Christmas from a Bronze Age pervert. I have many good musics for you on this show. That what you just heard was beginning of Bach Magnificat, a wonderful Christmas musics. This show will be merely another music show with long classical music interludes. I will see what I feel like playing for you, but mostly Bach music of a religious setting, including some Easter musics. I hope this okay, not just Christmas, but Easter. Bacchus strong Lutheran, old Lutheran spirit. I hear him, it make me want to convert to that spirit of power of Luther. But now, sorry I have to do a disclaimer before all this because Lutheran church is now his community center for the lesbian, for refugee center, Somali, and I saw Episcopalian church some time ago that had Hindu dance exhibitions.

It's just community center for shit-lib women. So I know Episcopalian is different from Lutheran, of course, but as we know, it is not. It's all the same fecal now. Everything is same fecal. The churches have been taken over by the state in the West, so they all teach the same thing. Just as surely as the church and all different sects were infiltrated and corrupted by communism in the Soviet Union or in the Eastern Bloc. So you're actually getting the state religion no matter what. You're getting regime ideology in the religious guard. That's all. It's Tranese and Jews all the way down like the ancient world made of turtles. One turtle on top of another all the way down. Only here is a big nose on top of male-to-female trans ideology.

That's your government, your universities, your churches. You have these guys attacking me now, these so-called threads, you know, that crazy girl. But much worse, too, she's relatively intellectual compared to the others. But, you know, the other, the various fag converts, and now this astroturf online. So I'm going to have to write about this, you know, long article because it's quite detailed matter only fit for writing because it's a two-step process the psychology of the sodomite convert it's the two-step process by which a sodomite converts first of all it's usually to Catholicism and then soon after he becomes a fed asset the federal asset of some kind by the way I don't attack all Catholics of course you know this do I have to be a

I have to introduce for you these such qualifiers for notes for you, you know, because this show is for religious musics. This show is for Christian musics to glorify the birth of Jesus Christ, and I am allowed to point out the imposters first. I think that's even a prerequisite of what I want to discuss on this show because, so So get this, these fag, faker, trads, they attack me as supposedly a pagan, right? So they say I'm the Pied Piper leading the flock astray with a sinister and a pagan spirituality that leads the people away from the Christian faith. And they say that I'm preying on people's desire for the spiritual, but I'm leading them into a secular and political spirituality that makes use of Christian longings and that puts them in the service of a cruel pagan program.

I think that's what they're saying. At least the more intellectual among them accuse me of something like this. So in fact, but forgive me if I repeat myself, but who am I? I am a guy with a book and a radio show and I'm an internet crazy guy. Most people haven't heard of me. That's an understatement. The vast majority haven't heard of me. So their mouths runs very big and swells with righteous piety when confronting someone relatively unknown like me. But they had a chance, and they still do, to take on the idolatry of the Holocaust and the idolatry of slavery. And these idolatries do everything that they accuse me of, but a thousand times bigger. And yet they say nothing. This imagery of the Holocaust, of slavery, that have appropriated Christian concepts,

Christian imagery of the Christian passion story, explicitly appropriated it. This New York Times, I don't even know what it's called, 1619 Project, but they twist it now into this new religion that serves the passive-aggressive, feminized paganism, or gnosticism of the modern state. It wears this garb one day, it calls itself liberal democracy the next day. And these self-righteous faggot trads who put on the garb of religions themselves, they dare say not one word against it. But they attack only me and my friends who are, you know, 4chan people who like to have fun and pranks online and memes, and who are basically the only corner left anywhere with a public audience, however small, that says anything effective against this Leviathan. Well, so much for these imposters,

but to turn to lighter matters, I will talk on this show of the musics of Bach, which are fundamentally religious and Christian and Lutheran in spirit, but I'm not here to give you a theology lecture about these things, but about quite different matter, my ideas, not lecture, and to emphasize that Bach's music, besides being pious in character, is often also regal. It's a royal spirit. So let me show you, let me show you. I ask my bass mulatto to hit it. Let's hit the Bach concerto in F minor. Hit, hit F minor. Okay, you see what I mean? Doesn't that make you just see royal procession, or in particular, doesn't it make you see in your mind The day I will enter Guatemala or Dominica on an elephant, and I will be crowned king by the grace of God while this music plays in the background.

You know about Chiapas, right? You know Chiapas now, they make good coffee these days. But, well Mexico, you know, is a white supremacist state. We often joke about this, but you look during Obama years, we had this joke that they had a whiter administration than America. By the way, I apologize for some background noise, but because I move to new safe house every two weeks almost or every month, this one has quite some noise from the street and detrimental robots from cars on street construction site. They give me no peace. Oh, so wonderful to live in city. You have no peace because of the constant noise, constant construction site on roads. So you see it during Obama administration, a joke that, you know, Mexico had a whiter government in America. So I don't need to

go over how the white ruling class of Mexico, they don't want to provide for their own Indian subclasses, so they send them instead to the United States. You know, the ruling class, the presidents of Mexico, almost always look white. I recommend again Victor Davis Hanson's Mexifornia book if you want to read more about this. But there was an uprising in Chiapas, which is in the south of Mexico, the very south, where the things just got so bad and so hopeless that these poor Indios, the Mayas, they're all like four foot tall, the ugliest people in the world, I'm afraid. I can't imagine the least sexy people in the world. But many don't even speak Spanish. They had an insurgency. So it came out as the guy leading the insurgency, you know what's coming, you know, so he's 100% white, okay?

He's totally Iberian. He's whiter than some people who are claiming to be leaders of the alt-right in the United States right now, right? So I won't go there, you know? So he's this totally white guy, sub-commandante Marcos, the leader of the jungle Mayans in Chiapas of their insurgency. So he's not just white, he comes from a middle-class teacher's family in Tampico, which is a port city in northeast east coast of Mexico, in the Gulf of Mexico, that used to be a phenomenally wealthy city. And he became a Maoist insurgency leader, you know, so this is white supremacism. This is the real alt-right. You know, it happened with ISIS leaders too. Leaders of ISIS were Chechens with red beards. This is a red man excellence. Mohammed was Irish. This is well known.

Oliver Cromwell, the Mohammed of the English, he was Irish also, I think. So it will be with me when I lead a mass popular revolution in South America, or better yet, I will take over the Darien Pass and the Panama Canal, one of the choke holds of this world. I will lead a military movement of four foot nine inch Panamanian Enochs. I mean, Ewoks, you know, like Star Wars, portly, Panamanian Ewoks with a dwarf face. They will also call me subcomandante, I love this. This is the best title for insurgency leader. So the one will see my might as I ride war elephant into Panama City in procession of coronation with palanquine in front that houses holy bust statue of Heraclitus. They will raise the flag high and say subcomandante And while Bach regal musics are pleased in the background,

so the world will tremble as my might is unleashed upon them. The women will be in awe. I hear Bobby Fischer, he interview, you know, the chess player Bobby Fischer, he talk how he goes in a Japanese bath, not a gay bath house, but in normal Japan, in public, you go to public baths, and he say the men were amazed at the size of his cock there. You know, there is new study I see this week show Chinese women prefer Aryan men. Bobby Fischer was Aryan honorary. And even in China, this is real scientific study. I don't make it up. In same way, all the media whores, they will fall in love with me. All the outlighted media whores, they will want to submit to me. You hear me, Tomi Lahren? Tomi, you hear me? Please call me. Slide into my DMs. I can make that P pop. Tomi knows.

Tomi sees the power in my eye. Lauren Southern sent me photos with my book. Her sister adores me. I'm the most vicious and ruthless champion that there's ever been. My style is impetuous. My defense is impregnable. I'm just ferocious. I want your heart. Praise be to the Godhead. Listening to Bach makes me want to convert to Lutheranism. Does that offend you? Some of you spurgs only would feel good if someone converted for reasons, for principles. But converting for music to whatever religion or belief, converting for music, or because of an artist glorifies the faith through painting, I think that's much stronger. You see this in Plato's Republic. There is a whole book about how the guardians of the Republic they're raised on the right sort of music and art.

They're not on reasons and speeches and on principles Because the right music and art is a much surer soil for loyalty to rise than the reasons. Reasons change, other reasons come, reason is weak. I don't need to go through all of how a state is founded on propositions, is both brittle and violent. You all know this by now, that you cannot found a state on that, on principles. All these fake conservatives, you're already tired, who talk about proposition nation and principles and all this. You know ultimately they mean an empire based on ideology and words. Now it's interesting here because people often think of the Soviet Union right so it's terrible and so forth but it lasted for 70 years and did a lot of damage even as unnatural as it was it was quite strong and that's

the best that an ideological state can be and that's something quite bad except But in the American case and in the West European case right now, it's not even that, you see. So yes, ideological states are short-lived, they're violent, even totalitarian. But to be fully consistent, an ideological state such as these conservatives pretend they want, you would need a kind of inquisition. You see, if you're really serious about propositionation, you need to get inside people's souls. You need to know if they really believe. then very much a compatriot would be a man who is pure in his belief, no matter what his race or nation, whereas someone from your own country, even for 10 or forgotten generations, would be a traitor to you if he believed something different.

And you would need an inquisition to judge that. So do you see any of that now or even proposed? But of course not, because in fact, unlike in the Soviet Union, they can't even agree on what the orthodoxy of the regime should be. In fact, they don't want to agree on that. They don't want to say what it is, what the principles are, nor do they really care, because they change all the time. They change every day, every year, not merely because of a revolutionary fervor, but because of how cynical all of this is. In other words, what they really mean, what they say, proposition nation, nation based on idea, is well, they control the media, You see, the newspapers, the TV. So they control all the organs of communication. So they decide what the idea is that day.

They decide what the words are. So they can mean anything. So today it's patriotic for you to be one thing because their cousin owns an interesting toothpaste brand and stands to profit from that. Tomorrow it's because you have to eat fake meat and soy. And the day after, because you're supposed to forget about umpteen people killed off by pesticides and glyphosate. And then the following week, it's not proper to think of a teenager who dies in his mother's bathroom on fentanyl imported from China. So the Sacklers or some other neo-Leventine entrepreneurs can make their few hundred million. So you see, that's all it means. It changes every week. It depends which faction has some profit to make. And if you take it seriously, you may be naive up to a point, but you're a loser beyond that

if you believe any of this. So in any case, so much for a state based on a reason. You don't even have the honor of living under the Soviet Union. It's just a ramshackle copy of a copy, so that a few hundred plutocrats can make a good return that year, if they even look to a horizon of a year. Surriest of all in this arrangement are their PR spokesmouths and flunkies. Many of you are not even in on the scams themselves, and they believe these things. They say they're not even informed of it. They just know the whip hand, they move in one direction, they don't know why. But their payment is in the vanity due to the middle brows. But anyway, to go back to the nature of conversion and of belief, to the problem of religious belief, I don't mean to offend anyone.

I know what the religious among you will say. They will say, BAP, religious belief is not like acculturation based on music or on art or the formation of taste. It goes beyond belief in ideological principles and it goes beyond aesthetics and manners as well. It's something entirely beyond this of a different order. It has to do with what Schopenhauer calls men's metaphysical need. And I will agree with you, it's different from these things I've talked about. But only insofar as you have a lower opinion of art than I do. Because in the ecstatic frenzy of great music, or in the ecstatic trance of contemplation of certain paintings, these are two kinds of ecstasy induced by art. But I think you have precisely the same root as the intense feeling of religious experience.

So you look at Bernini's sculptures, or the rapture, the ecstasy of Christian saints depicted in these sculptures, and you're infected by the spirit. How is that not evangelism for this religion? So I would not apologize for what I said, and those of you who have merely political or utilitarian views of religion, to me that is kind of a Pharisaism. It's very theism of a kind, because the foundation of true religious belief cannot be moral law. Jesus went out into the wilderness. He walked out by himself, and he prayed always in the open. He prayed in open air. Why he do this? I don't know you think about that. What it means, give us but our daily bread, because the cynics, you know, the ancient Philosophical School of the Cynics, Hellenic Philosophical School, they carried their satchel

with provisions for a week. But the early Christians, they said, give us our daily bread only, not our weekly provisions. So you have to understand then how radical Jesus' teaching really was. I can't even get into it here, it's not what this show is about, but it may have been more radicals and the gnostics, which I will talk about, which I haven't even gotten to yet. But where was I? What is good and evil to the sons of God? Jesus did not pray in the second temple, because it was a false temple built by the hands of man. He did not pray with others, he prayed alone, and he told his followers to do the same. Because there is a direct experience you can have of God and of his greatness, that you You find walking out alone by yourself into the wilderness, and it has nothing to do with

community or law or ethno-narcissism or politics or morality in speech, which is just man's opinion. But all the answers to everything will come to you in a whisper if you are open to hearing it. I'm sorry, now you will say I'm preaching to you a strange sect, but you see, this is not Gnosticism. This is Christ's own teaching. He was a cynic philosopher of a sort. He was a Scythian yogi. I will be right back. What you just heard is from Bach Cantata No. 4, Jesus Christ, God's Son, the fourth section of it. And again, it makes me want to convert to Protestantism. Be careful, you may just push me to do this. You know, this cantata is an Easter cantata, Christ in the Bonds of Death, it's called, but of course with promise of rebirth and regeneration.

And Bach wrote it when he was only 22 years old, but his masterpiece, especially the very intricate choral parts, which I will play the first choral part at the end of this section. So, you know, Gnosticism, early Christian heresy is very interesting to me, and such a big topic, you could have a whole podcast, not a show, but a whole season's podcast, like the history of Rome that's just on the history of the Gnostics and the later Christian heresies. So, but what is Gnosticism? So by the way, when I describe this for you, you must not assume that I believe this or that this is my view, but you have to wait until the end for me to tell you my opinion on all of these, because I will describe for you now Gnosticism in general. And then at the end, very brief,

two or three varieties in particular, I may have to follow up with a second part show next week on this. But the ones most interesting to me like Catharism, Carpokratianism, and Marcionism. But what is agnosticism in general? You hear a lot of these words thrown around about even by people who think they're intellectuals, who talk about politics. You know, Vogtland, he talked about this. I won't get into it this time. But, you know, the movie The Ninth Gate, let me give you that example. It's a Gnostic movie, it's the Ninth Gate by Polanski movie. But actually the main character played by Johnny Depp, he's a book salesman, antique book salesman, and he look into this book that's supposed to be composed by Satan, okay? So that's not Gnosticism, okay, it's not Satanism.

Don't make that mistake. Hold off for a while, I explain to you. It's a antique book salesman and a student and a kind of a rogue character, He gets hired to study this book, essentially, and the man who hires this book salesman to study this problem, he assumes that the secret of the book in question, okay, the name of the book in question is Ninth Gate of the Kingdom of Shadows, okay? So that's the title of the book in this movie. And the writer of this book was burned at the stake in Venice in 1666. So the villain of this movie, he assumes that by finding out the secret of this book that he will be conjuring the devil, right, from the ninth gate of the kingdom of shadows. So wait a moment, I'm getting to point, this is actually not the point, it's misleading

if you focus only what I say so far, but he assumes the villain of this movie, Boris Balkin, he assumes that once he solves the riddle of this book he will be able to conjure the devil and to control his own fate or to gain special power or other such magical things. But it turns out, you should watch this movie, it's very entertaining, and Johnny Depp, he bangs a demoness at the end as the castle burns in the background. But it turns out that Boris Balkan, the villain, was deluded, and that the book referred to this world, to our world, as the kingdom of shadows. And the ninth gate was not to conjure the devil from hell, such as he believed, but But to escape this kingdom of shadows, it was a formula for salvation from this world, our world.

Gnosis, or what we could think of secret knowledge as a means of escaping this world. It's salvation not by grace, but by knowledge. Our world is seen as a kind of a hill, and it's understood as a labyrinth. It's seen as a labyrinth we have trapped, much like the labyrinth of the Minotaur, and it's believed that you can escape it with secret knowledge. I'm a bit exaggerating because some gnostic sects did think you could do it by grace also. But they believe that Jesus Christ was either a man or that he was a being, a divine being who brought secret knowledge for how to escape this world. And this has led to idiocy in popular culture like the Dan Brown books and quite a bit of other idiocy too which I may get to in a second.

But even when properly understood, I should repeat to you that I don't myself believe these things, but there are many unspoken things within this story. So, well, in one way or another, this is belief that this world, this material world, is a creation of Satan, and that the God that Jesus Christ comes from, the Godhead, is a totally different God of light. He's not the maker of this world from the Old Testament, because that world is evil, right? So you have to escape it. That's the demiurge who created this world of matter. And of course, behind much of this belief, very often explicit is this world is trash and so forth, that we live in a world of evil and suffering. So how is this possible? Because Old Testament, in Genesis, it says, and he saw that all was good.

So somebody who lives in a pessimistic time can tell you really all is good. I don't need to sell you on this because we live in a less optimistic times than before. But Schopenhauer recommends visiting, for example, the burn ward of a hospital for anyone who believes that all is good, the best of all possible worlds. The world and matter itself is evil, and man is understood as light entrapped in matter. Matter is darkness. Our soul is light entrapped in matter. This is what Gnostics believes, the light coming from a world other than this one. The light means the soul. I'm simplifying a lot now. But so soul is something that must escape this iron prison, this cage of matter, the darkness of matter. So there are two main points here. And one is that as a material world, that is trash,

it's evil, you must escape it. And two, that the teaching of the New Testament is radically different from the one of the Old Testament, that the moral teaching it has, you could say, or the vision of the world in general, of the worth of the world is really, everything is radically different in the New Testament so that there is a cleavage between the two. And it is these two problems, the cleavage between the New Testament and the old, and more fundamentally, the problem of evil in the world, the agnosticism attempts to solve or to explain. And now I will take you a quick break because it's very dark subjects I'm talking about. And I take quick break. This is not end of section. This is interlude. I want to give you some Bach favorite musics I like. Now, it's French overture.

It's not religious, totally secular music I present for you here. Please listen to Bach French overture, very unusual music. Let me know how you like it. Go to break, please. Yes, it's a French overture. I hope you like it. Most people don't because it's very difficult, suspended, the suspensions, you know. A lot of people get very disturbed by that, But I like the tension. I like very much the feeling and the energy of the fugue. So, you know, actually, to get back to what we were talking, you know, there is a cleavage between the two, the New Testament and the Old Testament. And more fundamentally, like I say, the problem of evil in the world is what agnosticism attempts to solve or to explain. So actually, I don't think the explanations Gnosticism gives are very good.

Overall, they are not very good. It's somewhat of an attempt to peep over a theological inconsistency. Schopenhauer explain you have essentially a Buddhist moral vision that they are trying to graft onto an optimistic theistic religion from the Old Testament. So now I know Christians reject this mostly, but it's an easy way to think about what the Gnostics were doing or thought they were trying to solve. Because it appears you have a Hindu or Buddhist vision of an avatar in the New Testament that came to redeem the world and give you salvation from the material world and to give you a teaching of compassion and love. And that doesn't go at all with the tribal moral law and the optimistic evaluation of matter in the Old Testament. Or so the thinking goes.

So anyway, what I've described so far led to a great multiplication of gnostic sects, each trying to solve this riddle of evil in the world with their own unusual stories and fairy tales. By the way, and I'm saying these fairy tales in the best sense of the word because they left behind fascinating stories and their stories and illustrations and tales of their heroes entered literature and the imagination of people through various unusual channels. They survived in pockets of Europe and pockets of Egypt and North Africa and valleys. Their stories survived, memories of gnostic eons. I will get to what that means in a second, and gnostic heroes. But I think the gnostic solution to the problem of evil was inadequate, because all it does, it removes responsibility from God directly.

But then he appears to be a neglectful ruler, right? He causes evil by neglect so that some gnostic sects try to put 365 heavens or seven heavens or to put 99 demiurges, each with a different name in between the original godhead and the demiurge who created our fallen world. But that's obviously unsatisfying if you think it's true. You can even put a thousand. It's just a transparent ploy to remove direct responsibility for this world of evil. This isn't my argument, okay, it's Schopenhauer's and others, but the historian Runciman, Steven Runciman, he repeats something similar. And let me read a little bit from his great book, The Medieval Maniche. You should read it, by the way, but find it online, okay?

You'll never find it in a library anymore, and it's very expensive to buy, but you can find it online. So let me read you a bit from two parts of his book. So you see general meaning of Gnosticism and also general problem or shortcoming of it. So Runciman says, first of all he says that too much attention was paid by the early church fathers to redemption from sin, but not to what is the cause of the evil of the original sin to begin with. So it is a desire to solve this problem, evil, at the base of Gnosticism. So I'm quoting Runciman now. We say, the heretics and philosophers complained Tertullian, early church father, were always asking the same question. Whence came evil, and in what does it exist? And the question that arises out of it, whence and how came man?

Unguided by the church, the heretics and philosophers sought out their own solutions. And out of their searching, Christian dualism was founded. And now this is still ransom and continuing. For dualism, for all its claims, does not any better than orthodoxy. He means just mainstream Christianity now, not just orthodox, but Catholic too. So dualism does not, for all its claims, solve the problem of good and evil. The orthodox might be unable to explain how God the omnipotent should have permitted such a thing as evil to be and to enter into the world of his creation. But the dualists only answered the question by raising a new difficulty. If Satan created the world, how and why did God allow any good to be imprisoned in it? For the dualists had to admit that man possesses

the consciousness of good. Otherwise, there could be no such thing as religion at all. To solve this problem, they had to invent innumerable stories to explain the presence of good in the world. But all of them involve the definite restriction of the sovereignty of God. The strictest dualists might answer that God is not omnipotent and that he was defeated by Satan to that extent. And this view is logically tenable, though still is a mixture of good and evil, and man needs much explanation. While Christ can only be either a peculiarly venerable member of the initiate class or an angel who paid a brief visit to earth. His role shrinks to a mere triviality, as the name of Christianity must be abandoned. There is no room for Christ in a truly dualist religion.

Thus, all good Christians must necessarily fight against dualism, and the state will usually support them. And listen to this. This is what runs him and continues now. For the doctrine of dualism leads inevitably to the doctrine of race suicide. They say that a race suicide is desirable, and that is a doctrine that no lay authority can regard with approval. Moreover, there was another reason why church and state alike detested the dualist tradition. To their minds, it was associated with orgiastic obscenity. It is possible to discount the horrible hints of orthodox writers as mere propaganda, but the regularity of the charges make some investigation necessary. Various of the gnostic sects were said to be unashamedly vicious. The Massalians had a very bad name for orgiastic behavior.

I have to stop quoting a ranchman here. I don't want to keep reading. You can find the book yourself. Except this one sect, that of the Massalians, is very interesting because it managed to keep its inner doctrine secret. So they are completely lost to us. So you think, unless they somehow survived in the modern world. But they're one of the most sinister gnostic factions, as you can see from their practices. And you know, the allegations of orgies and this kind of thing, it cannot just be slander. Because they were never, for example, or almost never directed against other heretics, like the Policians. But they were always against a particular strain of the Messalians, the Bogomils, and the Cathars, which I will discuss next and on the next show. But you see where this is going.

Oh my God, I can say no more. Please, I can say no more. Play from cantata four again. Play chorus now to purify. The relationship between Judaism, as it is known today, I mean Talmudic Judaism and Christianity, is worthy of its own show and of course is very charged, the subject full of emotion on all sides. I only say something brief about it now and I give you a couple of book recommendations that I've put before on my account as well. So first of all, the Jews themselves say that the oral law was revealed at Sinai along with the written law. But this is obviously made up. Nobody can believe this rationalization. It's more likely that the Karaite Jews continued the true tradition of ancient Israel, not the Talmudic Jews. And the Karaite Jews, of course, were terribly bullied.

I think I've talked about this before. but ancient Israelites did not follow the rabbis or the Talmud, even if the Pharisees, during Jesus' time and a little bit before, they already had inclinations in this direction of rabbinic Judaism, but it was nowhere near developed. And Jesus, of course, attacked them for replacing the word of God with their own traditions, meaning they were already starting to do the kind of legalistic casuistry, you know, the let's fool God type of thing. You know, I was talking to old friends this last weekend, and it appears Orthodox Jewish girls, you know, he's part Michelin, you know, he knows about these things, and he tells me the Orthodox Jewish girls, they believe it's okay to have anal sex with nostrils before marriage. You see, that does not count,

because the nostrils are not technically human in their religious anthropology. So it's some kind of loophole where they can get around certain rules that way, you know? So it's okay for Orthodox Jewish girls to have anal sex with blacks before marriage. It's same idea with the wigs that Hasid women wear, you know, they wear the wigs, just looking to why they do that. It's all about fooling God with loopholes like this. But this kind of thinking came much later, and in fact, the Talmud was not compiled for centuries after Jesus, until centuries after Jesus. So modern Judaism, as you see it, developed actually a response to Christianity and came after it. I'm sorry, but this is just historical fact. And many have a problem accepting this, even on the Christian side.

And nor can a Christian, by the way, truly a Christian cannot accept claims of blood continuity, as that has no relevance whatsoever in the Christian faith. But even there, by the way, it's questionable because Near Eastern ancestry does not necessarily mean Israelite ancestry. If a man from Antioch marries a Greek woman and converts to Talmudic Judaism in the year 600 or 700 AD, they will show up as having Near Eastern ancestry on a genetic test, but that does not mean they are descended from original Israelite population. In any case, the beliefs of the Christians, at least the Orthodox and the Catholics, is that the church is the new Israel, so that in fact Christians are the real people of Israel, the real Jews. It isn't the Christian's belief, it is not the Christian belief

that it is a religion that came after, but that it was always the teaching of God even in the Old Testament, but that the Hebrews misunderstood it, And this is why they kept getting punished by God. But the Christians themselves, rightly or wrongly, believe that the prophets, and in some cases, for example, the Orthodox, they call King David a prophet, but they believe that the prophets, they taught the same religion as Jesus. So Christianity, at least the kind that won out in antiquity, it never really saw itself as a different religion imposed later, or this kind of thing people are trying to claim now. And Christians never accepted the claims of Jews to be the genuine people of the Old Testament, but the church itself, like I say, is supposed to be Israel.

So, in this context, it's strange to me why Christians accept Jewish Zionism on religious grounds, when in fact there was a tradition of Christian Zionism, and there were Christian Zionist movements before in 19th century. But anyway, so much for that. I want to suggest you read a book called Two Nations in Your Womb. Two Nations in Your Womb. It's written by well-known anti-Semite and neo-Nazi Israel Yuval, who is a professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Please alert the ADL at once to this neo-Nazi menace, Israel Yuval, because in this book, he argues, well, not exactly what I just said. But he shows in some detail how Judaism developed actually in response to Christianity, and how the Talmud is written in response to the New Testament and to Christianity

as it was developing in, let's say, after 600 to after 1000 AD, so that it is actually, to put it plainly, designed to be an anti-Christian religion. And no doubt from the Jewish point of view, this is justified because they see the Christians as a Jewish sect gone haywire that tried to usurp their religion and to deny their own claims of so on and so forth. So in any case, you should just read this book, but it's interesting that Yuval and other scholars actually support the idea that the desecration of the host by medieval Jews, that it actually happened, it took place. This was supposed to be an anti-Semitic canard, but you see accusation that Jews desecrated the host and also Christian icons. There's evidence this happened, strong evidence, because around the year 1000 AD,

Christianity experienced a great change in response to the millennium in part, but also a few other things in the West with a strong turn to iconography and images, and this very much offended not only the Jews who then lived in Western Europe, but also other Christian sects, and all of these engaged in this practice of desecration of the host and of Christian icons. You know, it's never good to study the Jews in isolation and apart from other peoples or sects, and it's actually what Jewish studies scholars do, and it's also what anti-Semites do. They're both in a narcissistic and retarded dialogue with each other. But much can be gained by comparing, for example, how medieval Jews were treated to how other Christian medieval sects were treated in the Middle Ages.

And the Jews don't come off very bad at all in this, how they were treated. Others were treated worse. But also when you compare, for example, the financial side of it, when you compare Jews with other middlemen financial minorities who were invited across Europe at the time, which were quite a few, but they included the Greeks, the Armenians, the Sicilians, the Lombards, and others. And in the case of the Armenians, they brought their own weird sects with them, their own religious sects. But they too formed communities and places across Europe, and they were invited to provide financial and other professional services. And guess what? When they abused these, or were perceived to be abusing these, their privileges, they were expelled. So anyway, to get back to it,

if you think this desecration of the host business is repulsive, just wait until I get to the mixing of the blood in the food thing to the blood libel thing. So for this, you should read another book by a well-known, oh my god, well-known hardcore Nazi Ku Klux Klan white supremacist whose name is Ariel Toaf. Please call the SPLC, Anansi Pelosi, and Dan Crenshaw at once and tell them that a hardcore lone wolf neo-Nazi terrorist is on the loose, Ariel Toaf, Because this guy, he's a professor at Bar-Ilan University in Israel and also the son of the chief rabbi of Rome, okay? So that's who he is. I'm sorry if that offends you. But he wrote a book called Blood Passover that basically shows the practice of using blood, Gentile blood, by certain medieval Jewish sects.

Christian blood in particular was basically true. It's basically in their catalogs, their magical documents, and in their scriptures. There was extremist Ashkenazi sects in particular that did this. And you know, that really is a very revealing thing, because the allegation of blood libel, it followed these certain communities of Ashkenazi or German Jews as they came into southern Europe. But the accusations were never made against Sephardic Jews that had lived in the area for a long time. So then simple antisemitism isn't the explanation for this, obviously, but there's a lot more evidence than that. I mean, there's direct evidence that he looks into, and Ariel Tohaf goes into much detail,

discussing, for example, the case of Simon of Trent, who was a child murdered by Ashkenazi Jews in the city of Trent, and his blood taken, blood drained from the body. And Toaf goes into the court cases, into the documents of that particular Ashkenazi community as well, that had moved in, and he shows it was basically true that they did this. And of course the modern Catholic Church dishonours the memory of this child today, and Simon of Trent, I think, was previously a saint, or still is, but his sainthood and his day is not acknowledged by the church leadership and by Pope Faggot. Because your churches are owned and the leadership is paused like I tell you. But anyway, good luck trying to find Toaf's book because it's been taken off the market

and he's been under non-stop death threats and he's completely refused to retract what he said. He's to be commended for that. He's a hero in that way. But he lives under constant death threats for revealing this kind of thing. So, but this is very unpleasant, please let's forget this and let's go from this to Bach Magnificat The sections to Shepit Israel is nice musics, beautiful musics Please go. Marcion was a very interesting man He was an early Christian and a follower of St. Paul M-A-R-C-I-O-N who was basically he didn't like Jews, okay He didn't like old testament and he's been called by some defectives to be first anti-semite in this, you know, but He had tremendous dislike of the moral orientation of the old testament. He believed it was a world of darkness

founded in retribution and cruelty and revenge Whereas christ came with the teaching of kindness and mercy and it was this distinction that formed his dualism not so much between good and evil but between what I just said and unlike other agnostic teachers he was not so much interested in speculation about the eons or the various what's the eons eons in gnostic language are the various divine emanations or beings that are ranked below the godhead and which they were a staple of gnostic stories about the creation of this fallen material world world. I am Adamas the Guardian. Anyway, Marcion was not as interested in this kind of thing. He was a religious leader, and he founded a Gnostic church that lasted for centuries.

It was quite a competition to the main Christian Orthodox church, by which I mean small O when I say this, right? Hadn't separated yet, the Orthodox Catholic Church, the mainstream church had this competition founded by Marcion, which is a Gnostic church, and it's basically the most developed form of Gnosticism, you can say, but even so, it died out. Fundamentally, he had a hopeless message in some way, because despite his teaching of mercy and kindness, you know, like the other Gnostics, he thought that Jesus was a divine apparition, and he denied the carnal reality of Jesus, because he believed matter was evil. So of course, Jesus could not be tainted by that. And he believed that the true God, or what he called the kind stranger, sent Jesus with his teaching of love

to free us from this evil material world described in the Old Testament, this material world governed by revenge. But so even here, however, you see the rejection of the world, of matter, and consequently, like we said before, Marcionism is a teaching of race suicide and species suicide, and a state has no use for such a religion, so it was rejected. And mainstream Christianity also did not want to sever its ties to the Old Testament as much as Marcion did. So they rejected this whole outlook. While Marcion created a canon of the gospels in order to de-Judaize Christianity completely, Orthodox Christianity, small O, decided on the path I told you before, that the church was the true Israel and so forth.

Although, of course, that opens up all kinds of other theological difficulties that Marcion maybe had an easier time solving, because it is hard to reconcile Christ's teaching with the Old Testament, however you look at it. And that was fundamentally what drove Marcionism. And it's a rejection of the Old Testament. Marcionism rejected its heroes as well, and made its villains into heroes, including the snake in the garden. Such people were then called ophites, worshippers of the snake, and they were accused of degeneracy, licentiousness, other sinister things much beyond that, all kinds of eyes-wide shut practices. So, Marcianism actually was rightly accused of this. It moved very much in that direction, you see, where the initiation ceremony became a kind of magical rite,

and they initiate a practitioner of magic. It's easy to understand then, you know, why the allegations of licentiousness were made and were probably true in many cases. Because if the material world is evil, and then there is not going to be any such thing as a good marriage, for example, chastity is the only way. But since chastity is difficult and can be expected only of the inner initiates, for the laity, therefore, everything goes. Anything goes. It doesn't matter anyway, so there's no distinction between sex within marriage and outside, and in fact intercourse outside marriage is better because they saw marriage as a way to try to sanctify that which cannot be sanctified. Furthermore, since reproduction of life is evil, sexual excess against nature is then even to be preferred.

This is the Marcionite way, or what came to be in some forms of Marcionitism. And this same accusation of licentiousness follows the other gnostic sects I'm going to mention. I only mention them now, but maybe I have to cover in some historical detail on New Year's Eve the Cathars and the Karpokratians and a few others. There's no time to do it now. So who the Cathars are, you hear a lot of middlebrow conspiracy theories about Cathars. Wasn't Dan Brown into them? to them, or people like that, people like, they want to interpret them in a liberal way. But they forget, you know, who else like the Cathars. That's right, the Nazis. Look up Otto Rann. O-T-T-O-R-H-R-A-H-N. R-A-H-N. You wrote about Cathars.

He was just a stereotypical Nazi fanatic, out of central casting for movies, but a glamorous kind of Nazi, an archaeologist, an occultist, an explorer. He was also a homo, you know, the homo type of Nazi. He wrote about the katars and the holy grail, and some say that Indiana Jones' character is based on him. He was a ferocious Nazi, though, and he wrote about all this, and of course, the Wikipedia page is scrubbed. Don't believe it. tries to spin everything. But the Cathars were a medieval dualist sect. And to really explain dualism itself, aside from Gnosticism, I'd have to get into the history of Persian Zoroastrianism and the religion of Manicheanism in the ancient world. And yes, why not? New Year's Eve is a good time to talk about all this.

But for now, I only tell you that the Cathars were much like the other Gnostic sects I've talked about, including Marcionitism, and in part it descended directly from the Bogomils and the Policians, which were two similar heretical duelist agnostic sects from the Near East, Bogomils from Constantinople and the Policians from Armenia. And you had many crazy people in Bulgaria at the time. I don't know why. It just became totally insane, medieval Bulgaria. one of these sects that taught nudism, and encouraged its members to sin, so that they may receive redemption, and also encouraged its men to castrate themselves. I don't know, Bulgarians, please explain this to me. I don't understand. Obviously, this sect died out, so you can see this kind of thinking this leads to.

But anyway, what I find interesting about Catholicism, is it's, I only talk about one thing find interesting now, which is its geographic distribution in Europe. It came about in North Italy, in the Rhineland, and in southern France. And some of its rituals don't exactly correspond to Bogomilism or these other gnostic sects that came from the East, from which it supposedly descended. So what I'm getting at here is that, like in the case of the Cagods, which were an out-cased pariah people of France, also of unclear origin, but what I'm getting at here is that there may be a pagan origin to the Cathars, that there were pagan undercurrents in Europe that the church never really managed to win over, and it was embarrassed whenever

they resurfaced, so that the Cathars, I believe, are at least in part, had a pagan substrate that resurfaced now with a Christian veneer, and I think there are many such cases in the the Middle East. The Mandaeans, many sects that arose in Iran, and Assad's own in Syria, the Alawites, who are said to be crypto-Christians, but in my opinion are just as likely crypto-ancient pagans. And I think something similar was going on with the Kassars, who otherwise, they follow agnostic doctrine, much like what I've described so far. They rejected church hierarchy and in many cases like the southern French they rejected the rule of Frankish lords from Paris or the new rulers of Europe and you can see in all these cases they wanted I think a kind of return to paganism and the return to

the ancient world because you have to consider the strangeness of this doctrine is one thing on paper but in practice it's received in a very different way. Something excessively aesthetic in theory can lead to something quite libertine in practice. So the Cathars were wiped out in 1244, I think, at the siege of Montsegur. A crusade was declared against them. The Albigensian Crusade. Pontifex, by the way, still has to apologize to me for this. He's very late on that, but I demanded his apology years ago. My My patience has its limits, but the Khazars were not even the most exotic. No, for this I would have to talk to you about the Karpokratians, an ancient Gnostic sect that ceased to exist, supposedly by the modern world, and they believed not just in encouraging

you to sin in order to seek redemption, but that through sin itself you would be saved. They believed that since the laws of the Old Testament are the laws of the Demiurge, you could only arrive at paradise by engaging in every atrocity and crime. I've talked about them before. Rasputin set the klisti. They were the same, orgiastic main ads around the shaman. And the Jewish version is the Frankist. It's exactly the same. They're very unusual. They worshipped also images of Plato and Pythagoras and an image of Christ, which dualists, they don't normally do this. They're against iconography and such. So I think such sects have actually survived in the modern world, like the Carpokratians and the Mausoleans, but they did so under different names and guises, and they push

various weird things now, maybe transgenderism. The history of the world, the appearance of events now, may not be what you think it is. But this is longer talk. I only touched on Cathars and Carpokratians now, and I leave part two of this show for New Year's Eve when we will discuss in detail the history of these and other sects and I will describe to you also my war, my personal struggle in war against the detrimental robots, against the reptiloids in human form, against these covens of witches, all of them witches. I will tell you of my war against a kingdom of darkness. Now I take you to musics, wonderful musics, Bach, St. John patient, most intense religious musics ever!