Miguel Conner, The Failed Roman/Jewish Psyop |532|

#3
In contemplating this discussion and with consideration of the many previous Skeptiko discussions on the subject, I will argue it’s overwhelmingly lacking in compensation of the spiritual component, which (component) I believe to be responsible/vital for such a compromised story to somehow sufficiently serve as a foundation for “good Christians”, which there are many.
If we’re honest when accounting for the scale of how much good work is done by “good Christian’s” upon that foundation, Disintermediation only serves to address the compromised story, and organized corruption…
I mean, if we’re going to dismantle organized Christianity on the basis of eliminating corruption and intermediation, aren’t we (at minimum) responsible to suggest a replacement for the spiritual community component? And wouldn’t a lack of this footwork suggest an incomplete assessment of the scale of the problem?

Edit: I think an honest dive into this (above) brings us to The Veil; and to the aspects of Spirituality which can't be conjured on command, and which seem to consistently (and ironically I'd argue) hold in pale comparison discrepancies so significant as "Did the guy even exist".
 
Last edited:
#4
I think there was an older nature based spirituality which included crafting and life lived in harmony with all. And the STURCH took it over and made it its thing.
And that all of that stuff in the NT never happened in the middle east, but in Europe. And you can straight up chuck 1000 years off your dates there, thanks to the Gregorians.
Happened roughly 1000-500 years ago, not 2000. Only took a few hundred years to take over and change narrative. It's why 1000-1300s are such a hot time related to stuff supposedly happening 1000 years earlier?... COME ON.
 
#5
I understand where the host is coming from with Christianity being a Roman psyop, but I think it's giving way too much time over to Josephus. Josephus was the Rachel Maddow of the 1st century. He was supposed to appeal to monied, Hellenistic Jews who might start bending toward messianic nationalist zealotry, and, heaven forbid fund their cause, in much the same way Maddow can call the likes of Jimmy Dore, Russian bots and keep "good lefties" in the fold - i.e. a sheep herder.

In terms of defining/creating Christianity, the real psyop is Saul/Paul - both at the time of the first Church, and then later when Rome was trying to coopt the troublesome Christians into the NWO. I see Saul/Paul as the 1st century L. Ron Hubbard. Hubbard was in the cultic centre of the belly of the beast, was connected to the O.T.O., had Deep State associates, and embedded in LA popular culture. Saul/Paul was a Roman Citizen, from Tarsus – the centre of the Mithraic Cult – who was also a Pharisee. Saul/Paul was the original psyop within the early Christian Church. This guy who never even met Jesus - just had a whacky story about a vision - ingratiates himself into the Church, self-styles himself as the Apostle to the Gentiles and then immediately starts causing trouble for James in Jerusalem, eventually even stealing Peter away to what is essentially his new cult. This cult immediately distances itself from Judaic law and starts seducing rich bored Roman wives and widows. Well, it’s a successful business model, and as Hubbard apocryphally said, the fastest way to make a million is to start your own religion.

I urge you to read the Pauline letters carefully. Paul created the resurrection/new Adam narrative/theology that was obviously influenced by what Paul had heard (maybe witnessed?) of the Mithraic cult. Judaism does not have a tradition of a martyred Messiah - Saul/Paul made that shit up and the Church had to do multiple linguistic contortions to make the prophets fit that narrative. Now look at his background as a Pharisee – much like Martin Luther, it is very obvious, reading between the lines that Paul was sick of the idiotic constrictions of his religious laws, and wanted to write his own rules. This also parallels Hubbard in his attitude to psychology, which he studied, derided, yet heavily used it's techniques in his own cult (yes I do think academic Psychology is a cult, that has precious little science - show me the Id or the Oedipal complex under a microscope please.) Additionally much like Hubbard, I have no doubt that Saul/Paul had deep state connections who encouraged him deliberately to cause strife with the Jerusalem Church, which he did successfully. Job done. 200 years later Rome would resurrect Paul as the most important character in the Church after Jesus – not bad for a persecutor of Christians who never even met the Messiah.

Paul’s cult probably did not really take off at the time, I think Acts is largely fictional, I think it was the North African Gnostics that adopted Christianity and made it successful, but much later Saul/Paul’s letters are deliberately taken up once more in the new orthodox Roman Church and made canon. Think about Scientology today – a fringe cult that continues to survive, largely by political shenanigans, but also appealing to a lot of hopeless fragile people. Now imagine in the future, maybe 50 years or 200 years - a religion that kinda has a sciency ring to it may seem perfect for the new imperial religion of Transhumanism and "alien" overlords. Just sayin. History rhymes. I'm not saying these beliefs, be they Christianity, Scientology, whatever, were designed by some all knowing powers-that-be, who could see centuries ahead. The powers-that be just opportunistically use the best available resources for the best available use, and can remold them accordingly in their own image. That's what they did, using the writings of their old asset Paul, for Christianity.

What appealed/appeals to the Romans about Judaism? Well, for one thing it wasn’t “Judaism” at all, it was a sect of Judaism known as the Pharisees. Academics don’t really know what Judaism was in the 1st Century. They get everything through the Roman lens, so it can’t be trusted. My conclusion is that the remnant of the Jews that survived the “diaspora” were the Pharisees that were already dispersed in the Empire (like Saul/Paul himself.) The remaining Phoenician Jews, who practiced the religion of Solomon’s First Temple Judaism in Jerusalem and the Levant, dwindled through wars and imperialism and eventually were forced into Islam in the 6th century.

The Pharisees were a perfect model for "spreading the word" - small units dispersed widely, using the usual array of evangelical tactics to convert people to their cause – much like Al Qaeda has in the past half century. If you could pitch a tent, you had a Temple. No ordained priests from sacred bloodlines, no altars, or paraphernalia required - just scripts and teachers (rabbis.) This was the way the Pharisees became serious political players in first century Palestine, and the Romans recognized their utility, in much the same way they did the Druids for Europe. In some communities they were used for social control (eg Saul's persecution of Christians) in some they just mingled to get the pulse of the locality and provide intelligence. It was the Pharisees who would re/write the Tanakh, and create what we think of as Judaism today, and continued their message throughout Europe, always keeping their ties to “Rome,” for their own survival if nothing else. Jews, like myself are always acutely aware that we are the scapegoats, the whipping boys for the powerful, and that no matter how wealthy or influential one may become, in choosing to accommodate the powerful, the Jews will always be expendable. That is why the Pfizer chief can call Israel the biggest vaccine lab on the planet, and no one blinks, and as usual, the Jews fall for it. Why wouldn't the Romans love us. We love our victimization.

The early Christians also used this stealth/cell model to attempt to spread their message, but the Romans didn’t need them – they had the Jews, so Christians were heavily persecuted... at first. But the Christians had a message of personal Liberation (actually at the heart of Judaism) and this obviously resonated with slaves and women, but was no longer in the diaspora Jewish messaging. This kept Christians going and growing around the Mediterranean, particularly in former strongholds of Carthage and Phoenicia. They were well established, if heavily factionalized, by the time of Constantine, which is what they was ultimately able to exploit, Romans being Romans, bringing “order” to “chaos”.

I do believe that there is some truth to the myth of Constantine’s mother converting – there's alway a grain of truth to every myth. But I think it more likely that she was a savvy political operative herself and recognized the potential utility of converting the Empire to Christianity in the 4th Century – and she was right. Most of the tribes in Europe were converted to the Roman Church through stealth; by getting into small communities and eventually to the wives of chiefains and kings, and once they converted, the nobles and riffraff either had to convert or be put to the sword. The locals did all of the dirty work for the new Roman Empire, at a fraction of the cost. Think about it – the Romans were never successful conquering the Irish or Scots by invasion… until Christianity came along.

But at the end of the day Christianity is still all about Saul/Paul. His messaging was remarkable, and of course it obviously reflected the Mithraic cult. It’s right there in the epistles. Yes it was part psyop, but like all psyops it involved living breathing people vying for power and notoriety, which ultimately made it a "real" religion. Anyone who thinks that those epistles are fiction, and the whole Jesus narrative was woven from whole cloth are as crazy as fundamentalists. Read the epistles – there is so much there that doesn’t need to be, so why would you make that stuff up? It would just be too weird and unnecessarily complex to think it was all fiction. Saul/Paul was real and a major player in Chrisianity then and now. Most Christians I’ve talked to (I studied theology at University many years ago) don’t even realise he was a Jew or a Roman, and have no idea where Tarsus was, let alone why that would be a strategically important relationship. Why? They’re not supposed to. Just listen to the Xmas story and be happy, a carpenter was the son of god.

I strongly believe that in history, you learn most from what is not there, e.g., the Phoenicians – the peoples that gave us our alphabet, but never left any writing, no math, no drama, no science – give me a break. It’s what has been obviously, intentionally disappeared that tells us the most about our history and the victors themselves. In Christianity, where is James? Where are the documents of the Jerusalem Church? They went the way of the Phoenicians, 200 years before - and don’t think that isn’t a related topic. Jesus was a real person, James was a real person, "Mary" was a real person – what they really stood for and espoused, we only see a glimpse. But *why* did the Romans have to disrupt the Jesus narrative in the first place?? That is the question. Maybe he was much more than we were led to believe (I'm talking about as a person, not a god). Perhaps the truth really is in "the root of Jesse" - Jesus really was of the bloodline - an actual king, but far more dangerously, one in the mold of Ashoka? And maybe we're not just talking about the Levant, maybe we're talking about Saba, Kush and Punt and beyond. I’ll end it there.
 
Last edited:
#6
A good summary of the on-going efforts by control freaks thru out the ages. There is a great need by many to be in secret societies & to feel special for no other reason. Right now, we're dealing w/ the emergence of the Big Pharma Mama, who will dictate how we conduct ourselves in light of the creeping COVID monsters. The good news ppl are finally beginning to catch on. Thanks, Alex, for putting up a sane framework to view a crazy world.
 

Alex

Administrator
#7
Great stuff. Thanks.
I understand where the host is coming from with Christianity being a Roman psyop, but I think it's giving way too much time over to Josephus. Josephus was the Rachel Maddow of the 1st century.
haha... nice... but my main point is that we have little/no real history of this time period and what we have is highly dependent on josephus... and he's running a roman psyop.


In terms of defining/creating Christianity, the real psyop is Saul/Paul - both at the time of the first Church
Sure, or at least maybe... but as we discussed in the show I think we have to resist believing that all this was a perfect psyop. the guys running this thing from their little secret society mithra cult under the basement of what would become the vatican we're smart but they weren't that smart. kind of like the guys running our modern psyops... smart but not that smart.

Rome was trying to coopt the troublesome Christians into the NWO
I have a hard time believing that the christians ( and therefore by extension the jews) we're really that big of a deal to the romans. does anyone think that BLM really matters to anyone in charge today ( notwithstanding whether it's an operation to begin with)?


I urge you to read the Pauline letters carefully. Paul created the resurrection/new Adam narrative/theology that was obviously influenced by what Paul had heard (maybe witnessed?) of the Mithraic cult. Judaism does not have a tradition of a martyred Messiah - Saul/Paul made that shit up and the Church had to do multiple linguistic contortions to make the prophets fit that narrative. Now look at his background as a Pharisee – much like Martin Luther, it is very obvious, reading between the lines that Paul was sick of the idiotic constrictions of his religious laws, and wanted to write his own rules.
Great stuff. appreciated.

However big picture... and as adrian goldsworthy points out -- we know how the story ends. so I think we have to resist buying into the exaggerated role of these very minor historical figures. the only reason paul becomes paul, the only reason christianity becomes christianity, and the only reason judaism is dragged through history, is because the romans ran this little psyop and it became unbelievably successful... way beyond what they could have imagined.


What appealed/appeals to the Romans about Judaism? Well, for one thing it wasn’t “Judaism” at all, it was a sect of Judaism known as the Pharisees. Academics don’t really know what Judaism was in the 1st Century. They get everything through the Roman lens
good point.

My conclusion is that the remnant of the Jews that survived the “diaspora” were the Pharisees that were already dispersed in the Empire (like Saul/Paul himself.) The remaining Phoenician Jews, who practiced the religion of Solomon’s First Temple Judaism in Jerusalem and the Levant, dwindled through wars and imperialism and eventually were forced into Islam in the 6th century.

The Pharisees were a perfect model for "spreading the word" - small units dispersed widely, using the usual array of evangelical tactics to convert people to their cause – much like Al Qaeda has in the past half century.
Ok but aren't you making my point with al-qaeda? haven't they been proven to have been an operation of the empire?

The thunder god religion of judaism survives because they are the necessary antagonist in the christian story the romans write.


I do believe that there is some truth to the myth of Constantine’s mother converting
I don't know about that one, but constantine himself it's clearly not a christian. the conversion at the bridge can be demonstrated to be bullshit by the fact that constantine's arch shows absolutely zero christian symbolism.

think that one through... there is this whole christian myth/psyop about the conversion of constantine, and we have all these historians, both christian and non-christian, who prop up this idea, yet when we go look at the freaking archaeological evidence that's right there for everyone to see it tells us a different story. again, look at the arch no crosses on the shields, no crosses anywhere. the conversion at the bridge story is BS.


In Christianity, where is James?
great point!

But *why* did the Romans have to disrupt the Jesus narrative in the first place?? That is the question. Maybe he was much more than we were led to believe (I'm talking about as a person, not a god). Perhaps the truth really is in "the root of Jesse" - Jesus really was of the bloodline - an actual king, but far more dangerously, one in the mold of Ashoka?
Maybe, but I think the more parsimonious answer is that it was just a psyop that turned into a cult ( which was part of the psyop plan).

It seems like we could apply a lot of this same logic to mormonism. if you push a mormon believer... like I have on occasion... you get to the " it works for me" argument, paired with the "how could millions of us be wrong" argument. again, to me, that fits with someone who's in a cult. anyone who's not in a cult sees it more like the south park episode.
 
#8
I get why Alex thinks the Roman psychological operation via Josephus idea is such an important issue. If it's true, a large part of western and world civilization is the direct result of clandestine social engineering. That's a big deal.

All that said, I'm not convinced.

People have posted the alleged factual problems with the Josephus hypothesis in previous threads. I won't repeat them. However, when dealing with the ancient world, the territory is so unfamiliar, so distant, that I think it's easy to apply all sorts of strange ideas without realising just how unlikely they sound (observe the ancient alien phenomena). So I've been trying to think of some modern parallels.

Famously, Islamic fundamentalism was courted and encouraged for its ability to kill Soviet soldiers in Afghanistan. Similarly, Sufi Islam has at times been nursed as an apolitical alternative to both secular and Islamic nationalism.

So there are those. Problem is, neither example involves creating a religion whole, rather working with pre existing sects or currents.

I don't think Scientology fits either. I cannot for the life of me think of it as having much of a purpose beyond separating self involved neurotics from their money.

So, let's try and invent a modern example.

The Vietnam War. Maybe the US is sick of having its ass kicked by a bunch of little guys in straw hats. Rather than apply the usual military options at its disposal (including withdrawal), it decides to concoct a lost gospel of Marx. In this fake lost gospel, Marx decries revolution, instead reframing class struggle as an internal spiritual path. It further predicts that Communism is not a societal state to be attained but shall rather come to earth in the form of a person, someone to be venerated, a US General! The gospel also includes a number of odd moral precepts. If an American offers a dollar for your straw hat, sell it to them for 50 cents. One is also instructed to devotedly sign all one's country's natural resources over to US corporations in exclusive extraction deals. For the sake of cheekiness, massacres perpetrated by American troops are reinterpreted as the shooting and bayonetting of one's own inner monopoly capitalist. Similarly, falling into a pit and being impaled on sharpened sticks is reimagined as a symbol of the labour theory of value rising up to pierce false consciousness.

Just to add a little double bluff to the situation, rather than support them, the powers that be decide to persecute and kill those Vietnamese who seem to believe their Psyop.

Great.

The gospel is printed up and dropped in huge amounts from helicopters.

Strangely, it doesn't really catch on with the Viet Cong. By and large they continue digging their tunnels and shooting at large eyed westerners.

Somewhat unexpectedly, the lost gospel of Marx is a huge hit with American soldiers. They take its teachings back home. While initially the government persecutes these adherents, it can't fight the tide and Lost Gospel Marxism eventually becomes the official state religion. From here it goes on to be responsible for nearly 2000 years worth of high art, culture and philosophy, spawning a sophisticated civilization. (Even more unexpectedly, very occasionally one of its adherents applies the Lost Gospel's teachings so successfully that they become holy, seemingly able to bend the laws of physics, heal the sick, etc.)

Does any of that seem even vaguely likely?

Paul created the resurrection/new Adam narrative/theology that was obviously influenced by what Paul had heard (maybe witnessed?) of the Mithraic cult.
Mithraic? How is this obvious? Platonism, sure, but Mithra?

I think there was an older nature based spirituality which included crafting and life lived in harmony with all. And the STURCH took it over and made it its thing.
Cute. I can imagine them with their crystals and kaftans.
 
#9
(Points bat out of the stadium)
Christianity is a continuous reverse-co-opt by Christ Consciousness.

One of the most important ideas I learned here (in Skeptiko) is the possibility that baptism originated from drowning induced NDE. Link to a decent explanation

It doesn’t matter if Jesus was born God, briefly God, historically assigned God; This debate is all ego trying to obtain what my brother doesn’t have.
It doesn’t matter if all the books of the Bible are just astrological myths.

Star Trek S6 E23 Rightful Heir

Think of a song that makes your heart melt and makes you want to cry. Now how stupid would it be to claim that specific song is where this effect (song induced emotion) first originated, never before in humanity?? But, also how stupid would it be to claim that any song is not producing the genuine effect because it’s not an exact replica of first song that ever produced that effect??? Spoiler Alert: That effect was around long before any song ever produced it.

If God sings to you and you start a dumb cult about it, that doesn’t mean God didn’t sing to you. It means you’re a human, and humans are culty.
 
Last edited:
#10
(Points bat out of the stadium)
Christianity is a continuous reverse-co-opt by Christ Consciousness.

One of the most important ideas I learned here (in Skeptiko) is the possibility that baptism originated from drowning induced NDE.

It doesn’t matter if Jesus was born God, briefly God, historically assigned God; This debate is all ego trying to obtain what my brother doesn’t have.
It doesn’t matter if all the books of the Bible are just astrological myths.

Star Trek S6 E23 Rightful Heir

Think of a song that makes your heart melt and makes you want to cry. Now how stupid would it be to claim that specific song is where this effect (song induced emotion) first originated, never before in humanity?? But, also how stupid would it be to claim that any song is not producing the genuine effect because it’s not an exact replica of first song that ever produced that effect??? Spoiler Alert: That effect was around long before any song ever produced it.

If God sings to you and you start a dumb cult about it, that doesn’t mean God didn’t sing to you. It means you’re a human, and humans are culty.
IMO, if a myth - introduced as psi-op or otherwise - doesn't resonate deeply as a spiritual potential within people's souls, then it won't gain traction.
 
Top