Only Jove G'nows - errata and pending additions

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Christian 'Sacred' Hart came here claiming to want some feedback about an inane 'prophecy' - where if it is true then one has to take every single verse of the Bible as a prophecy of some sort. This, in fact, seems to be her claim, as everything just flows out from: "In the Beginning ..."

So, after politely answering her question, which has rather tenuous linkage to the movie, she proceeded to deliver her mini-sermon on her unique and oxymoronic theology, i.e. in reconciling anarchy with a religion. The latter of which was (and are) clearly tools of state to control the credulous.

I will concede that it is possible that she did not take the time to read the content here to gain a better idea of what we are about, one of which is in clear opposition to her theology. In addition, after her sermon, I felt it necessary for discussion sake to point out some contradictory fleas in her merry beehive, which she rudely ignored and then proceeded to wonder if I will get all Inquisitiony on her.

This is highly ironic considering all the humans that her loving god has sicked his Iron Rod on ... much worse than Inquisition Style. There is no anarchy allowed with the big MF. And she wants to condone the acts of the admitted author of all evil (Isaiah 45:7 KJV or the Hebrew) while accusing me? Not on my watch.

Richard Stanley said:

And all this developing out from the absurd premise that your propagandic holy 'history' book starts out with "In the Beginning".
Jerry said:

What's absurd about this premise? Genesis 1 does start out "in the beginning". Which was my original point, that Genesis is a creation myth, not a prophecy.

She's not just talking about this inane non-prophecy, which is really just cribbed from the Mesopotamian Creation epics, but she used the fact that the complete Bible propaganda starts with "In the Beginning ... " to say that this makes her feel assured that its all wonderfully true, big open-minded truth seeker that she is. One that refuses to answer my questions.

I wonder what part of her designed houses are allegorized by the story of the fallen drunk and naked Noah (obviously really) getting caught eating Ham ;), whereby the embarrassed Noah takes it out on his grandson Canaan and makes them slaves to uncles Shem and Japheth? I can't figure out which story is more sacred that the next. Like the earlier story of Lot carnally offering his daughters to the Sodomites in place of God's angels, and then after God destroys the place the drunken Lot has sex with his daughters. This last one must be the master bedrooms. The first must be the kitchens.

And am I now to wonder if Christian still owns slaves? Or is this all evidence of her evil aspect (which only she can divine) of the wonderful Bible, like Joseph and the 'pharaoh' colluding to enslave all the Egyptians. Hmmm.
 
C

Christian Hart

Guest
Hi Christian & Richard,

Very interesting discussion. But, with my moderator hat on, I have to be concerned that the discussion is getting off track here. I'd like to remind you both of the following site policy:



Not meaning to keep score here, and I may have missed something, but I think Christian was off color with this remark:



Which perhaps Richard would rightly take as an insinuation that he is some sort of intolerant murderer, like a Spanish Inquisitor. To which Richard replied by calling Christian a "Bible Thumper" -- which Christian took as a comparison to an intolerant evangelical fundamentalist, of the sort you would find pamphleting at the airport. Christian does not seem like that sort of person to me, she seems to have a rather unusual perspective on the Bible, which I would indeed consider a Gnostic as well as Jeffersonian viewpoint.

Christian came back, perhaps trying to smooth things over, but calling Richard a "jelly bean". Perhaps a little condescending?

Then Richard says Christian is ignorant, pollyannish, and delusional. This is pretty clearly an escalation of the personal attacks.

I do hope that the conversation can return to a more courteous level, consistent with the site policy.

Having said that, I'm a little confused at Christian's message. On the one hand, she claims that our brains cannot fathom good or evil. On the other hand, she suggests that someone might make a "shitty piece of crap" out of their life, based on their decisions and perhaps their failure to intensely study and parse things out as Christian recommends. Can it be that the idea of "good and evil", having been rejected from primary consciousness, is returning through the back door?
Hey Jerry,

I will delete my account...I don't know or care about Richards opinion...honestly as soon as he said he couldn't answer I wrote him off completely (but he kept talking). But like all religious hierarchy I can see now that theoretically Gnosticism says it values 'thinking' but has no practical use for any type of independent thinking which of course means that it is part and parcel of the Black Priesthood (not a good thing)...it is no big deal and because it hardly means anything to me, I will bow out...another score for people who hate independent thinkers and want to crush it in others...it isn't like I don't already run across it 24/7. I was just peeved because someone did actually just say that to me on another forum and while I thought maybe there was something different here, not surprisingly it turned out to be just as bad as the catholics all part and parcel of the same great world system that is strangling the world and thought.

Sincerely Christian
 
C

Christian Hart

Guest
To follow up on a couple items from Richard --



Isn't it possible that some deities were originally stars, or trees, or rocks, or just imaginary spirits? At this remote time, I don't see how we can know, at least in some cases. And similarly, it might well be that most prophecies are written under the aegis of some elite oligarchs with an agenda: especially Biblical ones of suspect provenance.

But, sometimes perhaps a prophecy is just a prophecy.



What's absurd about this premise? Genesis 1 does start out "in the beginning". Which was my original point, that Genesis is a creation myth, not a prophecy.

Christian is trying to make it into a prophecy, and perhaps that's just her own idea, or she heard it from somebody who is just another person on the bus. Maybe there's no elite oligarchy behind this, at least not directly.
How exactly do I delete my account? It is not self explanatory.
Thx Christian
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Christian,

As per your request, I have deleted your account. The way I read your last post, you are refusing to cooperate with site policy in that you insist on hurling gratuitous and ungrounded insults at us. We are not trying to strangle anyone's independent thought, we are not part of anyone's Black Priesthood, and we are not even gnostics. We are just asking for you to carry on a polite conversation, and apparently that's beyond your capability.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
she used the fact that the complete Bible propaganda starts with "In the Beginning ... " to say that this makes her feel assured that its all wonderfully true, big open-minded truth seeker that she is.
OK, thanks for the clarification. Her premise is true, but her inferences don't necessarily follow.

And am I now to wonder if Christian still owns slaves?
That's a rude question, wouldn't you say? And I don't see much basis for it in Christian's self-description. A slave-owning anarchist?
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Funny, now she states that she "wrote me off" as soon as I couldn't answer her question about this supposed Gen 2 prophecy. Yet this was when, after she had gone out to mow the lawn and then come back, she delivered her sermon, with her rather unique theology of damning half of the holy book she loves. Apparently, at this point I became the proverbial "Greek pig" and she would thus not reveal her Sophia.

At least the pope, a Jesuit, has recently taken to beg forgiveness for all (or just some?) of the church's long list of sins. Well, the various flocks of sheeps, even the lapsed Catholics and the secular are eating it all up. We'll now get to (continue to) sweep in all under the rug and MOVE ON.

I've been thinking that this is really what the whole church mantra of that 'we're all sinners', and getting absolution, forgiveness, etc. is really all about. Most people tend to think this all refers to our individual petty foibles and pecadillos, but in doing so we also don't have to think about the big stuff anymore, like how the land that Christian's houses were built upon was taken from those 'evil subhuman barbarians'. First, demonize - to enable Justification of the crime, then after its too late for most, forgive.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Richard Stanley said:
And am I now to wonder if Christian still owns slaves?​

That's a rude question, wouldn't you say? And I don't see much basis for it in Christian's self-description. A slave-owning anarchist?
Once one claims that he or she is capable of parsing which parts of the Bible are of Good origin vs. which parts are of Evil origin then I would guess that I should have the right to know if such verses like those are guiding her divine actions or not. We're still dealing today with such a legacy, and there are still literal slaves in the world, including in the USA. The Judaic, Christian, and Islamic canons all overtly justified literal slavery in one form or another. So I think its a fair question that must be asked of such people.

The shrinking majority of people in America say that this book guides their actions, but it seems that most all of them ignore most of it - as they are all too 'liberal' I guess. They wont even perform the sacred Sabbath BBQ ritual anymore. Probably because the Christians that attempted it did so on the wrong day. Too bad for them , and good eating for me.
 

Seeker

Active Member
Just posting some errata that I noticed (or imagined). The writers and directors of "Jupiter Ascending" are the Wachowskis, of Polish heritage, and "Jupiter" herself is played by Mila Kunis, born to a Ukrainian (then in Russia) Jewish family. This made me think of the Ashkenazim (Rothschild forebears big in conspiracy theories) of Eastern Europe, perhaps an inspiration for the House of Abrasax in the film, that "Jupiter" has DNA from (art imitating life, as both Jupiter's and Mila's parents met in Russia, and Jupiter's family moves to Chicago, hometown of the Wachowskis). Jupiter can also control bees, the symbol of Merovingian royalty, not to mention the "Merovingian" character in some of the Wachowskis "Matrix" films.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Thanks for the info, Seeker. Does any of this contradict what we wrote in the article (thus being 'errata' which possibly should be corrected in the text?) Or does it fall into the category of "pending additions"?
 

Seeker

Active Member
You're Welcome, Jerry, actually the credit goes to Richard, for suggesting that I go to your article. I think I did read it when I first came to this site, but of course by now I get a lot more from it, to be able to comment on. In answer to your question, most of what I wrote was my own ideas and therefore "pending additions". I clumsily meant that this was MY possible errata to follow, and apologize for misleading you. Hopefully it would be regarded as a supplement to what I found there already:
"This was also noted and further explained by Neil Hague of the “Through Ancient Eyes” blog:

The Bee and the serpent was a symbol associated with the Hyksos priest-kings (or Shepard Kings) of Egypt and their connection to what later became the aristocratic families of Europe, not least the Rothschild banking elite. Could the Abrasax who rule from Jupiter (in the movie) be a mirror of the rule over the Earths resources by these elite families on behalf of their off planet ancestors? Of course they could?"
 

Seeker

Active Member
From "Even Jove G’nows"
By
Richard Stanley and Jerry Russell
-
February 25, 2015

"As a theory of social change, the idea that a rebellion driven from the professional (petit bourgeois) or police / military sector, in an alliance with populist goals & ideals, leaves much to be desired. At the end of the day, how can it be assured that the new boss (Jupiter Jones and the Aegis team) is any different from the old boss (Balem Abrasax and his cronies)? The young Jupiter might easily turn out to be just a chip off the old block. "
Seems like a prediction of the 2016 election results, which makes you gentlemen Postflavian prophets, since of course you could not have known what was going to occur the very next year after you wrote this (or could you)? :eek:
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
That was Jerry's handiwork BTW. I remember the happy ending was a sticking point for both of us, and so this is what Jerry came up with. But maybe 'Jupiter' should have had a traditional religious name change, perhaps simply to Jumuter? Maybe that's for a sequel? :)
 

Seeker

Active Member
"Cleverly included in the movie are a metaphorical mashup of subservient dragons and various other minions that employ common alien (UFO) motifs, such as performing human abductions and performing DNA tests on the terrestrial human herds."

The "Dragon" bloodline of the late Nicholas de Vere could also be an interpretation of this, as Nicholas required prospective members of his society to have DNA testing performed upon them, before being allowed to join him if that proved they were of his elite lineage. If they were not found to be so, they were rejected for membership, as being only part of "the terrestrial human herds".
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
There was (is yet?) a claim that if on donated blood to the Red Cross that they would secretly test the DNA as well as for infections or other problems. This partially based on the heavy Rockefeller involvement with the RC.

The RC also had a 'strange' involvement with foreknowledge of the attack on Pearl Harbor, having 'presciently' stocked up on appropriate medical supplies.
 
Top