Dedicated to the memory of Richard Stanley, whose works inspired this one
A fact that has been largely unrecognized is that the infamous Nazi Party seems to have been a longstanding project of Freemasonry. This secretive organization was able to achieve this without being recognized by using a proxy, Helena Blavatsky, and the pseudo – mystical organization she invented, the Theosophical Society.
While may strike the reader as farfetched, it is the case that virtually every aspect of what became the Nazi party originated from a member of the Theosophical Society. Whereas one or two aspects could certainly be circumstantial, the number of disparate elements that owe their origin to members of the Theosophical Society is unlikely an accident. It appears that the Theosophical Society was used as a mystical camouflage under which the Nazis symbols, racial and economic perspectives, the Nazi party itself and finally its leader, Adolf Hitler, were created.
It is perhaps surprising that all of the facts asserted in this article are well known. The only original aspect of this analysis to to present them as a group, which to my knowledge has never been done before, and to note the obvious fact that when seen as a collection, it does not seem to be something that could have occurred by chance.
One obvious question that needs to be answered is why hasn’t the obvious connection between the elements that created Nazism become part of the historical understanding?
Blavatsky Was a Freemason
Freemasonry’s ‘Nazi Project’ began with its promotion of the famous mystic, Helena Blavatsky. Developing a reliable account of Blavatsky’s early life is impossible because she seems to have deliberately provided contradictory accounts and falsifications about her past. Furthermore, few of her own writings before 1873 have survived, meaning that biographers must rely heavily on later accounts. The accounts of her early life provided by her family members have also been considered dubious by biographers. (Wikipedia)
Based solely upon this analysis, Blavatsky’s claims to have been in Tibet as a youth where she had a mystical experience, were presumably fabricated to create some plausibility for her strange attraction for the mystical spiritualism she presented within Theosophy.
However, one fact about her that is known is that in 1867, at the age of thirty-six, Blavatsky was a member of the all-volunteer army of the Freemason Grand Master Giuseppe Garibaldi, and therefore was at the battle of Mentana where Garibaldi battled the army of Pope Pius IX. By the time the battle was over, Blavatsky lay bleeding in a ditch. Left for dead, she was rescued by Italian civilians who appeared to help the wounded.
For some reason, likely because of her Masonic zealotry, Garibaldi selected her and brought Blavatsky with him to England and introduced her to other high level Freemasons.
As an example of her zealotry, when Blavatsky met the Freemason Henry Steel Olcott in London in 1874, he reported that she was still wearing a Garibaldi ‘red shirt’, the army’s uniform.
She told Olcott about being wounded at Mentana. “In proof of her story,” he wrote in his diary, “she showed me where her left arm had been broken in two places by a saber stroke, and made me feel in her right shoulder a musket bullet still embedded in the muscle, and another in her leg.” (Olcott, Old Diary Leaves, pp. 4-9.) As a doctor and veteran of the American Civil War, Olcott recognized her injuries as authentic battle wounds.
Though typically described only as a Theosophist, Blavatsky was also a Freemason. John Yarker – who also initiated the satanist Alister Crowley – made Blavatsky a ‘Brother’ of the ‘Adoptive Rite of Freemasonry’. Blavatsky’s Masonic diploma was signed by Yarker and reads:
“We, the Thrice-Illustrious Sovereign Grand Master Generals… do declare and proclaim our illustrious and enlightened Brother, H. P. Blavatsky, to be an Apprentice, Companion, Perfect Mistress, Sublime Elect Scotch Lady, Grand Elect, Chevalière de Rose Croix, Adonaite Mistress, Perfect Venerable Mistress, and a crowned Princess of the Rite of Adoption.”
The Other Founders of the Theosophical Society Were Also Freemasons
To begin to understand Freemasonry’s connection to Nazism, it is necessary to recognize that the Theosophical Society was an annex of it. This is shown by the fact that, like Blavatsky, the other cofounders were also either overt Masons or had a direct connection to the organization.
On 7 September 1875, George H. Felt gave a talk at Helena Blavatsky’s parlour in New York. He spoke about the elemental spirits of the Egyptian temple mysteries, which he claimed to have subjugated, tested, and found efficacious. The assembled audience was so impressed at the importance of this work, that they agreed to form a new fellowship which would become known as the Theosophical Society. (Esoteric World of Madam Blavatsky, ch. 6). Felt was a versatile scientist, engineer and inventor, and was a member of a Masonic Lodge. (Felt Genealogy).
Henry Steel Olcott was a co-founder and became the first president of The Theosophical Society. In 1859, while reporting the hanging of John Brown, the abolitionist, for the Tribune, Olcott was arrested as a spy and condemned to death. However, he was released upon his appeal to his captors under the seal of confidence as a Freemason. (Theosophy Wiki)
Charles Sotheran, another co-founder, was initiated as a Freemason on April 8, 1872, in the United Grand Lodge of England. Sotheran was also active in the English Brotherhood of the Rosie Cross, and in Egyptian Rite masonry. (Theosophy Wiki)
William Q. Judge (1851–1896) another individual present at the seminal meeting, was the son of Frederick Judge, a well known Freemason. (Theosophy Wiki)
The term theosophy came from the Greek theos (“god(s)”) and sophia (“wisdom”), thus meaning “god-wisdom” or “divine wisdom”. It should be noted that one mystery this analysis clarifies is Theosophy itself. Its spiritual system is so ridiculous that it begs the questions as to why it was invented, let alone popularized. However, once it is recognized that the group was organized for political purposes, the mumbo-jumbo is explained.
In addition to Blavatsky, Garibaldi also brought to England a new version of Freemasonry called The Ancient and Primitive Rite of Memphis-Misraïm, sometimes known as “Egyptian Freemasonry”. Garibaldi was the “Grand Hierophant” or leader of the order. After his death, above mentioned John Yarker was named Grand Hierophant in 1902. The philosophy presented by Memphis-Misraim was the basis for much of Blavatsky’s Secret Doctrine, which Dieter Eckart claimed somehow inspired Adolf Hitler.
The Theosophical Society and the Rite of Memphis-Misraim had substantially overlapping memberships. For example, Mr. Reginald G. Macbean, the British ambassador to Palermo and a member of the Theosophical Society, was elected Grand Master of the Rite of Memphis-Misraïm in Italy in 1921. The Rite went dormant again in 1925 because of opposition by the Mussolini government. But, Macbean issued a charter to five prominent Freemasons who were both members of the Memphis Misraim Rite and of the Theosophical Society:
The Nazis’ Use of the Swastika Came from the Theosophical Society
Blavatsky used the Swastika to represent her organization. She wrote:
“Few world-symbols are more pregnant with real occult meaning than the Swastika. It is symbolized by the figure 6; for, like that figure, it points in its concrete imagery, as the ideograph of the number does, to the Zenith and the Nadir, to North, South, West, and East; one finds the unit everywhere, and that unit reflected in all and every unit. It is the emblem of the activity of Fohat, of the continual revolution of the ‘wheels’, and of the Four Elements, the ‘Sacred Four’, in their mystical, and not alone in their cosmic meaning; further, its four arms, bent at right angles, are intimately related, as shown elsewhere, to the Pythagorean and Hermetic scales. One initiated into the mysteries of the meaning of the Swastika, say the Commentaries, ‘can trace on it, with mathematical precision, the evolution of Kosmos and the whole period of Sandhya’.”
In fact, Blavatsky’s bizarre understanding of the swastika seems to deliberately misdirect from one important fact. Given her connections to Freemasonry, it is dubious that Blavatsky was unaware that the swastika was the premier symbol of Operative Freemasonry.
Though seemingly trivial, her failure to mention Freemasonry’s use the swastika is important. It is an example of the use of mythicism to camouflage Theosophy’s connection back to Freemasonry. Moreover, based upon this analysis, the Nazis’ use of the symbol was chosen to cryptically indicate who was really in control of the organization.
Thomas Carr wrote:
“Among Operative Freemasons the VII° candidate is taken into a vault under the Grand Lodge Room and from the darkness looks up to the centre of its roof and there sees a large letter G. from which a plumb-line is suspended which hangs down into the chamber in which he is placed. He is told that this plumb-line comes down from the Pole Star and that the Swastika is its symbol. The Swastika is depicted on the Sacred Pedastal in front of him. When an Operative Lodge is opened in the VIP each of the Grand Masters puts his “Square” together with the Square on the Volume of the Sacred Law in such a way as to form a Swastika which is a much venerated symbol among all Operative Freemasons and is held to represent El Shaddai or the Most High, Himself.”
The Nazi Concept of the Aryan Race Comes From Theosophy
The concept of the “Aryan Race” was not used by Germanic people to self identify before Blavatsky, who invented the application of the term that was subsequently used by the Nazi Party. She asserted the mystical notion that humanity is now in something she claimed was the fifth Aryan root race, which she saw as having emerged from the previous fourth root race (the Atlantean root race) beginning about 100,000 years ago in Atlantis.
If Nazism was a long term project of Freemasonry, the idea of the “Aryan Race’ was invented to begin the process of giving the German people a focused racial identity that would ultimately be used by the Nazis to promote their racial separatism. Of course, as history played out, Blavatsky’s invention of the ‘Aryan Race’ was not a gift to the German people, but simply isolated them for destruction.
Writing about Blavatsky, Peter Staudenmeier noted:
The Secret Doctrine drew a pointed contrast between Aryan spirituality and Jewish materialism, characterizing the Jews as an “unspiritual people” who have “falsified” and “mangled” their own scriptures and systematically degraded the traditions they borrowed from other peoples; Judaism is “a religion of hate and malice toward everyone and everything outside of itself.” The “national features” of this “stiff-necked race” included “the idiosyncratic defects that characterize many of the Jews to this day – gross realism, selfishness, and sensuality.” According to Blavatsky, “if the root of mankind is one, then there must also be one truth which finds expression in all the various religions – except in the Jewish.” Between Occultism and Fascism: Anthroposophy and the Politics of Race and Nation in Germany and Italy, 1900-1945 by Peter Staudenmaier
The World Leader – the ‘Lord Maitreya’
Blavatsky invented the concept of the ‘Lord Maitreya’—a term she borrowed from Buddhism — to describe an Aryan Messianic figure who would come to Earth to rule it.
Though it has been little noticed by historians, Blavatsky’s disciple Dietrich Eckart claimed that Hitler was the Maitreya. Eckart claimed that he was “told in a séance that the ‘Lord Maitreya’ would soon make his appearance as a German messiah. Eckart saw himself as being charged with the responsibility of ‘nurturing’ the Maitreya.”(The Twisted Cross, Joseph Carr, p.110).
This fact could not be more important because, as shown below, Eckart can be said to have created the ‘Adolph Hitler persona’.
The Concept of National Socialism Came From Theosophists
Blavatsky wrote in the Theosophist’s magazine how pleased she was with the Bellamys’ international progress in promoting National Socialism in Germany. She wrote: “The organization of society, depicted by Edward Bellamy, in his magnificent work ‘Looking Backward’, admirably represents the Theosophical idea of what should be a first great step towards the full realization of universal brotherhood.”
In fact, Looking Backward actually advocated a dehumanized bureaucracy in which all decisions would be made by the State. Consider Bellamy’s description of a central government with the humans removed: “The machine which they direct is indeed a vast one, but so logical in its principles and direct and simple in its workings, that it all but runs itself” (p. 129).
Bellamy’s next quote is critical and is not merely an amazing foreshadowing of fascism. Within the context of this analysis it is literally its definition and, by the advocation of it, part of the way it was implemented:
‘The organization of the industry of the nation under a single control, so that all its processes interlock, has multiplied the total product over the utmost that could be done under the former system. [It may be compared] with that of a disciplined army under one general – such a fighting machine, for example, as the German army in the time of [Prussian general] Von Moltke.’ (p. 165) Looking Backwards
Given that there is no obvious connection between the mystical world view promoted by Theosophy, and the centralized economy and focused nationalism promoted by the Bellamys the question arises as to why were they brought together?
Moreover, as shown below, this was not the only time this strange fusion occurred. Theosophy spawned the Thule Society, a Germanic racial-mystical organization looking for Atlantis, the Holy Grail and the origin of the Aryan Race, but without the economic perspective promoted by the Bellamys. This mystical group then, through a tortuous process, ultimately merged with German Workers organizations founded by the Theosophists to form the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei; NSDAP on February 24, 1920.
The Nazis’ One Arm Salute Came From Theosophists
Francis Bellamy created the Pledge of Allegiance that is still performed in the United States. As he invented it the Pledge was recited with a straight armed military salute that was extended outward to point at the flag. The Bellamys then influenced the National Socialist German Workers Party in its rituals, dogma, and symbols.
Those wishing more documentation concerning the Bellamys’ connection to Nazism should review Rex Curry’s website.
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion Came From a Theosophist
According to the received history, Justine Glinka, a Russian Theosophist and, in fact a close friend and colleague of Blavatsky’s, was the person who brought the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to the public’s attention. She somehow obtained a copy of the Protocols that she claimed had been stolen from a Masonic Lodge in Paris. Glinka then purportedly gave the manuscript to her uncle, General P. V. Orzhevsky, who tried—and failed—to show it to Tsar Alexander III. Eventually, Glinka’s stolen manuscript made its way to Sergei Nilus who published it in his 1905 book.
Despite the fact that they had been exposed as a fraud, they had great influence in Germany after World War I. “ There they were used to explain all of the disasters that had befallen the country: the defeat in the war, the hunger, the destructive inflation.”
Nora Levin, The Holocaust: The Destruction of European Jewry 1933–1945.
The 1800s was a century that delivered legal reforms and emancipation that improved the rights and status of Jews in many parts of Europe.
An 1830 motion by the French government recognised Judaism as an official religion, alongside Catholic and Protestant Christianity. Jews in the German-speaking states were granted economic and legal rights that exceeded those of their compatriots elsewhere. They were permitted to enter into legal contracts and purchase land and businesses. These reforms allowed German-speaking Jews to flourish. They became involved in banking and finance, law, medicine, higher education, theatre and the arts. This momentum reversed however for a number of reasons, among them the Protocols and the influence of Theosophy.
As shown above, Blavatsky subtly promoted anti-semitism by asserting the superiority of the ‘Aryan Race’ over the Jews. Thus, the notion that her colleague would have been the individual who discovered it seems preposterous. A more logical explanation would be that the forgery was prepared as part of the overall plan to bring the Nazis to power.
This theory is supported by the circumstances surrounding the discovery of the forgery. As Wikipedia explains:
In 1920-1921, a dramatic exposé showing that the Protocols were fraudulent occurred in the series of articles in The Times by its Constantinople reporter, Philip Graves, who discovered the plagiarism from the work of Maurice Joly.
According to writer Peter Grose, Allen Dulles, the future CIA chief who was in Constantinople developing relationships in post-Ottoman political structures, discovered ‘the source’ of the documentation Graves ultimately provided to The Times.
Grose writes that The Times extended a loan to the source, a Russian émigré who refused to be identified, with the understanding the loan would not be repaid.[50] Colin Holmes, a lecturer in economic history of Sheffield University, identified the émigré as Michael Raslovleff, a self-identified antisemite, who gave the information to Graves so as not to “give a weapon of any kind to the Jews, whose friend I have never been.”[51]
Raslovleff’s explanation is, of course, totally incoherent but simply adds to the improbability that any part of story of the Protocols was real. The claim that a close friend of the individual who brought the ‘Aryan Race’ to Germans was also the person who discovered the Protocols is as far fetched as the idea that a CIA chief was then the individual who discovered the they were a fraud. The idea that both of these events were circumstantial is too unlikely for consideration.
A Theosophist Oversaw the Financing for the Nazi Party
Montagu Norman, the Governor of the Bank of England from 1920 to 1944, was a dedicated Theosophist. According to biographer Andrew Boyle, Norman typically shared his religious views primarily with married women friends. But on one occasion, “he took briefly into his confidence a Bank of England colleague whose cultured breadth of mind he admired. After a long and earnest defence of theosophical principles, Norman rose to his feet, tapped the heavily panelled wall of his library and said with calm emphasis: ‘I could walk through this wall and do no harm to it our myself if I were so minded.'” (Andrew Boyle, Montagu Norman, pp. 86-87.)
This Theosophist banker was responsible for the financing that put Hitler into power and enabled to him build the war machine that the German nation, in effect, committed suicide with. The following analysis comes almost completely from research done by the ingenious Larouche scholar, Anton Chaitkin, who has given me permission to use it.
While the thesis that the other elements in the chain of connections from Blavatsky to Hitler were circumstantial is far fetched, the fact that an element so removed from the other aspects as the Nazis’ financing was also brought about by the individual Chaitkin identifies as a “satanic Theosophist” seems to indicate that some ‘hidden hand’ was behind all of them.
“When Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany, his Nazi Party was in the minority. The Nazis had just suffered setbacks in the German elections of Nov. 6, 1932, losing 34 Reichstag seats. President Hindenburg had appointed Kurt von Schleicher Chancellor.
Yet, less than three months later, on Jan. 30, 1933, after a well-financed Nazi propaganda and armed-terror campaign, Hindenburg appointed Hitler to take Schleicher’s place. The Nazis got Hindenburg to schedule new elections for March 5. With streams of money for their propaganda and guns, the Nazis “won” the election, and Hitler seized power.
The two principal German organizers of this Hitler takeover, were Hjalmar Schacht and Fritz Thyssen. Both men were operatives of the British Empire, through Bank of England Governor Montagu Norman, and of a British-controlled Wall Street grouping at the center of which were Averell Harriman, and Harriman’s partner, Prescott Bush, the father of the later U.S. President George Bush.
Over several years, every Nazi step toward power in Germany was coordinated, and Nazi campaign finances were overseen, by this British-New York axis. Hitler’s master-race ideology, which led to mass extermination, was simultaneously promoted and given the stamp of approval by this same British-New York faction.
Thyssen-Harriman-Bush
Fritz Thyssen was the earliest important financial backer of Hitler. In 1923, he gave Gen. Erich Ludendorf 100,000 gold marks for the Nazis, prior to the attempted putsch by Hitler. From then through the 1930s, the bulk of the funds to build both the Nazi party, and Hitler’s career, went through Thyssen.
On Oct. 5, 1942, during World War II, U.S. government investigators reported on Thyssen’s Nazi base in America: “Averell Harriman was in Europe sometime prior to 1924 and at that time became acquainted with Fritz Thyssen, the German industrialist.” Harriman and Thyssen agreed to set up a bank for Thyssen in New York.
“[C]ertain of [Harriman’s] associates would serve as directors.” Thyssen agent “H.J. Kouwenhoven . . . came to the United States . . . prior to 1924 for conferences with the Harriman Company in this connection.”
The first Harriman-Thyssen meeting was most likely in 1922, when Averell Harriman had been in Berlin to set up the Berlin branch of W.A. Harriman & Co. This Harriman banking house had recently been created by the British-allied American financier, George Herbert Walker (George Bush’s maternal grandfather), who was the bank’s president.
In 1924, Harriman and Walker formally organized, within their New York office, a shell company entirely devoted to projects to be run through Thyssen, called the Union Banking Corporation. This interlocked with the Thyssen-owned Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart (BHS) in the Netherlands, which represented Thyssen’s German interests.
Thus, the W.A. Harriman & Co. (alias Union Banking Corporation) would be transferring funds back and forth between New York and the European Thyssen projects. By putting up about $400,000, the Harriman organization became the controller of Thyssen’s banking operations outside of Germany.
In 1926, Walker’s son-in-law, Prescott Bush (George’s father), joined the firm as vice president, and soon became its Chief Executive. That same year, Wall Street’s Dillon Read set up the United Steel Works, Thyssen’s main German corporation.
On Jan. 1, 1931, the Harriman bank merged with the old British-U.S. company, Brown Brothers. This put the new Brown Brothers Harriman, which would be the world’s largest private investment bank, directly under the control of London’s Montague Norman. The governor of the Bank of England, personally a satanic Theosophist, and Britain’s best-known public supporter of Adolf Hitler, Norman had earlier been a Brown Brothers partner; his family had run the firm since the 1860s. London’s Hitler project was stepped up, with Harriman, Bush, and Thyssen as leading intermediaries.”
Norman’a creation of Brown Brothers Harriman bank mergedTheosophy with Skull and Bones, another renamed annex of Freemasonry. Eight of the original ten partners listed were Skull and Bones members.
Skull and Bones, like Theosophy, used one of the premier symbols of Freemasonry to represent itself , and was founded by Freemasons. Alphonso Taft, was a prominent member of Kilwinning Lodge No. 356 in Cincinnati and two of William’s brothers had already been raised Masons,William Taft, the future President, didn’t become a Mason in the traditional way. Instead, he was “made a Mason at sight.” The other founder – Russell – family’s was also masonic.
After Hitler was appointed Chancellor, Hjalmar Schacht hosted and chaired a meeting on Feb. 20, 1933 at Goering’s Reichstag President’s palace for Thyssen’s representatives and a few other German businessmen. Schacht passed the hat, raising 3 million gold marks for the final drive to Nazi dictatorship.
The biggest contributors there were Karl Bosch and Georg von Schnitzler for the IG Farben company, steelmaker Gustav Krupp (who had previously held off supporting Hitler), and the Thyssen-Wall Street United Steel Works chief executive Albert Voegler. Herr Voegler was also a director of the Harriman-Bush affiliated BHS Bank in Rotterdam, and a director of the Hamburg-America shipping company, which would soon be owned jointly by the Harriman-Bush enterprise and the Hitler government.
With Hitler and the Gestapo in power, Central Bank President and Economics Minister Hjalmar Schacht threw all resources into creating a Nazi war machine. Fritz Thyssen was made the dictator of the Ruhr region, with mammoth war contracts. He and his British-Wall Street allies took complete ownership of every industrial concern in which Thyssen was involved; his opponents were defeated, purged, and arrested.
While Hitler cynically denounced the IG Farben company as an “international Jewish organization,” Schacht simultaneously awarded that company huge contracts to produce munitions and chemicals for the military buildup.
Throughout this period, up until 1937, banker Max Warburg was the leading stockholder of IG Farben. Warburg (like the Rothschilds, politically loyal to the British crown) meanwhile presumed to instruct his fellow Jews in the western countries not to boycott or otherwise protest Hitler’s anti-Jewish persecution.
Max Warburg had brokered the Harriman-Bush takeover of German companies, and their subsequent staffing by Nazis. The Warburg family’s Kuhn Loeb bank in New York had earlier launched the Harriman family’s railroad fortune, with capital from the British monarchy. In the 1930s, Kuhn Loeb was selling new bonds in New York for Hitler and Schacht, to replace, at a lower interest rate, the German public and private bonds held by Americans. Max Warburg meanwhile served as Schacht’s deputy at the German central bank.
In May 1933, an agreement was reached in Berlin, for the coordination of all Nazi commerce with the U.S.A. The Harriman International Co., led by Averell Harriman’s first cousin Oliver, was to head a syndicate of 150 firms and individuals, to conduct all exports from Hitler’s Germany to the United States. This pact, reported in the May 20, 1933 New York Times, had been negotiated in Berlin by Hjalmar Schacht and John Foster Dulles, attorney for Harriman, Prescott Bush, and various Nazi enterprises, with the counsel of Max Warburg. Leading up to this agreement, a telegram (now in the Harriman papers, Library of Congress) was sent to Nazi official Hjalmar Schacht at the Mayflower Hotel, Washington, dated May 11, 1933: “Much disappointed to have missed seeing you Tuesday afternoon. . . . I hope to see you either in Washington or New York before you sail. With my regards, W.A. Harriman.”
At the top, Montague Norman made all the decisions. Schacht went abroad to meet several times each year with Norman to plan the budget of Nazi Germany within the guidelines of British credit policy. These meetings were often at Montague Norman’s London house, or at the Bank for International Settlements in Switzerland, which was controlled entirely by Norman and his Nazis. Norman, whenever he was in the U.S.A., coordinating Britain’s Hitler project with his New York allies, would stay at the home of his fanatical devotee, Thatcher Brown, the partner of Harriman and Bush.”
The German organizer of the Nazis’ funding was a Freemason.
Hjalmar Schacht stated, “Freemasonry runs in my family,”,,, “my father belonged to an American Lodge. My great-grandfather, Christian Ulrich Detlev von Eggers, was one of the Masonic notables of the Age of Enlightenment.”
Schacht sent a letter to Hitler in August of 1932, commenting that “Your movement is carried internally by so strong a truth and necessity that victory in one form or another cannot elude you for long,” adding “Wherever my work may take me to in the near future, even if you should see me one day within the fortress – you can always count on me as your reliable assistant.”
On March 17, 1933, Hitler asked Schacht to reassume the presidency of the Reichsbank. Schacht accepted and became president of the Reichsbank. He declared: “the Reichsbank will always be nothing but National Socialist, or I shall cease to be its manager.” Schacht’s status in the party skyrocketed. In August 1934, Hitler appointed Schacht as Minister of Economics, though he still retained his position as president of the Reichsbank.
Less than a year later, in May of 1935, Schacht was appointed General Plenipotentiary for the War Economy. Hitler even made jokes about how useful it was to have a Freemason as minster of economics because Schacht’s time as a Mason had trained him in the ways of “Jewish banking” and thus prepared him to beat international Jewish capitalism at its own game.
One fact that is put to rest by Hitler’s relationship with Schacht is the idea that Hitler was trying to destroy Freemasonry.
Hitler did ban the lodges after taking power but this was done, as was the entire tortuous process of the creation of Nazis, simply to hide the fact of who was truly behind the organization. In fact, a large numbers of Masons worked inside the Third Reich.
The Nazi Party Sprang From an Organization Created by a Theosophist
In his 1933 book, Bevor Hitler Kam (Before Hitler Came), Rudolf von Sebottendorf claimed that the Thule Society led directly to the founding of Hitler’s National Socialist movement. He stated,
“It was Thule people to whom Hitler first came and it was Thule people who first united themselves with Hitler. The armament of the coming Leader consisted, besides the Thule itself, of the German Workers’ Society, founded in the Thule Society by brother Karl Harrer and the German-Socialist Party led by Hans Georg Grassinger, whose organ was the Munchener Beobachter, later the Volkische Beobachter. From these three sources Hitler created the National Socialist German Worker’s Party.”
The Jewish Virtual Library further explains:
The Thule Society, which espoused ideas of extreme nationalism, race mysticism, virulent anti-Semitism, and the occult, was formed shortly after the end of World War I in Munich by Glauer. It attracted about 250 ardent followers in Munich and about 1500 in greater Bavaria. Members of the Thule Society included the future Nazis Rudolf Hess, Dietrich Eckart, and Alfred Rosenberg.
The Thule Society had a parallel Aryan race mystical society, the Ariosophists. This organization also produced individuals who became members of the Nazi party. The Ariosophist Society was founded by the Theosophists Guido von List and Jorg Lanz von Liebenfels and was active in Vienna before the First World War, It was another renamed annex of Theosophy.
Members of the Thule Society – Anton Drexler, Karl Harrer and other – developed links to right workers’ organizations in Munich. They then formed formed the Political Workers Circle (Politischer Arbeiter-Zirkel) in 1918. Drexler then merged the two organizations into what became known as the München Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (DAP). It was the DAP that Adolf Hitler became involved with in 1919. By April 1, 1920, the DAP had been reconstituted as the Nazi Party. Thus the economic nationalism of the Bellamys’ was again merged with Blavatsky’s Aryan Race mysticism.
It is useful to see a diagram showing the linked societies that led to Hitler:
Freemasonry – Theosophical Society – Thule Society – DAP – Nazi Party – Hitler
The Man Who Trained Hitler was a Theosophist
During his early years in Vienna, Adolf Hitler claimed to have studied occult religions as a way of gaining power. Eventually he came under the influence of the Theosophist, Dieter Eckart, the ‘high priest’ of the Thule Society. Eckart claimed that he was told in a séance that “Lord Maitreya” would soon make his appearance as a German messiah. Eckart saw himself as being charged with the responsibility of ‘nurturing’ the Maitreya.
As noted above, Eckart claimed that Hitler was the Maitreya.
Eckart stated, “Here is the one for whom I was but a prophet and forerunner.: He began introducing Hitler in Munich occult circles as “the long-awaited savior.”
Fulfilling his goal of nurturing the Maitreya, Eckart gave Hitler books to read, bought him a a trench coat to wear to make him seem more manly, and made corrections to Hitler’s style of speaking and writing. Hitler was to say later “Stylistically I was still an infant.” Eckart also schooled the provincial Hitler in proper manners.
Hitler dedicated the second volume of Mein Kampf, to Eckart, writing that Eckart was “one of the best, who devoted his life to the awakening of our people, in his writings and his thoughts and finally in his deeds.”
The following quote from Eckart is important to this analysis. It completely exposes the hidden linkage between the Freemasonry and the man who led the German people to destruction.
Eckart stated:“Follow Hitler. He will dance, but it is I who have called the tune! I have initiated him into the ‘Secret Doctrine;’ opened his centers in vision and given him the means to communicate with the Powers. Do not mourn for me: I shall have influenced history more than any German.”
Eckart claims are supported by the fact that U.S. Army historians catalogued Hitler’s personal library. Among the books was the one that Hitler is rumored to have kept by his bedside, “The Secret Doctrine” by Madame Helen Blavatsky.
The Man Who Installed Hitler was a Theosophist
Hitler did not come to power through his charisma or by the German working class seeking a ‘strong leader’. He was installed by a conspiracy organized by Erich Friedrich Wilhelm Ludendorff the German general, politician, military theorist and, as shown below, someone with direct links to Theosophy.
Ludendorff achieved fame for his central role in the German victory at Tannenberg in 1914. Following his appointment as Erster Generalquartiermeister of the German Imperial Army in 1916, he became the chief policymaker in a de facto military dictatorship that dominated Germany for the rest of the war.
Notice in the passage below that, for the second time, Hitler was identified as a ‘Maitreya’ or messianic leader before he came to power, though in this case seemingly by accident. The following excerpt is taken from “I Was Hitler’s Boss” an article by Karl Mayr who was Hitler’s immediate superior before and after his joining the DAP.
“Ludendorff hunted diligently through the Bavarian mountains for a red headed peasant girl to play the part of a German Joan of Arc who could be sold as a goddess, a divine messenger sent straight from Valhalla to wake up the Germans and save them from their bondage by leaving them to victory and everlasting glory, But no girl was found with the right kind of vitality and glamor to incite the masses. This is where Hitler came in. In discharging his duties he had visited a meeting of the newly founded German Workers Party. This handful of workers, though most of them were miserably poor, still had a great deal of respect for the former officers and capitalists. A day or two after I had received a report on this patriotic organization, Ludendorff came into my office to get details. At that time he and his friends were like Hollywood scouts looking for talent. In this case for “loyal” workers and they too, almost at the same time as Hitler came across these extraordinary patriots of the German Workers Party.
Members of the Reichwehr were not allowed to join political parties but to please Ludendorff whose wishes were still respected in the Reichwehr, I ordered Hitler to join the Workers Party and help foster its growth. He was allowed at first the equivalent of twenty gold marks weekly for this purpose.“
Mayr’s story about the identification of Hitler as the messiah does not ring true. Ludendorff was seeking a messianic leader, but did not pick Hitler, Mayr did. However, Mayr did not choose Hitler, who he described as a “tired stray dog”, for any special reason but seemingly only to respect Ludendorff’s search by sending someone to attend a DAP meeting. This accidental candidate is then somehow recognized by Dieter Eckart as the messianic leader or ‘Maitreya’ that he and Theosophy had been looking for and he starts to groom him. Finally, even though he could not find a single candidate in the Bavarian Mountains that could meet his qualifications, Ludendorff then agrees with Eckart that Mayr’s accidental candidate may be the messiah he has been looking for and funds Hitler. The described process is so illogical as to completely defy belief.
A more parsimonious explanation is that Ludendorff had found his messianic race leader and therefore sent him to the DAP meeting where Eckart was waiting knowing that the ‘Lord Maitreya’ was going to attend. Historian Thomas Weber suggested that Hitler’s political radicalization occurred during this post-revolutionary period when Hitler was working with Karl Mayr. (Weber, Hitler’s First War, p. 345)
Hitler’s rise in popularity was not an organic function of the German people. Ludendorff’s conspiracy used propaganda to ‘sell’ their agent to the public.
“Ludendorff and his friends decided to put everything on a strict business basis, In fact they cited American methods of salesmanship. The party in Munich was so organized that its ideas were gradually pushed by political salesmen into every home in Germany.”
As with all of the linked elements above, Ludendorff ties directly into Theosophy.
“In 1925, Erich Ludendorff founded an umbrella organization called, Tannenbergbund (Tannenberg League) that had approximately 100,000 members (Mecklenburg, 1996:375). Its aim was to disseminate a specific metapolitics. Part of the umbrella organization was the Verein Deutschvolk (German Volk Society), founded 1930. Its purpose was to disseminate Mathilde Ludendorff’s ( Erich Ludendorff’s wife) science-based religious views called Gotterkenntnis (God-knowledge or – cognition).”
Mathilde’s religion was spawned from the Thule Society and thus rejected Christianity and promoted its Aryan-Germanic paganism.
Mathilde von Kemnitz Ludendorff was an active member of the Edda Society, that had been founded by Rudolf Gorsleben (1883-1930) as a spin off of the Thule Society which he was a member of. In April 1919 Gorsleben was arrested together with Dietrich Eckart (shortly after to identify Hitler as the ‘Maitreya’) by communist insurgents during the Soviet revolution in the city. Only Eckart’s quick-witted answers under interrogation prevented their summary execution in common with the other Thule hostages. Undaunted, on 18 December 1920 Gorsleben delivered a lecture entitled ‘The Aryan Man’ to the Thule.
Gorsleben regarded old Icelandic literature, especially the Edda, as ‘the richest source of Aryan intellectual history’.” On 29 November 1925 he founded an Aryan study-group called the Edda Society at his farmhouse in Dinkelsbuhr.
THE OCCULT ROOTS OF NAZISM: Secret Aryan Cults and their Influence on Nazi Ideology NICHOLAS GOODRICK-CLARKE P 153
“After being banned In 1937, following a new rapprochement between Hitler and Ludendorff, the latter founded the Verein Deutsche Gotterkenntnis (Society for German God-knowledge). Its members were Mathilde’s followers.”
‘Gotterkenntnis’ is a German translation of ‘Theosophy’; as noted above, the term theosophy came from the Greek theos (“god(s)”) and sophia (“wisdom”), thus meaning “god-wisdom” or “divine wisdom”.
There can be little doubt that ‘Gotterkenntnis’ was a reference to Blavatsky’s mystical philosophy. Mathilde von Kemnitz Ludendorff was a known follower of Blavatsky. Mathilde accompanied General Ludendorff when he visited Hitler in prison . After marrying Ludendorff in 1926, she interested him in numerology and freemasonic magic squares.
Her concept of the “German knowledge of God” is worked out above all in the writings “Triumph des Immortlichkeitswillen” (1922) and “Der Seele’s origin and essence” (3 vols., 1927-1934).
A central axiom of her world view states that the religious experience of a people occurs individually depending on its “racial” characteristics. Measured by the ability attributed to them for individual and collective “knowledge of God”, humanity is hierarchically divided into “light” and “shaft peoples”.
Mathilde Ludendorff followed a concept of God shaped by monism and pantheism. She emphasized the divine animation of the entire cosmos – from simple matter to protozoa, plants and animals to humans.” These ideas were taken from Blavatsky, who also saw God as shaped by monism and pantheism.
Ludendorff was therefore not merely a Theosophist in the sense that he was someone who promoted Blavatsky’s mystical ideas, he can be said to be its greatest promoter as he created its largest congregation, the Verein Deutschvolk. Moreover, he created a German Theosophical Society, a second time.
This analysis suggests that Ludendorff selected Hitler to destroy the German people. If this is correct it was the second time he used a messianic leader to destroy a nation. Ludendorff was the individual who sent Lenin into Russia.
“Ludendorff agreed to send the Bolsheviks into Switzerland by train through Germany from where they would then travel to Russia via Sweden. Lenin, however, still took some convincing, insisting that he be sent on a sealed train. Lenin ultimately agreed on 31 March, and departed Switzerland on 8 April 1917.” Wikipedia
One mystery that this analysis seems to clear up is the Bolsheviks’ paper currency that cryptically depicted Blavatsky’s right angle swastika in the notes’ center. The same group controlled both political systems. When the February Revolution of March 1917 dethroned the autocratic monarchy, one of the first decisions of the Provisional Government was to print new money. The swastika could be seen on the banknotes until 1922.
Motivation
The central question on motivation is why did the Freemasons use a mystical camouflage to develop Nazism? The answer seems to be that they needed a layer of buffers to escape detection. Mysticism is by definition confusing to the normal mind and when critics of Nazism during its ascendancy or later historians researching its origins discovered mystical societies they tended to look no further, as mysticism neither requires nor permits analysis. Moreover, all of the ‘mystical racial principles’ placed into German culture by Theosophists worked together to create a deluded mental state in Germans from which Hitler would be seen as a Savior.
Thus, the mystical history of Nazism is a narrative woven together for social control, first to confuse the Germans into following Hitler and then the historians who tried to understand how he emerged.
The second question is what was their purpose? To this questionI can see no answer other than they wished to bring about what happened – the destruction of the German people. The secret society Ludendorff was part of inserted Hitler for the same reason it inserted Lenin.
It must be noted however that there may be another hidden reason. British Freemasonry in the mid eighteenth century was proto zionist. For some reason, all of its Grand Master promoted the bizarre notion that “now was the time for the Jews to return to the Holy Land”. This was the political force that led to the Balfour Document.
So the question must be asked: Did Freemasonry maneuver the people of Europe like pieces on a chessboard to reverse the war of the first century, where the Romans were victorious and the Jews expelled from Israel?
In earlier installments of this series, we have described the rather sordid adventures of the dysfunctional family of Abraham. In spite of considerable attention from God, they never seem to understand, really, what “ethics” is all about.
We have to ask just why their newly emerging god, the all powerful Creator of the Universe, could not just lay down all the essential rules for humanity; and then proceed to provide some unbelievably awesome supernatural shock and awe, from which no human would dare to ever cross the line from there on out. You say to us, … well, Jerry and Richard, God did just this when he flooded the entire Earth for 40 days and nights.
But with this amazing storm: apparently Ham and Canaan didn’t get the moral subtext of the shock and awe message. They only took it as punishment for mans’ past sins, but then went right on sinning. Perhaps the problem was God’s fault?
So, God tried again during Moses’ time. And this time, rather than relying on oral transmission, he set down the law for all time, on stone tablets no less. But strangely, Moses’ God bore a peculiar relationship to the Egyptian pharaoh Akhenaten‘s god, the sun god Aten (aka Adon’Ai); as well as another member of the Egyptian pantheon, Seth, who was rather more Satanic.
Thus we assert, rather tongue in cheek, that The Exodus was a metaphorical Aten Bomb sprung upon society. It was another form of Shock and Awe, following up on the ‘splashier’ time of Noah.
Moses and Superman
As we have stated before with Abraham, we can only guess that these Patriarchs are probably mostly fictional characters, retrojected far into the past and assembled to establish a foundational legend for the synthetic basis of Judaism’s Israel. Apart from the biblical texts, there is little convincing evidence as to their having ever existed in reality.
In 1993, William Dever wrote, “The overwhelming scholarly consensus today is that Moses is a mythical figure.” And in her encyclopedic last work “Did Moses Exist?“, Acharya S answered resoundingly in the negative: that Moses never existed. Thus, we must take this as the prevailing rationalist wisdom: that Moses was not a real historical person.
At one level this seems obvious: the stories of ten magical plagues, and of burning bushes, are clearly mythical. But even allowing for such embellishments, there are basic archaeological problems. There is no evidence that the Israelites originated as an enslaved people within Egypt who sojourned in the desert for 40 years, and then emerged to conquer Israel as their promised land.
Moses’ mythical nature is further betrayed by his heroic aspect. In fact, as Simcha Weinstein wrote in “Up, Up and Oy Vey“: Moses, Aaron and Joshua were original Hebrew superheroes. “They all wielded courage and supernatural powers to protect and serve their people.” Moses became possibly the most important literary inspiration for Superman. Funny, nobody is confused that Superman doesn’t exist.
So if the Old Testament tales of the Exodus are not history, then what are they? Who wrote them, where, when and for what purpose? What can they tell us about the actual historical circumstances, uncovered by archaeology? And, what does the story of Moses tell us about the world of today?
In contrast to all of this, there is an element of detailed historical veracity in the Biblical account. Not so much in terms of a credible portrayal of the main characters, but in terms of numerous contextual and cultural elements and details which have been verified by archaeology. Thus, it seems likely that the surviving texts were based, in some way, on earlier sources which are now lost.
If the Biblical characters may indeed have some historical basis, we suggest that they were used as conveniently propagandized literary tropes. The initial audience may have had some familiarity with those earlier sources. Aspects of those sources were included to facilitate the massive religious transition imposed upon the audience.
An Imperialist Front
In keeping with our approach in this Old Testament series: we interpret the text, within the framework that the biblical Lord (Yahweh, El, etc.) represents the goals and intentions of earthly Lords. That is, the wealthy and even more so, the powerful: pharaohs, kings, priests, and nobility. Thinking of God as a fantasy or superstitious relic, or even as a well-meaning theological construct, is a serious analytical error.
In this interpretive framework, the Exodus emerges as an act of contrived cultural division. The voice of God (through Moses) is saying that he wants the Israelites, the slaves of Pharaoh, to go into a new land and conquer it. We ask, Cui bono?
God promised the Israelites their freedom. But it is a strangely restricted freedom, with convoluted new laws and a new tribe of elite overlords and priestly authorities, the Levites. If it is Pharaoh’s voice speaking through Moses and the priests, then the story makes perfect sense from the geopolitical perspective. It is Pharaoh who is directing the Israelites, as his front line troops, to go and conquer the land of the Canaanites. That is, the Israelites are basically a controlled front of the Egyptians and are conquering Palestine on their behalf.
Remember that according to the Biblical account, it was only four generations earlier that Moses’ ancestor Joseph manipulated monetary policy during a famine to place all free Egyptians into bondage (Genesis 47). Perhaps this new ‘freedom’ is just slavery by another name.
There is no God over Pharaoh
The Israelites would have been far less enthusiastic about this imperialistic project, if it was being done for the benefit of the hated Pharaoh. But for themselves, their freedom and their own land, the cost-benefit calculation tilts the other direction. According to the Biblical narrative, the Israelites enthusiastically supported Moses and Joshua. Or at least, as long as the operation proceeded smoothly.
The trickery and deception is that the Moses and Pharaoh were never really at odds. That was all for show. From the Egyptian perspective: Pharaoh said that the Hebrew God was responsible for their misfortune, when actually Pharaoh himself was stoking the flames. And the Israelites believed that Moses spoke for God, when behind the scenes he was working for Pharaoh’s benefit.
Remarkably, it seems that the Israelites were being set up as a sort of “controlled opposition” with respect to the Egyptians left behind.
As Freud famously noted, Moses is an Egyptian name. The Biblical narrative tells us that Moses came from Pharaoh’s household. So, whether as actual family members or householders, it’s easy to imagine that they could have shared common goals and a common outlook, and hatched this scheme to inspire the Israelites into the role of fearsome conquerers — on behalf of their higher geopolitical aims, of course.
Jan Assmann, borrowing Freud’s observation for the title of his “Moses the Egyptian“, said that he would not even ask the question of whether Moses was an Egyptian, historically speaking. But we will risk an answer: at least in terms of the way the Biblical story is written, he seems to be a “Crypto-Egyptian”. That is, a fake Hebrew. This may also be hinted at in the verses describing Moses’ leprous white hand (Exodus 4:6) or his shining face (Exodus 34:29-35); perhaps his complexion was lighter than his asiatic Hebrew subjects.
The skeptical reader may note that this is a “conspiracy theory“. However, the “official story” in this case is that God really did authorize the conquest, with the accompanying genocide of the Canaanites. Which, we submit, is not only impossible, but also an unspeakable evil.
“Secrets of the Exodus”
On behalf of our suggestion that ‘God’ should be read as ‘Pharaoh’, we would like to cite the book, Secrets of the Exodus (2002) by Messod and Roger Sabbah. This book also posits the central role that the 18th and 19th Egyptian Dynasties played in founding the Abrahamic religions. The authors compress most all of the Genesis and Exodus narratives, from Creation till Moses and Joshua, into this period centered upon Akhenaton’s reign at Amarna.
These brothers are Jewish rabbis, and are thus also part of a most helpful trend. Numerous Jews (including Freud, Velikovsky, Shahak, Feather, Sand, etc.), have addressed, in various ways, the actual Egyptian historical roots of the Jewish religion; and indeed, Western Civilization itself.
Unfortunately, some Jews do not approve of such honest examinations of their CULTURE. Thus, authors such as these run the risk of being labeled self-hating Jews by their own kind. And, of course, there are many goyim who are scared witless. Such examinations also threaten the artificial ‘Gentile’ cultural Identity, spoon fed to them from cradle to grave.
But, there is no need for anyone to fear. Once the origins of these cultural biases are widely recognized, we hope that humanity can tuck them safely in the past, where they belong.
The Secrets of the Exodus should have gotten much more notice, but for these neurotic cultural insecurity factors. But, as well, we should acknowledge once more what Martin Bernal exposed in great detail (Black Athena Vol. 1): the top down, institutional academic effort (via the 1730’s formulation of Romanticism) to deny the massive input to Western Civilization from Egypt. This Romantic project insisted instead that the Classical Greeks developed it all, despite the Classical Greeks’ denial of same.
The Elohim: the Image of Pharaoh
To set the tone, let’s first look at the Sabbahs’ proposed real meaning of Elohim and Nephilim. The Sabbahs rely on the analysis of Rashi, who was a famous 11th century French rabbi.
From Chapter 10, The Elohim, page 74-76:
According to Rashi, the “upper” world is made up of a celestial host, the angels, sitting on the right and the left hand of God, who is seated on His throne. The divine family is a mirror image of Pharaoh and his assembly. The expression “on the right (or the left) hand of the king” was included in the titles of the nobility of ancient Egypt. …
“When mankind began to increase in population on earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of the Elohim saw that the women were beautiful. And they married those of them that they wanted” (Hebrew Bible, Genesis 6:1-2).
Rashi offers this explanation about the beings that appear in these verses:
The sons of the Elohim: children of princes and judges. Another explanation of the Midrash [Hebrew commentary on the Bible]. They were heavenly beings, accomplishing a divine mission. They were also mixing with the women. In any case, the word Elohim always carries with it the sense of supremacy. It is thus that God said to Moses: “Thou shalt be for Aaron one of the Elohim” (Exodus 4:16), Or again, “Behold, I shall cause you to be one of the Elohim for Pharaoh.” (Exodus 7:1)
The commentary gives us a better glimpse of the priests of ancient Egypt. The pharaohs succeeded one another in the course of the different dynasties, and each one had numerous wives and children. They assured the futures of the princes by assigning them functions in government, the army, and above all, the priesthood.
The Nephilim and the Nobility
The true meaning, then, of the word Elohim is the pharaohs of Egypt. It is thus that the first verse of the Bible meets the Pyramid Texts, proclaiming loud and clear that the king of Egypt is a cosmic being, called upon to mount the celestial ladder or stairs, to sit on a shining throne, nourished by heavenly fruit and reigning over a celestial world.
“The Nephilim were on the Earth in those days and afterward too, when the sons of the Elohim mixed with the daughters of men. And those daughters bore children to them. They were the ancient heroes and men of renown” (Hebrew Bible, Genesis 6:4).
Although the Hellenists translated nephilim as “giants,” the sense of the verse was contested by Fabre d’Olivet:
The simplest things are always those the scholars see least. They go searching into the beyond, with infinite pains, neglecting the truth right under their noses. The savants had the Latin word nobilis, under their eyes, which carries the same root as the Hebrew Nephilim … and which has to be seen in the Nephilians of Moses, not as giants of men of colossal height, but the grandees, distinguished, illustrious men, In short, the nobles.
This explanation, based on semantics, permits us to reinforce the sense of “sons of the Elohim” as those belonging to the pharaonic nobility, ambitious and proud of the past.
The Sacred and the Profane, Inverted
The Israelites of the biblical Exodus story are marked by profound cultural distinctiveness, placing them into opposition with the surrounding peoples. This was noted by outside observers such as Tacitus, who wrote: “the Jews consider everything that we keep sacred cred as profane and permit everything that for us is taboo“. Jan Assmann called this basic principle of the Jewish religion: “normative inversion”. For example, Tacitus noticed that the Jewish sacrificial ram makes a mockery of the Egyptian god Amun, and that their sacrificial bull similarly mocks Apis. (Jan Assmann, Moses the Egyptian, Kindle Locations 512-513).
In our view, this is the basic psychological mechanism that the Egyptians used to create the Israelites as a distinctive people. Their mission would be as conquerors, a thorn in the side of all surrounding peoples.
Laurent Guyénot, in From Yahweh to Zion, argues that the distinctive Hebrew god Yahweh is modeled on the Egyptian god Seth. But, who is Seth? Jenny Hill of Ancient Egypt Online explains:
Set (Seth, Setekh, Sut, Sutekh, Sety) was one of the most ancient of the Egyptian gods and the focus of worship since the Predynastic Period…. He was a storm god associated with strange and frightening events such as eclipses, thunderstorms and earthquakes. He also represented the desert and, by extension, the foreign lands beyond the desert.
Seth and the Hyksos
Seth
Hill goes on to state that Seth became associated with the Hyksos during the 2nd intermediate period. In fact, Jan Assmann said, the Hyksos king Apophis “did not worship any other deity in the whole land except Seth.” (Jan Assmann. Of God and Gods: Egypt, Israel, and the Rise of Monotheism, Kindle Location 664). Seth’s reputation took a turn for the worse when the Hyksos were conquered and ejected from Egypt at the beginning of the 18th dynasty.
Thus, the adoption of a Seth-like god by the Hebrews, at a time when Seth was being demonized by the Egyptian priesthood, constitutes a very significant cultural inversion. Guyénot says that “From a point of view of Egyptian metaphysics, the god of the Jews betrays a Sethian character. Yahweh is Seth on an archetypal or paradigmatic level.” (From Yahweh to Zion, Kindle Location 895).
Seth as the Anti-Osiris
Guyénot points to the story of Cain and Abel as an example of a story that points to the role of Seth in Hebrew religion:
There is an obvious symmetry between the Egyptian myth of Osiris and Seth, and the biblical story of Cain and Abel. Cain, the elder, is sedentary and cultivates fertile lands like Osiris, while Abel, the younger, is a nomadic shepherd inhabiting arid lands like Seth. Yet the biblical god acts opposite to the Egyptian pantheon: he upsets the social order by favoring the younger brother, thus provoking the elder’s legitimate sense of unfairness. As in a mirror image of the Egyptian myth, the Bible has the elder brother kill his younger brother.
The epilogue added to the Cain-Abel story reinforces the symmetry. Like Osiris, the murdered Abel gets a new life of some kind, when Yahweh grants to Adam and Eve “another offspring, in place of Abel.” And this third son, a substitute or alter ego of the second, is named Seth (Genesis 4: 25). This homonymy cannot be a coincidence, but rather strong evidence that the Cain-Abel story, in the form that has come down to us, is dependent on the Osiris-Seth myth. (Kindle Locations 809-816)
Anti-Egyptian Views on Paradise and the Afterlife
Possibly the deepest meaning of this inversion of the Osiris story, is that Judaism rejects the Egyptian view of Paradise and the afterlife. Guyénot says:
Yahweh is also Seth (the anti-Osiris) in his denial of life after death… The Hebrew Bible differs from all religious traditions of Antiquity by the inability of its authors to conceive of an afterlife beyond sleep in the humid darkness of Sheol: “For dust you are and to dust you shall return” (Genesis 3: 19), without any soul worthy of the name. Yahweh does not care about the dead, whom he “remembers no more” (Psalms 88: 6). …
Here is the explanation for the asymmetry between the myth of Osiris and its biblical inversion: there is no resurrection for Abel, as Seth-Yahweh is the god of death, not resurrection. There is no Other World for the good dead in the Torah: the Yahwist scribes have borrowed Paradise, the land of blessed immortality, from neighboring cultures, but shifted it to the beginning of the story, then closed access to it forever. The originality of the Bible, as we shall see, is often merely the inversion of motifs from other cultures…(Kindle Locations 906-915).
All of this “normative inversion”, we submit, is another indication that the Torah is describing false flag imperialism. The Israelites of the Bible are no longer able to be at home in Egypt, not even as slaves, because of their religious isolation. To survive in a hostile environment, they have no choice but to succeed as warriors.
Authoritarianism in the Biblical Exodus
Biblical Moses famously goes to Pharaoh with the demand to “set my people free”. But in fact the narrative has little to do with “freedom”, at least not in a modern sense. Perhaps the emphasis should be on Moses’ characterization that the Israelites were “MY” people, that is, owned by Moses.
Most tellingly, the tribes of Israel were not a self-governing federation. On the contrary, they were ruled over by the Levites, who were Moses and Aaron’s relatives. And, under Moses, Aaron and the Levites, the Israelites were subject to a bewildering 613 laws covering every aspect of behavior. They were, virtually, portrayed as slaves to Yahweh, with sacrifices due at every turn. And (under our basic interpretive framework) we know who Yahweh represents.
The role of Aaron and the Levites is on display in the remarkable episode of the Golden Calf, Exodus 32:1-35. As the chapter opens, we find that some of the Israelites are still polytheistic. Aaron encourages all these backsliders to turn in their gold, which he fashions into a calf for them. Then Moses returns, and calls down the wrath of God against those who fell for Aaron’s invitation. Or rather, the wrath of the Levites, who “there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.” (Ex. 32:28).
But Aaron himself was not punished. He kept his slot in the leadership, even though he had shaped and organized the rebellion. As to whether the peoples’ gold was really ground into a powder and scattered on the water, we are skeptical.
On the contrary, the true Machiavellian goal of Aaron & Moses (as depicted in the story) was to disorient the pagan Israelites, take their money, and install the Levite priestly caste as rulers over them.
Mapping the Exodus into History
As we mentioned above, the Exodus tale cannot be found, per se, in the archaeological record. Finkelstein & Silberman in “The Bible Unearthed” (2001), along with most archaeologists, argue convincingly that there was never any mass migration of Israelites from Egypt. In general, Israel and Judah emerged from the highlands of Palestine, where the inhabitants were typically Canaanites, ethnically and culturally, perhaps aside from an aversion to pork.
Megiddo, 8th Century BCE (from Finkelstein & Silberman)
The first characteristically Israelite monumental architecture that has been found by archaeologists to date, is from the time of the ruler Omri. Finkelstein & Silberman contend that the various six-chambered gates and city walls that have sometimes been attributed to Solomon, are in fact from the Omride dynasty or even later. This is based on the similar building style to Samaria, which is generally accepted as built by Omri. Similar monumental architecture has been unearthed all over the territory ascribed to the northern kingdom of Israel, while there is a complete absence of any such ruins in the southern kingdom of Judah, or any of the major cities of Solomon’s kingdom that was supposedly in Judah.
Finkelstein says that Judah was far less developed and prosperous during the 10th through 8th centuries BCE, compared to either Israel or to the coastal settlements of the Philistines or Phoenicians. As such, there was no material basis for a great empire such as the one ascribed to Solomon. Finkelstein & Silberman don’t dispute that David and Solomon might have existed: but if they did, they must have been local chieftains, rather than captains of empire.
Similarly, there is simply no evidence for the existence of any complex state apparatus anywhere in ancient Israel before the Omrides. Thus, conventional historians are at a loss to explain how the stories of the Exodus, Judges, or the Kingdom of David and Solomon (as eyewitness history) could ever have been written down by anyone. This is a crucial point, because as we will demonstrate, these stories do indeed have analogs in real historical events.
Exodus as a Consolidation of Narrative Sources
If these histories were not written down by the Hebrews, then by whom? Our answer is that the records must have been maintained by the Egyptians, and by their proxies, the Levite priests. And indeed we find that some Egyptian records describing similar scenarios do exist. If (as we contend) the stories describe a covertly directed operation, then the Egyptian records should describe the events from an Egyptian point of view. One must decode the propaganda to see the mirror image of the events from the Israelite point of view.
In further explanation of our views, we point again to Jan Assmann, who suggested that the Exodus narrative has no single origin, but rather combines numerous historical experiences into “a coherent story that is fictional as to its composition but historical as to some of its components”. (Assmann, Jan (2014). From Akhenaten to Moses: Ancient Egypt and Religious Change, p. 26)
These traumatic events include the expulsion of the Hyksos; the religious revolution of Akhenaten; a possible episode of captivity for the Habiru, who were gangs of antisocial people operating between Egypt’s vassal states; and the large-scale migrations of the ‘Sea Peoples‘. We will look at each of these events in turn, and explore how they contributed to the development of the Biblical story.
If all of these separate historical events were originally represented by source documents, which were combined in a literary fashion to produce our received Exodus narrative: then which of those events was a Machiavellian covertly-directed conquest, as we have suggested? None of them, or all of them? We will return to this question at the end.
The Hyksos Exodus
The Hyksos people (also known to the Egyptians as “asiatics”) were a West Semitic people akin to the Canaanites. During the Middle Kingdom period, they moved into Lower (Northern) Egypt, either by conquest or assimilation. By the time of the Second Intermediate period, they were ruled over by the “Fifteenth Dynasty” of Hyksos Pharaohs, who in many ways emulated Egyptian culture. Meanwhile, the traditional Egyptian pharaohs continued to rule in Upper Egypt, possibly as vassals of the Hyksos. Eventually, these Upper Egyptian pharaohs emerged triumphant, and drove the Hyksos out of the Delta region and into the Levant.
The tale of the Hyksos is told in Book 1 of Against Apion by Flavius Josephus. The purpose of the book is to defend Josephus’ work in the Antiquities of the Jews, against certain unnamed critics who say that the Greeks know nothing of the ancient origins of the Jews. (Apion isn’t mentioned until book 2.) Josephus says that his information about the Hyksos comes from the Egyptian historian Manetho. The story is narrated very approvingly, as a true story of the great antiquity of the Jews.
According to Josephus, Manetho said that the Hyksos came to Egypt as ruffians from the East, and conquered the country, governing from Memphis while setting up Avaris as a frontier fortress. After “511 years”, the Hyksos were finally driven out, and they went first to Avaris, and then on to Judea, where they built the city of Jerusalem.
Josephus notes several similarities between Manetho’s account and the Hebrew bible, including the idea that the Hyksos were called “shepherds”, and also “captives”. He mentions that at the same time as the Hyksos were driven out by the Egyptians, that Danaus left for Argos, and comments that this was a thousand years before the Trojan war.
Hyksos, Patriarchs and the 18th Dynasty
Scarab of Sheshi Mayebra (Abram?)
Related to Josephus’s narrative, author Ralph Ellis, in “Jesus Last of the Pharaohs“, noted a similarity between the names of certain Hyksos pharaohs of the 14th dynasty, and the names of Biblical patriarchs. For example, he suggests that the name of the throne name of the pharaoh Sheshi, which is Mayebra, may have been pronounced backwards as Ayebra’m or Abram, or Abraham. Other suggestions include Cainan (son of Arphaxad) = Khyan, Heber = Yakub-her, and Jacob = Yakbim. Very little is known about these 14th dynasty Pharaohs beyond their cartouches and scarabs. Even their sequence is not agreed on. Therefore, there is little if any evidence to confirm or deny the relationships suggested by Ellis.
Ellis argues that these Hyksos Pharaohs were distinguished from the Theban Pharaohs more by their religion than by their ethnicity. He says that they were characterized as “shepherd kings” because they had observed the precession of the zodiac, and therefore had chosen to worship Aries the ram, rather than Taurus the bull. As mentioned above, it is also known that these Hyksos worshipped Seth above other Egyptian gods.
A possibly confusing aspect is that the term ‘Hyksos’ may refer either to the entire people (who are thought to be West Semitic) or to the Hyksos rulers, who might not be ethnically the same as the commoners. As we have discussed elsewhere: the Biblical narrative indicates that Abraham came from Ur, which most likely means Edessa, a territory hotly contested by Hittites and Mitanni. These are the peoples that brought chariot warfare to the ancient near east, introduced in turn into Egypt by the Hyksos. The Levirate marriage contract seems to be another common cultural feature.
According to all known archaeology, the Hyksos kings were driven from Egypt to Jerusalem by Ahmose I, the first 18th dynasty pharaoh. And from there, they disappeared from all historical records.
About this same time (give or take), the great volcanic eruption of Thera occurred. Apocalyptic rainstorms were described on Ahmose’s Tempest Stele, consistent with the result of a massive volcano explosion. While some scholars argue that this is confirmation of some seemingly miraculous aspects of the Biblical exodus, others say that the Tempest Stele should be interpreted metaphorically.
Regardless of which is the case, Josephus’s identification of the Hyksos exodus with the biblical Israelite exodus seems plausible. It was widely accepted by 19th century scholars, and later rejected only because the Hyksos seemingly disappeared, rather than achieving any verifiable archaeological continuity with the later Israelites.
Amenhotep III: A Hyksos Resurgence?
Ellis goes on to suggest that the Hyksos ruling family continued to live in Jerusalem during the time of the 18th dynasty. Furthermore, he proposes, they took on a role as advisors to the Theban pharaohs during that time, as exemplified by the biblical Joseph. Ellis suspects that the last Hyksos pharaoh driven from Egypt by Ahmose I was Jacob (aka the pharaoh Yakbim) and that Joseph was a title denoting several generations of Pharaoh’s viziers.
If this is correct, and Jacob was in fact the Hyksos pharaoh driven from Egypt by Ahmose, then perhaps the odd story of Genesis 32:22-32 is a parable of this event. According to the story, Jacob wrestles overnight with God until daybreak, and the battle ends in a draw. God then tells Jacob that his new name will be Israel. In accordance with our interpretive framework, we say that Jacob has not fought with God, but rather with Pharaoh; that is, Ahmose. Perhaps, are insiders being informed that Pharaoh has sponsored the nation of Israel as a front, to advance a hidden agenda?
Yuya
Eventually, Egyptian history tells us that the vizier Yuya‘s daughter Tiye married the pharaoh Amenhotep III, and Yuya’s granddaughter, Nefertiti, married Akhenaten. Yuya’s tomb is known as the most opulent one yet discovered in the Valley of Kings (aside from Tutankhamun) and he is suspected of non-Egyptian ethnicity, either Mitanni or “asiatic”. Ellis notes that Amenhotep II and Amenhotep III both included the glyph for ‘hyk’ in their cartouches, and states that Amenhotep III called himself “The Hyksos King of Thebes”.
Amenhotep III was the son of Thutmosis IV with Mutemwiya, who may have been the same person as a daughter of King Artatama of Mitanni who was taken as a bride by Thutomosis, whose name is otherwise lost to history. At any rate, DNA testing indicates that Yuya was not only Amenhotep III’s father-in-law, but also genetically closely related.
Given all this information, we contend that these Hyksos pharaohs (aka Biblical patriarchs) were in fact Indo-European (that is, Aryan) foreigners, ethnically allied with the Hittite and Mitanni ruling classes. If so, then the central dialectic of Western civilization, based on the tension between Jewish and Christian elements, is essentially built on a massive ‘identity’ scam. The tribe of Judah, David, and Christ is not Semitic, but Aryan. The irony should set any Zionist or White Nationalist’s head spinning.
Ahmed Osman says that Amenhotep III gave the city of Zarw to his wife Tiye, and built a pleasure lake there the year after Akhenaten was born. Osman believes that this city was built exactly on the site of Avaris, the former Hyksos capital.
If indeed there was some continuity between the Hyksos and the later 18th dynasty Pharaohs, this helps explain why animosity developed between Akhenaten and the Theban priesthood. It might also explain why Akhenaten chose to build a new capital in upper Egypt at Amarna, roughly half way between Thebes and Zarw / Avaris.
Akhenaten and his solar deity
However, the late 18th dynasty Pharaohs seemingly abandoned the Hyksos anti-God, Seth, in favor of the solar deity Aten. This may have been based on a recognition that Seth’s reputation had deteriorated to the point where rehabilitation was impossible. But, the underlying theological view of Seth seems to have survived in the Hebrew view of Yahweh.
The symbol of the Burning Bush (with its unquenchable flame) may be interpreted as a link between Aten, Yahweh and Seth.
An Exodus from Akhenaten’s Amarna
Stephen G. Rosenberg, writing in an op-ed in the Jerusalem Post, noted some similarities between the time of Akhenaten and Tutankhamen, and the scenario of the Exodus. According to the Old Testament, the Israelites were slave workers in mudbrick; and, we now know from archaeology, Akhenaten’s capital city of Amarna was hastily constructed of mudbrick. After Akhenaten’s death, there must have been a departure or exodus of some sort from the newly built city. And finally, Rosenberg says that the design of the Israelite tabernacle described in the Old Testament is similar to the portable war shrines built by the Pharaohs of that time.
Tutankhamun’s Ark
As the Sabbah brothers also noted, Tutankhamun’s tomb contained a chest of sculpted wood, with carrying poles, covered in gold leaf. Another container was sealed with gold panels depicting winged angels or cherubim. And the tomb was within a wooden frame covered with a large linen cloth. The entire scenario evokes the tabernacle and the Ark of the Covenant as described in the book of Exodus.
Cherubim at Tutankhamun’s tomb
Putting these elements together, Rosenberg suggests that the Israelites were Akhenaten’s slaves at Amarna. At his death, they departed, and took Pharaoh Tutankhamen’s war shrine with them.
After only 16 years, Akhenaten died, his reforms had been deeply unpopular and when he died, his new religion was abandoned, and so was his city. Akhenaten and his beautiful wife Nefertiti had had no son, only six daughters, and so it was one of the sons-inlaw who succeeded him: Tutankhamun, the famous boy king Tut.
He had the onerous task of restoring the old order, the old religion, the old gods and their priests, and he was under threat if he did not do so. The restitution stele says that the old gods would punish him if they were not given back their old rights and positions.
Hapi, the androgynous god of the Nile, would make its waters undrinkable; Kermit, the goddess of fertility, would release her frogspawn to swarm over the land; Osiris, the god of corn, would not prevent the locusts from consuming his cereals, and Ra, the sun god, would refuse to shine. Sound familiar?
Josephus describes the Amarna Exodus?
After identifying the Hebrew exodus as the Hyksos exodus, Josephus goes on to relate an alternative version of the origin of the Jewish people: as lepers. This story seems to be loosely based on the fall of Akhenaten’s headquarters in Amarna.
Josephus says the story comes from three different sources: Manetho, Chaeremon and Lysimachus. Josephus himself is skeptical, and seeks to prove that they are all lying, by showing up the contradictions in their various stories. But as readers, we must suspect that there must be some kernel of truth in the various stories, which overall seem pretty compatible with each other.
The most complete version of the story is from Manetho, who says that Pharaoh Amenophis expels 80,000 lepers from Egypt to work in quarries. These lepers chose themselves a ruler named Osarsiph, who makes an alliance with the Hyksos from Jerusalem. They conquer Egypt, while Amenophis takes refuge in Ethiopia. Osarsiph changes his name to Moses. Finally, Amenophis and his son Rampses return from Ethiopia and drive the lepers and Judaeans back to Syria. Josephus contends that the whole story is absurd on multiple levels.
But, Chaeremon tells more or less the same story, except that there are 250,000 lepers instead of only 80,000, and Chaeremon is confused about where the lepers found their allies, who seem to have come out of nowhere. Chaeremon has Joseph as a contemporary of Moses.
Lysimachus’ version is the most spare on details, gives the Pharaoh’s name as Bocchorus, and says that the lepers were about to be thrown in the ocean wrapped in lead sheets when Moses saved them.
A Nation of Priests
Ralph Ellis suggested that these people were “Lepers” because of their “diseased” spiritual beliefs, rather than any physical problem. And, the Sabbahs identify the exiles with Akhenaten’s priesthood, the ‘Yahud’. In Secrets of the Exodus, Chapter 25, Culture of the Nile, page 259, the Sabbahs assert that the ‘Yahud’ originated in Egypt, as a priesthood of the time of Amenhotep III.
They mention that the Hebrew Yehuda (for Judah) is a theophoric name, containing reference to ‘Yahwe’. And that Judah was the son of Leah, as was Levi. Leah was the ‘hated wife’ of Jacob, the preferred being Rachel. The Sabbahs claim that the Yahud were indeed monotheistic priests, based upon the root words, ‘Hodah’ and ‘Yahu’, meaning ‘praise God’. This, of course, begs the question of the relationship of the Levites to the Yahuds then in regards to priesthood status. Whatever the case, this may help answer the question of why Judea was considered a nation of priests.
A nation of priests needs common people to handle the mundane tasks of life. Here, the Sabbahs provide that the city of Akhet-aten must have had various common peoples such as trademen and craftsmen, etc. But they also explain that a nomadic tribe of Semites, named the Shasu, had earlier been brought to Egypt by Tuthmoses II as prisoners of war. In a temple (Soleb) in northern Sudan today, built by Amenhotep III, was found an inscription reading, “The house of Yahu in Shasu land.”
Yahweh of Edom
Ancient Edom was an area in the Levant located between the Dead Sea and the Gulf of Aqaba. The city of Petra, located at its center, was about 100 miles south of Jerusalem.
Edom (red)
‘Shasu land’ was in Edom, where some have suggested that the Biblical exiles remained until the time that Moses died, letting Joshua fulfill the Conquest. In fact, with regard to Petra, there are several shrines named after Musa or Moses. Including a spring, claimed to be the one where Moses struck a rock and water sprang forth. Later on, the region was known as the home of Antipater and the Herodian dynasty.
The name Yahweh is likely to have originated in Edom, later to wind up in Judea. With this information, we can now see the likely exact path of transmission and just why Yahu / Yahweh became the chosen vehicle to launch the monotheist project. This name added a layer of obfuscation, hiding that Egypt was the true source of monotheism in its departure from Akhet-aten. Also, remember that this is the name which is not to be spoken.
The Sabbahs explain that the roots for Yahudah are Yahu-Daeh and are found in the Egyptian words Yahu-Dueh, meaning adoration, prayer, homage, and giving praise. sounds like a priestly type of name. But were the Shasu really the Yahud, or were they just a convenient metaphorical mule of sorts to transport the concept?
The Divine Lions of Soleb
At any rate, the hieroglyphic word for Yahut (or Yahud) breaks down to “divine heritage, function, mission”. As the Sabbahs state on page 263:
… Only the Yahud priests had the authority to write a name like that on the temple columns. The Shasu did not have the right to practice sacred writing. Consequently, Yahu is one of the divine names of the god-king Amenhotep III. Yah is written on the two lions of of Soleb.
The Sabbahs forgot to mention that the lion is the symbol for the tribe of Judah.
The Pharaoh Ay
The Sabbahs make the remarkable claim that the various important personages of the Exodus all have their corresponding analogs in the Pharaohs of that era.
In Chapter 4, Pharaoh Ay, the Sabbahs discuss this pharaoh as essentially the mastermind of the Exodus. As Akhenaton’s father-in-law, Ay was more than witness to the creation of the Aten religion and the city of Akhet-Aten. Ay had been Akhenaten’s very active vizier, as Joseph had been to his pharaoh (here displaced far in time). In the case of Joseph, he had conspired with pharaoh to manipulate the markets and end up enslaving all the people of Egypt (Genesis 47). All the people of Egypt, but not Hebrews … because as the Sabbah brother rabbis conclude, there were no such people … as the extensive lack of evidence shows.
That Ay was an active participant in both the Rise and Fall of Akhenaten is just one of the aspects of this business that should indicate that this was all orchestrated. As often the case with controlled opposition operations, we do not expect to find a signed confession in the government annals. Nevertheless, the signs of a contrivance are clear, with or without drawing a connection between the religious innovations of Akhenaten, and the innovations of Moses.
Adonai and “Aten-Ay”
From Chapter 6, The Bible of Ay, pp. 46-48:
The Aramaic Bible, called the Targum, is a prime reference source because of its precedence in time. It is a translation of a Hebrew Bible into the Aramaic language. All extant copies of the Books of Genesis and Exodus in Hebrew [such as the Masoretic – RS] were written after the Aramaic Bible. Aramaic is an ancient Semitic language very close to Hebrew and Arabic; it was the spoken and written language of Jesus of Nazareth. By Jesus’ time, Hebrew had been a dead language for centuries. The Aramaic Bible is the one that Jesus would have read.
The Aramaic Bible states the name of God as “Ay.” When the Divine Father Ay granted the Land of Canaan (the Promised Land) to the monotheistic priests, they deified his name, and used it as one of the names of the One God. The Aramaic Bible also reveals Ay as a “warrior” or “a man of war.” “Ay is a warrior. Ay is is name” (Aramaic Bible, Exodus 15:3). “Yahwe is a warrior” (Hebrew Bible, Exodus 15:3). This verse illustrates the anthropomorphism of the God of the Bible. The concept of an abstract god was a later development.
Ay was the god of the Yahuds. It was probably after Akhenaton’s and Smenkhkare’s death that Ay’s name became Adon-ay – Lord Ay. With this continuing tradition, much later during the Babylonian exile, God was referred to as “Adonay,” even though the name was written on the page as “Yahwe”; in this way the holy name was avoided, the name “which was never to be spoken.”
The Missing Israelites
Ironically, the archaeologists cannot find any Jews during the time of the 18th dynasty, but some alt-right researchers of current affairs seem to find them all over the place today, as with the masons. The common denominator is the source of both: Egypt and the pharaohs, or at least the 18th and 19th Dynasty pharaohs.
One can see where the Sabbahs may have gone wrong in superficially assuming, like the archaeologists, that the Aten experience was to be taken at face value, rather than a massive ruse. In this case, both the old culture and the new culture of fanatics converted to monotheism. Ay and Akhenaten had not only defiled the old gods, but had bled the old culture to near death so as to make Akhet-aten a virtual Garden of Eden, filled with luxuries and beautiful women.
From pg. 36:
Ay found himself confronted with the most difficult decision of his life. [Unless this was the plan all along. RS] He would have to blame the population of Akhet-aten for the woes of the country. The cosmopolitan life created by Akhenaten became a pretext for the accusation of corruption, adultery, and exhibitionism against the city. Akhet-aten had to be destroyed, and its monotheistic priests had to be exiled or killed. They had, after all, been guilty of corruption and fraternization with foreign women.
Killing priests was certainly not an Egyptian custom. Such an act was considered the crime of crimes. Besides, Ay himself had been venerate and deified by the monotheistic priests [who had just prior been polytheistic priests of such as Amun – RS].
Levites and Yahuds: Priesthoods Seeking People
So what was a good [or bad?] vizier to do? The city of Akhet-aten was abandoned after the death of Akhenaten’s son Smenkhkare. It was done quickly and systematically, with no sign of violence as discovered by the archaeologists. As recorded by the accounts, and as mentioned above, the city was very wealthy having scraped the rest of the country clean. Little was left, except as what hidden treasure appears to have been recorded on a copper scroll and was later found in the Dead Sea Scroll caves (i.e. the Copper Scroll as discussed by Robert Feather in his book of the same name).
As such, where would these thousands of Aten priests and other court officials go, if not into an approved exile, a Promised Land of sorts? If these had gone to nearby Canaan as hated exiles, one might think that later Egyptians would have had no compunction in eliminating them. But there is no record of any such genocide. Exodus 12:35-36 concurs that “the Hebrews” were allowed to take all the booty of Egypt along with them.
Furthermore, the Sabbahs discuss that the so-called Restoration Stele, erected in the time of Tutankhkamen, by Ay, records that the old religions had to be reformed via the recruited sons of such as the bureaucrats, and not from the traditional sons of the priests. Why? Because the old priesthood was gone to Disneyland.
A Buffer Zone in Canaan
As recorded in the Pentateuch (Numbers 35), the Levites were set up as the effective rulers of the 48 largest cities in Canaan. From here, their sons would become the future Levites of Judea and Israel, such as the ancestors of Josephus Flavius. This is a description of a contrived False Dialectic, with a contrived priesthood transported off to a contrived exile.
The Sabbah brothers introduce an interesting and compelling idea that Ay got the additional benefit of placing the exiles in Canaan, so as to create a buffer zone in the region that had been wracked by turmoil of various sorts. The Canaanite king, Rib-Hadda, and others had frequently complained to Akhenaten about being attacked by such as the Apiru. At this time the Hittites were still a nearby power. Here they quote the one of the Targums (an Aramaic translation of the older non-extant Hebrew Bible): “On exactly that day, all of the armies of Ay left the land of Egypt.” (Exodus 12:41) In other words, the Egyptian army actually escorted the exiles into their new promised land, rather than chasing them.
Like Rosenberg, the Sabbah brothers discuss that Akhet-Aten was built mostly with bricks, which they say was unique in Egyptian history. The Bible story of the Hebrew slaves having to make bricks is famous. Yet there is no evidence of such slaves, as distinct from ordinary Egyptians. Also, it is now known that bricks were used later on in delta cities like Avaris.
It seems far more likely that the Yahud or Levites represented a relatively small vanguard. Slaves used for construction of Amarna had presumably left earlier, during the years between the city’s construction and its abandonment. The bulk of the “Hebrew People” never lived in Egypt, but were indigenous Canaanites and/or Edomite Arabs.
Aramaic Bible says that Moses was a Yahud, not a Hebrew
Continuing to develop the theme that the historical exodus at the end of the Atenist period was an exodus of priests, the Sabbahs state:
The Aramaic Bible makes a clear distinction between the Hebrews (Children of Israel) and the Yahuds. The Hebrew Bible does not make such a distinction. The Aramaic version related that it was the Yahuds who went out of Egypt under the aegis of their god Ay. The Hebrews were assimilated into the Children of Israel, the Egyptian commoners, the “multitude.” “Then they [Moses and Aaron] said, ‘The God of the Hebrews has met with us'” (Hebrew Bible, Exodus 5:3); “Then they [Moses and Aaron] said, ‘The God of the Yahuds has met with us'” (Aramaic Bible, Exodus 5:3).
The Moses of the Bible was a Yahud, a son of Levi. The two Bibles deal with this fact differently. “At that time, Moses had grown up. He went out among his people and saw them toiling at hard labor. He saw and Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his own people” (Hebrew Bible, Exodus 2:11); “At that time, Moses had grown up. He went out among his people and saw them toiling at hard labor. He saw an Egyptian beating a Yahud, one of his people” (Aramaic Bible, Exodus 2:11).
… The Aramaic Bible reveals that the Yahuds were priests of Egypt, of a different caste from the Hebrews, the “multitude,” in ancient Egypt. “Yahud” (or “Yahut”) is a heiroglyph meaning official or civil servant, an hereditary position of one charged with serving pharaoh. Hebrews as a distinct and separate people simply are not to be found in the ancient land. They were an invention of scribes who wrote centuries later, in a far-off, foreign land.
In Egypt, Everyone Except Pharaoh was a Slave
The Sabbahs then continue with a discourse about the contextual meaning of the word slave; as in that everyone, from the vizier on down could be considered a slave. So this must be taken into account when the Bible refers to the Hebrews being slaves in Egypt.
Except… Rashi’s comment on Genesis 18 states that the Midrash has it that the Tribe of Levi “had never been Pharaoh’s slave.” This may reflect that the priesthood was attempting to establish an independent power base; and indeed, later Egyptian history showed a decline of Pharaoh’s power, and a rise of a priestly oligarchy.
Just as our previous textual analysis of the relationship between subservient Judah and exalted Joseph (Ephraim) puts the Jewish construct in a different light, consistent with our False Dialectic Model and SSM (Shepherd Sheepdog Model), the Sabbah brothers have delivered a detailed account that dovetails very, very well with ours.
Moses and Ramesses I
Getting back to the Sabbahs’ idea that each major character in the Exodus narrative is an analog to an Egyptian pharaoh: Chapter 17 of Secrets of the Exodus is titled Moses and Ramesses I. The chapter begins with a discussion of some of the murals from Ramesses‘s tomb. One mural shows the god Amun brandishing his rod over the 12 coiled serpent, Apophis. Apophis was also the name of the Hyksos king that was defeated by the first king of the 18th Dynasty, Ahmose I, many years before. (Or was that Jacob who was defeated?)
Amun brandishing his rod over Apophis
The second mural is that of 12 Egyptian goddesses of the night watching Apophis flee into a depiction of a parted sea. According to the Sabbahs, these images represent “the origin of the legend of the nocturnal expulsion of the twelve tribes of Israel and the crossing of the Red Sea”.
Apophis fleeing into parted waters
Reviewing the birth legend of Moses, the Sabbahs discuss its similarity to the prior legends of Sargon I, Gilgamesh, Cyrus (the first Persian Emperor and Biblical Jewish savior) and the Egyptian Sinuhe. However, in those prior legends, an allegedly royal baby is hidden and cast away, to be raised as a commoner. In the Moses legend, a common Hebrew child is cast off, to be adopted and raised as a royal. Another clever narrative inversion to serve a relatively transparent political purpose, to hide Moses’ “crypto-Egyptian” ethnic origins.
Although, the Sabbahs point out, the Targum has it that Exodus 2:6 calls Moses a “Yehudaeh” rather than a Hebrew. If this is correct, then Moses was born into the Pharaoh’s cultic priesthood.
As further evidence that Moses’ birth story establishes him as a divine royal hero, the authors point to the following illustration, showing Isis hiding her son Horus among the reeds.
Isis and Horus in the reeds.
So here one can see Isis, bearing the Sun disk, giving life to the divine child within the sea of reeds, the papyrus marsh. The gods Amun and Thoth are assisting, along with two foster mothers holding serpent rods. The crowns of the foster mothers are those of the upper and lower kingdoms of Egypt, indicating that they are of the royal court.
Taken from page 143 of the book is the graphic detailing the cartouche of Ramesses I:
Cartouche of Ramesses I
On the right side we see the hieroglyphs for Min and Nun, which both make up the main components from the god Amun, thus Min (who emanates from) above the Nun (the primordial waters) provides the underlying substrate for the (Mess) birth of the king – emanating from the primordial waters. The hieroglyph Mess appears to be three bullrushs or ‘reeds’. Per the graphic’s annotation, the word Maim is Hebrew for water.
Note too, in the lower right is a lion, which is also featured at Amenhotep III’s temple at Soleb – where the Yahud priesthood seemed to be originally located. Of course, the lion (Hebrew lavi) is the biblical symbol associated with Judah in the book of Genesis, later to be traced through various European royal house heraldry.
From pg. 141 then is quoted the relevant Bible verse:
The child grew, and she [the nurse] brought him to Pharaoh’s daughter. And he became her son [Leben]. She named [ Vaykra] him Moses, saying, ‘Because I drew him [Masheti-oo] forth from the waters [Min A-Maim]'” (Exodus 2:10).
To the Sabbah brothers this is the most important message in the Bible, and maybe so. This, because in reading between the lines we see the princess drawing a connection between Moses and Ramesses I, as well as Levi and the lion of Judah.
This does create some confusion though, as Levi and Judah are brothers within Jacob’s lineage, albeit both from the “unloved” mother Leah. Here, as throughout the book, the Sabbahs don’t seem to realize the Biblical importance placed upon Ephraim, the favored son of Joseph. But in any case, they identify the Yahud ‘Levites’ as the army of Ramesses I.
Or, at least (in our view) as the army portion that will remain the occupiers of Canaan, as depicted in detail in Leviticus and Numbers, with the Levites being placed in control of the largest 48 cities of Canaan. This irregardless of the general territories of the other 11 tribes, many of which may have been really indigenous ‘Canaanites’ at the time. And the tribe of Dan, having been the Mycenaean tribe of the Danoi in the post collapse period of the Late Bronze Age.
Joshua ben Nun and Seti I
Continuing on, the authors mention that Seti I, Ramesses I’s son and also equated with the Biblical Joshua ben Nun, wrote a declaration that corresponds to the Biblical account of the Exodus. From Dominique Valbelle’s Histoire de l’Etate Pharoanique (1998) pg. 288, as quoted in Secrets of the Exodus pp. 143-144:
(The text in brackets is the authors, the red highlighting is added.)
I speak of what I did [what I became] until I was the master of the two shores. I came from the womb [of my mother] like the Bull of Maat [Emet in Hebrew], impregnated by good counsel and teachings. When he [Ramesses I] was Re, I was with him as a star at his side […]. I [subjugated] the lands of the Fenekhu, I drove out for him the dissidents [the Yahud monotheists of Akhet-Aten] into the desert country. I organized his monarchy like Horus on the throne of Unennefer. I chose Maat for him everyday, and I bore him on my bosom […] in his name Mehenyt. I assembled his army and gave him a single heart [Lev in Hebrew: the army of the Levites]. I sought for him the subsistence of the double land and I placed my arm in the service of his close protection in the foreign lands the names of which were [still] unknown. I was a courageous hero in his presence in order that he might open his eyes upon my perfection.
Next begins a discussion of the Ten Commandments upon the stone tablets supposedly given to Moses by God while upon Mt. Sinai.
As they say, apart from the prohibition of worshiping all the other gods, of making graven images, and of resting on the 7th day, the other commandments are included within the traditional Egyptian wisdom literature. The three exceptions mentioned just prior are part of the massive cultural inversions imposed upon the new synthetic society that Egypt is imposing upon its neighboring region, i.e. the 613 Mosaic Laws. The seven laws that are yet in common with the Egyptian ones are known in Judaic oral tradition as the “seven laws of Noah” or “Noah’s laws”. In any case, a good Egyptian had to justify his mortal behavior before the celestial tribunal by the upholding of these laws as well as 35 others.
The authors discuss that Moses and Joshua, really Ramesses and Seti, escorted the “dissidents” along with their new monotheistic accoutrements, focusing here on their conception of a dual arched stone tablet, similar to a hieroglyphic paired cartouche on exhibit in the Turin Museum. The first and last words on the cartouches form “Ankh Aten”, the basis for Akhenaten’s name, and conforming with the first biblical commandment said to have been inscribed on Moses’s tablets, that of “Anokhi Adonay”. Note that Hebrew, or any other script alphabetic writing, did not exist at this time.
Then comes a curious remark that the 11th century CE Jewish commentator, Rashi, had stated that the 613 Mosiac Laws were contained within the 10 Commandments, and that those all derived from the first law. Hence, according to the Sabbah brothers, they can be seen as all essentially flowing from the name for Akhenaten.
The Sabbahs derive the name Shaddai from the cartouche of Seti I, with the dual yod glyphs associated with the glyph for the god Seth (or Shad as an acceptable pronunciation). Then the Sabbahs equate biblical term “Yahu-Shua, son of Nin” with the Egyptian “The great God Shaday, beloved of Ptah and Nun.”
The Sabbahs then go on to discuss the military campaign of Joshua and how it matches that of Seti I. Joshua began his campaign upon the death of Moses, while Seti began his campaign upon the death of his father Ramesses I.
Next is related that Seti had to confront a coalition of unhappy Canaanite kings, just as Joshua did. Then he must deal with such as the powerful Hittites as at Kadesh. Seti and Joshua set up stone memorials (stele), with Seti’s being found in Beth-Shean in Israel.
There is no recorded war between the Egyptians and these otherwise rather powerful forces of Hebrews described in the Bible. The Sabbahs suggest that this makes sense if Joshua (Seti) was commanding the forces of the Egyptians, with the same stories being told from two perspectives.
Lastly, the Sabbahs mention the silver trumpets which God ordered Moses to have made. These are used by Joshua’s men to help bring down the walls of Jericho. In Tut’s tomb were found four silver military trumpets.
Moses and Akhenaten
The author Ahmed Osman also believes that the events of the Exodus occurred during the late 18th and early 19th dynasty period. However, in his book “The Lost City of the Exodus“, Osman contends that Akhenaten was in fact the person depicted as Moses in the Old Testament, while Ramesses I was his opponent Pharaoh. In support of this view, Osman notes that Akhenaton might have been hidden at birth, because of priestly opposition to his mother Tiye. The priests would have preferred that Amenhotep III should have married his sister, according to the tradition. Akhenaten may have been raised at Tiye’s summer palace at Zarw, away from Amenhotep’s Theban court. These circumstances might have inspired the biblical story of Moses’ unusual upbringing. Akhenaten called himself “the long living” and represented himself as Osiris, both possible indications that he considered himself fortunate to have survived against priestly opposition. Osman also points out that Amram, the name of Moses’ father, is similar to Imran, the name of the god Aten’s father.
While it is generally believed that Akhenaten died in the 17th year of his reign, Osman contends that in fact he went into exhile in the Sinai wilderness, and then returned at Horemheb’s death. Ramesses I was not of the royal blood, leading Akhenaten to challenge him for the throne. After this challenge failed, Akhenaten fled again, this time with his followers, to go to Jerusalem.
Osman presents only non-specific, circumstantial evidence that Akhenaten survived beyond his 17th year. However, if the biblical Exodus story is a literary composition based on various earlier sources, there’s no reason that the Moses character shouldn’t be based both on aspects of Akhenaten and Ramesses I. And, these relations may be valid even if “Exodus” never really happened as a discrete historical event.
The Danaoi and the Danites
Dr. David Elan, an archaeologist with Hebrew Union College, has identified Aegean-style artifacts and structures at his excavation at Tel Dan, the biblical city of Dan. Based on this finding, Philippe Bohstrom of Haaretz says:
The discoveries have rekindled a longstanding academic brawl over the origin of the Danites. Were they really just a tribe of Israel that was left in the cold, found a conveniently isolated city and conquered it? Do they have anything to do with a mysterious kingdom called Danuna mentioned in ancient writing found in Turkey? Or maybe with the Denyen – a faction of invading Sea Peoples, according to ancient Egyptian sources? Or with the Danaoi, one of the Greek tribes? Or are these all one and the same? The findings at Tell el-Qadi (now Tel Dan) suggest they could well be.
The connection between the biblical Dan and the Mycenaean Danaoi is also bolstered by chapter 5 of Judges, the Song of Deborah, which mentions the tribe of Dan failing to leave their ‘ships’ to aid their neighbor tribes.
Gilead abode beyond Jordan: and why did Dan remain in ships? Asher continued on the sea shore, and abode in his breaches. Judges 5:17 KJV
The Dan remained in their ships because they were primarily a seafaring people, not a seafearing people. The difference between seafaring and seafearing is deeply embedded one’s respective Culture.
Upon the collapse of the Late Bronze Age, Mycenae disappeared from that land, not arise again centuries later with the Classical Greeks. As Cline related in his 1177 BC, Collapse of the Late Bronze Age book: in this collapse, violence was very selective. In many cities, it was limited to just the royal palaces. The common people simply disappeared, and some apparently showed up peacefully elsewhere. For example, the more advanced Peleset immigrated into Palestine, and intermarried with the Canaanites. That is, they became the Philistines. Once this process is over, only Egypt is left standing among the major powers in the Eastern Mediterranean.
Cline’s book also mentions a variety of evidence of a unique trip taken by Amenhotep III (Akhenaton’s father) or his high level emissary, to Mycenae, via Crete. The “exodus” of the Peleset into the Levant occurred much later than Amenhotep III’s visit to Mycenae, and also much later than the “exodus” from Amarna / Akhet-aten.
Tel Dan is also notable as the location of the Tel Dan Stele, the only object that records the name of a character named David. It is apparent that the temple here would have been perceived in later times as a rival temple to the one in Jerusalem, as was the Samaritan one. Was this name David later fictively adopted in the narrative redactions to help pacify the northerner remnants left after the Assyrian and Babylonian forced migrations?
The Habiru of the Amarna Letters
The Amarna Letters paint a picture of Palestine as a region of beleaguered Egyptian allies. The region is under attack by a mysterious enemy known as the “Habiru”. The name seems to be a rather nonspecific pejorative, meaning “brigand” or “marauding band”.
Most mainline scholars reject an identification of the Habiru with the later Hebrews for the same reason as they reject an identification with the Hyksos: the archaeology doesn’t reveal any identifiably Israelite cultural attributes for these Habiru. The first culturally distinctive Israelites come much later.
However, fundamentalist scholars such as S. Douglas Waterhouse point to similarities between the biblical conquest narrative, and the situation depicted in the Amarna letters. He notes that the first cities conquered by Joshua, such as Jericho, Bethel, Gibeon, Shiloh, Mizpeh and Debir, are silent in the Amarna correspondence. Gezer was beseiged from an enemy in the highlands in both scenarios, as was Jerusalem. And, in both narratives, the land of Schechem was turned over to the Habiru / Hebrews, without a fight. The website ‘bible.ca’ also has an interesting page dedicated to the similarities between the Habiru invasion of Palestine during the late 18th dynasty period, and the Biblical description of Joshua’s conquest.
To judge from the Amarna Letters, Amenhotep III and Akhenaten were largely unresponsive to desperate pleas for help coming from their allies and dependencies in Palestine. They were busy with their internal religious reform projects, and neglectful of their imperial duties. We are told that it was not until after Akhenaten’s monotheistic fanatics had been put in their place, and the Theban gods restored, that Egypt was able to attend to the restoration of its power in Palestine. This was accomplished under Ramesses I and Seti I.
If the Sabbahs’ view that the first projection of Atenist monotheism into Palestine occurred after Akhenaten’s death, then the Habiru presence in Palestine would be a largely unrelated event. Or, the fall of Palestine to the Habiru might have been the actual motivation for an Egyptian reconquest of Palestine. In this case, the later invasion of Ramesses I and Seti I into Palestine might have been more of an infiltration, rather than a brutal conquest. The goal might have been to superimpose the Levite priesthood onto the Habiru, thus creating a culturally imposed control mechanism. And, the story of the Habiru conquest of Palestine was re-invented with a new ideological foundation.
It’s also possible that the Habiru were themselves a “false flag” operation, and that Akhenaten was unresponsive to his vassals’ cries for help because the Egyptian government was secretly arming and funding the Habiru “rebels”. From the perspective of Occam’s Razor, this seems unlikely: why would the Egyptians have used the Habiru to conquer the region, if they already controlled it? However, considering the sophistication of the “divide and conquer” scheme exhibited in the Biblical text as we have received it, the Egyptians may have been capable of a multi-layered, multi-generational Machiavellian scheme.
Conclusion: Sources and Processes
According to the ‘Documentary Hypothesis’, the story of the Exodus in the Pentateuch is based on source documents known as J (the Yahwist), E (the Elohist), P (the Priestly source) and D (the Deuteronomist). In “The Bible with Sources Revealed”, Richard E. Freeman argues that the J and E sources are the oldest. He suggests that they were composed sometime during the period of the Divided Kingdom, between 922 and 722 BCE, while the P source was composed shortly after the fall of the northern kingdom of Israel. These three sources contain narratives of the Patriarchs, Moses and the Exodus which are highly compatible, although not identical.
The sources represent a fictionalized version of events which were already long in the past by the 8th century BCE. According to our view, various earlier sources must have been drawn on, but the biblical authors did not hesitate to embellish, draw connections, make inferences, or simply fabricate new tales as needed. All of this was in service of the political and ideological agenda of the Levite priesthood and the monarchs.
If our hypotheses here are correct, the Pentateuch represents a view of history that is distorted in some aspects, while accurate in others. It seems likely that the imposition of the Levite priesthood over the Canaanite culture of the Levant was a somewhat gradual, stealthy process. The image of a vast number of Hebrews descending from Abraham seems to be a fabrication superimposed on history, to hide a much more synthetic, Egyptian-driven process. There may be a grain of truth in the original development of the Hyksos as a culturally distinct entity from the ancient Egyptian culture of Thebes. But we say that by the time of Ay and Akhenaten, the Egyptian dynasty was one big happy family, combining both Theban and Hyksos ancestry. Ay and Akhenaten were intentionally whipping the divide between the priesthoods of Thebes vs. Amarna, with the goal of throwing off a schismatic population that could project Egyptian power into the Levant.
The heroic characters of the Pentateuch, such as Abraham, Joseph, David, Solomon, Moses, Aaron and Joshua, seem to be based on Egyptian royalty. However, if this is correct, the biographies have been fictionalized and romanticized to the point where it is difficult if not impossible to draw specific conclusions about the actual lives of the historical Pharaohs depicted.
On a more certain basis, we can say that the picture of a heroic schism between the Hebrews and other cultures of the area, has been preserved in the Pentateuch because it served the interests of generations of later rulers. This begins with Josiah. Under his rule, the Deuteronomic source was most likely written, and the J, E and P sources were redacted and combined so as to justify Josiah’s own innovations. Josiah’s version of the ‘Law’ augmented and amplified the system of normatively inverted laws set forth in the Priestly texts, crystallizing the isolation of Hebrew culture. This set the stage for Josiah’s own imperialist ambitions.
But, did Josiah perhaps forget the essential aspect of Levite loyalty to Egyptian foreign policy goals? We are told that the pharaoh Necho put an unceremonius end to Josiah’s plans. Not long thereafter, the Egyptians themselves permanently lost control of their outposts in Palestine.
However, later civilizations including the neo-Babylonian, Persian (Achaemenid), Hellenistic Greek, Roman, medieval Catholic, and modern Anglo-American empire, have all been able to exploit the uniquely isolated and insular Hebrew culture as a resource; for scapegoating, division and conquest.
This brief post is an appreciation of a long essay by John Steppling, entitled “It Is Us”. Steppling begins by saying that “The manufacturing of Russia as the arch enemy of not just the U.S. but mankind in general has reached levels of absurdity and pathology. This is all sort of obvious, though, I think.” And he goes on to note, with some despair, that there is virtually no opposition to the consensus narrative about alleged Russian crimes such as the Skripal poisoning.
And then he asks the question I’ve been asking:
What does the ruling class want? Almost every major government official who propagates the anti Russia rhetoric is wealthy. Or at least affluent. Why do they want to promote conflict? To make more money? If so, what can that extra money buy them? What does John Bolton not have that he wants? What does Rachel Maddow want that she can’t afford? This has always troubled me. When I ask such questions I usually get an answer like “they want power” or “they want control”. But why? What does more power bring you? The ability to create institutions in your own image, in accordance with your ideological leanings? Is that it? If this is correct, for some, what does being able to shape institutional authority actually bring you? What benefits? Is it some moral demand for change? ….
For the reality is that nobody benefits from a nuclear war. NOBODY. But tens of millions die. And maybe everyone dies.
Is this not something the propagandists know? Do they want to die?
As to the opinion of the masses about all this, I think, Steppling gets exactly the right answer: they are in denial, they just don’t think about it. And furthermore, when they do think about it, they conclude that the US is making a stand for righteousness.
Why do so many people regard US foreign policy as coherent? The answer is the overwhelming majority of Americans don’t think about US foreign policy at all. They might know of Kim Jong Il, but they know nothing of the history of US/Korean relations. And they have no idea just how extensively the CIA has funded the very same Muslim jihadists they fear are ready to break into their homes. They hear some mainstream media story, often with a celebrity front person, about stopping this or that genocide (invariably caused by the United States) and decide yes, *we stood by* in Rwanda. Or, *we HAD to go into Yugoslavia to stop the Serbs*, etc. The reality is always diametrically opposed to the one manufactured by the U.S. State Department. The reality of Kagame or Milosevic, or Hezbollah, or China, or Venezuela is obscured and mystified. And the “white saviour” narrative remains the most popular. Posit that the third world NEEDS western help and you have a winner in the minds of most Americans.
It’s only in his conclusion, I think, that Steppling stops short. He says that America is a “self hating nation”, repressing and sublimating its psychic wounds.
What’s he missing? First, of course, that some of the powerful elite themselves must be persuaded by their own propaganda. Second, that some of the motivation is religious, to bring about the apocalyptic scenario at the heart of the ancient Abrahamic scriptures.
And possibly most importantly, that the US political establishment senses how badly they could fail, and how far they could fall, in a military confrontation with the rest of the world. By huffing and puffing, and blowhard bluffing, and select projections of military power, they hope to postpone the inevitable.
Steppling concludes:
The one core truth for me today, at least politically, is one must resist western Imperialism. You don’t have to agree with the rest of the world that resists it, but you must stand with them. It is only white privilege, hubris, that allows for a westerner, an American, to criticise Maduro, or Assad, or the DPRK. Or Iran. Yes, Iran was a conservative revolution, but they are part of a bulwark against the nightmare of Western capital today. Self determination. America has never wanted to save anyone. Ever. America has always had ulterior motives. The self loathing American. The Ugly American. We have met the enemy, and it is us.
But in resisting “Western Imperialism”, one is also standing with the idealistic vision of America, and Americans. As Steppling rightly notes, the vast majority of Americans just don’t understand what’s going on. Part of the hope for our planet, is that Americans might yet see through the falsehoods being foisted on them by the neo-con warmongers and mass media propagandists.
Also, perhaps it is going to far to ask Americans to refrain entirely from criticizing Russia? They too have a long history of imperialism, having grown from a small principality around Kiev. And they, too, have chosen the path of militarism, even if it’s in self-defense at this point.
What would be an acceptable risk? One per cent? Ten per cent? You wouldn’t get into an automobile every day with a 1% chance of crashing. At that rate, you wouldn’t survive a year.
At this moment, two of my favorite authors, Caitlin Johnstone and “the Saker”, are both raising the alarm. The risk, they say, is incalculably high.
I prefer to stay focussed on the chance that there might not be a nuclear war. Maybe we’ll make it through this. What is the point in planning for the worst? We may be surprised to find ourselves still here on this planet next year; and if so, we need to plan and prepare for that happy circumstance.
And after all, the oligarchs and authoritarians in this world are just as much at risk as everyone else. They are playing a game for high stakes. But they know that if full-scale nuclear war breaks out, the game is over and they’ve lost.
The theory of a deep, world-dominating conspiracy is in many ways disturbing. But in one way, it’s comforting. If the Ephraimites or “Sons of Jesse” or the CIA (or whoever “They” are) really are in control, then surely they won’t let the situation get out of hand.
No Command, No Control
But even if there is a central hierarchy; even if Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping and Kim Jong-Un are just as much “pawns in the game” as Trump and Bolton are; nevertheless, the weapons are in the hands of numerous field commanders. Or at least, if you believe Daniel Ellsberg’s book “The Doomsday Machine”:
With respect to deliberate, authorized U.S. strategic attacks, the system has always been designed to be triggered by a far wider range of events than the public has ever imagined. Moreover, the hand authorized to pull the trigger on U.S. nuclear forces has never been exclusively that of the president, nor even his highest military officials.
As I discovered in my command and control research in the late fifties, President Eisenhower had secretly delegated authority to initiate nuclear attacks to his theater commanders under various circumstances, including the outage of communications with Washington (a daily occurrence in the Pacific) or a presidential incapacitation (which Eisenhower suffered twice). And with his authorization, they had in turn delegated this initiative, under comparable crisis conditions, to subordinate commanders.
To my surprise, after I had alerted the Kennedy White House to this policy and its dangers, President Kennedy continued it (rather than reverse the decision of the “great commander” who had preceded him). So did Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Carter. So, almost certainly, has every subsequent president to this day, even though in the past several decades there may have been at least nominal “devolution” to some civilian outside Washington. This delegation has been one of our highest national secrets.
The same was true for the Soviet Union, now Russia. Public discussion of American plans for “decapitation” of Soviet command and control led to the institution and maintenance of a “Dead Hand” system of delegation that would assure retaliation to an American attack that destroyed Moscow and other command centers. This, too, has been treated as a state secret: paradoxically, since on both sides the secrecy and denial diminish deterrence of a decapitating attack against it.
An urgent reason for enlightening the world’s public on this reality of the nuclear era is that it is virtually certain that this same secret delegation exists in every nuclear state, including the new ones: Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea. How many fingers are on Pakistani nuclear buttons? Probably not even the president of Pakistan knows reliably. Meanwhile, frequent leaked reports in the American press throughout 2016 and 2017 of U.S. contingency plans and exercises aimed in crucial part at decapitating North Korean leadership and command structure have, in my opinion, very probably had the effect in that country of creating a Soviet-like Dead Hand system for assuring retaliation to such an attack.
Ellsberg, Daniel. The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner (pp. 15-16).
And did I mention that two of my favorite authors are in panic mode? Let me finish this article by quoting from them. Caitlin Johnstone:
Well I got news for you, snowflakes: if we all get nuked, there ain’t gonna be no midterms.
As of this writing, #StormyDanielsDay is the top US trend on Twitter. I don’t know what #StormyDanielsDay is. I don’t care what #StormyDanielsDay is. Neither should you. Neither should anyone else.
Please stop this shit, America. If the US war machine goes after Iran or Russia it will likely mean a world war against multiple nuclear-armed countries, which could very easily send our species the way of the dinosaurs should a nuke get deployed in the fog of war. We don’t have time to focus on Stormy fucking Daniels.
Those most fiendishly devoted to the service of the empire would rather take that risk than see the US lose its dominant role on the global stage; for them there is no difference between the end of their empire and the end of their lives. From their point of view they are fighting for their lives, and they are willing to take all-or-nothing gambles with the lives of every terrestrial organism in order to win.
We are staring down the barrel of world war and possible extinction. This should deeply impact the hearts and minds of Trump’s opponents and his supporters. Stop arguing about Stormy fucking Daniels and spread awareness about things that really matter.
Frankly, I am awed, amazed and even embarrassed. I was born in Switzerland, lived most of my life there, I also visited most of Europe, and I lived in the USA for over 20 years. Yet in my worst nightmares I could not have imagined the West sinking as low as it does now. I mean, yes, I know about the false flags, the corruption, the colonial wars, the NATO lies, the abject subservience of East Europeans, etc. I wrote about all that many times. But imperfect as they were, and that is putting it mildly, I remember Helmut Schmidt, Maggie Thatcher, Reagan, Mitterrand, even Chirac! And I remember what the Canard Enchaîné used to be, or even the BBC. During the Cold War the West was hardly a knight in white shining armor, but still – rule of law did matter, as did at least some degree of critical thinking.
I am now deeply embarrassed for the West. And very, very afraid.
All I see today is a submissive herd lead by true, bona fide, psychopaths (in a clinical sense of the word)
And that is not the worst thing.
The worst thing is the deafening silence, the way everybody just looks away, pretends like “ain’t my business” or, worse, actually takes all this grotesque spectacle seriously. What the fuck is wrong with you people?! Have you all been turned into zombies?! WAKE UP!!!!!!!
Let me carefully measure my words here and tell you the blunt truth.
Since the Neocon coup against Trump the West is now on exactly the same course as Nazi Germany was in, roughly, the mid 1930s.
Oh sure, the ideology is different, the designated scapegoat also. But the mindset is *exactly* the same.
Same causes produce the same effects. But this time around, there are weapons on both sides which make the Dresden Holocaust looks like a minor spark….
So I ask this simple question: do you really want to go to war against a fully united nuclear Russia?
You think that this is hyperbole?
Think again.
The truth is that the situation today is infinitely worse than the Cuban missile crisis. First, during the Cuban missile crisis there were rational people on both side. Today there is NOT ONE SINGLE RATIONAL PERSON LEFT IN A POSITION OF POWER IN THE USA. Not ONE! Second, during the Cuban missile crisis all the news was reporting on was the crisis, the entire planet felt like we were standing at the edge of the abyss.
Today nobody seems to be aware that we are about to go to war, possibly a thermonuclear war, where casualties will be counted in the hundreds of millions.
All because of what?
Because the people of the West have accepted, or don’t even know, that they are ruled by an ugly gang of ignorant, arrogant psychopaths.
OK, so maybe I’m not really so calm about all this, either.
In the latest step in the drive by the US ruling class to censor the Internet, the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) on Thursday published its order abolishing Internet neutrality in the governmental Federal Register, initiating a 60-day countdown for the law to come into force.
The FCC’s ruling represents a far-reaching attack on the democratic rights of the entire population and public access to the Internet. Beginning April 23, multibillion-dollar corporate behemoths, such as Verizon and AT&T, will be free to restrict access to or completely censor Internet sites as they see fit.
On December 14, the FCC voted by a 3-2 margin to overturn the previous characterization of Internet broadband as a public utility under the 1934 Communications Act. This definition required that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) provide customers with the same level of Internet access, regardless of what they were connecting to. Moreover, ISPs could not selectively block or reduce speeds for specific sites or services, and could not create a multi-tiered system by charging users or content providers for higher traffic speeds.
Since the ISPs will not be forced to treat all content the same, they will be able to block web sites and services at their discretion. The claim, promoted by the FCC and its chairman Ajit Pai, that competition between ISPs for market share will prevent such actions ignores the fact that the telecommunications infrastructure is largely monopolized, with four companies controlling 75 percent of all high-speed Internet service. Over half of American households have only one ISP to “choose” from. These corporations are now being handed an incredible power over global communications.
The ISPs will also be able to establish a class-based system of Internet access, including by offering “packages” of Internet content. They may, for example, introduce a premium “Wikipedia package,” charging customers to access Wikipedia, a repository of humanity’s collective knowledge currently accessed by over 400 million people each day, just as cable television networks charge for news and sports.
For whatever it’s worth, we support efforts such as the one at www.battleforthenet.com to lobby Congress to save the existing net neutrality rules.
However, both of these approaches to preserving net neutrality are facing serious challenges. The Republican party, in general, has been suspicious of net neutrality, so the CRA faces an uphill battle in Congress. And, the courts have generally held that the FCC has the authority to regulate the Internet.
What happens next?
So, assuming that the rules change in 60 days, what can we expect? My guess is that changes will be gradual at first; but eventually, we will see the large Internet sites make deals with the telecom companies, and perhaps even a cycle of mergers and acquisitions. Medium sized sites may work through content aggregation providers that would similarly negotiate with the telecoms.
For Internet users, it will probably mean that basic access to telecom-provided assets will be cheapest, and any broader service will cost more. Acquiring unfiltered access to everything that exists on the Internet backbone, could end up requiring expensive specialized radio links.
All of this will interact in complex ways, with the current move to censor social media sites such as Youtube, Facebook and Twitter. “Alt Media” sources and consumers are being driven off those sites, and onto less popular sites where it is much harder to gain a broader audience. And those smaller sites will be more expensive or even impossible to access for many readers.
In this multi-part post, I provide a rationalist reinterpretation of the apocalyptic End Times prophecies of Christianity. As with the Old Testament analysis series, my goal is to allow the texts to speak for themselves, while showing how they relate to our modern context. Of course, Joseph Atwill has shown that those same End Times prophecies referred to Titus and the destruction of the Jewish Temple in 70 CE. It might then come as a surprise to find me discussing a contemporary End Times scenario as well. But my claim is that the prophecies from Revelation are being re-used on a cyclical basis.
I will discuss throughout that the Biblical texts, and then later on that the underlying Zodiacal Age motif, operate as a convenient trope to push culture-bound societies, kicking and screaming, into new modalities seen by the elites as more appropriate for the evolving circumstances of the day. Hence, a New World Order, indeed a popular rallying cry of various culture warriors for many decades now. However, we might come to think that this term should more properly be the Newest World Order, since the term was already invoked for the first Prince of Peace more than two thousand years ago.
With my demonstration that so many prophetic End Time aspects are being fulfilled, it might seem that some divine or supernatural agency is at work. I hope that readers are scientifically modern-minded enough to eschew such explanations. However, considering the authoritarian religious freaks now being employed by the new White House administration, it would not surprise me if I am soon forced to become a crypto-Rationalist. Postflavians are not above speaking in code, if that’s what it takes to stay alive and keep publishing. With this last, please note the topical quotations excerpted near the end of this first post of the series.
In any case, according to the Hellenistic system, we are just now making the transition from the Pisces into Aquarius. This is not only the beginning of a New Age, but the beginning of the entire Great Year cycle. Hence the Mother of all Christmases is looming, or perhaps just loomed not too many years ago.
The Series Roadmap
In today’s installment, Part I, the initial focus is on highly relevant, preliminary global marker events foretold in the book of Revelation. These events are now occurring like falling dominoes at this turn of the millennium in our Anno Domini calendar system, correctly starting in 2001. Revelation even provides some details that describe a select group of individuals that direct the global play, by virtue of their unique and secretive understanding of the ‘new song’ that sets the appropriate moods. The employment of the term “new song” strongly implies that there was an ‘Classical’ old song before that, and in the subsequent parts we’ll see that this is indeed so.
In Part 2, among other discussion bolstering Part 1 we’ll see just how this secretive group developed the theological basis for using the new song of Christianity a second time. A second coming of the Second Coming, so to sing. We’ll also discuss more about parallel events that happened near 1000 AD, and near 1500 AD, marking part-way milestones in the great cycle.
In Part 3, I’ll compare today’s cultural and political landscape to the historical conflict of the imperial Romans versus the then nationalistic Jews. These two parallel conflicts both focus around issues of multiculturalism and globalism versus xenophobic nationalism. And, importantly I’ll discuss the employment of Zodiacal Astrology in the theological schema, and that for the times it was seen as the cutting edge Hellenistic science of the day. And here I am not talking about personal horoscopes.
Part 4 will examine some evidence that suggests that similar principles were in operation even before the time of Christ, and even before Hipparchus’ supposed ‘discovery of the Precession of the Equinoxes. When the Book of Revelation was written, the idea of cyclical, script-driven social transformation may have already been ancient history, evidence also existing in the books of the Old Testament. And I’ll discuss a four phase process of ‘unfolding globalization’ that fits within the millennial framework that the Zodiacal ‘ages’ provide, and made explicit in the Book of Revelation.
With that said, let’s start our Part 1 analysis discussing a few key premises before launching into what I consider to be the cogent current events of the times that match particularly well to the End Times scenario laid out in the Book of Revelation. With that accomplished, we’ll then skip ahead to the so-called 5th Trumpet, prior aspects being somewhat non-specific. And then finally I’ll add some additional bolstering analysis and data.
So who takes this stuff seriously?
In recent centuries, so-called ‘latter day’, prophecy-driven interpretations have repeatedly failed. On this basis, one might conclude that the entire concept is irrelevant hokum. But, those interpretations were issued by seemingly rank outsiders, pandering to small and marginalized sects of fundamentalists. In contrast to those seemingly discrediting failures in our just prior centuries, today the human power brokers of the world are, once again, setting the relevant, real world events in motion. Thinking along Machiavellian lines, perhaps might we consider that these prior failures were successfully intended to frame our mindsets against recognizing the fulfillment of biblical prophecy. This, even when it should otherwise be obvious, had we been paying close enough attention, and knowing just what to look for versus what to ignore as ‘noise’.
Many of us today have a contemporary and secular bent, or perhaps a ‘liberal’ theological bent. As such, one is more prone to summarily dismiss the fundamentalist milieu as a curious, superstitious relic. Their notion of ‘Time Ending’ is especially mind-jarring. For here, an epic Judgement Day, or Doomsday, will result in an eternal moral cleansing. Or did someone say ‘an ethnic cleansing’? In fact, time inexorably rolled along during the first Second Coming in 70 CE, and yet now rolls right along. The better, ‘sophisticated’ humans have been making continual progress, albeit in fits and starts. Thus, in two thousand years time we should have have moved far beyond all that ‘nonsense’, right?
Our cultural framers from mass media have been working overtime in the last few decades in getting us to consider the central term apocalypse as pertaining to massive disasters and other calamities. These disasters are mostly portrayed as having organic roots, either in degenerate ‘modern’ humanistic social dynamics, or in natural catastrophes of all variety.
Human Shepherding is the Framing and Stampeding of Minds
Alas, perhaps our awesome Western selves have gone past our highest perch of cultural perfectibility. In the last few decades we have been assaulted on all sides by dark forces of ‘degradation’. Or so it seems to some, who also assert that in the midst of emerging from institutionally approved slavery, two world wars and more, that we momentarily achieved a state of relative cultural perfection. Alas, the optimum has been cruelly snatched away in a seeming blink of one eye. Indeed, Culture that once uplifted us in our Liberty, is now rampant with the Libertine – or worse. As such, we are being told to assign responsibility for such ‘degrading’ aspects to certain specific players with long standing, retrograde and inhumane agendas. How convenient .. and comforting in a backhanded way.
And in some cases, perhaps for different specifically inclined audiences’ benefit, narratives of different aspects of Satan, and similar, are also sometimes invoked. Well, if all this is the supernatural case, then surely the only solution can be to have a new heavenly savior become manifest to us. Hallelujah!! The fact that almost all rationalists, except for maybe me, don’t believe in such phenomenon, supernatural or not, ironically only makes the application of such ‘scripted’ melodrama easier to pull off – on the biggest stage.
And as such, perhaps our ‘modern’ attempts to govern and regulate ourselves are being constantly undermined? Perhaps our recent spate of cultural ‘degeneracy’ is akin to ‘planned obsolescence’ in an automobile? If so, one might see this then as a Machiavellian form of social engineering. Such a strategy fits perfectly within our Postflavian SSSM sociological model of Shepherds, Sheepdogs, and Sheep, which is otherwise known from ancient times as a form of “divide and conquer” strategy. And are we then, being cynically primed to accept a new ‘cleansing’ to launch the new age, just as has happened before? Are we also being encouraged to blame the scarecrow, or the sheepdogs instead of the shepherds?
A Biblical Secret Society of Secretive, Celibate Males
And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father’s name written in their foreheads. And I heard a voice from heaven, as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of a great thunder: and I heard the voice of harpers harping with their harps: And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth. (Revelation 14:1-3 KJV)
A great deal of information is packed into the above three verses. We are told that there is indeed an elite secret society, one that is singing a song which no one else is privy to. And that these will be “redeemed from the earth”, and that there is some relation to ‘Sion’, or Zion. This all raises a considerable number of questions, which I’ll address later.
According to Revelation, there is no gender diversity, and precious little ethnic diversity, among these 144,000. They are specifically limited to celibate males, descended from the 12 Hebrew tribes of Israel. Perhaps this might include Ashkenazi and the Kittim (Romans, or as the Talmud calls them, Edomites) as well as the tribe of Judah? If we are to go strictly by the genealogies of Genesis, then the answer seems ‘no’ for the Ashkenazi. The Edomites were related to Jacob, aka Israel, and so for them the elite door appears more plausibly open.
And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel. (Revelation 7:4 KJV)
These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb. (Revelation 14:4 KJV)
But, in any case, in terms of being ‘redeemed’, or earning a free pass from the ‘tribulation’, the goyim in general are out of luck. And by the numerical terms alone, so are the balance of the Jews, Ashkenazi or not. However, all those who have managed to be ‘faithful’ and acknowledged the new messiah, will be resurrected and sing wonderful hymns of praise all day and night. Those not so faithful or repentant (or, not predestined), will get a metaphorical hall pass to the circular file, leading ultimately to God’s eternal incinerator.
Curiously, Christians must ride out the seven years of Tribulation, while 144 thousand of the Elect chosen people from the twelve Hebrew tribes get a rapturous free pass, including 12 thousand from the troublesome tribe of Judah. Not only did the Romans think the Jews were trouble, but curiously the Jews’ own Holy Book records them as being uniformly so from the time Judah was born. This is a clue worthy of Sherlock Holmes.
Not to seemingly digress, but this also begs an important question of why the so-called Lost Tribes of Israel would be included in the count when they were long gone to parts unknown, having been removed from the land by the Assyrians, never to return. Especially considering that included within the Lost Tribes was the half-tribe of Ephraim, whose half Egyptian patriarch had been granted the Eternal Blessing of Abraham by grandfather Jacob. Curiously this permanent exile of the ten tribes occurs within the literal, historical fog surrounding the mythical foundation of Rome. The founders are Rome are reputed to descend from the survivors of Troy, having established a curious ‘romantic’ fallout with a Semitic woman, Dido (not the techno-pop singer BTW). Hmmm, beware of women scorned?
The subtextual message is: learn the coming messiah’s new ‘new song’, or else. The coming messiah? Further on, we’ll see that one has already been quietly announced to us recently, while a false messiah is now ‘entertaining’ us. So sad. This false messiah is surrounded by institutional acolytes of a secret society of celibate males. So … coincidental?
Rapture as a Last Resort?
Such individuals might have advance knowledge that would allow them to avoid various geopolitical tribulations. Marching to a drum that only they can hear, and thus forewarned to ‘Flee to Pella’ for safety sake? I will discuss this apocryphal story further on in Part 2, but as well there did seem an odd homage to this story in the events of September 11, 2001.
Who can these secretive, celibate males be throughout Western history?
And for all those cultural Christian, white supremacists out there, is it passing strange that the Christian Good Book places 144,00 celibate Hebrews before them, including 12,000 Jews? Might the description of them, and their mission, match the Society of Jesus, and our assertion elsewhere that the mission, at least, can be traced back to the the 18th Dynasty goals of Egypt. This linking them to the Biblical Exodus story and the original formulation of Zion. Whose current ethnic cleansing debacle evokes the original Conquest?
Well at least the book does reveal that all the ‘other’ faithful, of every ‘nation’, kindred, tongue, and people, will be saved in their own resurrection. This happening at the denouement of the End of Time, apparently whether they had corporeally survived the 7 years of tribulation or not. As your dad or your coach used to say: “It only hurts for a little while”. Or maybe more apropos for today: “And if you believe that, I’ve got some swampland in Florida to sell you”.
In reality this is where the book seemingly gets a little dodgy, or incoherent. Because in some cases is discussed a Heavenly ending for faithful humans, while in others is discussed a ‘resurrection’ onto a restored earth, cleansed from the wickedness of the dragon, Satan. This confusion, in my opinion, is getting to the real crux of what the apocalyptic End Times were and are about. A new order was and is to be imposed by the men behind the curtain, and a cleansing is required to eliminate those that are incompatible with the demands of the New Boss. As that ‘old’ song by The Who stated, the metaphorical New Boss is really the same as the Old Boss, but the circumstances of the day have changed.
In these apocalypses, the prior social orders, seemingly at their apexes, are torn asunder by various degradations, that seem to some eyes to be programmatic and contrived. I believe that this is indeed the case, but take issue with most other interpretations of this phenomenon, especially as to just who is real agent of change, and thus ‘degradation’ here. The goal of the change is to achieve the next new order of the coming age, and the subtext of the Bible, from beginning to end is the ultimate achievement of globalism.
Now we have achieved the ultimate degradation, the selection of a Western world premier democratic leader whose personal values and behavior represent the antithesis of so called Christian Family Values. Yet many of his coterie of advisers seem to be joined at the hip to a secretive society of celibate males that follow the slain Lamb of God wherever he goes. And curiously this secretive society is best known by many as running educational institutions that heavily featured the teachings of the pagan Classical Greeks. This seeming conundrum is only resolved by understanding the true underlying nature of what is going on, rather than pointing fingers at Jews and Gentiles, the central false dialectic of Western Civilization.
Ironically, the word ‘rapture’ means ‘pleasure’. Albeit that specific word (‘rapture’) does not appear in the canon, but rather being an artifact of certain prior and popular evangelical interpretations, yet stemming from such canonic notions as “being redeemed from the earth”.Indeed, it is likely a relative pleasure to be able to bypass such 7 years of war and disasters. But the word’s root is from ‘rapt’ and the Latin rapio, meaning to seize, plunder, and to agitate. This latter as related to passion or animi motus. Emotionally seizing the collective mind is a form of performance magic, distracting all from the true underlying machinations.
Many pastors say that their flocks are part of this Elect, by their mere acceptance of Christ as savior. But the congregations of a few megachurches today quickly exceeds that numerical limit, nor will they meet the other requirements. Does the superstitious, literalist audience see the contradiction here? Perhaps the Christian mullahs have literally ‘seized’ their minds, using the carrot and stick approach of heavenly paradise versus the abject fear of eternal damnation. If the devout believe that they are the Elect mentioned, then they will not be inclined to question what is really being ‘revealed’.
Elect-fulfilling Prophecy?
On the superficial level, generally religious ‘prophecies’ seem to be intended as divine predictors for the future. In reality, they were mostly written after-the-fact, as ‘retrodictive’ historical reportage. In other words, they were conceived as thinly disguised religio-political propaganda. As such, they have no real supernatural – prophetic power in themselves. But, in the case of Christian ‘apocalyptic’ certain circles do indeed utilize these texts today as if they were true divine prophecies, as yet unfulfilled, and albeit somewhat recycled. Here, they are capable of becoming self-fulfilling … via human agency.
I divide these human agencies into two basic categories. The first is that of exoteric ‘true believers’. Some of these overly devout and arrogant humans try to act as God’s fulfillment agents. They take it upon themselves to “Immanentize the Eschaton”, as the late conservative commentator, William F. Buckley once said. Such acts involve a radical redefinition of the word ‘spiritual’. That is, they see themselves as performing the role of God’s judge, jury, and executioners, even if they have appointed themselves so. These types are particularly dangerous to individuals operating within the moral frontiers of our culture wars, such as with abortion providers. However, these individuals and groups tend to be marginalized, with their scope limited. And in this case their dramatic and frequently hypocritical actions only help serve to distance others from taking such as End Times ‘scripts’ seriously as being on the table for consideration.
In other words, these people inoculate us ‘moderns’ from becoming aware to the real operators, or ‘actors’. The New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) is a prime example of the latest infection of the mainstream American polity:
… For fundamentalists like Jerry Falwell, the prerequisite for the second coming was the physical restoration of Israel or the return of unconverted Jews to modern day Israel. But for the apostles and prophets of the NAR, the prerequisite for the second coming is the spiritual restoration, or conversion of Jews to their brand of Christianity. The result has been the development of Messianic communities and missionary training centers around the world.
Moreover, while fundamentalists look to the scriptures for secret meaning in current events and messages from God, the modern-day apostles and prophets claim to be the bearers of God’s direct ongoing revelation. The results can be bizarre. The leading thinker of the NAR, C. Peter Wagner, stated on NPR in 2011 that the nuclear meltdown at Fukushima was a result of the Japanese emperor having had sex with the sun goddess, that there is “a lot of demonic control” in Congress (and that demons can possess entire cities as well), that it is important to cast spells to protect politicians from witchcraft, and that non-Christian religions “are part of the kingdom of darkness.” All in one hour with Terry Gross.
And yet, the NAR is not on the fringe, but at the center of today’s Republican Party. The Response, a massive Houston prayer event hosted by Rick Perry in 2011, was led by prominent NAR apostles and prophets joined by other Christian Right leaders. Perry’s event was patterned after and led by leaders from TheCall events hosted around the world by “prophet” Lou Engle and Mike Bickle, head of the International House of Prayer (IHOP). These events focus on fighting abortion and gay rights, and on proselytizing Jews in order to bring about the second coming. Engle’s events include one held in Jerusalem and another in Uganda, where local apostles in the movement spoke in support of the “Kill-the-Gays” bill then under consideration by the Ugandan Parliament.
Note the theme of Jews being converted to Christianity to facilitate the new Second Coming, of which I’ll return to later.
The Knowing, Among the Unknowing
Hidden behind these fundamentalists is a second, much smaller esoteric group. These are the elites that ‘piously’ perform and ‘act’ on the End Times prophecies and other ‘occult’ matters. Here I am using the word ‘pious’ in the original, ‘dutiful’ sense of the word, to describe an emotionless, mechanical ‘ritual’ intended to initiate a temporal unfolding. In the times before Christianity, and even for the Biblical patriarchs of the Old Testament, it was considered dutiful for the head of a household to ritually honor the familial ‘household’ gods in a timely fashion, lest disorder visit the household. With the consolidation of spiritual principles into Judaeo-Christianity, this principle still held sway, albeit disguised within the wider church environment.
However, the ritual evolved to encompass broader goals, including prophecy and fulfillment. I believe that there is an elite human agency that ‘shepherds’ the enactment of the End Time scripts. These few ‘actors’ who are participating wittingly and intentionally, are able to entrain others into going along for a profitable ride, as well as providing inspiration to the devout or unwitting believers mentioned prior. Hence, the human level, scripted plot unfolds repeatedly as time passes. At the end of each era, the Heavenly clock announces a new performance is beginning.
Scripture as Script?
Suppose that a script says that an event is going to happen at a particular time, and then it does. Was the occurrence initiated by divine agency, or by that of human ‘actors’? The answer to the question reveals a confidence game. The true believers are being played for fools, as the highest Material stakes are diabolically disguised as being of Divine origins. And so here is one motivation for linking human geopolitical activities to the Heavens via religious narrative. That is, to help fool the masses as to who is actually pulling the strings.
By the same token, mainstream Rationalists are also being played. Accustomed to ignoring religious rants, they insist that such occurrences are merely coincidences. Thus, they are blinded to the unfolding of the scriptural ‘script’ for Western geopolitics. Here, I am referring to the phased emergence of kingdoms and nations upon the global stage, as cryptically described in Daniel, Revelation, and other (lesser) prophets. The prophets go to the trouble to reveal what their metaphorical symbolism means, but we have been culturally ‘framed’ to ignore all this. In the case of Daniel, we have been fooled by the fact that textual anachronisms revealed that the Book was not written in the time that is claims, but rather in the time of the later Hasmoneans. And thus the baby has been thrown out with the bathwater.
And so to reiterate, all this should be telling us that these scriptures are indeed scripts, and not so much ‘prophecy’. Unless that is, one wants to redefine the words.
And Away We Go, Staring into the Abyss:
“For unto us a child is born, … The Prince of Peace.“
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever.The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this. (Isaiah 9:6-7 KJV)
Ground Zero Memorial Fountain, the Abyss – aka the Bottomless Pit of Revelation
Back from the Abyss, or Back to the Future?
In September 2015, Pope Francis, the first Jesuit pope, made an interesting visit to the USA. There is an interesting Catholic Church prophecy that Francis will be the last pope of the Church. But as well, at the first mass, held in NYC’s Madison Square Garden, the above verses from Isaiah 9 were read prior to Francis’ homily.
Just prior to this announcement, Francis made a visit to Ground Zero in New York, and stared into the Abyss. Or at least, the virtual abyss formed by the geometry of the 9/11 Memorial Fountain. He visited this landmark besides passing by several other related biblical aspects. Then in his flight home to Rome he looked out the window of his plane at an apocalyptic Blood Red Moon. Just another coincidence?
One might easily be tempted to say that all these occurrences mean absolutely nothing. After all, where is the priest who doesn’t read Isaiah 9 from time to time? And, what tourist to New York doesn’t go to see Ground Zero? However, note that the verses from Isaiah were oddly delivered in Spanish. And of course, these verses are normally delivered as part of a Christmas message, not in September.
Why, pray tell, would the Pope announce that a new savior is born, after staring into the Bottomless Pit? Perhaps it will become clearer upon pondering the relationship between the Apostle Paul’s visit to Rome and Castor and Pollux, which I’ll discuss later on. Also, see my related 9/11 article.
The Abyss of 9/11/2001 (not 2000), the Fifth Trumpet
Francis leaves 2 white roses at WTC Memorial Fountain, the Bottomless Pit
Next, let’s examine what else happens in relation to the narrative in the Book of Revelation. As to what transpired on 9/11/2001, I have previously speculated that the event appeared to be a ritual ceremony of some sort. At that time I had not realized the significance of the fact that there was no year Zero in the Anno Domini calendar system. And thus while everyone had been excited about Y2K, the year 2000, or (party like it’s) 1999, our focus should have been on 2001. This in regards to any millennial End Times analysis, at least.
And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit. And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit. (Revelation 9:1-2 KJV)
Of course, there are other details not quoted, like locusts, scorpions, and men unsuccessfully seeking death, as well as four earlier angels and trumpets. While such aspects might be meaningful to initiates or insiders, I have not identified a compellingly unique and powerful analysis. That said, there are also many references throughout Revelation that are Zodiacal in nature, but let’s discuss that later.
The Collapse into the Pit: Revelation 9/11?
When the Twin Towers had collapsed into their basements, only smoke arose out of the two pits. Once the reconstruction was completed, one tower was replaced while the other site was turned into a memorial fountain, whose bottom cannot be seen while standing anywhere around the periphery.
And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon. (Revelation 9:11 KJV)
The angel’s name is Apollyon, in honor of the pagan god Apollo, the Sun god. And importantly, as I related in my 9/11 analysis about the myths about Apollo giving a feast to honor his father Jupiter, both Jupiter and Apollo, the Sun god, were directly overhead on the celestial stage that day. In fact, the Sun and the Moon framed Castor and Pollux, with Jupiter directly between them. Castor and Pollux were the twin saviors of the age prior to Christ for the Greco-Romans. The Moon’s relative motion, the fastest celestial object, actually clocked the timing of the major events of the day.
Castor and Pollux, Twin Mounties of the Golden Horde?
Apostle Paul rode on a ship named Castor and Pollux for his fateful trip from Malta to Rome where he initiated normative Christianity, or so we are told. And in mythicist terms, Jesus became a type of Apollo, honoring his father, ‘Yah pater’. I have not been the first person to make this equation, although it has also been debated. If Yahweh is Jo’ve, the equation symbolizes the cross-cultural unity of the elites at the highest levels of the western system. In the same way today, at the top, the distinction between Republicans and Democrats functionally fades away to nothing.
Finally, notice that at about the same time as Pope Francis was having Isaiah 9 recited en Español before his homily at the Madison Square Garden papal mass, Donald Trump was ranting about “bad hombres” crossing the southern border with Mexico in hordes. And, Trump’s strange affiliations with Vladimir Putin were becoming increasingly noted. Perhaps Trump and Putin are being cast as another instantiation of the ancient pair of saviors.
More on Castor and Pollux later, further linking them to Apollo, Christ, the Cross, and that earlier central Christian and Flavian symbolic motif, the Fish and Anchor.
The 6th Trumpet Announces War Loosed on the Euphrates…
And the sixth angel sounded, and I heard a voice from the four horns of the golden altar which is before God, Saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates. And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men. And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them. (Revelation 9:13-21 KJV)
Within months of 9/11, George W. Bush launched an assault in Afghanistan with the stated purpose to bring Osama bin Laden to justice. Then in March 2003, the US launched a major offensive in Iraq that toppled Saddam Hussein. However, the US has not resolved the conflict, even now. This failure to complete the mission sets the stage for “time ending” in chapter 10, and then the appearance of “two witnesses” in chapter 11.
“I love the smell of napalm in the morning“
The Iraq war brought back memories of Vietnam. In a scene from the famous 1979 Vietnam War movie, Apocalypse Now, an American jet fighter sortie approaches. Flying low, the fighters unleash a wave of bombs that engulfs an entire forest in flames. Robert Duval’s character, Lieutenant Colonel “Bill” Kilgore, watches approvingly. “I love the smell of napalm in the morning”, he says. If anyone was not familiar with the term ‘apocalypse’ before this film appeared, they certainly became so afterwards. Even among those who didn’t see the movie, it virtually redefined the meaning of the word. That is, any epic conflagration or disaster, either from man-made or natural causes, is now an ‘apocalypse’. And, why is it that so many people “love the smell” of an apocalypse? Just what is this fascination with destruction?
This secular meaning of ‘apocalypse’ has culturally evolved from its prior religious contextual association. The difference is that a modern apocalypse is now caused by man or nature, and no longer so much by divine agency. For the latter, perhaps the most spectacular example is the mythic imagery coming from the Book of Revelation. However, the Gospels of Matthew and Mark include elements of the same genre. They, in turn, were inspired by the Old Testament books of Ezekiel and Daniel. In all of these books, the so-called End of Time is a central motif. But after the End, God’s anointed surrogate comes to restore order in one fashion or another.
In reality, the term originates from the Greek apokalupsis, meaning to ‘uncover’ or ‘reveal’. This was the original Greek title of the Book of Revelation. Of course, the book reveals a terrible conflagration and battle between Christ and various evil doers. In any case, over time the ‘revelatory’ term in the title of the main book in question has come to represent the melodramatic supernatural events depicted within it in a much more secular, albeit grandiose, fashion. Was this reframing of the apocalypse concept deliberate? While we all focus our collective attentions on a massive number of concerning man-made (and natural) distractions, the real mechanisms and structures of substantive cultural and governmental change are deceptively slipped past us … or down our throats.
Tick tock, tick tock, tick …. tock
And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven, clothed with a cloud: and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as it were the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire: And he had in his hand a little book open: and he set his right foot upon the sea, and his left foot on the earth, And cried with a loud voice, as when a lion roareth: and when he had cried, seven thunders uttered their voices. And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not.
And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven, And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer: But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets. (Revelation 10:5-7 KJV)
Not completely specified as to just when, the tenth chapter quietly announces between all the blaring trumpets that time is “no longer”. Note the first highlighted text is another solar reference. One might be tempted to conjecture that the rainbow is a gay topical cultural reference for the new age, but I will circumspectly abstain. I can neither confirm nor deny.
Two Witnesses, Two Olive Trees, One Script
And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.
And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth. These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth. And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed. These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will. (Revelation 11:1-6 KJV)
Of course, any student of Iraq knows that the West created Saddam Hussein as a puppet. He subsequently received western assistance during Iraq’s long war with Iran, including receiving materials to manufacture chemical weapons. He represented the essence of nationalism, gone bad. At the same time, George W. Bush represented a paradigm of proud American nationalism. We got to watch the noose placed around Saddam’s neck, and a corresponding thunk. But we never got to see the hanging beef … for some reason. (Same with Osama. The latter’s family having been quite close to the Bush family.)
Fee, Fi, Faux, Fum, I Smell the …
With one Hussein actor taken care, another one popped onto the domestic scene, further inflaming apocalyptic fears amongst the hoi polloi. This despite that the latter (Barack Hussein Obama and his wife) were globalist corporatists like the faux populist Clintons, and the faux evangelical Bush, and the faux populist Trump.
Note that the witnesses also represent two separate ‘churches’, clearly identified by the ‘candlestick’ metaphor first employed by John in the opening chapters. They are also identified as being of two ‘olive trees’, and this is interesting in light of the typology of Romans 11 discussed in Atwill’s Caesar’s Messiah. For in Romans 11 the branches discussed in the grafting are respectively from the wild and domesticated olive trees. And so if we apply the same thinking, then we can identify the trees. Namely, the globalist versus nationalist camps are represented by the ‘domesticated’ versus the ‘wild’ trees.
Globalists in Nationalist Clothing
While George W. Bush superficially represented nationalist America, in reality his family has always been internationalists, as epitomized by the old label of the Eastern Liberal Establishment. Historically, these families of the ELE can properly be seen as having Tory ‘royalist’ roots from before the Revolutionary War. Their wealth and status was collectively derived from aristocratic colonial land grants. This in contrast to Barack Hussein Obama, with a conveniently apocalyptic first name (in an Islamic context), who in reality was a Wall Street corporate functionary along with his wife. So despite the superficial appearances, the Obamas actually have similar internationalist leanings with the Bushes, rather than being the revolutionary jihadist of agitprop legend. Albeit his imperial ‘reactions’ to Republican legislative intransigence, explicitly asserted in order to “destroy his presidency”, inflamed the zealots du jour to even higher levels of paranoia.
Note then, the real life typological dialectic formed between the Republic and the Imperium. Today’s situation compares very closely to the rise to Empire under the first Prince of Peace, Augustus Caesar. And now we have a new savior, or false messiah, who is ruling imperially by executive order, his faux populism much like Augustus’ uncle, Julius Caesar. Today’s Republic may now be dead, and so beware the Ides of March.
The Beast From the Pit
The “two witnesses” are metaphorically defeated by the beast from the bottomless pit, and then rehabilitated … for playing their assigned acting roles:
And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them. And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified. And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves. And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.
And after three days and an half the Spirit of life from God entered into them, and they stood upon their feet; and great fear fell upon them which saw them. And they heard a great voice from heaven saying unto them, Come up hither. And they ascended up to heaven in a cloud; and their enemies beheld them. And the same hour was there a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell, and in the earthquake were slain of men seven thousand: and the remnant were affrighted, and gave glory to the God of heaven. (Revelation 11:7-13 KJV)
The Reality Show Beast Emerges from his Resorts
Here my cyclical model helps explain the wide variety of chaotic social phenomenon today. For example, consider the just finished, “rigged” US Presidential election debacle. Within my model the Seventh Trumpet has now unleashed a Yuuuge reality show beast of a Lifetime Actor, to use Joseph Atwill’s term. Okay, so all these presidential elections are rigged, but this one seems exceptional. For here it fits precisely into the most specific details of the canonic ‘script’ being played out, or ‘revealed’, in front of us.
One of the new President’s top advisers, Steve Bannon, has even made a high tech Internet address to a Vatican audience, where he calls for a holy war against both Islam, generally, and secular humanists. Could this be related to his institutional association with the select brotherhood mentioned in the Book of Revelation, or is this my overactive imagination? The new Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, wants to starve the secular public school system, that built America’s middle class, to death and replace it with ‘for profit’ religious schools. Such holy crusaders being selected by a golden haired beast with the moral reputation far below a dubious golden shower. His associations with abuse of women, self suggestions of incest, actual racism, organized crime, failure to pay debts, bankruptcies, international money laundering ranked him successful enough for America’s ‘forgotten’ white sheep to raise him from the moral gutter, adjacent to the Abyss.
The 7th Trumpet
Next in the narrative sequence and the 7th Trumpet sounding we see an explicit globalist announcement:
And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever. And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, fell upon their faces, and worshipped God, Saying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.
And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth. And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail. (Revelation 11:15-19 KJV)
Here we see the explicit announcement of a new world order, even more apropos for now than 2,000 years ago, and yet still tied to a millennial construct, via the association with the 24 elders, each one representing one millennium of the Zodiacal Great Year (to be discussed later). And also in this regard, we see an admission that the Lord, in some guise, comes repeatedly, apparently tied to a millennial schedule. The phrase ‘which art, and wast, and art to come’ seems to be an allusion to all of the three ‘ages’ and transitions I will be discussing in this series. Pagan, Christian and Judaic elements are linked together within one construct. And here consistent with our Old Testament analysis theme of the False Dialectic of Jews versus Gentiles.
We know from before that this person was identified as Jesus, who then came back as general Titus Flavius, the son of the god, Vespasian, to destroy the first Third Temple in 70 CE. While we do not know who the ‘Christ’ savior will be for this millenium, we do know that a parallel millennial event occurred for 1070 CE. This was the effective end of the Norman Conquest, which began in late 1066 CE, and was documented by the Domesday Book. Domesday as in ‘Doomsday’ – an explicit reference to Revelation. It seems that someone was indeed keeping time, and according to the original Christian notion of when the Second Coming occurred no less.
Mary Barker, in her book The Great Angel, said that the Christian invocation of the Suffering Servant motif taken from Isaiah, was intended to link Jesus, aka Yeshua, to Joshua, aka Yeshua, of the Exodus period. This Joshua was the leader of the Conquest fame. Thus, Jesus represented a type of earthly, martial messiah, consistent with the Jewish Zealot’s contemporaneous beliefs. More on this later, but we’ll see that these two ‘Yeshuas‘ were acting within two (out of four) distinctly different operational phases of a Western millennial construct, i.e. Conquest, Colonization, Consolidation, and Chasm.
However, the Jesus and Christ that we all grew up with, and the coming savior that Pope Francis’ mass announced will be operating in the same respective phases. And thus both their End Time actions will align perfectly with the transition of the ages, their respective Alphas and Omegas.
And in regard to the issues of globalism versus nationalism, we have above: “And the nations were angry.” How descriptive is this of today’s passionate, agitated rise of nationalism, about to be struck down in a violent tribulation, led by its faux populist?
From Sea to Eternally Draining Swamp
Mar-a-Lago translates word for word as “Sea to Lake”. However, there is no lake anywhere near the estate. At best, there might have been a skeeter infested green pond. More likely given the history of Florida in the day of Marjorie Merriweather Post, the land was a swamp. Thus the old refrain: “And if you believe that, I’ve got some swampland in Florida to sell you.” And so the name Mar-a-Lago was likely a typical real estate hype. The name properly should have been Sea to Swamp, Mar-a-Marisma, or just plain Marisma.
If we ignore the chameleon-like nature of the Bush family, George W. Bush appealed to his Republican voters as a nationalist, while Barack Hussein Obama appealed to his base as a globalist typical of a modern day Democrat. Importantly, in both case the beast from the bottomless pit defeated them and their legacies, thus setting the stage for the sounding of 7th Trumpet, and unleashing the loose and unhinged cannon. It seems transparent that Bush and Obama can be seen as the two witnesses, and Trump is the beast from the pit who has defeated them.
Then another beast (or, perhaps, the same beast) arises from the sea. Jumping out of sequence we see:
And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority. (Revelation 13:1-2 KJV)
Whether or not Donald Trump is the beast rising up “out of the sea” from Mar-a-Lago we can not be sure yet. It should be noted here, that one type of analysis on Revelation asserts that the attributions of actions listed separately for the 7 seals, the 7 trumpets, and the 7 angels with the seven bowls are really meant to be read in parallel, connecting the numbers, so to speak.
Then again, it’s possible that the modern re-enactment might cycle through these sequences in series, or jumping around. Similarly, the various beasts may be different, or they may be the same character. Such difficulties serve to enhance plausible deniability, for those who are inclined to believe that everything is coincidence, or that these alleged connections are a result of confirmation bias. The element of unpredictability also makes it difficult, if not impossible, to make a killing on the stock market simply by observing the sequence of events as an outsider. For that, it is necessary to be an insider, with access to a copy of the modern screenplay, with the actors’ names specified for all the characters.
But he at least appears to be a false messiah of sorts, as preceded Jesus and Christ Titus typologically. He has been helped to his election via his unabashed friendship with the Russian bear and its leader, Vladimir Putin. Below he has enlisted a religious zealot to help foment a holy crusade, along with others in his administration. Ironically in light of his Christian support, his cultural relationship to Satan seems much tighter, even if metaphorical.
Crowd Size at Pompeo’s Theater?
The eerie similarity of the name Pompeo to Pompey is another name oddity. Besides Julius Caesar’s civil war with Pompey, he was later assassinated in Pompey’s Theater, in a meeting with the Senate. Now, our new czar (from caesar) recently had his first meeting in Pompeo’s new ‘house’, at Langley, where he wailed like a weak sissy about being slighted, standing in front of a wall honoring dead CIA spooks. Et tu Pompeo?
… Donald Trump has appointed Pompeo to head the CIA; his confirmation hearings begin on Thursday [on 1/12/17 – ed]. If a normal Republican president had nominated a figure like this to head the country’s major foreign intelligence agency, there likely would have been a lot of attention paid to his apocalyptic religiosity and Manichaean worldview. Amid the fire hose of lunacy that is the Trump transition, however, Pompeo’s extremism has been overlooked. It’s worth pausing to appreciate the fact that America’s CIA will shortly be run by a man who appears to view American foreign policy as a vehicle for holy war. … http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/01/mike_pompeo_trump_s_pick_for_the_cia_wants_a_holy_war.html
Pompeo has indeed been confirmed as CIA Director since the above was written.
The False Messiah, the AntiChrist?
Whatever the case of accurately decoding parallel typological identities, on Christmas Day, 2016 we received the following official announcement that Donald Trump is the new King for the new age:
But can this really be the case? Pope Francis had quietly announced just over a year before that the new savior had just been born. Could this have been a metaphoric reference to the Trump campaign, which had just gotten underway at the time? Well, maybe. But it might be a bad portent for the presumptuous king, if being along the narrative lines of Julius Caesar. Or are we now witnessing a new Tiberius, a Caligula, or Nero perhaps? If a type of Caesar, then my vote is on the first of the three. Or perhaps even more likely, I would guess that Trump is a false messiah of the zealous new nationalists.
As regards to such confusions regarding parallel within seemingly opposing camps, in Part 3 I’ll discuss a recent theory that placed two dynasties of Egypt as actively playing both sides of the fence in the Biblical Exodus story. This, of course, becomes impossible to do in the exact same manner due to the modern technology of mass electronic media. But this seeming obstacle does not stop our new Twitter President from appearing to be all things to all people, or from trying to.
Israel’s Interior Minister Expects a Messiah
As speculated regarding the 7th Trumpet announcing Donald Trump’s stage role in today’s drama, one can certainly dismiss such as the following Israeli rhetoric as fanciful. In any case, notice the theme and subtext being repeated again, an impasse over illegal Jewish settlements in ‘Zion’ leading us to an apocalyptic Armageddon?
… Trump’s election, he added, presages the coming of the Messianic Age.
And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father’s name written in their foreheads. (Revelation 14:1 KJV)
Of course, if we take the above, along with the earlier excerpt regarding the infiltration of such as the NAR into the mainstream of American ‘conservative’ politics, then perhaps this all should indeed be getting our serious ‘existential’ attention. This strain of evangelical Christianity emphasizes the importance of converting Jews to accept the coming messiah. Of course, Jews claim that they have been faithfully waiting for over two thousand years. Whatever the case, the opportunity now presents for Jews to indeed accept a new messiah, and if it just so happens that the Christian’s second Second Coming Christ is one and the same as the Jew’s messiah, then … what the Hell?
The Third Temple and the Second Third Temple
Right-wing Israeli lawmakers in town for Donald Trump’s inauguration addressed prominent American evangelicals gathered at Greater New Hope Baptist Church in downtown Washington, D.C. on Thursday, lecturing them on the importance of moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and offering hope that President-elect Donald Trump would fulfill his promise to do so.
Speaking to a gathering that included a who’s who of Christian right leaders — including Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins, Faith & Freedom Coalition founder Ralph Reed, and Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson — Israeli Knesset member Yehuda Glick, who belongs to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party, spoke about Trump’s election in messianic terms.
Part of the literary mechanism used to recycle the biblical narratives involves some creative accounting regarding the Jerusalem Temple. Generally, in order for evangelical Christians to see their End Times scenario fulfilled, the Jews must rebuild their Jerusalem Temple, the so-called Third Temple. Once this is accomplished, then Christ can come again, as did Titus Flavius, and destroy the temple of the deniers of the new manifestation of Christ – for the new age.
The reason that creative accounting is required is that the Third Temple was actually destroyed by Christ Titus Flavius, as a consequence of his Second Coming and this grafting onto the Root of Jesse (Romans 11). According to the Bible, the first temple was Solomon’s, the second temple was Zerubbabel’s, and the third was Herod’s temple. And so the easy way to solve this problem, for repeatability’s sake, is to merge Zerubbbel’s and Herod’s temples into one edifice. Now a second Third Temple becomes possible to build and destroy. From a typological purity standpoint this, last event might be expected in the year 2070 CE; not that modern elites would necessarily feel bound to any particular interpretation of the script.
The Sistine Chapel replicates Solomon’s Temple
Or perhaps any new temple would be the third Third Temple. That is, the second Third Temple would be the one in New Jerusalem, i.e. Rome, with its Sistine Chapel. The latter built by the Franciscans as a replica of Solomon’s Temple, done so for their End Times fantasy five hundred years ago. For this question see the documentary, The Michelangelo Code. Importantly, this issue again brings up another concept, and that of a possible sub-millennial activity period of 500 years. This will be discussed more later, but suffice to say that this possibility provides for a mainstream chronological linkage with the expulsion of the Hyksos by Ahmose I around 1500 BCE. Around 1500 CE, the della Rovere popes, of the Sistine Chapel fame, were overseeing the massive push to colonize the New World. Both movements of peoples were precipitated by massive cultural chasms.
Whatever the case with the Sistine Chapel — as if on cue, the fundamentalist Zionist Jews of today are itching at the political opportunity to start rebuilding the temple. This is the very reason that modern Israel was created in the first place, so that this integral part of the End Times process could be made to transpire.
But in order to start the rebuilding process some incidents must occur first in order to alter the current political status quo between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Currently the Palestinians have political say so over what happens on the Temple Mount. Trump’s threat to move the American embassy to Jerusalem may indeed be part of precipitating the violent political changes needed, as the Palestinians see this action as meaning the possibility of a so-called Two State Solution as becoming impossible to achieve. Regarding the potential moving of the embassy, and Trump’s silence on plans for new Israeli housing units in the West Bank, and the potential for igniting regional violence:
… Trump on Thursday told Fox News it was too early for him to speak publicly on the issue. Giuliani, who was known during his tenure for a hard-line attitude toward even petty crime in New York City, dismissed Palestinian warnings that moving the embassy would ignite the whole region.
“I think this country is capable of dealing with waves of violence,” the former mayor said.
Giuliani predicted Netanyahu and Trump would have a “very, very good, collaborative relationship,” as opposed to what he described as the “hostile relationship” between President Barack Obama and the Israeli leader.
The changed atmosphere was already evident in the first week of Trump’s tenure. While construction plans beyond Israel’s 1967 border were a recurring source of friction with the Obama administration, Trump was silent this week as Israeli officials approved plans for 2,500 housing units in the West Bank and hundreds of apartments in eastern Jerusalem.
Would it be ironic to note here that the modern surname for Julius Caesar would be ‘Giuliani’? And was this person in Building 7, the Saloman Brother’s Building on September 11, 2001? This building was where the mayor’s Emergency Command Center was after all. If you’re going to hold a Mithraic Mass on 9/11 who better to have attend?
Armageddon – Megiddo
And the sixth angel poured out his vial upon the great river Euphrates; and the water thereof was dried up, that the way of the kings of the east might be prepared. And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet. For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty. Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame. And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon. (Revelation 16:12-16 KJV)
As with the sounding of the sixth trumpet being about the Euphrates conflict, the same is here with the sixth angel, eventually the scene of conflict shifting to a place called Armageddon, or Har Meggido, in modern day Israel. And once again, we see a global assertion, ubiquitous within the Judeo-Christian canon, and the Roman as well.
Considering the intervening verses, it is hard to say whether we have already arrived at the sixth angel with his vial. Perhaps this is a parallel (simultaneous) event with the sixth trumpet, perhaps not. In any case, war is still technically active in the Euphrates, and events and actions must precipitate the spread to Har Meggido. As the Wiki links suggests, one might take this as a metaphoric reference to Israel, and Jerusalem, generally.
Conclusion (of Part 1)
And so here we have learned that the Bible, in the odd Book of Revelation, has informed us that there is a secret society of celibate males that have a song, which only they know. They are one step closer to God than the rest of us in what appears to be a Zionist agenda. Imagine that, Christians with a Zionist global agenda!!!
And that world events are eerily transpiring according to specific references within the script of scripture. Given the focus on Lifetime Actors here at Postflaviana one might accuse me of having an a priori bias in my interpretation. Well, you decide.
As I will discuss in the next part, we’ll find out about a virtual silent coup d’etat that took place in the United States of America, while the latest President was only thinking about running for President, urged on to do so while getting roasted by entertainment elites joking about both their and his privy parts. Anything for a good cause. Whatever, the goddess Fortuna is now looking down kindly on us, as the new President’s vision is the Prosperity Gospel, his Cabinet of Zionist holy warriors will make the stockholders, and his uneducated rabble very happy.
“Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war, with the cross of Jesus (Titus, William, Castor and Pollux) going on before.”
Emilia Bassano: a Black Jewish Woman Wrote Shakespeare?
In his book Shakespeare’s Secret Messiah, Joseph Atwill argues that the Shakespeare plays were written by Emilia Bassano Lanier, who he believes was secretly Jewish. Emilia’s father, Baptista Bassano, had emigrated to London from Venice to become a musician for the Tudor court. The Bassanos of Italy were Sephardic Jews of Moroccan ancestry. Emilia herself was referred to as ‘the Moor’. The woman in the image to the right probably looked nothing like Emilia Bassano, aside from the color of her skin. (However, Emilia Bassano’s mother was an Englishwoman and a ‘radical’ Protestant.)
Emilia received an aristocratic education at the estates of Susan Wingfield, Countess of Kent and Margaret, Countess of Cumberland. She became a mistress to Queen Elizabeth’s first cousin, Lord Hundson, and became pregnant at the age of twenty-three. She was then married off to her cousin, Alphonso Lanier, a volunteer in the British navy. The marriage was unhappy, and scholars have been speculating that Emilia was involved in an affair with William Shakespeare, who wrote about her as his “Dark Lady” of the Sonnets. Hundson went on to become the patron of Shakespeare’s theater company, the Lord Chamberlain’s Men.
Atwill maintains that Bassano was the primary author, although he acknowledges the possibility of group theories. However, in this article I will argue that it’s just as likely that Shakespeare and Bassano worked together as a team to produce the works.
Maya Angelou agrees: “Shakespeare must be a black girl.”
According to The Atlantic, the famous author and civil rights advocate “was speaking metaphorically, of course.” Angelou quoted Sonnet 29, and said:
He wrote it for me:
“When in disgrace with Fortune and men’s eyes, I all alone beweep my outcast state, And trouble deaf heaven with my bootless cries, And look upon myself and curse my fate, Wishing me like to one more rich in hope, Featured like him, like him with friends possess’d, Desiring this man’s art, and that man’s scope, With what I most enjoy contented least. Yet in these thoughts myself almost despising, Haply I think on thee, and then my state, Like to the lark at break of day arising From sullen earth, sings hymns at heaven’s gate; For thy sweet love remember’d such wealth brings That then I scorn to change my state with kings.”
Of course he wrote it for me: that is a condition of the black woman. Of course, he was a black woman. Nobody else understands it, but I know that Shakespeare was a black woman.
The CIA and the counter-culture
A major theme at this website is that the CIA and its MK-Ultra project set the 1960’s counter-culture in motion. We believe that in order to accomplish this goal, they promoted LSD and other drugs to the general public. As a result, many citizens have been turned into drugged, confused slaves. We claim that cultural heroes such as Ken Kesey, Aldous Huxley, and even The Beatles were part of the plot. Atwill argues that even Shakespeare should be regarded in the same way, as sophisticated propaganda.
By working to expose this scheme, we see ourselves in the role of cultural defenders. Paul Dunbar seems to agree with us about most of this. However, he does not extend that same respect towards Joseph Atwill’s review of Shakespeare’s The Tempest. In his post Very Like a Whale, Dunbar ridicules Atwill’s view that Shakespeare himself was part of the plot.
I would like to respond on Atwill’s behalf, to aspects of this critique from Dunbar. This is based on conversations with Atwill, as well as the experience of working with him on podcasts over the last two years. Joe has reviewed and approved the statements made on his behalf. This post also includes my own reactions and responses to the issues Dunbar raised.
Dunbar’s critique of Joseph Atwill
Here is a summary of Dunbar’s critique of Atwill’s thesis:
It is ‘apophenia’ (that is, Atwill is seeing faces in the clouds) rather than legitimate analysis.
The approach is ‘reductivist’ (reductionist?), ignoring vast layers of meaning and significance in Shakespeare’s work.
It is culturally destructive, because Atwill wants his readers to avoid Shakespeare. Atwill says Shakespeare is boring and hard to read, not to mention sick. Dunbar complains that Atwill “must destroy what he does not understand.“
Emilia Bassano Lanier couldn’t have been the author, because she was too young.
It seems that Dunbar smells a whiff of anti-Semitism rising from Atwill’s theory.
Atwill’s reply
Again in summary form:
The analysis of The Tempest is entirely grounded in the known fact the author used Isaiah as the play’s symbolic framework. The parallels cannot be viewed in isolation, but must be evaluated in that context.
The new framework solves many previously inscrutable mysteries about Shakespeare. No other analytical framework is equally powerful.
If the analysis is correct, Shakespeare should be avoided.
Dunbar’s analysis of the chronology is simply incorrect. Many authors have produced significant works at the same age postulated for Emilia Bassano Lanier in the role of Shakespeare.
Dunbar is trying to accomplish by an obscene scatalogical slander, what he could not do with analysis. The bankruptcy of his position is only underscored by his curt dismissal of our attempts to engage in public discussion.
Atwill’s ‘Jewish Conspiracy’ hypothesis
In a follow-up post, Dunbar re-iterated his theme of an unpleasant smell coming from Atwill’s direction. Dunbar leaves some room for plausible deniability, but his meaning seems clear enough. Dunbar says that according to Atwill, The Tempest is ‘really’ about a “fiendish Zionist plot to put the Gentiles into an MKULTRA dream-state” which will lead to the end of the world. After this apocalypse, “there’ll be nothing left but owls and blossoms. And Jews, obviously”.
In his article on The Tempest, Atwill expressed it this way: “it is hard not engage in paranoid wondering of to what extent Jewish influence in the media is related to the ‘dream state’ for Gentiles described in the Tempest”. And furthermore, Atwill is certainly steadfast in maintaining that his fearful curiosity and concern about the political situation is well warranted.
Atwill’s view is that US and world governments, media, corporations, and religions are becoming increasingly dominated by a secret society. His working hypothesis is that, at its core, the secret society may be ruled by a very small group of oligarchs, or perhaps even a single family or person.
Considering the hierarchical nature of so many human organizations, Joe’s concern cannot be ruled out a priori. And if there is such a ruling center, its agenda might very possibly be rooted in some primitive tribal or ethnic viewpoint.
Atwill points to Shakespeare as the first evidence of a possible breakaway scheme by elite Jews, perhaps one particular family, to infiltrate and then achieve domination over ‘the Gentiles’ and their cultural and governmental institutions.
Can there be any justification for “paranoid wondering”?
Long-time visitors of this website will be well aware of a simmering controversy among the authors here, regarding this Jewish question. Rick Stanley and I feel that the hypothesis of a Jewish takeover of the New World Order is demonstrably wrong. As we have argued in several articles, actually the Jews seem to be in a scapegoat or sheepdog role with respect to more powerful Gentile institutions. And it’s often hard to know whether to describe this as a “plot”, or more of a result of age-old, impersonal cultural memes.
What’s worse: by entertaining the hypothesis, Atwill leaves himself (and, by extension, us) vulnerable to Dunbar’s charge of anti-Semitism. We have enough problems with marginalization of our ideas, without having to deal with this as well.
But, I don’t feel the charge of anti-Semitism is accurate, even when it comes to Atwill’s hypothesis.
Atwill is opposed to anti-Semitism!
Or at any rate, Atwill’s hypothesis of a possible Jewish conspiracy is very different from anti-Semitism in its classical, medieval or Fascist forms. He does not hold that there is any fundamental flaw in the Jewish character. Nor does he claim that Jewish religion is any more flawed than the other ancient traditions, Abrahamic or otherwise.
Indeed, if there is a Jewish conspiracy, Atwill believes the vast majority of Jews don’t know anything about it, and therefore are completely blameless. If indeed a tiny cabal of Jews has “taken over”, it’s purely an accident of history, and any other ethnic or religious group might have been in this role instead.
Futhermore, Atwill also recognizes that the plot involving MK-Ultra and the CIA seems to have involved people of various religions and ethnic backgrounds. Similarly, secret societies such as the Freemasons, Bohemian Grove, Bilderberg and so forth, are very diverse in ethnic terms, although to varying degrees they attract mostly elite participants.
Neither is there any obvious pattern of ethnicity at any other major power center. That is, except for the oft-noted concentration of Jews in media and banking. In both of these arenas, this can be explained in terms of Rick Stanley’s Shepherd-Sheepdog model. Or, more prosaically, the Christian religion has often taken a dim view of professions such as money-lending or acting. Thus, those fields have been wide open for Jewish participation.
Atwill’s call for DNA testing
Recognizing these issues, Atwill has stated that “DNA testing of all involved is necessary to determine the role ethnicity has played in the creation of the secret society that rules our country.” It is only on the basis of such testing, that Atwill believes anyone could be justified in going beyond paranoid wondering. He argues that such testing has the potential to put an end to speculation about Jewish plots, as well as the potential to confirm such speculations.
There’s no reason for anyone to oppose the evaluation of DNA data or samples that are offered voluntarily. With Facebook and Twitter, most people don’t have any secrets left anyhow. Sites such as 23andme.com already give customers the option to make their DNA information available for genealogy research.
However, many people (including, especially, elites) will not voluntarily choose to supply the data Atwill is asking for. In this case, principles of natural law (such as the right to privacy, and to avoid self-incrimination) come into play. I would strenuously oppose any efforts to get this data involuntarily, either through legal proceedings or stealth. Attempting to obtain DNA samples from deceased persons also poses ethical and practical problems. It may be extraordinarily difficult to acquire the sort of data Atwill is hoping for.
The Biggest Trial of the Ages?
Another question is, how would you know whose DNA to test? In other words, who is part of the alleged inner core of the conspiracy? And just as important, who is to be held guilty? We can only hope that even in the innermost circle, at least some of the elite are fighting hard against the tide of evil. Sorting out the guilty from the innocent would require a trial that would dwarf the Nuremberg proceedings. And who is fit to play the role of judge and jury?
And if we were able to put on such a trial, why would we then need DNA data? It would be purely a matter of scientific curiosity at that point, to determine the ethnic aspects of the conspiracy.
But without some sort of way to sort out the guilty from the innocent, and insiders from collaborators, there is a danger of circular reasoning from DNA. That is, it would be tempting to assume guilt based on racial criteria, rather than perform a fact-based analysis of the ethnicity of the conspiracy. Using DNA to ferret out some suspect ethnicity and eliminate them from powerful positions, would be the very essence of racial profiling.
Atwill needs to map out a strategy for how this pitfall can be avoided.
Dunbar plays the ‘anti-Semitic’ card
Regardless of the details of the analysis, it’s impossible to discuss the “New World Order” without having some model of the role of the Jews. So anyone who addresses this topic at any honest level, is at risk of being accused of anti-Semitism.
Considering that Dunbar seems generally inclined to share the analysis expressed by Jan Irvin and Joe Atwill at Gnostic Media, his attack on Joe seems most un-collegial. We especially don’t appreciate his playing the ‘anti-Semitic’ card. In the alternative media, we need to be able to follow an analytic path without fear of being called on the carpet for being politically incorrect. It should be clear enough, that elite Jews do have some sort of role to play in the power structure. If nothing else, the memes of the Jewish religion play an important part in the culture wars. We aren’t going to make much progress towards understanding, if we enforce a gag order about these issues. And this can be handled tactfully without giving a green light to hate speech.
Shakespeare as Jewish revenge literature
In Shakespeare’s Secret Messiah, Atwill argues that the Shakespearean plays are all, in a way, the same. That is, they always involve the Jews taking revenge for sins of long ago. In the Jewish war of the 1st century, the Romans defeated the Jews after a titanic struggle. The Romans destroyed the Temple, and invented a new religion to compete with Judaism. The new religion mocked Jewish ideas of a Messianic leader. Instead, the world was given a pro-Roman pacifist as a Messiah. The Roman Empire impudently grafted itself into the Jewish tradition, as the new chosen people. And ever since then, the Jews lived as a second-class people, trapped in ghettos, or hounded from country to country.
In the Shakespeare plays, according to Atwill, the Jews turn the tables. They punish the Gentiles (that is, the white Europeans) for the ancient sins of the Flavian Roman Emperors. Atwill suggests that this can only mean that the true author of the Shakespearean plays must be Jewish. He finds that the most likely candidate is Emilia Bassano. Coming from a family of ethnically Sephardic Jews whose loyalty to Christianity was always open to question, she would have been well aware of the Jewish aspects of her heritage.
Emilia Bassano’s Cannibal Feast
Dunbar complains that Atwill’s Shakespeare is “nasty, vengeful and Jewish“. Although Dunbar says he hasn’t read Shakespeare’s Secret Messiah, this is reasonably close to the views Atwill spells out in his book. He says that Bassano “intended to inflict the same sense of humiliation on uncomprehending Gentiles that Titus intended for the Jews“.
As Dunbar points out, Bassano published one long poem under her own name, in 1611. This is generally thought to be just after Shakespeare’s retirement from playwriting. This, Dunbar suggests, would be the place to look for Jewish revenge literature. Atwill has already thought of that. In SSM, he argues that the central metaphor of Bassano’s Salve Deus is the presentation of Jesus to the British noble women in her circle, first as an illicit lover and then as a cannibal feast. The rich carnal images are thinly disguised with the liturgical metaphors of church and communion.
Bassano’s poems includes a series of puns on the name of ‘Will’, similar to puns in the Sonnets. Atwill interprets these puns to mean that Bassano is identifying herself with Shakespeare. He suggests that the plays (or, perhaps, the playwright’s body) are being ‘served’ at the cannibal feast. Atwill concludes that Bassano “was taking a personal as well as a historical vengeance” with the dedications of the poem.
So, is this racist?
Dunbar doesn’t explain exactly why he finds this characterization of Shakespeare objectionable. Perhaps this is because there’s nothing to object to. What’s wrong with a Jew who takes some pleasure in imagining the tables reversed, after a millennium of oppression?
Now of course it would be evil for Shakespeare (or Bassano) to seek to actually carry out such a revenge project against all Gentiles. Such a dragnet would include innocent men, women and children who had absolutely nothing to do with the oppression of the Jews, either in the past or present. However, Bassano could hardly be blamed for imagining this reversal, as a literary device. Indeed, for anyone who understands the enormity of the Roman imperial conspiracy to create Christianity, it’s a delicious treat to see the Flavians and their proxies get their just desserts.
Furthermore, it would also be ridiculous to blame Bassano if such a plot were to materialize over the centuries after her death. Anyone who would seek to take ‘an eye for an eye’ in that fashion, is obviously lacking in the sense of humor necessary to read Shakespeare.
You don’t have to be Jewish to know a little Hebrew
Dunbar would also argue that we don’t need to worry about this alleged Jewish agenda in Shakespeare, because it’s all in Atwill’s imagination. Here’s where I don’t agree with Dunbar. I believe that Atwill is correct to see a pattern of Flavian reversal in Shakespeare. But when it comes to the interpretation, here’s where I diverge from both Atwill and Dunbar.
My view is that even a good-hearted Jesuit like Shakespeare (the Stratford man) might take some pleasure in a fantasy of revenge against injustice. And that Shakespeare may also have been working on a propaganda mission for the Tudor court. But if so, it may have been consistent with his own inclinations.
Many commentators have recently speculated that Bassano may have been Shakespeare’s ‘Dark Lady’. If so, and if they worked on some or all of the plays together, so much the better. Such a partnership could easily account for the more strikingly Jewish elements in the Shakespeare plays. Of course, either could have gotten some help with Hebrew puns, from their friends in the Bassano family, even if neither of them knew any Hebrew.
Dunbar’s errors
As a basis for his view, Dunbar analyzes three particular examples from Atwill’s essay about the Tempest. Or rather, I should say he subjects them to ridicule, as Dunbar feels that there is no need to take the arguments seriously. Dunbar has cherry-picked these three items for condemnation, completely neglecting the broader context which Atwill has painstakingly constructed. Dunbar tells his readers to “Read it for yourself if you don’t believe me. Read it, before accusing me of creating straw men or any such thing.” We hope that if his readers take his advice, they will discover that is exactly what Dunbar has done.
Atwill’s analysis of The Tempest is built around the observation that the play is a re-enactment of Isaiah 29 through 35. Atwill is far from the first scholar to have remarked on the relationship between The Tempest and Isaiah. At a certain level it’s obvious, because of the shared character Ariel. What Atwill has done is to go further than other scholars, bringing out more of the parallels between Isaiah and The Tempest, which can be seen to extend across the entire play.
As Dunbar points out, some of those parallels are weak enough that they can only be seen if you’re looking for them. Maybe they were intentional, maybe they weren’t. But they’re consistent with Shakespeare’s strategy, as it emerges across many plays. This is, of course, discussed at greater length in Atwill’s book.
The Four Horsemen In the Clouds
Consider a similar interpretation of the ‘photograph’ that Dunbar uses at the heading of his article. This image, frankly, looks like it’s probably been Photoshopped. If not, it could be the result of combing through thousands of images of clouds. Or perhaps the photographer waited patiently for months, until the desired clouds appeared. In any case, the fact that the image depicts the ‘four horsemen of the Apocalypse’ is no coincidence. It’s by design. (According to Snopes, the mystery has been solved. The image originally appeared in a Kenwood car stereo ad.) And furthermore, notice that two of the ‘horsemen’ are unmistakable. However, two others can only be seen because one knows what to look for. It’s a well-known trope that horsemen come in groups of four.
Kenwood car stereo ad
Now, what can you say to someone who says there are only two horsemen in that image? Well, from a purely legalistic perspective you can’t really argue, because they’re only wisps of grey on grey. But on the other hand, that attitude is certainly obtuse. All four of the horsemen are easy to see if you’re looking for them.
Now, similarly, Dunbar has chosen to single out Atwill’s most pale horseman for ridicule, while ignoring the clearer parts of the picture. And while it helps to have a deeper grounding in Atwill’s broader analysis, this is true even within the article at hand. It’s not necessary for readers to go beyond Atwill’s article about The Tempest, to realize that Dunbar’s analysis is cherry-picking.
Was Emilia Bassano too young?
She was five years younger than the Stratford man. But, the earliest works of ‘Shakespeare’ were just beginning to emerge in 1592. This was after the seven-year period known as the ‘Lost Years’. Shakespeare was 28 at this time, Bassano was 23. But, ‘Shakespeare’ was hardly already recognizable as ‘the greatest… genius in English literary history” by 1592. He (or she) was hardly as famous at that time as the 23 authors named in this article, 23 Writers Who Were Famous by Age 23.
Dunbar also claims that Bassano would have written Hamlet at age nineteen. This is either a joke or a blunder. Most scholars date Hamlet to between 1599 and 1602. Bassano would have turned thirty years old in 1599. Shakespeare himself would have been thirty-five. Either age seems equally amazing, considering the achievement.
This is not to say I would view the identification of ‘Shakespeare’ with Bassano as a proven fact, but Dunbar hasn’t given any basis to reject it. Certainly not on age considerations alone.
Did Shakespeare write Titus Andronicus?
Although Dunbar notes that Atwill’s interpretation of Titus Andronicus is a crucial aspect of the theory, he dismisses it as “substandard“, with a hint that perhaps Shakespeare didn’t write it. After all, he says, Shakespeare never published it in an “authorized edition”. Actually, Shakespeare never published any of his plays as “authorized” versions. Bootleggers produced the folios, and Shakespeare’s friends published the First Folio long after Shakespeare’s death. Like many other Shakespeare plays, Titus Andronicus was published in quarto form in 1594 and was included in the First Folio. This should establish its basic level of credibility as part of the Shakespeare corpus.
More importantly, Atwill’s analysis establishes through a series of highly dense parallels, that this play exists in the same thematic universe as the Flavian comic system exposed by Atwill in Caesar’s Messiah, but with the players’ fortunes reversed. That is, as Dunbar puts it, “endlessly repeated visions of dire and degrading punishments to be meted out to the Gentiles at the Apocalypse.” Or as A.L. Rowse said of the violence of Titus Andronicus: “in the civilised Victorian age the play could not be performed because it could not be believed. Such is the horror of our own age, with the appalling barbarities of prison camps and resistance movements paralleling the torture and mutilation and feeding on human flesh of the play, that it has ceased to be improbable.”
Is Titus Andronicus a Special Case?
However horrendous Titus Andronicus might be, it is far from unique among the Shakespeare tragedies. As Atwill shows in Shakespeare’s Secret Messiah, the ‘romantic’ Romeo and Juliet and the ‘noble’ Hamlet are just as filled with violent and even cannibalistic imagery, as well as unmistakably clear and detailed allusions to the Flavian comic theme.
Yet while Dunbar sees these alleged counter-Flavian plot elements as imaginary, I see them as very real in the plays. However, the Flavian reversal is not organized on strictly ethnic or racial basis.
Crypto Who?
Atwill’s interpretation sometimes requires that apparently Gentile characters are actually Jewish. For example, he argues that ‘Friar Lawrence’ in Romeo and Juliet, and ‘Fortinbras’ in Hamlet, are playing that role. However, there is little if any evidence that would identify them as ethnically Jewish. In Verona, Catholic priests would typically be Italian, and Lawrence is a classic Roman name. The Norwegian royal family is descended from Nordic Viking roots, and Fortinbras is the crown prince of Norway. It is difficult to explain how ‘Friar Lawrence’ could have ethnic Jewish ancestry. It is almost impossible to justify this idea for ‘Fortinbras’.
The Jewish ethnic interpretation of The Tempest is also problematic, at least at a surface level. According to Atwill, Prospero is the type of the ‘Jewish’ righteous king. Yet, Prospero is also the rightful heir to the Dukedom of Milan. As such, he could be nothing other than the scion of a well-known old Italian Catholic family.
Is the Duke of Milan Jewish?
Prospero calls Antonio a “false brother” and a “false uncle” to Miranda. Describing Antonio’s treasonous alliance with the King of Naples, he demands of Miranda: “Mark his condition and the event; then tell me If this might be a brother“. So, clearly, Prospero is asserting that no true brother deserving of the name would behave so treacherously. Moreover, with the admonition “Mark his condition“, Prospero seems to be hinting that Antonio doesn’t even look like his brother.
Miranda replies “I should sin To think but nobly of my grandmother: Good wombs have borne bad sons“. That is, Miranda is asserting that Prospero and Antonio at least had the same mother. She presented both sons to the world with the claim that both had the same father as well. But if Prospero’s mother has in fact been unfaithful (as Prospero suggests), then with who? The obvious implication from Prospero’s accusation would be an illicit coupling with the royal family of Naples: that is, another ancient Italian Catholic family. It is difficult indeed to imagine how ethnically based crypto-Judaism could arise as an issue in such a situation. If Prospero is Jewish, it would have to be a result of an act of deliberate conversion on his own part.
Does Shakespeare reward the righteous?
Inclusion in “God’s chosen people” is not, for Shakespeare, a matter of being born into a Jewish family. What does it mean to be ‘chosen’? Perhaps it is a matter of righteousness. Prospero is a wise and noble magician. His enemies are drunken, scheming, worthless frauds. It does not seem to be a matter of class. Prospero and his arch-enemies such as Antonio and Sebastian are royal. But several of Prospero’s enemies are lower class. In other plays, we also find heroes and villains in all walks of life.
Is there a broader Shakespearean pattern of rewarding the virtuous, at least typologically? The answer is far from obvious, without further study. Juliet does not seem to deserve her fate in Romeo, unless you question the virtue of falling in love at such a young age. Aaron in Titus Andronicus is an ethnically Jewish avenger, but he is not portrayed as an especially noble character. Instead, his bitterness and anger knows no bounds. However, he is an atheist, not a person of the Jewish faith. And he is rewarded by passing his genes to the next generation, but also by being buried alive.
Who are the chosen, and who are unclean?
At any rate, what Atwill is missing in his analysis, is that the Old Testament, and all the ideas of a Chosen People, were taken over by the Christians. The ‘British Israel’ movement was already gaining strength in the Elizabethan era. So, there is no basis to interpret the Shakespearean literature as having an exclusively Jewish perspective, as opposed to a Catholic or even humanist perspective, regarding recapitulation and reversal of the Flavian comic system in the Gospels.
Is Shakespeare the essence of Western Culture?
It’s one thing to say that Ken Kesey was attacking Western culture. It’s quite another to make the same accusation against Shakespeare. On the contrary, many people would say that Shakespeare’s work is the greatest literature our culture has ever produced. The development of a taste for Shakespeare is a central part of every liberal education. As such, it seems to be the opposite of the ‘degraded’ hippy counter-culture.
Perhaps Dunbar’s anger is related to culture shock. Dunbar sees Shakespeare as the epitome of English genius, but Atwill says that ‘she’ was a Jew with an agenda. That is, a ‘Lifetime Actress’ who foisted vicious propaganda on an innocent public. It is hard to imagine any more culturally disorienting claim. As we said recently, culture provides the definition of people’s identities and their self-worth. Thus, any change, for better or worse, can be seen as a threat. We are old and cautious enough to feel threatened by the drug counter-culture. But it seems that Shakespeare is also part of Dunbar’s cultural self-image. Perhaps this is why Dunbar feels so disturbed by Atwill’s view.
Now, Dunbar would certainly object to find himself subject to this psycho-analysis. He would say that Atwill is simply wrong. Of course, I strongly disagree. But, for the moment, let’s just assume that Atwill is basically right. (I will return to a factual defense later.) First I would like to address Dunbar’s other points, which I think are far more interesting.
Is Atwill’s theory ‘Reductionist’?
At a surface level, The Tempest tells the story of Prospero, the exiled Duke of Milan. First he achieves a just revenge against his enemies. But then he forgives them and permits his daughter to marry into their family. Many (though not all) Shakespearean plays have similarly basic plots. But, they feature richly developed characters, told with a fascinating combination of blank and rhymed verse.
Dunbar does not see any hidden agenda lurking beneath this surface narration. However, he does see a depth of meaningful nuance. He calls his work “the greatest poetic oeuvre in the English language“. The works had “a primary role in the unification, expansion and refinement of English into a literary language“. And, Dunbar obviously believes that The Tempest is a fine example of Shakespeare’s work. He describes one scene as “charming entertainment“. Ariel’s farewell speech is “a lyrical anticipation of pastoral bliss, the end of toil and resumption of play“. Prospero’s renunciation of magic is “one of the greatest speeches in English poetry…. So inward, yet so resonant, so limpidly clear even while contemplating the deep mystery of reality itself“.
Inasmuch as Atwill is rejecting all this, his view does seem to meet the definition of reductionist. I would add that Dunbar’s reading of Atwill is vulnerable to the same criticism. That is, Dunbar seems unable to detect when Atwill is speaking tongue-in-cheek, such as the remarks that the real Shakespeare had been kidnapped when the conclusion to The Tempest was written. Perhaps the writing wasn’t clear, and perhaps the analysis really hasn’t properly recognized the difference between comedy and tragedy. Atwill’s analysis of Merchant of Venice, another comedy, revealed a similarly veiled tragic subtext.
But there is at least some justification for Atwill’s disparaging remarks about Shakespeare, as I will now explain.
The Deification of Shakespeare
During the 18th century, the British admiration for Shakespeare evolved into a sort of secular religion. Simon Andrew Stirling delved into the story in his book Who Killed William Shakespeare. At a 1769 festival in Stratford, revelers honored a great statue of Shakespeare as “the God of our Idolatry”. An actor named David Garrick planned a magnificent pageant, including a masquerade ball, fireworks display, horse race, and grand procession. A huge rainstorm ironically ruined the festival. But, Garrick used the pageant as the basis of a London stage play dedicated to the Stratford hero. In 1815, a merchant was profitably selling wood curios in Stratford. The merchant said he carved the relics from a mulberry tree planted by “the immortal Bard” himself.
And then we have Atwill, who says that this same literature is “boring, incomprehensible, and sick“. Now, certainly everyone is entitled to their opinion. It’s not so easy to come up with an objective standard for the quality of literary art. Shakespeare can be tedious, paradoxical, and indeed at times almost as incomprehensible as if written in a foreign language. English of the 16th century is in some respects almost a foreign language. Many students who have struggled with Shakespeare, will smile in sympathy with Atwill’s complaint. But, others who have struggled through to achieve some comprehension, will be aghast.
In Defense of Cultural Quality
The established culture has spoken, and has declared that Shakespeare is virtually a secular God. I understand and respect why Atwill has taken an opposing position. But, my own opinion is closer to Dunbar’s: I think that Shakespeare at his (or her?) best, is really, really good stuff. Have I been brainwashed by the establishment? If the Bard is a mere propagandist, that’s shocking enough. But if it’s propaganda, does that take away its quality as literature? The mind reels at the contradiction.
Many readers will, no doubt, have the same feelings of disorientation. We all have drawn key parts of our personal identity from these cultural icons and their art. The Beatles defined the meaning of love and peace. Ken Kesey defined the difference between sanity and insanity. George Orwell and Aldous Huxley taught us how to recognize technological tyranny. The US Constitution is the basis of our democracy, even if it was mostly written by Illuminated Masons and Jesuits. And when it comes to ethics, the Bible is generally our cornerstone, even if it was also ancient elite propaganda. How can we escape the elite’s definition of our culture? And, would we want to? That is, if Atwill is correct that an elite agenda is behind them all.
Everyone’s a Sellout (but not to the same extent)
In every case, there is an undeniable genius behind these works. It seems obvious that the creators must have felt a strong, abiding drive and desire to create great, memorable and enticing art. To be great, this art must contain generous portions of truth, as well as profound insight. If the artist has a hidden agenda, nevertheless he still needs to be entertaining. And furthermore, in order to gain an audience, artists have always had to work with elites: either seeking patronage, or contracts. Some artists struggle to avoid “selling out”, but others seek fortune as well as fame. Either way, no artist can afford to come down too strongly against the interests of their great and powerful patrons.
And, those interest are not necessarily incompatible with great art. Surely the elite enjoy a good movie, novel or symphony as much as anyone. Their children need cultural role models, as much as anyone. Art such as Shakespeare must serve this purpose, at least to some extent.
Whether or not Atwill is reductionist, it is certainly unfair to claim that he is oblivious to surface meanings. But I’m not sure he has come to terms with the full extent of the paradox he has created. That is: literature that we are denouncing as black propaganda, is also the source of our culture. And at least to some extent, this includes Huxley and The Beatles, as well as Shakespeare.
However, Dunbar’s solution of going into denial is not the answer. We need a new way of looking at Shakespeare, and literature in general.
Shakespeare: The Myth of No Information
Along with The Bard’s apotheosis, Stirling argues that Shakespeare’s admirers invented two other myths. The first was the myth that little or no information has survived about Shakespeare’s life. The claimed lack of information opened a vacuum which historians filled with speculation, or legend. The second myth, Stirling argues, is the idea that the Stratford man was not the true author of the plays. Of course, according to Atwill, this is no myth at all. But, the literature has been so lionized that it can be hard to imagine any human being could have written it. At the very least, the author seems to know a lot about life at royal court. Additionally, Shakespeare’s plays exhibit a wealth of knowledge of many specialized topics. Many critics have felt that the author must have come from the noble class.
Stirling argues that Shakespeare’s life is not such a blank slate after all. In fact, there is significant evidence that Shakespeare was a Catholic. Or at any rate, he came from a Catholic background and traveled in Catholic circles. If this scenario is correct, it may explain how Shakespeare gained the education and experience necessary to write the plays. For an excellent review of this evidence, I recommend Clare Asquith’s “Shadowplay“. Asquith also provides an in-depth analysis of Catholic-oriented content in the Shakespeare plays. As Asquith notes, Shakespeare’s voice often seems pro-Catholic. This was at a time when open practice of Catholicism was considered treasonous. Asquith sees Shakespeare as brave, if not rebellious. However, she also notes that he did not cheer for open revolt. Instead, he advised peaceful accommodation. Accordingly, I argue, this is exactly what the regime needed.
The Stratford Man’s Deep-State Connections
In The Shakespeare Conspiracy, Martin Keatman and Graham Phillips build a circumstantial case that Shakespeare was involved with British state intelligence. They show that he led a sort of double life. He was an actor and playwright in London, and a tax delinquent. But in Stratford, he was a prosperous grain merchant who bought the finest home in town.
However, Keatman and Phillips conclude that the Stratford man and the London playwright were one and the same person. The best evidence of this, is a mention of some of the actor’s partners in the Stratford man’s will. They explain that Shakespeare needed to protect his family from the dangers of his life in London. Also, I would speculate, he may have needed to hide the income he was earning in London. Playwrights and actors didn’t normally earn much money. But Shakespeare might have earned a significant income as a spy, propagandist, or literary front man.
Marlowe and Shakespeare
Atwill has noted similarities between Christopher Marlowe’s work, and Shakespeare’s early work. Marlowe and Shakespeare were probably working for Ferdinando Stanley, Lord Strange, at his acting company, in about 1592. Keatman and Phillips argue that they would have met at that time. Marlowe had been a spy for Francis and Thomas Walsingham’s secret service. Their goal was to uncover Catholic plots against the government. However, Marlowe had come under suspicion for atheism, and was allegedly killed in a quarrel with another of Walsingham’s agents.
Sir Thomas Hesketh may have introduced Shakespeare to Strange’s acting company. The Hesketh family may have employed William Shakespeare as a tutor, under the name of Shakeshafte. Another Hesketh tried to convince Lord Strange to plot to gain the English throne. Lord Strange declined to participate in the plot, and reported the plot to William Cecil. But Cecil doubted Strange’s loyalty, and he found himself under investigation for atheism anyhow.
The Atheist ‘School of Night’
Informants also reported that both Marlowe and Strange were associated with Sir Walter Ralegh‘s ‘School of Atheism’. This group also probably included Richard Field, Shakespeare’s early publisher. Field had lived in the same neighborhood in Stratford as Shakespeare, and was about the same age. Critics believe that Shakespeare’s play Love’s Labour’s Lost contains a reference to Ralegh’s group as the ‘School of Night’. If so, Shakespeare at least knew of the group.
Francis Walsingham had recruited theatrical actors and playwrights to serve in his Secret Service. He also recruited opportunistic Catholics and religious liberals. Thus, there was significant overlap between Walsingham’s group of spies, Ralegh’s school of atheists, the Catholic underground, and the London theatrical circuit. Shakespeare’s interests overlapped with all three of the latter groups.
After Thomas Walsingham’s death in 1590, Francis Walsingham took over his Secret Service group. Keatman and Phillips speculate that Francis may have been a wild card whose dedication to the anti-Catholic cause was uncertain. Some spies gradually gravitated to the direct service of William Cecil. Keatman and Phillips suggest that Cecil might have had Marlowe and Strange murdered because of his doubts about their loyalties.
Keatman and Phillips argue that Shakespeare must have been involved with this network. They suggest that Shakespeare served as an agent under the alias of William Hall. About the same time that Shakespeare was writing Hamlet, William Hall traveled to the Netherlands as a diplomatic courier. In 1603, Hall worked with an agent named Parrot to expose William Watson’s nebulous “Bye Plot”. They also exposed the related “Main Plot”, which implicated Walter Ralegh.
Anthony Munday and ‘Sir Thomas More’
One spy in Walsingham’s service was Anthony Munday. He traveled abroad in 1578 to Rome where he joined the Jesuit English College. On his return to England, he became a playwright. In about 1592, Shakespeare worked with Munday on the play ‘Sir Thomas More’. The original manuscript of the play has survived. The handwriting of one three-page scene matches the six existing Shakespeare (Stratford Man) signatures. Or at least this appears to be true, although experts are reluctant to draw firm conclusions based on such a small sample. The spelling is also typical of Shakespeare, and the section features Shakespearean cannibal humor.
Will Hall also received a payment for services rendered to Anthony Munday in 1592. This is another in the series of coincidences connecting Hall to Shakespeare, and connecting Shakespeare to Walsingham’s spy network. While this evidence suggests Shakespeare may have been a spy like Munday, it also suggests that Shakespeare was an actual author. However, in addition to Munday and Shakespeare’s work, several other authors also contributed. Thus, the manuscript shows the collaborative nature of theatrical writing at the time. Thus, there is no basis to rule out group theories of Shakespeare authorship.
Shakespeare’s Surprising Success
As Cecil became more powerful, many Catholics and their atheist friends fell under a pall of suspicion and/or were prosecuted. By contrast, Shakespeare’s career soared. After Marlowe’s death, “Lord Strange’s Men” combined forces with the Burbage Theatre. Thus, Henry Wriothesley, the Earl of Southampton, became Shakespeare’s patron. After Lord Strange’s death, the new boss was the Queen’s cousin, Lord Hundson. Finally, in 1603, King James himself adopted the company. He dubbed them as “The King’s Men“, and called on them for many performances for the royal court.
None of this proves that Shakespeare was the author of the plays. If he was serving as a diplomat and spy as well as an actor, he must have been very busy. This only adds to the idea that no one could have written so much in so little time. However, this alternative biography of Shakespeare seems rich enough in education and intrigue, to suggest that such a person could have been at the head of the authorship group.
Innocent until proven guilty?
None of this will convince the more skeptical reader. The identification of William Hall with William Shakespeare is clearly speculative. The rest of Keatman and Phillip’s case is largely an argument of guilt by association. And even if Shakespeare was somehow affiliated with Walsingham’s company of spies, this would not prove he was sympathetic with every aspect of the project.
But this seems more than sufficient to raise reasonable doubts. It no longer seems safe to simply assume that the author had no agenda other than creation of great literature. For more evidence, we turn to that literature itself.
Catholic interpretive level
Elsewhere, I have summarized arguments that the plays also include a symbolic level which plays off the Catholic-Protestant dialectic. Clare Asquith (in Shadowplay, pp. 265-273) provides an analysis of this Catholic layer in The Tempest. Atwill’s neglect of this level is another aspect where his view is arguably reductionist. In this symbolic layer, the plays provided reassurance that Catholicism is a fine religion. It is portrayed as far superior to all varieties of Protestant innovation. However, the plays also encouraged rebellious Catholics to exercise patience in the face of adversity. This message was, arguably, perfectly tuned to the needs of the authorities. The Catholic population at that time was large and potentially formidable. They needed to be seduced, not bludgeoned.
Asquith sees the plot of The Tempest as a sort of recapitulation of Shakespeare’s earlier plays. She argues that Shakespeare repeatedly represented the Reformation as a great storm. In her view, Prospero and his group represent the righteous Catholics. The Italian nobles remind her of the Anglican high church and the Tudor royalty. The clowns, she says, are like the Puritans and Calvinists.
A chess game between Catholic and Protestant
According to Asquith, the marriage of Ferdinand and Miranda is an obvious message to Catholic recusants. Ferdinand represents the future of Protestantism reborn. Asquith sees a poignancy in the moment the lovers are revealed to Alonso and the other shipwrecked nobles. Miranda and Ferdinand are playing chess. It is, Asquith says, “the ultimate refinement of a war between black and white, of conflict within harmony. The scrap of dialogue over the chessboard in which Miranda laughingly accuses a protesting Ferdinand of cheating has profound significance. Though Ferdinand may wrangle for ‘a score of kingdoms’, when it comes to ‘the world’ the pair are at peace: a brief vision of the perfect balance… in which political power-games have no impact on matters of the soul“. In other words, it is (again) a message encouraging passivity and acceptance.
The Tempest as Shakespeare’s testament
In Asquith’s view, Shakespeare wrote The Tempest as a “comprehensive coded apologia for his life’s work“. As evidence of this, she points to its placement at the head of the First Folio. In her view, the most important aspect of this ‘apologia’ was Shakespeare’s use of the character Prospero to represent himself. As The Guardian‘s Sam Jordison points out, this is a difficult thesis to prove. We don’t have many details about Shakespeare’s life. But, one connection is that Shakespeare himself had once played a character named Prospero. This happened to be the central role in Ben Jonson’s most famous play, Every Man in His Humour. Furthermore, Shakespeare’s Prospero orchestrates every event in the play, just as a playwright would. Asquith explains:
From beginning to end, running jokes and puns remind the audience of another coded identity. The island has all the features of the stage, full of sounds that ‘give delight and hurt not’, the magic at every point mimicking the illusions of the theatre. … The Tempest is a play about play-making.
Shakespeare’s Retirement
In another possible analogy to Shakespeare’s (that is, the Stratford man’s) own life, Prospero repeatedly renounces his magic. In other words, he is announcing his eminent retirement from the theater. Following this play, the Stratford Man went home from London. After that, he wrote no more. The London audiences hardly knew he was gone, at least not for awhile. Two more great plays, The Two Noble Kinsmen and Henry VIII, appeared after his departure. However, most critics agree that those plays were largely or entirely ghost-written by John Fletcher.
Asquith suggests that Ariel, Miranda and Caliban also represent ingredients of the author’s personality. She imagines their dialog creating a form of “literary psychoanalysis“. Ariel represents the creative aspect. Miranda represents purity and spirituality. Caliban represents the lower, physical portion. Furthermore, Miranda and Ariel contrasted with Caliban represent “the most extreme refinement of the principles of ‘dark’ and ‘fair’“. That is, Miranda and Ariel are Catholic, while Caliban is Protestant. “By means of this double allegory, Shakespeare’s work is presented as integral to his nature,” says Asquith. Well, perhaps this is going too far, but it’s interesting.
The stage has been set by the witch Sycorax. She has given birth to Caliban, her dark (Protestant) offspring. Worse than that, she has also captured Ariel and frozen the spirit in a tree. To Asquith, Ariel must represent the spirit of English Catholicism. The Sycorax, Asquith suggests, is an “angry caricature” of Queen Elizabeth. Asquith supports these comparisons by observing that Caliban is referred to as a “moon-calf“. A Prague astrologer had famously hurled this epithet at Martin Luther, to the delight of Catholics everywhere. Ariel was confined with the help of Sycorax’s “more potent ministers“. This reminds Asquith of the action of Elizabeths’s royal court.
The diversity of Shakespeare’s sources
From Atwill’s perspective, the Flavian comic system is the most important source of Shakespearian typology. However, it is far from Shakespeare’s only source of inspiration. To the extent that Atwill ignores this, it is another basis for the charge that his view is reductionist. A complete survey would be a huge task. But, I would like to review some aspects of Shakespeare’s other sources for The Tempest.
The characters in The Tempest play roles that would be familiar to patrons of Commedia del’Arte. This form of Italian improvisational theater was popular in the mid to late 16th century. The actors in these improvisations would always play the parts of a stereotypical set of ensemble characters. In The Tempest, all the characters have different names, but the actors are enacting the stereotypical roles.
Prospero resembles “Pantalone”, a wealthy elder man. He is always seeking to marry off his daughter “Isabella”, just as Prospero is looking for a mate for Miranda. Isabella is in love with “Fabian” (just as Miranda is in love with Ferdinand). Fabian’s father is “The Doctor”, an authority figure like Ferdinand’s father Alonso. “The Captain” is a cowardly blow-hard like Sebastian. “Brighella” is a manipulative schemer like Antonio. “Arlecchino” (the harlequin) is a clown like Trinculo. “Zanni” is a lower-class butler like Stefano. “Pulcinella” (Caliban), a deformed tragic figure, completes the ensemble.
Kings and Dukes named Prospero, Alonso and Ferdinand
Prospero Adorno, the Duke of Genoa, may have been another of Shakespeare’s inspirations for his character Prospero. Similarly, Shakespeare may have known of Alonso II, King of Naples, who abdicated the throne in 1495 in favor of his son Ferdinand.
As noted by Charles Creighton in Shakespeare’s Story of His Life, Trinculo had “lesser legs” like the ventriloquist John Marston. In The Tempest, Ariel plays a ventriloquist’s game with Trinculo and Stephano. Stephano builds a pun on Trinculo’s name: “vent’Triculo”. Creighton also suggests that Stephano may be based on Marston’s close friend, Ben Johnson.
Famous Shipwrecks
Shakespeare’s shipwreck seems clearly based on the wrecks of Josephus and Paul. Aeneas’s wreck at Carthage may have been the common root of all. However, Shakespeare also took elements of his tale from current events. Of course, all shipwrecks have many elements in common. Thus, the task of evaluating literary dependence is a matter of looking for distinguishing detail. Three accounts of a shipwreck in the Bermuda Islands in 1609, including one by William Strachey, are often mentioned as the most direct inspiration for Shakespeare’s descriptions of the wreck and the island. However, Peter McIntosh argues for earlier sources, describing explorations of Magellan, Drake and Sarmiento de Gamboa.
Shakespeare’s reference to the god Setebos indicates that Shakespeare may have used Antonio Pigafetta’s account of Magellan’s voyage. Pigafetta released his Report on the First Voyage Around the World in 1525. Richard Eden translated the report into English in 1577. McIntosh said that Pigafetta mentioned “St Elmo’s fire, tempests and assorted giants and cannibals“. Francis Fletcher also mentioned the Setebos, as well as a tempest and a drunken native, in his account of Francis Drake’s 1577-1580 voyage.
Charles Frey further notes that according to Pigafetta’s account, a pair of sailors named Antonio and Sebastian mounted a mutiny against Magellan. Fortunately for Magellan, a hero named Gonzalo Gomez de Espinosa put down the mutiny. Furthermore, Pigafetta tells us that one of Magellan’s ships was wrecked, but “all the men were saved by a miracle, for they were not even wetted”.
Sarmiento de Gamboa’s voyage to the Straits of Magellan
In addition to Pigafetta and/or Fletcher, McIntosh argues that Shakespeare must have had access to Sarmiento de Gamboa’s journals. Like The Tempest, Sarmiento’s journal describes a flaming tempest and mariners stranded on a beach. Parallel features of Sarmiento’s island include berries, shellfish, pastures, freshwater springs, evergreens, and oaks. Sarmiento’s villains are named Alonso and Antonio, and witnesses to a ceremony were named Gonzalo and Fernando. Wine casks are washed ashore, lions are afoot, lights are seen in the sky and voices of devils are heard. McIntosh feels that all these parallels, taken in total, establish a connection between Sarmiento and Shakespeare.
And furthermore, McIntosh claims that Sarmiento de Gamba’s descriptions fit Shakespeare like a glove, while in many cases the details of Strachey’s tale are in conflict. Nevertheless, Shakespeare’s apparent reference to Bermuda is a problem for McIntosh’s theory. McIntosh answers that ‘Bermoothe‘ was also a brothel district. Thus, Ariel’s quest for dew from ‘the still vex’d Bermoothe‘ might have been a joke about a search for purity in an unlikely place. Overall, McIntosh concludes, Shakespeare did not need to depend on Strachey. If this is correct, it’s possible that Shakespeare completed The Tempest before 1609. (The first recorded performance was in 1611.) The late date presents a problem for Oxfordians in particular, because de Vere died in 1604.
Conclusion: Was Shakespeare Jewish?
I believe I’ve made the case here to the contrary, that Shakespeare was more likely Catholic. Furthermore, this Shakespeare may well have had the education and connections necessary to have participated in writing the plays. Considering the collaborative nature of authorship in those times, it is impossible to rule out group theories. The author (or authors) knew about the Flavian comic system, and the atrocities that attended the creation of Christianity. There’s no reason why radical Catholics and Protestants of that era, as well as Jews, should not have shared a sense of rage, and a desire for redress.
But suppose we accept that Emilia Bassano Lanier alone wrote the plays from a sectarian Jewish perspective. Even from that conclusion, it doesn’t necessarily follow that this was part of a single conspiracy that continues to the present. Much less so, that the conspiracy was and is essentially Jewish in character.
With the Democratic and Republican primary contests all but settled, any day now we expect some sort of dramatic and Hillarious farce-off between Trump and the Evita du jour. As entertaining as this might be, we’d much prefer a sincere campaign dialogue. But really, isn’t this the way it has always been, in American national politics? This year’s theatrics may be nothing more or less than the usual ballet around distractionary wedge issues and other trumpery, all veiling the usual hidden agendas of the elite. Or perhaps this represents another stage in the ongoing globalist degradation of the US government? But, rather than turning to despair, we intend to use the Trump vs. Hillary reality show as an entrée ‘door of perception’ to examine the dark Romantic underbelly of racism in Western and American culture. It’s all part of the larger tableau of Western society, with its central false dialectic cynically built upon the trope of anti-Judaism.
Origins of Multiculturalism and Feminism
In view of the current state of affairs, we feel we must begin with a history and defense of the standard that we use to judge current events. Our yardstick was defined during the Enlightenment, and codified in the American Declaration of Independence and Constitution. That is:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
As further explained in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789):
Article IV – Liberty consists of doing anything which does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of each man has only those borders which assure other members of the society the enjoyment of these same rights. These borders can be determined only by the law.
Article V – The law has the right to forbid only actions harmful to society. Anything which is not forbidden by the law cannot be impeded, and no one can be constrained to do what it does not order.
Article VI – The law is the expression of the general will. All the citizens have the right of contributing personally or through their representatives to its formation. It must be the same for all, either that it protects, or that it punishes. All the citizens, being equal in its eyes, are equally admissible to all public dignities, places and employments, according to their capacity and without distinction other than that of their virtues and of their talents.
As former Libertarians, and now reformed libertarians, your authors still generally hold to these ideals. But of course, when these words “all men are created equal” were first written, the phrase “all men” meant, literally, only white males with sufficient property. This came about because the American Founding Fathers held a great admiration for the Roman Republic — whose senators, at least, were from great families whose agrarian estates could be traced back to colonial conquest. It was thought that only such solid and dignified men, with assets at stake, could be trusted to act responsibly on behalf of the greater good (and, incidentally, to maintain their own great fortunes as well.) This, because their culture told them so.
It was not long before this conditional aspect was ironically pointed out. In 1791, a French women’s rights activist by the name of Olympe de Gouges wrote the Declaration of Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen, and was sent straight to the guillotine for it. But ever since then, those words all the citizens have been sanctified by our culture. White women and people of all other races and of every economic station, heard and still hear these words and interpret them in their own hopeful light. Obviously, the guillotine was a bloody cold-shoulder reaction to such a cheeky cultural assertion. But this type of harsh pushback is exactly the meaning of the term ‘reactionary’. In a perceived zero-sum game, the chosen ones must somehow conserve their elevated status.
The American Constitution also provided some means for the underlings to seek to improve their lot. Conditional and tentative, to be sure. Constitutional freedom of speech has its limits if you need to keep your job. At election time, blacks and women couldn’t vote, even though blacks were at least considered as three fifths of a person. But this was not for slaves’ benefit, but rather to benefit the Southern slave states in terms of holding political parity with the Northern … uhm slave states. (In the North, slavery was being gradually phased out. In many states, the children of slaves were free, but adult slaves were slaves for life. New York didn’t begin this process until 1799, and the last slave in Pennsylvania was freed in 1847.) At any rate, one could always hope that the ‘liberal’ white male voters would at least occasionally vote against their own perceived self-interest.
The complexity of the federal/state system provided some avenues for activism, as the states supposedly held back the powers not enumerated for the central government, as discussed in Michael Maharrey’s Our Last Hope. This came into play when at least some of those ‘liberal’ white citizens were outraged by the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which compelled Northerners to act as unpaid slave catchers for Southern estates; and by the infamous Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court of 1858, which stated that blacks were “a subordinate and inferior class of beings, who had been subjugated by the dominant race”. Perhaps, viewing the matter cynically, the Northern ‘liberals’ could afford their generous attitude because the Northern economy didn’t really need slaves nearly as much. But for whatever reason, it was the Northern white citizens who first rebelled against the Fugitive Slave Act, creating the Underground Railroad to take fugitive slaves away to Canada. In 1854, for example, Sherman Booth of the Milwaukee Free Democrat newspaper organized a crowd of 3,000 to 5,000 citizens for the purpose of freeing a runaway named Joshua Glover from prison. Booth wrote: “Citizens of Milwaukee! Shall we have Star Chamber proceedings here? And shall a man be dragged back to Slavery from our Free Soil, without an open trial of his right to Liberty?” As a result, Glover escaped to freedom in Canada, but Booth was in and out of Federal prison until 1861.
The women’s rights and women’s suffrage movement was a kindred spirit to the abolitionist movement in the 1850’s, and they contributed support to each other. The Constitution’s 14th Amendment of 1868 granted citizenship to blacks, but in 1875 the Supreme Court decided that “all persons” still did not include women, at least not when it came to the “equal protection” that would be provided by the right to vote. Women turned to a campaign in the states and territories, winning the vote in Wyoming in 1869, Utah in 1870, Colorado in 1893, and Idaho in 1896. After a backlash and a process of regrouping, Washington and California granted women’s suffrage in 1910 and 1911 respectively. After that, more states gradually granted the vote for women, and in 1920 the 19th Amendment was ratified.
Objections to Race Nationalism
Our motive for reviewing this history, is to point out that these great ideals are irreconcilably opposed to both the rhetorical Race Nationalist politics of Donald Trump, and the long-running ‘neocon’ interventionist politics of Hillary Clinton. We consider both of these as two sides of the same ‘corporatist’ coin, with the difference that Trump focuses primarily on internal ‘enemies’ of white America, while Hillary and the Neocons direct their hatred (as well as bombing raids) towards external nonwhite enemies.
Are You Serving the Kochs’ Hash or The Donald’s at your next cucktea party?
Although Trump and Hillary have wrapped up their nominations, their poll numbers across a broad spectrum of Americans are pretty poor. Most of those who will vote for either one, will be doing so in capitulative desperation about the other. The situation is resulting in some ironic crossings of traditional party lines, such as the recent (sincere?) announcement by the Koch brothers that they may have to go with Hillary. The Koch brothers have a long history of supporting the Libertarian Party, with David having even bought himself a VP position on the 1980 Presidential ticket behind Ed Clark. But more recently they have become major funders for the (Loose) Tea Party. While the Libertarians are very tolerant with respect to social issues such as drug legalization, abortion, and gay marriage, the early Tea Party organizers refused to take any position on such social issues, “for the sake of unity.” As a result, polls indicate that the Tea Party electorate are very conservative in regards to such cultural norms, although Libertarians and Tea Party activists still share fiscal goals. Thus, the Kochs have made a hash of the Libertarian’s social paradigm of “Do What thou Wilt, as long as you cause no harm”. Trump, meanwhile, has made a hash of the fiscal map in his campaign, with some of his positions quite liberal. And now the Kochs are stating that they will not eat The Donald’s brand of hash. Is this because Trump’s racist posturing is a bridge too far, or is it because they don’t trust him to reduce taxes on the wealthy? Whichever hash you choose, it came from the glue factory.
‘Cucktea party’, say what? Read on.
Sadly, we must admit that the ideal of multiculturalism flies in the face of perhaps a hundred thousand or more years of human evolution. Until relatively recently, most people lived in small villages made up of fairly close cousins. And as the “Human Biological Diversity” blogosphere insists, there are very real differences among the different races, along many dimensions. Men and women are also highly evolved for the gender-specific roles that they took on in primitive societies. For all these reasons, living up to multicultural and feminist ideals is not easy. Pushing too hard and too fast can and does lead to disaster, and this is an important factor for Trump’s grassroots support. Cities such as Los Angeles seem to be well on the way to being overwhelmed by the immigration of massive numbers of impoverished, mostly poorly educated foreigners who might harbor murderous intentions for jihad and/or the reconquest of Aztlan.
Like the Constitution, multiculturalism is not a suicide pact. There are limits to the degree to which any society can accommodate immigration flows, and integrate the newcomers into the existing political, social and economic system. Because of these difficulties, some intellectuals have taken to criticizing multicultural and feminist ideals as if they were invented in the mid-twentieth century by Postmodernists and/or the Frankfurt school, which is far from the truth of the matter. We will return to this issue later in this essay.
However, as is so often the case, reasonable solutions to these concerns are drowned in extremist dialectic. Trump’s apparent rhetoric appeals especially to fears of Islamic terrorists, and Obama only fans the flame with his plan to import 10,000 refugees from the Syrian civil war, at tremendous public expense. In this way, Trump’s popularity feeds on the fiasco created overseas by the Neocons, which increases the pressure to accommodate the flood of displaced refugees. The policies of Latin America’s neo-colonialist elite are another contributing factor. The problems with Mexico are the pretext for the most dramatic aspect of Trump’s immigration policy, which is his call for mass deportation of an estimated 11 million undocumented residents. In fact, many of these ‘illegal aliens’ have been here for many years or even decades, and some play an important role in the American economy. These are not mostly Islamic, but rather they are predominantly Chicanos from Central and South America. That is to say, their genetic makeup is anywhere from 30% to 60% Native American. By any rational standard, they have as much right to be here as anyone of European descent. (That is, unless you consider exclusion by cultural or biblical Providence to be a rational standard.) And even among the refugee immigrant groups with perceived highest levels of risk, actual incidents of terrorism or jihad are practically unheard of.
Here we also note that even before the Revolutionary War, America was multiculturally seeded from the start with a broad assortment of sectarian theocratic cults of various nationalities, the introduction of race based slaves, and …. women, aka WITCHES. Aaargh!! It was a witch’s brew and not merely a ‘melting pot’ as we were always led to believe by our cultural framers. Who let these people in, we ask? All humor aside, this question is critically important. For whatever reason, this has been our American fate to deal with this type of situation, right from the beginning. As difficult as the challenge may be, we feel strongly that we must continue to advocate democratic rights for all people, including those of all races, creeds and genders — otherwise we might as well just give up and accept the arrival of technocratic feudalism.
This conclusion also inevitably follows from a careful consideration of the practical implications of the alternative posed by Trump, or at least from that of his more extreme acolytes; that is, striving for the goal of achieving separate and pure race based nations. Admittedly, a few such nations claim to exist already, such as Israel– if it weren’t for the problem of those pesky Palestinians and Israeli Arabs. Like Trump recommends for America, they are building walls to keep the racially pure Ashkenazi (that is, biblically Gomeric Caucasians) inside, and the Palestinians (that is, Semites) out. This would logically be considered anti-Semitic, but who needs logic. And from a practical standpoint, recent history seems to show, as well, that the Palestinians have been learning how to build tunnels, like the Mexicans have.
But the real problems start when people use airplanes, ships, or motorcars to move from one race nation to another. Once people are in, even legally, some might opt to stay beyond their visas, as has been pointed out to Mr. Trump. How shall this be prevented? Papers, please, at every checkpoint? Or better still, everyone could just be chipped. If we go with this techno-fix, maybe we won’t even need walls. But what shall we do about the younger generation? Kids being as they are, cross-racial hookups of various fashions will happen, as they have for thousands of years. Each time another “cross-breed” is born, do we need a new nation to accommodate that person’s mixed heritage, as unique as it is? This would bring new meaning to the term ‘subdivision’.
And as everyone knows, pure nation-states must be pure not only racially, but also culturally and spiritually. So what are we to do with white rappers (aka wiggers), or Native Americans who study Japanese martial arts, or Muslims who join either the Rastafarian or Pastafarian Churches? Do we need still more Pure Nations, or shall we just throw the miscreants in jail, or the .. ‘poor prison’ (poor as in: ‘not Pure’), to protect the purity of their respective homelands? Maybe guillotines or a gift of typhoid infected blankets would be a better form of tough love? More cost effective in any case.
Our inside sources inform us that allocation of these race nation boundaries will be determined by the combined outcomes of three-legged sack races and wife tossing contests. The definition of “three-legged” is purposely ambiguous, so as to give the noblest and ‘fairest’ race (wink, wink) a leg up, so to speak. It’s only ‘fair’. And we hear that Antarctica is warming up these days, if any race is interested in opting out of the contests in favor of a providential land grab.
Hmmm, but if we have such race nations, where then will get our next literal or virtual slaves from? That is, in order to keep our economies perking along as we have come to expect. Even Trump himself is known to find those of other races and creeds useful as low-cost hired help, but what will he and other business moguls do when that option is foreclosed? It seems to us that each of these race nations will either have to dedicate some of their own race to slavery, or make old school incursions into the other race nations, thus providing a new contextual and providential meaning for ‘off-shoring’. After all, God helps those who help themselves.
And, recognizing the many substantive differences between men and women, isn’t it obvious that the two genders are going to need separate nations? Right-wing “Machos Going Their Own Way” (that is, MGTOW’s) are in the vanguard here: they know that sleeping with the enemy involves loose lips, which leads inevitably to sunken ships.
Letting Koch Cuck Your Nestegg?
Emboldened by Trump’s success, some of his supporters have become increasingly strident in their denunciation of multicultural and related ‘establishment’ political values. Their political language is often vulgarly provocative, denouncing their opponents as “libtards” or “cuckservatives”. The latter meme, being applied to ‘politically correct’ moderate Republicans these days, is derived from the notorious practice of the cuckoo bird. This bird is famous for placing its eggs in the nests of other bird species, so as to let them be the unpaid nannies for the new cuckoo chicks. Applied narrowly to humans, the insult darkly hints at an existential threat to our White posterity, as our men are being cheated on and/or our women are being stolen by foreigners and their fellow travelers. The metaphor is more widely applied to any supposed deviation from the White Nationalist political and cultural ideals. But their own meme of “limited government”, which in our view is looking more like a desire to “end all American government”, is (as such) just another cuckoo egg. If the hatchling ever grows up, it will be an uber-Randian dis-Utopia for the oligarchic likes of the uber-Catholic Koch brothers.
‘Cuck’-calling, and similar other practices, have effectively swept moderate Republicans from the political arena. Former Clinton Secretary of Labor Robert Reich’s documentary, Inequality for All, includes a remarkable lament over this purge by former Republican Senator Alan Simpson (WY). The Clintons have similarly cucked the Left spectrum rightward, infusing their historical corporatism into the nests of such as the feminists and old school progressives.
For that matter, Trump’s appeal to Tea Partiers and some Libertarians only serves to underscore the bankruptcy of such core wedge constructs as ‘Right’ vs. ‘Left’, and Liberal vs. Conservative, at least in the American context. There is a collective process of ‘forgetting’, leaving a vacuum which is then filled with clever political divisiveness to further cloud our minds. This has left the American polity in a confused and tangled mess, easily fooled into voting against their best interests. This also applies to both Democrats and Republicans, who have been tricked into nominating the likes of Hillary and Trump, respectively.
The Exceptionally Cultured Pearl of Americana
Aside from the race card, another key element in Trump’s appeal is the promise to “Make America Great Again”, which is starkly juxtaposed to Hillary’s claim that America never stopped being great. This begs the question of what “Greatness” is, and what we mean by America and its ‘culture’, and what is any culture’s value for that matter? It has become apparent at Postflaviana that various discussions about ‘cultural degradation’ have neglected to define the baseline and/or ‘ideal’ that is being degraded away from. It is similar to the Supreme Court decision decades ago that said they could not define what pornography was, but that they knew it when they saw it. Such a legal decision is not useful if one has a quibble between, say, the relative merits of pornography versus erotica. But given their repressed ‘cultural’ upbringing, is it any wonder that these judges were hesitant to wade into such waters? Similarly, considering the relative merits of sexual repression vs. excessively libertine behavior, or drug prohibition vs. legalization, it is difficult to have a conversation about ‘degradation’ without having some definition of either the supposed ideal situation, or as to what ‘culture’ is exactly in the first place.
Most any culture is ever evolving, either glacially or in fits and starts, for various reasons. Using very freighted and now effectively obsolete terms, ‘Liberals’ feel that America has evolved to a state in which equal rights for blacks, hispanics and women are right around the corner, and fear a reversal of the trends. ‘Conservatives’ decry the loss of the laissez-faire Capitalist republic, and fear the arrival of Socialist (if not Communist) Tyranny. Both of these abstractions are over-simplified. The actual social and economic condition of most blacks, hispanics and women has not improved much for a long time, while the condition of working class white males has now deteriorated to be almost on their level. Considering the Postmodern formalisms of Multiculturalism and Feminism, this outcome is not surprising.
As opposed to the comic book Conservative view of the economy, it might be more accurate to observe that colonial America began as multi-theocratic, slave-agrarian, and mostly king-loving, rather than laissez-faire. By the time of the Civil War, we had progressed to a protectionist slave-agrarian, manufacturing and mercantile hybrid economy. The early 20th century saw the era of monopolistic robber barons. This yielded in turn to the socialist-capitalist hybrid economy of the New Deal. Today we are living with a corporate transnational globalist anarchy, where the corporations’ lobbyists have effectively nullified much of the American government’s former regulatory power under the Commerce Clause. For example, such as Bill Clinton’s signing away the Glass-Steagall Act with Republican support. We suspect that our current economic world would seem roughly familiar to Alexander the Great, arguably the first globalist.
At each stage, and depending upon one’s perspective, is found the forces of either cultural degradation or the opposite.
For “liberals”, writ large, Trump represents a fearfully potent force of “cultural degradation” in the form of an attack on hard-won progress. At the same time, for many of Trump’s followers, Hillary (and Obama before her) epitomizes a continuing attack on the old white patriarchal culture. In other words, the two groups have vastly different conceptions of the American cultural ideal, while the same might not be said of their standard-bearers’ real standards.
As such, is it also possible for some aspects of culture to be improving while other aspects are heading in the wrong direction? Again, it depends from whose perspective. If there is some intentional effort to systematically degrade (or merely tune) culture, can it be ascribed to some single unified set of evil-doers, or is evil-doing also in the eye of the beholder? Or, can such offal degradation “just happen”, organically, without any external stimuli? And, finally do we thus need some form of cultural Censor to be re-invoked?
So it is at this point we need to stop and consider just what we all think we know about ‘culture’ and what it means for us. From the Compact Oxford English Dictionary we have two relevant contextual meanings:
culture ⋅ 1 the arts and other manifestations of human intellectual achievement regarded collectively. .. 3 the customs, institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or group.
The second definition expands the definition to include practically every aspect that surrounds us daily as individuals. Thus, culture is the metaphorical oyster that we are all born into as irritating little grains of sand. In terms of Jewish and Christian culture (aka Western civilization), the narrative in the OT envelops all of us, and metaphorically transforms us into near identical pearls. At least that is the functional intent of culturing a cult, or cultus. For at the end of the day, that is what we really are, as an ostensibly and generally conforming group of individuals. But apparently not all of us are so perfectly pearled. The combination of ‘degrading’ assaults and ‘reactionary’ responses creates the ‘Culture War’ as witnessed currently. Another example was the German 19th century Kulturkampf between the modernizer Bismarck and the Catholic traditionalists. We can also include the Reformation and Shakespeare as ‘assaults’, and the Counter-Reformation as another backlash reaction.
Another relevant term is:
culture shock ⋅ disorientation experienced when suddenly subjected to an unfamiliar culture or way of life.
Interestingly, such a ‘shock’ is experienced in response to any change in the culture, whether it is judged an improvement or a ‘degradation’ according to some ‘objective’ standard. The definition implies that the negative consequence of disorientation applies in either case. Why is this such an issue to many people? Perhaps because people’s identities, and thus self-worth, are intimately tied to their perceptions of themselves as defined by their culture. Thus, any change can be seen as an existential threat, and thus also a ‘degradation’ from the point of view of anyone who experiences this ‘disorientation’. If the change involves a loss of real or perceived social status, the negative reaction will be especially intense.
This same dictionary has only one ‘degrade’ based word variant whose definition applies directly to humans and that is degrading:
degrading ⋅ causing a loss of self-respect; humiliating.
In the United States, many have invoked the ‘patriotic’ notion of Exceptionalism. This is not so much different from the Jewish concept of the Chosen People. These concepts have been, and are still being given as ‘Justification’ for the Conquests of the respective lands. The opposite side of the coin is the necessary cultural humiliation of the Native Americans and Palestinians respectively. This ideology awards the Conquerors with satisfying visceral feelings of superiority, in having done God’s exalted work. Such feelings are especially helpful psychologically for the lower strata of the conquering peoples, who do most of the dirty work.
The scholarly field of ‘higher Biblical criticism’ has long been charged with undermining the culture, by the denial of Jesus Christ. Our Postflavian claim that Christ was Caesar is, surprisingly, sometimes used as an ironic ‘reactionary’ response to the culture shock created by the historical-critical skeptics. That is, one can claim that the Caesars are indeed suitable vicars of the fictional Christ, as are the popes. Kenneth Atchity makes just this proud claim in his Messiah Matrix, in which he envisions a future in which the Catholic Church renounces the Jewish Jesus of Nazareth in order to embrace the wisdom of Caesar Augustus. Many others have drawn comparisons, and found that America is an excellent modern analogue to ancient Rome, as our founders had hoped for. But yet, change is change, and time does not really flow backwards. ‘Biblical criticism’ is change, Postflavian biblical criticism is further change, and both have drawn and will continue to draw reactionary opponents.
And with the perspective of history, we must recognize that the elites of every time and place have an essential and powerful role to play in determining the course of cultural change and the flow of cultural innovation, for either the well being of all or for narrow avarice and greed. This is not to deny that cultural innovations can emerge organically from anywhere in society, nor that some aspects of culture simply represent universal human nature. But our point is that ‘culture‘ is not necessarily the ultimate value that we are trying to defend. For instance, many in the American South long decried, and some still do, the cultural degradation foisted upon them by the loss of their slaves (their Lost Cause). After all, slave ownership was culturally endowed to them in both the Old and New Testaments. Spain’s traditionalist monarcho-Catholics brutally put down the Republicans (a coalition of intellectuals, anarcho-athiests, socialists, and others) along with the assistance of Hitler and the Vatican’s Opus Dei, led by Saint Escriva. But we (Postflavians) do not defend the incumbent culture of the South, or of the Spanish Catholics — while the present-day Catholic Church broke all speed records in canonizing Escriva and John Paul II.
The Submergence of Class Warfare
It is most easy to see what is really going on, if we go back to the original political meanings of the terms ‘left’ and ‘right’, and ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’. That is, the original (French Republic) ‘right’ conservatives sought to ‘conserve’ the rights and prerogatives of the divine order of the European monarchies, as well as their beneficiaries such as the gentry and merchants. These latter groups formed a middle class, the so-called bourgeoisie, who well understood which side their bread was buttered on. ‘Conservatively’ supporting the status quo was clearly in their best interest in a perceived zero-sum game with the lower classes.
The term ‘Class Warfare’ comes from the socialist idea that workers must struggle for their rights against the bourgeoise. Starting with Marx, the pretense has been that the truly upper classes have merged with the bourgeoisie (that is, middle class professionals and small business owners). And while your authors do still ascribe to the libertarian ideal that the working class and the bourgeoisie could (and do) work together in harmony, we have to deny wholeheartedly the conservative mantra that there is no such thing as ‘Class Warfare’ in America. This is the big political charade, especially when it comes to the strange omission of ‘Royalty’ and their successors in the analysis. In fact, we have come to almost the exact opposite position, i.e. that there is almost nothing but class warfare in America (disguised as race blame, gender conflict, or similar). While the ranks of the ‘liberal’ parties are drawn mostly from the middle class and racial minorities, the ‘conservatives’ consist of the very wealthiest individuals pretending to make common cause with the poor whites. Also included in this coalition are some bourgeois small business owners who aspire mightily to be moguls themselves, if only in their dreams. This is not limited to the United States of America, but rather to all of the Americas that were established by European colonization under the divine authority of the various crowns and the papacy.
For here we are getting to the nub of the conservative knee-jerk ‘reaction’ to various efforts to actually deliver a more desirable social environment. This has been the same issue since at least the time of the Classical Greek oligarchies, and so on till today. That is: the primary driver of class economic status stems from inherited wealth, especially real estate, and what associated means are attached to it. To offer a more optimal alternative, libertarians and other fiscal conservatives must recognize the important Georgist caveat that our planet, the Earth, is a common heritage which was not created by any human effort (we’re pretty sure), and which should be stewarded for the benefit of all the people. Hopefully we can even find room for a few wolves and sharks, at least. This is the principle that could allow past wrongs to be better redressed. Henry George pointed out that land tax is the one form of tax that does not penalize economic activity, since the amount of land is basically fixed by the finite size of the planet. But one man’s more optimal and balanced society is another Optimate’s worst nightmare. (The Optimates were the Roman oligarchs who struggled against the land reforms of Julius Caesar and the earlier Gracchi brothers.)
Meanwhile, in the current crypto-monarchist environment, it is unthinkable to suggest that the injustices of the current state of affairs, the sequel of centuries of slavery and conquest, should be seriously unwound by policy. ‘Affirmative Action’ programs pit the middle class against minorities, and leave upper class privilege untouched. Tensions frequently break across racial divides, making it easier to distract attention from the core issue. The colored ‘have nots’ can then be marginalized using rubrics akin to the old biblical Ham ruse. Their propagandic debasement serves to functionally elevate the ‘haves’ if only by relative perspective. And thus the upper class depends on their culturally sanctioned superiority, and this causes their fear of cultural degradation.
Don’t Fence Me Out
Sir Thomas More, in his 1516 work Utopia suggests that the practice of enclosure was responsible for some of the social problems affecting England at the time, specifically theft:
“But I do not think that this necessity of stealing arises only from hence; there is another cause of it, more peculiar to England.” “What is that?” said the Cardinal. “The increase of pasture,” said I, “by which your sheep, which are naturally mild, and easily kept in order, may be said now to devour men and unpeople, not only villages, but towns; for wherever it is found that the sheep of any soil yield a softer and richer wool than ordinary, there the nobility and gentry, and even those holy men, the abbots not contented with the old rents which their farms yielded, nor thinking it enough that they, living at their ease, do no good to the public, resolve to do it hurt instead of good. They stop the course of agriculture, destroying houses and towns – reserving only the churches – and enclose grounds that they may lodge their sheep in them.”https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure
With the changes and demands wrought by, first, the Mercantile era and, then Enclosure and the Industrial Revolution necessity eventually forced some ‘enlightened ones’ in power to realize that the conditions of the lower classes needed to be elevated, so as to make their societies function better. This included the creation of opportunities for education, and some political rights. Such activity was seen as a ‘generous’ endeavor, and thus garnered the term ‘liberal’, from the common meaning of the word. Such ‘liberality’ provided the upper classes with a better educated and more productive class of factory workers and soldiers, but could not redress all the underlying problems. As such, one might suspect that some of these ‘liberals’ were nothing more than overt or covert (crypto) monarchists.
I’ve Been Right So Long, It’s All Been Left to Me
In this MSNBC video link , George Wallace’s campaign manager of the 1960’s and ’70’s, Tom Turnipseed, compares the Trump campaign to Wallace’s craven presidential campaign racial politics. Trump, wearing his branded flipflops, is treading a well worn trail of others’ tears. This in responding to widespread fears and concerns on the part of the (no longer) working class Americans, whose living standards and prospects have been deteriorating alarmingly for decades now. Their situation has reached a crisis point, especially given the current high suicide and drug addiction rates amongst those of our Boomer generation, perhaps second only to those of veterans of the ongoing faux Bush and Obama War on Terror.
The dark irony here is that Donald Trump would categorize these poor souls as Losers. To be sure, because of continual appeals to their vanity, these descendants of mostly former European serfs do not understand that they are well on their way to becoming serfs again, or worse. Ironically, the grandparents of today’s American serfs cum self-entitled bourgeoisie forced the New Deal changes upon the political class, more so than the other way around. And now the worm has turned, with the corporate powers having found their way back to the sacred cash cow of virtual slave labor, foreign or domestic. Thus, there is no more need to indulge the serf descendants, aside from today’s cheap equivalent of the Roman “bread and circuses”. That is, on TV, with no bread.
There have been massive changes in Trump’s historical political posture during his presidential runs. His new campaign manager recently admitted that he has only been ‘big stick’ posturing in the early primary campaign, so as to appeal to his mostly uneducated Boomer base. We have to wonder what this obvious pandering is really meant to achieve. Even lusty Ann Coulter is having trouble maintaining lip service for the Donald’s recent limp stance. But, Trump does maintain a consistent emphasis on his numerous means and ends of ‘Winning’. Accordingly, one might be justified in considering his current means as merely demagogic opportunism in service to his massive ego. Perhaps so, but his big stick campaign may also be the cover for some worldly Trojan whore, perhaps the onset of globalist corporate fascism.
That said, and as we finish writing this, Trump has taken to tacking to the left of Hillary for the general election, leaving some to half-joke that he’ll now offer Bernie Sanders the Republican VP slot. Perhaps Trump has noticed that Sanders is significantly outpolling Hillary, and Trump, when the two are placed opposite Trump. But again, all this drama may be purely for entertainment purposes, as Trump has also recently given an interview to the Wall Street Journal in which he backtracked from his left-wing position, emphasizing the virtue of ‘flexibility’.
Is you is, or is you ain’t … a fruit of white slavery?
As detailed by Martin Bernal in his Black Athena, Vol. 1, the Hanoverian sponsorship of the Romantic movement delivered the first cultural expressions of racial superiority in Western history. (That is, aside from the ancient Jewish question.) The purpose of this was to justify global imperial colonization under the rubric of ‘The White Man’s Burden’, including the new notion of race based slavery. In earlier times, slavery had not been determined by racial or ethnic factors. On the contrary, it was primarily associated with defeat in warfare, or hopeless debt. The Romans would enslave anyone but fellow Romans. The Greeks would enslave anyone – including other Greeks. In feudal times, the interrelated nobility held most white people in virtual slavery under the job description of ‘serf’.
The new Romantic narrative provided a basis for the former ‘serfs’ to conquer and dispossess their new enemies. Ironically, this is exactly what had happened to their ancestors centuries earlier, during the Roman conquests of Europe. While the former serfs got a cultural upgrade, the new ‘barbarians’ got an unwelcome cultural downgrade. As with the Holy Bible, all this demonstrates the value of social engineering, race-based or otherwise.
Early in the primary season, Trump brought his two-front populist war to his mostly lower middle class, white base, whom have long been on an addictive binge of anti-intellectualism. This is a dark vestige of the 18th century’s Romantic Movement, fobbed off on the West by George II’s cynical initiation of the modern ‘scientific’ university system at Göttingen University. This perverse and baseless philosophy grants primacy to hysterical, gut ‘feelings’ over rational thinking processes. These feelings are given their highest expression when based in a geographical substrate that darkly translates to hierarchical ethnic and racial terms. The ‘feeling’ here is that generations upon generations of life upon prime geographical real estate is everything, in terms of determining racial merit.
The first prong of Trump’s populist campaign is based in such racist ‘romantic’ notions, as discussed above. The second prong is aimed at the current American economic malaise. He is targeting the same ignorant white audience that rallied to Ronald Reagan – who successfully mocked Jimmy Carter for his use of the term ‘malaise’. Because such citizens are not fact based, but feelings based, they are not capable of discerning that it was really Ronald Reagan’s policies that started the slide to their worst declines. Robert Reich, President Clinton’s first term Secretary of Labor, details in the documentary, Inequality for All, the effects of Reagan’s policies as steering the American economy from a previously upward Virtuous Cycle to a downward Vicious Cycle. From upwards to downwards, that is, for everyone below the upper middle class, while the reverse for everyone else – especially for the very well to do. Unfortunately, and as admitted by Reich, Clinton’s policies were a general continuance of Reagan’s Koch and Mont Pelerin based policies — aimed at bestowing massive largess on the worthies, in hopes that some would trickle down to the neo-serfs. That Reagan’s director of the OMB, David Stockman, declared that Supply Side economics was a massive failure, is merely indicative of our thesis here about the ultimately dystopian consequences of anti-intellectualism.
And perhaps worse, Reagan’s trickle-down policy was framed within the straw man, the faux intellectual foil, of Libertarianism’s extreme anarcho-capitalism. This advanced the destructive hidden agenda of traditionalist Catholics like the Kochs, to demonstrate that egalitarian democratic principles can’t work — if only because they are busy 24/7 to undermine them. Just as these elites conveniently hid behind Marx’s atheistic skirt on the one side (to mitigate against socialism), they also hid behind Ayn Rand’s atheism on the Libertarian side.
Reich’s Virtuous Cycle worked mainly because its engine was driven by the fact that the middle class demographic must, by default, spend a much higher proportion of its income than does the wealthier strata of society. This increases the ‘velocity’ of money, making the same amount in circulation work more for the benefit of the general economy. Here, the documentary enlisted billionaire businessman Nick Hanauer to confirm this point. He added that, despite his continual investments in new business ventures, the vast bulk of his annual profit income goes to such as hedge funds. This capital is deployed in non-productive investments and/or overseas, thus providing rather little boost to an economy that can produce and sustain jobs for the domestic society. And he asserts that this is typical for people in his strata.
Ronald Reagan, elected on a platform of limited government, turned out to be the opposite, funding massive increases in military programs and in financial market and government credit expansion. Thus, he got the political credit for collapsing the Soviet Union, which many had predicted must happen in any course, and for the significant economic gains made by the upper middle class and above. This political credit was ironic given that Reagan’s base was his so-called Blue Collar Democrats. It just goes to show that no bad political deed goes unrewarded. This has been known since before the populist times of Julius Caesar, the father of Christ Augustus.
The Clintons were involved in similar duplicity in Arkansas, favoring corporations over citizens, despite their populist-left rhetoric. For example, they colluded with southern elite whites in seeking to influence public utility commissions to jack up rates, to the detriment of poor ratepayers, both black and white. This was detailed in Roger Morris’s Partners in Power. As for credibility bona fides here, Morris was a member of the Johnson and Nixon era National Security Councils before he and two others resigned in protest over the illegal Cambodian bombing campaign. The above revelation should be indicative as to why Robert Reich, in his video linked above, could not get the Clinton Administration to follow through on his economic recommendations, leading Reich to leave at the end of the first term.
Thus, the Virtuous Cycle is transitioned to the Vicious Cycle, by various means of siphoning income streams from the lower strata of the middle class. The loss of disposable income, and worse – sustenance income, leads to the gleeful opportunity for demagogues such as Trump to pander to the hysterical fears of the ignorantly emasculated blue collar worker. Historically, such prolonged periods of economic malaise lead, one way or another, to the various stressed groups hysterically blaming one another for being the cause of the problems.
The ever-popular Jewish Question
This pitting of group against group, a long known practice of the elites, termed “divide and conquer”, brings us back to another fascinating aspect of Trump’s race-based politics. Historically, when we arrive at such a juncture, the political class opts to distract the hoi polloi with human scapegoats to take the blame for the problems caused by the elites. Here the mother of all scapegoats, at the cynical core of the Western Judeo-Christian construct, is the ever popular Jewish Question.
While Trump’s campaign against multiculturalism is centered on Islamic and Mexican immigrants, we’ve noticed that some of Trump’s staunchest supporters are far more concerned about Jews. By this we mean notable figures such as David Duke and Kevin MacDonald, as well as many others like the ones identified by this ‘helpful’ list from anti-semitism.net. And although Trump’s overtly stated message treats Jews with tremendous respect, his anti-Jewish followers detect more than a few hints that Trump might turn out to be in their camp. This may be a sort of psychological projection, rather than being based in anything tangible in Trump’s political platform or his history; but nevertheless, we maintain that their perception is very significant, as a manifestation of the archetypal significance of the conflict of Jews vs. Christians.
Distilled to its purist form, these self-styled “White Nationalists” are telling us that the deeply anti-Judaic central paradigm of Christianity is indeed true. That is, they would have us believe: the supposedly ‘genetically’ wicked Jewish race, the same ones who supposedly are responsible for having the Romans crucify (the ironically Jewish) Jesus Christ, are yet still the prime carriers of original sin in the world. This whether Rome’s Christianity was a pious fraud or not. These ‘carriers’ include members within the central and international bankers, the mass-media propagandists, the organizers of false-flag terrorist attacks, and the schemers of trans-humanism and technocracy. Depending on the individual’s perspective, the culprits can include the entire global Jewish demographic. A number of other usual suspects, such as the Illuminati, Freemasons, Jesuits, Bilderbergers, Bohemians and so forth, are seen as little more than Jews with a cover story, and their ranks complemented with goyim useful idiots.
Baldly asserting a particularly extreme version of this perspective (while denying that any conspiracy is even necessary for the Jews to implement their plot), Andrew Anglin (now webmaster of “The Daily Stormer” with its slogan “Total Fascism”) wrote:
The genetic nature of the Jew is that of a predatory parasite, and it is hardwired into the psychology of each and every one of them to find weaknesses in their host societies and exploit them, both for personal gain and the gain of their race. … It is impossible to know what goes through the mind of a Jew, as they are so entirely alien to us in every conceivable way. Asking what a Jew is thinking when he robs and abuses us is like asking what a mosquito is thinking when he drinks our blood. We must cease in our attempts to find a recognizable human pattern to their behavior, for none exists. They do not need to meet secretly in order to attack us, any more than a swarm of termites must meet secretly before destroying the frame of a house.
The unstated implication is that if we could just find some sort of Final Solution for this problem (neglecting, for a moment, the Muslims and Mexicans and so forth), the rest of us could then soon achieve a state of virtual Utopia. With those of stout White blood restored to power at the helm of perhaps a Democratic Christian Republic, we could look forward to honest government, universal prosperity, and a high-minded, clear-thinking culture, based on stable families. Or perhaps the people might prefer something like secular Anarcho-Capitalism and a noble Non-Aggression Principle. In either case, the people would abide in a state of freedom from any assault, whether from drugs, the media, politicians, or anything else. Right?
A Trumped-up Trope?
Perhaps the biggest clue that the Judaic narrative is spurious, is that the founder of the Jews, namely Judah and his descendants, are depicted uniformly in a negative light in the Old Testament. Yet this is the foundational narrative of Western Civilization, which has traditionally been considered the Word of God, and the touchstone of its ‘Cult-ure’. Such narratives, such as Rome’s Aeneid, are more typically cast as panegyrics, glorifying the moral superiority of their founders. This dark depiction of Judah in the Bible is sometimes taken by modern scholars as an indication of veracity: because it’s so unexpected, it ‘must be’ honest. As discussed in Isaac and the Fortunate Scions, we think it’s more evidence that the Torah was designed from the beginning to place the Jews in the role of scapegoats, and servants to others.
Along these lines, we feel it’s significant that ever since the inception of our discussion forum here at this website, we have been repeatedly approached (or accosted) by numerous posters carrying this same anti-Jewish agenda, framed variously. These apparently well-meaning posters have advanced this agenda ostensibly in the name of seeking Truth and correcting the vector for achieving a better world, or at least preventing a worse one.
There are some obvious reasons why our forum is a lightning rod for this sort of activity. First of all, we are highly critical of most all religious formulations and especially the Abrahamic ones, which are all built upon the cultural foundation of one lineage of oxymoronically depicted noble shepherds. For that reason alone, critics who focus their attacks on Jewish targets might expect that they would find a companionable welcome among us. However, the difference is that while we are critical of all these religions, we are careful to place the primary blame on those elite elements that perpetuate the fraud, even though they should know better.
Another factor is the company we keep. Joseph Atwill has been a regular guest on Red Ice Radio, and Jerry has also appeared there once. Red Ice, in turn, features guests like David Duke and Benton Bradberry, who are well known for their White Nationalist leanings. In turn, Red Ice’s host Henrik Palmgren is a regular at Freeman TV, where Joseph is another regular guest. So again, it stands to reason that the followers of these Internet personalities would come here expecting to find themselves at home. Perhaps when we venture into these forums, we need to be more careful to delineate our position.
It’s interesting to note that the anti-Jewish agenda can be ironically further justified using one of the central organizing motifs here, namely Atwill’s discovery that Jesus of Nazareth is a cynically fictional construct of elite Imperial Romans collaborating with elite Herodian and Hellenized factions of ‘Jews’, including Philo of Alexandria. This can be interpreted as a necessary reaction to Jewish extremism of the time — with the Imperial Romans perhaps even in the role of heroes of the civilized White Race against the obtuse and hopeless resistance of the Jews. At any rate, this was essentially the justification given by Josephus for his role in the Jewish War.
Followed to its logical conclusion, this could lead to the view that it was unfortunate that the Romans failed to completely wipe out and/or culturally destroy the Jews at the time, because now we’re faced with finishing the job they started. Especially, because we are told that the once passivated Jews retained knowledge of what was done to them over the years, including the faux Jesus business, and have now seized the moment to launch a silent and grand global coup, all while distracting us with Zion, Ersatz Israel.
The Fertile Cuckoo Eggs of Postmodernism and Cultural Marxism
Another sophisticated anti-Judaic argument, is the view that intellectual movements such as Postmodernism and the Frankfort School have invented and/or exploited (M)ulticulturalism and (F)eminism, re-casting these as weapons to use against the Gentiles. It is rightly observed that many Jews do not take their own medicine, remaining insular and tribal while expecting everyone else (especially white American and European males) to adopt an extremely self-effacing posture with respect to those who have been wronged in the past. And while we cannot deny the reality of this sub-plot, we feel it’s important to point out some mitigating factors. Firstly, as we have discussed extensively above, the goals of (m)ulticulturalism and (f)eminism have a fundamental (p)rogressive appeal, the service of which may have been a primary motivation for many fellow travelers of (P)ostmodernism. Secondly, as with many good ideas that have been corrupted by too much elite-driven scholarly attention, it should be possible to recover the core values from the baroque superstructure. Thirdly, the correct response if this is a Jewish plot would be to demand that the Jews (and all other races for that matter) start to live up to multicultural ideals, not to abandon them and attempt to re-create the German Third Reich on American soil, or in Israel for that matter.
But what is this business about fertile (prickled) ideological cuckoo eggs? It sounds pretty ‘kooky’ you say? We are suggesting that the basically positive principles of multiculturalism and feminism, are now being ideologically cuckholded by the politicized, extremist formalization of such principles. Such organized formalization necessarily produces a defensive cultural backlash, or reaction. This also touches on the issue of elite and reactionary ‘co-optation’ of reform movements in general. Organic efforts towards social improvement can be met with cynical reactionary efforts to neutralize the movement by the process of ‘Entryism‘. One tactic of Entryism is to subvert a cause by introducing militant Formalism via either agents provocateur or by encouraging pre-existent members to radicalize themselves. Another tactic is to create or commandeer a hierarchical control mechanism (such as, for example, the board of directors of a nonprofit) to turn a grass-roots movement into a formal and rigidly doctrinaire ‘ism’ that loses touch with a balanced view. Such radicalization, via Entryism, is usually meant to create a Machiavellian backlash against the original movement by the unwitting wider public. As such, your authors (as can be seen with others’ similar approach) make use of small and capital letters (sometimes inside parentheses) to distinguish between a general movement and some co-opted and radicalized (F)ormalism of that movement. That is, we distinguish ‘feminism’ vs. radical Feminism, or ‘libertarianism’ vs. Libertarianism.
In light of all this, it should be clear where we stand with respect to the anti-Jewish theorizing of David Duke, Kevin MacDonald, and the like, and why we ultimately feel it’s all terribly misguided. As discussed above, we take our stand with the ideals of the democratic rights of all mankind, including equality of all peoples under the law. Thus, to the extent that any individual Jews are seeking to carry out elitist conspiracies against the common people, of course, we are in opposition. But guilt needs to be assigned on the basis of actions, not because of race; and we believe there is plenty of guilt to go around for all races.
A thorough web search will reveal an abundance of anti-Islamic, anti-Catholic, anti-Black, anti-Chinese, or even anti-American racist literature, in addition to the anti-Jewish genre. It may be true that the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ surpass everything else in the height of evil depicted. However, the fraudulent nature of that document should cause suspicions to rebound against the perpetrators of the forgery. An objective reader should eventually come to the realization that elite criminality is an equal-opportunity sport for all races, or at least for all White races and fellow travelers. The ‘Protocols’, as well as the entire genre of “fear porn” that it inspired, seek to promote a sort of a misplaced paranoia. The reader is led to fear that soon the wicked ones (Jews, Muslims, Chinese, Americans, whoever) will succeed in carrying out their plot, at which point they will utterly destroy and/or enslave their victims, and the rest of the world. In hopes of avoiding this demise, the reader is encouraged to support an elite savior of their own tribe, who is most likely (in reality) just as evil. All of this is just another variant of the much earlier apocalyptic Christian fear porn, rooted in the book of Revelation — although the White Nationalist version of this apocalypse is lacking in any salvation for the faithful. Or perhaps we should say that the White Nationalists do entertain the hope that salvation will come — currently, in the name of Donald Trump, their champion.
Conversely, we find that an understanding that the global elites are of diverse racial and ethnic makeup, leads to a certain amount of relaxation. One recognizes that matters have been bad for thousands of years, but are unlikely to take a sudden turn for the worse — at least, not as a result of the sudden triumphant rise of (for example) the Jews. The cultural role of the Jews in particular, as scapegoats for the elite, is certainly nothing new. We know that the Roman empire of the first century CE, with the assistance of the elite Jews of the day, co-opted the remaining passivated Jews, rather than completely eliminating them all from the empire. They even gave the Rabbinical Jews a city, Yavneh (Jamnia), to reformulate their texts and outlook, and an ethnarch that answered to Rome. This system, minus the ‘nasr’ ethnarch, was passed onto the papal system and was thus folded into feudal Europe with the Jews becoming the institutionalized buffer class of the day, essentially the Middle Class. Hence Rome did not fail at its job, it did exactly what it intended.
From then until now, the Western system has maintained the same general cultural posture of cynical antagonism. (That is, with the fasce-inating exception of Vatican II’s Nostra Aetate (In Our Time), where the Jews are now absolved by papal fiat, and John XXIII declaring significantly that he is the Jew’s Joseph. The two sticks of Catholicism and Judaism are being combined into a single fasces? That is, a single bundle of sticks, perhaps holding an axe blade? We await anxiously to see how this will unfold. We may find that Islamics and Blacks take on the scapegoat role formerly shouldered by the Jews. Barack Hussein Obama, known to be half Black and suspected of being Islamic as well, may be the harbinger of this trend.)
Our model agrees with David Duke and the Stormers at least to this extent: we concur that the Jews of today (of various types and persuasions) hold dominant positions in the media and banking industries, and this is a fact that needs an explanation. Even in going this far, we have distanced ourselves from mainstream discourse, which exists in a state of cold silence and denial about the issue of Jewish power. Is this state of affairs perhaps a purposeful ‘elephant in the room’? Unlike mainstream media sources, and even many ‘alt media’ ones, at this website we will never be afraid to address these questions frankly, no matter how “politically incorrect” the results might be. For example, just what did happen in the Jewish “Shoah” of World War II, and how does it compare to the genocide of Germans and Russians in that same conflict? Can Americans take such a self-righteous attitude about this, considering what happened to Native Americans? And, how can we moderate the toxic effects of all forms of tribalism and religious fundamentalism, including (even) if the tribe happens to be Jewish? At this website, we want to use bright day-glo colors to illuminate all these hidden elephants.
However, the primary fundamental flaw of logic in the White Nationalist argument against the Jews is described by the old saw “correlation is not causation”. Indeed, the presence of so many Jews in such prominent positions of influence is being interpreted wrongly, via a cognitive reversal of the directionality of cause and effect. As mentioned earlier, the true cause of presence of the Jews where they are today is a cultural residue of institutional decisions made long ago, by the elites of Imperial and Catholic Rome. The logical error (the reversal of cause and effect) is culturally primed for easier acceptance amongst the populace via the official and underground propaganda institutions and rumor mills of Western society for the last two thousand years, and especially coming from the Church. The reality is that the media and banking industries are only two components of a greater elite power structure that also includes governments, the military-industrial complex and their intelligence agencies, organized religions, and ecumenical/international secret societies such as the Freemasons and many others.
And we hold that the Jews are still playing the same cultural role today as they have for at least two thousand years (if not more), as typologically and psychologically necessary implementers of various roles on behalf of the wider elite. Certainly, the vast majority of Jews are unwittingly passive in this role: their ‘crime’ is just in their existence. Even the acceptance of Christ is dubious redemption, as ethnic and cultural factors stay in play, especially with suspicions of crypto-Judaism. And the ‘hofjuden’ are always in their assigned roles, dragging the rest along. Thus eternally condemned, the Jews serve as lightning rods for popular outrage, and as scapegoats for the problems created by the system as a whole. Even among elite participants in the system, it’s difficult to say who might be aware of this archetype, which seems to have a life of its own. We suspect that many or even most elite Jews, Catholics, Protestants, Islamics and humanist technocrats are ignorantly playing out their cultural role within the grand scheme, pursuing their own narrow interests within thenarrative of their particular faith or nationality. And some of these individuals may be just as stereotypically evil as their detractors imagine.
However, we also believe that at least a few individuals have the benefit of conscious insight into the manner in which the various cogs interact to create spectacular outcomes such as the events of 9/11/2001, which act so often for the benefit of the elites of all the various religions and races. We believe that such very sophisticated elite individuals are found as top members of international and ecumenical secret societies.
When all is said and done, it is really a question of what model is most accurate, if not absolutely correct. Your authors say, as we have before, that all the evidence points to the idea that all the elites are effectively working together against everyone else, including against non-elite Jews. Thus, our position is ultimately opposed factually as well as ideologically, from those who blame a Jewish conspiracy for all the problems. Unfortunately for the goal of settling this controversy one way or the other, one cannot clearly isolate Jews and so-called Gentiles into those categorical camps. Historically, ethnic Judaism has been defined in terms of matrilineal descent, but the starting point is imagined to be the twelve sons of Jacob from four different wives, creating a lot of genetic diversity right from the beginning. These twelve sons may very well have been avatars (or perhaps externally-imposed rulers) for twelve diverse tribes assembled into a political unity by conquest. The ultimate fate of at least some of these twelve tribes remains mysterious, but surely the concept of ‘Jewish’ cannot be restricted to sons of Judah. The initial narrative diversity is not an auspicious starting point for the concept that “the Jews” are a discrete race that can be defined in terms of DNA. But over the thousands of years since, the situation has gotten far worse, as whatever pure Jewish DNA ever existed, has been admixed with the blood of neighbors and converts all over the globe. This theme is explored in more depth in the essay Genetics of the Oligarchs: Eloi, or Upstarts.
While it is all very interesting to present evidence that Shakespeare or Ignatius of Loyola or even Roosevelt must have been a Crypto-Jew, it begs credulity to extend that argument to the many elite Catholics and Protestants in extreme positions of power, such as in the CIA, Congress or the Supreme Court. It is, in fact, the Judaic presence in both the models that allows for the critical and profitable obfuscation, the veiling of the true wizards (who may, for all we know, include certain Jews in positions as powerful as anyone.)
Along these lines, Joseph Atwill still thinks that a more parsimonious explanation of the phenomena we address here, is that one or more elite groups are acting out of tribal and ethnic motivations. Other readers might also feel that the cultural control mechanism proposed by your authors (Richard and Jerry) is simply too complex and fantastical for anyone to take seriously, except for maybe Machiavelli. The correct analytic path might indeed turn out to be that these various secret societies, governments and corporations are exactly what they appear to be: completely independent power centers. Or, worse, that some singular racist entity is really emerging out of the chaos into total control. Accordingly, we all agree here on the importance of continuing to gather data, including DNA information if possible.
Contrary to Atwill’s view, your authors argue that any failure (on the part of the dominant elite) to provide a front group to take the cultural blame, would be the height of Machiavellian malpractice. To then argue that this is only evidence of just how devious the Jews are, would then exhibit an apex of absurdo infinito. Not that anyone has yet made that argument against us. For that matter: to our knowledge, no one has ever asserted our central argument before. Meaning that no has seen fit to see the Jews (loosely defined) as an integral and somewhat expendable ‘limited hangout’ front for the greater control system. Only Israel Shahak has come close in his Jewish History, Jewish Religion, but was not depicting the larger picture to the level we are. As a logical complete system, our model may actually be more parsimonious than any other model. In other words, the model should be as simple as it needs to be to fit the data, but not simpler.
That some cohort of these Jews may indeed be part of a ‘Hidden Hand’ control construct is really beside the point we are making. In fact, that such individuals may indeed be acting so, is consistent with the evidence for exactly such Romano-Judaic collaboration, at elite levels, during the time of the formation of Christianity, and even before that. This master and servant collaboration is narratively confirmed by the birth order and mothers of Judah and Joseph, as discussed in Richard’s last post Isaac and the Fortunate Scions. The next post in the OT series will flesh this relationship out even further, showing Judah’s subservience to Joseph, who was “as if the pharaoh”.
Of course, the very easy response to this is to claim that since Joseph was a Hebrew, then your authors here are making an inane argument by showing this distinction. But, are we really? In The Genesis of Western False Dialectic in the Old Testament, we claimed that the word ‘gentile’ should not be understood as a general term for Christians. In its original sense, it specifically referred to ‘gentlemen’ — that is, the nobility. Here, we will argue that a similar obfuscation has occurred with the ‘identity’ of the lineage of Joseph. That is, the descendants of Abraham and Joseph may encompass a far broader spectrum of peoples than is commonly acknowledged today. At a deep level, the sons of Abraham could include the Romans, Celts, Phoenicians and Greeks (Danaans) as well. As argued in Steven Collins’ The ‘Lost’ Ten Tribes of Israel… Found!, the correct collective name of the twelve tribes who followed the law of Moses as worshippers of Yahweh and heirs of the Blessing was the “Berith” or “Covenant” people (in Hebrew consonant spelling, B-R-T), whose name may be reflected in such places as Brittania, Iberia and Hibernia; as well as the name the Phoenicians called themselves, also the B-R-T. Collins claims that the Celtic people, in general, are descendant from the Phoenician lost tribes. He suggests that the Trojans might also have had some relation to these B-R-T, which would make their seeming arch-enemies the Romans distant relatives as well. (Perhaps that explains the strange collaboration between the Romans, Herodians and Alexanders? More likely, a matter of convenience at the time.) Elsewhere, we have argued that some of the current political elites may be remotely descended from a small founder tribe of Indo-Europeans that capitalized on their mastery of the horse and the wheel to conquer the southern agricultural world of their time. If any of this is the case, then the White Nationalists may be correct that the elite conspiracy is in some sense a united racist tribal endeavour — though the connections between the various components are far more remote in history, and the racial and genetic diversity is far broader than they imagine. This argument does not depend upon Joseph being factual or fictional in representing either an individual or an eponymous tribe.
Ancient Roman Roots of Anti-Judaism
As if we should really have to remind anybody: the two-thousand year old system enshrined by Roman Catholic theology is indeed centered around the alleged Jewish perfidy towards Jesus. The lasting effects of this ideology seem to extend to all who have been culturally baptized into the waters of Fear Porn. But this manipulation is even older than Christianity. The genre had many manifestations in ancient Rome, as the final paragraph of Beard and North’s Pagan Priests states:
from pg. 255: The political order of the Empire chose its moral enemies well. Being merely structural products, they functioned not as threats to the dominant order, but rather as its allies in its constant task of naturalization, of being taken for granted. One might even say that the moral enemies of the Roman order, from perverts to cannibals [such as Lucan’s fictive parody, the night-witch Erichtho – rs], from Christians to witches, were among its most effective friends, making their own contribution to weaving the veil of imperial enchantment. The Roman order attempted to dehistoricize sacrifice. Part of its strategy was to invent ‘natural’ social diseases which lurked, like germs, in dark cracks, waiting to pounce. In alliance with the civic gods, the emperors, like Vim, kept the sink sparkling.
Needless to say, the above could just as easily be said about the Roman’s superficial cultural relationship of tension with the Jews. Today, this ideology persists in spite of the official modern day Catholic and ecumenical zeitgeist that the Judeo-Christian ‘God’ has evolved from His jealous and vengeful nature into that of an All Loving Cheshire Pussy Cat. However, the substantive operative relationship between the Roman and Jewish elites may have been more cooperative. Today, this cooperation has come into the open, and we are told that God wants to bring the Jews back into the flock, if indeed they ever left. We don’t see how this latter scheme can work in the long run to preserve the power of the elites, unless the hate can be redirected against Blacks, Hispanics and/or Muslims.
James Carroll, a former Catholic priest, went to extensive lengths to detail the anti-Judaic message found within the works of every major Catholic theologian from St. Augustine till recent times. In his bookConstantine’s Sword, Mr. Carroll argued that this virulent anti-Judaism was the result of a logical desire of proto-Christians to distance themselves safely from the Zealot Jews of the day. However, this implausible attribution of motivation does not undermine, one whit, from his careful quoting from Catholic theology.
Whatever the initial motivation, the medieval popes and their staff theologians saw profit in having the Jews physically present in their prescribed ghettos in cities across Europe. The Jews were maintained in such squalor so that they could take their culturally necessary role as demonic whipping boys and girls, for the express purpose of maintaining a reactionary state of mind in the Christians. The presence of such living demons proved very effective in maintaining adherence to the religious paradigm, including the extraction of the ten percent tithing skim. If all the Jewish demons were to be literally eliminated, as was the operative ‘pogromatic’ mindset from time to time, then the perverse hold of the fake religion on the masses might evaporate.
Since the 19th century emancipations of the remaining Jews from the ghettos of the ancien regime, this slow evaporation to secularism is indeed what has happened generally, but not universally across Christendom. Perhaps the European backlash of revulsion for the collusion of some Christians with the Nazis, may have been a factor in driving many Europeans to abandon their religion during the postwar period. This backlash never appeared in the United States, perhaps because this knowledge was not delivered here by the organs of media. The American Catholic Church, with some pre-war exceptions such as the infamous Father Coughlan, openly supported the Allied Cause once the war broke out. Prior to this time, all Catholics globally were called to support Hitler’s cause against the Bolsheviks via the Second Prophecy of Fatima. This prophecy, by the way, was later used to undergird the incitement of American involvement in Cardinal Spellman’s War, aka Vietnam.
As a highlight of Constantine’s Sword, Carroll detailed that as a young boy he attended, in 1959, the second unveiling of Christ’s ephod, the seamless robe of Jesus stored at the Trier Cathedral. The Church maintains that this robe was the regalia of the Jewish high priest, worn in order to fulfill Jesus’ dual nature as a spiritual and secular Messiah. Trier was the preferred seat of Constantine’s governance, inspiring the title of the book. Carroll attended this ceremony along with his father, a general of the U.S. Army Air Force who was engaged in rebuilding Europe as part of the Marshall Plan.
The first unveiling of Jesus’s ephod in the twentieth century was in 1933, to celebrate the ascension of Adolf Hitler to power, with the essential help of the Catholic Zentrum Party. The common denominator for the two unveilings was the presence of Fritz von Papen, the man who negotiated the Vatican Concordat for the Nazis, and who later became a Papal Chamberlain. At the first ceremony, Hitler was invited to attend but ‘minister’ von Papen came in his stead, to cheerfully witness all the Swastika emblazoned flags hanging in the cathedral. Here is the insane irony of the Mother Christian Church claiming, via this faux relic, that Jesus was indeed the high priest of Judaism, even as Hitler was preparing his attempt to eradicate the Jews from Europe. One is reminded of the imperial Roman mockery that Jesus was the king of the Jews, signified by the inscription INRI on the cross.
Meet the New Age: the same as the Old Age…
So, one might ask us, what is the ‘cui bono’ purpose of the Church in apparently shooting itself in the foot? ‘Aha’, our detractors say, the ‘goy’ Church has obviously been infiltrated by the demonic Jews, via the Illuminati, the Jesuits, and the Freemasons. Prior to this happening, the Church was allegedly doing an admirable job of evolving into an institution that epitomized the values of Christ Jesus, that high priest of the demonic Jews. This would include values like getting mad at barren fig trees and such. Richard has explained this gospel reference here, as a humorous pagan cryptic allusion to the ongoing change of Ages. And just who was really driving the donkey of change? In this case, the change was that first textually espoused by Virgil in honor of Octavian Augustus Caesar, the first Prince of Peace and divine author of the glorious Pax Romana. Virgil, for his 4th Eclogue effort, was honored posthumously as a Christian in the breech, and still is to this day.
Some people suggest that we are in the proximity of another ‘new age’ (zodiacal or otherwise), or perhaps a New World Order. If this is the case, might we expect that the veiled sponsors of the Church might be inclined to submerge the image of Jesus of Nazareth, in order to ‘prepare the way’ for the next salvic paradigm to be shoved down our throats? Here, we say: yes indeed. It is not the Jews who are causing the Christians to abandon Jesus. And similarly, we see that there is a distractionary basis for another Fear Porn Industry that has raised up around the New Age movement of recent decades. This includes claims, not entirely without factual basis, that the apex of Western Cultural achievement of American (zombie konformist) Freedom is about to be destroyed, in the wake of an economic and/or ecological collapse — by rampaging zombies.
Getting back to our anti-Jewish critics: they say that the dastardly Jewish infiltrators have even gone so far as to convert the ‘goy’ Catholic Church into a ‘gay’ pedophile Church. Curiously, many of the pious goy faithful are willing to deny that the pedophile Church is really a long running institutional problem. This shows just how strong such ‘cultural’ programming can be. In fact, the pedophilia of the Church may extend back to the 4th century and Cyril of Jerusalem, as hinted (but not definitively demonstrated) by David C.A. Hillman in his Original Sin: Ritual Child Rape and the Church. It’s also possible that such ‘Perverse’ behavior has its roots in priest and nun celibacy, and the resultant dearth of approved sexual opportunities. And let us not forget the dog-matic refusal to admit that homosexuality occurs naturally in the animal kingdom, which includes humanity. Ignoring all of this history and biology, the pedophile priest problem is characterized, at least by those willing to admit that there is any such problem, as a matter of the misbehavior of certain individuals. Even the coverup is justified on the basis of claims that the Church ecclesia has been guided by good intentions to protect the Church instead of rooting it out. No kidding.
Perhaps the most fundamental driver of the false dialectic, is the true meaning of Isaiah 45:7 (as correctly translated in the KJV) that the Judeo-Christian God asserts logically, proudly, and unequivocally that he is indeed the author of all things. He is the author of all that is Good, and … explicitly all that is Evil. Here we see the true basis for the Church’sneed for the Romanized Jews to play the role of the eternal evil foil to Christ and the poor goyim. Under monotheism — if Satan exists, he must be in the role of God’s agent. And we are told in the New Testament that Satan does exist, just as Evil certainly does. And then it follows, as night follows day, that Satan too must have his earthly agents. Who else, if not the Jews.
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7 KJV)
We assert that most Jews have long been subverted unwittingly into this cultural role by the religious appeal to their Identity vanity, just the same as the goyim have been pandered to. That observers can look all around them and see evildoers constantly attacking them is all part of the big stage magic distraction. It all acts as if it were designed as a single construct, in which the globalist Men Behind the Curtain are brilliantly distracting the observers from themselves, thus making the observers continually take the wrong bait, based upon cynically emotional appeals to ‘saving the children’ and such. Who knows, perhaps this construct has indeed been designed and maintained by the Lords themselves.
Any such concerned observers, today, and especially in America, would do much better in protecting their children by teaching them to reject all such culturally motivated Fear Porn, and build bridges to other marginalized flocks of sheep. In the absence of such foresight, the dynamics are today being sardonically reversed, and the American Nationalist and other White Power advocates are being culturally transmuted into the dialectic equivalent of the Judaic xenophobic Zealots of Christ Titus’s time. And they will likely gain the same ‘reward’, in the Evangelical’s Futurist version of the End Times, fobbed off on them by the casuistic Jesuits. The precise timing of this is known only to the Lord — but we doubt that these Patriots will be among the 144,000 of the globally Predestined Elect who will get to bypass the Tribulation.
To finish, we suggest that Anglin is mistaken with his thesis that the perceived negative Jewish behaviors at issue are driven by genetics. Instead, to the extent that they have any basis in reality at all, they must be meme-driven by the millennial weight of their synthetic cultural imperatives. And furthermore, what is bad for the gander is bad for the goy-oose. As such, what if we could hit the reset button on Western Culture, reboot to the desired optimal culture parameters, and then the problem disappears from the Matrix? Could a universally delightful and secular (a)pocalypse be as simple and peaceful as that, as juxtaposed to the prior Final Solution?
Here at Postflaviana, we are humbly trying to find that reset button via our (r)evelations.
In this installment of the Old Testament series, we will review the curious ‘life’ of Isaac, the only son of Abraham ‘that counted’, and the father of Jacob, the metaphoric avatar for Israel. Jacob, in turn gave twelve grandsons to Abraham, and again we find that one appears to have ‘counted’ for more than the rest: Judah, who bequeathed his name to the Jews via a seemingly seamy contractual ‘affair’ with his dogged daughter-in-law. Most all worthy of a modern soap opera, as detailed below.
Just why did Isaac ‘count’, at least from the Judeo-Christian perspective? To reiterate what we learned previously: prior to Abraham, the Biblical grand narrative was somewhat expansive regarding the ever branching of genealogies. Obviously this is ignoring the apparently ineffectual morally and genetically cleansing consequences of the Flood, because the surviving humans didn’t seem to get the shock and awe message that God wanted them to change their ways. But in any case, with Abraham and God’s granting of the so-called Eternal Blessing, the focus begins narrowing quickly through Isaac, Jacob, and then onto Judah’s Jewish progeny, who appear to have been ‘chosen’ to receive the blessing, or curse depending on one’s perspective.
This is why Isaac ‘counted’ — as opposed to Ishmael and the other uncounted and erstwhile Semitic half-brothers sired from the concubines and wives, maids and slave women of Abraham.
The Quantum Blessing?
Conversely, from the Islamic perspective, it was Ishmael (father of all the Arabs and Muslims) who counted. This contrast forms the foundation for yet another mirror image society to the Jews. Amazingly little commented upon by religionists is that Abraham and his two notable sons appear to assume a supernatural or quantum nature, even at the macroscopic level otherwise occupied by Schroedinger’s cat. This by acting in two separate geographic theaters at the same time, but with polar opposite outcomes as to the favored lineage. The opposite outcomes are presaged by the fact that according to the Quran, it was Ishmael who was the intended sacrifice victim for Islam’s first scion, as opposed to Isaac.
Keep this in mind when we discuss below the Eternal Blessing and the respective domination of one brother by another regarding Jacob and Esau.
And, of course, in this regard the uncounted Esau was in the same relation to his brother Jacob as Ishmael was to Isaac. Earlier, poor Canaan fared even worse for his father’s sin. All this should make us briefly stop again to wonder about the actual underlying basis of this curious god’s providential global real estate acquisition Plan, and the Chosen Family’s Values. And how is this all related to seemingly banal sibling rivalries, the order of male birth determining relative status (but curiously the traditional “pride of place” status frequently inverted in the Biblical narratives), and such inanity as Ham’s inadvertent viewing of his naked and drunk father? Is such human dreck as this all there is to our wonderous divinity’s manifest scheme, from the entity alleged to have created the entire universe? Perhaps more importantly, are we being subtly informed that there is one set of rules for the divine, err ‘royal’, family and another for the rest of us?
Wonder now …. OK, stop wondering.
With that pause, it is also a good time to alert the reader that because we are dealing throughout the series with the overlapping generational narratives of family individuals, that there can thus be no clear demarcation in the posts between one individual and the next. In this regard, we will shortly revisit Abraham via the alleged attempted sacrifice of his son, Isaac.
This seminal and aborted human sacrifice seems to be the dramatic high point of Isaac’s life, as the rest of it appears rather anticlimactic by comparison to his father’s and his progeny’s active and exciting lives. In this regard, Isaac seems to have been the Caspar Milquetoast of his time, and here we are wondering if our allusion to the early 20th century cartoon may have more than a superficial resemblance to it. For one thing, the creator of the cartoon, H.T. Webster, settled in New Canaan, Connecticut. Coincidence, or conspiracy? You ‘connect’ the dots.
Just kidding …. or are we?
Hear Ye, Laugh Ye
But seriously, the seemingly dramatic sacrificial high point does not mean that there was no levity involved in Isaac’s life, with his very improbable conception and birth giving impetus to his being named Isaac, which means laughter:
And Abraham was an hundred years old, when his son Isaac was born unto him. And Sarah said, God hath made me to laugh, so that all that hear will laugh with me. And she said, Who would have said unto Abraham, that Sarah should have given children suck? for I have born him a son in his old age. (Genesis 21:5-7 KJV)
While Abraham was only 100 years old, Sarah was more impressively age 90, and we are not kidding here, but maybe the authors were? As such, we remind the reader that this is yet another clue to the alert and less credulous, .. to “all that hear”, that we are meant to look for meaning beyond the literal sense. This evokes Jesus’s later message for “those with eyes to see and ears to hear”.
And before we go on further, and fitting in with our premise that these texts are really about elite families, we must add that we forgot to mention in the prior post that the name Sarah means ‘princess’:
The Hebrew name Sarah indicates a woman of high rank and is translated as “princess” or “noblewoman”.
The name Sarai uses the semitic root Šarai or law and like El has the sense of power, authority, lord, deity, natural law, law as might be expected for the lady of the house.
What, He’s No Rambo?
Isaac is indeed entirely passive in most everything that happens after he is made to carry the wood for his own burnt offering, a holocaust. At one point (Genesis 26) the text informs us that the adult Isaac has sown crops, but this is only euphemistically so, in an aristocratic sense. In reality, and as betrayed later in the very same paragraph, it is his ‘servants’ who do sow, as well as shepherding his flocks, and digging out the wells, just as they had done for Abraham in his time. And as we’ll discuss in more detail below, Isaac (as his father did earlier) appears to have had some dealings with phictional phantoms that make us wonder if perhaps ‘Casper and the Relatively Friendly Ghosts’ might be more appropriate for representing Isaac’s relationship with Abimelech and his Philistines ‘at that time’. As such, we must examine below whether Isaac himself, at least, is something of a literary puff piece, marking time for his literary creators.
But whatever the case with his relative fictionality, Isaac does not seem to fit in with his lineage as actively advancing the divine agenda, much less being in the heroic mold of a robust action man full of ‘manly’ adventures. He is an “odd man out”, even duped by his wife and her preferred twin son, for all the divine stakes of the Eternal Blessing, no less. Of course, we can’t really blame the female here, as God told her which son would prevail when they were yet fighting in the womb.
If not a Rambo, how’s about that thar Ram in the Boughs?
And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son, and clave the wood for the burnt offering, and rose up, and went unto the place of which God had told him. Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place afar off. And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you. And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together. And Isaac spake unto Abraham his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering? And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together.
The angel of God aborts the sacrifice of Isaac (the father of Jacob, aka Israel) artist: Peter Paul Rubens
And they came to the place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood. And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.
And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me. And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son. (Genesis 22:1-13 KJV)
Once Abraham had finally settled into family life with ol’ Sarah, God commands him to demonstrate his loyalty by sacrificing Isaac. This was allegedly a common practice in parts of the wider Semitic world (as well as other ancient cultures), and the existence of this practice is (arguably) supported in the archaeological record. According to the story, the Phoenicians would sacrifice their first born to Ba’al so as to ensure the coming of the season’s adequate rainfall, necessary for crop fertility and livestock survival. Whatever the extent of the practice, we notice that the biblical Abraham was in no way surprised by God’s demand. And apparently being a properly pious pagan at the time (evidenced by this and other wider familial practices), he went straight ahead and took Isaac up to Mt. Moriah and began to piously go through with the ceremony.
You are my First Son, my only First Son ..
There is yet ongoing scientific debate about the actual existence of Semitic child sacrifice. One argument is that these claims were nothing more than typical Greco-Roman demonizing propaganda. If so, such propaganda was typically self-serving and hypocritical: the Greeks and Romans may have evolved beyond human sacrifice, but nevertheless it was considered perfectly respectable to expose unwanted children to the elements, with the justification that those babies might be saved by passers-by, or by God.
If such practices as ritual child sacrifice did not really exist, then it is somewhat ironic that the three Abrahamic religions each start with the attempted sacrifice, at least, of their respective firstborn sons: Isaac, Ishmael (as per the Quran), and Jesus.
In the following verses, when Isaac meekly asks where is the expected lamb to be offered up as a burnt sacrifice: is Abraham merely telling Isaac an ‘innocent’ white lie here so as to fool his son into proceeding peacefully to the altar of his demise? Or, instead is the verse’s author having some fun with his readers by allowing the possible interpretation that Abraham knows in advance that Isaac will not really be harmed?
We are also presented with the dilemma of wondering whether the supposedly all omniscient God of Abraham really has to test Abraham to see whether or not he will be faithful to God’s sadistic demand, before sending his angelic messenger to stop Abraham’s knife – just in time. After all, doesn’t divine prescience, at least, mean that such a god already knows in advance what will happen? As such, how can there be any valid test, in a rational sense, involving such a god? Here, and even given our concern about any such test — we suggest that a considerably better test would have been to let Abraham complete the gory sacrifice, and only then have this god restore Isaac to life, even allowing him to now ‘laugh’ at the imponderables of the whole affair. But just who was asking us at the time?
After all, how was anyone to know whether or not the angel stopped Abraham a fraction of a second too soon? And thus no one can be sure whether or not Abraham was really planning, all along, to stop the knife of his own volition before crossing the Rubicon of Isaac’s carotid arteries? Maybe they were both playing Chicken? As an exemplary test of Free Will, the story falls short.
But, as the story goes: just before he terminates Isaac, and thus Israel-to-be (via Isaac’s son Jacob), Abraham is informed that he has sufficiently demonstrated his loyalty to God, and that he can therefore substitute a nearby, conveniently stuck ram in Isaac’s place. And thus the same will be so for Abraham’s descendants from then on, minus all the human dark comedy at least. Note that the angel has mentioned that Isaac is indeed the only son (that counted) of Abraham’s; despite Ishmael, at least, being born before Isaac; and all the other sons that didn’t count.
As we can see within the context of later posts, and what has already been discussed in Abraham and the Sabian Legacy, this episode can be taken as a message to the targeted audience: that in being converted to Hebrews, they will no longer be performing this human sacrifice; but rather, that animals will now be substituted in place of first born sons. And before long the previously widespread local sacrificial practices were consolidated to the Temple cult practice in Jerusalem, at least according to the redacted narratives. Ignoring for now that the Samaritans and other factions had their competing central temples (over time) — this centralization to the one temple, of course, made it easier to oversee control over the conversion process and ensure conformity to monotheistic Judaism.
More Sacrificial Typology
In the aborted sacrifice of Isaac, a ram was substituted for the human victim. By the same token: some people, like the Muslims, don’t believe that Jesus died on the cross – possibly also having benefited by a body double substitution. But regardless of what might actually have happened: in both cases, at least via their narratives, their respective legacies went on to form the next two of the Abrahamic religions that have also stood the test of time.
Another curious parallel is Julius Caesar’s funeral bier. Upon its ignition, Caesar was seen to ascend to Heaven to join the gods. It was reported in several accounts that the loudest to mourn him were the Jews of Rome, because Julius had defeated the hated Pompey the Great, who had earlier defiled the Jerusalem Temple. With this action, Caesar joined the ranks of foreign Messiahs of the Jews, along with Cyrus, who had rescued them from Babylonian captivity. There are many typological parallels of Julius Caesar’s passion to Jesus’s Passion on the Cross, as recorded by Francesco Carotta in his Jesus was Caesar. Julius can readily be seen as a pure sacrificial lamb, being led along the Sacred Way to the slaughter at Pompey’s Theater in front of the Roman senators (≅Sanhedrin). And directly to our point here about staged contrivances: Julius had dinner with his claimed ‘assassin’, Brutus, the night before, and joked with everyone about his immanent demise. The Last Supper, indeed.
Within the contrivance of the aborted sacrifice, Abraham made Isaac, “thine only son”, sardonically carry the wood which was to be used to barbecue himself with. This forms a rather interesting typological link to Jesus, the sacrificial Lamb of God, who was also forced to carry his own wooden cross. And as well, Jesus was God’s firstborn and only son — except, that is, for those other sons of God mentioned in Genesis 6; which again reminds us of Abraham’s other sons that don’t seem to matter. Apparently the only sons that ‘count’ are the children of the primary wife of status.
That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. (Genesis 6:2 KJV)
And thus we suggest that this sacrificial inside joke, with its white lie, might also be another possible basis for the name ‘yitzchaq’, meaning ‘laughter’, as mentioned earlier. Was Isaac like Caspar Milquetoast here, or was he really laughing internally, at least, when he stoically asked Abraham where the lamb was? For here he was old enough to know that, as he was technically the firstborn, it should otherwise have been his destiny to become the sacrificial ‘lamb’ himself.
Art Thou else a Seedy Wallflower?
According to the Biblical narrative (Genesis 24), Abraham must send his unnamed senior household servant to the city of Nahor in Aram-naharaim, the city of his uncle, Nahor, in order to obtain a wife for Isaac. This was Rebekah, Nahor’s granddaughter. This is not to conclude here that a literal Isaac was necessarily lazy, as it was not the custom in those days for a man to romantically go a-courting as in more recent times. As we have already discussed, marriage was a serious contractual matter in those days, usually arranged, and with romantic love being merely the optional icing on the begetting cake. And in this case, as explicitly stated, it was not desirable for Isaac to obtain a wife amongst the local Canaanites. This as they had been thrown out of the Semitic family tree, dis-graced long before by the propagandic, fictional misdeed of Ham with his drunken father Noah.
But if we are correct that Isaac is a fictive artifice, part of the narrative scaffolding of biblical Israel, then what are we to make of this marriage to his second cousin, Rebekah? We assert that this is merely indicating, to the alert reader, the traditional aristocratic manner of securing political alliances via the practice of marriage, and as well, that this is done frequently via a network of already related elites. Are we really to expect that some family of shepherd peasants would go to this extent? This is the traditional methodology of the entirely interbred (until recent generations) European royals. We already mentioned in the Intro post that there are some hints of elite familial connections between Rome and Judah that begin to make more sense in our false dialectic construct.
In that light, we can discern that Nahor is an important man, like his brother Abraham, because the city is named after him. After the proper dowry gifts are made, although Rebekah has never seen Isaac, she consents by simply saying “elek”, meaning “I will go”, after her family first approves by saying “She shall go.” (Genesis 24:55-58)
Next the family blesses her with more dark food for thought:
And they blessed Rebekah, and said unto her, Thou art our sister, be thou the mother of thousands of millions, and let thy seed possess the gate of those which hate them. (Genesis 24:60 KJV)
At this very point in the long family saga, the very beginning of the metaphoric Israel: why, prey tell, should anyone hate the seed of Rebekah? What did those which hate them know, and when did those know it? Were they really prescient enough to understand that even their descendants would be hated by so many? Here again, we assert that this is evidence that verses like these were written by those pushing a hidden agenda upon another people who were undergoing a generations long, programmatic culture transplant. And as such, either the fictive patriarch characters were pushed far back in time, so that the targets of this social engineering had no means to disprove the narrative bring forced upon them, or there must be some other explanation for their presence.
And perhaps more importantly, we can see that the plan of God, or those writing in his name rather, is that those who label themselves Hebrews (but in reality Jews) shall indeed go forth and be hated by the rest of humanity. While perhaps most, whether religious or secular, take this premise as some form of given for various reasons, we assert that this reason was purposely baked into the matzo ball, so to speak. This is setting the foundation for the widespread Jewish belief in their universal raison d’etre, which is the neurotic assumption of the mantle of the Suffering Servant for the ostensible betterment of humanity. All stemming from the involuntary birthright into the Eternal Blessing first delivered to Abraham.
What better way to make people hate you, than to start out with the biblically inspired premise that … uhm … everyone hates you? This self-fulfilling prophecy is the black hole of the perverse and cynical nature of the Abrahamic divine plan and the false dialectic that we proposed. And imagine having to go through life with this heavy and cynical artificial chip yoked onto your shoulders. Some people say that it is better to be feared than to be hated. If so, with gods like this who needs enemies?
This hateful ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’ really constitutes one means to facilitate the self-organizing principles that holds the Abrahamic religions together, but especially the Jews with their Chosen status and linked claim of ethnicity. Because, and central to the narrative, we are here tracing through the passage of the coveted Eternal Blessing from God to Abraham through his progeny, it will be interesting to pay attention to what happens to it by the time we reach the patriarch of the Jews, Abraham’s grandson Judah.
And it came to pass after the death of Abraham, that God blessed his son Isaac; and Isaac dwelt by the well Lahairoi. (Genesis 25:11 KJV)
Upon the death of Abraham, at age 175, both Isaac and Ishmael are present to bury their father. However, and seemingly in passing (no pun intended), God only blesses Isaac. This after Abraham had given Isaac everything he owned, excepting the unspecified ‘gifts’ that he gave to the sons of his concubines. Ishmael’s presence here raises some questions, as he and his mother had been sent packing long, long ago. In this case, however, Ishmael had at least become the father of a nation himself, as per God’s instructions (Genesis 21:13 KJV), albeit now presumably without the Eternal Blessing that came from proximity to the blessed family (excepting for his presence at this burial). Which makes one ponder what this additional blessing given to Isaac was all about?
Or does Ishmael’s presence at the burial indicate that Ishmael really is still part of the Eternal Blessing, perhaps covertly? If Ishmael is out founding a nation, how long of a journey would it be to have him alerted to his father’s passing, and then for Ishmael to travel there so as to attend the burial in a timely fashion? There is no explanation provided for this, but it seems to imply that Ishmael was not really that far away from his father and half-brother. Perhaps just on the other side of yonder mountain?
Looking beyond the surface narrative here, imagine if instead of rude and nomadic ‘shepherds’, we are really cryptically talking about Egyptian ‘kings’ and their kin. In that case, maybe there was enough time for Ishmael to be notified and travel to the funeral. Here we are alluding to the extended period of time necessary to properly prepare a deceased body for mummification. And in this regard, we have previously mentioned Ralph Ellis’s suggestion of a sequential correlation of Patriarchal names with Egyptian king names.
With this last in mind, then what can we make of stories about the scioness of a Mesopotamian city being the “mother of thousands of millions”, and her half-brother-in-law who is round and about fathering yet another nation? For one thing, this definitely evokes “X fecund, if not Y naughty”. More importantly, this type of situation fits our Postflavian premise discussed previously regarding all of these tales of Hebrew Patriarchs actually being stories about high status elites and their artifice of a synthetic nation as their veiling and protective foil – also floating their stated global pretensions.
With Holy Kin Like These Who Needs Twinemies?
With Isaac and Rebekah’s sons, some prior themes are re-enacted. First we have the issue that Rebekah is barren for the first 20 years of the marriage, and thus requires God’s intervention in order to conceive. Secondly, we have a similar sibling rivalry as with Isaac and Ishmael, this time starting to play out while the two twin boys are still within the womb, and the younger son will, again, predominate.
Another remarkable aspect of the Isaac narrative, besides Isaac’s general passivity, is the ubiquity of interfamilial deception practiced by various holy family schemers. Here, Isaac’s sons and Rebekah conspire together, both against each other and against Isaac himself. But at least in this one case, namely the respective outcomes for Isaac’s feuding sons who are to become fathers of neighboring feuding nations — God has already foretold the outcome to Rebekah while they were yet fighting in the womb. So now we are left to ponder whether this deception and feuding was sanctioned by God. Why not? God logically states that he is the Creator of everything, including all that is evil (Isaiah 45:7 KJV).
But we don’t have to go to this extreme, as we have discussed in the prior post that the moral nuances in those times were different than today’s. Albeit with all the moralizing hype heaped upon us today, all this otherwise grifting behavior might seem to some a little too discordant to reconcile. Perhaps this is why such lurid tales have been adorned with a sacred gloss?
And Isaac intreated the LORD for his wife, because she was barren: and the LORD was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived. And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to inquire of the LORD. And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger. And when her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb. And the first came out red, all over like an hairy garment; and they called his name Esau. And after that came his brother out, and his hand took hold on Esau’s heel; and his name was called Jacob: and Isaac was threescore years old when she bare them. And the boys grew: and Esau was a cunning hunter, a man of the field; and Jacob was a plain man, dwelling in tents. And Isaac loved Esau, because he did eat of his venison: but Rebekah loved Jacob. (Genesis 25:21-28 KJV)
Here, Rebekah is disturbed by the conflict between the two in her womb, and God answers her inquiry by explaining that she will bring forth two nations from her womb. One can either take this as a metaphor for representing pre-existing peoples, or in the case of fundamentalists, one can see this as a euphemism for the two offspring literally fathering separate nations.We assert the former proposition as a key component to our main thesis in this series.
In any case, as we mentioned earlier, God additionally tells Rebekah which son will earn the Eternal Blessing over the other, and we are left to wonder whether this conditions her preference for Jacob. Did Isaac ever learn of this oracle? If he prefers Esau to the end, why does he pass the Eternal Blessing onto Isaac without a fuss?
With the ‘older’ twin, Esau, we are uniquely and curiously informed that he is ‘red’ and ‘hairy’ all over. Esau is said to become the father of Edom, perennial nemesis of the Hebrews. Here the Hebrew word admoni, for ‘red’, seems to be etymologically connected to Edom, as with the word se’ar, for ‘hairy’, is similarly connected to Seir, as spelled out in the Genesis 36 genealogy for Esau. Why should we care about this character having red hair, as nothing is mentioned about Isaac’s hair? For all we know, Isaac’s unstated hair might have been red as well, but instead we are left to guess that it is not red, perhaps to be of a more typical raven hair of the Semites. Hmmm, who knows?
The Birthright or My Brother’s Keeper?
And Jacob sod pottage: and Esau came from the field, and he was faint: And Esau said to Jacob, Feed me, I pray thee, with that same red pottage; for I am faint: therefore was his name called Edom. And Jacob said, Sell me this day thy birthright. And Esau said, Behold, I am at the point to die: and what profit shall this birthright do to me? And Jacob said, Swear to me this day; and he sware unto him: and he sold his birthright unto Jacob. Then Jacob gave Esau bread and pottage of lentiles; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: thus Esau despised his birthright. (Genesis 25:29-34 KJV)
The color red comes into play once more, as it is the color of the ‘pottage’ food, most likely lentils, that the starving Esau begs of his brother so as to save his life. Instead of being his brother’s keeper, and kindly feeding his starving brother (as Semitic custom demands hospitality to even strangers), instead Isaac uses Esau’s sorry condition (belying Esau’s depiction as a cunning hunter) as leverage to negotiate for obtaining what is Esau’s traditional firstborn ‘birthright’. Here, the narrative is referring to the traditional mundane material inheritance, and not the Eternal Blessing.
Also, little comment is heard of this aspect, that is, compared to Jacob becoming ‘Israel’, but notice that Esau quietly assumes an alter ego of Edom. With this, once more, and as with Isaac and Ishmael, the narrative creates an geopolitically based enmity that is to continue in perpetuity, and all within one special family. Thanks God.
We are also left to ponder why Esau, the cunning hunter, was starving — especially considering that his father had abundant herds. This question will loom large in the next deception regarding the Eternal Blessing. The last verse of the prior excerpt says that Esau ate of his father’s venison, and curiously that Isaac loved him for this and doesn’t mention any other reason for such a preference towards Esau. We are also left pondering that Jacob, always dwelling in his tent, is the stronger. Stronger in what way than his brother, who is the cunning hunter who loves his father’s venison? Like the unilateral mention of Esau’s red hair, what are we supposed to presume about Isaac’s diet or lifestyle and what it implies by comparison? Is this all an allusion to the ultimate superiority of the city dweller, who has gained by cunning subterfuge?
So once again, we suggest that the alert reader is figuratively being shouted at to ignore the superficial narrative and examine the much more important subtext.
Philistine Phictional Phantoms?
Per the Jewish and Christian canon, at least, while whether Ishmael strayed very far from home is a question, it seems certain that Isaac never did. That is, except for one odd and nearby excursion at least, as by inheriting Abraham’s flocks and other wealth he generally stayed around Hebron, and was buried there as well. This excursion apparently comes after the birth of his sons and the birthright issue, and it is made to Gerar because of a famine around the area of Hebron. From the text Isaac amazingly goes there of his own volition, however God appears to him and tells him to stay put instead of seeking famine relief in Egypt – as would be the case for Joseph’s brothers later on.
It is in the Philistine city of Gerar that we once again encounter its king, Abimelech. And while Isaac repeats the mistake of Abraham in trying to pass off his beautiful wife as his sister, the very old Abimelech has not forgotten the previous incident and thus upbraids Isaac for the possibility of getting himself and his people in trouble with Isaac’s god again. But Abimelech does not send Isaac off just yet, letting him grow crops nearby:
Then Isaac sowed in that land, and received in the same year an hundredfold: and the LORD blessed him. And the man waxed great, and went forward, and grew until he became very great: For he had possession of flocks, and possession of herds, and great store of servants: and the Philistines envied him. For all the wells which his father’s servants had digged in the days of Abraham his father, the Philistines had stopped them, and filled them with earth. And Abimelech said unto Isaac, Go from us; for thou art much mightier than we. And Isaac departed thence, and pitched his tent in the valley of Gerar, and dwelt there. And Isaac digged again the wells of water, which they had digged in the days of Abraham his father; for the Philistines had stopped them after the death of Abraham: and he called their names after the names by which his father had called them. (Genesis 26:12-18 KJV)
But it is only after Isaac’s success at growing crops (a hundredfold), and apparently the additional sight of Isaac’s large herds, that Abimelech now enviously sends Isaac off. To where? From the city of Gerar to the … valley of Gerar. And here Isaac’s men dig wells, and apparently they are very successful at all this too, and this becomes a source of contention with the people and Abimelech. The overt takeaway from all this is that Isaac has shown up the Philistines, and doubly so because these were the same wells that Abraham and his men had dug earlier, and which the Philistines had filled in upon Abraham’s death for some unknown reason. Perhaps to discourage alien squatters?
As a result, and apparently to avoid garnering more punishment from Isaac’s god, as he had already experienced from Abraham’s time, Abimelech ends up requesting to make a covenant with Isaac. One that implies that Isaac will continue to be able to peacefully graze and water his herds in the valley of Gerar, in exchange for Isaac and presumably Isaac’s god leaving Abimelech and his people alone.
This apparently is what God’s Eternal Blessing provides to the worthy, a cheap real estate acquisition, aka Providence. Earlier, with Abraham, he declines to profit materially from the king of Sodom upon defeating the forces of the Elamite Chedorlaomer, but as we can see now merely upon having the divine blessing, little else is needed if such as (promised) land is the objective. However, we are left with the seemingly oxymoronic question of why God must keep refreshing the Eternal Blessing first granted to Abraham?
But since we are now talking about real estate once again, we have to wonder if anybody bothered to do a proper escrow title search before approving these transactions with the Philistines. Odd, it seems that during the rather generous time window allowable for either Isaac or Abraham, that there is no record of any Philistines being in the general area. Evidence of these Philistines is so sketchy today that it seems that there is no consensus on just who they were. Oddly, the Septuagint translation bifurcates the original term with the vast majority of the references taking a curiously nondescript nature:
The Hebrew term “pelishtim” occurs 286 times in the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible (of which 152 times in 1 Samuel), whereas in the Greek Septuagint version of the Hebrew Bible, the equivalent term phylistiim occurs only 12 times, with the remaining 269 references instead using the term “allophylos” (“of another tribe”).[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philistines
Why not just stick with the same translated term instead of attempting to redirect our focus onto a generic term? If these people ever existed, could it be that we, and all the previous western scholars have been looking in the wrong place, if not the wrong time, for them? It seems that just this case is being made these days.
No Philistines, Pharaohs, or Pyramids?
Authors such as Kamal Salibi (The Bible Came from Arabia), Assraf Ezzat (Egypt Knew No Pharaohs and Israelites), and Bernard Leeman (Queen of Sheba University) have been arguing that the true locale for the biblical patriarchal and king narratives should be placed in the southwest Arabian peninsula, where much of the otherwise odd context for them suddenly becomes coherent. Ezzat demonstrates that the Egyptians never identified their leaders as ‘pharaohs’, but rather that the Arabic term faraon is the common term for a tribal chief. If the true locale for the origin of these biblical ‘pharaoh’ related stories is not in Egypt, it helps explain why there is no mention of pyramids or similar details. As well as to why there are other anomalies and anachronisms such as Isaac and Abraham’s phony Philistines.
However, Ellis’s comparisons between Egyptian king lists and Patriarch names would then be dismissed as coincidence, or weird typology, or that there is yet another explanation for their presence. With the latter, Ezzat seems somewhat too ‘romantic’ in ascribing purely benign motives to the entire lineage of Egyptian dynasts, except for the Hyksos aliens of course.
In regards to these Philistines, Ezzat believes that the Yemeni Phalist tribe of Arabia were the people relocated to what then became known as Palestine. And that it was the various neighboring and feuding tribes of Arabia that were eventually taken into Exile and relocated several times by the Assyro-Babylonians before becoming the ‘original’ Hebrews and Jews more familiar to us, with their quaint and sordid homeland tales being heavily recontextualized in the Septuagint translation.
Perhaps Another Time, Phoenix?
Among other things, Ezzat’s hypothesis can provide solutions to problems in historical Chronological Revisionism as advanced by Immanuel Velikovsky. Perhaps most prominent of which is related to the actual location of Queen Hatshepsut’s land of Punt, what her relationship, if any, to the Biblical Queen of Sheba was, and thus providing a corroboration with ancient commentators regarding the origins of the ‘Punic’ Phoenicians. Velikovsky claimed that the two women were one and the same, based upon parallels between the Bible and Hatshepsut’s wall murals – and many other sequential parallels. But what happens if Punt was really located somewhere in southwest Arabia and/or central eastern Africa just across the Red Sea?
Of note here, it has recently been claimed by some Israeli archaeologists that the famous terraces of Jerusalem are simply too late to have been in Solomon’s time. The terraces of Punt are a prominent feature in the story of Hatshepsut’s temple mural. As such, is this a case of someone wanting to make the evidence fit the new narrative?
We believe that there is a considerable amount of merit in this general thesis, with the major caveat that we believe that the hypothesis has the same shortcoming as the mainstream theory asserted by the Biblical subtext. Namely, there is no rational explanation how Abraham’s obscure family rose up to the extent that it has effected the course of Western civilization to the extent that it did. But nevertheless, that family, real or fictional, did just so; and as such we assert that there was, and still is, a real and veiled human agency behind all this. In this regard then, we suggest that Ezzat, Salibi and Leeman may indeed have provided the actual structural narrative origins for the Biblical patriarchs. As such, we assert that the Egyptian kings had a common long term motive, along with their Mesopotamian ‘brother’ kings, to advance a global agenda veiling the machinations of their scions.
Jacob and Rebekah’s Deception of Isaac regarding the Eternal Blessing
Jacob’s opportunistic purchase of Esau’s birthright is not yet enough, as passive Isaac must next be deceived by both Jacob and Rebekah into having the dying man grant the Eternal Blessing to Jacob under false pretenses. Here Jacob falsely appears before him in Esau’s stead, wearing distinctive smelling clothing and sporting goat hair over his skin, all at his mother’s urging and assistance. Remember that Rebekah has been told long ago that Isaac was to receive the blessing, and she makes sure that this will happen by her agency, and apparently not trusting in the supernatural means ostensibly at God’s disposal.
And it came to pass, that when Isaac was old, and his eyes were dim, so that he could not see, he called Esau his eldest son, and said unto him, My son: and he said unto him, Behold, here am I. And he said, Behold now, I am old, I know not the day of my death: Now therefore take, I pray thee, thy weapons, thy quiver and thy bow, and go out to the field, and take me some venison; And make me savoury meat, such as I love, and bring it to me, that I may eat; that my soul may bless thee before I die.
And Rebekah heard when Isaac spake to Esau his son. And Esau went to the field to hunt for venison, and to bring it. And Rebekah spake unto Jacob her son, saying, Behold, I heard thy father speak unto Esau thy brother, saying, Bring me venison, and make me savoury meat, that I may eat, and bless thee before the LORD before my death. Now therefore, my son, obey my voice according to that which I command thee. Go now to the flock, and fetch me from thence two good kids of the goats; and I will make them savoury meat for thy father, such as he loveth: And thou shalt bring it to thy father, that he may eat, and that he may bless thee before his death.
And Jacob said to Rebekah his mother, Behold, Esau my brother is a hairy man, and I am a smooth man: My father peradventure will feel me, and I shall seem to him as a deceiver; and I shall bring a curse upon me, and not a blessing. And his mother said unto him, Upon me be thy curse, my son: only obey my voice, and go fetch me them. And he went, and fetched, and brought them to his mother: and his mother made savoury meat, such as his father loved. And Rebekah took goodly raiment of her eldest son Esau, which were with her in the house, and put them upon Jacob her younger son: And she put the skins of the kids of the goats upon his hands, and upon the smooth of his neck: And she gave the savoury meat and the bread, which she had prepared, into the hand of her son Jacob.
And he came unto his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I; who art thou, my son? And Jacob said unto his father, I am Esau thy firstborn; I have done according as thou badest me: arise, I pray thee, sit and eat of my venison, that thy soul may bless me. And Isaac said unto his son, How is it that thou hast found it so quickly, my son? And he said, Because the LORD thy God brought it to me. And Isaac said unto Jacob, Come near, I pray thee, that I may feel thee, my son, whether thou be my very son Esau or not. And Jacob went near unto Isaac his father; and he felt him, and said, The voice is Jacob’s voice, but the hands are the hands of Esau. And he discerned him not, because his hands were hairy, as his brother Esau’s hands: so he blessed him. And he said, Art thou my very son Esau? And he said, I am. And he said, Bring it near to me, and I will eat of my son’s venison, that my soul may bless thee. And he brought it near to him, and he did eat: and he brought him wine, and he drank. And his father Isaac said unto him, Come near now, and kiss me, my son.
And he came near, and kissed him: and he smelled the smell of his raiment, and blessed him, and said, See, the smell of my son is as the smell of a field which the LORD hath blessed: Therefore God give thee of the dew of heaven, and the fatness of the earth, and plenty of corn and wine: Let people serve thee, and nations bow down to thee: be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother’s sons bow down to thee: cursed be every one that curseth thee, and blessed be he that blesseth thee.
And it came to pass, as soon as Isaac had made an end of blessing Jacob, and Jacob was yet scarce gone out from the presence of Isaac his father, that Esau his brother came in from his hunting. And he also had made savoury meat, and brought it unto his father, and said unto his father, Let my father arise, and eat of his son’s venison, that thy soul may bless me. And Isaac his father said unto him, Who art thou? And he said, I am thy son, thy firstborn Esau. And Isaac trembled very exceedingly, and said, Who? where is he that hath taken venison, and brought it me, and I have eaten of all before thou camest, and have blessed him? yea, and he shall be blessed. And when Esau heard the words of his father, he cried with a great and exceeding bitter cry, and said unto his father, Bless me, even me also, O my father. And he said, Thy brother came with subtilty, and hath taken away thy blessing. And he said, Is not he rightly named Jacob? for he hath supplanted me these two times: he took away my birthright; and, behold, now he hath taken away my blessing. (Genesis 27:1-36 KJV)
As we had mentioned previously, regarding the birthright sale: Esau, the great hunter, was curiously starving; not to mention the great domestic herds of Isaac’s that should have been available to the favorite son. Yet in this second episode, Esau returns fairly quickly with the successful catch of his hunting, only a little too late.
Both Jacob and Rebekah are clearly conscious that they are deceiving Isaac, and here Rebekah tells Jacob that she will take all the blame, … for fulfilling God’s promise. Also interesting is that Jacob incorporates God in the lie to his father.
And next Isaac informs the distraught Esau:
And by thy sword shalt thou live, and shalt serve thy brother [Jacob, aka Israel]; and it shall come to pass when thou shalt have the dominion, that thou shalt break his yoke from off thy neck. (Genesis 27:40 KJV)
Revenge of the Red-Headed Stepchild?
With the red hair of Esau’s Edomomites, we are reminded that the later Herodians are stated to have been from Edom, and thus if we are to believe the biblical narrative, then the Herodians were also of the Abrahamic blood line, via Esau. The New Testament depicts the Herodians being viewed with suspicion and distrust by the Jews because of their contentious Edomite origins, despite their claim of conversion to Judaism.
If we apply the Postflavian lens that Jesus Christ was a product of the Romans, and we know of the long relationship of the Herodians with the Roman royals, including romantically to such as Titus (or the hypothetical Arrias Calpurnius Piso), then we can see a path for this dominion to extend all the way to modern times. Julius Caesar, as discussed by Carotta in Jesus was Caesar, was one typological source informing the Christian narrative. As discussed in Caesar’s Conquest of Gaul, the Romans expected marriage alliances to occur to cement political ties with the newly conquered European tribes. In this light, we might understand the claims of many European nobility that they had descent from Christ, via a Caesarian lineage.
Some of the Herodians ended up in either Rome or today’s southern France, and legends have it that the Virgin Mary and children of Jesus ended fleeing there as well. This leads to the claims of the Merovingian kings, with their long, uncut red hair, perhaps odd remembrances of the Nazarite vows from Leviticus.
Medieval artwork almost always depicts the divine family characters with red or red/orange hair for some reason, and this includes even depictions of the pagan gods and related characters. Considering that most all this artwork was produced for paying clients, where did this impetus for depicting red hair come from?
The late Nicholas DeVere, in his sweeping The Dragon Legacy, claimed that his red headed, green eyed clan were the real Jews of the Old Testament; presumably in opposition to Ashkenazi pretentions. The historical implications of this enigmatic claim are manifold.
Well now!! Just when does this prophecy come to pass? That is, when does Esau have dominion, and when does the yoke of Israel come off of Esau’s neck? Certainly not in Esau’s lifetime, but what about for some of his Edomite progeny? And what does this imply as relates to the Eternal Blessing?
If this is not a reference to at least the Herodians, then to who? Previous rebellions of the Edomites against the dominant Judeans can’t qualify as gaining ‘dominion’. These rebellions were quickly put down, according to the chronicles of the kings, and thus can’t qualify as ‘dominion’.
Can this seemingly grifted Eternal Blessing be grafted onto later, perhaps by inserting a “wild branch” into the “natural root”? This referring to the grafting of the Root of Jesse found in Romans 11. If the verse predicting the future dominion of Esau verse is related to this, then might it also be a later interpolation created by the Herodians during their collaboration with the Flavians?
Jacob Flees from Esau’s Rage
After obtaining the mundane birthright inheritance, via fire sale discount pricing from Esau, and in short order obtaining the separate familial and divine Eternal Blessing from Isaac by deception, Jacob is forced to flee. Esau believed, after the fact, that both inheritances belonged rightfully to him. From Isaac’s and his mother’s deception, and Esau’s seller’s remorse, ignorance and/or jealousy, Esau is none too happy with Jacob. This to the point that Esau has expressed the intent to kill Jacob after the immanent mourning period for the waning Isaac is over. Fortunately for Jacob, and for the sake of maintaining the veracity of God’s oracle about Jacob’s success (and in the divine plan’s subsequent need to assume the mantle of Israel via his later renaming), Rebekah overhears Esau’s comments and warns Jacob to flee to Haran.
And Isaac called Jacob, and blessed him, and charged him, and said unto him, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters of Canaan. Arise, go to Padanaram [aka Haran – ed.], to the house of Bethuel thy mother’s father; and take thee a wife from thence of the daughters of Laban thy mother’s brother. And God Almighty bless thee, and make thee fruitful, and multiply thee, that thou mayest be a multitude of people; And give thee the blessing of Abraham, to thee, and to thy seed with thee; that thou mayest inherit the land wherein thou art a stranger, which God gave unto Abraham. And Isaac sent away Jacob: and he went to Padanaram unto Laban, son of Bethuel the Syrian, the brother of Rebekah, Jacob’s and Esau’s mother. (Genesis 28:1-5 KJV)
Note here that even though Esau is the favorite son, Isaac does not punish Jacob for the deceptions, but rather he blesses Jacob once more for good measure, this time invoking Abraham’s name. Perhaps he forgot to do so the first time? Jacob is told, while waiting out Esau’s anger there, to obtain a wife from his mother’s brother, Laban. This immediately after an express prohibition not to take a Canaanite wife. Esau, careful here not to displease his father, heeds the warning about Canaanite women, and seeks a wife from uncle Ishmael:
And Esau seeing that the daughters of Canaan pleased not Isaac his father; Then went Esau unto Ishmael, and took unto the wives which he had Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael Abraham’s son, the sister of Nebajoth, to be his wife. (Genesis 28:8, 9 KJV)
On Jacob’s flight to Haran he spends the night in Bethel, where he observes angels ascending and descending the so-called “Jacob’s Ladder to Heaven”. This is taken by many Bible scholars to be a reference to a temple that was there in the later times after the succession of the northern tribes from the United Monarchy, and thus closer to the time of the textual redaction.
And Jacob went out from Beersheba, and went toward Haran. And he lighted upon a certain place, and tarried there all night, because the sun was set; and he took of the stones of that place, and put them for his pillows, and lay down in that place to sleep. And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold the angels of God ascending and descending on it. And, behold, the LORD stood above it, and said, I am the LORD God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed; And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed. And, behold, I am with thee, and will keep thee in all places whither thou goest, and will bring thee again into this land; for I will not leave thee, until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of. And Jacob awaked out of his sleep, and he said, Surely the LORD is in this place; and I knew it not. And he was afraid, and said, How dreadful is this place! this is none other but the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven. (Genesis 28:10-17 KJV)
On his way back home, decades later, Jacob will stop again in Bethel and have a very odd wrestling match with God. This is taken by some scholars to be an indication that an earlier layer of the story had Jacob fighting a pagan god who didn’t want him to return to Canaan cum Israel, perhaps akin to the warning to Julius Caesar not to cross the Rubicon on his way home. In this view, this version of the story admits, as per the earlier monolatrous times, that there were other gods besides El Shaddai, as he was known then. And thus the later redactors made the curious change to have God himself fight Jacob, after having told him to return home to face Esau. Compared to his milquetoast father, Jacob must have been a real bad ass dude, to take on the Creator of the Universe – and survive no less. Hmm, or maybe this was staged like professional wrestling?
We assert that Jacob’s Ladder was indeed related to an important temple, but likely the event represented an important meeting of the imperial interests launching their ersatz proxy project of Israel. Here, Jacob not only sees the angels, but he sees God who reiterates the Eternal Blessing to him for some reason. Perhaps God didn’t think that Jacob trusted him?
The metaphor of a ladder is similar to a Stairway to Heaven found in relation to other ancient temples such as ziggurats with external stairways. Importantly, for us, the prior Hittite name of Bethel (House of God) was that of Luz, which in a PIE context translates to “light”. Here we curiously see that Jacob not only gives his name to the ladder, but he has the honor of renaming Luz to Bethel. And also, as people do later with hotel robes and other items, he makes off with the stone pillow he had slept and dreamt upon. This allegedly becoming the famous Stone of Destiny in Scotland, .. or is that England?
And Jacob rose up early in the morning, and took the stone that he had put for his pillows, and set it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it. And he called the name of that place Bethel: but the name of that city was called Luz at the first. And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, So that I come again to my father’s house in peace; then shall the LORD be my God: And this stone, which I have set for a pillar, shall be God’s house: and of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the tenth unto thee. (Genesis 28:18-22 KJV)
Jacob’s Got Stones
And he looked, and behold a well in the field, and, lo, there were three flocks of sheep lying by it; for out of that well they watered the flocks: and a great stone was upon the well’s mouth. And thither were all the flocks gathered: and they rolled the stone from the well’s mouth, and watered the sheep, and put the stone again upon the well’s mouth in his place. … And while he yet spake with them, Rachel came with her father’s sheep: for she kept them. And it came to pass, when Jacob saw Rachel the daughter of Laban his mother’s brother, and the sheep of Laban his mother’s brother, that Jacob went near, and rolled the stone from the well’s mouth, and watered the flock of Laban his mother’s brother. (Genesis 29:2-10 KJV)
Jacob has just previously had a mystical experience ostensibly from using a stone as his pillow, and from the nature of the dream, we might wonder if he was indeed ‘stoned’. And so now when he approaches the outskirts of Haran, he comes across his relative’s three flocks and their shepherds. Jacob ends up rolling the stone from covering the well’s mouth that had taken all the other shepherds to do so. We are left to wonder then if it was the sight of the beautiful Rachel who inspired this display of manly virility, and as to whether we are supposed to take this as having some supernatural aspect. Especially given what we have previously previewed about Jacob’s coming successful wrestling match with none other than God Almighty himself. If Rachel was indeed the inspiration for this act, then certainly she must have been exceedingly beautiful, perhaps akin to the famous Helen.
In any case, could this rolling away of the stone serve as some sort of typology for the supernatural rolling away of the stone at the Resurrection?
Hotel Californica
Upon his arrival in Haran, Rachel’s father, Laban, another nephew of Abraham, welcomes Jacob warmly as the close kin that he was. Jacob asserts his desire to wed Rachel and agrees to serve Laban for seven years in exchange. However, when the seven years is up and upon the wedding feast, Laban substitutes Rachel’s older sister, Leah, into Jacob’s wedding bed, and we are to assume that Jacob cannot tell the difference, either because of a lack of light, or because he is either inebriated, and/or perhaps stoned once again.
In any case, Jacob discovers the deception in the light of morning. Laban explains, only now, that it is unacceptable in these parts for a younger sister to be wed before older ones. In this case, Jacob makes yet another contract with Laban to serve yet another seven years so that he can also take Rachel to wife. Based upon the texts, we might presume here that there was no sacramental wedding ceremony as we have today, only a drunken feast for the tribal men (Genesis 29:22), for then there would be no need to present the ‘proposed’ bride to the groom before the presence of others and God. And thus the sexual consummation act being the primary or sole determinant of the contractual marital bond, in this case presumably poorly lit – for romance’s sake.
And so Jacob eventually completes his second seven year bondage to Laban and wins the hand of his desired Rachel. And thus we become witness to more of the divine soap opera, this time as pertains to sisterly jealousies. Perhaps in this and other cases the authors are trying to communicate the necessity to later command monogamy as the true desire of God for humanity, but then why not just have the divine family depicted as always having done so? And why communicate that the future Chosen tribe will be the progeny of an unloved and unwanted wife?
And he went in also unto Rachel, and he loved also Rachel more than Leah, and served with him [Laban – ed.] yet seven other years. And when the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren. And Leah conceived, and bare a son, and she called his name Reuben: for she said, Surely the LORD hath looked upon my affliction; now therefore my husband will love me. And she conceived again, and bare a son; and said, Because the LORD hath heard that I was hated, he hath therefore given me this son also: and she called his name Simeon. And she conceived again, and bare a son; and said, Now this time will my husband be joined unto me, because I have born him three sons: therefore was his name called Levi. And she conceived again, and bare a son: and she said, Now will I praise the LORD: therefore she called his name Judah; and left bearing. (Genesis 29:30-35 KJV)
The second verse above is correctly translated that Leah was hated, as opposed to being merely ‘loved less than’ Rachel. While Rachel, like Sarah and Rebekah before, is barren, Leah apparently doesn’t conceive in this second seven year period, for what we can only guess is due to the loathing that Jacob is made to feel because of what he is made to endure for his desire for Rachel.
And somewhere upon the commencement of the third period (14+ years in) the Lord has figured out that Leah was hated and decided to “open her womb”, yet leaving Rachel’s womb barren. All this is rather incoherent, but what else should we expect from the supposed world’s greatest literature? If the Lord opened Leah’s womb, then either Jacob or some other entity had to fill it. Whatever the case, it is directly stated that Jacob is the father of the twelve Hebrew tribes (including Judah, the father of the Jews) via his twelve scions.
Despite the stated ‘hatred’, Leah gets hooked up with Jacob somehow and delivers him four sons, each time hoping in vain that her relative success will win Jacob over to her. This, of course, is a common theme yet today, for many young wives whose husbands have their attentions elsewhere. Perhaps this ‘hatred’ is nothing more than a feint, a spur to jealousy, to compete with the boredom which would otherwise set in. In any case, Judah is the last and fourth son of Leah’s and is named so because of her praising the Lord for this last son.
And she conceived again, and bare a son: and she said, Now will I praise the LORD: therefore she called his name Judah; and left bearing. (Genesis 29:35 KJV)
Similarly, Levi, Leah’s third son, was named for this third position (Genesis 29:34), and his progeny would become the priesthood of Judea and Israel, including Moses and Aaron.
Barren Rachel, like Jacob’s grandmother Sarah, takes the approach of offering her husband her maid, Bilhah, who delivers two sons to Jacob, Dan and Naphtali. This prompts the desperate Leah to offer her maid, Zilpah, similarly to Jacob. He being no fool, takes up the challenge, being rewarded with two more sons, Gad and Asher.
As such, one wonders if this is where the term ‘one-upmanship’ came from? Leah continued to play the game with another innovative strategy:
And Reuben went in the days of wheat harvest, and found mandrakes in the field, and brought them unto his mother Leah. Then Rachel said to Leah, Give me, I pray thee, of thy son’s mandrakes. And she said unto her, Is it a small matter that thou hast taken my husband? and wouldest thou take away my son’s mandrakes also? And Rachel said, Therefore he shall lie with thee to night for thy son’s mandrakes. And Jacob came out of the field in the evening, and Leah went out to meet him, and said, Thou must come in unto me; for surely I have hired thee with my son’s mandrakes. And he lay with her that night. (Genesis 30:14-16 KJV)
Mandrake, from Dodoens, Rembert, 1583. Stirpium historiae pemptades sex sive libri XXX. Antverpiæ, ex officina Christophori Plantini
Mandrake, what is this some kind of human/duck hybrid like a Centaur? No, mandrake is rather a common Mediterranean plant … with hallucinogenic properties. Additionally, if prepared properly, it can be used as an anesthetic, or for our immediate purposes here: an aphrodisiac, aka the Love Apple. There are also some associated claims for it to act as a fertility aid, or perhaps, a “womb opener”. As Joseph Atwill has noted, the mandrake is also the species mentioned in the “root and branch” metaphor for Messianic grafting, found in Josephus, the Gospels, and Shakespeare.
This all begs a few questions now. Leah has already borne Jacob four sons, but now needs to purchase the right to sleep with Jacob by paying off her sister with the mandrake plants? The apparent result of this union, explicitly stated and not implied, is that of Issachar. We are not told what circumstances brought Jacob’s seed to visit Leah’s open womb yet again, but two more children ensued: son Zebulon and daughter Dinah. So what is the mention of this mandrake all about then, at least as far as Leah is concerned?
At long last, God remembers to take care of Rachel, as he did for Sarah, Rebekah, and Leah, and he opened her womb as well. This is indeed a very unusual … and sterile clan. But in any case, we are left to wonder whether the mandrake might have played played a role here too, especially considering that Jacob had already been so enamored of Rachel all along. Surely he was not otherwise too exhausted from servicing his hated wife and the maids? So, was it God or the mandrake that finally opened Rachel’s womb? And if so, why didn’t the Bible just say so, rather than obliquely hinting that ever-fertile Leah had the benefit?
And God remembered Rachel, and God hearkened to her, and opened her womb. And she conceived, and bare a son; and said, God hath taken away my reproach: And she called his name Joseph; and said, The LORD shall add to me another son. (Genesis 30:22-24 KJV)
The famous Joseph and finally Benjamin are the sons of Rachel, Jacob’s preferred, but second wife. The latter son would be born upon the return to Canaan cum Israel, but Rachel would not survive the birth of this last son.
And it came to pass, as her soul was in departing, (for she died) that she called his name Benoni: but his father called him Benjamin. (Genesis 35:18 KJV)
The name Benoni allegedly means ‘son of my sorrow’, while Benjamin supposedly means ‘son of my right hand’. Later in the biblical narrative, we will be told that Joseph was the favorite son. But it is Jacob himself (via his name change) who becomes the namesake of the northern polity of ‘Israel’, while fourth son Judah becomes the tribal patriarch of southern ‘Judea’. The texts describe the bitter animosities between the two polities in both the prior United Monarchy of David and Solomon, and the later Divided Monarchy. Ultimately here, after exiles and forced migrations, it will be younger Benjamin’s progeny who will survive in Palestine (along with Judah’s and Levi’s), but not Joseph’s, nor any of the rest of the twelve brothers born of four mothers.
The Odd Return
With the birth of Joseph, the eleventh son, and first of Rachel’s, the preferred wife, Jacob demands that Laban let him return home to Isaac (Genesis 30). This leads to some negotiation over how Jacob and Laban will divide up the herds, so that Jacob will have earned some wages, in order to maintain his immense household: not just the wives, concubines, and sons, but various other servants. In addition to being delayed so long regarding the marriage to his beloved Rachel, he is upset at Laban having changed the terms of their initial wage agreement 10 times over the years.
In this case, Jacob agrees to take only the spotted, speckled, and otherwise imperfect livestock, which were apparently considered less desirable, and in any case were in the minority of the flock. But before doing so, Jacob performs some rather detailed wizardry of animal husbandry in order to make the coming generation of livestock be delivered so as to his benefit and not Laban’s.
Jacob and household then take off for Palestine unbeknownst to Laban (Genesis 31), and here Rachel absconds with Laban’s household patron god figurines. No reason for her doing so is given, but this does help the soap opera continue along. All this angers Laban, and thus he attempts to overtake Jacob, eventually doing so. But God has told Laban to leave Jacob alone, and thus Laban and Jacob agree that the place of meeting up will be their boundary that will not be violated. But Laban insists on searching Jacob’s belonging for his gods. This ends up in failure for Laban, as Rachel has placed them in her camel’s luggage and then sat upon this. And next told her father that she can not allow herself to be searched because the monthly “custom of women” was upon her. Laban then returns home, leaving Jacob to continue on his way home.
If Not for Those Lentils I Wouldn’t Be in This Stew
And Jacob lifted up his eyes, and looked, and, behold, Esau came, and with him four hundred men. (Genesis 33:1 KJV)
Next Jacob worries about Esau’s reaction to his returning (Genesis 32), considering Esau’s original desire to kill Jacob. So Jacob first sends advance messengers to Edom to inform Esau of his intent. Esau decides to come and greet Jacob with 400 retainers, and this, of course, has Jacob very worried that Esau has not had a change of mind towards him. So Jacob obsequiously sends a series of livestock gifts to curry favor with his brother, while also hedging his bets by splitting his party in two, so as to try to save at least one of the two.
But this proves all for naught as Esau seems to have indeed had a change of heart, even not wanting to accept Jacob’s gifts at first. Interestingly, this warmth between the brothers does not seem to last into the subsequent generations, as Judah will be a yoke over Edom for some time. Perhaps more importantly, one wonders why Jacob should ever get so concerned in such matters, as God has not only told him what to do and where to go, but has also told him that he has the protection implied by the Eternal Blessing.
As with Abraham and his 318 retainers, Esau, the supposed first generation of biblical Edom, already has 400 men at arms. This meaning that he is either a very prolific breeder or that, like the rest of these stories, he and his lineage manage to be very good at insinuating themselves into power – wherever they go. Except perhaps with their fellow kin, like Laban.
As Jacob continues on he retraces his original path back through Luz (Genesis 32:22-32), which he renames to Bethel, meaning House of El. Which is somewhat odd because these patriarchs only know the name El Shaddai, one ‘el’ among many, until then. Here Jacob must engage in a night-long wrestling match with a theophany of God. The outcome of the struggle is that God changes Jacob’s name to Israel, thus signifying that all these odd machinations prior are cryptically leading to the artifice of Ersatz Israel (more on this below).
Additionally, during the all night wrestling match (or mandrake flashback?), Jacob’s thigh or hip was injured by God’s touch, and thus observant Jews are not allowed to eat of shrunken thigh sinews yet today. Strangely, neither do your authors, but we are not aware of any such prohibitions placed upon us. In any case, this all points out the odd nature of this wrestling contest. Why wasn’t the rest of Jacob’s body so injured via God’s touch during such an epic encounter? Or did God himself also suffer any injuries, as tough Jacob gave as good as he got? At any rate, Jacob continues on to a place named Succoth where he builds a house and corrals for his cattle. Then he curiously names the place Succoth, which seems rather redundant.
Night of the Bloody Cocks
Next he heads to the Canaanite city of Shechem, where Jacob buys a parcel of land (Genesis 33:18-20). Here, daughter Dinah gets loose just long enough to be defiled by Shechem, the son of Hamor, the Hivite, prince of the country, not just the city (Genesis 34). This, of course, does not go over well with Jacob and the twelve brothers, despite Shechem wanting to marry Dinah, and Hamor wanting Jacob and his kin to dwell together with them at Shechem (the city) in peace.
Revenge on the Ham Handed Ravisher?
We wonder if Hamor, the Hivite, just might be the anachronistic inspiration for Ham, the one who condemned his Canaanite progeny to biblical perdition. However, in this case it was Hamor’s son, Shechem, who committed a sexual sin, apparently otherwise only acceptably performed with a harlot. Hamor is also unusually attested to be a “prince of the country” as opposed to a mere typical city king.
Jacob and his sons agree to do so, but only on the condition that all the males of Shechem undergo circumcision. The Shechemites agree, and foolishly they agree to undergo this rather uncomfortable procedure all on the same day. While they were recovering, Simeon and Levi decide to take terminal revenge for Dinah’s sake, and thus smite all the ‘foreshortened’ Shechemite males and plunder their goods for good measure. And almost as the ‘conquering’ Israelites would do later coming back from Egypt, they recorded that they allowed the Canaanite children and wives to survive and join Jacob’s growing band of Blessed Men. But in what capacity?
Because of Simeon and Levi’s executive actions, Jacob is thus angry, afraid that they will now have to incur revenge via all the Canaanites of Palestine. But the brothers were still angry that Dinah was treated as if a harlot. This makes an interesting juxtaposition with the coming episode of Judah and his daughter-in-law.
Turn out the Luz … again, the Terror-ific Party is Over
To assist Jacob, God tells him to return to Bethel (Genesis 35), but someone is confused and has him return to Luz, such that Jacob can rename it Bethel once again, before renaming it to Elbethel, God’s House of Gods? Maybe Jacob got stoned again? But in any case, God also terrorizes the neighboring Canannites and Perizittes, such that they leave Jacob and his family alone.
Back at … that place originally called Luz, God again renames Jacob to henceforth be ‘Israel’, apparently forgetting that he had already done so after the wrestling match that happened there just recently. And then Jacob reciprocates and renames Elbethel to Bethel. We wonder what the county recorder was thinking about having to deal with all these name changes? Was he mumbling something about mandrakes? (Of course, in this case and many others, scholars following Wellhausen’s Documentary Hypothesis believe that the multiple divergent and sometimes contradictory accounts are a result of the compilation of the Old Testament by late redactors working from four or more independent source documents.)
Once things have stabilized with the Canaanites, Jacob is again on the move, this time to Ephrath, otherwise known as Bethlehem. Here Rachel give birth to Benjamin, and dies doing so.
Jacob then continues on to Hebron, the city of his father and grandfather. And rather laconically, we find out that Isaac then “gives up the ghost” at the ripe old age of 180. Esau is close by enough to come and help Jacob bury Isaac. But we are left to wonder at Isaac’s reaction to the return of ‘Israel’ and the friendly reunion of his sons.
You say Eretz Israel, I say Ersatz Israel
Another possible reason for Isaac’s ‘funny’ name might be that when Jacob gets his name changed to ‘Israel’ this creates a telling problem – or clue, of sorts. Importantly, to us, Jacob becomes the metaphor for the synthesis of a newly engineered Israel.
In the more usual sense of other biblical characters being eponymously considered as the respective patriarchal fathers of their namesake tribal progeny, Isaac, via his son Jacob, is somewhat unusual. Because Jacob will be granted the new name Israel, in this unusual sense then Isaac breaks the mold, passively once again, by posthumously becoming the literal father of metaphoric ‘Israel’ in the more mundane and secular sense of using the term ‘father’ as the parent of an individual. In this case then, the child, Jacob/Israel then becomes the patriarch in the more typical eponymous sense seen with other Biblical patriarchs. And as we have discussed previously, a Biblical name change signifies a change of primary agenda for the affected person (and/or perhaps the signified tribe).
And even if such names should really normally signify tribes or groups of people, what might we infer if Jacob, the ‘person’ who becomes ‘Israel’, has deceptively secured the birthright from his older brother? Given what we discussed in the Intro post about the appearance of the creation of the false dialectic of Jew versus Gentile, is all this yet another cryptically humorous (given the meaning of Isaac’s name: laughter) indication of the ersatz synthesis of the Israel side of the equation?
And as we explained in the introductory post, the subtext of the OT historical narrative of the formation of Israel and Judea is one of ethnic cleansing, forced migrations, and massive religio-political re-education. So here we suggest that the name change for Jacob, mimicking the prior names changes for Abram and Sarai, are to cynically memorialize the new demographic ‘character’ and outlook of the newly minted ‘nation’ of Israel. At the start of the process ‘laughing’ Isaac starts out as merely being the father of Jacob, but ends up being the father of Ersatz Israel.
Yet another possible benefit of this name change might have been to actually help facilitate the slipstreaming of the newly introduced masters and their religious paradigm on top of the old, by incorporating an older accepted name, Israel, into the new paradigm. If this was not ‘Israel’ itself, then the Canaanite heavenly ‘father’ god, El, certainly was known everywhere. ‘Jacob’ is similarly a theophoric name referring to Jah, or Yah.
It is thought by some that ‘Israel’ means some human agency’s struggle with El. ‘Ish‘ means man in Hebrew. In this light we see that the incoming agents of Yah struggle in a wrestling match with El, and El concedes victory to the agents of Yah and thus gives Jacob rights to incorporate his name and what advantages might go with it.
The Hebrew Bible says at Genesis 32:28-29 and 35:10, that God changed Jacob’s name to Israel. Etymologically, it has been suggested that the name “Israel” comes from the Hebrew words Hebrew: לִשְׂרות (lisrot, “wrestle”) and Hebrew: אֵל (El, “God”).[4] Popular English translations typically reference the face off with God, ranging from active “wrestles with God” to passive “God contends”,[5][6] but various other meanings have also been suggested. Some commentators say the name comes from the verb śārar (“to rule, be strong, have authority over”), thereby making the name mean “God rules” or “God judges”;[7] or “the prince of God” (from the King James Version) or “El (God) fights/struggles”.[8]
His original name Ya’akov is sometimes explained as having meant “holder of the heel” or “supplanter”, because he was born holding his twin brother Esau’s heel, and eventually supplanted Esau in obtaining their father Isaac’s blessing. Other scholars speculate that the name is derived from a longer form such as Hebrew: יַעֲקֹבְאֵל (Ya’aqov’el) meaning “may God protect”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob#Etymology
Judah, Chosen Scion of an Unwanted Wife
We will finish this post by focusing on Judah, the fourth scion of Israel, and his typically odd progeny. It is from Judah, the namesake of the foundational Abrahamic religion, that we uniquely and curiously get both a claimed Chosen ethnicity and what becomes the centerpiece Western religion. The former ethnic claim is rather ironic considering the nature of Judah’s profane choices of begetting partners, and all the periodic fuss over maintaining the purity of the murky gene pool. Doubly ironic via the Ashkenazi issue, as well as the earlier biblical introduction of Hosea’s offspring with the whore Gomer (Hosea 1). And as we’ll see, Judah and his Jewish progeny became the moral foil for Christianity.
With his first action detailed in the Bible we see Judah looking to profit from the sale of his brother Joseph into slavery, rather than to simply kill him, which would not yield any cash payment. This would be selling Joseph to their Ishmaelite relatives, only one generation removed from them, therefore making them their cousins. Real cousins unless, of course, one chooses to interpret these narratives in a non-literal fashion.
Here Judah is also juxtaposed with his oldest brother Reuben, who merely wants to return Joseph to his father, perhaps somewhat shaken up and scared. Of course, this doesn’t say much for the others who wanted to kill Joseph (Jacob’s favorite scion, the firstborn of Rachel), but at least it is not for money’s sake. This theme gets repeated in the typology of Judas, where Judas betrays Jesus to the priests in exchange for some coins.
And it came to pass, when Joseph was come unto his brethren, that they stript Joseph out of his coat, his coat of many colours that was on him; And they took him, and cast him into a pit: and the pit was empty, there was no water in it. And they sat down to eat bread: and they lifted up their eyes and looked, and, behold, a company of Ishmeelites came from Gilead with their camels bearing spicery and balm and myrrh, going to carry it down to Egypt. And Judah said unto his brethren, What profit is it if we slay our brother, and conceal his blood? Come, and let us sell him to the Ishmeelites, and let not our hand be upon him; for he is our brother and our flesh. And his brethren were content. Then there passed by Midianites merchantmen; and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit, and sold Joseph to the Ishmeelites for twenty pieces of silver: and they brought Joseph into Egypt. And Reuben returned unto the pit; and, behold, Joseph was not in the pit; and he rent his clothes. And he returned unto his brethren, and said, The child is not; and I, whither shall I go?
And they took Joseph’s coat, and killed a kid of the goats, and dipped the coat in the blood; And they sent the coat of many colours, and they brought it to their father; and said, This have we found: know now whether it be thy son’s coat or no. And he knew it, and said, It is my son’s coat; an evil beast hath devoured him; Joseph is without doubt rent in pieces. And Jacob rent his clothes, and put sackcloth upon his loins, and mourned for his son many days. And all his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him; but he refused to be comforted; and he said, For I will go down into the grave unto my son mourning. Thus his father wept for him. And the Midianites sold him into Egypt unto Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh’s, and captain of the guard. (Genesis 37:23-36 KJV)
Note here that Jacob (who is supposed to be ‘Israel’ now, but the authors and redactors forgot) has ‘daughters’, meaning at least one more than Dinah. Does this mean that Dinah was only mentioned by name because of the ravishing incident with Shechem? Who was the mother, and were there more mothers … and sons that aren’t mentioned?
Smite the Canaanitish Seed Waster and Levirate Scofflaw
And it came to pass at that time, that Judah went down from his brethren, and turned in to a certain Adullamite, whose name was Hirah. And Judah saw there a daughter of a certain Canaanite, whose name was Shuah; and he took her, and went in unto her. And she conceived, and bare a son; and he called his name Er. And she conceived again, and bare a son; and she called his name Onan. And she yet again conceived, and bare a son; and called his name Shelah: and he was at Chezib, when she bare him.
And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, whose name was Tamar. And Er, Judah’s firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the LORD; and the LORD slew him. And Judah said unto Onan, Go in unto thy brother’s wife, and marry her, and raise up seed to thy brother. And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother. And the thing which he did displeased the LORD: wherefore he slew him also. Then said Judah to Tamar his daughter in law, Remain a widow at thy father’s house, till Shelah my son be grown: for he said, Lest peradventure he die also, as his brethren did. And Tamar went and dwelt in her father’s house. (Genesis 38:1-11 KJV)
In the OT’s parsimonious style we see that Judah does not accomplish much of note, until he finds a wife, Tamar, for the sons of his unnamed Canaanite wife. So much contempt is shown for Canaanites, that Judah’s wife’s name is not mentioned despite her father being named. This seems to redundantly predispose the outcome away from the favor to any Canaanite bloodline, despite the marriage to Judah, whose subsequent progeny become the Chosen. We are also left to wonder if Jacob had forgot to tell Judah, at least, about not marrying Canaanites, or if this is supposed to be an example of the rebellion of youth?
With the first son, Er is apparently so evil that his sins cannot even be mentioned, and so bad that it is God himself who smites Er. Next we observe the workings of the levirate marriage practice that we mentioned in the Intro post. In this case, the next oldest brother must step up and provide seed for the sake of allowing the bride to fulfill her end of the marriage contract. Namely, in delivering progeny that will also ensure her security.
But in this case, for some unexplained reason, Onan knows that “the seed should not be his.” But if not his, then whose? This is a mystery for sure, but in any case God decides that this failure to launch is worthy of his directly smiting Onan as well. But here we are also left wondering what the actual offense was, or if it was a combination of factors. Did Onan’s, and Er’s Canaanite blood play any role here, perhaps giving them an eternal evil tinge, of the “Bad Seed”? Was it the failure of the levirate contract terms, or was it that Onan spilled his seed, however the latter was accomplished?
Even more curious is just what factor(s) caused Onan to make this abortive seed delivery in the first place. The term “go in unto” means to consummate, and thus activate the initiation of marriage. That he “went in unto her” means that his seed delivery plumbing was so primed and enabled for delivery, and yet he spilled the seeds anyways. In other words: that he ‘went into her before he went out of her’.
This whole business, termed Onanism, is frequently taken as a general proscription against male masturbation, at least, but we are not so sure that this was not really meant to only apply to premature withdrawal after arousal. Meaning that sexual union is for procreation purposes only, and not for pleasure’s sake. That is: one, if a woman that is not a harlot is involved; or two, if anyone but a man of Canaanitish blood is involved. The latter remembering the curse of Ham visited upon Canaan. If one violates these terms then they are subject to being smitten by God, while this yet says nothing about whether or not you might be smitten with your partner.
The Case of the Faux Harlot and the Seed Gone to Naught..y
And it was told Tamar, saying, Behold thy father in law goeth up to Timnath to shear his sheep. And she put her widow’s garments off from her, and covered her with a vail, and wrapped herself, and sat in an open place, which is by the way to Timnath; for she saw that Shelah was grown, and she was not given unto him to wife. When Judah saw her, he thought her to be an harlot; because she had covered her face. And he turned unto her by the way, and said, Go to, I pray thee, let me come in unto thee; (for he knew not that she was his daughter in law.) And she said, What wilt thou give me, that thou mayest come in unto me? And he said, I will send thee a kid from the flock. And she said, Wilt thou give me a pledge, till thou send it? And he said, What pledge shall I give thee? And she said, Thy signet, and thy bracelets, and thy staff that is in thine hand. And he gave it her, and came in unto her, and she conceived by him. And she arose, and went away, and laid by her vail from her, and put on the garments of her widowhood.
And Judah sent the kid by the hand of his friend the Adullamite, to receive his pledge from the woman’s hand: but he found her not. Then he asked the men of that place, saying, Where is the harlot, that was openly by the way side? And they said, There was no harlot in this place. And he returned to Judah, and said, I cannot find her; and also the men of the place said, that there was no harlot in this place. And Judah said, Let her take it to her, lest we be shamed: behold, I sent this kid, and thou hast not found her.
And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told Judah, saying, Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. When she was brought forth, she sent to her father in law, saying, By the man, whose these are, am I with child: and she said, Discern, I pray thee, whose are these, the signet, and bracelets, and staff. And Judah acknowledged them, and said, She hath been more righteous than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah my son. And he knew her again no more. (Genesis 38:13-26 KJV)
With Tamar acting as a prostitute to fool her father-in-law into complying with the terms of the customary Indic levirate marriage contract, and as we had pondered in previous posts with what all the Hittites were doing appearing centrally to the Judaic foundational narrative, we must now wonder what all the appearances of prostitutes are similarly doing there. This with such as Hosea’s Gomer and now Tamar, albeit that the latter, a fine and proper lady in the context of her times, is only pretending to be a street walker so as to gain her just due.
Note that in line with the levirate marriage practice indicating Indic heritage, that burning of wives for various reasons is also of such an origin. It is also a good time to ask what sin or contract breach, if any, was incurred when Shelah was passed over in the proper groom order? In any case, neither Judah or Tamar get smitten, either directly or indirectly, by God.
And so it came to pass that Tamar would bear Judah the two sons that counted, the progeny of which became the Chosen of Judaism, along with the Benjamites and Levites. These are Pharez and Zarah, whose twin birth evokes that of their father and uncle’s. But here we only get to know the competitive birth details, an acknowledgement of the stakes involved in the order of birth, if only by minutes:
And it came to pass in the time of her travail, that, behold, twins were in her womb. And it came to pass, when she travailed, that the one put out his hand: and the midwife took and bound upon his hand a scarlet thread, saying, This came out first. And it came to pass, as he drew back his hand, that, behold, his brother came out: and she said, How hast thou broken forth? this breach be upon thee: therefore his name was called Pharez. And afterward came out his brother, that had the scarlet thread upon his hand: and his name was called Zarah. (Genesis 38:27-30)
Besides their place in the genealogy of Judah, below, why was the above vignette so important to solely detail about their lives? It would be with the second to appear, yet still firstborn, Pharez who fathers the royal and Blessed lineage. We seem to get the impression that Zarah may have been pulled back into the womb by Pharez. The midwife takes pains to declare to the covetous infant that in his haste to be first out of the womb, so as to seize the traditional birthright, that the responsibility would be upon him for any injury to his mother or brother.
Seriously, are we really to take this literally, that a newborn can have such an instinct and thus need be scolded so? As we have mentioned before, the inclusion of all these blessed family foibles are usually interpreted by the believers as just another sign of literal veracity. But this case seems especially obvious that it has been included to paint a different picture. Was this to place a sardonic scarlet letter on Pharez, the first born of the Jews? Or, as Cyrus H. Gordon had stated in his works, that such exhibitions of guile and chutzpah were more acceptable in those times, and thus Pharez’s behavior was to be seen as a competitive exemplar to be emulated in adult life, generation after generation? And only later to be turned on its head by early Christians looking to draw distinctions and wanting to inculcate passivism.
Note below that it was important for the redactors to reiterate into the separate 1 Chronicles genealogy that Judah’s first sons were born of an unnamed Canaanitess. And that Onan’s also being slayed by God was omitted, with only Er being listed as being evil. Shelah’s fate we never find out. Given the eternal damnation of the progeny of Canaan, placed in the time of Noah, what are we to make of Judah’s decision to go against this patently wrathful god and his parent’s proscriptions, based upon the respective starkly contrasting outcomes? We suggest that such as these are typical contrived object lessons for those being converted into the new religious paradigm and polity.
The sons of Judah; Er, and Onan, and Shelah: which three were born unto him of the daughter of Shua the Canaanitess. And Er, the firstborn of Judah, was evil in the sight of the LORD; and he slew him. And Tamar his daughter in law bare him Pharez and Zerah. All the sons of Judah were five.
The sons of Pharez; Hezron, and Hamul. And the sons of Zerah; Zimri, and Ethan, and Heman, and Calcol, and Dara: five of them in all. And the sons of Carmi; Achar, the troubler of Israel, who transgressed in the thing accursed. And the sons of Ethan; Azariah.
The sons also of Hezron, that were born unto him; Jerahmeel, and Ram, and Chelubai. And Ram begat Amminadab; and Amminadab begat Nahshon, prince of the children of Judah; And Nahshon begat Salma, and Salma begat Boaz, And Boaz begat Obed, and Obed begat Jesse, And Jesse begat his firstborn Eliab, and Abinadab the second, and Shimma the third, Nethaneel the fourth, Raddai the fifth, Ozem the sixth, David the seventh: (1 Chronicles 2:3-15 KJV)
And oddly, a son named Carmi appears miraculously from nowhere into the middle of the list. Consistent with the moral motif here, his son, Achar, will be singled out for trying to abscond with a forbidden object reserved for the Lord (Joshua 7:1), and which had been booty from the sack of Jericho, thus placing all of the Hebrews in mortal peril of God’s wrath. Similarly with Ham’s misdeed affecting all of Canaan’s progeny, one man’s greedy and blasphemous misdeeds can imperil the whole enterprise of the Blessed Family? We suggest that this is yet another ham-handed attempt to produce conformity via fear. God has already pushed the reset button once with Noah, and has placed Isaac (and thus the future Israel) at mortal risk supposedly as a sophomoric test of faith which the omniscient god should already have known the answer to.
Blessing, Blessing, Who’s Got the Blessing?
As we mentioned much earlier, the central thread of these narratives is the blessing given to Abraham, representing the imprimatur of God, which was then passed down through the generations, to the benefit of only one fortunate scion at a time. With the passage of several thousand years, we can now see that the progeny of Judah seem to have emerged as the dominant tribe. Accordingly, it seems logical that that they should have been the ones whose scion du jour received the blessing from Jacob / Israel.
But this was not the case. Here, we must take into account that Judah was the fourth son of the Hated Wife, and look briefly into the account of Joseph (whom we’ll cover next), the first son of the Beloved Wife. Upon the last days of Jacob / Israel, he meets his grandsons.
And Israel beheld Joseph’s sons, and said, Who are these? And Joseph said unto his father, They are my sons, whom God hath given me in this place. And he said, Bring them, I pray thee, unto me, and I will bless them. Now the eyes of Israel were dim for age, so that he could not see. And he brought them near unto him; and he kissed them, and embraced them. And Israel said unto Joseph, I had not thought to see thy face: and, lo, God hath shewed me also thy seed. And Joseph brought them out from between his knees, and he bowed himself with his face to the earth. And Joseph took them both, Ephraim in his right hand toward Israel’s left hand, and Manasseh in his left hand toward Israel’s right hand, and brought them near unto him. And Israel stretched out his right hand, and laid it upon Ephraim’s head, who was the younger, and his left hand upon Manasseh’s head, guiding his hands wittingly; for Manasseh was the firstborn. (Genesis 48:8-14 KJV)
This situation starts to get confusing (and will only get worse), as it turns out that Jacob blesses both sons and Joseph, contrary to the “only one at a time” rule. But the confusion here can be resolved by the fact that the younger son, once again, gets the big prize by Jacob’s witting choice of hands.
And when Joseph saw that his father laid his right hand upon the head of Ephraim, it displeased him: and he held up his father’s hand, to remove it from Ephraim’s head unto Manasseh’s head. And Joseph said unto his father, Not so, my father: for this is the firstborn; put thy right hand upon his head. And his father refused, and said, I know it, my son, I know it: he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations. And he blessed them that day, saying, In thee shall Israel bless, saying, God make thee as Ephraim and as Manasseh: and he set Ephraim before Manasseh. (Genesis 48:17-19 KJV)
In the next chapter, Jacob calls all the sons together and announces their respective fates, a seemingly odd thing to do for a loving father considering some of what is said for them. As for Judah, we are given the following destiny:
Judah, thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise: thy hand shall be in the neck of thine enemies; thy father’s children shall bow down before thee. Judah is a lion’s whelp: from the prey, my son, thou art gone up: he stooped down, he couched as a lion, and as an old lion; who shall rouse him up? The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be. Binding his foal unto the vine, and his ass’s colt unto the choice vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes: His eyes shall be red with wine, and his teeth white with milk. (Genesis 49:8-12 KJV)
This presents us with something of a interpretational conundrum, as Ephraim (and most all commentators agree) is truly the one with the Abrahamic Blessing. He is supposed to seed a multitude of nations, but then how does this relate to Judah’s destiny? The above states that the sceptre, the šê-ḇeṭ (shebet), shall not depart Judah, but is this the tribe or the land of Judah? ‘Shiloh’ is commonly agreed to mean the expected Messiah, and here one can speculate a range of time from that of Cyrus the Great till some time in the future.
Interestingly, the tribe of Ephraim was one of those stated to have been relocated by the Assyrians, but to where, and to what fate did the scions come to? This is one point where there is some solid archaeological grounds, in that the Assyrians recorded that they did conquer and relocate peoples of the area en masse. Prior to this, following Jeroboam’s abortive first revolt against Solomon, he ended up in exile for a time at the court of ‘pharaoh’. Jeroboam was of the tribe of Ephraim, but also a descendant of Joseph’s Egyptian wife selected by ‘pharaoh’. And considering the manner in which Judah’s behavior and his prophetic destiny are so darkly framed, we suggest that perhaps Judah is merely the greater scheme’s visible front or lightning rod, veiling the true fortunate scions, the pagan descendants of Jeroboam who consorted with ‘Pharaoh’ and wound up partnering with the Assyrians.
For now, we will just mention that the story with the blessing doesn’t end here, and we’ll return to it subsequently. Suffice it to say that a parallel to Romans 11 can be found in Ezekiel 37 which, at some point in time, is to bind Judah and Ephraim together as one. Some say that this was done at the time of Christ or earlier, but we don’t think this is the case, but rather that we are witnessing the process with the current state of Israel (whose name Ephraim was considered synonymous with – as opposed to Judea). The Jews today are living in Israel, not Judea.
Conclusion
There were only ten generations from Judah till King David, the last son of Jesse, who is later cryptically memorialized with the graft found in Romans 11, central to the thesis of Caesar’s Messiah. If the earlier stated assertion is true about Ersatz Israel, then how does this curious patrimony also reflect on the nature of the later graft of Christianity into it?
As we have mentioned before, the moral and cultural contexts of those times were different than the present one today, and thus we should not project our values onto what is clearly divine, … or rather claimed as such. Here, we are particularly focused on the present Judeo-Christian zeitgeist that their unchanging god is ‘now’ only about love, goodness, and redemption, despite explicit messages to the contrary. We are thus left with the oxymoronic conundrum that this once jealous and wrathful ‘eternal’ god has mellowed and matured with age, as some theologians posit, while the canonic texts statically record otherwise.
Christian theology, especially supercessionist (i.e. the First Covenant was wholly replaced by the Second), has been focused on the conceit that the relationship of the Abrahamic God was indeed changing with respect to mankind. It thus capitalized on the mystique of the ever pernicious sons of Judah, whose behavior had been framed so well. These who cravenly killed the Son of God, and sardonically one of their own.
Yet, having said all that, it is rather remarkable to view the wily and acquisitive moral behaviors that are associated with the Eternal Blessing, which grants the right to globally spawn kings of nations, garnering great wealth and such. If nothing else, at least we can say that the Blessed Family was living up to the high standards of our contemporary leaders today, and that “the more things change, the more they stay the same.”
But in another light, is the odd behavior so remarkable? Once we remove the ‘romantic’ gloss off of the narratives, we can see that the vaunted OT patriarchs are little different from the esteemed heroic foundational patriarchs of Rome, themselves equally murky in the dubious mists of time. These are all stories of acquisitive aristocrats seeking to impose a new order on their newly colonized domains.
In his premier novel One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, Ken Kesey portrayed a mental hospital that was controlled by an evil ‘Combine’, whose tentacles extended well beyond the hospital walls. This ‘Combine’ was described using Masonic symbolism, as a society with a secret, hateful agenda to remold the world and to govern it as an empire of human drones and slaves. Kesey’s novel powerfully depicted the psychologically destructive potential of psychiatric institutions and their tools, including electroshock therapy and prefrontal lobotomy, and portrayed those methods as weapons that were used by ‘The Combine’ to achieve their goals of control and dominance. The book seemed to be openly and defiantly critical of these Masons and their allies in the psychiatric professions, and it seemed to represent a call for rebellion against this life-destroying system. And indeed, Kesey’s next project, his cross-country bus trip with the ‘Merry Pranksters’, appeared to represent a concrete expression of that same impulse towards freedom and rebellion.
However, the form of ‘rebellion’ promoted by Kesey was strangely consistent with the methods of ‘The Combine’ as described in his novel. His drug of choice, LSD, was by then well-known (at least by insiders) as another weapon in the psychiatric toolkit, whose primary effect was to induce a dangerous, lasting psychosis in at least a certain percentage of those who took it.
In other words: Kesey’s ‘rebellion’, far from being a potent act of resistance against ‘The Combine’, was tailor-made to further their goal to achieve the technological enslavement of humankind.
Jan Irvin and I, in our article “Manufacturing the Deadhead“, have shown that many of Kesey’s closest friends and associates at the Palo Alto VA hospital, and among the ‘Merry Pranksters’ and the ‘Grateful Dead,’ were deeply involved with Freemasonry, the Bohemian Grove, and the CIA MK-Ultra program. These affiliations, combined with Kesey’s inside knowledge of Freemasonry and the tools of psychiatry as demonstrated in Cuckoo’s Nest (as we will show below), make it extremely difficult to take Kesey’s public persona seriously. While the most charitable interpretation is that Kesey’s promotion of LSD was ultimately deluded or even hypocritical, it seems far more likely that he was in fact a Lifetime Actor. In other words, his public personality was nothing more than a ruse that had been carefully ‘crafted’ to lure young people into taking the psychosis-producing drug LSD. If this is the case, Kesey himself was actively involved in this organization that was determined to debase an entire generation in order to make them easier to control; and he himself may have designed his seductive persona for that purpose.
The success of Black Propaganda depends on the victim’s trust in the attacker. Thus, Kesey presented himself as a hip, spiritual seeker who drove across the country in a brightly colored bus, engaged in free love, and purportedly used LSD to expand his mind. America’s youth trusted Kesey’s motivations, and were thus tempted to copy Kesey and his ‘Merry Pranksters’ and take the LSD they gave away. In fact, Kesey was leading America’s youth into cultural oblivion, using tools that had been developed by ‘The Combine’, and working with artists and technicians who were openly and proudly affiliated with ‘The Combine’.
FREEMASONRY IN CUCKOO’S NEST
The symbolic level of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest cannot be seen without understanding the strand of typology that it is derived from. It is the same genre of symbolism that was used by J.D. Salinger to create his homage to Freemasonry in Catcher in the Rye.
At the beginning of Cuckoo’s Nest, Kesey introduces a group of Master Masons who know the “hate secrets” of Freemasonry described in the earlier article ‘The Freemason in the Rye’. Kesey uses the classic literary device of having the ‘visions’ of a madman actually see reality.
The schizophrenic Chief Bromden’s visions provide the basis for Kesey’s description of Freemasonry. Like the version of Freemasonry Salinger described, it is not the beneficial one presented to the public, but rather an organization dominated by a hate that is kept secret.
To understand the symbolism in the next passage one needs to recognize the Freemasonic fascination with black and white. Checkerboard floors are a standard feature of Masonic temples, and indeed the third level of Freemasonry – the Master Mason – wears clothes of black and white. Thus, Kesey below is using typology to describe three individuals ‘wearing’ black and white, who were selected for their high level of hatred. The fact that they keep ‘secrets’ is course part of becoming a Master Mason.
They’re out there. Black boys in white suits up before me to commit sex acts in the hall and get it mopped up before I can catch them.
They’re mopping when I come out the dorm, all three of them sulky and hating everything, the time of day, the place they’re at here, the people they got to work around. When they hate like this, better if they don’t see me. I creep along the wall quiet as dust in my canvas shoes, but they got special sensitive equipment detects my fear and they all look up, all three at once, eyes glittering out of the black faces like the hard glitter of radio tubes out of the back of an old radio.
They laugh and then I hear them mumbling behind me, heads close together. Hum of black machinery, humming hate and death and other hospital secrets. They don’t bother not talking out loud about their hate secrets when I’m nearby because they think I’m deaf and dumb. Everybody thinks so. I’m cagey enough to fool them that much. If my being half Indian ever helped me in any way in this dirty life, it helped me being cagey, helped me all these years.
While the stereotypical Master Mason is a white man wearing a black suit and white apron, the specific imagery described by Kesey also is reenacted from time to time in Masonic lodges, as depicted in the image at the right.
Kesey describes how difficult it was for Nurse Ratchet to find the right ‘applicants’ to fill the positions of her staff. Most did not possess enough “hate”. The description of Nurse Ratchet’s selecting from her applicants repeats the theme in Catcher in the Rye of a cryptic depiction of the Freemason initiation process that works through different ‘levels’, requiring and instilling a secret hatred.
First, Kesey notes the one-month period between an applicant’s registration and his taking the test to gain the first level.
Her three daytime black boys she acquires after more years of testing and rejecting thousands. They come at her in a long black row of sulky, big-nosed masks, hating her and her chalk doll whiteness from the first look they get. She appraises them and their hate for a month or so, then lets them go because they don’t hate enough. When she finally gets the three she wants – gets them one at a time over a number of years, weaving them into her plan and her network – she’s damn positive they hate enough to be capable.
The first one she gets five years after I been on the ward, a twisted sinewy dwarf the color of cold asphalt. His mother was raped in Georgia while his papa stood by tied to the hot iron stove with plow traces, blood streaming into his shoes. The boy watched from a closet, five years old and squinting his eye to peep out the crack between the door and the jamb, and he never grew an inch after. Now his eyelids hang loose and thin from his brow like he’s got a bat perched on the bridge of his nose.
Next, the novel depicts the Freemason initiation that requires that the initiate be ‘hood-winked’.
Eyelids like thin gray leather, he lifts them up just a bit whenever a new white man comes on the ward, peeks out from under them and studies the man up and down and nods just once like he’s oh yes made positive certain of something he was already sure of. He wanted to carry a sock full of birdshot when he first came on the job, to work the patients into shape, but she told him they didn’t do it that way anymore,
The training helps the initiate learn to hide his hate:
made him leave the sap at home and taught him her own technique; taught him not to show his hate and to be calm and wait, wait for a little advantage, a little slack, then twist the rope and keep the pressure steady. All the time. That’s the way you get them into shape, she taught him.
Kesey then describes becoming a Master Mason and the required wearing of black and white.
The other two black boys come two years later, coming to work only about a month apart and both looking so much alike I think she had a replica made of the one who came first. They are tall and sharp and bony and their faces are chipped into expressions that never change, like flint arrowheads. Their eyes come to points. If you brush against their hair it rasps the hide right off you.
All of them black as telephones. The blacker they are, she learned from that long dark row that came before them, the more time they are likely to devote to cleaning and scrubbing and keeping the ward in order. For instance, all three of these boys’ uniforms are always spotless as snow. White and cold and stiff as her own.
All three wear starched snow-white pants and white shirts with metal snaps down one side and white shoes polished like ice, and the shoes have red rubber soles silent as mice up and down the hall. They never make any noise when they move. They materialize in different parts of the ward every time a patient figures to check himself in private or whisper some secret to another guy. A patient’ll be in a corner all by himself, when all of a sudden there’s a squeak and frost forms along his cheek, and he turns in that direction and there’s a cold stone mask floating above him against the wall. He just sees the black face. No body. The walls are white as the white suits, polished clean as a refrigerator door, and the black face and hands seem to float against it like a ghost.
Kesey notes that once a Freemason has been selected and trained in the ‘hate secret’, they are able to function autonomously. The passage is important in that it shows that there are no written instructions within the organization. This is logical in that such a project would never want to make any records of its existence.
Years of training, and all three black boys tune in closer and closer with the Big Nurse’s frequency. One by one they are able to disconnect the direct wires and operate on beams. She never gives orders out loud or leaves written instructions that might be found by a visiting wife or schoolteacher. Doesn’t need to any more. They are in contact on a high-voltage wave length of hate, and the black boys are out there performing her bidding before she even thinks it.
The other part of Ratchet’s carefully chosen ‘staff’ is a doctor – cleverly suggested to be a ‘thirty-third-degree’ mason. Note the clever typology.
Ken Kesey wrote:
Year by year she accumulates her ideal staff: doctors, all ages and types, come and rise up in front of her with ideas of their own about the way a ward should be run, some with backbone enough to stand behind their ideas, and she fixes these doctors with dry-ice eyes day in, day out, until they retreat with unnatural chills. “I tell you I don’t know what it is,” they tell the guy in charge of personnel. “Since I started on that ward with that woman I feel like my veins are running ammonia. I shiver all the time, my kids won’t sit in my lap, my wife won’t sleep with me. I insist on a transfer – neurology bin, the alky tank, pediatrics, I just don’t care!”
She keeps this up for years. The doctors last three weeks, three months. Until she finally settles for a little man with a big wide forehead and wide jowls…”
MCMURPHY – THE FLAVIAN CHRIST
To understand the book’s symbolic level, it is first necessary to recognize that its lead character – R. P. McMurphy – was created as a ‘Christ’ figure; though not a positive individual like the Christ described in the Gospels. McMurphy represents the lineage of the Caesar that Jesus Christ foresaw, Titus Flavius. To create this linkage, Kesey used typology, Gospel quotes, crucifixions, and a fishing trip described as “fishing for men”
Critics have speculated that McMurphy was some kind of Christ ‘type’ and many of the connections between him and the story in the Gospels are obvious. (For example, see this article by Raven Moot.) In the beginning of the novel, McMurphy is baptized with a shower. The reader is also introduced to Ellis, a character that spends the entire novel in a cross-position “nailed against the wall, arms out.” Another typological linkage is presented during the electroshock therapy where McMurphy willingly lies down on a cross-shaped table, ending up in the position that Ellis foreshadowed. McMurphy also asks for his ‘crown of thorns’. Before the ‘crucifixion’ a schizophrenic patient approaches him and says “I wash my hands of the whole deal“, as Pontius Pilate said to Jesus before sentencing him to death. Jesus was also a friend of a prostitute, just as McMurphy befriends prostitutes.
The most obvious linkage between McMurphy and Christ is the fishing trip in which he leads his twelve disciples – the twelve patients. McMurphy takes the “twelve of us [patients] towards the ocean” just like Jesus’ 12 disciples, both as a way of strengthening their faith in him and empowering them to rise above their humble position of mental patients.
With the fishing for men trip McMurphy became the leader of the patients, just as Jesus led his disciples. When the trip is over, the Chief describes the sense of change that most of the patients had and even claims that they “weren’t the same bunch of weak-knees from a nuthouse anymore.”
Moreover, Ellis, the crucified ‘type’ of Christ, tells Billy to become a “fisher of men”.
Ellis pulled his hands down off the nails in the wall and squeezed Billy Bibbit’s hand and told him to be a fisher of men.
McMurphy also affected Billy Bibbit, who is typologically linked to Judas Iscariot. Billy betrays McMurphy’s guilt for the fishing trip, claiming: “McMurphy did it!” As a result of his betrayal, Billy later takes his own life as Judas did when he gave Jesus to the Romans for crucifixion. In another act of betrayal, Billy refuses to accept the catching of men. Billy is in effect rejecting Flavian Christianity.
And Billy, watching the brass brads on that woman’s Levis wink at him as she walked out of the day room, told Ellis to hell with that fisher of men business.
Similarities can also be drawn between McMurphy and Jesus’ healing. Jesus made blind men see and mute men speak. McMurphy is the one who prompted the Chief to speak for the first time and eventually, McMurphy “heals” the Chief of both `deafness’ and `dumbness’.
However, although McMurphy’s typological link to the biblical Jesus Christ is well understood, there is a subtle distinction that needs to be made. McMurphy is also linked clearly to the Flavian version of the savior, Titus Caesar. This is hinted at the book’s end when Big Nurse confronts McMurphy and states that he is someone who gambled with “human lives – as if you thought yourself to be a god.” Readers of this paper will find the Flavian connections to the Gospels that Kesey is responding to in my book Caesar’s Messiah.
Kesey began the connection to the Flavians by creating a clever typology showing the Flavian trinity. Kesey depicts this unholy trinity at the beginning of the book with his characters Ellis, Ruckly, and Colonel Matterson. The Flavians are represented in the institution as ‘Chronics’. In other words, they are brain dead.
Ellis represents Titus. The character’s name is based upon ‘Eli’, the Jewish god Titus aspired to become. As shown below, Ellis’s connection to the Christ character in the Gospels is transparent.
Moreover, Kesey shows an awareness of the occulted meaning in the Gospels – the Flavian typology – by his description of Ellis as ‘brain murdered’. This is the most important typological concept in Cuckoo’s Nest, as it sets up the entire symbolic level. The fate of Ellis was based upon the Flavians’ removing of the Jewish Messiah’s brain at Golgotha (empty skull). Ellis’s brain murder foresees the fate of McMurphy given at the end of the book where he has his brain destroyed, which reverses the story in the Gospels.
Ellis is a Chronic came in an Acute and got fouled up bad when they overloaded him in that filthy brain-murdering room that the black boys call the “Shock Shop.” Now he’s nailed against the wall in the same condition they lifted him off the table for the last time, in the same shape, arms out, palms cupped, with the same horror on his face. He’s nailed like that on the wall, like a stuffed trophy. They pull the nails when it’s time to eat or time to drive him in to bed when they want him to move so’s I can mop the puddle where he stands. At the old place he stood so long in one spot the piss ate the floor and beams away under him and he kept falling through to the ward below, giving them all kinds of census headaches down there when roll check came around.
‘Ruckly’ – ruckus – represents Domitian, the Flavian Caesar who was famous for his sexual depravity, particularly sexual intercourse with the wives of his associates.
But he exercised all the tyranny of his high position so lawlessly, that it was even then apparent what sort of a man he was going to be. Not to mention all details, after making free with the wives of many men,…
Suetonius, Domitian, 1
Kesey wrote:
Ruckly is another Chronic came in a few years back as an Acute, but him they overloaded in a different way: they made a mistake in one of their head installations. He was being a holy nuisance all over the place, kicking the black boys and biting the student nurses on the legs, so they took him away to be fixed. They strapped him to that table, and the last anybody saw of him for a while was just before they shut the door on him; he winked, just before the door closed, and told the black boys as they backed away from him, “You’ll pay for this, you damn tarbabies.”
And they brought him back to the ward two weeks later, bald and the front of his face an oily purple bruise and two little button-sized plugs stitched one above each eye. You can see by his eyes how they burned him out over there; his eyes are all smoked up and gray and deserted inside like blown fuses. All day now he won’t do a thing but hold an old photograph up in front of that burned-out face, turning it over and over in his cold fingers, and the picture wore gray as his eyes on both sides with all his handling till you can’t tell any more what it used to be.
The staff, now, they consider Ruckly one of their failures, but I’m not sure but what he’s better off than if the installation had been perfect. The installations they do nowadays are generally successful. The technicians got more skill and experience. No more of the button holes in the forehead, no cutting at all – they go in through the eye sockets. Sometimes a guy goes over for an installation, leaves the ward mean and mad and snapping at the whole world and comes back a few weeks later with black-and-blue eyes like he’d been in a fist- fight, and he’s the sweetest, nicest, best-behaved thing you ever saw. He’ll maybe even go home in a month or two, a hat pulled low over the face of a sleepwalker wandering round in a simple, happy dream. A success, they say, but I say he’s just another robot for the Combine and might be better off as a failure, like Ruckly sitting there fumbling and drooling over his picture. He never does much else. The dwarf black boy gets a rise out of him from time to time by leaning close and asking, “Say, Ruckly, what you figure your little wife is doing in town tonight?” Ruckly’s head comes up. Memory whispers someplace in that jumbled machinery. He turns red and his veins clog up at one end. This puffs him up so he can just barely make a little whistling sound in his throat. Bubbles squeeze out the corner of his mouth, he’s working his jaw so hard to say something. When he finally does get to where he can say his few words it’s a low, choking noise to make your skin crawl – “Fffffffuck da wife! Fffffffuck da wife!” and passes out on the spot from the effort.
Colonel Matterson represents the oldest Flavian Caesar, Vespasian – the father of Titus and Domitian. Kesey named his typological character ‘Matterson’ because the name is a variation of ‘Matthew’. The ‘Matthew’ in the Gospels was a publican or tax collector and Vespasian was the most famous tax collector in the Roman Empire.
Vespasian was also a famous General of the Roman Legions, thus the title ‘Colonel’. The ‘First War’ Kesey refers to is the war between the Flavians and the Jews during the first century. Matterson is “teaching some kind of history” from his “left hand” to depict the ‘left handed’ or false history the Flavians tried to teach with Josephus and the Gospels. The statement also shows that Matterson is a false god. In Hebraic literature God always produces the truth from his right hand. Kesey intended for Matterson to reverse the false history of Matthew 22:44 – Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.
As Salinger did in his Freemason homage Catcher in the Rye, Kesey is displaying a deep understanding of the occulted meaning of the Gospels. The Flavian typology in Cuckoo’s Nest clarifies the basis for the “hate secrets” or, as Salinger called them, the F.U. of Freemasonry. As shown below, the basis for the hatred would be the ‘First War’, which was the war between the Romans and the Jews between 66 and 73 C E.
Ellis and Ruckly are the youngest Chronics. Colonel Matterson is the oldest, an old, petrified cavalry soldier from the First War who is given to lifting the skirts of passing nurses with his cane, or teaching some kind of history out of the text of his left hand to anybody that’ll listen. He’s the oldest on the ward, but not the one’s been here longest – his wife brought him in only a few years back, when she got to where she wasn’t up to tending him any longer.
Throughout the story McMurphy is described as a gambler. This is related to the Flavians who ‘gambled’ with the lives of their subjects to become a human god. In other words, they accepted the deaths of the Jewish war as an acceptable wager in his desire to become god. It was a bad bet. Kesey wrote:
First Charles Cheswick and now William Bibbit! I hope you’re finally satisfied. Playing with human lives – gambling with human lives – as if you thought yourself to be a God!
The statement clarifies everything, as it shows that McMurphy is a false god. Thus Kesey’s ‘Christ’ character is the Flavian Caesar.
Moreover, by having the head of The Combine expose McMurphy as a false god: Kesey shows that far from seeing The Combine as evil, he believes it to represents moral righteousness. This is an important insight in that it also shows why Kesey accepted the positive morality of MK Ultra’s and The Combine’s use of citizens as animals.
McMurphy’s brain murder in Cuckoo’s Nest reverses the fate of the Jewish Messiah described in the Gospel’s typology in which his brain was removed. (See Shakespeare’s Secret Messiah.) In other words, it is the Gentile McMurphy that has his brain removed.
THE COMBINE – ORDER OUT OF CHAOS
In the key section that contains the representations of the Flavian Trinity, Kesey provides a clear description of the Freemasons’ belief that they are creating order out of chaos. In other words, they are restoring the world to the condition that existed before Christianity.
Nurse Ratchet calls McMurphy a disrupter of order. When another nurse, Miss Flinn, asks why he does this, she replies:
You seem to forget, Miss Flinn, that this is an institution for the insane.
The next passage is of critical importance in that it describes the ‘chaos’ that McMurphy has created and the ‘order’ that Ratchet’s organization creates. Kesey is describing the ‘order out of chaos’ that Freemasonry claims to be bringing about. This is what is depicted by phrase ‘Novus Ordo Seclorum’ – ‘New Order of the World’ – on the U S dollar.
The Big Nurse tends to get real put out if something keeps her outfit from running like a smooth, accurate, precision-made machine. The slightest thing messy or out of kilter or in the way ties her into a little white knot of tight-smiled fury. She walks around with that same doll smile crimped between her chin and her nose and that same calm whir coming from her eyes, but down inside of her she’s tense as steel. I know, I can feel it. And she don’t relax a hair till she gets the nuisance attended to – what she calls “adjusted to surroundings.”
Kesey then describes The Combine. This is the organization of secret societies, governments and businesses that are under control of the group that Freemasonry is a part of. As Kesey describes it, The Combine controls the entire world.
Under her rule the ward Inside is almost completely adjusted to surroundings. But the thing is she can’t be on the ward all the time. She’s got to spend some time Outside. So she works with an eye to adjusting the Outside world too. Working alongside others like her who I call the “Combine,” which is a huge organization that aims to adjust the Outside as well as she has the Inside, has made her a real veteran at adjusting things. She was already the Big Nurse in the old place when I came in from the Outside so long back, and she’d been dedicating herself to adjustment for God knows how long.
And I’ve watched her get more and more skillful over the years. Practice has steadied and strengthened her until now she wields a sure power that extends in all directions on hairlike wires too small for anybody’s eye but mine; I see her sit in the center of this web of wires like a watchful robot, tend her network with mechanical insect skill, know every second which wire runs where and just what current to send up to get the results she wants. I was an electrician’s assistant in training camp before the Army shipped me to Germany and I had some electronics in my year in college is how I learned about the way these things can be rigged.
What she dreams of there in the center of those wires is a world of precision efficiency and tidiness like a pocket watch with a glass back, a place where the schedule is unbreakable and all the patients who aren’t Outside, obedient under her beam, are wheelchair Chronics with catheter tubes run direct from every pantleg to the sewer under the floor.
Kesey called the organization ‘The Combine’ perhaps because he was describing more than simply high level Freemasonry, but all of the secret societies that are united under the “hate secrets”. The total control over the mental Institution in Cuckoo’s Nest is a microcosm for The Combine’s control over the whole world.
KEN KESEY AND MK ULTRA
But exactly which groups made up ‘The Combine’ that Ken Kesey wrote about in 1960? Certainly at least part of it were the secret societies that were united in producing the counter culture that Kesey’s book helped to bring about.
For example, when Kesey stood backstage at one of the Acid Tests while the Grateful Dead were playing and LSD was being given out for free to youths, he would have been in the midst of a number of Secret Societies and black ops government agencies. Within the Grateful Dead, its management, the band’s financers, its sound technicians and drug suppliers were members and associates of the Freemasons, Bohemian Grove, MK Ultra, OSS and the Tavistock Institution. Such a collection could not be circumstantial and shows the interconnection of the secret societies into ‘The Combine’.
At left is a hand drawn poster to one of Ken Kesey’s first ‘Acid Tests, where Kesey first gave away LSD to the public. Note the all seeing eye of Freemasonry, as well as the twin pillars of Jachin and Boaz. The pillars appear to be slightly curved, and equipped with teeth like chain saws. And what are those dots dripping from the ‘Acid Test’ logo: are they tears, or are they drops of blood? The Grateful Dead were then known as the ‘Warlocks’, yet another indication of their occult interests. The Acid Tests were where Kesey first gave away LSD to the public.
This is a One-of-A-Kind Poster, hand drawn, and not mass distributed for the event. It is likely the only one made, or at least, the only one that survived. At this point in the early acid test days, Posters and handbills were not being used to advertise events. Instead, small Posters were placed up in local coffee shops and hangouts around town, of which there were several up and down the bay, but the most prominent of these was a little place called the Catalyst. At the time, it was a lively coffee shop, but now it has moved up the street and small bands play there, as it has been turned into a club.
At the right is a flyer for the first Grateful Dead Album, dominated by the Eye of Horus, depicting the band members standing between the pillars of an Egyptian temple. Its inscription, ‘In the land of the dark, the ship of the sun is driven by the Grateful Dead,’ seems to be a boast of control over the counter-culture, exerted by ‘The Combine’ via their rock idols and drugs.
Another secret society that Kesey consorted with was MK Ultra. The CIA created the project to, among things, develop techniques the government could use to affect the citizens’ subconscious. Kesey was well aware of this objective, and described it in the book. He wrote:
Bring these old sins into the open where they can be washed by the sight of all. And participate in Group Discussion. Help yourself and your friends probe into the secrets of the subconscious. There should be no need for secrets among friends.
Our intention, he usually ends by saying, is to make this as much like your own democratic, free neighborhoods as possible – a little world Inside that is a made-to-scale prototype of the big world Outside that you will one day be taking your place in again.
Throughout the book Kesey shows awareness of the criminal techniques developed by MK Ultra, and how they were related to the technologies which were in use, both then and now, in America’s mental health system. This understanding would contradict what Kesey would have been told in his employment as a night orderly at the Palo Alto VA hospital. Psychologists claim that electroshock has therapeutic benefits for patients suffering from depression and anxiety. At the time Kesey was writing, those same benefits were claimed for prefrontal lobotomy. (Today, of course, drugs such as Prozac are most widely used for these purposes.)
However, Ken Kesey describes EST and other brain mechanical techniques being employed by ‘The Combine’ for the express purpose of breaking the subject’s mind and without any therapeutic purpose. This was acknowledged within MK Ultra, but has always been ignored or denied within any normal mental health hospital. Kesey might have learned that the technology was effective for these purposes, in conversations with the personnel who were involved in carrying out the experiments with LSD and other psychoactive drugs at the VA hospital at that time, which were being covertly sponsored by the CIA.
Kesey wrote:
We’re benched in a long row down a bail leading to a door marked X-RAY. Next to X-ray is a door marked EENT where they check our throats during the winter. Across the hall from us is another bench, and it leads to that metal door. With the line of rivets. And nothing marked on it at all. Two guys are dozing on the bench between two black boys, while another victim inside is getting his treatment and I can hear him screaming. The door opens inward with a whoosh, and I can see the twinkling tubes in the room. They wheel the victim out still smoking, and I grip the bench where I sit to keep from being sucked through that door. A black boy and a white one drag one of the other guys on the bench to his feet, and he sways and staggers under the drugs in him. They usually give you red capsules before Shock. They push him through the door, and the technicians get him under each arm. For a second I see the guy realizes where they got him, and he stiffens both heels into the cement floor to keep from being pulled to the table – then the door pulls shut, phumph, with metal hitting a mattress, and I can’t see him any more.
“Man, what they got going on in there?” McMurphy asks Harding.
“In there? Why, that’s right, isn’t it? You haven’t had the pleasure. Pity. An experience no human should be without.” Harding laces his fingers behind his neck and leans back to look at the door. “That’s the Shock Shop I was telling you about some time back, my friend, the EST, Electro-Shock Therapy. Those fortunate souls in there are being given a free trip to the moon. No, on second thought, it isn’t completely free. You pay for the service with brain cells instead of money, and everyone has simply billions of brain cells on deposit. You won’t miss a few.”
He frowns at the one lone man left on the bench. “Not a very large clientele today, it seems, nothing like the crowds of yesteryear. But then, c’est la vie, fads come and go. And I’m afraid we are witnessing the sunset of EST. Our dear head nurse is one of the few with the heart to stand up for a grand old Faulknerian tradition in the treatment of the rejects of sanity: Brain Burning.”
The door opens. A Gurney comes whirring out, nobody pushing it, takes the corner on two wheels and disappears smoking up the hall.
McMurphy watches them take the last guy in and close the door. “What they do is” – McMurphy listens a moment – “take some bird in there and shoot electricity through his skull?”
“That’s a concise way of putting it.”
“What the hell for?”
“Why, the patient’s good, of course. Everything done here is for the patient’s good. You may sometimes get the impression, having lived only on our ward, that the hospital is a vast efficient mechanism that would function quite well if the patient were not imposed on it, but that’s not true. EST isn’t always used for punitive measures, as our nurse uses it.”
The fact that MK Ultra used EST to burn the brains of unwitting subjects is well documented. Below is from the Cathy Fox blog:
Perhaps the most famous case of mind control in Canada is that perpetrated by Scottish Dr Donald Ewen Cameron [20] at the Allan Memorial Institute, Montreal, MKULTRA Subproject 68, and the Institute was part of the McGill University. From January 1957 until September 1960, Dr. Cameron’s project received $64,242.44 in CIA funds.When the CIA stopped funding him, Cameron received $57,750 from the Canadian government to continue his research [61]. John Gittinger, CIA agent and psychologist, was Ewen Cameron’s project officer [61] . Gittinger said “brainwashing was largely a process of isolating a human being, keeping him out of contact, putting him out of control, putting him under long stress in relationship to interviewing and interrogation, and that they could produce any change that way”
Wikipedia lists MKULTRA Subproject 68 [20] as “one of Cameron’s ongoing attempts to establish lasting effects in a patient’s behaviour” using a combination of particularly intensive electroshock, intensive repetition of prearranged verbal signals, partial sensory isolation, and repression of the driving period carried out by inducing continuous sleep for seven to ten days at the end of the treatment period….
It is known that at least four MKULTRA Subprojects were on children, but not known if these were carried out in Canada. The deliberate creation of multiple personality in children is an explicitly stated plan in the MKULTRA Subproject Proposal submitted for funding on May 30, 1961. BB 61, 176, 177 [60][61][37]
An article from McGill Daily of the Mcgill University, which is the University Cameron was part of, MK-ULTRA Violence Or, how McGill pioneered psychological torture, states in one comment “children’s homes were set up across Canada in the 1960s and afterwards, with links to psychiatric institutions where some highly questionable experiments were taking place. Children in care had very little protection, and were often considered throwaways — with tragic consequences. Films like Warrendale popularized the notion that certain “emotionally disturbed” kids could benefit from special treatment facilities that used experimental techniques first developed at the London-based Tavistock Institute, the birthplace of MK Ultra mind control. The “Warrendale method” spread across Canada in the 1960s and 70s and was taught to childcare workers everywhere — the “holding therapy” it was based on has since been discredited. Reportedly, powerful psychotropic drugs were also tested on this captive child population.
NATIVE REVIVAL
Gregory Bateson was present at the Palo Alto VA at the same time as Ken Kesey and his participation in the MK Ultra experiments, and it was Bateson who developed the anthropology that was the basis for the ‘counter culture’. Bateson’s science also provides a possible motivation for Kesey’s advice to his readers to “turn on, tune in and drop out”. In other words, Kesey was encouraging his followers to take psychosis-producing drugs and return to the land as serfs.
The most significant experiment which has yet been conducted in the adjustment of relations between “superior” and “inferior” peoples is the Russian handling of their Asiatic tribes in Siberia. The findings of this experiment support very strongly the conclusion that it is very important to foster spectatorship among the superiors and exhibitionism among the inferiors. In outline, what the Russians have done is to stimulate the native peoples to undertake a native revival while they themselves admire the resulting dance festivals and other exhibitions of native culture, literature, poetry, music and so on.
OSS … might move gently towards making the British and the Dutch more aware of the importance of processes of this kind (Bateson 1944:6-7).
Kesey depicted Bateson’s aboriginal native revival and return to the land with his story’s ending. After the rebellious McMurphy is lobotomized, the ‘Chief’ kills McMurphy and rips apart a ‘Control Panel’, representing technology. He uses the panel to break a window at the asylum, making a triumphant escape to nature. Thus, a reader takes in the message that ‘The Combine’ is invincible, and the only escape is to abandon any sort of struggle against their power. The message is reinforced by the fact that the Chief transitions from insane to sane by returning to nature.
At the book’s conclusion, again reiterating this message of passivity in the face of injustice, Kesey wrote:
I’ve even heard that some of the tribe have took to building their old ramshackle wood scaffolding all over that big million-dollar hydroelectric dam, and are spearing salmon in the spillway. I’d give something to see that. Mostly, I’d just like to look over the country around the gorge again, just to bring some of it clear in my mind again.
______________________
This material Copyright (C) 2016 by Joseph Atwill. All rights reserved. Please link to our page, instead of reposting!! This article may be subject to updates in the near future.
The rather unlikely premise of the popular CW telenovela series Jane the Virgin is that the hapless Jane Villanueva has been accidentally impregnated at a routine gynecological checkup gone awry, in spite of her best efforts to preserve herself intact for a Catholic wedding.
As the story goes, a sperm sample has been taken from the hunky heart-throb Rafael Solano, a wealthy young hotel magnate who has been rendered infertile by a bout with cancer. Rafael’s sister Luisa, an MD, has been entrusted with the sperm and is intending to impregnate Rafael’s blonde, Nordic wife Petra. But somehow Luisa is so scatter-brained that she manages to inject the sperm into Jane instead, oblivious to the fact that Jane, a Latino woman, doesn’t look anything like her brother’s wife.
However: Jane, as coincidence would have it, is an employee at Rafael’s hotel. The couple reluctantly admit to having flirted romantically, if only in the distant past. And if indeed their romance was ever interrupted, it quickly resumes at high intensity.
Throughout the series, events depicted as happening in “real life” are interspersed with fantasy scenes — that is, to the extent that any fictional tale can be said to have “real” as well as fantasy aspects. So it is quite impossible for us as viewers to know whether this accidental artificial insemination event ever “really happened”. Even with all the snafus in the modern medical world, such a dubious story hardly even rises to meet the criteria for “plausible deniability”.
Nevertheless, Jane (played by Gina Rodriguez, who won a Golden Globe award for “Best Actress” for her performance) is so engagingly honest, pure, diligent, and innocently righteous in everything else about her life, that no one on the cast dares to openly question this white elephant. If this is indeed a scam, then Rafael and Luisa are certainly insiders along with Jane. But we also find Jane’s ever-patiently celibate fiance Michael, and Rafael’s wife Petra, and Jane’s saintly grandmother Alba, and her worldly-wise mother Xiomara, all acting like Republican senators at a dinner party for George Bush — doing their best to ignore the many elephants in the room, such as 911 truth. In other words, it just goes without saying that Jane is, in fact, a virgin. Just who do you think you are, to suggest otherwise!
Aside from her virgin maternity, Jane is also set up as a parody of the Virgin Mary in other ways as well. Jane has her doubts about the reality of the divine Jesus Christ, but nevertheless, she is a devoutly observant Roman Catholic, goes to church, and prays with her grandmother’s rosary whenever tough situations arise. To supplement her income from hotel waitressing, Jane lands a job as a substitute teacher at a Catholic high school. The ‘fact’ that Jane is a pregnant virgin leaks out, and the nuns at the school capitalize on this opportunity by making Jane an object of religious veneration. The nuns coin and distribute a medallion captioned ‘Jane the Virgin’ and prominently showing her extended belly, and true believers have the opportunity to receive a hug and a blessing of fertility. Jane herself is wise enough to see the foolishness in this, but the nuns are blackmailing her to continue with the ruse. After all, she needs the salary, and the job experience.
Both in the nuns’ medallion and in the series logo, Jane is signified with bright solar imagery, and in the medallion, her son in the womb is also superimposed over a white solar disk shining in the background, exactly as we would expect for the virgin Mary and the child Jesus.
As the second season begins, the blessed baby is born and is named Mateo. Or to be more precise, he is called Mateo Gloriano Rogelio Solano Villanueva. The family becomes nationally famous, as the child is kidnapped and then miraculously returned to his mother’s arms, and the paparazzi fight among themselves to snap elusive photos of the virgin mother and child. The typological link to the biblical Virgin Mary is so strong that even the New York Times has to admit it.
Meanwhile, Jane remains entangled in a triangle between her two love-besotted suitors, Michael (now ex-fiance, but still in the running) and baby-daddy sperm donor Rafael. In this regard, at least, the scenario seems rather extremely unlike the Gospels.
The gospel of Arrius Calpurnius Piso
But is it possible that the creators of the show had a different gospel in mind? That is, could they have possibly have heard of Abelard Reuchlin’s pamphlet “The True Authorship of the New Testament” and based their screenplay on the theory expressed therein? Or perhaps seen his recent video interview? (Sadly, Mr. Reuchlin reportedly passed away last March 2015. May he rest in peace.)
Or could they have heard of Roman Piso and his recent book, Piso Christ?
Their theory leads to the conclusion that the child ‘Jesus’ was the product of just such a love triangle.
Or perhaps the creators of ‘Jane the Virgin‘ have insider knowledge of the story, as deep historical truth or as a preserved myth — as it might be taught in secret quasi-Masonic meetings of Ordo Templi Orientalis and the like?
I don’t claim to be certain of how this happened. Or for that matter, maybe it’s all a coincidence. What could be more ordinary than a love triangle involving a virgin mother? But let’s look at the Piso theory, and then review the depth of the coincidence.
Regular readers of this website will know that, as discussed by Joseph Atwill in Caesar’s Messiah, we believe that the canonical Gospels were written as postwar propaganda by a circle of intellectuals in the court of the Flavian Roman Emperors. This circle included the historian Flavius Josephus, as well as members or employees of the Herodian dynasty in Jerusalem, and the wealthy Alexanders of Egypt. That is as far as we are willing to go, based on analysis of the Gospel text, and its many parallels to the works of Josephus himself. We would not presume to know exactly who the authors known as ‘Matthew’, ‘Mark’ and ‘Luke’ are; or whether they might all be the same person, or not.
However: since the 1978 publication of his pamphlet, ‘Abelard Reuchlin’ (a pen name) has claimed to know that, in fact, the Gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke, as we know them, were all written personally by Flavius Josephus. And furthermore, Reuchlin states that this ‘Josephus’ was an alias for a Roman patrician whose true name was Arrius Calpurnius Piso. He explains that this child was the son of Arria the Younger, granddaughter of Aristobulus. As to the father, that is not entirely certain, because Reuchlin believes that Arria was betrothed to Gaius Calpurnius Piso, a very wealthy Roman senator and noted philanthropist; but the emperor Caligula showed up at their wedding, took notice of Arria’s charms, and took possession of her for himself. Shortly thereafter, Arria and Gaius were caught flirting, and Gaius was banished from Rome. Sometime during the next year, Reuchlin says, a child was born to Arria. And during that same year, Caligula was assassinated by a mysterious conspiracy, and Gaius C. Piso returned to Rome to rejoin his bride. Just possibly, humiliating Gaius Calpurnius Piso was not a wise action on Caligula’s part.
In this scenario, Arria’s predicament is not so different from Jane the Virgin’s. Especially if she had not consummated the marriage with Gaius, she would be wisest not to admit to having bedded Caligula either. Best for her to claim to be a virgin mother! Or at any rate, no one outside the immediate family had any need to know the true paternity. And while Reuchlin prefers to call the child Arrius Calpurnius Piso, he believes the man has been remembered in history as Gnaeus Arrius Antoninus, which refers to Caligula’s descent from Mark Antony. This man went on to be the grandfather of the emperor Antoninus Pius. Reuchlin believes that that the emperor Trajan joined the family by marriage to his daughter. So this man was the ultimate king-maker of the era which Gibbon famously called “in the history of the world… the most happy and prosperous.” Inasmuch as important Romans often took on long names, his full nomenclature might well have been Gnaeus Arrius Antoninus Calpurnius Piso. Reuchlin believes he was known by other aliases as well. We will call him simply Josephus, as that is by far the most well-known today of all his various names.
In his autobiography, Josephus described himself as a descendant of the Hasmonians on his mother’s side, which would be the case if his mother was Arria the Younger. As to Josephus’ father, his name is given only as Matthias, a Jew. If Reuchlin’s theory is correct, this would be a blatant lie: whoever Josephus’ father was, he was no Jew. But at any rate, according to Reuchlin, Josephus went on to write the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. And when he did so, he wrote himself into the story, making it into another autobiography of sorts, as authors often do. As such, Reuchlin sees echoes of Josephus in the character of Jesus himself, the son of the virgin Mary. (We need to allow some confusion among the names Mary, Arria, and Miriamne, which all sound more or less the same, and may be variant spellings of the same name originally expressed in Hebrew, Latin or Greek, and transliterated to English.)
So, let’s recap. According to Reuchlin, we have the ‘virgin’ Arria (aka Mary), who was betrothed to Gaius Calpurnius Piso — but she was stolen away and possibly seduced by Caligula, a powerful playboy. Their son, Josephus (aka Gnaeus Arrius Antoninus Calpurnius Piso, aka Jesus) writes that his father’s name (and his great-grandfathers’ name as well) was Matthias.
Meanwhile, on TV we have the ‘virgin’ Jane, who was betrothed to Michael, but who was stolen and seduced by Rafael, a powerful playboy. Jane names her son Mateo, after his grandfather.
Looking deeper into ‘Jane the Virgin’, we find that Jane’s mother is named Xiomara. This is a common Latino name, but according to the urban dictionary, Xeo is also a neologism meaning ‘ideas or knowledge of things yet to be discovered.” So this name, Xiomara, could indicate ‘new insights about Mary’. Also, Arria the Younger’s mother was Arria the Elder, that is, another Mary.
Rafael is the scion of a crime family whose dealings are as complex and mysterious as Caligula’s family, the imperial Julio-Claudians. Rafael’s father Emilio seems to be guiltless and upright, like Caligula’s father Germanicus, and both are murdered in mysterious circumstances. Beyond that, specific parallels to the Julio-Claudians are difficult to find. The primary center of evil is the mysterious ‘Sin Rostro’, that is, ‘the faceless one’, who operates a plastic-surgery ring in the basement of the hotel, where notorious drug criminals are given new identities. This may be a reference to the 1950 film Hombre Sin Rostro, or the 1993 film Man Without a Face, or (most likely) to the ‘Faceless Ones’ of the Game of Thrones series, who are a secret society of shape-shifting assassins dwelling in the ‘House of Black and White’. This, in turn, would remind us of the black and white checkerboard floor of the Freemasonic temple, as well as the dark and light sides of the Force in Star Wars. In Jane the Virgin, it is revealed that ‘Sin Rostro’ is Rose, Rafael’s red-haired stepmother; and that Rose is the one who killed Emilio. Does ‘Rose’ represent the Rosicrucian secret society? So far, the series Jane the Virgin has been light on clues in this regard, but the season isn’t over yet.
Abelard Reuchlin’s pamphlet is silent on the topic of how ‘Josephus Flavius’ can be said to be descended from the Flavians. But, Roman Piso has suggested that Arria the Elder was married to Titus Flavius Sabinus II, the brother of emperor Vespasian. As the counterpart to the Flavians, we find Jane’s father Rogelio de la Vega, whose vainglorious telenovela stardom makes a fabulous satire of Vespasian’s sense of humor regarding his own promotion to divine status.
Nice theory, but where’s the evidence?
Now, before we get too carried away with all this, I have one more comparison I’d like to make between the analysis of Abelard Reuchlin and Roman Piso regarding ‘Arrius Piso’, Josephus, and the New Testament, versus my analysis of Jane the Virgin. That is: as much merit as they might have from a received or intuited point of view, both are equally unsupported by hard-core evidence.
As far as my analysis of the TV show is concerned, the comparison to Reuchlin’s theory about Roman history is at a very superficial level. Beyond the obvious comparison of Jane to the Virgin Mary, the rest of the comparison is very circumstantial, and could possibly be coincidental. Or at any rate, the odds against such a coincidence might be significant, but certainly not astronomical. Specific verbal parallels between Jane the Virgin and the classical texts which would meet MacDonald’s criteria of density, ordered sequence, and distinctiveness have not been found; and considering the nature of the dialog in Jane, I feel it’s unlikely that they would be found. So I can only offer it as speculative, and hopefully illustrative and entertaining.
It must be said that Reuchlin and Piso’s theory has the tremendous merit, that it fills in certain glowing lacunae in the “official story” of Roman history. Specifically, the man named Arrius Antoninus above, seems to come out of nowhere into great prominence and wealth, to become Antoninus Pius’ grandfather. Similarly, Trajan comes essentially out of nowhere, with the benefit of marriage to a Piso family woman whose parentage, again, is unknown. If indeed Arrius Antoninus were child and heir to the great Calpurnius Piso fortune, and father in turn to Trajan’s wife, this would represent an adequate explanation for a situation which is otherwise mysterious. But, just because the conjecture is convenient, doesn’t constitute a proof.
So now let us break down Abelard Reuchlin’s analysis “Proof that Josephus was really Calpurnius Piso“, which appears on pp. 43-45 of the pamphlet.
In Pliny’s letters that particular one of the various identities of Josephus in which he is Pliny’s wife’s grandfather is Calpurnius Fabatus. And soon we find the name Calpurnius again.
Pliny’s letters do include eight notes addressed to Fabatus, who is undoubtedly of gens Calpurnius. The name Fabatus does contain similar consonants FBS as the name Flavius, FLVS. If it were true that Pliny the Younger married into the family of Calpurnius Piso, it would help to explain his ties into the Roman power structure, including his connection to the Emperor Trajan. So it does seem that perhaps Reuchlin is on the right track here.
But, unlike Pliny’s letters mentioning Calpurnius Piso or Arrius Antoninus, this Fabatus is not acknowledged by Pliny as a man of either great wealth and power, or great literary achievement. The notes to Fabatus are familiar and comfortable. An inscription to Calpurnius Fabatus has been discovered in Pliny’s hometown of Comum, according to Wikipedia (citing Jan Gruter’s Inscriptiones Antiquae of 1603). So it also seems quite possible that Calpurnius Fabatus is a different person, from a different branch of the Calpurnius family. Either way, this hardly seems decisive, or even relevant, to the connection between Gaius Calpurnius Piso and Arrius Antoninus.
In Josephus’ The Jewish War, he inserted himself as Cestius Gallus when he was the Roman general who provoked the Jewish revolt. For he saw himself as gallus, the priest or midwife of the new god he was creating, Jesus. Soon, in The Jewish War, Cestius Gallus has an assistant, Caesennius Gallus, commander of the 12th Legion. But he is still Gallus–that is, Josephus. Then Caesennius Paetus appears as governor of Syria; but because he is still Caesennius, he is still Josephus.
Reuchlin argues that the Piso name is associated with Gallus, the cock or chicken, because the Pisos had estates in Gaul, and because the cock is associated with the worship of Attis and Cybele. A throne dedicated to Cybele and Attis was found at the Calpurnius family estate, the Villa of the Papyri, in Herculaneum. So again, Reuchlin might indeed be on Josephus’ trail.
However, Josephus does have an alibi: during the years 63 through 66 when Cestius Gallus was legate of Syria and commanding the failed Roman assault on Jerusalem, Josephus claims that he was in Rome working to gain the release of some Jewish priests imprisoned there. Then upon his return to Jerusalem, he was an advocate against war against the Romans, but was appointed commander of Galilee for the Jews following Gallus’ withdrawal. So if Josephus was really Gallus, his account of his own life at that time is unveiled as a complete fiction, the very opposite of the truth. And as to the connection between Gaius Calpurnius Piso and Arrius Antoninus, again it seems almost irrelevant.
Moreover, the name Paetus seems familiar. It had appeared in the writings of the Roman historian Tacitus, as Thrasea Paetus, Stoic philosopher, killed by Emperor Nero about the year 65. In Tacitus, a few pages earlier, Nero also kills the leader of a group of conspirators who plot his life. The leader is named Calpurnius Piso. Somehow he seems to resemble Thrasea Paetus. Could they be identical? Moreover, the name Calpurnius reminds one of Calpurnius Fabatus, which was Josephus’ name in Pliny’s letters when he was Pliny’s wife’s grandfather.
Comparing and contrasting the narratives in Tacitus chapter 15 on the Calpurnian revolt, and chapter 16 on the condemnation and death of Thrasea Paetus, there are some unmistakable similarities. Both men are accused of disloyalty to Nero. Both of them are encouraged by their followers to reply to the charges, and both decide to remain silent. Both wait patiently for their fate, and both die by slitting their own wrists in accordance with imperial decree. However, there are also contrasts. Calpurnius Piso’s virtue is of a mixed sort: although he was a wealthy, handsome philanthropist, Tacitus accused him also of frivolity, ostentation, and debauchery, and he certainly was conspiring against Nero to bring about the tyrant’s death. Paetus, by contrast, was a model of virtue, although his attempts to deal honorably with Nero did lead to unavoidable conflict. While Piso’s friends encouraged him to speak out publicly to spur on the revolt and look for more allies, Paetus’ friends wanted him to emphasize his own honor and blamelessness. And while Piso sullied his honor by putting “disgusting flatteries of Nero” in his will, Paetus’ death was a model of dignity.
So it seems possible that Tacitus is telling the same story twice: once from the official Imperial perspective, and then again in an occulted fashion, telling a more sympathetic version of the tale. Thus, Abelard Reuchlin’s perspective seems to have some merit.
But — the similarities and contrasts might be nothing more than a literary device, Tacitus’ way of comparing Gaius Calpurnius Piso’s dubious nature against Thrasea Paetus’ incorruptible nobility. Thrasea Paetus is a notable character of the period in his own right, mentioned not only in Tacitus (in several chapters) but also in Cassius Dio, Pliny’s letters, and in Juvenal, and it seems awkward to dismiss him as a literary phantom of Gaius Calpurnius Piso. And as to the relevance to the theory that Josephus was Gaius Calpurnius Piso’s son, its main purpose is to fill in the information that his mother was Arria the Elder. As we will see, this is problematic on several aspects anyhow.
At this point the following steps quickly occur:
1. One checks a Latin classical dictionary and finds the famous Calpurnius Piso family.
2. From a Latin dictionary, one also finds the source of the Piso name, as “pistor,” meaning one who”ground,” or a miller or baker. He then thinks of the many allusions to the baker and is caught up on the trail of bread crumbs.
3. He, thus, realizes that Josephus was a Calpurnius Piso.
“At this point”, I find that I have completely lost the ability to follow Abelard Reuchlin’s reasoning. I’m not aware of the “many allusions to the baker”, at least not with reference to Josephus or any other of his alleged aliases. So for me, the “trail of bread crumbs” is lost here.
4. The conspirator Calpurnius Piso of about the year 65 appears to have perished in fact, and not merely in literature in Tacitus’ Annals Book XV. But Tacitus explains that others of the conspirators are exiled or given immunity. These including “Natalis” (Nativity?) — whom Tacitus described in as being “the partner of Piso in all his secret councils. ’’ Likewise “Montanus” (the mountain?) “is spared out of consideration for his father’’ when Thrasea Paetus is killed.
5. One recalls that Josephus appears in Judaea a year later as Cestius Gallus.
6. Then one realizes that: (1) Josephus was the son of the condemned conspirator, Calpurnius Piso, and was himself also a Calpurnius Piso; and (2) many others have, themselves, previously followed this same trail of bread crumbs.
Aside from readers of Abelard Reuchlin’s pamphlet, I have no idea who else has followed this convoluted trail. But look what Abelard Reuchlin says next!
This, then, is the method of learning that Josephus was really Calpurnius Piso! That is, unless one happens to be an evangelist and has already been so informed in seminary or by another evangelist! [My emphasis.]
Here we get to the crux of the matter. The trail of breadcrumbs is so sparse, no one is going to see it unless it’s pointed out “in seminary, or by another evangelist.” And as it turns out, Reuchlin apparently was tipped off in just such a manner. In a comment to a review of Reuchlin’s pamphlet posted at Amazon.com, Judy Reckart provided the following information:
I heard rabbi Reuchlin on WFLA in Tampa back in 1998 touting his new revelation about the Piso conspiracy. I called into the show. I ask Mr. Reuchlin if he is the one who discovered this conspiracy? He replied others had told him about it but he is the one who figured it all out and who the players were in the Piso family who wrote the Septuagint and the New Testament books. I ask him if anyone else before had writen any of this and did he document who and what books or writings we could find them. He replied that only among the Jews was this known and they held it a tight secret.
Our own Joseph Atwill further collaborated this information in a podcast recorded for this site, in which he states that Abelard Reuchlin personally confirmed that the theory originated with English rabbis of Abelard Reuchlin’s family. However, Reuchlin was never willing to put this information in print. On the contrary, his pamphlet claims that the path of transmission is very different. He claims that there is an “inner circle” that preserves and makes use of this knowledge, and he begins section 10 of the pamphlet (The Inner Circle, p. 46) as follows:
This knowledge has always been the play-thing of the (Non-Jewish) intellectual theological, and political establishments of the world, who have always used it for population control. Yet still today, almost no Jews know anything about this subject nor that our ancestors’ coded responses to Piso’s creation are scattered all through our ancient writings and ritual.
To repeat: although Reuchlin himself received the knowledge through Jewish channels, he asserts that the “Inner Circle” is predominantly non-Jewish. Remarkably, Reuchlin goes on to state:
Inner Circle allusions—in numbers, names, and various types of clues and hints—are all through the world’s literature. The Gesta Romanorum, Decameron, Shakespeare, Cervantes, Rabelais, Tolstoy, Milton, Spencer, Tennyson, Thackeray, Kipling, Stevenson, Poe, Burns, Browning, Noyes, Pinocchio, Peter Pan, ad infinitum.
At this website, we are only beginning to explore this assertion. What we’ve found is that allusions to the Roman origins of Christianity are indeed prevalent in Shakespeare, Kipling, Poe and Burns at least. We’ve also shown the pattern continuing in works of JD Salinger, the Beatles, and the Wachowski brothers. However, in every case we’ve looked at, the Josephan satire is reversed rather than re-enacted, making the perspective pro-Jewish, anti-Flavian and anti-Christian. Indeed, Joseph Atwill has suggested that Shakespeare and Kipling might be crypto-Jewish. Salinger and the Wachowskis are openly Jewish, and Paul McCartney married into Judaism.
Another possible explanation is that at the royal level, Jewish and Christian elites have engaged in a long process of intermarriage, probably beginning before Judaism and Christianity were invented. As such, within this “inner circle”, the polarity of Jew and Gentile is known to represent a false dialectic. However, the polarity of Royalty against Everyone Else is a real dialectic, and plans for genocide by the oligarchs against the general population may be very real.
Roman Piso’s quest for proof: the “New Classical Scholarship”
Abelard Reuchlin’s reasoning seems to be little more than a thin veneer of speculation, pasted over what is, fundamentally, a received truth passed down through rabbinical channels. By contrast, ‘Roman Piso’ (another pseudonym) has been on a quest to demonstrate the factual nature of this viewpoint, through careful and exhaustive scholarship. He states that his book “represents a tremendous amount of research, done during a period of many years”. Moreover, he has posted many more papers at his page at academia.edu.
Through the process of this research, Roman Piso claims to have invented a whole new way of looking at the ancient world, which he calls the “New Classical Scholarship.” This is defined in contrast to “Old Classical Scholarship”, which he claims (in Piso Christ) may be characterized as follows:
They assume that the ancient authors
(1) of history were who they claimed to be.
(2) were writing in an honest and forthright manner.
(3) did not use hidden agendas or ulterior motives for misleading the reader, or listeners.
(4) were not closely related to each other and therefore, were not writing in concert with each other.
(5) were not writing from within a “controlled environment” where only certain people could write for public consumption. (Meaning royals only, no matter how it would “appear” that a measure of freedom of speech existed in those times.)
(6) were not using literary devices and other methods in which to deliberately deceive the masses.
The true situation, as Piso says he has discovered through his research, is that the royals created a set of eight facades for themselves:
One. The facade of a measure of Freedom of Speech. Only the royals had this ability, and then, only to some extent. They (ancient royalty), could not openly say anything that they wanted to. Nor could they say anything that would threaten the system that was in place for the royals.
Two. The facade of Upward Mobility. An ancient ‘Glass Ceiling’ was in place. Like the carrot being hung in front of the horse to make the horse go so that it would pull the carriage, so also was there an illusion for the masses to make them stay in their place and try to work their way up the social ladder….
Three. The facade of Roman Dislike of Christianity (early on). They had to create the illusion that they were not involved in creating it (Christianity) so that they would not be suspected of that…
Four. The facade of What the War (of time in which Christianity was being created) was About. Since the Romans were really the “bad guys”, they could not let that fact be known….
Five. The facade of “Foreigners”. Since it took the cooperation of ALL major (royal) rulers in many different lands, and because with the genealogical data we can actually see how these rulers were related to each other and/or had the same common (royal) ancestors, and knew about it – there could hardly have been any ‘real’ foreigners in the way that people were led to believe. In fact, royals were only allowed to marry other royals to preserve the royal bloodlines….
Six. The facade of Dynasties. They had to create the illusion that there were dynasties (that rose up out of thin air, and which many times, began from an individual of “peasant stock”, or one who “rose in the ranks”, or “of humble origin”, etc.), so that the non-royal public would never know that they were being ruled over perpetually by the same royal families….
Seven. The facade of ancient Authors Speaking Forthright and Honestly. The ancient authors were royals and yet they could not say to outright. So, by necessity, the had to lie about who they were and about much of what they were saying in their writings…. They tried not to lie when they did not have to or when trying to give important or necessary information so as to be able to leave a means of recovering and knowing the truth and true nature of their writings; they made use of literary devices such as disclaimers and did say truthful things, often out of context or in deceptive ways….
Eight. The facade of Many Different People Writing. Since only the royals were doing the writing and recording of history, as well as being the authors of biblical and other religious texts, it was necessary for them to make it appear that more people were writing than actually were…. So, the authors played many parts and wrote using alias names and pen names in order for that to be accomplished.
Furthermore, the maintenance of these facades required the invention of a hidden language, as explained in Piso’s essay on the New Classical Scholarship:
Whereas Reuchlin had thought in terms of the Piso’s using a “code”, we found it was actually an entire language within language, and that it was universally used in the languages of the day; but that only royalty knew of, and used the “royal language”.
Piso has only partially described this “royal language”, which seems to include double entendres, especially sexual ones, and letter substitution to produce aliases.
What to say in response to all this? First of all, there is all too much truth in Piso’s ironic characterization of “old classical scholarship”. In defense of this “classical scholarship, one must admit that on first reading of a text, it might be reasonable to take note of who the author claims to be, and what is the surface meaning of the text. This is the starting point for any analysis. One might even give the benefit of the doubt, and assume that the text is telling the truth until proven otherwise.
But certainly it is also prudent to at least consider the possibility that the authors of ancient texts are not who they seem, and that there is a hidden agenda which might be very sophisticated and systematic. All too often, traditional classical scholars fail to go much beyond the surface reading.
Better classical scholarship: a compromise approach
But, I would argue that Roman Piso goes too far in the opposite direction. In his published works so far, he has not offered anything like a proof of his major propositions of “New Classical Scholarship”. Apparently, the conclusions emerge as the conclusion of Roman Piso’s multiple studies of particular instances. But it is impossible for the reader to verify the conclusions, except by undertaking to repeat Roman Piso’s lifetime of research.
What seems far more plausible to me, at least as a set of working hypotheses:
One. Literacy in the ancient world was very limited, to less than 10% of the population by most estimates. For most of those 10%, writing was used for practical commercial purposes. Only a tiny minority had the time to write extensively. Furthermore, without the printing press, books needed to be copied by hand, and were extraordinarily expensive. As a result, the landed nobility and the royals must have controlled the creation and distribution of the vast majority of literary materials. But it is hard to believe that it was necessary (or possible) for the royals to outlaw possession or limited distribution of works by non-royals.
Of course, the conventional view of the New Testament is that it must have been for many years a sort of samizdat literature, produced without Roman imperial sanction. We dispute this, claiming that the New Testament was indeed written by the royal court. But, Roman Piso’s “facade #1” simply assumes the fact which we seek to demonstrate.
Two. Of course there must not have been much upward mobility, but perhaps more so under the Roman system than under later Medieval Feudalism. Accordingly, any reports of upward mobility should be viewed skeptically, but cannot be rejected out of hand.
Three. Some Romans might have covertly supported Christianity, while others (including some royalty) probably hated it. Accordingly some incidents of Christian suppression might have been faked, or involved suppression of unapproved Christian sects, while other incidents might have been real. Again, the evidence must be evaluated on its own merits.
Four. In the Wars of the Jews (which, Roman Piso rightly states, extended through the entire 1st century AD and into the 2nd century) the Romans might very well have been the “bad guys”. But the Jews were humans also, and as such, could hardly be expected to have achieved a state of purity. The Jews might well have been receiving support from the Persian empire, which was not notably more progressive than the Roman, propaganda claims to the contrary notwithstanding.
Five. The ancient world consisted of many nations and nationalities and races. Accordingly, “foreigners” were a reality, at least as far as the world of commoners was concerned. However, it seems highly likely that the ruling elite of the major nations of the ancient Near East were racially much more uniform than their subjects, and were probably descended from a founder clan of “Indo-European” (Caucasian) roots. Furthermore, the elites of all nations shared a common purpose to maintain control over their followers.
Six. Claims of the advent of new dynasties, or of marriage of commoners into royal families, must be treated with skepticism, and the evidence for any such events must be evaluated on its merits. Oftentimes, hidden relationships may be revealed.
Seven. As the authors themselves generally admitted, much of ancient literature that has survived to our time was generated under the control of the royal court. As such, this literature was written with an agenda which in many cases is obvious. Accordingly, any and all statements presented by any ancient literature must be treated with skepticism, and analyzed for evidence of the actual agenda of the author. The truth may be difficult or impossible to disentangle, and classical scholarship often must reach tentative conclusions based on limited evidence.
Eight. In ancient times (just as now), many authors wrote using aliases or pen names, while others wrote using their true names, just as they were known to their friends and family in everyday life. Then (as now) authors had the choice to use the real names of their subjects, or to disguise those names using aliases. In ancient times, the line between fiction and non-fiction was not even so clearly drawn as it is now. It is not always easy to detect these issues, much less to resolve them, but we do the best we can.
Roman Piso logic
In the competition between “Old Classical Scholarship”, Roman Piso’s “New Classical Scholarship”, and my proposed compromise, obviously a vast amount of information must be processed and evaluated before any conclusions can be reached. Can we rely on Roman Piso’s lifetime of scholarship, and therefore accept his conclusions as good coin? I would suggest that before we can do this, we need to look at the quality of his reasoning in a particular example.
As far as the case of Josephus and whether he is the same person as Arrius Antoninus, Arrius Calpurnius Piso, Calpurnius Fabatus, Natalis, Cestius Gallus, Thrasea Paetus’ son Montanus, and so forth: Roman Piso’s argument is very similar to Abelard Reuchlin’s. (There are some differences: Roman Piso adds a few more aliases, including the famous authors Philo and Dio Chrysostom. He believes that Arria the Elder and her daughter were not descended from Herod and Aristobulus, but rather from the line of Antony and Cleopatra — thus accounting for the Antonine component of Arrius Antoninus’ name. The Herodian and Flavian parts of Josephus’ lineage came from Arria the Elder’s marriage to Titus Sabinus, a descendent of the Herodians as well as the Flavians by way of Vespasia Pollo. “Old Classical Scholarship” would, of course, dispute this analysis at several points.)
Also along these lines, I’d like to note that Gaius Calpurnius Piso’s wife at the time of his plot against Nero, may not be the same person as his wife that was stolen by Caligula. At any rate, the official story is that the one stolen by Caligula was named Livia Orestilla, or Cornelia Orestina. His second wife was Satria Galla. And again, “Old Classical Scholarship” knows of no reason why either of these women would be identified with Arria the Younger, or Mary.
As another example of Roman Piso’s research, let’s consider his argument that “Neratius Priscus” is a pseudonym for “Cornelius Tacitus”. Tacitus, of course, is the well-known historian and author of the “History” and “Annals”, while Priscus was also a well-known author of legal texts, whose works have survived as excerpts and abstracts in the Digest of Justinian.
Let’s begin this with info from “The True Authorship of the New Testament,” by Abelard Reuchlin. In it, Reuchlin states; “The family also put their friends into the story. Justus (Piso) inserted Cornelius Tacitus, the Roman historian. He became Cornelius, the Roman centurion in Acts, Chapter 10, who was devout and feared God; and he was also (Cornutus) Tertullus, the prosecuting attorney against Paul in Acts 24:1-2. Tacitus reciprocated by dedicating his ‘Diologues on Oratory’ shortly after the year 100 to “dear Fabius Justus”.” This, on page 14 of Reuchlin’s booklet.
Cornutus Tertullus served as a Roman regional governor, consul and prefect. Cornelius Tacitus’ public career seems tandem to Tertullis’: both were regional governors during the period from ~80 to ~96, then returned to Rome, and completed their careers in Anatolia after 112. So the observation that they could be the same person seems very astute, although far from proven. Similarly the proposed reciprocal tributes of Justus Piso (in the New Testament) and Cornelius Tacitus (in the Dialogues) is a plausible speculation.
Reuchlin further states (on pg. 17); “Now the family had other writers place Jesus and Christianity in prior history. First, the Pisos used their friend Cornelius Palma, the jurist. Writing under the name Cornelius Tacitus between 115 and 120, he mentioned Christ and said that he had founded the Christians and had been crucified by Pontius Pilate; and also detailed that Nero had caused Christians to be torn by dogs and burned on crosses.” (Ref. Tacitus, Annals, XV.44, Loeb Classical Library edition)
Tacitus’ statements about the Christians are well-known. And indeed, Palma and Tacitus led somewhat parallel lives, but not exactly. Tacitus was consul 97, Palma was consul 99. Palma was governor of Syria under Trajan, while Tacitus was governor of Asia. Palma is thought to have been killed in 117 by Hadrian, while Tacitus seems to have lived longer than that, though it’s not known for sure. So the speculation that Cornelius Palma and Cornelius Tacitus were one and the same, is once again found plausible.
Now as for Cornelius Tacitus as Neratius Priscus, it may well have been that the late Roman history scholar Ronald Syme knew of this and several other items relating to the truth about ancient Roman history. Syme is a major source for the critical examination of these names and personages, because of his extensive work in this area. (See his articles in JRS – The Journal for Roman Studies)”
“Syme says in his article “Tacitus: Some Sources of his Information”,* that; “The case of the jurist Neratius Priscus is instructive, consul suffect in 97, the same year as Cornelius Tacitus.” And this is precisely how one needs to work through these names and identities – carefully following EVERY clue.
This is not so much of a clue. There is no hint in the passages quoted from Syme, that he believed these names represented the same individual. During this period, there were up to a dozen consuls and suffect consuls each year, with new ones appointed every two months. This could certainly be a coincidence, that Tacitus and Priscus were consul the same year.
One finds Cornelius Tacitus as Cornelius Palma, a jurist. And we see Neratius Priscus (also a jurist), as consul suffect in 97, the same year as Cornelius Tacitus! Persons who research these names need to consult lists of consuls (as well as other lists of compiled data), compare dates and events, titles and positions, names of relatives and even cross-reference material.”
Cornelius Tacitus could also be said to be a jurist, without relying on the identity with Palma. So now Tacitus and Priscus have two things in common: both jurists, and both consul in 97. But obviously there could be more than one lawyer in Rome, and (then as now) many lawyers were also politicians. So this is a less powerful coincidence than it might seem.
In Syme’s article titled “People in Pliny,” he says; “Proconsuls of Asia and of Africa are likewise not much in evidence. Asia from 103/4 to 120/1 (the list is now complete) exhibits only two, viz. Cornelius Tacitus and Cornelius Priscus.” So, here we see Tacitus again with the same title, in the same place, at the same time… this time with another “Priscus” (who just so happens to have the name “Cornelius” as well). As a person works through the maze of names in this way, the evidence mounts and the likelihood of coincidence disappears.
Now we have the coincidence that Cornelius Tacitus and Cornelius Priscus were both mentioned as proconsuls of Asia. But this can hardly be taken as much evidence that they were one and the same. Cornelius, Tacitus and Priscus were all fairly common Roman family names that were basically mixed and matched to form a person’s complete nomenclature, presumably according to their family history and parental whim. So again, this is not an unlikely coincidences. And, mathematically speaking, two very weak pieces of evidence do not combine to make stronger evidence.
Moreover, in the same article, we find our friend Neratius Priscus (now known to us as the person who wrote ‘history’ as “Tacitus”), as the husband of Corellia Hispulla (See pg. 147). In addition to such overwhelming evidence as that which we find in following these clues, we continue to find (and disclose) even more.
This is actually evidence contrary to Roman Piso’s thesis. Tacitus was married to Julia Agricola, whose family history is well known and has no obvious overlap with Corellia Hispulla. In fact many details of the lives of Neratius Priscus and Cornelius Tacitus are well known, and while some are compatible, others are conflicting.
When one reads, for instance, “The Life of Hadrian,” by Aelius Spartianus, one learns that (at least supposedly); “There was, to be sure, a widely prevailing belief that Trajan, with the approval of many of his friends, had planned to appoint as his successor not Hadrian, but Neratius Priscus, even to the extent of once saying to Priscus: “I entrust the provinces to your care in case anything happens to me.”
Both Neratius Priscus and Cornelius Tacitus seem to have been held in high esteem by Trajan, holding high positions, and both fell from favor under Hadrian. But again, this is a weak level of coincidence.
To summarize the points in Roman Piso’s article:
(1) Cornelius Tacitus is mentioned in the NT as Cornelius the Centurion, and as Cornutus Tertullus the jurist.
(2) Cornelius Palma and Cornelius Tacitus were the same person, and both were jurists.
(3) Neratius Priscus was also a jurist, and was consul in the same year as Cornelius Tacitus.
(4) Cornelius Tacitus and Cornelius Priscus were Asian proconsuls.
(5) Neratius Priscus married Corellia Hispulla.
(6) Trajan planned to appoint Neratius Priscus as his successor, but did not follow through on that intention.
Even if we accept each individual point (and several of them are debatable) it doesn’t add up to a convincing case that Cornelius Tacitus and Neratius Priscus are one and the same person. The only way this argument makes sense, is if you start from the premise that only a few Romans were writing and that most or all authors used aliases. In Bayesian terms, this shifts the “prior probability” so that very tenuous clues can be used to discriminate between possible sets of aliases.
Using the type of reasoning given in Roman Piso’s paper, many pairs of possible author aliases could be identified as possible matches. Using this data, aided by circular reasoning and confirmation bias, could lead to a conclusion justifying the premise that Roman authors always wrote using aliases. However, the correct analytical path would be to begin by identifying a large number of cases where there is substantial proof of the use of pen names, and then move from that abundant and confirmed information, to the generalization that this was a frequent if not ubiquitous practice. Based on information provided by Roman Piso, there is no way to establish whether this was, in fact, the method that he followed.
So, was Jesus really Caligula’s love child with Jane the Virgin?
And how am I supposed to know? But I will say it makes an interesting story, fit to be hanged for. And furthermore, Abelard Reuchlin says he heard it from the rabbis of the “Inner Circle”, which could be as good of a source of authority as any.
While mining this vein of ore, also please consider Ralph Ellis’ theory that when this same love child (possibly operating under the name of St. Paul) arrived at Nero’s imperial court, presumably holding a grudge against the Julio-Claudian family because of his weird childhood: he succeeded in seducing Nero’s wife Poppaea, and getting her pregnant. Nero was so angry that he kicked Poppaea down the stairway and killed her, along with the unborn child.
Next thing you know, a successful rebellion was organized against Nero, and he was killed by his secretary, Epaphroditus. Strangely, St. Paul also had an affiliate by that name, and an Epaphroditus was also involved in the murder of Domitian.
Empty prison cell Original Filename: 73979720.jpg
empty jail cell
Shakespeare’s play The Tempest was the origin of the expression “brave new world” that has since been used prominently by Rudyard Kipling and Aldous Huxley. Huxley used it as the title for his novel (published in 1932) that depicted a world populated by five castes (alpha through epsilon) of genetically stratified slaves, all ruled over by a tiny elite of ten “World Controllers”; while Kipling used the expression to describe a faux Utopian social condition that existed before an apocalypse, in his 1919 poem ‘The Gods of the Copybook Headings‘:
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
In Shakespeare’s Secret Messiah (hereafter, SSM), I showed that some Shakespeare plays have a hidden symbolic level which inverts the Flavian comic system of the Gospels and Josephus. Did Shakespeare have such an occulted meaning for the expression ‘Brave New World’, and how should we now understand the phrase?
On its surface, The Tempest seems to be a play about forgiveness, because at the end of the play the main character Prospero seemingly forgives the nobles that had stolen his dukedom. However, I have now discovered that the author has also created an occulted outcome that is completely different than the surface narration. At this occult level, far from forgiving his usurpers, Prospero is actually arranging their demise. This is, of course, keeping with the core structure of the Shakespearian plays shown in SSM, which reverse the black comedy in the Gospels and often end with a cannibalistic slaughter.
While this analysis shows that Shakespeare’s purpose in writing The Tempest is adequately explained by a Jewish sectarian agenda, there are other frameworks that have been proposed. More information will be appearing at this site shortly.
Isaiah’s apocalyptic vision
The plot of The Tempest is framed around a re-enactment of the apocalyptic and messianic vision of the book of Isaiah. Many aspects of Ariel’s character stem directly from the Bible story. In Isaiah 29:4, Ariel’s voice is said to come from the ground. Thus, Shakespeare ‘s character does “business in the veins of he earth, when it is baked with frost” and speaks directly from the ground to mystify the nobles. In the play Ariel is depicted as a spirit who does the bidding of Prospero, a usurped noble who represents the legitimate, righteous king described in Isaiah 32.
Isaiah begins his apocalyptic story in chapter 29, by describing ‘Ariel’ – in this case indicating the city of Jerusalem – as besieged and distressed with “heaviness and sorrow”. The city will be brought down so far that the voice of ‘Ariel’ (representing the spirit of Jerusalem) will come “from the dust”.
Beginning with verse 29:6, God intervenes, the tables are turned, and the multitude of ‘nations’ (Hebrew, ‘Goyim’) fighting against Jerusalem are judged and placed into a dream state, which is like a ‘tempest‘, the basis for the title of Shakespeare’s play. After this stage passes, the nations face an Apocalypse. They will be slaughtered, and their land will be turned into a wasteland where owls live and nest. Isaiah describes the ‘end of days’ for the nations, in which their world will ‘dissolve’ – a word often used in the Bible to depict the ‘End Times’ of those that wage war against Israel. Finally, the desert “blooms” into a paradise, a land of complete bounty, but only God’s chosen ones are permitted to enter.
The prophet uses the term ‘Ariel’ in a cryptic manner that can be seen as both as a synonym for Jerusalem and for the spirit of the Jewish people in general. Moreover, the word may also signify an altar of burnt offerings, which suggests the grim notion that the Jews and Gentiles who died in the battles for control of the city were sacrifices to god. It is important to recognize that the author of The Tempest is interpreting Isaiah’s story from Isaiah’s obviously Jewish prophetic perspective, in other words from the perspective that the vengeance of ‘Ariel’ is justified, not a perspective one would expect from a Gentile author.
Of course, other scholars have noted that Shakespeare made use of Isaiah in this play; for example, see Paul Olson, Beyond a Common Joy, pp. 130-136. But what has not been noted before is an element of very subtle cannibal humor, in which Shakespeare jokes about body parts such as ‘stinking feet’, which are ‘licked’, ‘trimmed’ or perhaps ‘severed’ in Prospero’s ‘court’ of justice. Thus, Shakespeare’s reenactment of Isaiah’s apocalypse also inverts the Flavian mockery of the sacrament of the Eucharist at Martha’s feast, where Lazarus’s smelly and decaying body was implicitly “made into a supper”.
Unlike Olson, I also show that the playwright’s careful use of the Biblical text continues through Isaiah’s chapter 34, where the prophet depicts the destruction of the nations arrayed against Israel; as well as chapter 35, which depicts post-apocalyptic bliss. This completes the apocalyptic vision of the author known as First Isaiah. It should be noted that many biblical scholars believe that the latter parts of the book of Isaiah (beginning with chapter 40) were written by much later authors.
34:1 Come near, ye nations, to hear; and hearken, ye people: let the earth hear, and all that is therein; the world, and all things that come forth of it.
2 For the indignation of the Lord is upon all nations, and his fury upon all their armies: he hath utterly destroyed them, he hath delivered them to the slaughter.
3 Their slain also shall be cast out, and their stink shall come up out of their carcases, and the mountains shall be melted with their blood.
4 And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree.
A typological dream shipwreck
The play opens on a ship in a raging storm at sea. In fact the entire reality the characters are experiencing is a dream, a fantasy they have been placed in by Prospero’s magic spirit Ariel. The characters have essentially been placed inside the ‘dream’ reality described in Isaiah 29:6.
While shipwrecks, in general, are literary tropes, Shakespeare’s shipwreck contains specific elements that link it to well-known incidents in the New Testament and Josephus. Those, in turn, were written in homage to Aeneas’ shipwreck at Carthage in Virgil’s Aeneid; not to mention Ulysses’ shipwreck at Scylla and Charybdis.
Among tremendous bursts of thunder and wind, the courtier Gonzalo and several royal passengers emerge from their cabins to express their concerns to the crew. The Boatswain rebukes Gonzalo, saying: “You are a counsellor; if you can command these elements to silence, and work the peace of the present, we will not hand a rope more; use your authority.” Gonzalo replies with a prediction that the boatswain will survive the storm, if only to perish by hanging later on for his impertinence. Gonzalo’s prophecy is like Paul’s prophecy in Acts (27:22):
“And now I urge you to take heart, for there will be no loss of life among you, but only of the ship…
Watching the storm from the shelter of a nearby tropical island, Prospero’s daughter Miranda is alarmed at the fearsome prospects for loss of life on the ship, but Prospero tells her to calm herself, because he has ordered that “not so much… as an hair” of anyone on the ship will be harmed.
The shipwreck in the Tempest is typologically linked to those described in Acts and Josephus in which Paul and Josephus, respectively, are miraculously spared from perishing. Humorously, the characters of Gonzalo and ‘the Boatswain’ seem to represent both of Josephus’s types — Joseph of Arimathea and Paul, simultaneously present on Shakespeare’s boat.
Prospero’s action to rescue the ship has fulfilled Gonzalo’s prophecy, just as in both Acts and Josephus we find that all have survived, by God’s providence:
the centurion, wanting to save Paul, kept them from [their] purpose, and commanded that those who could swim should jump [overboard] first and get to land, 44and the rest, some on boards and some on things from the ship. And so it was that they all escaped safely to land. (Acts 27)
our ship was drowned in the Adriatic Sea, we that were in it, being about six hundred in number, swam for our lives all the night; when, upon the first appearance of the day, and upon our sight of a ship of Cyrene, I and some others, eighty in all, by God’s providence, prevented the rest, and were taken up into the other ship (Josephus, Life).
Prospero’s ‘art’ has produced the first of the many dreams in the Tempest. In this case, the entire shipwreck was a hallucination that all of the victims experienced.
Prospero’s overthrow, a parallel to the fall of Jerusalem
Prospero then tells his daughter of his real background that he has kept secret from her. This scene may represent how the young Emilia Bassano was told about her family’s Jewish background and the real meaning of the Gospels. Miranda remembers that she once was attended by a royal court, but cannot remember how she came to be on a remote island with Prospero. Prospero goes on to tell his daughter that he was once the Duke of Milan:
PROSPERO
Twelve year since, Miranda, twelve year since,
Thy father was the Duke of Milan and
A prince of power.
MIRANDA
Sir, are not you my father?
PROSPERO
Thy mother was a piece of virtue, and
She said thou wast my daughter; and thy father
Was Duke of Milan; and thou his only heir
And princess no worse issued.
Prospero’s cryptic language evades admitting directly to be Miranda’s father. This is, perhaps, an example of Prospero’s scrupulous honesty, in that no man (in the age before DNA testing) could ever be certain of paternity, except by relying on the virtue of his wife. However, it also seems to be the beginning of a theme of ambiguity with respect to Prospero’s gender.
Explaining the circumstances leading to the loss of his kingdom, Prospero admits he was preoccupied: “being transported And rapt in secret studies” in his library. These studies, presumably, culminated in Prospero’s gaining magic powers over the spirit ‘Ariel’, and the ability to create dream states as prophesied in Isaiah. But said magic powers were not brought to bear, as Prospero was overthrown by a conspiracy of his brother Antonio in concert with Alonso, the King of Naples. Prospero explains:
PROSPERO
A treacherous army levied, one midnight
Fated to the purpose did Antonio open
The gates of Milan, and, i’ the dead of darkness,
The ministers for the purpose hurried thence
Me and thy crying self.
This evokes a parallel to the play-within-a-play in Hamlet depicting the fall of Troy, which in turn evokes the fall of Jerusalem to the Flavians. In this parallel, Alanso and Antonio are in the roles of Vespasian and Titus, with Alanso as the senior power and Antonio as the junior conqueror.
A pair of treacherous Flavian trinities
The Tempest depicts two mockeries of the Flavian trinity of emperors and gods; both sets are linked to Isaiah by their being depicted as drunkards. The first set is made up of Antonio, Alonso and Sebastian, who are described as a group of “three men of sin” who are “among men the most unfit to live”. Later Gonzalo states that “All three of them are desperate: their great guilt, Like poison given to work a great time after Now ‘gins to bite the spirits.” Alonso and Sebastian are the King of Naples and his brother and thus are easier to understand as types of the Flavians. The third member is Antonio, who is called the brother of Prospero — although Prospero repeatedly complains of his perfidy, and disputes whether such an evil personage could actually be his brother. One must also bear in mind that the author of the Shakespearian literature was aware that members of the group that conspired to create Christianity had Jewish blood. In fact, the Herods (the family of Bernice) had ‘grafted’ themselves onto the lineage of the Jews’ royal family (the Maccabees) by forced intermarriage.
The other depiction of the Flavian ‘trinity’ is a comic send up made up of the three clowns Stefano, Caliban and Trinculo. ‘Stefano’ – meaning crown – is Vespasian, the Flavian that seized the throne from the Julio-Claudians. ‘Caliban’ – an anagram of cannibal – represents Titus, the Flavian linked to the ‘flesh eating humor’ in the Gospels. Like Titus’s claim of ownership of Judea, Caliban falsely claims ownership of the island, ‘this island’s mine”. Prospero states that Caliban is of a “vile race” and that he has taught him “words”, indicating Titus’s use of Jewish typology in the gospels. ‘Trinculo’ – playing off of his focus on the number three and the ‘trinity’ – is Domitian. Joking with Trinculo, Stephano speaks of a jacket (a ‘jerkin’) using the enigmatic phrase “like to lose your hair and prove a bald jerkin”. This is typology based upon the description of Domitian’s baldness in Suetonius (Domitian 18), who claimed that he wore wigs and even wrote a book on hair care. Trinculo states, “I shall not fear fly-blowing”. ‘Fly blown’ means to be contaminated with the waste of flies and refers to Domitian’s penchant to be with flies that was also recorded by Suetonius:
“At the beginning of his reign he (Domitian) used to spend hours in seclusion every day, doing nothing but catch flies and stab them with a keenly-sharpened stylus. Consequently when someone once asked whether anyone was in there with Caesar, Vibius Crispus made the witty reply: “Not even a fly.” Suetonius, Domitian 3.
Trinculo’s “fly blowing” statement is witty in that it also captures the typology in Revelation describing the many-eyed creatures that surrounded the ‘Lord God’ Domitian. This is why ‘Trinculo’ states “I shall not fear” in order to mimic the “shall not fear” phrase of Scripture (Psalm 27, etc). Again notice that understanding Shakespeare as Jewish literature that reverses the Flavian typology provides an understanding to all of the play’s mysteries.
In keeping with the theme seen in Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, and Merchant of Venice (all analyzed in SSM), the hero Prospero has typologically stepped into the role of the ancient Jews who were destroyed or deposed by Titus; but also, above, he represents God himself, in his ability to control the storm and save every hair on the passengers’ heads.
Josephus and Gonzalo, keepers of (Prospero’s) Books
Now it is Prospero’s enemies who are in danger in their ship. Continuing his narration, Prospero tells Miranda that they themselves were saved from a similar plight at sea, also by divine providence.
MIRANDA
How came we ashore?
PROSPERO
By Providence divine.
Some food we had and some fresh water that
A noble Neapolitan, Gonzalo,
Out of his charity, being then appointed
Master of this design, did give us, with
Rich garments, linens, stuffs and necessaries,
Which since have steaded much; so, of his gentleness,
Knowing I loved my books, he furnish’d me
From mine own library with volumes that
I prize above my dukedom.
The character ‘Gonzalo’, presented in a positive light, may be representing primarily Joseph of Arimathea. To flesh out the typological linkage to the Gospels’ character, he is referred to as a counselor and described as a bringer of linen. Although Joseph of Arimathea ‘foresaw’ Joseph bar Mathias (that is, Josephus), Gonzalo does not necessarily represent the negative aspects of Josephus, the turncoat who became the historian for the hated Flavians. In the Gospels, Joseph of Arimathea was simply a “good counselor” that faithfully tried to serve the Christ, a role Gonzalo repeats by his faithful service to Prospero.
Prospero’s stomach bears up Miranda
Prospero goes on to tell Miranda the story of their loss of the Dukedom, and their arrival on the island. Speaking of the travails of their journey by sea, Prospero uses words strikingly similar to the way a woman would describe a pregnancy, continuing a theme of play with Prospero’s gender.
MIRANDA
Alack, what trouble
Was I then to you!
PROSPERO
O, a cherubim
Thou wast that did preserve me. Thou didst smile.
Infused with a fortitude from heaven,
When I have deck’d the sea with drops full salt,
Under my burthen groan’d; which raised in me
An undergoing stomach, to bear up
Against what should ensue.
Miranda wonders how this tale of woe is related to the storm and shipwreck she has just seen. Prospero explains that the shipwreck has brought his old enemies, Antonio and Alonso, into his hands for punishment.
Ariel’s magic drives Prospero’s enemies mad
Prospero tells Miranda that she must fall asleep, and as soon as she becomes quiet, we are introduced to the spirit Ariel, who reaffirms that he has created the tempestuous dream world in which the master’s enemies have been driven into a “fever of the mad”.
Prospero’s ability to command this spirit is nothing less than divine. The name of ‘Ariel’ (or ‘Uriel’) appears frequently in apocryphal and traditional sources as the name of a powerful angel or demiurge, and he is characterized as the voice of Jerusalem in Isaiah (29:4). Ariel’s words are evocative of God’s powers described in Job chapter 38, calling down thunder and fire, roaring and bold waves. These are powers beyond ordinary mortals, and reserved in the Bible to God himself, but Prospero commands the same, through Ariel. He also has power to preserve mortals from the mighty storm and shipwreck, fulfilling the prophecy given above.
The mariners on the ship (aside from the royal party) have been charmed and stowed asleep on their ship, which is also “safely in harbour.” After this awesome display, we are left puzzled as to the source of this power.
The Sycorax and her son Caliban
Prospero and Ariel provide much-needed background information in their discussion. Prospero states that the “damn’d witch Sycorax” has been banished from Argier, and the “blue-eyed hag” was brought to the island with her son Caliban, “a freckled whelp hag-born — not honour’d with a human shape”. Finding Ariel on the island, Sycorax, “by help of her more potent ministers”, confined Ariel into a “cloven pine” where the spirit was imprisoned.
Scholars have puzzled over the source of the character ‘Sycorax’. Our hypothesis is that this name is a pun or a composite of the names ‘Sychaeus’ and ‘Sicharbas’, which are the names given by Virgil and Servius respectively for the character that was the first husband of the Widow Dido, founder of the city of Carthage. The Widow Dido will be mentioned again in the play later on.
In the Shakespearian literature, Carthage – a Semitic city – is used as a type for Jerusalem. Dido is thus recognized as a ruler with Jewish connections, and her second marriage, to Sychaeus who was later killed by her son, probably represents a marriage of convenience to a Gentile. This is clarified by the fact that Sychaeus was a priest of Heracles. After Sychaeus’s death, Dido refuses to marry Aeneas, the founder of Rome, thus setting up the schism between Jews and Gentiles.
In The Tempest, Sychaeus (Sycharbus) is rendered as a woman (Sycorax), a “blue-eyed hag” and thus a Gentile like Sychaeus or Aeneas, and she has given birth to a son “not honour’d with a human shape.” This is ‘Caliban’ the type of Titus, and therefore the playwright can be seen as setting up a broad-stroke typology of the battle between Christianity versus Judaism.
Caliban enslaved by Prospero
Prospero is soon discussing Caliban with his daughter. Although Miranda says Caliban is “a villain… I do not love to look on”, Prospero admits that they need his services, to “make our fire” and “fetch in our wood”. Even as a refugee on this island, Prospero sees himself as an aristocrat, and Caliban is put to work as his slave to do menial tasks. Within Shakespeare’s comic system, Caliban typologically represents the ironic situation of a Christian slave in service to the powerful elite. The name ‘Caliban’ is an anagram of ‘Canibal’, prefiguring his role in re-enacting the Flavian typology.
Caliban, Prospero and Miranda meet. The men trade symmetrical curses, but Caliban has no power over Prospero, while Prospero’s curses strike terror into his defenseless slave. Then, they share their story that Caliban had been loved, cared for, and educated by Prospero and Miranda, until Caliban “didst seek to violate the honour” of Miranda. Caliban saw this as perfectly reasonable, that he wanted to have “peopled… this isle with Calibans”; but Miranda and Prospero recoiled in horror, like true aristocrats. The entire scenario is yet another reversal of the “root and branch” theme in the Gospels, in which Caliban has tried and failed to inject his genes into the Jewish pool.
Caliban is sent to gather firewood. As he goes, he remarks that Prospero’s power is great enough to make a vassal out of his ancestral god Setebos. ‘Setebos’ was the god of the Patagonian natives, who had been recently discovered in Shakespeare’s time. As ‘Setebos’ is used in The Tempest, it represents a false god of primitive Gentiles, the structure of Christianity understood by the author of Shakespeare.
Miranda discovers her divine partner Ferdinand
Moving on to the next scene, Ariel lures Prince Ferdinand, son of the King of Naples, to meet with Prospero’s daughter Miranda. Ariel sings of the prince’s father Alonso’s death, but notably without using any recognizable cannibal imagery. In yet another reversal of Josephus’s theme of the ‘new root and branch’, Prospero is planning to marry his daughter to the Prince, thus grafting his family back into the royal line. Miranda is quick to make her own declaration of Ferdinand’s divinity, as she first encounters him: “I might call him A thing divine, for nothing natural I ever saw so noble.”
Miranda and Ferdinand quickly fall in love, just as Dido fell in love with Aeneas. Prospero is delighted, but nevertheless resolves to put roadblocks in their path, “lest too light winning make the prize light.” He tells Ferdinand:
PROSPERO
Come;
I’ll manacle thy neck and feet together:
Sea-water shalt thou drink; thy food shall be
The fresh-brook muscles, wither’d roots and husks
Wherein the acorn cradled. Follow.
‘Fresh-brook muscles’ would be a type of fish. Thus, within the Flavian system, this is a cannibalistic threat, and not entirely in jest, as Ferdinand’s royal line is to be subsumed to Prospero and Miranda’s Jewish line in the upcoming “new root and branch” reversal. Or as described above: a ‘withered root’. Prospero also gives Miranda his ‘opinion’ about Ferdinand:
PROSPERO
Thou think’st there is no more such shapes as he,
Having seen but him and Caliban: foolish wench!
To the most of men this is a Caliban
And they to him are angels.
With this tongue-in-cheek verdict, Prospero expresses real disdain for royal privilege, and speaks the truth about what “most of men” think of the preening elite.
Royal villains and fish food
At the opening of Act II, the royal villains from the shipwreck are wandering around the island and exchanging seemingly harmless banter. Gonzalo remarks on how their clothing is as good as new, verifying Ariel’s report. They joke about the Widow Dido of Carthage (and the ‘Widower Aeneis’) while discussing the wedding of Alonso’s daughter Claribel in Tunis, which Gonzalo (almost correctly) asserts was synonymous to Carthage. This marriage is yet another cyclical repeat of the “root and branch” theme, as Claribel, a Gentile, has become attached to the king of Tunis (a Phoenician, an African and a type for the Moorish Jews.) The reference becomes ominous as the bantering discussion returns to Gonzalo’s doublet from the wedding, which Antonio says was ‘well fished for’, hinting that Claribel’s marriage in Tunis is similarly doomed. Remember that Dido’s first husband and true love had been killed by her brother, and Aeneas became a “widower” because Dido killed herself after his departure.
Continuing in this ominous vein, Alonso laments that his daughter might as well be lost. Indeed, in Shakespearean typology, she certainly has been lost, her bloodline ‘pruned’ by the intermarriage with Jewish royalty.
GONZALO
When I wore it at your daughter’s marriage?
ALONSO
You cram these words into mine ears against
The stomach of my sense. Would I had never
Married my daughter there! for, coming thence,
My son is lost and, in my rate, she too,
Who is so far from Italy removed
I ne’er again shall see her.
Next, Alonso is in despair with the realization that his beloved son Fernando has become fish food, and thus is lost as well. The correct interpretation of his statement is that he too will be pruned and grafted by his love for Miranda, and figuratively be eaten by the ‘fish’ in a reversal of the Flavian eucharist.
ALONSO
O thou mine heir
Of Naples and of Milan, what strange fish
Hath made his meal on thee?
Gonzalo plans his kingdom
After more such banter, Gonzalo tells of his ideal philosophy for ruling such an island as they have landed on. It will be a commonwealth with no riches or poverty, where everyone is idle, and “nature should bring forth, Of its own kind, all foison, all abundance, To feed my innocent people.”
Though, as widely noted, Gonzalo’s words are taken directly from an essay “Of Cannibals” by Montaigne, the sentiments are inspired by the prophecy of post-apocalyptic bliss that occurs in Isaiah 35 when “the desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose.” This paradise will come after the genocide of the nations, and it is intended only for the “innocent people”, while the ‘unclean’ and ‘fools’ will be excluded. Gonzalo’s description of an “innocent people” will be contrasted with those who wish to be pardoned for their sins at the play’s conclusion.
Sebastian and Antonio ridicule Gonzalo’s inconsistency in wanting to be King of an egalitarian utopia, and Alonso rejects Gonzalo’s advice as “nothing”.
Sebastian also plots to gain a kingdom
Continuing the fulfillment of the prophecies of Isaiah 29, Ariel charms Gonzalo and Alonso asleep, leaving Antonio and Sebastian (Alonso’s brother) to plot against Alonso. They realize that if Alonso and Gonzalo were killed, no one would be the wiser, and Sebastian would inherit the throne of Naples. Antonio and Sebastian reminisce about Antonio’s wicked theft of Prospero’s dukedom, and agree that guilty feelings have not been a problem. This is a rich and hilarious parody of the trinity of Flavian emperors, evocative of Domitian’s repudiation of the Flavian churches and his reconstruction and re-invention of the Christian religion after their deaths. Meanwhile, on the surface level, there is also rich irony in that it is far from obvious how the plotters will ever get back to Naples to claim their prize.
As Antonio and Sebastian are standing with their swords drawn and ready to plunge into Gonzalo and Alonso’s necks, Antonio’s speech includes another hint of cannibal imagery: Alonso is referred to as “This ancient morsel”. Ariel awakens Gonzalo and Alonso in the nick of time, foiling Sebastian’s bid for the throne.
Clowns need kingdoms, too
The next scene opens with Caliban giving yet another cannibalistic curse against Prospero: “All the infections that the sun sucks up From bogs, fens, flats, on Prosper fall and make him By inch-meal a disease!” Caliban adds that it is by ‘trifles’ that Prospero is able to control him. This may be a reference to Pliny’s description of Christianity as trifles, or ‘toies and fooleries’.
Trinculo the clown enters, and Caliban drops to the ground, hiding under his cloak. Trinculo identifies Caliban as a ‘Fish’: that is, a Jewish or Christian hoi polloi, a victim of the aristocracy. He has a “very ancient and fish-like smell.” A storm approaches, and Trinculo decides to hide with Caliban under the cloak: “misery acquaints a man with strange bed-fellows”, he says.
Stephano enters drunk:
STEPHANO
Sings
The master, the swabber, the boatswain and I,
The gunner and his mate
Loved Mall, Meg and Marian and Margery,
But none of us cared for Kate;
Stephano’s grouping of himself and five other ‘Roman’ shipmates courting different women whose names all derive from ‘Mary’, mocks the many ‘Marys’ in the Gospels, that were created by the Flavians to represent the rebellious females of the messianic movement.
Caliban believes at first that Stephano is an agent of Prospero; that is, a proxy of God. Stephano believes that his liquor “will give language to” Caliban, as Titus intended that the Gospels would give a new voice to the Jews. But, as Stephano and Trinculo exchange cheery banter, Caliban becomes convinced that Stephano is a god in his own right, and not just as a representative. Stephano accepts Caliban’s adulation, and promises that if Caliban will “kiss the book”, then he will “furnish it anon with new contents.” With this, Stephano again reminds us of the Flavians, who also furnished the New Testament with “new contents.”
Stephano tells Caliban that he has was once the man in the moon. Caliban has replied that he saw him there, along with his dog and his bush. This recalls Midsummer Night’s Dream, in which the character ‘Moonshine’ in the rough mechanical’s interlude also has a dog and a bush. Trinculo laughs that Caliban has been rendered “puppy-headed” by Stephano’s drink and propaganda, and has now become a suitable target for beatings.
Suddenly the conversation takes on a more serious tone: like Antonio and Sebastian, Stephano now confesses that it is the thirst for power on this deserted island that is his deepest motivation. Caliban fancies that he will win his freedom, even as his new boss, Stephano, is giving him his marching orders.
After the clowns go offstage, at the beginning of Act III, we find that Ferdinand has taken up Caliban’s burden and is carrying piles of logs, a task unbecoming a young man of royal blood; but in his view the task is ennobled by his love for Miranda, who reportedly told him “such baseness had never like executor.” Miranda tells him that Prospero the wizard is busy, “safe for these three hours” (a period reminiscent of Jesus’s time on the cross), tempting him to pleasures of the flesh; but actually Prospero is hovering in the background, watching everything that transpires. Ferdinand and Miranda continue to talk flirtatiously, and pledge themselves to be married.
Trinculo, Stephano and Caliban continue to wander about the island, and Trinculo has returned to his opinion that Caliban is a fish, because he drinks like one. Caliban pleads with Stephano to destroy Prospero and his books, take Miranda to bed, and take sole power over the island — while the spirit Ariel toys with them with ventriloquist tricks, and provokes them to quarrel.
We are reminded that Isaiah 29:4 warns Ariel, that is Jerusalem: “thou shalt be brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust”. Aside from making Ariel a type for the voice of Jerusalem (that is, the breath or spirit of the Jews), this also makes her an appropriate sprite for playing the role of a ventriloquist.
Stephano and Trinculo are alerted by the sound of Ariel’s pipe playing a tune, but Caliban reassures them:
CALIBAN
Be not afeard; the isle is full of noises,
Sounds and sweet airs, that give delight and hurt not.
Sometimes a thousand twangling instruments
Will hum about mine ears, and sometime voices
That, if I then had waked after long sleep,
Will make me sleep again: and then, in dreaming,
The clouds methought would open and show riches
Ready to drop upon me that, when I waked,
I cried to dream again.
Caliban’s wish to return to his dream continues the theme of re-creating the dreams of Isaiah 28. The sound of “a thousand twangling instruments” reminds us of Paul’s “If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal” (1 Cor. 13:1).
A cannibal feast for a king
Alonso, Gonzalo, Sebastian and Antonio continue wandering around the island in search of Fernando, and they are growing weary and about to sleep. Perhaps they are indeed asleep and dreaming when they suddenly find a marvelous banquet. The banquet is later taken away, creating a fantasy fulfillment of Isaiah (29:8):
It shall even be as when an hungry man dreameth, and, behold, he eateth; but he awaketh, and his soul is empty: or as when a thirsty man dreameth, and, behold, he drinketh; but he awaketh, and, behold, he is faint, and his soul hath appetite: so shall the multitude of all the nations be, that fight against mount Zion.
Prospero watches invisibly over the group, as the banquet is laid out for them by “strange Shapes” seen as a “gentle-kind”. In an aside, Prospero contrasts these spirits against the royal court, who he describes as “worse than devils”.
Alonso is reluctant to eat, and Gonzalo’s words do not seem reassuring: he says the banquet reminds him of “mountaineers… whose throats had hanging at ‘em Wallets of flesh” and “men Whose heads stood in their breasts.” It seems that Gonzalo knows that the banquet consist of flesh and breasts of men — the understanding of the Eucharist in the Shakespearean literature. The cannibal imagery is palpable. But, Alonso quiets his concern, and agrees to partake.
Ariel suddenly appears “like a harpy, claps his wings upon the table”, and the banquet vanishes. Ariel pronounces a condemnation on the men, reminding them of their theft of Prospero’s dukedom.
The Gentile nobility are types of the Flavians and are thus described as the “most unfit to live” of all men. Ariel says that he has driven them mad, and threatens that “Lingering perdition, worse than any death can be at once, shall step by step attend you and your ways.” While this fate is generally consistent with the fate of Gentile lords in the Shakespearian literature, Ariel suggests that perhaps they can be guarded from the wrath of the powers, by “heart-sorrow and a clear life ensuing”. In other words, Ariel holds out the hope that perhaps the nobles can achieve forgiveness through contrition, and by reforming their lives.
Prospero, however, is satisfied that “these mine enemies are all knit up in their distractions; now they are in my power.” These words will help explain the symbolic meaning of the phrase ‘brave new world’ discussed below.
Wedding plans for Miranda and Ferdinand
Beginning Act IV, Prospero pronounces his blessing over Miranda, Ferdinand, and their love, and looks forward to a grand wedding. In the meanwhile, he chides them to remain chaste, and also calls Ariel to “bring the rabble”, presumably meaning two trios of captives. As Ariel exits, Prospero promises to bestow “some vanity of mine art” upon the young couple.
Prospero’s promised “art” is a vision of Juno, Ceres and Iris, who are conjured up to bless the marriage. These three are the steadfast Roman goddesses of statecraft, agriculture and information, while the eroticism of Venus is noted to be absent from the pageant. Thus, the marriage between Miranda and Ferdinand reverses the founding of Rome in which the righteous outsider Aeneas (son of Venus) marries Lavinia, heir to the royal throne of the Latins. This also repeats the theme of Titus Andronicus in which a Jew is inserted into the Gentile’s royal lineage.
While the vision is still unfolding, Prospero suddenly remembers that Caliban, Stephano and Trinculo are still at large on the island, threatening to kill him. He abruptly ends the revelry, and sends Ferdinand and Miranda off to his ‘cell’, instructing Ferdinand to sleep.
A trumped up trap for the clowns
Although the “revels” have dissolved, and Ferdinand and Miranda await quietly in the cell, Prospero himself is still very busy. Working with Ariel, he prepares a trap for Caliban, Stephano and Trinculo by putting “the trumpery in my house” onto a clothesline where the three clowns find it. They have lost their wine, which Stephano says is an “infinite loss”, perhaps a metaphor for loss of Christian faith.
However, as compensation for their loss, they have found the royal and priestly apparel that Prospero and Ariel have left for them, and they revel in playful pomp. The “trumpery” seems to be a parody of the banquet that was laid out for the King of Naples and his party: the gentile royalty aspire to eat real flesh, while the clowns, pretenders, get only the opportunity to fancy themselves as royalty for a moment. One commentator thought that the garments represent Shakespeare’s writings; that is, the “paschal lamb” prepared by Bassano in the Salve Deus.
Caliban warns the clowns that the moment to carry out their criminal conspiracy against Prospero is passing. Stephano shushes Caliban, making an enigmatic comment about a jacket that will lose its hair and become a “bald jerkin”.
As the clowns are playing, “divers Spirits, in the shape of dogs and hounds” enter to drive them away, as Prospero curses them. Thus, their plotting against the master is brought to an abrupt end.
Prospero promises forgiveness (??)
With both trios of scoundrels completely under Prospero’s control, this is where we would expect the prophecy of Isaiah 34:2-4 to be ultimately fulfilled, that is, with the slaughter of the unclean ones, and the stink coming out of their carcasses. But, the surface-level action proceeds in a most unexpected fashion from here. Ariel calls on Prospero’s pity for the royal party, and especially for Gonzalo, whose “tears run down his beard, like winter’s drops from eaves of reeds.” Ariel is sure that if Prospero were able to see their sorrow and dismay, his “affections would become tender.” The dialog then unfolds as follows:
PROSPERO
Dost thou think so, spirit?
ARIEL
Mine would, sir, were I human.
PROSPERO
And mine shall.
Hast thou, which art but air, a touch, a feeling
Of their afflictions, and shall not myself,
One of their kind, that relish all as sharply,
Passion as they, be kindlier moved than thou art?
Though with their high wrongs I am struck to the quick,
Yet with my nobler reason ‘gaitist my fury
Do I take part: the rarer action is
In virtue than in vengeance: they being penitent,
The sole drift of my purpose doth extend
Not a frown further. Go release them, Ariel:
My charms I’ll break, their senses I’ll restore,
And they shall be themselves.
Prospero, an aristocrat, elitist, and former duke himself, has seemingly decided to recognize his common humanity with his royal enemies, and to forgive them; that is, at least according to the surface narration. At this point one is tempted to speculate that ‘Shakespeare’ has been blackmailed into showing so much unfamiliar kindness; or perhaps, that the earlier author has been replaced entirely, and an alternate author has been enlisted to craft such an uncharacteristically happy ending.
Nevertheless: considering the relentlessly unforgiving nature of ‘Shakespeare’ as we know from Titus Andronicus, Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet, discussed in SSM — one must suspect that there is a trick. Along these lines, please note that Prospero’s promise of forgiveness is carefully couched: Ariel says he would forgive “were I human” but he is not human, but only a spirit of Prospero’s instrumentality. Prospero himself is not necessarily of the same ‘kind’ as the prisoners. Finally, Prospero tells us his intentions ‘shall’ become tender, but perhaps only after proper punishment has been dealt.
While he appears to be preparing to set the prisoners free, Prospero reviews how he has called upon the elves and spirits for his magic. In doing so, he uses the words of Medea from Ovid’s Metamorphoses. As discussed in SSM, ‘Shakespeare’ frequently refers to Ovid’s Philomela (book 6) but this time is different. The choice of this parallel is apt: in Ovid’s tale of book 7, the heroic Jason and the Argonauts have come to Colchis, where the king’s daughter Medea has fallen in love with him. Her passion burns, but she chastely waits until Jason agrees to marry her. Medea’s father assigns Jason the task of winning the golden fleece, which he accomplishes with the aid of Medea’s magic.
Up until this point, Medea is a parallel to Miranda, and Jason is parallel to Ferdinand. However, from this point forward in Ovid’s story, Medea’s life turns to wickedness, and then unhappiness. At Jason’s request, she conjures up a magic spell to restore his father Aeson’s youthful powers. Then she “pretended to a sham quarrel with her husband” and left him to go to the court of Pelias, where she used her trickery and magic to kill him. Meanwhile, Jason has remarried, and Medea kills his new wife and all the children too.
Rather than proceed down Medea’s wicked path, Prospero “abjures” this “rough magic” and promises to break his staff, and drown his book.
Prospero enchants the royal party, and chides and then forgives them, as they stand mute and motionless. Then, he speaks of a time soon to come when he will set Ariel free and the spirit will enter a world where owls cry and the boughs have blossoms. This is the post-apocalyptic world that Isaiah and Gonzalo described above, which will be inhabited by owls and blossoms, that will abide after all of Isaiah has come to pass.
PROSPERO
quickly, spirit;
Thou shalt ere long be free.
ARIEL sings and helps to attire him
Where the bee sucks. there suck I:
In a cowslip’s bell I lie;
There I couch when owls do cry.
On the bat’s back I do fly
After summer merrily.
Merrily, merrily shall I live now
Under the blossom that hangs on the bough.
Compare to Isaiah 34:11 and 35:1-2:
34:11But the cormorant and the bittern shall possess it; the owl also and the raven shall dwell in it: and he shall stretch out upon it the line of confusion, and the stones of emptiness.
35:1 The wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad for them; and the desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose.
2 It shall blossom abundantly, and rejoice even with joy and singing: the glory of Lebanon shall be given unto it, the excellency of Carmel and Sharon, they shall see the glory of the Lord, and the excellency of our God. ….
As the play moves rapidly forward to its conclusion, the master and boatswain are brought forth, and set free. Trinculo, Stephano and Caliban come forward, and are given a blessing. Caliban accepts this blessing and promises to become wise, and “seek for grace”. He sheepishly regrets his folly, saying: “What a thrice-double ass Was I, to take this drunkard for a god And worship this dull fool!” The “thrice-double ass” is the false Christian/Flavian Trinity that Caliban has worshiped, and has now forsaken. It is also (as mentioned earlier) a reference to the ‘ass’ humor and ‘Lazarus’ humor in the Gospels.
Tomorrow, Prospero promises, there will be expeditious sailing back to Naples. From there, Prospero plans to go to Milan, where he will resume his dukedom.
Apocalypse approaches
The puzzle described in this post, concerning Prospero’s ‘cell’, begins to unfold during Prospero’s dream vision blessing the marriage plans of Ferdinand and Miranda. As this vision of goddesses nears its end, a country dance of nymphs and “sunburnt sicklemen” is organized. These “reapers” are symbols of the Apocalypse. Prospero states that he ended the ceremony because he had forgotten the conspiracy the Flavian clowns created against him, but the reapers have brought them back to his mind, and he states and that their “minute’ is almost up. The “minute” he is referring to is the time line of the Apocalypse laid out in the Book of Revelation.
This is made completely clear in the famous passage, the most important in the play, in which the enraged Prospero gives a description of the coming Apocalypse of the Gentiles envisioned by Isaiah.
Prospero’s use of the term ‘dissolve’ below is one of the two keys needed to understand the passage and he is using the term in the same context as Isaiah does in 34:2-4, describing the slaughter of all the nations, the stink of their carcasses, and the melting of mountains with their blood. As noted by scholars, when Isaiah describes the “dissolving” of the sun, moon and stars – the hosts of heaven – he is referring to the kings, empires and states that were hostile to Israel. In the passage, Isaiah is also repeating this concept as he had previously given it in 13:10 and 13:11.
Thus, in the first part of the passage, when Prospero indicates that actors are “the stuff that dreams are made of”, he is actually saying that the actors are part of the dream that Isaiah foresaw which leads to the apocalypse of the nations. His use of the term “globe” indicates the Globe Theater. That is, Prospero thinks of the plays themselves as part of Isaiah’s “dream”.
PROSPERO
Our revels now are ended. These our actors,
As I foretold you, were all spirits and
Are melted into air, into thin air:
And, like the baseless fabric of this vision,
The cloud-capp’d towers, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples, the great globe itself,
Ye all which it inherit, shall dissolve
And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff
As dreams are made on, and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep.
The puzzle of Prospero’s ‘cell’
The second part of Prospero’s speech, which immediately follows, contains the second key that sets up the puzzle concerning ‘cell’. Shakespeare created this puzzle to show the informed reader that Prospero does not expect the Gentiles to be forgiven later in the play. In fact, he is setting them up for a cannibal feast to reverse the humor in the Gospels.
PROSPERO
Sir, I am vex’d;
Bear with my weakness; my, brain is troubled:
Be not disturb’d with my infirmity:
If you be pleased, retire into my cell
And there repose: a turn or two I’ll walk,
To still my beating mind.
Notice above that Prospero sends Ferdinand to his ‘cell’ and instructs him to go to sleep. Miranda exits with Ferdinand, presumably also going into the cell, which is where we will next see her. The puzzle in The Tempest concerning Prospero’s cell is the second key needed to understand Prospero’s plan for his enemies.
To learn the solution to the puzzle one needs to understand how the Gospels made fun of the butchering of the Jewish Messiah Eleazar, and described the foul smell of his rotting feet, which then led to a vulgar strand of humor concerning the Messiah riding on three ‘asses’.
The author of Shakespeare has used a double entendre mocking the one in the New Testament. In this case, the author has used the same symbolic elements the authors of the NT used to create their vicious subtext, to create a hidden storyline inside of The Tempest.
Below is the explanation of the Gospels’ ‘smelly feet’ and ‘three asses humor’ humor as presented in SSM.
Recognizing the Gospels’ symbolism concerning the ‘ass’ begins with understanding the typological meaning of the phrase “there they made him a supper” (John 12:2).
In brief, the typological meaning of the phrase is established by its linkage to Josephus’ description of a ‘human Passover Lamb that was a son of Mary’ (Josephus, Jewish Wars 6, 201-219). Both Josephus and the Gospels’ stories of the ‘human Passover Lamb’ contain the concepts of Lazarus, Mary, eating, and a ‘fine portion’ that was not taken away. This linkage builds upon the foundation established by the positioning of the ‘human Passover Lambs’ relative to the overall sequential typological mapping that exists between Jesus’ ministry and Titus campaign.
Further, as I also show in Caesar’s Messiah, when Jesus ‘raised’ Lazarus from the dead, he did not restore Lazarus to life, but merely ‘raised’ his decomposing body from the ground.
These facts enable the typological meaning of the Gospels’ story that next describes Eleazar after he is ‘raised’ from the dead – the ‘anointing party’ where Jesus and his followers are described as ‘reclining’ and preparing ‘supper’ and ‘anointing’ – to become clear. When the author uses the pronoun ‘his’ to define whose head is covered with perfume is it not necessarily Jesus’. In fact, the passage links back – logically enough – to the Gospels’ last mention of a scent – the smell emanating from Lazarus’s corpse; and the author used the ambivalence inherent in pronouns to mask his real meaning.
Thus, it is the head of Lazarus that is covered with perfume in Mark 14:3. It was done to mask its odor. This is also why ‘his’ feet were ‘perfumed’ in the version of the story given in John 12; 1-9, and why the feet were ‘saved’ for the day of the burial. The dark humor behind this mentioning of Lazarus’s body parts is that to “make a meal” of any large animal it must first be butchered, and this is the activity that occurred during the ‘anointing party’ where ‘they made him a supper’. The supper being prepared was the “last Supper’ in the Gospels, which would eat the ‘bread’ of Eleazar’s body.
[….]
The theme describing Lazarus’s ‘body parts’ continues in John 12:12-19 as, following the ‘anointing party’ Jesus is said to have previously found (the past tense) a ‘young ass’ to sit upon. Notice that in John 12:1 Lazarus is said to be ‘reclining’ – the only way the dead can posture – hence he was easy to be ‘sat’ upon. I must note that there is an unfortunate sexual ‘innuendo’ behind the image as the Romans sought to humiliate the Jewish Christ in the most extreme (and to them comic) manner possible.
[….]
However, the typological relationship between the Gospels and the next event Josephus describes – concerning a ‘son of Lazarus’ and the ‘hauling of bodies through the Jerusalem’s gates’ – is much more difficult to determine and can only be understood once the typological meaning of the stories of Jesus’s ‘triumphal entrance’ on an ass in the synoptics is understood.
A reader must first recognize that the stories in Matthew, Mark and Luke occur following the ‘triumphal entrance’ in John, which took place four days before the Passover. This is necessary because, as shown below, it establishes Lazarus as an ‘ass that has been sat on before’ and therefore distinct from the asses Jesus asks to be brought to him in Mark and Luke, which he stipulates can not have previously been ‘sat on’.
What the author is actually doing is providing just enough details to make it logically clear that four ‘asses’ were brought to Jesus – Lazarus and the ‘donkey’ that are described in Matthew, and the two colts described in Mark and Luke. The image that the author is working to create is a spoof of the prophecy in Jeremiah 9:9, which, if read literally, seems to indicate that the king of the Jews rode three asses simultaneously.
See your King comes to you,
Righteous and having salvation,
Gentle and riding on a donkey,
On a colt, the foal of a donkey. (Zech. 9: 9)
To digress, it should be noted that the literary technique the author is using occurs throughout the Gospels. The Romans loved to hide their meanings ‘in plain sight’, so to speak. Thus, the literal meaning of the words is often used to convey the typological linkage, as in ‘fishing for men’, or ‘eat of my flesh’. In this vein the synoptics’ story of Jesus’s ‘triumphal entrance’ is a literal ‘fulfillment’ of Zechariah 9:9 and shows that the Jewish ‘king’ did indeed ‘ride’ on three Asses.
To see the typological point they make, a reader must pay close attention to every detail of the three versions of the story in the synoptics. The ‘young ass’ in Matthew is said to be at Bethany – the place where Lazarus was last seen ‘reclining’ – and is not described as being ‘tied’, while the colts in Mark and Luke are both described as tied and having never having been sat upon before. Further, Mark’s colt is said to have been brought to Jesus immediately, while the one in Luke is not.
Thus, the logical reading of the stories indicate that the ‘young ass’ in Matthew must be Lazarus who has been depicted as an ‘ass’ in the earlier story in John. He must be the ‘young ass’ described at Bethany because not only was he last described there, but he was not ‘bound’ as the asses in Mark and Luke were as he has already been ‘loosed’. (Note that the same word that describes the untying of the asses in Mark and Luke was used to describe the ‘loosening’ of Lazarus from his burial clothes in the prior story in John.) And as he has been ‘sat on’ in the earlier story in John, he cannot be either of the asses described in Mark and Luke who have never been sat on before.
Moving through the typological storyline, the ‘need’ that Jesus tells his disciples in the synoptics’ ‘triumphal entrance’ story that he has for ‘asses’, is actually to transport the Passover meal – the butchered ‘ass’ Lazarus – to Jerusalem. And once he has his ‘quartet’ of ‘asses’, he places Lazarus’ body onto the team of three mules. Jesus can now ‘fulfill’ the prophecy in Jeremiah because he has assembled three donkeys and the ‘King of the Jews’ – the ‘ass’ Lazarus. The ‘triumphal entry’ that the Gospels actually describe is that of three mules carrying the butchered body of the king of the Jews, while he is being sat upon by the Romanized Christ, Jesus.
Only with this information can a reader understand the typology concerning ‘smelly feet’ Shakespeare created in The Tempest. To link the passages of the puzzle, the author placed the word ‘cell’ in all of the relevant passages, which are presented below. Note that the passages are not in a single place but scattered throughout the play.
The first ‘cell’ passages simply presented the concept of the smelly feet, to link to the Gospels.
ARIEL
Which entered their frail shins: at last I left them
I’ the filthy-mantled pool beyond your cell,
There dancing up to the chins, that the foul lake O’erstunk their feet.
A second passage links the concepts of ‘cell’, ‘foot’, and ‘blind mole’, an unpleasant albino creature of the depths:
CALIBAN
Pray you, tread softly, that the blind mole may not Hear a foot fall: we now are near his cell.
Not to be outdone, the third passage speaks of ‘foot-licking’ near Prospero’s cell, which can only be a prelude to foot-eating.
CALIBAN
Prithee, my king, be quiet. Seest thou here,
This is the mouth o’ the cell: no noise, and enter.
Do that good mischief which may make this island
Thine own for ever, and I, thy Caliban,
For aye thy foot-licker.
Thus, we have been primed to expect smelly body parts and cannibalism to be associated with Prospero’s ‘cell’.
The brave new world, and the chamber of horror
With Ariel departed, Prospero wakens the wandering royals, chides them again, and demands the return of his dukedom. Alonso questions whether Prospero is actually the long-lost duke, and Prospero insists it is true. As he pulls back a curtain covering his ‘cell’ to reveal the lost Ferdinand (with Miranda) to the bereaved Alonso, Prospero refers to the cell as a ‘court’.
This, you will remember, is the same ‘cell’ where we can expect to find smelly body parts being licked; perhaps these are the same stinking carcasses referred to in Isaiah 34:3, after the slaughter of the nations. A ‘court’, of course, is where a judge delivers justice.
The use of the word ‘cell’ is fairly unusual in the Shakespearean corpus. Using the concordance at Open Source Shakespeare, we find that the word ‘cell’ appears only 31 times in the entire collected works: 12 times in Tempest, 10 times in Romeo and Juliet, and 9 times in 6 other plays. In Romeo, the sinister Friar Lawrence has a ‘cell’. In Two Gentlemen of Verona, Friar Patrick has a ‘cell’, which is mentioned three times. And in the rest of the plays, a ‘cell’ often refers to a tomb, or perhaps a jail. More often, when Shakespeare wants to refer to someone’s bedroom or study, he uses the word ‘room’ (46 times in 28 works) or ‘chamber’ (99 times in 26 works.)
Miranda goes on to give the group her famous blessing, and Alonso then asks a less well-known question about Miranda’s identity.
MIRANDA
O, wonder!
How many goodly creatures are there here!
How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world,
That has such people in’t!
PROSPERO
‘Tis new to thee.
ALONSO
What is this maid with whom thou wast at play?
Your eld’st acquaintance cannot be three hours:
Is she the goddess that hath sever’d us,
And brought us thus together?
FERDINAND
Sir, she is mortal;
But by immortal Providence she’s mine:
Miranda’s blessing recalls Hamlet’s soliloquy “what a piece of work is man”, but without the dark conclusion that “he delights me not”. However, Alonso’s conjecture that Miranda is “the goddess that hath sever’d us” may be equally grim as Hamlet’s conclusion. The passage may be playing with the ‘severed’ humor concerning Paul found in Acts and presented in SSM:
Prior to the scene in Acts 13, Saul/Paul had attacked a member of the ‘way’ – Stephan – who has been preaching for ‘Jesus’. In other words, Stephan had been preaching for the Flavian Christ. Following this event Saul shows up in Antioch with a group that includes a ‘stepbrother’ of Herod. Then the ‘Holy Spirit’, for some reason, orders Saul ‘separated’ – the Greek word used can also mean ‘severed’ – and the group then “placed their hands on him” – the word used for “placed” can also mean ‘attack’. Following the event Saul becomes ‘Paul’ (Greek: Paulos), a word that means ‘tiny’ (Latin: Paullus). In other words, Paul has been ‘severed’ – or castrated – by the group led by Herod’s ‘stepbrother’ as revenge for his participation in the attack on a member of the ‘Way’ – the Caesars’ version of Judaism – and Saul thereby became ‘Tiny’.
Paul’s original name of ‘Saul’ is also explained by this reasoning. Saul was the Jewish king that had demanded David obtain ‘a hundred Gentile foreskins’ and the Romans named their character ‘Saul’ to imply that his ‘circumcision’ involved – like the one ordered by his Old Testament forerunner – more than a single foreskin. The author of Acts clarifies the relationship by actually mentioning the Old Testament Saul in the passage where ‘Saul’ becomes ‘Tiny’ – Acts 13:21. The Old Testament Saul’s reign had the space of forty years. This foresees the forty years between the beginning of Paul’s ‘ministry’ at approximately 40 CE and the start of Domitian’s reign in 81 CE – a roughly forty year cycle parallel to the one which linked Jesus to Titus.
The typology is witty in that – logically enough – it suggests that castration may be an appropriate punishment for the gentile nobility, in retaliation for the Roman castration of the Christian hero ‘Paul’.
As the play moves rapidly forward to its conclusion, Trinculo, Stephano and Caliban come forward. Prospero tells Caliban: “Go, sirrah, to my cell; Take with you your companions; as you look To have my pardon, trim it handsomely.” Caliban accepts this blessing and promises to become wise, and “seek for grace”. He sheepishly regrets his folly, saying: “What a thrice-double ass Was I, to take this drunkard for a god And worship this dull fool!”
Caliban’s phrase “thrice-double ass” is a reference to the ‘three ass’ cannibal feast humor in the Gospels. The ‘three asses’, Trinculo, Stephano and Caliban, are sent into Prospero’s cell; that is, his courtroom of justice, where stinking body parts are found. Caliban has been instructed to “trim it handsomely”. Most commentators believe this is referring to the room itself, but we believe it more likely refers to its contents, including people and/or body parts.
Finally, Prospero invites Alonso, Sebastian and Antonio into his “poor cell” to rest and sleep. He tells them he will “waste” part of their night “With such discourse as, I not doubt, shall make it Go quick away; the story of my life And the particular accidents gone by.”
The words “make it Go quick away” are subliminally chilling. The hidden puzzle concerning ‘cell’ indicates that Prospero fully intends, at some occulted or symbolic or magical level, that the plan described in Isaiah shall be carried out — if not by Prospero himself (having abjured his magical powers), then perhaps by God.
The references to Prospero’s ‘cell’ have created a hidden storyline. A possible interpretation of this storyline is as follows:
Prospero’s ‘cell’ is where vengeance is delivered. First, Prospero describes his cell as a “court” – in other words where justice is delivered. Then he orders Ferdinand to sleep there. While he is asleep Miranda ‘severs’ Ferdinand – in other words castrates him. Then, Caliban is told to ‘trim it handsomely’ – meaning to circumcise Ferdinand’s castrated member. Finally, the Gentile nobility is told to spend a night inside the cell – to participate in a cannibal feast of the ‘trimmed’ member.
In Hamlet, the author refers to the murdered King Hamlet’s decaying body as “lazar-like”, and hints that the body has been consumed at his mother’s wedding banquet which followed quickly after the former king’s death. We take this as confirmation that ‘Shakespeare’ was broadly familiar with the view of Lazarus’ fate that we have described above. As to the usage of terms such as ‘sever’ and ‘trim’ to refer to cannibalistic cuisine, many more such instances are described in SSM.
Ferdinand, moreover, is important for the plan of grafting Miranda’s branch into the royal rootstock of Naples. Accordingly, perhaps rather than being castrated, he has merely been circumcised, and it is only the foreskin that has been ‘trimmed’ by Caliban and subsequently consumed by the remainder of the party. Circumcision may well be a form of ritual castration anyhow, in which case at a symbolic level there is little if any difference.
Or conversely, perhaps the entire ensemble of sinners will be sliced to pieces. The exact nature of God’s vengeance is veiled. But in Isaiah’s ancient tribal vision, mercy and salvation are reserved for the God’s chosen people, the Jews, and not for the goyim.
Given the depiction of the ‘Globe’ as an element in the dream state that leads to the Apocalypse of the Christian world, it is hard not engage in paranoid wondering of to what extent Jewish influence in the media is related to the ‘dream state’ for Gentiles described in the Tempest. Or as John Lennon stated –hopefully tongue in cheek – “show business is an extension of the Jewish religion.”
The dream state the Gentiles have been placed in is the basis for the expression “brave new world”. This is why writers such as Kipling and Huxley, who understood the typology in The Tempest, have used the phrase. The Oxford English Dictionary states that the word “brave” was used in Shakespeare’s time meant something that dazzled the senses and was often used as a word of approval or praise. In other words, it was more of a cognate of the modern acclamation “bravo!”, rather than the personal property of courage. The expression “brave new world” is a description of the “world” during the midst of the apocalyptic project that Isaiah describes, during the time that the goyim are held in a dream state, but before they have been annihilated. Note that the “goodly creatures” are the unjust Italian royal usurpers whose minds have been “enchanted”.
Isaiah’s assault on mercy
In the play’s epilogue, Prospero seemingly asks for the audience’s applause and their pardon to set him free to return to Naples. In fact, there is another darker meaning. The language is very precise.
EPILOGUE SPOKEN BY PROSPERO
Now my charms are all o’erthrown,
And what strength I have’s mine own,
Which is most faint: now, ’tis true,
I must be here confined by you,
Or sent to Naples. Let me not,
Since I have my dukedom got
And pardon’d the deceiver, dwell
In this bare island by your spell;
But release me from my bands
With the help of your good hands:
Gentle breath of yours my sails
Must fill, or else my project fails,
Which was to please. Now I want
Spirits to enforce, art to enchant,
And my ending is despair,
Unless I be relieved by prayer,
Which pierces so that it assaults
Mercy itself and frees all faults.
As you from crimes would pardon’d be,
Let your indulgence set me free.
First, the author is stating that the Gentiles must not understand the dream state they have been placed in for the ‘project’ to succeed. – Gentle breath of yours my sails Must fill, or else my project fails
The prayer that ‘pierces’ is Isaiah and it ‘assaults’ mercy itself. In other words, it provides the moral basis for creating an apocalypse for the Gentiles. The “crime” that the Gentiles must be pardoned from was their war against the Jews in the first and second century. And the applause for the play which is the accepting of the dream world the Jews have created will set free the author from her task – which is to bring about the apocalypse described by Isaiah, the “indulgence’ the Gentiles must pay and which will set the Jews free.
Prospero’s feminine aspect
The theme of Prospero’s gender ambiguity begins with his dance around his fatherhood of Miranda, and continues with his description of Miranda’s arrival on the island in terms suggestive of a pregnancy. The powerful parallel to Medea continues this theme. As we have mentioned earlier, the film director Julie Taymor noticed this feminine side of Prospero, and cast Helen Mirren in the role. This duality has a special poignancy if indeed the playwright ‘Shakespeare’ was not only a Jew masquerading as a Christian, but also a woman playing the part of a man in the world. The equation of Prospero with the author, especially in the epilogue, seems to constitute a hint that it is so. In an interview, Taymor explained:
In the era of Shakespeare’s time, again, women were burned at the stake for even dabbling in medicinal arts, let alone alchemy. And therefore the whole issue of white magic/black magic is right there in terms of a woman who was given the freedom by her husband, if you follow the backstory, to practice in the sciences and her brother uses it to have her accused of witchcraft to usurp her dukedom. So Prospera may feel and start as a benevolent sorcerer or alchemist, but because of the revenge factor of having her kingdom taken away and her daughter and she sent out to die, the vengeance part takes over her spirit and she moves into the dark side. I think what you get with Helen’s performance is this unbelievably complex woman who’s both powerful and vulnerable, has an incredible maternal side to her, which is very unique, to have this mother-daughter relationship, she’s got a sensuality and a humor to her because she’s Helen Mirren, and in the end when she puts her corset back on, it’s very different than when a man puts on his duke’s robes. You see that she is really giving up her life to go back into civilization for her daughter; she’s giving up her freedom, because to go back into that courtly society she has to go back into the corseted stays of women of that time. So there’s an enormous amount of the various changes that happen by putting a woman into this role, but ultimately the play is the play, and the themes of Shakespeare’s play don’t change.
The fact that the Jewish director, Julie Taymor, choose to cast Prospero as a woman, coupled with her informed transition of the conclusion of Titus Andronicus, suggests she may have an awareness of the occulted meaning of Shakespeare, as well as the identity of the author.
"Wolpertswende St Gangolf Hochaltar Detail" by sculpture: Moriz Schlachter (1852–1931); Photo: Andreas Praefcke
The Western foundational narrative essentially begins with the story of Abraham and his descendants, this set in dialectic contrast with Homeric epic. It is the intentionally tortured fusion of these two core cultural constructs that has led to the yet unresolved synthesis of the world we have today. Unresolved at least for now, because the global elites’ combined and explicitly stated global ambitions have not been achieved … just yet. As we are told of this agenda in Isaiah 49:6 —
And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.
As we’ll see, the Biblical stories seem designed to serve this elite agenda, even “to the end of the earth”; albeit the tales are cleverly disguised to keep their main audience comfortably focused on the otherwise prosaic and seemingly banal aspects. As such, Abraham and his descendants seem to be ordinary nomadic shepherds, whose casually intimate nexus to the divine makes many incredible events seem credible … to the credulous. But, some zany episodes are clearly intended to alert some of us that something deeper is going on below this surface reading. From the artworks shown in this post, one can see that Abraham is not shown as a rude shepherd, but rather as one of a much higher social status. He and his family rub elbows with pharaohs and other kings in rather amazing contexts. The alert reader would see this subtext, while the hoi polloi might only see the simple, yet divinely blessed, shepherd. In this regard, the Bible is like the old cartoons of Rocky and Bullwinkle, sending different messages to both children and adults at the same time, each addressing their own level of understanding.
In any case, here we have a remarkably dysfunctional family, chosen and ‘eternally blessed’ by God to rule over their promised land, and eventually to rule over the world. And yet here we are still dealing with the clearly dysfunctional outcome over 3,000 years later. Today’s situation is not so very much different than with Abraham — with one big exception, namely that the veiled heirs, those ruling in the name of all the ‘Abrahamic’ religions, occupy a much larger amount of global real estate and other assets now. Is this the result of divine will? Or, are certain people, then as now, better at the game (and/or born in better circumstances) than the rest of us? Are they better at the game, perhaps because they have a better contextual understanding of the rules?
Jews, Christians and Islamics can rightly take great pride in their clear advancements in numerous aspects of morality over predecessor societies. However, this begs the question of why the Abramic religions are so tortuously ‘revelatory’. Why didn’t God establish his ‘perfect’ order of societal laws and such intact from the very beginning? Perhaps God is maturing just like his human ‘copies’ do. This is the premise of Robert Wright’s The Evolution of God, but for him it is simply a tongue-in-cheek literary device, as he makes it clear that the collective human understanding of this ‘God’ is what is evolving. Moreover, he states:
the gods that have populated human history— rain gods, war gods, creator gods, all-purpose gods (such as the Abrahamic god), and so on… exist in people’s heads and, presumably, nowhere else.
The authors generally agree, however we claim that this is because certain elite humans are indeed driving this ‘maturation of God’ process as they expediently go along, but ultimately all with a specific end in mind. That is, our human ‘lords’ are evolving their divine avatar, as contingent upon the exigent circumstances found along their geopolitical roadmap. And when ethical ‘improvements’ occur, they must necessarily be in tune with the long term interests of those same elites. Thus the imaginary gods, or God, via their human handlers, reveal that prior religious laws are to be periodically revised – for harmony’s sake. Harmony, that is, after all the evil-doing laggards, zealous conservatives that is, are dealt with.
In stark contrast to Jesus of Nazareth, who is depicted as an exemplar of moral virtue (with the forgivable exception of getting mad at a barren fig tree), Abraham and his progeny are all too human in their guile and lust. The tales are compelling in a lurid manner, like soap operas. Indeed, such wily behaviors were more openly accepted and even appreciated in both the Hebrew and Homeric ages. After all, at some primal level a hunter or warrior must be able to outwit his or her prey or foe to survive if not succeed, the concepts of ‘fairness’ and ‘decent’ behavior only evolving over time per the demands of ‘civilization’. In this context then, Abraham and Moses were among the most wily of their time.
So on the superficial level, and by negative example, hopefully the audience can better learn ethical behavior from the zany moral foibles of these otherwise exalted people. But on a deeper level, the underlying subtext is to establish a modus operandi of justified and providential territorial conquest and geopolitical power insinuations, sophisticated propaganda and other cultural manipulations. Like any good spy novel, there is sexual intrigue as well; all on the yellow brick road to some alleged higher calling. As such, and just as with the gods “that exist in people’s heads and, presumably, nowhere else”, we suggest that all these Old Testament ‘heroes’ are indeed either purely or mostly fictional, and that they must generally be avatars for the real human elites hiding behind their veiling curtains.
Setting the Blessed Stage
With Abraham, the later compilers and redactors of the various texts were dealing with a subject matter that may have been as much as a thousand years before their times. As a result, if nothing else, the finer contextual usage of such matters might be expected to become distorted in various ways — especially when such details might refer to the reviled practices of former neighboring societies, now long distant in time or geographically to the otherwise unaided redactors.
Typically we are otherwise plausibly told that prior to more recent times, oral transmission was the means to explain why such stories had survived so long, supposedly accurately. However, it is hard to believe that mere oral story telling could transmit the level of accurate detail found in the Biblical tales as described above. Moreover, how could such oral transmission also account for the ‘fisherman’s exaggerations’ that we find in Biblical accounts such as of Jonah and the whale? Not to mention the tale of God’s eternal vengeance against the Canaanites in retribution for the odd sin of Ham (the generationally distant, yet key, prequel to Abraham), detailed further below? And why would oral transmission create such a politically charged, ultimately elitist and racist narrative?
Indeed, some indigenous peoples such as nomadic Bedouin tribesmen still use oral transmission. Their stories are believed to be reasonably accurate with respect to contextually valued aspects, although chronological time spans are typically inaccurate. Of course, this explanation is given to us with the underlying expectation that we are to believe that the core of these epic stories are essentially true in the first place. But there may be yet another explanation for these narratives. To wit: that they were fictionally cobbled together, as if in a modern day ‘historical fiction’, for furthering an ambitious and steadfastly deliberate agenda. And this, we claim, is not much different than which happened later with the Flavian gospels – ala Caesar’s Messiah. In fact, we claim these two, time separated, literary projects are intimately connected. And thus, that the ‘Flavian Vanity’ discussed there is likely much broader in context than merely contained to the Flavian ‘branch’ of the larger Sabine family corporation. That is, generally speaking: those including the Roman republican consuls, the imperial Caesars, and the Catholic popes and the ‘traditional’, ethnically ‘non-debased’ Curia. This entire family enterprise was descended from conquering colonists … from the ‘East’, at least if their own legends are to be believed.
As the late archaeologist, Cyrus H. Gordon, showed in his books (specifically, Gordon & Rendsburg, 1998, The Bible and the Ancient Near East): while the Old Testament contains many epic lavish embellishments, at the same time one also finds a wealth of references to details that have been externally confirmed to be rather accurate. The granular level of accurate contextual detail in the finished Judaic narrative would be nearly impossible for a team of isolated scribes and clerics to fabricate out of thin air. On the contrary, they must have been operating with both the imprimatur of, and with the preexisting textual resources of, the political ‘powers that be’ of the day. Such resources would have come from various preexisting regional factions. The job of the ‘redactors’ then was to compile and harmonize these various accounts. Such regional harmonizing must necessarily precede the long and bloody process of global harmonizing. However, whether on purpose or not, the redactors left traces of the original sources within their compilation. Accordingly, we can get a rather good idea of what is really happening by reading between the divine lines.
As the Homeric works literally became a sort of bible for the wider, polytheistic Greek world, the epic stories of the Hebrew patriarchs fulfilled the same function in Judea. Here, Abraham became actively engaged with one particular and uniquely peculiar god who, at some point, gradually began to jealously demand Abraham’s and his descendants’ sole allegiance. This god warns them to ignore all those other silly or evil gods, whose actual existence is not denied at first: this being a transitional phase, called monolatry, on the brutal road to monotheism where the other gods are now denied as being real. With the latter phase, as Jan Assmann and others have noted, such a singular god is necessarily militantly jealous in asserting his sole primacy over his former peers, with social consequences that can be seen as more desirable for efficient political control, … and in setting his chosen faithful profitably apart from the rest of humanity. This more efficient religio-political control is implemented coincident with the nascent rise of imperial expansionism (of the Persians), where the fewer gods to deal with in the newly acquired regions might make for more unity across an empire.
The Abraham cycle is distantly linked to the Creation epic and Adam and Eve by the various genealogies that gradually narrow their focus down to Abraham, who receives the eternal blessing (for global success) from God. Thereafter, this blessing is transferred by hook or crook to various subsequent younger brothers (or half-brothers in some cases). This younger brother motif forms an important metaphor for the underlying reality which we discuss later on.
And like all good dramas, this incredibly valuable blessing is even suspensefully put at risk on many occasions, including by Abraham’s various escapades involving both his wife and son. We assert that these multiple instances of risking of divinely blessed progeny is a clever diversionary ruse to imbue the narratives with ‘common’ human traits that serve to draw away attention from the possibility that much more powerful human sponsorship is involved behind the scenes.
The very beginning of the narrative then is linked to the apparent fall of Sumeria, or Shinar, and the Tower of Babel story, where the people propose to build a city and an imposing structure, so as to ‘make a name for themselves’. Their hubris was offensive to God for some reason back then, but apparently not so much in the last few thousand years. In God’s angry wrath, he destroys the tower and city, disperses mankind, and for good measure confounds their languages.
Out of all this judgmental destruction, and as ‘mitigation’, Abraham is ‘called’ by God and uniquely granted the eternal blessing (to dominate the Earth) for his progeny’s sake, and ultimately for all of our eventual good sakes (so we are told). But, perhaps this blessing can extend to others somehow ‘grafted’ onto the later root (of Jesse that is)? In any case, this fishy blessing is a reversal of not only the Tower of Babel judgement on humanity, but also a reversal of God’s prior global curse on Adam and Eve and their progeny, found in Genesis 3:16-19. So from the time of this blessing, the biblical subtext is that the closer one’s proximity to the blessed family, the better, and conversely the more distant, the worse.
But before we can launch now into the Abraham narrative, we must consider that brief and very odd prequel mentioned earlier:
Noah’s Ham and Wine for Breakfast
Another ironic moral note is that according to the Bible, every man and woman today is descended from the world’s first vintner … and drunkard, though he obviously didn’t have a very large customer base after the Flood.
And Noah began to be an husbandman, and he planted a vineyard: And he drank of the wine, and was drunken; and he was uncovered within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father’s nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. (Genesis 9:20-27)
In order to justify the Patriarchal narrative of the Hebrew’s displacement of the alleged prior occupants of Canaan, the first order of business must have been to de-legitimize the ‘indigenous’ peoples, by re-contextualizing them. Or in terms of anthropological warfare: to simply make them disappear, in a manner of speaking, from their true role as ancestors of the Israelites. This task was deftly handled, allegedly generations before Abraham’s time, simply by creating the bizarre story that Ham had committed the sin of stumbling upon his naked and fallen drunk father, and then tattling to his brothers about it.
This drunken father was none other than Noah, who had earlier been singled out for a great reward by God, because of Noah’s superior qualities relative to his fellow humanity. Noah’s reward, of course, consisted of receiving a warning to build a huge boat so as to escape God’s genocidal rage against the rest of his defectively degenerate human creations gone awry. After the flood, God gave the rainbow as a token for a covenant that he would never again destroy all mankind (Genesis 9:8-17). However, in making this covenant, God did not mean to stop behaving wrathfully; from then on, his wrath was simply displayed on a tribal basis rather than universal basis.
But it is important to realize here that the new ‘Hebrew’ tribe was in reality a synthetic meta-tribe consisting of numerous pre-existing tribes. And ironically, God would be inflicting most of his punishment on his own Chosen people for centuries, apparently until they had agreed to adopt their new identity, for the most part.
Ham sees his father, Noah, naked and drunk; with Shem and Japheth (Wellcome V0034223)
In order to demote the Canaanites, the first step was to claim that they descended from Shem’s brother Ham, rather than from Shem himself. This was sufficient to create a completely distinct ethnic identity, more akin to African blacks who, later, were also considered descended from Ham (to provide the pretext to ‘righteously’ enslave them). Then, punishment for Ham’s awkward, allegedly sinful viewing of Noah was visited on all of Ham’s Canaanite descendants, who were demoted in status to the slaves of Ham’s brothers. Is it too heavy-handed to point out that this is an obvious geopolitically motivated pretext, which also gives divine imprimatur to the unjust theme that the sins of the father should be visited on his sons to the Nth generation? In any case, how convenient considering that the Canaanites were obviously typical Semites, based upon archaeological findings detailed by such as Finkelstein & Silberman (p. 118).
Hosea’s Ho’sers?
Even before the field work discussed by Finkelstein and Silberman, Gordon mentions emphatically in his books that the Canaanites were indeed stripped of their correct Semitic origins in the genealogies of Genesis. This Biblical dispossession of the Canaanites doubles the dark irony of the extreme Ashkenazi predominance (>90%) amongst today’s Jewry, not only in today’s Israel, but globally – when the very same genealogy explicitly states that the Ashkenazi are not Semitic, i.e. descendants of Shem.
This is reinforced by the metaphoric narrative in Hosea 1, which describes Hosea’s sacred dalliance with the whore, Gomer. The book of Hosea contains internal clues that would date it to the Assyrian conquest of the Northern Kingdom of Israel. However, it may actually come from the later Achaemenid conquest, as it seems to describe the merger of Israel with Judea. Just as Jacob was a metaphoric representation of Israel (father of the twelve tribes) in an earlier phase, so Hosea conceives the next metaphor, his son Jezreel, whose name is a contraction of Judea and Israel.
And the LORD said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the LORD. So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim; which conceived, and bare him a son. And the LORD said unto him, Call his name Jezreel; for yet a little while, and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel. And it shall come to pass at that day, that I will break the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel. And she conceived again, and bare a daughter. And God said unto him, Call her name Loruhamah: for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away. But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the LORD their God, .. (Hosea 1:2-7 KJV)
Gomer’s name is recycled from the Genesis 10:2-4 genealogy, where a man of this name was the father of the Ashkenazi, and a son of Japheth. Thus, we have an explanation for the otherwise incomprehensible statement of Hosea 1:10 — “… that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.” The explanation is that the former chosen people of Judea and Israel have been replaced, and shall henceforth consist of a cross-breed of Hebrew and Gomerites, but not necessarily the Ashkenazi – who seem to arrive in the Judaic camp in the late first millenium CE. Both the Assyrians and Achaemenids deported many native Canaanites and replaced them with immigrants. ‘Jezreel’ seems to be a very apt metaphor indeed.
Furthermore, all of these superficially individual names are actually eponyms standing in for pre-existing groups of tribal or ethnic peoples. Therefore, regarding the wife Gomer, the focus should be on the word ‘whore’ as relating that ‘she’ and the related Japhetic ‘children’ are profitably accepting a role in the Semitic narrative as figurative ‘whores’ and not as literal sexual prostitutes. But because of the metaphoric ruse being employed, the normal convention of using only males in the genealogies must be reversed so that Gomer is now awkwardly, and tellingly, made into the very first human transexual. The unusual inclusion of the ‘children’ in this situation is also a clue that the names should be taken as eponyms.
Now these are the generations of the sons of Noah; Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and unto them were sons born after the flood. The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras. And the sons of Gomer; Ashkenaz, and Riphath, and Togarmah. And the sons of Javan; Elishah, and Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim. (Genesis 10:1-4 KJV)
Genesis 10:5 then supports our thesis that the Gomerites and Ashkenazim originated as non-Semitic goyim, albeit we have no way of knowing whether or not the modern day Ashkenazi are one and the same as those mentioned biblically.
By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations. (Genesis 10:5 KJV)
Please note (as we discussed in the Intro post) that the term ‘Gentile’ here means the elite aristocracy, and does not refer to the common person. Also note that certain texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls equate the ‘Kittim’ with the Romans, though we assert that the proper identification is more complicated. Finally, note that via the order of listing, the so-called ‘pride of place’, Japheth is the youngest son of Noah, and if staying consistent with the common ‘youngest son’ motif throughout the rest of the OT, then the youngest son is the actual primary line. Interestingly, the related verses contradict the traditional order by explicitly stating that Ham is the youngest son.
If then we are to believe the biblical narrative, then the Ashkenazim, as descendants of Japheth via Gomer, must be considered merely the distant poor cousins of those “dwelling in the tents of Shem”. Or rather, the whorish dupes of the real gentil authors of the narrative. These distant ‘poor cousins’ have now been placed on yet another dubious Zionist pedestal, as per the Christian mandates of Romans 11:22-24 (KJV). Is this a setup for an upcoming apocalypse, or is it a distraction from other global, neo-Hellenizing sleights-of-hand writ large? In any case, the present day occupiers of Israel insist to us that they are indeed Semites despite their own Ashkenazi identification. This is the justification offered for their current presence in Israel, where the land has been taken from today’s so-called ‘Palestinians’. Of course, these Palestinians were likely the actual descendants of the ancient population of Judea (Shlomo Sand, The Invention of the Jewish People). As such, they were the original ‘Jews’ as well as, before that, the original Canaanites.
With such grave aspersions cast upon the identity of the Canaanites, the narrative may be implying some darker sort of untoward filial interaction, besides merely the overtly stated naked viewing. Perhaps the following quote from Leviticus indicates the true gravity of the crime that is being insinuated.
And the man that lieth with his father’s wifehath uncovered his father’s nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. Leviticus 20:11 KJV
We suggest that this aspersion was part of the long process of convincing some Canaanites that they were really descendants of the fictive conquering Judean Hebrews. At the same time, their northern Canaanite neighbors, the Israelite “Lost Tribe” Hebrews, were conveniently relocated far away by the Assyrians.
A similarly disparaging fictional ploy will be employed with Lot and his alleged descendants, but will later get ameliorated when the politics become expedient. However, with the Canaanites, there was no such rationale to reverse the aspersions: as the ‘Israelites’ had long since forgotten their prior identity as such.
Who’s Dwelling in your Tent Tonight?
In the verses immediately following the episode regarding Canaan’s punishment for Ham’s sin, we are told that for some unknown and unstated reason, that the offspring of Shem’s brother, Japheth, is “dwelling” in Shem’s tents.
And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him.And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. (Genesis 9:24-7 KJV)
Now to fully grasp the magnitude of what is being stated here, one must realize that the Genesis author(s) or redactor(s) are informing us that after the Flood that the world has been divided into three general races of man, to eventually repopulate the entire world over. How this genesis of three races can be accomplished via the offspring of one man is truly a miracle. But more importantly for our purposes is that now we are being told, metaphorically speaking, that one of the three races is now “dwelling in the tents of Shem”, one of the other two races of men, that being the Semites.
Of course, one cannot possibly take this wording literally, because then we would have one man dwelling in an untold number of tents of one of his brothers. All with absolutely no other context being provided as to why and for how long, excepting of course that Japheth shall be “enlarged” by God. As we have just mentioned that the Semites are the ‘race’ of men born from Shem, then just who are the sons of Japheth? It seems that most all commentators agree that Japheth represents the white European or Caucasian race, which may further be identified with the so-called Indo-European language group.
And while some of those commentators suggest that the progeny of Japheth have been “enlarged” by their geographical spread, this is meaningless as just so did the progeny of Shem and Ham spread out from Noah’s ‘tent’. As such, we suggest that Japheth has rather been “enlarged” in power status – via the ruses cleverly and deceptively related within the canonic narratives.
Considering that part of our thesis is that Judea and Israel were placed in an intensive ‘conversion’ process by the surrounding elites and part of the input to that conversion was obviously from an Indo-European source, it is hard to imagine a more incriminating item of evidence than this verse. An otherwise standalone verse that seems to garner little notice as to what it might mean for those who owned the tents. As such, we assert that this verse is another clear indication that a foreign elite has been insinuated into the leadership of the Judean and Israelite polity. In a future post we will discuss just how this was accomplished.
One of God’s Many Prior Names, and What It Means
And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God [bə·’êl] Almighty [šad·dāy or Shaddai], but by my name JEHOVAH [YHWH or Yahweh] was I not known to them. (Exodus 6:3 KJV) For the Hebrew words see here.
According to Exodus (6:3), Abraham did not even know that God’s name was Yahweh. Instead, he was known to Abraham as bə·’êl šad·dāy, which is usually translated to mean “as God almighty.” The word “El” is the name of the god, which is believed to be the Hebrew form of the name of the most ancient proto-Semitic God, and which also has cognates in ancient Ugaritic, Phoenician, and Akkadian.
But we are not convinced that the syllable “ba” means ‘as’. In the verse, bə·’êl appears to be a single word, which is very similar to ba’al, the Canaanite or Phoenician deity. As is well known, vowels were not used in the earliest Hebrew texts. So, in the original (now lost) ancient sources, the names bə·’êl and ba’al may have been one and the same.
Even today, the English refer to their earls and dukes as Lord this, or Lord that. Similarly, in Biblical days, these names of gods, such as El, Ba’al and even Yahweh, were used as titles applied to human leaders. Such generic names were also attached to the names of local and regional patron gods such as Ba’al Hadad. This has the effect of placing the leader’s status and ear close to his god, and even allowing him to speak (to the gullible) as a voice for the god.
And though Shaddai is translated as ‘Almighty’, evidence seems to indicate that this name was originally that of the regional god of the mountains. This is clever obfuscation, like Moses muddying the waters of the Nile by turning it to blood. The intent was to merge many prior gods (including Shaddai) into the new singular god.
The new Judaic god was also known by many other names, about seventy according to some sources. Some of these multiple appellations were originally the names of this rising ‘alien’ god’s former pseudo-siblings within the Ugaro-Canaanite pantheon, while others may have merely been various respective aspects of some particular god. The Lord (Yahweh) Sabaoth (tsba’owt), for instance, is usually watered down today to the ‘Lord of Hosts’ (for example, Jeremiah 43:10, Amos 5:27). However, ‘host’ was a term that meant either an armed group, or one of a multitude of patron angels or stars. Typically, such a patron angel’s human followers were also addressed by the same name; as was the case with King Abimelech’s soldiers, who were referred to as tsbaians (Genesis 21:22).
Inasmuch as the Canaanite religion was resolutely polytheistic, the gods were also referred to collectively as Elohim, the plural form of El. This name occurs frequently in the Hebrew bible, but modern translators and interpreters are reluctant to consider the implications. Thus, today we see confusing claims that the words for ‘God’ and ‘gods’ mean the same thing. That is, in translations, the plural word ‘elohim’ for the prior sibling ‘gods’ is frequently conflated with the singular god name, ‘El’, as it is claimed now that the plural form (as left intact in the Hebrew texts) was always used in context as if it were singular.
According to the widely supported Kenite Hypothesis: the new and improved god, whose name was given to Moses as Yahweh (or Romanized to Jehovah), was indeed an ‘alien’ imported storm god from the northwest Arabian Peninsula, Edom and Midian. This God most likely arrived by means of caravan traders, such as the fabulously wealthy, erstwhile ‘nomadic shepherd’ Abraham. This all ties in with male ‘Yah’ based names which were found on clay tablets around the region of Abraham’s Harran and Urfa, in the correct time frame typically attributed to the narrative.
With Edom and the Kenites, we also have narrative linkages back to Abraham via Esau, the older, red haired and ruddy skinned brother of Jacob who was ‘tricked’ into selling his birthright to the younger brother. Later the Jews force the Edomites to convert to Judaism, and irony of ironies, we find that an Edomite, Herod the Great becomes a ‘hated and feared’ king of the Jews. His descendants become friends and lovers of the Romans, the latter’s elite tribe known as the ‘Sab’ines. Curious indeed.
On the other hand, many scholars (such as, for example, Igor Garshin) have suggested that ‘Yahweh’ stems from the ancient Indo-European root *dyēus or *déiwos, the sky god whose cognates include the Latin Jove, Greek Zeus, and Sanskrit / Avestan Daeva. (This Daeva, after the Zoroastrian reforms, became interpreted by the Persians as a fallen (former) God who had become a demon, or (in English) the Devil — once again emphasizing the intimate theological relation between good and evil, as explained by Isaiah 45:7 – best translated in the KJV). It may be that the Edomites and Midianites somehow borrowed this deity from an Indo-European source, or the Israelites might have borrowed the name more directly from an Indo-European neighbor. Such matters are, of course, very difficult to trace with any certainty. In any case, we assert that the Abraham narrative more than hints that Abraham and his god were indeed such aliens.
The so-called Merneptah Stele in Thebes, dated to 1219 BCE, mentions ‘Israel’ as an apparently Canaanite people and not as a place. Presumably the ‘el’ is appended to ‘Isra’ as a reference to the Semitic chief god, El, and the stele text does not mention Yahweh in association with them. However, it does refer to a ‘Yhw’ (in the land of the Shasu) which appears to scholars to be a place name and not a god, at least as a direct reference. The nomadic Shasu pastoralists are importantly considered to have been from the region of Edom. These peoples are also depicted on the stele as being captured by the Egyptians, presumably to become slaves, thus evoking the later depictions of the Hebrews as becoming slaves in Egypt.
Also, and perhaps importantly, the stele states that Israel’s “seed is not”, implying that the Canaanite populace of Israel has been severely depleted, if not eliminated altogether. Perhaps propagandic over-exaggeration, but this might also explain why the followers of Yahweh end up coming to dominance in polytheistic Canaan proper, and which we assert was done under the sponsorship of the greater powers of the region. Here, imagine the English later placing Englishmen and Lowland Scots Protestants into Northern (once Catholic) Ireland and sardonically calling them Scots-Irish.
Perhaps here is the reason for the later merging of the so-called E and J texts by the redactors with the motive to merge the two differing foundational accounts, and their respective Israelite and Shasu peoples, evidenced by contradictory doublets and more? We say yes. While there is scholarly debate still going on about this, we strongly believe that this is evidence of the redactors using the above as one means of merging two pre-existing gods (the Semitic El and the Indo-European and/or Kenite Yahweh) into one, and thus merging their followers as well. This, in our opinion, is likely to have all happened as late as the time of the so-called Babylonian Exile, and not during the alleged times of Moses and Joshua.
Thus we have an upstart god, from a seemingly rather remote region, taking over a slightly less backwater Judea, interposed between surrounding and much more powerful neighbors. Sounds like a recipe for some propagandic stew. And all done so where it will be an easier process to ‘convert’ the natives, so to speak, via their fewer numbers relative to the larger and more powerful surrounding countries.
A Hittite’s Journey
James Tissot, Caravan of Abram circa 1900
Before continuing on, we want to explain that we take the agnostic position as to whether such characters like Abraham, Sarah, and Hagar were real people, or just meaningful honorific avatars for what they represent, albeit strongly leaning towards the latter position. The same goes for the rest of the biblical Patriarchs, who are likely avatars for pre-existing peoples or tribes in the case of the sons of Jacob. Thus the dialectic relationships of such as Isaac and Ishmael, and between the various sons of Jacob, may represent the respective underlying political dynamics of the various narratives’ subtext. This subtext then is what is really important for analyzing later historical episodes in Western history.
Having said that, we note that the Old Testament itself provides a significant amount of information that appears to fix Abraham at a particular point in time and space. To begin with we find Abram, as we are told was his original name, beginning his life’s journey leaving Ur for a temporary way station called Harran (Genesis 11:31). It is frequently assumed that this Ur is the once magnificent ancient Euphrates river city of the Sumerians and/or the later Chaldeans, as some translations even embellish this as “Ur of the Chaldees”. But Gordon states that it is much more likely that Abram’s Ur should properly be taken as today’s Urfa in southeastern Turkey. As was frequent then, and even in more modern times, a remote trading outpost of an important city might be named after the sponsoring city, its very name helping to serve somewhat like a modern day billboard does to identify a brand or loyalty.
Urfa, or Şanliurfa, which was also known in Medieval times as Edessa, is also claimed by Muslims as the city of origin of Abraham. (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Şanlıurfa.) During the First Crusade a major contingent headed by Baldwin of Boulogne, who later became king of Jerusalem, made an odd detour to Edessa. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_of_Edessa.) It was in Edessa that architecture already existed that became the model and inspiration for the Gothic cathedrals soon sponsored by the Templars in Europe (Adrian Gilbert, Magi, pp. 245-247.) We do not believe any of this is coincidence, but rather we note that Edessa is one of the most ancient and renowned archaeological sites on the planet, if you include nearby Göbekli Tepe, the oldest temple complex known, only a few kilometers to the north. And the Edessa/Urfa area has long been revered among elite occultists, as well as being the seat of several very early Christian Churches outside of Roman orthodox mainstream.
Amorite Who?
In the seemingly obscure and unrelatable comment of Ezekiel’s, we are left to ponder just who these Amorites are, as the Hittites are relatively better known today as an early expansionist state, perhaps a proto-empire. It seems that these ‘northwest’ Semitic peoples are the connecting historical thread, from which the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Ugarites, and the Canaanites, to name a few, descended.
Fitting with the overt shepherd motif of Abraham, the clay tablets reveal the Amorites as rude pastoral nomads. Yet on the other hand, the some Amorites apparently in amorous conjunction with the Hittites, rise to considerable prominence, most notably Hammurabi who gave us the first known legal code.
From Amos 2:9 they are taken by many to have literally been giants in physical stature, but we assert that this really means that they were metaphorically powerful giants in terms of their geopolitical influence for the day – consistent with our thesis.
They occupied areas southward into Canaan such as Jerusalem and Hebron, the latter of which became the Hittite trading colony.
Later in the Abraham narrative, we find him leading a trading caravan into the Hittite trading colony of Hebron just south of Jerusalem where he, near his end, even buys a plot to bury himself and his kin (Genesis 23). He is immediately recognized as a man of great import amongst the Hittites there. As Gordon related, all of this fits very accurately into the cultural milieu of the respective regions and times, and Ezekiel later states that Abraham’s descendants, in Jerusalem, are half Amorite and half Hittite (Ezekiel 16:3). As was the practice of the day, such colonies were somewhat like modern day embassies in how any such colony’s land was treated, and therefore it is rather unlikely that the Hittites would sell him a plot of land for burial unless he was an important one of their own. Here, and in the future, it will be helpful to consider that the Hittite elites were like a caste, and not of the same ethnicity as the common man and woman (more likely Hurrians). This is similar to the Norman rule over the majority Anglo-Saxons in England, an historically very common practice.
According to conventional wisdom (that is, Wikipedia), the Hittites are believed to have arrived in Anatolia sometime before 2000 BC, but the Mittani conquered the region around Edessa circa 1500 BC. After the fall of the Mitanni about 1300 BC, it once again became Hittite territory. The Hittites and so-called Neo-Hittites continued to control the region until it fell to the Neo-Assyrian empire around the 9th century BC. Chronological dead reckoning based exclusively on Biblical data gives an estimate that Abraham entered Canaan from Harran in 1921 BC (Floyd N. Jones, Chronology of the Old Testament), which would be consistent with Hittite rule in the region.
Josephus (following Manetho) suggested that the Israelite sojourn in Egypt should be equated with the Hyksos period of foreign rule in lower Egypt. Following that suggestion, Ralph Ellis (in Jesus, Last of the Pharaohs) noted a sequence of (arguably) significant relationships between the names of the Hyksos pharaohs, and the names of the Hebrew patriarchs. For example, Abraham’s name may be compared to the pharaoh now known as Sheshi, whose ‘throne name’ may be read as Mayebra, or perhaps ayebra-M. Sheshi’s grandson was Jacobaam, which is reminiscent of Abraham’s grandson Jacob. If this is correct, Abraham (as Sheshi) would be dated to ~1630 BC according to conventional chronology. If (as commonly held) the Hyksos were Phoenician or Canaanite or Danaanite or other ‘Asiatic’, nevertheless it is possible that their leadership was at least partly Hittite, consistent with the text of Genesis and Ezekiel.
For our analysis (fortunately), the determination of the exact time and place, and the identification of the Biblical characters with archaeologically identifiable situations, is not so important as what we can discern about their political and social intent, simply by reading the text with a critical eye.
Priestly Wizards and Armed Shepherds
As we have noted above, Abraham was not some sheepish ragamuffin on the make as is commonly conceived, but rather he was in command of a large retinue of armed and trained servants. Such servants might also be known as tsabians, tending to the livestock moving along with his caravan, such as those controlled by Abraham’s counterpart, King Abimelech. As noted by regional archaeological finds, this was typical practice in the time attributed to Abraham, in order to protect the herds and caravan from both human marauders and animal predators.
And back in Urfa we are also just a few miles away from Harran, where Abraham is said to have first briefly moved to, along with his father and uncle, before moving onto Canaan. Let’s also pause in Harran to ponder another biblical conundrum, rather akin to pondering the logical absurdities of Adam and Eve’s sons’ curious begetting problem, namely that in having only one woman around to beget with. Here, we are told that Abraham is the ancestral father of the Hebrews and the Arabic Semites, yet he has 318 servants and ‘household’ retainers at his disposal. Typically, a caravan’s retinue is a family affair, or mostly a family affair. What to make of these servants and retainers then? What of their offspring, or are we supposed to believe they were eunuchs? If this is not weighing heavily on you, then …. why not?
Slave or Saved?
We recall that Jesus Christ, the Flavian savior, stated that the ‘truth will set you free’. So in regards to the sab root, we also note that the ‘b’ and ‘v’ letters were cognate. Does it follow that the term ‘savior’ indicates that gaining wisdom or knowledge is the real route to true freedom, as salvation, rather than via slavish blind faith?
Well, in Harran we are later told, extra-biblically, that this same city, dedicated to the moon god Sin, was occupied by a pagan cult of wizardly, star watching priests, called … Sabians, and curiously included in the Quran as members of the ‘Peoples of the Book’, along with Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians (and yes, their Magi). This phonetic root ‘Sab’ has a remarkable variety of possible sources. Indeed, its cross-cultural significance may have contributed to the mystique of the concept. In ancient Sumerian, saba means ‘shepherd’. In Semitic languages, the root wordsabdenotes seven, the number of ‘wisdom’, an astrologically significant number that might, as such, have been meaningful to the Harranian priests. The Proto-Indo-European root *sap-, ‘to taste‘, evolved to indicate a form of knowing, especially in Romance languages: for example, Spanish ‘saber’, ‘to know’ – a quality necessary for wisdom. Elsewhere ‘saber‘ is a form of sword. All just a coincidence we are told, .. and obviously there can be no association between ‘priestly wizards’ and ‘armed shepherds’, right?
In a previous post we related that the secretive Roman Mithraic mystery cult was focused on a zodiacal (starry and planetary) basis and targeted towards a military demographic. (We also mentioned, by the way, the importance of Castor and Pollux as markers of the transition points of the Ages). And doesn’t this evoke such as the Templars, the Knights of Malta, the Jesuits, and even the Freemasons? And here this reminds us that the highly esoteric Shiite sect known as the Ismailis, Nazari or Seveners (Sabiyah),had an elite cadre of black ops wet workers famously known as the Assassins. This name was derived from hashashim, perhaps because of the hashish which they smoked during their famous and murderous training ritual, whose purpose was to help dupe the prospective operative that he would be well received in Heaven by 70 virgins.
The name ‘Nazari’ may be derived from the Nazarene sect of zealous Jews. And to our thesis, the Egyptian root, ‘NZR’ means ‘prince, and thus they all were followers of some (Egyptian?) prince, like their Hidden Mahdi perhaps. In any case, all of these groups have numerous parallels and linkages, with even the Templars having been accused by Christians and Muslims of having covert alliances with the Ismailis during the Crusades.
Perhaps a coincidence, or not: the much later pharaoh Necho II crossed the Euphrates in order to conquer this same Harran, as explained by Wikipedia:
Necho soon captured Kadesh on the Orontes and moved forward, joining forces with Ashur-uballit and together they crossed the Euphrates and laid siege to Harran. Although Necho became the first pharaoh to cross the Euphrates since Thutmose III, he failed to capture Harran, and retreated back to northern Syria. At this point, Ashur-uballit vanished from history, and the Assyrian Empire was conquered by the Babylonians.
Important to our larger thesis, Necho II also fought, seemingly defensively, against Judea’s King Josiah, who reportedly found the ‘missing’ texts from which the religious ‘reforms’ were launched upon the Canaanites cum Jews. Hilariously, the redactors report that Necho tells Josiah that God is with him:
…What have I to do with thee, thou king of Judah? I come not against thee this day, but against the house wherewith I have war: for God commanded me to make haste: forbear thee from meddling with God, who is with me, that he destroy thee not. Nevertheless Josiah would not turn his face from him, but disguised himself, that he might fight with him, and hearkened not unto the words of Necho from the mouth of God, and came to fight in the valley of Megiddo. (2 Chronicles 35:21-22 KJV)
Needless to say, Josiah didn’t get the message from God (err … uhmm … Necho), and paid the ultimate price, and thus became the trope with which to hang the Judaic so-called ‘reforms’ upon, including the Abraham narrative’s spin. Of course, the faithful say that this was a sinful boast by Necho, but instead it is more likely telling us what really happened when reading between the divine lines, especially since this is the Jewish canon telling us so. In any case, this may be the ultimate example of “No good deed goes unpunished”.
Hittite Typology?
Back with Abraham, the portable princely merchant: after briefly stopping in Canaan, his new base, he takes his caravan on to Egypt. This is perfectly logical for a caravan based operation – given Egypt’s wealth and need for international trade. Once he and his wife arrive, he garners an audience with the conveniently unnamed pharaoh du jour. This might be yet another clue to the alert reader that Abraham is no ordinary piker. Here, while apparently engaging pharaoh in witty repartee, pharaoh espies the effulgent charms of 65-year-old Sarah and decides that she is worthy of adding to his harem of wives and concubines (Genesis 12:10-20.) In the course of such domestic affairs, of course, pharaoh came to know Sarah in the biblical way. Abraham carries away a ton of booty as pimply quid pro quo for sampling Sarah’s booty, and then God inscrutably decides to punish ‘pharaoh’ for such an abomination, which was not his fault by the way. This punishing the innocent seems to be becoming a habit.
But this would not be a quandary if we could believe the stated justification, that Abraham was afraid that ‘pharaoh’ would kill him if he knew that Sarah was his wife. This begs a simple question as well, namely, that if Abraham was aware of such a possibility then why didn’t he simply leave Sarah back at his Canaanite base camp with a few of his ‘household’ retinue? Could it be that he didn’t trust his staff, or Sarah, or both? Or, are we having our legs pulled?
Here, we are also immediately reminded of the later story of King David who desires the beautiful Bathsheba, and thus has her husband, Uriah the Hittite, killed in battle (2 Samuel 11.) Well, with this being the case, maybe one might be inclined to simply say that Abraham’s fears appear to have been justified. But we’re thinking that now it’s even more important to ask: what it is with all these Hittites, and pharaohs, involved in these stories central to Judaism? Later there will even be a priest and a prophet both by this Hittite name, and these professions are involved in the later bloody attempts to convert the hapless Canaanites into Hebrews and Jews. Even earlier than David, Esau marries not one, but two half-Hittite women amongst his at least three wives (Genesis 26 and 36).
With this story, there is also a later sequel, where on a leg of another caravan journey, Abraham admits to the lust besotted king Abimelech of Gerar that old Sarah is indeed both his sister and his wife (Genesis 20:1-16). This was a typical pharaonic marriage practice (along with motherly Oedipastery) whose purpose was to keep the matrilinear bloodline intact. Perhaps the inclusion of this tidbit was included to allow for Judaic denial that this matrilineal practice (that one’s legal ethnic claim to being a Jew descends from the line of the mother – as well as from Shem, who was a … man) did not derive from Egypt, because Abraham was already doing so? Once again, Abraham rides away from this ‘exchange’ considerably wealthier.
Also, before we go further, let’s also remember that Abraham had many concubines, at least by the time of his second wife, Keturah, from whom ol’ Abraham begat even more children (Genesis 25:1-6). The sons of the concubines were kindly given unspecified gifts and sent away from Isaac, to the ‘east’ and thus away from the divine blessing. No wonder conservatives get upset about decaying Family Values.
Lot’s Location, Location, Location
Once back from Egypt, Abraham gets settled, nomadically speaking, into Canaan. Both he and Lot become even more prosperous, the latter from his association with Abraham, who has already received an unconditional blessing from God (Genesis 12:1-3) for his descendants and kin. But, this mutual prosperity is problematic for the uncle and nephew, as their respective herds and people can’t share the same lot (Genesis 13). Therefore, Abraham lets Lot decide what real estate he would prefer to occupy, and Lot thus chooses the otherwise prime land of the well watered Jordan plain, that just so happens to come with the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. Lot thus pitches his tent “towards Sodom”. This is what happens when you don’t employ a good real estate agent, for we think you all know what is to eventually come to pass. Abraham, by the way, chooses to set up conveniently in Hebron, the Hittite trading colony.
One now has to wonder why, if Abraham and Lot could work out their differences so easily, with other heathen peoples’ land: why is it that God, or his angels, failed to warn Lot about the ‘covenants, codes, and restrictions’ that came with this doomed real estate? But obviously, that would interfere with the plot, so to speak.
For some odd reason, with Lot’s mutually agreed geographical separation from Abraham’s blessing, he ‘haplessly’ falls into the middle of an armed rebellion (Genesis 14). Four vassals, including the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah, have joined an uprising against the Elamite king, Chedorlaomer. The rebellion is defeated, hapless Lot is taken hostage by Chedorlaomer, and Abraham must now come to rescue him. After Abraham and his allies defeat Chedorlaomer, and rescue Lot, the king of Sodom tells Abraham that he can take all of Sodom’s goods (which had been taken by Chedorlaomer) and that he only wants his people back. Abraham refuses this gratitude with the excuse that he doesn’t want to later be falsely accused of enriching himself. This an odd claim, especially in light of his adventures with pharaoh and king Abimelech, where he has no such qualms about enriching himself where his wife/sister is ‘involved’.
In consequence, Abraham receives a curious blessing from the apparent priest/king of Salem (Jerusalem), Melchizedek. This act is recorded apparently to retrojectively legitimize Jerusalem’s divine status from the claimed time of Abraham, though why a supposed heathen would be granting such legitimacy is rather curious. Wasn’t God’s later ‘blessing’ enough? Apparently not. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that in Psalms (47:2, 57:2, 78:35, 56) God is addressed as Yahweh Elyon, where we understand that El is the heavenly god of the Canaanite / Ugaritic pantheon, thus the Abraham narrative is being grafted into the Canaanite divine root. This is a hint that the redactors’ audience still understood the existence and function of the prior priest/king Melchizedek.
As we mention later, Lot’s fortune is tied up intimately with his proximity to Abraham’s blessing. After being rescued, he goes to live within the city limits of Sodom, with his ‘interesting’ daughters.
Another Miss Conception?
The childless Sarah presents Hagar, her handmaid, to her husband (Wellcome Library, London)
One of the more curious aspects of the Abraham narrative cycle is the matter of ol’ Sarah being unable to conceive, and thus Abraham must resort to the business of genetic succession via conscripting the ‘unhired’ help. This is another otherwise accurately depicted cultural practice for the period based upon such as the clay tablets found at Nuzu. In this case, he mates with the bonded (slave) Egyptian maid, Hagar (Genesis 16). The elderly Abraham is successful here in siring Ishmael. Only after this is done, God decides to make good on one of his promises to Abraham and thus performs some supernatural wizardry for the 89 year old Sarah to conceive and give birth to Isaac (Genesis 21:1-3), whose son Jacob is later to be called ‘Israel’ (Genesis 32:28).
When told of this absurdly late pregnancy at age 89, both Abraham and Sarah laugh at the suggestion’s seeming impossibility. While Sarah’s sarcastic laughter is taken as a lack of faith by God, for some reason Abraham’s similar reaction passes without note. The motif is completed etymologically with Isaac’s very name, yitzchaq, which means laughter. We can only see a very narrow caste [sic] of characters seeing humor in this, based upon the widespread suffering that has followed.
Given all the odd clues, we are now left to wonder whether it really was Abraham that begot Isaac. Perhaps it was the great Egyptian Pharaoh, either in his own right or via his typological stand-in Abimelech (who claims to have righteously avoided mating with Sarah, in spite of having had every opportunity to do so.) We assert that this is exactly what is implied, and thus that this really cements and/or memorializes a long term geopolitical plan hatched by the Egyptians and the Hittites, who in actuality made amends after the Treaty of Kadesh, including a marriage. Of course, there are huge chronological problems here, and there is no reason to associate the Abraham story with this particular treaty. But some similar sequence of events may be what is hinted at by the claim that Sarah became pregnant at such a late age, and that both Sarah and Abraham laughed at the idea. At least, the hint is that one should not be taking the narrative at face value. As we have learned with such as Caesar’s Messiah, there is no need for absolute, literal chronological accuracy, in either a complete fiction or in ‘quasi-historical propaganda’. Perhaps this is a sign to the alert by the author / redactors that this is all an epic put on.
The proceedings are also marked by the curious change of Abram’s and Sarai’s names to Abraham and Sarah, signifying their new foundational roles, or missionary positions if you will. This last then begs the question of what really were their implied prior roles, as if we need to be informed of this by a change in their names. Here we are hinting at the prequel to the ‘western’ Abraham story that we mentioned before and we hope to address later.
You Submit, I Submit, We All Submit for I Scream
With this scandal, the redactors and their sponsors foreshadow a future of seemingly unending familial enmity between Jews and Ishmaelites, at least. However, they ironically left two glaringly incoherent and contradictory versions in the text, side by side (Genesis 16). The ‘J’ version leaves the Ishamaelites in an unredeemable state of sin, while ‘P’ elevates Hagar from slave/maid status to being a polygamous second wife, with Sarah encouraging the affair. And furthermore, according to ‘P’, Abraham ends up naming the child.
Wright suggests (pg. 365) that the Persian ‘P’ redactors, at the time, were interested in elevating the status of the Ishmaelites with respect to the Judeans, for the sake of harmony in the new Persian empire. We also note that they strangely included the contradictory ‘J’ text as well, perhaps because too many were familiar with it. Muhammad later exploited the contradictory text to further exalt the status of his Arab followers: as Ishmaelites, he argued, they were legitimate heirs to Abraham. That is, as long as they submitted to Allah, and sacrificed a beast at the Eid al-Adha.
While on the subject of marriage, it is also worth mentioning that Abraham’s patriarchal descendants, per the bible, practiced what is known as the ‘levirate’ form of a marriage contract. This is essentially a serious business arrangement, as opposed to the later cultural degeneracy of ‘romantic’ love introduced by the proto-masonic troubadours of Europe. Here, if a woman’s first husband should die, she has the marriage right to the entire succession of her mate’s male siblings, and even her father-in-law (as a creepy last resort), so as to ensure she and her offspring will be supported. We learn this from stories about Jacob and Judah, the latter being the father of the tribe of Judah. He participated in the levirate arrangement as the begetting ‘victim’ of a hilariously Machiavellian whopper of a proposition from Tamar, his daughter-in-law, who thus became the mother of Judah’s tribe (Genesis 38). At any rate, and according to Gordon, this levirate marriage practice is known from the Hittites, and also from India. However, it does not appear in the accounts of the Sumerians, the Assyrians, or other regional Semites, except for those said to descend from Abraham, i.e. the Hebrews and Ishmael’s Arabs. In other words, it is essentially an Indo-European rather than a Semitic cultural construct.
Gordon & Rendsburg (p. 130) points out here that the identification of the Patriarchs with Israel is a rather blunt hint that we should take this aspect (if not the entire Abraham cycle) as metaphor, in this case, for the genesis of a future ‘nation’. Which (we suggest) really means the creation of the foundational centerpiece of Western civilization (via human literary artifice and a few pinches of brutality) by a brotherhood of crafty ‘wise men’, trained ‘prophets’ and priests, standing in metaphorically for ‘our Lord(s)’, pharaoh and the Hittite king.
The importance of Ugarit
In 1928 a Syrian peasant plowed into a Mycenaean Greek tomb, and thus the ancient city known from the Amarna Letters was discovered. In 1929, clay tablets were discovered there revealing a previously unknown script. The tablets are discussed in Professor Cyrus H. Gordon’s 1965 book, The Common Background of Greek and Hebrew Civilization, Chapter 5, titled “Ugarit: Link between Canaan and the Aegean”. In this long excerpt Gordon will introduce some bi-directional parallels, that were: “notable overlaps that could not be accidental.”
From pp. 128-131:
Ugarit is of unique importance for reconstructing the origins of Western Civilisation. The reason is reflected in the nature of the discovery that called attention to the site in 1928. A Mycenaean tomb in the vicinity of a Semitic port meant that the area was one in which the people of Canaan and the Aegean had commingled. The archaeological finds at Ugarit brought this out quite clearly, and comparative archaeologists soon used those finds for studies of Mycenaean civilisation embracing Crete, the Peleponnesus and other parts of the Greek sphere. The late Miss H. L. Lorimer, in her notable book, Homer and the Monuments(London, 1950), went further: she drew heavily on the archaeological finds at Ugarit for illuminating problems arising from the text of Homer. However, she did not make a single reference to any of the Ugaritic texts, even though it seems obvious in retrospect that if the art of Ugarit is related to the text of Homer, the epics found at Ugarit ought to be still more directly related to the epics of Homer. The long delay in recognizing this important fact was due to the circumstances that Semiticists, and not Classicists [Gordon was uncommonly both – ed.], deciphered and interpreted the Ugaritic tablets. Those Semiticists were admirably equipped for pointing out biblical parallels, but most of them were unconcerned about the Greek side of the problem.
The scribes of Ugarit required an educational system to train them from the bottom up. The simplest school texts found there are ABC tablets listing the letters of the local alphabet in their fixed, invariable order. The Phoenician alphabet of twenty-two letters is derived from the longer Ugaritic ABC of thirty letters. Contrary to the strict alphabetic principle, the last three letters of the Ugaritic ABC are appendages so that twenty-seven remain for our consideration. Five sounds in the repertoire of twenty-seven came to converge with other sounds because of soundshifts in standard Phoenician. The remarkable fact is that when those five sounds are eliminated, the remaining twenty-two letters appear at Ugarit in precisely the same order as they are still preserved in the Hebrew alphabet. The traditional order of the Greek alphabet reflects its Phoenician origin. The Latin ABC is only a step further removed. Accordingly, whole blocks of letters (such as j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, r, s, t) appear in the same fixed order in the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew alphabets. When an extra letter appears in Ugaritic (as in l, m, d, n) the order of the letters that survive into Hebrew is always the same (for the Ugaritic d is one of the five letters rendered unnecessary by the soundshifts mentioned above.
It stands to reason that the community that provides us with the most primary form of the ABC so far discovered should be of exceptional importance for the study of the cultures associated with the development and use of the ABC in the East Mediterranean. Aegean influences contributed to the Ugaritic ABC. Then the Ugaritic ABC gave rise to the Phoenician-Hebrew ABC, which in turn was borrowed by the Greeks. The centrality of Ugarit in the basic elements of East Mediterranean culture impresses itself on us again and again.
Ugarit was a city in the hands of a West Semitic community. By water, it joined Western Asia to the Mediterranean. It lay between the Hittite Empire and Canaan. It had enclaves of Assyrians, Hurrians, Hittites, Egyptians, Aegean folk and other foreigners. The polyglot nature of the community is mirrored in the vocabulary texts, whereby the scribal students learned to translate Ugaritic words into Sumerian, Akkadian and Hurrian. The two main scripts were the Akkadian syllabary and the Ugaritic alphabet: both written in cuneiform with a stylus on clay. The normal language for business, law, and diplomacy was Akkadian; the normal language for religion, literature, and local administration was Ugaritic. Hurrian was also used not infrequently for rituals and incantations. A few tablets in Cypro-Minoan attest the intimate connections with Cyprus, Egyptian and Hittite hieroglyphs round out the repertoire of scripts found at Ugarit.
The Ugaritic tablets come from the Amarna and Ramesside Ages (ca. 14th-12th centuries B.C.) in which the traditions of both the Hebrew Patriarchs and the Trojan War are rooted. More than any other excavated site, Ugarit was the meeting place Semite and Indo-European; a cosmopolitan city where a literature was produced reflecting the varied heritages of the component parts of the population. Ugaritic literature, therefore, anticipates basic aspects of the earliest Hebrew and Greek literatures, providing a historic backdrop for both, as we shall bring out later in this chapter.
The poetry of Ugarit is so close to Hebrew poetry that it has cleared up a mystery of long standing. It used to be thought that classical Hebrew was linguistically the creation of “primitive” Hebrew tribesmen, and that it was a sort of miracle for such tribesmen to produce a polished literature from the very start. It turns out that the Hebrews found in Canaan a highly polished literary medium, now attested by the Ugaritic myths and epics. The distinctive contribution of the Hebrews is the content of the Bible rather than the literary medium which they found waiting for them upon their advent in Canaan. In the Old testament, the Hebrews never call their language “Hebrew” or “Israelite,” but quite correctly “the language of Canaan.”
It should be noted that Gordon is writing long before the later archaeologists, such as Finkelstein have shown that the Hebrews and Israelites of the OT were indeed Canaanites. That had later been converted through various means, and that there is no evidence for the enslaved sojourn in Egypt and subsequent Exodus, – as recorded at least. Therefore, the import of the last paragraph above is that the redactors of the Hebrew ‘Bible’ were able to make use of pre-existing texts, themes and motifs that were already long existing and polished – just as was the case for the Greeks.
Gordon excerpt from pp. 132-135:
For twenty years after the first discovery of the Ugaritic tablets, a vast number of biblical parallels were pointed out by many scholars in many lands. In comparison, the Greek parallels went virtually unnoticed. Meanwhile, I had been noting literary resemblances between Ugaritic and Greek epic. In the briefest way, I mentioned the relevance of Ugarit for the study of Homer, in a publication of 1941. World War II interrupted my studies, but the break enabled me to return to them in 1946 with a fresh outlook instead of depending on “authoritative” attitudes. In gathering the Homeric parallels to Ugaritic literature, a striking fact impressed itself upon me: there was a notable overlap that could not be accidental. The two-way parallels unmistakably linked Homer and the Bible. The most important of these parallels had to do with the central themes of the Kret Epic. King Kret (named after the eponymous ancestor of the Cretans) had lost Hurrai, his only wife destined to bear him the children who would carry on his line. Accordingly, he mustered an army and marched to the land whee she was being held, and recovered her so that the divine promise of predestined progeny could be fulfilled.
This theme is completely lacking in the older literatures of the ancient East, including the Gilgamesh Epic, and the Middle Egyptian Romances. On the other hand, the Helen of Troy motif is central in Indo-European epic, both in Greece and India. I refer to the hero who must recover his destined wife from here abductors. The divine promise of progeny through the destined wife is central in early Hebrew literature from Abraham and Sarah on, though this too is alien to the older Near Eastern literatures, such as the Gilgamesh Epic or the Egyptian stories. Moreover, the biblical narratives themselves assumed a new aspect because of the Ugaritic parallels. The destined bride of Abraham, was twice wrested from him, once by the King of Egypt and once by the King of Philistine Gerar. (The latter king, or one of his subjects, also came close to wresting Rebecca from Isaac.) But the hero Abraham retrieved the destined mother of his royal line, both times. In other words, the Helen of Troy motif permeates the Patriarchal Narratives of Genesis, but no one noticed it because ingrained attitudes kept our Greek and Hebrew heritages in water-tight compartments. Ugarit, being new and not part of our traditional heritage, was able to bridge the gap between Homer and the Bible. We shall note more of these triple parallels (Ugaritic, Hebraic, and Greek) in this and the following chapters.
I pointed out a group of Ugaritic and other Near East parallels to Greek epic in the American Journal of Archaeology 56, 1952, pp. 93-94. …
As we have already observed, the whole subject of early Greco-Hebrew relations is touchy. While a galaxy of Classicists, Orientalists, and Biblical scholars have understood and elucidated various aspects of the problem, the academic rank and file tend to shun this kind of topic. It would be overoptimistic to expect at this time a universal understanding of the role of Ugarit in linking early Greek and early Hebrew literature. The subject is not for those who have developed a mental block before they examine the evidence. Nor have we any right to demand that every student of antiquity be perceptive in the field of comparative culture.
Note the mention of ‘predestined progeny’ by Gordon, which is the proper contextual usage of the NT term ‘Predestination of the Elect’ where many of today’s Christians all believe that they are all exalted members of the Elect, thus ‘predestined’ to be ‘saved’. This was a major aspect of contention between Protestants and Catholics, all a phony and deceptive argument, but in any case, it really meant that the human progeny of the elite were predestined to thrive over the not so predestined. Caveat Emptor.
Three paragraphs later he goes on regarding the Kret Epic of which was the first known example (at least at the time – maybe so even today?) of the Helen of Troy motif:
The scribes of Ugarit called the text “Kret” after the hero: a king, whose very name shows Cretan affinities. He had betrothed his rightful wife by paying the dowry, but she departed. The word “departed” is never used as a euphemism for “died.” Nevertheless, until I pointed out the Helen of Troy theme in this text, tb(c)t “departed” was taken to mean that Kret’s wife had died, and that the heroine of the Epic was, therefore, another woman. The element of romantic marriage whereby (no matter how polygamous the society, nor even the household of the hero himself) there is only one woman who counts in his life, is generally alien to the earlier literatures of the Near East. It comes in with the advent of the Indo-Europeans and appears at Ugarit and in the Bible (from Abraham to David) as well as in the Iliad.
One should be careful to distinguish between “romantic marriage” and the later courtly “romantic love” which did not enter the mainstream of western culture until the Chivalric Age via the troubadours. With the latter, elsewhere in the book Gordon discusses professional guilds of such singer-musicians and prophets who are ‘called’ to and fro to influence respective cultures. Sound familiar? Such guilds were in parallel with the building craft guilds, such the masons.
We conclude our overview of the Ugaritic texts with this quote from the Kret Epic regarding its Helen of Troy motif:
Sleep overcame him
And he lay down in a deep sleep
And he was disturbed, an in his dream El descended
In his vision the Father of Man
And he drew near while asking Kret:
‘Who is Kret that he should weep?
Or shed tears, the Good One, Lad of El?
Does he desire the kingdom of the Bull, his father,
Or sover[reignty like the Father of Ma]n?
‘Father of Man’, ‘Lad of El’? — Son of Man?
He Walks with Me and He Talks with Me, and …
The very first time that Yahweh interacted with humanity, he ended up evicting the first pair of uppity humans from Paradise for eating some forbidden fruit, albeit they were tempted to do so by a snake. After this, he genocidally wiped most everyone (his defective ‘mistakes’) out, that is, those not allowed onto Noah’s drunken party ark. So much for ‘Right to Life’ and Free Will. (Perhaps ‘Genocide’ is an epithet which only would apply if God were human.)
At a later theophany, God and two of his angels appear at Abraham’s tent during mid-day. This appearance of a god and two attendants is a common device found in Canaanite polytheism, suggesting that the uhmm … initial Canaanite (cum Jewish) audience would find this familiar. Here, Abraham makes a great show of hospitality to the creator of the cosmos and his angels — running around, tasking ol Sarah with baking leavened bread of the finest flour, selecting the proper animal for the feast, and then providing his guests cream and curds typical of a nomad then, and even today (Genesis 18:8, Isaiah 7:21-22).
This in contrast to Lot’s lesser ‘city’ hospitality (Genesis 19) to the same two angels where he miserly serves them unleavened bread, albeit that later that night he does offer up his virgin daughters to the Sodomites to abuse instead of granting the Sodomites’ request to biblically dally perversely with the angels. Not that the angels needed such generosity, as they soon proceed to make Lot’s offer moot by striking the Sodomites blind such that said Sodomites were now unable to even find Lot’s door, despite their best efforts to persist. Somewhere in all of this excitement, Lot’s virgin daughters get married, possibly officiated over by the angels, and here the angels tell Lot that he and his family must leave town. But, the new sons-in-law aren’t very impressed, even after witnessing the blinding of their fellow Sodomites, and thus decided to tragically stay behind.
Everyone knows the story about Lot’s wife not heeding the instruction to not turn around on the way out, and thus she is turned into a pillar of salt. But less commonly told is the story about how Lot goes to live in a cave with his now widowed and yet still virgin daughters, who immediately complain that “there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth.” Their virgin hormones must have been all aflutter from having been the target of such lusts, and then having suffered the immediate losses of their grooms. Accordingly, they decided to get Dad drunk and get themselves with child, not even waiting to mourn for Mom. Nothing is said about what the angels thought of all this, or that they might be bothered to have corrected the daughters’ mis-impressions about the availability of other men. But we can discern indirectly, at least, that God has punished them, and their descendants, by separation from Abraham once more.
However, the authors of the story seem to let us know their opinion, five times, by reversing the standard Semitic patriarchal useage of shakab (lie with). Usually a sober patriarchal man lies with (atop) his woman, but Lot’s daughters lied with him. And then similarly it is noted that the daughters name their resulting children and not Lot, contrary to custom. This episode seems to be a typological parallel with Noah’s strongly implied drunken dalliance with Ham. With both situations, the audience is warned of the need to be fruitful, consistent with good eugenic hygiene and divine order. Ham and Noah’s action had a multiplicative factor less than one, while Lot’s story is a reminder that impertinently hysterical women must not be allowed to assertively take advantage of otherwise good men, including their fathers. Hence those acts being sins. Since the coming conquests did need boots on the ground, family values needed to prevail, thus presaging Christ Augustus’s later Roman edicts.
The fateful offspring become the progenitors of Moab and Ammon. Once again, the sexual misdeeds and the renewed separation from Abraham’s blessing, do not bode well for the future. The tension between urban and rural plays out between Lot and Abraham, somewhat like it did before with Cain and Abel, and later between Joseph and his older brothers. Lot, not descended from Abraham, loses everything when he separates from Abraham, but regains it back whenever rescued by Abraham, who has the blessing. And, similar to the story with Noah and Ham, this narrative’s use of a sexual taboo is intended to reflect the enmity frequently seen in the biblical narratives (also witnessed ‘historically’ by the Mesha Stele inscription) between the new Hebrews and the Moabites and Ammonites. As mentioned earlier, this enmity will be reversed, at least for the Ammonites, once the final redactions are made. These redactions are typically labeled the ‘P’ texts, for ‘priestly’. But we think that maybe a better fitting appellation than ‘priestly’ is that of ‘Persian’, reflecting the latter’s desire for geopolitical harmonization within their nascent expanding empire, when the bulk of the redactions we’re discussing actually take place.
And when thou comest nigh over against the children of Ammon, distress them not, nor meddle with them: for I will not give thee of the land of the children of Ammon any possession; because I have given it unto the children of Lot for a possession. (Deuteronomy 2:19 KJV)
Whoops, what happened to all that incest business?
Furthermore, the lust of the Sodomites for the angels, is a curious typological reversal of the lust shown by the sons of God for the daughters of men found in Genesis 6:1-4. Until the time of the only begotten son of God, Jesus, these other sons of the sole God were the black sheep of the polytheistic family.
Abraham and his men begin to circumcise themselves. (Wellcome Library, London)
But with Lot and the angels we’re getting ahead of the story, as God and Abraham walk, talk, and dine on their yummy curds, while calmly discussing the coming executive punishment of the Sodomites and the Gomorrites (Genesis 18). Brave Abraham impertinently asks the divine one to scale back the punishment just a notch, which results in the angels’ intercessionary action with Lot and his family just mentioned. But just before this negotiation, God provides Abraham (and extended to his descendants) with a contract giving them the land of Canaan. In return for this, God asks only that the ‘Hebrews’ need to trim their eight day old boy parts as a thankful ‘sign’ of perpetual acknowledgement.
In reality, circumcision is a form of ‘branding’ of the new flock, and in such an extreme form as to make a non-Jewish adult male think twice about converting — especially after hearing about the later Shechem massacre, the Day of the Bloody Cocks (Genesis 34:13-31). But, eight day olds don’t have much of a say-so in their own genital mutilation. Of course, there was no later problem with ‘gentile’ women wanting to convert, especially as they came to like hearing about Mosaic monogamy, to the further chagrin of ‘gentile’ males. And most importantly, this perverse branding is also telling us who your real Daddy is, considering that similar mutilation was a pharaonic practice. More on this below, and in later posts we’ll cover more about the pharaohs and other Egyptian aspects that curiously ended up in Judaism.
But wait, there is more than just circumcision. God also demands an extensive period of slavish travails in Egypt and the ‘Wilderness’ desert, before the Promised Land is given to them for conquest. The boundaries of this bequest just happen to entail the ideal limits of the alleged Davidic and Solomonic states in the tenth century BCE, from the Nile to the Euphrates. How convenient for the redactors writing retrojectively in the 6th century BCE. As far as we know in reality, those boundaries have belonged only transiently to a few of the most powerful pharaohs, Tuthmoses I and III, and Necho II. Seriously, we’re supposed to believe that Judea and Israel’s western boundary extended to the Nile, when practically no evidence can be found for David or Solomon’s mere existence, even in Palestine today? Certainly no evidence that remotely comes close to the biblical depictions for wives, concubines, and wealth that could only equate to a pharaoh.
In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates: (Genesis 15:18)
And with this First Covenant promise necessarily comes the promise that Abraham, in his mid-eighties, will have descendants needed to populate the Promised Land. Despite the fact that old Sarai is later enabled to conceive, first Abram (his name at the time) is steered so as to “come into” Hagar, his Egyptian (wink, wink) slave wife, and beget Ishmael, the claimed patriarch of the Semitic Arabs. But if old Sarai is later ‘enabled’ to get with child, what was the need for the whole business with Hagar and Ishmael? The intent can only be to foreshadow everlasting family trouble ahead. Thus, the authors are announcing that they have proudly set the entire bloody stage for the next three plus millenniums. Shades of the Abraxis? It’s then all cemented by a celebratory first sacred barbecue where this god then appears to Abraham yet again (Genesis 15:8-17).
Also, this so-called First Covenant (from an odd Christian perspective) was actually preceded by a covenant with … uhmmm Noah, where the eternal divine blessing, originally granted to Adam and Eve (in an even prior covenant), is reiterated to Noah (Genesis 9:1-17) for which the regenerated Post-Flood humanity should eat the flesh of all the animals and must not commit murder or blood shedding any more (but mere killing of humans is apparently OK.) Furthermore, they must agree, again, to go forth and multiply. It seems that Fruitless Buggery or Onanism is only implicitly disallowed at this point until either Abraham’s or Moses’s time. The ‘sign’ of Noah’s contract (for all of humanity’s sake) is that of the rainbow, rather less dramatic (pain-wise at least) than that of circumcision, where the divine ante has been upped for the Hebrews. For with Abraham’s contract an exclusively Elect status (not yet made global until Isaiah’s time) has been conferred upon the Hebrews, thus requiring a higher quid pro quo exchange. By Moses’s time, not only is there circumcision to deal with, but the Hebrews are further restricted from eating certain animals that God had previously told everyone else were perfectly acceptable to eat. If nothing else, at least now we know why there are so many Jewish lawyers.
But before we go farther, we must first acknowledge that all of the varied pre-Abramic stories before this ‘foundational’ contract are not only supposed to be talking about all of humanity, but as well, these are all cribbed and modified (including morally inverted) from the Mesopotamian cultural library. For example, the story of Noah’s flood was taken from Gilgamesh: see Gordon & Rendsburg, The Bible and the Ancient Near East, pp. 50-51. Similarly, Moses’ later Ten Commandments were taken and revised from the Egyptian Book of the Dead. And the earliest, such as the conflicting Creation narratives, are clearly metaphorical interpretations, as were the originals. Indeed there is an ‘inversion’ from some of the originals: in the Mesopotamian versions the city dwellers are good and the rural shepherds are suspect, while with the Judaic version just the opposite, e.g. David.
In other words, such divine claims as occur in the Old Testament had been the standard bolster for statecraft for thousands of years prior, albeit those prior divine depictions were much more skewed to a mythic nature. And as discussed in the introductory post, the entire OT presents itself as the first known linear ‘history’ transitioning from an epic character to an annalistic one. Curiously with the various subnarratives such as Abraham’s, one notices a rather laconic and matter-of-fact approach to the renderings of the otherwise eye popping circumstances. There is no character development and little if any emotional content, except oddly to laugh at God’s audacious fertility magic.
Apologists have made incorrect claims of uniqueness for the OT in that there is no mythic aspect within, no divine soap opera that is. Robert Wright, in The Evolution of God (pp. 118-120) demonstrates that this is not the case. Instead, the ‘godly’ enemies of God have been incongruently reduced to mere mundane geographical features, simply by altering the treatment of the opposing god’s name. For example, at Psalms 74:13, Yamm the Canaanite sea god is generically converted to yamm, the mundane ‘sea’. Hence, God is made to seem as batty as Jesus getting mad at a barren fig tree, by God’s doing battle with the literal sea. But even if we accept the case that God is growing up or evolving on paper, via redactions and edits, we are left with the rather bizarre earthly soap opera of Abraham’s caste of characters, including his anthropomorphic God, whose very name Abraham doesn’t know.
The real literary uniqueness of the Old Testament is its seamlessly linear transition from the epic and obviously metaphoric style to the annalistic historical presentation of the drama of Israel and Judea. That their synthetic Hebrew populations are Providentially ‘Chosen’ sets them apart from all other humanity. Ironically, the canon goes on to record that the Chosen are repeatedly unable to carry out the terms of the contract. Typically, such ‘honest’ accounting of failures is taken as sure evidence of veracity, as opposed to otherwise typical propagandic aggrandizing. Very clever of the authors. However and ironically, the Patriarchal examples seem more often to lead by negative example, ostensibly to be addressed by Moses’ reforms. But even then, the Hebrews can’t get their act together. Knowing their god’s propensity for acting out, we have to wonder if this may really be an early case of ‘planned obsolescence’? In a later post, we will argue that this is indeed the case.
With this first covenant, we should be able to discern that we are not dealing with any sort of ‘historical’ account. Rather, we are dealing with matters of immediate and pivotal political import to the much later author/redactors(s). Paying attention to such matters, they lose sight of maintaining their new god’s coherence of claims for moral superiority, judgement of character, and such. It is here that later so-called gnostics somewhat correctly discerned that the god of this covenant had some severe character flaws of his own. Thus, the gnostics also argued that ‘God’ (rechristened as the ‘Demiurge’) and his fellow odd cast of characters were merely apt metaphors for our underlying material reality of necessarily clashing opposites. However, we assert that we are rather looking at a complete narrative fabrication, a propagandic historical novel, if you will. The purpose is the fabrication of a synthetic ‘nation’, to use as a clever foil to advance a deeper hidden agenda. We’ll see its mirror image in the creation of Lycurgan Sparta, and even similar versions in modern day North Korea and Israel (the latter curiously not named ‘Judea’ by the replacement Ashkenazi ‘Jews’). The populace of all these states are unfortunate and unwitting tools of the global elites.
For if Judea and Israel were not such foils, then what to make of their god’s curious employment of them from then till now? As expressed by Isaiah’s Suffering Servant metaphor, the Jewish perspective is that they have been chosen to Atone, by their suffering, for the ultimate betterment of mankind. If we grant that in some sense that this is true, then what to make of certain other ‘Elect’ peoples, namely the Romans and their far flung descendants, who have been profiting wildly from all this? And what does this curiously lazy God think about them?
The Egyptian, Hittite and Mesopotamian Mash-Up
And so what can the discerning rationalist take away from this odd and loopy narrative? First and foremost, we have a tale of a rich and powerful foreigner, a Hittite, entering into another’s land, based upon what has been told him by a god whose proper name he doesn’t even know. He is furthermore promised that his descendants will inherit this land after their spending a long and slavish sojourn in Egypt. He, Abraham, then proceeds onto Egypt where he outwits ‘pharaoh’ into sending him away with much more wealth after a ruse regarding his old yet irresistible wife. While both Abraham and his wife know that she is ‘literally’ too old to bear a child, God (wink, wink) performs some of his typical fertility magic and causes a metaphorical nation to sprout forth. Once Isaac is old enough this god tests Abraham’s loyalty by ordering him to sacrifice Isaac, and because this custom is apparently familiar to Abraham he attempts to fulfill the command, until this god releases him, and apparently all subsequent generations from this otherwise previously ho hum burden. Later on, during Abraham’s descendants’ sojourn in Egypt: Joseph, in cahoots with a later ‘pharaoh’, manipulates the markets during climatic feast and famine so as to enslave all the Egyptians and capture their wealth (Genesis 47).
Who makes this stuff up? Later the Christians would say, “It is absurd, therefore I believe?” Postflavians choose a different cliched metaphor: Abraham (like the drunken Noah) has no clothes. However, the very absurdity of it all does indeed seem to serve up an almost magical psychological spell on the credulous, while at the same time signalling the more avaricious insiders that there is much more to the story than meets the superficial eye. The subtextual messaging, on different levels of understanding, to the respective intended audiences is that there is a blessing, eternal or otherwise, conferred by the somewhat seemingly arbitrary and mysterious ‘grace’ of God (the veiled pharaoh > caesar > king > ‘powers that be’) for those that, despite the whopping moral misadventures of the Patriarchs, keep the faith and don’t ask too many uncomfortable questions. This latter is why whistle-blowing prophets are not welcome in their own land.
And on more reflection, there is a third audience for these seemingly bizarre and inane narratives. Skeptical and secular readers (who have always been with us, even in ancient times) are more likely to throw up their hands and proclaim it is all nonsense assembled by only ‘God knows who’. Thus, the subliminal messaging and NLP (neuro-linguistic programming) embedded in the texts, have the opportunity to work their subconscious magic even with nonbelievers. This is the position that we (your authors) were in, and we have been surprised at the extent to which we have arrived at new insights in the process of researching and writing this post. No doubt there are still discoveries yet to be made.
Based upon the underlying details of this crazy (like a fox) fictive narrative, mocking its audience’s credulity, we will later argue that there was indeed a mashup of elite Hittites and Egyptians that eventually led to the Judeo-Christian synthesis and our current sad state of hyper-polarized affairs. Its compilers and redactors, acting like modern day authors of historical fictions, profitably made use of pre-existing ‘historical’ materials, textual scrolls and steles, etc.. to craft the narrative basis for what has driven, even till today, the proverbial Winds of Moriah. The story of Abraham and the Patriarchs represents the synthetic creation of a national and allegedly divinely driven mythos, apparently drawn from what must have been a much more mundane tale of an elite earthly family on a pilgrimage of conquest. This narrative was then weaved into a grander, global scheme, as we shall see.
Revision history: This is the first revision of the original post, which appeared Aug. 30, 2015. The authors have attempted to improve the readability, and to provide better contextual support of the various details discussed. The original is here.
This post is the introduction to a series focusing on the origins and intentions of the Old Testament using our Postflavian lens of materialist, rationalist and skeptical interpretation. Our goal below is to provide a clear contextual explanation for the major narratives, by examining the underlying concepts employed by their authors and redactors. Then with this new framework in mind, we will be more able to see what actually transpired in those times, as opposed to what we are commonly led to believe. We have provided a concise summary of our major analysis results found here.
The scope of this series includes, among others, the tales of Abraham, Joseph, Moses, David and Solomon, the Divided Monarchy, and the Babylonian Exile. These narratives formed the core of the Judaic Temple Cult, as it was provided to Judea under the Persians. This, in turn, became the basis of manipulation for the Seleucid Greeks, and then the Romans, in their ongoing efforts to integrate an ever evolving, new and ‘approved’ Judaism into an overarching social control mechanism.
We will discuss how the Old Testament (in addition to Homeric and Roman epic) also forms the synthetic basis of the primary false dialectic of Western civilization, namely that of the Gentile versus the Jew. Although we will show that both these ethnic categories originated as cynical contrivances, nevertheless they have a long life of their own. More broadly, we refer here to the continual battle of Greek, Roman, and later Christian peoples, on the one side, against the Jewish people and their later proxies, the Islamics, on the other. This is not to deny the existence of the broad categories of humanity such as the Semitic peoples, but rather our analysis reveals that under an assumed aegis of divinity the authors and redactors of the OT canon have made a profitable hash out of these categories – for their sponsors sake.
Of course, the world has not stood still since the sixth century BC, the apparent time of the major OT redaction. But despite all the world’s changes, the underlying drama has remained much the same. And even the changes that have occurred, have not necessarily been organic or unrelated. Instead, we believe these later developments to a large degree have been driven by the same global ambitions and so-called prophecies recorded in the ancient religious canons.
In any case, this contrived oppositional thread runs continuously through our collective historical narratives, since the time fictively attributed for Moses. This ever-simmering conflict keeps the majority distracted from what really matters, and constantly blaming institutionalized scapegoats for real or perceived problems. Just as the OT’s God used proxy agents of warfare and terror as elements of his “iron rod” to control outcomes then, the same is being done today.
The sad irony is that some modern day Jews complain that they have been, and still are, made scapegoats for the evils of ‘others’. We find this ironic because we assert that this was indeed the assigned role of the Jewish people from day one of their troubled existence. The role was created by the ‘real wise guys’, the Persian clerical redactors of the Old Testament, and likely building upon the prior efforts of the Egyptians, Hittites, Assyrians and Babylonians before them. In carrying out this assignment, the Jews have been encouraged by their various prophets (such as Isaiah) and later rabbis to collectively adopt the mantle of the Suffering Servant, ostensibly for atonement’s sake and the eventual betterment of all humanity. Importantly, this very same victimological mantle was claimed by Christianity for Christ.
We believe that the Judaic, and then the Christian narratives, their respective theologies, and even their ethnic identities, have been progressively tweaked so as to continually pit otherwise similar (or maybe even otherwise identical) groups of ordinary ‘common’ peoples against each other. This tweaking was masterfully done via numerous sleight-of-hand techniques ranging from the literary domain to various psychological and physical brutalities, not a few of which have been put to use again in more modern times. During this entire process, the guilty oligarchs du jour have remained disguised behind the scenes.
Did You Say No Bondage, or No Bonding?
Studies today have shown that ‘breaking bread’ together is a great way to increase social bonding and done so within the work sphere to improve group performance because of greater co-operation. In Greco-Roman times, at least, different social groups would commonly dine together, apparently because they understood this bonding advantage. However, under the banner of obeying their god’s ‘new’ strict dietary laws, the Jews were prohibited from such social dining practices – only with non-Jews that is. And oddly doing so at a time when they were actively proselytizing for converts amongst the goyim, the so-called ‘Gentiles’.
With the Mosaic Law and the Pentateuch, we find the achievement of a radical new society with hundreds of its laws and customs inverted from those of the surrounding ‘heathens’ such as Egypt, and even from those of the surrounding fellow Semitic tribes (Jan Assmann, Moses the Egyptian, pp. 55-74). The combination of these new laws and customs, the nationalistic narrative of the Torah, and the new god Yahweh, made this new society of transformed heathens into an exclusively ‘chosen’ Elect. Both the people and their god went provocatively against the grain of tolerantly syncretistic polytheism which prevailed before Yahweh came on the scene. But with his demands for singular fealty, and his ‘lovingly’ wielded carrot and iron rod, ‘Yahweh’ was able to pull his people together and hold them together, even against all odds.
So, let us reflect on what happens when such a group is set high up on a pedestal, while rejecting all others’ customs and cultures. Hmm… How to lose friends and enrage enemies? Granted that many, such as pagan women, found attractive features (for instance, monogamy) in this radically new religious and social paradigm. A variety of such forms of Judaism eventually attracted approximately 10 percent of the Roman Empire’s population. But later on we’ll see that the Romans also portrayed themselves as another exclusive set of chosen people. They played a seemingly opposite game of overtly merging others’ gods, and then even the Jews’ god, who finally supplanted all the others. That is, the Homeric and Roman polytheistic religious traditions and philosophy were syncretized with Judaic monotheism to form Christianity. This, in time, became the dominant religion of the entire Empire, and remains as the central cultural pillar for the West till today, despite much secularization.
At the same time as they created Christianity, the Romans purposely left a remnant of the Jews as a controlled opposition to themselves. Of course the radically ‘conservative’, violent and nationalistic Jewish sects were purged, as they had taken the Biblical propaganda too seriously. In their place, the Romans created Rabbinical (Talmudic) Judaism as a unified and defanged successor. This not only solved the immediate challenges of the day, but was also useful throughout the Roman empire, and for many years yet to come. This is how elites typically and systematically co-opt and control the masses, via such tried and true human shepherding techniques.
Yahweh Who?
In the Old Testament narrative, the prior gods of the region were absorbed into Yahweh. And, as well, Yahweh was promoted in rank by equating him with the Canaanite heavenly god, El. The redactors ultimately pretended that this was always the case, but hints of the gradual transformation were retained in the texts. The earliest sources claim that Yahweh was now preeminent amongst his other sibling gods, while later texts proclaim that all those same other gods had always been false. With an ultimate desire to impose a new and universal religious paradigm on a global basis (as per the canonic ambitions), the use of a new, externally sourced god, Yahweh, seems appropriate. As we discuss further on, this is frequently memorialized by use of the ‘younger son’ metaphoric trope for the Patriarch’s narratives.
The actual source of this name ‘Yahweh’ is far from clear, as some scholars trace it to Edomite or Midianite origins, while others suspect a relationship to the ancient Indo-European god *déiwos, also known as Jove and Zeus. And yet Jews and Christians also still pay allegiance to ‘Amen’. (Regardless of how this latter benediction is translated or interpreted, it is also the name of the most preeminent deity of Egypt, who came to subsume all others in the era of the New Kingdom.)
Prior to this imposition of monotheism, societies warred against each other because of the vanities and ambitions of their rulers. However, their gods represented natural functions such as the stars and the weather. It was easy to see that all these respective gods were equivalent, even when they went by different names. Thus, we doubt that these earlier peoples went to war over those equivalent gods. But ever since this new and supposedly benevolent and loving god was styled the exclusive god of gods, there has been nothing but religiously based rancor and strife. There may have been something of a brief respite during the good ol’ Dark Ages of feudalism, when this single god reigned over all Western civilization, and everyone knew their fixed place in the Judeo-Christian caste system. Up until the Crusades, that is.
Today we are still contending with the legacy of this seeming mother of all cultural wars, which appears to stem from the idea that ‘Father loved us best’, and that those ‘others’ think they are too good to join us for supper. The conflict, of course, has grown more complex, as new players (such as the Islamics, and then Protestants of various types), have joined the fray. Geopolitical conflicts masquerade as theological disputes about the true nature of this overly particularist god, and whether one has had his foreskin clipped for him or not. While the latter aspect has been somewhat ‘bandaged over’, we are all still left with this god’s ‘next’ planned Apocalypse hanging over us like the Sword of Damocles. “We will all fry together when we fry”, in any universal holocaust — whether or not we feel ourselves individually under His sway anymore.
Jesse Who?
Alternatively, we may be subsumed into a global empire run by the elite, as all the nations are grafted into the root of Jesse. From Isaiah:
And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious. And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea. And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.(Isaiah 11:10-12 KJV)
Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. (Romans 11:19 KJV)
So, who was this Jesse, and why was his son David anointed into Judaic royalty (1 Samuel 16)? Well, Jesse was the stated father of King David. He married a Moabite (hence non-Judaic) woman, Ruth, and David was their son. Thus even David violated the orthodox matrilineal laws for becoming a Jew. What then does this say about Solomon, or Jesus for that matter? Again, we find the categories are an artificial contrivance.
For readers new to Postflaviana, our name and central motif is focused and built around the premise delineated by Joseph Atwill, in his Caesar’s Messiah, which discusses that the Jesus Christ mythos was fabricated by the literary team of the Flavian emperors, especially including Josephus Flavius. The critical core of the Christian mythos being that the obscure ‘son of a carpenter’, Jesus of Nazareth, was actually a lineal descendant of King David, the son of Jesse. So if Jesus was actually a descendant of David and Jesse, then why did he need to be ‘grafted in’ to the lineage?
As such, among other things in these posts, we will be examining the Old Testament context around the legendary kings, David and Solomon, to see if the canonic narratives for them can really support the mainstream claims for them. To wit, were they truly furthering the unfolding earthly aims of the divine creator of the cosmos? Or, alternatively, were they serving some ‘other’ purpose?
As discussed in Caesar’s Messiah, the Flavian Roman Emperors had a little help from their elite ‘almost Jewish’ friends as they grafted themselves into the role of God’s chosen ones. As is widely known, Philo of Alexandria crafted the philosophical underpinnings of the merger of Judaism and Hellenism. His nephew, Tiberius Julius Alexander, exhibiting even less tribal loyalty to his clan of chosen people, led a Roman legion against the more traditional Jews of Palestine for the Flavians in the Jewish War. In that war, Josephus’s subtext in his accounts makes it clear he was a double agent — undermining those Jews, while aiding his Roman friends at every turn.
So who were these ‘almost Jewish’ people? By asking this question, we are not saying that such as Josephus and Philo were not Jews as we commonly understand the term. But all of them seem to be linked to the Herodian usurpers of the Judaic throne and their Roman allies, at least typologically if not genetically. At this elite level, group allegiance as Jew or Roman (that is, ‘Gentile’) seems to have been a matter of convenience or expedience.
For that matter, who are the Roman Catholics and who are the Jews of today? These are the sorts of questions and issues we will be addressing with this series of posts. Our radical proposals may require you, the reader, to suspend your contextual presuppositions and cultural biases in order to consider the new Postflavian framework. We hope you will bear with us as we continue.
Identity Scams and Other Crimes
According to the authors (or redactors) of Genesis 9:18-27, all of Ham’s Canaanite descendants were summarily rejected by God from the fellowship of Semites, as as a result of some inanely obscure interaction of Ham with his drunken and naked father, Noah. Thus, the Canaanites are seen as racially distinct from the Hebrew descendants of Shem via Abraham. But the Hebrews are supposedly distinguished, among other things, by their law against pork consumption. In examining both the historical context and the internal problems of this tale, perhaps we can divine that we have been sold a pig in a poke. But who sold us this pig — that is, these people who don’t eat pork, and supposedly conquered their land from people who .. curiously also didn’t eat pork? Oy veh, who doesn’t like pork after all? Well, during the entire Iron Age, the Canaanites didn’t eat ham. This was unique amongst all their similarly situated highland Semitic neighbors, according to the archaeologists. (Finkelstein & Silberman, The Bible Unearthed, p. 119).
We are not raising this issue only to be provocatively humorous, but also as a clue as to what is really going on. That is, as Finkelstein & Silberman tell us, “The early Israelites were — irony of ironies — themselves originally Canaanites!” (p. 118). As to why they didn’t eat pork we can only speculate, but we don’t believe that it was at Moses’ orders. His narrative has too many epic holes in the pork barrel. It seems much more likely that the cultural divide was created by a stroke of the pen, rather than an act of God. We suspect it may ultimately have been the pharaohs of Egypt who invented these Jews, with a little help from their new friends such as the Hittites. These are the pharaohs who first invented monotheism, but spectacularly failed in their attempt to impose it at home.
Of course, Semitic peoples had been around a long time before the alleged time of Abraham and Noah. They occupied then, as now, the full spectrum of political and ideological camps. The Semites included not only Jews / Canaanites, but also Egyptians, Arabs and Phoenicians, to name a few. The most direct descendants of the ancient Jews (that is, Canaanites) today would ironically be the Palestinians. And, of course, the Arab Islamics are also closely related to the ancient Jews, as Semitic people. Thus, the current usage of the term “anti-Semite” is ironic. An “anti-Semite” today is someone who hates Jews. But, most Semites are not Jews. On the contrary, at least according to the stereotype, the Arab Semites are mostly “anti-Semitic”. To complete the irony, most modern Jews are not exactly Semites, as discussed here:
Eran Elhaik (2012) was able to show that European Ashkenazi Jews, whose autosomal genetic signature has long been known, are more similar to Georgians and Armenians from the Caucasus and contain more recent DNA contributions from that region, compared to Palestinian populations. The European Jews are also related to Palestinians, but at a more ancient distance. Elhaik concludes that this supports the theory of a Khazarian sojourn for these European Jews. https://postflaviana.org/elite-sub-species/
The nature of Jewish identity today is complex and somewhat elusive. A wide variety of people call themselves Jews. Religiously, they range from orthodox conservatives to secular agnostics and atheists. Ethnically, most are either Ashkenazi or Sephardic, but there are also Ethiopian and even Chinese communities, as well as many others. In various ways, however, all Jews claim to trace their heritage to a single ancient and original substrate, that was created by some combination of force, propagandic texts, intermarriage, and heavily proselytized conversion.
The Levitical Veil of Moses Typology
This veiling concept was so important that it was re-employed to embellish the Second Covenant of Christianity. Paul, seemingly unaware of any ethnic aspect, has converted the veil into a metaphor.
2 Corinthians 3:7-15, KJV:
But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? …
Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: And not as Moses, which put a vail over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ. But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.
The Bible (Genesis 49, Joshua 21) explains that the priestly tribe of Levi, that of Moses and Aaron, was not assigned its own territory in the Promised Land. Instead, they were disbursed amongst the claimed 11 other ‘Canaanite’ tribes, in fact they were granted control of 48 Canaanite cities and the immediate surrounding pasture lands around them. This is a broad hint that the Levites were elite outsiders programmatically imposing the new religious paradigm on these native and otherwise rural ‘tribes’.
There are also other hints that these Levite priests may have been ethnically distinct from the other tribes, who had been indigenous Canaanites all along. Just as Abraham was described as Hittite, we note that Moses is described as having a shining face (Exodus 34:29-35), so bright that it needed to be veiled. Elsewhere his skin is also described as white from leprosy (Exodus 4:6). These descriptions of Moses as (temporarily) white, can be viewed as creation myths that might have been offered to explain why the Levites had white skin. If there is indeed a distinct genetic signature which is characteristic of Levitical priests today, this would only go to support our thesis.
So with such as the fictional Ham ruse and the insinuation of the foreign Levites into the Canaanite polity, we see the basis for what we are characterizing as an Identity Scam. From the many Old Testament descriptions of massacres of Canaanite populations and the forced migrations, we can only surmise that the conversion process of the indigenous population was long and bloody. After the time of the fictively depicted ‘Conquest’, any opposition to the conversion process from Canaanite polytheism to Hebrew monotheism was recontextualized as ‘backsliding’.
We were pretty excited to learn of this strange business regarding Noah, Ham and Canaan and to realize what it really means. However, it pales in comparison to what immediately follows that episode where on a subsequent investigation we discovered that someone else started ‘dwelling in Shem’s tents’, but at least according to the way the genealogies are constructed they weren’t complete ‘strangers’. However, according to the strict rules of Judaism, they certainly can’t be considered ‘Shem’ites unless that is, it was only the lady Semites getting the ‘strange’ attention. All levity aside, this provides a possible avenue for explaining the presence of the Ashkenazi amongst today’s Judaic population, however there are several possibilities here that must be discussed later, and which we do not believe will be beyond the pale face of Moses, so to speak.
Steps towards a Globally Harmonized Religion
The elite have two great and long-standing ambitions, which were expressly stated many times in the ancient canonical literatures of the Hebrews, Greeks and Romans. The first of these long desired ambitions, the universal harmonization of spiritual beliefs and practices, could be seen as beneficial to wider humanity; that is, if such a uniform belief system for all mankind would be a suitable price to pay for those benefits. The second ambition, a pathological greed for accumulating great material wealth and power based on a sense of class or caste entitlement, seems obviously and mundanely crass. Conceivably there could be other motives, but that possibility will be beyond the scope of this series. Whatever the case, the first ambition serves and helps to disguisethe second. Religion, as has been observed frequently by the more astute, is a tool of the political elite class that plays on the continuing neuroses of the gullible and/or to the wiles of ambitious sycophants. As such, the development of monotheism was an important part of this agenda.
The Yahweh Bridge from Aton to uhmm … Adon
During the famous reign of Akhenaten, monotheistic Atonism was imposed in rapid order upon the entire Egyptian populace, including the immensely powerful priesthood of Amun. The violent backlash created, due to the sudden imposition of the radically different spiritual paradigm, caused Atonism to be a complete failure. In its wake, Akhenaten’s royal city of Amarna was rapidly, yet peacefully abandoned, completely. Where did its inhabitants, especially the elites, go?
We suggest that after the epic failure of Atonism, the Egyptian elites still persisted in their goal to create a monotheistic society. However, they took a much more conservative and gradual approach, by planting the new religion in a relatively unpopulated Canaanite backwater, called Judea, after first weeding the wider area of ‘conservative’ objectors. Here, the seed and shrub could be nurtured in relative isolation until the time was ripe to allow its own seed to be sent forth. In the centuries-long process, the tree would occasionally need ‘pruning’, so to speak, for allegedly going astray of the Lord’s (the lords’) wishes. In this way, the once ‘wild’ seed would become domesticated, only to have a ‘wild branch’ grafted back in later as told in Romans 11.
Ironically, the now domesticated branches (such as the true believer Zealots and ‘original’ Pharisees) would have to be pruned. Here, Josephus said that there were two competing schools of Pharisees and that the Romans terminated one of them with extreme prejudice while leaving the second to become today’s normative Talmudic rabbis. And to what end then?
Is it really a coincidence that one of the many monikers applied to the ‘new’ deity of the Hebrews was Adon, or Adonai, as compared to Akhenaton’s Aton? And that for some reason, this new moniker had uniquely monotheistic overtones compared to the other monikers adopted from their polytheistic pasts?
The global aspect of these ambitions can be traced at least back to ~1000 BCE. Thomas McEvilley in his The Shape of Ancient Thought (ch.2) discusses approximately simultaneous textual assertions from that time, demonstrating priestly desires for subtle transitions from polytheism to pantheism. That is, they began to poetically express the view that all the gods are merely different exoteric aspects (or parts of the body) of one underlying supreme god that permeates all existence. It is highly plausible that these texts were produced by collaborating priesthoods from India, Mesopotamia, and Egypt. Such a collaboration also implies, in our opinion, the existence of a parallel motive by the respective priesthoods’ secular ruling counterparts. Perhaps their goal was to establish (or re-establish?) a uniform global caste system. If so, this would encompass the second, greed-based motive within a spiritual cloak. Of course, the credulous can still claim that such expressions were only part of God’s planned process of gradual ‘revelation’.
The gradual transition of religious form can also be seen when reading the Old Testament, or Tanakh. The oldest texts acknowledge the existence of all the polytheistic gods, but the focus gradually shifts jealously to the ‘one’ real god, confusingly known by several names. The plural elohim were originally part of the wider Canaanite pantheon. Yahweh was possibly a rank outsider, mirroring Abraham’s insinuation into Canaan. (For more on Judaic polytheism, also see Margaret Barker, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God). The rise to the top by this junior sibling god is echoed in the Judaic narratives of Jacob and Joseph, among others. These were younger brothers who also arose to prominence, defying cultural norms of primogeniture.
The triumphs of younger brothers like Jacob and Joseph may also be taken as a metaphor for the otherwise odd (fictive) rise of Israel and Judea. In reality, the two regions had been relative backwaters and vassals to their much more powerful neighbors. While some might see this as something akin to a divine version of The Beverly Hillbillies, where the anointing ‘oil’ of God was bestowed on seemingly unlikely beneficiaries, we rather see it as further evidence of elite human planning. From the failed Amarna experiment, the elites learned that the imposition of monotheism was not a quick and easy thing. Thus, Palestine’s circumstances and geographical positioning (in the politically convenient middle of nowhere) was ideal for such a project.
But even so, as with any new real estate development or start of a new farm, the land must be cleared of troublesome weeds and other obstructions, humans in this case. Thus, the more appropriate modern cultural metaphor for all of this might be Green Acres rather than The Beverly Hillbillies. The barrenness of the patriarchs’ wives, which is overcome by the intervention of the ‘Lord’, is a metaphor for the clearing operation which must have preceded Israel’s synthetic creation, in service of the (human) lords’ agenda.
As to the ancient roots of the dialectic of Jew and Gentile, it is important to realize that the Western narrative’s antithesis to the ‘Jews’, i.e. the Romans and their Spartan heroes, had intimate foundational connections to their supposed opposites. Moses Hadas, the late chairman of the Department of Greek and Latin at Columbia University, revealed the widespread linkages between the Jewish and Greco-Roman Hellenic cultural and foundational tableaus in his Hellenistic Culture, Fusion and Diffusion (1959). In his preface to that book, he stated that some of his colleagues who assisted him with the project would remain ‘unnamed’ because they would disapprove of the result. Fortunately for those ‘unnamed people’, this type of book is not widely read. Even those adventurous enough to read it will likely not grasp its deepest implications, at least not without contextual preparation.
Hadas’ research shows that there is no point in Western history at which these supposedly radically differing groups can ever be viewed in isolation. The two ‘teams’ developed in dialectical opposition from the beginning. Humans are generally inclined to trust superficial appearances and the word of authority figures, and they have a deep social need to be on a team – any team. Thus, we have all been primed to identify with one or the other side of this dialectic, while the sponsors of the system profitably maintain control. The conditioning is extraordinarily difficult to overcome, no matter how sophisticated and modern we consider ourselves.
We are all now deeply ingrained with these false ‘identities’. As such, we ‘muggles’, in Harry Potter parlance, always have someone (but never the deserving party) to blame. If there are no humans around to blame for our transient personal problems, we’ll even punch holes in our walls, kick dogs, or worse. But having a persistent human scapegoat subculture around to kick, for killing the claimed savior of our eternal souls — well, it just doesn’t get any better than that! Unless we are able to discern this core deception, we will be condemned to interpret everything we see through a highly distorted contextual lens. This turns us into the opposite of what we’d like to believe about ourselves, insidiously making us mental slaves and working against our best overall interests. Ironically, if the claimed savior hadn’t allegedly been killed by the alleged Christ-killers, then the Christians wouldn’t have him to worship. Thus, Christians should be kissing the ground that Jews walk on!
Of course, the gospels allow for the interpretation that the Romans were responsible for killing Christ. If one accepts our thesis, this is one more darkly delicious inside joke. Conversely, if the idea of Jew-as-scapegoat is rejected, the habit of looking for scapegoats remains, and a constant stream of candidates is advanced by modern propaganda. If you don’t hate the Jews, well then you can hate the Communists, or the uber-Capitalists, or the Republicans, or the Democrats; or, especially, the Muslims.
We are not necessarily saying that there has ever been a single, united, international elite. (On the other hand, we would not want to exclude that possibility, either.) The most plausible explanation is that the system was evolved over time by loosely collaborating Egyptian and Hittite elites, and later refined by Persian and then Roman elites, all facing similar and common problems of controlling their respective tribes of “sheeple”. Regardless of the degree of collaboration, the ancient elites (as well as today’s) were unquestionably in a position to communicate with each other and to exchange ideas, as well as brides and other luxury goods. Accordingly, the contrived dialectic of Jew versus Gentile durably served their commonly held ambitions, easily transcending the rise and fall of empires and nations.
The goal of harmonization seems to paradoxically exist in conflict with the “divide and conquer” dialectic agenda. Such divisions might either be encompassed within a globally accepted system, as suggested by George Orwell in 1984‘s tripartite nightmare, or perhaps “divide and conquer” is only a bloody means to the global end. It is impossible to say whether either ancient or modern global elites truly aspire to end all divisions, and unite the globe into a single harmonious “New World Order”. Or in any case, that speculation is beyond our scope here.
Synthetic Formulation of Greek Epics
The monotheistic transformation of Hebrew society was later mirrored by the equally synthetic, bizarre and immediate social transformation of the Greek region of Sparta. This previously rather typical region became renowned as the most strict military dictatorship ever known until modern times. According to Plutarch’s Parallel Lives, the oracle at Delphi gave the dictatorial approval for this transformation to Lycurgus of Sparta. Lycurgus seems to be as ephemeral as Moses. Estimates of the time of his reign range anywhere from 900 BC to 700 BC. This is the general time frame of the early Divided Monarchy era, when we believe the Canaanites were being transitioned to monotheism.
The god Apollo was invoked as the ultimate source of the Lycurgan command, thus lending divine authority. This Spartan culture was lionized by Plato and his ‘ideal’ republic, as discussed in his Republic and Laws. With all this we can see the ultimate man-made implementation of a Hegelian Dialectic. On the one hand was a synthetically evolving Jewish spirituality, focused xenophobically on a small, contrived Promised Land. On the other hand was the equally synthetic Hellenic and Roman culture and statesmanship, ruling over the remainder of the Mediterranean region.
The book of 1 Maccabees (12:20-23) contains a letter, allegedly written by King Arius of Sparta, which states that the Spartans and Jews were both descended from Abraham. As discussed in Hadas (pp. 84-86), some Jews of the day believed the claim was true, inasmuch as it pleased their vanity to share this connection with the dominant powers of the region. Specifically, this would be the upper social strata of urban Judean society, including the high priests, who were happily Hellenized within the globalizing zeitgeist of the day. At some deeper level, the story may actually have been true, as the Spartan and Judaic elites may have shared an ethnic (Indo-European) connection.
These early Maccabees (aka the Hasmoneans) were also happily in league with the Romans, overtly at first. Together, the Romans and Maccabees idolized the by now bizarre and faded Spartans. But the Maccabees are usually recast today as ‘heroes’ of ancient Judaic nationalism. At the same time, other Jews of a more conservative and generally rural (perhaps Semitic) bent were loudly decrying the ‘alien’ degradation of their sacred and exclusive culture. After all, their sacred narrative had granted them a Promised Land to genocidally conquer under the aegis of Divine Providence, and now they saw it slipping away. Sound familiar, Pilgrims?
Just as the Spartans enslaved and terrorized their neighboring helots, the Romans later aspired to enslave the Greeks, whose cultural and intellectual prowess Romans acknowledged they could not match. The Romans justified their conquests, as did the Hebrews, by a revealed and sacred global mission. Similarly, in more modern times, Europeans justified their land grabbing conquest of the New World as the blessing of the same Providence, albeit with some functional differences.
Western societal elites, traditionally liking to cast themselves as ‘shepherds’ over their respective human flocks, have long employed a human herding tool long known as ‘Divide and Conquer’. Today we know this as ‘wedge politics’, in which some various chronically divisive issues of minimal import are introduced into the political theater’s debate du jour. The primary purpose of such tactics is to divide various groups that could otherwise come together democratically to defeat or support other more weighty matters. From their creation until today, the unique Judaic and Spartan societies and their descendants have served as convenient tools and foils to achieve hidden agendas.
So despite the rhetoric we here yet today, as in the past, about the differences between the Jew and Gentile systems, the underlying dynamics remain the same, whether one god or many. What is most important is maintaining the respective ‘piety’ of the society members. This not only ensures social cohesiveness but allows the concentration of massive wealth to the religious centers, in the case of the Jews, this was solely to the Jerusalem Temple, and those elites who controlled it. But the same followed for the Gentile societies. An easy ten percent skim off the top is a nice haul in any man’s perspective.
Realdialectik: Ultra-Elites vs. Everyone Else
Whatever the ultimate reality behind these ‘historical’ depictions, it must be realized that the central Hellenic institution of the Greek gymnasium, including the one in Jerusalem, was highly class conscious and only open to the elites. Such Hellenic cultural aspects crossing over into the Judaic polity, as well as similar factors from before the Jewish synthesis, serves to expose the underlying tensions between the entitled ultra-elites and pretty much everyone else. The false Judeo-Gentile dialectic, then as now, was tremendously successful in diverting attention away from this very real problem.
This class tension was also ignored by the Classical Greeks in their discussions of the oligarchs and plutocrats. No matter the underlying governmental form, the welfare of the common man, the hoi polloi, was rarely if ever of concern. Indeed if the helots or other slaves were ever mentioned at all, it was only with disdain. All versions of the system were based on seizure of vast quantities of land, by once nomadic or colonizing conquerors on their way to becoming aristocrats. Disproportionate wealth could be generated by these Providential lands, when combined with the cheapest possible labor. Prefiguring such as the Mormon Church, Pentecostals and Scientologists of today, the conquerors made themselves priests and began inventing pious schemes to religiously justify their continuing right to squat on said lands.
For example: Roman aristocrats, the senatorial class, were all members of various pagan priestly orders. Later, these were directly subsumed into the near identical format of the Roman Catholic ecclesia (see Beard and North’s Pagan Priests). In fact, the various orders acted much like today’s American Senatorial committees in function. This was paralleled roughly by the Jewish Sanhedrin. In both cases, the lands were worked by the lower classes and slaves, and thus the claim that “Israel was a land of priests” cleverly disguises the underlying reality. The Roman and the Jewish systems were otherwise the same, including their similar deity names: Jo’ve and Jehovah (Yah’ve).
Unfortunately, since the ancient inception of the dialectic, it has become masked by many complicating factors, making it difficult for individuals to grasp the very simplicity of how it generally works. Furthermore, in the contemporary mental framework, it is inconceivable and heretical for most to consider that effective control can be maintained over human beings. The various nations today certainly appear to be harder to herd than cats. As part of the ‘postmodern’ (not Postmodernist) milieu ourselves, we suspect that even some of today’s shepherds (if not all) may be equally as unconscious as the sheep, perhaps meme-walking through life. Historical analysis is uncovering deep leitmotifs, literary archetypes, and social networks that are major factors driving the unfolding of modern events. We can only speculate as to which of the oligarchs are, or were, overtly aware of these complex factors and are able to utilize them to the greatest possible extent.
Caste, Slavery and Freedom
As shown by Georges Dumezil, the idea of a tripartite social caste system is basic to Indo-European culture. A paradigmatic example is the Vedic Indian caste system, consisting of the Brahman (priest / king), kshatriya (warrior), and vaishya (agriculture / trade) classes. This caste system, generally, was known in the Mediterranean region via Plato’s Republic, if not earlier. If partly forgotten, it was re-encountered in Alexander the Great’s time, when the Greeks ran headlong into it on the way to India. Hellenistic art from that period and region shows a cultural fusion of people in Greek attire portraying Buddhist themes. Aspects of this Indian cultural fusion later found their way into the elite Roman and Helleno-Jewish formulation of Christianity. From there, in turn, flowed the horrors of feudalism, the inquisitions, holy and not so holy wars, institutionalized Jewish ghettos, and so on.
The Fish (not the Bird) was the Word
Via Philo, Platonism found its way into Christianity, as the Logos as mentioned in the Gospel of John. In English, the Logos was further contextually diluted via its translation into the Word. This concept then becomes the basis for the Trinity’s third party, the Holy Spirit. By design or (no) coincidence, Christian Europe’s feudalism mimicked the caste system discussed by Plato.
However, Stephen Knapp argues here that in the original Vedic concept of the caste system, one’s place was not determined by one’s birth (though as it does today it certainly helped). Rather, it was more of a meritocracy. Moreover, everyone had an inherent dignity and satisfaction in their respective societal contributions and rewards. He provides a folk story that attempts to explain why and how this system devolved. Inasmuch as this all happened in prehistoric times, perhaps this is the case.
Nicholas De Vere, in his The Dragon Legacy, makes the same underlying argument — that there was once a widespread ancient and benevolent caste system. De Vere believes that it was his ancestors, the red headed and green eyed clan of Aryans, who emerged as the rulers by universal acclaim of their self-evident merit. Since the collapse of that system, De Vere’s ultra-exclusive Aryans have been quietly and gallantly fighting off the greedy “tinker nobility”. These latter would be either the descendants of conquering warlords of other clans, or the latter day merchant class nobility. The pseudo-fascist Julius Evola argued somewhat similarly for what he claimed was the oldest sect of Buddhism, that of the Pali. He says that subsequent schools of Buddhism debased the ‘divine’ caste system in their successive attempts to popularize Buddhism.
Similarly it is claimed that in the days of ancient Sumeria, the practice of actual, overt slavery was relatively benign. One might become a ‘bonded’ slave to another to address an exigent downturn in personal circumstances. However, one could not only emerge from this condition, but while still in it one could even buy and sell property as a slave. Perhaps the book of Leviticus contains a memory of this context, where such ‘bondage’ could not last for more than 7 years, and one must treat one’s enslaved brother better than the others.
Based on all this speculation, it seems entirely possible that at the dawn of written history, there was a divide, the same as there is today, between two general traditions, or ideals, for societal organization. While some societal elites preferred a static caste system, other elites (along with many commoners) held to an ideal of social mobility based upon merit and such, using some form of modified caste or no seeming caste at all. But even if De Vere is being grossly self-serving, and/or deceptive, and Knapp may be misguided, all this gets to the heart of the matter of the true dialectic.
For here, if the reader pays attention, the book of Genesis ironically, precisely and explicitly describes Abraham as a typical wealthy caravan merchant. When he arrived at Hebron, a typical trading colony inside of a foreign state, the Hittites there immediately recognized him as a princely man of importance. Abraham’s traveling retinue of 318 shepherds served double duty as his armed host. That is, the claimed patriarchal father of the Hebrews was both a princely merchant and acted in a militaristic fashion, as did his conquering descendants. And yet, the pious view of Abraham is that he (and his famous progeny) were not so very different from common and lowly shepherds of literal sheep.
With the ‘invention of the Jewish people’ (to borrow from Shlomo Sand) and the synthetic Judaic construct, the conflict between rigid caste and social mobility hardened into a social false dialectic. We find Egypt (and, later, Greece and Rome) taking the more rigid approach, while the Hebrews saw themselves as beneficiaries of a slave revolt. Thus they saw themselves as more likely to honor individualistic values. The new-found state of ‘freedom’ and ‘equality’, however, resulted in the continuation of hierarchical practices under a new set of labels and laws. Their new and unique god was yet still an avatar for their veiled human masters.
The Temple Cult is emblematic of this dialectic, partly because it seems that the First Temple may have never really existed as it was depicted, possibly aside from the conveniently undateable megalithic platform. Instead, it may have been creatively retrojected into the past, with the iconic confabulations of Solomon and his father, David. The alleged precursor to the temple, the tabernacle, and its main accoutrement, the so-called Ark of the Covenant, are nothing but Egyptian in origin and commonplace pharaonic reality (i.e. military campaign portable shrines in the case of the tabernacle). This may be taken as a strong hint of what is to come in our narrative analysis.
The fictional character of the narrative is further indicated by the fact that the Old Testament contains three mutually exclusive descriptions of the so-called ark. Also, the realm of David and Solomon was described as extending from the Nile to the Euphrates. In reality, such a claim could be made only by a few of the most powerful Pharaohs at the height of the Egyptian empire. Consider these as talismanic markers, if you will, indicating which way leads to reality, if you care to wake up from your dream.
Hmmm, maybe with all this presence of Egyptian paraphernalia around at the time, maybe the so-called First Temple, and its massive platform still standing there, was really built by Egyptian pharaohs. And then centuries after the fact, the responsible name were changed to Solomon?
The Controversy over David and Solomon
As discussed in the current November 2015 issue of Discover magazine (Witness to Armageddon, Weintraub), archaeological debate about the nature of David’s and Solomon’s existence is still raging on in Palestine. The central issue is the precise dating of the “red brick layers” which appear at Israel Finkelstein’s dig at Tel Megiddo. These are ostensibly the last Canaanite layers, before the layer which is presumed to be Solomon’s, based on its refined ashlar palaces. Because of extensive destructive fires in the red brick layers, Finkelstein and his opposition are waging a scientific war to prove whether or not the dating can fit the chronology. In addition the article states: “… King Solomon, might have no earthly foot-print inside the tel. That “would change the entire understanding of the history of Israel,” Finkelstein wrote in [the journal] Levant.”
Whatever the case with the dating, these archaeological finds cannot come close to matching the opulent majesty depicted for David and (especially) Solomon of the Old Testament. And aside from cryptic finds such as the Tel Dan inscription, there is little to connect these layers with the two famous Judaean rulers. By contrast, the evidence of Egyptian influence seems much stronger to us. For example, consider the slab inscription of the Tanis pharaoh Sheshonq’s, found at Megiddo – and of whom we and others consider to be the real Solomon. As such, we claim that archaeological results strongly support our textual analysis that the two ‘legendary’ kings were heavily fictionalized tropes with a role to play in the massive historical propaganda of the Old Testament.
In our view, David and Solomon should mostly be seen as fictive avatars for the pharaohs, and early examples of ‘predictive programming’. We find Solomon constantly engaged in supernatural ‘occult’ practices, including the use of such to build his fairy temple. This aspect should be a clue to a dialectic bugaboo for normatively Christian conspiracy wonks, such as ‘Vigilant Citizen‘. That is, Freemasonry’s very foundational mythos revolves around this very biblical ‘hero’, a putative ancestor of Jesus. For a Christian to be upset about ‘the Illuminati’, is failing to see the forest for the cedar trees. If you think there is a problem with Freemasonry, then what should this be telling you about the entire biblical construct … and our general society which is based upon such deceptive nonsense? Jesus of Nazareth is just another avatar for the historic Caesars and today’s veiled ‘powers that be. Moreover, all are avatars for the static caste system, and for the overwhelming power of winner-take-all hierarchy. Welcome to Wonderland where nothing ‘is’ as it seems, as even Bill Clinton will tell you. With respect to Clinton, and also to Caesar Augustus (who gave us today’s proper Family Values), we are told to pay attention to what they say, and not notice what they do.
Modern archaeology is now telling us that the Canaanite cum Hebrews were really lower class individuals that escaped their serfdom and slavery of their Canaanite city-state overlords, when those systems broke down. They created their own egalitarian communities in the highlands of Palestine. As such, hating dynastic kings, they periodically voted themselves temporary leaders, called ‘judges’ to handle exigent emergency situations. But yet, in a relatively short period of time, just like the later republican Romans, they end up with the dynastic kingship that they deplore.
In fact, the OT narratives ironically tell us that David and Solomon were detested by the common people, for their overbearing big government, high taxes, and forced labor. Nevertheless, via induced schizophrenia and vanity Christians and Jews generally salute these two kings yet today as cultural heroes, with Christians even hailing these adulterous occult icons as sacred ancestors of their Christ. And if ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ was an embellished version of a real man, or an amalgam of real men, then perhaps David and Solomon were also composite characters. In this case, they may have been Canaanite vassal kings with pharaonic attributes grafted in. Whatever the reality, we suggest that this is yet another example of elite co-optation of reform movements as was discussed in prior posts.
As with Marx’s obfuscating co-optation, this is the way social reforms, in general, work (or, rather, fail to work .. on purpose). Legitimate reforms are frequently, if not almost always, co-opted by the powerful interests that stand to lose. And in performing a proper co-optation, it is best to steal the name of the original movement, so as to enhance one’s faux legitimacy.
We also notice that supernatural miracles and theophanies more or less end at Solomon’s time. This is another clue that David and Solomon are avatars, and the story is not to be taken literally. It is also an indication that when these tales were redacted into their current form, they had been retrojected into a past far enough that no one alive could gainsay the miracles. This does not repeat until Jesus’ time, when the next paradigm installment was grafted in. The Gospels were probably written in 80 AD or later, but retrojected at least two generations back in time.
In the Jewish War and the suppression of the Bar Kochba revolt, the Romans won a stunning military victory over Second Temple Judaism. This was followed by the even more stunning propaganda victory of the Flavian New Testament, extending not only over Judaism but also over all other Hellenistic liberal trends. Feudal Christian (read Roman Catholic) society became a fixed caste system once again. And to demonstrate how such matters do devolve, we only need examine the brutal slave practices of Catholics, Protestants, and Talmudic Jews in the New World in the more recent centuries. Such practices were ‘justified’ by spurious appeals to the Old and New Testament canons. (This is after the Apostle Paul, a purported Roman citizen and Jew, had told the slaveowners of his day to treat their slaves kindly and for slaves to obey their masters.)
Since the invention of the printing press and the so-called Reformation and Enlightenment, the Catholic elites and their many heirs have been struggling to keep the genies of ‘liberty’ and ‘egalitarianism’ in the bottle. The freed serfs of Europe, fleeing trumped-up religious wars, made their way to America where they could patriotically enjoy their new ‘freedom’, occupying conquered land that ‘Providence’ conveniently provided. (But remember that ancient Roman slaves who became ‘freedmen’ were still required to behave faithfully with regard to their former owner, the patrone, lest their ‘freedom’ be revoked.)
In today’s global battleground between ‘slavery’ vs. ‘freedom’, the seemingly massive American middle class victory of so-called progressive liberalism and modernity has been pyrrhic. Since its apex it has been systematically undercut by the traditionalists, the elites or their unwitting minions, who want a return to the ancien regime, by one means or the other. Deceived ‘Libertarians’ cheer unrestrained capitalism’s “race to the bottom”, with its utilization of the global labor pool’s nearly endless supply of wage slaves. Ronald Reagan’s biblical ‘shining city on a hill’ was an illusion created by massive debt and monetary manipulation, disguising the beginning of the figurative whoosh (presciently made famous by H. Ross Perot) of jobs and factories leaving for parts Communist. American fundamentalists may yet see this as a redux of the epic clash between the nationalist Zealots and the globalizing Herodians and their Roman friends.
But due to the incredible psychological strength of false ‘identity’, we constantly find the sad ironies of people who don’t have the proper frameworks to characterize themselves properly within the widest societal spectrum. Hence one person’s conservative is another’s relative liberal or vice-versa, a collective form of induced multiple personality disorder. And with this, peoples’ world and cosmoviews, their figurative houses, are built upon sand. And we know what Jesus said about that, right? As such, these people can’t figure out which side their political and economic bread, unleavened or not, is buttered on; and thus are easy fodder for both the cannons and the canons.
Religion, the Primary Control Mechanism
Today’s religious fundamentalists are well aware that religion can be wielded as a means for social control. They would only like to see more such power in their own hands, and less in the hands of ‘Satanic Illuminati’ popular culture. In reality, the actual controllers work both sides, in a manner not unlike the famous man behind the curtain, the Wizard of Oz. The difference between Postflavians and religious fundamentalists is that we believe that human agency has designed and revealed their loving and violently jealous and genocidal God, and their Satan too. As such, it is past time to pull back the curtain and reveal how this globally ambitious system works and how it has been constructed.
From Polybius, a 2nd century BCE Greek student of Roman institutions:
My own opinion at least is that the Romans have adopted this course of propagating religious awe for the sake of the common people. It is a course which perhaps would not have necessary had it been possible to form a state composed of wise men, but as every multitude is fickle, full of lawless desires, unreasoned passion, and violent anger, the multitude must be held by invisible terrors and such like pageantry. For this reason, I think, not that the ancients acted rashly and at haphazard in introducing among the people notions concerning the gods and beliefs in the terrors of hell, but that the moderns are most rash and foolish in banishing such beliefs. (6.56.9) from the translation of W. R. Paton, LCL
We agree that organized religion was, and still is, exoterically provided for the deceptional control of the common man. We also suspect that the field of philosophy, as a separate ‘intellectual’ sister branch from that of religion, may have had its origins as a proto-Cynical shamanic counter to the nascent ‘state’ religions of the new agrarian societies. The Jesus of the Sermon on the Mount, echoing a long tradition of itinerant Cynic philosophy, argued that pursuit of wealth was folly, and similar ‘subversive’ aphorisms from the elite’s perspective.
But the mainstream of philosophy eventually developed into a discipline suited only for the elites with sufficient leisure time to ponder. Wealthy Stoics and Epicureans developed an opposite perspective from that of the Cynics. Thus, one eventually arrives at the critical figure of Plato, whose highly sophisticated, Pythagorian based thought provided a justification for a rigid, hierarchical caste system. Platonic thought also found its way deeply into Christianity via the assistance of a professedly pious Alexandrian Jew by the name of Philo. His nephew, Tiberius Julius Alexander, commanded a Roman legion against the Jews of Palestine in the campaign led by the Flavians. Let this be another clue to what is being discussed here, i.e. don’t judge a gentile or Jew by his ‘cover’.
With the Gospels and Josephus, the elite Caesarian Romans and elite Jews covertly adopted the mantle of a pacified Jewish messiah, whose message was to “render unto Caesar …”, while his sidekick Paul told slaveowners to be kind to their slaves. This dark comedic masterpiece, masquerading as divinely ‘good’ inspiration, has indeed stood the test of time, having withstood literally centuries of critical analysis before being definitively decrypted by Shakespeare, and now Joe Atwill. It has ‘truly’ been ‘good’ for some and horrific for others, as the rule and not the exception.
The remaining legacy of all this literary didgeridoo is that so many of the dominant Christian peoples, of all sects and even those of lapsed faith, are still obsessed with those persistent ‘deniers of Christ’. Some strongly embrace them and become Christian Zionists, while others still blame them (or their typological substitutes, the Islamics) for all the Western world’s problems. As we discussed in Peoples of the Flavian Book, the blaming aspect is all baked into the theological cake from the time of St. Augustine. The Roman Catholic form of Christianity defined itself in dialectic opposition to Judaism, to such a degree that many popes and theologians explicitly informed the faithful that they needed the Jews as proper negative examples of the consequences of denying Christ. Therefore, ‘please don’t kill too many of them’. The Church may have officially softened its tone in the last few decades, but the ship turns slowly. Perhaps things will change eventually, but possibly too late to help the Jews, who might meet the fate of previous “heretics” such as the Cathars.
James Carroll, a former Paulist Catholic priest, explained all this in his Constantine’s Sword. However, he presents this dialectic contrast as the unintended and unfortunate consequence of early Christian efforts, to help protect themselves from Roman eyes, to differentiate themselves from the troublesome nationalistic and xenophobic Jews of the day. Would that this were the case; however, in light of Caesar’s Messiah, this argument does not hold water.
Another form of this obsession with the Jews is the proposition that today Jews have risen to ultimate and exclusive power, and have chosen to bite the goy hand that has well fed them. Ironically, this viewpoint is sometimes held by even those that accept that Christianity itself was an elite Judeo-Roman collaboration. Although this ethnic reversal is sometimes overtly proclaimed, a more popular version leaves this potentially anti-Semitic component simmering under the surface. Instead, the problems are blamed on bankers, or the media, or the Satanic Illuminati. However, (wink wink), ‘everyone knows’ that all of these elements are ultimately under the control of Jewish Kabbalist elites. Well, even if this is the case, that still leaves vast swathes of the modern power structure, including the political system, industrial corporations, and religious hierarchies, unaccounted for.
And since the original Israelites and Judeans were typical Canaanites, and that the roots of the Judaic Kabbalah extend back to the older Mesopotamian culture and was widespread across Eurasia long before the Jewish synthesis, we have yet another straw man added to the false dialectic.
The True Meaning of ‘Gentilism’
If the entire concept of Judaism is a darkly humorous construct, the same is true of the concept of ‘Gentilism’. In times gone by, the proper order in the social hierarchy was that of nobility, gentility, Jew, tradesman, and finally peasant or serf. Women of all castes (except for maybe the very top) were merely contractual baby makers, domestic engineers — in other words, chattel. Fundamentally, the original etymological concept of ‘Gentile’ was that of nobility and aristocratic (landed) entitlement. To be a ‘gentile’ was to be a ‘gentleman’, as opposed to a laborer or other peasant. This is a hard concept for contemporary humanity to grasp now, because we have all been conditioned to consider Westerners as either Gentile or Jewish.
The present-day misunderstanding of Gentilism has been facilitated by confusion of the term ‘Gentile’ as an equivalent to the Hebrew term ‘Goyim’, which does indeed mean all nations aside from Jews. Those of us “Caucasians” who are not Jews see ourselves as descended from stout Greek, Roman, Nordic, or Anglo-Saxon roots. That is, to be Gentile is to be White, which is quite distinct from the vaguely oriental sources of ‘Semitic’ Judaism. (The place of Africans, Chinese and other non-Westerners is conveniently left undefined.)
Moreover, we are now supposedly all liberally emancipated from the ancien regime of truly traditional class (caste) values, even if we are of Jewish or peasant stock. And in so long now having had our vanity stroked, in believing that we are all ‘gentiles’, we have long lost touch with this reality and its implications. We are all equals now… or are we?
Here, it might be helpful to consider more deeply the esoteric meaning of the movie Jupiter Ascending which was reviewed by us here. With Jupiter Ascending, in the Abra-axis [sic] we have an apex family so distantly elite that humanity cannot even comprehend the Abraxis family’s existence. In an analogous way, if we cannot fathom the literary and other linkages between the Homeric, Judaic, and Roman core cultural bases — including that of Livy, Virgil, Horace, Jesus, Paul, Josephus Flavius, Philo, and his most exemplary uncle Tiberius Alexander — not to mention their modern-day equivalents, we will find the elite are beyond our comprehension.
Polybius, from his 2nd century BCE perch, could hardly foretell the shenanigans of these later individuals. But he at least understood the formative concept, if not the true motivation. Stating that elites’ machinations are only being done for the ultimate good of humanity is belied by the staggering amounts of evidence to the contrary. Con men always say that they are doing their marks a favor.
There are many faux Gentiles, and even many faux Jews (Latter Day – Ashkenazi Khazars or otherwise), who have partially awakened to the manifold problems that have been created for most of humanity by this system. Nevertheless, they are still as yet unable to break out of the final mental box, or peel the last layer(s) of the ‘truth’ onion, to discern that the human shepherds have been having great and profitable fun pitting them against each other. These shepherds, the true ‘Gentiles’, are gradually ‘harmonizing’ the globe, just as is explicitly stated to be the common goal of our religious canons. In doing so, they are only continuing the earlier Hellenizing campaign of Alexander the Great, and the conquests of his great and jealous admirer, Julius Caesar. This is why we maintain the classy ‘Greek’ system at our modern day gymnasia, the modern day universities.
Comparing and contrasting Homer vs. the Old Testament
On the Greek and Roman side of the conflict, the defining documents were the Homeric corpus, including the tales of Castor and Pollux and their typological parallels, Romulus and Remus. These collectively formed a sort of bible to the Greco-Roman world until they were supplanted by the New Testament. In fact, Homeric typology is found in the gospels as well as typology from the Old Testament. (See Dennis R. Macdonald’s The Gospels and Homer.)
Helen, in the highly embellished Homeric epic, wonders where her Spartan hatchling brothers, Castor and Pollux, are in regards to helping to ‘rescue’ her from Troy. Unbeknownst to her, they are already dead, having been killed by their cattle rustling cousins for considering how to steal their previously stolen cattle. With their seemingly ignominious deaths, Castor and Pollux thus become the Greco-Roman’s premier religious saviors of that age. From our modern perspective, their heroism may not be so obvious. But in that ancient context, retribution was the key.
Question then: did Helen really need or want to be rescued, or was all this a fictional ruse, perhaps all in order to ‘frame’ Classical minds? For one thing, we can likely doubt that Helen and her brothers were really hatched from eggs. And if not, did she really “launch a thousand ships”? Who cares, you say? Well, what really matters is that the Greeks, too, have come to drink the Jonestown KoolAide, and falsely believe the Hellenistic version of a Chosen vanity device. Now they have been subtly ‘framed’ to identify with the dubious ends of their masters.
It is now believed that Heinrich Schliemann discovered the ancient city of Troy on the Hisarlik mound in today’s Turkey. However, the site does not generally impress one that such an ‘epic’ invasion and siege could, or would, last as long as it was reported by Homer in his Iliad. For one thing, the logistics for such a decade plus long endeavor (and for that many men) would indeed be staggering. The warriors would be away too long from their domestic livelihoods, and unable to support their families. Troy seems more likely a convenient, dramatically diversionary trope, and indeed this is the whole propaganda purpose of ‘epic’ narrative. Grandly portrayed as such by Hollywood, it works even better.
Could there also be such exaggeration in the book said to be the ‘greatest ever produced’ — namely, the Holy Bible? Well, obviously so; and here we can start with the fact that the so-called Pentateuch has epic style, (disguised) mythos, and other parallels similar to both the Homeric works and the works discovered on the clay tablets of the Ugarites, Semites to the north of Canaan. (For details, see Cyrus Gordon & Gary Rendsburg, The Bible and the Ancient Near East, pp. 315-326.) Thus, the (false) attribution of this work to Moses’ authorship is just another ‘heroic’ exaggeration.
As further explained in Cyrus H. Gordon’s 1965 book, The Common Background of Greek and Hebrew Civilization, the Ugaritic clay tablets tell an epic tale of King Kret, who lost his wife Hurrai and went on an exaggerated military quest to recover her. Gordon sees manifest similarities, both to the Homeric epic in which Helen of Troy is retrieved from peril, and to the tale of Abraham who must recover his wife Sarai from both the Pharaoh of Egypt, and from King Abimelech of Gerar. However, we would suggest that perhaps the military component has been cleverly broken out from the Ugaritic precedent and applied to Lot’s abduction by Chedorlaomer, the king of Elam. Other researchers have noted ‘Trojan Wars’ being said to have played out all the way from the Baltic Sea region to the Egyptian Nile. The French city of Troyes seems to memorialize this phenomenon in that region. We suggest that this is no coincidence, but rather a ubiquitous elite modus operandi for the general time.
But there are some important differences in outlooks between the Greek and the Jewish canons, curiously involving their treatments of time and sin. Ancient Greek works, including Homer’s, have an ahistorically timeless sensibility. The Greeks, like their gods, had some notions of right and wrong, but their values were quite detached from our understandings of ethics. With the Judaic sensibility, there is a strong sense of historical events following one after another. The reader of ancient Judaic works is inclined to see a pious need to conform to their demanding god’s strictures, so as to fit himself properly into the divine order and its linear flow of time. This is not to say that the epics’ Jewish ethics are congruent with modern sensibilities either. Guile was explicitly admired then, while we operate on the “wink, wink, nod, nod” system today. In any case, we find that, at least by the time of Augustus, if not before, the Romans adopted the Jewish sensibilities rather than the Greek. This created a seemingly incongruous rift in the concept of so-called ‘Greco-Roman Culture’. (See Hadas, pp. 54-56.)
With the elite Roman and Jewish fusion of Christianity, this Jewish concept of time and pious morality (as opposed to secular morality) has carried through to the present day. Perhaps this explains why the Christian canon has been grafted onto the back of the Jewish one – for continuity of linear time, for ‘historical’ legitimacy, and for pious moral justification’s sake. The foundational mythos of the Romans, from Virgil’s Aeneid, as well as the historical works of Livy (the neo-Levite?) are little but a mosaic of Mosaic typology. As the Jewish canon elevated the Jews to a Chosen Elect status, so did the works of Virgil and Livy for the Romans. The later Christians retain this fused legacy via the Second Covenant. (Hadas, pp. 57-58.) All of their respective global ambitions are also inseparable. Virgil has even been adopted as an honorary Christian … because it logically makes perfect sense!
Who might have had the means, motive and opportunity to create and exploit this primary Western Identity dialectic? If we are not to superficially accept its authorship at its divine face value, then we must, by default, look to others. Using the model of The Wizard of Oz we must look for those who wish their identities to be kept veiled (occulted). Or perhaps the authors intended to be confused with dependably more expendable others, who for a price, and via having their Suffering Servant vanity being stroked sufficiently, were only too happy to claim credit for various nefarious events.
In this search, we will sardonically discover that most all of the clues to discovery were left in place, just as with the textual interlinking of Josephus with the New Testament Gospels. These clues are probably only obvious once they have been pointed out. With this we shall begin our examination of the Old Testament, from Abraham almost until Christ Titus’s time.
Don’t Gore Our Oxen .. Just Yet
Before going on too far, and in light of what could appear as a general attack “life as we know it”, we would be absurdly remiss if we did not acknowledge our relative happiness with being part of the contemporary Western World, with some caveats of course. This, as opposed to being a part of the ancient ‘Heroic Age’, where the contextual meaning of such as a ‘hero’ has dramatically different modern meaning today than the oligarchical elitist context of then. Like everyone else on this ‘boat’ we are the product of several thousand years of painful struggles by our ancestors, and our examination here is looking into just how the painful process got started. As such, we are not calling for ‘throwing the baby out with the bathwater’.
Ironically, many of today’s major problems are framed as struggles between modernity on the one hand, and on the latter hand the traditional values that drug us through the good old days of such as serfdom and slavery. Today’s debauched so-called Conservatives were yesterday’s debauched Liberals, who for the most part would be screaming bloody murder if they really had to return to the traditional ways of the ancien regime, which has ever reacted against our collective, long divisive struggle to leave Plato’s Cave. Getting out of that cave is a process where our blinkered perspectives must necessarily change as we get ever closer to the goal.
And unfortunately those climbing the cave walls beside us sometimes look like our enemies, and so here we must acknowledge our debt to all the Islamic scholars of yore who maintained ancient texts lost to the light of the Christian regime, and to all the Judaic scholars who have similarly followed the courageous path of looking for rational truth under as many rocks as possible (except perhaps within Shem’s tents). In a direct sense, without many of the latter we could not have reached our conclusions here.
Revision history: This is the first revision of the original post, which appeared Aug. 20, 2015. The authors have attempted to improve the readability, and to provide better contextual support of the various details discussed. The original post is here.
Readers of this website who have studied Gregory Bateson and the art of black propaganda, or for that matter have understood the Flavians’ purpose in creating the Gospels as a pacifist message to radical Jews, will understand that the perceived bona fides of the information source are crucial to the effectiveness of the message. That is, the audience must believe that the source is one of their own, and is working in their benefit.
Noting that “Shakespeare” seems to have been a nom de plume, many skeptics have suspected a hidden motive for the plays, and focused their efforts on resolving the “authorship question”. However, from a black propaganda perspective: even if the Stratford man did not write the plays, still it is important to understand who he was; and (just as important) who he was perceived to be.
In Shadowplay (2005), Clare Asquith presents a spirited argument, not only that the Stratford man was Catholic, but that the plays were filled with coded messages that would have been transparently obvious to the beleaguered Catholics of the Elizabethan era.
To understand Asquith’s point of view, it is crucial to realize that the Protestant vs Catholic dialectic had taken center stage in Elizabethan England, contrary to textbook illusions that the English had promptly, universally and enthusiastically rejected all the trappings of ‘popery’. In reality, the situation was perhaps analogous to what would pertain in America if after every election, the winning party outlawed the losers, beheaded the opposing party leadership, and made it illegal to possess, alternately, red items or blue. Of course all the underlying disagreements, hatreds and fears can only be exacerbated by such events. In England, the entire country had been flipped from Catholicism to Protestantism under Henry VIII in 1533, back to Catholicism under ‘Bloody Mary’ in 1553, and flipped again in 1558, with turmoil and bloodshed at each turn. In the wake of Elizabeth’s accession, many Catholics in England remained emotionally committed to the old religion and its traditions (though not necessarily to the Pope himself) and some looked abroad to Philip II for rescue.
It was not illegal simply to exist as a Catholic in Elizabethan England — but it was, at least nominally, illegal to possess a rosary or other paraphernalia, to be a priest or harbor a priest, or to fail to attend Protestant church services. In many situations, a loyalty oath to the Crown as head of the church was expected. Stephanie Mann in “Supremacy and Survival: how Catholics endured the English Reformation” estimated that “During Elizabeth’s reign, 189 Catholics, 128 of them priests, were martyred for their faith.” Although a fearful total, this indicates that the vast majority of English Catholics survived the sustained purge without undergoing this ultimate penalty. Inasmuch as it was impossible to kill all the Catholics, it was necessary to convert them; a process in which I am arguing ‘Shakespeare’ played a major role.
In his essay Bardgate, Peter Dickson also notes “a growing suspicion among scholars who sense that the man from Stratford-on-Avon might have been living a ‘double life’ as a secret Roman Catholic.” According to Dickson, possibly the most notable biography supporting this viewpoint is Shakespeare: The Evidence (1994), in which author Ian Wilson cited the following:
1 The explicitly Catholic-style testament of John Shakespeare, the Stratford man’s father. Chapter 4 (44-58)
2 The fact that John Shakespeare’s name appears on the recusancy list for March 1592 (123) and the Stratford man’s daughter (Susanna) on a similar list for April 20, 1606 (320)
3 The Stratford man’s marriage to Ann Hathaway in Temple Grafton in 1582 in what appears to have been a Catholic ceremony (57)
4 The Stratford man in 1585 naming his twins after Hamnet and Judith Sadler, a couple well-known as Catholics (58)
5 The Bard’s dedications to the Earl of Southampton, who was raised a Catholic until age 8, but later became a staunch Protestant, a fact Wilson ignores (136-137)
6 “Shakespeare’s” impresa design in 1613 for the Earl of Rutland, whose Catholic orientation is overstated by Wilson (371)
7 The warning on the Stratford man’s tomb not to move his bones in violation of the Protestant practice of removing bones for storage after a period of time (394-396)
8 The Stratford man’s ties to Warwickshire Catholic families, some of which were deeply involved in the Gunpowder Plot of 1605, drawing on research by Leslie Hotson and Peter Levi (314-320, 453- 455, 485)
9 Thomas Combe and William Reynolds, two Catholics who appear in the Stratford man’s will (391)
10 A note from the 1660s by Richard Davies, chaplain at Corpus Christi (Oxford), that the Bard “dyed a Papist” (410-411)
11 A Benedictine tradition that the Bard received the last rites of the Catholic Church (397, 450).
12 Purchase by Shakespeare in March 1613 of the Blackfriars Gatehouse, a haven in London for secret Catholics, three of whom (John Jackson, William Johnson, and John Robinson) appear as co-trustees or leaseholders of the property––Robinson also appearing in the Stratford man’s will of 1616 (372- 376, 396-297, 418)
An essay by Richard Wilson, “Shakespeare and the Jesuits“, collects the evidence that the Stratford man, who we will call ‘Shagsper’, spent some part of the “first lost years” from 1578 to 1582 in Lancashire under the alias of “William Shakeshafte”, in the company of Edmund Campion and Alexander Hoghton — where he became “a member of a household which was for six months, it seems, nothing less than the secret college and headquarters of the English Counter-Reformation.” The connections made there in Lancashire may have helped ‘Shagsper’ find his next position.
Sometime around 1590, ‘Shagsper’ joined the acting company of “Lord Strange’s Men” in London, and the plays which were later published under the name of ‘Shakespeare’ began to appear. The company’s patron, Ferdinando Stanley (Lord Strange, Earl of Derby), was suspected of being the beneficiary of Catholic plots to place him on the throne. The company itself was noted for its production of politically controversial plays. Later on, many actors from “Strange’s Men” went on to join the “Lord Chamberlain’s Men”. In 1598, the company moved their operation to the Globe Theater in Southwark, a neighborhood which Asquith describes as a “dissident powerhouse“. The area was under the protection of Magdalen Montague, who was oddly able to overtly practice a pious Catholicism until her death in 1608 in an era when such practices would normally have led to serious penalties. She and her family used their considerable resources in patronage to other Catholics (such as ‘Shagsper’) whose loyalties were only thinly veiled in deference to the Elizabethan police.
Considering this network of connections, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that savvy Catholics of that era might have looked to the “Shakespeare” plays for secret Catholic messages. Of course, if anyone at that time had recognized that such messages were contained therein, they would in turn have referred to them in veiled terms which have gone undetected up until now, at least as far as I am aware. This is an area for future scholarship. Meanwhile, as these biographical hints have emerged, enterprising Catholic scholars have likewise been re-examining the plays, looking for a pro-Catholic subtext. Asquith’s Shadowplay is possibly the most ambitious of these efforts. Asquith fruitfully covers the entire Shakespearean corpus, and other such works have also appeared. Again, it is beyond the scope of this article to review all of Shakespeare’s work in this context; our goal is simply to study Titus Andronicus as it relates to the Flavian Gospel dialectic as well as the Catholic-Protestant dialectic.
Atwill argues that the true author of the plays (or, at least, the most important person among the authorship team) was Emilia Bassano, an ethnically Jewish woman who is known as the first female to have registered a poem for publication in England. Atwill shows that several Shakespearean plays contain a typological level which inverts the Flavian comic system hidden in Josephus and the New Testament. In this inverted typology, a Jewish person (or, occasionally, a ‘friar’ or some other nominally Christian person) causes the Gentiles to murder and cannibalize one another, reversing the ancient scenario in which the Jews were forced to engage in cannibalism by the Romans in the Jewish war. The scenario sometimes concludes with a Jewish person grafted into the Gentile royal lineage, inverting the Romans’ insertion of their own lineage into the Maccabee (Jewish royal) line. Viewed at this level, the Shakespearean literature may be seen as Jewish revenge literature, making Emilia Bassano a highly plausible authorship candidate.
As I mentioned above: in Shadowplay, Clare Asquith detects a partisan pro-Catholic allegorical level in the Shakespearean literature. While at first glance this seems contradictory to Atwill’s position in Shakespeare’s Secret Messiah, at least it can be said that Catholicism and Judaism both suffered severely as targets of the Elizabethan police state, and followers of both were forced underground to survive during Elizabeth’s reign. Accordingly, both Catholic and Jewish authors would have had good reason to use veiled language to convey their messages. Since England had been so recently and so rudely converted from near-universal Catholicism, of course there was a much larger potential audience for materials dealing with the Protestant-Catholic dialectic. Also, the English elite identified themselves as “British Israel“, beginning as early as Henry VIII; so Atwill’s “Jewish” protagonists might actually represent the Elizabethan court’s own view of themselves, variously as ‘Jewish’, Jesuit, or other strong-armed characters.
In the book, Asquith discusses a number of Elizabethan authors, including Edmund Campion, Robert Persons, Robert Southwell, Philip Sydney, Robert Chester, Edmund Spenser, Ben Johnson, and Thomas Kid, and argues that all of them participated in developing a hidden, coded style of subversive literature sympathetic to Roman Catholicism. This “plausibly deniable” literature, according to Asquith, reached its highest expression in the Shakespearean works. It is beyond the scope of this article to go into detail regarding this development process, but the reader is encouraged to go to Asquith’s book for further information about the related material.
Atwill states that of all the Shakespeare plays, the Flavian typology in Titus Andronicus is the most transparent, with dense and highly interpretable parallels to the Flavian comic system. In fact, its very title is an homage to the typological ‘savior’ of the Flavian system. This was the play that first alerted Atwill to this aspect of the Shakespearean literature.
In Shadowplay, Asquith also argues that Titus Andronicus is an ideal starting point for understanding Shakespeare’s Catholic symbolic framework. Asquith wrote:
Denial is the word that best sums up the later critical reaction to Titus Andronicus. How could Shakespeare have written such a terrible play? Terrible in every sense: not only do its many digressions make it appear, in the words of one seventeenth-century critic, ‘rather a heap of Rubbish than a Structure’, but it is embarrassingly tasteless, alternating obscure debates with bouts of sadistic violence…
Many scholars have tried to prove that Shakespeare was not the author, but the consensus is that the play is unmistakably his, foreshadowing the themes of later dramas and closely related to the poems he wrote at the time. The current approach is that it was an experimental early work, and much ingenuity has gone into proving that it must have been written in the late 1580s or very early 1590s. However, the playhouse records mark it as ‘new’ in 1594, when Shakespeare was producing his most sophisticated work; and indeed there is a puzzling sophistication within the brutal framework of Titus Andronicus.
One of the revelations of the coded readings is that Shakespeare’s ‘bad’ work always has a purpose, albeit a purpose that relates to a topical context we no longer recognize. Of all his plays, Titus depends the most completely for an appreciation of its high degree of artistry on an awareness of the forgotten history of the times. It is the first of Shakespeare’s ‘Roman’ plays, all of which are directed primarily at the Catholic community. Like The Rape of Lucrece, though in more sensational style, it dramatizes the sufferings of England up to the year 1594; and the strange plot has clearly been devised around the hidden message — a passionate plea to the country’s dissidents to refrain from violent rebellion in spite of the now intolerable pressure, and to await the promised invasion. This message is identical to the instructions from Catholic leaders abroad, who repeatedly promised that diplomacy or invasion would one day bring rescue.
(The above, and all following quotes from Asquith, are found in pp. 90-101 of her book.)
For a reader who is alert to techniques of black propaganda, this message “to refrain from violent rebellion in spite of the now intolerable pressure” looks like yet another gambit drawn from the typical playbook. That is, a diversionary message that benefits the status quo. So should we consider this Shakespearean literature as truly pro-Catholic, or is it a false flag propaganda attack against the dissidents?
In the remainder of this post, we will reprise the analysis of Titus Andronicus presented in Shakespeare’s Secret Messiah. Additionally, we will discuss Asquith’s discoveries, and show how they interact with Atwill’s earlier observations to produce a richer understanding.
Plot Summary
The plot is based on a struggle between the Romans and the Goths, who have been at war as the story begins. Although the Goths and Romans fought a series of wars throughout the fourth through sixth centuries, which ultimately led to the downfall of the Western Roman Empire, the plot of Titus Andronicus is not in any way a historically accurate view of any of those wars. On the contrary, as Asquith and Atwill would certainly agree, Titus only becomes coherent when it is taken allegorically.
As the story begins, the warrior Titus Andronicus, victoriously returning to Rome, brings a group of defeated Goths in tow. The Goth royal family’s eldest son is brutally and gratuitously sacrificed to the memory of Romans who died in battle, as Tamora (Queen of the Goths) and her sons vow revenge.
Titus has been elected as the new emperor by the citizens. However, he yields the throne to Saturninus, the eldest son of the previous emperor. He then announces that his daughter Lavinia shall be betrothed to Saturninus. Titus is humiliated when Lavinia, already pledged to be wed to her lover Bassianus (brother to Saturninus), flees with Bassianus in defiance of Titus’ command. Saturninus, seemingly as much satisfied as humiliated, turns to Tamora, the Queen of the Goths, to be his bride instead.
At this point, Aaron the moor emerges as a central character. Captured in battle along with the Goths, he proclaims that he is Tamora’s lover, and that he will cuckold the Emperor and become the ruination of the commonwealth. Tamora and her sons, Demetrius and Chiron, become his willing and eager accomplices. They murder Bassianus, frame two of Titus’s sons for the crime, and have them executed. Aaron tricks Titus into allowing him to chop his hand off. Titus seemingly descends into madness.
Lucius, Titus’s only surviving son, goes in search of an army to complete the cycle of revenge. His men discover Aaron with a black child who he has sired with Tamora. With the rescuing army at hand, Titus murders Demetrius and Chiron, bakes their bodies into a pie, and serves them at a banquet. In the subsequent melee, Tamora, Titus and Saturninus are killed. Lucius emerges as the new Emperor, and Aaron is buried alive, but his child is spared.
Inversion of Flavian Gospel Typology
In a strikingly original interpretation, Joseph Atwill observed that the plot of Titus Andronicus is a reversal of the Gospel scenario, in which the Jewish royal line is ‘pruned’, the Jews are tricked into cannabalizing their Messiah, and the Roman dynasty is ‘grafted’ onto the ‘Root of Jesse’, and its spawn, the House of David. Thus, the emperor Titus Flavius becomes the new Christ. In TitusAndronicus, it is the Roman and Gothic lines that are ‘pruned’, their sons are cannibalized, and a Jewish ‘graft’ is inserted into the royal lineage.
Titus Andronicus and his brother Marcus are identified by ‘Shakespeare’ as the Flavians, Titus and Domitian, by a passage in which Marcus kills a fly with his knife (III, 2, 52-80) in a manner identical to Domitian (Suetonius, Domitian, 3). The name ‘Andronicus’ is familiar as another conqueror of Jerusalem identified in 2 Maccabees 4:30-38. Titus and his daughter Lavinia have their limbs lopped in a manner similar to the many descriptions of atrocities committed by the Romans against the Jews, as described in Josephus’ Wars.
Aaron the Moor is established as a type of Josephus, and his son as a type for the Messiah, by a scene in which the child is hung on a tree and then brought down by Aaron (V, 1) in a manner reminiscent of the story of Joseph of Aramathea in the New Testament, and its echo in Josephus (Vita, 26). Also, Aaron’s activity in seducing Tamora and thus cuckolding the emperor Saturninus recapitulates Josephus’ Decius Mundus puzzle (Antiquities 18.3.4) in which a man named Saturninus is the victim of a similar scheme.
While Atwill’s view is very well supported across the entire Shakespearean corpus, with many very explicit verbal parallels showing a deep understanding of the Flavian typology on the part of whatever person wrote the plays, at the same time the Atwill theory cannot necessarily explain every plot device and every aspect of character development. In many cases, ‘Shakespeare’ also seems to have inspiration from current events, even for major aspects of the plays.
In Titus Andronicus, for example, Atwill does not attempt to explain why the ‘Gentiles’ are divided into two major camps: the Romans versus the Goths. What does this conflict mean and why does it exist, aside from being the substrate for Aaron’s wickedness? The same problem exists for Atwill in several other plays — for example, Romeo and Juliet: if the Friar is the mastermind of evil, then what is the meaning of the conflict between Montague and Capulet? For Asquith, the answer is that the Romans in Titus, like the Montagues in Romeo, represent the Catholics; while the Goths, like the Capulets, are Protestants.
Romans vs. Goths
While Atwill sees the above characters and events as a typological reversal of the ancient Flavian Gospel narrative, Asquith sees the same text as a topical allegory of current events in Elizabethan England. She identifies Titus and his family as representations of the Roman Catholic church. Titus himself is ‘surnamed Pius’ (I,1,28) and the names of Marcus and Lucius are, of course, the Gospel authors. Lucius is said to have had “twenty popish tricks and ceremonies” (V,1,76). In the person of Titus’ daughter Lavinia, Asquith sees the lost and blameless spirituality of English Catholicism, symbolized as a light-colored deer. Lavinia is lamented in terms similar to “thousands of images of the Madonna and the saints… still being mutilated in this way all over England…. Titus compares the bleeding but strangely unmoved Lavinia specifically to a picture, and later to the broken arches of a ruined church that once sheltered royal tombs…. She is associated with common images of the takeover — Lucrece, Philomel, the plundered hives of the monasteries, ‘pillage’. As with the church, the ‘heavenly harmony’ of her music has been silenced. Her spouts of blood twice evoke the word ‘martyrdom’.” (Asquith, pp. 93-94)
If Titus’ family represents the Catholics, Asquith reasons, the dangerous Goths must represent the Protestants. In the play, Titus brings the Goths’ undying hatred upon his head by gratuitously giving the order for the execution of Tamora’s eldest son, Alarbus. He is given “Religiously” as a “sacrifice“. Titus’s four surviving sons, thirsting for blood, take Alarbus away swearing to “hew his limbs” and throw them into a fire “till they be clean consumed“. (I, 1, 138-146) Asquith says this is “an echo of the martyrdoms of Protestants under Mary when some were burned, others hanged, drawn and quartered“.
Titus is the people’s favorite, and has been justly elected to become the new emperor of Rome, but he chooses instead to honor the rules of dynastic succession. Thus he turns the throne over to Saturninus, an obviously unscrupulous and undeserving scoundrel. Asquith argues that “Shakespeare is dramatising a central argument from Persons’s “Conference About the Next Succession”: the dangerously radical proposition that the legitimate heir to the throne was not necessarily the right choice.” Compounding his errors, Titus attempts to sever a love match and a planned marriage between Bassianus and Lavinia, with the goal to force Lavinia to marry Saturninus, as his dynastic plans require. Thwarting Titus’ plan, Lavinia flees with Bassianus. Saturninus quickly betrays Titus’ trust by choosing Tamora, the Goth, as his bride and queen, instead of Lavinia. Thus, Titus himself has created the situation in which his own worst enemies are in a position of ultimate, unbridled power over his destiny. He has sealed his doom: by brutally murdering Tamora’s son, by choosing his successor unwisely, and by his hubris in thinking he can overrule the power of romantic love within his own family.
Hyper-Black and Hyper-White
If Asquith is correct that the Goths represent the Elizabethan royal court, then this was an “extraordinarily daring” literary gambit on the author’s part. The portrayal of the Goths in the play is hardly flattering. If Queen Elizabeth or her agents shared this view, their pique could easily have been sufficient to send the Stratford man to the gallows. (Unless, of course, ‘Shagsper’ was only pretending to be a Catholic, but was actually distributing black propaganda directed towards pacifying the Catholic population.)
Asquith argues that however daring this interpretation might be, it is also quite obvious. ‘Saturnus’ was a nickname of William Cecil, Elizabeth’s chief political advisor, Secretary of State, and Treasurer; while “her Moor who cannot change his color” was a title that Elizabeth bestowed upon her spymaster Francis Walsingham, on the occasion when he opposed her planned marriage to Francis duke of Anjou. As noted below, Aaron is also a moor who cannot change color. Asquith suggests that Aaron may be a compound character, also incorporating characteristics of Richard Topcliffe, a sadistic iconoclast who boasted that he slept with the Queen.
Saturninus’ reference to Tamora’s “hue”, his acknowledgement of her Germanic paleness and beauty, develops into a classical comparison of significant aesthetic value. Thus, he compares her with the pale goddess of the moon: “lovely Tamora, Queen of Goths, That like the stately Phoebe ’mongst her nymphs Dost over-shine the gallant’st dames of Rome” (I.i.315-320). Interestingly, Shakespeare appears to deconstruct complacency in automatically associating white with purity and beauty, by having Aaron, the black character, deride Tamora’s sons’ skin colour and the disadvantages this brings with it: “Why, there’s the privilege your beauty bears. Fie, treacherous hue, that will betray with blushing The close enacts and counsels of thy heart” (IV.ii.117-118). Instead, Aaron proudly seems to suggest that his skin colour matches up to the standards of beauty, conceived as fixed, ‘non-treacherous’, resistant and eternal: “Coal-black is better than another hue In that it scorns to bear another hue; For all the water in the ocean Can never turn the swan’s black legs to white Although she lave them hourly in the flood (IV.ii. 98-102).
The idea of pale, hyper-white Germanic “Goths” might suggest the foreign source of Lutheran and Calvinist ideas — an association that might have been obvious to the English of the time, even if ‘Shakespeare’ didn’t explicitly say so.
However, the black-white racial theme is not maintained without a sense of irony. Tamora, in the forest with Aaron and flirting amorously with him, compares herself and Aaron to (widow) Dido and her “wand’ring prince” (II, 3, 22). This is either a race or a gender reversal: Dido was Phoenician, while Aeneas was Trojan, that is, white. The comparison is also bizarre in that the relationship between Dido and Aeneas does not end happily. Later, Aaron, confronted with the birth of his black child, comes up with a scheme to prevent anyone from discovering what happened. Another blackamoor friend of his, Muliteus or Muley, has mated with a white woman, but their child is white. Aaron sends Chiron and Demetrius to this couple, carrying gold, hoping that a baby swap can be arranged. That way, a white child (carrying unexpressed black genetics) will be raised in the imperial family, while Muley will have a black baby to raise as his own (IV, 2, 150-164).
Ongoing Events of the Reformation
Following his murder, Bassianus’ body is thrown into a pit, and Titus’s sons are lured to fall into that same pit, leaving them in a highly incriminating position. A forged letter seals their doom. This pit is reminiscent of the famous dungeon of the Tower of London. Regarding Titus’s attempts to bargain to save his sons’ lives, Asquith writes:
This scene — where Titus loses his hand in exchange for two heads — reflects meek Catholic cooperation with the penal laws that banned priests and the Mass, laws that instead of leading to toleration were actually given new force by the 1591 ‘Proclamation against Recusants’. While presenting with physical accuracy Titus’s reaction to losing a hand, Shakespeare makes the scene historically accurate as well. In his secondary role as old England, Titus falls, a ‘feeble ruin’ while holding ‘one hand up to heaven’ (III, 1, 207-208), recalling the broken arches of the ruined abbeys. Next, his sighs and Lavinia’s dim the sky and blot out the sun, evoking smoke from the great fires rather than sighs. There follows one of Shakespeare’s most frequent images for the Reformation: Titus becomes a storm (‘I am the sea’) in which earth threatens heaven; and finally, retching was a metaphor used for the most awesome weather-event of Elizabeth’s reign, the earthquake of 1580, seen as a momentous physical symptom of the country’s spiritual upheavals. When Aaron returns the heads and the hand, adding insult to injury, Titus’s response is that of many in England: ‘When will this fearful slumber have an end’? (III, 1, 253).
Asquith contends that the play continues from this point forward as an exact allegory of the ongoing events of the English reformation. In Act III, scene 2, a sort of requiem mass is enacted by Titus in respect of the loss of Lavinia and his sons, suggesting “the claustrophobic world of Elizabethan catacomb Catholicism” of the early 1580’s. At the end of act III, Lucius, seeking revenge for his family’s losses, goes abroad to seek an army to regain the country — just as English Catholics looked abroad to help from Spain or France. Meanwhile, in Act IV, scene 2, young Lucius is inexplicably sent on an errand from Andronicus to bring “the goodliest weapons of his armoury” to the Goths, which Asquith relates to a tax on Catholic recusants that was used to fund a war against Irish Catholics, and later against the Spanish armada.
In Act IV, scene 3, Titus Andronicus and his family stand outside the royal compound and shoot arrows towards the Emperor’s court, with messages to the classical gods wrapped around them. They then meet with a clown, and task him with bringing a ‘supplication’ to the emperor, along with two pigeons and a dagger. The clown goes to meet the emperor, tells him that the message is from ‘God and Saint Stephen’, and reads out the ‘supplication’.
As Atwill points out, a ‘supplication’ was in Roman times a synonym for ‘Gospel’, that is, news of military victory. The two pigeons fulfill the requirement in Luke 2:24 that two pigeons be sacrificed at the birth of the Messiah. However, if Atwill’s interpretation of the text seems incomplete, perhaps it is because the playwright was constrained by a simultaneous goal of representing the continued flow of current events in Elizabethan England. Asquith argues that the volley of arrows carrying classical references represents Robert Southwell’s romantic pro-Catholic poetry of ~1589, while the Clown’s message represents his Humble Supplication of 1592, along with Richard Shelley’s petition for toleration. The Clown is killed for his efforts, as were Southwell and Shelley.
Saving Aaron’s Royal Child
As Aaron and his child stand before Lucius for judgment, Aaron now extracts the crucial pledge that his child will be allowed to live. As child of the empress, he will be the sole surviving claimant to the royal lineage (alongside Lucius and Young Lucius, whose claims seems to be political and spiritual rather than through regal descent.)
Aaron
Lucius, save the child, And bear it from me to the empress. If thou do this, I’ll show thee wondrous things, That highly may advantage thee to hear: If thou wilt not, befall what may befall, I’ll speak no more but ‘Vengeance rot you all!’
Lucius
Say on: an if it please me which thou speak’st Thy child shall live, and I will see it nourish’d.
Aaron
An if it please thee! why, assure thee, Lucius, ‘Twill vex thy soul to hear what I shall speak; For I must talk of murders, rapes and massacres, Acts of black night, abominable deeds, Complots of mischief, treason, villanies Ruthful to hear, yet piteously perform’d: And this shall all be buried by my death, Unless thou swear to me my child shall live.
Lucius
Tell on thy mind; I say thy child shall live.
Aaron
Swear that he shall, and then I will begin.
Lucius
Who should I swear by? thou believest no god: That granted, how canst thou believe an oath?
Aaron
What if I do not? as, indeed, I do not; Yet, for I know thou art religious And hast a thing within thee called conscience, With twenty popish tricks and ceremonies, Which I have seen thee careful to observe, Therefore I urge thy oath; for that I know An idiot holds his bauble for a god And keeps the oath which by that god he swears, To that I’ll urge him: therefore thou shalt vow By that same god, what god soe’er it be, That thou adorest and hast in reverence, To save my boy, to nourish and bring him up; Or else I will discover nought to thee.
Lucius
Even by my god I swear to thee I will. (V, 1)
The passage above is notable because it identifies Aaron as an atheist, while Lucius is a good (popish) Catholic who believes in God and keeps his oaths. Both Aaron and Josephus have questionable credentials as Jews: both seem lacking in any sense of moral compass, or respect for the Ten Commandments, much less the rest of Jewish law. Although Josephus claims to be a Jew, he moves with an uncanny degree of comfort within Roman imperial circles; persistent Internet rumors suggest that perhaps Josephus is really from the Roman Piso family. Whereas, according to Asquith, the Aaron character also represents the Machiavellian spymaster Francis Walsingham, whose namesake and distant cousin was a noted Jesuit priest.
Young Lucius carries Aaron’s child into the sunrise.
Asquith interprets the ‘royal child’ as a symbolic representation of the future religion of England, as a changeling offspring
To understand the symbolism in the next passage one needs to recognize the Freemasonic fascination with black and white. Checkerboard floors are a standard feature of Masonic temples, and indeed the third level of Freemasonry – the Master Mason – wears 
At left is a hand drawn poster to one of Ken Kesey’s first ‘Acid Tests, where Kesey first gave away LSD to the public. Note the all seeing eye of Freemasonry, as well as the twin pillars of Jachin and Boaz. The pillars appear to be slightly curved, and equipped with teeth like chain saws. And what are those dots dripping from the ‘Acid Test’ logo: are they tears, or are they drops of blood? The Grateful Dead were then known as the ‘Warlocks’, yet another indication of their occult interests. The Acid Tests were where Kesey first gave away LSD to the public.
At the right is a flyer for the first Grateful Dead Album, dominated by the Eye of Horus, depicting the band members standing between the pillars of an Egyptian temple. Its inscription, ‘In the land of the dark, the ship of the sun is driven by the Grateful Dead,’ seems to be a boast of control over the counter-culture, exerted by ‘The Combine’ via their rock idols and drugs.
