>I can't sigh hard enough. That is one of the most faggotty things I've read here. It would be best if you keep the catty commentary to yourself- oh 'enlightened one.' >the ones that aren't just goyim adjacent, borrowed everything from other peoples. The ancient, mystic practices of Kabbalah aren't theirs. Gnosis and its ties to antiquity aren't theirs and the modern structure of Masonry also aren't theirs. Yeah, but when Whites were practicing those things by their lonesome, they weren't inherently Anti-White about it. It's the desire to bring about the destruction of Europeans that is part of the reason as to why they go out of their way to degrade our culture and promote degeneracy among many other things. I believe the issues with Jews are inherent to their genetics, just like it is with Negroids. I'm sick of the Bill Cooper bullshit. >Catholics are "jews". No, not just nominally. I'm not saying they're "practically jews". I'm saying Catholics are whatever "jewish" means these days. This makes zero sense and I know you'll just blame me for not understanding your nonsense but I don't really care. Catholicism isn't ethno-religious, Jews are ethno-religious. Jesuits are a parallel institution intertwined with the Catholic institutions. >Well, it's pretty simple. Ancient tribes who harbored knowledge and practices from antiquity passed their doctrine down through the ages. Once the powers of different groups organized and Jesus was pursued because he dared to make changes that qualified the people who "can't handle the ancient knowledge", or, better, people that would use it to undo certain power structures, he knew that he was going to be hunted further so he devised a plan and had people who he trusted "carry the flame". Jesus left the area. His family went West and he East. The ones that remained went underground and practiced in silence and secrecy yet again, not to keep knowledge from people, but to vet initiates because they knew they were targeted and subterfuge isn't at all a new practice. Interesting fanfic but how would you prove any of this? Also, you are saying Jesus didn't die but went off to South/ East Asia? That really is heresy, that renders a lot of the Bible pointless dribble, but I guess if you think the whole "sacrifice" thing was lame and showed how masochistic or weak he was, or too bloodthirsty/ callous, then I understand why you'd want to change that. Like Muslims also say 'he was just a prophet and of course God did not let him die, because that would show God to be weaker than the adversary'. Kind of missing the point that the true God has power over life and death, and yet he still placed himself in that vulnerable position to be tortured by mere humans- just so that he could better relate to human perspective and prove that he genuinely cared about his creation. I guess "do not throw pearls before swine" covers last part, but the Bible itself is widely accessible, and should be accompanied by it's true meaning. A non-esoteric understanding is that it's purpose was to be read by Israelites, not just anyone. >This is where you say, "yeah, but what about Jewish Gnostics?" and you jump to conclusions about how it's "satanic" like that isn't just some Hebrew word, a TITLE meaning, "adversary". I am pretty sure I already said in another discussion with you, that "Gnosticism" is a wide-net label. If you are going to make obnoxious assumptions, at least base it on things I've actually said. I already knew about the meaning of "satanic", and antinomian Gnosticism is inherently adversarial (to humanity), but "satanic" is actually adversarial in the sense that it's something that can only come from the adversary, because it doesn't come from God. So if you worship Baal, then your idea of "satanic" is going to be different than what the Prophets of the Bible meant. >Over time the first Christians disguised their workings. Today, you would compare them to what most call "Gnostics". >Jesus was a Zoroastrian. Freemasons address Jews as being the Magi, so I doubt that. If the Bible is basically entirely untrue and only ever intended to carry some intentionally hidden meaning, despite what it says about people who do that, and is actually stolen from Assyrians, despite what the Bible recorded about Assyrians, then what do you think I am likely to make of it? Is that going to appease me? Do you think I find comfort in convoluted lies? Can't you just stick to your Zoroastrian writings? Why do you have to bring Christ into it as a secret prophet of Zoroastrianism? >There you go. There's your lecture on the development of modern "judaism", "Christianity", how they relate, what inspires them and how noses have infiltrated adjacent groups that serve a similar purpose, have similar goals, but are ultimately not the same organizations just because they look like it. Even if I believed you, it sounds like a structure of occultism was created by people who can think up such things, and they rationalised how it was necessary and also for the greater good, and then they were surprised when evil natured cretins used all those systems and techniques against them. Freemasonry is distinct enough to label as it's own thing, but it is still an extension of Jewish hegemony. Christianity and Atheism are also extensions in a way, but I guess, I classify Freemasons to be direct conspirators and more knowledgeable colluders, they actively engage in the depraved undertakings against people, instead of just passively & ignorantly assisting them. I'm sure they have different rationalisations for the goals. I think individual freemasons are somewhat free to come to different conclusions based on the 'gnosis' handed to them from their 'grandmaster magi,' although that very much depends on their own capacity, they are likely guided to a certain perspective.