The Neo-Marxists Lower the Bar… Again.

I’m increasingly finding that my spirit animals are Dave Rubin and Sargon of Akkad, because they are the only people still willing to identify themselves as leftists without descending into the maelstrom of horseshit that is the extreme left’s current obsession with neo-Marxist and neo-Liberal identity politics. I too, still consider myself a classical liberal with leanings toward anarchism wherever it is practically applicable, but I find myself having to critique my own political brethren far more that I do the centre right, or even the far-right, seeing as how this week, the goalposts shifted so far to the left that if you’re not a bi-racial androgyne covered in Cuban flags and giving a socialist fist, you’re now considered a Nazi.

At the March for Our Lives, Kids Say Their Right to Feel Safe Trumps Your Right to Own a Gun 😐 Robby Soave

So allow me to not mince my words. The left should be absolutely ashamed of using children to push their infantile bullshit about gun control. Rather than looking at David Hogg and being ashamed that they have corralled a child to the front of their campaign and given him lame, ridiculous, easily deconstructed arguments to repeat. Rather than rolling their eyes at the ambiguous “March for our lives” and being embarrassed that they have so few arguments left that they now have to go full-bore appeal to authority and emotion and resort to the ‘think of the children’ argument. Rather than being able to logically and reasonably put their point forward using the Socratic method, we have devolved to a stage where the left now believes all it has to do is activate a bunch of high school kids and all the fawning statists will follow suit. Unfortunately they’re right.

That’s not to say that the people falling for this shit are all statist sycophants. Even those usually prone to attacks of logic are susceptible to this kind of manipulation. To those people I simply suggest that they seriously consider the implications of what they’re doing. Do you think these kids have the life experience, knowledge of historical context and understanding of firearms to make a coherent argument against more than two centuries of protected gun rights? I don’t, and It shows in the fact they still say “assault rifle” and parrot the same tired soundbites anti-gun advocates have parrotted for decades. Those arguments were wrong then, they’re wrong now, even when they’re made by doe eyed children.

 

Do you know why we don’t let children vote? It’s because their views are simplistic, infantile and uneducated. This is not a micro-agression against kids, it’s the accumulated wisdom of generations of trying to hammer out a working democracy, it’s meant to be a caretaking measure to protect children both from the realities of the global political stage at large as well as more importantly being an acknowledgement that the smartest minds in the world, the men who led the only successful armed revolution against the European ruling class have debated this issue at length and come to such stern resolution that they made it the second point of their founding document, one that would ensure the first. Save for some wunderkind chid genius coming along and chewing through the combined works of Hobbs, Jefferson, Franklin, Paine et al., along with managing a sufficient grasp of the Socratic method and Aristotelian logic to be able to debate without succumbing to obvious logical fallacies, there is absolutely fucking zero a child has to contribute to this debate, especially ones who have no experience coupled with an ignorant understanding of the subject. Sorry, but David Hogg is not that genius, he’s just a high school kid, angry as fuck at the events that have happened around him, given a few cue cards and pointed in the direction of a CNN camera by cynical pricks who seek to use him. He deserves our sympathy and empathy to the utmost degree, he deserves to be left alone to work his way through a traumatic event.

 


It has been widely considered for a long time, the absolute lowest of low arguments to try to appeal to peoples emotions using children, and it’s an indictment of just how badly gun rights advocates have been absolutely licked at every turn when they try to change the constitution. because their arguments are bullshit, illogical and based on emotional reaction to traumatic events. You need to be entirely politically and historically ignorant of the last 2 centuries of American revolution to make these spectacularly failed arguments against the 2nd amendment over and over and think they’ll make any kind of impact, which is why the anti-gun advocates use children, and its also why so many people. bereft of that context. flock to it and share it. Once again, to be blunt, children’s opinions on gun control are irrelevant, we do not “look to the wisdom of children” to make legislative decisions for the same reason we don’t let them vote, we do it when we want to infantilise an issue by trying to make it black and white. Whilst it is tragic that some kids were involved in shootings, you don’t go to someone who lived through an earthquake for geological advice just because they survived. It is infuriating how people are willing to shove logic to one side because the kids held up signs. It is absolutely despicable to use children to push a political agenda, no matter the agenda or the side doing it.

Which brings me, begrudgingly, to the side doing it. The other argument I am constantly faced with is the idea that these kids aren’t being “forced into anything”. This is true in a literal sense of course, but there’s a fine line between leaving them alone and gently nudging trauma victims with a level of survivor’s guilt into certain actions, isn’t there? I mean all these kids freely turned up of their own accord, right? More than this, they organised it all themselves, right? Apart from of course, the one kid who was a Parkland survivor who they didn’t invite because he disagrees with them. Because it’s important to come together and be inclusive during times of trauma right? Unless you disagree with the left, in which case you can’t come to their party, showing again the divisive and exclusionary tactics they use to not have to hear differing viewpoints. They have to shut down the debate no matter what, they can’t have opposing viewpoint at a march that is ostensibly a gesture of solidarity with victims of violence, but in reality is a vanguard for a radical agenda of disarmament. Cause its good to teach kids to discriminate against people who differ politically, right? One kid sticks his head above the parapet and says “hang on, all the laws were in place to stop this happening, but repeated police failures including on the day itself meant this kid who they were warned about on numerous occasions and who tried to commit HIMSELF was ignored” and what happens? well you can’t come to our 3.5 million dollar march.

That is truly despicable. Well done on making a kid that felt absoloutly gutted inside over the deaths of his classmates feel even more exlcuded because he didn’t agree with the political orientation of the way you chose to publically memorialise their deaths. Disgusting.

 


Now don’t misunderstand me here, I don’t agree with poor Kyle Kashuv being splashed all over the news having to argue the points of government failure, second amendment rights and trot out the libertarian argument for the 2nd amendment either. Not only are there a veritable litany of very good gun rights advocates already out there doing this (see Molenuex & Passio above) not because they have to, but because they are well read and fascinated enough on the subject to speak erudite and in a learned manner about the history and context of the debate. Kashuv is visibly dealing with trauma, why put him on television in the first place? Again this is nothing against him, he is at least attempting to use the socratic method, but the important point he brings up is that despite offering David Hogg out for a televised debate, he wasn’t invited to the March. As I have established I dont beleive a televised debate by traumatised children about how to deal with the complex issue that created their trauma is a good idea, but don’t try to tell me this is about making the children feel better or ‘safer’ when you exclude the kids themselves from the march.

So let’s deal with this point of “nobody is forcing these kids to do anything”. in terms of the Parkland children themselves, they are fucking grieving a traumatic event, do you think the best thing to do in that situation is a) have extensive counselling and reintegration back into a stable community or b) splash them at the front of a political campaign that, certainly in the case of David Hogg, will probably colour the rest of his life and paint him into a corner that, in ten years time, he probably wont want to be in? Do you not find that hugely irresponsible? Or are you willing to overlook that because it’s a party you support or an issue you agree with? I’m not, I find it just as despicable as when the right uses children to try to make emotional arguments about abortion,. These marches take an absolute fuckload of logistical preparation, police and city co-ordination etc. Oprah Winfrey and George Clooney, two people who have spoken openly about running as democrats in 2020 pledged a million dollars. You don’t think Oprah’s little minions were all over that shit organising, or do you think they just ‘left it to the kids’

and you can’t see how this is exploitation?

This is the lowest the Neo-Marxist identity politic parade have reached so far, We have reached the point where we literally exploit the kids with Che Guevara posters on their walls by giving them a pedestal to make a political point about violent crime that they themselves are recovering from, and can only speak to from the extreme of being in a tiny minority of people to have suffered the horror a school shooting.  It is downright disgusting, but I have no doubt the bar will be lowered.

Advertisements

The New Horsemen Vs. The Regressive Left

 

I’ll be honest, I never really wanted to write about politics. My primary interests were always history, philosophy and how those studies intersected with my study of all things occult and esoteric. I was always aware that my spurious and sometimes non-sensical ramblings about magic, giants and the New World Order would somewhat taint any serious research or considered political opinion I might give because I would assume that most people don’t believe its possible to both attempt scholarly research on speculative aspects of mysticism whist at the same time maintaining a rational brain on political matters. Truth is however, we’ve reached a point in our civilisation where it’s becoming increasingly salient to enter the political arena and rather than quietly make a disapproving face at people who seek to shout down or shut down political debate, actually become ideologically confrontational to them and force them into retreat.

As a classical English liberal, its been pretty interesting to see the shape of debate in the American political scene because in many ways it has mirrored my own problems with the left in Britain. In the last few years I have seen the goalposts shift significantly in terms of how the pendulum of public opinion swings. It was only a few years ago that I was part of a small political debate group which genuinely lifted my somewhat nihilistic and Anarchistic sentiment towards being politically ‘active’ beyond my own monkeysphere which had formed over years of simply not being able to find people I politically aligned with. It was a welcome challenge to have to maintain consistency among people who could and would call me out on logical errors, but it was only a matter of time before the spectre of Marxism would rear it’s ugly little head and I would find myself in the familiar position of being the only leftist secular humanist in the room who wasn’t enamoured with socialism, leaned far more toward anarchistic individualism and wasn’t looking to embolden or empower the state in order to do my bidding, no matter how compassionate or altruistic my ultimate political goals might be. As a political historian I was all too aware of the Frankfurt school of thought and the necessary expansion of the divisive Hegelian dialectic that socialism required and despite the fact I certainly wasn’t a Blairite by any stretch of the imagination, I welcomed the healthy debate that was happening on the left about what the left should actually be, how it should represent itself and how it should achieve it’s goals.

There was always the creeping thought in the back of mind however, that this kind of healthy debate and reverence for the modern intellectual powerhouses on both sides of the political coin, people like Christopher Hitchens and George Carlin on the left and William F. Buckley and Thomas Sowell on the right, was dying out among modern generations and that with the introduction of the internet, for all it’s positives, we we’re going to start polarising opinion purely due to the propensity of human beings to ignore their cognitive bias and surround themselves with a digital monkeysphere of echo chambering and bias confirmation. I don’t think it’s too difficult to look at the effect of Facebook and Google on the average person and see that this is self-evident, very few people can genuinely engage on the topics they frequently post on and the ability to be anonymous and aggressively debate without having to actually personally address the person or the problem you are debating is a double-edged sword. It has allowed many disenfranchised people to have a voice they previously didn’t, but it has also meant that opinion is not tempered by interaction. This is how we have come to a stage where people on the left and the right find themselves being slandered as Nazi’s for going against the ever-changing prevailing social opinion. It’s funny that we used to go by the unwritten edict that anytime anyone violated Godwin’s Law, we stopped and put the debate back in check. Unwarranted comparisons to Hitler were an accepted violation of the terms of debate, they were an unofficial logical fallacy. There is good reasoning behind this adage. My understanding of the socratic method and my initial forays into political debate were forged in the late 20th and early 21st century when the internet wasn’t the omnipresent and somewhat malevolent force it is today. I learned very quickly that there was no place for political extremes in real debate because they got shouted down by the court of public opinion very quickly. Nazi’s weren’t being identified everywhere because if you turned up to a public debate and actually started espousing fascism or genocide that would be very quickly identified and defeated by better arguments. No fascist would dare walk into a debate with Christopher Hitchens because he would destroy them and no extreme socialist would idly waltz into debate with Peter Hitchens because he would do the same (as his Twitter account shows). Their debates, hell even their stints on C-SPAN are endlessly watchable because they are two brothers with wildly differing political opinions but who have the respect and dignity to actually debate each other properly and because they can’t just scream “FASCIST!!” and “COMMUNIST” at one another as ad hominem, they actually have to develop their wit and repartee in order subtly and lovingly jab at one another.

(So endlessly watchable in fact, I just watched all of that and lost my train of thought)

If there need be a crystallisation of the point I am making here, then it comes in no purer form than at the 7 minute mark in that debate, where Peter Hitchens makes a light-hearted joke that there would be grievance councillors available afterwards if anyone on the left felt offended by any of his opinions or even worse, agreed with them. It is both hilarious and depressing that a mere 2 decades later we have actually reached that point and it’s not a joke, it’s not people ironically parodying, it’s absolutely real. Nobody should be surprised that there was a blowback to Blairite neo-liberalism, that was inevitable. The way New Labour handed the party over to corporate interests and traditionally Conservative foreign policy in order to gain the vote is still considered by many as the direction the party should maintain, but as that inevitably meant that the workers basic needs and rights weren’t going to be addressed by the party created to address them, the workers would eventually revolt and force the party back to its original intention. It’s incredibly unfortunate that this revolt was ultimately directed by the neo-Marxist socialist wing of the party but to be fair, we must all take our share of the responsibility for that. I know I was too buried on Grimouires and fringe conspiracies over the last few years to care too much about the political landscape, but as Brexit and Trump happened those Globalist totalitarian surveillance state conspiracies once again crossed over into the political realm and I found myself once again debating contemporary politics by default. The rise of Jeremy Corbyn should, in reality shock nobody who has been keeping an eye on political trends for a couple of decades. My own experience of my own schools and universities had provided me enough of an insight into how Marxism was being pushed on ever younger students on an alarming scale. I myself once betrayed the Anarchism of my teens and had that fabled image of Che Guevara on my wall, flirted with the tide of the coming socialist revolution, allowed myself to believe intellectuals would bureaucracise our way out of all our societal problems which I felt, bar none, could be placed at the feet of our corporate masters and their bourgeoise. It wasn’t until I was clear of state institutions that I began to read, or for that matter was even presented with the counterpoint to those opinions, and began to understand just how malevolent and dangerous the State is and just how compromised I had been by its decades of propaganda. My own political journey after that mirrored very much the Late Chirsopher Hitchen’s move from Trotskyite to ever more rational individualist classical liberal but in the end I cannot betray my anarchist leanings, so I will never be able to be placed in any of the current identity boxes of the left. This presents a problem.

In 2018 Christopher Hitchens opinions on free speech are tantamount to oppression by the white male patriarchy and would have him branded a fascist. His learned and articulate criticism of Islam, forged in a genuine fight alongside the secular Kurds and years of being a leading debating figure on the edge of the atheist critique of all organised religion, would have him branded a Nazi. This is the shifting of the goalposts, and it has been defined by an embrace of such extreme neo-liberal marxist social attitudes and statism that it has unbalanced the political spectrum. And it’s not just the left who are experiencing the problem, it’s effecting anarchists, classical liberals, conservatives, essentially anyone to the right of Jane Fonda. “e’re it just a few marginalised groups on University campuses it wouldn’t be a problem. It seems however that this march toward totalitarian statism is taking over the debate. If you want egalitarianism and meritocracy as opposed to equality of outcomes the debate is so improperly framed that you will be called a Nazi. It’s why it is now becoming incredibly important not just to speak truths, but speak uncomfortable truths as loudly as possible.

In the wake of the Trump election, the hatred thrown at the right by the socialists in America should be a source of shame, but of course to them it isn’t, they’re Marxists, so it’s a point of pride. These are people who see the policing of speech codes and state uniformitarianism as progressive, they even call themselves such, but as should be self-evident to anybody with an understanding of history it is actually a regressive step. It is a step back from liberty, a step back from the freedom that will allow the natural selection of good ideas and the ability to develop the discernment needed to actually progress. It becomes even worse when you realise that the extreme left politics of the people pushing this ideological censorship means that the grand tradition of Socratic and Aristotelian logic and reasoning on which the enlightenment was based must now take a backseat to puerile identarianism, lest one commit the atrocity of impurity of thought. In the U.S. we saw this manifest with the procession of riots and attempted terrorism by groups like Antifa, BLM and all manner of socialist collectives on university campuses against the likes of Milo Yiannopolous, Christina Hoff-Summers, Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder, Mike Cernovich and Dave Rubin, all proponents of free speech, all with vastly different perspectives but all subject to the tactics of non-platforming, violent rioting or organised trolling by the extreme left, who view their opinions as ‘Nazi’.

 

This is why, despite the fact I disagree on many of the opinions they hold, I will continue to share and promote their debates and talks because if the mainstream is going to prostrate itself in the face of the screaming regressive left, then it falls to anyone who still believes in free speech and the open forum of ideas to subvert that in every way possible. As Ben Shapiro says, because the left has embraced this culture of perpetual victim-hood and identity politics, there is a demand for Nazi’s that simply isn’t being met but the actual supply. Genuine fascists and Nazi’s remain incredibly small in number and are mostly pushed to the fringes of political debate, but the regressive left have built their entire identity crusade on the back of the presence of oppressive fascist structures all around us and rather than admitting this is a false precept to begin with, they must now label anything and everything that disagrees with their prescribed solutions as a Nazi, even people who were formerly comrades in arms with the left like Dave Rubin.

Whilst America is truly in the grip of this battle, we are beginning to see it emerge in Britain too. Last week at kings college, Carl Benjamin the English classical liberal and Yaron Brook the Jewish objectivist met to have a debate, and had their party crashed by some brave Antifa warriors who forced the meeting to a different venue. This is an incredibly dangerous precedent but luckily the college administration acted with some grace, and Sargon is not one to cow-tow to intimidation. As with all these events, the SJW’s don’t seem to realise that all they are doing is giving ammunition to free speech advocates to turn around and mow them down with.

As with now infamous encounter Jordan Peterson had with Cathy Newman on the Channel 4 news highlighted perfectly, when confronted with logic the ill-logic of marxist identity politics crumbles incredibly quickly, which is why these regressives have decided that there is no point trying to debate with their political opponents, they must instead character assassinate, try to intimidate or simply shout ad hominem insults at them to try to shut them up.  That debate could not have come at a more relevant time in this cuntry, and Dr. Peterson deserves a medal for leading a bigot to some self-realisations on the unreasonable bullshit she was spouting.

Though the tide seems to be turning in the U.S., Britain appears to be becoming more subtly SJW every day. Ony recently, the despicable racist Munroe Bergdof was hired by a Labour front-bencher as an adivsor on LGBT issues. It certainly isn’t that Ms. Bergdof hasn’t been roundly trashed and humiliated in the court of public opinion for her racial slander, that happened on one of Britain’s top political programmes “This Week”, where a motley assortment of Michael Portillo, Ed Balls and Andrew Neil took her to task on her abhorrent opinions.

 

But it no longer matters to Labour that these ideologues have been roundly beaten in the court of debate, like the election of Sadiq Kahn or the rise of Justin Trudeau in Canada, the floor is consistently being given those who virtue signal the strongest and those who most neatly fit the identarianism of the regressives. The same problem encountered on American campuses is now being seen on British campuses too and it’s leading to a degradation of debate and a genuine need for the centre right and centre left to become ever more vociferous in its condemnation of the extremes on both sides. In this climate of escalating polarisation, the only entity that truly wins is the state itself, who can both use the distraction to enact some pretty disgusting legislation, and has the luxury of having both sides of the debate clawing for more government regulation of speech, ever more totalitarian control of behaviour and ever more consolidated power over every aspect of our daily lives. These ‘progressives’ don’t want freedom, they don’t want liberty and they don’t want diversity or equality in any real terms other than their own warped interpretations of those concepts. They want uniformitarianism under their own flawed ideology, and their secular Marxist bible tells them they can use all the violence and all the underhand tactics they can to achieve it. This makes them just another organised religion in my eyes, these people have replaced the human need for idol worship and religion with their own secular religion of statism and in many ways, it is the most dangerous of all the religions. The need to rebalance the political spectrum and re-assert the importance of logic and reason over appeals to emotion and subjective claims of victimization is becoming ever more pressing, so I won’t apologise for making a point of sharing contrarian, controversial and even offensive counter-points simply for the fact that they need to be heard, debated and if they are illogical or unreasonable, defeated. There are no safe spaces, you are not allowed to go running to a room full of puppies to calm your fragile sensibilities. Grow the fuck up, enter the fray and sharpen your arguments by being proven wrong and refining your understanding, because the alternative is a situation nobody wants.

John Anthony West: 1932-2018

John Anthony West may not have been the first, but he was most certainly the most influential man when it comes to brutally and beautifully destroying any chance I ever had to be an academic professor. I can remember sitting as a kid and watching the absolutely spellbinding Emmy award-winning documentary ‘”The Mystery of the Sphinx”, which laid out the evidence for a radically older dating of that monument than had ever previously been seriously considered, I can remember thinking “this is it, they’re finally going to take Egypt seriously!”. Then I remember the inevitable backlash, the back and forth of the Egyptologists saying “but you’re a Geologist, you haven’t studied Egypt, you don’t know anything about dating” and the Geologists saying “We don’t care what the tools you find say, we know about dating rock, this is hard science and it is correct” and for all intents and purposes this was the stalemate that existed right up until the time I got to University and was finally going to be able to study Egypt in the way I had always wanted, with the resources I had always wanted.

Take a wild guess how that went…

 

While his most enduring achievement will always be the way in which he popularised and thus, took on the mantle of figurehead for an entire movement of revisionist and alternative Egyptian scholars and to his credit, always attempted to cut through the new-age metaphysical chaff and get to the meat of the different arguments he faced, his real value to Egyptology in the next century will be the way in which he took on and popularised the writings of the rogue mathematician, R. A. Schwaller de Lubicz and through meticulous study of his forms and method, re-opened what can best (but still anachronistically) be called a Hermetic thread of inquiry into everything in Egypt, from the architecture to the art to the entire astrotheological astronomy that it would seem was present from the building of the very first temples, suggesting the Egyptians incredible understanding of mathematics, geometry and thus the mapping of the sky and the earth was already well-formed and understood before the first brick was laid of the first temple of the first dynasty. Earth shattering stuff indeed.

That was until of course Dr. Zahi Hawass showed up. When one opens the dictionary and searches the term “gatekeeper”, there is nothing but a picture of Zahi Hawass’ fat fucking face. From dismissing every contradictory theory to his own as nonsense, to selling digging rights for sexual favours, to stealing artwork and artifacts, to claiming other archeologists discoveries as his own after ridiculing them, to hiding key discoveries or lying about their provenance or importance, to his eventual firing in disgrace, the number of people who that fucking garbage human being must have turned away from studying Egypt and the oldest civilisations in the world by making the entire study prohibitive and purposefully obsfucatory probably can’t be counted. Should you be in any doubt about the despicable nature of the man who held the keys of access to every tomb and temple in Egypt, then watch what happened when finally, after decades of ad hominem attacks and bluster he finally accepted the invitation to debate Grahame Hancock and Robert Bauval only to turn up, call Robert Bauval a thief, declare the whole matter closed and storm off after just minutes.

And so, entire generations had grown up being fed what was essentially a tightly controlled narrative, unrefined and unchanged for the most part since the earliest christian archeologists of Carters ilk searching for proof of the bible, backed up by decades of echo chambering and confirmation bias amongst academics, all lorded over by a demonstrably corrupt asshole who in public declared anyone who claimed civilisation was more than 7,000 years old was a “Pyramidiot”, but in private was giving lectures to Cayce’s A.R.E (and one can only speculate at what other kinds of organisations he was taking those lectures too for a hefty price) about Atlantis and lost civilisations. This was the state of Egyptology when I strolled into university with a Justin Beiber haircut somewhere around the year 2000. It was essentially the same collective half-laugh, half-pants shitting realisation of the gravity of the situation Daniel Jackson gets in Stargate when he starts talking about weird symbols and living gods. Only that’s a movie and is supposed to be a hyperbolic representation of the situation, in reality what was going on in Egyptology was far more ridiculously hyperbolic and cartoonishly conspiratorial than any movie, and it seemed far more badly scripted to hide the plot holes. (So a bit more like the Devil’s Tomb, which I recommend watching purely because I’m certain Cuba Gooding Jr. has to be purposefully acting so terribly as a fuck you to the director, and Ron Perlman’s in it)

The problem was of course, there was no putting the toothpaste back in the tube. Through West’s patronage a steady stream of scholars would emerge, Hancock, Bauval, West himself and his erstwhile companion Dr. Robert Schoch would form the core and become known as the four Horsemen, but from their work would emerge people like Andrew Collins, Dr. Carmen Boulter, Stephen Mehler, David Childress and many other journeymen of different disciplines, from theological scholars like Dr. Joseph Farrell to respected engineers like Christopher Dunne, all who came together from different disciplines, from PhD to amateur auto-didact to follow a decidedly different thread of research than the academic scene wanted to pursue, and in my own opinion there is absolutely no comparison between what they have collectively discovered and the mostly stagnant introspection of the universities.

There is far, far more to Egypt than that which can be discerned from digging in the sand and looking for biomatter to carbon date or trying to find a decent explaination for how the copper tools we find managed to carve perfectly symettrical diorite statues (they can’t) or explaining how they made a building with a 13 square acre footprint line up to within an arc minute of true north using slave labour and logs (they can’t). There is an art, culture and yes, science that we mischaracterize as redundant or alchemical or too metaphysical to be anything more than the fevered rantings of Pharaoh’s or priest cults. The truth is that applying the kind of reductionist materialism we use in today’s mechanical, industrial pursuit of science is entirely the wrong lens to be looking at these things through, and like anything, if the focus is off, you’ll be left with nothing but a blurry image of something from the distant past that you can’t quite identify.  John Anthony West was the guy who tore back that veil and showed beyond any shadow of a doubt that modern esotericism and indeed the groups foremost in pushing that mindset all claim the hidden knowledge of and have their fundamental roots in the Egyptian Stellar cults, the true ‘original’ astrotheological understanding of the universe that led to that first few Dynasties of the early golden age and the true megalithic wonders of Egypt that the following dynasties could only try in vain to match. He showed that it is the Egyptians themselves who hold the keys to understanding and unraveling that mystery and we stand to gain far more by taking the Egyptians at their word and understanding their obsession with proportion, alchemy and dying a good death that we do by dismissing it and trying to pretend that the greatest acheivements of the civilisation came with Greek or Roman invasion, they catagorically did not.

The Anarchy of Information Reigns

Michael Joesph’s excellent series on occult cosmology and science, available at his youtube channel Schism206

The elite (and by that I mean a relatively small number of monied dynasties and their sattelite families who have, for a number of centuries now, consolidated wealth and power into a single global cabal with the stated goal of becoming a single world authority) have become something of a mainstream topic in the last few years. Continue reading The Anarchy of Information Reigns

Trump’s Greater Israel will be the Greatest Israel of All Time…

The time may have come to finally bring the Rothschild’s out of the conspiratorial closet and into the forefront, because what happened today in terms of the U.S. embassy in Israel is perhaps the boldest move Trump’s profit-masters have made on the global stage in quite some time.
About 12 months ago I was being accused of being a Trump supporter, mostly because of the veracity with which I denounced Hillary Clinton. Many couldn’t understand that a vitriolic hatred for one candidate by no means meant support of another, but knowing Clinton’s policies, history, the shady dealings of her foundation and the litany of actually legitimately suspicious dead bodies left in her political wake, there really was no other choice than to pick whoever was running against her.

I did at the time however try to point out that Trump was by no means a lesser evil, there was absolutely no justification whatsoever to vote for Hillary, despite Trump being an inexperienced, narcissistic sociopath the practical and immediate inevitability of a Clinton presidency were far too despicable to entertain, so it was better to go with the man who might fuck the country over in a few years time than go with the woman who would have immediately started world war three by purposefully creating a situation where the US shot down Russian planes and kicked off a possible nuclear confrontation.

Now I’m not right about anything more than anyone else, but I do try at least to maintain some level of political and intellectual consistency on these issues, so here’s what I said in April about Trump’s election:
“it’s important to remember not only who benefits from the balkanization of the middle-east, but also who Donald Trump ultimately owes his fortune, and thus his allegiance to.
While many pointed to Hilary Clinton as the extending and encroaching arm of the banking industry and pointed to shadowy proofs of connections to criminal cabals, (many of which were true) it is Donald Trump who is on the documented financial record as being billions in debt to the Rothschild dynasty through their intervention in the Resorts International scandal. A company which, nobody ever seems to remember, was exposed years later as being a front for the CIA… the first person Trump invited to his stupid golden house was the notorious terrorist Benjamin Netenyahu. Trump was the wrong answer to the right question”

What I was attempting to point out there (whilst not straying into Ken Livingstone territory) was that whilst Wilbur Ross might be more famous at the moment for his exploits in dealing with Russia:

The far more relevant event in the Ross/Trump relationship comes in 1990, the L.A. Times characterises the event thusly

The future president-elect at one time owned a quarter of Atlantic City’s casino market. But Trump was heavily in debt, and he started missing bond payments on his — and Atlantic City’s — largest casino, the Taj Mahal, in 1990.

Ross, then an investment banker working for Rothschild Inc., helped bondholders negotiate with Trump, whose finances were unraveling. The final deal reduced Trump’s ownership stake in the Taj but left him in charge, and bondholders were unhappy when Ross presented the plan.

“Why did we make a deal with him?” one asked, according to Rosenberg’s book.

Ross insisted that Trump was worth saving.

“The Trump name is still very much an asset,” he said.

Trump himself proved to be less of a sure bet. Though the agreement allowed Trump to soldier on in Atlantic City, his casinos landed in bankruptcy court twice more.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-wilbur-ross-commerce-20161208-story.html

What is keenly left out of the L.A. Times article, As Michael Collins Piper (American Free Press) points out in his article Who Towers Behind Trump?, is that before Trump acquired a 93% voting stock in Resorts International, the chain behind the Taj Mahal, it was a CIA front organisation operating under the name Mary Carter Paint which, as the Spotlight Magazine article Piper cites investigating the ‘bondholders’ had as their investors:

• Meyer Lansky, the acknowledged “chairman of the board” and chief financier of the underworld gambling syndicate, who maintained his own longstanding ties to not only Israel and the Mossad, but also the CIA and the American intelligence community (and who was another figure in the JFK assassination – ed.);

• David Rockefeller, head of the Rockefeller financial empire, who provided his family’s clout and CIA and global banking connections to assist in the operation;

• The Investors Overseas Service (IOS), then the world’s largest flight-capital conglomerate, controlling assets worth $2.5 billion.

• Tibor Rosenbaum, who was not only the Mossad’s Swiss-based chief financier behind covert arms deals but also the head of the Banque De Credit Internationale of Geneva, the Lansky syndicate’s chief European money laundry; and

• Baron Edmond de Rothschild of the European banking family and a personal business partner of Rosenbaum in Rosenbaum’s Mossad-related ventures ranging far and wide; and lastly,

• William Mellon Hitchcock, one of the heirs to the Mellon family fortune (one of America’s largest private family fortunes, which, for many years, has also maintained close ties with the CIA).

In 1987, upon the death of longtime CIA front man James Crosby, the nominal head of Resorts International, up-and-coming young New York real estate tycoon Donald Trump stepped into the picture and bought Crosby’s interest in the gambling empire.

Not only does The Spectator note the clear influence of the Rothschild and Rockefeller dynasties on Resorts International, after Donald Trump had run them into the ground over the course of 3 years it was Wilbur Ross, acting on behalf of N.M Rothschild & Sons. where he ran the bankruptcy-restructuring advisory practice, who stepped in to save Trump’s investment and allow him to continue operating, as is documented in the Light & Weber article of March 22nd 1992 printed in Bloomberg. Far be it from me to spend any more of this blog disparaging the good nature of the CIA, but should one take the informational nodes of the Mossad, The Rockefeller’s, the Rothschild’s and the CIA’s near mythical status at the helm of every underworld illicit black market trade operating on American soil and its status as a de facto SS in America, it is by no means a stretch of the imagination to suggest that whether named Mary Carter Paint or Resorts International, the chain never gave up it’s status as a CIA front company and Trump was allowed to continue as the figurehead of the operation purely because, as Wilbur Ross stated, “The Trump name is still very much an asset,”

We’re now a century on from the Balfour declaration and in a relatively short few decades we’ve matured from a position where anyone who brought up the name Rothschild and Balfour in the same sentence was loudly shouted down by the ADL who violently waved the protocols of the Elders of Zion as a defence, to a position where Jacob Rothschild openly goes on television and expounds the virtues of his familial dynasty convoluting and executing the entire proposal.

It has been noted by a few mainstream outlets that the main backer, if not the sole backer of Trump’s embassy move which comes in the seeming absence of any public pressure from Netanyahu or the Israeli state and much to the chagrin of European, Asian and Middle-Eastern partners, is Trump’s largest financial campaign donor, Sheldon Adelson. As Mondoweiss reported:

 

Eli Clifton notes that Sheldon Adelson– who along with his wife Miriam are Trump’s biggest donors at $35 million — has expressed impatience with the Trump administration’s failure to move the embassy, and expressed fury when Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said he was opposed to the move.

Adelson’s own newspaper in Nevada said that Adelson was nettled by Trump’s hesitancy to move the embassy, in October. While the Times of Israel said that Adelson was so pissed last spring, that he had shut off the “spigot” of cash to Trump.

Trump has a history of pleasing Adelson, which Clifton has documented:

Trump dramatically changed his message on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in particular, saying that he would move the embassy to Jerusalem and wouldn’t call for a freeze on the construction of illegal settlements in the West Bank, as he closed in on the nomination and sought to secure Adelson’s support for his general election campaign.

The failure to talk about Sheldon Adelson’s influence is scandalous when you consider that Adelson did the same thing in the George W. Bush Administration, 18 years ago. Alarmed by the possible division of Jerusalem at Camp David in 2000, neoconservatives including Douglas Feith founded a group called One Jerusalem. Adelson gave money to that group. And at least tons of money to the Republican campaign for the White House, too. And lo and behold, Feith was installed at the Pentagon in a policy-making position. And the “peace process” was backburnered, till Condoleezza Rice demanded Annapolis, and Elliott Abrams fought her every step of the way…

http://mondoweiss.net/2017/12/jerusalem-failure-century/

It was only 7 years ago that Adelson became embroiled in yet another CIA honeytrapping scandal, when a Beijing produced report fingered Casino’s owned by the magnate in Macau as fronts for blackmailing and entrapping Chinese officials. His allegiance to Zionist aims in Israel, Mossad and the CIA are worn on his sleeve as much as they publicly can be and they connect a paper trail that elucidates why Trump would push ahead with the kind of Armageddon inducing geopolitical event that the moving of the Embassy and the De Facto U.S. recognition of Jerusalem as the Capital city of Israel.

The endgame is the Israeli takeover of the dome of the rock for the prophesied construction of the third temple. Despite all protestations to the contrary,  the Israeli state and it’s Rothschild owners will not be happy until they have reclaimed what they consider to be the holiest site in their Kabbalistic religion, they have continued the preparations erstwhile. They have proclaimed the birth of the prophesied Red Heifer (a whole host of them infact), the vessels and relics and furnishings have been made and are in storage, and even the final priests have been selected;

A significant step was recently taken towards reinstating the Temple service when the nascent Sanhedrin selected Rabbi Baruch Kahane as the next Kohen Gadol (high priest). The selection was made as a precaution for Yom Kippur. If the political conditions should change, allowing the Jews access to the Temple Mount, they will be required by Torah law to bring the sacrifices. Rabbi Kahane is confident that if that should happen, Temple service could begin in less than one week.

And that is the point. The Mossad’s lap-dog ISIS have done their work in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq and are now retreating so that the political conditions can change and the Rothschild’s can use their billion dollar golden name in letters to bring about The fulfilment of the Balfour declaration and the Zionist agenda in Jerusalem.

Pizza, Presidio and Psy-ops: Part 2

Although I’m yet to be able to recover the post I wrote about the fallacy of Pizzagate and how it turned some of the more revealing aspects of the Podesta leaks into a circus sideshow for mass media consumption, one that was successfully able to throw water on the fire building beneath the exposure of the occult networks behind much of the intelligence honeytrapping and blackmail networks, the point I made in that post of not throwing out the baby with the bath water still stands.

Whether or not Seymour Hersch is right when he points the finger at Seth Rich for the DNC leaks and being the Wikileaks source is becoming increasingly irrelevant as a topic. It’s obvious that despite the twisting self-destructive Manafort/Russia scandal that the American left are choosing as their hill to die on, there really is no fire behind the smoke as far as Trump is concerned. If anything the Democrats are going to fall on their own sword if they pursue the matter any further, but that does not mean that they will necessarily stop pursuing it or order their political arms in the mainstream media to back off, because they fear what lurks beneath. The reason that mainstream media has focused almost entirely on the near mythical Russian origin of the Steele dossier or the DNC hack and not the actual information covered in those documents is simply that they can’t afford to even begin to pick apart the level of criminality present in those documents, lest the entire house of cards fall, if you’ll excuse the pun.

Continue reading Pizza, Presidio and Psy-ops: Part 2

Crimes of the Saxa-Gotha-Coburg: The Dutroux Case and the Mothers of Darkness

If you want to know how Saxa-Gotha-Coburg pedophile rings keep politicians in check in Britain, then check out the BBC exposing how the Saxa-Gotha-Coburg pedophile ring kept politicians in check in Belgium after the Michel Nihoul and Marc Dutroux case led all the way back to Chateu De Amerois back in the late 90’s.

The fact that both David Icke’s interviews with Arizona Wilder and Cathy O’Brian’s testimony focused on Chateau de Amerois (known to occult and child abuse ring researchers as the Mothers of Darkness Castle) is a lynch-pin piece of the puzzle in putting together how the Swiss house of Saxa-Gotha and Coburg are acting as the hidden hand behind both exoteric politics and the esoteric occult societies.

Continue reading Crimes of the Saxa-Gotha-Coburg: The Dutroux Case and the Mothers of Darkness