This is interesting, because it's delving into the same sort of scenario as Islam.
The idea being that Muhammad created a religion, and a following, simply to conquer his enemies. In the case of Islam we know this to be true, because that's literally how things went down in rather short order.
Thanks Ogre! Re: Muhammad, I will be delving just a little bit into Islam in later posts, but as a side note, it's interesting that there is no mention of Muhammad at all in historical texts until 70 years after his death: "Holland looks at the earliest evidence for Muhammad, Mecca and Islam in the first century of the Arab Empire, pointing to a lack of evidence in the historical record to support the traditional account. He points out that there is almost no contemporary historical evidence about the life of Muhammad, with no mention of him at all in historical texts until 70 years after his death. He states that contrary to Islamic doctrine which says Islam was behind the creation of the Arab Empire, Muawiyah I became leader of the Arab Empire in Jerusalem 30 years after Muhammad's death despite showing little sign of being Muslim, and that no mention of Muhammad or Islam can be found in any of Muawiyah's inscriptions, coins, or documents." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam:_The_Untold_Story#Synopsis
Still reading, but just taking a moment to say wow about the Tom Holland clip. I'm wowed by his idea that Christianity was a desacralizing influence, which took the spiritual out of the everyday magic of springs and trees and kind of banished it up into abstract heaven, and that protestantism and later atheism continued along this same theme. I'm familiar with the notion of Christianity as a radical inversion (the first shall be last, meek inherit the earth, etc.) and I'm familiar with monotheism crowding out polytheism, paganism, etc. But I hadn't really contemplated this notion of Christianity as an engine of *despiritualization* before. Interesting.
I see that you do get to John and Revelation - most briefly. And like many other antagonists, you play fast & loose, knowing that the masses have never dug deeply into Revelation.
First of all, John does not speak “plainly” but is clearly the “mystic” of the gospel writers. Secondly, the language of Revelation is clearly a judgement on the global population - not just Rome. You deal specifically with The Whore, who is clearly ecclesiastical, but ignore the beasts, which are control leaders and systems.
And of course the elephant in the room is Revelation 13 and the Mark of the Beast - again, a global economic control system - that we see coming to fruition in real time. Oh, and let’s not forget Revelation 9/11 - the King of the Bottomless Pit. So interesting is that architecture at The ONE WORLD Trade Center and those memorial fountains that resemble black abysses. But that is way beyond most people’s comprehension.
You are just another of that 33 who with long words reinforces the destruction of those on that path. But for those who see, your theory is full of holes and quite silly.
Hi Tom, if you read Tom Holland's strong book "Dominion", you will see that every generation post-Jesus has believed that they were in the End Times and they saw Revelation occurring everywhere. The language used is so vaguely worded that it can be applied to most times and circumstances. That being said, I agree with you that our globalist leaders have adopted Satanic imagery and energy, and they use it to bind elites together against the God-believing peasants (which is why they include references to 666 whenever they can).
I am well aware of people throughout all generations thinking they are in “the last days” and that surely their current villain is THE final antichrist. And for whatever the reason of their myopic perspective, the truth is, that until the age of the computer, there has never existed a system capable of controlling the entire world’s economy right down to the atolls of the South Pacific.
With ever increasing infrastructure - cell towers, signal repeaters, RFID readers, etc., the Mark of the Beast is going live.
666 has been Hollywooded; the real number is 33, and the close second is 911. Christ was manifested and killed to kill the 33 - the Tares among the wheat - that’s why his death at 33 is so highly symbolic, and not random.
“For this reason the son of man was manifested: to destroy the world of the devil”.
That’s the whole ball of wax in a nutshell.
“If they understood, they would not have killed the Lord of Glory”. Paraphrase - can’t recall the exact, but it’s the same meaning.
And further, there is a supernatural signature on the Bible - this literary trick that keeps men arguing for centuries. Men agree with the fundamental message of Jesus as Savior, but argue about most everything else. Why? As I said, it is a Divine literary trick to 1. Keep men from fully unifying - a unified church is a dangerous institution as demonstrated by The Roman Catholic Church (who is likely that whore in Revelation) and 2. It keeps men engaged. If the Bible was as straightforward as the Ten Commandments throughout, men would soon lose interest. The Bible is written by the genius inspiration of The Holy Spirit which keeps millennium of peoples engaged.
As to any corruption of the text, well it’s not enough to skew the central message. My personal problem is with Romans 13, which if I were an elite, would be the text I would insert on a population taught to turn the otter cheek.
It has not been Christianity, (nor the teachings of Saint Paul that are a fundamental part of it), what has given rise to Bolshevism (which is the total subversion of Christianity and its photographic negative, so to speak) or to the power of the banking system led by the supposedly Jewish Rothschilds (in reality they are Khazars, a Tatar people from the Siberian steppes). What has made this power possible has been satanic Freemasonry whose main objective was always to put an end to Christianity.
The first attack on Christianity was led by Protestantism which was heavily but unconsciously at first influenced by Jewish doctrines and it is no wonder that freemasonry (which is just Judaism for gentiles) was born and grew in protestant countries. Neither the Talmud, nor the Kabbalah (which are behind Freemasonry) have anything to do with the Christian Creed which is its exact opposite (but they have a lot to do with paganism since they borrowed heavily from the Egyptian and Babylonian religious systems and of course from the Gnostics. In fact the Kabbalah is just the Gnosis with a Jewish flare)
The second lethal blow to Christianity came with the Khazarian Soviet Revolution and the third one with the second Vatican council which was carried out by freemasons. The New Testament is full of quotes that condemn Judaism but those Jews who truly convert to Christianity are highly praised. The new Testament is the key to understand the old Testament which also harshly criticizes the Jews on account of their idolatry.
Christianity was the official creed of the West until the 18th century and during those eighteen centuries the power and influence of the Jews were negligible (except in Protestant countries), it is the freemasonic anti-Christianity what has made possible the liberal neo-feudalism mentioned in the article. Neither liberalism nor communism are properly political doctrines, they are variants of the Gnostic religion in its Jewish version born in the Masonic lodges and hence their hostility to Christianity.
Just reading through now, but I have to pause and inquire: you say, “ the three other main figures of the New Testament, Mark, Luke and Paul were also all Jews. “. Above that statement, you quote John, but conspicuously leave him out as a “main figure”. Mark is known for the book of Mark, Luke for his namesake book and acts, Paul for his epistles, and John, you know very well, his gospel, 3 epistles, and most importantly Revelation. Why did you leave home out? Perhaps you will get to him, but I find your omission here curious.
How about instead that St Paul’s writings are an integral part of inspired and inerrant Sacred Scripture, which is the foundation for the infallible dogmas of the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation. Add this to your arsenal instead of Gnosticism.
1. I'm curious as to why you have not accepted the mythicist view of Jesus as a Jewish angel as conceived by Paul (as per Richard Carrier)? Not that it matters per se.
2. Another point - the use of the word "Bolshevism" to denote centrifugal forces present in any society seems like an American thing to do. It doesn't make sense to paint this economist-industrial philosophy of the tautology of man and machine with the same brush as Christianity (with the exceptions of its inherited Christian and pre-Darwinian egalitarian tendencies).
3. Spandrell's article (https://archive.is/tAJVX) has so many outright incorrect things, it's ridiculous. For one, feminism had started in the West decades before the 1917 Russian Revolution (hence can't be a response thereto). Another idiocy - the stated higher "loyalty" of the feudal system as opposed to the liberal one - as if the Middle Ages had not been a state of perpetual civil war. Utter nonsense.
No wonder he had hundreds of commenters. And under the article, he calls the current Western Zeitgeist a "top-down phenomenon"! Even though you literally cannot hear even a hint at anything otherwise, and that with our modern communication technologies, and the decentralised nature of the Western order! (Case in point - compare the Western incel community with the late Soviet dissident circles. The incels are despised, the liar Solzhenitsyn was and is worshipped.)
Ah, almost forgot, in the very first paragraphs he praises Putin according to his views (by expecting him to bury Lenin's mummy). Yep, a pure idiot. (This segment has grown larger than I initially expected.)
4. But regarding the general point - a marvelous article! Should be featured on Chechar's blog. A really good summary of Jewish historical superiority. Were they not to grow messy hair and mutilate genitalia, I would consider them a pinnacle of biological evolution. There is a certain symmetry to Rome and Judaea, both originally tiny mustard seeds...
If I were to add something poetic, I would point out how tragic it is that the fate of the Aryan race became inseparable from that of Rome. Neither the Germanics nor the Slavs proved able to withstand the quick & dirty buck of Roman préstige. Nevertheless, many did try, the Saxons and the Vikings of old, and the more recent Hitlerian SS and the Spanish Communists.
And now, the edifice of the accursed Christendom is beginning to unravel, the wild vegetation outside poised to break the glass of the greenhouse.
Hi Adunai, thanks for your comments, I'll give some thought to them. Regarding #1, I'm not entirely opposed to Carrier's argument, although it will remain a question and up in the air, but I object to it on the grounds the argument is both unnecessary and inflammatory. I'm offering a theory which doesn't rely on that point either way, and there are things about Christianity that I like and respect a lot (and which I articulated) which I think was and is important to convey to Christian readers, and using Carrier's argument (even if I was convinced by it, which I'm not) would, imo, close off a lot of minds.
It's fascinating to observe such cuckoldry in real time, thanks for the experience. I myself can't feel how to offend Christians either way (to my simple mind, calling them Jew-worshippers seems sufficient, yet it usually doesn't get registered by their brains).
So, as I see it, here you are following an old water course upstream into the past to see the countryside that stream/river passed through before getting to the present -- and eventually you are going to extrapolate the upstream course of this old water course to predict what will be going on in the human future (downstream). It's a pretty narrow (myopic, like you say) valley you are following, though, as it does not take into account various Eastern traditions that independently landed on the very same equality perspective that apparently causes you discomfort and unrest. Are you going to eventually claim 'the Chosen' dreamed up Buddhism and Taoism, too?
Hi Larry, thanks for your comment. The specific argument made under this theory is an ideology being crafted and deployed to rile up the masses in order to overthrow the existing order; in Rome's case it was via spiritual bolshevism, in Russia it was via economic bolshevism and in the west now it is being done via racial bolshevism (what Spandrell calls bioleninism). I don't see any such links to Buddhism or Taoism, but if you have some I'd be happy to look at it, lol. Part 2 should hopefully address your questions surrounding how Christianity evolved into modern day secular liberalism.
What I'm getting at is an alternative view to your overthrowing hypotheses (i.e., your 'bolshevism for all seasons') -- namely, what you see is what you get when it comes to long-lasting religions -- and no sneakiness and bad intent were involved like you seem to be suggesting. I only mentioned Buddhism and Taoism because they are independent religions/philosophies that arrived at the same 'equality' viewpoint as Christianity. So, maybe something genuine was going on in the human past in a number of different cultures at about the same time -- and no skulduggery was involved. See Karl Jaspers' "Axial Age" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_Age).
Thanks for the link, Larry. According to it the Axial Age was from the 8th to 3rd century BC. Are you suggesting there was a similar spontaneous, independent push for spiritual equality across vast distances among the masses around 0 AD? I would be interested in seeing it if so.
And only follows it and cherry picks the scenery to reinforce his “theory”. An honest quest would start with an examination of the Jews themselves. A culture with a set of laws that are unlike any other - designed to distinguish them from all other cultures in all of human history. That’s quite a pedigree.
As a Christian, I do loathe the fawning over the Jews. IMO, the Christian should be complete neutral toward them. The Jews have certainly leveraged the silly devotion of Christians to the detriment of Christianity.
But who are the real Jews and who are those “who CALL THEMSELVES Jews, BUT are of the synagogue of Satan”? You will know them by their fruits.
Hi Tom, this post does discuss both (1) Jesus's core disagreements with the Pharisees, who were focused on action and not intent; (2) the differences between Jews, Christians and Muslims in their outlooks and beliefs, and (3) links to a long-form deleted Wikipedia article on criticisms of the Talmud. If you look at the highlighted links in the post you will see this. The previous section in the series also offers a blistering attack on the central bank owning Rothschilds and their allies, and calls their actions essentially Satanic.
The Jews and their peculiar isolating, sequestering laws, existed only as a vehicle to bring forth Jesus. They understood this as a salvation plan for themselves, but ultimately it was to deal with a larger cosmic problem that they are mostly blind to. Those laws were designed to guard a pure human genetic lineage, untainted by the half human hybrids among us (the Tares).
That they are “the chosen people” is technically correct, but it’s more a matter of the selection of one flathead screwdriver over another. You have to choose one to work with, thus it becomes “the chosen” by default. The Jews have special abilities only because of their close historical affiliation with the Divine. He is faithful by nature; they are faithless. Apart from that, they would not enjoy the advantages that they do.
Hi Pandelis, interpretations of history are always going to have degrees of bias, just like all mass media has (large) elements of bias in it today. You are right that Gibbon is looked at as a giant with "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", which is why I decided to quote from it.
As I explained elsewhere, I have tried to derive a model for the world based on its explanatory power for the present as well as its predictive abilities for the future; to see the hyper-focus on equality today stemming from a transvaluation of other non-equality values from millennia ago lines up with what I see. That being said, I encourage you not to rely on anything I write here and to look into and decide things for yourself.
This is interesting, because it's delving into the same sort of scenario as Islam.
The idea being that Muhammad created a religion, and a following, simply to conquer his enemies. In the case of Islam we know this to be true, because that's literally how things went down in rather short order.
I'm looking forward to part 2!
Thanks Ogre! Re: Muhammad, I will be delving just a little bit into Islam in later posts, but as a side note, it's interesting that there is no mention of Muhammad at all in historical texts until 70 years after his death: "Holland looks at the earliest evidence for Muhammad, Mecca and Islam in the first century of the Arab Empire, pointing to a lack of evidence in the historical record to support the traditional account. He points out that there is almost no contemporary historical evidence about the life of Muhammad, with no mention of him at all in historical texts until 70 years after his death. He states that contrary to Islamic doctrine which says Islam was behind the creation of the Arab Empire, Muawiyah I became leader of the Arab Empire in Jerusalem 30 years after Muhammad's death despite showing little sign of being Muslim, and that no mention of Muhammad or Islam can be found in any of Muawiyah's inscriptions, coins, or documents." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam:_The_Untold_Story#Synopsis
VERY interesting! I've always seen Islam not as a religion per se, but more of a political ideology. Kind of like Marxism.
Still reading, but just taking a moment to say wow about the Tom Holland clip. I'm wowed by his idea that Christianity was a desacralizing influence, which took the spiritual out of the everyday magic of springs and trees and kind of banished it up into abstract heaven, and that protestantism and later atheism continued along this same theme. I'm familiar with the notion of Christianity as a radical inversion (the first shall be last, meek inherit the earth, etc.) and I'm familiar with monotheism crowding out polytheism, paganism, etc. But I hadn't really contemplated this notion of Christianity as an engine of *despiritualization* before. Interesting.
Powerful and persuasive essay.
Multiple reviews of a book on this subject from a bunch of guys who are devoting large parts of their lives researching precisely this matter can be found in the linked document. Each review has references to follow, if time, energy, and interest allow: https://www.dropbox.com/s/17b00p6gttck3va/Religion%20and%20empire%20in%20the%20Axial%20Age%20%28Turchin%2C%20etc.%29.pdf?dl=0 Me, I kind of prefer Turchin's viewpoint.
I see that you do get to John and Revelation - most briefly. And like many other antagonists, you play fast & loose, knowing that the masses have never dug deeply into Revelation.
First of all, John does not speak “plainly” but is clearly the “mystic” of the gospel writers. Secondly, the language of Revelation is clearly a judgement on the global population - not just Rome. You deal specifically with The Whore, who is clearly ecclesiastical, but ignore the beasts, which are control leaders and systems.
And of course the elephant in the room is Revelation 13 and the Mark of the Beast - again, a global economic control system - that we see coming to fruition in real time. Oh, and let’s not forget Revelation 9/11 - the King of the Bottomless Pit. So interesting is that architecture at The ONE WORLD Trade Center and those memorial fountains that resemble black abysses. But that is way beyond most people’s comprehension.
You are just another of that 33 who with long words reinforces the destruction of those on that path. But for those who see, your theory is full of holes and quite silly.
Hi Tom, if you read Tom Holland's strong book "Dominion", you will see that every generation post-Jesus has believed that they were in the End Times and they saw Revelation occurring everywhere. The language used is so vaguely worded that it can be applied to most times and circumstances. That being said, I agree with you that our globalist leaders have adopted Satanic imagery and energy, and they use it to bind elites together against the God-believing peasants (which is why they include references to 666 whenever they can).
I am well aware of people throughout all generations thinking they are in “the last days” and that surely their current villain is THE final antichrist. And for whatever the reason of their myopic perspective, the truth is, that until the age of the computer, there has never existed a system capable of controlling the entire world’s economy right down to the atolls of the South Pacific.
With ever increasing infrastructure - cell towers, signal repeaters, RFID readers, etc., the Mark of the Beast is going live.
666 has been Hollywooded; the real number is 33, and the close second is 911. Christ was manifested and killed to kill the 33 - the Tares among the wheat - that’s why his death at 33 is so highly symbolic, and not random.
“For this reason the son of man was manifested: to destroy the world of the devil”.
That’s the whole ball of wax in a nutshell.
“If they understood, they would not have killed the Lord of Glory”. Paraphrase - can’t recall the exact, but it’s the same meaning.
And further, there is a supernatural signature on the Bible - this literary trick that keeps men arguing for centuries. Men agree with the fundamental message of Jesus as Savior, but argue about most everything else. Why? As I said, it is a Divine literary trick to 1. Keep men from fully unifying - a unified church is a dangerous institution as demonstrated by The Roman Catholic Church (who is likely that whore in Revelation) and 2. It keeps men engaged. If the Bible was as straightforward as the Ten Commandments throughout, men would soon lose interest. The Bible is written by the genius inspiration of The Holy Spirit which keeps millennium of peoples engaged.
As to any corruption of the text, well it’s not enough to skew the central message. My personal problem is with Romans 13, which if I were an elite, would be the text I would insert on a population taught to turn the otter cheek.
Couldn't agree more about Romans 13. It's the only thing for me that brings it all to a screeching halt. Dangerous piece of advice.
It has not been Christianity, (nor the teachings of Saint Paul that are a fundamental part of it), what has given rise to Bolshevism (which is the total subversion of Christianity and its photographic negative, so to speak) or to the power of the banking system led by the supposedly Jewish Rothschilds (in reality they are Khazars, a Tatar people from the Siberian steppes). What has made this power possible has been satanic Freemasonry whose main objective was always to put an end to Christianity.
The first attack on Christianity was led by Protestantism which was heavily but unconsciously at first influenced by Jewish doctrines and it is no wonder that freemasonry (which is just Judaism for gentiles) was born and grew in protestant countries. Neither the Talmud, nor the Kabbalah (which are behind Freemasonry) have anything to do with the Christian Creed which is its exact opposite (but they have a lot to do with paganism since they borrowed heavily from the Egyptian and Babylonian religious systems and of course from the Gnostics. In fact the Kabbalah is just the Gnosis with a Jewish flare)
The second lethal blow to Christianity came with the Khazarian Soviet Revolution and the third one with the second Vatican council which was carried out by freemasons. The New Testament is full of quotes that condemn Judaism but those Jews who truly convert to Christianity are highly praised. The new Testament is the key to understand the old Testament which also harshly criticizes the Jews on account of their idolatry.
Christianity was the official creed of the West until the 18th century and during those eighteen centuries the power and influence of the Jews were negligible (except in Protestant countries), it is the freemasonic anti-Christianity what has made possible the liberal neo-feudalism mentioned in the article. Neither liberalism nor communism are properly political doctrines, they are variants of the Gnostic religion in its Jewish version born in the Masonic lodges and hence their hostility to Christianity.
Just reading through now, but I have to pause and inquire: you say, “ the three other main figures of the New Testament, Mark, Luke and Paul were also all Jews. “. Above that statement, you quote John, but conspicuously leave him out as a “main figure”. Mark is known for the book of Mark, Luke for his namesake book and acts, Paul for his epistles, and John, you know very well, his gospel, 3 epistles, and most importantly Revelation. Why did you leave home out? Perhaps you will get to him, but I find your omission here curious.
Christianity, it seems to me, lost the message of Christ very quickly.
And I don't believe that "sacrifice yourself for nothing" was the message of Christ btw.
Your other writing is great. But the St Paul stuff is really dumb. This is what happens when really smart people who love the truth aren’t Catholic.
How about instead that St Paul’s writings are an integral part of inspired and inerrant Sacred Scripture, which is the foundation for the infallible dogmas of the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation. Add this to your arsenal instead of Gnosticism.
Typos: 1) It’s success; 2) atomis; 3) Eruopean.
1. I'm curious as to why you have not accepted the mythicist view of Jesus as a Jewish angel as conceived by Paul (as per Richard Carrier)? Not that it matters per se.
2. Another point - the use of the word "Bolshevism" to denote centrifugal forces present in any society seems like an American thing to do. It doesn't make sense to paint this economist-industrial philosophy of the tautology of man and machine with the same brush as Christianity (with the exceptions of its inherited Christian and pre-Darwinian egalitarian tendencies).
3. Spandrell's article (https://archive.is/tAJVX) has so many outright incorrect things, it's ridiculous. For one, feminism had started in the West decades before the 1917 Russian Revolution (hence can't be a response thereto). Another idiocy - the stated higher "loyalty" of the feudal system as opposed to the liberal one - as if the Middle Ages had not been a state of perpetual civil war. Utter nonsense.
No wonder he had hundreds of commenters. And under the article, he calls the current Western Zeitgeist a "top-down phenomenon"! Even though you literally cannot hear even a hint at anything otherwise, and that with our modern communication technologies, and the decentralised nature of the Western order! (Case in point - compare the Western incel community with the late Soviet dissident circles. The incels are despised, the liar Solzhenitsyn was and is worshipped.)
Ah, almost forgot, in the very first paragraphs he praises Putin according to his views (by expecting him to bury Lenin's mummy). Yep, a pure idiot. (This segment has grown larger than I initially expected.)
4. But regarding the general point - a marvelous article! Should be featured on Chechar's blog. A really good summary of Jewish historical superiority. Were they not to grow messy hair and mutilate genitalia, I would consider them a pinnacle of biological evolution. There is a certain symmetry to Rome and Judaea, both originally tiny mustard seeds...
If I were to add something poetic, I would point out how tragic it is that the fate of the Aryan race became inseparable from that of Rome. Neither the Germanics nor the Slavs proved able to withstand the quick & dirty buck of Roman préstige. Nevertheless, many did try, the Saxons and the Vikings of old, and the more recent Hitlerian SS and the Spanish Communists.
And now, the edifice of the accursed Christendom is beginning to unravel, the wild vegetation outside poised to break the glass of the greenhouse.
https://westsdarkesthour.com/2018/05/20/comfortable-panopticon/
Hi Adunai, thanks for your comments, I'll give some thought to them. Regarding #1, I'm not entirely opposed to Carrier's argument, although it will remain a question and up in the air, but I object to it on the grounds the argument is both unnecessary and inflammatory. I'm offering a theory which doesn't rely on that point either way, and there are things about Christianity that I like and respect a lot (and which I articulated) which I think was and is important to convey to Christian readers, and using Carrier's argument (even if I was convinced by it, which I'm not) would, imo, close off a lot of minds.
It's fascinating to observe such cuckoldry in real time, thanks for the experience. I myself can't feel how to offend Christians either way (to my simple mind, calling them Jew-worshippers seems sufficient, yet it usually doesn't get registered by their brains).
"It's fascinating to observe such cuckoldry in real time, thanks for the experience." You're welcome, lol.
So, as I see it, here you are following an old water course upstream into the past to see the countryside that stream/river passed through before getting to the present -- and eventually you are going to extrapolate the upstream course of this old water course to predict what will be going on in the human future (downstream). It's a pretty narrow (myopic, like you say) valley you are following, though, as it does not take into account various Eastern traditions that independently landed on the very same equality perspective that apparently causes you discomfort and unrest. Are you going to eventually claim 'the Chosen' dreamed up Buddhism and Taoism, too?
Hi Larry, thanks for your comment. The specific argument made under this theory is an ideology being crafted and deployed to rile up the masses in order to overthrow the existing order; in Rome's case it was via spiritual bolshevism, in Russia it was via economic bolshevism and in the west now it is being done via racial bolshevism (what Spandrell calls bioleninism). I don't see any such links to Buddhism or Taoism, but if you have some I'd be happy to look at it, lol. Part 2 should hopefully address your questions surrounding how Christianity evolved into modern day secular liberalism.
What I'm getting at is an alternative view to your overthrowing hypotheses (i.e., your 'bolshevism for all seasons') -- namely, what you see is what you get when it comes to long-lasting religions -- and no sneakiness and bad intent were involved like you seem to be suggesting. I only mentioned Buddhism and Taoism because they are independent religions/philosophies that arrived at the same 'equality' viewpoint as Christianity. So, maybe something genuine was going on in the human past in a number of different cultures at about the same time -- and no skulduggery was involved. See Karl Jaspers' "Axial Age" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_Age).
Thanks for the link, Larry. According to it the Axial Age was from the 8th to 3rd century BC. Are you suggesting there was a similar spontaneous, independent push for spiritual equality across vast distances among the masses around 0 AD? I would be interested in seeing it if so.
https://larryturner.substack.com/p/the-story-of-an-incredibly-slow-hesitating is my own view on the subject.
Multiple reviews of a book on this subject from a bunch of other guys who are devoting large parts of their lives researching precisely this matter can be found in the linked document. Each review has references to follow, if time, energy, and interest allow: https://www.dropbox.com/s/17b00p6gttck3va/Religion%20and%20empire%20in%20the%20Axial%20Age%20%28Turchin%2C%20etc.%29.pdf?dl=0 Me, I kind of prefer Turchin's viewpoint.
And only follows it and cherry picks the scenery to reinforce his “theory”. An honest quest would start with an examination of the Jews themselves. A culture with a set of laws that are unlike any other - designed to distinguish them from all other cultures in all of human history. That’s quite a pedigree.
As a Christian, I do loathe the fawning over the Jews. IMO, the Christian should be complete neutral toward them. The Jews have certainly leveraged the silly devotion of Christians to the detriment of Christianity.
But who are the real Jews and who are those “who CALL THEMSELVES Jews, BUT are of the synagogue of Satan”? You will know them by their fruits.
Hi Tom, this post does discuss both (1) Jesus's core disagreements with the Pharisees, who were focused on action and not intent; (2) the differences between Jews, Christians and Muslims in their outlooks and beliefs, and (3) links to a long-form deleted Wikipedia article on criticisms of the Talmud. If you look at the highlighted links in the post you will see this. The previous section in the series also offers a blistering attack on the central bank owning Rothschilds and their allies, and calls their actions essentially Satanic.
The Jews and their peculiar isolating, sequestering laws, existed only as a vehicle to bring forth Jesus. They understood this as a salvation plan for themselves, but ultimately it was to deal with a larger cosmic problem that they are mostly blind to. Those laws were designed to guard a pure human genetic lineage, untainted by the half human hybrids among us (the Tares).
That they are “the chosen people” is technically correct, but it’s more a matter of the selection of one flathead screwdriver over another. You have to choose one to work with, thus it becomes “the chosen” by default. The Jews have special abilities only because of their close historical affiliation with the Divine. He is faithful by nature; they are faithless. Apart from that, they would not enjoy the advantages that they do.
Hi Pandelis, interpretations of history are always going to have degrees of bias, just like all mass media has (large) elements of bias in it today. You are right that Gibbon is looked at as a giant with "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", which is why I decided to quote from it.
As I explained elsewhere, I have tried to derive a model for the world based on its explanatory power for the present as well as its predictive abilities for the future; to see the hyper-focus on equality today stemming from a transvaluation of other non-equality values from millennia ago lines up with what I see. That being said, I encourage you not to rely on anything I write here and to look into and decide things for yourself.
you might want to check anthony caldellis "romanland, ethnicity and empire in byzantium"