Giga-Spiral: Amyloids and PRIONS are not real

Giga-Spiral: Amyloids and PRIONS are not real

I watched this and it is just sad to see how Jonathan Jay Couey has sold out.  Perhaps he has been compromised.  Who knows, but he is being paid by RFK to spread disinfo and never forget how he double-crossed Rixey.  It is a pity really because he was a good immunology teacher but now he presents Zero scientific papers and compares misfolded proteins to a pair of socks in the washing basket miraculously folding the rest of the washing.  Science (lolz).  So we now have the word Coueyism: 



Giga-Spiral: Amyloids and PRIONS are not real. Tackling The Nonsense Machine One Coueyism at a Time (3:25 min)

Mycoplasma pneumoniae Bio-Warfare

Mycoplasma pneumoniae Bio-Warfare


Just watched this. Very good.  It will make your blood boil.  Did you know that they used genetic material from bacteria found around hot sea vents at 6,000 feet depth to make virons more heat resistant.  Or that Gulf War syndrome was linked to microplasma and vaccines.  The surge of Pneumonia in China….due to immune compromise? Towards the end of the video Kevin McKernan contributes.    Very informative and Rixey is a subject matter expert as well.

Mycoplasma pneumoniae For Bio-Warfare (With Charles Rixey) -3:01min



In this video Dr Kevin McCairn PhD neuroscientist has a discussion with E. Michael Jones Catholic writer, former professor at Saint Mary’s College in Indiana and the current editor of Culture Wars magazine concerning consciousness and metaphysics. At the conclusion of the discussion after E. Michael Jones leaves, I join Dr McCairn for a chat. Though I differ on the theology it was refreshing to listen to E. Michael Jones and his rational presentation of metaphysics.

Logos, language, mathematics, and nature

My position is that there is a connection between these abstract concepts which are to a lesser or greater degree focused on nature and on the activity of divine agency in the material world. The following short video has an interesting understanding of the role that language plays:


Language is unique in communicating and structuring abstract ideas, crucial to our thought processes and therefore of critical importance to consciousness and metaphysics. It also determines relationships and hierarchical structures. I give my children and my dog a name, they do not name me. When language is combined with mathematics and that is used to describe creation, we are dealing with something uniquely powerful and as far as I can determine this first occurred with the proto-Hebrew language and passed via Phoenician to the Greek language. Below are some initial findings which I hope to express in a separate article, but they demonstrate that Genesis encodes the cyclical nature of the destructive and creative process that was also known to other ancient civilizations. What makes the Semitic approach unique is that it combines language and mathematics (sacred geometry) with revelation resulting in an ontological unfolding of a continuously evolving manifestation of consciousness. The divine name is not just linked with what God is, but with what God will be. Everything lives and moves and has its being in him, ipso fact he is then the source of consciousness and we are nodes in the matrix. The Genesis narrative highlights alienation and existential angst.

"And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons" (Gen 3:7).

The word naked has the following values: ‘ê-rum-mim (naked) עֵֽירֻמִּ֖ם – 360 Standard / 72 Ordinal and 360 x 72 =25,920 years which is the number of years in the Platonic Great Year considered by the ancients (and Newton) to reflect the Precession Cycle. The full Hebrew verse has the standard value 4066 whereas the other verse with the plural form (‘ă·rūm·mîm עֲרוּמִּים   std 366 / 78 ord) in Genesis 2:25 has the value 2,626 (std) and 4,066-2,626 = 1,440 (the minutes in a 24-hour day) which is 2 cycles of 720.  The figures 72 and 144 (or multiples thereof) are found in all the ancient precession cycle calendars from the Babylonian, Mayan, Indian etc. 18 x 1,440 =25,920

(note that both numbers reduce to 9), moreover the sum of the squares of these two numbers (144^2 +72^2) is also 25,920.  The value of the word naked pre-fall (Gen 2:25- 366/78) is different to the value after the fall (Gen 3:7 naked= 360/72). The serpent in Gen 3:1 is described as cunning (crafty, shrewd) with the word cunning having the same values   (366/78  both reduce to 6) as naked in Gen 2:25 (before the fall) with the full verse (as we have seen) reflecting double the yhvh name value (2626) reflecting their primeval innocence with emphasis on both male and female imaging yhvh (And they were both naked the man and his wife and were not ashamed) hence the double 26.

That the word naked can when re-pointed and differentially contextualized (cf. Job 5:12 and Job 15:5 עֲרוּמִ֑ים) take on the negative connotation of crafty (=the serpent) demonstrates that the omniscient narrator already anticipates that the idyllic harmony will be ruined by rebellion. The phrase “were not ashamed” (ולא יתבששו) just happens to have the ordinal value of 101 and 26 x 101 =2626 (the std value reduces to 11=2). We saw previously the mathematics and sacred Geometry connected with Genesis 1:1 –

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth (Gen 1:1)

Std value =2,701 Ordinal =298      בראשית ברא אלהים את השמים ואת הארץ


There is much more, we are just scraping the surface.











The verse triangle can be inscribed in a circle with a radius of 42 units. Adding the seven Hebrew words of Genesis 1:1 in different combinations, one will find 23 multiples of the number 37, including a compound figurate square of 23 hexagrams (37 7²) and cubes of hexagrams (37 2³) and (37 3³). Random chance would indicate only about three multiples. Note that each of the seven words is used exactly twelve times in making up the 23 multiples of 37 (i.e., 913 appears twelve times; 203 appears twelve times, and so on). Here are the gematria and order of each of the seven Genesis 1:1 words: 913, 203, 86, 401, 395, 407. And there is much more (reserved for future articles).

The Logos

There is therefore a nexus between language, mathematics and nature resulting in the revelation of what John refers to as the Logos in his prologue. The first verse of the Fourth Gospel builds on the geometry of Genesis 1:1 by adding a plinth to the triangle:

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God - Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος,  καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος. 

Standard =3627, Ordinal= 605









The Triangular  plinth of 3627 has 12 divisors with a totient of φ = 2160 which happens to be a Platonic month. The value of the first triangle (2701) and plinth (3627) is equivalent to the 112 th triangular number (6328) which also happens to be the length of the base making the perimeter 333 dots and the product of the digit pairs (63 x 28) is the square of 42 as does the ordinal value of both verses, which sums up to the Triangular number of 42 (903).








Therefore, we have a direct connection between the Genesis 1:1 and that of the Fourth Gospel with the appearance of Jesus on the scene described in terms of creation. Moreover, the name used for Jesus in the Talmud (וּשֵׁי Yēšū) which is often hostile towards him has the ordinal value 37 which is the same as the Hebrew word for wisdom which is in turn the 37th triangular number (666+37 =703) and Yēšū also has the standard value of 316 which is the mirror of 613 the number of commandments (mitzvot) in the Torah (Tractate Makkot 23b). With the word becoming flesh (καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο : kai o logos sarx egeneto) the word flesh (sarx) in the Greek giving us the value 361 we have the unusual triumvirate of : 316 (Yēšū) 613 (word) 361 (flesh) the sum giving the 1290 days of Daniel 12:11 (from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away…).

LIVE – E. Michael Jones: Consciousness and Metaphysics (3:14)


Is the Prologue of John influenced by Platonic, Philonic or Gnostic concepts?

A case can be made that all three strands of thought cross-fertilized each other especially as the Fourth Gospel was written to the church at Ephesus and the Gospel emphasized the superiority of Christ over John the Baptist and the influence of Jewish gnostic sorcery (cf. Acts 19) a church that was made known the manifold wisdom (Sophia) of God (Eph 3:10)….  And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge (gnosis), that ye might be filled with all the fulness (pelorma) of God (Eph 3:19). Ephesians is employing gnostic terminology, the problem was that Gnosticism became “secret knowledge” only available to initiates and it tended to regard the material creation as evil and slip into Docetism, namely that Christ’s body was not human but either a phantasm or of real but celestial substance, and that therefore his sufferings were only apparent. For this reason, early Christianity rejected extreme forms of Gnosticism and the Fourth Gospel emphasizes that the Logos became flesh thus emphasizing his physical body and his human nature.

Many Christians use the Latin word incarnation for the Logos which is derivative from the ecclesiastical Latin verb incarno, itself derived from the prefix in- and caro, “flesh”, meaning “to make into flesh” or, in the passive, “to be made flesh” as in the Word became flesh in the Latin Vulgate “et Verbum caro factum” understood as  a hypostatic union of the divine nature and the human nature and pointing to pre-existence, co-substantiality etc. More apropos to Johannine usage would be the term phanerōthē (Greek: φανερωθῇ) carrying the idea of manifestation, a word that occurs frequently in the Greek NT, particularly in the Gospel of John with reference to Jesus’ manifesting to Israel (John 1:31), manifesting glory (John 2:1), manifesting truth and light (John 3:21), manifesting the name (John 17:6), manifesting his risen self (John 21:2,14).  Jesus is seen by John as the ultimate manifestation of the name (I AM) although a lesser manifestation is encountered in the healing of the blind man whose visage was altered that much as to make him unrecognizable to the crowd who questioned his identity to which he replied with the “I AM” formula; “Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I AM “ (John 9:9  Note that he in italics in the KJV is added by the translator). Jesus explicitly says- “Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest (phanerōthē) in him” (John 9:3).  In the act of healing the blind man becomes an example of the manifestation of divine power. Moreover, the phrase this is he is the 45 th time that Οὗτος (Houtos) is used in the Fourth Gospel with the other forty-four times referencing Jesus, where it is either translated as this one, or in combination “this man” or as “the same” as in the first occurrence of the gospel; “The same was in the beginning with God” (John 1:2) with all 45 occurrences reflecting the value of Adam in the Hebrew (45), Jesus is depicted as the last Adam ἔσχατος Ἀδὰμ (1 Cor 15:45) the express image (Heb 1:3).

It is thought that the Hellenistic Jewish philosopher Philo merged the Ancient Greek Logos philosophy (the principle of cosmic reason) with the Hebrew concept of Wisdom, God’s companion and intimate helper in creation (See Prov 8 article on wisdom to follow soon). Logos became a technical term in Western philosophy beginning with Heraclitus (c. 535 – c.  475 BC), who used the term for a principle of order and knowledge, but the concept was already in use in the Hebrew scriptures before it was popularized in Greek philosophy.  Moreover, sacred geometry, higher mathematics and the length of the Great Precession Year was encoded into the language before it appeared in Greece (watch from 16 mins):


The fact remains that the concept of LOGOS in the Hebrew Bible was earlier than the Greek philosophers and the remarkable “coincidence” that the translation of John 1:1 having the same value as Psalm 107:20 is remarkable.


A rough Timeline demonstrates that the sacred geometry and mathematics in Scripture  is earlier than the Greeks and earlier than  Hermes Trismegistus / Gnosticism.

  • Isaiah-Hezekiah 700 BC -Logos
  • Babylonian Exile 586 BC
  • Pythagoras (570-495 BC)
  • Heraclitus c. (535 – 475 BC)-Logos
  • Plato c. (428-348 BC)
  • Euclid 330 BC
  • Archimedes c. (287 – 212 BC)
  • Hipparchus c. 120 BC Precession year
  • Ptolemy c.170 BC Precession year
  • Legendary Hermes Trismegistus c.170 BC


Exposition Johannine prologue

The translation used is the KJV of John 1.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


Note: The absence of an article in the phrase In the beginning rendering In beginning note also the accusative preposition pros indicates movement towards a destination called THE God differentiated from god by the absence of an article. G. R. S. Mead places the prologue of the Fourth Gospel in a gnostic context and is partly correct as it was at Ephesus that followers of the John the Baptist were found (Acts 19:1-3) and the Mandæans (lit. Gnostics—mandā = gnōsis) of the lower Euphrates who are the only known surviving community of the ancient Gnosis.The Sidrā d’Yahyā (Book of John) deal with the life and teachings of John the Baptizer.  Mead  renders the first verse as; “In Beginning was Mind; and Mind was with GOD” which offers the temptation to substitute mind with “tensor field” or “consciousness” or perhaps translate Logos as “purpose” or “idea” or “reason” until we realize that Logos is translated as Word 208x  and  as saying 50x in Young’s concordance and sending forth the word is idiom for sending an agent (like a prophet) to speak on God’s behalf.  The terms of the Fourth Gospel must be defined by the Johannine corpus because he has his own distinct idiom. Thus, John refers to The Word in three other places, and in each case his allusion is to Jesus the Man. “His name is called the Word of God” (Rev. 19:13). “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life” (1 Jn. 1:1); that is, they heard his preaching, they saw his miracles, they looked upon him crucified, and they handled him when risen from the dead (Lk. 24:39). “Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw” (Rev. 1:2). Even this passage, which at first sight seems to require a different meaning for “the word of God” lines up with the others when it is realised that this is the first of a series of triads which meet the reader in Revelation 1 (compare verses 4b, 5a, 7). In fact, “the testimony of Jesus and all things that he saw” is the exact equivalent of 1 John 1:2. The tentative conclusion concerning “the Word” in John 1:1 would therefore appear to be that it means Jesus the Man, and not Jesus the Idea or Purpose.

The identity of the expression: “In the beginning” with Genesis 1:1 has led many to assume that John 1:1 refers to the beginning of the visible creation. But a careful use of the concordance reveals that out of 16 other instances where John speaks of “the beginning”, in no single case does he allude to Genesis 1:1. Admittedly, in two of them he refers to Genesis, but in both instances (John 8:44; 1 John 3:8) the allusion is to the serpent. This, however, is Genesis 3 and not the beginning of creation, when all material things were made by the word of God: “And God said…”

It is impressive to observe that all other occurrences of “the beginning” in John’s writings have to do with the beginning of the ministry of Jesus or the beginning of discipleship or some related idea. A few examples:

“And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning” (John15:27).

“And these things I said not unto you at the beginning, because I was with you” (John 16:4).

‘Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning” (John 8:25).

“For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him” (John. 6:64).

“Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning” (1 John 2:7).

“For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another” (1 John 3:11).

This list should be conclusive. John 1:1 is speaking about the beginning of the ministry of Jesus. Hence, appropriately, the immediate reference to the Baptist: “There was a man sent from God whose name was John” (v.6), a reference which in the traditional exposition is badly out of place.  Mark’s gospel is now seen to have exactly the same approach: “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face” (Mk. 1:1,2). And in Luke’s introduction also: “Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses-and-ministers of the Word” (Lk. 1:1,2). Note here also, that, as in John, “the Word” must be Jesus; the phrase “eyewitnesses and ministers” requires this.

So we see that it is a matter of allowing the Bible to interpret itself.

There is much more that I could say  but the article would become too long.   It is however interesting to note that John the Baptist is and we are explicitly told that he was not that Light (John 1:6-9).  The reason for the emphasis on Lights is because the annunciation of the birth of John occurred (see my commentaries) at the Feast of Lights a Feast that celebrated the cleansing and re-dedication of the temple (cf. John 2:21) after the defilement wrought by Antiochus Epiphenes.  The birth of Jesus who was six months younger than the Baptist would have seen him presented at the temple at Pentecost as the fruit of the Spirit.  The point is that John the Baptist was the forerunner to herald the new temple (Jesus Christ) and the church at Ephesus need to be reminded that despite the unusual circumstances of John’s birth he was not “that light”.

John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.  And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace (John 1:15-16).

The emphasis is on the superiority of Christ note the use of the word fullness or the Greek pléróma. The Greek pléróma (plērōmatos, πληρώματος) in Gnosticism understands the spiritual universe as the abode of God and of the totality of the divine powers and emanations but a similar phraseology occurs in the Greek version of Isaiah 6:3 (LXX): “Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full (πλήρης/plérés) of his glory”. The root (plē-) expresses totality, and implies full quantity (“up to the max”). DNTT (1,733) notes its cognates (plērēs, plēroō, plērōma) all come from the root (plē-/plēthō) meaning “full in quantity.” Thus plḗthō (“to fill or complete”) refers to “that which is complete in itself because of plenitude, entire number or quantity. . . . the whole aggregate,” WS, 395,96). In Christian theology the totality or fullness dwells in Christ denoting that he received the spirit without measure (John 3:34). So, although there is cross fertilization one need not speak of dependence but rather shared motifs, however, once again we see that the Johannine corpus draws on the Old Testament for conceptual language.

Not only is Jesus depicted as superior to John, he is greater than Jacob (John 4:12), has a greater witness than John (John 5:36), is greater than Abraham (John 8:53), he is before John (John 1:15), and before Abraham (John 8:58) he has the fullness and is the I AM and yet the the Father is greater than him (John 14:28) for  he is greater than all (John 10:29). Rater than construct theories to explain these apparent anomalies and contradictions  Christians should examine scriptures where it is explained how Abraham “saw my day”  because in the mount of the LORD it shall be seen (Gen 22:14) and  Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place afar off (Gen 22:4 ) and he called the place Yahweh Yireh  or Yah will be seen.  The love of God would be manifest in the place where Jesus was sacrificed.  This is about manifestation and bearing the name.

In John 1:30 the Greek for ‘preferred’ is literally ‘became’ (γέγονεν, gegonen) and the Greek for man (ἀνὴρ,anēr) is very often used to refer to a husband. A literal reading could therefore just as well be, “after me cometh a husband,who has come before me, for he was first of me”. In the case of Redemption by the kinsman redeemer the one that comes AFTER and takes the place of the dead husband comes BEFORE. Jesus born after John took precedence before him because he had come to raise seed to the dead.


  • Note that the women praising Ruth say, “… do thou worthily in Ephratah, and be famous in Bethlehem” (Ruth 4:11) and that Jesus was born in Bethlehem from the line Of David and a direct descendant of Ruth.

I could continue writing about the Fourth Gospel but this must suffice with some earlier material on John 1:3-4 and staircase parallelism.

Your web browser doesn’t have a PDF Plug-in. Click to download Covid articles



Scripture is multivalent and encoded sacred geometry and mathematics in the language before the Greeks systematized their mathematics and their philosophy. The fact that the encoding operates across the  Hebrew/Greek language barrier with reference to cosmology and astrophysics is remarkable. Scripture can only be understood intertexually and any deviance from proper hermeneutics leads to error. That said, scripture can be read by a child and  the truth can be grasped in a child like manner.

Complexity emerges from simple rules employed iteratively and the outcome of the “causal chain” is the same regardless of the input variables. But who sets those initial rules? As E. Michael Jones inferred, philosophy and rationality will only get you so far as beyond a certain point is unknowable.  At this point the believer falls back on faith which in its outworking becomes as real as “data” and is classed as “evidence” of unseen realities (Heb 11:1) as the consciousness of the believer with the help of God the source of all, calls into being the things that are not as if they were (Rom 4:17).

Jesus was superior to all who came before but by his own admission he was not greater than the Father. No man has seen the Father yet whoever saw Jesus in action had seen the Father (John 14:8-10). Unlike Adam he was the perfect image and the face of Jesus is the reflection of God’s glory (2 Cor 4:6). World without end. Amen.


Bruce MacDonald and the Black Arts

Bruce MacDonald and the Black Arts

This was a very interesting interview with Bruce MacDonald who is living somewhere in the Jungles of South America.   His background is from a very devout Catholic family and he ended up rejecting the ritualistic traditions and dogma to seek a more transcendental way by researching various philosophies practicing meditation  etc.

His take on black magic is interesting and his information that Jimmy Saville was a Jew  is shocking.  Saville  was a degenerate and a “wizard” with connections to the monarchy. See the videos on the page Pedos, murderers and Psycho’s.

This is what I wrote to Bruce:

Hello, I am the guy that you saw debating Doovid. I am not an evangelical by the way even though Doovid tried to classify me that way because I believe in Scriptural interpretation. I think labels are unhelpful. My paternal grandparents and many relatives were RC and I spent time in a very RC region of Holland (Maastricht). My observations is that RC is very into ritual and tradition (unlike other Christian streams) but then the RC church was subverted by Judaists early on. I have three commentaries and numerous articles on my website. I have done stylometric analysis on Parts Of Speech of the Hebrew using PCA and LDA on function words. As you noted I am busy with Gematria which is a new area for me but already bearing fruit. You mentioned African Gematria palimyome (?) from the Congo. I can find no information on this.

African slaves (from Central Africa Congo) combined the bible with hoodo in a syncretic adaptation to their superstition. In this view God is a conjurer as is Moses. In the twentieth century a spell book based on Kaballah called The Sixth and Seventh books of Moses (you mentioned the "sixth book of Moses" but there are only five according to tradition) was sold to African Americans containing numerous signs, seals, and passages in Hebrew related to the prophet Moses' ability to work wonders. Obviously the book was a fraud.

I differ in my opinion about Moses and the temple etc. The characters and events are based on historical events. Moses withstood the "magicians" of Egypt obviously worshipers of Thoth forerunner to Hermeticism. This is the "black magic" Kabbalah that you mentioned. The Jews creation of money (debt) ex-nihlo and their casting of spells (propaganda) is indeed manipulation of consciousness and very dark. The revelation of Yhvh was meant to counter that. The name is linked to existence itself and to manifestation. The Genesis story counters the idea that man can become God through knowledge (Illumination or gnosis/Hermetic) and the Genesis story also counters the idea of sacrifice in the sense that man must appease God by literally sacrificing their children. These two measures (1) knowledge (2) sacrifice were coping mechanisms of humanity because they realized that they were vulnerable (naked and ashamed) in a world that brought sudden catastrophes. The history of Israel is schematized, and their calendar only goes back some 6,000 years which takes us to the Time of Taurus (bull=golden calf) followed by Aires (ram caught in a thicket) followed by Pieces (Christianity 153 mega fish) followed by the water pourer Aquarius (Num 24:7). We are at the end of the Great Year Precession cycle and things are about to get crazy.


The Man Moses

A few things that I need to mention.  The northern tribes of Israel (called Ephraim collectively) were half Egyptian. Joseph was married into the  Egyptian priestly aristocracy and it was through him that the aristocracy centralized their power base during the famine caused by natural disaster as they exchanged their land for food (sound familiar, at least he didn’t make them eat bugs).  That said, the nation and the people survived because of his actions.  Moses name is similar to  the Egyptian “Meses”  as in Rameses (=the son of Ra).  The daughter of Pharaoh called him MY SON  because she found him.  Often Moses is mistakenly thought to mean “drawn out” because she drew him out the water.:

” And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh’s daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses: and she said, Because I drew him out of the water” (Exodus 2:10).

Of course, this finds theological parallels in God drawing the nation through the waters of the red sea (baptism) and calling them “my son”  (Hos 11:1) and Jesus being baptized (Mark 1:11) and the midrash in Matthew 2:15.

The Legend of Sargon of Akkad (c. 2300 BE) is similar to the origin story of Moses, namely found in a basket in the river (Euphrates?). This was a mechanism so that Sargon could distance himself from the kings of the past (who claimed divine right) and aligned himself with the common people of the region rather than the ruling elite. Moses on the other hand was a commoner elevated to royalty by adoption. The following translation of the Legend comes from J. B. Pritchard’s The Ancient Near East, Volume I, pages 85-86:

Sargon, the mighty king, king of Agade, am I.
My mother was a changeling, my father I knew not.
The brother(s) of my father loved the hills.
My city is Azupiranu, which is situated on the banks of the Euphrates.
My changeling mother conceived me, in secret she bore me.
She set me in a basket of rushes, with bitumen she sealed
My lid.
She cast me into the river which rose not (over) me,
The river bore me up and carried me to Akki, the
drawer of water.
Akki, the drawer of water lifted me out as he dipped his
Akki, the drawer of water, [took me] as his son
(and) reared me.
Akki, the drawer of water, appointed me as his gardener,
While I was a gardener, Ishtar granted me (her) love,
And for four and [ ... ] years I exercised kingship,
The black-headed [people] I ruled, I gov[erned];
Mighty [moun]tains with chip-axes of bronze I con-
The upper ranges I scaled,
The lower ranges I [trav]ersed,
The sea [lan]ds three times I circled.
Dilmun my [hand] cap[tured],
[To] the great Der I [went up], I [...],
[...] I altered and [...].
Whatever king may come up after me,
Let him r[ule, let him govern] the black-headed
[Let him conquer] mighty [mountains] with chip-axe[s
of bronze],
[Let] him scale the upper ranges,
[Let him traverse the lower ranges],
Let him circle the sea [lan]ds three times!
[Dilmun let his hand capture],
Let him go up [to] the great Der and [...]!
[...] from my city, Aga[de ... ]
[...] ... [...].

I already hear the cries of Jewish plagiarism but if this was a common origin motif circulating at the time it may well have given Moses’ mother the idea to put her son in a basket. Pharaoh’s daughter would have regarded him as a gift from the Nile god Hapi. It was no accident that he was left where the princess bathed and where his sister could guard him.

Moses’s history is supposedly around 1500 BC but this is still controversial as the dates range from the “traditional” 18th dynasty date (ca. 1450 BC) and the current “consensus” 19th dynasty date (ca. 1250 BC), but touching also on other Exodus dates advocated from ca. 2100 BC through ca. 650 BC (See Exodus Dates and Theories).

The Taurus (bull) age range extends to 2150 BC (ca. 4300-2150 BC) would coincide with a very early date  and Thera the eruption (c.1600 BC)  with a later date and Exodus phenomenon. The bronze age collapse of many ancient civilizations (12th century BC, between c. 1200 and 1150) is still largely unexplained.

Circumcision was originally Egyptian and adopted by the Hebrews as a sign of the covenant which is probably why the Hebrew word for covenant means “cut” because a covenant  (agreement) is cut. The member is cut as a sign that the covenant (agreement) is not just with the covenant maker but with his seed (offspring).  As to the neurological effects I cannot say but ritual male circumcision is known to have been practiced by South Sea Islanders, Australian Aborigines, Sumatrans,Incas, Aztecs, Mayans as well as the Ancient Egyptians. Today it is still practiced by Jews, Muslims and many tribes in East and Southern Africa.

In an enigmatic fragment of text (that warns of the death of Pharaoh’s firstborn)  Moses himself was nearly killed because he neglected to circumcise his sons (Exod 4:22-26) which may be a reflection of later history (Josh 5:2-9). Under the new covenant circumcision is not necessary because the promised seed has arrived and the covenant is reformulated in him.

The Temple

As to the temple Bruce readily admits (along with just about everyone) that the temple of Herod existed as it is acknowledged by other Roman historians including Josephus.  Herod did not actually build a new temple he renovated the existing temple that had been rebuilt after the exile (Zerubbabel’s temple) but the remodeling and reconstruction was that extensive that it was almost a complete rebuild (John 2:20).

The fact is that Hezekiah reformed the cult and cleansed Solomon’s temple (the first temple). There is ample evidence of Hezekiah (a direct Davidic descendant) existing and reforming the cult and cleansing Solomon’s temple. Not just from Scripture but archeological evidence and evidence from the Assyrian records (Taylor Prism). Hezekiah (c 700 BC) did not build the temple he reformed it. So it was already standing and was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BC.

So the charge that no temple existed in the time of Solomon is not true. Solomon gained his wealth from the copper trade mined by the Edomites (who had been conquered by his father David) in the Negev wilderness in the Timna valley near Eilat. There was a huge smelting complex and Solomon supplied all the food water etc and acted as the middleman.  The ancient world craved copper (together with 12% Phoenician tin to make bronze). Solomon was buddies with Hiram I the Phoenician king of Tyre who supplied the workforce and some of the materials for building the temple and so between them they corned the global metals market (kerching).  The Egyptians had copper mines in the Sinai.  Solomon married an Egyptian princess because the marriage covenant was a way of consolidating power and gaining international influence.  Hence he had a 1,000 wives (poor bloke the nagging lolz) and they turned his heart away from God.  All his wisdom and wealth did not save him even though his revenue was 666 talents of gold annually.  He apostatized but to say he consulted 72 demons to help build the temple is Kabbalah and masonic nonsense.  Yes, we know the stories are sacred history and make theological points but they are based on truth.

Moreover, the Dome  the Rock is the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite one of the original inhabitants of Jerusalem before it was conquered by David. It is a stone floor for threshing the harvest and separating the wheat from the chaff. It was purchased legally by David for building an altar (2 Sam 24:21) and Ritmejier has found the the level carving where the Ark stood.  It is the place where according to tradition Abraham went up to sacrifice Issac (Gen 22:2).  It is the place where the plague caused by the Numbering (see my article) in (2 Sam 24:1) was halted  (cf. numbering of the transgressors Isa 53:12). It was co-opted by the Muslims in recognition of its holiness as the place of Mohamed’s night journey. Therefore, Jerusalem (city of peace) is called the foundation stone and a rock of offense and a stumbling block (Isa 8:14),  the irony is exquisite for the same epithet (cf. 1 Pet 2:8) is applied to Christ who is the Prince of Peace King of Salem.  Whoever meddles with the stone that is Christ will be crushed (Matt 21:42-46 Jesus is alluding to the Hezekiah Psalm 118:22-24 note the day=Passover day deliverance from Assyria in Hezekiah’s time).


The original “foundation stone” was the altar-rock of Zion — which was probably the site where Abraham prepared to offer Isaac (Gen. 22: cp. v. 9 there with v. 27 here), and which was probably also the threshing-floor of Araunah the Jebusite on mount Moriah (2 Sam. 24:18-25). The wicked Ahaz, infected with a zest for the worship of foreign gods, re-moved the altar of burnt-offering from its prominent place atop this foundation stone, and “hid” it away in a corner of the Temple enclosure (2 Kings 16:14). Yet whilst the true altar might be set aside, there was no way to shift the massive outcropping of rock on which it had stood (it is still there today, in the center of the Dome of the Rock). Thus, in Ahaz’s day it remained — quite literally — a “stone of stumbling” (Isa. 8:14,15) for priests walking across the temple court, and a “rock of offence” in a spiritual sense. 

It was only when Hezekiah came into full control of the kingdom that he could remedy this sacrilege, and restore the Temple worship to its rightful setting. And so the “stone” rejected by the new “builders” of Judah became, once again, a precious stone and a sure foundation for the true worship of the Lord (Isa. 28:16).

It is easy, then, to see how this foundation stone symbolized Hezekiah himself (and his faith in the Lord), upon which all true worship in Judah depended. While sick unto death, he had been “set aside” by other would-be “builders” and rulers, but when miraculously healed he would stand forth again as the chief prince of his people. (See further on H.A. Whittaker, Bible Studies, pp. 111-116.)

This is recent video is great but argues that the threshing floor is separate from the Dome of the Rock (I don’t think so):

Amazing discoveries under the Dome of the Rock (26 min)


Glow-Op Goy-Slop Investigations: Abraham is Not Your Patriarch – With Bruce Macdonald (2:55 min)

Know your place goy slave

Know your place goy slave

The Jews were slaves in Egypt. The Torah regulated the humane treatment of slaves which was an innovation at the time. The Hebrews are therefore a slave nation as Jesus reminded them of their slavery but they refused to acknowledge that fact although they were slaves to the Romans at the time: “They answered him, We be Abraham’s seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?” (John 8:33). Jesus himself took on the role of a slave (the suffering servant). Slavery was a social institution for centuries in the ancient world and Christianity was concerned with the liberation from the bondage (slavery) of sin not about social revolution. However, it was Christianity operating from first principles that fought for the abolishing of slavery based on the Christian principal of universalism, namely that that all men have equal status before God (Gal 3:28). Nowhere does the Bible teach that anyone is created inferior. We are all made in the image of God. The Jews were given every advantage and they failed (Rom 3:1-6). Jesus, himself a Jew (and the messiah) has the last word on this: “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it” (John 8:44). According to Jesus their father was the serpent (the desire to use enlightenment to become gods e.g. Homo Deus). Jesus, the suffering servant refused to do this. He put the Jewish serpent to death in his own body. The word serpent and messiah have the same gematria value in the Hebrew. Jesus killed the snake that enslaved humanity.

The Elijah doctrine (lolz) love it…


ZOG’s No Cease Fire so Judaism Can Own Slaves/You. SARS Biowarfare Cost You 10 Cognitive yrs (3:24 min)


The Myth Of Judeo-Christian (5 min)

Bro Nathanael is partly correct. The Torah revelation was fulfilled in Christ and in the New Covenant.   That does not make the old irrelevant because it becomes an important underpinning of the New.  But new wine must be placed in new wine skins otherwise the skins burst and all is wasted (Mark 2:22). It is Jesus who turns the water of baptism into the wine of the Eucharist (John 4:46) and in so doing fulfills the whole Torah. The Talmud is a Babylonian commentary established in Shinar (Zech 5:11) on its base as prophesied by Zechariah.    The Talmud is not holy, neither is the Zohar or the Kabbalah.

The End Times

The End Times

This was actually a five hour stream and an hour seems to  have been lost (?)  This was a difficult debate because I was talked over  and I was relentlessly trolled in the comments with what seemed like a coordinated character assassination (see my response below). It seemed to me coordinated probably to protect Dovid from being exposed for his lack of Scriptural knowledge which he covers with what the apostle Paul calls vain philosophies and deceit (lolz). Transmigration of souls is Buddhist and or Hindu theology as is the concept of Karma. It is hypocritical to refuse to eat meat and yet speak of animal sacrifice. It is hypocritical to say you do not believe in an ethno-state and yet say that you need a temple (which policy leads to genocide and an ethno-state).  Full of contradictions.  Even about climate change.  Anyway, see my response below.

Christian Metaphysics The End Times with Tishbite – Consciousness the Common Denominator (4:00)


Very disappointed to read some of the comments which were uninformed and petty. Both Kevin and I were charged with not being systematic as Doovid, who states that “Kevin is not a systematic thinker does not have a coherent systematic belief system and [Kevin] does the same thing Paul does with his neuroscience”. I resent that statement because I believe that Kevin’s approach to neuroscience and metaphysics is based on rationale hypotheses which are tested by data as far as is possible in a field as abstract as consciousness.   Some in the audience are frustrated because I refuse to be pigeonholed and identify as a particular denomination or sect.  This is how the Jews always want to operate – stick a label on you so that they can play Catholic against Protestant etc.  It makes life easy when you label people because then you can use your preconceptions to judge and then you don’t have to listen.     Doovid wants to call me an “evangelical” because I refer to scripture. Just because I agree with Sola Scriptura (Latin for ‘by scripture alone’) a Christian theological doctrine held by most Protestant Christian denominations does not make me an evangelical, but meh, if it makes you feel better go for it.

The comments were very hostile, and I believe the attack was orchestrated.  Toxoplasmosis was very “Toxic” with constant references to giving my own opinion and being a self-proclaimed Rabbi and not having the bare bones of Christianity down. This sort of ad hominem attack which is not based on facts is the typical last resort of scoundrels who have nothing of value to add.  I have never proclaimed myself a Rabbi, I have never pushed a particular denomination and I always ask people to test what I say against scripture.  My hermeneutic employs intertextual, form critical, historical, and rhetorical methodologies that are tried and tested. I have three online commentaries and numerous articles and have been writing prolifically and analyzing the text, even employing stylometric methods on function words and advanced statistical techniques. I have not attempted to start a new religion or to convert anyone nor have I asked anyone to follow me. I suspect that Mr Toxic is a gnostic or Kabbalist because he referenced the divine spark being separate from the soul.    So, either he is a Kabbalist, or he has seen too many reruns of Transformers and thinks he is Sam Witwicky. He is definitely not a bright spark (lolz).

Then we move onto Boergle who was particularly repugnant. Initially he kept posting about the Bosom of Abraham which is presumably the parable told by Jesus to the Pharisees in Luke 16:19-31. I explained to him in detail that the parable was not literal, because it is a parable (lolz).  I gave this to him in 2021 Luke 16: The unjust steward so I must assume that he can’t read.  Perhaps you can get Mr Toxic to read it to you – you know, the one who along with Dovid says that I have no systemic theology.  Perhaps you should look up what systematic theology and systematic neuroscience means before you make charges like that. Perhaps you should look up intertextual exegesis while you are at it.  Boergle accuses me (a Dutch man) of putting his people in a concentration camp?  He has me confused with a Brit or someone else. Buddy, if you are going to troll get your facts straight. He also accuses me of being a Jew.  Now why would he do that?  Why he together with Mr Toxic come out so favorably for Dovid who admits that hypocrisy is a virtue and that all the goys are here to worship Jews and say nothing?  Dovid (the Jew) gets a free pass and I get attacked because I am a Jew (lolz).   I see right through both of  you.  This was a coordinated tag team to stir up trouble and animosity because Dovid (and you) has no answer when the Old Testament is used to expose his fallacies.  All he can do is appeal to the sages who take precedent over the Torah. Such is the mindset of the Rabbis back in the day that they said their council and decisions on the law would take precedence even over a voice from heaven.  A big FU to God which their “messiah” Bar Kochba echoed by telling God to basically mind his own business. How did that work out for you?   Boergle, a supposed Christian, also talks about being invaded by the spark.  He has exposed himself just like Mr Toxic.  The fact that Boergle commented multiple times that “My king is a Jew shame on you” is disgusting for someone who purports to be a “Christian” especially as Jesus was crucified as “King of the Jews”.  Shame on me?  I am not ashamed of Jesus Christ, rather I am ashamed of people who are not who they say they are, especially when they quote Rev 2:9 at me the implication being that although I pretend to be a Jew, I am really a Satanist.  Shame on you for your nasty duplicitous ways.  Boergle even contradicted what I said about the Saharah being lush and green.  He needs to read this (and his Bible) and educate himself: Sahara Desert Was Once Lush and Populated   There was an attempt to turn the audience against me and troll me using stupid, ad hominem attacks causing Jozey to say that it must be difficult to be better than everyone else.  And there you have it.   A claim that I have never made but one that Dovid has made numerous times with his claim to supremacy and that goy like me have an inferior soul closer to that of an animal.  Moreover, I do think hypocrisy is a sin as is deception and lying.  All I can say is that I am very disappointed.  I thought better of some of you, but I must be upsetting the right people. This was no accident but I take it as a sign because all of them (Adam Green, CJB, Ammon Hill, Ryan Dawson, Bishai) have all been exposed as twisting the truth and lying.   I will not stand idly by as Christianity is constantly attacked by occultists. I will witness (martus hence martyr) not as an NPC who observes as a spectator but with Power (Rev 11:5). To Boergle I say, maybe you can intimidate me in a group, but you do no know what such a one as me is capable of (lolz).  Be careful with your tongue.  I have friends in high places. They don’t get any higher.