The Mindset of Psychosis

People that claim they are “open-minded” simply do not tell the truth. Belief systems are formed in the earliest developmental stages of life and, when set; each rehearsed dogma needs a battle to be disbelieved. Our core beliefs are usually so strong they will remain valid even when believers are convinced otherwise. “Oh, they told me UFO’s were real but I knew that wasn’t true” is your typical reverse validation. Deep down, if the message doesn’t fit it won’t fit no matter what. Therefore, I have one paragraph to capture the imaginations of an audience. You are allowed to reach out and, providing comments are not unnecessarily rude, criticism is welcome. It would be nice to know a few of you actually had the chutzpah “to be”.

Considering the sheer weight of information to be found on the net these days, if my message deviates an inch from those beliefs’ comfort zone, I’m gone, finished, put in the trash can, offended readers likely never to revisit. Some, due to narcissism, won’t even refer to “unknown sources” which assures logic assesses references as must be spurious. So, I lost them before I even put pen to paper. Articles with ambiguous or neutral titles are avoided perhaps because time poor people waste not, but as likely, given the mindset of psychosis, readers might also do everything in their power to avoid being confronted with truth. Truth, contrary to erudite populism, is inflexible and consistent. People, in general, do not want their opinions challenged or ruffled in any way, so factual legitimacy all too rarely finds sanctuary in popular theories.

It was the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that reputedly first coined the phrase conspiracy theorists in 1967; a slur aimed at faceless critics distributing “evidence lacking” conjecture. Any more than two parties that join forces conspire. All statements are theories. The expression, conspiracy theorists, would be acceptable when used as a witty metaphor camouflaging the derogatory attack on simple minded enemies. Targets are gossipers that peddle myths lacking substance. The term conspiracy theory, on the other hand, is ambiguous and nonsensical. Does this reflect statements that coordinate the joint efforts of multiple parties? If conspiracy is a euphemism for gossip, it is a poor one.

Nevertheless, the hybrid term is understood because it validates the mindset of psychosis, i.e. being right always trumps honesty and due diligence. Conspiracy theories, as labelled, can contain high levels of truth. We have already noted people like flexible authenticity and arbitrary verisimilitude. No black and white. Only shades of grey. Per faceless man reasoning, therefore, conspiracy theories should be avoided where possible. Back in the 1960’s I would like to think the majority of activists were sincere, their concerns just and their actions vigilant, whilst honourable. If this is correct, then logic dictates alternatives to official historic accounts were not frivolous. That philosophy doubtlessly has changed, for the internet has a down side. Sheer volume encourages mass production of the worse kind, bad habits and sloppiness. Views that contradict the mainstream can now be more corrupt than wayward accredited sources. We might find a suitable analogy in the espionage industry. Double agents are conceptually similar to “double conspiracy theories”.

Periodically, I reflect on something I call the human condition. Years ago, before I attempted to put thoughts to writing, perhaps forlorn, perhaps devout, I wandered the vast internet as a lonely hermit seeking identity for purpose. This journey look me before Jon Rappoport and, as a subscriber of his instructional blogs, I listen to what he has to say very carefully. We are not always in agreement on issues, but most of the time we are, well, the expression “of one mind” impresses me. Jon has asked me, us subscribers, to watch Sydney Lumet’s film “Network” more than once. Not a movies person, I reluctantly set aside 15 minutes discipline a week and have been gradually been working my way through the 2 hours of footage.

The central character is a disgruntled news broadcaster who first has a meltdown on air and then is picked up and promoted by unscrupulous elements looking to improve corporate ratings, which is an impeccable irony (e.g. the network’s toxic critic is their golden cash calf to salvation). Howard Beale exposes the inadequacies of news broadcasts reduced to fantasies that pander to “highest bidder” stakeholder interests better than our current best conspiracy theorists. Rather underwhelming his thunder, he asks his viewers to “do nothing” but just “get madder than hell”. Though the dialogue sizzles with strategically placed F bombs, a novelty for 1976, the movie cannot avoid overstating the human condition. Indeed Beale’s big soccer punch does nothing more than expose that television does not report, but rather politicises. In fact, he highlights ongoing deficiencies in the population at large by his own lack of remedial direction. The mindset of psychosis is an ocean of problems with no solution in sight. It should be no surprise that buoyant stagnancy is the only feasible response.

Beale made an example of those that read newspapers (we presume serious copy, rather than tabloid smut). A paltry slither of the populations at large was representative, but how many of those really understood and “delved”? We know, today, that newspapers cannot be trusted as well as all are either the mouthpieces of corporate advertisers or governments. Even books (that sell) are invariably written to support given opinions backing corporate or government interests, so to ascertain absolute neutrality (truth) is almost impossible.

I have only worked through an hour and a quarter so there is 45 minutes of movie unseen. There may be surprises to come, but, thus far, nothing has shocked me (though, back in 1976, this sort of overt criticism would have been very unusual and, in my limited scrutiny, I think watered down by any other vague comparisons). In exposing the deficiencies of the system, Beale inadvertently revealed two much greater defects in the populations at large. They (his followers), the script intimates, would not be prepared to revolt (to get mad is a form of protest). Their televisions’ make believe had largely become the basis for reality because of the academic redundancy of the majority. Neither did the people know any facts nor would they contemplate the issues in any meaningful way.

This, to the greater degree, correlates with today’s situation. Whereas the perceived total reliability of information offered by “the news” is not what it was, because people have such limited knowledge, the void is mostly populated by doubt. That means, of course, peoples’ familiarity with truth is more or less absent, so doubts simply fester, unchallenged for the most part. People judge “the news” on what sounds believable and not on merit. Of course, that which satisfies social programming (i.e. “education”, government/corporate standards, widely promoted philosophies that justify what it is to be socially acceptable) is delivered by the very same forces that engineer “the news”. So we have a self-perpetuating circle, broken only by geniuses (oracles that see beyond “the bubble”).

To a fashion this has encouraged a kind of mass psychosis which morphs as the mindset of populism. Though the mindset changes with political trends, the populist view is always active sanity even when reason or logic individually applied might demote certain views as insane. Thus, if the populist tradition is “vaccines are the sane choice”, to go against vaccines would be insanity, if that makes sense. Nevertheless, breakaways from the mainstream have calculated such a sizeable collection of swayable minds; it is noted that alternative dichotomies are strong enough to stand alone and, in that capacity, would usually predetermine that “sanity” is the precise opposite of the mainstreamers’ position. For alternatives, therefore, to back vaccines would be sheer insanity. The mainstream Media, as Jon Rappoport regularly illustrates, are masters at promoting populism. They control left and right, mainstream and alternative and everywhere in between. Only very occasional prophets (or geniuses, if you prefer), mostly misunderstood, remove the veil of hypocrisy.

The three main aspects of human character that drag group potential down to the gutter are greed, laziness and selfishness. These traits, particularly in the modern age, are the rule rather than the exception. This is partly because the true value of words has been deliberately twisted or obscured by corporate miscreants that direct mainstream Medias. Spinelessness, pusillanimity and treachery are celebrated as evidence of qualities purveying patriotism, virtue and honour. Devout cowards are regularly called brave. Oxymoron after oxymoron crafts normalcy.  “The machine” wants submissive slaves, whining as they work and just about everyone obeys the system, hook, line and sinker. “The machine” wants sulking protestors. The more the merrier. You good people affirm social apathy. You are not a threat to them and they will destroy you at their leisure.

The “filth”

Those that dare to take on the system never protest. They act wisely, cunningly and discretely, conjuring and deploying the most plausibly destructive, clandestine strategies against their foes. The “masses” great and only advantage is being “faceless”, so anonymity is strength. Corporate order knows this well and that is why their hired trouble makers are always in plain clothes when all-too-rarely in focus. In fact the powers have manufactured invisibility in industrial quantities. How many unknown government agencies or outsourced third parties have contributed to the all-encompassing globalist agenda of Zionism? Thinking laterally, are those [Skype and] e-mail scammers (banking shams, cheap medications and other rip-offs) the coordinated product of a consolidated “op” dedicated to manufacturing “mistrust of strangers”?  If so, that would satisfy the wider interests of Zionism which has three fundamental wishes.

Family members must be held perpetually accountable. Public opinion is designed to gravitate around mainstream views calculated by the architects of our governance systems. Parents are both exalted and threatened. Pro-system whistle blowers, snitches, eves droppers are encouraged. Per this tyranny, children are commodities with no rights or personalities. As arbitrary tokens of justice, sensationalising the removal of children from bad broods is used to keep borderline recalcitrant families in line. For their part, families must systemise children. Parental, administrative (schools and so forth) oversight is crucial to the Zionist objective. There are no exceptions to diktat. There is no way out. Government is to be respected, feared or both and, as such, is answerable only to itself.

Mischievously deceptive hyperbole dressed as paedophilia, terrorism and intoxication has been used to paint “the stranger” into a corner. Bad parts of families that aren’t bad broods are rejects or black sheep. Estranged family members may as well be strangers. This all came about because “stranger” is used as a code word in the bible. The Hebrew word it replaces is “Goyim” (which really means “national” or “person of a nation”). Thus, fundamental populist ignorance must be the mindset of modern psychosis, because just about everyone follows the script like lambs to the slaughter.

The process does not stop with family programming. Systems (currently ad hoc Zionism, but that chic could rebrand) thrive on absolute control. They (the system architects) are attempting to regulate God. Ultimately God, the spiritual entity, cannot exist, because if He existed it would permit free thought and free thought does not work in programmed societies. Therefore the de facto science-atheist alliance (conspiracy?) that presumes authority is at constant loggerheads with nature. If nature is the cooperative essence of God, then regulation and proscribed order can only promote “chaos”. True anarchy (prescient order), proto-Zionism, has etched the mindset of psychosis which is man, the automaton. Zionists do at least live up to their name, for the Pharisees were the original usurpers of order.  “Jesus”, it seems, died in vain.

Advertisement

My New Year’s Resolution: Decode “Paganism”

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. This 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. In 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.

Therefore, 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 9^th or 10^th 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?

It 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. Indeed 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.

By 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. He 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.

I 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.

Those 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. It 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.

The (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”.

Pagan 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.

The 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.

After 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.

Rather 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”.

Theodosius’ 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. When 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.

It 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. If 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.