Category Archives: Science

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/

Advertisements

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

How about DNA, is it another occult hoax?

Previously I wrote about the occult connections of the Copernican heliocentric model and the Big Bang. I’ve seen and heard others discuss them previously, but there’s one thing I haven’t seen questioned, at least not much, that is DNA.  We’ve all seen cartoon images of the double helix of DNA, or as the U.S. National Library of Medicine website writes: “The double helix has not only reshaped biology, it has become a cultural icon, represented in sculpture, visual art, jewelry, and toys.”

It’s commonly understood that the DNA double helix resembles the ancient symbol of the Caduceus with intertwined twin serpents around a pole with wings. The symbol is called the staff of Hermes, the Greek god. It is associated with astrology and alchemy. It is also associated with medicine, but according to Wikipedia that is an incorrect use. The Rod of Asclepius, a Greek god of healing, has only one serpent around a pole and no wings, is what they should be using.

 

This obvious similarity between the DNA and the Caduceus suggests one of three things: it’s a co-incidence, the ancients somehow knew about DNA, or modern science purposefully inserted this occult symbol of a pagan god into our minds as being part of our very flesh. I don’t think it is a co-incidence.

 

Discovery of DNA

James Watson and Francis Crick “discovered” the DNA in the fifties. The U.S. National Library of Medicine website, interestingly, writes as follows:

“Drawing on the experimental results of others (they conducted no DNA experiments of their own), taking advantage of their complementary scientific backgrounds in physics and X-ray crystallography (Crick) and viral and bacterial genetics (Watson), and relying on their brilliant intuition, persistence, and luck, the two showed that DNA had a structure sufficiently complex and yet elegantly simple enough to be the master molecule of life.”

They didn’t conduct their own experiments, but they managed to discover the double helix structure? Moreover it’s commonly known that Francis Crick was inspired by LSD to make his great discovery. It sounds more like something an artist or a weird religious person would do, get an epiphany by doing drugs. That’s hardly the scientific method. Cracked.com even mentions that Crick was a fan of Aldous Huxley’s, a well-known or well-alleged transhumanist-globalist mastermind, Doors of Perception.

The phrase double helix in interesting too. Accoring to the Online Etymology Dictionary a helix is “a spiral thing”. It comes from the “Greek helix (genitive helikos), a word used of anything in a spiral shape (an armlet, a curl of hair, the tendril of a vine, a serpent’s coil)”. A serpent’s coil, you say? The DNA resembles the coiled twin serpents of the Caduceus. Notice a pattern yet?

 

The Enmity with the Serpent seed

Things like these make me go, hmm, maybe the Bible was right all along. Genesis 3:15 states:

“And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.”

Maybe God intended humans to have a single helix DNA, but because of the serpent’s genetic involvement now we have double: seed of the woman and seed of the serpent.

Another thing is that the DNA is sometimes called a ladder, and is associated with Jacob’s ladder. The ladder is also a part of Masonic iconography. Perhaps they knew something, or perhaps they wanted to insert their occult beliefs into our biology.

The person in the center in the picture below is holding a key. The Cracked.com article writes: “LSD. Yes, when not discovering the key to life, and winning the Nobel Prize for it, Crick spent the 50s and 60s throwing all night parties famous for featuring that era’s favorite party favors: LSD and nudity.” DNA is the key to life. Looks like Crick just was pushing Freemasonry for the uninitiated.

 

Referring to the Caduceus, or staff of Hermes, Wikipedia writes: “It is said the wand would wake the sleeping and send the awake to sleep. If applied to the dying, their death was gentle; if applied to the dead, they returned to life”

It basically reverses things. I wonder if the staff could turn men into women and vice versa? Freedom into slavery? Victims into aggressors? If we take the wand to refer to modern science, it has certainly put many rational people to sleep by conving their spiritual beliefs are nonsense, and it has awakened people who lack reason to acknowledge we cannot explain the existence of the world and life itself without some sort of creator to think themselves rational.

 

How does DNA look like?

I suppose I had always assumed that Crick and Watson managed to look at human tissue samples with a powerful microscope and saw DNA, or something to that extent. Now it does not seem like that was the case. I tried to find pictures of DNA on the internet, but much like pictures of outer space from NASA, they are cartoons or CGI images.

For example, Kaspi.tv has this image and a four second video showing the DNA double helix. At first I thought it might be actual video of DNA taken through a microscope, but it says it’s computer generated.

 

The New Scientist website has an article from 2012 titled “DNA imaged with electron microscope for the first time”. So DNA was discovered 60-years ago but that was the first time it was imaged? So all of the scientists and medical students who were taught in universities that DNA is shaped like that were just basically told to take their word for it? Or they were able to see it microscopes themselves, but they just couldn’t take photographs of DNA prior to 2012?

The article has these pictures:

 

The first one resembles the double helix slightly, but certainly is not identical to the images we are used to seeing. The second one looks like CGI to me, and it has two pillars like Jachin and Boaz of Freemasonry. The article seems to suggest though that they are actual images, not CGI: “Now an electron microscope has captured the famous Watson-Crick double helix in all its glory, by imaging threads of DNA resting on a silicon bed of nails.”

The electron microscope capturing the double helix presumable means they took a photo of it.

 

Conclusion

I find the DNA double helix hokey as heck. I am not saying it’s definitely a hoax, but I am highly skeptical. I do think that modern science has a real understanding of genes. I do think GMO manipulation is real, and supposedly DNA tests can reveal whether two people are related and so on. I don’t think that it is all fake. The makeup of the DNA though, looking allegedly like the Caduceus, I think is an occult hoax. Just the lack of pictorial evidence, and these occult themes, drugs, references to Aldous Huxley, around the concept of the DNA suggest that it is not science, but religion.

Much like outer space, it seems that the inner space too is a fabrication of talented scifi-authors masquerading as scientists.

 

I should give credit where it’s due. The reason I wrote these last three articles was partially inspired by videos by Youtube-channel the Truth is stranger than fiction. He has said some of the arguments in his videos I’ve used here, but I cannot link to any specific video since I don’t recall what he said and where. Just check out his channel if you haven’t done so already.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2aFQcGgRoVuEWfx2AM0H-A/videos

 

 

Links:

The Francis Crick Papers: https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/SC/Views/Exhibit/narrative/doublehelix.html

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

The 5 Greatest Things Ever Accomplished While High: http://www.cracked.com/article_16532_the-5-greatest-things-ever-accomplished-while-high.html

DNA strain: http://www.kaspi.tv/files/dna-strain.html

DNA imaged with electron microscope for the first time: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22545-dna-imaged-with-electron-microscope-for-the-first-time/

Big Bang is an occult concept known as the Cosmic Egg

Last time I wrote about the Kabbalistic ideas behind the Copernican model of the solar system, and how the Catholic church did not seem to have a problem with these un-Biblical theories. This time I’ll look at the Big Bang.

Although the Big Bang is supposedly a theory, it is commonly heralded as scientific fact in our modern society, and if you question it, people look at you as an uneducated bumpkin or a religious nut. This is quite silly since purely by reason can debunk the claim the Big Bang is a fact, since the event supposedly occurred billions of years ago when there was no life, no-one to observe it. It is at best a far-fetched theory that we can never falsily. At least by comparison the Copernican heliocentric model is more scientific since we should at least be able to verify if it’s true or not; does the earth revolve around the sun, or vice versa? It is not based on non-sensical theorizing of something that might have happened before anything even existed. However, I don’t want to discuss the ridiculousness of the Big Bang any further, since plenty of people have already done it, instead I’ll focus on the occult or religious aspect of it.

 

Georges Lemaître and the Cosmic Egg

The Big Bang theory was coined by Georges Lemaître, a Belgian Catholic priest. According to main stream history he attended a Jesuit secondary school, and according to many others, he was a Jesuit. Whether or not he was one is not as relevant as the fact that he was a Catholic priest.

The Physics of the Universe website “Lemaître himself called his [Big Bang theory the] ‘hypothesis of the primeval atom’ or the ‘Cosmic Egg’.” Cosmic Egg, that sounds intriguing. What is it? In the Greek Orphic tradition there is the Orphic Egg, another version of the cosmic egg. According to myth, the hermaphroditic deity Phanes hatched out of it. Hermaphroditic, i.e. male and female at the same time, reminds me of the LGBT agenda, Conchita Wurst in the Eurovision song contest and so on.

 

Wikipedia describes Phanes as having had golden wings, he was male-female deity of light and goodness, his name means “to bring light” or “to shine”. Does it sound like Lucifer yet? Wikipedia also refers to a tradition according to which Phanes had been hatched from the World Egg of Chronos (or Saturn).

 

“The Secret Doctrine of the Rosicrucians” says the following: “The Germ within the Cosmic Egg takes unto itself Form. The Flame is re-kindled. Time begins. A Thing exists. Action begins. The Pairs of Opposites spring into being. The World Soul is born, and awakens into manifestation. The first rays of the new Cosmic Day break over the horizon.”

 

Un-Biblical Catholics

The Cosmic Egg clearly is an ancient occult, pagan and/or religious concept. It has nothing to do with science, i.e. gathering evidence by observation of natural world. Ever since I was a child had bought the narrative that there is tug-of-war between scientists and fundamentalist Christians, or science and the Bible. The conflict, in fact, is between two religious systems: occult and the Bible. Science itself seems to have been pushed to the side.

And what is of course interesting is that it is the Catholic church that has been pushing these unscientific, pagan notions as science. This is curious for two reasons: the Catholic church is allegedly a Christian organization that believes in the Bible. That is an old and debunked allegations. Second is that the Big Bang, and many other pillars of modern scientific thought, such the Copernican model and Evolution, are not scientific, are religious notions at best, complete lies at worst.

My point is not to argue that the Biblical account of history and cosmology is the correct one. It’s more that if the Catholics want to pretend Christian, they should not be pushing these non-Christian religious ideas. Moreover, I’d like to see more of actual scientific observations related to cosmology, alas we have very little as the concept of Dark Matter pretty much proves all of modern cosmology as pointless theorizing. So far, the Bible does seem more reasonable than most of modern science, but that does not prove the validity of the Bible either.

 

Links:

Georges Lemaître: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre

The Physics of the Universe: http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/scientists_lemaitre.html

Orphic Egg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphic_Egg

Phanes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phanes_(mythology)

Secret Doctrine of the Rosicrucians: http://www.sacred-texts.com/sro/sdr/sdr04.htm

 

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

The Invisible Curve

I saw a Youtube video yesterday by Marty Leeds addressing another video from Cody Labs channel. The Cody Labs video supposedly demonstrated the curve of the earth by showing a tall chimney in the distance filmed a long distance away from a flat-looking sandy beach. The bottom of the chimney was not visible, which according to Cody means it’s hidden behind the curvature. Whereas Marty Leeds, referring to claims by other flat earthers, ODD TV and Rob Skiba, suggest the bottom part of the chimney is obscured due to atmospheric lensing.

 

Flats and Slopes

What ever the effect that obscures the bottom part of buildings at a distance is called is one thing, but I’m doubtful they’ve hidden behind any curve of the earth. I’ve seen plenty of videos people claiming something is obscured by earth’s curve, and I’ve noticed one thing that seems in common with them: they usually show a flat plane that suddenly just drops down. The land looks flat, there is no curve visible with the eye. No-one ever sees it with they naked eye, yet it’s supposedly there.

To illustrate what I mean, I made this illustration (the small stick-figure observer is on the left, and the chimney on the right):

On the left side image is how all of these curvature demonstration videos that I’ve seen tend to be, and on the right is how it allegedly is. This is assuming that the chimney, or another building, is obscured by the curve. This applies whether we are talking about a video taken over land or water. The land always looks flat, not necessarily perfectly flat, but certainly not round, but magically when you go far enough the earth supposedly curves. We never see the visibly round earth of the illustration on the right. There are round hills on the earth. I’ve seen them. You can see they are round, but the earth’s curvature is like an elusive fairy, always lurking just beyond your eyesight, yet it’s there. They assure us it’s there, at least.

Another thing I just thought of is, if the earth is curved, and buildings far away from us curve away, then shouldn’t the top of the building always be further away from us than the bottom? Like in the illustration above, the top of the chimney is leaning away from us. I suppose someone could test this somehow, are buildings far away from us leaning away?

I am sure a spherical earther would answer the conundrum of the invisible curve to say that the earth is so big that we don’t see the curve. I would ask them then, how do they know it’s curved then? The earth’s curve never looks curved. It’s always flat until there is a sudden slope down at a distance. Based on these claims and observations the earth would be shaped more like this:

 

Except that we don’t really see the angle or the slope. It looks flat, but it’s not. Let’s say that Cody was standing on number 8, and taking pictures of the chimney which is at number 10. If he was to walk from 8 to 10, would he experience a sudden slope down at some point? I don’t think so.

Even if land was somehow curved despite not being visible to the naked eye, water certainly is not. Water does not curve, which means are not living on a ball that has a surface of 70% water.

 

Ad Hominems

Marty Leeds also requested that someone answer the question, how far up do you have to go to see the curvature. And that people did so without trying to dodge the question by addressing another question, or by berating the flat earther with ad hominem insults. This is a nice approach, even if it is increasingly rare. Cody Labs was a rare exception in that he seemed polite and professional even if I disagree with his conclusions.

To illustrate a more common approach to tackling flat earth research we can go this video titled “The Earth is a Sphere and Flat-Earthers are Worshipping the Anunnaki! with Peter Kling” from Russell Scott’s channel. I’ve never heard about Peter Kling or Russell Scott before, but the title basically says it all. According to the video since the Anunnaki of myth ruled over a flat domed earth, flat earthers that believe the earth is shaped like that are worshipping the Anunnaki. Of course the God of the Bible, or the gods of many other cultures ruled over a similar earth as well, but let’s not put facts in the way of a convenient guilt trip narrative. Another claim I’ve heard is that flat earth is like a gnostic secret. When you’ve “indoctrinated” into the flat earth narrative then you’re indoctrinated into a gnostic secret that makes you feel better than others. No, that’s not it at all. Flat earth is the common sense observation, the spinning heliocentric earth is the “gnostic” narrative you learn from high priests of science but have no way of verifying for yourself.

I’d just like someone to actually demonstrate curvature. Show it. Don’t show curious facts, such as ships disappearing behind the horizon and claim it’s due to the curvature. If the earth is a curved ball, they should have no problem demonstrating it with modern technology. Alas, no such thing has ever been made.

I suppose I have to point out that the pictures from NASA are not photographs, they are photoshopped. This is admitted by NASA. Moreover, we all know the earth is pear shaped anyway. Curves work different on a pear than on a ball, apparently.

 

Links:

Measuring Earth’s Radius With A Telescope?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcdBFfoi3uU

We Need to Talk About Flat Earth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xJKmKj3Vtk

The Earth is a Sphere and Flat-Earthers are Worshipping the Anunnaki! with Peter Kling: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snHKEnuB64w&t=

Does Astrotheology actually make any sense?

I just finished watching a video (edited) by Eric Dubay titled “Jesus Christ Never Existed”. I wasn’t convinced by the argumentation of the video. In fact, seeing blatant anti-Jesus propaganda like that makes me think that maybe he did. I’ve always been contrarian like that. Ever since I was child I’d thought the story of Jesus is just a silly myth, but around ten years ago when I saw the documentary Zeitgeist, which was trying convince the viewer that Jesus did not exist, because there were allegedly numerous other Gods and heroes in the ancient world whose exploits paralleled those of Jesus. He was supposedly just another version of an older story, so we should just discard him, and possibly focus on the older myths. I however entertained seriously for the first time the notion that maybe Jesus did exist if there were these alleged parallels in the ancient world.

Though now it seems much of these alleged connections between pre-Christian deities and Jesus are fabrications or exaggerations. I am not 100% convinced on these connections either way, but the video by Eric Dubay certainly did not manage to convince me to see it his way since, as usual, they don’t properly cite their sources to show that Jesus was plagiarized from earlier deities. They state a lot of claims, with little proof. Moreover listening to people in the documentary like the late Acharya S. (who interestingly allegedly died December 25, 2015) is a chore. Her smugness and how she despises Jesus and those who believe in him are unbearable. This bothered me even back when I was more receptive to her ideas, but not her attitude.

This isn’t supposedly to be a critique of Eric Dubay or his video, but I wanna mention one thing before I move onto astrotheology. I recently discovered a Youtube-channel, La verdad Absoluta, that claims to expose several inconvenient truths about Dubay. I cannot attest that all of the channel’s claims are totally accurate (and I haven’t watched every video), or that the person making the videos isn’t just on a personal vendetta against Dubay, but I do think it’s worth having a look.

 

Astrotheology

Let’s get to the main event. This is something that been gnawing my mind for a while now. Over the course of many years I’ve seen plenty of videos by people like Jordan Maxwell and Santos Bonacci who claim that the Bible is just allegory for astrotheology, Jesus is merely a reference to the sun, and so on. At first it sounded very profound, but I never really just got it. I didn’t understand what’s the actual significance in veiling stories about the heavenly bodies as events taking place on earth. I thought maybe I’m just dumb, I’m not spiritual enough. Yet now I think that’s actually the point of astrotheology: to make the people who espouse it look smart like veiling fact and mythology among the convoluted BS to confuse you and intrigue you at the same time.

While there are some verses in the Bible that might be interpreted to refer to astrology, such as Genesis 1:14-16:

Gen 1:14  And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:
Gen 1:15  And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Gen 1:16  And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.

The “lights in the firmament” presumably refer to stars. Them being for “signs and seasons” might certainly have an astrological reason behind it, since according to astrology doing certain actions on certain days can be more beneficial than on others. The Book of Job refers to the Mazzaroth, that supposedly means the Zodiac. Ultimately I don’t know what is meant by these things, but I mention them to point out that there seems to be some grain of truth in astrotheology.

 

Jesus and Sun

However, I’ve never really understood the claim about Jesus being an analogy for the sun. First of all, I don’t get how it is supposed to be a great esoteric secret? How does is empower you to “know” that Jesus is actually just the sun? All I see it makes Jesus into something banal. He was supposedly a man who did miracles and rose from the dead. That is quite unique and extraordinary, whereas the sun is something quite ordinary. The sun is important for life on earth to be sure, but it is quite mundane in my opinion, and it is not the way to any kind of salvation. Moreover, what need is there to turn the sun into a man in the form of a myth? If you want to describe the behaviour of the sun during different seasons, why don’t you describe what the sun does? How is it beneficial to come up with stories of a virgin birth, turning water into wine, betrayal by Judas, death and resurrection and so on? It just seems like needlessly convoluted nonsense to me.

Let’s look at Jesus dying for three days and coming back to life and how it is supposedly related to the sun. Jesus died and was resurrected around Easter, i.e. March or April. Astrotheologists claim that the sun dies in December and is resurrected three days later. Notice the difference in months? Jesus does not die in December, his birth is celebrated then, although scholars tend to dispute that Jesus was born in December. Nevertheless the sun “dying” and Jesus dying are at two completely different times. Even if Jesus being born on December 25 represents him being reborn, he would have to be dead 8 months or so, if he died in April.

Even more nonsensical is the claim that the sun dies in December for and is resurrected three days later. Even here in Finland the sun does not “die” for three days in winter. The days get short, but there are 4-6 hours of daylight even during the darkest days. Sometimes in the very far north in Lapland they might have dayless days. We have the concept of “kaamos”, the Polar Night. During that time the sun does not rise above to horizon. It only affects the very north, though. So you might say that the astrotheologists are talking about kaamos in Lapland then. Not really. First of all the Bible was written in the Middle-East and Mediterranean region. I don’t think they have kaamos down there. Why would they be describing the behaviour of the sun in the far north? Even if they for some reason thought the way the sun behaves in the arctic circle is of the utmost importance, Jesus’ death and resurrection is not applicable here.

I found a newspaper article from 2016 marking how long kaamos lasted in Lapland. It says in the northernmost municipality, Utsjoki, kaamos started November 26th and they got to enjoy sun’s rays again in mid-January. Apparently the sun was dead for 52 days last winter, not three days. The article also mentions that it’s not pitch black even during kaamos. Although the sun is under the horizon, it still shines from underneath and some of the light is reflected down via the atmosphere.

 

Try replacing Son with Sun

One more thing before I finish. The Eric Dubay documentary has Michael Tsarion (whose both names are numerologically 33) saying how you should replace the “son of God” with the “sun” or “sun of God”. I think I’ve heard him say it before, and it sounds smart and mysterious when he says it, but this time I actually decided to heed his advice. For example:

Psalm 2:7 “I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten You.

This would be: “I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, ‘You are My Sun, Today I have begotten You.

Matthew 3:17 and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.”

This would be: and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, “This is My beloved Sun, in whom I am well-pleased.”

1 John 4:10 In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

Propitiation apprently means “appeasing a god” or “atonement” so God sent the sun to atone our sins. How does that work exactly? By giving us a tan?

John 5:19 Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.

This would be: Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Sun can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Sun also does in like manner.

First of all, if we take Tsarions’s advice we see the sun speak these words. Moreover, the sun is copying the actions of his father. It sounds like nonsense.

Sorry MTSAR, this sounds like nonsense to me.

 

Conclusion

The claim that Jesus is just an allegory for the sun is utter nonsense. I feel silly for taking it seriously for a long time. I suppose it was due to the Emperor’s New Clothes -syndrome. When you first “wake up” to the fact that there are conspiracies and that we’ve been lied to about most things, then you find these alternative researchers and they seem so smart and edgy, you don’t dare dismiss their claims, especially since some things they are saying you recognize as true. However, it seems that most of the alternatives we are given are pushing lies, just different lies from the mainstream. The difference between main stream and the alternative is that the latter mixes truth with lies.

When it comes to Jesus, I don’t know if he existed or not. But seeing that there is seems to be an agenda to convince you that he did not exist, or that he’s not important, makes me think the establishment is worried about him for some reason. I wonder why?

 

Links:

Jesus Christ Never Existed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-k2glNuwLI&t=3435s

La verdad Absoluta: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCKQeXoqLfTkFYhPbi3qixw/videos

Polar Night: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_night

Kohta alkaa kaamos – näin pitkään se kestää eri paikkakunnilla: http://www.is.fi/matkat/art-2000004877281.html