A number of years ago I came across an interesting book entitled: The Gods of Eden, by William Bramley. I picked it up and read the blurbs on the front and back and inside covers. The back of the book claims:
“As a result of seven years of intensive research, William Bramley has uncovered the sinister thread that links humanity’s darkest events – from the wars of the ancient pharaohs to the assassination of JFK. In this remarkable, shocking and absolutely compelling work, Bramley presents disturbing evidence of an alien presence on Earth – Extraterrestrial visitors who have conspired to dominate Humankind through violence and chaos since the beginning of time… a conspiracy which continues to this very day.”
Well, sure! I’ll buy it! The book, that is, not necessarily the idea, I thought.
Bramley tells us in the beginning that he originally set out to research the origins of human warfare, NOT UFO’s. So, he made a point in my rating scale for having no ostensible agenda for or against ETs or their motivations in his work. As a general rule, I like to find my clues in books that are NOT about conspiracies or aliens or with any axes to grind that are immediately apparent.
He then goes on to postulate that
“War can be its own valuable commodity,” and that “War can be an effective tool for maintaining social and political control over a large population.”
Bramley next writes:
“In the sixteenth century, Italy consisted of numerous independent principalities which were often at war with one another. When a prince conquered a neighboring city, he would sometimes breed internal conflicts among the vnquished citizens. This was an effective way to maintain political control over the people because the endless squabbling prevented the vanquished people from engaging in unified action against the conqueror. It did not greatly matter over what issues the people bickered so long as they valiantly struggled against one another and not against the conquering prince.” [Bramley, 1989]
This is, of course, pure Machiavelli.
But, there is something else about Machiavelli that is important: Machiavelli saw religion and its teachings of faith, hope, charity, love, humility and patience under suffering as factors that render men weak and cause them to care less about worldly and political things, and thus they will turn political power over to wicked men who are not influenced by such ideals. There is a deep truth here that applies to us all at many levels. And, clearly, somebody realized this early on and our “standard religions” are the result of this drive to render us not only powerless, but blind and apathetice to real threats, and ever on the march against chimerical threats that have no basis in reality.
Another of Machiavelli’s ideas is that a religion is good only if it supports the state and contributes to state ends. By using religion, one can give “divine sanction” to laws which people would otherwise have no reason to obey. Therefore, the state must control the teachings of the Church.
Still another teaching of Machiavelli is: The political leader must APPEAR to be religious, even though he does not believe in nor practice religion.
“to see and hear [the Prince], he should seem to be all mercy, faith, integrity, humanity, and religion… for men in general judge more by the eyes than by the heads, for everyone can see but very few have to feel… Let a prince therefore aim at conquering and maintaining the state, and the means will always be judged honourable and praised by everyone, for the vulgar is always taken in by appearances.” [The Prince]
Another precept of a successful domination of humanity is:
“love is held by a chain of obligation which, men being selfish, is broken whenever it serves their purpose; but fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails.” [The Prince]
Violence, says Machiavelli, is an effective means of holding onto power. Violence must be used quickly and mercilessly because violence can engender hatred and hatred can make a person willing even to sacrifice his life in order to gain revenge.
When a new leader comes to power, he should be quick to suppress opposition with complete ruthlessness – cut it off quickly and cleanly. The new ruler should then seek out and cultivate the minority groups that were oppressed under the preceding administration to use them as a foundation of support.
And, as far as possible, a prince should get someone else to do the injuries for him so that any hatred that might arise will then be directed at the perpetrator of the violence, and not at the prince.
A regime based upon the support of the masses is more stable than one based upon the support of the aristocracy, therefore, a prince should found his support on the people rather than the nobility. The politically sophisticated nobility is more likely to suspect the motives of the prince, to distrust his actions, and to look for hidden meanings. Since they are less trusting, they are less manageable and hence, more likely to resist.
Power and authority can be most easily obtained where people obey because they believe that obedience is morally appropriate. Machiavelli taught that authority is preferable to coercion because coercion is a terribly inefficient method to compel obedience. It requires enormous resources to “hold a gun” against the heads of the masses. Because, in the end, raw power is inadequate in holding a whole population in line by the use of force.
Therefore, an astute prince would harness the power of emotions and manage the passions rather than guide men through reason. The prince must make use of the human passions of love, hate, fear, desire for glory and power, and even boredom.
Think about all of this for a moment.
What system is in place today that fits all of the above criteria for domination and control? Take your time. Think carefully and objectively. No rush here!
I have been working for many years, digging into studies of ancient man that few people – other than professional scholars – know exist, much less have the desire or patience to examine. Not being constrained by any “formal program” of study, I have been more or less free to include any and all material that strikes me as important. I have gone through literally thousands of books on archaeology, paleontology, sociology, psychology, history, language, religion, mythology, physics, chemistry, and on and on and on. (One day soon, I will put together a book list of all the material I have read that has contributed to the development of the ideas presented in these pages.)
I have read volumes that are considered “accepted” and those that are “fringe.” In selecting what I read, I have realized fully that, very often, it is the gifted amateur who is not obligated to write for his supper who comes up with the most innovative and insightful ideas. But, at the same time, I appreciate the rigor of directed studies and the constraints of academia. It is a delicate middle ground to tread, but provides marvelous balance.
Out of all of this study and work and thinking, there is a singular problem that emerges as being the turning point on which all of the ideas that presently dominate our world view revolve: Monotheism – the “Dominator mode” of the “One God,” over and against all other “gods,” who establishes a “covenant” with his people, whether they enter into this covenant by being circumcised or baptized, or just “born again in their hearts.”
How did this come to be?
“Much of the Old Testament is devoted to describing the origins and early history of the Hebrew people. According the the Bible, the Hebrews descended from a clan which lived in the Sumerian city of Ur around 2000 to 1500 B.C. The clan was befriended and ruled by a personality named Jehovah. The Bible claims that Jehovah was God. …Jehovah was clearly an important character [in the Bible]. Who was he? Was Jehovah God, as the Bible alleges? Was he a myth, as skeptics with secular orientaion would have us believe? Jehovah appears to have been neither.
“The name Jehovah comes from the Hebrew word ‘Yahweh,’ meaning ‘he that is’ or ‘the self-evident.’ This appellation conveys the idea that the Biblical Jehovah was a pure spiritual being; a true Supreme Being, if you will. But was he?
“Old Testament descriptions of Jehovah have provided a field day for UFO writers, and for good reason. Jehovah travelled through the sky in what appears to have been a noisy, smoking aircraft.” [See: Genesis 19:16-19, 20:18; Exodus 13:21-22, 14:24, 40:34-38, and Numbers 19:1-23, for examples.]
“The ancient Hebrew eyewitnesses responsible for the descriptions were not able to get a closer look at Jehovah. The Bible points out that no one was permitted to approach Jehovah’s mountaintop landing sites except Moses and a few select leaders. Jehovah had threatened to kill anyone else who tried.(Well, that’s a “loving god” for you!) The early bible therefore contains only descriptions of Jehovah as eyewitnesses saw him from a distance. It was not until much later that one of the Bible’s most famous prophets, Ezekiel, was able to get a closer look and describe Jehovah in greater detail. Ezekiel’s description is probably the most often-quoted Biblical passage in UFO literature. [See Ezekiel 1:1-25]
“The first portion of Ezekiel’s vision resembles earlier Biblical descriptions of Jehovah: a moving fiery object in the sky emitting smoke. As the object moved closer, Ezekiel was able to observe that the thing was made of metal. Out of the metal object emerged several human-like creatures, apparently wearing metal boots and ornamented helmets. their ‘wings’ appeared to be retractable engines which emitted a rumbling sound and helped the creatures to fly. Their heads were covered by glass or something transparent that reflected the sky above. They appeared to be in some sort of circular vehicle or a vehicle with wheels.
“We can safely conclude from the [passage in Ezekiel] that ‘Jehovah’ was not a Supreme Being. He appears to have been a succession of Custodial management teams operating over a time span of many human generations. To enforce human obedience, those teams used their aircraft to perpetrate the lie that they were ‘God.’
“The Custodial teams known as ‘Jehovah’ helped the Brotherhood of the Snake embark on a program of conquest to spread the new ‘one God’ religion. Moses, the man chosen to command the Hebrew tribes on their exodus out of Egypt to the Promised Land, was a high-ranking member of the Brotherhood. One hint of this fact comes from the Bible itself in which we are told how Moses was raised as a child: ‘And moses became learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds.’ [Acts 7:20-22 quoted by Bramley]
“Egyptian historian and High Priest, Manetho (c. 300 B.C.), states that Moses had received much of his education in the Brotherhood under Akhenaton, the very pharaoh who pioneered monotheism.” [Bramley, 1989]
There is a new and interesting hypothesis about the identity of Moses that has been presented by Sir Laurence Gardner which is that Moses himself, was Akhenaten. Gardner writes in Bloodline of The Holy Grail:
“Two of the most intriguing characters of the Old Testament are Joseph and Moses. Each played an important role in the formation of the Hebrew nation, and both have historical identities that can be examined quite independently of the Bible. Genesis 41:39-43 tells how Joseph was made Governor of Egypt:
‘And Pharaoh said unto Joseph… Thou shalt be over my house, and according unto they word shall all my people be ruled: only in the throne will I be greater than thou… and he made him ruler over all the land of Egypt.’
“Yet for all of this status and prominence neither Joseph nor Moses appear in any Egyptian record under either of those names.
“The annals of Rameses II (1304-1237 B.C.) specify that Semitic people were settled in the land of Goshen. It is further explained that they went there from Canaan for want of food. But why should Rameses’ scribes mention this settlement at Goshen? According to standard Bible chronology the Hebrews went to Egypt some three centuries before the time of Rameses, and made their Exodus in about 1491 B.C, long before he came to the throne. So, by virtue of this first-hand scribal record, the standard Bible chronology as generally promoted is seen to be incorrect.
“It is traditionally presumed that Joseph was sold into slavery in Egypt in the 1720’s BC, and was made Governor by the Pharaoh a decade or so later. Afterwards, his father Jacob (Israel) and 70 family members followed him into Goshen to escape the famine in Canaan. Notwithstanding this, Genesis 47:11, Exodus 1:11 and Numbers 33:3 all refer to ‘the land of Rameses’ (in Egyptian,’ the house of Rameses’). This was a complex of grain storehouses built by the Israelites for Rameses II in Goshen some 300 years after they were supposedly there!
“It transpires, therefore, …Joseph went to Egypt not in the early 18th century BC, but in the early 15th century BC. There he was appointed Chief Minister to Tuthmosis IV (ruled c. 1413 – 1405 BC). To the Egyptians, however, Joseph the Vizir was known as Yuya, and his story is particularly revealing not just in relation to the Biblical account of Joseph but also in respect of Moses. The Cairo-born historian and linguist Ahmed Osman has made an in-depth study of these personalities in their contemporary Egyptian environment, and his findings are of great significance. and that Nefertiti was half-Hebrew.
“When Pharaoh Tuthmosis died, his son married his sister Sitamun (as was the Pharaonic tradition) so that he could inherit the throne as Pharaoh Amenhotep III [kingship was based on being married to the representative of the Goddess, tranferred through the female line]. Shortly afterwards he also married Tiye, daughter of the Chief Minister (Joseph/Yuya). It was decreed, however, that no son born to Tiye could inherit the throne. Because of the overall length of her father Joseph’s governorship there was a general fear that the Israelites were gaining too much power in Egypt. So when Tiye became pregnant, the edict was given that her child should be killed at birth if a son. Tiye’s Jewish relatives lived at Goshen, and she herself owned a summer palace a little upstream at Zarw, where she went to have her baby. She did, indeed, bear a son – but the royal midwives conspired with Tiye to float the child downstream in a reed basket to the house of her father’s half-brother Levi. [Note: we will come back to this subject of the tribe of Levi.]
“The boy, Aminadab (born around 1394 BC), was duly educated in the eastern delta country by the Egyptian priests of Ra. In his teenage years he went to live at Thebes. By that time, his mother had acquired more influence than the senior queen, Sitamun, who had never borne a son and heir to the Pharaoh, only a daughter who was called Nefertiti. In Thebes, Aminadab could not accept the Egyptian deities and their myriad idols, and so he introduced the notion of Aten, an omnipotent God who had no image. Aten was thus an equivalent of the Hebrew ‘Adonai’ (a title borrowed from the Phoenician and meaning ‘Lord’) in line with Israelite teachings. At that time Aminadab (Hebrew equivalent of Amenhotep ‘Amun is pleased’) changed his name to Akhenaten (servant of Aten).
“Pharaoh Amenhotep then suffered a period of ill health. Because there was no direct male heir to the royal house, Akhenaten married his half-sister Nefertiti in order to rule as co-regent during this difficult time. When in due course Amenhotep III died, Akhenaten was able to succeed as Pharaoh – officially called Amenhotep IV.
“Akhenaten and Nefertiti had six daughters and a son, Tutankhaten. Pharaoh Akhenaten closed all the temples of the Egyptian gods and built new temples to Aten. He also ran a household that was distinctly domestic – quite different from the kingly norm in ancient Egypt. On many fronts he became unpopular… Loud were the threats of armed insurrection if he did not allow the traditonal gods to be wroshipped alongside the faceless Aten. But Akhenaten refused, and was eventually forced to abdicate in short-term favour of his cousin Smenkhkare, who was succeeed by Akhenaten’s son Tutankhaten. On taking the throne at the age of about 11, Tutankhaten was obliged to change his name to Tutankhamun. He, in turn, was only to live and rule for a further nine or ten years, meeting his death while still comparativley young.
“Akhenaten, meanwhile, was banished from Egypt. He fled with some retainers to the remote safety of Sinai, taking with him his royal sceptre topped with a brass serpent. To his supporters he remained very much the rightful monarch, the heir to the throne from which he had be ousted, and he was still regarded by them as the Mose, Meses or Mosis (heir/born of) – as in Tuthmosis (born of Tuth) and Rameses (fashioned of Ra).
“Evidence from Egypt indicates that Moses (Akhenaten) led his people from Pi-Rameses (near modern Kantra) soutward through Sinai, toward Lake Timash. This was extremely marshy territory and, although manageable on foot with some difficulty, any pursuing horses and chariots would have foundered disastrously.
“Among the retainers who fled with Moses were the sons and families of Jacob (Israel). then, at the instigation of their leader, they constructed the Tabernacle at the foot of Mount Sinai. Once Moses had died, they began their invasion of the coutnry left by their forefathers so long before.” [Gardner, 1996]
It is certainly an interesting story and interpretation, and does indeed make sense of a lot of puzzling elements that historians have been at a loss to explain. But, is it true? And, if so, what are the implications? It will be important later to remember this story, particularly the mention that Moses was raised by the Levites.
When we started this experiment in channelling, I was pretty much still involved in the Monotheistic concepts, though my thinking was becoming less definite as to WHO and WHAT this “One” god was. On many occasions we asked questions relating to this subject:
Q: (RC) Did the Hoovids become the Hebrews?
A: No. Hebrews do not stem from single grouping.
Q: (L) Are or were the Hebrews a separate racial group?
A: Not necessarily.
Q: (L) What was the origin of the Hebrew People?
A: Genetic construct.
Q: (L) Who did this genetic construct? The Atlanteans?
A: Not that simple.
Q: (L) The Lizzies?
A: How about joint effort?
Q: (L) The Orion Union?
A: Okay, but include C.O.C.
Q: (L) Chain of Command. Alright, the Orions created the Hebrews. What was the purpose for which this genetic variation was created?
Q: (L) Who was Yahweh?
A: False teacher.
Q: (RC) Who was Jehovah?
A: Moniker variance of previous answer.
Q: (L) And what was the desired result of the Hebrew genetic manipulation?
A: Further control through the fostering of mistrust and hostility, leading to enslavement and warring. Also accomplished renewed and invigorated 3rd to 4th density “feeding.”
Q: (RC) The Tetragrammaton, which is a code for the name of God in the Old Testament, who or what does this code represent?
A: Be careful not to get caught up in ancient deceptions, but ostensibly it “means” I Am The One.
Q: (L) What year did the Exodus occur counting backward from now according to our calendrical system?
A: 4670. [That would be 2676 B.C., which is NOT in synch with either of the above dates. We will get into this later.]
Q: (L) At that time did a cometary Venus pass close to the earth and cause cataclysms and disruption as Velikovsky suggests?
Q: (L) Was Venus born from the planet Jupiter?
Q: (L) Did it appear in the sky from the area of Jupiter?
Q: Who was Jehovah?
A: Lizard projection.
Q: (L) Who was Yahweh.
A: Fictional being.
Q: (L) Who was the god that spoke to Moses on the mount?
A: Audible projection of Lizards.
Q: (L) Did Moses at any time realize that he had been duped by the Lizzies?
Q: (L) Who was the originator of the Brotherhood of the Serpent as described in the Bramley book?
A: Lizard Beings.
Q: (L) Where did Moses get his knowledge?
A: Sixth density.
Q: (L) Okay, you told us before that he saw or interacted with a holographic projection created by the Lizard Beings. Was that the experience on Mount Sinai?
Q: (L) Okay, well, if he got knowledge from sixth density, did he get this prior to the interactions with the Lizard beings?
A: Yes. He was corrupted by imagery. He was deceived by the imagery a la Joseph Smith, for example.
Q: (L) Are you saying that Joseph Smith, the recipient of the Mormon texts, was deceived by the Lizards also?
A: Yes. They do that a lot.
Q: (L) Why was Moses not allowed into the promised land?
A: Because he became tyrranical. [Apparently because of the Reptoid influence.]
Q: (L) Were the Lizards the ones who led the Jews to the “Promised Land?”
A: No. Were not led; followed their own paths in effort to escape the effects of cataclysms.
Q: (L) Why have they got this big legend about being chosen and led to the promised land?
A: More brotherhood influence and nonsense.
Q: (L) At one point we were told that time was an illusion that came into being at the “time” of the “Fall” in Eden, and this was said in such a way that I inferred that there were other illusions put into place at that time…
A: Time is an illusion that works for you because of your altered DNA state.
Q: (L) Okay, what other illusions?
A: Monotheism, the belief in one separate, all powerful entity.
Q: (T) Is separate the key word in regard to Monotheism?
Q: (L) What is another one of the illusions?
A: The need for physical aggrandizement.
Q: (L) The focus on the physical as the thing one needs to hold onto or protect. What is another of the illusions?
A: Linear focus. Unidimensionality.
All of the preceding certainly places the monotheistic covenent in a somewhat different light, to say the least. But, is there any clear evidence that this might be true?
The idea of monotheism being a limitation didn’t make a huge impact on me at the time, but it was waiting in the back of my mind to leap out into awareness when, a couple of years later, I read the following written by Prof. Regina Schwartz, a principle investigator at the Park Ridge Center, and Director of the Chicago Institute of Religion, Ethics, and Violence, in her book The Curse of Cain:
“Many of us imagine that the secular world has freed us from the encumbrances of religion, the rule of one deity and the authority of his priesthood, but the myth of monotheism continues to foster our central notions of collective identity. As a cultural formation, monotheism is strikingly tenacious. Its tenet – one god establishes one people under God – has been translated from the sphere of the sacred to nationalism, and thence to other collective identities. Most historians of nationalism concede that the concentration of power in an omnipotent sovereign was far too useful to divest at the birth of modern nationalism, and so allegiance to a sovereign deity in order to forge a singular identity became, in secular terms, allegiance to a sovereign nation to forge a national identity. That issued in such ironies as the following rhetoric from one of the architects of (secular) German nationalism: ‘He who does not love the fatherland which he can see, how can he love the heavenly Jerusalem which he does not see?’ In other words, the injunction of Romans 13:1: ‘Let every person be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God’ – has been farther reaching than Paul could have ever imagined. In our nation’s infancy, John Cotton advised John Winthrop of the Plymouth Colony that a ‘distinction which is put between the Laws of God and the laws of men becomes a snare… surely there is no human law that tendeth to common good but the same is a law of God.’ And this has endured. […] Monotheism is a myth that grounds particular identity in universal transcendence. And monotheism is a myth that forges identity antithetically – agains the Other.
“Monotheism would make an ontological claim that only one god exists. Monolatry or henotheism would better describe the kind of exclusive allegiance to one deity (from a field of many) that we find in [the Bible]. [Schwartz, 1997]
Q: This book, “The Curse of Cain,” says: ‘In ancient Near Eastern rituals, the cut made to the animal is symbolically made to the inferior who enters into the covenant with a superior.” Is this an accurate representation?
A: Maybe for some.
Q: At the making of the Covenant at Mt. Sinai, there was a bunch of sacrificed animals, and Moses took the blood, dividing it in half, he cast one half on the altar. Taking the book of the covenant, he read it to the people, and they said ‘we will observe all that Yahweh has decreed. We will obey.’ And then Moses took the blood and cast it on the people saying ‘this is the blood of the covenant that Yahweh has made with you containing all these rules.’ What is this blood of the covenant?
A: Has to do with bloodline.
Q: So this symbolized the bloodline of the Jews?
Q: What bloodline are we talking about here?
A: Aramaic/Aryan. [Remember this! It will become important!]
I had written in my notes during the mid-eighties:
“The events of the Exodus had such an incredible impact upon the Jewish people that it is mentioned dozens of times throughout the scriptures. It could be said to be the single most important event in the long history of these beleaguered people. It was the Exodus which saved them, as a nation, from assimilation, annihilation, and historical obscurity. It was the Exodus which planted the seeds of chosenness and knitted threads of national identity into bonds strong enough to withstand centuries of oppression and dispersion. And, since their national identity was created by this event — while the identities of many other peoples were obliterated from the face of the earth by the same event — who are we to say that this was not part of a great and noble intent on the part of the intelligence of the cosmos?” [Knight, 1986]
Well, that just goes to show you how something can be grossly misinterpreted when one does not have sufficient knowledge.
The Exodus IS the central event of the Hebrew narrative. It is an inspiring story of the oppressed gaining their freedom against incredible odds. Isn’t it?
But, as Ms. Schwartz points out: What about the Canaanites? What about the Amorites, the Moabites, the Hittites? And, today, what about the Palestinians?
And how is it that this very same concept that had its most enduring inception in the Jewish belief system, came to be used so effectively against them as the underpinnings of the Holocaust? How indeed!
While the Bible is telling us the story of the poor Hebrews who go through so many troubles to become free, under the direction of their god, there is almost no sympathy permitted for the other peoples and their gods. In other words, the Bible is telling a story of a situation right out of Machiavelli. If Machiavelli had been there at the right hand of Moses, it could not have been more clearly modelled after the tenets of “The Prince.”
As Machiavelli points out, collective identity is linked to exclusive worship.
But, what is the underlying principle, the abstract idea, the “form” from which monolatry is drawn? Ms. Schwartz writes:
“Why is claiming a distinctive collective identity important enough to spawn violence? I found an answer to this question in a principle of scarcity that pervades most thinking about identity. When everything is in short supply, it must all be competed for – land, prosperity, power, favor, even identity itself. In many biblical narratives, the one God is not imagined as infinitely giving, but strangely withholding. Everyone does not receive divine blessings, some are cursed – with dearth and with death – as though there were a cosmic shortage of prosperity. […] Scarcity is encoded in the Bible as a principle of Oneness (one land, one people, one nation) and in monotheistic thinking (one Deity), it becomes a demand of exclusive allegiance that threatens with the violence of exclusion.
“[The origins of violence] are located in identity formation, arguing that imagining identity as an act of distinguishing and separating from others, of boundary making and line drawing, is the most frequent and fundamental act of violence we commit. Violence is not only what we do to the Other; it is prior to that. Violence is the very construction of the Other. This process is tricky: on the one hand, the activity of people defining themselves as a group is negative, they ARE by virtue of who they are not. On the other hand, those outsiders – so needed for the very self-definition of those inside the group – are also regarded as a threat to them. Ironically, the Outsider is believed to threaten the boundaries that are drawn to exclude him, the boundaries his very existence maintains. Outside by definition, but always threatening to get in, the Other is poised in a delicate balance that is always off balance because fear and aggression continually weight the scales. Identity forged agains the Other inspires perpetual policing of its fragile borders. History has shown that in the name of our identities – religious, ethnic, national, racial, gender – we commit and suffer the most horrific atrocities. …Acts of identity formation are themselves acts of violence.” [Schwartz, 1997]
What is it that generally makes others “other?” Their worship of “foreign gods.” Their allegiance. Their free will to do or be something else!
What was it that this Yahweh/Jehovah wanted to get clear from the very beginning with his “chosen people?” That exclusion of worship of any other god at all was the fundamental and primary basis on which the covenant was based. Curiously, this was expressed in terms that made it equivalent to sexual infidelity!
“I am a jealous God, you will have none but me!”
Of course, this was immediately translated to the ownership of women and their demotion to mere chattel, but that is another issue we will deal with later.
What is important here is that the Others against whom Israel’s identity is forged are abhorrent in the extreme, and vast numbers of them are obliterated, while in the “New Covenant” of Christianity, they are offered the choice of being obliterated or converted!
Now, what is the foundation of the “covenant” that Yahweh/Jehovah made with Israel?
Well, the rules of a covenant, including the one between the Jews and their god, are pretty explicit in ancient Mideastern archaeology. Foremost among these rules is the demand for the vassal’s complete loyalty to the overlord. Then, there are the “blessings and curses.” The overlord promises blessings in return for the vassal’s loyalty, and threatens complete annihilation should the vassal fail to fulfill the stipulations.
Again, this doesn’t sound like a Free Will choice; it sounds like an ultimatum!
It also sounds like pure Machiavelli.
“Historically, such treaties were made with a vanquished people by their conqueror. The treaty gave the conqueror the option of letting the vanquished people live, and in turn, they could choose to be subjected to the stipulations of the treaty instead of having obliteration chosen for them. […] The covenant at Sinai is given amid a huge display of such terrible power, with the full fanfare of fire, brimstone, thunder, and lightning… ‘Moses spoke and God answered him with peals of thunder’ (Ex 19:19) ‘I am Oz, the great and powerful. Who are you?’ ‘I am Dorothy, the meek and weak,’ begins the parody of the Sinai theophany that exposes God as an inept hot-air ballonist from Kansas. Toto pulls back the curtain of the holy of holies, and we see the all too human wizard from Kansas generating his own mysterium tremendum at a microphone.
“We are, then, the heirs of a long tradition in which monotheism is regarded as the great achievement of ‘Judeo-Christian’ thought… Monotheism is entangled with particularism, with the assertion that this God and not any other gods must be worshipped, a particularism so virulent that it reduces all other gods to idols and so violent that it reduces all other worshippers to abominations… The danger of a universal monotheism is asserting that its truth is THE Truth, its system of knowledge is THE System of knowledge, its ethics THE Ethics – not because, as in particularism, any other option must be rejected, but because there is simply no other option… [This] presupposes a kind of metaphysical scarcity. They imagine hoarding belief, hoarding allegiance, and even hoarding identity. Because there is a finite supply – of whatever – it must be either contained in the whole or protected as a part. Whether small or large, limited supplies suggest boundaries.
“In this remarkable myth, the division of people into peoples is not in their interests, but in the interest of maintaining the power of a tyrannical, threatened deity jealously guarding his domain.” [Schwartz, 1997]
Okay. We can definitely see Machiavelli at work here. Using linear time as his chief weapon, I might add.
And, it is pretty clear from the analysis of Ms. Schwartz, that we DO need to take a serious look at this Monolatry business, but this is really difficult because most of the people of Western culture have been so brainwashed with the Judaeo-Christian idealogy, that breaking free of it is an almost impossible task!
But, just suppose, for a moment, that there is an “Ultimate Agenda” behind all of this Machiavellian manipulation down through the Millennia. What could it possibly be?
A:. Here is something for you to digest: Why is it that your scientists have overlooked the obvious when they insist that alien beings cannot travel to earth from a distant system???
Q: And what is this obvious thing?
A: Even if speed of light travel, or “faster,” were not possible, and it is, of course, there is no reason why an alien race could not construct a space “ark,” living for many generations on it. They could travel great distances through time and space, looking for a suitable world for conquest. Upon finding such, they could then install this ark in a distant orbit, build bases upon various solid planes in that solar system, and proceed to patiently manipulate the chosen civilizations to develop a suitable technological infrastructure. And then, after the instituting of a long, slow, and grand mind programming project, simply step in and take it over once the situation was suitable.
Q: Is this, in fact, what has happened, or is happening?
A: It could well be, and maybe now it is the time for you to learn about the details.
Q: Well, would such a race be 3rd or 4th density in orientation?
A: Why not elements of both?
Q: What is the most likely place that such a race would have originated from?
A: Oh, maybe Orion, for example?
Q: Okay. If such a race did, in fact, travel to this location in space/time, how many generations have come and gone on their space ark during this period of travel, assuming, of course, that such a thing has happened?
A: Maybe 12.
Q: Okay, that implies that they have rather extended life spans…
Q: Assuming this to be the case, what are their lifespans?
A: 2,000 of your years. When in space, that is…
Q: And what is the span when on terra firma?
A: 800 years.
Q: Well, has it not occurred to them that staying in space might not be better?
A: No. Planets are much more “comfortable.”
Q: Okay… imagining that such a group has traveled here…
A: We told you of upcoming conflicts… Maybe we meant the same as your Bible, and other references. Speak of… The “final” battle between “good and evil…” Sounds a bit cosmic, when you think of it, does it not?
Q: Does this mean that there is more than one group that has traveled here in their space arks?
A: Could well be another approaching, as well as “reinforcements” for either/or, as well as non-involved, but interested observers of various types who appreciate history from the sidelines.
Q: Okay, what racial types are we talking about relating to these hypothetical aliens?
A: Three basic constructs. Nordic, Reptilian, and Grays. Many variations of type 3, and 3 variations of type 1 and 2.
Q: Well, what racial types are the ‘good guys?’
A: Nordics, in affiliation with 6th density “guides.”
Q: And that’s the only good guys?
A: That’s all you need.
Q: Wonderful! So, if it is a Grey or Lizzie, you know they aren’t the nice guys. But, if it is tall and blond, you need to ask questions!
A: All is subjective when it comes to nice and not nice. Some on 2nd density would think of you as “not nice,” to say the least!!!
Q: Well, we better get moving! We don’t have time to mess around!
A: You will proceed as needed, you cannot force these events or alter the Grand Destiny.
Q: I do NOT like the sound of that! I want to go home!
A: The alternative is less appetising.
Q: Sure! I don’t want to be lunch!
A: Reincarnation on a 3rd density earth as a “cave person” amidst rubble and a glowing red sky, as the perpetual cold wind whistles…
Q: Why is the sky glowing red?
Q: Of course! Comet dust! Sure, everybody knows THAT!
Okay. Here we have ended with an End of the World scenario too! Or is it? What’s the story here? Can this be real? Can ANY of it be real, and how to tell the lies from the truth?
But, let’s consider just briefly, before we move on, the remark the Cassiopaeans made about “time loops” in relation to this Monolatry business.
Just suppose these 4th density aliens do, in fact, exist. Then, let’s suppose that they do, in fact, have the ability to manipulate space/time? My husband, Ark has proposed the following:
“Suppose our civilization were to advance to the point where everyone can communicate with themselves in the past; they have a computer with a special program and peripheral device that does this. It becomes the latest fad: everyone is communicating with themselves in the past to warn of dangers or upcoming calamities or bad choices, or to give lottery numbers or winning horses. But, what is seen as a “bad choice” or “calamity” for one, could be seen to be a “good event” or “benefit” to someone else!
“So, the next step would be that “hackers” would begin to break into the systems and send false communications into the past to deliberately create bad choices and calamities for some in order to produce benefits for themselves or others.
“Then, the first individual would see that false information has been sent and would go into their system and go back even earlier to warn themselves that false information was going to be sent back by an “imposter” and how to tell that it was false.
“Then the hacker would see this, and go back in time to an even earlier moment and give false information that someone was going to send false information (that was really true) that false information (that was really false) was going to be sent, thereby confusing the issue.
“This process could go on endlessly with constant and repeated communications into the past, one contradicting the other, one signal cancelling out the other, with the result that it would be exactly the same as if there were NO communication into the past!
“There is, also, the very interesting possiblity that the above scenario IS exactly what is taking place in our world.
“It is also possible that, whenever a civilization comes to the point that it can manipulate the past and thereby change the present, it would most probably destroy itself, and probably its “branch” of the universe, unless there comes a cataclysmic event before this happens which would act as a kind of “control system” or way of reducing the technological possibilities to zero again, thus obviating the potentials of universal chaos. In this way, cataclysmic events could be a sort of preventive or pre-emptive strike against such manipulations, and may, in fact, be the result of engineered actions of benevolent selves in the future who see the dangers of communicating with ourselves in the past!
“So, the probability is this: if there IS communication from the future, it MAY, in fact, be constantly received by each and every one of us as an ongoing barrage of lies mixed with truth. Thus, the problem becomes more than just “tuning” to a narrow band signal, because clearly the hackers can imitate the signal and have become VERY clever in delivering their lies disguised as “warm and fuzzy” truths; the problem becomes an altogether different proposition of believing nothing and ACTING as though EVERYTHING is misleading, gathering data from all quarters, and then making the most INFORMED choice possible with full realization that it may be in error!
“What is important here is this: we can’t prevent hackers from hacking. But, what we can do is make every effort to prevent them from hacking into OUR systems by erecting barriers of knowledge and awareness. Hackers are always looking for an “easy hack,” (except for those few who really LIKE a challenge), and will back away as you make your system more and more secure.
“How do you make your computer (or yourself) immune to hackers?
“It is never 100% secure, but if all preventative measures are taken, and we constantly observe for the signs of hackers – system disruption, loss of “memory,” or energy, damaged files, things that don’t “fit,” that are “out of context,” – we can reduce the possiblity of hacking. But, we can only do this if we are aware of hackers; if we know that they will attempt to break into our system in the guise of a “normal” file, or even an operating system or program that promises to “organize” our data for greater efficiency and ease of function or “user friendliness,” while at the same time, acting as a massive drain on our energy and resources – RAM and hard drive.
“And of course, there are viruses. Whenever we insert a floppy disk or CD into our computer, we risk infection by virii which can, slowly or rapidly, distort or destroy all the information on our computer, prevent any peripheral functions, and even “wipe” the hard disk of all files to replace them with endless replications of the viral nonsense.
“The human analogy to this is the many religions and “belief” systems that have been “programmed” into our cultures, and our very lives, via endless “Prophet/God” programs, replacing, bit by bit, our own thinking with the “dogma and doctrines of the faith.” [Jadczyk, 1999]
The specific thing I want to highlight in the above scenario is the idea of “religion,” specifically Monotheism/Monolatry, being a program that is infects our “system” with a particularly difficult-to-discern virus. In our speculative scenario, just imagine someone with space/time manipulation capabilities sending a projection into the past – let’s call this projection Jehovah – and inspiring another guy – let’s call him Moses – to insitute a belief system that has far reaching consequences into the future that branches off from that “decision” on the World Tree. Even though it was a product of manipulation, because it affects everything forward from that point, like a domino effect, it will be perceived as real and valid by all those who have taken this option of belief, because, in fact, it will be real.
But, there we have an interesting way out: the option of choice. Does it then follow that, if we decline to believe it, if we choose, individually and collectively, to reject the control mechanism, that we can change the future from this point on?
Of course, if we decline to believe it, then we may stimulate our “time travelling Machiavelli” to go back and diddle with the past again… and again… and again. Zoroaster, Jesus, Mohammed, and on and on – an endless shell game of divinities; now you see it, now you don’t. All leading to what?
Well, it’s an interesting problem. How in the world can we hope to win such a game, played by GameMasters who are clearly so much more powerful than we are?
Or are they?
Bramley, William, The Gods of Eden; New York, Avon Books; 1989
Gardner, Laurence, Bloodline of the Holy Grail; Rockport, Element, 1996
Machiavelli, The Prince
Schwartz, Regina, The Curse of Cain: The Violent Legacy of Monotheism; Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1997