Do you mean God's chosen people are selected from non-Jews instead of saying all non-Jews are chosen? Is it impossible for the chosen to be selected from ethnic Jews for some reason?
When Christians read the Bible, it refers to both Jews and Gentiles as goyim. For millennia it was just a common word for "nations".
Writings that speak of people as animals depend on context, Jesus referred to his followers as animals. But I'm trying to remember your view about Jesus.
Again, blurring names is unhelpful. Lucifer and satan are close enough that they can refer to the same entity (but they are also titles, praiser and adversary, that can apply to more than one). Baphomet and Saturn are fascinating side trails and I suppose nowadays they've been merged onto the main strand but sometimes distinctions appear. Ain Sof (Unlimited) is an attempt to name deity apophatically and so it's a title that isn't appropriate for the devil; my rule is not to give him more credit than he deserves. Shekinah (Dwelling) is a form of a Biblical word for God and similarly isn't fitting to glorify the devil with. When you throw names about inexactly, you tend to give more glory to the devil that you're claiming to fight, so the truth requires being exact.
Similarly, the 2800 servants is based on a promise that Christians claim as well, namely Zech. 8:23.
If you think Christians should not endorse parts of the Bible like the word "goy", animal metaphors, Wisdom, Infinity, Adversaries, Presence, Praisers, or many followers from all nations, then it'd be helpful to describe how we know who are God's real chosen and how we know what his real Word is.
I know exactly what result the devil means. He is looking for any event whatsoever, even the motion of a single atom, to escape the will of God. He never succeeds and yet he has committed himself to the nihilism that the unreal must be greater than the real in a meaningful sense.
I love linguistics and someday I'll learn more Russian than the alphabet, so I really appreciate your background, I knew you'd have something "crazy" to say about it.
All that I need to stop a deluge of lies is another person's will to hear truth, it is a stronger shield than the greatest onslaught. Then the truth flows freely between the two of us. If I do that often enough, the truth is heard widely. I used to want to write books that sold millions, then I realized there's little value in it and the gradual method works better for most truth.
It wasn't a success by Guidestone standards. The devil doesn't care about successfully carrying out the fulness of his wrath. His minions think it a success when they get anywhere near 1% of their evil imaginations, and by that standard it was a bit better success than every other op they've tried annually or more often.
If we assume there are white hats, that implies much worse was foiled. Civil War and WWII and Great Leap Forward were better "successes". But war would've been along anyway even if covid was a bigger "success", as the deck chairs of the Titanic are constantly musical. If we assume there aren't white hats, then that implies that the much worse failed by the incompetence of the competing evil factions. Either way we were spared.
Instructive example: the "Copenhagen" treaty was supposed to bind everyone to climate-change OWG. Just before the event, somebody released data proving the warming advocates didn't believe their own data. ("Hide the decline" was I think a key phrase.) Suddenly Copenhagen was objected to and became only a shadow of the tyranny it could've been. That suggests a couple white hats do exist.
Jim Jones looks clearly to me like a scientific experiment to see what can be done, just like the random mutilated animals around the world are, just like everybody's portal summoning spells are. The humans think they're just playing, but a few entities are deadly serious about using the "play" to discover secrets of the universe before anyone else does. And it never helps them either. "One word of truth" is what I heard Solzhenitsyn say.
Proof of concept?
False encyclopedia quote, hoax #6.
Thank you for admitting the names "satanist" or "luciferian" cover the whole group, and the other names only segment the group into various sets of human shields and hidden hands, which can be distracting from conquering the whole group.
Hey Michalus, reclaimed sewer water has the same effect. I'm sure it's more than just fluoridation fatigue. "Pure" ain't what it used to be.
Nimrod was a real person who got identified with the other idol names; he was most likely Naram-Sin, son of Sargon. I just saw him again in a random book in a bas-relief where he is literally building a tower to heaven and yet the author didn't realize it's just Babel (aka Etemenanki).
Gilgamesh was probably a real person who knew Noah (Utnapishtim). I haven't positively ID'd him yet.
The others are overlapping names but sometimes different entities are being invoked (or are at war over the sigils).
u/Lone_Star need not make it all fake. The fact is that the cabal uses much fakery and some reality for the express purpose that anything real can be called fake and anything fake can be called real. I make it 80-20. The 80% fake is def accompanied with lots of money-power-sex transfers but both that track and the supernal track are confederated together.
This is a serious topic and should be stickied every time it comes up.
Looks like a great resource, fren!
In honor of the beginning and ending of the first Salem witch trial on this date in 1692, that of Bridget Bishop, I'd like to ask:
Is your dominant theory then that both the accusers and the convicts were part of a deceptive purge that actually assisted them with consolidating power and resurfacing in the later globalist structures observed?
And does this suggest that earlier trials, such as of Romani, vampires, Jews, or Templars were also often kayfabe to cover for both sides, the alleged hexers and the alleged executioners, who then embraced again after the show closed? Hexecution, that's funny.
Yeah, I appreciate it.
My first take was that Backrooms (web series and film) is a mental lever to get people to talk about DUMBs and the probability that every institutional building does have such rooms. Trump is broadcasting what they are in the ballroom, for instance. I won't name in what institutions the rooms are. For now. If you go ten large buildings in any city you've probably been in an average of one that has a Backrooms portal. Not all are in buildings.
But there's another take, which is that other Backrooms are the spiritual rooms that defy physical laws. These appear in visions and NDEs, where I'll just allude to buildings that change size or shape. I have some of the 4D worked out for them. That seems more the direction Kane intends, and in that sense it's a 2-in-1 mental lever because it gets people talking about accessing that realm too, and the UAPs and such.
I will testify, with 1% exaggeration. I was nearly inducted into entering a door into the Backrooms, but declined. Instead we went outside to the graveyard, but I declined to enter that too. I was covered and felt no fear, I just didn't have a need as I took the guide's word for everything. That wasn't far from the R.C. Christian monument.
Another time I did enter a door into the Backrooms, that was in Texas, again around midnight. Nothing was physically impossible, but pointless unsafe arbitrary wall ladders and large sculptures that tempted climbing were incongruous. In this case we knew the way in and another way out and we had no encounters, but the guide was shocked at how fearless I was when anything could have been encountered.
There are probably offices I've been in where I've seen or passed through a door to the Backrooms where no party knew whether it was official space or off-book space. If I think of them I might add them. Oh yeah, I passed through Backrooms of a haunted amusement park, those workers will tell you how because they know where the demarcs are. Shoulda included that one, but I was distracted with company and scheduling that time. Last week I was at a furnishings store just before I saw the trailer for Backrooms and I shoulda made that connection too because it's exactly the right kind of old building, but I declined to enter the staircase or to cross the guide rope. These are all the first category. The second category only comes to me in dreams.
I suppose the growth industry will be combining the two, that's the whole idea of having the material portal that regulates the spiritual realm, isn't it? Something to include in my Laws of Pneumatics.
DON'T GO WITHOUT JESUS.
Related media: Inferno; The Yellow Wallpaper; the Escher corpus; The Navidson Record; 1408; the one I forgot; and the classic text, Rev. 6:15-17. Add: The one I forgot was Las Hazanas Fantasticas.
Add: Oh dear God. I was just writing to put all my thoughts on the subject in one place, and writing about how I went into a Backrooms-coded region just before seeing the Backrooms trailer without realizing it, and guess what else I didn't realize while writing this. The above starts with both the Guidestones and the Texas climbing sculptures and they're both connected to portals I witnessed. The intent must be, as Stonehenge above, so Backrooms below. Well, let's invert that now. As Christian catacombs below, the realm of koinonia, so Christian parousia above. The top-down evil is beaten by the bottom-up righteousness because only the bottom-up reaches all the way to the top.
TIL that Livy reported that in 186 BC, 7,000 Bacchanalians were executed or imprisoned for ritual sexual abuse of those under 20 and for hurrying victims off to hidden caves in an immense multitude, almost equal to the population of Rome.
no contemporary Egyptian sources mention Moses or the events of the Exodus
The Tempest Stele, the Hearst Medical Papyrus, the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus, the Berlin Apepi Seal, and the Thera dust are all evidence of Biblical plagues striking Egypt all in 1440-1439 BC. All data about the collapse of the 15th dynasty is evidence of the events of the Hyksos expulsion that precisely matches the Biblical description.
there is no mention of Pyramids
I now have more evidence to confirm what I told you above, that the Bible mentions the Tower of Babel as representative of the pyramids. Given the compressed Egyptian chronology based on the principle of simultaneous reigns that all Egyptologists admit, the 65m Pyramid of Menkaure (the third of the three greats) was not only exactly the same height as 66m Etemenanki, it was also built at exactly the same time, in the 2230s. Etemenanki was a ziggurat pyramid rather than a geometric pyramid, but they both count as pyramids. So I've concluded the pyramids came after the deluge tradition instead of before, and this greatly helps the entire chronology of that millennium.
Your link shows that the Chinese used 64 "hexagrams". These were not star-shaped hexagrams or hexagons, but patterns of six parallel lines, which could each be either whole or broken (thus 2^6=64 total). So, yes, the Chinese used a pattern of 6s in the I Ching, without any stars, which is consistent with what I said.
Let's try it a little simpler.
You can't find the Star of David in any ancient scriptures
Correct.
because it never existed,
Correct in that David never used it.
it's actually the Star of Remphan/Chiun/Moloch
It's not the original star of Remphan-Chiun intended by Amos and Stephen, but it's become a star of Remphan-Chiun. Similarly it could not have been a star of Moloch because it was never used in Judaism until after 300 AD.
/Saturn, the Talisman of Saturn
I have no problem saying that Saturnism is satanism and the hexagram star goes very far back with it; for instance, the Sri Sukta ca. 1100 BC describes a yantra of square, circle, and triangle patterns that would include a hexagram. But there's no evidence that the hexagram was singled out as a mark of satanism early on. If we said that satanists had in mind to use setup symbols that could be diverted onto the hexagram track later, maybe, but that's a totally different assertion from saying the hexagram is the star of Saturn.
& the Seal of King Solomon
I showed you that there's no tradition from Solomon that he used the star, as that comes from Arab corruption. If we go prior to the Arab layer and prior to the Zoroastrian layer, where Asmodeus comes from Khashm-Dev or Aeshma Daeva (the Ire Devil), we find that Solomon's actual defense was the name of God (Gittin 68a:10-12): "A chain onto which Name was carved, and a ring onto which Name was carved .... the chain around enclosed him .... The Name of your Master is upon you." So the seal of Solomon, if anything, was the name Yahweh. Is a potential "seal of Solomon" nowadays the hexagram? Could be, times change.
who was a necromancer that summoned demons to build his temple
I have no problem assuming demons were involved. If you track back the 40 plus 390 years prophesied by Ezekiel backward from Zerubbabel's altar of 536 BC, it points to Solomon's temple altar of 966 BC (and Jeroboam's idolatrous altar of 926 BC); so Ezekiel implied that the whole period of the temple had idolatry alongside.
TLDR: You count yourself smarter than these monotheists, so don't fall for their sources but stick to historical research. If you want to point out that all monotheism has had infiltrated idolatry, point out correctly which part happened when, so that your case is listened to rather than laughed off. It's also a good idea for you to propose some other, superior way of apprehending Truth so that you're not dismissed as just as amoral as the people you criticize. Don't just doom, be the solution.
Correct, and what laws did Noah promulgate in truth? How did he define idolatry when he offered animals to God? Surely he believed in the seed of the woman to come.
Do the sons of Noah, including yourself, jointly agree as sovereigns on what the laws of Noah are, Rex?
The issue is that to pursue the truth we want to remove strands that aren't true, so that people don't throw out the whole presentation. True, there's a big satanic sacrificial system connected through these periods, but if we speak inaccurately about it then people will not listen. And on points where I can be confident something is inaccurate, I say so. Facts can be debated without resorting to obscenity or invective; it seems you think I'm harming your narrative when I'm seeking to improve it by affirming the correct parts of it. I would hope your grasp of your narrative is not that fragile.
Historically, Nimrod (Naram-Sin) probably did burn Semitic (Shemite) babies alive and eat them, as indicated by evidence of his gods and practices, but that is not the origin of the word "cannibal", which comes from "Carib" and "kari'na" meaning person. If the devil is causing a recycling of the sounds of Canaan and Baal, let's say that directly instead of saying it is of human derivation.
Bel-Baal was then a title of any god or deified human, so Nimrod could easily have been called that. However, in his day Marduk-Merodach was a minor deity called Amar-Utuk (derived from Utu or Shamash the sun, also allied with Sin the moon), found in a list of minor underworld deities from Abu Salabikh as d-Utu-Amar. We have an old inscription (YOS 9:2) taken by Lambert and Beaulieu as saying the ruler of Babbar (Babilu-Babylon) built a temple to d-Amar-Utu, but this hardly means the ruler and the god were the same person. (Add: Both Babbar and Sippar may mean "sunny" in Sumerian, later punned as "gods' gate".) The ruler's name is preserved as "son of Ahu-Ilum [semitic for "God's brother"], man of Ilum-Beli, man of Ur-Kubi" [Kubi is an even more obscure demon or consortium]. If we take this as Nimrod building Etemenanki, he is not merged with Marduk at that time (though we might infer that his uncle Canaan is merging with El-Ilum). The merger of Nimrod with Marduk was over a millennium later in the Babylon revival; he wasn't "Marduk" during his lifetime, and so if we want to say the religion merged him in much later we should say that.
The hexagram may today be associated with 666, hag-hexing, Remphan, Moloch-Baal, and Saturn (and thereby Nimrod and Osiris), by very modern imaginative combination, but this recent nexus is not its original meaning. If we just want to point out the hexagram has been recently roped into the cluster of symbols for this sacrificial system, we should say that.
By the same token, Edom, Canaan, Kenan, and Judah are all easily distinguished, as are their religions, and we should not act like they are all one. In particular, the religion of Judah is testified as monotheism and was distinct from the polytheism infiltrated into it by his descendants. If you want to say that all these peoples had common elements, including the Jews having elements of baalism in their professed monotheism (much as many nominal Christians do today), we should say that, like the Bible does.
Since you appear to reject the Jews as a race, it's odd that you should take the testimony of Graham, who intends it as faithful to Judaism. Just as odd as that you should affirm him in saying the hexagram really is the sign of Solomon but not the sign of David, without any evidence, mechanism, or rationale. Semiotics can be made an exact science.
I'm not watching three hours if they can't even spell "Phoenician" in the thumbnail.
The star of Remphan and Chiun was in Israel a thousand years before the hexagram was. They're not related. The best candidate for the original star of Remphan is actually the bronze Nehushtan or poled snake, which is represented by "$" rather than "*". Remphan (Rephaim) means Titans, and Chiun means Saturn. It's true that there's a cult history connecting the Nephilim to the Canaanites to Nehushtan and Moloch, but this does not have evidence of involving a "star" as we conceive of it (i.e. a polygram). The concept of "star" was not semiotically associated with the polygram shape, but with various representations of points of light, such as crosses in circles.
It's associated with neither David nor Solomon. It's illogical to say it's not David's but it is Solomon's. Fact is that both legends were far backdated, mostly by Arabs. Graham's book says (p. 24), as to Solomon's idolatry, "Part of the evidence is the six-pointed star, which was called the Seal of Solomon from then on"; but the etymology of "seal of Solomon" tapers off only a little prior to Muhammad and has no Jewish origin.
The earliest Jewish legend of Solomon's sorcery says that he had an inscription containing God's name, possibly just a simple tetragrammaton (no data about a particular shape), which was used to control a demon named Asmodeus. This is clearly a later legend based on a Zoroastrian legend of controlling the demon Khashm-Dev. That legend, a thousand years later, was combined with Arabic geometry to propose a particular sigil that eventually resolved as being a hexagram.
Graham correctly begins by noting the hexagram is not Jewish (see my first link), and notes that Amos's star is indeed associated with Moses, but then he claims there's evidence of Solomon (that marriage was probably the 960s or 950s instead, certainly not 922 since he was dead when Shishak subjugated his son Rehoboam in 926; probably a transciption error by Graham, who puts David's birth more correctly ca. 1040). There's no hexagram in Solomon because there are very few records of Solomon anyway. There are many hexagrams and polygrams in ancient world history, and the Egypt route does not connect to the Arab route. After the Arabs the research is probably correct.
Your link mentions the tomb of Leon ben David containing a hexagram, but that is a random occurrence based on the hexagram being a generic symbol of peace; Gershon Scholem finds it only as early as 6th century, in agreement with my cite of him in my first link. To correct another implied error, the word "hex" is from a German root related to "hag" ("hagzissa"), but the prefix "hexa-" is not related and is from the common Latin roots for "six", which in German is the completely different "sehs".
The idea of connecting the hexagram directly to 666 is very recent and was never used until recent semiology (though the basic connection of hexagram to 6, for mankind, is well-known and the connection of 6 to 666 is also obvious). There's no 666 in Daniel, there's just a figure who templates over the 666 figure in Revelation.
There's little to say about Masonry as it's not here connected to semiology; however, the idea that the hexagram has any specialness in Masonry is exaggerated, as they will use or abandon any symbol as they see fit.
TLDR: Graham has a lot of good research and is a well-meaning traditional religious Jew. However, actual appearance of the hexagram in Judaism is not older than the 4th century and all attribution backward is ordinary pseudepigraphy. His description of the risks and history of idolatry is otherwise helpful even if it doesn't depend on the hexagram. But calling the hexagram "the" star of Remphan is a historical failure even though it's modernly been adopted as "a" star of Remphan.
Go to BlueLetterBible.com and copy out the Hebrew verses one per line. Write the second line in reverse (i.e. following a back-and-forth plow path). Since each line has 72 letters you have 72 columns. Read the 3-letter strings vertically and pretend they're angel names. That's all the cabalists have been doing for 3000 years, the rest is their imagination.
The original 72 sigils are just Ex. 14:19-21 read in boustrophedon columns instead of rows (each verse has 72 letters). They're a crossword, similar to those found in Egypt. Christians should reclaim them.
Correct. Nagasaki was in the top 15, excluded from the top 5 reportedly at Truman's request. The second intended target was Kokura, and weather prevented several attempts. At what was proved to be literally the last minute, Kokura was abandoned and the backup of Nagasaki was given one attempt, which was successful. Bockscar lost two engines during its emergency landing in Okinawa, its fuel was so low. So Nagasaki was only promoted to backup site because it was en route from a top 5 site.
Actual Epstein mentions (200+) by full name / last name with Bondi index numbers:
Larry Visoski 23702/24736
164 Ghislaine Maxwell 16983/23565
281 Larry Summers 5796/7630
Lawrence Krauss 5283/6010
45 Luc Brunel 5146/5856
14 Ehud Barak 4100/7002
Nicole Junkermann 3499/4344
216 Pritzker (Tom) 3352/7173
100 Bill Gates 2637/6382
5 Prince Andrew 2546/19073
Mark Lloyd 2265/4159
76 Alan Dershowitz 2049/2962
61 Bill Clinton 1661/3944
Mark Epstein 1400/602765
Joe Pagano 1240/1373
189 President Obama 1001/2575
Linda Pinto 990/2916
63 Hillary Clinton 762/3944
Glenn Dubin 760/8531
24 Joe Biden 377/588
Henry Rosovsky 376/526
Al Gore 285/523
Naomi Campbell 275/998
268 Kevin Spacey 238/264
12 Doug Band 217/2828
Madonna 200
The rest are under 200. Madonna is the only new name in that group; apparently the minor DOJ document shuffles put her at exactly 200 now, so there is no news here.
"Luc Bunuel", "Pritzker Tom", "Prince Andrew", and "President Obama" are more frequent forms in the documents than the usual name forms. It appears that "Paula Hala" and "Svetlana Glazunova" do not resolve to actual people unless some other Paula or Svetlana is intended.
Would you like the truth? Since you use boilerplates, I'll give you the truth I have to see if you want it.
Thank you for assuming that I should suffer with these people. The synagogue of satan were not Jews but can be identified by the letters of Ignatius to Smyrna and Philadelphia as a group of wannabe Jews probably including a young Onkelos (who later converted). Babylon, Edom, and Canaan do not have continuing polity despite people being influenced by them. Many Pharisees were sympathetic to Jesus, like Hillel, Joseph, Nicodemus, Gamaliel, Paul, the righteous scribe, and many of the ten thousands of Torah-observant Messianic Jews in Acts 21:20.
Of course Christians claim Zech. 8:23 just as Jews do, the interpretation is different though. But whatever the passage says it says to all the righteous. If laws are Noahide then by definition they are to be agreed by all children of Noah, Gentile and Jew both. In the Bible idolators are indeed guilty of capital sin, but the view of Judaism has not been that Christianity is idolatry (except for a very small number of nonrepresentative teachers like Ulla, 4th c.); rather, Christianity is a special case to be treated differently and tolerated for the sanctification of God's name. There is no authoritative Jewish source by which the distortion of Noahide law is drawn; rather it's all just wild inference. Obviously Noah is not Babylonian, nor Talmudic which is a wholly different law and jurisdiction.
You quote two crazed compilations that are mostly not from the Talmud and that are entirely misunderstandings of actual texts, so far from the written text as to be often incomprehensible. (For instance, the nonexistence of "Libbre David" was noted back in 1920.) The first contains a slight bit of material new to me so I will answer it separately. The second is just this graphic and is entirely answerable with facts and accurate quotes (see passages with reference [4]).
TLDR: If you want to criticize Jews or Talmud, do it right. When you misquote you create sympathy for Jews and can be accused of shilling for them. Criticize the superstition and legalism of the actual quotes, not the misquotes that don't represent actual teaching.