Iconoclasts: Immanuel Velikovsky


Immanuel Velikovsky (1895-1979) was born in Belarus and died in the United States. In 1950 he published Worlds in Collision, a book that draws on astrophysics, mythology, paleontology, evolution, anthropology, climatology and geology, and falls squarely in the realm of “catastrophism.” His opening quote, “quota pars operis tanti nobis committitur?*,” (from Seneca) is hard to understand in context, but putting it in a search engine leads to a wealth of Velikovsky sites.

The original work drew skepticism and ridicule. Says Wikipedia, his theories “…have been ignored or vigorously rejected by the academic community.” Carl Sagan, no slouch in terms of hubris, simply offered up disdain. He did draw some support from one important source, Albert Einstein.

The book Worlds in Collision posits that circa 1500 BC a comet came close to the earth, and that it wrought massive destruction on this planet. It basically wiped out human civilization and restructured the globe.  The initial and subsequent pass would change our year from 360 days to 365-1/4, and the orbit of the moon from 30 to 27-1/2 days. The axis of the earth was altered, the magnetic poles reversed. Large (and now-extinct) animal carcasses were frozen in situ in Siberia, evidence of sudden change, like flash-freezing,  rather than gradual cooling. The poles had shifted, or so it appears.

The comet made another pass in 747 BC, as I understand him, and wrought similar destruction. It also interfered with Mars, which too came close to earth, which is why it earned the reputation of the God of War. Eventually the comet settled into orbit around the sun, and today we know it as “Venus,” a planet said to have had a tail as late as the eighth century of the common era. Velikovsky offers wide evidence from ancient writings on much of this, considered mythology by most. He does note, interestingly, that prior to 1500 BC there were only four known planets, Mercury, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn.

I am very curious about the famous painting I open with above, called “The Birth of Venus.” Why that name? (Though painted in the 15th century by Botticelli, it was not named that until the 19th, if Wikipedia is to be believed.)

Velikovsky relied on ancient documents around the globe for support, finding commonality from Egypt to India and North America. However, such reliance brought ridicule. Consequently, he wrote a follow-up book, Earth in Upheaval, in 1955. That work eschewed mythology and relied solely on observational analysis of the debris of our planet, scattered with inexplicable evidence of something catastrophic and massive having repeatedly occurred … our standard geology and the Doctrine of Uniformity cannot explain. It also turns Darwinism on its head.

I mentioned Velikovsky in an earlier post and was routed by a commenter to this site. Check it out if you have time. Am I correct that the comments at the site are by people who have not read Worlds in Collision and are not even aware of Earth in Upheaval? And yet these folks are disdainful and opinionated? Welcome to the Internet, I suppose, where everyone knows how to Google.

“It often appears that the historian of climate has chosen a field as hard to master as it is to square the circle. It seems, sometimes, that the history of climate is a collection of unsolved even unsolvable, questions.”

*”Which part of this work is committed to us?”

108 thoughts on “Iconoclasts: Immanuel Velikovsky

    1. Agreed. Velikovsky was also a Zionist, but had to leave his studies at the University of Moscow to “help out at home”…my guess was to “help” his father, who was a publisher that led a Zionist group, and had to go into hiding at the height of the October Revolution. Immanuel led the family in their escape to Jerusalem in 1921. Seems they were able to escape with enough capital to fund a collection of writings by Jewish scientists from around the world. He later returned to Moscow after the Bolsheviks took over, then went to Vienna and became a psychoanalyst. He was associated with Freud and Einstein. His “wild and infamous theories were arguably fuelled by his Zionist political leanings. His books strove to validate the Hebrew Bible”…controlled opposition to Darwin. Then, there’s this line from RationalWiki: ” In 1947, he began writing a regular Zionist editorial for the New York Post under the pseudonym ‘Observer’.” (wink wink)

      Yup, definitely a spook!




      1. ^^ Also wondering why Mark didn’t mention any of this information in his post? Not too surprised, though. I suppose I’ve learned quite a bit about how to detect and sniff out the charlatans from reading MM’s papers, and by simply doing a 15 minute Google search (yes, I, too know how to do that!), decided this Velikovsky theory is another rabbit hole not worth falling into.

        Liked by 1 person

      1. Exactly… but No, señor, no Jew. And if surname was in the peerage, no peer here either. Fact is, I’m so broke, just to rub two nickels together, I’d have to borrow one.


          1. WTF, WTF and WTF???!! … Of all my great comments over time in this neck of the woods, now you reply to the bad joke I threw out about the nickels… Just wow!… Back to your point: neo-Nazi = neo-Actor = neo-Fake. I will just take “Neo” and leave the rest. Love it.

            Liked by 1 person

  1. The question I like to ask people is this: what is the oldest primary source you have seen to support belief in ‘ancient history’?

    This may seem difficult for people to believe, even those who are battle-hardened by investigation into and awareness of media fakery, but I say the following with confidence:

    Ancient history is a hoax. Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Ancient China: all hoaxes, and quite obvious hoaxes for those with eyes to see, time to search for primary sources, and patience to keep trying even when the process becomes tedious and frustrating.

    Why is the process so tedious and frustrating? Because you will not find any primary sources. You will find copious secondary and tertiary sources, which are self-referential and ultimately circular.

    It is an elaborate veneer built upon comically weak foundations.

    The relevance of all of this is that Velikovsky, Fomenko, and others like them are not here to point out the hoaxiness of history. In fact they seem to be attempting to help reinforce the fundamental narrative by building ‘alternative’ theories atop it.

    For those who are interested, I have detailed my attempts to find primary sources for ‘ancient history’ on my website. This is a rabbit hole of epic proportions and implications.


    1. This is such pure bullshit, it ought to have its own atomic weight and number.

      Anyone with a passing interest in philology can tell you that the interlocking relationships between ancient texts and timelines and sister languages and inscriptional evidence all fit into the mainstream model pretty well. Are there glitches? Of course, as with every field of study. But to write off the whole corpus of ancient texts—in Sumerian and Ugaritic and Aramaic and Hebrew and Greek and Latin and Glagolitic and Runic and … —as more recent forgeries? Insanity.

      You don’t know what you don’t know. The papists have a term for this: “invincible ignorance.”

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Dear Maarten,

        Thank you for your reply. It reveals how embedded ‘ancient history’ is within the minds of even relatively awake people. Your response is no different to what one might expect from a regular person when being confronted with the idea that planes did not hit buildings on 9/11.

        “What bullshit. Anyone with a passing interest in physics can tell you that aluminium can pierce steel at the right speed. And there were thousands of witnesses who say planes. To say otherwise is insanity. We have a saying for this: invincible ignorance”.

        Appeals to consensus, appeals to authority, appeals to ridicule, bit no actual EVIDENCE — which was, of course, all I asked for.

        What is the oldest primary source you have seen to support belief in ancient history?

        This truly is a simple question. Those who can answer it honestly and think through the implications will soon begin to see the significance of what is being discussed here.

        I liken the personal discovery and acceptance of the History Hoax to the experience of the protagonists in the film The Thirteenth Floor. For those who take the time to objectively scrutinise what they think they know about ‘ancient history’, the mesh frame of accepted reality is laid bare for one’s eyes to see. This is all one gigantic ruse.

        One will only be able to appreciate this if they try it for themselves: try to dig back through to the oldest extent PRIMARY SOURCES for stories about ‘ancient Egypt’ or ‘Ancient Greece’. See how far back you can get before you hit a complete dead end.

        From The Thirteenth Floor:

        “I did exactly what the letter said. I chose a place that I’d never go to. I tried to drive to Tucson. I figured, what the hell – I’ve never been to the countryside. And I took that car out on the highway. I was going over 50 through that desert. After a while, I was the only car on the road. It was just me and the heat and the dust. And I did exactly what that letter said: “Don’t follow any roadsigns and don’t stop for anything – even barricades”. But just when I should’ve been getting closer to the city… something wasn’t right. There was no movement, no life. Everything was still and quiet. And then I got out of the car – and what I saw… scared me to the depths of my miserable soul. It was true, it’s all a sham. It ain’t real.”


        1. Ah, dear sir, but I did answer your question. You just are not willing to consider the evidence (or perhaps lack the familiarity one needs to assess it).

          My answer was: the language of the purportedly ancient texts themselves. To specify: the Enuma Elish, the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Rosetta Stone, the Vedas, the Sutras, the Homeric epics, the Hebrew Bible, the Elephantine letters, the dialogues of Plato, the New Testament, the Canons of the early Church, Digenes Akritas, the Eddas, the Law of Aethelbert, Beowulf, the Kievan Chronicles, and so on.

          Here I am NOT talking about the history described in those texts. My focus is on the language of the texts, and how that stage of the language fits into an overall picture of language evolution over time. And the point is: these texts fit into a reasonable picture of language development according to the mainstream assignment of dates for original composition/redaction. Homeric Greek is a few centuries older than Attic Greek, which is a few centuries older than New Testament Greek, followed by Byzantine Greek, Demotic Greek, etc. Or if you want to trace the same line of development through the Semitic languages, or the Germanic languages leading up to Modern English, you can. Or you can start further back in history and trace out the evolution of Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, et al. from Proto-Indo-European. The timelines work out reasonably.

          Your alternative is to posit that all of these “ancient” writings are rather forgeries of a more recent provenance. And that the forgers had a level of ingenuity to invent earlier stages of Greek and Latin, etc. to give their faux texts the patina of greater and greater age. AND that these invented older forms of the languages were all miraculously consonant with development from an even older mother tongue for the given language family. AND that borrowings from other ancient languages at appropriate stages in the faked history were miraculously coordinated between texts of different languages.

          A specific example: the Ethiopic Collectio Monastica is a 5th-century A.D. collection of the sayings of the monks of the Egyptian desert in the 3rd-century A.D. This collection is written in Ethiopic, a South Semitic language. The language of this text fits into the broader picture of the development of the Semitic language family for this time period. Of course, being about Christian monks, there are references in the Sayings to the canonical Gospels, traditionally assigned as being written in the 1st or 2nd century A.D. … in other words, about two thousand years old, and reflecting a stage of Koine Greek appropriate to that time according to historical philology.

          But you probably say that the New Testament (and maybe even the Old) are much more recent works, forged perhaps 1000 years ago or less. What this means is that the forgers first wrote their New Testament in era-appropriate Greek, and then dreamed up a dependent secondary literature, which they then penned in era-appropriate Ethiopic, which was from an entirely different family of languages, and by the time of your theoretical forgers, extinct. They also figured out how to back-engineer appropriate writing materials to bury as scraps and snippets in the sand for us to find (and misdate).

          And this is just one example. Multiply this problem of coordination of dependent texts fitting into various places in the timeline of language development, and you begin to appreciate the problems of the “history is a hoax” hypothesis. It requires an intellectual feat on the part of the hoaxers that defies description. It is precisely a problem of “irreducible complexity” in the realm of language development.

          There. I give you the benefit of my thoughts on this matter, and I don’t hide it behind a paywall.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. 1) You have not cited any extant primary sources. This goes to the heart of the matter. People today will accept representations of historical documents on face value, and rarely take the time to check the provenance of these documents for themselves.

            The ruse is all too easy.

            2) Regarding the ‘bible’, no I do not believe it is 1,000 years old. I would be pleasantly surprised if it were more than 200 years old. Those interested can look up ‘Codex Sinaiticus’ and ‘Codex Vaticanus’. Ask yourself if you believe the official stories concerning how these texts were supposedly ‘rediscovered’.

            If you like a good belly laugh, I highly recommend you at least take the time to look into the Codex Sinaiticus. It is Indiana Jones-tier nonsense.

            3) Regarding the ‘Rosetta Stone’, let’s consider the story. Some Frenchmen are wandering about northern Africa. One stumbles upon a large rock. Hey guys! Check this out! I found a rock with several different languages on it and, wouldn’t you know it, one of them is a modern language, so now we can translate the rest! What great luck!

            Give me a break.

            4) You mention the paywall of my site. I have several pieces of content concerning the History Hoax available for free, including articles and videos. So your snarky remark is completely unwarranted.

            I find it endlessly amusing that people who claim to care about independent research/media will complain when somebody tries to make a business of it. Nobody is being forced to sign up to my site, and when they do sign up, they generally stick around for a while.

            There is a reason for that, and it is simple: some research/media is truly valuable.

            The best part about the paywall is that it acts as a filter: those who understand that they are not owed anything by other people or by the world, tend to also understand the significance of the discussions taking place behind the paywall, and engage with the discussion in a collegiate spirit, rather than an adversarial one.

            Those who feel that the world owes them something, on the other hand, tend to have victim mentalities and display the juvenile us-vs-them mindset which comes with it.

            I am not your enemy. Cheers.


          2. Ah! I see the problem now. You use words to mean something different from the way everyone else does. An old intellectual shell-game …

            I’ll say it again: you don’t even know how much you don’t know. That is the best construction I can put on your belief system.

            There is no point in arguing further. We are done with this discussion here at POM. Take the rest of it to behind your paywall.

            A good evening, sir.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. JLB, the Bible is only 200 years old? So when were the Shakespearean plays written? Do we have it backwards, that the biblical allusions that pepper those works were written before the bible, which was apparently then constructed from them, sort of like Tom Stoppard’s “Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead?” Maybe Stoppard wrote the bible along with that play, sort of like Kubrick filming the moon landings during “2001…?”

            Maybe the King James version was created to sound like the golden tablets the Mormon angel Moroni revealed to Joseph Smith instead of the other way around?

            What about the Jefferson bible, which he wrote over 200 years ago? Was it a precursor as well? Maarten offered a much more learned and erudite critique, but these are just a couple of obvious things that come to the mind of a semi-literate person.

            Maybe I’m missing some substantial context to your arguments, like maybe we’re all in floating tanks as pictured in “The Matrix” and get programmed with made up history and literature before they wake us up. But on the face of it, your argument is ridiculous. Can you explain?

            Liked by 3 people

      1. Hi Matrixfree,
        If you want to see into some evidence of fake vs false history you may want to check out the YouTube videos of user newearth = Sylvie Ivanova = megaliths.org


        At first some of her videos can seem a bit goofy but she has compiled a hefty list of fascinating discrepancies mostly through looking at old stone constructions. It was worth it (in spite of sometimes difficult sound tracks and odd image choices) to go through her long play list. Took me around a year to catch up with her previous output. The repeating themes from one video to the next builds up into an impressive bunch of proofs.

        She references the work of Anatoly Fomenko, an Italian mathematician who looked into eclipse dating in order to corrected historical dating issues. Volume one of his work is available somewhere online as a pdf.


  2. Some people read books, others walk past them.
    Some people watch movies, others ignore them.
    Some people watch blogs, others just skip them.

    I had this discussion with that guy called “fidelio” (unsure if he’s a Cuban Castro Marrano lover or more into Freemason Van Beethoven…) and so I asked him about that book (that he promoted as groundbreaking).

    Then just scratching the surface it became clear what kind of a misdirector Velikovsky must have been. 11 weeks New York fecking Times best-selling author, anyone who has learned anything from Miles Mathis knows those people are con-trolled.

    But maybe I am wrong. Maybe this guy really nailed the universe, the Earth and evolution all in one go. Then provide his best points. That even fidelio couldn’t come up with and said “he didn’t like the Venus idea” (which was somehow the grit of the whole book).

    I don’t need to have read Das Kapital to know that Mordechai Marx was a hustler. And if someone tells me “I really liked that book, but not so much the idea of communism”, it gets even murkier.

    Spooks will be spooks. The pity comes if sharp minds fall for them.


  3. We are off into Torres del Paine tomorrow, and no Internet for five days, a cleansing.

    Am I the only one who has read the books? The first one, Worlds in Collision, was very difficult and time-consuming, the second one, Earth in Upheaval, was in response to critics, and more accessible for me, without the references to ancient writings throughout the world. It merely pointed out anomalies that conventional science cannot explain, and so allows to exist in silence. They have grand theories, and for all the evidence that contradicts or questions, silence. Try this, for example. https://www.rt.com/news/mammoth-blood-ice-siberia-908/ what possible event in evolutionary Darwinism froze mammoths in place, even preserving their blood?

    Do all Jews think alike? Are they all tinkering with us behind the scenes? Of course I am troubled by some numerical signaling, but then I have to ask, why? Why would he write things that are in direct opposition to Darwinism and paleontology and that offer up so much inexplicable evidence. Why? If he were put up to it, was he, like Quigley, granted access to a vault? If so, it is worth consideration. There might be some nuggets in that vault.

    Is it so hard for people to come to the same conclusion Velikovsky did, that we just don’t understand things as well as we pretend? What on earth is the problem with not having answers at hand? I deal with that every minute of my life. It is consuming, but not frustrating. It is just part of being alive. We search for truth as long as we live, and then others come along and pick up where we leave off.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. It’s not about “jews”, it’s about being part of the establishment. And no, I didn’t read his book. Neither did I read Das Kapital, The Bible or other “great books of his-story”. But is that a requisite?

      I very much prefer Tyrone’s take on JFKTV combined with Miles Mathis’ work on that event. But I haven’t read any books about it at all. Sue me.

      I acknowledge I am way behind you, Mark, in terms of reading books. Like 30 years and like 500-1000 books. But does that make Velikovsky a trustworthy person? Someone to take seriously? Someone who can present an independent thought, while being pushed in the most mainstream of mainstreams? If so, outline it and make us grow. Not an appeal to group authority, but if someone’s not the only one seeing the same thing, it could mean one’s not crazy.


  4. We know all we need to know about Velikovsky from Miles, already. I couldn’t come up with any refutations of his commentary on the guy, in his physics papers. He’s mentioned many times, even given slight credit on the topic of Mars, but not for any of the reasons Velikosvky wrote about. Rather, he was closer to Mathisian theory than the mainstream, but still wrong.

    The Cause of Axial Tilt (Part 1)

    “Now they will admit that the near environs of a body can be affected by E/M fields, but they still resist letting that field permeate the Solar System. Why? Because if the E/M field got involved in perturbations, several major fields of enterprise would tremble at their very cores. Perturbation theory and chaos theory would be in danger of ultimate extinction, and gravity theory would have to be overhauled from the foundation. These astrophysicists would also have to admit that Velikovsky was at least partially right, and they would rather tear out their own eyeballs and eat them than go there.”


    “But I am not here to propose celestial models to match historical accounts. I am here only to show that, using the simple mathematical corrections I have made to Newton’s and Kepler’s equations, the current system must be highly unstable. We still have many smaller planets above larger planets, and this cannot create stable orbits. It appears to me that danger in these resonances is a matter of millions of years, which would confirm neither the billion year estimates of the standard model nor the few thousand year estimates of Velikovsky and others, but I have not actually applied my corrected equations to the data, so I am not prepared to make any firm predictions at this time. ”

    Since Velikovsky can’t explain the orbits properly, or anywhere near the accuracy Mathis can, we can discard him for physical reasons as well as spooky ones. Velikovsky is just more standard model bombast, similar to Feynman or Halton Arp or that fake-ass Hawking guy, only playing the “bad cop” role.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Oh my, I never thought this would happen here when Velikovsky was brought up. Never read his books as the core idea always seemed to fantastic to start with, but never thought about his possible spook role neither. After all, McGowan was a spook, but he revealed some possibly true and trust-worthy information that further confirm the story of our manufactured world. Is Velikovsky’s background and/or purpose/role the same? Not necessarily so, for instance, Karl Mordechai Marx wrote many books, that don’t need to be read in order to comprehend his misdirection in terms of economic expertise or mongering for further society’s inter-class conflicts (think about i.e. the statement “dictatorship of proletariat” and how life threatening it reads). Maybe Velikovsky’s purpose was similar in that context, maybe he was as well promoted to help misdirect and get us thinking about partially/completely irrelevant/untrue chain of events from ancient past. As Miles usually says: if they get us to think about this, we won’t be thinking about really important issues that matter. Further, the fact of the matter is that we can hardly grasp semi-past history, going back maybe a few centuries and even that is not achieved with the full understanding of actual events – we can mostly only negate the official, mainstreamed version which tells nothing about the truth itself.

    So I’d suggest to all insightful POM’s authors and otherwise pleasant commenters here, to leave Velikovsky in the “fiction” section, in the company of Arthur C. Clarke, Isaac Asimov and many other “entertainers”. After all, Velikovsky’s contribution to solving our Earth’s mysteries is close to zero in terms of evidence, isn’t it?

    Liked by 3 people

  6. Velikovsky was allowed to move from Russia to USA, which not many people could do in his time. When I read the Russian classics some decades ago, I remember in one of them, I think it was “War and Peace”, I read a sentence which went like “back then only Jewish people got the permit to travel”. In a later translation I then found out the sentence was changed into “back then only Jewish people needed permit to travel”. I don’t have this books anymore to prove it and I’m not 100% sure it was War and Peace. Anyway, all this Velikovsky claims is made out of thin air. He is not better than Nostradamus. It is wasting of time. What is interesting are the origins of the SI unit system established in Europe after the French Revolution. The origins of kilogram, meter and second are derived from laws of nature. Think of the “one second pendulum” which was used in clockworks for a long time. If a pendulum is one meter long, it takes one second for a half swing. It doesn’t matter, if this second changes slightly depending on the geographical position. We will never know if there was a comet which changed the duration of the year and it doesn’t really matter. We have this 365 days year now and the moon needs about 27 days to take the same position again, etc. It’s not the nature which is not perfect, it’s our numbers.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. First come to understand that we do not have reliable dating techniques. Neo-Darwinists need four billion year uninterrupted for their theories to work, and have so constructed their science without benefit of evidence, that is, there is no evidence of any species ever becoming another. Then come to understand classic groupthink and peer review, which guarantee mediocrity and absence of new ideas. Then come to understand that anyone who throws anything new and different on the table in that environment is ridiculed and ostracized. That is how we do science. Then read his books sometime. How can you be harmed by reading things even as you know in advance you will not agree?

    I don’t know what a “Jew”is. I don’t hate them, and don’t imagine the bulk of them are scheming against us. I read that my name is Jewish, and my Dad’s ancestry fits the profile. I could easily have gone through life not knowing this. No one has ever contacted me or sent me money or secret codes.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I suspect most people in the world (especially in Europe and the US) have a bit of Jewish in them, they’ve had centuries to assimilate, some more than others.

      From the Telegraph:
      It is one of the oddities of the Royal family — shared by the majority of the English upper classes — that for many generations they have circumcised their male sons, invariably using a Mohel, the Jewish word for a circumcision practitioner. It was rarely done on medical grounds, nor on religious ones, but was a matter of class.

      However, it is unlikely because the connection between class and circumcision, which continued up into the 1970s, has all but died out in Britain. Indeed by the time the Duke of Cambridge himself was born in 1982, it is understood that Diana, Princess of Wales, refused to continue the tradition, in keeping with the then medical opinion that it was an unnecessary procedure whose risks outweighed any possible benefits.

      The NHS now tries to guide parents away from the practice and the most recent figures suggest just 3.8 per cent of male babies are circumcised in the UK. This is down from a rate of 20 per cent in the 1950s, when there was a belief, especially among those who could afford to have it done privately, that it was more hygienic.


      1. Proof the English upper classes are Jewish, apparently the Royal Family males have been circumcised since the Stuarts according to the Daily Mail or the Hanovers (more Jews) according to this from Algemeiner:
        Circumcision for members of the royal family in England dates back to King George I, who introduced the custom. Queen Victoria traced the British royal family’s tree back to ancient Israel’s King David, and insisted that her sons be circumcised along the lines of Jewish tradition, which calls for foreskin to be snipped on the eighth day after birth.


    2. oh, I don’t hate other people too, dear Mark, if Jewish or others. I only wanted to mention, there was time where traveling was difficult except for some connected folks. In East Germany some “artists” like Nina Hagen or Wolf Biermann, who as I later found out was her father, could leave and all of them who left as I later found out were Jewish. I know of similar things from other East Block countries. I’m always open to new ideas and constantly trying to extend my perspectives. Velikovsky was “best known as the author of a number of controversial books reinterpreting the events of ancient history”, so it’s all speculations, ideas that cannot be proved. What kind of directives one can derive from unproven speculations? None. Ancient history is speculation pure. I consider history in general to be an instrument of propaganda and if you’re really interested in history, you always have to understand the context and motivation of the writer first and read between the lines. So my question is not if a comet changed the duration of our year but what was the motivation of Immanuel Velikovsky to write a book about that? Certainly not to become rich and famous. Those people don’t need that. And he was “psychiatrist” and even a student under Sigmund Freud. Red Flags everywhere.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I find speculation to be a highly useful tool of inquiry. Given that we know little of our past, and that history is propaganda, speculation is a means of exploration. Of course, most everything is discarded, but knowing to discard something is new knowledge. And, when you make connections, which is all Velikovsky had done in the two nooks I read, then you are on your way to positing a theory. Which is all he has done. I like his work.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I think it makes a difference if you speculate about something having doubts or if you suggest speculations as possibility or even fact. The first kind is questioning and always legitimate the second is manipulation. I like stories a lot, I read a lot of novels, which are also kind of speculations but stories do not pretend they are for real. At least the good ones.


          1. or to make it more clear and simple: if you speculate about the future, your speculations can become true because future is always unknown. Not so the past. It has already happen. Either you know what happened or you don’t. There is no room for speculations.


    3. Mark, you do know what a “Jew” is. Everyone knows what a Jew is, or a Christian, or a Buddhist, or any other religious sect. When you say things like that it just seems trite, as though you’re pushing the whole Modernist theory that all things/ideas/people are equal, which is of course false and absurd.

      So when you say you don’t know something that you obviously do know, what are we to think? Are you actually afraid to use words that have meanings, on your own blog page? I don’t believe you are. So why misdirect us with statements like that? I’m asking genuinely.


      1. So, Jared ….

        Is a Christian Science practitioner a Christian? He or she would say yes; the rest of Christendom would say no. Is a Mormon? Same answer. Some historians will tell you that Islam is actually a Christian heresy. Are Muslims then Christians?

        What is a Jew? At one time this was defined patrilineally; now, matrilineally. That can mean a world of difference in redefining a genealogy as Jewish or not.

        There are different types of Jews; Ashkenazi, Sephardim, Mizrahi, Ethiopian, … Some look down on the others as “not quite Jews.”

        Who decides? A Gentile like you, to whom it is all so clear?

        Are Jews for Jesus really Jews anymore? Many rabbis would say no.
        Are the Karaites real Jews? Some Jews say no.
        Are Reform Jews really still Jewish? Some Orthodox Jews aren’t sure.
        Were the followers of Sabbatai Zevi Jews still? Most of their contemporaries would say no.

        Were you previously aware of how vexed this question is? And I haven’t scratched open even the half of it.

        This is not “misdirection.” This is just the messiness of the real world and its convoluted (but very real) history. There is no gain in impugning Mark’s motives for pointing this out.


        1. I didn’t notice this exchange of thoughts before, it certainly reads as interesting, but has made me wonder.

          Such philosophical approach to ethnicity and nationality can give even the most recognized ethnical groups a veil of uncertainty and non-definable characteristics. For instance, who can say he/she is a German from 1000 ago, when there was yet no united Germany, only tribes? A modern Germany exists only for approx. 100 years and it was full of immigrants since ever. Naturally so, since northern “tribes” were known as hospitable, hard working (but rough) people since ever. So, is a modern nationality or any nation defined mostly by a passport or ID card? No, it’s mostly defined by the use of a certain language and acceptance (and practicing) of a certain culture, which then reflects in individual’s definition of his/her affiliation to that particular nation. I have met and spent time with many “imported” Slovenians, who have plenty more Slovenian national consciousness than those born here for generations already. But thinking about definable attributes of any nation and their culture in the described manner leads nowhere in terms of lingual and cultural diversity we can witness anywhere.

          From that aspect, the definition of a Jew is very precise and has reasonable attributes: he/she who speaks jewish/ Yiddish in any possible dialect, bears their names and celebrates /practices their ethnic customs, can be defined as a member of Jewish community, a Jew. They have some more attributes that do define them, for instance many of them tend to change their last name, which is very unique in this world. I have not met a single man or women yet, who wouldn’t be proud of his/her family name and would like to change it for the purpose of blending better with the surroundings. If I did, I’d expect he/she would be of jewish origin from the so-called crypto-jewish group. Why such fondness of changing their last names? There is no other nation on this globe with such tendency for the name change that I know of, but I’m always willing to learn something new.

          There are certain other attributes that can define a truly Jewish individual and Miles has been occasionally pointing it out as a (big) schnoz, yet there are more delicate ones for certain. Like the tendency to find them among the ruling and oppressing elite in majority, which applies the same to owning the largest and smallest influential banks for centuries already. They can be found among the richest and most corrupted warmongers and war profiteers from many past wars, with majority in the decision-making positions.

          So, to deny knowing what defines a Jew is an example of hypocrisy in my opinion, especially on this blog and after all that was disclosed here and elsewhere.


          1. I don’t see them practicing any religion, wearing religious costumes, nor do I see them having common backgrounds do, not Semitic, not Eastern European … that is all I meant. Here I Chile I just met a Siberian Jew who moved to Israel, and I could tell he was Jewish just by looking. He had a prominent nose and big face, was an engineer, had a beautiful aging hippie at his side, wore a neck scarf … I just knew. Later, when he winked at my wife, I knew he was also a player. I can tell things by outer signs, but this thing called the “Jew” is all over the world, according to Mathis, and to me bears no ethnicity or religion.


          2. There is two perspectives on it. One is the ethnic or religious group made of people who committed themselves to the religion and culture of the Jews. Those people are no different to say Jehovah Witnesses. Some of them are visibly Semitic, others less so. They stick together and help each other around the world. They are often more successful than others because they prefer their own. But they still work and live like any other folks. Their life is not much different to ours. They wake up, go to work and come back home after a day of doing something for a living. The other perspective is the somehow mysterious Elite who supposedly rules the world. Those people pretend to be Jewish or some of them really are. I think they are actors only playing the rulers. It doesn’t matter if they are Jewish or not. I’m convinced there are real rulers but we don’t know them. They put a front of Jewish or only supposedly Jewish people to misguide us and give us a focus. But it’s a deception. So we won’t look for the real ones. The only way to find something out about the real rulers would be to analyze their decisions. I mean everything happens on purpose and we can recognize their decisions in what is happening in the large scale. For instance: in every developed country around the world there are many people now we call migrants or fugitives from a few poor countries and in those countries we are told there are wars. Some 20 years ago this was not the case and those countries already had their wars back then. So this process started in the last decades. I think the rulers decided to give up on some hopeless countries and simply moved the people to places where they can make a better living. Not even the migrants know why they really were moved from warm places like Syria or Iraq to rainy and cold places like Germany.


        2. I find myself agreeing with Gaia on this topic, actually. We don’t often agree but in this case we definitely do.

          As for the semantics, yes, a Mormon is a Christian. I grew up Mormon, which is also a Jewish front. But anyone who believes in Jesus and all that drivel is a Christian. I am no longer any of those, and haven’t been for 30 years. But it’s irrelevant what other sects think when the basic etymology of the word is being used – all “true” Mormons are Christian, just as all “true” Catholics are, and so forth. Mormons also decry every other sect, so it doesn’t matter who is wrong or right – it only matters that we’re using a single word, Christian, as a descriptor. Either it’s accurate or it’s not. For Mormons, it’s accurate.

          That’s how words work.


      2. Jared, the “jew debate” has become very much dualistic, where it actually is much more complex as Maarten describes. There is a huge Jew Taboo in the mainstream and among policor internet “warriors” for sure. And at the other side of the spectrum you have Nazi lovers who adore Hitler and will call anyone they disagree with a jew to just not take anything seriously that harms their beliefs. The forum Mark links to in the OP is an example of that, I spent there 2 years now you can check my post history. I have my own moderated section there, where the Velikovsky piece is.

        Have you watched, or read, Shlomo Sand? He is an Israeli (uhuh red flag… no, keep reading) professor at the University of Tel Aviv (uhuh 2… 🙄 ) who published “The Invention of the Jewish People” and “Why I stopped being a Jew”. Listen to his arguments, they are sound and solid. Can be found on JewTube. I trust your search skills.

        We have a huge gap in (written) history between classical Rome and the early Renaissance period. Only the Elites kept records of birth and death, marriage and remarrying. For the commoners, like the majority is and was back then it’s like 700-900 years of darkness. Just no way to trace your roots back to the “Judaic diaspora” after 70 AD.

        Then there are the pseudo jews, the Khazar theory, crypto jews and so many other possibilities.

        That makes claiming an “ethnicity” an invention. It is not a race, for biological reasons, and now the ethnicity collapses. So what is there left, religion. Not every “jew” is or was a Judaist. You have orthodox and liberal, different schools of thought, etc. So also there it gets murky.

        Miles Mathis has made clear in various papers how he sees it and I agree with him wholeheartedly. When he says “jew”, or “jewish family”, he refers to the obvious and less obvious but for an awake interpreter families who have been in different levels of power for centuries with clearly identifiable first and last names. He explicitly made clear that he doesn’t “hate jews” (a mainstream schtick used by policors to hammer down any form of criticism against certain “jewish” individuals) nor that he sees every “jewish” person as responsible for/belonging to those he identified as being part of “the cabal”.

        This dualistic trap is one to avoid and as a clear and honest researcher one doesn’t fall for either side; not avoiding the topic (the Jew Taboo) nor exaggerating and simplifying it (the Kike Calling).

        Zionism is even different, with quite some christians who would call themselves that or support it at least and also atheist non-jews because they see Israel as some bastion against hordes of blood-thirsty muslims (mostly false and based on the many muslim scare psyops of the last 40 years).

        Liked by 2 people

      1. Wow – Look at the shadows of the people on the left. These cast shadows don’t make any sense with the bright sun glaring overhead. Also the boy’s shadow on the right cast on the fence. Unbelievable.

        Some spook working on this project in Langley headquarters in sub-basement room B-33 screwed up. LOL.


        1. Wallace,
          Exactly. It is what they expect nowadays. Instead of protesting and asking for accountability and budget trimming and less surveillance, they expect you and us to laugh at it instead, all this on purpose. No rift between agencies IMO. D’you know the annual budget for the NIP, National Intel Program was? Let’s take Sandy Hook year, for example, 2012 budget was $53.9 Billions. For 2018? $57.7 Billions of your tax dollars. This is just civilian budget, if you add up the military budget it reaches up close to $80 Billion. Or $77.7 if you push me. But you can keep focusing on Immigrtion or Chess Matches or botched PS (Photoshop) pictures or Genealogies all you want.No judging here.


        2. I’ve seen this photo without the “sun” shining overhead. Is it possible that what looks like the sun in this photo isn’t just the glare of a flash or overheard light when taking a photo of a photo?

          Supposedly, the kid in the photo posted a recent picture of himself holding this picture. There is no shining sun in that photo, but there are other markings which appear on that photo which certainly raise other questions…


          1. I agree that the overhead “sun” looks fishy, but why would anyone in 2000 or even five+ years prior be taking a photo of a photograph with a camera, in the first place? Consumer scanners have been around since the early 90s, and cheap too. One would never “publish” a photo of a photo, unless there were some ulterior motives – such as some level of doctoring along the way.

            Also, Photoshop has been around longer than 9/11 as well. Even in 1998, adding in the smoking “tower” would have taken mere minutes, even on a crappy iMac or Pentium 2. The tech hasn’t really changed that much (I’m in CGI professionally, by the way) except now our computers are a bit faster. But Photoshop is still Photoshop, just with a darker UI and some fun features. Masking, blending, and layers haven’t changed at all, technologically.

            So I suggest that the photo is real, the shadows are real, but the smoking tower has been edited in. Notice how different it looks compared to the other buildings, especially the ones directly in front of it from this angle. A novice could have done this. A professional would have done it even better, with little or no trace of doctoring.


          2. The sun couldn’t be in that position at 8:45am in September in New York. I’m sure the photo is fake for other reasons mentioned, but the shadows from the people are more indicative of the position of the sun that early in the day.


          3. Inside Baseball is right, that was the other point I had.

            But look at the shadow of the railing to the boy’s left. That doesn’t fit the Sun to the East, like would be at 8:45 AM. It’s from above and behind, slightly to the right, like that -looks like pasted in Sun- does.


  8. Vat?
    U’ couldn’t find a nice goy converted to Orthodox Christianity to discuss instead, like Joseph P. Farrell author of “Hess and the Penguins: The Holocaust, Antarctica and the Strange Case of Rudolf Hess”?


  9. I was a couple of years out of college (mid 80’s), bored out of my gourd, and in desperation I found an occult bookstore on my commute and went in to find ANYTHING that would give me a laugh. I found a book, Holy Blood, Holy Grail, and it changed my life. Yes, it all turned out to be bullshit, but what that book did was give me an opportunity to read about the death cult that is the Roman Catholic Church, which had oppressed me since early childhood, from a completely alien perspective. Boy o Boy, I was ready to shoot the Pope myself.
    Anyway, it opened up the floodgates and I was famished to read any and all alternative histories I could get my grubby little talons on, now that I was apparently a minion of Satan. That lead me to the subject at hand, I Velikovsky, and I devoured his works. I wanted to get “it” but, in the end, I felt there was something missing. What was missing turned out to be objectivity. The man had compartmentalized his science and religious beliefs and then had let them seep in together. The kicker was Oedipus and Akhenaten, IV’s riff on Freud’s Moses and Monotheism. I realized, despite protests to the contrary, these guys believed their fanciful history. Not in exhaustive detail, but they assumed there was a narrative armature to ancient history that had been settled on in the main and it had provided them with a false premise. From there, all the internal logic in the cosmos could be contorted to fit their respective models*.
    In their defense, I would resist the rusty canard, “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus”, because IV, especially, has some pretty tasty stuff strewn about his cosmic billiard table. The debate about the age of Venus is most comical in the scramble of orthodox science to resist evidence that doesn’t fit their own false premises. So too, the cratering on Venus doesn’t conform to those doctrines.
    Not being of a scientific temperament (my compartmentalized brain is more like stratified layers of abandoned paradigms) I rarely lose sleep over science and all his works. I’d rather read Graham Hancock and his theories, like Mars taking a point blank shotgun to the face by angry asteroids, than try to figure any of this out to the point of acclamation. That is time lost to a healthy imagination running amok in the face of consensus.

    *Beware of professional heretics. They are paid by the page just like mainstream historians.


  10. Velikovsky’s last and posthumous book was Mankind In Amnesia. To me it appeared to be the central statement of his career. People misinterpret mythology as being non-historical because of huge and traumatic events that took place in antiquity. He didn’t have it all sorted out but he was attempting to make an initial diagnosis of a collective amnesia. He was doing his best to identify the major traumatic events which caused the collective amnesia which still exists and is still causing people to repress the truth of our collective past.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Wilhelm Reich (another of the early psychiatrists) said that it could be seen that trauma was passed from one generation to the next, and was best healed if it could be addressed before age 12. He expressed some confusion as to what might have been the initial source of the trauma in mankind buried in the historical past. I believe that this was the real research that Velikovsky embarked upon in his work at the Columbia University Library after he arrived in the USA. He wrote Worlds In Collision because this was what he had found in the historical and mythological record.


    2. History is false. History is true. Like an obvious symbol in our own dreams we misinterpret what is right in front of us because we have subconscious reasons to avoid the truth.


      1. I’m of the mind that any interpretation of a dream is a correct one. The fact is, even in dreams we can’t be objective. We have only our subjective POV to start with and that is why I allow multiple perspectives on the only slightly knowable. I sometimes label this concession The Plausibility Index. Keeps me sane-ish.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. In the thread above we were doubting all of history, or if Velikovsky was writing even a single bit of honesty. Was it all misdirection? I do not think so. He was trying to expose a difficult truth about a forgotten history. Sometimes the dream symbol is entirely clear but we cannot see it for a while. Can we see the truth Velikovsky wrote if we assume from the start he was a deceptive intelligence agent?
          I believe it may be true that Venus sprang from the cleft brow of Zeus, as a cometary planet emerged from Jupiter, and this was witnessed by our ancestors.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. That Venus was recently a comet that emerged from Jupiter is an idea that some people do take seriously. This guy (no relation to me, Ack* name similarity a mere coincidence) for instance:
            Ancient myths were actually observations of Mars, Venus and Mercury which repeatedly passed close to the Earth between 3700 and 700 BC.


  11. Less BS. Come on, you can do better fellow commenters. I.V. was a Jew. Nobody invented it out of thin air. That is an indisputable fact. If you are a Miles Mathis reader you already know what the term “Jew” is about. That is an appeal to insult my intelligence that bore no fruit and that even after “self-hating, Neo-Nazi, whatever” were thrown out. If you were serious about the Truth this post would have ended 31 comments ago and on to the next topic. Please… I fulminated this post after my first comment. That is something not to attack anyone, but to be grateful about, that we are paying attention to this blog. Every other comment after the first 4 has added nothing of substance, well some of them good laughs and rolling of eyes.
    Perhaps, I will be called a “low level spook” for this, to that I say: I could call you the very same. I’m Lawrence Rothman and I approve this message.


  12. I am indirectly familiar with Velikovsky. I was introduced to chronological revisionism by his disciples. A few years ago I read “Pillars of the Past” series. You can find the 4 pdf books and additional books here http://immanuelvelikovsky.com/ .
    These books are probably better than the books of Velikovsky and more up to date. In the series they also mention other revisionists. The series deals mostly with the age before 300BC (standard chronology), and it also shows the chronological problems when dealing with the megaliths. Now I see problems even up to the year 1582, when they introduced the Gregorian calendar (the possibility that the calendar was luni-solar before that year). Nonetheless, I will say that the series is high quality. They touch different issues like :problems with the dating technology, agricultural problems, metallurgy problems, cultural/historical parallels, linguistics, pottery etc. If you want to get familiar with a lot of issues this is a good series. Unfortunately they don’t mention some pretty solid problems with the period after 300BC. There is some good evidence that the Earth went through major changes in the 12th-16th century period.

    I will say that some issues with history can be divided in 3 categories or questions. There is the problem of chronology, the problem of historical narratives and the question regarding major Earth catastrophes . The problem of major Earth catastrophes is more independent but still related to the other 2 issues. Chronology and the historical narratives are very connected or dependent on each other . Of course a historical narrative can be false even when its chronology is correct (by chronology I mean the distance from the present times, not the standard chronology). 9/11 is full of false narratives, but we know its timeline. My point is that we should keep in mind these 3 issues when we deal with history, especially the more distant history.

    Liked by 2 people

  13. Regarding the photo of the “9/11 boy” above:

    The bright area at the top of the photo MIGHT be the sun but it looks more likely to be a reflection off of a print as Brett said.

    It’s not uncommon for someone to take a digital photo of a print. I’ve done it many times. There is nothing suspicious about doing so. It’s often easier and quicker than using a flatbed scanner and about the only way to digitize a print when one does not have a scanner.

    That doesn’t mean the photo isn’t a fake, however. Just the fact that the crowd seems oblivious to the alleged mayhem going on behind them makes it appear fake as hell. Surely they would have at least heard something and turned around to gawk. And, the person taking the photo would have been looking right at the tower. Surely he/she would have pointed out such an alarming sight to others.


    1. look at this boys hands? This are not hands of a child and the left one (to your right) looks like a gorilla hand. Much too long, no?


  14. From Mark’s quote above, I am very curious about the famous painting I open with above, called “The Birth of Venus.”.

    While I know jack what the name of the painting could be, especially regarding Immanuel Velikovsky and the birth of Venus, for fun I’m going to throw out a half-baked idea that the female Hora figure on the left of the painting is a symbol of Horus or Thoth with the head of an Ibis.

    My methodology was to look at the painting without any research and record my first impressions. Reducing the image to black and white, then blurring till the representational meanings were gone, showed a high-contrast area on the left and mostly everything else muted greys. Usually the main interest of a painting has high key contrast to attract the eye. While Venus is buck naked I’m suggesting the main figure of interest is “Thoth”. It is Thoth who controls the painting.

    Granted the coloured pigment could have faded I’m assuming Botticelli painted on various levels, consciously or not, from roughing in the composition to finally delineating the figure outlines. The foundational roughing-in has more meaning or weight than the linear drawing, reinforcing Thoth as main interest.

    And here is the imaginary leap of dis-belief, disregard Hora’s face, with a half-closed eye imagine the cloth flowing between her left hand and forehead to be a vulture’s head*. It’s a stretch.

    Am I saying the painting’s patrons were shape-shifting reptiles. Nah.
    Is the painting to be viewed as an allegory of past cultural icons. Yes, Egyptian and possibly further back. As far back as Joseph P. Ferrell’s, dat guy again, book about cloning “Genes, Giants, Monsters and Men” or Immanuel Velikovsky?

    Or maybe it’s just a pornographic wedding gift outlining the Di Medici lineage. I count at least thirty-two labia’s in the painting starting with Venus’s folded hair in her right hand and branching out to the cloth folds.
    32? … oooooh, and the calm is bearded or the shell is the cobra snakes above Buddhas head or it is the fallopian tubes.

    .*Side note: even Venus’ head is not anatomically correct as the head does not rest on the neck cervical vertebrae C1 as it does, except if you are Amado Modigliani. Her head flows with her hair going down her back. The man’s head, Zephyr, belongs more to his wing than his body. There are other anatomy issues throughout the painting, Zephyr’s companion’s leg folded over him is not correct, etc.
    The couple in blurred view appears to be a Tantric Energy ‘Black Sun’. Venus a faint halo. Perhaps the ‘winds’ are photons delivering flowers/seeds due to photosynthesis … panspermia asteroids … did I say I counted 32 flaming lips blowing in the wind like leaves of an old woman’s … human faces with snake bodies … Venus in a test tube?

    Your guess is good as mine, any ideas?


    1. Venus’ left clavicle seems to have dissolved and her arm is sliding down her side.
      I saw this painting at the Uffizi in Florence many moons ago and I wondered then, as I still do, if the anatomy anomalies are due to it being presented at eye level. If you look at the full body portraits of English inbreds of the Van Dyck era anon, you will see the knees are positioned very low, leaving elongated thighs. This is because the portraits were designed to be mounted high up the walls they were reserved for, thus allowing the foreshortening to take proper effect.
      It may be that Venus was designed in a similar fashion, though the paining is relatively small given how damned iconic it is so I doubt it could be elevated much. Botticelli never struck me as someone all that conversant with the female form, ahem, so maybe he just winged it without a model. The handmaiden’s head looks like clip art from the era.
      (I shouldn’t think that fame equals size. Mona Lisa, for example, is only slightly larger than a postage stamp, so I’ve heard.)


  15. We learn through repetition, no?
    Words are used for deception, or for enlightenment and everything in between.

    How all dots connect with each other is a matter of perspective. The linear thinker (literalist) considers the path to be like a children’s game of connect the dots. A non-linear (spiritual) mind considers all possibilities and makes a choice based upon moral principles.

    The use of repetition to force the learning of useless knowledge of fictional things and their names is to “educate.” To enlighten is the ability to connect all the dots as self-evident truth. To teach using repetition can lead to truth/wisdom.

    Literalists have a hard time “getting” the story right because many of the most important lessons are written in parabolic form. The moral, parabolic, allegoric story of a personified character in a story is not the same as creating a fictional man (person) in legal society. To get at he truth one must be able to read between the lines. An accurate picture or story emerges from the sum of all ideas that make up the whole.


    1. So who was Velikovsky anyway? Was he a fictional person weaving a addition to the web of lies? Or was he a real human investigating the buried past?


  16. When I first ran across the writing of Miles Mathis I was impressed how he revealed the vast extent of the web of deliberate deception. The creative work of thousands of writers and actors had been harnessed to the objectives of the hidden wealthy cabal.

    When I read Mankind in Amnesia by Immanuel Velikovsky I was hit with the revelation that there was a collective and subconscious repression of knowledge of the true past.

    So the drive to create a false past derives from both the conscious intention of the deceivers, and yet also from the subconscious unwillingness of the deceived to face the truth. The liars have harnessed the power of a self deception that already existed. Can we reclaim the truth by blaming all the falseness on the lying devils? Or might we have to sort out our own subconscious projections first?

    The cabal are also deceiving their selves if they believe that by weaving a web of darkness and deceit that they can claim all the light for themselves.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Alan,

      Very good insights. I believe the cabal understand the mechanism by which we subconsciously repress the past, and design their works around exploiting it. But they lack a critical understanding that this “achilles heel” is also the doorway to enlightenment and freedom. They see it in terms of power and material gain, which is their darkness.

      This knowledge is embedded in the Bible and other ancient writings, often like gold that must be mined from the rock surrounding it. But it can only be understood experientially, as in Christ’s saying that, “When you obey my commandments, you’ll understand the doctrine.”

      I believe it was Pascal who said that the Jew’s misunderstood the spiritual value of the scriptures, believing them to be the key to material gain, which gave them a reason to protect them while acting as a safeguard and validation that they wouldn’t corrupt them.

      Not saying this to proselytize, but just using the cultural references I’m most familiar with. The truth is hidden as a way to protect it and teach us to value it by having to search and fight for it. By exploiting it for shortsighted purposes, the cabal are unwittingly creating circumstances for the tables to be turned. In the case of truth, all roads do eventually lead to Rome… whether by positive or negative example.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. I should clarify that the truth doesn’t need to be protected, but it’s hidden in a way such that the wicked are self-limited because of their blindness from using more of it to achieve their ends.

        Liked by 1 person

    1. This is a great link, as are the ones you left above. Thanks. It appears there may be only the two of us here in this comment string really interested in catastrophism, or the actual content of Velikovsky’s books.


    2. I am more interested in catastrophism in general, not necessarily the ideas of a specific person about catastrophism. I want to know the possible proofs that point towards a great catastrophe. I also consider the possibility of multiple major Earth changes. The question regarding the timeline of such events is also important.

      You can also read this book https://abruptearthchanges.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/01-02-2018-updated-black-death-and-abrupt-earth-changes.pdf . The book covers possible major Earth changes in the 13th and 14th century. The scenario presented in this book is less sexy. No need for comet impacts or planetary dislocations to get major Earth changes. The book also presents the possibility that the Black Death was due to major Earth changes and that the bacteria probably played a secondary role. The major changes destroyed agriculture leading to the famine of 1315-1317 plus other 14th century famines. These famines probably weakened the population of Europe.The lack of nutrition weakened the immune system of the people, which lead to health problems. The book also presents the possibility that many casualties of the 100 years war were due to the same major natural changes. For propaganda reasons, the casualties were blamed on human actions or war. The book doesn’t discuss chronological revisionism (if I remember correctly).


      1. If there were an event that sucked atmosphere and water off of Mars, it is possible that there may still be orbiting dust clouds of debris that may include germs or viruses to which there is no developed immunity. It could be that comets and meteor showers are accompanied by more dangerous stuff small enough to drift down slowly after the big pieces have already fallen.



    “Venus’ left clavicle seems to have dissolved and her arm is sliding down her side.”.


    By design, as I believe Botticelli’s painting style is “Amorphous” where one shape flows into another to give more than one meaning to the painting.

    Botticelli understood anatomy, both female and male, as witnessed by the subliminal genitalia thought out the painting. He used the sloped shoulder form in other of his paintings usually on younger models. Venus has a not yet developed nose bridge, the ridge between the eyes and the nostrils, indicating she was a young teenager. This would be conventional considering people married at a younger age then to ensure there was a family lineage.

    I heard the Florentine merchants enjoyed playing practical jokes which makes me believe the “Birth of Venus” is sort of joke. Imagine the original canvas’ background as a Stage Curtain, a large piece of cloth specifically designed to cover a theater’s backstage area from the audience or spectators. Onto this ‘canvas’ Botticelli flatly painted a sky and sea, then Venus on a calm shell.

    The joke is Hora of Spring, the lady on the left, is pushing the curtain open to show it is a façade.

    Zephyr and his companion are bursting out of the surface of the canvas in protest. This would explain why their legs are lighter in tone from their combined torso. It would also explain why the three figure-groups are of different scales and why the forest as the backstage is darker and geometrically straighter lined which Botticelli, accustomed to curved forms, would consider censorship.

    On another level of meaning it is telling, by a pregnant Hora closing the curtain, the young recently married couple to enjoy the time they have since once children enter the picture your life changes.

    And yet, on another level the JOKE is on … us. Supposedly the painting is iconic while at the same time “they” are telling “us”, the little people, it’s a hoax.

    Where have we heard this before?
    It’s the card magician holding up two cards, one ‘randomly’ selected from the deck and the other a card with a nude photo, ie. “Venus”. Most of the audience will see the nude and not notice the con.

    Ps., It would be interesting to connect the dots from the writings from Immanuel Velikovsky to Graham Hancock to Joseph P. Farrell or anyone else involved in Alternate History and see if one theory morphed into another with an added twist. In the Testaments people life spans decreased through the narrative, say from 900 years and less, indicating not all times lines are linear, perhaps logarithmic. In Geology 250,000 million years is no big deal compared to 3-5 Billion years but without evidence we deal with what we have, ie. Periodic cycles.
    “MD” magazine a while back had a series on famous personnel, analyzing their known medical histories against their life. For example, the Post-Impressionist painter Vincent von Gogh’s family had a history of Epilepsy providing a cause for his swallowing paint. The French painter Amado Modigliani portraits were analyzed against his drug addictions, i.e. the vacant eyes. Btw, his style is probably derived from Botticelli.

    Misc.: El Greco the “Greek” painter painted dual-images of the sitter in his portraits. One, the image in the highlights and another in the shadows, usually facing in the opposite direction, like how the shadows in 1950’s cartoons indicated subject matter censors would object to.
    “Raking” is a painting technique of creating ridges with oil paint that at a certain light angle make shadows that form an image not necessarily in conformity with the painted image.


    1. JAMES ALLEN- I don’t know what that is hanging on the wall in the linked picture, but that is not the painting I saw back in the seventies. What I saw was half that size and placed on an easel, though it was framed. Maybe that thing behind bullet proof glass is the original and what I saw was a copy set up while the original was in repair or something. When Vermeer’s Girl With a Pearl Earring came through Frisco a few years ago, I would have not been surprised at all if what I was seeing was a roadshow knockoff. It was much larger than I expected and looked, despite the elaborate craquelure, like it was painted a month previous. I imagine restoration techniques are better than ever, but these paintings belong to the elites and I would be shocked if they didn’t play games with us, even at this level of marginalia.
      As for hidden jokes and whatnot, I’m certainly on board. A patron did not commission a work and let the artist run wild. The paintings communicated far more than the objects represented. See The Draughtsman’s Contract, a film by Peter Greenaway, for an example of embedded meanings in artworks and the consequences of the hidden messages being decoded.


      1. A couple of other points: The claim of a murmuration of vajayjays in the painting, I have to opine, leans on the side of wishful thinking, James. Botticelli was a classic “confirmed bachelor”, though the ports of ingress may have been specifically required by the patron. I’m leaving that box unchecked.
        For those keeping J scores (Lawrence), Botticelli’s middle name was listed as Mariano, which is suspiciously close to Marrano. He was patronized by friends of the Medici’s, which M. Mathis has fingered as members of the crypto-tribe. His neighborhood reads like “the Jewish part of town” though hardly a ghetto. He was early on trained to be a goldsmith. Is that Jewishy? And the proboscii of the characters in the painting look either aquiline in the classic Roman sense, or, you know…

        Liked by 1 person

  18. Thank you for this post Mark. I found this quote today, from Ernest Renan:

    “Forgetfulness, and I would even say historical error, are essential in the creation of a nation.”

    Wikipedia continues:

    “Historical research, by revealing unwanted truths, can even endanger nationhood.”

    Does anybody skilled in the geneology know if James Hutton (geologist) is related to the Hutton in Mel Gibson’s name?


    1. I don’t know that, but James Hutton is related to the Balfour family from Scotland (think Balfour Declaration).

      John Hutton Balfour, “James Hutton, the geologist, was his grandfather’s first cousin”:

      No direct link to be found to the Balfour line that is scrubbed in parts; the great-great grandfather of Arthur Balfour, Robert (~1698) has only 2 sons linked and only the Arthur Balfour line described. For such “nobility” that would be impossible.

      No time now to look at other sites than Geni, but they must be related; both Scottish, many jewish first and last names popping up in those families. MM has the book of the jews in Scotland.

      He even describes a “Balfour” in his paper on Mel Gibson. Also in his paper on Benito Mussolini MM talks about the same family names in relation to Arthur Belfour. As the Huttons are related to the Belfours, and Gibson to the Belfours again and the same names as in the Huttons, I think there is a big chance they are related indeed.


  19. T.M.,

    “Fugazzi. U’ knowa dis fugazzi?”.

    Way back, Andrew “Angie” Warhola gave a lecture at a university and afterwards a friend approached him only to realize he was an imposter. It’sa mostly all phony baloney in the art market. I give credit to Miles Mathis for his writings on Art since before the internet there wasn’t much, near to none, criticism of twentieth century art.

    What to do? Make your own art. Get some cheap packaging paper and burn your own charcoal if you must since art supplies are expensive. If you get artist’s “block” not knowing what to do, tell yourself “What whatever I do is good since I did it.”, it’s as-simple as that. Remember, if you liked doing it, people will pick-up on it. The rest will follow. It’s not necessary to have someone tell you what art is.

    One theory of the “Venus” painting is it was intended to be a wedding gift to be hung in the couple’s bedroom so there would have not been any hidden meanings as it was meant to be private. We can still get a glimpse into their world view.

    “Vajayjays”? If we’re talking bearded clam, the vertical smile, check the folded hair in Venus’ hand while she’s standing on the MOA Clitoris’. Hopefully, that’ll be last of that topic.

    “Confirmed bachelor”, has no bearing since it means he wasn’t married, not that he didn’t know anatomy or was straight, gay or asexual. If you think otherwise please spit it out. I say this as a card-carrying member of the “Sh*t, I forgot to get married but then I’m not divorced” Club.

    As far as Patrons, artists can’t be too choosy, even famous painters. When the Florentine friar Girolamo Savonarola came around Botticelli bent with the wind. In the epic TV comedy series “Mona McCluskey’ (1965-1966) with Juliet Prowse, there was an episode involving a three-way affair, one party was an artist who bowed-out fifteen into the show saying, “In a three-way, it’s the Artist who gets killed.” One of the few pearls of wisdom from TV.
    Not even for Juliet Prowse, I know, try and get your mind around that.


    1. J.A.
      Confirmed bachelor in this case means a closet case, possibly with no actual score (just latent) but I don’t think so. Latent men tend to be hostile and there is nothing hostile in Botticelli’s oeuvre that I can see. A gay artist?!? Never!
      He was, indeed, enamored of Savanorola so he may have been celibate as a true beliver can be, yet he could also have been a crypto-case, which would explain his syncretizing nature, pre-Christian myths and the Church’s indulgences in his work. Given that Venus was a Medici commission, I would think the latter. His mentor was a cop, I mean, a priest, so the number done on his head from early on could have allowed him to load up his works with subliminal sexual imagery as a way of subconsciously processing the hostility that never did surface directly in his work or life. Thus a swarm of auxiliary clam shells attends the birth.
      Our hour is up.


      1. Tyrone, Steve, Maarten, Vexman, Josh and of course Mark (enjoy your holidays!):

        make sure to back up everything here. I am not panicking, but worried yes I am. Big Brother has just purged Hoax Busters Call (hosted on Blogspot). Anything hosted on WordPress falls under Google, so it may be up next. No fearmongering, a real event:



  20. A 29 minute talk by Geologist Michael Steinbacher presented as Thunderbolts Project, electric universe theory, goes into the evidence of vast geological anomalies that fit well into the idea that there were recent (within ancient historical memory) events that laid vast amounts of material on top of the southwest USA. This material fell down from the sky in a short period of time.


    1. Hahaha, what a funny video. I don’t know what kind of “geologist” Mister Steinbacher was (apparently he died in 2016), but this is said of him on the EU2014 conference page:

      Michael Steinbacher’s career started as a photographer at the Buck County Courier Times in Pennsylvania in 1966. He later joined the Air Force where he continued photography in the service. After discharge, he worked as a picture editor for the Trentonian and a staff photographer for the Miami Herald and the Daily Breeze in Los Angeles before settling in Florida to work in photographic production and freelance work. At the same time he was pursuing his theories regarding Electric Universe geology.

      I couldn’t find any (academic) geology career from him, but he may be an amateur geologist, self-studied. Well then he has done a poor job…

      I made it to 13:49.

      comparing maps with types of rock doesn’t say much, you have to include the ages of them
      there are volcanic rocks in the SE Appalachians, and no, no volcanoes there. NOW. Those rocks are old.
      same for the Canadian Shield “those are metamorphic rocks, but they are all flat”, eh yes, they are Precambrian, according to established dating over 1 billion years old. Lots of time to erode them to a flat peneplain
      “sediments below plutonic rocks” as in the Californian Sierra, he said. No picture, no cross-section, nothing. But, what about tectonics?
      “I have never seen folded mountains, but they may exist”, I mean seriously??
      “urinating dinosaurs” (that was a joke), but then “600 million years ago”, eh, what?? There were dinosaurs before the Cambrian explosion when only very primitive life was around, and only in the oceans???
      he takes NASA seriously (even shows a picture of Google Mars, which is pure fantasy) and says “when comet Haley [sic] was visited by NASA”… no, there is no space travel possible.

      Come on, what is this dude saying? It’s a big joke(r).

      Exactly like this Brian says:

      Charlie, this guy is so full of ***t. At first I thought he was a some kind of Young Earth Creationist, but he actually appears to be mentally ill or an alcoholic that decided to call himself a geologist after retirement. He seems to have created a hobby career for himself of explaining mountain building as a catastrophic event caused by comets and electricity in an extremely unsupported way using ancient myths as inspiration (Did you hear him say. “I think this was happening during the Exodus” in the video?). He flat out denies plate tectonics exists in the video. He is also claiming that oil came from a comet like it’s a fact.

      I mean no insult if you are interested in this “Electric Universe” subculture that he seems to be associated with, but my undergraduate degree was in Geophysics so I could not restrain myself. My guess is that he was an engineer (or maybe no science background at all) and always wanted to be a geologist. I get a kick out of contrarians, so thanks for sharing!



      1. Well Michael Steinbacher is clearly an outsider to conventional geology. He starts first by reading the old stories and myths, and talking to the Native Americans, then looks at the landscape to see if he can connect the old stories to what he sees in the landscape. Since he starts from the premise that the stories are true, why would it be unexpected if he comes to different conclusions than those who have started from other premises?
        In this way he is similar to Velikovsky who started by searching history for what may have been the initial cause for the generation to generation propagation of trauma, and he wound up finding stories about astronomical events that had geological implications. I find your response to Michael Steinbacher to be quite similar to the academic response that was given to Velikovsky. Your debunking of Michael Steinbacher is right in line with the history of the treatment given to Velikovsky.
        Velikovsky’s Worlds in Collision was withdrawn from publication by Macmillian (who were textbook publishers) under pressure from academics who threatened to boycott textbook purchases in order to censor Velikovsky’s work. The Doubleday edition replaced it. Such a fine display of academic ethics to censor the work of someone disagreed with.
        On the plus side, I found, for $2, a Macmillian edition at a thrift store, hardbound with the dust jacket intact. Always a thrill to find a rare banned book, but I’m not sure what it may be worth.


        1. Alan, I never meant to say to “silence” alternative ideas, quite the contrary, I support people looking into it. That however doesn’t mean I embrace every counternarrative without question.

          After I looked into Apollo from a geological point of view, I even built a 3D model of the Apollo 15 “landing site”, still need to finish it into a 4D one, something nobody has ever done, I went looking into (in this order):
          – Flat Earth – BS and impossible, a huge psyop dominating JewTube big time
          – Concave Earth – even more impossible, the Wild Heretic site is the big player in that one, also Stephen “I am Christ”opher
          – Expanding Earth – Neal Adams is the big promoter of that one, but it’s the same problem I saw with this Steinbacher guy; cherrypicking and ignoring anything contrary to the idea
          – Abiogenic oil – not even a theory, just an idea thrown out there. There is no experiment done that proves that the complex molecules that constitute “oil” can even come from abiogenic minerals and everything to the contrary (RockEval pyrolysis, oil shales). It’s a Russian idea based on nothing. Methane (simple CH4 can come from abiogenic sources, mainly volcanoes, but the complex benzene rings and long alkanes, alkenes etc. are unexplained)

          I am interested in those topics, but what I have seen in this “Fakeology” realm is that people stopped using common sense. While the mainstream BS stories are easily broken down and shown wrong using common sense, real experimental science and logic, that toolbox is suddenly not used when looking into “alternative” ideas.

          It’s like people awakening from the induced sleep of the mainstream, but then take some sleeping pills sold by “alternative” snake oil salesmen.

          In the last 6 months that I have been active in these circles, I was astounded by how much “alternative” BS people buy into, even those who know about the controlled Alex Jones-David Icke narratives.

          People claiming:
          – The Earth is Flat – contrary to all the observations it cannot be
          – The Moon is a hologram – without providing any evidence for that outlandish idea
          – War is a Hoax – idem for both points above

          Especially in this never-ending process of awakening, it is important to keep your feet on the ground and not fall for alternative narratives that may sound “sexy” for the uninformed, but are easily broken down by just applying the exact same methods we use against the mainstream stories.

          It has been quite a disappointing ride, at times.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. As perhaps the only one here who has read IV, I get a little annoyed at the wave-of-the-hand dismissals. Where do you get off? I could cite you volumes of his prose that deals with all elements of this debate. I even have it all flagged, but not for blog purposes. He merely stakes out some ground, and against all comers defends it. The physical evidence he puts up not explained by any other science, especially neo-Darwinism, is impressive. His disassembly of that pseudo-science at the end of Earth in Upheaval is detailed and rigorous. That he does not fully propose and elucidate a new science of evolution to repair the faults of the old … I only hope that my further journeys into his work and those who picked up after will answer some questions. You have a science that explains nothing against an iconoclast looking for better answers. That is all.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Well, thanks for the reply. It did appear to me that your takedown of Michael Steinbacher was at least somewhat ad hominem. I am finding this here at this site, and to some extent with Miles Mathis also when just being a Jew with concealed ancestry & wealth is used to claim a life’s work to be all an intelligence operation and a deception. It is so easy to imply without proving it, although it may indeed sometimes be the case. Without the proof it is just an ad hominem attack.

            My own interest is as an electrical engineer with extensive high voltage experience I have been carefully following the Electric Universe theories. I am quite convinced that electrical arc damage can be seen on Mars, and so have been taking more seriously the evidence that the “steady state” solar system is probably false. Comets are probably charge carriers and the solar wind certainly is also. If Zeus (Jupiter) was seen in the past to throw cosmic thunderbolts then other planets must have passed close enough for this to happen. For Mars to have been hit by lighting, bolts large enough to cause the damage seen is quite clear to me. I have done a lot of lab work involving throwing high voltage arcs at various materials (mostly involving the hunt for fireproof plastics and glues, and also to duplicate high voltage tracking marks that had been left on failed equipment). I do take the Venus scenario presented by Steinbacher and Velikovsky quite seriously. However, I am aware that both are outsiders who have proceeded far beyond the expertise of their initial training.

            I live in the southwest and have long been looking at the landscape and geology with the awareness of so many odd and unexplained things (like beach sand and shells above timberline on Pikes Peak). I find Steinbacher’s overall visualization of the massive events that must have taken place in the southwest USA to be evocative, but certainly not definitive. A family business in lapidary (rock collecting) and a lot of mountain biking has given me a lot of experience in the landscape he is attempting to explain.

            I agree with you on most of the other hoax theories. I had heard that the Russians had developed a deep drilling process that tapped the abiogenic oil, so maybe they know something we do not. Along with you, I am stunned by the complexity of the false science and psy-op deception that is going on these days.


          3. Thanks Mark for chiming in on having read Immanuel Velikovsky. While I have not read every book he wrote I have read at least 5 of them. I thought his final book, Mankind In Amnesia was a stunning posthumous finale. I could see why he left off having it published until after his death, since he must have grown so tired of being attacked over and over. This final book made it clear that his life’s work was to discover what historical trauma had happened to cause the collective state of amnesia.

            Liked by 1 person

  21. hey tm,

    Your quote TM, March 12, 2018 at 1:54 pm :
    “ … his syncretizing nature, pre-Christian myths and the Church’s indulgences in his work. Given that Venus was a Medici commission, I would think the latter.”

    JA: Methinks It’s the former “pre-Christian myths” since Medici was crypto, therefore anti-Roman Catholic Church, as well as Botticelli according to your quote in parenthesis below,
    (TM March 9, 2018 at 5:16 pm: “For those keeping J scores (Lawrence), Botticelli’s middle name was listed as Mariano, which is suspiciously close to Marrano. He was patronized by friends of the Medici’s, which M. Mathis has fingered as members of the crypto-tribe. His neighborhood reads like “the Jewish part of town” though hardly a ghetto. He was early on trained to be a goldsmith. Is that Jewishy? And the proboscii of the characters in the painting look either aquiline in the classic Roman sense, or, you know…”.)

    JA: And since both Medici and Botticelli were crypto, and Medici paid for the painting, they’re both on the same page as far as the painting of “Venus” is concerned.

    Who was the mentor/cop/priest?
    If Medici was Botticelli’s mentor then there was no need for him to “subconsciously process(ing) the hostility” since there was no conflict.
    Even as you said from the first paragraph above, quote, “… there is nothing hostile in Botticelli’s oeuvre …”.

    And if there is nothing hostile then there is no need to “load up his works with subliminal sexual imagery”, or, “ … hostility that never did surface directly in his work …” in the first place.

    Your quote TM. “Thus a swarm of auxiliary clam shells attends the birth.” indicates there are “calm shells” that you see. I’m assuming the “calm shell” are of a sexual nature that are NOT of Botticelli’s NON-hostile head but are from the request of the patron of the painting de Medici due to it been a wedding gift for the newlyweds as a reminder to breed and continue the family line. The calm shells are not subliminal since they are not hidden to the viewers they were intended for. It was understood what the imagery meant, down to the choice of flowers on the fabric in the painting.

    Your quote TM March 9, 2018 at 4:49 pm: “A patron did not commission a work and let the artist run wild.”
    So, again, it was not Botticelli’s imagery in the painting.

    Your quote TM March 9, 2018 at 5:16 pm: “The claim of a murmuration of vajayjays in the painting, I have to opine, leans on the side of wishful thinking.”, and March 8, 2018 at 2:39 pm Botticelli never struck me as someone all that conversant with the female form, ahem, …” is negated by your quote above “Thus a swarm of auxiliary clam shells attends the birth.”.

    Botticelli is competent in painting the female form. Compare the sloped left shoulder to the correct right shoulder of Venus. The sloped shoulder is done for effect to blend of one form or shape into another to give a third form. This third form gives rise to the intentional double meanings in Botticelli’s painting, not from any non-existent suppressed angst.

    Fine, then we both see the imagery.

    I believe the imagery is to distract the viewer from the main symbol of the painting, Hora as Horus with the head of an Ibis, Thoth. As you refer to it above “pre-Christian myths”, not that you agree or disagree with the symbol of Thoth. Thoth is unveiling the stage curtain of Venus to show the pragmatic side of the crypto’s world.

    Again, who was the mentor/cop/priest?

    Now if the mentor was the friar Savonarola, I question if that was possible since Botticelli was crypto. The other cryptos would not associate with Botticelli if so. Furthermore, it raises a red flag on Savonarola being controlled opposition. Since I am not familiar with the relationship you mentioned TM between the two, I don’t know.

    Your quote TM, March 12, 2018 at 1:54 pm”: “He was, indeed, enamored of Savanorola so he may have been celibate as a true beliver can be, yet he could also have been a crypto-case, which would explain his syncretizing nature, pre-Christian myths and the Church’s indulgences in his work”.

    Syncretizing nature? Do you have to be celibate to be a believer? Was the Church “indulgence(s) in his work”? Why would they if he was such an oblivious crypto? Any observant priest could look at his work and notice the symbols to see that, not to mention as you pointed out above, his patrons, etc…

    Does that make Botticelli crypto-crypto, a double agent? Whew, that would make a person’s head hurt.

    Plus, again, according to your comments above he was NOT hostile, “nothing hostile in Botticelli’s oeuvre” and “the hostility that never did surface directly in his work”, that is hostility resulting from his supposed “syncretizing nature”, not the hostility from de Medici which did not exist.
    So, any syncretizing “hostility” does not appear in the “Venus” painting. That’s a moot point then.

    Finally, your definitive answer to what “Confirmed bachelor” means is celibate which does not negate his ability to render the female form, which he does well.

    One definition of Art comes from Ayn (Zimmerman, as in Bob) Rand, “Art is the refueling of consciousness.”

    As things get stale the artist shows a new way of looking at things.
    While I believe Art is the progression of Beliefs crystalized into Science, I do not think Freudian Mysticism is worth the time discussing it.

    Now, onto Eric Berne, MindF*cka.


    1. JA-
      Fra Filippo Lippi was the master Botticelli apprenticed under- another celibate. My main point is that despite his tranquility, SB was probably, like any human being, freaking out incrementally at a deep subconscious level about his true nature and what could and could not be completely suppressed. This negotiation with the self will have an effect on one’s creative life as creativity runs on high octane intuition where the intellect has little say, save in retrospect- ie, stepping back to admire one’s work, critically. The best thing a master can teach a pupil is self-editing. Kill your darlings, as some famous author instructed. If the plethora of coin slots came to the fore organically, then SB would be a subject for psychoanalysis (erm…) but if the Medici involved wanted something risque embedded in a wedding gift, then SB is in far more control of his craft than otherwise thought, missing clavicle be damned.


  22. I see that there is a debate about what is a Jew. I would say that the Elite Jews are closer to the original Jews than the Jews that are religious and believe the religious stuff (opposite of what most people assume). I agree with a lot of things from this website http://www.askwhy.co.uk/ . The most important thing on that website is his opinion that the original Jews were high ranking officials (Elite people), who were assigned to rule the region on the border with Egypt (there were many revolts in that region). In the first pages of “Lives and Opinions of Eminent Philosophers” by Diogenes Laertius, he mentions that some believe that the Jews are derived from the Magi. So the Persian connection is not that outrageous. These original Jews were probably elite people from the Persian empire and they were probably Greeks, Armenian, Lydians, Persians and other ethnicities. I believe that there are some passages in one of the books of Maccabees that tells that they are related to the Spartans. The first non-elite Jews were probably the servants of these high officials. The outer religion was probably greatly modified when the Persian empire fell (or maybe when a great catastrophe happened). In time, the lower class was also converted to the new religion. Of course, now I don’t trust the chronologies and the accepted historical narratives. Nonetheless, we can probably get some truths if we piece together various sources. This elite Persian connection makes it easier to understand the elite connection we see today. Even Reverend Robert Taylor said in one of his books that words like Hebrew, Jew, Christian were degrees of initiation (I don’t remember where, I read him many years ago). The degrees of initiation are probably reserved only for elite people. Of course, these words also have an exoteric meaning, referring to the lower class people that accept the standard propaganda. I guess we should be the people that try to stay outside of both the esoteric and exoteric propaganda. I just want to add that now I am a bit suspicious of Robert Taylor, considering the other famous Taylors.


  23. @Alanackley:

    My own interest is as an electrical engineer with extensive high voltage experience I have been carefully following the Electric Universe theories. I am quite convinced that electrical arc damage can be seen on Mars, and so have been taking more seriously the evidence that the “steady state” solar system is probably false. Comets are probably charge carriers and the solar wind certainly is also.

    That’s the thing. I cannot prove or disprove an “Electrical Universe” and clearly you have more “credentials” in that than me.

    My question is “how does it work?” Are there any experiments conducted? How do electrically charged balls fall in that “Universe”? In our realm of knowing things?

    My focus is the Earth (hence my name Gaia). If there is any better model than what I stick to, I switch. I only loathe those who say “I don’t have/provide a better model, I just claim the established model wrong”. That is an easy weasel position, like calling 9/11 a hoax, without going through all the work Simon Shack did with September Clues.

    I put Michael Steinbacher in that category. That doesn’t mean I am “married to” the mainstream… At all… I think it’s great to look into alternatives. But those alternatives should stand to the same scrutiny we give the “mainstream”…


    1. In the traditional solar system mechanics gravity is the big player in planetary motion and the building of planets out of gaseous nebula. In the electric universe, theories are simply taking into account what is already known about the behavior of charged objects and plasma, like the solar wind or comet tails and using that knowledge to arrange the known facts into a newer narrative. Under the old paradigm unexpected results from satellite instruments can be explained away as instrument failure when there are actually other explanations. We can look at the sky and given a different theoretical paradigm come to different conclusions. In a comment above on March 7 I mentioned “Acksblog” (not me) https://cycliccatastrophism.org/
      This blog is a great example of a man using current satellite data to form a contrarian narrative.

      But it’s hard to run your own interplanetary experiments without a serious budget. Also it’s hard to trust NASA when we know they are liars.

      The mind set you have when entering the field of new data is what is used to organize that data. Charles Fort (another iconoclast) wrote four books about all the random (unorganized by inclusion in theory) facts, the “damned facts”. Our theories are always somewhat inadequate because there are always more facts than can be framed by any finite theory. It is well known that new and useful ideas are often rejected at first by “elders” with an entrenched position in the old way of looking at things. Cognitive dissonance sets in when the truth contradicts too much of what is already believed to be true.

      It is the nature of the collective amnesia that Velikovsky had diagnosed that one of the symptoms was the rejection of the truth he exposed. So then the question is whether all the lies of NASA are deliberate ? Maybe they are suffering from cognitive dissonance and also the repression caused by the collective amnesia. Was Velikovsky rejected because he was wrong, or was it because he touched on a sore spot that is still being actively repressed from our collective memory?


      1. Please, you don’t have to convince me that NASA cum suis are liars.


        Under the old paradigm unexpected results from satellite instruments can be explained away as instrument failure when there are actually other explanations.

        There are no (man-made) satellites. That’s the misdirection I have observed, with Flat, Concave and now… Electrical Earth…

        Peel the onion, not introducing ugly new layers to it.

        I may be surrounded by spooks, I don’t know, I may be too naive. But any truthful person (and that includes Miles Mathis) doesn’t take seriously any “space” data…


    1. Richard, this picture may have appeared and then disappeared and then reappeared. My fat fingers on my iPhone might’ve done that. This is I think the Devils Tower in Wyoming. It is one of the most unusual formations I have ever seen.


      1. Yeah, would love to go there. Columnar igneous rock.

        The nearby Missouri Buttes, 3.5 miles (5.6 km) to the northwest of Devils Tower, are also composed of columnar phonolite of the same age. Devils Postpile National Monument in California and Giant’s Causeway in Northern Ireland, are also columnar basalt, which are superficially similar, but with columns typically 2 feet (0.61 m) diameter.


  24. TYRONE MCCLOSKEY SAYS: March 13, 2018 at 1:46 pm
    “This negotiation with the self will have an effect on one’s creative life as creativity runs on high octane intuition where the intellect has little say, save in retrospect- ie, stepping back to admire one’s work, critically. The best thing a master can teach a pupil is self-editing

    I should let it go but if anyone is interested and this from my personal experience painting …

    Scrap the Freudian Mysticism sub-sub to the n-degree conscious B.S., it has nada, zip, zilch to do with painting. It is antithesis to art or painting and will only be a distraction at best. Read up on Miles Mathis’ writings on twentieth century art.

    Painting is the balance between intuition/belief/outlook on life and the intellect/mental capabilities one has. Art is the articulation of these beliefs leading to the intellectual capabilities of as person.

    Edward T. Hall in his book “The Silent language” 1959, said it well, paraphrasing very roughly, first there are unwritten ways of doing things, amongst a community, which coagulate over time into mores or customs which continue into written laws.

    A model of the above would be a (non-Hegal) historical cyclical view of how a group of people develop their communication skills. Again, it is not a dogmatic etched in stone concept, just a model I made up.

    A cycle would be a progression of Religion (Belief) into Art into Science.

    Coming out the Religious “Middle Ages” time period into the Artistic Renaissance time a painter such as Botticelli would take what he learned from previous generations and develop that into sometime new as far as Seeing or Vision is concerned. It’s an arduous process.

    For example, the three-quarter portrait of a person we take for granted took time and effort to develop. A Middle Age painter/muralist knew how to create a facial frontal view of a person. Then the side view developed. The three-quarter view didn’t exist. At first Renaissance painters would draw the front view and then on the same ground, wood panel/canvas, draw the side view adjacent to it. Then they interpolated between the two to arrive at a three-quarter view of the sitter. Orthographic is another name for it. X-rays of paintings have shown this.

    It didn’t happen overnight but progressed from Master to student over time. (When you see a diagram drawing of Pablo Picasso’s rounded head, notice one eye is forward looking and then close to the profile down the middle of the circle, is a side view of an eye. That is his symbol of what he learned from painters before him.)

    From there following generations of painters developed the three-quarter view to the point it was written down. They didn’t do the training wheel process of drawing the two front and side views but went straight to the three-quarter view.

    The Renaissance era developed into the Baroque/Rococo Era which would be the third part of the cycle, Science or the initial Metaphysics part of Science, Math with Perspective and Descriptive Geometry.

    So, the Renaissance painter balanced the two eras, Religion and future Science in the same way today a painter uses their beliefs and at the same time their intellect to create something NEW for other people to use. It’s kinda like trying to see positive and negative space at the same time. Not easy to do. They articulated their beliefs. One part does not take precedence over the other. It takes conscious work, time and effort.

    And, if you take one concept away from reading this, it is Seeing is an Acquired Skill.

    Let me repeat that …


    … based on lessons learned from past generations. A baby’s vision is at first a grey unfocused mass. Color is learned as well as composition, balance and the other elements of painting one takes for granted based on the belief system of your Culture.

    A Master gives his students the baton of what he knows hoping they will run with it. He does not suppress by editing.

    “… negotiation with the self” is well B.S. as far as creativity is concerned. If your base Chakra is off balanced, then deal with that first before trying to use your Third-Eye Chakra.

    It’s all in front of you. There are no hidden sub-conscious “levels” tripping you up. Just mediate and focus what is in front of you to See.



    1. There is a movie titled, The Limey, where a cockney convict tries to explain himself to a DEA agent he’s run afoul with in the states. After the Limey concludes his rambling in Cockney rhyming slang, the DEA agent (Bill Duke) chews on his cud for a moment or two and thus intones: “There’s one thing I don’t understand. The thing I don’t understand … is every motherfucking thing you’re saying”.
      Meanwhile, seeing like a painter comes with a relentless passion for painting that eventually warps your POV. I painted for decades and at times all I could see was color and light, the forms of things nearly irrelevant. It’s almost like confirmation bias. The mind starts to filter out the irrelevant and you see what you need to see to stoke the passion (actually, in my case, obsessiveness) because of being in a constant state of aesthetic arousal.
      What killed my career was doing commissions (other people’s ideas and passions) and needing to write. I can only serve one mistress at a time and I’d say the paint stuff was a challenge successfully met.
      I have no idea where this thread is going.

      Liked by 1 person

  25. Wasn’t expecting otherwise.
    But giving credit where credit is due, er, very innovative (?) ….. using your woodie as a brush.



  26. In his last two papers, MM talks about Velikovsky in detail. Apart from pointing out more huge red flags with the guy, in them he makes something very clear, and that is a disturbing admission. He believes in Space Travel.

    Hopefully you will link those papers soon on your nice new blog, and we can talk about it there in more detail, for those who missed the new blog in your blogroll:


    1. I am a little put off, as on my desktop and away from the Internet I have been paying very close attention to Velikovsky, only slightly flattered by my wife’s suggestion that I look like him in my aging process. I cannot deal with Jupiter and Venus and magentospheres and all of that, and certainly not in ancient writings. If he was a project, to what end? It is all very much me swimming in deep water, that is all. Mathis should not be writing about Velikovsky, and should have done a deep unearthing of his genealogy rather than just linking to Sharon. Me flummoxed.


      1. Why shouldn’t he be writing about a topic he knows very well, Mark? He’s read all the stuff you’re just now reading – 30 years ago. He’s already demolished it too, as well as everyone else in astrophysics, from a theoretical standpoint.

        Again, I find myself wondering why some of us here refuse to read his 300+ physics papers. They’re pretty light reading, especially compared to anything similar in the mainstream.


    2. Do you believe that objects are unable to travel through space?

      I don’t find the topic disturbing in the least. If you look at the sky, you see space travel. If you don’t believe in the sky, that’s certainly your prerogative but it rather nullifies any arguments about what happens in the sky.


  27. Apart from Velikovsky there is another Russian speaking historical revisionist who I hold in way higher esteem than (((Immanuel))), pushed by Onestone (thank you smj) and the (((New York Times))).

    And as we need a break from the Coronarrative I want to present part of his work here. Anatoly Fomenko is a Russian mathematician who produced an enormous amount of research proposing a new chronology for mainly the Prenaissance (my Newspeak); the period before the printing press,

    That includes the complete invention of the “Roman”, “Greek” and “Pharaoan” eras, the History Hoax covered by John le Bon among others. Seneca and me have looked into Pompeii (where I have been and taken photos), which can be found on Fakeopedia. Fake as f, but that shouldn’t surprise any seasoned truth seekers here.

    The basis for his work I see as very strong. He has tried to align global phenomena like eclipses with the narratives presented to us. I have listed some other global phenomena like volcanic eruptions and climatic disturbances.

    Eye Am Eye Radio member CTruth is a historian (getting his BA in History, but done so much work that he already is a historian) who is fact-checking the claims made by Fomenko, which is no easy task and with 5998 pages for just the first 7 books by Fomenko (the rest needs to be translated from Russian still) a monumental aspiration.

    Check out his work on YouTube and comment where you see fit. His website is CTruth.today .
    We had an interview recorded which I will release, together with Ab the Fakeologist and Edu from Spain who got “Corona tested” and talks about it on air, if I get 5 Patrons.

    Hopefully more of you have looked into Fomenko, the History Hoax and a drastic revision of the historical chronology based on the scientific method.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s