A Crisis of Social Grooming: Fear and Manipulation at the Root

Never entirely sure why I receive certain impulses, there was a nagging feeling that I needed to publish this on America’s “Memorial Day“. Perhaps it was the sense of anger at “order” attempting to press-gang me into remembering those I didn’t ever know. How is that possible; to remember something that wasn’t experienced? Besides, the fallen didn’t die for me personally. Far from it. They behaved recklessly, some committing murder to protect the coveted few of the time; the elites that pariah off corporate infrastructures. Mind you, at least American judiciaries don’t follow Austria’s lead who, upon instruction of internal law, may likely illegally abduct and imprison high profile publishers of responsible criticism of irrational (and otherwise nonsensical) wittering that corresponds as the official history of an episode colloquially promoted as “the Holocaust”. But, of course, anything that reinforces Israel’s case is a-okay.

Producing voluminous, more substantial articles these days, when lacking project inspiration I generally refer to an “in progress or to be written” folder located under my computer’s document file explorer. The title I selected this time round had lain dormant for years. It intrigued me to see how my style had changed, by how much I had grown or shrunk, as the case may be. The original title “The Root of Social Grooming” was somewhat truncated and this, I think, adequately highlights my changed perspective. Albeit embellished in places now, the signature paragraph (formulated all those years ago) does make ample preparation for what is to follow.  Even though I missed that critical Memorial Day deadline, without further ado, here is what I had to say back in 2014.

“Democracy will never work when underlying principles are built on exclusion rather than inclusion. Laws that don’t underscore prohibition, impose [just as well]. Secular privileges are given to those with diplomatic [status] and others [that parasite off the apparatus]. This [phenomenon] has [caused] creation of the social divides that [naturally] encourage Racism and other [regressive] symptoms. There is no doubt [in my mind that] this has been a deliberate strategy. Given the enormous weight of responsibility required to effectively ensure dedicated impartiality, it is all too clear royal status was originally foisted on wise men and women. [In light of human fallibility], it [proved] a responsibility too great to bear and, eventually, [ensured] recruited blasphemers [whose conceit] arbitrarily discerned “God’s wishes” [sic] whether they parried with social equilibrium [backed off natural order] or not. After extended periods of tyranny, eventually royals were called to task [for this] and clerics produced mandates outlining reasoned constitutional representation. These systems became known as constitutional monarchies and [they] are the fairest democratic processes of government.”

People like to blame others for their woes, because applying responsibility almost invariably exposes personal error as the main cause for issue. On occasions when truth does lend towards the conspiratorial shall we say, as is the case with routine pollution and certain [unarguably toxic] medications, coherent competency rarely attributes basis. Individuals, it seems, are drawn to propagandas generated by consensuses like flies to the dung heap. If the great group says it is so then it must be so, so it will be so, by their reckoning. This amply summarises the crisis of social grooming. “Denial” of truth is the commonest and starkest symptom of “fundamentalism”. Consensus view beneath corporate standards more than adequately abridges a modern way of domineering dogmatism, whereby explanations replace avenues to seasoned logic. Jon Rappoport’s raucous alarm calls aimed at the education system (I expect his article to be reinstated by WordPress) barely begin to highlight just how deep rooted social apathy has become. But for the bubbling internet, revelations of sovereign mind today would have zero influence on the manner of how things are presented or reflected on.

In effect (accorded by politics), a dichotomy of tyrannies punctuates the rights of the few over the wrongs of the many. The Magna Carta’s early assault on common law wasn’t enough. So veraciously hostile were forces of evil, later aristocrats and merchants alike scrambled for protection against Cromwell’s foul legacy, which is the austere Westminster System of course. William of Orange became the fortuitous angel of mercy. But their appreciation of tyranny didn’t cease as a consequence. The peoples’ constitution (if it could be argued so) was shredded in 1864 in preparation for the beginnings of popular slavery (liberally recorded as emancipation) under aggressively tiered society.

“Terms” for the masses (slaves) were finally aggregated in 1929 by the Geneva Convention at around the same time bankers’ were able to soundly conspire from their newly formed historic capital, “the Vatican”. Why are those hauled before the American courts presumed guilty until “proven” innocent (celebrating French bankers’ multi-lateral autonomy after both republics commenced in 1789)? This is because every American national (of ill-breeding) is deemed a criminal. And that Fifth Amendment salvation so often referenced is strictly for the nobles. As Great Britain (or, notably, Ireland) has been the informal Promised Land since time memorial, her chosen peoples are considered innocent until proven guilty by the corresponding system of justice. But Britannia ruled far more than the waves, for the rest of the world had gradually submitted to maritime law long ago.

Of course along the journey that is branded civilisation by historians, elitist empowering double standards are all too numerous to list, but there is one deception of such far reaching magnitude it begs to be exposed in glorious detail. If Genesis’ Adam and Eve parable was conceded as truth, everyone (“one race”, if you will) is Jewish by birthright. Yet, the reality accords the promotion of acute covert xenophobia towards anyone who isn’t Jewish (per alleged successive bloodline integrity). “Values” that became laws governing humanity are almost exclusively theirs. Consequentially, many social go-getters, such as, for instance, the unlikely Sammy Davis Junior, have converted to the insincere faith to “get on”. The stakes of occultism are high, as to be expected. New Jewish citizens (paying homage to homeland – Israel) are forced to enrol all male offspring, under crude auspices of dignity, into a ceremony colloquially known as the Bris.

For reasons that might only be judged as bizarre by the right minded, infant star of each gathering is guaranteed to lose his penal foreskin without refund. Now, given the unholy reaction to one of my prior articles here that [according to one accuser] “reveres” the practice of paedophilia, I am flabbergasted by the lack of venom directed towards any Jew (synthetic or otherwise) who participates in the callous Bris culture. I use the word “callous” with great care here. Is a baby consulted and fully aware of folly ahead or is this a somehow “legitimisedviolation of body rights, a strange exception to the fundamental rule of personal sovereignty? Why aren’t there any salacious headlines? Wouldn’t one expect to see “Sadistic Infant Penile Display Centre Stage in Sick Pedo Jew Cult Orgy” or the like smeared over the front pages? If it was the Catholics doing this; would they deserve any less? Why do we all “know” (sic) Catholic [priests] must be paedophiles? Why, because we have been programed to think that and we’ve been programed to believe the Bris and circumcision are A-Okay too.

“Great” Jewish newspapers, of the prestige of Haaretz or the Times of Israel make little fuss of the affair, but confusingly, outside the club, there is an (albeit ultra-orthodox), I must say, vile practice or fetish that receives almost no attention at all (i.e. absent from non-Jewish tabloids). How many of my readers are aware of a Rabbi’s certified (or, perhaps, certifiable)“suction clean”, I wonder? So, to elaborate on the process for those less informed, any other vaguely comparable uses of “suction clean” terminology would certainly better appraise as blowjob for mere mortal comprehension. Crude but appropriate or, rather, I mean inappropriate. Thinking of those possible headlines again, how does “Boy Loving Pedo Rabbi Gives Bad Baby Deep Throat” (well you know how these Medias like to exaggerate) fit the criteria? It is funny how God issues an “unacceptable” foreskin, but man is far more divine than God, wouldn’t you say?

Therefore, I assume my revised headline suggestion would be fine, except there’s something else we should consider. You see, in this case blood’s involved, so forget the Jewish thing. We’ve moved to a whole new level. Instead, let’s imagine we are dealing with a Catholic archbishop here, who must be guilty (because we believe that). I see no reason why a banner mightn’t reasonably read “Sick Sadistic Catholic Cult’s Gay Gore Orgy Reptilian Priest Drinks Baby Blood Raw”. Then again, what of those herpes cases in New York?

Oh brother, very hush-hush

Ah the joys of satire! That said, circumcision is a very serious topic. God gave me my foreskin and I celebrate it. Those that argue otherwise are vainly obsessed. We only need to look at incessant mass Media venom directed at disgracefully lampooning strict Islamic practices to see evidence of this obsession. Remember those elite double standards I mentioned earlier. How is the circumcision of a female any different to the male? Either the act itself is deplorable or it is acceptable. But at least for abject followers of Mohamed, circumcision is theoretically “optional”. Mass Medias highlight duplicitous contradiction; which is the natural consequence of social grooming.

Truth is invariably adrift of broadsheet fantasy, but there are some encouraging exceptions to the rule. Here it could be said fair attention is given to distinctly parallel violations of Muslim women, yet (beyond very occasional warnings dressed as “politically correct” philosophic procrastinations) no attempts are ever made to stress the plight of unguarded marginalised males. Behind the curtain, there is fallout of course. The epidemic is such one Jewish woman (of presumably many) tearfully reached out to me at Jon Rappoport’s blog, explaining how her son’s pain from his circumcision has persisted throughout his life with no possibility of moral refund.

Rabbinical authorities have shamed her trust in them

Apparent holistic needs (whether pertinent or not) of social cultures are given far greater priority than raw truth. In fact, there is strong evidence to support respect [in divinity] is so wanton, that truth has become partially superfluous. Therefore, correspondingly, sewers of misinformation and disinformation thrive. The modern age, certainly over the last fifty years, is a heyday of deceit. Name me one mass Media celebrated medic that has spoken with truthful authority about vaccines and viruses? Does an institutionalised historian actually know any history? Why are the majority of great pioneering scientific discoveries accidents?

Nevertheless, the foremost “out in the opendishonesty is the role of world governments and their ongoing missions. The reason political machinations never seem to improve is they were designed that way. They were designed to fail, from the social perspective. After Albert Einstein, either doing the same thing over while expecting improved change equates to insanity, or “make no difference to the way things are” is the overall anticipated goal of policy making. Politics are fundamental. Decisions are bound up in constitutions which (albeit theoretically) script foundations for utopian order. Amendments to the US constitution, sticklers might debate; cause all outward political problems for that nation. I say the constitution was rigged from the onset and reasoning is clear.

But you have to go back to dot to précis the real issue with popular (i.e. majority rule) population administration. Undoubtedly foundations which have become the hubris for modern world government are encapsulated by Oliver Cromwell’s Westminster System. (Ignoring the exported Dutch mortgage system) why was second class aristocrat William of Orange (incidentally, his daughter, Queen Anne, was a reputed lesbian. Lesbians are regularly the product of physically, emotionally or “character” scarred fathers) ushered into British supreme authority if the constitution (adjunct to the Westminster System) was irrefutably “stable”? Maybe the highly irregular dual headed coinage of the realm conceals some secrets as well.

Nouveaux nobility (a fraternity of merchant bankers) hastily drafted their bill of rights because, after recalcitrant King James II, they were demonstrably exposed as vulnerable (I referenced the jailing of William Dockwra before, but there were many, many other attacks on “treasonous” private commerce) as royalty had proven far from defeated after Charles I’s infamous beheading execution. The double edged sword of success viciously turned on the perpetrators of the French Revolution as well (its leader and other key players suffered the nobleman’s guillotine fate). Some would say “karma had its day”, but [ultimately] the lesson to be learned here is those that wield draconian standards are forced to live by them too. And the closer you are to the source of heat, the greater your chances of being burnt.

Legal due process oils hearsay dressed as evidence in our courts. Will re-emergence of medieval torture (currently in the form of legitimised psychological terrorism) come at a hefty price to its backers?

As I regularly outline; the United States of America was established with a view to becoming a template of the French system of government (symbolised by the Statue of Liberty) and not the other way round. Be it the continent was a constitutional democracy 1766-88. Phoenician rebirth of combined great Greek/Roman (liberators of Rome for justice) dynasties had been the plan all along. That is why, in typical fashion, Napoleon seized absolute control just as Caesar had done before him and, arguably, (Aristotle favourite) Alexander had done before him. Britain had no mitigating royal authority at the time of the revolution, so America “the enterprise” is the greatest untold conspiracy never to be explored. King George of England was a foreigner who spoke little more than nodding English. The issue that blew up into a war was between powers that “vampired” off regal infrastructures and those who opted for self-sufficiency, which is amply highlighted by renegade “journalist” John [Peter] Zengler’s successful defence of a libel lawsuit against Royal Governor of New York, William Cosby (is that why they attack Bill Cosby today?) in 1734.

Miscasting of historic myths is a classical manoeuvre of those committed to perverting truth in order to impress upon social grooming. In more ancient times religions were a vehicle sometimes used to ridicule truth and deny sovereign faith. Circumcision is an undeniable direct attack on God (supporting that which is natural), but I find no reference to the fact in the Torah. Because religion began to lose its potence (the authorities drafted a new Bible in 1884 in an attempt to jump start Christianity once more) with so much global upheaval, since the French Revolution, the task of bending truth has been handed to “science”. That is why today learned professionals are “split” for and against vaccines, marking mainstream and anti-mainstream territories.

How can there be any debate on this though? The truth is plain and out in the open, but far from simple. Aluminium, supplied to vaccines via Eli Lily’s branded product Thimerosal, causes brain damage. The symptom autism is a configurable consequence. There are other plausible associated conditions, such as Alzheimer’s disease. Here’s where complexity is noted. Often combinations of factors will impress varied disease symptoms. Wireless 5G illness is an odd one, but in the specific cases of autism and Alzheimer’s, the underlying (or root) cause is aluminium poisoning. When there are multiple factors determining potential outcomes of any political argument, it becomes easy to subvert the path away from honest realisation. Oil is blamed for Iraq, but the war had little to do with the petroleum industry. That was the cover story. Indeed, the “powers” know that if they do not move away from fossil fuels soon, humanity is done for. In fact, as I illustrate in this article, all cancers are caused by carbon pollution.

Politics is all about consensus view (or, rather, the manufacture of it). Science and religion are the same, with two distinct exceptions. Religion is anchored to Scripture which, fanatics assert, is Word of God. This is easily disproven, of course. We only need to open our Bibles to discover numerous contradictions on offer when evidence that summarises prophets’ revelations is scrutinised carefully. God apparently allows and disallows certain practices; verdicts depending on timely cultural persuasions. Yet, jesting aside, a calculating, divisive God is a duplicitous one. Science, almost identically, regularly serves up contradictory “proof” as justification for dogma.

These wibbly-wobbly proofs are sometimes sensationally disproven. For some “products” bitter cognitive dissonance needs to be challenged many times over before evil ones are forced to prostrate before the light. Neither Scripture nor proof, it seems, are very reliable. That is perhaps why they have combined in unison today. Both sciences and religions’ output asserts what amounts to principled belief in doctrines “supposedly” backed by evidential proof. Though it logically belonged to Jacques De Molay (attesting his crucifixion by Catholicism), the so-called Turin Shroud is “officially” evidence of Jesus’ (who didn’t exist, by the way) life and death. This is because, the once Hitler IG Farben cyanide gas salesman, Pope John Paul II was all too quick to upgrade the dubious (according to prior editions of the Catholic encyclopaedia) “fact” in spite of the facts (couched in known origins of the exhibit).

If the world’s great superpower USA was modelled on Rome (forget Israel) why wouldn’t the Vatican be nucleus of authority?

Thinking of an unlikely analogy that summarises social conditioning, I am impressed by the subtle interpretive differences between recklessness and bravery. In respect to this, modern day mass Medias are ceaseless in their assault of valour. Cowardice will never be bravery, but so often this is purported as truth. In deference to a submissive death, a victim must be brave, they claim. Is it because preservation of life happens to be the most significant clause of their subliminal “survival of the fittest” manifesto? In that regard, another noteworthy manifesto titbit asserts the belief that people will be consistently devoted to deceitful subversion in ego threatening situations, which would justify the system’s perennial need for disciplined shepherds to guide righteous flocks. It further highlights why people are treated as though they were cattle commodities by these overseers.

When citizens lost their natural right to be sexual, their lives were transferred to state. Relative scam Paedophilia is a philosophic foundation stone that projects hybrid standards which rely on comprehensive groomed compliance. In other words, without foundation beliefs, supporting synthetic reason would wither into oblivion and the cattle would roam free. An extension of this façade is people must truthfully worship their Gods for persuasion to transform into reality. Understanding the mindset is vital to decoding how corridors of power visualise authority. Thus, if ruling authorities are Godlike, they must be faultless. Correspondingly, the system is beyond criticism, but individuals, “bad prophets” if you will, are very much in the spotlight and may be sacrificed to preserve unblemished credibility. Pedo priests, by that token, won’t tarnish institutional Catholicism.

Back in Roman times, rulers painfully observed successful policy was inexorably linked to popularity (usually supported by in vogue Gods). From today’s bloated populations for those with sufficient resources, it is easy to manufacture fabricated consensuses. Menacingly, in conjunction, a form of censorship disparages thinking outside or beyond traditional guidelines. A cult, which is a gestalt made from materialistic, atheistic and hybrid Judaic ideologies, acts as counterbalance, paving the way for all established rules that attribute what is justifiably “credible”.  Atheism, in the usage here, isn’t presented as a religious connotation per se, or even a system arbitrating divinity. It would be better, instead, reviewed as an appendage of materialism. The two concepts are inseparably grafted together. Terms or understanding attempting to cultivate non-physicality, particularly anything spiritual, are the critical casualty of the union. In their ideal world, associated zealots would outlaw anything that obstructs or contradicts perception validating physicality (though paradoxical string theorists see the illusion well). By their lofty ideals, if God was to exist, “He” must be tangibly solid.

After in depth study of history, one can but draw the conclusion that a seam of vexatious law brokers has plagued humanity from the dawn of time. Ineffective (and sometimes destructive) rules are regularly demanded of simply to “organise” the rabble. In past writings I have highlighted the Pharisees as the significant culprit. Given this is an Easter project; it would be remiss of me not to at least reference bonny Jesus, who constantly buffered against puritanical high priests lacking common sense and honest dignity. Suffice to say, grooming is a vital symptom of society, which, from the true utopian perspective, should concur with universal selflessness, even if by being selfless could also mean being selfish too. Medieval fanatics undeniably misinterpreted this divine instrumental purpose. Self-flagellation achieves nothing unless the group benefits by some means. When fear and manipulation are routine tools (or cattle prods) used to control consensus society, individual rite is rendered superfluous and might be viewed as a threat to order.

The effect aggregates a strange symptom. Consequentially, “structure” will eventually stagnate (euphemised as populations waking up) because the ego must rationalise to survive. Zombie state reflects the individual that is prisoner of order; wandering in a waking death, which fundamentally explains why such relatively large percentages of populations turn to crime. They reject order to live. Even the supposedly most innocent amongst us are actually as guilty as sin in some ways. Conflicting laws are not observed by anyone safely way from the spotlight. Reasoning of our holier than thou brethren deems some crimes are more criminal than others. Indeed a prior article of mine “The Law is an Ass” comprehensively outlined the basic problem. Which is the umbrella justice system reflects austere bias so it simply isn’t just.

In so much, the concept of justice was established to cajole society in favour of the few

For instance, murder is the supposed capital offense, yet I find not a single nation against war. Even strategic financial centres too cowardly to participate don’t morally block wilful destruction of life (particularly when they skim the racket). Beyond commercial politics, the justice system actually seems to be more in place to obstruct an individual’s rite of passage than promote proscribed “good”. Arbitration of sexuality is probably the best example to demonstrate what “under law” really means. Per legislation, individual rite most definitely cannot be used as an acceptable excuse for violation of law. I have mentioned before, and it cannot be repeated often enough that, from the divine “cosmic” perspective, sexuality doubles as “life potence” (generated by the base chakra). Break life potence (through arbitrative control of sexuality) and you own a slave; only a breath away from fully fledged zombiism.

Fortunately the youth of today aren’t easily subdued. Sex drive is as powerful as ever, regardless of the many and regular attempts by insidious mass Medias to obfuscate reality. Fundamental attacks on sexual expression (and freedom) actually stretch back to the dawn of time. Currently paedophilia may well be the sin of the moment, but in other ages, cultures targeted varied peccadillos. “Apostle” and Pharisee “St Paul” (who has doubled as people’s first pope) championed total prohibition of intimacy. Even under terms of marriage, he argued carnal relations were theoretically sinful. Expanding persuasion of this devious fraud, Jesus is remembered as a “natural” manifest virgin, reinforced by his immaculate birth.

Furthermore, theological authorities make it dreadfully clear his genius was not a consequence of spiritual purity but, rather, the “reward” for preserving virgin status (following mother Mary) throughout his life. Purity, by their deceitful account, implies any universal celibate might match Jesus’ standards (a Pharisaic notion) simply by rejecting intimacy (commonly illustrated by overtly mocking the “devil”). Of course the reality flies in the face of this nonsense. Jesus (a pseudonym of Joseph ben Matthias) took Joseph of Aramithea’s daughter Mary “Magdalene” (who purists imply was a “whore” for daring to taint the Messiah’s reputation) as his wife (that culture would have permitted only a wife to wash/anoint the feet of her spouse in company – John 12:1-8). There may have been offspring to the marriage; whose descendants would become the Merovingian kings (the great Catholic threat). One investigative account supporting this conviction is presented by Michael Baigent’s “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” (1982) and evidence selected is most compelling.

Whether contemplating deep past or modern day politics, there is a serious side to social apathy. Actually it’s a deadly serious side. Build enough pomp in support of institutional deceit and ill prepared perhaps naïve doctors will routinely administer poisons as “cures” to patients (remember those leeches?).  But doctors are “just doing their job” as they kill you, right? The numerous celebrated examples of those who have “extended” their lives by opting out from being processed by the system, by refusing medications today, should hardly embarrass. That said, why limit the blame to doctors and medicine? Every car driver administers cancer causes, maybe not individually, but certainly as combined agent of a monstrous pack of polluters; polluters who generally don’t care by the way. And the price they pay for not caring is to lose their own natural health as well.

The problem is everyone suffers from and some die because of their arrogant ambivalence

Popular desensitisation towards life threatening truths I believe is evidence of the direct result of viscerally unfair political processes churning out laws geared only to improve Racist divisions (or to favour commercial lobbyists’ such as Pfizer’s, I hope I have that right, sex change therapy drugs for four year olds). There is no debate on certain unwholesome legislations which will either not be strictly observed by majorities or, in other instances, completely ignored. People reject these in the same manner as they deliberately avoid understanding real reasons behind everything. Indeed, they encapsulate an ongoing political conspiracy that consumes humankind. I find it greatly ironical that law breaking sycophants are still able to vote with open hearts and wail like babies when their chosen troll doesn’t make it. They outwardly pander to systemic government, taking advantage of all the “trappings”, whilst inwardly reviling dictating democracy, ever scheming as to the best way to avoid compliance.

For the creators of “order” to pull off their charade, there has to as much collusion between mass Media sirens and vested interests of Big Commerce as is possible. No better example of orchestrated faux crisis can be found than the ever regular fever pitch screams supposedly shining the spotlight on global epidemics whilst actually preparing sales of (commonly poisonous) medications. Enlightened ones will quickly see beyond the veneer, such as the swine flu “epidemic” which could only site a few dozen cases (and all of those, when detail is inspected with integrity, were dubious). Therefore “epidemics” exquisitely open up cultural insanity (maybe Einstein was forsaken after all?) at all levels and persuasions of society. By extension, an in vogue pioneer that labels something new, something formally undiscovered prior, apparently has divine authority to boycott criticism from branded undesirables. Bloated, and often obviously lacking, theories supporting “functionality” are routinely fed to wider populations, who invariably lap up whatever they are told. Once “knowledge tracks” are laid it takes an earthquake to uproot them and this is fundamentally why people are so easy to groom.

An extension of the grooming effect will regularly encourage recruits to go to extraordinary lengths to feign compliance with normalcy. Conventions are followed with such zeal, in some sorry cases, lives are shattered. Outward contradictions cannot whitewash over inner turmoil. That is why correspondingly high percentages of Western populations (in particular) are currently hooked on psychiatric drugs. Of course, as far as “Pharma” is concerned the human identity crisis is a perfect two way street to profits. Drugs they issue to solve the problem will more than likely make the patient either more ill or ill in a different way. That means more prescription drugs for the bad prescription drugs; yet more products sold to alleviate or patch up the problem caused by the “solution”; aptly complimenting the vicious cycle of ignorance. And we should not lose sight of the fundamental fact. It is not doctors or pharmaceutical cartels or wilful governments that instigate this mess. Cultural insanity is definitely fault of the user base; all you “shit eatin’” confident but pathologically ignorant users. You are the cause and the problem.

The invisible pig in lipstick “beyond confrontation” is you in front of the mirror every time you don’t bother to look

The good news is “they” (the self-assured powers) most decidedly see it and they count on your disability; otherwise they wouldn’t be able to manipulate and control you via populism. My analogic use of “pig” might seem overly harsh here. Yet, if I inspect what is being done to remedy the catastrophe that is order, I find nothing or next to no goodness. Pitiful protests do not affect change, but public ones will reveal who the grumblers are. Politicians and their puppeteers already know virtually no one has the guts to fight for lasting change on individual terms. Grumbling parasites are the closest we come to revolutionaries. These need to be prodded every now and again to show whose boss. Conversely, when governments appear to cave in to demands, well these protests are ones’ staged, orchestrated by George Soros or other members of the old boy network. And they are staged for good reason. How else to sell the most assiduous legislation?

Vegan terrorism is a classic example. Protests aren’t about empowering vegetarians. Motive is to disempower “the other” whilst saving that macabre Monsanto (lawsuit champion) Bayer alliance. Forcing useless meat eaters to consume unsanitary genetically modified product (Solent Green) has been the objective of operations all along. That’s why coverage of vegan values (sic) has found its way to the mainstream. Will it turn out it was yet another Soros brainchild when the powers’ brag in the alternative Medias? The planners and team leaders of the coup know the truth but everyone else plays useful sap, I assure you. Perhaps we are seeing a little karmic retribution here. Anyone prepared to be a terrorist deserves to be duped. There is no such thing as a cosy crusader. Idioms of that genre languish only in fantasy realms. No, in reality vicious activists are criminals in all but name. The subliminal battle rages over rightful ability to freely express and, more importantly, whether visibility of expression is granted. Of course, it is visibility which almost always is the first to suffer under scrutiny of activism. The other spineless defence they favour is the smear campaign (how about paedophilia to pack a punch?).

We are undoubtedly on the precipice of a new age of distortion. Was Jon Rappoport’s blog removed because he was to close to “Infowars'” Alex Jones for Trump comfort. Breitbart’s cozy period with the oval office seems to have soured these days. Nevertheless, Paul Craig Robert may well lament that sensational Media treatment of Julian Assange equates to the open death of freedom of speech, but I have maintained (and will continue to do so) that Assange is a (cocaine loving special friend of Ecuador) CIA strategic asset. Whether he knows his handlers on first name terms is the only point up for debate. Business partner of Mossad, CIA has its tentacles everywhere. This is mainly because Israel is extremely jealous of how successful the Vatican has been at securing the hearts of the people and will go to almost any lengths to destabilise cultural traditions. Pedo pop shots at senior clerics are the tip of that iceberg. In the information age people are inclined to believe anything laced with a modicum of authority delivered with sincerity (check out George Burns), which, unfortunately, takes us back to those cycles of manipulation through fear (terrorism, war, epidemics, censorship et al) tuned to incubate groomed socialites. Do not high profile bogus synagogue mass shootings (revered by capitulating mainstream Medias) appear to justify Israel’s “moral authority” before her people to bomb the heck out of Gaza by way of punishment (although some might scratch their heads as to “for what’)?

Perhaps, I read into that too much. Israel, it seems, will use just about any pretext to kill Arab peoples of Gaza. Nevertheless, leaders of Tyrannous nations are easy to blame for the crisis of social grooming, but supposed sovereign individuals must take some responsibility here as well. Fear and manipulation are simply levers of influence. Ultimately, individual choice concedes compliance. Fear and manipulation will remain while concessions are effective and continuous. Therefore, it is only when personal sovereignty is universally valued above anything else that controllers will be forced to reappraise “group think” strategies. To explain this philosophy, the notion that a vaccinated person is unprotected against the unvaccinated is intellectually preposterous. However, from “group think” perspective, “reason” takes a bold new form. If the “group” is vaccinated, flaws in the process highlight collective weakness. Unvaccinated, under these terms, are the flaws in the process. Thus “the group” is unprotected if but one individual fails to observe collective protocol.

There are some contradictions to this that are easy to explain “in perspective”. Autism as a “condition” is not discussed in reasoned terms by the mainstream because it represents vaccines’ major Achilles heel. Though statistics have rocketed from one in ten thousand to one in thirty per capita since its 1980’s “discovery” (actually a variation of Asperger’s syndrome or Schizophrenia, both forms of brain damage), these blemishes are very much in the minority. Therefore FDA (a toothless “internal” commercial watchdog misbranded as a government department) reputation remains spotless after ceaseless allegations (even by inside professionals) against certain products continue to plaque alternative Medias. From the “group think” perspective, under these circumstances, those that suffer autism must be defective and vaccines (if truly to blame) merely act as agent to stress their abnormality. Only when majorities are demonstrably afflicted, does the campaign fall in a heap. So here’s the contradiction. There have been innumerable pharmaceutical product recalls but, in most instances, the “batch” is judged as culprit. In the case of GlaxoSmithKline Australia many years ago, it required only one alleged poisoning to justify recall of their entire paracetamol production run. Globally, instances of autism may run into hundreds of thousands (depending on statistical diagnosis), but to coin a phrase “nothing to see here” for reasons outlined.

If I conducted a poll from residents of my local street, I would be surprised if I was able to collect even one in a hundred that had heard of Eli Lily’s Thimerosal product. Rhetoric supporting “educated” mainstream vaccine awareness campaigns has been dedicated only to slander. Those that “don’t like” vaccines are painted pathological evil and scandalously ignorant (though explanation for ignorance is routinely absent), whereas those that are on the correct team are “normal”, good, virtuous “God fearing” people even. We must begin to realise that corporate Medias are, with scant exception, supported by pimps and hookers, and these vassals do not (by any means) deserve the title “journalist”. On rare occasions truthful truth rears its head in isolation, it is always skew. Judaism undeniably influences mainstream content censorship measures. Indeed, so much so, some believe there are no other political interests balancing control (Christianity and Islam both versions of Judaism). Jews, regardless of status and location, today are classed as “People of Israel”. That is the only [real] reason most nations permit dual-citizenship.

Given his enormous status and favourably biased treatment “under society” (goyim), how [individually] sovereign is the average Israelite? I think the answer to that lies in circumcision. The Jew, without forethought, will deny God and barbarously deface his new born son to demonstrate allegiance to the group. That is the pitiful standard humanity swears by.

When “Belief in the Saviour” Teases Corrupt Zeal

Traditionally I have regularly released a Christmas or New Year’s thematic to coincide with the so-called festive season. 2018 has proven to be a latecomer, but I refuse to entirely relax standards. Each winter solstice cycle I increasingly notice how little of Christ [from the Greek] is present in Christmas. For instance, there is now more or less a complete void once occupied by goodwill.

Satan devoured it,” howl the sanctimoniously superstitious

Yet superstitions should never be entirely overlooked. Every reflective proverb invariably contains a grain or more of truth. Current advertising beginning as early as “New Year”, embers of the “Phoenician” commerce coup ignited under concessions of Santa around the turn of the nineteenth century. Great threat Cossack Russia helplessly conquered and with America “under administration”, imperialism was to become the unchallenged voice of reason. Maybe Ebenezer Scrooge wasn’t such a bad stick after all, but I will elaborate on this sentiment in due course.

Before I expose the real corruption of Christ, it is important to clear the air over Santa’s ambiguous comeuppance. Back in Rococo times the ice countries may as well have been classed as the known third world. Few were hardy enough to brave the cold, but for occasioned explorers. These courageous travellers were at liberty to export remote tales of old, particularly when absent of viable bounty. In Santa’s case it seems that two convenient folklores converged as one. Whether any original account has been authentically preserved is unlikely, but, suffice to say, vagrant Norwegian sagas concerning an odd mystic figure (elf?) had proliferated out to “the West” by 1815 or ’20.

Historic development of the Western version is much easier to chart. By reputation, one of America’s New York newspapers made timely broadsheet announcements in December 1773 and the follow year. According to promotional content, Dutch families seasonally congregated to honour Saint Nicholas (a monk renowned for his selfless distribution of charity). Plausibly, theorists claim that Saint Nicholas was issued the pet name Sinter Klaas in the local dialect pronunciation. Evolution to Santa Claus is logically coincidental. Back in the early nineteen century, it should be noted that popular drawings presenting Sinter Klaas in contemporary situations barely resemble modern Santa. That commercial effigy is believed to have been the consequence of a life-sized model placed behind a Philadelphia general store window in 1841.

Scandinavian tales refer to a mystic figure that helped the children, although Christkind (Christ’s child) or Kris Kringle is usually considered the parallel German version. The original name (the one sometimes quoted is not authentic) of the historic figure is perhaps lost to time, but I calculate it was the missing ingredient that promulgated a natural evolution to Santa Claus. My use of the word “natural” here is figurative, of course, as there is a sinister side to this account too. Following Scandinavian myths, from around 1820 American businesses heavily invested in Christmas shopping advertising, strategically placed around heart-warming ditties (one can but assume were) inspired by the Norwegian mystic. Printed message cards were to come in en-masse from the late nineteenth century onwards.

Popular iconography attributed to a North Pole setting was introduced (in the West) by Clement Clark Moore, whose 1822 poem “An Account of a Visit from Saint Nicholas” apparently featured quaint eye-catching illustrations. Thomas Nast, cartoonist for Harper’s weekly, adapted visualisations for a feature spread in 1881 which made popular acclaim. Embedded traditions of present day rotund gentleman clad in cheery red suit gestated in the 1890’s. Promptly exploited by the Salvation Army, homeless men dressed in seasonal costumes were commissioned to venture out with the aim of collecting funding donations.

Masonic involvement in the creation of the United States of America is beyond dispute. Whether fabled Illuminati power brokers were the key instrumental agents will possibly never be authentically known or provable. What is unarguably clear is the American union was never set up for the people or, rather, if it was, “the people” were undoubtedly the select few. Propagandists went to work in earnest well before the United States was ratified as “one”. Corresponding messages promoting Christmas spirit in favour of commerce highlighted the ambitions of those that established the new republic. This style of subliminal tradition persevered throughout the occurring human rights’ transformation, perhaps persuasively haunted by Charles Dickens 1843 masterpiece “A Christmas Carol”. Incidentally, British Dickens had also written his Parish Boy’s Progress (more commonly known as Oliver Twist) serial 1837-39 which coincided (sic) with the Abolition of Slavery Act (1837).

I wrote about the truth behind abolition last article and inasmuch stated that no philanthropic goodwill should be attributed to the end of slavery. Human rights were reduced to tatters in order to fortify the needs of burgeoning commerce. One of the significant causal effects, in addition to labour exploitation, unprecedented spikes in crime and prostitution, was the emergence of numerous social charities. I have written about charities independently before too. If governments were truly set up exclusively for the people, then each charity must be viewed as a breakdown of order that highlights supreme jurisdictional incompetence. Today there are supposedly tens of millions of charitable causes which emphasises the ineptitude of governmental social charters. But there is another side to the conspiracy. Great writers like Dickens rarely (if ever) meaningfully expose the indelible link between charity and trade. Charities usually place funds in the care of the banking system available to purchase goods or services before converting them into “aid”. Funds not needed “in the field” are invariably locked into attractive interest bearing long term deposits. British “custodian of charities” (a corporate collective catering for tens of thousands of organisations) used to be listed second place below British Telecom at the stock exchange, so it is a lucrative cash cow.

Dickens’ squint vision is enough to convince me he worked for the overlords. Why else would have he been allowed to make fame and fortune? If his writings had viciously attacked “the system”, no one would know of them today. Without doubt his “hallmark” powerfully creative style made endorsement decision making easy. His deeply human approach surely would have been considered gravy topping by his endorsers. For example, “A Christmas Carol” (or “Scrooge”) did highlight the plight of the working classes, but the manner as to how merchants and those that governed exploited working classes was matter of fact, the way things are. In effect, Dickens ended up posthumously begging for charity from his betters. That was the limit of his militancy. Indeed, in the Victorian age knowing your place had been a very long standing belief attached to birth provenance (i.e. the result of karmic deliverance). Perhaps this is why he was allowed to paint such a bleak picture. Other of his novels feature “poor houses” (paid slavery) and debtors’ prisons, so it would be unfair not to lightly applaud aspects of his pioneering effort towards social conscience.

In fact he was far from the only dissenting voice of that era. Beginning with comparatively humble numbers from the late eighteenth century onward, by high Victorian times published attacks on “the system” had just about reached fever pitch. A significant side effect to all this is worth exploring. There have been many revisions of the English Bible, from the seventh century AD. A formal Revised Standard Version of the New Testament was first published in 1881 and this was largely a consequence of inertia of “social conscience movements” (notably who were alarmed by the excess of prostitution) in my opinion. British politicians such as William Gladstone expressed their dedication to God (apparently regularly administering sermons to fallen women), although it seems ironic that these individuals have been responsible for imposing some of the most acrid and draconian legislation on the people.

Cultivation of various popular “beacons of hope” was burgeoning commerce’s key strategy investment geared to combating radical dissent in such forms as suffrage protest. Christmas Santa was one such icon. It seems to me that it has been no accident seasonal spirit appears to engage commerce at any opportunity. In that capacity, Santa is the Christmas star perched on a commerce peak. Dickens’ criticism of Scrooge’s lack of commercial goodwill by not paying staff adequately empowered seasonal trading. For lack of better words, when [otherwise] slaves are affluent enough, they can buy more goods and chattel to ensure business perpetually booms. Broadsheets promoted charitable initiatives favouring trade long before the US republic (1789) was established. Santa, by hook or by crook, became a convenient figurehead or mascot. However, review of naming protocols places dark questions regards the ethics and ambitions of those that pioneered the Grotto cult. There is more to Santa Claus than is obvious.

Far from being a saviour, he has been known to splinter families consumed by obsessive greed. Those without funds sufficient for merriment (as Dickens bitterly highlights) are ostracised by “goodwill”. There is a giant clue as to why this is so, but I first need to provide a little background before I detail it. My other website offers many articles that cover esoteric and paranormal affairs. Coincidentally Satan was the feature of one long essay there. I say coincidentally because it is fairly well known that Santa also happens to be an anagram of Satan. In normal circumstances one would put the fact down to quirks of language, but can we be sure connections are accidental or arbitrary here?

Explanations will become a little complex because I first need to allay popular confusion over origins and meaning of Satan. In fact, while I am about it, I may as well cover doppelganger Lucifer too. Satan, for instance, is a very ancient term that stretches back long prior to Atlantis. Sanskrit is the closest dialect I have found representative of the “universal” first language that failed to survive Atlantis’ downfall (hinted at in biblical Genesis’ Tower of Babel). In that regard, perhaps all words were originally collective monotones and, with this in mind, Satan conveniently breaks into “sat” and “an”. In Sanskrit pronunciation reflectively impacts word values, so “sat” and “an” could each be attributed to mean many different things. Therefore, in the interest of correctness, I have had to draw on inherent sources to establish compelling historic and interpretative basis from considerations.

“An” is the easy part. Several ancient tongues use the syllable to signify “Almighty God”. In combination with Almighty God, various meanings of “sat” might satisfy differing wider metaphoric interpretations. Though the fact appears to have escaped surviving chronicles, Satan was the first star to ever bless the cosmos (actually initially revered as the Blessed Star). All stars deliver light. In spiritual context, light is sometimes called logos (which is the Greek word for information). Spiritually, “logos” extends way beyond mere information. It is the essence of truthful purity or, in other words, the word of God. “Sat” is the Sanskrit equivalent of this conceptualisation. Lucifer admirably compares. That name derives from the Latin and means “light” (lux) “standard” (fer). Morning Star (Lucifer) competing with the sun (Ra) as it rises based on biblical Isaiah’s (an unrepentant Pharisee) radical sermon is generally regarded as the significant origin of the usage.

Also worthy of mention, Akhenaten’s Amon (usually erroneously referred to as Amen) conspicuously forms an “Almighty God” (A-n) sandwich casing “m’o” (divine record) filling. Thus, strictly speaking Satan, Lucifer and Amon/Amen all mean the same thing (more or less), which is bringer of good news. Actually, wasn’t that what they called Jesus too? Nevertheless, I have explained elsewhere how the general message over time has been twisted into opposite meanings by miscreants with rogue agendas. Today the direct effect is both Satan and Lucifer have been reversed from bringers of good news to evil omens. Specifically, Satan [in Hebrew tongue] simply means accuser. The development of Satan as “the tempter” did not emerge until the late sixteen century, though attributing philosophies were clearly embedded in Martin Luther’s earlier rhetoric. Luther (himself a Jesuit) strongly influenced contemporary masonic alliances. Masonry is not the sinister cabal delineated by superstition. Merchants would normally associate themselves with one group or another in order to network out of trading necessity. The massively beneficial spin off was it made collusion and coordinated commerce strategies possible.

Not all collaborations were gracious. When stakes were high, gross acts of tyranny or injustice were sometimes deemed “end justifying”. One such conspiracy toppled Britain’s constitutional monarch Charles I, who was beheaded on 30th January 1649 as a consequence. Even so, after that atrocious standard had been set, beginning with his son puppet king Charles II’s reinstatement, the universal demise of sovereign royal power is probably best marked by Catherine “the Great” (no wonder they call her great) of Russia’s turbulent reign. Violent anarchism was an offshoot of that operation. Since Michael Romanov’s (nephew of Ivan the Terrible) 1613 accession to the Russian throne, there had always been disturbance with Cossack settlers (displaced Polish serfs who termed themselves “free men”). In accordance, numerous popular uprisings against authorities have been reported from 1591. Out of all these, it is the 1768 Ukrainian (Koliyivshchyna) religious massacre that probably most pertinently marks an authority shift. Reputation says killing was sparked by Catherine the Great’s “Golden Charter” (1765) which enabled retired colonel and cleric Maksim Zalizniak’s ambitions. Their joint mission was dedicated to purging Catholics and other religious minorities.  Politically correct historians are quick to denounce the Golden Charter (which also targeted Jews) as “utter fantasy” in order to preserve the queen’s “spotless” reputation.

Encyclopaedia Britannica’s first edition is dated 1770. From 1770-75 Russia is proclaimed the world’s greatest nation. By 1776 she may as well have been a sickly dog.  Many theories attribute reasons leading to the country’s downfall, but it seems to me that government ownership of the Orthodox Church from 1721 marked the beginning of the end so to speak. Post revolution “Communist” Jew Leon Trotsky’s unrelenting all-reaching attack on that administration was certainly no coincidence. Populations had been galvanised by the church. Replace it with alternative convenient social apparatus and you have society in your pocket. Russians were (and perhaps still are) extremely parochial and rather superstitious. This is well highlighted by the way they celebrate Christmas. According to legend, Babouschka (old woman or granny) misled the three kings (search for Christ) by giving the wrong directions. The Russian birth date for “Jesus’” is 6th January but festivities honour Babouschka’s eternal regret for her deceit.

Historians might convincingly argue fledgling United States of America’s journey to superpower status began in 1776 (phoenix rising from mother Russia’s ashes?). Constitutional democracy ended in 1789 when the republic (in Philistine Greece and Italy’s wake?) was formed (and currency changed), but it took until 1864 (ushering in the 14th Amendment to the constitution) for government to be reduced to a corporation. Commerce was the primary reason the United States was formed but it took the best part of a century (1776-1864) for satanic agents to exact their full plan. Today all governments (and their tax offices) are corporations and that is why the modern world is held to ransom by merchant bankers. I find it mildly ironic that it is in the powers’ best interests for people to “wake up” to truth which is of next to no advantage to egregious saviours’ causes. This suggests, at the very least, that all (or the majority of) revolution philosophies have been sponsored by the precise same powers that impose tyranny. These false rites of passage were sponsored because the deceivers knew they were guaranteed dead ends.

To define true evil, I regularly reference a quote attributed to the great sage Krishna “Spirituality (impetus behind creation) brings to freedom, whereas forces of evil paralyse”. What better way to paralyse than by introducing appealing commerce. Humanity would not be able to resist aiding and abetting the devil (d-evil). I don’t refer to the satisfaction of genuine “needs” here, although commerce can accommodate those too. No, here I exclusively identify non-essential extras; frills of commerce. Some argue that the introduction of pomp surrounding royalty (which has endured so long) is pointless. Lemurian monarchs for periods that precede historic record were visually indistinguishable from the people. Very ancient kings were blessed with God-like powers. They could be distinguished by deed. Today certainly, beyond their overstated assigned status and privileged upbringing, royals are no different to the everyman. At Christmas, pomp and celebration of non-essential extras is now encapsulated by iconic smirking Santa which suggests it is those behind commerce that crafted the whole idea of aristocratic superiority.

Is the clue in Santa’s name; perfect anagram of Satan? By the time of this red frocked (isn’t the devil usually depicted coloured red?) tempter’s universal notoriety, negative connotations of Satan were firmly entrenched. Indeed, so much so no one had heard of the Blessed Star (in relation to the creation of our universe) by then. Such is the case today as well of course. I presented some detail in relation to the truth (and reasoning behind it) that negative Satan was actually originally the mispronunciation of “Saturn” (from medieval times, although I think this reflects attitudes under Prophet Zoroaster thousands of years before) in this article. “Design” of Santa appears to vaguely follow the Babylonian Horus myth. Indestructible God could only be chopped up and hidden. In this instance “An” has been remorselessly sliced in two, “n” crudely wedged between “sa” and “t”. “A” brings up the rear and represents perennial impotence of spirituality under Santa’s spell. God is vanquished (decapitated) and his wisdom (sat) corrupted.

But for Babouschka, Christmas (Epiphany) would be mostly a hangover from the Pagan era. Evergreen trees (in particular) represent celebration of the winter solstice. From time memorial, tradition has always seen exchange of gifts, but pagans honoured their harvest, so communities would contribute fresh fruits and vegetables for the benefit of society. “The Feeding of Five Thousand” New Testament parable was scripted by Mark (or Marcus, a Roman aristocrat) and therefore one should question its purpose all the more. Though communal sharing of fish and loaves suggests so, it is unlikely Jesus (Josephus) ever administered a true harvest festival dedicated to the winter solstice. The Romans, on the other hand, did worship solar cycles. Sun-day is a tribute to that legacy. Per context, the alert may struggle to fathom why I bother to discuss this now, given Jesus’ notorious “Jewish” status. Let me explain why. Long prior to Roman involvement, Judaism had split in two. City folks followed autocratic regimes promulgated by those generally known as Pharisees. It is a style of “order” remains alive and well today, underpinning up-to-date management of global affairs. Back then remote, displaced tribes were guided by (what the right-wingers’ would term) superstitious philosophies which prepared for different “ways of life”.

Their brand of raw spirituality was in fact encapsulated by the essence of numerous of splinter groups and these had journeyed out to the four corners of the globe in search of paradise (colloquially referred to as Promised Land). One such autonomy was the foundation of ancient druids (not even vaguely similar to garish abuse, late eighteenth century neo-druidism). Rural “Essene” Jews were labelled Gnostics for a while. Though historians remember it as a new tradition from the time of Jesus, it is likely the 570BC exodus to Ireland (Promised Land designate) consisted of likeminded parties of anti-Levite (Pharisaic law makers) “revolutionaries”. These embers of civilisation plausibly could have “morphed into” the later druidic tradition, made more notorious by Avalon (spiritual centre and first mystery school?), which is located in southern England. If memory serves me correctly, America’s Pilgrim Fathers formally constituted a southern English gathering in search of purity. The point I am trying to make is there has been a persisting religious dichotomy ever since man reflected on his divinity. Judaism, God forbid, is probably one of the better examples of that

Celebration of the solstices seems a likely component of Gnostic tradition. Unfortunately, other than newly found (and possibly censored) bundles of esoteric texts hidden in Dead Sea catacombs and other discreet places, evidence of that faith was destroyed long ago. Neo-druids make a big hullaballoo over solstice traditions whereas I suspect the Gnostics treated these occasions as opportunities to educate. What better way to manufacture goodwill while celebrating nature could there be than a harvest festival? The idea of community sharing for everyone’s benefit is instilled in “The Feeding of Five Thousand” parable. Did Mark’s account confuse a solstice event? Perhaps we’ll never know, but, per context, the fish and loaves are distinct spiritual symbols and shouldn’t be viewed liberally. Celts (original druids) in particular revered divinity as something directly attributed to creative potence. They determined that all life came from primordial waters (something modern science propagandises?). If primordial waters constitute God’s physicality, then fishes’ mastery of oceans must be inspirationally hallowed. The Lord’s Prayer “praises God for our daily bread”.

Tribes, such as those that became the druids, who didn’t revere pharisaic order, separated and found new havens (free of tyranny) to root. It is difficult to pinpoint the precise transition which is the branch that became modern day Judaism. Hebrew was originally a cut down cosmic script. For instance, additional unknown letters are occasionally seen interspersed with Hebrew on downed alien spaceships’ insignia. It is known that today’s long standing Yiddish culture backed off New Hebrew because Old Hebrew was insufficient for competent business communication. The “pointing” of Hebrew text (which in practicality adjusts for a new language) possibly coincided with first world universal adoption of stamped currency (legal tender). Accurate dates are deliberately vague on origins of pointing; maybe 12th, 13th or 14th century depending on opinions. Does this vainly cover up the Khazarian Yiddish pact emanated from the Ukraine? As an aside, though the Ukraine is sometimes volunteered, it could not have possibly ever been fabled Khazaria as that land mass is submerged under oceans today. There is however compelling innuendo that posits for a plausible case recommending the Ukraine is viewed as the motherland by certain estranged Pharisees.

Few bother to even attempt to comprehend the severe civil consequences of legal tender. Enslaved populations are the product of oppressive and tyrannous welfare states which cannot exist unless supported by currency. Therefore, industrialist vipers initially introduced serfdom gradually, confusing the “free” into believing that this was an effect of their zealous benevolence. Once everyone was “captured”, oligarchs expanded traditional uses of prisons for purposes of “containing” those whom they did not want to socially enable (crude justifications supported by laws came later). Bonded slavery became the only viable social security option for those displaced by war, famine or for other reasons.

Truth surrounding vile treachery of the Magna Carta (marking the point at which silver currency exploded) is obscured by cheery tales of Robin Hood and his band of crafty thugs. As a treaty, it wasn’t a charter of goodwill towards the people. It in fact was open theft of free lands and the negotiated common rights of man. Courtesy of the Magna Carta, the vast majority of our modern populations could not live off the land effectively now, even if we were forced to do so and that is why industrialists lord over the document’s prowess so heartily. Rich or poor, mighty or lowly, we have all by some measure been transformed into slaves of currency. They say money makes the civilised world go round. That is why those with the most money invariably have all the privileges.

Where it came from God only knows, but there is a tragic old wives’ tale that supposes the ills of humanity are the fault of the Midas effect. Those with wealth are singled out as evil doers even though everyone (without exception) is greedy (sometimes euphemised as will to survive). The humble do not know extravagance so they neither desire nor solicit it. Most elites merely exploit human nature to the hilt, though they may not be fully cognisant of the fact. The reason Santa has become so popular is he epitomises the averice of the masses. That is more than amply highlighted in Charles Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol”. Goodwill is leveraged to such effect that crippled “Tiny Tim” deserves to have the litter of his family’s desires steeped on him at Christmas for merely existing. Of course this selfish anthem ignores those hard to rectify gaping double standards. Why would “rich” Scrooge bestow gifts on relative strangers in place of his own loved ones? The real issue, how Tiny Tim’s father persevered under such irresponsible employment terms, is not discussed.

Well, they didn’t have unions then”, screams a heckler

Incorrect, but it will take an eternity for sovereign man to grow a backbone. The power of labour values ironically has always been very much in the hands of the people. If everyone refused work and put death as the preference over slavery, currency would have been rendered valueless from conception and commerce would have never commenced (in the known sense). From the point currency was introduced, a utopian objective has been to shackle the broad masses. Peer group infiltration and targeted populism were the chosen control strategies (branded psyops) used to fulfil the objective. From the day men communicated with each other, money (cuts of silver, gold talents, precious beads) and other arbitrary tokens of value have always been used to supplement barter trade.

Currency is different. Units are stamped by (and the overriding possession of) an administrative authority. Originally that would have been a constitutional royal. Now stock ownership is hybrid. Who is this Federal Reserve? Those that use the merchandise are subject to governing philosophies and rules. A dollar cannot morph into a million units of value because “someone” decides this is so, whereas administrative overseers might revalue a dollar if they decided the act was politically expedient. Germany’s inflation was a deliberate act. Other competing paper currencies were only partially backed by gold, but the illustrious Federal Reserve turned a blind eye. Whilst apparently contractually bound as servants (polite word for slaves) of government, they were able to turn a blind eye because they own all “backed” circulated money.

Wholesale cash enterprises were developed first by the Greeks and then by the Romans, even though the oldest surviving currency (assuming science is correct) originates from Russia. Subsequent European coinage values were extensions of the Roman legacy. It would be hard to formally prove (particularly as reference maps show Philistinia approximates the modern Palestinian territory region), but logic supposes that the Greeks and Romans were descendants of relocated Philistines (tall pale skinned warriors). Retreating from defeat by Babylonian Pharaoh and “Jewish” King David, Philistines first settled in Greece (on the doorstep of the Middle East). Since “great” Alexander’s conquest to rule the world ran out of steam, Greek politics apparently favoured secular complacency over global conquest. Hamstrung industrialists shifted their affairs to Italy and, over several centuries, built sufficient military infrastructure to commit to their globalist ambitions once more.

Incidentally, not at all Middle Eastern in appearance, then Babylonian peoples would have been classed as “Caucasians” by today’s sciences. Therefore notorious King David would have been a white man. Though only circumstantial evidence supports claims he was a Pharaoh, inherent sources advise me information is relatively accurate (i.e. the wrong pharaoh is referenced as culprit), which places grave questions as to the authenticity behind the popular legacy of Israel of course. History is far from circumspect here. For example those dreadful “Greek” Hyksos Kings that “conveniently” appeared to take rule when Babylon was lacking authority were likely Philistines, yet Josephus eerily reports them as Israelites. I say these were the first usurpers; these were Pharisees who support a fabricated Levite Alta ego.

By deduction, this would mean the “great” Caesar was a Philistine as well. Limited writings about him present a grave paradox. According to surviving texts, he was some kind of popular miracle working Ben Hur. Such are the qualities of his proposed divinity; some might rightly be compelled to believe he was Jesus. Of course this adds to the case that persuades Mark was a Roman aristocrat who cast Jesus in the Homeric style, perhaps even as an attempt to preserve the image of Caesar. The evocation would have made both instantly popular figures even if real lives didn’t quite live up to the reputation. Infiltration of peer groups and targeted populism is achieved in one fell swoop. More evidence is as follows. Peer group infiltration is embodied by Mark “Iscariot’s” treacherous conversion to Gnosticism (and later St Paul’s Damascus Road epiphany). There is no more popular false occult icon than Jesus.

Prognosis therefore is depressingly melancholy. Beyond the use of occasional repeated proverbs, not a single book found in the New Testament even vaguely resembles authentic Essene philosophy, including “John”. Scholars that first take the plunge and brave any of the Dead Sea Scrolls’ codexes are quick to notice the profound intellectual depth of content (making embedded philosophies extraordinarily hard to interpret correctly). Gospel writer Mark was Roman, Luke Greek and Matthew was a cosmopolitan Jew and obvious agent of the Pharisees. Enigmatic John didn’t exist, but the name (in its use) implies “God’s secretary”. His, the Fourth Gospel, was dictated by Josephus (as Jesus) through brother-in-law scribe Lazarus. One word only of Jesus’ personal volume has survived. Someone (perhaps many) in authority knows the truth about this.

Jesus’ own gospel was purposefully destroyed and the celebrated surviving second century papyrus was not a copy. It is a forgery. If it had been authentic, how could the document have dodged Philistine Constantine’s mighty fourth century purge?  Outright censorship of texts that contradicted or impeded Sol Invictus faith was the only literary amnesty of his inquisition. Catholicism’s Papacy was the removed Roman monarchy; therefore it was also yet another Philistine/Pharisee offshoot. The reason St Paul (author of New Testament Corinthians, Romans and so on) is occasionally recognised as the first pope (and last apostle) is to give his detestable writings (which smother any occasional glint “free of Romanisation” emulating the conscience of Jesus) greater credibility (and popularity, of course). Paul’s calculated role generally seems to suggest sour grapes after good times gone awry. Should the “Ideal” Jesus have gracefully “wallpapered” the uncomfortable political “marriage” between the Pharisees and de facto Royalty?

Look, I’m not sure when the Sanhedrin originally came into being or whether it really matters, but I notice a familiar pattern with “world affairs” stretching back at least the most part of two and a half thousand years. History informs me the Romans conquered lands located in the region now called the Middle East. Their haul included Israel (conquered by Assyrians centuries before). A consequence of one of the first acts of power was to usher in hybrid Arab (ethic nomads that roamed Aram or were these Assyrians or even Phoenicians?) royals to rule over Judea (separatist Southern Israel). First “despot” of the official Promised Land Moses (who compares well against England’s Oliver Cromwell) never referred to arbitrary bodies when making decisions. Tradition (after the burning bush) revered him as the direct link to God. All great prophet kings follow identical protocol, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Noah and the rest. Their decisions were their own and these “commandments” were a testament upholding their uniformly breath taking “greatness”. Nevertheless, when the Sanhedrin (or royal court) emerged sovereign rule was doomed to wither. Under Israel’s Roman occupation, that evolution was furiously ignited.

Though government is meant to be a mix of identities that reflect the goodwill of society, by reputation decision making almost always errs towards right wing (fascist) mindset. Values imposed by Sanhedrin courts depressingly crafted that motif

Reflecting on contemporary politics of Jesus’ age, overbearing Roman authority paid lip service to the whims of their puppet Arab monarchs provided they observed all the wishes of the Pharisees (who took the high seat in the Sanhedrin). That said, certain Roman emperors didn’t see things their way. Look how these (such as Caligula and Nero) have been “painted” (i.e. utter fabrication) by “history”. Judea was abandoned (allegedly) after the 66-69AD siege of Jerusalem (a chain reaction sparked by earlier infractions under Nero). Within moments of the exodus a new fully fledged “Christian” hierarchy pops up in Alexandria. Infrastructure is so strong; its governing church is effectively born as a corporation. Therefore, transferring authority to Constantinople was child’s play after the papacy was formally established in the late fourth century.

Emergence of this virgin Catholic Church exactly coincides with the shocking disappearance of the great Roman Empire. Over several centuries, the same Catholic Church made a bee-line to exert control over every single credible European monarchy. This is more than amply highlighted by records of battles against the Merovingian kings, which included the calculated murder of Dagobert II. The Catholic Church had become (by accident or design) a sort of universal Sanhedrin, which is made all the more interesting because the Jewish version abandoned its administrative authority after the second temple (though some argue it never existed) was “allegedly” levelled by fire. Thus far I have contemplated numbers of suggestions that could never be “proven”, but could it be argued the Nicolaitans were instrumental at re-establishing the defunct Sanhedrin apparatus in Constantinople?

There is more fuel for the fire, if we move the clock forward a bit. King Henry VIII of England did the unthinkable in 1534. After a bitter divorce with Spanish royal Catherine of Aragon, he excommunicated the pope and formed his own Church of England. That is why the vicious catholic versus protestant wars persisted long after his death. Thomas Moore chose death in absence of moral sovereignty, but the rot had begun to set in long before, even while bonny Henry was still in power. The Roman “Sanhedrin” had only been temporarily usurped by the monarch. It wasn’t long before Henry was surrounded by pious advisors, such as prominent “world’s richest man” Cardinal Woolsey. Only a smidgen over a century after Henry’s desperate act, pharisaic authorities decided they needed to well and truly shore things up (and claim deserved revenge). This culminated with the execution death of Charles I in 1649 mentioned earlier, of course.

For the first time in history (unlike the Greek and Roman Republics before) a civilian government shielded power beneath “protector” Cromwell, but fame went to his head and he proved more deistic than any king. That is the ostensive reason behind the government’s swift (1660) re-establishment of the British monarchy, which remains intact today. It was deemed an essential safety measure against any parochial ruling authority. King William’s 1696 rushed though Bill of Rights amply acknowledges the viperous nature of man (particularly when given responsibility). To the best of my knowledge, every subsequent constitution (such as America’s) has built in its own bill of rights. For the record, though we have been programed to believe that royal executive power was devoid of peer oversight prior to corporate takeover, the myth simply isn’t true. Monarchs were presumed appointed by God (perhaps after Moses) and, as such, bound to honour their constituents. Suffice to say some kings turned out more attentive than others. That in mind, when factoring in the emergence of outsourced legislation via organs such as the Sanhedrin, the deep question I find rather hard to resolve is “who was the last true king?”

Who is the rightful king is important. Gospel writer Matthew’s biblical genealogy was aimed at promoting Jesus as the hereditary Messiah (priest-king or “Christ” subject to certain terms and conditions), but was it David or Zechariah (Jesus’ uncle) that established precedence? Zechariah was not a pharaoh nor did he have any conceivably legitimate claim to Babylonian rule. Pharaoh David set up the twenty four priestly branches (spawning king making material) that were each to be deemed valid natural contenders for the Jewish throne. It seems to me that without intimate understanding of David or any of the many hierarchical values that bestowed him with power, ignorance over what substantiates “royalty” from pedestrian “rank and file” will perennially reign. Usurpers naturally capitalise on this schism. Indeed, the truth would be enough to bring down their phoney baloney house of cards.  Dissenting historians irregularly report of the wisdom of the Oannes, but where is it to be found now?

Jesus is fantasy, a marketing brand that coordinates a very special historic period. He was the event which preceded Philistine formal grasp of absolute power. Therefore, modern traditions that prepare a muted, ineffective “Saviour” emphasise corporate will to control (Scrooge had absolute autonomy over directions of conscience). In other words, when the huddled masses are suitably impoverished and hope lacking, their only alternative is to turn to corporate commerce (big government) for succour. That is predominantly why the “machine” has relentlessly pushed a socialist agenda over the last hundred years or so. Now the hundred years is up, we are very close to “end game”. Australia’s prime minister is a billionaire (or so rumour has it). America’s president Trump is a tycoon. America is the first “first world” country. Australia is the last “first world” dominion. This tells anyone that understands the “code” that the oligarch’s are now brash enough to boast “we’ve won and there’s nothing [you] the people can do about it”.

I have written about the truth behind Jesus “the person” at length before, but it is worth repeating additional detail again to bring some extra clarity to this essay. Anagrammatised Josephus equates to “give birth to Jesus” in Latin tongue. It is such a clever anagram; “metaphor” is implied through use of letters P, H and O. I am also aware that “J” is obsolete so, in this case, whatever normally replaces it works just as well. One of the apocryphal books casts the young Jesus so well educated in theological matters it is presumed he was the son of a High Priest. Josephus’ father was Matthias Joseph, a High Priest of the 24th line from David (i.e. as illustrated earlier, royal blood). Militant Jesus attacking money changers at the temple was so contextually uncharacteristic, whoever it was clearly wasn’t preaching Jesus (isn’t it “odd” that Philistine Catholicism forbade money lending entirely on those grounds and this legitimised Jewish banking, coincidence?). Sermon on the Mount from Matthew’s Gospel presents a pensively angry prophet, but not a violent one. My inherent sources report that the young militant man was none other than Jesus’ (or, rather, Josephus’) father (who also used the codename Barabbas).

According to these sources, in his youth, Matthias Joseph joined the revolutionary movement and was impassioned by the royal cause against Roman tyranny. Because Arab puppet kings met most (if not all) of the Pharisees’ wishes, Zealots (as these revolutionaries became known) were doubtlessly not too fond of the extreme right-wing establishment either. This presents a problem for those determined to rationalise the truth, which is embroiled in politics that are quite complicated. To extend my observation of the young revolutionary Barabbas who attacked the money changers, he was arrested and convicted of a serious offense. Theologians that have bothered to study contemporary Roman law almost universally agree that Jesus did nothing (as visually evident in the numerous religious records) to warrant arrest, less crucifixion. Roman Philistines did impose very harsh penalties (up to death) on any party that disrupted the supply chain (commerce). Moneychangers at the temple would have provided commercial supply and they were undeniably [violently] disrupted by Barabbas (under pseudonym).

The physical crucifixion event (per its convenient placement in various New Testament writings) was used metaphorically. I shall discuss metaphorical terms shortly. For now, let me focus on the event. Some have noted that the crucifixion was conducted on private land, which was unusual. In Jesus’ case, this would imply that Barabbas was either extremely rich, well connected or both. The land, we learn, belonged to prominent local business man Joseph of Arimathea, whose international business holdings were reputedly centred at Cornwall, England (Gnostic-Druid heartland). Josephus’ scribe was Lazarus, son of Joseph of Aramithea. Jesus’ “wife” was Mary Magdalene, Lazarus’ sister, so there are logical family connections here. As Miriam (Mary) has rather negative connotations (suggesting bereavement) in ancient Hebrew, it is not widely used. Mary, on the other hand was a very popular contemporary Roman given name, particularly in royal circles, as it bestowed heritage. Given this background, I am already questioning whether there was an actual crucifixion, whether the event was purely metaphorical? Ancient chroniclers were afforded great liberty in the way they expressed themselves. Therefore knowing how to read between the lines correctly is the key to understanding hallowed texts.

Before I discuss validity of the crucifixion in more depth, I need to make a few more associated observations. Presumption Mary Magdalene was never called Miriam suggests she was prominent Roman offspring. Could this mean the Joseph of Aramithea had taken a Roman Philistine wife? Was she of royal lineage (hence selecting Mary as the given name for her daughter)? I am compelled to believe that she would have been extremely important for Joseph to be on first name terms with Pontius Pilate, Roman Governor of Judea. Turning to Inherent sources once more, I am informed that a royal marriage was brokered between Barabbas (Jesus’ father) and another Mary. If, as some scholars like to posit, Jesus was a family member of the Piso emperor class, that lineage could only have come via his mother (as his father was a Jewish royal). Should this prove sufficiently correct, it would explain why the Catholic Church gives the Madonna such bloated “eternal” status against puny “dead” Jesus on the cross. Congregations from all over the globe flock to touch her miracle working effigies.

Presuming a marriage had been brokered between “Mary” (euphemistically known as mother of Jesus) and Matthias Joseph (father of Josephus who “gave birth to” and was literal Jesus), contemporary politics would have been revolutionised (endorsing the Pharisees’ political intrigue). In conjunction, the undeniably hard to resolve question is “why did the Pharisees back clemency in favour of Barabbas (father of Jesus)?” unless there is more to solving the puzzle than meets the obvious eye.  Does this suggest that Jesus was a recalcitrant heir (hinted at in the Prodigal Son parable)? If Matthias Joseph was an integral part of the establishment, then Josephus almost certainly defied the wishes of the father. Failure of his preaching tour in the Nazareth region highlights the discontentment. Nazareth, at the time, was a hub for the well-to-do and privileged classes, so naturally political preferences erred towards hard-line right-wing philosophies. One can but presume that Matthias Joseph, as the bastion of civilised society and honoured revolutionary, had strong ties to religious order (i.e. the Pharisees). Josephus was comparatively Bohemian (again implied in the Prodigal Son parable).

Whilst alien to traditional Gnostic writings, all Gospels identify Jesus as a renegade preacher who associated with undesirables (“outcasts”). He is both against the rooted establishment (though quotes from “Law” at every opportunity) and oppressed civilisation (measuredly). Socialist content embedded in sermons would fare so well, proverbs have been adopted by modern day democracy movements. Courtesy of his royal status, Josephus did have friends in high places that shielded him, but they were still pillars of mundane society that were forced to corrupt certain values to remain in power (and use aliases when assisting renegade causes). This is perhaps casually camouflaged by Jesus’ association with outcasts (inwardly well meaning, but outwardly dishonest). Therefore modern day belief in “the Saviour” relies on corrupt zeal. Zeal, in turn, has transformed into a fanaticism cultivated by corporate religions. Individual beliefs are singular matters of faith, whereas idolatries become authorities for those that chose to apply “so called” blind faith (a grotesque form of ignorance).

Individual beliefs must be questioned to improve constancy, whereas determined authority erodes opportunity for zealous fidelity

Jesus would share Josephus’ birth year of 37AD, unless historic accuracy is obscured here. There are niggling problems with this date particularly when factoring in the most practical chronology allowing for his two and a half year ministry. The Siege of Jerusalem is the obvious choice as a correlating time period which I would say is the only plausible term of upheaval within range significant enough to profitably bolster a prophetic preacher’s missionary tour. His audience would have predominantly been Jews recoiling from ever widening Roman reprisals. Under such conditions, the siege must have been deemed the “final straw”. Adding to my case, Jesus’ journey has been retraced by geographical experts. Median chronology fits against the siege timeline like a glove, therefore I deduce the ministry ran from 64-66AD and that is why the first Gospel by Mark was published sometime after 68AD (long enough to source witnesses, conduct interviews, correlate notes, write, edit and publish a manuscript). There was no oral period as has been “supposed”, because it made no sense anyway. The contemporary Jewish connotation of what was meant by “Messiah” (then) is very different to the hybrid evolution (distortion) that prepares our modern day Catholic sacrificial Son of God “Christos” (or Christ) who “died for our sins”.

Considering proximity against the siege, details of Josephus’ geographic movements do appear to cultivate the “swashbuckler dodging authorities” narrative line. That’s why Jerusalem under siege was last stop – a fait accompli. According to Matthew’s Gospel, one of Jesus’ first acts (after collecting his posse of disciple bodyguards) was to request baptism from his cousin John (son of Zechariah). Traditionally a Jew reached maturity at age thirty, yet was the 37AD birthdate to be correct, then Josephus would have been twenty seven years old if the chronological positioning was accurate. Although the Roman equivalent was age twenty five, there is another explanation. Hebrew chroniclers did not necessarily place events in correct historic order. Prosperity very much justified the means. It seems more likely, in which case, that Jesus was baptised at the end of his ministry when he had built experience worthy of exalted blessing. Authority did not make purges against perceived threats until after the siege (identifying why there was a rapid exodus away from the region directly after 70AD). That is when John the Baptist (contender for the Jewish throne) would have lost his head. Josephus was only spared from the inquisition because of his royal Roman blood.

Mentioned earlier, Jesus was not crucified as there was nothing he did that could justify the punishment under Roman law.  His father, under the pseudonym Barabbas, may have gone through a ceremonial or mock crucifixion. Perhaps others followed suit, such as Simon of Cyrene, to honour the event. Ambiguous Turin Shroud (under care of the Catholic Church – that should instantly raise alarm bells) is a prop designated to fool believers. Beyond doubt, the item belonged to Jacques De Molay Grand Master of the Knights Templar, though only Michael Baigent has had the courage to attest truth in his mainstream publication (Holy Blood, Holy Grail 1982) for my research. Following Molay’s heresy conviction (under Catholicism), he was crucified (1314) in a manner that traced details laid out in the New Testament texts.

Metaphorically, depending on the event’s positioning, in the biblical context, the crucifixion represents the death of Gnosticism, whereas resurrection equals triumphant rebirth in the form of Christianity. The very earliest brand is likely to be Arianism. We can see the stem of Arian-ism is Arian or Aryan, so this should volunteer major questions from the alert. Didn’t Hitler worship a mythical Aryan race? In fact, of all the ancient (pre-biblical) races “Ceres” is the type that most closely represents Ayran characteristics. Significantly, Aryans are attributed to be pure Atlantis stock (alien genes were added to replenish humanity after the fall). This fits the overall picture, because traditions (including a weight of generally unrecorded information referenced from inherent sources) suggest the Gnostics went to extraordinary lengths in their attempts to rekindle Atlantis society. Some of their more sacred traditions, which included embedded magic (notably applied by practitioners of authentic Druidism and, hence, the elites’ interest in attending the mystery schools), predate known civilisation.

It could be argued that the whole concept of monachal divinity was ushered in by Atlantis. Accoutrements include the royal sceptre, which authentic versions are magic healing wands doubling as laser weapon. Bona fide royal orbs are holographic truth generators. A king’s crown bestowed the wearer with supernatural powers. Gnostics (visually expressed in the culture of Babylonian pharaohs) tried to approximate traditions as closely as possible. Below the Atlantis umbrella, society was guided by God who assumed formal presence in human form (i.e. this notion derived into “son of God”). As far as I can ascertain, Atlantis Gods were normally male, but on (or inside) other worlds, females preside over divinity. Per alien custom, these strange Goddesses are usually escorted by what we would call “prince consorts” (heirs or court champions’ suffice). Perhaps this is why some detailed truthful accounts tabled in ancient legends come across as ludicrously farcical.  We humans know only the human way. Therefore, non-human cultures are destined to either shock the system or captivate imagination.

In the interest of clarity, Gnostic-Jewish belief supposed the messianic priest-king (Christ) was the blessed divine embodiment of the people and that is why Jesus is euphemised as the Son of God. Even so many [differing and sometimes contradictory] messages can be delivered by a single fragment of text. Researchers should assure themselves a purist’s Messiah’s wisdom would put Solomon’s childish antics in their place. Ridiculous emphasis on the Pharisees’ salute to valid laws has ruined any chance of divine virtue governing man. Old Testament sermons dictate a path to enlightenment so rigid, any traveller is guaranteed crippled from the off. That is the reason paradoxes are so plentiful, “issues” seem to loom every few verses. Per these auspices, how could religious traditions be anything other than viscerally dishonest? My heart goes out to Italy’s La Befana . That bonny witch on a broomstick does more for Italian children than any pompous pope could dream.

My New Year’s Resolution: Decode “Paganism”

New-Year_Resolutions_list-e1359064821803

New Year’s resolutions are so important that every single day of the year up to the last, number 365, should require a supplementary target and review. Create an initial extended file; something like a reverse Christmas list and, yes, load it up, because it needs to keep you busy the whole year. Once done, you are ready to start. I began preparation for my 2016 program back in March last year, but I seem, perhaps, more disciplined than average. www.richard-seaman.comThis New Year’s resolution was to decode paganism and, as with all matters of intrigue, the response has created rather ambiguous, though strikingly obvious, results. Those that deceive have been very careful to ensure numerous pot holes and trap doors (some exploding) are set to obscure or deflect meaningful research as to their tyranny. In the end, intuition is shown the most pertinent basis for conclusions. If, after a sleepless steamy night, you wake up covered in itchy bites, you can reasonably and logically select mosquitos or toxic bugs as the causes. “Itchy bites” is all you need to determine what the culprits are.

Last post I made a supremely important statement and would like to expand on it now. I said that Christianity began immediately after the destruction of the Jewish temple (sometime around 70 AD) and that coincided with more-or-less (save a short grace period while Vespasian held power) instant persecution of Christian worshippers. The attack may have been reported as Roman, but it was at the behest of the Pharisaic Jews, who had not been conquered, but merely abandoned their homeland to begin an incognito cosmopolitan Hebrew republic, doing what they do best; vamping off other cultures. I discuss the Hebrew mindset in my latest Exopolitician post. st-james-the-apostleIn light of this massive revelation (i.e. Christianity beginning after the destruction of the temple), there was nothing much before 70 AD, as Jesus’ famous travelling ministry precisely concurred with the 66-69 AD “siege of Jerusalem”. Jesus’ brother James became the first Bishop of Jerusalem straight after the fall of the temple, which suggests Vespasian sacked the Pharisees as a consequence. I have argued in other posts that Josephus was a Piso and, as such, a close blood relative of the Roman emperor. This is important as Josephus (Latin anagram: to reveal Jesus) was biblical Jesus.

preincarnate_melchizedekTherefore, Saul, notable persecutor of the Jews, was not a Roman asset. He worked for the Judaic elite. His life changing “blinding” on the Damascus road was a reference to strategy and nothing else. His prior approach mimicked a blind man competing against the sighted, so he changed his game from persecutor to infiltrator. James (brother of Jesus) saw through his veil of deceit but, also, Paul’s letters were addressing politics of the 70’s and 80’s AD, much later than is usually characterised and because of the rampant persecution most used false names for cover. He employed a scribe not through fault of sight, but because he was important (the classical Pharisee). That extraordinary self-belief and arrogance shines forth in the Corinthians and Romans epistles. Clearly, until the Damascus road incident Paul did not know the true identity of Jesus and, given His absence from the Roman records, that name was almost certainly an internal code for believers (Josephus might have considered it a nickname). Prophet Mohamed calls him Isa and that was the basis for the Tibetan “Saint Issa” myths, which possibly first began circulating in the 9th or 10th Centuries AD. Josephus never went to Tibet and there were no wilderness years. There was also no oral period, of course, but a much earlier vague, mythical figure could have become the inspiration for Roman sentiment that caused their version of Jesus. By the 70’s AD this miracle worker would have been an urban myth for the best part of three centuries. Was he “King of Salem” Melchizedek?

Fall-of-Jerusalem-610x351It is important to understand that Christianity had come about as some kind of inspirational wave. Gnosticism, theologians argue, began precisely at the same time as Christianity. No pre-Christian (i.e. dated before 70 AD) manuscripts have turned up. Gnosticism was devoutly anti-materialism. However, a more ancient sect identified to Philo in Alexandria might be the candidate for evolution. This was called Melchizedekianism (after Melchizedek) and had both an emphasis on the metaphysical aspects of creation/existence as well as intrinsic romanticism that emphasised material magic and faith healings. Though Melchizedek is remembered as a king, astral sources tell me he was of humble origins and lived an ordinary life. It was only several years after his death that chronicler’s decided it was fitting to remember him as a king. gnosticismIndeed our King of Salem may have been real, but he was not the miracle worker of folklore. Philo and others may go as far to suggest that Melchizsdekianism was the precursor to Gnostic Christianity and Josephus’ new wine had directed prior Hebrew wisdom to the refuse dump.

St PaulBy Paul’s coded admission (his Damascus road “blinding”), the Gnostic-Christians had exceptionally tight security. A number of apostles did not recognise Josephus/Jesus’ new disguise as referenced by Mark in his “Acts of the Apostles”. Jesus’ resurrection equated to a new persona and not a physical rebirth. Indeed, the Romans were only able to locate Josephus by bribing disillusioned Judas with a hefty hoard of silver coins. Nevertheless, they were hardly able to do anything against Roman royalty without serious charges, but, once compromised, Josephus had to change his identity quickly if he wanted to remain private. Early-Christian-WorshipHe was to be made unrecognisable not from ravages of crucifixion, but rather clever subterfuge. His new disguise conveyed professional artistry of such a standard even the closest to him were confused by it. We must understand that, in these times, possession of a simple memento might be deemed sufficient for purposes of identification. Differing tales supporting the crucifixion and resurrection metaphors feature a number of external agents simply described as “angels”. The reader is in no doubt these, each daubed in white robes, were robust men of the physical variety. Thus, numbers of theologians, not entirely deluded by paganism, have also prompted the idea of a mock crucifixion and symbolic resurrection.

therapeutaeI believe the antics of the angels were referencing something else. The banality of why Essenes Therapeutae (who wore conspicuous flowing white robes) would enter a tomb would be comparable to any of today’s physicians approaching the morgue for work. Now if, of course, our tomb wasn’t a tomb or it was obscuring a clandestine manoeuvre (purpose) designed to confuse illegitimate witnesses, then its place in the crucifixion/resurrection metaphor would make more sense. However, as I outlined in a prior article, it was Josephus’ father who was almost crucified (codified as “Barabbas” in the Gospels) which fortuitously led to the union of Piso and Hebrew “royalty” designated to solve the, then, Middle East crisis. At that level, the crucifixion/resurrection stories are an obvious metaphor exposing the ongoing battle between new Pharisaic domination (totalitarianism) and old Rosicrucian conciliatory debate (democracy). As I have tried to elaborate in a number of prior posts, Rosicrucians joined the pagan “basket” long ago. Now we have totalitarian brands. In fact, the Rosicrucians of old have become so unrecognisable; the modern identity is almost the opposite of what was.

language-and-critical-thinking-7-638Those totalitarian barbarians keep reversing meaning of words. Even so, Josephus was sprung by authorities who had paid their agent, Judas, a tidy sum (worthy of royalty) to identify him. Could this have prompted a flexible “house arrest” scenario with not so conspicuous minders never far away? Measures would have ensured Josephus didn’t mingle with the wrong type of people. For all we know, the Gospel Writer, Marcus (or Mark), was one such minder. He would have been well positioned to collect information to create his two volumes (Gospel of Mark & Acts of the Apostles). Mark was, without doubt, the first synoptic gospel to be written and, eerily, theologians date it at 70 AD or just after. peter_crucifiedIt would be reasonable to conclude the authorities were extremely angry at newly caught Josephus’ disappearance (discussed shortly) and that’s when the purge of Gnostic-Christians would have been conducted in zealous earnest. Bruiser Peter (the dumb disciple) was the first to be scooped up by the system and for the few years he was held as bait to lure Josephus out into the open, Mark would have had open access to him. Given it is where the early church started (prior to official knowledge), “Jesus” finally rooted in Alexandria and, as no force intervened to stop Peter’s and the other sensational executions, he was not moved by the Roman’s ploy. A few theologians have noted Mark’s gospel was comparatively poorly written (i.e. someone important did not need special literary skills to find a following) and its unabashed Roman style exposes his status as a Latin aristocrat.

jogalkotas_1009The (Western) modern justice system was built on pharisaic principles. Theoretically, immaterial evidence is not submissible in a court of Law, although there is the eyewitness hearsay loophole. Pharisaic doctrine is behind modern atheism (spiritual faith is a celebration of the immaterial), materialism and scepticism (the body that determines what is material). Prior to the science age, their wisdom relied heavily on superstition. That is why the early Roman church (run by Pharisees), until the pharisaic science-renaissance, targeted and attacked all known free thinkers. They knew superstitions were always going to be on shaky ground, because none of them actually believed their holy edicts as they were all the same basic faithless stock that today call themselves atheists or sceptics. In fact utopian science, in the material sense, truly is the ultimate tool for control. Science likes order, discipline and information (the more complex the better). This absolutely parries with the pharisaic mindset. So, where you find religious administration that is strictly rule based, presents voluminous, convoluted, dictatorial doctrines that insist on absolute subservient discipline of followers, you find the core of the pharisaic belief. Let us review the etymology of “pagan”.

Col 1 x.jpg.opt248x377o0,0s248x377Pagan is an interesting word which unarguably stems from the Latin, paganus. Translation difficultly comes with determining what is meant by paganus. Traditionally, this is translated as country dweller or even (loosely) civilian, but, instinctively, I feel this is wrong, except, perhaps, when as the rare, colloquial use incompetent soldier. The emphasis needs to be placed on a variation of country dweller; the rustic, country bumpkin or redneck. Its application to describe Impressionable, poorly educated, possibly feeble minded peoples would very much explain how pagan has evolved to become such a stigma. Over time as order (Pharisees) had branded any cult (religion) “pagans” (gullible ones), in my opinion, the slur would have begun to have a reverse “bohemian” effect. By this determination, Ignorance is transmuted to revolutionary status and “pagan” heralds a mantra that collectivises any and all anti-establishment philosophies. Considering the word Pharisee means “dissenter”, by this standard they are the ultimate pagans as original order (prior to what has become [pharisaic] Judaism) was a faith based belief in immaterialism (Gnosticism premium). Therefore, what was “paganus” is now the faithless, materialist enclaves representing the interests of science-atheism.

dr1The saga of Josephus continues with him ensconced in Joseph of Arimathea’s private tomb den. To while away the hours of boredom did he and his brethren occasionally partake of mysterious, deeply spiritual sacraments such as the metaphysical raising from the dead of Lazarus-John? Who knows? But we can be fairly sure (if texts are accurate) that hairy angelic Therapeutae made occasional visitors for unspecified purposes. Ancient Israelite doctors had a dual role. Not only were they expert physicians, but also understood the effects of poisons. Dignitaries did not employ food tasters on a whim. Eating in high places was a dangerous business at the wrong times. After a quick internet search, I note there are many Hebrew-style scare-mongering tales on the ill-effects of methamphetamines and other recreational drugs on Google. From what I read, also the medical sleeping pill, zopiclone, can induce such rapid aging effects they become apparent in as little as four days. We, sadly, have lost a lot of the deep knowledge concerning the magical properties of nature, so I feel sure that the Therapeutae will have come up with something much more effective and lasting than that. Josephus could have stayed hidden from those not so conspicuous minders for as long as he desired. Clearly, though, there would have had to have been an inner circle spy, so his treatment needed to be speedy to avert attention.

CamelotAfter the disappearance of Jesus, other than minor kafuffles in a few exclusive places, practices were sedentary and mostly restricted to Europe (a heartbeat away from the Gnostic-Druidic spiritual centre at Avalon, the divine name for Ireland and not Glastonbury, as supposed). We learn from Michael Baigent’s Holy Blood and the Holy Grail (which has been predicably carelessly debunked by unknown Pharisees) that the Merovingian royal bloodline of Josephus took root in Southern France as evidenced by Arian-Cathar communities prior to the Roman inquisitions. The most recent alleged Priory of Sion administrators (information concerning the Merovingian bloodline) have seemed so pharisaic in recent times; it is no wonder that the Rosicrucian deadline (year 2000-2001) was not met. Spectacular Zionist (pharisaic utopianism) September 11, 2001 staged “9/11”, solidifying that pungent US/Israel/Pentagon de facto union, was the response. Anything to do with Rosicrucian order has been compromised and is rotten to the core.

NagHammadiCodicesRather interestingly (because most haven’t noticed) the same insurrectionist forces determined to impose pharisaic paganism under guise of the Victorian spiritual renaissance (It seems the King James mistranslation of the bible still had loopholes) are behind the Neo-paganism alternative too. Posing as age old Gnostics, monstrous mystics deceive pagani with incoherence. Neo-paganism cannot help but scoop up the odd truth, but these are always disambiguated grotesquely out of context. Ah, but for the smell of our own gas? Gnostic-Christianity suffered the same fate centuries earlier. Was it not for the miraculous discoveries of various sets of Dead Sea scrolls (the Nag Hammadi documents were very nearly burnt by desert Bedouins eager for incalescence against the night chill), Gnosticism, for the most part would be dead and buried. The reason Theodosius I purged the great library of Alexandria 391 AD is that was the literary centre of real Christianity. This was not the first time holy documents had been ransacked or removed. A fire was caused there in 48 BC when Julius Caesar laid under siege against the Egyptian King Ptolemy XIII and Co-regent Pharaoh Cleopatra VII. The poetic connection with the great fire of Pompey and Cleopatra’s status as sister wife of Ptolemy places grave questions as to the truthfulness of references which, I argue, were more metaphorically satirical than based on “facts”.

american-flag-gavel-scales-of-justice1-600x198Theodosius’ purge was very real. He burnt anything that wasn’t distinctly supportive of harmonised Roman-pharisaic objectives. The so-called Fourth Gospel, penned by Lazarus-John, is so advanced in its philosophy, this one escaped the purge. Besides, they had the most authentic sentiment from Josephus, who was the real Jesus, even dictating certain passages to John as if he was his scribe. Thinking of the affairs that developed to ensure the pinnacle of Gnosticism ended up on the pyre, pharisaic pagans were, as always, conjuring their malicious spheres of influence. In this case it was the Nicolaitians (which, in typical Zionist fashion, means victory over the people) whose doctrine (Nicene Creed) pushed Constantine I (of course they call him Great now) into Christian conversion in 312 AD. Destruction SerapeumWhen his son, Constantine II, favoured Gnosticism, they meddled to ensure his brother, Julian, took power and though Constantine officially died of a fever, metaphor suggests he could have simply stepped down gracefully. The Nicene Council was like a Sanhedrin without the Sadducees, but even Julian’s short reign from 361-363 disappointed. He turned the clocks back to pagan pantheism. Valentinian I preferred Gnostic-Arianism, so after his death the pharisaic powers decided to end Arianism once and for all by removing the knowledge base.

itheod0001p1It was when Theodosius took over and, though not overtly pro-Jewish (pharisaic doctrine), he made a number of subtle, very empowering measures to the canon in their favour. By 381 AD he was surrounded by Nicolaitian advisors. These became the instruments which created what amounted to a new religion after the first Synod of Hippo in 394 AD (shortly after the great fire of Alexandria). This was when the rejected apocryphal and pseudepigraphal Scriptural paradox began. Alexey Trekhlebov notes in his book “Legends of the Phoenix”, though lost in the English translations of Rune, the original word for “temple” has origins from khran which means “save” (as in save money or “bank”). Cathedral is the English version of their word sobor which means meeting [place]. Church, on the other hand, is from a derivative of tsirk and translates as “circus”.

I find this strangely appropriate, for a circus is what Christianity has become: clowning buffoons and animals managed by pagan ringmasters in the interests of Zion and their New World Order. A future treatise would perhaps do well to focus on Byzantine power, which, but for interruption from the other pharisaic offshoot, Islam, held control between 330-1453 AD until it reinvented itself. The prior antics of the Greeks in their vain attempt to convert Vedic-Aryans waxes familiar. Always the same characters assume control using the same basic techniques. Hebrews-studyIf there was a way to fundamentally separate Zionist pagans from the other (Rosicrucians, Gnostics and so on) it would be that the former create immaterial ciphers, metaphors and numeric codes to disguise or hide material truths in order to make iconoclasts of their greedy, self-absorbed leaders whilst deceiving gullible, pagani followers all the while. The latter present only immaterial truths or representative symbolism to best convey the objective (but complex and demanding) message in plain sight. Texts of pharisaic influence lack transparency, on face value, often present superficial babble with the mission, particularly parts conveying delicate information, of making truths almost impossible to see. Their opposites are even more hard to read because they offer plain legitimacy which is so beautifully crafted it forces the reader to make the choice between traditional babble and honest belief. That is paganism decoded.