Comments by "k98killer" (@k98killer) on "The Occult #359: The Return of Paganism" video.

  1. It also fits loosely into the idea of the Fourth Turning.
    4
  2. Jesus was an incarnation of Osiris-Dionysus. The greatest mistake of Christianity is to deny this connection to the ancient pagan mysteries.
    3
  3. ​ @Little.R  "Lucifer" is the Latin word for "morning star" found in the Vulgate. It is technically a translation of the Greek "Phosphoros", itself a translation of the Hebrew "Helel ben Shahar" from Isaiah, which means something like "shining one, son of the morning"; it was an epithet given to the king of Babylon, but Christians interpret it as meaning "Satan" because the verse in question describes Helel ben Shahar as "fallen from heaven". The idea of the "fallen" has also been twisted from its origins: originally, the "fallen" were the honored dead heroes, those who fell in battle. These are the Rephaim from Canaanite mythology, who were described as having feathered wings similar to the description of Christian angels. As chthonic beings, they were also celestial beings, as what is under the Earth during the day is above it during the night, so to become one of the fallen Rephaim was to become elevated to the heavens. In the Hebrew stories they were called the Nephilim, which also means "fallen". However, the Semitic stories painted these beings as evil since they were the great Canaanite heroes who fell in battle fighting off the invading Israelites. How can the Christ and the father of the anti-Christ both have the same moniker? Since Christianity is a confused amalgamation of pagan and Semitic myths, it is not surprising that it would contain such a confusing contradiction. A reasonable apology for this contradiction is that Jesus' spirit descended from heaven when he was incarnated while Satan was cast out of heaven during the rebellion, so in a sense they both fit the description of the "shining one, son of the morning" who fell/descended from heaven, though it is still very strange to describe supposedly opposite beings identically. I recommend the book "Lucifer: Princeps" by Peter Gray for an in-depth exegesis on the topic.
    3
  4.  @prometheanevent  Our constitutions, both federal and state constitutions, are being used as intellectual toilet paper by the courts. Look up case law on the prohibition on ex post facto law, for example, if you can handle some more disillusionment. The standard across almost all states + SCOTUS is to ignore the prohibition except in specific, arbitrarily determined circumstances: the retroactive law in question must be "substantive" and not "procedural", and it must somehow disadvantage the plaintiff for it to be overturned in that specific scenario -- even then, the law would still remain on the books and be enforceable against anyone who doesn't challenge it. It's complete horseshit. "Ex post facto" has a pretty obvious meaning to anyone not high off their own farts -- maybe that's what the black robe is for, to keep them huffing their own flatulence.
    2