posted ago by LightBringerFlex ago by LightBringerFlex +9 / -1

I don't claim to be an expert in this stuff but here's a few things I learned about Moloch over the years of studying the deep state:

  1. It was worshiped by some ancient people from the Bible and many of the Deep State today.

  2. Moloch is accessed when people do adrenochrome and is accompanies by machine elves. They usually offer the human to be part of the deep state cult where they harvest adrenochrome from children in exchange for money, power and Earthly pleasures.

  3. Moloch has such bad energy that being in his presence causes insanity. The only way to break the grip this energy has is to realize that one's own mind is capable of filtering out negativity and clearing out the area of bad energy simply by willing it.

This goat headed demon is the head of the Deep State it seems. It's in some other kind of dimension accessed through adrenochrome and psychedelics combined.

Here's an article I ran into saying the Dems worship Moloch:

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/464073-jeffress-suggests-democrats-worship-pagan-god-moloch-who/

Comments (25)
sorted by:
4
alltheleavesarebrown 4 points ago +4 / -0

Careful. Study of this killed tracy twyman. Rip.

Her book...On baphomet.

Who just happens to be both male and female...

http://library.lol/main/D98C8C5CA0771A8AA98C612DF54778CB

3
intellectual-darkweb 3 points ago +3 / -0

Transgenderism, transhumanism, etc. These are all part of their religion and agenda.

2
alltheleavesarebrown 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yes. Ive talked with a tranny enthused about trannyhumanism.

-3
free-will-of-choice -3 points ago +1 / -4

Who just happens to be both male and female

"who" implies perceiving within perceivable; hence a differentiation (perceiving) out of sameness (perceivable) aka reactors out of generation; temporary out of ongoing; resistance out of velocity; potential out of potentiality; recipient out of benefactor...female out of male.

The "out of" process in-between the differentiation represents TRANSmutation.

4
Primate98 4 points ago +4 / -0

The word "moloch" comes from the Hebrew word root "mlk". It can be vowelized many different ways, so you'll see it as Molech, Molek, Melek Milcom, Milchcom, or other variations so don't be thrown off by this.

The root "mlk" means "to rule", so "moloch" would mean "ruler" and "Moloch" is often translated as "King". That would be a title rather than a specific name, but in my research I have never seen it applied to any other deity.

Here's a couple of notes for those interested in very deep research:

From Biblical times to this day, "Amalek" is held to be the most dire enemy of the Israelites. No scholar seems to have noticed, but I would suggest this is just another volewization of "mlk" and reference to Moloch. (And yes, I do know that the Zionists ultimately serve Satan. That's how jacked up everything is.)

Also, in the Book of Ezekiel, Yahweh blasts the King of Tyre. If you research that city, you'll find that it's "tutelary deity" was Melqart. A minority of scholars believe this is a corruption of "melek qart", or "King of the City", and I would suggest this is simply Moloch yet again. Can the king be a deity, or a deity be a king? Is there a solution to this apparent conundrum?

3
LightBringerFlex [S] 3 points ago +3 / -0

It’s all trippy. Baal is the one Zionists worship more. Could be the same entity.

3
Primate98 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yes, I believe 100% that they are one and the same. "Baal" is typically translated as "Lord" but also has the connotation of ownership, so also something like "Master". Both of those are generic titles, but I've only seen a couple of instances where "Baal" was used in this generic way.

My working thesis is that this entity was so prevalent for such a long period of time no specification was necessary. If you say "the President" today, 99% of the time it's already clear who you're talking about.

4
LightBringerFlex [S] 4 points ago +4 / -0

I have researched Baal much more. It was worshipped by half of ancient israel while the other half worshipped Yahwey. Baal means owner. Baal worshipers believed in land ownership and pushed for it. Baal priests were real estate agents. Baal was like one of Lucifer’s top agents. The Baal worshipers got enslaved by Babylon later on.

1
Primate98 1 point ago +1 / -0

Are you certain that Baal was only an agent of Lucifer? In the Bible, Baal is often mentioned in conjunction with Nebo. Who was Nebo? More importantly, who was said to be his father?

And indeed, the Baal worshippers went to Bablyon but I'm not so sure they were enslaved. When they were "set free", only 4% came back. And recall it's also when they compiled that wonderful document known as the Babylonian Talmud In any case, who was the tutelary deity of the city of Babylon?

If you have the answers to those questions, another question is: have we mere coincidence on our hands?

1
LightBringerFlex [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

I know a bit about the origins of the Lucifer rebellion. Lucifer and his inner circle included Satan, Caligastar, Baal, Abaddon, Belzebub and some other famous names like this. I know sometimes people call one of these demons by different names but not sure who Nebo was.

1
Primate98 1 point ago +1 / -0

I've found that when you're dealing with these ancient names/descriptions, you've always got to allow for two factors. One is that they come from languages that didn't generally have vowels, and the other is that these existed and came down to us across thousands of years of alteration and corruption. This is to say you have to be both alert and flexible to their current presentations.

For example, "bel" is a variation of "baal", as are "ba'al", "bil", "belu", "bilu", etc. If you research the etymology of Belzebub, you'll see that it's generally agreed that it translates as "Lord of the Flies". (Some think it's actually "Lord of the Flyers", which is interesting.) But given all this, you may wish to reconsider whether "Baal" and "Beelzebub" are really two distinct entities.

As for Nebo (as the KJV spells it), we find it vowelized differently here: Nabu. Look closely at the top of the page and you'll see that Wiki previously used the other spelling.

1
SwampRangers 1 point ago +1 / -0

Not really. Both "melech" and "baal" were neutral words for any human king or lord. In time a particular form of melech, Moloch, became a name, but melech remained perfectly fine, including in modern Hebrew. On the other hand Baal also became a name, without any untouched revocalization, and so it was largely lost for other purposes.

But the creator was never tied down to a title, and for the most part when the name Yahweh was revealed it worked so well that very few tried to counterfeit it (that's happened more in our era than theirs). Basically either you worship Yahweh, or it doesn't matter what you worship because you're toasted by natural consequences.

Usually comparing consonants would work, but Amalek is really Amaleq and has a different, foreign root (some suspect Emeq). Moloch, Molech, Molek, Milcom, Milchom are all the same, but melech, melek, melchi are generic words of kingship. Most certainly king and deity are confusable, and continue to be in the present day. The solution is to find the one deity that rules all others and is a reliable source of good and justice (hint: talk to Jesus).

It's true that, after the Israelites left Egypt (a phase of the Hyksos Expulsion, 15th dynasty, 1539 BC), they were rapidly beset by, and acceptant of, worshippers of Baal and Moloch claiming to attribute those names to Yahweh. The key to remember is that Yahweh worshippers left no artifacts, but the others left plenty of sex toys and other figurines. The only way we can spot a good city of Yahweh worshippers is the lack of pig bones; and that doesn't help us determine the counts of nomads at all. So you summarize it pretty well as half this half that, because many archaeologists fail to note these points and say all Baal and hardly any Yahweh at all.

Nebo was the Hebrew spelling of Assyrian Nabu as in Nebuchadrezzar and works out to be the same as Thoth, Mercury, and Hermes. Because of identifications, you want to be very sure of your source if it says that Lucifer, Satan, Abaddon or the like are independent; sometimes they're just sockpuppet accounts. If your source is from the spiritual side, remember that they lie. If it's from a human testimony it can be tested.

Anyway, all that was to say the OP is a great opening dossier page and it helps to know who influenced whom when. The symbols and patterns haven't changed much today.

cc: u/Primate98

2
Boomer_Supreme 2 points ago +2 / -0

Are you familiar with Mauro Biglino?

2
Primate98 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yes, absolutely. I came to all his same major conclusions before I'd ever heard of him. I think he is precisely on target.

I might be tempted to say I've gone farther than he did, but I might also guess that he's holding back quite a bit. This area is beyond sensitive to many, many people. Their ideas about the Bible and related topics are not just opinions they hold, they're central to their very identity.

1
Boomer_Supreme 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'm reading the naked bible right now. After I finish, I plan to read his books. This topic is fascinating. It rings true to me.

2
Primate98 2 points ago +2 / -0

I think you'll find this line of inquiry most fruitful. Once you accept the general hypothesis as a framework, you'll "have your antenna up" and come across more and more evidence for it in research completely unrelated to the hypothesis itself. Over the last few years I've collected what must be thousands of such links.

BTW, don't let the naysayers about Zecharia Sitchin put you off. I've only read a couple of paragraphs of his work and watched a couple of short videos, so none of what I've found is just some sort of regurgitation of his research. We just came to the same conclusions.

-2
free-will-of-choice -2 points ago +1 / -3

amalek; the enemy of israel

  • AMAL (greek) - "to soften" + yisra'el (hebrew); from sara - "resisting" + el - "god".

As form (life) within flow (inception towards death); one represents temporary resistance (sara) to ongoing velocity (el)...unless ignored (amal). Living within the process of dying demands adaptation; hence struggle to resist dying; while growing life. Ignore that and you soften your form right back to flow.

2
Undernourish 2 points ago +2 / -0

Just a question:

As I understand it, adrenochrome is an addictive substance that does a bunch of things to make you a complete douchebag. e.g. Elen, apparently.

What is the link to machine elves, which are more associated with DMT?

I know, I know... drugs. My question is how do machine elves actually link to Moloch worship?

Not being condescending. I actually want to know.

1
LightBringerFlex [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well when people take Adrenochrome and mix it with DMT, the moloch and his minions (machine elves) appear. I guess there are good and evil elves. Not sure.

1
LightBringerFlex [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

Also that machine elves realm might be the dimension that moloch is in.

-2
Ep0ch -2 points ago +1 / -3

Moloch is a children's story. A fable. He wasn't even called that. His name in ancient languages is called something else, serving something different, other than just baby sacrifices. Because gods demanded far more. Human sacrifice had specific purposes, also having cruelty beyond imagination, the imagination of the power that harnessed them for their rituals. Cruelty, where they often bred people to die. They believed when they did, it served higher purposes. Often a simple delight of the power using them.

Adrenchrome is also largely fables. It has a medical use, adrenaline, not the use of some other grail. I doubt it causes cruelty. Cruelty, sadism realeses its own highs, like pleasure causes them. Cruelty like pleasure consumes. Has it been marketed into a drug, causing cruelty, like pleasure perhaps has? I doubt it. What a sadist finds pleasure, would causes a normal brain to react in disgust, it wouldn't be pleasurable. They have different wiring, hemispheres damaged by cruelty, or developing a craving for it through damage or power. Although perhaps they share the same endorphins? Wouldn't any drug work the same on anybody else having medical uses, or highs, etc? Both Nazis and Berserkers used drugs, but these were likely for limiting pain, and causing compliance, becoming ritual and ceremony.

Perhaps there are entire tribes, cults, or fetishes dedicated to cannibalism. But cannibalism is mainly about power, consuming an enemy to cause fear, turned into fetishes, it made stronger, because it does, the craving feeds, consuming, giving it power. Perhaps that meat is sweeter to the insane craving it. But it's because power can, it does, until it became their choice. Also because it was an easy food source, an easier food source in war, or famine.

I laugh at this topic's fables. If it occurs it doesn't like that. When it does it's because power uses it for its reasons like blackmail, ritual, and because it craves in its unearthly delights.

-1
free-will-of-choice -1 points ago +2 / -3

bred people to die

Living implies being processed within dying (aka temporary growth within ongoing loss).

demanded far more

Everything perceivable demands adaptation from each perceiving it within.

it served higher purposes

PUR'POSE, noun [Latin propositum, propono; pro, before, and pono, to set or place.] hence transmutation of ingredient (form) back to base (flow). The purpose of to be (life) represents adaptation to being out of (inception towards death).

delight of the power using them

Aka wielding choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) contract law within ignored balance (offer) to choice (response) natural law...a temptation within light (delight).

Cruelty like pleasure consumes.

Temptation ignores resisting being moved from inception toward death; hence loss of potential through ignorance of growth. Consuming (to take) represents the choice of want over need; hence the temptation to ignore need for want.

-1
Ep0ch -1 points ago +1 / -2

Yes they bred people to die. They would brazenly sacrifice them. They were so convinced it was for their gods. Society relished in it like in the arena. Or even today it still does. Acts of tribal law. Where human sacrifice occurs and is practiced in Africa as well as in other nations.

But okay, simple for the seasons, like the wickerman. Their gods, and locals believed it provided a blessing, it occurred all the way up to christianity. Abraham's blessing. It wasn't just for the harvest. But okay let's suggest the Temple of Aphoridity, it probably had whorehouses surrounding it. It did in Pompeii. Who were the whores, slaves. Literally. Chained and shackled into little rooms. Fucked daily as a sacrifice to the godess of fucking. Does it get more perverse of course it does much worse where the temple maidens and slaves are sacrificed prior to war and to bless voyages or whatever they wanted. Their gods decreed or they delighted in it. Druid festivals broke virginity by an orgy, or a gang bang on equinox, or whatever. Find fertility festivals today where they do weird shit, in Africa FGM. Or their bullshit. Nothing like in those days where they relished it. Until you find Sati burnt any wives and daughters when their husband died. They accepted this. Or there's the brazen bull, it wasn't torture, if it was an offering. Perhaps it became punishment after. But going back to the Minoans they had the labyrinth, when they did, they offered the temple maidens, slaves, and their warriors.

You struck one point without understanding that depth. It was practiced everywhere. It was still practiced after the one god, Christian, Jewish, Muslim. It is still practiced today despite being outlawed. Various tribal practices and religions.

No sadism is wiring gone wrong. It has been debated what causes it. They hate this shit. Because it causes doubt on other perversions, or fetishes. But what most find offensive and disgusting, they find delighting. Could you imagine above being even worse. It gets much worse. Aztec sacrifices and medieval torture. After society has been otherwise normal, godly, or at least taught law and principles. Wouldn't it be repulsive, imagine watching a beating heart torn from a human chest, and the population celebrating it. What if it was your daughter's, she was a temple maiden about to be sacrificed blessing something. You literally would be disgusted, emotionally tormented. Wiring then in times of extreme cruelty was different to your utter horror now. They had no empathy, no emotional block. Instead they celebrated your daughter's beating heart being ripped out. So what makes a sadist. Power and cruelty, from different wiring gone wrong, often trauma. Until they find pleasure in it, and it no longer becomes a choice. The same with cannibalism.

But is wokism any better? The human mind has the capacity to love as much as too hate. It won't change either. No matter what is forced. What is forced causes its own concerns. Look at it now. It simply implodes.

-1
free-will-of-choice -1 points ago +1 / -2

they bred people to die

The few exploit the ignorance of the many towards the status quo of being alive while in the process of dying aka temporary growth within ongoing loss, hence resistance within velocity. Ignorance ignores being resistance. The many are afraid of dying; because they lack comprehension of living representing the seed within the soil of dying.

They would brazenly sacrifice them

a) the most widespread and effective sacrificial ritual represents masturbation and the parasitic few suggest the means (porn) of self sacrifice to the willingly consenting many.

b) SA'CRED, adjective [Latin sacer] - "separated from that which is common" aka being separated form within common flow. The few are transmuting the many who ignore to sustain their form, back to base flow; while ruthlessly racketeering the in-between life.

They were so convinced it was for their gods

The suggested gods represents an authority above ones sole authority of self (free will of choice). Whenever a god is suggested; a shirking of response-ability is tempted. Yet, not only are those who consenting to the suggestion of "gods" ignoring their own choice; they submit to the suggesting choices of others; which they lack to comprehend; since they respond with ignorance.

"in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti" has the "in nomine" (in the name of) right at the beginning; which implies the others ones who suggest in the name of "patris et filii et spiritus sancti".

Society relished in it like in the arena.

Society represents the domestication of free will under the umbrella of collectivism; of pretended togetherness; while shirking individual response-ability onto the suggesting choices of others....hence them seeking confirmation like for example relishing in suggested judgment. The whole spectacle of the arena represents the want vs not want conflict of reason; rebranded into winner vs loser. Yet choice already represents the highest value within existence...evaluation; which one diminishes when consenting to want to win suggested games.

Acts of tribal law

Ignores being reaction within natural law for the suggested laws of men (tribe).

it provided a blessing

Put anything dead underneath a compost heap and you'll witness generation through the transmutation of form back to flow. Death nourishes other life; because living represents growing within the loss of dying.

Fucked daily as a sacrifice to...

That represents the choice of want (temptation luring towards death) over need (resisting for the sustenance of life) aka falling for lust; while using the suggestion of "sacrifice to" as the justification for ones choices. Look at the sodomites to see the consequences of lust...always self destructive; while corrupting ones expression outwards.

sacrificed prior to war and to bless voyages

That represents the ignorance of that which is (need to sustain life) for suggestions of what will be (wanted temptations luring towards death). Life isn't outcome oriented (inception predefined death); life represents the response to origin (as choice to balance) for the sustenance of self.

or whatever they wanted

There's the foundation...the choice of want (suggestion) over need (perception); hence ignorance over response-ability. This ignorance represents the host weakness that causes the parasitic response from the few, and sacrificial lambs represent a convenient practice to shift blame away from ignorance; because blaming others is easier than struggling within self.

Nothing like in those days where they relished it.

Go to McD and watch them relish in glutony; the relishing in lust is only ever a mouse-click away; nobody is more prideful than those reasoning about suggested truth vs suggested lies, and just look around for the temples of greed and envy everywhere. "those days" are suggested to you under the umbrella of his-story; as to tempt you to ignore your story as ONE (form) within ALL (flow). There are no "those days" besides in your memory; which is being shaped by the suggestions of the parasitic few; for which you ignore the perceived ever changing moment (um) aka the balance within motion (flow) for your responding choice (form) at the center.

an offering

That is based on consenting to suggested creationism (out of nothing); while ignoring perceived transmutation (out of everything). ALL perceivable is already offered to each ONE perceiving it, and what needs to be grown is the comprehension thereof.

Any offer from others represents a suggestion (want or not want); which tempts one to ignore perceived (need).

You struck one point without understanding that depth

Understanding represents standing under the suggested information by others; while ignoring to grow comprehension within perceived inspiration. There's no without (perceivable) within (perceiving)...only the choice to ignore perceived for suggested; which is what's going on here.

despite being outlawed

Outlawed by the suggested alws of men; while ignoring to be within the natural law.

religion

RELIGION, noun [Latin religio, to bind anew; re and ligo, to bind.] aka choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) contract law; in ignorance of perceived balance (offer) to choice (response) natural law. That represents the foundation for all religions.

-2
free-will-of-choice -2 points ago +1 / -3
  • MOLOCH; noun (from heb. melekh; king) - "any baleful influence to which everything is sacrificed"

KING (sovereign; supreme authority) represents free will of choice at the center of balance aka need (perceived inspiration) + want (suggested information).

BALE, noun [Heb. to bind, to pledge] represents the "sacrifice of everything" perceivable for being "bound" to the suggestions by others aka choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) contract law; as the inversion of balance (offer) to choice (response) natural law.

What is it with Moloch and child sacrifices? To ignore perceived for suggested represents the ignorance to sustain life for the temptations luring towards death. Those who ignore to sustain themselves therefore willingly sacrifice their own propagation of life...a blood sacrifice of ones bloodline.

Now look at the symbolism suggested... https://pic8.co/sh/TFXPzP.jpg Chained cattle (goyim bound by contract law); sitting one his ass (ignoring to resist momentum); ready to get whatever is given (choice of want over need); while ignoring the potential of having wings (ignored growth); male triangle in the foreground (velocity of flow) and female triangle in the background (resistance of form). A king (choice) chained to his throne (balance)...Der Ewige Goy.