“At about the same time as it found a means of reconciliation with the conception of the king as the god Horus, the solar religion of Heliopolis succeeded in reaching a compromise with a new cult, in fact a new religion which was irresistibly spreading from the center of the Delta towards the south, the religion of Osiris. Osiris came from Djedu, the capital of the IXth nome of Lower Egypt; ‘Lord of Djedu’ is his old title and the town was called Per-Usire (the Greek form of this being Busiris). ‘House of Osiris’. Nevertheless, Djedu was probably not his original home, since the proper god of Djedu was Andjeti, who is represented in human form as a ruler with his insignia, a long crooked sceptre in one hand and a whip in the other, with two feathers on his head. Andjeti was, however, very early absorbed by Osiris and his name became a mere epithet of that god.

A circumstance that favoured the absorption was that Osiris too was entirely human in form. He also is shown with the Upper Egyptian white crown to which two feathers are attached on both sides and which is set on a pair of ram’s horns. But there is an important difference between Andjeti and Osiris: while the former represents a living ruler, Osiris is always shown as a dead person, standing, wrapped in a long white royal cloak, the two arms holding the sceptre. His name Usire, of which Osiris is the Greek form, seems to mean ‘Seat of the Eye’; it has the appearance of a human name and it is probable that Osiris was originally a human king {How long ago?} who became deified after his death. A myth was woven around his person which is less concerned with his former life and rule as a king of Egypt than with his death and subsequent resurrection after which he became a ruler in the realm of the dead. No systematic expression of this myth is known from Egyptian sources, our chief authority in this respect being Plutarch in his ‘On Isis and Osiris’; frequent allusions, however, occur in Egyptian texts of all periods which show that Plutarch’s account agrees essentially with the Egyptian belief.” (3)

In May 2004 there is a report of an archaeological find in Mayan tunnels (they loved the spiritual cenotes and still do) saying it was a millennium earlier than the Mayan ascendancy and yet it was just 200 BC. Aside from the fact th

Those who believe their leaders are actually in touch with and inspired by some almighty god have wrought all manner of horrors upon those they are told are less or not ‘chosen’. But we all must stop being ‘chosen’ or having our loved ones ‘chosen’ to be their Scarlet Women or sword and cannon fodder. A friend of mine puts it this way. ‘My own maternal ancestors spent the better part of a cold and dreary thousand years playing a little game called: 'Storm the Castle,' in which they dressed up in unwieldy metal suits and pounded each other senseless with a variety of sharp and not so sharp objects. (Of course with nutrition not being quite up to par with today's standards and with daily rations of wine being something in the neighborhood of five liters, we are left with the sobering fact that most of us who trace our ancestry to Europe are in fact descended from short, drunken psychopaths who whiled away their time bludgeoning each other with hammers, maces and cudgels, hacking each other to pieces with swords, and scalding each other to death with boiling oil.)’

We must ask them to justify their laws and their acts and insist on leadership that is truthful and righteous. That is not to say there is such a thing as black and white absolute truth or some way man can actually limit the awesome reality of the creative potential of life energy on earth and in universe.

I can hardly accept that John Calvin is anything more than a power-broker when I see or read him saying we should not question authority. Should we merely accept his interpretation of Jesus or any other dogma his ilk has designed to empower themselves over all life and therefore God too. Calvin said, “When it is a question of our justification, we have to put away all thinking about the Law and our works, to embrace the mercy of God alone, and to turn our eyes away from ourselves and upon Jesus Christ alone.”

Jan Hus was a church reformer who was burned at the stake, is a humanist whose message is garbled by the times he lived in too. I do wonder about his Bohemian origins and humanistic liberal attitudes fostered by Prague denizens or alchemists who became the Bavarian Illuminati. I see him as a bridge between the Cathars and Jesuits who are founded by the Alumbrados which means Illuminati in another language. He appears eminently better than his reformers who followed; when we consider Martin Luther of a century later.

Jaroslav Pelikan is the Sterling Professor of History and William Clyde De Vere {Important Royal of the Dragon Court family name.} Lecturer at this University which the Rockefeller/Rothschilds have so many attachments to. Yale is a central issue in research into the halls of power beyond the existence of Skull & Bones or the CIA people there. They also control the Olduvai Gorge research on the origins of man as well as so much in the administration of the laws and training of lawyers that I have dealt with in other books.

There is a little town or city in Switzerland called Sion which is rumored to have a connection to the Priory of Sion that I may look into in greater detail someday. Switzerland is the center of Rothschild and Battenberg Royal history for the last thousand years or since the time Rome supposedly fell and Christianity became what it is today. The red cross of the Red Cross is part of this along with the Templar red crosses which looked over the voyages or invasions of Columbus and Vasco da Gama. Here is Pelikan speaking about these red cross symbols.

“In an age in which the healing of the nations from the ravages of hunger, disease, and war has become the dominant moral imperative, Jesus the Healer has come to assume a central place. It was an emblem of the central place of Jesus {Perhaps for a lot longer than he knows.} when, under the terms of the Geneva Convention of 1864 for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick of Armies in the Field, the international organization created to carry out that moral imperative took the name ‘Red Cross Society’, its symbol, based on a reversal of the colors of the Swiss flag, is a red cross on a white background. Yet the connection between evangelization in the name of Jesus and the mission of help and healing has also been an issue for debate, especially in the twentieth century.

This debate, too, comes as a commentary on the literal meaning of a word in the Gospels: ‘Whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.’ {Biblio: Mark 9.41} It has almost seemed that in every epoch there were some who were primarily interested in naming the name of Christ, clarifying its doctrinal and theological meaning, and defending that meaning against its enemies—but who named the name without giving the cup of water. Yet it has seemed possible for others to give the cup of water, to provide the healing, and to improve the social lot of the disadvantaged {Yes, and they are the ones who created the disadvantageous divisions and castes in society to begin with.}—but to do so without explicitly naming the name of Christ. Does that saying of Jesus mean that each of these ways of responding to his summons is only a partial obedience to this dual command? In the answer to this question, much of the debate over the primary responsibility of Christ’s disciples in the modern world has concentrated on the disjunction between the two components of the imperative.” (1)

Yes, there is jargon and code or esoteric meaning in this which even he does not know in the fullest depth I think. It is not unlike the talk about manifesting the god force which became a political agenda around the time of the Hyksos or Semites in Egypt. Some say Alexander was the first to claim divinity while living and I imagine he did it more than those before him. All these people were propagandists selling people on their greater importance rather than helping people see the divinity in all things which many earlier people had included in their knowledge that gods were mere representations of the forces of nature. Tuthmosis III may have been the same character who re-organized the Mystery Schools which Gardner writes is the foundation of his Great White Brotherhood.

I am pretty sure from my extensive research that Amun was a one god concept of a supreme connected or collective of the forces of nature going back to before the Sphinx which was both gendered and honored Amun and Amun-Ra the Heliopolitan or Harmonic of Light which I dealt with in great detail in Neolithic Libraries. I also think the House of Mallia or Milesians included this Tuthmosis character and the other Tuthmosides as well. Here is a top scholar from Egyptology writing about this Tuthmosis character and his so-called manifesting god in the first recorded instance.

“The first reference to the divine will being manifested is probably that made by King Tuthmosis III, who relates how, when he was still a boy, the god Amun, in the course of a procession of his statue round the temple, noticed him and halted. Tuthmosis prostrated himself on the ground before the god, who thereupon led him to a part of the temple called ‘Station of the King’, thereby publically recognizing him as king. In this case the god revealed his will unasked, but from now onwards cases multiply in which the revelation of a god’s will was sought for by men.” (2)

These elites and their Divine Kings are a plague upon life on earth and it is not getting better. The sophistication of the intrigues are not always obvious like it is in Korea today where we have ‘Moonies with Missiles’ or in Iran where the Ayatollahs run roughshod over soulful enablement. The same thing works in most media controlled environments or the world paradigm in toto. Just because the traditional religions have lost some demographics in terms of having insane or cultish followers does not mean the Mormons, Noahdist extremists and Moslem Jihadists or Scientologists are any different. I like the thought expressed by James Watson in his foreword to Discovering the Brain. He said, ‘The brain boggles the mind.’. It is also true that a lot of the ‘boggling’ has been done by those saying they seek God. We can be so much more – if we would DO as Jesus and other desposyni did. There are despots in these groups of the Merovingian or family of Jesus however.

We should be trying to end intolerance and the deification of one group while demonizing any others or branding some as heretical points of view. Ultimately all religions and beliefs are struggling with the same thing but those that stop seeking to participate in the creation and thus limit 'What is' are engaged in playing god. They often have made themselves the sole spokesmen for their imaginary god or the Lord as in the case of the Catholic hegemonists. But before we get into the current hegemony too much we will have to understand the root of the problem. The Reformation did not just happen and in some ways it is an academic or superficial construct. Here is Černỷ again as he addresses one of the origin myths thought to be most ancient. Note Heliopolitanism (Druidic sun-worship that Thomas Paine tells us is the basis of Masonry.) seems to be even more ancient.

“At about the same time as it found a means of reconciliation with the conception of the king as the god Horus, the solar religion of Heliopolis succeeded in reaching a compromise with a new cult, in fact a new religion which was irresistibly spreading from the center of the Delta towards the south, the religion of Osiris. Osiris came from Djedu, the capital of the IXth nome of Lower Egypt; ‘Lord of Djedu’ is his old title and the town was called Per-Usire (the Greek form of this being Busiris). ‘House of Osiris’. Nevertheless, Djedu was probably not his original home, since the proper god of Djedu was Andjeti, who is represented in human form as a ruler with his insignia, a long crooked sceptre in one hand and a whip in the other, with two feathers on his head. Andjeti was, however, very early absorbed by Osiris and his name became a mere epithet of that god.

A circumstance that favoured the absorption was that Osiris too was entirely human in form. He also is shown with the Upper Egyptian white crown to which two feathers are attached on both sides and which is set on a pair of ram’s horns. But there is an important difference between Andjeti and Osiris: while the former represents a living ruler, Osiris is always shown as a dead person, standing, wrapped in a long white royal cloak, the two arms holding the sceptre. His name Usire, of which Osiris is the Greek form, seems to mean ‘Seat of the Eye’; it has the appearance of a human name and it is probable that Osiris was originally a human king {How long ago?} who became deified after his death. A myth was woven around his person which is less concerned with his former life and rule as a king of Egypt than with his death and subsequent resurrection after which he became a ruler in the realm of the dead. No systematic expression of this myth is known from Egyptian sources, our chief authority in this respect being Plutarch in his ‘On Isis and Osiris’; frequent allusions, however, occur in Egyptian texts of all periods which show that Plutarch’s account agrees essentially with the Egyptian belief.” (3)

In May 2004 there is a report of an archaeological find in Mayan tunnels (they loved the spiritual cenotes and still do) saying it was a millennium earlier than the Mayan ascendancy and yet it was just 200 BC. Aside from the fact tha

Jan Hus was a church reformer who was burned at the stake, is a humanist whose message is garbled by the times he lived in too. I do wonder about his Bohemian origins and humanistic liberal attitudes fostered by Prague denizens or alchemists who became the Bavarian Illuminati. I see him as a bridge between the Cathars and Jesuits who are founded by the Alumbrados which means Illuminati in another language. He appears eminently better than his reformers who followed; when we consider Martin Luther of a century later.

Jaroslav Pelikan is the Sterling Professor of History and William Clyde De Vere {Important Royal of the Dragon Court family name.} Lecturer at this University which the Rockefeller/Rothschilds have so many attachments to. Yale is a central issue in research into the halls of power beyond the existence of Skull & Bones or the CIA people there. They also control the Olduvai Gorge research on the origins of man as well as so much in the administration of the laws and training of lawyers that I have dealt with in other books.

There is a little town or city in Switzerland called Sion which is rumored to have a connection to the Priory of Sion that I may look into in greater detail someday. Switzerland is the center of Rothschild and Battenberg Royal history for the last thousand years or since the time Rome supposedly fell and Christianity became what it is today. The red cross of the Red Cross is part of this along with the Templar red crosses which looked over the voyages or invasions of Columbus and Vasco da Gama. Here is Pelikan speaking about these red cross symbols.

“In an age in which the healing of the nations from the ravages of hunger, disease, and war has become the dominant moral imperative, Jesus the Healer has come to assume a central place. It was an emblem of the central place of Jesus {Perhaps for a lot longer than he knows.} when, under the terms of the Geneva Convention of 1864 for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick of Armies in the Field, the international organization created to carry out that moral imperative took the name ‘Red Cross Society’, its symbol, based on a reversal of the colors of the Swiss flag, is a red cross on a white background. Yet the connection between evangelization in the name of Jesus and the mission of help and healing has also been an issue for debate, especially in the twentieth century.

This debate, too, comes as a commentary on the literal meaning of a word in the Gospels: ‘Whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.’ {Biblio: Mark 9.41} It has almost seemed that in every epoch there were some who were primarily interested in naming the name of Christ, clarifying its doctrinal and theological meaning, and defending that meaning against its enemies—but who named the name without giving the cup of water. Yet it has seemed possible for others to give the cup of water, to provide the healing, and to improve the social lot of the disadvantaged {Yes, and they are the ones who created the disadvantageous divisions and castes in society to begin with.}—but to do so without explicitly naming the name of Christ. Does that saying of Jesus mean that each of these ways of responding to his summons is only a partial obedience to this dual command? In the answer to this question, much of the debate over the primary responsibility of Christ’s disciples in the modern world has concentrated on the disjunction between the two components of the imperative.” (1)

Yes, there is jargon and code or esoteric meaning in this which even he does not know in the fullest depth I think. It is not unlike the talk about manifesting the god force which became a political agenda around the time of the Hyksos or Semites in Egypt. Some say Alexander was the first to claim divinity while living and I imagine he did it more than those before him. All these people were propagandists selling people on their greater importance rather than helping people see the divinity in all things which many earlier people had included in their knowledge that gods were mere representations of the forces of nature. Tuthmosis III may have been the same character who re-organized the Mystery Schools which Gardner writes is the foundation of his Great White Brotherhood.

I am pretty sure from my extensive research that Amun was a one god concept of a supreme connected or collective of the forces of nature going back to before the Sphinx which was both gendered and honored Amun and Amun-Ra the Heliopolitan or Harmonic of Light which I dealt with in great detail in Neolithic Libraries. I also think the House of Mallia or Milesians included this Tuthmosis character and the other Tuthmosides as well. Here is a top scholar from Egyptology writing about this Tuthmosis character and his so-called manifesting god in the first recorded instance.

“The first reference to the divine will being manifested is probably that made by King Tuthmosis III, who relates how, when he was still a boy, the god Amun, in the course of a procession of his statue round the temple, noticed him and halted. Tuthmosis prostrated himself on the ground before the god, who thereupon led him to a part of the temple called ‘Station of the King’, thereby publically recognizing him as king. In this case the god revealed his will unasked, but from now onwards cases multiply in which the revelation of a god’s will was sought for by men.” (2)

These elites and their Divine Kings are a plague upon life on earth and it is not getting better. The sophistication of the intrigues are not always obvious like it is in Korea today where we have ‘Moonies with Missiles’ or in Iran where the Ayatollahs run roughshod over soulful enablement. The same thing works in most media controlled environments or the world paradigm in toto. Just because the traditional religions have lost some demographics in terms of having insane or cultish followers does not mean the Mormons, Noahdist extremists and Moslem Jihadists or Scientologists are any different. I like the thought expressed by James Watson in his foreword to Discovering the Brain. He said, ‘The brain boggles the mind.’. It is also true that a lot of the ‘boggling’ has been done by those saying they seek God. We can be so much more – if we would DO as Jesus and other desposyni did. There are despots in these groups of the Merovingian or family of Jesus however.

We should be trying to end intolerance and the deification of one group while demonizing any others or branding some as heretical points of view. Ultimately all religions and beliefs are struggling with the same thing but those that stop seeking to participate in the creation and thus limit 'What is' are engaged in playing god. They often have made themselves the sole spokesmen for their imaginary god or the Lord as in the case of the Catholic hegemonists. But before we get into the current hegemony too much we will have to understand the root of the problem. The Reformation did not just happen and in some ways it is an academic or superficial construct. Here is Černỷ again as he addresses one of the origin myths thought to be most ancient. Note Heliopolitanism (Druidic sun-worship that Thomas Paine tells us is the basis of Masonry.) seems to be even more ancient.

“At about the same time as it found a means of reconciliation with the conception of the king as the god Horus, the solar religion of Heliopolis succeeded in reaching a compromise with a new cult, in fact a new religion which was irresistibly spreading from the center of the Delta towards the south, the religion of Osiris. Osiris came from Djedu, the capital of the IXth nome of Lower Egypt; ‘Lord of Djedu’ is his old title and the town was called Per-Usire (the Greek form of this being Busiris). ‘House of Osiris’. Nevertheless, Djedu was probably not his original home, since the proper god of Djedu was Andjeti, who is represented in human form as a ruler with his insignia, a long crooked sceptre in one hand and a whip in the other, with two feathers on his head. Andjeti was, however, very early absorbed by Osiris and his name became a mere epithet of that god.

A circumstance that favoured the absorption was that Osiris too was entirely human in form. He also is shown with the Upper Egyptian white crown to which two feathers are attached on both sides and which is set on a pair of ram’s horns. But there is an important difference between Andjeti and Osiris: while the former represents a living ruler, Osiris is always shown as a dead person, standing, wrapped in a long white royal cloak, the two arms holding the sceptre. His name Usire, of which Osiris is the Greek form, seems to mean ‘Seat of the Eye’; it has the appearance of a human name and it is probable that Osiris was originally a human king {How long ago?} who became deified after his death. A myth was woven around his person which is less concerned with his former life and rule as a king of Egypt than with his death and subsequent resurrection after which he became a ruler in the realm of the dead. No systematic expression of this myth is known from Egyptian sources, our chief authority in this respect being Plutarch in his ‘On Isis and Osiris’; frequent allusions, however, occur in Egyptian texts of all periods which show that Plutarch’s account agrees essentially with the Egyptian belief.” (3)

In May 2004 there is a report of an archaeological find in Mayan tunnels (they loved the spiritual cenotes and still do) saying it was a millennium earlier than the Mayan ascendancy and yet it was just 200 BC. Aside from the fact th

This debate, too, comes as a commentary on the literal meaning of a word in the Gospels: ‘Whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.’ {Biblio: Mark 9.41} It has almost seemed that in every epoch there were some who were primarily interested in naming the name of Christ, clarifying its doctrinal and theological meaning, and defending that meaning against its enemies—but who named the name without giving the cup of water. Yet it has seemed possible for others to give the cup of water, to provide the healing, and to improve the social lot of the disadvantaged {Yes, and they are the ones who created the disadvantageous divisions and castes in society to begin with.}—but to do so without explicitly naming the name of Christ. Does that saying of Jesus mean that each of these ways of responding to his summons is only a partial obedience to this dual command? In the answer to this question, much of the debate over the primary responsibility of Christ’s disciples in the modern world has concentrated on the disjunction between the two components of the imperative.” (1)

Yes, there is jargon and code or esoteric meaning in this which even he does not know in the fullest depth I think. It is not unlike the talk about manifesting the god force which became a political agenda around the time of the Hyksos or Semites in Egypt. Some say Alexander was the first to claim divinity while living and I imagine he did it more than those before him. All these people were propagandists selling people on their greater importance rather than helping people see the divinity in all things which many earlier people had included in their knowledge that gods were mere representations of the forces of nature. Tuthmosis III may have been the same character who re-organized the Mystery Schools which Gardner writes is the foundation of his Great White Brotherhood.

I am pretty sure from my extensive research that Amun was a one god concept of a supreme connected or collective of the forces of nature going back to before the Sphinx which was both gendered and honored Amun and Amun-Ra the Heliopolitan or Harmonic of Light which I dealt with in great detail in Neolithic Libraries. I also think the House of Mallia or Milesians included this Tuthmosis character and the other Tuthmosides as well. Here is a top scholar from Egyptology writing about this Tuthmosis character and his so-called manifesting god in the first recorded instance.

“The first reference to the divine will being manifested is probably that made by King Tuthmosis III, who relates how, when he was still a boy, the god Amun, in the course of a procession of his statue round the temple, noticed him and halted. Tuthmosis prostrated himself on the ground before the god, who thereupon led him to a part of the temple called ‘Station of the King’, thereby publically recognizing him as king. In this case the god revealed his will unasked, but from now onwards cases multiply in which the revelation of a god’s will was sought for by men.” (2)

These elites and their Divine Kings are a plague upon life on earth and it is not getting better. The sophistication of the intrigues are not always obvious like it is in Korea today where we have ‘Moonies with Missiles’ or in Iran where the Ayatollahs run roughshod over soulful enablement. The same thing works in most media controlled environments or the world paradigm in toto. Just because the traditional religions have lost some demographics in terms of having insane or cultish followers does not mean the Mormons, Noahdist extremists and Moslem Jihadists or Scientologists are any different. I like the thought expressed by James Watson in his foreword to Discovering the Brain. He said, ‘The brain boggles the mind.’. It is also true that a lot of the ‘boggling’ has been done by those saying they seek God. We can be so much more – if we would DO as Jesus and other desposyni did. There are despots in these groups of the Merovingian or family of Jesus however.

We should be trying to end intolerance and the deification of one group while demonizing any others or branding some as heretical points of view. Ultimately all religions and beliefs are struggling with the same thing but those that stop seeking to participate in the creation and thus limit 'What is' are engaged in playing god. They often have made themselves the sole spokesmen for their imaginary god or the Lord as in the case of the Catholic hegemonists. But before we get into the current hegemony too much we will have to understand the root of the problem. The Reformation did not just happen and in some ways it is an academic or superficial construct. Here is Černỷ again as he addresses one of the origin myths thought to be most ancient. Note Heliopolitanism (Druidic sun-worship that Thomas Paine tells us is the basis of Masonry.) seems to be even more ancient.

“At about the same time as it found a means of reconciliation with the conception of the king as the god Horus, the solar religion of Heliopolis succeeded in reaching a compromise with a new cult, in fact a new religion which was irresistibly spreading from the center of the Delta towards the south, the religion of Osiris. Osiris came from Djedu, the capital of the IXth nome of Lower Egypt; ‘Lord of Djedu’ is his old title and the town was called Per-Usire (the Greek form of this being Busiris). ‘House of Osiris’. Nevertheless, Djedu was probably not his original home, since the proper god of Djedu was Andjeti, who is represented in human form as a ruler with his insignia, a long crooked sceptre in one hand and a whip in the other, with two feathers on his head. Andjeti was, however, very early absorbed by Osiris and his name became a mere epithet of that god.

A circumstance that favoured the absorption was that Osiris too was entirely human in form. He also is shown with the Upper Egyptian white crown to which two feathers are attached on both sides and which is set on a pair of ram’s horns. But there is an important difference between Andjeti and Osiris: while the former represents a living ruler, Osiris is always shown as a dead person, standing, wrapped in a long white royal cloak, the two arms holding the sceptre. His name Usire, of which Osiris is the Greek form, seems to mean ‘Seat of the Eye’; it has the appearance of a human name and it is probable that Osiris was originally a human king {How long ago?} who became deified after his death. A myth was woven around his person which is less concerned with his former life and rule as a king of Egypt than with his death and subsequent resurrection after which he became a ruler in the realm of the dead. No systematic expression of this myth is known from Egyptian sources, our chief authority in this respect being Plutarch in his ‘On Isis and Osiris’; frequent allusions, however, occur in Egyptian texts of all periods which show that Plutarch’s account agrees essentially with the Egyptian belief.” (3)

In May 2004 there is a report of an archaeological find in Mayan tunnels (they loved the spiritual cenotes and still do) saying it was a millennium earlier than the Mayan ascendancy and yet it was just 200 BC. Aside from the fact th

“The first reference to the divine will being manifested is probably that made by King Tuthmosis III, who relates how, when he was still a boy, the god Amun, in the course of a procession of his statue round the temple, noticed him and halted. Tuthmosis prostrated himself on the ground before the god, who thereupon led him to a part of the temple called ‘Station of the King’, thereby publically recognizing him as king. In this case the god revealed his will unasked, but from now onwards cases multiply in which the revelation of a god’s will was sought for by men.” (2)

These elites and their Divine Kings are a plague upon life on earth and it is not getting better. The sophistication of the intrigues are not always obvious like it is in Korea today where we have ‘Moonies with Missiles’ or in Iran where the Ayatollahs run roughshod over soulful enablement. The same thing works in most media controlled environments or the world paradigm in toto. Just because the traditional religions have lost some demographics in terms of having insane or cultish followers does not mean the Mormons, Noahdist extremists and Moslem Jihadists or Scientologists are any different. I like the thought expressed by James Watson in his foreword to Discovering the Brain. He said, ‘The brain boggles the mind.’. It is also true that a lot of the ‘boggling’ has been done by those saying they seek God. We can be so much more – if we would DO as Jesus and other desposyni did. There are despots in these groups of the Merovingian or family of Jesus however.

We should be trying to end intolerance and the deification of one group while demonizing any others or branding some as heretical points of view. Ultimately all religions and beliefs are struggling with the same thing but those that stop seeking to participate in the creation and thus limit 'What is' are engaged in playing god. They often have made themselves the sole spokesmen for their imaginary god or the Lord as in the case of the Catholic hegemonists. But before we get into the current hegemony too much we will have to understand the root of the problem. The Reformation did not just happen and in some ways it is an academic or superficial construct. Here is Černỷ again as he addresses one of the origin myths thought to be most ancient. Note Heliopolitanism (Druidic sun-worship that Thomas Paine tells us is the basis of Masonry.) seems to be even more ancient.

“At about the same time as it found a means of reconciliation with the conception of the king as the god Horus, the solar religion of Heliopolis succeeded in reaching a compromise with a new cult, in fact a new religion which was irresistibly spreading from the center of the Delta towards the south, the religion of Osiris. Osiris came from Djedu, the capital of the IXth nome of Lower Egypt; ‘Lord of Djedu’ is his old title and the town was called Per-Usire (the Greek form of this being Busiris). ‘House of Osiris’. Nevertheless, Djedu was probably not his original home, since the proper god of Djedu was Andjeti, who is represented in human form as a ruler with his insignia, a long crooked sceptre in one hand and a whip in the other, with two feathers on his head. Andjeti was, however, very early absorbed by Osiris and his name became a mere epithet of that god.

A circumstance that favoured the absorption was that Osiris too was entirely human in form. He also is shown with the Upper Egyptian white crown to which two feathers are attached on both sides and which is set on a pair of ram’s horns. But there is an important difference between Andjeti and Osiris: while the former represents a living ruler, Osiris is always shown as a dead person, standing, wrapped in a long white royal cloak, the two arms holding the sceptre. His name Usire, of which Osiris is the Greek form, seems to mean ‘Seat of the Eye’; it has the appearance of a human name and it is probable that Osiris was originally a human king {How long ago?} who became deified after his death. A myth was woven around his person which is less concerned with his former life and rule as a king of Egypt than with his death and subsequent resurrection after which he became a ruler in the realm of the dead. No systematic expression of this myth is known from Egyptian sources, our chief authority in this respect being Plutarch in his ‘On Isis and Osiris’; frequent allusions, however, occur in Egyptian texts of all periods which show that Plutarch’s account agrees essentially with the Egyptian belief.” (3)

In May 2004 there is a report of an archaeological find in Mayan tunnels (they loved the spiritual cenotes and still do) saying it was a millennium earlier than the Mayan ascendancy and yet it was just 200 BC. Aside from the fact th

“At about the same time as it found a means of reconciliation with the conception of the king as the god Horus, the solar religion of Heliopolis succeeded in reaching a compromise with a new cult, in fact a new religion which was irresistibly spreading from the center of the Delta towards the south, the religion of Osiris. Osiris came from Djedu, the capital of the IXth nome of Lower Egypt; ‘Lord of Djedu’ is his old title and the town was called Per-Usire (the Greek form of this being Busiris). ‘House of Osiris’. Nevertheless, Djedu was probably not his original home, since the proper god of Djedu was Andjeti, who is represented in human form as a ruler with his insignia, a long crooked sceptre in one hand and a whip in the other, with two feathers on his head. Andjeti was, however, very early absorbed by Osiris and his name became a mere epithet of that god.

A circumstance that favoured the absorption was that Osiris too was entirely human in form. He also is shown with the Upper Egyptian white crown to which two feathers are attached on both sides and which is set on a pair of ram’s horns. But there is an important difference between Andjeti and Osiris: while the former represents a living ruler, Osiris is always shown as a dead person, standing, wrapped in a long white royal cloak, the two arms holding the sceptre. His name Usire, of which Osiris is the Greek form, seems to mean ‘Seat of the Eye’; it has the appearance of a human name and it is probable that Osiris was originally a human king {How long ago?} who became deified after his death. A myth was woven around his person which is less concerned with his former life and rule as a king of Egypt than with his death and subsequent resurrection after which he became a ruler in the realm of the dead. No systematic expression of this myth is known from Egyptian sources, our chief authority in this respect being Plutarch in his ‘On Isis and Osiris’; frequent allusions, however, occur in Egyptian texts of all periods which show that Plutarch’s account agrees essentially with the Egyptian belief.” (3)

In May 2004 there is a report of an archaeological find in Mayan tunnels (they loved the spiritual cenotes and still do) saying it was a millennium earlier than the Mayan ascendancy and yet it was just 200 BC. Aside from the fact that I have proven these people were there at least 3000 years earlier the ‘find’ is a mask of a sun god. The sun god or Heliopolitan Druidism is just one of the esoteric clues to follow in tracing the ‘travelers’ or Red-Headed League of Megalith Builders all over the world.

When Viktor E. Frankl faced death in a concentration camp he learned a great deal about meaning and life. Most people live in fear and this debilitating fear of death is not healthy. He developed a whole school of psychology called Logotherapy from facing the choice of dying. But there is much more to learn from the Many Worlds Interpretation of Physics and from ancient shamanic ‘travels’ to the places the soul goes at death and potentially before death. His experiences there must have included altered states that can be brought about through fasting and trauma. His work in that area is not particularly enlightening even though his Logos or Meaning is akin to the LOGOS which is the ‘beginning’ (as in ‘the Word’) and harmonically attuned to the akashic record which might be in our genes or the Cosmic Soup or both. Here is a little paragraph from the Preface to Frankl’s The Will to Meaning which carried his early book Man’s Search for Meaning a little further.

“What I term the existential vacuum constitutes a challenge to psychiatry today. Ever more patients complain of a feeling of emptiness and meaninglessness, which seems to me to derive from two facts. Unlike an animal, man is not told by instincts what he must do. And unlike man in former times, he is no longer told by traditions what he should do. Often he does not even know what he basically wishes to do. Instead, either he wishes to do what other people do (conformism), or he does what other people wish him to do (totalitarianism).” (4)

Why have those who arranged these horrors tried to blame the Jews (and in an indirect manner, all 'sinners') for the death of Jesus? He did not claim to be a co-equal member of the Holy Trinity. It wasn't the Jews who 'killed our Saviour'. John Ralston Saul says this about the whole matter

"HOLY TRINITY-CHRISTIAN

A pre-alchemist alchemist concept developed by early Christian administrators to soften the hard-edged simplicity of straight monotheism.

The three-in-one/one-in-three mystery of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost {That the beatniks called 'Laddio, Daddio and Spook'.} made tritheism official. The subsequent almost-deification of the Virgin Mary made it quatrotheism {And raised un-natural 'virginity' or possible non-sense such as immaculate conceptions, which fathers must have loved and priests certainly benefit from, to heights of increasing obscenity!}. Twelve Disciples as semi-deities then made it sextusdecitheism. Finally, cart-loads of saints raised to quarter-deification turned Christianity into plain, old-fashioned polytheism. By the time of the Crusades, it was the most polytheistic religion ever to have existed, with the possible exception of Hinduism. This untenable contradiction between the assertion of monotheism and the reality of polytheism was dealt with {And this is the MOST important observation of a technique known in psychology as 'projection of a pluperfect paranoid' or the 'BIG LIE' of alphabet soup agencies and 'black ops'; the less organized criminals like the Mafia call it a 'frame-up'.} by accusing other religions of the Christian fault. The Church - Catholic and later Protestant - turned aggressively on the two most clearly monotheistic religions in view {Also they began at least 700 years of war, A CRUSADE! against the remnants of the Kelts in Ireland.) - Judaism and Islam - and persecuted them as heathen or pagan. ..These pagans must therefore be converted, conquered {ego 'Manifest Destiny'} and/or killed for their own good in order that they may benefit from the singularity of the Holy Trinity, plus appendages.

HOLY TRINITY - POST CHRISTIAN

So far Nietzsche has been wrong about GOD. We have not managed to become Him in His place. Instead we have replaced God with a yet more abstract divinity based upon pure rational power... Organization or structure replaced the Father, TECHNOLOGY displaced the Son and the Holy Ghost gave way to information. The new priesthood was made up of technocrats. As the etymology of the word 'technocrat' indicates, from the beginning they were to be specialists in power... And they would stand guard over information." (5)

The fears and apathy of average people are as much to blame for this history of managed and 'guarded information' that records the acts of bad people. ‘We are all our brother’s keepers’ is not just an idle platitude. The Druidic concept called IESA or 'The Brotherhood of Man' apprehended the Cosmic Thought Field of Faraday and Tesla or the 'Cosmic Soup' of Deepak Chopra. NASA scientists have just announced that Life is Everywhere including microbes in outer space. They talk about cell membrane formation that makes we wonder if these are conscious connected 'info packets'(Tesla) or 'templates' (Teilhard de Chardin) from which energy can create in a manner more akin to ancient creationist theories of the supposed pagans.