— Real Vincent Bruno (@RealVinBruno) February 27, 2025
https://theyezidideception.blogspot.com
https://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2004-09-21-show/
8:00 Rake's Revenge
14:00 Peacock
19:00 Groyper
33:33 DR NICK
35:00 Holy Grail
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Guardians-Holy-Grail-Knights-Templar/dp/1931882282
43:00 Creating a blended religion
44:00 Hindus generally
50:00 I have exhausted myself attacking Rake's ideas!
52:00 BHARAT joins.
53:00 Yazidis
58:00 RAKE joins.
59:00 Aleister Crowley
GROK:
Aleister Crowley’s references to the Yazidis (often spelled "Yezidis" in his works) are limited and indirect, as he did not extensively write about them in a systematic way. However, his interest in the Yazidis likely stemmed from their unique religious traditions, which blend elements of pre-Islamic beliefs, Zoroastrianism, and other ancient influences—subjects that fascinated Crowley due to his broader exploration of esoteric and pagan traditions.
One notable connection appears in discussions around The Book of the Law, dictated to Crowley in 1904 by an entity he called Aiwass. Some scholars and occultists have speculated that Aiwass, whom Crowley described as a "minister of Hoor-paar-kraat" (Horus), might be linked to Melek Taus, the Peacock Angel revered by the Yazidis as a central figure in their cosmology. Melek Taus is often misunderstood by outsiders as a "Satanic" figure due to his association with pride and refusal to bow to Adam, a narrative that parallels certain Western occult interpretations of Lucifer or Satan—figures Crowley also engaged with symbolically. Crowley himself never explicitly confirmed this connection, but his fascination with such parallels suggests he may have seen the Yazidi deity as an archetype resonating with his own Thelemic philosophy.
In his broader writings, Crowley occasionally referenced Middle Eastern and pre-Christian religious traditions, including those of the Yazidis, as part of his interest in uncovering hidden spiritual truths. For instance, in his exploration of deities and their symbolic roles, he might have viewed Melek Taus as an embodiment of divine will or individualism—key themes in Thelema, where "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" emphasizes personal sovereignty. However, no direct quote from Crowley explicitly details his thoughts on the Yazidis or their practices.
It’s worth noting that Crowley’s engagement with such groups was often more philosophical or symbolic than anthropological. He was drawn to systems that challenged conventional morality or offered alternative visions of the divine, and the Yazidis’ reputation as a misunderstood, esoteric sect likely appealed to him on that level. Without a specific, well-documented statement from Crowley about the Yazidis, any attribution would be speculative, based on his known interests rather than a definitive record.
If you’re looking for a precise quote, none stands out in his major works like Magick, The Confessions, or The Book of the Law that directly names the Yazidis. His commentary on them, if it exists, would likely be buried in lesser-known correspondence or passing references in his vast body of work, reflecting his tendency to synthesize diverse traditions into his own worldview.
1:06:00 Ancient Egypt
1:07:00 Ghetto world order
1:08:00 Muslims say the Koran trumps the Torah of the Jews.
1:09:00 No churches will be destroyed.
1:10:00 Jews
We are all the slaves of our government.
1:11:00 Usury
1:12:00 "The Roman curse"
Divided Jews invited Romans to settle their disputes and were taken over by Romans.
GROK:
The Jewish invitation of Roman intervention occurred during the late Second Temple period, specifically in the 1st century BCE, amid internal divisions and power struggles within Judea. The key moment came during a civil war between two Hasmonean brothers, Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II, who were vying for control of the throne and the high priesthood.
Around 63 BCE, after years of conflict following the death of their mother, Queen Alexandra Salome, the brothers’ rivalry escalated. Hyrcanus II, supported by the Pharisees and an influential figure named Antipater (father of Herod the Great), was losing ground to Aristobulus II, who had backing from the Sadducees and military strength. In a desperate bid to regain power, Hyrcanus and Antipater appealed to the Roman general Pompey, who was campaigning in the region after conquering much of the eastern Mediterranean.
Pompey saw an opportunity to expand Roman influence. Both brothers initially sought his favor—Hyrcanus asking for reinstatement, Aristobulus trying to secure his own position—but their appeals effectively invited Roman arbitration. Pompey sided with Hyrcanus, likely because he appeared more pliable, and marched on Jerusalem. Aristobulus resisted, leading to a siege of the city. After a three-month standoff, Pompey’s forces breached the Temple Mount, killed many of Aristobulus’s supporters, and entered the Holy of Holies—an act that shocked Jewish sensibilities.
The outcome was the end of Judea’s independence as a Hasmonean kingdom. Pompey installed Hyrcanus II as high priest but stripped him of the royal title, making Judea a client state under Roman oversight. Aristobulus and his family were taken as prisoners to Rome. This marked the beginning of direct Roman domination, which later evolved into full provincial control under figures like Herod and, eventually, Roman governors like Pontius Pilate.
The divisions among the Jews—between Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, and more broadly between factions like the Pharisees and Sadducees—created the opening Rome exploited. Historian Flavius Josephus, in his works The Jewish War and Antiquities of the Jews, provides the primary accounts of these events, describing how internal strife and appeals to Rome handed the Romans a foothold. While the Jews didn’t invite Roman conquest outright, their request for mediation backfired, leading to subjugation. By 63 BCE, Judea was effectively under Roman thumb, setting the stage for further unrest, including the revolts decades later. So, yes, the statement holds historical weight, though it condenses a messy political saga into a single cause-and-effect.
GROK:
Henry VIII’s determination to avoid leaving his kingdom to a female heir wasn’t explicitly tied to a single "bad queen" from history as a cautionary tale in his mind—at least not in a way directly documented. His obsession with securing a male heir stemmed more from practical, dynastic, and cultural concerns of his time than from a specific historical figure haunting him. However, we can explore the context and possible influences that might have shaped his mindset, including any queens (good or bad) he could have had in view.In the early 16th century, England had never had a reigning queen regnant—a woman ruling in her own right—since the Norman Conquest. The closest precedent was Empress Matilda, daughter of Henry I, who fought for the throne in the 12th century during the civil war known as The Anarchy (1135–1154). Matilda’s attempt to rule after her father’s death led to chaos, as her cousin Stephen of Blois seized the crown, sparking nearly two decades of conflict. Her failure to consolidate power wasn’t due to incompetence (she was a formidable figure), but rather to resistance from nobles who balked at a woman wielding authority, compounded by her perceived arrogance. Henry VIII, a keen student of history via his tutors, likely knew of this episode. It wasn’t that Matilda was "bad," but her reign-that-never-was became a symbol of instability tied to female rule, possibly reinforcing Henry’s fears of a kingdom fracturing under a daughter.Another figure he might have considered was Queen Joanna of Castile, known as "Joanna the Mad," a contemporary of Henry’s youth. Joanna inherited Castile in 1504 after her mother, Isabella I, died, but her mental instability—real or exaggerated by her father, Ferdinand II, and later her son, Charles V—led to her being sidelined. By the time Henry was king (1509 onward), Joanna was confined, her rule nominal, while male relatives governed in her name. This could have struck Henry as a warning: a queen regnant might be vulnerable to manipulation or incapacity, leaving the realm directionless. Though not "bad" in a moral sense, her fate underscored the risks of female succession in a male-dominated world.Henry’s own context offers clearer insight into his motives. His father, Henry VII, had won the crown through conquest in 1485, ending the Wars of the Roses—a dynastic struggle that left England wary of weak succession. Henry VIII saw a male heir as essential to cementing the Tudor dynasty and avoiding a return to civil war. The prevailing view, rooted in medieval tradition, held that women were unfit to rule alone; they were expected to marry, and their husbands might dominate or drag England into foreign entanglements. When his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, produced only a surviving daughter, Mary (later Mary I), Henry grew desperate. His efforts to annul the marriage and marry Anne Boleyn (hoping for a son) reflect this anxiety—culminating in the birth of Elizabeth (later Elizabeth I) and, finally, Edward VI with Jane Seymour.No surviving letters or records show Henry citing a specific "bad queen" as his bogeyman. His actions—divorces, executions, the break with Rome—suggest a broader dread of instability rather than a pinpoint historical phobia. If anything, Matilda’s turbulent legacy or Joanna’s tragic irrelevance might have lingered in the background, but his real terror was the absence of a son to carry the Tudor name. The irony? Both Mary I and Elizabeth I, his daughters, ruled as queens regnant—Mary with infamy, Elizabeth with brilliance—proving the very outcome he feared wasn’t inherently disastrous. Still, no evidence pins his paranoia to one notorious queenly exemplar. It was the specter of a fragile dynasty, not a single "bad queen," that drove him.
1:57:00 Warlords and divine authority
1:59:00 Heretic burning
2:00:00 The Roman imperial cult was replaced by Christianity because no one believed in it any more.
The Conversion of Constantine and Europe by A H M Jones
2:01:00 Arian-Athanasian split at the Council of Nicaea
Edict of Thessalonica 380
https://www.historytoday.com/archive/months-past/edict-thessalonica
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_of_Thessalonica
2:03:00 The Trinity is morally and intellectually indefensible.
2:04:00 Utilitarian practicality of religion
2:06:00 There is only one Abrahamic God.
2:07:00 The Big Bang was an act of Creation.
2:08:00 The rule of law
2:09:00 Our faith should be simple and strong, not complicated and fragile.
Mystery of God
2:11:00 Idolatry
2:12:00 If we are idolaters, we would have a ruling class that is making up the rules as it goes along.
2:13:00 How can men defend Christianity if it has no principles?
2:14:00 Progressive revelation
2:15:00 The Word of God
2:16:00 Determining causation
2:17:00 Idolatry
High status Jews
2:18:00 BHARAT asks if there is a Christian equivalent of the Hadith and Sunnah.
2:19:00 Judaism and Islam are in one group, idolatrous Hinduism and Christianity are in another.
2:23:00 Buddhism is codified Hinduism.
2:24:00 The life of the Buddha
2:25:00 Jesus and his social and political background
2:26:00 Reincarnation
2:27:00 Belief in the afterlife
2:28:00 Marriage
2:29:00 The policeman in our head is the Abrahamic God.
2:30:00 Yaron Reuven
2:32:00 Antisemitism
Albigensian Crusade
2:33:00 Right thought, right action
Sadducees v Pharisees
2:35:00 Temple Judaism v Rabbinic Judaism
2:36:00 The Third Temple
Sharia would be a walk in the park for observant Jews.
2:39:00 ANOINTED
Talmud and Sunnah
2:40:00 Christianity and Hinduism is idolatry.
2:41:00 Bharat considers innovation to be a virtue.
2:42:00 Christians have innovated themselves out of belief in the Trinity.
2:46:00 To codify or not codify?
No comments:
Post a Comment