those places and countries which belonged to the kings of Syria and Phoenicia."
It is known that Caesar was a friend of the Jews the details are amazing .. Caesar the ruler of the World largest Empire did care a lot about the Jews and granted not only the City of Jerusalem to the Jews, but also the countries of Syria and Phoenicia (Lebanon) .. Jewish subjects paid less taxes than others and part of it was paid to the Jerusalem Government.#
Despite his military prowess Caesar was a plunderer and a butcher, who relied on Khazar horse breeders to provide remounts for his cavalry units .. during the Conquest of Gaul Caesar laid siege to a city located near Grenoble in present day France, that was filled with refugees who had fled the depredations his legions wrought in the countryside.
Where after the City's surrender he kept who he wanted for himself, then sold the remainder of the entire population to a Jewish slave trader for fifteen million sesterces the Roman unit of currency .. he was an aficionado of gladiatorial combat and kept a stable of gladiators.
Many historians make much of Caesar "pardoning" Cicero in the wake of the defeat of his former son in law the great Roman General and Statesman Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus, who had commanded Republican forces at the Battle of Pharsalus in Greece, August 9, 48 BC.
Thus in January 49 BC Caesar had brought his Gallic legions into Italy across the Rubicon a tract of swampy channelled land that defined the country's north east boundary, in defiance of a Roman law that forbade regular troops from exercising on the mainland which precipitated civil war. Caesar Crosses the Rubicon.
Where after Caesar became Roman Dictator and had Pompey and his sons who had survived the battle hunted down and killed, the remainder of Pompey's Republican forces who survived were summarily court martialed and executed on the dock at Brindisium on their return to Italy, on the capital charge of bearing arms against Caesar.
Cicero who had been entrusted with the role of leading negotiations with Caesar by the Senate had joined Pompey in Greece, however he had declined to take the field on the day of battle and was spared because he had not in fact "borne arms." A fact which earned him the unbridled scorn of Pompey's son Sextus, who said he should have agreed to Caesar's terms from the outset to avert civil war.
Julius Caesar was assassinated March 15, 44 BC there were twenty three stab wounds on his body, he was attacked by fellow Roman Senators at the Theater of Pompey in Rome, before the statue of the theater's founder. The Assassination of Julius Caesar.
After Caesar's murder in 44 BC plotted by his arch nemesis Marcus Tullius Cicero who he had twice pardoned on capital charges, who was in the thrall of his alleged homosexual paramour one Atticus a wealthy publisher and industrialist, who was despite his Greek name a Jew!
Marc Antony as Caesar's Master of Horse and thus Second in Command of his legions, levied brutal retaliation against C's killers including Cicero, where after another round of conquest and civil war he committed suicide .. Jews were in command.
The other time Cicero got off the hook was in 45 BC after he was called before Caesar to explain his relationship with one King Deiotarus, who had on the testimony of a slave plotted to murder Caesar, if Caesar had rejected Cicero's defense he and the King would have been put to the sword. Cicero's Speech on Behalf of Deiotarus, King of Galatia pdf. Edit.
[ + ] NaturalSelectionistWorker
[ - ] NaturalSelectionistWorker 3 points 11 monthsMay 28, 2024 01:03:35 ago (+4/-1)
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO 3 points 11 monthsMay 28, 2024 01:49:41 ago (+3/-0)*
EDIT: I just wanted to add a note on my thoughts about Atwill's theory. Now, I'm not a historian by any means. I approach things from the philosphical/theological standpoint mainly. My biggest worry about his theory is that it requires a LOT of assumptions about the history of the development of Christianity that don't seem well-evidenced. One such assumption has to do with the velocity of the growth of the Jesus movement. The common (mistaken) view is that Christianity took right off in the first century A.D. The truth is that it didn't. Consider that Pliny the Younger seemed to have no knowledge of Christianity in the late 1st century. If we superimpose Atwill's theory onto a more historically accurate picture for the growth of Christianity, the result is a conspiracy four centuries in the making. This leads to another assumption we should be hesitant to accept, i.e., the hyper-competence of the conspirators, and not just the originators, but the progenitors decade after decade. It's a level of competence that strains credibility.
If true, it is by far the most extensive and successful propaganda campaign in the history of the world. If you consider the time period in question, the tools available, the difficulty of networking and disseminating information, and the sheer costs of making manuscripts, it looks like if there had been a conspiracy, it would have possibly been successful among a very educated elite, not the peasant, agricultural classes that actually constituted the movement. It's pretty clear that the elites had their own mystery schools and secret societies going at this time, and it isn't until Constantine that Rome really picks Christianity up (which is not to say that Constantine is responsible for Christianity), and the reasons he would have for doing this support the claim that it was a lower-class phenomenon, not something emanating from the upper echelons of society. Creating authentic grass-roots movements is profoundly hard to do; had they wanted to undermine Rome by promoting broad acceptance of the Jewish messiah, we probably could have expected some sprawling, top-down measure to have appeared in history long before Constantine.
Given the relationship between Christianity and Judaism from the late 1st century through today, I think there is a much simpler explanation. I don't think Alexandrian Jews or their patsies in Rome invented Christianity. Christians were much too hostile toward the Jews by the turn of the 2nd century for this to have been an effective means of orchestrating the downfall of Rome in such a way as to increase the position of Jewry.
Not only that, but we would also have to assume one of the best-kept secrets in world history. I have no trust at all that, had a Jewish conspiracy to launch Christianity been successful, they would have avoided leaving a historical trace. I'm thinking of Hoffman's character in Wag the Dog, who wants nothing more than to reveal the success of their campaign to everyone. The depth of Jewish ethnic resentment is too great for me to think no such trace exists, if something this cunning had been plotted and actually worked.
[ + ] NaturalSelectionistWorker
[ - ] NaturalSelectionistWorker 1 point 11 monthsMay 28, 2024 04:33:14 ago (+2/-1)
It's evidence of 9/11 having been planned a decade and a half ahead of time, advertised to the general public in a way that's hidden if you don't know what to look for but clear as day if you do, and then referenced again leaving a clear trail of clues that tells you how to notice all the symbolism. It does this alongside esoteric/religious symbolism and predicts Trump's rise to power starting in 2015, the year he declared his candidacy.
There are many other examples of major world events having been predicted ahead of time, but this is one of the clearest and most undeniable. It references all the key points of 9/11 in a story about predicting when a tower will be struck and warning about a future islamic terror attack alongside multiple numerical references to 9/11. Much of the same symbolism (including the esoteric/religious symbolism) is also present in Lord of the Rings which is about two towers and a war between the free men of the west and dark hordes of the east and written 50 years before 9/11, alongside esoteric symbolism about the god of time Saturn/Cronos.
The more I see, the more I realize that major world events have been scripted out and prophetically placed before us decades in advance. You find it unbelievable that a religious conspiracy on the magnitude of christianity and islam being created to control and mislead the masses, but I notice the same tribe who was involved in creating both those religions also created communism and gave us ayn rand to lead people into abandoning spirituality.
Crazy how over 80% of the world follows a belief system created by the same tribe of people (3 billion christians, 2 billion muslims, 1.5 billion communists, plus however many libertarians, progressives, etc. aren't already included in there). Is such a feat really possible without a conspiracy? Are they just such good spinners of stories that they can't help but convert people to following their allegories and archetypes over our own?
I think a spiritual conspiracy is more likely to be true, considering the evidence that the kabbalistic elites tell us what they're going to do to us decades in advance alongside allegories of Saturn, the golem, and the chosen one, the evidence of biblical parallels between Jesus Christ and Julius Caesar (JC & JC, see John Connor in Terminator and JC Denton in Deus Ex, both of which had golem and chosen one narratives), and the fact that one particular tribe that's obsessed with religion and occultism has taken over the minds of the vast majority of humanity. That last one is one of those things you know but don't realize you know and understand the full gravity of until it fucking hits you. Like, everyone knows that the two biggest religions on earth came from judaism and converted a majority of the world's population to worshiping jews, but they still have the chutzpah to tell you they're innocent victims and their own creations persecute them (see the golem narrative).
I wonder what the world would be like if billions of people worshiped white Gods instead of the jewish god.
"I have come to bring him back with me
The whole world mourns his death
Please set Balder free
Give him back his breath"
"If it's true, what you say to me
That the whole world mourns his death
If the whole world will weep
I will give him back his breath"
One day when the whole world knows the truth and weeps for the fall of the white race, our spiritual rebirth will begin, and with it our people will rise again.
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO 0 points 11 monthsMay 28, 2024 11:24:48 ago (+0/-0)*
That said, I'm not a skeptic concerning possibilities. For example, while I don't think flat-earth theories are good, I don't think the core proposition is implausible. Neither do I think predictive programming is implausible, and I've seen instances where I believe it is genuinely taking place (a caveat: this discussion needs a lot more depth than I'm going to treat it with here). For me, it's about the theory and the evidence. So, (i) tell me how you think about evidence (what counts as evidence, how does evidence work in your theory of knowledge, what sorts of inferences are valid to make), then (ii) tell me what proposal you want me to believe, and finally (iii) tell me what your evidence is. Most of the time, I find arguments about predictive programming to simply be far too loose. Another hurdle is that, often, the people who create this sort of content have various incentives (including their own interests/desires) to continue making that sort of content, so they become hammers seeking nails. I think you will agree that, if a person really wants to, symbolic undercurrents can be conjured from just about any narrative, especially if the narrative substrate involves a good story. This could have something to do with the properties shared by all good stories. Enough rambling about that. . .I won't say anything else about the linked video until I've watched it.
I don't disagree, but I do think the extent to which there is an intelligible link between the "plan" and the reality is heavily conditioned by the historical context, i.e., the predominant information technologies of the time, the predominant social order, the political and economic situation of the conspirators, etc. Consider this claim: "9/11 was planned ahead of time." Probably, nobody would disagree with you if you said that. The questions are really the Five W's (plus an H): who? what? when? where? why? how? The uniqueness of the claim here is not that a conspiracy has taken place, in so far as any secretive planning could technically be called a conspiracy, but rather that the answer to the Five W's in the case of things like 9/11 make it meaningfully different as a conspiracy than, say, the plan to rob a bank. In the case of 9/11, for example, we might think a major difference is that the conspirators have a more godlike relationship to the victims of the conspiracy, manipulating things in a different way, using different powers, and with a much bigger scope in mind. But you see, if you let that go too far, then you really are headed toward (even if you aren't there yet) supernatural territory.
I just don't want us to beg the question. You say "create", but is that the appropriate term to use? Does a person who uses some picture, call it Image A, "create a meme" if some others create pictures a lot like Image A? Or if A takes off and starts going viral? I'm not convinced that Jews "created" Christianity or Islam. That doesn't mean Judaism per se didn't play a causal role in the development of those offshoots, but mimickry and relations of similarity and borrowing aren't the same as conscious choices to invent these things. Keep in mind, this is also predicated on my beliefs about genuine creativity, which I think is extremely rare - that means a lot of so-called creativity really just is borrowing, re-working, copying motifs, etc.
Yes, it is crazy. That's our shared intuition. We just have to be careful about how we explain it. For analogy, pretend you have two teams in a gymnasium over many years. Team 1 doesn't cheat, on average. Team 2 almost always cheats, on average. Now, suppose that cheating results in some kind of benefit over time, in the environment of the gym, just in case Team 1 doesn't find ways to adapt their play against Team 2's cheating.
Expand this scenario so that there are 10 or 20 teams. Still, let only one team be committed cheaters. You might not be surprised to find, over time, that the cheating strategies turn up formally in the strategies of other teams, so that you will also note some kind of convergence in strategic patterns across time. Why does Islam emerge in a formerly Jewish milieu? Well, no matter what we say about that, we have to acknowledge that Islam must at least in part define itself against Judaism, but any time we try to define ourselves against something, that thing is still defining us. When you compete against the Jew, you become more Jewish. So, the extent to which strategic patterns, say, in politics or religion around the globe, have begun to mirror features of Judaism could very well be a function of Jewish success, together with our own (the non-Jewish population) failure to morally impugn these strategies. Instead, the White world saw the wealth of usury and over time sold their souls for a ticket to ride that train.
Hardly. In fact, I think most if not all of the "Jewish lore" (e.g., the Old Testament) involves stories taken from neighboring, more well-established civilizations, esp. the Greco-Roman tradition. One observation I have made is that the Jews seem to have a knack for marketing ideas in ways that have broader mass appeal. So often in history, the Jew steals an invention from a non-Jew and manages to make himself known as the inventor, and this is because the Jew controls public perception in a more cunning way. Take for example the notion that Jews are the creative force in entertainment. Not even close. They just find structural ways to exploit the creative work of others so that their (the Jews) names are the ones credited.
Here is an example of where I might suggest you have the causal story wrong. The way you are viewing things tends to misconstrue where the creativity really lies. It's not that the Jews are obsessed with the occult, it's that everyone is. Again, the origin of the very stories that act as the medium for Jewish occultism is not in Judaism, but in Mesopotamia, and Babylon, and Egypt, and Rome. The Jews simply borrow and steal, for they lack an inherent identity, so they have always had the habit, through their entire recorded history, of understanding themselves through (via) the more powerful people groups who subjugated them. This leaves the Jew in a really tense, dissonant relationship with himself and his neighbor, for at one and the same time, the Jew depends upon that neighbor while harboring a burning hatred of him.
Kabbalah, for instance, is just repackaged Neoplatonism. That's all it is, perhaps with stronger emphasis on magic, on theurgical manipulation of the divine power, all blended together in a Gnostic soup where God is conceived to have "fucked up" and needs to be corrected.
Let me float something to you quickly. Chew on it. You might decide to spit it out. Consider the general form of the gospel narrative. God incarnates. God is captured. God is killed. God goes to hell. God resurrects clothed in radiance and perfection to consummate the finished work of redemption in the world.
Now, I would suggest that you could map this (metaphorically of course) onto the history of religion itself (or rather to our conception of God's immanence). Let the Greco-Roman tradition be the incarnate "God". Suppose it is captured, so to speak, by the Jew. In the hands of Jews, God dies. God becomes the devil, in one sense. Just to be resurrected in Christianity. This mirrors Jesus's rebuke of the Pharisees. In a manner of speaking, they had killed God, and Jesus had come to inaugurate a new covenant, no less than the restablishment of a connection between the people and the living God. So here we find a parallel between the figure of Jesus and man's very relationship to the divine. In the hands of the Jews, that relationship is destroyed, but from the death (rising up like the Phoenix from the ashes) follows the resurrection of something universal, which just is Christianity's claim. The key for us is to realize how our conception of and relationship with God died in its Jewish inheritance, but from this trial was reborn the Mystery and the Savior that had been conceived, not by the Jews, but by others. If you wanted to view that in terms of divine providence, it could be that the Jewish tendency for popularizing and drawing-attention-to was something used instrumentally by God to "make the whole world look at him", not just this or that nation (which can only turn toward their local deity), but the whole world.
I'm at the point where we can detach Christinaity from Judaism, and I think this must be done. I think it can be done, and the categorical imperative to do this separating is already implicit in a proper understanding of Christ. Jesus is not a Jewish God, for after the incarnation and resurrection, to be a Jew can only mean the rejection of Christ. It, therefore, does not make sense to conceive of Jesus as a Jewish God. To kneel before the Lord Christ is to necessarily discard being a Jew. We really just need to express this soul of Christianity to the White world and dispel all of the shenanigans that have caused Western Christians to think they must be beholden to Isreal. All of this is the result of misunderstanding and obfuscation introduced by the revolutionary Jew through the centuries.
For me, it isn't as simple as inventing God or even independently deciding what you're going to worship. Don't get me wrong, there is a major element of choice (faith), but it isn't something you can do authentically on your own. God is to be encountered. I don't believe that any people pick their gods as if selecting them from a menagerie, and if that is the case for a given society, then God is dead for that society, who selects fashionable gods as though they were instruments to be pulled from a line-up.
[ + ] NaturalSelectionistWorker
[ - ] NaturalSelectionistWorker 1 point 11 monthsMay 28, 2024 13:44:48 ago (+1/-0)
In response to your concerns about the validity of various predictions, that first video on BttF is one of the clearest examples of predictive programming (though that term doesn't fully capture the essence of what's going on). But I'll use the Simpsons as an example since most people are familiar with those predictions by now. The Simpsons' 9/11 prediction is shit - it's a flyer with the number 9, the twin towers making an 11, and I think a plane or something similar on it. By itself, that prediction looks like garbage. But then you see the same show predicting Trump becoming President with far more clarity. Not only did they predict his campaign, but the Trump campaign went out of their way to reproduce shots from the show by doing a campaign event at a mall where they took photos of Trump and his staff in the same poses from the show. Now look at their predictions of things like the Queen's funeral or the Balenciaga show, where they predicted what people would wear and where they would sit and then people went out of their way to act that out in the real world. Predicting that the queen would die is no impressive feat, but predicting what people would wear to her funeral and where they would be sitting in the photos released to the press? Far more impressive.
Can that be explained by mundane means? Sure, there could be a conspiracy to reproduce Simpsons episodes in real life, and lots of rich and powerful people are in on it for the joke, coordinating outfits and events and photo ops and such to pull it off. But when the people doing this are kabbalists and occultists, I won't discount the possibility of something supernatural (or something natural that science can't yet explain fully, like orgone/vril/chi) being part of the process.
I disagree somewhat on the idea that you can pull any symbolic narrative from anything. Many symbolic narratives overlap because they were created that way for a reason. The golem narrative is a good example, and one that comes directly from jewish folklore. It's not just that the allegory shows up everywhere allegorically, it's that many of those allegories reference the golem directly to make sure you can tell it's a golem narrative. After being clued in to the golem narrative in Star Wars (which is loaded with symbolism pointing to the sith being jews) and Lord of the Rings (where Gollum/Smeagol gets his names from the word golem), I noticed that Terminator 2 ends in the same way as SW and LotR with the golem figure throwing his creator (the shapeshifter who was the last remnant of Skynet) into the pit and descending in to die with him. I ended up watching the Sarah Connor Chronicles after that, and in one episode Sarah literally monologues about the golem for like 5+ minutes - just to make sure you didn't miss the fact that the whole franchise is a golem allegory. In Bioshock, where you play a man with artificial memories (artificial man/golem) and overthrow your creators (your father and the man who gave you the memories), one of the jewish characters refers to the big daddies as golems and talks about the golem myth a bit. This isn't just a few mythic elements propagating naturally, where you would expect people to lift tropes from other works - if that was all it was, you wouldn't see so many of those works going out of their way to tell you that yes this is indeed a golem allegory and yes it is explicitly about jewish power and jewish control schemes. The difference between "oh it's just a narrative pattern that anyone can borrow and turn into their own thing" and "we're specifically repeating to you over and over again that this particular narrative pattern means this specific thing" is pretty big.
While jewish kabbala did take pieces of Greco-Roman mysticism, I think calling it repackaged neoplatonism is an incredible oversimplification. But I'm not an expert on kabbala as I've spent a lot more time researching our own people's spirituality rather than theirs, so I won't get too into it.
The metaphor of divine death and rebirth is admittedly not tied strictly to christianity - there are older myths like Tammuz that follow a similar narrative, Balder who I referenced in my last post does as well from thousands of miles away. But the jesus version of that myth is very specifically jewish. The christian version of myth involves a man born in judea to the tribe of judah whose followers were all hebrews and worshiped from the torah. Claiming that the religion separated itself from judaism upon its birth is like saying that you're not your mom and dad, you're your own person - but it doesn't negate that you came from your mom and dad, and that you're still tied to them in many ways. Even if the jews didn't come up with the narrative about death and rebirth entirely on their own (neither did anyone else unless you're going back at least 5000+ years), they still made the christian version of that myth their own and left an undeniably jewish imprint on the story.
Because of this, you have to consider christianity within the context of its jewish creators. In the torah, abraham is given the blessing that his descendants will rule many nations. His grandchildren jacob and esau then compete to inherit his blessing, with esau representing the warrior who would conquer many nations and jacob representing the trickster who would manipulate many nations - jacob wins. At the end of genesis, joseph becomes the de facto ruler of Egypt, becoming the Pharaoh's top advisor (similar to Sidney Rittenberg being Mao's top advisor and ruling China by proxy), allowing him to invite his entire tribe in to "feed off the fat of the land". After the Egyptians rebel and the hebrews are driven out, moses repeats the blessing that the hebrews will one day rule many nations, and in that verse (deuter 15:6) it is much more clear that this means not just that there will be many nations descended from abraham, but that the hebrews will rule non-hebrew nations. That same verse says that they will loan to many nations to put them in debt (usury) but never accept such loans from other nations.
Thus, the narrative of the torah is that the hebrews descended from abraham will take over many nations through trickery and usury rather than by force. Once you understand that their own mythical allegory which drives their people's behavior is based on the idea that they will rule other nations by proxy through trickery and debt slavery. The entire jewish behavior pattern was codified in their own holy book through allegory as much as direct commandment.
But the jews then spent 1000 years failing to figure this out, trying to conquer by force only to be conquered and subjugated themselves. Each time they would use trickery to subvert their conquerors, collapsing empires from within that they could not conquer from without. They asked why their chosen race continued to be conquered by empire after empire if they were destined to rule, and they were told that one day a messiah would come to fulfill the prophecy that they would rule many nations. When that messiah came (whether it was jesus or whether the jesus story was the result of that messiah's work), they once again took over the empire that had conquered them and destroyed their temple - but this time, they did not merely collapse the empire from within. This time they permanently changed the spiritual landscape of Europe, spreading a religion that gave their own people a special place as the chosen people of the one true god through whom the messiah was born, a religion that taught people to worship the king of the jews. The fact that they themselves rejected their own messiah in no way negates this - they are, after all, tricksters, and thus they would know that the religion they were spreading to the masses contained falsehoods to fool the masses into worshiping them, falsehoods that they themselves did not need to believe even as they converted others into believing them.
In response to your last bit on deciding who and what to worship, you are taking the view (pushed by christianity and islam more so than by judaism itself) that there is one singular true god who created us all and who is separate from us. Consider the possibility that there is a divine spark in all of us, that divinity is not a singular outside force that sits above us looking down on our universe, but that it is a force within our universe that is present in all things, including you. In this model of reality, you are not a subject of a separate divine entity, but a small piece of the divine interacting with many other small pieces of the divine, but nonetheless with divine power within you. For most people, that divine/spiritual energy lies dormant in their subconscious, and they are largely unaware of it, but it's still there and can still act upon the world. For example, the placebo effect works simply by believing that something will work - strong enough belief can manifest itself into a change in your condition, provided your belief is strong enough to overcome the difficulty involved in making that change. By imposing beliefs onto people, having them act things out through ritual, etc. you can affect the way people's spiritual energy interacts with the world around them. Mystics and occultists who spend a lot of time and effort learning to harness their own spiritual energy can manifest it in more significant ways, and by creating mystic media that influences the minds of others, they can amplify the effects and propagate them through the masses.
In that model of reality, five billion people worshiping a jewish god will manifest jewish rule through trickery because it is what they believe and pour their spiritual energy into. In that model, neither the jewish god nor our own Gods are separate from us, but rather an effect we produce that is powerful enough to change the world around us and shape the flow of events. Far from being dead, this means the Gods live through us, rather than living separately outside our universe looking down at us lesser beings with contempt as the jews would have you believe.
But thanks again for an interesting discussion!
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO 0 points 11 monthsMay 30, 2024 12:02:47 ago (+0/-0)*
I just read your response.
I have a somewhat robust knowledge of Kabbalah. I was obsessed with studying it for quite a long time, but there are limits to what you can learn without (i) knowing Hebrew and (ii) being grafted into a particular teaching tradition. Since the twentieth century, there has been a narrative promulgated, mostly as a result of Isaac Luria's teachings, that Kabbalah was opened up to the general public due to the immanence of the time of the messiah. Is there some truth in this? Perhaps. Yet, it is misleading. Luria's system is mostly an eschatological metaphysics, but some of its adherents say things that allow you to glean important points about the mystical Jewish mentality. That said, most of this publicization of Kabbalah has amounted to an opportunistic commercialization of something that obfuscates Kabbalah rather than democratizes it. Once I realized that the reason for the centuries of secrecy was that Kabbalah was lifting most of its principles from neoplatonism and using it to advance a deeper magical tradition, I began to lose interest. I'd rather get it from the horse's mouth, and at the end of the day, practical Kabbalah is just that: practical. The concepts and images that are used are less important than the underlying metaphysical universality - something like what it is to conceive of the process by which God's energies disseminate into creation and how these can be aligned with and/or exploited/utilized - of God's relation to the world; it has a lot more to do with ritual, belief, and discipline.
Anyway, I won't say much about the predictive programming stuff here and now. I think the example you gave of the golem is useful, and I don't deny that it is allegorically extremely significant. As I said in my previous comment, for me it has more to do with the particular claim made and the evidence adduced to support it. Like, if someone is making a specific claim about this golem theme, and they show me the right kind of evidence, I'm open to hearing what they have to say. Too often, the sorts of people who spend a signficant amount of time producing occult content aren't very systematic in how they analyze things or set up their cases, e.g., for establishing that such and such is an intentional bit of programming. Probably, some of that has to do with the presence of bad actors in these spaces, like controlled oppo, or at the very least idiots who are welcomed and permitted to flourish in their activities of muddying the water.
At the end of the day, no matter what tradition we're talking about, there is a rubric of the same elements for analyzing them. Each tradition that is long-lived is going to involve a history of various tradents doing exegesis of texts in their own way. It's less about objective truth about more about being part of the tradition per se. Like, if you aren't an orthodox Jew, it can be asked what real utility there is in your pursuing Kabbalah. I'm in agreement with you that a tradition needs to be "yours" to bear fruit, and part of what makes it yours is its exclusivity to your race, to your people group. What Kabbalah is doing for Jews is possible for a different tradition to achieve for a different race. That said, the way this is going to align or disalign you with the divinity will depend on some of those criteria for analysis I was talking about at the start of this paragraph. Consider that Christian eschatology, as an example, is very different from the eschatology of the Kabbalists. Now ask yourself: do you believe that God was broken by creation and requires fixing, or was everything related to God's act of creating a logical necessity and was it good? You get two entirely different axiologies as a consequence of how you come down on that question.
At this point I want to ask you a question. I read your commentary on the Jewish relationship to Christianity. It's interesting, and you make a rational case, to be sure. One difficulty is that these types of theories are often very rationalistic, at the expense of having much in the way of empirical evidence. When that's the case, you wind up with competing theories that might both look like they explain the evidence equally well, or at least on a par with one another, such that it becomes prohibitively hard to tell the other guy, "No, you really aren't justified in saying that." How the fuck do I know, right?
I'm curious about adoption, given that we both seem to agree about race/nationality being an important aspect of the utility of a faith system. But let me say just a couple of things before I ask that question.
I don't think this is true. I think Jews wanted to exert power over other races in the same exact way they experienced the latter's power exerted over them. They never could, but this is the reason for seeing more powerful groups as a principle of evil. I think that the deep desire of Jews was to be more like those other races and to build the sorts of empires that they did, but they were only looking at outcomes, at present states of things, rather than gaining an adequate understanding of nature so as to learn why those other powers were able to ascend according to their own philosophies of nature. The turn to financial manipulation and control as a means to power is not so much a per se element of their theology as it was an ad hoc way of achieving the outcome they believed God had destined them for, i.e., a turning of the tables of power. The financial thing is just a means, but I believe Jews resent it. They desire the sort of "divine goodness", the sacrifice of Abel that is favored by God, that resulted in the "natural" dominance had by, say, the Assyrians and the Romans. They want that. The financial stuff is just a means to that end, and this is a primary reason why Jews rejected Christ as the messiah. It wasn't the eschatological answer they wanted. Thinking that the divine, eternal supper table has a seat for your enemy at it is a remarkably hard pill to swallow.
I agree with you here.
But the "political covenant", if you will, is distinct from the "spiritual covenant." You can think of these as conceptions of man's relation to God. You're right in saying that the Jews had an imperial understanding of God's promise. That is, again, a key reason why they rejected Christ. Christ wasn't telling them to militarily overthrow Rome, but that sort of thing is what they had in mind. This is the weird, sort of Freudian thing going on. On the one hand, you've got to say that Rome is the embodiment of wickedness. On the other hand, God is promising that you'll be what they are in the end? This is confusion. In the Old Covenant, there was confusion. The right conception of divine reality had not yet been achieved. But when it became possible to have, no Jew wanted it who remained a Jew after the revelation of the Christ.
This is where things in your view go wrong, by my lights. On the one hand, they have to hate Jesus. On the other hand, Jesus has to actually be their messiah (objectively) because Jesus fulfills the imperial aspect of the original covenant, spreading them over the planet. It seems like this is going to entail one of two things:
Either:
(i) Jesus was objectively the messiah, but no Jew believed he was, so they killed him, but this actually satisfied God's plan anyway, because Jesus became their messiah IN SPITE OF their disbelief; this would mean that from the beginning of the Christian movement per se, Christians have been utterly, utterly wrong about who Jesus was and what Jesus said
(ii) Jews consciously promulgated beliefs about Jesus, including the belief that Jews rejected/hated him, even though they didn't, but rather because they recognized that, by appearing to hate Jesus, it would increase the likelihood that other non-Jewish groups would accept the Jesus movement
If you accept (i), then it is going to be difficult to argue that Christianity was a Jewish plot. It turns Jesus into a deceiver of everybody, and all of the things in the Biblical corpus that involve Jesus rebuking the Jews are literally just methods of deceit, that is, to deceive non-Jews into think he was their guy while Jesus was secretly being the Jewish messiah (even as the Jews themselves wanted him dead). I think there are a host of problems with this view.
If you accept (ii), you have to explain why Jews believed anyone would accept givng up their own ethno-national divinities to accept a failed messiah/prophet, even as the Jews are themselves claiming Jesus was not divine. Why would the Romans for example have ever begun believing Jesus was what Christians now claim him to be? This is the adoption question. The promulgators of the conspiracy so-called, rejected their own claims about Jesus's divinity, yet in doing this rejecting, they caused a bunch of other non-Jews to give up their powerful, successful deities for a mere Jewish guy?
It just doesn't add up. You might think that Jews knew they were creating an enemy here, right. Maybe they send Paul out to evangelize, like, "Have you not heard of the incarnate God who was killed by the Jews but proved himself by rising on the third day!?" As if this is supposed to somehow be a novel premise. The trouble is that dying and rising personal, savior gods weren't a foreign thing at this time - a fact that is often picked up by Jesus mythicists. So, now you might say, "Exactly. So the Jews recognized a popular trope in the surrounding lands at that time, and they crafted a "golem" faith that would simultaneously seem opposed to them and would also be attractive to foreigners for that very reason." That is, in its formal opposition to Jews, it would dialectically unite their enemies to them through the lineal aspect of Jesus's authority or whatever.
To me, that just looks silly. Picture two guys who race cars, guy A and guy B. This is like saying that A can't build himself a car that will beat B's. But A can build a car for B that will beat any car that A can make for himself. In other words, guy A can't win by making a fast car, but he can win by making a fast car for another guy.
The Jews would have ensured that their "victory" was truly a victory had by their enemy, since Christianity was deeply opposed to Judaism, and Christianity became a literal obstacle to Judaism in Europe for centuries.
Granted, it would be possible to subvert Christianity from within, to cause some Christians to begin to misunderstand their own faith, say, in a way that would cause them to adopt Zionist beliefs in later centuries.
THAT looks like a much simpler and better explanation than the theory that Jews just invented Christianity for their own purposes. Furthermore, it seems much simpler and more coherent to understand the Golem as a Jewish reaction to Christianity, that is, as a Jewish attempt to bring about magically what Christianity contained theologically in the Resurrection concept. Remember what was said at the beginning about Jewish resentment of those around them and the counterfeit ways they try to achieve what their enemies do. Cain and Abel. The Jew: "Why is Abel's sacrifice favored?" They don't get it. Submission. Instead, the Jew qua Cain tries to counterfeit the system. In the same way, the Golem is a counterfeit Resurrection. Simply, the Jews are attracted to being God, not submitting to God.
So with these two competing claims: (a) Jews invented Christianity or (b) Jews subverted Christianity from within, we can ask which one the has the stronger support.
But I do look forward to hearing what you think about this.
[ + ] NaturalSelectionistWorker
[ - ] NaturalSelectionistWorker 0 points 11 monthsMay 30, 2024 13:20:26 ago (+0/-0)
In option (iii), there was a subset of the jewish elite, the rabbinical class, who understood that their god had promised they'd rule by subversion and debt slavery rather than by force. 2000 years ago, jews were already inflicting usury throughout the Roman empire, a practice attested to by numerous Romans who made very similar complaints about the jews of 2000 years ago. However, the Romans allowed non-jews to engage in usury, and extracted significant taxes and tributes from the jews, as well as expecting the jews to venerate the Roman empire alongside their god. The rabbinical class wanted a way to change that and place jews in the position of being the only race with the power of usury and end the practice of venerating Rome in their temples. To do this, they intentionally created a religion that was designed not for them to follow, but for others to follow.
Their religion had already given the power to subvert from within, something they had demonstrated multiple times in the history of repeated conquest of their people, and something they were demonstrating in Rome at the time already. Their religion wasn't weak, it just wasn't strong in the way the simpler minded members of their tribe wanted it to be, but the rabbinical class and merchant class recognized its strength even if the rest of the jews didn't. Your analogy about cars implies that christianity made Europe great - I'd disagree and say that Europe was already pretty great under Rome, and white people continued to make Europe great in spite of christianity, which was more like a saddle on our backs than a car we were driving.
Under christianity, non-jews were forbidden from lending money at interest - a practice that was also included in islam and communism. However, jews were still allowed to lend money at interest - a practice that also happened under islam while under communism jews controlled the economy to an extent that they didn't even require usury for economic exploitation. This allowed them to use usury as a tool while taking that tool away from everyone else - see deuteronomy 15:6 and 23:20, which explicitly command the jews to loan to non-jews at interest in order to control them while forbidding jews from taking loans at interest. For the jewish elite, this was the point of the religion, to give them a unique tool for control that was forbidden to all others. The hard part from there was convincing people to accept a religion that took away their power and handed jews exclusive control over finance.
To do that, they had to include spiritual allegories that spoke to the Romans and other peoples of the Roman empire. Thus the parallels between Julius Caesar and jesus christ the king of the jews. Thus the parallels with multiple mystery cults. For a portion of the jewish elite, the payoff didn't take that long - josephus was able to swindle the Flavians into giving him a paid position from which he was able to spread christianity. They even helped him spread it, having been tricked into thinking he would use the religion to pacify the jews.
The plan required two groups of jews. The bulk of the jewish population would remain jewish and reject the new false religion. A minority would adopt the new religion and spread it throughout the non-jewish world, acting as puppeteers to enable the rest of the jews to enslave the converts through usury in exchange for financial support from the jews who did not convert. In order to convince the non-jews of the sincerity of the jewish converts, they had to appear to be critics of the jews on the surface while working with them behind the scenes, which there are countless examples of throughout history (more recently you can see this with jews converting to "atheistic" communism, only to get funded by jewish bankers and impose laws against anti-semitism once they took power).
The point was always for christianity to be a puppet separate from judaism but still undeniably attached to it. Thus the idea that jews were subverting christianity is a reversal of the truth - Europeans occasionally took back control of the religion jews inflicted on them, temporarily using it to kick jews out of power, only for jewish converts to slip in and regain control once things calmed down a bit and invite their people back in to feed off the fat of the land.
Your explanations may seem simpler, but in that simplicity you also fail to explain why the exact same pattern was repeated two more times through islam and communism with basically the same results. If it was just christianity, your argument would be a lot more valid, but we see not one but three separate massive social control schemes whose origins are just as undeniably jewish as those of christianity. Just as the jews use the evangelicals to support all their wars, the mainline protestants to push globohomo, and the catholics to help them control the banks, we also see the leaders of wahhabi islam are all ethnically jewish and converted to islam just a few centuries ago. We see isis and hamas and al qaida and all these other islamic fundamentalist/terrorist groups who received training and funding from israel and who do israel's bidding, even while pretending to be anti-israel. We see ethnically jewish "atheists" running communist takeovers of both Russia and China, disguising their religion just like the wahhabi jews disguise their religion and pretend to be muslim.
Do you think that islam and communism were also legitimate movements that broke away from judaism and just happen to be tangentially related? Or were they both social control schemes created by jews to oppose the west? Or perhaps you can see communism as a jewish control scheme because its origins are more recent and thus less obscured by the fog of history, but it's harder to see the origins of islam and christianity, and thus easier to assume they spread on their own without jewish help. If you see christianity differently from islam and communism, what makes its origins different?
If we were just dealing with christianity I think your argument would be more compelling, but we're dealing with an established pattern of behavior by jews that we can see very clearly in communism. After looking at how jews pretended to be atheists in order to spread communism and take over multiple major nations with it, looking at christianity through that lens, it's much easier to see how the jews could have done the same thing 2000 years ago. Marx was dead by the time communism was implemented, but to a spiritualist who believes they are following their god and doing what is right for the future of their people, that's irrelevant. The jews who created christianity may have been dead by the time it fully conquered Rome, but if they too were spiritual and believed they were doing what was best for their people, that too is irrelevant.
In Paganism, we tend not to see ourselves as submitting to our Gods, but as being in a partnership with them that allows them to act through us. If jews see their god the same way, it makes sense that they would try to act out the will of their god, rather than submitting to god. But, if they see you as an inferior who their god promised they would rule over, it makes sense that they would create a religion that tells you that you must submit to their god, even as they stand next to him.
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO 0 points 11 monthsMay 31, 2024 10:13:10 ago (+0/-0)*
So, I'm not well-studied on the history of Islam. If I had to say, I wager it resulted from a Judaizing tendency in a Judeo-Christian world, in which an arab version of Luther spawned a new "protestant" form of religion still claiming to have the "one, true" pedigree. There is an organic metaphor we could use to understand these types of developments. Movements happen, revolutions happen, people think they know better and that they shoud lead, etc. etc. More on this in a second.
As for Communism, I don't have to deny that it is a Jewish movement in so far as it was a political movement promulgated by Jews. I think it can be explained by Jewish history and religion, but I don't see it as numerically identical with the phenomenon of Judaism. Certainly, Jewish eschatology and Marxist materialist dialecticism are mingling here, which I also see as related, since Judaism has always been a kind of "immanentizing" religion, which being magically oriented, seeks to make God material (consider the Temple concept and the Shekinah, or the ark of the covenant). For Jews, God has a major political significance, whereas for Christianity, God and the salvific economy are something more transcendental - to be sure, this dualism in Christianity has resulted in developments within modernity, like the American project for example, that thought you could separate church and state. Clearly, that was a failed experiment, and we can probably point at their substance dualism as a contributing factor. My point is, for Judaism to become a political movement is easier to understand, given their materialism.
Returning to the point about Islam, I would also say that Protestantism is a the result of the same Judaizing tendency that explains Islam. Consider how Islam and Protestantism relate to their respective holy texts. Only the Catholics really separated their worship and their rules of faith from the text per se, relying on the Tradition as a whole rather than on just the book. The Protestant view of the Bible is far closer to the letterism and alaphabet-worship of the Jews with their gematria. The goes for the Koran. Much is made of it by Muslims in terms of validating their entire religious edifice.
One problem I'm having here is that I'm not standing outside of the river, so to speak, analyzing these things as if from afar, or from a bird's eye perspective. Being in the river, I'm inclined to think that the Jews misunderstood God and his relation to man. God was something more like a political explanatory principle and some kind of eschatological guarantee. Sure, if they continued to believe this, then it would make sense why post-Christian Jews wanted to take over the world, yada yada.
But your view seems to entail that the major Western religious phenomena dominating the world today (specifically Christianity and Islam) are the products of a Jewish conspiracy. I think we need to reflect on what that means. It means Jews have succeeded in a 2000-yr project to ensare the world, in spite of all the historical contingencies of being razed by their political rivals and dispersed all over the globe. Who could do this? The powers that be have struggled to make a Covid narrative work for more than a handful of years, and they had the benefit of complex information systems, practically endless supplies of resources, and the cooperation of all of the leaders of the developed world. But Jews have succeeded in hoodwinking the entire planet using a multi-millennial plan hatched in antiquity?
You're positing something that strikes me as having almost supernatural significance. Someone might be inclined to think: "Man, if you're right, I should probably be worshipping whatever they worship, because. . .damn." And if you want to turn around and say, "Well, they are evil," then what? What is the good anti-thesis of their evil? Pagan polytheism that has mostly been defunct for the last millennium?
This really forces us to ask a philosophical question. Are we realists or nominalists when it comes to God and religion? Are you talking about these theological concepts, including our concept of God, as if they are mere useful mental fictions, instruments for engineering a culture ala the noble lie, or are you committed to the reality of God? If you are a realist about these things, then the story of man, including the preeminence of Jews in shaping this history, what with their conniving global takeover, has to be understood from within the light of our religious tradition. Christianity, taken as TRUE, can make a lot more sense of the Jew in history than pagan religion can. That's worth considering.
On the whole, I still want to say that your theory (possible and coherent as it is) is simultaneously too complicated and too simple. It is too complicated in the sense that the theory you're providing to explain the religious facts about the world today relies on a centuries-long conspiracy, as opposed to simpler explanations for the emergence of things like Islam, which I gave above. It is also soo simple in terms of reducing the causal story to one group, effectively making the last 2,000 years of human history into a story about Jews and their human sock puppets.
What I said seems like it might be paradoxical, but I don't think so. Your theory simplifies western religion down to the activities of a single group across huge swaths of time. That's too simple. At the same time, the story it requires you to tell about how the Jews did this is way too complicated. I'm willing to tolerate that the Jews play a long, patient game, and that ability has grown with time. For example, I'm willing to tolerate the proposition that revolutionary Jews in the late 19th and early 20th centuries had a broad plan for the west that covered most of the history of the 20th century. I'm less willing to accept that in the 1st century A.D., Jews were hatching a plan against Rome that required a continuous stream of intentional activity to go on unbroken for four or five centuries to literally engineer Christianity.
I know we aren't going to radically change each other's minds in the space of one conversation.
Whatever you want to say about the Jewish Question, I think that Christianity being TRUE makes it easier to explain this situation. I hope that's what I'm making clear. If Christianity is not true, then it is harder to explain this situation, as it still leaves the Jews as a super-competent (to the extent of being inhuman) race of world-dominators, and even more so, given that Christianity is just another thing they fabricated as part of their cosmically successful plot.
Amid all of this, you're wanting to tell me that the answer is going back to the pagan gods. I just don't think that makes sense of the facts. There's a reason the pagan gods are gone, and I don't think it's that they are lying in wait. Importantly, I'm operating from a realist position here, not a nominalist one.
[ + ] NaturalSelectionistWorker
[ - ] NaturalSelectionistWorker 0 points 11 monthsMay 31, 2024 13:20:02 ago (+0/-0)
For an example of this in media, see the Star Wars prequel trilogy, where a tiny religious cult whose symbolism is all jewish (hebrew writing on Vader's chestplate, the imperial six pointed sun/star, the separatist six triangles in a hex shape) creates a political/economic resistance movement to the main governmental body despite that body being under the control of their cult. The same little cult controls both sides of the war, but they don't really support either side - rather, they support the conflict itself, and they use both sides to create and expand the conflict.
In regards to protestantism, have you read Luther's writings on the jews? I haven't read them directly but have read some summaries of how his views changed over time. In his early years, he was very fond of the jews, who encouraged him to stand up to the corruption in the church and translate the bible into German. However, over time, he realized that the jews had used him and lied to him, that they didn't care about corruption in the church so much as dividing Europe against itself. He also went into detail about how the christian world had protected the jews, allowing jews to live among them while discouraging church leaders from trying to convert jews to christianity, and giving them power over the banking industry by allowing usury by jews but not by christians.
Why would the jews continue to undermine the church if the church allowed them to maintain their separate status while giving them special privileges? From a rational standpoint that rejects my thesis, it's hard to explain - christianity is their tool and it was doing its job, so why would the jews try so hard to undermine it? But when you understand the golem allegory, and you understand the true nature of jewish control schemes, it makes far more sense. The jews can only maintain their hold over their golems as long as their golems have some other enemy to turn their attention to. Once it's just the golem and the jew, the golem realizes the jew is parasitically feeding on the golem, and thus the golem starts trying to overthrow the jews. Thus, the jew needs to either constantly seek out new outside enemies for their golem to fight, or, if no more can be found, they must create new golems to pit against their old golems. This has led to the continuous proliferation of new jewish control schemes, from islam and protestantism and communism to feminism and ayn rand and neoconservatism and satanism and new age.
If you haven't yet watched the video I linked, then I won't bother to comment too much more on your objections to the jews conspiring to create christianity. They have already pulled off far bigger and more successful psyops - see 9/11, the holohoax, etc. The fact that not every hoax is equally successful (covid accomplished its purpose, though) doesn't negate the fact that they have succeeded at numerous psyops on a massive scale, many of which were planned out at least decades in advance. However, nothing about the creation of christianity required them to be looking 2000 years into the future - perhaps 200 years, but not 2000. Once the conspiracy succeeded in establishing and spreading a religious tool, they simply had to maintain that tool. Whatever difficulties there were in maintaining control over christianity, they were not fundamentally different from the difficulties of maintaining control over two opposing political parties in the US, two opposing political ideologies of western capitalism and eastern communism, lying about the slave trade, manupulating us into two world wars, lying about the holocaust, ripping us off through the Fed, etc. And like today, they sometimes failed and got driven out of countries they'd fed on too heavily, only to worm their way back into power decades later with the help of hidden subversives who faked religious conversion to maintain their place in society (see Marx' dad for a recent example).
I'm definitely arguing that there is real religious/spiritual significance to what the jews have done, but also that jews do not have a monopoly on the power they wield. As you yourself pointed out, kabbala was largely pioneered by Greco-Roman thinkers. Freemasonry takes pieces of multiple different spiritual traditions but merges them into a fundamentally jew-centric tool. The various spiritual systems that high level jewish mystics use are tailored to jews but not exclusive to jews.
Now look at the Thule and Vril societies in Germany which helped spawn the NSDAP. They were mystical secret societies practicing meditation, divination, astral projection, etc. See how Himmler and the SS considered themselves mystic knights and were very sympathetic towards Paganism. See Julius Evola and his associates putting magic into practice to support the growth of fascism. This is not a mere fluke or happenstance, it was a fundamentally necessary step in putting up real opposition to the jews. They needed a core group of mystics who rejected abrahamic spiritual tradition and explored spirituality outside the book in order to support a broader resistance against the jews. They put up the greatest act of resistance against jewish rule in centuries, all on the shoulders of a few dozen pro-European mystic spiritualists. What could we do with a few hundred?
When you've watched the video I linked, you'll also have a pretty good rebuttal to the idea that it's too complicated and difficult for one group to have coordinated so well across vast spans of time.
[ + ] 15MAR
[ - ] 15MAR 2 points 11 monthsMay 28, 2024 00:54:42 ago (+2/-0)*
The Gauls had a long history of threatening Rome by the time Caesar began his invasion, and Caesar initially marched into Gaul to the aid of Roman allies fighting off Germanic invasions. His mission morphed into the subjugation of Gaul once he realized it was possible and profitable, and one of the results of this was a defensive border against Germania along the Rhine, that would go on to endure for centuries, thereby greatly strengthening Roman Civilization.
Caesar was not responsible for the killing of Pompey, which was carried out by Lucius Septimius, a man who once served under Pompey. This assassination was ordered by the government of Ptolemy XIII of Egypt, a move which they hoped would endear them to Caesar. The killing of Pompey was one of the main reasons that Caesar opposed the Ptolemy XIII government and instead backed Cleopatra's claim to the throne. Whether staged for political gain or a display of true emotion, Caesar publicly grieved over the death of his old friend.
Is there any proof? Caesar was an opportunist who sought allies wherever he could find them, but he cared first about the crown he desired for himself, and perhaps a distant second the Roman people.
The Roman Republic at the time of Caesar needed to be destroyed. It was a corrupt oligarchy that suppressed the Roman people. Caesar crafted legislation designed to help the Roman populace, and though this was a political move designed to weaken his enemies (i.e., the elite), it was a great deal more for the Roman people than the oligarchic Republic ever did.
Roman armies which, knowingly or unknowingly, supported an oligarchic elite class that suppressed the Roman people.
Caesar did not engage in proscriptions, he pardoned his former enemies from the Civil War, many of which would go on to participate in his assassination. It was the Second Triumvirate which proscribed Caesar's and their own enemies, and after what happened to Caesar for daring to show clemency, one can hardly blame them.
[ + ] boekanier
[ - ] boekanier 2 points 11 monthsMay 28, 2024 02:40:48 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] 15MAR
[ - ] 15MAR 2 points 11 monthsMay 27, 2024 23:44:34 ago (+2/-0)
I. A group gains power over the populace through force or deception, becoming elite.
II. Said group extorts the population under them, widening the gap in power between themselves and the populace until they achieve an oligarchy.
III. Elites do everything in their power to maintain the system that keeps them in power, regardless of the suffering of the populace; if their populace dies, they simply replace the populace.
IV. A movement against the elites forms, headed by a group or a great man of the populace.
V. The elites react to the movement, beginning with ridiculing it and culminating in an open declaration of war on the movement.
At this point in the tale, there are three paths that history can take:
1. The elites crush the movement, and it is remembered as evil in the history they write.
2. The movement deposes the elites, then goes on the perpetuate the same kind of tyranny right after or generations later.
3. The movement deposes the elites, and finally brings prosperity to the populace.
The 1st and 2nd paths are the most common paths that history takes, and there are only glimmers of the 3rd path that occur in rare moments in time.
[ + ] UncleDoug
[ - ] UncleDoug 1 point 11 monthsMay 27, 2024 23:27:03 ago (+1/-0)
Military service entitled you to conquered land.
[ + ] NaturalSelectionistWorker
[ - ] NaturalSelectionistWorker 1 point 11 monthsMay 27, 2024 22:06:40 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] SilentByAssociation
[ - ] SilentByAssociation [op] 1 point 11 monthsMay 27, 2024 22:55:00 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] hylo
[ - ] hylo 0 points 11 monthsMay 28, 2024 00:17:03 ago (+0/-0)