My only problem with the idea of a social gospel, a prosperity gospel or even an imperial gospel is simply this: they aren’t in the Gospel.

I wanted to just end the article there, but for those brave souls who doubt me, or who think it’s gotta be more nuanced than that (the classic Large groups of people just can’t be that stupid objection)…

My main thesis, the inescapable result of reading the gospels contained in the Christendom canon (not to mention some newly discovered ones), is that the Gospel or “positive message” (euangelion/εὐαγγέλιον in Greek) is at every turn esoteric, mystical and spiritual. Jesus says, “The kingdom of God is within you.” Jesus’s main message is very direct, personal, and transcendental. Hence I think the main problem all these assorted “Christian scenes” have in common is that they debase the teachings of Jesus, turning something heavenly to something grounded in the flesh, fear, the world and in matter. But note that I don’t just criticize the twentieth-century trends of social and prosperity gospel (which are acquiescences to wider movements rather than being rooted in the Bible, much less the gospels); I put the imperial gospel of Constantine in this same category. The Roman Catholic West has taken Constantine’s essentially heresies of Churchianity even further by discussing incarnation and transsubstantiation (or what I like to call “the downward things”) far more than resurrection and ascension (“the mysterious things”). These examples of just bad theology are sure signs that organized religion has taken what was spiritual or mystical and hijacked it to political ends. All of these movements are part of wider (often Pagan and even Jewish) movements, and quite often a new false gospel will come along as a reaction to the inherent problems of an older false gospel. So for example, empire creates inequity, so shallow thinkers might advance socialist ideas by dressing them up as a valid (if aneurism-inducingly shallow) interpretation of the Gospel. But then socialism creates economic stagnation, so shallow thinkers might advance materialist ideas with a Gospel veneer for their simple-minded congregations. And on and on and on it goes.

Now I want to speak to the root objection that I refer to above, namely the anti-misanthropic objection (that is never rooted in experience but in brainwash and vanity, you know who you are). Are people morons? No, but society is. This sounds harsh, but you take a good hard look at the species homo sapiens. Individually, they have had the most wonderful ideas. But in committee all their genius/juno fails them. Individually, we’re fairly decent, but like dogs in a pack we commit Klan-like atrocities. As the suffragette refrain goes, “Though we adore men individually, we agree that as a group they’re rather stupid.” And this holds true for women as well. That is, to the extent that people form what may be called groups and not mere hierarchies.

❤ I love my awesome sponsors! ❤

Scrutinizing the corporate mottoes variously used by the Western world’s most successful religious franchise, Roman Catholic Christianity

An evolving faith with evolving rhetoric. Roman Catholics, a group that late into the 1960s used to boldly brag that outside their church “there is no salvation”, have in recent decades dialed back their rhetoric to claiming to have within it the “fullness of the truth”. (Whew!) But before examining this fresh shift in boast by the world’s most populace body of Christian believers, I thought we’d briefly explore some of Roman Catholicism’s earlier rhetorical pivots in what they appeal to as the source of their legitimacy.

The “emperor appeal”. Most Roman Catholics I’ve spoken with can’t tell me why the bishopric of Rome (and not say that of Jerusalem) came to be the “Holy See” (in other words “sacred headquarters”) of the Roman Catholic Church—which most of them seem sure is an essential geographical element of their religion. (!) But when asked why this is so, they’re vaguely certain it has something to do with Saint Peter the Apostle, yet by our day most people begrudgingly acknowledge that Saint Peter was never bishop of Rome (maybe because he was too busy being the bishop of Antioch, not to mention having a wife and one presumes children!) if indeed he ever ventured to Rome at all. Despite all of this, some still claim Simon Peter was martyred in Rome, yet that in no way makes the bishops of Rome his successors, since they would have scarcely met him, nor were there cardinals until at least 845 AD! It is at this point in the conversation that I drop the real bombshell. At the time when the Apostles were “sent out” (which is the definition of apostle), there was no central authority over them other than the Holy Spirit, which Jesus sent upon them on the day of Pentecost to underscore the superiority of the Law of the Spirit and Empathy to the Law of the Flesh and Dread that Moses transmitted to Israel. (Nowhere does Jesus suggest that the Twelve should heed Peter; moreover, he is in the habit of correcting Peter in front of them!) The first recognized head of Christianity was the Roman Emperor Constantine and his successors, who moved his seat of power from Old Rome to Constantinople, now Istanbul, leaving behind him the (pagan) curia and other bureaucratic bodies that would in time whomp up a self-reinvention as the Western Catholic Magisterium or teaching body. As a part of this mad scramble to regain lost prestige, the Vatican family forged the Donation of Constantine, a fraudulent letter that uses Constantine’s name to bestow on the Pope of Rome temporal power to make (and break) tetrarchs/kings in the Western Mediterranean/Europe. The Donation of Constantine, and no association with Blessed Peter, was the original and medieval rationale for the Pope of Rome’s claim to be something slightly more than mere Patriarch of the West (as he is known in the East, though the last pope, Benedict XVI, shockingly renounced this title before abdicating the papacy altogether, the first of many symptoms the Vatican has been showing of being an unstable institution of late). It is interesting to note here that, in the Hebrew Scriptures, YHWH the god of Israel (which, funnily enough, is centrally located among the civilizations of its time) never wishes for Israel to have a king, yet it is the Davidic dynasty that gives birth to both organized schools of prophecy and with it the messianic expectation that most mainline Christians believe Jesus of Nazareth fulfills, making him the true (albeit otherworldly) king of the Jews. Similarly, Jesus makes no provision for a Pope who would rule his disciples from Rome (which, funnily enough, is centrally located among those nations it rules over in its time) with Caesarian shaved face and curia—It just sorta happened over the last two millennia, like a gradual erosion, which is exactly what one can expect from a religion whose rulers misinterpret its own supposed founder and discourage its rank-and-file adherents from seeking out gurus, much less individual intuitions, for their time outside those whom their bloated bureaucracy deigns to approve in “God’s” name. As Elaine Pagels points out, the East retains the overtly imperial ecclesiology of “Saint” Constantine paired with an emphasis on God the Father, while the West pivots to an eposicopal ecclesiology paired with an emphasis on God the Son.

The fullness of the truth? Getting back to contemporary Roman Catholic rhetoric, it is true that Roman Catholic teaching, in rather Solomonic fashion, borrows from its neighboring religions and mystery schools those things that it deems best—whether best for the lay faithful or best for the institution’s grip on said lay faithful remains to be seen. (When a Roman Catholic is young, they are told that the Catholic Church is the “Sacrament of Salvation”, yet it is interesting how the clergy, taken as a whole, seem to place a higher premium on saving a culture in which they are the exclusive priesthood, rather than saving souls. The priest doesn’t even seem to adhere to the same type of belief as the parishioner does, and he will shift his language about almost any matter on a dime, just to be taken seriously by the cultural élite, leaving the simple believer scratching their heads while they are fed assurances that the essence of the faith can never really change, to trust Holy Mother Church [“HMC” on discussion fora] even when it seems to their simple minds that change [not to mention takeover] is inescapably afoot.) Being built on the ruins of an empire (albeit one that was far less invasively dogmatic that its successor), the Roman Catholic leadership thinks nothing of lifting a tradition from a tributary culture and claiming it as their own, in order to enhance the illusion of a uniquely “Catholic genius” (juno?). The inherent problem that no one is talking about is of course that when a truth is stolen in such a way that refuses to honor the cultural matrix that nourished it, much of that truth’s meaning is lost and what’s worse is twisted, to the point that a teaching that was once life-giving (often because folksy and non-dogmatic in tone) can become demoralizing and useful for the dark arts of mind control, a thing that anthropologically we often find going hand-in-hand with child molestation—am I in the ballpark? The Roman Catholic Church claims to be “the best in the business” at sifting truth (“orthodoxy”) from falsehood (“heresy”) (supposedly because of divine anointing but really through worldly experience) especially on matters of faith and morals (which conveniently are the two most unfalsifiable, auto-suggestion-based topics there are), yet somehow they just can’t get their story straight on how exactly they came by this authority—none of which speaks well to their expertise in the area of even basic humility or morality, on which they seem so enamored of lecturing the sheeple. So yeah, I’ve a solid hunch that somewhere in this my description of the dynamic the Roman Catholic clergy perpetuate, lies the real answer to how they gain so much control over the minds of men, rather than this “having all truth” tripe, which if God is good he would have rather bestowed on a turnip root than on such obnoxious jellyfish as the clergy. And besides, if this whole “God did it” line failed to distract us from the sound historical context for Jesus’s insights, then why in Dante’s Inferno would it succeed in explaining away the Roman Curia’s uncanny edge in making most folks feel like insignificant idiots? And that brings me to my next fun-filled paragraph:

This imperial decontextualizing of truths was perpetrated on Jesus first. If Jesus was somehow inorganically/machistically infused with all knowledge from his divine nature that connected him to the rest of the Trinity, then that abrogates the need for a faith-filled person to look into the similarities of his words to those of others of his school of which he was one “Hin-Jew guru-yogi-prophet” among many. And yet for those who don’t have the luxury of the theological virtue of gullibility (“faith”), it does not look like a coincidence that Jesus’s teachings are 98% identical to those of Krishna (yes with reincarnation implied in at least three separate passages just within the four canonical gospels alone, that is the ones our friend Constantine left unburned). But even to those still under the heavy yoke of dogmatic faith, let’s just put this bug in your ear that there are more intellectually satisfying explanations for Jesus’s teachings, explanations I might add that make them no less divinely inspired but merely indicate that if you were to look within your hidden self you might find tantamount wisdom. Or let’s put it this way: Jesus is not only our mediator not only with God the Father; he is also our culture broker with the Far East, and the raw power of his words should activate our own best nature, rather than be dampened by the ignoble agenda of a spiritually dead clergy. I mean, if you want to keep the faith and obedience that they preach but don’t practice, that’s fine, but at least remember that there’s more to you and more to Jesus, because neglect that is to miss the whole kingdom of God idea and to wallow in worldliness and ultimate spiritual ruin. The main thing I take away from Jesus’s teachings is that the things that matter are all a question of spirit and intuition not flesh or system, and fools rush to claim authority where angels dare not tread.

Antisocial narcissists (“elitists”) can’t stand being mimicked. One solution I would propose is simply to start imitating these clergy (and all their elitist goombas). Why not? And hey, the good news is that India has the truth, and that truth is that this whole world is a dream, so in effect you’ve been deceiving your own self, but it doesn’t matter because it’ll all be dispelled when you awake from this dream. Stop the Vatican’s lie stampede of dead in its tracks. Dominus vobiscum et namasté!

❤ I love my awesome sponsors! ❤

Puritanism is the haunting fear that someone somewhere might be happy.
(H.L. Mencken)

All of my field research strongly indicates one thing: The longer you let a self-identified “Christian” do the talking, the higher the statistical probability that they’ll confidently inform you that, because the first man indulged the first woman’s mystical impulses, therefore all their descendants [1] are, from their incubation, plagued by all manner of pain, illness, death and a posthumous mock-“trial” in which their immortal soul [2] will, by default, be sentenced to an eternity of hell for something they didn’t do [3] (an injustice that’s bound to accentuate hell’s agony all the more). And, as strange as it may sound (and as largely un-Biblical as it actually is), the only way out of this looming kangaroo court date to which the Grim Reaper waits to shuttle us all, is if you, at some point during your present incarnation, repent of your ancestors’ sins as well as your own and . . . and this is the part where they can’t keep their stories straight but always manage to entertain the seasoned enquirer.

But let’s just stop the tape at the part of the Christian sales pitch I’ve boldfaced above. Because here’s where things get even weirder. See, for all these unspeakable setbacks that are, by Western Christians’ constant and loud profession, our ancestral curse for having committed the original sin of essentially independent thought (aha), most Christians are just as confident that no one is born with homosexual much less cross-gender tendencies, never. Yes, you definitely come into this world with the juridical cards stacked against you, and you could even be stillborn (in which case you’re screwed both here and in the hereafter [again, this doesn’t come from Jesus but from later empire-friendly “fans” of his like Augustine]) as well as born with all kinds of debilitating diseases, deformities, whether from your chromosomes, from your formation or from the birth process—but the only thing you magically cannot inherit from anyone from Adam and Eve down to your birth parents is gender ambiguity/fluidity of any kind.

Same-sex attraction and opposite-sex identification, among all the “sinful” tendencies a.k.a. “concupiscence”, is, we are supposed to believe, completely arbitrary and man-made, having nothing to do with natural urges. Even though the Bible says nothing of the kind. Even though other primates perform acts of “sodomy”. Even though all common sense says otherwise. (Because that’s faith!)

Don’t know what to make of all this? Well, here’s my take on it. (And I grant you that the élite almost certainly pull shady stunts that promote such things for population control [to include lifespan reduction].) With a few weird exceptions, systematic theology and evangelistic scare tactics have always involved aggressively misapplying “God’s word” and other mystical inspirations for political (read hypocritically abusive) goals, rather than seeking logical consistency, let alone a deep personal understanding of divine ways.

And this example, dear brothers and sisters in Christ, is the smoking gun that should signal to the discerning mind all that’s wrong with most evangelism. So if your brain is convicting you tonight to confess your hypocrisy and stop sounding like a complete nut, I would invite you to ask the Lord to show you a better way that doesn’t involve absurd mental gymnastics and extra-Biblica judgment of others that fill you with a Pharisaical type of pride because “you’re not like the others”. Jesus says “be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves”, so the exact opposite of “be a loudmouthed simpleton”, which aptly describes most Christians you meet. The best answer of all is to move from discursive “prayer” (talking at God) to meditation (listening to God, who speaks within the heart). Blessings.

________
[1] Descendents of Adam and Eve are, unbiblically, presumed to include all members of the species homo sapeins.
[2] Their afterlife bodies will stand “trial” reincarnated in Superman-type bodies.
[3] This hypothetical hell is a place that you just have to use your imagination to imagine as being even more excruciating and insufferable than the idiocy you are witnessing.

Why this need to throw rotten tomatoes at Thomas, the Apostle of the Cross
(basically re-martyring him)?

We’re taught to revile Thomas as faithless, but in fact he has more faith than any of the disciples. He has so much faith that Jesus tests it by appearing to everyone else right when Thomas steps out of the room. He later tells Thomas that blessed are they who have not seen and yet believe. But who does he have in mind? None of his other followers, that’s for sure!

See, unlike Blessed Peter, the Apostle Thomas isn’t reproached for lacking faith. (None of the disciples call Jesus their “god”—only Thomas.) What Jesus says is that Thomas believes that Jesus has revived because he has seen with the eyes of the body. But the gospels make it inescapably clear that all the disciples saw Jesus resuscitated before they believed that death had not vanquished him. Thomas did not see Jesus die, yet the one who did (not counting women, since one did not in those days), John the Theologian, has been telling Thomas that he saw Jesus alive again, as has everyone else. These are the people Thomas has been living, eating and sleeping beside for three to six years. When you read the text for yourself, it doesn’t seem so much that he lacks in faith as that he “suffers” from depression, but a depression that may bear much edifying fruit (contrary to what the empire of then and now would have you believe). Thomas seems to really understand the message of the cross and the mystery of restorative pain and sorrow long before the other disciples are really at home with it—assuming they ever are.

I don’t think Thomas has a high opinion of his life, perhaps partly due to his chaotic time and place. Remember that this same Thomas (whose name means “Twin”) was the first to suggest that Jesus’s apostles should be martyred. Apparently Thomas—unlike Peter in particular—was catching on to the message of the cross and of accepting Jesus’s teachings without placing the ego first. You can just see him nodding, for example, at the teaching about the grain of wheat. Thus, I don’t find it far-fetched that Jesus would reveal special logia (or “Jesus-isms”) to Thomas, that a true Gospel of Thomas (however reviled by the imperial church) may very well be legitimate, however politiclaly inconvenient. You can tell Jesus is aching to teach plainly not just in parables, and once or twice he tries to lay out the flesh-annihilating truth to his closer disciples, yet when you’re outside of India you have to watch your Ps and Qs. (No wonder Thomas was sent to India! It seems likely to me that Thomas rendezvoused with Jesus in Kashmir after all the drama in Jerusalem, because he was the most interested in learning the way to follow Jesus out of the Levant, whether in the body or out of the body as it were.) Perhaps Thomas wasn’t a doubter at all—based on just the four medieval Gospels alone, I’d venture to say he was simply a contemplative…

❤ I love my awesome sponsors! ❤

In the Western world, we’re often familiar with monotheism but not monism (let alone nonduality), with pantheism but not panentheism, with atheism but not nontheism, and perhaps especially with egoism but not immanentism. As a USAmerican, my personal (from the Latin word for “mask”) “view”/“belief”/“opinion” about the universe, which is tethered to my sense of my personal destiny, often as individualistically geared as it is subjectively conceived and almost always separate from any calm observations of phenomena (signs) or patterns (wisdom). (Outside of the Pentecostal movement, it is rare for Westerners to believe in post-Apostolic miracles [that aren’t “the devil”], let alone revelations.) I cherry-pick from among life’s facts and nature’s laws the same way I cherry-pick from among Bible verses to doctor up my own ideas until I’m convinced that they would stand up in a debate (an imaginary and very medieval debate which I of course never actually engage in, certainly not with someone of any appreciable fluid intelligence), and if anyone ever challenges my castle in the air with real acumen and tough love, I melt right down and claim I’m being “attacked” for being a believer, persecuted by an infidel—which then only serves to prove to my own satisfaction that I’m walking the straight and narrow, because I’m being slandered for Jesus’s sake (even though all that’s actually happening is I’m having my fancies examined by a non-flatterer). And thus I am accomplished at feigning rationality while harboring notions that when said aloud sound to almost everyone else like I surely must have just fallen off a turnip truck or spent twenty years in a prison cell with one phrase written on a square of toilet paper. The root of all of this, of course, is that I do not philosophize on any of it, because ultimately what I mean with the theological term faith is “never admitting one’s doubts”. I keep so busy—and become so entrenched—in trying to badger others into accepting my mindset that I’m not looking for how my experiences might qualify, much alter, my “beliefs”. While waxing religious, then, I spurn mysticism, exposing the fact that it’s been about politics all along. This must be the main reason most people never grow to the point of questioning the need to hold on to hand-me-down beliefs at all. Western activists have this refrain Question everything, yet most of them would never dream of living by those words, no, what they mean is for those they wish to unsettle to Question your own beliefs so that they may come under the illusion that I alone am correct.

Now let’s go back in time and look at some concrete things. First of all, men who work phenomena, prophecize, etc. (such as Cagliostro, Nostradamus, etc.) show up in many times and places, whether or not they claim divinity or a divine mission (usually the legitimate ones don’t of late, since the whole paradigm of divinity has become so unrecognizably twisted, as I am constantly reminding my fellow-Westerners in theist vs atheist debates, earning me the hatred of both. Men (i.e. men and women) have also copied from other men, particularly from those who went before them. Usually, they have been harmless and even helpful to morale and insight, but occasionally they have been predators. I need not assert, however, that the Bible was intentionally copied from the Hindu and Egyptian scriptures, though it is a dead-certainty that it did, if not consciously then owing to the pre-existing vast knowledge of the court writers of the kings of Israel and those Gnostics who frequented the Library of Alexandria. Because even without this overwhelming probability, we have the monkey island phenomenon whereby—and you’ll think me New Age but that’s not what this is—something learned in one land is simultaneously known by the same species in a disconnected land, using strictly brainwaves, or whatever subtle atmospheric transmission of a biological radio or innate psychic powers you care to posit, again the point is that it’s been observed and documented. Preachers of Biblicism and Occidentalism despise all mention of the Silk Road that has connected India to Macedonia since at least Alexander’s time and frankly even before then, or of the very Egyptian nature of the Law of Moses, or the extensive sea trade routes that linked the whole of Eurasia from Japan to Iceland and probably beyond, from basically prehistory! But perhaps owing to the fact that these intel transmissions (whether material, subtle or both) had nothing to do with government (unless we’re talking deep-state idealists and spies) and because this whole field of study messes with a sort of insular civilization narrative with all the false certainties it affords us, whether theological or merely chauvinistic—because God knows we’re not talking about all White people (which I have come to understand as a common euphemism that really means “reductionistic, bossy, authoritarian, plagiaristic parasites of today’s Babylonian Talmud cultural hegemony”—see also city dwellers, the rich)—academia has conveniently avoided going too in-depth on the vast accomplishments of the Chinese from whom we got if not pasta itself certainly gunpowder and the printing press.

The same mindset that neglects to honor the Chinese for kickstarting modern Western information and weapons technology (and we could go on and on about the Spanish Semitic Moors’ discovery of modern eye surgery) also neglects to understand the non-White nature of Christianity’s precious god, Jesus, preferring to think of Christianity as having really begun in the Vatican if not Canterbury, but not in Jerusalem or Alexandria as the real scholars are getting some big hunches. (Relatedly, the Jews known to medieval Europe have tended to be quite suspiciously lighter-skinned, bolstering the myth of a lily-white Holy Family). Even Augustine of Hippo, the guy who told us all what the Bible “really” meant (namely, original sin), was North African and had been a disciple of Mani, whose religion Manichaeism was founded in India but mostly only survived in the West and only until the end of the Middle Ages. What we think of as Christianity wasn’t just founded by Jesus (himself heavily influenced by the Buddha and other Indian yogi traditions, not to mention Socrates [“Who is my neighbor/enemy?”]), but in short order was touched in the West by the misogynistic Mithraic mysteries and by the dualistic Manichean clubs—all by late antiquity. And let’s not forget Plotinus the (Neo) Platonist! I mean, if people had gone by Jesus’s teaching left to itself, they wouldn’t even be marrying, let alone steadying a teetering empire and “way of life” (which calls for victim identity politics and hating one’s neighbor let alone one’s enemy).

The list of plagiarisms, false attributions and tier-specific doctrines in Christendom and later Freemasonry is literally endless, but I think the takeaway here is that, as the Hindus have been telling us all along, everything is connected: every nation, every subject, every belief system. I mean, you could visualize a painter’s palette where you have various colors on the outside and they all mix in the middle—only, instead of solid paint it’s pure light (consciousness) such that the center shines like a kind of sun of relentless realism. So in the outer darkness on the palette’s brim you might see Western extremisms such as atheism, monotheism, egoism, materialistic pantheism…then as you move inward you get into the more nuanced or refined nontheism, monism, immanentism, panentheism…and in and in, and increasingly esoteric and wise.

If you do nothing else, take just one of your beliefs whose inconsistency has been bugging you for years, and sit and ponder it. I’m not going to tell you what to think, primarily because I already know that you already know. And I mean, honestly, whether it’s Santa, Jesus, God, or Gandalf, my advice is to make friends with the gods (that is, the forces of life and nature), love them, and transcend them. Namaste and jai jinendra.

❤ I love my awesome sponsors! ❤

“Am I being detained or am I free to go?”
“I will require an Attorney before I answer any questions.”
“Am I free to go?”
“Am I free to go?”
“Am I free to go?”
“Am I free to go?”

If you bear the unenviable burden of having been born into a brutally oppressive police state (such as the USA), you have probably learned about the need to be soft but firm with “police officers” (hereafter “cops”); specifically, you are advised always to be reasonably on your guard by always remembering and when necessary doing the following:

1. All cops (not just the suburban/rural ones) represent the Anglo-Saxon Mafia and operate as guards for the rich, or more appropriately the ruling class whose top priority seems to be to make us all dependent (taxpaying, on the grid) so that it will be easier to impose Marxism on us. They are all good old frat boys, members of the FOP, certainly one of the most un-American nationwide organizations. This even includes their minority-ethnic mules, pretty much exactly like the illegal drug trade and often the same families!); videorecord everything you see them do and say.
2. All cops habitually tread on the Constitution; neither render nor receive any paperwork or verbal agreements. (Don’t let them use their trademark scare tactics to make you think that freedom is the enemy of security or that it is un-American to know and advocate for your rights; this is no selfish act, rather you are making the world safer for others who may not be as equipped. The system shows the people no mercy, and as such it deserves none.)
3. No cop, no matter how supposedly “good” or “clean” or “serve-and-protect-y”, can survive exposure; speak loudly so any bystanders can hear and know what is happening.
4. All cops are dirty cops who at the very least participate in regular nighttime brawls and even more homo things—on top of filling their heads with those, to sane people, disturbingly morally ambiguous evening shows where cops test the limits of how inhumanely they can break the law so that “justice” may come of it—so always be ready to defend yourself and/or to make a citizen’s arrest. (In other words, be armed to the teeth, if you value your life more than unconstitutional statutes.)
5. All cops are profiteering corporate employees; request his name, number, and supervisor’s direct line—they’ve never refused me, though I can’t speak for the deceased whom they possibly have refused (!).
6. All cops train with the IDF (Israeli “Defense” Force, a laughable misnomer the Jewish State have given their army), a branch of the constitutionless and transparently racist (“Zionist” [“nationalist”]) Israeli military that protects illegally Palestinian-displacing settlers and carry out other strategies designed to preserve what Jimmy Cater has referred to as an apartheid system in the ever-expanding State of Israel, which Holocaust survivor Hajo Mayer has called systemically indistinguishable from Nazi Germany. They also test weapons on Palestinians, mainly children, that are illegal under the Geneva Convention and communicate the results back to the dictatorships who sponsor these again obviously Nazi-inspired experiments they coldbloodedly carry out under thin pretexts often frosted thick with words like terror.
7. To add insult to injury, many precincts use the dark-age Khazar seal as their logo, which is like the “Star of David” (as it’s often unhistorically called, or simply the hexagram), only it has a circle instead of (hexagon-shaped) inner lines. (The relevance of this is that folklore scholars and emerging genome scientists alike have confirmed yet another fact that we were told for years was just “anti-Semitic rhetoric”, namely that the Ashkenazi “Jews” are really descended from the central-Eurasian mutts known as “Khazars” who built an empire on the backs of the Slavs in the western Steppes and espoused what at best can be called “a kind of Judaism” in the [AD] 700s.)
8. All cops were bullies in school and get their jollies off of oppressing not only minorities (which is somewhat well-reported) but also “nerds”, especially youths and adults on the autistic spectrum. One cop in Nevada actually went undercover into a high school, befriended a lonely austic student, asked him to buy weed for him (whose use honestly would have protected the autistic student from such a stunt in the first place) and got him the maximum sentence, to the shock and horror of the autistic boy’s parents who could only watch helplessly. Furthering the idea that today’s cops were yesterday’s school bullies, it is known that at least some police academies have instituted IQ ceilings for prospective cadets, nor have the courts taken any action against this moronification of government’s most violent bureaucracy. Do not expect them to have any appreciable interest in your peace of mind or safety—if anything, it’s their goal to deprive you of these—especially if you are a minority, scholar, or anyone who wouldn’t be at the jock table (later dive bar).
9. Many cops (ProTip: look for unusually deformed faces and hands) are veterans who were sent on rapid-fire repeat tours to the Middle East and surely suffer from PTS (formerly PTSD). Treat them as you would an armed and dangerous mental patient—i.e. the less the better.

❤ I love my awesome sponsors! ❤