Old Testament- False Dialectic-- Oh my

[Diane Sagan]

I enjoyed your post...its like I am reading what I I have been thinking for a very long time..
The reverences to OZ.. and others... are so on spot with what has been rattling in my head.

The connection to Egypt and other myths.. too.

Thank you for pulling my thoughts.. into a wonderful and rational place..

I just hope more and more people will find your words... and understand them..
That religion.. is a prison of the mind...which is worst than any physical prison could be.

Diane Sagan

 

[Richard Stanley]

Thanks Diane,

It's great to get some positive feedback. The post was supposed to start out as a brief introduction to the coming Abraham post, but I decided I had to keep throwing all this stuff that had 'been rattling in my head' into the pot to provide the reader with adequate context for what is coming. With Abraham I had initially thought there couldn't possibly be much to say about his rather brief narrative, boy was I wrong.

Unfortunately most people, even those who think that they have escaped the superstitions and psychological control mechanisms of the church and such, are conditioned to still think of the messy 'matrix' around us as disconnected structures from one generation or period to the next. I say this is insane and/or perverse denial given the evidences generated by the one contiguously debauched institution alone that has survived till today for almost 2,000 years. And they got their ideas from such as Plato, and he got his ideas from ...

Regards, Richard

 

[Tyrone McCloskey]

Great intro- Looking forward to more- Go long on every detail if need be- I want it all-

Lately I’ve been wondering just where the idea of disembodied, portable deities came from- Possibly the ancient think tanks of your top nomads- Consider an Abrahamic type meandering about and having endless local nature based gods to deal with- He gets back to his home oasis and mulls with his own inner circle how much easier it would be to do business if everyone was on the same spiritual page- Now, it would take a stationary power to be able to impose such a pan-empiric religion on so many local regions so when, say, Babylon rose to greatness this multi-national single religion concept might have been a regular topic for debate at court and finally there were opportunities to try it out- Given that one king was likely cousin or sibling to another king, coordinating such a thing would get easier with each inbred generation- The local trappings may be different in form, but the portable (redeemable anywhere) rather than specific, land based, divinity was the key to detaching the people from their right to the ground they stood on-

I’m off on a wander here but that’s the general direction I’m going in-

 

[Richard Stanley]

Hi Tyrone,

The Abraham post is getting ready to drop, just needs some final polishing. It's turned out to be much, much more than I had anticipated it might be. It just turns out that one needs to read carefully between the lines, as is usually the case.

We believe that you are almost right. We believe the Abrahamic legacy was fomented top down, by collaborating royal courts and their associated priesthoods. And that Abraham is most likely a fictive character, much like of Jesus of Nazareth. Maybe a real person whose identity was posthumously co-opted. In any case, you'll see that the story subtext indicates that he (fictively or not) was much more than a rude nomadic shepherd.

 

[Tyrone McCloskey]

Presumably the top palace priests would also be kin- Perhaps second sons and the like, making collaboration easier- Obviously, if the stories are accurate, that was no guarantee in the house of Ahknaten, but improvements as you suggest did make conversion possible, with a little blood spilled- I wonder, again if the tales are true, how the alleged Khazarian conversion to Talmudism took place eons later- Perhaps the king and his kin converted first- Followed by new spiritual leaders, and old spiritual leaders who go along to get along (and save their heads) also convert- Then, like a Freemason business network, your top merchants and agribusiness leaders convert to stay in good with the palace and the taxman, and their slaves and serfs get a special home version to play along with and the old syncretic shards of the Greco-Roman patchwork is laid over with THE LAW! I can see a king, wanting to tidy up his territories, attaching himself to the law of Moses- For one thing there is no Hebrew style Vatican central command to spar with over who has more power, king or pope- Plus, a despot would be drawn to a legal framework that allows the mass smiting of G-D's enemies- Makes mass conversion even easier when you don't lose sleep over scorched earth policies demanded by a blood thirsty creator-

 

[Richard Stanley]

Yes, prior to more recent times, priesthoods in general are coming from the 'noble' families (as younger sons), or their families are closely related as cousins. The latter is what the Genesis genealogies try to depict for the Levites, and which we say really represent a foreign insinuation into the Canaanite Judean and Israelite polity. This using the neighboring Yahweh storm god as a convenient distractionary sock puppet / trope. The purpose of which was to create the synthetic construct of: first, the Judeo montheistic meme; and second, the Christian one. All done within the dusty remote laboratory of Palestine, then propagate out from there.

And yes, the Khazarian conversion seems to have taken the route you suggest. I believe that based upon what Carroll details in Constantine's Sword about contiguous institutional papal control of the Jews, and Shahak detailed in Jewish History, Jewish Religion about their employment as the Western institutionalized buffer class, that the the Vatican PTB kept a watchful and approving eye over the Khazar conversion and their deployment out from Khazaria. They were desperately needed to cynically replace the previous strata that had been lost to pograms, conversions (to Xianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc.), crusades, and such.

The Abraham post is up, if you haven't noticed.

 

[gilius]

Just re-reading this article series as I think it would worthwhile that they be undestood in full from an education perspective - to the best of my limited comprehensive abilities that is - so how about an exercise to test our understanding, beginning with the intro? If unsuccessful we can stop here.

This post is the introduction to a series focusing on the origins and intentions of the Old Testament (in Christian parlance), or the Tanakh (in the Judaic), in relation to the underpinnings of Western civilization. With some minor exceptions this series will generally focus on the narratives of Abraham, Joseph, Moses, David and Solomon, the so-called Divided Monarchy, and the Babylonian Exile, all of which formed the core of the transitional Judaic Temple Cult period. This, in turn, became the basis of manipulation for the Seleucid Greeks, and then the Romans, in their ongoing efforts to integrate a new and ‘approved’ Judaism into an overarching social control mechanism.

So far so good, but "underpinnings of western Civilisation" took a while to fathom due to its vagueness. I guess we could be talking about East vs. West and identity of us and "the other"? "Judaic Cult Temple period" is also vague at first, but is soon put into context as the time prior to the Seleucids and then starts to sound like a nicely coined description for that period.

The Old Testament (especially in contrast to Homeric and, later, Roman epic) also forms the basis of the primary false dialectic of Western civilization, namely that of the Gentile versus the Jew. It is this contrived oppositional thread of tension that runs continuously through our collective historical narratives, since the time fictively attributed for Moses, that keeps the majority distracted from what really matters and constantly blaming institutionalized scapegoats for real or perceived problems. The sad irony here is when we hear some modern day Jews complain that they were made, and still are, scapegoats for the doings of others. It is ironic because we assert that, within the Western schema, this was indeed the assigned role of the Jewish people from day one of their troubled existence, as formulated by the ‘real wise guys’. In this ‘assignment’ the Jews were ‘romantically’ encouraged by their various leaders, and later rabbis, to collectively adopt the metaphoric mantle of the Suffering Servant, from Isaiah, for atonement’s sake, ostensibly in the tortuously eventual betterment of all humanity. Importantly, this same victimological mantle was claimed by Christianity for Christ.

"False dialectic" is a difficult subject - maybe a link is needed here. It's worth mentioning once that Gentile means "non-Jew". So in other words are you saying that people have been deceived into perceiving only Jews and Gentiles, but not the Oligarchs, i.e. the Rich vs. Slaves instead of Jews vs. non-Jews? But how about in the context of the Middle East and the rest of the world? "collective historical narratives"/"Western schema" have long-term time stamps attached to them, so what was the advantage of making the Jews a scape-goat during the Judaic Cult Temple Period?

Of course, this is a radical proposal that will require the reader to drop their contextual presuppositions and cultural biases in order to grasp the new Postflavian framework. In a nutshell, we believe that the Judaic, and then the Christian (merged Homeric and Judaic typology) narratives, their respective theologies and even their ‘ethnic identities’, have been progressively tweaked so as to continually pit two otherwise similar (or maybe even otherwise identical) groups of common peoples against each other so as to profitably disguise the elite sponsors, the oligarchs du jour. This tweaking was masterfully done via numerous figurative ‘sleight of hand’ techniques ranging from the literary domain to various psychological and physical brutalities, not a few of which have been put to use again in more modern times.

What is meant by "Homeric"? I just know that Homer did some ancient Greek texts - later used in Christian typology. Are you saying that most, if not all, conflicts with the Jews were engineered by the elite? Exactly what was their purpose in terms of control through introducing an eastern mediterranean scapegoat - particularly during the earlier periods? (WWII is easy!)

The contrived creation of this dialectic is initially achieved wherein we find, with the Mosaic Law and Pentateuch, a radical new society formed with hundreds of its laws and customs inverted from those of the surrounding ‘heathens’ such as Egypt, and even from that of the surrounding fellow Semitic tribes (Jan Assmann, Moses the Egyptian, pp. 55-74). Doing so, and including for what is prior claimed in the narratives for Abraham and the First Covenant (a Christian term), thus made this new society of transformed heathens into an exclusively ‘chosen’ Elect for a demanding and curious singular god. It was this god, Yahweh, who inscrutably preferred this particular group for the revelation of his latest plan, at the time, for how humans should relate to each other and to him. But, the invocation of such a monotheistic god, jealously demanding singular fealty while lovingly wielding a carrot and iron rod, was provocatively against the widespread grain of tolerantly syncretistic polytheism.

OK, so the new scapegoat actually represents a whole new society based on monotheism - opposite to surrounding nations. The last sentence is quite cryptic, but I think I now understand it: Yahweh jealously demands allegience only to him, offering rewards and punishments - less tolerant compared to polytheism.

So, let us reflect upon what happens when either one individual or an entire group is set high up on a pedestal above all others, while rejecting all others’ customs and cultures. Hmmm … How to win friends and influence enemies? This is not to say that many, such as women, didn’t find attractive features (for instance, monogamy) in this radically new religious and social paradigm. A variety of such attractive forms of Judaism eventually came to achieve approximately 10 percent of the Roman Empire’s population. But later on we’ll see that the Romans also portrayed themselves as another exclusive set of Chosen people. However, they played a seemingly (but not really) opposite game of overtly absorbing others’ gods, and then even the Jews’ god, who finally supplanted all the others.

First sentence is nicely put. But then "How to win friends and influence enemies" - who exactly are we talking about? Why this question? Monogamy is very nice example, but I had to look that one up like many of the words in this article! I need 2 wives now - but I have to divorce first because I am not in a society that has my best interests at heart. Now the "attractive forms of Judaism" makes sense (for women at least). Comparison with the Romans is good - the final supplantation meaning the Christian state religion? But we are starting to lose the original thread of why the elite would want to create this.

 

[gilius]

And in doing the latter, the Romans purposely left a remnant of this god’s people as a controlled opposition to themselves. In fact, in time, we will build a case for presenting their handling of the post-Temple Cult Talmudic Jews as being done not only for helping solve the exigent circumstances of the day, i.e. repressing and co-opting (supposedly organic) violent Judaic nationalism, but also with an eye towards manipulating circumstances yet to come. This is how elites typically and systematically co-opt and control the masses, via such tried and true human shepherding techniques.

You mean that the Romans later made scapegoats out of the Christians? Or is a reference to the creation of Rabbinic Judaism possibly? This whole paragraph is quite vague and inexplicit.

In the Old Testament narrative, other gods were either absorbed into the one Judaic god, or the new god was equated with the Canaanite heavenly god, El. This all the while trying to make it seem in the texts that this was always the case, all other gods being false. As such, this is like saying ‘god’ and ‘gods’ mean the same thing. That is, the plural word ‘elohim’ for the sibling ‘gods’ is frequently conflated with the singular, ‘El’.

Ok, so they don't mention that Yahweh suddenly replaced polytheism, but pretended it had always been that way?

Prior to this imposition of monotheism, societies warred against each other for the vanities and ambitions of their rulers, but never because of religious problems regarding other peoples’ equivalent gods. In fact, such equivalent gods from different societies were typically seen as the very same divine entities whom were simply known respectively by different culturally appropriate names. But ever since this new and supposedly benevolent and loving god, or his human creators rather, made himself the exclusive god of gods, we have had nothing but religious based rancor and strife. Except, that is, during the good ol’ Dark Ages of feudalism, where everyone knew their fixed place in the Judeo-Christian caste system. Oops, we forgot Islam.

OK so (in so many words) Monotheism introduces new problem-reaction-solutions based around religion instead of patriotism? So monotheism can bring about additional wars - except during the dark ages when everything was more stable?

And today we are still left contending with the legacy of this ‘seeming’ mother of all cultural wars appearing to stem from that ‘Father loved them best’, and that those ‘others’ are too good to join us for supper. Of course, it is deeper than that, as it supposedly pertains to the ‘true’ nature of this seemingly overly particularist and mysterious god, and whether one has had their foreskin clipped for him or not. While the latter aspect has been somewhat ‘bandaged over’, we are all still left, like Damocles’ Sword, with what is claimed to be this god’s yet unfulfilled global plan – whether or not we feel ourselves individually under his sway anymore. Again from Isaiah:


And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious. And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth. (Isaiah 11:10-12 KJV)

Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in. (Romans 11:19 KJV)

This is the most difficult paragraph to understand from the first section of the intro IMO. Presumably this is a description of the differences between gentiles vs. jews as a means of contention/disagreement? And is Isaiah perhaps describing the elite's attempt (via their Jewish creation) to absorb surrounding societies?

As discussed in Caesar’s Messiah, the Flavians, with a little help from their elite and ‘almost Jewish’ friends (that is, the Herodians, Josephus Flavius, and Philo and his ‘Alexander’ relatives) grafted themselves onto Isaiah’s Root of Jesse, whose descendants are to inherit the Earth. Who then, was this Jesse, and why was his son David anointed into Judaic royalty (1 Samuel 16)? And who were these ‘almost Jewish’ people? By asking this question, we are not saying that such as Josephus and Philo were not Jews as we ‘commonly’ understand the term, but rather that from the wider substrate of common peoples of the day, including that of Semites, that the terms Jew and Gentile are contrivances. As such, this series of posts will attempt to address these questions and issues. And as a separate and later task delve even further, into such as what now appears to be the likely prequel to all of this.

This is heavy reading as well. The Root and Branch section of Caesar's Messiah is also the most difficult chapter in that book. Jesse/David/Judaic royalty - no idea? I cannot make head nor tail of the last sentence about Josephus/Philo/Jews/Gentiles other than perhaps that they were working on both sides, hence were part of the elite instead of the Jews or Gentiles (employed Roman citizens)? Could this be the link back to the main thread I've been waiting for, i.e. the false dialectic that was described at the start?

 

[Richard Stanley]

So far so good, but "underpinnings of western Civilisation" took a while to fathom due to its vagueness. I guess we could be talking about East vs. West and identity of us and "the other"? "Judaic Cult Temple period" is also vague at first, but is soon put into context as the time prior to the Seleucids and then starts to sound like a nicely coined description for that period.

I take it, as I think most people do, as Judaism and Christianity form the major cultural inputs to Western civilization. These along with the Homeric corpus which fewer people realize was like a bible to the Greco-Roman world. With the latter, such as Castor and Pollux (the brothers of Helen (of Troy) were seen as salvic saviors just as Jesus would become. Castor and Pollux delivered the Apostle Paul to Rome to inaugurate Pauline (Roman) Christianity, and as I discussed in my 9/11 post, from their heavenly perch they witnessed the destruction of the twin towers.

"False dialectic" is a difficult subject - maybe a link is needed here. It's worth mentioning once that Gentile means "non-Jew". So in other words are you saying that people have been deceived into perceiving only Jews and Gentiles, but not the Oligarchs, i.e. the Rich vs. Slaves instead of Jews vs. non-Jews? But how about in the context of the Middle East and the rest of the world? "collective historical narratives"/"Western schema" have long-term time stamps attached to them, so what was the advantage of making the Jews a scape-goat during the Judaic Cult Temple Period?

False dialectic is simply a fancy term for a man-made false dichotomy, in this case employing conveniently situated peoples who have had a new culture forced upon them. Even so, as learned by the mistakes of the Amarna experiment(s) and probably similar elsewhere, it takes a very long time and significant effort to get a group of people to change their superstitious beliefs from one form to another, especially a radically different paradigm. Just look at the problems we're having today with American fundamentalists and their perception of their sacred culture being under assault.

The Temple Cult was part and parcel of the top down changes. This being a centralizing (of authority, and ease of monitoring) change from the typical Canaanite practice of having local priests and sacrifices to that of having such rituals only being allowed to take place at the centralized temple. Don't like it, go get smitten.

Cyrus H. Gordon allows that the Judaic, Ugaritic (northernmost Canaan), and Homeric epic narrative styles all shared a common source, at least. In actuality, as Robert Wright discusses in the highly recommended The Evolution of God that the OT even includes the roots of pagan mythos in the OT that has been disguised merely by changing the names of the gods to their respective earthly mundane aspects, like geographical features (the sea, or a river, etc.)

At a minimum, the Jews are set against the goy world by the numerous cultural inversions of the so-called Mosaic Law. This really happens around the time of the Babylonian Exile period at the political behest of the Persians. They are placing their political puppets (like Nehemiah, Cyrus's cup-bearer) in charge of Canaan in a rather controversial manner, as an 'apparent' affront to a now weakened Egypt (as compared to centuries before). Here, I am guessing the ultimate motive is not much different than the modern impetus to place the Ashkenazi into Zion. Namely to create a sleight-of-hand magical diversion while other geopolitical rug pulling is taking place, and as well, as stated before, they needed some group, conveniently located to accept the seed of the new and improved religious paradigm - for more efficient social control going forward. You have to start somewhere, so do it where you can control the process the best. Then start it to spread.

In this latter regard, most people don't realize it, that unlike today, that back then Judiasm was spread by heavy proselytism, not by begetting of DNA.

What is meant by "Homeric"? I just know that Homer did some ancient Greek texts - later used in Christian typology. Are you saying that most, if not all, conflicts with the Jews were engineered by the elite? Exactly what was their purpose in terms of control through introducing an eastern mediterranean scapegoat - particularly during the earlier periods? (WWII is easy!)

We know of the battle, or battles(?) of Troy and the epic Odysseus, among other things from Homer (or the alleged Homers?). The battle or battles might be reflections of the so-called Sea People period that plagued Egypt, and if so, this is one more reason to believe that the Judaic and Greek narratives ultimately have a common source. And that Jerry and I will continue to build our synthetic 'false dialectic' claim upon.

The easy answer to your next two questions, is yes, and the reason is simply a sophisticated 'divide and conquer' stratagem.

OK, so the new scapegoat actually represents a whole new society based on monotheism - opposite to surrounding nations. The last sentence is quite cryptic, but I think I now understand it: Yahweh jealously demands allegience only to him, offering rewards and punishments - less tolerant compared to polytheism.

First sentence is nicely put. But then "How to win friends and influence enemies" - who exactly are we talking about? Why this question? Monogamy is very nice example, but I had to look that one up like many of the words in this article! I need 2 wives now - but I have to divorce first because I am not in a society that has my best interests at heart. Now the "attractive forms of Judaism" makes sense (for women at least). Comparison with the Romans is good - the final supplantation meaning the Christian state religion? But we are starting to lose the original thread of why the elite would want to create this.

According to the 'official story' we are asked to accept that there was an organic formulation of monotheism, either by divine inspiration, or internally within the prosaic political needs of the beleagured Judeo-Israelites. The latter is presented by Wright as an ad hoc, piecemeal set of exigent reactions to external forces that thus accidentaly molded the Judeans in a crucible of Perfect Storm-esque circumstances. I say that the whole process was mapped out, or rather 'gamed out' by the various priesthoods and their related nobilities.

As someone who was first raised in a mainstream Protestant denomination and then evolved radically away from that, I have always blanched at such as Biblical prophecy, such as Joe discussed with the Matthew prophecies of the End Times in CM. However, after getting into all of this and learning about how evangelicals consider the Matthew prophecies, and Daniel, and these also in terms of the Jesuit Futurist school, I now take these things as scripts and not always as retrojective faux prophecy, as most rationalists are wont to do.

As such, the formerly Canaanitic Jews cum monotheists were put on a strict 'program' or regime, for several thousand years, until the European 'emancipation' of serfs and Jews. This was clearly documented by Israel Shahak and James Carroll as I've discussed elsewhere. As such, WWII is all part of an elite control continuum.

I included the phrase: "How to win friends and influence enemies", to point out the oddity of purposely establishing oneself onto a pedestal as an apparent elite, for everyone else to take a pot shot at. How nice to convince yourself that you are doing so so as to attract seemingly eternal enmity - for the sake of those who you've made hate you by your widely divergent practices. In the process, fortunately, most everyone did get a relative upgrade on certain moral practices while all the Atonement was going on. But also, those freed serfs convinced themselves that they were the new Chosen and thus were biblically justified in enslaving (and worse) the New World.

 

[Richard Stanley]

You mean that the Romans later made scapegoats out of the Christians? Or is a reference to the creation of Rabbinic Judaism possibly? This whole paragraph is quite vague and inexplicit.

No, the second sentence provides the answer, but I will make it more explicit in a revision. We mean the Romans left the Talmudic Jews as scapegoat remnant.

Ok, so they don't mention that Yahweh suddenly replaced polytheism, but pretended it had always been that way?

We should probably rework this as well. There is a crude pretense that Abraham had only focused on a singular god, while understanding that other gods existed. This is termed 'monolatry'. Therefore, from the biblical perspective there can be a claim made that Abraham and his descendants were always faithful to one god, the one who would become the one true god - by a process of subsuming the others via adsorbing their names and such. Meanwhile, there are hints buried all over the narratives, and via external evidences that all such peoples were always polytheistic, and thus had such Canaanites closer to the 'redaction' time be portrayed as backsliders.

OK so (in so many words) Monotheism introduces new problem-reaction-solutions based around religion instead of patriotism? So monotheism can bring about additional wars - except during the dark ages when everything was more stable?

Yes. During the Dark Ages (and even considerably later) Christianity mostly had a monopoly, except when having to deal with Islam, and maybe some various heretics (and Ghengis Khan).

This is the most difficult paragraph to understand from the first section of the intro IMO. Presumably this is a description of the differences between gentiles vs. jews as a means of contention/disagreement? And is Isaiah perhaps describing the elite's attempt (via their Jewish creation) to absorb surrounding societies?

As with many areas of these posts, we (especially Jerry) were hoping to not have to expand in detail on certain matters, that they would mostly be understood by our readers, and/or they have been dealt with in material we've already referenced. In this case, the various bones of contention between Judaism and Christianity (pagano-Judaism).

Regarding your Isaiah question, yes I think so. I included that verse and the Romans 11 verse because the latter derives from the Isaiah one, and others mentioning the Root of Jesse as regards to these being global assertions. Of course, the latter is the one central to Joe's focus in CM.

This is heavy reading as well. The Root and Branch section of Caesar's Messiah is also the most difficult chapter in that book. Jesse/David/Judaic royalty - no idea? I cannot make head nor tail of the last sentence about Josephus/Philo/Jews/Gentiles other than perhaps that they were working on both sides, hence were part of the elite instead of the Jews or Gentiles (employed Roman citizens)? Could this be the link back to the main thread I've been waiting for, i.e. the false dialectic that was described at the start?

Jerry and I have something of a disagreement about how much context is needed to explain all of this stuff. I am constantly trying to add more context, because I know that people, like you are correctly doing, will need to have this in order to connect the dots. That is unless they are already rather familiar with the topics. On the other hand, my attempts to provide such context frequently makes things even more difficult to understand, as appearing to be digressions or twisting the flow of the text up. And in contrast to my wanting to be as clear as possible, I know there is something to be said for making the reader work for the answers to some extent.

Jesse is the stated father of King David. His grandfather, Boaz, married a Moabite woman, Ruth, and eventually begot David. Thus even David and Solomon, and thus Jesus, violate the supposed matrilinear laws for being Jews. Jesse, the Root of Jesse > Caesar's Messiah.

Yes, you got it right. Philo's nephew even led a Roman legion against the Jews of Palestine for the Flavians in the Jewish War. Josephus's subtext in his accounts makes it clear he was a double agent. In another thread in the forum is a Hadas excerpt about the 'heroic' Maccabees (aka the Hasmoneans) not being properly understood as really being 'Hellenizers' (for Rome rather than for the Seleucid Greeks), when instead they are usually made out to be nationalist militants. Perspective and context are everything.

 

[Tyrone McCloskey]

I, too, am having to work hard to digest this amazing research- I'm all for as much context as you see fit- This really is filling in a lot of blank spaces in the historical narrative that we've been shielded from for forever- And it screams to be in book form one day- Maybe more than one-
The concept of a god removed from any physical context seems to be one of the main goals, in my opinion- One god for all climates and seasons and feasts and famines- A huge component of this proto-globalization- And where does portable wealth fit into this scheme? Seems to me the operations of the temples (the first banks) involved the sanctification of the fiat money (gold stamped with images of gods/kings, ie) that lent trust to the international exchanges of goods and services (mercenaries, for example)- God(s) are an implied value, as faith based as money- Oligarchs have to have a moral foundation for their mediums of exchange given that the tokens of wealth have no intrinsic value- A one dollar bill and a five dollar bill are made of the same material- It's the symbols stamped on them in ink that change their value- That is, what, alchemy in its simplest form?

 

[Jerry Russell]

Hi Gilius and Richard,

To fill in some context for Gilius: Rick and I have been working together on this since ~2002, and have made a couple of earlier abortive attempts to start web pages, blogs and/or books, but always found that another key supporting argument is just around the corner for our grand unified theory, and it's always more fun to research than it is to write stuff up in a way that's comprehensible. The collaboration with Joe, and his desire for helpful editing & web site administration, have provided the impetus to get this site going.

I really enjoy Rick's writing, and his entire viewpoint on the world is pretty different from anything I've ever seen expressed anywhere else. It seems important to me, so I really hope we can get this right. But I confess I too have trouble parsing some of his writing, and there are more than a few of his emails in my inbox over the years that I've just had to let go of with a shrug. Sorry Rick! Someday I hope to catch up.

My wife was reading the essays yesterday, and she had the same comment: it seems to be good stuff, but not so easy to read. Still too many loose ends, mysterious statements & unexplained digressions.

Jerry and I have something of a disagreement about how much context is needed to explain all of this stuff. I am constantly trying to add more context, because I know that people, like you are correctly doing, will need to have this in order to connect the dots.

What I've been trying to do is take all of these contextual digressions and either flesh them out or move them to somewhere they fit better. There seems to be a lot left to be done. (Perhaps we could also make better use of hyperlinks and anchors, but they do interrupt the linear flow of reading.)

For example: "underpinnings of western civilization" in the first paragraph is really a digression with respect to that paragraph, and could get left out entirely. Whereas, what we mean by "Judaic Temple Cult period" could use a little more explanation, and Rick didn't exactly give a precise answer. I think it means the time beginning when Solomon's temple was built and dedicated to the monotheistic god Yahweh (or maybe there never was any Solomon's first temple, in which case it would start whenever they started worshiping Yahweh in whatever temple they did use) and ends with the destruction of Herod's temple in 70AD and the alleged diaspora of that time. But I'm not sure if that's what Rick means.

The very next paragraph is about how Judaism interacts with goy (Greco-Roman) sources to produce Western civilization, but (as Gilius points out) needs some explanation of what we mean by false dialectic, and perhaps covers more ground than necessary to make the point.

"How to win friends and influence enemies"

Could that have said, "Hmmm... how to lose friends and enrage enemies." With a period, instead of question mark indicating sarcasm?

I could continue, but instead I'll wait for Gilius (Giles?) to chime in and let us know how we're doing...

 

[Jerry Russell]

Hi Tyrone,

Thanks for reading, and for the appreciation.

Seems to me the operations of the temples (the first banks) involved the sanctification of the fiat money (gold stamped with images of gods/kings, ie) that lent trust to the international exchanges of goods and services (mercenaries, for example)- God(s) are an implied value, as faith based as money- Oligarchs have to have a moral foundation for their mediums of exchange given that the tokens of wealth have no intrinsic value-

Standard economics, I think, would define Gold as a commodity-based money as opposed to a purely fiat money. The gold has intrinsic value, both because it's rare and requires effort to provide, and because it's useful for jewelry and many other purposes. Stamping the coin does indeed lend trust to the system, at least as a guarantee against fraud: the government promises to prosecute purveyors of gold plated tungsten slugs. But of course, the oligarchs soon learned that the image of the god had its own value, and that the gold content could safely be reduced, with no one the wiser. At least not for a while.

A one dollar bill and a five dollar bill are made of the same material- It's the symbols stamped on them in ink that change their value- That is, what, alchemy in its simplest form?

The logical end point of the process of reducing the gold content of the coinage. Is it alchemy? I guess we would have to ask Robert Baird?

 

[Richard Stanley]

Since we are talking about my obtuse and sometimes cryptic nature, at the risk of otherwise going off topic (and into the NT) momentarily I was reading more of Wright's The Evolution of God last night. From pg. 253:

In the fourth chapter of Mark, Jesus shares a cryptic parable with a large and presumably uncomprehending crowd. Then, later:

When he was alone, those who were around him along with the twelve asked him about the parables. And he said to them, "To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside, everything comes in parables; in order that

'they may indeed listen, but not understand;
so that they may not turn again and be forgiven.'​

Odd--the one sent from heaven to spread the divine word purposely encodes the word so that most people won't get it! ...​

Of course at the alleged time of Jesus mystery cults were rampant everywhere, and Bartram's theory being that the Flavians and friends were secret Chrestians [sic]. One typically did not gain admittance as an adept to the inner circles without coughing up some significant coin and learning the mumbo-jumbo.

And BTW, in case I otherwise forget, Wright has a very nice discussion of how the 4 gospels vary in contrasted messaging, not addressing the different audience aspect, thus revealing to me the possibility of a phased rollout of Chrest/Christ. In other words, so the respective gospels might be viewed Christ 1.0 (Mark), Christ 1.1, Christ 1.3, and Christ 2.0 (John) instead of by the phony names.

In any case, I will try to expand on my the OT topics a paragraph or two at a time, and Jerry will have to suffer the consequences of how to cram it all into place. Or, as I have thought about prior, put that kind of material onto linked static pages.

 

[gilius]

At least Richard is keen to share information and get involved in discussions and requests for further clarification - since we are all at different levels of understanding. So honest communication is all that's required for us all to make progress as human beings. I appreciate Richard taking the time to reply and am glad we are all at a sufficient level of maturity to keep this thread professional - the true spirit of genuine truth-seekers only concerned with the absorption of knowledge and wisdom!

 

[gilius]

I take it, as I think most people do, as Judaism and Christianity form the major cultural inputs to Western civilization. These along with the Homeric corpus which fewer people realize was like a bible to the Greco-Roman world. With the latter, such as Castor and Pollux (the brothers of Helen (of Troy) were seen as salvic saviors just as Jesus would become. Castor and Pollux delivered the Apostle Paul to Rome to inaugurate Pauline (Roman) Christianity, and as I discussed in my 9/11 post, from their heavenly perch they witnessed the destruction of the twin towers.

I see. I never bothered reading Homer - do they reference the many pagan Gods of the time? I haven't read your 9/11 post either - 9/11 was Pauline typology?

False dialectic is simply a fancy term for a man-made false dichotomy, in this case employing conveniently situated peoples who have had a new culture forced upon them. Even so, as learned by the mistakes of the Amarna experiment(s) and probably similar elsewhere, it takes a very long time and significant effort to get a group of people to change their superstitious beliefs from one form to another, especially a radically different paradigm. Just look at the problems we're having today with American fundamentalists and their perception of their sacred culture being under assault.
The Temple Cult was part and parcel of the top down changes. This being a centralizing (of authority, and ease of monitoring) change from the typical Canaanite practice of having local priests and sacrifices to that of having such rituals only being allowed to take place at the centralized temple. Don't like it, go get smitten.
Cyrus H. Gordon allows that the Judaic, Ugaritic (northernmost Canaan), and Homeric epic narrative styles all shared a common source, at least. In actuality, as Robert Wright discusses in the highly recommended The Evolution of God that the OT even includes the roots of pagan mythos in the OT that has been disguised merely by changing the names of the gods to their respective earthly mundane aspects, like geographical features (the sea, or a river, etc.)
At a minimum, the Jews are set against the goy world by the numerous cultural inversions of the so-called Mosaic Law. This really happens around the time of the Babylonian Exile period at the political behest of the Persians. They are placing their political puppets (like Nehemiah, Cyrus's cup-bearer) in charge of Canaan in a rather controversial manner, as an 'apparent' affront to a now weakened Egypt (as compared to centuries before). Here, I am guessing the ultimate motive is not much different than the modern impetus to place the Ashkenazi into Zion. Namely to create a sleight-of-hand magical diversion while other geopolitical rug pulling is taking place, and as well, as stated before, they needed some group, conveniently located to accept the seed of the new and improved religious paradigm - for more efficient social control going forward. You have to start somewhere, so do it where you can control the process the best. Then start it to spread.
In this latter regard, most people don't realize it, that unlike today, that back then Judiasm was spread by heavy proselytism, not by begetting of DNA.

OK - false dichotomy - understood. "Employing" situated people and "new culture forced upon them" needs pondering, but interesting insights nevertheless. It's also interesting you mention the Armarna experiment in the same breath since that would be around a similar time period when this false dialectic was socially engineered. And I guess Egypt is now looking like the main suspect?
I see. So the centralised temple/authority are usurping the local canaanite priests. Interesting insight again.
In so many words, you are saying that the Iliad/Oddysey, Old Testament, and Ugaritic narrative (what text?) share what? Ralph Ellis shows that the OT had had a camouflage-filter applied to it (for want of a better description), and that Josephus had access to a copy closer to the original. I also know that Asherah had been changed to "wood" or something (I forget the details), so you are saying that other gods were replaced by names of rivers and/or seas?
The Babylonian Exile is like a major benchmark for me. The Jews aren't mentioned extra-bibilically before the Seleucid period and perhaps they were in Egypt prior where the Mosaic Law was authored, so what of the Babylonian Exile as a real historical event affecting the temple followers of Yahweh? Should the cylinders be interpreted as referring to the Polytheistic Canaanites instead? And what is the significance of the Mosaic Law and the Exile period as you see it because it seemed before that you were possibly making a case for the Egyptian New Kingdom as the main period of significance, if not initially at least?
I heard that the Persian sources were quite poor for the Bible lands, but I have the source book, so I will try to understand what you are describing here at the time of Cyrus/Nehemiah. One historian described Jerusalem - in the proceeding Seleucid period - as producers of crude pottery and merely frontier territory between the Seleucids and Egyptians.

We know of the battle, or battles(?) of Troy and the epic Odysseus, among other things from Homer (or the alleged Homers?). The battle or battles might be reflections of the so-called Sea People period that plagued Egypt, and if so, this is one more reason to believe that the Judaic and Greek narratives ultimately have a common source. And that Jerry and I will continue to build our synthetic 'false dialectic' claim upon.
The easy answer to your next two questions, is yes, and the reason is simply a sophisticated 'divide and conquer' stratagem.

OK. Interesting.
Who is being divided and conquered and by who or whom? These claims ought to be stated nearer to the beginning of the article. I guess it would be Egypt dividing their old territories from their newly acquisitioned Canaanite territories? Flicking through the headings of the article, I guess the Hittites could be involved in your theory, also?

According to the 'official story' we are asked to accept that there was an organic formulation of monotheism, either by divine inspiration, or internally within the prosaic political needs of the beleagured Judeo-Israelites. The latter is presented by Wright as an ad hoc, piecemeal set of exigent reactions to external forces that thus accidentaly molded the Judeans in a crucible of Perfect Storm-esque circumstances. I say that the whole process was mapped out, or rather 'gamed out' by the various priesthoods and their related nobilities.
As someone who was first raised in a mainstream Protestant denomination and then evolved radically away from that, I have always blanched at such as Biblical prophecy, such as Joe discussed with the Matthew prophecies of the End Times in CM. However, after getting into all of this and learning about how evangelicals consider the Matthew prophecies, and Daniel, and these also in terms of the Jesuit Futurist school, I now take these things as scripts and not always as retrojective faux prophecy, as most rationalists are wont to do.
As such, the formerly Canaanitic Jews cum monotheists were put on a strict 'program' or regime, for several thousand years, until the European 'emancipation' of serfs and Jews. This was clearly documented by Israel Shahak and James Carroll as I've discussed elsewhere. As such, WWII is all part of an elite control continuum.
I included the phrase: "How to win friends and influence enemies", to point out the oddity of purposely establishing oneself onto a pedestal as an apparent elite, for everyone else to take a pot shot at. How nice to convince yourself that you are doing so so as to attract seemingly eternal enmity - for the sake of those who you've made hate you by your widely divergent practices. In the process, fortunately, most everyone did get a relative upgrade on certain moral practices while all the Atonement was going on. But also, those freed serfs convinced themselves that they were the new Chosen and thus were biblically justified in enslaving (and worse) the New World.

Yep - False Dialectics are essentially "games" like professional wrestling and Show Biz.
You mention the Jesuits - OT: do you believe they could be the oligarchs of today?
Could the Jewish Monotheistic program have been officially passed on from the Egyptians/Ptolemies/Hittites to the Seleucids via the Babylonians/Persians or even the Pergamenes?
By establishing the Jewish scapegoat I guess this offers a distraction for surrounding cultures as part of the divide and conquer process, allowing people to form a false identity of how they fit in to the 2D world around them - oblivious to the 3D oligarchs in the dimension above.

 

[gilius]

No, the second sentence provides the answer, but I will make it more explicit in a revision. We mean the Romans left the Talmudic Jews as scapegoat remnant.

OK.

We should probably rework this as well. There is a crude pretense that Abraham had only focused on a singular god, while understanding that other gods existed. This is termed 'monolatry'. Therefore, from the biblical perspective there can be a claim made that Abraham and his descendants were always faithful to one god, the one who would become the one true god - by a process of subsuming the others via adsorbing their names and such. Meanwhile, there are hints buried all over the narratives, and via external evidences that all such peoples were always polytheistic, and thus had such Canaanites closer to the 'redaction' time be portrayed as backsliders.

OK, I see.

Yes. During the Dark Ages (and even considerably later) Christianity mostly had a monopoly, except when having to deal with Islam, and maybe some various heretics (and Ghengis Khan).

The Catholics may have created Islam and then shortly lost control of it.

As with many areas of these posts, we (especially Jerry) were hoping to not have to expand in detail on certain matters, that they would mostly be understood by our readers, and/or they have been dealt with in material we've already referenced. In this case, the various bones of contention between Judaism and Christianity (pagano-Judaism).
Regarding your Isaiah question, yes I think so. I included that verse and the Romans 11 verse because the latter derives from the Isaiah one, and others mentioning the Root of Jesse as regards to these being global assertions. Of course, the latter is the one central to Joe's focus in CM.

OK.

Jerry and I have something of a disagreement about how much context is needed to explain all of this stuff. I am constantly trying to add more context, because I know that people, like you are correctly doing, will need to have this in order to connect the dots. That is unless they are already rather familiar with the topics. On the other hand, my attempts to provide such context frequently makes things even more difficult to understand, as appearing to be digressions or twisting the flow of the text up. And in contrast to my wanting to be as clear as possible, I know there is something to be said for making the reader work for the answers to some extent.
Jesse is the stated father King David. He married a Moabite woman, Ruth, and begot David. Thus even David and Solomon, and thus Jesus, violate the supposed matrilinear laws for being Jews. Jesse, the Root of Jesse > Caesar's Messiah.
Yes, you got it right. Philo's nephew even led a Roman legion against the Jews of Palestine for the Flavians in the Jewish War. Josephus's subtext in his accounts makes it clear he was a double agent. In another thread in the forum is a Hadas excerpt about the 'heroic' Maccabees (aka the Hasmoneans) not being properly understood as really being 'Hellenizers' (for Rome rather than for the Seleucid Greeks), when instead they are usually made out to be nationalist militants. Perspective and context are everything.

OK, cheers for clarifying the overview of these articles and providing additional info. Much appreciated!

 

[gilius]

Onto the 2nd section of the opening article:

Identity scams and other crimes
With the relatively recent ‘return’ to Zion, we are all thus dragged back to the typological milieu, if not the actual scene, of the original identity crime. As we are told: as a result of some inanely obscure interaction of Ham with his drunken father, Noah, all of Ham’s Canaanite descendants were unceremoniously kicked out of the fellowship of Semites (Genesis 9:18-27).

Return to Zion? Meaning Richard believes the authorship of the Torah was just after the Exile? "Typology" and "Identity Crime"? (I'll read on for now and check Genesis 9). Edit: OK, is the identity crime that of creating the Jews as somehow unique to their Canaanite counterparts? Still no idea what the typology might refer to.

In examining both the wider historical context and the internal narrative problems perhaps we can divine that we have all been sold a pig in a poke. But who sold us this pig — that is, these people who don’t eat pork, and conquered their land from people who .. curiously also didn’t eat pork? Oy veh, who doesn’t like pork after all? Well, during the entire Iron Age (perhaps before Abraham factually or fictively arrived), the Canaanites didn’t eat ham. This was unique amongst all their similarly situated highland Semitic neighbors, according to the archaeologists. (Finkelstein & Silberman, The Bible Unearthed, p. 119). Here we are not raising this issue to be provocatively humorous, but rather as an important indicator that we have a clue as to what is really going on. That is, as Finkelstein & Silberman tell us, “The early Israelites were — irony of ironies — themselves originally Canaanites!” (p. 118). As to what was the original motivation for not eating pork we can only speculate, but it doesn’t seem likely that this directive came via Moses as the oracular vehicle. As we’ll find out later, his narrative has too many epic holes in the pork barrel (coming in “Fictive Dead Men Tell Whoppers at Their Own Wakes”).

In other words, we should question whether we are being sold the story by the Jews (don't eat pork) - or a story told by the Egyptian elite about 2 opposing groups of people who don't eat pork - since all kinds of animal bones turned up in Finkelstein's excavations - except pigs? Finkelstein also doesn't find a sudden appearance of new peoples hence the reason why Genesis refers to "Canaanites"?

Semitic peoples were, of course, around a long time before the alleged time of Abraham and Noah, and just as with so-called ‘gentiles’, they occupied then, as now, the full spectrum of political, ideological, and moral camps. This statement is not controversial, and the most direct descendants of those Canaanites today would be the Palestinians. Moreover (and importantly for our thesis) it is commonly accepted today that the major population demographic of Europe, sans perhaps the Nordic, is composed of agrarian peoples that immigrated in successive climate driven, ebbing and flowing, waves, out of the wider Fertile Crescent region. This is discussed in such books as Shlomo Sand’s The Invention of the Jewish People and Brian Fagan’s The Long Summer. In other words, the dominant racial makeup of Europe is a mix of Semitic and Nordic genetics, but more predominantly Semitic. And, of course, the Arab Islamics are also closely related (genetically speaking) to the ancient Canaanites.

Struggling to find any significance/relevance of this relating to the overall article. Apparently, Hebrew and Arabic language both came from Greek in actuality, which is Indo-European. The Torah was also probably authored in Egyptian before?

In contrast to mere ‘Semites’, it is said that the one thing that has and does unite radically disparate Jews everywhere around the world is their religious canon and its focus on the dream of Zion, even for those of no faith. This, then, provides them their seemingly unique identity. It is only unique from the two thousand year old ‘Judeo-Christian’ (that is, Flavian) viewpoint, with their half truth (if that) that the Jews represent a separate ethnic identity. And here we are not even addressing the issue of the Ashkenazim, with their Khazarian origins, who make up the majority of Jews today. Rather, here we are discussing that the prior and original substrate of Judaism was created by: first force, and then intermarriage and heavily proselytized conversion, despite all the protestations of practices to the contrary over time. That there are indeed genetic evidences of Levitical priests today only goes to support our thesis, as the OT narratives are really telling us that these individuals were the outsiders imposing the new system on the native ‘tribes’, forcing a bloody conversion from Canaanite polytheism to Judaic monotheism, with the struggle recontextualized as ‘backsliding’.

Is my understanding correct: their monotheistic religion is what identifies the Jews - and they allowed gentiles to join their religious house - though not as easy as later joining the Christians? And the Flavians were purporting a separate ethnic identity? But that was later, so is there any evidence that the Egyptians/Hittites (or whoever) were purporting the same at earlier stages in history? AFAIK, Josephus is the only history of the Jews we have - before that they are just mentioned in passing in Greek sources of the 3rd century BC and after. So a few interesting facts stated, but does the above offer any support to the main thesis of a false dialectic? One could argue that the Roman viewpoint was based on the histories passed down to them, I suppose.

It is explained in the bible that the priestly tribe of Levi, that of Moses and Aaron, was unique from the other tribes in that they would not be assigned their own territory in the Promised Land, but rather disbursed amongst the 11 tribes. This is really telling us, amongst other evidences, that the other tribes were indigenous Canaanites all along.

Not sure I understand? Levi = first Jews and the rest of the tribes were not yet converted?

Additionally, and as another parallel, the story of Ham is later further twisted such that his descendants are purposely conflated with black Africans so as to religiously ‘Justify’ the Euro-American episode of slavery. This to fill the economic void of vanishing serfdom created by the exigent demands of such as the Industrial Revolution. This is what it’s really all about, the ongoing elites’ need to reposition one’s contextual advantage according to ever changing circumstances. And fortunately for the savvy wise guys, the various collective victims are still enjoying their respective victimhoods, or conversely their perceived short term advantages, too much to allow us all to escape the nightmare. So today, with America’s literal slavery virtually gone, the system has simply moved what is now ‘wage slavery’ offshore – where the ultimate capitalists, the Communists, can supply a near infinite supply of cheap labor. Come back Ross Perot.

What was the first parallel - and was it typological? The middle of this paragraph seems somewhat incoherent or missing context. What exactly can we deduce about the mention of African descendents - and what time period was this? The Euro-American slavery wasn't until the middle ages?

 

[gilius]

Here we will assert that both dialectic identities of Gentile and Jew are purposely misleading fabrications, two sides of a coin first counterfeit by collaborating Egyptian and Hittite elites, and later refined by Persian and then Roman elites, in order to achieve their long desired and explicitly stated, canonized ambitions. We are not necessarily saying that there has ever been a single, united, international elite, nor are we excluding the possibility. But, the ancient elites (as well as today’s) were unquestionably in a position to communicate with each other and to exchange ideas (as well as brides and other luxury goods). Furthermore, they faced a common problem of controlling their respective tribes of “sheeple”. Accordingly, the contrived dialectic of Jew versus Gentile durably served their commonly held ambitions, easily transcending the rise and fall of empires and nations.

OK - this answers an earlier question about who created the false dialectic - also with added context of later Persian/Roman elites in the role of refining the creation. Good. This now starts to clear up some loose ends and addresses the oligarch's control through the ages.

The first of these long desired ambitions, the universal harmonization of spiritual beliefs and practices, could otherwise be seen as beneficial to wider humanity if it were not for clear and cynical indications to the contrary. The second ambition, a pathological greed for accumulating disproportionate material wealth and power based on a sense of class or caste entitlement, seems obviously and mundanely crass. Conceivably there could be other motives, but that possibility will be beyond the scope of this series. Whatever the case, the first ambition serves and helps to disguise the second. Religion, as has been observed frequently by the more astute, is an intimate tool of the political elite class that plays on the continuing neuroses of the gullible and/or wiles of ambitious sycophants.

Speculation about the motives of the oligarchs in creating/maintaining the Jewish myth?

And now these new occupiers of Zion, using the Tanakh as their dubious historical basis, have the chutzpah to claim that they are indeed Semites when their group identity, that of the Ashkenazim, is clearly stated otherwise in the very same holy ‘history’ book. As per Genesis 10:3, Ashkenaz was a son of Gomer, a grandson of Shem’s brother Japheth; while Abraham and all the Israelites were descended from Shem, the original Semite. The present farce, then, is a near perfect and ironic redux of the original. And you can be sure the new Zionists aren’t there for their health, but rather because our human shepherds have a rapturously global plan in mind for them, to be revealed – apocalyptically, in line with both the Jesuit Futurist End Times and the Schofield evangelical system.

Again, not sure what the significance of "Semite" is? Why would they want to claim this - dubious or otherwise? I've never heard of the "Schofield evangelical system", but sounds interesting. And I guess you figured out the Jesuits are the current Oligarchs? Not sure what their future plans entail, though I heard they would like to rebuild the temple of Jerusalem and possibly destroy the Vatican.

 

[Richard Stanley]

Return to Zion? Meaning Richard believes the authorship of the Torah was just after the Exile? "Typology" and "Identity Crime"? (I'll read on for now and check Genesis 9). Edit: OK, is the identity crime that of creating the Jews as somehow unique to their Canaanite counterparts? Still no idea what the typology might refer to.

I am stating that one of the primary purposes of the recent return to Israel (Zion) was to create a living typology (as a real-life script of sorts), re-enacting the past social dynamics of nationalist Israel against the globalizing forces of the Greco-Romans (and their Judaic collaborators, the Hasmoneans and Josephus et al.). The actions there meant to also animate the both the evangelical and secular (Ouisiac shellfish - aka oysters) nationalists elsewhere, but mainly in the USA. This for purposes of playing out the Jesuit Futurist and Schofield interpretations of the coming End Times. BTW, I 'revealed' to you on my Jupiter Rising post that 9/11/2001 was the announcement (in typological terms that the insiders would appreciate) that the new End Times were under way (and there is even more waiting to be revealed, but Jerry wants this project done first).

Joe revealed in CM that the original interpretation of the End Times, as crowed by the earliest Church Fathers, was that Jerusalem was indeed destroyed in '40 years' (the then widely used symbolic term for a 'generation', the word used in the Matthew prophecy). This meant that Titus was the second coming of the Son of God, Vespasian. Cyrus Scofield, the 'interpreter' of the Schofield Reference Bible, sponsored by certain elites, among other things changed the interpretation of the word 'generation' to mean any time in the yet to come future. He was working in the late 19th century and this version of the bible is the main one used today by fundamentalist Low Church (a nice way of saying the collective churches of the former European serfs, not the former 'state' churches of the so-called denominational Protestant Churches) oysters. These are the oysters that were fooled into believing that by simply accepting Jesus as their savior that they could gain easy admittance into the fold of the biblically ordained Predestinated Elect (the cynical secular elites who created all this crap).

You only get what you pay for (sometimes), so the Elect are those (the symbolic 144,000) who, in the Book of Revelation get to bypass the Tribulations, because they have been forewarned, and know how to survive. In the original version, this was the escape to Pella, what I today euphemistically call the Hidden Resort. BTW, in the 9/11 post, I described a ceremonial homage to the first trip to Pella by the elite officers of the Twin Tower's businesses.

Yes, the Torah was redacted, not authored, after the so-called Babylonian Exile. While there is controversy between the apologist scholars and the critical scholars, the latter mostly believe this position. This gets to the Identity Crime. Previous historical narratives of pagan Canaanites, depicting themselves as pagans, were redacted so as to convert them into being monotheistic followers of one rather maniacal god. This involved converting all of the then extant tribes of Canaan into being the tribes of northerly Israel and southerly Judea. The archaeology shows that Judea was originally the poorest backwater, and thus the least populated as well. This made them the convenient focus of earning an elitist sponsored makeover into becoming the Chosen People, meant to be hated by most everyone else for their (or their 'god') arrogantly placing themselves on a pedestal above everyone else. This is why Jesus is made to say later that the Jews are 'stiff-necked' (from holding their nose high up in the air). This was their assigned role, and the Flavian people that created Jesus of Nazareth knew this.

The way all this was accomplished, converting a people into a new identity and polity, was by using some rather sophisticated psychological shepherding techniques. They did not have to change their collective name as Judeans, but rather what they believed about themselves, and thus what they project to others. Serious, if you haven't ever seen the Dog Whisperer, then you should, because it is all illustrative of how such changes in the human 'owners' subtle behaviors affects the audience, the dogs in this case. In our focus then the Levites were the imported 'Judean Whisperers', not part of the indigenous tribes, and thus not assigned a territory of their own. The wealthier Israelitish Canaanites were simply transported to Iran and Bactria (Afghanistan), etc., because it was much more convenient to implement the plan.

For an example of the power of such true believer 'conversion' mentality, just take how stiff-necked I (and now ousia, the Oyster du jour) became in asserting how wonderful the jaunticed Pollyannish cosmoview of the FU Rugged Individualist was (is). This is a Koch addiction that operates on the exact same brain reward center as religion and opium.

And look at how much basic background stuff I'm needing to explain here. There is a reason for this, and its because the pubic schools and even the non-pubic schools have an agenda to not explain all of this, and let it hopefully go down the memory hole. But, please do us a favor and start reading Saussy's Ruler's of Evil (we have several links to it here), and it will put many things in a whole new perspective.

First paragraph done, time for breakfast, errr lunch.