Paid to be blind

I was interviewed last year about an event in my life, and willingly participated. I deeply regret that now, feeling like Charlie Brown as Lucy holds the football for him to kick. I am featured, somewhat, in a series of podcasts that can be found here and which covers the event in detail. To this day I have not figured out what happened that night, or why. The event, which happened in 1987, has been covered now by three generations of journalists, and they still are no closer to the truth than in that year when we all were in shock, like me, having no clue why it happened to my family.

My subject here is not that event, but rather the profession of journalism, and why it is of no use in pursuit of truth. Journalists are taught to be professional truth avoiders, though they do not know it. The means by which they avoid truth is called “objectivity”.

I once knew a professional journalist in my second home town of Bozeman, Montana, a very nice and competent man. I am not going to name him, as I am not in a mood to defame anyone, even in the slightest. I will call him “Jerry Fox” instead of using his real name. He is now retired. He worked one time for a small newspaper chain. He got tired of it and pulled out, starting his own newspaper, now defunct, but only due to his retirement. He opted out not so much because he was chasing big bucks provided by a small weekly, since that does not happen. He was one of the good ones, but still, a journalist.

Jerry once wrote about a friend of his who had died, also a journalist. He said that this man, whom he had known for years if not decades, was very good at his job. He said that in all of the years he had known him, he had no idea what his personal political opinions might be. In that profession, this is high praise, a paean to objectivity.

Part of the charade of politics is the candidate debate. Each person running for office is put behind a podium. They have weeks to prepare, and probably know the questions in advance, though officially they do not. They cannot afford to be exposed as the charlatans they are, and so for protection only certain people are allowed to ask questions. They choose carefully, and the questioners are always journalists. Being the person asking the questions in a political debate is considered a high honor in that profession. Only the best are chosen. The affairs are usually an hour or so, and are boring beyond belief. The journalists asking the questions are ever so professional, never giving off a spark of honest inquiry. It is a charade.

In our country, in our world, with so much deceit as we now see with Covid and Climate Change, how is it that journalists never manage to ask the right question? For one thing, if they did, they would lose their jobs. But for another, their training does not allow it. They are paid to be neutral, to never get “emotionally” involved, which is how editors and publishers label honest searching for truth. They are housebroken. Were that not the case, they would be driving Ubers or putting shingles on houses in the heat of summer, or both.

Let’s have an example: Say that in Bozeman there was a fire that burned down a building in the downtown area. Everyone knows about it, as a fire cannot be hidden. Let’s say that a person died in the fire, and that police are investigating for possible cause. Arson that results in death is murder. We are all curious about the fire and how it started. Rumors abound.

Suppose that the fire was caused by a vagrant who dropped a lit cigarette on newspapers he was using for warmth one night. He might have died in the blaze too, but let’s say he woke up and ran away. He was seen by a passerby who recognized him, as Bozeman is still a small town even during the current coastal migration. He is ID’d, arrested, and put behind bars pending trial. His name is publicized in the newspapers. He is appointed a public defender, and good luck with that. He is tried publicly, and found guilty by a jury of negligent murder, or manslaughter. He will live out his sad remaining life behind bars.

Journalists did their job, reporting fairly on the event and the perpetrator and the trial. But there is an underlying reason for the honest reporting: Nobody powerful was involved. A vagrant has nowhere to hide, and journalists have no restraints on reporting on him.

Let’s take a different turn on this event. Say the building is an office complex owned by a very powerful local man, and that he and his son had a squabble. The son, who is well known in town, deliberately set the fire to make his old man pay a price for being a lifelong asshole. We will never know this, as the police will not do a real investigation, and the town journalists, TV and newspaper alike, will not report anything beyond a fire with unknown causes. The editors, the newspaper publisher, the TV news executives, will have their suspicions, but knowing that the building owner is a prominent man, a member of the country club and personal friends with everyone of note, there will be no real investigation. No journalist will leave the reservation and search for the truth. That is career suicide, Uberville.

There are suspicions, of course. and maybe even “tips” given to police and to the news outlets. But reporters are trained to remain objective, not to get emotionally involved, and so no real and honest reporting is done EXCEPT by a new hire, a young and wet-behind-the ears reporter for the newspaper. He is curious and on his own time investigates the matter. Using a keen sense of intuition, he figures out the matter, and coming to work after hours writes up a story, submitting it to his editor.

The following day he is called in to the editor’s office. Thinking Pulitzer, he anticipates the meeting with some excitement. But the editor sits him down, and tells him the story will not be published. He lost objectivity, he is told, and got emotionally involved. The profession of journalism does not allow for anything beyond an objective reporting of “both sides” of the story, forming no conclusions, and certainly not naming names. The work is unprofessional, he is told, and the story dies.

That is my rendition of an old Ben Bagdakian example from decades ago, which I have long lost. Ben went on to give another example, the same reporter again getting excited about a story, investigating it in detail. But rather than writing it up, he instead approaches the editor with it. He is told not to write it, not to get emotionally involved, to maintain objectivity, and to by all means stay on his beat.

In the Bagdakian example, there is no third story. The reporter settles into his profession, writes thousands of objective stories, even wins an award or two (as that profession hands out awards like a troop of cheerleaders with t-shirt cannons). The bottom line, according to Ben: He never again has an original idea.

By the way, in the news business those with the weakest minds and least curiosity, but who have a strong sense of where power lies, become editors. They serve with dignity, and at the end of their undistinguished careers add the word “emeritus” to their title.

What then is objectivity? It is a hiding place, a way to have a small career without jeopardy of the Uber option. Journalists, even in the most prestigious schools like Columbia, are defanged, all time bombs defused before entering the real profession. It cannot be any other way. The upper reaches of our society are corrupt beyond measure, and so cannot be threatened by honest reporting. If by chance someone powerful is undone by reporting, as with Watergate, it is all by design. Woodward and Bernstein were (are) actors reading their lines in an event scripted in advance. At least part of the mythology of Watergate is that journalists are pests to power, and it sticks to this day.

“Objectivity” surely came about as a necessity in journalism, put there by powerful forces in order to protect powerful forces from exposure.

In closing, have you ever noticed that in TV and movie drama, journalists are always portrayed as aggressive and pesky nuisances to power? Have you ever heard a lead actor in a police drama, say Bosch for instance, utter the words “If the press gets hold of this it will blow up in our faces”? In the Bosch series, actor Eric Laden plays LA Times reporter Scott Anderson.  Scott is unrelenting, working independently and always sniffing out lies. Bosch, J Edgar, the entire police force all hate and fear him. Scott has an editor, but he doesn’t edit anything. They meet privately on a rooftop and decide what to do with stories, the truth always front and center. Scott is always left to his own devices, never told what to cover.

Bosch is not the exception. Journalists are always portrayed as heroes on TV. For me, that always ruins my willing suspension of disbelief. That’s when I know I am seeing a work of fiction, even fantasy. Journalism is not about pursuit of truth. It is about protection of the powerful from that truth.

_________________________________

PS: In Montana, the most powerful man in the state is (or once was, as he is now 87) Dennis Washington. I’d be very curious to do a newspaper search to see how many times his name has turned up over the years. He (supposedly) owns the Berkeley Pit adjacent to the original, now flooded pit. He also supposedly owns Montana Rail Link, which he purchased, as I recall, from Burlington Northern, now BNSF. It is not that he lacks power and wealth. But he is rarely, if ever mentioned in news reporting. As far as journalists are concerned, elected officials are the source of power.

88 thoughts on “Paid to be blind

  1. There are organizations called associations in media broadcasting that control the parameters of acceptable content. I was permitted to fully participate in the 1994 Montana political race for the U.S. House of Representatives, as a non-party independent candidate. I was the first true independent candidate for a statewide race since 1938. The novelty, or curiosity, or whatever was irresistible; I was invited to 13 debates around the state, won a few, lost a few, garnering 9% of the vote.

    In 2002, I won the Democratic primary for U.S. House and was restricted to one, non-televised, radio debate (carried exclusively on Yellowstone Public Radio) with no live audience. That proved to be too much, so Northwestern Energy hosted a YPR fundraiser, which preempted the debate between me and the incumbent Dennis Rehberg. This time my tally was 33%.

    In 2016, I was now a Green Party candidate, and was refused participation (censored/silenced) in a statewide debate hosted by the Montana Broadcasters Association weeks before the primary election. I won the Green Primary, and was removed (along with the whole Green Party slate of candidates) by corrupt Montana judges beholden to National Democratic Party money and (Hilary Clinton) lawyers. Incumbent, Jon Tester (D-MT) won that race with less than 50% of the vote.

    We’ll never know how that one would have turned out. That’s the point, we’re not permitted to know. Do not ever be discouraged by a system built upon corruption and lies. It’s weak and fearful, or it wouldn’t need to rig the system it created. They can hear footsteps. I know this much: “We see you.” And they know it.

    I don’t do politics right now, but sue the federal government with like-minded friends trying to protect nature before it’s all gone.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. In my younger and dumber years I fancied myself a blossoming travel writer. I got a few good gigs early on and spent years trying to ‘break in’ and getting just close enough to the gatekeepers to smell the rot. I’ve had appalling advice from editors and was constantly steered to cover topics like celebrity culture and fashion design even though I had no interesting or experience in these subjects. This was back still in print days, just as the e-zines were taking over. No one ever wanted to touch anything controversial and it was expected that you stay very tightly in the grips of the advertisers and outside the ‘forbidden questions’ arena, which I had no idea at the time, but since reading Miles Mathis now I get it, b/c it always included not asking about potential interviewees’ unrehearsed past or their family ties, this was considered rude and an obvious ploy of the novice.

    Like

    1. Probably would not hurt to discuss techniques for searching for truth, another subject by itself. But most assuredly, journalistic objectivity does not get the job done. One technique I’ve used, that anyone can use, is based on Ayn Rand’s maxim that “There are no contradictions in this world, only faulty premises.” This line of thought does not fit all needs, but is often useful when confronted with contradictory evidence, as say … with … Wikipedia.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. You’re right about the vagrant having no place to hide. Here in Frisco I would regularly encounter on my daily rounds what for all the world appeared to be a homeless man.
    His face had been burned, not Phantom of the opera degree burned, but it clearly had an influence on his behavior as well as the pharmaceutical cocktail that powered him. (The consensus was his free base system malfunctioned, ala Richard Pryor)
    When his cocktail was off, his behavior would become aggressive and lewd and deliberately provocative.
    Eventually, someone in the neighborhood mentioned this to an online reporter for the Chronicle, a young woman who probably never had ink on her fingertips her whole life. As the neighborhood was a little bit upscale, though not opulent by severe Frisco standards, the story got legs and somehow it was brought to the attention of the police.
    The story I mean, not the behavior of the man in question, who’s problems were very familiar to the police force. The main reason the police finally took action was that one police officer was quoted in the article as saying that if anyone used mace or a taser against this individual, even when this guy was out of control, they would be arrested.
    The lunacy of allowing this madman free rein while denying, in principle, genteel (tax paying) people the right to self defense forced the hand of the police and the man disappeared.
    Later it came out that he was from a prominent family but they had largely abandoned him, even though they paid rent on a place nearby, so he wasn’t technically homeless.
    The assumption was that the family found him residence in an upscale bin far from his old haunts and upped his dosage to drooling idiot sitting in a corner by himself status.
    So it was a little bit of everything: police embarrassment, somewhat well-off people complaining to the press, that press being an impressionable young cub reporter tucked away at the online version of the Chronicle, somehow getting approval from an editor who was told the police had to be outed in this particular (minor) circumstance for that quoted officer’s indiscretion.
    Investigative Journalism! As Alex Hicks would bellow: It’s Real!!!
    If I were to take a wild guess, that cub reporter was promoted and reassigned to some kind of lifestyle column where she could attend parties with the swells she was now duty-bound to report on because no one at the Hearst papers wants a cub to get a swelled head and start turning over rocks that should be left alone. Just a wild guess, I repeat.

    Like

  4. It’s a great point about “objectivity” as a way to control and indoctrinate journalists. However, for advanced practitioners, there must be some course somewhere on becoming a brazen hypocritical propagandist, without shame or contrition – I mean have you listened to NPR lately? At least AM talk radio admits they have a point of view (some have actually been not bad on aspects of Covid – they laugh at and ridicule officialdom constantly, for whatever else they might get wrong.)

    The “fragmented media landscape” and pandering to different audience demographics has made “objectivity” even more of a pretense than it ever was. I was floored for instance when NPR and others spent weeks casually dissing Ivermectin as a “horse-dewormer” and never informing their audience of a broader context. I want to say they even called it “horse-paste,” but can’t trust my memory not to confuse that with the memes.

    Yes, the whole Ivermectin thing was a controlled left-right division – but I was just gobsmacked that that didn’t blow their cover once their audience saw (I assume some must have conservative friends or family to give the other side?) how selective and biased their coverage was. Silly me, of course. You can never be too biased and tribal, the tribalists will forgive anything dissing the other team, no matter how ludicrous.

    Like

    1. I do not listen or watch any news, though I should. There was a house fire but a few miles away today, and we live in the woods. I watched it burn while at the gym, but odd: Scenes were shot from a helicopter, obviously, and it was obviously in the latter stages, with standing brick and mortar and smaller fires scattered about, but I saw no water streams or fire hoses, no fire trucks or flashing lights. Do not know what to make of it.

      Like

    1. There has been a promo site for this production for quite some time now:

      https://terrainthefilm.com/world-premiere/

      Looks very professional and well funded. A little too much if you ask me. When they throw David Icke into the mix on top of that it seems pretty clear to me that all the big names promoting terrain theory are controlled opposition.

      I don’t think I’m the only one who has suspected this for a while.

      Don’t get me wrong, I certainly believe that the terrain theory makes sense and that the virus theory has never been more than scaremongering.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. it is not about the terrain theory, it’s just the title. Just watch it before you come to any conclusions. Many people speak there and it is a collection of explanations for all the things we’ve been talking here concerning Corona and other viruses. It makes sense though to jump from one interview to the other since the stuff between the interviews is just some nice graphics and sound and not really important. As I said EVEN David Icke makes sense in what he’s saying. And he’s not talking about reptilians, don’t worry. I enjoyed the part one and am looking forward for part two.

    Like

    1. “it is a collection of explanations for all the things we’ve been talking here concerning Corona and other viruses”

      Which amounts to terrain theory versus virus theory as an extension of top-down deception in general.

      You are being played, the New Age vibe of this production should have alarmed you from the start. Let me explain:

      Conspiracy theory has been controlled opposition from the beginning. A site like PoM is one of the few exceptions to that rule. Another prominent spook production is New Age. Conspiracy theory and New Age are completely intertwined. These are both about good versus bad, the light forces against the dark forces, I’ll come back to that later.

      The New Age religion is an amalgamation of all the religions, philosophies and mystical currents of this world, but all these currents have their origin in the mother of all religions, the Sun Cult also known as the Babylonian Mystery Religion.

      The pursuit of world domination and self-deification has its origin in this cult. The first ruler of a world empire to succeed in elevating himself to the status of god is said to have been Nimrod.

      It is this Nimrod who is regarded in Freemasonry as the first Freemason. Although Freemasonry as we know it today began in 1717 (hence 88…), within this institution this cult is preserved with all its known offshoots, some of which wrap themselves in a cloak of Christianity, Islam or Judaism.

      Of all the things Freemasonry stands for, it is primarily a religious institution. The pursuit of a new world order and absolute dominion over this world as a god is a religious pursuit rather than a political or financial one, just as most wars have their origins in religious beliefs.

      [Money will have done away with in a new world order. The ultimate aspiration of the elite is world domination, not wealth. The money grabbing is nothing but a side show. This is where spooks like Miles Mathis heavily misdirect us, as with anything to do with Freemasonry and religion.]

      The creation of a new world religion from all currents of the original Babylonian mystery cult is the main reset for the PTB. It’s all “bridges to Babylon.”

      What we are seeing being played out on the world stage is light versus dark, good versus evil. Being gnostics at hart the new world religious leader of the elite will likely negotiate a truce between the two thus creating an equilibrium and supposed peace and prosperity for all. It is the “enlightened” who will rule this new world order, more like high priests than politicians.

      [This savior of the new world religion is supposed to be here already. He is called Maitreya and he is channeled by Benjamin Creme. If you want to know more about this hoax that started at the Theosophical Society you could google Share International.]

      According to the Gnostic belief, this world has been nothing but a prison for our souls from the beginning. In their own perception, the elite have strived to create a prison for our mind within a prison for our soul. I suspect that eventually this is going to be presented to us as a noble pursuit or necessary evil that has been a catalyst for us to free ourselves from the original prison, to take the red pill. This documentary plays right into this narrative.

      [On a side note, red is the color of initiation. According to kabbalistic teachings, a pseudo Jewish

      Like

      1. Oh, that didn’t quite fit. To finish this story:

        [On a side note, red is the color of initiation. According to kabbalistic teachings, a pseudo Jewish interpretation of the Babylonian mystery religion, red represents evil and blue represents good. The kabbalistic aspiration is to merge the two into a new reality in which good and evil no longer exist. This is what the color purple represents. You have no idea what horrors and evil initiation from the blue lodge, the first three degrees (the third being Master Mason) into the red lodge, fourth degree and up, entail. These people pride themselves on being psychopaths, where there are gods, are monsters is what they believe.]

        The idea is that our souls eventually leave our body’s and merge into a new god. Isaac Asimov wrote a short story about this in Robot dreams. In this story our body’s are all hooked up to machines (the internet of body’s/everything?) and robots do the work for us while our spirits roam free.

        Like

            1. XS,

              Empire always seems to contain within it an internal design to fail, and rise again. The hero archetype (individual or collective-cultural) must die to make way for the “green shoots” of a new cycle. Isn’t this a lot like the annual/perennial cycle of life, death and rebirth we always seem to neglect/forget? Nature (including human nature) always bats last.

              And before “Babylon” were the Sumer and Akkadian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akkadian_Empire

              “Same, same, but different,” as they say today in some western African “countries.”

              Like

              1. And then there’s the not-so-small problem of that came before Sumer? If man, or some man-like primate dates back 2.3 million years, or 300,000 years, or some other big gap between source and Sumer, there is more we don’t know — by a hell of a lot — than we do know. Starting in “the middle” with Christianity, or Masons, or any other ancient fragment can hardly be considered “objective,” or as the title of this excellent inquiry by Mark indicates, the journalists and historians are busy leading us off in the wrong direction. Symbols don’t lie, people do. If we can see the pattern and understand the purpose of symbols, we can know ourselves better, and if we know ourselves there’s a good chance we know man, or a big part of man, from the beginning until the present day. Look inside, it’s all there.

                Like

                1. Freemasonry and all the hierarchies and power structures with which it is intertwined is today the most dominant expression of hierarchy.

                  I am primarily interested in where they get their inspiration from.

                  As for the evolution theory and carbon dating based estimates of how old the earth is, I feel strongly that this is particularly misleading and designed to serve an agenda such as eugenics.

                  I also don’t think it’s necessary to go that far back in time to understand what shapes the world we live in.

                  “Symbols don’t lie, people do.”

                  Aren’t symbols made by people?

                  Like

                  1. Of course, symbols are made by people. I agree 100%. I tend to think that non-material forces tend to balance out the truths and the lies over centuries, or millennia. Maybe the concept of balance, whether it be symmetrical or asymmetrical, is just another illusion I’ve imagined. If so, I’m all ears.

                    Like

                    1. I’m not sure where balance became the topic of this conversation, but I don’t think a balance is needed between lies and truth. Lies are always derived from a truth.

                      Truth stands alone, does not need a lie to define itself as truth. I believe that absolute truth is attainable and will be attained.

                      Truth is as absolute as the eternity we come from and go back to. Eternity is absence of time and space and therefore of form.

                      Eternity remains equal to itself, reality is not going to get more real that that. It is a difficult concept to mentate because our brain is designed to navigate time and space. (google doesn’t know the word mentate or the dutch word menteren, I’m starting to doubt if it’s a word at all…)

                      Thinking is a linear process, there is no such thing in eternity. Eternity does not think, eternity knows. That’s why eternity knows no lies.

                      Like

              2. Steve, this may be true or not. We know this because Jesuits told us so. There are no private historical records, maybe the peerage has it’s own records in their archives but they keep them locked. Vatican has archives for sure. Still, all we know about the past is what they (Jesuits from Vatican) tell us. According to the Heartland theory, the center of civilization was based in Europe, around the Mediterranean Sea. Mediterranean means in the middle. That was the core and the root of all culture. The poeple were called theodisch, which means deutsch (German). They all spoke German like dialects. I found this: http://theodisch.blogspot.com/ but they make many wrong assumptions there. It was the time before Vatican came into existence. Vatican of course is not the church near Rome. It is a corporation or enterprise which for 600 years owns the world. Everybody works for the firm. That’s why all the politicians, the judges, the courts, the industry, the schools and all the media now tell the same version of the (Corona) story.
                It is difficult to explain this to Europeans trained in state controlled schools and even more difficult to explain this to Americans whose history started 300 years ago. Dates don’t mean much, the chronology may be completely wrong. Carroll Quigley wrote an interesting book about the evolution of civilizations. He writes many pages about Sumerians and other cultures, but mentions the Phoenicians only shortly a few times. Phoenicians were as a cast of very smart merchants traveling the entire Heartland who invented a method called shortage to make people desire things they don’t need. They invented money and credit and everything we do is because they make us do it. It’s them who we call Noble.

                Like

                1. The Vatican is a city state in the city of Rome, like City of London is a city state in the heart of London not a church. Rome itself started as a city state and grew into an empire that ruled all the countries around the Mediterranean.

                  When Rome was divided into four, the power of Rome was transferred to the Vatican to bring these four parts back together to restore Rome’s power. The Vatican ruled much of the world in the heyday of the Roman Empire and was the power behind most thrones.

                  Since many countries are no longer ruled by kings, the power of the Vatican is largely gone to begin with and since money is now god it is the bankers and other financial powers that rule the world.

                  It is the house of Rothschild that manages the capital of the Vatican and thus controls the Vatican itself. Moreover, like most if not all major power structures, the Vatican is now part of a conglomerate run by the 1% of the 1%.

                  The Vatican is still a powerful institution but it does not rule or own the world.

                  Like

                2. I have heard this theory about the Vatican ruling the World a couple times, but to me, it appears to be thoroughly lacking in evidence, basically for the reasons XS pointed out. His Rothschild version makes much more sense to me.

                  That said, the title of the pope is PONTIFEX MAXIMUS, the Supreme Bridge Builder. A curious title, isn’t it, and I am not aware of anything in Christian theology supporting or explaining this title. The reason probably is that it was the title of the supreme priest in Roman antiquity, incidentally the title Julius Caesar held before he became dictator. I find this very intriguing because it suggests a continuity of IMPERIUM across the ages from pagan Roman antiquity through Christianization into Europe.

                  This is also another occasion to advertise the work of Heribert Illig, who eliminated 300 years from European chronology based on very sound evidence, which unfortunately is too complicated and manifold to lay it out in one paragraph. (Basically chronographical writings contradicted by buildings and archaeological findings for 7th, 8th & 9th century, which are to be eliminated and never happened.)

                  The elimination of that 300 year period of civilizational breakdown in the Early Middle Ages makes a lot of sense on its own, and is conducive to supporting the hypothesis (speculative, granted) of a continuity of the Roman Empire and a transformation of its power projection from a military-economic method to a mental-religious method.

                  Like

      2. I don’t know what you read/studied that caused you to mix the two together, but Gnostics/(early) Christianity is the antithesis to mystery Babylon, or the Saturn(sun) cult

        In the simplest way I can put it, Mystery Babylon seeks to excel in the material world, Gnosticism – as you said – seeks to escape the material world and into the spiritual realm; although both indeed seeks to become “God”/godhead in their own way.

        Freemasonry, instead, originated from a third religion (or actually, first religion) that existed even before Mystery Babylon, as the one global religion. I do not know the real name of it, but it is often referred to as the Kundalini. That is why you see its symbolism in both Babylonian and Gnostic religion. However, modern Freemasonry was corrupted in the 18th century by Adam Weishaupt (Zionist), which I guess is why it led to some of the confusion.

        Like

        1. There is no such thing as early Christianity. Gnosticism was introduced later in what started as the Babylonian mystery religion just like Kundalini. Christianity is the ever-evolving Babylonian mystery religion, cloaked in biblical themes. Christian teachings at the entry level, for those not initiated, are diametrically opposed to Gnostic teachings.

          The mystery religion has definitively left its mark on this world since the first Babylonian empire. Since then, many offshoots have emerged. Gnosticism and Kundalini are concepts from those later offshoots.

          The ideas of hierarchy and self-deification themselves did not begin in Babylon but were put on the map by Babylon under Nimrod, the first great Babylonian empire.

          The differences in the multitude of strands of the original mystery religion are superficial differences at best.To confine myself to your example, both Gnosticism and Babylonian mystery religion teach that the only way out is through.

          All offshoots of this ever-evolving body of thought emphasize different aspects. This creates the illusion that we are dealing with a different or even opposing body of thought, but at the end it all comes down to the same thing.

          Like

          1. To elaborate on Christianity,

            In Rome before the Catholic Church, each city had its own cult and temple around its own God. These cults were in turn influenced by the cults of territories conquered by Rome.

            To end these divisions within the Roman Empire and bring all these cults together, including the first followers of someone they believed to be Christ, the Catholic Church was conceived. Catholic means universal. The Catholic Church is a universal or unitary church. Just like the New Age movement.

            This makes the Catholic Church a collection of a lot of cults all originating in the Babylonian mystery religion, again: just like the New Age movement, but overlaid with a veil of Biblical theme.

            It is with the Catholic Church that Christianity began.

            Like

            1. To elaborate on the I word (I don’t want to anger the creator god of this blog…)

              Adam Weishaupt, contrary to what we are told, is not the founder of the I. Ignatius de Loyola once founded both the Jesuits and the Alumbrados.

              Much later, when the Jesuits were banned by the Pope under pressure from various European countries, Lorenzo Ricci, the eighteenth Superior General of the Jesuits, revived the Alumbrados under the name of I-word and put Weishaupt forward as a front and tightened the ties between the Jesuits and Freemasonry.

              He did not corrupt Freemasonry, but used it as a platform. In essence, within Freemasonry, the same body of thought has been preserved and further developed as that adhered to by the I.

              Like

                1. Oh … I think you mean the Illuminati, right? Like the upper-level freemasons. I am not well versed in that kind of knowledge. What would be the best book or page to learn about it?

                  Like

        2. p.s. Kundalini is a term that originates in Hinduism.

          Hinduism originated somewhere between 2300 B.C. and 1500 B.C. in the Indus Valley, near present-day Pakistan. That’s about the same time Nimrod ruled Babylon. (According to the Islamic historian Masudi, Nimrod reigned for hundreds of years)

          There probably wouldn’t be Hinduism if Babylon didn’t rule the world at that time. I agree with you and Steve Kelly that there would be no Babylon if there were no Sumerian and Akkadian Empires.

          Like

        3. p.p.s. Freemasonry’s claim that its origins go back thousands if not tens of thousands of years is based on the antiquity of the ideas that are preserved, studied, further developed and practiced within freemasonry. Freemasonry itself is only a few centuries old.

          Like

    2. I watched the “Terrain” video, it’s a good recap of what I think most people here already know/heard/read
      I would like to it to have an opposing viewpoint/debate though – not that I don’t agree with what’s said – but the video would just seem like propaganda for people who are not open to the idea
      (And the filmography is quite all over the place..)

      Like

      1. you’re right Sekito, it’s a good recap. All the arguments are being discussed and answered in the video in the interview parts. The parts between them are wasting of time. I wonder why this supposedly so smart people always stand n their own ways. Still, the interviews collect all necessary information to argue against the Virus-believers. I’m optimistic that the Corona show has a very positive output. It has awaken many people and many more will wake up given time. Two years ago there were maybe a few thousand people in the entire world saying that viruses don’t exists. Including me. Now there are millions. And more millions stay undecided yet. And for all of them there is no way back. One day soon we will teach this in schools.

        Like

  6. It was intended from the beginning to wake people up to bits and pieces of top-down deception in addition to all the other purposes it serves.

    If this documentary makes one thing clear, it is that from the beginning we have been dealing with controlled opposition, as the suspicion already existed on this blog.

    This whole narrative including waking up to the terrain theory, which contrary to what you seem to think is most definitely not ‘new knowledge’, is controlled by the PTB.

    I have no idea how this will play out, but there is certainly an agenda behind it. Be aware of that agenda instead of blinding yourself with the bliss of “the truth coming to light.”

    As soon as people share the stage with someone like David Icke and the New Age vibe hits you in the face, you should understand that this is a limited hangout production.

    BTW, David Icke has always made sense, that’s the whole point of the limited hangout thing he does. He is sharing a few truths to sell you lies.

    I do understand that you would rather see it all from the sunny side but I think that is not a recommendable thing to do in these turbulent times.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Over easy, soft or hard boiled, or poached offer choice of how one wants their egg(s) prepared. Choice. A beautiful expression of human potential. Stop (let the emotion settle), look, listen, then choose.

      “How can this spiral into the abyss be stopped? We may be approaching the point of no return but society has an obligation and duty – even if purely out of self-preservation – to take some responsibility for the current situation and bring it to an end.

      It is time that we all listened to the advice of eminent public philosopher Homer Simpson: “It takes two to lie – one to lie and one to listen.”

      Too true.” – Thomas Buckley

      https://newagora.ca/it-takes-two-to-lie-one-to-lie-and-one-to-listen/

      Again, many thanks, Lorenz0, for keeping it coming in the face of wave after wave of collective global mental disorder.

      Like

    2. David Icke … is sharing a few truths to sell you lies.

      Well, then so what? Maybe the lies is where his money lies.

      The reasonable thing to do is not to believe in authority figures of any denomination, but instead to always be skeptical and sharpen your own reasoning. The natural human penchant to trust or distrust a claim based on who said it is one of the fallacies we need to overcome.

      If the terrain theory is true it will remain so regardless of whether David Icke or maybe even some Flat Earther supports it. Otherwise all truth would be so easy to take out by simply presenting it in a Flat Earth context.

      Like

      1. This comment was in response to a post by BARBM as I wrote in the subsequent post. If you had read it, the context would have been clear to you, just as with the I-word.

        If it had been clear to you in response to what I wrote this, you would have known that your comment is redundant.

        You seem to be singling out comments and even parts of comments. For example: The post about the Vatican was a Global bankers/conglomerates explanation. The Rothschilds controlling the wealth of the Vatican is only a small part of that.

        I appreciate your comments, but I think they would be more valuable if you participated in a full discussion. Responding to only bits and pieces of conversations and comments muddies the conversation.

        Like

        1. Well, the context was perfectly clear to me. I usually read comments top to bottom, and Barb’s comment is still directly above yours, and it’s about the Terrain film. If you think my comment is redundant then maybe it is. You decide.

          Singling out comments and even parts of them? Guilty as charged. 🙂

          Not sure why you think I misunderstood your comment about the Global bankers and the Vatican in my reply to Barb. The Rothschild moniker was just a handle to refer to your observation that Money had dethroned God.

          But in fact I simply wanted to add my own bits & pieces of knowledge to the pudding of wisdom, i.e. PONTIFEX MAXIMUS and Heribert Illig.

          The discussion has taken phantastic turns anyway, from the on-topic discussion of Mark’s acute and specific observations on journalism, to the abrupt intrusion of the Terrain film, then via New Age to Nimrod & Babylon, the Cult of the Sun and Freemasonry, Sumer & Akkad, which appear dubious to Barb because of the archived lies of the Vatican, and then you and the global bankers, and me and Julius Caesar. It’s quite a trip!

          Like

          1. The comment I made about David Ike was not in response to Barbm’s post about this documentary in general or the post directly above it, but was specifically in response to her comment that even David Ike makes sense, to which I replied that when they throw David Icke into the mix it seems pretty clear to me that all the big names promoting terrain theory are controlled opposition to which Barbm responded by saying that she said that EVEN David Ike makes sense and is not talking about reptilians.

            Since my comment had nothing to do with drivel about reptilians I explained to her that David Ike always makes sense to sell lies wrapped in truths, that is his function. The message was that when a spook shares the stage with other big names from the conspiracy world you can assume those other names are spooks too and this documentary is a spook production.

            The post you responded to was not just a response to a post above it, but is the continuation of an entire conversation that apparently eluded you, causing you to misunderstand the last comment I made in this conversation. That’s what I mean by context.

            It’s good that you read posts all the way through but that has little value if you don’t read the entire conversation.

            Damn Lumi, why are you making me work so hard. I was hoping I wouldn’t have to recap the whole conversation for you.

            Like

            1. I don’t think your conversation with Barb had eluded me when I replied. I apologize for any misunderstandings or extra efforts that my comment may have provoked.

              Like

  7. XS on February 8, 2022 at 5:39 am

    The New Age religion is an amalgamation of all the religions, philosophies and mystical currents of this world, but all these currents have their origin in the mother of all religions, the Sun Cult also known as the Babylonian Mystery Religion.

    Are you sure the Sun Cult is the mother of all religions? I am not. I think it makes a lot of sense to worship the Sun, who brings us warmth and light, who makes plants grow and so feeds us, and who makes the Earth go round (which may or may not have been known back in the day).

    Compare the Sun Cult with primitive wolf or goat deities such as known in egyptology, which were copulating willy-nilly with other creatures and had very questionable manners in general.

    The Sun Cult, by comparison, appears very rational and progressive, and so can only be the product of a certain enLIGHTenment leading Man out of the cave of primitivity. What do you think?

    Like

    1. Yes I’m sure. The sun cult is still the biggest religion of this world but it is practised behind closed door like in Freemasonry.

      The sun cult is not simply worshipping the sun it is an enlightenment doctrine, a mystery religion.

      All the great religions of this world are preserved and further developed forms of this enlightenment doctrine. Christianity, Islam and Judaism are no more than a veil with which this fact is concealed from the eye of the profane.

      The main deity in the solar cult is the star Sirius. Where the sun illuminates the earth and is worshipped by the profane, Sirius illuminates the spiritual world and is worshipped by the initiated.

      The Egyptian mystery religion is a further developed offshoot of the Babylonian solar cult. Note: the Babylonian solar cult has its origins further back in time but all the religions we know today are traceable to this cult.

      There is nothing primitive about the Egyptian gods. Characteristics of gods are expressed by depicting them as anthropomorphized animals. Consider that the Egyptians did not know letters but had a picture language. Expressing characteristics in this way is still done like in fables and fairy tales.

      Are you aware that Nimrod, the first Babylonian sun king/god, was married to his mother who in turn was a temple prostitute? This is where “mother f#*ker” finds its origin. This expression is meant as a compliment.

      More than ten months after Nimrod’s death, his mother/wife gave birth to a son. According to her, she was impregnated by the rays of the sun, her ascended son/husband. This is where the mother with child archetype that we later see reflected as a worshipful Mary with Christ comes from.

      Here in the Netherlands we know the expression: “my Mary my whore”. I don’t know if the English or German language has such an expression, maybe you know.

      Like

      1. Although I am not illuminated, I also worship – or at least admire – Sirius, but also Venus and Jupiter, the Orion, the winter hexagon in general. I am, however, seriously disadvantaged in my endeavour by subatlantic conditions providing what amounts to an almost uninterruptible cloud cover over Northern Germany this winter. So the illumination has to come from this blog, which works quite well.

        Thanks for your remarks on Babylon. I was not aware of Nimrod or anything Babylonian in general. Hints for further reading are always welcome.

        I have a hard time, however, accepting the MFer word was meant as a compliment. The notion seems too repulsive to me. Well, who knows? Imagine he is 16 and his mother 32, and it is her job to initiate him to the pleasures of love … so he does not take it out on his sisters.

        When I was about 14 years old, a girl from my class brought up this idea on an excursion when we all rested in the sunshine on the slope of a hill in Bavaria. Boys would be taught by their mother and girls by their father. She later went on to work as a TV figurehead for NDR brainwashing public broadcaster, where she still is, and her mother is a friend of my mother’s.

        But I do not know of any German equivalent of “my Mary my whore” and I’m not quite sure what it means in Dutch. Maybe it means the girl you love is venerated in more than one way? 😉

        Detering also talks about the mother/child archetype and the pagan origins of Christianity.

        Like

        1. “I have a hard time, however, accepting the MFer word was meant as a compliment.”

          I can understand that very well.

          Since in certain circles Nimrod is known as a great hunter of men and a great killer and as the first sun king who managed to work himself up to a sun god, bad ass mfr is a compliment in those circles.

          Bloodshed and sexual perversion are an important part of the road to self-deification. That is why people who adhere to and practice this philosophy are not open about it and prefer to present themselves as, for example, Christian.

          There are a lot of worlds behind just as many closed doors that you don’t get to see in your daily life.

          “But I do not know of any German equivalent of “my Mary my whore” and I’m not quite sure what it means in Dutch. Maybe it means the girl you love is venerated in more than one way?”

          Yes that is indeed what it means but for me the emphasis is on the fact that it is a reference to the Mary and Child archetype which refers directly to Ashtoreth, temple whore and mother/wife of Nimrod and their son Tammuz who was miraculously conceived when Nimrod’s body was already dead and buried. This is one of the things in which the true origin of Christianity shines through.

          Like

          1. Tammuz is one of the prefigurations of Christ that Detering devotes a chapter to in “Christi Brüder” (2017), a study which was meant to be continued, but then, unfortunately, Detering died.

            He also talks about temple whores and mystery cults in that book. He is quite skeptical and sober-minded, though, so he relates stories but also questions them. For example (from memory), is it realistic to have someone bathe in the blood of a bull as part of an initiation rite when a bull is actually pretty expensive and there is no need to waste all his blood in this manner?

            The interesting thing about the mystery cults is precisely the mystery, which according to Detering was kept secret indeed, so we don’t know what it was.

            Like

            1. “Tammuz is one of the prefigurations of Christ”

              The similarity in the story of Tammuz and of Christ came in handy in the creation of the Catholic Church where Biblical themes have been used to obscure the pagan nature of this institution.

              The perception that Tammuz was a forerunner of Christ stems from the misconception that Christianity is based on the Bible. Bible and Christ have nothing to do with Christianity.

              I agree that Tammuz was a forerunner of the Christ from Christianity but not the one from the Bible.

              Something similar is a bit more on the surface with Mithras whose birth day is celebrated each year on December 25. Whereas Mithras is also often seen as a precursor to Christ, Mithras has actually been called Christ in Christianity to disguise his identity and the pagan origins of Christianity from non-initiates.

              “The interesting thing about the mystery cults is precisely the mystery, which according to Detering was kept secret indeed, so we don’t know what it was.”

              It is also a very old secret that was well kept secret in ancient times. The ideas of this religion are profiled in art and culture all the time. Art and culture today are significantly less elitist, just think of entertainment culture.

              Under the name of “occult mobilization” and “occult mob”, zip files containing an extraordinary amount of works from this sphere were once available for download via torrent sites, maybe still are.

              Among them were circulars from the OTO, Argenteum Astrum and Freemasonry, etc. and a lot of works that were actually only meant for lodge members of the right degree.

              Like

  8. XS,

    As you’re from the Netherlands and interested in religion, are you familiar with Hermann Detering who continued the work of the Dutch Radikalkritiker theologians? This is about Christianity, of course, focussed on the New Testament, how Christianity was made, whether any of it is historical as claimed (Pauline epistles, Paul himself, pagan origins of the Jesus figure, etc). If you don’t know it yet, you might find it interesting, even though it does not take you all the way to mythical Babylon, but is more concerned with philology, manuscripts, historicity, evidence, whodunnit.

    http://radikalkritik.de/ – mostly German, some English IIRC

    Like

    1. “This is about Christianity, of course, focused on the New Testament”

      Christianity is not based on the Bible; New Testament, Old Testament or both, and did not begin with Christ and his disciples, whether they actually existed or not.

      Scrutinizing Bible books to learn about the origins of Christianity is a completely pointless endeavor.

      Like

      1. It looks like your definition of Christianity diverges radically from those commonly found in Europe. As you definition might be esoteric and in any case unknown to me, it is difficult for me to comment on it. Maybe you can elaborate a bit?

        Detering, who, as a theologian, is definitely concerned with the Bible, especially with the NT, says that Christianity is a synthesis of various pagan and gnostic influences which was then boxed up by an emerging Church into a Judaistic framework, hence the prophets and the cross-references to the OT and the references to the Law.

        Can’t say more as I don’t have the book at hand and there were a lot of things in the book that were new for me and that I couldn’t shelve in a pre-existing framework of knowledge because I didn’t have one in this field.

        Like

        1. It’s not in how I define Christianity. The point is that Christianity falsely claims to be based on the Bible and began with Christ and his followers mentioned in the Bible.

          The definition of Christianity commonly found in Europe is a lie.

          There has never been anything biblical or Christian about Christianity, that is all make-believe.

          This has been a deliberate lie from the beginning. There is nothing esoteric about that.

          I will copy a post I posted earlier today so you don’t have to look for it:

          In Rome before the Catholic Church, each city had its own cult and temple around its own God. These cults were in turn influenced by the cults of territories conquered by Rome.

          To end these divisions within the Roman Empire and bring all these cults together, including the first followers of someone they believed to be Christ, the Catholic Church was conceived. Catholic means universal. The Catholic Church is a universal or unitary church.

          This makes the Catholic Church a collection of a lot of cults all originating in the Babylonian mystery religion, but overlaid with a veil of Biblical theme.

          It is with the Catholic Church that Christianity began.

          The Bible has nothing to do with Christianity or with the Babylonian (or any other) mystery religion. Christian teachings are not derived from the Bible. There has been a lot of work done to make it appear that way.

          Like

          1. There has been an effort on the part of the Church, though, to create and shape the Bible as the written carrier of the cult it propagates.And what do you make of the heresiological and other patristical writings? Detering has written a book on the Confessions of Augustine, claiming they’re of much later origin.Some radical doubters (such as Isaac Newton, Jean Hardouin, Edwin Johnson) have expressed similar doubts about parts of the classical literature (or history). It’s a huge can of worms once you consider the possibility.

            Like

            1. “There has been an effort on the part of the Church, though, to create and shape the Bible as the written carrier of the cult it propagates”

              It is true that different denominations have adapted the Bible here and there to fit their own doctrine, but the way Christianity has misused the Bible goes beyond that. Pieces of text or certain themes are taken out of the context of the Bible and then fitted into the doctrine of Christianity so that it appears that doctrine is Biblical.

              To give a few examples:

              The Christ figure in the Bible was not born on December 25, which is the birth day of Mithras, nor was he born in a stable.
              The Bible does not teach that Christ is God.
              The Bible does not teach that God is a trinity
              There is no biblical basis for the idea that after you die you would go to heaven or hell depending on how badly you sinned. In fact, the Bible teaches that with Christ’s atoning sacrifice, the law, and therefore sin, came to an end.

              It is certainly not the written carrier of the cult it propagates. Almost everything written about the Bible and Christianity is based, intentionally or not, on this lie. Since most people are only familiar with this propaganda, the lie that Christianity is based on the Bible has been able to exist for over two thousand years.

              The problem is that much is written about the Bible, but almost no one who is interested in the Bible reads the Bible itself.

              Most researchers of the Bible focus on specific pieces of text or subject matter and therefore will never oversee the big picture which basically amounts to what Christianity has done in order to present the Bible for everything it is not. I don’t think that’s a coincidence.

              The Bible contains 66 to 73 books, depending on which books you consider canonical or apocryphal. These books were written over a period of about 1600 years. The first portions of the Bible were composed about 3,500 years ago.

              This collection of books tells one continuous story from Genesis to Revelations. The old testament frequently looks forward to the new testament, and the new testament looks back at the old testament. You could think of the old testament as a prologue to the new testament. These two parts are inextricably linked.

              The thread that runs through these books makes them canonical, which is what determines which books belong in the Bible. It is not Christianity that has the final say on this, though they like to pretend they do.

              Like

            2. “There has been an effort on the part of the Church, though, to create and shape the Bible as the written carrier of the cult it propagates”

              It is true that different denominations have adapted the Bible here and there to fit their own doctrine, but the way Christianity has misused the Bible goes beyond that. Pieces of text or certain themes are taken out of the context of the Bible and then fitted into the doctrine of Christianity so that it appears that doctrine is Biblical.

              To give a few examples:

              The Christ figure in the Bible was not born on December 25, which is the birth day of Mithras, nor was he born in a stable.
              The Bible does not teach that Christ is God.
              The Bible does not teach that God is a trinity
              There is no biblical basis for the idea that after you die you would go to heaven or hell depending on how badly you sinned. In fact, the Bible teaches that with Christ’s atoning sacrifice, the law, and therefore sin, came to an end.

              It is certainly not the written carrier of the cult it propagates. Almost everything written about the Bible and Christianity is based, intentionally or not, on this lie. Since most people are only familiar with this propaganda, the lie that Christianity is based on the Bible has been able to exist for over two thousand years.

              The problem is that much is written about the Bible, but almost no one who is interested in the Bible reads the Bible itself.

              Most researchers of the Bible focus on specific pieces of text or subject matter and therefore will never oversee the big picture which basically amounts to what Christianity has done in order to present the Bible for everything it is not. I don’t think that’s a coincidence.

              The Bible contains 66 to 73 books, depending on which books you consider canonical or apocryphal. These books were written over a period of about 1600 years. The first portions of the Bible were composed about 3,500 years ago.

              The thread that runs through these books makes them canonical, which is what determines which books belong in the Bible. It is not Christianity that has the final say on this, though they like to pretend they do.

              This collection of books tells one continuous story from Genesis to Revelations. The old testament frequently looks forward to the new testament, and the new testament looks back at the old testament. You could think of the old testament as a prologue to the new testament. These two parts are inextricably linked.

              Like

              1. With that said, did you read the Bible?

                The new testament is not a continuation of the old religion, it is a rebuke of the old religion (of hierarchical control) and a return to the ancient spiritual beliefs of the godself(personal elightenment). Certainly the new testament incorporated some concepts from the old treatment like ‘sin’ and ‘god’ but it is largely a completely different set of beliefs

                Like

                1. “With that said, did you read the Bible?”

                  Yes I did and still do, you clearly don’t. Reading what people think they have to say about the Bible, as you seem to do, and reading the Bible itself are not the same thing.

                  In the New Testament, the Old Testament is fulfilled as is regularly mentioned in the Bible, It’s not a rebuke of anything.

                  With the atoning sacrifice of the Christ figure in the New Testament, which is continuously anticipated in the Old Testament and expressed in what is erroneously interpreted as religious customs such as feast days and priestly service, the law of the Israelites had served its purpose and came to an end and with it sin (transgression of the law=sin, no law no sin is what the New Testament tells us about that).

                  From then on, anyone who believed in Christ and the function of His sacrifice could count themselves among the seed of Abraham.

                  Like

                  1. “With the atoning sacrifice of the Christ figure in the New Testament […] the law of the Israelites had served its purpose and came to an end”

                    But somehow, after this Final Solution on behalf of God through Jesus Christ, the Law went on and is still around today.

                    “and with it sin (transgression of the law=sin, no law no sin is what the New Testament tells us about that).”

                    Hmm, but it seems to me that the notion of Sin has lingered on and is still with us today.

                    It sounds very nice, but I don’t see it reflected in today’s reality. Maybe you’re referring to a spiritual reality, and then it would require me to have spritual insight that I currently lack, so I may understand it when the moment is right for me.

                    Like

                    1. “But somehow, after this Final Solution on behalf of God through Jesus Christ, the Law went on and is still around today.”

                      This is about the constitution for the Jews as recorded in the Torah and what mistakenly is interpreted as early Judaism on which Christianity claims to be based, not the concept of law in general.

                      “Hmm, but it seems to me that the notion of Sin has lingered on and is still with us today.”

                      Indeed, thanks to Christianity, Islam and Judaism. That doesn’t change how it is spoken of in the Bible. What do you think this conversation is about? Faith?

                      My posts are about what Christianity really is, other than what it claims to be and how Christian teachings are at odds with those of the Bible on which it claims to be based.

                      “It sounds very nice, but I don’t see it reflected in today’s reality.”

                      What does that have to do with anything? My posts are about what the Bible says versus what Christianity teaches, not about whether what the Bible says is true or observable. I have the strong impression that the message of my posts escapes you.

                      What is your goal with this conversation? criticize me or a conversation in mutual respect from which we will both benefit? I have no interest whatsoever in criticism for the sake of criticism.

                      Like

                    2. Yes, the message of your posts may have escaped me. But it is maybe not as obvious to the reader as it is to yourself since you’re using terms such as Christianity and Bible the meaning of which everyone takes for granted but then you seem to have redefined them according to what they really are. This is not as easy to understand as you might think. Just a thought.

                      You reminded us that it was initially about a new messiah, a New Age, and a New World Order. I understand that, but I’m still puzzled by the rest, possibly because I lack your background reading. Doesn’t matter. Let’s move on.

                      Like

                    3. The reason I mention Bible and Christianity is because the message is that Christianity, contrary to what it claims itself, is not based on the Bible. It’s as simple as that.

                      To illustrate my point I mentioned some Biblical teachings that oppose Christian teachings.

                      From then on, teachings and interpretation were central to this conversation. I haven’t been able to bring it back to the point I’ve been trying to make and illustrate and that is that Christianity is not based on the Bible and thus a lie that is over 2000 years old.

                      Coming at us right now is a world religion that’s an even bigger lie. It’s called New Age.

                      Like

                    4. xs-

                      “Coming at us right now is a world religion that’s an even bigger lie. It’s called New Age.”

                      Yes, and it has a wide scope of “teachings” that serve to unite the disciples, who, though coming from diverse backgrounds and locales, are drawn together by the mantra of caring for each other and the planet. Examples: Covid Caring (protect oneself, protect others, make sure “all” have access to treatments and vaccines)… Black lives matter… Environmentalism… Climate change… Gender equality, gender identity… on and on. All of them (almost all) are doctrines based on shreds of truth that are used to lead the disciples into a group-think based on group caring and affirmative actions.

                      “Together we can save the planet!”
                      “Equal rights for all”
                      “No child left behind”

                      My current hometown is steeped in these doctrines, my country is bombarded with the “message”, and the world is being united in common noble purpose(s).

                      Like

              2. “This collection of books tells one continuous story from Genesis to Revelations. The old testament frequently looks forward to the new testament, and the new testament looks back at the old testament. You could think of the old testament as a prologue to the new testament. These two parts are inextricably linked.”The OT cannot look forward to the NT unless you actually believe in prophetic vision. The other way round it is certainly true. But why is that? Matthias Klinghardt argues that the original gospel is by Marcion, from which Luke and the other synoptical gospels were made, by eliminating gnostic thought, and by reintegrating Judaistic thought and including references to the OT, from which nascent Christianity was a radical departure.

                Like

                1. “The OT cannot look forward to the NT unless you actually believe in prophetic vision”

                  The old testament is full of prophecies that are also referred to by the Bible itself as prophecies just like the new testament. This is more than a matter of belief or interpretation. The Bible itself repeatedly claims to be a prophetic work.

                  The feast days and priestly service that were part of Jewish law also had a prophetic function that is often mistakenly interpreted as religious.

                  All those things depict the coming of the Messiah and His atoning sacrifice who would be born from the people of Israel. He is presented in the Bible as the last Priest who would offer the final sacrifice: Himself.

                  As I’ve noted a few times before you will have to study the Bible itself if you want to know what the Bible is about.

                  An interest in what others write about the Bible without having studied the Bible itself will at best yield you no more than a completely distorted image. That’s how Christianity has been distorting the message of the Bible for two thousand years.

                  The moment you study pieces of text taken out of the context of the entire Bible to explain or disprove Christianity, the distortion is squared.

                  If you only read books that are the product of these double distortions, the distortion is incalculable.

                  Like

                  1. Thanks. I admit I haven’t even read the entire NT. I read one or two of the gospels and the Revelation a long time ago, and I read the Acts (of the Apostles) about a year ago.

                    The Acts struck me as a concoction of trivialities and unbelievable nonsense. I mean, seriously, that Paul guy is taken prisoner and then instead of letting him rot in prison, releasing him or executing him they decide his case is so important that it has to be escalated to the next level of hiararchy, and two or three times so he ends up facing the emperor in Rome? Definitely meant to carry the claim of truely happened but very hard to believe.

                    There is this current of theology that emphasiszes historicity of the whole thing. This has been met with opposition by the Tübingen school, Baur, Bauer and the Dutch radicals. And then Detering resumes all this and builds up on it. He was a very smart fellow, much more erudite than I’ll ever be, and still a radical thinker. So I wouldn’t dismiss the value of reading books written by such people because they can give my own lecture of the Bible an orientation I’d be unable to develop on my own. Just my two cents.

                    Of course, given religion and faith are highly subjective things, my personal considerations can in no way infringe on yours. We might simply approch the matter from different angles. But I always look for new angles because they often add to the picture.

                    Like

                    1. Faith subjective, yes. Christian religion being a Bible based religion is very much a blatant lie. I don’t think there is much subjective about that.

                      What started this conversation is that I believe the New World Order is going to be ushered in by some sort of messiah of the New Age religion. All the lies and truths that now seem to be coming to light are in my eyes a harbinger of that.

                      When I read the enthusiastic response to this and the belief that “good” is winning out over “evil” I feel compelled to note that the chances of seekers of truth and justice being cunningly tricked are big.

                      Liked by 1 person

  9. XS,

    Let me also single out another tidbit. Carbon dating (C12/C14) is not used to measure the alleged age of the Earth as its claimed reach is only about 50,000 years. I think you meant the other radiometrical methods – there are several. All of these are based on certain premises about constant conditions for fissioning to occur, and if these premises are faulty the entire chronology may be skewed dramatically by orders of magnitude, just as you seem to hint it might be.

    Carbon dating is a very interesting case as it is relevant for dating objects not so much for geological, but for human history. Christian Blöss and Heribert Illig have shown how carbon dating and dendrochronology have mutually contaminated each other with their assumptions based on being – wait for it – gauged on the official chronology, thus amounting to little more than a useless circular confirmation bias.

    Like

    1. “Carbon dating (C12/C14) is not used to measure the alleged age of the Earth as its claimed reach is only about 50,000 years. I think you meant the other radiometrical methods – there are several.”

      Almost, I actually meant dating things on this earth. If I have understood correctly, this method has been labelled as highly unreliable more than once.

      Like

  10. @BARBM I have delved a little further into the Vatican and think I now have a better understanding of how you think on this subject and why.

    In 538 a.d., the bishop of Rome ascended to the papal throne, thereby seizing not only religious but also political power in the countries and territories where the Catholic Church, not infrequently through war, murder and mayhem, had gained a foothold.

    In 1798, at the end of the French Revolution which had been started by the French Freemasons, the then Pope Pius VI was removed from the papal throne after the proclamation of the Roman Republic and the political power of the Vatican was largely gone.

    On the other hand, the current pope is very serious about promoting a merging of all religions. That is quite a step in the direction of the New Age religion.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if the PTB are gradually investing more power in the Vatican to declare the Vatican the center of a new world religion under a New World Order. Perhaps that is the shift in power you say you are observing.

    I am convinced that a religious leader will usher in the New World Order, not a political one. As far as I think I can see, the NWO will be the exact opposite of separation of church and state.

    Like

  11. This whole conversation has gone way off topic, but I will add a few comments
    1. I concur Sun(Saturn) worship is probably the earliest religion
    2. It does not originate in Babylon, assuming Nimrod lived at around 2000 bce, it is quite clear to me that there exists an earlier religion, evidenced by Sumerian seals, dated 3000 bce and earlier. (That is assuming the dating is correct.) But even the dating is incorrect, it is still clear from their symbology – the Sun(actually Saturn) chariot symbol that this is before the Deluge(Saturn nova planetary migration).
    3. While I do not disagree we live under conspiratorial governments, I find the belief that “an ancient secret society rules humankind from antiquity”, to be no better than climate alarmism

    Like

    1. No one has claimed that sun worship would have begun in Babylon under Nimrod, anything but…

      No one has claimed that an ancient secret society rules humankind from antiquity. You yourself are the one who wrongfully claimed that Freemasonry is an ancient secret society.

      The most prominent celestial body in the solar cult is Sirius, not Saturn.

      Like

      1. I could have misunderstood what you said, but you state

        The creation of a new world religion from all currents of the original Babylonian mystery cult is the main reset for the PTB. It’s all “bridges to Babylon.”

        I contest that before the Akkadian empire, the Sumerians already have a religion

        To end these divisions within the Roman Empire and bring all these cults together, including the first followers of someone they believed to be Christ, the Catholic Church was conceived. Catholic means universal. The Catholic Church is a universal or unitary church. Just like the New Age movement.
        This makes the Catholic Church a collection of a lot of cults all originating in the Babylonian mystery religion, again: just like the New Age movement, but overlaid with a veil of Biblical theme.

        When Rome was divided into four, the power of Rome was transferred to the Vatican to bring these four parts back together to restore Rome’s power. The Vatican ruled much of the world in the heyday of the Roman Empire and was the power behind most thrones.
        Since many countries are no longer ruled by kings, the power of the Vatican is largely gone to begin with and since money is now god it is the bankers and other financial powers that rule the world.

        I take it to mean you believe the Church(a secretive society) seeks to be a universal religion in order to rule over all the disparate cults(but which religion does not?), and have largely succeeded since the age of Rome – And now the power has gone to the bankers.

        I disagree, I view Gnosis to have superseded the Saturn cult in Rome instead of merging with it, they do not hold the same beliefs. Christianity then and Christianity now is also quite different. Nor do I agree that Vatican “ruled much of the world”, unless “world” is defined in a very limited sense, i.e. the West. the church’s rule is also not continuous and uneven in different territories.

        Like

        1. “I could have misunderstood what you said”

          Yes, you certainly did and you still do.

          That the PTB has Babylon under Nimrod as its inspiration and that almost all religions and cults can be traced to this empire and cult does not mean that that was the first religion. I have repeatedly said that it was not the first religion or solar cult.

          At its core, Christianity is Gnostic. Gnosticism has several points of origin but the most influential is Zoroastrianism. Zoroastrian philosophy has had a fundamental influence on the theology of monotheistic religions.

          Mithraism, a simplification of Zoroastrianism, was particularly popular in the Late Roman Empire. It is for this reason that this is one of the main cults united in Catholicism and therefore in Christianity in general.

          Most denominations of Christianity to this day celebrate the birthday of Mithras on December 25th. Christmas as we know it today is a combination of several traditions: the Germanic Christmas tree added by Luther, the Roman tradition of gift-giving and the Persian rebirth of the invincible sun (Mithras is based on the ancient Persian god Mithra).

          Nearly all cults, including those united in Christianity, are traceable to Babylon under Nimrod (again, that doesn’t mean this was the first solar cult or religion). The apparent differences do not contradict that. They are all elaborations of the same principle and all have the same goal in mind through a different route and are therefore perfectly compatible. They complement each other rather than contradict each other.

          Like

          1. I don’t think we can continue this conversation unless you can clarify what you believe to be the tenets of the so-called Mystery Babylon.

            Like

            1. I am not talking about Mystery Babylon, but about the Babylonian Mystery Religion. Those are not the same concepts.

              Mystery Babylon is a term that originated in the Bible. You can find it in Revelation 17:4-5:

              4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: 5 And upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon The Great, The Mother Of Harlots And Abominations Of The Earth.

              In most Protestant circles, this is assumed to be referring to the Catholic Church which is an amalgamation of a multitude of currents arising from the Babylonian mystery religion behind a pseudo-biblical mask.

              The Babylonian Mystery religion claims to be a way of self-deification, and ultimately a way out of the cycle of reincarnation in the material world. That is ultimately what every mystery religion teaches, albeit not always along the same route. This is also taught behind the pseudo-biblical facade of Christianity.

              The whole dualistic system of good and of evil powers as you encounter it in Zoroastrianism and Gnosticism, ultimately goes back to old Chaldea.

              The Chaldean mystery religion as the Pharisees interpreted it in the Sepher ha Zohar, the book on which the kabbalah is based, has its origins in the first great Babylonian empire.

              It is the Pharisees to whom we also owe the Talmud and Talmudism. Talmudism is generally referred to as Judaism, but that is a misconception. The tribe of Judah had no religion, only legislation.

              The Talmud is sold to us as an explanation of that legislation, but in reality it is a rewrite of the Babylonian regulations on property, trade and labor, but from the perspective that Jews are divine and the goyim is no more than cattle.

              Liked by 1 person

              1. XS,

                I acknowledge I am way late to this ongoing conversation. That said, I just wanted to say (FWIW) I think this comment is very insightful and deeply resonates with me. It aligns with findings I have discovered when digging into occult history.

                Like

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