Part 1, the Futurist Apocalypse is Now

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
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

Well-Known Member
“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

Well-Known Member
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

Well-Known Member
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

Well-Known Member
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

Well-Known Member
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

Well-Known Member
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.


Active Member
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

Well-Known Member
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".


Active Member
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 !

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
The following excerpts are from an article about the late Archbishop Fulton Sheen's thoughts about the AntiChrist and are pretty revealing, confirming much of my previous claims. In the first excerpt we can see that the Catholic Church is posing, consistent with Revelation, as a supporter of sovereign 'nations', where as the earthy representative of God the Father is to provide the sole global direction to said nations. This is consistent with its most recent catering to the 'global' populo-nationalist movement led by such as Steve Bannon. In this regard, the nationalist Bannon giving his 2014 speech to a Vatican audience.

Note especially the writer's reference to Our Lady of Fatima, which was used to call global Catholics to come to the aid of greatest Catholic ever, Adolf Hitler, in his messianic fight against 'godless' Communism.

“But in the new era, what the modern lost soul will take particularly about the counter-Church, is that it is catholic or international. It breaks down all national boundaries, laughs down patriotism, dispenses men from piety to country which the Christ enjoined, makes men proud that they are not Americans, French, or British, but members of a revolutionary class under the rule of its Vicar who rules not from the Vatican, but the Kremlin.”
Just as St. John tells us, “Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that the antichrist was coming, so now many antichrists have appeared” (1 John 2:18), “and every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus does not belong to God. This is the spirit of the antichrist (1 John 4:3), Sheen linked to the Kremlin seeing the diabolical Communism as one of the antichrists already present. (Our Lady of Fatima had something to say about this too. And how to avoid it.)
Sheen continued: “in the midst of all his seeming love for humanity and his glib talk of freedom and equality,” the anti-Christ “will have one great secret which he will tell to no one; he will not believe in God. Because his religion will be brotherhood without the fatherhood of God…” ...

Fortunately, we know that such Catholic talk about 'freedom' is anti-glib, and where there is no real need to talk about 'equality', in any context. The mysterious Mysterium hierarchy of the Church deciding such as which children will be raped and whatnot. All for the greater good.

Sheen, of course, made his mark in the 1940's and later, during the time of the USSR, and he naturally sets the Catholic Church (of Christ) in diametric opposition to the leadership of godless Bolshevism, the Kremlin, which becomes the AntiChrist. We 'all know' that Lady Fatima defeated the Soviets, at least, but the AntiChrist dies hard, with 'socialism' rearing its ugly head again, the fake slippery slope to Communism. Again, as I've been saying previously, there are no positions in between these two poles. And throughout the article the author, Joseph Pronechen, and Sheen 'liberally' reframe (casuistry) their argumentation such that the only their Church can guarantee the proper outcomes.

While warning about such as astrology and psychics, Pronechen invokes the visions and prophecy of Lady Fatima with zero irony. The two, like their Church, have decided it profitable to co-opt 'reason' for their own ends. Pronechen blissfully unaware that his Church has held several positions on such as contraception and prostitution, the use of the former that would greatly reduce the practice of abortion. But the loss of such as abortion would give the Church one less wedge issue in its arsenal of propaganda. Pronechen seeming blissfully unaware that his Church has its own Office of Propaganda. While Sheen and Pronechen have a problem with the AntiChrist not letting those who think properly eat, they are apparently ignorant again, or casuistic, about that their Church one refused to let people live, much less eat, unless they bowed down to Christ. There is no middle ground.

Pronechen finishes his article stating: "Because “the time is nearer than you think.”"

These Catholics, at least, have a Futurist eschatology, as do the heretic Evangelicals, ironically provided to them by the Jesuits about 500 years ago. And .... ironically those same Jesuits have been infiltrated, according to the truly 'faithful', that is. One evidence is the metaphorical interpretation of the latest Black Pope, akin to a mainline denomination Protestant:

In a 2017 newspaper interview in Spain, the new superior general of the Society of Jesus said, “We have formed symbolic figures such as the devil to express evil. Social conditioning can also represent this figure, since there are people who act [in an evil way] because they are in an environment where it is difficult to act to the contrary.”

Pronechon, likely a 'true believer' then sardonically goes on about 'false fronts'.

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
The following excerpt is from a long article at Politico about an evangelical group, Telos, trying to build peaceful bridges across the Israeli-Palestinian divide. The leader of Telos, Todd Deatherage (an interesting surname for this thread), was raised within the evangelical apocalyptic milieu, but upon gaining some education and real-life experience has refocused upon Jesus's message of peacemaking. This, of course, is a constant problem with both the OT and the NT, in that there are so many internally contradictory messages.

And the question is begged as to whether or not such peaceful Christians can stave off the craven agenda of such as Trump and the figurative 'sheepdogs' like Hagee? I doubt it.

In any case, the excerpt provides some background on the impact of evangelical 'dispensationalism', which interprets history in the manner that I suggest is just how our elite human shepherds have been implementing, via their various 'agencies' of control, e.g. churches, secret societies, etc..

I have also posted a different excerpt from this article on my Trump thread, here.

Deatherage worries about some Christians who have “absolute certainty about being able to clearly see God’s will in current events coupled with the fatalism or even enthusiasm about war and violence in the Middle East,” he told me. “And years later when I revisited the issue, I began to wonder what would it look like to take seriously what Jesus said about ‘blessed are the peacemakers.’”
Deatherage grew up hearing the old narrative about Israel in Fifty-Six, Ark., population 177. His childhood was filled with Baptist sermons and summer tent revival meetings. In 1975, the summer before his 10th birthday, he sat on a wooden pew in the Shady Grove Baptist Church. There, he heard his first sermon about the last days from a deputy sheriff who moonlighted as a preacher. The sheriff-preacher traced recent history in the Middle East, from the founding of the state of Israel in 1948 through the Six-Day War in 1967. God did something important in history every 2,000 years, he told the congregation, and Jesus would return in 2000. Deatherage remembers leaving “convinced” and “terrified.” A few years later, he heard a sermon about the end times from Dr. W.O. Vaught, pastor of Immanuel Baptist Church in Little Rock and a spiritual mentor to Bill Clinton, who as governor could sometimes be seen singing in the choir behind Vaught on the local Channel 4.
In the sermon, Vaught outlined dispensationalism, a theological theory of how history unfolds in “dispensations” or ages, leading up to the rapture of all Christians, the dispensationalist precept that God will rescue Christians from the world before wreaking havoc on an unrepentant world. In this theological theory, Israel as a nation-state fulfills biblical prophecy that Jews would return to their homeland, paving the way for Jesus’ second coming.
Advanced by the 19th century preacher John Nelson Darby, dispensationalism was absent from the first 1,800 years of Christian thought—and it’s come roaring back in recent decades as Hagee and his acolytes have gained more influence. This, despite the fact that it’s no longer taught in almost any mainstream seminary across the U.S. Deatherage told me he believes that the “residue” of dispensationalism still influences American foreign policy today.
Dispensationalism became fashionable again in some circles in the 1970s and again in the 2000s, thanks initially to books like Hal Lindsey’s “The Late Great Planet Earth,” which predicted the end of the world sometime in the 1980s, and the best-selling Left Behind series, which imagined that the leader of a global government would become the antichrist and was resurrected by Satan from a gunshot wound before creating a One World Unity Army that battled with Jesus Christ in the valley of Armageddon. The theology was embraced by Christian fundamentalists such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, and the books themselves influenced tens of millions: “The Late Great Planet Earth” was a best-seller in the 1970s, and the Left Behind series sold 80 million copies.
Transfixed, Deatherage ordered Vaught’s cassette tapes. He did the math and realized he had until he was 35 until the end of the world. “As a 10-year-old I’m thinking these questions like, ‘What should I do with my life? It’s all about to end.”
Recently, reflecting on how that line of thinking shaped his early beliefs and those of other evangelicals who subscribed to this theology, he would write in a book manuscript he’s working on: “If the world was going to end in violent destruction in my lifetime; if an unprecedented global war, centered in the Middle East, was not only inevitable and necessary but a welcome catalyst for the return of Jesus; if history was spiraling ever downward until its ultimate nadir with no hope of redemption until the bloody victory at Armageddon—if all these things were true, then what did either the present or even the future really matter. Why bother with protecting the environment or stewardship of resources; why engage in Middle East peacemaking; why dedicate myself to anything constructive or redemptive in a world destined to burn (and soon)?”
But Deatherage eventually did go to college. He graduated from the University of Arkansas and worked as a teacher until he got into politics. But he didn’t think much about Israeli-Palestinian relations until he began working for Tim Hutchinson, who was elected to Congress from in 1992, and later to the Senate in 1996. ...
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
The following is the opening paragraphs from an article by Clare Coffey discussing assertions of an imminent new religion, revealed to us Earthlings by aliens of some variety. And this is done so within the contextual framework with associations by credentialed 'scientists' and .... such as the .... Vatican. Déjà vu for readers of my prior writings on this topic, such as here, regarding the Jesuits and NASA's LUCIFER infrared telescope and what I have termed "Space Jesus"? Unfortunately Coffey doesn't reveal anything more about the interests of the Vatican, but evangelical author, Thomas Horn, has documented that various Vatican organs are allowing that such a new revelation is quite possible, via 'aliens', that the Jesuit astronomers are seeing their UFO's flitting about our solar system daily, thanks to LUCIFER, of course.

The aliens have landed.
Or at least, they’re about to. That’s a reasonable takeaway when a renowned Harvard astronomer publicly declares, without apparent fear of repercussion, that he believes an alien spaceship may be orbiting our planet.
Belief in the little green men (or tall, suspiciously Nordic, hyper-enlightened space brethren, depending on whose accounts you believe) has long been a one-way ticket to social disrepute. It belongs to the chainsmoking Nevada diner waitress, the virginal malcontent reading anti-Semitic lizard people websites in his mother’s basement, the aunt whose minivan is littered with pamphlets on lesser-known Marian apparitions and dire end-times prophecies, the bearded ’70s peace-and-love guru who later turned out to be a sex criminal. It is precisely three steps above joining the Black Hebrew Israelites.
But that seems to be changing. A new book by D.W. Pasulka — professor and chair of the department of philosophy and religion at the University of North Carolina Wilmington — American Cosmic: UFOs Religion, and Technology, focuses not on grassroots investigative societies or marginal cults, but on UFO believers in the halls of power.
Her narrative begins on a drive through the hills with pioneering computer scientist, venture capitalist, and ufologist Jacques Vallee. “Silicon Valley is full of secrets,” he tells her. It ends in the Vatican Secret Archives (alas, not because the Ultimate Clue lies steganographically hidden in a Templar codex).
Along the way, Pasulka meets “Tyler,” a biomedical technology mogul associated with the U.S. space program. Tyler is the most curious part of a curious book. Like most of the scientists, government researchers, and tech giants Pasulka quotes, Tyler’s real name remains a secret. But Pasulka has presumably done scholarly due diligence on his background, which would otherwise be hard to believe: Tyler has over 40 biotech patents to his name, many of which he believes were communicated to him by non-human intelligence. He works in a government program where, according to him, the kind of intricate security-clearance labyrinths one might find in an X-Files episode are the norm. “I don’t know who is responsible for putting me on these jobs. I think that somehow they are responsible for it. My own direct boss doesn’t know what I do. This is how the program works.”
Pasulka describes him breezing through airports without getting stopped by security: “We arrived at the airport, and Tyler sailed right past security, past first class, past economy class, and out the other side. He seemed to be literally beyond the law.” His name unlocks doors at the Vatican. In his official capacity as a researcher with the U.S. space program, one of his roles is merely to be at certain places at certain times — his superiors believe, apparently that his physical presence produces certain outcomes at experiments and rocket launches. ...

Coffey makes some interesting comments, later on, about 'fairies' that are consistent with assertions made by the late Nicholas DeVere, in his The Dragon Legacy.

There is, however, another way that the UFO religion may be a religion of technology. More than one person has pointed out that alien accounts have some odd similarities with older fairy folklore: the strange lights, the miniature people, the domestic disturbances, the appearances and disappearances. But the most relevant point may be that fairies were often described as mimicking the appearance and behavior of the landed aristocracy. Tall, beautiful, and amoral, they spent their time hunting, dancing, and fighting. They did not take it kindly if you trespassed on their land.

DeVere claimed that his red-headed, green-eyed clan were at the very pinnacle of Norman nobility (followed by the Stanleys and Russells), BTW. And that they were the real players of the 'Bible, which I have separately equated to Ephraim (Joseph) and Esau (which also means -- not Judah).

Midway though Coffey states, quite apropos for the central tenet of Postflaviana:

However, none of this secrecy necessarily suggests a conspiracy, unless it’s the same conspiracy that has dogged every system that moved from marginal belief to massive social leverage. To decent Romans, Christianity was a weird and possibly sorcerous cult practiced by rednecks and illiterates — until suddenly it was the force behind the empire. The Mormons were unwelcome freaks who believed in seer stones, indigenous American Israelites, and polygamy. Now they’re the face of clean-cut American success west of the Rockies.

We know that the Christian revelation was indeed a Flavian and Hasmonean (Josephus 'Flavius') invention for the then coming new age. The first icon of Christianity, before the Cross, was the imperial Flavian symbol of the anchor and fish. Once Constantine made Christianity official, the Cross supplanted the dual upright cross, the dokana, of the prior Homeric Greco-Roman saviors, the twins Castor and Pollux. This is why Paul is made to ride on the ship, Castor and Pollux, to symbolically bring Christianity to Rome.

Thus, no aliens need apply.
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Staff member
Unfortunately Coffey doesn't reveal anything more about the interests of the Vatican,

I guess we'll have to buy Pasulka's book to get the complete story.

anti-Semitic lizard people websites

Surfing three web hops from Coffey's article, I found this analysis of the racism of Ancient Astronaut theories, by Julien Benoit:

...some people still refuse to believe that anyone from Africa (or anywhere in what is today considered the developing world) could possibly have created and constructed the Giza pyramids or other ancient masterpieces. Instead, they credit ancient astronauts, extraterrestrials or time travellers as the real builders.
Well, you may ask, so what? Who cares if relatively few people don’t believe the ancient Egyptians built the pyramids? What’s the harm? Actually, there is great harm: firstly, these people try to prove their theories by travelling the world and desecrating ancient artefacts. Secondly, they perpetuate and give air to the racist notion that only Europeans – white people – ever were and ever will be capable of such architectural feats....
Racism and colonial attitudes
A series of stone circles in South Africa’s Mpumalanga province provides an excellent example of the other problem with pseudo-archaeologists. Some people genuinely believe that these structures were designed by aliens. They scoff at scientific research that proves the stone circles were made by the Koni people using ropes, sticks and wood. They will not even entertain the notion that ancient African tribes could be responsible.
But the same people have no problem believing that medieval Europeans built the continent’s magnificent cathedrals using only ropes, sticks and wood. They dismiss scientific research that overwhelmingly proves ancient Africans’ prowess, but insist the documents which contain evidence of Europeans’ construction processes are beyond reproach.
Why is it so hard for some to acknowledge that ancient non-European civilisations like the Aztecs, people from Easter Island, ancient Egyptians or Bantu-speakers from southern Africa could create intricate structures?
The answer is unfortunately as simple as it seems: it boils down to profound racism and a feeling of white superiority that emanates from the rotting corpse of colonialism.

I think this is correct. Even David Icke's imagery of the British royal family as evil shape-shifting lizards, contains within it the idea that only British royalty possesses this alien DNA.

DeVere claimed that his red-headed, green-eyed clan were at the very pinnacle of Norman nobility (followed by the Stanleys and Russells), BTW. And that they were the real players of the 'Bible, which I have separately equated to Ephraim (Joseph) and Esau (which also means -- not Judah).

I suppose our Postflavian analysis could also be described as racist, but in a descriptive rather than a prescriptive way. It seems to be the case that a tribe of "Aryan" red-headed, green-eyed warriors with horses and chariots, speaking the Proto-Indo-European language, emerged from the steppes of the Caucasus to insert themselves as royalty throughout the ancient world. And blamed 'Gods' or fairies for their own worst behavior.

Most science fiction tales assume that the aliens are multi-racial. If Star Wars is predictive programming, we can expect to see amphibious humanoid reptiles with Rastafarian accents, accompanying and assisting the fairy Queen of Naboo. But will that be sufficient to sell this in modern Africa?

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
I think this is correct. Even David Icke's imagery of the British royal family as evil shape-shifting lizards, contains within it the idea that only British royalty possesses this alien DNA.
Benoit is likely 'generally' correct IMO. But you know what 'they' say about generalizations, right?

In any case, we can include in his formulation the Biblical concept of the Chosen People, American Exceptionalism, Deutschland Uber Alles, and similar in the same mix. And, as I've been discussing, the Vatican is promoting that a presumably humanoid alien savior is soon coming. Now besides being pedophiles, disproportionately homosexual, the priests of Eternal Rome and Eternal Carthage (borrowing from Alexander Dugin) are racists as well? Shocking!!!

Imagine that the issue would go away if people would just stop talking about it. Is this an analogue for not mentioning the name of mass murderers in the media (as is being brought up again with the NZ event)? Not exactly I think. Should the 'professional' anthropologists and others stop researching the different lines of humanoids that once existed, if one, perhaps us homo sapiens, proved more aggressive in winning out? Again, we must consider the ramifications that 'modern' humans have existed for at least 300K years, with only about 5K of 'history'.

Maybe we should pretend lineal descended kings never existed, ... except they still do.

This is the general problem with discussing 'anything', as such discussions are dual edged swords.

Also, to be clear, DeVere did not claim his Arya, uber-shaman clan (not tribe) to be of the warrior caste, and that, as such, the DeVere 'clan' is the only 'Arya'. Everyone else of somewhat lesser beings. Perhaps more propaganda.

Jerry Russell

Staff member
Speaking of the diverse multi-cultural alien universe: I just noticed that this character Watto from Phantom Menace, who has been widely noted as a rather vicious anti-Semitic stereotype, is also portrayed as a sort of bee or fly, with thin, slowly fluttering (but motion blurred), impossibly small wings.

As noted in a post by 'Gerry' at Miles Mathis's website, as well as Joe Atwill's work: the bees and flies are very ancient symbols, variously related to ancient Egyptian royalty, European royalty, Freemasonry and spy-craft. The bees play a central role in Samson's famous riddle.


Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Just finished watching the 2017 documentary, In God We Trump, the title a great riff on "In God We Trust". The docu has comments by several former members and former clergy in the Evilgelical Right, who have realized how dark this cultus is, which in my opinion is the American equivalent of the Taliban.

As can be gleaned from the title, the docu is about Trump's interdependent relationship to the American evangelical right. It discusses the formation of the right's association with politics beginning with Reagan, but really this was pre-saged by Billy Graham and a change in traditional evangelical focus from staying out of the worldly affairs.

What can be seen in some clips is the feverish desire to cleanse the world of those who do not konform to their strict notion of behavior, all the while yammering on about "freedom". Konformity is Freedom in their minds.

Near the end, a former evangelical minister, a professor at Auburn University, states that today's secular Millennials are much more Christian than the Evangelical Right. At a prior point he discusses that the issues of abortion and homosexuality became the twin pillars that now radicalized the evangelical movement at this time of Reagan, thanks to the likes of Jerry Falwell and his Moral Majority.

Below is an excerpt of a review by a member of the evangelical left, the first part of which is about the hoped for theocracy desired by the evangelical right's millennial apocalyptic beliefs.
For white Evangelicals, they see a man who will help them secure a theocracy that establishes their power.
For no small number of Evangelical leaders and believers, Trump’s presidency even helps fulfill biblical prophecy for the end times. It is especially enlightening to watch Maloney’s film when considering Trump’s decision this past December to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Some insist that Trump was only enacting policy to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital which has been long overdue. But when understanding the context of premillennial dispensationalism that predicts Armaggedon will begin when the Temple Mount at Jerusalem is reestablished, the fusion of end-times theology with Trump’s policies is chilling.
By the end of the film, I was left with a discomfiting realization.
As a clergy person and seminary professor, the circles I travel in often talk about the church “dying,” which is a dreaded fear, and understandably so. But film’s conclusion is that it will take the death of the church to loosen the evil stranglehold that Evangelicals have on American Christianity.
That may mean that those of us who are progressive Christians will have to watch our churches die along with it. But you know what? I’m starting to realize that that’s okay with me.
I know, this sounds heretical. But if the death of American Christianity is what it takes to slough off these wicked power structures – then so be it. My faith is such that I’m okay with the American church dying – only because I trust that the God of life will raise up something else. It will look very different from what we’ve been used to for the past hundred years or so.
But if we worship a living God – the God of the resurrection – and we trust that God is doing a new thing, then I can let the old thing go. I’m not sure what that means for me professionally and personally. Certainly, such upheaval threatens my very livelihood as a clergy person and trainer of pastors. But there must be something better than the white, racist, homophobic, anti-earth, xenophobic, dominion-worshiping church we have now. ...

Having American Christianity die is fitting within my interpretation of the cyclical nature of the phenomenon, the ongoing process of completing globalization. In this fashion today's Christians will become, in the coming age, the new 'Pharisees' of the day, so to speak. A stubborn remnant of them will survive, as did the Jews before, and they will be despised, while they wonder when their messiah is really going to come. Because they wont buy into the new revelation of Space Jesus, or whatever the hell his name will be.

And then, if scriptural and historical typology holds, for all seemingly decent folks' sake, will the radical, militant, evilgelical right Christians, the Zealots du jour be exterminated, nailed to crosses? I'm guessing so, but not before they do considerable damage.
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Staff member
As a clergy person and seminary professor, the circles I travel in often talk about the church “dying,” which is a dreaded fear, and understandably so.

This quote puzzled me. Then I watched the last 10 minutes of the "In God we Trump" video, and felt even more puzzled. The video spoke about a decline of membership of Evangelical churches, said that they were financially overcommitted, and predicted that eventually this particular brand of insanity would die out. They showed pictures of churches in advanced states of decay, with crumbling plaster all over the floor.

Liberal Protestant denominations in America are in exactly the predicament that they're describing. And I would think that Ecopreacher belongs to such a denomination, and that all his friends are indeed talking about their churches dying, because it's happening on the ground.

But: Wikipedia says, according to a reasonably broad definition, Evangelicals amount to 30% to 35% of the US population. They may have lost some members because of Trump, and they may not be appealing to millennials at the same rate as older generations, but declarations of impending doom are simply wishful thinking.

We've also discussed the trend that Evangelical churches are in merger discussions with the Catholics, who account for another 20% of the US population. And we've discussed that Trumpism is strongly affiliated with the Roman Catholic church, via the many Georgetown connections. The Catholic Church is not going to constitute any meaningful opposition to the oncoming authoritarian regime.

We are also facing major attacks on the separation of church and state. If indeed there are any evangelical churches in financial trouble, help is on the way in the form of Federal education vouchers.

Rather than predicting the death of Evangelical Christianity, aren't we really predicting that it is going to evolve into some new Space Jesus religion? Of course when that happens, there will be some zealots who hang on to the old time Biblical fire and brimstone.
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Ecopreacher is Leah D. Schade, with a background in the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and a professor at the Disciples of Christ Lexington Theological Seminary. That is a fair amount of ecumenical mashup going on there.

I thought that the male narrator of the docu was talking about the decline of such as evangelical mega-churches, a phenomenon that I haven't been cognizant of, but it would not surprise me, albeit I think I do remember seeing stats that said the evangelicals were slightly waning in numbers in recent years. I'm guessing just too much cognitive dissonance is involved in remaining.

We've also discussed the trend that Evangelical churches are in merger discussions with the Catholics, who account for another 20% of the US population.
While evangelicals, to some extent, have become more accepting of the Catholic Church (I think because of common ground on abortion and LGBT issues) on a range of positions, it is the mainline denominational Protestants that have engaged in merger discussions. That being the global (Episcopal) Church of England, the Methodists, and the Lutherans primarily. The latter having launched into their merger. Presbyterians are either turning grey and/or being turned into evangelicals - via Entryism.

Speaking of Presbyterians, it was funny watching the brief mention in the docu about Presbyterian ministers having to inform the fake 'Presbyterian', Trump, that they were not evangelicals.

We are also facing major attacks on the separation of church and state. If indeed there are any evangelical churches in financial trouble, help is on the way in the form of Federal education vouchers.
Yes, good point. And Bush II, a supposed convert to being an evangelical (no doubt to help his former Eastern Establishment, elite roots with Texas politics), helped with this as well.
Rather than predicting the death of Evangelical Christianity, aren't we really predicting that it is going to evolve into some new Space Jesus religion? Of course when that happens, there will be some zealots who hang on to the old time Biblical fire and brimstone.
What I'm trying to get to is that in the 'apocalyptic' transformation to the synthesis of the (globally expanded) new order there will be a general precipitating schism. The schism is expressly designed for this purpose. It is no irony that this was part of the evangelizing meaning of 'Pentecost' and the speaking in (foreign) tongues.

As such, the cultural framing of the evangelical right (based upon the mixture of the Old Testament 'Strict Father' meme, and the 1980's Moral Majority introduction of abortion and anti-homosexual pillars) makes it clear that these are today's typological Zealots. If the script is to hold true, then these will all need to convert to the new regime of 'Space Jesus' or they will suffer the same fate as the Jewish Zealots.

And, the (Vatican's) Space Jesus schema will likely enforce an global admixture of ecumenical syncretism and konformity, with a carrot and stick approach. However, this includes that the Roman Catholic Church, as we know it, will likely undergo radical transformation itself. This is one reason why the priest pedophilia issue (nothing new) has been allowed to rise to the surface lately as it has. Space Jesus will likely insist that his new priests and priestesses will be normally and properly sexualized, I'm guessing. And/or just fucked up in some other way, perhaps.

I just happened across a discuss talking about the Democratic Party's need to reframe their messaging, such that they can counter the wildly successful Republican 'moral' reframing that occurred with the mashup of evangelical Baptist, Billy Graham (and his Crusade) with Dick Nixon, in forming the so-called Silent Majority. Latter, Falwell et al forming this into the Moral Majority with the addition of the focus on abortion and homosexuality.

With regard to 'framing', the following interview of George Lakoff by Robert Reich is quite informative, and it should be watched in terms of cultural manipulation. Here, we can see that while so many have been concerned about the "degradation of American and Western Culture" by the left, the American Right was being radicalized into the American Taliban, crystalized by such as their new focus on abortion and homosexuality - among other things.

I agree with most everything that Lakoff is saying, with the exception that the framing of the Christian and secular Right includes high doses of Fear, which is particularly effective with the Evangelicals, this in completely shutting down the logic center of their brains. This is why such as Trump's focus on being invaded and on the ogre meme of Socialism is so effective. As the In God We Trump docu effectively points out, the Evangelical Left has managed to retain the core social messaging of Christianity, that was in stark contrast to the "Strict Father" framing of the Old testament.

So, to be functionally consistent with the past, the coming message for long term survival will be "Konvert, Konform, ... or Die" mother fucker.

One of the amazing things shown in the docu was the images of an evangelical center in California. If one did not know any better you'd have thought they were taking video inside of Trump's ornate and garish, golden penthouse. This is how morally twisted the Christian Right has become, in being reframed, from originally having been told to avoid the affairs of the world.

This, is the cynical shepherding of humans, as has always been the case.

To wit, Today's pentecostalism is modeled upon the Biblical NT pentecostalism. We can see generally the same thing as the late Professor Cyrus H. Gordon had pointed out. That as the soon to be first king, Saul, approached the steps of the then capitol, Bethel, a group of 'prophets' were descending the same steps, to go about their propagandizing 'mission'. Gordon stated that it is obvious that this seemingly spiritual endeavor was organized, in essence an institution ... of governance. In this case, part of establishing a new order of the day. This was at the root of what is now ... Western Civilization, including those useful tin foils, the (apocalyptic) Russians.

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
As a result of some recent inane discussions about whether or not Christianity is actually a JudeoChristian construct or not, the Christian Advent hymn, O Come, O Come Emmanuel, popped into my mind, because it expressly employs the term 'Israel' in it. Older 'Catholic' variants employ David, Jesse, Adonai, and Sinai for instance.

'Jesse', the father of King David, is interesting because his name name was centrally invoked in Romans 11, in the formation of the graft of the Gentiles onto the Judaic Root of Jesse. Fans of author Ralph Ellis also understand that Jesse et al. are cryptic references to historical Egyptian pharaohs.

As the Wikipedia link mentions, the hymn refers to Isaiah 10 and 11. And, as I have discussed in regards to the Futurist End Times scenario, the announcement of the immanent birth of the new savior in Isaiah 9 was recited, in Spanish, on September 25, 2015, in front of Pope Francis's mass held in NYC's Madison Square Garden.

Furthermore, it is easy to summarily dismiss my focus on the zodiacal timings I've discovered, as just various kookery, including that of my own. So imagine my surprise when looking at the Latin verses, below, of an older version of the hymn.

The highlighted words seem to say: "Dwelling in the Virgin, now quietly lurking in the Zodiac".

The subsequent line seems to say, "Soon the true light leads". There are several other verses that seem to suggest the September 23, 2017 alignment of the Zodiac that so well and densely matches the 'unique' alignment described in Revelation 12.

I should also point out, for context, that the vast majority of 'vulgar' Catholic congregants didn't know Latin, despite maybe singing along to the words, likely more often sung by a choir.
Last edited: