I know Musk is suspicious, but so is everybody with ‘freedom of reach’. He does appear to have some concern about overdoing the mind-control and actual history. Us vague masses can do some good by liking one kind of emperor over another, possibly. ABN
Ep. 76 As they lecture us endlessly about human rights in other countries, the Biden administration is trying to kill journalist Julian Assange for the crime of embarrassing the CIA. His wife Stella joins us from his extradition hearing. pic.twitter.com/DetYUeaBFl
Valuable historic footage of the CCP’s Land Reform (1949-1953). This is how it was done:
Send out a “work team” to villages to “help” the peasants to understand that exploitation of the rich was the root of their poverty and suffering. (DEI training?)
Mobilize the poor
Coach them on how to “tell their bitterness” (诉苦 or lived experience) against the landlords
Hold “ struggle sessions” to denounce the landlords as the “enemy of the people”. Note there were a lot of women activists.
Let the people decide the punishment. In the video the people spoke: execution!
Confiscate the land from the landlords and give it to the poor
Happy ending for the poor?
Not so fast. In 1958 all the land was taken back by the state through collectivization. Between 1959-1962, up to 50 million perished during the Great Famine.
This is a story of Communist dream turned into hellish nightmare. And history rhymes, doesn’t it?
China followed a path to totalitarian control similar to the Soviet Union and other communist regimes. In Russia, Bolsheviks went into villages with the goal of killing a predetermined percentage (10-15% or more) of their populations. This was done to wipe out natural leaders in order to eliminate all viable opposition. These public murders also terrorized the people who were not killed. In Russia, the mass murderers were primarily non-Russians who hated Russians and were envious of them. In China, the mass murderers were typically Chinese from other parts of China who were filled with ideological hatred. Throughout the West, we are seeing a softer version of this playing out today. ABN
Your paper illustrates the principle that in order to properly understand Christianity one must understand what Jesus actually taught. This requires that we focus on the earliest period of Christianity.
Your paper presents no conclusions about the Arian controversy and implies that the issue remains muddled even today. In my opinion, this is incorrect.
FYI, I am going to briefly summarize the Arian controversy as I understand it. I believe the controversy arose out of the church’s “need” to declare its institutional authority over Christians.
In the first centuries, there were many varieties of Christians, everything from Jewish Christian sects that continued to stress the importance of Jewish Law to gnostic Christians who in my opinion preserved the esoteric core of what Jesus actually taught. Soon after the Council of Nicaea, many of the various iterations (including the gnostics) came under fierce attack by the Roman church.
The roots of the Arian controversy date to the second century when certain theologians deviated from Jesus’ teaching about the immortality of the soul, i.e., immanence. Tatian was one of these, and he was followed by Gregory of Nysa, St Jerome, and Augustine. Each of whom added another brick to the new artificial construct. All of them taught that the soul is created from lowly dust along with the body at conception or birth.
The controversy ignited when a Libyan priest named Arius pointed out the flaw in the church’s new teaching. At issue was the human versus divine nature of Jesus. Arius merely pointed out that by this reasoning the soul of the God-realized avatar Jesus must likewise have been made of lowly dust. This was a problem because it meant that at some point in time the soul of Jesus did not exist. It followed that Jesus, while exalted, could not be on an equal footing with God the father.
Athanasius led the orthodox contingent at Nicaea. He insisted on the absolute equivalence of Father and Son. Even though a vast majority of Christians supported Arius, the anti-Arian bishops held a majority in Council and ruled in favor of Athanasius. No surprise that Arius was condemned as a heretic.
Athanasius gets credit for the new doctrine of the Trinity that emerged from Nicaea. The Trinity idea was not based on Scripture, however, nor divine revelation, but solely on logic. Given the equivalence of Father and Son, the Holy Spirit could not be left out, so its inclusion became a logical necessity. From its inception, the Trinity doctrine was and remains a purely artificial construct.
Despite the ruling, Arianism continued to be very popular because by affirming the humanity of Jesus Arius held out hope for ordinary people. Implicit in Arianism is the gnostic belief that ordinary Christians can follow in the footsteps of the savior. The views of Arius were perfectly compatible with the teaching of immanence, the indwelling of God in all of creation.
The real issue at the heart of the controversy, as the writer Elizabeth Claire Prophet has pointed out, was not the denial of the divinity of Jesus (as the church contended at Niceae and as the Catholic Church still contends) but instead the question: “How is man to be saved? By emulating Jesus? Or by worshipping him?” Today, the Catholic Church emphasizes worship (and obedience) when it should be inspiring Christians (as Jesus did) to pursue sainthood.
The personal triumph of Athanasius at the council was a hollow victory. By scapegoating Arius, the church only magnified its original error of embracing a doctrine of the soul that repudiates the divine presence in all matter.
By asserting the equivalence of Father and Son the church was in effect declaring that the soul of Jesus was different in kind from the souls of ordinary people. This was fateful because it undermined the mystical element in Jesus’ own teachings, and opened up a vast gulf between God and humans.
The new Catholic Encyclopedia clearly states the extent of this chasm: “Between Creator and creature there is the most profound distinction possible. God is not part of this world. He is not just the peak of reality. Between God and the world there is an abyss…”
The abyss was wholly artificial, the creation of the church, yet it was also a self-serving artifice, a means for institutional Christianity to vastly increase its earthly power. Today, Catholic doctrine holds that the church is the sole bridge over the otherwise unbridgeable chasm between God and men.
I would go another step and also argue that the outcome of Niceae was a serious devolution, a step back toward Judaism and the absolute patriarchal rule of the angry jealous god Yaweh. It appears that Christianity was undermined from within by church fathers bent on maintaining control over Christians. To me this smacks of psychopathy at work, namely, the Jewish revolutionary spirit.
This material is drawn from my 2004 book Gnostic Secrets of the Naassenes. Hope it helps!
The definition or redefinition of words and concepts shows the profound importance of the human psycholinguistic complex or constellation. Changing just a few words or definitions can impact many centuries of human history. We can see many changes in our psycholinguistics today, almost all of which are imposed on our communities without our consent or understanding. Diversity is Our Greatest Strength is but one of many examples. It may seem as if nothing is happening when words and concepts change meaning or are weirdly asserted, but when those changes are imposed top-down and asserted by Big Media, you can be sure they portend a foul change is afoot and we will pay dearly for it within a short time. ABN
Last week I published an article noting that although technology industrialist Elon Musk probably ranks as the most powerful and influential individual in the Western world, he recently humbled himself, deeply apologizing for some of his casual criticism of Jewish activities and pledging to mend his ways.
Traveling to Israel, he met with that country’s president and posed for photo-ops with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, promising to combat “antisemitism” on his Twitter platform. A few weeks later he undertook a pilgrimage to Auschwitz, making even stronger commitments to Jewish leaders, denying that he harbored any antisemitism in his own heart, and publicly declaring that he regarded himself as “aspirationally Jewish.”
These remarkable events reminded me of that famous incident of the Middle Ages in which Emperor Henry IV of the Holy Roman Empire had “gone to Canossa” and prostrated himself before Pope Gregory VII, seeking forgiveness for his challenge to the supreme authority of the Catholic Church:
Musk was only the latest and most extreme example of the many wealthy and powerful Gentiles who have publicly bent their knees in submission to Jewish power. Even if totally spurious, accusations of “antisemitism” have often proven fatal to the careers of even the highest-ranking individuals, and shortly before Musk’s submission, two presidents of Ivy League universities were politically brow-beaten and then forced to resign over their unwillingness to prohibit pro-Palestinian protests on their campuses, a sudden purge that was absolutely unprecedented in the history of American academia.
Ep. 75 The national security state is the main driver of censorship and election interference in the United States. "What I’m describing is military rule," says Mike Benz. "It’s the inversion of democracy." pic.twitter.com/hDTEjAf89T
Plus the ass-kissing of Musk is them demonstrating the art of ass-kissing whichever ass they need to kiss. That’s how you do it, folks, giggle and kiss that ass while slobbering over how good it tastes. I don’t trust any of these three but Musk is maybe the best of them. Sadly, seems the VF is on the closet team now, too. Sudden rise to fame and prominence rewards bold toadies and mind-control pre-plants. Which is why sites like this one are and will continue to be the only ones trading in real information. ABN
I challenge readers to find an emotion that does not have “meaning.”
Emotions that have no meaning do exist, but are not common and are generally ignored.
What is “meaning” in this context?
Meaning here means, quite specifically, “that which is connected to (interconnected in) a semiotic network.”
Emotions arise due to bodily functions, metabolism, external events, communication events, life events, etc.
Once an emotion arises it is either discarded (given no “meaning”) or it is taken up into a semiotic network.
Once it is taken up into a semiotic network, an emotion will resonate within that network, have an import and “meaning” based on that network.
For example, a single impression of microaggression will almost certainly be defined by prior learning, by the prior existence of a semiotic network that accepts and defines this sort of perception.
That is to say, if the perceiver has been trained or self-taught to perceive and react to microaggression, their preformed sensibilities (its “meaning”) will respond to it, often far more strongly than conditions warrant.
A similar analysis applies to any emotion.
Watch yourself as you discard the brief feeling you might get from looking at a nondescript wall or a leaf curled on the ground. Compare emotional reactions you don’t discard, such as ones involving human expressions, tone of voice, things left unsaid, etc.
This shows that we will learn more about emotions by analyzing the semiotic networks that give them meaning rather than trying to trace them back to their intangible origins or follow their ambiguous development.
Emotions do develop as the networks that “hold” them develop and/or as the emotion itself is given greater or lesser prominence within its network(s).
In this sense, emotions can grow very large or become very small.
Ones that had meaning can and do disappear. But no emotion will appear and maintain itself for long without being taken into a semiotic network, given a meaning or assigned a meaning.
Notice how you have sensibilities and emotions connected to how you have been trained. And notice how these emotions and sensibilities are different from others who have not been trained as you have.
A trained gardener, salesperson, doctor, cook, surfer, etc. has emotions and sensibilities that are different from people who have not had their training, whether that training is formal or informal.
If you just spend time thinking about something you will be “training” yourself, developing different sensibilities and emotions about whatever it is.
Humans are semiotic animals that spend most of their time in semiotic environments.
A semiotic network communicates both with the self and with others.
Semiotic networks include everything that can be communicated, including language, ideas, emotions, beliefs, values, memories, skills, and so on.
If you were trained in a certain safety procedure and you agree with it (thoroughly putting out campfires, for example), it will drive you nuts to see someone ignore the basics. This is true for almost anything you were trained in and agree with.
Training gives us richer and different emotions, either in kind or in degree.
Training strengthens and broadens the semiotic network(s) holding or defining emotions, thus making them stronger, more sensible, more reasonable or, conversely, weaker, less sensible, less reasonable.
“Personalities” develop through training, some of it formal, much of it informal and idiosyncratic.
A good way to understand what is happening in America today is first understand that the human mind comprises a psycholinguistic, psycho-semiotic constellation. Then understand that this constellation is the battlefield upon which mind-control wages war. When people are defeated on this battlefield, all is lost and kinetic war is typically unnecessary. Notice the power of words in mind-control, information warfare. First cause fear and confusion in the psycholinguistic constellation of a population, then offer definite words that that reunify that constellation, that allow it to relax and feel whole again. For example, just declare that an untested and dangerous medical intervention is ‘safe and effective’ and that if everyone takes it everything will go back to normal, everything will be fine again. The words alone can produce most of the desired effect, especially if they have been already strengthened by semiotic conformity such as wearing masks or keeping six feet apart. The semiotic elements in this kind of information warfare are so powerful none of them need be ‘true’. They just need to fit the needs of the population being controlled and be reasonably well-timed and repeated often. This on its own creates a division between those who follow the mind-control thoughtlessly and those who do not. ABN
This Is Incredibly Important Information Being Exposed By Julian Assange
The People Who Control The Internet Archives Have Been Deleting & Changing Information Including Our History. The Information Is Only In One Place & The WRONG People Are In Charge Of It
A new report reveals more details about how the Biden administration is plowing millions of dollars of taxpayer funds into woke universities and private firms to fund the “Censorship Industrial Complex.”
During the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government hearing on Tuesday morning, Daily Caller News Foundation (DCNF) reporter Katelynn Richardson detailed how the federal government used taxpayer dollars to fund numerous projects that censored anyone with a non-government-approved view.
“The effort fits within the broader trend of the federal government’s increasing involvement in online censorship, from the Center for Disease Control flagging posts during COVID-19 to the FBI working with social media companies to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story,” Richardson said.
Worth a listen for medical insights but blame is placed solely on Big Pharma, ignoring the central role of USA’s DoD in either forcing or allowing Big Pharma to make the vax under legal protections. There are a fair number of people claiming that blaming Big Pharma is a limited hangout designed to let DoD avoid responsibility. In this vein, I suppose the plan is to gut Big Pharma if the people become angry enough and the energy is there, thus protecting DoD. It will be a make-believe remedy, though, if that is done as Big Pharma will surely remain much the same, given new names and brochures and shuffling personnel at most. I think something like this is probably going on but do not believe that everyone who contributes to it, as they are in this video, is necessarily guilty of willfully acting as a limited hangout or knowingly protecting DoD. All of us have limited understanding of almost everything, and this should be kept in mind as we negotiate our way through probably the largest and boldest psyop ever conceived. ABN
American Buddhist Net 