Session 29 December 2018

[anka]

Wow... this is packed with so much info to ponder. Thank you very much for sharing and transcript!

 

[JEEP]

Re the state of male/female interaction, a bit of comic relief - "It's Raining Men" comes to mind:

1/12/1991. Marie sings "Like A Hurricane" and picks Warren Fremen from audience to sing "Crazy" with.

28 years ago - according to wiki:

The Gulf War (2 August 1990 – 28 February 1991), codenamed Operation Desert Shield (2 August 1990 – 17 January 1991) for operations leading to the buildup of troops and defense of Saudi Arabia and Operation Desert Storm (17 January 1991 – 28 February 1991) in its combat phase, was a war waged by coalition forces from 35 nations led by the United States against Iraq in response to Iraq's invasion and annexation of Kuwait arising from oil pricing and production disputes.

And the beat goes on . . .

 

[MusicMan]

***
(A) So Islam is based mostly on fear and avoidance, whereas even
Judaism had the idea of solidarity behind it. And Christianity had
spiritual development. Islam has none of that.

(L) No, there doesn’t appear to be anything about real spiritual
development in Islam other than trying to model oneself on Muhammed and
“submitting” to his alleged declarations; that’s a bit problematical when
you find out that the original model of Muhammed was probably a Dead Sea
Scrolls inspired apocalypticist, likely a schizoid psychopathic fanatic.
Go out and kill some people and you get grapes in the afterlife, not naked
women. You get grapes.

(A) How many grapes? [laughter]

(L) 72!! Well, that was one of things that was really surprising.
Apparently, there was a mistranslation or misunderstanding of the word
somehow, and so you only get 72 grapes. [laughter]

(A) A lot of people are gonna be very disappointed! [laughter]

***
1.The concept arises here of "The Grapes of Wrath", which would be
perfectly reasonable if they had been out killing people.
This then raises the question: 'What are the 'grapes of wrath'?'

"The phrase ''grapes of wrath'' is a biblical allusion, or reference, to the Book of Revelation, passage 14:19-20, which reads, ''So the angel swung his sickle to the earth and gathered the clusters from the vine of the earth, and threw them into the great wine press of the wrath of God.''

In this passage, the wrath of God is his anger and punishment over the evil that is in the world; this line is a metaphor, or comparison, using grapes and the wine press where the angel is helping God transform the grapes (evil on Earth) into God's wrath, punishment, and justice (wine). Here, wine symbolizes the blood that will come from his wrath. Essentially, the quote is about God bestowing vengeance and justice upon the people who are evil on Earth and deserve punishment.

There is a second source that the title is a reference to, and this one is the famous song ''The Battle Hymn of the Republic''. Because the song was written in the context of American history and politics, it connects to The Grapes of Wrath more clearly because it's also a text that is grounded in a specific time and place in American history. Julia Howe wrote ''The Battle Hymn of the Republic'' in 1861. The opening stanza references the biblical passage, but this time it uses the actual phrase ''the grapes of wrath,'' which gives it a more obvious connection to the novel's title. It reads:

''Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord;
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword;
His truth is marching on.'' "

The Grapes of Wrath Title: Origin, Meaning & Analysis - Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com


2. While we are there, what does 'the rose of Sharon' represent?
(“I am the rose of Sharon, and the lily of the valleys.” (Solomon 2:1))

"..the Rose of Sharon mentioned in the Song of Solomon is a crocus-like flower and the source of saffron. The Hebrew word habaselet as used in Song of Solomon 2:1 is translated twice as “rose,” once here in the Song of Solomon and once in Isaiah 35:1. The translators may indeed have used the word rose to refer to the meaning of the Hebrew word, which is a flower similar to what we now know as a crocus or a bulb flower like a tulip. The NIV uses a footnote that says, “Possibly a member of the crocus family.” Therefore, the “rose of Sharon” is not really what we would classify today as a “rose,” but it could be a plant similar to the hibiscus or it could be a crocus or tulip."

What is the Rose of Sharon?

The 'grapes of wrath' and 'the rose of Sharon' are concepts from Steinbeck's novel.

p.s. Apologies for my lack of skills in quoting. Perhaps a mod can fix it.

 

[furryfrog]

Paul Joseph Watsons new release discussing gillette's latest commercial. Paul describes it as "the worst an ad can get". The ad alienates and demonizes men, the very same group that buys its products.

 

[Nathan]

Paul Joseph Watsons new release discussing gillette's latest commercial. Paul describes it as "the worst an ad can get". The ad alienates and demonizes men, the very same group that buys its products.

It's pretty ballsy of Gillette to change their slogan from "The Best A Man Can Get" to "White Man Bad".

 

[furryfrog]

No razors were harmed in making that commercial either, literally, I don't recall seeing one razor.

 

[A Jay]

I have a question. I have been reading and watching videos on the subject of how current feminism (and cultural Marxism etc ..) identifies and makes patriarchy a power struggle between oppressors and oppressed, you know all this hysterical situation that is debated around this issue, as the man dominates over the woman, that is to say the structures of power ... it is exactly what the lizards are doing, for what is expressed in this last exchange of information.

So, is there any truth in it? I mean, this really confuses me. This would validate the feminist argument of the power of man over women??

Is everything a power relationship as the postmodernists say?

I can understand that living in a STS world is the norm ... but ... I do not know, it worries me.

Well, we know that the oppressive patriarchy claims of the feminists are a deliberate misrepresentation and misreading of reality meant to give the feminists more power so they can enact their own nefarious agendas, so the C's claim of a 4D STS dominance agenda couldn't support the feminist claim of an oppressive patriarchy because the "oppressive patriarchy" doesn't exist. A case in point would be the fact that women are now running the MIC. Where's the "oppressive patriarchy" in that?

Also, from what we've been able to gather from the C's, the recommended reading, and the discussions here on the forum it appears that the 4D STS plans of dominance and control don't include the use of an oppressive patriarchy. Rather their plans include using the radical postmodern and feminist ideologies to create weak mean on the one hand and a division between the sexes, races, and cultures on the other. Which means it's the people screaming against patriarchal oppression that are actually the ones being used to create the real oppression.

So not to worry Bluegazer. The C's didn't inadvertently support the feminist argument. In fact, they further destroyed it.

 

[Bluegazer]

Well, we know that the oppressive patriarchy claims of the feminists are a deliberate misrepresentation and misreading of reality meant to give the feminists more power so they can enact their own nefarious agendas, so the C's claim of a 4D STS dominance agenda couldn't support the feminist claim of an oppressive patriarchy because the "oppressive patriarchy" doesn't exist. A case in point would be the fact that women are now running the MIC. Where's the "oppressive patriarchy" in that?

Also, from what we've been able to gather from the C's, the recommended reading, and the discussions here on the forum it appears that the 4D STS plans of dominance and control don't include the use of an oppressive patriarchy. Rather their plans include using the radical postmodern and feminist ideologies to create weak mean on the one hand and a division between the sexes, races, and cultures on the other. Which means it's the people screaming against patriarchal oppression that are actually the ones being used to create the real oppression.

So not to worry Bluegazer. The C's didn't inadvertently support the feminist argument. In fact, they further destroyed it.

It's what I was thinking in principle. Of course I needed this clarification, and that's why I felt somewhat worried about it, since I did not seem to fit in some way ... after some re-readings I came to a similar conclusion. Thank you!

 

[newuser23]

I really wonder if there is something to these magicians. I watched up to the first 8 minutes and those face changers really made me question what is going on here. Do you think these people really may have sold their soul to 4D STS in order to do some of these things?

If you slow down the video at 4:36 to 4:37 also at 4:41. You can see this face changing is most likely a silk mask that is taken off with a elastic band and goes into a breast pocket. It is quick but you can see the mask going into his shirt near his shoulder.

 

[goyacobol]

If you slow down the video at 4:36 to 4:37 also at 4:41. You can see this face changing is most likely a silk mask that is taken off with a elastic band and goes into a breast pocket. It is quick but you can see the mask going into his shirt near his shoulder.

I suppose your explication could be possible but I could only slow it a second at a time by pausing and still didn't see much. It still doesn't explain the many other better examples of strange "magic" in that video. I tend to think is would be easy for 4D STS to assist with the strangeness of what looks miraculous to us 3D creatures. Yes, that is a form of trickery too but from a slightly different perspective.

4D has a physically but it is "variable".

 

[idiaysan]

Hello everyone, happy new year and thank you very much for the new session full of questions to think about; there was one that intrigued me a lot, when the cass speak of the double beginning of Christianity:

Session Date: December 29th 2018

(L) Yes... I guess I'm gonna put the cat among the pigeons. I've got two topics in my mind. The first one is the black hole of Mecca. Now, this guy Peter Townsend - which is probably a pseudonym because he probably won't write under his own name since he fears for his life - says that Mecca didn't exist and that Islam as a religion started out in very strange ways. Basically, he says that Islam is not a very friendly religion according to his way of thinking. Now, I don't think we need to ask any questions about the research he did, because that's all pretty plain and clear. But his conclusions are that Islam needs to be reformed or something needs to be done about it because it's not a very friendly bunch of people at present due to the beliefs that are inculcated into them from birth. Aside from the teachings in Islam that all other religions are wrong and only Muslims are right, and Muslims are entitled to kill non-believers, he's basically suggesting that inherent in Islam is a corruption, that the religion itself is inherently bad. But we've been discussing it, and we don't see that there is that much difference between one fraudulent religion and another. I mean, Christianity and Judaism are both pretty bad in some ways. So, I don't see... Is Islam inherently corrupt and a bad influence in general?

A: Consider carefully the developmental pathways of the three test cases. First you have Judaism. It began as a widespread cult of comet/storm god worship. It was reformulated to meet the needs of a dispossessed people and encourage solidarity among them. Christianity had a dual beginning. First was an apocalyptic cult of intolerance and violence. Second was a message of spiritual transformation based on the life of an extraordinary man full of mercy. Islam is the miscegenation of the worst of both. How can there be any positive elements out of complete falsehood?

END OF SESSION

From what I understood, it has been said in the sessions that Christianity is a series of different foundations. I believed that the original foundation was the lamentations of the Roman people for the death of Julius Caesar. Then there is a previous foundation as it is said in this session, in a possible a dark age?

 

[goyacobol]

From what I understood, it has been said in the sessions that Christianity is a series of different foundations. I believed that the original foundation was the lamentations of the Roman people for the death of Julius Caesar. Then there is a previous foundation as it is said in this session, in a possible a dark age?

First you have Judaism. It began as a widespread cult of comet/storm god worship. It was reformulated to meet the needs of a dispossessed people and encourage solidarity among them.

I think it does sound like Judaism is based on the experiencing of a period of earth changes and catastrophes following "comet/storm" events from this comment by the Cs. I would think those times certainly could be viewed as "dark" ages.

In Laura and Pierre's book Comets and the Horns of Moses they discuss how the ancients worshiped comets and astrological events as the manifestation of the gods/deities.

In Secret History, I proposed (and assembled evidence for the idea) that what was seen and reported by the Egyptians as ‘Sothis’ was not Sirius [19], but rather a cluster of comets. Since that volume was published, I’ve covered a lot more hard research ground and found that there is more than a little support for that idea, though I would now change it to a giant comet with satellite bodies formed from the natural breaking-up process that comets undergo, which is what Clube and Napier propose. In any event, Sothis is not Sirius, nor are the sightings of it, noted less than a handful of times in Egyptian records, in any way related to observations of ‘the precession of the equinoxes’. [20] Clube and Napier write: The ancient religions of prehistoric man were unmistakable polytheistic and astronomical in character. This raises questions concerning the basic nature of the gods that were worshipped. If comets were included among the principal deities, their erratic motion and changing appearance could well have inspired a ready acceptance of the fickle character of ancient gods. … many Greek and Roman philosophers were, amongst other things, greatly concerned to explain comets in materialistic terms and rid them of any supernatural qualities. Inasmuch as the heads and tails of comets appeared often to take on a human form or that of animals, the aim seems to have been to prove that these were illusions created by perfectly natural causes. … In practice, however, belief in the gods was so entrenched that the arguments seem merely to have served to convince that the gods were invisible [in the sky] … the rise of materialism in classical times came with the passing away of some very important prehistoric gods which were comets in the sky. Many of the legends of mythology can thus be interpreted as highly embellished accounts of the evolution of one, or perhaps a few, very large comets during the last 2,000 years of prehistory. [21]

Knight-Jadczyk, Laura. Comets and the Horns of Moses (The Secret History of the World Book 2) (pp. 88-89). Red Pill Press. Kindle Edition.

 

[Skyalmian]

A subscription e-mail (from Alexander J.A Cortes) worth sharing:

Maybe you care about none of these things, but culture cares about you. While much can be made of ignoring the pop culture aspects of society and media programming, the reality is that you still must be aware of the larger cultural forces at play and how they affect you.

For those who are out of the loop on why I'm talking about this tonight.

1. The American Psychology Association released guidelines on masculinity that characterize it as toxic, misogynistic, violent, repressive, and the language they is entirely derived from social justice "philosophy".

- Belief in blank slate theory.
- Scapegoating.
- Collective guilt.
- Classifying masculinity as a whole as being defective and aberrant.

2. Gillette released their new ad, a highly politicized screed that masculinity's definition needed to change, and characterizing the old definition of masculinity as being rape, violence, emotional, repression, sexual abuse.

3. PETA released a bizarre ad with men swinging around vegetables as genitalia, with the implication being real men with functional sexual organs don't eat meat, they eat veggies.

4. The NFL announced Serena Williams would speak at the Superbowl, giving some sort of talk / statement on empowering women.

How did we get here?

The reality is that there is sociopolitical "war" against Men, traditional values of masculinity, and healthy sexual relationships between men and Women.

Is this a real war with armies and generals? No, but that's not how propaganda wars are fought.

Is it a war in the frame of propaganda that one group of people has been programmed to frame their beliefs within a "good vs evil" lens and believe they have moral superiority to attack the opposition?

Oh absolutely.

Propaganda would perhaps better be called "the Controlled Programming of the Mind".

And an ideological war is best won when you:

A) Program one side to attack.
B) Program the other side to believe nothing is going on and they are imagining it.
C) Program the attacking side with moral certainty and self righteousness.
D) Program the other side with GUILT.

The Overton Window has Shifted

The Overton window, also known as the window of discourse, describes the range of ideas tolerated in public discourse. The term is derived from its originator, Joseph P. Overton, a former vice president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, who, in his description of his window, claimed that an idea's political viability depends mainly on whether it falls within the window, rather than on politicians' individual preferences. According to Overton's description, his window includes a range of policies considered politically acceptable in the current climate of public opinion, which a politician can recommend without being considered too extreme to gain or keep public office.

I've seen the Overton window shift massively the past 20 years. The rise "acceptable and moral hate" is most notable, but there have been many others as well, which I'll get to.

I've seen the following take place over so many thousands upon thousands of stories and shifts in the Overton window that I could spend years crafting a timeline

- The promotion of testosterone as being unhealthy and cancer causing.
- The breaking apart of exclusively male spaces.
- The "homosexualization" of normal heterosexual male bonding behavior.
- The demonization of white men as being the scapegoat for ALL the worlds problems.
- The promotion and acceptance of white guilt.
- The enforcement of double standards.
- The rise of the oppression Olympics.
- The masculinization of women.
- The feminization of men.
- The promotion of false rape statistics on college campuses and The promotion of statistically false narrative of an epidemic of rape.
- Title IX kangaroo courts and the destruction of young men's lives through false accusations.
- The promotion of sexual degeneracy as being "identity".
- The splintering of gender.
- The promotion that boys are aberrant, dysfunctional girls who must be "good humans".
- The promotion that all men are collectively guilty and boys must be "allies".
- The promotion of prescribing drugs to control young boys behavior.
- The promotion of cultural Marxism.
- The promotion that all men are rapist and sexual predators.
- The promotion that masculinity should only be defined by women.
- The normalization of accusing men of sexual assault and misconduct if a woman is displeased with a how many acted towards her in any ways as means of revenge.
- The normalization of female promiscuity as empowerment.
- The normalization of "implicit racism" as being a real phenomenon.
- The proliferation of all the above being taught in universities as "fact".
- The promotion that female authority is unquestionable and any criticism of a woman is "misogyny".
- The sexualization of children.
- The normalization of pedophilia.
- The promotion of "queer" culture as being what constitutes "gay identity".
- The promotion that homosexuals are a protected class/identity, and that homosexual men can never be sexual abusers.
- The denial of biological and scientific fact of any kind.
- The promotion of meritocracy as racist.
- The promotion of the "Tabula Rasa" and that human beings are blank slates.
- The promotion that gender is a social construct and is "made up".
- The demonization of comedy.
- The normalization of political correctness.
- The politicization of all forms of expression.
- The assumption of "moral high ground" and "right side of history" by left-leaning people.
- The demonization of Christianity.
- The promotion of single motherhood and the marginalization of fathers.
- The rise of divorce rape—the normalization of courts being anti-father in custody battles over children.
- The normalization and acceptance of double standards in how men and women are sentenced.
- The belittling of men in advertisements (credit to Rosemary Loughlin).
- The overlooking of driven men for promotion in organisations that ultimately need to deliver to survive (credit to Rosemary Loughlin).
- The demonization of brilliant deceased males (e.g. Einstein to name just one) for failure to live up to current day PC standards (credit to Rosemary Loughlin).
- The infiltration of every industry with "diversity, tolerance, inclusion" SJW policy making.
- The rise of tech monopolies run by people with ideological agendas who believe they have moral authority and view themselves as gods.
- The awareness that government is run by an entrenched bureaucracy.
- The exposure of the media as being a propaganda machine driven by people with ideological agendas.

This isn't even a complete list, and I could keep going. I could talk about the rise of soy and seed oils and the world wide decline in testosterone levels and sperm count. I could talk about the current political environment in different European countries and how in England you can prosecuted for for your Facebook posts.

I could talk about the rise of beta males, the hypocrisy of modern feminism, the fact that 95% of school shooters were raised by single mothers.

I could talk about a lot of things. And all those things are supported by REALITY.

The "evidence" for all of this is the world we live in.

All the above are categorical fact. They have happened, they are happening, and they continue happening. Any one of the above points would be a book unto itself, filled with endless examples and bountiful evidence.

How did this start?

It's polycausal.

And the idea of a "social virus" and social engineering must be accepted.

Part of these trends are part of broader social trends going back to industrialization and the automation of labor and the removal of physical strength being a necessity in many jobs.

Part of it is the decline of transcendent and religious belief and the rise of secularism.

Part of it is the social cognitive virus of Marxism and how that paradigm is ultimately poisonous to everything that it is applied to.

Part of it is the fundamental mimetic escalation of human behavior.

Part of it is birth control and the commodification of sex when consequences are removed and certain incentives are increased.

Again, I could go on and on and on and on and on with the "whys".

Raising one's voice about any of this will have you dismissed and silenced by mainstream narrative. It's the Ultimate Catch-22.

Real ALPHA MALES don't care about this war on men stuff.
Real men who don't have micopenises don't complain about women.
Real men listen to women because they are STRONG enough to do so.

The emotional and logical manipulation is damned obvious when you recognize it, but obviously it's highly effective on society at large.

"Men cause wars, men rape, men are violent." is the siren song of low IQ female logic. The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany recognized the lack of rational and logical thinking by women and it was a recognized and formal part of their propaganda campaigns that young women were far more inclined to "group think" and responded to pseudo logical emotional rhetoric.

Especially for women; any women with a bad marriage, sh—y father, lack of male models, traumatic experience, her pain is validated as being not her fault, and she can scapegoat the entire half of the human race that is collectively guilty and complicit.

And she can then assert power by way of a feminist narrative that everything she does thinks speaks says is good and brave and just and correct, and any criticism is hate.

From a mimetic perspective, it's quite brilliant, as it makes women a perpetual victim and gives them all the power that comes with being a victim. The ego investment in this is soul deep.

(This whole process is unconscious, obviously. People that are programmed always assume their beliefs are their own.)

What is a Man to Do?

This is how this is going to go, gentlemen.

If you are a man, and especially if you are a young man, the only freedom you will experience is:

A) Working for yourself.
B) Isolating yourself from common bureaucratic structures and social environments that could put you at risk.
C) Avoiding work environments that are mixed gender and controlled by female-led Human Resources or female managers.
D) If you own a business or start any kind of structured business, you must:

- Never hire SJW women of any kind.
- Establish a concrete masculine-feminine dynamic in how you deal with women.
- Follow the Mike Pence rule; Don't eat alone / spend time alone with women who are not your wife (assuming you are married).

E) If you want safety, work in male-only environments and hire only men (I expect sexual segregation to increase the next 10 years with small businesses.).

F) If you are online and make your living online:

- Everything you ever say can and will be used against you.
- Don't ever be overly antagonistic towards women. Fat bluehaired SJWS and liberal white women will readily organize en masse and report you.
- You'll probably be doxxed or have a mob go after you at some point or another.
- Beta male slaves will always be at the beck and call of women to tell you you're not a real man and are toxic.
- Maintain an email list and own your audience.
- Never apologize, and always triple down when attacked. Apply back with sarcasm and mocking arrogance. Mute and block and let people scream into the abyss. Take whatever they accuse you of and dial it up 10X.

G) If you find yourself around obvious Lunatic Leftists, get along with them and be utterly diplomatic. Do not communicate with anyone who is antagonistic. Don't reveal your position and unless drawn directly into an argument circumvent their insanity with gently-phrased questions and innocent curiosity.

H) In dating, be judicious and vet who you date. Be the Man at all times, she is in your frame, you're not in hers. Don't put yourself in compromising positions with drugs and alcohol and crazy girls.

- Also, NEVER date anyone with blue or green hair. Ever.

I) If you are on a college campus and are a young man, you might be in communist hell. You should probably quit college or transfer. Modern college campuses are like East Germany with SJWS trying to report people for thought crimes.

J) Success breeds increasing immunity: the more money you make and the more financially prosperous and productive you are, the more protected you will be. Money is power and protection.

K) The Tom Brady Rule is always in effect. The Tom Brady rule is the real phenomenon that woman have different standards of behavior for men based upon their sexual attractiveness.

I.e., if you are a tall and handsome man, you can readily get away with behavior that other men cannot, because women WANT to f— you.

The line between flirtation and sexual harassment comes down to whether a woman wants to f— you. That's the line.

Dirty jokes?

You interrupting and "mansplaining" to a female coworker?

You being assertive and aggressive in your personality?

You acting like a healthy masculine man and treating women like women?

All are totally fine if she wants to f— you / thinks you're attractive.

No woman is ever going to report Brad Pitt for "sexual misconduct".

Harsh reality: Most men are not Tom Brady, Brad Pitt, Idris Elba, InsertYourRaceHere

Get yourself as fit, well dressed, and attractive as possible. But if you're not in the top 20% of male attractiveness (women when surveyed rate over 3/4 of men to be unattractive) and rocking the energy that makes women like you

= YOU MUST BE CAREFUL AND SELF AWARE

 

[3DStudent]

I really wonder if there is something to these magicians. I watched up to the first 8 minutes and those face changers really made me question what is going on here. Do you think these people really may have sold their soul to 4D STS in order to do some of these things?

I got around to watching about an hour of that magicians video, and then skimmed through the rest. I was mainly concerned because I have an autograph of David Copperfield's when I saw him live in the 90's as a kid. I was interested in magic as a kid, but I think is just children's sense of wonder and the mysterious. It seems like it can be a pathway of power and fame to those who go down that path.

With that I'd think there are genuine illusionists that are good with their hands and making you see what they want you to see. And then some things seem like there would have to be some hyperdimensional component to them. I wonder what someone like James Randi, who seeks to explain illusions, would think of the most unbelievable acts? I think it's good to be careful with it. So I think it's better to be a jester than a magician. Jesters tell the truth, and magicians hide it.

 

[Εἰρήνη]

Laura and the team. I greatly appreciate your work! The last session is really eye opening. It addressed many things I have been pondering about lately.
This was very important to understand:

Recall that 4D is a realm where thought has the power to create. If a mind, and here we mean much more than you understand as mind, thinks about a structure or something that needs to be accomplished, it assembles itself, more or less. Then when the structure is sent back through the realm curtain, the "idea" is the attractor blueprint that draws to itself the matching elements from your reality and they proceed through the process of organic assembly. This occurs because even inanimate matter has a minimal level of matching consciousness.

It makes me wonder if somehow we can reach 4D with our thoughts and while grooving (perhaps walking in circles leftward or doing some other physical activity) we can bring some of it down to 3D? And if the effect would be even 1% of what 4D minds are capable of - maybe it worth it. Just a wild thought.

Another thing from the session that I have been pondering for a while before the session:

A: Consider carefully the developmental pathways of the three test cases. First you have Judaism. It began as a widespread cult of comet/storm god worship. It was reformulated to meet the needs of a dispossessed people and encourage solidarity among them. Christianity had a dual beginning. First was an apocalyptic cult of intolerance and violence. Second was a message of spiritual transformation based on the life of an extraordinary man full of mercy. Islam is the miscegenation of the worst of both. How can there be any positive elements out of complete falsehood?

I always thought about the connection between people of Islam and their surrounding environment. Right now most fanatics of this religion live in deserted areas. It seems to have significance.
Mother energy is connected to water; people are surrounded by water in the womb, water just like mother gives life etc.
Islam impose many restrictions on women and therefore on this energy of water, which is reflected in their environment.
Arabs before Islam used to be remarkably bright! Islam religion almost seems as a virus/plaque in a way it spread out.