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.
I read it as a book of puzzles, it doesn't want to be described in one sentence and I probably didn't finish reading it through until adulthood. It weaves the theme of self-awareness to explore what we do with life and what we think we want computers to do (in the 80s) and then applies the truth no system is perfect to demonstrate the zen of never really knowing it all anyway. If you have a lot of time to pursue many Carrollian wordplay and logicplay fugal voices to get a roundabout view of the braided thesis, go for it, it's still relevant; but otherwise check out Hofstadter's articles and shorter books to get a feel first.
I was writing LLMs in the 80s. I followed the instructions in Scientific American and Godel, Escher, Bach.
Rev. 2:12-29, Pergamum and Thyatira.
comment ignored as likely part of the 50% fakery
Wonderful. What if the Bible is part of the reality of truth, how would you know you're trying to dodge it rather than sophisticatedly debunking something false when you reject it? What's the baseline for reality if it isn't something outside you and something inside you both in agreement?
What is truth?
Same thing goes if you suggest to someone religious that the Bible is not quite what they think it is. The more examples you give them and the more carefully you explain them, the harder they resist.
Heh heh. Sure, there are many misunderstandings about the Bible, but how would you go about coming to the truth of the matter with a common agreement on the means of pursuit so that an outside party can objectively tell where any "resistance" might lie?
I like the fear angle, it's valid up until the point that you realize the truth is responsible for itself and will not deceive, so you need have no fear of exploring it. "Who fears is not perfected in love."
Last time they came up with something this, ahem, retarded, the Bible disproved it right away for me, ca. March 2020, namely Lev. 13:45. The sick cover their mouths, which means the healthy don't have to.
Let's see how the Bible disproves this one. Hmm, the presenting claim is: "You killed me by mixing my weak constitution, for which I'm not responsible, with a wafted byproduct of what would otherwise be your right to engage publicly; therefore everyone's right to eat normally is negated by my right to your consideration." The answer should come in the form of defining reasonable and unreasonable accommodation.
Ah yes, it's 1 Cor. 10:25-26: "Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof." Because grilling is commonly done in society without ill consequence or medical reaction, it can be assumed it need not force a special accommodation. If someone says it's a matter of conscience, where there would have to be reasonable proof that smell kills, then you could make an argument to abstain when you know such a person is around. But that would need (1) cooption of medicine to invent an illness where significant rights (eating) can be trampled at the mercy of unlikely, unproven theory, and (2) sheeple society that believe self-destructive altruism toward a person who may not exist is better morals than one's obvious duties to oneself and one's family and neighbors who do exist. And it wouldn't affect private property without further transmission theory.
If people really could die of smelling something, we'd be accumulating death certificates where the diagnosis was allergic reaction to ordinarily occurring airborne phenomena. Yes, if you think peanuts or mayonnaise will inflame you, I'll politely not engage in those nearby you, but you don't run my life. A quick check shows this is almost entirely due to actual ingestion with no deaths blamed on simple scent. Peanuts have dust, but grilling doesn't produce airborne dust AFAIK. So I don't think what you smell will kill you, and again natural evils have their natural limit.
Vlad: You're horrid for being a woman
Also Vlad: You're horrid for being a man pretending to be a woman
Luke 7:33-34
Correct, I no longer have to wade through four pages per session of flat-birthers and Hitlerjuden carrying out the recycling.
Otherwise engagement is the same, i.e. signal-noise ratio is hitting several nines.
Nelson Mandela enters the chat
I have no problem believing that certain corporations like Berkshire Hathaway (owners of Fruit of the Loom) were willingly conscripted by the US government to participate in early pilot programs to invent althist and make it retroactive reality. The corporation scrubs and locks all its official history to remove a minor item (e.g. a cornucopia in the logo), while the government massages the internet with its early image recognition models to remove or neutralize any residual graphic evidence. Suddenly the confused public, who knows the truth, cannot evidence it graphically (except for finding a couple old newspaper clippings with the word "cornucopia").
Welcome to Tlon, Uqbar.
The solution is truth of course. Althist is simply larping and massive narrative seizure, and has been happening since the 72,000-year reign of "Enmendurana". All modern geology, evolutionary biology, and astrophysics is althist larping. Yet even confused normies with an experience (memory) will eventually overcome even billions of lockstep zergs with an pretense. (At c/Christianity I'm getting ready to post about how this is done as to Egyptian history.) Simply trust that truth will guide you and it will.
sounds unregulated
The reason you don't see this all the time is actually guardrails built into the system, systems on top of systems, that look for this kind of content and tries to stop it from getting back to the user (there are many different strategies, you could simply look for certain words and block messages containing them, you can use LLMs themselves to scan for problematic content) they are just not perfect
Simpler: The makers have no liability and so they have no requirement to follow through on their guardrail promises, they only need to steer clear of bad optics which is a totally different dynamic than actually doing no harm. "Not perfect" is by design.
It seems like magic
It is what all cultures have called magic, namely mechanics that defy explanation by any individual. The fuzzy line between science and magic isn't that one is supernatural but that one is harder to explain. The difficulty with magic is whether it's regulated ("miracles") or unregulated ("sorcery"). Nobody wants to put in regulation time, as said above. (Whoso will not self-regulate will become regulated.)
us who successfully have helped people as competent & skillful NLP & clinical-hypnosis therapists at least have a Clue
Thank you, my friend. Now that you mention it, I am someone who needs help with having humility with others. Would you be willing to help?
Simple. AI cannot be conscious, but humans and spirits can put so many trapdoors and backdoors into it that it can be used to manipulate and pick off individuals. Review The Screwtape Letters for the method.
Third Eye, are you actually interested in getting at the truth of what the Talmud says and what Solomon and the rest did? Because you're not acting like you pursue the truth at all costs, but that you just pursue low-effort posts and comments regardless of how botlike it appears.