Thank you for bringing this info to your readers’ attention.
The Forum has exhaustively researched this same material over the years and SOTT has interviewed Gmirkin within the past few months.
Many of us have also read Laurent Guyenot’s “From Yahweh to Zion” and are familiar with most of the false claims of the jews which were adopted by the early roman church.
Beyond past time to discard these lies into the trash bins where they belong.
Especially appreciate what you say about the garden and a god who demands obedience rather than intelligence and seeking knowledge of the truth.
Not surprised yahweh wouldn’t encourage eating fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Might trigger the dangerous thought that yahweh himself is the evil one posing and impersonating the good guy. Tactics of psychopaths haven’t changed from then to now.
Yes. You understood me correctly. Thanks for replying in the affirmative. Yay. 🤗
Re SOTT — At the time I wrote that, I didn’t realize that you already have a direct connection to SOTT via Harrison Koehli, who is a SOTT editor as well as a fellow Substack blogger and a subscriber to your own blog here.
Seems like you two could privately discuss the possibility of doing an interview between yourselves, yes?
As I mentioned, I for one would be quite interested in hearing your take on several subjects you write about here on your blog. As well as reading any of your blog posts which SOTT would be willing to post on their news site.
Re for The Duran, I still think your direct knowledge of the Russia-Ukraine situation would be their primary interest since that’s the subject they are almost exclusively focused on these days.
I’d be happy to reach out to The Duran and suggest they interview you if you like.
In that case, I think it would be helpful to them if I also included a copy of one of your most recent blogs on the Russia-Ukraine subject in my email request to The Duran. As well as a link to this blog site.
Would that be agreeable to you?
I’m glad you’re at least considering reaching out to a wider audience. Good for you. A courageous step to take for anyone to step out of their comfort zone imo. I applaud you for being willing to do so.
I think I'm a bit too explicit for the Duran, but, honestly, I'm very down to talk to them. I just don't plan on toning down my message or my rhetoric one iota lol.
Thank you so much for your offer to help. It's very encouraging.
I understand your refusal to tone down your message or rhetoric.
I rarely do myself.
It’s less about The Duran guyz or their viewers. And more about YouTube cancel culture and their pesky algorithms potentially deplatforming their videos because . . . well, I’m sure you know how this rigged game works I’m sure.
Alex was just recently banned for a week by YouTube.
Less a problem on Rumble or Odyssey video channels.
The Duran’s interviews are published on Locals, Rumble, Odyssey, & YouTube but the videos posted on Locals are their YouTube versions.
I think it’s still worth contacting The Duran because, even if they’re unable to allow a no-holds barred video discussion because of censorship by the YouTube goonz, either Alex or Alexander could read your blog and report on what you’ve published.
It’s less than ideal — more a workaround — but they can inform their viewers from whom they’ve sourced the info and provide those viewers with a link to your substack site.
And the viewers could read your original posts for the non-watered down version; rhetoric and all. Lol
******
Just read your latest post re Krieger. Wondering whether Russian military would appreciate that info going viral and doing the west’s PR for them? You can just imagine how the mendacious media would make hay with that report.
Helmuts, boots, purchasing their own drones, incompetent officers giving orders that jeopardize their troops, etc. ouch.
I suspect those stories can be replicated in all armies but would they not have a negative impact on morale if they were more widely known to the general public?
Just wondering since I have zero clue — because of not knowing anything about military operations.
>Just read your latest post re Krieger. Wondering whether Russian military would appreciate that info going viral and doing the west’s PR for them? You can just imagine how the mendacious media would make hay with that report.
Western soldiers make similar complaints. Everyone knows that the average private enthusiast who is welling to pay good money can equip himself better than your standard grunt.
The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil involved cannibalism - particularly of the brain. This causes heritable prion disease and a host of other death producing diseases.
I was gonna ask you if you've read Fomenko but I guess that answers it.
I guess my next question would be,have you read Jesus was Ceasar by Francessco Carota?There's a good bit of evidence that the myth of Jesus was based on Julius Caesar and later corrupted to present a more pacified character.Having an actual historical, living being would be a revitalizing force for Christianity and on top of that the real Jesus was a warrior full of strength and vitality.The man was literally superhuman and constantly studied everything he could,was so charismatic that at times people refused to meet with him knowing that his charm would sway them,so capable in tactics,strategy and battle he has something like 150-1 win-loss ratio and was so fearless that even if his army would abandon the field he'd charge the enemy himself.That's quite the example for young men and to make it better no amount of kvetching from late night talk show hosts can change the fact that he actually existed.
Slowly, slowly chipping away at the false claims by the controllers and architects of the matrix lies that have kept humanity trapped in a frequency fence built of falsehoods.
Thanks for your contribution. Another key to help us unlock the prison doors.
I came across Carotta's remarkable detective work years ago and it completely changed the way I see Christianity. Previously I was inclined to see it as Nietzsche did - slave morality, priestly revenge on the strong driven by the ressentiment of the weak. And an alien import as well. If Caesar is the true Christ, that changes everything. I've had the same thought that you have, this could be a revitalizing spiritual influence. What comes out of it would be the best of Christianity, with the best of paganism.
Having a real superman as a central focus and example is much better than a hippy.Certain elements of that remained in Jesus what with him whipping the moneylenders and saying ''sell your cloaks and buy a sword''. On a somewhat related note I also think genuine mysticism needs to be brought back into the mainfold as it's the actual way for humans to experience spirituality as opposed to simply worshipping.Doesn't have to be eastern as there's Christian mysticism that one can use as a template.Though the problem with that is most Christians (at least in the West) are completely averse to the experiential model likening it to witchcraft.Not that i can blame them since the new age movement doesn't filter satanists/cultists/mentally derranged and other negative elements hence why you have all kinds of gay little witches running around.
Please, please, please can we bring back mysticism??!!
Nuts & bolts physical reality is all well and good and important for us to learn our 3rd Density lessons.
That’s the whole point of incarnating into 3D bodies after all.
And all the grand research and discerning the truth from the lies is a major part of our 3D learning experience.
And I love learning those lessons quite frankly.
Yet my soul also yearns for the connection to the mystical realms to which I more naturally resonate.
It’s an exercise in Tai Chi balancing to be able to have one foot in the mystical world whilst simultaneously navigating the down to earth real world without losing touch with either.
An exercise in conscious suffering to remain focused and paying strict attention right and left to the 3D world in order to avoid becoming road-kill.
Lucky for me that my life has given me the opportunities to primarily focus safely in each reality at different times.
These past 16 years have been a slog through the mud of 3D. Which feels a bit like paying it forward and paying with both attention and mental and physical nrg to the nuts and bolts of the outer world reality.
That saying — the devil is in the details has taken on do many additional meanings for me recently.
I understand viscerally why it was not even a temptation for Christ to say No to ruling the world. On so many levels.
Not important whether Christ actually existed. The story itself is what’s important imo.
Thank you Maksim for introducing mysticism into the discussion. Feels like being brushed by the breeze of clarity blowing away the miasma I sometimes get bogged down in and forget my other home. Lol 🤗
I was excited about Carotta at first, but re-reading recently I think he really suffers from too much pattern recognition and ends up finding evidence to support this theory that isn't really there (e.g. his correlation of Caesar's battles with Jesus's miracles). But I still think he's on to something.
Here are the closing words to Froude's biography of Caesar from 1879:
"He fought his battles to establish some tolerable degree of justice in the government of this world; and he succeeded, though he was murdered for doing it.
"Strange and startling resemblance between the fate of the founder of the kingdom of this world and of the Founder of the kingdom not of this world, for which the first was a preparation. Each was denounced for making himself a king. Each was maligned as the friend of publicans and sinners; each was betrayed by those whom he had loved and cared for; each was put to death; and Caesar also was believed to have risen again and ascended into heaven and become a divine being."
Odysseus was the most badass literary character. But Caesar was the most badass historical character. General warrior, dictator for life, bridge engineer, calendar creator, inventor of the frickin' book for Jupiter's sake, ladies' man, epic troll (e.g. Cato's half-sister's love letter), poet, strong yet merciful. And his final words, to Brutus, were essentially, "Fuck you too, kid."
I think Carotta's core error was not in identifying Caesar as the model for Christ, but in his working hypothesis that the substitution had happened by accident. That always struck me as a stretch. Historical memory isn't quite that unreliable. Moreover, many of the correspondences in nomenclature he identified weren't convincing. In his book he attempts to demonstrate two hypotheses: 1) Jesus and Caesar were the same character; 2) it happened due to copying errors. 1) was convincing, but really, he succeeded in ruling out 2).
That leaves the question of how the substitution happened. My favored hypothesis is that Caesar's cult deliberately went underground, due to suppression by the contemporary PTB, and essentially cloaked itself in the garb of an alien mystery cult in order to blend in with the rest of them and go undetected. The necessity of secrecy led to the development of an esoteric/exoteric distinction within the cult, with the former being gradually extinguished. The cultural memory of the persecution of the Christians is suggestive of this scenario.
The other possibility is that Christianity was a deliberate imposition by the empire, with the specific intent of absorbing and rendering harmless the Caesar cult. Christianity's violent and centralized spread following Constantine's conversion is consistent with that.
The subject of Rolo's post - the fraudulent nature of the OT - is also relevant here. Gmirkin's work indicating that the OT was a successful attempt to impose a Platonic Republic in Hebrew culture suggests that this form of social engineering was known about in philosophical/aristocratic circles. Given its success, the practical-minded Romans may have decided not to reinvent the wheel, and instead simply grafted the OT in its entirety onto the (acceptable) gospels and other books of what became the NT. The NT was curated such that obvious Caesarian references were extirpated as much as possible; competing gospels suppressed; those who knew the truth executed or otherwise silenced; and after a generation or two, the truth was entirely forgotten. Exactly as happened in Judea.
Those scenarios don't have to mutually exclusive. The true church moving underground may have happened first; later, the empire figured out the trick, and responded by sending in the Judaizers to coopt the cult. We know the Judaizers were fiercely resisted by many, eg Marcion, who insisted that the OT had nothing to do with the NT.
Agree with you on Marcionism and the corrupting influence of the Old Testament on Christianity.
Unfortunately that ship has sailed. The time to have corrected the record and gone back to the Marcion Bible would have been at least 1000 years ago.
Too many Christian leaders and worshippers have too much vested in Christianity being an offshoot of Judaism.
However that does not mean that we can't create a Christian sect that rejects modern Christianity and returns it to its roots. As more men on our side of the divide seek traditional ways of thought, the Jewish version of Christianity will have too much baggage
I didn't even try to read the bible until the last fee years. I immediately rejected the old testament because it made no sense & clearly relates only to Jews. I'd been unable to reconcile the old testament god with Yeshua until just the other day, when it was suggested to me that they aren't one & the same.
So it's not just me! Phew...
I do question Paul, since he didn't walk the earth with Yeshua, is the only Apostle not named by Yeshua & unlike the other apostles, doesn't appear to have performed healing miracles.
Otoh, I want to learn more about apostles & disciples left out of the Bible/Nee Testament. Eg, Phontina, the Samaritan who was named an apostle, & whose children were involved with miracles.
I saw a really good series of youtube documentaries about the distinction between history and legend and one of its' conclusions was that much of the old testament and the "promised land" narrative was just a propaganda campaign. And that these "jews" in the middle of the story were serial infidels that everyone eventually kicked out violently.
Some people these days call these "jews" ashkinazi and point to the fact that prior to around 1860 "hebrew" was the standard label for these middle eastern folk who migrated to europe, and that these usurpers took that cloak and used it to hide themselves in the 17th century european aristocracy, and then rapidly moved towards today's "Great Reset" and the 300 years of fiat debasement and fraud currency and fraud government systems.
I'm very inclined to believe that it's impossible to trust any written document much over 600 years old and from there on it's legend until about 2000 years at which point it's completely mythological.
I mean, the archaeological record of Jericho just doesn't comport with the OT either. The evidence strongly suggests they had some kind of decentralised system of courts that was at the centre of life and no king. Where's the written record of that?
Thank you for this! I tend to look for poisons and poisoners, and Laurent Guyénot's of analysis of Yahweh lead me to suspect that Yahweh's inclusion in the form of Christianity that "won" meant that the poisoners won control of the new religion. I'm eager to read the next part.
small typo:
first Christian bible consisted of the letters of the unedited first 10 letters
The Jews only come on the scene at the very end of the Old Testament, when Judah had been defeated by the Moloch worshipers and were sent off to Babylon, where their tribe was infiltrated top down by their longstanding enemies. Since then Judah is called 'the Jews', because they no longer serve God, but their original enemies, the Moloch and Ba'al worshiping Nephilim (Sons of Anak).
The Canaanite Conquest was directed against 'the Gentiles', who were the child sacrificing Moloch Worshipers.
Mosaic law explicitly forbids child sacrifices, and after the Conquest, Israel constantly gets influenced by the remnants of the Moloch/Ba'al worshipers, and this is where YHVH's fury comes from. The Prohpets constantly scold Israel for their sins:
Jeremiah 32:35:
“They built high places for Baal in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to sacrifice their sons and daughters to Molek, though I never commanded—nor did it enter my mind—that they should do such a detestable thing and so make Judah sin.”
These are the facts, not bullshit about how YHVH is Moloch.
Israelites are not jews / ieudomites. That is confirmed in the Bible. Hyksos were Israelites. A-bram was a Prince aka IB.RU.UM.
A-bram has been identified by scholars as the strangely prominent and wide-ranging Egyptian nobleman Thutmose (Atamos).
This "mighty prince" is traditionally referred to in literature by the Egyptian form of his name, Djehuty or Djehutymes, in order to avoid confusion with the
pharaohs named Thutmose.
The Egyptian Djehutymes and Greek form Thutmose have the meaning, “Child of Thoth” or “Thoth is Born/Reborn.” Thoth was an Egyptian God, son of the great ‘Olden God’ Ptah, who it has been
determined was the Egyptian identity of the Sunerian God Enki, Thoth then correlates to Ningishzidda, another son of Enki and brother to the Babylonian God Marduk. Since as we have concluded above that
Enki is also the Hebrew God Yahweh, it also makes sense that Abraham would be aligned with this god as
well.
During his long career, the "mighty prince" Djehuty held the wide-ranging titles of King in Damascus and
Nefrusy, Overseer of Priests in Middle Egypt, Viceroy of Nubia (Ethiopia), General of the Armies of Egypt,
Commissioner ('overseer of a part of the northern foreign territory'), Scribe, and Director of the Treasury.
The priestly nature of Djehuty, his international orientation, great wealth and propensity for "reckoning"
were certainly the basis for the Biblical characterization of Abraham.
I found the image you used. It's from a Renaissance era cathedral in Spain. The name reads "Moi-ses" across the tablets. It's situated in the choir loft behind and above the chairs. So the graven image is 100% kosher, i.e. church-approved.
He offers 3 lines of defense. The horns are not those of a goat, but a smaller animal, thus not related to a demon. The horns represent rays of light which can't be depicted in sculpture but have been in paintings. The horns are actually symbolic of an altar. Even with the supporting picture of Charlton Heston as Moses holding the tablets, this seems hallucinatory.
Moses receiving the 10 commandments is a pivotal moment for the Abrahamics. He's just been face to face w/ the Most High and received the precious spiritual booty. Now he comes down from the mount looking like a demon and his lieutenants are scared of him. He reassures them by ordering the slaughter of 3.000 of their brethren. "No problem, Mo. Guess we're back on track!"
Somewhere in those Commandments was the proscription against graven images. Let the gentiles worship idols. We'll have none of that. Our God is invisible (except for occasional appearances). Now look what those foolish goys have done. They've gone and made statues giving away the game, shown the true face of the devil we worship imprinted on our greatest leader. Slaughter them all!
Michaelangelo's expression on Moses's face, not to mention the one in Spain, is anything but blissed. Wrathful comes to mind.
Volcano is a reasonable deduction from the various OT texts, but not likely to be found in Sinai. There are scholars who claim the history/exodus of the Hebrews is better situated in Arabia than Egypt. Possibly they migrated from Yemen to Palestine. There were volcanoes in NW Arabia.. Another explanation of the smoke and fire references might have to do w/ the Axis Mundi concept favored by the Thunderbolts group. They posit a column connecting Earth w/ Mars during the break up of the Saturn configuration, the Hebdomad in Gnostic talk.
The horns represent authority and connect to being a prophet. Moses I is Ramses I. Ramses the Great arranged an army to reclaim part of the extensive provinces in the European birthplace of the Aerians/renamed Egyptians. He settled the Israelites "over there," which refers to the West. The Labi of the judaahites was Ramses. They ruled Aeria/Urria/Egypt for hundreds of years. They were aka other illustrious persons in the other nations they ruled contemporaneously.
Christianity is dead, and the New Testament is much worse than the Old from the standpoint of what we need in our era. Time to move on. Nietzsche pointed the way. And that is the only way. The only way out of this modernity is through it, not back.
NEETshe didn't get into metaphysics. How you can build a new morality without metaphysics is beyond me. It's like building a house on a foundation of sand. It becomes all, like, relative, man.
It sounds like you're advocating for the ideas of Rousseau and Voltaire and Freud - the idea that if we were to revert to our instinctual nature and do away with our higher nature, that we'd be happier.
Voltaire's opinion in this regard was the opposite of Rousseau's. At any rate, Rousseau's problem was that he got nature wrong: he thought the nature of man was peaceful and egalitarian, while in reality it is hierarchical and highly inegalitarian.
Anyway, if you got Venner's Handbook, there is a section in there titled "Nature as the Foundation". You can read it to understand what I mean.
Nietzsche adored jews, and hated Germans. He worked for the Rothschilds. Put a skullcap, wig and fake beard on him and you get rabbi Marx, another writer for the Rothschilds.
I believe this does not add anything new to the discourse.
If you're a faithful Christian who encountered "higher criticism", there's nothing here to challenge you. I'm not seeing an attempt here to historically interact w/ the text.
Simply put, higher criticism begins in unbelief -- not scholarship. (AKA: I don't want to believe this so let's find reasons not to).
Take for instance Dividic psalms (pre-exilic) which spoke of blessings on "all who stay in him" (including the gentile princes who "kiss the son"). Or Abraham being elected post Babylon dispersion (where "nations" were created) in order to once again "bless those nations" (reverse the curse)? Higher Crit. would simply wave those of?
I understand. We don't like our God to be "jealous" and "mean". But this is not reason to jettison academics. If we don't like it, let's clearly say "we don' t like it". If we don't want to believe it, let's clearly say "we don't want to believe it". But we have no right to abuse a historical body of literature which happens to offend our sentiments.
Sloppy mess compared to what? If you had 13+ authors working over a period fo 1500 years can you show me a similar work of antiquity which is a standard of not sloppiness?
The Odyssey is obviously fiction and never pretended to be otherwise. Greek mythology is extremely messy. Those God's are capricious but then act aghast when certain few crimes happen (like Media boiling her family for a lover). I would not use it as a good example of anything except foundational pagan morality.
How do you reconcile the merciful, loving Father of the NT w/ the psychopathic, slaughter God of the OT except thru faith that both versions are God's words and therefore inerrant? There is no reasonable explanation of these disparate characters. Neither you nor Paul make any attempt to justify what makes a vengeful tyrant into a benevolent lawgiver.
If you read the NT all the way through, you will find the same "psycopathic" God who would destroy all rebels with unquenchable fire. And if you read the OT all the way through you will find a merciful, loving Father who begs his covenant people again and again to return to Him.
God, if He is God, is a creator. A creator, by tautology, defines the law for the creatures he creates such that he is immune from any moral relationship to his creatures.
Does Fordo have a standing to call Tolkein a psychopath in view of all the troubles Tolkein put Frodo through?
As you're setting yourself up as a biblical expert, I'd like to see a verbatim quote w/ contex on Jesus and the unquenchable fire. It's not a passage I'm familiar with.
And just because a psychopath begs his victim to adhere to his 600 odd laws doesn't make him any less a psychopath. What happens if the victim doesn't obey - unquenchable fire? Is "I told you so. Now you must die." the response of a loving father?
If a creator God has no regard, no moral responsibility for his creatures, that's what I'd call an irresponsible despot.
Frodo is a fictionalized character. Is the bible fiction?
There are plenty of eschatological passages where Jesus speaks clearly on destruction of the wicked at the end of the age after judgement especially in his parables.
------------------
Frodo is a creature of Tolkein. Thus by tautology, a creator defines the oughtness for a creature. Tolkein as a creator can only create "fictional" creatures. God as a creator created "real" creatures. Both are creatures which exist, but both pertain to different categories. And just as there is an ontological divide between Frodo and Tolkein. There's an ontological divide between you (a "real" being) and God (being of "aseity").
Would a computer program (that i write) have standing to accuse me of being and irresponsible despot?
I don't think you are thinking ontologically when you think of "what" god is.
In the Rev. passage it is not Jesus speaking and wishing genocide but some apocalyptic angel. In Mark and Luke, Jesus is not ordering anyone's death, let alone entire nations and their animals to be slaughtered. He's talking about how an individual can avoid hell . Now granted the corrective metaphors are gruesome but they're metaphors. "Better you should... than..." There is a whiff of the OT passion for blood that the evangelists impart to moral punishment, but it's sublimated into parables in the NT. Jesus doesn't go full blood-lust beserker. Tho we do love that ruckus w/ the money changers. The real peps finally get a comeuppance.
It seems you're glad to philosophically mount the case for your creator god, the despot of asiety, to be as sadistic as he justly pleases. Who are we to cry 'foul' when the old man wants to play rough w/ his toys? They're just toys after all.
But haven't we been told they're creatures w/ free will and feelings, you know, beings created that way? No, mustn't be concerned about that. Righteous retribution is a one-way street, and Yahweh and his tzaddik minions are out for blood sacrifice. They love the smell of burnt flesh in the morning.
Better do what the old guy says or get run over by the Israeli moving van! Oh and be grateful if a chosen few are spared the carnage from time to time. Join in our little celebratory dance as the towers disintegrate, goyim.
It's His air you breathe. It's His ground you walk on. It's His food you eat. It's His water you drink when you are thirsty. Every pleasurable impulse you feel is an impulse He developed in Has laboratories and lets you freely enjoy. And these pleasures He piles upon you day after day.
We have here a case of a "despot" who gives you a million bucks every day, in contrast to a spoiled brat, who takes the good gift while spitting at the face of a giver. And this happens again and again and again.
The purpose of the Old Testament was to backstop, point to , prefigure the New.
And the purpose of the New Testament is to state, declare , convince, Who Jesus Christ is.
That's it. That's all.
Neither is a handbook of Morality, or Politics, or Social Engineering. Criticize fish for not climbing trees if you want to, but the fish dont care and you sound stupid. Melliflously cheese paringly stupid.
And unaware. You miss the point. Not that you care, it seems. Which is your fault.
The question dangled and begged by these courtier commentators , is " can believers think" ( guffaw, not as well as meee... unstated)
The real question is this.
What do you believe.
Thinking cant even start till believing gets settled.
Our assumptions , unconcious, engraved, immutable ( without grace) are the quicksand mud wallow we have to jack the car up and change the flat in . Good luck with that Mr post modernist soy sucking Throbbing Brain.
You cant think straight if you dont believe truth.
If you could figure God out without grace youd be God , wouldnt you.
Thank you for bringing this info to your readers’ attention.
The Forum has exhaustively researched this same material over the years and SOTT has interviewed Gmirkin within the past few months.
Many of us have also read Laurent Guyenot’s “From Yahweh to Zion” and are familiar with most of the false claims of the jews which were adopted by the early roman church.
Beyond past time to discard these lies into the trash bins where they belong.
Especially appreciate what you say about the garden and a god who demands obedience rather than intelligence and seeking knowledge of the truth.
Not surprised yahweh wouldn’t encourage eating fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Might trigger the dangerous thought that yahweh himself is the evil one posing and impersonating the good guy. Tactics of psychopaths haven’t changed from then to now.
Thanks again.
Hey, I waffled on this, but you mentioned reaching out to the SOTT people or something of that nature.
If they're cool with me talking openly like I do on this blog, then I wouldn't mind speaking to them, if I understood your offer correctly.
Yes. You understood me correctly. Thanks for replying in the affirmative. Yay. 🤗
Re SOTT — At the time I wrote that, I didn’t realize that you already have a direct connection to SOTT via Harrison Koehli, who is a SOTT editor as well as a fellow Substack blogger and a subscriber to your own blog here.
Seems like you two could privately discuss the possibility of doing an interview between yourselves, yes?
As I mentioned, I for one would be quite interested in hearing your take on several subjects you write about here on your blog. As well as reading any of your blog posts which SOTT would be willing to post on their news site.
Re for The Duran, I still think your direct knowledge of the Russia-Ukraine situation would be their primary interest since that’s the subject they are almost exclusively focused on these days.
I’d be happy to reach out to The Duran and suggest they interview you if you like.
In that case, I think it would be helpful to them if I also included a copy of one of your most recent blogs on the Russia-Ukraine subject in my email request to The Duran. As well as a link to this blog site.
Would that be agreeable to you?
I’m glad you’re at least considering reaching out to a wider audience. Good for you. A courageous step to take for anyone to step out of their comfort zone imo. I applaud you for being willing to do so.
Let’s do this. Why not? We can so we will. Lol 🥳
I think I'm a bit too explicit for the Duran, but, honestly, I'm very down to talk to them. I just don't plan on toning down my message or my rhetoric one iota lol.
Thank you so much for your offer to help. It's very encouraging.
Lolol
I understand your refusal to tone down your message or rhetoric.
I rarely do myself.
It’s less about The Duran guyz or their viewers. And more about YouTube cancel culture and their pesky algorithms potentially deplatforming their videos because . . . well, I’m sure you know how this rigged game works I’m sure.
Alex was just recently banned for a week by YouTube.
Less a problem on Rumble or Odyssey video channels.
The Duran’s interviews are published on Locals, Rumble, Odyssey, & YouTube but the videos posted on Locals are their YouTube versions.
I think it’s still worth contacting The Duran because, even if they’re unable to allow a no-holds barred video discussion because of censorship by the YouTube goonz, either Alex or Alexander could read your blog and report on what you’ve published.
It’s less than ideal — more a workaround — but they can inform their viewers from whom they’ve sourced the info and provide those viewers with a link to your substack site.
And the viewers could read your original posts for the non-watered down version; rhetoric and all. Lol
******
Just read your latest post re Krieger. Wondering whether Russian military would appreciate that info going viral and doing the west’s PR for them? You can just imagine how the mendacious media would make hay with that report.
Helmuts, boots, purchasing their own drones, incompetent officers giving orders that jeopardize their troops, etc. ouch.
I suspect those stories can be replicated in all armies but would they not have a negative impact on morale if they were more widely known to the general public?
Just wondering since I have zero clue — because of not knowing anything about military operations.
Cheers. 🧚♀️
>Just read your latest post re Krieger. Wondering whether Russian military would appreciate that info going viral and doing the west’s PR for them? You can just imagine how the mendacious media would make hay with that report.
Western soldiers make similar complaints. Everyone knows that the average private enthusiast who is welling to pay good money can equip himself better than your standard grunt.
Understand that what you say is correct.
Just pointing out that it astonishes me that any military anywhere doesn’t outfit their troops with the best gear on the market.
Is this a well-known fact to most people and I missed the memo?
Then again, why would I even be surprised that ignoring common sense is a bigger pandemic than the fake one we’ve encountered these past few years?
I should actually be more astonished that I’m astonished. Lol
The fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil involved cannibalism - particularly of the brain. This causes heritable prion disease and a host of other death producing diseases.
I was gonna ask you if you've read Fomenko but I guess that answers it.
I guess my next question would be,have you read Jesus was Ceasar by Francessco Carota?There's a good bit of evidence that the myth of Jesus was based on Julius Caesar and later corrupted to present a more pacified character.Having an actual historical, living being would be a revitalizing force for Christianity and on top of that the real Jesus was a warrior full of strength and vitality.The man was literally superhuman and constantly studied everything he could,was so charismatic that at times people refused to meet with him knowing that his charm would sway them,so capable in tactics,strategy and battle he has something like 150-1 win-loss ratio and was so fearless that even if his army would abandon the field he'd charge the enemy himself.That's quite the example for young men and to make it better no amount of kvetching from late night talk show hosts can change the fact that he actually existed.
Yep. Another good read.
Slowly, slowly chipping away at the false claims by the controllers and architects of the matrix lies that have kept humanity trapped in a frequency fence built of falsehoods.
Thanks for your contribution. Another key to help us unlock the prison doors.
Cheers!
I came across Carotta's remarkable detective work years ago and it completely changed the way I see Christianity. Previously I was inclined to see it as Nietzsche did - slave morality, priestly revenge on the strong driven by the ressentiment of the weak. And an alien import as well. If Caesar is the true Christ, that changes everything. I've had the same thought that you have, this could be a revitalizing spiritual influence. What comes out of it would be the best of Christianity, with the best of paganism.
Having a real superman as a central focus and example is much better than a hippy.Certain elements of that remained in Jesus what with him whipping the moneylenders and saying ''sell your cloaks and buy a sword''. On a somewhat related note I also think genuine mysticism needs to be brought back into the mainfold as it's the actual way for humans to experience spirituality as opposed to simply worshipping.Doesn't have to be eastern as there's Christian mysticism that one can use as a template.Though the problem with that is most Christians (at least in the West) are completely averse to the experiential model likening it to witchcraft.Not that i can blame them since the new age movement doesn't filter satanists/cultists/mentally derranged and other negative elements hence why you have all kinds of gay little witches running around.
Oh YES!!
Please, please, please can we bring back mysticism??!!
Nuts & bolts physical reality is all well and good and important for us to learn our 3rd Density lessons.
That’s the whole point of incarnating into 3D bodies after all.
And all the grand research and discerning the truth from the lies is a major part of our 3D learning experience.
And I love learning those lessons quite frankly.
Yet my soul also yearns for the connection to the mystical realms to which I more naturally resonate.
It’s an exercise in Tai Chi balancing to be able to have one foot in the mystical world whilst simultaneously navigating the down to earth real world without losing touch with either.
An exercise in conscious suffering to remain focused and paying strict attention right and left to the 3D world in order to avoid becoming road-kill.
Lucky for me that my life has given me the opportunities to primarily focus safely in each reality at different times.
These past 16 years have been a slog through the mud of 3D. Which feels a bit like paying it forward and paying with both attention and mental and physical nrg to the nuts and bolts of the outer world reality.
That saying — the devil is in the details has taken on do many additional meanings for me recently.
I understand viscerally why it was not even a temptation for Christ to say No to ruling the world. On so many levels.
Not important whether Christ actually existed. The story itself is what’s important imo.
Thank you Maksim for introducing mysticism into the discussion. Feels like being brushed by the breeze of clarity blowing away the miasma I sometimes get bogged down in and forget my other home. Lol 🤗
I was excited about Carotta at first, but re-reading recently I think he really suffers from too much pattern recognition and ends up finding evidence to support this theory that isn't really there (e.g. his correlation of Caesar's battles with Jesus's miracles). But I still think he's on to something.
Here are the closing words to Froude's biography of Caesar from 1879:
"He fought his battles to establish some tolerable degree of justice in the government of this world; and he succeeded, though he was murdered for doing it.
"Strange and startling resemblance between the fate of the founder of the kingdom of this world and of the Founder of the kingdom not of this world, for which the first was a preparation. Each was denounced for making himself a king. Each was maligned as the friend of publicans and sinners; each was betrayed by those whom he had loved and cared for; each was put to death; and Caesar also was believed to have risen again and ascended into heaven and become a divine being."
Odysseus was the most badass literary character. But Caesar was the most badass historical character. General warrior, dictator for life, bridge engineer, calendar creator, inventor of the frickin' book for Jupiter's sake, ladies' man, epic troll (e.g. Cato's half-sister's love letter), poet, strong yet merciful. And his final words, to Brutus, were essentially, "Fuck you too, kid."
I think Carotta's core error was not in identifying Caesar as the model for Christ, but in his working hypothesis that the substitution had happened by accident. That always struck me as a stretch. Historical memory isn't quite that unreliable. Moreover, many of the correspondences in nomenclature he identified weren't convincing. In his book he attempts to demonstrate two hypotheses: 1) Jesus and Caesar were the same character; 2) it happened due to copying errors. 1) was convincing, but really, he succeeded in ruling out 2).
That leaves the question of how the substitution happened. My favored hypothesis is that Caesar's cult deliberately went underground, due to suppression by the contemporary PTB, and essentially cloaked itself in the garb of an alien mystery cult in order to blend in with the rest of them and go undetected. The necessity of secrecy led to the development of an esoteric/exoteric distinction within the cult, with the former being gradually extinguished. The cultural memory of the persecution of the Christians is suggestive of this scenario.
The other possibility is that Christianity was a deliberate imposition by the empire, with the specific intent of absorbing and rendering harmless the Caesar cult. Christianity's violent and centralized spread following Constantine's conversion is consistent with that.
The subject of Rolo's post - the fraudulent nature of the OT - is also relevant here. Gmirkin's work indicating that the OT was a successful attempt to impose a Platonic Republic in Hebrew culture suggests that this form of social engineering was known about in philosophical/aristocratic circles. Given its success, the practical-minded Romans may have decided not to reinvent the wheel, and instead simply grafted the OT in its entirety onto the (acceptable) gospels and other books of what became the NT. The NT was curated such that obvious Caesarian references were extirpated as much as possible; competing gospels suppressed; those who knew the truth executed or otherwise silenced; and after a generation or two, the truth was entirely forgotten. Exactly as happened in Judea.
Those scenarios don't have to mutually exclusive. The true church moving underground may have happened first; later, the empire figured out the trick, and responded by sending in the Judaizers to coopt the cult. We know the Judaizers were fiercely resisted by many, eg Marcion, who insisted that the OT had nothing to do with the NT.
Agree with you on Marcionism and the corrupting influence of the Old Testament on Christianity.
Unfortunately that ship has sailed. The time to have corrected the record and gone back to the Marcion Bible would have been at least 1000 years ago.
Too many Christian leaders and worshippers have too much vested in Christianity being an offshoot of Judaism.
However that does not mean that we can't create a Christian sect that rejects modern Christianity and returns it to its roots. As more men on our side of the divide seek traditional ways of thought, the Jewish version of Christianity will have too much baggage
I didn't even try to read the bible until the last fee years. I immediately rejected the old testament because it made no sense & clearly relates only to Jews. I'd been unable to reconcile the old testament god with Yeshua until just the other day, when it was suggested to me that they aren't one & the same.
So it's not just me! Phew...
I do question Paul, since he didn't walk the earth with Yeshua, is the only Apostle not named by Yeshua & unlike the other apostles, doesn't appear to have performed healing miracles.
Otoh, I want to learn more about apostles & disciples left out of the Bible/Nee Testament. Eg, Phontina, the Samaritan who was named an apostle, & whose children were involved with miracles.
And the gnostic texts, I'd like to see those.
I saw a really good series of youtube documentaries about the distinction between history and legend and one of its' conclusions was that much of the old testament and the "promised land" narrative was just a propaganda campaign. And that these "jews" in the middle of the story were serial infidels that everyone eventually kicked out violently.
Some people these days call these "jews" ashkinazi and point to the fact that prior to around 1860 "hebrew" was the standard label for these middle eastern folk who migrated to europe, and that these usurpers took that cloak and used it to hide themselves in the 17th century european aristocracy, and then rapidly moved towards today's "Great Reset" and the 300 years of fiat debasement and fraud currency and fraud government systems.
I'm very inclined to believe that it's impossible to trust any written document much over 600 years old and from there on it's legend until about 2000 years at which point it's completely mythological.
I mean, the archaeological record of Jericho just doesn't comport with the OT either. The evidence strongly suggests they had some kind of decentralised system of courts that was at the centre of life and no king. Where's the written record of that?
Thank you for this! I tend to look for poisons and poisoners, and Laurent Guyénot's of analysis of Yahweh lead me to suspect that Yahweh's inclusion in the form of Christianity that "won" meant that the poisoners won control of the new religion. I'm eager to read the next part.
small typo:
first Christian bible consisted of the letters of the unedited first 10 letters
Impressive.
How can you call the Israelites 'the Jews'?
The Jews only come on the scene at the very end of the Old Testament, when Judah had been defeated by the Moloch worshipers and were sent off to Babylon, where their tribe was infiltrated top down by their longstanding enemies. Since then Judah is called 'the Jews', because they no longer serve God, but their original enemies, the Moloch and Ba'al worshiping Nephilim (Sons of Anak).
Yahweh is Moloch.
Hyksos = Israelites = Jews.
No, YHVH is not Moloch, Moloch and Ba'al were his enemies, he attacked their evil ways, including Child Sacrifice.
Whatever helps you sleep at night my man.
The Canaanite Conquest was directed against 'the Gentiles', who were the child sacrificing Moloch Worshipers.
Mosaic law explicitly forbids child sacrifices, and after the Conquest, Israel constantly gets influenced by the remnants of the Moloch/Ba'al worshipers, and this is where YHVH's fury comes from. The Prohpets constantly scold Israel for their sins:
Jeremiah 32:35:
“They built high places for Baal in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to sacrifice their sons and daughters to Molek, though I never commanded—nor did it enter my mind—that they should do such a detestable thing and so make Judah sin.”
These are the facts, not bullshit about how YHVH is Moloch.
There are plenty of instances of child sacrifices in the OT.
They are all over the place in Exodus and in later books as well. A five minute google search would reveal that to you.
But believe whatever you want to believe.
Me, I believe you worship a Jewish demon that Christ directly repudiates.
Of course the OT is full of child sacrifice, and it is furiously condemned by YHVH and the Prohpets.
What the hell are you talking about??
Israelites are not jews / ieudomites. That is confirmed in the Bible. Hyksos were Israelites. A-bram was a Prince aka IB.RU.UM.
A-bram has been identified by scholars as the strangely prominent and wide-ranging Egyptian nobleman Thutmose (Atamos).
This "mighty prince" is traditionally referred to in literature by the Egyptian form of his name, Djehuty or Djehutymes, in order to avoid confusion with the
pharaohs named Thutmose.
The Egyptian Djehutymes and Greek form Thutmose have the meaning, “Child of Thoth” or “Thoth is Born/Reborn.” Thoth was an Egyptian God, son of the great ‘Olden God’ Ptah, who it has been
determined was the Egyptian identity of the Sunerian God Enki, Thoth then correlates to Ningishzidda, another son of Enki and brother to the Babylonian God Marduk. Since as we have concluded above that
Enki is also the Hebrew God Yahweh, it also makes sense that Abraham would be aligned with this god as
well.
During his long career, the "mighty prince" Djehuty held the wide-ranging titles of King in Damascus and
Nefrusy, Overseer of Priests in Middle Egypt, Viceroy of Nubia (Ethiopia), General of the Armies of Egypt,
Commissioner ('overseer of a part of the northern foreign territory'), Scribe, and Director of the Treasury.
The priestly nature of Djehuty, his international orientation, great wealth and propensity for "reckoning"
were certainly the basis for the Biblical characterization of Abraham.
Guyenot is one of my favorite writers. Where is that bronze image of the horned Moses to be found?
I typed in "horned moses" on yandex.
He was routinely depicted with horns in the middle ages.
I found the image you used. It's from a Renaissance era cathedral in Spain. The name reads "Moi-ses" across the tablets. It's situated in the choir loft behind and above the chairs. So the graven image is 100% kosher, i.e. church-approved.
There are apologetics re the horns of Moses. Here's an article from a traditionalist Christian I'm familiar with. I found it more damning than exculpatory. https://taylormarshall.com/2013/08/the-horns-of-moses-defending-michelangelos-horned-moses.html
He offers 3 lines of defense. The horns are not those of a goat, but a smaller animal, thus not related to a demon. The horns represent rays of light which can't be depicted in sculpture but have been in paintings. The horns are actually symbolic of an altar. Even with the supporting picture of Charlton Heston as Moses holding the tablets, this seems hallucinatory.
Moses receiving the 10 commandments is a pivotal moment for the Abrahamics. He's just been face to face w/ the Most High and received the precious spiritual booty. Now he comes down from the mount looking like a demon and his lieutenants are scared of him. He reassures them by ordering the slaughter of 3.000 of their brethren. "No problem, Mo. Guess we're back on track!"
Somewhere in those Commandments was the proscription against graven images. Let the gentiles worship idols. We'll have none of that. Our God is invisible (except for occasional appearances). Now look what those foolish goys have done. They've gone and made statues giving away the game, shown the true face of the devil we worship imprinted on our greatest leader. Slaughter them all!
Yeah, no one could even look at his face after he went up to that volcano.
Also, Paul didn't like Moses one bit.
Michaelangelo's expression on Moses's face, not to mention the one in Spain, is anything but blissed. Wrathful comes to mind.
Volcano is a reasonable deduction from the various OT texts, but not likely to be found in Sinai. There are scholars who claim the history/exodus of the Hebrews is better situated in Arabia than Egypt. Possibly they migrated from Yemen to Palestine. There were volcanoes in NW Arabia.. Another explanation of the smoke and fire references might have to do w/ the Axis Mundi concept favored by the Thunderbolts group. They posit a column connecting Earth w/ Mars during the break up of the Saturn configuration, the Hebdomad in Gnostic talk.
What's Paul's beef w/ Moses?
Paul talks about the "curse of Moses" by which he means the 613 OT laws.
And he denies that Moses spoke to God.
The horns represent authority and connect to being a prophet. Moses I is Ramses I. Ramses the Great arranged an army to reclaim part of the extensive provinces in the European birthplace of the Aerians/renamed Egyptians. He settled the Israelites "over there," which refers to the West. The Labi of the judaahites was Ramses. They ruled Aeria/Urria/Egypt for hundreds of years. They were aka other illustrious persons in the other nations they ruled contemporaneously.
Wish I understood what you're trying to say. English is likely not your first language.
Just the first sentence, if you will - why do horns represent authority and prophecy?
Christianity is dead, and the New Testament is much worse than the Old from the standpoint of what we need in our era. Time to move on. Nietzsche pointed the way. And that is the only way. The only way out of this modernity is through it, not back.
NEETshe didn't get into metaphysics. How you can build a new morality without metaphysics is beyond me. It's like building a house on a foundation of sand. It becomes all, like, relative, man.
The foundation is nature, and can be nothing else.
I'm not sure I even understand what that means.
It sounds like you're advocating for the ideas of Rousseau and Voltaire and Freud - the idea that if we were to revert to our instinctual nature and do away with our higher nature, that we'd be happier.
Voltaire's opinion in this regard was the opposite of Rousseau's. At any rate, Rousseau's problem was that he got nature wrong: he thought the nature of man was peaceful and egalitarian, while in reality it is hierarchical and highly inegalitarian.
Anyway, if you got Venner's Handbook, there is a section in there titled "Nature as the Foundation". You can read it to understand what I mean.
Nietzsche adored jews, and hated Germans. He worked for the Rothschilds. Put a skullcap, wig and fake beard on him and you get rabbi Marx, another writer for the Rothschilds.
I believe this does not add anything new to the discourse.
If you're a faithful Christian who encountered "higher criticism", there's nothing here to challenge you. I'm not seeing an attempt here to historically interact w/ the text.
Simply put, higher criticism begins in unbelief -- not scholarship. (AKA: I don't want to believe this so let's find reasons not to).
Take for instance Dividic psalms (pre-exilic) which spoke of blessings on "all who stay in him" (including the gentile princes who "kiss the son"). Or Abraham being elected post Babylon dispersion (where "nations" were created) in order to once again "bless those nations" (reverse the curse)? Higher Crit. would simply wave those of?
I understand. We don't like our God to be "jealous" and "mean". But this is not reason to jettison academics. If we don't like it, let's clearly say "we don' t like it". If we don't want to believe it, let's clearly say "we don't want to believe it". But we have no right to abuse a historical body of literature which happens to offend our sentiments.
What are you even trying to say?
I have all the right in the world to point out that the OT is a sloppy mess.
Sloppy mess compared to what? If you had 13+ authors working over a period fo 1500 years can you show me a similar work of antiquity which is a standard of not sloppiness?
The Odyssey is a solid story which explores man's relationship to capricious gods.
Far better than that Jewish tripe you thump at other people.
The Odyssey is obviously fiction and never pretended to be otherwise. Greek mythology is extremely messy. Those God's are capricious but then act aghast when certain few crimes happen (like Media boiling her family for a lover). I would not use it as a good example of anything except foundational pagan morality.
>and never pretended to be otherwise
That already makes it more honest.
>a good example of anything except foundational pagan morality.
If anything, it's anti-gods. The gods are rarely portrayed favorably or as moral.
How do you reconcile the merciful, loving Father of the NT w/ the psychopathic, slaughter God of the OT except thru faith that both versions are God's words and therefore inerrant? There is no reasonable explanation of these disparate characters. Neither you nor Paul make any attempt to justify what makes a vengeful tyrant into a benevolent lawgiver.
I don't know what you're reading.
If you read the NT all the way through, you will find the same "psycopathic" God who would destroy all rebels with unquenchable fire. And if you read the OT all the way through you will find a merciful, loving Father who begs his covenant people again and again to return to Him.
God, if He is God, is a creator. A creator, by tautology, defines the law for the creatures he creates such that he is immune from any moral relationship to his creatures.
Does Fordo have a standing to call Tolkein a psychopath in view of all the troubles Tolkein put Frodo through?
As you're setting yourself up as a biblical expert, I'd like to see a verbatim quote w/ contex on Jesus and the unquenchable fire. It's not a passage I'm familiar with.
And just because a psychopath begs his victim to adhere to his 600 odd laws doesn't make him any less a psychopath. What happens if the victim doesn't obey - unquenchable fire? Is "I told you so. Now you must die." the response of a loving father?
If a creator God has no regard, no moral responsibility for his creatures, that's what I'd call an irresponsible despot.
Frodo is a fictionalized character. Is the bible fiction?
>Is the bible fiction?
Yes.
Rev 14 : 9-12,
Mark 9 : 47-48
Luke 16 : 19 - 31
There are plenty of eschatological passages where Jesus speaks clearly on destruction of the wicked at the end of the age after judgement especially in his parables.
------------------
Frodo is a creature of Tolkein. Thus by tautology, a creator defines the oughtness for a creature. Tolkein as a creator can only create "fictional" creatures. God as a creator created "real" creatures. Both are creatures which exist, but both pertain to different categories. And just as there is an ontological divide between Frodo and Tolkein. There's an ontological divide between you (a "real" being) and God (being of "aseity").
Would a computer program (that i write) have standing to accuse me of being and irresponsible despot?
I don't think you are thinking ontologically when you think of "what" god is.
In the Rev. passage it is not Jesus speaking and wishing genocide but some apocalyptic angel. In Mark and Luke, Jesus is not ordering anyone's death, let alone entire nations and their animals to be slaughtered. He's talking about how an individual can avoid hell . Now granted the corrective metaphors are gruesome but they're metaphors. "Better you should... than..." There is a whiff of the OT passion for blood that the evangelists impart to moral punishment, but it's sublimated into parables in the NT. Jesus doesn't go full blood-lust beserker. Tho we do love that ruckus w/ the money changers. The real peps finally get a comeuppance.
It seems you're glad to philosophically mount the case for your creator god, the despot of asiety, to be as sadistic as he justly pleases. Who are we to cry 'foul' when the old man wants to play rough w/ his toys? They're just toys after all.
But haven't we been told they're creatures w/ free will and feelings, you know, beings created that way? No, mustn't be concerned about that. Righteous retribution is a one-way street, and Yahweh and his tzaddik minions are out for blood sacrifice. They love the smell of burnt flesh in the morning.
Better do what the old guy says or get run over by the Israeli moving van! Oh and be grateful if a chosen few are spared the carnage from time to time. Join in our little celebratory dance as the towers disintegrate, goyim.
It's His air you breathe. It's His ground you walk on. It's His food you eat. It's His water you drink when you are thirsty. Every pleasurable impulse you feel is an impulse He developed in Has laboratories and lets you freely enjoy. And these pleasures He piles upon you day after day.
We have here a case of a "despot" who gives you a million bucks every day, in contrast to a spoiled brat, who takes the good gift while spitting at the face of a giver. And this happens again and again and again.
This is the very epistemology of Hell.
>Would a computer program (that i write) have standing to accuse me of being and irresponsible despot?
If you gave the program certain criteria and parameters to define despotism and then exhibited these traits, then yes, obviously. What a stupid point.
That's not hard to do.
```console.log("You are a despot")```
Now tell me, how much does that really change things? It is a creature. After it calls me a despot, i can hit the delete button and make it say:
```console.log("You are the best")```
There's a chasm there ontologically thus it's opinion of me has no moral teeth precisely because morality breaks when ontology is crossed.
This is great and eye opening work. I'm so glad I have dived down into your older posts. Thank you.
The purpose of the Old Testament was to backstop, point to , prefigure the New.
And the purpose of the New Testament is to state, declare , convince, Who Jesus Christ is.
That's it. That's all.
Neither is a handbook of Morality, or Politics, or Social Engineering. Criticize fish for not climbing trees if you want to, but the fish dont care and you sound stupid. Melliflously cheese paringly stupid.
And unaware. You miss the point. Not that you care, it seems. Which is your fault.
The question dangled and begged by these courtier commentators , is " can believers think" ( guffaw, not as well as meee... unstated)
The real question is this.
What do you believe.
Thinking cant even start till believing gets settled.
Our assumptions , unconcious, engraved, immutable ( without grace) are the quicksand mud wallow we have to jack the car up and change the flat in . Good luck with that Mr post modernist soy sucking Throbbing Brain.
You cant think straight if you dont believe truth.
If you could figure God out without grace youd be God , wouldnt you.
Just fucking pathetic.
lol wat