[Was Nicea Where It All Went Wrong? The Great Mystery of Josephus Flavius, Who Was Subverting Whom?, What is There to Salvage?, The Guenon Solution, A Group Approach to Salvation, and MORE!]
First, this is was an excellent interview - thank you and Laurent for it. I strongly prefer reading for information as opposed to audio or visual learning, but my interest was captivated throughout.
I had a lot of comments based on the interview, so apologies for the length. Damnit, Rolo, I have things to do in my day other than type! Lol. I'll just jump into it...
- Rolo discussed a gnostic focus on breath (which I can't find as I go back through the audio); you might enjoy reading or learning about Vipassana meditation, if you don't know about it currently. Buddhism and various gnostic sects like Catharism have so much in common (such as material/spiritual duality and reincarnation): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._N._Goenka . Doing a 10 day silent meditation Vipassana retreat is quite interesting...
- Re: Byzantium, Eustace Mullins states that Ezra Pound argued that it is deliberately understudied and ignored because it had a successful non-violent, ethical way to deal with its Jewish population by keeping them out of banking, education, and government.
- Re: the Jesus mythicist theory advanced by Richard Carrier, I read "On the Historicity of Jesus" and his argument was interesting but I wasn't fully persuaded. He did have a kind of throwaway comment though on Jewish motivations to advance Christianity which was, imo, the most important comment in his book. Here's his quote: https://i.ibb.co/XSQcNQB/a179.png
- Laurent's comment on the cult of individuality being a spiritual sickness (which he thinks is rooted in the Christian conception of individual salvation or damnation) - I totally agree with this, and it's been exemplified best by the American boomer generation. Bruce Gibney comments on their generation here: https://www.vox.com/2017/12/20/16772670/baby-boomers-millennials-congress-debt
- Rolo's comments about how Russians are naturally communistic is quite interesting. I'll be discussing Stolypin in a post in the next day or two, who wanted to break up the commune in order to enrich the peasants to serve as a middle class bulwark against bolshevism. Was the commune doomed one way or the other inevitably due to the advancement of technology? Here is one important quote from Solzhenitzyn on Stolypin and the communal farms in his "August, 1914" novel (expanded in the year 1984 in a revised edition because his prior edition censored out almost all Stolypin discussion): https://i.ibb.co/SNGrx5b/a189.png
- Lastly, Rolo discusses a return to fundamentalist Christianity in America, which we may be seeing a bit of on the far-right with Roosh and such specifically in relation to Orthodox Christianity (whose numbers in the west are tiny, tiny tiny), but the statistics generally speaking show a collapse in Christian belief generally and including Catholicism: https://www.graphsaboutreligion.com/p/catholic-mass-attendance-has-fallen
I avoid podcasts like the plague. I get so fidgety that I want to run. But this one has really captured my attention. I can only stand to absorb it in ten-minute soundbites, but I look forward to finishing it. At the 7 minute & 45-second point, I was excited to hear an educated man say things I've believed (and have excluded me from the friendship of several traditional "Christians") for many decades. The comment by Charlotte Ruse excited me as well. I look forward to reading ALL the comments in a few days. Thanks for sharing, Rolo!
Excellent interview! I love where you two go together! Regarding the reason for Western Individualism, I've read that West Europeans were subjected to a conscious out-breeding program to destroy the clans and clannishness, beginning around the fall of the Roman Empire, around 500 AD, in NW Europe. This anti-clan breeding and social engineering program is said to have slowly spread out from it's seed https://hbdchick.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/extent-and-spread-of-manorialism.jpg over the following centuries, turning ever more NW Europeans ever more WEIRD. Those further East were hit later and thus less impacted, and most of Russia was not subjected to this program. (Which only reached as far as the "Hajnal Line", from St. Petersburg, Russia to Trieste, Italy.)
I'm excited to read the WEIRD book Laurent spoke of and see how it relates to the theories presented in the big-summary-post-on-the-hajnal-line article.
As an agnostic who believes the bible is mostly mythological or symbolic at best, sort of like the Aesop's Fables, it's fascinating listening to a discussion about how, when, and why a particular fable began. Studying ancient religions traditionally is something cultural anthropologist explored if they were interested in learning about a specific aspect of ancient life. However, most of their conclusions would be based on speculation as even if you could read ancient manuscripts they were altered and interestingly enough used as propaganda to control populations who were also not too happy at that time.
So knowing the true reason or intent of those who lived thousands of years ago is like a billionaire being able to slip through an eye of a needle after finding this pin in a huge messy haystack.
That being said, I'm not dismissing the importance of religion as it provides solace and social bonding important emotional needs for a society being transformed into an alienating dystopian nightmare.
I also love these kind of discussions, Rolo. A lot of the blanks in my knowledge bank have been back filled.
I wish we could access the Vatican library. It has the answers to what actually happened in the first millennium.
You two barely touched on the nuclear family system that's been foisted on western humanity. I see it as one of the reasons why we're doomed as a civilization. I have always followed the Eastern tradition of family unity. That's why I haven't ended up in an old folks home. It was a good move on my part.
I never looked at the concept of communism in the light of family unity before. Very interesting.
I look forward to your next discussion. Thank you!
It is curious that all the anti-Semites or rather anti-Jews end up embracing the same creed as the Jews, which is none other than the Gnosis, and that is precisely the reason why they become the puppets of the Jewish Gnostics or, more precisely, the Khazarians Gnostics like the Rothschild.
Mr. Laurent Guyenot affirms that he believes in God, but in what God does he believe? It is not most definitely in an omnipotent and omniscient God because for those of us who believe in an omnipotent and almighty God it is not a problem at all to believe that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead and begot him from a virgin. That he is omnipotent means that nothing is impossible for him, absolutely nothing.
Mr. Guyenot's religion is the same as that of the Jews: the Gnostic Kabbalah.
The Gnostic Kabbalah has already become the unconscious religion of the majority with the triumph of modernity that brought with it subjective relativism both in morality and in philosophy or science. Reality has not existed since then, and there is no more law or reality than that dictated by the ego of each one, although of course it is the powerful who end up imposing their egotistical vision of the world and their completely arbitrary laws and regulations dictated by his whim. All of this is a consequence of course of egomania, that is to say: idolatry, which has always characterized the majority of Kabbalists. Einstein's theory of relativity comes not from the study or direct observation of reality or the universe, but from the indemonstrable assumptions of the Kabbalah which proofs that such a theory is completely false. Kabbalistic modern science does not explain or reflect the real world. He has simply invented or fabricated a parallel world subject to the most extreme corruption.
It's both funny and sad, how often Rolo blasphemes against God with some of his unfortunate guests (Laurent Guyenot, Tom Montalk, etc.), while at the same time, makes sure that our "favorite" simple-minded colonial administrator is close to never criticized or exposed.
You have spent so much time around Orthodox Christians, yet ... Perhaps Jay Dyer can inject some sense into you [1][2]? He may even accept your invite for an interview/chat ( www.jaysanalysis.com/contact )! That'd be great!
500 bc - plato invents the concept of a theocracy (elites create a religion to control the peasants)
300 bc - the septuagint, ptolemy invites religious leaders to the library of alexandria to record their religions. The jews have other plans, going there to create a religion... judaism. They study hellenic mythology, plato and other political philosophers at the library and then invent judaism.
1st century - jews refuse to submit to the secular roman empire, they are hopped up on religious supremacism. romans invent jesus and the new testament in an attempt to domesticate them, jesus christ is based on julius caesar and the divus julius (god cult of caesar). Amusingly this means the new testament is a european religion... but one designed to make a people submit to the state.
4th century - the empire is destabilizing, it is decided that a platonic theocracy will be created in order to save it. Nicean christianity is born, the torah is combined with the new testament to create romes club of power: catholicism. From secular model to theocratic, the various imperial citizens can be united via this faith... and rome has authority (how nice). The new testament ensures that the people submit to authority whilst the old testament can be used to inspire fanaticism when needed, a useful on/off switch. This did not go down well with the eastern empire, they had no interest in answering to rome and so invented their own theocracy: orthodox
7th century - arabs explode out of arabia creating a new empire, they timed it just right. The byzantines and persians were exhausted after countless centuries of total war, there were also lots of arab mercenaries who were more than happy to defect to the arabians... employing foreign soldiers is a risky business. To maintain power over the ummah they copied the romans and made yet another theocracy: islam
You have two religions designed to maintain empires whilst one is to maintain a people
This was one of the best interviews I’ve heard in forever. Both parties contributed excellent insights and ideas that I have arrived at independently. Truly outstanding. Thank you for sharing.
Excellent conversation from two thoughtful souls, thank you. A few factoids from my research that may make you rethink some items:
- Elohim is not Yahweh. There were two very different Gods mentioned in OT. The jealous and angry God Yahweh who seems to have come after Exodus from Egypt (as mentioned, possibly Seth, post exile from Egypt after defeat by Horus). The second is the more ancient references to Elohim or El, the figure most people associate with the white haired, aged God who cared for men.
- Elohim is pretty clearly originally Enlil from the Sumerians who became Elil in Akkadian (from the time Semitic Akkadian took over under Sargon -circa 2400 BC), who was interchangeable under the Canaanite Ugarits El/ Enlil/ Il and finally became El or Elohim in the Bible. Since Christians believe everything before Abraham was pagan, Sumerians were pagans and there could therefore not be any connection at all (despite the fact that there was a clear cultural contiuum from the first civilisation (Sumeria) throughout the Near East right to Biblical times, with Abraham coming from Ur).
- El passed over regency to his sons (either 7 or 70 sons depending on source). Per Ugaritic Baal Cycle, Baal Hadad (also known as Zeus/ Indra/ Perun/ Wotan/ Teshub) took regency over Canaanites but also obviously of the Hittites, Greeks, Aryans, and many Indo Europeans. As an aside, Slavic word Bog comes from the God Bhaga of the Vedas, brother of Baal Hada/ Zeus, god of wheat and riches (bogatsvy). Baal means generic "Lord", there were many including Baal Hamon aka Malik or Moloch of the Bible.
Passing over regency can be seen from Deuteronomy 32-8, 9 but with a correction from the Dead Sea Scrolls and Septuagint (changing "Israel" to "Elohim" in 32-8)
The current, incorrect translation:
8 When the Most High (Elohim) divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel (wrong- should read "sons of elohim").
9 For the Lord's (Yahweh's) portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.
Now the real version with the Dead Sea Scrolls correction and the key Hebrew words only:
8 When Elohim divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the sons of Elohim.
9 For Yahweh's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.
"Number" refers to seniority. Do a websearch on "Sumerian God numbers".
As a very small point of order to you two erudite giants, I challenge whether the Orthodox Church turned on Tsar Nicholas and sided with the ‘revolution’. Nicholas was one of the most pious of all the Romanov tsars and felt a deep sense loyalty and sense of responsibility to protect of the church, along with a sense of Byzantine history. The various Romanov diaries provide unsolicited evidence of this. Many (thousands of) Orthodox priests and nuns were martyred.
Once the ‘revolution’ was generated by the usual propagandists and was showing signs of success, SOME of the (less pious) priests defected – mostly under torture and threat of death. The coup regime drew up a letter declaring loyalty to the revolution and the then metropolitan was forced to sign it under duress. Matthew Raphael Johnson gives a good account of this. I can’t quote put my finger on the source at the moment.
In no way do I endorse the following passage, nor do I maintain that Chekhov actually said it, but this is what Maxim Gorky wrote, attributing it to Anton Pavlovich Chekhov in his booklet “Reminiscences of Tolstoy, Chekhov and Andreyev”
Gorky speaking:
A Russian is a strange creature," he [Chekhov] said once. "He is like a sieve; nothing remains in him. In his youth he fills himself greedily with anything which he comes across, and after thirty years nothing remains but a kind of gray rubbish... In order to live well and humanly one must work—work with love and with faith. But we, we can't do it. An architect, having built a couple of decent buildings, sits down to play cards, plays all his life, or else is to be found somewhere behind the scenes of some theater. A doctor, if he has a practice, ceases to be interested in science, and reads nothing but The Medical Journal, and at forty seriously believes that all diseases have their origin in catarrh. I have never met a single civil servant who had any idea of the meaning of his work: usually he sits in the metropolis or the chief town of the province, and writes papers and sends them off to Zmiev or Smorgon for attention. But that those papers will deprive some one in Zmiev or Smorgon of freedom of movement - of that the civil servant thinks as little as an atheist of the tortures of hell. A lawyer who has made a name by a successful defense ceases to care about justice, and defends only the rights of property, gambles on the Turf, eats oysters, figures as a connoisseur of all the arts. An actor, having taken two or three parts tolerably, no longer troubles to learn his parts, puts on a silk hat, and thinks himself a genius. Russia is a land of insatiable and lazy people: they eat enormously of nice things, drink, like to sleep in the daytime, and snore in their sleep. They marry in order to get their house looked after and keep mistresses in order to be thought well of in society. Their psychology is that of a dog: when they are beaten, they whine shrilly and run into their kennels; when petted, they lie on their backs with their paws in the air and wag their tails."
Would Chekhov have thought like this or is Gorky projecting his own opinions of Russians??
Ce "catéchisme" est l'œuvre d'une équipe, travaillant dans le cadre de la Fraternité orthodoxe ; il a l'ambition non pas d'être un "manuel" contenant des "leçons" à apprendre, mais de transmettre un message de vie, la Parole du Dieu Vivant.
Cette Parole, le Souffle de Dieu (l'Esprit Saint) l'a portée jusqu'à nous par la bouche des prophètes d'Israël ; cette Parole par l'œuvre de ce même Esprit s'est faite chair, a pris corps en la personne du Seigneur Jésus. Cette parole enfin, se fait entendre aujourd'hui dans l'Eglise, assemblée des croyants, où Jésus ressuscité vit et parle toujours grâce à l'action merveilleuse de l'Esprit.
C'est dire qu'il y a continuité et unité entre l'Ancien Testament et le Nouveau Testament, continuité et unité entre l'ensemble de la Bible et la vie de l'Eglise : les paroles et les actes du Seigneur Jésus qui nous sont rapportés dans le ne Nouveau Testament ne peuvent être compris si l'on ignore les dix-neuf siècles de l'histoire d'Israël qui ont préparé sa venue et qui nous sont racontés dans l'Ancien Testament. Par ailleurs, la personne du Seigneur Jésus ne peut être comprise aujourd'hui que par l'Esprit ; on ne communie avec Lui qu'à l'intérieur de l'Eglise en y vivant avec Lui. De cette double réalité - nécessité de connaître l'Ancien Testament, nécessité de vivre avec le Christ dans l'Eglise - découle la méthode que nous suivrons : nous étudierons chacune des grandes étapes de la vie du Seigneur Jésus - depuis sa conception jusqu'à son Deuxième Avènement - en les éclairant toujours par les événements de l'Ancienne Alliance qui les ont préparées, qui les ont annoncées, qui les ont préfigurées et qui leur donnent tout leur relief ; mais aussi nous les illustrerons par les actes de la vie de l'Eglise - cantiques, icônes, sacrements - qui les expriment, les rendent actuelles et nous permettent d'y participer de l'intérieur.
Le Nouveau Testament étudié sans l'Ancien est un arbre déraciné ; le Nouveau Testament étudié en dehors de la vie de l'Eglise est une histoire d'événements passés au lieu d'être la Nouvelle Alliance, la rencontre de l'homme avec le Dieu vivant. C'est cette rencontre que nous voudrions aider nos lecteurs à faire : tel est le but de ce livre.
Préface de l'ouvrage 'Dieu est vivant', Catéchèse Orthodoxe pour les familles, éditions du Cerf, 1979
First, this is was an excellent interview - thank you and Laurent for it. I strongly prefer reading for information as opposed to audio or visual learning, but my interest was captivated throughout.
I had a lot of comments based on the interview, so apologies for the length. Damnit, Rolo, I have things to do in my day other than type! Lol. I'll just jump into it...
- Rolo discussed a gnostic focus on breath (which I can't find as I go back through the audio); you might enjoy reading or learning about Vipassana meditation, if you don't know about it currently. Buddhism and various gnostic sects like Catharism have so much in common (such as material/spiritual duality and reincarnation): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._N._Goenka . Doing a 10 day silent meditation Vipassana retreat is quite interesting...
- Re: logos, Christians inverted the definition of the Greek term “Logos” to mean its opposite, then made it one of the key terms of the religion: https://apeironcentre.org/logos-in-philosophy-religion-and-science/
- Re: Byzantium, Eustace Mullins states that Ezra Pound argued that it is deliberately understudied and ignored because it had a successful non-violent, ethical way to deal with its Jewish population by keeping them out of banking, education, and government.
- Re: the Jesus mythicist theory advanced by Richard Carrier, I read "On the Historicity of Jesus" and his argument was interesting but I wasn't fully persuaded. He did have a kind of throwaway comment though on Jewish motivations to advance Christianity which was, imo, the most important comment in his book. Here's his quote: https://i.ibb.co/XSQcNQB/a179.png
- Re: the theory that Christianity was created as a Paul-led revenge strategy against Rome, I went into it in detail here if interested: https://neofeudalism.substack.com/p/deeper-societal-trends-predating
- Laurent's comment on the cult of individuality being a spiritual sickness (which he thinks is rooted in the Christian conception of individual salvation or damnation) - I totally agree with this, and it's been exemplified best by the American boomer generation. Bruce Gibney comments on their generation here: https://www.vox.com/2017/12/20/16772670/baby-boomers-millennials-congress-debt
- Rolo's comments about how Russians are naturally communistic is quite interesting. I'll be discussing Stolypin in a post in the next day or two, who wanted to break up the commune in order to enrich the peasants to serve as a middle class bulwark against bolshevism. Was the commune doomed one way or the other inevitably due to the advancement of technology? Here is one important quote from Solzhenitzyn on Stolypin and the communal farms in his "August, 1914" novel (expanded in the year 1984 in a revised edition because his prior edition censored out almost all Stolypin discussion): https://i.ibb.co/SNGrx5b/a189.png
- Lastly, Rolo discusses a return to fundamentalist Christianity in America, which we may be seeing a bit of on the far-right with Roosh and such specifically in relation to Orthodox Christianity (whose numbers in the west are tiny, tiny tiny), but the statistics generally speaking show a collapse in Christian belief generally and including Catholicism: https://www.graphsaboutreligion.com/p/catholic-mass-attendance-has-fallen
I avoid podcasts like the plague. I get so fidgety that I want to run. But this one has really captured my attention. I can only stand to absorb it in ten-minute soundbites, but I look forward to finishing it. At the 7 minute & 45-second point, I was excited to hear an educated man say things I've believed (and have excluded me from the friendship of several traditional "Christians") for many decades. The comment by Charlotte Ruse excited me as well. I look forward to reading ALL the comments in a few days. Thanks for sharing, Rolo!
Wow, Rolo, you have outdone the last podcast. I'm going to need a few days to unpack this mentally and ponder it all over.
Excellent interview! I love where you two go together! Regarding the reason for Western Individualism, I've read that West Europeans were subjected to a conscious out-breeding program to destroy the clans and clannishness, beginning around the fall of the Roman Empire, around 500 AD, in NW Europe. This anti-clan breeding and social engineering program is said to have slowly spread out from it's seed https://hbdchick.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/extent-and-spread-of-manorialism.jpg over the following centuries, turning ever more NW Europeans ever more WEIRD. Those further East were hit later and thus less impacted, and most of Russia was not subjected to this program. (Which only reached as far as the "Hajnal Line", from St. Petersburg, Russia to Trieste, Italy.)
https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2014/03/10/big-summary-post-on-the-hajnal-line/
I'm excited to read the WEIRD book Laurent spoke of and see how it relates to the theories presented in the big-summary-post-on-the-hajnal-line article.
Thanks again for the great conversation, men!
As an agnostic who believes the bible is mostly mythological or symbolic at best, sort of like the Aesop's Fables, it's fascinating listening to a discussion about how, when, and why a particular fable began. Studying ancient religions traditionally is something cultural anthropologist explored if they were interested in learning about a specific aspect of ancient life. However, most of their conclusions would be based on speculation as even if you could read ancient manuscripts they were altered and interestingly enough used as propaganda to control populations who were also not too happy at that time.
So knowing the true reason or intent of those who lived thousands of years ago is like a billionaire being able to slip through an eye of a needle after finding this pin in a huge messy haystack.
That being said, I'm not dismissing the importance of religion as it provides solace and social bonding important emotional needs for a society being transformed into an alienating dystopian nightmare.
I also love these kind of discussions, Rolo. A lot of the blanks in my knowledge bank have been back filled.
I wish we could access the Vatican library. It has the answers to what actually happened in the first millennium.
You two barely touched on the nuclear family system that's been foisted on western humanity. I see it as one of the reasons why we're doomed as a civilization. I have always followed the Eastern tradition of family unity. That's why I haven't ended up in an old folks home. It was a good move on my part.
I never looked at the concept of communism in the light of family unity before. Very interesting.
I look forward to your next discussion. Thank you!
It is curious that all the anti-Semites or rather anti-Jews end up embracing the same creed as the Jews, which is none other than the Gnosis, and that is precisely the reason why they become the puppets of the Jewish Gnostics or, more precisely, the Khazarians Gnostics like the Rothschild.
Mr. Laurent Guyenot affirms that he believes in God, but in what God does he believe? It is not most definitely in an omnipotent and omniscient God because for those of us who believe in an omnipotent and almighty God it is not a problem at all to believe that God raised Jesus Christ from the dead and begot him from a virgin. That he is omnipotent means that nothing is impossible for him, absolutely nothing.
Mr. Guyenot's religion is the same as that of the Jews: the Gnostic Kabbalah.
The Gnostic Kabbalah has already become the unconscious religion of the majority with the triumph of modernity that brought with it subjective relativism both in morality and in philosophy or science. Reality has not existed since then, and there is no more law or reality than that dictated by the ego of each one, although of course it is the powerful who end up imposing their egotistical vision of the world and their completely arbitrary laws and regulations dictated by his whim. All of this is a consequence of course of egomania, that is to say: idolatry, which has always characterized the majority of Kabbalists. Einstein's theory of relativity comes not from the study or direct observation of reality or the universe, but from the indemonstrable assumptions of the Kabbalah which proofs that such a theory is completely false. Kabbalistic modern science does not explain or reflect the real world. He has simply invented or fabricated a parallel world subject to the most extreme corruption.
Jose Francisco Fernández Bullón
It's both funny and sad, how often Rolo blasphemes against God with some of his unfortunate guests (Laurent Guyenot, Tom Montalk, etc.), while at the same time, makes sure that our "favorite" simple-minded colonial administrator is close to never criticized or exposed.
You have spent so much time around Orthodox Christians, yet ... Perhaps Jay Dyer can inject some sense into you [1][2]? He may even accept your invite for an interview/chat ( www.jaysanalysis.com/contact )! That'd be great!
[1] Top 10 Reasons I'm Not An Atheist - Jay Dyer - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZFGrNNjABQ
[2] Why I Became Orthodox - Jay Dyer - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VE6fYcyy2O8
500 bc - plato invents the concept of a theocracy (elites create a religion to control the peasants)
300 bc - the septuagint, ptolemy invites religious leaders to the library of alexandria to record their religions. The jews have other plans, going there to create a religion... judaism. They study hellenic mythology, plato and other political philosophers at the library and then invent judaism.
1st century - jews refuse to submit to the secular roman empire, they are hopped up on religious supremacism. romans invent jesus and the new testament in an attempt to domesticate them, jesus christ is based on julius caesar and the divus julius (god cult of caesar). Amusingly this means the new testament is a european religion... but one designed to make a people submit to the state.
4th century - the empire is destabilizing, it is decided that a platonic theocracy will be created in order to save it. Nicean christianity is born, the torah is combined with the new testament to create romes club of power: catholicism. From secular model to theocratic, the various imperial citizens can be united via this faith... and rome has authority (how nice). The new testament ensures that the people submit to authority whilst the old testament can be used to inspire fanaticism when needed, a useful on/off switch. This did not go down well with the eastern empire, they had no interest in answering to rome and so invented their own theocracy: orthodox
7th century - arabs explode out of arabia creating a new empire, they timed it just right. The byzantines and persians were exhausted after countless centuries of total war, there were also lots of arab mercenaries who were more than happy to defect to the arabians... employing foreign soldiers is a risky business. To maintain power over the ummah they copied the romans and made yet another theocracy: islam
You have two religions designed to maintain empires whilst one is to maintain a people
This was one of the best interviews I’ve heard in forever. Both parties contributed excellent insights and ideas that I have arrived at independently. Truly outstanding. Thank you for sharing.
Excellent conversation from two thoughtful souls, thank you. A few factoids from my research that may make you rethink some items:
- Elohim is not Yahweh. There were two very different Gods mentioned in OT. The jealous and angry God Yahweh who seems to have come after Exodus from Egypt (as mentioned, possibly Seth, post exile from Egypt after defeat by Horus). The second is the more ancient references to Elohim or El, the figure most people associate with the white haired, aged God who cared for men.
- Elohim is pretty clearly originally Enlil from the Sumerians who became Elil in Akkadian (from the time Semitic Akkadian took over under Sargon -circa 2400 BC), who was interchangeable under the Canaanite Ugarits El/ Enlil/ Il and finally became El or Elohim in the Bible. Since Christians believe everything before Abraham was pagan, Sumerians were pagans and there could therefore not be any connection at all (despite the fact that there was a clear cultural contiuum from the first civilisation (Sumeria) throughout the Near East right to Biblical times, with Abraham coming from Ur).
- El passed over regency to his sons (either 7 or 70 sons depending on source). Per Ugaritic Baal Cycle, Baal Hadad (also known as Zeus/ Indra/ Perun/ Wotan/ Teshub) took regency over Canaanites but also obviously of the Hittites, Greeks, Aryans, and many Indo Europeans. As an aside, Slavic word Bog comes from the God Bhaga of the Vedas, brother of Baal Hada/ Zeus, god of wheat and riches (bogatsvy). Baal means generic "Lord", there were many including Baal Hamon aka Malik or Moloch of the Bible.
Passing over regency can be seen from Deuteronomy 32-8, 9 but with a correction from the Dead Sea Scrolls and Septuagint (changing "Israel" to "Elohim" in 32-8)
The current, incorrect translation:
8 When the Most High (Elohim) divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel (wrong- should read "sons of elohim").
9 For the Lord's (Yahweh's) portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.
Now the real version with the Dead Sea Scrolls correction and the key Hebrew words only:
8 When Elohim divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the sons of Elohim.
9 For Yahweh's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.
"Number" refers to seniority. Do a websearch on "Sumerian God numbers".
Our (the Nations) problem lies with the kult of holykost as of now...
The guilt pressed on.
It is as ever was - a technique, technology - the jew cries in pain as he strikes you.
Nothing new here.
It is perfected against me by every keystroke of mine.
I would advise for us to copy it and make hay - but what would that make of any of us good hard men?
Jewz...
Who needz that?
As a very small point of order to you two erudite giants, I challenge whether the Orthodox Church turned on Tsar Nicholas and sided with the ‘revolution’. Nicholas was one of the most pious of all the Romanov tsars and felt a deep sense loyalty and sense of responsibility to protect of the church, along with a sense of Byzantine history. The various Romanov diaries provide unsolicited evidence of this. Many (thousands of) Orthodox priests and nuns were martyred.
Once the ‘revolution’ was generated by the usual propagandists and was showing signs of success, SOME of the (less pious) priests defected – mostly under torture and threat of death. The coup regime drew up a letter declaring loyalty to the revolution and the then metropolitan was forced to sign it under duress. Matthew Raphael Johnson gives a good account of this. I can’t quote put my finger on the source at the moment.
Fabulous discussion. Shared.
In no way do I endorse the following passage, nor do I maintain that Chekhov actually said it, but this is what Maxim Gorky wrote, attributing it to Anton Pavlovich Chekhov in his booklet “Reminiscences of Tolstoy, Chekhov and Andreyev”
Gorky speaking:
A Russian is a strange creature," he [Chekhov] said once. "He is like a sieve; nothing remains in him. In his youth he fills himself greedily with anything which he comes across, and after thirty years nothing remains but a kind of gray rubbish... In order to live well and humanly one must work—work with love and with faith. But we, we can't do it. An architect, having built a couple of decent buildings, sits down to play cards, plays all his life, or else is to be found somewhere behind the scenes of some theater. A doctor, if he has a practice, ceases to be interested in science, and reads nothing but The Medical Journal, and at forty seriously believes that all diseases have their origin in catarrh. I have never met a single civil servant who had any idea of the meaning of his work: usually he sits in the metropolis or the chief town of the province, and writes papers and sends them off to Zmiev or Smorgon for attention. But that those papers will deprive some one in Zmiev or Smorgon of freedom of movement - of that the civil servant thinks as little as an atheist of the tortures of hell. A lawyer who has made a name by a successful defense ceases to care about justice, and defends only the rights of property, gambles on the Turf, eats oysters, figures as a connoisseur of all the arts. An actor, having taken two or three parts tolerably, no longer troubles to learn his parts, puts on a silk hat, and thinks himself a genius. Russia is a land of insatiable and lazy people: they eat enormously of nice things, drink, like to sleep in the daytime, and snore in their sleep. They marry in order to get their house looked after and keep mistresses in order to be thought well of in society. Their psychology is that of a dog: when they are beaten, they whine shrilly and run into their kennels; when petted, they lie on their backs with their paws in the air and wag their tails."
Would Chekhov have thought like this or is Gorky projecting his own opinions of Russians??
been reading his book FROM YAHWEH TO ZION.... wow.... it does explain who controls the world and for hundreds to thousands of years
Ce "catéchisme" est l'œuvre d'une équipe, travaillant dans le cadre de la Fraternité orthodoxe ; il a l'ambition non pas d'être un "manuel" contenant des "leçons" à apprendre, mais de transmettre un message de vie, la Parole du Dieu Vivant.
Cette Parole, le Souffle de Dieu (l'Esprit Saint) l'a portée jusqu'à nous par la bouche des prophètes d'Israël ; cette Parole par l'œuvre de ce même Esprit s'est faite chair, a pris corps en la personne du Seigneur Jésus. Cette parole enfin, se fait entendre aujourd'hui dans l'Eglise, assemblée des croyants, où Jésus ressuscité vit et parle toujours grâce à l'action merveilleuse de l'Esprit.
C'est dire qu'il y a continuité et unité entre l'Ancien Testament et le Nouveau Testament, continuité et unité entre l'ensemble de la Bible et la vie de l'Eglise : les paroles et les actes du Seigneur Jésus qui nous sont rapportés dans le ne Nouveau Testament ne peuvent être compris si l'on ignore les dix-neuf siècles de l'histoire d'Israël qui ont préparé sa venue et qui nous sont racontés dans l'Ancien Testament. Par ailleurs, la personne du Seigneur Jésus ne peut être comprise aujourd'hui que par l'Esprit ; on ne communie avec Lui qu'à l'intérieur de l'Eglise en y vivant avec Lui. De cette double réalité - nécessité de connaître l'Ancien Testament, nécessité de vivre avec le Christ dans l'Eglise - découle la méthode que nous suivrons : nous étudierons chacune des grandes étapes de la vie du Seigneur Jésus - depuis sa conception jusqu'à son Deuxième Avènement - en les éclairant toujours par les événements de l'Ancienne Alliance qui les ont préparées, qui les ont annoncées, qui les ont préfigurées et qui leur donnent tout leur relief ; mais aussi nous les illustrerons par les actes de la vie de l'Eglise - cantiques, icônes, sacrements - qui les expriment, les rendent actuelles et nous permettent d'y participer de l'intérieur.
Le Nouveau Testament étudié sans l'Ancien est un arbre déraciné ; le Nouveau Testament étudié en dehors de la vie de l'Eglise est une histoire d'événements passés au lieu d'être la Nouvelle Alliance, la rencontre de l'homme avec le Dieu vivant. C'est cette rencontre que nous voudrions aider nos lecteurs à faire : tel est le but de ce livre.
Préface de l'ouvrage 'Dieu est vivant', Catéchèse Orthodoxe pour les familles, éditions du Cerf, 1979