Category Archives: History

Circumcision and the Bible

In May (although it became hot topic on the internet a couple of weeks ago) a Jewish man, Eric Clopper, held a presentation at Harvard titled Sex and Circumcision: An American Love Story. In his presentation he decries circumcision as a barbaric and evil blood sacrifice, and wants to abolish this Jewish covenant. Clopper describes how the foreskin is an integral part in generating pleasure in the sexual act, and cutting it off replaces pleasure with rage. I recommend watching the two hour presentation. It did inspire me to write this.

In recent years I’ve grown interested in Christianity, but circumcision is one of the details that makes is very difficult to accept the possibility that the biblical God is the true and righteous one. Although the New Testament seems to reject the notion of circumcision, whereas the Old affirms it. Does it mean God updated his Terms of Service with the coming of Jesus Christ and rendered circumcision obsolete, or is circumcision a heretical practice that creeped into the Old Testament? However, if the former is true, it would contradict the biblical claim that God is unchanging, such as James 1:17: “Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow”, or Malachi 3:6 “For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed”. Of course you could argue that God doesn’t change, but his rules do, but that still makes God sound fickle. If the latter is true, it detracts from the reliability of the Bible.

 

Circumcision

What is circumcision? As has been practiced by Jewish rabbis for centuries, it entails cutting off the foreskin of a baby on their 8th day, sometimes with sharpened claws, and then the rabbi sucks the blood from the penis with his mouth. Sounds like an evil pedophillic blood sacrifice to me. This is called the metzitzah b’peh. Nowadays this practice is not always used, but I still don’t find modern or “medical” forms of circumcision much better. Circumcision is likely to instill some sort of trauma in the baby. In fact Eric Clopper points out in his presentation that certain rabbis commit circumcision for this very purpose, to associate sex with pain.

As far as I know, the Bible does not describe the exact circumcision procedure, such as the metzitzah b’peh, so I suppose it’s possible circumcision worked differently in the time of Abraham. Genesis 17: 9-14 states:

“And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.
He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.”

It appears that cutting the foreskin is still clearly mentioned in Genesis, even if they did do it in some more humane manner. Another interesting detail is that slaves bought with money by Jews should be circumcised. This not only suggests that God condoned slavery, but that in modern days the goyim, such as in America, who are circumcised are slaves of the Jews.

Why would God require the faithful to cut of the foreskin of their children and slaves as his covenant? One explanation that I’ve heard is that it represents dedication to spirit instead of the corrupted flesh. If circumcision hinders one’s ability to enjoy sex, and sex is the foremost method of engaging in pleasures of the flesh, cutting off the foreskin would signify dedication to spirit instead of flesh. I can understand as an abstract concept, but I cannot accept in practice. Moreover it sounds like a member of organized crime cutting off a finger to show loyalty to the Don. Also as Michael Glass wrote in his article Answers from the Bible to Questions about Circumcision that the foreskin wasn’t a mistake of nature as “The Bible says that God pronounced creation ‘very good’ (Genesis 1:31) and that humans were made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). The Apostle Paul also said that God made every part of the body as he wanted it. (1 Corinthians 12:18).”

 

Circumcision in the Bible

Let’s have a look at some passages from the New Testament on circumcision. Certain passages are vehemently anti-circumcision such as Galatians 5: 1-3:

“Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.

For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.”

Paul calls circumcision a “yoke of bondage”, and apparently if you are unable to “profit” from Christ if you are circumcised. Galatians 5: 5-6 sort of contradicts it though:

“For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.”

According to it circumcision seems irrelevant, whereas faith in Jesus and love are necessary. First Paul had described circumcision as harmful, but then he goes to say it’s irrelevant. While I agree with his motives, it does not sound like he preaching the word of God, but spouting his own political views.

Philippians 3: 2-3 (also featuring Paul, or Timotheus) states:

“Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision [mutilation or cutting]. For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.

It describes circumcision as act of “evil workers” and encourages Christians to worship God in the spirit. For the Christian circumcision seems to be more of a symbolical act, cutting oneself off from earthly concerns, rather than mutilating one’s genetalia literally. In fact, Romans 2: 25-29 (also from Paul) mentions the circumcision of the heart:

“For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:

But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.”

This seems to be basically the letter of the law vs spirit of the law argument. If you are circumcized, you have to adhere to the letter of the law, but if you are not, you have to follow the spirit of the law. However, this does suggest that originally God cared only about the letter of the law, he wanted total obedience from his followers, but he softened up later and loosened his demands with Jesus.

What I see with Paul, is a liberal political pundit who is rebelling against the old, strict traditions of circumcision, and not as much a holy prophet spreading the word of God. However, the same could be said about the promoters of circumcision in the Old Testament, not them being liberal rebels, but political pundits. Let’s take a look at what Jesus has to say about circumcision in John 7: 22-24:

“Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.”

Michael Glass writes on this passage the following: “the Greek expression for making a man completely well could also be translated as making him completely whole.” It could even be interpreted to say that Jesus cure and uncircumcized the man, i.e. grew back his foreskin. Whatever the case, it appears Jesus was not overly concerned about circumcision, or the Sabbath for that matter.

Also in John 7:22 as can be seen above, Jesus said “Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers)”. It would suggest that Jesus claims Moses did not teach circumcision, as is often believed, but it’s an older tradition. As Michael Glass writes:

“the Children of Israel abandoned circumcision during Moses’ leadership (Joshua 5: 4-7). Exodus 4: 24-26 tells us that Moses had not circumcised his own son.

This suggests several scribal traditions. In the first, Moses did not practise circumcision, and the custom was abandoned under his leadership (Joshua 5: 4-7).”

Joshua was Moses’ assistant who took over after Moses died. When he was in charge, he started circumcizing children again. So there is some anti-circumcision sentiment even in the Old Testament, and not merely from a random dude, but from Moses himself.

While Paul’s anti-circumcision rhetoric seems personally or politically motivated, it also does seem to follow Jesus’ approach as well, where a person’s health is more important than ancient religious customs. However Jesus did state in Matthew 5: 17-19 the following:

““Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

Shouldn’t that contradict Jesus and his followers’ assertions against circumcision? It is part of the law, after all? Perhaps he is referring the Ten Commandments only, or perhaps the law employed by people, including passages in the Old Testament had been corrupted doctrines conjured up by men? Michael Glass makes similar suggestions:

“Jesus himself criticized the scribes and their traditions. (e.g., Matthew 15: 1-9, also Isaiah 29 :13). Jeremiah’s assessment of the Law must also be pondered.

How can you say, “We are wise,
and the law of the LORD is with us,”
when in fact, the false pen of the scribes
has made it into a lie?
(Jeremiah 8: 8, New RSV)”

 

Conclusion

I am still asking Christians, or anyone else, how do reconcile the disconnect between the contradictory positions on circumcision in the Old and New Testaments? Genesis 17 claims God told Abraham to circumcize his offspring, but in the New Testament Paul especially is vehemently against it. Did the omniscient and unchanging God change his mind on the content of his decrees, even his covenant, with men? Are there errors in the Old Testament where the word of God has been replaced with the word of men? Or was Paul merely a heretic speaking selfishly against circumcision?

Personally I would not have a problem had God changed his mind, although it would sort of suggest he is not all-knowing. Let’s take a hypothetical description of God. He is the Creator of all life and the world, and compared to human beings he might as well be described as all-powerful, yet even he has his limitations. He wants humans to have free will, but also to direct them to live their lives properly. First he makes a certain kind of policy or a decree in hopes of directing humanity in a certain way, but over the course of years he notices it’s not working. Then like a king, he makes a new policy which he hopes will be more succesful. I have no problem with such a concept of God, but it would probably go against Christian dogma as it implies God is flawed in some manner.

Another possible interpretation of this circumcision hassle is that, as is according to Christian belief, the Bible describes historical events from Eden up to the time of Christ from various different authors. While the events underneath the words of men have been true, but many of the smaller or even bigger details are up for revision. This would explain how when the Book of Genesis was written, circumcision was seen as a decree from God, but in the time of Jesus it was seen as a yoke. Both are merely views held by men. This view also makes sense to me, but it goes against the dogmatic view that the Bible is the infallible word of God.

I should note that my purpose is not to attack Christianity or the Bible, but to questionsthem. After all, if Christians wish to convert me, or others with similar views, they should have an answer to these questions. Christians who believe in Jesus and all that, should have asked themselves these questions as well. Why did God demand circumcision as the holy covenant with his followers back in the old days, but now you just need faith in Jesus? If your answer is: ‘it doesn’t matter. You just have to believe in Jesus.’ Then what’s the point in having the Bible in the first place? You know the book that describes what Jesus did and said. Ignore what the book says, just believe. Believe in what?

 

Links:

Sex & Circumcision: An American Love Story by Eric Clopper: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCuy163srRc

Answers from the Bible to Questions about Circumcision: http://www.cirp.org/pages/cultural/glass2/

Advertisements

Was Genghis Khan the first Communist?

Fine, I must concede the title is bit click-baity, however I do find many accounts of the alleged accomplishments of Genghis Khan and the Mongol empire somewhat questionable. On top of that there seems to be sort of modern attempt to paint Genghis Khan as some sort of progressive good guy. Let’s dig in.

First I should explain some of the background of where I’m coming from. I’ve written in the past how I don’t think that Marco Polo went to China, but to Cathay which was another kingdom. I’ve also expressed criticism of the official history of the Great Wall of China, which may or may not be relevant to this article. I’ve also discussed the theory put forward by others that the name Mongol did not used to refer to the people we we think of as Mongols today, but to another race of people. I’ll add links below.

I should also point out that we cannot know much of what truly happened in ancient history. What we think of history is always based on interpretation, which may be liable to corruption due to lack of evidence as well as political and ideological bias. How do we know, for example, that Julius Ceasar existed, or the very least, the did the things attributed to him such as being a proficient military commander in conquering barbarian tribes in Europe and then falling victim to the conspiring senate? There are some old coins that supposedly depict Julius Caesar, a caesar of that name probably did exist, but can we know the stories we associate with him actually took place? How do we know that the character wasn’t invented by Shakespeare, for instance? As Napolean infamously said “History is a set of lies agreed upon.

 

Primary Sources

There are loads accounts in books and on the internet depicting the achievements the Mongol Empire, but most of them are simply people repeating what the experts have said. To glean any actual clues to the veracity of the claims you have to go to the primary sources, which would be texts written around the time of the historical events or artifacts from that period.

As an example of shoddy evidence for the historicity of Genghis Khan we need look no further than Wikipedia. The article on the Khan states how he conquered China, Korea and Central Asia. After that the article states: “Many of these invasions repeated the earlier large-scale slaughters of local populations. As a result, Genghis Khan and his empire have a fearsome reputation in local histories.” After this sentence there is a link to a book titled Mongolia: a guide to economic and political developments by Ian Jeffries. The title does did not fill me with confidence as it sounds like the book discussed Mongolia in a more modern context. I did, however, manage to find it on the internet and checked out pages 5-7 that supposedly explain Wikipedia’s claims.

On page 5 it says “Mongolia built the world’s largest contiguous empire in the thirteenth century under Genghis Khan”. So apparently it was bigger than Alexander the Great’s, the Roman Empire or the British Empire. Quite an achivement for a bunch of horseriding nomads. What sort of technology or bureaucratic system did they have to manage that? Apparently by landmass the British Empire was larger, but Mongols supposedly had the largest continous empire. It also said the Mongols managed to kill “30 to 60 million people across Asia and Europe”.

Page 6 states that Korean and Mongolian elites engaged in considerable intermarriage in the thirteenth century and Koreans believe their ancestors come from Mongolia. That is the only evidence of “large-scale slaughters of local populations” and “fearsome reputation in local histories” that were on pages 5-7 of Jeffries’ book. However, ultimately this only proves that Wikipedia is an untrustworthy source for information, which is not news.

There is a book known nowadays best by the name The Secret History of the Mongols. It was supposedly written back in the 13th or 14th century, and the introduction describes it as follows:

“This book, known to Mongols as the Tobchi’an [Tobcha’an]
or ‘History’, has appeared under a variety of names,
including The Secret History of the Mongols, The Life of
Chinggis Qahan, The True Record of Chinggis Qahan, and
The Secret History of the Yuan Dynasty. It has been
translated into many languages, including English,
Japanese, French, German, Chinese, Russian, Hungarian,
and Polish. Like Chinggis himself, the book is highly
controversial. We cannot be sure when it was written or
who wrote it. I myself argue below that it was written in
1228, but other scholars date it to 1240 or 1323. Whatever
the case, the book is unique, as the only available account
of the life of Chinggis Qahan [Genghis Khan].”

It is not known who wrote it and when, and it is the only account of the life of Genghis Khan. Sounds dubious to me. It might as well been written as a fiction, or a deliberate deception.

The Secret History of the Mongols mentions two other so-called primary cources. The first one is this:

“The War Record of the Holy Hero (Chinggis Qahan), by
Qoriqosun, 1266–1273.48 This book was published by the
Institute of National History established by Qubilai Qahan
at Daidü in 1264. For details, see The War Record of the
Holy Hero, p. 4. Qoriqosun was a chairman of the Institute
of National History after 1264. He was not only a Mongol
scholar but a court painter who painted the portrait of
Chinggis Qahan and other Qahans in 1278–1279.”

I could find no record of this book existing on the internet at least. Maybe it exists only in another language such as Mongolian or Chinese. However, I do not find this a credible source either, since if it provided important evidence on the Mongols, you’d think it had been translated.

The third one is even less credible:

“The Real History of the Mongol Qahans, published by
the Institute of National History in 1303–1304 in Mongol
and Chinese by an anonymous author. Unfortunately, this
work has not been found.”

The work has not been found? What does this mean? How can they claim this book is a source of any kind? Maybe the book never existed to begin with.

How about the physical evidence then? If the Mongols had this vast militaristic empire shouldn’t there be Mongol forts or other structures littered about in their former territory like central Asia or Russia? I couldn’t find any. There should plenty of Mongol artifacts such as weapons and armour littered about in their former territory. I managed to find a few pictures of these on the internet, but very few, and most pictures seem to be of later Mongol equipment, or simply replicas. I’ll take a look at the Mongol armour in more detail later on.

I must point out that I am an amateur when it comes to history, and specifically Mongol history, so the lack of primary evidence may speak more of my own lack of ability and access to resources than the existence of those resources, so I am not going to make any definitive statement to the existence or non-existence of Genghis Khan or the Mongol Empire. Yet were all of the claims of this vast empire self-evident fact, I would expect the evidence to be abundant, which it does not seem to be. If someone can point me to some sort of primary evidence that I can verify for myself, I’d appreciate it.

 

The Progressive Khan

Jeffries’ Mongolia: A Guide to Economic and Political Developments has a quote from The Times on page 5 stating that “The Mongol empire was the first to know religious tolerance. In the capital, Karakorum, churches, mosques and temples stood side by side. In his empire women had equal rights with men, even among subject peoples.”

First of all, The Times is not a credible source when it comes to history. And the two statements made by them are ridiculous. What does it mean that the Mongols were “the first to know religious tolerance”? It’s a nonsensical blanket statement. Do they mean that no society in history had any sense of religious tolerance before the Mongols? How about the Religion of Peace, Islam? At least according to liberals, it used to be so tolerant. If they had said “compared to earlier empires in history, the Mongol Empire showed a much greater deal of tolerance of religion” I could take it with some degree of seriousness.

Women having “equal rights with men” sounds like utter nonsense. Surely they did not have equal rights with men in any sense that the modern West conceives of the idea? Did the women fight alongside men in battle? Did they play an equal part in slaughtering 30-60 million people? Perhaps the position of women was good among Mongols when compared to Christian, Muslims or the Chinese, but once again the article did not say that. Nor is there any evidence to qualify the statement.

The Times is not the only outlet to make Genghis Khan sound like a progressive warlord. Dr. Timothy May of North Georgia College and State University wrote in his article that there was religious tolerance “throughout the empire”. If I think about what it means, I suppose the Mongols might have been fairly callous when it came to religion. If they conquered Christians, Muslims or Buddhists, they only wanted obedience and did not care what gods their subjects adhere to. However, I would call it disinterest rather than tolerance, if that was the case. At least the writers should qualify this alleged tolerance with some details.

An article in The Spectator says: “the same man who is said to be responsible for the deaths of a world record 40 million is also noted — admittedly less widely — for his religious tolerance, enlightened diplomacy and championing of women’s rights.” Same propaganda of Genghis Khan having been a progressive conqueror.

Another blog on WordPress, Course Correction: An Insider’s Look at Mormon Culture, at least tries to clarify these progressive tendensies of Genghis Khan in some way:

“Although they adopted literacy, arts, and sciences from other countries and tolerated Taoism, Islam, Buddhism, and Christianity, Mongols kept their own culture—including an active role of women in their social and political life. Mongol society lacked the belief that female sexual purity was a value to be defended at all costs—including defense of and seclusion of women. When one tribe was ambushed by another, the men fled on horses so they could live to fight another day. Captured women were taken as wives by the conquering warriors. If the men escaped, they attacked and recaptured the women. A recaptured wife might be pregnant with her captor’s child, but the child was raised by her husband as his own.

While the warriors were off sacking and looting—sometimes for more than a year at a stretch— Mongol women ran the country. Mongolian girls as well as boys were educated when schools were established. Both Genghis Khan’s wife and mother influenced his governing decisions.

True, Mongolian women did not have total equality, and prosperous Mongols could take more than one wife. Yet, compared to women in 13th century Europe, China, Persia, and the Arab world, Mongolian women had a good deal.”

I do not know how accurate these statements are, but at least they are sensible.

I do however get the impression that there is some sort of liberal agenda at play in promoting, this idea of the progressive Khan. In fact, I have two different scenarios: Genghis Khan was the first Communist leader of powerful nation, or this is just another Marxist ploy in attempting to downplay the achievements of Europe by praising non-Europeans.

Perhaps, there had been a proto-Communist cabal that put Genghis Khan into power. After all, if main stream history is accurate, Genghis Khan did what Communists tend to do; wage war and kill a lot of people. Mao supposedly killed 45 million in four years during the great leap forward. Stalin had 60 million killed according to some estimates. So according to history, the Mongols caused more deaths than Mao, and equally the death’s of Stalin. Of course the 20th century Communists achieved their deaths in a shorter time-span, as the Mongols took a century or two (and several Khans) to do it, but they did not have access to modern technology so I think it evens out. At least according to the presumed liberals who are praising Genghis Khan, he was similar to modern Communist leaders; the was a violent conqueror who caused millions of deaths, but later on he is being hailed as a progressive hero. Of course there is the difference that Genghis Khan probably didn’t spend as much effort on killing his own people as Commies tend to do.

I think the second scenario is more likely that liberals who hate Europe and everything related to it, find any excuse ignore the achievements of Europe, and praise the achievements of non-Europeans peoples, be their achievements factual or fictional. I am not of the camp that thinks that Europeans excell in everything and should be praised for everything, I simply think credit should be given when it is due, and not given when it is not due.

 

Feats of the Empire

Let’s get back to the Mongols and their alleged feats. The Secret History of the Mongols states that “just two million Mongols, with 129,000 cavalrymen, could establish the largest land empire in world history.” Two million people with a bit more than 100,000 cavalrymen were able to conquer the largest land empire in history, and butcher up to 60 million people? I don’t find it credible, although possibly this two million refers only to the Mongols who were alive during the time of Genghis Khan, and during his day they hadn’t killed all of those millions yet. They had no access to modern weaponry or transport, they did have even the telegraph, nothing like that. I might believe this if the people they conquered had been weak pacifists who were unwilling or unable to fight back, but they weren’t.

I think something doesn’t add up, yet I don’t claim to know what the truth is. Perhaps it lies somewhere in the middle. Maybe the Mongols did manage to conquer some places like China and Korea, but it doesn’t sounds credible they’d be able to do all that they supposedly did. Or maybe the Mongol Empire is a fabrication to begin with, possibly to cover-up the existence of another race of people or empire, or a coalition of races.

I don’t know the truth, but I still have more to speculate about the Mongols and the possible Mongol deception, but I’ll do that at a later date.

 

 

Links:

Marco Polo did not go to China: https://concordiaabchao.wordpress.com/2016/01/17/marco-polo-did-not-go-to-china/

By whom, when and why was Great Wall of China built?: https://concordiaabchao.wordpress.com/2017/05/08/by-whom-when-and-why-was-great-wall-of-china-built/

Genghis Khan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genghis_Khan

Mongolia: A Guide to economic and political developments: https://books.google.fi/books?hl=en&lr=&id=xxB9AgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq=Mongolia:+A+Guide+to+Economic+and+Political+Developments&ots=5OIy5iR-0Z&sig=PnZ2WZHCm7efX95t4aFpKD_aOgM&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Genghis Khan (1165-1127): https://web.archive.org/web/20100306053246/http://www.accd.edu/sac/history/keller/mongols/empsub1.html

Genghis Khan was tolerant, kind to women – and a record-breaking mass-murderer: https://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/07/the-mongol-empire-by-john-man-review/

Genghis Khan was tolerant, kind to women – and a record-breaking mass-murderer: https://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/07/the-mongol-empire-by-john-man-review/

Genghis Khan and Women’s Rights :https://annmjohnson.wordpress.com/2012/04/13/genghis-khan-and-womens-rights/

Warm underground caves found in Antarctica?

It was reported in the media a bit over a week ago that researchers found a “secret, warm oasis beneath Antarctica’s ice” and that there could be undiscovered animal species there. Apparently these warm caves are 20-25 degrees Celsius, and you can wear a T-shirt there, despite being surrounded by snow and ice. The heat, and possibly light, supposedly originate from an active volcano.

Assuming that this is all true, it is likely to fuel speculation about Hollow Earth, or perhaps an underground sun that heats the place up. Or maybe the Nazis found these caves back in the 30s or 40s when they founded their alleged Neuschwabenland base there with flying saucers and all. It is quite extraordinary if this discovery is true. Warm, habitable caves in the coldest place on earth (since Antarctica is supposedly too cold for planes to fly over), and you just have to wonder how far the caves stretch.

Yet I won’t buy this news at face value. It might very well be a distraction or deception of some sort. Let’s say that flat earth researchers are onto something with their claims of a round ice wall surrounding the round disc of the earth. Maybe this discovery is supposed to draw attention away from the possible fact that the very shape of Antarctica is different than we’ve been told. Maybe they want us to be imagining what is underneath Antarctica instead of what is beyond it, such as the Firmament.

Or maybe this cave discovery is laying the groundwork for a Project Bluebeam-type of deception. Some time ago an alleged fake tweet by Buzz Aldrin emerged showing a pyramid-like mountain in the antarctic with the text: “We are all in danger. It is evil itself.”

 

Maybe the powers that be want us to believe at some point that scientists discover a frozen alien civilization under the ice, and when they are defrosted, they turn against us, and we need another, benign alien race to save us. It’s just one example of a possible silly psy-op they might be pulling on us.

There have been some important visitors to Antarctica as of late. US Secretary of State, John Kerry, visited it last year. So did the russian patriarch Kirill a week after meeting with pope Francis. There are also rumours that Obama visited the alleged continent last year during his trip to Argentina.

Could there have been some sort of discovery in Antarctica yet to be announced to the public? Did they manage to make a dent in the Firmament? Is it all a psy-op of some sort? Why this focus on Antarctica as of late? Is the discovery of the “oasis caves” related to these political visits?

I don’t have any of the answers, except that I don’t buy the story of underground caves heated by an active volcano. Maybe the caves exist, maybe they’re warm, but the claim that they are heated by a volcano sounds dubious. Then again maybe the whole story is fiction. The caves are supposedly located “around and beneath” mount Erebus. Interesting name. Erebus is a primordial deity from Greek mythology associated with darkness and born of chaos. The description reminds me of the Egyptian chaotic frog god, Kek, who is revered by many in the far-right nowadays. I cannot say what the ultimate significance of Mt Erebus here is, except this cave business along with Erebus sounds like a manufactured narrative to me, instead of a spontaneous discovery.

 

P. S.

I thought I should add this “confession” I found on a discussion forum a while ago, about supposed discoveries in the antarctic and how Masons are involved. It’s probably fiction, but at least it’s interesting fiction.

 

Links:

Researchers find secret, warm oasis beneath Antarctica’s ice that could be home to undiscovered species: http://nationalpost.com/news/world/researchers-find-secret-warm-oasis-beneath-antarcticas-ice-that-could-be-home-to-undiscovered-species

Antarctica’s ice caves could be hiding undiscovered species of plants and animals: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-08/antarctica-ice-caves-research-new-species-of-plants-and-animals/8884508

Kerry to become highest-ranking US official to visit Antarctica: http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/304401-kerry-to-become-highest-ranking-us-official-to-visit-antarctica

Patriarch Kirill meets penguins at Russian base as he becomes first Orthodox leader to visit Antarctica: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/12162705/Patriarch-Kirill-meets-penguins-in-Antarctica.html

Antarctica – Which Conspiracy Theory Explains all the Celebrity Visits in 2016?: https://endtimesand2019.wordpress.com/2016/12/19/antarctica-which-conspiracy-theory-explains-all-the-celebrity-visits-in-2016/

Erebus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erebus

Curious Death of the Son of Finnish Prime Minister Sipilä

Back in 2015 around the time of the parliamental election in Finland, the son of Juha Sipilä, Tuomo Sipilä, died due to supposed complications of a routine surgery operation. After the election Juha Sipilä and his political Center party won, and he became prime minister.

I didn’t know about the death of Tuomo Sipilä back when it happened in 2015. I heard about it a few months ago and found it suspicious. Based what I’ve read from the media he was a healthy 22-year old man, living a full life. He had a girlfriend. Tuomo had went through a no-risk operation in a hospital in the city of Oulu, although I’m not sure what sort of operation it actually was. He woke up a few hours after the operation and was going to the bathroom while being escorted by a nurse. He slumped on the floor on the way. They started trying to resuscitate him immediately, but 45 minutes later the doctors said there was nothing they could do.

The cause of death was “a complete mystery” even to the doctors, an Iltalehti newspaper article from March 2015 stated. Tuomo Sipilä died February 17, 2015. I couldn’t find any source even now in September 2017 stating what the cause of death was. Maybe it’s out there somewhere, but the media does not seem to have been concerned with it, at least.

When I heard about this, I immediately found the whole affair fishy. A young, healthy man dies after a simple operation. The doctors don’t know the cause of death either. Now, over two years after the fact the cause of death is still not told to us. There was a sob-story article written about Tuomo’s death as recently as May 2017, yet it does not mention the cause of death, and the surgical operation is described as being low-risk, i.e. no actual description of what sort of operation it was. The article does describe something I find a bit creepy though: prime minister Juha Sipilä and his surviving sons made a casket shaped like a boat for Tuomo, and then Tuomo’s mother made the final resting place for him with lace sheets she got as a wedding present. A boat shaped casket, are they vikings or something?

What I think happened, and this is just my crazy conspiracy theorist opinion, is that Juha Sipilä sacrificed his son to be allowed to become the prime minister. It was probably required as proof that he is willing to bend-over backwards for whoever is the actual power behind the throne in Finland. Whenever some sort of celebrity dies, there’s someone always saying it was an Illuminati sacrifice. I don’t know if the Illuminati was involved, or if it actually exists or not, but I do suspect the death of Tuomo Sipilä was a sacrifice. Possibly he was poisoned.

I do not know whether Juha Sipilä is a Freemason or a member of any other secret society like that. On the vauva.fi forum someone did claim that he is a Freemason, but that is hardly a reliable source. Sipilä is a member of the Rauhan Sana (Word of Peace) movement which is part of the Laestadianism Christian revival movement. I don’t know anything about this Rauhan Sana sect, but Laestadianists I have had dealings with. In my experience they’re mostly harmless but annoying. However I don’t know about the inner workings of their cult.

 

 

Links:

Uutuuskirja kertoo Juha Sipilän Tuomo-pojan traagisesta kuolemasta: ”Sipilä purskahti itkuun, kun hän näki kaiken tämän”: http://www.is.fi/kotimaa/art-2000000902121.html

Juha Sipilä Tuomo-poikansa kuolemasta: ”Olisiko leikkaus pitänyt jättää väliin?”: http://www.menaiset.fi/artikkeli/ajankohtaista/ihmiset/juha_sipila_tuomo_poikansa_kuolemasta_olisiko_leikkaus_pitanyt

Juha Sipilä avautuu poikansa traagisesta kuolemasta: “Tuomon kuolema herättää kysymyksiä”: http://www.iltalehti.fi/uutiset/2015033119450456_uu.shtml

Juha Sipilän vaimo Minna-Maaria Kotiliedessä poikansa kuolemasta: ”En tiennyt, että se olisi viimeinen kerta, kun halaamme”: https://anna.fi/ihmiset-ja-suhteet/julkkikset/juha-sipilan-vaimo-minna-maaria-kotiliedessa-poikansa-kuolemasta-en-tiennyt-etta-se-olisi-viimeinen-kerta-kun-halaamme/

Juha Sipilän Arvomaailma: http://www.vauva.fi/keskustelu/4443691/ketju/juha_sipilan_arvomaailma

Laestadianism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laestadianism

Rauhansanalaisuus: https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rauhansanalaisuus

Kabbalistic Origins of the Copernican Model

The Copernican heliocentric model and the Big Bang are the basis to the understanding of the cosmology of modern science. Those who tend to look at things critically have probably found these claims somewhat questionable, and there are claims that these ideas, and others concepts of modern science, such as Evolution, are actually of occult or religious origin. There is also alleged Jesuit involvement in our current understanding of the universe. While there are certainly plenty of material on the internet about this, I decided to take a look at it myself. In this article I’ll focus on Nicolaus Copernicus and his ideas. Next time I’ll look at the Big Bang.

However before I move on, I’d like to share my take on the Jesuits, or the claim you see here and there: “It’s the Jesuits.” Jesuits are actually the first conspiratorial group I ever heard about. When I was a child learned that Jesuits embodied the maxim: the ends justify the means. I’m not sure where I learned, maybe from my parents, but ever since I had had the idea of Jesuits of being some sort of conspiratorial cabal. That was years before I even heard the names Freemason or Illuminati. Then around ten years ago, when I was getting serious about learning about conspiracies and secret societies, I heard from a Christian friend that Jesuits are actually really nice, he said they are sort of like hippies. That confused me greatly.  He seemed to be describing a completely different group from the historical Jesuits. Both because I suppose I associated Jesuits with my former childhood self, and my friend’s confusing comments, I hadn’t looked much into Jesuit conspiracy theories in my conspiracy theorist “career”, but maybe a couple years ago I saw some articles about Jesuit universities.

I’ll this article from NY Times as an example from 2013. It describes how the Jesuit Georgetown college celebrated OUTober, an LGBT gay-parade with students prancing around wearing pink shirts. My friend’s view of Jesuits must have originated from these kind of liberal, tolerant modern Jesuit colleges. The Jesuits have been, and still are, all about pursuing their own nefarious agendas and subverting society’s values. It’s just that the times are different, and they are using different methods nowadays. A few centuries ago they were probably more focused on sequestering knowledge, assassination and more traditional cloak and dagger stuff, now they are putting on a benevolent mask and are engaging in social engineering, such as LGBT agenda.

Yet I still do not agree that “it is the Jesuits”. You see and hear these people saying “it’s the Jesuits and that guy never mentions the Jesuits, so he must be a shill”. The next guy says: “No, it’s actually the Freemasons. You’re the shill.” Whereas the third guy claims: “It’s the Jews.” I think these groups, and many others are part of the secret society control system, but I do not know who or what group is on top of it all, nor do I trust anyone who claims they know the truth, unless they are a member of the group that rules over all other groups.

 

Copernicus and Kabbalah

Let’s move on to Nicolaus Copernicus and the heliocentric model of the solar system. Before Copernicus’ theories, most Europeans believed in the geocentric Ptolemaic system. According to Wikipedia, Copernicus had formulated his theory already in 1510, but his book “On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres” was published after his death in 1543. Interestingly in the Controversy-section of the article it states:

“The immediate result of the 1543 publication of Copernicus’s book was only mild controversy. At the Council of Trent (1545–63) neither Copernicus’s theory nor calendar reform (which would later use tables deduced from Copernicus’s calculations) were discussed. It has been much debated why it was not until six decades after the publication of De revolutionibus that the Catholic Church took any official action against it, even the efforts of Tolosani going unheeded. Catholic side opposition only commenced seventy-three years later, when it was occasioned by Galileo.”

I suppose the Catholic church created the controversy on purpose, since Copernicus’ theories had not caught on in the regular people. So they turned Galileo into this oppressed anti-hero basically to advertise the Copernican model as the new and exciting thing that the establishment supposedly is afraid. Sort of how they got a lot of people, myself included, to support Donald Trump. (Although my support of him wasn’t really so much because the establishment pretended to hate him, but because of Hillary Clinton and Pizzagate, but that’s another story.)

Let’s get back to Copernicus. His book was called “On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres”. Just the name itself reminds me of the Tree of Life of Kabbalah and Sephiroth spheres on it, or the Norse World Tree with the hanging worlds on it.

 

I used to think this similarity pretty much proves there is some truth to Kabbalah and the ancient myths, but now I am skeptical of the modern cosmology, so I am more inclined to think the “scientists” who have been pushing this model do so because their religion says so. Nowadays many of the flat earthers believe in the Biblical geocentric, domed-model. I suppose I am one of them, but I am happy to admit I could be wrong. There does seem to be some sort spiritual and scientific battle between these two religious concept going on. One of them could be right, and one wrong, or perhaps both are simply religious ideas.

Anyway, the heliocentric model that Copernicus was pushing is rather Kabbalistic. A Kabbala site called Revealing Science of God says: “It should be noted that the 16th century also witnessed perhaps the first scientific verification of Kabbalist teaching with the book written by Copernicus. The Kabbalists never taught the Earth to be the center of the universe, and Copernicus’ discovery proved them right.”

Another blogger on WordPress had written an article titled: “Copernicus And His Kabbalistic Methods”. He quotes Copernicus saying: “Nor is it necessary that these hypotheses should be true, nor indeed even probable, but it is sufficient if they merely produce calculations which agree with the observations…” This sort of reasoning does indeed seem Kabbalistic.

Torahscience.org has an article states that the Torah, i.e. the first five books of the Old Testament, has a geocentric universe. However, when a “holy” Rabbi Ruzhiner was presented with Copernicus’ theories, people expected him to deny them, however the Rabbi responded as follows:

“When he was informed of this, the Holy Ruzhiner remained completely composed and his response was a very special one. He said that whether the earth revolves around the sun or the sun revolves around the earth depends on the service of the tzaddikim, the righteous Jews of the generation. The answer to the question of “What revolves around what?” is not an absolute answer. If, for instance, the tzaddikim in this generation would serve God in a manner in which it would be correct to see Pluto as the center of the solar system, then in some mysterious way scientific discoveries would adapt to reflect that change.”

Those “tzaddikim” are probably the good Jews who believe in Kabbalah and the Talmud instead of the Torah.

Later on the article gives another example of this: “Accordingly, the variation between geocentricism and heliocentricism can be compared to a difference between a service of God that sees man (on earth) as the center, with God, as it were, revolving around man and caring for all of man’s needs; or perceiving God as the center, whereby man is obligated to God and His commandments.”

According to Kabbalah, it would seem, anything can be anything as long as you can bullshit and fast talk others to believe in it. Even the laws of nature and God are subject one’s ability to make stuff up. I have noticed similar things have permeated all aspects of modern society. Feminism is one example. They say rape is power + privilege, and since White women have them, they cannot be raped. Alternatively, a woman who had consensual sex with man can turn the act post coitum into a rape if she regrets later her promiscuity. Once again, twisting words around can supposedly change reality to suit one’s needs.

I do not know whether Nicolaus Copernicus had studied the Kabbalah, but he did seem to adhere to many Kabbalistic notions. I also do not know if there is any connection between Copernicus and the Jesuits. The Jesuit order was officially formed 1540 and Copernicus died 1543, so it is possible they might have had something to do with it, but I haven’t seen any actual evidence of this.

 

The Catholics

The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says that during Copernicus’ lifetime, the Catholic church seemed to be fine with his theories:

“Pope Clement VII (r. 1523–1534) had reacted favorably to a talk about Copernicus’s theories, rewarding the speaker with a rare manuscript. There is no indication of how Pope Paul III, to whom On the Revolutions was dedicated reacted; however, a trusted advisor, Bartolomeo Spina of Pisa (1474–1546) intended to condemn it but fell ill and died before his plan was carried out. Thus, in 1600 there was no official Catholic position on the Copernican system, and it was certainly not a heresy.”

So Pope Clement VII, who appears to have died before Copernicus, reacted favourably to his theories, and the Pope who succeeded him was Paul III to whom Copernicus dedicated his book. Had the Catholic church been hostile to Copernicus’ theories, you might interpret this as a kind of FU from Copernicus, however it does not appear that was the case. There probably were many individuals who did not appreaciate his un-Biblical cosmology, but overall, as Stanford Encyclopedia stated, the heliocentric system was not a heresy.

Interestingly, as is mentioned above, Pope Paul III’s advisor, Bartolomeo Spina, wanted to condemn Copernicus’ book, and presumably he could have influenced the Pope as well, but he fell ill and died. Convenient, wouldn’t you say? Perhaps he was poisoned. His Wikipedia page doesn’t say much, but it says Bartolomeo Spina was involved in prosecuting witches, so he probably understood the Copernical model as the occult concept that it is.

There are some claims that Nicolaus Copernicus may have been a prist. At least he did not marry, and he was a member of the Third Order of Saint Dominic, which is some sort of lay Dominican order. The New Advent website states:

“After his university studies Copernicus practised medicine for six years (1506-1512) at Heilsberg, being sought by bishops and princes, but especially by the poor, whom he served gratis. There is no document to show that Copernicus ever received higher orders. His medical practice, which was only private, would not speak against him being a priest, and the fact that in 1537 King Sigismund of Poland put his name on the list of four candidates for the vacant episcopal seat of Ermland, makes it probable that, at least in later life, he had entered the priesthood.”

So he might have died a Catholic priest. I’ve uncovered no evidence of any involvement of Jesuits with Copernicus himself. The Catholic church, however, did seem be in good relations with him.

Copernicus certainly seems to have been influenced by the Kabbalah, and it was all approved by the Catholic church.

Next time I’ll focus on the Big Bang theory and it’s obvious occult origins.

 

Links:

A Rainbow Over Catholic Colleges
How Georgetown Became a Gay-Friendly Campus: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/04/education/edlife/how-georgetown-became-a-gay-friendly-campus.html

Nicolaus Copernicus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolaus_Copernicus

One Possible History of Kabbalism: http://www.revealingscienceofgod.com/index.php?page=one-possible-history-of-kabbalism

Copernicus And His Kabbalistic Methods: https://migchels.wordpress.com/2015/04/02/copernicus-and-his-kabbalistic-methods/

Science Versus Torah?: http://www.torahscience.org/natsci/astronomy_rav2.htm

Nicolaus Copernicus: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/copernicus/

Bartolommeo Spina: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartolommeo_Spina

Do you have a calling to be Third Order of St. Dominic?: http://www.sacredheart-op.org/Vocations.htm

Copernicus: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04352b.htm

The Jesuits & The Globe Earth: The Mother Of All Conspiracies!: https://www.worldslastchance.com/end-time-prophecy/the-jesuits-the-globe-earth-the-mother-of-all-conspiracies.html

Bill Nye the Fall Guy

I watched a Youtube video titled “Flat earth denier Bill Nye caught up in lies! GAME OVER 2017”. It shows a few clips of people in the main stream starting to turn against Bill Nye the Science Guy.

The video starts off with Joe Rogan saying “scientists are all going after Bill Nye.” Then Rogan’s guest, I don’t know who that is, responponds “Bill Nye the Weimar Guy?” Referring to the decadent Weimar republic that preceded Hitler’s National Socialist Germany. Rogan and his guest also mention that Bill Nye is not even a scientist, and he’s a conman. They’re also pointing out that back in the nineties Bill Nye’s program said that gender comes from chromosomes, but now his TV show is pushing the liberal gender fluidism crap. These are valid points of course, but then there are a couple of comments that make the lightbulb in my head go off.

Rogan’s guest says Bill Nye has fallen into an ideology that is complete religion. Joe Rogan says Bill Nye’s been “influenced”. At least Rogan’s guest says Nye is getting rewarded for it, but I don’t know if Rogan and the other guy go into it in more detail in the full interview. However at least here they make it out to seem like Bill Nye is pushing this liberalism propaganda because he’s “drunk the cool-aid”. This is complete BS, of course. Bill Nye is an actor, and he’s merely doing what he’s being paid for. I don’t know if he really believes any of the gender fluid crap he’s pushing now, or if he cares. He’s clearly being influenced by the producers of his TV show, who want to push this propaganda. I doubt Nye himself has much power to decide the message of his show himself.

What’s interesting is that this establishment puppet Joe Rogan is pushing an anti-leftism angle, and attacking one of the puppets of scientism and leftism. I cannot say Rogan is controlled opposition, since I don’t think he’s even pretending to be opposition, but he is controlled. It seems now the establishment is starting turn the social engineering around. They have an army of brainwashed liberals, and now they want to manipulate others into a suitable right-wing counter-reaction.

I wrote back in 2015: “What is happening today in the West bears an eerie resemblance to what the alleged Freemason Albert Pike supposedly described in his letter to Giuseppe Mazzini over a hundred years ago.” The infamous letter of course details that The Powers That Be plan to unleash the nihilists and the atheists so the decent people would react to defend themselves against these “destroyers of civilization” and eradicate them. I think they are preparing us for this eradication of the “nihilists and atheists”.

The point of this far-left liberalism was never to turn the whole West into a Marxist “paradise”. It was to weaken the West to transform it into something else. Like the alchemical Solve and Coagula, dissolve and coagulate. First the left dissolves the West, and the new Right will coagulate, or form, it into a new image. It doesn’t matter whether your ideology is far-left, far-right or even far-center if you are being controlled by the people who created the problem in the first place.

Over the years I’ve heard conspiracy claims here and there that the elites are actually secret Nazis, which of course sounds like a baseless accusation seeing that Zionists Jews wield a lot of influence in the world and Hitler is the most demonized person in the world, yet things like this make me think maybe this has all been an eloborate conspiracy to Nazi-ize the West. Like Joe Rogan’s anonymous guest said: Bill Nye the Weimar Guy. This is fairly blatantly pushing the narrative that we live in the decadent Weimar republic and it’s only natural to become more National Socialist-like to fight against it. Moreover, in just 5 years more people have become sympathetic toward the Nazis, mainly due to Islamic immigration into the West and the troubles that it brings. So this makes me think, what if there is something to these crypto-Nazi conspiracy theories?

To clarify, I have described myself as Nazi-sympathizer, meaning I do think that the National Socialists and Hitler have been unfairly maligned, and I’ve thought for years that the Holocaust narrative is a lie. Yet I am not convinced that Hitler was a great hero either, the saviour of White race, or anything like that. I don’t know if he was genuine in his efforts, a Rothschild agent, a British agent, a Freemason, or what. At best though, he was a loser with good intentions, but his actions in the end worked against the German people, and the West in general, as his failure to win the war has greatly strengthened the “internationalist clique” that he supposedly fought against.

To get back on topic, I think Bill Nye is being set as a fall guy for fake science and leftism in order to allow other kind of fake science and socially engineered agendas to flourish. The elites create these golemic strawmen, such as Feminism, give them power in order to tear them down after a while in order to further other agendas. A lot of people finally see liberalism as a deluded lie now after it has caused a lot of damage, but they will most likely fall for the next delusion that is waiting around the corner.

 

Links:

Flat earth denier Bill Nye caught up in lies! GAME OVER 2017: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eonqHPPqWjo

How Albert Pike’s letter can aid us in the Nationalist Revival: https://concordiaabchao.wordpress.com/2015/10/14/pikes-letter/

What is the Origin of the Elite Bloodlines?

It seems to be an established fact that there is an elite bloodline, or a mix of bloodlines, that rule our world. Many conspiracy theorists have described 12 Illuminati bloodlines, while I don’t know if the number is accurate or not, I haven’t seen anyone really dispute the existence of these bloodlines. Even main stream society seems to submissively accept that these bloodlines are a fact. For example most US presidents have been related to each other and to European royalty. The main stream media has even dicussed how Dick Cheney and Barack Obama are related.

The question then is why is this royal bloodline significant? What makes them different, why do they always seem to be in power? From what I see, among conspiracy theorists the prevailing theory is that they have descended from the Nephilim, fallen angels, or possibly the serpent from Eden through Cain. There are variations to this, such as they were descended from Annunaki aliens or reptilians, but in the end the narrative is that the elite bloodlines are evil because they descended from evil non-human entities. And I don’t think it’s a bad theory, but it’s still just a theory, so I will propose another one.

 

Seed of Abraham

Genesis 17:4-8 states:

Gen 17:4  As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.
Gen 17:5  Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.
Gen 17:6  And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.
Gen 17:7  And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
Gen 17:8  And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.

God formed “an everlasting covenant” with Abraham and his seed to make him “a father of many nations”, and “kings will come out of” Abraham, which presumable means he will be the progenitor of many kings. Perhaps the seed of Abraham still is ruling many nations through his kings. If this is true, and the elite bloodlines of today are the seed of Abraham, then it would imply two different possibilities: either the God that came to Abraham to make a covenant with him was an evil one, or it was the true God and the only way for anyone to rule over the earth is through the seed of Abraham.

In Genesis 17:1 God, or LORD, says Abram (as he was still known) was perfect (or complete, whole, sound, without blemish, or entirely in accord with truth and fact).  This is why God chose to make the covenant with him. Then why are the elites of today so evil and corrupt then? Perhaps that is reason for their generational Satanist, MK Ultra mind control rituals. That is why the Illuminati trannies seem to exist. God had decided that the seed of Abraham will be kings over nations, and the other side cannot change that, but if they manage to control the seed, they can control the world. This might be what has happened. I’m not saying this necessarily true, but I am putting it out there as an alternative.

If my theory is correct, it would be utterly pointless to try start a revolution to oust the elite bloodlines from power. It would be pointless to hate them. The only way to free ourselves would be to free the elites from the mind control.

 

Canaan and the Goys

Before I finish, I’d like to take a look at a couple of interesting words from Genesis 17. The word “nations” is used a few times. The original Hebrew word is “goy”, which is certainly familiar as the Jews tend to call non-Jews that, and it supposedly refers to cattle. According to Brown-Driver-Briggs dictionary the word has the following meanings:

1) nation, people (noun masculine)
1a) nation, people
1a1) usually of non-Hebrew people
1a2) of descendants of Abraham
1a3) of Israel
1b) of swarm of locusts, other animals (figuratively)
1c) Goyim? = “nations” (noun proper masculine)

Goy means nation, non-Hebrews, Israel, and descendants of Abraham. Does this mean that all of us non-Jews are the true descendants of Abraham and the true Israelites, and the Jews envy us for this?

Another interesting tidbit in Genesis 17 is: “And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession”.

What is Canaan then? According to Ancient.eu “Canaan was the name of a large and prosperous country (at times independent, at others a tributary to Egypt) which corresponds roughly to present-day Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Israel and was also known as Phoenicia.”

The Brown-Driver-Briggs dictionary gives the following definitions for Canaan:

Canaan = “lowland”
1) the 4th son of Ham and the progenitor of the Phoenicians and of the various nations who peopled the seacoast of Palestine (noun proper masculine)
2) the land west of the Jordan peopled by the descendants of Canaan and subsequently conquered by the Israelites under Joshua (noun proper locative)
3) merchant, trader (noun masculine)

God promised Canaan as an everlasting possessions to the non-Hebrew seed of Abraham. Canaan was inhabited by the Phoenicians, which was conquered by the goy-Israelites, and became known as Israel. It would seem to me that the modern day Jews are the descendants of Canaan, or the Phoenicians, Brown-Driver-Briggs even mentions how Canaan can mean “merchant” or “trader”. If the information presented above is correct, even the Bible itself would seem to state that the Jews have no right to Israel, Syria or other adjacent locations. In fact, the land was held by the Jews a long time ago, but God decided it should go to the goyim, for an eternity.

It would appear that the Cananite/Phoenician/Jews that pretend to be Israelites want their old land back. That is why Zionism was invented to “return” Israel to the Jews under false pretenses, and why there is a war in Syria right now.

I am not trying to twist this into any kind of “anti-Semitic” narrative. I am merely describing what I see.

 

Links:

Is ruling in the genes? All presidents bar one are directly descended from a medieval English king: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2183858/All-presidents-bar-directly-descended-medieval-English-king.html

History and Purpose of the Freemasons and other Secret Societies: http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/masons.htm

Canaan: http://www.ancient.eu/canaan/