Just a thought I’ve been ruminating on for a while that finally coalesced the other day:

Modern ideologies (such as marxism, libertarianism, MAGAism, etc) have, in reference to the massive success of religious ideologies and their framework, constructed themselves as if they are religions.

What do I mean by this?

1. An all encompassing nature - religion is so sturdy because it attempts to provide a framework for every interaction between you and the rest of the world. Every person you meet, every word you hear from someone else, every thing you experience, you filter through your “belief framework”. In the past, this was basically limited to morality judgements “is this thing righteous or not?”

So even if your religious book(s) didn’t explicitly mention the scenario you find yourself in, religions offer enough “structure” such that any experience you undergo can be fed to this structure and an answer can be produced.

Modern political ideology has come to understand this, and has constructed itself such that now your political ideology can supplant your religious ideology, as your political ideology now can encompass your religious ideology and all the structure and function it provides (atleast, the political ideologies attempt this, I don’t think they’ve yet succeeded, which imo is why people who solely exercise a political ideology seem so schitzophrenic and unanchored in their beliefs/opinions).

I hope I’ve been able to convey what I mean in a way others can understand but if not just ask me to clarify.

Imo, the clown-like nature of the medical establishment is best summarized by the way they approach “placebo effect”.

Simultaneously nothing - and everything - wrapped into a cute little Latin word to obfuscate the deception.

Did you know that anti-depressant medication arguably doesn’t yield any effect beyond a placebo effect? Most don’t, because in recent decades new anti-depressants aren’t tested against a placebo, but against the older anti-depressants. Wow! And who could have guessed, but they’re just as effective (i.e. not).

https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_vis=1&q=prozac+versus+placebo&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3D-BijJq904AwJ

The medications studied were amitriptyline, amylobarbitone, fluoxetine, imipramine, paroxetine, isocarbox-acid, trazodone, lithium, liothyronine, adinazolam, amoxapine, phenelzine, venlafaxine, maprotiline, tranylcypromine, and bupropion. Results show a substantial placebo effect in antidepressant medication and also a considerable benefit of medication over placebo. They also indicate that the placebo component of the response to medication is considerably greater than the pharmacological effect. Findings further suggest that antidepressants might function as active placebos, in which the side effects amplify the placebo effect by convincing patients that they are receiving a potent drug.

Even the studies that illustrate how big pharma manipulates data to fabricate a story must bow to the “conventional wisdom” on the “placebo effect”. People are curing themselves of depression, and if there is any “effect” from the drug it is its active side effects causing the patient to think the treatment is “doing something”. Imagine how effective the treatment would be if people weren’t being poisoned, but instead actively engaged in their own healing?

On that note, I bring up Wim Hof. In one study he revolutionized western sciences understanding of the placebo effect (unfortunately 99% of western science hasn’t heard the news).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4034215/

SIGNIFICANCE: Hitherto, both the autonomic nervous system and innate immune system were regarded as systems that cannot be voluntarily influenced. The present study demonstrates that, through practicing techniques learned in a short-term training program, the sympathetic nervous system and immune system can indeed be voluntarily influenced. Healthy volunteers practicing the learned techniques exhibited profound increases in the release of epinephrine, which in turn led to increased production of anti-inflammatory mediators and subsequent dampening of the proinflammatory cytokine response elicited by intravenous administration of bacterial endotoxin. This study could have important implications for the treatment of a variety of conditions associated with excessive or persistent inflammation, especially autoimmune diseases in which therapies that antagonize proinflammatory cytokines have shown great benefit.

I personally think the so called “placebo effect” could more accurately be called the “righteous living effect” or, for those who’ve come to understand the meaning of spirituality, the “Holy Spirit effect”. I think it’s no coincidence that modern science is also, simultaneously, finally catching up to the wisdom of “breathe” (aka spirit) “science” and the multitude of enriching and beneficial effects it has (yoga, tai chi, simple meditation for mental clarity, etc)

I think the vast majority of ailments are caused by our lifestyles and our environments, which is an important part of this conversation. Also, I think we need to discover just how much control we have over our capacity to heal.

Don’t, it’s not worth it.

NASA constantly deceiving != the earth being flat

Flat Earth, in my estimation, is basically a “political wedge issue” of the conspiracy community. It has no real bearing on the lives of 99% of people, but so many just have to pick a side and fight over it.

Seriously. Nothing about your day to day life changes one way or the other, there’s no need to froth at the mouth over the topic, flattard or nasahole alike. Who cares?

Now that’s not to say, don’t spread facts and logical arguments about specific things, like the Van Allen radiation belts, or the {fake} moon landings, or whatever. But just dont tie your identity to the false totem of either “Flat Earth” or “Globe Earth”, it really has almost no bearing on your life, other than that which you give it, like any totem.

Thought the time was right, please post your suggestion for the next roundtable discussion, one subject per comment please (so that voting counting can be done without signature checks) and maybe some interesting topics will arise

Hey all, I recently rediscovered this highly interesting interpretation of the (Old Testament) Bible by a professional biblical scholar and translator of the relavent ancient languages. Given that the video is in Italian with subtitles, and the videos come from the era of upload limits (so the 50 or so minutes are split over 5 videos) I thought it could help generate discussion if I transcribe the subtitles to save everyone the effort of finding a specific part in the playlist to reference.

Here is a link to the playlist, I intend to add the rest of the videos as a comment when I have a minute. If some of the word choice is weird (“Jewish” when “Hebrew” would probably be more accurate) I think it’s because it was translated by an Italian fan so I’ve just left it almost all as it shows up in the video.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j4MXLB6SwPg&list=PLF0390207D7748284&index=1

(Part 1)

-Torah's words can be given till 70 different meanings...but there is one that they surely have which is their literal meaning.” (Rashi de Troyes – Jewish exegete 10t/11th century A.D.)

-Mauro Biglino says “despite what you're about to hear, I have to say I'm not a ufologist....I have never studied UFO in my life. Neither I ever saw an orb......

But I'm a translator of ancient Hebrew, that is, a translator of masoretic Hebrew. For about 10 years I've been translating it for the “San Paolo” publisher (a Vatican's publishing house – t.n.) that published 17 volumes of literal translations from the Old Testament.

-I have to split the Jewish words into their single components translate them literally, that is without interpreting. I have to control that the Jewish text is correctly written and I have to make and publish the philological analysis of all verbal forms

So, everything you're about to hear comes from that.

-the Bible we own, which we work on and which I'm about to tell you something about, is a Bible that was fixed between the 7th and the 9th century A.D. That is to say, in the years 600-800 A.D., in short, it's when the Merovigs first and then the Carolings ruled over Europe.

I mean that while Charlemagne was building his Holy Roman Empire.

By the lake of Galilee, one family, wich was Moshhez ben Aaron ben Asher's family, defined the Bible as we know it.

-This family was in conflict with other families: they represented the Tiberias school . There was the Palestinian school, the Samaritan one, the Babylonian one. They won....

If someone else would have won, we now would have a potentially different Bible.

-Why? Because the first Bible was written as a sequence of consonants. That means that the work made by those guys named Masorets - “the Keepers of the tradition” - was in first place to determine the words, that is, splitting the row of consonants and determining the words, that can be split and established in many different ways.

-The second work they made was inserting the vowels, that were not there.

And inserting the vowels actually means inserting the meaning of the words.

-One problem those gentlemen didn't have was the linguistic question, they never asked themselves. They were interested in inserting their theological thought.

That's what they made.

-So, one thing we should know is that the only certainty we have is that we know that we don't know.

-We don't even know how the Bible was vocalized when they wrote it.

-At the time when most of the Bible's events happened, above all the fundamental ones, Hebrew didn't even exist as a language.

-When many names were pronounced, Hebrew didn't exist, Moses didn't speak Hebrew.

In the desert, they didn't speak Jewish during the Exodus. If we like, if we want to believe they spoke some sort of semitic language, but I doubt it, they spoke some kind of Amorite, then maybe they began to speak some form of Aramaic.

-And later, a couple of centuries later, Jewish began to shape, which is actually a transformed Sub-Phoenician.

-Now you can understand that the only certainty is that we know that we don't know.

-But this is an understanding that anyone who works on the Bible should have, including theologists, cabalists and all those who say “I'll tell you how it is”

-That's why I won't tell you how things are, I'll tell you what there is in the of Jewish consonant roots, 'cos that's my job, or better, it was. Actually it wasn't my job because it's impossible to survive making Jewish translations, it's one of those things you make by night.

-My exact duty was to search the original meaning, of course by using traditional dictionaries in the Jewish and Aramaic etymology, edited by rabbis and published in Israel or in the U.S.

-Let's do this one, let's freewheel, let's ride the Elohims' RUACH

that is the Elohims' wind, the one that in the Bible is called, is translated as “God's spirit”

But the term RUACH doesn't mean spirit, it means wind, or anything flying in the air quickly and causing wind The later theological elaboration, when God's figure was created, led to attaching to RUACH the meaning of spirit. But actually, this is not there.

-He says, because the word isn't Jewish, but Sumerian origin.

-That is the pictogram made by those that saw the first RUACH, which is where the RUACH of the Hebrews come from.

So, that is a thing we don't know what it is, let say we don't know it, so we can take it easy, but which decidedly hovers on the water.

-As we don't know what it is, we'll name it by borrowing the name directly from the Vatica, so that we won't go wrong.

If you read last editions of the “Lexicon Recentis Latinitatis”, published by the “:Liberia Editrice Vatican” where they insert the latin neologisms, you'll find that the Vatican inserted “navis sideralis”, which means “starship” They inserted “areia navis”, thus “airship”, they inserted “aireus viator”, that is “astronaut” and they inserted an acronym, “R.I.V” which means: res inexplicatae volantes”, that is UFO's.

-The ones of you that just saw that stuff now will realize that it's an unknown thing that hovers on the water.

-If you remember the beginning of the Bible, where it says, “In the Beginning God created the heaven and the earth”

you remember also that it said that Elohims' RUACH, or God's spirit was hovering on the water.

Only, the RUACH is that stuff.

-for “hovering” was used a participle, which is MERAPHERET.

Which means....and it's used also in other parts of the Bible, which indicates the typical way of flying of rapacious birds, when they let themselves carry by the wind, without moving their wings. That Is, Elohim's RUACH, which Sumerians depicted that way aws something that at the beginning of everything hovered on the water without moving it's wings.

That means in Hebrew we have the description of what instead Sumerians had depicted graphically.

No doubt about it, they were talking about the same thing.

(Part 2)

-From what we can draw out of the literal translation of the Bible, thus from the definition of the consonantic roots, the Bible tells us that we've been made using Elohims' TSELEM

Usually, all translations you have say that we are made in “God's image” and after His likeness”

-Do you all understand “ELOHIM”?

ELOHIM is a biblical term, which is usually translated as “God”. Actually ELOHIM is a plural term.

-By the way, MAYBE. Because from the point of view of the semitic philology things aren't so simple as it's often stated.

Therefore it's not so certain that ELOHIM is the plural of EL. They could be two ancient forms of ….ok.

-So, when we talk about ELOHIM, we say that stuff we traditionally identify with God, but that definitely in the Bible means a lot of people, a lot of people. No doubt about that.

-Independently from the question if the term is plural or not, it means many people..

The cult says that we're made, the traditional translation, in the image and after the likeness.

Actually, the Bible says that we are made after the likeness but with something that contains Elohims' image.

The dictionaries edited by the rabbis say more, they state that TSELEM derives from the verb TSALAM, which means “to cut out of”

DNA

-Actually the Bible says that we were made using a certain amount of material, which contains the Elohims' image and that has been cut out.

Now everyone of us immediately knows what we are referring to when we say that we take something that contains the image of an individual and that has been cut out

Its the DNA

-With any probability, this biblical tale is the summary of the sumerian tablets tale

in particular in the “Enuma Elish”, that is when Sumerians tell about the beginning.

But where Sumerians are much more precise than the Bible

because Sumerians, who never thought of creating a religion Never, they never build a temple, they never talked of Gods, the way we meant it, but they spoke of those guys, Biaglo or Biagio Russo talked very well about before.

They certainly respected these people

They were afraid of them, because obviously as you can understand, those guys were much more powerful, from the point of view of knowledge and technology

but they didn't consider them to be Gods, as they have been indicate afterwards

Sumerians never built a temple, the way we mean it

• Unerring Gods?

Hence Sumerians, who were much more precise, and who knew these weren't unerring gods, they hadn't any scruples about telling of their failures

and they tell us with higher precision compared to the mnotheistic thought, which has been later inserted in the Bible that these guys had a whole bunch of attempts gone wrong, before achieving the right slave, that is, they made a lot of mistakes.

Those of you, who followed, years ago, the incident of Dolly the sheep's cloning. At one point the news item comes out, that in the lab at Edimburg, they cloned Dolly the sheep

They don't tell us they made about 240 wrong sheeps.

-It's not a made up number. But it's understandable, they made about 240 wrong experiments, and then they came up to Dolly the sheep, which becomes the product.

-Sumerians did the same thing with their presumed gods.

(Well they may have messed dna, but they didn't make us. This planet as a school with humans with cosmic dna, from benevolents for practicums, already existed when the bullies came along).

They made one that couldn't hold back urine. One that couldn't close his eyes. One with a crooked spine. One without genitals. One unable to eat. I don't even remember them all, thats not important anyway, they made a lot which were wrong.

A really horrible one, by coincidence, made with what had been extracted from the blood of one “god's” chiefs, how about that, the least successful attempt, was the one with Enki's blood.

-Royal Blood.

-At some point they give a try with the blood of one of the two big bosses they had/

Can you imagine? From him they got (really a complete failure): a hairy being, with closed throat, imperfect eyes, twisted ribs, paralyzed spine, heart, head and intestine damaged.

Unable to lift its hands.

-These translations I brought you are not from Sitchin. Because Sitchin is important, but one has to go beyond. Regarding Sumerology, I follow the translations made by the academics.

-Those are the translations by Giovanini Pettinato, who is a worldwide authority, actually he was, “cos he's dead.”

-Hence these are Giovanni Pettinato's translations, not an alternative sumerologist, but an academic.

-The Potter

Evidently, they told us those things. Obviously, with the linguistical, conceptual cultural instruments they were provided with. But they told us the story the way it probably happened.

-The Bible made a summary of it. Or better, it made two. Because you know that for man's creation, man's making because creation is a really wrong term.

About man's making, there is this particular story:

and then the other one, where God is portrayed as a potter, isn't he? Who molded clay. Now I don't know if some genetists or biologists are present here

Everybody knows the importance of clay as a catalyst for the precesses of combination of the nucleic acids, thus DNA and RNA.

Ans so, the second tale, that the tradition says to be a tale of God portrayed as a potter, is not a mythical tale at all.

It's the same story, viewed from the other side.

-While the first story tells us of that we've been made with Elohim's TSELEM thus the Elohim's DNA, the second tale tells us that Elohims' acted on the AFAR, thus on the dust, on the clay that there was here on Earth.

And this has 2 meanings.

-because AFAR comes from the accadian TIKIT

that indicates both clay and what it contains the form, because clay is something which can assume and contain a form. It means that this second tale is seen from the point of view of the hominide DNA which was present here on Earth.

-So, we've been made with Elohims' TSELEM that has been inserted into the AFAR, which is what contains the form and was already present here on Earth, thus the hominide DNA.

-The two tales, which were traditionally considered separately, because hardly explainable from a theological spiritualistic point of view. If read from this angle.

-If read above all in parallel with the corresponding sumerian tales, they tell the same story as seen from both sides.

There is no contradiction, on the contrary, there is completion.

-The Original Sin:

-what we are mostly interested in is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Because that tale continues as if they actually ate of that fruit.

-Many years ago while I was translating the Bible, quite obviously I used to think with the mentality of someone born in our culture.

The tree of knowledge of good and evil is, symbolically speaking, the moment when man began to distinguish right from wrong.

That is, he began to understand what is right and what is wrong, what is legitimate, what isn't

-(Part 2 finished in comments)

Taking a break for now but I recommend watching the videos as well if any of this intrigued you. Near the end is the most interesting part, where he explains a probable, yet astounding reason for God’s enjoyment of the smell of burnt meat.

KungFuTzu was a man born in China sometime around 500bc. Soon after, a system of justice and mercy was being developed by a wise man, Mo Tzu.

This system of justice and mercy had many of the hallmarks of not just Christianity, but science too, with the first known description of the first law of motion coming from Mo Tzu nearly two thousand years before Newton would pen The Principia:

Mozi tried to replace what he considered to be the long-entrenched Chinese over-attachment to family and clan structures with the concept of "universal love" (jiān'ài, 兼愛). In this, he argued directly against Confucians who believed that it was natural and correct for people to care about different people in different degrees. Mozi, by contrast, believed people in principle should care for all people equally. Mohism stressed that rather than adopting different attitudes towards different people, love should be unconditional and offered to everyone without regard to reciprocation, not just to friends, family and other Confucian relations.

'The cessation of motion is due to the opposing force... If there is no opposing force... the motion will never stop. This is as true as that an ox is not a horse.'

He is the first to describe the physical principle behind camera, also known as camera obscura.

As Rome canonized their govern-mentus (mind control) of the masses through the council of Rome, so too did the ancient Chinese dynasties select the far more manageable kungfutzu-nism as their state religion, and attempt to wipe out the heresy of universal love. For more insight into what remains of Mo Tzu’s golden legacy, refer to this post:

https://communities.win/c/Conspiracies/p/12hRCKFvut/lao-tzu--laozi-is-an-honorific-o/c/

i have been roland, beowulf, achilles, gilgamesh; i have been called a hundred names and will be called a thousand more before the world goes dim and cold. i am a hero.

she has been nameless since our birth; a constant adversary, caring for nothing but my ruin, a sword drenched in my blood; forever my greatest and only love. she is the dark one; the enemy and lover without whom my very existence would be pathetic and vulgar. her eyes steam and boil in the night (she is fantastically beautiful yet i cannot stand the sight of her). our relationship is complex and perhaps eternal.

we met once in the garden, at the beginning of the world and unaware of our twin destinies (not the garden of Genesis, but another; forgotten, untended and now choked with weeds, unvisited except for ourselves). we matched stares across a dry fountain, and i recall her smiling at me before she devoured the lawn and trees with a translucent blue flame and tore flagstones from the path and hurled them into the sky screaming my sins.

our reunions there are epic battles fought without quarter, often in the dark as the moon is seldom visible and the sun never. i powder a granite monument in a soundless flash, showering the grass with molten drops of its gold inlay, sending smoking chips of stone skipping into the fog. she splinters an ancient oak with a force that takes my breath and hurls me to the ground. she leaves and i lie in the slow rain of burning slivers of wood, staring at the low, dark clouds, craving our next meeting.

Just spit balling an idea, maybe people don’t mind but I’m getting turned off by the amount of tweets and insubstantial posts that seem to constantly clog /new which inevitably flounder under their own purposelessness. We don’t need to be like every other corner of the internet and appeal to the lowest common denominator, but it feels like that’s the general trajectory we’re on (imo)

Thoughts?

Right now it seems like the board moves a little too fast for the discussion, and lots of great posts get like 3 upvotes, one joke/shill comment, then get lost to the onslaught of new.

How about every week we have atleast one ritual sticky for discussion of a topic decided in the week before’s discussion thread. Also, maybe some kind of way to !nominate a post for a temp sticky, as sometimes really good discussions have been started in dead/dieing threads that no one will see beyond the two people responding to each other.

Also a way to sort by recent comment and we can call it conspiracies.win/b/

So this seems like a subject that many of us come to acknowledge as true, in some sense, which does vary across truth seekers in many ways. I’d like to start a discussion and hear everyone’s thoughts.

Some see a more occult/symbolic magic/magick interpretation where by {they} create a ritual that affects as many people as possible and effects as much of their twisted desires into reality based on how much “loosh/psychic energy/whatever they’ve been able to “harvest” through their ritual (think 9/11)

Others approach things with a more “zoomed out” stance, whereby all of these things are brought about by {them} / the masons / satan / the demiurge / whatever and we, as divine (in some sense) beings must co-consent to the creation of these atrocities. This view is harder to describe but it’s where I lean on the matter.

Lastly there is the simpler explanation more along the lines of MK ULTRA / brainwashing / psychologically priming the herd/sleeping masses. This I think is true but is also only the surface layer of THE truth.

Thoughts? Insights? Inspirations?