For the record, as a Christian, ie, a follower of Jesus Christ, I believe the Old Testament - which is a bunch of made up bullshit and stories the ancient Jews stole from other more advanced civilizations- has no relevance and no place in Christianity. It’s a particularly Jewish tract, full of stories about the ancient Jews, who were more often outside of their God’s grace and favor than they were inside. I could give a rats ass about anything in the Old Testament and deny it has any validity or significance in Christianity. Any Christian who believes in that tissue of lies needs to recommit themselves to Christ and follow his way. The Old Testament is for losers.
I read on Substack that the Sanhedrin has called all Jews, worldwide, to return now to Israel. This is just so the Jews can populate the lands they believe they have successfully stolen from other countries. It’s also calculated to have money pour in from Christian Zionists who want nothing more than all the worlds Jews to be concentrated within the ever flexible borders of “Israel”, a necessary pre-condition for their whole end times scenario to kick into gear. What a bunch of money grubbing vermin.
When precisely do you believe the Jews stole, made up, and altered the stories found in the Old Testament? If there is a weak spot in Guyenot's work, it's that he does not address the challenge of the revolution that Copenhagen School had carried out in Old Testament scholarship. In particular the work of Russell Gmirkin. Gmirkin argues that there was no Biblical Judaism until the Pentateuch was written in the Library of Alexandria about the year 276 BC. Pentateuch was first written in Greek (that's mean the so-called Septuagint has primacy over the so-called Masoretic text) then translated into Hebrew. Go to Vridar at worldpress.com to learn about Russell Gmirkin. Neil Godfrey provides a very good introduction.
It's not a weak spot, it's just not the topic of my short post. I don't find Gmirkin convincing; his theory is too extreme. But I do think that the final Hebrew canon is from the Hellenistic period. There is much evidence for that. But just as obviously, very old oral and written sources have been woven into this patchwork.
I'm well aware that when Old Testament was compliled/written was not the topic of this post. The post is in itself a most admirable reflection on Jesus and the Old Testament messianic prophecies. I have absolutely no disagreement with you on that point. What Satan temps Jesus with is exactly the same as Yahweh's messianic promise to the Israelites. Jesus rejects the temptation/promise and therefore can not be the Messiah promised by Yahweh.
I am glad you chose to very briefly address my raising Russell Gmirkin scholarship as a possible challenge (i e. weak spot) in what l took to be your view of the origin of the Old Testament. If l remember correctly, a couple of posts earlier, you recommended another Biblical scholar's work on who originally wrote the Old Testament. I've yet had a chance to review this work. Perhaps after I've reviewed it, l will come around to the view that Gmirkin's position is "extreme." As it stands now, l consider Gmirkin to be rather conservative and realistic in his approach. As you yourself agree, there is indeed something rather Hellenistic about the Old Testament.
In addition to the Hellenistic qualities to the text, and as Gmirkin unsurprisingly stresses as he is an expert on these documents, all accounts of who were the original authors of the Old Testament have to squarely face the Elephantine Papryi challenge. These documents were written in Persian Egypt by a community of Judean mercenaries and exhibit a total lack of knowledge about ... well, the whole religion of the Old Testament. Do l have "issues" with Gmirkin's position? Why, yes. I'm pretty sure they might even be coming from the same general area as yours.
In closing, l would like to note Gmirkin's latest work:
Plato's Timeaus and the Biblical Creation Accounts
Is an exceptional introduction to the cosmological accomplishments of Greek philosophy as well. It's worth the read for that reason alone.
You are assuming the biblical stories of the torah are true. Many jewish historians, christians, and plain old folks like me believe they are not. For the most part the jew-written torah is a single source, its incredible historic claims validated by little or nothing. Myths are created to pull people together and keep them in line. Just as King Arthur might have been real, his incredible feats were not.
Jews worship a mythology and develop lies and deceits to brainwashed new generations.
Agreed except for the use of the word Jews, which didn't exist until the 18th century. In the Hebrew pronunciation, since they don't have the J, this would be Yews or use or ewes. Who was using them then, when they were the nomadic all-male armed invaders of Habiru, Scythians, Romans, Khazarians? And who is pulling the strings now? Who wrote that mythology and did it end with Jesus, or just leave the baggage and sublimate into a more deceitful and insidious form?
"Zionism has led Christians and Jews into supporting and committing the most HEINOUS of crimes against the indigenous people of Palestine for almost a thousand years!
Zionism has never been conducive with the teachings of Jesus, especially “Love thy neighbour as thyself.” ~ Matthew 22:37-39 and Leviticus 19:18." read more at:
The Old Testament has parts inspired by the God of Good; parts inspired by the Other.
In relation with the first books, the Pentateuch, the Other-inspired parts are prevalent if you ask me.
See Psalm 67(68):24, and "God's" demands/predilections in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Although one must be aware that the surrounding people may have been bloodier, and progress away from evil and toward good could have been there, in what those two ancient books report — hard to believe as it may be.
At the same time, specially out of the Pentateuch (for example in Psalms) one encounters eminently genuinely Christian teachings, visions, and disclosures.
You can have a "play of opposites"; see the amazing _The Rose of the World_ by Andreev.
"Marcionism is a heresy? Tertullian condemned it? Who cares! There is no more copyright and no more papal excommunication to fear. We are free to understand and to relate to Jesus as we want."
In truth, any Christian group/thinker with a deep enough drive for truth will be loathed, ousted, and opposed/attacked by the Church establishment: that has been true, as well as has to be true, for all times on Earth past present and future.
Place and time in history affect the nature of the opposition and attacks.
Therefore, any deep-enough and spiritual-enough truth or aspiration to truth within the grounds of Christianity (which is Truth, inasmuch as it is real Christianity) receives the slander (and in the past, the attempts at physical-political destruction, mostly successful because on Earth success belongs to the evil typically though not always) of the established Church as a mark of genuineness and possible truth.
This applies by the way also to applicants to life in convents, monasteries, and to seminars. They will be rejected, if they are "too christian", with more of a passion than if they are too little of Christians.
By the way, it is obvious that you study, research, and mull over all these issues from the standpoint of someone of materialistic faith, or, "at best", an Agnostic.
This puts you at advantage compared with the majority of the established Church hierarchy, who despite little if anything more than Christ and Gospel; however, it's still far from the best position to reach the truth on these matters — if truth further than academic is sought after.
You say: "it is obvious that you study, research, and mull over all these issues from the standpoint of someone of materialistic faith, or, "at best", an Agnostic." I protest: I believe in God and the immortality of the spirit, but I don't need any "revelation" for that. Natural religion, like Stoicism.
Oh, no, not the White Man (Keeley) telling us how mean, dangerous, blood thirsty those savages were!
This is 2024, and the Doctrine of Discovery by the White Viral Catholics did its destruction, along witht he Anglo American virus from here to kingdom come. That dirty butchery island, Isra-Hell, and their sicarios, well well, the money, man, the military hardware, man, the gulag of the digital overlord, man.
And in the end, Russia caves, and Russia is on its heels:
Laith Marouf: Syria’s Dismemberment and Russia’s Betrayal
20-Fucking-24! Such great exceptionalist Western Civilizers.
Following the ‘liberation’ of Damascus by a U.S.-backed terrorist organization, Israel has stolen more Syrian land and has subjected the country to relentless bombardment.
Meanwhile, the new Syrian regime refuses to confront Zionist invaders or to stop Turkish forces from attacking Kurds in the northeast of Syria.
Dimitri Lascaris speaks with Laith Marouf about the dire condition of the Syrian nation.
Marouf, who is himself of Syrian and Palestinian origin, believes that the state of Syria no longer exists.
+--+
Butchers, man, even the fat fucks like Trump or skinny fucks like Kushner, butchers of the mind and the wallet.
You’ve wandered into a veritable Christmas collection of Jerry-meandered kids.
It appears that there’s lots of experienced fairytale tellers here.
I’m not much into telling the gory bibble stories, but if you want some recitations of Mother Goose or Humpty Dumpty, ditch this shit show, and I’ll read you some other made up stories.
I'm in agreement with you, Paulo, that the Catholic Church should not be let off the hook here. I'm still hoping that Russia does not cave and that there's a deeper plan at work, whether at a political level or a metaphysical level. But I don't know enough to say.
What I do know is that the Sicariots were not on the side of Yahweh's henchmen, interpreters and tax-extractors to enslave Canaan.
Judas the Sicariot (transpose two letters to see how the gospels turn heroes into villains) led the zealot revolution against Rome. His co-founder was Zadok or Saduc, from which the Sadducees derived. They rejected the genealogy of the Torah, giving some the right to rule over Yahweh. It was actually a Hasidic rabbi who revealed this to me, inadvertently: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/empire-and-religion.
And the author of 'Jesus' (in quotes since there's no evidence that this is a historical person and not a literary character) hated the zealots aka the sicariots. Here's what the gospels say about them, once you decipher the words translated as robber or thief in their correct meaning as insurgents against the Roman/ Yahwist alliance: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/jesus-rebel-or-imperialist.
So when 'Jesus' curses Peter as Satan, there is a zealot famous for his inhuman strength called Peter, who is rounded up after the betrayal of Jerusalem--70 CE when the gospels were first written and the character 'Jesus' first appeared. He gets turned into a cowardly, weak representative of Satan in the inversion. It's important to put this in historical context.
Laurent - it would be MOST INTERESTING to hear a debate between you and the hard-core anti-Zionists of Neturei Karta. I'd be quite curious what they would say about some of these points. Don't know who or how that could be arranged though. Dave Mann
Very interesting. Haven't figured out what to make of this yet. Need to think hard. But the ideas are freeing and fascinating. And the bibliography also. Thanks!
Je ne peux pas comprendre comme quelqu’un d’intelligent et érudit comme vous, peux encore croire en l’existence d’un dieu, en plus avec des caractéristiques et des pensées humaines. Si au moins c’était une abstraction, une façon de nommer ce que nous ne pouvons justement comprendre et qui échappe à toutes nos capacités logiques et cognitives. Pourquoi donc avez vous besoin d’un dieu? C’est vrai que je n’ai jamais été éduqué religieusement et je n’ai jamais eu besoin de m’inventer une narrative pareille remplie des contradictions plus que évidentes. Dites-moi, je vous prie, pourquoi avez vous besoin de cela?
You made several factual errors in your post. But I'll ignore those and focus on one line I find worth discussing.
"The point is that we have the choice of interpretations. There is only one Jesus, but there are many ways to understand Jesus."
If someone were to hand Jordan Peterson a croissant recipe, he could give you an interpretation that this recipe is a life changing call to personal responsibility, lobster heirarchies, and the absolute necessity of cleaning your room, bucko. But it would not be a valid interpretation of the recipe as the baker intended.
Similarly, your attempt to take the Bible and reinterpret it to fit your world view is clearly not the intended way for that document to be read.
I think Laurent's problem here is a problem I articulated in an exchange with him in the comment threads of the unz review (where he lamented the focus on Satanism in right wing circles, ironically enough given the foregoing text exhibited): namely, that the frog doth protest too much.
If, as the author says, Christians must dispense with 'metaphorical readings', why the special pleading? One could easily turn the tables on him and say that Christs' rejection of tribal identity (for whites, anyway) and the condemnation of terrestrial power in favor of some numinous 'other world' is positively suicidal for white men (Esoteric non racial dissidents such as Guyenot always insist on instead invoking the social construct of 'Europeans'. You say Potato I say Potato). What Jesus recommends is an excellent blueprint for racial extinction. Funnily enough, Guyenot himself has pointed this out in the past.
The notes of the Old Testament, if played to the tune of a white man, are exactly what we should be humming and its message is that which we should be aiming for. Be fruitful, multiply, control your women, encourage rituals which honor your dead and your past, teaching how to live among strangers (our current reality) but more importantly how to manipulate and absolutely destroy them. This is how you protect a racial legacy across generations and the proof is in the pudding.
Noah is much more qualified to be worthy of Aryan admiration and emulation. A masculine hero and family man (contrasted with childless, sexless and possibly perverted Jesus) who leads his wife and children through the chaos of a fallen world amidst a dying civilization which must be destroyed because of its own evil and depravity. Despite his flaws, he is able to emerge victorious and become the patriarch of a new world rising from the ashes of the old, when hard men create good times after soft men have created hard ones.
Woah, woah, woah! Noah is a worthy man? Read the story past the rainbow, Ryan. He plants a vineyard, gets drunk and falls asleep naked. Ham talks about this while Shem and Japheth walk backwards and cover him with a robe of whole cloth--walking backwards is the inversions of the Bible and the whole cloth is the lies and truth woven together so they're inseparable.
Then Noah gives Shem (the Shemites or Semites) the inheritance to rule over everyone else, which means the world since this is all that's left of the world, yes? Ham is cursed to be a slave but Canaan and all his descendants are cursed to be the lowest of all slaves in perpetuity to their cousins.
Ham is interpreted by Josephus (author of the gospels and editor of the OT, according to word order analysis and other evidence) to represent Africa, Egypt and parts of Asia. But why do the Canaanites deserve such special notice as one little country? Because they inhabited the land that the author of the Yahweh myth coveted.
I'd be interested if Laurent has evidence that Israel even existed in the first century, since he's presented compelling arguments in Anno Domini for the first millennia being mostly a forgery. Once you know that someone--meaning the authors of the Bible--have lied, don't you need to ask if every part that serves their interests is a lie?
Taken at face value, Noah gets drunk and naked and somehow blames his grandson? son? (the story changes in the account) What did Canaan reveal about Noah? What did Noah do to Canaan that the other brothers hid but Ham revealed?
Taken at a metaphorical level, the Noahide Covenant has been used to justify the slavery of Africans, which was primarily by Jews in the slave trade--see the video The 13 Sugar Colonies. I have it linked in his episode, where I go into more detail on this: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/talmud-tricks-and-torah-curses.
Um, no. Stories of the flood, and characters such as Noah long predate anything we call Jews. And there were many semitic peoples who have nothing to do with the Jews and Noah (if he existed) came and went long before all that. The whole point was that Noah, after everything he'd struggled for, and the brutality of the world, the avaricious nature of the seed of Cain (late stage civilization) was so demoralized that in his moment of weakness, he got drunk. Given the fact that Noah was likely surrounded by people who would've tempted his son ("hey, your dad's crazy, we can just be evil forever, there so isn't a flood coming"), it's entirely plausible his son/sons would've betrayed him. Father against son is also a prominent feature of late stage civilization, the time period which is the origin story of the flood myth to begin with. You're allowing the Jews to have possession over something which they have no right to...so you can own the Jews? Whatever. He was a flesh and blood human being like you and me, a warrior, a hero, not some weird hippie. I would recommend the excellent film with Russell Crowe and some sources that aren't from the canonical Bible which I mentioned, if you noticed.
Who is the historical figure you're taking as Noah? I don't see any links in your original comment. I do think that historical figures were usurped into the Bible and distorted, turning villains into heroes, heroes into villains, oppressors into victims and victims into oppressors. But you're quoting the Bible as if it's history, and I didn't see the historical evidence that you cited--although history, as we all know and Laurent in particular--is subject to change.
No, the archetype which comes down to us as Noah is almost completely absent from the Bible. He is almost completely written out. Call him an Atlantean. Call him Gilgamesh. It makes no difference. This inspirational archetype has got nothing to do with the Bible. Noah is just a shorthand we use because of how prominent the Bible became in the west on account of the conversion in the early 1st millennium. You're missing the point entirely because you're so focused on owning Jews.
Have either of you ever studied the history of the Annunaki as related to us through the Sumerian texts?
The supreme god was the Annunaki supreme king Anu, from which the mandate to rule comes the 8 pointed star we see associated with monarchies, and the Roman Catholic Church, and most elements of government.
His son, king Enlil was the ruler and dictator of earth, who hated mankind, mainly because our ancestors refused to be dutiful slaves to their Crown Monarchy system, and he gave our ancestors the plagues, droughts and the Great Flood to drown us right out for 'disobedience to the kings rule' - which is the true definition of 'evil' as given in the Bible - all who refuse to submit to Yahweh and the kingship of God are 'evil.' King Enlil is the basis of the character Yahweh - and Yahweh is the concept of a one world emperor ruling as a God-king.
In all the ancient empires the rulers claimed to be descended from the 'gods' - well the gods and goddesses were the Annunaki, and the Sumer pantheon of gods are all those that the Babylonian religion, and then the Roman-Babylonian religion worshiped - king Anu is known as Jupiter to the Romans, and he became the Father in Heaven for the Christians, his wife Ishtar the Queen of Heaven became Venus for the Romans, and transformed into the Virgin Mary, etc. etc.
This ancient race of giants were called sky-gods because they flew in 'chariots of fire' (Bible quote), they were by comparison to most giants, (probably due to better nutrition than the slaves), and ruled as God-kings.....and the Sumerian texts tell humans they made us in their image by taking homo-erectus and inserting some of their DNA, and creating mankind, as a race of slaves to the Annunaki.
As the slave populations grew they trained human priests to be house slaves to control the masses, and only the priests knew the truth about the origins of mankind. And the priestly classes, or the educated, ate better, became literate, and lorded it over the masses, who as slaves were kept hungry, ignorant, and weak.
Sound famliar.
The man the Hebrew Bible called Noah was known as Ziusdra (Sumer era 2150 BCE), Uta-Napishti in Babylonian era, 1,300 BCE,
and then around 1,000 BCE the Hebrews created the legend of Noah.
Abraham was born in the city of Ur, about 1500 BCE, and Ur was part of the Babylonian Empire, and the empire was ruled by an emperor who was a God-King, and so Abraham's "God" was the emperor of Babylon, and he told Abraham and his descendants that they could take the land of Canaan. The Hebrews, that became the Israelites, that became the Jews were, and still are, a colony of the Babylonian emperor, which became Rome - I'll explore this more down below.
So "God's chosen people" therefore translates to the 'Emperor-king's chosen people.' The emperor of Babylon.
The Babylonian empire was amalgamated as one in 2400 BCE by king Sargon the 1st, who amalgamated the cities of the Sumer civilization into an empire, he declared himself king of the world, and at some point the Babylon emperors took the title Pontifex Maximus, to mean king of all kings of all nations, and they did it in the name of the Annunaki supreme king, king Anu, claiming descent from this ancient race of god-kings.
This is the true source of the project to conquer the world.
It is a fight for power amongst the competing factions of the ancient bloodlines that claim they can track their monarchial lines back to Babylon, and the gods of Sumer, the Annunaki, which created the Crown Monarchy Imperialism, with the most evil faction being the Zion faction - which are the monarchies, bankers, and billionaires, that includes Christians, Jews, and Muslims.
Zionism as a one world dictatorship is exactly what the ancient quests for empire are all about. The Roman empire wrapped it up in Judaism, Christianity, and I suspect Mohammed was an agent that created Islam - as all these 3 religions intersect, and have been used for great evil, the evil of waging war for the Crown Monarchy Imperialism, and enslaving the people.
The Babylonian emperorship ended up in Rome via Pergamum, with the man we know as Caius Julius Caesar, a 52 year old priest of the Temple of Jupiter (king Anu) in Alexandria in 48 BCE being deified as a god as he traced his lineage to Jupiter's wife Venus (king Anu's wife Ishtar) - and by being deified he was able to take the legacy left to the Romans by the last king of Pergamum in 133 BCE king Attalus, who left them the title of the Babylonian Empire but with the condition the Romans must worship their leaders as gods, as the Babylonians had done - this title ended up in Pergamum after the Persians (who did not have god-kings) seized Babylon in 539 BCE, killed the reigning God-king, Belshazzar, and the Babylonian Imperial Cult - the Babylonian College of priests fled to Pergamum, which was already practicing the Babylonian religion of god-kings.
This is why Rome became the new Babylon. And they worshipped the emperors as gods. When Julius Caesar was assasinated he was regarded as the Father in heaven, and his adopted (nephew) son, after many civil wars, became Caesar Augustus, and was deified, and worshipped as the Son of God, (the son of Julius Ceasar).
The Romans created a brand new God-King religion, and later when this it was proving hard to keep control of the empire, with civil wars, slave rebellions, puppet king rebellions, the refusal to worship the God-emperors of the Romans, they spent hundreds of years developing Christianity, and took all of the Roman gods and rebranded them as Christianity. And this canon was closed long before the Jewish canon which was closed hundreds of years later.
The Roman Emperors, which took the title Pontifex Maximus from Babylon, took the Anu signature - on the floor of St. Peter's Piazza and in all churches, and this title devolved to the Pope, and they conquered the world with religious wars, and are still waging religious wars by proxy to this day.
The Jews are agents of Rome, they served the Roman Emperors, collected taxes, acted as merchants, and did the banking, and they still serve the Roman Imperial Aristocracy to this day.
That was excellent and I quite enjoyed it. Thank you for your contribution. I would greatly appreciate a full length book on this topic. Your analysis is reminiscent of the work of Robert Zephr, who is also extremely interesting. I think the difference between you and I is that, given my understanding of Eugenics, selection pressures, and the inevitability of hierarchy via elite theory, I would see such developments as natural, inevitable and desirable. A physically strong high IQ elite is bound to dominate and because the pressure of Darwinian selection necessitates that humans are bound by strict laws and ethnic cohesion to ensure their survival, it is necessary that their behavior be governed by a strong, ruthless but nonetheless benevolent elite, bound to them by bonds of kinship. The group which is most positively and negatively ethno centric is that which survives in the long run.
Therefore, the termination of an easy ecology (where the gay, anti white, fat, weak, sexually confused, those who question religion, question what is adaptive die out through failure to reproduce, execution as punishment for their pernicious influence on society, or simply an inability to feed/care for themselves) coupled with the reintroduction of harsh Darwinian selection (which is inevitable because either the food will eventually run out, the climate will change, a plague will emerge or a group without strength or strong ethnic bonds will be subjugated by a group who has such bonds) is desirable or at least inevitable.
So you're calling your archetype by a Biblical name, because people already have a context for that, but you don't think the Biblical context is important? If your archetype is Atlantean, call him that (and your archetype is assumed to be male, I will point out.) If your archetype is Gilgamesh, call him that. It is important. If you call him Noah, you're defending the mythology that resulted in the justification of the slave trade along with the genocide of the modern Canaanites, now known as Palestinians.
Where do I talk about owning Jews? The Jews were the slave traders, right? Not the slaves.
LOL no, owning in the sense that you're calling them out. Not literally. And David Cole, who is quite the dissident, has talked about this shit tier Nation of Islam "the Jews was slavers n' sheeyat" malarkey which is dead on arrival. Even if that was true, it would only serve to undermine criticism of the Jews given how comfortable the lives of black slaves were in the south (as discussed by authors such as Albert Bledsoe, George Fitzhugh, Robert Dabney, Charles Vogel, Eugene Genovese, only one of whom is a Jew). Civilization (including gentile civilization) wouldn't be possible without slavery and civlizations usually set them free in the context of a decline because they can no longer afford that. They dissolve into civil war and being conquered by other peoples shortly after that. Which is exactly what we've seen in our own LOL.
Regardless, none of this has got anything to do with the original point. Dear God.
Read the book of Enoch or the Nephilim and forget the hippie shyster telling you to abandon your family. The Noah story is also quintessentially white (I refuse to say European) as it derives from the western tradition of flood/calamity stories from the anti-diluvian world (think Atlantis and Gilgamesh). Instead of frittering his time away encouraging whites to adopt pluralistic utopian drivel because 'solar energy' and 'tis the season' or something. Guyenot is effectively saying, if not intentionally, that whites should reject racism because it's for the Jews. This is exactly what will destroy whites and why they are losing. I enjoy him as a writer, but he should recognize that art and religion are both mating call and religion is of the blood, a codification of racial/genetic self interest and it has no useful function outside of that. Reject the inverted Apollonian death cult. Unborn generations are depending on us.
This is the E Michael Jones take, and it's wrong. Characteristics that we would identify as coming from white peoples go all the way back to the Yamnaya (in the land west of current day Russia/the Caucasus...hence, Caucasian) or Indo-European or Aryan. The same myths, physical features, behaviors, genetics, selection pressures, family formation, impulse control, IQ. It's all there. The Romans are a sub group within whites and Jesus is very much against them. All the Jewish stories in the Bible are anti white. My point was the Noah story is taken from a mythology which has nothing to do with this. Unfortunately, the Bible chooses to dwell on this tale very little and you need to consult the book of Enoch or the Nephilim to get a broad and comprehensive view of the mythology contained within it. Also, seek out the film about Noah with Russell Crowe, which is excellent.
The idea that white peoples are somehow a linguistic/social construct dreamed up by the English is tradcath cope from E Michael Jones and, apparently, some of the JQ people who somehow feel race is a distraction from talking about the Jews. Both are wrong. The woke because they are committed to lying about whites and pretending all races are the same (or, more accurately that nonwhites are superior). Tradcaths because acknowledging race undermines the fundamental tenet of their worldview which says 'in God there are no races' or because they actually believe white racial consciousness is somehow a psyop undertaken by the Jews to distract you (I believe Jones calls it 'internalizing the language of your oppressors' which sounds like marxist gobbledegook to me.)
Read the book of Enoch or the Nephilim and forget the hippie shyster telling you to abandon your family. The Noah story is also quintessentially white (I refuse to say European) as it derives from the western tradition of flood/calamity stories from the anti-diluvian world (think Atlantis and Gilgamesh). Instead of frittering his time away encouraging whites to adopt pluralistic utopian drivel because 'solar energy' and 'tis the season' or something. Guyenot is effectively saying, if not intentionally, that whites should reject racism because it's for the Jews. This is exactly what will destroy whites and why they are losing. I enjoy him as a writer, but he should recognize that art and religion are both mating call and religion is of the blood, a codification of racial/genetic self interest and it has no useful function outside of that. Reject the inverted Apollonian death cult. Unborn generations are depending on us.
I don't have much problem with what you write here, Ryan, and I'm not advocating that Jesus has all the answers. I'm basically here answering Christians who tell me that if I reject Israel's special place in God's Providence, then Jesus is not the Messiah, therefore we are lost. The very title of my substack, Radbod's Lament, indicates that I am very much aware that Christianity is destructive of blood identity, as I wrote on unz.com already ("Bring out your dead"). But why should you look for inspiration in the Hebrew Bible to restore this sense of blood community? Why not in African folklore too, in that case? Whiteness has nothing to do with Jewishness. The Hebrew ideology is materialistic, and actually at war against the Hellenistic worldview. But of course, there are nice things in there, and you can keep the Noah story, the Psalms or whatever, as long as you don't make me worship ancient Israel. Your point that religion has no other useful function outside of being a codification of racial/genetic self interest is too narrow for me, though. It will not take us very far. Best
I agree with the part about the Hebrew Bible (Noah is barely mentioned in the Bible, his story is almost entirely excised), but the beauty of a hero with his family trying to reimpose the good, the true and the beautiful through a patriarchal structure within the context of the civilization collapse brought on by the great flood in conjunction with the decadence/degeneration of the antidiluvian world is what I find inspirational and to me is a much more authentic representation of the good in western man and speaks directly to the predicament that whites find themselves in today. But I agree that Noah's inspirational story is in no way Bible dependent. In fact, most of it is contained in other sources. I think the film with Russell Crowe does an excellent job of showcasing what is truly powerful in the narrative.
With regards to your second point, I think you conflate genetic self interest with something base and reductionist. This to me is merely Platonic essentialism and his anti-materialist philosophy is fundamentally anti-western because Plato (to me) was much like the mutant woke left of today in the sense that he hated his own people. Art and Religion throughout history have always been about mating, fertility, securing the line (or, as the Greeks said, the gens) and this is the source of everything we are. Our intelligence, our resourcefulness, everything that western man has created.
I know you were just making a point, but the 'why not Africa' comment is a complete non sequitur. Those "people" are violent apes who are actually much farther removed from us genetically than many other creatures in the kingdom of life who are regarded as different species. It is not a 1 to 1. Visit post white Africa (or the ghettos of America) or increasingly your own country (or consult the work of many race scientists such as Richard Lynn or J Philippe Rushton) and you'll get some idea of what I'm talking about.
Ryan, first you wrote about Noah, "the beauty of a hero with his family trying to reimpose the good, the true and the beautiful through a patriarchal structure within the context of the civilization collapse brought on by the great flood in conjunction with the decadence/degeneration of the antidiluvian world is what I find inspirational."
The only decadence indicated is Noah planting a vineyard, getting drunk and passing out naked. Why naked? Do people normally take off their clothes before they pass out? And why, when he's ratted out for whatever he did drunk and naked, does he curse Canaan, his son or grandson? That sounds like degeneracy to me.
And enslaving your son/ grandson and all his descendants, that's what you call 'the good, the true and the beautiful' in a patriarchal structure?
But when you wrote about people of African heritage, "Those "people" are violent apes who are actually much farther removed from us genetically than many other creatures in the kingdom of life who are regarded as different species," I see why you would venerate Noah. You also believe that some people are given the right to rule over others. Your only quibble is who should rule who.
If you consult your history, decadence often goes hand in hand with royal families stabbing each other in the back and turning against each other. Noah embodies this two sided coin. There is rebirth, but there is no escape from the decline and fall, even for a man as courageous as him. It is human nature to wish harm on those who we feel have wronged us or who know our darkest secrets and use them against us. You're concerned about Noah's shortcomings while excusing the very real brutalities of blacks by saying that if I rightly perceive this behavior as something outside of what western society should tolerate, you hand wave my concerns away, deriding me as a typical Noahide, which goes to my original point that you don't think whites have a right to be racist, which means by default you want white people to die because no group can survive without being racist, which is what history reveals time and again.
We are bound to the past and our future descendants are bound to us by bonds which are not voluntary. If you think that's illegitimate, I don't see how that's any different from the atomized materialism that Laurent claims to be against (only because the Jews tricked us into it, of course).
"You're only quibble is who should rule who." If you want to posit some taxicab version of history where power isn't wielded by someone and there isn't a division between rulers and ruled (which is always racial or biological in one form or another, by the way) then it sounds like you're the real Yahwist as Laurent would say because you believe in the Garden of Eden. But just to be clear, you either rule and dominate or you are ruled and dominated. This is biological reality, this is all of history. Your hypothetical alternative (which does not seem to be well elaborated other than to pull the Adam Green play of 'all conflicts dissolve when we name them!') has never existed and never will exist. You might as well wish for the dissolution of humanity itself, which many of our globalist techno utopian overlords seem to long for.
Jews are responsible for a lot of fucked up things in the world today but they are not the purveyors of our finite limited existence or the biological realities which have always dictated our governance and politics. To believe so is to attribute to them the God like powers which is the exact trap that Laurent (and presumably yourself) warn against.
Everything you value, Laurent, comes from struggle, survival, and intelligent, creative people being selected genetically. To disregard a genetic interpretation is to deny your own existence, which is a logical and philosophical contradiction. A people's history and their art and culture is a story of that group's genetic survival and this is something to be cherished. Materialism, for its part, is not decadence but merely the acknowledgement of reality. To pine for other worlds is the purview of non white peoples, hence why Indo European Gods (the Greco-Roman pagan myths, for example) are very this world focused, as well it should be. I appreciate this exchange but I feel very passionately that genetics should be taken out of the ghetto and forced into the light because it is the only key to understanding who we are. That is why the Jews succeed and we fail. Because they acknowledge and celebrate this reality whereas Aryan peoples regard it as somehow dirty or vulgar ("materialistic") as indicated by your reaction to my initial post.
My point is simply that we are not animals, we are spiritual beings, and we have an immortal soul. The Torah denies it. Why do you want Aryans to be like Jews?
But had you thought that the belief in the immortal soul may be just as destructive to whites as Christianity/Judaism itself because it may prevent white men from taking the very drastic steps necessary to ensure our survival? I'm in this to win. Dying out and saying 'at least we're not like those racist materialistic jews' holds little appeal for me, quite frankly. I don't want you, me or anyone else I consider a brother or sister white falling on that sword. An intervention is called for LOL.
For the record, as a Christian, ie, a follower of Jesus Christ, I believe the Old Testament - which is a bunch of made up bullshit and stories the ancient Jews stole from other more advanced civilizations- has no relevance and no place in Christianity. It’s a particularly Jewish tract, full of stories about the ancient Jews, who were more often outside of their God’s grace and favor than they were inside. I could give a rats ass about anything in the Old Testament and deny it has any validity or significance in Christianity. Any Christian who believes in that tissue of lies needs to recommit themselves to Christ and follow his way. The Old Testament is for losers.
I read on Substack that the Sanhedrin has called all Jews, worldwide, to return now to Israel. This is just so the Jews can populate the lands they believe they have successfully stolen from other countries. It’s also calculated to have money pour in from Christian Zionists who want nothing more than all the worlds Jews to be concentrated within the ever flexible borders of “Israel”, a necessary pre-condition for their whole end times scenario to kick into gear. What a bunch of money grubbing vermin.
They
When precisely do you believe the Jews stole, made up, and altered the stories found in the Old Testament? If there is a weak spot in Guyenot's work, it's that he does not address the challenge of the revolution that Copenhagen School had carried out in Old Testament scholarship. In particular the work of Russell Gmirkin. Gmirkin argues that there was no Biblical Judaism until the Pentateuch was written in the Library of Alexandria about the year 276 BC. Pentateuch was first written in Greek (that's mean the so-called Septuagint has primacy over the so-called Masoretic text) then translated into Hebrew. Go to Vridar at worldpress.com to learn about Russell Gmirkin. Neil Godfrey provides a very good introduction.
It's not a weak spot, it's just not the topic of my short post. I don't find Gmirkin convincing; his theory is too extreme. But I do think that the final Hebrew canon is from the Hellenistic period. There is much evidence for that. But just as obviously, very old oral and written sources have been woven into this patchwork.
I'm well aware that when Old Testament was compliled/written was not the topic of this post. The post is in itself a most admirable reflection on Jesus and the Old Testament messianic prophecies. I have absolutely no disagreement with you on that point. What Satan temps Jesus with is exactly the same as Yahweh's messianic promise to the Israelites. Jesus rejects the temptation/promise and therefore can not be the Messiah promised by Yahweh.
I am glad you chose to very briefly address my raising Russell Gmirkin scholarship as a possible challenge (i e. weak spot) in what l took to be your view of the origin of the Old Testament. If l remember correctly, a couple of posts earlier, you recommended another Biblical scholar's work on who originally wrote the Old Testament. I've yet had a chance to review this work. Perhaps after I've reviewed it, l will come around to the view that Gmirkin's position is "extreme." As it stands now, l consider Gmirkin to be rather conservative and realistic in his approach. As you yourself agree, there is indeed something rather Hellenistic about the Old Testament.
In addition to the Hellenistic qualities to the text, and as Gmirkin unsurprisingly stresses as he is an expert on these documents, all accounts of who were the original authors of the Old Testament have to squarely face the Elephantine Papryi challenge. These documents were written in Persian Egypt by a community of Judean mercenaries and exhibit a total lack of knowledge about ... well, the whole religion of the Old Testament. Do l have "issues" with Gmirkin's position? Why, yes. I'm pretty sure they might even be coming from the same general area as yours.
In closing, l would like to note Gmirkin's latest work:
Plato's Timeaus and the Biblical Creation Accounts
Is an exceptional introduction to the cosmological accomplishments of Greek philosophy as well. It's worth the read for that reason alone.
Brilliantly stated. Absolutely true. Thanks for this!
You are assuming the biblical stories of the torah are true. Many jewish historians, christians, and plain old folks like me believe they are not. For the most part the jew-written torah is a single source, its incredible historic claims validated by little or nothing. Myths are created to pull people together and keep them in line. Just as King Arthur might have been real, his incredible feats were not.
Jews worship a mythology and develop lies and deceits to brainwashed new generations.
Agreed except for the use of the word Jews, which didn't exist until the 18th century. In the Hebrew pronunciation, since they don't have the J, this would be Yews or use or ewes. Who was using them then, when they were the nomadic all-male armed invaders of Habiru, Scythians, Romans, Khazarians? And who is pulling the strings now? Who wrote that mythology and did it end with Jesus, or just leave the baggage and sublimate into a more deceitful and insidious form?
Check out Know More News, Adam Green's dispensary for Green Pills. His interview w/ Laurent. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWQyd-50lgo
"Zionism has led Christians and Jews into supporting and committing the most HEINOUS of crimes against the indigenous people of Palestine for almost a thousand years!
Zionism has never been conducive with the teachings of Jesus, especially “Love thy neighbour as thyself.” ~ Matthew 22:37-39 and Leviticus 19:18." read more at:
https://substack.com/@francesleader/note/c-82374102
The Old Testament has parts inspired by the God of Good; parts inspired by the Other.
In relation with the first books, the Pentateuch, the Other-inspired parts are prevalent if you ask me.
See Psalm 67(68):24, and "God's" demands/predilections in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Although one must be aware that the surrounding people may have been bloodier, and progress away from evil and toward good could have been there, in what those two ancient books report — hard to believe as it may be.
At the same time, specially out of the Pentateuch (for example in Psalms) one encounters eminently genuinely Christian teachings, visions, and disclosures.
You can have a "play of opposites"; see the amazing _The Rose of the World_ by Andreev.
"Marcionism is a heresy? Tertullian condemned it? Who cares! There is no more copyright and no more papal excommunication to fear. We are free to understand and to relate to Jesus as we want."
In truth, any Christian group/thinker with a deep enough drive for truth will be loathed, ousted, and opposed/attacked by the Church establishment: that has been true, as well as has to be true, for all times on Earth past present and future.
Place and time in history affect the nature of the opposition and attacks.
Therefore, any deep-enough and spiritual-enough truth or aspiration to truth within the grounds of Christianity (which is Truth, inasmuch as it is real Christianity) receives the slander (and in the past, the attempts at physical-political destruction, mostly successful because on Earth success belongs to the evil typically though not always) of the established Church as a mark of genuineness and possible truth.
This applies by the way also to applicants to life in convents, monasteries, and to seminars. They will be rejected, if they are "too christian", with more of a passion than if they are too little of Christians.
By the way, it is obvious that you study, research, and mull over all these issues from the standpoint of someone of materialistic faith, or, "at best", an Agnostic.
This puts you at advantage compared with the majority of the established Church hierarchy, who despite little if anything more than Christ and Gospel; however, it's still far from the best position to reach the truth on these matters — if truth further than academic is sought after.
You say: "it is obvious that you study, research, and mull over all these issues from the standpoint of someone of materialistic faith, or, "at best", an Agnostic." I protest: I believe in God and the immortality of the spirit, but I don't need any "revelation" for that. Natural religion, like Stoicism.
Oh, no, not the White Man (Keeley) telling us how mean, dangerous, blood thirsty those savages were!
This is 2024, and the Doctrine of Discovery by the White Viral Catholics did its destruction, along witht he Anglo American virus from here to kingdom come. That dirty butchery island, Isra-Hell, and their sicarios, well well, the money, man, the military hardware, man, the gulag of the digital overlord, man.
And in the end, Russia caves, and Russia is on its heels:
Laith Marouf: Syria’s Dismemberment and Russia’s Betrayal
https://libya360.wordpress.com/2024/12/17/laith-marouf-syrias-dismemberment-and-russias-betrayal/
20-Fucking-24! Such great exceptionalist Western Civilizers.
Following the ‘liberation’ of Damascus by a U.S.-backed terrorist organization, Israel has stolen more Syrian land and has subjected the country to relentless bombardment.
Meanwhile, the new Syrian regime refuses to confront Zionist invaders or to stop Turkish forces from attacking Kurds in the northeast of Syria.
Dimitri Lascaris speaks with Laith Marouf about the dire condition of the Syrian nation.
Marouf, who is himself of Syrian and Palestinian origin, believes that the state of Syria no longer exists.
+--+
Butchers, man, even the fat fucks like Trump or skinny fucks like Kushner, butchers of the mind and the wallet.
https://paulokirk.substack.com/p/exclusive-hotline-for-fucking-savages
You’ve wandered into a veritable Christmas collection of Jerry-meandered kids.
It appears that there’s lots of experienced fairytale tellers here.
I’m not much into telling the gory bibble stories, but if you want some recitations of Mother Goose or Humpty Dumpty, ditch this shit show, and I’ll read you some other made up stories.
I'm in agreement with you, Paulo, that the Catholic Church should not be let off the hook here. I'm still hoping that Russia does not cave and that there's a deeper plan at work, whether at a political level or a metaphysical level. But I don't know enough to say.
What I do know is that the Sicariots were not on the side of Yahweh's henchmen, interpreters and tax-extractors to enslave Canaan.
Judas the Sicariot (transpose two letters to see how the gospels turn heroes into villains) led the zealot revolution against Rome. His co-founder was Zadok or Saduc, from which the Sadducees derived. They rejected the genealogy of the Torah, giving some the right to rule over Yahweh. It was actually a Hasidic rabbi who revealed this to me, inadvertently: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/empire-and-religion.
And the author of 'Jesus' (in quotes since there's no evidence that this is a historical person and not a literary character) hated the zealots aka the sicariots. Here's what the gospels say about them, once you decipher the words translated as robber or thief in their correct meaning as insurgents against the Roman/ Yahwist alliance: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/jesus-rebel-or-imperialist.
So when 'Jesus' curses Peter as Satan, there is a zealot famous for his inhuman strength called Peter, who is rounded up after the betrayal of Jerusalem--70 CE when the gospels were first written and the character 'Jesus' first appeared. He gets turned into a cowardly, weak representative of Satan in the inversion. It's important to put this in historical context.
Laurent - it would be MOST INTERESTING to hear a debate between you and the hard-core anti-Zionists of Neturei Karta. I'd be quite curious what they would say about some of these points. Don't know who or how that could be arranged though. Dave Mann
Very interesting. Haven't figured out what to make of this yet. Need to think hard. But the ideas are freeing and fascinating. And the bibliography also. Thanks!
Je ne peux pas comprendre comme quelqu’un d’intelligent et érudit comme vous, peux encore croire en l’existence d’un dieu, en plus avec des caractéristiques et des pensées humaines. Si au moins c’était une abstraction, une façon de nommer ce que nous ne pouvons justement comprendre et qui échappe à toutes nos capacités logiques et cognitives. Pourquoi donc avez vous besoin d’un dieu? C’est vrai que je n’ai jamais été éduqué religieusement et je n’ai jamais eu besoin de m’inventer une narrative pareille remplie des contradictions plus que évidentes. Dites-moi, je vous prie, pourquoi avez vous besoin de cela?
You made several factual errors in your post. But I'll ignore those and focus on one line I find worth discussing.
"The point is that we have the choice of interpretations. There is only one Jesus, but there are many ways to understand Jesus."
If someone were to hand Jordan Peterson a croissant recipe, he could give you an interpretation that this recipe is a life changing call to personal responsibility, lobster heirarchies, and the absolute necessity of cleaning your room, bucko. But it would not be a valid interpretation of the recipe as the baker intended.
Similarly, your attempt to take the Bible and reinterpret it to fit your world view is clearly not the intended way for that document to be read.
People won't believe you about Satan unless you explain to them what Satan is https://misharogov.medium.com/daemon-bd1c5ee5fca6
Only Satan-worshippers stand with Satan's Kingdom on Earth “israel”!
The Jews are not Israelites. People who don’t really know Scripture shouldn’t babble
I think Laurent's problem here is a problem I articulated in an exchange with him in the comment threads of the unz review (where he lamented the focus on Satanism in right wing circles, ironically enough given the foregoing text exhibited): namely, that the frog doth protest too much.
If, as the author says, Christians must dispense with 'metaphorical readings', why the special pleading? One could easily turn the tables on him and say that Christs' rejection of tribal identity (for whites, anyway) and the condemnation of terrestrial power in favor of some numinous 'other world' is positively suicidal for white men (Esoteric non racial dissidents such as Guyenot always insist on instead invoking the social construct of 'Europeans'. You say Potato I say Potato). What Jesus recommends is an excellent blueprint for racial extinction. Funnily enough, Guyenot himself has pointed this out in the past.
The notes of the Old Testament, if played to the tune of a white man, are exactly what we should be humming and its message is that which we should be aiming for. Be fruitful, multiply, control your women, encourage rituals which honor your dead and your past, teaching how to live among strangers (our current reality) but more importantly how to manipulate and absolutely destroy them. This is how you protect a racial legacy across generations and the proof is in the pudding.
Noah is much more qualified to be worthy of Aryan admiration and emulation. A masculine hero and family man (contrasted with childless, sexless and possibly perverted Jesus) who leads his wife and children through the chaos of a fallen world amidst a dying civilization which must be destroyed because of its own evil and depravity. Despite his flaws, he is able to emerge victorious and become the patriarch of a new world rising from the ashes of the old, when hard men create good times after soft men have created hard ones.
Woah, woah, woah! Noah is a worthy man? Read the story past the rainbow, Ryan. He plants a vineyard, gets drunk and falls asleep naked. Ham talks about this while Shem and Japheth walk backwards and cover him with a robe of whole cloth--walking backwards is the inversions of the Bible and the whole cloth is the lies and truth woven together so they're inseparable.
Then Noah gives Shem (the Shemites or Semites) the inheritance to rule over everyone else, which means the world since this is all that's left of the world, yes? Ham is cursed to be a slave but Canaan and all his descendants are cursed to be the lowest of all slaves in perpetuity to their cousins.
Ham is interpreted by Josephus (author of the gospels and editor of the OT, according to word order analysis and other evidence) to represent Africa, Egypt and parts of Asia. But why do the Canaanites deserve such special notice as one little country? Because they inhabited the land that the author of the Yahweh myth coveted.
I'd be interested if Laurent has evidence that Israel even existed in the first century, since he's presented compelling arguments in Anno Domini for the first millennia being mostly a forgery. Once you know that someone--meaning the authors of the Bible--have lied, don't you need to ask if every part that serves their interests is a lie?
Taken at face value, Noah gets drunk and naked and somehow blames his grandson? son? (the story changes in the account) What did Canaan reveal about Noah? What did Noah do to Canaan that the other brothers hid but Ham revealed?
Taken at a metaphorical level, the Noahide Covenant has been used to justify the slavery of Africans, which was primarily by Jews in the slave trade--see the video The 13 Sugar Colonies. I have it linked in his episode, where I go into more detail on this: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/talmud-tricks-and-torah-curses.
Um, no. Stories of the flood, and characters such as Noah long predate anything we call Jews. And there were many semitic peoples who have nothing to do with the Jews and Noah (if he existed) came and went long before all that. The whole point was that Noah, after everything he'd struggled for, and the brutality of the world, the avaricious nature of the seed of Cain (late stage civilization) was so demoralized that in his moment of weakness, he got drunk. Given the fact that Noah was likely surrounded by people who would've tempted his son ("hey, your dad's crazy, we can just be evil forever, there so isn't a flood coming"), it's entirely plausible his son/sons would've betrayed him. Father against son is also a prominent feature of late stage civilization, the time period which is the origin story of the flood myth to begin with. You're allowing the Jews to have possession over something which they have no right to...so you can own the Jews? Whatever. He was a flesh and blood human being like you and me, a warrior, a hero, not some weird hippie. I would recommend the excellent film with Russell Crowe and some sources that aren't from the canonical Bible which I mentioned, if you noticed.
Who is the historical figure you're taking as Noah? I don't see any links in your original comment. I do think that historical figures were usurped into the Bible and distorted, turning villains into heroes, heroes into villains, oppressors into victims and victims into oppressors. But you're quoting the Bible as if it's history, and I didn't see the historical evidence that you cited--although history, as we all know and Laurent in particular--is subject to change.
No, the archetype which comes down to us as Noah is almost completely absent from the Bible. He is almost completely written out. Call him an Atlantean. Call him Gilgamesh. It makes no difference. This inspirational archetype has got nothing to do with the Bible. Noah is just a shorthand we use because of how prominent the Bible became in the west on account of the conversion in the early 1st millennium. You're missing the point entirely because you're so focused on owning Jews.
HI Ryan and Tereza,
May I offer something of value here please.
Have either of you ever studied the history of the Annunaki as related to us through the Sumerian texts?
The supreme god was the Annunaki supreme king Anu, from which the mandate to rule comes the 8 pointed star we see associated with monarchies, and the Roman Catholic Church, and most elements of government.
His son, king Enlil was the ruler and dictator of earth, who hated mankind, mainly because our ancestors refused to be dutiful slaves to their Crown Monarchy system, and he gave our ancestors the plagues, droughts and the Great Flood to drown us right out for 'disobedience to the kings rule' - which is the true definition of 'evil' as given in the Bible - all who refuse to submit to Yahweh and the kingship of God are 'evil.' King Enlil is the basis of the character Yahweh - and Yahweh is the concept of a one world emperor ruling as a God-king.
In all the ancient empires the rulers claimed to be descended from the 'gods' - well the gods and goddesses were the Annunaki, and the Sumer pantheon of gods are all those that the Babylonian religion, and then the Roman-Babylonian religion worshiped - king Anu is known as Jupiter to the Romans, and he became the Father in Heaven for the Christians, his wife Ishtar the Queen of Heaven became Venus for the Romans, and transformed into the Virgin Mary, etc. etc.
This ancient race of giants were called sky-gods because they flew in 'chariots of fire' (Bible quote), they were by comparison to most giants, (probably due to better nutrition than the slaves), and ruled as God-kings.....and the Sumerian texts tell humans they made us in their image by taking homo-erectus and inserting some of their DNA, and creating mankind, as a race of slaves to the Annunaki.
As the slave populations grew they trained human priests to be house slaves to control the masses, and only the priests knew the truth about the origins of mankind. And the priestly classes, or the educated, ate better, became literate, and lorded it over the masses, who as slaves were kept hungry, ignorant, and weak.
Sound famliar.
The man the Hebrew Bible called Noah was known as Ziusdra (Sumer era 2150 BCE), Uta-Napishti in Babylonian era, 1,300 BCE,
and then around 1,000 BCE the Hebrews created the legend of Noah.
Abraham was born in the city of Ur, about 1500 BCE, and Ur was part of the Babylonian Empire, and the empire was ruled by an emperor who was a God-King, and so Abraham's "God" was the emperor of Babylon, and he told Abraham and his descendants that they could take the land of Canaan. The Hebrews, that became the Israelites, that became the Jews were, and still are, a colony of the Babylonian emperor, which became Rome - I'll explore this more down below.
So "God's chosen people" therefore translates to the 'Emperor-king's chosen people.' The emperor of Babylon.
The Babylonian empire was amalgamated as one in 2400 BCE by king Sargon the 1st, who amalgamated the cities of the Sumer civilization into an empire, he declared himself king of the world, and at some point the Babylon emperors took the title Pontifex Maximus, to mean king of all kings of all nations, and they did it in the name of the Annunaki supreme king, king Anu, claiming descent from this ancient race of god-kings.
This is the true source of the project to conquer the world.
It is a fight for power amongst the competing factions of the ancient bloodlines that claim they can track their monarchial lines back to Babylon, and the gods of Sumer, the Annunaki, which created the Crown Monarchy Imperialism, with the most evil faction being the Zion faction - which are the monarchies, bankers, and billionaires, that includes Christians, Jews, and Muslims.
Zionism as a one world dictatorship is exactly what the ancient quests for empire are all about. The Roman empire wrapped it up in Judaism, Christianity, and I suspect Mohammed was an agent that created Islam - as all these 3 religions intersect, and have been used for great evil, the evil of waging war for the Crown Monarchy Imperialism, and enslaving the people.
The Babylonian emperorship ended up in Rome via Pergamum, with the man we know as Caius Julius Caesar, a 52 year old priest of the Temple of Jupiter (king Anu) in Alexandria in 48 BCE being deified as a god as he traced his lineage to Jupiter's wife Venus (king Anu's wife Ishtar) - and by being deified he was able to take the legacy left to the Romans by the last king of Pergamum in 133 BCE king Attalus, who left them the title of the Babylonian Empire but with the condition the Romans must worship their leaders as gods, as the Babylonians had done - this title ended up in Pergamum after the Persians (who did not have god-kings) seized Babylon in 539 BCE, killed the reigning God-king, Belshazzar, and the Babylonian Imperial Cult - the Babylonian College of priests fled to Pergamum, which was already practicing the Babylonian religion of god-kings.
This is why Rome became the new Babylon. And they worshipped the emperors as gods. When Julius Caesar was assasinated he was regarded as the Father in heaven, and his adopted (nephew) son, after many civil wars, became Caesar Augustus, and was deified, and worshipped as the Son of God, (the son of Julius Ceasar).
The Romans created a brand new God-King religion, and later when this it was proving hard to keep control of the empire, with civil wars, slave rebellions, puppet king rebellions, the refusal to worship the God-emperors of the Romans, they spent hundreds of years developing Christianity, and took all of the Roman gods and rebranded them as Christianity. And this canon was closed long before the Jewish canon which was closed hundreds of years later.
The Roman Emperors, which took the title Pontifex Maximus from Babylon, took the Anu signature - on the floor of St. Peter's Piazza and in all churches, and this title devolved to the Pope, and they conquered the world with religious wars, and are still waging religious wars by proxy to this day.
The Jews are agents of Rome, they served the Roman Emperors, collected taxes, acted as merchants, and did the banking, and they still serve the Roman Imperial Aristocracy to this day.
Best,
Ivan
That was excellent and I quite enjoyed it. Thank you for your contribution. I would greatly appreciate a full length book on this topic. Your analysis is reminiscent of the work of Robert Zephr, who is also extremely interesting. I think the difference between you and I is that, given my understanding of Eugenics, selection pressures, and the inevitability of hierarchy via elite theory, I would see such developments as natural, inevitable and desirable. A physically strong high IQ elite is bound to dominate and because the pressure of Darwinian selection necessitates that humans are bound by strict laws and ethnic cohesion to ensure their survival, it is necessary that their behavior be governed by a strong, ruthless but nonetheless benevolent elite, bound to them by bonds of kinship. The group which is most positively and negatively ethno centric is that which survives in the long run.
Therefore, the termination of an easy ecology (where the gay, anti white, fat, weak, sexually confused, those who question religion, question what is adaptive die out through failure to reproduce, execution as punishment for their pernicious influence on society, or simply an inability to feed/care for themselves) coupled with the reintroduction of harsh Darwinian selection (which is inevitable because either the food will eventually run out, the climate will change, a plague will emerge or a group without strength or strong ethnic bonds will be subjugated by a group who has such bonds) is desirable or at least inevitable.
So you're calling your archetype by a Biblical name, because people already have a context for that, but you don't think the Biblical context is important? If your archetype is Atlantean, call him that (and your archetype is assumed to be male, I will point out.) If your archetype is Gilgamesh, call him that. It is important. If you call him Noah, you're defending the mythology that resulted in the justification of the slave trade along with the genocide of the modern Canaanites, now known as Palestinians.
Where do I talk about owning Jews? The Jews were the slave traders, right? Not the slaves.
Here's an episode I did on the Atlanteans: https://thirdparadigm.substack.com/p/a-royal-flush-and-irish-pharaohs.
LOL no, owning in the sense that you're calling them out. Not literally. And David Cole, who is quite the dissident, has talked about this shit tier Nation of Islam "the Jews was slavers n' sheeyat" malarkey which is dead on arrival. Even if that was true, it would only serve to undermine criticism of the Jews given how comfortable the lives of black slaves were in the south (as discussed by authors such as Albert Bledsoe, George Fitzhugh, Robert Dabney, Charles Vogel, Eugene Genovese, only one of whom is a Jew). Civilization (including gentile civilization) wouldn't be possible without slavery and civlizations usually set them free in the context of a decline because they can no longer afford that. They dissolve into civil war and being conquered by other peoples shortly after that. Which is exactly what we've seen in our own LOL.
Regardless, none of this has got anything to do with the original point. Dear God.
Read the book of Enoch or the Nephilim and forget the hippie shyster telling you to abandon your family. The Noah story is also quintessentially white (I refuse to say European) as it derives from the western tradition of flood/calamity stories from the anti-diluvian world (think Atlantis and Gilgamesh). Instead of frittering his time away encouraging whites to adopt pluralistic utopian drivel because 'solar energy' and 'tis the season' or something. Guyenot is effectively saying, if not intentionally, that whites should reject racism because it's for the Jews. This is exactly what will destroy whites and why they are losing. I enjoy him as a writer, but he should recognize that art and religion are both mating call and religion is of the blood, a codification of racial/genetic self interest and it has no useful function outside of that. Reject the inverted Apollonian death cult. Unborn generations are depending on us.
" Christs' rejection of tribal identity (for whites, anyway)"
the idea of the English word "white" is not pertinent in the context of Jesus and the early times of Christianity.
This is the E Michael Jones take, and it's wrong. Characteristics that we would identify as coming from white peoples go all the way back to the Yamnaya (in the land west of current day Russia/the Caucasus...hence, Caucasian) or Indo-European or Aryan. The same myths, physical features, behaviors, genetics, selection pressures, family formation, impulse control, IQ. It's all there. The Romans are a sub group within whites and Jesus is very much against them. All the Jewish stories in the Bible are anti white. My point was the Noah story is taken from a mythology which has nothing to do with this. Unfortunately, the Bible chooses to dwell on this tale very little and you need to consult the book of Enoch or the Nephilim to get a broad and comprehensive view of the mythology contained within it. Also, seek out the film about Noah with Russell Crowe, which is excellent.
The idea that white peoples are somehow a linguistic/social construct dreamed up by the English is tradcath cope from E Michael Jones and, apparently, some of the JQ people who somehow feel race is a distraction from talking about the Jews. Both are wrong. The woke because they are committed to lying about whites and pretending all races are the same (or, more accurately that nonwhites are superior). Tradcaths because acknowledging race undermines the fundamental tenet of their worldview which says 'in God there are no races' or because they actually believe white racial consciousness is somehow a psyop undertaken by the Jews to distract you (I believe Jones calls it 'internalizing the language of your oppressors' which sounds like marxist gobbledegook to me.)
Read the book of Enoch or the Nephilim and forget the hippie shyster telling you to abandon your family. The Noah story is also quintessentially white (I refuse to say European) as it derives from the western tradition of flood/calamity stories from the anti-diluvian world (think Atlantis and Gilgamesh). Instead of frittering his time away encouraging whites to adopt pluralistic utopian drivel because 'solar energy' and 'tis the season' or something. Guyenot is effectively saying, if not intentionally, that whites should reject racism because it's for the Jews. This is exactly what will destroy whites and why they are losing. I enjoy him as a writer, but he should recognize that art and religion are both mating call and religion is of the blood, a codification of racial/genetic self interest and it has no useful function outside of that. Reject the inverted Apollonian death cult. Unborn generations are depending on us.
I don't have much problem with what you write here, Ryan, and I'm not advocating that Jesus has all the answers. I'm basically here answering Christians who tell me that if I reject Israel's special place in God's Providence, then Jesus is not the Messiah, therefore we are lost. The very title of my substack, Radbod's Lament, indicates that I am very much aware that Christianity is destructive of blood identity, as I wrote on unz.com already ("Bring out your dead"). But why should you look for inspiration in the Hebrew Bible to restore this sense of blood community? Why not in African folklore too, in that case? Whiteness has nothing to do with Jewishness. The Hebrew ideology is materialistic, and actually at war against the Hellenistic worldview. But of course, there are nice things in there, and you can keep the Noah story, the Psalms or whatever, as long as you don't make me worship ancient Israel. Your point that religion has no other useful function outside of being a codification of racial/genetic self interest is too narrow for me, though. It will not take us very far. Best
Wrong
I agree with the part about the Hebrew Bible (Noah is barely mentioned in the Bible, his story is almost entirely excised), but the beauty of a hero with his family trying to reimpose the good, the true and the beautiful through a patriarchal structure within the context of the civilization collapse brought on by the great flood in conjunction with the decadence/degeneration of the antidiluvian world is what I find inspirational and to me is a much more authentic representation of the good in western man and speaks directly to the predicament that whites find themselves in today. But I agree that Noah's inspirational story is in no way Bible dependent. In fact, most of it is contained in other sources. I think the film with Russell Crowe does an excellent job of showcasing what is truly powerful in the narrative.
With regards to your second point, I think you conflate genetic self interest with something base and reductionist. This to me is merely Platonic essentialism and his anti-materialist philosophy is fundamentally anti-western because Plato (to me) was much like the mutant woke left of today in the sense that he hated his own people. Art and Religion throughout history have always been about mating, fertility, securing the line (or, as the Greeks said, the gens) and this is the source of everything we are. Our intelligence, our resourcefulness, everything that western man has created.
I know you were just making a point, but the 'why not Africa' comment is a complete non sequitur. Those "people" are violent apes who are actually much farther removed from us genetically than many other creatures in the kingdom of life who are regarded as different species. It is not a 1 to 1. Visit post white Africa (or the ghettos of America) or increasingly your own country (or consult the work of many race scientists such as Richard Lynn or J Philippe Rushton) and you'll get some idea of what I'm talking about.
Ryan, first you wrote about Noah, "the beauty of a hero with his family trying to reimpose the good, the true and the beautiful through a patriarchal structure within the context of the civilization collapse brought on by the great flood in conjunction with the decadence/degeneration of the antidiluvian world is what I find inspirational."
The only decadence indicated is Noah planting a vineyard, getting drunk and passing out naked. Why naked? Do people normally take off their clothes before they pass out? And why, when he's ratted out for whatever he did drunk and naked, does he curse Canaan, his son or grandson? That sounds like degeneracy to me.
And enslaving your son/ grandson and all his descendants, that's what you call 'the good, the true and the beautiful' in a patriarchal structure?
But when you wrote about people of African heritage, "Those "people" are violent apes who are actually much farther removed from us genetically than many other creatures in the kingdom of life who are regarded as different species," I see why you would venerate Noah. You also believe that some people are given the right to rule over others. Your only quibble is who should rule who.
If you consult your history, decadence often goes hand in hand with royal families stabbing each other in the back and turning against each other. Noah embodies this two sided coin. There is rebirth, but there is no escape from the decline and fall, even for a man as courageous as him. It is human nature to wish harm on those who we feel have wronged us or who know our darkest secrets and use them against us. You're concerned about Noah's shortcomings while excusing the very real brutalities of blacks by saying that if I rightly perceive this behavior as something outside of what western society should tolerate, you hand wave my concerns away, deriding me as a typical Noahide, which goes to my original point that you don't think whites have a right to be racist, which means by default you want white people to die because no group can survive without being racist, which is what history reveals time and again.
We are bound to the past and our future descendants are bound to us by bonds which are not voluntary. If you think that's illegitimate, I don't see how that's any different from the atomized materialism that Laurent claims to be against (only because the Jews tricked us into it, of course).
"You're only quibble is who should rule who." If you want to posit some taxicab version of history where power isn't wielded by someone and there isn't a division between rulers and ruled (which is always racial or biological in one form or another, by the way) then it sounds like you're the real Yahwist as Laurent would say because you believe in the Garden of Eden. But just to be clear, you either rule and dominate or you are ruled and dominated. This is biological reality, this is all of history. Your hypothetical alternative (which does not seem to be well elaborated other than to pull the Adam Green play of 'all conflicts dissolve when we name them!') has never existed and never will exist. You might as well wish for the dissolution of humanity itself, which many of our globalist techno utopian overlords seem to long for.
Jews are responsible for a lot of fucked up things in the world today but they are not the purveyors of our finite limited existence or the biological realities which have always dictated our governance and politics. To believe so is to attribute to them the God like powers which is the exact trap that Laurent (and presumably yourself) warn against.
Everything you value, Laurent, comes from struggle, survival, and intelligent, creative people being selected genetically. To disregard a genetic interpretation is to deny your own existence, which is a logical and philosophical contradiction. A people's history and their art and culture is a story of that group's genetic survival and this is something to be cherished. Materialism, for its part, is not decadence but merely the acknowledgement of reality. To pine for other worlds is the purview of non white peoples, hence why Indo European Gods (the Greco-Roman pagan myths, for example) are very this world focused, as well it should be. I appreciate this exchange but I feel very passionately that genetics should be taken out of the ghetto and forced into the light because it is the only key to understanding who we are. That is why the Jews succeed and we fail. Because they acknowledge and celebrate this reality whereas Aryan peoples regard it as somehow dirty or vulgar ("materialistic") as indicated by your reaction to my initial post.
My point is simply that we are not animals, we are spiritual beings, and we have an immortal soul. The Torah denies it. Why do you want Aryans to be like Jews?
But had you thought that the belief in the immortal soul may be just as destructive to whites as Christianity/Judaism itself because it may prevent white men from taking the very drastic steps necessary to ensure our survival? I'm in this to win. Dying out and saying 'at least we're not like those racist materialistic jews' holds little appeal for me, quite frankly. I don't want you, me or anyone else I consider a brother or sister white falling on that sword. An intervention is called for LOL.