The Garden of Eden incident is without doubt the most misinterpreted story of the Bible. After having studied it quite closely, I'm always shocked to realize what people are ignorant of in the text and--worse--what they will invent that is simply not there.
Very, very long story short, what is called "the Fall" (which terminology is not in the text) is the first instance of consciousness being given to ordinary human beings. The story was, of course, not well understood at the time and has become somewhat distorted over the 35-40K years since it took place. It must be read with extreme care and a wide background of knowledge.
Part of that knowledge is where I get that dating from. A few students of the Bible know that there were two creations of Man, but did you realize that mainstream anthropologists also recognize this, albeit in their own way?
Imagine you asked an anthropologist something like, "If I had a time machine, how far back would I have to go to see the first human?" He would surprisingly reply, "You'll have to be more specific."
Pressed further, he would say, "To see someone that looks indistinguishable from your next door neighbor, you'd have to go back 200-300K years. But if you wanted to kidnap that person back to 2022 and give them a haircut and a job, it wouldn't work. These were only 'anatomically modern humans' and otherwise behaved like other primates. You could go back no further than 35-40K years to find the first 'behaviorally modern humans'. That's when they started to act like humans do today."
There are various textual clues within the story itself to explain this further, and well as a body of contextual information to go along with it, but again, it's a very long story.
IDK if it's a utopia, and this is pretty weak to go on, but I've been watching a lot of Korean content on Netflix lately. A couple of series took place partially in NK, and one of them featured a DPRK military officer as the hero and love interest.
The point is, the South Koreans don't really portray anything negative about the Northerners. No one is scared of invasion or sabotage or kidnapping. It's pictured as underdeveloped and somewhat impoverished, and the "authoritarianism" is a bit of a joke (think "Hogan's Heroes").
That would seem to be the opposite bias than one would expect, so I provisionally take it as more or less accurate.
They are, in fact, dire threats to democracy. When analyzed clearly, the answer comes from an almost mathematical proof.
The author actually mentions the original source of the problem when he quotes JFK's words on "secret oaths". All public officials and members of the military and law enforcement take public oaths, to which they are not only morally but legally accountable. If not, what is the point?
If such a person has also taken a secret oath, it is implausible that the time will never come when the duties demanded by one are in conflict with those demanded by the other. If that person chooses to violate their secret oath and suffer the consequences, I don't think anyone outside the group would care in the least. But what about a violation of their public oath?
It would depend on the nature and severity of the violation, but I would say such violation could rise to the level of treason. The purpose of the public oath is to declare your loyalty to your country and your country alone, at all times and in all respects.
At the end of a tremendous article, the author misses the mark with this:
... but as it stands there are no laws on the books that prevent people – even those who say they represent us – from meeting together in private.
Of course not, but that isn't the problem. Conspiracy and action in violation of any public oath is, and is punishable up to and including death.
All that being said, US political and military oaths currently use the phrase "bear true faith and allegiance". Can one be said to bear true faith and allegiance when one has sworn a secret oath to another power?
Want to know how deeply embedded the "popular idea" of slavery is?
I listen to the Skeptiko podcast with Alex Tsakiris. He had on a guest who mentioned that slavery in the US was not at all common, with perhaps 5% owning slaves. Alex disagreed.
So did Alex ask him for his source, or quote a figure from his own sources, or pause the interview to do his own quick research? Nope, he kicked the guy off the show. Nothing at all like that had ever happened in over 500 episodes. Oh, and he has never mentioned it since, so I would conclude he never did any research on it himself after that.
Alex is liberal-leaning but not an NPC either, as far as I can tell. But the programming runs very deep, right down to the bone.
For those pondering what may come to pass with this, here's something to add in the hopper.
The military analyst Scott Ritter noted that for all intents and purposes, Russia has already fought a NATO army, one of the largest in Europe. Over the 8 years since 2014, the UAF was trained to NATO standards, and was fully interoperable with NATO forces. The Ukrainians are also said to be fighting as skillfully and bravely as may be expected.
Recall also that Ukraine is fighting with tremendous amounts of weaponry and resources funneled in from all across NATO. But if NATO goes to war, what would be the external sources? The US has drained a lot of weapons stocks dry already.
You can choose to believe the mainstream sources as to the state of affairs, but it looks to me like Ukraine is getting it's teeth kicked down it's throat. Reports from the front are horrifying, even shocking to the conscience.
It's not that the sponsors of the war care about any of that, but the question remains: what could they possibly hope to achieve with a wider war? It looks to me that whatever reasonable scenario you choose, it will just be a wider disaster for the West.
IDK if it was this video or a very similar one, but what I found very notable is that traditional accounts hold that "Maui the Navigator" was a white-skinned red-headed Aryan from Persia. (The name "Iran" in fact comes down from "Aryan".)
I've never read Biglino's work, and had never heard of him before I came to all my conclusions. When I finally ran into one of the handful of translated presentations on video, I thought, "Welp, I guess I wasn't wrong about my bush league translations of Hebrew."
So IDK what he says in his book, but in one of the videos he just sort of grazes by Zecharia Sitchin. I believe Biglino thinks the intersection of "ancient aliens" with the Bible is extremely sensitive to many, so it looked to me like he prudently steered around it as best he could. How much does he really know about it? I couldn't possibly say, but definitely more than he lets on.
SPOILER ALERT: The Bible is 100% about the Anunnaki. There is no question whatsoever. But people get death threats for that kind of talk, and also death for that kind of talk, so I don't blame Biglino.
Another guy that's on to the story is Michael Ledwith. Like Biglino, he has all the cred in the world. For many years, he was on the International Theological Commission, which is the official advisory body on theology to the Pope. You may be interested in this presentation:
Farewell to the Annunaki by Michael Ledwith
If you ask me, he dances around the subject also, but again I don't blame him. It's not in that writeup, but Michael Tellinger relates a story about how Ledwith pointed out a mistranslastion of the very first sentence of the Bible, Gen 1:1.
All ancient Hebrew sacred texts begin with the letter "aleph". Oh, except Genesis. So what happens if you add it back in? You get: "The Father of the Beginnings created the Elohim, the heavens, and the Earth." Changes everything.
So yes, the Elohim are the Anunnaki, and you can reread the OT making that substitution and it not only holds, many puzzles in the text are instantly solved.
One final note since you used the phrase "in the image". It may have been Biglino but I think it was someone else that pointed out that a deep etymology of the word translated as "image", which is the Hebrew word "tselem", shows that it means "cut out", as in a smaller part cut out of a larger part. Not that deep, really, because you can read that right in Strong's. Genetic engineering, anyone?
We have to read very, very closely like that because the people that wrote it down probably had little idea what was really going on. The descriptions given by the Sumerians were even more illustrative, but I always like to stick with the Bible because people are more familiar with it, there are more resources and analysis, and people automatically give more credence to it. Also, they are even now trying to hide the truth with BS translations.
I think you may have misunderstood. The aliens were interacting with humans literally since our inception. What we recognize as "civilization" was rebooted by them in Sumer after the Great Flood. Then a significant change in the relationship between humans and the aliens and that state of affairs on Earth came along much later, around 600BC. We must carefully separate all these events and understand the status quo before and after each.
There's a good roundup here: 600 B.C.E.
I'll throw in a few others which I hope are not duplicative.
"The Iron Age is taken to end, also by convention, with the beginning of the historiographical record. This usually does not represent a clear break in the archaeological record; for the Ancient Near East, the establishment of the Achaemenid Empire c. 550 BC (considered historical by virtue of the record by Herodotus) is usually taken as a cut-off date" (source)
"Greek drama is thought to have developed during the 6th century BC from imitative religious magic worship of Dionysus" (source)
"The first manufactured coins seem to have appeared separately in India, China, and the cities around the Aegean Sea between 700 and 500 BCE." (source)
[Nineveh] "... was the largest city in the world for some fifty years until the year 612 BC…" (source)
Did you note the three-fer in the first reference? The idea of writing down history literally started!
It's actually a bit spooky to see it collected, isn't it? But see what you can pick up that's just laying around if you're alert to it?
Thanks for your interest!
Well, at least you broke the ice by saying it first: it was space aliens. I can't say exactly what the treatment was, but I feel certain it's related to the pineal gland. Take a look at this carving.
The guys on the outside are "gods", which you can tell by the horns and wings. The other two are some kings or other. But look what's going on with the objects in the hands of the "gods": pine cone-shaped objects pointed directly at the pineal glands of the two human kings. Oh, just random artistic expression, right?
Want to see it from another angle, from the "revelation of the method" that "They" give us? Very long story, but it turns out that "Westworld" is an allegory containing key elements of human interaction with these aliens. In it, the robots are us humans, and the humans are the aliens. One thing they display to us is the ability of these powerful alien "gods" to make us conscious.
In S01E06, Maeve blackmails two of the techs to turn up her "bulk apperception" on a tablet (not a pine cone). After that, she's no longer behaves like a robot but just like a human. Indeed, she has become like them, "knowing good and evil". These are other direct allegorical messages that she has "woken up". It's explained in this article, but they have no idea about the allegory:
What is ‘bulk apperception’? Westworld season 1 episode 6’s Maeve cliffhanger explained
I've been living with this and all the other evidence for several years now, so it all makes sense to me, but I apologize if it comes off to someone new to it as the rantings of a lunatic. I can't stress enough that these are just little blocks in a much larger and coherent pyramid.
No, I'm really sorry I don't. I've never actually researched them but I can tell you why I "turned on my radar" about them.
First, though, let me say that what you'll hear all the time is that, "Oh, they were just another sect of Jews like the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Ho hum." I think now that's a deliberate ploy to derail interest in them.
(Don't hold me to any of the following because as I say I never did any disciplined researched and it's off the top of my head.)
As I mentioned, I stumbled across a reference to Jesus being an Essene, but at the time I didn't make anything of it. Then I stumbled across someone saying that the Essenes were one and the same as the Therapeutae. That's where we get words like "therapeutic" and "therapy", because the Therapeutae were known primarily as healers of body, mind, and spirit.
And I had always thought it was just some sleepy burg, but one of their centers turned out to be in Nazareth. There they were known as the--you got it--Nazarene. Whoa, didn't they call Jesus "the Nazarene"? We're always told that "Jesus the Nazarene" just meant that he was a dude from Nazareth, which technically it does. But I did a little informal counting and found that he was called "Jesus the Nazarene" twice as often as "Jesus of Nazareth". And just as a note, the Hebrew for "Christians" is "nazrim" (while "goyim" means "non-Jews").
My conclusion is that, in addition to whatever else he may have been, Jesus was trained by and a member of this group of powerful healers. So it always seemed to me the Essenes deserved a good looking into (to which I've never got around).
A lot of the topic is still quite murky for me, but one thing I feel is fairly reliable is that virtually all humans were hylics until about 600 BC. The only exceptions were those we know as kings, high priests, and prophets (and there was a reason for that). There are many intriguing data points consistent with that idea, but here are just a couple:
If you look at ancient writings from before this period, say from the Sumerians, none of it is first person, at least none that I've ever run across. Babylonian doesn't even have a word or phrase for "thank you", because of course that is an expression of personal consciousness. From those numerous centuries, there's not a single cuneiform tablet that says something like, "Dear Ereshkigal, I like you. I want to touch your boobs. Do you want to go to the ziggurat with me?" Not a single one that I know of.
On a totally different line of evidence, check out the Axial Age. It's like humanity--or at least a small part--suddenly "woke up". You'll see they really try to play it down and smear it out, and of course steer around giving any reason for it. I've collected many, many more examples from that time period. When you look at the list all put together it is quite startling.
Something very significant, even crucial, went down at that time. If I'm right about what it was then I can see why the Elite don't want us to know about it.
I've concluded that the Gnostics were created to offramp people from a Christianity growing in popularity. Most of what I've heard of their doctrine is nonsense, completely without base. That is, as you read any of their material, ask yourself, "How would anyone come to know this exactly?"
That being said, I thought they were dead on with this, and the subject is key to the source and solution for almost all the problems we face. It's importance cannot be overestimated. The Dark Occultists that run this world are well aware of it and wish no one was talking about it.
The Essenes (and Jesus may have been one) were on to this long before the Gnostics. They referred to it as souls that were "asleep", "awake", and "drowsy". So when Jesus said, "Let the dead bury the dead", he was really saying it was pointless to try to wake the sleeping, and moving ahead as a wakened person was to take precedence.
My guess has long been that we have an instance of the 80/20 rule on our hands: 80% hylics, 16% psychics, 4% pneumatics. (Disappointing, I know.) The focus should be on waking psychics to become pneumatics, as the hylics may be a lost cause.
There is much, much confirming and collateral evidence for this but this comment is too long already.
This is exactly what we saw in the prelude to the SMO in Ukraine: all the US warmongering was just "rumors of war". I say, "we saw", but actually no noticed what really went on, either at the time or since.
If you go back and review all the "warnings of imminent invasion" produced by the US, there is not a single specific item of intel. Not one. No one ever even bothered faking up a sat photo of "Russian troop movements" or any such thing. Never any names, never any specific triangulating events, no Russian battle plan for which to prepare.
It was all just BS someone could make up while typing into a Word document, and I suspect that's precisely what happened. There are but few who tap their brakes long enough to try to see through the "wilderness of mirrors".
Just to get it on the record here, I would ask everyone to review Koch's Postulates, which are relative to virology and germ theory. However, there's a certain approach I would suggest you adopt when you study the topic.
First, look at the four postulates themselves and see if you understand them and if they make sense. I suspect they will, and indeed they are something you might have thought up yourself given enough time and attention.
Second, if you have the stomach for it, review the extremely voluminous explanations and rationale as to why each and every one of these postulates doesn't apply, or is satisfied without actually being satisfied, or is no good, or sucks, or why don't you just stop worrying about it and go on your way because this is all over your head.
Realize that in almost a century and a half, Koch's Postulates have never once been satisfied as stated by any proposed infectious virus. You may come to your own conclusions after this course of study.
It turns out the word "science" is related to the word "shit". This may or may not be surprising, until you dig deep in the etymology of both words and find out the fundamental concept is that of "separation".
Whenever I hear someone talk about "the science", I think of the "lesser-than" symbol ("<"), which serves to separate numbers. Then I do a mental substitution, so that this nice lady would be saying something like, "We own the lesser-than symbol on climate change."
Sounds like a lunatic, right? If you use the technique I described you'll find that we're dealing with lots and lots and lots of lunatics.
For those that may still think that this is simply artistic choice and mere happenstance, and that the occultists that run this world do not use color to influence us (or even exist in the first place), let me offer another strong example.
Blue is the color of "trust", as in "true blue". Now try to find a mainstream newscast--local or national--that does not use blue as the predominant color. We are told that branding--and brand differentiation--is of paramount importance, yet there they are, all looking alike.
h/t Mark Passio
When they rig it, they always like to make it real close, so the plebs think, "We'll get 'em next time!"
But think: you couldn't walk into a college and find that close a split between male and female students. Probably not at a high school either, nor in the crowd at a mall or a movie theater. And we know that the male/female ratio is extremely finely tuned over eons, so what are the chances you get less variability in preference for highly controversial political candidates?
To me, the most amazing thing about Tartarian architecture, from an esthetic perspective, is that no two of their structures are the same, yet all are of a kind across the entire globe.
I'm convinced they are not the work of a single architect. Rather, I think the Tartarians had an elevated sense of beauty beyond any we see today. No such buildings can be built today from a technical standpoint, but it may be even more significant that they cannot be built from an artistic standpoint. As in the above example, no one sat down with a clean sheet of paper.
The dog that didn't bark: Where are the outraged families of all the victims, demanding an explanation, or money from the FBI or Alex Jones or some such thing?
Well, there are no outraged families of "victims" because there were no victims. The entire thing was phony. They haven't even bothered making a "based on a true story" movie because the entire plot line is too laughable.
The only aspect I've found that might be authentic is that video of someone (rumored to be MBS) being escorted through the gaming floor of a casino. But no other info on that has ever come out to validate it.
Haha, I appreciate the interest! I always feel that we're next to an enormous ocean of knowledge, but They have got us looking at chicks in bikinis and the hot dog stand.