Part 1, the Futurist Apocalypse is Now

Richard Stanley

As I have discussed before, the second incarnation of the KKK had over 3 million American Protestant white men, including from the north. These belonging to it before a sex scandal brought it down, but did not destroy the impetus behind it. The KKK ideology overlaps significantly with such as the (neo)Nazi (ecumenically inclusive of Catholics and Odinists), now splintered amongst various contemporary names, and which the expedient (or worse) decisions made after WWII in handling Nazis in Germany, globally, and domestically have vectored into today's hyper-partisanship ... and Islamic extremist terrorism, as discussed by Peter Levenda.

In this light the following excerpted article discusses that American law enforcement is in no position to deal with the situation. This despite having spent $2.8 trillion since 2008 on counterterrorism, and that white extremists have killed almost 4 times as many Americans as Islamic extremists have. And now we have a president who is merrily fueling the flames.

U.S. Law Enforcement Failed to See the Threat of White Nationalism. Now They Don’t Know How to Stop It.

The first indication to Lt. Dan Stout that law enforcement’s handling of white supremacy was broken came in September 2017, as he was sitting in an emergency-operations center in Gainesville, Fla., preparing for the onslaught of Hurricane Irma and watching what felt like his thousandth YouTube video of the recent violence in Charlottesville, Va. Jesus Christ, he thought, studying the footage in which crowds of angry men, who had gathered to attend or protest the Unite the Right rally, set upon one another with sticks and flagpole spears and flame throwers and God knows what else. A black man held an aerosol can, igniting the spray, and in retaliation, a white man picked up his gun, pointed it toward the black man and fired it at the ground. The Virginia state troopers, inexplicably, stood by and watched. Stout fixated on this image, wondering what kind of organizational failure had led to the debacle. He had one month to ensure that the same thing didn’t happen in Gainesville.

Before that August, Stout, a 24-year veteran of the Gainesville police force, had never heard of Richard Spencer and knew next to nothing about his self-declared alt-right movement, or of their “anti-fascist” archnemesis known as Antifa. Then, on the Monday after deadly violence in Charlottesville, in which a protester was killed when a driver plowed his car into the crowd, Stout learned to his horror that Spencer was planning a speech at the University of Florida. He spent weeks frantically trying to get up to speed, scouring far-right and anti-fascist websites and videos, each click driving him further into despair. Aside from the few white nationalists who had been identified by the media or on Twitter, Stout had no clue who most of these people were, and neither, it seemed, did anyone else in law enforcement.

There were no current intelligence reports he could find on the alt-right, the sometimes-violent fringe movement that embraces white nationalism and a range of racist positions. The state police couldn’t offer much insight. Things were equally bleak at the federal level. Whatever the F.B.I. knew (which wasn’t a lot, Stout suspected), they weren’t sharing. The Department of Homeland Security, which produced regular intelligence and threat assessments for local law enforcement, had only scant material on white supremacists, all of it vague and ultimately not much help. Local politicians, including the governor, were also in the dark. This is like a Bermuda Triangle of intelligence, Stout thought, incredulous. He reached out to their state partners. “So you’re telling us that there’s nothing? No names we can plug into the automatic license-plate readers? No players with a propensity for violence? No one you have in the system? Nothing?’’

White supremacists and other far-right extremists have killed far more people since Sept. 11, 2001, than any other category of domestic extremist. The Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism has reported that 71 percent of the extremist-related fatalities in the United States between 2008 and 2017 were committed by members of the far right or white-supremacist movements. Islamic extremists were responsible for just 26 percent. Data compiled by the University of Maryland’s Global Terrorism Database shows that the number of terror-related incidents has more than tripled in the United States since 2013, and the number of those killed has quadrupled. In 2017, there were 65 incidents totaling 95 deaths. In a recent analysis of the data by the news site Quartz, roughly 60 percent of those incidents were driven by racist, anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic, antigovernment or other right-wing ideologies. Left-wing ideologies, like radical environmentalism, were responsible for 11 attacks. Muslim extremists committed just seven attacks.

These statistics belie the strident rhetoric around “foreign-born” terrorists that the Trump administration has used to drive its anti-immigration agenda. They also raise questions about the United States’ counterterrorism strategy, which for nearly two decades has been focused almost exclusively on American and foreign-born jihadists, overshadowing right-wing extremism as a legitimate national-security threat. According to a recent report by the nonpartisan Stimson Center, between 2002 and 2017, the United States spent $2.8 trillion — 16 percent of the overall federal budget — on counterterrorism. Terrorist attacks by Muslim extremists killed 100 people in the United States during that time. Between 2008 and 2017, domestic extremists killed 387 in the United States, according to the 2018 Anti-Defamation League report.

“We’re actually seeing all the same phenomena of what was happening with groups like ISIS, same tactics, but no one talks about it because it’s far-right extremism,” says the national-security strategist P. W. Singer, a senior fellow at the New America think tank. During the first year of the Trump administration, Singer and several other analysts met with a group of senior administration officials about building a counterterrorism strategy that encompassed a wider range of threats. “They only wanted to talk about Muslim extremism,” he says. But even before the Trump administration, he says, “we willingly turned the other way on white supremacy because there were real political costs to talking about white supremacy.” ...

Last edited:

Richard Stanley

“I think it’s going to be the perfect recruiting and radicalization tool for white supremacy.”

Imagine if one was going to plan an apocalypse and forgot to create the proper social dynamic? As with Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, we get these strange presidential candidates that seemingly come from out of the woodwork. In terms of "central casting" (a favorite Trump term) Obama and Trump have great apocalyptic names. Barack, via its Islamic apocalyptic association and then the similarity between Obama and Osama. With Trump we have the "trumpets" of Revelation. But that Obama was a black man only served to turbocharge the memes, and that he is smart and well spoken only pissed off the extreme right more.

It's not quite so cranky to think such now. And note the political interplay involved that conveniently shut down law enforcement efforts to keep tabs on the extreme right, despite the desire of many to do so. Fairly simple to orchestrate, yet many will continue to see such as more Coincidence Theory. The maddening irony is that much of this is orchestrated through propaganda outlets, like Infowars, that launder conspiracy theories (as opposed to conspiracy facts).

The following are more excerpts from the same article as in the previous post:

In April 2009, the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis issued a report warning of a rise in “right-wing extremism.” The department is the country’s largest law-enforcement body, created after Sept. 11 to prevent and respond to various threats, most specifically those connected to terrorism. While most of its counterterrorism focus has been on preventing Islamist terrorist attacks, the department is also supposed to examine domestic threats, like those coming from violent white supremacists, antigovernment militants and single-issue hate groups, like radical anti-abortion activists.

The author of the report was a senior intelligence analyst named Daryl Johnson, who ran a small Homeland Security domestic-terrorism unit. Two years earlier, in January 2007, Johnson was sitting in his bland second-floor office when he received a call from a contact at the Capitol Police. A first-term Illinois senator named Barack Obama was planning to announce that he was running for president. “Curious if you’ve heard any threatening chatter,” the officer said.

This was the first time Johnson had heard of Obama, and he didn’t know about any threats, but that didn’t mean there wouldn’t be any. Though white-extremist groups had been fairly quiet in the years since Sept. 11, Johnson saw this as a temporary lull. These people never truly went away, he thought; they just needed the right motivation to energize them.

“What do you think’s going to happen when the Ku Klux Klan and the neo-Nazis and other white supremacists get wind of this?” the officer asked.

Johnson didn’t skip a beat: “I think it’s going to be the perfect recruiting and radicalization tool for white supremacy.”

At 38, Johnson spoke with the earnestness of an Eagle Scout, which he was. He was also a registered Republican who grew up in a small Mormon community in rural Virginia where millennialism, or end-times theology, was a core concept. During the 1980s, when Johnson was still in high school, far-right separatists took to the Ozarks or to strongholds in rural Idaho, where they stockpiled food and weapons and conducted paramilitary training in preparation for the biblical “last days.” Some, like the Aryan Nations, whose members embraced the racist Christian Identity philosophy, spawned domestic terror cells like the Order, which waged a brutal campaign of bombings, armed robberies and murder, culminating with the June 1984 assassination of Alan Berg, the prominent Jewish radio talk-show host who frequently spoke of flushing out the latent anti-Semitism in Denver’s conservative community.

By the spring of 2008, Obama’s candidacy, just as Johnson predicted, had become a lightning rod for white supremacists and other hate groups. As the campaign moved into its final months, law-enforcement agencies intercepted at least two assassination plots against Obama. Other threats and racist posts flooded the internet, where Johnson’s team noticed a sharp increase in membership on Stormfront, the first major white-nationalist website. The site added 32,000 new users within the first three months after Obama’s inauguration, nearly double the number it added in 2008.

Johnson and his team compiled their findings into a report, which they were still working on when Obama tapped Janet Napolitano, formerly the governor of Arizona, as the new secretary of Homeland Security. Napolitano “got it” when it came to white supremacy, says Juliette Kayyem, who served as the department’s assistant secretary for intergovernmental affairs in 2009 and 2010. While serving as Arizona’s attorney general, Napolitano coordinated the investigation of one of Timothy McVeigh’s accomplices. Now, concerned that a reinvigorated white-supremacist movement could pose a threat to the country’s first African-American president and to citizens, Napolitano began asking her intelligence analysts about a rise in lone-wolf “right-wing extremism,” a term commonly used in the counterterrorism world to refer to the radical beliefs of fringe players on the right of the political spectrum.

On April 11, 2009, four days after his report was released, Johnson was at home in West Virginia when a PDF of the document was posted on the website of the syndicated conservative radio host Roger Hedgecock. A link to the PDF was also posted on a blog maintained by the Oath Keepers, the antigovernment group composed of numerous law-enforcement officials. “FORWARD THIS TO EVERY AMERICAN!” read the post, which Johnson suspected had been written by a member of the law-enforcement community. “YOU are now a dangerous terrorist according to the Obama administration.”

By the next day, news of a “chilling” report from the department was making its way through far-right message boards and the blogosphere, where it was picked apart by conspiracy sites like Infowars, which deemed it evidence of a deep-state plot. More mainstream right-wing pundits like Michelle Malkin considered it, in Malkin’s words, an “Obama D.H.S. hit job” on conservatives. Some progressives also had concerns about the report’s “dangerously vague and speculative” nature, as a Mother Jones correspondent, James Ridgeway, wrote, warning that “civil libertarians of all stripes” should be nervous and raising the specter of government surveillance.

From the perspective of many people inside the department, the report was “exactly what the department is supposed to do, which is inform and educate our stakeholders about what we see as a threat,” Kayyem says. “This was not a political document.” ...

The article goes on to report how due to outrage over the report using the term "rightwing extremism" that the Obama Administration developed more nuanced (PC) terminology, which resulted in them refusing to say the term "radical Islamic terrorism", which the very same rightwing movement then turned against Obama as a cudgel.

They adopted a new, less ideological lexicon. Terrorism became “violent extremism,” which suggested behavior. The administration also came up with a new paradigm of “ideologically motivated violence” that ostensibly could apply to any form of extremism, not just Islamic terrorism. The Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department would develop “countering violent extremism” programs that focused on outreach and community engagement, not warrantless surveillance, though in practice they were still an effort to identify and root out jihadist elements from American Muslim communities, just as they had been during the Bush administration.

At the same time, most of the work exclusively focused on domestic extremism stopped at the Department of Homeland Security. “I blame an entire political apparatus led by Republicans that made calling something ‘right-wing extremism’ a political statement,” says Kayyem, who notes the paradox of G.O.P. leaders’ attacking Democrats for refusing to use the phrase “radical Islamic extremism.” “They’d say if you can’t say it, you can’t fight it,” she says. “But it cuts both ways. If you’re not allowed to say that white supremacy is a form of radicalization, then how are you going to stop it?”

Richard Stanley

The following tweets are regarding Agent Orange's (scripted) 'inability' to read the Apostle's Creed during Bush 41's funeral service. Given this thread's topic the second is most apropos:

Trump is a professed Presbyterian and performs well among evangelical voters, which some users noted.

It’s SO weird that Barack Obama (the “Muslim”) knew all the words to the Apostles’ Creed, and Donald Trump (the Evangelical hero) didn’t know any of them, and didn’t even bother to read them. #GeorgeHWBushFuneral

— John Ziegler (@Zigmanfreud) December 5, 2018
"There are people who will find an excuse for why Trump could not simply look at the program and read the Apostles' Creed who would have called Obama the anti-Christ if he had stood there silently like this," another user wrote on Twitter.

There are people who will find an excuse for why Trump could not simply look at the program and read the Apostles' Creed who would have called Obama the anti-Christ if he had stood there silently like this.

— Eugene Scott (@Eugene_Scott) December 5, 2018

Richard Stanley

In some contexts I have gone out on a limb granting credence to the precise and dynamic astronomical alignment event of 9/23/2017 being related to the Revelation 12 description of the Virgin giving birth to the new savior, the latter represented by the planet Jupiter. This within the context of of my millennial End Times analysis in that the Christian narrative fits within the then known framework of precession of the equinoxes and the related zodiacal astrology, and that minimally the both the Preterist and Futurist interpretations can be supported, ... even if you are not a religious believer like me. That is, the cosmic alignments are effectively tropes with which the human authors hung the narratives upon.

Now, comes an analysis by Vanderbilt University's David Weintraub, that the prior change of 'ages', from Aries to Pisces, was marked by a very similar alignment, and which also explains the so-called Star of the East which was said to motivate the Magi.

Both dynamic alignments involve the retrograde motion of Jupiter for the approximate time that a baby gestates in the mother's womb.

And now we need a little bit of astrology background. When the planet reappears again for the first time and rises in the morning sky just moments before the sun, for the first time in many months after having been hidden in the sun’s glare for those many months, that moment is known to astrologers as a heliacal rising. A heliacal rising, that special first reappearance of a planet, is what en te anatole referred to in ancient Greek astrology. In particular, the reappearance of a planet like Jupiter was thought by Greek astrologers to be symbolically significant for anyone born on that day.

Thus, the “star in the east” refers to an astronomical event with supposed astrological significance in the context of ancient Greek astrology.

What about the star parked directly above the first crèche? The word usually translated as “stood over” comes from the Greek word epano, which also had an important meaning in ancient astrology. It refers to a particular moment when a planet stops moving and changes apparent direction from westward to eastward motion. This occurs when the Earth, which orbits the sun more quickly than Mars or Jupiter or Saturn, catches up with, or laps, the other planet.

Together, a rare combination of astrological events (the right planet rising before the sun; the sun being in the right constellation of the zodiac; plus a number of other combinations of planetary positions considered important by astrologers) would have suggested to ancient Greek astrologers a regal horoscope and a royal birth.

Wise men looking to the skies

Molnar believes that the wise men were, in fact, very wise and mathematically adept astrologers. They also knew about the Old Testament prophecy that a new king would be born of the family of David. Most likely, they had been watching the heavens for years, waiting for alignments that would foretell the birth of this king. When they identified a powerful set of astrological portents, they decided the time was right to set out to find the prophesied leader.

If Matthew’s wise men actually undertook a journey to search for a newborn king, the bright star didn’t guide them; it only told them when to set out. And they wouldn’t have found an infant swaddled in a manger. After all, the baby was already eight months old by the time they decoded the astrological message they believed predicted the birth of a future king. The portent began on April 17 of 6 BC (with the heliacal rising of Jupiter that morning, followed, at noon, by its lunar occultation in the constellation Aries) and lasted until December 19 of 6 BC (when Jupiter stopped moving to the west, stood still briefly, and began moving to the east, as compared with the fixed background stars). By the earliest time the men could have arrived in Bethlehem, the baby Jesus would likely have been at least a toddler.

Yes, I will now have to run this on Stellarium to confirm -- and also see what else might pop out. In any case, Weintraub already has the motion dynamics tied to Aries with the lunar occultation of Jupiter. I will also have to check when, or if, the heliacal rising of Jupiter happened around 9/23/17.
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

I have consulted the free Stellarium oracle, and indeed there was a heliacal rising of Jupiter on the date claimed, and that Jupiter moved as reported. However, I was not able to confirm the lunar occultation of Jupiter, so maybe I was doing something wrong. I did set my viewing location to Bethlehem, Palestine, but the distance error seems too much to account for in any case, as my settings show the occultation happening on April 24, a week later.

What I did note in addition was that the planet Mars was concurrently in retrograde motion in the range of Virgo's torso. The retrograde motion of Mars was not strictly confined to the womb proper, and it was for a few months shy of 9 months, so Mars was born a bit premature.

Finding this about Mars prompted my to look at the claim made on another thread here recently for John Allan Martinson Jr. (aka the Son of Mars) regarding his birth on 8/8/1980. Well, Mars did indeed pass by the Virgin's body at this very time, however there was no retrograde motion, so we are left to ponder if this birth was a miscarriage or not.

In looking for the helical rising of Jupiter near to 9/23/2017, this did occur, but not till closer to November, as on 9/23 Jupiter was trailing the rise of the Sun. Also, there is no parallel to the claimed lunar occultation of Jupiter on 4/17/6 BCE, albeit this did happen on 8/24/2017, a month before the 'birth'.
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

The following article caught my eye, discussing why 2019 will not see the 'Return' of Christ:

In the article is mentioned a minister who points out that certain things must still happen, including the "abomination of desolation and just one of the periods of 3 and a half years. The minister, or the article at least, does not invoke the Revelation 12 alignment which declares when the savior baby is born to the Virgin however.

But, interestingly, the minister for some reason invokes the Parable of the 10 Minas from Luke 19:11-27. The only reason I can ascertain for mentioning it is that the parable discusses that "a certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return". If we can assume that Jesus intended that the parable was referring to himself, then one would have to see this occur, and hence a time period is involved, as well as this individual being made a king over a kingdom. If this is indeed referring to Christ, then we would have to infer that the kingdom being referred to is the entire Earth, and that the "far country" is really in the heavens, literally or spiritually. For how could an earthly Jesus go to a far country and be made a temporal king over just one kingdom of many earthly ones, and then assume the divine kingship over the whole Earth? Perhaps the parable was intended, by the original authors as being more limited, as an object lesson?

In any case, one must assume a baby Jesus, the Third Coming (in Postflavian accounting), needs some time to come to adult maturity, if some apocalyptic script is indeed being followed -- as I am positing.

Whatever the case, in reading through the parable, lesser known than the related one of the Talents in Matthew 25, I was struck by the stark tone of Monarchism throughout, and why Jesus elsewhere says that the poor will always be with us. Even though he orders all such as enemies to be slain. King Jesus knows that his economic system, and human nature will always produce individuals with varying ambition, and thus widely varying outcomes in the casino of life. Such is also consistent with the feudal order prescribed in Genesis 47.

The Parable of the Ten Minas ( )

11And as they heard these things, he added and spake a parable, because he was nigh to Jerusalem, and because they thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear. 12He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return. 13And he called his ten servants, and delivered them ten pounds, and said unto them, Occupy till I come. 14But his citizens hated him, and sent a message after him, saying, We will not have this man to reign over us. 15And it came to pass, that when he was returned, having received the kingdom, then he commanded these servants to be called unto him, to whom he had given the money, that he might know how much every man had gained by trading. 16Then came the first, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained ten pounds. 17And he said unto him, Well, thou good servant: because thou hast been faithful in a very little, have thou authority over ten cities. 18And the second came, saying, Lord, thy pound hath gained five pounds. 19And he said likewise to him, Be thou also over five cities. 20And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is thy pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin: 21For I feared thee, because thou art an austere man: thou takest up that thou layedst not down, and reapest that thou didst not sow. 22And he saith unto him, Out of thine own mouth will I judge thee, thou wicked servant. Thou knewest that I was an austere man, taking up that I laid not down, and reaping that I did not sow: 23Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with usury? 24And he said unto them that stood by, Take from him the pound, and give it to him that hath ten pounds. 25(And they said unto him, Lord, he hath ten pounds.) 26For I say unto you, That unto every one which hath shall be given; and from him that hath not, even that he hath shall be taken away from him. 27But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

(Matthew 25:14-30) -- The related Parable of the Talents

So much for Jesus being against usury, at least. And, Jesus, or those who were writing in his name, is conflating the issue of capitalist investment with the issue of monarchy ... while today we are told that so-called Traditionalists despise crass Capitalism just as they do Collectivism. One also has to wonder if Jesus might have told the servants that they were expected to either invest the minas or deposit them in a bank, but we are not told, unless the word 'Occupy', however translated from, implied such employment.

And, if Jesus, or his creators, had understood Capitalism and/or gambling, it is far easier to lose everything when starting off with a smaller stake. Or maybe he did know this? If one wants to be king, and more importantly to stay king, one must ensure that the strata of society is maintained accordingly.

Richard Stanley

As we've been learning on Postflaviana, apocalyptic End Times are associated with cultural schisms, which, in some cases might be organic as opposed to being contrived. In either case, they can be leveraged by the savvy human shepherds in the old stratagem known as "divide and conquer" (note the next to last sentence in the excerpt).

Cardinal Gerhard Mueller, 71, a German who was the Vatican’s doctrinal chief until 2017, issued the four-page manifesto on Friday via conservative Catholic media outlets.

He said “many bishops, priests, religious and lay people” had requested it. He did not say how many and why he was issuing it now.

However, conservatives balked this week when Francis made the first trip by a pope to the Arabian peninsula and signed a “Document on Human Fraternity” with a Muslim faith leader.

Ultra-conservative Catholics are opposed to dialogue with Islam, with some saying its ultimate goal is to destroy the West.

The manifesto was dated Feb. 10, the sixth anniversary of the eve of former Pope Benedict’s announcement of his resignation. Benedict, 91, remains an icon for conservative Catholics.

Mueller said he wrote it “in the face of growing confusion about the doctrine of the faith”.

He said some Church leaders “have abandoned the people entrusted to them, unsettling them and severely damaging their faith”. He warned against “the fraud of (the) anti-Christ”.

Mueller, who did not mention the pope, is one of a handful of conservative cardinals who have open accused Francis of sowing confusion.

They say he is weakening Catholic rules on moral issues such as homosexuality and divorce while focusing excessively on social problems such as climate change and economic inequality. ...

Dark irony abounds here as this institution has 'ever' had problems with priestly pedophilia and abuse of nuns, as Francis has just admitted the latter with lip service, at least. Benedict is an exemplar for this problem, via his brother and possibly even himself.

The Church has always positioned itself so as to be able to profit by setting fairly restrictive behavioral norms for society, knowing full well that many will inherently fall short and/or live out their lives in the misery of an early mistake, for example by rashly entering into a marriage contract with an unsuitably romantic 'business' partner. Over time the Church has been forced into work-arounds, such as allowing for prostitution and abiding by moral double-standards for men at least. All of this being consistent historically with the fact that the Church hierarchy has always been controlled by the social elites that created it in the first place, e.g. the Flavians and Hasmoneans. This last is why such Catholic, conservative, traditionalists do not like any focus on remedying economic inequality, ever ingrained into the canon via the description of the feudal system created in Egypt by biblical hero Joseph and 'Pharaoh' (Genesis 47).

In the Catholics' particular Mueller schism (as opposed to Robert Mueller vs. Trump), we have Mueller questioning whether or not the current pope is Catholic. Or ... is he? Was Joseph Jewish? Remember, here, that John XXIII told the Jews after WWII that he was their 'Joseph'.

As a member of elite society, a pope is necessarily of the highest gentil (almost always Sabine) caste, and as a figurative 'Joseph', he is technically not a 'Jew', not of the tribe of Judah. This is at the heart of the false dialectic that underlies Western Civilization, an identity scam that transfers focus from the relative advantages of the uber-elites onto the completely synthetic Jewish - Gentile 'false' dialectic. We can see this confusion at play with the awkwardness of using the term 'Jew' in the otherwise great analysis by 'Gerry' that Miles Mathis posted and that I have commented on. In this case, is the elite society of (global) Europeans really 'Jewish' ... or Gentile ... or what? As I've discussed, the term 'gentile' is more a socio-economic category and not an ethnicity. Gerry's 'Spookian' analysis starts to dig into the ethnicity issue by shining a light on the problem of the (elite) Phoenicians and their historical 'submergence' as Jerry and I like to term the general 'ghosting' phenomenon, but yet Gerry and Miles keep getting mired in the ethnic terminological Briar Patch. 'Jews', however originally established, were Phoenician Canaanites, but Phoenicians, Canaanite or otherwise, are not 'Jews'.

Thus, in looking through Miles Mathis's genealogical efforts, it seems that he is helping to prove Flavio Barbiero's general thesis, in his Secret Society of Moses, that the Euro-nobility are indeed the literal descendants of Josephus's family of Hasmonean 'Maccabees'. Of course, I say that they are this plus the intermarried descendants of the elite Sabine Romans and the (Idumaean) Herodians, all the creators and directors of 'JudeoChristianity' and likely Islam as well. Remember that Idumaean Petra was the original 'Mecca' or Becca.

To bring things back to the elites desire for continuing "economic inequality", the recent op-ed by Paul Krugman, excerpted below, gets to the similar casuistic refocusing performed by social conservatives in their opposition to all things 'socialist'. This is the closely related economic parallel to the ethno-religious false dialectic.

Sometimes it
[socialism - rs] means any kind of economic liberalism. Thus after the SOTU, Steven Mnuchin, the Treasury secretary, lauded the Trump economy and declared that “we’re not going back to socialism” — i.e., apparently America itself was a socialist hellhole as recently as 2016. Who knew?

Other times, however, it means Soviet-style central planning, or Venezuela-style nationalization of industry, never mind the reality that there is essentially nobody in American political life who advocates such things.

The trick — and “trick” is the right word — involves shuttling between these utterly different meanings, and hoping that people don’t notice. You say you want free college tuition? Think of all the people who died in the Ukraine famine! And no, this isn’t a caricature: Read the strange, smarmy report on socialism that Trump’s economists released last fall; that’s pretty much how its argument goes.

So let’s talk about what’s really on the table.

Some progressive U.S. politicians now describe themselves as socialists, and a significant number of voters, including a majority of voters under 30, say they approve of socialism. But neither the politicians nor the voters are clamoring for government seizure of the means of production. Instead, they’ve taken on board conservative rhetoric that describes anything that tempers the excesses of a market economy as socialism, and in effect said, “Well, in that case I’m a socialist.”

What Americans who support “socialism” actually want is what the rest of the world calls social democracy: A market economy, but with extreme hardship limited by a strong social safety net and extreme inequality limited by progressive taxation. They want us to look like Denmark or Norway, not Venezuela.

And in case you haven’t been there, the Nordic countries are not, in fact, hellholes. They have somewhat lower G.D.P. per capita than we do, but that’s largely because they take more vacations. Compared with America, they have higher life expectancy, much less poverty and significantly higher overall life satisfaction. Oh, and they have high levels of entrepreneurship — because people are more willing to take the risk of starting a business when they know that they won’t lose their health care or plunge into abject poverty if they fail. ...

Irony and paradoxes abound, but mostly if one stays mired in bad contextual frameworks that Mommy, Daddy, your schools, and your Church saddled you with.


Paul Krugman gets to [quasi]-religious false [economic] dialectic :
.... anything that tempers the excesses of a market economy [MYTH]...
[People] want is what the rest of the world calls social democracy
[which does not exist] : A market economy, but with extreme hardship [produced by government intervention] limited by a strong social safety net [established by government intervention] and extreme inequality [as a result of government intervention] limited by progressive taxation [=theft by the State].

Krugman recycling popular myths and misconceptions !
He knows better ! >> Krugman in his role as disinformation agent of the State !

The Case for Privatization — of Everything | Walter Block :

Richard Stanley

Sorry Suchender, you are speaking to a former radical libertarian, so I know all these one-sided arguments.

As one grows up they should not be so susceptible to such simplistic argumentation ... bald rhetoric, as I once was. In a world of a wide range of possibilities, it does not do to limit oneself, and everyone else, to only one extreme possibility from an arbitrary, binary selection between the two extremes. In the libertarian worldview the ultimate and inevitable result is, what we are witnessing in the USA, the ever increasing disparity of income.

As Krugman correctly states, in the political construct of such as today's Trumpista's, the Koch brother's Tea Partiers and libertarian Cato Institute, the Catholic traditionalsist (monarchists), anything that doesn't abide by such extremism is tantamount to Marxist Communism, the opposite binary extreme.

The irony being that, as we have exposed here on Postflaviana, that totalitarian Communism was a cynical, synthetic construction to subvert the legitimate interests of the 'new' industrial workers, the former serfs of the 'noble magnates' of the JudeoChristian [sic] order. As such, the libertarian construct of unrestricted laissez faire economics is a backdoor way of reconstituting the preferred order of the relatively few 'worthy' magnates owning all usable land and having their tenants paying rent to them in perpetuity. This is the reason that the remnants of the Hapsburgs and the Bourbons have supported such as von Mises and Hayek via their Mont Pelerin Society. Similarly the American Koch brothers are traditionalist Catholics, and it is otherwise a paradox that such crypto-monarchists would support support such seeming anarchy within the masses.

I have had to make these arguments before to former members (faux) collectivist and ousia (a machinist cum faux philosopher). You are like an auto mechanic who will insist upon using only his hands to work on his BMW, when he could use a wide range of tools for a more optimal outcome for himself and his customers. Do you know any mechanics in Germany, or anywhere else, that do such? If not, then why would you expect that the even more complex social economy of human societies should be so simplistic?

Why should the owner of a BMW autoshop in the USA have to concern herself with paying expensive private health insurance for her employees, funding the yachts and mansions of the insurance companiy's CEO, when the wider society can take care of the funding and management of these employees, and similar. Why should Americans have to collectively pay 1/6 of the American GDP for health care costs, when under a better system, it would cost them about half as much for better health outcomes? Where does all this extra 1/12 of the GDP go, and could it be better utilized?

Where I live, those who have been marginalized by the rigged system must obtain much of their specialist health care by traveling some distance to see the few doctors that will accept them. The 'capitalist only' specialists will not see them, as this would put a crimp in their ability to decorate their offices, their mansions, and BMWs.

One of the few things I agree with Trump on is that the system is rigged, only that he is one of the biggest opportunists taking advantage of the rigging. The system gets rigged by those who have the cash to do so. "Cash, aka Mammon, is King." Any attempt to undo the 'rigging', unless it is fake done by Trump, is rhetorically labeled now as socialism, this as a PC code term for radical communism.

There is a reason Jesus said that the poor will always be with us. The American Declaration of Independence is wrong in stating that "all snowflakes are born equal", even after the emancipation of the slaves. But perhaps we could at least concern ourselves that all citizens and legal residents (however defined) have some minimal measure of dignity, if not happiness. The casino of life is a harsh taskmaster, and I for one would rather have my minimal baseline of dignity and health guaranteed by the wider society than the aggrandizing largess of a trumpeting grandee, many of whom are otherwise worthless douchbags. Many having inherited their ability to unequally pursue their constitutional "pursuit of happiness".

To bring us back onto this thread topic, I highly suspect that if I am correct about a new order coming for the new age, the economic order will be one that preferentially benefits the Elect. "Meet the New (global) Boss, Same as the Old Boss".


Sorry Suchender, you are speaking to a former radical libertarian, so I know all these one-sided arguments.

As one grows up they should not be so susceptible to such simplistic argumentation ... to only one extreme possibility from an arbitrary, binary selection between the two extremes.
For the grown ups it's important to know the extremes as to know what is good and bad as what is right and wrong.
Only this way you can make informed decisions in life.

I'm glad you know and understand the extreme, Richard !