Oh, I'm so bored with this topic. I don't know if it's my detoxified brain or my yoga-fied body, but I find it hard to summon up any enthusiasm for the whole thing. Somehow it's all turned into homework. So why don't I just kill the comedy hobby-horse I've been on up until now and get it over and done with?
There aren't two media masters - there's only one, and he's Jewish. And he's Satanist! He's both and he's neither. He's the wrong end of the continuum. He is that creature that has most perfectly embraced fear and desire. He is the anti-buddha. He is me uber alles. He is if not me, none.
In much the same way that there's not much to be gained in describing the Buddha in terms of whatever he was before - 'Well, he was from Kosala, you know' - I think the same follows for our anti-buddhas. Whatever they once were long ago, they are no longer. Any descriptions that might apply would be merely nominal and bring as much confusion as clarity. Since truth must be sacrificed at the altar of their own greatness, there can be no description of them that will make clear cut sense. They are whatever works.
So who are the Jews? And what are the Satanists? I'm going to call them servants, dupes, and coat-tail riders, with each imagining themselves as the favoured child. And a case could be made supporting the rightness of that thought. But it would be equally true to say that they're just fodder to be used up as suits their uber-alles masters. Viewed from this angle these two sects of the death cult have more in common with each other than they know. It's arguable that the greatest difference between them is the fact that one is publicly acknowledged and the other is regularly disappeared from the media and exists only as an apocryphal entity, ie. in the madder works of fiction.
---
As the acknowledged servants, the Jews get to wallow in a public orgy of self-impressed self-congratulation. Absurdly, if it weren't for them (says they) we'd have no culture, art, or music, no rights or freedoms, no insert_thing_worth_having_here. It's arrant nonsense of course but the Jews, like their once-were-Jewish masters, have made lying an art-form, not least of all to themselves. Flatter them and they'll believe you. And tell them that everyone wants to kill them out of envy, and they'll believe that too.
Who knows if there's a god who grooves on human sacrifice? Not me. But anyone who's hung out at the occult section of Rigorous Intuition would have to concede that spooky preternatural shit does go on. Sacrifices are made and all in a quest for 'magick'. But as far as I can tell, none of it ever seems to count for much. Certainly in terms of holocaust = sacrifice, you'd have to ask, where's the magick in amongst that event? There, blood-lusting god or no, and 6,000,000 dead or no - I don't know that it makes much difference. All that counts is that the world believes that that's what happened and a humongous evil juju is spawned regardless. Don't argue - 6M or 300K, a brand new nation appeared before our very eyes and another was disappeared. David Copperfield eat your heart out. Magick? Who needs it?
And now it looks like Israel's time is over. Clearly there's no real-world logic to it anymore, for mine its destruction is inevitable. It was a means to an end and soon it too will be sacrificed - the Holocaust as a sacrifice for Israel, and Israel as a sacrifice for world control. Dig it - like Elvis Presley or Michael Jackson, Israel is worth more dead than alive. And it's not like the Rothschilds and their very good friends will miss the place. Did they ever go there? Even for a visit? God knows they never lived there. And who could shed a tear for those wild-hair-up-their-arse Haredim anyway? The worst people on the planet!
A tuppence for sacrifice as an occult event (ie. hidden with no one knowing it took place). Imagine if a sacrifice of 6,000,000 was actually made, but all done on the hush-hush with no one knowing at all: would there be any power in that? How would it change the world if no one knew? Perhaps that's who the Jews are: a people to be publicly sacrificed over and over. And given that the power of the sacrifice lays in it's public perception, then of course the people being sacrificed must be perceived as the greatest who ever lived. More power to the publicity juju!
---
The Jews' death cult twin however, the unacknowledged Satanists, get no such blaze of glory. Or not in any useful fashion that is. As we've seen over at Pseudo Occult Media the Satanist / mind-control crowd get a lot of airtime. But madly they get airtime in inverse proportion to the number of people who get the gag. Everything they put to air is effectively an in-joke whooshing over the heads of just about everyone. Fantastic, but what's the point? Who are these in-jokes for? Is it really for us as mug-punters with the symbolism functioning as some kind of voodoo incantation for the subconscious? Somehow I don't think so. I've been seeing butterfly images and black and white checks for as long as I can remember and as far as I know, nothing happened. Besides which, wouldn't the residents of monarch butterfly migration town, Pacific Grove, have long since wigged out?
Perhaps the in-jokes are for the benefit of the ruling elite, like some kind of upper-class circle jerk / mutual wankfest? If so, it's a curious sort of benefit - a vast audience watching and not one of them understanding what they're seeing. Ha! It's the Illuminati as shy exhibitionists - they like getting on the fiddle in public with everybody watching but only if none of them can actually tell what's going on.
Aside from that, do the crowned heads of Europe watch all those idiot low-brow TV shows? Really? Somehow I have that pegged as unlikely. It's like that scene in Robert Altman's Gosford Park: as the Duchess says to the American producer, who refuses to say how his movie ends because he doesn't want to spoil it for them, "Oh, but none of us are going to see it."
So, if it's not there for us as mug-punters, and it's not there for the lah-di-dah pointy end of the pyramid, then there's no one left but the zombified slaves themselves. Certainly that would have utility: whatever channel the zombies flip to they'll be confronted by yet more evidence that there's nowhere to run. Given the time and money that goes into creating mind-control slaves, in no way should that be viewed as excessive or unlikely.
And hats off to that, but what sort of expression of power is it? To imagine that the Illuminati would revel in a constant reminder of what keeps their zombies in line, is to imagine that the Romans would have revelled in 6000 crucified slaves lining the Appian Way. Would they have had an al fresco party surrounded by corpses, three cheers for us, huzzah huzzah? Or would it somehow have been a bit too grisly and depressing? And between that and the rose-petal strewn parades through the Forum that the acknowledged Jews are permitted to give themselves, one of them could be more accurately defined as a variation of calculated insult. If all those symbols are an expression of power, they seem to be less for the Satanist / mind-control mob than they are at them, if you can dig it.
Not forgetting of course that if you were to sit down and design a power structure that was most likely to be hijacked and led around like a prize bull with a magic blackmail ring in its nose, you couldn't improve upon one that pivots on paedophilia and Satanist human sacrifice, could you? Sure enough, the paedophocracy was always going to belong to someone else, and it does.
---
But who gives a shit? Not me! Like it matters what stripe an anti-buddha is. To argue the point would be vaguely equivalent to disagreeing over whose Satan is worst, that of the Jews, Christians, or Muslims? Huh? Who cares?
And the witless wannabes who serve those anti-buddhas? Whether it's the dispensable and unacknowledged bastard son who's never seen the light of day and is unable to see past his nose to the fingers that lead him, or the golden headed child who (unaware that it's just a cheap wig) lifts his head ever higher to receive his own adulation and otherwise accommodate the patiently waiting blade - like anyone would shed a tear for the either of them.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Monday, November 16, 2009
Jews, Satanists, and that wretched lesbian cabaret act
So! We have two completely separate groups of people, Jews and Illuminati Satanists each of whom seem to control the media but otherwise have nothing in common. So unalike are they that they can't even be put in the same sentence together.
Unless you want to listen to this woman. What is she on about? Human sacrifice? What? Completely mad obviously - quite right her story was disappeared. Doesn't she know that the Jewish people are international good guys promoting human rights and freedom from sexual repression etc. etc. and that we should all give thanks to them? Besides as everyone knows, Satanists are only ever Christians, or mad perversions thereof. Anyway, I only include her here in order to condemn her. Dreadful woman!
And this fellow! Good God! He's been thrashing about in a charnel pit and has absolutely covered himself in blood libels. A fig for the fact that he's Jewish. Or that he's a professor. Or that he wrote a scholarly book full of details, references, and footnotes, all explaining the role of human blood in Jewish ritual during medieval times. As if facts ever counted in an argument wherein one side was only ever going to scream !BLOOD LIBEL! over and over? Apparently those seeking to defend the good name of Jewish people got through to him and he made a retraction: yes, the Jewish people hated Christians and Christianity; yes, Jewish people used human blood for everything from quack remedies, to wine, to matzoh balls; and yes the blood had to be that of Christian boys under the age of seven and declared kosher by a rabbi; but no, no Christian boys were ever killed in order to obtain it - it all came from 'voluntary donations'. Whew!
Clearly, since no one ever volunteered to be the subject of a Satanist human sacrifice, and since, in the Jewish rituals, all those seven year olds boys volunteered to, um... 'not be sacrificed', then these two things bear absolutely no resemblance to each other. Bravo the Prof! Common sense rules the day. And whilst it was perfectly likely that in coming to this very sensible conclusion the Professor's life was threatened, clearly it was all in a good cause.
Never mind medieval times, let's jump a thousand odd years ahead of that. Blood sacrifice is right there in the Old Testament, which is to say the Torah. Does this mean anything? Says I: Absolutely Not. All of that ancient sacrifice was of every other variety of warm-blooded mammal except humans.* And since Satanists sacrifice everything plus humans, under the old rule of 'a miss being as good as a mile', we can declare these two things completely different. Hell! Let's call them polar opposites!
Besides which, that was then, this is now. Just because the Torah is full of blood sacrifice it doesn't mean anyone takes it literally (it's not as if it's the word of God or anything). Things change, words change, meanings change. 'Holocaust' used to be a Jewish sacrificial offering that was burnt on an altar. Now we put 'the' in front of it, capitalise it, and it means no such thing. Besides, if there was any occult connection between the Holocaust's original meaning and its latter day usage, they'd definitely tell us. After all the Holocaust is an event of such enormity that to even imagine altering it, embroidering it, or in anyway misrepresenting it goes against the very laws of nature. It's like sodomy - it's impossible and no one ever does it.
Where was I? Oh yes, that was then, this is now, and on the topic of human sacrifice God has probably changed his mind. What with the Talmud making it clear that Jehovah is a supplicant God who doesn't know what to think until the rabbis tell him, you'd have to wonder if there's any point in listening to him at all. Best we just ask his rabbi superiors. What's that they say? ..."a Jew should and must make a false oath when the goyim asks if our books contain anything against them." Ayah, so much for that idea! Here I am doing my absolute best to help these guys out and they just keep condemning themselves out of their own mouths! What's a fellow to do? Change tack, obviously!
Forget Jewish history. What about the other end of this discussion - Illuminati history? In amongst that curious topic is there any mention of the word 'Jewish' at all? For the sake of nuance-trashing oversimplification, let me boldly say 'No'. Here's a fellow who seems to be pretty au fait on the topic of the Illuminati. And here's a self-serving snippet (self-serving for me, that is) from one of his lengthy contributions to the Rigorous Intuition comments -
Ah! Well there you are! The Illuminati is not Jewish because otherwise he'd have said so. Clearly if the people he were talking about were Jewish priests he'd hardly go to the effort of writing "various familial groups responsible for differing duties, generally connected with Temple obligations" would he? And besides, there'd be, I don't know... exclamation marks or something wouldn't there? Honestly, who could resist remarking upon it? Not me!
With all that in mind, anyone capable of wondering at things would have to ask: Between Joel Stein's all-powerful media Jews and Pseudo Occult Media's all powerful media Satanists, wouldn't it just be too-completely-nuts if they were somehow all the same crew, and differed only in terms of old-school versus parvenu? In the words of our rhetorically gifted Prime Minister K Rudd: 'Yes it would'.
Madness, Madness. Such thoughts may not be countenanced, and certainly not by me, ha ha. Instead we'll do the legal fiction tango. And since it takes two to tango, in a discussion of two separate blink-blink media entities, that tango wouldn't get very far if it was actually just one person dancing with themselves like some wretched lesbian cabaret act.
Thus we declare that the media is occupied by two entirely separate entities pursuing two entirely separate agendas. Dandy. But what are they after? Who are they talking to? What are they saying? What do they hope to achieve? Really - what's the goddamn point? Sure enough, I've maxed out this piece and will have to come back again.
*I forgot all about the 'Binding of Isaac' (binding, ha ha ha, God forbid we should call it 'human sacrifice'). Anyway, dead loss as a religion student, me. BTW it's worth having a look at that wikipedia entry if for no other reason than to watch the various rabbis turning themselves into human pretzels in order to avoid coming to the logical conclusion, ie. that Jews performed human sacrifice, and of their own children no less.
Unless you want to listen to this woman. What is she on about? Human sacrifice? What? Completely mad obviously - quite right her story was disappeared. Doesn't she know that the Jewish people are international good guys promoting human rights and freedom from sexual repression etc. etc. and that we should all give thanks to them? Besides as everyone knows, Satanists are only ever Christians, or mad perversions thereof. Anyway, I only include her here in order to condemn her. Dreadful woman!
And this fellow! Good God! He's been thrashing about in a charnel pit and has absolutely covered himself in blood libels. A fig for the fact that he's Jewish. Or that he's a professor. Or that he wrote a scholarly book full of details, references, and footnotes, all explaining the role of human blood in Jewish ritual during medieval times. As if facts ever counted in an argument wherein one side was only ever going to scream !BLOOD LIBEL! over and over? Apparently those seeking to defend the good name of Jewish people got through to him and he made a retraction: yes, the Jewish people hated Christians and Christianity; yes, Jewish people used human blood for everything from quack remedies, to wine, to matzoh balls; and yes the blood had to be that of Christian boys under the age of seven and declared kosher by a rabbi; but no, no Christian boys were ever killed in order to obtain it - it all came from 'voluntary donations'. Whew!
Clearly, since no one ever volunteered to be the subject of a Satanist human sacrifice, and since, in the Jewish rituals, all those seven year olds boys volunteered to, um... 'not be sacrificed', then these two things bear absolutely no resemblance to each other. Bravo the Prof! Common sense rules the day. And whilst it was perfectly likely that in coming to this very sensible conclusion the Professor's life was threatened, clearly it was all in a good cause.
Never mind medieval times, let's jump a thousand odd years ahead of that. Blood sacrifice is right there in the Old Testament, which is to say the Torah. Does this mean anything? Says I: Absolutely Not. All of that ancient sacrifice was of every other variety of warm-blooded mammal except humans.* And since Satanists sacrifice everything plus humans, under the old rule of 'a miss being as good as a mile', we can declare these two things completely different. Hell! Let's call them polar opposites!
Besides which, that was then, this is now. Just because the Torah is full of blood sacrifice it doesn't mean anyone takes it literally (it's not as if it's the word of God or anything). Things change, words change, meanings change. 'Holocaust' used to be a Jewish sacrificial offering that was burnt on an altar. Now we put 'the' in front of it, capitalise it, and it means no such thing. Besides, if there was any occult connection between the Holocaust's original meaning and its latter day usage, they'd definitely tell us. After all the Holocaust is an event of such enormity that to even imagine altering it, embroidering it, or in anyway misrepresenting it goes against the very laws of nature. It's like sodomy - it's impossible and no one ever does it.
Where was I? Oh yes, that was then, this is now, and on the topic of human sacrifice God has probably changed his mind. What with the Talmud making it clear that Jehovah is a supplicant God who doesn't know what to think until the rabbis tell him, you'd have to wonder if there's any point in listening to him at all. Best we just ask his rabbi superiors. What's that they say? ..."a Jew should and must make a false oath when the goyim asks if our books contain anything against them." Ayah, so much for that idea! Here I am doing my absolute best to help these guys out and they just keep condemning themselves out of their own mouths! What's a fellow to do? Change tack, obviously!
Forget Jewish history. What about the other end of this discussion - Illuminati history? In amongst that curious topic is there any mention of the word 'Jewish' at all? For the sake of nuance-trashing oversimplification, let me boldly say 'No'. Here's a fellow who seems to be pretty au fait on the topic of the Illuminati. And here's a self-serving snippet (self-serving for me, that is) from one of his lengthy contributions to the Rigorous Intuition comments -
The basic story is that in 70 AD, when Titus was sacking Jerusalem various familial groups responsible for differing duties, generally connected with Temple obligations, gathered their items of diligence such as sacred oils, treasures, and hid them in caves in the Temple Mount and other areas of the country. These families comprised of members of the various priesthoods and royal lines then dispersed, many towards Europe, producing the “bluebloods.” According to Knight and Lomas, a familial secret society existed named Rex Deus that was revealed by a father to his chosen son, upon this son reaching the age of 21. This group emerged above-ground with the Crusades, supposedly in accordance with prophecies in Daniel and Isaiah.
Ah! Well there you are! The Illuminati is not Jewish because otherwise he'd have said so. Clearly if the people he were talking about were Jewish priests he'd hardly go to the effort of writing "various familial groups responsible for differing duties, generally connected with Temple obligations" would he? And besides, there'd be, I don't know... exclamation marks or something wouldn't there? Honestly, who could resist remarking upon it? Not me!
With all that in mind, anyone capable of wondering at things would have to ask: Between Joel Stein's all-powerful media Jews and Pseudo Occult Media's all powerful media Satanists, wouldn't it just be too-completely-nuts if they were somehow all the same crew, and differed only in terms of old-school versus parvenu? In the words of our rhetorically gifted Prime Minister K Rudd: 'Yes it would'.
Madness, Madness. Such thoughts may not be countenanced, and certainly not by me, ha ha. Instead we'll do the legal fiction tango. And since it takes two to tango, in a discussion of two separate blink-blink media entities, that tango wouldn't get very far if it was actually just one person dancing with themselves like some wretched lesbian cabaret act.
Thus we declare that the media is occupied by two entirely separate entities pursuing two entirely separate agendas. Dandy. But what are they after? Who are they talking to? What are they saying? What do they hope to achieve? Really - what's the goddamn point? Sure enough, I've maxed out this piece and will have to come back again.
*I forgot all about the 'Binding of Isaac' (binding, ha ha ha, God forbid we should call it 'human sacrifice'). Anyway, dead loss as a religion student, me. BTW it's worth having a look at that wikipedia entry if for no other reason than to watch the various rabbis turning themselves into human pretzels in order to avoid coming to the logical conclusion, ie. that Jews performed human sacrifice, and of their own children no less.
Monday, November 2, 2009
Blink, and Blink Again
There's two kinds of people in the world. Those who split the world into two kinds of people, and those who don't. My advice: if you ever meet one of the former, run a mile! They're dreadful people!
But since we've started let's keep going. Sure enough we've all split - we split from the MSM as well as from all those incurious people who think its message is worth listening to (which is to say, everyone we know). Here on the net we found everything that had been withheld from us by the bloc-media and we no longer wish to listen to its shit. And thus we find ourselves coming under some new heading. Here's an opportunity - why don't I come up with a catchy new media-friendly name, à la Gen X and Gen Y? Hmm... how about Gen Tell Folk? Ha ha ha. There's no age limit on that by the way.
Idiocy aside, categorisations are never that simple. Here on the net, as elsewhere, things divide and divide again. Let's forget for the moment the false alternative sites like truthout, democratic underground, and daily kos etc. I guess it's possible for people to arrive at these sites and never progress, but for all of us here they were merely way stations on the journey to, um... for the purpose of the exercise let's call it Truthland™ (the unlikeliest kingdom of them all!).
But perversely, it seems that there are two Truthlands and you have to pick one or t'other. It's not difficult of course - a blink and you're there, or... a blink and you're there. Same same different. The only rule is: you can't be in both places at the same time.
Sure enough, I'm talking about the split between the either/or mindsets of '...it's the Jews' and '...it's the Illuminati'. And yes, I know the expression 'illuminati' is not very useful, but between that and typing out 'satanist paedophile masonic scientology CIA mind-control motherfuckers, one of them is elegant and one ain't. And as I always say, 'Inelegance? Fuck that!'
Thus if you want to blink and read about Jews, you go to whatreallyhappened, and there it's all laid out: the holocaust, USS Liberty, the Fed, AIPAC, fake anti-Semitism, Israel and Palestine, all of it. And hats off to Mike Rivero: on all things Jewish he does a sterling job. But what you won't find on WRH are any satanists, or paedophiles (apart from the catholic clergy), or (perish the thought) mind-control zombies. If Mike does discuss them it's only to tell you that there's no such thing.
Fine - blink again and find yourself at, say, Pseudo Occult Media. This is a fine site and definitely worth visiting, but it should be said that in terms of world-view it has a rather long lens focused on a rather narrow subject area. The gig is straightforward - a search for illuminati clues in the media by way of a simple checklist: butterflies, check; mirrors, check; all-seeing eye, check; checkerboard floor, check. And on and on: frankly it's relentless, but it's neither more nor less relentless than the mind-control crowd who put it there to begin with. After a while you just have to surrender and ask the question, 'Is there anyone in fashion, pop, hell the whole damn entertainment industry who isn't a zombie or a controller?' Oh, and that Zoolander flick? A documentary! Who knew?
What you won't find at Pseudo Occult Media is the word Jewish. In a long discussion that's about nothing if not the media, somehow the people who own that media are never mentioned. Perhaps none of them know that this is going on? Perhaps the satanists are doing all this right under their noses with them entirely unaware? Or perhaps they were just too busy with their own checklist: Arab villains, check; Jewish victim/heroes, check; a relentless tide of smut, violence, and racism, check, check, check.
It's almost like visiting a house occupied by two families each of whom acts like the other doesn't exist. And we the visitors do the same: Blink - we're there to see the Rothschilds, and we know it's their house because of the unmissable menorah (we pay no attention to the pentacle bedaubed altar it's standing on); or Blink - we're there to see the Kidd-di Buggerer's ("It's pronounced dee-BOO-zheray, actually"), and it's obviously their house since we can hear the screams of the children downstairs (behind that door which has a star of david on it for some reason).
But seriously, this blinking between only one or only the other is mad. Overcooking and really ruining the house-visit metaphor now - Blink! Blink! - It's the Menendez home and we're the cops called to investigate the shotgun murder of the parents. But let's re-imagine their defence strategy - the two point at each other and say, 'It wasn't me, it was him!'. And idiotically we fall for it! Real cops would never fall for such obvious shit, but we, the Gen Tell Folk, do precisely that. We split into two flat-foot camps each sticking up for one of the brothers, and each flinging shit at the other. And since both boys were Jewish (natch) both camps get to fling around accusations of anti-Semitism. Excellent! (In the real Menendez murders the two boys blamed the victims. I don't recall them asking for mercy on account of being orphans but would that surprise anyone?)
Leaving behind the metaphor now, could it be any more obvious? WRH's wicked Jews and POM's wicked satanists are both in it together. Thick as thieves? Thick as media moguls more like. Each is perfectly aware of what the other is doing and each is completely cool with it. Oh, and never mind the low-level, expendable pawns - what the hell would they know? The only question is: which of our media parties wears the trousers? Okay, perhaps this is a bit of a yawn given that I've covered this before, but I want to come at it again albeit from the other direction. And it's all thanks to Jeff Wells' extraordinary Rigorous Intuition. Back soon with the follow-up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)