Category Archives: Spirituality

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.



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)”



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?



Sex & Circumcision: An American Love Story by Eric Clopper:

Answers from the Bible to Questions about Circumcision:


Simulation Theory

I’ve heard the simulation theory being discussed as of late in flat earth circles. Some are for it, others are against. I’m really neither, so please allow me to explain what I mean by it.


The Definition

Wikipedia describes the “simulation hypothesis” as follows: “The simulation hypothesis proposes that all of reality, including the earth and the universe, is in fact an artificial simulation, most likely a computer simulation.” So according to the theory the world artificial and a facsimile of something real. I agree with the first point, but disagree with the second. I do think there is a creator who created the world, which would make it artificial in some sense, but I don’t think the creator simply made a bad copy of any original thing.

Let’s have a look of how the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the word “to simulate”:

1 : to give or assume the appearance or effect of often with the intent to deceive : imitate

2 : to make a simulation of (something, such as a physical system)

The first definition hints to an imitation that has been made with the intention to deceive. Let’s take a look at the definition of “simulation”:

1 : the act or process of simulating

2 : a sham object : counterfeit

3 a : the imitative representation of the functioning of one system or process by means of the functioning of another – a computer simulation of an industrial process

b : examination of a problem often not subject to direct experimentation by means of a simulating device

The first two explanations hint to a fake or counterfeit object, as number 1 refers to simulating, which is a deceptive imitation. The third explanation has a more modern concept of simulation, a computer program or other kind of device that attempts to duplicate reality.

In effect, if you claim that the world is a simulation, you are saying it is a counterfeit copy of the real thing. I think this explanation is a deception as well. I wrote about it back 2015 in Is the Matrix a Psy-Op? I gave three different interpretations of the message of the movie The Matrix. The third one was this:

“The world we inhabit is a prison designed to leech energy off of us.

. . .

While currently the Earth acts as a prison for us in some sense, yet I don’t think that is the original function of the Earth. It is a prison, because we (or our distant ancestors) allowed their minds to be taken over by something. I think something wants us to think this world is a prison, so we would leave it, or give it to them.”


My interpretation of the Simulation Theory

There are many NWO celebrities pushing the narrative that the real world is just simulation, such as Elon Musk, Jim Carrey and others including so-called scientists. Some even claim that the world is just a program running on the computer of some geek on another planet in another dimension. I have no objection to people discussing this as a theoretical possibility or a philosophical thought experiment, but it sure as hell isn’t science. It’s science fiction, yet an increasing amount of people seem to believe this narrative. This is alarming.

I think most people have the simulation theory scenario backwards, as if the creator is emulating computer programmers, when in my opinion it’s the other way around. Computer programs have two aspects to them; the code and the things the user perceives, mainly graphics and sound. If you are playing a computer game, a simulation of sort, you see characters acting in the world, you hear sounds, but you do not see the computer code (as Neo did in The Matrix) that really animates everything in the computer simulation. I think this is basically how the creator did it: he created spirit (code) which animates matter (the graphics).

When a programmer creates a simulation on his computer, he is in a sense playing God. He is emulating the principles that the creator of our world used to create everything. Of course, the computer simulations made by man are only a crude copy compared to the complexity of the real world. In this sense, I find the simulation theory to be a reasonable attempt at explaining reality. However, to claim that our world is an actual simulation, i.e. a facsimile of some unknown real world, is utter nonsense.

The Bible states in John 18:36: “Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world”. I think it means that God’s kingdom is not in the physical world, but in the world of spirit or heaven. However, it does not mean that the physical world is a counterfeit copy of the spirit world. The esoteric notion “as above, so below” might mean this.

In Buddhism there is the concept of “maya”, which is usually translated as “illusion” that keeps mortals from seeing the truth. However, according to my understanding it means “skewed perspective” instead of illusion. These two different interpretations hint to different outcomes. If we live in an illusion, it would suggest there is some malicious force or entity that has trapped us in some sort of maze that we have to escape, or perhaps random chance has trapped us there. If we merely have a skewed perception of reality, then we simply have to understand that we do not perceive reality as it is, or that there is more than meets the eye, i.e. the invisible spirit world.



I don’t think reality is a computer simulation, but simulation theory has it’s place. The creator does not emulate computer geeks, but it’s the other way around. I don’t think the reality we experience is a facsimile of some distant and unknowable reality that “scientists” hint at, but have no proof of.



Simulation hypothesis:



Is the Matrix a Psy-Op?:

Yet another Flat Earth Shill Article

Rob Skiba interviewed Robbie Davidson the other day, and they discussed the flat earth shill controversy. Robbie Davidson is the organizer, or should I say ringleader, of the flat earth conference that is going to take place later this week, and Rob Skiba is one of the speakers. I’ll follow Robbie Davidson’s suggestion: “Be ourselves. Speak from the heart. Stay true to our convictions.” Therefore I’m just going to say that I think Robbie Davidson is a gatekeeper or cult-leader, and Rob Skiba’s words during the interview do not reflect well on his integrity either.

Before I further I’m just to point out that I had very strong suspicions about many prominent people in the flat earth movement, especially Mark Sargent and Patricia Steere, even a couple of years ago. However, I did not wish to create controversy, and I didn’t have definite proof so I didn’t say anything bad about them, but since the Pandora’s Box is open I’m going to speak from heart and stay true to my convictions.


The Convention

Robbie Davidson was telling in the interview how wonderful the conference will be, how much fun they’re going to have, how it’s great to meet new people and all that. Overall it sounds like an amusement park or a science fiction geek convention, not a scientific research conference. He didn’t mention how people will be introducing new research or breakthroughs. Nothing like that. As far as I understand, the conference tickets cost over 200 dollars, and on top of that you have to pay for your own travel fees, lodging and probably food too. If you have money to burn knock yourself out, but I see little of interest in the event for anyone except for people who like to party.

How about spending all that money that people are throwing about to do some actual experiments? Such as the Force the Line-experiment that Brian Mullin came up with some time ago. Since Mullin seems to have dropped off the face of the earth, it’s probably not going to happen.

Davidson was also gushing about how the media is gaining interest in the conference. So what? It’s just making the flat earth sound like another fad. Maybe it is if people cannot see through the scam.


The Shills

Rob Skiba brings up ODD and his accusations against Mark Sargent (around 8:00 or so). Davidson says he’s not going to go too deeply into the Metatron app and the domain name, but mentions that “as a webmaster I understand creation dates, editing dates.” And “if someone actually talks to a webmaster. Talks to someone who actually has knowledge in that area, it’s pretty easy to be explained.” He is basically defending Sargent, but he has the audacity to claim that he is not siding either way. He is clearly siding with Mark Sargent. Even this small degree of honesty seems to much for him.

Additionally, if it’s so easy for a webmaster to explain the discrepancies and Robbie Davidson is a webmaster, why doesn’t he explain it to us? I’m not a webmaster, and according to him at least, I don’t understand how it works. Then please explain how this secret webmaster knowledge exonarates Mark Sargent. If MGTV, the Youtuber who exposed all of this, is wrong in his research and accusations, address the points he made in his videos. Simply this omission by Davidson proves that either he is not too smart if he wants to dissuade people form believing that shenanigans are afoot, or he is just protecting shills that got caught.

In one of his videos, MGTV plays a clip of Mark Sargent saying he is not affiliated with Metatron, but right after that admits he knows Ralph Joe Riehl (and presumable Denis Sluka as he says “I know them”) who are working for Metatron. Maybe this is a semantics issue on whether or not you can say he is “affiliated” with Metatron Inc, but he knows people from that company, one of them bought his website domain for him and they made the cellphone app for Sargent. So I find it odd, Sargent would deny he is affiliated with the company. He also states that they bought in 2016, but MGTV has pointed out the domain name was bought already in 2010. Please Mr. Davidson, explain how this does not sound suspicious?

MGTV suggests as well that Metatron work with the US government and all that. However, I am not saying that all of MGTV’s claims are necessarily true, but if they are false someone should challenge his claims instead of pretending there isn’t anything there. My doing that the only thing Davidson is accomplishing is possibly pacifying his customers, I mean conference guests, in that there is nothing to worry about. Just go to the conference, spend money, have fun. You might get to be on TV. That’s what life is all about after all, right?

After refusing to address the criticism, Robbie Davidson says that before accusing people of being shills, you should go meet these people, look them in the eye or at least talk to them on the phone. Really? Can any Joe Flatty just call up these flat earth celebrities and have a chat with them? I find it hard to believe. In my opinion Robbie here is pushing celebrity worship onto the scene, since us regular folks know we really can’t just call these people on Skype or something to mention our concerns, so basically he’s trying to create envy, or the desire for us to become celebrities as well. As above, so below, since in Hollywood, the music industry, professional sports and politics are ruled by people who so much “better” than us, so we should look up to them, or try to become like them. As of recent times, the same applies to conspiracy celebrities as well. Unless of course if you buy a ticket to Robbie’s conference, you can be a VIP and hob nob on the red carpet with the stars.

Rob Skiba also contributes to “not defending Mark” (around 15:00) by defending him, and says “he’s a cool person”. Then Robbie joins in to praise Sargent’s personality. So what? His personality is inconsequential. As if being a “nice person” excludes you from being a shill. I suppose the CIA or whatever does not train their agents to have social skills. His personality only matters if flat earth is a social club, which it seems to be, instead of a research community.

Later on Robbie Davidson (19:00ish) talks about ODD and expects him to apologize at some point. What was it that Robbie said earlier about not taking sides? Yet he has already decided that ODD is wrong. Here Robbie Davidson is acting like a complete cult patriarch, a false father figure. He is treating flat earthers like children. ODD disobeyed the rules and he has been cast out, but he can come groveling back. All he cares about is the consensus, his precious “unity”.

I’m just going to say, I’m 99% convinced at this point that Robbie Davidson is an actual shill. A gatekeeper, a mind controller. He is not simply mislead, not biased, not ignorant. He knows what is doing, and what he is doing is deliberately misleading people. He reminds me a lot of David Weiss in his methodology.


Muh Unity

Shill Davidson mentions a few times in the interview how unity is important in the flat earth, and all that. He says people can have their own opinions on different issues, but they need to have unity. He sounds like any other liberal NWO globalist like the Pope or Obama saying that we must have unity. This sort of unity is only uniformity to lump people together under one false banner so someone like Robbie Davidson can lead them. Who made him a leader anyway? What makes his qualified for the job? Actually I can answer that; his manipulation skills.

But seriously, what does unity actually mean in the context of flat earth research? Have Christian, atheist, Asatru and Satanist -flat earthers sit in a circle holding hands with AE flat earthers, Pacman-flat earthers and people with no preferable model? Flat earth is supposed to be about scientific research. You don’t need unity. You only need people who are willing and able to do experiments and theoretical research, and have those people share that information somehow. That’s easy nowadays via the internet. I don’t mind if people also hold conferences to share research, but I have seen little evidence that Robbie’s conference is anything but a circle jerk.

The flat earth movement has three major aspects, the most important is scientific research as I said. Others are conspiracy theorizing and the religious aspect. Robbie Davidson and his kind are certainly doing nothing to really expose the conspiracy aspects, except repeating platitudes against scientism that we’ve heard many times before. In fact, when you look at people like Robbie Davidson, David Weiss, Mark Sargent and Patricia Steere, and their behaviour, you can see clear evidence of a conspiracy right in front of you.

At some point Rob Skiba tried to use the tautology of “not everything is a conspiracy” as an argument (20:30). He’s referring to someone who made a video exposing Rob Skiba as a shill. I don’t whether that guy’s video has any validity to it, nor do I care right now, but Skiba was trying to contrast it with ODD’s allegations against Mark Sargent. I just find it rich that a man like Rob Skiba, who has done extensive work on conspiracy theories about supernatural entities such as the Archons or the Nephilim, knock the basic notion that there are co-intelpro agents that occasionally do infiltrate “truther” communities or other fringe groups. I’m not knocking the notion of Archons or Nephilim either, I have written about them in the past as well and I think there is something to it (although recently I have begun doubt whether that’s another psy-op). Yet Skiba is willing to entertain the idea and write books about these supernatural entities that are allegedly conspiring in the spirit world, but it’s somehow ridiculous to suggest that the flat earth movement could have been infiltrated by intelligence agencies.


Religious Manipulation

The third aspect of flat earth research is the religious aspect. Once you come to realization that the earth seems to be a closed unique system, and not just one among billions of tiny dots, it’s hard not to think that there is a creator who made this place.

Robbie tries to play the part of a Christian flat earther, but fails in my opinion. He says (around 31:50) that “there is no doubt” God called them to do this flat earth stuff. I thought it was Robbie Davidson’s marketing ability that called them out to the conference. I can imagine some actual flat earth researchers might have been called out by God to do their thing, but certainly not this shill. Later on he says there are people being hoodwinked by scientism (3435), no argument from me, but then Robbie says something revealing: “We have the answers. We can give them the light. We can give them the good news.”

“We have the answers” sounds rather Gnostic to me. As if Robbie has some secret knowledge to pass on. How about figure out the actual shape of the earth make up a working model before you can say that? “We can give them the light” sounds rather Luciferian/Illuminati to me. “We can give them the good news.” Good news means gospel. This sounds rather heretical to me even though I’m not Christian. Sharing flat earth data is not gospel. It’s not a “salvational issue” as the Christians like to say. It is important, but certainly not gospel, i.e. the exploits of Jesus. Although I’m not claiming these three phrases necessarily prove anything. Perhaps Davidson just worded his thoughts in a bad way, so let’s move on.

At some point Davidson talks about Holocaust Deniers (32:50). He says it’s fine if someone doesn’t believe the Holocaust happened “but why would you even bring that up?” This is more of his double-think. He supposedly accepts it when others question the official Holocaust narrative, but he suggests they shouldn’t talk about it. He says Holocaust Denial diminishes the message, presumably of flat earth. I suppose I agree if you are trying to convince others the earth is flat, and then mention that nowhere near 6 million Jews died in the alleged Holocaust, it can diminish your flat earth message. However, you might as well do the opposite, and say if you are trying to enlighten people about the fact that nowhere near 6 million Jews died in National Socialist concentration camps, and then you mention you think the earth is flat, it might diminish the message. So maybe you shouldn’t talk about the flat earth since it harms Holocaust Revisionism. I also should remind you that somewhere in the interview Robbie said: “Be ourselves. Speak from the heart. Stay true to our convictions.”

So basically you should speak from the heart and stay true to your convictions, as long as you don’t deny the Holocaust.

Davidson seems to think he is the messenger of God, since he says you should focus on what God calls you to do, and apparently it isn’t Holocaust Denial. My interpretation is that what God calls you to do is what Robbie wants you to do. This man is not a Christian. He is a complete fraud. Although he might be honest here, and the god he is talking is not the one you assume he is talking about.


Flat Earth vs Holocaust

Yet let’s look at this dichotomy of Holocaust Denial and flat earth from a Christian perspective, although I’m not a Christian nor am I pretending to be one, unlike some people. First of all, I do not like this dichotomy between these two issues, as if you should ignore one, and embrace the other, but for the sake of the argument, let’s do so.

The Bible has passages suggesting the earth is not a sphere, and that it does not move. The earth has four corners, but God inscribed a circle upon the face of the deep. So basically flat earth, whatever the ultimate shape of it is, is biblical, and realizing it has lead many people to look at the Bible more intensively, myself included. Therefore, I do think it is good for Christians to look into the flat earth.

Let’s look at the Holocaust then. According to the official story 6 million Jews were murdered by the Nazis, and this is somehow much more important than the millions of dead Chinese, Americans, Japanese, Germans, Russians and many others who died during the second world war. This Holocaust lie is used in several ways to control people. For one, it is illegal to deny the Holocaust in many European countries, and many people, such as Ernst Zundel, David Irving and even an 88-year old German grandmother have gone to prison because of it. It is not illegal to deny the globe. You will get ridiculed for it, but you won’t go to jail. Another way the Holocaust is used is by Jewish lobbies such as AIPAC that wield a great deal of influence over the American government, and many politicians seem to care more about Israel than their own country. Then there is the vast amount of shame and guilt that Germans have been made to feel over the decades, and they’re still suffering from it, not to mention lesser degrees of White Guilt in other Western countries.

I am not saying that Hitler was a saint or that the National Socialist did no wrong, but that the way the Nazis have been presented as utterly evil, whereas ignoring the evils committed by the Allies have been ignored.

Because of the Holocaust lie, Germans are still spiritually broken, innocent people have to go to jail for speaking the truth, and it is used as an excuse to shut down criticism against the Israeli war machine.

So you tell me, which is more important for Christians, knowing about the flat earth, which will make you feel better and give you a better understanding of the nature of God’s creation, or exposing the Holocaust lie, which would, if taken to the logical conclusion, help the suffering German people find their sense of self-worth, restore freedom of speech, and eventually it should expose the criminals who hide behind the veil of feigned victimhood and oust them from power. When the Zionist empire is toppled, perhaps speaking truth in other controversial matters, such as the shape of the earth, would become easier as well.

You tell me, which of these matters is more important for a Christian to focus on?

I should point out that although the Holocaust itself, of course, is not mentioned in the Bible, but there are passages referring to the kind of people who have concocted the lie.

John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Revelation 3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.



TFR – Revolutionary Radio w/ Robbie Davidson: Flat Earth, Shills, Scientism Exposed and Bitcoin:

MARK SARGENT ORIGINS PART 3. Flat Earth Clues Frontman Exposed!:

Flat Earth-Force the Line.:

88-year-old ‘Nazi grandma’ Holocaust denier sentenced to jail in Germany:

Division is a natural thing to any movement

There is nothing wrong wanting to separate yourself from dishonest, disingenuine or otherwise harmful people. This is an idea I understood a while ago, but it’s particularly relevant to today. Last night I was reading the comment sections on ODD TV 2 and Flat Earth Asshole’s Youtube channels. I’m of course referring to the recently appeared divide among flat earthers that I’ve written about in my last two previous posts.

Initially it might seem like the “good guys” would always want unite people, they would never want to exclude anyone from them. They will always try to find common ground and so forth, whereas the “bad guys” want to separate themselves from others. Our contemporary culture certainly promotes this ideology, where everything is about unity. Ultimately though it is a globalist and even a Satanic idea.

Speaking of Satan. Say you have a group of good angels and bad angels. Initially they are divided and at odds with each other, and you might think the way to rectify the situation is for the good angels to offer an olive branch to the bad ones. If the bad ones find it in their hearts to accept it, everything will be fine again. However this is a deluded liberal idea. It is the good angels who have more to lose if they were to intermingle with the bad ones. They stand to be corrupted. Sure, there is a possibility some of the bad angels might see the error of their ways and repent, but more likely is that the bad ones will convert some of the good ones to their depraved ways. It is easier to destroy than to heal, or it is easier to succumb to depravity than to escape it.

Let’s have a more earthly example of this. You have a group of healthy people and group of people with HIV or the plague. It would only make sense to separate the healthy from the sick to protect them. Sure, some of the healthy people might want to help the sick if they are able to protect themselves, yet they should not do it at the expense of the healthy. The difference between this and the angel example is that the people, possibly, did not become sick due to their own actions or iniquity.

Let’s say you know a person who is a drug addict and a compulsive liar. He lends money from people and doesn’t pay it back. It’s natural that at first you want to try to help them mend their ways and show compassion to them. Yet if they refuse to change, at some point you simply have to make the decision not to associate with them anymore to protect yourself. It is a harmful delusion to think you can fix everything and all of the world’s problems. Sometimes the best you can do is simply walk away.

Speaking of the flat earth “movement”. As I was reading the comments on ODD TV’s and Flat Earth Asshole’s channels I found most of them supportive of their decision to call out falsehoods and shills among flat earthers, but some people accused them of being “divisive”. Sure, they are divisive and that’s a good thing. You do not want to associate with dishonest or severely deluded people. FEA mirrored a video on his channel where David Weiss rambled about ODD and FEA being stuck in “low vibration” and pointless New Age BS like that. His argument was basically that the reason Flat Earth Asshole and ODD called out the shills, or FEA attacked the AE model of flat earth, is that they are possessed by demons. I don’t know whether Weiss actually believes in what he is saying or is simply trying to manipulate people to do as he says, but he is certainly acting like a cult leader, which is exactly what the Flat Earth Asshole claimed the flat earth movement has become. The main stream of flat earth is a cult, dominated by dishonest or deluded cult leaders. Genuine people are better off leaving them to their circle jerk and focus on the actual scientific facts for and against flat earth and on people who provide proper arguments, not on people who are trying to “unite” everyone.

I hope the flat earth movement dies, and when I mean the movement, I mean this controlled echo chamber of e-celebrities. Genuine flat earth research will be better off without the egos and the mind control. I hope the flat earth conference burns, figuratively. Some comments I read said that Mark Sargent and Patricia Steere brought so many people to the flat earth, so how can they be shills? Does it make any difference if people are mindlessly repeating “the earth is a sphere” or “the earth is flat”, if they don’t understand the contents of what they are saying? Haven’t these people understood the phrase “quality over quantity”? I’d rather have a few fringe websites and Youtubers discussing the flat earth from a critical perspective than a huge bunch of Yes Men and Women using the flat earth as their latest source of entertainment.

Even the Bible has several passages describing division as a good thing:

Matthew 13:49 So will it be at the end of the age: The angels will come and separate the wicked from the righteous

Matthew 25:32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats

Matthew 10:34-36 Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn ‘A man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. A man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.

Regardless of what you think of the Bible or Jesus (I myself I am still unsure what to make of it), you should be able recognize the wisdom in these words. Those who seek truth will become divided from those who prefer lies and comfort.

Most of the prominent people in the flat earth movement are in it either for attention or simply to mislead people. You have to have discernment to see this.



Flat Earth Potato Clues | Mark Sargent & Patricia Steere | Shills:

Flat Earth Psychosis MIRROR:

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. 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 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, 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.



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.




The Francis Crick Papers:


The 5 Greatest Things Ever Accomplished While High:

DNA strain:

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.



Georges Lemaître:

The Physics of the Universe:

Orphic Egg:


Secret Doctrine of the Rosicrucians:


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. 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.



A Rainbow Over Catholic Colleges
How Georgetown Became a Gay-Friendly Campus:

Nicolaus Copernicus:

One Possible History of Kabbalism:

Copernicus And His Kabbalistic Methods:

Science Versus Torah?:

Nicolaus Copernicus:

Bartolommeo Spina:

Do you have a calling to be Third Order of St. Dominic?:


The Jesuits & The Globe Earth: The Mother Of All Conspiracies!: